Chapter 12

Sexual Harassment in Work

Organizations: A View From
the 21st Century
Louise F. Fitzgerald and Lilia M. Cortina
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

The explosion of interest and research in sexual harass- forms of nonsex work1 have rendered the models, as
ment, much of it dating to the 1990s and early 2000s, well as mores, of the last decade increasingly irrelevant.
continues to demonstrate that its parameters are It is with some regret that we limit our present
broader and more pervasive than originally thought. review to the classic issue of sexual harassment in
Women and girls are harassed not only in their work organizations. The reasons for this choice are
workplaces and universities ­(Fitzgerald et al., 1988; many; as always, practicality and issues of space
Rospenda, Richman, & Shannon, 2009), but also by loom large; equally important, however, is the fact
strangers in public (Davidson, Butchko, Robbins, that the sheer heterogeneity and complexity that
Sherd, & Gervais, 2016), by landlords in their homes have emerged across the last three decades humbles
and apartments (Reed, Collinsworth, & Fitzgerald, any attempt at comprehensive summary, much less
2005; T ­ ester, 2008), by teachers and peers in high “grand theory.” Such a project, though desirable and
schools (Hill & Kearl, 2011), and even in middle possibly ripe, is far too ambitious to be attempted
schools (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, here (see Chapter 9, this volume).
1999; Espelage, Hong, Rinehart, & Doshi, 2016).
Nurses are harassed by physicians (Williams, 1996)
Theoretical Frame
and female physicians by patients (Phillips &
­Schneider, 1993), service workers by customers We emphasize that our present effort is grounded in
­(Gettman & Gelfand, 2007), hotel maids by guests a particular feminist worldview that suggests sexual
(Kensbock, Bailey, Jennings, & Patiar, 2015), and harassment in the workplace is fundamentally, even
female inmates by correctional officers (Bell et al., paradigmatically, a women’s issue. This perspective
1999). Harassment reaches down into middle schools, neither denies nor diminishes the fact that men can
where it blends into more general bullying, and up the be and sometimes are harassed, nor that women of
age scale into nursing homes (Levine, 2003), where color face additional issues that intersect, compli-
it is characterized as “elder abuse,” thus obscuring its cate, and sometimes overdetermine their experi-
often sexual nature. Technology continues to provide ences of harassment. We recognize the widespread,
new methods and venues for harassment (e.g., cell often sexual, sometimes deadly harassment suffered
phones, video games, the Internet, untraceable message by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individu-
services; Barak, 2005), whereas the pervasive sexualiza- als, as well as the myriad ways that various groups
tion of youth culture, concomitant change in gendered of people are degraded and tormented simply
sexual norms, and even the emergence of sexualized because they are “different.”

Brents and Sanders (2010) provided a fascinating discussion of the “mainstreaming” of the sex industry. They noted, “The sexualization of work is
1

particularly noticeable in studies of the tourism, beauty, leisure, and restaurant industries” (p. 45); the Hooters restaurant chain is only the most obvi-
ous example.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000060-012
APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Vol. 2. Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives, C. B. Travis and J. W. White (Editors-in-Chief)
215
Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Perspectives on Women's Private and
Public Lives, edited by S. L. Cook, A. Rutherford, C. B Travis, J. W. White, W.
S. Williams, and K. F. Wyche
Copyright © 2018 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

Yet, we believe that any time a woman is sexually it—has bedeviled this area of research since its
harassed, it is because she is a woman, whatever else inception; even today, there are no “gold stan-
she may be. When men are harassed, it is generally dard” statistics for what is generally acknowl-
because they are perceived to be feminized, nontra- edged to be a problem of enormous proportions.
ditional, weak, gay, effeminate, or in some other way Much of this uncertainty rests on issues of defini-
“not man enough” (e.g., Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, tion and measurement, as well as the somewhat
1996; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., uneasy relationship between harassment research
1998); said differently, they are harassed as “not- and the law.
men”; in other words, as women. This perspective As with rape, sexual harassment is a legal
informs our efforts here. concept and an experience, and it is important
It should go without saying that, by this, we do not to recognize that these are not the same.2 Sexual
mean harassment is solely a women’s problem, nor harassment, though generally not a crime, is legally
that women alone have the responsibility for solving defined as a civil violation of various titles of the
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

it. Sexual harassment, targeted at women because they Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1980),
are women and at men largely because they are not which prohibit discrimination in employment,
men, at lesbians because they are not heterosexual, at housing, and education. Most states have similar
women of color because they are not White as well as laws and prohibitions, but as with federal law,
female, is a particular incarnation of a societal-level none of these are stated in strictly behavioral terms;
pattern of dominance and oppression by the power- rather, the most widely known “definition” is that
ful of those seen as “other.” Like otherness, power issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
takes many forms: organizational, social, gender, Commission (EEOC) in 1980:
psychological, and physical; it requires interventions
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests
on multiple levels by multiple actors, policies, and
for sexual favors, and other verbal or
groups. From this larger lensed perspective, sexual
physical conduct of a sexual nature con-
harassment can be seen as a particularized, gendered
stitutes sexual harassment when: 1. sub-
example of the larger social issue of power relations.
mission to such conduct is made either
We begin with the intertwined issues of defini-
explicitly or implicitly a term or condi-
tion and prevalence, moving then to discuss causes,
tion of an individual’s employment,
individual and organizational. We next examine
2. submission to or rejection of such
harassment’s consequences and the price that
conduct by an individual is used as the
women (and society) pay for this ubiquitous social
basis for employment decisions affecting
problem, and then review the multiple ways that
such individual, or 3. such conduct has
women resist and cope. We then turn to solutions,
the purpose or effect of unreasonably
primarily organizational, reviewing what consti-
interfering with an individual’s work
tutes a robust organizational prevention program,
performance, or creating an intimi-
and conclude with a discussion of unanswered and
dating, hostile or offensive working
sometimes as yet unasked questions, in hope of
environment.
stimulating further discussion and investigation.
Although it could be argued that this definition
reflects a generalized description of prohibited
Definition and Prevalence
behavior, it has been left mainly to the courts
of Sexual Harassment in
to “operationalize” these guidelines (e.g., Fara-
the Workplace
gher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998; Harris v. Forklift
No one knows how widespread harassment is. The Systems, Inc., 1993; Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v.
question of prevalence—and how to determine Vinson, 1986) and over the years, various legal
A number of commentators have noted that the focus on whether incidents of sexual harassment meet or are capable of meeting requirements for
2

organizational or legal charges has dominated the discussion of harassment to the detriment of the ability to take appropriate action. We agree.

216
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

decisions have fleshed out the parameters of what and comments that women have no place in cer-
is required for something to be legally cognizable tain kinds of jobs. A more pernicious form of gen-
as sexual harassment. While doing so, the law has der harassment (sexual hostility) is more clearly
introduced various considerations (e.g., statutes of sexual and obviously hostile (referring to women
limitations, issues of welcomeness, liability, pro- by degraded names for female body parts, por-
cedural requirements) that frame the scope of the nographic images, crude comments about female
legal charge. sexuality or sexual activity). Note that such behav-
Unlike the courts, behavioral science does not ior need not have individual women as its target;
primarily concern itself with whether any particular this sexualized variant of gender harassment can
situation can meet these considerations.3 Research- involve the gratuitous sexualization of an entire
ers conceptualize sexual harassment behaviorally so work setting (e.g., sexually offensive graffiti, post-
as to measure its incidence reliably. Although early ers, screen savers, cartoons).
surveys used the “laundry list” approach (i.e., a Recent research has identified additional expres-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

string of behaviors chosen with little obvious ratio- sions of gender harassment (Konik & Cortina,
nale) these soon gave way to a more theory-based 2008; Leskinen & Cortina, 2014). One is gender
approach. Till (1980) produced a 5-category4 clas- policing, which expresses contempt for women who
sification rooted in the experiences of hundreds of step out of place by violating standards of stereo-
university women around the country; operational- typical femininity. Examples include scorn for those
izing these categories via a 28-item scale, Fitzgerald not behaving or appearing “womanly” enough or
and her colleagues (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Sexual who display traditionally masculine interests. This
Experiences Questionnaire5) determined that the gender-­policing behavior echoes the misconduct
universe of harassing conduct could more parsimo- described in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989).7
niously be accounted for by three broad categories: This was a “sex stereotyping” rather than sexual
gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and harassment case, but such conduct can and does
sexual coercion. escalate into harassment. Another recently identi-
Gender6 harassment aims not to elicit sexual fied aspect of gender harassment is work/family
cooperation, but rather expresses insulting, degrad- policing, which regulates boundaries between work
ing, or contemptuous attitudes about women; its (as a space where women are unfit and unwelcome)
essence is contempt and hostility, causing some and home (where women belong, especially when
writers to label it gender hostility. “Garden vari- parenting). Hostility toward women who combine
ety” gender harassment, a subcategory sometimes work and family is a widespread reality, with exam-
labeled sexist hostility, includes “woman-bashing” ples including comments about women’s “proper”
jokes, insults about their competence, the irrel- place in the home and mothers not being depend-
evance or sexual unattractiveness of older women, able workers (Leskinen & Cortina, 2014).

