The Role of Ethnicity in Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White Students’ Experience of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

This study explored dimensions of a social phenomenon not often investigated among Mexican American college students, namely sexual harassment. Mexican American (n = 261) and non-Hispanic White female students (n = 111) from three southwestern universities responded to scales assessing experiences of sexually harassing behaviors, harassment tolerance, and perceptions of perpetrator power. Participants described how they responded to the most offensive of the sexually harassing behaviors experienced. Nearly 80% of participants reported experiencing more than one sexually harassing behavior and a large majority identified another student as the harasser. Mexican American students reported experiencing fewer sexually harassing behaviors than non-Hispanic Whites, attributed less power to perceived sexual harassers, and reported greater harassment tolerance. The study’s findings are considered within the context of best educational practices and how universities can better assist students, staff, and faculty in understanding what constitutes sexual harassment and ways in which it can be reported and responded to on campus.

Keywords

sexual harassment Mexican American students higher education campus climate

Despite increased education about sexual harassment in the last two decades, sexual harassment continues to be a pervasive problem for undergraduate women on university campuses with a majority of female university students reporting that they have experienced some form of sexual harassment (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2005; Foderaro, 2011; Kalof, Eby, Matheson, & Kroska, 2001). Although some studies have examined the sexual harassment of African American students, Asian American students, and Multiracial students (e.g., Buchanan, Bergman, Bruce, Woods, & Lichty, 2009; Rederstorff, Buchanan, & Settles, 2007), very little research has specifically addressed the sexual harassment of Mexican American university students. This omission is critical given that individuals of Hispanic origin continue to have the lowest university educational attainment compared to non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans, and Asians Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), yet are consistently increasing in number on college campuses (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Sexual harassment may constitute another obstacle to Mexican American students achieving their educational goals. The present study investigated Mexican American and non-Hispanic White female students’ experiences with sexually harassing behaviors within the context of their campus educational environment.

Harassment Frequency for Women of Color

Researchers have hypothesized that racial stereotypes, cultural marginality, and the smaller number of minority individuals in educational settings may place women of color at higher risk for sexual harassment (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Buchanan, Settles, & Woods, 2008). The scant research available presents inconsistent findings with regard to minority women’s experiences of sexual harassment. Studies in university settings have found no differences in rates of sexual harassment between minority women and non-Hispanic White women (AAUW, 2005), higher rates for minority women (Buchanan et al., 2009), or mixed findings (Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998). Buchanan et al. found that minority university students reported higher rates of harassment than non-Hispanic White students with multiracial women reporting the highest rates. Another study found that rates of harassment were higher and lower in university women depending on individuals’ race/ethnicity with African American and Hispanic women reporting higher frequency of sexual harassment than non-Hispanic White and Asian American women (Cortina et al., 1998). Studies of harassment in the workplace also show inconsistent findings with reports of both lower and higher rates of harassment for women of color in comparison to their non-Hispanic White colleagues (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Shupe, Cortina, Ramos, Fitzgerald, & Salisbury, 2002). Whether minority university female students are at greater risk for sexual harassment is still unclear based on these conflicting findings. In an attempt to provide increased clarity, the current study investigated both power and cultural variables theoretically related to the experience of sexual harassment.

The Role of Power and Culture in Harassment Experience, Tolerance, and Response

Power has been considered a significant factor in the experience of harassment for minority women (Fielden, Davidson, Woolnough, & Hunt, 2010; Szymanski & Stewart, 2010). Power theories posit that sexual harassment occurs because inequalities exist between the sexes, allowing men, in accordance with the power afforded them in a patriarchal society, to exhibit and confirm their power through engaging in sexually harassing behaviors (Stockdale, 1996). In academic situations, this differential in power may be evidenced within male–female peer relationships and heightened within student–faculty relationships due to professors’ roles in grading, letters of recommendation, and future job opportunities (Sandler & Shoop, 1997). Men are afforded greater societal power through a number of mechanisms, including greater physical strength, income, organizational authority, and political authority in comparison to women in American society (Stockdale, 1996). Fielden et al. argued that explanations of harassment based on power differentials need to reflect the multilayered and complex additive factors of race, ethnicity, and culture as well as sex. With ethnic minorities holding less power in government, business, and academic arenas, they could be more vulnerable to sexual or racial harassment (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Buchanan et al., 2008; Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002; Doughterty, 2006). Likewise, such power differentials may affect a woman’s harassment tolerance and response choice to harassing behaviors, as she may be less empowered to respond proactively due to a sense of fear of retribution (Dougherty, 2006; Fitzgerald et al., 1988).

