An empirical examination of same- and other-gender sexual harassment in the workplace

Cathy L.Z. DuBois

The stereotypical view of workplace sexual harassment (SH) is that harassment takes place between males and females. This view casts the perpetrator as a male and the target as a female. As a result, SH has often been described as a "power issue" because males are considered the power brokers in organizations (Farley, 1978).

As more women moved into more powerful positions in the workplace in the 1980's, research revealed that the gender roles of perpetrator and target were reversible. This research also revealed that the SH of males by female perpetrators was not insignificant (USMSPB 1981, 1988). Additional research has broadened the general view of SH to include same-gender SH which involves either a male target and male perpetrator or female target and female perpetrator (Berdahl, Magley & Waldo, 1996; McKinney, 1994; Martindale, 1988; Schneider, 1982; USMSPB, 1995; Waldo, Berdahl & Fitzgerald, 1998). More recently the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) reshaped the legal view of SH to include same-gender harassment. As noted by the Court, ". . .nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination 'because of . . . sex' merely because the plaintiff and the defendant . . . are of the same sex."

Although there is a burgeoning literature that has explored the antecedents and consequences of other-gender SH, very little research on same-gender SH exists. Much of the same-gender research has been limited in scope to simply pointing out that same-gender SH occurs far less frequently than other-gender SH, and that same-gender SH is much more likely to occur between males than females (McKinney, 1994; Martindale, 1988; Schneider, 1982; USMSPB, 1995). Some of this research has explored the types of same-gender SH that occur among men, as well as the power issues involved in this type of SH (Berdahl et al., 1996 and Waldo et al., 1998).

Another focus of same-gender studies has been on issues related to sexual orientation. For example, D'Augelli (1989) examined the sexually harassing experiences of lesbians and gays and Schneider (1982) reported on the SH of female heterosexual and lesbian workers. However, although homosexuality is reported to be a factor in same-gender rape and sexual abuse (Hickson, Davies, Hunt, Weatherburn, McManus, & Coxon, 1994; Waterman, Dawson, & Bologna, 1989), it would be inappropriate to conclude that targets and/or perpetrators of same-gender SH were homosexual. To better understand this point, it is important to keep in mind that SH is usually not motivated by sexual attraction or sexual intentions. In fact, as noted above, SH is most often the result of factors related to power and dominance (Tangri, Burt, & Johnson, 1982; Cleveland and Kerst, 1993).

Same-Gender SH and Power

Power has consistently been posited as the main (though not exclusive) motivation for other-gender SH. Thus, research on power and the organizational, social, physical, and situational bases of power can provide useful insights into the motivations of same-gender SH (Bond, 1995; Berdahl et al., 1996; Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Pryor & Whalen, 1997). Pryor & Whalen (1997) suggest that power provides a basis for one person to obtain leverage over another, and thereby the means by which the powerful (regardless of gender) impose their will upon the powerless.

Miller (1997) notes that individuals can be powerful and powerless simultaneously. For example, although coworkers may lack organizational power, they may still have situational or physical power over each other regardless of gender. For example, workgroup newcomers are especially vulnerable to the situational power of the group's more senior members who "know the ropes." And physically powerful coworkers can more easily dominate weaker coworkers, which can lead to gender harassment (Waldo, et al., 1998) as well as sexual coercion. In fact, situational and physical power were the primary underlying causes of the hazing-related same-gender SH that occurred in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998).

As noted by Backman and Backman (1997) our patriarchal society bestows males with power, and the social definitions of the male gender-role emphasize and sanction aggressive, dominant, and even violent actions. On the other hand, the female gender-role places an emphasis on nurturing and supporting actions. These differences likely explain in part the greater prevalence of same-gender SH among males.

Berdahl et al. (1996) propose that targets of SH are more likely to feel harassed by behaviors that result in a perceived loss of control over personal and professional status and security. More specifically, these authors suggest that men feel harassed by behaviors they perceive challenge their masculinity while women feel harassed by behaviors they perceive reinforce their subordinate role in the workplace. Because men tend to wield more power in the workplace, challenges to their masculinity are more likely to come from other men; women usually lack this power.

