Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Thinking Of Trump and Weinstein: the impact of prominent cases of sexual harassment on perceptions of sexual harassment across countries
(USC Thesis Other)
Thinking Of Trump and Weinstein: the impact of prominent cases of sexual harassment on perceptions of sexual harassment across countries
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Thinking Of Trump And Weinstein: The Impact Of Prominent Cases Of Sexual Harassment On
Perceptions Of Sexual Harassment Across Countries
by
Pragya Arya
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
PSYCHOLOGY
December 2021
Copyright 2021 Pragya Arya
ii
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Open-Probability Based Panel Alliance and the respective country
panels of UAS, GESIS, LISS, and KAMOS, for helping with data collection and compilation,
Daphna Oyserman and Wandi Bruine De Bruin for their comments on this work, and the USC
SEEP Lab for advice on study design and analysis. Correspondence should be addressed to
Pragya Arya, University of Southern California, Department of Psychology, 3551 Trousdale
Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA. 90089. Email: parya@usc.edu
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...………...ii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..iv
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..v
Abstract.…………………………………………………………………………………………..vi
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Present Research…………………………………………………………………………..6
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...10
Participants……………………………………………………………………………….10
Materials………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………... 12
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………13
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..20
References………………………………………………………………………………………..25
Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………….29
Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………33
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….37
Appendix A: Panel Information………………………………………………………….37
Appendix B: Survey Questions…………………………………………………………..39
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant age, gender, and political ideology, by sample country…………………...29
Table 2: Highest level of education received by participants, by sample country.……………...30
Table 3: Number of exemplar cases participants reported having heard of, by sample country..31
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for perceptions of sexual harassment, by experimental
condition………………………..……………………………………………………......32
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in the U.S., by experimental condition and
sample country…………………………………………………………………………...33
Figure 2: Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in Germany and the Netherlands, by
experimental condition and sample country………………………………………..……34
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents who consider sexual harassment in the U.S. a “very
serious” or “extremely serious” problem, by accessibility condition………………...….35
Figure 4: Percentage of respondents who consider sexual harassment in Germany and the
Netherlands a “very serious” or “extremely serious” problem, by accessibility
condition…………………………………………………………………………………36
vi
Abstract
In 2017, media coverage of sexual harassment exploded and the growing #MeToo
movement brought attention to the pervasive problem of sexual harassment against women.
Several famous American men, including Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump
were found to be sexual harassers. The movement soon spread globally and sparked individual
movements in several other countries. We wondered whether the increased awareness and
attention to these prominent cases changed public perceptions of the issue. We ran survey
experiments on nationally representative samples from three countries (U.S., Germany, and the
Netherlands) and found that across countries, increased accessibility of prominent U.S. cases
increased how serious of a problem people considered sexual harassment to be. Being reminded
of U.S. cases also made sexual harassment seem like a bigger problem in Germany and the
Netherlands, suggesting that people might not view sexual harassment as a country-specific
issue, but more as a global gender discrimination issue. Results suggest that increased awareness
of an issue can change public perceptions, and that even individual cases can shift perceptions of
a policy issue, both within and across countries.
1
Thinking Of Trump And Weinstein: The Impact Of Prominent Cases Of Sexual
Harassment On Perceptions Of Sexual Harassment Across Countries
In 2017, the #MeToo movement swept the world and brought widespread attention to the
pervasive social problem of sexual violence against women. Prompted by a tweet by actress
Alyssa Milano accusing movie producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, women across
industries and ages began using the hashtag #MeToo to tweet their own experiences and convey
the sheer magnitude of sexual violence (Manikonda et al., 2018). The hashtag was used 12
million times in the first day alone (Mendes et al., 2018). The movement quickly spread to
countries across the globe and sparked many individual #MeToos. Accusations against numerous
politicians, business leaders, and celebrities came to light and many faced public reckonings for
their actions (Mendes et al., 2018). Media coverage of the movement was extensive and news
coverage about sexual harassment went up by 52% in the first year (Women’s Media Center,
2018). According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 65% of U.S. adults report that at least
some of the content they see on social media is about sexual harassment (Pew Research Center,
2018). We wondered whether this heightened awareness and constant news exposure to sexual
violence and harassment changed public perceptions of the seriousness of the problem. We ran a
survey experiment in three countries[1] (U.S.A., Germany, Netherlands) to investigate whether
increased knowledge accessibility of famous cases of harassment associated with the #MeToo
movement increased perceived seriousness of sexual harassment across countries.
Sexual Harassment
Psychologists have defined sexual harassment in terms of the subjective experiences of
people who experience it or through specific perpetrator behaviors (Cortina & Areguin, 2021;
Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1991). A widely used model of sexual harassment
2
conceptualized it as including three factors: sexual coercion (quid pro quo harassment),
unwanted sexual attention (unwanted, offensive, and unreciprocated verbal and nonverbal
behavior), and gender harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Fitzgerald & Cortina, (in press))
(Fitzgerald, 1995). Gender harassment in this framework refers to verbal and nonverbal
behaviors that convey hostile and derogatory attitudes, including sexual taunts or gestures.
Sexual harassment disproportionately targets women and stems from a desire to maintain power
or control over women (Cortina & Areguin, 2021). This kind of gender-based sexual harassment
is often driven by a perpetrator’s desire to protect or enhance his own sex-based social status
within the gender hierarchy and reinforce the existing hierarchy that privileges men (Berdahl,
2007).
Many studies have shown that sexual harassment harms women’s work lives--
experiencing harassment at work is associated with reductions in job satisfaction, work
withdrawal, disengagement, and leaving work altogether (Cortina & Areguin, 2021). Increases in
sexual harassment are also associated with greater job stress, increased team conflict, more
cognitive interference, and disrupted job performance (Cortina & Areguin, 2021; Fitzgerald &
Cortina, (in press); Holland & Cortina, 2013). Aside from occupational consequences,
experiencing sexual harassment can also negatively impact individuals’ mental and physical
health. Women who have been sexually harassed report lower levels of psychological well-
being, detriments in life satisfaction, decreased sense of safety, and increased symptoms of
depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress (Cortina & Areguin, 2021).
