La Percepción Del Acoso Sexual en El Ámbito Universitario

Revista de Psicologa Social
International Journal of Social Psychology
ISSN: 0213-4748 (Print) 1579-3680 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrps20
The perception of sexual harassment at

university / La percepcin del acoso sexual en el
mbito universitario
Victoria-Aurora Ferrer-Prez & Esperanza Bosch-Fiol
To cite this article: Victoria-Aurora Ferrer-Prez & Esperanza Bosch-Fiol (2014) The perception
of sexual harassment at university / La percepcin del acoso sexual en el mbito universitario,
Revista de Psicologa Social, 29:3, 462-501, DOI: 10.1080/02134748.2014.972709
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.972709
Published online: 14 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 77
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrps20
Download by: [Universidad Nacional Andres Be]
Date: 23 November 2015, At: 19:58
Revista de Psicologa Social / International Journal of Social Psychology, 2014

Vol. 29, No. 3, 462501, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.972709
The perception of sexual harassment at university / La percepcin

del acoso sexual en el mbito universitario
Victoria-Aurora Ferrer-Prez and Esperanza Bosch-Fiol
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015
Universitat de les Illes Balears

(Received 9 January 2013; accepted 4 December 2013)
Abstract: The subjective perception of harassment victims is one of the key
criteria when defining what sexual harassment is. In this context, the aim of
this paper is to analyse the differences between men and womens judgments
of what behaviours constitute sexual harassment and how they are classified
at university. To accomplish this, we administered a 38-item questionnaire to a
sample of 1,693 people (1,521 students and 172 members of teaching staff,
administration and services) at a Spanish university. The results indicate that
there is a distinction associated with both the severity of the behaviours
perceived and classified as sexual harassment (more severe and milder) and
their content (coercion or sexual blackmail vs. environmental harassment).
Within this perception, there is a clear combined effect of the variables of
gender and position within the university community such that women,
particularly female university staff members, classified more behaviours as
mild sexual harassment.
Keywords: sexual harassment; status differences; gender differences; social
perception; university
Resumen: La percepcin subjetiva de las personas acosadas constituye uno
de los criterios clave para delimitar qu es acoso sexual. En este marco, el
objetivo de este trabajo es analizar las diferencias entre los juicios de hombres
y mujeres sobre qu comportamientos constituyen acoso sexual y cmo se
clasifican stos en el mbito universitario. Para ello se emple un cuestionario
de 38 tems, administrado a una muestra de 1.693 personas (1.521 estudiantes
y 172 miembros del personal docente y de administracin y servicios) de una
universidad espaola. Los resultados sealan que las conductas percibidas y
clasificadas como acoso sexual son diferenciadas segn su gravedad (de ms
severas a ms leves) y contenido (chantaje sexual vs. acoso ambiental). En
esta percepcin se evidencia, adems, un efecto combinado de las variables
sexo y posicin dentro de la comunidad universitaria de modo que las
mujeres, y particularmente las integrantes del staff universitario, fueron
English version: pp. 462479 / Versin en espaol: pp. 480497

References / Referencias: pp. 497499
Translated from Spanish / Traduccin del espaol: Mary Black
Authors Address / Correspondencia con las autoras: Victoria-Aurora Ferrer-Prez, Universitat
de les Illes Balears, Facultad de Psicologa. Ctra, Valldemossa Km. 75, 07122 Palma de
Mallorca, Espaa. E-mail: victoria.ferrer@uib.es
2014 Fundacion Infancia y Aprendizaje
Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual
463
quienes mayor nmero de comportamientos clasificaron como acoso sexual

