research sexual harassment in

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A systematic literature review of sexual harassment studies with text mining.

1. Introduction

• What are the main research topics in studies related to sexual harassment?
• What is the temporal trend of each topic?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. data collection and cleanings, 2.2. topic modeling.

2.3. Topic Analysis

2.4. temporal trend analysis.

• 1970s: Hospital Workspace Violence, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Gender Equality in Workspace.
• 1980s: Workspace Policies, Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, and Gender Equality in Workspace
• 1990s: Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, Workplace Legal Cases, Workspace Policies
• 2000s: Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, Hegemonic Masculinity, Youth Bullying and Victimization
• 2010s: Youth Bullying and Victimization, Hegemonic Masculinity, Workspace Policies
• 2020: Hegemonic masculinity, feminism, media, and politics, workspace policies.

4. Discussion

Supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• McDonald, P. Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012 , 14 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harassment, S.S. The Facts behind the# MeToo Movement: A National Study on Sexual Harassment and Assault. Available online: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Full-Report-2018-National-Study-on-Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
• Scope of the Problem: Statistics|RAINN. Available online: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem (accessed on 13 August 2020).
• Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics|RAINN. Available online: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence (accessed on 13 August 2020).
• Statistics. National Sexual Violence Resource Center [Internet]. Available online: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics (accessed on 13 August 2020).
• Barak, A. Sexual harassment on the Internet. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2005 , 23 , 77–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Swan, S.; Moraes, M.F. Space identification of sexual harassment reports with text mining. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 57 , e265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peterson, C.; DeGue, S.; Florence, C.; Lokey, C.N. Lifetime economic burden of rape among US adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017 , 52 , 691–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; López-Cózar, E.D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr. 2018 , 12 , 1160–1177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Studd, M.V.; Gattiker, U.E. The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment in organizations. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1991 , 12 , 249–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maypole, D.E.; Skaine, R. Sexual harassment in the workplace. Soc. Work 1983 , 28 , 385–390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maypole, D.E. Sexual harassment at work: A review of research and theory. Affilia 1987 , 2 , 24–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fitzgerald, L.F.; Shullman, S.L. Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. J. Vocat. Behav. 1993 , 42 , 5–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gutek, B.A.; Koss, M.P. Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. J. Vocat. Behav. 1993 , 42 , 28–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charney, D.A.; Russell, R.C. An overview of sexual harassment. Am. J. Psychiatry 1994 , 151 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frazier, P.A.; Cochran, C.C.; Olson, A.M. Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. J. Soc. Issues 1995 , 51 , 21–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fitzgerald, L.F.; Swan, S.; Fischer, K. Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. J. Soc. Issues 1995 , 51 , 117–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nora, L.M. Sexual harassment in medical education: A review of the literature with comments from the law. Acad. Med. 1996 , 71 , S113–S118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrew, M.J.; Andrew, J.D. Sexual harassment: The law. J. Rehabil. Adm. 1997 , 21 , 23–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Donohue, W.; Downs, K.; Yeater, E.A. Sexual harassment: A review of the literature. Aggress. Violent Behav. 1998 , 3 , 111–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blumenthal, J.A. The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law Hum. Behav. 1998 , 22 , 33–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Welsh, S. Gender and sexual harassment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999 , 25 , 169–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sev’er, A. Sexual harassment: Where we were, where we are and prospects for the new millennium introduction to the special issue. Can. Rev. Sociol./Rev. Can. Sociol. 1999 , 36 , 469–497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Timmerman, G.; Bajema, C. Incidence and Methodology in Sexual Harassment Research in Northwest Europe. Womens Stud. Int. Forum 1999 , 22 , 673–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sbraga, T.P.; O’donohue, W. Sexual harassment. Annu. Rev. Sex Res. 2000 , 11 , 258–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Einarsen, S. Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2000 , 5 , 379–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rotundo, M.; Nguyen, D.-H.; Sackett, P.R. A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001 , 86 , 914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ilies, R.; Hauserman, N.; Schwochau, S.; Stibal, J. Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Pers. Psychol. 2003 , 56 , 607–631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banyard, V.L.; Plante, E.G.; Moynihan, M.M. Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. J. Community Psychol. 2004 , 32 , 61–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q. Gender and CMC: A review on conflict and harassment. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 2005 , 21 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gyllensten, K.; Palmer, S. The role of gender in workplace stress: A critical literature review. Health Educ. J. 2005 , 64 , 271–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sigal, J. International sexual harassment. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006 , 1087 , 356–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goldzweig, C.L.; Balekian, T.M.; Rolon, C.; Yano, E.M.; Shekelle, P.G. The state of women veterans’ health research: Results of a systematic literature review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2006 , 21 , S82–S92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Willness, C.R.; Steel, P.; Lee, K. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Pers. Psychol. 2007 , 60 , 127–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yagil, D. When the customer is wrong: A review of research on aggression and sexual harassment in service encounters. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2008 , 13 , 141–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, D.K.; Chow, S.Y.; Lam, C.B.; Cheung, S.F. Examining the job-related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Women Q. 2008 , 32 , 362–376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Leary-Kelly, A.M.; Bowes-Sperry, L.; Bates, C.A.; Lean, E.R. Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. J. Manag. 2009 , 35 , 503–536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hunt, C.M.; Davidson, M.J.; Fielden, S.L.; Hoel, H. Reviewing sexual harassment in the workplace—An intervention model. Pers. Rev. 2010 , 39 , 655–673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rose, C.A.; Monda-Amaya, L.E.; Espelage, D.L. Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2011 , 32 , 114–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stockdale, M.S.; Nadler, J.T. Situating sexual harassment in the broader context of interpersonal violence: Research, theory, and policy implications. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2012 , 6 , 148–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pina, A.; Gannon, T.A. An overview of the literature on antecedents, perceptions and behavioural consequences of sexual harassment. J. Sex. Aggress. 2012 , 18 , 209–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Conroy, N.E. Rethinking adolescent peer sexual harassment: Contributions of feminist theory. J. Sch. Violence 2013 , 12 , 340–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okechukwu, C.A.; Souza, K.; Davis, K.D.; De Castro, A.B. Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014 , 57 , 573–586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Spector, P.E.; Zhou, Z.E.; Che, X.X. Nurse exposure to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: A quantitative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2014 , 51 , 72–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roehling, M.V.; Huang, J. Sexual harassment training effectiveness: An interdisciplinary review and call for research. J. Organ. Behav. 2018 , 39 , 134–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stander, V.A.; Thomsen, C.J. Sexual harassment and assault in the US military: A review of policy and research trends. Mil. Med. 2016 , 181 , 20–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Thakur, M.B.; Paul, P. Sexual Harassment in Academic Institutions: A Conceptual Review. J. Psychosoc. Res. 2017 , 12 , 33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry, N.; Powell, A. Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma Violence Abuse 2018 , 19 , 195–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fitzgerald, L.F.; Cortina, L.M. Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations: A View from the 21st Century. In APA handbook of the Psychology of Women: Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives ; Travis, C.B., White, J.W., Rutherford, A., Williams, W.S., Cook, S.L., Wyche, K.F., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 215–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein, L.B.; Martin, S.L. Sexual harassment of college and university students: A systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse 2019 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tenbrunsel, A.E.; Rees, M.R.; Diekmann, K.A. Sexual harassment in academia: Ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019 , 70 , 245–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Minnotte, K.L.; Legerski, E.M. Sexual harassment in contemporary workplaces: Contextualizing structural vulnerabilities. Sociol. Compass 2019 , 13 , e12755. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Draucker, C.B. Responses of Nurses and Other Healthcare Workers to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. OJIN Online J. Issues Nurs. 2019 , 24 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ehman, A.C.; Gross, A.M. Sexual cyberbullying: Review, critique, & future directions. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019 , 44 , 80–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burn, S.M. The psychology of sexual harassment. Teach. Psychol. 2019 , 46 , 96–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siuta, R.L.; Bergman, M.E. Sexual harassment in the workplace. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Araujo J de, O.; Souza FM de Proença, R.; Bastos, M.L.; Trajman, A.; Faerstein, E. Prevalence of sexual violence among refugees: A systematic review. Rev. Saude Publica 2019 , 53 , 78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bondestam, F.; Lundqvist, M. Sexual harassment in higher education—A systematic review. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2020 , 10 , 397–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahsay, W.G.; Negarandeh, R.; Nayeri, N.D.; Hasanpour, M. Sexual harassment against female nurses: A systematic review. BMC Nurs. 2020 , 19 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ding, H.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Agrawal, A.W. Sexual harassment and assault in transit environments: A review of the English-language literature. J. Plan. Lit. 2020 , 35 , 267–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, C.S.; Biefeld, S.D.; Elpers, N. A bioecological theory of sexual harassment of girls: Research synthesis and proposed model. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2020 , 24 , 299–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Methley, A.M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014 , 14 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Meho, L.I.; Yang, K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007 , 58 , 2105–2125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Westergaard, D.; Stærfeldt, H.-H.; Tønsberg, C.; Jensen, L.J.; Brunak, S. A comprehensive and quantitative comparison of text-mining in 15 million full-text articles versus their corresponding abstracts. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018 , 14 , e1005962. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Fleuren, W.W.; Alkema, W. Application of text mining in the biomedical domain. Methods 2015 , 74 , 97–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003 , 3 , 993–1022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karami, A. Fuzzy Topic Modeling for Medical Corpora. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karami, A.; Bennett, L.S.; He, X. Mining public opinion about economic issues: Twitter and the us presidential election. Int. J. Strateg. Decis. Sci. (IJSDS) 2018 , 9 , 18–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Karami, A.; Shaw, G. An exploratory study of (#) exercise in the Twittersphere. In Proceedings of the iConference 2019 Proceedings, Washington, DC, USA, 31 March–3 April 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karami, A.; Webb, F. Analyzing health tweets of LGB and transgender individuals. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 57 , e264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Elkouri, A. Political Popularity Analysis in Social Media. In International Conference on Information ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 456–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karami, A.; Kadari, R.R.; Panati, L.; Nooli, S.P.; Bheemreddy, H.; Bozorgi, P. Analysis of Geotagging Behavior: Do Geotagged Users Represent the Twitter Population? ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021 , 10 , 373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Lundy, M.; Webb, F.; Turner-McGrievy, G.; McKeever, B.W.; McKeever, R. Identifying and Analyzing Health-Related Themes in Disinformation Shared by Conservative and Liberal Russian Trolls on Twitter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 2159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Money, V.; Karami, A.; Turner-McGrievy, B.; Kharrazi, H. Seasonal characterization of diet discussions on Reddit. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 57 , e320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Anderson, M. Social media and COVID-19, Characterizing anti-quarantine comments on Twitter. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 57 , e349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemsley, J.; Erickson, I.; Jarrahi, M.H.; Karami, A. Digital nomads, coworking, and other expressions of mobile work on Twitter. First Monday 2020 , 25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Dahl, A.A.; Shaw, G.; Valappil, S.P.; Turner-McGrievy, G.; Kharrazi, H.; Bozorgi, P. Analysis of Social Media Discussions on (#)Diet by Blue, Red, and Swing States in the U.S. Healthcare 2021 , 9 , 518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karami, A.; Lundy, M.; Webb, F.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Twitter and research: A systematic literature review through text mining. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 67698–67717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammadi, E.; Karami, A. Exploring research trends in big data across disciplines: A text mining analysis. J. Inform. Sci. 2020 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; Ghasemi, M.; Sen, S.; Moraes, M.F.; Shah, V. Exploring diseases and syndromes in neurology case reports from 1955 to 2017 with text mining. Comput. Biol. Med. 2019 , 109 , 322–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Karami, A.; Bookstaver, B.; Nolan, M.; Bozorgi, P. Investigating diseases and chemicals in COVID-19 literature with text mining. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2021 , 1 , 100016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shin, G.; Jarrahi, M.H.; Fei, Y.; Karami, A.; Gafinowitz, N.; Byun, A.; Lu, X. Wearable Activity Trackers, Accuracy, Adoption, Acceptance and Health Impact: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019 , 93 , 103153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karami, A.; White, C.N.; Ford, K.; Swan, S.; Spinel, M.Y. Unwanted advances in higher education: Uncovering sexual harassment experiences in academia with text mining. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020 , 57 , 102167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Karami, A.; Swan, S.C.; White, C.N.; Ford, K. Hidden in plain sight for too long: Using text mining techniques to shine a light on workplace sexism and sexual harassment. Psychol. Violence 2019 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lim, B.H.; Valdez, C.E.; Lilly, M.M. Making meaning out of interpersonal victimization: The narratives of IPV survivors. Violence Against Women 2015 , 21 , 1065–1086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Altman, D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Röder, M.; Both, A.; Hinneburg, A. Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Shanghai, China, 2–6 February 2015; pp. 399–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehurek, R.; Sojka, P. Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, Valletta, Malta, 22 May 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCallum, A.K. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. 2002. Available online: http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/ (accessed on 1 May 2021).
• Cortina, L.M.; Berdahl, J.L. Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review. Handb. Organ. Behav. 2008 , 1 , 469–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black, A.E.; Allen, J.L. Tracing the legacy of Anita Hill: The Thomas/Hill hearings and media coverage of sexual harassment. Gend. Issues 2001 , 19 , 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allanson, P.B.; Lester, R.R.; Notar, C.E. A history of bullying. Int. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2015 , 2 , 31–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chawla, N.; Gabriel, A.S.; O’Leary Kelly, A.; Rosen, C.C. From #MeToo to #TimesUp: Identifying Next Steps in Sexual Harassment Research in the Organizational Sciences ; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey Weinstein Timeline: How the Scandal Unfolded—BBC News. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672 (accessed on 18 March 2021).
• Elsesser, K. Covid’s Impact On Sexual Harassment. In: Forbes [Internet]. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/12/21/covids-impact-on-sexual-harassment/ (accessed on 18 March 2021).
• Smith, S.G.; Basile, K.C.; Gilbert, L.K.; Merrick, M.T.; Patel, N.; Walling, M.; Jain, A. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Workman, J.E.; Johnson, K.K. The role of cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment. Sex Roles 1991 , 24 , 759–769. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gervasio, A.H.; Ruckdeschel, K. College Students’ judgments of verbal sexual harassment 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992 , 22 , 190–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Terrance, C.; Logan, A.; Peters, D. Perceptions of peer sexual harassment among high school students. Sex Roles 2004 , 51 , 479–490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaplan, O. Awareness instruction for sexual harassment: Findings from an experiential learning process at a higher education institute in Israel. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2006 , 30 , 213–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rester, C.H.; Edwards, R. Effects of sex and setting on students’ interpretation of teachers’ excessive use of immediacy. Commun. Educ. 2007 , 56 , 34–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lampman, C.; Crew, E.C.; Lowery, S.D.; Tompkins, K. Women faculty distressed: Descriptions and consequences of academic contrapower harassment. NASPA J. Women High. Educ. 2016 , 9 , 169–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, D. Hegemonic masculinity and male feminisation: The sexual harassment of men at work. J. Gend. Stud. 2000 , 9 , 141–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Armato, M. Wolves in sheep’s clothing: Men’s enlightened sexism & hegemonic masculinity in academia. Womens Stud. 2013 , 42 , 578–598. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grazian, D. The girl hunt: Urban nightlife and the performance of masculinity as collective activity. Symb. Interact. 2007 , 30 , 221–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hurley, A.E. Challenges in cross-gender mentoring relationships: Psychological intimacy, myths, rumours, innuendoes and sexual harassment. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 1996 , 58 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Larrabee, M.J.; Miller, G.M. An examination of sexual intimacy in supervision. Clin. Superv. 1994 , 11 , 103–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schneider, J.; Weerakoon, P.; Heard, R. Inappropriate client sexual behaviour in occupational therapy. Occup. Ther. Int. 1999 , 6 , 176–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chariyeva, Z.; Colaco, R.; Maman, S. HIV risk perceptions, knowledge and behaviours among female sex workers in two cities in Turkmenistan. Glob. Public Health 2011 , 6 , 181–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Platt, L.; Grenfell, P.; Bonell, C.; Creighton, S.; Wellings, K.; Parry, J.; Rhodes, T. Risk of sexually transmitted infections and violence among indoor-working female sex workers in London: The effect of migration from Eastern Europe. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2011 , 87 , 377–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Agha, S.; Chulu Nchima, M. Life-circumstances, working conditions and HIV risk among street and nightclub-based sex workers in Lusaka, Zambia. Cult. Health Sex. 2004 , 6 , 283–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Menon, S.A.; Kanekar, S. Attitudes Toward Sexual Harassment of Women in India 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992 , 22 , 1940–1952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valentine-French, S.; Radtke, H.L. Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles 1989 , 21 , 545–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, T.S.; Remland, M.S. Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles 1992 , 27 , 121–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salvaggio, A.N.; Streich, M.; Hopper, J.E.; Pierce, C.A. Why Do Fools Fall in Love (at Work)? Factors Associated With the Incidence of Workplace Romance 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011 , 41 , 906–937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mano, R.; Gabriel, Y. Workplace romances in cold and hot organizational climates: The experience of Israel and Taiwan. Hum. Relat. 2006 , 59 , 7–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pierce, C.A.; Karl, K.A.; Brey, E.T. Role of workplace romance policies and procedures on job pursuit intentions. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012 , 27 , 237–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gutek, B.A.; O’Connor, M.A.; Melancon, R.; Stockdale, M.S.; Geer, T.M.; Done, R.S. The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychol. Public Policy Law 1999 , 5 , 596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kovera, M.B.; Cass, S.A. Compelled mental health examinations, liability decisions, and damage awards in sexual harrassment cases: Issues for jury research. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2002 , 8 , 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherwyn, D.; Wagner, P.; Gilman, G. Trying to make sense of sexual harassment law after Oncale, Holman, and Rene. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2004 , 45 , 172–185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Fitzsimmons, T.W.; Callan, V.J. Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender inequality in the C-suite. Leadersh. Q. 2016 , 27 , 354–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergamaschi, M. Equal Opportunities and Collective Bargaining in Italy: The Role of Women. Eur. J. Womens Stud. 1999 , 6 , 133–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gutek, B.A.; Cohen, A.G. Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men’s and women’s experiences. Hum. Relat. 1987 , 40 , 97–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cunningham, G.B.; Benavides-Espinoza, C. A trend analysis of sexual harassment claims: 1992–2006. Psychol. Rep. 2008 , 103 , 779–782. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Williams, C. Sexual harassment and human rights law in New Zealand. J. Hum. Rights 2003 , 2 , 573–584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saguy, A. National specificity in an age of globalization: Sexual harassment law in France1. Contemp. Fr. Francoph. Stud. 2004 , 8 , 425–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwab-Reese, L.M.; Peek-Asa, C.; Parker, E. Associations of financial stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration. Inj. Epidemiol. 2016 , 3 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Vicario-Molina, I.; Orgaz Baz, B.; Fuertes Martín, A.; González Ortega, E.; Martínez Álvarez, J. Dating violence among youth couples: Dyadic analysis of the prevalence and agreement. Span. J. Psychol. 2015 , 18 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phiri-Alleman, W.; Alleman, J.B. Sexual violence in relationships: Implications for multicultural counseling. Fam. J. 2008 , 16 , 155–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barth, S.K.; Kimerling, R.E.; Pavao, J.; McCutcheon, S.J.; Batten, S.V.; Dursa, E.; Schneiderman, A.I. Military sexual trauma among recent veterans: Correlates of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016 , 50 , 77–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeardMann, C.A.; Pietrucha, A.; Magruder, K.M.; Smith, B.; Murdoch, M.; Jacobson, I.G.; Millennium Cohort Study Team. Combat deployment is associated with sexual harassment or sexual assault in a large, female military cohort. Womens Health Issues 2013 , 23 , e215–e223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, H.; Dalager, N.; Mahan, C.; Ishii, E. The role of sexual assault on the risk of PTSD among Gulf War veterans. Ann. Epidemiol. 2005 , 15 , 191–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keuskamp, D.; Ziersch, A.M.; Baum, F.E.; LaMontagne, A.D. Workplace bullying a risk for permanent employees. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2012 , 36 , 116–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Niedhammer, I.; Chastang, J.-F.; Sultan-Taïeb, H.; Vermeylen, G.; Parent-Thirion, A. Psychosocial work factors and sickness absence in 31 countries in Europe. Eur. J. Public Health 2013 , 23 , 622–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nabe-Nielsen, K.; Grynderup, M.B.; Lange, T.; Andersen, J.H.; Bonde, J.P.; Conway, P.M.; Hansen, A.M. The role of poor sleep in the relation between workplace bullying/unwanted sexual attention and long-term sickness absence. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2016 , 89 , 967–979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bruce, A.N.; Battista, A.; Plankey, M.W.; Johnson, L.B.; Marshall, M.B. Perceptions of gender-based discrimination during surgical training and practice. Med. Educ. Online 2015 , 20 , 25923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haviland, M.G.; Yamagata, H.; Werner, L.S.; Zhang, K.; Dial, T.H.; Sonne, J.L. Student mistreatment in medical school and planning a career in academic medicine. Teach. Learn. Med. 2011 , 23 , 231–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nora, L.M.; McLaughlin, M.A.; Fosson, S.E.; Stratton, T.D.; Murphy-Spencer, A.; Fincher, R.-M.E.; Witzke, D.B. Gender discrimination and sexual harassment in medical education: Perspectives gained by a 14-school study. Acad. Med. 2002 , 77 , 1226–1234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bucchianeri, M.M.; Eisenberg, M.E.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: Shared forms of harassment in adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2013 , 53 , 47–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bergman, M.E.; Palmieri, P.A.; Drasgow, F.; Ormerod, A.J. Racial and ethnic harassment and discrimination: In the eye of the beholder? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007 , 12 , 144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rosenfeld, P.; Newell, C.E.; Le, S. Equal opportunity climate of women and minorities in the Navy: Results from the Navy equal opportunity/sexual harassment (NEOSH) survey. Mil. Psychol. 1998 , 10 , 69–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mitchell, K.J.; Wolak, J.; Finkelhor, D. Are blogs putting youth at risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abus. Negl. 2008 , 32 , 277–294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fox, J.; Tang, W.Y. Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014 , 33 , 314–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fox, J.; Cruz, C.; Lee, J.Y. Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015 , 52 , 436–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yom, Y.-H.; Eun, L. Effects of a CD-ROM educational program on sexual knowledge and attitude. CIN Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2005 , 23 , 214–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zawadzki, M.J.; Danube, C.L.; Shields, S.A. How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles 2012 , 67 , 605–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Taylor, B.G.; Stein, N.D.; Mumford, E.A.; Woods, D. Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prev. Sci. 2013 , 14 , 64–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barger, L.C. Backlash: From Nine to Five to The Devil Wears Prada. Womens Stud. 2011 , 40 , 336–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asenas, J.; Abram, S. Flattening the past: How news media undermine the political potential of Anita Hill’s story. Fem. Media Stud. 2018 , 18 , 497–499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sorour, M.K.; Lal Dey, B. Energising the political movements in developing countries: The role of social media. Cap. Cl. 2014 , 38 , 508–515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reese, L.A.; Lindenberg, K.E. The importance of training on sexual harassment policy outcomes. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2003 , 23 , 175–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peirce, E.R.; Rosen, B.; Hiller, T.B. Breaking the silence: Creating user-friendly sexual harassment policies. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 1997 , 10 , 225–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reese, L.A.; Lindenberg, K.E. Victimhood” and the Implementation of Sexual Harassment Policy. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 1997 , 17 , 37–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Oliveira Laux, S.H.; Ksenofontov, I.; Becker, J.C. Explicit but not implicit sexist beliefs predict benevolent and hostile sexist behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2015 , 45 , 702–715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Russell, B.L.; Trigg, K.Y. Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 2004 , 50 , 565–573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sakallı-Uğurlu, N.; Salman, S.; Turgut, S. Predictors of Turkish women’s and men’s attitudes toward sexual harassment: Ambivalent sexism, and ambivalence toward men. Sex Roles 2010 , 63 , 871–881. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wada, K.; Suehiro, Y. Violence chain surrounding patient-to-staff violence in Japanese hospitals. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2014 , 69 , 121–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wei, C.-Y.; Chiou, S.-T.; Chien, L.-Y.; Huang, N. Workplace violence against nurses–prevalence and association with hospital organizational characteristics and health-promotion efforts: Cross-sectional study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016 , 56 , 63–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gates, D.M.; Ross, C.S.; McQueen, L. Violence against emergency department workers. J. Emerg. Med. 2006 , 31 , 331–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kosenko, K.A.; Nelson, E.A. Identifying and ameliorating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health disparities in the criminal justice system. Am. J. Public Health 2018 , 108 , 970. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huynh-Hohnbaum, A.-L.T.; Damron-Rodriguez, J.; Washington, D.L.; Villa, V.; Harada, N. Exploring the diversity of women veterans’ identity to improve the delivery of veterans’ health services. Affilia 2003 , 18 , 165–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haviland, M.J.; Shrestha, A.; Decker, M.R.; Kohrt, B.A.; Kafle, H.M.; Lohani, S.; Surkan, P.J. Barriers to sexual and reproductive health care among widows in Nepal. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014 , 125 , 129–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nallari, A. “All we want are toilets inside our homes!” The critical role of sanitation in the lives of urban poor adolescent girls in Bengaluru, India. Environ. Urban. 2015 , 27 , 73–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Shackle, S. Safe Spaces: As the Syrian crisis forces women to fend for themselves, female refugees in Jordan are learning to cope. World Policy J. 2018 , 35 , 99–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alam, K.; Rahman, M.H. Women in natural disasters: A case study from southern coastal region of Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014 , 8 , 68–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curry, J.F.; Aubuchon-Endsley, N.; Brancu, M.; Runnals, J.J.; Workgroup, R.; Workgroup, V.M.-A.M.R.; Fairbank, J.A. Lifetime major depression and comorbid disorders among current-era women veterans. J. Affect. Disord. 2014 , 152 , 434–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Badour, C.L.; Feldner, M.T.; Babson, K.A.; Blumenthal, H.; Dutton, C.E. Disgust, mental contamination, and posttraumatic stress: Unique relations following sexual versus non-sexual assault. J. Anxiety Disord. 2013 , 27 , 155–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Elklit, A.; Christiansen, D.M. ASD and PTSD in rape victims. J. Interpers. Violence 2010 , 25 , 1470–1488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magley, V.J. Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing women’s resistance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002 , 83 , 930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schneider, K.T.; Tomaka, J.; Palacios, R. Women’s Cognitive, Affective, and Physiological Reactions to a Male Coworker’s Sexist Behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001 , 31 , 1995–2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diekmann, K.A.; Walker, S.D.S.; Galinsky, A.D.; Tenbrunsel, A.E. Double victimization in the workplace: Why observers condemn passive victims of sexual harassment. Organ. Sci. 2013 , 24 , 614–628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Espelage, D.L.; Basile, K.C.; De La Rue, L.; Hamburger, M.E. Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. J. Interpers. Violence 2015 , 30 , 2541–2561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Williams, T.; Connolly, J.; Pepler, D.; Craig, W. Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: High school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and physical abuse. Can. J. Community Ment. Health 2009 , 22 , 47–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Espelage, D.L.; Basile, K.C.; Hamburger, M.E. Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. J. Adolesc. Health 2012 , 50 , 60–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Karami, A.; Spinel, M.Y.; White, C.N.; Ford, K.; Swan, S. A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

Karami A, Spinel MY, White CN, Ford K, Swan S. A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining. Sustainability . 2021; 13(12):6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

Karami, Amir, Melek Yildiz Spinel, C. Nicole White, Kayla Ford, and Suzanne Swan. 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining" Sustainability 13, no. 12: 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 12 June 2018

Sexual harassment is rife in the sciences, finds landmark US study

• Alexandra Witze

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Sexual harassment is pervasive throughout academic science in the United States, driving talented researchers out of the field and harming others’ careers, finds a report from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington DC. The analysis concludes that policies to fight the problem are ineffective because they are set up to protect institutions, not victims — and that universities, funding agencies , scientific societies and other organizations must take stronger action.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 558 , 352-353 (2018)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05404-6

Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S. & Stibal, J. Personnel Psychol. 56 , 607-631 (2003).

Article   Google Scholar  

Clancy, K. B. H., Lee, K. M. N., Rodgers, E. M. & Richey, C. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 122 , 1610-1623 (2017).

Konik, J. & Cortina, L. M. Social Justice Res . 21 , 313-337 (2008).

Rosenthal, M. N., Smidt, A. M. & Freyd, J. J. Psychol. Women Q. 40 , 364-377 (2016).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Geoscience society rescinds award to top seismologist after ethics investigation

Harassment should count as scientific misconduct

Report harassment or risk losing funding, says top UK science funder

UK gender-equality scheme spreads across the world

US science agency will require universities to report sexual harassment

Scientific groups revisit sexual-harassment policies

How should science funders deal with sexual harassers?

• Institutions

Hijacked journals are still a threat — here’s what publishers can do about them

Nature Index 23 JUL 24

Boost French research by increasing freedom for scientists and universities

World View 23 JUL 24

Microbiologist wins case against university over harassment during COVID

News 12 JUL 24

India budget: Modi bets big on nuclear energy and space

News 25 JUL 24

Science must protect thinking time in a world of instant communication

Editorial 24 JUL 24

Hungarian researchers struggle amid EU funding ban

Correspondence 23 JUL 24

Why you should perform a premortem on your research

Career Column 24 JUL 24

So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it?

News Feature 24 JUL 24

A stroke derailed my academic career. Now I’m getting back on track

Career Column 23 JUL 24

Postdoctoral Research Scientist

Computational Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Neurodegenerative Disease

New York City, New York (US)

Columbia University Department of Pathology

Associate or Senior Editor (Chemical Engineering), Nature Sustainability

Associate or Senior Editor (Chemical engineering), Nature Sustainability Locations: New York, Philadelphia, Berlin, or Heidelberg Closing date: Aug...

Springer Nature Ltd

Postdoctoral Research Scientist - Mouse Model

The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Precision Psychiatry & Mental Health is seeking a Postdoctoral Research Scientist for the Mouse Model.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center / Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Postdoctoral Research Scientist - IPSC Program

The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Precision Psychiatry & Mental Health is seeking a Postdoctoral Research Scientist - IPSC Program.

Postdoctoral Research Scientist - Xenotransplantation

The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Precision Psychiatry & Mental Health is seeking a Postdoctoral Research Scientist -Xentotransplantation.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sexual Harassment in the Field of Sexuality Research

• Guest Editorial
• Published: 01 February 2019
• Volume 48 , pages 997–1006, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Debby Herbenick 1   na1 ,
• Sari M. van Anders 2   na1 ,
• Lori A. Brotto 3 ,
• Meredith L. Chivers 4 ,
• Sofia Jawed-Wessel 5 &
• Jayleen Galarza 6  

24k Accesses

24 Citations

244 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Our field has a problem with sexual harassment, and we need to talk about it. Though sexual harassment is currently at the forefront of discussions taking place within major social movements, professional societies, and disciplines (see, for example, Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford, & Hinde, 2014 ; Dzau & Johnson, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ), the discipline of sexuality research has—to this point—been largely absent from these discussions. There are some exceptions, however, with a few sexuality researchers in sociology, psychology, and gender studies among those who have faced or made public accusations or formal reports alleging sexual misconduct or harassment (e.g., Flaherty, 2018 ; Grollman, 2018 ; Mondon, 2018 ). With this Guest Editorial, we aim to begin that discussion, articulating that #TimesUp too in sexuality research, and present a collective united front against sexual harassment in our field and workplaces.

Our goal in this Guest Editorial is to articulate: (1) the scope of the problem of sexual harassment within our fields, especially sexuality research, including its consequences; (2) the gendered basis of sexual harassment; (3) the exacerbation of these experiences for people of color and those in lower positions of power, including students and/or other minoritized social locations; and (4) suggestions toward stopping sexual harassment within sexuality professions, including sexuality research. While sexual harassment can occur between professionals and their clients, patients, and research participants, we will focus here on sexual harassment within research, academic, and professional spaces. In doing so, we draw on our own experiences and those of colleagues who have shared their experiences with us as well (either anonymized/grouped or with their permission). As we all live and (mostly) work in North America, we note the cultural limitations of our perspectives.

Sexual Harassment in Context

What sexual harassment is and is not.

Historically, sexual harassment was defined by men, with those targeted largely absent from the power structures that allow phenomena to be defined and acted upon. This power imbalance works in concert with majority group members who perpetrate other forms of group-based injustice, like White people deciding what is or isn’t anti-Black racism or settler colonialists deciding what is or isn’t anti-indigeneity. Those who experience injustice have always pushed back, and societal discussions about sexual harassment are a visible example of this right now. Thus, while some may argue that claims of sexual harassment are largely overblown, hysterical, censorious, or simple “misunderstandings,” those of us who have experienced sexual harassment are inserting ourselves into a conversation that should have centered the voices of those affected from the start.

What is sexual harassment? Although its name might suggest otherwise, sexual harassment is a form of gender-based maltreatment or violence that may or may not be sexual and may or may not manifest as frank sexual overtures or acts. Sexual harassment includes, and is, gender-based harassment (see National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ; Schulz, 2018 ). To be more specific, sexual harassment may be “sexual,” as with unwanted sexual attention or requests to engage in sexual acts. However, sexual harassment is more often gender-based, or “nonsexual.” This includes derogating someone on the basis of their gender/sex or violations of their gender/sex norms, as with sexual minorities, nonsexual heterosexual men, or sexually agentic women, etc., and gender-based insults, jokes, and discrimination. Sexual harassment may be physical or verbal, in-person or electronic, isolated or repeated, or occur in groups or one-on-one. In our experience, sexual harassment can also be reflected in colleagues seeing/treating women or feminine people (especially young ones) at conferences as only one of two things: potential sexual partners or irrelevant.

Though sexual harassment perpetrated by heterosexual men against heterosexual women typically receives the most attention, sexual harassment is also perpetrated by and against people in a variety of minoritized social locations. As just a few examples (after all, anyone can harass or be harassed), some white women sexualize or exoticize women of color, some gay men sexually harass bisexual or other gay men, some cisgender lesbians undermine trans women, and so on. Indeed, because sexual harassment involves attempts to gain power through policing others’ gender, many individuals who themselves are suspected of violating gender norms access power by policing others, as when some gay men sexually harass heterosexual women.

Sexual harassment is different from consensual sexual interactions and flirtations that occur between adults. We acknowledge that consensual sexual interactions can include power differentials and enjoyable ways that people play with power. Indeed, sexuality researchers are adults who are able to choose, consent to, and engage in sexual interactions with others, including colleagues. Yet we cannot deny how power imbalances and precarious social positions make choice and consent murky at times. In the context of power imbalance, such as senior/junior colleagues and professor/student relationships, consent is not always as simple as “doing what one wants” but may include concerns about consequences if one rejects advances from someone with more real or perceived power. Some of us (and you!) are or have been editors, society officers, program committee chairs, members of hiring committees, student advisors, clinicians, and/or respected or admired authorities. Our actions carry all the weight of our positions of power, such that some people may reasonably fear negative repercussions should they wish to reject unwanted attention or address someone’s problematic behavior.

Recent Publicized Examples of Sexual Harassment in the Media

From Bill Cosby to Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly to Roger Ailes, Jian Ghomeshi to Kevin Spacey, recent examples of celebrities’ alleged sexual harassment or violence show that it is largely described as being committed by men and most often against women. It occurs in variable ways, including coercion, persistence in the face of repeated rejection, abuses of power, threats, and even physical incapacitation, physical violence, and rape.

What has been astonishing to some, while long-known to others, is that (1) the sexual harassment is an open secret, with many harassers known to numerous people, (2) many people and levels of administration supported the harassers while silencing or undermining the victims, (3) the women and other people who have gone public have been widely vilified and harassed, and (4) the harassers have by and large experienced no consequences, and certainly almost no legal ones. Indeed, as victims know that they are unlikely to be believed, going public is one of the least likely options. Going public, including to judicial or official sources when deemed appropriate, often only feels available to those who occupy extreme positions of privilege or when sufficient numbers of victims come together to speak out against an alleged perpetrator, as with the cases involving Dr. Larry Nassar or Harvey Weinstein, or with social movements such as #YesAllWomen and #MeToo.

Each of us who has co-authored the present Guest Editorial has experienced sexual harassment within our field; none of us have named the harassers publicly, though we have made other efforts. Some of us have named our harassers in other ways (e.g., by reporting to our advisors, mentors, or programs) or spoken to the harassers directly (by explaining the situation and asking for changes in behavior). In the majority of our experiences, however, people have relied on sharing information through informal “whisper networks” as a way to support or protect others.

Choosing to come forward means risking reprisal, disbelief, and further trauma. After already enduring the humiliation of sexual harassment, many are not in a position to make themselves more psychologically vulnerable or further compromise their physical safety. In an academic context, we face the real fear that coming forward will compromise our careers. Some of us, even as established academics, have feared personal persecution and negative impact on our careers. This often kept us silent, in some cases for many years. For some, we did not initially recognize certain behaviors as sexual harassment, despite ourselves being embedded in the research, education, and/or clinical practice related to sexual harassment and abuse. One of us was told directly by their harasser, a person with significant academic power over them, that they should never disclose the incidents in question to others in our field, with the understood unspoken message being that it would tarnish her reputation (not his). As is typical of rape culture, instead of the perpetrator being subject to just consequences for their actions, the victim is blamed and further persecuted. When we do choose to come forward, the reception is rarely supportive, and often includes questioning that is either irrelevant or suggests culpability. Despite these challenges, some of us do come forward, working for change to help and protect others, hoping that, by reporting, others might not have to suffer through what we did. By writing this Guest Editorial, and starting this conversation within our field, this is what we hope to do.

Sexual Harassment in Academic and Research Environments

Sexual harassment is a ubiquitous issue permeating our society, including academic cultures, as our experiences clearly indicate. Yet, there are academic contexts within which sexual harassment is more or less likely to occur. Some contexts are more public or regulated than others (e.g., a classroom vs. a professor’s office), although some of us have experienced frank public sexual harassment even in classroom settings. Many researchers and professors see themselves as experts in topics—including sexual harassment—that go far beyond their actual area of expertise, knowledge, or lived experience. In our experiences, some sexuality academics can be particularly, if ironically, resistant to accepting scientific research related to sexual harassment and their complicity in sexual harassment being a problem in our field.

Conferences tend to provide spaces that, unlike universities, clinics, and institutes, often have no managers, human resource guidelines, or clearly stated sexual harassment policies (though more are developing these). Many events mix the social with the professional and are designed for networking, encouraging junior academics to socialize with senior ones. The mixture of alcohol and more casual attire at conference social events may, for some, further blur the lines between social and professional contexts, further emboldening those who would cross boundaries. To be clear, this is the fault not of casual attire or alcohol, but of those who would or do use them as a pretext to cross boundaries and engage in sexual harassment.

Professional and academic listservs and email discussions are other spaces where sexual harassment may occur. Even with adequate moderation, which is often a minimum that is not met, posts that frequently and ideologically question the legitimacy of research about women and/or minorities undermine the insights this scholarship provides to sexuality research. It also attempts to undermine the researchers themselves who are often women and/or minoritized. It is gender-based, and sometimes an underappreciated form of sexual harassment.

Victims and targets utilize a number of strategies for dissuading a harasser in a professional context. These include moving away to create distance, inviting someone else into a conversation, making broad gestures so someone else’s hand must fall away from one’s body, and redirecting the conversation. People concerned about the potential for sexual harassment by a colleague may explicitly request meetings in public, ask to leave the door open during meetings, and find ways to avoid one-on-one meetings. These are all common tactics used to prevent or end an uncomfortable interaction; however, sexual harassers often ignore these cues. As sexuality researchers, we (should) know that communication is both verbal and nonverbal and that gender scripts should not drive interactions at the expense of some people’s autonomy. Western culture does, however, teach men and masculine people to keep going at all costs in the face of “coy” femininity. Social cues are typically quite easy for most people to discern and, when unclear, can be clarified such as by asking if a certain touch or statement was (un)welcome. Verbal communications are usually the last resort, after all clear but ignored physical cues have been given.

The gender breakdown resulting from generations of explicit and implicit gender discrimination means that senior individuals tend to be men, whereas junior people tend to be more mixed. And, in most academic spaces, people of color, working class individuals, first-generation scholars, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities, among other locations, are present in low numbers, if at all, and the isolation can compound the probabilities of sexual harassment (via othering, exoticization, undermining, etc.) and its effects. Like many majority group members, some majority academics may be loath to acknowledge or legitimize the voluminous evidence demonstrating that their positions of power accrue, in part, from discrimination and not only merit, contributing to a culture of downplaying social determinants of success, social location, and thus sexual harassment and its inequities.

Sexual Harassment in Sexuality Research and Professions

How the “sex” in our fields can contribute to a culture of sexual harassment.

As discussed earlier, our field is not immune from the problem of sexual harassment and, we believe, may have certain features that make it ripe for a disproportionate amount of it. We would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that some of the most well-known and/or earliest sex researchers have problematic histories attached to them. These histories may have influenced some of the working styles present in our field today. For example, the sexual openness that characterized Alfred Kinsey and his team can be seen in both positive and challenging lights. Kinsey’s biographers, using firsthand accounts and oral histories of staff members, described how the interview team spoke openly at work about their personal sex lives, that it was not unusual for the researchers to request personal “sex histories” of those seeking to work at the Institute for Sex Research (as well as their spouses), and that Kinsey asked his research team to keep records of their own personal sexual experiences (e.g., Collins, 1971 ; Gathorne-Hardy, 1998 ; Jones, 1997 ; Pomeroy, 1972 ; Winther, 1971 ). Some of Kinsey’s biographies also included accounts of sexual behavior occurring between members of the research team (and their spouses) and highlight how some may have at times felt maneuvered into such sexual behaviors (Gathorne-Hardy, 1998 ; Jones, 1997 ). We feel that the Kinsey team’s inclusion of reports about infant and child genital response provided by one or more adults is especially egregious and concerning, for its time and ours.

