An updated examination of gender differences in sexual harassment perception: A meta-analysis and a survey study.

IF 5.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1037/ocp0000391
You Zhou, Hannah-Hanh D Nguyen, Mark S Revier, Kamron R Krueger, Paul R Sackett
{"title":"An updated examination of gender differences in sexual harassment perception: A meta-analysis and a survey study.","authors":"You Zhou, Hannah-Hanh D Nguyen, Mark S Revier, Kamron R Krueger, Paul R Sackett","doi":"10.1037/ocp0000391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Twenty years ago, Rotundo et al. (2001) meta-analyzed the gender differences in sexual harassment (SH) perception. They found an overall d of 0.30: Women are more likely than men to label certain behaviors as SH. Much has changed since then, including the increased social awareness and the prevalence of SH training. Given the prevalence of SH in the workplace and the importance of SH perception in SH research, we conducted a mixed-methods research program to explore possible changes in the gender gap. In Study 1 (k = 72, N = 27,767), we meta-analyzed the perceptual gender differences to compare with those in Rotundo et al. and examined several moderators of the differences. We found an overall mean d of 0.33, implying a similar gender gap in SH perception as 20 years ago, yet none of the moderators examined in this study showed significant results. In Study 2, we empirically examined gender differences in mean levels of SH perception using the same measurement scales used in two older studies and compared with the differences found in these two studies. We found higher levels of SH perception for both men and women, but no difference in the mean d between men and women, suggesting that no change over time in mean d does not mean no change in SH perception. The implications of our findings are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","volume":"29 6","pages":"373-408"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000391","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Twenty years ago, Rotundo et al. (2001) meta-analyzed the gender differences in sexual harassment (SH) perception. They found an overall d of 0.30: Women are more likely than men to label certain behaviors as SH. Much has changed since then, including the increased social awareness and the prevalence of SH training. Given the prevalence of SH in the workplace and the importance of SH perception in SH research, we conducted a mixed-methods research program to explore possible changes in the gender gap. In Study 1 (k = 72, N = 27,767), we meta-analyzed the perceptual gender differences to compare with those in Rotundo et al. and examined several moderators of the differences. We found an overall mean d of 0.33, implying a similar gender gap in SH perception as 20 years ago, yet none of the moderators examined in this study showed significant results. In Study 2, we empirically examined gender differences in mean levels of SH perception using the same measurement scales used in two older studies and compared with the differences found in these two studies. We found higher levels of SH perception for both men and women, but no difference in the mean d between men and women, suggesting that no change over time in mean d does not mean no change in SH perception. The implications of our findings are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性骚扰认知中性别差异的最新研究:荟萃分析和调查研究。
20年前,Rotundo et al.(2001)荟元分析了性骚扰感知的性别差异。他们发现,总体的d值为0.30:女性比男性更有可能将某些行为归类为性高潮。自那以后,情况发生了很大变化,包括社会意识的增强和性高潮培训的普及。考虑到工作场所的健康状况和健康认知在健康研究中的重要性,我们进行了一项混合方法研究计划,以探索性别差距可能发生的变化。在研究1 (k = 72, N = 27,767)中,我们对感知性别差异进行了meta分析,以与Rotundo等人的研究结果进行比较,并检查了差异的几个调节因子。我们发现总体平均d为0.33,这意味着在健康认知上的性别差距与20年前相似,但在本研究中,没有一个调节因子显示出显著的结果。在研究2中,我们使用两项较早研究中使用的相同测量量表,实证检验了SH感知平均水平的性别差异,并与这两项研究中发现的差异进行了比较。我们发现男性和女性对SH的感知水平都较高,但男性和女性之间的平均d值没有差异,这表明平均d值没有随时间变化并不意味着对SH的感知没有变化。讨论了我们的研究结果的含义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology offers research, theory, and public policy articles in occupational health psychology, an interdisciplinary field representing a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and specializations. Occupational health psychology concerns the application of psychology to improving the quality of work life and to protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well-being of workers. This journal focuses on the work environment, the individual, and the work-family interface.
期刊最新文献
I'll be back! Examining adaptive change processes in emotional exhaustion and time pressure. Look how beautiful! The role of natural environments for employees' recovery and affective well-being. Positive-expectancy factors on long-term posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A prospective 2-year follow-up investigation among military veterans. Too much to handle? Trajectories of work-home conflict as the family grows and its impact on parents' mental health. Proactive employees perceive coworker ostracism: The moderating effect of team envy and the behavioral outcome of production deviance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1