leve.
Palabras clave: acoso sexual; diferencias por estatus; diferencias por sexo;
percepcin social; universidad
The subjective perception of sexual harassment victims is one of the core criteria
in delimiting what sexual harassment is (Prez & Rodrguez, 2013; Prez, 2012).
This perception can be modified by a variety of factors, including, most importantly, gender (Bursik & Gefter, 2011; Rotundo, Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001). Based
on this point of departure, in order to conduct primary prevention actions (especially those targeted at mild and moderate forms of sexual harassment, about
which as we shall discuss below there is less agreement, and therefore
subjectivity is more prominent), it is essential to ascertain which behaviours are
labelled as sexual harassment before they have been experienced (personal
definitions of the observers of sexual harassment) (OLeary-Kelly, BowesSperry, Bates, & Lean, 2009). In this sense, the purpose of this study is to further
explore the differences between mens and womens judgements regarding what
behaviours count as sexual harassment and how they are classified in a university
setting. This objective is important given that by legal imperative (Organic Law 3/
2007), Spanish universities are obligated to develop protocols to prevent and
eradicate sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment has been defined by psychology as a subjective phenomenon regarded as a set of sexual, physical, verbal and nonverbal behaviours which
are undesired by the person receiving them, who perceives them as offensive or
threatening and is not sure how to deal with them (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley,
1997; Nielsen, Bjrkelo, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2010; OLeary-Kelly et al.,
2009). Different international organizations (Council of Europe, 2011; ILO,
2007: WHO, 2003) use quite similar definitions, adding a distinction between
two kinds of harassment: sexual blackmail (also called quid pro quo or exchange)
and environmental sexual harassment (an intimidating, hostile or humiliating
work environment).
Generally speaking, we could say that the conceptual structure of sexual
harassment includes three key elements (Prez & Rodrguez, 2013; Prez,
2012): the subjects (including gender and kind of work relationship and hierarchy
between the harassment perpetrator and victim); the behaviours that can be
classified as harassment; and the perception of these behaviours. This study
shall focus on the two last aspects: behaviours and their perception.
In terms of behaviours, beyond legal definitions, there is a wide range of
actions that a person could label sexual harassment (Bursik & Gefter, 2011),
which have been categorized into groups or dimensions in different studies.
Table 1 includes several examples.
The proposals by Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow (1995) and Rotundo et al.
(2001) include three dimensions: sexual blackmail or coercion, unwanted sexual
attention and what is called gender harassment, which will not be included in this
study given that in Spain harassment for reasons of gender is dealt with in a
Rotundo, Nguyen & Sackett

(2001)
Impersonal disrespectful
behaviours: behaviours that
reflect disrespectful
attitudes about men and
women in general.
Personal disrespectful
behaviours: behaviours that
reflect disrespectful
attitudes about the
harassment victim.
Fitzgerald, Gelfand &

Drasgow (1995)
Gender harassment: rude verbal and

symbolic behaviours which
embody hostile attitudes.
Table 1. Dimensions of sexual harassment behaviours.
Courteous non-sexual verbal

contents on the harassment
victims physical
appearance.
Verbal sexualized comments
on the harassment victims
physical appearance.
Mild harassment, jokes about

the woman with sexual
content, flirtatious/sexual
comments about female
workers.
(Continued )
Bursik & Gefter

(2011)
Instituto de la Mujer
(2006)
464
V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol
Nonverbal sexual behaviours

(lascivious looks,
touching).
Interaction behaviours in
which one insistently asks
for an unwanted date.
Mild harassment: repeatedly

asking for dates, standing
too close, making
insinuating gestures and
looks.
Serious harassment: asking
about ones sex life, sexual
insinuations, openly asking
for sexual relations with
pressure, pressure after a
romantic break-up with a
colleague.
Very serious harassment:
hugs, unwanted kisses,
touching, pinches,
cornering.
Very serious harassment:
pressure to have sex in
exchange for
improvements or threats to
perform sexual acts under
pressure of dismissal,
sexual assault.
Behaviours involving
non-sexual physical
contact.
Behaviours involving sexual
physical contact (kisses,
touching).
Pressure to date unwanted by
the harassment victim.
Sexual propositions: explicit
requests to have sexual
encounters.
Sexual coercion: requests for

sexual encounters or forced
encounters which are a
condition for a job or
promotion.
Undesired sexual attention: any kind

of sexual behaviour not wanted
by the person receiving it.
Sexual coercion: subtle or explicit

efforts to make rewards at work
contingent upon sexual
exchanges.
Direct request for sexual

activity in exchange for a
favour.
Bursik & Gefter

(2011)
Instituto de la Mujer
(2006)
Rotundo, Nguyen & Sackett

(2001)
Fitzgerald, Gelfand &

Drasgow (1995)
Table 1. (Continued ).

