Sexual Harassment at Work: Three Explanatory Models

Abstract

This article explores three models of sexual harassment derived from previous research, court cases and legal defenses: the Natural/Biological Model, the Organizational Model, and the Sociocultural Model. Data from a large (N=20, 083) stratified random sample of the federal workforce are analyzed in relation to these models. No clear‐cut support for any one model emerges, and the picture of sexual harassment painted by these data appears to be more complex and varied than earlier, self‐selected samples initially suggested. The results are discussed in light of the difficulties of using large‐scale survey techniques to investigate complex cultural phenomena, and suggestions are made for future research approaches that could complement survey techniques.

Sexualisation and harassment in hospitality workplaces: who is responsible?

“…However, sex-role spillover theory (Gutek and Morasch, 1982) and the natural model (Tangri et al, 1982) were of particular interest, as both acknowledge the role of those harassed, and therefore, offer opportunities to explore ways of stopping harassment.…”

“…A further model developed by Tangri et al (1982), the natural model, proposes that sexual behaviour results from natural sexual attraction, and is aligned to sex-role spillover, in that it does not attribute harassment to power differentials between individuals. Gutek and Morasch (1982) note that this model acknowledges the occurrence of sexual behaviour without intent to harass.…”

“…Hoel and Einarsen, 2003), where female workforces are often sexualised (Wijesinghe, 2009) and power structures explicit (Kensbock et al, 2015). Some theoretical approaches to understanding harassment acknowledge that sexual behaviour is natural (Tangri et al, 1982), and difficult to prevent in a working environment (Gilbert et al, 1998), and there is an implicit assumption that management is solely responsible for eliminating harassing behaviours. This study challenges this assumption by examining employees' experiences of and responses to sexual behaviour in hospitality workplaces, to determine their roles and responsibilities.…”

Inappropriate client sexual behaviour in occupational therapy

“…The client may act seductively as a means of deepening the relationship, or to gain strength through bonding with the therapist who is seen as a stronger person (Edelwich and Brodsky, 1982). This complies with the natural biological model of sexual harassment, which suggests that an individual attracted to another pursues the attraction without intent to harass (Tangri et al, 1982). It may also relate to the sex role spill-over model of sexual harassment (Gutek and Morasch, 1982), which suggests that in a female-dominated profession such as occupational therapy, the job takes on aspects of the sex role.…”

“…In many instances, women (who are most commonly the victims of sexual harassment) employ passive responses, ignoring or pretending not to notice the sexual harassment, walking away, or pretending the harassment had no effect (Tangri et al, 1982;United States Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981, cited in Gruber andBjorn, 1986). A similar trend is evident in the health professional literature, with many health professionals ignoring the incident, treating it as a joke (Kettl et al, 1993;Weerakoon and O'Sullivan, 1998) or using specific behaviour patterns such as body language and professional distance to cope (McComas et al, 1995).…”