This dissertation explored various models of the structure and process of sexual harassment (SH) and heterosexist harassment (HH) using a sample of 1555 faculty and staff employed in higher education. After reviewing how both SH and HH are theorized to be rooted in maintaining traditional gender norms, it tested 13 hypotheses regarding the structure, incidence, and outcomes of these forms of harassment.
First, it examined various models of the structure of SH and HH and concluded that SH and HH are best represented by a model of harassment comprised of three distinct, yet related, factors of approach-based SH, rejection-based SH, and rejection based HH (where approach-based harassment is motivated by engaging the target in a sexual relationship, and rejection-based SH is designed to distance and denigrate the target). The next four hypotheses tested gender and sexual orientation differences in SH and HH. Sexual minorities experienced higher rates of SH and HH, while there were no differences in harassment rates by gender.
The subsequent set of six hypotheses examined models of the negative occupational and psychological outcomes of SH and HH. All three types of harassment (approach-based SH, rejection-based SH, and HH) were tested in separate models to avoid multicolinearity. For all forms of harassment, being the target of harassment led to decreased job satisfaction, which in turn, contributed to increased job burnout, decreased affective organizational commitment, and increased turnover intentions. Of the three forms of harassment, only approach-based SH predicted increased psychological distress. There were no differences in these models by gender and sexual orientation.
An additional model was tested with HH for sexual minorities, in which disclosure of one's minority sexual orientation fully mediated the relationship between HH and psychological distress and partially mediated the path between HH and job satisfaction. A final hypothesis tested the competing buffering effect and main effect models of social support (operationalized as perceived organizational support and emotional support). There was support for the main effect model of organizational support, while neither the main effect nor buffering models of emotional support were confirmed by the data. Implications of the findings from all hypotheses were discussed regarding psychological theory, research, and practice.