465
466
specific, unique way (see Organic Law 3/2007). Beyond the kinds of behaviours
included, the proposal from the Instituto de la Mujer (Institute of the Woman,
2006) refers to the level of severity of these behaviours. Finally, the proposal by
Bursik and Gefter (2011) explicitly includes verbal behaviours but not contact.
For this reason, to classify harassment behaviours, in this study we will use a
combination of these proposals as a guide, namely first the degree of severity and
secondly the content of the harassment (unwanted sexual attention, verbal or
nonverbal, and sexual blackmail or coercion).
In turn, the subjective perception of sexual harassment victims is, as noted
above, one of the key criteria in delimiting what sexual harassment is (Prez &
Rodrguez, 2013; Prez, 2012). Thus, many definitions mention unwanted or
unsought behaviours and/or behaviours that are offensive or humiliating for
the harassment victim, noting that a behaviour is classified as such not intrinsically or per se, but to the extent that the recipient perceives it as harassment,
similar to what happens with bullying or psychological harassment (Escartn,
Rodrguez, Porra, & Martn, 2008; Lewis, 2001). To this we should add that
the subjective perception of harassment witnesses is also important in preventing
it (OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). Cognitive social theory may provide an explanatory framework for understanding the underlying process (Bursik & Gefter, 2011),
as it assumes that people have mental schemes in their memory (which they refer
to in order to interpret and label the events they face) whose contents may be
changed by personal experiences or contextual factors.
In this sense, a significant volume of empirical research has proven that indeed
different individual and contextual factors can influence whether a given behavioural interaction is perceived as harassment (Bursik & Gefter, 2011). These
factors include: gender, age, race, social class, sexual orientation, educational or
professional status, prior experiences, locus of control, self-esteem and beliefs
about sexuality (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; DeSouza, Solberg, & Elder, 2007;
Frazier, Cochran, & Olson, 1995; Gutek, 1995; Kelley & Parsons, 2000; Luthar,
Tata, & Kwesiga, 2009; OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009; Ohse & Stockdale, 2008;
Rotundo et al., 2001). Indeed, gender is one of the factors that have received the
most attention (Bursik & Gefter, 2011; OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009; Rotundo et al.,
2001).
Thus, Gutek (1995) observed that women defined sexual harassment more
inclusively and were more likely to identify behaviour as sexual harassment or as
less appropriate, although these differences were lower with severe harassment
than with more ambiguous or abstract situations, and they explained only a small
part of the total variance. In a meta-analytical study (on 83 studies published
between 1982 and 1996), Blumenthal (1998) confirmed that gender differences in
the perception of sexual harassment always occurred in the direction described
above and were consistent over age, culture and professional status. He also
determined that these differences tended to be small in magnitude; that the effect
of gender and status was mediated by the kind of stimulus used in the study; that
the effect of gender was higher in more recent studies; and that the status of the
harasser bore more weight among students than among workers. The meta-
467
analytical study by Rotundo et al. (2001), which examined 62 studies, reconfirmed Guteks results (1995). Subsequent studies have kept finding these differences by gender (Banerjee & Sharma, 2012), although in some cases they are
moderated by other variables, such as cultural differences or occupational status
(OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009).
The gender differences mentioned above may be explained by the social
identity theory (Bowes-Sperry & OLeary-Kelly, 2005), which claims that people
organize their social environment into endogroups and exogroups; we tend to
either consciously or unconsciously make judgements that facilitate positive
attitudes towards the members of the endogroup and act more positively towards
them. In consequence, it is more likely for women to identify with the victims of
sexual harassment (as they tend to have more stories of victimization) and that the
men would identify with the perpetrators (a more frequent role among men), and
that their judgements and attitudes would shift according to this identification.
Sociocultural explanatory models with a basically feminist orientation stress
the social processes of gender, viewing that sexual harassment is one of the
consequences of the gender inequality and sexism that exist in a patriarchal
society and one of the patriarchys mechanisms to control women and expel
them from and/or keep them out of the job market (Pina, Gannon, & Saunders,
2009; Rospenda, Richman, & Nawyn, 1998). Within this framework, the theory
of the socialization of gender roles states that there are norms and roles that
(patriarchal) society considers accepted and acceptable for men and women, and
