Cuapter 18 SEXUAL HARASSMENT Jennifer L. Berdahl and Jana L. Raver Sexual harassment has undoubtedly been a problem in organizations since they existed, but it was only 30 years ago that it began to be publicly recognized as a problem in need of intervention. In this chapter, we review the phenomenon of sexual harassment, beginning with its definition, the different forms it may take, means of measurement, and evidence about its prevalence and consequences. We then consider how sexual harassment might best be pre- vented and handled in organizations, basing our analysis on theory and research that inform our understanding ofits causes. At the end of the chapter, we discuss what we consider to be the most promis- ing directions for future research and practice on sexual harassment. Our review of sexual harassment is necessarily limited to what the empirical evidence offers to date. ‘This evidence often lags behind theoretical and legal treatments of the construct. As an example, most sexual harassment research focuses on unwanted sexual behavior from men toward women; we now know that sexual harassment often takes same-sex and nonsexual forms. As another example, most antecedents and consequences studied are at the individual level; scholars now recognize the impor- tance of group and organizational contributions to, and outcomes of, sexual harassment, The prevalence statistics we cite, the consequences we review, and the existing interventions adhere to a more limited understanding of sexual harassment and its causes and effects than is available to us now, This chapter is written with work organizations in mind, and we limit our review of the literature to research informing sexual harassment in these con- texts. Itis important to note, however, that sexual harassment is not just a workplace phenomenon. It occurs in schools, social gatherings, subways, and the streets, Ibis a pervasive social practice that can be considered part of the dark side of “doing gen- der” (West & Zimmerman, 1987) in everyday life. ‘This practice is not limited to work contexts, nor is it checked at the company door. Organizations can shape, dampen, or magnify it. We hope this chapter stimulates new scholarship and practice on how best to understand, prevent, and manage this pervasive form of sex discrimination at work, DEFINING SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment is "behavior that derogates, demeans, or humiliates an individual based on that individual's sex” (Berdahl, 2007b, p. 644). Such behavior may involve sexual force and degradation, sexist materials, comments and jokes, or other acts experienced by an individual because of his or her sex that ridicule, sabotage, threaten, or undermine that individual. Sex-based harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. At first glance, some forms of harass- ‘ment, such as sabotage or endangerment, may appear to have little or nothing to do with sex or gender! but ‘may nonetheless be directed ata target because of his or her sex. A behavior is psychologically harassing 'sec eles o bili defnton of male and female, whereas gender refer to sociocultural definitions of masculinity and femininity 64erdah and Raver ‘when itis experienced by an individual as threatening to his or her well-being (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997). We propose that it is socially harassing when, it demeans, ridicules, or undermines an individual in the eyes of others, and itis illegally harassing (in the United States) when it affects an individual's employment; unreasonably interferes with work performance; or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission {EEOC], 1980). This broad definition of sexual harassment is consistent with recent ones that do not limit the phenomenon to behavior ofa sexual nature (cf. Bildt, 2005; Franke, 1997; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc, 1998; Schultz, 1998). This may surprise readers new to this literature, who, like many, might still think of sexual harassment as some form of sexual coercion or force. Court rulings, scholars, and ‘many practitioners now understand sexwal harass- ‘ment to include nonsexual behaviors like social ridicule and work sabotage. This conceptualization of sexual harassment is reflected in the movie North Country (Caro, 2005), based on a true story, which portrays sexual harassment as a hostile campaign to drive women out of traditionally male jobs. A variety of strategies were used to harass and intimidate the ‘women—especially the woman who stood up to the ‘men—including physical threats, vandalism, slander, and ostracism. Sexual force played a minor role in the harassment. The continued focus on sexual behaviors undoubt- ‘edly stems from the term sexual harassment. It may also persist because it can be difficult to determine whether nonsexual harassment is targeted at an individual because of his or her sex. To bring the term more in line with its definition, scholars have suggested using “gender harassment” (Schultz, 1998) or “sex-based harassment” (Berdahl, 2007b) instead, We use the term sex-based harassment (SBH) to indicate our focus on harassment a victim experiences because of his or her sex. MEASURING SBH How do researchers know when an individual has been harassed on the basis of sex? The most common approach has been to ask people. There is the direct query method, in which respondents are directly asked if they have been sexually harassed, and the behavioral experience method, in which respondents are given a lst of behaviors considered harassing by the researchers and asked to indicate how often they experienced each behavior in a given timeframe. Of these methods, the behavioral experience one is more widely accepted. Direct queries rely on respondents’ ‘own definitions of SBH, which may vary widely across people, place, and time. Direct queries do not tell us what people experienced and why they consid- ‘ered it harassing (or not). Behavioral experience mea- sures do not ask respondents whether they have been sexually harassed, except as a criterion item at the end of the measure to assess the extent to which par- ticipants’ experiences correspond to their own assess- ‘ment. Respondents tend to apply more stringent criteria for judging harassment than researchers do (lies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003; Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999; Munson, Miner, & Hulin, 2001). Hies et al’s (2003) meta-analysis of data from more than 86,000 ‘women found that the direct query method showed an