Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
DOI 10.1007/s12144-016-9421-7
Contending with Catcalling: The Role of System-justifying Beliefs
and Ambivalent Sexism in Predicting Women’s Coping
Experiences with (and Men’s Attributions for)
Stranger Harassment
Benjamin A. Saunders 1 & Crista Scaturro 1 & Christopher Guarino 1 & Elspeth Kelly 1
Published online: 27 February 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract The alarming frequency with which women face
stranger harassment (i.e., catcalling) calls for further under-
standing of how they cope with it, and the present research
sought to examine coping strategies within the context of sys-
tem justification theory (Jost and Banaji 1994). We explored
whether women’s strategies (Study 1) and men’s prescriptive
strategies (Study 2) for coping with stranger harassment were
associated with system-justifying motives. Study 1 (N = 143)
revealed that system justifying ideologies positively predicted
the degree to which women made benign attributions for
stranger harassment experiences. Additionally, we found that
self-esteem negatively predicted both: (a) women’s benign
attributions for stranger harassment and (b) women’s propen-
sity to engage in self-blame following stranger harassment
encounters. Study 2 (N = 117) found that ambivalent attitudes
toward women (i.e., benevolent and hostile sexism) differen-
tially predicted the degree to which men believed that women
should engage in active coping; hostile sexism negatively pre-
dicted active coping, while benevolent sexism positively pre-
dicted it. Hostile sexism also positively predicted the degree to
which men believed that women should make benign attribu-
tions, blame themselves, and employ passive coping strategies
when harassed by strangers. These results suggest that the
ways in which women cope with stranger harassment (and
the way that men felt that a stranger harassment victim should
* Benjamin A. Saunders
benjamin.saunders@liu.edu
1
Department of Psychology, Long Island University, 1 University
Plaza, Brooklyn, NY 11201-5372, USA
cope with her encounter) tended to result from their status
quo-legitimizing ideologies about gender relations.
Keywords Stranger harassment . System-justification .
Ambivalent sexism . Coping
At the age of 9, a man told me I had sexy legs. It caught
me off guard and I thought wow, I’ve never been called
sexy before. Shortly after men whistled at me and told
me I should unzip my sunflower skirt. I lost my
innocence. […] My twenties turned dangerous: I would
get followed or receive scary threats. I’m still finding
ways to handle the situation, that’s why I take this matter
seriously. Someday I know I might have to face this
again with a little girl when she gets her first catcall
by a grown man and I’m going to explain why it hap-
pened. As if it’s a milestone in a little girl’s life… How
can that be possibly explained to a child?
– Maria (2015, January 7) Re: As if it’s a milestone in a
girl’s life [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.
stopstreetharassment.org/2015/01/milestone/
There are many rites of passage folded into the fabric of
womanhood; shopping for a first bra, getting a first period, hav-
ing a first kiss – and sometimes the agony of waiting for all three
– are near-universal experiences in the transition from girl to
woman. However, there is a far more insidious initiation to wom-
anhood that is also nearly universal, often beginning at the same
time in their lives: Being harassed sexually by strangers on the
street. Stranger (or street) harassment, as the recent viral video
10 h of walking in NYC as a woman (Roberts, 2014)— and its 40
million YouTube views demonstrates— is a societal problem,
noteworthy not only because it adversely affects women, but also
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
because women’s encounters with stranger harassment are nearly
as unavoidable as they are ubiquitous.
The limited available research on experiences with stranger
harassment suggests that it is associated with self-
objectification (i.e., the tendency to regard oneself as a mere
sex object), experiences of body shame, and monitoring one’s
external appearance [Frederickson and Roberts 1997]). There
is considerably less research, however, devoted to women’s
coping experiences with stranger harassment, and this paper
will discuss two studies designed to examine the role of two
psychological phenomena in predicting women’s coping strat-
egies for stranger harassment as well as men’s views on how
women should cope with it: System-justifying ideologies and
ambivalent sexism. This paper will review the aforementioned
phenomena before reporting two studies that test whether they
predict (a) women’s strategies for coping with stranger harass-
ment, and (b) men’s prescriptive coping strategies for a ficti-
tious woman following an incident of stranger harassment.
Specifically, our first study examined the role of self-esteem
and system-justifying ideologies in predicting women’s cop-
ing experiences with stranger harassment. Our second study
further explored how men responded to a fictitious stranger
harassment vignette, with a particular focus on men’s views
on how women Bshould^ cope with stranger harassment and
whether men’s prescriptive strategies for coping with stranger
harassment were associated with ambivalent sexism.
Stranger Harassment
Though certainly not a new phenomenon in women’s lives,
stranger harassment has only recently become the focus of
serious academic study. Examined originally under the um-
brella of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald 1993; Rotundo et al.
2001), stranger harassment resembles the kind of sexual ha-
rassment that women experience in the workplace in that it
involves unwanted verbal (e.g., catcalls, whistling, hollering)
or non-verbal (e.g., following, leering, grabbing) sexual atten-
tion (Bowman 1993; Davidson et al. 2015; Fairchild and
Rudman 2008; Gardner 1995; Wesselmann and Kelly 2010).
But stranger harassment differs from traditional sexual harass-
ment in some important ways. First, stranger harassment oc-
curs, by definition, between two people who are unknown to
each other in public (Fairchild and Rudman 2008; Fairchild
2010). Accordingly, women might encounter stranger harass-
ment in any number of public settings, including activities like
walking down the street, waiting for or traveling via public
transportation, shopping in stores, or patronizing restaurants
or bars (Fairchild and Rudman 2008). Second, unlike sexual
harassment— which often occurs in professional or academic
contexts with an implied quid pro quo element (Fairchild and
Rudman 2008; Fitzgerald 1993; Gregus et al. 2014; McCarty
et al. 2014) — stranger harassment often occurs without a
325
clear purpose or agenda, as the contact between the two parties
tends to last only moments and is often one-sided. Finally,
women experience stranger harassment more frequently than
sexual harassment (MacMillan et al. 2000), and perhaps be-
cause of its unpredictable and unavoidable nature, research
suggests that women experience more negative outcomes in
response to stranger harassment than they experience in re-
sponse to sexual harassment involving non-strangers
(MacMillan et al. 2000). Compared to their experiences with
non-strangers, for example, women feel less safe when they
encounter strangers while alone at home at night, walking
alone at night, using public transportation at night, or walking
alone in parking garages (McCarty et al. 2014). Thus, in con-
trast to sexual harassment, researchers tend to conceptualize
stranger harassment as a fleeting, unwanted experience of
sexual attention in public spaces, and the recent evidence that
it produces more negative psychological outcomes than sexu-
al harassment suggests that women’s experiences with strang-
er harassment merit further scholarly examination.
In the relatively short time since stranger harassment has
received scholarly attention, it has most often been examined
through the lens of objectification theory (Davidson et al.
2015; Fairchild and Rudman 2008; Frederickson and
Roberts 1997; Gervais et al. 2011; Szymanski et al. 2011),
context effects (i.e., aspects of the harasser or the situation,
Fairchild 2010; McCarty et al. 2014; Riemer et al. 2014), and
women’s beliefs about men and their own personal safety
(Chaudoir and Quinn 2010; MacMillan et al. 2000). Much
of the research on women’s experiences with stranger harass-
ment has examined its negative mental health consequences,
which include symptoms of depression, self-objectification,
eating disorders, body shame, anxiety, and a diminished sense
of self (Esacove 1998; Fairchild and Rudman 2008; Fitzgerald
1993; Frederickson and Roberts 1997).
But no matter the lens through which stranger harassment
has been examined, convergent evidence suggests that
women’s collective experiences with stranger harassment are
virtually ubiquitous; in the first major study of its kind,
Canada’s Violence Against Women Survey found that— of
the more than twelve thousand women aged 18 or older who
participated— 85 % had experienced some form of stranger
harassment over their lifetime (MacMillan et al. 2000). More
recent research revealed relatively high prevalence rates for
stranger harassment among female college students; over
30 % of college-aged women reported experiencing catcalling
every few days, and over 40 % reported experiencing sexist
remarks or behavior at least once a month (Fairchild and
Rudman 2008). These experiences with stranger harassment
corresponded with an increased tendency to self-objectify in
addition to an increased fear and perceived risk of rape.
The prospect of encountering stranger harassment also
leads to a number of avoidant behaviors; a recent joint study
between Cornell University and the non-profit Hollaback
326
Project (Livingston 2015) found that— of 4872 American
women— 85 % had first experienced some form of stranger
harassment prior to age 17, and that stranger harassment had
palpable effects on women’s behavior, as stranger harassment
experiences have prompted women to alter their transporta-
tion routes or means (85 % of respondents), avoid particular
cities or areas altogether (72 %), avoid going out at night
(70 %), and change socialization patterns to avoid specific
people (63 %; Livingston 2015). Taken together, these find-
ings suggest that young women encounter the threat or nui-
sance of stranger harassment early (i.e., prior to adulthood)
and regularly, and that stranger harassment experiences result
in— among other things— self-objectification, increased fear,
a heightened perceived risk of rape, and avoidant behaviors.
Coping Responses Since experiences of stranger harassment
(1) tend to be fleeting, and (2) usually occur outside of aca-
demic, organizational, or professional contexts, women are
left with little in the way of formal or legal recourse against
their harassers (Bowman 1993; Nielsen 2000). Generally
