Judgments of Sexual Harassment Court Case Summaries

Understanding third-person judgments of sexual harassment is important because of their role in bystander intervention, popular opinion, and perhaps even labeling experiences as harassment. We employed Brunswikian principles of representative design (sampling from natural environments and allowing environmental factors influencing judgments to intercorrelate) and multiple regression plus relative weight analyses to examine judgments about summaries of actual U.S. sexual harassment court cases. Potential factors influencing judgments (cues) were identified and coded by raters. Results suggest that naturally occurring cues were intercorrelated to some extent, and people use different aspects of these rich situations to make judgments. We also found that some less-studied cues (i.e., target's withdrawal from the workplace, number of incidents) are more important than that the previous research would suggest, while some often-studied cues (i.e., status of the harasser, target's response to the harasser) are less important. Participants overall used very few cues, even when many were available. Future research should employ Brunswik's representative design to use more realistic scenarios that allow for intercorrelated, naturally occurring cues. Especially if results can be replicated, theories about how judgments of sexual harassment are made can be developed that reflect the complex realities of sexual harassment judgments that our study revealed. Representative design could also be employed to help theory development in other scenario-based areas of organizational research. Ours is the first study of judgments of sexual harassment that used a Brunswikian approach to study actual court case summaries. This has allowed for a unique examination of this complicated phenomenon.