Differences in the Eyes of the Beholders: The Roles of Subjective and Objective Judgments in Sexual Harassment Claims

Katherine M.K. Kimble, Katlyn S. Farnum, Richard L. Wiener, Jill Allen, Gwenith D. Nuss, Sarah J. Gervais

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2 studies, we found support for current sexual harassment jurisprudence. Currently, the courts use a 2-prong test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: that the adverse treatment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment based on a protected class from the perspective of the individual complainant (subjective prong) and from the perspective of a reasonable person (objective prong). In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants. We found that the pervasive objectification delivered by multiple men (compared with 1 man) did not elicit more negative emotion or harm the experiencers' task performance, although it did lead them to make increased judgments of sexual harassment. In Experiment 2, observers (who viewed a recording of an experiencer's interactions with the male research assistants) and predictors (who read a protocol describing the facts of the interaction) anticipated the female targets would experience negative emotions, show impaired performance, as well as find more evidence in the interaction of sexual harassment. Observers' judgments mirrored those of the experiencers' while predictors' judgments demonstrated affective forecasting errors. Predictors were more likely to anticipate more negative emotion, worse performance, and greater likelihood of sexual harassment. Overall, these studies demonstrate the impact and importance of considering perceptions of sexual harassment from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)319-336
Number of pages18
JournalLaw and human behavior
Volume40
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

Sexual Harassment
sexual harassment
Emotions
emotion
assistant
interaction
Research
performance
objectification
experiment
Task Performance and Analysis
Jurisprudence
jurisprudence
Beholder
recording
human being
evidence
Experiencer
Predictors
Interaction

Keywords

  • discrimination
  • emotion
  • objectification
  • sexual harassment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Differences in the Eyes of the Beholders : The Roles of Subjective and Objective Judgments in Sexual Harassment Claims. / Kimble, Katherine M.K.; Farnum, Katlyn S.; Wiener, Richard L.; Allen, Jill; Nuss, Gwenith D.; Gervais, Sarah J.

In: Law and human behavior, Vol. 40, No. 3, 01.06.2016, p. 319-336.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kimble, Katherine M.K. ; Farnum, Katlyn S. ; Wiener, Richard L. ; Allen, Jill ; Nuss, Gwenith D. ; Gervais, Sarah J. / Differences in the Eyes of the Beholders : The Roles of Subjective and Objective Judgments in Sexual Harassment Claims. In: Law and human behavior. 2016 ; Vol. 40, No. 3. pp. 319-336.
@article{ec8f0d103dce4aa98f53d2939b7aca2d,
title = "Differences in the Eyes of the Beholders: The Roles of Subjective and Objective Judgments in Sexual Harassment Claims",
abstract = "In 2 studies, we found support for current sexual harassment jurisprudence. Currently, the courts use a 2-prong test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: that the adverse treatment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment based on a protected class from the perspective of the individual complainant (subjective prong) and from the perspective of a reasonable person (objective prong). In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants. We found that the pervasive objectification delivered by multiple men (compared with 1 man) did not elicit more negative emotion or harm the experiencers' task performance, although it did lead them to make increased judgments of sexual harassment. In Experiment 2, observers (who viewed a recording of an experiencer's interactions with the male research assistants) and predictors (who read a protocol describing the facts of the interaction) anticipated the female targets would experience negative emotions, show impaired performance, as well as find more evidence in the interaction of sexual harassment. Observers' judgments mirrored those of the experiencers' while predictors' judgments demonstrated affective forecasting errors. Predictors were more likely to anticipate more negative emotion, worse performance, and greater likelihood of sexual harassment. Overall, these studies demonstrate the impact and importance of considering perceptions of sexual harassment from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.",
keywords = "discrimination, emotion, objectification, sexual harassment",
author = "Kimble, {Katherine M.K.} and Farnum, {Katlyn S.} and Wiener, {Richard L.} and Jill Allen and Nuss, {Gwenith D.} and Gervais, {Sarah J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/lhb0000182",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "319--336",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in the Eyes of the Beholders

T2 - The Roles of Subjective and Objective Judgments in Sexual Harassment Claims

AU - Kimble, Katherine M.K.

AU - Farnum, Katlyn S.

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Allen, Jill

AU - Nuss, Gwenith D.

AU - Gervais, Sarah J.

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - In 2 studies, we found support for current sexual harassment jurisprudence. Currently, the courts use a 2-prong test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: that the adverse treatment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment based on a protected class from the perspective of the individual complainant (subjective prong) and from the perspective of a reasonable person (objective prong). In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants. We found that the pervasive objectification delivered by multiple men (compared with 1 man) did not elicit more negative emotion or harm the experiencers' task performance, although it did lead them to make increased judgments of sexual harassment. In Experiment 2, observers (who viewed a recording of an experiencer's interactions with the male research assistants) and predictors (who read a protocol describing the facts of the interaction) anticipated the female targets would experience negative emotions, show impaired performance, as well as find more evidence in the interaction of sexual harassment. Observers' judgments mirrored those of the experiencers' while predictors' judgments demonstrated affective forecasting errors. Predictors were more likely to anticipate more negative emotion, worse performance, and greater likelihood of sexual harassment. Overall, these studies demonstrate the impact and importance of considering perceptions of sexual harassment from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.

AB - In 2 studies, we found support for current sexual harassment jurisprudence. Currently, the courts use a 2-prong test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: that the adverse treatment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of employment based on a protected class from the perspective of the individual complainant (subjective prong) and from the perspective of a reasonable person (objective prong). In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants. We found that the pervasive objectification delivered by multiple men (compared with 1 man) did not elicit more negative emotion or harm the experiencers' task performance, although it did lead them to make increased judgments of sexual harassment. In Experiment 2, observers (who viewed a recording of an experiencer's interactions with the male research assistants) and predictors (who read a protocol describing the facts of the interaction) anticipated the female targets would experience negative emotions, show impaired performance, as well as find more evidence in the interaction of sexual harassment. Observers' judgments mirrored those of the experiencers' while predictors' judgments demonstrated affective forecasting errors. Predictors were more likely to anticipate more negative emotion, worse performance, and greater likelihood of sexual harassment. Overall, these studies demonstrate the impact and importance of considering perceptions of sexual harassment from multiple perspectives and viewpoints.

KW - discrimination

KW - emotion

KW - objectification

KW - sexual harassment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975709208&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975709208&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000182

DO - 10.1037/lhb0000182

M3 - Article

C2 - 26914857

AN - SCOPUS:84975709208

VL - 40

SP - 319

EP - 336

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 3

ER -