speaking, women tend to avoid or ignore their harassers in
lieu of confronting them (Gruber 1989; Magley 2002), and
the limited evidence to date suggests that the tendency to
employ non-confrontational (i.e., passive) strategies over
more active ones also holds true for stranger harassment; pas-
sive coping is the most prevalent means by which women
cope with stranger harassment when compared to alternative
strategies, such as active coping (i.e., confronting or reporting
the harasser), engaging in self-blame, or making benign attri-
butions (i.e., assuming that the harasser meant well) for the
harassment (Fairchild and Rudman 2008).
What remains unclear, though, is how or whether women’s
strategies for coping with stranger harassment might be relat-
ed to ideologies about gender relations and self-esteem. Since
women employ passive coping strategies most frequently—
likely for safety concerns or to avoid additional hostility— we
anticipated that the restricted range for women’s reports of
passive coping strategies (i.e., because nearly all women
would report using passive coping strategies) would prevent
it from corresponding with much of anything; we therefore
did not expect self-esteem or ideologies about gender relations
to predict women’s use of passive coping. Prior research also
found that women who tended to employ self-blame or benign
attribution strategies for coping with stranger harassment also
tended to engage in more self-objectification (Fairchild and
Rudman 2008). Although we did not measure self-
objectification in the current research, we sought to extend
the above findings by examining whether women’s self-
esteem correlated with their benign attributions as well as their
propensity to blame themselves for encounters with stranger
harassment. To our knowledge, there is no available research
on the potentially explanatory role of ideologies about gender
relations in predicting experiences of stranger harassment (or,
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
specifically, coping with it) and the first goal of the present
research was to further elucidate the role of ideologies about
gender relations— in women’s experiences with stranger ha-
rassment— from the framework of system justification theory.
System Justification Theory
System justification theory (Jost and Banaji 1994) seeks to
explain why people seem to support and work to maintain
belief systems that bolster the status quo— even when doing
so appears to violate their self-interests— and the theory posits
that people hold complicated networks of deeply held beliefs,
motivations, and aspirations that lead to bolstering and legit-
imizing social systems. The sources of these unconscious be-
liefs range from personal to institutional, and include one’s
earliest family experiences and values, inherent intrapsychic
needs, and internalized social conditioning (Jost et al. 2004).
Because these beliefs are so deeply engrained in an individ-
ual’s psyche, they will motivate justifying behaviors even in
the face of evidence to the contrary, and people’s tendency to
justify beliefs and behaviors at odds with their experiences
underlie many prejudiced ideologies, including sexism
(Calogero and Jost 2011).
The roots of system justification theory are manifold, in-
cluding psychoanalytic theory, trait theory, cognitive disso-
nance theory, attribution theory, and even Marxism (Jost and
van der Toorn 2012). One common thread among these theo-
ries is that they argue that people tend to tolerate situations
(i.e., political, social, and economic ones) that are not to their
benefit primarily when they have few viable alternatives.
However, the major contribution of system justification theory
is the idea that people do not always tolerate circumstances out
of a sense of helplessness, but that even members of disad-
vantaged groups would— for psychological and ideological
reasons— want to believe that existing social systems are
legitimate, justified, and correct.
In a global sense, system justification fosters support for
social systems and institutions, and reinforces their resultant
values, norms, and standards of acceptability. In this way, the
psychological processes fueling system justification allow for
people to make seemingly legitimate justifications for social
policies, norms, and social conditions that they might other-
wise find harmful or oppressive (Kay and Friesen 2011). On
an interpersonal level, many of these justifications produce in-
group and out-group biases, stereotyping, strict adherence to
particular ideologies, and negative or positive attributions,
among others (Jost and Banaji 1994). In examining the role
of system justifying ideologies in coping with stranger harass-
ment, then, we reasoned that— interpersonally— women’s
tendency to view gender relations as fair and equitable would
predict the degree to which they make benign attributions for
male harassers.
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
Another facet of system justification theory suggests that
people often alternate between, on the one hand, blaming vic-
tims (or perhaps themselves) for their own misfortunes, or—
on the other hand— implicitly bestowing upon them comple-
mentary stereotypes (Kay et al. 2005). With regard to
women’s relatively lower status in society, system justification
theory suggests that people may rely upon opposing stereo-
types of women as either weaker (i.e., and therefore deserving
of lower status), or as more communal and nurturing as a kind
of Bconsolation prize^ to compensate for their perceived lower
status. Thus, in examining the role of system justifying ideol-
ogies in men’s reactions to a stranger harassment incident, the
second goal of the present research was to further examine
how men’s ideologies about gender relations guide their reac-
tions to women’s stranger harassment. In exploring men’s
reactions, we would expect men’s ideologies about women
to predict (a) the degree to which they blame female victims
of stranger harassment and (b) the degree to which they make
benign attributions for a male harasser’s behavior. But in ex-
amining the role of system justifying ideologies as they per-
tain to stranger harassment, we draw upon another literature—
ambivalent sexism (Glick and Fiske 1996, 2001)— to account
for men’s reactions. We argue that men may use opposing but
complimentary stereotypes about women as a means to,
broadly speaking, justify women’s subordination to men,
and specifically, to guide their reactions to stranger harass-
ment against women. Applying complementary stereotypes
to female victims of stranger harassment would therefore
serve as a system-justifying behavior that enhances women
who men perceive as maintaining traditional gender roles
(i.e., the status quo) and derogates those women who they
perceive as challenging them (Jackman 1994), and we will
discuss ambivalent sexism next.
Ambivalent Sexism
Men’s reactions to victims of stranger harassment might also
serve their system-justifying motives, and one way in which
these motives might manifest is by maintaining ambivalent
ideologies about those who endorse or challenge the status
quo. Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske 1996,
2001) proposes that people’s attitudes or ideologies toward
women tend to fall along two distinct-but-related dimensions:
hostility and benevolence. Whereas hostile sexism refers to
the belief that women are harmful to men and that women
seek to usurp the Bnatural order^ by taking men’s power, be-
nevolent sexism refers to the belief that women are the Bfairer
sex.^ Those who hold ambivalent attitudes toward women
also view women as inferior to men, and ambivalent sexists
both derogate women for their perceived failures (e.g. weak-
ness) and enhance them for perceived strengths (e.g. nurtur-
ing) in ways that legitimize sexist attitudes (Langford and
327
MacKinnon 2000). In this way, ambivalent sexism can pro-
vide justification for both aggressive behavior towards women
(e.g. Bwomen are asking for it^) and controlling, paternalistic
behavior (e.g. Bwomen need protecting^) that reinforce
existing gender inequalities (Sidanius et al. 1994).
Though not in the context of stranger harassment, there is
some support for the assertion that ambivalent stereotypes
about women serve system-justifying motives. For example,
activating complementary gender stereotypes enhances sup-
port for the status quo (i.e., the current state of gender rela-
tions) in both women and men (Jost and Kay 2005).
Furthermore, ambivalent stereotypes about women corre-
spond with decreased perceptions of women’s competence
(Langford and MacKinnon 2000), poorer performance on
cognitive tasks (Dardenne et al. 2007), and higher levels of
self-objectification (Calogero and Jost 2011). Building upon
this work, we examined whether men’s benevolent and hostile
attitudes toward women predicted their reactions to a female
stranger harassment victim.
Instead of asking men to report on their own experiences
with stranger harassment, our second study investigated the
prescriptions that men made for a fictitious female stranger
harassment victim. One postulate of system justification the-
ory is that people can justify the status quo by endorsing
stereotype-relevant ideologies (Jost and van der Toorn
2012). In the case of stranger harassment, we reasoned that
men’s prescriptive coping strategies for female victims would
stem in part from their benevolent and hostile ideologies re-
garding women. Women who cope with stranger harassment
actively, perhaps by confronting or reporting the harasser,
might be regarded as a challenge to the status quo; we there-
fore reasoned that hostile sexism should correlate negatively
with men’s active coping prescriptions for a stranger harass-
ment target. However, men who tend to hold benevolent ide-
ologies or stereotypes about women— in viewing them as
weaker and deserving of protection— might view stranger
harassment as unchivalrous and as a violation of the status
quo. Thus, benevolent sexism should positively predict men’s
active coping prescriptions for female stranger harassment
victims. In general, however, we reasoned that benevolent
sexism’s subjectively positive façade would render it ineffec-
tive in predicting a negative event like stranger harassment,
and that men’s hostile ideologies about women would more
powerfully predict passive coping, benign attributions, and
victim blaming than benevolent sexism. Additionally, ambiv-
alent sexism theory suggests that men’s hostility toward wom-
en is a form of control (Glick and Fiske 2011), and that it
represents men’s attempts to keep women Bin their place.^
Within the domain of stranger harassment, men might be mo-
tivated to keep the female victim in place psychologically by
prescribing that she do nothing following harassment (i.e.,
passive coping), suggest that the victim should consider the
harassment as flattery (i.e., benign attributions), or blame the
328
victim for her harassment (i.e., victim blaming), and this ra-