Kinsey is the most written-about, but other leaders in our field engaged in practices we now see as problematic, including some that were seen as problematic in their time as well. For example, a senior colleague shared that a well-known psychologist (now deceased) would not allow otherwise-enrolled women students to take his classes. Other senior colleagues have recalled (some positively, others negatively) nude massage and sexual behavior occurring openly at sex research, education, and therapy conferences just a few decades ago, and (only negatively) a milieu that was rife with explicit, unwanted sexual attention. Some of our mentors have shared stories about their and others’ earlier efforts, within our professional societies, to address sexual harassment.

These important parts of the history of sex research cannot and should not be ignored because, in our view, they are still very present. Our field would do well to grapple with the difficult aspects of researchers’ and clinicians’ behavior, including—maybe especially—those who are sometimes put on pedestals. Put simply, we wish to address people as whole, complex human beings. We are comfortable admiring some aspects of sex researchers’ work while finding other aspects unethical or problematic. We are also comfortable examining our own styles of teaching, researching, practicing, and/or mentoring as we collectively create the kinds of professional communities we hope will engage new generations of bright, creative scholars.

Our field should consider whether or how some of our sex research or clinician “forefathers” used their power to gain sexual access and the ways this has influenced present behavior in our field. To what extent have some people used the sex researcher card to gain sexual access, whether to students, colleagues, or even research subjects? Let’s continually consider who we are and what standards make sense for our offices and laboratories. For example, one of us had the experience of a faculty member requiring students to disclose their personal sexual behavior. We also know of at least two instances where participants in contemporary Sexual Attitude Reassessment (SAR) workshops were asked to share details about their own personal sexual behaviors; one of us experienced this firsthand. How do we/you feel about this? Decades ago, SARs and even some university-based sexuality classes were often conducted in the nude. SAR participants were sometimes invited to touch, smell, and/or taste one another. Irvine ( 2005 ) chronicled this history as well as the pushback, led largely by women sexologists, against such required experiences, in her book Disorders of Desire: Sexuality and Gender in Modern American Sexology.

Working in sex research or in sexuality professions (therapy, counseling, education, etc.) does indeed require some level of sexual openness and comfort. Sexual liberalism might inhere more openness to sexuality, but it also can implicitly inhere an expectation of sexual expression. For example, a predominant assumption within sexuality research is that sexuality is natural, good, and/or desirable, what many asexual people have identified as “the sexual assumption.” In this way, the belief that sexuality is natural can sometimes translate into the belief that people should be open to any sexual opportunity (e.g., If you are sexually liberated, you’d be sexual with me!). But our professional sexuality spaces are about our work , not our personal sexualities. In the same way, we would not expect that people who study aggression or treat people with aggression problems should be open to anyone’s expression of aggression, the expectation that any sexuality researcher or professional should be generally open to sexual advances at a sexuality-related conference is misguided and naïve. As we noted above, this belief, that a sexuality researcher must be open to sexual advances and opportunities, may have been facilitated by the precedents set by earlier workplace conduct of certain celebrated sexuality researchers.

Experiences of Sexual Harassment in Our Field

Too often, sexual harassment is seen only in its most egregious enactments, like those that involve sexual assault or threats. But sexual harassment takes many forms. Indeed, some of the forms people might misinterpret as “minor” can be uniquely devastating, because victims and targets end up questioning their own experiences and thereby access or receive less social support to work through them. As noted earlier, individuals within our field have long shared with one another, through informal networks, their experiences of sexual harassment. This includes information passed down from faculty to graduate students, as when we warn our trainees and new colleagues to be on guard for harassment from particular senior members (nearly all of the examples of which have been, for us, men). It also includes the other direction, from trainees and early career people (largely women) communicating harassment experiences to more established people (mostly women) who may be recognized as feminists in the field. For example, at one recent conference, eight students and early career sexuality researchers came individually to one of us to share their experiences of sexual harassment at that conference. It can include horizontal sharing among groups of women, as when one of us was part of a circle of five women (then all graduate students) who were all sexually propositioned by the same heterosexual senior man in a professional context, while this man never discussed any professional or research issues with the women. Sometimes graduate students warn others of certain faculty known to sexually harass students, along with advice about how to best manage and/or endure the sexual harassment.

Sometimes the harassment itself takes place within social settings like cocktail hour, where discussions about one’s research are mere covers for sexual intentions. One of us, as a graduate student, watched as senior men denigrated a senior woman’s appearance for looking too much like a “grandmother,” and then was met with stares upon asking what was bad about looking like a grandmother anyway. Established faculty, women like us or otherwise, are also not immune to the experiences of sexual harassment within our fields. Some mid-career women have reported experiencing harassing comments and behavior when they were considered for senior and leadership positions within their societies, such as reference to rising the ranks more on the basis of their “sex appeal” than merit.

Informal networks or “rumor mills” are helpful and important, but they exist when people believe they cannot, without repercussion, directly target sexual harassment itself or its perpetrators. This is rational: people often feel (or know) that coming forward with accusations of sexual harassment can negatively impact their career development in a culture where victims are rarely believed (at best) and consequences to harassers are minimized (if even present). In this Guest Editorial, we are taking the opportunity to talk more openly about the problem so we can create more equitable professional opportunities within our field, and to eliminate sexual harassment—not just mitigate it.

Each of us who co-authored this Guest Editorial has experienced sexual harassment from within our field. Although there are many commonalities, experiences of sexual harassment are as diverse as the people who experience them. Most of the people we know who are not white, heterosexual men have experienced sexual harassment within our field; our students, our students’ friends, our friends and colleagues are examples of those who have shared their own stories or whose sexual harassment we witnessed firsthand. These experiences include: a senior heterosexual man slowly and pointedly looking an early career woman up and down, settling on her breasts; a senior sexual minority man in a position of power kissing an early career sexual minority man without any relational or sexual context; senior heterosexual men giving extensive attention (including long and intimate touches) to conventionally attractive female students and ignoring men and other women; a senior heterosexual man kissing his graduate student, without her interest or consent; a senior sexual minority man offering to include an early career sexual minority man on grants and publications in exchange for oral sex; a senior white heterosexual man cornering a female graduate student in an elevator and kissing her without consent; a senior heterosexual man asking a pregnant researcher how her orgasms changed with pregnancy; and multiple examples of senior men making sexually inappropriate comments to junior career women in public during the Q&A following their talks or in semi-public at poster sessions. Indeed, most of these examples are so common that we could cite multiple instantiations of them.

The reputations that senior researchers or other professionals acquire from being known sexual harassers can also have further consequences for junior scholars or trainees and for science more generally. These reputations can extend from the harasser to their professional networks, tarnishing the reputations of the harassers’ collaborators and trainees. For example, some will make assumptions that their students exchange sexual favors for career advancement, given that their advisor is known to harass students for just this. This can lead to others targeting these students for more harassment, including debasement of their achievements on the basis of these assumptions. Reputations can extend to collaborators and trainees in other ways, too, for example, suggesting that these individuals don’t have a problem with (sometimes egregious) sexual harassment.

As sexuality researchers, educators, and clinicians, we can also experience sexual harassment in our public engagements, including with the media. One unfortunately common experience among sexuality researchers is being sexualized by the media, portraying sexuality researchers as “sexy scientists” who embody sexual stereotypes. For example, one of us was described in a book as wearing unprofessional and sexually suggestive clothing in a professional context as a (fabricated) device to entice readers, thereby perpetuating the stereotype. Upon confrontation with this false portrayal, the journalist dismissed the concerns and suggested the portrayal should be flattering. Another of us had a male journalist express deep sexual attractions to a student in our lab as he was interviewing her for an article about the lab research, and she was worried how pushing back would affect the public discussion of her supervisor’s lab. Still another of us had a journalist make inferences about our sex life, in print, based on an “off the record” conversation when the interview was over. And, though some sexuality researchers and professionals enjoy being sexy in their style of dress or presentation, some do not, and others are shamed for not meeting the fabricated norm of the “sexy scientist” or “sexy therapist,” a norm that can be limited to women in our field. Depending on the context, sexuality researchers may also be desexualized: another of us had the experience of having her breast cleavage digitally erased in a university publication. Shortly thereafter, illustrating the tendency to sexually sensationalize sexuality researchers’ and professionals’ appearance, she saw a magazine portrayal of her in which the magazine illustrator had greatly enhanced the size of her breasts. That both publications focused, albeit in differing ways, on altering the breasts of a woman scientist is striking.

Consequences of Sexual Harassment for Our Field

Sexual harassment has serious adverse consequences for us as sexuality researchers and professionals, and for the larger field. In addition to compromising mental and physical health and well-being, sexual harassment minimizes the contributions of people who are already marginalized within the field by sending the message that they are only or primarily valued for their sexuality rather than their expertise or insights or are devalued because of their sexuality. Sexual harassment isolates people, shames people, and sometimes makes them question their academic worth. We are individuals who, at times, have questioned our worth as sexuality researchers, educators, or clinicians because of the sexual harassment we have experienced. Each of us has heard from multiple individuals—students, women, sexual minority men, trans individuals, nonbinary individuals, and/or people of color—who told us they stopped coming to sexuality research conferences because of the sexual harassment they experienced. This is a problem for us as faculty mentors, it’s a problem for those of us who are responsible to organizations we serve, and it’s a problem for any of us who wishes to engage and include strong scientists and talented colleagues in the important work we do. Sexual harassment needs to stop.

Ending Sexual Harassment in Our Field

Immediate steps we can take to end sexual harassment in our field.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to end sexual harassment. The first step is obvious: sexual harassers need to cease their sexual harassment. Too often, ending sexual harassment is seen as incumbent upon victims, which means additional labor put upon those already experiencing victimization. But harassers likely make up a heterogeneous group. Many who sexually harass do so with the conscious intent of causing harm and/or discomfort. These people are unlikely to stop on their own without external pressure, changes in social norms, or consequences. Some people who sexually harass likely do so while ignoring their own doubts about or discomfort with their own behavior, because social scripts (or friends or colleagues) encourage sexually harassing behavior. Some people who are committing acts of sexual harassment may therefore stop with more education and explicit naming of sexual harassment in all its forms as a social problem that our professional community seeks to end. Some people may actually be ignorant of the ways their behavior is sexually harassing. Here, the impact of sexual harassment is present even if the intent is not. Again, education and clear articulation of community norms will be useful, so long as community members center the importance on ending sexual harassment and its harms, and not the feelings of those who (even inadvertently) enact it.

A second step is to transform existing, at-risk spaces into ones where sexual harassment is not tolerated. Too often, faculty receive little training in pedagogical strategies or best practices in management, even though many faculty manage lab of research assistants who are often students. Thus, faculty may approach their interactions with their students in much the same way their mentor(s) approached working with them. In many cases, this works well. But in others (as noted earlier), behaviors may be rooted in problematic historical approaches. There are some aspects of history that don’t need to be repeated or reproduced; taking stock of one’s leadership style and lab culture is key to moving forward in a positive way. We believe that there are opportunities for positive change in our field’s structures, including professional societies and journals.

A third step is to create new, safe(r) spaces that open up room for discussion of how to transform more recalcitrant spaces. Most of us have been a part of the Feminist Sexuality Research Receptions one of us has occasionally organized at the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR) annual meetings, and this has been one way to catalyze those of us dedicated to making sexuality research a space where we recognize and address issues around equity. Others, including Ellen Laan and Leonore Tiefer, have held gatherings for feminist sexuality researchers at IASR over recent past decades. Feminist spaces, though a clear improvement on anti-feminist, feminist-unfriendly, or even feminist-neutral spaces, are not enough in themselves since they often center questions of women and gender over intersectionality and issues of class, race/ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, nationality, religiosity, and more. Given that women of color, trans individuals, gender nonconforming people, and others are especially likely to be targets of sexual harassment, we need spaces that are committed to issues of power and equity even within feminism. We need the feminist spaces, and mainstream sexuality research and professional spaces, to be committed to speaking openly and hearing about sexual harassment and its complexities. We also see these spaces, and anti-harassment efforts, as part of broader efforts to create professional communities that attend to feminist values and inclusive principles—for example, supporting childcare sponsorships at conferences (Calisi and a Working Group of Mothers in Science, 2018 ), letting students bring their infants/children to class, ensuring access to education and conference spaces for people of a range of disabilities, and making pronoun stickers available for conference badges.

What would education, cultural change, and consequences around reducing or eliminating sexual harassment in sexuality research and professions look like? Below we provide a (non-exhaustive) list of recommendations:

Sexual harassers need to cease their sexual harassment. Just stop it. This should go without saying, but perpetrators are often not told that they can and should stop. What does this mean in practice? People who feel the desire to stroke a student’s lower back should refrain from doing so. Comments that sexualize non-partner colleagues’ or students’ bodies (e.g., “All the female graduate students in my department have huge breasts”) or link appearance and work (e.g., “Push your boobs up so they’ll fund your research”) need to stop. Each of these are real examples from our own experiences. We understand that many positive, consensual romantic relationships and/or sexual interactions have started at conferences, at work, or even between professors and graduate students. Yet, as sexuality researchers, we also know that there are better, more creative, non-harassing ways to convey romantic or sexual interest than the sexual harassment people so often describe.

Comments or “jokes” that a person should have sex with someone else to access funding or professional opportunities need to stop. We know of instances where male mentors and colleagues encouraged women and sexual minority men to engage in sexual behaviors or endure sexual harassment with people who held the key to funding or professional opportunities. Even if intended as a joke, no one should be put in the position of judging whether they might need to engage in unwanted sexual behavior to further their career.

Create conversations about codes of conduct and shared values. While it is important to address the kinds of behavior that are unacceptable, it is also important to speak to the kinds of academic and professional environments we wish to create: for example, environments that are intellectually invigorating, civil, respectful, inclusive, and supportive (see Clancy, 2018 ). Some lab or organizations may choose to articulate these in published Codes of Conduct, or even in aspirational statements, so as to communicate shared values within a group.

Reinforce that sexuality research and professions are not about individual colleagues’ sexualities. Individuals may sometimes bring their own sexualities into their own work directly or through lived experiences, but this should not be assumed nor should students or professionals be asked to articulate how their personal sexuality relates to their work, as some of us have experienced or seen happen to others. Communications otherwise—including pressure to be “sexually liberal” and thereby receptive to sexual advances—needs to cease. Pressuring colleagues or students to be “sexually open” or not “prude,” comments we have repeatedly heard and some of our mentors described as occurring when they were trainees, is a tactic used to coerce sexual access. Openly discussing sexuality can be done without making unconsented-to self-referential comments in lab, research groups, listservs, and at conferences. Using solely colloquial terms—e.g., “jerking off” versus “masturbation”—may also personalize sexuality when done for no professional reason. This is not a call to respectability politics (always a concern for our field) nor is it to preclude people from discussing their own sexuality when others are interested and the circumstances are appropriate. We simply suggest that we all (again, including ourselves in this) be mindful of our language and intentions.

Sexuality research and professional organizations need to develop sexual harassment policies that include clear guidelines, reporting policies, and articulated consequences. As sexual harassment disproportionately affects women, people of color, and/or sexual and gender minority individuals (see National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ), we believe these individuals should make up a majority of the committees that are charged with drafting such policies or other ways of addressing harassment. These policies should apply to face-to-face interactions as well as online communications, should be voted on and adopted into societal bylaws, procedures, and records, and must be fully accessible to members (e.g., on society websites, in conference programs and apps). And, these policies need to be followed; continued inaction will only empower harassers. It may seem paternalizing, as adults, to have “professional behavior” explained to us, but the sexual harassment many sexuality researchers and professionals perpetrate starkly illustrates just how needed this guidance is. Indeed it is paternalizing to be told that these policies are not needed, when our and many others’ experiences show that they clearly are. That said, we also know that targets rarely report, and for many reasons; thus, we don’t see policies as the “answer” to sexual harassment, but just as one piece that should be in place as we change the culture of our academic and professional communities.

Anonymous questionnaires and conference evaluations should include questions about experiences of sexual harassment as well as intersecting issues such as experiences of racism or ableism. Conferences routinely include some sort of evaluative materials, and it is important that these address ongoing problems beyond merely technical issues. Societies might also evaluate other aspects of their work such as listserv climate in regard to sexual harassment or sexist comments or behavior, and should share aggregated, anonymized findings to members through usual communication channels (e.g., listserv postings, annual business meeting). It is critical, however, that this is done with expertise, recognizing that some individuals are more empowered to share, even anonymously, than others.

Expand opportunities for professional development. Sexual harassment may be more likely to occur in workplaces that are rife with other uncivil or disrespectful behaviors. Thus, universities, clinics, and professional societies might consider making trainings or workshops available on civility promotion programs, de-escalation, or on creating inclusive, supportive workplaces (Clancy, 2018 ).

As a matter of routine, share organizational policies and reporting mechanisms. Professors should include sexual harassment, assault, and/or misconduct policies and reporting mechanisms on their syllabus; in the U.S., some guidance may be offered from campus Title IX offices or other university policies. Within research or clinical groups, clarify to students, lab managers, postdoctoral fellows, colleagues, and anyone else what the sexual harassment policy at your organization is, how you support it, and what people should do should when policies are violated. At the 2018 annual meeting of the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, some of us led an effort to include such guidelines in the printed program and on our app; these were also highlighted in the letter from the conference co-chairs.

Recognize that sexual harassment can happen anywhere; at social events, during poster sessions, in coffee breaks, on listservs, in private meetings, during meals, etc . Often, the most common advice is to avoid private or hotel room meetings; however, some important events can take place in these spaces. We do discourage asking for or going to private meetings separate from public spaces, as these spaces could be particularly difficult to navigate if sexual harassment does happen, but the trope of private spaces being assault-prone seems to prevent people from realizing that sexual harassment is still happening during public events. So, though physical location can affect the ability to mitigate sexual harassment, we want to remind our colleagues that the behavior is the problem, not the location.

Name sexual harassment. If you see a colleague engaging in inappropriate or “creepy” behavior, name what the person is doing in the moment or afterward. The harasser is usually subjecting another person to the sexual harassment because that person holds (or is seen to hold) less power than the harasser or the harasser would like to undermine the power the target does hold. Intervening in this dynamic is important to the target (communicating that they and the behavior are being seen), to bystanders (communicating that harassment will not be tolerated), and to the harasser (putting them on notice). Although we use strong language in describing these processes, we are not actually calling for people to shout “That’s sexual harassment!” There are many ways to intervene, some of them educational, some of them humorous, but all of them critical to ending sexual harassment. If you see someone comment on a young woman’s appearance, you can say “Hey, I think we should hear about her research.” If you see someone touching someone else in inappropriate ways, you can say “Wow, handsy today? Are we just stroking strangers now?” If you hear someone exoticizing a person of color, you can interrupt with “Why are you bringing up racist stereotypes? Let’s talk about their work.” If you see a student uncomfortably reciprocating sexual flirtations you can politely ask the student “Do you want to come walk with me to speak to that other researcher about their work?” The person can always say no but our experience tells us that our guts are often correct and people are often grateful for a nonconfrontational way to escape these kinds of situations. You have our permission to make fun of these examples, certainly, but only if you come up with your own.

Model appropriate behavior. Do not engage in sexualizing, lewd, and/or sexist comments or acts. This should, but clearly does not, go without saying, as does our repeated clarification that sexual harassment is not the same as any attempt at initiating sexual interactions, talking about sex research or therapy, etc., or humor (which is only humor, remember, when all parties find it so).

Educate yourself about enthusiastic consent and put this into practice. Again, we acknowledge and appreciate that many meaningful friendships, romantic relationships, and sexual connections were first formed in academic spaces. People can flirt and assess others’ romantic or sexual interest; indeed, assessing others’ interest is a major aspect of flirting. But do pay attention to social cues and—if you’re not sure your comments or behaviors are welcome—ask or step back.

Remember: Sexist acts are not just sexualizing but reduce people to their gender or sex. This can include, for example, only asking new mothers about their babies, pregnancies, or breastfeeding, in a professional context, to the exclusion of their work or without consent. For example, while some may want to connect with others around breastfeeding, many people want to discuss it with those who have themselves breastfed. Several of us have had our breastfeeding pointed out at conferences (a few of us have even had this happen from the podium speaker), or had men at conferences who were mere acquaintances ask if we were pumping milk while away from our babies. One male acquaintance, unforgettably, used hand gestures to illustrate. These conversations may be well-intentioned attempts to connect about parenting but—in isolation, out of context, and by acquaintances rather than friends or colleagues—can have the effect of reducing parents (almost always mothers) to their sex or breastfeeding status. Many people re-entering work spaces after having a baby are eager to talk about their work, particularly if they are worried about being perceived as being on a “mommy track” (i.e., shifting their life priorities away from work), and this is mostly targeted at mothers. Please ask us about our work and follow our lead in whether we want to discuss pregnancy, parenting, or breastfeeding.

Take responsibility for your actions. When someone tells you that your behavior toward them is inappropriate, understand that this is their experience, and believe them. Do not offer excuses. Then, apologize and move on to a professional, work-related topic. If you need clarification, help defuse the moment by apologizing now and asking for details later. If someone contacts you about your behavior, be thankful they both care enough to act and imagine that you have the potential to change, and apologize regardless of your original intention. If you see yourself in any of the examples we’ve provided above, contact someone to apologize.

Stop participating in the culture of sexual harassment. Some of us have perpetuated the problem by telling students, “He’s creepy but if you can put up with his behavior, it’s an interesting class.” And similarly we have nodded our heads in understanding when colleagues or mentors have told us about someone who touched others inappropriately, “but otherwise does excellent research.” We need to take these instances seriously. If we’ve had students complain about a colleague’s sexual comments or advances, let’s take it upon ourselves to tell that colleague that we would love to continue recommending their class or training opportunities, but we need some assurance about their ability to create and maintain a professional climate. If someone advises us on how to tolerate a colleague or mentor’s harassing behavior, let’s address that person’s behavior rather than feel like we have to put up with harassment. If someone harasses us or someone we know, let’s ask the person to stop. Harassment has continued because, obviously, people harass, but also because too many of us (again, even most of us here) have tolerated it, figured out how to adapt to it, and taught others how to adapt. For many of us, this is how we’ve become accustomed to navigating and, in some ways, surviving professional spaces. These same skills, however, also inadvertently serve to perpetuate a culture of shame and secrecy, and embolden sexual harassers. Of course, the main responsibility is with those who harass, but we can help by ending a culture that supports or tolerates harassment.

Longer-Term Approaches to Ending Sexual Harassment in Our Field

Ending sexual harassment within our professional spheres is not a trivial task. We included suggestions above that could be actioned “immediately,” however, some will take work and time to implement. Sexuality-related professional societies should allocate funding to people committed to ending sexual harassment to conduct research, develop and then evaluate best practices for policies, and adapt these for organizations, societies, and research groups. Researchers might investigate the development of new methods that would help us all better understand issues related to sexual harassment, whether in our own workplaces or other spaces.

Longer-term approaches should center marginalized groups in their efforts, including people of color, gender and sexual minorities, women of various social locations, and/or students. This means centering these groups in terms of perspectives, representation, and power to enact change toward ending sexual harassment (without asking for unpaid labor). It also means attending to issues, outside of but also related to sexual harassment, about racism, white supremacy, ageism, ableism, transphobia, biphobia, homophobia, misogyny, femmephobia, settler colonialism, postcolonialism, and many more. Mainstream sexuality research, education, and therapy are fields with overrepresentation of white majority individuals. Look, for example, at the board members, conference co-chairs, and journal editors connected to most U.S. and Canadian societies—including some of us and the organizations we belong to or lead. Leaders of sexuality research and professional organizations need to grapple with this and develop ways to remediate it. This includes building deeper, meaningful, and mutually beneficial connections with sexuality research and professional communities of color that already exist, like The Women of Color Sexual Health Network and the Association of Black Sexologists and Clinicians. It also includes providing structured opportunities—like questionnaires and/or interviews—to understand minoritized experiences within our field. We cannot draw more people into an inhospitable place, and it is imperative on us all to make clear what it is about sexuality research and professions that are driving minoritized people out and to work toward spaces that are meaningful for potential and actual sexuality researchers. Professional organizations might also consider surveying those who do not renew their memberships, or who stop attending conferences, to better understand individuals reasons for doing so, as companies and universities sometimes do with exit interviews.

As sexual harassment tends to be marked by an abuse of real or perceived power as well as longstanding power differentials, another long-term approach might be to create opportunities for more people to hold positions of power. We might consider more frequently rotating directors, deans, department chairs, membership on grant review committees, and journal editorships, as most societies already do with term limits for officers and Board members. Ideally, this would lead to more diverse perspectives being reflected, as well as more people having the ability to demonstrate national and/or international recognition, which is often key to tenure and promotion decisions. By proactively making power temporary, we might cultivate a sense of more people with power rather than power being primarily placed in a few individuals and potentially “forever.” This could have a positive ripple effect with sexual harassment issues. A strategy recommended in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Consensus Study Report on the Sexual Harassment of Women has to do with diffusing power structures (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 ). In practice, this may involve utilizing mentoring networks rather than individual mentors, group rather than individual advising, and pooled funds in a department for graduate students rather than funds coming from relationships between principal investigators and their students.

How the “Sex” in Sexuality Research and Professions Can Also Contribute to a Culture of Ending Sexual Harassment

We cannot list every instance of sexual harassment or uncomfortable sexual attention that we, or people we know, have experienced, much less experiences of people we haven’t heard from. We know that our failure to include or know about the sexual harassment experiences of our colleagues and students of social locations we don’t share might lead to further feelings of isolation and frustration. We hope our sincerity and seriousness in working and being resources with people of any social location who have experienced sexual harassment comes through regardless. As we move to open this conversation, we include ourselves in that process and target group, as a work-in-progress toward ending sexual harassment.

We conclude by noting that, though the “sex” in our fields contributes to the particular challenges of sexual harassment in our field, the “sex” in our fields also offers us uniquely promising opportunities for change. We already discuss sexuality and are comfortable doing so—this is a strength to be capitalized upon. We already navigate personal-professional boundaries around sex by dint of existing in larger culture as sexuality researchers, educators, and clinicians. Many of us are clinicians and have the skills available to guide on best practices for professional conduct in regard to sexuality. Many of us are researchers and can contribute to evaluating best practices, as well as developing new and relevant methodologies and measures for research related to sexual harassment broadly as well as specifically in our field. We are committed to authentic, positive, engaged, and meaningful sexualities. We can use our unique and valuable strengths as sexuality researchers and professionals to work toward ending sexual harassment in our field; please join us.

Calisi, R. M., & A Working Group of Mothers in Science. (2018). How to tackle the childcare-conference conundrum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 115 (12), 2845–2849.

Article   Google Scholar  

Clancy, K. (2018). Ok, so a few first thoughts on how to handle this. Leadership has to give a shit and want to try something different than policy. Prof societies can fund conflict engagement & bystander intervention trainings. Prof societies can run workshops on creating lab codes of conduct. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/KateClancy/status/1044585969775599616 . Accessed 01 Dec 2018.

Clancy, K. B. H., Nelson, R. G., Rutherford, J. N., & Hinde, K. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report of harassment and assault. PLoS ONE, 9 (7), e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Collins, D. C. (1971). An oral history interview with Dorothy Craig Collins/Interviewer: James H. Jones [71-053] . Bloomington: Center for Documentary Research and Practice, Indiana University.

Google Scholar  

Dzau, V. J., & Johnson, P. A. (2018). Ending sexual harassment in academic medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 379, 1589–1591. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1809846 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Flaherty, C. (2018). Sociology facing harassment ‘rumors’ defers award. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/06/sociologist-facing-harassment-rumors-defers-award . Accessed 01 Dec 2018.

Gathorne-Hardy, J. (1998). Sex the measure of all things: A life of Alfred C. Kinsey . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Grollman, E. (2018). A call for sociology’s #MeToo mo(ve)ment . Retrieved from https://egrollman.com/2018/08/06/metoo-sociology/ . Accessed 01 Dec 2018.

Irvine, J. M. (2005). Disorders of desire: Sexuality and gender in modern American sexology . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Jones, J. H. (1997). Alfred Kinsey: A public/private life . New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Mondon, M. (2018). Penn professor resigns following allegations of inappropriate relationships with students. Philly Voice . Retrieved from https://www.phillyvoice.com/penn-professor-kurzban-resigns-sexual-misconduct-allegations-relationships-students/ . Accessed 01 Dec 2018.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Sexual harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Pomeroy, W. B. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the institute for sex research . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schulz, V. (2018). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment, again. Yale Law Journal Forum, 128, 22–66.

Winther, M. G. (1971). An oral history interview with Mary G. Winther/Interviewer: James H. Jones [71-008] . Bloomington: Center for Documentary Research and Practice, Indiana University.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authorship listings are always a challenge, as ordinal listings don’t do justice to how papers unfold—who comes up with initial idea(s), who has time or energy to write at a given moment, how the ideas evolve as they bounce among co-authors, and all the emails, outlines, conversations, and edits that move a paper forward. We benefitted from a collaborative process.

Author information

Drs. Debby Herbenick and Sari M. van Anders are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Applied Health Science, PH 116, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

Debby Herbenick

Departments of Psychology and Gender Studies; Program in Neuroscience, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Sari M. van Anders

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Lori A. Brotto

Department of Psychology, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Meredith L. Chivers

Department of Health and Kinesiology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

Sofia Jawed-Wessel

Department of Social Work, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA

Jayleen Galarza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debby Herbenick .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Herbenick, D., van Anders, S.M., Brotto, L.A. et al. Sexual Harassment in the Field of Sexuality Research. Arch Sex Behav 48 , 997–1006 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1405-x

Download citation

Received : 18 July 2018

Accepted : 17 January 2019

Published : 01 February 2019

Issue Date : May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1405-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Sexual harassment in the workplace.

• Rose L. Siuta Rose L. Siuta Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
•  and  Mindy E. Bergman Mindy E. Bergman Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.191
• Published online: 25 June 2019

Business and management conceptualizations of sexual harassment have been informed by both legal and psychological definitions. From the psychological perspective, sexual harassment behaviors include harassment based on one’s gender, enacting unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The most recent psychological theories of sexual harassment acknowledge that it is a gendered experience motivated by the societal stratification of gender and not by sexual gratification.

Harassing behaviors negatively impact individual well-being. Well-documented workplace effects of sexual harassment include reduced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity, and increased job stress, turnover, withdrawal, and conflict. Sexual harassment negatively affects target’s psychological and physical well-being, including increases in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety symptoms, emotional exhaustion, headaches, sleep problems, gastric distress, and upper respiratory problems. All of these individual-level effects can result in financial decrements for the target and the organization.

Both individual and organizational factors predict sexual harassment. Women are more likely to experience sexual harassment, as well as minoritized persons, with women who embody more than one minority identity being the most likely to experience sexual harassment. This finding supports the interpretation of sexual harassment as motivated by reinforcing societal power hierarchies. Other individual factors such as sexual orientation, age, education level, and marital status are also related to experiencing sexual harassment. At the organizational level, organizational climate, job-gender context, and relative power between the harasser and the target predict sexual harassment. Organizational climates that are more tolerant of sexual harassment produce more sexual harassment. In addition, as masculinity of a work context increases, so does sexual harassment for women. Lastly, those with lower organizational power are more likely to experience sexual harassment, particularly by people with higher levels of power; however, contrapower harassment (harassment of individuals with higher organizational power by those with lower organizational power) can also occur.

Reporting harassment to organizational authorities has been theorized to lead to positive outcomes, but reporting rates are low. This may reflect findings that procedures for reporting are often unclear and that reporting often leads to worse outcomes for targets of harassment than their non-reporting peers.

The two most common approaches to measuring sexual harassment are direct query (explicitly ask about sexual harassment) or behavior experiences (ask respondents about how many sexually harassing behaviors they have experienced). A few considerations for the methodology used in these studies include inconsistency in conceptual or operational definitions of sexual harassment, the framing of a study, the retrospective nature of research asking about past experiences, and the sampling methodology used. A number of gaps remain in the documentation and understanding of sexual harassment phenomena, which intersect with some research practices and challenges. These include (a) the need to take into account factors other than incidence rates, such as perceived severity of experiences; (b) further examination of how multiple minority statuses and intersectional oppression affect harassment; (c) the importance of conducting research on harassment perpetrators; and (d) the examination of culturally informed topics related to sexual harassment, particularly outside Western countries.

• sexual harassment
• organizational climate
• job-gender context
• methodology

Introduction

Sexual harassment is a form of sex-based abuse that happens in the workplace (Berdahl, 2007a ; Fitzgerald, 1993 ; Gutek & Koss, 1993 ). It also happens in schools and other institutions, but because of the nature of this encyclopedia, this review focuses on the workplace. This article focuses primarily on the psychological, rather than the legal, definitions of sexual harassment because the psychological conceptualization of sexual harassment is the same across jurisdictions, time, court decisions, and legislation, but the legal definition is not. Additionally, this article focuses on the psychological conceptualization, because harm to employees and their organizations can occur even when harassing experiences do not rise to the level of a legal standard for harassment. In light of the recent rise of the #MeToo movement (a social media phenomenon whereby a surge of people used social media to acknowledge experiences with sexual harassment following claims levied against prominent figures in Hollywood and business), attention to sexual harassment has become even more urgent in organizational contexts. Results of a meta-analytic study of the workplace sexual harassment literature reveal that approximately 58% of women have experienced sexual harassment (Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003 ). In the United States, the prevalence of workplace experiences of sexual harassment is 41% for women and 32% for men (Das, 2009 ). Similar rates have been found in Europe and Australia (AHRC, 2012 ; Latcheva, 2017 ), with 33% of women in Australia and 45–55% of women in Europe experiencing harassment at least once in their lives. Within Europe, women in Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden reported higher prevalence rates (71–81%) than those in Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, and Romania (24–32%) (Latcheva, 2017 ). Incidence rates of sexual harassment are lower in Eastern nations like China (12.5%; Parish, Das, & Laumann, 2006 ) and Japan (9.5%; Chen et al., 2008 ) than those of Western nation counterparts. Meanwhile, one study on educational contexts in Ethiopia found similar prevalence rates to Western nations (Marsh et al., 2009 ). Thus, it is clear that sexual harassment is a worldwide and common experience.

What Is Sexual Harassment?

In the United States, sexual harassment law is informed by both legislation (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ) and case law (e.g., Burlington v. Ellerth , 2000 ; Faragher v. Boca Raton , 2000 ; Meritor v. Vinson , 1979 ; Oncale v. Sundowner , 1998 ). As new legislation is enacted and court cases accumulate, the parameters change regarding how sexual harassment is defined, what evidence is necessary to support a charge of sexual harassment, and who can be held liable for substantiated claims. Sexual harassment law has long recognized that there are two distinct types or components to sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. Quid pro quo harassment, which translates to “this for that,” is the notion that someone’s employment, promotions, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment are dependent upon submitting to sexual requests or by providing sexual favors. Hostile environment harassment occurs when there is pervasive unwanted sexual attention, gendered and sexualized jokes, and comments, and other behaviors occurring in the organization; it’s as though harassment is “in the air.”

Other countries have different laws and guidance. For example, although each European Union (EU) member country has its own specific law regarding sexual harassment, EU member nations are guided by Directive 2006 /54/EC, which focuses on equal treatment of women and men in the workplace. This Directive states, “Harassment and sexual harassment are contrary to the principle of equal treatment between men and women and constitute discrimination on grounds of sex.” This Directive indicates that both harassment and sexual harassment are designed to intimidate, degrade, offend, or humiliate people, but differ in their content, whereby sexual harassment specifically has sexualized content, whereas harassment is treatment based on sex. Pakistan has two laws that prohibit sexual harassment: section 509 of the Pakistan Criminal Penal Code (a criminal law) and the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act of 2010 (a civil law; Jatoi, 2018 ). In New Zealand, harassment is also covered by two separate laws: the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993 ; these differ in the timelines for filing a complaint and how (Employment New Zealand, 2018 ). Japan’s legal precedent against sexual harassment began in 1992 following a successful suit whereby a publishing company and one of its employees were found responsible for crude remarks toward a woman, who was driven to quit her job from the negative experience (Huen, 2007 ; Weisman, 1992 ); statutes prohibiting sexual harassment appeared in Japan in 1997 (Huen, 2007 ). Thus, it is clear that there are numerous and varied laws and timelines regarding the prohibition of sexual harassment across the world.

The predominant psychological model of sexual harassment in the workplace was proposed by Fitzgerald, Hulin, and Drasgow ( 1995 ; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1995 ). They argued that sexual harassment is composed of a set of interrelated domains of behavior. These include gender harassment (later split into sexual hostility and sexist hostility; Fitzgerald, Magley, Drasgow, & Waldo, 1999 ; Hay & Elig, 1999 ), unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Sexist hostility refers to comments and behaviors that indicate that one sex (e.g., females) is worse than the other (e.g., males) in some way, such as being unsuited for some jobs, less intelligent, or humorless. Sexual hostility includes comments and behaviors that have a sexualized component and are demeaning to a group of people (e.g., women) or to an individual person; examples include comments about or attempts to draw a person into discussions about their personal sexual experiences, catcalls, sexual “jokes” or stories, ogling, exhibitionist or exposure behaviors, and sexual gestures. Unwanted sexual attention is behaviors that focus sexualized attention on a person, including unwanted touching (e.g., pats on the buttocks, massaging the shoulders, brushing up against someone), repeated requests for dates, and exposure to pornographic materials; unwanted sexual attention also includes rape and attempted rape. Sexual coercion is behaviors in which one person indicates that the terms and conditions of employment for another person are dependent complying with sexual requests, whether it is engaging in sexual behavior or submitting to sexualized comments and jokes. Fitzgerald et al.’s concepts map onto the legal concepts of harassment, with sexual coercion parallel to quid pro quo harassment and sexist hostility, sexual hostility, and unwanted sexual attention aligning with hostile environment harassment (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995 ).

Berdahl ( 2007a ) proposed that sexual harassment be reframed and renamed as “sex-based harassment” to emphasize that sexual harassment is not about sexual relationships gone awry, but rather the sex-based social power hierarchies that exist within organizations and the broader societies in which they are embedded. This is critical because it explains (a) why there are differential patterns in who harasses whom (e.g., why men are more likely to harass women than vice versa), (b) why “uppity” (Berdahl, 2007b ; Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ) and other “unattractive” or unconventional women are harassed, and (c) why some men are harassed and which ones are most likely to be harassed (Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996 ; Fitzgerald & Cortina, 2017 ; Holland et al., 2016 ; Stockdale, Visio, & Batra, 1999 ). This perspective pushes back against the notion that sexual harassment is about sex and attraction and instead purports that it is about power and its preservation. Sexual harassment is a way to maintain power and status; it is a tool to suppress the advancement of women and others who might challenge the power, resources, and status that are held by the people at higher and the highest levels of the sex-based social hierarchy (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003 ). In essence, lowering another person’s sex-based status is a mechanism for bolstering one’s own sex-based status. Berdahl ( 2007a ) notes that in the United States, the highest levels of the sex-based social hierarchy are occupied by cis, white, hetero, Christian, strong, smart, handsome, “manly” men. To the extent that people deviate from this standard and that they challenge the positions that are held by these men increases their likelihood of being harassed.

Fitzgerald and Cortina ( 2017 ), however, argue that sexual harassment is primarily a women’s issue because sexual harassment primarily occurs toward women. Additionally, they note that while Berdahl’s ( 2007a ) perspective is useful, men are harassed because the harasser perceives them to be “not man enough,” and the harassment that they receive often includes taunts and other behaviors that highlight that they are not “manly.”

It is clear from these recent developments that sexual harassment must be discussed within the context of the social stratification of gender that permits it. Early explanations of sexual harassment defined it as emerging from desire for sexual gratification (for reviews, see Berdahl, 2007a ; Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ; Welsh, 1999 ). Models of sexual harassment then focused on the normative permissiveness toward sexual harassment behaviors, the wide variety of behaviors—including non-sexual behaviors—that sexual harassment encompassed, and the individual and organizational fallout for sexual harassment in the workplace (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ). Now theories of harassment have evolved to recognize that the gendered nature of sexual harassment is critical to our understanding of it (Berdahl, 2007a ; Fitzgerald & Cortina, 2017 ). In sum, views of sexual harassment have increasingly moved toward an analysis of its motivations as they relate to the social stratification of gender in a larger context and in the specific organizational context, as opposed to a focus on motivations stemming from sexual gratification.

Sexual Harassment as a Psychological Stressor

Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) proposed an “integrated model of sexual harassment.” Their model integrated several psychological perspectives and literatures, including work from the fields of industrial-organizational psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology, violence, trauma, and law and psychology. Most notably, their work framed sexual harassment as a psychological stressor. Their work drew in particular on the transactional model of stress (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & deLongis, 1986 ; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). Like other models of stress, the transactional model of stress indicates that stressors are events that tax an individual’s resources and require some action to restore the balance of resources the person had before the event. Further, the model recognizes that stressors can be psychosocial (i.e., occurring in interpersonal relationships and interactions). The transactional model of stress also proposes that the extent to which stressors affect people depends on their primary and secondary appraisals of the event. Primary appraisal is the assessment of how threatening the event is to the person’s well-being, identity, or other important life factor; secondary appraisal is the assessment of what coping resources a person has to remediate the situation. Although they are named “primary” and “secondary” appraisal, it is not the case that primary always and only precedes secondary appraisal. For example, the realization that a person lacks any coping resources (secondary appraisal) to deal with the situation could make it more threatening to the person (primary appraisal).

