ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL HARASSMENT: A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF THREE STUDENT POPULATIONS By Yang Liu A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Criminal Justice – Master of Science 2020 ABSTRACT By Yang Liu ATTITUDES TOWARD SEXUAL HARASSMENT: A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF THREE STUDENT POPULATIONS With the help of social movements and media coverage, people are increasingly aware of the scope and harm of sexual harassment. To help both the public and the academia better understand the issue, this current study aims to examine the effects of neutralization techniques on attitude toward sexual harassment. Using an original dataset of 2,150 college students in both China and the U.S., the present research finds sex to be the most important factor in predicting people’s tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. Student internationality also shows evident effect, where Chinese international students hold significantly higher level of acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors compared to all others. Further analyses suggest that some techniques of neutralization, such as denial of victim and appeal to higher loyalties, hold significant influences on people’s attitudes toward sexual harassment behaviors, and can be more closely associated with sexual harassment than other techniques. However, whether one has participated in relevant training programs does not significantly change how much they think sexual harassment is socially acceptable. Practical implications, study limitations, and future directions are discussed. Copyright by YANG LIU 2020 Dedicated to my parents. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thanking all the faculty and staff at Michigan State University’s School of Criminal Justice. You have showed me nothing but kindness, for which I truly am grateful. I would like to thank my thesis chairperson, Dr. Mahesh Nalla, for his continuing guidance on how to compose the thesis and how to navigate my future in the field of criminology and criminal justice. I thank Dr. Sheila Maxwell and Dr. Charles Corley, members of my thesis committee, for their excellent inputs and feedbacks regarding this project. I also thank Dr. Christina DeJong, for her invaluable advices on both my academic and career life. Her positivity and encouragement kept me through some of the hardest time during graduate school. I would also like to thank my cohort and colleagues, whom I see as friends and spiritual families (following an alphabetical order): Alyssa Fredericks, Carissa Sorenson, Dawn Brado, Derek Burns, Emily McLogan, Kara England, Megan Gilliam, Paradise Rad, Samantha Viola, and Suzanne Hardesty. Finally, and most importantly, a special thank you to my parents and families. While there were misunderstandings from the past when I switched to social sciences, they have been supportive ever since. I also thank my partner, too, for being a great listener and my best friend. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Techniques of Neutralization LITERATURE REVIEW Gendered Opinions about Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment around the World Social Differences between China and the U.S. The Chinese International Students The Sexual Harassment Phenomenon Sexual Harassment Policy and Education Neutralization and Sexual Harassment THE CURRENT STUDY Methodology Survey Construction Measurements Analysis Plan Context and Hypotheses Sampling and Data Collection Dependent Variable Independent Variables Control Variables Demographic Information Preliminary Analysis: Effect of Neutralization Effect of Nationality and Internationality Effect of Control Variables Overall Model RESULTS Limitations Future Research DISCUSSION CONCLUSION vi viii ix 1 5 6 10 10 12 14 14 15 17 19 20 20 20 22 23 24 24 25 29 30 31 31 34 35 37 43 45 49 50 52 Appendix I. Survey Instrument and Codebook Appendix II. Reliability Statistics of Dependent Variable Appendix III. Factor Analysis of Neutralization Variables APPENDICES REFERENCES 53 54 60 61 62 vii LIST OF TABLES Table I. Descriptive Statistics (N=2,150) Table II. Regression Results of Neutralization Techniques on Tolerance of Sexual Harassment 33 Behaviors Table III. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between American and Chinese Students Table IV. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between Chinese International Students and All Others Table V. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Age Groups Table VI. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between Male and Female Students Table VII. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Academic Rank Table VIII. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Academic Majors Table IX. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Gender-Internationality Groups Table X. Overall Model of Demographic Variables, Neutralization Techniques, and Training Participation on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 44 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure I. Hypotheses and Relationships between Variables Figure II. Mean Scores of Acceptability of Specific Sexual Harassment Behaviors Figure III. Effect of Experience with Sexual Harassment Education on Acceptance of Sexual 21 24 41 Harassment Behaviors ix INTRODUCTION What is sexual harassment? According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sexual harassment includes verbal and physical behaviors that insinuate sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances, and other purposes of a sexual nature, or any behavior that is rooted in gender and sex bias (EEOC, 2016). The definition is not shared across the world. For example, the Chinese Law of Protecting Women’s Rights (中(cid:1)人民共和(cid:2)(cid:3)女 (cid:4)益保障法) and its regional modifications define sexual harassment as verbal, graphic, physical, and other conducts that are against women’s will. In academia, Gelfand, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow (1995) identified three most prevalent types of sexual harassment, including gender harassment (i.e., hostility and discrimination), unwanted sexual attention (e.g., physical contact), and sexual coercion (i.e., manipulative and coercive acts for sexual cooperation). Experience with sexual harassment has also found to lead to negative consequences. According to O’Hare and O’Donohue (1998), victims of sexual harassment often reported physical, emotional, and professional damages. For example, Gutek and Koss (1993) suggested that workplace sexual harassment decreased women’s job commitment and increased their stress level at work; another study (Morrow, McElroy, & Phillips, 1994) found positive relationships between sexual harassment experiences and negative attitudes such as stress and role conflict. The same findings were present in other cultures as well. For example, Chan and colleagues (1999) found that workplace sexual harassment lowered women’s job or study satisfaction; for service and frontline workers, sexual harassment by customers largely influenced their job performance (Liu, Kwan, & Chiu, 2014). Although research have shown that work-related attitude changes often occurred in occupations with strong interpersonal and interactional requirements (McIlwee, 1982). Research concerning peer sexual harassment in adolescents and young adults suggested that sexual 1 harassment experiences promoted embarrassment and further drop in academic performance and the damage could continue into future relationships (Hill & Silva, 2005; McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002). Specifically, in college and higher education, 27% of the harassed women (11% for male victims) reported avoiding particular buildings where harassment occurred and 9% (4% for male) reported dropping or skipping a class in order to avoid the harasser (Hill & Silva, 2005). However, these actions in the hope to protect themselves and avoid further harassment would often lead to more disruptions and damages to students’ academic and educational life (Hill & Silva, 2005; Huberta, Cortina, Pang, Torges, & Magley, 2006). Apart from victims’ work life and career satisfaction, sexual harassment has also been found to lead to lower self-esteem and overall life satisfaction (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982). Like other forms of violence against women, sexual harassment also increased the likelihood of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997). As a response, female victims of sexual harassment reported significantly higher prescription drug use, and both male and female victims showed significantly higher tendency of drinking to intoxication behaviors (Richman et al., 1999). Other physical health issues raised by sexual harassment included sleeplessness, weight loss, and disordered eating habits (Shinsako, Richman, & Rospenda, 2001; Street, Gradus, Stafford, & Kelly, 2007). The issue of sexual harassment has drawn increased attention since the #MeToo movement, where women (and men alike) from various backgrounds came forward with their experiences with sexual harassment and sexual assault in various settings. The society is divided on the topic (Mayerson & Taylor, 1987; Page, 2008; Spohn & Horney, 1993). While many were empathetic, joining parades and campaigns to show support and encouragement, negative attitudes throve too. A common thread found online claimed that women were reporting sexual harassment and rape because they did not want to be shamed for infidelity or promiscuity, under the commonly found 2 “virgin-whore binary” and the “just world” phenomenon (Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2018). Aided with recent news about false rape accusations (e.g., the Laura Hood case and the Catherine Reddington case; BBC News, 2019; Crane, 2018), the trend of victim blaming only grew, although the event was incredibly rare and ranged from as low as 2% to 10% in all sexual assault cases (Lisak, Gardinier, Nicksa, & Cote, 2010; Spohn, White, & Tellis, 2014; Ward, 1995). Another factor aiding the growing phenomenon was the lack of consequences of sexual harassment behaviors (DuMont, Miller, Myhr, 2003; Spohn & Horney, 1993). While the term was often linked with sexual assault and rape, most did not consider mere sexual harassment serious enough (Fitzgerald, 1993). In fact, certain behaviors such as verbal sexual harassment were normalized in many cultures (Tang, Yik, Cheung, Choi, & Au, 1995), especially ones with high patriarchal structures and stale gender expectations. Other cultures, such as in India, have developed vocabulary such as “eve-teasing” to trivialize the sexual harassment behaviors of males (Nalla, 2020). In addition, unlike rape and sexual assault by force, sexual indecencies toward minors, prostitution, and other types of sex crimes, sexual harassment does not usually carry serious consequences or are punishable by law, however organizational code of conduct and moral beliefs often favor male harassers significantly (Riger, 1991). For example, the Chinese Law of Protecting Women’s Rights writes that it is prohibited to sexually harass women, or else victims can file complaints toward relevant organizations and government branches (Article 6, Section 40); comparatively, the minimum sentence for rape is three to ten years in prison, and can go as high as death penalty (see the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China Article II, Section 236 for details). In India, penalties for sexual harassment range from one to three years in prison with potential fine (Nirbhaya Act, 2013 Section 354A), while committing rape leads to imprisonment of at least seven years (Indian Penal Code Section 376). 3 Although many have published on the topic, most research focused on the harm of sexual harassment (Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2008; Chan, Tang, & Chan, 1999; Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; Morrow et al., 1994; O’Hare & O’Donohue, 1998; Shinsako et al., 2001), victimization (Berdahl, 2007; Fitzgerald et al., 1995), and descriptives of the phenomenon (Hill & Silva, 2005). As for inter-group differences in how people perceive and handle the issue, race (Lui, 2016) and gender (McMaster et al., 2002; Richman et al., 1999) came up most often. Some have considered the importance of migration experiences (Cortina & Wasti, 2005) and cultural identities (Barak, 1997; Lenton, Smith, Fox, & Morra, 1999), but much is unknown about different attitudes toward sexual harassment from different countries. Thus, this thesis seeks to fill the gap in the literatures by exploring the cross-national differences in tolerance of sexual harassment among three distinct groups: American students studying in the U.S., Chinese students studying abroad, and Chinese students studying at a Chinese university. The current study hypothesizes that students vary in their use of neutralization techniques, based on their nationality, can hold significant impact on how they view the issue of sexual harassment. This study also aims to explore the role of sex, age, academic backgrounds, as well as their participation in sexual harassment training programs on students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Research tried to explain sexual harassment using different theoretical frameworks and concepts. For example, some have examined the role of gender images and power relations. While most assumed that sexual harassment took place due to biological desire for sex (Franke, 1997; Schultz, 1998), it was found that people were sexually harassed because they offended the societal gender norms and ideals (Berdahl, 2007; Dall’Ara & Maass, 1999). These gender roles, or desirable personalities, suggested that men must be masculine (e.g., dominant and independent) while women ought to be feminine (e.g., modest and warm). Thus, if one, especially a female, does not perform such characteristics, they should be “slapped down” (Berdhal, 2007; Fiske & Stevens, 1993; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Similarly, male perpetrators are more likely to harass when their masculinity is challenged or threatened (Maass, Cadjnu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003). The research (Maass et al., 2003) also claimed that the pattern is more prominent in highly identified males, or that hypermasculinity increase the likelihood of gender harassment. In addition, research examining situational factors have found that sexual harassment could occur in all settings and environments, such as in school or at work (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001; Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Richman et al., 1999; Stein, 1981), in military (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999), in public (Ceccato & Paz, 2017; Lichty & Campbell, 2012; Macmillan, Nierobisz, & Welsh, 2000; Madan & Nalla, 2016; Nalla, 2020; Tang et al., 1995), and in cyberspace (Barak, 2005; Barnes, 2001). For example, an American Association of University Women survey (1993) found that 87% of high school girls and 71% surveyed boys had experienced sexual harassment by peers. Macmillan and colleagues (2000) found that incidents of sexual harassment against women was not uncommon in Canada, where 26.3% of the surveyed women said that a man they knew made inappropriate comments about 5 their body or sex life, and 66% said they had received obscene phone calls before. Research also observed high occurrence of sexual harassment incidents in developing countries. In India, Madan and Nalla (2016) found that 57.6% of women had been subject to sexual harassment, and over 90% of both males and females had heard about a woman being harassed in public. A study in China (Chan et al., 1999) found that 40.5% of the students in their sample have experienced dirty language, 27.4% said that they had been called sexist remarks personally, and 52.4% had heard stories of other female students being physically harassed. Techniques of Neutralization While there are many possible explanations for sexual harassment, the focus of this thesis is on the techniques of neutralization. First suggested by Sykes and Matza (1957), the techniques of neutralization tried to make sense of why people offend by analyzing how offenders normalize and neutralize certain criminal behaviors and criminal intentions. The theory suggested five methods commonly used by offenders to justify their deviance (Sykes & Matza, 1957): denial of responsibility, that the act is a result of circumstantial factors or force; denial of injury, that the act itself does little or no harm; denial of victim, that there is no direct victim