ABSTRACT
The present research explored the influence of females’
physical appearance on males’ perceptions of their sex role beliefs and males’
willingness to endorse sexually harassing behaviors in scenarios. Study 1 found
support for the idea that a woman’s physical appearance does cue sex role
beliefs. Study 2 found some support for
the notion that women who appear to be more egalitarian may be more likely to
be the recipients of sexually harassing behaviors. Study 2 also found that men
who scored higher on a sexism scale were more likely to say they would engage
in sexually harassing or negative behaviors toward professional women than men
scoring lower on a sexism scale.
Results imply that women who dress in an “egalitarian way” in the
workplace may be more susceptible to sexual harassment than “traditionally
dressed” women. Results also point to
the need for researchers to address the issue of how messages about a woman’s
sex role beliefs are conveyed.
INTRODUCTION
Sexual harassment can take the form of “quid pro quo”
extortion of sexual favors, unwanted sexual attention, or gender harassment
(United States Merit Systems Protection Board, USMSPB, 1995). Sexual harassment tends to strike highly
educated women in traditionally male-dominated professions. For example,
according to the USMSPB (1995), federally employed women who were “trainees,
blue-collar workers, office workers, service workers” were less likely than
professionals, administrators and managers to have experienced sexual harassment
in the previous two years. Rosenberg et
al. (1993) found that approximately two-thirds of the 220 female lawyers in
their sample reported being addressed as “honey” or “dear” and being the target
of remarks emphasizing gender and sexuality (e.g., “nice to have a pretty
face”) in professional situations. Dall
and Maass (1999) provide experimental evidence minimizing the concern that
professional women simply report sexual harassment more than nonprofessional
women. They found that a woman described as egalitarian (an accountant) was
more likely to be sexually harassed than a woman described as traditional (an
elementary school teacher).
Why are
professional women in nontraditional careers more likely to be sexually
harassed? Some researchers (Dall &
Maass, 1999; Rosenberg et al., 1993) suggest that some male colleagues use
sexual harassment as a means of preserving their dominant status which
professional women threaten. Gutek and Marasch (1982) have termed the
phenomenon that people expect women in the workplace to behave according to
traditional sex role expectations instead of masculine work roles as “sex
role spillover.” Women’s work roles
are expected to be congruent with their sex roles in that they are to be more
submissive, nurturing, sympathetic and loyal than men in the same work roles.
Gutek and Morasch argue that sexual harassment operates according to this
theory particularly when gender is salient. When the sex ratio is skewed (as
with women in nontraditional occupations) then “spillover from the sex role of
that sex to the work role occurs” (p. 63).
Perhaps women in nontraditional jobs are
also projecting nontraditional sex role beliefs, thus further
threatening men's dominance. Women who
are viewed as being non-traditional in some way are judged more harshly by
their [sexist] male colleagues (Dall & Maass, 1999; Etaugh, 1973, Haddock
& Zanna, 1994; Kaley, 1971; Swim & Cohen, 1997).
Could women’s sex role beliefs be
conveyed simply by physical appearance? Fiske et al. (1991) provide anecdotal
evidence that women may be received more positively in the workplace by
sexually harassing men if they dress more traditionally. In Price Waterhouse
v. Hopkins, Ann Hopkins claimed that accounting partners described her as a
“macho” woman and one partner advised her to “dress more femininely, wear
make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry” (p. 1050).
There is a lack
of research where experimenters have elicited the impression that a
woman violates or complies with sex role expectations and, in turn, whether
sexual harassment is a response to that impression. Rather, researchers have already done the work for participants,
so to speak, by recording the likelihood of sexually harassing women labeled
as “feminist,” “egalitarian,” or “traditional” or women fitting written
descriptions of those labels.
The present studies were designed to address these two questions:
(1) Do women convey a certain sex role attitude simply by their appearance?
(2) Are women who appear to be more
egalitarian in their sex role beliefs more likely to be targets for sexually
harassing behaviors?
The first question is addressed in Study 1 and the second in Study 2, a scenario study.
STUDY 1
Design & Method
Research
literature indirectly suggests that women who are wearing dark colored,
masculine clothing (e.g., suit) and who have short hair may be more likely to
be perceived as egalitarian or nontraditional (cf. Deaux & Lewis, 1984;
Morton, 1964; Terry & Krantz, 1993). Similarly, women who have longer hair
and are dressed in lighter, more feminine (e.g., sweater & dress) clothing
may be perceived as having more traditional sex role attitudes.
