Table 1
Views on sexual harassment and misconduct
|
N = 1,194 |
Low (%) |
Neutral (%) |
High (%) |
Mean (SD) |
t (df) |
p |
ES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sexist remark | |||||||
|
Misconduct |
20 |
20 |
60 |
3.52 (1.09) |
35.85 (1,186) |
0.000* |
0.72 |
|
Sexual harassment |
54 |
28 |
18 |
2.47 (1.06) | |||
|
Embarrassing comment | |||||||
|
Misconduct |
52 |
25 |
23 |
2.54 (1.15) |
22.38 (1,189) |
0.000* |
0.54 |
|
Sexual harassment |
73 |
18 |
9 |
1.97 (1.01) | |||
|
Sexual overture | |||||||
|
Misconduct |
44 |
25 |
31 |
2.75 (1.24) |
16.97 (1,188) |
0.000* |
0.44 |
|
Sexual harassment |
57 |
26 |
17 |
2.33 (1.14) | |||
|
Stereotypical comment | |||||||
|
Misconduct |
5 |
10 |
85 |
4.31 (0.88) |
39.82 (1,190) |
0.000* |
0.76 |
|
Sexual harassment |
18 |
18 |
64 |
2.87 (1.25) | |||
|
Clerk as harasser | |||||||
|
Misconduct |
5 |
8 |
87 |
4.25 (0.90) |
21.39 (1,187) |
0.000* |
0.53 |
|
Sexual harassment |
42 |
26 |
32 |
3.62 (1.17) | |||
Respondents rated the vignettes on both misconduct and sexual harassment on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much. Low = percentage of respondents scoring 1 or 2, neutral = percentage of respondents scoring 3, high = percentage of respondents scoring 4 or 5. * Significant at 0.001 level (differences between scores on misconduct and sexual harassment)
Effect size low = 0.10, medium = 0.30 and large = 0.50
Table 2
Relations between misconduct scores and sexually harassing scores, both within and between vignettes
|
N = 1,194 |
Sexist remark |
Embarrassing comment |
Sexual overture |
Stereotypical comment |
Clerk as harasser | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Misc. |
Sexu. |
Misc. |
Sexu. |
Misc. |
Sexu. |
Misc. |
Sexu. |
Misc. |
Sexu. | |
|
Sexist remark | ||||||||||
|
Misconduct |
1.00 |
0.56 |
0.33 |
0.26 |
0.09 |
0.12 |
0.26 |
0.17 |
0.22 |
0.18 |
|
Sexual harassment |
1.00 |
0.32 |
0.46 |
0.14 |
0.25 |
0.12 |
0.36 |
0.13 |
0.23 | |
|
Embarrassing comment | ||||||||||
|
Misconduct |
1.00 |
0.68 |
0.25 |
0.26 |
0.13 |
0.24 |
0.18 |
0.15 | ||
|
Sexual harassment |
1.00 |
0.25 |
0.33 |
0.02 |
0.34 |
0.10 |
0.20 | |||
|
Sexual overture | ||||||||||
|
Misconduct |
1.00 |
0.74 |
0.15 |
0.23 |
0.17 |
0.21 | ||||
|
Sexual harassment |
1.00 |
0.07 |
0.33 |
0.15 |
0.31 | |||||
|
Stereotypical comment | ||||||||||
|
Misconduct |
1.00 |
0.35 |
0.30 |
0.16 | ||||||
|
Sexual harassment |
1.00 |
0.16 |
0.30 | |||||||
|
Clerk as harasser | ||||||||||
|
Misconduct |
1.00 |
0.55 | ||||||||
|
Sexual harassment |
1.00 | |||||||||
All correlations are significant at 0.01 level. Bold = correlations within vignettes between misconduct and sexual harassment, italic = correlations between vignettes concerning misconduct, underlined = correlations between vignettes concerning sexual harassment
Table 3
Students versus teachers
|
Students (n = 643) Mean (SD) |
Teachers (n = 551) Mean (SD) |
t (df) |
p |
ES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sexist remark | |||||
|
Misconduct |
3.33 (1.09) |
3.73 (1.06) |
−6.37 (1,170) |
0.000* |
0.18 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.27 (0.99) |
2.70 (1.10) |
−7.09 (1,109) |
0.000* |
0.21 |
|
Embarrassing comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
2.38 (1.09) |
2.73 (1.12) |
−5.23 (1,122) |