One reason why this particular model of stress was adopted over other models of stress appears to be that the concepts of primary and secondary appraisal helped explain why similar sex-based behaviors could elicit different responses from different people. For example, a salacious joke told to a group of people could be seen as threatening to Person A and non-threatening or even funny to Person B. Similarly, Person A could perceive a salacious joke told by Person C as threatening and a similar joke told by Person D as non-threatening. Primary and secondary appraisal help explain why this can occur. The context of these jokes, the people who tell them, and the people who hear them change the dynamics of power and subsequent threat. Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) acknowledged this in their model by theorizing personal vulnerability factors that affect the relationship between sexual harassment and job-, psychological-, and health-related outcomes.

However, this perspective also bolstered the “whiner hypothesis” (Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999a ), which argued that women overreact to sex-based workplace experiences. That is, the inclusion of appraisal in Fitzgerald et al.’s ( 1995 ) model of sexual harassment indicates that there is a subjective component to understanding harassment, but the “whiner hypothesis” over-interprets that component to indicate that most harassment is subjective overreaction to harmless behavior. However, research shows that regardless of whether women label their experiences as harassment, they are harmed by harassing behaviors; the whiner hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked (Bergman & Henning, 2008 ; Ilies et al., 2003 ; Magley et al., 1999a ; McDonald, 2012 ; Welsh, 1999 ). Further, there is burgeoning evidence that personal vulnerability factors are as important or more important in identifying why some people are targeted for harassment compared to explaining why some people are more harmed by harassment (Bergman & Henning, 2008 ; Settles, Buchanan, & Colar, 2012 ).

One of the hallmarks of stressors is the negative effect that they have on individual well-being. The next section reports these findings.

Outcomes of Harassment

Research consistently shows that sexual harassment has a negative effect on target well-being, whether psychological, job related, or health related outcomes. In the following, several key effects are highlighted.

Job Outcomes

Sexual harassment negatively affects targets’ job-related well-being. The negative effect of sexual harassment on job satisfaction is well documented in the United States and around the world (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Hutagalung, & Ishak, 2012 ; Malik, Malik, Qureshi, & Atta, 2014 ; Merkin & Shah, 2014 ; Nielsen, Bjørkelo, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2010 ; Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016 ; Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000 ; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007 ). Through meta-analysis, Willness et al. ( 2007 ) demonstrated that sexual harassment negatively affects all forms of workplace satisfaction, with slightly stronger negative effects on satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of work (i.e., co-worker and supervisor satisfaction) compared to satisfaction with the work itself. Beyond job satisfaction, sexual harassment has effects on a number of work-related outcomes, including job stress (Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002 ; Lim & Cortina, 2005 ) and organizational commitment (Willness et al., 2007 ).

Sexual harassment has also been negatively linked to a variety of aspects of job performance and turnover (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001 ; Liu, Kwan, & Chiu, 2014 ; Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1999b ; Raver & Gelfand, 2005 ; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005 ). Because both job satisfaction and organizational commitment predict turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000 ; Mathieu, Fabi, Lacoursière, & Raymond, 2016 ; Meyer, Stanley, Hercovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002 ; Riketta, 2002 ) and both are negatively impacted by sexual harassment, this suggests that experiencing sexual harassment will predict turnover as well. Furthermore, people who are sexually harassed are more likely to turn over than people who are not (Sims, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2005 ). Because harassment can prompt turnover, it can increase financial strain for targets and also damage their ongoing career prospects (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2017 ). In addition, Willness et al. ( 2007 ) showed a positive relationship between sexual harassment and organizational withdrawal, including avoiding work, missing work, and neglecting to complete job tasks. Gruber ( 2003 ) found that sexual harassment is more likely to result in its targets avoiding work than any other type of outcome, including actual turnover (Willness et al., 2007 ).

The effects of sexual harassment are not limited to just the target of the harassment, but can also spread to other members and areas within the organization. These effects are exemplified by decreased job satisfaction, increased conflict within teams, and increased turnover and withdrawal behaviors that show that when there is an increase in sexual harassment, there is also a decrease in workgroup productivity (Willness et al., 2007 ). Parker and Griffin ( 2002 ) demonstrated that sexual harassment is positively related to conflict within teams and impairment of relationships between team members, which translates to a decrease in team financial performance. In addition to effects of one person’s harassment experiences on team functioning, knowledge of harassment and harassment climate also negatively affect employees and workplaces. Witnessing sexual harassment negatively affects the job satisfaction of the bystander (Dionisi & Barling, 2018 ; Glomb et al., 1997 ; Richman-Hirsch & Glomb, 2002 ). Further, organizational climates that are tolerant of sexual harassment are negatively linked to job satisfaction (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999 ).

Health Outcomes

Experiencing sexual harassment has also been linked to a variety of negative health outcomes for the target—both mental and physical (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ; Willness et al., 2007 ). Further, Dionisi, Barling, and Dupré ( 2012 ) found that the negative effect on psychological well-being is stronger for threatened and real physical contact forms of sexual harassment than for other types of workplace mistreatment. For women targets, symptoms of PTSD are positively correlated and general psychological well-being is negatively correlated with sexual harassment (Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997 ). Willness et al.’s ( 2007 ) meta-analysis demonstrated that symptoms of PTSD were positively correlated with experiences of sexual harassment. Symptoms of depression and anxiety are also positively correlated with exposure to sexual harassment (Ho, Dinh, Bellefontaine, & Irving, 2012 ; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012 ). When observing medical diagnoses received by plaintiffs in harassment trials, major depressive disorder and PTSD were the most common mental health symptoms reported (Fitzgerald et al., 1999 ).

Sexual harassment is also linked to alcohol abuse and the risk of eating disorders (Harned & Fitzgerald, 2002 ; Rospenda, Fujshiro, Shannon, & Richman, 2008 ). Schneider, Tomaka, and Palacios ( 2001 ) found that cardiovascular activity increased even after mild experiences of gender harassment. Additionally, there is a positive relationship between experiencing sexual harassment and various psychosomatic symptoms. These include an increase in the experience of headaches, sleep problems, gastric distress, and upper respiratory infections (Barling et al., 1996 ). In addition to physical health problems, those who experience sexual harassment are also more likely to experience emotional exhaustion (de Haas, Timmerman, & Höing, 2009 ). Taken in conjunction, these findings show that sexual harassment has effects on multiple aspects of a target’s life, including job effects, psychological effects, and physical health effects.

Predictors of Harassment

In this section, individual and organizational predictors of sexual harassment are reviewed. These findings are important because they highlight both the individual characteristics that make one more likely to be targeted with sexual harassment, as well as the organizational characteristics that can leave individuals more vulnerable to these experiences. Organizations would benefit from understanding the intersections of individual- and organizational-level predictors to prevent sexual harassment and minimize the harmful effects on targets and co-workers. This would allow more proactive attempts to prevent harassment rather than reactively respond via legal compliance routes.

Target Characteristics Associated With Sexual Harassment

One of the enduring findings in the sexual harassment literature is that women are more likely to experience sexual harassment than men (Foster & Fullagar, 2018 ; Ilies et al., 2003 ; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981 , 1988 , 1994 ). This is consistent with theories of power in sexual harassment (e.g., Berdahl, 2007a ) as well as theories of intersectional oppression (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989 ). Additionally, intersectionality theory suggests that occupying more than one minoritized 1 category can have a multiplicative effect on sexual harassment (Crenshaw, 1989 ). Generally, intersectionality theories examine how demographic identity markers are inextricably linked because systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism) are inextricably linked as ways to uphold the society’s hegemonic power structure. The consequence for sexual harassment research is that a target’s risk for and rates of sexual harassment are likely to increase as the number of minoritized identities increase. One example of this effect is evident in research showing that racially/ethnically minoritized women experience more harassment than white women, white men, or racially/ethnically minoritized men (Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ). Racially and ethnically minoritized women are also more likely to be employed in positions that are lower status and with less organizational power (Bayard, Hellerstein, Neumark, & Troske, 2003 ; Maume, 1999 ), which may leave them vulnerable to the effects of power differences on sexual harassment discussed in the following section. Similarly, women are particularly at risk for experiencing sexual harassment when they come from backgrounds with low sociocultural power (Harned et al., 2002 ). In their theory, Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) highlighted low economic power as a likely strong predictor of sexual harassment and its negative effects (i.e., as a moderator of the sexual harassment–outcome relationship) because people with low economic power have little opportunity to leave their current job for another.

Race and ethnicity also predict experiences of sexual harassment. Bergman and Drasgow ( 2003 ) found that among U.S. military women, the frequency of experiences of sexual harassment differed depending on race, with Native American women reporting the most harassment, Hispanic and black women reporting the next most frequent amount of harassment, followed by Asian women, and with white women indicating the fewest instances of harassment. Similarly, among men in the U.S. military, black men report more frequent experiences of sexual harassment than white men (Settles et al., 2012 ). Additionally, racial/ethnic minoritized persons experience an additional type of sexual harassment, racialized sexual harassment, that reflects both their sex status and their race status (Buchanan, 2005 ; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002 ; Welsh, Carr, MacQuarrie, & Huntley, 2006 ).

LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) persons are also likely to experience sexual harassment, and in particular to experience a specific form of sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment, whereby unwanted behaviors are exhibited toward an individual because of their perceived sexual orientation (Ryan & Wessel, 2012 ). This harassment can take the form of direct unwanted expressions or actions, or can come from ambient expressions of hostility toward sexual minorities in the workplace climate. Because sexual orientation can remain a hidden identity in comparison to more outwardly visible determinants of minoritized status, such as race or gender, these individuals may be especially prone to experiencing sexual orientation harassment in its more ambient form. Like other demographic risk factors, sexual orientation–based sexual harassment reflects threats to the sex-based societal power structure (Berdahl, 2007a ). Similarly, men experience a type of sexual harassment, “not man enough” harassment, which is deployed when men violate gender norms (Berdahl et al., 1996 ; Funk & Werhun, 2011 ); this idea has been expanded into “gender policing harassment” in order to encapsulate women’s experiences and an LGBTQ person’s harassment experiences based on perceived violations of gender norms (Konik & Cortina, 2008 ). As a summary statement, people who violate gender norms are more likely to experience sexual harassment (Berdahl, 2007a , 2007b ; Konik & Cortina, 2008 ).

Age, education level, and marital status have also been linked to sexual harassment. Younger people are more likely to experience sexual harassment than their older counterparts (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Those who are younger are also more likely to occupy lower positions in organizations and hold less sociocultural power when compared to their older counterparts. Additionally, those who have attained a lower education level are also less likely to hold higher positions in organizations. Individuals with lower education levels are similarly more likely to experience sexual harassment (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Lastly, those who are married are less vulnerable to sexual harassment than their single counterparts (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Each of these factors might be a proxy for the economic dependence on their current job (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ).

Organizational-Level Predictors of Harassment

At the organizational level, three major facilitating conditions of sexual harassment have been identified: organizational climate, job-gender context, and relative power between the harasser and the target. Organizational climate is the extent to which the workplace tolerates sexual harassment (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996 ). Job-gender context reflects the gendered nature of a particular job, including the sex ratios within the workgroup, the sex of the supervisor, and the stereotypical gender associated with a job (e.g., surgeon vs. nurse; Gutek, 1985 ). Relative power is the extent to which one person occupies more powerful positions than the other.

There are numerous climates in organizations, corresponding to sets of expectations about particular components of organizational life; because of this, specific instantiations of climate are “climates for” components of the organization (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013 ). Organizational climate is generally conceptualized as the normative expectations of the contingencies regarding behaviors—what is rewarded and supported, or condemned and sanctioned (Ostroff et al., 2013 ). Organizational climate relevant to sexual harassment was originally conceptualized and operationalized as organizational tolerance for sexual harassment (Hulin et al., 1996 ), but often is referred to as “organizational climate” or “climate toward harassment.” Regardless of the particular label or measure used, organizational climate in the context of sexual harassment reflects the extent to which sexual harassment is rewarded, supported, or sanctioned in the organization. It reflects the normative expectations of whether sexual harassment is tolerated.

The second major organizational predictor of sexual harassment is job-gendered context (Gutek, 1985 ). This is the extent to which a job is gendered as masculine or feminine. Gender is an integral part of defining power structures within organizations, which includes divisions of organizational power along gender lines, images which reinforce gender stereotypes, male dominance in social interactions, gendered individual identities, and the underlying creation of gendered organizational structures (Acker, 1990 ). Job-gender context includes both the local context and the occupational history and stereotypes. Job-gendered context is often operationalized with assessments of (a) the sex of the supervisor for the position, (b) the local sex ratio of the people in the position and the co-workers attached to it, and (c) the gendered stereotype associated with the job (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ). Results indicate that women in more masculine jobs (i.e., those that have a man as a supervisor, have more men than women as co-workers, and/or where the job is more associated with men than with women) are more likely to experience sexual harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ). This is consistent with Berdahl’s ( 2007a , 2007b ) argument that women who are perceived to be interlopers in male spaces are more likely to be harassed.

The organizational power difference between the target and the harasser is also a factor in experiences of sexual harassment. Not only is occupying positions of lower organizational power associated with a greater risk of sexual harassment for women than for those who occupy positions of higher organizational power (Harned et al., 2002 ), but the power difference between the target and harasser matters as well (Bergman et al., 2002 ). However, it should be noted that relative organizational power is only one marker of the power differential between harasser and target. Contrapower harassment also occurs, such that persons with higher organizational power but lower social power on other aspects experience harassment from persons with lower organizational power but higher social power (Rospenda, Richman, & Nawyn, 1998 ).

Reporting Sexual Harassment

There is considerable interest in the formal reporting of sexual harassment to organizational authorities because reporting is theorized to have significant benefit to both the target of harassment and to the broader organization. Although people indicate in vignette studies that they are likely to confront or report their harassers (see Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001 , for a review), studies of people in real (rather than “thought experiment,” vignette, or “paper people” studies of harassing situations) indicate otherwise (Bergman at al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Culbertson & Rosenfeld, 1994 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ). Note that people can report experiencing sexually harassing behavior even if they do not label it as sexual harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

The low rates of reporting are surprising when considering the theorized positive outcomes of reporting harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Following a report, the harassing behavior should end, which should result in some—although not necessarily full—recovery from the stress resulting from the harassment (Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000 ). Additionally, reports should provide the opportunity for organizations to identify problematic employees and either sanction them or remove them from the organization; it should also buffer the organization from liability because the organization should respond appropriately (Bergman et al., 2002 ). However, research indicates that despite the putative goals of reporting, people do not benefit from the reporting experience compared to their non-reporting peers; oftentimes, reporters are actually worse off than if they had never reported (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995 ; Gruber & Smith, 1995 ; Hotelling, 1991 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ).

The deficits in well-being from reporting are likely due to unclear procedures and negative consequences associated with reporting sexual harassment. Across a number of studies, targets of sexual harassment claimed that the reasons they chose not to report the harassment were due to concerns regarding the definition of harassment, the work environment not being conducive to reporting, questions of what would happen to their job status, and fear of other organizational and personal consequences (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Gruber & Smith, 1995 ; Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997 ; Hotelling, 1991 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ).

Organizational factors also influence sexual harassment reporting. Notably, organizational climate influences reporting, such that if people perceive others to be accepting of harassment, then they are less likely to report (Bergman et al., 2002 ; Halbesleben, 2009 ; Offermann & Malamut, 2002 ). Additionally, leaders’ views of harassment play a role, such that leaders who are anti-harassment are more likely to have subordinates who report harassment (Offermann & Malamut, 2002 ). Organizational factors appear to be so important that Bergman et al. ( 2002 ) noted that a climate intolerant of harassment is essential because it (a) reduces the harassment in the organization, (b) increases the likelihood of reporting when it does occur, and (c) increases the likelihood that organizations will respond appropriately to those reports.

Organizational Responses to Reporting

When targets of harassment report their experiences to the organization, the organization can make any number of responses (Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg, & DuBois, 1997 ). First is investigation; organizations can intake the report and deploy human resources representatives to investigate to determine whether organizational rules have been broken (Pustolka, 2015 ; Trotter & Zacur, 2012 ). There has been surprisingly little research on sexual harassment investigations. One recent study, however, demonstrates that organizational tolerance for sexual harassment suppresses both learning of sexual harassment investigation skills and the motivation to learn these skills (Goldberg, Perry, & Rawski, 2018 ).

Note, however, that organizations are not required to investigate sexual harassment allegations. It is possible that their policies do not require it (Pustolka, 2015 ). Additionally, the process is a human process, prone to the cognitive errors and biases of human decision makers. Thus, a different response is minimization: organizational representatives could encourage the reporter to drop the complaint or could respond that the complaint is not serious enough to warrant an investigation (Bergman et al., 2002 ). This minimization could happen at the time of the report, making an investigation unlikely to occur, or it could happen during (e.g., through investigator behavior) or after the investigation. In the latter case, it is possible that the report is unsubstantiated, so the reporter has the experience that the complaint was minimized when in actuality the complaint did not meet the standards for concern within the organization. Organizations that are more tolerant of sexual harassment are more likely to use minimization (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Additionally, as the perpetrators’ rank in the organization increases, the use of minimization also increases (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Organizations could also retaliate against the reporter (Bergman et al., 2002 ). This could again happen at the time of the complaint or during or following an investigation. Retaliation can occur both formally (e.g., reassignment to a different unit in the organization) or informally (e.g., hostile treatment from co-workers; Bergman et al., 2002 ). Unsurprisingly, like the finding for minimization, retaliation is more common when organizations are more tolerant of sexual harassment and when the perpetrator’s rank is higher (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Organizations can also make positive responses to the report, notably remediation (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Organizational remedies are actions taken against the perpetrator, including informal discussions about behavior, formal notes in employment files, reassignment to other work units or positions, and terminating the employment relationship. Remedies are more common when organizations are less tolerant of sexual harassment and when the perpetrator is lower in organizational rank (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Despite the positive response of organizational remedies, it has less effect on procedural satisfaction with the reporting process than do either retaliation or minimization (Bergman et al., 2002 ). It seems, then, that it is as important—if not more so—to reduce negative responses to sexual harassment reports than to increase positive responses.

At best, reporting sexual harassment does not make things worse for the reporter, but unfortunately it often does; there is no evidence to indicate that reporting actually improves well-being or job attitudes (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bell, Street, & Stafford, 2014 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ; Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ). Following a report of sexual harassment, people are affected by whether the harassment has been adequately addressed. For instance, if it is perceived that the harassment has been addressed, targets of sexual harassment are likely to have fewer symptoms of PTSD and depression and better well-being and post-harassment functioning (Bell et al., 2014 ). Therefore, it is not simply reporting harassment that can improve well-being for the target of sexual harassment, but the target’s perceptions and satisfaction with the reporting process (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Sexual harassment research spans the methodological spectrum, including qualitative (Good & Cooper, 2014 ), experimental (Bursik, 1992 ; Burgess & Borgida, 1997 ; Pryor, 1987 ), historical (Segrave, 1994 ), legal (Conte, 2010 ), and quantitative methods. Because this review focuses primarily on the psychological aspects of sexual harassment in the workplace, quantitative methods common to psychological research, particularly surveys, predominate. The use of quantitative survey methods leads to queries about two key issues: measurement of sexual harassment and survey construction. Although psychological research in general and the study of sexual harassment in particular use experiments, within the sexual harassment literature these experiments are nearly uniformly vignette studies or “paper people” and do not align well with the lived experiences of sexual harassment targets. (For an exception, see Pryor, 1987 , for an experiment in which sexually harassing behaviors were induced in a laboratory setting.)

Measurement of Sexual Harassment

There are two primary ways of measuring sexual harassment (Culbertson & Rosenfeld, 1993 ): direct query and behavioral experiences. In the direct query method, people are only counted as having experienced sexual harassment if they respond affirmatively to an item such as “Have you been sexually harassed at work?” With the behavioral experiences method, participants indicate which of a list of behaviors they have experienced; they are counted as having been sexually harassed through their responses (i.e., greater than zero). The behavioral experience methods count a person as harassed even if the person does not label it as such (i.e., says “no” to a direct query item).

Considering the differences in methods, it is not surprising that the behavioral experiences approach results in counting more people as harassed than does the direct query method (Ilies et al., 2003 ). Interestingly, both the direct query and behavioral experiences approach result in similar relationships between sexual harassment and a variety of outcomes (Sojo et al., 2016 ). Within the behavioral experiences approach, the predominant measure of sexual harassment is the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1999 ). However, although it is the most commonly used behavioral experiences measure, there seems to be little substantive difference between using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire and other behavioral measures in the ability to predict outcomes (Willness et al., 2007 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ).

In commentaries on the sexual harassment literature, theorists point out that there is often inconsistency in the definitions of sexual harassment used across studies and in the behaviors included in the specific operationalizations of behavioral experiences measures (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ; Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ; Nye, Brummel, & Drasgow, 2014 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ). These definitional differences likely produce some discrepancies in the sexual harassment literature, particularly regarding incidence and prevalence of sexual harassment experiences (Ilies et al., 2003 ). Incidence and prevalence rates are typically lower in studies using the direct query method as opposed to those using behavioral experiences methods (Ilies et al., 2003 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

Unsurprisingly, there is considerable debate regarding whether direct query or behavioral experiences methods provide the “true score” rate of sexual harassment. On the one hand, the direct query method asks people to indicate exactly what the researchers want to know: Has sexual harassment occurred? On the other hand, the direct query method is problematic because people often do not know the definition of sexual harassment, or they recognize that their experiences do not meet legal standards of harassment even though they are distressing (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ). Thus, despite the apparent simplicity of the direct query method, there is considerable room for interpretation (Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ). However, there are still opportunities for interpretation in behavioral experiences methods, such as when an item asks whether a person has heard “suggestive” or “offensive” jokes and stories (Ilies et al., 2003 ). This is considered by some to be a strength of the behavioral experiences approach, because it encourages respondents to ignore jokes and stories that were not offensive (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ). On the whole, it seems that the better practice is to use a well-validated behavioral experiences method and, when possible, to also include a direct query.

Beyond the measurement of the frequency of sexual harassment experiences, it is also important to investigate other aspects of sexually harassing behaviors. Arvey and Cavanaugh ( 1995 ), for example, suggested that measures of behavior severity should be taken into account. Consistent with this idea, Berdahl (Berdahl, 2007b ; Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ) incorporated a multiplier when using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire that measured how bothersome each specific behavior (i.e., item) was, which was then used to create a weighted scale score for sexual harassment. Measures of primary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ) and other indicators of severity have also been used to either multiply or modify measures of sexual harassment (e.g., Bergman et al., 2002 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ; Langhout et al., 2005 ).

Survey Research on Sexual Harassment

Like most survey research, surveys on sexual harassment commonly ask respondents about retrospective accounts of sexual harassment. Oftentimes, researchers specify a length of time or specific markers (e.g., “since joining this organization”). This common practice is useful for narrowing the scope of research and being able to draw conclusions about a particular work environment. For example, an organization might design a survey to ask about sexual harassment in the last year at that organization, rather than lifetime experiences of sexual harassment (e.g., “Have you ever experienced sexual harassment?”) in order to assess the current state of sexual harassment prevalence within the organization. However, it is difficult to compare incidence and prevalence rates that use different time periods for sexual harassment (Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

Additionally, the design of the survey is important to gain participation (Miner-Rubino & Jayaratne, 2011 ). Sexual harassment surveys can be off-putting to potential participants, reducing their likelihood in participating (Galesic & Tourangeau, 2007 ). This is especially concerning because those who choose not to respond to a survey on sexual harassment may be the people with the most severe or frequent experiences. The frame of a survey can include the survey title, topic, purpose, or sponsor. Each of these features may influence how people respond to a survey by providing an interpretive framework for the study and facilitating recall of events, and should therefore be considered carefully during survey creation (Galesic & Tourangeau, 2007 ).

Sexual harassment survey research is typically cross-sectional, meaning that all measurements are collected from participants at one specific point in time (i.e., both the “predictors” and the “outcomes” are in the same survey). Even though theory and evidence indicate the likely causal ordering of sexual harassment, its causes, and its consequences, cross-sectional surveys cannot provide evidence of causality (Cook, Campbell, & Shadish, 2002 ). Moreover, cross-sectional surveys are unable to document the lasting effects of sexual harassment on a person’s well-being (Munson et al., 2000 ). Longitudinal methodology, where measurements are collected from participants at multiple points in time, provides a rich resource of information concerning the evolution of these experiences (McDonald, 2012 ). As with any longitudinal research, there are challenges in longitudinal sexual harassment research (e.g., respondents not returning for Time 2, history effects). However, longitudinal approaches provide a closer approximation to causal studies than do cross-sectional studies (Cook et al., 2002 ).

Qualitative Research on Sexual Harassment

A full treatment of qualitative research, its wide variety of approaches, and their epistemological underpinnings is beyond the scope of this review. However, it is important to acknowledge that qualitative research can obtain a richer understanding of participant experiences than quantitative approaches (e.g., behavioral experience measures). One suggestion that may benefit researchers is using a mixed methods approach, where qualitative methods and quantitative methods supplement each other (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ; McDonald, 2012 ). Furthermore, when studying forms of sexual harassment that have received less empirical attention, it may be beneficial to use qualitative or ethnographic methods in order to better define these experiences and understand those who have been targets (Miner-Rubino & Jayaratne, 2011 ). In particular, examining the intersectional experiences of harassment targets (e.g., Buchanan, 2005 ; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002 ) through qualitative methods might be useful. Qualitative research is also well suited to research questions that explore the role that sexual harassment plays in people’s life histories (McLaughlin et al., 2017 ). Although this could be accomplished in quantitative research, qualitative research allows people to tell their stories as they experienced them, rather than conform to the predetermined questions on a survey.

Sampling in Sexual Harassment Survey Research

Sampling methods used in sexual harassment research are another important consideration. Research on sampling methods has shown that random sampling may produce fewer reports of sexual harassment than when using non-random sampling (Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ). In their meta-analysis, Ilies et al. ( 2003 ) found that non-probability sampling (compared to probability sampling) produced higher reports of sexual harassment when behavioral experiences methods were used, but lower reports of sexual harassment when direct query methods were used.

Concerns remain about using non-random sampling. Arvey and Cavanaugh’s ( 1995 ) evaluation of sexual harassment methodology highlighted the frequent use of convenience samples and the difficulty of low response rates. A primary concern of non-random sampling is possible selection bias, or the over-inclusion of people who have experienced sexual harassment relative to the population (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

However, it is also important to consider why purposive sampling can be useful. In particular, the need to account for intersectional narratives of sexual harassment might require intentional over-inclusion of particular subgroups in a sample. As with research using other non-probability samples, research on sexual harassment should be cautious about drawing population-level conclusions when non-probability samples are used.

Research on Perpetrators of Harassment

Although the research on the experiences of targets of sexual harassment has proliferated, there is a notable paucity of studies on harassers themselves (Pina, Gannon, & Saunders, 2009 ). This is likely due to the difficulties associated with sampling perpetrators. To study sexual harassers, participants would have to admit to committing these offenses without fear of stigmatization or legal recourse. It would be unlikely to find a representative sample of these individuals who would be willing to answer these surveys honestly. Nevertheless, the experiences and motives of sexual harassers are needed facets of research in the literature. Particularly, for researchers interested in interventions, studying those who do the harassing may provide a rich source of information to further support theoretical models. The onus for behavioral change can then be placed on the perpetrators of these behaviors instead of on defensive strategies for targets.

Looking Forward: What More Do We Need to Know?

As reviewed here, it is clear that sexual harassment is common enough to be concerning to organizations. Additionally, it is damaging to targets’ well-being. Sexual harassment is also damaging to organizational productivity. Sexual harassment is a gendered experience. People who have more minoritized demographic markers are more likely to experience sexual harassment. Organizations that tolerate sexual harassment have more of it occurring and respond to reports of harassment in worse ways.

Even with all that is known about harassment, there are still many unknowns. One interesting avenue forward is local culture, outside the organization but more localized than a country. How do localized norms of behavior and gender norms influence the experience of sexual harassment? It is possible that these norms influence both the rate of sexual harassment and the types of harassment experienced. Additionally, the relative tolerance of sexual harassment in the organization and the context in which it is embedded (e.g., the industry, the local area) could influence organizational reputation, willingness to report, and other key factors for the organization. A key example of this is the “bro culture” of Silicon Valley start-ups compared with the gender equality in the same area of the country (Chang, 2018 ; Kurtzleben, 2011 ).

Additionally, there has been little attention to the notion of consent in regards to sexual harassment in workplaces. People may choose to “go along” with sexually harassing behaviors because of the power dynamics inherent in many organizations. However, this does not mean that these individuals have provided consent. This raises the question of whether individuals with less organizational power can ever provide consent to a person holding organizational power and their economic fate over them. There may be situations where consent cannot be freely given and where power differences create environments in which targets may engage in behaviors because they feel that they have no other choice. On the one hand, this is a hallmark of any sexual harassment research (i.e., unwelcome and unwanted behaviors). On the other hand, a deeper understanding of power and consent in the workplace could provide insights into how to provide effective anti-harassment training and how to stop sexual harassment.

Little is known about how public events related to sexual harassment affect sexual harassment in the workplace. This is particularly notable at this historical moment, following the recent rise of the #MeToo movement on social media. Whereas the Me Too movement originated with the efforts of Tarana Burke in 2006 (Johnson & Hawbaker, 2019 ), the confluence of harassment allegations against numerous public figures and social media practices led in fall 2017 to the #MeToo social media campaign to raise awareness of the ubiquity of workplace sexual harassment (Kantor & Twohey, 2017 ). It is as yet unknown what the #MeToo movement will do to influence workplace sexual harassment and gendered relationships. For example, the #MeToo movement might usher in a shift in disclosure practices, whereby individuals post about sexual harassment incidents in private and public online forums. Further, the disclosures that occurred during the height of #MeToo could make future disclosures (whether online or through organizational processes) more likely, as people might expect that they will be believed when they make sexual harassment accusations. Yet there are already concerns about the unintentional consequences of the #MeToo movement, such that some men are overreacting to the #MeToo wave and fear spending one-on-one time with female colleagues and subordinates in the workplace (Bennold, 2019 ). This historical moment is ripe with opportunity to examine and understand how public events and discourse about sexual harassment affect sexual harassment in the workplace.

Finally, it is important to note that sexual harassment research has been conducted around the world, but primarily in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe, with additional research arising from Asia. The construction of gender within different cultures is not homogenous, and therefore the influence of sociocultural hierarchies of gender on sexual harassment would be context specific. In addition, the legal definitions of sexual harassment can vary widely across countries, with some countries lacking a language or legal basis against sexual harassment. Although the review herein suggests that regardless of whether there is a legal definition or a label for harassment, it is damaging to the people who experience it, this is not yet fully documented. Further research is needed throughout the world, particularly in Africa, South America, and developing economies.

• Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society , 4 (2), 139–158.
• Adams-Roy, J. , & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 19 (4), 329–336.
• Arvey, R. D. , & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues , 51 (1), 39–52.
• Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) . (2012). Working without fear: Results of the sexual harassment national telephone survey .
• Barling, J. , Dekker, I. , Loughlin, C. A. , Kelloway, E. K. , Fullagar, C. , & Johnson, D. (1996). Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 11 (5), 4–25.
• Barling, J. , Rogers, A. G. , & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 6 (3), 255–269.
• Bayard, K. , Hellerstein, J. , Neumark, D. , & Troske, K. (2003). New evidence on sex segregation and sex differences in wages from matched employee-employer data. Journal of Labor Economics , 21 (4), 887–922.
• Bell, M. E. , Street, A. E. , & Stafford, J. (2014). Victims’ psychosocial well-being after reporting sexual harassment in the military. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation , 15 (2), 133–152.
• Bennold, K. (2019, January 27). Another side of #MeToo: Male managers fearful of mentoring women . New York Times .
• Berdahl, J. L. (2007a). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review , 32 (2), 641–658.
• Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (2), 425–437.
• Berdahl, J. L. , Magley, V. J. , & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men?: Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 20 (4), 527–547.
• Berdahl, J. L. , & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (2), 426–436.
• Bergman, M. E. , & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a moderator in a model of sexual harassment: An empirical test. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 8 (2), 131–145.
• Bergman, M. E. , & Henning, J. B. (2008). Sex and ethnicity as moderators in the sexual harassment phenomenon: A revision and test of Fitzgerald et al. (1994). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 13 (2), 152–167.
• Bergman, M. E. , Langhout, R. D. , Palmieri, P. A. , Cortina, L. M. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un) reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (2), 230–242.
• Brooks, L. , & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 15 (1), 31–47.
• Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racialized sexual harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the company of men: Re-discovering the links between sexual harassment and male domination (pp. 294–320). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
• Buchanan, N. T. , & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women & Therapy , 25 (3–4), 107–124.
• Burgess, D. , & Borgida, E. (1997). Sexual harassment: An experimental test of sex-role spillover theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 (1), 63–75.
• Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles , 27 (7–8), 401–412.
• Chang, E. (2018, January 2). “Oh my god, this is so F—ed up”: Inside Silicon Valley’s secretive, orgiastic dark side . Vanity Fair .
• Chen, W. C. , Hwu, H. G. , Kung, S. M. , Chiu, H. J. , & Wang, J. D. (2008). Prevalence and determinants of workplace violence of health care workers in a psychiatric hospital in Taiwan. Journal of Occupational Health , 50 (3), 288–293.
• Cook, T. D. , Campbell, D. T. , & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Conte, A. (2010). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Law and practice (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online.
• Cortina, L. M. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 24 (4), 295–311.
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum , 1 (8), 139–167.
• Culbertson, A. L. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1993). Understanding sexual harassment through organizational surveys. In P. Rosenfeld , J. E. Edwards , & M. D. Thomas (Eds.), Improving organizational surveys: New directions, methods, and applications (pp. 164–187). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Culbertson, A. L. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1994). Assessment of sexual harassment in the active-duty Navy. Military Psychology , 6 (2), 69–93.
• Das, A. (2009). Sexual harassment at work in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 38 (6), 909–921.
• Dionisi, A. M. , & Barling, J. (2018). It hurts me too: Examining the relationship between male gender harassment and observers’ well-being, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 23 (3), 303–319.
• Dionisi, A. M. , Barling, J. , Dupré, K. E. (2012). Revisiting the comparative outcomes of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 17 (4), 398–408.
• Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) . Eur-Lex , Document 32006L0054.
• Employment New Zealand . (2018, May 31). Sexual and racial harassment .
• Fain, T. C. , & Anderton, D. L. (1987). Sexual harassment: Organizational context and diffuse status. Sex Roles , 17 (5–6), 291–311.
• Firestone, J. M. , & Harris, R. J. (2003). Perceptions of effectiveness of responses to sexual harassment in the US military, 1988 and 1995. Gender, Work and Organization , 10 (1), 42–64.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist , 48 (10), 1070–1076.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Buchanan, N. T. , Collinsworth, L. L. , Magley, V. J. , & Ramos, A. M. (1999). Junk logic: The abuse defense in sexual harassment litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 5 (3), 730–759.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. & Cortina, L. M. (2017). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the twenty-first century. In J. W. White & C. Travis (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of women . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , Hulin, C. L. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied psychology , 82 (4), 578–589.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology , 11 (3), 329–343.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 17 (4), 425–445.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Hulin, C. L. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: An integrated model. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 55–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Magley, V. J. , Drasgow, F. , & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: the sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Military Psychology , 11 (3), 243–263.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 42 (1), 5–27.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Swan, S. , & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues , 51 (1), 117–138.
• Folkman, S. , Lazarus, R. S. , Gruen, R. J. , & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50 (3), 571–579.
• Foster, P. J. , & Fullagar, C. J. (2018). Why don’t we report sexual harassment? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 40 (3), 148–160.
• Funk, L. C. , & Werhun, C. D. (2011). “You’re such a girl!” The psychological drain of the gender-role harassment of men. Sex Roles , 65 (1–2), 13.
• Galesic, M. , & Tourangeau, R. (2007). What is sexual harassment? It depends on who asks! Framing effects on survey responses. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 21 (2), 189–202.
• Gelfand, M. J. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 47 (2), 164–177.
• Glomb, T. M. , Richman, W. L. , Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F. , Schneider, K. T. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 71 (3), 309–328.
• Goldberg, C. , Perry, E. , & Rawski, S. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment on the effectiveness of sexual harassment investigation training for HR managers . Human Resource Development Quarterly , 30 (1), 81–100.
• Good, L. , & Cooper, R. (2014). Voicing their complaints? The silence of students working in retail and hospitality and sexual harassment from customers. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work , 24 (4), 302–316.
• Griffeth, R. W. , Hom, P. W. , & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management , 26 (3), 463–488.
• Gruber, J. (2003). Sexual harassment in the public sector. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi Jr. (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 49–75). Westport, CT: Praeger /Greenwood.
• Gruber, J. E. , & Smith, M. D. (1995). Women’s responses to sexual harassment: A multivariate analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 17 (4), 543–562.
• Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace . San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
• Gutek, B. A. , & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 42 (1), 28–48.
• de Haas, S. , Timmerman, G. , & Höing, M. (2009). Sexual harassment and health among male and female police officers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 14 (4), 390–401.
• Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2009). The role of pluralistic ignorance in the reporting of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 31 (3), 210–217.
• Harned, M. S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding a link between sexual harassment and eating disorder symptoms: A mediational analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 70 (5), 1170–1181.
• Harned, M. S. , Ormerod, A. J. , Palmieri, P. A. , Collinsworth, L. L. , & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual assault and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 7 (2), 174–188.
• Harper, S. R. (2013). Am I my brother’s teacher? Black undergraduates, racial socialization, and peer pedagogies in predominantly white postsecondary contexts. Review of Research in Education , 37 (1), 183–211.
• Hay, M. S. , & Elig, T. W. (1999). The 1995 Department of Defense sexual harassment survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology , 11 (3), 233–242.
• Hesson-McInnis, M. S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27 , 877–901.
• Ho, I. K. , Dinh, K. T. , Bellefontaine, S. A. , & Irving, A. L. (2012). Sexual harassment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Asian and White women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 21 (1), 95–113.
• Holland, K. J. , Rabelo, V. C. , Gustafson, A. M. , Seabrook, R. C. , & Cortina, L. M. (2016). Sexual harassment against men: Examining the roles of feminist activism, sexuality, and organizational context. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 17 (1), 17–29.
• Hotelling, K. (1991). Sexual harassment: A problem shielded by silence. Journal of Counseling & Development , 69 (6), 497–501.
• Huen, Y. (2007). Workplace sexual harassment in Japan: A review of combating measures taken. Asian Survey , 47 (5), 811–827.
• Hulin, C. L. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Hutagalung, F. , & Ishak, Z. (2012). Sexual harassment: A predictor to job satisfaction and work stress among women employees. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 65 , 723–730.
• Ilies, R. , Hauserman, N. , Schwochau, S. , & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology , 56 (3), 607–631.
• Jatoi, B. (2018, February 8). Sexual harassment laws in Pakistan . The Express Tribune .
• Johnson, R. B. , & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher , 33 (7), 14–26.
• Johnson, C. A. & Hawbaker K. (2019, March 7). #MeToo: A timeline of events . Chicago Tribune .
• Kantor, J. & Twohey, M. (2017, October 5). Harvey Weinstein paid off sexual harassment accusers for decades . New York Times .
• Knapp, D. E. , Faley, R. H. , Ekeberg, S. E. , & Dubois, C. L. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review , 22 (3), 687–729.
• Konik, J. , & Cortina, L. M. (2008). Policing gender at work: Intersections of harassment based on sex and sexuality. Social Justice Research , 21 (3), 313–337.
• Kurtzleben, D. (2011, May 13). The 10 cities with the greatest and least equality . US News and World Report .
• Langhout, R. D. , Bergman, M. E. , Cortina, L. M. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , & Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 35 (5), 975–1007.
• Latcheva, R. (2017). Sexual harassment in the European Union: A pervasive but still hidden form of gender-based violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32 , 1821–1852.
• Lazarus, R. S. , & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and appraisal . New York, NY: Springer.
• Lengnick-Hall, M. L. 1995. Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology , 48 (4), 841–864.
• Lim, S. , & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (3), 483–496.
• Liu, X.‑Y. , Kwan, H. K. , & Chiu, R. K. (2014). Customer sexual harassment and frontline employees’ service performance in China. Human Relations , 67 , 333–356.
• Maass, A. , Cadinu, M. , Guarnieri, G. , & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85 (5), 853–870.
• Magley, V. J. , Hulin, C. L. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & DeNardo, M. (1999a). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 (3), 390–402.
• Magley, V. J. , Waldo, C. R. , Drasgow, F. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999b). The impact of sexual harassment on military personnel: Is it the same for men and women? Military Psychology , 11 (3), 283–302.
• Malamut, A. B. , & Offermann, L. R. (2001). Coping with sexual harassment: Personal, environmental, and cognitive determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (6), 1152.
• Malik, N. I. , Malik, S. , Qureshi, N. , & Atta, M. (2014). Sexual harassment as predictor of low self esteem and job satisfaction among in-training nurses. FWU Journal of Social Sciences , 8 (2), 107–116.
• Marsh, J. , Patel, S. , Gelaye, B. , Goshu, M. , Worku, A. , Williams, M. A. , & Berhane, Y. (2009). Prevalence of workplace abuse and sexual harassment among female faculty and staff. Journal of Occupational Health , 51 (4), 314–322.
• Mathieu, C. , Fabi, B. , Lacoursière, R. , & Raymond, L. (2016). The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover. Journal of Management & Organization , 22 (1), 113–129.
• Maume, D. J., Jr. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations , 26 (4), 483–509.
• McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 (1), 1–17.
• McLaughlin, H. , Uggen, C. , & Blackstone, A. (2017). The economic and career effects of sexual harassment on working women. Gender & Society , 31 (3), 333–358.
• Merkin, R. S. , & Shah, M. K. (2014). The impact of sexual harassment on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and absenteeism: findings from Pakistan compared to the United States. SpringerPlus , 3 (1), 215.
• Meyer, J. P. , Stanley, D. J. , Herscovitch, L. , & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61 (1), 20–52.
• Miner-Rubino, K. , & Jayaratne, T. E. (2011). Feminist survey research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Ed.), Feminist research practice (pp. 293–325). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Munson, L. J. , Hulin, C. , & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology , 53 (1), 21–46.
• Nielsen, M. B. , Bjørkelo, B. , Notelaers, G. , & Einarsen, S. (2010). Sexual harassment: Prevalence, outcomes, and gender differences assessed by three different estimation methods. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 19 (3), 252–274.
• Nielsen, M. B. , & Einarsen, S. (2012). Prospective relationships between workplace sexual harassment and psychological distress. Occupational Medicine , 62 (3), 226–228.
• Nye, C. D. , Brummel, B. J. , & Drasgow, F. (2014). Understanding sexual harassment using aggregate construct models. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 (6), 1204–1221.
• Offermann, L. R. , & Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (5), 885–893.
• Ostroff, C. , Kinicki, A. J. , & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 643–676). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Parker, S. K. , & Griffin, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 7 (3), 195–210.
• Parish, W. L. , Das, A. , & Laumann, E. O. (2006). Sexual harassment of women in urban China. Archives Of Sexual Behavior , 35 (4), 411–425.
• Pina, A. , Gannon, T. A. , & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 14 (2), 126–138.
• Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles , 17 (5–6), 269–290.
• Pustolka, K. L. (2015). Understanding sexual harassment dilemmas: Complaint management, investigation processes, and workplace impact. In M. A. Paludi , J. L., Martin , J. E. Gruber , & S. Fineran (Eds.), Sexual harassment in education and work settings: Current research and best practices for prevention (pp. 311–322). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger ABC-CLIO.
• Raver, J. L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal , 48 (3), 387–400.
• Richman-Hirsch, W. L. , & Glomb, T. M. (2002). Are men affected by the sexual harassment of women? Effects of ambient sexual harassment on men. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), Psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 121–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 23 (3), 257–266.
• Rospenda, K. M. , Fujishiro, K. , Shannon, C. A. , & Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment, stress, and drinking behavior over time: Gender differences in a national sample. Addictive Behaviors , 33 (7), 964–967.
• Rospenda, K. M. , Richman, J. A. , & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender & Society , 12 (1), 40–60.
• Ryan, A. M. , & Wessel, J. L. (2012). Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene? Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (4), 488–509.
• Schneider, K. T. , Swan, S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (3), 401–415.
• Schneider, K. T. , Tomaka, J. , & Palacios, R. (2001). Women’s cognitive, affective, and physiological reactions to a male coworker’s sexist behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 31 (10), 1995–2018.
• Segrave, K. (1994). The sexual harassment of women in the workplace, 1600 to 1993 (pp. 40–60). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
• Settles, I. H. , Buchanan, N. T. , & Colar, B. K. (2012). The impact of race and rank on the sexual harassment of Black and White men in the US military. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 13 (3), 256–263.
• Sims, C. S. , Drasgow, F. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005). The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (6), 1141–1152.
• Sojo, V. E. , Wood, R. E. , & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 40 (1), 10–40.
• Stockdale, M. S. , Visio, M. , & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 5 (3), 630–664.
• Timmerman, G. , & Bajema, C. (1999). Incidence and methodology in sexual harassment research in Northwest Europe. Women’s Studies International Forum , 22 (6), 673–681.
• Tolbert, S. (2015). “Because they want to teach you about their culture”: Analyzing effective mentoring conversations between culturally responsible mentors and secondary science teachers of indigenous students in mainstream schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 52 (10), 1325–1361.
• Trotter, R. , & Zacur, S. R. (2012). Investigating sexual harassment complaints: An update for managers and employers. SAM Advanced Management Journal , 77 (1), 28–37.
• U.S. Census Bureau . (2013–2017). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates .
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1994). Working for America: An update . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• Vaccaro, A. , & Camba-Kelsay, M. J. (2018). Cultural competence and inclusivity in mentoring, coaching, and advising. New Directions for Student Leadership , 158 , 87–97.
• Wasti, S. A. , Bergman, M. E. , Glomb, T. M. , & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the cross-cultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (5), 766–778.
• Weisman, S. R. (1992 April 17). Landmark sex harassment case in Japan . New York Times International , A3.
• Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review of Sociology , 25 , 169–190.
• Welsh, S. , Carr, J. , MacQuarrie, B. , & Huntley, A. (2006). “I’m not thinking of it as sexual harassment” understanding harassment across race and citizenship. Gender & Society , 20 (1), 87–107.
• Willness, C. R. , Steel, P. , & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology , 60 (1), 127–162.
• Woodzicka, J. A. , & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues , 57 (1), 15–30.
• Woodzicka, J. A. , & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview. Sex Roles , 53 (1–2), 67–77.