mechanisms to reward and punish behaviours that match or violate these norms
(Ely & Padavic, 2007). According to these patterns, women perceive harassment
behaviours as more threatening or as advances in a subsequent harassment, while
men might feel less threatened and perceive them as much more acceptable or
even as a compliment (Cochran, Frazier, & Olson, 1997; Rotundo et al., 2001).
On the other hand, sexual harassment can occur in two spheres, the workplace
and academia (Kayuni, 2009; Pina et al., 2009). This study focuses on academia,
where some studies have suggested that younger people are more tolerant or
indulgent when classifying social and sexual behaviours (such as sexual harassment) (Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek, 1995), noting the existence of a supposed
student effect. However, others (Foulis & McCabe, 1997; OConnor, Gutek,
Stockdale, Geer, & Melanon, 2004) find that the age difference in this milieu
usually matches different positions (younger participants are students and older
participants are staff) and that position is what causes these differences more than
age. Kelley and Parsons (2000) also observed a combined effect of gender and
status, such that women in different positions within academia (students, professors, administrative staff) had different perceptions of what behaviours constitute
sexual harassment.
Taking these results as our point of departure, this study will focus on
analysing the judgements on what behaviours count as sexual harassment and
how they are classified by men and women who occupy different positions in
academia in a Spanish university setting. Based on the results of prior studies, we
hypothesize that two dimensions of sexual harassment behaviours will be found
468
(blackmail or sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention) and that women and
staff members at university will show a more inclusive, broader definition of
sexual harassment, meaning that they will classify more sexual attention behaviours (with mild or moderate severity) as sexual harassment.
Method
This study was performed using a descriptive cross-sectional design; that is, it was
limited to a single observation of a single group in a single moment in time.
Participants
The sample was made up of 1,693 members of the community of a Spanish public
university. Of them, 1,521 were students, 988 females, 523 males and 10 people
who did not indicate their gender; 172 were staff members (88 teaching and
research staff (TRS), 46 females and 42 males; 73 were administrative and service
staff (AASS), 52 females and 21 males; and 11 people did not indicate their
position, nine females and two males).
The student sample was chosen using a non-probabilistic sample by quotas
based on the degree being pursued variable. For a confidence level of 95.5% and
for the most unfavourable condition (p = q = 50%), the error was 2.36%.
For the staff sample, we got 7.1% participation by TRS (which for a confidence level of 95.5% and for the most unfavourable condition (p = q = 50%)
meant an error of 10.1%) and 13.6% AASS (which for a confidence level of
95.5% and for the most unfavourable condition (p = q = 50%) meant an error of
10.7%) at university.
Instruments
The participants were administered the Scale of sexual harassment and social
interaction with sexual content in the university setting (EASIS-U, Bosch, 1998),
which contains 38 items that the respondent has to classify into four categories
(see Appendix 1). To construct this scale, we made an exhaustive survey of the
literature on the topic (e.g., Calle, Gonzlez, & Nez, 1988; Fitzgerald et al.,
1995); we chose the behaviours cited as the most descriptive of harassment; and
we enlisted the opinion of two experts in criminal law to confirm the validity of
the items and their fit with the legal definition of sexual harassment in Spain. The
purpose of the four response categories was for the person to distinguish whether
they were acceptable forms of interaction among adults on a graduated scale. The
Cronbachs alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole in this sample was .952.
In order to ensure the maximum anonymity and avoid possible wariness
derived from the nature of the research topic and the small size of the university
where the study was conducted, we only asked the participants to indicate their
sex and their position within the university community.
469
Procedure
After determining the size of the student sample and the quota for each degree, we
administered the questionnaire during class time with the assistance of students
who had previously been trained.
For the staff, we worked with a convenience sample. Specifically, we set up a
website where staff could fill out an online questionnaire, and after receiving the
corresponding authorizations, we informed the universitys AASS and TRS about
the study and requested their participation. Given the low participation rates at
first, we resent informative messages two more times.
In all cases, the participants were duly informed about the voluntary, anonymous nature of their participation in the study, as well as its objectives. They
