Sexual Harassment, Incivility, and Academia Cooper McLendon Mindy E. Bergman Rebecca J. Thompson Texas A&M University McClendon, C., Bergman, M. E., & Thompson, R. J. (2013). Sexual harassment, incivility, and academia. Poster paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX. 1
Title Sexual Harassment, Incivility, and Academia Abstract Research has not fully examined how specific types of mistreatment impact outcomes for individuals. The current study examined job and well-being outcomes of incivility and sexual harassment for faculty in STEM/non-STEM fields. Results indicated gender differences in mistreatment experiences and that incivility was a significant predictor of outcomes. Implications discussed. Press Paragraph Experiences of mistreatment lead to negative outcomes for employees and organizations. However, research has not fully examined how specific types of mistreatment impact outcomes for individuals. The current study examined how incivility and sexual harassment impacted job and well-being outcomes for male and female faculty members in STEM/non-STEM departments. Results indicated that women experience higher levels of incivility and sexual harassment compared to men. Additionally, incivility was a significant predictor of outcomes. Implications discussed. 2
According to recent data from the National Science Foundation, in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, only 31% of full-time faculty are women, who account for just over one-quarter of STEM deans and department heads (NSF 09-305 2009, 14,254). This is despite the fact that there is a significantly higher proportion of women in undergraduate STEM majors. One possible explanation for the inequality in faculty ranks is the mistreatment that women experience in the academic workplace and the consequences this has for job and well-being outcomes. Thus, the goal of this undergraduate thesis project is to examine the effects of sexual harassment and incivility in the prediction of job and well-being outcomes among men and women academics in STEM departments (compared to non-stem). Workplace Mistreatment Workplace mistreatment has been linked to numerous negative job and well-being outcomes, such as lower self-esteem, higher psychosomatic symptoms, worse job attitudes, and work-life conflict (European Commission, 1998). Two types of workplace mistreatment were examined in this study: sexual harassment and incivility. Sexual harassment is behavior that demeans or humiliates a person based on that individual s sex (Berdahl & Raver, 2010). Current estimates suggest that sexual harassment is extremely prevalent in Western countries, with some figures suggesting that more than half of women will experience some type of sexual harassment during their working lives (European Commission, 1998). More than half of the employees reported negative consequences for their personal well-being; a third of the harassed employees described negative effects for their work situation such as resignation, reduction in tasks, change of workplace, and poorer working conditions (European Commission, 1998). Finally, sexual 3
harassment had negative consequences for work satisfaction and motivation (European Commission, 1998). In contrast, incivility reflects antisocial workplace behaviors that are ambiguous in nature as the intent to harm is often unclear (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Like sexual harassment, incivility has been linked to many negative outcomes for individuals and organizations (Cortina, 2008). Andersson and Pearson (1999) describe workplace incivility as a low-intensity deviant behavior with intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Examples of uncivil behaviors in a work environment include, but are not limited to jokes at the expense of a coworker, condescending remarks, and addressing one by the wrong title or inappropriately (Miner, Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, Brady, 2012). Despite the ambiguous nature of incivility (particularly in work settings), the impact of incivility in the workplace can be as severe as other forms of mistreatment (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Based on this previous research, we offer our first hypothesis: Hypothesis 1a & b: (a) Sexual harassment and (b) incivility are negatively related to faculty well-being. Differential rates of sexual harassment and incivility: Sex and STEM Research has demonstrated that a male dominated workplace leads to high levels of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Gutek, 1985). Berdahl (2007) argues that this is because sexual harassment is a form of a more general harassment that bases mistreatment on sex, used to protect the social hierarchy and the benefits that accrue to those people who are higher in the hierarchy. This argument would suggest that in highly masculinized contexts (i.e., historically male-dominated workforces), women should experience even higher rates of sexual harassment. 4
Similarly, Cortina and her colleagues (2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005) have argued that a substantial portion of and motivation for incivility is rooted in dominance and power issues, like sexual harassment. Cortina (2008) even suggested that incivility is a subtle as opposed to overt form of discrimination. Few studies suggest that gender bias may underlie some manifestations of incivility. (Cortina, 2008) proposes that incivility and gender bias are often one and the same. Therefore we propose that women faculty members will experience higher rates of both forms of mistreatment, as academia is a historically male-dominated field (Gutek, 1985). Hypothesis 2: Women will experience higher rates of incivility and sexual harassment than men. Not only is academia a masculine work context, but also academic disciplines vary in the extent to which they are currently and historically masculine and male. STEM departments in particular are masculine and male-dominated contexts; that is, within academia, STEM departments are enhanced in their masculine contexts relative to non-stem departments. Because of this, it is likely that women will be likely to experience even more mistreatment in STEM departments than in non-stem departments (Gutek, 1985). Therefore, Hypothesis 3: Women in STEM fields are more likely to experience higher rates of harassment and incivility than women in non-stem fields. Effects on outcomes: Incivility, sexual harassment, sex, and STEM/non-STEM discipline These proposed differences in incivility and sexual harassment across sex and discipline brings us back to the issue of effects on outcomes. Both forms of mistreatment have been found to be detrimental to job attitudes and well-being (European Commission, 1998; Cortina, 2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005). However, it is unknown whether both are needed to predict the negative effects of mistreatment or if the shared variance that they are likely to have given that they are 5