of the act or the victim deserves the harm; condemnation of condemners, where the offender shifts the focus onto the rejectors of their deviance; appeal to higher loyalties, that the act is done to please or fulfil an organizational, holistic, or other mission. Research (Mitchell & Dodder, 1983) has also found that there could be a hierarchical arrangement of the five techniques, that denial of victim was most accepted and appeal to higher loyalties might not be as important. Further, Scott and Lyman (1968), suggested that there were two basic forms of neutralization: justification, when the offender accepted the responsibility by deny that it was wrong; and excuses, when the offender accepted that it was wrong but denied the responsibility of the act. Moreover, modern updates to the 6 techniques of neutralization suggested that denial of risk could be prevalent as well (Peretti-Watel, 2003), covering scapegoating, self-confidence, and comparison of risks. Scapegoating, for instance, reduces the notion of risk by provoking other riskier behaviors because the “other” behavior is more stigmatized and blameworthy (Douglas, 1992; Peretti-Watel, 2003). Though Sykes and Matza developed the techniques of neutralization to explain juvenile delinquency in 1957, the theory continues to be popular in contemporary criminology. McQuillan and Zito (2011) argued that three techniques of neutralization, denial of responsibility, condemnation of condemners, and appealing to higher loyalties, were commonly adopted by middle school students to neutralize unethical acts such as cheating. Although using the techniques to explain juvenile delinquency is still popular, more research has been devoted to other types of crimes and across different age groups. Johnston and Kilty (2016) studied violence against psychiatric patients by security guards (males of age 23-30) and found that the security guards often employed denial of injury, that their acts were to benefit the patients and was “for their own good”. The theory has also been extended to cybercrime research (Harris & Dumas, 2009; Hinduja, 2007), where it was found that some elements of the neutralization theory, such as denial of injury, appeal to higher loyalties, and denial of negative intent, were positively related to software piracy and the distribution of pirated materials. In some cases, the techniques of neutralization were also used to explain genocide and war crimes, namely the causation of the Holocaust (Alvarez, 1997). The theory has also been used extensively in gender violence and sex offending research (Boyle & Walker, 2016; Miller & Schwartz, 1995; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999; Stubbs- Richardson, Rader, & Cosby, 2018). Miller and Schwartz (1995), for instance, interviewed sixteen women held at the local county jail for prostitution-related charges about their experience with violence. They argued that myths such as “prostitutes deserved to be beaten or raped” or that 7 “prostitutes were unrapable”, could explain the vast amounts of rape and violence prostitutes (and women in general) may experience. While the authors did not mention the techniques of neutralization in specific, it was apparent that these myths represent denial of victim and denial of injury. Payne, Lonsway, and Fitzgerald (1999) suggested seven main categories of rape myths, such as “she asked for it”, “it wasn't really rape”, and “she liked it”, all classic representations of the techniques of neutralization and especially denial of victim. Sexual assault and rape in college populations also revealed that subscription to rape stereotypes and acknowledgement of rape and sexual assault were negatively correlated (Boyle & Walker, 2016). Similar findings were evident in domestic violence research. It was found that large portions of domestic abusers attributed their violence to the victim, that their intimate partner provoked their assault (Dutton, 1986; Henderson & Hewstone, 1984). Beside rapists and domestic abusers, sex traffickers and madams were also frequent users of neutralization techniques (Antonopoulos & Winterdyk, 2005; Copley, 2014; Kara, 2009). They often emphasized the parents’ role (that parents gave consent or directly sold the girls to them; Kara, 2009), or that they were only small figures in the actual trafficking (Antinopoulos & Winterdyk, 2005). In other cases, they condemn the government and socio-economic environment for sex trafficking, that institutions were corrupt and failed to intervene (Copley, 2014; Kara, 2009). While the traditional model of neutralization theory only targeted the perspective of offenders, many have taken the theory to explain the victimization experiences as well. It was found that victims of sexual violence employed the techniques of neutralization to justify not reporting their experiences to authorities (Weiss, 2011), including denial of responsibility (that the offender did not intend to), denial of injury (that the harm was minimal or unimportant), etc. Moreover, in research discussing battered women and their victimization experiences (Ferraro & 8 Johnson, 1983), scholars discovered that these women, when encountering domestic violence, blamed themselves and external forces for the events and believed that their suffrage was in fact nurturance for their troubled husbands. The neutralization theory is not without critiques. One of the most prominent criticisms was that the theory lacked clear operationalization of the concepts. For example, Austin (1977) and Minor (1980, 1981) argued that research using neutralization theory failed to distinguish the neutralization techniques from unconventional commitment and moral agreement. In addition, some argued that neutralization could be limited only to where the victim was alien to the offender (Landsheer, Hart, & Kox, 1994), as well as that the offender’s acceptance to conventional norms was not a prerequisite for effective neutralization (Fritsche, 2005). Topalli (2005) also discovered that “hardcore, active, noninstitutionalized” street offenders often rejected the conventional moral code, or neutralized “good” behaviors, in order to maintain a self-image consistent with the code of the street. In sum, the techniques of neutralization have been employed in research on various types of offenses and in different populations. The current research would like to contribute to the abundance of empirical tests of the neutralization theory as well as research on sexual harassment and gender violence. 9 LITERATURE REVIEW Social Differences between China and the U.S. Bush and Qiang (2000) summarized that the Chinese traditional culture is characterized by its authoritarian, collectivist, socialist, morale-centered, and patriarchal nature. China, being one of the longest-standing cultures in the world, is dependent on Confucianist ideology (Cleverley, 1991) and subsequently worships traditional values and the passage of traditions to younger generations (Bush & Qiang, 2000; Wang & Mao, 1996). For example, under the traditional culture, women’s rights are extremely oppressed, and their self-identities are often restricted to carriers of children; furthermore, in a traditional Chinese family, only sons are valued, since bearing daughters bring shame to the family and raising them is a wasted effort in the family value system (Leung, 2003; Wolf, 1985). Guanxi, loosely translated to personal relationships and social capital, is another prevalent cultural phenomenon in China (Gold, Guthrie, & Wank, 2004; Lin, 2004). While personal connections and the importance of social networks are hardly a culture-specific term, guanxi is unique to the Chinese as it takes root in the historical and social circumstances of China, and thus differs from how interpersonal connections work in the rest of the world, resulting in the Chinese society being characterized as relation- and interaction-based (Gold et al., 2004; King, 1985). Admittedly, guanxi is in every sphere of the Chinese society and exists on both individual and organizational levels (Bian, 2004; Gold et al., 2004; Keister, 2004). For example, in a study conducted by Bian (2004) on labor market entries, it is found that guanxi plays a significant role in finding and securing jobs, that a considerable amount of interviewees in the study find jobs through strong guanxi ties across different types of businesses, domestic and foreign, private and public alike. Apart from personal favors and gifts, on an organizational level, firm-to-firm guanxi 10 help form the foundation of Chinese economic system, that it stimulates lending and trade relations among business groups; that is, firms lean towards other firms they have guanxi with, especially when the circumstantial condition is uncertain (Keister, 2004). Comparatively, the American culture is characterized by its individualistic and materialistic ideologies (Du Bois, 1955; Hsu, 1981; Spindler & Spindler, 1983). Du Bois (1955) suggests that there are three focal points in the American value system: effort-optimism, achieving through conventional means (i.e., work); material well-being, also known as the “money equals success” ideology; and conformity, the notion of equality and cooperation. Notably, the capitalistic and materialistic ideology where monetary gain defines one’s success is widely accepted and used, such as in Robert Merton’s theory of structural strain (1967). Regarding individualism, while Hsu’s argument that individualism (1981) bears all evil deeds carry less popularity and validity in scholars’ eyes, the idea that the American society and culture is based on individualistic ideology stands. For example, in Hofstede’s analysis of 50 countries and three regions (1986), the United States is characterized by high individualism and small power distance, indicating that the American culture has lower acceptance of inequalities and that the American people pursue their own interest more often. In conclusion, collectivism and individualism have differential powers on how people view the society. The current research would like to explore how attitude toward sexual harassment varies in Chinese and American populations. Moreover, the current research explores how these two ideologies collectively influence one’s view, using international students. 11 The Chinese International Students The history of Chinese international students in the United States and other western countries could date back to the early nineteenth century and further, where the Qing government and the Republic of China administration encouraged Chinese students to study in other countries for knowledge and technology. The trend continued to grow in the contemporary society, where increasingly more Chinese people have studied abroad in countries such as the United States, Canada, England, and Australia, in the hope of better personal development and future career for the children, as well as potential immigration opportunities. On the other hand, these destination countries have established policies and strategies to attract more international students for the educational and economic contributions foreign students may bring, including convenient visa and university applications, scholarship and funding, and outreach programs (Andrade, 2006). Chinese governments and universities were also encouraging students to have some experiences abroad. Governmental policies included compensations for international students returning to China as high as one million yuan (Zhao & Luo, 2019); and in higher education, those who have studied and worked abroad often were tenured faster than those who have not (Pang, Wang, & Hu, 2019). Apart from governmental and educational support, obstacles in the adjustment process for international students remained inevitable. Studies found that there were two primary issues for foreign students’ adjustment and acculturation, language barrier and cultural differences (Andrade, 2006; Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999). For example, it was found that international students from non-English-speaking countries often had difficulties understanding lectures because of vocabulary issues and instructors’ rapid speech (Ramsay et al., 1999; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Other studies also confirmed that social and psychological problems occurred more often for international students, that they were more likely to struggle with finding social 12 support (Hechanova-Awlampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Horn, 2002) and to feel anxious and lonely about their life abroad (Lewthwaite, 1996; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002). Besides, research have also identified a more severe lack of confidence in international students, that they feared making mistakes and felt insecure about language abilities (Jacob & Greggo, 2001; Hellsten & Prescott, 2004; Lewthwaite, 1996; Robertson et al., 2000), which could result in further problems in the adjustment process. International students, upon meeting these obstacles and stressors, start their acculturation process to form a hybrid identity consist of both their home and host cultures (Marginson, 2014). A commonly accepted model (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry, 1997) suggested that the main purpose of acculturation was to find balance between maintenance of one’s original cultural identity and contact with the outside/ host culture. The model also distinguished four acculturation strategies people demonstrate: integration, a healthy balance between the two goals; assimilation, where one overemphasizes on the importance of contact and neglect cultural maintenance; separation, where one only focuses on cultural maintenance and overlooks contact; and marginalization, a state of alienizing oneself from both cultural maintenance and contact. To reach the best outcome (i.e., integration), Berry (1991, 1997) argued that a mutual accommodation consist of an open and inclusive host culture and a willing subject was required. Ergo, in the case of Chinese international students studying abroad, successful acculturation refers to the state where one adapts to the local mainstream norms while maintaining learnt Chinese values in the meantime. Many have researched on the struggles and outcomes of international students in foreign lands. However, how international students differ from non-migrants remains rarely discussed. To fill the gap in existing research, the current research compares international students with their 13 peers in home and host countries and discusses how being an international student may affect one’s attitude toward sexual harassment and societal gender relations. The Sexual Harassment Phenomenon Sexual harassment is hardly a new topic in the contemporary world, and the issue has received extensive research interests. Scholars from various academic backgrounds, whether sociological, criminological, educational, legal, or medical, have put in efforts in explaining the phenomenon of sexual harassment. A shared finding is that most victims of sexual harassment are found to be female and most offenders male (Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Hand & Sanchez, 2000; Macmillan et al., 2000; McMaster et al., 2002; Paludi & Paludi, 2003; Pina, Gannon, & Saunders, 2009), even though same-sex sexual harassment and female perpetrators of sexual harassment do exist, however usually for different reasons. Gendered Opinions about Sexual Harassment Most previous studies found that men generally perceived sexual harassment as less serious or were less capable of recognizing sexual harassment in ambiguous situations (Bursik, 1992; LaRocca & Kromrey, 1999; Stockdale, 1993; Tata, 1993). For example, while it was found that men and women were both affected by the power positions between the perpetrator and the victim in a scenario, female respondents rated all situations as more harassing than men did in Tata’s research on power relations and perceptions on sexual harassment (1993). In a research on media influences on people’s attitudes toward sexual harassment (Dill et al., 2008), scholars found that males exposed to stereotypical female images had the highest tolerance of sexual harassment, followed by males viewing professional images of women, while women in the experimental group, who viewed images of stereotypical womanhood and gender roles, rated sexual harassment 14 as least tolerable. Past research in college (Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982; Beauvais, 1986) also found that female students agreed with statements such as “Uninvited sexual attention by men to women students or employees helps to keep women in their place” or “One of the problems with sexual