SEXUAL ORIENTATION HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE
By
Tamara Ann Bruce

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology – Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
SEXUAL ORIENTATION HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE
By
Tamara Ann Bruce

Due to Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB) individuals’ status as a statistical minority as
well as historical and societal influences, LGBs have been targets of prejudice and
discrimination in the U.S. However, there has been surprisingly little systematic examination
of the nature and prevalence of sexual orientation harassment (SOH) in the workplace.
Therefore, existing literature on harassment, discrimination, and hate crime constructs were
examined in order to create a comprehensive list of possible SOH behaviors. The resulting
measurement tool, the Workplace SOH Measure (WSOHM), as well as measures of sexual
and racial/ethnic harassment, expected correlates, and group differences were administered to
a convenience sample (N=107) of working individuals. Factor analytic work supported the
WSOHM as containing five separate underlying behavioral categories: Coercion,
Expectation/Stereotyping, Heterosexist, Exclusionary, and Derogation/Stereotyping
Behaviors. Partial support was also found for the relationships between SOH and
organizational climate, depression and anxiety, the male to female ratio of workers in the
participant’s occupational field, and the overall validity of the WSOHM as a measure of
workplace SOH. The practical uses of the WSOHM in organizational contexts are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Ann Marie Ryan, for all her support and
guidance during this project, as well as throughout my graduate career and during the transition
beyond. I am grateful for her wisdom and flexibility and confidence in my abilities. I’d also like
to thank my committee members, Kevin Ford and Dan Ilgen for their helpful feedback and
comments.
I am also indebted to my husband Erik, for all that he does for me, our daughter Ripley,
and our horde of felines. Without him, life would certainly be a lot less fun and interesting.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

v

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
The Importance of Research on SOH
Current Approach
Areas of Related Research
Sexual Harassment
Definition and Prevalence
Hate Crimes
Legislation
Behaviors
Racial and Ethnic Harassment
Racial and Ethnic Harassment Distinctions
REH Behaviors
Youth Sexual Orientation Harassment
Incidence of Youth SOH
Heterosexism and Homophobia
Adult Sexual Orientation Victimization
SOH-Related Behaviors
Interim Summary
Outcomes of Harassment
Outcomes of Sexual Harassment
Outcomes of Racial/Ethnic Harassment
Outcomes of Hate Crimes
Outcomes of Youth SOH
Outcomes of Adult SOH
Harassment Climate
Occupation
Multiple Forms of Harassment
Identity Management
Identity Management Strategies
Consequences of Identity Management

1
1
2
5
6
7
8
10
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
20
22
23
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
31
32
35
36
37

CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Overview
Phase 1: Define Construct Domain

39
39
41
iv

Phase 1.1: Generation of SOH Items through Review of Existing Literature
Generating Items from Parallels between SH and SOH
Generating Items from Parallels between Hate Crimes and SOH
Generating Items from Parallels between REH and SOH
Generating Items from Previous SOH Research
Phase 1.2: Analysis of Critical Incident Data for Categories and Example SOH items
Generation of Preliminary Item Pool
Phase 2: Refine Construct Domain
Phase 2.1: Expert Review of SOH items
Phase 2.2: Finalization of WSOHM Items based upon Parsimony, Redundancy, and
Feedback
Phase 3: Assessing Construct Validity
Phase 3.1: Item Reliability and Factor Analyses
Phase 3.2: Discriminant Validity
Phase 3.3: Expected Correlates
Measures
Phase 3.4: Expected Group Differences
Measures
Phase 4: Finalize Construct Domain
Phase 4.1: Use Construct Validation Findings to Further Refine Measure Items

41
41
49
53
57
57
63
68
68
69
70
72
72
74
74
77
77
82
82

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Data Preparation and Reverse Coding of Variables
Missing Data
Other Data Issues
Phase 3.1: Item and Reliability Analysis
Preliminary Reliability Analyses
Summary
Phase 3.2: Discriminant Validity
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Correlational Analyses
Exploratory Analyses
Regression Analyses
Phase 3.3: Expected Correlates
Phase 3.4: Expected Group Differences
Summary

83
83
83
83
84
86
87
87
87
98
102
110
114
119
120
122

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
WSOHM Content Development and Analysis
The WSOHM and Other Forms of Harassment
Summary of Findings Related to Content Development
The WSOHM and Expected Correlates
Summary of Findings Related to Expected Correlates

124
124
125
130
131
134

v

The WSOHM and Expected Group Differences
Summary of Findings Related to Expected Group Differences
Other Study Findings
Limitations
Practical Implications and Future Research

135
138
138
141
142

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Critical incident survey consent form
Appendix B: Critical incident survey
Appendix C: Study debriefing form
Appendix D: Sample critical incident survey responses
Appendix E: Focus group consent form
Appendix F: Focus group protocol
Appendix G: Main study consent form
Appendix H: Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ)
Appendix I: Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale (EHE)
Appendix J: Workplace Sexual Orientation Harassment Measure (WSOHM)
Appendix K: Identity management measure
Appendix L: Sexual orientation measure
Appendix M: Demographics
Appendix N: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Depression
Appendix O: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Anxiety
Appendix P: Organizational commitment measure
Appendix Q: Job Satisfaction Scale
Appendix R: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
Appendix S: Organizational climate measure
Appendix T: Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS)

146
147
149
156
158
161
163
165
167
169
170
172
179
175
176
178
179
180
181
182
183

REFERENCES

184

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sexual harassment behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items

43

Table 2: Hate crime behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items

51

Table 3: Racial/ethnic harassment behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items 54
Table 4: Sexual orientation harassment behavioral factors and example items

61

Table 5: Preliminary item pool for the WSOHM

64

Table 6: Extracted factors for the sexual orientation measure

80

Table 7: Item factor loadings for sexual orientation items

80

Table 8: Item-total discrimination statistics and alphas for the WSOHM

85

Table 9: Confirmatory factor analyses for the WSOHM

96

Table 10: Extracted factors for the WSOHM

99

Table 11: Item factor loadings for the WSOHM

100

Table 12: Descriptive statistics for study variables

103

Table 13: Correlations between study variables

104

Table 14: Hierarchical regression analysis of expected correlates onto SH, REH, and SOH

112

Table 15: Regression analysis of expected correlates onto SOH

115

Table 16: Regression analysis of SOH onto expected group difference variables

117

Table 17: Regression analysis of SOH onto job type

118

Table 18: Study hypotheses and their associated level of support

123

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Overview of current study development methodology

40

Figure 2: Four-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor

89

Figure 3: One-factor CFA path model

90

Figure 4: Two-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor

91

Figure 5: Three-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor

92

Figure 6: Two-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor

93

Figure 7: Three-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor

94

Figure 8: Four-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor

95

viii

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)
California Safe Schools Coalition (CSSC)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
Ethnic Harassment (EH)
Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale (EHE)
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Hate Crimes (HC)
Heterosexist Harassment (HH)
Identity Management (IM)
Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB)
Negative Affect (NA)
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Positive Affect (PA)
Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS)
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Racial/Ethnic Harassment (REH)
ix

Racial Harassment (RH)
Racialized Sexual Harassment (RSH)
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ)
Sexual Harassment (SH)
Sexual Orientation (SO)
Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SOD)
Sexual Orientation Harassment (SOH)
Sexual Orientation Victimization (SOV)
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)
Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90)
Veterans Affairs (VA)
Workplace Sexual Orientation Harassment Measure (WSOHM)

x

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Overview
Harassment in the workplace has become a well-known topic among researchers and
laypersons alike because of increases in empirical research on the topic over the past two
decades as well as a variety of well-publicized sexual harassment scandals (e.g. U.S. Navy’s
Tailhook incident, Clarence Thomas hearings). Similarly, other forms of discrimination in the
workplace (e.g. racial, religious) have also received increased attention in recent years, most
likely due to a growing societal awareness of the changing demographic diversity of the U.S.
workforce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
However, one yet primarily unexplored area is the experience of workers who are subjected to
sexual orientation harassment.
Harassment in work contexts is defined as a pattern of unwanted or offensive behaviors
that interfere with an individual’s performance, affect work outcomes (e.g., turnover), and/or
create a hostile work environment (Fitzgerald, et al., 1988). In this proposal, SOH is defined as
the experience of being subjected to a pattern of unwanted or offensive behaviors that interfere
with an individual’s performance, affect work outcomes and/or create a hostile work
environment because of one’s perceived or actual sexual orientation.
While acknowledging that there is a vast spectrum upon which people may fall with
regard to their sexual orientation, especially when considering the many different methods of
defining sexual orientation (Ragins, 2004), for the purposes of this proposal, the term LGB
individuals will be used to refer to persons whom by behaviors, beliefs, or self-labeling may be

1

considered lesbian, gay, bisexual, or homosexual. For reasons that will be discussed in detail
later in the proposal, transgendered individuals are not included in this investigation.

The Importance of Research on SOH
In order to examine the nature and correlates of SOH, researchers must first create a
measure by which to assess it. There are several reasons why the development of a measure of
SOH is important.
First, as a form of workplace discrimination, SOH has the potential to negatively impact
the success and well-being of individuals in the workplace. Like other numeric minorities (e.g.
women and non-Caucasians) sexual minorities must deal with discrimination, particularly with
the ever-increasing diversity of the U.S. workforce. Although the primary aim of the current
proposal is to develop a measure of SOH, and not to examine consequences of SOH, the
potential negative consequences of SOH are nonetheless an important consideration for the need
for an effective measure.
Second, the victims of SOH (predominantly LGB individuals) are not a small minority
group as far as numbers go, with estimates of U.S. LGB populations ranging from 2-10%
(McFarland & Dupuis, 2001). Certain recent estimates have even put the proportion of lesbian
and gay women as high as 17% (Bowen et al., 2004), and have found that about 20% of men and
women report having some homosexual feelings (McConaghy, et al., 2006). However, even the
most conservative end of these estimates dictate that the LGB population in the U.S. is equal to
or higher than certain other minorities groups that have historically received much more attention
(e.g. Jewish persons) (DellaPergola, 2002).

2

Third, in addition to the number of people that exist in the workforce that have the
potential to experience SOH, the limited research on SOH suggests that these individuals are
likely to experience a high volume of harassing behaviors, suggesting that SOH is a more
pervasive problem than any other studied form of harassment. One estimate is that more than
half of the adult LGB population have encountered some form of verbal harassment or violence
in their lives (Comstock, 1991). Other estimates suggest that between 25 and 66% of LGB
employees experience workplace discrimination (Croteau, 1996).
Fourth, there has been surprisingly little systematic examination of the nature and
prevalence of sexual orientation harassment in the workplace. Despite recent research on sexual
orientation victimization (i.e., crime; Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995) and heterosexism in the
workplace (Deitch, et al., 2004; Ragins, 2004), there has been no research to date that has
specifically focused on the nature of SOH in the workplace. Moreover, the small body of
literature that exists on SOH has focused on a narrow range of the population, namely high
school and college students (McFarland & Dupuis, 2001). While it is extremely important to
investigate the nature and outcomes of victimization in one’s formative years and in school
settings, it is equally important to examine the nature and nuances of harassment in the setting in
which the majority of adult lives are spent, the workplace. SOH in the workplace may differ in
its nature and potential consequences from sexual orientation harassment in other settings
because one has less control over interpersonal interactions in the workplace (e.g., one cannot
choose coworkers or supervisors, or often regulate the amount of interaction).
Fifth, SOH is unique from other forms of discrimination in multiple ways. There is some
suggestion that SOH may involve more severe forms of harassing behaviors compared to
harassment of other social groups (Croteau, 1996; Van Den Bergh, 1999). Victimization based

3

on known or presumed homosexual orientation is one of the most common forms of bias-related
violence in the United States (Pilkington & D'Augelli, 1995), with gays and lesbians more likely
to be victims of hate crimes than members of other social categories (Nelson & Krieger, 1997).
Given these findings, SOH in the workplace may be distinct from other types of harassment in
the workplace in both its form and consequences.
Sixth, while federal regulations and organizational policies have been developed to
address SH, ethnic harassment (EH), and racial harassment (RH) in the workplace, there is
currently no federal law prohibiting harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, and often only
limited regional formal regulation (e.g., only 20% of LGB individuals live in areas of the US
where there are ordinances against employment discrimination on the basis of orientation,
Herrschaft & Mills, 2002). The Human Rights Campaign (2009) indicates that only 20 states and
the District of Columbia have laws covering sexual orientation discrimination. While there has
been an increase in employer non-discrimination policies in the largest organizations (85% of the
Fortune 500 had sexual orientation included in their policies in 2008 compared to 51% that had
policies in 2000), many individuals work for organizations without such policies (Human Rights
Campaign, 2009). This lack of legal and organizational consequences for SOH in the workplace
is likely to increase the overall prevalence and tolerance of SOH, as well as the severity of the
harassment and its consequences, as compared to harassment behaviors related to other social
categories.
Seventh, unlike race or gender, orientation is not a readily visible characteristic. Because
LGB individuals can manage their identity to make it more or less visible, avoiding SOH can be
a rationale for concealment. Indeed, the avoidance of being stigmatized has been discussed as
one reason for the tendency of LGB individuals to conceal their orientation at work (Croteau,

4

1996; Levine & Leonard, 1984; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Woods, 1993). In parallel to “passing
as white” by ethnic minorities who hide their ethnicity, individuals of LGB orientation may
attempt to “pass as heterosexual” in workplace situations to avoid harassment. Meyer’s revised
minority stress theory (2003) suggests that concealment of orientation is a cause of psychological
distress. Indeed, empirical evidence has supported this theory. Gay males who do not disclose
their orientation report higher incidences of mental and physical health problems (Meyer, 1995).
Both lesbians and gay men who did not disclose their orientation manifest significantly more
depressive symptoms, higher levels of demoralization, and lower self-esteem as compared to
those who have disclosed (Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1998).

Current Approach
Given each of these reasons, the primary goal of the current proposal was to design and
validate a measure of adult workplace SOH. In order to achieve this goal it was imperative to
first define the construct domain of sexual orientation harassment. Given the paucity of research
on adult workplace SOH, the ability to investigate the domain through review of existing
measures and taxonomies was limited. Therefore, three different approaches to defining this
domain were employed.
First, the literature on SH, hate crimes, racial/ethnic harassment, and both youth and adult
non-workplace SOH was reviewed in order to propose a list of categories and specific types of
behaviors that were likely to compose adult workplace SOH. Within this review, the focus was
on defining potential SOH behaviors that were distinguishable from existing discrimination and
crime behaviors, thus reducing the potential contamination of the SOH construct domain.

5

Second, first person accounts of witnessed workplace SOH were analyzed. The analysis
of these free-response critical incident accounts included categorization of responses along
several dimensions in order to further define the behaviors included in the construct domain.
While the previous approach mainly focused on proposing domain behaviors based upon
theoretical frameworks, the second approach used empirical data to further refine the construct
domain. The presence of certain behaviors and the emergence of logical categories of behaviors
during the analysis phase allowed for the discernment of which theoretically proposed behaviors
did and did not in fact belong within the domain of workplace SOH, thus further reducing the
potential contamination of the construct domain.
Third, the refined group of behaviors compiled at the end of the second approach,
including behaviors identified from both the first and second procedures above, was presented in
endorsable-item form to a group of experts in the field of SOH. These individuals were defined
as experts either by their involvement in workplace SOH-related research or by their personal
experiences with workplace SOH. Solicited feedback from these individuals allowed for further
refinement of the construct domain.
Together these three approaches will allow an accurate definition of the domain of adult
workplace SOH behaviors, thereby providing a solid foundation upon which to construct a
measure of adult workplace SOH. Further details of the second and third approach will be
provided in the Methods section; the first is presented in the next sections.

Areas of Related Research
In order to provide a framework for understanding the nature of adult workplace SOH,
there are six main areas of research reviewed in this paper. These are:

6

1) Sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination
2) Hate crimes against LGB individuals
3) Racial/ethnic harassment as a form of racial/ethnic discrimination
4) Identity management of sexual orientation for LGB individuals
5) Sexual orientation harassment of LGB youth as a form of sexual orientation
discrimination
6) Sexual orientation harassment of LGB adults

Each of these areas of research provides a distinct and important perspective from which
to define SOH of adults in the workplace. By synthesizing the findings from these six topics, a
truly comprehensive and accurate measure of workplace SOH can be created.

Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is an extremely important construct to review with respect to SOH
because it is by far the most well studied form of harassment in the workplace. Additionally, the
victims of SOH (primarily LGB individuals) and SH (primarily women) often share a similar
disadvantaged position in society. By examining the nature and correlates of SH, it is possible to
both make informed predictions about the nature and correlates of related components of SOH,
as well as learn from the limitations of SH research in an attempt to overcome such limitations
for SOH research.

7

Definition and Prevalence
The set of behaviors that constitute SH has been detailed both in empirical investigations
and federal legislation. Empirically, SH has been typically defined as encompassing any
combination of behaviors that can be grouped into a number of overarching categories
(Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1995; Stockdale, Berry,
Schneider, & Cao, 2004). These categories are gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention,
and sexual coercion.
The first category, gender harassment, is defined as offensive and derogatory genderbased behavior (e.g., jokes and insults), and is the most prevalent form of harassment. In some
studies (e.g., Stockdale, Visio, & Batra, 1999; Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998), gender
harassment has been said to consist of two underlying factors: sexist hostility, or being treated
differently because of your sex, and sexual hostility, or being subjected to humiliating sexual
stimuli. For example, a comment about how women do not belong in corporate America would
be considered sexist hostility, whereas a comment about a person’s physical attractiveness would
be considered sexual hostility.
The second category, unwanted sexual attention, consists of sexual attention that is
unwelcome but is not tied to any job rewards or punishments (e.g., requests for dates), whereas
the third category, sexual coercion, involves implicit or explicit connection of sexual cooperation
to rewards or punishment (e.g., promotion in return for sexual favors). These underlying factors
of SH are said to be robust, having been found across a variety of populations and settings
(Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley,
1997; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995; Glomb, et al., 1997).

8

A meta-analysis of SH in the workplace found that incidence rates of SH among
employees ranged from 25% to 69% depending on study methodology and organizational setting
(Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003), aligning with one of the most commonly cited
prevalence rates of half of all women experiencing workplace harassment in their lifetime
(Harned, Ormerod, Palmieri, Collinsworth, & Reed, 2002). One variable that has been shown to
impact these incidence rates is the perpetrator gender, with women being more likely to be
harassed by men, but men experiencing harassment by women and men at approximately equal
rates (Berdahl, Magley & Waldo, 1996; DuBois, Knapp, Faley & Kustis, 1998; Waldo et al.,
1998). In general, women are the victims of SH at much higher rates than men (Donovan &
Drasgow, 1999; DuBois, et al., 1998; Fain & Anderton, 1987; Gerrity, 2000; Niebuhr & Boyles,
1991), although there is evidence that this difference varies as a function of harassment
behavioral type (DuBois, et al., 1998). Among female victims of SH, harassers are more likely to
be superiors or peers than subordinates (DuBois, et al., 1998; Popovich, et al., 1995), but this
relationship also seems to vary based upon type of SH behavior (Kalof, Eby, Matheson, &
Kroska, 2001). As discussed previously, less severe forms of SH (e.g. sexist comments or jokes)
are more prevalent than more severe forms (e.g. rape and assault) (DuBois, et al., 1998; Kalof, et
al., 2001).
In sum, this review of the definition and incidence of SH suggests the following item
types might be included in a measure of SOH:
•

Orientation hostility (treated differently on basis of orientation and/or being subjected
to humiliating stimuli related to orientation; paralleling gender harassment)

•

Unwanted attention based on orientation (paralleling unwanted sexual attention)

•

Coercion (paralleling sexual coercion)

9

Hate Crimes
Another relevant area of research, hate crimes, provides additional insight into the
domain of potential SOH behaviors not as a similar form of workplace discrimination, but
instead because both hate crimes and SOH possess a high proportion of similar targets: LGB
individuals.
While some forms of harassment and other forms of discrimination in the workplace are
illegal and actionable under civil law, certain related behaviors are also prosecutable under
criminal law. Such behaviors are considered hate crimes. A hate crime can be defined as criminal
actions intended to harm or intimidate people because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
religion, or other minority group status (Herek, 1990; McDevitt, Levin, & Bennett, 2002). Hate
crimes are intimately related to harassment behaviors since both focus on a specific demographic
characteristic by which victims are targeted. For this reason, hate crimes are discussed as an
additional realm by which the nature of SOH behaviors might be informed.

Legislation
An interesting dichotomy in the area of hate crimes legislation and definitions has arisen
over the past four decades years since the first hate crime legislation was introduced (Federally
Protected Activities, 1968). While federal acts related to the collection of hate crime statistics
and state definitions of hate crimes often include disability, sexual orientation and gender as
characteristics by which offenders may target their victims, federal legislation protecting victims
does not recognize these categories.

10

Although there have been ongoing efforts to expand the scope of federal hate crime
legislation (e.g. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005), the statute still
only covers individuals who are targeted because of their race, color, religion or national origin.
Additionally, such victims must be involved in one of the federally designated activities in order
to be protected. These activities include those related to participating in or enjoying any benefit,
service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided federally or state funded project
(welfare), institution (school), agency (VA or military) etc. or being somewhere that is open to
the public (e.g. voting, court). Therefore under federal law, individuals are not protected from
hate crimes in any private domain (e.g. a privately owned company) (Federally Protected
Activities, 1968).
At the same time, federal acts requiring the reporting and collection of hate crime
statistics define hate crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race,
religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and
destruction, damage or vandalism of property" (Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 1990).

Behaviors
The behaviors that are covered under the federal hate crime statutes are actions of “force
or threats of force that willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure,
intimidate or interfere with an individual” (Federally Protected Activities, 1968). Behaviors that
are not covered include name-calling, verbal abuse, or expressions of hatred directed at all
persons possessing a particular characteristic (e.g. Jews, African-Americans, or homosexuals).

11

These latter verbal behaviors are protected as free speech under the First Amendment (U.S.
CONST. amend. I.)
Of types of hate crimes based upon sexual orientation, almost all (approximately 94%)
are represented by four categories: aggravated assault (14.8%), simple assault (26.5%),
intimidation (27.7%) and destruction, damage, or vandalism (24.9%) (Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), 2005)
As can be observed in the federal categories, hate crimes often contain a breed of
behaviors that are much more consistently serious than other harassment behaviors. However,
there is also often an overlap. Definitionally, hate crimes include a wide spectrum of behaviors
ranging from verbal insults and threats of violence, to being punched, kicked or beaten, or
sexually assaulted (D’Augelli, Pilkington & Hershberger, 2002). While hate speech is federally
protected under the first amendment, it is a complex and controversial topic. The Civil Rights
Act of 1964 contains provisions for the prosecution of employers who do not protect employees
from hate speech when it relates to a larger pattern of harassment, and many institutions and
organizations have created their own policies prohibiting such verbal acts (Hudson, 2009), so
there are some inconsistencies as to how hate speech should be handled. Additionally, hate
crimes in general are also sometimes referred to as bias crimes or incidences of victimization,
leading to further complication in determining distinctions between underlying behaviors.
A practical example can be observed in a 1999 study by Herek, Gillis and Cogan. The
authors conceptualized hate crimes to include physical attack, sexual assault, robbery or
vandalism. In this case, it is not difficult to see how some of the behaviors the authors have
defined as hate crimes could also be considered SOH when the victim was targeted because of
his or her sexual orientation. Although it is important to be cautionary when drawing

12

comparisons between consequences of hate crimes and those of SOH, it is likely that they share
some similarities.
In summary, this review of hate crime research and legislation suggests a measure of
SOH should include:
•

Hate crime behaviors (assault, intimidation)

So far definitions of harassment based upon gender and criminal victimization based on sexual
orientation have been reviewed. The literature on harassment based upon race and/or ethnicity
will be reviewed next as another means to gain insight into the nature of SOH in the workplace.

Racial and Ethnic Harassment
Racial/ethnic harassment (REH) has typically been conceptualized as threatening or
verbal conduct or exclusionary behavior with a racial/ethnic component directed at targets due to
their race or ethnicity (Schneider, Hitlan & Radhakrishnan, 2000). It is important and helpful to
review the nature and correlates of REH to help inform the measurement of SOH for a number of
related reasons. The characteristics upon which persons are victimized in cases of REH, race and
ethnicity, are qualitatively different constructs than gender, the characteristic upon which victims
of SH are chosen. Because of this, REH and SH antecedents, behaviors and correlates possess
both similarities due to a shared classification of harassment, and distinctions because of their
differentially targeted characteristics. It is likely that the similarities between SH and REH may
also be at least somewhat shared by SOH as well. Conversely, the differences between SH and
REH may highlight areas where SOH may be distinct in form and motivation than either REH
and SH.

13

Factor analysis supports theoretical work on the underlying components of REH
demonstrating that REH consists of two underlying factors, one including nonphysical verbal,
symbolic, and exclusionary behaviors, and the other including threatening or harmful behaviors
(Scarville, Button, Edwards, Lancaster, & Elig, 1999). Additionally, REH experiences have been
conceptualized as being more subtle and indirect in form and content than SH behaviors
(Buchanan, 2004). This finding parallels racial and ethnic bias research findings that most such
behaviors are subtle, with only a small percentage of the population exhibiting overt behaviors
(Dovidio, 1993; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998).

Racial and Ethnic Harassment Distinctions
Racial harassment and ethnic harassment, while highly related forms, do have slight
differences. These differences relate to the underlying characteristics of race and ethnicity. While
many people today may actually use these terms interchangeably, and even view the constructs
as equivalent, the fact is that they are not the same, and some people differentiate between them.
With the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. one of the most common distinctions is
between Caucasian (Hispanic), and Caucasian (Non-Hispanic). While a person of German
descent and one of Latin American descent may both be classified as being Caucasian in race,
their ethnic classification would be different. In fact, this importance of this distinction can be
observed in the types of demographic questions asked by the U.S. Census bureau. Although the
U.S. government has been recording census records for hundreds of years, it was not until 1977
that they included questions designed to distinguish between different types of ethnicities. Prior
to 1977, only race information was collected (Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 1997). This relates to one of the major distinctions between

14

race and ethnicity – the visibility level of the characteristics. Although there are cases in which
an individual’s race is not easily determinable by observation, it is usually more visible than a
person’s ethnicity. For ethnicity, observers rely more heavily on inferences and other
characteristics to determine ethnicity (e.g., manner of speech) (Schneider, et al., 2000).
Given that ethnicity is generally a less visible characteristic than race, managing their
minority group identity may be easier for ethnic minority individuals as compared to racial
minorities. Stigmatized individuals who have been able to cross group boundaries may enjoy the
benefits of majority group membership and feel significantly less stigmatized or not stigmatized
at all compared to those who cannot or do not cross such boundaries (Harvey, 2001). Therefore,
the nature of ethnic harassment may be qualitatively different from racial harassment because of
the increased potential for identity management strategies.
Thus, arguments can be made for and against the separation of the ethnic and racial
harassment constructs. Some distinguish between the two constructs while others do not; still
others simply confuse the two (for a discussion of the use of race versus ethnicity in ethnic/racial
harassment research, see Blumenthal, 1999). Finally, these forms of research suffer from a lack
of empirical investigations examining the differences between ethnic and racial harassment.
One implication that the above discussion suggests is that it is important to examine the
nature of SOH in respect to the invisibility of sexual orientation and identity management
strategies. More specifically, that SOH behaviors may be qualitatively different in form and
content from sexual or racial harassment behaviors because of the unique manageability of
sexual orientation. In sum,
•

SOH measurement should be accompanied by measurement of identity management
strategies as these may impact levels of SOH experienced.

15

REH Behaviors
REH behaviors have been categorized into two forms, verbal behaviors such as
comments, jokes, slurs, etc. related to one’s ethnicity or race, and exclusionary behaviors such as
not being included in a social event or being given necessary information due to one’s ethnicity
or race or pressure to “give up” one’s ethnic/racial identity to fit in (Schneider, et al., 2000).
Some have suggested the exclusionary behaviors component of REH as unique to harassment
based upon ethnicity/race, since previous SH research has not explicitly focused on such
behaviors. However, SH inventories may capture some, if not all, types of exclusionary
behaviors based on gender with items asking whether someone has “treated you differently
because of your sex (for example, mistreated, slighted, or ignored you)” (Fitzgerald, et al., 1988).
The focus on exclusionary behaviors in REH but not in SH measures, appears to be motivated by
the frequency of such behaviors within each harassment type. Thus, research and practice
suggest that individuals may encounter exclusionary behaviors based on gender or ethnicity/race,
but that those experiencing REH are far more likely to encounter exclusionary behaviors than
those facing SH (Schneider, et al., 2000). Such findings highlight the need to consider
exclusionary behaviors as one possible category of SOH behaviors.
Studies have reported REH incidence rates of 40-67% among employed individuals
(Scarville, et al., 1999; Schneider, et al., 2000). These rates have been shown to be affected by
the victim’s race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, country of origin, organizational
ethnic/racial composition, and work experience as well as the harasser’s employment status
(Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Corbie-Smith, et al., 1999; Scarville, et al., 1999). There does not
appear to be a consistent pattern across racial/ethnic groups with regard to how the majority of

16

these variables affect the percentage of individuals who experience REH, most likely due to
differing research methodologies of each study. However, one theme does emerge from these
results, and that is that ethnic/racial minority individuals experience proportionally more REH
than their non-minority counterparts.
In summary, the literature on REH suggests the following types of items should be
considered for a measure of SOH:
•

Exclusionary behaviors

•

Verbal behaviors (e.g., jokes, slurs)

Youth Sexual Orientation Harassment
The current proposal is interested in the SOH of adults in the workplace. Although the
theoretical nature of SOH appears to be similar for victims of all ages, practically the SOH of
youth populations differs from that of adult populations in a number of ways. First, the years
considered to be during one’s youth (defined here as younger than 18 years old) typically involve
dramatic emotional, physiological, and psychological change as compared to the years during
adulthood (18 years or older). Second, youth spend most of their time in a school environment as
a student, whereas the majority of adulthood is typically spent in a work context. Third, youth
are conceptually and legally considered minors, and as such are usually dependent on, live with,
and are subject to the rules of parental figures. Each of these aspects of the life of a youth dictate
that the nature of SOH, although highly related to the SOH of adults, may differ in variety of
ways.