One exception is the concept of unwelcomeness; as Chief Justice Rehnquist famously wrote: “The gravamen of any sexual harassment claim is that
3

the alleged sexual advances were ‘unwelcome’” (Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 1986). Behavior that is welcome to the recipient is by definition
not harassing, and the concept of offensiveness or nonreciprocity is incorporated into every research measure of harassment.
Till’s (1980) original categories were labeled as gender harassment, seductive behavior, sexual bribery, sexual coercion, and sexual assault.
4

Over the years, the original scale has undergone various revisions, the latest of which can be found in Stark, Chernyshenko, Lancaster, Drasgow, &
5

Fitzgerald (2002).
Issues of terminology are theoretically and politically complex. It is arguable whether gender is the appropriate term here or whether it should be sex
6

or something more complicated (e.g., gender/sex or sex/gender; see Volume 1, Chapter 9, this handbook). However, as the term gender harassment is so
well-established in the literature, we continue to use it here.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) revolved around firm partnership being withheld from Ann Hopkins, despite her exceptional qualifications. To
7

increase chances of future promotion, leadership advised Hopkins to “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear
make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry” (p. 235). These and other comments implied that the company had placed Hopkins’s candidacy on
hold because her behavior and appearance had violated the prescriptions of traditional femininity. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the
adverse employment decision had been driven by “sex stereotyping,” in breach of Title VII.

217
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

Studies repeatedly show that gender harass- (e.g., offering or implying a promotion in exchange
ment, whether alone or combined with other for sexual favors, threatening termination unless
behaviors, is the most widespread form of sexual sexual demands are met). Such incidents combine
harassment (Langhout et al., 2005; Leskinen, Cor- the categories of sexual bribery and sexual coer-
tina, & Kabat, 2011; Mazzeo, Bergman, Buchanan, cion/threat delineated in Till’s (1980) conceptual-
Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2001). Gender harassment ization. Simply put, sexual coercion and unwanted
reinforces the point that sexual harassment is fun- sexual attention represent “come-ons,” whereas
damentally about gendered systems of power, not gender harassment is a “put-down” (Fitzgerald,
romance or desire. As feminist legal scholar Vicki Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995). However they may
Schultz once observed, “much of the time, harass- be labeled, each of these situations fall under the
ment assumes a form that has little or nothing to larger umbrella of sexual harassment as it is cur-
do with sexuality but everything to do with gen- rently understood.
der” (Schultz, 1998, p. 1687). We emphasize here that we use the term sexual
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Unwanted sexual attention is exactly that: sexual harassment to refer to a pattern of experience, not
advances that are uninvited, unwanted, and unre- a legal finding of fact; any and all forms of the
ciprocated by the recipient. These include verbal conduct described previously can violate antidis-
and physical behaviors, like sexually suggestive crimination laws, providing they meet specific
comments and compliments, attempts to establish legal criteria (frequency, severity, unwelcomeness,
sexual or romantic relationships, and unwanted etc.); however, it is important to recognize that
touching. Although unwelcome, annoying, and the prevalence of sexually harassing experiences
worse,8 such experiences are not explicitly linked to in women’s lives is far greater than the number of
any job condition or consideration. legal cases, EEOC filings, or organizational com-
Many women report unwanted sexual attention plaints might suggest.
and gender harassment, a seemingly unintuitive Although samples and methods vary consider-
combination which may be at least partially an ably, major prevalence studies during the past
artifact of surveys that confound multiple incidents 30 years converge to suggest that one of every
when asking women about their experiences on the two women encounters some form of harassing
job, thus “collapsing” over incidents and perpetra- behavior during her working life. Recent research
tors. Examining the single “situation that made suggests that this number may actually be an
the most impression,” Mazzeo et al. (2001) found underestimate; in one of the only truly national
that when harassment is assessed at the level of studies, Rospenda, Richman, and Shannon (2009)
a specific meaningful experience, sexist hostility reported that one of every two women in their sam-
alone (40.6%), sexual hostility alone (19.1%), and ple had been harassed in the previous year alone.
unwanted sexual attention (14.4%) were the most Such conduct can be top-down (coming from those
frequent patterns. These are likely more mean- in authority), bottom-up (coming from subordi-
ingful estimates, and illustrate the importance of nates, sometimes termed contra-power harassment),
attention to the “level” of measurement, as patterns or customer-driven; most commonly, though,
that characterize aggregate experiences rarely typify sexual harassment comes from coworkers. Figures
specific ones. are predictably higher in male-dominated occupa-
Finally, sexual coercion, long thought to be the tions in which the job duties and tasks are those
paradigmatic harassment experience, is a relatively traditionally performed by men (e.g., the military,
rare situation in which unwanted sexual attention police work, firefighting) and where women have
is combined with various job-related pressures, been historically few. In truth, it is impossible to
such as bribes or threats to force acquiescence say with certainty how widespread is workplace

In addition to verbal approaches, unwanted sexual attention can include groping, grabbing, holding, sexual assault, and attempted or completed
8

rape.

218
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

harassment; the evidence, however, suggests to permeate all social strata, occupational levels,
that it is ubiquitous, the most widespread of all and age categories” (p. 129).
forms of violence against women, often including It is by now largely accepted in the scientific
other forms within its reach (e.g., sexual assault, community that it is organizational conditions
interpersonal violence, stalking). As MacKinnon rather than individual characteristics that are the
(1979) wrote more than three decades ago, “Sex- most powerful predictors of sexual harassment
ual ­harassment is less ‘epidemic’ than endemic” (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996; Ilies, Haus-
(p. 55)—it is a natural and enduring characteristic erman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003; Pryor et al.,
of women’s lives. 1993; for a meta-analysis of this body of work, see
Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). Organizations that
Causes of Workplace Sexual are characterized by a skewed gender ratio (i.e.,
Harassment most employees are men), job duties and tasks that
are historically masculine in nature, and organi-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Why do men harass women?9 When sexual harass- zational tolerance of offensive behavior typically
ment first reached public consciousness as a social have far greater problems with sexual harassment.
problem, many seemed to believe that it was an Organizational tolerance (sometimes known as
aberration perpetrated by deviant individuals who organizational climate) is the single most power-
suffered from some type of psychological problem. ful factor in determining whether sexual harass-
Alternatively, it was suggested that only certain ment will occur and will be damaging when it
“classes” of men harass–generally, uneducated, does. Studies have shown that strict management
blue collar individuals who could be expected to norms and a climate that does not tolerate offen-
be “rough” or “uncouth.”10 As it turns out, neither sive behavior can inhibit harassment even by those
of these is the case. Although researchers have with a propensity to do so (Fitzgerald, Drasgow,
attempted to identify a pattern of easily recogniz- Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Pryor et al.,
able demographic or interpersonal characteristics 1993; Willness et al., 2007). This is not to say that
that characterize the typical harasser, such attempts individual deviance plays no role, nor that some
have met with limited success. Although it is cer- individuals may not be largely immune to either
tainly true that some individuals are more likely education or consequences; taken as a whole, how-
to harass than others, research suggests that this ever, the data consistently show that organizations
propensity is largely grounded in attitudes toward can inhibit and reduce harassment if they make the
sexuality, hostile sexism, and beliefs about proper effort to do so.11
roles for men and women, characteristics not neces-
sarily immediately apparent (Pryor, 1987; Pryor,
Consequences of Workplace
LaVite, & Stoller, 1993). As Pina, Gannon, and
Sexual Harassment
Saunders (2009) observed, “Given these research
findings, it may be misleading to generate a typi- Once sexual harassment was recognized as a seri-
cal profile of the sexual harasser on the basis of ous social problem, attention turned to its out-
sociodemographic factors. Sexual harassers appear comes. Early studies, like those conducted in the

This question can be addressed on many levels; as noted earlier, we limit ourselves here to the specific issue of harassment in work organizations and
9

thus focus our attention on organizational causes and precipitants, while acknowledging that individual and societal factors play nontrivial roles, par-
ticularly in nonorganizationally situated harassment (e.g., street harassment, housing).
This perspective was prominent in media and other accounts during various high-profile events in the early 1990s, such as the Clarence Thomas
10

confirmation hearings, the scandal surrounding Senator Bob Packwood, and Richard Berendzen, who stepped down as President of American
University in 1990.
In recent years, the individual differences issue has been revisited from a social cognitive perspective (Page & Pina, 2015) focusing more on the
11

facilitative cognitive processes and self-protective mechanisms of high-likelihood perpetrators. Space precludes us from pursuing this theoretically
interesting perspective here.

