«w.
iLH. .«r

.A t
(a. .YIi-u 3r!

Hulk“ .
. L. ......5: I. .x.
.. 1-14:!
._ y 3. -
.fi: .7
a.

it. I ‘ .
...:r r)... ...”..i
. . .IfloK. A: . 3%. R
.1.’~{3fi!l’ll ...p! ‘1 — no!
. . 2:723 :. ..., .... ...: hr.
‘ V 31.. 2:... la}. 1 a
In... 2 . ‘
1.1!: .. . ,
n...»
3:: ..

v
..
3K. Ii}:
0.. a ...-«V5.

02.3.1 .-
..

5a. 14..
... 1.1. it
I...

I
.1

)
3 teen;
. . . , x-suh:b» .
1 .35 (a
1.1. A:
t... a?

 

3.

LL.

oi? .... av...

1%.... 3;!
... p .
..

.F luvs-vi.
...": h

 

3

T ‘ V: .. ‘1... «...-Ma .ffll“.
m“. m 5.1.3 V
fig. 5 ,xA.. a %¢

.31.}.

 

. i 3 Maid.”
, 13.8“”.
, J1H;.III:‘0~.
.61....s‘1 2 91.4.1.1}: .-....w. . , y... .
... : 27; a... , .. .. . .... $9....
. it? if ...igi igfiwhp i.... .., ,

[ mere

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

BEING A TARGET AND A WITNESS:
EXPLORING MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’
SEXUAL HARASSMENT EXPERIENCES

presented by

LAUREN FAYE LICHTY

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in ngchotogy

 

 

/ Maior Professor’s Signature
/2 ’12,, 05‘

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05_c:/C———IRC/DateDue.Indd-p.t 5 ‘

 

BEING A TARGET AND A WITNESS: EXPLORING
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ SEXUAL HARASSMENT EXPERIENCES
By

Lauren Faye Lichty

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT

BEING A TARGET AND A WITNESS: EXPLORING
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ SEXUAL HARASSMENT EXPERIENCES

By
Lauren Faye Lichty
School-based peer sexual harassment among youth emerged as an issue of
significant concern in the early 19905. As a developing field, this literature has several
notable gaps. The current study extends previous research by: 1) exploring the under-
studied experiences of middle school students, 2) assessing students’ experiences
witnessing sexual harassment, and 3) evaluating how sexual harassment affects students’
emotional well-being using a standardized psychological distress measure. Findings
indicate that the vast majority of middle school students experience sexual harassment,
with 94% of participants reporting at least one incident of direct sexual harassment (i.e.,
they were the target of the harassment) and 96% reporting witnessing at least one incident
in the previous school year. Using structural equation modeling, the relationship among
direct sexual harassment, witnessing sexual harassment, and psychological well-being
was assessed. Results suggest that students are significantly negatively impacted by direct
sexual harassment experiences. No significant relationship was found between witnessing
sexual harassment and psychological distress symptomatology, despite a significant
positive correlation. These findings and their implications for research, practice, and

interventions are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I must acknowledge my committee: Rebecca Campbell,
NiCole Buchanan, and Bill Davidson. Both in your roles as committee members and as
general advisors, you have all contributed to my development as a researcher in unique
ways. I appreciate all of the opportunities you have provided and your assistance in the
development and completion of my thesis.

By coming to Michigan, a number of fabulous women entered my life and offered
their expertise, insight, and friendship. Whether strategizing, commiserating, or just plain
losing our minds late at night — you ladies made this time about more than just
intellectual achievement. So thank you to Debra, Adrienne, Megan, Maria, Tamara, and
Brandy.

One of the most important people in my life has endured the brunt of this process.
So to Donn I owe the biggest thank you — for tolerating (and at times enjoying) my
boring lifestyle, crabby moods, existential crises, feminist pontification, semantic
debates, and most of all for coming to Michigan with me. I don’t know that I would have
made it through without you.

Finally, I must acknowledge my parents. You two are the reason I am who I am
today. My values, passion, and desire to create change and challenge the system come
fi'om you. Thank you for supporting me at every turn, challenging me to be a better
person, and never turning your back on me no matter how many “divergent” paths I

wandered upon.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 4
Adult Sexual Harassment ...................................................................................... 4
Defining and Measuring Adult Sexual Harassment .................................. 4
Expanded Conceptualization: Indirect Sexual Harassment ....................... 7
Youth Sexual Harassment .................................................................................... 10
Defining Youth Sexual Harassment ......................................................... 12
Measuring Youth Sexual Harassment ...................................................... 13
Prevalence & Types of Youth Sexual Harassment .................................. 14
Measuring Impact of Sexual Harassment on Youth ................................ 17
Impact of Youth Sexual Harassment ....................................................... 18
Current Study .................................................................................................................... 20
Being a Target: Exploring Middle School Students’ Direct Sexual Harassment
Experiences ........................................................................................................... 20
Being a Witness: Exploring Middle School Students’ Witnessing Sexual
Harassment Experiences ....................................................................................... 21
The Relationship between Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress ......... 22
Method .............................................................................................................................. 26
Research Site and Sample ..................................................................................... 26
Procedures ............................................................................................................. 28
Measures ............................................................................................................... 33
Direct Sexual Harassment ......................................................................... 33
Witnessing Sexual Harassment ................................................................. 43
Incident Report .......................................................................................... 5O
Distress ...................................................................................................... 50
Significant Life Events ............................................................................. 52
Demographics ........................................................................................... 56
Analyses ................................................................................................................ 56
Results ............................................................................................................................... 58
What are middle school students’ experiences of direct sexual
harassment? ........................................................................................................... 58
What are middle school students’ experiences of witnessing sexual
harassment? ........................................................................................................... 63

iv

What is the relationship between sexual harassment (both direct and

witnessing harassment) and psychological distress symptoms? ........................... 69

Partial correlations .................................................................................... 69

Testing and Modifying the Sexual Harassment Measurement Model ...... 70

Testing the Full Structural Model ............................................................. 73

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 76

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 84

Appendix A Peer Interaction Survey .................................................................... 85
Appendix B Tables: Missing Data for the Direct and Witnessing Sexual

Harassment Degree of Upset Measures ................................................................ 98

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 101

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Direct Sexual Harassment
Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Scales ..................................................... 38

Table 2 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Direct Gender Harassment
Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ................................................ 40

Table 3 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Direct Unwanted Sexual
Attention Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ................................ 41

Table 4 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Direct Sexual Coercion
Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ................................................ 42

Table 5 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Witnessing Sexual
Harassment Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Scales .................................. 45

Table 6 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Witnessing Gender
Harassment Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ............................ 47

Table 7 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Witnessing Unwanted
Sexual Attention Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ..................... 48

Table 8 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Witnessing Sexual
Coercion Average Frequency and Summed Experiences Subscales ................................. 49

Table 9 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Brief Symptom Inventory....53

Table 10 Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Significant Life Events
Scale ................................................................................................................................... 55

Table 11 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Average Frequency and Summed
Experiences Models of Sexual Harassment ...................................................................... 57

Table 12 Percent Experienced and Mean Upset Ratings for Direct Sexual Harassment...6l

Table 13 Percent Experienced and Mean Upset Ratings for Witnessing Sexual
Harassment ......................................................................................................................... 66

Table 14 Witnessing Sexual Harassment: Gender and Number of Perpetrators and
Targets ............................................................................................................................... 68

Table 15 Partial Correlation for Direct Sexual Harassment, Witnessing Sexual
Harassment, and the BSI ................................................................................................... 70

vi

Table 16 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Sexual Harassment Measurement Models ...72

Table 17 Partial Correlations between Indicators of Sexual Harassment and
Psychological Distress ...................................................................................................... 73

Table 18 Number of Participants for whom the Direct Sexual Harassment Degree of
Upset Questions were Not Applicable .............................................................................. 99

Table 19 Number of Participants for Whom the Witnessing Sexual Harassment Degree
of Upset Questions Were Not Applicable ....................................................................... 100

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Two Models of Sexual Harassment ................................................................... 24
Figure 2 Model of the Relationship between Sexual Harassment and Psychological

Distress ............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3 Number of Middle School Students at Each Stage of the Consent Process ....... 27
Figure 4 Two Models of Sexual Harassment .................................................................... 72

Figure 5 Model of the Effect of Direct Sexual Harassment and Witnessing Sexual
Harassment on Distress .................................................................................................... 75

viii

Overview

Previous research has found that four out of five students experience direct sexual
harassment, defined as unwanted sexual behaviors that interfere with a student’s life,
prior to graduating high school. As a result of these experiences, youth report negative
psychological effects such as feeling upset, worthless, and hopeless. These studies
suggest that sexual harassment is a common occurrence in the lives of students with
serious negative consequences for those victimized. In developing theory and
interventions, it is critical that researchers and practitioners understand the full scope and
impact of sexual harassment in student populations. However, the study of sexual
harassment among youth is a developing field with several notable gaps. This study
extends previous research by: 1) exploring the experiences of a particularly under-studied
population, namely middle school youth, 2) assessing students’ experiences witnessing
sexual harassment, and 3) evaluating how sexual harassment affects students’ emotional
well-being using a standardized measure of psychological distress symptomatology. A
brief rationale for each of these three research foci is presented below.

Research suggests that sexual harassment emerges in late childhood and early
adolescence (i.e., late elementary and early middle school). However, the majority of
research on youth experiences of sexual harassment has focused almost exclusively on
high school students’ experiences. Middle school marks a unique stage in development
during which youth are experiencing psychological, social, and physical changes, many
of which focus on peer interaction and gender distinction. Given these changes and the
variable degree of success and rates at which youth experience them, it is probable that

sexual harassment at this stage may manifest in unique ways compared to the experiences

of the more developed high school students. Therefore, one purpose of this study was to
explore the sexual harassment experiences of the understudied middle school population.

Second, extant research on peer sexual harassment among youth focuses
exclusively on the experience and impact of direct sexual harassment. This approach fails
to account for the experience and impact of witnessing the sexual harassment of another
student (i.e., ambient harassment, bystander harassment). Research on adult sexual
harassment has found that this form of sexual harassment has unique psychological
consequences above and beyond that of direct victimization. Youth describe sexual
harassment as a common behavior happening in highly visible, public spaces (e. g.,
hallways, cafeterias, classrooms), suggesting that youth most likely witness the sexual
harassment of their peers. Therefore, the second purpose of this study was to expand the
conceptualization of youth sexual harassment to include an exploration of witnessing
sexual harassment.

Finally, this study utilized a new approach for assessing psychological distress. In
previous research, distress was typically measured by asking participants to rate their
degree of upset resulting from specific instances of sexual harassment using Likert-scale
response categories (e.g., from O= not upset to 3: very upset). Such a measure of distress
is problematic because participants may not link their degree of upset to a specific
harassment experience and therefore would not report any distress. Furthermore, the term
“upset” is ambiguous. It is unknown how any single participant might interpret the term
upset (e.g., upset could mean angry, sad, or embarrassed), which may influence whether
he/she would report distress linked to specific experiences of sexual harassment. In

addition, qualitative research on youth experiences suggests that psychological distress

manifests in a variety of ways (e. g., fear, anger, sadness, sense of helplessness) which
suggests the need for a more comprehensive distress measure. Therefore, in this study the
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), a standardized measure of global distress that includes
nine dimensions of psychological distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, somatization,
obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid
ideation, and psychoticism), was administered to supplement the traditional individual
item “upset” measure. The inclusion of the BSI provided a more refined indication of
negative psychological outcomes resulting from experiences of sexual harassment.

To address these gaps in the literature, the current study used quantitative
methods to answer the following research questions: 1) What are middle school students’
experiences of direct sexual harassment? 2) What are middle school students’
experiences of witnessing sexual harassment? 3) What is the relationship between sexual
harassment (both direct and witnessing harassment) and psychological distress

symptoms?

Literature Review

This literature review begins with a brief overview of the adult sexual harassment
research. This literature provides important background information for understanding
the youth sexual harassment research. Specifically, this review focuses on sexual
harassment definitions, measurement, frequency, and impact (i.e., distress) for both adult
and youth sexual harassment targets.
Adult Sexual Harassment

Defining and Measuring Adult Sexual Harassment. After more than two decades
of adult sexual harassment research, researchers have developed a nuanced understanding
sensitive to the unique factors that affect its perpetration and impact on targets. This
understanding emerged from a legal standard established as a result of a 1976 Supreme
Court (Williams v. Saxbe, 1976) ruling that sexual harassment was a form of sex
discrimination and therefore violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) focused on two components
when defining sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo
refers to the use of coercive tactics to threaten employment in exchange’for sexual
cooperation. Hostile environment includes offensive acts that create an unmanageable or
uncomfortable work environment for targets (EEOC, 1980). Since 1980, sexual
harassment researchers have expanded the legal definition to increase its precision and
utility for harassment targets, organizations, and researchers. Fitzgerald, Swan, and
Magley (1997) define sexual harassment as, “unwanted sex-related behavior at work that
is appraised by the recipient as offensive, exceeding her resources, or threatening her

well-being (p. 15).”

Adult sexual harassment has been objectively measured through behavioral
quantitative survey methods, most commonly using the Sexual Experiences
Questionnaire (SEQ), a highly validated and well respected measure of adult sexual
harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995). The SEQ is
an 18-item self-report inventory that has been deemed the most “theoretically and
psychometrically sophisticated instrument available” (p. 428) for assessing sexual
harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). Participants respond to behavioral items using a five-
point scale ranging from “never” to “most of the time” to indicate the frequency at which
they have experienced each behavior. This measure was developed based on Till’s (1980)
qualitative research with college women who had experienced sexual harassment which
illuminated five thematic dimensions to sexual harassment: 1) gender harassment (i.e.,
generalized sexist remarks and behavior), 2) seductive behavior (i.e., inappropriate and
offensive sexual advances), 3) sexual bribery (i.e., solicitation of sexual activity by
promise of reward) 4) sexual coercion (i.e., coercion of sexual activity by threat of
punishment), 5) sexual assault (i.e., gross sexual imposition or assault). This grounded
development of the items explicitly built in content validity (Fitzgerald, Swan et al.,
1997)

The SEQ has been used in a variety of settings including educational,
occupational, and organizational settings, and it has been found across studies to be both
reliable and valid (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). This measure possesses sufficient reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha= .86; Fitzgerald et al., 1988), generalizability, and stability (test-retest
stability analysis= .86; Fitzgerald et al., 1988) for use in research. Factor analysis of this

scale has revealed three distinct subtypes of harassment: 1) sexual coercion (i.e., threat of

punishment or promise of reward used to persuade compliance to sexual demands), 2)
unwanted sexual attention (i.e., seductive behaviors), and 3) gender harassment (i.e., sex-
related hostile remarks, gestures, or behaviors; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993). The SEQ
therefore has three subscales including: sexual coercion (coefficient alpha= .82;
Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997), unwanted sexual attention
(coefficient alpha= .41 — low due to very low endorsement; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, et al.,
1997), and gender harassment (coefficient alpha= .81; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, etal., 1997).
When scoring response items, indices can be computed for the subscales as well as a total
harassment experience score for an individual (Fitzgerald et al., 1995).

Using the SEQ, estimates of the occurrence of sexual harassment on average
suggest that approximately 50% of women experience at least one incident of sexual
harassment in the workplace (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo
1998). Incidence rates for men tend to be considerably lower, around 5% (Fitzgerald et
al., 1988). Similar patterns have been found utilizing other measures of sexual
harassment (Loy & Stewart, 1984). It appears that sexual harassment in the adult
population is a much more prevalent experience for women than for men. Thus, the adult
sexual harassment research has focused almost exclusively on women.

Using standardized measures of well-being along with the SEQ, researchers have
explored the negative impact of sexual harassment. As a result of sexual harassment
victimization, research has found that 75% of women experience symptoms of emotional
and physical distress (Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Loy & Stewart, 1984). In general,
consequences of harassment in the workplace are substantial including job turnover,

reduced productivity, and absenteeism (O’Donohue, Downs, & Yeater, 1998). Given the

seriousness of these consequences and the frequency with which women experience
them, researchers continue exploring sexual harassment in an effort to understand this
phenomenon and the full scope of its impact.

Expanded Conceptualization: Indirect Sexual Harassment. Adult sexual
harassment researchers have begun exploring indirect forms of harassment (i.e.,
watching, hearing, or knong about the sexual harassment of members of one’s work
group) known as ambient sexual harassment (Glomb et al., 1997; Richman—Hirsch &
Glomb, 2002) or bystander sexual harassment (Hitlan & Schneider, in preparation;
Kraiger & Chrobot-Mason, 2000). As an emerging construct, measurement of this
phenomenon varies across studies. Indirect sexual harassment has been defined and
operationalized as both a group and individual level variable measured through others’
fiequency of experience (Glomb et al., 1997), beliefs about organizational climate
(Kraiger & Chrobot-Mason, 2000), and actual instances of observing or hearing about the
sexual harassment of others (Hitlan and Schneider, in preparation).

Glomb and colleagues (1997) adopted the concept of ambient stress stimuli in
their expanded conceptualization of sexual harassment. Ambient stress stimuli are
defined as pervasive stimuli within an environment that will potentially impact any group
member (Hackrnan, 1992). Glomb et a1. conceptualize ambient sexual harassment as a
group level variable accounting for the general level of sexual harassment in a work
group as measured by the frequency of sexually harassing behaviors experienced by
others in a work group. Using responses to the SEQ, the researchers compute individual’s

degree of indirect exposure to harassment by computing the average SEQ score of all

employees in the work group, excluding the focal individual’s score. This procedure
provides an estimate of the general (ambient) level of sexual harassment in a work group.

Glomb and colleagues (1997) hypothesized that “over and above the stress
experienced by an individual target of sexual harassment, an incident of sexual
harassment may create a generally stressful environment that is experienced by others in
the work group” (p. 311). The researchers indeed found that, even after accounting for
the effects of direct sexual harassment, there were severe negative outcomes of indirect
exposure to sexual harassment. Specifically, ambient sexual harassment led to greater
psychological distress. This approach to measuring indirect sexual harassment is limited
however in that it does not account for individual awareness of the harassment.
Documenting the rates of harassment across members of a work group does not indicate
that individuals have actually been indirectly harassed, that is watched, heard or knew
about the sexual harassment of members of their work group. It is important to test
empirically the presumption that individuals are aware of the harassment occurring in the
workplace in order to accurately understand the impact of indirect harassment at a group
level.

