Communication of social support to sexual harassment victims: Professors’ responses to a student’s narrative of unwanted sexual attention

Abstract

University professors are important sources of social support for students who have been sexually harassed. However, research has not investigated how professors communicate with students who seek help in coping with this distressful problem. This study examines the types of social support provided by 96 professors in response to a student’s narrative of unwanted sexual attention, and factors that influence their support. The results show that professors provided the student with more problem solving than emotional support. Consistent with the social support model that was a foundation for the study, the types of support were associated with the sex of the professors and student, and the professors’ tolerance for sexual harassment.

Keywords:

• Coping
• Gender
• Sex Differences
• Sexual Harassment
• Social Support
• Stress
• Tolerance for Sexual Harassment
• Victim

Notes

Shereen G. Bingham is a professor in the School of Communication at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Karen M. Battey is an inside sales representative with Westec Interactive in Newport Beach, California. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented as Top Paper in the Interpersonal and Small Group Communication division at the annual meeting of Central States Communication Association, Omaha, Nebraska, April 2003. This paper is not drawn from a thesis or dissertation.

For numerous reasons, we use the term “victim” in this paper to refer to those who have been sexually harassed. We recognize that there are good arguments for using alternative terms such as “survivor” and we are sensitive to the concern that “victim” can reinforce a stereotype of women as weak and helpless. However, we use the term “victim” to emphasize that those on whom sexual harassment is imposed are being harmed. This study focuses on social support provided to a student who is portrayed in an early stage of coping with sexual harassment. The premature use of “survivor” in this context may be viewed as minimizing a victim’s suffering (e.g., Hammel, 2004). The term “survivor” is more fitting at later stages in the process of healing (Tunnecliffe & Blurton, 1994). Finally, we use the term “victim” because it has widely shared meaning within the interdisciplinary community of scholars who do research on sexual harassment and is a key term in major electronic databases.

Numerous studies and reviews of literature suggest the inadequacy of the typical methods universities use to respond to sexual harassment (e.g., Bingham & Scherer, 2001; Clair, 1993; Grauerholz et al., 1999; Paludi, 1997; Riger, 1991; Robertson, Dyer, & Campbell, 1988).

Under Title IX, agents of the university who are notified that a student was sexually harassed must report the case to school officials. However, it is not clear whether professors should be viewed as university “agents” and whether they engender legal risk by failing to report harassment that a student discloses in confidence (Grauerholz et al., 1999; Marczely, 1999; Rowe, 1996).

In an exception to this generalization, Olson and Shultz (1994) found that, in a work context, men reported receiving more instrumental and informational support than did women.

The scenario was designed to be representative of students’ experiences reported in the literature and was loosely modeled after a situation disclosed by a student to the first author.

We acknowledge that professors’ responses to hypothetical scenarios may differ from the messages they would construct if faced with an actual student in distress. However, as noted by MacGeorge et al. (2004), “the strategy construction procedure has been shown in a variety of contexts to generate data consistent with behavioral patterns observed in real‐world situations” (p. 152).

Two additional professors wrote responses for a total of 98. These two responses were excluded because the professors failed to indicate their sex in the demographic section of the questionnaire.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shereen G. Bingham

Shereen G. Bingham is a professor in the School of Communication at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Karen M. Battey is an inside sales representative with Westec Interactive in Newport Beach, California. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented as Top Paper in the Interpersonal and Small Group Communication division at the annual meeting of Central States Communication Association, Omaha, Nebraska, April 2003. This paper is not drawn from a thesis or dissertation.