Incidence of Youth SOH

17

While there have been numerous studies that have investigated the prevalence of any
form of harassment among LGB youth (e.g., Berrill, 1990; Gross, Aurant, & Addessa, 1988;
Remafedi, 1987; Trenchard & Warren, 1984), few studies have attempted to classify the type(s)
of harassment experienced (e.g., SH, SOH, RH). In fact, some studies that purport to measure
sexual orientation victimization actually measure the prevalence of a combination of incidents,
including behaviors that are clearly SOH (e.g., threats of “outing”), behaviors that could be
classified as SH (e.g., sexual assault), and behaviors that could be either, both or some other type
of harassment such as RH/EH (e.g., verbal insults or threats of violence) (D’Augelli, et al.,
2002).
Studies that have attempted to distinguish between different types of harassment content
have found that over 90% of LGBT youth report that they regularly hear homophobic remarks in
their school (CSSC, 2003; Dupper & Meyer-Adams, 2002; GLSEN, 1999; 2001; 2003;
Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993). Even more
disconcerting is that 24-53% indicate hearing homophobic comments from school staff (GLSEN,
1999; 2001; Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993), and
those teachers who hear homophobic comments typically fail to take any action against the
person making the comment (CSSC, 2003; Carter, 1997; GLSEN, 1999; 2001).
When specifically asked if subjected to SOH, studies have provided mixed overall
results. This is mostly due to differing research methodologies. In studies that surveyed solely
LGBT youth, over 80% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed because of their SO
(D’Augelli, 2002; GLSEN, 1999) and approximately 40% were physically harassed because of
their SO (GLSEN, 1999; 2001). Additionally, over 40% of LGBT students of color reported
being harassed because of both their race and SO (GLSEN, 2001; 2003).

18

In comparison, studies that include samples of students of all sexual orientations tend to
find much lower prevalence rates. For example 7.5% of CA students reported being harassed
because they were LGBT or someone thought they were (CSSC, 2003). On the surface, these
findings seem contradictory. However, given estimates that between 2-10% of the populations is
LGB (McFarland & Dupuis, 2001), a 100% harassment rate (i.e. all LGB students experience
harassment) would yield an overall harassment rate between 2-10%. Therefore a 7.5% overall
rate is actually rather high, and actually may suggest a fair amount of harassment of youth who
do not self-identify as LGB, but who may otherwise appear so by their manner, speech, or dress.
Interestingly in this study, students subjected to SOH were also more likely to experience
repeated episodes of harassment, as compared to victims of racial, gender or religious
harassment (CSSC, 2003).
Another examination of SOH of students of all sexual orientations found that 42% of
boys and 29% of girls reported ever having been called LGB (AAUW, 2001). These findings
reinforce the idea that many youth may be harassed for appearing LGB when in fact they do not
self-identify as such. In the same study, 73% of students said they were most likely to be upset if
someone said they were gay or lesbian (AAUW, 2001). This number is down from 86% of
students in 1993 (AAUW, 1993), suggesting that maybe there is a trend towards increased
acceptance of LGB individuals among today’s youth. Rates of ambient SOH include 61% of
students reporting they knew of someone saying that someone they knew was gay or lesbian
(AAUW, 2001). Finally, rates of SOH appear to differ along racial/ethnic lines with Caucasian
boys experiencing the most SOH (45%), Hispanic and African American boys and Caucasian
girls experiencing slightly less SOH (appx. 30%) and African American girls experiencing the
least SOH (20%) (AAUW, 2001). Another recent study of SH (AAUW, 2005) found that among

19

youth who experienced SOH, boys experienced it at rates almost three times (37%) as high as
those of girls (13%).
Given these findings, a measure of SOH should include:
•

Homophobic remarks

•

Both direct and indirect behaviors

And more generally:
•

Assessment of participant sexual orientation

Heterosexism and Homophobia
It is important to understand the commonly cited mechanisms behind youth SOH, and
how these may compare to the motivations behind other types of harassment. Audrey Lorde first
proposed the term “heterosexism” in the 1970’s (Blumenfeld, 1992) to denote the broad,
structural nature of the dynamics around sexual orientation. Heterosexism is a framework that
serves to stigmatize and belittle any expression of nonheterosexuality, including behaviors,
identities, relationships and communities (Herek, 1990). Herek also defines two types of
heterosexism, cultural heterosexism, which is manifested in societal customs and institutions
(e.g. religious and legal realms) and psychological heterosexism, which is manifested in
individual attitudes and behaviors (Herek, 1990).
The term “homophobia” was originally used as a clinical term to describe a phobia – the
intense hatred and fear of gays and lesbians (Blumenfeld, 1992). It was coined by George
Weinberg (1972) to describe the feelings that many heterosexual psychoanalysts felt towards
their exposure to LGB persons in non-clinical settings (Herek, 2004). Internalized homophobia

20

(Herek, et al., 1998; Stein & Cohen, 1984) occurs when one identifies as nonheterosexual, but
still harbors some negative feelings towards LGBs. Internalized homophobia has been shown to
be related to lower self-esteem and greater psychological distress (Herek, et al., 1998; Lima,
LoPresto, Sherman & Sobelman, 1993; Shidlo, 1994; Wagner, Brondolo & Rabkin, 1996),
likelihood to disclose (Herek, et al., 1998; Shidlo, 1994), and reduced social support and sense of
belonging to the LGBT community (Herek, et al., 1998; Nicholson & Long, 1990; Ross &
Rosser, 1996).
Both heterosexism and homophobia have been used in the literature to describe the
attitudes and influences upon those attitudes that contribute to climates intolerant of LGB
individuals and their lifestyles. Many theorists cite the grounding of violence against LGBs in
cultural norms of heterosexism and homophobia (e.g. Herek, 1990; 2004). However, research
has suggested that the majority of negative attitudinal reactions to LGBs are best conceptualized
as a type of prejudice and stigma rather than a phobia (Logan, 1996), thereby suggesting that
heterosexism is a more appropriate term to use in most instances of harassment than homophobia
(Ragins & Weithoff, 2005).
One of the most commonly held stereotypes about LGB individuals has been of persons
with heightened levels of sexuality who possess a propensity to prey on unwary heterosexuals in
order to satisfy personal sexual urges that they are unable to control (Adam, 1978; Allport, 1954;
Herek, 1991b). These stereotypes have pervaded despite empirical evidence to the contrary that
identify heterosexual males as the primary perpetrators of male-male sexual assault and rape
(e.g., see Herek, 1991a for a review).
These findings highlight that when developing a measure of SOH behaviors that it is
important to consider:

21

•

Heterosexist remarks (including being labeled as LGB as a form of derogation)

•

Reflecting the violation of gender or religious norms

•

Beliefs regarding heightened sexuality and preying on heterosexuals

Adult Sexual Orientation Victimization
Two of the greatest obstacles that impede one’s ability to use previous research on adult
SOH to inform the development of a measure of workplace SOH is that similar to research on
the victimization of LGB youth, many researchers use different terminology to refer to similar
constructs and that the methodology of the accompanying studies is often lacking in detail.
Subsequently, it is often difficult to discern what specific types of behaviors are included in a
particular prevalence rate.
Such difficulties can be observed in studies of adult sexual orientation victimization
(SOV), in which the behavioral forms measured range from verbal harassment and abuse to
physical assault. The focus of these victimization studies typically involve overt violence and
threats of violence, which while these behaviors may overlap with workplace SOH behaviors, is
usually not the same in form and prevalence. Nonetheless, when it was possible to tease rates of
verbal SOH behaviors out from the rest of the measured behaviors, the rates were relatively high,
with estimates ranging from 52% and 92% (Berrill, 1990; Comstock, 1991; D’Augelli, 1992;
Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997), and some evidence that females experience slightly more
SOH than males (Herek, et al., 1997).

22

SOH-Related Behaviors
One form of behavior that is related to SOH and has received recent attention is
heterosexist harassment (HH). Heterosexist harassment is defined as hostile experiences which
the individual, regardless of their self-identified sexual orientation, encounter as society
mandates compulsory heterosexuality (Konik, 2005). Again, the types of behaviors included in
this form of harassment are likely to have significant overlap with workplace SOH, but also
should have unique aspects as well given that the construct of HH encompasses incidents of
discrimination that would not be considered SOH (e.g., hiring or firing decisions based upon
perceived SO). Nevertheless, factor analytic work on HH has yielded some interesting findings.
Konik (2005) found support for a three-factor model of harassment, one factor being HH (which
includes both direct and indirect forms), and the other two factors being approach-based SH
(designed to engage the target in sexual contact) and rejection-based SH (designed to distance
and denigrate the target). Additionally, although LGB individuals in the Konik study reported
encountering more SH and HH than non-LGB individuals, no gender differences in prevalence
rates were found.
Still another form of behavior that has been labeled “sexual harassment in regards to
sexual orientation” is liable to be highly related, if not the same as SOH (Embser-Herbert, 2005).
Research on women in the military has found that this type of harassment is so prevalent in the
Armed Forces that it is colloquially referred to as “dyke baiting” (Embser-Herbert, 2005).
Additionally, lesbians and bisexual women were significantly more likely to be the victims of
this type of harassment as compared to heterosexual women. Unfortunately, this particular study
utilized a method of broad coding of reported harassment incidents, resulting in a lack of
information about the specific underlying behaviors, and thus making it difficult to discern if

23

incidents were SH or SOH in nature. Another military study, although still encompassing a wide
variety of behaviors such as assault and discriminatory acts based upon sexual orientation, does
provide additional insight into the phenomenon of SOH. Among respondents, 80% reported
hearing offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes, or remarks about homosexuals in the past
year, and 37% reported witnessing or experiencing an event or behavior toward a service
member that they considered harassment based upon sexual orientation (Office of the Inspector
General (OIG), 2000). When asked to report the most significant situation related to this form of
harassment, offensive speech was the most common response (89%), followed by offensive or
hostile gestures (35%), threats or intimidation (20%), graffiti (15%), physical assault (9%), and
property vandalism (8%) (OIG), 2000). Additionally, when asked to report the types of
harassment they had either experienced or witnessed at least once, offensive speech was again
the most common response (33%), followed by offensive or hostile gestures (20%), threats or
intimidation (12%), graffiti (9%), property vandalism (5%), and physical assault (5%) (OIG,
2000). Other research has found that LGB victims report that the most prominent types of
victimization they experience are social ostracism, accusations of being LGB, verbal insults, and
threats to expose the individual (Norris, 1992).
The results of these two studies as well as previously cited research reinforce proposed
behavioral types and correlates related to the nature and categories of SOH that are likely to be
observed. Overall, these findings suggest including items that cover:

•

Social ostracism

•

Offensive speech

•

Accusations of being LGB (as a derogation)

24

•

Behaviors such as hostile gestures, threats or intimidation, and offensive graffiti.

Interim Summary
Six areas of research related to the SOH of adults in the workplace were reviewed in
order to inform how best to design a measure to examine the phenomenon. These areas included
workplace sexual harassment, hate crimes, workplace racial/ethnic harassment, SOH of youth
populations and SOH of adult populations. Based upon these areas of research, the methods
section outlines the proposed content of the SOH domain and strategies for validation.
In the next sections, research on correlates of harassment is reviewed and, in support of
the validity of an SOH measure, hypothesized relations of SOH to known correlates of
harassment are presented. Specifically, the relation of SOH to organizational and health
outcomes, to workplace climate perceptions, to occupation, to other forms of harassment, and to
identity management strategies is discussed.

Outcomes of Harassment
There is a considerable body of literature that has established that discrimination has
negative effects on well-being (see Crocker, 1999 and Major, et al., 2002 for reviews on the
effects of stigmatization). Additionally, a growing body of research focusing on generalized
victimization and harassment has shown similar negative outcomes (e.g., Bowling & Beehr,
2006).

25

Outcomes of Sexual Harassment
Research on SH has drawn from the literature on trauma and well-being (e.g., Hobfoll,
1991) that proposes that threatening events that are unexpected and perceived as outside one’s
control lead to anxiety and depression. Researchers have supported this view and have linked SH
to a host of negative individual outcomes, including mental and physical health problems,
lowered self-esteem and life satisfaction, and decreased work productivity and job satisfaction
(Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Fitzgerald, et al., 1997; Glomb, et al., 1999; Piotrkowski, 1998;
Schneider, Swan & Fitzgerald, 1997). Harassment experiences have also been found to impact
attitudes towards others at work at multiple levels, including feelings about the victims’ unit,
superiors, organization, and profession (Pryor, 1995). Over 35% of women who have been
harassed report negative changes in their work attitudes (Gutek, 1985; USMSPB, 1981).

Outcomes of Racial/Ethnic Harassment
Racial/ethnic harassment also appears to lead to lower health satisfaction, lower wellbeing scores, higher levels of general work stress and a desire to change career directions,
decreased job satisfaction, negative psychological and physical outcomes, increased substance
abuse, and greater negative affectivity (Bennett, Merritt, Edwards, & Sollers, 2004; Bennett,
Wolin, Robinson, Fowler, & Edwards, 2005; Corbie-Smith, Frank, Nickens, & Elon, 1999;
Erlich & Larcom, 1992; Hughes & Dodge, 1997; Radhakrishnan, 1999; Schneider, et al., 2000).
REH is related to worker dissatisfaction, which in turn affects turnover intentions (Inman &
Radhakrishnan, 2009).

26

Outcomes of Hate Crimes
In Herek, Gillis and Cogan (1999), LGB hate crime victims experienced proportionately
worse symptoms of depression, anger, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder as compared to
non-LGB hate crime victims. Additionally, the study showed that as a consequence victims were
more likely to have negative views about the benevolence/malevolence of people and safety of
the world.

Outcomes of Youth SOH
Youth victims of SOH are more likely to report a host of negative health and schoolrelated outcomes as compared to their non-harassed counterparts. These include lower grades,
increased school absenteeism, depression, suicide, substance use, and less confidence in the
safety of their school environments, and less connection with their communities and schools
(CSSC, 2003; D’Augelli, 2002; GLSEN, 1999; 2001; 2003; Hershberger, Pilkington, &
D’Augelli, 1997).
In another recent study investigating the experiences of lesbian victims of hate crimes
(Descamps, Rothblum, Bradford, & Ryan, 2000), 52% of victims reported that they had been
verbally attacked. Lesbians who experienced hate crimes, as compared to lesbians who
experienced other traumatic events such as child sexual abuse, rape, and intimate partner
violence, had more negative mental health outcomes (Descamps, et al., 2000).

Outcomes of Adult SOH
In general, given the paucity of research on adult SOH as compared to other forms of
harassment and crime, there is little research that has examined the effects of SOH on adult

27

populations. What research has been performed parallels the negative outcomes associated with
SH and REH. Related findings include SOH as a possible explanation for disparities in job
satisfaction rates between heterosexual and LGBT employees (Del Duco, Chan, Black, &
Reichman, 2005), and a relationship between harassment related to sexual orientation (but not
specifically labeled as such) and increased psychological distress (Herek, et al., 1997).
Heterosexist harassment, another similar construct has also been shown to predict lower job
satisfaction (Konik, 2005). Another study focusing on the HH of lesbians found that it was
significantly positively correlated with overall psychological distress, somatization, depression,
and anxiety (Szymanski, 2006). Additionally, heterosexism, yet another construct related to SOH
(but again which include sexual orientation discrimination behaviors) has been shown to predict
psychological distress, health-related problems, and decreased job satisfaction (Waldo, 1999).
This summary of research on the outcomes of harassment suggests a relationship between
scores on a SOH measure and negative work and health outcomes should be expected. Thus:

H1: Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with organizational commitment and job
satisfaction
H2: Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with self-esteem and positively with
depression and anxiety

Harassment Climate
In order to understand the role of climate in harassment research, it is important to understand
the distinctions between climate and a highly related construct, culture.

Although there are

varying levels of disagreement in the research community, the conceptual differences between

28

the two constructs are likely best described as culture being the underlying beliefs structure of an
organization, while climate is a more surface environmental manifestation of the organizational
structure (Denison, 1996). While climate emphasizes interpretations, such as how individuals in
general perceive their organization (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988), culture definitions focus on
the motivations and reasoning behind such perceptions. Culture has been defined as the
normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in an organizational unit (Cooke & Szumal,
1993). Schein (1990) differentiates organizational culture and climate by arguing that
organizational climate is the surface manifestation of organizational culture, and is the more
easily measured and observed construct. In short, climate is the “what” of behavior, and culture
is the “why”.
Given these definitions of culture and climate, it is acknowledged that an organization
can have many simultaneous climates for different constructs, such as climate for service or
technical updating (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Schneider, 1990). Because of this, researchers
have begun to define the specific climates they are investigating (Anderson & West, 1998;
Zohar, 2000). Similarly, a number of harassment researchers have defined the construct of an
organizational climate of tolerance for harassment. One such definition states that this type of
climate is defined as employees’ perceptions of the contingencies between harassing behaviors
and outcomes (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996).
Individual-level perceptions of such organizational attributes represent psychological
climate, whereas agreement among these person-level perceptions represents organizational
climate (James, James, & Ashe, 1990). Research has provided evidence that a climate tolerant of
harassment is an important antecedent of harassment behaviors (Dekker & Barling, 1998;
Fitzgerald, et al., 1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, 1999). Perceptions of an

29

organization’s climate for SH have also been shown to influence the interpretation of potentially
harassing events, as well as directly influencing perceptions and attitudes towards the
organization (e.g. work satisfaction) (Culbertson & Rodgers, 1997). Factors affecting an
organization’s climate for SH include workplace sex ratios, with higher proportions of women
resulting in less tolerance for SH, and organizational policies and procedures regarding
harassment, such that the greater number of policies and procedures an organization possesses
discouraging harassment, the less tolerant of SH the organization is perceived to be (Gruber,
1998; Tangri, Burt, & Johnson, 1982).
Some research related to a psychological climate for SOH exists. One study found that
99% of respondents reported hearing derogatory or antigay comments on their university
campus, and only 4% felt an LGBT person would not be harassed on campus (D’Augelli, 1992).
Similarly, 60% of college students in another study reported knowing a fellow student who made
anti-GLB remarks, 10% reported seeing anti-GLB graffiti on their university campus, and 40.1%
of men and 21.8% of women admitted they would do nothing if they witnessed someone being
verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation (Malaney, et al., 1997). Among LGB
college students, 74% thought that anti-LGB attitudes were prevalent on their campus compared
to only 28% of heterosexuals. Similarly, 50% of LGB individuals compared to 27% of
heterosexuals thought that LGB people would be harassed in their workplace (Eliason, 1996).
Finally, organizational tolerance of heterosexism has also been shown to predict SOD behaviors
(Waldo, 1999).
The above discussion of organizational climate influences on harassment suggests that
finding a correlation between organizational climate for LGB individuals and total reported SOH
behaviors would provide support for the validity of the SOH measure. Thus:

30

H3: Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with perceptions of an organizational
climate of LGB support
Occupation
Theory has posited that women who work in traditionally male-dominated occupations are
more likely to experience a hostile work environment than women in nontraditional occupations
because men, as the majority group in the environment, dictate the expectations of gender-role
behaviors and attitudes (Gutek & Morasch, 1982; Hinze, 2004). It is also believed that genderrole attitudes and occupational interests often combine to influence an individual’s career choice
(e.g., Gottfredson, 1981; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), thereby creating similar patterns of
gender-role attitudes within related occupational groups. In the SH literature this claim has been
supported by evidence that women in traditionally male-dominated occupations or work
environments, are more likely to be are harassed and/or discriminated against as compared to
women in gender-neutral or female-dominated ones (Berdahl, 2007; Fitzgerald, et al., 1997;
Glomb, et al., 1999; Gruber, 1998; Mansfield. et al., 1991; Neibuhr & Oswald, 1992; Steele,
James & Barnett, 2002; Willness, Steel & Lee, 2007). In other literature, evidence has been
found that men in traditionally male-dominated occupations are more likely to hold less neutral
gender-role attitudes and have more negative attitudes towards homosexuals than men in
occupations that are not traditionally male-dominated (Hayes, 1989; Lemkau, 1984; Jome &
Tokar, 1998; Jome, Surething, & Taylor, 2005). Additionally, results from structural model
testing of the antecedents and outcomes of heterosexism found support for self-reported job
gender context as an antecedent of workplace heterosexism, with greater proportions of women
in a workplace being associated with less heterosexism (Waldo, 1999). Although the majority of
these previous studies have examined group-level differences, it would logically follow that a

31

linear relationship between the male to female ratio in an occupational field and the likelihood of
experiencing harassment could also be detected. Therefore:

H4: Individuals who work in occupations with large proportions of male workers will
experience more SOH than those who work in occupations with small proportions of male
workers.

Multiple Forms of Harassment
Given the theoretical and practical similarity of the constructs of racial, ethnic, and sexual
harassment, one may wonder if the predictors and outcomes of one form can be explained by that
construct’s correlation to the others. The answer to this question is not simple. Findings from
investigations examining REH and SH together include significant correlations that have ranged
from .39 to .62. (Buchanan, 2004; Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002; Schneider, et al.,
2000). REH has also been shown to have unique predictive ability beyond the effects of SH, in
the areas of work withdrawal, somatization, health satisfaction, and PTSD symptomatology
(Bruce & Buchanan, 2004). These results suggest that as previously mentioned, the constructs of
REH and SH are distinguishable from one another, but also have significant areas of overlap.
The high co-occurrence of these two forms of harassment also suggest that it may be beneficial
to measure multiple forms of harassment simultaneously instead of in isolation in order to
provide a comprehensive picture of the context in which the harassment occurs. The
measurement of multiple forms of harassment in a single survey also aligns with practical
considerations in regards to stigma and prejudice. Typically individuals are viewed in light of all

32

of their characteristics (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation), rather than just one characteristic
at a time.
Possessing multiple stigmatizable characteristics can contribute to a person experiencing
a situation of multiple advantages or multiple jeopardy (Beale, 1970; Bond & Perry, 1970;
Epstein, 1973; Jackson, 1973; King, 1975; Landrine, Klonoff, Alcaraz, Scott, & Wikins, 1995;
Lorber, 1998; Reid, 1984). Although most researchers tend to conceptualize multiple minority
status in terms of a “double jeopardy” situation in which the individual has two stigmatizable
characteristics (e.g., a black female), persons can also occupy a “triple jeopardy” or “multiple
jeopardy” status when they possess three or more stigmatizable characteristics (e.g., a black
lesbian) (Greene, 1994; Harper, Jernewall, & Zea, 2004).
There are two main mechanisms by which multiple minority status may affect incidences,
severities, and outcomes of any form of harassment. First, it may translate into multiple minority
individuals experiencing numerous different forms of harassment. In such cases, the increased
number of harassment types experienced translates into an additive effect resulting in an overall
increased frequency and amount of harassment (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Buchanan &
Fitzgerald, 2008; Nelson & Probst, 2004), and worse outcomes for victims (Cortina, et al., 2002;
Schneider, et al., 2000). Second, it may create an interaction effect where one experiences a
unique form of harassment that is more than just the additive effects of the separate status
characteristics (Almquist, 1975; Greene, 1994; Landrine, et al., 1995; Lykes, 1983; Ransford,
1980; Reid & Comas-Diaz, 1990; Smith & Stewart, 1983).
This phenomenon has been echoed by recent research proposing that the harassment of
African American women is likely to be unique both in its perception as well as its form
(Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Mansfield, et al., 1991; Mecca & Rubin, 1999; Texeira, 2002;

33

Yoder & Aniakudo, 1995; 1996; 1997). Specifically, the nature of such SH is likely to draw
upon aspects of race, whether subtle or overt, when directed toward women of color. For
example, although White women may be referred to as “sluts” or “whores”, an African American
woman is more likely to be called a “Black whore,” creating an experience that combines aspects
of both gender and race. These studies demonstrate that SH, when directed towards women of
color, often fuses racial and gender domination and may be better defined as racialized sexual
harassment (RSH) (Buchanan & Ormerod 2002; Martin, 1994; Texeira, 2002). RSH seems to be
a construct that is distinct from either sexual or racial/ethnic harassment (Buchanan & Ormerod,
2002), and has only recently begun to be mentioned in the literature (Buchanan, 1999; Collins,
2000; Murrell, 1996; Woods, Buchanan, & Settles, 2009).
In sum, research on racial/ethnic harassment and multiple minority individuals provides
valuable insight into the measurement of SOH in many ways. Most importantly, it allows for a
theoretical basis regarding how harassment of individuals who might be able to manage their
minority status and/or may occupy more than one minority status may be different from
traditional models of harassment. Additionally, this research suggests that it is important to
consider the distinctions among different forms of harassment when attempting to validate a
measure of SOH.
Thus:
H5: SOH, REH and SH will demonstrate divergent validity (i.e., not correlate highly/load
on different factors).

34

Identity Management
As mentioned previously, LGB individuals differ from members of other minority groups
in their ability to manage their stigmatized status. The invisibility of an LGB status thus has a
significant influence on the types of behaviors SOH encompasses. In order to fully delineate the
construct domain of SOH, it is therefore important to understand the nature of identity
management strategies among LGB individuals.
One consequence of sexual orientation not being a readily visible characteristic is that a target of
SOH does not need to self-identify (to themselves or others) as LGB in order to be the victim of
SOH. Moreover, a person can be targeted for SOH simply because they are perceived or
suspected to be LGB (Ragins & Wiethoff, 2005), even if they identify as heterosexual.
Additionally, heterosexuals may be subjected to SOH in cases where harassers believe they are
heterosexual but desire to use SOH as a mechanism to attack other aspects of their identity (e.g.
masculinity; CSSC, 2003).
It should be also noted that theoretically, the domain of SOH behaviors encompass the
harassment of a person regardless of their sexual orientation, meaning that a person who is
harassed for being heterosexual would also be considered to be a victim of SOH. However, both
anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that such forms of SOH have an extremely low
prevalence in the general population and would tend to be concentrated in environments where
LGB individuals occupy a perceptual or numerical majority (e.g. LGB-affiliated groups or
organizations) (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Therefore the current proposal conceptualizes
SOH as the harassment of individuals for appearing or being lesbian, gay or bisexual.
The implications of this conceptualization is that items assessing SOH must be worded to
refer to comments and attitudes towards LGB individuals as opposed to sexual orientation in

35

general, and that such wording must also allow for a person who does not identify as LGB but is
still perceived to be, to endorse such items.

Identity Management Strategies
It has been suggested that the three main methods by which gay men manage their
identity in the workplace are counterfeiting a false heterosexual identity, avoiding the issue of
sexuality entirely, and integrating their gay identity into the work environment (Button, 1996;
Woods, 1993). Similarly, one of the first conceptions of identity management was the choice of
LGB individuals to “pass” or not to “pass” as heterosexual in the workplace (Elliott, 1993).
Additionally, LGB persons often employ different types of management strategies depending on
the context and audience, such that they may be more or less open to family members and friends
as compared to coworkers or supervisors (Zea, Reisen, & Diaz, 2003).
By integrating research on identity management and deception (Bavelas, Black, Chovil,
& Mullett, 1990; Button, 1996; Metts, 1989), it is possible to create a framework for the types of
methods an LGB individual may employ to manage his or her identity. There are three
behavioral categories of management strategies that may be used: avoidance, i.e. avoiding
people or situations where personal matters may be discussed, deception, i.e. engaging in
conversations with others about personal matters but using deception strategies as a means to
mask one’s sexual orientation, and integration, i.e. incorporating information about one’s LGB
status in everyday communications with others.
Research suggests that when engaging in conversations with others, LGB individuals
who choose to misrepresent their sexual orientation may employ one or more of the following
four communication strategies (Bavelas, et al., 1990; Button, 1996; Metts, 1989). Falsification

36

entails fabrication of events that are designed to lead others to believe an individual is
heterosexual. Examples of this approach include talking about fictional dates with members of
the opposite sex or commenting on or displaying interest in members of the opposite sex.
Omission involves discussing details of one’s personal life but refraining from including any
specific information that might lead someone to believe the individual is LGB. Examples of this
method include talking about opposite-sex relationships in one’s past, while avoiding mentioning
more recent same-sex relationships. Equivocation entails discussing information relevant to
one’s sexual orientation and relationships in a manner that is vague, confusing, and unclear.
Examples of this approach involve responding to questions about one’s sexual orientation with
generic answers such as “people are going to believe whatever they want to believe.” Finally,
evasion involves talking “around” the topic of sexual orientation without giving specific personal
information. Examples of this method include changing the subject when discussions about
relationship status arise, and using gender-neutral terms such as “my date” to avoid providing
pertinent information.

Consequences of Identity Management
There are many potential personal reasons why LGB individuals may employ nonintegration identity management strategies. However, the most prominent reason is to avoid the
stigma and discrimination associated with an LGB status. Stigmatized individuals who have been
able to cross group boundaries are likely to enjoy the benefits of majority group membership and
feel significantly less stigmatized or not stigmatized at all compared to individuals who cannot or
do not cross such boundaries (Harvey, 2001). Therefore, avoiding an LGB status label allows
such individuals to avoid the negative outcomes associated with it such as reduced well-being

37

(see Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002, for a review), increased emotional stress (Katz, Joiner, &
Kwon, 2002), and discrimination (e.g., fewer promotions; see Ragins, 2004 for a review). More
specifically, closeted individuals tend to be more satisfied with their pay and tend to have higher
salaries than their disclosing counterparts (Ellis & Riggle, 1995).
However, choosing not to integrate one’s sexual orientation into an individual’s public
identity is a double-edged sword. While it may provide benefits in the way of avoiding
discrimination, LGB individuals who do not reveal their sexual orientation have been shown to
report lower levels of psychological well-being and satisfaction (Crocker & Major, 1989;
Garnets & Kimmel, 1993; Lane & Wegner, 1995; Savin-Williams & Rodriquez, 1993), higher
stress levels (Brooks, 1981), and increased health risks (Cole, Kemeny, Taylor, Visscher, 1996;
Kalichman & Nachimson, 1999). Similarly, disclosure at work has been found to be related to
higher overall job satisfaction and lower job anxiety (Ellis & Riggle, 1995; Griffith & Hebl,
2002). Interestingly, use of identity management strategies is only partially related to the extent
to which a person identifies as LGB and how they respond to SOH. Psychological adjustment
seems to be highest among LGB persons who are both open about their orientation, and proud of
it (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Hammersmith & Weinberg, 1973).
These findings suggest that identity management is likely one variable that will elicit
group differences on overall SOH experiences:

H6: The greater the self-identification as LGB, the greater the likelihood of reporting
SOH
H7: LGB individuals who use integration identity management techniques will be more
likely to report SOH than LGB individuals who use avoidance or deception strategies

38

CHAPTER 2
METHOD

Overview
The following sections outline the development of a measure of workplace SOH. Figure
1 shows an overview of the methodology. Phases 1 and 2 are fully described in the Methods
section; the procedures for Phases 3 and 4 are described in the Methods section and the findings
of those phases are in the Results section. For the remainder of this paper, the proposed
instrument will be referred to as the Workplace Sexual Orientation Harassment Measure
(WSOHM). Before describing the specific details of the methods, the primary goal of this
endeavor should be reviewed.
As previously stated, the main aim of the current study was to develop a
psychometrically sound measure of workplace SOH. In order to achieve this goal, the WSOHM
must demonstrate that it is both a valid measure of the construct of workplace SOH, as well as a
reliable one. Often, efforts of measure development detail how other studies and instruments
have operationalized the construct of interest. Moreover, these existing instruments are typically
used as a method of validation for the new measure, by demonstrating convergent validity in the
measurement of the same construct. In the current endeavor, since no measure of workplace
SOH exist, it is impossible to use such validation strategies. Instead, validity evidence for the
WSOHM measure was established via relationships between the measure and its expected
correlates, demonstration of differential group predictions relating to scores on the measure, and
factor analysis of the proposed dimensions of the measure.

