Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:51:21.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of Legitimacy: The Sex of the Legal Messenger and Reactions to Sexual Harassment Training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Justine Tinkler ,
Skylar Gremillion  and
Kira Arthurs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research shows that exposure to sexual harassment policy sometimes activates traditional gender stereotypes. This article examines whether the sex of the legal messenger moderates reactions to the enforcement of sexual harassment laws. We employ a 2 × 2 experimental design in which we measure the effect of a sexual harassment policy intervention on male participants’ gender beliefs. The design varies whether the person communicating the policy information is male or female. We find that female policy trainers activate implicit gender stereotypes, but explicit gender egalitarian beliefs. Other than improving men's perceptions of women's considerateness, the policy has little effect on beliefs in the conditions with a male trainer. These results suggest that the effect of law on social change is contingent on characteristics of the legal messengers. Findings contribute to our understanding of gender inequality and legitimacy processes and have practical implications for implementing effective policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 152 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abrams, Kathryn. 1998. The New Jurisprudence of Sexual Harassment. Cornell Law Review 83:1169–1230.Google Scholar
Antecol, Heather, and Cobb‐Clark, Deborah 2003. Does Sexual Harassment Training Change Attitudes? A View from the Federal Level. Social Science Quarterly 84:826–842.Google Scholar
Basow, Susan A. 2000. Best and Worst Professors: Gender Patterns in Students’ Choices. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 34:407–417.Google Scholar
Basow, Susan A., and Silberg, Nancy 1987. Student Evaluations of College Professors: Are Female and Male Professors Rated Differently? Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (3): 308–314.Google Scholar
Berger, Joseph M., Fisek, Hamit, Norman, Robert, and Zelditch, Morris 1977. Status Characteristics and Interaction. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Berger, Joseph M., and Zelditch, Morris, eds. 1998. Status, Power, and Legitimacy: Strategies & Theories. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Bisom‐Rapp, Susan. 2001. An Ounce of Prevention is a Poor Substitute for a Pound of Cure: Confronting the Developing Jurisprudence of Education and Prevention in Employment Discrimination Law. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 22:101–146.Google Scholar
Blanton, Hart, and Jaccard, James 2008. Unconscious Racism: A Concept in Pursuit of a Measure. Annual Review of Sociology 34:277–297.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence, Kluegel, James, and Smith, Ryan A. 1997. Laissez‐Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder, Gentler, Antiblack Ideology. In Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, ed. Tuch, Steven A. and Martin, Jack K., 15–42. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Brooks, Virginia R. 1982. Sex Differences in Student Dominance Behavior: Female and Male Professors’ Classrooms. Sex Roles 8 (7): 683–690.Google Scholar
Bryant, Alyssa. 2003. Changes in Attitudes Toward Women's Roles: Predicting Gender‐Role Traditionalism Among College Students. Sex Roles 48:131–142.Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristin. 1988. The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Catania, Joseph, Binson, Diane, Canchola, Jesse, Pollack, Lance, Hauck, Walter, and Coates, Thomas 1996. Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly 3:345–375.Google Scholar
Cohen, Elizabeth G., and Lotan, Rachel A. 1995. Producing Equal‐Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom. American Educational Research Journal 32:99–120.Google Scholar
Correll, Shelley. 2001. Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self‐Assessments. American Journal of Sociology 106:1691–1730.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Frank, and Kelly, Erin L. 2007. How to Stop Harassment: Professional Construction of Legal Compliance in Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 112:1203–1243.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice, Makhijani, Mona G., and Klonsky, Bruce G. 1992. Gender and the Evaluation of Leaders: A Meta‐Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111:3–22.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 1992. Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law. American Journal of Sociology 97:1531–1576.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger, Howard S. 1999. The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth. American Journal of Sociology 105:406–454.Google Scholar
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs, Saute, Robert, Oglensky, Bonnie, and Gever, Martha 1995. Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women's Advancement in the Legal Profession. Fordham Law Review 64:291–377.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell, Jackson, Joni R., Dunton, Bridget C., and Williams, Carol J. 1995. Variability in Automatic Activation as an Unobtrusive Measure of Racial Attitudes: A Bona Fide Pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:1013–1027.Google Scholar
Foschi, Martha. 1996. Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women. Social Psychology Quarterly 59:237–254.Google Scholar
Geis, Florence L., Boston, Martha B., and Hoffman, Nadine 1985. Sex of Authority Role Models and Achievement by Men and Women: Leadership Performance and Recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49:636–653.Google Scholar