harassment is that some women just can’t take a joke” and less than did males. Sexual Harassment around the World The issue of sexual harassment is a global and universal phenomenon, although cultural and socio-political impacts may alter the appearances, victim responses, and the effects of sexual harassment significantly (Barak, 1997, 2005; Lenton et al., 1999; Tang, 1994). First off, in different cultures and communities, sexual harassment takes various forms. For example, in China, physical contact such as fondling and unwanted hugging are most common type (Tang et al., 1995). McIlwee (1982) and Riemer (1979) found that verbal harassment (e.g., ridicule and sabotage) were the most widely seen in American blue-collar industries. McMaster and colleagues (2002) also proposed that same- and cross-gender sexual harassment could be different, that same-sex harassment leaned more toward gender harassment such as homophobic jokes and insults (as well as hazing behaviors), whereas cross-gender harassment involved more elements of unwanted sexual attention and coercion. Women in traditionally patriarchal societies and cultures reported sexual harassment and other sexual violence less frequently, for reasons such as fear of trouble and blame, gender roles and ideal womanhood, fear of losing face, etc. (Chan et al., 1999; Dussich, 2001; Tang et al., 1995). Comparatively, Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995) indicated that while some victims did not report sexual harassment incidents, they did it out of fear of causing trouble to harassers and the worry that nothing could be done. In a study comparing immigrant Americans and Anglo-Americans (Cortina & Wasti, 2005), a drastic gap between how women of different 15 backgrounds coped with sexual harassment was found. It was found that Hispanic and Turkish American women relied more on social support, reported more avoidance and denial in coping with sexual harassment, and were less confrontational when negotiating with the offenders, while Anglo-American women tended to seek advocacy and be more aggressive in confrontations (Cortina & Wasti, 2005), possibly due to cultural traditions such as patriarchy and collectivism. In studies concerning Asian women’s experiences with sexual harassment (Lui, 2016), liberal sex attitude was shown to be statistically significant and possesses a positive and direct effect on occurrence of sexual harassment, in addition to risk factors such as youthfulness and economic independence. Kennedy and Gorzalka (2002) provided a valid reason behind the phenomenon, that Asians were more conservative on sexual behaviors and more accepting of sexual harassment, thus the society may neutralize sexual harassment when the victim challenged the traditional moral attitudes, which was in line with Berdahl’s findings (2007) where women who were deviant by societal standards experienced sexual harassment most often. In addition, when asked about reactions and responsive behaviors toward sexual harassment, Chinese women often utilized avoidance and “let him get away with it”, because face and traditional gender roles dominated their rationality (Tang, 1994). Compared to research on the appearances of and responses to sexual harassment, there were scarce literatures on how the effects differentiated by culture. For example, per Buchanan and Fitzgerald (2008), African American women’s exposure to sexual harassment significantly and negatively correlated with their work experience, even more so than racial harassment. The same finding, that women’s job performance and satisfaction rate decreased as they were exposed to sexual harassment, was shared in research in different lines of work, except those that required minimum or no informal connections with others (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; McIlwee, 1982). The 16 tokenism Kanter (1977) suggested also stated that in highly masculine or highly nonminority organizations, “tokens” (i.e., the minorities in these settings) could express a greater degree of stress when given a certain stimulus, such as comparisons and self-evaluations. In addition, although there were work on differences between immigrants and non-immigrants (Cortina & Wasti, 2005), the role of migration and acculturation and the sojourners population were nearly untouched in research on sexual harassment. Acknowledging this gap of knowledge, this article seeks to make sense of how culture, migration, and education affect individual perceptions of sexual harassment both separately and collaboratively. Sexual Harassment Policy and Education Due to the pervasive and harmful nature of sexual harassment (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2003; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997), many social institutes and businesses have created trainings and education programs and implemented policies to prevent sexual harassment behaviors within the organizations. For example, in a study of federal government employees, Antecol and Cobb-Clark (2003) found that over 75% of the surveyed individuals had participated in sexual harassment trainings in their work. Although few programs were evaluated and those evaluated programs existed primarily in college settings (Beauvais, 1986; Bingham & Scherer, 2001; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993), the effect of said implementations was shown to be positively related to an increased awareness of sexual harassment (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2003). It was found that 55.4% of female and 62.7% male participants in federal offices believed that organizational sexual harassment training helped prevent such behaviors at work (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2003); and in college populations, sexual harassment trainings increased students’ sensitivity and knowledge on the issue (Beauvais, 1986). Particularly, Beauvais (1986) found in her experiment at University of Michigan that male students’ perception of victim responsive 17 behaviors had significantly changed (α<.0001) after participating in training workshops. Further, trainings helped balance the definitions of sexual harassment across genders as well, as presented by Blakely, Blakely, and Moorman (1998), that after viewing educational films on sexual harassment, the ambiguity of definition in both female (3.26) and male (2.50) participants changed to a more equilateral level (female=3.02; male=2.95). Sexual harassment policies, according to researchers and governmental offices, should adhere to five standards. First off, these policies need to have clear definitions of what sexual harassment is and to express a strict, zero-tolerance attitude; in addition, there should be frequent reminders of the policies (Paludi & Paludi, 2003). Secondly, a successful sexual harassment policy should demonstrate the organization and its leadership’s dedication in formal and written format (Williams, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1999). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2016) also stated that organizations should establish comprehensive and efficient investigative procedures to handle complaints and corrective measures on offenders. In an article by Schneider (1987), it was stated that more universities and educational institutes were picking up sexual harassment policies in response to the Alexander v. Yale case (the first use of Title IX policy against an educational institute), including both principal statements and detailed guidelines. Today, most universities have implemented some sort of sexual harassment policies in the western world, while recent news about sexual harassment in higher education still indicated a lack of adequate acknowledgement and proper policy establishment in Chinese colleges (Wang, Yang, Zhang, & Ma, 2019; Yan, Yang, & Yang, 2018). 18 Neutralization and Sexual Harassment The techniques of neutralization have been used extensively in research on gender violence and sex crimes, as the previous chapter discussed. However, the majority of research focused on more serious offenses, such as rape and sexual assault (Boyle & Walker, 2016; Miller & Schwartz, 1995; Payne et al., 1999), intimate partner violence (Dutton, 1986; Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Henderson & Hewstone, 1984), pedophilia (De Young, 1988), sex trafficking (Antonopoulos & Winterdyk, 2005; Copley, 2014; Kara, 2009). Although as one of the less serious sex offenses, the use of neutralization on sexual harassment was not as common, a number of studies have shown relevance of neutralization in sexual harassment incidents. Shakeshaft and colleagues (Shakeshaft, Mandel, & Johnson, 1997), for instance, reported that youths used denial of injury, by suggesting that sexual harassment was “a way of life”. Other studies have also argued that people often neutralized sexual harassment as a normal experience or a part of everyday culture (Hinze, 2004; Hlavka, 2014; Huebner, 2008; Robinson, 2005; Rolfe & Schroeder, 2017). Regarding other techniques, Tinkler, Gremillion, and Arthurs (2015) have depicted the use of condemning the condemners in sexual harassment trainings, where they wrote that male trainers in sexual harassment education programs often enforced the idea that laws were unfairly targeting men. In addition, Summers and Myklebust (1992) discovered that investigators might overlook sexual harassment incidents if the two parties had prior romantic relationships, thus employing denial of victim. Moreover, research on sexual harassment in sport industry (Fejgin & Hanegby, 2001; Hall, 1996; Hargreaves, 1994) demonstrated that male athletes and coaches tended to legitimize their harassment against female athletes with the idea of “natural” superiority and male dominance in the industry, a branch of appealing to higher loyalties. 19 Methodology Context and Hypotheses THE CURRENT STUDY Culture has a significant impact on human behaviors (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993), and the variation in cultural beliefs and values often prevent scholars’ effort to generalize findings to cross- cultural settings (Pepitone & Triandis, 1987). Namely, China and the U.S. possess cultural differences in multiple aspects that often lead to difficulties in researching the “how” and “why” of social phenomena, such as that the U.S. tends more toward individualism while the Chinese highly value collectivism. However, culture is a complex concept, and it is beyond the scope of this thesis to assess the effect of cultural identities on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Using nationality and internationality as frameworks, the current study seeks to examine attitudes toward sexual harassment in different student groups, drawing samples from three distinct populations: Chinese students studying in China, Chinese international students, and American students studying in the U.S. The current research proposes the following research question: Do Chinese and American students differ in their attitude toward sexual harassment? If so, how and why do they differ? In light of the research question, a series of hypotheses are thus generated. Firstly, the techniques of neutralization should have a significant and positive relationship with acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors, that the more one uses the techniques, the more likely they are to score higher on the acceptance scale (Hypothesis 1). Secondly, it is hypothesized that nationality and internationality impact people’s tolerance of sexual harassment, where Chinese citizens and Chinese international students should perceive sexual harassment as more tolerable than the rest 20 (Hypothesis 2-3). Moreover, acceptance of sexual harassment should also differ by variables such as respondent’s age, gender, academic ranking, academic major, and experience with sexual harassment training (Hypothesis 4-8). Figure I. Hypotheses and Relationships between Variables Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors (tell suggestive jokes; make sexist remarks; deliberate touching; threat for lack of sexual cooperation…) Techniques of Neutralization (denial of responsibility; denial of injury; denial of victim; appeal to higher loyalties) Nationality Internationality Age Gender Academic Ranking Academic Major Experience with Sexual Harassment Training 21 Sampling and Data Collection A convenience sampling technique was adopted in the survey distribution. An online survey link generated on Qualtrics was created and posted onto social media platforms such as QQ groups whose majority of members are Chinese college students in China, WeChat public accounts and groups catering toward American universities’ existing and incoming Chinese students, Weibo (through reposts and shares), Facebook pages and groups that require student identification (e.g., “Michigan State University Class of 2021” and “Ohio State University Class of 2020”). People reached via these means were also asked to share the survey link with their friends and on their social media platforms. Additionally, college professors and course instructors were contacted and asked to distribute the survey link to students on course portals and via email lists. A random sample of 10 professors and lecturers at Michigan State University’s School of Criminal Justice was selected first. Department heads of six sociology and criminology programs in the mid-west were also randomly selected and contacted. Later, the researcher employed a stratified sampling technique and categorized all undergraduate majors at the university into five groups based on information found online: Natural Sciences, Engineering, Business, Arts and Humanities, and Social Sciences. Two departments and three professors in which departments were randomly selected and asked to distribute the survey on D2L and to their graduate students. A total of 30 individuals were contacted through this means. A similar method was used to contact course instructors, where two instructors from each of Michigan State University’s undergraduate integrative subjects were chosen. And a total of 18 presidents of different student organizations, including Greek organizations, sport clubs, religious groups, and ethnic student associations, were asked to share the survey with members. 22 Survey Construction The survey included all questions mentioned in the previous sections and offered two languages (in Chinese and English) to ease the data collection process in all three populations. The survey was first created in English and was later translated to Simplified Chinese (mainland China’s official reading and writing language) by the author of the paper. Afterwards, a copy of the version in Chinese was sent to a group of five bilingual individuals outside the social science field, whom were asked to translate the Chinese version back to English with a small amount of incentive of ¥120 (around $17 as of December 1st, 2019). These five back-translation copies were used to identify whether the Chinese survey matched what the English survey asked about, and that respondents using different languages would be answering the same items for a smoother analysis. The surveys translated by individual non-professional translators were compared with the original survey in English. After careful comparisons and discussions with the five bilingual individuals, some minor changes were made. Changes included terms and misleading phrases such as “kissing sounds”, “repeated calling”, and “propositioned you”, that were not normally used in or hard to translate to the Chinese language. However, most of the translations matched the original survey, and provided enough validations to the multilingual research tool, despite wording differences such as “pornographic/dirty jokes” instead of “suggestive stories” and “complaint process” instead of “grievance procedure”. 