Perceptions of sexual harassment
Research has established consistent gender differences in perceptions of sexual
harassment. A meta-analysis found that women perceive a broader range of behaviors as
3
harassing, especially when involving hostile work environments, dating pressure, and derogatory
attitudes towards women (Rotundo et al., 2001). Women also judge harassment to be more
serious than men (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1992). Aside from gender, other demographic
predictors of perceptions of sexual harassment include political ideology and education.
Conservatives are less concerned about sexual harassment in general, and are less likely to
condemn in-group perpetrators (van der Linden & Panagopoulos, 2018).
Is harassment talked about?
A meta-analysis of 55 probability samples, including data from 86,578 working women
concluded that 58% of women report experiencing sexual harassment at work (Ilies et al., 2003).
However, very few women who experience sexual harassment ever file formal complaints or
report it (Cortina & Areguin, 2021). For instance, studies have shown that only 15% of women
in law enforcement who experience sexual harassment report it, and only 6.4% of women in
graduate school who experience harassment file complaints (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Lonsway et
al., 2013) . The low levels of reporting are likely due to a multitude of factors including fears of
blame, disbelief, or retaliation, ostracism, damage to careers, cultural myths of denial and
justification, and research has established that reporting sexual harassment is frequently met with
these outcomes (Fitzgerald & Cortina, (in press); Ilies et al., 2003; Lonsway et al., 2013).
What did #MeToo change?
The #MeToo movement brought historically unprecedented attention to sexual
harassment and substantially increased reporting and coverage of harassment. According to the
Women’s Media Center, the number of news articles about sexual assault and harassment
increased by 52% in the year following the #MeToo movement (Women’s Media Center, 2018).
The #MeToo hashtag was used about 19 million times on Twitter in the first year of the
4
movement, and about 23% of these tweets mentioned famous celebrities or politicians accused of
harassment (Pew Research Center, 2018). Even members of the U.S. Congress took part- 44%
mentioned sexual misconduct in at least one post on their official Facebook pages in 2017 (Pew
Research Center, 2018).
Polling and research data make it clear that the #MeToo movement increased media
coverage of sexual harassment substantially and made it a larger part of public debate. People
around the world heard about accusations against several prominent men. This led us to wonder
how the movement changed public opinion on sexual harassment, and whether hearing about
specific cases of harassment in a certain country was enough to shift public perceptions. Using
social psychological principles of knowledge accessibility, we investigate whether reminding
people of famous cases of harassment can change their perceptions of the issue more broadly.
Knowledge Accessibility
Human judgement is context dependent-- judgements about a particular target are heavily
influenced by the context in which they are made. For example, watching a TV show with
attractive actors can decrease the perceived attractiveness of one’s significant other (Kenrick &
Gutierres, 1980), thinking of a happy domain of life increases general life-satisfaction whereas
thinking of a domain in which we are unhappy decreases general life-satisfaction (Schwarz et al.,
1991), and the same temperature can feel warm or cold depending on yesterday’s weather
(Schwarz, 1998). These context effects can broadly be categorized into assimilation effects and
contrast effects depending on the direction of contextual influence.
The inclusion/exclusion model (IEM) of assimilation and contrast effects highlights that a
given piece of accessible information can result in assimilation as well as contrast effects
depending on how it is used (Bless & Schwarz, 2010; Schwarz & Bless, 1992). The IEM
5
assumes that evaluative judgements require two kinds of mental representations: one of the target
of judgement and one of a standard against which the target is compared. People form these
representations in the moment and draw on information that is most accessible to them at the
time of judgement. If information is used to form a representation of the target, it results in
assimilation effects, i.e. a positive relationship between judgements of the information and
judgements of the target. If however, information is used to construct a representation of a
standard against which the target is compared, it results in contrast effects, or a negative
relationship. In this case, more positive information leads to a more positive standard, relative to
which the target is evaluated less positively, and vice versa. The IEM predicts that the size of
these contrast effects increases with the amount and extremity of positive (or negative)
information.
How is information used?
The IEM predicts that the influence of a given piece of accessible information depends on
how it is used. Many variables can influence information use, but the model specifically focuses
on three general filters that reflect on informational value. The first filter is about why a given
piece of information comes to mind-- is it relevant and meaningfully related to the judgement at
hand? The second filter concerns the representativeness of the information for the target. The
third filter concerns conversational norms and non-redundancy of the information. Information
that passes all three filters is included in the representation of the target, resulting in assimilation
effects. Information that fails to pass all three filters is excluded from the representation of the
target and may be used to form a representation of the standard.
Exemplars: representativeness and categorization
6
Information that is brought to mind and passes the first filter must be assessed in terms of
its representativeness to the target of judgement. Although numerous variables influence this
decision, the most important ones are related to categorization-- how does the information or
example relate to the target category? (Bless & Schwarz, 2010). Context information can be
subordinate, lateral, or superordinate to the target of judgement. Subordinate information is
usually included in the representation of superordinate targets, resulting in assimilation effects.
For example, if a scandal-ridden politician (a subordinate exemplar) comes to mind when
evaluating the trustworthiness of politicians in general (superordinate target category), then the
entire category of politicians seems less trustworthy (i.e., an assimilation effect) (Schwarz &
Bless, 1992). If, however, the exemplar or information is not perceived to be representative of
the target category at hand, no assimilation effects will occur. Instead, it may be used in
constructing a standard, resulting in contrast effects.
Information that is lateral to the target at hand, i.e., in a mutually exclusive category,
cannot be included in the representation of the target. If it comes to mind when the target is
evaluated, it may be used in constructing a standard and result in a contrast effect. For example,
thinking of a particular scandal-ridden politician results in a contrast effect when evaluating
other specific politicians-- because other politicians now seem better in comparison (Bless &
Schwarz, 2010).
Present Study
In the present study, we investigate whether increasing the accessibility of prominent
cases of sexual harassment increases the perceived seriousness of harassment across countries.