In addition to power differences, cultural aspects in Mexican American populations, such as machismo and marianismo, may influence the recognition of, experience with, and response to sexually harassing behaviors, as they have been shown previously to influence views of sexuality, rape, and sexual abuse (Faulkner, 2003; Lira, Koss, & Russo, 1999). Traditional definitions of machismo emphasize Hispanic masculine gender roles as embracing authoritarianism, control, and emotional restrictiveness (Torres, Solberg, & Carlstrom, 2002). These stereotypical views of Hispanic masculinity place an emphasis on sexual conquests of women, whereas marianistic views of women emphasize norms of sexual silence, where Hispanic women are expected to be passively acceptant of men’s sexualized behavior and remain submissive, modest, and passive in interactions with men (Faulkner, 2003; Torres et al., 2002).

Yet the constructs of machismo and marianismo also have multiple dimensions beyond the stereotypic, monolithic representations of Hispanic gender roles, which until recently have been the primary presentations of Hispanic masculinity in American literature (Quintero & Estrada, 1998). A number of positive elements of machismo and marianismo exist, including an emphasis for men upon family orientation, pride, responsibility, commitment, self-confidence, and ability to express affection to others and an emphasis for women upon generosity, the maintenance of strong relationships, and respect of others (Falicov, 1998). These cultural aspects may affect decisions of whether to label an offensive behavior as sexual harassment, the recognition and reporting of harassment, and the reaction to being harassed sexually. The emphasis on passivity and deference to authority within marianismo may lend itself to greater harassment tolerance, whereas the emphasis within marianismo and machismo on respect of others may be associated with less tolerance of sexual harassment. Thus, the association between Hispanic cultural norms and sexual harassment experience, tolerance, and response is unclear because of these possibly contradictory forces.

Purpose of This Study

The study’s purpose was to increase the understanding of sexual harassment experiences of Mexican American female students on their university campuses. In alignment with theories reporting increased power differentials between ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites and in conjunction with aspects of the Hispanic culture previously articulated, we anticipated that Mexican American women would report higher rates of harassing behavior; would perceive their offenders, regardless of their ethnicity, as more powerful; and would report greater tolerance of sexually harassing behaviors in comparison to their non-Hispanic White colleagues.

Method

Participants

In order to include Mexican American students of varying acculturation levels, data were gathered from female participants from three Southwestern universities, with student populations ranging from 18% to 90% Mexican American. Students were recruited from graduate and undergraduate psychology, education, and history classes from two universities and from an undergraduate psychology subject pool at the third university. Of the 399 participants in the study, 27 participants were eliminated because they did not list themselves as non-Hispanic White or Mexican American. Of the remaining participants, most indicated that they were Mexican American (70.2%, n = 261), and 29.8% indicated they were non-Hispanic White (n = 111). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 52 years with a mean age of 22.19 years (SD = 5.41).

Measures

Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, Form E (SEQ) (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995)

The SEQ Form E is a behavioral-based measure of sexual harassment whose purpose is to identify the frequency of sexual harassment. The scale consists of 19 Likert-scale-type response items and includes 3 major subscales: Gender Harassment (7 items), Unwanted Sexual Attention (5 items), and Sexual Coercion (7 items). Likert-scale-type responses were from 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often. All items ask the participant to respond whether or not a behavior occurred, thus avoiding the misinterpretation of the ambiguous term “sexual harassment.” The term “sexual harassment" is not included in the survey until the last and 20th item, which asks, “Have you ever been sexually harassed?” The Gender Harassment subscale includes verbal or nonverbal behaviors that display degrading, hostile, or insulting attitudes but whose purpose is not to invoke sexual activity. The Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale is comprised of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as repeated requests for dates, sexual touching, or assault. The Sexual Coercion subscale items address explicit or implied bribes or threats for sexual activity. The scale has previously been shown to be reliable with Cronbach’s alphas of .82 for the Gender Harassment subscale scores, .85 for the Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale scores, and .42 for the Sexual Coercion subscale scores (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). Cronbach’s alphas for the subscale scores in this study were as follows: Gender Harassment = .82, Unwanted Sexual Attention = .83, and Sexual Coercion = .71. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater number of harassing behaviors experienced.