tionale guided our formal predictions.
Overview of the Present Research
The purpose of the present research was to examine the role of
self-esteem, system-justifying ideologies, and ambivalent sex-
ism in predicting (a) women’s coping experiences with strang-
er harassment, and (b) men’s prescriptions for women’s cop-
ing with stranger harassment among students at a diverse,
urban institution of higher learning. Examining experiences
with stranger harassment among students at an urban univer-
sity seems noteworthy for at least two reasons. First— and as
mentioned previously— female college students tend to expe-
rience relatively high levels of stranger harassment (Fairchild
and Rudman 2008). Second, prior research asserted that—
compared to women who reside in suburban or rural areas—
women who reside in metropolitan areas are more likely to
experience stranger harassment (Gardner 1995). Experiences
of stranger harassment therefore seems like a topic that under-
graduates at an urban university would be especially suited to
offer views on.
Study 1 examined the role of system-justifying ideologies
and self-esteem in predicting women’s coping experiences
with stranger harassment. Making benign attributions for in-
appropriate behavior is tantamount to internalizing the status
quo. Consistent with system justification theory, then, we pre-
dicted that women’s system-justifying ideologies would be
positively associated with making benign attributions for
stranger harassment encounters (Hypothesis 1 [H1]). We also
predicted that women’s self-esteem should be negatively relat-
ed to making benign attributions for stranger harassment
(Hypothesis 2 [H2]). Last, we predicted that self-blame—
perhaps the most worrisome form of coping with stranger
harassment— should be negatively associated with self-es-
teem. In other words, increases in women’s self-esteem should
correspond to decreases in self-blaming (Hypothesis 3 [H3]).
Study 2 explored how men responded to a fictitious strang-
er harassment vignette, with a particular focus on men’s views
on how women Bshould^ cope with stranger harassment and
whether men’s prescriptive suggestions for coping with
stranger harassment are tied to ambivalent sexism. Among
men, then, we predicted that ambivalent sexism would explain
how participants make prescriptions for a fictitious female
target in a stranger harassment vignette. Specifically, we pre-
dicted that hostile sexism should negatively predict men’s ac-
tive coping prescriptions for the stranger harassment target
(Hypothesis 4 [H4]); benevolent sexism, on the other hand,
should positively predict men’s active coping prescriptions
(Hypothesis 5 [H5]). In general, however, we expected that
men would prefer that women cope with stranger harassment
in ways that would maintain the status quo, and because
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
hostile sexism aligns well conceptually with the idea of keep-
ing women Bin line,^ we expected men’s level of hostile sex-
ism to predict passive coping, benign attributions, and victim
blaming more robustly than benevolent sexism (Hypothesis 6
[H6]). To put this another way, we predicted that hostile sex-
ism would positively predict men’s prescriptions for benign
attributions, passive coping, and victim blaming (Hypothesis
6a [H6a]), but that men’s levels of benevolent sexism would not
exert effects on the aforementioned coping strategies
(Hypothesis 6b [H6b]).
Data-Analytic Plan
Studies 1 and 2 employed correlational designs, and we tested
most of our predictions via standard multiple regression. In
doing so, each regression model involved two predictor vari-
ables and one outcome variable. We present each regression
model’s intercept, unstandardized regression coefficients, the
standard errors associated with each coefficient, t-tests of the
unique contribution of each predictor variable, and overall
model statistics. When our regression models yielded multiple
correlations that differed significantly from zero, we tested our
predictions by examining the model’s unstandardized regres-
sion coefficients (i.e., B weights). A predictor variable’s B
weight represents the change in an outcome variable associat-
ed with a one-unit increase in that predictor variable, holding
other predictor variables constant. Since each regression mod-
el involved two predictor variables, the B weight for a given
predictor variable reflected the unique contribution of that
variable while holding the other variable constant.
Missing Data One relatively common practice among multi-
variate researchers is to treat variables with missing data on
5 % or fewer of the cases with any procedure for handling
missing data, as most procedures for handling missing data
will yield similar results with so few missing values
(Tabachnick and Fidell 2013). Others offer that procedures
for handling missing variables may be ignored altogether
when no more than 5 % of cases have missing data (Meyers
et al. 2013). Neither study yielded missing values for more
than 2.6 % of participants’ cases; we therefore used listwise
deletion to accommodate the relatively small amount missing
data.
Study 1
Participants
One hundred forty-three female undergraduates at a
Northeastern, multicultural, urban university participated in
this study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 51 years
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
(M = 22.32, SD = 5.38), and the sample was ethnically di-
verse: 38 participants reported their ethnicity as African
American or Black, 23 reported their ethnicity as Asian or
Pacific Islander, 37 reported their ethnicity as Caucasian or
White, 19 reported their ethnicity as Latino/a or Hispanic,
seven reported their ethnicity as Arab or Middle Eastern, nine
reported their ethnicity as multi-racial, four reported BOther,^
and four opted not to report their ethnicity.
Procedure
Research assistants recruited students near popular campus
locations (e.g., the undergraduate library, student lounges
and commons, and various campus areas where students often
sit between classes) and asked them whether they had the time
to complete a short questionnaire in exchange for a piece of
candy. Eligible participants completed the informed consent
process prior to an administration of the following four mea-
sures: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-M;
Fairchild and Rudman 2008), Gender-specific System
Justification (Jost and Kay 2005), the Rosenberg Self-esteem
Scale (Rosenberg 1965), and the Coping with Stranger
Harassment Scale (CSHS; Fairchild and Rudman 2008).
Finally, participants completed a brief demographics question-
naire before being thanked and given 1–2 pieces of candy.
Measures
Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-M; Fairchild and
Rudman 2008) We used a nine-item version of the Sexual
Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al. 1995), modified
by Fairchild and Rudman (2008) to assess whether women
have ever experienced stranger harassment. The SEQ-M asks
participants to report the frequency with which they have ex-
perienced nine different street harassment behaviors ranging
in severity from unwanted sexual attention (e.g., BHow often
have you experienced catcalls, whistles, or stares from a
stranger^?) to groping (e.g., BHow often have you experi-
enced direct or forceful fondling or grabbing from a
stranger^?) on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (never) to
7 (everyday), and scores on these items were averaged to
create a reliable index of stranger harassment (α = 0.91).
Gender-specific System Justification (GSSJ; Jost and Kay
2005) Gender-specific system justification measures the de-
gree to which people view current gender relations and sex
role divisions as fair by asking participants to rate their agree-
ment with eight items (e.g., BIn general, relations between
men and women are fair,^ BThe division of labor in families
generally operates as it should^). Participants responded on 9-
point scales with the anchors of 1 (strongly disagree) and 9
(strongly agree). A reliability analysis revealed that the
Cronbach’s alpha for the full measure fell below conventional
329
standards (α = 0.63), and that deleting the measure’s two
reverse scored items (e.g., BGender roles need to be radically
restructured,^ BSexism in society is getting worse every
year^) yielded adequate internal consistency (α = 0.75). We
therefore used a six-item version of gender-specific system
justification for the present analyses.
Self-esteem (SES; Rosenberg 1965) We measured self-
esteem using Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item scale, and example
items include, BI feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an
equal plane with others,^ and BI certainly feel useless at times.
[reverse-scored]^). Participants responded on 4-point scales
with anchors of 0 (strongly disagree) and 3 (strongly agree),
and scores on these items were averaged to create a reliable
index of self-esteem (α = 0.84).
Coping Our primary outcome variable was the Coping with
Stranger Harassment Scale (CSHS; Fairchild and Rudman
2008), which measures how women cope with stranger ha-
rassment encounters. The 20-item CSHS asks participants to
report their reactions to stranger harassment encounters by
rating the degree to which a number of potential reactions
were self-characteristic. They endorsed items using 7-point
scales ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 7 (very much like
me). These behaviors correspond to one of four coping strat-
egies represented by the following subscales: Active coping
(e.g., BI reported him,^ BI let him know I did not like what he
was doing,^[α = 0.69]), passive coping (e.g., BI acted like I
did not notice,^ BI just let it go,^ [α = 0.82]), benign attribu-
tions (e.g., BI assumed he meant well,^ BI considered it
flattering,^ [α = 0.81]), and self-blame (e.g., BI blame myself
for what happened,^ BI felt stupid for letting myself get into
the situation.^ [α = 0.78]).
Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics for all
study variables. Inspection of the data revealed that the vari-
ables in the present study yielded missing data for no more
than 5 % of participants’ cases (Range: 0 % - 2.1 %); we
therefore used listwise deletion to accommodate missing
values in the following analyses.
Prior to testing our predictions, we explored whether our
sample’s experiences with stranger harassment and use of
strategies for coping with stranger harassment resembled the
pattern found in previous research. Specifically, Fairchild and
Rudman (2008) found (1) high prevalence rates for stranger
harassment in a sample of female undergraduates, and (2) that
women reported using passive coping strategies more than
they reported using active coping strategies, engaging in
self-blame, and making benign attributions.
Table 2 displays the frequency with which female partici-
pants’ reported experiencing stranger harassment. Summing
330 Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338

