We wish to acknowledge the generous help of Jacquelyn Hart in collecting data for this research. Comments on earlier drafts by David Wooten, Judith Scully, and Lynn Wooten at the University of Florida, external reviews by Don Hellriegel, Jeff Katz, John Lynch, and Kelly Shaver, and critiques by two anonymous reviewers helped immensely in molding this article.
The Impact of Job Performance, Gender, and Ethnicity on the Managerial Review of Sexual Harassment Allegations1
Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 28, Issue 1, pages 52–70, January 1998
How to Cite
Plater, M. A. and Thomas, R. E. (1998), The Impact of Job Performance, Gender, and Ethnicity on the Managerial Review of Sexual Harassment Allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 52–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01653.x
- Issue online: 31 JUL 2006
- Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
This study examines the managerial review of sexual harassment allegations by subordinates against supervisors as a 2-stage attribution process. In the 1st stage, reviewers decide whether the behavior was inappropriate (misconduct). In the 2nd, reviewers decide the level of company responsibility. The reviewers' 2 decisions are influenced in distinct ways by scenario participant job performance, and the genders and ethnicities of reviewer and scenario participants. Male respondents exhibited some bias for high-performing same-ethnicity supervisors—a bias not present in female responses. In the 2nd stage, female and non-White reviewers assessed significantly higher levels of company responsibility than did male and White respondents. The data suggest that although men and women do not differ substantially over what constitutes misconduct, they do differ over the company's responsibility.