were told that the responses would be examined and processed in strict compliance with ethical research norms, and they voluntarily agreed to participate without receiving any reward in exchange.
Data analysis
The data gathered were analysed using the SPSS (version 21 for Windows)
statistical package. In order to achieve our goal, we performed a multiple correspondence factor analysis (MCA). Given that this produces a volume of results
whose interpretation is more subjective than is usual in statistical data analysis
techniques, this was complemented with a classification technique (Lizasoain &
Joaristi, 2012). Specifically, we performed a hierarchical conglomerate analysis by
variables (by the method of intergroup linking), resulting in a dendrogram which
shows the successive groups of variables in conglomerates and re-scales the real
distances at values of between 0 and 25, preserving the ratio of the distances
between the steps. In line with the goal of the study, the analyses were performed
separately by sex and position in the university community. Given the size of the
samples, the staff (TRS and AASS) were grouped together, and the ultimate
analysis was performed in four different sub-samples (male students, female
students, male staff and female staff).
Results
First of all, based on the recommendation to choose the lowest number of
dimensions needed to explain the most variation (Prez, 2005), we extracted the
factors or dimensions that were the most explanatory in each of the sub-samples.
For the students (both male and female) (Table 2), we chose to extract two
factors (given that including a third one led to inertia under .130, and no item had
important discrimination values). In both cases, the sexual harassment dimension had a higher singular value, and it was the one that discriminated the most
among the different behaviours analysed, including items related to different
harassment behaviours (33 for male students and 34 for female students), which
earned the highest discrimination values on this dimension and therefore bear a
greater weight when defining it. In turn, the romantic social interaction
IT1
IT2
IT3
IT4
IT5
IT6
IT7
IT8
IT9
IT10
IT11
IT12
IT13
IT14
IT15
IT16
IT17
IT18
IT19
IT20
IT21
IT22
IT23
Female students
.004
.411
.424
.408
.093
.550
.292
.182
.439
.423
.561
.624
.665
.679
.386
.672
.635
.588
.415
.639
.742
.671
.581
.088
.086
.195
.180
.205
.296
.139
.225
.255
.276
.305
.281
.313
.328
.139
.350
.418
.357
.268
.298
.239
.244
.244
.017
.583
.487
.445
.075
.516
.386
.125
.536
.493
.637
.809
.820
.805
.361
.820
.831
.796
.407
.814
.784
.729
.631
.036
.038
.119
.169
.099
.228
.093
.095
.209
.239
.306
.263
.211
.235
.137
.330
.419
.361
.260
.350
.268
.284
.252
.013
.332
1.092
1.090
.040
.743
.724
.039
.734
.728
1.091
1.100
1.096
.877
.876
1.093
.877
1.092
.876
1.095
1.091
1.099
.875
Romantic
Romantic
Sexual
social
Sexual
social
Sexual
harassment interaction harassment interaction harassment
Male students
Table 2. Dimensions obtained in the MCA.
.018
.039
.555
.309
.266
.414
.308
.086
.327
.368
.409
.323
.377
.478
.269
.549
.433
.541
.303
.238
.149
.338
.230
Romantic social
interaction with
sexual
propositions
Male staff
Female staff
.075
.297
.226
.217
.021
.277
.089
.165
.294
.137
.229
.122
.119
.273
.109
.309
.365
.378
.124
.192
.108
.249
.095
.299
.630
.641
.547
.115
.771
.181
.128
.566
.262
.895
.892
.892
.893
.704
.721
.670
.470
.668
.894
.891
.894
.435
.086
.108
.261
.212
.137
.251
.151
.098
.411
.339
.284
.076
.172
.265
.153
.172
.251
.374
.354
.324
.126
.204
.174
(Continued )
.264
.572
.175
.037
.319
.006
.016
.225
.044
.194
.111
.109
.113
.124
.025
.144
.047
.334
.145
.118
.115
.104
.041
Romantic
Sexualized
social
Sexual
Sexual
social
interaction harassment propositions interaction
470
.267
.162
.310
.171
.291
.281
.220
.393
.363
.306
.272
.341
.376
.242
.217
9.941
.924
.262
.709
.033
.404
.005
.557
.651
.531
.710
.698
.726
.607
.561
.405
.401
.585
18.665
.972
.491
.551
.720
.023
.383
.009
.610
.722
.603
.734
.823
.700
.722
.682
.453
.394
.446
20.931
.978
.233
.256
.109
.302
.056
.275
.240
.151
.360
.422
.297
.291
.361
.297
.257
.161
8.838
.911
.764
1.092
.017
.253
.012
1.091
1.100
.749
1.092
.489
1.091
1.091
.876
.658
.213
.538
29.034
.992
.309
.369
.042
.475
.045
.343
.297
.221
.511
.399
.204
.185
.473
.338
.344
.177
11.752
.940
Romantic social
interaction with
sexual
propositions
Male staff
(a) The iterative process was stopped when we reached the value of the proof for the convergence.
(b) Cronbachs alpha: mean based on average eigenvalues.
IT24
IT25
IT26
IT27
IT28
IT29
IT30
IT31
IT32
IT33
IT34
IT35
IT36
IT37
IT38
Total active
Cronbachs
alpha
Inertia
Female students
Romantic
Romantic
social
Sexual
social
Sexual
Sexual
harassment interaction harassment interaction harassment
Male students
Table 2. (Continued ).
Female staff
.179
.144
.071
.136
.021
.324
.055
.159
.326
.253
.021
.191
.207
.224
.158
.053
6.817
.876
.603
.672
.433
.284
.557
.520
.884
.861
.473
.519
.788
.830
.661
.440
.331
.619
22.930
.982
.246
.258
.160
.359
.150
.379
.188
.211
.421
.352
.212
.310
.411
.362
.339
.268
9.363
.917
.174
.160
.365
.485
.384
.258
.153
.019
.326
.213
.401
.040
.160
.167
.101
.007
6.622
.872
Sexualized
Romantic
social
social
Sexual
Sexual
interaction harassment propositions interaction