Table 1 Means, standard

deviations, and correlations Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
among the variables of interest in
study 1 1 Sexual Experiences Questionnaire — — — — — — —
2. Gender-specific System Justification −.04 — — — — — —
3. Self-esteem −.03 .06 — — — — —
4. Active Coping .05 .08 .05 — — — —
5. Benign Attributions .05 .20* −.21** −.05 — — —
6. Self-blame .12 .09 −.44** .04 .54** — —
7. Passive Coping .12 −.10 −.11 −.30 .09 .04 —
M 16.85 4.94 2.12 2.64 1.77 1.36 3.64
SD 11.86 1.39 0.50 1.41 1.27 1.33 1.31

N = 143
*= p < .05
**= p < .01

the latter three table columns (i.e., from BOnce a Month^ to
BEvery Few Days or More^) revealed that nearly 74 % of
participants reported experiencing catcalls, whistles, or stares
from strangers at least once a month, and roughly 47 % of
participants reported experiencing them every few days or
more. Participants’ self-reported frequency of unwanted sex-
ual attention resembled the results reported for catcalls, albeit
to a lesser degree; more than half (54.6 %) of participants
reported experiencing unwanted sexual attention at least once
a month, and 29 % of participants reported experiencing un-
wanted sexual attention every few days or more. The next
three items (BCrude or offensive sexual jokes,^ BSexist re-
marks or behaviors,^ and BSeductive remarks or ‘come ons’^)
refer to verbal harassment, and were reported to occur at least
monthly by 43 %, 41 %, and 47 %, respectively.
The remaining four scale items (BUnwanted touching or
stroking,^ BSubtle pressure to cooperate sexually,^ BDirect
pressure to cooperate sexually,^ and BForceful fondling or
grabbing^ refer to the more extreme versions of stranger ha-
rassment that could be characterized as sexual assault
(Fairchild and Rudman 2008), and participants reported
experiencing these forms of harassment with considerably less
frequency. That being said, the present results support
Gardner’s (1995) claim that stranger harassment occurs with
regularity for many women, and lends credence to the asser-
tion that experiences of stranger harassment are prevalent for
female undergraduates (Fairchild and Rudman 2008).
We conducted three paired samples t-tests to compare
women’s relative use of the four coping strategies examined
by the Coping with Stranger Harassment Scale: Active cop-
ing, benign attributions, passive coping, and self-blame. In
replicating Fairchild and Rudman’s (2008) work, each t-test
compared women’s use of passive coping to their use of one of
the three remaining coping strategies. These analyses revealed
that women reported using passive coping strategies
(M = 3.64, SD = 1.31) more than they reported using active
coping strategies (M = 2.64, SD = 1.41), making benign attri-
butions (M = 1.77, SD = 1.27), or engaging in self-blame
(M = 1.36, SD = 1.34, all t’s [142] > 5.43, all p’s < .001).
Accordingly, these results suggest that— as with sexual ha-
rassment research more broadly (e.g., Gruber 1989; Magley
2002), and with respect to prior stranger harassment research

Table 2 Reported frequency (in

percent) of women’s stranger Once a year Every Once a A few Every few
harassment experiences or less few month times per days or
months month more

Catcalls, whistles, or stares 11.2 15.4 9.1 17.5 46.9

Unwanted sexual attention 32.4 12.6 11.9 13.3 29.4
Crude or offensive sexual jokes 42.0 15.4 12.6 9.1 21.0
Sexist remarks or behaviors 44.4 14.7 12.6 9.8 18.2
Seductive remarks or Bcome ons^ 40.1 12.6 15.4 10.5 21.0
Unwanted touching or stroking 76.6 9.1 5.6 2.1 6.3
Subtle pressure to cooperate sexually 76.8 8.4 4.9 2.8 7.0
Direct pressure to cooperate sexually 85.3 6.3 2.8 1.4 4.2
Forceful fondling or grabbing 88.8 4.2 1.4 2.8 2.8
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338 331