We remind participants of specific cases of sexual harassment in the United States (Donald
Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby) and ask them how serious of a problem they think sexual
7
harassment is in the U.S. and in other countries (Germany, the Netherlands). We expect the
exemplar cases we provide to serve as accessible contextual information and to influence
people’s further judgements. The specific cases we mention all occurred in the U.S. and thus are
subordinate to the target “sexual harassment in the U.S.”. When the exemplar cases are included
in the superordinate target of judgement, we expect to see an assimilation effect of the exemplars
on judgements of U.S. harassment. We predict that reminding participants of American cases
first, i.e. bringing them to mind in the moment, will make them think sexual harassment is a
more serious problem in the U.S..
However, making a piece of information accessible requires that the knowledge already
exists-- we cannot remind participants of something they do not know about. We’re curious
whether reminding participants of these cases has to connect to knowledge they already have
about the cases, or whether simply asking the question conveys that there were three prominent
sexual harassment cases, and that is enough to make the general concept of ‘sexual harassment’
accessible in their minds. As an exploratory question, we test whether participants show
assimilation effects even if they don’t recognize the specific cases, or whether it is necessary that
participants have prior knowledge about them. Additionally, given that we present three
exemplar cases to participants, we investigate the possibility of a dose effect and explore whether
the size of the assimilation effect differs by individual differences in how many cases
participants recognize. We do not have strong predictions for these particular questions.
We expect American participants to be more likely to recognize the cases than their
European counterparts, given that all cases occurred in the U.S.. We expect most Americans to
have heard of at least one case, and to show strong assimilation effects regardless of how many
exemplars they know. We expect more European participants to have not heard of all the cases,
8
and we are curious whether the overall assimilation effect for judgments of sexual harassment in
the U.S. is smaller among European participants. We will therefore look at the effect of
reminding participants of exemplar cases both within each country and between countries.
We also ask participants about their perceptions of other countries, and vary the order in
which they make these country judgements. We have two contrasting predictions for this case.
On one hand, sexual harassment could be seen as a country-specific issue. In this case, the U.S.
exemplar cases may not be included in the representation of sexual harassment in other
countries. The U.S. cases thus may serve as a lateral category and create a standard against
which other countries are compared, resulting in a contrast effect. In this scenario, we expect the
order of country judgements to make a difference, such that the contrast effect for perceptions of
European countries emerges when participants evaluate U.S. sexual harassment first. If sexual
harassment is seen as a country-specific issue, then evaluating sexual harassment in the U.S. first
will result in the exemplar cases being included in the superordinate category of “sexual
harassment in the U.S.” and increase the likelihood that the U.S. becomes a standard of
comparison for other countries, resulting in contrast effects on evaluations of the European
countries. But when participants evaluate European countries first, the U.S. cases may be
included in the target category of sexual harassment in general and seem applicable to
judgements of the other countries as well, resulting in an assimilation effect for all countries.
On the other hand, sexual harassment may not be seen as a country-specific issue, but
more as an issue of gender-based discrimination globally. In this case, the American exemplar
cases might be seen as examples of sexual harassment in general and be included in the target
category of judgement of sexual harassment in all countries. The U.S. cases may also bring
examples from other countries to mind. In this case, we would predict an assimilation effect,
9
such that reminding participants of U.S. cases would increase perceived seriousness of sexual
harassment in other countries as well, independent of question order.
In all the above scenarios, we predict the same influence of the accessibility, order of
judgement, and country for men and women, but given past literature, we expect that women will
perceive sexual harassment to be a more serious problem overall than men will (Dietz-Uhler &
Murrell, 1992).
Based on the IEM model and the scenarios described above, our specific predictions for
the current study are as follows.
Judgments of sexual harassment in the U.S.
H1: In the absence of an accessibility manipulation (low accessibility condition), U.S.
participants will perceive sexual harassment in the U.S. as a more serious problem than
participants from other countries.
H2: Increasing the accessibility of U.S. cases will increase the perceived seriousness of
sexual harassment in the U.S. for participants in all countries, independent of the order of
judgement.
Judgments of sexual harassment in other countries.
H3: For participants in Germany and the Netherlands, the effect of accessibility on
perceptions of sexual harassment in participants’ own countries will vary by order of country
judgement:
H3a: When participants are asked about their own countries first, increased accessibility
of U.S. cases will increase the perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in their own country.
10
H3b: When participants are asked about the U.S. first, the U.S. will serve as a standard.
In this case, sexual harassmeint in one’s own country will be perceived as less serious when high
accessibility of U.S. cases increased the perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in the U.S.
Relative impact of accessibility
H4: Increased accessibility of the U.S. cases will influence judgments of the U.S. more
than judgments of other countries.
Gender difference
H5: Women will consider sexual harassment a more serious problem than men do,
across all conditions.
Method
We used a 2 (accessibility: case question before vs. after issue severity) x 2 (country
order: judgement of own country vs. other country first) x 3 (country of data collection: United
States, Germany, Netherlands) factorial design. Accessibility of case question was manipulated
between subjects, such that half our participants answered the case question before they rated the
severity of sexual harassment, and half our participants saw the case question after they rated the
severity of sexual harassment. Country order was also manipulated between subjects, such that
half our participants rated the severity of sexual harassment in their own country first, and the
other half rated the severity of sexual harassment in another country first. For participants in
Germany and the Netherlands, the other country of judgement was always the U.S.. For
participants in the U.S., the other country of judgement was randomly assigned between
Germany, Netherlands, and South Korea.
Participants
11
Our sample included adult participants from the U.S. (N = 2843), Germany (N = 3770),
and the Netherlands (N = 2357), resulting in an overall N = 8970. Data was collected as a
“demonstration project” for the Open-Probability-Based Panel Alliance (OPPA) in USA,
Germany, and Netherlands from February- June 2019
1
.
OPPA is a collaboration between four probability-based representative internet panels:
GESIS in Germany, LISS in the Netherlands, UAS in the USA and KAMOS in South Korea.
The U.S., German, and Dutch panels survey a set number of households in their respective
countries on a monthly/bi-monthly basis and pay members for each completed survey. Each
panel uses random probabilistic samples, i.e. a true probability sample of households is drawn
from the national population and is invited to participate. Households that are otherwise unable
to participate are provided with a computer and internet access. The UAS panel specifically
targets underrepresented demographics in its recruitment to ensure a broad sample. More
information about panel recruitment can be found in Appendix A.