219
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

1980s by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in general mental health (Fitzgerald et al., 1997),
(1981, 1988), had a powerful impact on subsequent depression and anxiety disorders (Ho, Dinh,
research, demonstrating that sexual harassment is Bellefontaine, & Irving, 2012; Reed et al., 2005),
a widespread experience that brings real harm to increased incidence of alcohol abuse (Rospenda,
women’s lives. Many of these initial studies, how- Fujishiro, Shannon, & Richman, 2008), elevated
ever, were hampered by inadequate definitions of risk of eating disorders (Harned & Fitzgerald,
harassment, nonstandardized measurement tools, or 2002), and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disor-
reliance on samples of convenience. The scientific der (PTSD; Ho et al., 2012; Willness et al., 2007).
landscape changed dramatically during the next few Dionisi, Barling, and Dupré (2012) reported that
decades, as psychologists documented the many all forms of sexual harassment were more strongly
ways in which sexual harassment can harm women, associated with decrements in psychological well-
men, their workgroups, and their organizations. We being than other forms of workplace aggression.
briefly summarize that research here. Some of the most compelling research in this area
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

can be found in studies linking sexual harassment

Emotional and Psychological not only to psychological distress (i.e., symptoms)
Consequences but also to actual diagnosable psychological disorder
Numerous studies document that offensive sex- (e.g., major depressive disorder, PTSD). On the basis
related behavior has serious emotional conse- of a large, nationally representative random sample
quences; although early efforts were based largely and state-of-the-art diagnostic techniques, Dansky
on reports of self-identified victims, and thus could and Kilpatrick (1997) reported that women who had
be criticized on these grounds, a number of rigorous experienced sexual harassment were significantly
investigations subsequently confirmed that sexually more likely to suffer from PTSD and major depressive
harassing experiences can cause substantial emo- disorder than other women. In a similar vein, Fitzger-
tional damage, even when such experiences are less ald, Buchanan, Collinsworth, Magley, and Ramos
serious and intense than those typically required (1999) found that the most common diagnoses found
to trigger statutory relief. Among the first of these among harassment plaintiffs were major depressive
studies to appear, Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald disorder and PTSD. Magruder et al. (2015) reported
(1997) surveyed women employed in two different that the incidence of diagnosable PTSD was associ-
organizations; they examined the impact of harass- ated with exposure to sexual harassment and dis-
ment on a variety of reliable and valid measures of crimination among female ­Vietnam-era veterans.
psychological status, carefully controlling for the Not surprisingly, the discussion of differential
effects of other stressors or confounding influences. diagnosis becomes more heated in the context of
Their results demonstrated that the experience of litigation. Fitzgerald, Collinsworth, and Lawson
sexual harassment exerted significant and substan- (2013) recently summarized this discussion:
tial impact; women who had been harassed had
significantly lower levels of general psychological Defense attorneys and their associated
well-being as well as elevated symptoms of posttrau- experts . . . are wont to proclaim that the
matic stress. The impact of harassment remained plaintiff cannot have PTSD unless she
significant even when controlling for other potential [was] sexually assaulted, thus oversim-
explanations; as the authors observed, “This study plifying a complex topic and ignoring
presents evidence that sexual harassment, even at symptom patterns that are identical to
relatively low frequencies, exerts significant nega- that of PTSD. Treating therapists and
tive impact on women’s psychological well-being” plaintiffs’ experts, on the other hand,
(Schneider et al., 1997, p. 412). Over the next two have been perhaps too ready to invoke,
decades, researchers produced nearly 200 studies, with only sketchy justification, the
documenting the nature and severity of the harm PTSD label for reactions to experiences
harassment does to women, including decrements that bear little resemblance to classical

220
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

notions of traumatic stress. The mental women engage in some form of work withdrawal,
health profession makes its own contri- remaining in their job but disengaging from it (via
bution to this controversy through its absenteeism, tardiness, neglect of assignments,
ambivalent relationship to the diagnosis, etc.). Others contemplate more complete forms of
as exemplified by the ever-changing for- withdrawal—quitting their jobs altogether (e.g.,
mulations of criterion A and continuing O’Connell & Korabik, 2000; Schneider et al., 1997;
concern about “bracket creep.” (p. 82) Shupe, Cortina, Ramos, Fitzgerald, & Salisbury,
2002). Indeed, when Sims, Drasgow, and Fitzger-
Outside the legal arena, trauma researchers are ald (2005) followed military servicewomen over
generally more practical; for example, the National a 4-year timespan, and correlated their experi-
Center for PTSD refers on its website to “post- ences with administrative records, they found that
traumatic stress symptoms,” thus refocusing the harassed women had exited military employment
issue on its substance rather than technical diag- at higher rates than other women. This organiza-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

nostic and legal controversies. We agree with tional withdrawal is often interpreted as a method
this approach, emphasizing that victims of sexual of escaping an abusive situation; it is a highly effec-
harassment frequently experience the full symptom tive method, but one that comes with considerable
picture of PTSD, absent the classic “risk of death or costs—social, professional, and financial.
bodily injury” criterion beloved of purists (see also Sexual harassment also detracts from produc-
Avina & O’Donohue, 2002). tivity and performance, as shown through both
In sum, a large body of reliable data demonstrate surveys (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001;
that experiencing sexual harassment, even at low Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1999;
levels of frequency and intensity, can lead to decre- Raver & Gelfand, 2005) and experimental stud-
ments in psychological well-being and elevations in ies (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005). In addition,
psychological distress, up to and including major as sexual harassment increases, organizational
emotional disorders. Although not every individual commitment decreases (e.g., Magley, Cortina, &
who is exposed to such experiences will develop Kath, 2005; Schneider et al., 1997) and job stress
symptoms of emotional distress, such reactions are increases (e.g., Cortina et al., 2002; Lim & Cortina,
more common than not—indeed, they appear to be 2005; Magley et al., 2005). Other job-related cor-
the normative response. relates of sexual harassment include impaired team
relationships, increased team conflicts, lower team
Professional Consequences financial performance, lowered justice perceptions,
Dozens of studies have made clear that sexual cognitive difficulties (e.g., distraction), and over-
harassment also takes a toll on women’s work lives. performance demands, defined as perceptions of the
Across a wide range of industries, researchers find “need to overperform to gain acceptance and rec-
that encounters with sexual harassment on the job ognition within the workplace” (Parker & Griffin,
predict reductions in job satisfaction (e.g., Fitzger- 2002, p. 196).
ald et al., 1997; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lonsway,
Paynich, & Hall, 2013). This finding applies not Health-Related Consequences
only to White American civilians but also to U.S. Compared with the body of work on psychologi-
military personnel, women of color in the United cal and professional outcomes, less research has
States, and women in other nations (e.g., Canada, addressed relationships between sexual harassment
Mainland China, Hong Kong, Turkey). For meta- and women’s physical health. Such effects are often
analytic reviews of this work, see Chan, Chow, Lam, indirect, mediated through mental health. A number
and Cheung (2008); Lapierre, Spector, and Leck of studies have documented links to overall health
(2005); and Willness et al. (2007). perceptions and satisfaction (e.g., Bergman &
Organizational withdrawal is another common Drasgow, 2003; Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Lim & Cor-
consequence of sexual harassment. Many harassed tina, 2005). Others have identified specific somatic

