Sexual objectification is a significant problem that permeates all areas of women's lives including the workplace. This research examines the impact of sexual objectification on women in work settings by integrating objectification, sexual harassment, and affective forecasting theories. We used a laboratory analogue that included undergraduate women who actually experienced objectification during a work interview (i.e., experiencers) and third-party predictors (including female and male undergraduates as well as female and male community workers) who anticipated the effects of objectification (i.e., predictors). We measured actual and anticipated emotions, performance, and sexual harassment following objectification. We found that both mild and severe objectification caused weaker positive affect, stronger negative affect, worse work performance, and higher sexual harassment judgments, but these effects were primarily driven by predictors anticipating worse outcomes following objectification compared to what experiencers actually reported. We also found that experiencers' responses to objectification

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. (PsycINFO Database Record

Recently, the Supreme Court decided that discrimination cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 (29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634) are distinct from those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § e2000 et seq.). The ADEA must use “but for” causality instructions (e.g., age must be the direct cause of an adverse outcome), whereas Title VII allows mixed-motive instructions (an illegitimate factor need only be a contributory cause). Two simulated jury experiments examined the effect of instruction type in a case in which a plaintiff charged that a company discriminated against him because of his age by demoting him to a lower status job. The first experiment varied whether the facts favored the plaintiff or the defendant, taking into consideration the moderating effect of jurors' chronic regulatory focus. Experiment 1 showed that participants who received “but for,” as opposed to mixed-motive, instructions found for the defendant, regardless of case valence. Furthermore, jurors weighed less heavily their beliefs that the company made use of the plaintiff's age in the “but for” causality instruction condition than in the mixed-motive condition. Regulatory focus moderated the effect of instruction type in that the instruction effect was strongest when participants were low in prevention focus. Experiment 2 added an ambiguous fact pattern and replicated the instruction effect, demonstrating that the difference in outcome based on instruction type was not dependent upon extreme fact patterns. Experiment 2 also found evidence for promotion focus effects on verdicts.

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided, in Gross v. FBL, that the law governing age discrimination should be interpreted in a stricter manner than before. After Gross, age discrimination claims are tried under but for causality in which the plaintiff's age must be the direct cause of the adverse action, as opposed to mixed motive causality allowable under Title VII, in which age would only have to be a motivating factor. Previous research has shown that but for instructions lead to more pro-defendant verdicts, regardless of case strength, as compared to mixed motive instructions. This study reports on a simulated jury experiment that sought to uncover the influence of stereotypes concerning older workers on juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Older worker stereotypes were assessed using the Stereotype Content Model's warmth and competence dimensions. In line with previous research, participants were more likely to find for the defendant under but for instructions, as compared to mixed motive. Further, mock jurors' stereotypes predicted their verdicts, but only under the but for instructions, suggesting that jurors rely on stereotypes when they are limited in the case facts they can consider. Implications for policy changes and future research directions are discussed.Consider the case of Mr. Gregory, a 54-year-old employee who worked for a large insurance company as a Claims Administration Vice President and continued in that capacity until the company merged with another securities firm and then management demoted Gregory to a lower position, Claims Project Coordinator,

We investigated demographic predictors of support for juvenile sex offender registration policies, including education level, gender, political orientation, and age. Participants were 168 individuals recruited from public places in a Midwest community (45% women; M age = 42). In line with hypotheses, as education level increased, support for juvenile registration decreased, as did the belief that juvenile registration protects the community. In addition, as education level increased, belief that the juvenile understood his actions decreased, as did support for juvenile registration when it is framed as ineffective at reducing sex crime. These beliefs mediated the relationship between education level and diminished support for juvenile registration. Implications of these results for the advancement of effective juvenile sex offender policy are discussed.

We investigated the influence of a juvenile defendant's socioeconomic status (SES) on mock jurors' perceptions of a juvenile tried in adult court. As predicted, participants convicted the low SES juvenile defendant of felony murder significantly more than the middle or high SES juvenile defendant. Yet, participants also rated the low SES juvenile as less mature than the middle or high SES juvenile Á a belief that past research shows predicts leniency in verdicts (i.e., not guilty judgments). Finally, stereotypes about the criminality of low SES juvenile defendants, not a lack of perceived similarity, partially mediated the effect of SES on guilt.

Under Title VII, courts may give a mixed motive instruction allowing jurors to determine that defendants are liable for discrimination if an illegal factor (here: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) contributed to an adverse decision. Recently, the Supreme Court held that to conclude that an employer discriminated against a worker because of age, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires "but for" causality, necessitating jurors to find that age was the determinative factor in an employer's adverse decision regarding that worker. Using a national online sample (N = 392) and 2 study phases, 1 to measure stereotypes, and a second to present experimental manipulations, this study tested whether older worker stereotypes as measured through the lens of the Stereotype Content Model, instruction type (but for vs. mixed motive causality), and plaintiff age influenced mock juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Decision modeling in Phase 2 with 3 levels of case orientation (i.e., proplaintiff, prodefendant, and neutral) showed that participants relied on multiple factors when making a decision, as opposed to just 1, suggesting that mock jurors favor a mixed model approach to discrimination verdict decisions. In line with previous research, instruction effects showed that mock jurors found in favor of plaintiffs under mixed motive instructions but not under "but for" instructions especially for older plaintiffs (64- and 74-year-old as opposed to 44- and 54-year-old-plaintiffs). Most importantly, in accordance with the Stereotype Content Model theory, competence and warmth stereotypes moderated the instruction effects found for specific judgments. The results of this study show the importance of the type of legal causality required for age discrimination cases. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract