A Test in the High School Context of Berdahl’s Status Theory of Sex-Based Harassment

Abstract

This study, carried out in the high school context, is the first direct test of Berdahl’s status theory of sex-based harassment. The theory covers not just male harassment of females, but female harassment of males and same-sex harassment. Participants were 771 males and 679 females, from Years 8 to 10, in five co-educational lower socioeconomic status (SES) Australian city schools, participating in a wider study of peer victimization. They indicated on a 5-point scale (from never to almost every day) how frequently they had experienced each of six sex-based harassment behaviors over the previous year, from same-sex and from opposite-sex peers, and responded to a question about sense of safety at school. Nonparametric analyses supported five of seven hypotheses derived from the theory: boys harassed others most often, girls were harassed most often, boy-to-girl harassment was the most frequent, girls harassed girls more than they did boys, and girl-to-boy harassment was the least frequent. However, contrary to the theory, boys’ same-sex harassment was no more frequent than that between girls, and girl-to-girl harassment was just as threatening to victims’ sense of safety as boy-to-boy harassment. The study largely supports Berdahl’s theory. The unexpected results can be understood in terms of the intimate nature of adolescent girls’ groups in high schools and their centrality for identity formation. In this context, girls are highly motivated to defend their status in terms of stereotypically feminine standards regarding appearance, sexual activity, and access to high-status boys. The theory implies that structural changes to reduce the salience of sex differences and sex stereotyping will be crucial to efforts to address sex-based harassment.

Keywords

sexual harassment adolescents youth violence

Within high schools, distressing sexualized peer victimization is not unusual and often passes without sanctions. In fact, a teacher might even tell the victim to “get used to it” (Jamal, Bonnell, Harden, & Lorenc, 2015, p. 6). As Hill and Kearl (2011) have said, “too many students feel sick to their stomach, have trouble sleeping, or have trouble concentrating on their schoolwork as a result of sexual harassment” (p. 29). This is disappointing, considering the increasing efforts put into addressing sexual harassment in schools (e.g., Weist et al., 2009). Given the known harm that such victimization causes, especially to girls (e.g., Hill & Kearl, 2011; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2008), it is essential that efforts to understand and address it are redoubled.

In seeking to understand why peer victimizing behaviors occur in the school and workplace, we find the issue has been viewed through a variety of scholarly lenses, from the evolutionary (e.g., Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini, 2012) through the cultural (e.g., Duncan, 1999) to the psychological (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1999). Terms such as abuse, aggression, bullying, violence, harassment, and incivility are, on one hand, often used interchangeably and, on the other, subject to much attention regarding definitions and distinctions (Jones, 2006). Where gender is seen to be involved, terms such as sexual harassment or gendered harassment are used (Jones, 2006). Theories of sexual harassment, with a focus on male perpetrators and female victims, often seek motivation in misogyny, males’ desire to dominate women, or sexual desire (Jones, 2006).

By contrast, Berdahl (2007) has proposed a status-based theory of harassment that moves away from sexual motivation and an exclusive focus on male-to-female harassment. She favors the term sex-based harassment (SBH), defined as “behavior that derogates, demeans, or humiliates an individual based on that individual’s sex” (p. 641). Furthermore, Berdahl suggests that “sexual harassers derogate others based on sex to protect or enhance their own sex-based social status, and are motivated and able to do so by a social context that pervasively and fundamentally stratifies social status by sex” (p. 641). This theory encompasses not only male harassment of females but also the much less-studied female harassment of males as well as same-sex harassment. Berdahl called for empirical examination of the theory, and the present article describes a quantitative study that tests some of its central aspects.

Berdahl’s (2007) discussion is about adults, particularly in the workplace, and she has continued to study the workplace implications of sex-based stereotypes (e.g., Berdahl & Moon, 2013). However, there does not seem to have been any study that examines her theory of SBH among adolescents, in the high school context.