39

Phase 1: Define Construct Domain
1.1 Review existing relevant literatures to generate parallel SOH items
1.2 Collect and analyze critical incident data for categories and example SOH
items

Phase 2: Refine Construct Domain
2.1 Expert review of SOH items (focus group and expert review)
2.2 Finalize items based upon parsimony, redundancy, and feedback

Phase 3: Assessing Construct Validity
3.1 Item, reliability, and factor analyses
3.2 Discriminant validity (H5)
3.3 Expected correlates (H1, H2, and H3)
3.4 Expected group differences (H4, H6 and H7)

Phase 4: Finalize Construct Domain
4.1 Use construct validation findings to further refine measure items

Figure 1. Overview of current study development methodology
40

Phase 1: Define Construct Domain
A review of the current literature on SOH reveals that there is a paucity of research on
workplace SOH, and no validated measure of the construct. This gap in the research literature
suggests that one should examine existing theoretical and empirical work of constructs related to
SOH as one method of investigating the construct domain. To this aim, the introduction reviewed
research related to SH, hate crimes, REH, non-workplace SOH, and the limited literature on
workplace SOH in Phase 1.1. Using the contents of the introduction as a basis, each related
construct domain suggested behaviors that constitute workplace SOH.

Phase 1.1: Generation of SOH Items through Review of Existing Literature
Generating Items from Parallels between SH and SOH
The forms of SH behaviors detailed previously are likely to have parallel but
distinguishable behaviors in SOH (see Table 1 for examples). As noted in the introduction and
observed in Table 1, there are three major factors that SH is conceptualized as encompassing:
gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion. The gender harassment factor
of SH, which is considered to constitute a hostile work environment behavior under legal
definitions of SH, translates into behaviors that consist of offensive and derogatory sexual
orientation-based behavior (e.g., jokes and insults), and this category of behaviors is also likely
to be the most prevalent form of SOH. The behaviors that consist the gender harassment domain
are also purported to fall on two subdimensions, sexist hostility and sexual hostility.
Furthermore, the sexist hostility subdimension can also be said to encompass two additional
divisions, the negative remarks and behaviors typically reported by female victims of SH, as well
as gender role enforcement remarks and behaviors often reported by male victims of SH. It can

41

be observed in Table 1 that almost all of the behaviors considered forms of gender harassment
have parallels for SOH behaviors.
The category of unwanted sexual attention, also considered to constitute a type of hostile
work environment because it focused on behaviors that are exclusively sexual in nature and
content, as opposed to gender harassment, which includes aspect of gender, unfortunately has no
true parallel in SOH. Even in cases where a form of unwanted sexual attention is experienced by
a person due to the harasser’s belief that the victim is LGB (e.g., discussions of sex life and
sexual practices), the content of the behavior is still sexual rather than sexual orientation in
nature.
Another consideration when creating a measure of SOH is that the SOH behaviors that
may parallel sexual coercion forms of SH, which are considered a form of quid pro quo SH, are
likely to include slightly different rewards and/or punishments, and/or coercive behaviors. As
discussed in the previous category of unwanted sexual attention, behaviors that are completely
sexual in nature do not have parallels in SOH. Applied to the behaviors in the sexual coercion
domain, this statement would dictate that only the portions of each behavior that are not sexual in
nature would have parallels in SOH. Also, previous research has highlighted the importance of
identity management in certain situations (i.e. an individual does not want others to know he/she
is LGB) (e.g. Button, 2001).

42

Table 1
Sexual harassment behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items
SH: Legal
Category

SH: Empirical Components
Factors

Definition

Subfactor

Hostile
Gender
Not
Sexist
work
Harassment intended to hostility
environment
elicit sexual
cooperation
but rather
consists of
crude
verbal,
physical,
and
symbolic
behaviors
that convey
hostile,
offensive
and
misogynist
attitudes

Definition

Facet

#

Example Items

Comments
and
behaviors
that relate
to aspects
of gender

Negative
remarks and
behaviors

1

Told jokes or
stories that
described
people of your
gender
negatively
Said things to
insult people of
your gender
Treated you
differently
because of your
gender

2

3

4

43

SOH
Parallel
Items
Told jokes or
stories that
described LGB
individuals
negatively

Said things to
insult LGB
individuals
Treated you
differently
because they
believed you
were LGB
Displayed, used, Displayed,
or distributed
used, or
sexist or
distributed
suggestive
homophobic
materials
materials

Table 1 (cont’d)
Gender role
enforcement
remarks and
behaviors
(men)

5

6

7
8

9

44

Made you feel
you were not a
"man/woman" if
you did things
that
"women/men
usually do"
Insulted you by
saying you were
a "fag" or "gay"
Said you weren't
"man enough"
Made you treat
women badly
when you did
not want to

Made you feel
you were not
heterosexual if
you did things
that members of
the opposite sex
did
Insulted you by
saying you were
a "fag" or "gay"
Said you were
"too gay"
Made you treat
LGB
individuals
badly even
though you did
not want to
Pressured you
Pressured you
into doing
into doing
things you did
things you did
not want to by
not want to by
accusing you of accusing you of
not being a "real being LGB
man"

Table 1 (cont’d)
Sexual
hostility

Comments
and
behaviors
that are
crude or
offensive
in nature

10 Told dirty or
sexually
offensive stories
or jokes
11 Said crude,
gross, or
offensive
remarks

12 Said things
about your
body, sex life or
sexual practices

13 Tried to get you
to talk about
sexual things

14 Whistled,
called, or
hooted at you in
a sexual way

45

Told dirty or
offensive stories
or jokes
involving LGB
individuals
Said crude,
gross, or
offensive
remarks about
LGB
individuals
Said
homophobic
things about
your body, sex
life or sexual
practices
Tried to get you
to talk about
matters of
sexual
orientation
None

Table 1 (cont’d)
15 Made gestures
or used body
language of a
sexual nature

Unwanted
sexual
attention

16 Exposed
themselves
physically
17 Told you about
his own sex life
or sexual
preferences
18 Unwanted
attempts to
establish a
romantic or
sexual
relationship
with you
19 Kept on asking
you out even
after you had
said "no"
20 Stared, leered,
or ogled you

Sexual
Seductive Inapproattention
behavior priate or
that is
offensive
unwanted
nonand
physical
unreciprosexual
cated by the
advances
recipient

21 Mode you feel
uncomfortable
by standing too
close

46

Made gestures
or used body
language of a
homophobic
nature (e.g.,
limp wrist)
None

None

None

None

None
None

Table 1 (cont’d)
Sexual
imposition

Inappropriate or
offensive
physical
sexual
advances

22 Touched you in
a way that made
you feel
uncomfortable
23 Made unwanted
attempts to
stroke, fondle,
or kiss you
24 Attempted to
have sex with
you without
your consent or
against your
will but was
unsuccessful
25 Had sex with
you without
your consent or
against your
will

47

None

None

None

None

Table 1 (cont’d)
Quid pro
Sexual
quo
Coercion

Subtle or
explicit
efforts to
make job
rewards
contingent
on sexual
cooperation

Sexually
coercive
behaviors

Sexually
bribing
behaviors

Coercion
of sexual
activity by
threat of
punishment

Solicitation
of sexual
activity or
other sexlinked
behavior
by promise
of rewards

26 Made you feel
threatened with
some sort of
retaliation for
not being
sexually
cooperative
27 Treated you
badly for
refusing to have
sex
28 Made you feel
like you were
being bribed
with some sort
of reward or
special
treatment to
engage in sexual
behavior
29 Implied faster
promotions or
better treatment
if you were
sexually
cooperative

Threatened to
tell others you
were LGB for
not being
sexually
cooperative
Told others you
were LGB for
refusing to have
sex
None

None

Note. Items from this list were pulled from the following references: Cortina, 2001; Fitzgerald, et al., 1988; Stark,
Chernyshenko, Lancaster, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2002; Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998.

48

Similarly, previous research has also cited the threat of disclosing an individual’s sexual
orientation as a type of anti-gay behavior. Therefore for the two behaviors considered true
sexually coercive behaviors (denoted on the table as the sexually coercive subfactor of sexual
coercion) which include threatening someone with job penalties for not engaging in sexual
behaviors, parallel SOH behaviors would include threatening someone with telling others the
person was LGB for not engaging in sexual behaviors (see Table 1). Therefore, the sexually
bribing behavioral component of sexual coercion does not have any direct parallel in SOH.
In rewording these coercion items to reflect aspects of SOH, wording was used that
reflects the unique aspect of sexual orientation as an invisible stigma. Asking if someone “told
others you were LGB” as opposed to asking if someone “revealed your sexual orientation”
reflects the previously discussed fact that an individual does not necessarily need to be LGB for
him or her to be a victim of SOH. In many organizations, a simple rumor that one is LGB can
result in negative employment outcomes, so a threat of telling people that an individual is LGB
regardless of the veracity of the statement can serve the same coercive purpose.
Additionally, it should be noted that while the difference between parallel SH and SOH
items may appear small in semantic terms (e.g., changing sexist to homophobic), the differences
become more obvious when example behaviors are included (e.g., labeling you a “bitch” versus
a “dyke”).

Generating Items from Parallels between Hate Crimes and SOH
The forms of hate crime behaviors detailed previously are also likely to have parallel but
distinguishable behaviors in SOH (see Table 2 for examples). As can be seen in Table 2, there

49

are three main categories of hate crimes: crimes against persons, crimes against property and
crimes against society.
Given that the WSOHM is proposed as a measure of workplace SOH and is aimed at
victims of SOH, the hate crime behaviors listed in Table 2 as offender behaviors do not have
direct parallels. Moreover, although for the sake of fully defining the SOH construct domain, all
possible parallel SOH behaviors are in the table, realistically many of them were not included in
the final WSOHM measure due to the expected extremely low base rate in an organizational
setting. Decisions about the exclusion of such items were made in Phase 2.
As discussed in the previous section on parallels between SH and SOH, the inclusion of
items in the WSOHM that are ambiguous or describe unobservable behaviors is undesirable.
Unfortunately, most of the SOH items that parallel hate crime items meet these criteria. Unlike
hate crimes prosecuted in the legal realm, which involve formal investigations of the
circumstances surrounding the incident and information about the perpetrator, SOH parallel
items must rely solely on victim attributions as to the motivation behind the behavior. This
characteristic of such parallel items were taken into consideration when deciding what items to
include in the final WSOHM.

50

Table 2
Hate crime behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items
Hate Crimes
Categories
Subcategories
#
Example Items
Crimes
Murder and non- 1 I have murdered or killed someone
against
negligent
because of a their…(race, religion,
persons
manslaughter
sexual orientation, ethnicity, national
origin, or disability) (offender)
Forcible rape
2 I have been raped because of my….
(victim)
Aggravated
3 I have been assaulted by someone with
assault
a deadly weapon because of my….
(victim)

Definition
Force or
threats of
force that
willfully
injures,
intimidates
or interferes
with, or
attempts to
injure,
intimidate or
interfere
with an
individual
and is
motivated in
whole or in
part by the
Crimes
offender's
against
bias towards property
one or more
of the
victims.

Simple assault

4

I have been assaulted by someone
without a deadly weapon because of
my…. (victim)

Intimidation

5

I have been threatened or intimidated
because of my…. (victim)

Robbery

6

Burglary

7

I have been robbed because of
my….(victim)
I have had my property burglarized
because of my….(victim)

Larceny-theft

8

I have had things stolen from me
because of my….(victim)

51

SOH Parallel Items
None

I have been raped because I was
believed to be LGB
I have been assaulted by
someone with a deadly weapon
because I was believed to be
LGB
I have been assaulted by
someone without a deadly
weapon because I was believed
to be LGB
I have been threatened or
intimidated because I was
believed to be LGB
I have been robbed because I
was believed to be LGB
I have had my property
burglarized because I was
believed to be LGB
I have had things stolen from
me because I was believed to be
LGB

Table 2 (cont’d)
Motor vehicle
theft
Arson

10 I have had my property set on fire
because of my….(victim)

Destruction,
damage,
vandalism
Crimes
against
society

9

I have had my car stolen because of
my….(victim)

11 I have had my property destroyed,
damaged or vandalized because of
my….(victim)

Drug or narcotic
offenses
Gambling
offenses
Prostitution
offenses
Weapon law
violations

12 I have been convicted of a drug or
narcotic offense (offender)
13 I have been convicted of a gambling
offense (offender)
14 I have been convicted of a prostitution
offense (offender)
15 I have been convicted of a weapons
law violation (offender)

I have had my car stolen
because I was believed to be
LGB
I have had my property set on
fire because I was believed to
be LGB
I have had my property
destroyed, damaged or
vandalized because I was
believed to be LGB
None
None
None
None

Note. Items from this list were pulled from the following reference: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005.

52

Generating Items from Parallels between REH and SOH
The forms of REH behaviors detailed previously are also likely to have parallel but
distinguishable behaviors in SOH (see Table 3 for examples). As can be observed, REH
behaviors are conceptualized to contain three factors. The first two, derogatory comments and
behaviors, and exclusionary behaviors constitute hostile work environment forms of workplace
discrimination. The third category, coercive behaviors, constitutes quid pro quo forms.
Derogatory comments and behaviors and coercive behaviors of REH have direct parallels to the
SH categories of the same names. This is to be expected given the modeling of REH measures on
existing SH measures. The potential overlap between SOH behaviors that are parallel to REH as
compared to those that are parallel to SH is discussed in the section on refinement of the item
pool. However, the one aspect of REH measures that is unique is the inclusion of exclusionary
behaviors. Although exclusionary behaviors are likely to occur based upon gender
characteristics, SH inventories do not capture the construct very well. Additionally, it is likely
the case that exclusionary behaviors are more likely to occur when individuals have greater
control over their ability to manage their identity regarding a particular characteristic.
Almost all of the behaviors included in current measures of REH have parallel SOH
behaviors. The two exceptions are items four and seven in Table 3. While these two items may
have literal parallels in SOH behaviors, e.g., paid undue attention to your hair or skin and/or the
way you take care of your hair and skin, their meaning seems to be tied to aspects of race and
ethnicity and were therefore excluded from the parallel item creation phase.

53

Table 3
Racial/ethnic harassment behavioral factors, example items, and parallel SOH items

REH: Legal

REH: Empirical Components
SOH Parallel Items

Category

Factors

Definition

Hostile
work
environment

Derogatory
comments
or
behaviors

Crude
verbal,
physical,
and
symbolic
behaviors
that
convey
hostile,
offensive
and racist
attitudes

#

Example Items

1

Made derogatory comments
about your ethnicity

Made homophobic remarks

2

Told jokes about your ethnic
group
Used ethnic slurs to describe you

Told homophobic jokes

3
4

5

Used homophobic slurs to describe
you

a
Displayed tattoos or wore
None
distinctive clothes which were
racist
Stared or directed hostile looks at Stared or directed hostile looks at
people of a particular race
people believed to be LGB

6

Made offensive remarks about
your appearance (e.g., about skin
color, hair) based on your race

Made offensive homophobic remarks
about your appearance (e.g., about
your hairstyle or makeup)

7

Paid undue attention to your hair
or skin and/or the way you take
care of your hair and skin

None

54

a

Table 3 (cont’d)
8

Made statements suggesting that
people of your race are inferior

Made statements suggesting that
LGB individuals are inferior

9

Vandalized your property with
racial statements or slurs

Vandalized your property with
homophobic statements or slurs

10

Made unwelcome attempts to
draw you into an offensive
discussion of racial matters

Made unwelcome attempts to draw
you into an offensive discussion of
sexual orientation matters

11

Put up or distributed materials
(e.g., pictures, leaflets, symbols,
graffiti, music, stories) which
were racist or showed your race
negatively

Put up or distributed materials (e.g.,
pictures, leaflets, symbols, graffiti,
music, stories) which were
homophobic or depicted LGB
individuals negatively

12

Expected you to behave
consistently with a racial
stereotype (e.g., assumed that
you eat only particular kinds of
ethnic food, or wear some
particular clothing)

Expected you to behave consistently
with a stereotype of LGB individuals
(e.g., being sexually promiscuous,
being able to fix things)

13

Expected you to hold a
stereotypical job (e.g, secretary,
landscaper, janitor) instead of
your actual position

Expected you to hold a
stereotypically LGB job (e.g.,
hairdresser, florist, coach,
construction worker)

55

Table 3 (cont’d)
Exclusionary
behaviors

Quid pro
quo

Coercive
behaviors

Behaviors
intended
to exclude
people
and/or
their
behaviors
based
upon their
racial/
ethnic
characteristics
Subtle or
explicit
efforts to
make job
rewards
contingent
on
behavioral
cooperation

14

Excluded you from social
interactions during or after work
because of your ethnicity

Excluded you from social
interactions during or after work
because they believed you were LGB

15

Failed to give you information
you need to do your job because
of your ethnicity

Failed to give you information you
need to do your job because they
believed you were LGB

16

Made you feel as if you have to
give up your ethnic identity to
get along at work

Made you feel as if you have to give
up your LGB identity to get along at
work

17

Treated you badly for refusing to
participate in racist activities or
remarks
Threatened you with retaliation if
you did not participate in racist
activities or remarks

Treated you badly for refusing to
participate in homophobic activities
or remarks
Threatened you with retaliation if
you did not participate in
homophobic activities or remarks

19

Pressured you to participate in
racist activities or remarks

Pressured you to participate in
homophobic activities or remarks

20

Pressured you to behave
consistently with a racial
stereotype

Pressured you to behave consistently
with a LGB stereotype

18

a

Note. While these two items may have semantic parallels for SOH, their meaning seems to be tied to race and ethnicity
issues, so parallel items are not offered. Items from this list were pulled from the following references: Bergman &
Buchanan, in preparation; Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000.

56

Generating Items from Previous SOH Research
In addition to the existing SOH parallel behaviors, there are a number of other behaviors
that are likely to be contained in the domain of workplace SOH that do not have direct parallels
in any other form of related behavior. The literature reviewed previously details two common
behaviors: accusations of being LGB, and threats of disclosing one’s status as LGB to others,
which will be included in the preliminary pool of items considered for inclusion in the WSOHM
(e.g., see items 3, 4, 10 and 11 in Table 4). In sum, Phase 1.1 led to the generation of a large
number of items based on the literature.
In order to further explore the range of SOH that may not be captured in either the
existing literature or which have parallels to other forms of discriminatory behaviors, a critical
incident data collection effort of first person accounts of witnessed workplace SOH was
conducted in Phase 1.2.

Phase 1.2: Analysis of Critical Incident Data for Categories and Example SOH items
This phase of the project sought to explore the nature of SOH and better inform the
development of a measure of SOH by gathering critical incident qualitative data on the
phenomenon. This approach is in line with research emphasizing the importance of qualitative
methods when investigating topics that involve a significant activation of prejudices since
qualitative methods allow for more complete responses (Durrheim & Dixon, 2004). More
specifically, documentation of SOH incidents will enable the development of a more
comprehensive list of SOH behaviors and a better understanding of contextual variables that
should be included in assessments of SOH (e.g., frequency, duration, characteristics of
perpetrator).
57

In addition to gathering information about the types of individual and environmental
influences, the critical incident study (as well as the expert reviews discussed later) sought to
determine the feasibility and advantages or disadvantages of different methods of acquiring
participants from the target population, their willingness to share personal information of this
nature, and any problems with the clarity of the study questions.
A 15-20 minute web-based survey was developed to solicit anonymous reports of SOH
using a critical incident methodology (Flanagan, 1954). Participants were asked to provide
information about their most salient workplace SOH experience. Additional questions involved
evaluation of the incident in terms of the nature of harassment, directness of harassment, severity
of harassment and effects on well-being. Participants were also asked to provide information on
identity management strategies/level of disclosure in the workplace as well as a small amount of
demographic data including gender, race, ethnicity, and age. The consent and debriefing forms
and complete survey can be viewed in Appendices A-C. The debriefing form for the pilot study
was also used for the focus group and main studies.
Recruitment involved dissemination via campus, regional and national listserves targeting
LGB individuals (N=84). Additional incidents were gathered through the university’s
psychology department subject pool (N=89). However, the majority of subject pool responses
were unusable because they depicted sexual harassment instead of SOH. In the end, usable
responses were obtained from 120 participants.
Demographics of the participants included a mean age of 35.4 years, 93% were
Caucasian; 38% Male, 56% Female, and 6% were Transgender; 22% were mostly or strictly
heterosexual and 73% were mostly or strictly homosexual. In terms of identity management,

58

most respondents reported behaviors indicating they were fairly open about their orientation.
Sample responses can be found in Appendix D.
These responses were then reviewed by three raters and compared to the generated items
in Tables 1-4 to determine if any incidents reflected content not already covered by the spectrum
of generated items. The raters coded incidents into the categories of the items in Tables 1-4,
noting any additional categories. Although there were no major gaps in the breadth of the
literature review-generated items (i.e., all incidents could be placed within the categories), there
were areas within the item specifics for which the survey responses provided insight. For
example, to operationalize items related to derogatory comments, specific comment types that
arose in incidents were used. Typical comments related to deviance in sexual practices (e.g.,
child molestation), physical health (e.g., having AIDS), and religion (e.g., going to hell). Also,
the data suggested that attempts to ascertain one’s orientation are a form of harassment with no
parallels in sexual or racial/ethnic harassment measures.
In reviewing the qualitative information gathered in phase 1, its largest contribution was
to provide specific examples of SOH behaviors (e.g., verbal harassment often constitutes being
told that you are contagious) that were systematically different in content from parallel forms of
SH or REH behaviors (e.g., verbal harassment often constitutes being told that you are less
intelligent). These detailed descriptions guided subsequent measure development in three ways.
First, it confirmed that almost all the categories of SOH proposed based upon the literature
review did in fact occur as forms of SOH within the community of people who are targeted
because they are perceived to be LGB. There were certain categories that were extracted from
the literature on SOH that were not detailed in the incidents (e.g., coercive behaviors such as
threatening to out someone in return for sexual cooperation), but these categories were kept

59

nonetheless since they may be considered low base-rate behaviors. Second, it supported the
belief that these categories of SOH behaviors are parallel to their SH and REH counterparts, but
not the same, as evidenced by observed content differences (e.g., harasser(s) expressing disgust
over discovering an individual was believed to be LGB). Third, the incidents suggested a number
of additional behaviors that should be included in the definition of the workplace SOH construct
domain. These behaviors are detailed in Table 4, along with suggested overarching categories of
SOH.

60

Table 4
Sexual orientation harassment behavioral factors and example items

SOH
Factors

Definition

Derogatory
behaviors

Crude
verbal,
physical,
and
symbolic
behaviors
that convey
hostile,
offensive,
prejudicial,
homophobic,
and
heterosexist
attitudes

Subfactor

Definition

#

Example Items

Heterosexism Enforcement
enforcement of
heterosexuality
as the only
appropriate
lifestyle

1

Encouraged you to pretend to be
heterosexual in social situations (e.g.,
pretend to have a husband/wife)

2

Discouraged you from "acting" homosexual
(e.g., monitoring your speech, dress, or
mannerisms)

Homophobic
behaviors

Condemnation
and fear of
LGB
individuals

3
4
5

Accused you of being LGB
Told others you were LGB
Challenged your identification as LGB (e.g.,
it's just a phase)

Unwanted
investigation
of sexual
orientation

Comments and
behaviors that
attempt to
determine a
person's
identity as a
LGB
individual

6

Asked you questions about your personal or
love life that made you uncomfortable (e.g.
why don't you ever bring a date to our office
parties)
Set you up on a date with a member of the
other sex when you did not want it

7

61

Table 4 (cont’d)
Conditional Subtle or
behaviors
explicit
efforts to
make
rewards and
punishments
contingent
upon
behavioral
expectations

Bribery

Coercive
behaviors

Solicitation of
specific
behavior by
promise of
rewards

8

Bribed you with some sort of reward or
special treatment to not disclose your sexual
orientation to others

9

Implied faster promotions or better
treatment if you did not disclose your sexual
orientation to others

Coercion of
specific
behavior by
threat of
punishment

10 Threatened to tell others you were LGB if
you did not produce certain work
11 Threatened to tell others you were LGB if
you did not give them something (e.g.,
money, items)

62

Generation of Preliminary Item Pool
Based upon the reviewed literature and the examination of the critical incident data, it is
possible to combine the four sources of potential SOH behaviors (i.e., Tables 1-4) into a single
pool of items. The product of this effort can be seen in Table 5. By removing items that were
highly redundant, 37 possible behavioral items were retained for further study during Phase 2.

63

Table 5
Preliminary item pool for the WSOHM

Factors
Derogatory
behaviors

Definition
Crude verbal,
physical, and
symbolic
behaviors that
convey hostile,
offensive,
prejudicial,
homophobic,
and
heterosexist
attitudes

WSOHM: Suggested Pool of Items
Subfactor
Definition
#
Example Items
Heterosexism Enforcement of 1 Commented that you were LGB if you did things
enforcement heterosexuality
that members of the opposite sex did (SH)
as the only
2 Said you were "too gay" (SH)
appropriate
3 Pressured you to participate in homophobic
lifestyle
activities or remarks (SH/REH)
4

5

Homophobic
behaviors

Told homophobic jokes or stories (SH/REH)
Made homophobic remarks (e.g., LGB individuals
are inferior) (SH/REH)

8

Stared or directed hostile looks at people believed to
be LGB (REH)

9

64

Made you feel as if you had to "act" heterosexual
(e.g., monitoring your speech, dress, or
mannerisms) (REH/SOH)

6
7

Condemnation
and fear of
LGB
individuals

Made you feel you had to pretend to be heterosexual
in social situations (e.g., pretend to have a
husband/wife) (REH/SOH)

Displayed, used, or distributed materials (e.g.,
emails, pictures, leaflets, symbols, graffiti, music,
stories, clothing, tattoos) which were homophobic
or depicted LGB individuals negatively (SH/REH)

Table 5 (cont’d)
10 Used homophobic slurs to describe you (e.g., dyke,
fag, fence-sitter) (SH/REH)
11 Accused you of being LGB (SOH)
12 Told others you were LGB (SOH)
13 Challenged your identification as LGB (e.g., it's just
a phase) (SOH)
14 Said homophobic things about your sex life or
sexual practices (SH)
15 Said homophobic things about your body,
appearance or grooming habits (SH/REH)
16 Used homophobic gestures or body language (SH)
17 Destroyed, damaged or vandalized your property
with homophobic statements or slurs (HC/REH)
Stereotyping
behaviors

Enforcement of
stereotypes
about LGB
individuals

18 Expected you to behave consistently with a
stereotype of LGB individuals (e.g., being sexually
promiscuous, being able to fix things) (REH)
19 Pressured you to behave consistently with a LGB
stereotype (REH)
20 Expected you to hold a stereotypically LGB job
(e.g., hairdresser, florist, coach, construction
worker) (REH)

65

Table 5 (cont’d)
Unwanted
investigation
of sexual
orientation

Exclusionary Behaviors
behaviors
intended to
exclude people
and/or their
behaviors
based upon
beliefs about
their LGB
status
Conditional Subtle or
behaviors
explicit efforts
to make
rewards and
punishments
contingent
upon
behavioral
expectations

Comments and
behaviors that
attempt to
determine a
person's
identity as a
LGB individual

21 Asked you questions about your personal or love
life that made you uncomfortable (e.g. why don't
you ever bring a date to our office parties) (SOH)
22 Tried to get you to talk about matters of sexual
orientation (SH/REH)
23 Set you up on a date with a member of the other sex
when you did not want it (SOH)
24 Treated you differently because they believed you
were LGB (e.g. wouldn't shake your hand, ignored
you) (SH)
25 Excluded you from social interactions during or
after work because they believed you were LGB
(REH)
26 Failed to give you information you need to do your
job because they believed you were LGB (REH)

Bribery

Coercive
behaviors

Solicitation of
specific
behavior by
promise of
rewards

27 Bribed or rewarded you with special treatment to
not disclose your sexual orientation to others (SOH)
28 Implied faster promotions or better treatment if you
did not disclose your sexual orientation to others
(SOH)
29 Threatened to tell others you were LGB for not
being sexually cooperative (SH)

Coercion of
specific
behavior by
threat of
punishment

66

Table 5 (cont’d)
30 Threatened to tell others you were LGB if you did
not produce certain work (SOH)

Retaliatory
behaviors

Targeted
crime
behaviors

31 Threatened to tell others you were LGB if you did
not give them something (e.g., money, items)
(SOH)
32 Threatened you with retaliation if you did not
participate in homophobic activities or remarks
(REH)
33 Told others you were LGB for refusing to have sex
(SH)
34 Treated you badly for refusing to participate in
homophobic activities or remarks (REH)

Punishment for
failure to
produce
specific
behavior

Attempted or
actual force or
threats that
injure,
intimidate or
interfere and is
motivated by
bias towards
the victim as
LGB

35 Sexually assaulted or raped because you were
believed to be LGB (HC)
36 Non-sexually assaulted by someone because you
were believed to be LGB (HC)
37 Robbed or had things stolen from you because you
were believed to be LGB (HC)

Note. Abbreviations in parentheses represent the construct that the particular item was generated from, SH = sexual
harassment (Table 1), HC = hate crimes (Table 2), REH = racial/ethnic harassment (Table 3), SOH = unique to sexual
orientation harassment and not otherwise represented by parallel constructs.

67

Phase 2: Refine Construct Domain
Using the items generated for phase 1, a preliminary WSOHM was further developed
through revision efforts.