both workplace mistreatment variables causes only one to be predictive of outcomes when both are included in a regression model. To examine this question, we will look at correlations between each of incivility and sexual harassment and a set of outcomes. Additionally, we will conduct regressions, examining the prediction of outcomes by both incivility and sexual harassment while controlling for sex and STEM/non-STEM discipline status. Method Participants and Procedure All faculty (N = 3133) from a Southwestern university were invited to participate in a survey assessing university climate issues in November of 2009. Online surveys linked to faculty email addresses were administered ensuring participant confidentiality (but not anonymity). A total of 742 faculty members responded (24% response rate). Sample demographics were consistent with the population of university faculty, which is disproportionately white (573, 82.3%) and male (462, 63.9%). Respondents included full professors (229, 31.6%), associate professors (150, 20.7%), assistant professors (176, 24.3%), non tenure track professors (161, 22.2%), and administrators (9, 1.2%). In terms of department, 405 faculty were in STEM departments, 242 were in non-stem departments, and 95 could not be classified. Measures Sexual Harassment. Sixteen items were used to measure sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995; Stark, Chernyshenko, Lancaster, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2002). All items began with the stem: During the past year, have you been in a situation at work where someone to which faculty responded on 5-point scaled (1 = never, 5 = very often). An example item included: Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you? 6
Incivility. A 7-item measure from Cortina Magley, Williams, and Langhout, (2001) was used to assess incivility. Each item began with: During the past year, have you been in a situation in your department/unit where someone and faculty responded on 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = very often). An example item read: Put you down or was condescending to you? Outcomes. Burnout was measured using 13 items from Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Shafeli (2001). Items assessing both exhaustion (e.g., There are days that I already feel tired before I go to work ) and disengagement (e.g., I get more and more engaged in my work ) were utilized. Seventeen items were used to assess career satisfaction (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Career satisfaction assessed individuals satisfaction with a number of faculty related characteristics (e.g., funding, opportunities to collaborate, feeling valued by colleagues/student/department, etc.). Five items assessed life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985). Three items assessed turnover intentions (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976). An example item includes: I am actively looking for another job." Finally, eight items were used to measure affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). An example item includes: I really feel as if the university s problems are my own. Results Descriptive statistics, correlations, and coefficient alphas for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Hypothesis 1a proposed that sexual harassment would be related to negative faculty outcomes. Consistent with expectations, sexual harassment was positively related to burnout (r =.18, p <.01) and turnover intentions (r =.21, p <.01) and negatively related to career satisfaction (r = -.26, p <.01), life satisfaction (r = -.12, p <.01), and affective 7
commitment (r = -.17, p <.01). Hypothesis 1b proposed that incivility would be associated with negative faculty outcomes. Consistent with expectations, incivility was positively related to burnout (r =.33, p <.01) and turnover intentions (r =.51, p <.01) and negatively related to career satisfaction (r = -.50, p <.01), life satisfaction (r = -.23, p <.01), and affective commitment (r = -.34, p <.01). Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. Hypothesis 2 proposed that women would experience higher rates of incivility and sexual harassment than men. In line with expectations, women (M = 1.89, SD=.81) experienced higher rates of incivility than men (M = 1.69, SD=.65, t (710) = -3.43, p <.01). Additionally, women (M = 1.15, SD = 0.26) reported experiencing higher rates of sexual harassment than men (M = 1.07, SD=.20, t (706) = -4.88, p <.01). Therefore Hypothesis 2 was supported. Hypothesis 3 proposed that Women in STEM fields would be more likely to experience sexual harassment and incivility than women in non-stem fields. In contrast to expectations, a 2X2 between subjects ANOVA revealed that there were not significant differences between women in STEM departments (M = 1.16, SE =.02) and women in non-stem departments (M = 1.17, SE =.03, F (2, 650) =.02, p >.05). Additionally, women in STEM departments (M = 1.87, SE =.06) did not report experiencing greater levels of incivility than women in non-stem departments (M = 1.87, SE =.08, F (2, 653) = 1.32, p >.05).Finally, to assess the impact of both types of mistreatment, sex, and STEM on outcomes, regressions were conducted to determine the unique effects of each predictor. Incivility, STEM, and sex were each significant predictors of burnout (β =.30, -.12, and.13, respectively, p <.01). Similarly, incivility and sex were both significant predictors of career satisfaction (β = -.49 and -.09, p <.01). Incivility, sex, and STEM were predictors of life satisfaction (β = -.20,.10, and -.11, p <.01). Finally, incivility was the only significant predictor of affective commitment (β = -.36,, p <.01). 8
