Unique and Joint Effects of Sexual and Racial Harassment on College Students' Well-Being

Abstract

This study examined the sexual harassment (SH) and racial harassment (RH) experiences of Asian, Black, multiracial, and White male and female college students (N = 2,009). Research questions were (a) Do sex and race influence the frequency of SH and RH; (b) Do SH and RH have unique, additive, and/or interactive effects on psychological outcomes; and (c) Do sex and race moderate the relationship between SH/RH and psychological well-being? Analyses indicated that SH/RH frequency varied as a result of one's combined sex–race identity, SH/RH had individual, additive, and interactive effects on psychological well-being, and both sex and race moderate the relationships between harassment and well-being. Further, three-way interactions of sex, race, and harassment type were found for the prediction of well-being indicators.

Notes

¹We recognize that there may be some concern regarding the measures using different time frames within which participants report their experiences and outcomes. The time frames used here are consistent with those of the scales’ creators and with the time frames upon which the scales’ norms, validity, and reliability estimates were established.

Note. Reliability coefficients are provided in italics along the diagonal. Gender is coded as 1 = women; 0 = men; each ethnic group is coded as 1 = group listed; 0 = all other ethnic groups.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

Note. Means that share subscripts within the same column are not significantly different. Where no subscripts are presented, means did not differ on that comparison (e.g., Sexual Experiences Questionnaire across ethnic groups).

^a Significant gender differences.

Note. Model 1 examines the unique effect of SH (H3a), the incremental effect of RH (H4a), and the incremental effect of the RH × SH interaction (H5). Model 2 examines the unique main effect of RH (H3b), the incremental effect of SH (H4b), and the incremental effect of the RH × SH interaction. Step 3 is mathematically the same for Models 1 and 2, but the comparisons of Step 3 to Step 2 differ across the models. Step 1, Step 4, and the comparison of Step 4 to Step 3 are mathematically the same for Models 1 and 2; they are included in both models for ease of interpretation.

†p < .10.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

∗∗∗p < .001.

Note. The values reported in the table reflect the coefficients and standard error of sexual harassment when racial harassment is either high or low.

∗p < .001.

Note. SH = sexual harassment.

†p < .10.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

∗∗∗p < .001.

Note. RH = racial harassment.

†p < .10.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

∗∗∗p < .001.