1. The term “minoritized” is used rather than the more common term “minority.” The term “minority” reflects the numerical representation in a group (i.e., less than half, but in particular smaller than another subgroup that is the “majority” of members of a larger group) and the lesser status that the group holds in society. However, many groups are not the numerical minority but are still considered “lesser” (e.g., low income workers, women). Additionally, people are not consistently in the minority (e.g., in their families vs. in the workplace; depending on reference group, for example that African-Americans are a numerical minority in Tennessee as a whole, but not in Memphis, a city in Tennessee that is nearly 10% of that state’s population [U.S. Census Bureau, 2013–2017 ]), so the minoritization of people is an active process rather than a simple description of their experiences or numerical location in society. The term minority implies that the lesser status is a function of the small number, that is, if there were more people from the “minority group” within the larger group, then they would have greater power and equal power when the numbers are equal. This perspective overlooks the institutional and structural inequalities that exist which prevent equal power even when numerical constituencies are equal. For a review of this term and examples of how this term influences research questions and approaches, see Harper ( 2013 ), Tolbert ( 2015 ), and Vaccaro and Camba-Kelsay ( 2018 ).

Related Articles

• Workplace Deviance
• Men, Masculinities, and Gender Relations

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

What it really takes to stop sexual harassment

Psychologists call for a comprehensive approach with real-world impact

By Brendan L. Smith

February 2018, Vol 49, No. 2

Print version: page 36

11 min read

• Sexual Assault and Harassment

As the list of high-profile men accused of sexual harassment or assault grows, a cultural shift demanding increased accountability for workplace sexual harassment may be occurring in the public eye. But behind closed doors, many companies and institutions have done little to address sexual harassment, which has contributed to hostile work environments not only for victims of sexual harassment but also for other employees who are merely bystanders.

Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem with a devastating toll on employee well-being and performance, according to psychologists who study workplace harassment or provide consultation to companies on how to prevent it. There also is a dearth of research identifying which training programs may help reduce sexual harassment, while some ineffective training may even exacerbate the problem. Companies often still have a problematic knee-jerk reaction to sexual harassment complaints, says C. Brady Wilson, PhD, a psychologist in Scottsdale, Arizona, who specializes in sexual harassment and workplace trauma.

"There is a pattern to close ranks, admit nothing and blame the victim," Wilson says. "Some companies hate the EEOC and hate their own human resources department. They just see sexual harassment complaints as something that slows them down and as an unnecessary expense. There is such a reluctance to cooperate and participate."

In the 2015 fiscal year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received approximately 28,000 charges alleging harassment or discrimination from employees working for private employers or state or local governments. Almost half of those complaints were based on gender, exceeding race (34 percent) or disability (19 percent). The EEOC estimates that less than 14 percent of individuals experiencing harassment ever file a formal complaint.

Sixty percent of American women voters said they have experienced sexual harassment, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Almost 70 percent of the women who experienced harassment said it occurred at work, more than any other setting. And the poll found almost 90 percent of both male and female voters believe sexual harassment of women is a serious problem.

The current media spotlight on sexual harassment may motivate more companies to adopt sexual harassment training programs, but some efforts aren't successful in changing attitudes or reducing sexual harassment. Conducting a one-time training for new employees is ineffective and is usually just window dressing by companies seeking protection from lawsuits, says Columbia University psychology professor Elissa Perry, PhD, who has researched sexual harassment training programs.

"It's not just about providing one training and you're done. It's got to be a comprehensive approach," she says. "The tone is set at the top. Are they just checking a box? If they are only doing it for legal reasons, then they don't care if it works."

Decades of research has documented the extensive damage suffered by victims of sexual harassment, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, job turnover and post-traumatic stress.

Quick has researched sexual harassment for more than two decades and co-authored a recent article in APA's Journal of Occupational Health Psychology that examined advances in research and the changing dynamics of sexual harassment. More men now are reporting sexual harassment, and more research is needed in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. In the Quinnipiac University national poll, one in five male voters reported that he had experienced sexual harassment. Women also can be aggressors against other women or men, although that is less common, Quick says.

The quest for effective training

While there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness of sexual harassment training programs, there are some best practices that have been identified. Employees should learn about company policies and laws relating to sexual harassment, procedures for filing complaints, and expectations of behavior for all employees, says Chris Kilmartin, PhD, a psychologist and emeritus psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington.

Bystander intervention training also may help increase a sense of accountability, where employees are expected to speak up and even file their own complaints when they witness sexual harassment involving another employee. A toxic work environment can lower productivity and increase turnover and absenteeism, with employees less engaged in their work.

"A hostile environment affects the whole organization, not just the people who are harassed," Kilmartin says. "Basically, it poisons the organization."

Kilmartin has served as a sexual harassment training consultant for many organizations and the armed forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force and Naval Academy. Training can be engaging, with real-life scenarios, rather than forcing employees to watch a dated video with stilted vignettes. Kilmartin used his chops as a stand-up comedian to incorporate humor into a sexual harassment training video he wrote for the Army. In the video, a clueless soldier is dressed down by a sergeant for telling sexist jokes.

Companies should use sexual harassment training programs that include pre-training, training and post-training components at the individual and group levels, Perry says. An anonymous employee survey or audit of the workplace before the training can be useful in identifying the extent of sexual harassment. The training should be interactive, with multiple training methods, including lectures, videos and role-playing. Follow-up after the initial training should include knowledge assessment tests and annual refresher training courses.

A successful training program might result in an increase in sexual harassment complaints in the short term as more employees feel empowered to report misconduct, but an elevated level of complaints for an extended period may indicate the training hasn't helped, Perry says.

Some ineffective training programs may even backfire and increase negative views or stereotypes, according to research. A study of a 30-minute training found that men who completed the program were more likely to say that sexual behavior at work was wrong, but they also were more likely to believe that both parties contribute to inappropriate sexual behavior. They also were less likely to view coercion of a subordinate as sexual harassment than were men or women who didn't take the training.

The role of workplace culture

Some common risk factors for sexual harassment include workplaces with a strict hierarchical power dynamic where men outnumber women and most supervisors are male. Hiring more women in leadership positions and creating a civil, respectful culture for all employees can help curb the problem, Kilmartin says.

The Defense Department has instituted a comprehensive training strategy to reduce sexual assault and harassment, including an anonymous help line, surveys of armed forces members, focus groups and procedures for reducing retaliation against victims.

In both the military and civilian worlds, sexual harassment complaints are sometimes dismissed as a "he said, she said" situation, says Quick, who co-wrote a forthcoming book on campus sexual assault. Companies need to have clear policies that sexual harassment won't be tolerated and that perpetrators will be punished, but the process needs to be fair to all parties. "You can't use a sledgehammer. Some people do some things unintentionally," Quick says. "You have to look at intentions and actions. It's a deliberative process you have to go through."

A harsh zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment also can backfire, where alleged perpetrators don't feel the process is fair and victims fear making a complaint because they may not want the perpetrator to be fired, Quick says. "Everyone potentially has a defense, so you have to listen to both sides of the conflict," he says.

More research is needed to identify personality traits that may contribute to sexual harassment. One study published last year in Personality and Individual Differences found a positive association between sexual harassment proclivity and the "dark triad" personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism). While some people view sexist jokes as harmless, another study published in 2015 in the International Journal of Humor Research found that telling sexist jokes was associated with self-reported rape proclivity and blaming of victims.

The fate of harassment targets

One worrying trend is the increase in companies buying liability insurance to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits, because companies may treat sexual harassment as a cost of doing business rather than addressing it, Wilson says. "The fact is it's going to cost the company more to do the training and compliance than buying insurance. That's a hard reality," he says.

Wilson has trained EEOC staff about the differing ways that targets may respond to sexual harassment. Some women may try to avoid an aggressor or make weak pleadings for him to stop. They may downplay the misconduct and endure it for a long time before ultimately filing a complaint. Companies then may use those delays as ammunition against victims to question why they didn't file a complaint sooner or allege that the victims didn't really object to the inappropriate behavior, Wilson says. More than 70 percent of EEOC sexual harassment charges filed during the last two fiscal years included charges of retaliation, according to unpublished EEOC data obtained by the Center for American Progress.

Targets who face retaliation usually aren't fired outright, but their lives in the workplace are made so difficult that they eventually quit, says Wilson, a former president of the Arizona Psychological Association. He had one client whose desk was moved into a hallway outside her office and who had her computer and phone taken away after she filed a sexual harassment complaint.

That retaliation doesn't go unnoticed, and fellow workers often distance themselves from the target rather than helping. "Rarely do people stand up for them," Wilson says. "They don't want to get caught in that web or suffer retaliation themselves."

Bystander intervention training can help reverse that trend by training employees to be responsible for maintaining a safe office environment, even if it means getting involved in a situation they would rather avoid, Wilson says.

On another front, some large companies are compelling their suppliers to take action on sexual harassment, which can be a powerful tool because it affects those businesses' bottom line. McDonald's, Walmart, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Burger King and other companies have begun buying fruits and vegetables only from growers who abide by a human rights code of conduct to protect farmworkers called the Fair Food Program , which was developed by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida.

While high-profile men in politics, entertainment and the media are dominating the news coverage over allegations of sexual harassment, industries with large numbers of female low-wage workers have much higher rates of sexual harassment that go unnoticed with little public outcry. From 2005 to 2015, more than 41,000 charges of sexual harassment were filed with the EEOC, with the hotel and food industries recording the most charges (14 percent), followed closely by the retail industry (13 percent). The media and entertainment industries each accounted for less than 3 percent of sexual harassment complaints.

Shifts in cultural attitudes toward sexual harassment may ultimately be the most valuable tool in combating sexual harassment by creating a shared sense of public responsibility and accountability. The #MeToo social media messages that went viral after the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal illustrated in stark detail how many women have experienced sexual harassment. Kilmartin says he had male friends on Facebook who acknowledged they had previously engaged in sexual harassment, but they promised to stop after reading the heartrending accounts that women shared publicly, often for the first time.

"It was powerful and personalized the issue that it's not just something that happens in an evil Hollywood back room," Kilmartin says. "It helps sensitize men to the stories of people they know so it wasn't just an abstraction."

Greater public awareness of sexual harassment and more proactive involvement by companies and other institutions hopefully will reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment and the devastation it causes, Quick says.

"It's not just a woman's problem. Women continue to be the primary victims of sexual harassment, and they are carrying the burden of suffering," he says. "Until males own their responsibility in the problem, it's going to be really tough to get a big movement in addressing it."

This article originally appeared in Good Company , a newsletter from APA's Center for Organizational Excellence, which works to enhance the functioning of individuals, groups, organizations and communities through the application of psychology to a broad range of workplace issues..

Have we made any progress?

James Campbell Quick, PhD, and M. Ann McFadyen, PhD, seek to answer that question in the July issue of APA's Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (Vol. 22, No. 3, 2017). Their article reviews the literature on sexual harassment and finds that while sexual harassment complaints have decreased by 28 percent since 1998, complaints by males have increased, and merit resolutions and monetary benefits have increased. The authors also point out that one persistent problem related to sexual harassment is a lack of agreement on its definition. dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000054

APA's Center for Organizational Excellence Resources on preventing and addressing workplace sexual harassment, including statistics, reports, trainings, book recommendations and more, can be found at apaexcellence.org/sexual-harassment .

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018)

Chapter: 2 sexual harassment research, 2 sexual harassment research.

This chapter reviews the information gathered through decades of sexual harassment research. It provides definitions of key terms that will be used throughout the report, establishing a common framework from the research literature and the law for discussing these issues. In reviewing what sexual harassment research has learned over time, the chapter also examines the research methods for studying sexual harassment and the appropriate methods for conducting this research in a reliable way. The chapter provides information on the prevalence of sexual harassment and common characteristics of how sexual harassment is perpetrated and experienced across lines of industry, occupation, and social class. It concludes with common characteristics of environments where sexual harassment is more likely to occur.

DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines define sexual harassment as the following ( USEEOC n.d.a. ):

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment was first recognized in cases in which women lost their jobs because they rejected sexual overtures from their employers (e.g., Barnes v.

Costle 1977 1 ). This type of sexual harassment became defined as quid pro quo sexual harassment (Latin for “this for that,” meaning that a job or educational opportunity is conditioned on some kind of sexual performance). Such coercive behavior was judged to constitute a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Soon it was recognized in employment law that pervasive sexist behavior from coworkers can create odious conditions of employment—what became known as a hostile work environment —and also constitute illegal discrimination ( Farley 1978 ; MacKinnon 1979 ; Williams v. Saxbe 1976 2 ). These two basic forms of sexual harassment, quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment, were summarized in guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1980 ( USEEOC 1980 ).

Hostile work or educational environments can be created by behaviors such as addressing women in crude or objectifying terms, posting pornographic images in the office, and by making demeaning or derogatory statements about women, such as telling anti-female jokes. Hostile environment harassment also encompasses unwanted sexual overtures such as exposing one’s genitals, stroking and kissing someone, and pressuring a person for dates even if no quid pro quo is involved ( Bundy v. Jackson 1981; 3 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 1986 4 ).

An important distinction between quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment is that the former usually involves a one-on-one relationship in which the perpetrator has control of employment- or educational-related rewards or punishments over the target. In contrast, the latter can involve many perpetrators and many targets. In the hostile environment form of sexual harassment, coworkers often exhibit a pattern of hostile sexist behavior toward multiple targets over an extended period of time ( Holland and Cortina 2016 ). For hostile sex-related or gender-related behavior to be considered illegal sexual harassment, it must be pervasive or severe enough to be judged as having had a negative impact upon the work or educational environment. Therefore, isolated or single instances of such behavior typically qualify only when they are judged to be sufficiently severe. Legal scholars and judges continue to use the two subtype definitions of quid pro quo and hostile environment to define sexual harassment.

Illegal sexual harassment falls under the umbrella of a more comprehensive category, discriminatory behavior . Illegal discrimination can occur on the basis of any legally protected category: race, ethnicity, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, genetic information, physical or mental disabilities, veteran status, prior conviction of a crime, gender identity or expression, or membership in other protected classes set forth in state or federal law. Regarding sexual harassment, the focus of this report, this includes gender harassment , a term designed to emphasize that harmful or

___________________

1 Barnes v. Costle , 561 F.2d 983, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

2 Williams v. Saxbe , 413 F. Supp. 654 D.D.C. (1976).

3 Bundy v. Jackson , 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

4 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

illegal sexual harassment does not have to be about sexual activity ( USEEOC n.d.b. ). Sexual harassment constitutes discrimination because it is harmful and it is based on gender—it is not necessarily motivated by sexual desire nor does it need to involve sexual activity.

Both legal doctrine and social science research recognize gender as encompassing both one’s biological sex and gender-based stereotypes and expectations, such as heterosexuality and proper performance of gender roles. Sexual harassment in the form of gender harassment can be based on the violation of cultural gender stereotypes. For example, a man may experience gender harassment for being a “sissy” or being easily embarrassed by pornography (violating stereotypes that men should be strong, heterosexual, and sexually bold). While a woman may be gender harassed for taking a job traditionally held by a man or in a traditionally male field. Gender harassment in such a situation might consist of actions to sabotage the woman’s tools, machinery, or equipment, or telling the woman she is not smart enough for scientific work. Subsequent sections of this report discuss gender harassment in greater detail.

Psychologists who study gender-related behavior have developed more nuanced terms to describe sexual harassment in order to more precisely measure and account for the behaviors that constitute sexual harassment and to describe how targets experience those behaviors. A three-part classification system divides sexual harassment into distinct but related categories: sexual coercion , unwanted sexual attention , and gender harassment (see Figure 2-1 ; Fitzgerald et al. 1988 ; 5 Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1995 ).

Sexual coercion entails sexual advances, and makes the conditions of employment (or education, for students) contingent upon sexual cooperation.

Unwanted sexual attention also entails sexual advances, but it does not add professional rewards or threats to force compliance. In this category are expressions of romantic or sexual interest that are unwelcome, unreciprocated, and offensive to the target; examples include unwanted touching, hugging, stroking, and persistent requests for dates or sexual behavior despite discouragement, and can include assault ( Cortina, Koss, and Cook 2018 ; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Fitzgerald, Swan, and Magley 1997 ).

Gender harassment is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. It refers to ‘‘a broad range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors not aimed at sexual cooperation but that convey insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes about” members of one gender ( Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 , 430). Gender harassment is further defined as two types: sexist hostility and crude harassment . Examples of the sexist hostility form of gender harassment for women include

5 The empirical record on sexual harassment goes back over 30 years, and important studies were conducted in that first decade. Members of this committee thought carefully about whether to cite “older” articles (e.g., from the 1980s). We opted to retain those references when, in our expert opinion, their methods were rigorous and their conclusions would still apply in today’s world.

demeaning jokes or comments about women, comments that women do not belong in leadership positions or are not smart enough to succeed in a scientific career, and sabotaging women. The crude harassment form of gender harassment is defined as the use of sexually crude terms that denigrate people based on their gender (e.g., using insults such as “slut” to refer to a female coworker or “pussy” to refer to a male coworker; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ).

Both women and men can and do experience all three forms of sexual harassment, but some subgroups face higher rates than others. For example,

women who are lesbian or bisexual ( Cortina et al. 1998 ; Konik and Cortina 2008 ), women who endorse gender-egalitarian beliefs ( Dall’Ara and Maass 1999 ; Siebler, Sabelus, and Bohner 2008 ), and women who are stereotypically masculine in behavior, appearance, or personality ( Berdahl 2007b ; Leskinen, Rabelo, and Cortina 2015 ) experience sexual harassment at higher rates than other women. Likewise, men who are gay, transgender, petite, or in some way perceived as “not man enough” encounter more harassment than other men ( Berdahl 2007b ; Fitzgerald and Cortina 2017 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ).

Interestingly, the motivation underlying sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention behaviors appears different from the motivation underlying gender harassment. Whereas the first two categories suggest sexual advances (the goal being sexual exploitation of women), the third category is expressing hostility toward women (the goals being insult, humiliation, or ostracism) ( Holland and Cortina 2016 ). In other words, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention can be viewed as “come-ons,” while gender harassment is, for all intents and purposes, a “put-down” ( Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 ). However, it is important to note that these come-on behaviors are not necessarily about attraction to women; more often than not, they are instead motivated by the desire to devalue women or punish those who violate gender norms ( Berdahl 2007b ; Cortina and Berdahl 2008 ).

Some researchers further define the verbal insults associated with gender harassment, along with accompanying nonverbal affronts, as microaggressions. This term refers to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative” messages ( Sue et al. 2007 , 271) to or about historically stigmatized groups. This term can also be broken down into three categories: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations ( Sue et al. 2007 ). There is some concern that microaggression remains a poorly defined construct, with porous boundaries. Additionally, the use of the term micro is misleading, as it implies all these experiences are minor or imperceptible acts. Yet some microaggressions, such as referring to people by using offensive names, are obviously offensive and can be deeply damaging. Similarly the root word aggression is also misleading, as most experts reserve this term for behavior that carries intent to harm ( Lilienfeld 2017 ). For these reasons, our committee chose to focus on incivility , a term in greater use in the workplace aggression literature.

Incivility refers to “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” ( Andersson and Pearson 1999 , 457). Lim and Cortina’s 2005 study on two female populations in public-sector organizations (Ns = 833 and 1,425) revealed that sexual harassment often takes place against a backdrop of incivility, or in other words, in an environment of generalized disrespect. The authors argue

that, based on their findings, the same perpetrator “may instigate multiple forms of mistreatment—both sexualized and generalized—in efforts to debase women and reinforce or raise their own social advantage” (492). Lim and Cortina point out that if sexual harassment is tolerated in an organization or not seen as a deviant behavior, incidents of general incivility would be expected to be even less likely to receive attention from management. Based on these findings, it could be argued that generalized incivility should be a red flag for leadership or management in work and education environments, because when gender harassment occurs, it is virtually always in environments with high rates of uncivil conduct ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Lim and Cortina 2005 ).

Note that sexual harassment is often ambient , meaning it is “not clearly targeted at any individual or group of individuals” ( Parker 2008 , 947) in the work or education environment or behavior that goes beyond the direct target of the harassment ( Glomb et al. 1997 ). Ambient sexual harassment is determined by a general “frequency of sexually harassing behavior experienced by others” and can include all types of sexually harassing behavior (309). For example, it can include pornography being displayed in a common area or sexually abusive language being used publicly in the work or education environment ( Parker 2008 ). Ambient unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion refer to observed instances of unwanted sexual pursuit, targeted at a fellow employee. In other words, one need not be personally targeted to feel the effects of sexual harassment (much like second-hand smoke).

Despite refined definitions and terms to describe sexual harassment and gender discrimination, documenting the degree of these behaviors in work and education environments remains challenging. This is in part because individuals experiencing these behaviors rarely label them as such. Numerous studies have demonstrated that more than half of working women report experiencing sexually harassing behavior at work, but less than 20 percent of those women actually describe the experience as “sexual harassment” ( Ellis, Barak, and Pinto 1991 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Magley, Hulin, et al. 1999 ; Magley and Shupe 2005 ).

Considering these sources, the report uses the following definition of sexual harassment:

Sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) is composed of three categories of behavior: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender), (2) unwanted sexual attention (verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault), and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). Harassing behavior can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment).

Box 2-1 provides a quick review of the key terms introduced in this chapter.

RESEARCH METHODS USED TO EXAMINE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The goal of providing recommendations for preventing sexual harassment and mitigating its effects in academic science, engineering, and medicine requires evidence-based research. Different studies have different strengths and weaknesses, and these should be kept in mind when reviewing their findings, particularly if leaders in academic institutions, legislators, and researchers hope to design meaningful and effective interventions and policies. The two most commonly used study methods are surveys and laboratory experiments. Important findings have also emerged using in-depth interviews, case studies, sociolegal analyses, and other methods. When conducting or reviewing research examining sexual harassment, it is crucial that the methods used to conduct the research match the goals for the research. It is crucial to note that the prevalence of sexual harassment in a population is best estimated using representative surveys and not by relying on the invariably lower number of official reports of sexual harassment made to an organization (see the discussion in Chapter 4 about how rare it is for women to formally report their experience). The next sections discuss these various research methods and the kind of information they provide.

Survey Methods

Surveys, containing well-validated instruments, can be useful in estimating the prevalence (how common sexual harassment experiences or behaviors are among people in a given population) and determining correlates, antecedents, outcomes, and factors that attenuate or amplify outcomes from sexual harassment. For instance, they can assess links between harassment and different aspects of targets’ well-being, targets’ understanding of the resources available to them, and the strategies they use to cope. Basing a survey on a defined population accessible from a comprehensive list, or sample frame, can be helpful. Sometimes, too, using multiple instruments and data sources can be a highly effective approach. Though surveys have often focused on the targets of sexually harassing behavior (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, and Magley 1999 ), some work has also been done examining self-descriptions by perpetrators (e.g., Dekker and Barling 1998 ) and bystanders (e.g., Hitlan, Schneider, and Walsh 2006 ; Richman-Hirsch and Glomb 2002 ; Miner-Rubino and Cortina 2004 , 2007 ).

Conducting surveys on sexual harassment is challenging, but fortunately researchers have addressed many of these challenges. Those wishing to conduct a survey on sexual harassment ought to follow the scientific methods described below and the ethical and safety guidelines for this type of research ( WHO 2001 ). Poorly conducting surveys on sexual harassment is unethical because responding to the survey could needlessly retraumatize the respondent. Additionally, the resulting inaccurate data from such a survey could be used to question the importance and legitimacy of such an important and sensitive topic ( WHO 2001 ).

An initial challenge in conducting survey research on sexual harassment is

that many women are not likely to label their experiences as sexual harassment. Additionally, women who experience the gender harassment type of sexual harassment are more than 7 times less likely to label their experiences as “sexual harassment” than women who experience unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion ( Holland and Cortina 2013 ). This illustrates what other research has shown: that in both the law and the lay public, the dominant understandings of sexual harassment overemphasize two forms of sexual harassment, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention, while downplaying the third (most common) type—gender harassment (see Figure 2-2 ; Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 ; Schultz 1998 ). Regardless of whether women self-label their experiences as sexual harassment or not, they all have similar negative psychological and professional outcomes ( Magley, Hulin, et al. 1999 ; Woodzicka and LaFrance 2005 ).

This labeling issue was first identified in research on rape and sexual violence. Surveys conducted by Koss (1992) revealed that when respondents were asked simply, “Have you been raped?” estimates of the number of people raped in the college population were very low, yet when asked whether they had experienced a series of specific behaviors that would meet legal criteria for rape, estimates of the number of people raped were much higher. Subsequent studies of sexual harassment found similar results ( Ilies et al. 2003 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ), and Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988) established the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) to standardize questions about specific sexual harassment behaviors rather than asking about “sexual harassment” generally. With extensive psychometric evidence supporting it, the SEQ has become the gold standard in the assessment of sexual harassment experiences in both work and school settings ( Cortina and Berdahl 2008 ). Unfortunately, some recent studies attempting to measure the prevalence of sexual harassment have not followed this good practice and are thus likely to have low prevalence rates, be missing data about those who have experienced gender harassment, and as a result be unreliable for evaluating the prevalence of sexual harassment.

Another hurdle faced by surveys on sexual harassment is that women who have experienced sexual harassment may be reluctant to respond to a survey on the topic or to admit being a target or victim because sexual harassment can be stigmatizing, humiliating, and traumatizing ( Greco, O’Boyle, and Walter 2015 ; Bumiller 1987 , 1992 ). To encourage open self-reports, it is important that survey responses are confidential, if not anonymous, and to reassure survey participants that this is the case. Additionally, to help avoid a nonresponse bias (i.e., some segments of a population selectively declining to participate), sexual harassment experts do not use the term sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in the survey title and instead situate their questions about sexual harassment within a broader survey that asks about social concerns such as gender issues, civility, or culture. In a meta-analytic review of the incidence of sexual harassment in the United States, Ilies and colleagues (2003) found that directly asking respondents whether they had experienced sexual harassment (as opposed to using questionnaires that

list behaviors that constitute sexual harassment) led to substantially lower estimates of sexual harassment incidence.

When determining prevalence estimates, attention must be given to minimizing nonresponse biases in the survey sample. Nonresponse biases include attitudes and other characteristics that disincline people from survey participation ( Krosnick et al. 2015 ). A reluctance to answer questions about sexually harassing experiences could represent a nonresponse bias. While low response rates are not synonymous with low levels of nonresponse bias, generally low response rates should be interpreted with caution and will raise limitations on what conclusions can be drawn because of the representativeness of the survey sample ( Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2008 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ). Just as it is important to be cautious about deriving prevalence estimates from samples with lower response rates, researchers and leaders in academic institutions must also be judicious when deriving such estimates from nonprobability samples (see Yeager, Krosnick, and Javitz [2009] for a discussion of the problems with opt-in internet surveys). 6

A challenge for any survey that is particularly important for sexual harassment surveys is their ability to gather information about nonmajority members of a given workplace or campus. Often women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women have been underrepresented among survey respondents, resulting in unreliable prevalence rates for these specific populations. Recent research is beginning to address this by looking at sexual harassment through the lens of intersectionality and by working to oversample these underrepresented populations when conducting surveys.

Convenience sampling (in which participants are recruited from social media or specialized groups with a specific target group in mind) and snowball sampling (recruiting additional subjects by asking participants who else they know in their networks who would also know about the topic) are useful means of recruiting hard-to-reach or underrepresented populations (e.g., lesbians who are not “out” at work, minority groups for whom no lists are available) ( Meyer and Wilson 2009 ). These studies can yield critical insights, even though the samples cannot be considered representative of a particular population. A good example of this approach is the recent study about the experiences of women of color in the fields of astronomy and planetary science, identified via convenience sampling. The researchers found that women of color were more likely to report hearing sexist remarks from supervisors or peers in the workplace than did white women, white men, or men of color. Women of color were also more likely to feel unsafe at work because of their gender ( Clancy et al. 2017 ). This study shows how survey data can be used to test relationships among important variables such as race,

6 Nonprobability samples are samples that are not representative of the whole population and are often used when a defined population is not possible to specify or when it is not necessary to have a representative dataset to achieve the goals of the research. These samples can include convenience samples and snowball samples.

gender, sexual harassment, and sense of safety, yielding conclusions about who is most likely to be targeted for sexually harassing behaviors, and with what effects.

When determining and comparing prevalence rates, it is important to distinguish the prevalence rates for women separate from men and not to rely on a combined prevalence for both genders. Relying on combined rates will result in a lower rate because women are much more likely to experience sexual harassment than men ( USMSPB 1995 ; Magley, Waldo, et al. 1999 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

Another methodological feature to be particularly attentive to when estimating and comparing prevalence rates is the time period respondents are asked about. In some studies, no time limit is given, while others may limit it to the last 12 or 24 months. The longer the time period, the more likely the rates will be skewed and not assess current incidence. Longer time periods can result in higher incidence rates because more time means more women are likely to have experienced such behavior. However, after long enough periods, memory deterioration sets in, leaving behind only those sexual harassment experiences that left a lasting memory, and leaving out everyday sexist comments or ambient harassment. Additionally, longer time periods can also introduce the risk that the incident could have occurred at a past environment, not the current one under investigation.

Lastly, a key obstacle to obtaining accurate prevalence numbers across academia and between fields or workplaces is the number of surveys available that do not always use a standardized method for measuring or defining sexual harassment. Unfortunately, when institutions make their decisions about which survey or questions to use, they often do not seem to be aware of good practices in sexual harassment research or to have consulted with a sexual harassment researcher, because different methodologies and measurement approaches have been used ( Wood et al. 2017 ). As a result, the surveys not only produce unreliable prevalence numbers but also pose a risk of “comparing apples to oranges” when analyzing the data across institutions. The largest concern when comparing prevalence rates is differences in how sexual harassment is defined in the survey and during the analysis of the responses. A meta-analysis of sexual harassment surveys demonstrates that the prevalence rate is 24 percent when women are asked whether they have experienced “sexual harassment” versus 58 percent when they are asked whether they experienced harassing behaviors that meet the definition of sexual harassment (and are then classified as such in the analysis) ( Ilies et al. 2003 ). In other words, the direct query method gives an estimate of prevalence based on the respondent’s perception, while the behavioral experiences method estimates the extent to which potentially harassing incidents happen in an organization. This research also demonstrates that these differences were not due to differences in work environments or to sampling method ( Ilies et al. 2003 ).

To try to present the most accurate information on the prevalence of sexual harassment, the report references surveys that follow good practices in both

sexual harassment research and survey research and that clearly identify differences in time period and definitions.

Experimental Methods

Another way that information has been gathered about sexual harassment has been through laboratory experiments, in which researchers examine the occurrence of sexually harassing behaviors by manipulating variables under controlled conditions. The advantage of this approach is that researchers can directly observe sexually harassing behavior. This approach, however, does not provide information on the prevalence of sexual harassment.

Some of the behaviors that have been directly observed in experiments include the following:

• Unsolicited sexual touching by someone in a supervisory role ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 );
• Unsolicited touching from peers ( Pryor 1987 );
• Nonverbal dominance behaviors ( Murphy, Driscoll, and Kelly 1999 );
• Sending unsolicited pornographic materials electronically ( Dall’Ara and Maass 1999 ; Maass et al. 2003 );
• Sending sexist jokes electronically ( Galdi, Maass, and Cadinu 2014 );
• Sending sexual come-ons electronically ( Diehl, Rees, and Bohner 2012 );
• Asking sexist questions in an interview ( Hitlan et al. 2009 ); and
• Sexualized behavior, such as staring at a woman’s body, during an interview ( Rudman and Borgida 1995 ).

Laboratory experiments can help uncover situational factors that encourage or discourage potential perpetrators from engaging in sexually harassing behavior. For instance, experiments show that sexual harassment is less likely to occur if those behaviors are not accepted by authority figures ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). Another experiment found that men exposed to sexist television portrayals of women were more likely to send sexist jokes to women in an online interaction ( Galdi, Maass, and Cadinu 2014 ).

Laboratory experiments can also provide a snapshot of how women might respond in a sexually harassing situation. For example, research by Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) reveals the difference between how women think they would respond and how they do respond. In the first study, college women were asked to imagine how they would respond to being asked sexist questions during a job interview. In the second study, women participated in what they thought to be an actual job interview where such questions were asked. Results showed a disconnect between what women thought they would do (get angry, confront, and complain) and what they actually did (become fearful, neither confront nor complain).

On the other hand, there are also limitations to laboratory experiments. While they can reveal responses to actual behaviors, those reactions occur in an artificial laboratory setting (not a real professional or educational setting, with people who have real relationships, interdependencies, status hierarchies, etc.). Participants in experiments are often college students who have limited work experience and diversity (primarily white, middle class, under the age of 20). Also, experiments provide a snapshot of only one moment of time, providing a single look at behaviors and responses. Surveys and accounts from litigants in sexual harassment cases suggest that the worst cases of sexual harassment are not isolated incidents, but something that takes place over a period of time ( Cantalupo and Kidder 2017a , 2017b ), which experiments cannot assess.

Interviews, Case Studies, and Other Qualitative Methods

Qualitative research offers a wide range of methodologies that can be useful in understanding sexual harassment, though it is best known for individual, semi-structured interviews ( Bazeley 2003 ). Qualitative research can also be conducted in focus groups, bringing together similar constituencies in order to facilitate conversations among participants. Several social science disciplines also use ethnographic or autoethnographic methods. Ethnography is a systematic way of participating and observing in particular settings or cultures to answer research questions about the intersection of culture and lived experience, where autoethnography invites researchers to reflect on their personal experiences, and connect those experiences to a wider research question. For instance, much of the early work on sexual harassment in the field sciences was either interviews or autoethnography, particularly among cultural anthropologists, who often conduct their field work alone (e.g., Sharp and Kremer 2006 ). Qualitative approaches also include textual analysis of existing primary sources (e.g., studying science syllabi or job postings for gendered language), and case studies or narratives, where a single story is followed in depth. Case study data is often collected via interview, the difference being that rather than interviewing a large enough number to achieve saturation, a researcher will go for greater depth with each participant to construct a more detailed narrative (e.g., Banerjee and Pawley 2013 ).

Qualitative approaches are widely recognized as the method of choice for generating insight into complex phenomena, the contexts in which they occur, and their consequences ( Cho, Crenshaw, and McCall 2013 ). Such methods are thought to be particularly well suited to providing key background information and highlighting the experiences and perceptions of targets of oppression, such as those who have experienced sexual harassment. The approach also gives a voice to perspectives that tend not to be heard or to those with experiences that have few precedents in prior research ( Sofaer 1999 ).

Sociolegal Methods

Sociolegal studies is an interdisciplinary field in which scholars use all the research methods described above (surveys, experiments, interviews, case studies, ethnography) to study a wide range of topics about formal laws, law-like systems of rules, and the social and political relationships that help constitute what law is ( Banakar and Travers 2005 ). Legal research methods are also a part of sociolegal methods, and these include doctrinal analysis, legal history and doctrinal development studies, and answering questions about exactly what formal legal rules exist across jurisdictions and interrelated areas of law, where there is often ambiguity and conflict. Sociolegal scholars are, of course, attentive to what formal rules and laws actually exist (with sexual harassment, it is Title VII and Title IX doctrines), but a starting approach is to presume that what law is and how it works is much more complex than doctrinal study alone can reveal.

Sociolegal research methods tend to be based in the empirical, observational social sciences supported by legal research. Classic studies using these methods have documented how ordinary people generally resolve their disputes using local customs and norms rather than formal law ( Macaulay 1963 ; Ellickson 1991 ); how bringing a personal injury claim in a small community is a mark of outsider, subordinated status ( Engel 1984 ); and how difficult it can be for people who have experienced discrimination to use legal protections, because doing so causes them to feel victimized again ( Bumiller 1992 ). These types of sociolegal studies share the strengths and limitations of ethnographic and qualitative research methods generally: on the one hand, they can capture the rich contextual detail of a particular setting, group of people, and set of relationships, but on the other hand, they are limited in time and location, and do not yield broadly generalizable claims. Nonetheless, decades of research using these methods have yielded a considerable body of research that strongly suggests that what the formal law is and what people understand it to be are often quite far apart; that using formal systems to make claims about wrongs done to them is a very difficult thing for most people to do, though it can be empowering and produce social change; and that laws and the legal system typically support existing power structures rather than fundamentally reshape them ( Freeman 1978 ; Edelman 2016 ; Berrey, Nelson, and Nielsen 2017 ).

A sociolegal research method requires study of the law at many levels of experience to approach sexual harassment, for example, because it matters just as much what women think they deserve or will likely get as what the law formally offers them. Anna-Maria Marshall’s study of sexual harassment experiences among female staff members at a midwestern university in 1997–1998, for example, combined in-depth interviewing of 25 female staff members with legal analysis at the national level, policy analysis at the university level, and a survey sent to 1,000 female employees selected at random from a university workplace to understand what counted as sexual harassment from their perspectives ( Marshall 2005 ). Whether something in a science, engineering, and medicine

educational or workplace setting is sexual harassment is a category of experience for everyone involved, in other words, that must be assigned meaning, obligations, rights, duties, and processes.