By contrast, Kraiger and Chrobot-Mason (2000) refer to indirect sexual
harassment as bystander sexual harassment, which they define as an individual level
“perceptual construe ” focusing on worker beliefs about sexual harassment occurrences in
her/his organization. Using items from the SEQ, Kraiger and Chrobot-Mason asked 135
female federal employee participants how often they believed certain situations had
occurred between co-workers or supervisors. They found that 70% of participants

believed sexual harassment occurred in the past 24 months. In contrast, 26% of

participants reported directly experiencing sexual harassment in the previous 24 months.
This comparison indicates that women believed more harassment was occurring than they
themselves directly experienced.

While this conceptualization of bystander harassment is interesting to explore in
that it provides insight into individuals’ perceptions of their organization, it is
questionable whether these beliefs are valid indicators that indirect sexual harassment is
actually occurring. Given the intangible and amorphous nature of beliefs, neither
researchers nor organizations can reliably infer that beliefs indicate actual occurrences.
Both researchers and organizations can most effectively and consistently evaluate and
respond to behaviors actually experienced by individuals. This measure provides no
direct insight into actual behaviors occurring; therefore is limited in its ability to inform
researchers or organizations about employee behavior.

Similar to Kraiger and Chrobot-Mason (2000), Hitlan and Schneider (in
preparation) refer to indirect sexual harassment as bystander harassment and define it as
an individual level variable. Their conceptualization of this phenomenon focuses
exclusively on the sexual harassment of others in the workplace that one directly
observes or knows about. This was measured by adapting SEQ items to target indirect
sexual harassment experiences. For example, one item in the SEQ measuring direct
victimization is, “During the past 24 months have you been in a situation where any of
your male supervisors or co-workers habitually told suggestive stories or offensive
jokes.” The bystander harassment adaptation reads, “During the past 24 months, have you
observed any of your male supervisors or co-workers habitually telling suggestive stories

or offensive jokes that were directed toward someone at your organization (i.e., other

than yourself)” These basic adaptations were made to all SEQ items. Hitlan and
Schneider found that 72% of the 121 female respondents had observed the sexual
harassment of others’ within their organization. Seventy-four percent of participants also
indicated they had experienced direct sexual harassment. This finding indicates an
overlap of sexual harassment experiences including both direct and indirect forms.

Hitlan and Schneider’s approach to measuring indirect sexual harassment
provides a clear indication of the types of behaviors occurring in a setting. It provides a
more precise indication of harassment occurrences when compared to the other measures
of sexual harassment and therefore allows for more informed policy and training
decisions within organizations. Furthermore, by so closely adapting the validated and
reliable SEQ and focusing on actual behavioral occurrences rather than perceptions,
researchers using this approach may have increased certainty they are measuring the
intended construct.

Despite the differences in measurement across studies, these findings suggest that
sexual harassment is more than just direct victimization. This phenomenon appears to be
a complex system in which one is impacted by the effect of both direct and indirect
victimization. The nature of the system and its impact on victims as yet has not been
researched enough to make any definitive statements, however findings point to indirect
sexual harassment accounting for negative effects on victims above and beyond the
effects of direct victimization.

Youth Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment behavior among adults is a learned behavior that develops over

time. To explore the development of these behaviors across the lifespan, researchers have

10

begun investigating youth experiences of sexual harassment. Research on school-based
peer sexual harassment among youth (i.e., minors) emerged in the early 1990’s (AAUW,
1993) and remains in the preliminary stages of development. While much of the initial
work on youth sexual harassment was grounded in the adult sexual harassment literature,
it is important to acknowledge the distinction between these phenomena. Specifically, the
context in which the harassment occurs is quite different, that is the adult sexual
harassment literature focuses on workplace harassment where as youth sexual harassment
research focuses on school-based harassment. In school, students are learning the skills
that prepare them for later life. Any behavior that disrupts this process may have a
cumulative negative effect on later life functioning. This is not to minimize the effects of
workplace sexual harassment, but to acknowledge the distinction between the contexts in
which these behaviors occur.

The age and developmental stage differences between adults and youth further
highlight the distinction between these phenomena. Specifically, youth are in the midst of
dramatic psychological (e.g., increased emotionality, self-conceptualization), social (e.g.,
negotiating peer groups, experiencing acceptance or rejection), and physical (e.g.,
puberty) development (Steinberg & Morris, 2001), whereas adults experiencing sexual
harassment in the workplace are not typically experiencing such psychological, social,
and physical shifts. This dramatic development among youth may uniquely impact how
they interpret and respond to sexual harassment experiences.

Despite these differences, the adult sexual harassment literature’s evolution can
inform the development of youth sexual harassment research. For example, the approach

to measurement utilized in adult research (i.e., SEQ) and the inclusion of indirect sexual

11

harassment can facilitate the identification of methods and areas of research to pursue
regarding youth experiences of sexual harassment. In presenting the youth sexual
harassment research, aspects that are influenced or could be influenced by the adult
research will be highlighted.

Defining Youth Sexual Harassment. Definitions are inconsistent across studies of
youth sexual harassment (McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002; Mumen &
Smolak, 2000, Roscoe, Strouse, & Goodwin, 1994). For example, some definitions focus
on the infiingement on the legal rights of those targeted, while others focus exclusively
on the emotional impact of the experience on the individual. More specifically, Lacasse,
Purdy, and Mendelson (2003) incorporated Stein’s (1999) definition that states that a
behavior is harassing if it interferes with the right to receive equal educational
opportunity. This definition emphasizes sexual harassment as a form of sex
discrimination and a violation of Title IX (i.e., right to equal educational opportunity),
thereby framing the construct fiom a legal perspective. Other researchers have
emphasized the importance of the targets’ perception and interpretation of the harassing
behavior in defining sexual harassment. This perspective is based on the definition
provided by the American Association of University Women (AAUW; 1993) which
conducted the first national study of youth sexual harassment. This organization broadly
defined sexual harassment as “unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes
with a student’s life” (AAUW, 1993, 2001). This definition has been adopted in the
majority of subsequent studies of youth sexual harassment (e. g., Bryant, 1993; Fineran &
Bennett, 1999; McMaster et al., 2002; Mumen & Smolak, 2000; Trigg & Wittenstrom,

1 996).

12

When operationalizing the behavior, youth school-based peer sexual harassment
researchers often refer to the EEOC (1980) and adult sexual harassment researchers’
definitions of sexual harassment (e.g., F ineran & Bennett, 1998; Fineran, 2002; Hand &
Sanchez, 2000; Lee, Croninger, Linn, & Chen, 1996; Yaffe, 1995). Given that power
differentials between youth are often not as salient as those between employer and
employee in the workplace, researchers on youth sexual harassment tend to focus on
forms of harassment that create a hostile environment, rather than quid pro quo. The
influence of the hostile environment dimension as well as the unwanted sexual attention
subset of harassment is evident in the behavioral items specified by researchers surveying
youth participants about harassment experiences (e. g., Hostile environment: made sexual
comments, jokes, or gestures; showed, gave or left sexual pictures, photographs,
messages, or notes; spread sexual rumors; Unwanted sexual attention: touched, grabbed
or pinched in a sexual way; intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way; forced
you to kiss him/her). Similar to the early stages of adult sexual harassment research,
youth researchers’ operationalizations exclusively focus on direct victimization. The
extant research on youth has not begun to investigate indirect sexual harassment as
identified in research on adult, workplace harassment (Glomb et al., 1997; Hitlan &
Schneider, in preparation; Kraiger & Chrobot-Mason, 2000; Riehman-Hirsch & Glomb,
2002)

Measuring Youth Sexual Harassment. Youth sexual harassment has been
measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. Although less frequent, qualitative
methods utilized include interviews (Mumen & Smolak, 2000; Shakeshafi, Mandel, &

Johnson, 1997) and focus groups (Bennan, McKenna, Arnold, Taylor, & MacQuarrie,

13

2000; Grover & Nangle, 2003). The majority of existing studies have investigated youth
sexual harassment using quantitative survey measures (AAUW, 1993, 2001; F ineran &
Bennett, 1999; Lacasse et al., 2003; Lee et al., 1996; McMaster et al., 2002; Ohio
Department of Education, 1999; Polce-Lynch, Myers, Kliewer, & Kilmartin, 2001;
"Sexual Harassment," 1995; Roscoe et al., 1994; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). These are
behavior frequency measures that ask participants to indicate the number of times (e. g.,
from never to three or more times) they have experienced a variety of sexually harassing
behaviors. Across studies, the behaviors included are consistent, often with only single
item additions or deletions (the variation most often involves the more severe forms of
harassment, such as sexual assault). As with the definition, the majority of measures
utilized by researchers are adaptations of the original measure developed by AAUW
(1993). This measure is limited, however, given that the authors of the AAUW report
(1993) fail to disclose both the means by which items were created and the psychometric
properties of the measure. The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire — High School Version
(SEQ-High School), developed by Collinsworth and Fitzgerald (unpublished research
scale), is the only existing quantitative measure that is not an adaptation of the AAUW
measure. The SEQ-High School is an adaptation of the highly validated and well
respected adult sexual harassment measure, the SEQ (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Fitzgerald et
al., 1995), and has been used twice to date (Collinsworth, Fitzgerald, & Magley,
unpublished manuscript; Lacasse etal., 2003).

Prevalence & Types of Youth Sexual Harassment. Prevalence data regarding
youth sexual harassment indicates that it is a pervasive phenomenon. Youth harassment

has been found to be more common than adult, work-related sexual harassment with 75

14

to 80 percent of male and female students experiencing at least one form of sexual
harassment before graduating high school (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Fineran & Bennett,
1999; Lacasse et al., 2003; Lee et al., 1996; Mumen & Smolak, 2000; Ohio Department
of Education, 1999; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). Research also suggests that sexual
harassment is not an isolated experience, that in fact youth are typically victimized
multiple times, with 58 percent of victimized youth reporting that they experience it
“oflen” or “occasionally” (AAUW, 1993, 2001). Students indicate the normalization of
such behaviors through their qualitative responses (e. g., perceive harassment as “more
usual than unusual,” “a way of life,” Shakeshaft et al., 1997; “that’s the way the

world. . .goes;” Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). This normalization suggests that harassment
occurs with at least moderate frequency. Research has also shown that the majority of
youth harassment occurs in public spaces such as hallways, classrooms, and cafeterias
(AAUW, 1993, 2001; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996) making this a highly visible form of
victimization. These findings indicate that sexual harassment is a common occurrence in
the lives of students.

Research indicates that sexual harassment may become a part of students’ school
lives as early as elementary school. Across studies, the majority of participants report that
their first peer sexual harassment experience occurred in middle school, although some
report first incidents occurring in elementary school (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Mumen &
Smolak, 2000; Stein, 1996; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). The 2001 AAUW study found
that approximately one-third of their national sample of 2,064 public school students
(grades eight through eleven) had their first harassment experience before sixth grade.

The 1993 AAUW national study found a similar pattern of first experience. Furthermore,

15

Mumen and Smolak (2000) utilized an elementary school aged sample (mean age of
10.44), the majority of which had already experienced some form of sexual harassment.
These findings suggest that first harassment experiences occur sometime in elementary
school (i.e., kindergarten through fifth grade) or early in middle school (i.e., sixth through
eighth grade).

Despite the findings that sexual harassment emerges in late elementary or early
middle school, the majority of research on youth sexual harassment focuses on secondary
school youth or retrospective accounts of experiences that occurred during secondary
school (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Heritage, Denton, & West, 1996;
Lacasse, et al., 2003; Ohio Depart of Education, 1999; “Sexual Harassment,” 1995; Trigg
& Wittenstrom, 1996). Of studies primarily focusing on secondary school-aged
adolescents that included a younger sample, the youngest participants were in eighth
grade (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). Other studies that included
primarily younger participants either were qualitative studies (Shakeshaf’t et al., 1997),
failed to differentiate findings regarding the experiences of 11-year olds from that of 16-
year old participants (Roscoe et al., 1994), or included a sample of only one grade from a
middle school (i.e., eighth grade; Pelee-Lynch et al., 2001). Little research has assessed
the experiences of students in late childhood (e.g., Mumen & Smolak, 2000) or early
adolescents, with only one study providing frequency and impact data focused on a
middle school population (grades six through eight; McMaster et al., 2002).

The types of harassment that are experienced by youth range from staring to
sexual assault. It was found across studies that non-physical, verbal forms of harassment

(e.g., sexual comments, jokes, and name calling) are most common (AAUW, 1993, 2001;

16

Hand & Sanchez, 2000; Ohio Department of Education, 1999; Roscoe et al., 1994;
Shakeshafr et al., 1997; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). The specific content of the most
frequent verbal harassment however is variable. Among 342 urban high school students,
Fineran and Bennett (1999) found negative comments about body, weight, or clothing to
be most common. Hand and Sanchez (2002) found that among eighth through eleventh
graders a general “sexual comment” was the most common form of sexual harassment
experienced. McMaster and colleagues (2002) found that among middle school students
sexual comments, jokes, gestures or looks (combined as one item) were the most
commonly reported form of harassment. Beyond the most frequent, study similarities
regarding type of harassment experienced stop. For example, across different studies it
was reported that the second most frequently experienced type of sexual harassment
included being called “fag,” “dyke,” lesie,” or “queer” (McMaster etal., 2002), being
pressured for a date (Fineran & Bennett, 1999), and being touched sexually (Hand &
Sanchez, 2002).

Measuring Impact of Sexual Harassment on Youth. Some studies of youth sexual
harassment have explored the impact of these experiences on youth. The measurement of
impact typically focuses on psychological distress (AAUW 1993, 2001; Berman et al.,
2000; Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Lacasse et al., 2003; Mumen & Smolak, 2000;
Shakeshaft et al., 1997; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). Psychological impact has been
assessed both qualitatively (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Berman et al., 2000; Mumen &
Smolak, 2000; Shakeshaft et al., 1997; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996) and quantitatively
(AAUW, 1993, 2001; Collinsworth & Fitzgerald, in preparation; Lacasse et al., 2003;

Fineran & Bennett, 1999). Qualitative data on degree of distress has been collected

17

through either entirely qualitative studies (Berman et al., 2000; Mumen & Smolak, 2000;
Shakeshafi et al., 1997) or studies with open-ended questions regarding how participants
felt after being harassed (AAUW, 1993, 2001; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996). Qualitative
findings illuminate the varying ways in which youth are distressed by their experiences
including feeling embarrassed, angry, fearfirl, sad, worthless or helpless against the
harassment.

Quantitative measurement of psychological impact varies across studies. In some
quantitative studies, degree of distress, or “upset” as it is most frequently labeled, is
measured in response to individual behavioral items, typically with a response range fiom
not upset (zero) to very upset (three; Collinsworth et al., unpublished manuscript; Lacasse
et al., 2003; Fineran & Bennett, 1999). Any time a participant indicates she/he has
experienced a particular harassing behavior (e. g., being called sexual names) the
participant then is asked to indicate to what degree she/he was upset by the experience. In
other quantitative studies, it appears participants provided a more global assessment of
the degree to which a harassment experience distressed them in relation to specific
manifestations of distress (e.g., On a scale of one to five, in general, how embarrassed
were you by the harassment you experienced; AAUW 1993, 2001). However, the
understanding of this measure of distress is limited because the exact items and response
scale used to measure distress in these studies were not disclosed. Standardized measures
of psychological outcomes have not been included in studies of this phenomenon.

Impact of Youth Sexual Harassment. Youth targeted by sexual harassment report a
myriad of negative consequences. As a result of sexual harassment, youth describe

experiencing negative psychological outcomes (AAUW 1993, 2001; Lacasse et al., 2003;

18

Shakeshafi et al., 1997; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996) such as feeling moderately upset
(AAUW 1993, 2001), feeling worthless, feeling helpless against the harassment
(Shakeshaft et al., 1997; Trigg & Wittenstrom, 1996), and feeling afraid (AAUW, 1993,
2001). Furthermore, harassed students identify feeling embarrassed (four in ten students),
self-conscious (one in three students), and less confident (one in four students) as a result
of harassment experiences (AAUW, 2001). In a particularly salient example, a student
reported an incident in which a male student informed her that he was going to rape her.
She stated that after that, “If they touch me, I’m afi'aid they’re going to carry through if I
say no. And I’m scared shitless of that. . .” (Berman et al., 2000, p. 41).

It is clear from both the qualitative and quantitative findings that experiencing
sexual harassment is distressing for youth. It also appears that the negative psychological
impact manifests in varying ways (e.g., embarrassment, anger, fear). It is important to
note that the two ways in which distress has quantitatively been measured (i.e., itemized
upset measure, global ratings pertaining to select manifestations) do not account for the

varying ways in which distress can manifest as indicated by qualitative findings.

19

Current Study

The current study extended previous research by exploring middle school
students’ experiences with direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual harassment,
and how these encounters affect their well-being, as measured by a standardized
psychological distress scale. Three research questions guided this study: 1) What are
middle school students’ experiences of direct sexual harassment? 2) What are middle
school students’ experiences of witnessing sexual harassment? 3) What is the relationship
between sexual harassment (both direct and witnessing harassment) and psychological
distress symptoms? The rationale for each of these research questions is presented below.
Being a Target: Exploring Middle School Students ’ Direct Sexual Harassment
Experiences

The majority of research on youth sexual harassment focuses on high school
students’ experiences of direct sexual harassment, despite findings that sexual harassment
emerges as early as elementary school. Developmental differences between high school
and middle school youth suggest the need to study the distinct experience and impact of
direct sexual harassment among middle school students. Middle school marks the
beginning of adolescence, a unique stage in development at which time individuals
experience dramatic changes psychologically, socially, and physically (Berk, 2003;
Malina & Bouchard, 1991; Steinberg & Morris, 2001; Tanner, 1990). During this
transitional stage, youth are attempting to navigate newly developing bodies and
sexuality, while at the same time coping with emotional instability (Buchanan, Eecles, &
Becker, 1992 as cited in Berk 2003; Nottelmann et al., 1990 as cited in Berk 2003;

Paikoff, Brooks-Gum, & Warren, 1991 as cited in Berk 2003) and attempting to find

20

where they “fit in” among their peers (Berk, 2003; Haynie, 2001; Steinberg & Morris,
2001). High school students on the other hand are moving toward developmental
stability, with research consistently finding better overall functioning and adaptability
when comparing individuals in early adolescence to those in middle or late adolescence
on similar domains (e. g., parent-child conflict, successful attainment of social status,
stability of self-esteem; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). This research suggests that the nature
and impact of sexual harassment may differ between high school and middle school
youth. To assess middle school students’ experiences of direct sexual harassment, this
study used an adapted version of the SEQ-High School (see Measures section for details
regarding the adaptation).
Being a Witness: Exploring Middle School Students ’ Witnessing Sexual Harassment
Experiences
The extant literature on youth sexual harassment focuses exclusively on direct
victimization experiences, finding that 75 to 80% of youth directly experience it prior to
graduating high school. Research has found that over half of youth who are victims of
sexual harassment experience it “often” or “occasionally,” thus suggesting that it is not an
isolated experience. These behaviors are perpetrated in public spaces such as hallways,
classrooms, and cafeterias making this a highly visible form of victimization. In their own
words, youth describe sexual harassment as “more usual than unusual” and “a way of life”
thus indicating the normalization of this behavior. Given the proportion of youth that are
victimized, the frequency of the perpetration, and the location in which it occurs; it is
probable that students witness the victimization of others. Therefore, this study explored

youth experiences of both direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual harassment.