Sexual Experiences Questionnaire-Latina (SEQ-L; Cortina, 2001)

The 20-item SEQ-L assesses the experience of sexual harassment in Latina populations, primarily from Mexican American backgrounds, and is based on the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire. The SEQ-L consists of three subscales: Sexist Hostility (4 items), Sexual Hostility (4 items), and Unwanted Sexual Attention (12 items). Both Sexist and Sexual Hostility are considered to be gender harassment in accordance with the original SEQ scale. Sexist Hostility refers to behaviors that degrade women or men but have no sexual content, whereas sexual hostility includes behaviors containing sexual content, such as crude jokes or comments. Unwanted Sexual Attention retains the same definition as is provided in the SEQ. Participants respond to each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = never to 4 = very often. The scale has previously been shown to be reliable with Cronbach’s alphas of .90 for the Sexist Hostility subscale scores, .90 for the Sexual Hostility subscale scores, and .95 for the Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale scores (Cortina, 2001). Cronbach’s alphas in this study were as follows: Sexist Hostility = .80, Sexual Hostility = .83, and Unwanted Sexual Attention = .90. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater number of harassing behaviors experienced.

Both the SEQ and SEQ-L were included in the study to address the possible underreporting with Latinas on the SEQ and to provide a broader spectrum of behaviors that Mexican American women may experience, as represented by such SEQ-L items as “slowly looked at your entire body (‘looked you up and down’)” or “called you inappropriate ‘pet names’ in Spanish” (e.g., “mamacita” or “mi hija”) (Cortina, 2001).

Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (Mazer & Percival, 1989)

The 19-item Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale, which assesses sexual harassment tolerance, uses a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater tolerance of sexual harassment. Mazer and Percival (1989) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .84. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the items was .84.

Identification of most upsetting harassing behaviors

Directly after completing the two SEQ scales, students were asked to indicate which of the behaviors that had occurred among those listed among the SEQ and SEQ-L items was most upsetting to them, how long ago that behavior occurred, who engaged in the behavior (faculty/assistant instructor/staff or student), and the ethnicity of that person. Respondents were asked to complete the Social Power Scales with the instructions: “Please answer the following questions about the person who offended you.”

Response to sexually harassing behaviors

In order to identify methods employed to handle the offensive behavior experienced, participants were asked, “How would you describe your response to this behavior?” Response options included 1 = ignored the behavior, 2 = avoided the offender, 3 = told a friend or family member, 4 = confronted the person, or 5 = reported the behavior to someone in authority (Cochran, Frazier, & Olson, 1997). Participants were instructed to choose as many responses as applied. Students were asked: “If you did report the behavior, where did you report it,” and “If you chose to later report a behavior, where would you go?”

Social Power Scales (Swasy, 1979)

The Social Power Scales are based on French and Raven’s (1959) theory of six types of perceived interpersonal power: reward, coercive, referent, legitimate, expert, and informational. The Social Power Scales consist of 31 Likert-type scale items with the responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree. An example item is, “Something bad will happen to me if I don’t do as A requests and A finds out.” The Legitimate scale (3 items) assesses an authority’s right to dictate another’s behavior; the Coercive scale (5 items)—the belief that the other person can punish one for failure to comply with requests; the Expertise scale (8 items)—perceptions of another person’s knowledge; the Referent scale (6 items)—a person’s desire to be like the other; the Reward scale (4 items)—perceptions of the person’s ability to reward or punish; and the Information scale (3 items)—perceptions of the person’s access to information. Higher scores indicate a higher attribution of social power. In this sample, Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the scale scores were Total Scale=. 97, Legitimate = .93, Coercive = .95, Expertise = .93, Referent = .94, Reward = .94, and Information = .90.

Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II; Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995)

The Acculturation Rating Scale is an instrument measuring the acculturation of Mexican Americans. Scale 1, consisting of 29 items, was used in the study. It has two subscales, the Anglo Orientation subscale with 13 items, and the Mexican Orientation subscale with 16 items. Item responses range from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely often. Both subscales have shown good internal reliability with scores on the Anglo Orientation subscale demonstrating a Cronbach’s Alpha of .86 and scores on the Mexican Orientation subscale a Cronbach’s alpha of .88; coefficient alphas in the present sample were .79 and .94, respectively. Higher scores on the Anglo Orientation subscale indicate greater acculturation to the United States, whereas higher scores on the Mexican Orientation subscale indicate less acculturation.

Procedures

Participants completed measures and consent forms during their particular class periods or during 1-hr time slots offered outside of class. All data collection was conducted by a researcher. Students completed a packet of measures asking to describe their experiences of sexually harassing behaviors while at their university. Students completed the scales in the following order: (a) the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, Form E; (b) the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, Latina; (c) a set of questions about how they had responded to the most offensive behavior indicated on the SEQ and SEQ-L; (d) the Social Power Scales; (e) the Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale; and (f) the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA-II). Students were asked to list which item from the SEQ and SEQ-L was most offensive and then to respond to a set of questions about the behavior and their response. They were then asked to respond to the Social Power Scales in reference to the offender from the most offensive behavior they experienced. If students indicated experiencing no behaviors on the SEQ and the SEQ-L, they did not complete the set of response questions or the Social Power Scales, as these questions related to experiencing a sexually harassing behavior.

Preliminary Analyses

Correlations were run between scores on the Anglo and Mexican Orientation Acculturation subscales of the ARSMA-II and frequency of harassing behaviors on the SEQ and SEQ-L, total power score, and harassment tolerance total score on the SHAS for the Mexican American female participants. No significant correlations were found. As acculturation level was not found to be significantly correlated with any of the key study variables for Mexican American women, it was not included as a covariate for further analyses. In addition, a two-way MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) was run with the subscale scores of the SEQ and SEQ-L as the dependent variables and ethnicity of student and university as classifier variables. No significant effects were found, indicating no differences were present across the three university settings and no interaction effect for ethnicity by university setting in reporting of harassing behaviors.

Results

Prevalence of Sexually Harassing Behaviors

More than 80% of students reported experiencing harassing behaviors more than once while at the university. Students reported being “most offended” by a variety of behaviors ranging from gender harassment to sexual coercion. Although more than 80% reported an experience of a sexually harassing behavior, less than 10% reported having been sexually harassed, in response to the question, “Have you ever been sexually harassed while at the university?” The majority reported experiencing a harassing behavior by a peer (Mexican American students = 82%, non-Hispanic White students = 88%) and 65.1% reported the behavior occurred in the past year.

Experience of and Response to Sexually Harassing Behaviors by Ethnicity

In order to assess differences in the reported experience of harassing behaviors for Mexican American and non-Hispanic White students, a one-way MANOVA was conducted with ethnicity of the student as the classifier variable and scores on the three subscales of the SEQ and the three subscales of the SEQ-L as the dependent variables, F(6, 310) = 2.13, p = .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04.¹ Contrary to our expectation, non-Hispanic White students reported a higher frequency of sexual harassment than Mexican American students (see Table 1). In order to decipher where differences between the groups lay, individual one-way ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were calculated using each of the subscales as dependent variables. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found on three of the six subscales: SEQ Gender Harassment, F(1, 354) = 3.82, p = .05; SEQ-L Sexual Hostility, F(1, 350) = 7.37, p = .01; and the SEQ-L Unwanted Sexual Attention, F(1, 349) = 4.88, p = .03. In reference to students’ responses to the most offensive behavior on the SEQ or SEQ-L, the majority of students chose simply to ignore the behavior (65.3% of Mexican Americans [n = 124] and 63.9% of non-Hispanic Whites [n = 53]) or avoid the person (26.3% of Mexican Americans [n = 50] and 27.7% of non-Hispanic Whites [n = 23]). Relatively few students confronted the person or talked to someone for support. Only three students reported the behavior (1.6% of Mexican Americans [n = 3] and 0% of non-Hispanic Whites [n = 0]).