0.000* |
0.15 |
|
Sexual harassment |
1.83 (0.93) |
2.13 (1.08) |
−5.05 (1,089) |
0.000* |
0.15 |
|
Sexual overture | |||||
|
Misconduct |
2.92 (1.20) |
2.56 (1.28) |
4.92 (1,133) |
0.000* |
0.14 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.44 (1.12) |
2.20 (1.15) |
3.64 (1,187) |
0.000* |
0.11 |
|
Stereotypical comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
4.26 (0.90) |
4.37 (0.49) |
−2.18 (1,189) |
0.029 |
0.06 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.89 (1.26) |
2.84 (1.25) |
0.63 (1,190) |
0.527 |
0.02 |
|
Clerk as harasser | |||||
|
Misconduct |
4.23 (0.90) |
4.27 (0.90) |
−0.83 (1,188) |
0.406 |
0.02 |
|
Sexual harassment |
3.68 (1.11) |
3.55 (1.23) |
1.88(1,112) |
0.059 |
0.06 |
Effect size low = 0.10, medium = 0.30 and large = 0.50
* Significant at 0.001 level
Table 4
Male students versus female students
|
Male (n = 150) Mean (SD) |
Female (n = 492) Mean (SD) |
t (df) |
p |
ES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sexist remark | |||||
|
Misconduct |
3.24 (1.09) |
3.36 (1.09) |
−1.21 (637) |
0.226 |
0.05 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.18 (0.96) |
2.30 (0.99) |
−1.24 (637) |
0.214 |
0.05 |
|
Embarrassing comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
1.97 (0.96) |
2.50 (1.10) |
−5.70 (278) |
0.000* |
0.32 |
|
Sexual harassment |
1.59 (0.82) |
1.90 (0.95) |
−3.61 (637) |
0.000* |
0.14 |
|
Sexual overture | |||||
|
Misconduct |
2.33 (1.08) |
3.10 (1.17) |
−7.21 (638) |
0.000* |
0.27 |
|
Sexual harassment |
1.87 (1.01) |
2.61 (1.10) |
−7.84 (270) |
0.000* |
0.43 |
|
Stereotypical comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
4.01 (1.01) |
4.34 (0.84) |
−4.07 (638) |
0.000* |
0.16 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.67 (1.17) |
2.95 (1.28) |
−2.45 (639) |
0.014 |
0.10 |
|
Clerk as harasser | |||||
|
Misconduct |
3.91 (1.09) |
4.32 (0.80) |
−4.25 (201) |
0.000* |
0.29 |
|
Sexual harassment |
3.27 (1.26) |
3.81 (1.03) |
−4.82 (213) |
0.000* |
0.31 |
Effect size low = 0.10, medium = 0.30 and large = 0.50
* Significant at 0.001 level
Table 5
Harassed female students versus non-harassed female students
|
Harassed (n = 124) Mean (SD) |
Non-harassed (n = 368) Mean (SD) |
t (df) |
p |
ES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sexist remark | |||||
|
Misconduct |
3.40 (1.14) |
3.35 (1.08) |
0.41 (489) |
0.597 |
0.02 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.30 (1.00) |
2.30 (0.99) |
0.01 (489) |
0.909 |
0.00 |
|
Embarrassing comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
2.67 (1.19) |
2.45 (1.06) |
1.84 (193) |
0.067 |
0.13 |
|
Sexual harassment |
1.98 (0.98) |
1.88 (0.94) |
0.98 (487) |
0.330 |
0.04 |
|
Sexual overture | |||||
|
Misconduct |
3.15 (1.19) |
3.08 (1.16) |
0.52 (488) |
0.806 |
0.02 |
|
Sexual harassment |
2.64 (1.09) |
2.60 (1.10) |
0.34 (488) |
0.720 |
0.02 |
|
Stereotypical comment | |||||
|
Misconduct |
4.37 (0.81) |
4.33 (0.85) |
0.43 (488) |
0.495 |
0.02 |
|
Sexual harassment |
3.06 (1.32) |
2.92 (1.26) |
1.04 (489) |
0.370 |
0.05 |
|
Clerk as harasser | |||||
|
Misconduct |
4.24 (0.93) |
4.35 (0.75) |
−1.17 (181) |
0.197 |
0.09 |
|
Sexual harassment |
3.75 (1.04) |
3.83 (1.02) |
−0.77 (487) |
0.756 |
0.03 |
Effect size low = 0.10, medium = 0.30 and large = 0.50
* Significant at 0.001 level