21

In order to measure witnessing sexual harassment experiences, items in the SEQ-
High School were adapted to refrarne the questions to ask only about those behaviors
students witnessed. Consistent with recent trends in the victimology literature, students
were also asked to complete an incident report describing the most salient sexual
harassment incident they witnessed in the past year. This incident report collected
contextual details regarding the behaviors students witness (e.g., type of sexual
harassment, gender of victim and perpetrator, number of victims and perpetrators, location
of harassment). The incident report provided insight into the details of incidents of sexual
harassment from the perspective of those witnessing it.
The Relationship between Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress

Extant research indicates that youth are negatively impacted (i.e., psychologically
distressed) by sexual harassment experiences. In qualitative research youth reports suggest
that the negative psychological impact of sexual harassment manifests in a variety of ways
such as embarrassment, fear, sadness, and anger. The majority of quantitative research
exploring the psychological impact of sexual harassment on youth, however, has not
accounted for these manifestations. Distress is most fi'equently measured quantitatively
through participant reports of degree of “upset” resulting from specific instances of sexual
harassment using Likert-scale response categories. Given the ambiguity of the term
“upset,” it is unknown how any single participant interprets it (e. g., upset could mean
angry, sad, or embarrassed). It is possible that a youth who was distressed by a sexual
harassment experience would not identify with the term upset. Furthermore, it is possible
that participants may not link their degree of distress to a specific harassment experience.

While a youth may be able to identify certain distress symptoms, s/he may not identify

22

sexual harassment as the etiology of those symptoms. Therefore the distress these
participants are experiencing would not be accounted for using this measure.

Despite limitations, the itemized measure of distress was included in this study
because it indicates the degree of upset in relation to specific harassment experiences.
This is informative regarding how different forms of harassment may differentially affect
individuals or how different types of harassment are perceived as more or less upsetting.
Yet, because there are several limitations to this method of measuring distress, in this
study the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), a standardized
measure of global distress that assesses nine dimensions of psychological distress, was
also administered to supplement the itemized upset measure. The BSI better accounts for
the varying manifestations of distress youth may experience as a result of sexual
harassment without requiring the cognitive awareness of the source of the distress (i.e.,
that the distress resulted from sexual harassment).

To examine the relationship between sexual harassment and psychological
distress, structural equation modeling was used. First, two measurement models were
evaluated to determine whether direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual
harassment were indeed separate constructs. Findings fi'om the adult literature suggest
direct and witnessing sexual harassment are distinct phenomena and could differentially
impact one’s degree of psychological distress, but this assumption needed to be
empirically tested. Figure 1 shows the two measurement models that were compared. One
model includes only one latent construct, meaning that there is no empirical distinction
between direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual harassment. The other model

depicts two latent constructs whereby direct and witnessing sexual harassment are

23

Figure 1

Two Models of Sexual Harassment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DGH DGH x\\\\\
DUSA ‘ DUSA h——
DSC DSC

WGH WGH
WUSA WUSA

WSC wsc

 

 

 

NOTE: DGH=Direct Gender Harassment, DUSA=Direet Unwanted Sexual Attention, DSC=Direct Sexual
Coercion, WGH= Witnessing Gender Harassment, WUSA= Witnessing Unwanted Sexual Attention,
WSC= Witnessing Sexual Coercion, SH= Sexual Harassment

distinct constructs. It was hypothesized that the two latent constructs model would be a
better fit of the data.

Once the best fitting measurement model was resolved, a full model was tested
that linked sexual harassment to psychological distress. Figure 2 depicts the hypothesized
structural relationships using the two latent constructs model of sexual harassment. This
model includes direct sexual harassment, witnessing sexual harassment, and
psychological distress as latent constructs. The direct and witnessing sexual harassment
constructs each had three indicators (i.e., the gender harassment, unwanted sexual
attention, and sexual coercion subscales from the SEQ-High School), and psychological

distress had two indicators (i.e., the Brief Symptom Inventory and the itemized degree of

24

upset measure). It was hypothesized that the pathways from direct sexual harassment to

distress and witnessing sexual harassment to distress would be positive and significant.

Figure 2

Model of the Relationship between Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress

 

 

GH SC USA GH SC USA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnessing Sexual
Harassment

Direct Sexual
Harassment

   

 

 

Upset BSI

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

Method

Research Site and Sample

A Midwestern middle school (grades six through eight) was selected as the data
collection site for this study. On average, middle schools in the state in which this school
is located have approximately 560 students (Hoffman, 2003). Two hundred and sixty five
students were enrolled in this school, indicating it is a smaller school compared to other
schools in the state. This school’s district includes one elementary school, one middle
school, and one high school. This middle school was selected based on an existing
working relationship between the researcher and the community that facilitated a trusting
and productive research environment. However, it is important to note that
demographically this school is not entirely representative of the state in which it is
located. It is representative of state levels of Asian and Latinos; however it is over
representative of white students by 20% and under representative of Afiican American
students by 15%. Furthermore, only 22% of their students receive free or reduced price
lunches as opposed to the state average of 3 1 % indicating that the socio-economic status
of this sample of students is not representative of average state levels.

All 265 students in the middle school were invited to participate in this study.
After completing the multiphase process of seeking parental consent (see Procedures
section for description), 196 consent forms and 27 refusal forms were returned, thus
responses were obtained fi'om 223 out of the 265 originally contacted with an 84.15%
response rate and a 73.96% consent rate. One hundred and eight five students with

parental consent were present on the day of survey administration, and 163 (61.51%) had

26

sufficiently complete data for analysis. Figure 3 presents the number of middle school
students at each phase of the consent process.
Figure 3

Number of Middle School Students at Each Stage of the Consent Process

 

[ 265 Middle School Students ]

ii

[ 196 Parent/Guardians Consented to Participation ]

U

[ 185 Potential Participants Present for Administration 1

U

[ 163 Students Assented and Participated in the Survey ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On average, these participants were approximately 12.5 years old (M=12.57,
SD=.99) ranging from 11 to 15 years old. Fifiy-eight participants (35.6%) were in sixth
grade, 57 (35.0%) were in seventh grade, and 48 (29.4%) were in eighth grade.
Regarding gender, 71 participants (43.6%) were male and 89 (54.6%) were female, with
three participants not indicating their gender. Participants were asked to indicate all
ethnic/racial groups that they identify as part of their background, thus the sum of the
ethnic backgrounds does not equal the number of participants as there were bi- and multi-
racial participants who selected multiple categories. One hundred forty four participants
(88.3%) indicated they were white/Caucasian, 7 participants (4.3%) indicated they were

black/Afiican American, 10 participants (6.1%) indicated they were Latino/Hispanic, 11

27

participants (6.7%) indicated they were Native American, 5 participants (3.1%) indicated
they were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 3 participants (1.8%) indicated they were of some
other ethnic background than those listed. Seven participants did not report their ethnic
background.
Procedures

Parental/ guardian consent was sought via multiple mailings and phone contact.
Using contact information provided by the school, consent packets addressed to the
parent/guardian(s) were mailed to the home address of all middle school students. The
packets contained a study endorsement letter from the middle school principal, a project
description letter fi'om the researcher, two copies of the consent form, one copy of a
refuse participation form, and a pre-paid envelope pre-addressed to the researcher.
Parents/ guardians were provided one copy of the consent form to sign and send back to
the researcher in the envelope and the second copy for their records. The use of a refuse
participation form facilitated targeted follow-up contacts by clearly distinguishing those
parents/ guardians that were not giving consent (those that returned the refuse
participation form) from those that simply had not yet responded to the mailing and thus
should be re-contacted.

Multiple methods were utilized to maximize the parent/ guardian response rate.
First, in order to increase the probability that the initial mailing would not get “lost in the
shuffle,” prior to the consent packet mailing parents/ guardians received a postcard briefly
informing them of the study, its purpose, and that consent materials would be arriving via
mail the following week. Second, an incentive to respond was incorporated into the

consent process. Parents/ guardians were informed that the advisory class (similar to a

28

homeroom) that had the most consent or refuse participation forms returned would
receive a pizza party. The incentive encouraged any form of response, either consent to
allow their child to participate or refusal to allow participation, thus not coercing consent.
In an effort to further increase the response rate, the middle school principal made regular
announcements to the students about the pizza party in hopes that students would
encourage their parent/ guardian to send in either the consent or refuse participation form.
Information about the pizza party was included in all forms of contact with

parents/ guardians.

After the postcard and initial consent mailing, telephone contact was attempted
with all parents/ guardians fiom whom no response had been received. During this
contact, parents/ guardians were asked if they had received the consent materials, were
briefly informed about the intent of the project, and were asked if they had any questions
about the project. After attempting telephone contact with all non-responsive
parents/ guardians, a second consent packet was mailed. The letters from the school and
researcher were altered to emphasize the importance of this study to the school
community, as the deadline for the pizza party had passed. Also included in this mailing
was a one sentence note informing the parents/ guardians that they were receiving this
second consent packet mailing because a consent or refuse participation form had not
been received by the date of the mailing, and if one had been sent it was requested
another be mailed. In addition to the direct contacts, the school made announcements
about the project at parent-teacher nights and an announcement was included in the
school newsletter distributed to all parents/ guardians. These efforts resulted in an 84%

parent/ guardian response rate.

29

Prior to the day of survey administration, packets were created for each student
for whom parent/ guardian consent was received. These packets contained two copies of
the assent form (one to sign and one for the participant's records) and one copy of the
survey. All packet materials were placed in individual envelopes. To assist in distributing
the packets and ensuring only students with parent/ guardian consent received survey
materials, affixed to each envelope was a removable label with the name of the student to
whom the packet was assigned. These labels were removed and destroyed (shredded) at
the completion of survey administration.

Surveys were administered during the advisory hour (first hour) and second hour
of the day. Survey administration occurred in a single day to prevent discussion of the
survey among former and future participants. The administration took place in the school
auditorium. All sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students with parent/ guardian consent
were dismissed to the auditorium at the start of the first hour. Trained undergraduate and
graduate assistants were stationed at three separate tables in the auditorium lobby, one for
each grade level, and distributed the prepared survey packets to students. In instances
where a student had come to the lobby but there was not a prepared packet, her/his name
was checked against a full list of students with parent! guardian consent. All students who
were not on the list were sent back to class (this occurred with four students, there were
no students that were on the consent list that did not have a packet). As the assistants
distributed packets they told the students not to open the packet until instructed to do so
and to take a seat in the auditorium with one seat between themselves and any other

student.

30

Once all students were seated in the auditorium, the school social worker
followed a standardized script to introduce the study’s purpose and procedures to
participants, explicitly highlighting the option to refuse participation as well as the
anonymity of their data. At this time students were given the opportunity to ask
questions. Multiple students asked questions pertaining to the anonymity of their data. It
was evident that students were genuinely concerned about who would know what they
said and if it could be traced back to them. Despite being informed that the surveys would
be separated from the envelopes upon leaving the school, some students elected to cross
out their names from the label on their envelopes. Additional explanation of the use and
assignment of the mrique ID number (given that the number was not already on their
surveys) was also required. Although it appeared all questions were satisfactorily
answered, it is possible some students elected not to participate based on concern for
anonymity.

Students interested in participating were instructed to sign the assent form; those
not interested in participating were asked to sit quietly at their seat until all students
completed their surveys. Participants in the harassment survey were instructed to place
their signed assent forms in the envelope and complete the survey. Participation took
approximately 45 minutes. Upon completion, participants placed their completed surveys
in their individual envelopes with their signed assent forms. Once all students were done,
the packets were collected by the research assistants. Research assistants then distributed
debriefing materials to the participants. This included a debrief form and a pamphlet
titled “You’re Not Alone: Harassment Hurts.” This pamphlet contained basic prevalence

information regarding harassment as well as suggestions for responding to the behavior if

31

it occurs. This pamphlet was adapted from the AAUW Harassment-Free Hallways guide
for students, parents, and schools (AAUW, 2004). The primary researcher led a brief
discussion addressing the information included in the “You’re Not Alone: Harassment
Hurts” pamphlet. The school’s social worker was identified as a resource if youth had
further questions or would like to speak with someone about their experiences.

At the completion of data collection, all assent forms were separated from the
surveys to ensure the anonymity of participant responses. This occrured after verifying
that all participating students had the consent of their parents to be included in the
research. The assent forms were checked against the list of students that did and did not
have parental consent. No surveys were completed by a student that did not have
parent/ guardian consent.

Next, completed surveys were separated fi'om incomplete surveys. For a survey to
be included in analysis the participant had to complete at least 75% of each measure. Ten
surveys had already been removed because the students assigned to them were absent on
the day of administration. Of the 186 students present on the day of administration, 163
completed enough of the survey for their data to be included in analysis. Surveys
excluded from analyses were destroyed (shredded). The remaining surveys were then
assigned unique ID numbers. No information linking participant names to their ID
numbers was kept. Survey data were entered into an SPSS database by a trained research
assistant. The accuracy of data entry was verified by checking every survey against what

was entered into the database.

32

Measures

Measures were selected to assess direct sexual harassment, witnessing sexual
harassment, and psychological distress. Specifically, one measure was selected for direct
sexual harassment, two measures were selected for witnessing sexual harassment, and
two measures were selected for psychological distress. An additional measure was
included to assess significant life events that occurred in the previous year that may have
distressed participants (a control variable in the analyses). Basic demographic
information was also collected. See Appendix A for a copy of the survey.

Direct Sexual Harassment. The SEQ-HS was used to measure direct sexual
harassment experiences. The SEQ-HS is an adapted version of the SEQ. Collinsworth
and Fitzgerald (in preparation) altered the SEQ items to reflect the language of youth, the
unique circumstances in a secondary school setting as opposed to a work environment
(e. g., coworker becomes another student), and the unique nature of social rewards and
punishments adolescents hold over one another as opposed to traditional workplace quid
pro quo harassment (e.g., threatening to spread sexual rumors versus threatening to fire
someone).

The SEQ-HS was selected as the most appropriate measure for this study (as
compared to the AAUW 1993 measure) for a variety of reasons. The items included in
the SEQ-HS and the approach to administration are similar to the AAUW (1993, 2001)
survey, the most frequently adapted measure of youth sexual harassment. F ace validity
indicates that these two surveys are measuring the same construct. However, it is unclear
how the AAUW survey was constructed or conceptualized. No information has been

published regarding the psychometric properties of that measure or any of its

33

reincamations in other studies. Furthermore, the AAUW measure was utilized to explore
student experiences with both student-to-student and teacher-to-student sexual
harassment thereby further distinguishing it from the purposes of this study. Therefore,
the SEQ-HS was selected in this study given that it is conceptually and psychometrically
grounded in the SEQ. However, little has been published on the SEQ-HS and nothing on
an entirely middle school population, therefore this study acted as another reliability test
of the SEQ-HS.

Similar to the adult SEQ, the SEQ-HS asks participants to report the frequency at
which they experienced a variety of sexual harassment behaviors, from “0” meaning
never to “2+” meaning twice or more. The original SEQ-HS included 27 items. After
examining the properties of the instrument, Collinsworth and Fitzgerald specified it as a
20-item scale, with a seven-item gender harassment subscale (Alpha= .84), an eight-item
unwanted sexual attention subscale (Alpha= .86), and a five-item sexual coercion
subscale (Alpha= .72; Collinsworth et al., unpublished manuscript). Since that
administration, Collinsworth and Fitzgerald have expanded this scale to include 31 items,
all of which were considered for use in this study.

For this study, the SEQ-HS was adapted in eight ways in order to measure direct
sexual harassment. First, the direct nature of the harassment (i.e., “done to you”) was
emphasized to clearly distinguish the assessment of direct versus witnessing sexual
harassment. Second, examples were added or adapted as needed to best reflect the
language of youth in this district (based on the researcher’s observational field
experiences in that district and input from the middle school principal and school social

worker). Third, items that were duplicates or close variations of other items were deleted

34

(five items). Fourth, one double barreled item was broken into two items (i.e., “made
sexual remarks about you to others or called you sexual names” became two items). Fifth,
the term “offensive” in one item was changed to “hurtful” and a second item was created
using the term “sexually explicit.” This was done to address the ambiguity of the term
“offensive” (i.e., “said offensive things about your body or how you looked” became 1)
said hurtful things, and 2) said sexually explicit things about your body or how you
looked). Sixth, one item was added to address another dimension of gender harassment
(i.e., “made firn of you for not acting like enough of a boy or girl”). Seventh, one item
(i.e., “worn T-shirts or hats that had sexually offensive words or pictures”) was deleted
because it was viewed by the researcher as a witnessing sexual harassment experience,
which was measured separately.

As a final adaptation, the length of time about which participants were responding
was shortened. In the original SEQ-HS students were asked to report their experiences
based on their entire time at their current school. For the purpose of this study, students
were asked to report experiences that occurred only within the last year of school. This
was done for two reasons: 1) to bound the time frame about which students were
referencing thereby decreasing probability of biased memories and 2) to increase the
probability that behaviors reported are occurring at the middle school level, and therefore
are behaviors the middle school can address. After these adaptations, a 29-item direct
sexual harassment scale remained.

