1. Sheila T. Brassel1, Isis H. Settles1,2, NiCole T. Buchanan3
Lay Perceptions of Sexual Harassment toward Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Minorities
Sheila T. Brassel1, Isis H. Settles1,2, NiCole T. Buchanan3
1Dept. of Psychology, 2Dept. of Afroamerican and African Studies, University of Michigan; 3Dept. of Psychology, Michigan State University
Background
H1: Results
H2: Results
Delete
Relative relationships between target conditions and endorsement of the power, prejudice, gender policing, and attraction motives, and perceptions of SH acceptability.
Gender and sexual minority employees frequently experience sexual harassment (SH) in the workplace (Grant et al., 2011; Rabelo & Cortina, 2014).
SH often serves to maintain and reinforce traditional gender roles that emphasize heterosexuality and gender power hierarchies (Berdahl, 2007b; Konik & Cortina, 2008).
Lay perceptions of the motivations for and acceptability of SH impact managerial policy and employee beliefs about appropriate workplace behavior (Cortina & Berdahl, 2008).
Research is needed that explicitly examines the relationship between lay perceptions of prejudice and gender policing as motivations for SH and beliefs about its acceptability.
Do perceptions of SH vary depending on whether the target is transgender, lesbian, or gay? If so, how?
Logistic regression analyses:
Decreased perceived acceptability associated with increased likelihood of recommending that the target report the SH:
Tell supervisor, χ2(3) = 11.45, p = .010; B = -.71, SE = .22, p = .001; Exp(B) = .49, 95% C.I. [.32, .75]
File formal complaint, χ2(3) = 37.89, p < .001; B = -1.22, SE = .22, p < .001; Exp(B) = .30, 95% C.I. [.19, .45]
Perceived acceptability not associated with recommendations of confronting the harasser
Conclusions
Figure 1. Relative relationships between assignment to the transgender targets vs. controls.
Compared to the controls, SH toward transgender targets was perceived as:
More motivated by power, prejudice, and gender policing, and less by attraction
Perceiving the SH as motivated more by power and prejudice, and less by attraction linked with perceiving it as less acceptable (associations with attraction marginally significant).
Significant mediators:
Power, b = -.08, [-.15, -.04]
Prejudice, b = -.14 [-.23, -.08]
Attraction, b = .06 [.01, .13]
Lay perceptions of the motivations for SH shape the extent to which SH is seen as acceptable, which in turn influences what they believe are appropriate responses to the SH.
SH perceptions differ depending on whether the target is a gender or sexual minority.
SH toward transgender targets viewed as less acceptable when motivated by more by power or prejudice and more acceptable when motivated by attraction.
SH perceptions did not differ between the lesbian and gay targets and controls.
Gender policing was not a significant mediator or related to perceptions of SH acceptability.
The less acceptable participants found the SH, the more likely they were to recommend that the target report the SH by telling a supervisor or filing a formal complaint.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Power, prejudice, and gender policing would be perceived as motivating SH more for the transgender, lesbian, and gay targets compared to the controls, and increased perceptions of power, prejudice, and gender policing as motivating the SH would be associated with decreased perceived acceptability of the SH.
Hypothesis 2: Increased perceptions of SH acceptability would be associated with a lower likelihood that participants would recommend that the target report the SH or confront the harasser.
Figure 2. Relative relationships between assignment to the lesbian or gay targets vs. controls.
Perceptions of SH toward lesbian and gay targets did not differ from perceptions of controls
No significant mediators
Method
Implications
SH toward transgender targets viewed most stringently.
SH of lesbian and gay employees may be minimized.
Perceptions of motivations for and acceptability of SH did not differ between transgender women and men, or between lesbian women and gay men. Additional research in this realm and on other aspects of SH (e.g. severity, consequences) is critical.
279 cisgender undergraduate students (66% women)
Randomly assigned to read one of six vignettes depicting an instance of workplace SH toward different targets:
Transgender woman
Transgender man
Lesbian woman
Gay man
Control woman
Control man
Vignettes identical except for:
Description of target identity (none given for controls)
Target name: Michelle or Michael
Participants asked to indicate how acceptable they found SH and to what extent they thought it was motivated by power, prejudice, gender policing, and attraction
Figure 3. Relative relationships between assignment to the transgender vs. lesbian or gay targets.
References
Compared to the lesbian and gay targets, SH toward transgender targets was perceived as:
More motivated by power and prejudice, and less by attraction (no differences for gender policing)
Perceiving the SH as motivated more by power and prejudice, and less by attraction linked with perceiving it as less acceptable (associations with attraction marginally significant). Significant mediators:
Power, b = -.11, [-.20, -.05]
Prejudice, b = -.09 [-.17, -.03]
Attraction, b = .07 [.01, .15]
Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32,
Cortina L. M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2008). Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1), Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Grant, J., Mottet, L., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey. Washington: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Konik, J., & Cortina, L. M.(2008). Policing gender at work: Intersections of harassment based on sex and sexuality. Social Justice Research, 21,
Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Two sides of the same coin: Gender harassment and heterosexist harassment in LGBQ work lives. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4),
Unstandardized coefficients are presented. †p < .08, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.