The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations.

TLDR

The authors investigated how legal standards shape evaluations of workplace sexual harassment by conducting three studies with videotaped complaints. They compared the severity/pervasiveness test with a utilitarian rational‑woman alternative and examined errors made by full‑time workers using these standards. Results showed that absent legal guidance, judgments were highly variable; a complainant perspective heightened sensitivity, and the utilitarian alternative increased sensitivity but did not yield a principled strategy.

Abstract

Three studies used videotaped harassment complaints to examine the impact of legal standards on the evaluation of social-sexual conduct at work. Study 1 demonstrated that without legal instructions, college students' judgment strategies were highly variable. Study 2 compared 2 current legal standards, the "severity or pervasiveness test" and a proposed utilitarian alternative (i.e., the rational woman approach). Undergraduate participants taking the perspective of the complainant were more sensitive to offensive conduct than were those adopting an objective perspective. Although the utilitarian altemative further increased sensitivity on some measures, it failed to produce a principled judgment strategy. Finally, Study 3 examined the kinds of errors that full-time workers make when applying the "severity or pervasiveness" test to examine more closely the sensitivity of the subjective approach.