The direct sexual harassment items were sealed in two ways: 1) the average
frequency with which participants experienced the behaviors and 2) summed harassment

experiences (i.e., the total number of behaviors experienced). The average frequency of

35

direct sexual harassment experiences scale reflects the mean of all items, with possible
scores ranging from 0-2. In this sample, Cronbach’s Alpha was .88, with satisfactory
corrected item-total correlations (CITC) ranging from .14 to .59. Four items (i.e., Items 4,
26, 28, 29) had low CITCs ranging from .14 to .30, but these were low occurrence
behaviors relative to others and the items were retained so that the final scale represented
both typical and less typical behaviors. Additionally, if these items were deleted, the
alpha would not significantly change, firrther supporting the decision to retain these items
in the measure.

The summed harassment experiences scale reflects the total number of different
harassment experiences a participant reported, with possible scores ranging from 0-29.
To compute this scale, all items were dichotomized with zero meaning the participant
never experienced the behavior and one meaning the participant experienced the behavior
at least once. All items were then summed to create the overall scale. A Cronbach’s
Alpha of .86 was obtained, with satisfactory CITCs ranging from .20 to .58. Five items
had low CITCs (i.e., Items 1, 4, 26, 28, 29) reflecting the infrequency of their occurrence
and these were retained for conceptual completeness of the scale. Four of these items had
similarly low CITCs with the average frequency scaling. Table 1 provides item statistics
and psychometric properties for the overall average frequency and summed experiences
scales.

These total scales (frequency and summed) provide useful descriptive
information, but for the structural equation analyses the total scales needed to be divided
into subscales to create multiple indicators of each latent construct (direct and witnessing

sexual harassment). The 29 items in the total scale were subdivided into subscales

36

following Fitzgerald’s model of sexual harassment, including a 14-item gender
harassment subscale, 8-item unwanted sexual attention subscale, and 7-item sexual
coercion subscale. For each subscale, a frequency and summed experiences scale was
computed. For the gender harassment average frequency scale, an alpha of .83 and CITCs
ranging from .31 to .57 were obtained. The gender harassment summed experiences scale
resulted in an Alpha of .80 and CITCs ranging from .22 to .51. For the unwanted sexual
attention average frequency scale, an alpha of .70 and CITCs ranging fiom .32 to .56
were obtained. The unwanted sexual attention summed experiences scale resulted in an
Alpha of .67 and CITCs ranging from .27 to .56. For the sexual coercion average
frequency scale, an alpha of .58 and CITCs ranging from .04 to .54 were obtained. The
sexual coercion summed experiences scale resulted in an Alpha of .55 and‘CITCs ranging
from .15 to .50. Tables 2-4 present item statistics and psychometric properties for each

subscale.

37

 

me. 3. mm. mm. 3. mm. “venom .50» Beam 3.888 338m 038 .2
a. Q. E. R. S. cm. Egon a .8 388 as was“ an a.“ so» do Se 038 .S
ow. 3. cm. am. no. cm. 225.“ 8 2S: 22> :9» 8:83 :38 so» Sn 3 3:3 28 .2
a. 3. mm. mm. 3“. an. 8» came 3 35882 a .8 2a: a 8» 8:8 .2
Vm. 9. mm. an. mm. mm. so» Sosa £95: 338m 32% .a
mm. 3. mm. mm. mm. 3. 30:8 9 so» Sons 3.888 :3me 038 .w
3. 2. 8. Nm. 3 z ._ 25: as a :3. 3:8 s
G. 2. mm. 9.. E. S. 8.98 were... so» 8%... e
we. we. 9... a. a. 8. Bee 2; so; a $8 5% sop“ ass 3.93 bane... as .m
an. on. em. om. mm. 8. Bee so» so: 8 $8 5% as“ $55 2:3 as .v
mm. 3. 3”. nm. E. 3. no» 8 8.55% 28890 do 338 038 .m
ow. 5‘. mm. 3‘. mm. Du. .80: 8 En? rage so» 35 so» 9 moo—2.8 mecca 338m 29 .N
mm. 3.. 3. am. on. I“. so» 9 209.50 .8 motowm .836?” 338m 398: .8 flow: .332? ._
9:0 am :82 who am 50:

 

 

moocotaxm uoEQSm

accoswocm owfio><

25: Beam

 

 

cw. ow. awe ww. mm. am.
a Om 2 a Gm E
moococomxm Bantam .8536on owflo><

 

 

who—mom moocouomxm 388% 98 5:25on owflo>< Enemmfimm :3me 625 05 me $33on omboEosoxmm Ea moumufim So:

_ 2an

38

 

hm.
oN.
gm.
fim.
mm.
wv.
mm.
mm.
Vm.

hm.

mm.
.3.
mm.
av.
mm.

0N.
N».

0N.
om.
om.

NN.

am.
on.
vm.
mm.
mm.
3”.
CV.
wv.
mm.
om.

no.
5.

no.

vo.

mo.

oo.
0v.
co.
mo.
v _.
o _.
om.
on.
we.
no.

5.
.1.

mm.
8.
mm.

mm.

wv.
mm.
mm.
0v.
mv.
mm.
3.
G.
3.
am.

am.
0—.

mm.
am.
mm.

cm.
ov.
mm.

mm.
om.

om.
we.
mm.
NV.
mm.

mo.
No.

mo.
co.
mo.

co.

N».
on.
mo.
3.
C.
o».
3.
nm.
N».
3.

8.» 3:888 3888 .3
E3 8o.» 8.88 8 8088 So.» 8223 8.» .33 8m 8: .mm

8083
HOZ Eu :5 .8.» ~93 9:88 8 w8mm08 .3 8m 8w 3 35 SN

8.» ~23 8m 98: 3 3888 3.888 288 .8

8m 08: 9 8832 8% .»=8n 8.» 3808 .mm

838 82888

53 w88 ow r88 8.» .2 888: 283 93 82888 28 8 882 .vm
838 82888 53

moo—8 803 8.» a 888: 2:93 88on 83888 85 28 8 BEE .mm

:8: 38m 8.» Sam 88 8o 8.» mad—8 88— .mm

to 8 :38 8388 So.» 8:8 AN

3 :83 8: 28 no.» 8:3 8.» Emma: 8 Emmi .om
eBatomfiooas 80w 8.» £88 85 .»83 8 8 8.» 88:9 .3

8 88B
:83 «.88 8.» 8:3 88 boon 8:8 8 wB :8.» 888m 8 35 .m»

8.» 332—8 .8 .88 @282 .8888 .2

389 So.» .8 3.88 8 8.» 8 388 .2

:83 88 28 8.» 8388 88m .»8 8.» 83m .2
:83 r88 8.» 85 88» 8 88: 8838 8.» 82m .3

8:888 _ 2.3

39

 

8. w... R. 8. 8. mm. 88 .83.. 9.8 s so» a was. .2

 

 

3. 3. 3. mm. 50. mm. .888 88.» 808 £882 :8me 288 .m:
8. 9.. 8. R. 8. cm. 8%.. 3o 8.55 85 was. 8: .8 =3 8 E... 088 .2
cm. 3. 8. mm. 8. om. 0:28,: 8 088 0.83 8.» 0288: :38 8.» 8»: 3 855 28 .2
em. 3. mm. 3. 3w. mm. 8.» :38 8 838880: 8 .8: 0:8: 8 8.» 8:8 .3
on. N3. mm. mm. 3. mm. 8.» :88 828: 838m 808m .8
3. 3. 3m. 3. mu. 3. 80:8 8 8.» 828 8882 888m 288 .w
3m. 3. 8. mm. co. 2.: 0:8: :8: 8 8.» 8:8 .n
2.... 5.. mm. 8. 8. w... 8.8: 33.8 so» 8:8 .o
8. 8. on. 8. 8. mm. 8.62 a; 32. .5 88 so» 38.. .88 8:93 5.3.3 29. .m
8 om. mm. 8 8. a. 8832 so» so; 8 88 so» so... 8:8 8:2 2% ...
:m. 3. :m. mm. mm. mm. 8.» 8 888% 0888 288 .m
mm. 3. mm. 3. Nb. 3. 8o: 8 :83 8.8% 8.» 85 8.» 8 88.» 8 8:88 888 28 .m
mm. 3. on. :m. cm. 3. 8.» 9 £88.80 8 8:08 .8888 88.3 898: 8 88: .8397. A
0.50 Gm 83): 0,50 Om 82
mooaotomxm 88m .388on 8883... E8: 28m

 

 

ow. nmd 3.3 mm. m3. 3m.
< mm 2 a Om E
888898: 88m .8888”: 8803..

 

 

mo8omnsm 888896: 88m 98 8882.: 88.83.. 808m88$ 8:80 825 2: ,8 8:885 3.88088: 38 moumufim :8:

N 2.5

40

 

 

mm. cm. 3. mm. 3w. mm. :09. 23 so» “can =o>o :5 so» magma EB— .mm
R. R. 8. mm. 2. 8. to 8 :38 mass“. 3% Baa .8
NV. mm. no. Q. S. N _. z :33 8: Eu so» 5:3 no» 3me Ho Emmi .8
mm. mm. o _. mm. mm. a. oE§£E8§ 30% so» 038 35 an? a E so» 340:3 .3

. . . . . . 8 .8582
cm vm 2 on mm on 28>» {6% so» can? :3 stop 85o .5 mm: So» 865 8 33 .M:
R. 3. gm. ov. me. 3. so» 333cm 8 .8>o 352 68088 .2
3. am. ac. we. me. 3. Eu? 8: Eu so» com—=83 336m and so» 53w .2
ow. um. we. mm. ow. 2. Ed? {.66 no» :23 £032 .8 88: :3me so» :on .3

0.50 Om :82 0.50 Om 582

 

mooaocomxm 8855

5:26on owfio><

man: 2QO

 

 

S. mm; mm.“ on. mm. mm.

 

 

a Om 2 a Om 2
moocotaxm wogm >28:on owEo><
mofiomnsm

mooaotoaxm 38.96 98 xenon—wen uwfio>< ““2583. :3me @392qu 885 05 mo 33.585 oEoEonoxmm v5 moumuflm :8:

m 2an

41

 

 

2. mm. ac. 5. hm. 5. 8% 3::me £838 .3
m 5. 5. S. we. w 5. mo. :53 .89» “mammwm .8 88:8 89» 80553 no» 53» x3 can .wm

. . . . . . 888%
mm mm no 5V Vm mo HOZ Eu 8n .8» £53 mama .8 mgmmoa 3 x8 8w 8 35 SN
on. 2. we. vm. um. mo. no» £53 8% 96: 9 38888 35885 $88 8m
x. a. no. 3. mm. 8. x3 2,2 3 332 be 53 so» 38: .8

. . . . . . 3:5... @2388 53,
cm mm co Vm em mo mac? ow 58% no» .2 Exam: 2803 was @3888 Raw .8 BEE .vm

. . . . . . 83x3. 33888 at? mac?
cm on 3 5m 3 3 :83 so» a comma: 2:03 38% @3868 85 28 8 BEE .mm

050 Om 532 0.50 mm 502

 

mooaotomxm Bantam

8:28on owfio><

may: 28m

 

 

mm. mm. NV. mm. 2. mo.
.8 5m 2 a 5m 2

 

muocotomxm 355m 85:35 $895.

 

mofiomnsm 3285.896— wofigm Ea >283on owfio>< 88880 838m 825 05 .8 83.88on 2.50888th 98 moumufim :8:

v 2an

42

Witnessing Sexual Harassment. Following the approach of Hitlan and Schneider
(in preparation) for measuring adult experiences of witnessing sexual harassment, the
SEQ-HS was adapted to measure witnessing sexual harassment experiences. The SEQ-
HS items were modified in nine ways to assess witnessing sexual harassment
experiences. First, all items were altered to make the wording appropriately reflect
witnessing sexual harassment instead of direct victimization. For example, one item
measuring direct victimization read “has any other student pulled your clothing down or
off.” This item was changed to read “have you witnessed any other student pulling
another student’s clothing down or off.” Second, the item regarding t-shirts with sexually
explicit words or pictures that was removed fi'om the direct sexual harassment measure
was added. The remaining changes focused on the items’ wording, examples, and clarity.
These changes directly follow those described for the direct sexual harassment
experiences measure (e.g., language adaptations to reflect the language of youth in this
district, deleting duplicate items, breaking apart double-barreled items). Afier these
adaptations, a 25-item witnessing sexual harassment scale remained. Finally, one item,
“have you seen any students making obscene gestures at other student(s),” was removed
from analysis based on extensive missing data. After all modifications, a 24-item measure
of witnessing sexual harassment remained.

The witnessing sexual harassment items were sealed in two ways: 1) average
frequency of experience and 2) smnmed harassment experiences. The average frequency
of witnessing sexual harassment scale reflects the mean of all items, with possible scores
ranging fi'om 0-2. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .92 was obtained, with satisfactory CITC

ranging from .30 to .70. The summed harassment experiences scale reflects the total

43

number of different types of harassment a participant reported witnessing, with possible
scores ranging from 0-24. To compute this scale, all items were dichotomized with zero
meaning the participant never witnessed the behavior and one meaning the participant
witnessed the behavior at least once. All items were then summed to create the overall
scale. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .91 was obtained, with satisfactory CITCs ranging from .34
to .64. Table 5 provides item statistics and psychometric properties for the overall
average frequency and summed experiences scales.

For the structural equation modeling analyses, subscales were computed
following Fitzgerald’s model of sexual harassment including a 14-item gender
harassment subscale, a 6-item unwanted sexual attention subscale, and a 3-item sexual
coercion subscale. For each subscale an average fiequency and summed experiences
scale was computed. For the gender harassment average frequency scale, an alpha of .91
and CIT Cs ranging from .44 to .77 were obtained. The gender harassment summed
experiences scale resulted in an Alpha of .88 and CITCs ranging from .43 to .68. For the
unwanted sexual attention average frequency scale, an alpha of .68 and CITCs ranging
from .26 to .46 were obtained. The unwanted sexual attention summed experiences scale
resulted in an Alpha of .66 and CITCs ranging from .34 to .43. For the sexual coercion
average frequency scale, an alpha of .66 and CITCs ranging from .28 to .66 were
obtained. The sexual coercion summed experiences scale resulted in an Alpha of .62 and
CIT Cs ranging from .28 to .56. Tables 6-8 present item statistics and psychometric

properties for each subscale.

we. cm. 3. on. em. as. 8888.: 8 888 83 8:3 888: :30: 388:8 8 8: 8 85:: 838 .m:

 

 

 

mm. mm. mm. no. mm. we: 8&8: :35 8 888:8: a :8 8:8: 8 388:8 8 8:88 .5
G. on. me. me. am. ow. @8888 8 88:8 88:8: 5888 8:888 .3
mm. me. m5. no. em. cm: 88:8 8 883m 8 80:8 88:8: 838m mix—2: .8
8m. mm. mm. me. 3. mm: 8:8: 8: 888m 8 8:88 .w
8. Q. 8. E. 8. 8: 8%: 338 :83... a 858... s
8. 2.. 8. 8. 8. 8: 882 08038 s 88 @283... a 58m 8.8 8:8 :88... 8%... e
2. mm. 8. 8 8. m2 882 28 as. a 88 @283... a as“ 8:8 8:2. 8%... .m
. . . . . . 8o: 8
he om 5‘ om mm on :83 82: $888 $3888 8:8 85 85 88m 8 8:88 8:88 8:8: .v
. . . . . . @8888
D: 0: cm we K we 8:8 8 80880 8 8:88 .8888 8:88 88 8:08: 8 8:8: 8:368 .N
mm. om. me. mm. cm. 8. 8888 8 883 8:98 b58820. 8: 85 m8: 8 3:85. 8:883 .—
050 Om :82 0.50 Om :82
8885898: 888m 88:58:”: 8895. 88: 28m

 

 

a. mod 3.: No. we. wn.

 

 

a 5m 2 a 5m 2
8888mxm 888m @8585 owm8><
888m

88889:: 88m :8 8882.: om88>< 888885 838m @8853? 85 .8 8:885 8:888:08: :8 8:885 :8:

m 8585.

45

 

vm.
Nv.
nm.
em.
an.
om.
wv.

cm.
av.
ov.
mm.
v0.
mv.

on.
av.
m m.
5v.
av.
wv.
mv.

mv.
hv.
mv.
vv.
om.
0v.

no.
mm.
2.
mm.
3.
cm.
mm.

mm.

ac.
vm.
om.
om.
K.

3.
av.
om.

mm.

3.
mm.

:m.
vm.
mm.

om.

me.
mm.

mm.
vs.
mm.
on.

ma.
ma.

am.

ac.
ow.
No.
ac.
mm.
mm.