Phase 2.1: Expert Review of SOH items
First, a focus group was held in order to further advance the understanding of the nature
of SOH. A copy of the consent form for the focus groups can be found in Appendix E. Based
upon the coded web-survey responses, a focus group protocol was developed to address areas of
SOH that would benefit from additional insight (Appendix F). The protocol included questions
with follow-up probes where appropriate and participant-led discussion was encouraged. A
convenience sample of three individuals was recruited using LGB workers from the local area.
The undergraduate research assistant associated with project was also present in order to take
notes and assist with the focus group procedures. The session began with a discussion of the
rights and roles of participants, followed by assurances that participation was both voluntary and
confidential. Participants received $15 for participating. The session was recorded using a digital
audio recorder in order to accurately reference any responses not captured in notes.
Although multiple focus groups were initially proposed to be conducted, the results of the first
focus group suggested that further sessions would likely result in redundant information, since
there were relatively few comments from the focus group participants about changes they felt
would be beneficial to the survey content and methodologies. The largest area of survey
administration that they commented on was to provide suggestions as to additional recruitment
methods.

68

Second, four researchers in the area of heterosexism, discrimination, and harassment
were asked to review survey content to ensure adequate conceptual coverage. Their comments
and suggestions regarding survey length and use of specific measures were taken into
consideration during the refinement phase.

Phase 2.2: Finalization of WSOHM Items based upon Parsimony, Redundancy, and Feedback
A number of considerations were taken into account during the refinement phase of the
WSOHM measure.
First, parsimony and survey length was considered in refining items, as a lengthy survey
can reduce response rates. Second, redundancy was examined to ensure that items represent
distinct behaviors. Third, items were worded using gender-neutral behavioral terms. This is an
important issue given that SH and REH measures have been typically validated on female victim
samples, with the exception of work exclusively on the SH of men (Waldo, et al, 1998). It is
therefore key that these items do not reflect any gender bias in language regarding either the
victim or the perpetrator given the basis of SOH as an equal-opportunity phenomenon. While
behavioral descriptors are gender neutral, some items provided as examples of such behaviors
are gender-laden.
Finally, the term sexual orientation harassment did not appear anywhere in questionnaire,
thus avoiding the necessity for respondents to make a subjective judgment as to whether or not
he or she had been harassed (see Ilies et al., 2003 for a discussion). Research suggests that
requiring individuals to label their experiences as harassment may result in underestimates of
actual harassment behaviors experienced.

69

The resulting tool was a web-based survey that allowed enhanced ability to recruit
specialized samples of research participants and low margin of costs for added participants
(Kraut, et al., 2004), enhanced confidence in anonymity, easy branching of questions, and the
ability to start and return later to finish the survey, thereby further decreasing the time burden on
participants. Research has also indicated that individuals do not differ significantly in how they
respond to web-based as compared to traditional paper-and-pencil formats (Peters & Gaby, 2004;
Kraut, et al., 2004).

Phase 3: Assessing Construct Validity
After developing the instrument, a sample was sought to examine the relation of SOH to
well-being and workplace outcomes as well as to key individual differences. Several strategies
were used to recruit participants.
First, the research was promoted via local, regional and national websites, chat rooms,
publications, etc. that have a large LGB audience. Second, affinity groups and LGB advocacy
groups at several major corporations were approached to disseminate information about the
survey. Given the ethnic/racial homogeneity of the sample acquired in the critical incident study,
specific efforts were made to include ethnic/racial minority LGB individuals. The main method
that was used to accomplish this was to contact appropriate administrative individuals at
advocacy groups that specifically serve ethnic/racial minority LGB populations and ask that they
disseminate information about the study to their constituents. Third, incentives for participation
were offered. Specifically, respondents were entered into a lottery for a cash prize gift certificate
(anonymity was maintained via the use of code identification numbers for individuals to check a
website announcing winners, in order to claim the prize they had to provide a previously

70

individually created password). Fourth, information about the study was distributed to personal
contacts of the research team who are either involved in LGB research or likely to have
connections to large LGB populations. Fifth, heterosexual participants were recruited through
both psychology subject pool recruitment and convenience snowball sampling. Finally, a strong
emphasis was placed on the fact that participation in the survey was anonymous, since Martin
and Knox (2000) indicated that gay employees are often concerned that their sexual identity will
be revealed to individuals to whom they did not want it disclosed. Unfortunately, this anonymity
made it impossible to reliably calculate any sort of response rate for the survey. A copy of the
consent form for this phase of the study can be viewed in Appendix G.
Sample. In this sample, participants were typically middle-aged (M = 35.2 years, SD =
12.01, min = 18, max= 45). The sample included slightly more women than men (42% male,
54% female) and a small proportion of transgendered individuals (4%). Regarding racial identity,
the vast majority of participants self-identified as Caucasian (90%), with only 8% endorsing
Biracial, and 1% each for Black and Asian/Pacific-Islander. Ethnic identity paints a very similar
picture, with 94% of participants endorsing being of non-Hispanic ethnic origin, and only 6%
reporting being of Hispanic origin. Because individuals may identify as only an ethnic or racial
minority, but not both, the two variables were combined into one race/ethnicity variable. This
hybrid variable showed that 14% of the sample identified as either racial or ethnic minorities,
while 86% reported identifying as neither. Participants also reported on average a fairly high
annual income (M = $70,000, Range = $5,000-$95,000+). Finally, overall the sample was highly
educated, with over 75% of the sample reporting having a college degree, and approximately a
third of the sample having a professional or graduate degree.

71

Phase 3.1: Item Reliability and Factor Analyses
Item-total correlations, scale alphas, and confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses
were conducted to examine the composition of the WSOHM. Findings are reported in the
Results section.
In regard to determining the measure’s test-retest reliability, this study cannot provide
such an assessment. Given that the study used anonymity of response options to help recruit
participants, the ability to perform follow-up longitudinal retesting on those same participants
was greatly compromised. However, given the nature of the construct, it was important to
preserve this anonymity in order to ensure participation. Finally, developing parallel forms of the
assessment was not feasible.

Phase 3.2: Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity can be observed in two ways: the construct the instrument is
purporting to measure is distinguishable from other similar constructs, and the different factors
within the construct are distinguishable from each other. In this proposal, this should translate
into evidence that SOH is distinguishable from the constructs of REH and SH (H5), and that the
different proposed components of SOH (derogatory, exclusionary, conditional, and targeted
crime behaviors) are also distinguishable from each other.
The results of phase 3.2 are reported in the results section. However, the measures that
were used to examine discriminant validity are presented below:
Sexual harassment. The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Fitzgerald, et al.,
1988) contains multiple items assessing participants’ experiences of the sexually harassing
behaviors (see Appendix H). Many different versions of the SEQ exist. For this study, the most

72

recently updated version of the questionnaire available at the time, the one used in the 2002 DoD
Sexual Harassment Survey (Lipari & Lancaster, 2002), was utilized. Respondents indicated how
often they experienced these behaviors (sexual harassment frequency) using the response
options: 0 = “never”, 1 = “once or twice”, 2 = “sometimes”, 3 = “often”, and 4 = “many times”.
The 2002 version was designed to measure five underlying dimensions: Sexist Behaviors (items
2, 4, 7, and 9; alpha = .82), Crude/Offensive Behaviors (items 1, 3, 5, and 6; alpha = .86),
Unwanted Sexual Attention (items 8, 10, 13, and 14; alpha = .87), Sexual Coercion (items 11, 12,
15, 16; alpha = .95), and Sexual Assault (items 17 and 18; alpha = .94). Items 19 “Engaged in
some other unwanted gender-related behavior towards you?” and 20 “If so, please describe”
were not included in the total scale score. The harassment factors structure of the SEQ has been
shown to replicate across studies (Lee & Ormerod, 2003). Items were summed to create scores
for each subscale with greater values indicating more exposure to sexual harassment.
Racial/ethnic harassment. Seven items from the Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale
(EHE; Schneider, et al., 2000) were included in the survey (see Appendix I). The EHE is a 7item scale assessing experiences with ethnic harassment at work. Response scale options were
the same as the SEQ. Items were summed to create a total scale score where greater values
indicating a greater incidence of racial/ethnic harassment.
Sexual orientation harassment. A refined version of the WSOHM (37 items, alpha =
.94) was included to assess workplace SOH (see Appendix J). The final version of this measure
included all 37 items generated during the preliminary item pool phase (Table 5), but with some
wording and examples changes based upon feedback from the focus group and expert reviewers.
Items 38 “Did anything else to you because you were believed to be LGB?” and 39 “If so, please
describe” were not included in the total scale score. Response scale and scoring methods were

73

the same as the SEQ and the EHE. Details of the factor analysis of this scale are reported in the
Results section.

Phase 3.3: Expected Correlates
Another method of demonstrating the construct validity of a measure is to show that
scores on the measure are associated with the antecedents and outcomes one would expect. In the
present case, it would therefore be important to show that higher WSOHM scores were
positively correlated with outcome measures that are typically associated with exposure to
harassment.
H1, H2, and H3 proposed that WSOHM scores would be negatively correlated with the
following variables: organizational climate for LGB issues, self-esteem, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction, and be positively correlated to scores on measures of
depression and anxiety.

Measures
Depression and Anxiety. (13 Items & 10 items, both alphas = .93) Two scales from the
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983; Derogatis, 1993) were used to
assess the primary symptom dimensions of depression and anxiety (see Appendices N and O).
The BSI is a shortened version of the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90), a widely used scale
assessing current psychological distress and symptoms in both patient and non-patient
populations. The BSI measures the experience of symptoms in the past seven days including the
day the BSI is completed. Answers are on a 5-point scale, from 0 = "Not at all", to 4 = "Very

74

Much", and composite scores were computed by averaging across items. High scores are
indicative of greater numbers of symptoms.
Organizational commitment. (6 items each, alphas = .88 and .84 respectively) Affective
and continuance commitment were measured using two 6-item scales of organizational
commitment (revised by Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993) (see Appendix P). These scales are
adapted from the authors’ original 8-item scales (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984).
Responses were made on a 7-point scale, from 0 = "Disagree Strongly ", to 6 = "Agree Strongly
" scales, and composite scores were computed by averaging across items. High scores are
indicative of higher levels of commitment.
Job Satisfaction: (5 items, alpha = .90) Job satisfaction was measured with the short
form of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) Job Satisfaction Scale (see Appendix Q). Responses
were made on a 7-point scale, from 0 = "Disagree Strongly ", to 6 = "Agree Strongly " scales,
and composite scores were computed by summing items. High scores are indicative of higher
levels of job satisfaction.
Self-esteem: (10 items, alpha = .91) The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES;
Rosenberg, 1979) is a self-report scale measuring subjective self-esteem (see Appendix R).
Responses were made on a 7-point scale, where 0 = "Disagree Strongly ", and 6 = "Agree
Strongly ". Items were summed to create a composite score where higher values indicated higher
self-esteem.
Organizational climate. (10 items, alpha = .89) A combination of items assessing the
individual’s perception of his or her organization’s climate towards LGB individuals and
discrimination of LGB individuals was included (see Appendix S). Four items (#s 1, 5, 7, & 8)
were adapted from Button’s (2001) development of a measure of organizational policies

75

regarding gays and lesbians, 4 items (#s 2-4, & 6) were adapted from Stokes, Stewart-Belle and
Barnes’ (2000) recommendations for current organizational policies regarding SH based upon
analyses of current court cases on the topic. Finally, 2 items (#s 9-10) were adapted from
Bingham and Scherer’s (2001) measure of organizational policies regarding SH. Responses were
made on a 7-point scale, where 0 = "Disagree Strongly ", and 6 = "Agree Strongly ". Items were
summed to create a composite score where higher values indicated a stronger perception of a
participant’s organization having a positive climate towards LGB individuals.
Negative affectivity: Some researchers have suggested that investigations of workplace
stressors control for negative affectivity (e.g., Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988;
Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). This allows for consideration of any systematic negative cognitive
biases that could artificially inflate the relationships of such stressors with well-being outcomes.
More recently however, others have purported that controlling for NA is not only unnecessary
but actually detrimental to one’s ability to detect meaningful relationships (Spector, Zapf, Chen,
& Frese, 2000). Negative affectivity was therefore measured in order to allow for analyses with
and without controlling for it, and was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) (see Appendix T).
The PANAS consists of two 10-item mood scales and was developed to provide brief
measures of positive (items # 1, 3, 5, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, & 19; alpha = .93) and negative (items
# 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 15, 18, & 20; alpha = .89) affectivity. The items were derived from a principal
components analysis of Zevon and Tellegen’s (1982) mood checklist; it was argued that this
checklist broadly tapped the affective lexicon. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to
which they have experienced each particular emotion within a specified time period, with
reference to a 5-point scale from 0 = “Not at all” to 4 “Very Much”. Items were summed to

76

create a composite score with higher scores being indicative of greater affectivity. A number of
different time frames have been used with the PANAS, but given the inclusion of harassment
experiences in this study that are assessed over that past 12 months, the time-frame adopted was
‘during the past year’.

Phase 3.4: Expected Group Differences
One method that supports the validity of a measure is to show that groups who differ on a
particular characteristic also differ in their pattern of responses on a measure. In an attempt to
provide this form of validity evidence, as discussed in the introduction, a number of variables
were expected to produce group differences in scores on the WSOHM.
First, the proportion of men that work in an individual’s occupation is likely to impact a
person’s SOH experiences. Second, an individual’s self-identified sexual orientation is also
likely to influence his or her SOH experiences. Finally, the techniques that an LGB individual
uses to manage his or her sexual orientation identity are liable to affect the same SOH
experiences. These three proposed relationships are summarized by previously outlined
hypotheses H4, H6 and H7 respectively.

Measures
Job Type. The degree to which an occupational field was male-dominated was
determined based upon the proportion of women who traditionally work in the particular
profession. Information about the percentage of women by job category was obtained from the
detailed table listings published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Two researchers
familiar with the project independently performed the coding and had an agreement rate of 83%.
Codes that they did not agree on were discussed and resolved individually. Possible category

77

values ranged from highly male-dominated occupations such as “Logging workers” (0.2%) to
highly female-dominated occupations such as “Dental hygienists” (98.6%). The average
proportion of women in a respondent’s occupational field was just slightly higher than half
(M=53.47) but there was a large range within the responses, from “Firefighters” (3.5%) to
“Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” (96.9%).
Identity management. The strategies used by individuals in their workplace to manage
their identities were assessed using items adapted from the identity management measures
developed by (Button, 1996). The changes from the original survey involved replacing the term
“gay/lesbian” with the term “LGB” (see Appendix K for the finalized measure). Factor analysis
has indicated three factors of Counterfeiting (6 items, alpha = .84), Avoiding (7 items, alpha =
.89), and Integrating (10 items, alpha = .91) identity management techniques (Button, 1996).
Subscales based upon these factors were created. Respondents indicated how often they engaged
in these behaviors by endorsing one of five response options: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes,
4=Often, 5=Always. Subscale items were summed to create total subscores in which higher
scores indicated more experiences of that particular method of identity management.
Sexual orientation. Ragins (2004) noted that the construct of sexual orientation includes
physical behaviors, attractions and fantasies, and identity, and is fluid over time and experience.
Additionally, Martin and Knox (2000) suggested that when assessing sexual orientation, one
should provide a number of different options for individuals to indicate their sexual identity (e.g.,
self-labeling of orientation, indication of same-gender attraction, specific sexual behaviors). This
suggestion is similar to research that has shown that individuals often define themselves with
regards to sexual orientation along three different aspects, sexual behavior, sexual desire, and
sexual identity (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels, 1994). These three constructs are not

78

mutually exclusive, such that a person may desire same-sex sexual partners, but neither exhibit
the parallel behaviors or identify as LGB. Therefore the survey included questions that address
each of these facets of sexual orientation. The measure of sexual orientation includes four author
created items (#s 1-3, 10), two items assessing sexual orientation according to the dual
continuum model of sexual orientation (#s 4-5) (Haslam, 1997; Shivley & De Cecco, 1993), and
four items about sexual orientation milestones (#s 6-9) (Garnets & Kimmel, 1993). The final set
of items can be found in Appendix L. Items 1-5 and 10 had response options 1=“Disagree
Strongly”, 2=“Disagree”, 3=“Disagree Somewhat”, 4=“Neutral”, 5=“Agree Somewhat”,
6=“Agree”, 7=“Agree Strongly”, while items 6-9 asked respondents to respondents to fill in an
age of occurrence or endorse “never”. Due to a programming issue in the design of the web
survey, the age information for these 4 variables was not properly stored in the database for later
retrieval. Therefore the range of the collected data for these 4 items which were intended to be
continuous variables ended up being dichotomous variables with 1=“Never” and 2=“Age
entered”.
Since the 10-item sexual orientation measure contained items from various sources, the
reliability and factor structure of the items were explored to determine the best method of
grouping them for use in correlational and regression analyses. As can be seen in Table 6, an
initial principal components analysis yielded two factors.

79

Table 6
Extracted factors for the sexual orientation measure
Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component

Total

Percent of Variance

Cumulative Percent

1
2

5.88
1.20

58.82
12.03

58.82
70.85

Note. Analysis method was a Principle Component Analysis utilizing a Direct
Oblimin rotation with Kaiser Normalization. Only components that possessed
Eigen values above 1.0 are displayed.

Further analysis of the items that loaded onto each factor (see Table 7) shows that all but
two items loaded onto the first factor, which explained the largest percent of variance.
Table 7
Item factor loadings for sexual orientation items
Factor
Item #

Item Description

1

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Attracted to people of the same sex
Engaged in sexual practices with people of the same sex
Identify as LGB
Heterosexual tendencies
Homosexual tendencies
Age of first LGB attraction
Age of first LGB sexual encounter
Age of first LGB self-labeling
Age of first LGB relationship
How often do you think people identify you as LGB

.81
.89
.75

.42

.62
.84
.83
.78
.76

.54
.77
.45

.44
.71

Note. Loadings represent the pattern matrix results of a Direct Oblimin rotation. Only
loadings above .40 are detailed in the table. Bolded items represent highest loading
among the two factors for a particular item.

80

The items that loaded onto component 1 were three of the author created items (#s 1-3),
the homosexual tendencies item assessing sexual orientation according to the dual continuum
model of sexual orientation (#5), and the four items about sexual orientation milestones (#s 6-9).
The items that loaded onto component 2 were the heterosexual tendencies item assessing sexual
orientation according to the dual continuum model (#4) and the last author created item about
perceptions of identifiability as LGB (#10).
From a theoretical standpoint, the loadings of these items are supported by the previously
mentioned research that suggests that LGB individuals define themselves by their homosexual
orientation but not in terms of their heterosexual tendencies. Additionally, it would seem that
while perceptions of identifiability may be related to an LGB individual’s sexual orientation, it is
not necessarily a direct component of how they define such orientation.
A final step in the analysis of these components was taken by assessing scale reliabilities.
Since several items (#s 1,3,5,8) possessed cross-loadings, first the reliability of a scale with all
10 items was conducted. The alpha for this scale was .84 and the two items that loaded onto
factor 2 (#s 4, 10) showed low item-scale correlations (.48 and .33 respectively).
Based upon these results, items 1-4 and 6-9 were averaged to create an 8-item scale
measuring general LGB attitudes, feelings, and behaviors (alpha=.86), with higher scores
indicating more reported indicators of LGB status.
Three quarters of the sample “agreed strongly” that they are attracted to people of the
same sex. Approximately the same proportion “agreed strongly” that they engage in sexual
practices with people of the same sex, as well as self-identify as LGB. However, the pattern
among strictly heterosexual or homosexual tendencies among participants paints a bit of different
picture. For possessing heterosexual tendencies, over half of the sample (56.3%) reported

81

disagreeing to some extent, 10.7% of participants endorsed feeling neutral, and 32.9% reported
agreeing to some extent. For possessing homosexual tendencies, the majority of participants
(86.4%) reported agreeing to some extent.
Demographics. Demographic questions were included to enable examination of the
influence of individual differences on the experience of SOH (see Appendix M). Items assessed
age, race, ethnicity, income level, education level, gender, and occupation.

Phase 4: Finalize Construct Domain
Phase 4.1: Use Construct Validation Findings to Further Refine Measure Items
The results of phases 3.1 to 3.4 were used to further refine the items contained in the
WSOHM. Additionally item difficulty statistics were examined to determine if items with
extremely low base rates (e.g., less than 2% of respondents), should also be removed from the
measure.

82

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Data Preparation and Reverse Coding of Variables
The frequencies of all variables measured in this study were examined for potential
human errors in data entry. Items were reverse-coded as needed. To further check that all
reverse-coding was performed properly, the data was checked for negative item-total
correlations.
Missing Data
All individual item responses as well as participant-wide response patterns were
examined to determine if there were significant amounts of missing data and if such data was
likely to be randomly missing systematically missing. There were numerous cases in which a
response contained no data, where a participant had agreed to the consent form, but completed
no items. These cases were removed from the data set. There were also several cases in which at
least half of the survey was not completed. These cases were also removed from the data set. A
total of 143 responses to the survey were downloaded. However, after removing responses that
were missing more than 30% of their data, and duplicate submissions, there remained a usable n
of 107. Of the remaining responses, no item or case contained more than 10% missing responses,
and that the majority of the missing data percentages were much lower. All analyses are reported
based upon excluding missing items.
Other Data Issues
Given the difficulty in objectively categorizing transgendered individuals into either a
male or female gender category, yet still acknowledging that such persons are also likely to have

83

harassment experiences similar to those of non-transgendered individuals, transgendered
participants (N= 4) were excluded from any analyses which involved the gender variable.

Phase 3.1: Item and Reliability Analysis
Measure item-total correlations were examined (Table 8) in order to increase scale
internal consistency (coefficient alpha) as suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1998). Items
were considered to demonstrate high discrimination if their corrected item-total correlations were
greater than or equal to .30. Based upon these considerations, all proposed items were retained
for the final administration version of the WSOHM.
.

84

Table 8
Item-total discrimination statistics and alphas for the WSOHM
Item
Corrected
Cronbach's alpha if
Factor
No.
item-total r
item deleted
Cronbach's alpha
1
.43
.91
.91
Derogatory
Behaviors
2
.35
.91
3
.43
.91
4
.36
.92
5
.35
.92
6
.64
.91
7
.69
.91
8
.56
.91
9
.59
.91
10
.72
.91
11
.57
.91
12
.55
.91
13
.52
.91
14
.74
.91
15
.60
.91
16
.66
.91
17
.45
.91
18
.52
.91
19
.65
.91
20
.48
.91
21
.65
.91
22
.60
.91
23
.56
.91
24
.78
.70
.84
Exclusionary
Behaviors
25
.72
.78
26
.68
.83
27
.92
.93
.95
Conditional
Behaviors
28
.61
.96
29
.96
.93
30
.95
.93
31
.95
.93
32
.95
.93
33
.89
.94
34
.62
.96
35
.93
.92
.96
Crime
Behaviors
36
.86
.99
37
.95
.91

85

Preliminary Reliability Analyses
In order to examine the four proposed subscales of the WSOHM, corrected item-total
correlations for all items in each subscale were first examined (see Table 8).
Proposed subscale 1: Derogatory Sexual Orientation Harassment behaviors. The internal
consistency of this 23-item factor subscale was high (alpha = .91); the corrected item-total
correlations were between .35 and .74. This subscale contains approximately half of the items in
the overall WSOHM scale due to research and anecdotal findings suggesting the largest
proportion of SOH behaviors are derogatory in nature.
Proposed subscale 2: Exclusionary Sexual Orientation Harassment behaviors. The
internal consistency of this 3-item subscale was high (alpha = .84); the corrected item-total
correlations were between .68 and .78.
Proposed subscale 3: Conditional Sexual Orientation Harassment behaviors. The
internal consistency of this 8-item subscale was high (alpha = .95); the corrected item-total
correlations were between .61 and .96.
Proposed subscale 4: Crime-based Sexual Orientation Harassment behaviors. The
internal consistency of this 3-item subscale was high (alpha = .96); the corrected item-total
correlations were between .86 and .95.
The inter-scale correlations of the four proposed subscales were as follows: Derogatory &
Exclusionary = .55; Derogatory & Conditional = .56; Derogatory & Crime = .53; Exclusionary &
Conditional = .51; Exclusionary & Crime = .50; Conditional & Crime = .94. All but one of the
correlations between subscales were consistently moderately high, ranging from .50 to .56.
However, the correlation between the conditional and crime behaviors subscales was extremely
high at .94. This last correlation suggests that the conditional and crime based behaviors

86

subscales are highly overlapping in their content and are likely best conceptualized as a
combined subscale. This issue will be discussed in further detail when the factor analysis is
discussed. In sum, these intercorrelations support the conceptualization of the WSOHM as a
multi-dimensional measure, with distinct subscales.

Summary
After a series of item- and scale-level reliability analyses, all 37 of the original WSOHM
items were kept in the measure. In order to provide further insight into the nature of the measure,
a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted.

Phase 3.2: Discriminant Validity
As previously discussed in phase 3.1 of the methods section, discriminant validity of the
WSOHM can be demonstrated by showing that proposed subscales of SOH are also
distinguishable from each other. To test these differences, both confirmatory and exploratory
factor analyses were conducted. To assess the distinction of SOH from the constructs of REH
and SH, correlational relationships were examined.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The hypothesized model of the WSOHM was a model of SOH composed of the four
proposed forms of SOH behaviors: derogatory, exclusionary, conditional and targeted crime
behaviors. Although the different forms are likely to relate to each other because they are all
forms of harassment based upon sexual orientation, they should not be conceptually similar

87

enough where one would be able to detail the nature of an individual’s entire experience of SOH
by measuring only one of its components.
In order to ensure consistency with the number of items between factors that contained
greatly varied amounts of contained items, item parcels were created for factors that possessed
rd

more than three items by assigning every 3 item to a parcel.
The hypothesized four-factor model was tested against nine alternative models. First, the
four-factor model was tested (see Figure 2), which if confirmed would provide evidence for a
single global factor with four underlying subfactors. Next, a competing single factor model was
run (Figure 3), which if confirmed would provide justification for the grouping of the four
factors. Because the fit indices for these first two models were not ideal (see Table 9), two
additional models were analyzed to determine their fit. The next model based its grouping of
items on the fact that derogatory behavior items composed the largest contingent of the WSOHM
and are the behaviors most often endorsed in other studies. This model therefore possessed two
factors, one representing derogatory behaviors and the second all other behaviors (Figure 4).
Finally, given the previous evidence of the crime behaviors factor overlap with the conditional
behaviors factor, and the possibility of the low base rate of crime behaviors, a three-factor model
that combined the crime and conditional behaviors factors into a single factor was conducted
(Figure 5). Additionally, to address the possibility that the proposed factors of the WSOHM were
distinct enough from each other that they would not all relate to a global SOH factor, the two-,
three- and four-factor models were compared against parallel models with the overarching SOH
factor removed (Figures 6, 7, and 8 respectively).

88

derog1

4.58

derog2

3.66

derog3

3.40

soh24

0.26

soh25

0.46

soh26

0.19

condit1

0.00

condit2

0.48

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.00

soh36

0.05

soh37

0.00

4.51
derog

3.74
4.21

0.53
0.90
exclus

0.55

0.52
1.00

0.86

soh
0.95

1.18
condit

1.16
0.77

0.96

0.43
crime
Figure 2. Four-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor.
For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is
referred to the electronic version of this thesis.
89

0.39
0.44

derog1

7.27

derog2

7.26

derog3

7.27

soh24

7.27

soh25

7.27

soh26

7.25

condit1

2.51

condit2

7.10

condit3

4.39

soh35

6.95

soh36

7.12

soh37

7.02

4.53
5.82
4.74
4.10
3.68
6.23
0.00

soh
14.3
11.2
14.1
12.3
10.9
11.9

Figure 3. One-factor CFA path model
90

derog1

4.50

derog2

3.76

derog3

3.34

soh24

0.92

soh25

1.06

soh26

0.34

condit1

0.02

condit2

0.47

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.03

soh36

0.06

soh37

0.04

4.52
derog

3.72
4.22

0.96

1.00

soh
0.39
0.38
0.52

0.39
1.17
other

1.17
0.78
0.39
0.39
0.40

Figure 4. Two-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor

91

derog1

5.30

derog2

3.26

derog3

3.37

soh24

0.20

soh25

0.48

soh26

0.21

condit1

0.01

condit2

0.47

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.03

soh36

0.06

soh37

0.04

4.43
derog

3.79
4.22

0.84
0.93
exclus

0.54

0.80
1.00

0.85

soh

1.17

0.60

1.17
0.77
condcrm
0.39
0.39
0.40

Figure 5. Three-factor CFA path model with global SOH factor
92

derog1

4.50

derog2

3.76

derog3

3.34

soh24

0.92

soh25

1.06

soh26

0.34

condit1

0.02

condit2

0.47

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.03

soh36

0.06

soh37

0.04

4.52
1.00

derog

3.72
4.22

0.39
0.38
0.39
1.17
1.00

other

1.17
0.78
0.39
0.39
0.40

Figure 6. Two-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor

93

derog1

5.30

derog2

3.26

derog3

3.37

soh24

0.20

soh25

0.48

soh26

0.21

condit1

0.01

condit2

0.47

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.03

soh36

0.06

soh37

0.04

4.43
1.00

derog

3.79
4.22

0.93
1.00

exclus

0.85
0.54

1.17
1.17
0.77
1.00

condcrm
0.39
0.39
0.40

Figure 7. Three-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor
94

derog1

4.58

derog2

3.66

derog3

3.40

soh24

0.26

soh25

0.46

soh26

0.19

condit1

0.00

condit2

0.48

condit3

0.02

soh35

0.00

soh36

0.05

soh37

0.00

4.51
1.00

derog

3.74
4.21

0.90
1.00

exclus

0.86
0.55

1.18
1.00

condit

1.16
0.77

0.43
1.00

crime

0.39
0.44

Figure 8. Four-factor CFA path model without global SOH factor

95

Table 9
Confirmatory factor analyses for the WSOHM
2

Model

Single Factor
Two-factor (uncorrelated)
Four-factor (uncorrelated)
Three-factor (uncorrelated)
Two-factor (correlated)
Two-factor w/SOH
Three-factor w/SOH
Three-factor (correlated)
Four-factor w/SOH
Four-factor (correlated)

χ

2

776.41
480.55
403.65
358.89
480.06
480.06
285.73
285.73
262.40
219.27

df

CFI

RMSEA

SRMR

χ
Difference

54
54
54
54
53
52
51
51
50
48

.70
.83
.86
.88
.83
.78
.83
.91
.91
.93

.36
.27
.25
.23
.28
.28
.21
.21
.20
.18

.19
.31
.45
.36
.16
.16
.10
.10
.13
.09

295.86
76.90
44.76
-121.17
0.00
194.33**
0.00
23.33**
43.13**

96

df
Difference

0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2

Finally, to investigate whether having uncorrelated factors of the WSOHM when no
global SOH was present explained more variance than correlated factors, each of the appropriate
two-, three- and four-factor models were also conducted with their factors fixed at zero
correlation.
Several fit indices are reported for each model in Table 9. While there are no absolute
2

rules for acceptable model fit, a significant Normal Weighted Least Squares χ indicates poor
model fit, but is highly sensitive to sample size; fit indices of .90 or greater for the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) represent good model fit (Hoyle, 1995); a Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) above .10 indicates poor fit, between .08 to .10 indicates acceptable
fit, and a value less than .05 indicates good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; MacCallum et al.,
1996). Fit improves as the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) approaches zero,
with 0.0 indicating a perfect fit.
As can be observed in Table 7, the proposed correlated 4-factor model, albeit with no global
SOH factor (df = 48), was found to have the best fit indices of any of the models. However, with
2

a χ of 219.27, a CFI of .93, a RMSEA of .18, and a SRMR of .09, the overall the fit of the
model was not ideal. The CFI value is above the .90 cutoff for good model fit, and is the highest
of any of the models tested, but the RMSEA value of .18 indicates poor fit. Finally, the SRMR
value of .09 is not optimal but is still the lowest value of the four models. The change in chisquare between models also supported the correlated 4-factor model without a global SOH factor
as the best of any of the models, as the difference between it and the next best fitting model, the
2

correlated 4-factor model with global SOH factor (∆χ = 43.13, ∆df = 2) was found to be

97

significant.