Moreover, the abuse of power and desire to dominate that often lead to same-gender SH are not necessarily affiliated with sexual orientation. That is, power and domination can lead to same- as well as other-gender SH irrespective of the sexual orientation of the target or perpetrator. For example, gender harassment that involves lewd comments and enforcement of the traditional male gender role (Waldo et al., 1998) can occur among heterosexual men. Moreover, Garnets, Herek, & Levy (1990) report that heterosexual men are the primary perpetrators of adult-male sexual assault and rape and Goyer & Eddleman (1984) note that hazing rituals in the military may involve same-gender rape and sexual abuse.

Some authors suggest that an association between power and sex underlies the behavior of many harassers (Bargh & Raymond, 1995; Pryor & Stoller, 1994). These authors contend that men who possess a power - sex association prey upon vulnerable women because their perceived vulnerability arouses the man's power concept. Especially under circumstances where few females exist, men whose power - sex association is strong may resort to the harassment of vulnerable males in order to activate their power concept. As noted above, the target in the Oncale case was a physically smaller male who was especially vulnerable because he was new to an all-male workgroup. Neibur (1997) suggests that because women make up such a small percentage of the military population, male perpetrators in the military are more likely to seek out vulnerable males to sexually harass in a manner similar to that found in male prison populations. Perhaps a power-sex association underlies such male-male SH, as well.

The Current Study

Although there are obvious similarities between same- and other-gender SH, it is also likely there are differences especially in outcomes. For example, Waldo et al. (1998) suggest that male-male SH causes psychological and job-related outcomes that are more severe than those caused by female-male SH. The rape literature also indicates that same-gender rape often has a much more devastating affect on victims than other-gender rape (Garnets et al., 1990). What these studies suggest is that targets of same-gender SH may suffer more negative consequences than other-gender targets. These differences need to be better understood if organizations are to more effectively deal with the prevention and resolution of same-gender SH.

The current exploratory study attempts to address this void in the SH literature by examining same- and other-gender SH using four major components drawn from a conceptual model of SH proposed by Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand and Magley (1997). To date these four components have been extensively researched for other-gender SH, and provide a coherent framework for the examination of same-gender SH.

The first component of the Fitzgerald et al. model is sexually harassing behaviors, which are examined by comparing the types of harassment experienced by same- and other-gender targets. The second component of the model is the personal vulnerability of the target, which is examined by comparing the age and occupational status of the perpetrator relative to that of the target for same- and other-gender targets. The third component is target response styles, which is examined by comparing differences in the number of formal and informal actions taken by same- and other-gender targets. The final component is the consequences of SH, which is examined by comparing the impact of the harassment on the professional and personal well being of same- and other-gender targets. Whereas Fitzgerald et al. (1997) examined the impact of the harassment on target job satisfaction, health conditions, and psychological conditions, the current study examines three alternate but overlapping categories: impact on target professional behavior, profession-related attitudes, and physical and psychological well-being.

The results of these analyses should help researchers more completely understand the homological network that surrounds sexual harassment. Thus, the results of these analyses should provide fledgling guidance for future research activities, especially those related to same-gender harassment. These results may also help organizations begin to better understand how to deal with the same-gender harassment that occurs in their workplaces.

METHOD

The data for male and female targets was analyzed separately because research has consistently demonstrated that males and females perceive and respond to SH differently (c.f. Gutek, Nakamura, Gahart, Handschumacher, & Russell, 1980; Gutek, Morasch, & Cohen, 1983; Popovich, Gehlauf, Jolton, Somers, & Godinho, 1992). Because the sexual orientation of the target and the perpetrator(s) was unknown, it was not possible to make a distinction between same-gender SH that involved homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Sample

The data used in the current study came from the 1988 Department of Defense Survey of Sex Roles in the Active-Duty Military (Martindale, 1988), a survey conducted by the Defense Manpower Data Center. This survey was mailed to 38,000 active-duty military personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard and had a response rate of 53.8 percent (n = 20,249). The survey's stratified random sampling strategy involved oversampling women and minorities to ensure adequate numbers for statistical analysis.

