Self-referencing, Social Identity and Judgments of Sexual Harassment

本文提出了敌意工作环境性骚扰法律中的假设，提出了一个两阶段加工模型来解释这些假设，并提出了4项研究来检验这一模型。这些研究将考察观察员和申诉人的性别、种族和性取向在骚扰判决中的影响。该模式的第一阶段涉及评估员自动将案件事实与可能超过或可能不超过滥用阈值的内部行为标准进行比较。在第二阶段，决策者以自己为参照点，判断社会性行为对投诉人的影响。这些研究特别重要，因为美国最高法院(即阿利托大法官)最近发表的不具约束力的法律评论针对的是第九巡回法院在裁决这些案件时的长期做法。第九巡回法庭在评估恶劣工作环境案件中的虐待行为时，倾向于半主观的观点，即合理的受害者标准。这一标准在考虑到性别、种族、性取向和其他相关申诉人属性后，确定了虐待行为。目前的理论模型提供了一种分析，解释了为什么更主观的方法可能是有用的。在审查法律标准类型的影响时，当前的建议将先前的工作扩展到包括其他男性对男性工人的骚扰。它测试合理的受害者的力量，而不是理性的人标准，以抵消观察员和申诉人的性别、种族和性取向对工作中社会性行为观念的歧视性影响。研究1将包括一次开放式访谈，以记录异性恋和同性恋工作者在男性投诉时用来思考骚扰者和受害者的认知表征。它使用概念图和定性数据分析来得出关于这些问题的结论。研究1的一项成果将是衡量对男性受害者和性骚扰者的认同感，并说明评估者将男性骚扰案件中被指控的性骚扰者和受害者归因于男性受害者的特征。结果将在研究2和研究3中用于测试男性对男性骚扰案件的社会认同预测。其他研究人员可能会使用这种方法来研究关于男性和男性性骚扰的指控，这些指控在法律文献中的数量正在增加。研究2和3将提供对投诉人、被指控的性骚扰者和其他工人的两次录像采访，描述导致最近男性工人抱怨其他男性行为的事件。虽然这两项研究都操纵了法律标准(合理的人与合理的受害者)，但研究2改变了申诉人的种族(非裔美国人与高加索人)，研究3申诉人的性取向(异性恋与同性恋)。研究2以白人和非裔美国人为样本，研究3以异性恋和同性恋工人为样本。研究4重复了研究2，其中有两个传统案例，其中女性指控男性同事有虐待行为。研究2、3和4包括社会认同的个体差异测量和自我参照评估，评估这些因素可能如何影响将评估案例的全职工作者。每项研究都测试了自我参照假设。他们预测观察者的性别、种族和性取向的主要影响，以及这些变量与原告种族和性取向之间的交互作用。研究人员希望被污名化的观察者(即女性、黑人和同性恋者)能找到更多骚扰的证据，特别是在与投诉者就这些因素分享群体地位时。然而，该模式预测，当评估者采用更主观合理的受害者标准时，自我引用和污名化的影响将减弱，因为这一标准鼓励他们站在被指控受害者的角度，而不是采取自己的观点。研究人员还预计，与白人和异性恋申诉者相比，评估者将对非裔美国人和同性恋申诉者表现出偏见，发现前者受到骚扰的证据比后者更少。然而，该模型预测，更加主观合理的受害者标准将抵消这种偏见。这4项研究调查了工人多样性在骚扰判决中的作用，并测试合理的受害者标准是否可以抵消工作场所多样性的意外后果。因此，它对第七条法律具有重要影响。

AbstractSelf-referencing, Social Identity and Judgments of Sexual Harassment This proposal identifies assumptions in hostile work environment sexual harassment law, offers a two-stage processing model to explain them, and proposes 4 studies to test that model. The studies will examine the influence of observer and complainant gender, race, and sexual orientation in harassment judgments. The first stage of the model involves evaluators automatically comparing case facts to internal standards of conduct that may or may not exceed abusiveness thresholds. In the second stage, decision makers use themselves as reference points to judge the impact of social sexual conduct on complainants. These studies are particularly relevant because recent non-binding legal commentary from the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., Justice Alito) took aim at the longstanding approach of the Ninth Circuit in deciding these cases. The Ninth circuit favors a semi-subjective point of view, the reasonable victim standard when evaluating abusiveness in hostile work environment cases. Such a standard determines abusiveness after considering gender, race, sexual orientation and other relevant complainant attributes. The current theoretical model provides an analysis that explains why a more subjective approach might be useful.In examining the effect of type of legal standard, the current proposal extends prior work to include harassment of male workers by other men. It tests the power of the reasonable victim as opposed to the reasonable person standard to offset the discriminatory influences of observer and complainant gender, race, and sexual orientation on perceptions of social sexual conduct at work. Study 1 will consist of an open-ended interview to document cognitive representations that heterosexual and homosexual workers use to think about harassers and victims in male on male complaints. It uses concept mapping and qualitative data analysis to reach conclusions about these issues. One product of study 1 will be a measure of identification with male victims and harassers as well as a description of the characteristics that evaluators ascribe to alleged harassers and victims in male on male harassment cases. The measure that results will be used in studies 2 and 3 to test social identification predictions in male on male harassment cases. Other researchers may use this measure to study claims of male and male sexual harassment, which are growing in number in the legal literature. Studies 2 and 3 will present two videotaped interviews of complainants, alleged harassers, and other workers describing incidents that led to recent cases in which male workers complain about the conduct of other men. While both studies manipulate legal standard (reasonable person vs. reasonable victim), study 2 varies the race of the complainant (African-American vs. Caucasian) and study 3, sexual orientation of the complainant (heterosexual vs. homosexual). Study 2 samples White and African American workers and study 3 samples heterosexual and homosexual workers. Study 4 replicates study 2 with two traditional cases in which women allege that male coworkers behaved abusively. Studies 2, 3, and 4 include individual difference measures of social identification and self-referencing assessing how these factors might influence the fulltime workers who will evaluate the cases. Each study tests self-referencing hypotheses. They anticipate main effects for observer gender, race, and sexual orientation, as well as, interactions between these variables and complainant race and sexual orientation. The researchers expect stigmatized observers (i.e., women, Blacks, and homosexuals) to find more evidence of harassment especially when sharing in-group status with the complainants on these factors. However, the model predicts that the effects of self-referencing and stigmatization will attenuate when evaluators apply the more subjective reasonable victim standard because that standard encourages them to take the point of view of the alleged victim rather their assuming their own perspectives. The researchers also expect that evaluators will demonstrate bias against African American and homosexual complainants as compared to White and heterosexual complainants, finding less evidence of harassment for the former groups than the latter groups. However, the model predicts that the more subjective reasonable victim standard will offset this bias. The 4 studies investigate the role of worker diversity in harassment judgments and test whether the reasonable victim standard can offset the unintended consequences of workplace diversity. As such, it has important implications for Title VII law.