The overall sample was 54.1% female and ranged in age from 16-101 years (Mage =
51.98 years). Participants represented a broad range of political ideologies and education levels.
Mean political ideology on a 1 (extremely liberal) to 10 (extremely conservative) scale was M =
6.33 in the U.S., M = 4.72 in Germany, and M = 5.13 in the Netherlands. Of American
participants, 40% identified to the right (more conservative) of moderate, 30% to the left (liberal)
of moderate, and 23% said they “don’t think of myself in that way”. Table 1 and Table 2 show
within-country breakdowns of participant age, gender, political ideology and education levels.
Materials
1
Note. Data were collected in a total of four countries, also including South Korea. However, the comparability of the questions
and context remain uncertain. Hence, data from South Korea are not included here.
12
To manipulate accessibility of prominent cases, we asked all participants the following
case question: “In the United States, a number of women have recently accused prominent media
personalities and politicians of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Examples include the actor
Bill Cosby, the movie producer Harvey Weinstein, and President Donald Trump. Have you heard
of any of these cases?” with a (Yes/No) response choice. If participants answered “Yes”, we
then asked them “Which case have you heard about?” and offered (Yes/No) response choices for
Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump.
We assessed perceptions of the severity of sexual harassment with the question “How
serious of a problem do you think workplace sexual harassment is in [own country/other
country]?” on a 0 (not at all serious) - 7 (extremely serious) Likert scale.
Survey questions can be seen in Appendix B.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two accessibility conditions (low
accessibility, high accessibility), and one of two order of country judgement conditions (own
country first, other country first). This created 4 question conditions for each country.
1. High accessibility + Own country first: case question, own country judgement, other
country judgement
2. High accessibility + Other country first: case question, other country judgement, own
country judgement
3. Low accessibility + Own country first: own country judgement, other country judgement,
case question
4. Low accessibility + Other country first: other country judgement, own country
judgement, case question
13
Participants answered all questions in the order of the condition they were assigned to. As
a part of the larger panel, participants also answered questions on demographic characteristics,
including age, gender, household income, political orientation, and highest level of education
received. The three questions part of this study were inserted into the survey. The full survey
questionnaires and data from all countries are open-access and are described in Appendix A.
Results
As a manipulation check, we assessed whether participants had heard of the exemplar
cases we were trying to remind them of, using the case questions we presented. Overall, 92.4%
of participants reported having heard of at least one case, and 68.7% reported having heard of all
three. The number of cases participants had heard of varied slightly by country, as can be seen in
Table 3.
We performed a 2 (accessibility: case question before or after) x 2 (country of judgement)
mixed model ANOVA to test whether the effect of our manipulation varied across our two
dependent measures, i.e., seriousness of sexual harassment in (i) the U.S., and (ii)
Germany/Netherlands. We introduced the country of judgement as a repeated measure factor into
the model, to test whether the effect of accessibility varied between countries. We predicted (H4)
that increased accessibility of U.S. cases will have a stronger effect on judgements of the U.S.
than on judgements of Germany and the Netherlands. Overall, we found a significant interaction
between accessibility condition and country of judgement, F (1, 8839) =14.48, p < .001, partial
eta
2
= .002, suggesting that the effect of our manipulation indeed was different for perceptions of
sexual harassment in the U.S. vs. perceptions of sexual harassment in Germany and the
Netherlands. Despite this interaction, increased accessibility increased perceived seriousness of
sexual harassment across all country judgements, F (1, 8839) = 151.90, p < .001, partial eta
2
=
14
.02, indicating that the effect was in the same direction for all countries, but varied in strength.
Overall, sexual harassment was seen as a more serious problem in the U.S. (M = 4.74, 95% CI
[4.70, 4.77]) than in European countries (M = 4.10, 95% CI [4.06, 4.14]), lending support to our
hypothesis H1. Given this difference, we will now look at perceptions of sexual harassment in
the U.S. and perceptions of sexual harassment in Germany & the Netherlands separately.
Perceptions of sexual harassment in the U.S.
We hypothesized (H1) that in the absence of an accessibility manipulation (low
accessibility condition), U.S. participants will perceive sexual harassment in the U.S. as a more
serious problem than participants from other countries. We ran a one-way ANOVA to compare
the effect of sample country on perceptions of U.S. harassment, only using participants from the
low accessibility condition and excluding participants from the high accessibility condition.
There was a significant effect of sample country on perceptions of the seriousness of sexual
harassment in the U.S., F (2, 4453) = 3.96, p = .02. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that this
difference was driven by significant mean differences between perceptions of both German (M =
4.53, 95% CI [4.45, 4.60]) and Dutch (M = 4.51, 95% CI [4.43, 4.59]) participants from U.S.
participants (M = 4.66, 95% CI [4.57, 4.75]). In support of H1, at baseline, participants from the
U.S. thought sexual harassment was a more serious problem in the U.S. than participants from
European countries. Perceptions of sexual harassment in the U.S. did not differ between
participants from Germany and the Netherlands.
We performed a 2 (accessibility) x 2 (order of judgement) x 3 (sample country) ANOVA
to test the effect of accessibility and order of judgement on perceptions of seriousness of sexual
harassment in the United States. Table 4 lists the marginal means for each country and condition.
15
We predicted in H2 that increased accessibility through reminding participants of
prominent cases of sexual harassment would increase how serious of a problem they considered
sexual harassment to be in the U.S., regardless of the order in which they made country
judgements and sample country. Consistent with this hypothesis, participants thought sexual
harassment was a more serious problem in the U.S. when they were reminded of prominent
exemplar cases first (M = 5.02, 95% CI [4.97, 5.07]), than when they were not reminded of these
cases (M = 4.57, 95% CI [4.52, 4.61]), F (1, 8864) =172.113, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .019, as can
be seen in Figure 1. Note that Figure 1 pools over order of country judgement conditions. There
was no main effect of order of country judgement, that is, perceptions of the seriousness of
sexual harassment did not vary by whether we asked participants about the U.S. first or another
country first, F (1, 8864) =1.191, p = .17, partial eta
2
< .001. We also found a main effect of
sample country, F (1, 8864) =11.12, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .003. Post-hoc tests revealed that
participants from the U.S. perceived harassment in the U.S. as more serious (M = 4.90, 95% CI
[4.85, 4.96]) than participants from Germany (M = 4.72, 95% CI [4.67, 4.78]) and the
Netherlands (M = 4.75, 95% CI [4.69, 4.81]) did. There was no significant interaction between
accessibility and sample country, F (2, 8864) = .68, p = .51, or order of judgement and sample
country, F (2, 8864) = 2.37, p = .10.