The survey presented respondents with a list of 9 specific types of uninvited, unwanted sexual attention. Because subjects were asked about the specific types of unwanted sexual behavior they had experienced, the problems associated with individual perceptions of what constitutes SH were avoided (see Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993).

Respondents who noted they had experienced any of these 9 types of sexual attention while on active-duty during the twelve months prior to answering the survey were asked a series of questions about "the one experience [in the 12 months prior to the survey] that had the greatest effect on you." Among other details, these respondents were asked to describe the frequency and duration of the experience, its impact on them, how they responded to the experience, and to describe themselves as well as the perpetrator(s) of the experience.

Subjects included in the current study were those respondents who: 1) indicated they were targets of SH at work during the twelve months prior to completing the survey, 2) reported their own gender as well as the gender of their harasser(s), and 3) were targets of either same or other-gender SH only. Over 6,600 subjects met all three criteria (n = 6,669).

Of the 6,669 respondents who met these criteria, 5312 were female (48% White, 27% Black, 25% 'other') and 1357 were male (38% White, 31% Black, 31% 'other'). Of the 5312 female respondents, 5259 reported they experienced other-gender (99%) and 53 same-gender (1%) harassment. Of the 1357 male respondents, 884 reported they experienced other-gender (65%) and 473 same-gender (35%) harassment.

Study Variables

Types of Sexually Harassing Behaviors. As noted above, the survey contained a list of nine specific types of uninvited, unwanted, sexual attention, including: (1) whistles, calls, hoots, or yells; (2) sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions; (3) sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or body language; (4) letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature; (5) pressure for dates; (6) sexual touching, cornering, pinching, or brushing against; (7) attempts to promote participation in sexually oriented activities; (8) pressure for sexual favors; and (9) actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.

Target Vulnerability (Perpetrator Characteristics Relative to Target). These included both the age and occupational status of the perpetrator relative to the target.

Target Responses to SH. These included whether targets took formal action, the reasons noted by targets who took no formal action, and the types of assistance targets sought to cope with the SH they experienced. This data came from several structured survey-questions. The first question asked respondents whether they had taken any formal action. Those who took no formal action were asked why they hadn't. All respondents were asked about the specific types of professional and non-professional coping-related assistance they sought.

Consequences of SH on Targets. These included the negative impact of the harassment on a variety of work and non-work related activities and attitudes. This data came from a series of structured survey-questions that asked respondents how much the harassment had an impact on, among others, the quantity and quality of the their work, their attitudes about work, and their emotional and physical condition.

Analyses

Contingency-table analysis was used to determine whether there were significant differences between same- and other-gender targets on each study variable. Chi-square statistics were computed separately for female and male sub-samples. All critical values were adjusted for the large number of tests that were performed. Finally, all chi-squares are reported in the tables in order to simplify the presentation of this section.

For survey questions where respondents were asked to choose all the options that applied, a chi-square was computed for each response option. For those survey questions where respondents were asked to choose one of several options, an omnibus chi-square was computed to assess differences on the study variable. If this omnibus test was significant, additional chi-square statistics were computed to determine if there were significant differences between same- and other-gender percentages for each of the question's response options.

RESULTS

The different types of sexually harassing behaviors experienced by same- and other-gender targets are shown in Table I. Because respondents were asked to choose all the harassing behaviors they experienced during [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED] the incident on which they reported, chi-squares were computed for each specific type of sexually harassing behavior.

While there are no significant differences on any of the specific types of behaviors for female targets, there are significant differences on four of the nine behaviors for male targets. That is, a greater percentage of males who experienced same-gender harassment reported they were raped and subjected to sexually suggestive jokes. On the other hand, a smaller percentage of these targets (compared to male targets of other-gender harassment) reported experiencing inappropriate touching and sexually suggestive looks.

The age and occupational status of the perpetrator relative to the target for targets who experienced same- and other-gender harassment are shown in Table II. Because respondents were asked to choose one of several options for each survey question, omnibus chi-squares were computed for both the age and occupational status variables.

