Self-referencing, Social Identity and Judgments of Sexual Harassment

【摘要】本文确定了敌意工作环境中性骚扰法律的假设，提出了一个两阶段加工模型来解释这些假设，并提出了4项研究来检验该模型。这些研究将考察观察者和投诉人的性别、种族和性取向对骚扰判决的影响。该模型的第一阶段涉及评估人员自动将案件事实与可能或可能不超过滥用阈值的内部行为标准进行比较。第二阶段，决策者以自身为参照点，判断社会性行为对投诉人的影响。这些研究尤其重要，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。第九巡回法院倾向于半主观的观点，在评估敌对工作环境案件中的虐待行为时，这是合理的受害者标准。这种标准在考虑了性别、种族、性取向和其他相关的投诉人属性后，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，目前的建议将先前的工作扩大到包括其他男性对男性工人的骚扰。它测试了理性受害者的力量，而不是理性人标准，以抵消观察者和原告的性别、种族和性取向对工作中社会性行为认知的歧视性影响。研究1将包括一个开放式访谈，以记录异性恋和同性恋员工在男性对男性投诉中对骚扰者和受害者的认知表征。本文采用概念映射和定性数据分析来得出这些问题的结论。研究1的一个成果将是对男性受害者和骚扰者的认同，以及评价者在男性对男性骚扰案件中赋予被指控的骚扰者和受害者的特征的描述。该测量结果将用于研究2和3，以测试男性对男性骚扰案件的社会识别预测。其他研究人员可能会使用这种方法来研究男性和男性性骚扰的索赔，这在法律文献中越来越多。研究2和研究3将提供对投诉人、被指控的骚扰者和其他工人的两段录像采访，描述导致最近男性工人抱怨其他男性行为的事件。虽然两项研究都操纵了法律标准（理性的人vs理性的受害者），但研究2改变了投诉人的种族（非裔美国人vs白种人），研究3改变了投诉人的性取向（异性恋vs同性恋）。研究2样本是白人和非裔美国工人研究3样本是异性恋和同性恋工人。研究4重复了研究2的两个传统案例，即女性声称男同事有虐待行为。研究2、3和4包括社会认同和自我参照的个体差异测量，以评估这些因素如何影响将评估案例的全职工作者。每项研究都检验了自我参照的假设。他们预测了观察者性别、种族和性取向的主要影响，以及这些变量与投诉人种族和性取向之间的相互作用。研究人员希望被污名化的观察者（即女性、黑人和同性恋者）能找到更多的骚扰证据，尤其是在与投诉者分享这些因素的群体地位时。然而，该模型预测，当评估者采用更主观的合理受害者标准时，自我参照和污名化的影响将减弱，因为该标准鼓励他们站在被指控受害者的角度，而不是假设他们自己的观点。研究人员还预计，与白人和异性恋投诉者相比，评估者将表现出对非裔美国人和同性恋投诉者的偏见，发现前者受到骚扰的证据比后者少。然而，该模型预测，更主观的合理受害者标准将抵消这种偏见。这四项研究调查了员工多样性在骚扰判断中的作用，并测试了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，它对第七章法律具有重要意义。

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.