average harassment prevalence of 24% compared ‘with 58% using the behavioral experience method. This suggests that many women experience what researchers consider sexual harassment but do not consider themselves to have been harassed, The most widely used behavioral experience ‘method is based on the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), designed by Fitzgerald et al (1988) to measure women’s experiences of sexually harassing behaviors committed by men. On the basis of five dimensions of sexual behavior identified by Till (1980), Fitzgerald etal’ survey items included gen- der harassment, seductive behavior, sexual bribery, "Example of harassment onthe bass of sex include woman who receives catclls whereas her mal colleagues do not, man who is niicled for ‘having feminine characteristics that go unpunished i his emale colleagues, and an outspoken woman Who is bullied by a bos who rewards men and ‘hsequows women. Inca of these cases, the harassment would not have oecrred bu fo the sex ofthe targel Examples of harassment on the bass ‘of ender inca male and eal employees who ae hase for being sol spoken and tind (eg are subjected to mean pranks and called “wimps In these caves, the harassment would not have ocuted but forthe ender ofthe age. Ther ofcourse a great dea of overlap between ex-based fn gender haved harassment. Gender harassment against howe wi eminie characteris s moe likly to harm women than to hare men, ait ‘ne ficult distinguish ex an gendereed harassment individual cases For conceptual lary, however, we theoretically distinguish sex nd gender-based barssment oasexual coercion, and sexual assault or touching, Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow (1995) identified a three-dimensional structure to these behaviors: (@) gender harassment (sexual and/or sexist stories, remarks, and materials), (b) unwanted sexual attention (unwanted sexual discussions, invitations, and touch- ing), and (€) sexual coercion (extortion of sexual coop- eration with bribes and threats). The overall reliability of this scale has ranged from .75 (Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1995) to 96 (Cortina, 2001). The relia- bility ofthe subscales is typically in the 80-95 range for gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention ‘but has been as low as 41 for sexual coercion because of the low base rate of this behavior (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand & Magley, 1997). The number of items used to measure sexually harassing behaviors with the SEQ approach has ranged from 28 (Fitzgerald eta., 1988) to 8 (Cortina, ‘Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998). Depending on the context of interest, respondents have been asked to indicate if they have ever experienced these behaviors (eg., Fitzgerald et al. 1995) or if they have experi- enced them within their current organization (e.g,, Fitzgerald, Drasgow, et al., 1997). Depending on the perpetrators of interest, responses have been limited to male perpetrators (e.g., Cortina, 2001; Glomb etal, 1997; Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000); open to both male and female perpetrators (e.g., Berdahl & Aquino, 2006; Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998); limited to coworkers (e4g., Fitzgerald et al., 1988), superiors (e.g., Cortina etal, 1998) or both (e.g, Glomb etal, 1997); oF have been open to perpetrators of varying status, including. ‘customers and clients (e.g., Berdahl, 2003; Gettman & Gelfand, 2007). Depending on the timeframe of interest, respondents are asked if they have ever expe- rienced the behaviors (eg. Fitzgerald et al., 1988, 1995; Gelfand et al., 1995) or how often they have experienced them in the past year (e.g, Berdahl & Aquino, 2009; Fitzgerald, Magley, Drasgow, & Waldo, 1999; Stark, Chernyshenko, Lancaster, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2002) or 2 years (e.g., Berdahl, 2007c; Cortina, 2001; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, et al., 1997; Waldo et a., 1998; Wasti etal, Seaual Harassment 2000). Response options have included “never,” “once,” “more than once” (e.g,, Fitzgerald etal, 1988, 1995); “never,” “once or twice,” “sometimes,” “often,” “most of the time” (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, etal, 1997; Waldo et al, 1998); and “never,” “once or twice,” “three or four times,” “five or more times” (Berdahl & Aquino, 2009). tems have been adapted to measure sexual harass- ment in different contexts and have been created to reflect newly identified forms of SBH. The SEQ has been tailored for student and work samples (SEQ-E and SEQ-W, respectively; Fitzgerald et al., 1995), military samples (SEQ-DoD; Donovan & Drasgow, 1999; Fitzgerald et al. 1999), and Latina samples (Cortina, 2001). It has been translated into other languages and adapted to reflect local customs (Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002; Gelfand et al., 1995; Shaffer, Joplin, Bell, Lau, & Oguz, 2000; ‘Wasti et al., 2000). Items have been created to reflect “not man enough” harassment (Berdabl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Waldo et al., 1998), which involves ridiculing someone for pos- sessing devalued feminine characteristics or for failing to possess valued masculine ones. Sexist hos- tility items (e.., “Put you down or was condescend. ing to you because of your sex”) have been added to distinguish sexist from sexual hostility (e.., “Stared, leered, or ogled you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable”) as subtypes of gender harassment (Fitzgerald et al, 1999)? The SEQ has also been adapted to administer it to both men and women (Berdahl etal, 1996; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1996). The SEQ has been criticized along two main lines (Gutek, Murphy, & Douma, 2004). First, different administrations of the SEQ have varied in the number and wording of their items, the timeframe respon- dents are asked to report on, and the frequency options of their response scales. These variations make it difficult to compare results across studies using different versions of the SEQ. Second, the SEQ has traditionally measured how often people experience certain behaviors but not whether these behaviors bothered or harmed them, that is, not "he orginal measure of gender harassment (Fitzgerald etal, 1988) included five seul behavior items (e.g, “seductive remark"; "saing, esng, bling’), one ambiguous item ("treated you diferent due o your gender’), and one seit hortlity tem sexist remars about womens bear and eee options).