471
472
dimension included items (five for males and four for females) with notably lower
discrimination values. We should point out that the only difference between male
and female students came in item 5, which the males regarded as romantic social
interaction and the females as harassment.
For the staff (both male and female) (Table 2), we chose to extract three factors
(given that including a third factor led to inertia over .170, and there were items
with important discrimination values). In both cases, the sexual harassment
dimension had a higher singular value and was the one that best discriminated
between the different behaviours analysed, including items related to different
harassment behaviours (31 for male staff and 33 for female staff), which earned
the highest discrimination values on this dimension and therefore bear a greater
weight when defining it. In the other two dimensions there are differences
between male and female staff: the males distinguish between romantic social
interaction with and without sexual purposes (items 5, 26, 27 and 37 and items 1,
8 and 25, respectively); while the females distinguished between sexual propositions (items 10 and 37) and sexualized social interaction behaviours (items 5, 8
and 26).
In short, the results with the MCA indicate that in the university setting, for
both males and females and students and staff, the majority of behaviours
included in the EASIS-U are basically grouped into two main dimensions: sexual
harassment and romantic social interaction or sexualized social interaction behaviours. This second dimension is where we did see more significant differences
between students and staff members and between female and male staff.
In order to further explore these results, we performed a hierarchical analysis
of conglomerates which provided a dendrogram for each of the sub-samples
where we could see the stages in the process of fusion and the distances among
the fused elements in each stage. By examining these results and retaining the
necessary compromise between the number of classes to keep and heterogeneity
among these classes (Batista & Sureda, 1987), we made the cut-off point wherever there was a sudden jump (quantified by the value of the coefficient obtained).
This led us to stop this aggregation process at level 6 of the standardized scale for
females and at level 7 for males.
The results (Figures 1 to 4) generally corroborate the results on the MCA, and
they define two major conglomerates of sexual harassment, one or two conglomerates (depending on the sub-sample) of romantic social interaction or sexualized
social interaction behaviours and a variable number of conglomerates made up of
a single item. In particular, item 7 was not grouped with any other in any subsample. This may be due to the nature of the (supposedly) fortuitous behaviour to
which this item refers, which may have generated doubts regarding how to
interpret it.
The first conglomerate grouped together those sexual harassment behaviours
rated as the most serious according to the proposal from the Instituto de la Mujer
(2006). The four sub-samples analysed include 10 items related to sexual coercion
(items 13, 21 and 29), sexual propositions (items 4 and 6) and nonverbal sexual
behaviours (items 14, 22, 30, 34 and 38) that occur in an academic setting. With
Dendrogram using the average linkage (between groups)