While there is no significant difference on the perpetrator-age variable between female targets who experienced same- and other-gender harassment, there is a significant difference for male targets. That is, a greater percentage of perpetrators of same-gender harassment involving males were older than the target while a greater percentage of perpetrators of other-gender harassment involving males were younger than the target.

There is no significant difference between female targets who experienced same- and other-gender harassment on the perpetrator occupational-status variable. However, there is a significant difference for male targets on this variable. That is, a greater percentage of perpetrators of same-gender [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE II OMITTED] harassment involving males were in higher-level jobs than the target. On the other hand, a greater percentage of perpetrators of other gender harassment involving males were in lower-level jobs than the target.

Target responses to the sexual harassment they experienced are presented in Table III. An omnibus chi-square was computed for both the "took formal action" variable and the "assistance sought/professional support" variable. Individual chi-squares were computed for the "why targets didn't take formal action" variable and the "assistance sought/informal support" variable.

There was no significant difference between the percentage of female targets of same- and other-gender harassment on the "took formal action" variable. On the other hand, a significantly greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment took formal action compared to males who experienced other-gender harassment. Moreover, while there were no significant differences between female targets of same- and other-gender harassment on any of the seven items related to why targets took no formal action, there were significant differences on five of these items for male targets. That is, a greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment reported they did not take any formal action because (1) "I did not know what action to take", (2) "I thought it would make my work situation unpleasant," (3) "I was too embarrassed," (4) "I thought I would [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE III OMITTED] be labeled a troublemaker," and (5) "I did not think anything would get done."

The omnibus test of the "assistance sought" variable in Table III reveals significant differences for both male and female targets of same-gender harassment. A smaller percentage of both male and female targets of same-gender harassment than targets of other-gender harassment reported that they didn't need either medical or emotional assistance from trained professionals. Additionally, a greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment reported that they did not seek professional assistance, but noted that it would have been helpful. There were also significant differences between male and female targets on the assistance variable in terms of the types of informal support each group sought. That is, a greater percentage of female targets who experienced same-gender harassment sought informal support from a person with a religious affiliation than did female targets of other-gender harassment. Also, a greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment sought informal support from friends, family, and people at work. Finally, it is important to note that a smaller percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment indicated they did not seek informal support from anyone, compared to male targets of other-gender harassment.

Table IV shows the impact of sexual harassment on the professional and personal lives of male and female targets. Because survey respondents were asked to choose all the items that applied, chi-squares were computed for each item separately.

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE IV OMITTED]

What is most evident from Table IV is that there are no significant differences between female targets who experienced same-and other-gender harassment on any of the impact items except one. This item dealt with targets' opinions of members of their own gender, and a significantly greater percentage of female targets of same-gender harassment said this opinion was impacted (negatively) by the harassment they experienced.

The pattern of results for male targets across the professional and personal-life impact items in Table IV reveals more significant differences than do results reported for female targets. The only significant difference for females is that a greater percentage of targets of same-gender harassment reported that "my opinion of my own sex" became less favorable of the result of the harassment than did targets of other-gender harassment.

Alternatively, a greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment reported that the harassment they experienced had an impact across all but two of the impact items. These two were "time and attendance at work" and "opinion of the opposite sex." It should be obvious from the results reported in Table IV that same-gender harassment has a more far-reaching impact on the professional and personal lives of male targets than does other-gender harassment.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this exploratory study was to determine whether there were significant differences in antecedents and outcomes of same- and other-gender SH. Four components from the Fitzgerald et al. (1997) model provided the framework for the current examination of differences. Results demonstrated that differences were significant for each of the four components. The pattern of these results strongly suggests that same- and other-gender SH are meaningfully different phenomena.

Overall, the difference between the percentages of same-gender SH among male and female targets of SH is dramatic. Only 1% of female targets reported being harassed by one or more females, while 35% of male targets reported being harassed by one or more males. The results reported here for males are consistent with the results reported by Berdahl (1996) and Waldo et al. (1998). In fact, the percentage of males harassed by other males in both these studies was larger than the percentage reported in the current study.