specifically (Fairchild and Rudman 2008)— women tended to attributions for stranger harassment encounters. Furthermore,
report coping passively rather than engaging in self-blame, as self-esteem tended to increase, the tendency to make benign
making benign attributions, or coping actively following their attributions for stranger harassment encounters tended to de-
experiences with stranger harassment. crease. These results corroborate Hypotheses 1 and 2, respec-
tively; whether women tend to make benign attributions for
stranger harassment seems to be related to both their self-
Primary Results and Discussion
views as well as their beliefs as to whether current gender
relations are fair.
Recall that our first two predictions were that gender-specific
Our third prediction was that self-esteem would negatively
system justification and self-esteem would predict the degree
predict self-blaming for stranger harassment encounters, and
to which women made benign attributions for their stranger
our results were again consistent with this prediction.
harassment encounters. Specifically, we predicted that (1)
Specifically, a Pearson’s correlation revealed support for
gender-specific system justification would be positively asso-
Hypothesis 3; as self-esteem tended to increase, women’s ten-
ciated with making benign attributions, and (2) self-esteem
dency to blame themselves for stranger harassment encounters
would negatively predict benign attributions for stranger ha-
tended to decrease, r (141) = −.44, p = .00. Taken together, the
rassment encounters. To test these predictions, we performed a
results of Study 1 suggest that the degree to which women
standard multiple regression with benign attributions for
made benign attributions or blamed themselves for stranger
stranger harassment as the outcome variable and both
harassment depended in part on their self-views as well as
gender-specific system justification and self-esteem as the pre-
their ideologies regarding the fairness of current gender
dictor variables.
relations.
Table 3 displays the regression model’s intercept, unstan-
The primary goal of our second study was to link men’s
dardized regression coefficients (B), the standard errors asso-
ideologies about gender relations to their experiences with
ciated with each coefficient, t-tests of the unique contribution
stranger harassment. In establishing this link, we also rea-
of each predictor variable, and overall model statistics. Our
soned that men rarely, if ever, experience stranger harassment
analyses revealed that the joint effect of gender-specific sys-
from the perspective of victims even if they observe stranger
tem justification and self-esteem— as indicated by R— dif-
harassment with regularity. We therefore focused on men’s
fered significantly from zero, and that the model accounted for
beliefs about how a fictitious woman Bshould^ cope with in-
significant variability in benign attributions. Inspection of the
cidents of stranger harassment, and we predicted that men’s
B weights in the present model suggest that gender-specific
prescriptions for coping with stranger harassment would cor-
system justification— holding self-esteem constant— posi-
respond to their ideologies about women and gender relations.
tively predicted the degree to which women made benign
Recall that system justification theory posits that people can
attributions for their stranger harassment encounters
legitimize the status quo by endorsing stereotype-relevant ide-
(B = 0.20, t(140) = 2.64, p = .009). Self-esteem— when
ologies (Jost and van der Toorn 2012). Accordingly, we de-
gender-specific system justification was held constant — neg-
duced that the degree to which men hold benevolent and hos-
atively predicted the degree to which women made benign
tile ideologies (i.e., system-justifying ideologies) regarding
attributions for their stranger harassment encounters
women would predict their prescriptive coping strategies for
(B = −0.57, t(140) = −2.80, p = .006). Consistent with our
female stranger harassment victims, and we discuss men’s
predictions, then, as women’s belief that gender relations were
reactions to stranger harassment next.
fair tended to increase, so did their tendency to make benign

Table 3 Results of the multiple regression analysis predicting women’s Study 2

benign attributions for stranger harassment
Participants
Predictor B SE t df

Intercept 2.02 0.56 3.61* 140 One hundred seventeen male undergraduates at a
Gender-specific System Justification 0.20 0.07 2.64** 140 Northeastern, multicultural, urban university participated in
Self-esteem −0.57 0.20 −2.80** 140 this study in exchange for a piece of candy. Their ages ranged
Model Statistics df F R R2 from 18 to 61 years (M = 22.53, SD = 5.93), and the sample
2, 140 7.01** .30 .09 was ethnically diverse: 33 participants reported their ethnicity
as African American or Black, 24 reported their ethnicity as
N = 143 Asian or Pacific Islander, 22 reported their ethnicity as
*= p < .05 Caucasian or White, 11 reported their ethnicity as Latino/a
**= p < .01 or Hispanic, eight reported their ethnicity as Arab or Middle
332
Eastern, 12 reported their ethnicity as multi-racial, six reported
BOther,^ and one participant opted not to report his ethnicity.
Procedure
The procedures mirrored those reported for Study 1; research
assistants recruited students near popular campus locations
(e.g., outside the library) and eligible participants completed
the informed consent process prior to an administration of the
following psychological measures: The Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory (ASI; Glick and Fiske 1996) and a modified version
of the Coping with Stranger Harassment Scale (CSHS;
Fairchild and Rudman 2008). Participants then completed a
brief demographics questionnaire before being thanked and
given 1–2 pieces of candy.
Measures
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick and Fiske 1996)
The ASI measures 2 complimentary dimensions of sexism
that reflect opposing evaluative orientations toward women.
Hostile sexism (HS)— the subjectively negative orientation—
requires little explanation, and conforms to traditional notions
of sexism; example items include BWomen are too easily
offended^ and BWomen seek to gain power by getting control
over men.^ Alternatively, benevolent sexism items are subjec-
tively positive, and based on chivalrous portrayals of women
as good but childlike, incompetent, and needing men to pro-
tect them (e.g., BMany women have a quality of purity that
few men possess,^ and BWomen should be cherished and
protected by men.^) Both ASI dimensions assess sexism with
six-point scales ranging from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly), and the 11 items comprising each subscale were
averaged to form reliable indices of hostile sexism
(α = 0.78) and benevolent sexism (α = 0.75).
Prescriptive Coping As with Study 1, our primary outcome
variable was the Coping with Stranger Harassment Scale.
But— in a departure from Study 1— we used the CSHS to
examine how men think women should behave following a
stranger harassment encounter. We therefore altered the in-
structions to the following: BThere are a number of ways in
which people might respond to their experiences with
strangers in public. Please use the following scale to report
how you think the person in the description below should
respond.^ Participants then read the following vignette, based
on previous research (Fairchild 2010) before completing the
CSHS:
BDeanna is walking down the street. She notices a man
sitting on a bench. As she passes the man, he calls out to
her BHey, sexy baby. Looking hot today!^
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
The modified CSHS asked participants to rate their agree-
ment with a number of coping behavior items using 7-point
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The items were the same as those listed for the female sample,
modified to reflect how the person described in the vignette
should respond to the hypothetical stranger harassment en-
counter across the same four subscales: Active coping (e.g.,
BShe should talk to someone about what happened,^ BShe
should let him know that she did not like what he was do-
ing,^[α = 0.76]), passive coping (e.g., BShe should act like she
did not notice,^ BShe should just let it go,^ [α = 0.91]), benign
attributions (e.g., BShe should assume he meant well,^ BShe
should consider it flattering,^ [α = 0.87]), and victim-blaming
(e.g., BShe should blame herself for what happened,^ BShe
should feel stupid for letting herself get into the situation.^
[α = 0.78]).
Preliminary Analyses
Table 4 displays the correlations and descriptive statistics for
all study variables. Inspection of the data revealed that the
variables assessed in Study 2 yielded missing data for no more
than 5 % of participants’ cases (Range: 0 % - 2.6 %), and we
again used listwise deletion to accommodate missing values in
the following analyses. Prior to testing our predictions, we
explored whether men’s prescriptive coping strategies for
stranger harassment were consistent with the general pattern
found in Study 1 as well as in previous research, and they
were; paired samples t-tests again revealed that men suggested
that the stranger harassment target should use passive coping
strategies (M = 3.58, SD = 1.62) more than they prescribed
active coping (M = 2.85, SD = 1.49), benign attributions
(M = 2.15, SD = 1.43), or victim blaming (M = 1.38,
SD = 1.35, all t’s [116] > 3.18, all p’s < .01). Thus, these results
suggest that men tended to believe that the fictitious woman in
our stranger harassment vignette should cope passively rather
than actively following her encounter with stranger
harassment.
Primary Results and Discussion
Remember that we expected men’s ambivalence toward wom-
en to predict how the stranger harassment victim should cope
with her encounter. That is to say, hostile sexism should cor-
relate negatively with men’s active coping prescriptions for
the stranger harassment target, and benevolent sexism should
positively predict men’s active coping prescriptions.
We also expected that men would prefer that women cope
with stranger harassment in ways that would maintain the
status quo. Since hostile sexism corresponds with the idea of
controlling women (or believing that women should be kept in
line), we expected men’s hostility toward women to predict
passive coping, benign attributions, and victim blaming. To
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338 333

Table 4 Means, standard

deviations, and correlations Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
among the variables of interest in
study 2 1. Benevolent Sexism — — — — — —
2. Hostile Sexism .15 — — — — —
3. Active Coping .20* −.22* — — — —
4. Benign Attributions .00 .27** −.09 — — —
5. Victim-blaming .11 .27** .06 .33** — —
6. Passive Coping .05 .30** −.27** .16 .08 —
M 2.66 2.56 2.84 2.15 1.38 3.58
SD 0.85 0.85 1.49 1.43 1.35 1.62