Table 1.

Item Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Student Ethnicity on the Subscales of the SEQ, SEQ-L, and SHAS

Scale	Mexican American, M (SD)	Non-Hispanic White, M (SD)
Gender harassment (SEQ)	0.55 (0.64)^a	0.71 (0.77)^a
Unwanted sexual attention (SEQ)	0.43 (0.65)	0.58 (0.72)
Sexual coercion (SEQ)	0.01 (0.18)	0.00 (0.13)
Sexist hostility (SEQ-L)	0.50 (0.68)	0.53 (0.70)
Sexual hostility (SEQ-L)	0.54 (0.77)^a	0.77 (0.88)^a
Unwanted sexual attention (SEQ-L)	0.55 (0.64)^a	0.69 (0.69)^a
SHAS	3.62 (0.54)^a	3.50 (0.53)^a

Note: Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) and Sexual Experiences Questionnaire – Latina (SEQ-L) responses range from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (SHAS) responses range from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

Denotes statistically significant difference.

Sexual Harassment Tolerance

To assess the expected difference between the groups in harassment tolerance, an independent-sample t test was performed using the total score on SHAS. Mexican American students were found to be more tolerant of sexual harassment than non-Hispanic White students, t(321) = 1.83, p = .04 (one-tailed).

Perception of Offender Power by Ethnicity

To assess for differences between the two groups in perception of offender power, a two-way MANOVA was conducted on the responses of the students who had indicated experiencing a sexually harassing behavior on the SEQ or SEQ-L and could identify the position of the person who engaged in the offending behavior. The classifier variables in the MANOVA were status of the person engaging in the offending behavior (faculty/staff or student), and ethnicity of the student and the dependent variables were the scores on each of the six subscales measuring power. Item mean scores and standard deviations for this analysis can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Item Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Student Ethnicity and Perceived Harasser Status on the Social Power Scales

	Mexican American students (n = 137)		Non-Hispanic White students (n = 58)
Power scale	Faculty/staff (n =24)	Student (n = 113)	Faculty/staff (n = 7)	Student (n = 51)
Reward	1.65 (0.91)	1.37 (0.66)	2.62 (0.91)	1.28 (0.52)
Refer	1.38 (0.50)	1.40 (0.70)	1.52 (0.74)	1.62 (0.74)
Informational	1.75 (0.85)	1.48 (0.77)	1.86 (0.74)	1.69 (0.84)
Coercive	1.48 (0.69)	1.27 (0.60)	2.63 (1.12)	1.20 (0.45)
Expertise	1.72 (0.83)	1.40 (0.70)	1.79 (0.85)	1.52 (0.60)
Legitimate	1.33 (0.62)	1.20 (0.47)	2.33 (1.33)	1.15 (0.42)

Note: Item responses are as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Both the two main effects and the interaction effect were statistically significant. Faculty/staff were perceived to be more powerful than student offenders, F(6, 186) = 7.85, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .20, and non-Hispanic White students attributed more power to the person engaging in the offending behavior than did Mexican American students, F(6, 186) = 4.41, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .12. The interaction effect for student ethnicity by status of perceived harasser, F(6, 186) = 3.25, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .16,2 indicated that perceptions of power were moderated by both status of the person engaging in the offending behavior and the ethnicity of the student respondent. Mexican American students’ attributions of power for faculty/staff versus student perceived harassers differed less than did those for non-Hispanic White students. As can be seen from Table 2, this was particularly the case for reward power, coercive power, and legitimate power areas in which non-Hispanic White students perceived faculty/staff to have greater interpersonal power.