Although the correlated 4-factor model without a global SOH factor demonstrated

the best-fit indices, it was not an ideal fit.

Exploratory Factor Analysis
Because the fit indices of the various models tested in Table 9 indicated that none of the
models fully explained the data, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Given previous
theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests that harassment subfactors are often correlated
with each other, as well as the high correlations between the proposed WSOHM subfactors, and
the findings from the CFA results that correlated factor structures fit the data better than noncorrelated factor structures, an oblique rotation method of EFA was utilized. When factor
correlations are greater than .30, an oblique rotation method of factor extraction is warranted
because it allows for intercorrelations between the factors. The two main oblique rotation
methods are Direct Oblimin and Promax rotations. While both methods generally yield
extremely similar results (Robins, Faley, & Krueger, 2007), Direct Oblimin is slightly more
processor-intensive, and for that reason, is often the preferred method in behavioral sciences
(Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). Therefore, a principle components analysis of the 37 items
was conducted, using a Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization rotation. Five factors were
extracted and rotated (Table 10). These factors represented 43.5%, 13.9%, 6.7%, 5.1%, and 4.1%
respectively of the total variance explained. However, upon closer examination of the individual
item-loadings (see Table 11), it was observed that four items loaded significantly on more than
one factor. For example, item #28 possessed a high loading of .45 on Factor 4, but a .43 loading
on Factor 1. Because of its content similarity to other items assigned to Factor 1, it was therefore
also assigned to Factor 1. Aside from item #28, all other items were assigned to the factor that

98

they loaded highest upon. This led to the WSOHM being ultimately conceptualized as possessing
five factors:

•

# 1: Coercion Behaviors (Items 17, 20, 23, 27-37)

•

# 2: Expectation/Stereotyping Behaviors (Items 2, 11, 15, 18, 19)

•

# 3: Heterosexist Behaviors (Items 3-7, 9, 21)

•

# 4: Exclusionary Behaviors (Items 8, 24-26)

•

# 5: Derogation/Stereotyping Behaviors (Items 1, 10, 12-14, 16, 22)

Table 10
Extracted factors for the WSOHM

Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component

Total

Percent of
Variance

Cumulative
Percent

1
2
3
4
5

16.08
5.14
2.47
1.90
1.53

43.46
13.90
6.67
5.14
4.14

43.46
57.36
64.03
69.17
73.31

Note. Analysis method was a Principle Component Analysis
utilizing a Direct Oblimin rotation with Kaiser
Normalization. Only components that possessed Eigen values
above 1.0 are displayed.

99

Table 11
Item factor loadings for the WSOHM

Item #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

1

2

Factor
3

4

5
-.52

.66
.40

.73
.82
.79
.68
.67
.55

.42

.48
-.71
.44
-.72
-.87
-.68
.43
-.46

.94
.58
.59
.55
.51
-.57
.62

.47
.83
.77
.55

.45
.84
.43
.95
.99
.99
.99

.45

100

Table 11 (cont’d)
33
34
35
36
37

.97
.56
.99
.79
.99

.47

Note. Loadings represent the pattern matrix results of a Direct Oblimin
rotation. Only loadings above .40 are detailed in the table. Bolded items
represent highest loading among the five factors for a particular item.

101

Correlational Analyses
The means, standard deviations, and minimums and maximums of all major study
variables can be found in Table 12. The correlations between these variables can be found in
Table 13. Included in these values are the correlations between the factors and subfactors of
SOH, REH and SH. Given the sample size of this study, a confirmatory factor analysis of the
distinctiveness between the factors of SOH, REH and SH, and their subfactors was not feasible,
and therefore the most appropriate methods for determining discriminant validity were
correlation- and regression-based analyses. All of the relationships between each the five
WSOHM behavioral scales were significant and ranged from .35-.72. The correlations between
the five WSOHM scales and the five SH scales were all also significant and ranged from .21-.95.
Finally, the relationships between each of the SH scales were also all significant and ranged from
.29-.87. Racial/Ethnic Harassment was significantly related to three of the WSOHM scales,
Expectation/Stereotyping Behaviors (r=.32), Exclusionary Behaviors (r=.28), and
Derogative/Stereotyping Behaviors (r=.20). Racial/Ethnic Harassment was also found to
correlate significantly with two of the SH scales, Sexist Behaviors (r=.29), and Crude/Offensive
Behaviors (r=.24).

102

Table 12
Descriptive statistics for study variables
Construct
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

M

SOH - Coercive Behaviors
SOH - Expectation/Stereotyping Behaviors
SOH - Heterosexist Behaviors
SOH - Exclusionary Behaviors
SOH - Derogative/Stereotyping Behaviors
SH - Sexist Behaviors
SH - Crude/Offensive Behaviors
SH - Unwanted Sexual Attention
SH - Sexual Coercion
SH - Sexual Assault
Racial/Ethnic Harassment
Depression
Anxiety
Affect - Negative
Affect - Positive
Self-esteem
Affective Commitment
Continuance Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Climate
Identity Management - Counterfeiting
Identity Management - Avoidance
Identity Management - Integrating
Job type
Sexual Orientation
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Age
Education
Income

103

SD

Min

Max

1.38
2.42
5.52
2.03
4.64
3.23
3.29
1.14
0.36
0.12
0.93
0.92
0.47
21.80
34.27
51.94
4.11
4.38
24.03
40.68
1.50
2.12
3.23
53.47
6.31
0.14
0.56
35.21
8.18
7.65

5.55
3.33
5.32
3.22
5.13
3.47
3.45
2.52
2.00
0.80
1.83
0.79
0.67
7.31
8.86
12.20
1.50
1.44
6.61
14.70
0.69
0.96
1.08
22.61
1.44
0.35
0.50
12.02
1.68
3.20

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
11.00
19.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.50
1.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
1.00
1.00

56.00
18.00
23.00
16.00
24.00
15.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
8.00
10.00
3.69
3.30
44.00
50.00
70.00
7.00
6.83
35.00
70.00
4.50
4.14
4.80
96.90
7.00
1.00
1.00
74.00
10.00
11.00

Table 13
Correlations between study variables

Construct
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

1.

SOH - Coercive Behaviors
SOH - Expectation/Stereotyping Behaviors
SOH - Heterosexist Behaviors
SOH - Exclusionary Behaviors
SOH - Derogative/Stereotyping Behaviors
SH - Sexist Behaviors
SH - Crude/Offensive Behaviors
SH - Unwanted Sexual Attention
SH - Sexual Coercion
SH - Sexual Assault
Racial/Ethnic Harassment
Depression
Anxiety
Affect - Negative
Affect - Positive
Self-esteem
Affective Commitment
Continuance Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Climate
Identity Management - Counterfeiting
Identity Management - Avoidance
Identity Management - Integrating
Job type
Sexual Orientation
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Age
Education
Income

(.96)
.51 **
.35 **
.54 **
.49 **
.33 **
.47 **
.62 **
.79 **
.95 **
-.01
-.04
.03
-.04
.07
.09
-.23 *
-.19
-.22 *
-.16
.05
.01
-.23 *
-.21 *
-.11
-.03
-.02
.10
-.05
.05

2.

(.78)
.47 **
.57 **
.72 **
.55 **
.66 **
.38 **
.31 **
.40 **
.32 **
.22 *
.34 **
.25 **
-.10
-.09
-.19
.11
-.13
-.17
.05
.22 *
.10
-.16
.13
.02
-.01
.07
-.22 *
-.16

3.

(.85)
.47 **
.50 **
.48 **
.57 **
.30 **
.24 *
.21 *
.16
.32 **
.39 **
.25 **
-.16
-.15
-.22 *
.25 *
-.12
-.50 **
.51 **
.56 **
-.28 **
-.22 *
.14
-.05
-.01
-.02
-.16
-.14

Note. ** p<.01. * p<.05. Values on diagonals in parentheses represent alphas for the
corresponding scales. Bolded items represent significant values.
104

Table 13 (cont’d)
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

(.86)
.53 **
.50 **
.46 **
.36 **
.37 **
.43 **
.28 **
.14
.22 *
.16
-.16
-.10
-.29 **
.18
-.14
-.27 **
.02
.20 *
.01
-.31 **
.14
-.01
.09
.37 **
-.11
.02

5.

(.86)
.57 **
.69 **
.59 **
.36 **
.38 **
.20 *
.26 **
.33 **
.29 **
-.14
-.14
-.13
.15
-.11
-.22 *
.05
.15
.11
-.18
.14
-.12
.08
.00
-.32 **
-.28 **

6.

(.82)
.70 **
.45 **
.33 *
.29 *
.29 **
.19
.26 **
.19
-.04
-.03
-.19
.13
-.07
-.11
.05
.21 *
.07
-.24 *
.09
.00
.29 **
.15
-.22 *
-.06

7.

(.86)
.56 **
.39 **
.40 **
.24 *
.35 **
.38 **
.31 **
-.15
-.15
-.14
.13
-.11
-.34 **
.21 *
.35 **
-.13
-.13
.07
.03
.00
.10
-.29 **
-.15

105

8.

(.87)
.66 **
.67 **
.11
.02
.11
.03
.08
.06
-.16
-.07
-.14
-.15
.12
.10
-.16
-.08
-.09
-.07
.16
-.05
-.12
-.13

9.

(.95)
.87 **
.03
.03
.12
.04
.04
-.01
-.23 *
-.13
-.27 **
-.05
.10
-.03
.20 *
-.05
-.10
-.06
.04
.15
-.02
-.01

Table 13 (cont’d)
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

(.94)
.02
-.08
-.03
-.07
.10
.10
-.21 *
-.20 *
-.24 *
-.05
.01
-.10
-.23 *
-.03
-.17
-.05
.04
.12
-.01
.07

11.

(.71)
.26 **
.15
.23 *
-.23 *
-.24 *
-.15
.18
-.13
-.06
.01
.17
.09
-.10
.12
.17
-.16
.07
-.05
-.13

12.

(.93)
.63 **
.64 **
-.61 **
-.66 **
-.16
.32 **
-.25 **
-.22 *
.20 *
.31 **
.04
-.10
.27 **
.05
-.04
.11
-.16
-.21 *

13.

14.

(.93)
.73 **
-.27 **
-.41 **
-.14
.32 **
-.11
-.23 *
.36 **
.32 **
-.06
-.03
.17
.00
.08
.10
-.17
-.31 **

106

(.89)
-.38 **
-.66 **
-.12
.41 **
-.27 **
-.22 *
.28 **
.24 *
-.03
.04
.23 *
-.06
.10
.00
-.14
-.29 **

15.

(.93)
.69 **
.30 **
-.26 **
.38 **
.25 *
-.04
-.25 *
.04
.12
-.15
-.07
.16
-.06
.02
.06

16.

(.91)
.15
-.35 **
.38 **
.15
-.15
-.23 *
.06
-.03
-.16
.04
.00
-.06
.09
.19

Table 13 (cont’d)
17.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

(.88)
-.09
.67 **
.40 **
-.11
-.28 **
.21 *
.14
.09
-.06
-.10
.05
.01
.25 *

18.

(.84)
-.15
-.32 **
.21 *
.29 **
-.02
.02
.37 **
-.21 *
-.04
.03
-.15
-.30 **

19.

(.90)
.34 **
.01
-.10
.10
-.08
.03
.04
-.20 *
.13
.00
.12

20.

21.

(.89)
-.25 *
-.45 **
.40 **
.07
-.05
-.01
.07
.18
.11
.18

107

(.84)
.51 **
-.44 **
-.10
.12
-.05
-.12
.04
-.06
-.21 *

22.

(.89)
-.48 **
-.16
.08
-.02
-.13
.07
-.06
-.26 *

23.

(.91)
.05
.38 **
-.08
.27 **
.10
-.02
.02

Table 13 (cont’d)
24.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

25.

-.21
-.09
.10
-.08
.17
.08

.07
-.07
.10
.05
-.15

26.

-.11
.11
.18
.23 *

27.

28.

.23 *
.28 **

-.10
-.13
-.16

108

29.

.38 **

Despite the fact that measurement theory was first introduced over half a century ago
(e.g., Stevens, 1951), there are still varying standards as to what intercorrelation cut-off values
should be used to determine whether scales are independent (i.e., unidimensional), or
overlapping (i.e., part of an overarching multidimensional construct). For the current study, John
and Benet-Martínez’s (2000) guidelines were followed, which suggest that correlation values of
.20 or lower or a nonsignificant value indicate clearly independent constructs, and values of .80
or higher, clearly overlapping constructs. For the values in between these two extremes, ones
closest to .20 would indicate constructs that are slightly related but mostly distinct, and ones
closest to .80 would indicate constructs that are highly related and generally indistinguishable
from one another. Values in this middle range should be looked at individually and their
distinctiveness determined based upon both their statistical and theoretical relationships.
Based upon these criteria, the only distinction that can be confidently observed is that
between REH and the other two forms of harassment, SH and SOH. All correlations between
REH and SH or SOH were either not significant or less than .32. Although this is slightly higher
than the .20 cut-off point, the pattern of the correlations, and the fact that the nature of the
constructs dictates some overlap, seem to support their relative independence.
The relationships within and between the subscales of SH and SOH are less
straightforward. While there are some correlations that might indicate distinctions between
constructs, (e.g., SOH Heterosexist Behaviors and SH Sexual Assault (r=.21) or SOH Coercive
Behaviors and SH Sexist Behaviors (r=.33)), the majority of correlations were in the moderate to
high range. While one conclusion from these values is that the concepts of SOH and SH, and
their subscales, represent an overall multidimensional construct of sexual-related workplace
harassment, there may be other explanations for these results. The correlations between these

109

constructs (e.g., SH Coercion & Assault) may be due to the fact that behaviors were assessed
using frequency data and these behaviors demonstrated similar low base rates. Therefore, their
correlation values may be indicative of response rate similarities rather than theoretical ones.
While these distinctions and their implications will be investigated further in the discussion
section, it is important to note that these findings only provide partial support for H5.

Exploratory Analyses
In addition to the correlational findings related to H5, several hierarchical regressions
were conducted to further explore the relationships between SH, REH, SOH and each of the
seven expected correlates. Sexual harassment and REH were entered into the first step of the
model, while SOH was entered into the second step, in order to determine what variance SOH
accounted for above and beyond the effects of SH and REH. To conserve degrees of freedom
and provide a sense of the overall contribution of each form of harassment, total scale scores
were used all three constructs. The results of these analyses (Table 14) showed that there were
three cases in which the complete model accounted for a significant amount of variance, those
relating to anxiety, continuance commitment, and organizational climate. In each of these
models, SOH demonstrated significant predictive ability beyond the effects of SH and REH,
relating to increased levels of anxiety and continuance commitment and organizational climates
that are less supportive of LGB issues. Additionally, although the model for depression did not
reach significance for overall variance account for (p=.057), SOH did show a similar pattern of
predictive ability, with SOH relating to increased levels of depression. While the results related
to continuance commitment are in the opposite than predicted direction, the other regression
findings do provide additional partial support for H5. Finally, although income was correlated to

110

several study outcomes, controlling for it in the regression analyses did not impact results and
therefore the results in Table 14 do not include a step for controlling for income.

111

Table 14
Hierarchical regression analysis of expected correlates onto SH, REH, and SOH
Depression
Step
1
2

Beta
SH
REH
SOH

.08
-.08
.33 *

F
1.67
2.62

R2 ∆
.04
.05 *

Anxiety
R2

N

.09 87

Beta

1
2

Beta
SH
REH
SOH

-.13
.20
-.28

F
.71
1.48

R2 ∆
.02
.03

R2 ∆

R2

N

.06
-.04
4.88 * .10 *
.46 ** 6.89 ** .10 ** .20 87

Self-esteem
Step

F

Affective Commitment
R2

N

.05 86

112

Beta
-.07
.24
-.23

F
.30
.88

R2 ∆
.01
.02

R2

N

.03 86

Table 14 (cont’d)
Continuance Commitment
Step
1
2

Beta
SH
REH
SOH

F

.06
-.19
1.05
.43 ** 3.33 *

R2 ∆

R2

Job Satisfaction
N

.03
.08 ** .11 86

Beta
-.08
.06
-.02

Organizational Climate
Step
1
2

Beta
SH
REH
SOH

F

R2 ∆

R2

N

.10
.21
1.54
.04
-.54 ** 5.39 ** .13 ** .17 85

Note. ** p<.01. * p<.05. Presented beta values are from the full model.

113

F
.25
.17

R2 ∆
.01
.00

R2

N

.01 86

Regression Analyses
The details of all additional regression analyses performed can be found in Tables 15-17.
The first set of analyses (Table 15) examined the relationships between the five SOH subscales
and each of the seven expected correlates (Depression, anxiety, self-esteem, affective and
continuance commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational climate). The second set of
regressions (Table 16) looked at the relationships between four of the expected group difference
variables (sexual orientation, and identity management techniques - counterfeit, avoidance and
integration) and each of the five WSOHM subscales. The final group difference variable, job
type, was analyzed separately (Table 17) because the variable contained a large amount of
missing data. All regressions were single-step models, with all predictors put together in the first
step.

114

Table 15
Regression analysis of expected correlates onto SOH
Depression
2

R

Coercive Behaviors
Expectation/Stereotyping Behaviors
Heterosexist Behaviors
Exclusionary Behaviors
Derogative/Stereotyping Behaviors

-.28 *
.10
.27 *
.02
.18
4.07 ** .17 ** 107

-.26 *
.21
.30 **
.03
.15
6.23 ** .24 ** 107

Affective
Commitment

Continuance
Commitment

Beta
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

CB
ESB
HB
EB
DSB

.25 *
.00
-.12
-.10
-.15

F

1.52

2

R

.07

N

105

Beta
-.12
-.04
-.13
-.21
.91

F

2.33 *

115

2

R

.11 *

N

104

Beta

Beta

F

2

Beta

Self-Esteem

N

R

WSOHM Subscale
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

F

Anxiety

F

2

R

N

N

-.47 **
.01
.23 *
.25 *
.13
5.27 ** .21 ** 104

Table 15 (cont’d)
Job Satisfaction
Beta
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

CB
ESB
HB
EB
DSB

-.20
-.01
-.05
-.02
.03

F

1.10

2

R

.05

Organizational Climate
N

105

Beta

F

2

R

N

.01
.13
-.51 **
-.11
.00
6.86 ** .26 ** 103

Note. ** p<.01. * p<.05.

116

Table 16
Regression analysis of SOH onto expected group difference variables
Expectation/Stereotyping
Behaviors

Coercive Behaviors
Predictor
1.
2.
3.
4.

Sexual Orientation
IMT - Counterfeiting
IMT - Avoidance
IMT - Integration

Beta

F

.07
-.03
-.12
-.32 ** 1.91

2

R

1.
2.
3.
4.

Sexual Orientation
IMT - Counterfeiting
IMT - Avoidance
IMT - Integration

Beta
.10
-.09
.29 *
.10

F

1.66

.08

2

R

.07

F

2

R

-.10
-.02
.32 **
.26 * 2.66 * .10 *

Exclusionary Behaviors
Predictor

Beta

Heterosexist Behaviors
Beta

-.08
.02
.24
.24 *

2

F

R

1.69

.07

Note. ** p<.01. * p<.05. Sample N for all analyses was 100. IMT stands for Identity Management Technique.

117

2

R

.01
.32 **
.41 **
.05
13.60 ** .37 **

Derogatory/Stereotyping
Behaviors
Beta

F

Table 17
Regression analysis of SOH onto job type
Expectation/Stereotyping
Behaviors

Coercive Behaviors
Beta

F

.21 *

4.05 *

2

R

.05 **

Exclusionary Behaviors
Beta

F

2

R

-.31 ** 9.00 ** .10 **

Beta
-.16

F
2.13

2

R
.03

Heterosexist Behaviors
Beta

F

2

R

-.22 * 4.18 * .05 *

Derogatory/Stereotyping
Behaviors
Beta
-.18

F
2.94

2

R
.03

Note. ** p<.01. * p<.05. Sample N for all analyses was 86. Higher Job Type values represent
greater proportions of women working in the occupational field.

118

Phase 3.3: Expected Correlates
Hypothesis #1 was first addressed by examining how organizational commitment might
be related to SOH. This was examined by regressing affective and continuance commitment
separately onto the five WSOHM subscales (Table 15). While both of these analyses
demonstrated significant overall models, the only significant relationships were between
Coercive, Heterosexist, and Exclusionary Behaviors and continuance commitment. These
findings indicate that greater experiences of Coercive Behaviors were related to lower levels of
continuance commitment, and greater experiences of Heterosexist and Exclusionary Behaviors
were associated with higher levels of continuance commitment.
While the former finding provides support for H1, the latter findings are directly
contradictory. Next, in order to examine the second portion of Hypothesis #1, job satisfaction
was regressed onto the five WSOHM subscales. The result of this analysis showed that none of
the five forms of SOH were significantly related to job satisfaction. This result is not supportive
of H1. Looking at all of the analyses related to H1, it is reasonable to deem the hypothesis
generally unsupported.
Subsequently, the association between SOH and depression was analyzed by regressing
depression onto the five WSOHM subscales. Results of these analyses showed that only
Coercive and Heterosexist Behaviors was significantly related to depression. Results indicated
that greater experiences of Heterosexist Behaviors were associated with greater levels of
depression, and greater experiences of Coercive Behaviors were associated with lower levels of
depression. This is another result that is both in partial support of its hypothesis, H2, but also
contradictory.

119

Following this, the relationship between SOH and anxiety was evaluated by regressing
anxiety onto the five WSOHM scales (Table 15). Results of this analysis exhibited a pattern of
relationships similar to those found between SOH and depression, with only Heterosexist and
Coercive Behavioral forms being significantly related to anxiety. As with depression, greater
experiences of Heterosexist Behaviors were associated with greater levels of anxiety, and greater
experiences of Coercive Behaviors were associated with lower levels of anxiety. These findings
provide some partial support for H2, and further contradictory results.
Next, in order to determine if self-esteem was correlated with SOH, a regression was
performed between the five WSOHM subscales and self-esteem (Table 15). Although the
relationship between Coercive Behaviors and self-esteem indicated a significant positive
relationship, the overall model was not significant, and therefore provides no further support for
H2. Although there is partial support for H2 when all three sets of analyses are taken together, it
is far from fully supported, especially when given that portions of the significant results were in
the opposite direction. Therefore H2 is deemed partially supported.
An analysis was then conducted investigating how organizational climate for LGB issues
was related to SOH by regressing organizational climate onto the five WSHOM subscales (Table
15). The only behavioral category that organizational climate was significantly related to was
Heterosexist Behaviors, with greater experiences of Heterosexist Behaviors associated with less
positive perceptions of organizational climate. This finding provides partial support for H3.

Phase 3.4: Expected Group Differences
In order to determine if more highly identified LGB individuals report higher scores on
the WSOHM than less identified or non-LGB individuals, each of the five WSOHM subscales

120

was regressed onto the sexual orientation measure. Results of these regressions showed that
sexual orientation was not significantly related any of the WSOHM subscales. This finding
deems H6 unsupported.
The subsequent relationship that was tested was whether individuals who use integration
identity management strategies in the workplace report higher WSOHM scores than those who
use either avoidance or counterfeiting strategies. Results of the regressions (Table 16) showed
that the beta for integration strategies was significant in relation to the Coercive Behaviors
WSOHM scale, however the total variance accounted for was small and therefore the model was
not overall significant. A similar pattern was observed with avoidance strategies, which
demonstrated significant beta weights related to the Expectation/Stereotyping and Exclusionary
Behaviors WSOHM scales, yet both the amount of total variance accounted for in both cases was
too small to allow the overall models to be significant. None of the IM strategies were
significantly related to Derogatory/Stereotyping SOH behaviors.
The use of avoidance and counterfeiting identity management techniques were both
significantly related to the Heterosexist Behaviors WSOHM scale, and the total variance
accounted for was large enough for the overall model to be significant. For both forms of identity
management, greater use of the techniques was associated with more SOH experiences. Taken
together, these findings deem H7 unsupported, but do bring up some interesting issues that will
be addressed in the discussion section.
The final group difference that was evaluated was whether individuals who work in
occupations with large proportions of male workers experience more SOH than those who work
in occupations with small proportions of male workers (H4). Table 17 shows job type was
significantly related to the Coercive, Heterosexist, and Exclusionary Behaviors forms of SOH,

121

with individuals who work in fields with lower percentages of employed men being less likely to
experience SOH. This finding only provides partial support for H4.

Summary
Taken together, the results presented in this section provide some support for the
usefulness of the WSOHM in measuring SOH in the workplace and predicting expected
correlates and group differences, while also suggesting a number of areas in which the measure
could use further refinement. In review, the determinations for each predicted finding are as
follows:

122

Table 18
Study hypotheses and their associated level of support
#

Hypothesis

Status

1 Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with organizational
commitment and job satisfaction

Unsupported

2 Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with self-esteem and
positively with depression and anxiety

Partially
Supported

3 Experiences of SOH will correlate negatively with perceptions of an
organizational climate of LGB support

Partially
Supported

4 Individuals who work in occupations with large proportions of male
workers will experience more SOH than those who work in occupations
with small proportions of male workers

Partially
Supported

5 SOH, REH and SH will demonstrate divergent validity (i.e., not correlate
highly/load on different factors).

Partially
Supported

6 Individuals who self-identify as LGB will be more likely to report SOH
than those who identify as non-LGB

Unsupported

7 LGB individuals who use integration identity management techniques will
be more likely to report SOH than LGB individuals who use avoidance or
deception strategies

Unsupported

123

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

The primary goal of the current proposal was to develop a psychometrically sound
measure of adult workplace SOH. The result of this endeavor was the creation of the Workplace
Sexual Orientation Harassment Measure (WSOHM). Within this goal there were several
underlying aims and related hypotheses. The results associated with the testing of these aims and
hypotheses are discussed in this chapter.

WSOHM Content Development and Analysis
The preliminary analysis of the item-total correlations and overall and subscale alphas
provided initial support for the multidimensionality of the WSOHM Correlations between the
four SOH subscales revealed that the two proposed SOH forms of Conditional Behaviors and
Crime Behaviors were virtually indistinguishable with a significant correlation of .94. The
remaining types of SOH however, possessed correlations that indicated a moderate level of
overlap but also some distinctiveness.
To explore the dimensionality of the WSOHM further, a series of confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted. Because none of the tested models demonstrated a particularly good fit
for the data, an exploratory factor analysis was also conducted and a total of five factors were
determined to best explain the data. After evaluating the combined results from the correlational
and factor analyses, it was deemed that the WSOHM is best conceptualized as a measure with
five components (Coercion, Expectation/Stereotyping, Heterosexist, Exclusionary, and
Derogation/Stereotyping Behaviors) without a global SOH factor.

124

These results provide valuable insight into the structure of SOH and how it differs from
SH and REH. First, SOH appears to contain a large array of different behaviors, as evidenced by
the WSOHM’s five subfactors. While SH has also demonstrated a five-factor behavioral model,
most conceptualizations of the construct contain far fewer. In general, it seems that SOH
contains more different types of behaviors that SH or REH. It is possible that the reason for this
breadth is an overlap with and difficulty distinguishing from SH. Future studies should seek to
tease these differences apart further. Second, SOH shares an exclusionary harassment component
with REH that does not appear to be present in SH. This perhaps indicates that sexual orientation
stigmas have more qualities in common with racial/ethnic stigmas than gender ones, at least
regarding individual desires to exclude the former two groups from access to information and/or
gatherings. Further research may find it beneficial to investigate and the motives associated with
such behaviors and determine what differences there may be between them. Finally, there appear
to be two different types of stereotyping present in SOH, a quality that is not readily observed in
either SH or REH. This is likely due to the nature of SO as a perceived quality as opposed to an
observed one such as gender or race/ethnicity. The potential for large amount of speculation in
regards to one’s SO may lead to the increased forms of stereotyping. Future investigations could
make a significant contribution to the literature on SOH by attempting to replicate the findings in
the present study related to factors of SOH.

The WSOHM and Other Forms of Harassment
A second method of measure validation involves showing that the construct the
instrument is purporting to measure can be differentiated from other similar constructs. In the
present study, the WSOHM was compared to measures of other forms of harassment, namely

125

Sexual Harassment, as measured by the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), and
Racial/Ethnic Harassment, as measured by the Ethnic Harassment Experiences (EHE) measure.
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the distinctiveness of the WSOHM
from the SEQ and the EHE. Results showed that most of these inter-scale/factor relationships
had considerable overlap while still demonstrating some distinctiveness.
The exceptions to this were several correlations that were particularly high, namely those
between the SOH Coercive Behaviors scale and both the Sexual Coercion and Assault SH scales,
and between the SH Sexual Coercion and Assault scales. In addition, there were a number of
correlations that showed no significant overlap. These were the relationships between REH and
both the Coercive and Exclusionary Behaviors WSOHM scales, as well as between REH and the
Unwanted Sexual Attention, Sexual Coercion, and Sexual Assault SH scales. The high
associations between the three former sets of subscales do prove problematic for the support of a
valid measure of SOH. However, there are several possible explanations for such results.
First, the simplest conclusion for the general high level of correlations between the
WSOHM and SEQ scales is that the WSOHM does not effectively distinguish between SOH and
SH behaviors. Given that the behavioral categories and items contained in the WSOHM used the
items from the SEQ as a basis for creation, it is possible that the WSOHM items were not
different enough from the SEQ items for participants to make a distinction, and the problem lies
within the content of the WSOHM. The question then becomes, is it even possible to effectively
distinguish between the two forms of harassment? The current study maintains that although they
are overlapping constructs, they are indeed distinct ones. So if we assume that distinguishing
between SOH and SH is an achievable task, what other issues besides a WSOHM content
problem might explain the results?