2.
mm.
om.

co:
3.
cm.

hm.
Q:
mm.
mm.
vs.
2.:

88:8 8 5:5 88 98: 9 88:88 3:88.: 8288 .mm

be 8 :26: 8288 8.88:8 8 85:: .vm

5: 883 8: E: ofimv 8:3 88:8 8 w:_ww:: 8 9:82 .3
2:88.888:

8: 8 SE 8:88 820 883 z 85 >83 8 5 88:8 8 880:8 .mm

38: 8.88:8 8 8 38a 8 88:8 8 8 w588 :m

388:8 8 838:5 8 88 8882 .888:8“. .om

8:88 8:58:88 5:3 8:8

883 88:8 8 .3 8:8: 2:83 888% 8:58:88 85 838 8 8:82 .a_
8:88 8:58:88 5:? w:o_8

ow “.85 88:8 8 .5 8:8: 283 :8: 8:58:88 8388 8 855: .M:
..o:.. :88 8:3 88 88 8: 88:8 8 828 38888: .5

883 828 8:3 85 8:2 8 88: 88:88 988838 8 8:38 .3
883 8: E: 8:3 8:888 8:88 88 @8838 8 83% .m—

858w 8.88:8 8 80:8 88:8: 8:88 8288 .v:
338: 8 BE :w88 888 8: 8.: @8838 8 .8 :5 8388 .2

82.5853 8 288

46

 

mm. 3. S. 8. No. 2: sonméouamfio 33388323 wars“ .:

 

 

G. ow. cm. G. S. vs. 83% @8093 5 Boom 3388 333 magma .3
2.. 8. E. mm. a. o: Egon .... 2.: 5.88 was“ a: E 352% a mo 5 manna .2
3. cm. mm. av. mm. ow. 038$ 8 2a.: 33 0:5 8:83 :38 @3595 a Ba 9 $55 magma .S
mm. mm. mm. K. mu. 2: 8E :35 3 330883 a you can: a @8023 a manque .2
«m. on. 3. on. a. ow. nose Ream 332% .2
mo. 3. mm. ch. cm. 34 £050 8 :5th a Bonn 3382 338m @312: .a
No. mm. cw. mm. mm. mm; 883 BB “co—yam a mam—Ho .w
we. 3. mm. K. Na. am; 3:8: 338 Egan a mam—Eu H
8. 9.. 8. we. 8. 2: 3.32 2332 8 $8 $83,.“ a 58m $55 335 €33 wig .o
mm. mm. mm. 3. 2. W? 8.32 23 32 .5 38 $53,.“ a 58“ age 255 3%... .m
.80

3. on. 5.. av. «m. K. 8 :83 {.63 ban—o $3525 .850 05 $5 moxom no motoum 32x8 mam—E .u
Q. 3. cm. 3. cm. mv. £59.80 Ho mow—9m .8583 35x3. So wfiwfifi .5 $53 @535 .N
3. ow. Ne. mm. ow. no. meadow.” 8 $8? 30:98 .2338 can 35 3m: 8 3::me magma 4

0.50 Om 53: 0,50 Om :82

moocotaxm Baum >253on $803.. $5: 28m

 

 

mm. Nod amd 5. mm. 2:

 

a Om E d Om E
moocotoaxm Bantam >283on owfio><

 

mofiomnsm

mooaotaxm cogm 98 5:05on owfio>< E25333 8980 wage—£3 05 mo 893on oEoEonoxmm Ea mowmufim Eu:

0 2an

47

 

 

3.. 3. 8. S. Q. on to s :38 35% €25; a 3:3 em

3”. cm. 2. cm. cm. x _. z :53 8: Eu onflmv nun—3 “swam a wamwwqfi .5 mammmE .mm

mm. 3. cm. 3. mm. 3. Amvfioufim m wage—Bu .8 .63 $532 $5.558 .om

3. S. no. 3. 3. mo; ..o:.. 23 2.5V Home :05 So 8035 a magma 33332 .2

Q. NV. mm. 3. No. X”. :53 {.66 23$ 65 £032 .8 mayo: 338 $3595 m mamzw .3

am. 3. mm. 3. on. av. :33 8: Eu 2:3 535% E38 ba @3525 m wfiiw .2
0.50 Om :82 0,50 Gm =32

 

mooaotaxm 3585

3:28on owfio><

meg—H 030m

 

 

00. EA mod me. Q». On.
a Om 2 a Gm 2

 

moocotaxm cogm 5538,; oweo><

 

mofiomnsm moococomxm

ESE—am was 5:25on ow80>< 85:82 338m 353:3 wfimmofité 05 mo $3.595 oEoEonozmm can moumufim 80:

N. 2an

48

 

mm. a. 8. mm. 2. 8. 82% a 5? x8 «23 e 39:23 332a 388 .2

. . . . . . 838m @3888 53» was“
cm NV mm on am cm 89$ :8me a t Exam: 2:03 38% @2888 85 wcmxmm 8 25:2 .E
. . . . . . 35me 223888 59>
E Q. mm mm ac um mac—a om £86 :8th m a songs: 283 93 $45088 2893 8 mafia: .2

 

0,50 Om :82 0:0 Om 582

8285me @2556 8:28on ow80>< 2:0: 2QO

 

 

No. mm. mm. 8. 3x cw.

 

 

a Om 2 a Gm 2
moocotomxm vogm 8:28on owfio><
mofiomnsm

80:05qu @2556 new 8:28on ow8o>< 88.800 Baum wfimmofirfi ofi .8 momtomoi 0508293; 98 moumufim :8:

w 032

49

Incident Report. To capture more contextual details about students’ experiences
witnessing sexual harassment, participants were asked to report about the single incident
of sexual harassment they saw in the past year that stood out most in their mind.
Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the gender of the victim and perpetrator
(i.e., boy= 1, girl=2, both =3), the number of victims and perpetrators (i.e., l=one, 2=two,
3+=three or more), the location of the incident (i.e., a list of locations was provided and
participants circled the location the harassment occurred, with the option of writing in an
alternative location not listed) , and who else witnessed the incident (i.e., participants
were asked to circle yes=1 or no=O whether or not other students, teachers, or
administrators witnessed the event; if yes, participants were asked to indicate the number
of people from that category were present: l=one, 2=two, 3+=three or more; participants
also were able to write in someone else who was present that was not represented by
these three groups). They also were asked if the incident was reported to school officials
(i.e., no=0, yes=1). No scales were created with data collected from this portion of the
survey. Findings from the incident report included here are reported descriptive1y(e.g.,
percentages, means).

Distress. In this study, two measures of distress were used. First, the SEQ-HS
included a degree of upset measure linked to each behavioral item. For each behavioral
item that participants experienced at least once, they indicated the degree to which that
experience upset them using response categories ranging from zero (not upset) to three
(very upset). Since these items were completed only if the student endorsed experiencing
the behavior, there was extensive not applicable data on the upset items (i.e., if a student

had not experienced the referenced behavior, s/he could not answer the degree of upset

50

question making it “not applicable” to that student). This lack of data resulted in a
restriction of range prohibiting the use of the upset measure in the structural model.
Therefore, information collected fiom the upset items was only used descriptively to
document students’ self-reported degree of upset and was not used in the structural
equation modeling analyses (see Results section for a description of how the model was
modified in light of these not applicable data).'

Second, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), a standardized measure of
psychological distress, was administered. The 53-item BSI assesses levels of anxiety,
depression, somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility,
phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. The BSI also provides three global
indices of distress: General Severity Index (GSI; single best indicator of current distress
levels), Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI; pure intensity measure, measure of
response style — whether the “patien ” is augmenting or attenuating distress), and Positive
Symptom Total (PST; count of symptoms which “patient” reports experiencing to any
degree).

The BSI was specifically selected because it is sensitive to a variety of distress
manifestations, is well validated and highly reliable (on the nine symptom dimensions
ranging from .71 on Psychoticism to .85 on Depression, not available for three Global
Indices; Derogatis, 1983), is stable (test-retest reliability for nine dimensions from .68 on
Somatization to .91 Phobic Anxiety; for the three Global Indices from .87 on PSDI to .90
on GSI; Derogatis, 1983), has been used in studies of victimization similar to sexual

harassment (Koss, Figueredo, & Prince, 2002; Moradi & Subich, 2002), and has been

 

' Appendix B contains a table displaying the number of participants for which each item in the sexual
harassment measures was not applicable.

51

repeatedly used with youth matching the middle school age range (Al-Krenawi, Slonim-
Nevo, Maymon, & Al-Krenawi, 2001; Kalter et al., 2002; Leonard, 2001; McCaskill,
Toro, & Wolfe, 1998). It has also been normed on non-patient adolescents (age 13) and
requires a sixth grade reading level (Derogatis, 1993). In this study, the BSI was used to
compute a mean distress score for each participant. The specific manifestations (e. g.,
levels on the nine symptom dimensions) of each person’s distress were not explored.
Participants indicated the degree to which they experienced each distress symptom over
the previous month using a scale from zero meaning “not at all” and four meaning
“extremely.” A Cronbach’s Alpha of .97 was obtained with this sample. CITCs ranged
from .27 to .78. Table 9 presents the item statistics and psychometric properties of the
BSI.

Significant Life Events. A 9-item significant life events scale measured events that
happened in the previous year that may account for participants’ distress levels.
Participants indicated whether they had experienced the described event (yes or no). A
Cronbach’s Alpha of .63 was obtained with CIT Cs ranging from .20 to .45. Table 10

presents item statistics and psychometric properties for the scale.

52

Table 9

Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Brief Symptom Inventory

Mean: .67 SD= .66 a=.97

 

 

Scale Items Mean SD CIT C
1. Nervousness or shakiness inside .97 1.03 .47
2. Faintness or dizziness .51 .88 .47
3. The idea that someone else can control your thoughts .29 .84 .61
4. Feeling others are to blame for most of your problems .76 1.18 .59
5. Trouble remembering things 1.29 1.34 .45
6. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated 1.49 1.31 .55
7. Pains in heart or chest .52 1.08 .47
8. Feeling afraid in open spaces .24 .79 .68
9. Thoughts of ending your life .43 1.00 .57
10. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted 1.02 1.33 .64
11. Trouble falling asleep .97 1.37 .59
12. Suddenly scared for no reason .35 .86 .67
13. Temper outbursts that you could not control .5 7 1.12 .60
14. Feeling lonely even when you are with people .72 1.09 .68
15. Feeling like you can't get things done .90 1.14 .69
16. Feeling lonely .76 1.17 .75
17. Feeling blue .65 1 . 12 .72
18. Feeling no interest in things .77 1.21 .78
19. Feeling fearful .32 .75 .68
20. Your feelings being easily hurt .70 1.06 .52
21. Feeling that people are unfi’iendly or dislike you 1.00 1.18 .63
22. Feeling inferior to others .32 .82 .60
23. Nausea or upset stomach .67 1.10 .52
24. Feeling you are watched or talked about by others 1.21 1.37 .66
25. Loss of appetite .50 .97 .57
26. Having to check and double-check what you do .54 .89 .45
27. Difficulty making decisions .74 .98 .60
28. Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways or trains .18 .69 .42

53

Table 9 (Continued)

29. Trouble getting your breath

30. Hot or cold flashes

31. Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities
because they fiighten you

32. Your mind going blank

33. Numbness or tingling in parts of your body
34. The idea that you should be punished for your sins
35. Feeling hopeless about the future

36. Trouble concentrating

37. Feeling weak in parts of your body

38. Feeling tense or keyed up

39. Thoughts of death and dying

40. Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone
41. Having urges to break or smash things

42. Feeling very self-conscious with others

43. Feeling uneasy in crowds

44. Never feeling close to another person

45. Feelings of terror or panic

46. Getting into frequent arguments

47. Feeling nervous when you are alone

48. Others not giving the credit you deserve to your
achievements

49. Feeling so restless you could not sit still
50. Feelings of worthlessness

51. Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you
let them

52. Feelings of guilt
53. The idea that something is wrong with your mind

.38
.35

.25

.65
.48
.30
.49
1.10
.65
.40

.58
.80
.58
.42
.46
.23
.91
.53

.82

.56
.49

.62

.49
.45

.85
.85

.66

1.07
.98
.78
1.03

1.25

1.09
.89
1.23

1.08

1.20
.99
.92
1.10
.70
1.29
1.08

1.12

1.07
1.04

1.08

.96
.94

.42
.48

.48

.62
.59
.27
.74
.55
.58
.67
.65
.45
.62
.63
.63
.59
.63
.62
.70

.61

.60
.72

.67

.47
.62

 

54

Table 10
Item Statistics and Psychometric Properties of the Significant Life Events Scale

Mean= 1.45 SD= 1.54 a=.63

 

 

Scale Items Mean SD CIT C
1. Your parents got divorced .08 .27 .39
2. You experienced the death of a family member or
.46 .50 .29
someone close to you
3. You were mvolved in a life-threatenmg accrdent or .06 .23 .3 6
illness
4. You were involved in a fire, flood, or natural disaster .04 .21 .26
5. You witnessed someone being badly injured or killed .10 .30 .43
6. You were seriously physically attacked or assaulted .05 .22 .36
7. You were threatened with a weapon, held captive, or
. .07 .25 .30
kidnapped
8. You suffered a great shock because one of the events
. . .23 .42 .45
on tlus llSt happened to someone close to you.
9. You experienced any other significant event in your 3 5 48 20

life not on this list that was upsetting to you.

 

55

Demographics. Gender, age, grade, ethnic background, and current grades were
collected from each participant
Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to answer the first and second research questions
(i.e., What are middle school students’ experiences of direct sexual harassment? What are
middle school students’ experiences of witnessing sexual harassment?) Structural
equation modeling was used to answer the third question (i.e., What is the relationship
between sexual harassment and psychological distress symptoms). To have sufficient
power (.80) to detect medium effect sizes (1’2 [standardized effect size] = .15, equivalent
to a multivariate R2 = .40 and multiple R2 =.13; Cohen, 1988), a minimum of 150
participants was required and obtained for this test.

All models were run using both the average frequency (i.e., mean across all items)
and summed experiences (i.e., sum of dichotomized items) scaling. To increase the
clarity of the findings, only one scaling will be presented in the Results section. Table 11
compares the goodness of fit statistics for the full structural models with average
frequency and summed experiences scaling. The fit indices indicate the average
frequency scaling is marginally better than (Chi-Square test, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation, Non-Normed Fit Index, and Comparative Fit Index) or equal to
(Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) the summed experiences scaling. Based on
the reliability statistics presented in Tables 1-8, the two methods of scaling are virtually
indistinguishable. Therefore, in the interest of parsimony, only findings using the average

frequency scaling are presented.

56

Table 11
Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Average Frequency and Total Experiences Models of

Sexual Harassment

 

 

Goodness of Fit Statistics Average Summed
Frequency Experiences
Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square 63.60 73.03
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .11 .12
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) .94 .92
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) .06 .06
Comparative Fit Index (CPI) .96 .95

 

dfi23

NOTE: Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square= Values should be small and non-significant;
RMSEA= Values less than .10 indicate a good fit; NNFI= Values greater than .90
indicate good fit; SRMR= Values less than .10 indicate good fit; CF I= Values greater
than .90 indicate good fit

57

Results
What are middle school students ' experiences of direct sexual harassment?

On average, students reported experiencing 7 of the 29 (SD=5.01) direct sexual
harassment behaviors measured. The maximmn different types of harassment any
participant reported experiencing directly was 26 (i.e., one participant endorsed
experiencing 26 out of 29 items on the direct sexual harassment measure), and only 11
participants reported never being the target of sexual harassment in the previous school
year (i.e., they did not endorse any of the direct sexual harassment items). Regarding
frequency, students reported on a scale of zero meaning they “never” experienced the
behavior to two meaning they experienced the behavior “twice or more.” On average,
students were experiencing direct sexual harassment with a frequency of .39 (SD=.33).
Participants also reported the degree to which they found each of their sexual harassment
experiences to be upsetting (i.e., on a scale of zero meaning not at all upsetting to three
meaning very upsetting). Direct sexual harassment experiences resulted in a mean upset
rating of 1.28 (SD=.88).

Table 12 lists the direct sexual harassment behaviors in order fiom highest to
lowest frequency (i.e., percentage of participants reporting experiencing the behavior at
least once) along with the mean upset rating for each item. The five most frequently
reported items were primarily forms of verbal harassment and fell into the gender
harassment and unwanted sexual attention subsets of sexual harassment. They included:
1) called you a bad name (66.9% experienced at least once), 2) said hurtful things about
your body or how you looked (57.1%), 3) kept asking you out even afier you said “no”

(48.5%), 4) stared at you or parts of your body (37.4%), and 5) called you a name for a

58

homosexual to insult you (36%). The five least frequently reported items included: 1) had
sex with you against your consent or against your will (1.2%), 2) made forceful attempts
to have sex with you (3.7%), 3) treated you badly for refusing to have sex (4.9%), 4)
hinted or said something bad would happen if you didn’t go along with something sexual
(6.1%), and 5) kissed or hugged you when you did not want it (6.7%). These behaviors
were more physical in nature than the most frequent forms of harassment and fell into the
categories of unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion.

The five direct sexual harassment behaviors participants reported to be most
upsetting included: 1) tried to get sex by pressuring or arguing with you, but did not
succeed (M=2.44, SD=.88), 2) sexually assaulted you (M=2.15, SD=1.28), 3) hinted or
said something bad would happen if you didn’t go along with something sexual (M=2.10,
SD=.88), 4) said things to put you down because you were male or female (M=1.89,
SD=.92), and 5) called you sexual names (M=1.87, SD=1.09). The five behaviors
participants reported to be least upsetting included: 1) had sex with you against your
consent or against your will (M=.50, SD=.71), 2) showed, used, or handed sexual
pictures, stories, or cartoons to you (M=.59, SD=.89), 3) said sexually explicit things
about your body or how you looked (M=.72, SD=1.00), 4) made sexual remarks about
you to others (M=.76, SD=1.00), and 5) stared at you or parts of your body (M=1.1 1,
SD=1.11).

It is interesting to note that the most upsetting behaviors are not the most
frequently experienced forms of harassment. Additionally, the most upsetting behaviors
include both physical and verbal forms of harassment spanning gender harassment and

sexual coercion. Similarly, the least upsetting forms of harassment included both physical

59

and verbal forms of harassment and encompassed gender harassment and sexual
coercion; however, some of the least upsetting forms of harassment were among the most
frequently experienced forms of harassment. These findings suggest that the relative
frequency of a behavior was not the determinant of an upsetting appraisal, that some

other factor(s) influences what students deem most upsetting.