The effect of accessibility and order of country judgement on perceptions of sexual
harassment was modified by a significant interaction between accessibility and order of
judgement, F (1, 8864) =10.68, p = .001, partial eta
2
= .001, and a significant three-way
interaction, F (2, 8864) = 4.84, p = .008, partial eta
2
= .001. To diagnose these interactions, we
looked at simple effects using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. When
participants were reminded of prominent cases before making sexual harassment ratings, the
16
order in which they made country judgements did not change their ratings, i.e., there was no
effect of country order in the high accessibility condition, F (1, 8864) = 1.76, p = .19, partial eta
2
< .001. However, when participants were not reminded of prominent cases before they made
judgements of sexual harassment, the effect of country order was significant, F (1, 8864) =
10.95, p = .001, partial eta
2
= .001. When participants judged the seriousness of sexual
harassment in the U.S. before they were reminded of exemplar cases, they believed sexual
harassment was a larger problem when they judged their own country first (M = 4.65, 95% CI
[4.58, 4.71]), than when they judged another country first (M = 4.49, 95% CI [4.42, 4.55]).
All participants considered U.S. sexual harassment as more serious when they rated the U.S.
first. Participants from the Germany and the Netherlands thought sexual harassment in the U.S.
was a more serious problem when they rated the U.S. before they rated their own countries (M =
4.63 vs. M = 4.42; M = 4.60 vs. M = 4.42), and participants from the U.S. also thought sexual
harassment in the U.S. was a more serious problem when they rated the U.S. before they rated
other countries (M = 4.71 vs. M = 4.62). However, for American participants, the U.S. is coded
as “own country” but for European participants, the U.S. is coded as “other country”. This
resulted in a significant three-way interaction effect that appears to be driven by between-country
differences, but is actually an artifact of variable coding. The interaction effect therefore is not
substantively meaningful.
Other exploratory issues
We ran an additional analysis inserting gender as a factor in our ANOVA model.
Consistent with our hypothesis H5, we see a significant main effect of gender, such that women
think sexual harassment is a more serious problem (M = 5.00, 95% CI [4.96, 5.05]) than men do
(M = 4.54, 95% CI [4.49, 4.59]), F (1, 8851) =88.98, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .02. However,
17
gender did not significantly interact with accessibility, order of judgement, sample country, or
any of the factorial terms in the model (all F’s < 2.09, all p’s > 0.15), suggesting that the impact
of our manipulation did not vary by participant gender.
We computed the number of exemplar cases participants had heard of (0, 1, 2, or 3) and
added this variable as an additional factor in our ANOVA model. We found a marginally
significant main effect of number of cases heard of-- the more cases participants had heard of,
the more they thought sexual harassment was a serious problem, F (3, 5487) = 2.47, p = .06,
partial eta
2
< .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that this was driven by the difference
between participants who had heard of 1 case (M = 4.58, 95% CI [4.41, 4.75]) vs. participants
who had heard of 3 cases (M = 4.81, 95% CI [4.76, 4.86]). However, given the large sample size,
this effect is not substantively meaningful. The number of cases heard of did not significantly
interact with any of the terms in the full factorial model (all F’s < 1.76, all p’s > 0.15),
suggesting that the effect of accessibility of prominent cases was similar no matter how many
cases people actually knew of.
Perceptions of sexual harassment in Germany and the Netherlands
To test perceptions of sexual harassment in European participants’ own countries, we ran
a 2 (accessibility) x 2 (order of judgement) x 2 (country: Germany, Netherlands) ANOVA,
excluding participants from the U.S.. We re-coded the variables assessing each country’s
perceptions of itself into a new combined variable assessing own country perceptions. Table 4
lists the marginal means for each country and condition.
We had two predictions for this question (H3a, H3b). First, we predicted that increased
accessibility of U.S. cases of harassment would increase perceived seriousness of sexual
harassment in Germany and the Netherlands, but only when we asked participants about their
18
countries before we asked them about the U.S.. In the case when they judged U.S. sexual
harassment first before their own countries, we expected the increased accessibility to result in a
contrast effect and lead to decreased perceptions of seriousness for their own countries.
Overall, we found a main effect of accessibility, no effect of order of country judgement,
and no effect of sample country. As can be seen in Figure 2, participants from Germany and the
Netherlands believed sexual harassment to be a more serious problem in their own countries after
they were reminded of prominent U.S. cases of harassment (M = 4.28, 95% CI [4.22, 4.33]),
compared to when they were not reminded of these cases (M = 3.89, 95% CI [3.84, 3.96]), F (1,
6074) =81.16, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .013, which is consistent with our predictions.
There was no main effect of the order of country judgement--overall, participants’
perceptions of sexual harassment in Germany and the Netherlands did not vary by whether they
were asked about the U.S. first or their own countries first, F (1, 6074) = .07, p = .80, partial
eta
2
< .001 . Contrary to our predicted contrast effect, we also did not find a significant
interaction between accessibility and order of judgement, F (1, 6074) = 0.01, p = .90, partial eta
2
< .001. Participants from Germany and the Netherlands did not think sexual harassment was a
less serious problem in their own countries even in the condition when we reminded them of
U.S. cases and asked them to judge the U.S. first.