To assess for differences in perception of offender power by ethnicity of the offender, a parallel two-way MANOVA was conducted on the Power Scale responses with the classifier variables being ethnicity of the student and ethnicity of the person engaging in the offending behavior and the dependent variables being the scores on the six power subscales (see Table 3). A main effect occurred for the ethnicity of the person engaging in the offensive behavior, F(6, 165) = 4.14, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .13. For all types of power, persons who engaged in the most offensive behaviors who were non-Hispanic White were perceived as more powerful than those who were Mexican American. Individual two-way ANOVAs were then run for each type of power. Significant main effects for ethnicity were found for the following types of power: referent power, F(1, 189) = 47.43, p < .01; information power, F(1, 189) = 8.31, p < .01; and expertise power, F(1, 190) = 17.83, p < .01. The two-way MANOVA interaction was not significant.

Table 3.

Item Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Student Ethnicity and Perceived Harasser (PH) Ethnicity on the Social Power Scales

	Mexican American student (n = 120)		Non-Hispanic White Student (n = 54)
	Non-Hispanic White PH	Hispanic PH	Non-Hispanic White PH	Hispanic PH
Power scale	(n = 27)	(n = 93)	(n = 32)	(n = 22)
Reward	1.52 (0.79)	1.30 (0.57)	1.40 (0.63)	1.33 (0.57)
Referent	1.65 (0.87)	1.30 (0.56)	1.71 (0.76)	1.37 (0.65)
Information	1.73 (1.01)	1.36 (0.64)	1.79 (0.93)	1.41 (0.66)
Coercive	1.47 (0.71)	1.19 (0.49)	1.26 (0.66)	1.36 (0.70)
Expertise	1.86 (0.97)	1.26 (0.52)	1.65 (0.70)	1.27 (0.45)
Legitimate	1.36 (0.62)	1.13 (0.41)	1.17 (0.46)	1.21 (0.60)

Note: Item responses are as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Discussion

Approximately three fourths of the study’s participants reported experiencing some form of sexually harassing behavior, and the majority of students reported experiencing a harassing behavior by a fellow student, findings consistent with prior research of university students’ sexual harassment experiences (AAUW, 2005). According to AAUW’s research, at the postsecondary level, nearly two thirds of college students say they have been sexually harassed and 41% of students admit they have sexually harassed another student. Also consistent with prior research is the finding that gender harassment/sexual hostility was the most common form of sexually harassing behavior experienced by participants. Although many students reported experiencing at least one sexually harassing behavior, few students reported experiencing sexually harassing behaviors often or very often. Differences did occur between Mexican American and non-Hispanic White students in their experience of sexual harassment, but not in the expected direction. Non-Hispanic White students reported significantly higher incidents of sexually harassing behavior, although the effect size was quite small. This finding is not consistent with theories that predict that ethnic minority women should experience greater rates of sexual harassment due to power differentials between minority and majority cultures (Buchanan et al., 2009). The finding that non-Hispanic White women reported higher rates of harassing behaviors is consistent with findings of non-Hispanic White women experiencing greater rates of harassing behaviors in a workplace setting, however (Shupe et al., 2002).

Although prevalence of sexually harassing behaviors did differ between Mexican American and non-Hispanic White students, the self-reported labeling of behaviors as sexual harassment did not. Although a majority of students reported experiencing sexually harassing behavior, less than 10% reported ever having been sexually harassed, in response to the question, “Have you ever been sexually harassed while at the university?” This finding is consistent with earlier research (e.g., Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999) and may be related to less severity of the harassment, peer status of the offender, and experiencing the behavior less frequently (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Stockdale, Vaux, & Cashin, 1995).

With regard to how participants responded to the most offensive behavior, Mexican American and non-Hispanic White students were remarkably similar. Although as a group respondents reported being moderately intolerant of sexual harassment, most students chose to ignore behaviors they identified as most offensive, suggesting that though they found the behavior offensive, they chose to not address the behavior with the offender. It should also be noted that most students (93.2%) reported not knowing where to go to report a sexually harassing behavior if they desired to do so. It is plausible that many students simply chose not to report the behavior because they did not possess the information needed. Despite this similarity in response style, Mexican American women reported being more tolerant of sexual harassment in comparison to their non-Hispanic White peers.