Sociolegal scholars can also bridge between the social science methodologies and the law through research on what they call the “iceberg” or the “tip-of-the-iceberg” problem. The tip-of-the-iceberg problem is the recognition by researchers that published legal disputes are a very skewed and systematically unrepresentative sample from the universe of disputes. As Peter Siegelman and John Donohue (1990) describe the problem, “Most potential disputes never get defined by the actors as such, most actual disputes don’t go to court, most court cases are settled rather than adjudicated, and most adjudicated cases are not appealed” (1133). Their analysis of published and unpublished district court opinions suggests that cases that reach the stage of a published judicial opinion may concern newer areas of case law or more dramatic or unusual circumstances that help explain why these cases were not disposed of earlier and before they appear for researchers to find. Publication as a legal outcome is one of the only ways a sexual harassment case could come to be known and studied, but there are many more legally protected routes to keeping cases and their outcomes from view. Confidential settlements, nondisclosure agreements, confidential notations in an academic or employment record, and dispositions of complaints that are not written down are all outcomes that cannot be studied, tracked, counted, or assessed.

Even when legal scholars attempt to collect samples of hundreds of sexual harassment claims, such as Ann Juliano and Stewart J. Schwab’s 2000 survey of every reported federal district and appellate court ruling on sexual harassment between 1986 and 1995, totaling nearly 650, they concede that these cases are not representative of the universe of incidents. Juliano and Schwab found that the most successful cases involved sexual conduct directed at a specific target in a mostly male workplace that the target had complained about but which the employer had failed to respond to with any formal process ( Juliano and Schwab 2000 , 593). Another study, Nancy Chi Cantalupo and William Kidder’s (2017b) recent study of sexual harassment in the academic context, attempts to pull cases from as far down the iceberg as possible, drawing in incidents recorded in more venues than the usual publication sources for judicial opinions, including media reports, administrative civil rights investigations at the Departments of Education and Justice, published lawsuits by students, and lawsuits over reinstatement for faculty members fired for sexual harassment. Cantalupo and Kidder find more physical (as opposed to verbal) harassment conduct and more evidence of serial harassers in documented complaints than survey researchers have found, for example. Even if they are not based in representative samples of cases and thus cannot be used to generalize about harassment rates, studies such as these can still yield important research conclusions about sexual harassment adjudications and judicial attitudes toward them.

PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Studies on sexual harassment from the 1980s through today continue to show that sexual harassment of women is widespread in workplaces and that the rates of sexual harassment have not significantly decreased. Studies have also identified common characteristics of sexual harassment in different workplaces and uncovered characteristics of workplaces that are associated with higher rates of sexual harassment. This section and the next one review what research can tell us about the trends in sexual harassment rates over time and what the common characteristics are of sexual harassment and sexually harassing environments.

Wherever possible, the report cites the most recent scientific studies of a topic. That said, the empirical research into sexual harassment, using rigorous scientific methods, dates back to the 1980s. This report cites conclusions from the earlier work when those results reveal historical trends or patterns over time. It also cites results from earlier studies when there is no theoretical reason to expect findings to have changed with the passage of time. For example, the inverse relationship between sexual harassment and job satisfaction is a robust one: the more an individual is harassed on the job, the less she or he likes that job. That basic finding has not changed over the course of 30 years, and there is no reason to expect that it will.

To access the trends in prevalence for sexual harassment, ideally we would examine longitudinal data that uses a well-validated behavior-based instrument for different workplaces and industries; unfortunately, this data is not available. The U.S. Merit System Protection Board (USMSPB) was one of the first organizations to study sexual harassment, with a focus on the federal workforce, which includes a variety of job types and workplace environments. The USMSPB surveys, conducted in 1980, 1987, 1994, and 2016, asked scientifically selected samples of federal workers about their experiences of specific forms of sexual harassment 7 at work in the past 24 months. These surveys used behavioral questions; however, they did not use the SEQ, and in earlier years the survey did not ask about nonsexualized forms of gender harassment such as sexist comments, which are known to be the most common form of sexual harassment ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ). As a result, this is not a good source of longitudinal data covering all three forms of sexual harassment.

This survey does, however, provide an opportunity to assess a population’s understanding of the term sexual harassment. The USMSPB conducted surveys that asked respondents whether they would classify certain behaviors as “sexual harassment.” The results showed that from 1980 to 2016 the proportion of respondents who classify the behaviors as sexual harassment rose, demonstrating

7 The 1980 survey used 6 forms of “unwanted, uninvited sexual harassment,” the 1987 survey used 7 (adding rape and sexual assault), the 1994 survey used 8 (adding rape and stalking), and the 2016 survey used 12 forms (adding gender harassment types). The original six categories remained consistent throughout the years.

an improvement in the population’s understanding of that term. The percentage of men who believe that pressuring a female coworker for sexual favors is sexual harassment rose from 65 percent in 1980 to 93 percent in 1994 and to 97 percent in 2016. Likewise, the percentage of men who perceived unwanted sexual remarks in the workplace as being sexual harassment rose from 42 percent in 1980 to 64 percent in 1994 and to 94 percent in 2016. There was also an increase seen in the perceptions of women—the percentage of women who considered a coworker’s sexual remarks as sexual harassment rose from 54 percent in 1980 to 77 percent in 1994 and to 95 percent in 2016. It is also significant to note that of respondents experiencing sexual harassing behaviors in the 2016 survey, only about 11 percent took any kind of formal action, such as filing a complaint or report with their organization ( USMSPB 2018 ). As the results just discussed demonstrate, this lack of reporting was not due to respondents inaccurately defining sexual harassment; rather, it reflects a reluctance by people to take formal action, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 .

The U.S. military is the other organization to study sexual harassment through large surveys early on and over multiple years. Starting in 1995 and going to 2012 8 the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) has used an SEQ-format survey that asked about more than 20 specific sex- or gender-related behaviors experienced in the past 12 months. As shown in the results in Table 2-1 , the data demonstrate that the prevalence of all three types of sexual harassment has been consistent. It also demonstrates that the gender-harassing form of sexual harassment (broken out into crude and offensive behavior and sexist behavior) is by far the most prevalent type of sexually harassing behavior, a finding that is consistent with research in other workplace settings ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

Given that there is limited longitudinal data on the prevalence of sexual harassment that uses a well-validated behavior-based instrument, the best analysis of the prevalence of sexual harassment across workplaces and time comes from a meta-analysis by Ilies and colleagues (2003) . Based on more than 86,000 respondents from 55 probability samples, Illies and colleagues demonstrate that on average, 58 percent of women experience sexually harassing behaviors at work.

8 After the 2012 survey, the military asked the RAND Corporation to conduct a new survey revising the methodology as needed. The result was a significant change in how sexual harassment was defined in the analysis, and thus the prevalence numbers cannot easily be compared with the previous series of surveys. Whereas previous surveys assessed the prevalence of sexually harassing behaviors, the RAND survey used behavior-based questions to determine the prevalence rate of legally defined sexual harassment, meaning that they asked questions and grouped results based on hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment. While quid pro quo harassment maps cleanly to sexual coercion, hostile work environment requires the condition that the sexually harassing behaviors (such as gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention) be considered by the respondent to be pervasive or severe—essentially requiring a frequency or severity assessment that had not been previously used. With this much narrower definition of “what counts” as harassing behavior, the 2016 survey yielded a lower overall rate of sexual harassment for women over a 12-month time period: 21.4 percent ( RAND 2016 ).

TABLE 2-1 Rate of Active Duty Military Women Experiencing Sexually Harassing Behaviors at Least Once in the Past 12 Months as Measured in 2000, 2006, 2010, and 2012

SOURCE: DMDC 2003 , 2008 , 2011 , 2013 .

Looking further into the different workplace sectors, the researchers found that there was some variation between sectors, with the prevalence ranging from 43 to 69 percent (this is discussed further in Chapter 3 when comparing the academic environment to other sectors). Their analysis of trends over time revealed that over the 25 years examined, women who responded to surveys with behavioral-based instruments (and which used a probability sample) reported increasingly more experiences of sexual harassment. The authors note that their data cannot investigate the reasons for this change, and that only a time-trend analysis of data obtained from the same instruments can truly answer the question of what is the trend in prevalence rates.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUALLY HARASSING ENVIRONMENTS

Rigorous survey research has identified common characteristics of sexual harassment. This work pushes against some of the main assumptions made on what it is, as well as how sexual harassment affects the targets, the bystanders, and the atmosphere of work and education settings. Here the chapter describes some of the aspects of sexual harassment that are strongly supported by the literature. However, we note that the data on varying experiences of sexual harassment of women of color, sexual minorities, and gender minorities is sparse, so these characteristics are likely to reflect the experience of majority women.

Characteristics of Sexual Harassment

Women are more likely to be sexually harassed than men and to experience sexual harassment at higher frequencies ( USMSPB 1995 ; Magley, Hulin et al. 1999 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ). The 2012 DMDC survey results shown in Table 2-2 demonstrate that across all three types of sexual harassment, female personnel, compared with their male counterparts, were more

TABLE 2-2 Rate of Active Duty Military Women and Men Experiencing Sexually Harassing Behaviors at Least Once in the Past 12 Months

SOURCE: DMDC 2013 .

likely to have experienced at least one instance of sexually harassing conduct over the prior 12 months. Likewise, in the 1994 USMSPB study of federal workers, it found more women (44 percent) than men (19 percent) describing experiences of any of seven types of sexually harassing behavior in the past 2 years at work ( USMSPB 1995 ). In a more recent study using the SEQ, Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd (2016) surveyed 525 graduate students regarding their exposure to sexual harassment while in graduate school. Female students were 1.64 times more likely to have experienced sexually harassing behavior from faculty or staff (38 percent) compared with male students (23 percent). Though the occasional survey reports no significant gender difference (e.g., Konik and Cortina 2008 ) in a specific group, many studies have found women encountering more sexually harassing conduct than men encounter.

The overwhelming majority of sexual harassment involves some form of gender harassment (the put-downs of sexual harassment that include sexist hostility and crude behavior). Unwanted sexual attention is the next most common form of sexual harassment, and only a small minority of women experience sexual coercion. For instance, Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald (1997) analyzed data from two samples of women: factory workers and university faculty/staff. In both samples, gender harassment was by far the most common experience: 54–60 percent of women described some encounter with gender harassment, either with or without unwanted sexual attention. In contrast, sexual coercion was rare, described by approximately 4 percent of women in each sample. Moreover, sexual coercion never took place without unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment. When analyzing the sexual harassment of graduate students, Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd (2016) found that 59 percent of harassment incidents involved some form of gender harassment, while only 5 percent included unwanted touching, and less than 4 percent entailed sexual coercion. In another study, Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat (2011) analyzed survey data from two samples of women who work in highly male-dominated sectors: the military and the law. Focusing only on data from women who had encountered at least one sexually harassing behavior in the prior year, they found that 9 of every 10 people who experienced sexual harassment had encountered gender harassment with little or no unwanted

sexual attention or coercion. While a recent national survey of 615 working men found that of the 25 percent of male respondents that admitted they had done at least one sexually harassing behavior in the last year, the most common form was gender harassment and the least common was sexual coercion ( Patel, Griggs, and Miller 2017 ).

That gender harassment is the most common type of sexual harassment is an unexpected finding in terms of what constitutes sexual harassment because unwanted sexual advances and sexual coercion are the most commonly reported both in official Title IX/Human Resources documentation ( Cantalupo and Kidder 2017a , 2017b ) and in the media. 9 This is in part why the misguided idea that sexual harassment is about sex has persisted.

In the vast majority of incidents of sexual harassment of women, men are the perpetrators. For instance, in the 1994 USMSPB study, 93 percent of sexually harassed women reported their perpetrators to be male ( USMSPB 1995 ). The DMDC’s 1995 study turned up remarkably similar results, with 92 percent of sexually harassed women describing male perpetrators ( Magley, Waldo et al. 1999 ). In Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd’s (2016) study of the sexual harassment of graduate students, among those who had been sexually harassed by faculty/staff, 86 percent of women described their harassers as male. Even when men are the targets of sexually harassing conduct, more often than not the perpetrator is also male (see also Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ; Magley, Waldo et al. 1999 ).

Women are frequently harassed by coworkers and other employees (for students, it is fellow peers); superiors are not the most common perpetrators 10 ( USMSPB 1995 , 2018 ; AAUW 2005 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ; Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd 2016 ). For example, in Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd’s (2016) study of graduate students, 38 percent of female participants self-reported that they had experienced sexual harassment from faculty or staff, while 58 percent described sexual harassment from other students. In a study by Huerta and colleagues (2006) , student targets of sexual harassment described the harassing experience that bothered them the most. Fully three-quarters of these targets indicated the perpetrator of this “most bothersome” incident to be a peer (fellow student), whereas only one-quarter had perpetrators who were higher-status individuals (staff, faculty, or administrators).

9 See, for example, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fjodi-kantor ; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fjodi-kantor&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=collection ; https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/geoff-marcy-at-sfsu?utm_term=.phP5anr0n#.kprpq6Gj6 ; https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/ott-harassment-investigation?utm_term=.vi3ByvlNv#.wm83947r4 ; and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxnews-lawsuit/ex-fox-news-anchor-accuses-former-boss-ailes-of-sexual-harassment-idUSKCN0ZM21I .

10 One obvious factor that contributes to this difference is that there are most often more coworkers or peers than there are superiors.

Targets of sexual harassment often face repeated sexually harassing behaviors rather than one single incident. Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd’s 2016 study of graduate students, in which 38 percent of women had encountered sexual harassment from faculty/staff and 58 percent had faced sexual harassment from students, only a small fraction (one-third or less) of these women described their harassment experience as being limited to a single incident. This confirms earlier research using data from the 1987 USMSPB survey, in which researchers found that “75 percent of those experiencing sexual teasing and jokes reported that it was not a one-time occurrence, and 54 percent of those pressured for sexual favors reported that it had occurred more than once ( USMSPB 1988 ). For most women, the harassment lasted more than a week, and often as long as 6 months” ( Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald 1997 , 402).

Sexual Harassment Among Women of Color and Sexual- and Gender-Minority Women

What is known about women’s experiences is that those who have multiple marginalities—for instance women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women—experience certain kinds of harassment at greater rates than other women (e.g., Buchanan, Settles, and Woods 2008 ; Clancy et al. 2017 ; Cortina 2004 ; Cortina et al. 1998 ; Konik and Cortina 2008 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ). Additionally, the cultural context in which people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds operate, as well as when they are numerically less represented in a workplace, can have effects on how they experience sexual harassment ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Welsh et al. 2006 ). Thus, there is a wide spectrum of vulnerabilities, experiences, and consequences for women of color and gender minorities who are sexually harassed in the workplace.

As a field of study and as an analytical lens, intersectionality provides a framework to make visible the mutually constitutive relationship among race, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and other social positions that affect targets’ experiences of harassment ( Collins 2015 ). It is rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory and also makes visible intersecting axes of oppression that contribute to power hierarchies within a social structure related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class. Addressing the legacy of exclusions of black women, legal scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw used the concept of intersectionality to highlight the intersection of race and gender discrimination and how treating them as exclusive, and not intertwined, rendered the discrimination and multiple marginalities faced by black women invisible to antidiscrimination law ( Crenshaw 1989 , 1991 ). More recently, Crenshaw described intersectionality as a work in progress to denote the movement in and broadening of its use across disciplines and to a wider range of social locations ( Carbado 2013 ; Crenshaw 2014 ).

Some scholars have applied an intersectional lens to examine the sexual harassment experiences of women of color, though research in this area is still

very limited. It is important to prioritize the study of sexual harassment among noncisgender (cisgender means feeling aligned with the gender you were assigned at birth), nonstraight, nonwhite women when considering the impact of sexual harassment within an organization. Recent research that has begun to look at sexual harassment through the lens of intersectionality reveals how the experiences of women of color compare with that of white women, white men, and men of color. This research demonstrates that women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women sometimes experience sexual harassment differently from other populations. Women of color often experience sexual harassment as a manifestation of both gender and race discrimination ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Murrell 1996 ), which combined can lead to higher rates of overall harassment ( Berdahl and Moore 2006 ; Woods, Buchanan, and Settles 2009 ).

The RTI International interviews 11 were able to glean complexities of intersectionality and sexually harassing behavior. Respondents noted that the issues of sexual- and gender-based harassment are often overpowered by how other issues such as race and sexual orientation intersect with their lived experience as women. These women noted an inability to disentangle discrimination and biases as stemming either from gender or their intersecting identities ( RTI 2018 ).

And then there’s a lot of fairly overt transphobia in my institution, I think. And I don’t really know what to make of it. But there’s sort of . . . traditional old Southern set of gendered expectations and norms that if you don’t fit them, it’s pretty clear what people think, and they don’t have to say a lot about it for you to know, you know what I mean? ( Nontenure-track faculty member in nursing )

What I’ve concluded is that [much] of my push towards and tenacity around equality and equity actually lands on race. I think part of that is because I’ve been more affronted by my race than my gender, at least more overtly. Meaning, I’ve had people say to my face I don’t want to be taking care of that black person, oh, you speak articulate for a black person. These micro-aggressions that go out there and statements and these innuendos. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

These studies demonstrate that an individual’s identity can affect how sexual harassment is perpetrated.

Likewise, lesbian, gay, and bisexual women encounter forms of harassment that reflect a combination of sexism and heterosexism ( Konik and Cortina 2008 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ). Nonbinary individuals, on the other hand, must negotiate their identities within the constructs of the gender binary that is still prevalent today ( Dietert and Dentice 2009 ). A study by Irwin (2002) examined workplace discrimination in the education sector in Australia among gay men, lesbians, and transgender individuals. Irwin found that greater than 60 percent of teachers,

11 This research was commissioned by the committee and the full report on this research is available in Appendix C .

academics, and educators who identified as lesbian, gay, or transgender have experienced homophobic behavior and/or harassment, and have been discriminated against in the workplace. The study also found that 16 percent of the individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, or transgender have been sexually harassed, and one participant was sexually assaulted.

The research on sexual minorities has shown that this population experiences more sexual harassment than heterosexual individuals. In a study of 629 employees in higher education, nearly 76.9 percent of sexual minorities (of both genders) experienced gender harassment, whereas only 30 percent of heterosexuals (of both genders) experienced gender harassment ( Konik and Cortina 2008 ). This trend continued for the other forms of sexual harassment (unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion): 39.7 percent of sexual minorities experienced these types, whereas only 15.5 percent of heterosexuals experienced these types. In another study the prevalence and impact of heterosexist harassment, which is insensitive verbal and symbolic (but nonassaultive) behaviors that convey animosity toward nonheterosexuality, was examined among students. The study specifically looked at how experiences of this type of harassment affected sexual minorities and heterosexuals differently and found that sexual minorities were more likely to experience heterosexist harassment than heterosexuals (58 percent and 39 percent, respectively), and when sexual minorities experienced the harassment, they were equally likely to experience it directed at them as in an ambient form (53 percent and 47 percent, respectively) ( Silverschanz et al. 2008 ).

Characteristics of Sexually Harassing Environments

By far, the greatest predictors of the occurrence of sexual harassment are organizational. Individual-level factors (e.g., sexist attitudes, beliefs that rationalize or justify harassment, etc.) that might make someone decide to harass a work colleague, student, or peer are surely important. However, a person that has proclivities for sexual harassment will have those behaviors greatly inhibited when exposed to role models who behave in a professional way as compared with role models who behave in a harassing way, or when in an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong consequences for these behaviors. Thus, this section considers some of the organizational and environmental variables that increase the risk of sexual harassment perpetration.

Women working in environments where men outnumber women, leadership is male-dominated, and/or jobs or occupations are considered atypical for women experience more frequent incidents of sexual harassment ( USMSPB 1995 ; Fitzgerald et al. 1997 ; Berdahl 2007b ; Willness, Steel, and Lee 2007 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ). In particular, the more male-dominated the work environment, the more women experience the gender harassment form of sexual harassment. For example, in one study looking at the effect of workplace gender balance, the researchers analyzed data from women employees of the federal

courts. When comparing women who work in gender-balanced workgroups (i.e., equal numbers of men and women in the workgroup) with those who work with almost all men, the researchers reported women in the latter category were 1.68 times more likely to encounter gender harassment ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

The historical and cultural context of a work or education environment is of high relevance to the study of sexual harassment as well, since environments that are no longer male dominated in gender ratio may still be male dominated in their work practices, culture, or behavioral expectations.

The perceived absence of organizational sanctions increases the risk of sexual harassment perpetration. Perceptions of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment (also referred to as organizational climate for sexual harassment), are broken down into three categories: (1) the perceived risk to targets for complaining, (2) a perceived lack of sanctions against offenders, and (3) the perception that one’s complaints will not be taken seriously ( Hulin, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1996 ). Research has shown that perceptions of an organization’s tolerance for all three forms of sexually harassing behavior are significantly related to both direct and ambient sexual harassment. In environments that are perceived as more tolerant or permissive of sexual harassment, women are more likely to be directly harassed ( Fitzgerald et al. 1997 ; Williams, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1999 ) and to witness harassment of others ( Glomb et al. 1997 ). In fact, one meta-analysis that combined data from 41 studies with a total sample size of nearly 70,000 respondents found perception of organizational tolerance to be the most potent predictor of sexual harassment in work organizations ( Willness, Steel, and Lee 2007 ). In a recent national survey of 615 working men ( Patel, Griggs, and Miller 2017 ), sexually harassing behavior was more commonly reported “among men who say their company does not have guidelines against harassment, hotlines to report it or punishment for perpetrators, or who say their managers don’t care.”

Social situations in which sexist views and sexually harassing behavior are modeled can enable, facilitate, or even encourage sexually harassing behaviors, while, conversely, positive role models can inhibit sexually harassing behavior ( Dekker and Barling 1998 ; Perry, Schmidtke, and Kulik 1998 ; Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). In one study, college men who had professed a willingness to sexually coerce were found to be more likely to sexually exploit a female trainee when they were exposed to an authority figure who acted in a sexually exploitive way ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). Hitlan and colleagues (2009) found that viewing a sexist film enhanced the tendency among the less sexist men to perform acts of gender harassment. In another experiment, men who viewed sexist TV clips were more likely to send women unsolicited sexist jokes and more likely to profess a willingness to engage in sexual coercion than men who watched programs portraying young, successful women in domains such as science, culture, and business ( Maass, Cadinu, and Galdi 2013 ). Conversely, experiments show that sexual harassment is less likely to occur if those behaviors are not accepted by authority figures ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). So, while social situations

do not necessarily function as triggers for existing predilections to sexually harass, they can act as a force encouraging or discouraging men to sexually harass, demonstrating the power of practiced social norms (e.g., the social norms communicated by the actions of the people in an environment rather than their words or the words from official policy for an organization).

Other factors that research suggests increase the chances of sexual harassment perpetration are significant power differentials within hierarchical organizations and organizational tolerance of alcohol use. Hierarchical work environments like the military, where there is a large power differential between organizational levels and an expectation is not to question those higher up, tend to have higher rates of sexual harassment than organizations that have less power differential between the organizational levels, like the private sector and government ( Ilies et al. 2003 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ). Environments that allow drinking during work breaks and have permissive norms related to drinking are positively associated with higher levels of gender harassment of women ( Bacharach, Bamberger, and McKinney 2007 ). Culturally, these are, again, patterns more common in currently or historically male-dominated workplaces.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

• Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that consists of three types of harassing behavior: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender); (2) unwanted sexual attention (unwelcome verbal or physical sexual advances, which can include assault); and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). The distinctions between the types of harassment are important, particularly because many people do not realize that gender harassment is a form of sexual harassment.
• Sexually harassing behavior can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment) and is harmful in both cases. It is considered illegal when it creates a hostile environment (gender harassment or unwanted sexual attention that is “severe or pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of employment, interfere with one’s work performance, or impede one’s ability to get an education) or when it is quid pro quo sexual harassment (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity).
• There are reliable scientific methods for determining the prevalence of sexual harassment. To measure the incidence of sexual harassment, surveys should follow the best practices that have emerged from the science of sexual harassment. This includes use of the Sexual Experiences

Questionnaire, the most widely used and well-validated instrument available for measuring sexual harassment; assessment of specific behaviors without requiring the respondent to label the behaviors “sexual harassment”; focus on first-hand experience or observation of behavior (rather than rumor or hearsay); and focus on the recent past (1–2 years, to avoid problems of memory decay). Relying on the number of official reports of sexual harassment made to an organization is not an accurate method for determining the prevalence.

• Some surveys underreport the incidence of sexual harassment because they have not followed standard and valid practices for survey research and sexual harassment research.
• While properly conducted surveys are the best methods for estimating the prevalence of sexual harassment, other salient aspects of sexual harassment and its consequences can be examined using other research methods , such as behavioral laboratory experiments, interviews, case studies, ethnographies, and legal research. Such studies can provide information about the presence and nature of sexually harassing behavior in an organization, how it develops and continues (and influences the organizational climate), and how it attenuates or amplifies outcomes from sexual harassment.
• Women experience sexual harassment more often than men do.
• Gender harassment (e.g., behaviors that communicate that women do not belong or do not merit respect) is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. When an environment is pervaded by gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion become more likely to occur—in part because unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion are almost never experienced by women without simultaneously experiencing gender harassment.
• Men are more likely than women to commit sexual harassment.
• Coworkers and peers more often commit sexual harassment than do superiors.
• Sexually harassing behaviors are not typically isolated incidents; rather, they are a series or pattern of sometimes escalating incidents and behaviors.
• Research that does not include the study of women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women presents an incomplete picture of women’s experiences of sexual harassment. The preliminary research on the experiences of women of color, and sexual- and gender-minority women reveals that their experiences of sexual harassment can differ from the larger population of cisgender, straight, white women.
• Women of color experience more harassment (sexual, racial/ethnic, or combination of the two) than white women, white men, and men of color do. Women of color often experience sexual harassment that includes racial harassment.
• Sexual- and gender-minority people experience more sexual harassment than heterosexual women do.
• The two characteristics of environments most associated with higher rates of sexual harassment are (a) male-dominated gender ratios and leadership and (b) an organizational climate that communicates tolerance of sexual harassment (e.g., leadership that fails to take complaints seriously, fails to sanction perpetrators, or fails to protect complainants from retaliation).
• Organizational climate is, by far, the greatest predictor of the occurrence of sexual harassment, and ameliorating it can prevent people from sexually harassing others. A person more likely to engage in harassing behaviors is significantly less likely to do so in an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong, clear, transparent consequences for these behaviors.

Over the last few decades, research, activity, and funding has been devoted to improving the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine. In recent years the diversity of those participating in these fields, particularly the participation of women, has improved and there are significantly more women entering careers and studying science, engineering, and medicine than ever before. However, as women increasingly enter these fields they face biases and barriers and it is not surprising that sexual harassment is one of these barriers.

Over thirty years the incidence of sexual harassment in different industries has held steady, yet now more women are in the workforce and in academia, and in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine (as students and faculty) and so more women are experiencing sexual harassment as they work and learn. Over the last several years, revelations of the sexual harassment experienced by women in the workplace and in academic settings have raised urgent questions about the specific impact of this discriminatory behavior on women and the extent to which it is limiting their careers.

Sexual Harassment of Women explores the influence of sexual harassment in academia on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce. This report reviews the research on the extent to which women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine are victimized by sexual harassment and examines the existing information on the extent to which sexual harassment in academia negatively impacts the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women pursuing scientific, engineering, technical, and medical careers. It also identifies and analyzes the policies, strategies and practices that have been the most successful in preventing and addressing sexual harassment in these settings.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace.

Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates. For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing. But relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace.

More Than Twice as Many Americans Support Than Oppose the #MeToo Movement

Most say that, compared with five years ago, those who commit sexual harassment or assault at work are more likely to be held responsible and those who report it are more likely to be believed.

Racial and ethnic differences stand out in the U.S. gig workforce

There are racial and ethnic differences in who takes on gig platform jobs and the negative experiences some of these workers say they face.

Fast facts on views of workplace harassment amid allegations against New York Gov. Cuomo

A report detailing allegations against Gov. Andrew Cuomo is prompting a renewed conversation about workplace harassment and abuse in the U.S.

The State of Online Harassment

Roughly four-in-ten Americans have experienced online harassment, with half of this group citing politics as the reason they think they were targeted. Growing shares face more severe online abuse such as sexual harassment or stalking

Young women often face sexual harassment online – including on dating sites and apps

Six-in-ten women under 35 who have online dated say someone continued to contact them after they said they were not interested.

The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating

A majority of online daters say their overall experience was positive, but many users – particularly younger women – report being harassed or sent explicit messages on these platforms.

Key takeaways about how Americans view the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church

A majority of U.S. adults say recent reports of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church reflect problems that are still happening.

Americans See Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse as an Ongoing Problem

More than 15 years after U.S. bishops pledged “zero tolerance” for sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, reports of previously unpublicized misconduct continue to receive wide media coverage.

How social media users have discussed sexual harassment since #MeToo went viral

Amid ongoing discussions about sexual harassment in the workplace and beyond, read five findings about how these issues have been discussed on Twitter and other social media outlets in the past year.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• Monica Anderson (4)
• Emily A. Vogels (3)
• Pew Research Center Staff (2)
• Adam Hughes (1)
• Anna Brown (1)
• Bruce Drake (1)
• Carrie Blazina (1)
• Claire Gecewicz (1)
• Drew DeSilver (1)
• Erica Turner (1)
• Jocelyn Kiley (1)
• John Gramlich (1)
• Kim Parker (1)
• Maeve Duggan (1)
• Michael Lipka (1)
• Nikki Graf (1)
• Onyi Lam (1)
• Patrick van Kessel (1)
• Rachel Minkin (1)
• Risa Gelles-Watnick (1)
• Skye Toor (1)

Research Teams

• Internet and Technology (7)
• Politics (6)
• Social Trends (6)
• Religion (3)
• Data Labs (1)
• Science (1)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Browse through the Interactive 2024 Report of the UN Sustainable Development Group

UN in Action

• Global Level
• Regional Level
• Countries and Territories

Regional Teams

Rcp: africa, rcp: arab states, rcp: asia and the pacific, rcp: europe and central asia, rcp: latin america and the caribbean, featured content.

• Resources Library
• Executive Board Session Documents
• UNCT Key Documents Library
• Annual UNCT Results Reports
• UNSDG Chair Report on DCO
• System-Wide Contribution to the SDGs
• UNSDG Data Portal
• How We Work (Our Common Premises)
• Resident Coordinator Statistics

2030 Agenda

• 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
• RCs and the Decade of Action
• Funding Compact
• About the Goals
• SDG Action Campaign
• Joint SDG Fund

Quick links

Read more about the UNSDG members

How We Work

Read more about how the UNSDG works

• The UN Reform
• UN Development Coordination Office

Breaking the silence on sexual harassment in Kyrgyzstan’s medical institutions

Compassion and respect should be cornerstones of the healthcare sector, but there's an insidious problem that often remains shrouded in silence: sexual harassment. For years, female students and health workers in Kyrgyzstan's medical institutions have endured this injustice quietly, fearing the consequences of speaking out. Head of the Independent Medical Trade Union of Kyrgyzstan, Bermet Baryktabasova, wanted to change that. An expert on evidence-based medicine, she used a Spotlight Initiative-supported grant through UN Women Kyrgyzstan in partnership with Public Foundation “Future of the Country” to research and raise awareness on sexual harassment in the medical field.

Mapping the issue

Ms. Baryktabasova envisioned a project that not only highlighted the issue of harassment in the healthcare sector but also provided a platform for victims and survivors to share their experiences. When Ms. Baryktabasova and her team, including the Reproductive Health Alliance in Kyrgyzstan, set out to collect data via a questionnaire, they were initially met with fear and reluctance. Many women were afraid to share their stories. In spite of this, they received more than 1,100 responses and it quickly became clear that this was a widespread problem that needed to be addressed.

Turning data into action

“Armed with the research findings, our team jointly developed a comprehensive strategy [to address the problem]," says Ms. Baryktabasova. "Educational training on harassment, gender-based violence and recognizing hate speech through a gender lens was conducted for 200 healthcare workers and female employees. The aim was to ensure that personal space and human rights for all, especially women, were respected within the workplace," she says.

They also put the issue on the national agenda through a media plan and communications strategy. Social media posts on sexual harassment in the medical field generated feedback and support, and major media outlets in Kyrgyzstan wrote about Ms. Baryktabasova and her research. Medical workers from other institutions began to raise their voices, emboldened by the momentum generated by Ms. Baryktabasova's efforts. They joined her, recognizing that change was not only possible but imperative.

“Our ultimate goal is to present the research results to the Ministry of Health and advocate for the approval of [our] developed documents," says Ms. Baryktabasova. "This, I truly believe, will be the crowning achievement of our collective labour, ensuring that the efforts to eliminate harassment in medical institutions remain an ongoing commitment." Ms. Baryktabasova continues to advocate for a safe and supportive working environment for all healthcare workers in Kyrgyzstan. By shedding light on an often hidden issue, she has given survivors a platform and sparked a transformative movement in Kyrgyzstan to end sexual harassment in the medical field once and for all.  

The global Spotlight Initiative to eliminate violence against women and girls is a joint European Union and United Nations initiative being implemented in Kyrgyzstan since 2020. Spotlight Initiative enables women and girls to realize their right to a life free from discrimination, stigma, and all forms of violence. This article was first published here .

Editor’s Note: This story is part of Systems Error , a series by CNN As Equals , investigating how your gender shapes your life online. For information about how CNN As Equals is funded and more, check out our FAQs .

Hundreds of young women and girls around the world have said they want much better support to stay safe online, sharing that they regularly face dangers and many have no one informed or powerful enough to turn to for help.

CNN As Equals and NGO Plan International surveyed more than 600 young women and girls aged 13-24 across nine countries worldwide and found that most (75%) have faced harmful content online at some point, with more than one in 10 experiencing it daily or almost daily.

Almost half, with some as young as 13, reported seeing or receiving unwanted sexual images or videos, and a quarter said they had experienced discrimination or hate speech online when sharing the threats they face.

The platforms participants said they experienced these threats on most frequently are Facebook, followed by WhatsApp, then Instagram and TikTok, which are also among the most actively used social platforms worldwide.

The surveys were conducted in Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Philippines and Timor-Leste. They are not representative of all girls and young women growing up in those countries, but the results highlight the voices and daily experiences that many of these young women face.

When sharing the impact of these dangers, over a third who answered said they were left feeling sad, depressed, stressed or anxious, and the majority of the young women and girls felt they themselves were most responsible for their safety online – often going offline and making their accounts private to cope.

The result is a generation of resilient but resentful young people who feel they should not be solely responsible for their safety. They want better support and resources from governments, authorities, tech companies and their families.

Scroll down to explore their answers.

A further 73 young women and girls were interviewed about the online harassment they experience and asked about solutions in focus groups divided by age range and led by Plan’s country teams in the Philippines, Malawi and Brazil.

Here, many explained they feel that parents and schools are too uninformed to help, reports to platforms are sent to bots and go unanswered, and authorities don’t hold perpetrators adequately accountable.

They want things to change. Here’s how.

Among those who answered questions on solutions that could help ensure their safety, about six in 10 (61%) called for education and awareness programs on digital safety, for example through school and university curricula, to provide this literacy.

But experts warn the burden should not be entirely on girls to protect themselves.

Placing the responsibility on young women and girls is “inherently unfair,” said Hera Hussain, founder and CEO of Chayn, a UK-based tech NGO addressing gender-based abuse globally. “If you are receiving harassing messages, dick pics, and you have to go on reporting each one of them, and then blocking people, that’s so much administrative burden that you as victim and survivor have to take on.”

What girls want for a safer future online

Strict enforcement by platforms and the need for stronger legal measures were selected by over a third of those surveyed about what’s missing to ensure safety, while around a quarter felt that enhanced privacy settings and safe spaces were needed. One in five said there is a need for more accessible and reliable reporting mechanisms or stricter age verification processes.

In focus groups, some participants said they felt isolated, calling for helplines and local support services, and reiterating a need for digital safe spaces. Systemic changes were also called for, such as greater repercussions for people who abuse others, better moderation, improved identity and age checks on social media platforms and the option to report harassment or other harmful content to trained staff instead of bots.

"We don’t know if these people are really listening,” said Lea, a participant in the 17-20-year-old focus group in the Philippines, speaking of the lack of action or response by the tech sector or authorities. Participants were given pseudonyms for anonymity.

Digital resilience training delivered by tech companies themselves was also suggested.

“Those who provide them [training to stay safe online] should be the companies that make the apps… They are responsible for what can happen to us or what we can encounter,” said Reyna, aparticipant 21-24 year-old group, also in the Philippines.

Of the three regions, Africa stood out, with 40% of girls surveyed in Africa reporting feeling unsafe (40%).

‘I was young and scared’: Why girls feel unsafe online

The push for online safety has become a new frontier in the digital era, with international calls growing from civil society organizations, nonprofits and politicians around the world as more children come online.

European Union and UK legislation offers protections for children, though experts and gender equality campaigners argue these laws fall short in addressing gender-based violence and continue to place the burden of responsibility on users.

In the US, Arkansas and Utah were among the first to sign bills focusing on children’s online safety in 2023 and dozens of states have proposed or enacted legislation to regulate social media platforms in recent years. New York passed a children’s act against addictive social media feeds in June, and a Senate bill for children’s online safety is currently in the works.

Among some of the countries where surveys were conducted, the Philippines has legislation specifically targeting the country’s high levels of online child exploitation , and lawmakers in Nepal and Brazil are working on regulations for young people’s digital protection.

Authorities in Malawi have appointed a child’s protection ambassador and help provide train for school leaders, children’s NGOs and other civil society stakeholders on digital safety as part of a strategy for protecting children online.

Despite this growing body of legislation and policy, the new findings by CNN and Plan International show continued gendered abuse on a global scale.

“It has not changed, it is even worse,” said Sheila Estabillo, SAFE Online Project Manager for Plan International Philippines, who hosts online safety sessions for girls in the country.

Research shows online danger is now so commonplace it has become normalized for girls, who face unequal – and typically more sexualized – types of threats compared to boys.

Young women and girls surveyed told CNN and Plan International their most common experience of harmful content was the receipt of unwanted sexual imagery (known as cyberflashing), videos, or messaging.

“[Some people] harass people on social media and they think it’s okay to send something like that without the other’s consent,” said Reyna, in her early-20s, from the Philippines.

About half of the young women and girls surveyed in Africa (55%) reported seeing or receiving unwanted sexual images.

“I started chilling with a guy and he sent me a naked picture and asked me to send my picture too,” said Maureen, a 21-24-year-old in Malawi. The boy threatened to share her profile photo, which he edited to be nude, she said. “I was young and scared, so I was afraid to tell anyone.”

Objectification and sexualization are well-worn experiences for women and girls online, and abuse through cyberflashing and the nonconsensual release of photos, forged images and deepfakes, is becoming more common, said Hussain. “[Online abuse is] completely embedded in all aspects of your life.”

The young women and girls surveyed by CNN and Plan International reported braving other digital dangers on a regular basis, including coming across dubious money-making schemes (43%), targeted hate messages (42%), ways to self-harm (29%), and ways to be very thin through eating disorders (28%). In the Philippines, for example, 47% of participants reported seeing discussions of ways to harm yourself and 45% had seen content about ways to take your own life.

Online money scams have proliferated globally, boosted by financial technology and advancements in artificial intelligence, according to the international crime and policing body INTERPOL. Among participants in the surveys, young women and girls in Africa were most affected by money scams – with half being exposed to scams and a quarter having lost money.

“I just blocked the number and then deleted it,” she says. “I think they should make strict rules that when a person sends you something which is not what you want, they should just block that person and he or she should not use the platform again.”

She also wants platforms to do more to protect girls like her.

“They should have a very strict set of rules that you can only see what you want to see,” she said.

Left hurting ‘psychologically and personally’

The impact on young women and girls surveyed by CNN and Plan International was stark: Among survey participants who shared how seeing harmful content affected them, more than one in three reported feeling sad or depressed, stressed, worried or anxious (35%), and many said they were subsequently more careful online (40%).

Consequences also included reduced confidence and feeling of self-worth, lost sleep, and impact on relationships with loved ones, and around a quarter said they lost trust in online platforms or felt physically unsafe.

Despite sharing content about studying, Daniela said hateful comments about her appearance littered her posts. So, around four years ago, in the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic, she shut her blog down.

“I was suffering with anxiety,” the 24-year-old said. “I felt like I was looking at others and what they are doing and not really living my life. I wanted to stop and start living my life.”

She now controls her online world by keeping her accounts private and not sharing much. “I’ve become ‘low profile,’” she said.

In the focus groups, many related to Daniela’s experience, and shared their frustration that coming offline or turning accounts private to improve their mental health also comes at a cost to them.

Silencing young ‘overwhelmed’ girls

Nearly one in five young women and girls surveyed reported taking a break from the internet entirely to cope with the dangers they face online, and studies show online abuse has a silencing effect on women and girls.

One study by the NGO Girl Effect found girls in five African countries, Jordan, the UK and the US are more likely to block or privatize their accounts and report behavior than boys.

A 2021 study drawing data from two independent large-scale surveys in Norway also found that “targeted women are more likely than targeted men to become more cautious in expressing their opinions publicly.”

I was young and scared, so I was afraid to tell anyone.

CNN and Plan International’s research shows that the “chilling effect” of women in public spaces, such as politics and journalism, in response to online abuse, starts with teen girls, said Professor Gina Neff, executive director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy at the University of Cambridge.

“If we’ve got 75% of teen girls saying they have gotten online harassment,” she said, “what happens as they start to develop their careers … professional, outward-facing social media accounts?”

