Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement

• Author: Rebecca Paynich,Kimberly A. Lonsway,Jennifer N. Hall
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611113475630
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

475630PQX16210.1177/109861111
3475630Police QuarterlyLonsway et al.
Article
Police Quarterly
16(2) 177 –210
Sexual Harassment in Law
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Enforcement: Incidence,
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611113475630
pqx.sagepub.com
Impact, and Perception
Kimberly A. Lonsway1, Rebecca Paynich2,
and Jennifer N. Hall3
Abstract
The present study was designed to examine the incidence, impact, and perception
of sexual harassment in law enforcement by utilizing a mixed methods approach
and two data sources. In Study 1, quantitative data were provided by 679 male and
female personnel in a large law enforcement agency. In Study 2, 531 female police
officers provided qualitative responses to a national survey addressing a range of
professional experiences. Most respondents from these two studies experienced
behaviors that could potentially be sexually harassing. Very few were reported with a
formal complaint, but retaliation was common and often severe. Regression analyses
demonstrate that such experiences have a negative impact on both personal and
professional outcomes. Yet narrative responses reveal that respondents do not
typically appraise them negatively. Patterns are explored for the various types of
behavior, the organizational status of those involved, the response strategy employed,
and the outcome of the situation.
Keywords
sexual harassment, law enforcement, women and policing
A considerable body of research demonstrates that sexual harassment is more common
in professions that are nontraditional for women (i.e., where the majority of employees
are male and the duties are traditionally defined as masculine)—as compared with
1End Violence Against Women International, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
2Curry College, Milton, MA, USA
3California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kimberly A. Lonsway, End Violence Against Women International, 3940 Broad Street, Suite 7,
Box No. 150, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA.
Email: klonsway@charter.net

---

178
Police Quarterly 16(2)
fields where women are traditionally employed (Berdahl, 2007; Fitzgerald, Drasgow,
Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow,
1999; Gruber, 1998; Mansfield et al., 1991). The present study was designed to exam-
ine the incidence, impact, and perception of sexual harassment in law enforcement
utilizing a mixed methods approach and two data sources. Using both quantitative and
qualitative methods, we offer a detailed picture of the phenomenon and capture some
underlying factors that influence the perceptions, responses, and outcomes.
Definitions of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) as follows:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this
conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreason-
ably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidat-
ing, hostile, or offensive work environment (EEOC, 1980, p. 74677).
Yet the legal definition is not the only one available. Sexual harassment has also
been defined empirically, based on decades of social-psychological research. For
example, Fitzgerald, Swan, and Magley (1997) defined the construct as “unwanted
sex-related behavior at work that is appraised by the recipient as offensive, exceeding
her resources, or threatening her well-being” (p. 15). This definition was used to
develop the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), which is “the most widely-used
and validated measure of sexual harassment to date” (Cortina & Berdahl, 2008,
p. 471). Items on the SEQ tap three dimensions of sexual harassment. Unwanted sex-
ual attention includes sexually suggestive comments that are made to or about a per-
son as well as inappropriate touching. Gender harassment includes behaviors such as
dirty jokes or stories that are told in the workplace, or comments that put women
down. Finally, quid pro quo literally translates to “this for that.” The term is therefore
used to describe situations where an employee is forced to submit to unwanted sexual
advances as a condition of employment, either with a tangible job reward for comply-
ing or punishment for refusing.
Outcomes of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment has a range of well-documented negative effects on the psycho-
logical and professional well-being of victims (for a comprehensive review, please see
Cortina & Berdahl, 2008). These outcomes are seen across a wide variety of work-
place contexts, and they remain significant even when controlling for the experience
of other stressors (e.g., general job stress, trauma outside of the workplace), other
features of the job (occupational level, organizational tenure, workload), personality

---

Lonsway et al.
179
(negative affectivity, neuroticism, narcissism), and other demographic factors (age,
education level, race). (Cortina & Berdahl, 2008, p. 477)
Not surprisingly, this negative impact is typically more severe when the sexually
harassing behaviors are experienced with greater frequency (Langhout et al., 2005;
Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997). On the other hand, it is apparently not affected
by how it is labeled. Rather, the negative impact that victims experience in terms of
their physical, psychological, and professional well-being appear to be the same,
regardless of whether or not they identify the behavior as sexual harassment (Magley,
Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999; Munson, Miner, & Hulin, 2001). This is particu-
larly noteworthy, because most victims do not label their experience. Research esti-
mates suggest that fewer than 20% will do so (Magley et al., 1999).
Reporting Behaviors
There is little doubt that most sexually harassing behavior remains unreported.
Estimates suggest that fewer than 25% of women file a formal complaint after expe-
riencing sexual harassment, regardless of the specific workplace context (Cochran,
Frazier, & Olson, 1997; Cortina, 2004; Culbertson & Rosenfeld, 1994; Schneider
et al., 1997). This is true even for women who are sexually assaulted by a coworker.
One study of women who experienced an attempted or completed workplace rape
found that only 21% filed a formal report and 19% quit (Schneider, 1991). The rea-
sons for nonreporting of sexual harassment are numerous, and they include concern
that nothing will be done or that reporting may even make the situation worse
(Cortina, 2004; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995; Wasti & Cortina, 2002).
Sexual Harassment in Law Enforcement
Estimates range widely for the incidence and prevalence of sexually harassing behav-
iors within law enforcement. On one hand, 24% of the police women in one study said
that they experience a “constant atmosphere” of offensive remarks (Timmins &
Hainsworth, 1989). Yet 100% of the female officers who were interviewed in a sec-
ond study described experiencing at least one sexually harassing behavior during the
course of their career (Haar, 1997). Most estimates fall somewhere in between, con-
verging on a range from 53% to 77% (Bartol, Bergen, Volckens, & Knoras, 1992;
Christopher et al., 1991; Martin, 1994; Nichols, 1995; Robinson, 1993). This suggests
that one half to three quarters of the American women who work in law enforcement
will be subjected to some form of sexually harassing behavior in their workplace, with
sexual and/or sexist remarks being the most common by far. However, most of these
studies have utilized only a single item to assess the frequency of such experiences
and/or explicitly asked respondents whether they have been “sexually harassed.” Both
of these practices are problematic. First, any single item will fail to reliably assess the

---

180
Police Quarterly 16(2)
full range of possible experiences with such behavior. Second, questions that explic-
itly ask about sexual harassment are actually assessing the labeling of these behaviors
rather than their objectively defined experiences (Fitzgerald, Magley, Drasgow, &
Waldo, 1999).
One exception is the study conducted by Robinson (1993), who surveyed 1,269
female police officers throughout the state of Florida and found that 61% had experi-
enced at least one of the specific behaviors listed on the questionnaire during the last
6 months. Yet very few formally complained, either to someone within their agencies
(23%) or outside (15%). One explanation may be that women in law enforcement are
less likely than those in other fields to label their experiences as sexual harassment.
For example, only 21% of the women in Robinson’s study who had experienced one
of the behaviors suggested that they had been “sexually harassed.” However, little is
known about the specific impact of such behavior on police officers and how it might
differ by gender. In addition, very little work has sought to explore whether police
officers will label such experiences as sexual harassment, and if not, what their pro-
cess is for appraising such behavior. The present study was conducted to fill this void,
using a mixed methods research design. As described in Brent and Kraska (2010),
such a design allows for a more comprehensive understanding—in this case, by docu-
menting the wide range of sexually harassing behaviors that women in policing have
experienced and offering a rich and nuanced description of their perceptions of those
experiences.
Meth...