221
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

complaints associated with h ­ arassing experiences; predicting women’s job satisfaction, organizational
these include headaches, exhaustion, sleep problems, commitment, and general health perceptions and
gastric problems, ­nausea, respiratory complaints, symptoms (Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016).
musculoskeletal pain, and weight loss or gain (e.g., Findings such as these support Leskinen and
Barling et al., 1996; de Haas, Timmerman, & Höing, colleagues’ (2011) recommendations that law
2009; Piotrkowski, 1998). In the only study of its and social science move away from privileging
kind, Schneider, Tomaka, & Palacios (2001) con- unwanted sexual pursuit as “the essence of harass-
ducted an experiment showing that experiences ment” (Schultz, 1998, p. 1716). As Sojo et al. (2016)
of even mild gender harassment cause increased explained,
­cardiovascular reactivity.
Sexual coercion and unwanted sexual
attention are traumatic for the people
Issues of Severity, Labeling, and Targeting
involved, and more likely to result in
Importantly, psychological and professional dam-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

court cases and public reporting. . . .

age arises from sexual harassment regardless of
However, the more frequent, less intense,
the type of conduct involved. Gender harassment
and often unchallenged gender harass-
is often assumed, by definition, to be less “severe”
ment, sexist discrimination, sexist orga-
than unwanted sexual attention because it lacks
nizational climate . . . [appears] at least
explicitly sexual content (i.e., sexual interest,
as detrimental for women’s well-being.
advances, threat); this perspective confounds sever-
They should not be considered lesser
ity with the type of harassment and badly misstates
forms of sexism. (p. 22)
the nature of women’s experience. Although it
is the case that much gender harassment has no Likewise, it is important to note that the victim
explicitly sexual content (e.g., sexist jokes, derisive need neither recognize nor label her experience as
terms of address, and other forms of verbal abuse), sexual harassment for it to be harmful. Surprising
such harassment can nevertheless be remarkably to many, labeling is considerably less frequent than
severe12 (e.g., Hall v. Gus Const. Co., Inc., 1988; Jen- supposed: More than half of working women report
son et al. v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 1997). Such behav- being targeted with sexually harassing conduct at
iors constitute “sexual” harassment not because work, but among those targets, less than 25% con-
they involve sexuality but because they are sex- sider their experience to constitute sexual harass-
based (i.e., they would not have occurred “but for” ment per se (e.g., Ilies et al., 2003; Magley & Shupe,
the sex of the target).13 2005; Magley et al., 1999). Those who face gender
Women faced with “just” gender harassment harassment—in the absence of unwanted sexual
show significant decrements in professional and advances—are even less likely to attach the sexual
psychological health—including performance harassment label to their experiences (Holland &
declines (Leskinen et al., 2011). One study even Cortina, 2013; Magley & Shupe, 2005). Nonethe-
found that frequent and pervasive gender harass- less, sexual harassment victims who do and do not
ment is as offensive, disturbing, and corrosive to self-label suffer similar psychological, occupational,
women’s work and well-being as infrequent sexual and health-related harms (Magley et al., 1999;
coercion (Langhout et al., 2005). Moreover, a Munson, Miner, & Hulin, 2001; Woodzicka &
recent meta-analysis reported significantly stronger ­LaFrance, 2005).
effects for high-frequency/low-intensity experiences Finally, we note that one need not be directly tar-
(e.g., gender harassment) than for low-frequency/ geted with sexual harassment to feel its effects. Stud-
high-intensity experiences (e.g., unwanted sexual ies find that the circle of harm extends to witnesses
attention, sexual coercion); this pattern held when and workgroups. For instance, Schneider (1996)
Organizational and scholarly euphemisms such as “sexist” comments and “requests for sexual favors” sanitize and obscure the ugly reality of work-
12

place harassment; interested readers are referred to relevant court decisions—easily available online—for a more realistic view.
Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 1987; McKinney v. Dole, 1985; Hall v. Gus Construction Company, 1988.
13

222
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

found that observing or hearing about the sexual a number of schemes for classifying them (e.g.,
harassment of a female coworker fosters bystander Maypole, 1986; Terpstra & Baker, 1989). Reminis-
stress, which predicts lower satisfaction with cent of the “reporting” controversy, these systems
coworkers, supervisors, life, and mental health. Sim- focused mainly on the degree to which the woman
ilarly, Glomb et al. (1997) found that women facing responded assertively. Although useful as a start-
ambient sexual harassment (i.e., targeted at others in ing point, such frameworks were not derived from
their work group) reported negative outcomes that the reactions of actual victims but rather based on
parallel those of direct sexual harassment victims. rational derivation or, problematically, the written
Likewise, Raver and Gelfand (2005) reported that responses of research participants to brief descrip-
ambient sexual harassment in work teams predicted tions of hypothetical situations. Given that actual
greater team conflict, lower team cohesion, and victims have been shown to behave quite differently
reductions in team financial performance. Finally, than research participants or the general public
Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004, 2007) found that believe they would behave (Brinkman, Garcia, &
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

employees who observed sexually harassing conduct Rickard, 2011; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005), such
toward women also described lower well-being, systems were not particularly helpful in understand-
which translated into higher organizational with- ing the behavior of women who had actually been
drawal; importantly, these effects emerged for both harassed. Woodzicka and LaFrance (2005) stud-
female and male employees. In all of these studies, ied how research participants responded to sexual
second-hand experiences of sexual harassment (i.e., harassment in the context of a simulated job inter-
in the ambient environment or workgroup) linked view; they reported that although the participants
with employee outcomes even after controlling for predicted they would confront a harasser in some
first-hand, personally targeted experiences. This way (e.g., refusing to answer a sexist question, ter-
body of scholarship demonstrates the wide-ranging minating the interview, or reporting the situation
damage that sexual harassment inflicts. It is a prob- to a supervisor), not one of the women who actu-
lem with relevance not only to perpetrators, victims, ally experienced the harassment did any of these
and women, but rather to entire organizations. things. Indeed, the behavioral forecasting literature
makes clear that people are not very good at pre-
dicting their own behavior (Brinkman et al., 2011;
Coping With Sexual Harassment
Diekmann, Tenbrunsel, & Galinsky, 2003; Epley &
What was originally a puzzle has now become a tru- Dunning, 2000), despite holding these predictions
ism: Despite the ubiquity of workplace harassment, with considerable certainty.
the great majority of victims never complain to As research progressed, more sophisticated ques-
their employers and many never tell anyone of their tions began to be asked and more theoretically based
experiences. In the past, and sometimes still, this explanatory systems proposed (Gruber & Smith,
reticence has been taken as implying that the situ- 1995; Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg, & Dubois, 1997),
ation never happened, the complainant herself was most of them generally on the basis of Lazarus and
complicit, or “it couldn’t have been that bad.” Oth- Folkman’s (1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) classic
erwise, “why didn’t she just report him?” (Fitzger- model of stress and coping. Fitzgerald, Swan, and
ald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995). As research began to Fischer (1995) proposed a two-dimensional frame-
examine women’s responses, however, it became work that incorporated internal (emotion-focused)
apparent that this formulation was seriously flawed; and external (problem-solving) responses, and
that responding to harassment was a process, not emphasized the importance of the victim’s primary
a single act; and that there are numerous ways in appraisal of the situation as a critical determinate
which victims attempt to manage their situation, of of her subsequent behavior. This internal–external
which formal reporting is typically the last resort. dichotomy later received empirical support in four
The earliest line of research in this area focused samples across three cultures (Wasti & Cortina,
on identifying these different responses, yielding 2002). Researchers have also emphasized that

