Numerous studies have found gender differences in judgments about sexual harassment. However, most previous research has been conducted on U.S. samples only. The present research examines gender differences in judgments about sexual harassment from a cross-cultural perspective. College students from Australia, Brazil, Germany, and the United States were asked to judge the degree to which a specific interaction between a student and a professor described in varying hypothetical scenarios might be considered sexual harassing and to provide a brief definition of sexual harassment. In some conditions, U.S. women judged specific interactions as more harassing than U.S. men. However, this pattern did not emerge in student samples from other countries. No within-culture gender differences in students' definitions of sexual harassment were obtained, although the results revealed considerable cross-cultural differences. The relevance of these findings for understanding the "reasonable woman" standard in legal proceedings is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.
2.
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194.
3.
Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence of ambiguity in communication between women and men. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. (pp. 96-111). New York: John Wiley.
4.
Adler, R. S. , & Pierce, E. R. (1993). The legal, ethical, and social implications of the "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment cases. Fordham Law Review, 61, 773-827.
5.
Barak, A. (1994, August). Sexual harassment in cross-cultural perspectives: Implications from a series of studies in Israel. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
6.
Barak, A. (in press). Cross-cultural perspectives on sexual harassment. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
Bigg, D. S. (1993, April 30). Brief for Amicus Curiae American Psychological Association in support of neither party in the case on Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Washington, DC: Wilson-Epes Printing.
8.
Brenner, O. C. , Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662-669.
9.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
10.
Burns, S. E. (1992). The Title VII hostile environment claim. In Sex and power issues in the workplace conference proceedings. Seattle, WA: Northwest Women's Law Center.
11.
Burns, S. E. (1994-1995). Evidence of a sexually hostile workplace: What is it and how should it be assessed after Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 21(3), 357-431.
12.
De Souza, E. R. , & Hutz, C. S. (1995). Responses toward sexual stimuli in Brazil as a function of one's gender role identity and sex. InterAmerican Journal of Psychology, 29, 13-21.
13.
DeSouza, E. R. , & Hutz, C. S. (1996). Reactions to refusals of sexual advances among U.S. and Brazilian men and women. Sex Roles, 34, 549-565.
14.
DeSouza, E. R. , Pierce, T., Zanelli, J. C., & Hutz, C. (1992). Perceived sexual intent in the U.S. and Brazil as a function of nature of encounter, subjects' nationality, and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 251-260.
15.
Ellis, S. , Barak, A., & Pinto, A. (1991). Moderating effects of personal cognitions on experienced and perceived sexual harassment of women in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1320-1337.
16.
Ellison v. Brady, 924 F. 2d 872 CA9 (1991).
17.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (1980). Guidelines and discrimination because of sex (Sec. 1604.11). Federal Register, 45, 74676-74677.
18.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (1994, March). Enforcement guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Falbo, T. , & Peplau, L. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
20.
Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Fitzgerald, L. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women at work. American Psychologist, 48, 1070-1076.
22.
Fitzgerald, L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (1994, August). Sexual harassment in Latin America: Prevalence and perceptions in Brazil. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
23.
Fitzgerald, L. , & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281-294.
24.
Fitzgerald, L. , & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5-27.
25.
Fitzgerald, L. , Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y, Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
26.
Gelfand, M. J. , Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 164-177.
27.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Gutek, B. A. , Nakamura, C. Y, Gahart, M., Handschumacher, I., & Russell, D. (1980). Sexuality and the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(3), 255-265.
29.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 367 (1993).
30.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In L. Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds.), Explications in cross-cultural psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
32.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Johnson, C. B. , Stockdale, M. S., & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15,463-475.
34.
Kanekar, S. , & Dhir, V. L. (1993). Sex-related differences in the perception of sexual harassment of women in India. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 119-120.
35.
Luft, K. (1995, July 18). Brazilian TV reveals a bit too much, risks regulation. Chicago Tribune, pp. 1, 8.
36.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
Menon, S. A. , & Kanekar, S. (1992). Attitudes toward sexual harassment of women in India. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1940-1952.
38.
National Council for Research on Women . (1992). Sexual harassment: Research and resources. New York: Author.
39.
Pryor, J. B. , & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18,405-417.
40.
Runge, T. E. , Frey, D., Gollwitzer, P., Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1981). Masculine (instrumental) and feminine (expressive) traits: A comparison between students in the United States and West Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12, 142-162.
41.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.
42.
Schein, V. E. , & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross-cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439-447.
43.
Shotland, L. (1989). A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationship. (pp. 247-270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
Shotland, L. (1992). A theory of the causes of courtship rape: Part 2. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 127-143.
45.
Shotland, L. , & Craig, J. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior?Social Psychology Quarterly, 34, 990-999.
46.
Smith, P. B. , & Bond, M. H. (1994). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
47.
Smith, R. J. , Tritt, K., & Zolhman, A. (1982). Sex differences in the social perception of rape victims in West Germany and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 117,143-144.
48.
Spence, J. T. , & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
49.
Stockdale, M. S. (1993). The role of sexual misperceptions of women's friendliness in an emerging theory of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 84-101.
50.
Takane, Y , Young, F, & deLeeuw, J. (1977). Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42,7-67.
51.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board . (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
52.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board . (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal government: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
53.
Williams, J. E. , & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