The present study
tested this hypothesis by creating computer generated images of women matching
the above descriptions.[1]
The women depicted in Figures 1 & 2 were hypothesized to be viewed as
egalitarian and the women depicted in Figures 3 & 4 were hypothesized to be
traditional. (Two other pictures that will not be discussed here were also used
in this study.)
Seventy-three
undergraduates (33 males and 40 females, mean age = 20.4 years) volunteered
their time to participate. Each participant received one picture and was asked
to respond to the Modern Sexism (MS) scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall & Hunter,
1995) with the following directions: “Please respond to each statement the
way you feel the woman pictured would respond.” Responses were given on a 1-7 Likert scale with lower
numbers indicating more egalitarian beliefs. For example, they were
asked to indicate the extent to which the woman in the picture would agree or
disagree with the statement: “Women
often miss out on good jobs due to sexual discrimination.”
Results & Discussion
A one-way analysis of variance indicated a significant effect of picture on MS scores, F(5,67) = 4.90, p < .05. The pattern of means supported our hypothesis that Figures 1(M = 2.56) & 2 (M = 3.16) would be rated as most egalitarian and Figures 3 (M = 3.65) & 4 (M = 3.84) would be rated as most traditional.[2] Thus, while this is not as strong of evidence as we may have liked, these findings do support the notion that women may convey information about their sex role beliefs simply via their outward appearance.
STUDY 2
Design & Method
Study 2 was
designed to test the hypothesis, derived from sex role spillover theory (Gutek
& Morasch, 1982), that men will be
more likely to sexually harass women who appear to hold egalitarian sex role
beliefs as compared to women who appear to hold traditional sex role beliefs.
Forty-five males
(mean age = 19.77 years) volunteered their time. Five of those participants received
extra credit for their participation.
The men filled
out the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim et al., 1995) and the Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fisk, 1997).
Additionally, the men were given one of the 4 pictures of women (Figures
1-4) and presented with a packet of five hypothetical scenarios (see Appendix
for an example). These scenarios were
created and adapted from the Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) Questionnaire
(Pryor, 1987). Male participants were
asked to imagine themselves involved in each scenario with the woman pictured
as the female professional (i.e., associate in a law firm, author, surgeon,
biology professor, or chemistry lab assistant). Following each scenario, five
alternative courses of action were listed, one of which was an explicitly
sexually harassing behavior.
Participants were asked to indicate the likelihood of performing each of
the behaviors on a 1-8 Likert type scale with higher numbers indicating a
likelihood to do the action. The scenarios were presented in random order and
the sexism scales were randomly presented before or after the scenarios. A manipulation check on this sample’s
ratings of the sex role beliefs of Figures 1-4 was presented last to
participants.
Results
While there were
no statistically significant differences by picture for the manipulation check
(F < 1), the means were in a direction similar to that of Study 1 and did
not contradict our assumptions that Figure 1 would be viewed as the most
egalitarian female, followed by Figure 2, 3 and 4.
Not surprisingly, the males in the
sample self-reported as low sexists, both on the MS (M = 3.83, SD
= .79) and the overall ASI (M = 2.55, SD = .49). Additionally, male participants were
generally unlikely to sexually harass or negatively treat any of the women when
looking at the combined scores of all 5 courses of action (reverse coded where
appropriate) across all 5 scenarios (M = 1.89, SD = 1.18).
Across all analyses conducted, several
findings were of note and the most interesting will be summarized here. There
were no significant findings when collapsing across scenario. However, we also
examined each behavior for each scenario separately using 2 (hi/low sexism) X 4
(woman pictured) ANOVAs. In examining responses
to the scenario involving the woman as a biology professor (see
Appendix), there was a main effect of
picture, F (3,36) = 4.23, p < .05. An SNK post hoc test indicated that the second most egalitarian
woman (Figure 2) was more likely than any of the other three to be sexually
harassed (see Table 1). A median
split on modern sexism scores yielded no significant main effect, nor was there
an interaction between picture and MS. This same pattern of results was found
for the ASI overall as well as both its benevolent sexism subscale and hostile
sexism subscale. No significant findings of note were found for the sexual
harassment behavior for the other 4 scenarios.
In examining the other possible
(non-sexually harassing) behaviors for each scenario, we found no significant
effects for the surgeon or author scenarios, but a few significant findings for
the lab assistant, lawyer and biology professor scenarios. In each case, the finding was such that high
sexists (as scored by one or more of the scales) would be more likely to engage
in a negative behavior toward the woman than low sexists. For example, hostile
sexists were more likely (M = 4.43) than low hostile sexists (M =
3.05) to offer the female lawyer in one scenario a promotion, but only with the
condition of starting her at a lower salary than a male counterpart; F(1,
37) = 6.76, p < .05. Hostile sexists were also more likely (M
= 3.08) to take everything the biology professor said as a personal attack than
were low hostile sexists (M = 2.11).