223
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

coping is not a single action or event but an ongoing contrary, it is by now relatively well accepted that
process that unfolds over time and includes numer- such assertive responses are not only frequently
ous different responses, depending on the options ineffective, but often actually make things worse.
that are realistically available and what is at stake. For example, Hesson-McInnis and Fitzgerald
This notion of coping as a process, rather than an (1997) found that assertive responding was associ-
event, has become more explicit as the research has ated with more negative outcomes of every type
developed. Magley (2002) emphasized the impor- (including psychological and health-related), even
tance of recognizing this multiplicity of responses: after severity of harassment was controlled (see also
“The individual engaging in the coping tries some- ­Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald,
thing, waits to see whether it works, tries something 2002; Stockdale, 1998).
else, and so on until she is satisfied with the situ- Given this research, we believe it is past time to
ation. It is most certainly a dynamic process that begin exploring not only the antecedents but, more
unfolds over time” (p. 943). practically, the effectiveness and consequences
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Empirical support for this observation is dem- of alternative responses. Part of this will involve
onstrated by the work of Cortina and Wasti (2005). thinking carefully about what effectiveness actu-
Noting that “some harassed women use only avoid- ally means in this context, stopping the harass-
ance and denial responses . . . others also solicit ment being only the most obvious aspect. We are
social support from friends and colleagues, and a reminded once more of Pearlin and Schooler’s
small minority eventually confront their harassers (1978) cogent commentary:
and seek advocacy from organizational authori-
There are important human problems,
ties” (Cortina & Wasti, 2005, p. 183), these authors
such as those that we have seen in occupa-
demonstrated different behavioral patterns of coping
tions [italics added], that are not respon-
across women of various cultures and class back-
sive to individual coping responses.
grounds. Their multilevel model identified three
Coping with these may require interven-
distinct patterns of coping (i.e., detached, avoidant
tions by collectivities rather than by indi-
negotiating, and support-seeking), each of which
viduals. Many of the problems stemming
reflected relatively greater or lesser use of various
from arrangements deeply rooted in
combinations of behavior (see Knapp et al., 1997,
social and economic organizations may
for an earlier description of similar categories).
exert a powerful effect on personal life
but be impervious to personal efforts to
Determinants and Outcomes of
change them. . . . Coping failures, there-
Response Strategies
fore, do not necessarily reflect the short-
Given that victims respond in multiple ways, it is
comings of individuals; in a real sense, they
reasonable to ask what sorts of things influence
may represent the failure of social systems
these responses. Why does one woman report her
in which individuals are enmeshed [italics
harasser, whereas another avoids him? Why does
added]. (p. 18)
one victim avoid, appease, and (eventually) report
her harasser, whereas another simply continues to
avoid him? Solutions and Interventions
There are few answers to these questions. Most So, what to do? Again, this is a question that can be
models emphasize the role of cognitive appraisal as addressed on many levels—individual, organiza-
the primary determinant of what an individual will tional, or societal. Virtually all commentators agree
actually do (Kaiser & Miller, 2004; Settles, Har- that societal, or at least social policy, change is the
rell, Buchanan, & Yap, 2011; Wright & Fitzgerald, ultimate solution (e.g., changes in gender socializa-
2007), although it is mainly the decision to con- tion, vigorous affirmative action programs); at the
front or report that has been empirically explored. opposite end of the intervention continuum, some
Despite legal and organizational dictates to the have devoted considerable thought to the possibility

224
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

of individual training (Salisbury & Jaffe, 1996) “operationalize” an organizational climate that
or treatment (Pina et al., 2009) for offenders. The refuses to tolerate sexual harassment, and incorpo-
former is obviously a long-term proposition over rates most if not all of the guidance from the EEOC
which there is little direct control, whereas the lat- concerning harassment prevention and interven-
ter, although certainly worthwhile, is incapable tion, as well as the (few) specific judicial guidelines
of addressing the scale of the problem and does on these issues (e.g., multiple complaint channels,
nothing to prevent it. Perhaps not surprisingly, policy distribution).
we emphasize the importance of organizational
interventions, many of which are already at least
Future Directions, Unanswered
partially understood from a legal and an empirical
Questions
perspective.
McDonald, Charlesworth, & Graham (2015) Despite decades of reform, sexual harassment remains
provided an innovative framework for organizational alive and well in the American workplace. Preced-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

prevention and intervention, incorporating insights ing sections of this chapter synthesized the scholarly
from a number of related perspectives generally not record on sexual harassment, looking back over
discussed together, including the sexual violence theoretical, empirical, and legal landscapes of years
literature and workplace justice. They describe a past. In contrast, we now look forward to the future
two-dimensional model that organizes prevention with an eye to identifying promising new directions
strategies according to their organizational function for this area of inquiry. Where are the gaps in the
(message, management, and monitoring) and timing research record and how can they be rectified? What
(primary, secondary, and tertiary). Primary preven- aspects of sexual harassment deserve more attention
tion strategies focus on policy and training, whereas and why? It is to these topics that we now turn.
secondary intervention involves an immediate
response after the problem has occurred. Second- Assessing Prevalence
ary strategies focus mainly on providing an effective It is frustrating to note that, 30 years after the U.S.
organizational grievance procedure (e.g., multiple Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment as a
reporting channels, timely investigations, appro- legal claim, there are still no “official” governmental
priate sanctions), whereas tertiary interventions estimates of its extent. Recognizing the difficul-
involve longer-term restorative responses designed ties of definition and measurement, we are still
to deal with lasting consequences, including restor- puzzled that no governmental department or agency
ing health and safety and preventing further perpe- has taken responsibility for providing benchmark
tration and victimization (Chamberlain, Crowley, national statistics. Whatever the imperfections of
Tope, & ­Hodson, 2008). various methodologies, we badly need some reason-
Despite their importance, few tertiary strategies able standard against which to measure progress.
have been identified, an exception being long-term The EEOC (2016) recently convened a Select Task
follow-up of the complainant and accused to ascer- Force on the Study of Sexual Harassment in the
tain that no retaliation is occurring. We would add Workplace and made a number of recommendations
to this the provision of counseling/health care for for prevalence studies, including collaborating with
the complainant and training for the respondent, if the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau,
appropriate, as well as postdispute workgroup reso- and private partners to produce the needed statis-
lution interventions (Salisbury, 1996) designed to tics. This is an issue whose time has come.
minimize the impact of the event on the more gen-
eral workgroup. Taking Gender Harassment Seriously
The comprehensive and integrative nature of In male-dominated settings (e.g., the law, the mili-
this framework is appealing, and its suggested tary), nine out of every 10 victims experience gen-
strategies—combined with proactive and ener- der harassment with virtually no unwanted sexual
getic support from top management—promise to overtures (Leskinen et al., 2011). In fact, the scarcer

225
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

women are in any work setting, the more they face have sex against her will has been raped, whatever a
gender hostility and harassment (Kabat-Farr & jury may decide; similarly, a woman who has been
Cortina, 2014). Gender harassment has nothing to told by a coworker to “Suck this, bitch” has been
do with sexually exploiting women or attempting sexually harassed, whatever the law may say.15 We
to pull them into sexual situations; quite the con- are encouraged that the recent EEOC (2016) task
trary, it pushes them away. It appears to be a tool force did not confine itself to the legal definition of
used “to police and discipline the gender outlaw: the workplace harassment, but rather noted the impor-
woman who dares to do a man’s job is made to pay” tance of conduct and behaviors that may not be
(Franke, 1997, p. 764). “legally actionable.” It is important that we under-
Notwithstanding their ubiquity, gender-­harassing stand all varieties of workplace sexual harassment,
situations are often neglected by psychology, the even those assumed to be inconsequential or “per-
media, and (even still) sometimes the law. This fectly legal.” Seemingly small or “joking” behaviors,
occurs even when the behavior fits all other charac- like sexist name-calling and teasing, can become just
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

teristics of a legally actionable hostile environment: as oppressive and damaging as sexual coercion when
occurring “because of” the victim’s (female) sex; they occur on a daily basis for months on end. The
being sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to alter her field in general would benefit from more research at
employment conditions for the worse; and creat- this allegedly “subtler” end of the sexual harassment
ing a work environment that a “reasonable” person continuum.
would find hostile, and that the victim herself evalu-
ates as such. Though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Attending to Intersections of
of 1964 says nothing about sexual behavior per se, Social Location
conceptualizations that limit harassment largely to Given our fundamentally woman-centered approach
unwanted sexual pursuit emerged over time as the to understanding sexual harassment, it may seem
courts revised their interpretations of Title VII. In contradictory for us to argue for an intersectional
the beginning, women struggled to get unwanted perspective as a needed emphasis in harassment
sexual advances taken seriously as discrimination14; research. We believe it is not. Although women are
currently, it is more likely that courts will dismiss the focus of, and lens through which we view, this
hostile environment cases unless they allege sexual problem, the question of what woman, in what situ-
misconduct, or “disaggregate” sexual from non- ation, by what individual, involving what type of
sexual conduct and then find the latter irrelevant behavior is ignored at great risk.
to a hostile environment claim (e.g., Franke, 1997; Harassment research, legislation, and case law
Novak, 2012; Schultz, 2006). Apparently, sex as an have traditionally focused on one social axis at a
“act” is now more legally potent than sex as a pro- time. An important future direction is to understand
tected category. Therefore, “the privileging of the harassment on the basis of multiple dimensions of
sexual advance in sexual harassment law continues” difference. Theories of intersectionality and double-
(Leskinen et al., 2011, p. 27). Further research into jeopardy can guide this work. Intersectional perspec-
gender harassment, undeniably the most widespread tives tell us that we all concurrently inhabit multiple
form of sexual harassment in work organizations, social locations (on the basis of gender, race, class,
could help counteract this trend. etc.), which vary in the degree of privilege and power
Having said this, we reiterate the importance of they afford (e.g., Cole, 2009; see also Crenshaw,
not judging women’s experiences against prevailing 1991). Relatedly, theories of double-jeopardy argue
legal tests and then behaving as if experiences that that individuals who occupy multiple categories of
don’t meet them don’t count. A woman forced to disadvantage (e.g., women of color) face a “double

Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 161, 163 (D. Ariz. 1975), vacated sub nom. Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 562 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1977)
14

(“there is nothing in the Act which could reasonably be construed to have it apply to ‘verbal and physical sexual advances’ by another employee”).
In this particular example, the trial judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that she was not. Galloway v. Gen. Motors Serv. Parts
15

Operations, 78 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002).

