How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model

Richard L. Wiener, Linda E. Hurt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The authors tested a psycholegal model of how people evaluate social sexual conduct at work with videotaped reenactments of interviews with alleged complainants, perpetrators, and other workers. Participants (200 full-time male and female workers) were randomly assigned to evaluate the complaints with either the reasonable person or reasonable woman legal standard. Participants answered questions about sexual harassment law and completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Participants who took the reasonable woman perspective, as compared with those who took the reasonable person perspective, were more likely to find the conduct harassing; this was especially the case among participants high in hostile sexism. Medium-sized gender effects were found in the severe case but were absent in the weaker, more ambiguous case. The implications of these findings for hostile work environment law are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-85
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Applied Psychology
Volume85
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2000

Fingerprint

Sexism
Sexual Harassment
Interviews
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. / Wiener, Richard L.; Hurt, Linda E.

In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 1, 02.2000, p. 75-85.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3d9bafed594747889391d9651d4953ee,
title = "How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model",
abstract = "The authors tested a psycholegal model of how people evaluate social sexual conduct at work with videotaped reenactments of interviews with alleged complainants, perpetrators, and other workers. Participants (200 full-time male and female workers) were randomly assigned to evaluate the complaints with either the reasonable person or reasonable woman legal standard. Participants answered questions about sexual harassment law and completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Participants who took the reasonable woman perspective, as compared with those who took the reasonable person perspective, were more likely to find the conduct harassing; this was especially the case among participants high in hostile sexism. Medium-sized gender effects were found in the severe case but were absent in the weaker, more ambiguous case. The implications of these findings for hostile work environment law are discussed.",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Hurt, {Linda E.}",
year = "2000",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "75--85",
journal = "Journal of Applied Psychology",
issn = "0021-9010",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Hurt, Linda E.

PY - 2000/2

Y1 - 2000/2

N2 - The authors tested a psycholegal model of how people evaluate social sexual conduct at work with videotaped reenactments of interviews with alleged complainants, perpetrators, and other workers. Participants (200 full-time male and female workers) were randomly assigned to evaluate the complaints with either the reasonable person or reasonable woman legal standard. Participants answered questions about sexual harassment law and completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Participants who took the reasonable woman perspective, as compared with those who took the reasonable person perspective, were more likely to find the conduct harassing; this was especially the case among participants high in hostile sexism. Medium-sized gender effects were found in the severe case but were absent in the weaker, more ambiguous case. The implications of these findings for hostile work environment law are discussed.

AB - The authors tested a psycholegal model of how people evaluate social sexual conduct at work with videotaped reenactments of interviews with alleged complainants, perpetrators, and other workers. Participants (200 full-time male and female workers) were randomly assigned to evaluate the complaints with either the reasonable person or reasonable woman legal standard. Participants answered questions about sexual harassment law and completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Participants who took the reasonable woman perspective, as compared with those who took the reasonable person perspective, were more likely to find the conduct harassing; this was especially the case among participants high in hostile sexism. Medium-sized gender effects were found in the severe case but were absent in the weaker, more ambiguous case. The implications of these findings for hostile work environment law are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034131543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034131543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75

DO - 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75

M3 - Article

C2 - 10740958

AN - SCOPUS:0034131543

VL - 85

SP - 75

EP - 85

JO - Journal of Applied Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Psychology

SN - 0021-9010

IS - 1

ER -