It is important to note that while these analyses did not show sexual harassment to be a significant predictor of the outcomes, our study does indicate that sexual harassment is harmful. As indicated in Table 1, sexual harassment is strongly correlated with outcomes, such that higher levels of sexual harassment are associated with worsened well-being and job attitudes. However, because incivility and sexual harassment are strongly correlated (r =.51), when both are entered into the regression equation, only incivility remains a significant predictor. Discussion The results of this study contribute to the research literature investigating the nature and consequences of sexual harassment and incivility, specifically in an academic environment. Our research further confirms what has been established elsewhere: sexual harassment and incivility have clear negative effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the current study demonstrated that female faculty members are at a higher risk of experiencing incivility and sexual harassment than are their male counterparts. In contrast with our hypotheses, it appears that women faculty (both STEM and non-stem) are subjected to incivility and sexual harassment at equal rates. Finally, when incivility, sexual harassment, sex, and discipline were considered jointly in regressions, incivility was the clear, consistent predictor of outcomes. Differential rates of sexual harassment and incivility That women faculty experienced more sexual harassment than men faculty is not surprising. That women faculty experience more incivility than men faculty is also not surprising, but it has not been well-documented to date. The differential rate of incivility across sex provides some evidence that incivility is operating as a covert form of sexism (Cortina, 2008). Additionally, there were higher rates of incivility than sexual harassment overall. This 9
may be because of the covert nature of incivility relative to the more overt nature of sexual harassment. The hallows of academia might not tolerate overt sexual harassment or even overt sexist language, jokes, and tales. In contrast, the ambiguous nature of incivility and its low level discourtesy might make it more acceptable in the workplace. In fact, a single instance of uncivil behavior is likely not to be seen as problematic but rather within the usual distribution (albeit toward the extreme end) of day-to-day work experiences. However, these instances are not necessarily singular. As Valian (1999) writes, mountains are molehills, piled one on top of the other (emphasis original). These small instances of discourtesy and the differential rate at which they occur add up to an accumulation of mistreatment that, over time, could come to put women at a serious disadvantage in well-being, attitudes, inclusivity, and health relative to their male colleagues. Prediction of outcomes When considered in isolation (Table 1), both incivility and sexual harassment were significantly related to the outcomes. It is clear that incivility and sexual harassment are bad for well-being and job attitudes. These results are consistent with previous literature and the replication here further solidifies incivility and sexual harassment as stressors and serious threats to personal well-being and organizational functioning. When incivility, sexual harassment, sex, and discipline were jointly entered into regressions as predictors of the outcomes, incivility was found to be a moderate to strong predictor of job related outcomes and sexual harassment did not significantly predict outcomes. Sex and discipline were inconsistent and relatively weak predictors of outcomes. First, these results suggest that outcomes are not very dependent upon sex and STEM/non-STEM status directly. That is, differences in outcomes across people say, men and women or STEM and 10
non-stem academics is not due to these demographics per se. Instead, it appears to be due to the mistreatment that they are receiving, which (as discussed in the previous section) is predicated upon sex. Further, it is important to note that these results do not indicate that sexual harassment is not harmful. The correlations provided in Table 1 make it clear that sexual harassment is detrimental to well-being and job attitudes. However, these results along with those showing sex differences in incivility suggest that it may be possible that studies of workplace mistreatment could include only a measure of incivility and not a measure of sexual harassment and still capture the gendered nature of mistreatment and its effects on well-being. Further research is necessary in order to tease apart individuals experiences in regards to these experiences of mistreatment and confirm this expectation. Limitations In every study, limitations of some kind exist. In the current study, all responses were collected through self-report surveys at one time point. Although this may limit the ability to draw conclusions about the impact of variables on one another, for some measures (e.g., personal experiences of mistreatment) self-report measures are the best means of assessment. Conclusion In conclusion, future studies should attempt to tease apart the various forms of generalized mistreatment from gender specific mistreatment in the workplace as well as the outcomes experienced as a result. The results of the current study may cast a new perspective on how such seemingly different forms of antisocial behavior relate and combine to interfere with working women s occupational, psychological, and physical health (Lim & Cortina, 2005, p. 56). 11
References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1991-1918. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat: The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452 471. Berdahl J. (2007). Harassment based on sex: protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy Of Management Review, 32, 641-658. Berdahl, J. L., & Raver, J. L. (2010). Sexual harassment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol. 1: Building and developing the organization, pp. 535-572), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management review, 33, 55-75. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 2499-2512. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larson, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. 12
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., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425-445. 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, 483-496. Miner, K., Settles, I., Pratt-Hyatt, J. & Brady, C. (2012). Experiencing incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 340 372. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 15, 87-98. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Lancaster, A. R., Drasgow, F., Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Toward standardized measurement of sexual harassment: Shortening the SEQ-DoD using item response theory. Military Psychology, 14, 49-72. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 13
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Study Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Incivility 1.76 0.72.95 2.Sexual Harassment 1.10 0.23.51**.82 3.Burnout 2.34 0.61.33**.18**.85 4.Career Satisfaction 3.57 0.71 -.50** -.26** -.46**.89 5. Life Satisfaction 3.59 0.83 -.23** -.12** -.53**.49**.89 6.Affective Commitment 3.07 0.91 -.34** -.17** -.28**.55**.37**.90 7.Turnover intentions 2.31 0.97.51**.21**.43** -.63** -.46** -.65**.89 Note. Reliabilities are on diagonal. * p.05; **p.01 (two-tailed). 14