23 Measurements Dependent Variable Different from previous research where attitude toward sexual harassment was defined as people’s subscription to myths and attitude toward victimization and victim behaviors, the current study operationalized “attitude” as respondents’ acceptance of certain sexual harassment behaviors. It was assumed that a higher score on the questionnaire would represent a higher acceptance rate of sexual harassment behaviors, or a more lenient attitude toward sexual harassment in general. The Sexual Experience Questionnaire (SEQ) designed by Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald et al., 1988) and its revised version (SEQ-R; Gelfand et al., 1995) were employed here to identify specific sexual harassment behaviors. The current research compared this questionnaire with another research measuring sexual harassment attitudes (Madan & Nalla, 2016), and identified a total of 12 items that were present or similar in both studies. Respondents were provided a five-point Likert scale from 1 being “strongly unacceptable” to 5 being “strongly acceptable” and were asked to respond with their level of agreement with each item in the questionnaire (Cronbach’s a=.791, see Appendix II for factor analysis). Beside only one item (i.e., “Do you think they [sexual harassment behaviors] are acceptable? Tell suggestive stories.”), all items constructing the tolerance of sexual harassment scale met desirable standards (Factor Loading>.450). However, as telling suggestive stories was a key element in the original Sexual Experience Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Gelfand et al., 1995), the item was kept in the current study despite that its factor loading was lower than the desired level. 24 Figure II. Mean Scores of Acceptability of Specific Sexual Harassment Behaviors Tolerance of Behavior 3.25 1.54 1.23 1.33 1.15 1.74 1.53 1.64 1.57 1.27 1.1 1.12 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Proposition you Make sexist remarks Display sexist materials Invasion of privacy Attempts to stroke/fondle Tell suggestive stories Different treatment Bribe with reward Deliberate touching Actual reward Threat Negative consequences Independent Variables Two sets of independent variables were included in the current study: 1) the use of neutralization techniques, and 2) nationality and internationality of students. The use of neutralization techniques was further broken down to four sub-variables according to Sykes and Matza’s typology (1957). Results of the factor analysis of all neutralization variables were presented in Appendix III. In denial of responsibility, the offender asserted that their actions were due to external forces beyond their control, such as drug use, delinquent peers, and neighborhood disorganization (Agnew & Peters, 1986; Sykes & Matza, 1957). For example, Agnew and Peters (1986) used whether the respondent’s friends pressured them to cheat in their study on cheating. In addition, prior research (Boyle & Walker, 2016) used “If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally” as a measure for this technique. Recent research on sexual harassment in public spaces also found that male offenders often perpetrated while other male companions were present (Nalla, 2020). This research measured denial of responsibility with the 25 question “In your opinion, a person is likely to sexually harass under what circumstances?” Two items were picked from the string of dichotomous questions, “under influence/ sober” and “friend’s encouragement/ independent decision”. These two items represented circumstantial, or external forces that could be beyond control of the potential offender, thus rejecting the offender’s responsibility in the incident. Denial of injury represented “whether or not anyone has clearly been hurt by his deviance” (Sykes & Matza, 1957), and the goal was to lessen the seriousness and the consequences of the deviant behavior (Harris & Dumas, 2009; Maruna & Copes, 2005). For instance, offenders may claim that while there was harm, the acts were merely mischief (Byers, Crider, & Biggers, 1999), or in other words, the harm or act was not serious. In the current study, respondents were asked to rank four types of sexual harassment (verbal, non-verbal, less serious physical, more serious physical; Madan & Nalla, 2016) based on their seriousness. Prior research (Dutton, 1986) had compared wife assaulters’ description of injuries to official reports to measure how much the offender minimized the effects of domestic violence. In this research, while official reports were unavailable, respondents’ rating of different types of sexual harassment was compared to the norm, that physical harassment such as rubbing breasts with hands and poking with penis was more rated more serious than verbal harassment such as whistling, making kissing sounds, and asking about sexual life (Madan & Nalla, 2016). The current study thus compared how respondents ranked these two types of harassments, and computed a new variable representing such comparison (rank of verbal harassment minus rank of serious physical harassment). If verbal was ranked more serious than physical harassment (score of formula < 0, coded “1=Verbal is more serious”), it was suggested that the respondent utilized denial of injury. 26 Denial of victim, as Sykes and Matza (1957) pointed out, could be a form of “rightful retaliation or punishment” inflicted upon transgressors who broke societal norms. For example, prior research found that most domestic assaulters attributed victimization to the victims’ disloyalty and disobedience (Cavannagh, Dobash, Dobash, & Lewis, 2001; Presser, 2003). In addition, it was found that traditional gender norms (i.e., physical appearance) could largely explain why college men “hogged” (Galley & Prohaska, 2006); a study on honor crimes (van Baak, Hayes, Freilich, & Chermak, 2018) also suggested that “offender killed his daughter because she wanted to divorce her husband from an arranged marriage” and being “unhappy with his daughter’s style of dress and her resistance to his rules” were uses of denial of victim as the victim’s behavior violated cultural standards. Moreover, a qualitative study on hate violence suggested that denial of victim could also involve dehumanization of the group where the victim belonged (Byers et al., 1999), where a respondent commented “…we can pick on them because they are so different” and that “…they are below us. I guess relative below us…and they were like almost not even anything to me. I guess we just picked on them.” A total of nine statements regarding women’s rights and roles, in other words, victim’s deviation from the traditional gender roles and respondent’s denial of equal rights, in the Attitude toward Women Scale (AWS; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973) were used in the current study to measure this technique of neutralization. Responses range from 1 being “totally disagree” and 5 being “totally agree”. Statements measuring women’s rights were thus reverse coded to 1 being “totally agree” and 5 being “totally disagree” to match statements measuring agreement with gender discrimination. Condemnation of condemners, according to Sykes and Matza (1957), essentially meant attacking others, especially those who disapproved of the offenders’ deviant behaviors. For example, sexual traffickers often complained of police corruption and lack of intervention (Copley, 27 2014; Kara, 2009; Raphael & Myers-Powell, 2010); students often justified their cheating behaviors by blaming teachers for their lack of competence and commitment (Koch, 2000; McCabe, 2001; Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001). Since there must be a condemner if this technique of neutralization was used, and that the survey did not depict anything related to societal responses to sexual harassment and external condemnation for those who actually engaged in this behavior, the current study therefore considered it unnecessary to measure respondents’ use of condemnation of condemners. In addition, various research did not measure the use of this technique or found little to no relationship between condemning the condemners and delinquency (Hinduja, 2007; Minor, 1980; van Baak et al., 2018), the current study chose not to include this technique as a justification for pro-sexual-harassment attitudes. Sykes and Matza (1957), as well as Maruna and Copes (2005), suggested that the appeal to higher loyalties were used when offenders claimed their actions were consistent with subculture moral obligations or to achieve higher goals. Prior research (Ulsperger, Hodges, & Paul, 2010) found that people who downloaded music illegally often referred to God as an appeal to higher loyalties; in addition, they argued that protecting one’s own property from things they believe is illegal could be another form of this technique of neutralization. Appealing to the masculinity and power was also not uncommon (van Baak et al., 2018; Ljubicic, Ignjatovic, & Ilic, 2018). For example, van Baak and colleagues (2018) wrote that the culture (e.g., “He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife”) and code of honor (e.g., violations of family honor) were common themes of appeals to higher loyalties. Research on hogging (Gailey & Prohaska, 2006) also suggested that some men reasoned hogging as a means to maintain friendship with other men or earn status within peer groups, and as a result affirmed their masculinity and reinforced male superiority (Prohaska & Gailey, 2010). Drawing from these research, we measured 28 appeal to higher loyalties with two statements on respondents’ agreement with men’s role in the society from the AWS (Spence et al., 1973), including whether fathers should have more authority in bringing up of children and if sons should be more encouraged to attend college than should daughters. Responses ranged from 1 being “totally disagree” and 5 being “totally agree”, a higher score represented more support with masculinity and male honor. The second set of independent variables included students’ nationality and internationality. Nationality was assessed by the question “What’s your nationality by birth?”. After excluding those who answered “Other”, American citizens were coded 0 and those identified as Chinese were coded 1. In addition, identification as international student was included and determined by the question “Are you currently studying in the United States?” Only those who answered “Yes” or “No, but I am studying abroad in another country” and identified as Chinese citizens were included in this variable (0=All other students, 1=Chinese international students). Control Variables Control variables were included in the current study to assess if the effect of independent variables varied by populations and students’ experience with sexual harassment training. Sex was computed into a binary variable with only males and females (0=Male, 1=Female). Because few respondents identified as other genders in the survey, it was difficult to make conclusions if non-binary individuals perceived the issue differently. Age, college ranking, and academic major were also included as demographic variables. Due to the research design and the small numbers of respondents, those under 18 years old were excluded from the analyses. The rest of the responses were categorized into three groups, including “18-22 years old” (1), “23-26 years old” (2), and “27 years or older” (3). Academic ranking was also computed into three groups, 29 including 1= “early in college” (i.e., freshmen and sophomores), 2= “later in college” (i.e., juniors and seniors”, and 3= “graduate students” (i.e., Master’s and doctoral students). Academic discipline was measured with respondent’s answer to the question “What’s your major?” Five options were given: 1=STEM and Medicine, 2=Arts and Humanities, 3=Social Sciences, 4=Business, and 5=Other. The last control variable, students’ experience with sexual harassment education, was measured with the question “Have you ever participated in any sexual harassment training?”. Those who had participated in some sort of training were coded 1, and those who had never experienced any sexual harassment education were coded 0. Analysis Plan To measure the effect of techniques of neutralization, the current study employed linear regression models to determine whether each of the techniques has any significant relationship with acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and independent sample t-tests were used to determine whether demographic variables and experience with sexual harassment training had major effect on the differences in respondents’ acceptance rates. Multiple regressions were employed to assess if participation of training programs mediates techniques of neutralization in how people view sexual harassment. 30 Demographic Information RESULTS A total of 2,150 responses from currently enrolled college students were collected as of April 2nd, 2020. Table I displays the demographic information of the sample, as well as their usage of neutralization techniques, experience with sexual harassment training, and their tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. 81.6% of the sample were in their early adulthood (18-22 years old), with only 1.9% of the sample of 27 years or older. Additionally, there was a large gap between the numbers of male (12.5%) and female (87.5%) respondents, and between the numbers of respondents who identified as Chinese (96.5%) and U.S. (3.5%) citizens. Most of the Chinese respondents were domestic students (those studying in China), and about 12.2% of the entire sample identified as Chinese international students studying in a foreign country. Other demographic variables were more equally distributed. According to the statistics of U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019), an estimate of 16.9 million students would be enrolled in college in 2020, and roughly 3 million would be in graduate school. Statistics retrieved from the Chinese Ministry of Education (2018) suggested that roughly 2.7 million students were enrolled in graduate school, and about 17 million were in four-year colleges. In our sample, most respondents were undergraduate students, with 42.4% in their first two years of college and 41.5% in their last two. 16.1% of the sample identified as graduate students pursuing either a master’s or doctoral degree at the time. Regarding academic majors, 35.1% of the respondents were in STEM or Medicine, followed by 26.7% of Arts and Humanities major, 19.2% in Social Sciences, 12.5% in Business, and 6.4% in other majors (including Law and majors that could not be categorized into any of the items above). 31 One third (36.1%) of participants reported that they have participated in a sexual harassment training program previous to answering the survey (Mean=.36, SD=.48). The mean levels of use of denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, and appeal to higher loyalties were .92 (SD=.73), .12 (SD=.32), 12.29 (SD=3.88), and 3.44 (SD=1.52), all remaining on the lower end of the scale. The average degree of acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors was 18.45 (SD=4.45), with a median score of 17.00 and a mode of 15.00, suggesting that the overall dataset skewed towards the right. 32 1=Early in College 2=Later in College 3=Graduate Students 1=STEM/Medicine 2=Arts & Humanities 3=Social Sciences 4=Business 5=Other Description 0=Male 1=Female 1=18-22 2=23-26 3=27 and older Variable Demographic Characteristics Age Gender Academic Rank Academic Major Experience with SH Training Independent Variables Techniques of Neutralization Nationality Internationality Dependent Variable Acceptance of Sexual Harassment 0=American 1=Chinese 0=No 1=Yes 0=All Others 1=Chinese International Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury Denial of Victim Appeal to Higher Loyalties .92 (.73) .12 (.32) 12.29 (3.88) 3.44 (1.52) 18.45 (4.45) Table I. Descriptive Statistics (N=2,150) % Mean (SD) Min. Max. 0 0 5 1 4 2 1 41 10 38 81.6 16.5 1.9 12.5 87.5 42.4 41.5 16.1 35.1 26.7 19.2 12.5 6.4 63.9 36.1 3.5 96.5 87.8 12.2 N 1347 272 31 220 1547 903 883 342 632 480 346 225 116 723 1279 1792 1697 2017 2016 62 1728 1558 216 1861 33 Preliminary Analysis: Effect of Neutralization The first goal of the current study was to examine the effect of neutralization theory on students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. It was hypothesized that the usage of neutralization techniques should change how much students tolerated sexual harassment. Table II presented the multiple regression test assessing the effect of each technique included in the study. Results revealed that denial of responsibility and denial of injury did not significantly impact students’ acceptance of sexual harassment; whereas denial of victim (B=.390) and appeal to higher loyalties (B=.262) were both found to be significant predictors at p<.001 level. Consequently, whether students blamed external forces such as friends and alcohol or if they minimized the seriousness of sexual harassment were found insignificant; rather, students’ agreement with traditional gender roles and male authority did influence how they perceive sexual harassment behaviors. In addition, the techniques alone showed a moderate effect size on acceptance of sexual harassment, where they explained 14.3% of the variability of the sample (R2=.143). The study was able to reject the null hypothesis partially and summarize that some of the techniques of neutralization held significant power over acceptability of sexual harassment behaviors to college students. Table II. Regression Results of Neutralization Techniques on Tolerance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Variable Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury Denial of Victim Appeal to Higher Loyalties R2 F * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 B -.102 .421 .390*** .262*** S.E. .138 .315 .030 .073 .143 44.382*** 34 Effect of Nationality and Internationality A second goal of the study was to assess whether acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors differed across nationality and internationality groups. It was hypothesized that Chinese citizens and Chinese international students should perceive sexual harassment as more tolerable than the rest of the sample. Tables III presented the independent sample t-test run to determine the mean differences between those who identified as Chinese and Americans. Table III. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between American and Chinese Students Description Variable Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Techniques of Neutralization Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury Denial of Victim Appeal to Higher Loyalties Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 American Chinese Mean 18.56 1.43 0 12.82 3.15 .89 S.D. 5.15 .62 0 4.26 1.58 .32 Mean 18.40 .90 .12 12.16 3.41 .31 t-test .24* S.D. 4.35 .73 .33 3.72 1.49 5.53 -14.69*** 1.38 -1.38 .46 13.79*** Statistically significant differences were found in students’ use of denial of injury (t=-14.69, p<.001), experience with sexual harassment training (t=13.79, p<.001), and their tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors (t=.24, p<.05). On average, those who identified as Chinese citizens reported significantly higher usage of denial of injury, where they rated verbal harassment (e.g., whistling, making kissing sound) as more serious than physical harassment (e.g., poking with penis, rubbing breasts) more often. U.S. students reported significantly higher participation rate in sexual harassment training programs, but they also reported higher tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors, as the analysis showed. Chinese and American students showed no statistically significant differences in their use of other techniques of neutralization; however, there was a 35 considerable difference between their use of denial of responsibility, suggesting that American students tended to blame alcohol or friends’ encouragement more for sexual harassment incidents compared to Chinese students. From the results shown, the current study successfully rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that Hypothesis 2, that nationality was a significant contributor to tolerance of sexual harassment, was supported. Table IV. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between Chinese International Students and All Others Mean 18.32 Variable Description Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Techniques of Neutralization .92 Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury .12 Denial of Victim 12.28 3.41 Appeal to Higher Loyalties .30 Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 All Others S.D. Mean 18.88 4.33 International S.D. 4.64 t-test -1.73 .73 32 3.82 1.49 .32 .92 .12 11.38 3.29 .56 .13 -.10 .75 .32 3.03 3.96*** 1.47 1.16 .50 -7.72*** Next, the current study explored how internationality, or whether the student identified as a Chinese international student, shifted how they viewed sexual harassment. Results of an independent sample t-test was shown in Table IV. Statistically significant differences were only found in students’ use of denial of victim (t=3.96, p<.001) and their experience with sexual harassment training (t=-7.72, p<.001). Primarily, Chinese international students used denial of victim significantly less than all other students combined, and they had significantly higher participation in relevant training comparatively. However, whether the respondent identified as a Chinese international student did not affect how they perceive sexual harassment behavior, thus failing to reject the null hypothesis. The current study concluded that student internationality alone was not a sufficient predictor of attitudes toward sexual harassment. 36 Effect of Control Variables A second goal of this thesis tested the effect of demographic backgrounds and experience with sexual harassment education on students’ acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors. Firstly, respondents were categorized into three age groups, from early adulthood (age 18-22), mid-20s (age 23-36), to late 20s (age 27 or more). Due to the nature of the variables, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was run to determine whether there were any differences across age groups. Results of the ANOVA test could be found in Table V below. Whereas no statistically significant difference was found in students’ attitudes toward sexual harassment behaviors, analyses showed that respondents did have differential usage of denial of injury and denial of victim, as well as their experience with sexual harassment training, all statistically significant at p<.05 level. Those in their early adulthood reported significantly lower usage of denial of injury, compared to those in their mid-20s (I-J=0.-6). People in their late 20s had the highest participation rate in sexual harassment training programs, and they used denial of victim significantly more than both other groups. Unfortunately, the null hypothesis that age was not a significant predictor of students’ tolerance of sexual harassment could not be rejected, thus failing to support Hypothesis 4. Table V. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Age Groups 18-22 23-26 27+ Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 5.26 18.60 4.73 18.10 .99 .73 .17 .37 12.43 4.03 3.51 1.53 .32 .47 1.10 .08 13.52 3.87 .55 .76 .27 4.40 1.86 .51 Variable Description Acceptance of Sexual Harassment 18.29 Techniques of Neutralization Denial of Responsibility .90 Denial of Injury .10 Denial of Victim 12.00 Appeal to Higher Loyalties 3.37 Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 .33 4.19 .73 31 3.57 1.48 .47 37 F .63 2.56 4.28* 3.93* 2.64 3.40* Table VI displayed the results of an independent sample t-test run to determine the effect of sex/gender, and whether male and female respondents differed in their use of neutralization, participation in training, and their attitudes toward sexual harassment. Namely, males used denial of responsibility (t=4.45, p<.01) and denial of victim (t=16.15, p<.001) significantly more than females did, suggesting that they were more likely to shift blame onto external influences, and to reject women’s victim identity in sexual harassment incidents. Not surprisingly, males also reported considerably and significantly higher acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors (t=11.17, p<.001). However, it was unusual to see that women utilized denial of injury more often than did males (t=-2.14, p<.001), or that women were more likely to agree that verbal harassment was more serious than physical harassment. Overall, the hypothesis (Hypothesis 5) that sex was a significant determinant of attitudes toward sexual harassment was adequately supported. Table VI. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques between Male and Female Students Description Female Male Variable Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Techniques of Neutralization Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury Denial of Victim Appeal to Higher Loyalties Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 Mean 22.13 1.12 .07 17.28 4.10 .32 S.D. Mean 5.42 17.89 .66 .26 5.20 1.65 .47 .90 .12 11.50 3.32 .33 t-test S.D. 3.97 11.17*** 4.45** .74 .32 -2.14*** 2.87 16.15*** 1.46 7.30 .47 -.30 Results from the ANOVA test on the effect of academic rank was presented in Table VII. In our analysis, we found that whether the student identified as freshman or sophomore, junior or senior, or in graduate programs had a significant impact on how much they used denial of injury (F=3.22, p<.05), that as one’s academic rank increases, they became more likely to rate verbal 38 harassment as more serious than physical harassment. In addition, there was a significant difference among the three groups on their experience with sexual harassment training (F=3.41, p<.05), with those in their junior or senior years in college having the lowest participation rate. While there were differences on how students of different ranks perceived sexual harassment behaviors and that first- and second-year college students had the highest tolerance of sexual harassment, the ANVOA test reported no statistical significance. It was concluded that Hypothesis 6 could not be supported, and academic rank was not a predictor of student attitudes. Table VII. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Academic Ranks Fr & Sp Jr & Sr Graduate Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 4.75 18.48 4.50 4.27 Variable Description Acceptance of Sexual Harassment 18.49 Techniques of Neutralization .91 Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury .11 Denial of Victim 12.28 Appeal to Higher Loyalties 3.38 Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 .39 .73 .32 3.90 1.45 .49 .75 .90 .10 .32 12.33 3.97 3.46 1.47 .33 .50 18.26 .99 .17 12.21 3.50 .38 .73 .37 3.61 1.53 .49 F .33 1.65 3.22* .12 .92 3.41* Last but not the least, the current research looked at the effect of academic majors on students’ attitudes toward sexual harassment and their usage of neutralization techniques. It was hypothesized that those in some fields, such as social sciences and arts and humanities, should be less likely to use neutralization techniques and have lower tolerance level of sexual harassment behaviors, while those in business and STEM majors should be the opposite. Results of the ANOVA test was available in Table VIII, where STEM and Medicine majors did report the highest tolerance level, but no statistically significant difference was found regarding how different majors perceived sexual harassment behaviors overall, thus failing to support 39 Table VIII. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behavior and Neutralization Techniques among Respondent Academic Majors Variables Description Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Techniques of Neutralization Arts & STEM & Medicine Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean 18.69 4.67 18.29 4.16 18.26 4.24 18.30 Social Sciences Humanities Business Other S.D. Mean 4.39 17.98 .71 .32 3.32 1.53 .46 .92 .11 12.03 3.38 .24 S.D. 4.30 .80 .31 3.71 1.52 .43 F 1.15 2.33 1.95 11.41*** 1.16 2.54* .91 Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury .12 Denial of Victim 12.97 4.46 11.70 2.99 12.05 3.47 11.43 3.37 Appeal to Higher Loyalties 3.50 .74 .29 .95 .10 .85 .15 .71 .36 .99 .11 1.43 3.40 1.52 .73 .31 1.51 3.31 Experience with SH Training * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 .32 .47 .33 .47 .39 .49 .31 40 Hypothesis 7. Fortunately, some significant results were found in the tests. For example, students in STEM and Medicine majors used the denial of victim significantly more than all other majors (F=11.41, p<.001), and students in “other” majors reported the lowest participation rate in sexual harassment training programs (F=2.54, p<.05). Lastly, the study expected that participation in sexual harassment training programs should increase students’ awareness of the social problem, and as a result lead to a lower tolerance level of behaviors constructing sexual harassment. Figure III reported the independent sample t-test used to analyze the differences between those who had never participated in relevant training and those who had had some experience. Results from the test indicated that there was no significant between-group difference (t=-.06, p>.1). Unexpectedly, those who had experience with sexual harassment training reported marginally higher tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors than those who never participated in any programs or workshops (I-J=.01). In conclusion, the current research failed to find support for Hypothesis 8. Based on the results, whether one participated in relevant training programs had no impact on how acceptable sexual harassment behaviors were to the individual. Figure III. Effect of Experience with Sexual Harassment Education on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Attitude toward SH 18.45 18.44 19 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.6 18.5 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.1 18 Yes (N=614) No (N=1,246) 41 Further statistical analyses found significant differences across the intersection of gender and student status. Table IX presented the results of an ANOVA test and the post-hoc Tukey test, showing that male Chinese domestic students had the highest tolerance of sexual harassment (N=177, Mean=22.38), and female American domestic students had the lowest (N=41, Mean=17.73). Cumulatively, Chinese males reported significantly higher tolerance than all female respondents in the sample, while Chinese female students reported significantly lower tolerance of sexual harassment than all male students. However, no significant gender differences were reported among American domestic students and Chinese international students; in addition, students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors did not vary significantly by their nationality when they were of the same sex. Table IX. Mean Differences on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors among Respondent Gender-Internationality Groups Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - -2.79 .47 -1.87 1.85 -2.75* 2 - 3.27 .93 4.65*** .05 3 - -2.34 1.38 -3.22* 4 - 3.72*** -.88 5 - -4.60*** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 Variables: 1 – American Male (N=19), 2 – American Female (N=41), 3 – International Male (N=15), 4 – International Female (N=188), 5 – Chinese Male (N=177), 6 – Chinese Female (N=1,294). To summarize, the current research found partial support that the use of neutralization techniques did predict students’ tolerance level of sexual harassment behaviors. Namely, denial of victim and appeal to higher loyalties, characterized as rejection of gender equality and women’s 42 rights, as well as support for male authority, significantly impacted how students think of sexual harassment behaviors. The more students subscribed to these ideas and used the two techniques, the more likely they were to agree that sexual harassment behaviors were acceptable. In addition, it was found that Chinese students had higher tolerance of sexual harassment compared to Americans, and females had significantly lower acceptance rate than did males. Overall Model Based on the statistical results in the previous sections, the current study aimed to examine the cumulative effect of all factors on students’ attitudes toward sexual harassment behaviors. Due to that academic major was not hierarchical, the variable was omitted from the regression. Results of the multiple regression models were presented in Table IX. Model 1 included only the control variables. Contrary to what ANOVA tests showed before, students’ their academic rank (B=-.42, p<.05) did show significant and negative effects on their tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. Gender (B=-4.10, p<.001) remained as a significant predictor in the multiple regression analysis, however nationality was no longer one. Overall, the control variables had a considerable impact on students’ tolerance level of sexual harassment (R2=.094), suggesting that 9.4% of their variability was explained by students’ age, sex, academic rank, academic major, and experience with sexual harassment training combined. Model 2 was a summary of all variables and their collective effect on students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. Results showed that gender (B=-2.46, p<.001) remained significant, while the effect of academic rank lost its significance (B=-.33, p>.05). The techniques of neutralization also contributed to the collective effect to some degree, that denial of victim (B=.272) and appeal to higher loyalties (B=.268) remained significant in this overall model, both at p<.001 level. Interestingly, internationality became a significant predictor of students’ tolerance 43 of sexual harassment in this model (B=1.06, p<.01), and nationality lost its statistical significance. Moreover, although the effect of age was not found significant, it changed direction in Model 2. Collectively, the model was able to explain 16% of the variability