Glick, Peter, and Fiske, Susan 1996. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 70 (3): 491–512.Google Scholar
Green, Tristin, and Kalev, Alexandra 2008. Discrimination‐Reducing Measures at the Relational Level. Hastings Law Journal 59:1435–1462.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony. G., McGhee, Debbie E., and Schwartz, Jordan L. K. 1998. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1464–1480.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Nosek, Brian A., and Banaji, Mahzarin R. 2003. Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: I. An Improved Scoring Algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:197–216.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Poehlman, Andrew, Uhlmann, Eric, and Banaji, Mahzarin R. 2009. Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta‐Analysis of Predictive Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:17–41.Google Scholar
Gruber, James. 1998. The Impact of Male Work Environments and Organizational Policies on Women's Experiences of Sexual Harassment. Gender & Society 12:301–320.Google Scholar
Halley, Janet. 2002. Sexuality Harassment. In Left Legalism/Left Critique, ed. Brown, Wendy and Halley, Janet, 80–104. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Haltom, W. 1998. Reporting on the Courts: How the Mass Media Cover Judicial Actions. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Billig, Joshua, Bracciodieta, John, Hoeffler, Lois, Moynihan, Patrick J., and Pugliani, Patricia 1997. The Effect of Interviewer Gender on the Survey Response. Political Behavior 19:197–220.Google Scholar
Ibarra, Herminia, and Obodaru, Otilia 2009. Women and the “Vision Thing.” Harvard Business Review 87 (1): 62–70.Google Scholar
Jackman, Mary. 1994. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jost, John. T., Laurie, A. Rudman, Irene. V. Blair, Dana R. Carney, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Jack Glaser, Curtis D. Hardin, . 2009. The Existence of Implicit Bias Is Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Refutation of Ideological and Methodological Objections and Executive Summary of Ten Studies that No Manager Should Ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior 29:39–69.Google Scholar
Juliano, Ann, and Schwab, Stewart J. 2001. The Sweep of Sexual Harassment Cases. Cornell Law Review 86:548–602.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra. 2009. Cracking the Glass Cages? Restructuring Ascriptive Inequality and Work. American Journal of Sociology 114:1591–1643.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra, and Dobbin, Frank 2006. Enforcement of Civil Rights Law in Private Workplaces: The Effects of Compliance Reviews and Lawsuits Over Time. Law & Social Inquiry 31 (4): 855–903.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra, Dobbin, Frank, and Kelly, Erin 2006. Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589–617.Google Scholar
Kane, Emily W., and Macaulay, Laura 1993. Interviewer Gender and Gender Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 57:1–28.Google Scholar
Kelly, Erin, and Dobbin, Frank 1999. Civil Rights Law at Work: Sex Discrimination and the Rise of Maternity Leave Policies. American Journal of Sociology 105:455–492.Google Scholar
Kim, Do‐Yeong. 2003. Voluntary Controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social Psychology Quarterly 66:83–96.Google Scholar
Lane, Kristin. A., Banaji, Mahzarin R., Nosek, Brian. A., and Greenwald, Anthony. G. 2007. Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What We Know (So Far). In Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies, ed. Wittenbrink, B. and Schwarz, N. S., 59–102. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, Jonathan S. 1984. The Impact of Affirmative Action on Employment. Journal of Labor Economics 2:439–463.Google Scholar
Lind, Alan, and Tyler, Tom R. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lovaglia, Michael J., Lucas, Jeffrey W., Houser, Jeffrey A., Thye, Shane R., and Markovsky, Barry 1998. Status Processes and Mental Ability Test Scores. American Journal of Sociology 104:195–228.Google Scholar
Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. Status Processes and the Institutionalization of Women as Leaders. American Sociological Review 68:464–480.Google Scholar
Marshall, Anna Maria. 2003. Injustice Frames, Legality, and the Everyday Construction of Sexual Harassment. Law & Social Inquiry 28:659–689.Google Scholar
Marshall, Anna Maria. 2005. Idle Rights: Employees’ Rights Consciousness and the Construction of Sexual Harassment Policies. Law and Society Review 39:83–123.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael W. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael W. 2006. Law and Social Movements: Contemporary Perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2:17–38.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Heather, Uggen, Christopher, and Blackstone, Amy 2012. Sexual Harassment, Workplace Authority, and the Paradox of Power. American Sociological Review 77:625–647.Google Scholar
McTague, Tricia, Stainback, Kevin, and Tomaskovic‐Devey, Donald 2009. An Organizational Approach to Understanding Sex and Race Segregation in U.S. Workplaces. Social Forces 87 (3): 1499–1527.Google Scholar
Moss‐Racusin, Corinne A., Dovidio, John, Brescoll, Victoria, Graham, Mark, and Handelsman, Jo 2012. Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (41): 16395–16396. doi:10.1073/iti4112109.Google Scholar
Moyer, Laura. 2013. Rethinking Critical Mass in the Federal Appellate Courts. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy 34:49–71.Google Scholar