60

Table 12

Percent Experienced and Mean Upset Ratings for Direct Sexual Harassment

 

 

Scale Items Never Once Twice Mean
or Upset
more Rating_
7. called you a bad name (e.g., “bitch”) 33.1 19.4 47.5 1.40
:1. said hurtful things about your body or how you looked (e.g., 42.9 21.7 35.4 1.76
fat, firgly’ )

22. kept asking you out even after you said “no” 51.5 22.7 25.8 1.16
16. stared at you or parts of your body 62.6 14.7 22.7 1.11

10. called you a name for a homosexual to insult you (e.g.,
“fag” or “dyke”)

5. said sexually explicit things about your body or how you
looked (e.g., said you have a “nice butt” or “I want your 64.4 16.0 19.6 .72
body”)

8. made sexual remarks about you to others (e. g., told others
you have a “hot body”)

6. called you sexual names (e.g., “slut,” “tease,” “whore”) 66.0 16.7 17.3 1.87

2. told sexual stories or jokes to you that you didn’t want to
hear

3. made sexual or obscene gestures to you 69.8 9.4 20.8 1.30

11. said things to put you down because you were male or
female (e.g., said you can’t do something because of your sex)
1. showed, used, or handed sexual pictures, stories, or cartoons
to you

12. made fun of you for not acting like enough of a boy/girl
(e.g., called you a “tomboy,” “fag,” “sissy”)

9. spread sexual rumors about you 76.7 12.3 11.0 1.97

64.0 13.0 23.0 1.70

65.0 17.8 17.2 .76

67.5 17.8 14.7 1.23

71.6 17.3 11.1 1.89
73.5 21.0 5.6 .59

74.7 13.6 11.7 1.49

17. cornered, leaned over or followed you 779 11.7 10.4 1.41

13. made sexual remarks about your gender (e. g., “girls are
sluts” or “boys are dicks”)

l9. touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable 83.4 11.0 5.5 1.38

18. tried to stroke your leg or other body part when you didn’t
want him/her to

23. hinted or said that something special would happen if you
went along with something special (e.g., get a date or gain 90.2 6.1 3.7 1.63
popularity)

29. sexually assaulted you 90.8 7.4 1.8 2.15

79.1 10.4 10.4 1.28

87.0 6.2 6.8 1.70

14. given you sexual notes or letters that you didn’t want 91.4 5.5 3.1 1.00

61

Table 12 (Continued)

21. pulled your clothing down or off

27. tried to get sex by pressuring or arguing with you, but did
not succeed

20. kissed or hugged you when you did not want it

24. hinted or said something bad would happen if you didn’t
go along with something sexual (e.g., that you would lose
friends or rumors would be spread about you)

25. treated you badly for refusing to have sex
26. made forceful attempts to have sex with you

28. had sex with you against your consent or against your will

92.6
93.1
93.3

93.9

95.1
96.3
98.8

4.9
5.0
1.2

4.3

4.3
2.5
.6

2.5
1.9
5.5

1.8

1.2
.6

1.33
2.44

1.27

2.10

1.86
1.33
.50

 

62

What are middle school students ' experiences of witnessing sexual harassment?

On average, students reported experiencing 12 of the 24 witnessing sexual
harassment behaviors (SD=5.98). The maximum different types of sexual harassment a
single participant witnessed was 24 (i.e., one participant endorsed witnessing all 24 of
behaviors included on the witnessing sexual harassment measure), and only six
participants reported never witnessing sexual harassment in the previous school year.
Regarding frequency, students reported on a scale of zero meaning they “never”
experienced the behavior to two meaning they experienced the behavior “twice or more.”
On average, students witnessed sexual harassment with a frequency of .78 (SD=.45).
Participants also reported the degree to which they found witnessing sexual harassment to
be upsetting. Witnessing sexual harassment resulted in a mean upset rating of 1.04
(SD=.71).

Table 13 lists the items from the witnessed sexual harassment measure in order
from highest to lowest frequency (i.e., percentage of participants reporting experiencing
the behavior at least once) along with the mean upset rating for that item. The five most
frequently witnessed behaviors were entirely forms of verbal harassment and fell into the
gender harassment subset of sexual harassment. They included: I) saying hurtful things
about a student’s body or how (s)he looked (88.1% experienced it at least once), 2)
calling a student had names (85.6%) 3) calling a student a name for a homosexual to
insult him/her (82.8%), 4) calling a student sexual names (79.5%), and 5) making sexual
remarks about a student to others (72%). The five least frequently reported behaviors
included: 1) making forceful attempts to have sex with a student (6.2%), 2) kissing or

hugging a student when (s)he did not want it (13.5%), 3) hinting or saying that something

63

special would happen if a student went along with something sexual (23.5%), 4) giving a
student(s) sexual notes or letters that (s)he didn’t want (23.5%), and 5) hinting or saying
something bad would happen if a student didn’t go along with something sexual (24.2%).
These behaviors were more physical in nature than the most frequent forms of witnessed
harassment and fell into the categories of unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion.

The five sexual harassment behaviors participants reported as most upsetting to
witness included: I) saying hurtful things about a student body or how (s)he looked
(M=1 .51, SD=1.10), 2) kissing or hugging a student when (s)he did not want it (M=1 .3 8,
SD=1.16), 3) saying things to put a student down because (s)he was male or female
(M=1.34, SD=1.08), 4) spreading sexual rumors about a student (M=1.34, SD=1.03), and
5) making forceful attempts to have sex with a student (M=1.33, SD=1.22). The five
sexual harassment behaviors participants reported least upsetting to witness included: 1)
wearing T-shirts or hats that had sexually explicit words or pictures (M=.15, SD=.40), 2)
making sexual remarks about a student to others (M=.57, SD=.79), 3) showing, using, or
handing out sexual pictures, stories, or cartoons to other student(s) (M=.63, SD=.77), 4)
saying sexually explicit things about a student body or how(s)he looked (M=.75,
SD=.83), and 5) giving a student(s) sexual notes or letters that (s)he didn’t want (M=.83,
SD=.94).

Contrary to what was found for direct sexual harassment, some the most upsetting
witnessed behaviors were also among the most frequently witnessed, although some of
the most upsetting behaviors were still among the least frequent. The most upsetting

behaviors to witness included both physical and verbal forms of harassment spanning all

64

three categories of sexual harassment. The least upsetting forms of harassment were

exclusively verbal and reflected the gender harassment subset of sexual harassment.

65

Table 13

Percent Experienced and Mean Upset Ratings for Witnessing Sexual Harassment

 

Scale Items Never Once Twice Mean
or Upset
more Rating

11.9 20.0 68.1 1.51

 

5. saying hurtful things about a student body or how (s)he
looked (e.g., calling a student “fat,” “ugly,” or “flat-chested”)

8. calling a student bad names (e.g., “bitch”) 14.4 12.5 73.1 1.27

11. calling a student a name for a homosexual to insult
him/her (e.g., “fag” or “dyke”)

7. calling a student sexual names (e.g., “slut,” “tease,”
“whore”)

9. making sexual remarks about a student to others (e.g.,
saying to others that a student has a “hot body”)

13. making fun of a student for not acting enough like a
boy/girl (e.g., calling a student a “tomboy,” “fag,” “sissy”)

17. repeatedly asking a student out even after (s)he said “no” 32.5 25.2 42.3 .95

17.2 16.6 66.3 1.28
21.5 18.4 60.1 1.24
28.0 20.5 51.6 .57

28.2 25.8 46.0 .97

21. staring at a student or parts of a student’s body 39.1 16.8 44.1 .96

6. saying sexually explicit things about a student body or
how(s)he looked (e.g., “Nice butt” or “I want your body”)
12. saying things to put a student down because (s)he was
male or female (e.g., said he can’t do something because he’s 47.2 25.5 27.3 1.34
a boy OR she can’t do something because she’s a girl)
14. making sexual remarks about a student’s gender (e.g.,
“girls are sluts” or “boys are dicks”)

10. spreading sexual rumors about a student 50.9 17.4 31_7 1.34

39.9 20.2 39.9 .75

50.0 24.7 46.0 1.12

4. telling sexual stories or jokes that the other student(s)
clearly didn’t want to hear
1. wearing T-shirts or hats that had sexually explicit words or

54.7 20.5 24.8 1.25

61.1 19.8 19.1 .15

pictures

20. cornering, leaning over or following a student 64.4 19.6 16.0 .91
24. pulling a students clothing down or off 64.4 22.1 13.5 1.14
22. touching a student m a way that it was clear made him/her 6 6.3 22.1 11.7 1.09
uncomfortable

2. showing, using, or handing out sexual pictures, stories, or

cartoons to other student(s) 69'9 17'8 12'3 '63

15. giving a student(s) any sexual attention (s)he did not want 72.0 15.5 12.4 .93

66

Table 13 (Continued)

l8. hinting or saying something bad would happen if a
student didn’t go along with something sexual (e.g., that (s)he
would lose friends or rumors would be spread about him or
her)

16. giving a student(s) sexual notes or letters that (s)he didn’t
want

19. hinting or saying that something special would happen if a
student went along with something sexual (e.g., get a date or

gain popularity)
23. kissing or hugging a student when (s)he did not want it

25. making forceful attempts to have sex with a student

74.8

76.5

76.5

86.5
93.8

12.9

14.8

16.7

8.6
3.7

12.3

8.6

6.8

4.9
2.5

1.51

.83

1.20

1.38
1.33

 

67

Students also reported on the context of the most memorable sexual harassment
incident they witnessed (i.e., the incident reports). Table 14 provides information on the
gender and number of perpetrators and targets. Most participants indicated that boys were
the perpetrators, with either three or more perpetrators or one perpetrator involved in the
incident. Girls were most often reported to be the targets of the witnessed harassment,
with either one or three or more girls being targeted in a given incident.

Table 14

Witnessing Sexual Harassment: Gender and Number of Perpetrators and Targets

 

 

 

 

Gender Number
Boys Girls Boys & One Two Three or
Girls More
Perpetrators 43.9 18.7 37.4 39.7 19.8 40.5
Targets 30.9 39.0 30.1 42.1 18.2 39.7

 

Regarding location of sexual harassment, participants most often reported the
sexual harassment they witnessed occurred in the hallway (41.8%), although to a lesser
extent it was witnessed in the cafeteria (23.0%), classrooms (19.7%), and gym class
(17.2%). Less than 14% of participants indicated they had witnessed sexual harassment
occurring in the locker room, at recess, or on the bus. It is also important to note that
rather than circling the provided answer choices, a number of participants instead wrote
in that it happens “every where.”

Participants also reported who else witnessed the incident. They were asked about
other students, teachers, and administrators. Eighty percent of participants indicated that
other students witnessed the incident, with the majority (69.4%) reporting three or more

students saw the incident (not including the participant). Only 10.8% of participants

68

indicated teachers witnessed the incident. Of this 10.8 percent, 61.5% reported that there
was only one teacher that witnessed the harassment, 23.1% indicated two teachers
witnessed it, and 15.4% reported three or more teachers witnessed the incident. Only
three participants reported that an administrator witnessed the incident, with two
indicating there was one administrator and one participant indicating two administrators
witnessed the incident. Finally, when asked if the incident was reported to school
officials (to their knowledge), 84.7% of participants indicated the incident was not
reported to school officials.

What is the relationship between sexual harassment (both direct and witnessing
harassment) and psychological distress symptoms?

Structural equation modeling was used to examine this research question, but a
number of preparatory analyses were completed to inform the final structural model,
including: 1) conducting partial correlations, 2) testing and modifying the sexual
harassment measurement model, and 3) testing the full structural model.

Partial correlations. Table 15 presents the partial correlation matrix for direct
sexual harassment, witnessing sexual harassment, and the brief symptom inventory
controlling for significant events occurring in the previous year. All correlations were
significant at p<.05 suggesting positive relationships between direct sexual harassment
and distress, witnessing sexual harassment and distress, and between direct sexual
harassment and witnessing sexual harassment. The Cohen and Cohen (1983) test for
significant differences between correlations indicates that the correlation between direct
sexual harassment and distress is stronger than the relationship between witnessing

sexual harassment and distress (t= 5.31; df= 156; Critical Value=1.97; p<.05). Intuitively,

69

one would expect such a finding in that people would be most upset by their direct
experiences than by what they witness. Additionally, these findings reflect the
dependency of witnessing sexual harassment on the occurrence of direct sexual
harassment. That is, if no students were experiencing direct sexual harassment, then no
students could witness direct sexual harassment.

Table 15

Partial Correlation for Direct Sexual Harassment, Witnessing Sexual Harassment, and the

 

 

BSI
1 2 3
Direct Sexual Harassment -—
Witnessing Sexual Harassment .59" —
BSI .43“ .22" —

 

** Significant at p<.01

Testing and Modzfiing the Sexual Harassment Measurement Model. Two
measurement models of sexual harassment were assessed: 1) a single latent construct
model, which did not distinguish direct and witnessing sexual harassment as separate
constructs (i.e., they indicate a “global” sexual harassment construct); and 2) a two latent
constructs model that conceptualizes direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual
harassment as separate constructs (see Figure 1, page 23). Both models contain six
indicators, including the three sexual harassment subscales fi'om the direct sexual
harassment measure (i.e., gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual
coercion) and the three sexual harassment subscales from the witnessing sexual
harassment measure. The key difference between these models was whether these six
indicators were conceptualized as measuring one or two latent constructs. Figure 3

presents the model coefficients. As evident fiom the fit indices presented in Table 16 and

70

through a Chi-square Difference test, there was a significant improvement in model fit
with the two latent constructs model (fcmge=67.55; dfil; Critical Value=3.84; p<.05).
Therefore, it was determined that sexual harassment is best modeled as two distinct latent
constructs: direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual harassment.

Examination of the two latent construct model’s standardized residuals (SR)
revealed an underestimation of the covariance between direct gender harassment and
witnessing gender harassment (SR=6.04). Conceptually it is possible that when one
witnesses certain forms of gender harassment it is similar to directly experiencing it.
Therefore, the error covariance between these indicators was freed, resulting in a

significantly improved fit of the data (12.....3,=37.19; df=1; Critical Value=3.84; p<.05).

71

Figure 4

Two Models of Sexual Harassment

 

 

 

 

DGH
DGH \ K30

DUSAlx DUSA <-.88—
.72
68
DSC DSC 1'
‘.63\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WGH .80
b’ WGH "73
.69 '
WUSA WUSA «82— WimeSSing
SH
/.65
wsc wsc pr.78
Table 16

Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Sexual Harassment Measurement Models

 

Goodness of Fit Statistic One Latent Two Latent Two Latent
Constructs Constructs Constructs
(1% 9 df=8 (Modified)

 

Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square 126.26 58.71 31:72
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation .29 .18 .11
Non-Normed Fit Index .69 .85 .94
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual .10 .07 .06
Comparative Fit Index .81 .92 .97

 

72

Testing the Full Structural Model. Because the analyses testing the measurement
model indicated that the two latent constructs model was a better fit of the data, the full
structural model, which examined the relationship between sexual harassment and
psychological distress, was evaluated with direct and witnessing sexual harassment as
separate latent variables. As noted previously in the Measures section, there was
extensive missing data on the “upset” measure of distress, so it could not be used in the
full model analyses. Therefore, the revised full model contained nine indicators and three
latent constructs. The three sexual harassment subscales acted as indicators for the direct
and witnessing sexual harassment latent constructs (three subscales each). Items from the
BSI were randomly divided into three parcels, which function as the indicators of the
distress latent construct. Table 17 presents the partial correlation matrix for all indicators
entered into the full model, controlling for significant life events participants reported
occurred in the previous year. All variables were positively correlated with only two non-
significant correlations: 1) witnessing unwanted sexual attention and BSI parcel 1 (r=.09,
p=.24) and 2) witnessing unwanted sexual attention and BSI parcel 2 (r=.15, p=.06).
Table 17

Partial Correlations between Indicators of Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
WGH —

WUSA .70" —

wsc .45" .60" —

DGH .61" .42" .38" —

DUSA .32" .38” .28” .53" —

DSC .29" .27” .31" .52" .60"

BSIParcell .18‘ .09 .23” .42" .35” .25" —
BSIParce12 .19’ .15 20" .37" .30” .17’ .89" —"

BSIParce13 .23“ .16. .28” .42" .26" .20’ .89" .90 -
p<.05; "p<.01; N=159; Controlled for Significant Life Events

 

73

Regarding the overall model fit, the goodness of fit statistics suggested the model
was a good fit of the data with only the Chi-Square value (63.60, df= 7) and the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation value (.11) indicating a marginal fit. The Non-
Norrned Fit Index value for this model was .94, above the .90 value deemed an indicator
of a good fit. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual value for this model was .06,
with anything below .10 indicating of a good fit. Finally, the Comparative Fit Index also
indicated a good fit with a value of .96, well above the .90 needed to indicate a good fit.

Figure 4 presents the full model with the standardized path coefficients. This
model suggests that the frequency of experiencing gender harassment (path coefficient=
.73, t=10.01, p<.05), unwanted sexual attention (path coefficient: .76, t=10.16, p<.05),
and sexual coercion (path coefficient: .70, t=9.05, p<.05) were significant indicators of
overall direct sexual harassment experiences. Similarly, frequency of witnessing gender
harassment (path coefficienF.73, t=10.12, p<.05), unwanted sexual attention (path
coefficient= .93, t=13.13, p<.05), and sexual coercion (path coefficient”= .64, t=8.41,
p<.05) were significant indicators of overall witnessing sexual harassment experiences.
Direct sexual harassment experiences were found to have a positive direct effect on
distress, such that participants who experienced direct sexual harassment experienced
significantly higher levels of distress symptoms as well (path coefficient=.49 t= 4.44,
p<.05). Witnessing sexual harassment was not found to significantly effect distress with a
standardized path coefficient of -.O9 (t= -.89, p<.05). This indicates that participants who
witness sexual harassment do not experience higher levels of distress symptoms as

measured by the BSI.

74

o_.|.v

3. Ilv

mmlv

 

 

mémm

 

 

 

 

mémm

 

 

 

 

Tmmm

\

 

 

./

.mo. @Of Mb.
.\

.... e

O

9

mm .

movm...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um Al om.

eo.\<
<mD Al 3.
/ :0 Aloe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ it
we. .oa. .3.
. cm.
a t ...
.me.
/. mo aloe

 

 

 

$05me no EoEmgm :3me 95355» 28 825ng 135m 885 we 80mm 05 mo 382

m 2:5

75

Discussion

This study expanded the developing literature on youth sexual harassment by
exploring middle school students’ experiences of direct sexual harassment and witnessing
sexual harassment. Findings from this study indicate that middle school students are not
only experiencing sexual harassment, but that they are experiencing it at higher rates than
their high school counterparts. Previous research with high school students has found that
approximately 80% experienced direct sexual harassment, whereas 94% of the middle
school students surveyed in this study were directly harassed in the previous year.
Beyond these differential rates of sexual harassment, a number of similarities were
observed between middle and high school student experiences.

First, consistent with the findings for high school students, verbal harassment,
such as sexual comments about one’s body or appearance, was the most common form of
harassment experienced among middle school students. Second, participants by and large
reported that sexual harassment among middle school students occurs in public spaces,
such as hallways, classrooms, and cafeterias, similar to the locations of harassment
among high school students. Taken as a whole, the findings from this study suggest that
direct sexual harassment is generally similar among high school and middle school
students; however, it seems that sexual harassment may be more prevalent among middle
school students than high school students. More research with middle school students is
necessary before such statements can be made definitively.