Overall, the results of the current study appear to support the conclusion that there are many more significant differences between male targets of same- and other-gender harassment than there are for similarly situated female targets. However, when the patterns of the percentages are more closely examined, the relative differences between same- and other-gender targets are often very similar in the male and female sub-samples. Unfortunately, the increase in Type 2 error associated with the loss of statistical power due to the relatively small number of female targets of same-gender harassment (male n = 473 and female n = 53) may mask any number of true differences.

Female Targets of SH

Analyses for the female sub-sample revealed three significant differences between female targets of same- and other-gender harassment. First, a significantly greater percentage of female targets of same-gender harassment reported that the assistance of a trained professional would have been helpful. Second, female targets of same-gender harassment were more likely to seek informal assistance from a person with a religious affiliation rather than friends, family, or people at work. It may be that females view their priest, rabbi, or minister as another "trained professional" who can better provide the emotional counseling needed to cope with same-gender harassment. Alternatively, it may be easier for female targets of same-gender harassment to speak with members of the other gender about their experience, and clergy are predominantly male.

The third difference between female targets of same- and other-gender harassment is that a significantly greater percentage of female targets of same-gender harassment report that the harassment negatively impacted their opinion of members of their own gender. This is not particularly surprising, especially for female targets. That is, because "predatory males" are seen as the typical harassers of females, it likely is a very disillusioning experience when the harasser turns out to be a "predatory female."

Male Targets of SH

What is most striking about the results reported for male targets is the sheer number of significant differences between those who experienced same- and other-gender harassment. These differences occurred for each of the variables examined, and strongly suggest that the same- and other-gender SH of males are very different phenomena.

The pattern of the results for male targets of same-gender harassment is particularly interesting, and suggests that much of this harassment may be part of gender harassment or ritualized male hazing. For example, the two types of sexually harassing behaviors reported to occur more frequently by male targets of same-gender harassment (rape and sexual teasing/jokes/remarks) are often associated with incidents of male hazing (Goyer & Eddleman,1984; Hickson et al., 1994). Miller (1997) has noted that this type of gender harassment is directed at males in the military who violate gender norms, especially males who appear vulnerable. Moreover, Eisenhart (1975) has described how such harassment is inherent in socializing new soldiers.

Also consistent with the motivational components of male hazing and rape are the results reported here that a greater percentage of male perpetrators of same- than other-gender harassment are older and have a higher job-level than targets. For example, Baier & Williams (1983) and Goth & Burgess (1980) report that perpetrators of male hazing and rape have higher status and more power than targets. As these authors note, this makes it easier for perpetrators to use their status and power to instill humility and assert control over hazing targets.

Although more male targets of same- than other-gender SH took formal action, this is still an alarmingly small percentage of targets. However, this is consistent with the reported reluctance of survivors of male sexual assault to even report they were assaulted (Frazier, 1993; Garnets et al., 1990), especially when they fear they might be labeled as homosexuals (Goyer & Eddleman, 1984; Calderwood, 1987). These fears could be exacerbated in the military because of the military's very strict policy against homosexual activity. In fact, in the current study, male targets of same-gender harassment offer a significantly greater number of reasons for not taking formal action compared to male targets of other-gender harassment.

Male targets of same-gender harassment are also more likely than male targets of other-gender harassment to seek both professional and informal support. They seek this support from a wide range of sources, including medical and emotional professionals, friends, family, and people at work. This likely indicates that male targets of same-gender harassment may require and utilize a broader range of palliative measures if the impact of the harassment is to be meaningfully dealt with.

Finally, the impact of the harassment on the professional and personal lives of male targets of same-gender harassment is far more devastating than that reported by male targets of other-gender SH. This is consistent with the results reported by Berdahl et al. (1996) who suggest that the impact of male-male SH is more analogous to the impact of the harassment of females by males than it is to the harassment of males by females.

Moreover, the results reported above are very similar to those reported about the impact of same-gender rape on the work and personal lives of male rape targets. For example, Bridgeland, Duane, & Stewart (1995) report that same-gender rape has a much more traumatic impact on male targets than other-gender rape, and Kaufman, Divasto, Jackson, Voorhees, & Christy (1980) note that same-gender rape leads to more significant work and social dysfunctions for males than other-gender rape.

