Reasonable Woman Standard: A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment

• NCJ Number: 170816
• Journal: Law and Human Behavior Volume: 22 Issue: 1 Dated: (February 1998) Pages: 33-57
• Author(s): J A Blumenthal
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 25 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: A version of this paper was presented at the May 1997 conference of the American Psychological Society in Washington, D.C.

Annotation

A review of the relevant research literature examined the current state of empirical knowledge regarding differences in two areas of perceptions of sexual harassment: gender differences and differences that stem from the status of the harasser.

Abstract

Courts and legislatures have begun to develop the "reasonable woman standard" (RWS) as a criterion for determining whether or not particular behaviors constitute sexual harassment under the law. This standard is based on assumptions of a "wide divergence" between the perceptions of men and women when viewing social-sexual behavior that may be considered harassing. Narrative reviews of the literature on such perceptions have suggested that these assumptions are only minimally supported. To test these assumptions quantitatively, a meta-analytic review was conducted that assessed the size, stability, and moderators of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. The effect of the actor's status relative to the target also was evaluated meta-analytically as one alternative to the importance of gender effects. Findings support the claims of narrative reviews for a relatively small gender effect and draw attention to the status effect. In discussing the legal implications of the current findings, earlier claims are echoed, suggesting caution in establishing the reasonable woman standard, and one alternative to the RWS, i.e., the "reasonable victim standard" is discussed. 107 references