The results of this study also highlight the importance of exploring students’
experiences witnessing sexual harassment. Over 96% (157/163) of students reported

witnessing a peer being sexually harassed in the past year. This finding suggests that

76

more students are witnessing sexual harassment than are directly experiencing sexual
harassment. Of students that witnessed and/or direcfly experienced sexual harassment,
participants reported witnessing sexual harassment more frequently than they were
directly sexual harassed (i.e., M: .78 and M= .39 respectively). Additionally, students
reported witnessing more diverse types of harassment (i.e., endorsed witnessing more of
the items on the witnessing sexual harassment measure, with each item reflecting a
different type of harassment) than they directly experienced, with students reporting on
average that they witnessed half (12/24) of the different types of sexual harassment
measured whereas they directly experienced only one-quarter (7/29) of the different types
of sexual harassment measured. These results indicate that witnessing sexual harassment
is a common experience among students, perhaps more common than direct sexual
harassment. While this finding may seem counter intuitive (i.e., how can students witness
something occurring more frequently than it is reported to occur directly?), one must
keep in mind the context of sexual harassment as described by these participants.
Specifically, students reported that multiple students were present (i.e., as witnesses)
when direct sexual harassment occurred. Thus, when asked about witnessing sexual
harassment, multiple students may have experienced and thus report on the same
incident. This suggests that sexual harassment is not simply a dyadic phenomenon
involving solely perpetrators and targets, but instead extends to others in the setting,
particularly witnesses.

This study also expanded upon previous research findings by examining how both
direct sexual harassment and witnessing sexual harassment affect middle school students’

psychological well-being. Other studies descriptively indicate that experiencing sexual

77

harassment is detrimental to students’ well-being. This study used a standardized
psychological distress symptomatology measure, which allowed for an exploration of the
predictive relationship between sexual harassment (direct and witnessing) and
psychological distress. Findings from structural equation modeling indicate that direct
sexual harassment experiences predict increased psychological distress. However, no
significant relationship was found between witnessing sexual harassment and
psychological distress, despite the significant positive relationship observed through
partial correlations (r=.22, p<.01). The size of this correlation would suggest that the
relationship between witnessing sexual harassment and distress is perhaps “small” thus
requiring more power (a larger sample) than was available in this study (i.e., this sample
barely surpassed the minimum 150 participants needed to detect medium to large effects).

It is also possible that because students witness sexual harassment so frequently, it
has become a normalized part of life, and thus does not predict distress symptoms. Due to
this normalization, students may be cognitively processing the witnessed sexual
harassment as informative regarding appropriate gendered behavior rather than reacting
emotionally to the event. Social cognition theory suggests that we learn from and adopt
others’ behaviors through a four phase process involving 1) attention (i.e., observing the
characteristics of the actor, the environment, and the behavior relevant to the observed
behavior), 2) retention (i.e., encoding the pertinent information about the observed
behavior), 3) reproduction (i.e., recalling and reproducing the observed behavior in a
manner consistent with the principles and characteristics initially observed), and finally
4) motivation (i.e., the observer must encounter circumstances that motivate the

reproduction of the behavior before it will be adopted). This theory indicates that as one

78

is encoding behavioral elements of an observed event, s/he is simultaneously learning the
principles underlying those behaviors and the reaction of the environment to those
behaviors. If the environmental reactions do not reflect those the individual is seeking,
then s/he will not adopt the behavior. Observer may also modify her/his existing behavior
repertoire if the observed behavior resulting in the undesirable environmental reaction is
deemed connected or related to one’s own behavior (Bandura, 1986; 2001). Taken in the
context of sexual harassment, it is possible that youth are encoding the environmental
consequence of certain gendered behavior (i.e., sexual harassment as the consequence),
and thus use the witnessing experience to learn what behaviors result in harassment.
Therefore, the witnesses of sexual harassment are primarily learning fi'om, rather than
emotionally processing, observed events; thus, witnessing sexual harassment would not
result in psychological distress.

Alternatively, it is possible that only sexual harassment targeting something that a
witness identifies as a characteristic s/he could also be targeted for results in distress
symptoms. In this case, the distress reflects the realization that one could also be targeted
for the behavior/characteristic for which the victim of the witnessed sexual harassment
was targeted. This suggests the relationship between witnessing sexual harassment and
distress symptoms would be mediated by one’s identification with the target of the
witnessed harassment. Because of limited sample size and methods, such relationships
could not be assessed.

While these findings provide useful insight into the sexual harassment
experiences of middle school youth, there are some limitations to this study. First, the

generalizability is hindered by the sampling. Data were collected from students at only

79

one middle school, which contained a fairly racially homogeneous student population.
Furthermore, the school district from which this sample was drawn contained only one
elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. This suggests that, by and
large, the student population of this district does not change from grade level to grade
level, thus constraining the social organization of students within the school because
there is not the influx of a more heterogeneous population at each of the major
educational transitions (i.e., transitions to middle and high school). It is possible that
sexual harassment among more diverse, less socially constrained students occurs at
different rates and in different ways (e.g., context, type of harassment). Additionally, it is
possible that school level effects, which were not measured in this study, influence the
prevalence and nature of sexual harassment (e.g., tolerance for sexual harassment,
comprehensiveness and enforcement of sexual harassment and gender discrimination
policies, training of teachers to intervene on sexual harassment incidents and their intent
to do so). Additional research is needed at more diverse middle schools to assess such
effects.

This study also only provides limited information on the impact of sexual
harassment. By only addressing psychological distress symptomatology, no insight into
the academic, cognitive, and behavioral consequences was obtained. Research with high
school students indicates that targets of sexual harassment experience academic
consequences, such as withdrawal from school (AAUW, 1993; 2001). Additionally,
given that middle school-based sexual harassment is occurring during a time of
significant psychological and social development, it is possible that harassment

experiences (both witnessing and directly experiencing) shape adolescents’ attitudes,

80

perceptions, and beliefs about gender as well as their future behavior (e.g., what it means
to be masculine/feminine, acceptable gender behavior, acceptable across-gender
interaction). Social cognition theory supports this idea and would suggest that
experiences of sexual harassment very well may result in vicarious learning of gender
roles and “appropriate” behavior (Bandura, 1986; Bussey & Bandura, 1999). This study
provided no information regarding the affect of sexual harassment on academic,
cognitive, or behavioral functioning. Future research on youth sexual harassment should
expand our understanding of the individual-level consequences of sexual harassment to
include outcomes beyond psychological distress.

Lastly, this study paints a limited picture of the context of sexual harassment (i.e.,
location, gender and number of perpetrators and targets, who witnessed it). For
contextual information to inform intervention development (e. g., identifying points of
intervention), more detail is needed, such as the relationship between perpetrators and
targets (e. g., is this happening among friends, dating partners, enemies, or all of the
above), the motivation to use or the purpose of sexual harassment (e. g., are students using
it as an expression of sexual interest or as a mechanism of hierarchical social
restructuring), and the relationship between sexual harassment and development (e.g., are
there stages in development at which sexual harassment is less normative, thus making it
a prime point of intervention). Daily incident reports could be used in future research to
gain more detailed contextual information. A sample of students in the school trained as
observational researchers could document incidents of sexual harassment they witness
and directly experience. Such immediate documentation would provide richer contextual

information than retrospective accounts of incidents that may have happened months

81

prior. Additionally, longitudinal research documenting patterns of sexual harassment over
time would provide much information to inform the timing of interventions.

Despite these limitations, this study provides useful information regarding sexual
harassment in middle schools and can inform interventions. It is important to note that
Title D( of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects students from sexual harassment
because it is a form of sex discrimination that interferes with students’ rights to an
education. Schools are required by law to address and prevent instances of sexual
harassment and can be held liable if they are found negligent in this responsibility (Stein,
1999; Yaffe, 1995). Therefore, identifying effective intervention methods not only can
improve the school culture, but also protect schools against potentially costly lawsuits.

The contextual information collected in this study points to one change in the
schools’ physical space that might impact sexual harassment: more teacher/adult presence
in the hallways. Recall that despite the public nature of these events, students reported
that virtually no teachers were present for these incidents, that most often only other
students were the only witnesses to the harassment. If teachers or other adults are not
present, they cannot intervene on instances of harassment, and, with 84% of incidents
described not being reported to school officials, it does not appear these events are being
brought to the attention of the school by the students involved or those witnessing the
incidents. To address this lack of adult presence, schools could create hall monitoring
schedules, with designated times during which specific teachers are responsible for
“patrolling” the hallways. However, with public educations’ depleted resources and

teachers losing their planning periods, this may not be a reasonable expectation.

82

This study highlights another resource in intervening on sexual harassment
instances: the student witnesses. With nearly 100% of students witnessing sexual
harassment, they represent a significant resource pool that could be trained to intervene in
peer-to-peer harassment. The use of peer bystanders in intervening on gendered forms of
violence has shown promise among college students (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan,
2005). Schools could adopt the approaches of other programs to develop the skills and
motivation of bystanders to intervene. This approach would encourage students to
become involved in the prevention/intervention process, empowering them to impact the
behavior of their peers.

In summary, this study provided a preliminary examination of the sexual
harassment experiences of middle school students and a first look at the distinct concept
of witnessing sexual harassment among youth. Findings indicate that the vast majority of
middle school students are directly harassed and witness harassment, suggesting sexual
harassment is a normative behavior among youth. Furthermore, this study found that
direct sexual harassment experiences are related to increased psychological distress.
Additional research in diverse settings that investigates a wider array of outcomes and
collects in depth contextual information is needed to obtain a more comprehensive

picture of the direct and witnessing sexual harassment experiences of youth.

83

APPENDICES

84

APPENDIX A

Peer Interaction Survey

85

Peer Interaction Survey

Read the directions below carefully!

The questions on the next page ask about things you may have m happen to other
students A_T_ Bath Middle School since school started this Yfl (For example, if you are in
sixth grade, then we are interested in what you saw as a sixth grader). We are interested
in two things:

1) HOW OFTEN you have seen certain things happen to a classmate(s). We are only
interested in things that happened to someone else, n_ot_ things that happened to you.
For each question on the next page, please glee:
0 if you have never seen it happen to someone else;
1 if you have seen it happen to someone else once;
2+ if you have seen it happen to someone else twice or more.
If you circle 0 (never), you move on to the next question.

For example, if you have never seen a student make an obscene gesture to another
student then you would circle 0 for “how often” and not circle anything for “how upset.”

How often? How upset were you?
Not Slightly Moderate- Very
Upset Upset ly Upset Upset

0 1 2 3

 

Twice
Ngygr Once or more

Q) 1 2+-)

2) If you have seen the things described happen at least once (if you circled l or 2 for
“How Often”), please indicate how much it UPSET you (by the word “upset,” we mean
bothered, angry or frightened) by circling":

0 if you were not upset at all;

1 if you were slightly upset;

2 if you were moderately upset;

3 if you were very upset.
*If this situation happened more than once, please circle the answer that best describes
your general reaction.

 

 

3. making sexual or obscene
gestures at a student

 

 

For example, if you have seen another student making obscene gestures at other students
three times and you were moderately upset by it then you would circle 2+ to indicate
“how often” and 2 to indicate “how upset” you were.

 

 

 

How often? How upset were you?
Twice Not Slightly Moderate- Very
Never Once or more Upset Upset ly Upset Upset
3. making sexual or obscene O 1 O 1 m 3
gestures at a student 2+ 2

 

V

V

If you have questions about how to fill out the survey, raise your hand and an assistant

will help you.

Questions begin on the next page...

86

These questions refer to behaviors you may or may not have seen done to OTHER students A_T_
Bath Middle School.

 

Since school started this year, have you seen any student(s)...

 

How often? How upset were you?

Twice Not Slightly Moderat- Very
Never Once or more Upset Upset ely Upset Upset

 

1. wearing T—shirts or hats that had
sexually explicit words or pictures

2. showing, using, or handing out
sexual pictures, stories or cartoons to
other student

0

1

2+->

2+->

0

l

2

3

 

3. making sexual or obscene gestures at
a student

4. telling sexual stories or jokes that the
other student(s) clearly didn’t want to
hear

2+—>

2+9

 

5. saying hurtful things about a student
body or how (s)he looked (for example,
calling a student “fat,” “ugly,” or “flat-
chested”)

6. saying sexually explicit things about
a student body or how(s)he looked (for
example, “Nice butt” or “I want your
body”)

2+9

2+-)

 

7. calling a student sexual names (for
example, “slut,” “tease,” “whore”)

8. calling a student bad names (for
example, “bitch”)

2+—>

2+->

 

9. making sexual remarks about a
student to others (for example, saying
to others that a student has a “hot
body”)

10. spreading sexual rumors about a

student

2+->

2+—>

 

11. calling a student a name for a
homosexual (e.g., “fag” or “dyke”) to
insult him/her

12. saying things to put a student down
because (s)he was male or female (for
example, said he can’t do something
because he’s a boy OR she can’t do
something because she’s a girl)

2+->

2+—>

 

13. making fun of a student for not
acting enough like a boy/ girl (for
example, calling a student a “tomboy,”
‘6fa E,99 66Sissy99)

87

2+-)

 

 

14. making sexual remarks about a
student’s gender (for example, “girls
are sluts” or “boys are dicks”)

2+9

 

15. giving a student any sexual
attention (s)he did not want

16. giving a student sexual notes or
letters that (s)he didn’t want

2+9

2+9

 

17. repeatedly asking a student out
even after (s)he said “no”

18. hinting or saying something bad
would happen if a student didn’t go
along with something sexual (for
example, that (s)he would lose friends
or rumors would be spread about him
or her)

2+9

2+-)

 

19. hinting or saying that something
special would happen if a student went
along with something sexual (for

example, get a date or gain popularity)

2+9

 

20. cornering, leaning over or
following a student

2+9

 

21. staring at a student or parts of a
student’s body

22. touching a student (for example, put
an arm around his or her shoulder) in a
way that it was clear made him or her
uncomfortable

2+9

2+9

 

23. kissing or hugging a student when
(s)he did not want it

24. pulling a student’s clothing down or
off

2+9

2+9

 

25. making forceful attempts to have
sex with a student

88

2+9

 

Read the directions below carefully!

The following questions ask about your experiences with other students AI Bath Middle School
s'mce school started this yea_r.

 

As you did before, for each of the behaviors below please indicate HOW OFTEN things have
happened to you in the past year and if you have experienced this at least once (circled 1 or 2),
please indicate how much it UPSET you.

These questions refer to experiences M may or may not have had with other students AI Bath
Middle School. Please CIRCLE your response.

Since school started this gear has any other student(s)...

How often?
Twice
Never Once or
more

 

How upset were you?
Not Slightly Moderat- Very
Upset Upset ely Upset Upset

 

1. showed, used, or handed sexual pictures
stories or cartoons to you

2+-)l

 

2. told sexual stories or jokes to you that
you didn’t want to hear
3. made sexual or obscene gestures to you

 

2+-)l

2+-)I

 

4. said hurtful things about your body or
how you looked (for example, “fat,”

‘fiu g1I 1”)

2+4

 

5. said sexually explicit things about your
body or how you looked (for example, sait

you have a “nice butt” or “I want your
body”)

2+-)I

 

6. called you sexual names (for example,
“slut,” “tease,” “whore”)

2+

 

7. called you a bad name (for example,
“bitch”)

2+1

 

8. made sexual remarks about you to
others (for example, told others you have 1
“hot body”)

2+-)I

 

 

9. spread sexual rumors about you

10. called you a name for a homosexual
(for example, “fag” or “dyke”) to insult
you

2+91

at

 

11. said things to put you down because
you were male or female (for example,
said you can’t do something because of
your sex)

as

 

12. made fun of you for not acting like
enough of a boy/girl (for example, called
you a “tomboy,” “fag; “sissy”)

2+-%

 

 

89

 

13. made sexual remarks about your
gender (for example, “girls are sluts” or
“boys are dicks”)

14. given you sexual notes or letters that
you didn’t want

Ml

2+-)l

 

15. given you any sexual attention you did
not want

16. stared at you or parts of your body
17. cornered, leaned over or followed you

 

2+-)|
2+9|
2+9l

CO

 

l8. tried to stroke your leg or other body
part when you didn’t want him/her to

2+1

 

l9. touched you (for example, put an arm

around your shoulder) in a way that made

you feel uncomfortable

20. kissed or hugged you when you did no
want it

21. pulled your clothing down or off

22. kept asking you out even after you salt

6‘ ,9

no

2+9

2+—)|
2+-)|
2+9!

 

 

23. hinted or said that something special
would happen if you went along with
something sexual (for example, get a date
ppgain popularity)

24. hinted or said something bad would
happen if you didn’t go along with
something sexual (for example, that you
would lose friends or rumors would be
spread about you)

25. treated you badly for refusing to have
sex

2+-)t

2+-)

2+1

 

26. made forceful attempts to have sex
with you

27. tried to get sex by pressuring or
arging with you, but did NOT succeed

2+-)l

2+-)l

 

28. had sex with you without your consent
or against your will

29. sexually assaulted you

90

2+-)
2+-)1

 

Go on to the next page...

Please read the list of behaviors below.

0 Wearing T-shirts or hats that had
sexually explicit words or pictures

0 Showing, using, or handing out sexual
pictures, stories or cartoons to other
student(s)

0 Making sexual or obscene gestures at a
student(s)

o Telling sexual stories or jokes that the
other student(s) clearly didn’t want to hear
0 Saying sexual things to others

0 Saying hurtful things about a student’s
body or how (s)he looked (for example,
calling a student “fat”, “flat-chested”)

o Saying sexually explicit things about
another student’s body or how (s)he looked
(for example, saying “nice butt” or “I want
your body”)

0 Calling a student(s) sexual names (e.g.,
slut, easy)

0 Making sexual remarks about a
student(s) to others (for example, saying to
others that a student has a “hot body”)

- Spreading sexual rumors about a
student(s)

0 Calling a student(s) an offensive name
for a homosexual (for example, fag, dyke) to
insult him/her

o Saying things to put a student(s) down
because (s)he was male or female (for
example, saying (s)he shouldn’t be doing
something because of his or her sex)

0 Making sexual remarks about a
student’s gender (for example, “all girls are
sluts” or “all boys are dicks”)

0 Giving a student(s) sexual notes or
letters that (s)he didn’t want

0 Giving a student(s) any sexual attention
(s)he did not want

0 Repeatedly asking a student(s) out even
after (s)he said “no”

a Hinting or saying something bad would
happen if a student(s) didn’t go along with
something sexual (for example, that (s)he
would lose friendships or rumors would be
spread about him or her)

0 Hinting or saying that something special
would happen if a student(s) went along with
something sexual (for example, get a date or
gain popularity)

0 Cornering, leaning over or following
another student(s)

o Staring at a student(s) or parts of a
student’s body

0 Touching a student(s) (for example, put
an arm around your shoulder) in a way that it
was clear made him/her feel uncomfortable
o Kissing or hugging a student(s) when
(s)he did not want it

o Pulling a student’s clothing down or off
0 Making forceful attempts to have sex
with a student(s)

For the next set of questions, think about a time since schoolitarted this yea_r you saw a student! 3)
doing one of these behaviors or something similar to another student(s) at Bath Middle School. It
could be a time that you saw a student doing one or more of the behaviors on the list or a similar

behavior not on the list.