Peer victimization among adolescents has been widely examined and become an issue of social concern in many countries (e.g., Smith, 2003). In the psychological literature, research has mainly been in terms of aggression and bullying, though some recent studies have also included sexual harassment (e.g., Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2013; Felix, Furlong, & Austin, 2009; Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston, & Feeley, 2014; Pepler et al., 2006; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2016). Explanations for peer victimization in aggression and bullying studies have largely concerned the characteristics of individuals or perpetrator–victim dyads (e.g., Olweus, 1978), or the peer group (e.g., Salmivalli, 2010). An initial focus on male-to-male bullying shifted to also encompass female-to-female aggression (e.g., Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992), with the notion of “mean girls” gaining popular currency. Cross-sex aggression and bullying in schools (e.g., Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2007; Page, Shute, & McLachlan, 2015; Russell & Owens, 1999; Shute et al., 2016) have been much less studied by psychologists, with sex and gender mainly considered in terms of different styles of aggression in within-sex peer groups (e.g., Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992). The existence of a “blind spot” about sex/gender has been identified even in the most extreme cases of school violence—school shootings in the United States—with political and scientific commentators “singularly and spectacularly” overlooking gender as causal even though all shootings were carried out by boys (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003, p. 1440).

By contrast, much research emanating from women’s studies, anthropology, sociology, and education takes the view that we should look to societal structures for explanations for peer victimization, and male-to-female harassment and female disadvantage have been major foci (e.g., Hill & Kearl, 2011; Timmerman, 2003). Male-to-female sexual harassment and homophobic harassment have increasingly been recognized as related issues in schools (Trotter, 2006). Duncan (1999) introduced the term “sexual bullying” to refer to such behaviors; he argues that they serve the purpose of policing (power-laden) gender boundaries, thus reinforcing what it means to be a “proper” boy or girl, and “keeping girls in their place” in a misogynist culture. Certainly, in accord with Berdahl’s view, very few students claim that harassment is about seduction (Hill & Kearl, 2011). Duncan (1999) proposed that such widespread behaviors create a context in which individual “bullies,” as identified in typical psychological research, thrive.

Berdahl (2007) similarly takes a structuralist perspective, in which societies assign more power to males, but her theory of SBH emphasizes the importance to all individuals of maintaining social status: “The fact that social status is stratified by sex motivates and enables individuals to defend their status based on sex by derogating others’ status based on sex” (p. 644). This status is boosted by matching up to society’s stereotypical ideals regarding (dominant, heterosexual) masculinity and (subordinate, heterosexual) femininity; when a person’s sex-derived status is threatened, they can try to maintain it by efforts to downgrade the status of others. Berdahl draws upon Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje’s (1999) theory on “threats to identity.” These may be threats to distinctiveness (between the sexes), acceptance (as a “good” male or female), being categorized (as male or female) against one’s will, or derogation of the sex group with which one identifies. Berdahl suggests that all these are relevant for SBH, the likely victims being those who pose such threats and are less powerful than the harasser. With men being on average more powerful than women, and therefore with more status to lose, men will harass more than women, and women will experience more harassment than men. Male-to-female SBH, especially of women who threaten male status, would be the most frequent, followed by harassment of males by other males, especially those who threaten a male’s status. Berdahl further proposes that, under this theory, female harassment should mainly be directed at other females, which is not expected on the basis of previous theorizing. Finally, female-to-male SBH should be the least common. The behaviors involved may be, but are not limited to, those of a sexual nature; the central point is that the behavior derogates or humiliates the victim on the grounds of their sex. However, relevant for the present study is the fact that sexualized victimization is most readily identified as sex-based.

Aspects of Berdahl’s (2007) theory are supported by various studies, such as the finding that females in authority (workplace supervisors) receive more harassment from males than do female nonsupervisors (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2012). However, Berdahl’s theory does not seem to have been explicitly subjected to empirical testing, to date.

There is no reason to suppose that this theory is not applicable to adolescents. Indeed, the inclusion of the notion of identity may make it especially relevant, as identity formation, including gender identity formation, is regarded as the central task for adolescents (Erikson, 1968). They may therefore be especially sensitive (both as perpetrators and victims) to the use of SBH. It is precisely in contexts where sex-based status is heightened that individuals are most motivated to protect theirs by demeaning others (Berdahl, 2007). Duncan (1999) has suggested that sexual victimization (such as that based on appearance) in schools may have increased as the body has become more central to western notions of identity. This has been echoed in studies by Shute et al. (2008) and Jamal et al. (2015), which both found body and sexuality issues to be central to school peer abuse. Jamal et al. (2015) characterize girls as “doing identity work”—as “active agents struggling for identity and desperate to ‘fit in’ at school” (p. 11), leading to girl-to-girl and boy-to-girl sexual victimization that serves to maintain very traditional masculine and feminine sex roles. Identity is also central to Page et al.’s (2015) demonstration of the relevance of self-categorization theory (a version of social identity theory; Turner & Oakes, 1989) to adolescent boys’ sexual bullying of girls; they found evidence to support the proposition that boys’ sexual bullying of girls is greater when gender is more salient to the context.