126

A second explanation of these strong relationships relates to the nature of SH and its
measurement. Although the SEQ is the most widely used measure of SH, it is not without its
limitations. First, a number of different variations of the SEQ exist, each with different time
frames, number of items, and response options, undermining its overall psychometric validity
(Gutek, Murphy & Duoma, 2004; Stark, et al., 2002). It may be that the particular version of the
SEQ that was selected for this study was not the most appropriate one for the given population.
Second, the sexual coercion component of the SEQ has been criticized for not being
representative of the domain of SH coercive experiences (Stockdale & Hope, 1997). If further
refinement of the sexual coercive component of the SEQ is warranted, such changes may help
further distinguish SH from SOH behaviors. Third, there are several different scoring methods
that can be employed when reporting the results of a study using the SEQ, including variations in
calculating the percentage of respondents who endorsed a certain number of items and reporting
a total overall score for each individual participant (Fitzgerald, Magley, Drasgow & Waldo,
1999). It is possible that the pattern of SH experiences of individuals who also experience SOH
warrants a particular scoring regimen that is either rarely used or has not been created yet. An
example of such a pattern might be that persons who are subjected to both SOH and SH have
fewer, more negatively impacting experiences of SH as opposed to individuals who encounter
just SH who might report more experiences that last over a longer period of time but which are
not individually as damaging. Taken together, these issues may suggest that the problem lays in
the chosen SH measure (and possibly any SH measure) as opposed to the WSOHM.
A third explanation relates to participants’ ability to distinguish between the two forms of
harassment given the current awareness of SOH. Although an increasing amount of attention has
been paid to sexual orientation and its associated topics in the past decade, there is still a

127

pervasive discordance about the actual nature of the construct. Not only are their ongoing
debates about the cause of sexual orientation (and in particular non-heterosexual orientations),
but also there are still discussions as to if LGB individuals should be labeled as such or simply
viewed as going through a phase, making a lifestyle choice, or possessing a mental disorder.
Even among persons who accept that LGB sexual orientations are no different than any other
personal characteristic that is shaped by both genetic and environmental factors, extricating the
components of gender and sexuality from sexual orientation is still difficult. It is possible that for
this reason, most individuals do not yet have the awareness of how sexual harassment (in and of
itself an often misleading descriptor) is distinctive from sexual orientation harassment. In fact,
evidence supports the notion that individuals may label harassment differently depending on the
sexual orientation of the harasser, i.e., that a behavior is more likely to be considered harassment
if the harasser is of a different sexual orientation than if the harasser is of the same sexual
orientation (DeSouza, Solberg, & Elder, 2007). Individuals may even consider the same incident
as qualifying as both SH and SOH, and thereby causing such high correlations between the
forms. This distinguishability issue is exacerbated by the fact that the SH literature has mainly
focused on the experiences of military populations, where non-heterosexual sexual orientations
often are at best ignored, and at worst persecuted (Johnson & Buhrke, 2006).
Finally, the harassment experiences of the study respondents may not have been diverse
enough to allow distinctions to be made between SH and SOH. The average total of SOH
experiences participants reported (M=16.22, SD=18.02) was almost double that of the SH
reported (M=7.69, SD=8.07). This is likely due to the high proportion of participants who selfidentified as possessing non-heterosexual tendencies (greater than 85%). Because the recruitment
methods for this study specifically oversampled individuals who had likely experienced SOH in

128

order to gain more insight into the phenomenon, these numbers are not unexpected. Future
studies with larger samples that make an effort to include persons who might have high levels of
SH as compared to SOH may find less overlap among harassment forms.
In addition to the correlational analyses, several regressions were performed to examine
how the relationships between the three forms of harassment and the expected correlates might
shed light on the distinctiveness of each harassment form. In all three models that accounted for
a significant amount of variance, those involving anxiety, continuance commitment, and
organizational climate, SOH demonstrated significant predictive ability beyond the effects of SH
and REH. While it did not account for a significant amount of overall variance, the model
involving depression showed a similar pattern. Of these four sets of relationships, the
continuance commitment one is the only result that was not in the expected direction. One reason
for this finding may be related to the nature of continuance commitment and how it may be
counterintuitive to how most people conceptualize being committed to an organization.
Organizational commitment was measured using two subscales, one representing an
affective commitment component and one representing a continuance commitment component.
Affective commitment refers to identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to
the organization; in other words, people who have high levels of affective commitment stay with
their organization because they want to. In contrast, continuance commitment refers to
commitment based on the employee’s recognition of the costs associated with leaving the
organization, meaning people who have high levels of continuance commitment stay with their
organization because they have to (Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that what most people consider organizational commitment
is generally only the affective component of the measure, containing the positive aspects of one’s

129

relationship with the organization (e.g., pride in one’s work, satisfaction with organizational
goals and practices). Conversely, continuance commitment potentially contains many negative
attitudes towards one’s organization (e.g., recognition that leaving one’s job would have negative
consequences).
Taking this into consideration when envisioning the possible effects of workplace SOH, it may
suggest a re-evaluation of the relationship between the two variables, in which SOH would be
expected to be negatively associated with affective commitment, but not associated with
continuance commitment. Put another way, workers who experience SOH may be more likely to
be dissatisfied with their organization in general, but feel no difference about whether they can
leave their organization without negative consequences. Future studies should pay close attention
to the potential differences between these two constructs.
Nonetheless, the results of these sets of regressions do provide additional support for H5,
and thus the ability for the WSOHM to distinguish between different forms of harassment.

Summary of Findings Related to Content Development
Hypothesis 5 detailed that support for the validity of the WSOHM as a measure of SOH
would be provided by demonstrating that the factors and subfactors of SOH, REH and SH do not
correlate highly with one other. While the current findings indicate some of these relationships
are too similar to support discriminant validity, the majority of the relationships did not have this
problem and therefore do support the utility of the WSOHM as a measure of SOH. However,
further validation with larger more diverse samples should be performed before the WSOHM
can be considered to have sufficient validation evidence.

130

The WSOHM and Expected Correlates
Another method of demonstrating the construct validity of a measure is to show that
scores on the measure are associated with the antecedents and outcomes one would expect. The
first set of predicted associations was between SOH and organizational commitment and job
satisfaction. The predicted relationship between SOH and continuance commitment was not
supported. For affective commitment, only the associations with Coercive, Heterosexist, and
Exclusionary SOH Behaviors were significant ones, demonstrating that greater experiences of
Coercive Behaviors were related to lower levels of continuance commitment, and greater
experiences of Heterosexist and Exclusionary Behaviors were associated with higher levels of
continuance commitment.
The reason for this differential finding may be due to a combination of the nature of both
Coercive Behaviors and affective commitment. Coercive Behaviors in general involve
threatening someone with job penalties for not engaging in a specific type of behavior. In the
case of SOH, an example of such behaviors would be threatening someone with telling others the
individual was LGB for not engaging in sexual behaviors. Affective commitment, as previously
discussed, refers to identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to the
organization. In cases of coercive sexual harassment behaviors, the impact of such threats,
particularly if the victim does indeed decide to submit to the harasser’s request, can constitute a
form of trauma and subsequently may lead to feelings of hopelessness, ambivalence, and even
extreme distress for the victim (Wolfe, et al., 1998). In order to combat these emotions, victims
of coercive behaviors may mimic the behaviors of trauma victims, who employ techniques that
serve to detach them from their environment in order to maintain their general productivity
(Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). A similar pattern of behaviors and thinking is liable to occur among

131

victims of coercive sexual orientation harassment behaviors. The employed coping mechanisms
likely lead to victims feeling detached from both other workers and their working environment in
general. In turn, this separation from their job is apt to lead to changes in affective commitment,
but not continuance commitment because these feelings of alienation should affect whether a
person wants to stay in their job but not whether they need to stay in it.
The results from the second set of analyses related to Hypothesis #1 failed to demonstrate
any significant findings between SOH and job satisfaction. One possible explanation for this
result is that victims of SOH may view these behaviors as an accepted part of any workplace
environment, and therefore the presence of SOH would not impact individual perceptions of job
satisfaction.
Another possible explanation for these results is that SOH may be related to specific
facets of job satisfaction, e.g., satisfaction with coworkers, subordinates, or superiors, as opposed
to general work satisfaction. Given that the job satisfaction measure used in this study was a
short form assessment of global job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951), a subtler pattern of
relationships may be observed if a measure of job satisfaction that is longer and allows for facetlevel analyses if used in future studies. Examples of possible questionnaires include the 72-item
Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin 1969), which assesses satisfaction with
workers’ work on present Job, present Pay, opportunities for promotion, supervision, and
coworkers, and the 100-item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis,
England, & Lofquist, 1967) which examines 20 different facets of job satisfaction.
Although the support for Hypothesis #1 was only partial, the results from these analyses
may indicate patterns of responses not previously considered or observed in other forms of
harassment. Future studies on this topic will be able to address this issue and may benefit from a

132

focus on measurement of facets of job satisfaction that relate to coworker and supervisor
satisfaction, but potentially not other facets of job satisfaction.
The second set of hypothesized relationships was between experiences of SOH and
depression, self-esteem, and anxiety. While there were no significant findings between selfesteem and SOH, in contrast, the associations between Coercive Behaviors and depression and
anxiety, and Heterosexist Behaviors and depression and anxiety, were all significant, with
greater experiences of Heterosexist Behaviors associated with greater levels of depression and
anxiety, and greater experiences of Coercive Behaviors associated with lower levels of
depression and anxiety. However, it is possible that the associations between Coercive Behaviors
depression and anxiety are a spurious result of the low base rate of these former behaviors. This
is supported by the nonsignificant zero-order correlations between the variables.
Hypothesis #3 predicted that an organizational climate that supports LGB issues would
correlate with SOH. This relationship was indeed found between organizational climate and the
Heterosexist SOH behaviors, with greater experiences of Heterosexist Behaviors associated with
less positive perceptions of organizational climate. This finding provides partial support for
Hypothesis #3, and the overall validity of the WSOHM, although not as fully as if all SOH forms
demonstrated a significant correlation with climate.
One explanation for the findings among Heterosexist Behaviors but not other SOH
behaviors is that individuals who experience SOH may not believe these latter behaviors can be
easily influenced by organizational policies and procedures. Typically, because of the historic
focus on sexual harassment and discrimination issues, many of today’s workers associate
appropriate diversity practices with abstaining from discussing topics involving sex and sexual
practices (Anand & Winters, 2008). Because of this, it may be that individuals consider

133

organizational climate as relating to such comments, which are more likely to be categorized as
Heterosexist Behaviors, as opposed to more stereotyping, coercive, and social avoidance
behaviors, which would be more aligned with the other four forms of SOH. Thus, whether or not
an organization’s climate is supportive of LGB issues would have little bearing on these latter
forms, but would impact Heterosexist Behaviors.
Another reason for the discrepancy among the results may be due to the types of
questions contained within the organizational climate measure. The majority of the content of the
organizational climate measure focused on discrimination issues and indicators of an LGB
supportive climate (e.g., presence of same-sex partner benefits) rather than whether it is
acceptable to treat LGB individuals poorly. It is possible that the policies that impact how LGB
individuals get treated on a day-to-day basis is more aligned with what such workers feel
represents an organization’s climate towards LGB issues. Since the organization climate measure
was a combination of items from a variety of sources because an established measure that was
comprehensive enough could not be located, future studies may benefit from including a more
varied group of climate questions.

Summary of Findings Related to Expected Correlates
Hypotheses #1 was unsupported and Hypotheses #2 and #3 were both partially supported
with a number of possibilities for why they are how they should have been or how future studies
can find full support. Taken together, the WSOHM can be said to have some construct validity,
with room for further validation studies.

134

The WSOHM and Expected Group Differences
In addition to demonstrating expected correlations, a measure can exhibit construct
validity by showing that different groups perform differently on the measure. The first expected
group difference that was tested was whether individuals who work in occupations with large
proportions of male workers experience more SOH than those who work in occupations with
small proportions of male workers (H4). Job type was indeed found to be significantly related to
the Coercive, Heterosexist, and Exclusionary Behaviors forms of SOH, with individuals who
work in fields with lower percentages of employed men being less likely to experience SOH,
thus providing partial support for H4. Additionally, although job type was correlated with SOH,
it was not correlated with climate perceptions. Some possible explanations for this include the
type and quality of the climate measure used was not sufficient to capture the nature of the tested
relationships, or the environment in which male dominated jobs occur lends itself to more SOH
beyond specific climate factors.
A possible explanation for why the Expectation/Stereotyping and
Derogative/Stereotyping Behavioral forms of SOH did not demonstrate significant relationships
with job type is that higher concentrations of men in an occupational field may impact views
related to accepted norms surrounding generally coercive, sexist, and exclusionary attitudes, as
opposed to stereotyping viewpoints. However, the beta weights for these two SOH forms, while
not significant, were in the same negative direction as the other three significant relationships
between SOH and job type.
Nonetheless, these findings reinforce previous evidence that persons who work in
environments that are either traditionally or currently occupied predominantly by men tend to
experience higher levels of harassment than those who work in occupations with greater

135

percentages of women employees. Additionally, it provides practical guidelines for job seekers.
When considering a prospective job and/or career, LGB individuals (and non-LGB individuals
who are likely to be assumed to be LGB) should realize the proportion of women typically
employed in the occupation they are contemplating might be associated with higher rates of
SOH, and potentially the level of other negative consequences of SOH. This information may
help future workers choose jobs that will ultimately give them the most enjoyment and
satisfaction.
The next group difference that was examined was whether individuals who self-identify
as LGB will be more likely to report SOH than those who identify as non-LGB (H6).
Unfortunately, no significant relationships were found between sexual orientation and SOH,
thereby deeming H6 unsupported. However, this does not mean that such a relationship does not
exist. One previous detailed issue with the nature of the survey respondents was that recruitment
efforts attempted to over-sample LGB individuals, thus resulting in a lack of non-LGB
participants. Because most victims of SOH are apt to be LGB, this was not initially considered a
problem. However, in hindsight, the lack of variance in sexual orientations of respondents
probably prohibited effective analysis of Hypothesis #6. Future studies should make attempts to
include individuals who do not self-identify as LGB.
The second group difference that was examined was whether LGB individuals who use
integration identity management techniques are more likely to report SOH than LGB individuals
who use avoidance or deception strategies (H7). Results from the analyses between IM strategies
and the Coercive, Expectation/Stereotyping, Exclusionary, and Derogatory/Stereotyping
Behaviors WSOHM scales suggest that none of the IM strategies are related to experiences of
SOH. However, results of the relationships between IM techniques and Heterosexist SOH

136

behaviors suggest that counterfeiting and avoidance techniques are associated with SOH
experiences, with greater use of each technique being related to greater levels of SOH. Despite
this, when evaluated as an overall pattern, these findings do not support Hypothesis #7.
These outcomes do possibly suggest that the technique an individual uses to manage his
or her LGB identity effects what form of SOH to which the person will be subjected. For victims
that choose to use avoidance or counterfeiting strategies, this may lead to more experiences of
Heterosexist SOH behaviors as compared to other forms of SOH or to those who employ other
techniques.
One explanation for why this occurs is that while avoidance strategies may serve to
prevent confrontations regarding one’s LGB status, they may not, in fact, help prevent detection
of such status. Therefore, the message that an individual who uses avoidance techniques may
send to others is that he or she is indeed LGB, but doesn’t want to discuss the issue. This
message may then lead to harassers provoking victims because the harassers believe victims
don’t want to address the topic. Similarly, users of counterfeiting strategies may communicate a
comparable message through their actions, i.e., that the individual is in fact LGB, but chooses to
attempt to conceal this information by creating false details about his or her personal life. This
reasoning would also explain why users of integration strategies do not disproportionately
experience Heterosexist SOH behaviors, since they do not purport to want to avoid the issue.
Another explanation for these findings is that LGB individuals choose to engage in
avoidance or counterfeiting strategies as a consequence of previous SOH and believe it is an
effective strategy for avoiding future SOH. Future studies might be able to address this issue by
including questions relating to the motivations behind IM strategies.

137

One final explanation for the observed results is that individuals who employ avoidance
or counterfeiting strategies may simply be more sensitive to issues related to their sexual
orientation, causing them to both notice more SOH (or interpret actions as SOH) and use the
aforementioned strategies as a way to avoid dealing with sexual orientation topics in general. In
such mechanisms are at work, it is likely that these individuals do not experience more SOH than
persons who employ other identity management techniques, but rather perceive more actions as
relating to their sexual orientation, and therefore interpret them as SOH.
Collectively, these findings do not support the Hypothesis #7 but do possibly suggest a
revised theory about the nature of the relationship between SOH and IM techniques.

Summary of Findings Related to Expected Group Differences
Hypotheses #6 and #7 were both generally unsupported, and Hypothesis #4 was only
partially supported. Therefore, the expected correlates results can only provide partial support for
the overall construct validity of the WSOHM. However, as with other parts of the measure
validation process, there are a number of areas where additional support or theory revision can be
achieved by future studies.

Other Study Findings
As well as the proposed relationships that were tested, several other associations were
found during the study analyses. Negative affectivity was found to be significantly related to a
number of forms of harassment as well as several predicted correlates. Specifically, NA was
positively correlated with three forms of SOH, Expectation/Stereotyping, Heterosexist, and
Derogative/Stereotyping Behaviors, and both Crude/Offensive SH Behaviors, and REH. It was

138

also positively associated with depression, anxiety, continuance commitment, and both
counterfeiting and avoidance IM techniques. Finally, it was negatively related to self-esteem, job
satisfaction, and organizational climate.
As previously mentioned, there is some controversy over how and if disposition variables
such as NA (and to a lesser degree PA) should be taken into account when investigating the
relationships between workplace stressors and their outcomes. Spector, Zapf, and colleagues
(2000) purport that while NA may indeed possess a biasing affect in relation to the
aforementioned relationships, it is likely that it is both one of many potential biases involved and
is does not solely have a biasing effect. Consequently, partialling its effects out during analyses
may not necessarily eliminate bias from the model and instead may actually remove important
variance shared with NA.
These concerns have been supported by other research that has found that controlling for
NA does not have a significant effect on the relationship between job stressors and job strains
(Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000). Indeed, while recent meta-analytic work has found
consistent significant relationships between both negative and positive affect and a variety of
workplace behaviors, researchers note that such relationships are impacted by the level of
subjectivity allowed for by the measurement tool (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009).
In other words, measures that utilize self-reported perceptions of one’s workplace environment
and actions within it are more likely to find NA and PA significantly relate to these workplace
behaviors than if objective and/or third-party measures are employed. In a related vein, other
studies have found evidence that the impact of NA and PA on organizational attitudes is affected
by specific situational variables such that in cases where external pressures are considerable, NA
plays less of a role than in situations where there are no expectations on one’s behavior

139

(Siomkos, Rao, & Narayanan, 2001). Finally, research has also found that gender differences
exist in the type of somatic complaints associated with high levels of NA, with women more
likely to endorse symptoms that are severe or life-threatening (Van Diest, et al., 2005).
Taken together, this research deems that while NA clearly plays some role in the
relationship of workplace stressors, the nature of that role is still unclear. In regard to the current
study findings, it is possible that the general negative disposition of some of the study
participants was related to both their endorsement of increased levels of harassment and negative
outcomes, thus providing inflated associations between these latter sets of variables. However, it
is also possible that other variables that were not measured in the study (e.g., situational
pressures, differences in measure subjectivity) provided the strongest influence on the
relationship between harassment experiences and their outcomes. Future studies may benefit
from exploring such factors as social desirability, comparison of self-reports to third-party
reports, and the stability of NA over time.
There were also several findings related to demographic variables that are noteworthy.
Participants were typically middle-aged which may have affected results in a number of ways.
The majority of interest, research, and diversity education efforts related to sexual orientation
issues, particularly in secondary and post-secondary education realms, have only occurred in the
recent past. Subsequently, younger individuals (e.g., current teenagers) may be aware and
sensitive to such issues more so than generations that were not exposed to SO as an acceptable
discussion topic during their formative years. As a consequence, for participants in the current
study, it may simply have been more difficult to recognize when harassment involved aspects of
SO than it will be when current adolescents reach middle age.

140

Respondents also reported on average a fairly high annual income and level of education,
with over 75% of the sample reporting having a college degree, and approximately a third of the
sample having a professional or graduate degree. Both factors were significantly negatively
related to a number of forms of SOH and SH, indicating that greater levels of education and
income may serve as protective factors in relation to harassment in general. This theory is
supported by the negative correlations between income and depression, anxiety, and negative
affect. The most likely explanation for these findings is that since education and income are
positively correlated both in the current study and in general practice, it is possessing a higher
income that is most related to decreases in experiencing workplace harassment and its negative
psychological correlates. Given that monetary issues often cause stress upon an individual, which
in turn makes he or she less resilient to deal with any other stressor, it would be interesting to
investigate the nature of SOH among lower-income populations.

Limitations
There were several limitations to the current study that may have contributed to a lack of
more significant findings. In addition to the previously detailed limitations related to the
diversity of the sample’s characteristics, one issue that arose was the length of the main study
survey. Despite efforts to be parsimonious in the selection of measures and items, it likely
required 30-40 minutes of concentration for most participants to complete the survey in a careful
manner. There may have been a response pattern among the individuals who were deterred by
this time commitment (e.g., persons with higher general stress levels did not feel they had the
time to spare), or more generally, it likely reduced the study’s final sample size. Another issue
that was encountered was that because of the method of distributing information about the study

141

and the fact that participants were allowed to stay anonymous, response rates were impossible to
calculate. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the survey material, it is likely similar studies
in the future will also need to maintain anonymity. However, with the current trend of increasing
numbers of electronic communication methods and specifically the steady growth of social
networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, etc.) future studies may be able to better
calculate at least the number of people information about the survey is distributed to.
Another limitation of the current study relates to the nature of the measures used to assess
the chosen constructs. In keeping with previous research, and to allow for better comparisons of
results, all previously established measures were scored based upon the criteria outlined by their
creators. However, this meant that some measures utilized summed totals while others used
averages. Such differences in variability can lead to potentially problematic restrictions of range,
which can cause incorrect conclusions about the nature of the constructs involved.
In a related vein, the majority of the study measures only collected data related to the
frequencies of certain behaviors rather than the severity of them. This practice can also lead to
challenging range restrictions especially when certain behaviors have particularly low base rates
(e.g., the sexual coercion and assault factors of SH). In such cases, results can incorrectly suggest
construct relation when the association is merely a product of measurement issues.

Practical Implications and Future Research
Although the WSOHM is far from a well-validated measure, it does provide a solid basis
for those who are interested in both the theoretical nature of SOH and its associated correlates as
well as how such relationships may be practically applied to organizational contexts. Future
research should explore how SOH may present itself differently in terms of incidence, content,

142

and relationships to outcomes among larger more diverse populations. Demographic factors and
sample size may play a significant role in the accurate measurement of all three issues. There
may be large differences, which were unable to be detected in the current study, in how victims
of SOH experience events depending on their sexual orientation, age, income level, as well as
exposure to other forms of harassment. Additionally, these demographic characteristics may
interact and lead to measurable differences in behavioral dispositions such as affectivity and
identity management style. Finally, the types of SOH victims experience and therefore the
overall factor structure of SOH may differ from that found in the current study if the underlying
characteristics of such victims are significantly different.
Practically speaking, there are several implications of the study findings that may aid
both workers and employers in their job-related decisions. The fact that SOH was generally
unrelated to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, but partially associated with
increases in anxiety and depression suggests that organizational outcomes may not be the
primary area that is negatively affected by experiencing SOH. For both workers and employers,
it therefore may be important to be aware of changes in general emotional states as opposed to
work-related ones when considering the possible effects of workplace SOH. For employers who
are interested in the potential negative effects of such incidents, an adjustment in the assessment
materials administered to measure employee satisfaction may be warranted.
The one exception to this may be organizational climate topics. While it is difficult to
determine if the incidence of SOH impacts perceptions of the supportiveness of organizational
climate towards LGB issues, if the relationship is reversed, or if the relationship between the two
constructs is cyclical in nature, results from the current study nonetheless dictate that it is still at
least somewhat beneficial to assess individual perceptions of climate. Whether this is internally

143

as an employee or externally as an employer, both actions are likely to provide insight into both
the impact of SOH experiences and the consequences of an organization’s attitudes and policies
towards LGB individuals.
Another practical consideration suggested by the current results is that the proportion of
men who work in a particular occupational field is liable to have an impact of the incidence of
SOH in that field. For job-seekers, this is a potentially valuable tool for determining where to
work. If an individual feels that he or she may be a prime target for SOH (regardless of the are
LGB or not), they may choose to work in a field or for an organization that possesses a greater
ratio of women to men. For organizations that have a high ratio of men to women, they may
benefit from focusing on climate issues and vigilance towards the occurrence and potential
impact of SOH.
Finally, the fact that persons that self-identify as LGB were not found to report SOH
more often than non-LGB individuals, accompanied by the findings that use of integration
management techniques does not necessarily relate to greater incidence of SOH, suggest a
reevaluation of commonly held beliefs regarding workplace SOH victim characteristics. The
current results suggest that instead of LGB individuals who have highly integrated their sexual
orientation into their workplace interactions, SOH victims may be just as likely to be either nonLGB persons, or LGB individuals who choose to conceal or lie about their orientation. This
implication dictates that workers should be aware of such issues when handling the management
of their own sexual orientation, as well as how they may affect their co-workers. For
organizations, these findings suggest that targeted efforts should be made to ensure that all
workers, regardless of their orientation or “outness” feel that they have support and avenues of
recourse if subjected to SOH.

144

In summary, this study has provided helpful insight into the nature of workplace SOH
upon which future studies can build. The measure created during this endeavor, the WSOHM,
while it has received partial support for its utility as a valid measure of SOH, still requires further
testing. Future research should make efforts to further validate the WSOHM on a variety of
larger more diverse samples.

145

APPENDICES

146

APPENDIX A

Critical incident survey consent form

A Study of Unwanted Work Experiences
Informed Consent Form
Investigator's names & affiliation: Ann Marie Ryan, Professor, Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Program, Michigan State University.
Summary: This is a study of people’s experiences with unwanted events related to their sexual
orientation while in work situations. The study consists of a set of online questions asking about
the details of any such unwanted events as well as questions involving perceptions of the sexual
orientation you may identify as.
Participation Requirements: In order to participate in this study you must be both:
1) At least 18 years of age
2) Someone who has experienced at least one unwanted event related to his or her sexual
orientation while in a work situation.
Work situations may include events that have occurred while you were on work premises during
working hours, or not on work premises but still performing some work function (e.g., at a
conference or client meeting). They do not include events that took place while with work
persons but not on work premises or during work hours (e.g., happy hours), or events that
occurred while you performing duties for which you are not compensated for (e.g., schoolwork,
volunteering).
Estimated time required: 15 minutes.
Risks: There is a potential risk that you may feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions
contained in the survey. In addition, the questions contained in the survey about unwanted
experiences related to your sexual orientation may bring up uncomfortable feelings or thoughts.
You have the right to skip any questions or stop participating in this research at any time, without
penalty. We strongly urge you to consult a professional in your community if these feelings
begin to interfere with your well-being. A list of resources will be provided for you after you
have finished participation in the survey, regardless of whether you complete all of the questions
within it. Contact information for the principal investigator will also be provided at that time if
you wish to contact her with any questions, concerns or comments regarding the study.
Compensation: There is no compensation associated with participation in this study.
Please note that your participation is voluntary. That means you are free to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation in all or portions of the project at any time without penalty.

147

Confidentiality: Your participation in this research study will be kept completely anonymous
since you will not be asked to provide your name or contact information, nor will any specific
identifying information be associated with your responses (e.g., IP addresses). Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses are being used to develop
measures related to unwanted work situations related to sexual orientation. This information will
be used for research purposes only. To this extent we will instruct you to omit any information
from your responses that may specifically identify individuals or organizations that were
involved in any unwanted experiences (i.e., proper names, titles, or events). As with any kind of
email transmission, it is possible (although unlikely) for the survey responses to be intercepted
by people other than those to whom they are being transmitted. Only Dr. Ryan and her
authorized graduate assistant will have access to the data collected in this study, which will be
kept in a secured computer environment, and any data reported for scientific purpose will be in
aggregate form. Upon your request and within these restrictions, the study results may be made
available to you.
Contact Information: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Ann Marie
Ryan, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, E-mail:
ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant,
or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact – anonymously, if
you wish – Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. A copy of this
Informed Consent form will be provided to you upon your request.

148

APPENDIX B

Critical incident survey
Instructions:
Now please think for a moment about any unwanted situations you have experienced in your
lifetime related to your sexual orientation while in a work situation.
Work situations may include events that have occurred while you were on work premises during
working hours, or not on work premises but still performing some work function (e.g. at a
conference or client meeting). They do not include events that took place while with work
persons but not on work premises or during work hours (e.g. happy hours), or events that
occurred while you performing duties for which you are not compensated for (e.g. schoolwork,
volunteering).
Some people have never experienced any unwanted situations related to their sexual orientation,
or have experienced them only in non-work situations. In this questionnaire, we are primarily
concerned with such unwanted experiences that have occurred in work settings.
If you have not experienced such a situation, we thank you for your willingness to participate in
our research but ask at this time that you discontinue participation since the questionnaire only
pertains to situations which you have not experienced.
For participants who have experienced at least one unwanted situation related to your sexual
orientation while in a work setting, please think about which of these situations has had the
greatest effect on you. When answering any of the following questions about this situation,
please omit any information from your responses that may specifically identify individuals or
organizations that were involved the experience (i.e., proper names, titles, locations, or events).
Questions:
1.

Which of the following categories would best describe the unwanted situation that had
the greatest effect on you?
o Verbal remarks, such as comments about your sexual orientation, your body, or your
sex life
o Verbal remarks about members of your sexual orientation, such as derogatory
comments on typical body types, general behaviors, personalities or sexual behaviors
of members of your sexual orientation
o Nonverbal behavior related to your sexual orientation or other members of your
sexual orientation, such as displaying pictures or making gestures
o Verbal requests that involve coercion, such as telling you that your sexual orientation
will be exposed to coworkers and supervisors if you do not fulfill the given request,
or refrain from taking an appropriate action

149

o Not sure
o None of these categories appropriately describes my situation. I would best categorize
it as:

2.