Study Limitations

As noted above, the impact of sexual orientation on same-gender SH could not be examined in the current study because the data did not identify the sexual orientation of either the targets or perpetrators of the same-gender harassment. It is possible that the patterns of the significant differences between same- and other-gender targets on any of the study variables might change if sexual orientation of the target and/or perpetrator were used as a moderator. This is certainly an issue that merits future research.

A second limitation is that the current study utilized a military sample, and this may compromise the generalizability of the findings to employees in public and private-sector workplaces. For example, the incidence of same-gender harassment is likely greater in the military because hazing which involves sexual abuse is not uncommon in military environments (Goyer & Eddleman, 1984). Unfortunately, there is little information about the extent of hazing that involves sexually demeaning behaviors in other work environments. Incidence-rate research that focuses on employees in the private and public-sectors is definitely needed.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, the relatively small number of female targets of same-gender harassment affected the ability to detect possible true differences. However, it is possible that same- and other-gender SH that involves females may not be different in the ways reported above for males, especially in the military. For example, because there are relatively far fewer females in the "macho" (Niebuhr, 1997) military, these females might rely on one another extensively for support. This, in turn, could both reduce the prevalence of same-gender SH among military females and the way(s) in which female targets cope with same- and other-gender harassment. Additional research on the same-gender harassment of females in both military and non-military settings using larger numbers of targets is needed to better explicate the differences between same- and other-gender female harassment.

Conclusion

The current study determined that there are marked differences between same- and other-gender SH, and that the overall impact of same-gender harassment is more severe. This is especially true for male targets of same-gender harassment. As noted above, this pattern of results suggests that organizational initiatives for dealing with same- and other-gender harassment will likely require an admixture of new and old approaches.

Obviously the approach organizations take to same- and other-gender SH should remain the same in terms of tolerance. Organizations must let their employees know that harassment of any kind will not be tolerated regardless of whether it involves members of the same or other gender. Moreover, we strongly recommend that organizations make no distinction between ritualized hazing that involves sexually harassing behaviors and sexual harassment. Both types of harassment are counterproductive and interfere with important workplace behaviors.

The Supreme Court provided some guidance on this issue when it handed down its 1998 decision regarding the appeal of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. This case dealt with same-gender harassment that involved sexually demeaning behaviors including threatened sexual assault. In addition to deciding that this type of same-gender harassment is a protected form of sex discrimination when it is put before one gender and not the other, the Court chose to address the differences it believes exist between hazing/horseplay and sexual harassment per se. The information provided in the Court decision should help employers craft more effective policies that deal with both same- and other-gender SH.

For example, organizational policies and procedures should explicitly address same- as well as other-gender SH. Additionally, superiors must be prepared to deal with same-gender SH. They must understand that it is an actionable form of SH, and that the organization must respond seriously, swiftly and effectively to any complaint of same-gender SH.

Similarly, workplace SH training programs typically focus on other-gender issues, and this may send a "mixed message" to targets of same-gender harassment. As a result, targets may be less likely to both report the harassment when it occurs and ask for organizational assistance to deal with the harassment's consequences. This is supported by the results of the current study, wherein a significantly greater percentage of male targets of same-gender harassment reported that they did not know what formal action to take, or that they would be too embarrassed to take formal action. Additionally, when training programs fail to adequately explore same-gender issues, targets of same-gender harassment are more likely to fear being labeled (correctly or incorrectly) as lesbian or gay if they report being harassed.

All of this has the potential to create a self-fulfilling tautology that leads to organizational inaction. Thus, organizational assistance is less likely to be tailored for the specific needs of same- and other-gender targets. Eventually, programs that focus on important same-gender as well as hazing-related issues may be combined with existing SH training programs that focus on important other-gender issues. A comprehensive approach to training may prove be the best way to deal with the counterproductive organizational consequences of all types of harassment.