In the present study, as part of a broader project on school peer victimization, male and female adolescents responded to questions about unwanted sexually toned behaviors from male and female peers. These were used to form a measure of SBH to test some of the main aspects of Berdahl’s theory. The following hypotheses were predicted:

Hypothesis 1: females would experience more frequent SBH than males.

Hypothesis 2: males would harass more often than females.

Hypothesis 3: Frequency of male-to-female SBH would be the highest.

Hypothesis 4: Frequency of male-to-male SBH would be the next highest.

Hypothesis 5: female-to-female SBH would occur more often than female-to-male SBH.

Hypothesis 6: female-to-male SBH would be the least frequent.

Finally, Berdahl (2007) argues that male–female power differences mean that same-sex SBH between men is “likely to be more motivated, frequent and threatening than SBH between women” (p. 651). A seventh hypothesis was therefore added:

Hypothesis 7: SBH between females would pose less of a threat to victims’ sense of safety at school than SBH between males.

Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and tests of differences between correlations (Williamson, 2000).

Method

Participants

There were 771 male and 679 female respondents, from Years 8 to 10 (ages 12-15 years), in five Australian co-educational city high schools. The schools were located in high disadvantage suburbs compared with national statistics and were participating in a broader study of peer victimization. The majority of students were born in Australia (90%), the other 10% being born in 42 different countries; 0.1% identified with a specific culture (e.g., Thai, Aboriginal).

Instrument

Six sexually toned questions were devised, drawing upon the literature on unwanted behaviors experienced by school students. To ensure face validity, the items encompassed a range of behaviors identified in the aggression literature (physical, verbal, and indirect) and reported by girls, boys, and teachers to occur in sexualized forms (Shute et al., 2008): “being touched, pinched, poked, slapped, etc., in an embarrassing or sexually suggestive way”; “having your clothes flicked up, pulled down, etc., in an embarrassing way”; “being called names like slut, lezzo (if you are a girl) or poofter, gay (if you are a boy)”; “having embarrassing comments made about your body or parts of it (e.g., about size)”; “having embarrassing sex-based rumours spread about you”; and “being made to feel uncomfortable when other kids are showing or laughing at embarrassing pictures.”

Although the items were not designed with Berdahl’s theory in mind, they provide an opportunity for testing it: They were not sex/gender-specific (and therefore were suitable for a cross-sex study), they were specified to respondents as being unwanted (hence excluding benign or positively received sexual attention), and they were designed to cover a range of behaviors regarded by adolescents as demeaning or threatening (e.g., Chambers, van Loon, & Tincknell, 2004; Duncan, 1999; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003).

The questions may also cover some of the “threats to identity” categories mentioned above. For example, sexually demeaning body comments (e.g., calling a girl flat-chested or a boy a “pin-dick”) may be an acceptance threat (questioning their credentials as an acceptable female or male) or a distinctiveness threat (suggesting they are more like the other sex). Homophobic name-calling (e.g., “fag”) is potentially a “categorization” threat. Rumors about girls behaving as “virgins” or “sluts” create an acceptance threat (“good” girls should neither be “frigid” nor “easy”). Such terms, and others such as “bitch,” being demeaning terms associated with a particular sex, are also derogation threats to identity.

Participants were asked to respond on a 5-point scale indicating how often (i.e., the frequency with which) they had received each unwanted or embarrassing behavior from a same-sex peer and from an opposite-sex peer (1 = never and 5 = almost every day). Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory for both the same-sex harassment scale (.83) and the other-sex harassment scale (.87).

The broad study of which this survey was a part included the question “How safe do you feel from being bullied at this school?” on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all safe to always or nearly always safe. (Bullying was defined for the students in terms of deliberate or repeated hurting or upsetting of others.) This item was used in the present study as an indicator of students’ sense of safety at school.

Procedure

Permission for the study was granted by the relevant university ethics committee and education authority and written consent from parents was obtained. The questionnaire was completed in class time, as part of a wider study on victimization experiences and attitudes. Each school gave high priority to the study to gain information about victimization in their particular school, and approximately 90% of students participated.