“Blocking and locking” accounts, while dealing with acute danger, are not effective for anyone who wants to have an online persona, said Neff. “We are sending a message that their voices don’t matter and their expectation of being able to be online comes with more risks sometimes than the benefits that they get,” she said.

Fernanda, a 21-year-old participant also from Brazil loves women’s football, but said she is reluctant to engage with online discussions about the sport. “I’m very afraid of commenting on my team’s posts, because I know how toxic the comments are (against girls),” she said adding that taking time offline has helped her deal with the stress.

“When we stay connected for a long time, we feel like, ‘Guys, help, I’m overwhelmed.’”

Where responsibility should lie

A generational gap in understanding online platforms and digital literacy is one reason the young women and girls surveyed and interviewed showed little trust in adults and existing mechanisms to root out abusers and perpetrators.

Mary said one of her classmates, who is transgender, had no one else to turn to after being groomed online. “He mentioned meeting someone last night and earning money from him. I am the only one he told about this because we’re close.”

Estabillo at Plan International Philippines said girls talk to their peers instead because speaking up about child sexual abuse remains a cultural taboo in the Philippines.

“Instead of being helped, they fear being blamed,” Estabillo added.

Experts CNN spoke to stressed the need for tech platforms to take more action.

Current rules and online tools for dealing with ongoing attacks are insufficient, said Neff, as they do not deal with chronic abuse affecting women. “The platform companies have to be held accountable by legislation,” she said.

Proposed laws such as the U.S. Platform Accountability and Transparency Act would mandate researcher access to large platforms’ data – gated by X, for example – which is vital for understanding and alleviating misuse and abuse, and they would also hold platforms to account, said Neff.

A coalition of groups fighting gendered digital abuse in the UK, including Chayn, have also campaigned for platforms to proactively build guards against abuse. Hussain wants to see more platforms prioritize “safety-by-design" and said tech companies are now investing more in controls.

In January 2024, Meta announced new “age-appropriate” restrictions for teen users, automatically limiting “potentially sensitive content” and accounts from their feeds. Both Meta and TikTok also prohibit child sexual exploitation and abuse.

CNN contacted Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) and TikTok for comment about the findings of this research.

Cindy Southworth, Head of Women’s Safety at Meta, said: "We’re continuing to work closely with experts – including Plan International – to better understand the online experience of women and girls and to help make sure they feel good about the time they spend on our apps.”

“This builds on years developing tools, features and policies to help keep them safe, including blocking people from sending images or videos to anyone who doesn’t follow them, testing a new nudity protection feature that will blur potential nudity in DMs, and applying strict rules against bullying, hate speech, and content that encourages suicide, self-harm or eating disorders."

A TikTok spokesperson shared that the platform prevents under-18s seeing sexually suggestive content and prohibits all nudity, pornography and sexually explicit content. It also makes under-16s’ accounts private and unavailable for direct messaging by default, while a pairing tool allows parents to adjust teens’ privacy and content settings. The platform also launched a council for teens to share views on building a safe platform, according to the spokesperson.

But experts warned that platforms have so far failed to outpace spiraling online abuse and harmful content, often implementing safeguards after problems are raised.

Hussain believes a cultural shift is also needed to curb abuse, concluding: “It’s very easy to think of harm as inevitable and unending but it doesn’t have to be.”

How CNN reported this story

CNN As Equals and Plan International collaborated to survey 619 girls and young women and five non-binary people aged 13-24 online through Plan’s country offices in Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Philippines and Timor-Leste in February 2024. Surveys were shared online across Plan’s networks in these countries for up to one month, inviting girls aged 13-24 to complete them until an adequate sample size was reached.

In the surveys, participants were asked why they go online, what they like to do online, whether they feel safe, what they do if they don’t feel safe, whose responsibility it is to keep them safe, on what platforms they feel least safe, how often they are bothered online, the impact of harms they face and what is lacking or needed to keep them safe online.

The survey is not a scientific poll, or representative of all girls and young women growing up in those countries. But the results highlight the voices and daily experiences of many of these young women face.

These questions were also discussed in a series of focus groups from Brazil, Malawi and the Philippines, with scenarios of the most common harms reported by girls in the surveys were presented and discussed. Participants were also asked for their ideas for solutions to better address and prevent the harms faced by girls online. These took place in March 2024 and participants names were anonymized through pseudonyms chosen by Plan International.

Some figures from the surveys show girls as a percentage of a total who chose one answer from a select range, while others show percentages of girls who chose answers in multiple-choice questions. Regional results include comparisons of differing sample sizes– between South America (203 girls and young women), Africa (240 girls and young women) and Asia (181 girls and young women).

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

eAppendix. Harassment Survey 2020—CA: University Of California–San Diego: AmeriSpeak Field Report

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Inwards-Breland DJ , Johns NE , Raj A. Sexual Violence Associated With Sexual Identity and Gender Among California Adults Reporting Their Experiences as Adolescents and Young Adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(1):e2144266. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44266

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Sexual Violence Associated With Sexual Identity and Gender Among California Adults Reporting Their Experiences as Adolescents and Young Adults

• 1 Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, California
• 2 School of Medicine, University of California, La Jolla
• 3 Center on Gender Equity and Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, La Jolla
• 4 Division of Social Sciences, Department of Education Studies, University of California, La Jolla

Question   Are lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, and other sexual identity (LGBQA+) youth at increased risk for experiencing violence across the sexual violence continuum?

Findings   This survey study including 2102 participants found that adult LGBQA+ individuals were at increased risk for having experienced sexual violence across the continuum during adolescence and young adulthood.

Meaning   These findings suggest the need for multifaceted solutions to support LGBQA+ youth, including altering social norms accepting sexual violence and homophobia, creating safer schools and other institutional environments, and supporting healthy sexual and romantic partnerships.

Importance   Disproportionate levels of violence exist in lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, and other sexual identity (LGBQA+) communities, often starting in adolescence and young adulthood, but little research exists on the range of sexual violence (SV) experiences.

Objective   To assess risk of experiences of sexual violence among California LGBQA+ adults during adolescence and young adulthood.

Design, Setting, and Participants   This survey study analyzed data from Cal-VEX 2020, a state-representative survey of California residents aged 18 years and older, to assess associations between LGBQA+ identification and types of SV experienced in adolescence (ages 13-17 years) and young adulthood (ages 18-24 years) using gender-stratified adjusted logistic regression. Forms of SV included verbal, cyber, and coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment; homophobic or transphobic slurs; and forced sex.

Exposure   Sexual identity.

Main Outcomes and Measures   The outcome of interest was experiences with any 5 forms of sexual violence (verbal sexual harassment, homophobic or transphobic slurs, cyber sexual harassment, sexual coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment, and forced sex) during adolescence or young adulthood.

Results   A total of 2102 contacted individuals (response rate, 26.2%) completed the Cal-VEX survey and were included in these analyses. Among these, the mean (SD) age was 46.6 (17.7) years, 1149 identified as female, 953 identified as male, and 214 respondents (9.6%) identified as LGBQA+. Compared with heterosexual individuals, LGBQA+ individuals had significantly higher odds of having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs (women: AOR, 14.65; 95% CI, 5.14-41.77; men: AOR, 14.17; 95% CI, 6.96-28.86) and forced sex (women: AOR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.74-10.43; men: AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.01-7.10) in adolescence. LGBQA+ women also had higher odds of having experienced verbal and coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment in adolescence (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.30-4.19). In young adulthood, LGBQA+ individuals also had higher odds of having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs (women: AOR, 18.58; 95% CI, 7.12-48.49; men: AOR, 16.73; 95% CI, 8.26-33.92) in young adulthood. LGBQA+ men also had higher odds of having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs (AOR, 16.73; 95% CI, 8.26-33.92); verbal (AOR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.44-7.53), cyber (AOR, 6.32; 95% CI, 1.50-26.52), and coercion or physically aggressive (AOR, 5.54; 95% CI, 2.08-14) sexual harassment; and forced sex (AOR, 21.26; 95% CI, 5.63-80.35) in young adulthood.

Conclusions and Relevance   This survey study found that adult LGBQA+ individuals were at increased risk for having experienced SV across the continuum during adolescence and young adulthood, consistent with prior research. Multifold solutions are needed to support LGBQA+ youth, including altering social norms accepting SV and homophobia, creating safer schools and other institutional environments, and supporting healthy sexual and romantic partnerships.

Adolescents and young adults who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning or queer, asexual, and other sexual identities (LGBQA+) have sexual orientations outside heterosexual norms and face discrimination and violence as a result. Nationally representative data from US high school students, from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2019, indicate that approximately 16% of adolescents identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or are unsure of their sexual identity. 1 Because these data are the only representative data on the topic in the US, to our knowledge, they remain the standard regarding prevalence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and unsure sexual identity among adolescence, but this is likely an underestimate. Among high school students who had no sexual contact, 86% identified as heterosexual and 9% identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or unsure. 1 For these reasons, retrospective reporting on the experiences of LGBQA+ individuals in adolescence and young adulthood can be particularly insightful, particularly in terms of sensitive issues, such as experiences of sexual violence (SV), an issue disproportionately affecting LGBQA+ people. 2 - 5

Stigmatization or abuse of those who do not adhere to the heterosexual norm remains all too common, affecting both those who identify as LGBQA+ and those who do not but act or are viewed outside of cisgender and heterosexual norms. Experiences of violence often begin in adolescence and young adulthood. 6 , 7 Despite the resilience of LGBQA+ individuals and communities, these disproportionate levels of violence can create long-term negative physical and mental health consequences. 8 , 9 Prevention of such violence is important for addressing recognized health disparities faced by LGBQA+ individuals 10 and requires that we understand the scope and scale of violence experienced. National YRBS 2019 data show that adolescents who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or unsure are more likely than adolescents who identify as heterosexual to have experienced SV in the past year (16%-20% vs 9%), with girls more likely than boys to report these abuses, except in the case of gay boys vs lesbian girls. 1 While SV was defined broadly in this assessment, ie, “kissing, touching, or being physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to,” 1 the use of a single item may result in underreporting, as well as inadequate clarity on LGBQA+ vulnerability, given likely underreporting or underrecognition of being LGBQA+ in this sample. Other research with adolescents has examined sexual identity and other forms of SV, including in-person and online sexual harassment, and again found greater risk for LGBQA+ youth, particularly boys, and this harassment is often inclusive of homophobic and transphobic name calling. 11 , 12 Importantly, indications are that homophobic and transphobic harassment, viewed as sexual harassment including both sexual and gendered abuses, 13 is the most common form of sexual harassment adolescent boys face in school. 14 Notably, studies also show that perpetrators of homophobic and transphobic harassment in middle school are more likely to perpetrate sexual assault and rape in later adolescence, 15 , 16 which again may disproportionately affect LGBQA+ youth, as indicated by YRBS data. None of these studies examined whether there were differences in observed associations by forms of SV. Furthermore, representative data on this topic with young adults remains largely lacking in the literature. These same associations may hold true in young adulthood but may be diminished in a context of greater autonomy and self-acceptance among young adults compared with adolescents.

Our study offers analysis of retrospective reports of SV in adolescence and young adulthood with data from a state-representative online survey of California adults, the California study on Violence Experiences Across the Lifespan 2020 study (Cal-VEX). 17 To assess experiences of SV, we use the continuum of SV framework, which recognizes that sexual harm is not limited to the legal definitions of sexual offenses but rather include acts and contexts exerting unwanted sexual control or fear over an individual or group, with risk linked to gender and sexuality. 18 Hence, our analysis assesses a range of sexual abuses, including verbal sexual harassment, homophobic or transphobic slurs, cyber sexual harassment, physically aggressive or coercive sexual harassment, and forced sex, by gender and sexual identity. More specifically, we hypothesize that LGBQA+ individuals, compared with heterosexual individuals, are more likely to report SV across the continuum in adolescence and young adulthood, and observed outcomes may be stronger for men even though women are more likely to experience SV. Additionally, we hypothesize that observed associations may be stronger in adolescence compared with young adulthood, given the more restrictive contexts of adolescence in both family and school environments, although associations would exist in both life stages.

All research procedures for this survey study were approved by both NORC at the University of Chicago and the University of California San Diego institutional review board. Participants provided written informed consent for initial panel participation, and the NORC institutional review board approved a waiver of documentation of consent for this specific survey participation, as is standard for NORC surveys. All data were deidentified by NORC prior to provision of the data for analysis. The NORC team contacted participants to invite them into the online survey, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participants were able to decline questions or stop the survey at any time. Given the sensitivity of the survey items, all participants were provided with information regarding victim services and a hotline number. This study is reported following the American Association for Public Opinion Research ( AAPOR ) reporting guideline.

This survey study uses data from the Cal-VEX Study, a state-representative online survey on violence experiences conducted with California adults aged 18 years and older, in March 2020. 17 The Cal-VEX survey was administered by the survey research firm NORC at the University of Chicago 19 using their online probability panel (AmeriSpeak), which uses an address-based sampling approach to recruit participants and supplemented this sample with additional nonprobability opt-in panels to reach the desired sample size.

NORC performed statistical calibration to combine these probability and nonprobability samples and created a survey-weighted final sample that is representative of the California adult population with regards to several key sociodemographic factors. We confirmed the representativeness of the weighted sample via comparison to published census and other state government data on gender, race and ethnicity, education, employment, income, age, sexual identity, citizenship, and disability status; all examined characteristics confirmed state-representativeness. Further detail on sampling, data calibration, and weighting methods is published elsewhere, 17 and additional detail can be found in the eAppendix in the Supplement . The weighted AAPOR RR3 recruitment rate for this study was 24%, the weighted household retention rate was 85.6%, and the response rate to this survey was 26.2%. These are standard for online panel surveys, which typically range from 20% to 25%. 20 Ultimately, the weighted AAPOR RR3 cumulative response rate was 5.4% (eAppendix in the Supplement ).

Our primary outcomes of interest were experiences of 5 forms of SV in adolescence (defined as age 13-17 years) and young adulthood (defined as age 18-24 years). The forms of SV were verbal sexual harassment, homophobic or transphobic slurs, cyber sexual harassment, sexual coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment, and forced sex. Definitions for each form of violence can be found in Table 1 ; the full definitions were provided as prompts within the survey. Respondents were asked whether they had ever experienced each form of violence; if they answered yes, they were then asked whether they had experienced it in childhood (age 0-12 years), adolescence (age 13-17 years), young adulthood (age 18-24 years), and/or adulthood (age ≥25 years). Our team created this measure based on the continuum of SV framework 18 and prior research and theory on sexual harassment. 13 This measure has been validated and used in prior publications. 13 , 14 , 21 , 22

Our independent variable was sexual identity. We asked: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself? Lesbian or gay; Straight, that is, not lesbian or gay; Bisexual; Something else.” We dichotomized responses to heterosexual or LGBQA+ sexual identity. Only 1 participant declined to respond and was dropped from analysis.

Our stratification variable was self-reported gender, assessed as “How do you describe yourself? Male; female; transgender; do not identify as male, female, or transgender.” Owing to small numbers and to ensure anonymity, 5 individuals who indicated transgender identity and 7 individuals who indicated other gender identity were excluded from these analyses. Demographic covariates included current age (categorized as 18-29, 30-44, 45-59, and ≥60 years), race and ethnicity (categorized as Asian, Black, Latinx, White, or other or multiple races [including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and those who answered “some other race”]), and income (dichotomized as lowest income quintile or not). Race and ethnicity were included in analyses given disparities in violence experiences across racial and ethnic identities, as well as known intersectional risks associated with sexual identity, gender, and race and ethnicity. Other or multiple race included 9 American Indian or Alaska Native respondents, 13 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander respondents, and 28 individuals who selected the answer choice “some other race” (no further detail provided); 72 respondents selected multiple races.

We present frequencies (survey-weighted percentages and unweighted counts) of included demographic characteristics and experiences of SV in adolescence and young adulthood for the total sample, by gender and by sexual identity. We used Pearson χ 2 tests to assess bivariate differences in demographic characteristics and experiences of violence by gender and by sexual identity. We then conducted a series of adjusted logistic regression analyses stratified by gender to assess the association of sexual identity with each of 5 forms of SV, first in adolescence and then in young adulthood, including age, race and ethnicity, and income. As an additional post hoc analysis, we limited the sample to respondents aged 25 years and older (as those aged 18-24 years had less time at risk for the young adult experiences) and replicated unadjusted comparisons and adjusted regression analyses. All regression analyses accounted for survey design and weighting to produce state-representative findings and were conducted using Stata statistical software version 15.1 (StataCorp). P values were 2-sided, and statistical significance was set at P  < .05. Analyses were initiated in December 2020 and finalized in April 2021.

A total of 2102 individuals participated in the survey; 13 participants were removed from the final analytic sample because of missing data. For our weighted analytic sample, 48.1% of participants identified as men (953 participants unweighted) and 51.9% identified as women (1139 participants unweighted, and 9.6% identified as LGBQA+ (214 participants unweighted) ( Table 2 ). A total of 207 participants (12.9%) were Asian, 135 participants (5.6%) were Black, 450 participants (32.8%) were Latinx, and 1188 participants (42.1%) were White. By income quintile, 409 participants (21.6%) were in the lowest quintile, indicating they were living in poverty. LGBQA+ identity was significantly associated with age and race and ethnicity: LGBQA+ individuals were more likely than heterosexual individuals to be aged 18 to 44 and to be multiracial or other race ( Table 2 ).

The most common form of SV reported in both adolescence and young adulthood was verbal sexual harassment, reported by 370 participants (16.4%) during adolescence and 422 participants (16.6%) during young adulthood ( Table 3 ). Prevalence of forms of SV did not differ significantly between adolescence and young adulthood. There was a small but not significant increase in sexual coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment with age, reported by 186 participants (7.2%) in adolescence and 219 participants (9.2%) in young adulthood ( P  = .07).

Experience of homophobic or transphobic slurs was significantly more likely among men, whereas all other forms of sexual harassment, coercion, and violence were significantly more likely among women, reported in both adolescence and young adulthood ( Table 3 ). All assessed forms of sexual harassment and violence, except for cyber sexual harassment, were significantly more frequently reported by those who identified as LGBQA+ compared with heterosexual individuals. Similar findings were seen in experiences of violence in young adulthood, except cyber sexual harassment was also significantly more likely for LGBQA+ individuals compared with heterosexual participants.

Adjusted analyses, accounting for age, race and ethnicity, and income, indicate that among women, LGBQA+ individuals had higher odds of having experienced verbal sexual harassment (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.02-2.97), homophobic or transphobic slurs (AOR, 14.65; 95% CI, 5.14-41.77), sexual coercion or physically aggressive harassment (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.30-4.19), and forced sex (AOR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.74-10.43) in adolescence ( Table 4 ). Among men, LGBQA+ participants had higher odds of having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs (AOR, 14.17; 95% CI, 6.96-28.86) and forced sex (AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.01-7.10).

We found that among women, some racial and ethnic groups experienced lower risk for SV in adolescence compared with White individuals (eg, cyber sexual harassment among Black women: AOR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.76). However, among men, there was increased risk for SV in adolescence among some racial and ethnic groups compared with White individuals (eg, cyber sexual harassment among Asian men: AOR, 5.30; 95% CI, 1.06-26.61). Among women, there was a negative association between having low income and having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs in adolescence (AOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.94).

Adjusted analyses, accounting for age, race and ethnicity, and income, indicated that among women, LGBQA+ individuals had higher odds of having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs in young adulthood (AOR, 18.58; 95% CI, 7.12-48.49) ( Table 5 ). Among men, LGBQA+ individuals had higher odds of having experienced all forms of violence in young adulthood, including verbal sexual harassment (AOR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.44-7.53), homophobic or transphobic slurs (AOR, 16.73; 95% CI, 8.26-33.92), cyber sexual harassment (AOR, 6.32; 95%, 1.50-26.52), sexual coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment (AOR, 5.54; 95% CI, 2.08-14.76), and forced sex (AOR, 21.26; 95% CI, 5.63-80.35).

We found that among women, some racial and ethnic groups had lower risk for having experienced verbal sexual harassment and forced sex in young adulthood compared with White individuals (eg, verbal sexual harassment among Asian women: AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.67). Among men, there was an increased risk for having experienced SV in young adulthood among some racial and ethnic groups compared with White men (eg, coercion or physically aggressive sexual harassment among Black men: AOR, 6.06; 95% CI, 1.41-26.01). Among women, there was a negative association between having low income and having experienced verbal sexual harassment in young adulthood (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95). Among men, there was a positive association between having low income and having experienced homophobic or transphobic slurs in young adulthood (AOR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.43-9.60).

The magnitude and significance of unadjusted and adjusted findings reported above remained mostly consistent when 241 respondents ages 18 to 24 were removed, with the exception of results for verbal sexual harassment. In the age-restricted sample, there were no longer significantly different experiences of verbal sexual harassment in adolescence (262 heterosexual participants [14.7%] vs 48 LGBQA+ participants [20.1%]; P  = .09) or young adulthood (315 heterosexual participants [15.5%] vs 54 LGBQA+ participants [21.3%]; P  = .08) in unadjusted comparisons. In adjusted models, only the findings for women’s experiences in adolescence changed meaningfully (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI 0.92-3.11; P  = .10).

In this survey study using a state-representative sample of California adults, we documented increased risk of having experienced several forms of SV among LGBQA+ individuals. Findings from our study among this representative sample of adults in California were generally consistent with previous research showing LGBQA+ populations were at greater risk for SV in adolescence and young adulthood than their heterosexual counterparts. 1 - 5 However, this work extends prior research by documenting a broad range of SV experiences, as well as by documenting intersectional risks related to sexual identity and gender, and how these change from adolescence to young adulthood. Prior work has documented the importance of examining the intersection of gender with other inequalities and oppressions (eg, sexuality, gender identity, ethnicity, indigeneity, immigration status, disability) in terms of risk for violence. 23 Our work demonstrates the association between being LGBQA+ and having experienced SV in adolescence was stronger for women than men, but this association was stronger for men in young adulthood. Further, in terms of SV in young adulthood, associations among men were specific to more severe forms of SV, such as coercive or physically aggressive sexual harassment and forced sex. This is consistent with national data from adults indicating increased risk for SV for gay and bisexual men. 5

These intersectional gender differences are not what we hypothesized and may be related to shifts in sexual and romantic partnerships from adolescence to young adulthood. SV in adulthood is more likely to occur at the hands of a partner than a stranger or family member, and men are more likely than women to be perpetrators of SV. 17 For LGBQA+ individuals, opposite-sex partners or delayed same-sex partnerships may be more likely in adolescence than young adulthood, which suggests that LGBQA+ individuals may feel more comfortable identifying as LGBQA+ and having same-sex partnerships in young adulthood than in adolescence. Hence, it may be through an increase in male partnership for LGBQA+ men and a decrease in male partnership for LGBQA+ women that risks shift in the gender by sexual identity interaction. These findings support prior research recommending shifts in male gender norms to reduce violence, 24 , 25 and suggest such an approach may be meaningful for LGBQA+ as well as heterosexual men.

An additional important issue is the level and risk for homophobic and transphobic remarks LGBQA+ individuals face in adolescence and young adulthood, a time where their sexual identity and sense of value for self are forming. Approximately 1 in 20 people in the adult California population as a whole have experienced such offensive remarks in adolescence and young adulthood, with men more likely than women to report this. Among LGBQA+ individuals in our study, more than 1 in 4 individuals reported such abuse in adolescence and in young adulthood. These findings reinforce prior research documenting the pervasiveness of homophobic and transphobic harassment that persists among young people, especially boys. 14 Recognition of such behavior as hate speech and ensuring there is not tolerance or support of it in institutional settings, such as schools, is a first step toward combatting this problem. Such behaviors contribute to worse educational outcomes, including missed school days and school dropout for LGBTQ+ adolescents compared with cisgender and heterosexual adolescents. 26 Research suggests respectful and inclusive LGBTQ+ policies and gay-straight alliances in schools are associated with reducing these types of offenses, improving educational and well-being outcomes for youth, and supporting a positive school climate. 27

Our findings also demonstrated race and ethnicity by gender and income by gender associations with our outcomes of interest. Among men, we found that being Asian, Black, or Latinx, compared with being White, was associated with higher odds of having experienced cyber sexual harassment, and being in the lowest income quintile relative to the highest income quintile was associated with higher odds of having experienced forced sex. These findings are consistent with prior research in terms of Black and Latinx men, compared with White men, being at greater risk for experiencing SV, although not specific to cyber sexual harassment. 28 , 29 Differences by race and ethnicity and sexual identity have also been observed, in which LGBQA+ youths of Black or Asian backgrounds are less likely than White or Latinx LGBQA+ youths to experienced victimization from peers. 30 , 31 Our findings also correspond with research demonstrating that violence is higher in resource-constrained communities of color, such as Black men who have sex with men. 32 However, we did not find elevated risks associated with race and ethnicity among women; in fact, we found lower risk for some outcomes. These findings speak to the intersectional nature of social factors and risk for SV and the need for further research on whether intersections of racial, ethnic, and income disparities with sexual identity are associated with SV. We anticipate these findings would be salient, given prior work demonstrating the associations of race, ethnicity, and income interacting with sexual identity associations with health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and HIV acquisition, as well as increased cancer risk. 6 , 7 , 9 , 28 - 30 , 32 - 35

While our study findings offer important insight into the issues of SV for LGBQA+ individuals, they should be considered in terms of several limitations. Our data relied on self-report and therefore were subject to recall and social desirability biases. It is likely that SV was underreported, particularly among men and racial and ethnic minority groups. 36 Our survey sample only included adults and asked them about their past experiences, which may not represent situations currently experienced by adolescents or young adults. We were limited in our assessments of the age ranges 13 to 17 years and 18 to 24 years owing to survey item setup, although other age ranges may be more theoretically or clinically meaningful. We had an insufficient number of respondents to fully explore differences by specific sexual identities, or by gender identity beyond male/female or by specific race and ethnicity, areas requiring further research. Thus, larger-scale survey research, as well as smaller-scale research focused on LGBQA+ and transgender individuals, is needed to understand these issues with greater reflection on the variation across identities. Additionally, while our response rate of 26% was comparable to other online surveys, the low response rate reduces the representativeness and generalizability of our findings, as does the participation in an online survey panel. For example, individuals who are institutionalized or experiencing homelessness and individuals who do not speak English or Spanish are not represented by this data. Along these lines, the wide 95% CIs seen in our male subsample are likely due to inadequate power owing to lower reports of these forms of SV among men.

The findings of this survey study are consistent with prior research demonstrating LGBQA+ individuals were at increased risk for having experienced violence in adolescence and young adulthood and expand this work by documenting these risks across the continuum of SV and by demonstrating important gender by sexual identity intersectional differences. These differences include stronger associations with SV for girls in adolescence and for men in young adulthood. We also found that men of color and men in the lowest income quintile faced greater risks for having experienced SV compared with White men and men with higher income, indicating how social marginalization based on identity, race and ethnicity, and income are associated with men’s risk for SV. Findings also speak to the pervasiveness of homophobic slurs, especially for boys and men, which is not simply disrespectful but can be harmful for identity development and self-worth.

Violence occurs on a continuum of beliefs and actions, and the bases of this continuum are individual beliefs and social norms that allow SV to occur, and more so for socially vulnerable populations, such as LGBQA+ youth. While we recognize heterosexual-identified individuals can hold these norms rigidly, so too can LGBQA+ youth, and in the process be even more vulnerable to SV, including sexual discriminatory offenses. These findings speak to the need for multifold solutions to support LGBQA+ adolescents and young adults, including altering social norms accepting SV and homophobia, creating safer school and other institutional environments for LGBQA+ youth, and supporting healthy sexual and romantic partnerships for LGBQA+ people.

Accepted for Publication: November 23, 2021.

Published: January 20, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44266

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2022 Inwards-Breland DJ et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: David J. Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, Rady Children’s Hospital, 3020 Children's Way, MC5165, San Diego CA 92123 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Inwards-Breland and Raj had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Inwards-Breland, Raj.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Inwards-Breland, Raj.

Statistical analysis: Johns.

Obtained funding: Raj.

Supervision: Raj.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Raj reported receiving grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, East Bay, Kaiser Permanente, and Blue Shield of California Foundation during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What a Professor’s Firing Shows About Sexual Harassment in China

A top Chinese university described the conduct of a professor accused of sexual harassment as a moral failing, language feminists say downplays harm to women.

By Tiffany May and Zixu Wang

Reporting from Hong Kong

In the video, the Chinese graduate student stared straight into the camera as she spoke. She wore a mask, but in a bold move, made clear who she was by holding up her identification card. Then she issued an explosive accusation: A prominent professor at a top Chinese university had been sexually harassing her for two years.

Shortly after the woman posted the video on her Chinese social media pages on Sunday, it drew millions of views and set off an online outcry against the professor she named, Wang Guiyuan, then the vice-dean and Communist Party head of Renmin University’s School of Liberal Arts in Beijing.

The next day, Renmin University fired Mr. Wang, saying that officials had investigated the student’s allegations and found that they were true.

The swift response by the university reflected the growing pressure that Chinese academic institutions have come under to curb sexual harassment on campus. In recent years, several schools have been accused of not doing enough to protect their students from tutors and professors who preyed on them.

At the same time, in denouncing the professor, the university and commentaries in state media that followed studiously avoided describing his conduct as sexual harassment. Instead, they depicted it as a moral failing, using language that feminist activists and scholars say points to a strategy of deflection that turns the attention away from victims.

“If they have to avoid saying ‘sexual harassment,’ it’s very hard to imagine that they take sexual violence seriously,” said Feng Yuan, an academic and the founder of an anti-domestic violence help line in Beijing.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia; Benya FF, Widnall SE, Johnson PA, editors. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 Jun 12.

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

Appendix C Qualitative Study of Sexual Harassment in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Prepared for National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia 500 Fifth St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Prepared by Monique Clinton-Sherrod Tasseli McKay Christine Lindquist Erin Kennedy RTI International 3040 E. Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RTI Project Number 0215835.000.00

1. STUDY PURPOSE AND AIMS

The Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) commissioned this study to understand the influence of sexual harassment on the career advancement of women in sciences, engineering, and medicine (SEM), particularly in the higher education and medical settings. The National Academies contracted with a research team at the Center for Justice, Safety, and Resilience at RTI International, a not-for-profit research institute, to investigate the following research questions:

How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine characterize and understand those experiences?

How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment respond to their experiences in the short term (including immediate psychological and coping responses; reporting and other help seeking; and immediate changes in work habits, research focus or professional specialty, and collaborative or mentoring relationships)?

How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment understand their experiences to have shaped their career trajectories (including long-term ramifications for work habits, research focus or professional specialty, collaborative or mentoring relationships, job opportunities, job advancement and tenure, research funding, and publications)?

What barriers or challenges do respondents believe prevent sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine from being addressed (in terms of both prevention and response)?

What strategies for preventing and responding to sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine do respondents perceive as promising?

NASEM opted for the methodology best suited to understanding these complex, sensitive, and subjective experiences and their impacts: a qualitative study consisting of individual, semi-structured interviews with women who have been targets of sexual harassment. Qualitative inquiry is widely recognized as the method of choice for generating insight into complex phenomena, the contexts in which they occur, and their consequences. 1 Such methods are understood to be particularly well suited to foregrounding and illuminating the experiences and perceptions of those considered to be victims and others whose perspectives have been little voiced, or whose expected experiences have few precedents in prior research. 2

2.2. Data Collection Approach

RTI collaborated with NASEM membership to recruit participants for 40 individual interviews. A secure, web-based eligibility form was developed to screen prospective respondents for the following criteria: self-identified women faculty working in SEM disciplines at research institutions who had experienced one or more behaviors meeting the definition of sexual harassment (defined in behaviorally specific terms in the form, not just listed as “sexual harassment”) in the last 5 years. An invitation to complete this form was sent to a list of national and regional scientific society and professional association listservs by RTI and NASEM membership. RTI and NASEM focused resources on identifying and connecting with member listservs and similar communication tools that were centered on scholars of color or those who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+). RTI used data from the web form to purposefully select from among eligible individuals to ensure representation of women of color and LGBTQ+ women; women across fields, subfields, and career stages; women from diverse geographic regions (with the aim of representing those in more conservative as well as more liberal areas of the country); and individuals who did and did not report their experiences and who did and did not stay at the institution where those experiences occurred. Of the 340 women who completed the screening tool, 65 were determined to be eligible, 48 were contacted for interviews, and 40 completed interviews.

Individuals selected for interviews were contacted using their preferred names or pseudonyms and preferred modes of contact (e-mail or phone) and scheduled for a telephone interview with an experienced qualitative interviewer with expertise in victimization research. Appointments were made for a time when the respondent expected to be in a private location where she could speak comfortably about her experiences. Individuals who completed the screening form but were not selected to participate in an interview were thanked and notified at the end of the recruitment period, using their preferred mode of contact, that they had not been selected. Prospective interviewees who provided informed consent via telephone proceeded to participate in an audio-recorded, semi-structured interview lasting approximately 1 hour that covered the following topics:

• Understanding of sexual harassment (e.g., experiences considered to constitute sexual harassment).
• History of sexual harassment experiences in the workplace in the last 5 years.
• Responses to those experiences (e.g., disclosure, internal response, changes in work life, formal procedures for reporting).
• Perceived impact of sexual harassment on work and career path.
• Ideas of what could be done to prevent or better respond to such incidents.

Following the interview, respondents were sent a thank-you e-mail with a list of resources, a small token of appreciation ($15 Amazon gift code), information about the expected release of study findings, and contact information for the study team and Institutional Review Board.

2.3. Analytic Approach

Recordings of all interviews were professionally transcribed, and basic identifiers (such as respondents' names and locations and the institutions where they worked) were removed during transcript preparation. De-identified transcripts were then loaded into ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software package. A codebook was developed jointly by the analysis team, incorporating deductive codes based on the study research questions, and inductive codes to capture themes that emerged during the coding and data review process. Queries of coded data were run in ATLAS.ti to capture segments of text that focused on each research question. Analysts read the code reports for these queries, identified salient themes, and met to discuss how these themes addressed each research question. Analytic memos were used to develop and expand themes, and key themes and the exemplary quotations associated with them were tracked in an Excel spreadsheet.

2.4. Sample Characteristics

Respondents came from an array of backgrounds representing various demographics. The largest proportion of respondents (42.5 percent) came from institutions in the South; a fifth came from the Midwest and another fifth came from the West. 3 The remaining respondents (17.5 percent) were located in the Northeast. An overwhelming proportion of respondents identified as non-Hispanic or Latino (92.5 percent). Most respondents were white (82.5 percent). Nonwhite respondents were either Asian (12.5 percent) or black or African American (5 percent). All respondents identified as cisgender. Most of the sample (85 percent) identified as heterosexual, and the remaining 15 percent identified as bisexual or pansexual. Study respondents had a wide range of professional experience. Just over half of the respondents (55 percent) were junior faculty or professionals; that is, 10 years or fewer had elapsed from the time they earned their professional degree. The remaining respondents reported either being senior faculty or professionals, defined as those for whom more than 10 years had elapsed since their professional degree (42.5 percent), or chose not to answer this item (2.5 percent). Respondents worked across the SEM fields, with half of the sample in the sciences (50 percent), and roughly one-quarter each in engineering (27.5 percent) and medicine (22.5 percent).

Before discussing the respondents' most impactful incidents, interviewers asked each respondent a series of yes-or-no questions about the types of experiences they had had over the past 5 years. Respondents most commonly reported having experienced sexist remarks or jokes about women or transgender persons (92.5 percent), followed by inappropriate comments about someone else's body, appearance, or attractiveness (72.5 percent). Just over half of respondents (52.5 percent) indicated they had experienced unwanted, offensive sexual jokes, stories, or pictures shared in person or electronically. Half (50 percent) experienced unwanted touching. Unwanted sexual advances and pressure to agree to sex or a romantic relationship were less common, but each practice was still separately reported by over a quarter of participants (27.5 percent). Fewer than one in three respondents (30 percent) made formal reports with their institutions about the incident(s) they experienced. Institutional retention followed a similar pattern: 37.5 percent of respondents remained at the institution where they experienced their most impactful incident.

Findings for Research Question 1: How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine characterize and understand those experiences?

3.1. Sexual Harassment and Gender-related Climate

Range of Behaviors and Recognizing Them as Sexual Harassment. On the basis of the screening procedure used for the study, all interviewees had experienced at least one behavior in the last 5 years that was understood by researchers to constitute sexual harassment, and many had experienced several (see Section 2.3 ). During the interview, they were also asked to identify which of the experiences they disclosed from the last 5 years had been most impactful. These responses varied, and included sexual advances, lewd jokes or comments, disparaging or critical comments related to competency, unwanted sexual touching, stalking, and sexual assault by a colleague. One respondent observed that most persons understood sexual harassment primarily in terms of unwanted sexual advances, but that gender-based harassment in academic settings was both widespread and impactful:

Most of them are demeaning the woman, shutting her up in the workplace, demeaning her in front of other colleagues, telling her that she's not as capable as others are, or telling others that she's not [as] sincere as you people are . . . I think more stress should be on that. It's not just, you know, touching or making sexual advances, but it's more of at the intellectual level. They try to mentally play those mind games, basically so that you wouldn't be able to perform physically. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

At the time of their interviews, most respondents characterized their experiences as sexual harassment. However, some respondents noted that they had not immediately recognized those experiences as such.

Institutional Climate of Gender Discrimination. Delayed awareness of sexual harassment was heavily influenced by the pervasive acceptance of gender-discriminatory behavior within the academic context. Many respondents reported that they were the only woman or one of a few women within their departments. Gender discrimination was often normalized in the male-dominated settings in which they worked, which interviewees felt had fueled sexually harassing behavior, fostered tolerance of it, and made differentiating it as such difficult.

3.2. Additional Contextual Influences on Sexual Harassment

Respondents noted several issues that tied into the general climate of accepting sexual harassment. Unique settings such as medical residencies were described as breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors, largely because at this stage of the medical career, expectation of this behavior was widely accepted. The expectations of abusive, grueling conditions in training settings caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as a part of the continuum of what they were expected to endure.

But, the thing is about residency training is everyone is having human rights violations. So, it's just like tolerable sexual harassment. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Similarly, expectations around behavior were often noted as an “excuse” for older generations of faculty, primarily men, to perpetrate sexually harassing behavior. Many noted that the “old guard,” in perpetrating this type of behavior, was doing what they have always done and was not likely to change, because of a general acceptance within academic settings.

This is kind of a new thing that—and the mindset is so ingrained, like the people that say these things, they don't even realize that they are—so their intent is not to sexually harass people, but they do it automatically, and they don't even think about it. ( Professor in geosciences )

The normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was also noted as fueling this behavior in new cohorts of sciences, engineering, and medicine faculty. Respondents discussed the disheartening experiences of colleagues who entered training settings with nonbiased views and respectful behavior, but who concluded those experiences endorsing or dismissing sexually harassing and gender-biased behavior among themselves and others.

I still don't think that the prospect of being sexually assaulted was as bad as watching the next generation of sexual harassers being formed. I think that was the worst part for me. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

This was further heightened when peers and colleagues had privilege because of “star power” or simply because of their status as men. The behavior of male colleagues whom higher-ranking faculty or administrators perceived as “superstars” in their particular substantive area was often minimized or ignored. Even men who did not have the superstar label were often described as receiving preferential treatment and excused for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior.

I think also sometimes people are blinded by good signs and shiny personalities. Because those things tend to go hand in hand. You don't want to think that this person who's doing incredible work in getting all of these grants, is also someone who has created a negative environment for others. I've seen this over and over again. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in psychology )

Recurring Patterns of Sexually Harassing Behavior . One theme that emerged in the data was that respondents and other colleagues often clearly knew which individuals had a history of sexually harassing behavior. The warnings were provided by both male and female colleagues, and were often accompanied by advice that trying to take actions against these perpetrators was fruitless and that the best options for dealing with the behavior were to avoid or ignore it. Many respondents described the dialogue among women faculty to warn about or disclose sexually harassing behaviors as an unfortunate shared bond that was far too often the norm.

It's more calling them to discuss the tribal experience and just hear the yeah, I've dealt with it too, and it sucks and no, I don't have any ideas for how to fix it, but this isn't only happening to you, which is kind of the bonding moment. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

Intersectionality and Sexually Harassing Behavior . Sexual harassment is a complex issue; however, it becomes even more complicated when it intersects with racism, transphobia, homophobia, and other discriminatory views. Women of color and LGBTQ+ respondents, although scarce among our interviewees, indicated that sexual harassment and other gender-biased behavior was a common experience for them. They noted, however, that the issues of sexual and gender-based harassment are often overpowered by how other issues, such as their race and sexual orientation, intersect with their lived experience as women. These women noted an inability to disentangle discrimination and biases as stemming either from gender or their intersecting identities.

And then there's a lot of fairly overt transphobia in my institution, I think. And I don't really know what to make of it. But there's sort of . . . traditional old Southern set of gendered expectations and norms that if you don't fit them, it's pretty clear what people think, and they don't have to say a lot about it for you to know, you know what I mean? ( Nontenure-track faculty member in nursing ) . . . what I've concluded is that [much] of my push towards and tenacity around equality and equity actually lands on race. I think part of that is because I've been more affronted by my race than my gender, at least more overtly. Meaning, I've had people say to my face I don't want to be taking care of that black person, oh, you speak articulate for a black person. These micro-aggressions that go out there and statements and these innuendos. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Findings for Research Question 2: How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment respond to those experiences in the short term?

3.3. Psychological and Coping Responses

Emotional Responses. Respondents' immediate reactions to their experiences with sexual harassment varied substantially along a spectrum from mild irritation to complete devastation. Not surprisingly, some of the variation in responses was related to the severity of the incident. However, verbal harassment that took place in front of others (most commonly, colleagues) was also particularly upsetting for several respondents, who recalled how difficult it was to retain their composure while experiencing severe inner turmoil, and how alone or isolated they felt when others present did not appear to be bothered by the incident. Also, incidents that caught respondents completely off guard—which was fairly common—also caused substantial distress, with many respondents indicating that they felt “frozen” or “paralyzed” in the immediate aftermath of an incident.