Although we did not find a significant main effect of order of country judgement or
sample country or two-way interactions with accessibility, these effects were modified by a
significant three-way interaction between accessibility, order of judgement, and sample country
(F (1, 6074) =5.37, p = .02, partial eta
2
= .001), as well as a marginally significant interaction
between order of judgement and sample country (F (1, 6074) =3.41, p = .07, partial eta
2
= .001),
as can be seen in Figure 2. To diagnose these interactions, we looked at simple effects using a
19
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. When participants were asked to judge the
seriousness of sexual harassment before they were reminded of prominent cases, we saw similar
patterns across countries and no effect of order of judgement. However, when participants were
reminded of cases in the U.S. first, although everyone thought sexual harassment is a more
serious problem, we saw a slightly different pattern of results in Germany and the Netherlands,
as can be seen in Figure 2. German participants thought sexual harassment in their own country
was a more serious problem when they rated their own country first, (M = 4.37, 95% CI [4.27,
4.47]), and a slightly less serious problem when they rated the U.S. first (M = 4.21, 95% CI
[4.11, 4.31]). Dutch participants, however, thought sexual harassment in their own country was a
more serious problem when they rated their own country after they rated the U.S. (M = 4.36,
95% CI [4.23, 4.29]), than when they rated their own country first (M = 4.17, 95% CI [4.04,
4.30]). These differences are small however, and it is important to note that both German and
Dutch participants believed sexual harassment in their own countries to be a more serious
problem after they were reminded of U.S. cases.
Data from American participants parallels the results from Germany and the Netherlands.
For U.S. participants, we ran a 2 (accessibility) x 2 (order of country judgement) x 2 (country of
judgement) factorial ANOVA to test their perceptions of the European countries. There was a
significant main effect of accessibility (F (1, 1854) = 25.60, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .014), no
effect of order of judgement (F (1, 1854) = 0.99, p = .32), and a significant main effect of
country of judgement (F (1, 1854) = 28.15, p < .001, partial eta
2
= .015). Similar to participants
from Germany and the Netherlands, participants from the U.S. thought sexual harassment was a
more serious problem in the two countries after they were reminded of prominent American
cases. We found no significant interactions, so this effect was consistent for perceptions of both
20
Germany and the Netherlands. However, overall, U.S. participants thought sexual harassment
was a more serious problem in Germany (M = 3.76, 95% CI [3.64, 3.87]) than in the Netherlands
(M = 3.32, 95% CI [3.21, 3.44]).
Gender, number of cases heard of
Similar to judgements of sexual harassment in the U.S. and consistent with our
predictions, we found a significant main effect of gender, F (1, 8851) =104.28, p < .001, partial
eta
2
= .02. Overall, women from Germany and the Netherlands considered sexual harassment in
their own countries to be a more serious problem (M = 4.29, 95% CI [4.24, 4.35]) than men from
the same countries did (M = 3.87, 95% CI [3.81, 3.93]), lending further support to our
hypothesis H4. We found a significant interaction between sample country and gender, F (1,
8851) = 6.55, p = .01, partial eta
2
< .001. There was a greater difference between men and
women’s perceptions of sexual harassment in Germany (M= 3.85vs M = 4.38) than in the
Netherlands (M = 3.88 vs M = 4.20). Gender did not significantly interact with any other terms
in the full factorial model (all F’s < 0.76, all p’s > 0.38), showing that the impact of our
manipulation did not vary by participant gender in Germany or the Netherlands.
The number of cases participants had heard of did not significantly predict perceptions of sexual
harassment, and it did not interact with any of the terms in the ANOVA model (all F’s < 1.16, all
p’s > 0.32).
Discussion
In this study, we investigated the impact of increased discussion of cases of sexual
harassment on perceptions of sexual harassment across three countries: the U.S., Germany, and
the Netherlands. Using a survey experiment, we reminded nationally representative samples
from each country of prominent cases of harassment they might have seen in the news and asked
21
how serious of a problem they thought sexual harassment was both in the U.S. and in European
countries.
We found that increasing the accessibility of prominent cases of sexual harassment
increased how serious of a problem participants thought it was, across sample countries and
countries of judgement. All participants thought sexual harassment was more serious in the U.S.,
Germany, and the Netherlands after they were reminded of the American exemplar cases of
Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump. Contrary to our predictions, this effect was
independent of the order in which participants made country judgements. We expected German
and Dutch participants to think of sexual harassment as a lesser problem in their own countries in
the condition when they were reminded of American cases and judged the seriousness of
harassment in the U.S. before they judged their own countries-- a condition that should foster a
contrast effect according to the IEM model (Bless & Schwarz, 2010). However, this was not the
case. German and Dutch participants showed an assimilation effect and thought sexual
harassment was a more serious problem in their own countries as well as the U.S. after being
reminded of American cases, suggesting that sexual harassment is seen more as a global gender
issue rather than a country-specific one. It is also possible that being reminded of US cases of
harassment also brought cases from European participants' own countries to mind, given that
both Germany and the Netherlands had their own #MeToo movements, although our data cannot
speak to this.
Consistent with our predictions, we found overall gender differences such that women
thought sexual harassment was a more serious problem than men did in all three countries. The
effect of our manipulation did not vary by gender- both men and women’s perceptions of sexual
harassment increased similarly after they were reminded of prominent examples of harassment.
22
Additionally, the number of cases (out of the three exemplars we presented) participants had
heard of did not influence their perceptions of the issue. We set out to explore the possibility of a
‘dose effect’, but our data provided no support for one. All participants were similarly impacted
by our accessibility manipulation and thought sexual harassment was a more serious problem
after they were reminded of the cases, regardless of how many cases they had prior knowledge
of. This suggests that our accessibility prime may not have had to connect to already-existing
information people had about the specific cases, and that simply asking the question whether
participants knew about the famous harassment cases activated the general issue of sexual
harassment in their minds.
These findings highlight the context-sensitive nature of public opinion. In this study,
simply asking participants one question was enough to shift their opinion on subsequent
judgements. We add to the breadth of existing evidence that shows that what is on people’s
minds at the moment they answer poll questions has a strong influence on their answers. So,
bringing a social issue, such as the #MeToo movement, to mind, is likely to make people think it
is a more serious issue. Importantly, as this study shows, this can occur even for issues that are
already in the public debate. Even though over 90% of our respondents already knew about the
cases we reminded them of, increasing the accessibility of that knowledge nevertheless shifted
their opinion. These findings suggest that people may not have pre-formed strong opinions
towards issues they have knowledge about- their attitudes are still influenced by situational and
contextual factors.