Results

Missing values were below 5% for same-sex and opposite-sex SBH and 8.2% for Total SBH (frequency of SBH from males plus that from females). Missing cases were omitted from analyses. Distributions were positively skewed, and little improved by transformations; therefore, nonparametric analyses were carried out. Median values for the frequency with which males and females experienced same-sex and opposite-sex SBH are shown in Figure 1. Scores ranged from 1 to 4. Total SBH ranged from 1 to 8. A summary of the results is shown in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Median frequency of SBH (y axis) for male and female respondents (x axis) for same-sex SBH (solid line) and opposite-sex SBH (dashed line).

Table 1.

Summary of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis		Supported?
Hypothesis 1	F experience more SBH than M	Yes
Hypothesis 2	M harass more than F	Yes
Hypothesis 3	M-to-F pairing yields most SBH	Yes
Hypothesis 4	M-to-M pairing yields second-highest SBH	No (M-M and F-to-F SBH similar)
Hypothesis 5	F-to-F SBH more than F-to-M SBH	Yes
Hypothesis 6	F-to-M SBH least frequent	Yes
Hypothesis 7	F-F SBH lower safety threat than M-M SBH	No (F-to-F and M-M SBH equally threaten sense of safety)

Note. SBH = sex-based harassment; F = females; M = males.

An independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test showed that females received more Total SBH (Mdn = .83) than males (Mdn = .50), p < .001, supporting Hypothesis 1. Both males and females reported being harassed significantly more often by males (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < .001 in each case), supporting Hypothesis 2. Together, these findings indicate that, of the four sex pairings, the highest score was male-to-female SBH (Mdn = .50; Hypothesis 3) and the lowest female-to-male (Mdn = .17), with same-sex SBH lying in between (see Figure 1). However, for same-sex SBH, scores were no higher for males than females (Mdn = .33, in both cases). In other words, the order of frequency of receiving SBH for the four groups was as predicted with the exception that female-to-female SBH occurred at a similar frequency to male-to-male SBH, not lower. Thus, Hypotheses 3, 5, and 6 were supported, but Hypothesis 4 was not. (Note that parametric analysis gave an identical pattern of results and, additionally, was able to test for, and show, an overall interaction effect, as illustrated in Figure 1).

To test Hypothesis 7, the measure Sense of Safety at School was examined for correlation with SBH score, for each of the same-sex groups (Spearman’s rho); for males, rs = –.47, and for females, rs = –.39 (two-tailed significance <.001 in each case). While there is no readily available way of comparing values of rho, it has been argued (Weaver, 2010) that it is appropriate to use Cohen and Cohen’s (1983) test for independent correlations (cited in Williamson, 2000); this yielded a Z of 1.82 (two-tailed significance = .07, ns). Hypothesis 7—that same-sex SBH would undermine Sense of Safety more for males—was therefore not supported.

For exploratory purposes regarding Sense of Safety, the correlations with opposite-sex SBH were calculated and found not to differ significantly (male-to-female rs = –.28; female-to-male rs = –.22). In addition, a test for dependent correlations (Steiger, 1980, cited in Williamson, 2000) found that, for both sexes, these opposite-sex SBH correlations with Sense of Safety were significantly lower than for same-sex SBH (males, rs = –.47, females, rs = –.39; two-tailed p < .001, for both males and females). Finally, significant correlations of .73 (females) and .64 (males) existed between same-sex and opposite-Sex SBH, indicating that individuals who experienced harassment from their own sex were also likely to experience it from members of the opposite sex.

Discussion

Overview of the Present Findings

This study provides the first direct test of Berdahl’s (2007) status-based theory of SBH and largely supports it, in the context of co-educational high schools. Most of the hypotheses derived from the theory were supported: Girls experienced harassment more frequently than boys, boys harassed others the most, boy-to-girl SBH occurred most frequently, girls harassed other girls more than they did boys, and girl-to-boy SBH was the least frequent. Although, as expected, boys harassed other boys less often than they harassed girls, this was not, as predicted, clearly the second-highest sex combination, as girls’ SBH of other girls was just as frequent. Furthermore, girls’ sense of safety at school was just as undermined by same-sex SBH as was boys’ and, for both sexes, same-sex harassment was a greater threat to sense of safety at school than was opposite-sex SBH. This is especially interesting given the extensive attention paid to boys’ harassment of girls. These latter findings need to be considered in the specific context of the high school, especially as Berdahl (2007) is at pains to highlight the importance of the social context for supporting or inhibiting SBH.