Munkres, Susan. 2008. Claiming “Victim” to Harassment Law: Legal Consciousness of the Privileged. Law & Social Inquiry 33:447–472.Google Scholar
Nelson, Robert L., and Bridges, William P. 1999. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Laura Beth, Nelson, Robert L., and Lancaster, Ryon 2010. Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post‐Civil Rights United States. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7:175–201.Google Scholar
Orfield, Gary, and Lee, Chungmei 2005. Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.Google Scholar
Patai, Daphne. 1998. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Politics of Purity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pugh, M. D., and Wahrman, Ralph 1983. Neutralizing Sexism in Mixed‐Sex Groups: Do Women Have to be Better than Men? American Journal of Sociology 88:746–762.Google Scholar
Quinn, Beth. 2000. The Paradox of Complaining: Law, Humor, and Harassment of the Everyday Work World. Law & Social Inquiry 25:1151–1185.Google Scholar
Quinn, Beth. 2002. Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of “Girl‐Watching.” Gender & Society 16:386–402.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1997. Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment. American Sociological Review 62:218–235.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Backor, Kristen, Li, Yan, Tinkler, Justine, and Erickson, Kristen 2009. How Easily Does a Social Difference Become a Status Distinction? Gender Matters. American Sociological Review 74:44–62.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Boyle, Elizabeth H., Kuipers, Kathy J., and Robinson, Dawn T. 1998. How Do Status Beliefs Develop? The Role of Resources and Interactional Experience. American Sociological Review 63:331–350.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Johnson, Cathryn, and Diekema, David 1994. External Status, Legitimacy, and Compliance in Male and Female Groups. Social Forces 72:1051–1077.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Walker, Henry A. 1995. Status Structures. In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, ed. Cook, Karen S., Fine, Gary Alan, and House, James S., 281–310. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie, and Fairchild, Kimberly 2004. Reactions to Counterstereotypic Behavior: The Role of Backlash in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:157–176.Google Scholar
Schultz, Vicki. 1998. Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment. Yale Law Journal 107:1683–1732.Google Scholar
Schultz, Vicki. 2003. The Sanitized Workplace. Yale Law Journal 112 (8): 2061–2194.Google Scholar
Sewell, William F. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98:1–29.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Lisa, and Kunda, Z. 2000. Motivated Stereotyping of Women: She's Fine if She Praised Me, but Incompetent if She Criticized Me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26:1329–1342.Google Scholar
Swim, Janet K., Aikin, Kathryn J., Hall, Wayne S., and Hunter, Barbara A. 1995. Sexism and Racism: Old‐Fashioned and Modern Prejudices. Journal of Applied Psychology 77:251–260.Google Scholar
Tinkler, Justine E. 2008. “People Are Too Quick to Take Offense” … The Competing Effects of Knowledge and Beliefs on Definitions of Sexual Harassment. Law & Social Inquiry 33:417–445.Google Scholar
Tinkler, Justine E. 2012a. Resisting the Enforcement of Sexual Harassment. Law & Social Inquiry 37:1–24.Google Scholar
Tinkler, Justine E. 2012b. Controversies in Implicit Race Bias Research. Sociology Compass 6:987–997.Google Scholar
Tinkler, Justine E. 2013. How Do Sexual Harassment Policies Shape Gender Beliefs? An Exploration of the Moderating Effects of Norm Adherence and Gender. Social Science Research 42:1269–1283.Google Scholar
Tinkler, Justine E., Li, Yan, and Mollborn, Stefanie 2007. Can Legal Interventions Change Beliefs? The Effect of Exposure to Sexual Harassment Policy on Men's Gender Beliefs. Social Psychology Quarterly 70:480–494.Google Scholar
Troyer, Lisa, and Younts, C. Wesley 1997. Whose Expectations Matter? The Relative Power of First‐ and Second‐Order Expectations in Determining Social Influence. American Journal of Sociology 103:692–732.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Degoey, Peter 1995. Collective Restraint in a Social Dilemma Situation: The Influence of Procedural Justice and Community Identification on the Empowerment and Legitimacy of Authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:482–497.Google Scholar
Uggen, Christopher, and Blackstone, Amy 2004. Sexual Harassment as a Gendered Expression of Power. American Sociological Review 69:64–92.Google Scholar
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US EEOC). 2012. Sexual Harassment Charges, FY 2010 to FY 2012. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.cfm (accessed June 5, 2013).Google Scholar
US Merit Systems Protection Board. 1995. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is It a Problem? Washington, DC: US Merit Systems Protection Board.Google Scholar
Wagner, David G., and Berger, Joseph 1997. Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts. Sociological Perspectives 40:1–3.Google Scholar
Webster, Murray. 1977. Equating Characteristics and Social Interaction: Two Experiments. Sociometry 40:41–50.Google Scholar
Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, and Smith‐Doerr, Laurel 2008. Women Inventors in Context: Disparities in Patenting Across Academia and Industry. Gender & Society 22:194–218.Google Scholar
Zemans, Frances K. 1983. Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System. American Political Science Review 77:690–703.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1964.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1964.Google Scholar