Turning now to perceived power, students viewed those engaging in the offending behaviors as holding limited power, a not surprising finding given that the majority of the offenders were identified as peers. Power may be less of an integral factor for those experiencing peer-to-peer sexual harassment in a college setting. Nonetheless, a significant main effect with modest effect size occurred with regard to ethnicity of the person engaging in the offensive behavior. Regardless of student ethnicity or perceived harasser status, non-Hispanic White individuals who engaged in offensive behaviors were perceived as more powerful than Hispanic individuals, perhaps reflecting a perception that non-Hispanic White men, regardless of their faculty or student status, hold greater societal power (Dougherty, 2006).

Implications for Practice

The results of this study provide information for universities to consider in their on-going efforts to improve campus safety for female students from different ethnic and racial backgrounds and to enhance the understanding of sexual harassment. Findings confirm the pervasiveness of the problem of sexual harassment on university campuses with the vast majority of students reporting that they had experienced at least one sexually harassing behavior. A large number of female students (15.9%) reported experiencing sexual coercion on campus, the most severe form of sexual harassment, including such behaviors as sexual bribery, sexual threats, sexual assault, and quid pro quo harassment. Few students identified the behavior they experienced as harassment, pointing to the need of educating students about what is and what is not acceptable behavior and that harassment can also occur from peers. Campus materials need to include scenarios of specific behaviors to assist in broadening students’ awareness of what may constitute harassment, especially with regard to peer-initiated sexual harassment and racialized sexual harassment. Such scenarios should reflect personality traits (e.g., openness to experience) and social ideology (e.g., social dominance orientation), which have been shown to influence attitudes about race and sex (Cokley et al., 2010). In addition, scenarios need to include what to do if harassment is experienced while at the university, as current mechanisms used to disseminate information about harassment policies may not be reaching the entire student population. Other dissemination efforts could include regularly using university newspapers, requiring information to be presented on course syllabi, or communicating information during the National Sexual Assault Awareness Week. Finally, universities may wish to consider a campus climate study together with a careful and thorough review of current sexual harassment policies and procedures (Navarro, Worthington, Hart, & Kharalahan, 2009).

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

Respondents may have underreported their experiences of sexual harassment. In particular, Mexican American women, in agreement with a historical cultural value of “sexual silence,” may have been hesitant to report their actual experiences (Shupe et al., 2002). In addition, self-report data about past events may be inaccurate. Qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups, interviews) may provide respondents with a greater sense of security so that they may be more open to respond. In addition, providing surveys in both Spanish and English may be useful to insure the most accurate receipt of information. Future research also should further address the role of power in sexual harassment and how the acknowledgment of or lack of awareness of power in relationships affects harassment prevalence and responses to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment within peer relationships in educational settings, for example, may present a different context, one that does not contain the structural aspects of power typically extant in professor–student sexual harassment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bios

Lisa K. Kearney is the Acting Senior Consultant for National Mental Health Technical Assistance and the National Integrated Care Coordinator for the Office of Mental Health Operations and a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Texas at Austin. Her primary professional, research, and clinical interests are focused in the areas of integrated care, particularly in primary care-mental health integration, training and mentoring of psychologists, and gender issues in mental health.

Lucia Albino Gilbert is a Professor of Psychology at Santa Clara University in California. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Texas at Austin. She has an extensive record of scholarship including research concerning gender issues in mental health, integrating work and family; broadening technological opportunities for middle school girls; and the influence of gender processes on negotiating sexuality in late adolescent dating relationships. Her current research interests center on women’s career development in a traditional fields and the influence of gender processes on career trajectories and work–family balance.

References

American Association of University Women. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

Berdahl

J. L.

Moore

(2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426-436.

Bergman

M. E.

Drasgow

(2003). Race as a moderator in a model of sexual harassment: An empirical test. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 131-145.

Buchanan

N. T.

Bergman

M. E.

Bruce

T. A.

Woods

K. C.

Lichty

L. L.

(2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and racial harassment on college students’ well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 267-285.

