Differences in the eyes of the beholders: The roles of subjective and objective judgments in sexual harassment claims.

Abstract

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

On Methods and Marshmallows: A Roadmap for Science That Is Openly Feminist and Radically Open

“…We reported this finding and a full range of explanations for it (e.g., that women wanted an opportunity to show the objectifying man that she was not a sex object; that women sometimes enjoyed sexualization) and noted that future research should explore these results further. Indeed, we found a range of responses to objectification, depending on whether women enjoyed sexualization (Kimble et al, 2016) or had internalized sexist ideologies (Gervais et al, 2016) in subsequent studies.…”

“…Additionally, experimental researchers may try to identify the psychological processes implicated by #MeToo and identify whether these might represent potential boundary conditions for findings that do not replicate. For example, it is possible that women who internalize sexist ideologies may continue to see objectification as normative and benign, whereas women who have not internalized these ideologies may view it as problematic and harmful (Gervais et al, 2016; Kimble et al, 2016). Thus, we think failed replications could be generative, undercovering new paths for research, if both the researcher and the field at large cultivate an attitude of collaboration in examining the factors that lead to a finding replicating or not.…”

The Social Interaction Model of Objectification: A process model of goal‐based objectifying exchanges between men and women

“…Additional types of AI studies have used highly trained confederates to isolate objectifying interaction processes in women or men. Gervais et al (2011;see also Gervais et al, 2016;Kimble et al, 2016;Wiener et al, 2013), for example, have used male confederates to experimentally manipulate objectifying behavior (e.g., gazes, commentary) during interactions with women. This paradigm could be adopted to assess the role of ideology and context on women's pre-interaction goals and behavioral intentions as well as self-objectifying behaviors and decisions to continue or terminate an interaction with an objectifying man.…”

The objective prong in sexual harassment: What is the standard?

“…Most interesting for our purposes was Kimble et al’s (2016) follow-up experiments in which they separated the subjective and objective prong judgments. In Experiment 1, trained male undergraduate research assistants administered sequential objectifying gazes and comments to undergraduate female research participants in the job interview task.…”