N = 117
*= p < .05
**= p < .01

test these predictions we performed standard multiple regres-
sion analyses. We used each coping strategy for stranger ha-
rassment (active coping, benign attributions, passive coping,
and victim blaming) as outcome variables in separate analy-
ses, and we entered benevolent and hostile sexism as predictor
variables.
Table 5 displays each regression model’s intercept, unstan-
dardized regression coefficients (B), the standard errors asso-
ciated with each coefficient, t-tests of the unique contribution
of each predictor variable, and overall model statistics. Across
each coping strategy, we found support for our predictions.
Active Coping Our analyses revealed that the joint effect of
benevolent and hostile sexism differed significantly from zero,
and that the model accounted for significant variability in
men’s prescriptions for active coping. Inspection of the B
weights in the present model suggested that hostile sexism—
when benevolent sexism was held constant— negatively pre-
dicted the degree to which men felt that the stranger harass-
ment target should engage in active coping (B = −0.45,
t(114) = −2.85, p = .005). Consistent with Hypothesis 4, as
men’s hostility toward women tended to increase, their pre-
scriptions for active coping tended to decrease. Moreover,
when hostile sexism was held constant, benevolent sexism
positively predicted men’s attitudes toward active coping
(B = 0.41, t(114) = 2.61, p = .01). In support of Hypothesis
5, as men’s benevolence toward women tended to increase,
their prescriptions for active coping also tended to increase.
Taken together, these results imply that increases in men’s
hostility toward women might be associated with the view
that active coping is a challenge to the status quo. However,
as men’s benevolence toward women tended to increase
(which is associated with the belief that women are weaker
and deserving of protection) they likely viewed the fictitious
stranger harassment vignette as an unchivalrous violation of
the status quo and recommended active coping to women as a
means of maintaining their belief that women, as the Bfairer^
sex, require protection.
Recall that we hypothesized that men would prefer that
women cope with stranger harassment in ways that would
maintain the status quo, and we expected men’s level of hos-
tile sexism to predict passive coping, benign attributions, and
victim blaming more robustly than benevolent sexism. In oth-
er words, we predicted that hostile sexism would positively
predict men’s prescriptions for benign attributions, passive
coping, and victim blaming (Hypothesis 6a [H6a]), but that

Table 5 Results of the multiple regression analyses predicting men’s prescriptive coping strategies for women’s stranger harassment experiences

Active coping Benign attributions Passive coping Victim-blaming

Predictor B SE t df B SE t df B SE t df B SE t df

Intercept 2.90 0.55 5.27** 114 1.14 0.54 2.13* 114 2.09 0.60 3.48** 114 0.03 0.50 0.06 114
Benevolent Sexism 0.41 0.16 2.61** 114 −0.06 0.15 −0.42 114 0.01 0.17 0.10 114 0.11 0.14 0.78 114
Hostile Sexism −0.45 0.16 −2.85** 114 0.46 0.15 3.02** 114 0.56 0.17 3.30** 114 0.41 0.14 2.85** 114
Model Statistics df F R R2 df F R R2 df F R R2 df F R R2
2, 114 6.48** .32 .10 2, 114 4.57** .27 .07 2, 114 5.61** .30 .09 2, 114 4.82** .28 .08

N = 117
*= p < .05
**= p < .01
334
men’s levels of benevolent sexism would not exert effects on
the aforementioned coping strategies (Hypothesis 6b [H6b]).
The following analyses revealed support for Hypotheses 6a
and 6b, respectively.
Passive Coping The multiple correlation coefficient for the
effect of ambivalent sexism (i.e., the joint effect of benevolent
and hostile sexism) also differed significantly from zero, and
the present model accounted for significant variability in
men’s prescriptions for passive coping.
Although inspection of the B weights in the present model
suggest that benevolent sexism was unrelated to men’s atti-
tudes toward the stranger harassment target’s use of passive
coping strategies (β = 0.02, t(114) = 0.10, p = .92), hostile
sexism positively predicted the degree to which men felt that
the stranger harassment target should engage in passive cop-
ing (β = 0.56, t(114) = 3.30, p = .001). Given that benevolent
sexism, which is regarded generally as the belief that women
are nurturing-but-weak, and deserving of protection, was un-
related to passive coping strategies, we doubt that their pre-
scription for passive coping emerged from concerns for
women’s safety; that hostility toward women positively pre-
dicted men’s passive coping prescriptions suggests that— by
believing that women should do nothing to change their con-
ditions with respect to stranger harassment— men with hos-
tility toward women were motivated to maintain their view of
gender relations as fair.
Benign Attributions The results reported for benign attribu-
tions mirror those reported for passive coping; the multiple
correlation for the effect of ambivalent sexism on men’s pre-
scriptions for benign attributions differed significantly from
zero, and the present model accounted for significant variabil-
ity in men’s prescriptions for benign attributions.
Examination of the B weights in the present model suggests
that benevolent sexism was unrelated to men’s prescriptions
for benign attributions (β = −0.06, t(114) = −0.42, p = .68).
However, hostile sexism positively predicted the degree to
which men felt that the stranger harassment target should
make benign attributions for her experiences with stranger
harassment (β = 0.46, t(114) = 3.02, p = .00). Thus, as men’s
hostility toward women tended to increase, so too did their
prescriptions for benign attributions; that is to say, as men’s
hostility toward women increased, they became more likely to
view stranger harassment as something that— as a kind of
flattery— women should embrace.
Victim Blaming Last, the results reported for victim blaming
were consistent with those reported for passive coping and
benign attributions. Specifically, the multiple correlation for
the effect of ambivalent sexism on men’s victim blaming dif-
fered significantly from zero, and the present model accounted
for significant variability in men’s victim blaming.
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
Examination of the B weights in the present model demon-
strated that benevolent sexism was again unrelated to victim
blaming (β = 0.11, t(114) = 0.78, p = .44), but that hostile
sexism positively predicted the degree to which men blamed
the stranger harassment target for her stranger harassment en-
counter (β = 0.41, t(114) = 2.85, p = .01). Thus, increases in
men’s hostility toward women were associated with increases
in men’s tendency to blame the stranger harassment target,
perhaps as a means of maintaining their belief that current
gender relations are fair.
Collectively, the results of Study 2 suggest that the ways in
which men felt that a stranger harassment victim should cope
with her encounter tended to result from their status quo-
legitimizing ideologies about gender relations (i.e., ambiva-
lent sexism), and that their pattern of coping prescriptions
operated in ways that serve to maintain the status quo.
Consistent with Hypotheses 4–5, benevolent and hostile sex-
ism differentially predicted men’s prescriptions for active cop-
ing, such that benevolent sexism positively predicted prescrip-
tions for active coping while hostile sexism negatively pre-
dicted them. Furthermore, men’s prescriptions for passive
coping, benign attributions, and victim blaming were concor-
dant with Hypothesis 6; while hostile sexism positively pre-
dicted each of the aforementioned coping styles (Hypothesis
6a), benevolent sexism yielded no statistically significant ef-
fects in either direction (Hypothesis 6b).
General Discussion
Given the alarming frequency with which women face strang-
er harassment, understanding how they cope with it should
provide insight into an experience fraught with harmful impli-
cations for women’s mental health. By examining coping
strategies within the context of system justifying ideologies,
we were able to align both women’s responses to stranger
harassment and men’s beliefs about how women should re-
spond to it with an established social-psychological theory.
Study 1 revealed that system justifying ideologies positive-
ly predicted the degree to which women made benign attribu-
tions for their encounters with stranger harassment.
Additionally, we found that self-esteem negatively predicted
both: (a) women’s benign attributions for stranger harassment
and (b) women’s propensity to engage in self-blame following
stranger harassment encounters.
In a sample of men, moreover, Study 2 found that benev-
olent sexism positively predicted the degree to which men
believed that women should engage in active and passive
coping when facing stranger harassment. The relationship be-
tween the complementary dimensions comprising ambiva-
lence toward women– hostile and benevolent sexism– and
the various coping styles is more complex. Hostile sexism
and benevolent sexism differentially predicted the degree to
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
which men believed that women should engage in active cop-
ing. Specifically, hostile sexism negatively predicted active
coping, while benevolent sexism positively predicted it.
Study 2 did not reveal any other significant relationships be-
tween benevolent sexism and prescriptive coping strategies.
However, when controlling for benevolent sexism, hostile
sexism positively predicted the degree to which men thought
that a female target should (a) make benign attributions for her
stranger harassment experiences, (b) blame herself for experi-
ences with stranger harassment (i.e., victim-blame), and (c)
employ passive coping strategies for coping with stranger
harassment.
Theoretical Implications
Findings from both the female and male samples support pre-
dictions made by system justification theory. Our findings
from the female sample support Jost and van der Toorn’s
(2012) assertion that system justification motivation conflicts
with ego justification, in that women who reported relatively
lower self-esteem tended to make benign attributions and
blame themselves. Importantly, gender-specific system justi-
fication also predicted women’s benign attributions for strang-
er harassment, and, collectively, these results support the idea
that women’s coping reactions to stranger harassment in part
reflect the degree to which women view the current state of
gender relations as fair or unfair. Given women’s relative so-
cietal disadvantage compared to men, both nationally and in-
ternationally, these results corroborate system justification
theory’s assertion that the more that people from disadvan-
taged groups tend to justify the system, the more they tend
to suffer in terms of subjective well-being (Jost et al. 2002;
Jost and Thompson 2000; O’Brien and Major 2005).
We offer a similar interpretation for the relationship be-
tween men’s hostility toward women and their suggestions
that women utilize passive coping— men’s prescriptions for
coping with stranger harassment tended to operate in ways
that maintain the current state of affairs. In considering the
reported relationship between hostile sexism and victim-
blame, we offer the interpretation that, when women take on
passive roles, men retain the dominant position, and the status
quo is maintained. However, while men might expect to dom-
inate women, they are also dependent on them for both emo-
tional and physical intimacy in heterosexual relationships
(Glick and Fiske 1996). As such, sexist men may perceive a
sexually attractive woman as a threat to their dominance,
resulting in hostility towards her. Thus, a sexist man believes
that the women he accosts draw his attention purposefully
with the intent to control him. Therefore, if women are
offended by men’s attention, then women themselves are to
blame.
But in addition to blaming female victims for stranger ha-
rassment, our results support the notion that men with hostility
335
toward women believe that women should accept men’s ad-
vances as benign, perhaps because they themselves believe
them to be well-intentioned and good natured. Hostile male
sexists might maintain this belief because, on one hand, they
see women’s means of coping, with the exception of active
coping, as appropriate. On the other hand, what hostile male
sexists might not realize is that their reactions to stranger ha-
rassment are self-serving to the extent that they reinforce un-
fair gender relations.
Somewhat less clear are the implications of the relationship
that we observed in the male sample between benevolent sex-
ism and men’s suggestions that women use active coping for
stranger harassment. While it is possible that benevolently
sexist men recognize stranger harassment as a social problem,
they may not view it as sexist or as promoting unequal gender
relations. Since men with benevolent attitudes toward women
view them as vulnerable and in need of their protection, it also
seems plausible that they view acts of stranger harassment as
unchivalrous violations of their belief that women deserve
protection. We believe that further research into how men with
benevolent attitudes toward women actually perceive women
who cope actively with stranger harassment would not only be
of theoretical interest, but practically valuable to stranger ha-
rassment outreach and activist organizations.
Practical Implications
Our findings open several possible ways to address stranger
harassment. The negative relationship between self-esteem
and both benign attributions and self-blame in the female
sample suggests that interventions designed to reduce self-
blaming might change the way that women respond to strang-
er harassment. Prior research has found, for example, that low
self-esteem in conjunction with a negative, self-blaming attri-
butional style, increases vulnerability to depression (Robinson
et al. 1995). Although research on self-esteem interventions
suggests that they are equivocal at best (see Baumeister et al.
2003 for a review), the negative relationship that we observed
between self-esteem and self-blaming might suggest that re-
ducing the degree to which women blame themselves for their
experiences of stranger harassment might result in fewer or
less intense negative reactions to stranger harassment.
We also believe that our findings from the male sample can
help address men’s role in perpetuating stranger harassment.
Considering these findings from the perspective of system
justification theory, we see men’s willingness to continue
harassing women as at least partially resulting from a form a
confirmation bias, which itself might result from system-
justifying motivations. This bias allows men to view the vic-
tims of stranger harassment as responsible for their own mis-
fortune and further reinforces unequal gender relations.
Whether men harass women or simply observe it, they are
nonetheless members of the relatively dominant-and-high
336
status group, and their prescriptive coping strategies for wom-
en might further legitimize their belief systems and bolster
their self-esteem.
To illustrate this process, consider a woman experiencing
stranger harassment. She can cope with the harassment actively
by directly confronting her harasser or talking to someone about
it, attributing good intentions to her harasser’s behavior (BHe was
complimenting me^), ignoring the harassment, or blaming her-
self for the harassment. As our findings show a positive relation-
ship between hostile sexism and the latter three forms of coping
in men, we would expect harassers to view these as appropriate,
and thus system justifying responses. However, we would expect
harassers to perceive women who confront them as system
threats or as Bbad,^ dangerous women. To combat this misper-
ception, we invoke Jost and van der Toorn’s (2012) proposition
that members of a system are more likely to accept change if it is
perceived as partially congruent with the system or its ideals. The
relationship that we observed between benevolent sexism and
active coping in the male sample may provide a starting point
for promoting more effective responses by women that would—
to the harasser— seem less confrontational, but also discourage
further harassment.
Limitations
While the findings of this study indicated many of the antic-
ipated relationships between system justifying ideologies, am-
bivalent sexism, and coping responses to stranger harassment,
its findings may be limited in a number of ways. Although our
results aligned well with theory, they were nonetheless corre-
lational and leave open the question of causal direction; ma-
nipulating aspects of system justification theory, such as sys-
tem justification salience (Bonnot and Jost 2014) gender in-
equality salience (Laurin et al. 2011), or exposure to sexism
(Calogero and Jost 2011; Jost and Kay 2005) would further
clarify the role of system-justifying motives in experiences
with stranger harassment.
Additionally, the present research— rather than observing
people’s real-life exposure to stranger harassment directly—
relied on self-report data to understand participants’ reactions
to stranger harassment and subsequent responses to the harass-
er. Indeed, research has found that observers of sexual harass-
ment anticipate that they, themselves, would engage in greater
confrontation than the majority of victims actually do
(Diekmann et al. 2013), suggesting that people may overesti-
mate their tendency to employ active coping mechanisms.
However, self-report was deemed to be the most prudent
method for this area of research, given the unethical and po-
tentially harmful effects of subjecting the subject to simulated
stranger harassment. Furthermore, the inbuilt anonymity of
self-reports may be more likely to create an atmosphere in
which the participants could express unpopular beliefs about
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