At first it knocked the wind out of me and it took a while to come to grips with it. . . . Even after all these years it was a sucker punch. . . . It's just a tough one when people surprise you with a comment that's out of nowhere, it's inappropriate and it just kind of hangs in the room. ( Professor of engineering )

Other common reactions were feeling angry, uncomfortable, hurt, fearful, anxious, violated, and powerless.

It's mostly anger, because this wouldn't happen to a man. And it's always—it marginalizes you in ways that you just can't deal with. But I mostly get angry at the system also because the power structure is built such that you feel helpless in doing anything. ( Associate professor of chemistry )

Many respondents also reported experiencing consequences such as stress responses, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even physical health effects in the aftermath. Some respondents reacted so strongly that they were embarrassed by how much the incident(s) bothered them.

I try to think of myself as being a strong person, you know? But it definitely had an impact on me, and I was embarrassed that it had such an impact on me, too. I was mortified that I[had] broken down in tears, ‘cause it was kind of difficult for me. . . . I was mortified and embarrassed that I let that have such a big impact on me. ( Associate professor of engineering )

Several respondents began to question their self-worth after the incident and became less confident. Some noted adverse effects in their personal lives because of the agitation and stress experienced. Further, although the focus of the interviews was on short-term psychological responses, some respondents—particularly those who experienced severe incidents—noted that it has taken them considerable time to recover, and several stated that they often relive the experience when this topic comes up. The diminished confidence appeared difficult for some respondents to overcome. Last, several women experienced long-term shame or self-blame for the harassment they experienced or for their decision to not report it.

Coping Strategies . Internal coping responses in the aftermath of sexual harassment included minimizing or normalizing the incidents (e.g., trying to ignore or laugh it off, not taking it personally); strategizing about how to be better prepared to respond to future incidents (or to redirect the person); engaging in mindfulness, spiritual, and self-healing activities; exercise or physical activity; trying to get tougher; and staying focused on their careers. External coping strategies (e.g., peer support, therapy) are discussed later in this section, and increased involvement in gender equity efforts is discussed in the findings for Research Question 3.

3.4. Immediate Changes in Interpersonal Interactions and Work Habits

Interpersonal Interactions. The most common interpersonal response by far was avoiding the perpetrator. Some respondents avoided all interaction (with some even relocating their offices), whereas others took steps to simply avoid being alone with the perpetrator. Along with the obvious impact on the relationship with the perpetrator, some women noted changes in their relationships with colleagues and administrators, depending on how they reacted to knowledge of the incident (if disclosed). Some relationships were damaged by negative reactions, but others were strengthened by strong support and helpfulness.

Work Habits. Respondents identified a number of changes to their work habits or immediate consequences to their work situation as a result of the incident(s), including a short-term inability to work, immediately considering quitting, avoiding working late in the office, avoiding being alone with any colleagues (not just the perpetrator), and feeling constantly “on guard” at work. Several respondents also identified appearance-related changes made as a result of their experiences, such as avoiding any form-fitting clothing and generally becoming more strategic about how they dressed (which respondents operationalized quite differently, depending on the nature of their harassment). One respondent who was criticized for not meeting heteronormative standards of dress in her field purchased several jackets to wear.

3.5. Choosing to Disclose or Confront Harassment

Choosing to Disclose. Faced with the experience of sexual harassment in their workplaces, many respondents felt as if they had limited choices in how to address it so it would not adversely affect their career.

Well, literally I considered just letting him sexually assault me. I really did consider how difficult that would be to just you know, like deal with. And with that I think that my career would have been much better off. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Stark power differentials between the target and perpetrator of the sexual harassment exacerbated the sense of limited options and the general fear of disclosure. Although the targets of sexual harassment ranged in status within the academic hierarchy, those respondents who felt the least empowered in disclosing or addressing the sexually harassing behavior were often newer faculty, residents, and postdocs, whereas their perpetrators were often higher-ranking faculty, professional mentors, or widely recognized experts. As one faculty member explained:

I didn't feel like I had an option in that situation. I think ordinarily, I might have done something and I think one of the things about being on the tenure track that's been a little bit upsetting is that you end up feeling somewhat powerless in certain situations where you normally might not have. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

Perceived threats to tenure prospects; ability to freely pursue research and scientific stature opportunities; and threats to physical, emotional, and mental health were paramount as women who experienced harassment weighed the options available to them.

3.6. Confronting Perpetrators

Some women chose to directly confront the individuals who were harassing them. Specific strategies varied and included one-on-one conversations and meetings with an accompanying ally. One study participant, who was concerned that she would face negative consequences if she reported the sexual harassment formally, initiated a two-stage communication in which she laid out explicit behavioral expectations for her harasser and secured his agreement to those terms—first in private conversation, and later (when he violated that verbal agreement) in writing. Other women noted that they had considered confronting their perpetrators, but decided against it.

Say it was just a friend or something like that, there's more of an equal relationship with the person . . . you could just say, “Can you just stop hugging me?” or “I'm just not comfortable with that.” But the issue with this situation is that he's got power over me that could destroy my career. ( Assistant professor of mathematics )

Although women who initiated direct confrontation with their perpetrators typically reported positive or neutral results, it was not seen as a viable strategy for those navigating a steep power differential.

3.7. Formal Reporting

Motivations for Reporting. Whether interviewees had reported their experiences to direct managers or used the university-level process or not, they described three primary motivations for reporting. First, some women reported in hopes of bringing an end to the harassment, particularly to limit or mitigate its damaging effects on their work. Second, others were inspired by the hope of protecting other women from experiencing what they had experienced.

She was like, “Can you live with yourself if he does this to someone else?” And, that was like the thing I couldn't live with. The next thing I think of are the students at our university and undergrads. And so that convinced me to go forward. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in chemistry )

For these women, reporting was the right thing to do, and they pursued it regardless of expected outcome. As one respondent (a nontenure-track faculty member in mathematics) noted: “I have to be brave enough to report this, because this is not okay.” Third, some women were driven to report by urgent concern for their own immediate, physical safety in the workplace.

University-level Reporting. Outcomes from university-level reporting were diverse and sometimes complex. Many women who had pursued this route expressed dissatisfaction and frustration with how long it took, what was required of them, the treatment they received from those to whom they reported, their perceived lack of agency and confidentiality, and the outcomes for themselves and their harassers. One woman noted how her reporting experiences (similar to those shared by other respondents) felt revictimizing and had a chilling effect on future reporting intentions:

I hated it . . . you are feeling bullied into revealing things, then you have no choice but to go through this process. It makes you feel even more powerless. For me, I felt worse every time I went to H.R. . . . I was bullied into getting coworkers' names that I may have even talked about the situation and if I don't then I would be in violation of the rules and therefore my job could be in jeopardy. It was a horrible experience and it made me, you know, if something else happened, I didn't want to do anything about it. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

A few shared mixed outcomes; they felt positively about some aspects of the reporting process (or some individuals with whom they had dealt in the course of it) and negatively about others.

I find the actions of the associate dean to be unbelievably unsympathetic, and somebody who just doesn't understand. . . . I find the actions of my provost to be exemplary, and the actions of the dean of students to be exemplary. ( Professor in geosciences )

Others felt a sense of intrinsic satisfaction or pride in reporting as a matter of principle, regardless of how they felt about the process or its outcomes for them personally. Last, some women who had participated in university-level reporting noted that they were unsure of the outcomes of their reports, or noted that investigation or adjudication of their complaints was ongoing.

Reporting to Direct Management. Reporting to direct managers or proximal leadership was more common in our study sample than university-level reporting. However, those who did share their experiences with their supervisors, deans, or chairs rarely experienced positive outcomes. A few expressed profound gratitude for having managers who believed them about their experiences and supported them in pursuing university-level reporting. More often, however, managers expressed mild sympathy but neither took any action nor encouraged the victim to do so.

People like my chair were saying that this is really bad, they're on my side, they have my back, it sucks. But [they] never did anything or said anything to the guy in question. So, the people around me find this behavior normal. This is harassment. ( Professor in geosciences )

Even more commonly, however, these proximal authority figures minimized or normalized the experience, discouraged further reporting, or recommended that the victim “work it out” with her harasser (or some combination thereof). A woman who was harassed by her chair recounted:

I thought I'd talk to the ombudsman person, but then I talked to the dean and he insisted that he has talked to the vice president of the university and she had said that it's just a bad start. You should have a three-way meeting with some external person where you come and talk and we'll try to help you resolve the differences. I was too scared to do that because he was already trying to put subtle pressure on me, the chair I mean, by assigning me another course and all those kind of things. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

Still others experienced direct retaliation from those to whom they reported harassment.

I reported to my program director, the chief resident, who I had already talked to about it, but this was more formal, and then the site director,. . . my program director pretty much left it up to the site director, who told me that maybe if I stopped whining so much I would have more friends. So, they basically blew off the report then. And then he—the one I reported it to—started giving me failing grades, directly after me telling him about what was happening, then his reporting of my grades just all went downhill from there. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

These accounts of actual retaliation experiences on the part of study respondents and their colleagues bore out women's widespread concern and apprehension regarding the possibility of retaliation as a consequence of reporting (see the findings for Research Question 4).

3.8. Peer Support and Other Coping Strategies

Peer Support from Family and Friends. Sharing the experience with family and friends was one of the response strategies for which outcomes were most universally positive. With the exception of a few who had spoken to no one at all about their experiences, most study participants relied heavily on this form of support to cope with their harassment. Still, interviewees often characterized support from family and friends as a last resort, sought because they had few other options.

(How did you cope?) Well, I cried about it. So that. I have some pretty good friends . . . talking about it, and crying, and more crying on my end. Which is super ineffective. That's ineffectual, but I still don't really—even reflecting on it, I don't know what recourse I could've had otherwise. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in nursing )

Peer Support from Colleagues. In contrast with the fairly consistent support they received from family and friends, women had mixed outcomes when they sought peer support from colleagues.

I would tell [friends] outside this profession who would be like, “Are you kidding me, what?” But the people who work for this institution were like, “Can't you just suck it up? This is not going to go well for you if you report. You don't want to make a fuss.” I knew they were right, but at the same time, I really was like, “This is just too much. I shouldn't have to be preparing to get raped when I go into work.” ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Interviewees placed obvious trust in the opinions and guidance of their colleagues, and valued their advice. Several noted that such counsel was sometimes conflicting or silencing.

I would talk to friends and it was always conflicting advice or it was don't do anything and I didn't really want to adhere to that . . . Yeah, even in one of my friends who is tenure track here and she's a woman and she legit told me that. She was like, “This isn't worth making a fuss over it.” I was like “I feel like it is.” ( Nontenure-track faculty member in engineering )

Yet for some women, colleagues had an important vantage point that could not be replaced by the support or opinions of those outside academia. As one respondent (an assistant professor of engineering) observed, “Sometimes you tell these stories and they just sound unbelievable. Yet no one who's been here has a hard time believing it at all.” Others explained how connections with women colleagues in their department not only supported their coping with harassment, but also bolstered the overall quality of their work lives.

I happen to be in a department that is well above the national average for women faculty in [predominantly male field]. Because of that, we have a really strong network of women who—I mean, we go out to coffee once a month just to talk about being female faculty from the full professor level all the way down to first-year assistant professors or instructors. Because of that, it's easier to face some of these issues when you kind of have a team behind you. I know I'm lucky in having that kind of network here; most women faculty don't. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

For some, connections with women peers in their departments and institutions made the difference between remaining in their fields after one or more sexual harassment experiences, or choosing to leave. A few women who did not have this kind of support and camaraderie with other women at their home institutions were glad to find it through gatherings of their scientific societies, or by raising harassment issues in relevant conference sessions or other professional forums.

Professional Support. Some women sought professional support in coping with their sexual harassment experiences. A few noted consulting lawyers or alternative health practitioners, but the most common form of professional support was counseling. Although counseling support was not sought by most women in our study, it did tend to be of value for those who undertook it:

So, when I would start to work on my PhD, then how the university treated me would be triggered at the same time and so I would cry and cry and cry. I had to figure out—I had to get those two separated. And so I worked with a really great therapist. I had to get those two separated in order to continue to produce and to do my research . . . but that kind of stuff is really tiring. It takes a lot of energy. Like processing that stuff is exhausting. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in computing science )

Findings for Research Question 3: How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment understand their experiences to have shaped their career trajectories?

3.9. Collaborative or Mentoring Relationships

The most consistent effect of gender-based and sexual harassment experiences on respondents' subsequent professional relationships was greater caution. A number of women indicated that their experiences had made them far less trusting and more careful in decisions about collaborations. Some specifically avoided collaborating with particular individuals known to treat women poorly, but the general tendency was to treat all potential collaborators with caution. Several respondents spoke about their heightened sensitivity, second-guessing, and even paranoia with male colleagues with whom they had existing relationships.

I'm much less trusting of people; I'm less willing to take people at their word for the kind of person that they are. I'm much less trusting of myself in terms of judge of character. Now, I kind of will reserve judgement until I see how a person operates before I will decide whether or not I think that they're the kind of person I want to have a beer with or not, or even the kind of person I want to work with in any way, and I really try very hard to see what type of actions people make and take at work and judge them based on that rather than my personal or emotional, or conversational interactions with them. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in biology )

Many respondents also reported an increased reserve in their demeanor toward colleagues. Avoiding physical contact (hugs), jokes, personal topics of conversation, and generally being less warm were consequences attributed to having experienced gender-based and sexual harassment. Relatedly, a number of women began to avoid social situations (e.g., candidate dinners), particularly those that involved alcohol. Several were extremely reluctant to attend social events at professional conferences (where numerous respondents had experienced sexual harassment) or even avoided conferences altogether. Some respondents made dramatic changes in their degree of social interaction with colleagues, noting that they used to be very open and sociable and now almost never go out. Yet respondents recognized that they were missing out on important networking or professional opportunities that could help their careers.

That's impacted my career because I know that social networking is a big part of research activities, the work environment. So, it has been very detrimental. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

Another major theme regarding women's professional relationships was that respondents became more vocal and less tolerant about gender-based and sexual harassment after their experience(s). Several noted that they were now blunter, less polite, and far more likely to call out inappropriate behavior than previously. This particular change was reported more often by respondents with greater seniority, and several noted that they felt obligated to speak up now that they had more job security, especially when incidents happened in the presence of students. Some respondents also felt that the current political environment made it particularly vital to speak up in the face of sexism.

Well yeah, I think now I'm—I'll call it out instantly when I see it rather than be quiet. I've become much more vocal, and I've never been exactly shy. I've always been pretty outspoken, which is another reason why looking back on this all, I just cringe because I don't think of myself as the kind of person who puts up with this. Now I've made a real conscious effort that when I see—and some of this also has to do with our current national environment. I think that in the Trump era, it's really important to speak up when you're facing sexism, even when it's not directed towards you, even if it's not textbook “sleep with me or I'm going to fire you” kind sexual harassment. I think it's really important to put a stop to these things that are like oh yeah, it's normal. Well, you know, he's old school, just all of these things to excuse this sort of behavior. It's not excusable and it shouldn't be. I am happy to make up for lost time now. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in biology )

Importantly, however, even women who had become more vocal noted the emotional turmoil they experienced when deliberating whether to let something go or to address it, knowing that the former approach would “make it go away immediately” and the latter would be much more difficult for them and guarantee that they would have to deal with the issue for a while.

Last, women's mentoring relationships were affected by their experiences, in terms of the mentors (some avoided male mentors; others attempted to reach out to female mentors) and mentees (with some seeking out other women or underrepresented minorities) with whom they worked. Several respondents who mentored other women felt a responsibility to raise their awareness of gender-based harassment and how to deal with it.

3.10. Research Focus or Professional Specialty

It was fairly uncommon for women to make changes to their research focus or professional specialty as a result of gender-based and sexual harassment. However, a few respondents avoided research opportunities that involved interacting with certain individuals, and some did switch or consider switching fields. This was more common with extremely traumatic incidents where the respondent wanted to avoid the perpetrator, but one respondent made this decision to help improve her field generally (she left medicine to attend law school so that she could be in a professional position to help address the hostile environment in residency programs). A few respondents made career choices to avoid certain specialties (e.g., surgery) and types of institutions because of earlier experiences with an uncomfortable gender environment. One changed research directions to be able to work more independently and have more autonomy, as a result of working in a research area where much of the credit was inappropriately attributed to a male colleague, and another gave up some research projects because male colleagues would not work with her. Last, one respondent gave up a research career altogether to focus on teaching because, owing to the trauma and work habit changes from having been raped, she did not have the focus and energy to come up with new research ideas, submit grants, and start attending conferences again.

Although few respondents changed their research focus or professional specialties outright, one near-universal theme that arose was increased attention and service focused on gender equity issues in the context of their field and academic positions. Several women began doing more research on gender or diversity and inclusion issues within their fields (e.g., gender in medicine, women and multicultural issues in science subdisciplines), conducting research and publishing papers on these topics. Others became heavily involved in awareness-raising activities or efforts to change policies at their institutions (e.g., leading seminars on sexual harassment, serving on diversity committees) or within their professional associations (e.g., establishing codes of conduct at professional conferences). One took a position as an associate dean to help improve the environment for women and underrepresented minorities, but most such efforts took place within the context of women's regular jobs. Although respondents clearly found these efforts rewarding and meaningful, several noted that they could be emotionally taxing and time consuming, adding to their workload and taking time away from their primary job responsibilities and scientific accomplishments.

That means I spend a whole lot of time doing those things, which is probably like, if that's, if that's what science means for me. . . . If that's what I need to do so that my students have a better field, then that is what it is, and I know that I'll have a bigger impact on science doing those things than one more paper. ( Assistant professor in geosciences )

This was particularly true for one woman of color in emergency medicine, who struggled with prioritizing her time when engaging in gender equity or racial diversity and inclusion issues.

3.11. Job Opportunities, Advancement, and Tenure

When asked about the manner in which respondents felt their experiences with gender-based and sexual harassment had affected their career progressions, the predominant theme that emerged was one of negative trajectories. Several respondents identified specific major negative career transitions they made (or were forced to make) as a result of their experiences, including the following:

• Stepping down from leadership opportunities to avoid the perpetrator. One woman whose experience was reported to human resources was instructed to resign from an important committee position to avoid interaction with the perpetrator, who was the chair of the committee. Another dropped out of a major research project that was part of an early-career mentoring organization because her mentor raped her. In both situations, others perceived the women negatively because colleagues didn't know the reason for their decision; they saw this as particularly harmful because both women were at early stages in their careers.

So, there's been a negative kind of chain of events where supervisors at the institution have seen that I dropped out of the research project and may not understand, because they were never told what happened. So, it seems [ . . . ] I have had a black, I have been blacklisted in some ways and not invited to join other research projects and perhaps seen as a failure. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

A third woman stepped down from an assistant dean position that she was very passionate about to avoid having to interact with the dean, who had harassed her.

• Leaving their institutions. Several women ended up leaving their institutions either because the climate was negative toward women or to avoid a specific perpetrator there who continued to harass them. Others were actively looking for opportunities that would enable them to leave for a better environment, but some questioned whether the environment would be any better at other institutions or not.

That is why I made this decision of leaving that university, even though I liked the department, I liked the students, I liked the place. I had to leave it, just because I didn't want this bitterness to continue and affect me personally or professionally. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

• Leaving their fields altogether. One woman felt that she was forced out of her field because of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, and another left her field to avoid interacting with the perpetrator.

Several respondents also gave up good prospective job opportunities or settled for less prestigious positions because of their experiences. Although a few respondents made these choices to avoid a specific perpetrator in their field, others found themselves avoiding certain environments because of their negative experiences. One respondent gave up a job offer at Google to avoid being in a male-dominated environment after her experience, and another ruled out large research institutions because of her concerns about collaboration with others. Some felt that their experiences made them hesitant to change institutions (knowing that such experiences could happen anywhere) or led them to avoid taking risks with their careers and settle for nontenure positions.

Prior to the event I had hoped to be a number one scientist and go for a tenure professor position, or main research scientist, whereas now that is not in my scope. . . . So, I feel like I have refocused to more menial roles, perhaps staying as assistant research scientist as I have been doing, and now not stretching for anything greater. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

Along with respondents' own career decisions, a few felt that their advancement (and reputation) had been hampered because they spoke out about their experiences or were too vocal about the issue. For example, one respondent felt that she was denied promotion because she was not perceived as a “team player.” In recognition of this potential for retaliation, a few respondents specifically stated that when the incident happened, they did not “create a stir” to avoid harming their prospects for job advancement.

Last, note that for several respondents, some of the changes to their interpersonal relationships and collaborations as a response to the incident (discussed earlier in this section) were felt to have had adverse consequences for their career trajectories and those of their mentees.

You cannot cut off people or stop going to conferences. This is the way in which you get your research out and make your work known and you need it for your promotion anyway. . . . If you don't go out, you don't get talks, you don't present your work in conferences. You are hurting yourself. ( Associate professor of engineering )

3.12. Research Funding and Publications

When asked about ways respondents perceived experiences with sexual harassment to have affected their specific professional contributions (e.g., funding, publications, and other accomplishments), they identified several forms of harm. Diminished accomplishments were typically an indirect consequence of the incident(s), through avoiding working with the perpetrator (who would have been a coauthor on publications), avoiding networking opportunities (which meant less likelihood of reviewers or funders knowing the applicant or author), disrupted concentration and anxiety (which created difficulty in focusing on writing), emotional distress when triggered (which hurt productivity), and lack of motivation or increased negativity toward their career because of the incident.

I mean I don't think I've been quite as productive as I could have been with these experiences in terms of getting papers out or getting grant proposals out and things like that. I mean especially this year I have had zero interest or desire in writing up any papers . . . because I don't want to work with the person that I was working with anymore. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in engineering )

Some respondents also felt that their experiences had adversely affected their work quality, particularly those who had to recover from extremely traumatic incidents or who experienced decreased confidence as a result of the incident. Further, respondents who reported the incident noted how much time, energy, and emotion they had had to expend to deal with it, which took time away from professional achievements. And women who left their positions as a result of sexual harassment said they certainly experienced setbacks in their careers as a result (with a number of works in progress left uncompleted).

Along with the manner in which sexual harassment experiences harmed women's subsequent professional accomplishments, some respondents also identified ways in which gender discrimination directly limited their accomplishments. These included getting less start-up funding and fewer resources, having projects “hijacked,” getting assigned more teaching credits, being expected to fulfill support-staff roles, having students' funding cut or positions not renewed, and encountering gender bias in reviewing articles. Sadly, some women commented on the manner in which their mentees' careers were adversely affected by the gender discrimination they, as mentors, faced.

You just as an advisor want to make sure that your students always get every possible opportunity and I just know there are certain things that they're not gonna get that they would have if they had a male advisor instead and it just kills me. ( Assistant professor in geosciences )

However, a few respondents identified positive effects they attributed to gender. One felt that she was invited to be on more grant proposals as a woman because the other investigators felt it would increase their chances of getting funded and that she was generally given more opportunities because of her gender. However, this experience was not entirely positive.

I get asked to do a lot more—anything that is publicized—than . . . my other colleagues, which again, gives me a lot of exposure, but at the same time, I know the reason why I'm getting pulled into those photos—or to the front of a photo—is because I'm female. Or the reason I'm giving a plenary much earlier than I should be probably in my career is because I'm female and they need—they don't have any other female speakers. I mean, in some ways, it benefits me career-wise because I get exposure, I get more opportunities but at the same time, it almost cheapens it. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

Last, some women noted that gender discrimination in their fields made them work harder, which increased their productivity.

I think this is common for women in engineering or probably in STEM but I feel like it actually makes me more of a “Well, I'll show them” type. . . . Instead of making me shy away from it, it makes me more like “I'll prove that I deserve to be here,” . . . which is not necessarily a good thing, but I do think that it's probably how it turns into motivating me instead. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in engineering )

The findings for Research Question 3 illustrate a breadth of adverse career consequences attributed by our respondents to their sexual harassment experiences. To provide a clearer understanding of the pathways to such consequences, we summarize three sample members' experiences below.

One tenured associate professor had experienced gender-based harassment while serving as an assistant dean, including being verbally berated by the dean to whom she reported. She described being “completely devastated” by the experience, which caused physical illness and fear, and ultimately stepped down from the position due to the hostile work environment. The experience affected the respondent's career in a number of ways. She experienced diminished confidence, which adversely impacted her teaching, and became less trusting of colleagues and more negative in her outlook. The respondent felt that, ultimately, the experience derailed her ability to become full professor.

I think honestly, the biggest impact is that going into the assistant dean's role, I think it did derail my ability to become a full professor. ‘Cause I gave up a lot of research to take that position, and then there was so much of a time—my confidence level after that was pretty low. And I don't know, I was looking for other jobs, and so I don't know that I will ever achieve becoming a full professor, which bothers me, not for my own professional growth but for the role model that I'd like to set for the others coming behind me. Just to try to encourage them to go for full professor. We don't have any female full professors in the school of engineering. So I would've liked to change that trajectory and, you know. And I don't know that that will happen or not, so.

Another respondent—currently an instructor in a nontenure-track position—was raped by a colleague at her previous institution, where she was a tenure-track assistant professor. She took medical leave due to the trauma of the incident and found it increasingly hard to focus on her work (particularly research) when she returned. She also struggled with lack of confidentiality about her experience (which was reported and investigated by the institution) and had extreme difficulty trusting colleagues and potential collaborators after that point. She left the university and gave up her research portfolio, going to a smaller institution where she could teach.

…I just felt if I could focus on the teaching and not the research aspect of it—that's what drew me to a smaller institution. It was almost like I could do what I knew and didn't have to go out and reinvent and rethink. Like I said, I am not trying to make teaching light, but it's almost something I can do on autopilot. Versus I knew if I had to like get grants and money, you know, you are schmoozing people. You have to go conferences. Once again it starts to involve crowds. It starts to involve people you don't know so well. And so, once again there's that hindrance versus teaching you go in front of a classroom…For the most part, nothing is going to happen to you that is going to be embarrassing, traumatizing. If you think about it in terms of research or a larger institution or an institution where—I've looked at institutions where I have written my job applications, but I never like go through with it, like submitting it or getting it done because it's like that whole research. It's that whole I have to think, and when I start thinking it starts bringing me back and I'm not necessarily thinking about the research like I'm supposed to be. I think about a conference, I think I am going to have to start interacting with individuals. When you are at conferences you are going out, you are socializing after the postsession or the talks. So, that means there is a chance of alcohol, so now that comes into play. Can I have one drink and be okay, do I have to walk, do I have to take a bus. You start going through all of those scenarios. Will I be in a hotel? Will I be in a dorm room? Will I be sharing that dorm room with someone? So, I start thinking about the bigger picture things, and I just put the brakes on it. I won't apply for that position.

A third respondent was hired as a faculty developer at a small institution, where she soon experienced inappropriate comments of a sexual nature from her boss. Although the sexual comments stopped, he continued to make derogatory comments about women in her presence and their working relationship has become extremely tense and stressful. She would like to leave her institution for a better environment—and feels that this is inevitable—but feels somewhat trapped due to limited job opportunities in the geographic area and her need for the benefits offered by her job.

There have been a couple big confrontations between my boss and I. I think probably because of his inappropriateness, I've had less respect, challenged his ideas, but I would have challenged anyway, but I probably would've challenged them in a more respectful way. And so like the energy between he and I is really poor. And I suspect it means I'm gonna have to leave. So I'm currently working on what that leave strategy is going to be. And it's really unfortunate because the rest of the—the way that my boss sees me and the way that the rest of the university sees me is night and day. I have been nominated and selected and appointed to so many campuswide committees…

Findings for Research Question 4: What barriers or challenges do respondents believe prevent sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine from being addressed?

3.13. Barriers to Incident Response

Respondents encountered an array of barriers that inhibited or constrained responses to sexual harassment incidents. They identified internal, cultural barriers that prevented them from recognizing and addressing the problem; barriers that deterred department- and university-level reporting and responses; and barriers to accessing other forms of help.

Internal Barriers. As described under Research Question 1, women who experienced sexual harassment sometimes struggled with identifying their experiences as such. Distinguishing a particular experience as sexual harassment was difficult in a culture that normalized misogyny, and this difficulty had a generalized inhibiting effect on victims' responses.

In retrospect, I had been changing my behavior for a long time to try to avoid him or avoid being alone with him, which is like a hallmark of sexual harassment. But I didn't—I was younger then, you know? I was more naïve and just didn't—you know, I think I just didn't understand. And also just didn't really believe myself. ( Assistant professor in geosciences ) There's probably been more than one thing that I should have reported to someone. But it's also, I've got to work with these people the rest of my career. It's got to be really bad before I am going to report it. . . . I think if it would have happened again, I would have said something, and if someone like actually physically touched me inappropriately in a sexual way, I would report that. . . . I don't know if that's what I would do. Or just try to say it's easier to just forget about it and not do anything. Because that's sometimes the easiest way to deal with it. ( Associate professor in geosciences )

Some women who experienced harassment also blamed themselves. As one respondent (an assistant professor of biology) described, “I guess I thought it could have been my fault. I don't know. I mean, I was there when maybe I shouldn't have been, and I didn't do enough to prevent it.” Each of these internal responses prevented women from pursuing any remedy or support.

Deterrents to Reporting. Respondents from a range of institutions described a lack of clarity or a lack of training regarding their department-, school-, or university-level reporting options. In the words of one woman (a nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences), “I am a straight-A student and valedictorian, and I of course never received training. I had no idea how to report it or what to do.” Yet some women noted that this lack of clear information on reporting processes was a surmountable barrier; they were confident that if they had been persistent, they could have located the information. One respondent (an associate professor in geosciences) explained, “I don't know exactly what the formal process is, but I could have very easily found out; I just chose not to.”

As this respondent and many others went on to explain, the expectation of retaliation or punishment was a formidable deterrent to any form of reporting, whether at the university level or to supervisors, chairs, or deans. With striking consistency across fields and career stages, respondents said they expected that they would be punished in some way if they reported their harassment experiences in any way. As one respondent (a nontenure-track faculty member in chemistry) explained, “I think it is underreported because you are afraid. You are afraid that whoever is going to sign off on your PhD, isn't going to sign off. Or if you are doing a postdoc, you are not going to get that letter of recommendation. Authorship will be changed. And it keeps continuing as you go on as a faculty member.” Such expectations were typically grounded in observation and personal experience. Explaining why she chose not to report a recent sexual harassment incident, a faculty member described the retaliation she had faced when reporting a prior one:

I was dropped as a courtesy appointment for another department, simply because I went to talk to the dean and did not ever make a formal accusation. The chair for the other department tried to hinder my critical review and later my tenure. ( Associate professor of engineering )

Another respondent (an assistant professor in geosciences) summed it up tersely: “I've seen what happens to people when they report, and it's not good.” Concerns about direct retaliation were accompanied by concerns about subtler forms of consequence. They felt that being labeled as victims, complainers, or overly sensitive would reinforce the feminized or “outsider” status against which many had already spent their careers battling.

To [report] makes me a difficult person, kind of an outsider. ( Assistant professor of medicine ) I felt I would be labeled as a troublemaker. ( Assistant professor of medicine ) I was afraid of losing credibility and losing whatever departmental support I had. Having a reputation for being someone who doesn't put her head down and get work done, [with] my whole career sort of being in the balance. ( Professor of biology ) You're looking for a job or collaborations or funding, and who wants to work with the person who is always making a big deal out of this stuff? For me, it was always just easier and quicker to just get myself out of the situation, just to diminish the seriousness of it. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

These expectations of being directly or indirectly punished for reporting through departmental or university channels were pervasive and strongly held. The sense of vulnerability to retaliation prompted many targets of sexual harassment to make a careful assessment regarding the identifiability of sexual harassment complaints.

I looked to see if there was some type of ombudsman on campus or some type of confidential safe space to discuss this, and at my new university, it was difficult to find anything readily online. I eventually tracked down a group that was not an appointed office of ombudsperson, but actually a committee of faculty that people appointed to [a] 4-year term. And when I read how that was constructed, to me, it just set off all sorts of alarms. I was like, this does not sound safe to me at all. These are people who could actually fill out my tenure decision. This will not truly be anonymous. This is not their job to keep this anonymous. It's just another service thing that they may or may not truly understand what their obligations are. So that was immediately unsafe in my mind. ( Assistant professor of biology )

This lack of an anonymous or otherwise protected channel in which to raise sexual harassment complaints, whether about a colleague or a superior, had a chilling effect on all forms of disclosure.

Reporting through formal or semiformal channels was further discouraged by the observation that these forms of recourse were of limited benefit to victims. Targets of sexual harassment described weighing the perceived risks and benefits of reporting their experiences, and determining that the risk of retaliation or punishment was not merited by what they saw as limited prospects for a protective, helpful response or fair consequences for a perpetrator. Many made statements like these:

I feel like any institutional attempts to fix this, or to contact him and say, “Please stop behaving like this” would have been traced back to me, or would have hurt my career more than it would have hurt his. I mean, he's got a big lab, he brings in lots of grants, you know. It was going to make me look bad and not him…I just felt like there was not going to be any benefit for me in reporting this and making a scene about it. I felt like it would only damage my career. It wouldn't do anything to his. ( Assistant professor of biology )

Although these perceptions were common across forms of reporting, respondents had especially low expectations for the outcomes of formal, university-level reporting. Respondents set their expectations of university-level reporting on their past reporting experiences, observation of colleagues' reporting experiences, or knowledge that a known harassment perpetrator already had been reported.

I didn't hear anything back [regarding a past complaint]. I wrote again. I didn't hear anything back. I called. They still haven't done anything. So the message that I took, which may or may not be correct, is that it's just not that important. ( Professor of engineering ) I really strongly encouraged [a postdoctoral colleague] to make a formal complaint, so she did, and there was a full investigation . . . it seemed quite serious and there was a lot of evidence, and there were multiple witnesses . . . but then the report wound up completely exonerating the guy and whitewashing what happened . . . It's really changed how I feel about these things . . . I just really recommend that [victims] avoid any kind of formal going through the system, because I just really think it's about the institution, and to protect the institution. ( Professor of physics ) I saw that not much came out of that process, that I didn't really have much confidence that me saying anything would lead to change. Also, given that I was dealing with this from a junior status, I worried about my own career prospects . . . this person knew who reported them before. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in psychology )

Many other interviewees echoed the perception that university-level reporting mechanisms focused heavily on protecting the institution, rather than supporting the target of harassment. In the words of one respondent (an associate professor of engineering), who was asked about her awareness of reporting options: “I know that you get referred to HR, and HR is on the side of the institution. They try to protect themselves. ” Another respondent (a nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences) commented, “The function of that office is to protect the university from bad publicity. So, I would never bother to go tell them anything.”

Other barriers to university-level reporting included suppression by departmental leadership, a lack of clarity or training regarding the available process, and the burden university reporting processes placed on victims. Women who brought their experiences first to their department chairs, deans, or other immediate supervisors were often discouraged from further pursuing a complaint.

I did meet [the chair] and the associate dean and talked to them at length about what's happening. I did bring it up, but the way they reacted to it, I didn't have the heart to go and talk to the vice president or meet anyone senior to them about it. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

The expected burden and lack of victim-centeredness of formal reporting processes were also seen by many as a serious hurdle.

We don't focus on the victim. Everything is [about] what is going to happen to the person who was accused. . . . That's another major reason why people don't want to report, because it is a long, tedious, exhausting process. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

This lack of perceived victim-centeredness also meant that victims who were considering reporting were deterred by a perceived mismatch between what they would have considered appropriate consequences for the perpetrator and what the university might mete out. One explained:

I think a lot of times that the consequence of [a formal report] is something in someone's record that's negative and is perceived incredibly negatively, and the whole intent of the situation gets lost in the administrative punishment or administrative correction. . . . I just think that a lot of times, the process for correction is more harmful than if there was an actual face-to-face conversation and something that was less punitive or permanent. ( Assistant professor of medicine )

Last, some women noted that there was no formal reporting channel at all for certain roles or situations, such as when the victim or perpetrator was a postdoctoral student, or when the victim and perpetrator were at different institutions.

Barriers to Accessing Other Professional Support. Women who faced sexual harassment also experienced difficulty in accessing other forms of professional support. Several felt that therapy or counseling might have been helpful in coping with their victimization experiences, but could not envision making room for that healing process. Doing so would have been incompatible with these scholars' demanding work lives, their focus on productivity, and their self-images as strong and resilient.

I believe in counseling and everything, but it's also when your environment is that much of a pressure cooker. . . . I knew that I couldn't bear to hear how bad this was. I had to keep going. There was no choice. Kind of like getting therapy in the middle of a war zone, like I can't be feeling these feelings right now. If I actually feel what's going on here, I will not be able to function. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Others noted, with regard to considering professional help, that they simply did not want to devote more time or energy to the situation. One woman (a professor of engineering) explained, “Sometimes you're in a situation and you just want to move on rather than deal with it.” Another respondent (a professor of biology) explained, “I was trying to get everything done. I had a lot on my mind, a lot on my plate. I didn't want to put energy into . . . stirring up a hornet's nest.” Respondents had also sometimes considered seeking help from their scientific societies or professional organizations, but were either unaware of any formal recourse within their organizations or did not yet trust newer processes that had been established.

3.14. Barriers to Broader Prevention and Response

Respondents also identified constraints on broader prevention and response (beyond individual incidents or victims). They highlighted a general lack of awareness regarding sexual harassment among colleagues and leadership, individual resistance to change among those perpetrating or condoning harassment, poor enforcement of existing policies, and the slowness of cultural change as key barriers.

Lack of Awareness. Among the strongest themes in these data was women's observation that their male colleagues were unaware of the pervasiveness and severity of sexual harassment experiences in their workplaces. Women described how their colleagues' gender protected them from experiencing sexual harassment themselves, which made it appear to them as though such harassment did not exist.

It became really clear to me that, especially talking to male colleagues, they don't see these things happening, they don't hear these things happening, and then they hear about oh, we have to go through sexual harassment training again, [but sexual harassment] doesn't really happen. They're blind to the experiences. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

In many of the science, engineering, and medical departments from which study respondents hailed, positions of authority were dominated by men unable to relate to the need to address harassment:

The leadership, and certainly the senior leadership, is majority male and has never been affected. . . . If you've never been discriminated against, you don't understand discrimination. It takes a lot more work to appreciate that something is happening to other people. ( Assistant professor of medicine )

The combination of men's overrepresentation in leadership positions and their lack of awareness of sexual harassment had a powerful stymieing effect on prevention or response at many institutions.

Individual Resistance to Change. Respondents were often less than optimistic about the prospect of changing the behavior of sexual harassment perpetrators. Several noted that harassers created “a culture of fear,” and likened intransigent sexual harassment perpetration to bullying:

People who engage in this behavior [are] bullies, and I think their bullying behavior intimidates the good people. So, you get somebody who engages in this behavior and they get themselves into a position of power, like a department chair or even up in the dean's office or something. I honestly do not know how they intimidate other men into accepting this behavior, but they do. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

Others had more benign explanations. One respondent (an assistant professor of biology), observed simply, “People think it doesn't apply to them.” This sentiment was echoed by many other respondents. Women often rooted their skepticism in direct experience. As one respondent (a nontenure-track faculty member in engineering) summarized: “Rarely, in my case, have I had much success changing these people's minds, or changing the way they look at the world, or anything.” Others saw the entrenchment of an individual's harassing behavior as a generational issue. One interviewee (an assistant professor of mathematics) described being at a sexual harassment training with a harasser who “was making snide remarks about the training . . . he doesn't respect the process in any way, he doesn't respect their office, he doesn't respect these administrators, because in his opinion, the explosion of administration of higher ed is a horrible thing.” About another harasser, a respondent (who was a nontenure-track faculty member in biology) explained: “He's from a generation of male scientists where they—you know, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.” Interviewees observed individual resistance to change not only among perpetrators of sexual harassment, but among (male) colleagues who created a tolerant environment for it.

My postdoc advisor liked to talk about how much he had done for women, how he had hired all these women to work in his lab, or how he had been on hiring committees that had hired women faculty. And, in fact, he said this often enough that once I turned to him and I said, “Do you want a cookie for that?” Because I don't think he realized the fact that he had been on hiring committees that had hired women, that's not a great thing . . . like, you don't get a prize for hiring a girl. That's not an unusual thing to do. So, I think he didn't think he was sexist in any way and he was one of the most sexist people I've met, because he had these ideas about women and they were sexist and they were very limiting. ( Assistant professor of biology )

To these interviewees, male colleagues' difficulty understanding that they were part of the problem was, itself, a tremendous part of the problem.

Poor Enforcement of Existing Policies. Many interviewees also felt that the underapplication of anti-harassment policies at the department or university levels built a culture of permissiveness in which harassing behavior flourished.

There are laws which punish the people who do these kinds of things, and if those laws are not implemented, then these things will keep on happening . . . that was exactly what was happening in our department. The previous [faculty member] actually, he had done something to a female faculty all year. There was no action taken against him, so this guy [referring to her harasser] followed suit. ( Assistant professor of engineering )

Lack of enforcement, they felt, sent a message to victims and perpetrators alike that sexual harassment was normal and tolerated.

Slowness of Cultural Change. In considering what stood in the way of effective sexual harassment prevention and response efforts, interviewees almost always noted that these efforts went against the cultural grain in their departments, institutions, and beyond.

To change it going forward would've been, like I said, a whole cultural change within the department, within the institution. I mean, my chair was not particularly blameless in the sexual harassment field, and neither was the dean. ( Professor of biology )

Although many were adamant that such broad, cultural changes were critical, they were cautious about expecting too much. One respondent (an assistant professor of biology) explained, “I think it's a cultural change that's going to take a lot of time.”