Please continue to think about this situation, the one that had the greatest effect on you.
Please use the space below to describe the incident to the best of your ability, including if
you feel comfortable any events that led up to it, specifics about the actual situation and
event, and how you felt during the event and afterwards. Again, please omit any
information from your responses that may specifically identify individuals or
organizations that were involved the experience (i.e., proper names, titles, locations, or
events). [TEXT BOX]

Still thinking about this one incident that has had the greatest effect on you, please answer the
following questions in relation to it:
3.

Was it a single incident, meaning it happened once, or a series of incidents where the
same person or people were involved did this to you over a period of days, weeks, or
months?
o Single Event (Skip to Question 4)
o Series of Events

4.

How long did this situation last?
o
o
o
o
o

One month or less
Two to six months
Six months to one year
One to five years
More than five years

3.

During the time it was happening, how often did it happen?
o Almost daily
o Ten or more days a month but not daily
o Between five and ten days a month
o Between one and five days a month
o Very intermittently

4.

Did this situation happen when you were physically on work premises?
o Yes
o No (Skip to Question 7)

5.

Did this situation happen during a formal meeting (e.g., conference call, task group
meeting, supervisor review)?
o Yes
o No
150

6.

Did this situation happen during an informal meeting (e.g., during lunch hours, hallway
conversation)?
o Yes
o No

7.

Did this situation happen when you were not on work premises but performing some
other work function elsewhere (e.g., conference, client visit, training)?
o Yes
o No

8.

How many people were directly involved in the initiation of the situation that had the
greatest effect on you?
o One
o Two
o Three to five
o Six to ten
o More than ten

9.

Was the person or people who did this male or female (or both)?
o Male
o Female
o Both

10.

Did you know them?
o Yes
o No
o Knew some but not all

Were any of these people...
11.

Someone senior to you?
o Yes
o No

12.

Someone of equal rank to you?
o Yes
o No

13.

Someone junior to you?
o Yes
o No

14.

A member of your organization?
o Yes
o No

151

15.

A member of another organization that serves you (e.g., delivery services, outsourcing or
temping services)?
o Yes
o No

16.

A member of your clientele?
o Yes
o No

17.

Someone not affiliated with your organization (e.g. spouse of coworker, member of a
different organization)?
o Yes
o No

Now we'd like to ask you a few questions about yourself.
18.

What is your age? [TEXT BOX]

19.

What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
o Transgender

20.

Which of the following BEST describes your ethnic or racial background?
o Black or African American
o Asian or Asian American
o White or Caucasian
o Hispanic or Latino
o American Indian or Alaska Native
o Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
o International
o Other [TEXT BOX]

21.

Which statement do you feel most closely describes your sexual orientation?
o Strictly heterosexual in orientation
o Generally heterosexual in orientation but occasionally attracted to same gender
individuals
o Generally heterosexual in orientation but occasionally engage in sexual practices with
same gender individuals
o Attracted to or engage in sexual practices with both genders at approximately the
same proportion
o Generally homosexual in orientation but occasionally engage in sexual practices with
opposite gender individuals
o Generally homosexual in orientation but occasionally attracted to opposite gender
individuals
152

o Strictly homosexual in orientation
22.

Are you currently sexually active with:
o People the same gender as you
o People the opposite gender as you
o Both
o Neither

23.

Have you ever been sexually active with:
o People the same gender as you
o People the opposite gender as you
o Both
o Neither

Please answer the following questions about yourself based upon how much you agree or
disagree with each statement.
24.

People usually identify me as gay/lesbian right away.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat Agree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree

25.

People sometimes identify me as gay/lesbian after interacting with me for a bit.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat Agree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree

26.

People never realize that I am gay/lesbian, unless I tell them that I am.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Somewhat Agree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree

Please rate how open you are about your sexual orientation to the following groups of people:

153

27.

Supervisors At Work
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

28.

Peers At Work
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

29.

Subordinates At Work
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

30.

Members Of Your Immediate Family
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

31.

Members Of Your Extended Family
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

32.

Close Friends
154

o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation
33.

Acquaintances
o Extremely open, I have no problem bringing up or discussing the issue with anyone
o Moderately open, most of the time I will discuss my orientation if someone asks me
about it or the issue comes up
o Rarely open, I generally will only address the issue if certain people specifically ask
me about it
o Never open, no matter what the topic or whom I am talking to, I will not disclose my
orientation

Please feel free in the space below to make any other additional comments regarding this survey.
[TEXT BOX]

155

APPENDIX C

Study debriefing form

A Study of Unwanted Work Experiences
Debriefing Form

Thank you very much for participating in our study. Below you will find more information
about the purpose of this study as well as a list of counseling and informational resources.
Estimates of the proportion of lesbian and gay male adults who have experienced verbal
harassment in their lifetime range from 50 to 90% (Comstock, 1991; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).
In addition, it has been estimated that between 25 and 66% of lesbian and gay employees
experience workplace discrimination (Crouteau, 1996). Despite these and other similar reports
of discrimination on the basis of orientation, there has been surprisingly little systematic
examination of sexual orientation harassment (SOH) in the workplace. Harassment in work
contexts is defined as a pattern of unwanted or offensive behaviors that interfere with an
individual’s performance, affect work outcomes (e.g., turnover), and/or create a hostile work
environment. The current study is the first in a series of studies seeking to assess the nature,
prevalence and consequences of SOH in the workplace. This study represents the explorative
component of the overall project, aimed at gathering information about the nature of harassment
at work, and the possible different manners in which it occurs. As previously stated, your
responses will be used for research purposes only, and not for efforts to take legal actions against
organizations that may be permitting discriminatory behaviors. If you are interested in
investigating the legal guidelines that may apply to events you may have experienced, such
information is available by contacting many of the resources listed below.
We would like to thank you again for your participation. Participants who are interested in
learning more about the results of this study may send the researchers a request for a summary of
the findings via email at brucetam@msu.edu. The may also send any comments, questions or
concerns regarding the study to the principal investigator, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan at: Department of
Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, E-mail: ryanan@msu.edu.
References
Comstock, G.D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Croteau, J.M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people:
An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48,
195-209.
Ragins, B.R. & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.

156

Local and National Resources:
Listening Ear Crisis Intervention Center
1017 East Grand River
East Lansing, MI, 44423
24-Hour Crisis Hotline: 517-337-1717
Business Phone: 517-337-1728
Lansing Area Lesbian/Gay Information and Crisis Hotline: (517) 332-3200
Hours: Monday-Friday 7-10pm, Sunday 2-5pm
MSU Alliance of Lesbian/Bi/Gay/Transgendered Students
441 Union Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1020
Phone: (517) 353-9795
Email: alliance@msu.edu
Website: http://www.msu.edu/user/alliance/
Pride At Work, AFL-CIO
815 16th St, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 637-5014
Email: paw@aflcio.org
Website: http://www.prideatwork.org
Triangle Foundation
19641 West Seven Mile
Detroit, MI, 48219
Toll Free: (877) 7TRIANGLE
Website: http://www.tri.org/
Michigan Pride, Inc.
PO Box 16191
Lansing, MI 48901
Email: pride@michiganpride.org
Website: http://www.michiganpride.org/

157

APPENDIX D

Sample critical incident survey responses

“At one of my previous jobs I experienced my first unpleasant situation that involved my being
harassed for my sexual orientation. At least two to three of my ex co-workers left a message at
my computer station while I was away fulfilling a job duty. The message implied that the reason
why I had been in a nasty mood was due to my not getting any sex. One of these individuals
brought an antiperspirant (roll on) and taped it to a sheet of paper. On the paper he wrote the
following: "Since you aren't getting any we suggest you take a coffee break in the bathroom, this
is a small one but better than nothing." Maybe your mood will get better once you take care of
your needs. As I was reading it one of my immediate supervisors passed by and saw that I was
reading a note. He called my attention, but I could not respond as I was being humiliated and
ridiculed by these co-workers. All I could do is put my hands on my keyboard and pretend to type
away. I have never felt so embarrassed like that at work before. What made it even more difficult
to bear was that the rest of the crew team knew what was going on and only watched from a
distance as I read the note left on my computer station. I heard giggles and saw silly smirks the
rest of the shift and I just went about my business the rest of the evening.”
“I work in a hospital and am a trained phlebotomist. My job is to draw the blood of inpatients as
well as walk ins. When I draw blood I get some tubes in which I have to fill for each particular
patient, so I know what they are going to be testing for. This one particular day, I had to draw a
gentleman for an AIDS cross as well as hepatitis and a blood cross. The gentleman I was
drawing blood from had very openly feminine qualities. After I drew his blood, a couple of my
co-workers made some comments about his sexuality that made me feel uncomfortable. They had
to do with why he was being drawn for AIDS test and how he would have gotten AIDS.”
“This occurred approximately 6 years ago, while I was doing a psychology externship with a
psychologist in private practice. It was the first time in many, many years that I had not been out
about my sexual orientation in a work or academic setting. I chose not to be out because I
suspected the psychologist might not be completely cool with it (he frequently made sexist
remarks or commented on women's body's inappropriately, leading me to believe that he was a
bit conservative around social issues). One afternoon, I was with my boss (the psychologist),
leaving a restaurant where we had eaten lunch. We would often go to lunch to have some time to
chat informally about work-related things, and to socialize a bit about things that weren't workrelated. While in the parking lot, walking back to our car, a man walked by who was dressed in
flamboyant clothes and who moved in a stereotypically feminine way. My boss said, "Look at
that big queen. God, I hate those fucking faggots." I was stunned and made no comment. My boss
said nothing further. I was surprised by the psychologist's comments. Although I suspected he
might be a bit homophobic, I was stunned by the harshness of the language he used and by the
fact that he felt so free to express it to a student intern. I remember feeling somewhat more
uncomfortable around the office after that (I had about 2 months left of my placement there). But
interestingly, my discomfort wasn't that much greater than it had been before he made those
comments. I wasn't worried that he would find out about me, really, or that if he did, he might
158

fire me. My discomfort more just arose from having to work closely with someone who I didn't
really gel with -- largely because of the kinds of comments he made overall (e.g., sexist,
homophobic, etc.). Although, I'm sure I would have been less uncomfortable if he hadn't been in
a position of power over me.”
“I work in a private church related high school as a teacher. My daughter was being baptized in
the morning chapel service. My father, a priest, had come to this state to do the baptism, and the
entire high school was there to witness it. It really was a happy time, and the students were
genuinely pleased that I had decided to do the baptism here. Afterwards, a very prominent
parent told the headmaster that she didn't want her son to be in my class, and if he was she
would remove him from the school. She couldn't believe the school would support the baptism of
the child of a lesbian. I've never forgotten this situation, and worry about it all the time. My boss
is supportive, but I think I'm walking a fine line here, since he's really risking a lot by supporting
me. It makes me feel even more closeted than before.”
“I was staffing an information table to try to seek petition signers for a resolution supporting
offering domestic partnership benefits for employees at my university. Several people slowed
down by the table, did a limp wrist gesture, said things like "I would never support giving
benefits to ass-lickers" and "You perverts need to get locked up away from our children!" I can't
answer the descriptive questions below as I don't know if the people making the derogatory
comments were adult students, graduate students, faculty, staff or campus visitors.”
“A colleague of mine told me that after I had left the employee lunch room, another staff member
made a comment that insinuated that I was "ACDC." He said this at a table of four other coworkers. I supposed from my friend that he was implying that I am bi-sexual, which I ma not: I'm
gay. I had never had anything but a cordial relationship with this man. I felt embarrassed that
others were speculating on my personal life. I wondered how many others were whispering
about my sex life, something that has nothing to do with my performance at work.”
“As part of my Critical Theory class, I routinely cover Lesbian/Gay/Queer theories. A few
semesters ago, several members of the class demonstrated both verbal and non-verbal resistance
to our study of this particular approach to literary interpretation. This group (all women, all
self-identified fundamentalist/evangelical Christians) felt it perfectly acceptable to quote
passages from the bible to support their disapproval of "homosexuality" (this word expressed
with significant disgust and contempt), and to interrupt my attempts to re-direct the focus to
analysis of the theory at hand. Nonverbal demonstrations of their refusal to engage the material
included eye-rolling, loud sighing, and noisy shifting of papers, etc. I learned later that one of
the students even took it upon herself to complain to the chair of my department, arguing that I
was being disrespectful of her religious beliefs by presuming to teach non-heterosexuallyoriented texts. Apparently, this student also determined that it was fine for her to tell prospective
students of this senior seminar to avoid me because I am, in her words, "evil." I honestly can't
remember whether I was "out" to that class. But I do recall feeling very unsafe, very angry, and
very hurt. At the same time, I was also able to help two gay students in the class
(closeted)become more accepting of themselves--we had several private conversations about
what it's like to be gay at a rather conservative university. The experience was, overall, pretty
awful. But I'm glad I endured it because my refusal to be put down by homophobes made me

159

stronger AND gave me the opportunity to help two young men struggling with their own
internalized homophobia.”

160

APPENDIX E

Focus group consent form

A Study of Unwanted Work Experiences
Informed Consent Form
Investigator's names & affiliation: Ann Marie Ryan, Professor, Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Program, Michigan State University.
Summary: You are being asked to participate in a focus group in order to gain more information
about people’s experiences with unwanted events related to their sexual orientation while in
work situations. We will use the focus group information to help develop an online study.
The focus group conversation will be taped by an audio recorder and will be later transcribed
into text in order to better examine conversation content. The digital recording file will be stored
on a secure department server in a password-protected folder and will not be linked to any
participant identification information.
Participation Requirements: In order to participate in this study you must be both:
1) At least 18 years of age
2) Someone who has experienced at least one unwanted event related to his or her sexual
orientation while in a work situation.
Work situations may include events that have occurred while you were on work premises during
working hours, or not on work premises but still performing some work function (e.g., at a
conference or client meeting). They do not include events that took place while with work
persons but not on work premises or during work hours (e.g., happy hours), or events that
occurred while you performing duties for which you are not compensated for (e.g., schoolwork,
volunteering).
Estimated time required: 60 minutes.
Risks: There is a potential risk that you may feel uncomfortable discussing some of the topics
brought up during the conversation. In addition, the issues that are planned to be discussed about
unwanted experiences related to your sexual orientation might bring up uncomfortable feelings
or thoughts. You have the right to not answer any question that is asked of you or stop
participating in this research at any time, without penalty. We strongly urge you to consult a
professional in your community if these feelings begin to interfere with your well-being. A list of
resources will be provided for you after you have finished participation in the focus group,
regardless of if you decide to stay for the entire session. Contact information for the principal
investigator will also be provided at that time if you wish to contact her with any questions,
concerns or comments regarding the study.

161

Additionally, although the principal investigator and her research team assure the confidentiality
of the information you provide within the confines of the focus group, and that they will not
reveal to others either your identity or information you discuss, they do not have the ability to
prevent other focus group members from revealing such information to others. While
confidentiality considerations will be detailed and discussed at length both at the beginning and
conclusion of the session, such risks still exist.
Compensation: You will be compensated $15 for your participation in this survey.
Please note that your participation is voluntary. That means you are free to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation in all or portions of the project at any time without penalty.
Confidentiality: Your participation in this focus group will be kept strictly confidential. You will
not be asked to provide any identification information about yourself, including your real name
or contact information, and the focus group will be run by members of Dr. Ryan’s research
group, who will not reveal details about the focus group participants to anyone. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses are being used to
develop measures related to unwanted work situations related to sexual orientation. This
information will be used for research purposes only. Only Dr. Ryan and her authorized research
assistants will have access to the data collected in this study, which will be kept in a secured
computer environment, and any data reported for scientific purpose will be in aggregate form.
Upon your request and within these restrictions, the study results may be made available to you.
Contact Information: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Ann Marie
Ryan, by phone: (517) 353-8855, fax: (517) 432-2476, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu, or regular mail:
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time
with any aspect of this study, you may contact – anonymously, if you wish – Dr. Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director, Human Research Protection Program, by phone: (517) 355-2180,
fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824. A copy of this Informed Consent form will be provided to you upon your request.
By signing below, I hereby declare that I have read and understood the contents of this consent
form, and give permission to have my participation in this focus group taped via audio recorder.

_________________________________________ _________________________
Signature
Date

162

APPENDIX F

Focus group protocol

3-4 days before focus group: Send abbreviated copy of protocol to participants
At focus group meeting:




Do informed consent, remind about confidentiality
Give oral statement regarding general purpose of study of SOH. Note workplace focus.
Note specific purpose of focus group is to further refine and clarify conceptions of SOH – we
will be asking for both their experiences and their opinions.
Questions to ask:
1. Individuals may be harassed regarding their orientation at work for many reasons. In
your view, what are some of the characteristics of a workplace that make it more or less
likely that an individual might be harassed?
Follow up probes if not covered in initial discussion:
a. Policies of org re discrimination in general
b. Fairness of treatment of employees/justice climate
c. Other climate issues (e.g. occupation type, area of country)
2. Similarly there may be certain characteristics of individuals that make it more or less
likely that they might be harassed regarding their orientation. Are there any
characteristics that you think contribute to the likelihood that an individual will be
harassed?
Follow up probes if not covered in initial discussion:
• Identity management strategies – how out, to whom out
• Gender atypicality
• Multiple minority status
3. Harassment in the workplace occurs due to gender, race, ethnicity and other
characteristics. In what ways, if any, do you think harassment based on orientation is the
same or different than other types of harassment?
Follow up probes if not covered in initial discussion:
• Issue of stigma visibility
• Issue of legal sanctions
• Societal norms re accepting the stigmatized group
4. We have been gathering data on the nature of harassment incidents. Many of these are
verbal in nature. These include examples of general homophobic remarks, attempts to

163

determine one’s sexual orientation, and being excluded from social events. We also have
seen some specific types of comments that occur with some frequency, including
comments regarding religion (e.g., going to hell), child molestation, physical appearance,
sexual practices, etc. (hand out table of category types). In your experiences as well as
from the experiences of others that you have heard about, are there any other frequent
types of verbal harassment?
5. Harassment can take forms besides verbal comments. For example, in other data
gathering we have found incidents of nonverbal gestures, shunning or avoidance,
sabotage of work, etc. (refer back to handed out table). In your experiences as well as
from the experiences of others that you have heard about, are there any other frequent
types of harassment that we have not mentioned?
6. Harassment can have many consequences on the well-being of individuals. For example,
harassment can affect one’s self-esteem, one’s job satisfaction, one’s overall physical and
mental health, one’s job status (getting fired), willingness to be out in the future, etc.. In
your experiences as well as from the experiences of others that you have heard about,
what are some of the consequences of being harassed?
Follow-up probes if not covered in initial discussion:
• Identity management strategy changes
• Feelings of safety
7. Finally, we would like to get your opinion on what methods would be best to recruit
participants and motivate them to participate
• Prizes
• Websites/listserves to recruit from
• Physical places to post information about the website
8. Are there any other aspects of SOH that we have not discussed that you think would be
important to consider in trying to understand what types of SOH occur, how often it
occurs and what effects it has?



THANKS AND REITERATE CONFIDENTIALITY
Provide sheet with resources and contact info (debriefing form)

164

APPENDIX G

Main study consent form

A Study of Unwanted Work Experiences
Informed Consent Form
Investigator's names & affiliation: Ann Marie Ryan, Professor, Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Program, Michigan State University.
Summary: This is a study of people's experiences with unwanted events related to their sexual
orientation while in work situations. The study consists of a set of online questions asking about
the details of unwanted workplace events related to your sexual orientation, gender and
race/ethnicity, questions about your current attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and well-being, and
items assessing your personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, etc.)
Participation Requirements: In order to participate in this study you must be at least 18 years of
age.
Estimated time required: 30-40 minutes.
Risks: There is a potential risk that you may feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions
contained in the survey. In addition, the questions contained in the survey about unwanted
experiences related to your sexual orientation, gender, or race/ethnicity may bring up
uncomfortable feelings or thoughts. You have the right to skip any questions or stop participating
in this research at any time, without penalty. We strongly urge you to consult a professional in
your community if these feelings begin to interfere with your well-being. A list of resources will
be provided for you after you have finished participation in the survey, regardless of whether you
complete all of the questions within it. Contact information for the principal investigator will
also be provided at that time if you wish to contact her with any questions, concerns or
comments regarding the study.
Compensation: A $100 prize will be awarded to a randomly selected participant.
Please note that your participation is voluntary. That means you are free to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation in all or portions of the project at any time without penalty.
Confidentiality: Your participation in this research study will be kept completely anonymous
since you will not be asked to provide your name or contact information, nor will any specific
identifying information be associated with your responses (e.g., IP addresses). However, you will
be required to contact the research team and provide a mailing address for your $100 prize if you
are selected as the winner. You will have the option to decline from participating in the prize
drawing if you would prefer not to. At the completion of the survey, you will be assigned a twopart unique ID# which you will be instructed to write down, as well as information about the web

165

location and date of the announcement of the first part of the winning ID#. Because we will not
be asking you to provide any personal information, it will be your responsibility to check the
information on your own. In order to claim the prize, you will have to contact the person detailed
on the announcement website and provide the second part of your unique ID# in order to confirm
you are the winner. After 30 days of posting, if the person associated with the winning ID# does
not contact the principal investigator, the lottery prize will be forfeited.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses
are being used to develop measures related to unwanted work situations related to sexual
orientation. This information will be used for research purposes only. As with any kind of email
transmission, it is possible (although unlikely) for the survey responses to be intercepted by
people other than those to whom they are being transmitted. Only Dr. Ryan and her authorized
research assistants will have access to the data collected in this study, which will be kept in a
secured computer environment, and any data reported for scientific purpose will be in aggregate
form. Upon your request and within these restrictions, the study results may be made available to
you.
Contact Information: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Ann Marie
Ryan, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, E-mail:
ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant,
or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. A copy of this
Informed Consent form will be provided to you upon your request.

166

APPENDIX H

Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ)
(Source: Fitzgerald, et al., 1988)
Definitions used throughout the survey:
Coworkers should be understood to include your superiors, peers, and subordinates.
LGB stands for Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual individuals.

For each question, please select how often you have experienced the behavior personally (e.g.,
someone told offensive jokes directly to you).
Within the past 12 months of your current job (or most recent job if currently unemployed), how
often have people in your organization:
(Response options: Never, Once or Twice, Sometimes, Often, Very Often)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you?
Referred to people of your gender in insulting or offensive terms?
Made unwelcome attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual matters (e.g.,
attempted to discuss or comment on someone’s sex life)?
Treated you ‘differently’ because of you gender (e.g., mistreated, slighted, or ignored
you)?
Made offensive remarks about your appearance, body, or sexual activities?
Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature that embarrassed or offended
you?
Made offensive sexist remarks to you (e.g., suggesting that people of your gender are not
suited for the kind of work they do)?
Made unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship with you despite
your efforts to discourage it?
Put you down or was condescending to you because of your gender?
Continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you said ‘No’?
Made you feel like you were being bribed with some sort of reward or special treatment
to engage in sexual behavior?
Made you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being sexually cooperative
(e.g., by mentioning an upcoming review)?
Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?
Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, or kiss you?
Treated you badly for refusing to have sex?
Implied faster promotions or better treatment if you were sexually cooperative?

167

17.
18.
19.
20.

Attempted to have sex with you without your consent or against your will, but was not
successful?
Had sex with you without your consent or against your will?
Engaged in some other unwanted gender-related behavior towards you?
If so, please describe: [TEXT BOX]

168

APPENDIX I

Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale (EHE)
(Source: Schneider et al., 2000)

For each question, please select how often you have experienced the behavior personally (e.g.,
someone told offensive jokes directly to you).
Within the past 12 months of your current job (or most recent job if currently unemployed), how
often have people in your organization:
(Response options: Never, Once or Twice, Sometimes, Often, Very Often)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Made derogatory comments about your ethnicity?
Told jokes about your ethnic group?
Used ethnic slurs to describe you?
Excluded you from social interactions during or after work because of your ethnicity?
Failed to give you information you needed to do your job because of your ethnicity?
Made racist comments to you (e.g., said people of your ethnicity aren't very smart or can't
do the job)?
Made you feel as if you had to give up your ethnic identity to get along at work?

169

APPENDIX J

Workplace Sexual Orientation Harassment Measure (WSOHM)
(Source: Author created)

For each question, please select how often you have experienced the behavior personally (e.g.,
someone told offensive jokes directly to you).
Within the past 12 months of your current job (or most recent job if currently unemployed), how
often have people in your organization:
(Response options: Never, Once or Twice, Sometimes, Often, Very Often)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

Commented that you were LGB because you do things that members of the opposite sex
do?
Said you were ‘too gay’?
Pressured you to participate in homophobic activities or remarks?
Made you feel they you to pretend to be heterosexual in social situations (e.g., pretend to
have a husband/wife)?
Made you feel as if you had to ‘act’ heterosexual (e.g., monitoring your speech, dress, or
mannerisms)?
Told you homophobic jokes or stories?
Made homophobic remarks to you (e.g., that LGB individuals are inferior)?
Stared at or directed hostile looks towards you because they believed you were LGB?
Displayed, used, or distributed materials (e.g., emails, pictures, leaflets, symbols, graffiti,
music, stories, clothing, tattoos) which were homophobic or depicted LGB individuals
negatively?
Used homophobic slurs to describe you (e.g., dyke, fag, fence-sitter)?
Accused you of being LGB?
Told others you were LGB?
Challenged your identification as LGB (e.g., it's just a phase)?
Said homophobic things about your sex life or sexual practices?
Said homophobic things about your body, appearance or grooming habits?
Used homophobic gestures or body language towards you?
Destroyed, damaged or vandalized your property with homophobic statements or slurs?
Expected you to behave consistently with a stereotype of LGB individuals (e.g., being
sexually promiscuous, being able to fix things)?
Pressured you to behave consistently with an LGB stereotype?
Expected you to hold a stereotypically LGB job (e.g., hairdresser, florist, coach,
construction worker)?
Asked you questions about your personal or love life that made you uncomfortable (e.g.,
why don't you ever bring a date to our office parties)?
Tried to get you to talk about issues related to sexual orientation?
170

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

Set you up on a date with a member of the opposite sex when you did not want it?
Treated you differently because they believed you were LGB (e.g. wouldn't shake your
hand, ignored you)?
Excluded you from social interactions during or after work because they believed you
were LGB?
Failed to give you information you needed to do your job because they believed you were
LGB?
Bribed or rewarded you with special treatment to not disclose your sexual orientation to
others?
Implied faster promotions or better treatment if you did not disclose your sexual
orientation to others?
Threatened to tell others that you were LGB for not being sexually cooperative?
Threatened to tell others you were LGB if you did not produce certain work?
Threatened to tell others you were LGB if you did not give them something (e.g., money,
items)?
Threatened you with retaliation if you did not participate in homophobic activities or
remarks?
Told others you were LGB for refusing to have sex?
Treated you badly for refusing to participate in homophobic activities or remarks?
Sexually assaulted or raped you because you were believed to be LGB?
Non-sexually assaulted you because you were believed to be LGB?
Robbed or stole things from you because you were believed to be LGB?
Did anything else to you because you were believed to be LGB?
If so, please describe: [TEXT BOX]

171

APPENDIX K

Identity management measure
(Source: Button, 1996)

The following items concern how LGB individuals handle information related to their sexual
orientation in the workplace. Some people are completely 'closeted' (i.e., hide their sexual
orientation), while others are completely 'out' (i.e., have revealed their sexual orientation). Still
others use a combination of approaches.
Please take a moment and consider how you currently handle information related to your sexual
orientation during your daily work-related activities. Your answers should reflect how you
conduct yourself on average, across all of your coworkers.
(Response options: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

To appear heterosexual, I sometimes talk about fictional dates with members of the
opposite sex.
I sometimes talk about opposite-sex relationships in my past, while I avoid mentioning
more recent same-sex relationships.
I sometimes comment on, or display interest in, members of the opposite sex to give the
impression that I am straight.
I have adjusted my level of participation in sports to appear heterosexual.
I make sure that I don’t behave the way people expect gays or lesbians to behave.
I sometimes laugh at ‘fag’ or ‘dyke’ jokes to fit in with my straight coworkers.
I avoid coworkers who frequently discuss sexual matters.
I avoid situations (e.g. long lunches, parties) where heterosexual coworkers are likely to
ask me personal questions.
I let people know that I find personal questions to be inappropriate so that I am not faced
with them.
I avoid personal questions by never asking others about their personal lives.
In order to keep my personal life private, I refrain from ‘mixing business with pleasure.’
I withdraw from conversations when the topic turns to things like dating or interpersonal
relationships.
I let people think I am a ‘loner’ so that they won’t question my apparent lack of a
relationship.
In my daily activities, I am open about my sexual orientation whenever it comes up.
Most of my coworkers know that I am gay.
Whenever I’m asked about being LGB, I always answer in an honest and matter-of-fact
way.
It’s okay for my LGB friends to call or visit me at work.
My coworkers know of my interest in LGB issues.
I look for opportunities to tell my coworkers that I am LGB.
172

20.

When a policy or law is discriminatory against LGB individuals, I tell people what I
think.
21. I let my coworkers know that I’m proud to be LGB.
22. I openly confront others when I hear a homophobic remark or joke.
23. I display objects (e.g. photography, magazines, symbols) that suggest that I am LGB.

173

APPENDIX L

Sexual orientation measure
(Source: Author created; Haslam, 1997; Garnets & Kimmel, 1993; Shivley & De Cecco, 1993)

Please provide some additional information in regards to your sexual feelings, attitudes, and
behaviors.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I am attracted to people of the same sex.
I have engaged in sexual practices with members of the same sex.
I identify as LGB.
I feel I have HETEROsexual tendencies.
I feel I have HOMOsexual tendencies.
(Response options: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Disagree Somewhat, Neutral, Agree
Somewhat, Agree, Agree Strongly)

6.
7.
8.
9.

Age of first romantic attraction to another person of the same sex:
Age of first sexual encounter with another person of the same sex:
Age of first self-labeling as LGB:
Age of first same-sex relationship:
(Response options: Never, Age:[TEXT BOX])

10.

Based upon your appearance and mannerisms, how often do you feel people perceive you
as LGB?
(Response options: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always)

174

APPENDIX M

Demographics
(Source: Author created)

Finally, please tell us a bit more about yourself:
11.

What is your age?
(Response options: [TEXT BOX])

12.

Are you of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin or descent?
(Response options: No, Yes)

13.