gender equality and how they believe women should respond
to stranger harassment.
The demographics of the sample population may similarly
affect the generalizability of the study’s findings. Specifically,
research participants in this study lived in New York City— a
city in which a large number of residents travel by walking or
by public transportation rather than by vehicle, thus exposing
them to a higher likelihood of being harassed by strangers than
those who live in less dense areas. While it is unknown how
this study’s participants’ presumably higher frequency of
stranger harassment exposure might influence their coping
style (Study 1) and beliefs as to how others should cope
(Study 2), research has demonstrated that 85 % of American
women first experienced stranger harassment prior to age 17
(Livingston 2015), suggesting that our participants’ presum-
ably high frequency of experienced or witnessed stranger ha-
rassment may actually be more representative of the general
population than not.
Future Directions
Although this research clarified how people may perceive and
respond to stranger harassment, and— importantly— how those
perceptions and responses are associated with system-justifying
motives and ambivalent sexism, a number of factors may further
our understanding of this problematic yet prevalent occurrence.
For example, while the stranger harassment vignette used in this
study was intentionally vague and did not specify physical char-
acteristics of the perpetrator or harassed woman, future manipu-
lations of these physical characteristics may expand our under-
standing of whether individuals use visual cues to inform their
understanding and response to stranger harassment. For example,
men may look to women’s clothing to determine whether she
was Binviting^ (e.g., revealing clothing) or Bdissuading^ (e.g.,
conservative clothing) harassment with her attire.
Similarly, manipulating the race or ethnicity of the perpetrator
may alter women’s response to harassment as well as their antic-
ipated coping mechanisms. While women may rely on racial
stereotypes to inform their perceived level of safety and subse-
quent response to harassment, the relationship between stranger
harassment and race may also be more complicated. Indeed,
research has demonstrated that Black women appraise sexual
harassment by a White man more negatively than sexual harass-
ment by a Black man (Woods et al. 2009). Future studies should
explore how physical characteristics influence how individuals
interpret and respond to stranger harassment.
Examining a number of additional variables may further
clarify our understanding of stranger harassment. For exam-
ple, need for cognitive closure (NfCC; Roets and Van Hiel
2011), a psychological variable that describes one’s need to
avoid ambiguity and arrive at an answer, regardless of whether
that answer is correct, may affect how both men and women
appraise stranger harassment. Higher levels of need for
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
cognitive closure may be associated with the belief that wom-
en must have Basked^ for the stranger harassment or that the
perpetrator must have been well-intentioned, as having to rec-
oncile one’s stranger harassment observations with one’s be-
lief that society is fair and equitable for both genders might
present a considerable challenge, particularly for people who
need cognitive closure. Additionally, asking participants to
recommend a Bpunishment^ for the perpetrator may deepen
our understanding of the complexities of how individuals ap-
praise and respond to stranger harassment. For example, while
a woman may report that she engages in self-blame when she
is harassed, it does not necessarily suggest that she believes
the perpetrator is blame-free. Although our current study
sought to understand both how women coped and how men
believed women should cope with stranger harassment, we
have yet to fully understand what repercussions people think
a stranger harassment perpetrator should face.
Conclusions
While it is difficult to make sense of a hurtful and often trau-
matizing event such as stranger harassment, this study’s re-
sults begin to help us understand the factors that influence the
different way people appraise and cope with it. Our findings
suggest that system-justifying ideologies, ambivalent sexism,
and self-esteem predict how women cope, as well as how men
believe women should cope, with stranger harassment.
As evidenced by the recent media attention surrounding
stranger harassment, as well as the experiences of its countless
victims, stranger harassment is a very real problem with tre-
mendous psychological ramifications for those that experi-
ence and witness it. While we recognize that stranger harass-
ment is merely a symptom of a larger societal problem, it is
our hope that our research will contribute to and encourage a
necessary dialogue about how society should address this op-
pressive phenomenon.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Trisha Beharry, Latoya
McIntosh, Stephanie Nuñez, Ruth Pena, and Keon Pipkin for their assis-
tance with data collection.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship, or publication of this article.
Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving hu-
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical stan-
dards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by
any of the authors.
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
337
Conflict of interest Benjamin A. Saunders, Crista Scaturro,
Christopher Guarino, and Elspeth Kelly declare that they have no con-
flicts of interest.
References
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003).
Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal suc-
cess, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 4, 1–44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431.
Bonnot, V. & Jost, J. T. (2014). Divergent effects of system justification
salience on the academic self-assessments of men and women.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 453–464. doi:10.
1177/1368430213512008.
Bowman, C. G. (1993). Street harassment and the informal ghettoization
of women. Harvard Law Review, 106, 517–580.
Calogero, R. M. & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women:
Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective
function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 211–228. doi:10.1037/a0021864.
Chaudoir, S. R. & Quinn, D. M. (2010). Bystander sexism in the inter-
group context: The impact of cat-calls on women’s reactions to-
wards men. Sex Roles, 62, 623–634. doi:10.1007/s11199009-
9735-0.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of
benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764.
Davidson, M. M., Gervais, S. J., & Sherd, L. W. (2015). The ripple effects
of stranger harassment on objectification of self and others.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 53–66. doi:10.1177/
0361684313514371.
Diekmann, K. A., Sillito Walker, S. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Tenbrunsel, A.
E. (2013). Double victimization in the workplace: Why observers
condemn passive victims of sexual harassment. Organization
Science, 24, 614–628. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0753.
Esacove, A. W. (1998). A diminishing of self: Women’s experiences of
unwanted sexual attention. Health Care for Women International,
19, 181–192. doi:10.1080/073993398246359.
Fairchild, K. (2010). Context effects on women’s perceptions of stranger
harassment. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 14,
191–216. doi:10.1007/s12119-010-9070-1.
Fairchild, K. & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and
women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338–357. doi:
10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in
the workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076. doi:10.
1037/0003-066X.48.10.1070.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual
harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445. doi:10.1207/
s15324834basp1704_2.
Frederickson, B. L. & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health
risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.
1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and public harassment.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011). What you see is what you
get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men.
338
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 5–17. doi:10.1177/
0361684310386121.
Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and
benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender in-
equality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.56.2.109.
Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535. doi:10.1177/0361684311414832.
Gregus, S. J., Rummell, C. M., Rankin, T. J., & Levant, R. F. (2014).
Women’s experiences of sexual attention: A cross-sectional study of
U.S. university students. International Journal of Sexual Health, 26,
239–257. doi:10.1080/19317611.2014.885922.
Gruber, J. E. (1989). How women handle sexual harassment: A literature
review. Sociology & Social Research, 74, 3–9.
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in
gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Jost, J. T. & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-
justification and the production of false consciousness. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.
1994.tb01008.x.
Jost, J. T. & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and
complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and
diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.
Jost, J. T. & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and oppo-
sition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocen-
trism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and
European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.
Jost, J. T. & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. A.
Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 313–344). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. R. (2002). Nonconscious forms
of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for
higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 586–602. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system
justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and uncon-
scious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–
920. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.
Kay, A. C. & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change:
Understanding when system justification does and does not occur.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. doi:10.
1177/0963721411422059.
Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., & Young, S. (2005). Victim derogation and victim
enhancement as alternate routes to system justification.
Psychological Science, 16, 240–246. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.
2005.00810.x.
Langford, T. & MacKinnon, N. J. (2000). The affective bases for the
gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 34–48.
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Shepherd, S. (2011). Self-stereotyping as a
route to system justification. Social Cognition, 29, 360–375. doi:
10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.360.
Livingston, B. A. (2015). Hollaback! International Street Harassment
Survey Project. Retrieved on September4, 2015, from http://www.
Curr Psychol (2017) 36:324–338
ihollaback.org/cornell-international-survey-on-street-harassment/
#us
MacMillan, R., Nierobisz, A., & Welsh, S. (2000). Experiencing the
streets: Harassment and perceptions of safety among women.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 306–322. doi:
10.1177/0022427800037003003.
Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing
women’s resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 930–946. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.930.
McCarty, M. K., Iannone, N. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2014). Stranger danger:
The role of perpetrator and context in moderating reactions to sexual
harassment. Sexuality and Culture, 18, 739–758. doi:10.1007/
s12119-013-9215-0.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate
research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nielsen, L. B. (2000). Situating legal consciousness: Experiences and
attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment. Law
& Society Review, 34, 1055–1090.
O’Brien, L. T. & Major, B. (2005). System-justifying beliefs and psycho-
logical well-being: The roles of group status and identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729. doi:
10.1177/0146167205278261.
Riemer, A., Chaudoir, S., & Earnshaw, V. (2014). What looks like sexism
and why? The effect of comment type and perpetrator type on
women’s perceptions of sexism. Journal of General Psychology,
141, 263–279. doi:10.1080/00221309.2014.907769.
Roberts, S. B. [Street Harassment Video]. (2014). 10 hours of walking in
NYC as a woman [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
Robinson, N. S., Garber, J., & Hilsman, R. (1995). Cognitions and stress:
Direct and moderating effects on depressive versus externalizing
symptoms during the junior high school transition. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 104, 453–463. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.
104.3.453.
Roets, A. & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief,
15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 90–94. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic
review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 924–922. doi:10.1037//0021-
9010.86.5.914.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation
and the political psychology of gender: A case of variance? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998–1001.
Szymanski, D. M., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectifi-
cation of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling
Psychologist, 39, 6–38. doi:10.1177/0011000010378402.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wesselmann, E. D. & Kelly, J. R. (2010). Cat-calls and culpability:
Investigating the frequency and functions of stranger harassment.
Sex Roles, 63, 451–462. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9830-2.
Woods, K. C., Buchanan, N. T., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Sexual harass-
ment across the color line: Experiences and outcomes of cross- vs.
intra-racial sexual harassment among Black women. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 67–76. doi:10.
1037/a0013541.