Gender-based evaluation differences in eventual sexually harassing situations

This study aimed to investigate gender-based evaluation differences in situations that occasionally can be perceptualized as sexual harassing situations. Hypothesis stated that when women are presented as victims in an eventual sexual harassing situation, participants would rate the event as more serious in comparisons when the victims are men. The study used survey-based between-group experimental design with story-based gender manipulation of the victim’s character in fictitious stories that may or may not be attributed with low-, moderate- or high grade of seriousness into a ratio scale (0-10). Four groups (N = 120) were included and separated depending on the victims as well as the participants gender. The assumption homogeneity of variance for one-way analysis of variance was violated when Levene's test was performed. Non-parametric equivalent Kruskal Wallis-test indicated a significant difference between the groups. Further findings were presented from multiple Mann Whitney U-tests for six possible comparisons (α = .008). Five significant differences between the groups were found confirming the first hypothesis despite the strict alpha level. Concluding the results as a potential confirmation of the prototype theory.