The Nature of Adolescents’ Peer Groups

School children’s friendships are overwhelmingly within-sex, to the extent that separate boys’ and girls’ “worlds” or “spheres” are said to exist (e.g., Voss, 1997). Although the preponderance of same-sex friendship groups starts to break down in high school, same-sex peer groups remain paramount. These vary in status and characteristics, and may be given names within specific school cultures, such as “emos,” “wannabes,” “hipsters,” “jocks,” or “chicks.” “Popular” or “cool” groups have higher status than groups such as “earthies,” “losers,” and “nerds” (e.g., Messerschmidt, 2011). However, belonging to any group, even as a “hanger-on,” is far preferable to being completely ostracized (Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2000). As students spend most of their relational time and energy in school on same-sex peers, these groups will be crucial to their sex-based status, in line with Berdahl’s theory. It is not surprising, then, to find that both boys and girls find harassment by their same-sex peers as particularly threatening, as the outcome of harassment could be total social ostracism (as a very low-status “loner”).

As well as girls being as threatened as boys by same-sex SBH, it was unexpectedly found to be as frequent (Berdahl expected female-to-female SBH to be lower, as the level of status at risk is lower for females than males). This raises the question of whether there is something specific about the high school context that explains this. The different nature of boys’ and girls’ groups in adolescence is likely to be relevant. Boys’ groups tend be looser and based on activities such as sport, while girls’ friendships are noted for being based on close personal relationships (e.g., Maccoby, 1998). As they enter adolescence, girls’ use of indirect aggression against other girls, such as spreading rumors and social exclusion, increases (Owens, 1996). Given that adolescence is a time of identity formation, there may be heightened motivation for adolescent girls to engage in the business of forging their identity based on their sex-based status, increasing their likelihood of using SBH against other girls. In this regard, it is useful to consider more deeply the dynamics of girls’ high school peer groups, especially the importance of being “popular.”

Although researchers, especially in the United States, have often defined popularity as being well-liked by peers (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998), some studies have found that girls themselves do not hold this perspective—in fact the “popular” girls are often disliked and envied by other girls. Owens and Duncan’s (2009) Australian participants defined popularity in terms of being pretty and able to afford fashionable clothes and make-up, having wealth and social power (exercised through meanness), and being visibly rebellious (anti-school or, in a lower socioeconomic status [SES] school, into drugs and alcohol). Being popular was associated with attracting high-status boys, which is something further that Berdahl’s theory predicts. Popular girls felt under pressure to retain their status, even if this meant not being their “real” selves, and one way they did this was by spreading rumors about others. In fact, high status was a prerequisite for the spreading of rumors to achieve the aim of reinforcing one’s status. High-status girls could also “get away” with promiscuity if it was with high-status boys, while low-status girls were censured for sleeping around. Lower status girls were verbally harassed about their appearance.

Owens and Duncan (2009) related these findings to previous research showing how girls strive to belong to groups and maintain their group’s status by indirect methods such as spreading rumors and excluding others, with such exclusion potentially leading victims to suicidal thoughts and acts (e.g., Owens et al., 2000). Direct verbal bullying (name-calling) may also be used against girls who do not conform to particular feminine standards, such as by being overweight (Messerschmidt, 2011). An extreme example of just how desperate girls can be to belong to a particular group is provided by two (separate) cases in which adolescent girls attributed their abuse of young boys to wanting to experience sexual activity in order not to feel left out when higher status girls were discussing their sexual exploits (Messerschmidt, 2011).

Findings such as the above demonstrate just how central it is, for girls in the throes of negotiating their identities, to belong to intimate same-sex peer groups and defend their status in terms of stereotypically feminine standards regarding appearance, sexual activity, and access to high-status boys. That girls actively work to maximize their status within the confines of patriarchy is consistent with Berdahl’s theory, and exemplifies “emphasised femininity,” which is “practiced in a complimentary [sic], compliant and accommodating subordinate relationship with hegemonic masculinity” (Messerschmidt, 2011, p. 206). Girls bolster their status by means including sex-based rumors, verbal abuse, and appearance-based put-downs of lower status girls. They also put energy into repairing their damaged relationships (Owens et al., 2000). In light of females’ heightened sensitivity to sex-based status in the high school context, the present findings—that girls appear just as motivated as boys to use SBH toward their same-sex peers, and find experiencing it just as damaging—are perhaps not so surprising.

Cumulative Effects of SBH

Each of the six individual behaviors measured in this study was experienced rarely by respondents over the year, but amounted to approximately three incidents per year experienced by boys and five per year for girls. Berdahl (2007) notes the importance of cumulative SBH: While each incident may seem only occasional and minor in itself, collectively, the impact is great. Even a single incident (such as the girl who once wore her hair in a “bushy” style for a school photograph) can stigmatize a student forever as “lame” (Haavind, 2014). Boys or girls in the present study who were frequently harassed by their own sex were very likely to be harassed by the opposite sex as well. Sexual harassment from multiple sources is especially likely to impact on learning as it impedes focusing on study (Hill & Kearl, 2011). Participants in the present study may also have experienced additional nonsexual, but nevertheless sex-based, incidents that were not captured by the SBH measure. The effect on witnesses further compounds the effect (Hill & Kearl, 2011), and an overall perception is created among students that sexually harassing behaviors in high school are commonplace and ubiquitous (Hill & Kearl, 2011; Shute et al., 2008), and indeed, they constitute a cultural phenomenon (Timmerman, 2003). Berdahl’s suggestion that such behaviors become normalized and that it can be difficult to identify specific perpetrators seems to be well borne out in the school context. Not only do students (especially boys) often not tell anyone they have been harassed (Hill & Kearl, 2011), but some teachers see such behaviors as “normal” or “natural” and therefore fail to address them even if they are made aware of them (e.g., Jamal et al., 2015; Meyer, 2008; Shute et al., 2008). It seems that work still needs to be done with some teachers to ensure that sexual victimization is seen as not acceptable and requiring to be addressed (Meyer, 2014).

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

Some aspects of Berdahl’s theory were not examined in this study. In particular, it is unknown which individuals posed the greatest threat to status and were therefore most likely to be subjected to SBH. Berdahl’s suggestion that it is the “middle-of-the-pack” individuals who would be most likely to harass would also be worth exploring, as would the circumstances under which a lower ranked individual does challenge a higher status one. These issues have begun to be studied in the context of the internal structure of adolescent cliques (Pattiselanno, Diejkstra, Steglich, Vollebergh, & Veenstra, 2015).

According to Berdahl’s theory, as long as status is stratified by sex, harassment would be expected to follow the pattern she predicted and that was largely supported by this study. However, there may be some cultural differences in the nature of peer harassment in high schools. For example, Shute et al. (2008) reported very little physical harassment in the Australian schools they studied, whereas girls in Jamal et al.’s (2015) U.K. study reported a great deal. In general, however, experiences are strikingly similar across the Western world, although school peer victimization dynamics differ in more collectivist cultures (Lee, 2011). As the present study was limited to lower SES schools in a single Australian city, replication in other contexts would be desirable. Other limitations of the study are the exclusive use of self-report and its cross-sectional nature, which means that a causal relationship between SBH and sense of safety cannot be definitively concluded—students who feel less safe may be more likely to recall SBH incidents.

Interventions

Despite the limitations of this cross-sectional study, there is plenty of previous evidence that SBH is damaging, especially to girls and to gender nonconforming boys. The present findings suggest that it undermines sense of safety at school for all students, with girls experiencing the most harassment overall, most often from boys but also from girls. Schools are increasingly seen as places to promote student well-being as well as academic learning (e.g., Dix, Slee, Lawson, & Keeves, 2012). In many jurisdictions, policies and procedures are mandatory to minimize peer harassment and bullying, yet changing these behaviors is notoriously difficult (e.g., Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007). Hill and Kearl (2011) have made many suggestions for addressing harassment, including policy development and enforcement and education for staff, students, and parents. Initial efforts have also been made toward encouraging bystander intervention (Nickerson et al., 2014) and other peer-led interventions (Connolly et al., 2015).

Both Berdahl’s (2007) theory and self-categorization theory (Page et al., 2015) suggest an alternative, or complementary, approach: structural change to create a school context that reduces the salience of sex differences. This could form part of an ecological approach, as previously applied to school bullying (Lee, 2011), encompassing change at various levels, from the individual and peer group, to school climate, teacher attitudes and behaviors, family–school links, and broader community and cultural issues. An obvious possibility for structural change is the provision of single-sex schooling, which has long been championed by some feminists as a way to reduce harassment and sex-stereotyped subject choices; however, this issue is complex, politically fraught, and difficult to study (Sullivan, 2012). More modest, but still profound, structural changes to the school environment are possible, such as addressing sex-stereotyped dress codes (Grossman, 2009; Kulp-Ressler, 2014). The most extreme effort at reducing stereotyping in education has occurred in a Swedish preschool, where even the words “he” and “she” are not used (Daily Mail Reporter, 2011); it would be informative to study any effects of such practice on SBH and the extent to which they carry over past puberty and into other contexts.

