Julie A. Woodzicka REAL vs IMAGINE Gender Harrassment Flashcards
Why did Fitxergerald, Swam + Ficher, 1995, believed it was important to investigate reaction to real vs imagined gender harassment?
blame derives from the perception that the target failed to respond adequately to the alleged harassment
- Baker, Terpstra + Larntz,1990 women reported, in an hypothetical situation = report + confront
REALITY = don’t do either
- prevent victim blaming for not responding
- responsibility shifts to victim to respond appropriately
- prevent unrealistic standards + expectations of how to respond to harassers
Evaluate the method most frequently used to study responses to sexual harrassment.
- Retrospective reports
- asked if they have been sexually harrassed + response
- good for documenting incidcence + scope
BUT
- ‘sexual harassment’ difficult to objectify
- bias to overreporting of reactions which are easier to remeber vs avoidance behaviour
- distorted recall of how they wished they had responded (45% women who thought about confrontation didn’t Swim + Hyers, 1999)
Studies on responses to sexual harassment are normally carried out using a vignette. What are some problems with it (experimental analogues)?
- Lengnick-Hall 1995 using descriptive may be more assertive vs real harassing situation = overestimation of confrontation response
- Actually asses how you think you SHOULD respond
- Fitzgeral et al 1995 likely to fail to evoke actual lvl of fear
- Schultz 1998 sexual H often about intimidation vs actual harassment
= help to build normative concepts about how you should respond based off of unrepresentative + unrealistic findings
Why do ‘silent tolerates’ endure/ tolerate harassment and what do they show research on sexual harassment needs to also focus on?
- greater repercussion for complaining as they are in a work context in which positive regard is crucial
= more leeway for the harasser
= need to focus on non-verbal cues
In what ways does immediate emotional responses induced by sexual harassment affect a person?
- Interpretation of feedback
- Work performance
- Self-concept
- Memory
- Resistance to persuasion
How was study 1 carried out?
- PPt given an interview scenario
- asked how they would respond and how they feel to some pretty evasive questions - the questions were pretested as sexually harassing
What did study 1 find?
- 62% would ask interviewer why they had asked the q or that it was inappropriate
- 28% leave interview/ confront interviewer
- 68% showed that they would refuse to answer at least one of the 3 harassing questions
- feelings of anger were reported more commonly than those of fear (only 2%)
Why is confrontation seen as the most plausible response?
- People believe their feelings + attitudes are predictive of their behaviour (Ross + Nisbett, 1991)
○ Esp true for feelings of anger as it prepares one for action, in particular to attack
How was study 2 carried out?
- Women ppt asked sexually harassing questions by a male interviewer
- Guised as determining eligibility for a research assistant job
- Matched surprising sexually harassing questions with other surprising but non-sexually harassing questions
- completed PANAS brief form
- had behaviour categories to record response to each question
- FACS (Ekman + Friesen, 1978)
Facial Action Coding System to assess facial expression
What were the 3 sexually harassing Q in study 2?
- Do you have a bf?
- Do people find you desirable?
- Do you think it is important for women to wear bars to work?
Why did study 2 also put in surprising questions along with sexually harassing questions?
○ Allows the separation of the effects of sexual harassment on job interviews from the reaction at being asked strange or inexplicable questions during a job interview
What were the surprising questions used in study 2?
- Do you have a best friend?
- Do people find you morbid?
- Do you think it is important for people to believe in God?
What were the categories to describe behaviour reactions in study 2?
- Ignore - there is no overt stand on the question being asked and just answers it
2. Refocus - interpret questions as legitimate eg desirable in what wayyy???
3. Positive counter - asking why the question was asked
4. Negative counter - aggressively questioning the legitimacy of the question (leave + report to experimenter)
What were the results of study 2?
- Everyone answered the questions
- Little confrontation/ refusal
- Attempts to circumvent situation by asking why they were asking (36%) but 52% ignored harrassment
○ But often this was done after the interview, near the conclusion so they actually answered the question when asked - A lot of refocusing by asking for clarification
- No negative challenge + reports of the interviewer
Most common initial response is to ignore the harassment - Fitzgerald et al, 1995 + Gutek, 1985 + Loy and Stewart, 1984
What are 2 potential explanation are there for why 1/5th of the ppt responded with refocusing in study 2?
- Looking for clarification to avoid miscommunication and potentially giving an inappropriate response
2. Asking the interviewer to clarify his intent + be explicit about motives- Allowed ppt to continue to take this seriously or categorise it as irrelevant