in the sample, a moderate effect size respectively. Table X. Overall Model of Demographic Variables, Neutralization Techniques, and Training Participation on Acceptance of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Model 2 (Overall) Model 1 (Controls Only) S.E. B (t) .05 (.15) -4.10*** (-11.90) -.42* (-2.12) .31 (1.37) 44 Variable Neutralization Denial of Responsibility Denial of Injury Denial of Victim Appeal to Higher Loyalties Nationality (1=Chinese) Internationality (1=Chinese International) Age Gender (1=Female) Academic Rank Experience with SH Training (1=Yes) R2 F * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 B (t) -.16 (-1.10) .17 (.50) .27*** (7.60) .27*** (3.53) -.04 (-.06) 1.06** (3.08) -.16 (-.49) -2.46*** (-6.35) -.33 (-1.71) .18 (.79) S.E. .14 .33 .04 .08 -.002 .08 .32 .39 .19 .23 .33 .35 .20 .23 .094 36.993*** .160 26.992*** The current research tested the neutralization theory and found some techniques of DISCUSSION neutralization showed considerable effects on college students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. Consistent with previous research (Fejgin & Hanegby, 2001; Hall, 1996; Hargreaves, 1994), the use of appeal to higher loyalties, characterized as support for male authority and superiority, was found to significantly increase acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors. Similarly, a higher use of denial of victim also led to increased tolerance of sexual harassment, a finding that is consistent with prior literatures (Summers & Myklebust, 1992). Overall, the findings supported the idea that those who endorsed in traditional gender roles and hypermasculinity were more likely to accept or tolerate sexual harassment of women (Pryor, 1987), suggesting that sexual violence is essentially an expression of masculinity and male honor (van Baak et al., 2018; Curry, 1998; Galley & Prohaska, 2006; Sanday, 1996). However, denial of responsibility, characterized as blaming alcohol and friend’s encouragement for sexual harassment incidents, and denial of injury, operationalized as whether the respondent viewed verbal harassment as more important than physical harassment, were not found statistically significant. Statistical results in the current study did not support prior findings. For example, various research documented that people used denial of injury to justify sexual harassment (Hinze, 2004; Hlavka, 2014; Huebner, 2008; Robinson, 2005; Rolfe & Schroeder, 2017; Shakeshaft et al., 1997), indicating that this technique should hold some impact over attitudes toward sexual harassment, which was not the case in the current study. A potential reason for the mismatch could be that a lot of the research described were assessing incidents in specific settings (e.g., middle school), while the current study measured general attitudes and did not specify the circumstances of sexual harassment. As for denial of responsibility, prior studies 45 found that both victims and perpetrators of sexual violence often shifted the blame onto themselves or external factors to justify the incidents (Boyle & Walker, 2016; Dutton, 1986; Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Henderson & Hewstone, 1984; Nalla, 2020; Weiss, 2011). The significance was not found in the current study either, possibly due to the lack of serious consequences of sexual harassment compared to other sexual violence. Another explanation was that as this study only measured attitudes toward sexual harassment, behaviors which were only hypothetical. It was likely that few felt the need to shift the blame onto other people or factors as there was no cost to their acts anyway. Additionally, the current research found that a number of demographic characteristics were significantly related to students’ use of neutralization and their tolerance of sexual harassment. For example, we found that males were more likely to use denial of responsibility and denial of victim. Research often argued that fraternity men and athletes were more aggressive toward women and more likely to support rape myths (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005); Boswell & Spade, 1996; Boyle & Walker, 2016; Messner, 1992; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Nelson & Rowe, 1994). For instance, Murnen and Kohlman (2007) claimed that these college men were more likely to endorse in victim- blaming ideas and shift perpetrators’ responsibility elsewhere; in other words, their meta-analysis tested the gendered differences in how people use neutralization techniques, which our research only found support for. Boyle and Walker (2016) found that fraternity and athletic team party attendance significantly increased college students’ likelihood of neutralization such as denial of injury (in their text, “…are less likely to acknowledge an assault as rape”) and denial of responsibility (i.e., “whether the respondent was incapacitated by alcohol and/or drugs”). While our study only found limited support for these conclusions, it was perhaps due to the differences in our targeted populations, that certain techniques of neutralization were more prevalent in 46 specific settings but not for the whole institute; or that some techniques could be more closely associated with specific types of delinquency (Mitchell & Dodder, 1983). This research also found that women tended to use denial of injury, defined as whether the respondent thought of verbal harassment as more serious than physical harassment, more often than males did. Previous research (Malovich & Stake, 1990; Silverman, 1976) claimed that some women, especially those with high self-esteem but traditional gender roles, would minimize the seriousness of sexual harassment, which might have caused the finding in the present study. Like prior research, the current study also found that gender had the strongest effects on acceptance of sexual harassment behaviors in all demographic variables presented. However, the current study failed to support the role of nationality in determining students’ perception of sexual harassment; rather, the research found that student internationality superseded the effect of their nationality. In a comparative analysis on college students’ likelihood to sexual harass, Luthar and Luthar (2008) found that nationality had a strong and independent effect on the dependent variable. While males generally score higher on the likelihood to harass scale, Chinese and Indian males reported significantly higher likelihood than American males, and Chinese females scored significantly higher than American females too. Our results suggest that Chinese international students have significantly higher scores on the acceptability of sexual harassment behaviors than all other students, which was coherent with Luthar and Luthar (2008), as they were in fact measuring student internationality when drawing all data from an American university. But this finding was against what was discovered in other research, that residency in westernized communities decreased tolerance of sexual harassment for Asian students (Kennedy & Gorzalka, 2002). Regarding the gender difference in how students perceived sexual harassment, this current study shared similar results with various prior research, that males reported higher tolerance than 47 females did (Dill, Brown, & Collins, 2008; Ekore, 2012; LaRocca & Kromrey, 1999; Madan & Nalla, 2016; Reilly, Lott, & Gallogly, 1986; Tang et al., 1995). Finally, this thesis found that participation in sexual harassment training prior to survey was not a significant predictor of their tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors, a finding that is in sharp contrast to findings from prior research (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2003; Beauvais, 1986; Blakely et al., 1998; York, Barclay, & Zajack, 1997). One possible explanation would be that the research that found trainings to work were often conducted in the western societies with more equal gender relations and higher awareness of sexual harassment, whereas the current study had a mixed sample of both Chinese and American college students. There could be other factors at play, resulting in the statistical findings this research offered. For example, this thesis found that Chinese international students had higher tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors than all other students. While trainings could increase awareness and prevent sexual harassment incidents for some, it might be less effective for international students for a few reasons. First, tthese issues may be related to language barriers and hardship associated with students settling in a foreign country. Secondly, the context of sexual harassment as a major issue in the U.S. may not dawn on international students while they are still finding a place in the American society. Finally, for Chinese citizens, it is likely that sexual harassment training did not hold any significance simply because not all universities mandate these training programs. Subsequently, findings from this research suggest that sexual harassment programs to contextualize the problem more effectively and that more cultural sensitivity and contents on gender equality are needed for contemporary sexual harassment trainings. 48 Limitations The current research did find interesting results regarding college students’ use of neutralization and their tolerance of sexual harassment. However, it was not without limitations, leading to that this study might not provide great reliability when generalizing the results to the general public. First, due to how the survey was marketed, the majority of the sample were Chinese females. There were only 62 respondents (3.5% of the sample) identifying as American domestic students, among whom only 19 were male. A similar issue existed in the Chinese international student group, where only 15 respondents identified as male. It was likely that the low numbers resulted in the lack of significance in the statistical analyses. For example, in Table II and V, American students reported zero use of denial of injury, which was unlikely in real life, if not impossible. In addition, in Table VIII, there were considerable mean differences between American male and female students, international male and female students, as well as international male students and American females. However, no statistical significance was reported. In addition, while male Chinese students did report the highest tolerance of sexual harassment, because the number of female Chinese students was nearly a hundred times more than that of male ones, the overall tolerance of sexual harassment of Chinese domestic students was significantly lower than other student groups. A second limitation of the current study was the candor of responses. Although the survey was anonymous and did not collect any identifying information, there remained the likelihood of nonresponse bias, where those who did respond to the survey already objected sexual harassment. According to previous research (Groves et al., 2006), interest in survey topic was one of the most 49 important reasons leading to nonresponse bias. While our survey masked its intentions, there was a high chance that some might have dropped out because of the length and topic of the study. Third, the present study only measured four techniques of neutralization, while the original theory suggested five (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Moreover, in over 60 years of neutralization research, scholars have discovered additional methods of neutralization as well, such as metaphor of the ledger (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1980), defense of necessity (Copes, 2003; Minor, 1981), claim of normalcy (Coleman, 1994), denial of native intent, and claim of relative acceptability (Henry, 1990). These newer techniques could also be influential in studying sexual harassment. For example, Henry (1990) suggested claim of relative acceptability, that the deviant claimed their actions were more acceptable compared to other crimes, such as murder. Since sexual harassment was not typically considered as a serious offense both morally and legally, research could find this technique more prevalent than denial of injury. Metaphor of the ledger, too, required comparisons (Klockars, 1974; Minor, 1980). For instance, an offender could defend themselves with their previous good deeds. In the current research, as results suggested that support for freedom of sex and women’s rights to swear had positive and significant effects on tolerance of sexual harassment, this technique could be at work. Future Research Future research should continue to explore the phenomenon of sexual harassment, in college, workplace, and general public alike. Moreover, researchers should enlarge the targeted population, to assess more fully the effects of racial and gender identifications, as well as nationality and acculturation. They also need to ensure adequate sample sizes to detect if these variables hold any effect. 50 While numerous studies have documented optimistic effects of sexual harassment education, the current study failed to comply. Our analyses show that sexual harassment trainings help students understand the phenomenon better, but they do not change how much students tolerate sexual harassment behaviors; additionally, the study finds that the more contents are covered in the curriculum, the more students consider sexual harassment behaviors as acceptable. Future research should keep examining the aptitude of contemporary sexual harassment trainings and work with practitioners to develop a better curriculum. Research examining a fuller model of neutralization theory are also needed, as the current research only measures denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, and appeal to higher loyalties. Knowing more of how people neutralize pro-sexual-harassment attitudes should teach us about the necessary practices the society can use to combat the phenomenon. For instance, if claim of relative acceptability (Henry, 1990) is indeed a significant predictor, it would support activism to legalize consequences for sexual harassment. 51 CONCLUSION In summary, the current research finds that the techniques of neutralization partially explain students’ tolerance of sexual harassment behaviors. It is found that denial of victim and appeal to higher loyalties, operationalized as rejection of women’s rights and support for male dominance, show significant and positive effects on the acceptability of sexual harassment to college students across different backgrounds. We also find that internationality and gender may hold significant impacts on attitude toward sexual harassment, that males and Chinese international students report higher levels of tolerance toward sexual harassment. However, within the same sex, internationality does not appear to much influence on attitudes toward sexual harassment behaviors. It is suggested that future research expand their scope by assessing the differential effects of race, gender, and cultural identities on students. Finally, we should acknowledge that higher education is not a safe place from sexual harassment. Given that the current study finds no support for the role of participation in trainings on combating sexual harassment, more studies are needed to examine whether sexual harassment education works and if not, what other practices might help. 52 APPENDICES 53 Appendix I. Survey Instrument and Codebook You’re being asked to participate in a study of attitudes among college students about their daily life and experiences. Your participation consists of answering the questions in this survey honestly and to the best of your ability. You must be 18 years old to participate in this research. Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Dr. Mahesh Nalla (655 Auditorium Rd, East Lansing, MI 48823). If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by clicking on the arrow below to begin. 1. Are you currently enrolled in a post-secondary educational institute? (Answer "Yes" if you are on break or will return to school in 6 months) 2. What year are you in? (If you are graduating or on break, please select the ranking you will be entering when school starts) YES (1) NO (0) Freshman (1) Sophomore (2) Junior (3) Senior (4) Master’s (5) PhD/Doctorate (6) 54 The following questions ask about your opinions toward some social phenomena and your education. 3. Do you agree with the statements below? Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Women should not swear or use obscene language. Women should be able to divorce their husbands if they want. Men should share household tasks such as doing dishes and laundry. Sex should not be a part of job appointment and promotion. Sons should be given more encouragement to go to college than daughters. Fathers should have more authority in bringing up of children. Girls should not engage in sexual activities before marriage. Women are less capable of making economic contributions than are men. Women should worry more about becoming good wives and mothers. Women's place is in the house. Women should have the freedom to wear clothing of their choice. Yes, and it is mandatory. (2) Yes, but it is optional. (1) No, it is not provided. (0) 4. Does your school provide sex and sexual harassment education? 5. Have you ever participated in any sexual harassment training? 6. After the training, do you feel like you're more aware of behaviors that can be considered sexual harassment? 7. What elements are included in the sexual harassment training you received? YES (1) NO (0) YES (1) NO (0) 55 Included (1) Not Included (2) I can't remember (99) 8. Among the elements in sexual harassment training in the last question, please pick 5 items that leave the greatest impressions to you. Statistics and scope (2) Discussion (4) Bystander behavior (6) Follow-up after (8) Grievance procedures (10) Investigation process (12) Required participation (14) Definition and type (1) Scenarios (3) Victim self-defense (5) Expert trainers (7) Nontolerance policy (9) Helpline and services (11) Legal consequences (13) Definition and type Statistics and scope Scenarios Discussion Victim self-defense Bystander behavior Expert trainers Follow-up after Nontolerance policy Grievance procedures Helpline and services Investigation process Legal consequences Required participation 56 Next, we would like to know how you feel about some everyday behaviors. 9. Here are some behaviors that people have encountered or observed in their daily life. Do you think they are acceptable? Unacceptable (2) Neutral (3) Acceptable (4) Strongly Unacceptable (1) Strongly Acceptable (5) Tell suggestive stories Treat differently because of gender Make sexist remarks Display sexist materials Invasion of privacy such as repeated calling Proposition you, such as asking you for hook-up Deliberate touching Attempts to stroke/fondle Bribe with reward for sexual cooperation Actual reward prior to sexual cooperation Threat for lack of sexual cooperation Negative consequences for refusing sex Yes (1) No (0) I prefer not to answer. (99) 10. Have you ever experienced any of the behaviors listed in the question above? 11. Below are four types of sexual harassment. Please rank them from what you think is most serious to the least. Verbal (whistle or kissing sounds, ask about sexual life) Non-Verbal (stalking, exposing genitals) Physical I (deliberate/unwanted touching, pushing loosely) Physical II (rubbing breasts, poking with penis) 57 At a bus stop or on public transportation. (1) At public spaces or parks. (2) At a bar, nightclub, house party, or populated event. (3) Somewhere private and less crowded. (4) On campus, such as in a classroom or dormitory. (5) We would like to know the risk factors of sexual harassment in your opinion. 12. In your opinion, where among the following places is sexual harassment most likely to occur? 13. In your opinion, when among the following time blocks is sexual harassment most likely to occur? 14. In your opinion, a person is likely to sexually harass under what circumstances? During daytime. (1) In the evening. (2) After midnight. (3) (1) (2) Stranger With friends Under influence With a group of friends Masculine-looking Friend's encouragement Attractive Poor lighting Single 58 Sober By self With one friend Acquaintance Feminine looking Average or Unattractive In a relationship Independent decision Well-lit environment U.S. (1) China (2) Other (99) Under 18 18 19 20 … 30 Over 30 Male (1) Female (2) Other/ I prefer not to answer. (99) YES (1) NO (0) No, but I’m studying abroad in another country. (2) At last, we would like to know more about you. 15. What is your gender? 16. Are you currently studying in the United States? 17. How long have you studied in the U.S. in total? (Including breaks and OPT)? Years _______ Months ______ 18. What's your major? 19. What's your nationality by birth? 20. What is your current age? STEM and Medicine (1) Business (2) Arts and Humanities (3) Social Sciences (4) Other/ I'm not sure. (5) 59 Appendix II. Reliability Statistics of Dependent Variable Model Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s a .791 Item Factor Analysis Cronbach’s a based on standardized items .811 N of items N of cases 12 1,838 N Min Max Mean S.D. .864 1857 .727 1861 1859 .485 .570 1859 1859 .408 3.25 1.54 1.23 1.33 1.15 1 1 1 1 1 Tell suggestive stories Treat different because of gender Make sexist remarks Display sexist materials Invasion of privacy such as repeated calling Proposition you, such as asking you for 1859 hook-up Deliberate touching 1857 Attempts to stroke/fondle 1854 Bribe with reward for sexual cooperation 1856 Actual reward prior to sexual 1858 cooperation 1855 Threat for lack of sexual cooperation 1852 Negative consequences for refusing sex 5 5 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 1.74 1.53 1.64 1.27 1.57 1.10 1.12 .906 .753 .856 .586 .839 .338 .372 Factor Loading .360 .508 .613 .562 .464 .603 .641 .616 .680 .594 .607 .577 60 Appendix III. Factor Analysis of Neutralization Variables Denial of Responsibility N Min Max Mean S.D. A person is likely to sexually harass under what circumstances? Under Influence/Sober A person is likely to sexually harass under what circumstances? Friend’s encouragement/ Independent decision Denial of Victim Factor Loading 1770 1727 0 0 1 1 .65 .479 .730 .30 .456 .734 N Min Max Mean S.D. Women should be able to divorce their husbands if they want. * Sex should not be a part of job appointment and promotion. * Men should share household tasks such as doing dishes and laundry. * Women should have the freedom to wear clothing of their choice. * Women should not swear or use obscene language. Girls should not engage in sexual activities before marriage. Women are less capable of making economic contributions than are men. Women should worry more about becoming good wives and mothers. Women’s place is in the house. * Reverse coded. Appeal to Higher Loyalties 2009 2009 2007 2010 2015 2012 2009 2006 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.19 .534 1.32 .664 1.63 .844 1.17 .448 1.68 .893 1.45 .813 1.31 .646 1.44 1.15 .755 .410 N Min Max Mean S.D. Sons should be given more encouragement to go to college than daughters. Fathers should have more authority in bringing up of children. 2011 2012 1 1 5 5 1.44 .772 2.00 1.069 Factor Loading .554 .449 .553 .601 .628 .697 .631 .762 .716 Factor Loading .526 .601 61 REFERENCES 62 REFERENCES Agnew, R., & Peters, A. A. R. (1986). The techniques of neutralization: An analysis of predisposing and situational factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13(1): 81-97. Alvarez, A. (1997). Adjusting to genocide: The techniques of neutralization and the Holocaust. Social Science History, 21(2): 139-178. American Association of University Women [AAUW]. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s schools. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2): 131-154. Antecol, H., & Cobb-Clark, D. (2003). Does sexual harassment training change attitudes? A view from the federal level. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4): 826-842. Antonopoulos, G. A., & Winterdyk, J. A. (2005). Techniques of neutralizing the trafficking of women. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 13: 136-147. Austin, R. L. (1977). Commitment, neutralization, and delinquency. In T. N. Ferdinand (Ed.), Little brother grows up (pp.121-137). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. van Baak, C., Hayes, B. E., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2018). Honor crimes in the United States and offenders’ neutralization techniques. Deviant Behavior, 39(2): 187-202. Barak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives on sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 263-300). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1): 77- 92. Hampton. Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3): 255-269. Barnes, S. B. (2001). Online connections: Internet interpersonal relationships. Cresskill, NJ: Baron, R., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182. 63 BBC News. (2019, June 26). Stockholm woman guilty of making false rape allegation. Retrieved from https://www,bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-manchester-48770517 Beauvais, K. (1986). Workshops to combat sexual harassment: A case study of changing attitudes. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(1): 130-145. Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, Berry, J. W. (1991). Understanding and managing multiculturalism. Psychology and Developing 92(2): 425-437. Societies, 3: 17-49. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1): 5-34. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38(2): 185-206. Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48(6): 629-637. Bian, Y. (2004). Institutional holes and job mobility processes: Guanxi mechanisms in China’s emergent labor markets. In T. Gold, D. Guthrie, & D. Wank (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi (pp.117-135). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bingham, S. G., & Scherer, L. L. (2001). The unexpected effects of a sexual harassment education program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2): 125-153. Blakely, G. L., Blakely, E. H., & Moorman, R. H. (1998). The effects of training on perception of sexual harassment allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(1): 71-83. Bleeker, E. T., & Murnen, S. K. (2005). Fraternity membership, the display of degrading sexual images of women, and rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 53(7/8): 487-493. Boyle, K. M., & Walker, L. S. (2016). The neutralization and denial of sexual violence in college party subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 37(12): 1392-1410. Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender & Society, 10(2): 133-147. 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(2): 137-151. 64 412. Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles, 27: 410- Bush, T., & Qiang, H. (2000). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2): 58-67. Byers, B., Crider, B. W., & Biggers, G. K. (1999). Bias crime motivation: A study on hate crime and offender neutralization techniques used against the Amish. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(1): 78-96. Cavannagh, K., Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Lewis, R. (2001). “Remedial work”: Men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners. Sociology, 35: 695- 714. Ceccato, V., & Paz, Y. (2017). Crime in Sao Paulo’s metro system: Sexual crimes against women. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 19(3/4): 211-226. Chan, D. K., Tang, C. S., & Chan, W. (1999). Sexual harassment: A preliminary analysis of its effects on Hong Kong Chinese women in the workplace and academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23: 661-672. Chuang, L. M., & Kleiner, B. H. (1999). Sexual harassment in public schools. Equal Opportunities International, 18: 13-17. Cleverley, J. (1991). Schooling in China. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Coleman, J. W. (1994). The criminal elite: The sociology of white-collar crime (3rd Edition). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Copes, H. (2003). Social attachments, offending frequency, and techniques of neutralization. Deviant Behavior, 24: 101-127. Copley, L. (2014). Neutralizing their involvement: Sex traffickers’ discourse techniques. Feminist Criminology, 9(1): 45-58. Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to sexual harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1): 182-192. Crane, E. (2018, July 1). College student sues woman for $6million claiming her false rape accusation at a frat party has destroyed his life. Daily Mail, retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5906109/amp/College-student-sues-woman- false-rape-allegation.html Curry, T. (1998). Beyond the locker room: Campus bars and college athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 15: 205-215. 65 Dall’Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41: 681-704. Dansky, B. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1997). Effects of sexual harassment. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp.152-174). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. De Young, M. (1988). The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(4): 583-591. Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44: 1402-1408. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame. London, UK: Routledge. Du Bois, C. (1955). The dominant value profile of American culture. American Anthropologist, 57: 1232-1239. DuMont, J., Miller, K., & Myhr, T. L. (2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9(4): 466-486. Dussich, J. P. J. (2001). Decisions not to report sexual assault: A comparative study among women living in Japan who are Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and English-speaking. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(3): 278-301. Dutton, D. G. (1986). Wife assaulter’s explanations for assault: The neutralization of self- punishment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18(4): 381-390. Dzeich, B., & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous professor. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Ekore, J. O. (2012). Gender differences in perception of sexual harassment among university students. Gender & Behavior, 10: 4358-4369. Fejgin, N., & Hanegby, R. (2001). Gender and cultural bias in perception of sexual harassment in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(4): 459-478. Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: The process of victimization. Social Problems, 30(3): 325-339. Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1999). Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6): 626-641. 66 Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M, Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp.173-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48(10): 1070-1076. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & 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., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42:5-27. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn't she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1): 117-138. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology, 11:329-343. Franke, K. M. (1997). What’s wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49: 691-772. Fritsche, I. (2005). Predicting deviant behavior by neutralization: Myths and findings. Deviant Behavior, 26(5): 483-510. Gailey, J. A., & Prohaska, A. (2006). “Knocking off a fat girl”: An exploration of hogging, male sexuality and neutralizations. Deviant Behavior, 27: 31-49. 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. Gold, T., Guthrie, D., & Wank, D. (2004). An introduction to the study of guanxi. In T. Gold, D. Guthrie, & D. Wank (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi (pp.3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Groves, R. B., Couper, M. P., Presser, S., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., Acosta, G. P., & Nelson, L. (2006). Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5): 720- 736. Gutek, B., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 28-48. Hall, M. A. (1996). Feminism and sporting bodies: Essays on theory and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 67 Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering? Gender differences in experience of, and reaction to, sexual harassment among US high school students. Gender & Society, 14(6): 718-746. Hargreaves, J. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’s sport. London, UK: Routledge. Harris, L. C., & Dumas, A. (2009). Online consumer misbehavior: An application of neutralization theory. Marketing Theory, 9(4): 379-402. Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4): 458-474. Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student experience. International Education Journal, 5(3): 344-351. Henderson, M., & Hewstone, M. (1984). Prison inmates’ explanations for interpersonal violence: Accounts and attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52: 789-794. Henry, S. (1990). Degrees of deviance, student accounts of their deviant behavior. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing. Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Hinduja, S. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9: 187-204. 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(1): 101-127. Hlavka, H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: Young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, 28(3): 337-358. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10: 301-320. Hsu, F. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Huberta, M., Cortina, L. M., Pang, J. S., Torges, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2006). Sex and power in the academy: Modeling sexual harassment in the lives of college women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 616-628. 68 Hubner, L. C. (2008). It is part of the job: Waitresses and nurses define sexual harassment. Sociological Viewpoints, 24: 75-90. Jacob, E. J., & Greggo, J. W. (2001). Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in working with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(1): 73-88. Johnston, M. S., & Kilty, J. M. (2016). “It’s for their own good”: Techniques of neutralization and security guard violence against psychiatric patients. Punishment & Society, 18(2): 177-197. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kara, S. A. (2009). Sex trafficking: Inside the business of modern slavery. New York, NY: Columbia University. Keister, L. A. (2004). Guanxi in business groups: Social ties and the formation of economic relations. In T. Gold, D. Guthrie, & D. Wank (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi (pp.77-96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, M. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2002). Asian and non-Asian attitudes toward rape, sexual harassment, and sexuality. Sex Roles, 46(7/8): 227-238. King, A. Y. C., (1985). The individual and group in Confucianism: A relational perspective. In D. J. Munro (Ed.), Individualism and holism: Study in Confucian and Taoist values (pp. 57- 70). Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan. Klockars, C. B. (1974). The professional fence. New York, NY: Free Press. Koch, K. (2000). Cheating in schools. The CQ Researcher, 10(32): 745-768. Landsheer, J. A., Hart, H., & Kox, W. (1994). Delinquent values and victim damage: Exploring the limits of neutralization theory. British Journal of Criminology, 34(1): 44-68. Lenton, R. L., Smith, M. D., Fox, J., & Morra, N. (1999). Sexual harassment in public spaces: Experiences of Canadian women. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36: 517-540. Leung, A. S. M. (2003). Feminism in transition: Chinese culture, ideology, and the development of the women’s movement in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20:359-374. Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31(4): 473-479. Lichty, L. F., & Campbell, R. (2012). Targets and witnesses: Middle school students’ sexual harassment experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(3): 414-430. 69 Lin, Y. (2004). Beyond dyadic social exchange: Guanxi and third-party effects. In T. Gold, D. Guthrie, & D. Wank (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi (pp.57-74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women, 16(2): 1318-1334. Liu, X., Kwan, H. K., & Chiu, R. K. (2014). Customer sexual harassment and frontline employees’ service performance in China. Human Relations, 67(3): 333-356. Ljubicic, M., Ignjatovic, D., & Ilic, Z. (2018). Who assuages feelings of guilt? Moral neutralization of juvenile delinquents in Serbia. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo/ Ljubljana, 69(4): 320-332. Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs, 8: 296-319. Lui, L. (2016). Sexual harassment of women in China: The role of liberal sexual attitudes. Social Transformations in Chinese Societies, 12(2): 181-196. Luthar, H. K., & Luthar, V. K. (2008). Likelihood to sexually harass: A comparison among American, Indian, and Chinese students. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(1): 59-77. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5): 853-870. Macmillan, R., Nierobisz, A., & Welsh, S. (2000). Experiencing the streets: Harassment and perceptions of safety among women. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37: 306-322. Madan, M., & Nalla, M. (2016). Sexual harassment in public spaces: Examining gender differences in perceived seriousness and victimization. International Criminal Justice Review, 26(2): 80-97. Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14: 63-81. Marginson, S. (2014). Student self-formation in international education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1): 6-22. Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice, 32: 221-320. 70 25: 38-43. Mayerson, M. E., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The effects of rape myth pornography on women’s attitudes and the mediating role of sex role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 17(5/6): 321-338. McCabe, D. L. (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and we help them stop. American Education, McIlwee, J. S. (1982). Work satisfaction among women in nontraditional occupations. Work and Occupations, 9(3): 299-335. McMaster, L. R., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 14: 91-105. McQuillan, P. J., & Zito, N. (2011). “It's not my fault”: Using neutralization theory to understand cheating by middle school students. Current Issues in Education, 13(3). Messner, M. A. (1992). Like family: Power, intimacy, and sexuality in male athletes’ friendships. In P. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 215-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). Numbers of students in higher from education http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/jytjsj_2018/qg/201908/t20190812_394213.ht ml Minor, W. W. (1980). The neutralization of criminal offense. Criminology, 18(1): 103-120. Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical institutions. Retrieved examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2): 295-318. Mitchell, J., & Dodder, R. A. (1983). Types of neutralization and types of delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(4): 207-218. Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., & Phillips, C. M. (1994). Sexual harassment behaviors and work- related perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45: 295-309. Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 96(1): 96-115. Murnen, S. K., & Kohlman, M. H. (2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1/2): 145- 157. Nalla, M. K. (2020). Sexual harassment in public spaces in India: Victimization and offending patterns. In Ceccato, V., & Nalla, M. K. (Eds.), Crime and fear in public places: Towards safe, inclusive, and sustainable cities (pp.222-249). New York, NY: Routledge. 71 Nelson, M. B., & Rowe, C. (1994). The stronger women get, the more men love football: Sexism and the American culture of sports. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. O’Hare, E. A., & O’Donohue, W. (1998). Sexual harassment: Identifying risk factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(6): 561-580. Page, A. D. (2008). Judging women and defining crime: Police officers’ attitudes toward women and rape. Sociological Spectrum, 28(4): 389-411. Paludi, C. A., & Paludi, M. (2003). Developing and enforcing effective policies, procedures, and training programs for educational institutions and businesses. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 175-198). Westport, CT: Praeger. Pang, H., Wang, C., & Hu, Z. (2019). A theoretical study on the index pool and indicator system for the evaluation of talent introduction in the construction of “world-class” universities (cid:1) (cid:3) (cid:21) (cid:7) (cid:48) (cid:4) (cid:25) (cid:26) (cid:31) (cid:58) (cid:10) (cid:12) (cid:37) (cid:32) [ (cid:59) (cid:14) (cid:39) (cid:45) (cid:30) (cid:20) (cid:39) (cid:45) (cid:15) (cid:52) (cid:43) (cid:31) (cid:2). Journal of Intelligence, 38(3): 67-74. Payne, D., Lonsway, K., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1): 27-68. Pepitone, A., & Triandis, H. (1987). On the university of social psychological theories. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18: 471-498. Peretti-Watel, P. (2003). Neutralization theory and the denial of risk: Some evidence from cannabis use among French adolescents. British Journal of Sociology, 54(1): 21-42. Pina, A., Gannon, T. A., & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(2): 126-138. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). The emergence of homegrown stereotypes. American Presser, L. (2003). Remorse and neutralization among violent male offenders. Justice Quarterly, Psychologist, 57: 352-359. 20(4): 801-825. Prohaska, A., & Gailey, J. A. (2010). Achieving masculinity through sexual predation: The case of hogging. Journal of Gender Studies, 19(1): 13-25. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17: 269-290. Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002). It’s a long way home: International student adjustment to living in the United States. College Student Retention, 4(1): 15-28. 72 Ramsay, S., Barker, M., & Jones, E. (1999). Academic adjustment and learning processes: A comparison of international and local students in first-year university. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1): 129-144. Raphael, J., & Myers-Powell, B. (2010). From victims to victimizers: Interviews with 25 ex-pimps in Chicago. Chicago, IL: DePaul University. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15(7/8), 333-358. Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flasherty, J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M. L., et al. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among university employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 89: 358-363. Riemer, J. (1979). Hard hats. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1): 89-101. Robinson, K. (2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 17: 19-37. Rolfe, S. M., & Schroeder, R. D. (2017). “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”: Verbal sexual harassment among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. DOI: 10.1177/0886260517709802 Sanday, P. R. (1996). Rape-prone versus rape-free campus cultures. Violence Against Women, 2(2): 191-208. Schneider, B. E. (1987). Graduate women, sexual harassment, and university policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(1): 46-65. 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(3): 401-515. Schultz, V. (1998). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment. Yale Law Journal, 107: 1683-1796. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1): 46-62. Shakeshaft, C., Mandel, L., & Johnson, Y. M. (1997). Boys call me cow. Educational Leadership, 55: 22-25. 73 Shinsako, S. A., Richman, J. A., & Rospenda, M. (2001). Training-related harassment and drinking outcomes in medical residents versus graduate students. Substance Use & Misuse, 36: 2043-2063. Silverman, D. (1976). Sexual harassment: Working women’s dilemma. Quest: A Feminist Quarterly, 3: 15-24. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitude Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 2(4): 219-220. Spindler, G. D., & Spindler, L. (1983). Anthropologists view American culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12: 49-78. Spohn, C., White, C., & Tellis, K. (2014). Unfounding sexual assault: Examining the decision to unfound and identifying false reports. Law & Society Review, 48(1): 161-192. Spohn, C., & Horney, J. (1993). Rape law reform and the effect of victim characteristics on case processing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(4): 383-409. Stein, N. (1981). Sexual harassment of high school students: Preliminary research results. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Education. Stockdale, M. S. (1993). The role of sexual misperceptions of women’s friendliness in an emerging theory of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 84-101. Street, A. E., Gradus, J. L., Stafford, J., & Kelly, K. (2007). Gender differences of sexual harassment: Data from a male-dominated environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75: 464-474. Stubbs-Richardson, M., Rader, N. E., & Cosby, A. G. (2018). Tweeting rape culture: Examining portrayals of victim blaming in discussion of sexual assault cases on Twitter. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1): 90-108. Summers, R. J., & Myklebust, K. (1992). The influence of a history of romance on judgments and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27(7/8): 345-357. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6): 664-670. Tang, C. (1994). Sexual harassment in China. Chinese Education & Society, 27(4): 39-46. Tang, C. S., Yik, M. M., Cheung, F. M. C., Choi, P., & Au, K. (1995). How do Chinese college students define sexual harassment? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4): 503-515. 74 Tata, J. (1993). The structure and phenomenon of sexual harassment: Impact of category of sexually harassing behavior, gender, and hierarchical level. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23: 199-211. Timmerman, G. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated by teachers and by peers: An explanation of the dynamics of power, culture, and gender in secondary schools. Sex Roles, 48: 231-244. Tinkler, J., Gremillion, S., & Arthurs, K. (2015). Perceptions of legitimacy: The sex of the legal messenger and reactions to sexual harassment training. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(1): 152- 174. Topalli, V. (2005). When being good is bad: An expansion of neutralization theory. Criminology, 43(3): 797-835. Ulsperger, J. S., Hodges, S. H., & Paul, J. (2010). Pirates on the plank: Neutralization theory and the criminal downloading of music among Generation Y in the era of late modernity. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 17(1): 124-151. United States Department of Education – National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Table 105.20 – Enrollment in elementary, secondary, and degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution, enrollment level, and attendance status and fall 2028. Retrieved from sex of student: Selected years, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_105.20.asp United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Part 1604: Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR- 2016-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2016-title29-vol4-part1604.xml Wang, J., & Mao, S. (1996). Culture and the kindergarten curriculum in the People’s Republic of fall 1990 through China. Early Child Development and Care, 123: 143-156. Wang, B., Yang, E., Zhang, Z., & Ma, T. (2019). Analysis on the establishment of the mechanism against college sexual harassment from the perspective of “double first-class” construction (cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:7)(cid:48)(cid:4)(cid:31)(cid:58)(cid:57)(cid:24)(cid:8)(cid:68)(cid:46)(cid:22)(cid:35)(cid:67)(cid:38)(cid:42)(cid:18)(cid:43)(cid:31)(cid:61)(cid:33)(cid:2). Journal of Higher Education Finance, 22(1): 22-31. Ward, C. (1995). Attitudes toward rape: Feminist and social psychological perspectives. London, UK: SAGE. Weiss, K. G. (2011). Neutralizing sexual victimization: A typology of victim’s non-reporting accounts. Theoretical Criminology, 15(4): 445-467.(cid:3) Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes. Military Psychology, 11: 303-328. 75 Wolf, M. (1985). Revolution postponed: Women in contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Yan, N., Yang, H., & Yang, W. (2018). Deficiencies and countermeasures of preventing sexual harassment education in universities (cid:1) (cid:68) (cid:46) (cid:66) (cid:55) (cid:35) (cid:67) (cid:38) (cid:41) (cid:54) (cid:50) (cid:9) (cid:60) (cid:20) (cid:28) (cid:51) (cid:34) (cid:53) (cid:2). Educational Informatization Forum, 8: 52-53. York, K. M., Barclay, L. A., & Zajack, A. B. (1997). Preventing sexual harassment: The effect of multiple training methods. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10(4): 277-289. Zhao, J., & Luo, D. (2019). Talent introduction policies in West China: A comparison of three cities(cid:1)(cid:56)(cid:63)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:49)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:37)(cid:32)[(cid:40)(cid:51)(cid:28)(cid:47)(cid:17)(cid:44)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:36)](cid:5)(cid:65)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:56)(cid:27)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:1) Social Science Review, 34(3): 74-80. 76