Attributions of blame and responsibility in sexual harassment: Reexamining a psychological model.

Abstract

Kelley's (Nebr Symp Motiv 15:192-238, 1967) attribution theory can inform sexual harassment research by identifying how observers use consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness information in determining whether a target or perpetrator is responsible for a sexual harassment situation. In this study, Kelley's theory is applied to a scenario in which a male perpetrator sexually harasses a female target in a university setting. Results from 314 predominantly female college students indicate that consistency and consensus information significantly affect participants' judgments of blame and responsibility for the situation. The authors discuss the importance of the reference groups used to derive consensus and distinctiveness information, and reintroduce Kelley's attribution theory as a means of understanding observers' perceptions of sexual harassment.

From bodies to blame: Exposure to sexually objectifying media increases tolerance toward sexual harassment.

“…These items were selected and translated in French from Klein et al (2011). Four items aimed to evaluate perpetrator blame (e.g., "John's actions were beyond the limits of acceptable behavior").…”

Teaching About Gender Harassment: An Experiential Approach

“…Though there is no universally accepted definition of sexual harassment (Birinxhikaj & Guggisberg, 2017), it has been shown to take different forms: covert or obvious, physical or verbal, one-on-one or pack-on-one (Klein et al, 2011; Saunders & Easteal, 2013). At its core, sexual harassment is about power (Cassino & Besen-Cassino, 2019; Minnotte & Legerski, 2019), and different groups experience it at different rates.…”

Divine Discrimination: Gender Harassment and Christian Justification

“…Kelley posits that when observers make attributions for an actor's response to a behavior, three factors come into play: consensus, consistency and distinctiveness. As cited in Klein, Apple, and Kahn (2011), consensus means that others react to a stimulus in a similar manner as the actor did; there is high consensus among a comparison group in how actors should respond to a certain situation. Consistency is defined as whether the actor responds to a stimulus in the same manner over time; there is high consistency when the actor responds to a stimulus in a similar manner longitudinally.…”