Buchanan

N. T.

Settles

I. H.

Woods

K. C.

(2008). Comparing sexual harassment subtypes for Black and White women: Double jeopardy, the Jezebel, and the cult of true womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347-361.

Cochran

C.C.

Frazier

P. A.

Olson

A. U.

(1997). Predictors of responses to unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207-226.

Cokley

K. O.

Tran

Hall-Clark

Chapman

Bessa

Finley

Martinez

(2010). Predicting student attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3), 187-199.

Cortina

L. M.

(2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas: Development of an instrument. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 164-181.

Cortina

L. M.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Drasgow

(2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 295-311.

10.

Cortina

L. M.

Swan

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Waldo

(1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419-441.

11.

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

12.

Dougherty

(2006). Gendered constructions of power during discourse about sexual harassment: Negotiating competing meanings. Sex Roles, 54, 495-507.

13.

Falicov

C. J.

(1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

14.

Faulkner

S. L.

(2003). Good girl or flirt girl: Latinas’ definitions of sex and sexual relationships. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 174-200.

15.

Fielden

S. L.

Davidson

M. J.

Woolnough

Hunt

(2010). A model of racialized sexual harassment of women in the UK Workplace. Sex Roles, 62, 20-34.

16.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Gelfand

M. J.

Drasgow

(1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425-445.

17.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Shullman

S. L.

Bailey

Richards

Swecker

Gold

Weitzman

(1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.

18.

Foderaro

L. W.

(2011, April 8). At Yale, sharper looks at treatment of women. New York Times, pp. A21, A23.

19.

French

J. R.

Raven

(1959). The basis of social power. In Cartwright

D. C.

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

20.

Kalof

Eby

K. K.

Matheson

J. L.

Kroska

R. J.

(2001). The influence of race and gender on student self-reports on sexual harassment by college professors. Gender & Society, 15, 282-302.

21.

Lira

L. R.

Koss

M. P.

Russo

N. F.

(1999). Mexican American women’s definitions of rape and sexual abuse. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 236-265.

22.

Magley

V. J.

Hulin

C. L.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

DeNardo

(1999). Outcomes of self-labeling harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390-402.

23.

Mazer

D. B.

Percival

E. F.

(1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20, 135-147.

24.

Navarro

R. L.

Worthington

R. L.

Hart

Khairallah

(2009). Liberal and conservative political ideology, experiences of harassment, and perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 78-90.

25.

Quintero

G. O.

Estrada

A. L.

(1998). Cultural models of masculinity and drug use: “Machismo,” heroin, and street survival on the U. S.-Mexican border. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25, 147-168.

26.

Rederstorff

J. C.

Buchanan

N. T.

Settles

I. H.

(2007). The moderating roles of race and gender-role attitudes in the relationship between sexual harassment and psychological well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 50-61.

27.

Sandler

B. R.

Shoop

R. J.

(1997). What is sexual harassment? In Sandler

B. R.

Shoop

R. J.

(Eds.), Sexual harassment on campus: A guide for administrators, faculty, and students (pp. 1-21). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

28.

Shupe

E. I.

Cortina

L. M.

Ramos

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Salisbury

(2002). The incidence and outcomes of sexual harassment among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women: A comparison across levels of cultural affiliation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 298-308.

29.

Stevens

(1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Stockdale

M. S.

(1996). What we know and what we need to learn about sexual harassment. In Stockdale

M. S.

(Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Stockdale

M. S.

Vaux

Cashin

(1995). Acknowledging sexual harassment: A test of alternative models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 469-496.

32.

Swasy

J. L.

(1979). Measuring the bases of social power. In Wilkie

W. L.

(Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 6, pp. 340-346). Ann Arbor, MI: Associations for Consumer Research.

33.

Szymanski

D. M.

Stewart

D. N.

(2010). Racism and sexism as correlates of African American women’s psychological distress. Sex Roles, 63(3-4), 226-238.

34.

Torres

J. B.

Solberg

V. S. H.

Carlstrom

A. H.

(2002). The myth of sameness among Latino men and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(2), 163-181.

35.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Hispanics become more prevalent on college campuses. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb09-36.html