The organizational costs of the consequences of same-gender harassment should not be overlooked as the overall costs of harassment can be substantial (Faley, Knapp, Kustis, & DuBois, 1998). The pervasiveness of the consequences of same-gender harassment involving males strongly suggests that the organizational costs associated with this type of harassment are large, especially compared to the organizational costs of same-gender harassment involving females. The fact that far more males than females are subjected to same-gender harassment increases these organizational costs. When the organizational costs of effectively dealing with same-gender harassment are considered, the overall organizational costs of same-gender harassment are likely quite substantial.

Altogether, understanding the similarities/differences between same-and other-gender harassment can help organizations better prevent both same- and other-gender harassment from occurring in their workplaces. This information can also help organizations put together programs to more effectively deal with the consequences of same- and other-gender harassment that has already occurred. If organizations are to both prevent and deal with existing same- and other-gender SH, they must better understand the issues relevant to each of these types of harassment.

REFERENCES

Backman, E. L., & Backman, L. R. (1997). Sexual harassment and rape: A view from higher education. In R. Levant & G. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex: New psychological perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baier, J. L., & Williams, P. S. (1983). Fraternity hazing: Current alumni and active member attitudes toward hazing. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 300-305.

Bargh, J. A., & Raymond, P. (1995). The naive misuse of power: Nonconscious sources of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 85-96.

Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547.

Bond, M. A. (1995). Prevention and the ecology of sexual harassment: Creating empowering climates. In C. Swift (Ed.), Sexual assault and abuse: Sociocultural context of prevention. New York: The Haworth Press.

Bridgeland, W. M., Duane, E. A., & Stewart, C. S. (1995). Sexual victimization among undergraduates. College Student Journal 29, 16-25.

Calderwood, D. (1987). The male rape victim. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 21, 53-55.

Cleveland, J., & Kerst, M. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 49-67.

D'Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbian's and gay men's experiences of discrimination and harassment in a university community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 317-321.

Eisenhart, R. W. (1975). You can't hack it little girl: A discussion of the covert psychological agenda of modern combat training. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 13-23.

Faley, R. H., Knapp, D. E., & Kustis, G. A. (1998). Estimating the organizational costs of sexual harassment: The case of the U.S. Army. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 1-27.

Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: the sexual harassment of women on the job. London: Melbourne House; New York: McGraw Hill.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Schullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5-27.

Frazier, P. A. (1993). A comparative study of male and female rape victims seen at a hospital-based rape crisis program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 64-76.

Garnets, L., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences. [Special Issue: Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men: Issues for Research, Practice, and Policy.] Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 366383.

Goyer, P. E, & Eddleman, H. C. (1984). Same sex rape of non-incarcerated men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 576-579.

Groth, A. N., & Burgess, A. W. (1980). Male rape: Offenders and victims. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 806-810.

Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.

Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C. Y., Gahart, M., Handschumacher, I., & Russell, D. (1980). Sexuality in the workplace. Basic and Applied Psychology, 1, 255-265.

Hickson, F. C. I., Davies, P. M., Hunt, A. J., Weatherburn, P., McManus, T. J., & Coxon, A. P. M. (1994). Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294.

Kaufman, A., Divasto, P, Jackson, R., Voorhees, D., & Christy, J. (1980). Male rape victims: Noninstitutionalized assault. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 221-223.

Martindale, M. (1988). Sexual harassment in the military: 1988. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

McKinney, K. (1994). Sexual harassment and college faculty members. Deviant Behavior, 15, 171-191.

Miller, L. L. (1997). Not just weapons of the weak: Gender harassment as a form of protest for army men. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 32-51.

Niebuhr, R. E. (1997). Sexual harassment in the military. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998).

Popovich, P.M., Gehlauf, J. A., Jolton, J. A., Somers, J. M., & Godinho, R. M. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of sex of rater and incident form and consequence. Sex Roles, 27, 609-625.

Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. M. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men who are high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 163-169.

Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassment: Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sexual harassment occurs. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Schneider, B. E. (1982). Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 75-98.

Tangri, S. S., Butt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33-54.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal government: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal government: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.

Waterman, C. K., Dawson, L. J., & Bologna, M. J. (1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 118-124.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group