Enabling and wide-ranging policy frameworks are already in existence (e.g., Nilsson, 2007, in Sweden and the Equal Opportunity Commission in England, 2007), though changing cultural norms about harassment is a long and difficult process, requiring much patience (Hill & Kearl, 2011) and greater knowledge about barriers to the effective implementation of interventions. An encouraging finding is that the introduction of a directive to schools in England in 2008 to address homophobia trickled down to change a school culture that completely changed boys’ relationships with one another: Heterosexual boys were freed up to become physically affectionate with one another, homophobic epithets disappeared, and gay boys felt accepted by their peers (McCormack & Anderson, 2010).

Conclusion

This study largely supported Berdahl’s (2007) status theory of SBH, in the high school context. Results that differed from predictions, as well as the results of exploratory analyses, can be understood when considering the intimate nature of girls’ peer group relationships in high schools and their importance for identity formation. The theory implies that structural changes to reduce the salience of sex differences and sex stereotyping will be crucial to efforts to address SBH.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the participating schools and students.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Rosalyn H. Shute, BSc (Hons), PhD, holds an Adjunct Professorship in Psychology at Flinders University, South Australia. She has held academic posts at several universities in the United Kingdom and Australia, including roles as coordinator of postgraduate professional programs and as head of psychology. She has over a hundred publications, including several books, with a particular focus on victimization between school students and psychosocial aspects of childhood chronic conditions. Her latest co-edited book with Phillip Slee (2016) is Mental Health and Wellbeing Through Schools: The Way Forward (Routledge).

References

Berdahl

J. L.

(2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641-658.

Berdahl

J. L.

Moon

S. H.

(2013). Workplace mistreatment of middle-class workers based on sex, parenthood, and caregiving. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 341-366.

Bjorkqvist

Niemela

(1992). Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Branscombe

N. R.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Chambers

van Loon

Tincknell

(2004). Teachers’ views of teenage sexual morality. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25, 563-576.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

(1998). Aggression and antisocial behaviour. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779-862). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Connolly

Josephson

Schnoll

Simkins-Strong

Pepler

MacPherson

. . . Jiang

(2015). Evaluation of a youth-led program for preventing bullying, sexual harassment, and dating aggression in middle schools. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 403-434.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1999). “Superiority” is in the eye of the beholder: A comment on Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham. Social Development, 8, 128-131.

10.

Daily Mail Reporter. (2011, June 27). “You’re all equal here”: Swedish school bans “him” and “her” in bid to stop children falling into gender stereotypes. Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008453/School-bans-bid-stop-children-falling-gender-stereotypes.html

11.

Dix

K. L.

Slee

P. T.

Lawson

M. J.

Keeves

J. P.

(2012). Implementation quality of whole-school mental health promotion and students’ academic performance. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17, 45-51.

12.

Duncan

(1999). Sexual bullying. London, England: Routledge.

13.

Equal Opportunity Commission, England. (2007). The gender equality duty and schools: Guidelines for public authorities in England. Retrieved from http://www.schools-out.org.uk/policy/docs/Gender_equality_duty_and_schools.doc

14.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

15.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

Polanin

J. R.

Brown

E. C.

(2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 180-186.

16.

Felix

E. D.

Furlong

M. J.

Austin

(2009). A cluster analytic investigation of school violence victimization among diverse students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1673-1695.

17.

Ferguson

C. J.

Miguel

C. S.

Kilburn

J. C.

Sanchez

(2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401-414.

18.

Grossman

J. L.

(2009). Sex-stereotyping and dress codes under Title VII: Why courts can’t get it right. Retrieved from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090303.html

19.

Haavind

(2014). “Who does he think he is?” Making new friends and leaving others behind–on the path from childhood to youth. In Schott

R. M.

Søndergaard

D. M.

(Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 129-158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Hill

Kearl

(2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

21.

Jamal

Bonnell

Harden

Lorenc

(2015). The social ecology of girls’ bullying practices: Exploratory research in two London schools. Sociology of Health and Illness, 37, 731-744.