226
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

whammy of discrimination” rooted in gender and and Moore (2006) found women employees report-
ethnic prejudices (Berdahl & Moore, 2006, p. 427; ing more sex-based harassment than men, and
see also Beal, 1970). These perspectives complicate employees of color reported more race-based harass-
our understanding of harassment in the workplace ment than their White counterparts; the net result
(see Volume 1, Chapters 27–30, this handbook). was that women of color described more harass-
To illustrate, consider the intersection of gender ment at work than White women, White men, or
and sexuality. Researchers who investigate “sexual men of color. In a similar vein, Buchanan, Settles,
orientation harassment” typically focus on conduct and Woods (2008) found Black and White female
that explicitly references sexuality (e.g., disparage- military personnel facing different types of sexual
ment of lesbians), as experienced by sexual minority harassment, with White women encountering
employees; gender receives little if any attention. more gender harassment (conduct that insults and
Although lesbians are, by definition, women, for rejects women), and Black women reporting more
purposes of research their “woman-ness” is gener- unwanted sexual attention and coercion. So-called
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

ally subsumed by their sexual identity, and thus dis- sexual harassment, it appears, has much to do with
appears from view (and understanding). race (as well as class and other markers of status).
Similarly, sexual harassment researchers gener- These intersectional understandings of workplace
ally ignore the role of sexual orientation, ignor- harassment are, by definition, messy and compli-
ing that harassment on the basis of gender, sex, cated. At the same time, they mirror reality and are
and sexuality are closely connected, comprising vital for moving the field forward.
components of a larger “technology of sexism”
(Franke, 1997, p. 696) and pressuring all persons Examining Intersections of Behavior
to conform to narrow, rigid, hetero-gender ideals Social location is not the only venue of intersec-
(Rabelo & Cortina, 2014). More concretely, women tion. Just as various types of harassment tend to
and men who flout traditional gender norms are at occur together, so too does harassment itself link
heightened risk for sexual orientation harassment to other forms of violence against women, an inter-
(i.e., heterosexist harassment; Rabelo & Cortina, section often overlooked even by sexual violence
2014), regardless of their actual sexual orienta- researchers themselves. Violence against women
tion (Konik & Cortina, 2008). As Gloria Steinem takes many forms, from sexual harassment to sexual
(1978/1986) famously argued, assault to stalking to murder; these abuses merge
at their edges and in the world, sharing common
sooner or later, all nonconforming
roots in misogyny as well as sociocultural construc-
women are likely to be labeled lesbi-
tions of gender and power. Each of them can and
ans. True, we start out with the smaller
do follow women into the workplace, creating not
punishments of being called “pushy” or
only hostile but dangerous work environments; the
“aggressive,” “man-hating” or “unfemi-
way we conceptualize and label these experiences,
nine.” But it’s only a small step from
however, tends to presume hard “edges,” artificial
those adjectives . . . to the full-fledged
boundaries that obscure similarities by allocating
epithet of “lesbian.” (p. 267)
each to its own social, political, and intellectual
In sum, it is virtually impossible to disentangle ghetto. If a supervisor rapes a female waitress in a
gender-based and sexuality-based harassment on the restaurant meat-locker during the night shift, is it
job; where there is one, you will typically find the sexual assault or sexual harassment? If he threatens
other (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Rabelo & Cortina, her with a knife to force her cooperation does the
2014). It is time that research and the law caught up incident become assault with a deadly weapon? If
with this reality. she happens to be his girlfriend (whom he regularly
Other intersectional studies of harassment have batters and stalks through the use of workplace
addressed the interplay of gender and race. In technology), is this harassment or intimate part-
research within Canadian organizations, Berdahl ner violence? The only possible answer to these

227
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

questions is “Yes.” Therefore, do the realities of 2002; Cortina & Magley, 2003). Numerous factors
women’s experiences defy the neat categories by interact to produce this situation, the most criti-
which we would contain them? cal being fear of retaliation; and, it is the case that
Such artificial categories increase the temptation retaliation transpires at alarmingly high rates—not
to perceive a continuum of severity among these only after employees complain about harassment
acts, rather than within them. Insults and name- but also before, sometimes as a means of deterring
calling may be vulgar or offensive but are commonly them from doing so (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Such
thought to be essentially “harmless,” not violence, retaliation takes multiple forms: It can be profes-
not even harassment, but merely an unfortunate sional, involving adverse work-related actions that
violation of workplace “civility codes.” Verbal sexual are tangible, formal, and documented in employ-
advances are thought to be “less serious” than physi- ment records (e.g., failure to promote, undesirable
cal ones, although the female factory worker who reassignment); more often, though, retaliation is
is ordered “On your knees, bitch” might disagree. social, involving coworker ostracism, blame, unkind
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Hugging, fondling, and even grabbing are often gossip, or treatment as a “trouble-maker.” Social
considered “no big deal,” particularly if the parties retaliation can come from individuals at any level
are known to each other and thought to be friendly. of the organization—peers, superiors, and subordi-
After all, if there was no penetration, it was “no big nates. Research shows that social retaliation occurs
deal.” Like the ubiquitous myths16 that attach to all at roughly twice the rate of professional retaliation,
forms of violence against women, such trivializing and it carries equivalent professional and psycho-
constructions function to deny, minimize, and justify logical harms (Cortina & Magley, 2003). What
the pervasive misogyny that pervades our culture. are the antecedents of such retaliation, and what
We strongly encourage more collaboration interventions are effective at interrupting it? How
among researchers of the different forms of vio- can employers better protect women who lodge
lence and discrimination against women, partner- complaints, and will this remove some of the fear
ships specifically designed to include conduct on surrounding reporting? More broadly, how can we
the basis of gender/sex, sexuality, race, and other disrupt social and professional forces encouraging
dimensions of difference. Such collaboration, intel- silence and shame among sexual harassment vic-
lectual and political, should encompass behaviors tims? These questions await future research.
verbal and physical, come-ons and put-downs, and Reflecting on this issue, we admit again to some
civil offenses and criminal charges. Those of us who frustration. It has become somewhat of a ritual, fol-
study gender and violence have long tended to spe- lowing yet one more analysis documenting that less
cialize in particular domains (e.g., “rape research- than 10% of victims report, to call for more enlight-
ers,” “harassment researchers,” “intimate partner ened organizational policies and procedures, know-
violence specialists”); although this has yielded ing full well that the next study will show more or
detailed understandings of each “variety” of abuse, it less the same thing. In some ways, “reporting” has
has also tended to obscure commonalities, overlaps, become the supposed panacea for harassed women
root causes, and the like. An important next step for in the same way that “training” has for organiza-
the science of gendered violence is to come out of tions; yet study after study tells us that victims don’t
our intellectual “silos” and join forces. report, and current methods of training have little
if any impact on changing anyone’s actual behavior.
Confronting Retaliation and We have struggled with this situation for more than
the Forces of Silence 20 years and have come to believe we must begin to
We have emphasized that sexual harassment victims listen to what the data are trying to tell us.
most often suffer in silence, rarely reporting their What would that mean? To begin, it perhaps
abuse to anyone in authority (e.g., Bergman et al., means accepting that women do not report and
An exposition of the essential similarity of myths concerning all forms of violence against women and the ways in which they function to deny and
16

justify sexual violence has recently begun. This discussion is overdue and we regret that space precludes us from contributing to it here.