Findings for Research Question 5: What strategies for preventing and responding to sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine do respondents perceive as promising?

3.15. Promising Prevention Approaches: Universities

Respondents overwhelmingly felt that universities needed to take a stronger, more proactive approach to sexual harassment prevention. Many saw sexual harassment prevention as being inseparable from effective sexual harassment responses.

Really having zero tolerance. Actual real repercussions. I think what worked with my colleague was that there was a real repercussion for him, and universities tolerate a lot. The people who are perpetual predators tend to be folks who feel like they're protected by the system. They are big names, they bring in big grants. Everyone knows that they're inappropriate and people laugh it off and they push it to the side. But if you just say, regardless of who it is that is perpetrating, if you do this, the repercussions are real, you are no longer allowed to have graduate students. Your office will be removed from the main part of this building and you'll be over in Timbuktu. You will have to go to certain trainings. You will not be allowed to have unsupervised meetings with junior faculty. Real consequences. That is not tidy and not something that can be done behind closed doors. People see the actions being taken. That is painful and hard. We need to do it. ( Assistant professor of biology )

Role of Senior Faculty and Department Leadership. Respondents, regardless of tenure in academic settings, noted the critical need for those in leadership positions, such as more senior faculty, department chairs, and deans, to actively work to change norms and behaviors that are conducive to sexual harassment within the academic setting. Given the hierarchical nature of these settings, those at the top set the climate for what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable behavior and a norm of responsibility across all faculty and staff to address unacceptable behavior.

Respondents also stressed the importance of leadership's actions in modeling the desired behavior through their own interactions with faculty, staff, and students, from their interpersonal behavior to responses when sexual harassment issues arise among others. Those in academic leadership roles often serve as a gateway to steps that will be taken when harassment occurs. Their reactions and responses and the follow-through on reported incidents, will indicate to those in academic settings whether this behavior will be addressed or not, and how sincere assurances of will prove to be.

I think what senior faculty can do is make sure they talk to junior people and make sure that junior people feel safe. I think the responsibility of senior faculty [is] to make sure that the institutional environment is safe, and that was the problem with the other institution, it did not feel safe. ( Professor of biology ) The other thing is that we need to remove the leverage points that make this equation for whether or not you speak out or you just tolerate it . . . create ways out that doesn't cost them their career, their project. Tenure. If they need to have the option to stop their tenure clock, because of this, then let them. If you as a university can't figure out right away what to do with this person, stop their tenure clock while you're creating the process that's gonna keep them safe and allow them to do their work. ( Assistant professor of biology )

Data-Driven Responses. Respondents recognized the importance and need for data that illustrates the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination within academia. Climate surveys and other data can yield information on prevalence and the types of support that may be needed and most effective for those affected by sexual harassment. Respondents saw this type of data as a way to shut down those who deny the need to address this issue and make structural changes.

What ended up happening is my Senior Associate Dean . . . she went up against the old guard and she said, “This is what the data is showing.” And because we had black-and-white data, she was able to actually fight and it went from the college to the Provost to the President, and now what was created is a reporting structure. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

Improving Policies/Procedures and Enforcement. Respondents indicated that the existence of clear policies and procedures for addressing sexual harassment are essential, and stressed the importance of all faculty and staff having a clear understanding of this information. Often, however, respondents were not aware of or did not fully understand the resources that were available to them at the time of their incidents—this was particularly of note with postdoctoral staff. Further, some who took actions to address sexual harassment were faced with dismissive attitudes or no actionable steps from their department leadership.

What often happens in academia is there are rules and stuff, but everyone is “yeah, but no one does that.” This is how it really works. Or people expect you to behave in a certain way following unwritten rules that are not necessarily obvious to everybody, but they're also different for different types of people, men and women. And so I feel there needs to be more enforcement of being ethical and following standards that have been set. ( Professor in geosciences )

Some respondents indicated that existing policies and procedures did not always have the flexibility that facilitated reporting, for both the target and perpetrator of sexual harassment. For example, respondents noted the need for more victim-centered reporting alternatives, which might allow for anonymous reporting or systems that can track patterns of behavior of a perpetrator. Although respondents often wanted perpetrators to change their behavior and experience some form of consequences, they also noted a desire for more of a range of options for addressing the harassing behavior, such as standardized subjudicial punishments (e.g., pay cuts). Many noted that making options for reporting harassment more anonymous might overcome the deterrent effect of such complaints being traceable.

I think that if there was a way of anonymous reporting, and maybe HR or the chair wouldn't necessarily act on the first report. If it accumulates as a pattern across many female faculty, you know, even if it's anonymous I feel like something needs to be done. ( Associate professor of psychology )

Improving Training Delivery and Uptake. Many respondents viewed the implementation of faculty and staff trainings as an important prevention mechanism. However, they reported that existing trainings often perpetuated a limited definition of sexual harassment that only involves sexual contact and did not provide the necessary focus on the continuum of behaviors that can be perpetrated. Respondents stressed the importance of improved trainings that reflect this range of behaviors, some of which may have become normalized within academic settings, and the ways in which these influence the overall climate in the department and university. Respondents also stressed the need for all roles in the academic setting to have access to the trainings.

I think some kind of training, and I think chairs and directors are key at a university to get them. And I think the chair of [my department] is a wonderful person. He has never done anything at all to suggest that I am less important because I am a female, or treated me any differently. But I also don't think he gets the fact that the women in his department are treated different than the men are by other faculty members. ( Associate professor in geosciences)

Screening New Hires. Several respondents relayed experiences of faculty being hired who had a known history of sexual harassment and gender-discriminatory behavior.

But they hired a lot of what I'm calling the old guard . . . who we know because of public record that they were dismissed from said universities, Ivy League universities because of sexual harassment—and we have hired them. . . . ( Non-tenure-track faculty member in medicine )

This was often in the context of hires of faculty who were well known for their professional accomplishments. The strategy of more purposeful vetting was recommended as a means of preventing hiring of faculty who may pose a risk to others.

3.16. Promising Prevention Approaches: Peers and Bystanders

Call Out Poor Behavior of Peers. Respondents indicated that their peers and other bystanders can play a strong role in preventing sexual harassment and gender discrimination by acknowledging the inappropriate behavior and indicating disapproval of it. Because this type of behavior can be dismissed or ignored, simply pointing it out can be empowering and lend support to the target.

I think they [bystanders] could have a very important role. In fact, I think it's essential that everybody call out these behaviors. Particularly senior faculty, but it has to be in the context of a supportive environment. ( Professor of biology )

Safeguard Those Who Report. Several respondents also noted that putting safeguards in place to protect those reporting sexual harassment from harm could not only facilitate intervention efforts for those who experience sexual harassment, but also deter potential perpetrators and empower others to be strong advocates against this type of behavior. Although safeguards for preventing emotional and physical harm were deemed important, respondents also stressed the importance of preventing professional repercussions for targets of sexual harassment. Given that perpetrators often played powerful roles (including influencers of tenure decisions, leads for scientific collaboration, and officers in national organizations), any measures that could help to protect targets of sexual harassment from the career impacts of disclosure might free them to pursue all available forms of recourse.

3.17. Promising Prevention Approaches: Professional Societies and National Organizations

Ramifications for Sexual Harassment Infractions. Respondents viewed professional societies and national organizations as important untapped resources for sexual harassment prevention efforts. Several noted that these organizations are in a position to tie this issue into the accreditation process, such as requiring information on departmental climate survey data or availability and implementation of sexual harassment and gender discrimination–focused trainings. Respondents also thought that membership and leadership roles within organizations should be limited for those who perpetrated this type of behavior, to show a no-tolerance stance for members and the organization as a whole.

I really do like the idea if I have a group of students in my lab and I am treating them inappropriately, that hey, my research doesn't get published and I don't get grants. And I think if you did that, people might change their behavior a lot quicker than any other way. And, I think professional societies, and the National Science Foundation, things like that can take an active role on this. ( Associate professor in geosciences ) They should not reward people that exhibit these kinds of harassment behavior or even discriminatory behavior. Who make stupid comments like that and that intrinsic disrespect for women. They should never ever put those kinds of people on committees and have them run for office. ( Professor in geosciences )

Information Dissemination on the Issue. National organizations and professional societies are also in a position to widely disseminate information to a large swath of academicians and even drive the development of information and resources to magnify the significance and impact of sexual harassment. Respondents noted strategies such as commissioned white papers and providing seminars and other resources through these organizations.

I think they can model good behavior. . . . They can run articles in their newsletters and in their journals with data on underrepresentation. And data on strategies to improve representation. I think they can do a lot. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

Safe Space for Women to Share and Support. Respondents described their own use of professional meetings as a venue to share and find support from other women faculty in science, technology, and medical fields. They noted the importance of these meetings being a safe space for seeking out that type of support, and the role that societies and national organizations could play in actively creating these opportunities for women in science, technology, and medical fields. These organizations also may be able to address challenges that several respondents noted in having a safe space and mechanism for interacting with male mentors and colleagues, with emphasis on establishing norms around expected behavior in these mentoring relationships.

There aren't a lot of women my age in my field, but talking to some of them, occasionally, is very helpful. . . . And I meet these people because I go to conferences of professional organizations. . . . ( Professor in geosciences )

3.18. What Is the Single Most Important Strategy for Prevention?

Shifts in Cultural Norms. Respondents widely noted the most important sexual harassment prevention strategy would be a broad shift in both the norms and the general climate of academic settings, both of which perpetuate gender discrimination and fuel the perpetration and acceptance of sexual harassment.

Global cultural change. . . . I think the harassment you can address, but the underlying gender discrimination that supports it, that allows it to happen, needs to change. ( Professor of biology )

Transform the “Old Guard.” A key issue respondents noted regarding norms that are accepting of sexual harassment is faculty who have long tenures within departments and hold traditional, discriminatory beliefs that respondents experience through their attitudes and behaviors. Respondents described how the power these longstanding faculty hold within the academic context frustrates newer or even established faculty and staff who address the sexual harassment and gender-discriminatory beliefs and behaviors that are so ingrained in that context. Some respondents suggested that the most important strategy for preventing sexual harassment would be for these individuals to die out or be replaced with more diverse leadership that would have high-level influence to change the culture.

I think there's gonna have to be a generational change in leadership at various institutions. I'm not sure that the deep-seated behaviors, longstanding behaviors in certain individuals will ever be punished away. I think those people just have to move on and the new generation have to take over. ( Professor of biology )

Revamp Training Focus and Timing and Access to Resources. Respondents also viewed continued focus on training as one of the most important sexual harassment prevention strategies. Respondents commented on the importance of making training and other resources that explain steps in addressing sexual harassment transparent and accessible. The importance of these trainings happening much earlier than college and across the life span was noted, along with a need for age-appropriate information on sexual harassment and gender discrimination that focuses on the continuum of harmful behaviors.

It's [training] so much focused on actual touching, actual assault rather than harassment that—and even when harassment is included it's, you know, a tiny piece. . . . Either you really focus on the most serious offense or you focus on the most frequently occurring offense. I think most of the training programs focus on the most serious. ( Associate professor of psychology ) For me I never received any training anywhere and was totally unaware of what sexual harassment is, how to avoid it. So training in high school, colleges, to have professors receive mandatory training and practice awareness of teachers' assistants, anyone in a superior role to students, and even early-career folks to really have this mandatory training and awareness [and to] distribute resources on what to do so if something is experienced. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

Limitations of the Research

Sexual harassment has been a longstanding issue inside and outside of academia, with recent high-profile cases placing a renewed spotlight on the pervasive nature of these issues. This study provides a snapshot into the sexual harassment experiences of women in sciences, engineering, and medicine, particularly in the higher education and medical settings, and the effects on their career trajectory. Some limitations on the findings of this study should be considered:

• This study was limited to interviews with 40 women in sciences, engineering, and medicine fields. This sample allowed us to capture and explore rich qualitative data from respondents' experiences. We attempted to establish geographic, academic discipline, stage of career, and demographic diversity among this population; however, we recognize that this limited sample may not be fully representative of the range of sexual harassment experiences of women in these fields.
• Efforts were made to prioritize recruitment of racial and ethnic minority and LGBTQ+ respondents, given the possibility that these populations may experience increased vulnerability to harassment and encounter added challenges with intersecting identities. Although our sample was reasonable in terms of percentage of racial and ethnic representation given the size of the sample (17.5 percent), this representation was limited to Asian and African American respondents. Also, all respondents identified as cisgender, which does not allow for insights into those identifying with other gender identities.
• Although we had good representation from sciences, medicine, and engineering, we could not cover every subdiscipline within these fields. Experiences of women faculty in subfields not represented in this sample may vary.
• This study focused exclusively on women academicians now in sciences, engineering, and medicine who had experienced sexual harassment in the past 5 years. Although many women, particularly those with longer academic careers, brought perspectives from both more recent and earlier sexual harassment experiences, women who only may have had earlier experiences were excluded. This study also did not include women who may have left academia and not returned, possibly because of their sexual harassment experiences. This is an important direction for future work on the effects of sexual harassment on career trajectories.

4.1. Study Purpose and Methods

The Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine commissioned this study to understand the influence of sexual harassment on the career advancement of women faculty in sciences, engineering, and medicine.

To best understand these complex and sensitive experiences and their impacts, the research team conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with women faculty in sciences, engineering, and medicine who had experienced one or more events that conformed to the research definition of sexual harassment in the past 5 years. (Women did not have to label their experiences as “sexual harassment” to participate.)

Participants were recruited through professional organization networks and selected for diversity of characteristics, experiences, and contexts. Each participant completed a 1-hour, confidential interview about her understanding of sexual harassment, history of workplace sexual harassment experiences in the last 5 years, responses to those experiences, any perceived impact of sexual harassment on her work and career path, and ideas for prevention and response. Interview recordings were professionally transcribed, identifiers (such as respondents' names and locations and the institutions where they worked) were removed, and the research team analyzed the transcript data in a qualitative data analysis software package.

4.2. Findings

The analytic process generated rich data on each of the study research questions.

1. How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine characterize and understand those experiences?

Most sexual harassment targets recognized what they experienced as sexual harassment. Respondents who were delayed in identifying their experience as sexual harassment often perceived them as normal within contexts that normalized gender bias and in which abusive, grueling conditions were widely tolerated (as in medical residency or other training settings). Often, perpetrators' sexual harassment behavior patterns were well known within their institutions (with colleagues warning one another away from known perpetrators), but these behaviors were not always explicitly labeled as sexual harassment.

2. How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment respond to their experiences in the short term?

Psychological and emotional responses ranged from “uncomfortable” to “devastated.” The most common responses were anger, frustration, fear, stress, and anxiety. Many respondents experienced some form of long-term emotional response, such as self-blame, decreased confidence, or heightened emotional reactivity.

Women's work habits often changed in the wake of sexual harassment experiences. Some respondents immediately considered quitting their employment or training, and several could not get any work done in the aftermath of the incident. Changes to work habits included no longer meeting with others in closed offices, avoiding being alone with anyone, changing office hours, and changing professional dress to avoid harassment. Women's other coping responses included minimizing the incident, strategizing about how to respond to similar incidents in the future, and becoming more active in addressing gender inequality.

Women took several distinct approaches to addressing or reporting their experiences. A few confronted their perpetrators directly, communicating that the harassing behavior was unacceptable. Many women reported sexual harassment incidents to their supervisors instead of or before pursuing formal reporting at the university level. Such reports met with sympathy or dismissiveness, but rarely action; as a result, many complaints stopped there. Still, some women initiated formal, institutional reporting. Those who did said they were motivated to try to mitigate the consequences of perpetrators' behavior for their own careers, address safety issues, and support a sense of justice and self-respect. Women who did formally report sometimes reported that it damaged relationships with their immediate management. Finally, some women perceived that they had no viable option for reporting.

In addition to (or instead of) reporting to supervisors or university officials, many women talked with family and friends or female colleagues about their sexual harassment experiences. A few, however, told no one at all. Some women sought some form of professional support, such as legal advice or counseling. Those who did often found that outside professionals' validation and helpfulness contrasted starkly with the responses they received inside their departments or programs. A few women sought support from scientific societies, accreditation bodies, police, or healing providers.

3. How do women who are targeted for sexual harassment understand their experiences to have shaped their career trajectories?

Women's collaborative or mentoring relationships often suffered in the wake of sexual harassment experiences. Over the longer term, it was common for women to become less trusting and more cautious in developing professional relationships and dealing with potential academic collaborators. Some women came to avoid male mentors. Some altered their interpersonal interactions with colleagues in other permanent or long-term ways, such as avoiding social events, avoiding personal topics, being more vocal in calling out inappropriate comments, or being more direct. These changes were often seen to harm their professional relationships.

Few respondents shifted the overall focus of their scholarly work, however. A few switched fields or avoided certain research areas of interest to avoid their perpetrators. Many respondents reported putting increased energy into professional leadership and advocacy around gender inequality or diversity issues because of their experiences. Most experienced such involvement as very gratifying, but noted that it took significant energy away from their scholarly work.

Women who had chosen to formally report or otherwise speak out about their experiences often recounted negative, long-term impacts on their careers. Several respondents made negative career transitions that they attributed to their sexual harassment experiences, such as stepping down from an assistant dean position, taking a position at a lower-ranked university, being fired as a retaliatory action, or dropping out of a major research project. Others stayed in their positions, but suffered from lack of advancement, such as not receiving tenure or not becoming a full professor. A few passed up job opportunities to avoid their perpetrators or to avoid situations that they feared could expose them to future sexual harassment.

4. What barriers or challenges do respondents believe prevent sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine from being addressed?

Women faculty described formidable barriers to formal reporting, including lack of acceptable or clear reporting options and the inaction of immediate supervisors. Department-level supervisors who received initial reports of sexual harassment often discouraged women from reporting through university-level mechanisms (either explicitly, or through their inaction or minimization of the experience).

The most common and significant barrier was the widespread perception that reporting sexual harassment (whether through university-level processes or within departments) would likely be more harmful to the woman reporting it than it would be productive or protective. Respondents based this perception on the observed outcomes of their own past reporting experiences or those of their colleagues. They noted that any form of sexual harassment complaint or action could weaken (or feminize) them in the eyes of their colleagues, provoke retaliation, and/or harm their chances of achieving tenure or other career objectives.

Respondents also observed cultural and institutional barriers that they believed shaped individual and institutional responses to sexual harassment. They cited a national political environment that was seen as condoning sexual harassment; cultures of persistent denial in university communities; women's resignation regarding their older, male colleagues' ability to change; and the difficulty of differentiating sexual harassment events within workplace cultures that normalized misogyny.

At an institutional level, perceived barriers to effective sexual harassment response included the under-representation of women in many sciences, engineering, and medical specialties, especially in leadership positions; a lack of clear, ethical guidance from institutions on expectations for behavior related to gender issues; and perceived tolerance of sexual harassment from institutions. In some cases, women noted that the departmental or university administrators whose leadership was needed for preventing or addressing sexual harassment were instead perpetrating it.

5. What strategies for preventing and responding to sexual harassment in sciences, engineering, and medicine do respondents perceive as promising?

Respondents offered many ideas and strategies for improving sexual harassment prevention and response. They urged greater attention to the ways that senior faculty and department leadership shape university climates regarding sexual harassment, and called for work to change departmental and university norms. Suggestions included improving the delivery and uptake of faculty and staff training (offering trainings for various career stages that reflect the full continuum of sexual harassment behaviors, including gender-based harassment); implementing stronger sexual harassment policies, and better enforcing existing policies; ensuring appropriate consequences for sexual harassment behavior, such as effects on accreditation, licensing, and society and organizational roles and awards; thoroughly screening job candidates for prior sexual harassment perpetration; calling out the sexual harassment behaviors of colleagues when they occur; and using university climate surveys and other data to assess sexual harassment prevalence and strategies for addressing it.

In addition to overall work to improve university climates regarding sexual harassment, interview participants emphasized that sexual harassment targets needed safer environments within which to report. They suggested offering confidential reporting options, developing role-specific reporting resources (e.g., for postdoctoral fellows), and taking action to safeguard those who report.

Women also called on their professional societies and organizations to play a leading role in ending sexual harassment. Their suggestions included commissioning white papers, providing resources to members, and providing safe spaces for women to share their experiences (such as at national meetings).

Finally, respondents shared the perception that ending sexual harassment represented an enormous challenge. They described a need to transform an “old guard” that perpetuated acceptance of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, an effort that many felt would take time. Respondents emphasized the imperative of concerted and sustained work on multiple fronts to effect broad shifts in cultural norms around sexual harassment, and support women's full contributions to sciences, engineering, and medicine.

4.3. Implications for Larger Areas of NASEM Inquiry

Despite the limitations of this study, its findings have several implications for understanding the nature of sexual harassment, its impact on SEM faculty career trajectories, and the preventive and intervening efforts that might be taken to address it.

4.3.1. Implications Regarding the Nature of Sexual Harassment

The range of sexual harassment experiences with this limited sample and the small percentage of those who reported their incident speak to the ongoing need for research efforts that assess the prevalence, nature, and consequences of incidents. These interviews support prior findings that sexual harassment, as with other related violations, remains a silent issue for many. Data and broad dissemination of findings from it serve as vital potential mechanisms for supporting prevention efforts, as evidenced in one respondent's (a nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences) comment: “It seems that superior[s], at least in my experience, are mostly male and mostly laugh off this sort of topic and don't take it seriously, so perhaps journal publications or these studies that could be put in front of senior leadership might help to have them take the topic seriously.”

Respondents described how sexual harassment experiences are often compounded and fueled by a broader context of gender discrimination, particularly among male-dominated leadership structures. Their experiences support ongoing needs for strategies and policies addressing campus climate and diversity of leadership. Many noted that the single most important step in addressing sexual harassment and broader gender discrimination would be a change in the composition of leadership within departments and at higher academic administration levels. This includes gender, sexual orientation, and racial or ethnic diversification to help challenge the status quo regarding these issues.

I think what senior faculty can do is make sure they talk to junior people and make sure that junior people feel safe. I think the responsibility of senior faculty is to make sure that the institutional environment is safe, and that was the problem with the other institution, it did not feel safe. ( Professor of biology )

Respondents experienced both psychological and physical impacts from sexual harassment, and these repercussions had tremendous impact on their work productivity. Consideration is needed to develop and publicize additional strategies and resources to address aftereffects of sexual harassment that can be accessed confidentially at all career levels.

In terms of career trajectory, the cumulative effects of recovering from traumatic incidents, reliving their experiences every time they hear about it happening to someone else, and continued discrimination made many women less productive in their careers. This included effects on grant and research activities, teaching performance, and quality of relationships with their colleagues. Protective mechanisms that respondents pursued (including avoiding other men as peers, collaborators, or mentors for fear of further sexual harassment exposure) often limited their opportunities for scientific collaboration and social engagement. Such deprivation can profoundly hinder professional development and overall career trajectory.

4.3.2. Implications for Sexual Harassment–Related Training

Respondents noted clear needs for trainings that account for all behaviors considered sexual harassment, specifying that this should include the full range of forms of sexual harassment and not just the more extreme forms. Training was seen as critically important across all roles (ranging from postdocs to tenured faculty and administrators), because many do not recognize certain behaviors as sexual harassment because of setting-specific norms or lack of awareness. Trainings and supporting resources should be tailored to varying contexts and roles within university settings. These resources should also be widely publicized, accessible, and mandated.

Respondents were clear, however, that true awareness and prevention must start early. As one respondent noted:

I would encourage high schools to have educational materials, seminars, or classes, something that is required to educate folks, even these straight-A student kind of groups, these nerdy folks—sorry for that—on sexual harassment. For me I never received any training anywhere and was totally unaware of what sexual harassment is, how to avoid it. So training in high school, colleges, to have professors receive mandatory training and practice awareness of teachers' assistants, anyone in a superior role to students, and even early-career folks. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences )

4.3.3. Implications for Institutional Policy

The barriers for women reporting sexual harassment reveal perceived and actual threats to career trajectory, and the need not only for clearly defined and enforced policies, but also steps to safeguard those reporting from repercussions within and outside of the academic setting.

There was a formal one [reporting process]. I didn't feel safe using it, and subsequently, I would say that other instances at that institution confirmed my mistrust . . . I was afraid of losing credibility and losing whatever departmental support I had. Having a reputation for being someone who doesn't put her head down and get work done, and my whole career sort of being in the balance. ( Professor of biology )

Several respondents, however, were unaware of any existing policies or steps that could have been taken to address their sexual harassment experiences, especially among postdoc and newer faculty. University and departmental leadership should prioritize ensuring that all staff understand existing policies and available resources.

For many, the reporting process is complicated. Some respondents did not report because they were afraid that the perpetrator would experience severe consequences. Consideration may need to be given to intermediate consequences as an option for some situations.

4.3.4. National and Societal Implications

Women who had experienced sexual harassment noted the immense scientific losses to their fields that they felt resulted from the energies of so many scholars, physicians, and engineers being diverted into coping with the impact of sexual harassment. As one respondent (a nontenure-track faculty member in engineering) commented about her field, sexual harassment “is stunting everything about the discipline—creativity-wise, progress-wise, technology.” Another explained:

Even the women who are staying in the field, I feel like aren't able to do science to the best of their ability, because they have this processor that isn't being used, ‘cause it's doing other stuff, it's busy. ( Assistant professor in geosciences )

Given their crucial role in accreditation, licensure, and research dissemination, societies and national organizations have the potential to greatly reduce sexual harassment. These organizations may serve as conduits for information dissemination and establish firm stances and policies regarding sexual harassment—which could in turn facilitate shifts in norms around the acceptance of this behavior.

As respondents to this study impressed on their interviewers over and over again, better sexual harassment prevention and responses are urgently needed in science, engineering, and medical fields. Without such efforts, they argued, investments in bringing more women into these fields would be wasted:

We have all these K–12 STEM efforts. Let's get the girls excited about science. And at this point, a lot of us feel like, why? Why would you do that to them? They're gonna go to school and they're gonna fall in love with science and then they're gonna be 30 and they're gonna be fending off advances from some 55-year-old man and questioning every decision that they made in their lives. Why would you encourage them to do that? So, I focus most of my efforts now on women who are already in the field. I would love to spend lots of time with kids and get them excited about science, but I'm not that excited about science anymore. ( Assistant professor in geosciences )

For many women who experienced sexual harassment themselves, trying to protect others from it or working to end sexual harassment in their fields more broadly had become a mission as close to their hearts as their own scientific contributions:

This is my way of coping with it: trying to not let it happen to others. ( Associate professor of chemistry )

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them? Health Services Research, 34 (5 Pt 2), 1101.

The geographic composition of the study sample reflected the priority given to recruiting participants from more conservative as well as more liberal areas of the United States.

• Cite this Page National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia; Benya FF, Widnall SE, Johnson PA, editors. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 Jun 12. Appendix C, Qualitative Study of Sexual Harassment in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)

In this Page

• STUDY PURPOSE AND AIMS

Other titles in this collection

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

• Qualitative Study of Sexual Harassment in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine - ... Qualitative Study of Sexual Harassment in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine - Sexual Harassment of Women

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Quick Takes

New Law Requires California State U to Improve Sexual Harassment Policies

By  Sara Weissman

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

California governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation Monday that requires the California State University system to establish clear policies for investigating and documenting sexual harassment claims , the Los Angeles Times reported.

Under the law, the system has to implement the recommendations from a 2023 state audit, which found that officials failed to properly track and investigate harassment complaints and that the chancellor’s office failed to exercise sufficient oversight.

The audit came after a series of scandals about how CSU leaders handled misconduct allegations and a Times investigation , which found troubling inconsistencies in the way CSU campuses dealt with such complaints. A 2023 external review of the system’s Title IX reporting and investigation processes, ordered by CSU’s Board of Trustees, found similar flaws in how campus officials applied Title IX policies.

“This legislation will ensure that survivors are heard, perpetrators are held accountable, and our educational institutions uphold the highest standards of justice and support,” Assembly Member Damon Connolly, who co-sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith responded in a statement that protecting students and employees from discrimination and harassment is one of the system’s “highest priorities.”

“We are actively working to meet and where possible exceed the recommendations and become a national leader in building a culture of care and trust through greater training and consistent and compassionate practices for handling and resolving complaints,” she said.

Did Trump Get HBCUs ‘All Funded’?

Advocates and leaders of historically Black colleges say Trump’s presidency was a mixed bag for their institutions—an

Share This Article

More from quick takes.

Judge Dismisses Affirmative Action Suit Against UT Austin

‘Satanic’ Sculpture Beheaded at University of Houston

GOP Platform: ‘Make Our College Campuses Safe and Patriotic Again’

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

• More Blog Popular
• Who's Who Legal
• Instruct Counsel
• My newsfeed
• Save & file
• View original
• Follow Please login to follow content.

add to folder:

• My saved (default)

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Harassment and Violence in the Workplace: An Overview of Recent Legislative Changes Introduced by Bill 42

Introduction

In 2020, faced with statistics showing that nearly one in two women and three in ten men believed they had suffered sexual harassment or assault in the workplace, 1 the Minister of Labour expressed its intention to help prevent and address this issue.

The government began by setting up a committee to examine cases of sexual harassment and assault (the “Committee”). Its mandate was to analyze how such cases are handled in workplaces across the province. 2

The Committee made over 82 recommendations in its report titled Mettre fin au harcèlement sexuel dans le cadre du travail : Se donner les moyens d’agir [ putting an end to sexual harassment in the workplace by developing the means to act ], which was prepared in collaboration with law enforcement agencies and further to consultations with various stakeholders, including community groups, unions and employers , as well as groups of women workers.

The government included a number of recommendations from the report into Bill 42. 3

This Bill, which is aimed at preventing and fighting psychological harassment and sexual violence in the workplace, was assented to on March 27, 2024. It introduces major amendments to various labour laws, which are likely to change existing practices within organizations. The following is an overview of these amendments and their potential impact.

A. Occupational health and safety

• The Act respecting occupational health and safety was first amended to introduce a definition of what constitutes“ sexual violence ,” whichcame into force on March 27, 2024, and reads as follows:

Any form of violence targeting sexuality or any other misconduct, including unwanted gestures, practices, comments, behaviours or attitudes with sexual connotations, whether they occur once or repeatedly, including violence relating to sexual and gender diversity. 4

This broad definition could very likely affect existing employer policies and give rise to a host of problems needing to be resolved by the courts to ensure proper application.

• Action programs and prevention programs [effective October 6, 2025] : When developing an action program (for businesses with 20 workers or less) or a prevention program (for businesses with 20 workers or more), employers will be required to identify and anticipate psychosocial risks and risks related to sexual violence that may affect workers in their establishments. 5

B. Industrial accidents and occupational diseases

• Where injuries and diseases are the result of sexual violence suffered by a worker and perpetrated by the worker’s employer, one of the employer’s executives in the case of a legal person or a worker whose services are used by such employer; and
• Where a disease occurs within three months after the worker has been the victim of sexual violence.

The burden will then be on the employer contesting an injury of this nature to reverse the application of these presumptions. Handling employment injury claims will be even more difficult, as Bill 42 provides that employers will not have access to workers’ medical records prior to hearings before the Administrative Labour Tribunal.

• Employers prohibited from accessing medical records [effective September 27, 2024] : Bill 42 sets out stricter obligations for health professionals designated by employers. Only the health professional designated by an employer will have access to the medical record in the possession of the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail concerning the worker’s employment injury. 6

It will not be possible for the employer to obtain all information concerning a worker’s medical condition, because the health professional will be required to limit disclosure to only the information needed to provide the employer with a summary of the file and an opinion on how to handle the employment injury claim. 7

The prohibition on access to medical records also carries important fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 for a natural person and from $2,000 to $10,000 8 for a legal person.

However, it does not preclude employers from obtaining medical records concerning the employment injury by way of an authorization or subpoena.

• Extension of time limit for filing a claim [effective September 27, 2024] : The new time limit for filing a claim for an injury or disease resulting from sexual violence is two years. 9 In all other cases, the time limit for filing a claim is six months from the occurrence of the injury. 10
• Cost of benefits imputed to all employers [effective March 27, 2024] : As an exception to the principle that employers must cover the costs associated with employment injuries, where an employment injury is the result of sexual violence suffered by a worker, the Bill provides that the cost of benefits will automatically be imputed to the employers of all the units. 11

However, we must bear in mind that the imputation of costs to all units will have repercussions as it will lead to an increase in the cost of compensation regime for all employers.

C. Labour standards

Bill 42 also introduces a number of amendments to the Act respecting labour standards , including the following.

• The methods and techniques used to identify, control and eliminate the risks of psychological harassment, including a section on behaviour that manifests itself in the form of verbal comments, actions or gestures of a sexual nature.
• The specific information and training programs on psychological harassment prevention that are offered to workers and the persons designated by the employer to handle complaints or reports.
• The recommendations on behaviour to adopt when participating in work-related social activities.
• The applicable procedures for making complaints or reports to an employer or providing an employer with information or documents; details about the person designated to handle complaints or reports; and information regarding the employer’s obligation to follow up.
• The measures to protect the persons concerned by a psychological harassment situation and those who cooperated in processing a complaint or report regarding such a situation.
• The process for managing psychological harassment situations, including the process applicable to inquiries conducted by employers.
• The measures to keep complaints, reports, information or documents received confidential and, for the documents made or obtained in the course of managing a psychological harassment situation, the measures necessary to retain them for at least two years. 12

The policy must form an integral part of the prevention program or action program under the Act respecting occupational health and safety [as of the effective date to be set by the government, which will be no later than October 6, 2025] .

• Harassment by third-parties [effective September 27, 2024] : Employers are expressly obliged to prevent psychological harassment “ from any person .” This includes any third parties they do business with, such as customers, subcontractors and suppliers. 13
• The passage of time does not clean the slate [effective March 27, 2024] : An amnesty clause contained in a collective agreement will have no effect on disciplinary measures resulting from behaviours relating to physical or psychological violence within the meaning of the law. 14 This major amendment is aligned with developments in case law on applying amnesty clauses in psychological harassment situations.
• Confidentiality of the psychological harassment complaint resolution process [effective September 27, 2024] : Where the parties to a settlement of a psychological harassment complaint do not wish to undertake to keep the agreement confidential, they must expressly agree in writing to waive the confidentiality obligation in the agreement. 15
• Punitive damages even in cases involving employment injury [effective March 27, 2024] : Where a worker’s psychological harassment complaint is upheld and they have suffered an employment injury resulting from the psychological harassment, they may also be entitled to punitive damages. 16 The Administrative Labour Tribunal was previously prohibited from ordering an employer to pay punitive damages to a worker having suffered an employment injury resulting from psychological harassment. 17
• Expanded prohibition against reprisals [effective March 27, 2024] : In addition to the cases already provided for in the ALS, an employer may not take reprisals against a worker on the ground that the worker has made a report involving psychological harassment or cooperated in the processing of such a report or a complaint. 18

Pratical considerations

Given the many amendments introduced by Bill 42, all employers should keep abreast of new developments and best practices in preventing and handling harassment and violence in the workplace.

In the short term, we recommend that employers:

• Hire experts to review and update their prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace policies before September 27, 2024 .
• Depending on each situation, retain the services of a health professional who will play a proactive role and liaise with the employer in the handling of an employment injury claim.
• Explicitly define the terms of the mandate given to such expert in order to pinpoint what information is required to handle the employment injury claim.
• Schedule training sessions for all staff, including managers and executives. These training sessions should cover not only the aforementioned amendments, but also the procedure for reporting a sexual harassment or violence situation, filing and handling a complaint and making sure the process remains confidential.
• Inform members of their organization of the new definition and the updated company policy and establish response guidelines for managers who will have to deal with the various situations that can arise.
• Designate a person who will be in charge of enforcing and applying the harassment prevention and complaint processing policies.
• Carefully and meticulously document all aspects of inquiries conducted further to sexual violence or sexual harassment situations.
• Enlist the help of specialists in the field to help them identify and analyze the psychosocial risks and risks related to sexual violence that may affect workers in their establishment.

Lastly, as regards handling employment injury claims, despite the fact that employers will no longer have to cover associated costs all on their own, employers may still need to handle claims or contest them in some situations, and they will have the burden of reversing the application of the presumptions benefiting workers.

Limited access to medical records means more grey areas and more complex claims management. Given these significant changes, we believe it will be all the more important for employers to turn to qualified experts. When they do so, they should carefully set out the mandate that they wish to entrust to the expert in question to make sure that the opinion they obtain is detailed enough to adequately manage the employment injury claim.

The terms of the mandate will need be drafted such that the expert understands whether the information requested is relevant for the employer to properly handle the claim.

Filed under

• Employment & Labor
• Lavery Lawyers
• Sexual harassment

Popular articles from this firm

Sponsorship agreements in the sports world: the promise of fame and exposure *, fonds de capital investissement et de capital de risque au canada : aperçu de la structure économique *, disciplinary measures: what should employers do to reduce the risk of litigation *, doing business in quebec - your gateway to north america *, faire des affaires au québec - votre porte d’entrée en amérique du nord *.

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .

Professional development

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace - Prevention, Conducting Investigations & More - Learn Live

Acting for Parents & Carers in Care Proceedings with Claire Wills-Goldingham KC - Learn Live

Related practical resources PRO

• Checklist Checklist: An employer’s guide to fire and rehire (UK)
• Checklist Checklist: Carrying out a TUPE transfer (UK)
• How-to guide How-to guide: How to work with works councils in the Netherlands

Related research hubs

Teachers warn of sexual harassment, sexism, misogyny in classrooms

Substitute teacher Hannah Duffus says the misogyny she has experienced in classrooms is "pretty horrible".

Teaching remains a predominantly female profession with seven out of every 10 teachers identifying as female.

What's next?

Ms Duffus is determined to continue travelling and teaching around Australia.

Hannah Duffus is reminded of her gender every time she enters the classroom.

Despite writing her full name in block letters on the whiteboard before every class, she has never been referred to as anything but "Miss". 

And, in truth, "Miss" is probably one of the nicest names she's been called while substitute teaching. 

Ms Duffus has been working as a substitute teacher, travelling around Australia in a van with her boyfriend and working in all manner of classrooms to help subsidise the trip.  

She said the misogyny she witnessed and experienced while teaching could hurt. 

"In the moment it feels like an attack and your body goes into fight or flight mode," Ms Duffus said.

"Young female teachers are often sexualised.

"And when that does occur, it's almost as if the authority that you hold as a teacher is revoked and they're not looking at you as a teacher, they're looking at you as a young woman."

Teaching has remained a predominantly female profession. 

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority said seven out of every 10 teachers identified as female, a number that increased to more than eight out of every 10 in primary school ranks.

There have been ongoing concerns about the rise of misogyny in Australian classrooms , led by online influencers such as Andrew Tate. 

Ms Duffus said while she probably bore the brunt of bad behaviour as a relief teacher, the behaviour she had witnessed had been emotionally and physically taxing.  

From having a 16-year-old female student tell a male classmate that, "Miss wants to f*ck you", to Year 9 students projecting pornography on a whiteboard behind her while she took the roll, Ms Duffus said she had seen it all.

She said at times it made her feel like an emotional prostitute. 

"I was accepting large sums of money to be the teenagers’ punching bag for the day," she said in an essay on her experience .

"By failing to come down hard on their sexist behaviour — because I didn’t know their names, lacked access to their electronic records, or simply couldn’t be bothered — I was somehow complicit in a system that was making teachers’ lives worse." 

National issue

Former teacher and principal, Adam Voigt, said misogyny in classrooms was nothing new.

But Mr Voigt said the prevalence of such misogyny, and the harm it caused, was still concerning.

"At the moment, there is a really marked and alarming spike in the way that male students are treating females," Mr Voigt said.

"That's having a significant impact on their mental health and their likelihood of staying in the profession too."

About an hour from where Ms Duffus began her teaching journey in Terang, Warrnambool College has found itself at the centre of WorkSafe, Education Department dispute over teacher safety .

A number of former Warrnambool College teachers have since told the ABC the student behaviour at the school was "vulgar and violent" .

A recent study by Monash University found teachers were facing a rise in misogynistic behaviour everywhere.

The study found "widespread experience of sexual harassment, sexism and misogyny perpetrated by boys towards women teachers, and the ominous presence of [Andrew] Tate shaping their behaviour".

Mr Voigt, who works as an educational speaker, said teachers and school leaders were "screaming" for support.

He said substitute teachers were baring the brunt of the bad behaviour. 

"What we've known for the last two or three decades now is that the number one stressor of teachers is student behaviour," he said.

"It's the thing that's driving them out of the classroom more than any other factors — including pay and including workload."

Mr Voigt said it was time for teachers and parents to have a frank conversation about the way young men were being raised and their subsequent treatment of women. 

On the road

Ms Duffus said she would continue her journey around Australia, stopping in and providing relief teaching as she went. 

The next stop on her journey was Darwin, where her partner had secured locum work as a doctor. 

Ms Duffus said while a rotating roster of relief teachers undoubtedly had an impact, it was important to remember there was a human at the end of the abuse. 

"The discontent is real," she said.

"Yet the way in which some students are dealing with their frustrations — with sexism towards teachers — is unacceptable.

"They're reacting against a system that's under an immense amount of pressure at the moment."

She said it was a pattern of behaviour that had concerned her since she started as a casual relief teacher.

"It's pretty horrible," she said.

The Australian Education Union did not respond to request for comment from the ABC. 

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'disgusting and disturbing': why some female teachers are leaving the profession.

Teachers are quitting due to Andrew Tate's ideology driving sexual harassment and misogyny in class

Exam celebrations turn ugly as students filmed singing misogynistic chant

• Discrimination
• Internet Culture
• Secondary Education
• Warrnambool