22.

Jones

(2006). Drawing boundaries: Exploring the relationship between sexual harassment, gender, and bullying. Women’s Studies International Forum, 29, 147-158.

23.

Kimmel

M. S.

Mahler

(2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439-1458.

24.

Kulp-Ressler

(2014). The most outrageous ways schools are trying to enforce gender stereotypes. Think Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/23/3429952/school-dress-code-gender/

25.

Lee

C.-H.

(2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle-school students in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1664-1693.

26.

Maccoby

E. E.

(1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

27.

McCormack

Anderson

(2010). It’s just not acceptable any more: The erosion of homophobia and the softening of masculinity at an English sixth form. Sociology, 44, 843-859.

28.

McLaughlin

Uggen

Blackstone

(2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77, 625-647.

29.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2011). The struggle for heterofeminine recognition: Bullying, embodiment, and reactive sexual offending by adolescent girls. Feminist Criminology, 6, 203-233.

30.

Meyer

E. J.

(2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non)interventions. Gender and Education, 20, 555-570.

31.

Meyer

E. J.

(2014). New solutions for bullying and harassment: A post-structural, feminist approach. In Schott

R. M.

Søndergaard

D. M.

(Eds.), School bullying: New theories in context (pp. 209-239). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Nickerson

A. B.

Aloe

A. M.

Livingston

J. A.

Feeley

T. H.

(2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 391-400.

33.

Nilsson

(2007). Sweden report case study 2: Developing a curriculum for gender equality. Malmö, Sweden: Educational Policies that Address Social Inequality.

34.

Olweus

(1978). Aggression in the schools. New York, NY: John Wiley.

35.

Owens

(1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls’ and boys’ aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45-55.

36.

Owens

Duncan

(2009). “They might not like you but everyone knows you”: Popularity among teenage girls. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 3, 14-39.

37.

Owens

Shute

Slee

(2000). “Guess what I just heard . . . ” Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67-83.

38.

Owens

Shute

Slee

(2007). “They do it just to show off.” Year 9 girls’, boys’ and their teachers’ explanations for boys’ aggression to girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 13, 343-360.

39.

Page

Shute

McLachlan

(2015). A self-categorization theory perspective on adolescent boys’ sexual bullying of girls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 371-383.

40.

Pattiselanno

Diejkstra

J. K.

Steglich

Vollebergh

Veenstra

(2015). Structure matters: The role of clique hierarchy in the relationship between adolescent social status and aggression and prosociality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2257-2274.

41.

Pepler

D. J.

Craig

W. M.

Connolly

J. A.

Yuile

McMaster

Jiang

(2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376-384.

42.

Russell

Owens

(1999). Peer estimates of school-aged boys’ and girls’ aggression to same- and cross-sex targets. Social Development, 8, 364-379.

43.

Salmivalli

(2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112-120.

44.

Shute

Owens

Slee

(2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477-489.

45.

Shute

Owens

Slee

(2016). High school girls’ experience of victimization by boys: Where sexual harassment meets aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25, 269-285.

46.

Smith

(Ed.). (2003). Violence in schools: A European perspective. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.

47.

Sullivan

(2012). Single-sex and co-educational secondary schooling: What are the social and family outcomes, in the short and longer term? Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 137-156.

48.

Timmerman

(2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated by teachers and by peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power, culture, and gender in secondary schools. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 48, 231-244.

49.

Trotter

(2006). Violent crimes? Young people’s experiences of homophobia and misogyny in secondary schools. Practice: Social Work in Action, 18, 291-302.

50.

Turner

J. C.

Oakes

(1989). Self-categorisation theory and social influence. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Volk

A. A.

Camilleri

J. A.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

Z. A.

(2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222-238.

52.

Voss

L. S.

(1997). Teasing, disputing, and playing: Cross-gender interactions and space utilization among first and third graders. Gender & Society, 11, 238-256.

53.

Weaver

(2010). Comparing spearman. Retrieved from http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/Comparing-spearman-correlations-td2259552.html

54.

Weist

M. D.

Bryant

Y. U.

Dantzler

Martin

D’Amico

Griffith

Gallun

(2009). Evaluation of a statewide initiative in the United States to prevent/reduce sexual harassment in schools. Health Education, 109, 112-124.

55.

Williamson

(2000). Comparing dependent and independent correlations. Adelaide, SA: Flinders University.