228
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

that this is a rational decision, given what so often Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(5), 4–25.
happens to those who do. What comes next is not http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683949610124771
immediately obvious, although alternatives are begin- Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001).
ning to be discussed (EEOC, 2016). For example, Behind closed doors: In-home workers’ experience
of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal
bystander interventions—similar to those currently of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 255–269.
explored as remedies for campus sexual assault—may http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.255
prove promising in at least some types of workplace Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and
situations and serve at the least to redistribute some female. Detroit, MI: Radical Education Project.
of the responsibility currently placed on victims to Bell, C., Coven, M., Cronan, J. P., Garza, C. A.,
“handle” the problem themselves. Similarly, work- Guggemos, J., & Storto, L. (1999). Rape and
place civility training (that is, a focus on promoting sexual misconduct in the prison system: Analyzing
America’s most open secret. Yale Law and Policy
respect in the workplace more generally, as opposed Review, 18, 195–223.
to eliminating sex-based and sexually offensive
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996).

behavior) may likewise offer solutions. The com- The sexual harassment of men. Psychology of Women
mon theme of such approaches is that they dilute the Quarterly, 20, 527–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
historical focus on the victim and her behavior and j.1471-6402.1996.tb00320.x
response, a reframing that is long overdue. Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace
harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436. http://
Conclusion dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a
Thirty years after the U.S. Supreme Court moderator in a model of sexual harassment: An
empirical test. Journal of Occupational Health
held . . . that workplace harassment was Psychology, 8, 131–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
an actionable form of discrimination 1076-8998.8.2.131
prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A.,
Act of 1964, we conclude that we have Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The
come a far way . . . but sadly and too (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and
consequences of reporting sexual harassment.
often still have far to go. (EEOC, 2016) Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230–242. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.230
We agree. In this chapter, we have tried to capture
the essence of that journey, as well as identify some Brents, B. G., & Sanders, T. (2010). Mainstreaming
the sex industry: Economic inclusion and social
of the obstacles and landmarks that mark the way. It ambivalence. Journal of Law and Society, 37, 40–60.
is our hope that our chapter will encourage others to http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00494.x
explore further, helping to ensure that subsequent Brinkman, B. G., Garcia, K., & Rickard, K. M. (2011).
generations of women may travel their own paths “What I wanted to do was . . .”: Discrepancies between
without the burdens we have described here. college women’s desired and reported responses
to gender prejudice. Sex Roles, 65, 344–355. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0020-7
References Buchanan, N. T., Settles. I. H., & Woods K. C. (2008).
Avina, C., & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment Comparing sexual harassment subtypes among
and PTSD: Is sexual harassment diagnosable Black and White women by military rank: Double
trauma? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 69–75. jeopardy, the jezebel, and the cult of true womanhood.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014387429057 Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347–361. https://
Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00450.x
Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77–92. Chamberlain, L. J., Crowley, M., Tope, D., & Hodson, R.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439304271540 (2008). Sexual harassment in organizational context.
Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C. A., Kevin Kelloway, Work and Occupations, 35, 262–295. http://dx.doi.org/
E., Fullagar, C., & Johnson, D. (1996). Prediction 10.1177/0730888408322008
and replication of the organizational and personal Chan, D. K.-S., Chow, S. Y., Lam, C. B., & Cheung, S. F.
consequences of workplace sexual harassment. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological,

229
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

and physical outcomes of workplace sexual Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 398–408.
harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029883
Women Quarterly, 32, 362–376. http://dx.doi.org/
Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling “holier than
10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00451.x
thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of
(1964). Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 861–875.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.861
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in
psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Rinehart, S., & Doshi, N.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564 (2016). Understanding types, locations, and
perpetrators of peer-to-peer sexual harassment in
Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., Magley, V. J., Freeman, U.S. middle schools: A focus on sex, racial, and
L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, grade differences. Children and Youth Services
L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Review, 71, 174–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Incivility in the federal courts. Law and Social j.childyouth.2016.11.010
Inquiry, 27, 235–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, Fitzgerald, L. F., Buchanan, N., Collinsworth, L. L.,
risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal Magley, V. J., & Ramos, A. M. (1999). Junk logic:
mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational The abuse defense in sexual harassment litigation.
Health Psychology, 8, 247–265. http://dx.doi.org/ Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 730–759.
10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.730
Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Fitzgerald, L. F., Collinsworth, L. L., & Lawson, A. K.
Responses to sexual harassment across persons, (2013). Sexual harassment, PTSD, and Criterion A: If
organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied it walks like a duck.. . . Psychological Injury and Law, 6,
Psychology, 90, 182–192. http://dx.doi.org/ 81–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9149-8
10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.182 Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J.,
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences
Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1241–1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229039 82, 578–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.82.4.578
Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. S. (1997). The effects of
sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M., & Drasgow, F. (1995).
harassment: Theory, research, and treatment Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and
(pp. 152–174). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 17, 425–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
Davidson, M. M., Butchko, M. S., Robbins, K., Sherd, s15324834basp1704_2
L. W., & Gervais, S. J. (2016). The mediating role of
perceived safety on street harassment and anxiety. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards,
Psychology of Violence, 6, 553–561. http://dx.doi.org/ M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., . . . Weitzman, L. (1988).
10.1037/a0039970 The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment
in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. Behavior, 32, 152–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
629, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 143 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1999). 0001-8791(88)90012-7
de Haas, S., Timmerman, G., & Höing, M. (2009). Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why
Sexual harassment and health among male and didn’t she just report him? The psychological
female police officers. Journal of Occupational Health and legal context of women’s responses to sexual
Psychology, 14, 390–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117–138.
a0017046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.
Diekmann, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Galinsky, A. D. tb01312.x
(2003). From self-prediction to self-defeat: Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The relationship
Behavioral forecasting, self-fulfilling prophecies, between coping and emotion: Implications for
and the effect of competitive expectations. Journal theory and research. Social Science and Medicine,
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 672–683. 26, 309–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.672 0277-9536(88)90395-4
Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., & Dupré, K. E. (2012). Franke, K. M. (1997). What’s wrong with sexual
Revisiting the comparative outcomes of workplace harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49, 691–772.
aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229336

230
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

Gettman, H. J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2007). When the Jenson et al. v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287
customer shouldn’t be king: Antecedents and (8th Cir. 1997).
consequences of sexual harassment by clients
Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Sex-based
and customers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
harassment in employment: New insights into
92, 757–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
gender and context. Law and Human Behavior, 38,
0021-9010.92.3.757
58–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000045
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow,
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping
F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997).
perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of
Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model
Women Quarterly, 28, 168–178. http://dx.doi.org/
of antecedents and consequents. Organizational
10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00133.x
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2728 Kensbock, S., Bailey, J., Jennings, G., & Patiar, A. (2015).
Sexual harassment of women working as room
Gruber, J. E., & Smith, M. E. (1995). Women’s responses
attendants within 5-star hotels. Gender, Work, and
to sexual harassment: A multivariate analysis. Basic
Organization, 22, 36–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 543–562. http://
gwao.12064
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_7
Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C. L.
Hall v. Gus Const. Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1988).
(1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual
Harned, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of
a link between sexual harassment and eating Management Review, 22, 687–729. http://dx.doi.org/
disorder symptoms: A mediational analysis. Journal 10.5465/AMR.1997.9708210723
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1170–1181.
Konik, J., & Cortina, L. M. (2008). Policing gender at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.5.1170
work: Intersections of harassment based on sex and
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). sexuality. Social Justice Research, 21, 313–337.
Hesson-McInnis, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0074-z
Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M.,
integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Williams, J. (2005).
Psychology, 27, 877–901. http://dx.doi. Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00276.x and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal
Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir. 1987). of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 975–1007. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02156.x
Hill, C., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the line: Sexual
harassment at school. Washington, DC: American Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005).
Association of University Women. Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and
victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Ho, I. K., Dinh, K. T., Bellefontaine, S. A., & Irving, A. L. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
(2012). Sexual harassment and post-traumatic 10, 155–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
stress disorder symptoms among Asian and White 1076-8998.10.2.155
women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and
Trauma, 21, 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,
10926771.2012.633238 and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2013). When sexism Leskinen, E. A., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Dimensions
and feminism collide: The sexual harassment of of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender
feminist working women. Psychology of Women harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 37, 192–208. http://dx.doi.org/ Quarterly, 38, 107–123. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0361684313482873 10.1177/0361684313496549

Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., & Kabat, D. B. (2011).
Organizational influences on sexual harassment. Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding
In M. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human
workplace (pp. 127–150). http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ Behavior, 35, 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
9781483327280.n7 s10979-010-9241-5

Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. Levine, J. M. (2003). Elder neglect and abuse: A
(2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related primer for primary care physicians. Geriatrics, 58,
sexual harassment in the United States: Using 37–44.
meta-analysis to explain rate disparities. Personnel Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal
Psychology, 56, 607–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and
j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x impact of general incivility and sexual harassment.