Which of the following racial categories do you identify with? You may pick more than
one.
(Response options: Caucasian/White, Black or African-American, American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Biracial)

14.

How much education have you completed?
(Response options: 8th grade or less, Some high school, GED or other high school
equivalency certificate, High school graduate, Vocational or technical training, Some
college but no degree, Two-year college graduate, Four-year college graduate, Some
graduate or professional school, Graduate or professional degree)

15.

Which following category represents the total combined income during the past 12
months of all the members in your household?
(Response options: Less than $5,000, $5,000 to $14,999, $15,000 to $24,999, $25,000 to
$34,999, $35,000 to $44,999, $45,000 to $54,999, $55,000 to $64,999, $65,000 to
$74,999, $75,000 to $84,999, $85,000 to $94,999, Over $95,000)

16.

Gender:
(Response options: Male, Female, Transgender)

17.

What is your occupation (e.g. sales, teacher, mechanic)?
(Response options: [TEXT BOX])

175

18.

How many months have you worked in your current job?
(Response options: [TEXT BOX])

19.

What is your work status (select all that apply)?
(Response options: Unemployed, Full-time, Part-time, Student)

20.

What state are you employed in (Please spell out)?
(Response options: [TEXT BOX])

21.

What is your religion?
(Response options: Christian, Jewish, Muslim/Islamic, Buddhist, Athiest/Agnostic, Nonpracticing/No religion, Other (please specify))

176

APPENDIX N

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Depression
(Source: Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983; Derogatis, 1993)
Below is a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have. Read each one carefully
and select the option that best describes how much discomfort that problem has caused you
during the past 7 days including today.
(Response options: Not at all, A little bit, Somewhat, Quite a bit, Very much)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Loss of sexual interest or pleasure
Feeling low in energy or slowed down
Thoughts of ending your life
Crying easily
Feelings of being trapped or caught
Blaming yourself for things
Feeling lonely
Feeling blue
Worrying too much about things
Feeling no interest in things
Feeling hopeless about the future
Feeling everything is an effort
Feelings of worthlessness

177

APPENDIX O

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Anxiety
(Source: Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983; Derogatis, 1993)

Below is a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have. Read each one carefully
and select the option that best describes how much discomfort that problem has caused you
during the past 7 days including today.
(Response options: Not at all, A little bit, Somewhat, Quite a bit, Very much)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Nervousness or shakiness inside
Trembling
Suddenly scared for no reason
Feeling fearful
Heart pounding or racing
Feeling tense or keyed up
Spells of terror or panic
Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still
The feeling that something bad is going to happen to you
Thoughts and images of a frightening nature

178

APPENDIX P

Organizational commitment measure
(Source: Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993)

The following statements concern how you feel about the organization where you work. Please
indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by selecting the
appropriate option.
(Response options: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Disagree Somewhat, Neutral, Agree Somewhat,
Agree, Agree Strongly)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
I do not feel a strong sense of ‘belonging’ to my organization.
I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization.
I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization.
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided that I wanted to leave my
organization now.
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.
If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider
working elsewhere.
One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity
of available alternatives.

179

APPENDIX Q

Job Satisfaction Scale
(Source: Brayfield & Rothe, 1951)

Please indicate how you feel about your current job (or most recent job if currently
unemployed).
(Response options: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Disagree Somewhat, Neutral, Agree Somewhat,
Agree, Agree Strongly)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
I feel fairly satisfied with my present job.
Each day at work seems like it will never end.
I find real enjoyment in my work.
I consider my job rather unpleasant.

180

APPENDIX R

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
(Source: Rosenberg, 1979)

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please select the
most appropriate option.
(Response options: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Disagree Somewhat, Neutral, Agree Somewhat,
Agree, Agree Strongly)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
At times I think I am no good at all.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
I certainly feel useless at times.
I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
I wish I could have more respect for myself.
All in all, I sometimes feel that I am a failure.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.

181

APPENDIX S

Organizational climate measure
(Source: Button, 2001; Stokes, Bingham & Scherer, 2001; Stewart-Belle & Barnes, 2000)

Please take a moment and consider the organization that employs you and respond to each of the
following statements using the appropriate response scale.
(Response options: Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Disagree Somewhat, Neutral, Agree Somewhat,
Agree, Agree Strongly)
1.

My organization has a clear written policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
2.
My organization has an effective chain of command for reporting complaints of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
3.
My organization takes complaints about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
seriously.
4.
My organization treats all complaints about discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation the same.
5.
My organization has a diversity-training program that includes awareness of LGB issues.
6.
My organization publicly supports LGB issues or activities (e.g. corporate representations
at Gay Pride events).
7.
My organization has an officially recognized organization of LGB employees.
8.
My organization offers benefits that include health insurance for domestic partners.
9.
If I felt personally harassed by someone at my organization because of my sexual
orientation, I would feel comfortable reporting it.
10. If I observed someone else being harassed by someone at my organization because of
his/her sexual orientation, I would feel comfortable reporting it.

182

APPENDIX T

Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS)
(Source: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each
item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what
extent you have felt this way during the past year.
(Response options: Not at all, A little bit, Somewhat, Quite a bit, Very much)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Interested
Distressed
Excited
Upset
Strong
Guilty
Scared
Hostile
Enthusiastic
Proud
Irritable
Alert
Ashamed
Inspired
Nervous
Determined
Attentive
Jittery
Active
Afraid

183

REFERENCES

184

REFERENCES

Adam, B. (1978). The survival of domination: Inferiorization and everyday life. New York:
Elsevier.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison Wesley.
Almquist, E.M. (1975). Untangling the effects of race and sex: The disadvantages status of black
women. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 129-142.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1993). Hostile hallways:
The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s schools. (Research Report No.
923012). Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (2001). Hostile hallways:
Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (2005). Drawing the line:
Sexual harassment on campus. Washington, DC: Author.
Anand, R., & Winters, M.F. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from
1964 to the present. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 19, 1326-1332.
Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Truths, lies, and equivocations: The
effects of conflicting goals on discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9,
129-155.
Beale, F. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The black woman
(pp.90-100). New York: New American Library.
Bell, A.P., & Weinberg, M.S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and
women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bennett, G.G., Merritt, M.M. Edwards, C.L. & Sollers, J.J. (2004). Perceived racism and
affective responses to ambiguous interpersonal interactions among African American
men. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 963-976.
Bennett, G.G., Wolin, K.Y., Robinson, E.L., Fowler, S. & Edwards, C.L. (2005). Perceived
racial/ethnic harassment and tobacco use among African American young adults.
American Journal of Public Health, 95, 238-240.

185

Berdahl, J.L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 425-437.
Berdahl, J.L., Magley, V.J. & Waldo, C.R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the
concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547.
Berdahl, J.L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority
women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426-436.
Bergman, M., & Buchanan, N.T. Development of the Racial Acts, Crimes, and Experiences
Survey (RACES). Manuscript in preparation.
Berrill, K.T. (1990). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 274-294.
Bingham, S.G., & Scherer, L.L. (2001). The unexpected effects of a sexual harassment
educational program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 125-153.
Blumenfeld, W. (1992). Homophobia: How we all pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press.
Blumenthal, D.S. (1999). Race versus ethnicity. Academic Medicine, 74, 1259.
Bond, J.C., & Perry, P. (1970). Is the black male castrated? In T. Cade (Ed.), The black woman
(pp.115-118). New York: New American Library.
Bowen, D.J., Bradford, J.B., Powers, D., McMorrow, P., Linde, R., Murphy, B.C., Han, J., &
Ellis, J. (2004). Comparing women of differing sexual orientations using populationbased sampling. Women and Health, 40, 19-34.
Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple jeopardy and
beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience among black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 7, 87-108.
Bowling, N.A., & Beehr, T.A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A
theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 998-1012.
Brayfield, A.H. & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative
affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 193-198.
Brooks, V.R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

186

Bruce, T.A. & Buchanan, N.T. (August, 2004). Group differences in the relationship between
racial and sexual harassment and academic and health-related outcomes. In J.M. Konik &
L.M. Cortina (Chairs), Diversity and antisocial behavior in organizations: New
contributions from multi-level research. Symposium conducted at the Academy of
Management Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Buchanan, N.T. (March, 1999). Sexual harassment and the African American woman: A
historical analysis of a contemporary phenomenon. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Providence, RI.
Buchanan, N.T. (2004). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racialized sexual
harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the
company of men: Re-discovering the links between sexual harassment and male
domination. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Buchanan, N.T., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and
the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 13, 137–151.
Buchanan, N.T., & Ormerod, A.J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African
American women. Women and Therapy, 25, 107-124.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,
2006 Annual Averages: Household Data: Tables from Employment and Earnings:
Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
th
Retrieved February 9 , 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_aa2006.htm.
Button, S.B. (1996). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A multi-level examination.
Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Button, S.B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17-28.
California Safe Schools Coalition (CSSC). (2004). Consequences of harassment based on actual
or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps for making schools
safer. University of California, Davis.
Carter, K. (1997, March 7). Gay slurs abound. Des Moines Register, 3.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1971 et seq. (1988).
Cole, S.W., Kemeny, M.E., Taylor, S.E., & Visscher, B.R. (1996). Elevated physical health risk
among gay men who conceal their homosexual identity. Health Psychology, 15, 243251.

187

Collins, P.H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
nd
empowerment, 2 ed. New York: Routledge.
Comstock, G.D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral
expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the Organizational Culture
Inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.
Corbie-Smith, G., Frank, E., Nickens, H.W., & Elon, L. (1999). Prevalences and correlates of
ethnic harassment in the U.S. Women Physicians’ Health Study. Academic Medicine, 74,
695-701.
Cortina, L.M. (2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas: Development of an
instrument. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 164-181.
Cortina, L.M., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of
sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 295-311.
Cortina, L.M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault:
Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419441.
Crocker, J. (1999). Social stigma and self-esteem: Situational construction of self-worth.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 89-107.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, et al.,
(Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (4th ed), 2, 504-553. New York: McGrawHill.
Croteau, J.M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people:
An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48,
195-209.
Culbertson, A., & Rodgers, W. (1997). Improving managerial effectiveness in the workplace:
The case of sexual harassment of Navy women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27, 1953-1971.
D'Augelli, A.R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates' experiences of harassment and
fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 383-395.

188

D’Augelli, A.R. (2002). Mental health problems among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual youths ages
14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 433-456.
D'Augelli, A.R., Pilkington, N.W., & Hershberger, S.L. (2002). Incidence and mental health
impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high
school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167.
Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1997). Effects of sexual harassment. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.),
Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 151-174). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Deitch, E.A., Butz, R.M., & Brief, A.P. (2004). Out of the Closet and Out of a Job? The Nature,
Import, and Causes of Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace. In R.W.
Griffin & A. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, pp. 187234. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (1998). Personal and organizational predictors of workplace sexual
harassment of women by men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 7-18.
Del Duco, S., Chan, J., Black, J., & Reichman, W. (2005). Sexual orientation and organizational
climate: A tale of two companies. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
DellaPergola, S. (2002). World Jewish population. In D. Singer & L. Grossman (Eds.), American
Jewish Year Book (pp. 532-569). New York: American Jewish Committee.
Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The Academy of
Management Review, 21, 619-654.
Derogatis, L.R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring, and
procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Derogatis, L.R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory
report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595-605
Descamps, M.J., Rothblum, E., Bradford, J., & Ryan, C. (2000). Mental health impact of child
sexual abuse, rape, intimate partner violence, and hat crimes in the National Lesbian
Health Care Survey. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 11, 27-55.
DeSouza, E.R., Solberg, J., & Elder, C. (2007). A cross-cultural perspective on judgments of
woman-to-woman sexual harassment: Does sexual orientation matter? Sex Roles, 56,
457-471.

189

Donovan, M.A., & Drasgow, F. (1999). Do men's and women's experiences of sexual harassment
differ? An examination of the differential test functioning of the Sexual Experiences
Questionnaire. Military Psychology, 11, 265-282.
Dovidio, J.F. (1993). The subtlety of racism. Training and Development, 47, 51-57.
Dovidio, J.F., & Gaertner, S.L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes,
consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. Eberhardt & S.T. Fiske (Eds.),
Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp.3-32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
DuBois, C.L.Z., Knapp, D.E., Faley, R.H., & Kustis, G.A. (1998). An empirical examination of
same- and other-gender sexual harassment in the workplace. Sex Roles, 39, 731-749.
Dupper, D.R., & Meyer-Adams, N. (2002). Low-level violence: A neglected aspect of school
culture. Urban Education, 37, 350-364.
Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J. (2004). Attitudes in the fiber of everyday life: The discourse of racial
evaluation and the lived experience of desegregation. American Psychologist, 7, 626-636.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). A survey of the campus climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual university
members. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 39-58.
Elliott, J.E. (1993). Lesbian and gay concerns in career development. In L. Diamant (Ed.),
Homosexual issues in the workplace (pp. 25-43). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Ellis, A.L., & Riggle, E.D.B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness
about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30,
75-85.
Embser-Herbert, M.S. (2005). A missing link: Institutional homophobia and sexual harassment
in the U.S. military. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the Company of Men: ReDiscovering the Links between Sexual Harassment and Male Domination (pp.215-242).
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Epstein, C.F. (1973). Black and female: The double whammy. Psychology Today, 3, 57-61.
Erlich, H.J., & Larcom, B.E.K. (November, 1992). The effects of prejudice and ethnoviolence on
nd
workers’ health. Paper presented at the 2 American Psychological Association and
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Conference on Work Stress and
Health, Washington, DC.
Fain, T.C., & Anderton, D.L. (1987). Sexual harassment: organizational context and diffuse
status. Sex Roles, 17, 291-311.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Hate crime statistics: 2004. U.S. Department of Justice:
Washington, DC.
190

Federally Protected Activities, 18 U.S.C. § 245 (1968).
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, 578-589.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical
and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425-445.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Magley, V.J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C.R. (1999). Measuring sexual
harassment in the military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnair (SEQ-DoD). Military
Psychology, 11, 243-263.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Shullman, S.L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, A.J.,
& Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia
and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
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).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 150 –170.
Garnets, L.D., & Kimmel, D. (1993). Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male
experiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (1999). 1999 National School Climate
Survey. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/16.html on
March 15, 2007.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (2001). 2001 National School Climate
Survey. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1096.html
on March 15, 2007.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (2003). 2003 National School Climate
Survey. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1413.html
on March 15, 2007.

191

Gelfand, M.J., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A
confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47,
164-177.
Gerrity, D.A. (2000). Male university employees' experiences of sexual harassment-related
behaviors. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 140-151.
Glomb, T.M., Munson, L.J., Hulin, C.L., Bergman, M.E., & Drasgow, F. (1999). Structural
equation models of sexual harassment: Longitudinal explorations and cross-sectional
generalizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 14-28.
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.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of
occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545-579.
Greene, B. (1994). Lesbian women of color: Triple jeopardy. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene
(Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities, pp.389-427. New York:
Guilford.
Griffith, K.H., & Hebl, M.R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming
out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191-1999.
Gross, L., Aurant, S., & Addessa, R. (1988). Violence and discrimination against lesbian and
gay people in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia:
Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force.
Gruber, J.E. (1998). The impact of male work environments and organizational policies on
women’s experiences of sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12, 301-320.
Gutek, B.A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B.A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of
women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55-74.
Gutek, B.A., Murphy, R.O., & Duoma, B. (2004). A review and critique of the Sexual
Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Law and Human Behavior, 28, 457-482.
Hammersmith, S.K., & Weinberg, M.S. (1973). Homosexual identity: Commitment, adjustment,
and significant others. Sociometry, 36, 56-79.
Harned, M.S., Ormerod, A.J., Palmieri, P.A., Collinsworth, L.L., & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual
assault and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 174-188.
192

Harper, G.W., Jernewall, N., & Zea, M. C. (2004). Giving Voice to Emerging Science and
Theory for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People of Color. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 10, 187-199.
Harvey, R.D. (2001). Individual differences in the phenomenological impact of social stigma.
Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 174-189.
Haslam, N. (1997). Evidence that male sexual orientation is a matter of degree. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 862-870.
Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-275, § 1, 104 Stat. 140 (1990).
Hayes, R. (1989). Men in female-concentrated occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
10, 201-212.
Herek, G.M. (1991a). Myths about sexual orientation: A lawyer’s guide to social science
research. Law and Sexuality, 1, 133-172.
Herek, G.M. (1991b). Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians and gay men. In K.
Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy
(pp. 60-80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G.M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1, 6-24.
Herek, G.M., Cogan, J.C., Gillis, J.R., & Glunt, E.K. (1998). Correlated of internalized
homophobia in a community sample of Lesbians and gay men. Journal of the Gay and
Lesbian Medical Association, 2, 17-25.
Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime
victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 67, 945-951.
Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., Cogan, J.C., & Glunt, E.K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195-215.
Herrschaft, D., & Mills, K. I. (2002). The state of the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender Americans 2002. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Campaign.
Hershberger, S. L., Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1997). Predictors of suicide attempts
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 477-497.
Hinze, S.W. (2004). ‘Am I being over-sensitive?’ Women’s experience of sexual harassment
during medical training. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of
Health, Illness and Medicine, 8, 101–127.

193

Hobfoll, S.E. (1991). Traumatic stress: A theory based on rapid loss of resources. Anxiety
Research, 4, 187-197.
Hudson, Jr., David L. (2009). Hate speech and campus speech codes. Accessed from
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speec
h_codes on July 1, 2009.
Hughes, D., & Dodge, M.A. (1997). African American women in the workplace: Relationships
between job conditions, racial bias at work, and perceived job quality. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 25, 581-599.
Hulin, C.L., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual
harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives,
frontiers, and response strategies. Women and work: A Research and Policy Series, (Vol.
5, pp. 127-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Human Rights Campaign. (2009). The state of the workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Americans, 2007-2008. Retrieved from
http://www.hrc.org/about_us/7061.htm on June 28, 2009.
Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of workrelated sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported
rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607-631.
Inman, M. & Radhakrishnan, P. (February, 2009). Who is doing what: Compartmentalizing
experiences of ethnic harassment and discrimination at work. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Tampa, FL.
Jackson, J. (1973). Black women in a racist society. In C. Willie, B. Kramer, & B. Brown (Eds.),
Racism and mental health, pp. 185-268. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
James, L.R., James, L.A., & Ashe, D.K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The roles of
cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, R.L., Joyce, W.F., & Slocum, J.W. (1988). Comment: organizational do not cognize.
Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-137.
John, O.P. & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and
scale construction. In H.T. Reis and C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.

194

Johnson, W.B., & Buhrke, R.A. (2006). Service delivery in a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” world:
Ethical care of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military personnel. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 37, 91-98.
Jome, L.M., Surething, N.A., & Taylor, K.K. (2005). Relationally oriented masculinity, gender
nontraditional interests, and occupational traditionality of employed men. Journal of
Career Development, 32, 183,197.
Jome, L.M., & Tokar, D.M. (1998). Dimensions of masculinity and major choice traditionality.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 120-134.
Kalichman, S.C., & Nachimson, D. (1999). Self-efficacy and disclosure of HIV-positive
serostatus to sex partners. Health Psychology, 18, 281-287.
Kalof, L., Eby, K.K., Matheson, J.L., & Kroska, R.J. (2001). The influence of race and gender on
student self-reports of sexual harassment by college professors. Gender and Society, 15,
282-302.
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J.C., Luchman, J.N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and
negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 162-176.
Katz, J., Joiner, T. E., Jr., & Kwon, P. (2002). Membership in a devalued social group and
emotional well-being: Developing a model of personal self-esteem, collective selfesteem, and group socialization. Sex Roles, 47, 419-431.
King, M. (1975). Oppression and power: The unique status of the black woman in the American
political system. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 123-133.
Konik, J.M. (2005). Harassment as a system for policing traditional gender norms: The
structure and process of sexual harassment and heterosexist harassment. Dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Hults, B.M. (l987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and
performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.
Kraut, R.M., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M.P. (2004).
Psychological Research Online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on
the Conduct of Research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59, 106-117.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E.A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wikins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in
discrimination. In B. Lott, & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal
discrimination, pp. 183-224. New York: Guilford Press.
Lane, J.D., & Wegner, D.M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237-253.

195

Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of
sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, W.C., & Ormerod, A.J. (2003, August). “Construct-ing” the SEQ: A Multiple-Group
Analysis Across Samples and Versions of the SEQ. In A.J. Ormerod (Chair), Sexual
Experiences Questionnaire – What It Can and Can’t Do (Yet). Symposium presented at
the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Lemkau, J.P. (1984). Men in female dominated professions: Distinguishing personality and
background features. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 110-122.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interests, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
45, 79-122.
Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R.C., & Taylor, P.L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in the
context of multiple group memberships. Psychological Science, 13, 557-560.
Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the work force. Journal
of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-710.
Lima, G. LoPresto, C.T., Sherman, M.F., & Sobelman, S.A. (1993). The relationship between
homophobia and self-esteem in gay males with AIDS. Journal of Homosexuality, 25, 6976.
Lipari, R.N., & Lancaster, A.R. (2003). Armed Forces 2002 sexual harassment survey. (DMDC
Report 2003-026). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
th

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, H.R. 2662, 109 Cong. (2005).
Logan, C.R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 31, 31-53.
Lorber, J. (1998). Gender inequality: Feminist theory and politics. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Lykes, M.B. (1983). Discrimination and coping in the lives of black women: Analyses or oral
history data. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 79-100.
Major, B., Quinton, W., & McCoy, S.K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to
discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp.251-330). San Diego: Academic Press.
Malaney, G.D., Williams, E.A., & Geller, W.W. (1997). Assessing campus climate for gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 38,
365-375.

196

Mansfield, P.K., Koch, P.B., Henderson, J., Vicary, J.R., Cohn, M., & Young, E.W. (1991). The
job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations. Sex Roles, 25, 63-79.
Martin, J.I. & Knox, J. (2000). Methodological and ethical issues in research on lesbians and
gay men. Social Work Research, 24, 51-59.
Martin, S.E. (1994). “Outsider within” the station house: The impact of race and gender on Black
women police. Social Problems, 41, 383-400.
Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth (1993). Making schools safe
for gay and lesbian youth: Breaking the silence in schools and in families. Boston:
Author.
McConaghy, N., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Stevens, C., Manicavasagar, V., Buhrich, N., & VollmerConna, U. (2006). Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in
women and men. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 161-174.
McDevitt, J., Levin, J., & Bennett, S. (2002). Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology.
Journal of Social Issues, 58, 303-317.
McFarland, W.P., & Dupuis, M. (2001). The legal duty to protect gay and lesbian students from
violence in school. Professional School Counseling, 4, 171-179.
Mecca, S. J., & Rubin, L. J. (1999). Definitional research on African American women and
social/sexual interactions in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 813-817.
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159-179.
Meyer, I.H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36, 38-56.
Meyer, I.H. (2003). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. In L.D. Garnets & D.C.
Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences
(2nd ed.), (pp. 699-731). New York: Columbia University Press.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

197

Murrell, A.J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges, and future
directions. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives,
frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 51-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, E.S., & Krieger, S.L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in college
students: Implementation of a gay men and lesbian peer panel. Journal of Homosexuality,
33, 63-81.
Nelson, N.L., & Probst, T.M. (2004). Multiple minority individuals: Multiplying the risk of
workplace harassment and discrimination. In J.L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice
and discrimination: Ethnicity and multiracial identity (pp. 193–217). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Nicholson, W.D., & Long, B.C. (1990). Self-esteem, social support, internalized homophobia,
and coping strategies of HIV+ gay men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
58, 873-876.
Niebuhr, R.E., & Boyles, W.R. (1991). Sexual harassment of military personnel: An examination
of power differentials. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 445-457.
Norris, W.P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: The paradoxes of homosexual
experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 22, 81-120.
Office of the Inspector General. (2002). Military environment with respect to the homosexual
conduct policy (Report No. D-2000-101).
Peters, C.L., & Gaby, S.H. (2004). (Practically In)Significant: The difference between internet
and paper feedback ratings. Poster presented at the 2004 Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
Pilkington, N.W., & D'Augelli, A.R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in
community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 34-56.
Piotrkowski, C.S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed
White and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 33-43.
Popovich, P.M., Jolton, J.A., Mastrangelo, P.M., Everton, W.J., Somers, J.M., & Gahlauf, D.N.
(1995). Sexual harassment scripts: A means to understanding the phenomenon. Sex Roles,
32, 315-335.
Radhakrishnan, P. (January, 1999). Ethnic harassment and discrimination. Paper presented at the
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Ragins, B.R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career
experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 23, 37-122.
198

Ragins, B.R. & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.
Ragins, B.R., & Wiethoff, C. (2005). Understanding heterosexism at work: The straight
problem. In A. Collella, & B. Dipboye (Eds.) The psychological and organizational bases
of discrimination at work, (pp. 177-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ransford, H.E. (1980). The prediction of social behavior and attitudes. In V. Jeffries, & H.E.
Ransford (Eds.), Social stratification: A multiple hierarchy approach, pp. 265-295.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reid, P.T. (1984). Feminism versus minority group identity: Not for black women only. Sex
Roles, 10, 247-255.
Reid, P.T., & Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status. Sex
Roles, 22, 397-408.
Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The adolescent’s perspective. Pediatrics, 79, 326330.
Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 Fed.
Reg. 58,781 (Oct. 30, 1997).
Robins, R.W., Fraley, R.C., & Krueger, R.F. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of research methods in
personality psychology. New York: Guilford.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books
Ross, M.W., & Rosser, B.R.S. (1996). Measurement and correlates of internalized homophobia:
A factor analytic study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 15-21.
Savin-Williams, R., & Rodriquez, R.G. (1993). A developmental, clinical perspective on lesbian,
gay male, and bisexual youths. In T.P. Gullotta, G.R. Adams, & R. Montemayer (Eds.),
Advances in adolescent development (Vol. 5, pp.77-101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Scarville, J., Button, S.B., Edwards, J.E., Lancaster, A.R., & Elig, T.W. (1999). Armed Forces
Equal Opportunity Survey. Report No. 97-027. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data
Center.
Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383-412). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

199

Schneider, K.T., Hitlan, R.T. and Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of the nature and
correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 3-12.
Schneider, K.T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of
sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 401-415.
Shidlo, A. (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in measurement. In
B. Greene & G.M. Herek (Eds.) Lesbian and Gay Psychology, pp. 176-205. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shively, M.G., & De Cecco, J.P. (1993). Components of sexual identity. In L. D. Garnets & D.
C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp.
80-88). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Siomkos, G.J., Rao, S.S., & Narayanan, S. (2001). The influence of positive and negative
affectivity on attitude change toward organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology,
16, 151-161.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Smith, A., & Stewart, A. (1983). Approaches to studying racism and sexism in black women’s
lives. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 1-15.
Spector, P.E., Chen, P.Y., & O’Connell, B.J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations between
job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211-218.
Spector, P.E., Zapf, D., Chen, P.Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be
controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., Lancaster, A.R., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (2002). Toward
standardized measurement of sexual harassment: Shortening the SEQ-DoD using item
response theory. Military Psychology, 14, 49-72.
Steele, J., James, J.B., & Barnett, R.C. (2006). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the
perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 26, 46-50.
Stein, T.S., & Cohen, C.J. (1984). Psychotherapy with gay men and lesbians: An examination of
homophobia, coming out, and identity. In E.S. Hetrick & T.S. Stein (Eds.), Innovations in

200

psychotherapy with homosexuals (pp. 60-73). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Press.
Stevens, S.S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S.S. Stevens (Ed.),
Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1-49). New York: Wiley.
Stockdale, M.S., Berry, C.G., Schneider, R.W., & Cao, F. (2004). Perceptions of the Sexual
Harassment of Men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 158-167.
Stockdale, M.S., & Hope, K.G. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board’s survey of sexual harassment: The fit of a three-factor model. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 51, 338-357.
Stockdale, M.S., Visio, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a
broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 5, 630-664.
Stokes, P. P., Stewart Belle, S., & Barnes, J. M. (2000). The Supreme Court holds class on
sexual harassment: How to avoid a failing grade. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 12, 79-91.
Szymanski, D.M. (2006). Does internalized heterosexism moderate the link between heterosexist
events and Lesbians’ psychological distress? Sex Roles, 54, 227-234.
Tangri, B., Burt, M., & Johnson, L. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory
models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33-55.
Texeira, M.T. (2002). “Who protects and serves me?” A case study of sexual harassment of
African American women in one U.S. law enforcement agency. Gender and Society, 16,
524-545.
Trenchard, L., & Warren, H. (1984). Something to tell you. London: London Gay Teenage
Group.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, August). An older and more diverse nation by mid-century.
Retreived June 29, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html
U.S. CONST. amend. I.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal
workplace. Is it a problem? Washington, DC: US Government.
Van Den Bergh, N. (1999). Workplace problems and needs for lesbian and gay male employees:
Implications for EAPs. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 15, 21-60.

201

Van Diest, I., De Peuter, S., Eertman, A., Bogaerts, K., Victoir, A., & Van den Bergh, O. (2005).
Negative affectivity and enhanced symptom reports: Differentiating between symptoms
in men and women. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1835-1845.
Wagner, G., Brondolo, E., & Rabkin, J. (1996). Internalized homophobia in a sample of HIV+
gay men, and its relationship to psychological distress, coping, and illness progression.
Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 91-106.
Waldo, C.R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218-232.
Waldo, C.R., Berdahl, J.L., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by
whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J.W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the
central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Willness, C.R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences
of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162.
Wolfe, J., Sharkansky, E., Read, J., Dawson, R., Martin, J., & Ouimette, P. (1998). Sexual
harassment and assault as predictors of PTSD symptomatology among US female Persian
Gulf War military personnel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 40–57.
Woods, J.D. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America. New
York: The Free Press.
Woods, K.C., Buchanan, N.T., & Settles, I.H. (2009). Sexual harassment across the color line:
Experiences and outcomes of cross- versus intraracial sexual harassment among black
women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 67–76.
Yoder, J.D., & Aniakudo, P. (1995). The response of African-American women firelighters to
gender harassment at work. Sex Roles, 32, 125-137.
Yoder, J.D., & Aniakudo, P. (1996). When pranks become harassment: The case of African
American women firefighters. Sex Roles, 35, 253-270.

202

Yoder, J.D., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). “Outsider Within” the firehouse: Subordination and
difference in the social interactions of African-American women. Gender and Society,
11, 324-341.
Zea, M.C., Reisen, C.A., & Diaz, R.M. (2003). Methodological issues in reserach on sexual
behavior with Latino gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 31, 281-291.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 111–122.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587-596.

203