These findings also suggest that greater media discussion of public issues can increase
public awareness and concern by increasing the accessibility of an issue. Even discussion of
individual cases can shift perceptions of a policy issue- and this occurs not only within the
23
country where the case occurred but in other countries as well. Our study suggests that greater
discussion of a prominent case anywhere in the world can influence public opinion globally.
Given our results, the #MeToo movement seems to transcend national boundaries, gender, and
political ideologies. It suggests that sexual harassment is not seen as a country-specific issue, but
rather one of gender discrimination present in every society.
However, this study had several important limitations. First, the sample only included
participants from Western countries. Sexual harassment is a global issue, and even though our
data suggests that increased accessibility increases perceived seriousness of the issue across
national borders, we can only claim this for western, democratic nations and their specific
cultural contexts. It is important to test how perceptions of sexual harassment are influenced in
non-WEIRD countries and across different cultural contexts (Henrich et al., 2010; Merkin,
2008).
The study specifically focused on sexual harassment of men against women, which does
not capture the entire universe of gender-based sexual harassment. Additionally, all the
exemplars provided in this study were of men in high-status and high-power positions. People
are more likely to label a behavior as sexual harassment when the harasser is higher in power
than the victim (Bursik, 1992; Bursik & Gefter, 2011; Magley & Shupe, 2005). We do not know
if our results would be different if the perpetrators we reminded people of were of lower status.
Future work could explore how perceptions of harassment differ by social status of both
perpetrators and victims.
Sexual harassment is known to impact persons of different races, genders, and sexualities
differently, and is perceived differently for victims of different social identities (Patil &
Purkayastha, 2015). For example, sexual harassment claims are perceived to be more serious,
24
credible, & psychologically harmful when victim are more gender protypical (Goh et al., 2021).
We did not explore how identities of race, sexuality, and gender expression, of both the
perpetrator and the victim, influence perceptions of harassment, and this could be an important
step for future research.
In sum, the context in which we make judgments and what is on our minds in a given
moment changes our perceptions of social issues. Greater media discussion of societal issues can
both increase awareness and perceived seriousness of an issue. This has practical importance for
policymakers, journalists, and lawmakers, because even increased awareness of an individual
case has the power to change public opinion. Our study shows that the #MeToo movement and
spotlight it put on famous cases of sexual harassment helped increase how seriously the public
views sexual harassment across countries.
25
References
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment Based on Sex: Protecting Social Status in the Context of
Gender Hierarchy. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159319
Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Mental Construal and the Emergence of Assimilation and
Contrast Effects: The Inclusion/Exclusion Model. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 65.
Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in an Academic Context. Sex Roles, 27(7),
401–412.
Bursik, K., & Gefter, J. (2011). Still Stable After All These Years: Perceptions of Sexual
Harassment in Academic Contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 331–349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224541003628081
Cortina, L. M., & Areguin, M. A. (2021). Putting People Down and Pushing Them Out: Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
012420-055606
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1992). College students’ perceptions of sexual harassment: Are
gender differences decreasing? Journal of College Student Development, 33(6), 540–546.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Cortina, L. M. ((in press)). Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations: A
View From the Twenty-First Century. In J.W. White & C. Travis (Eds.), Handbook on the
Psychology of Women.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring Sexual Harassment:
Theoretical and Psychometric Advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4),
425–445. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: The Influence of
Gender and Academic Context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15(2), 281–294.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00797.x
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(2), 152–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7
Goh, J., Bandt-Law, B., Cheek, N., Sinclair, S., & Kaiser, C. (2021). Narrow prototypes and
neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000260
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,
466(7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2013). When Sexism and Feminism Collide: The Sexual
Harassment of Feminist Working Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 192–
208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313482873
Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported Incidence Rates of Work-
Related Sexual Harassment in the United States: Using Meta-Analysis to Explain
Reported Rate Disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 607–631.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x
27
Kenrick, D., & Gutierres, S. (1980). Contrast Effects and Judgments of Physical Attractiveness:
When Beauty Becomes a Social Problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.131
Lonsway, K. A., Paynich, R., & Hall, J. N. (2013). Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement:
Incidence, Impact, and Perception. Police Quarterly, 16(2), 177–210.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611113475630
Magley, V. J., & Shupe, E. I. (2005). Self-Labeling Sexual Harassment. Sex Roles, 53(3–4),
173–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5677-3
Manikonda, L., Beigi, G., Liu, H., & Kambhampati, S. (2018). Twitter for Sparking a
Movement, Reddit for Sharing the Moment: #metoo through the Lens of Social Media.
ArXiv:1803.08022 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08022
Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of
challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s
Studies, 25(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818765318
Merkin, R. S. (2008). Cross-Cultural Differences in Perceiving Sexual Harassment:
Demographic Incidence Rates of Sexual Harassment/Sexual Aggression in Latin
America. North American Journal of Psychology, 14.
Patil, V., & Purkayastha, B. (2015). Sexual Violence, Race and Media (In)Visibility:
Intersectional Complexities in a Transnational Frame. Societies, 5(3), 598–617.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5030598
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D.-H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender
differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5),
914–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914
28
Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible Content and Accessibility Experiences: The Interplay of
Declarative and Experiential Information in Judgment. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 2(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_2
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Attitude Measurement:
An Inclusion/Exclusion Model. ACR North American Advances, NA-19.
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7271/volumes/v19/NA-19/full
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H.-P. (1991). Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Part-Whole
Question Sequences: A Conversational Logic Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(1),
3. https://doi.org/10.1086/269239
van der Linden, S., & Panagopoulos, C. (2018). The O’Reilly factor: An ideological bias in
judgments about sexual harassment. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 198–
201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.022
29
Table 1. Participant age, gender, and political ideology, by sample country.
Note. Political ideology was assessed on a 1 (extremely liberal) to 10 (extremely conservative) scale for
all countries.
30
Table 2. Highest level of education received by participants, by sample country.
31
Table 3. Number of exemplar cases participants reported having heard of, by sample country
Number of cases heard of U.S.A. Germany Netherlands
0 0% 0.2% 0.1%
1 2.3% 8.3% 5.1%
2 13.8% 22.1% 22.5%
3 83.9% 69.4% 72.2%
32
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for perceptions of sexual harassment, by experimental condition
33
Figure 1. Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in the U.S., by experimental condition and
sample country
*** p < .001.
Note. Error bars represent standard errors.
Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment was assessed from 0 (not at all serious) to 7
(extremely serious).
34
Figure 2. Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment in Germany and the Netherlands, by
experimental condition and sample country
***p < .001
Note. Error bars represent standard errors.
Perceived seriousness of sexual harassment was assessed from 0 (not at all serious) to 7
(extremely serious).
35
Figure 3. Percentage of respondents who consider sexual harassment in the U.S. a “very
serious” or “extremely serious” problem, by accessibility condition.
36
Figure 4. Percentage of respondents who consider sexual harassment in Germany and the
Netherlands a “very serious” or “extremely serious” problem, by accessibility condition.
37
Appendix A
Panel Information
Sample and data collection information for each panel is summarized below, and can be found
on their respective linked websites.
Germany: GESIS Panel
● Website: https://www.gesis.org/en/gesis-panel/gesis-panel-home
● Population: German-speaking population over 18 years of age with permanent
residence in Germany
● Sampling Procedure: Multistage sample using multistage probability
● Data collection mode: (i) Online: computer-assisted face-to-face interviews or self-
administered questionnaire, or (ii) Offline (by-mail): paper self-administered
questionnaire.
● Data collection time: 02/13/2019 - 04/16/2019
● Response Rate: 91.33%
● Variable names in codebook: gach355a (page 8643) to Variable name gach378a
(page 8666)
Netherlands: LISS Panel
● Website: https://www.lissdata.nl
● Population: Dutch-speaking population aged 16 years or older permanently residing
in the Netherlands
● Sampling Procedure: True probability sample drawn from population registers
● Data collection mode: Online questionnaires
● Data collection time: 03/04/2019 – 03/26/2019
38
● Response rate: 78.7%
● Variable names in codebook: qc19a002 to qc19a007
U.S.A: UAS Panel
● Website: https://uasdata.usc.edu/
● Population: Adults aged 18 and older from American households
● Sampling Procedure: Address Based Sampling
● Data collection mode: (i) Online survey or (ii) mailed paper questionnaires
● Data collection time: 03/01/2019 – 07/01/2019
● Response Rate: 83.55%
● Variable names in codebook: Q1a, Q1b, Q1c, Q1d, Q2, Q3
39
Appendix B
Survey Questions
Q1. In the United States, a number of women have recently accused prominent media
personalities and politicians of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Examples include the
actor Bill Cosby, the movie producer Harvey Weinstein, and President Donald Trump. Have
you heard of any of these cases?
(Yes/No)
If Yes:
Which case have you heard about?
Q.1b Bill Cosby (Yes/No)
Q.1c Harvey Weinstein (Yes/No
Q1.d Donald Trump (Yes/No)
Q.2 How serious of a problem do you think workplace sexual harassment is in the United
States?
Not at all serious 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely serious
Q.3 (Differs by country)
For respondents in Germany & the Netherlands:
How serious of a problem do you think workplace harassment is in [own country]?
Not at all serious 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely serious
40
For respondents in the U.S.:
How serious of a problem do you think workplace harassment is in [Germany/The
Netherlands]?
Not at all serious 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely serious
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In 2017, media coverage of sexual harassment exploded and the growing #MeToo movement brought attention to the pervasive problem of sexual harassment against women. Several famous American men, including Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump were found to be sexual harassers. The movement soon spread globally and sparked individual movements in several other countries. We wondered whether the increased awareness and attention to these prominent cases changed public perceptions of the issue. We ran survey experiments on nationally representative samples from three countries (U.S., Germany, and the Netherlands) and found that across countries, increased accessibility of prominent U.S. cases increased how serious of a problem people considered sexual harassment to be. Being reminded of U.S. cases also made sexual harassment seem like a bigger problem in Germany and the Netherlands, suggesting that people might not view sexual harassment as a country-specific issue, but more as a global gender discrimination issue. Results suggest that increased awareness of an issue can change public perceptions, and that even individual cases can shift perceptions of a policy issue, both within and across countries.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
PDF
Perceived social consensus: a metacognitive perspective
PDF
Intuitions of beauty and truth: what is easy on the mind is beautiful and true
PDF
What “works” and why it still isn't enough: sexual harassment training measures of effectiveness
PDF
Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul
PDF
#BLM or #ALM: accessible perspective shapes downstream judgment even among people high in social dominance
PDF
Metacognitive experiences in judgments of truth and risk
PDF
Culture's consequences: a situated account
PDF
Classrooms are game settings: learning through and with play
PDF
Only half of what I’ll tell you is true: how experimental procedures lead to an underestimation of the truth effect
PDF
Creating a pathway to success: teachers can change their students’ identity-based motivation
PDF
Individual differences, science communication, and critical thinking for emergent risks
PDF
Climate change communication: challenges and insights on misinformation, new technology, and social media outreach
PDF
“What difficulty means for me”: predictors and consequences of difficulty mindsets
PDF
The potential towards change: stereotypes of females in Hollywood films and the #MeToo Movement
PDF
Facebook habits: rewards, cues, and automaticity
PDF
When photos backfire: truthiness and falsiness effects in comparative judgements
PDF
People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience
PDF
Are jokes funnier when they’re easier to process?
PDF
The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building
Asset Metadata
Creator
Arya, Pragya
(author)
Core Title
Thinking Of Trump and Weinstein: the impact of prominent cases of sexual harassment on perceptions of sexual harassment across countries
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Psychology
Degree Conferral Date
2021-12
Publication Date
11/01/2021
Defense Date
09/03/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
#MeToo Movement,knowledge accessibility,OAI-PMH Harvest,public opinion,Sexual harassment,survey experiment
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Schwarz, Norbert (
committee chair
), Bruine de Bruin, Wändi (
committee member
), Oyserman, Daphna (
committee member
)
Creator Email
parya@usc.edu,pragyaarya@ucla.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16345212
Unique identifier
UC16345212
Legacy Identifier
etd-AryaPragya-10187
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Arya, Pragya
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
#MeToo Movement
knowledge accessibility
public opinion
survey experiment