The Effect of Prototypical #MeToo Features on the Perception of Social-Sexual Behavior as Sexual Harassment

Perception of workplace social‐sexual behavior as sexual harassment post #MeToo in Scandinavia

“…Hostile work environment type harassment includes seemingly less severe behaviors that nevertheless decrease the quality of the work environment, due to sexism or homonegativity (Rotundo et al ., 2001). The fourth scenario described a quid pro quo harassment situation and was omitted from the analyses, as the scenario led to a ceiling effect which was discussed in a previous paper (Kessler et al ., 2020). Before responding, participants were presented with the legal definition of sexual harassment from the Norwegian Equality and Anti‐Discrimination Act: “Sexual harassment is defined as any form of unwanted sexual attention that has the purpose or effect of being offensive, frightening, hostile, degrading, humiliating or troublesome.” The first scenario contained a sexist joke, the second scenario described a repeated invitation to a date following a polite rejection, and the third scenario a hug that lasted “a little too long” as a congratulating gesture.…”

“…Within legal processes, the perspective of the “reasonable person standard” is commonly used, to engage a third party when defining harassment behavior. To what degree observers consider such behavior as sexual harassment is recently found to be contingent on the respondent’s gender and on specific situational factors in which this behavior occurs (Kessler, Kennair, Grøntvedt, Bjørkheim, Drejer & Bendixen, 2020). However, the perception of social‐sexual behavior as sexual harassment may also be influenced by individual differences in prior experiences, attitudes, and beliefs, including beliefs about the outcomes of the ongoing #MeToo movement.…”

“…Different generations, for example, may view behavior differently, due to the culture and environment they grew up in. Women tend to rate social‐sexual behavior more as sexual harassment compared to men (Kessler et al ., 2020; Rotundo et al ., 2001). Using a variety of outcome measures of perceptions of sexual harassment, Rotundo et al .…”

“…Data covers scenarios with additional situational features, and participant values, attitudes, beliefs, and harassment experiences, in addition to demographics. In a previous paper, using the same data set, we showed that situational prototypical #MeToo features, such as male over female actor, superior over subordinate actor, repeated over single case harassment, private over public settings, personal over general targets, and sexualized over non‐sexualized physical contact, all increased the perception of social‐sexual behavior as sexual harassment (Kessler et al ., 2020). In the current study, we aim to investigate how underlying individual differences, such as age, own experience with sexual harassment, traditional values, and egalitarianism relates to hostile and benevolent sexism and beliefs about outcomes of the #MeToo movement and how all these factors predict the perception of workplace social‐sexual behavior as sexual harassment using scenarios.…”

“…In the current study, we aim to investigate how underlying individual differences, such as age, own experience with sexual harassment, traditional values, and egalitarianism relates to hostile and benevolent sexism and beliefs about outcomes of the #MeToo movement and how all these factors predict the perception of workplace social‐sexual behavior as sexual harassment using scenarios. Although women consistently evaluate social‐sexual behavior more as sexual harassment than men do (Kessler et al ., 2020; Rotundo et al ., 2001), this study investigates whether women and men differ in what factors predict such perceptions, including beliefs about the outcome of the #MeToo movement and sexism.…”