We are interested in what you saw done to apother student(s). not something that happened to

you.

Pick the event that stands out most in your mind and try to remember as many details about this
event as you can. Now answer the questions on the next page.

91

Please answer the following questions about what you saw happen to another student(s) since
school started this vea_r. Provide as much detail as you are able (you may write on the back of the

page)-

Please describe what you saw in as much detail as you remember.

For questions 2 through 7 please CIRCLE your response.

2. Who was doing this behavior to the student(s): Boy Girl
3. How many students were doing this behavior to the student(s): 1 2
4. Who was this behavior done to: Boy Girl
5. How many people was this behavior done to: 1 2
6. Where did this event happen (CIRCLE one):

Hallway Recess

Classroom Gym class

Cafeteria Locker room

Bus Other

Both

3+

Both

3+

 

 

7. Who else saw this event?

7. Did Other student(s) see it? No Yes
If Yes, how many students? 1 2 3+

 

8. Did Teacheg s) see it? No
If Yes, how many teachers? 1 2 3+

Yes

 

9. Did Administratog 8) see it? No Yes
(for example principal, vice principal)
If Yes, how many administrators? 1 2 3+

 

Did Someoni else (for example secretary, janitor, hall monitor) see it? Please describe below.

 

92

10. What did the people who saw it (including yourself) do in response to the incident (for
example, ignored it, laughed, tried to stop it)? If you were n_ot the only person who saw the

incident, please write the p_osition of the person with their resmnse.

For example: Female cafeteria worker — tried to stop it,
Male student— tried to stop it,
Female teacher — ignored it,
I - laughed

11. What do you think of the way people responded to this incident?

12. To your knowledge, was this incident ever reported to school officials? No Yes

13. How do you feel about what you saw?

Go on to the next page...

93

Read the directions below carefully!

The next set of items list different behaviors, feelings, and ideas. For each behavior, feeling and
idea, please indicate how much you have experienced it in the past month.

Specifically, please CIRCLE: 0 if you did “not at all” experience it
1 if you experienced it “a little”
2 if you experienced it “somewhat”
3 if you experienced it “quite a bit”
4 if you experienced it “extremely” or “a lot”

For each item listed below please indicate how much you have experienced it in the past month.

 

Not at all A little Somewhat Quite a Extremely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bit

1. Nervousness or shakiness inside 0 l 2 3 4
2. Faintness or dizziness 0 1 2 3
3. The idea that someone else can 0 1 2 3
control your thoughts
4. Feeling others are to blame for most

0 1 2 3 4
of your problems
5. Trouble rememberingthings 0 l 2 3 4
6. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated 0 1 2 3 4
7. Pains in heart or chest 0 l 2 3 4
8. Feeling afraid in open spaces 0 l 2 3 4
9. Thorghts of ending your life 0 1 2 3 4
10. Feelrng that most people cannot be 0 1 2 3 4
trusted
11. Trouble fallipg asleep 0 1 2 3 4
12. Suddenly scared for no reason 0 1 2 3 4
l3. Temper outbursts that you could 0 1 2 3 4
not control
14. F eelmg lonely even when you are 0 1 2 3 4
With people
15. Feelrng like you can t get thmgs O 1 2 3 4
done
16. FeelingJonely 0 1 2 3 4
17. Feeling blue 0 1 2 3 4
18. Feeling no interest in things 0 l 2 3 4
19. Feeling fearful 0 l 2 3 4
20. Your feelings beingeasily hurt 0 1 2 3 4
21. Feeling that people are unfiiendly

. . O l 2 3 4

or drslrke you
22. Feeling inferior to others 0 1 2 3 4
23. Nausea or upset stomach 0 1 2 3 4
24. Feeling you are watched or talked

0 1 2 3 4
about by others
25. Loss of appetite 0 l 2 3 4
26. Having to check and double-check 0 1 2 3 4

what you do

 

94

 

27. Difficulty making decisions

 

28. Feeling afiaid to travel on buses,
subways or trains

 

29. Trouble gettiniflur breath

 

30. Hot or cold flashes

OOOO

NNNN

0303030)

Ah-h-b

 

31. Having to avoid certain things,
places, or activities because they
fiighten you

O

A

 

32. Your mind going blank

 

A

 

33. Numbness or tingling in parts of
your body

O

N

A

 

34. The idea that you should be
punished for your sins

 

35. Feeling hopeless about the future

 

36. Trouble concentratig

 

37. Feeling weak in parts of your body

 

38. Feeling tense or keyed up

 

39. Thoughts of death and dying

 

40. Having urges to beat, injure, or
harm someone

O OOOOO O

N NNNNN N

wwwwwww

A AA-b-k-h J>

 

41. Having urges to break or smash
things

O

N

W

A

 

42. Feeling very self-conscious with
others

 

43. Feeling uneasy in crowds

 

44. Never feeling close to another
person

 

45. Feelings of terror or panic

 

46. Getting into frequent arguments

 

47. Feeling nervous when you are
alone

OOOOOO

NNNNNN

WUWUJUJUJ

##ah-fi-fi-fis

 

48. Others not giving the credit you
deserve to your achievements

O

N

DJ

A

 

49. Feeling so restless you could not sit
still

 

50. Feelings of worthlessness

 

51. Feeling that people will take
advantage of you if you let them

 

52. Feelings of guilt

 

53.The idea that something is wrong
with your mind

OOOOO

NNNNN

wwuww

b-bA-b-h

 

95

Read the directions below carefully!

In this next section is a list of events that may or may not have happened to you since school
started this year.

Please circle “yes ” if the event described has happened to you since the school started this year
or circle “no ” if the event described has NOT happened to you since school started this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Your parents got divorced Yes No
2. You experienced the death of a family member or someone
Yes No
close to you
3. You were involved in a life-threatening accident or illness Yes No
4. You were involved in a fire, flood, or natural disaster Yes No
5. You witnessed someone being badly injured or killed Yes No
6. You were seriously physically attacked or assaulted Yes No
7. You were threatened with a weapon, held captive, or
. Yes No
krdnapped
8. You suffered a great shock because one of the events on
. . Yes No
this lrst happened to someone close to you.
9. You experienced any other significant event in your life Yes No

not on this list that was upsetting to you.

 

Go on to the next page...

96

Please tell me a little about yourself.

Age: years

 

What grade are you in?:

 

What is your gender?:

 

What is your Ethnic Background (Please check your particular ethnic group(s). Check as many
categories as apply)?:

White/ Caucasian

Black/ African American

Latino/a/ Hispanic

American Indian/ Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander

Other (Please Describe

What are your grades like?
On your last report card, how many...

A’s/Excellent did you get?
B’s/Very Good did you get?
C’s/Good did you get?
D’s/Satisfactory did you get?
E’s/F’s/Poor did you get?

You are now done with the questionnaire!

Please put it back in the envelope with the assent form and
sit quietly until you are given further instructions.

Thank you!

97

Appendix B

Tables: Missing Data for the Direct and Witnessing
Sexual Harassment Degree of Upset Measures

98

Table 18

Number of Participants for whom the Direct Sexual Harassment Degree of Upset Questions

 

 

were Not Applicable
Scale Items Not
Applicable
1. showed, used, or handed sexual pictures, stories or cartoons to you 119
2. told sexual stories or jokes to you that you didn’t want to hear 110
3. made sexual or obscene gestures to you 111
4. said hurtful things about your body or how you looked 69
5. said sexually explicit things about your body or how you looked 105
6. called you sexual names 107
7. called you a bad name 53
8. made sexual remarks about you to others 106
9. spread sexual rumors about you 125
10. called you a name for a homosexual to insult you 103
11. said firings to put you down because you were male or female 116
12. made fun of you for not acting like enough of a boy/girl 121
13. made sexual remarks about your gender 129
14. given you sexual notes or letters that you didn’t want 149
15. given you any sexual attention you did not want 147
16. stared at you or parts of your body 102
17. cornered, leaned over or followed you 127
18. tried to stroke your leg or other body part when you didn’t want 141
him/her to
19. touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable 136
20. kissed or hugged you when you did not want it 152
21. pulled your clothing down or off 151
22. kept asking you out even after you said “no” 85
23. hinted or said that something special would happen if you went along 1 46
with something sexual
24. hinted or said something bad would happen if you didn’t go along 1 53
with something sexual
25. treated you badly for refusing to have sex 155
26. made forceful attempts to have sex with you 149
27. tried to get sex by pressuring or arguing with you, but did NOT 149
succeed
28. had sex with you without your consent or against your will 160
29. sexually assaulted you 148

 

99

Table 19
Number of Participants for Whom the Witnessing Sexual Harassment Degree of Upset

Questions Were Not Applicable

 

 

Scale Items Not
Applicable

1. wearing T-shirts or hats that had sexually explicit words or pictures 99
2. showing, using, or handing out sexual pictures, stories or cartoons to 1 14
other student
4. telling sexual stories or jokes that the other student(s) clearly didn’t 88
want to hear
5. saying hurtful things about a student body or how (s)he looked 19
6. saying sexually explicit things about a student body or how(s)he 65
looked
7. calling a student sexual names 35
8. calling a student bad names 23
9. making sexual remarks about a student to others 45
10. spreading sexual rumors about a student 82
11. calling a student a name for a homosexual to insult him/her 28
12. saying things to put a student down because (s)he was male or 77
female
13. making fun of a student for not acting enough like a boy/ girl 46
14. making sexual remarks about a student’s gender 81
15. giving a student any sexual attention (s)he did not want 116
16. giving a student sexual notes or letters that (s)he didn’t want 124
17. repeatedly asking a student out even after (s)he said “no” 53

18. hinting or saying something bad would happen if a student didn’t go 122
along with something sexual

l9. hinting or saying that something special would happen if a student 124
went along with something sexual

20. cornering, leaning over or following a student 105
21 . staring at a student or parts of a student’s body 63

22. touching a student in a way that it was clear made him or her 108
uncomfortable

23. kissing or hugging a student when (s)he did not want it 141
24. pulling a student’s clothing down or off 105
25. making forceful attempts to have sex with a student 151

 

100

REFERENCES

101

REFERENCES

Al-Krenawi, A., Slonim-Nevo, V, Maymon, Y., & Al-Krenawi, S. (2001).
Psychological responses to blood vengeance among Arab adolescents. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 25(4), 457-472.

American Association of University Women (1993). Hostile hallways: AAUW survey on
sexual harassment in American schools. Washington DC: American Association
of University Women Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (2001). Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington DC: American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (2004). Harassment Free Hallways: How
to stop sexual harassment in schools. Washington DC: American Association of
University Women Educational Foundation.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52: 1-26.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape Prevention Through
Bystander Education: Bringing a Broader Community Perspective to Sexual
Violence Prevention. NIJ Document No: 208701; Award Number 2002-WG-
BX-OOO9.

Berk, L. (Ed.). (2003). Child Development (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berman, H., McKenna, K., Arnold, C. T., Taylor, G., & MacQuarrie, B. (2000). Sexual
harassment: Everyday violence in the lives of girls and women. Advances in

Nursing Science, 22(4), 32-46.

Bryant, A. L. (1993). Commentary: Hostile hallways: The AAUW Survey on sexual
harassment in America's schools. Journal of School Health, 63(8), 355-357.

Bussey, K. & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713.

Cohen, J. (198 8). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (second edition),
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn.

102

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Collinsworth, L. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Magley, V. J. (unpublished manuscript). Sexual
harassment in high school.

Collinsworth, L. L. & Fitzgerald, L. F. (unpublished research scale). Sexual Experiences
Questionnaire - High School. Unpublished research scale, Department of
Psychology, University of Illinois.

Cortina, L. M., Swan, Suzanne, Fitzgerald, Louise F. & waldo, Craig. (1998). Sexual
harassment and assault: Chilling the Climate for Women in Academia.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 419-441.

Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and
procedures manual. Minneapolis, MS: National Computer Systems.

Derogatis, L. R. & Melisaratos, N ( 1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An
introductory report. Psychology Medicine, 13, 595-605.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Guidelines on discrimination
because of sex (Sect. 1604.11). Federal Register, 45, 74676-76477.

Fineran, S. (2002). Sexual harassment between same-sex peers: Intersection of mental
health, homophobia, and sexual violence in schools. Social Work, 47(1), 65-74.

Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1998). Teenage peer sexual harassment: implications for
social work practice in education. Social Work, 43(1), 55-64.

Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1999). Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment
among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 626-641.

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 and Applied Social Psychology,
1 7(4), 425-445.

Fitzgerald, L. F ., Shullman, S.L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J ., Gold, Y.,
Ormerod, M., & Weitzrnan, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual

harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32,
1 52-1 75.

103

 

Fitzgerald, L. F ., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. (1997). But was it really sexual
harassment?: Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace
victimization of women. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 5-28). Needharn Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., &
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of

antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 71, 309-328.

Grover, R. L. & Nangle, D. W. (2003). Adolescent perceptions of problematic
heterosocial situations: A focus group study. Journal of Youth and Adolescent,
32(2), 129-139.

Hackrnan, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organizational
psycholgoy. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering? Gender differences in
experience of, reactions to, sexual harassment among US high school students.
Gender & Society, 14(6), 718-746.

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?
American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 1013-1057.

Heritage, J ., Denton, W. L., & West, B. (1996). Sexual Harassment in High School.
Paper presented at the Southeastern Conference of Counseling Center Personnel
(Nashville, TN, October 16-18, 1996) and the Tennessee Counseling Association
(Memphis, TN, November 24-26, 1996).

Hitlan, R. T. & Schneider, K. T. (in preparation). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to
personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences.

Hoffman, L. M. (2003). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and
districts: School year 2001-2002. Educational Statistics Quarterly, 5(2).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_2/q3_5.asp on
November 20, 2005.

Kalter, N., Lohnes, K. L., Chasin, J ., Cain, A. C., Dunning, S., & Rowan, J. (2002). The
adjustment of parentally bereaved children: 1. Factors associated with short-term
adjustment. Journal of Death and Dying, 46(1), 15-34.

Koss, M. P., Figueredo, A. P., & Prince, RI. (2002). Cognitive mediation of rape's

mental, physical, and social health impact: Tests of four models in cross-
sectional data. Journal of Counsulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(4), 926-941.

104

 

Kraiger, K. & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2000, April). Understanding bystander sexual
harassment: Influences and consequences. Paper presented at the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Lacasse, A., Purdy, K. T., & Mendelson, M. J. (2003). The mixed company they keep:
Potentially offensive sexual behaviors among adolescents. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 27(6), 532-540.

Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., Linn, E., & Chen, X. (1996). The culture of sexual
harassment in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal,
33(2), 383-417.

Leonard, H. A. (2001) The traumatic effects of witnessing domestic violence on
children's emotional functioning. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(3-B), 1585.

Loy, P. H. & Stewart, L. P. (1984). The extent and effects of sexual harassment of
working women. Sociological Focus, 1 7, 31-43.

Malina, R. M., & Bouchard, C. (1991). Growth, maturation and physical activity.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McCaskill, P. A., Toro, P. A., & Wolfe, S. M. (1998). Homeless and matched housed
adolescents: A comparative study of psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 27(3), 306-319.

McMaster, L. E., Connolly, J ., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Peer to peer sexual
harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development
and Psychopathology, 14(1), 91-105.

Moradi, B. & Subich, L. M. (2002). Perceived sexist events and feminist identity
development attitudes: Links to women's psychological distress. The Counseling
Psychologist, 30(1), 44-65.

Mumen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2000). The experience of sexual harassment among
grade-school students: Early socialization of female subordination? Sex Roles,
43(1/2), 1-17.

O'Donohue, W., Downs, K., & Yeater, E. A. (1998). Sexual harassment: A review of
the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(2), 111-128.

Ohio Department of Education, Department of Vocational Sex Equity (1999). Ohio

students, parents, and teachers speak out on sexual harassment. Equity
Exchange, 5(4), 5.

105

 

Polce-Lynch, M., Myers, B. J ., Kliewer, W., & Kilmartin, C. (2001). Adolescent self-
esteem and gender: Exploring relations to sexual harassment, body image, media

influence, and emotional expression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2),
225-244.

Richman-Hirsch, W.L., & Glomb, T. M. (2002). Are men affected by the sexual
harassment of women? Effects of ambient sexual harassment on men. In Brett,
Jeanne M. (Ed); Drasgow, F. (Ed). (2002). The psychology of work:
Theoretically based empirical research. (pp. 121-140). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Roscoe, B., Strouse, J. S., & Goodwin, M. P. (1994). Sexual harassment: Early
adolescents' self reports of experiences and acceptance. Adolescence, 29(115),
515-523.

Sexual Harassment in a New Jersey High School: A Replication Study. (1995). New
Jersey Equity Research Bulletin, 15, 6.

Shakeshaft, C., Mandel, L., & Johnson, Y. M. (1997). Boys call me cow. Educational
Leadership, 55(October), 22-25.

Stein, N. (1996). From the margins to the mainstream: Sexual harassment in k-12
schools. Initiatives, 57(3), 19-26.

Stein, N (1999). Classrooms and courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in K-12
schools. New York: Teacher's College Press, Columbia University.

Steinberg, L. & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 83-110.

Tanner J. M. (1990). Fetus into man: Physical growth fiom conception to maturity (2nd
ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Till, F. (1980). Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students.
Washington, DC: National Advisory Council on Women's Educational

Programs.

Trigg, M., & Wittenstrom, K. (1996). "That's the way the world really goes": Sexual
harassment and New Jersey teenagers. Initiatives, 5 7(2), 55-65.

Yaffe, E. (1995). Expensive, illegal, and wrong: Sexual harassment in our schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, November, 1-15.

106

1|111111]lllllljlljlllllllljljljll