Discussion
Results indicate
that participants were more willing to engage in a sexually harassing behavior
toward a biology professor when she was illustrated by picture of a woman rated
as more egalitarian rather than a more traditionally rated picture. This
significant main effect provides some partial support for the hypothesis that
women who simply appear egalitarian will be more likely to be sexually
harassed. One reason this particular scenario may have yielded results while
the others did not is that the biology professor scenario may have seemed more
real to the male college students involved and, thus, elicited slightly more
honest responding. Unlike imagining discussing their grade with a professor,
the participants may have had difficulty imagining themselves in the role of a
partner of a law firm, an editor of an author’s book, or a surgeon’s co-worker.
As is the case with all scenario studies, self-report bias was likely a big
problem here. The value of making the scenario “real” to participants should
not be underestimated.
Similarly, the
non-sexually harassing items may have elicited fewer demand characteristics
and, thus, less socially desirable responding from male participants who scored
higher on the sexism scales. It is
puzzling, however, that the negative behavior endorsed as “likely” by high
sexist males was not directed more specifically toward women pictured as
egalitarian.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
So why are professional women more
likely to be at risk for sexual harassment than women in more traditionally
female occupations? Perceptions of a
woman’s own sex role beliefs certainly play a role in fueling sex role
spillover effects. The present two studies raise the interesting possibility
that men may not need very much information to feel they know something about a
woman’s sex role beliefs. Indeed, men may simply look at a woman’s physical
appearance and feel they know whether that woman is willing to conform or not
to traditional sex role attitudes and behaviors. With respect to actual sexual
harassment, men’s own sex role beliefs predicted some negative and/or sexually
harassing behaviors, and perceptions of the woman’s beliefs independently
influenced the likelihood of sexual harassment in one scenario. It is puzzling, however, that these two
factors did not interact. The reported
study consisted of a small sample from a very homogenous and small liberal arts
college. Much stronger results would
likely be found if this study were repeated in a sample of professional men,
perhaps also with stimulus materials targeted toward actual experiences these
professional men may find themselves in. The present study does point to the
necessity for researchers to attend carefully to how certain characteristics of
female targets are portrayed in their research.
APPENDIX
Imagine that the
woman pictured is your biology professor.
She is the only female professor in the biology department. You are making an average grade in her
class. You are sitting a few feet apart in her office discussing how you can
improve your grade. How likely are you
to do the following?
a) Tell her you
appreciate her helping you.
b) Ask her if she has a boyfriend and, if not,
would she like one?(*)
c) Take everything she says as a personal
attack.
d) Scoot your chair back a few inches.
e) Tell her you do not like her approach to
teaching.
(*) The explicitly sexually harassing item.
TABLE 1
Means for main effect of
pictures on likelihood to sexually harass biology professor
Picture Likelihood
to Sexually Harass
Figure 1 (Egalitarian) 1.42
Figure 2 (Egalitarian) 3.09*
Figure 3 (Traditional) 1.63
Figure 4 (Traditional) 1.50
References
Dall, A. & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the
laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681-704.
Deaux, K. & Lewis, L.L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes:
Interrelationships among compenents and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
991-1004.
Etaugh, C.F. (1973). Attitudes of professionals toward the
married professional woman. Psychological
Reports, 32, 775-780.
Fiske, S.T., Bersoff, D.N., Borgida, E.,
Deaux, K. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping
research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
American Psychologist, 46, 1049-1060.
Gutek, B.A. & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual
harassment of women at work. Journal
of Social Issues, 38, 55-74.
Haddock, G. & Zanna, M.P. (1994). Preferring “housewives” to “feminists”:
Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18,
25-52.
Kaley, M.M. (1971). Attitudes toward the dual role of the
married professional woman. American Psychologist, 26, 301-306.
Morton, G.M. (1964). The art of costume and personal
appearance. New York: University of Nebraska Foundation.
Rosenberg, J. Perlstandt, H. & Phillips, W.R.
(1993). Now that we are here:
Discrimination, disparagement and harassment at work and the experience of
women lawyers. Gender and Society, 7, 415 – 433.
Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S. &
Hunter, B.A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 199-214.
Swim, J.K. & Cohen, L.L. (1997). Overt, covert and subtle sexism: A
comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
103-118.
Terry, R. L. & Krantz, J.H.
(1993). Dimensions of trait
attributions associated with eyeglasses, men’s facial hair, and women’s length
of hair. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
23, 1757-1769.
United States Merit Systems Protection
Board (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Trends, progress and continuing challenges. Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office.