231
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496. http:// Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483 targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to
Lonsway, K. A., Paynich, R., & Hall, J. N. (2013). Sexual misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
harassment in law enforcement: Incidence, impact, 92, 1254–1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
and perception. Police Quarterly, 16, 177–210. http:// 0021-9010.92.5.1254
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098611113475630 Munson, L. J., Miner, A. G., & Hulin, C. (2001). Labeling
MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working sexual harassment in the military: An extension
women: A case of sex discrimination. New Haven, CT: and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Yale University Press. 86, 293–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.2.293
Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment:
Reconceptualizing women’s resistance. Journal of Novak, M. E. (2012). The trouble with “bitch”: Rethinking
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 930–946. the Seventh Circuit’s approach to causation in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.930 sexist harassment cases. Seventh Circuit Review, 8,
152–459.
Magley, V. J., Cortina, L. M., & Kath, L. (2005, August).
O’Connell, C. E., & Korabik, K. (2000). Sexual
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Stress, withdrawal, and gender in the context of sexual

harassment: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented harassment: The relationship of personal
at the 113th Annual Convention of the American vulnerability, work context, perpetrator status,
Psychological Association, Washington, DC. and type of harassment to outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, 299–329. http://dx.doi.org/
Magley, V. J., & Shupe, E. I. (2005). Self-labeling sexual 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1717
harassment. Sex Roles, 53, 173–189. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-005-5677-3 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75
(1998).
Magley, V. J., Waldo, C. R., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald,
L. F. (1999). The impact of sexual harassment Page, T. E., & Pina, A. (2015). Moral disengagement
on military personnel: Is it the same for men and as a self-regulatory process in sexual harassment
women? Military Psychology, 11, 283–302. http:// perpetration at work: A preliminary conceptualization.
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1103_5 Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 73–84. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.004
Magruder, K., Serpi, T., Kimerling, R., Kilbourne, A. M.,
Collins, J. F., Cypel, Y., . . . Kang, H. (2015). Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). What is so bad
Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in about a little name-calling? Negative consequences
Vietnam-era women veterans: The Health of of gender harassment for overperformance demands
Vietnam-Era Women’s Study (HealthVIEWS). JAMA and distress. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychiatry, 72, 1127–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ Psychology, 7, 195–210. http://dx.doi.org/
jamapsychiatry.2015.1786 10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.195

Maypole, D. E. (1986). Sexual harassment of social Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of
workers: Injustice within? Social Work, 31, coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19,
29–34. 2–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136319

Mazzeo, S., Bergman, M. E., Buchanan, N., Drasgow, F., Phillips, S. P., & Schneider, M. S. (1993). Sexual
& Fitzgerald, L. F. (2001). Situation specific harassment of female doctors by patients. New
assessment of sexual harassment: A different England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1936–1939.
approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199312233292607
120–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1781 Pina, A., Gannon, T. A., & Saunders, B. (2009). An
McDonald, P., Charlesworth, S., & Graham, T. (2015). overview of the literature on sexual harassment:
Developing a framework of effective prevention and Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression
response strategies in workplace sexual harassment. and Violent Behavior, 14, 126–138. http://dx.doi.org/
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53, 41–58. 10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12046 Piotrkowski, C. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job
McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1985). satisfaction, and distress among employed White
and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399 Psychology, 3, 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
(1986). 1076-8998.3.1.33
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S. Ct. 1775 (1989).
context of hostility toward women: Implications for
employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men.
Psychology, 9, 107–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Sex Roles, 17, 269–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
1076-8998.9.2.107 BF00288453

232
 Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations

Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1995–2018. http://
social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00161.x
The person/situation interaction. Journal of
Schultz, V. (1998). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment.
Vocational Behavior, 42, 68–83. http://dx.doi.org/
Yale Law Journal, 107, 1683–1805. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005
10.2307/797337
Rabelo, V. C., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Two sides of
Schultz, V. (2006). Understanding sexual harassment law
the same coin: Gender harassment and heterosexist
in action: What has gone wrong and what can we do
harassment in LGBQ work lives. Law and Human
about it. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 29, 1.
Behavior, 38, 378–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
lhb0000087 Settles, I. H., Harrell, Z. A., Buchanan, N. T., & Yap,
S. C. (2011). Frightened or bothered: Two types of
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the
sexual harassment appraisals. Social Psychological
individual victim: Linking sexual harassment,
and Personality Science, 2, 600–608. http://dx.doi.org/
team processes, and team performance. Academy of
10.1177/1948550611402520
Management Journal, 48, 387–400. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407904 Shupe, E. I., Cortina, L. M., Ramos, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., &
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Salisbury, J. (2002). The incidence and outcomes of

Reed, M. E., Collinsworth, L. L., & Fitzgerald, L.
sexual harassment among Hispanic and non-Hispanic
F. (2005). There’s no place like home: Sexual
White women: A comparison across levels of cultural
harassment of low income women in housing.
affiliation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 298–308.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 439–462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.439
Sims, C. S., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005).
Rospenda, K. M., Fujishiro, K., Shannon, C. A., &
The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in
Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment,
the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of
stress, and drinking behavior over time: Gender
Applied Psychology, 90, 1141–1152. http://dx.doi.org/
differences in a national sample. Addictive Behaviors,
10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1141
33, 964–967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.addbeh.2008.02.009 Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful
Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. workplace experiences and women’s occupational
(2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women
harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Quarterly, 40, 10–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Results from a national study. Journal of Interpersonal 0361684315599346
Violence, 24, 819–843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., Lancaster, A., Drasgow,
0886260508317182 F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Toward standardized
Salisbury, J. (1996). Healing the aftermath of sexual measurement of sexual harassment: Shortening
harassment complaints: The final challenge. In A the SEQ-DoD using item response theory. Military
national institute on sexual harassment (pp. B37–B48). Psychology, 14, 49–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Center for S15327876MP1401_03
Continuing Legal Education. Steinem, G. (1986). If men could menstruate. In
Salisbury, J., & Jaffe, F. (1996). Individual training Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions (pp.
of sexual harassers. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Sexual 337–340). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
harassment on college campuses: Abusing the ivory Winston. (Original work published 1978)
power (pp. 141–152). New York: State University of Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct and moderating
New York Press. influences of sexual-harassment pervasiveness, coping
Schneider, K. T. (1996). Bystander stress: The effect of strategies, and gender on work-related outcomes.
organizational tolerance of sexual harassment on victims’ Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 521–535. http://
coworkers. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/ dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00175.x
2142/23259 Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1989). The identification
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). and classification of reactions to sexual harassment.
Job-related and psychological effects of sexual Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1–14. http://
harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030100102
from two organizations. Journal of Applied Tester, G. (2008). An intersectional analysis of sexual
Psychology, 82, 401–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ harassment in housing. Gender and Society, 22,
0021-9010.82.3.401 349–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243208317827
Schneider, K. T., Tomaka, J., & Palacios, R. (2001). Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual
Women’s cognitive, affective, and physiological harassment of students. Washington, DC: National
reactions to a male coworker’s sexist behavior. Journal Advisory Council on Women’s Educational Programs.

233
 Fitzgerald and Cortina

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social
(1980). Discrimination because of sex under Title VII Psychology, 83, 394–405. http://dx.doi.org/
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended: Adoption 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.394
of interim guidelines—Sexual harassment. Federal Williams, M. F. (1996). Violence and sexual harassment:
Register, 45, 25024–25025. Impact on registered nurses in the workplace.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). AAOHN Journal, 44, 73–77.
Select task force on the study of sexual harassment in the Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis
workplace. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/ of the antecedents and consequences of workplace
task_force/harassment/report.cfm sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127–162.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x
harassment of federal workers: Is it a problem? Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effects of
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). in a job interview. Sex Roles, 53, 67–77. http://
Sexual harassment of federal workers: An dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4279-4
update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Wright, C. V., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2007). Angry and afraid:

Printing Office. Women’s appraisals of sexual harassment during
Wasti, S. A., & Cortina, L. M. (2002). Coping in litigation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 73–84.
context: Sociocultural determinants of responses to http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00332.x

234