Combination of re-scaled distance conglomerates
Figure 1. Male students.
473
474

Figure 2. Female students.

Figure 3. Male staff.
475
476

Figure 4. Female staff.
477
regard to differences, while the male students did not include these 10 items in
this conglomerate, the male staff add two more (items 12 and 20), the female
students include a total of 16 items (the same as the male staff plus items 11, 16,
17 and 37), and the female staff include a total of 24 items (the same as the female
students plus items 2, 9, 15, 18, 19, 24, 31 and 33). These results reveal that
women (and especially female staff) use broader and more inclusive definitions
(compared to the male staff and students) of what constitutes sexual harassment
and include in this category behaviours like pressure to date (items 9, 11, 12 and
19) and some kinds of comments (items 16, 17 and 18).
The second conglomerate groups together those sexual harassment behaviours
rated as mild, according to the proposal from the Instituto de la Mujer (2006).
Thus, the four sub-samples analysed include seven items related to sexualized
verbal behaviours, such as comments on physical appearance (item 10), obscene
jokes (items 26 and 32), staring (items 35 and 36), excessive physical proximity
(item 28) and using a third person to force a relationship (item 23). In terms of
differences, the males (both students and, to a lesser extent, male staff) include in
this conglomerate a higher number of items (20 for male students and 19 for male
staff) than the females (16 for female students and 8 for female staff). That is, all
males, and female students to a lesser extent, consider a larger number of
behaviours to be mild harassment, such as pressure to date or certain sexualized
verbal behaviours.
With regard to romantic social interaction behaviours, for the male students
and staff these are included in a single conglomerate (which includes items 1, 5, 8,
25 and 27), while for the female students and staff two different conglomerates
can be distinguished, one that includes items related to initiating a relationship
(items 1, 25 and 27) and another related to sexualized social interaction behaviours (items 5 and 8).
Discussion
In the current Spanish regulatory climate (Organic Law 3/2007), companies,
public administrations and universities have to design and implement action
protocols for dealing with sexual harassment that include preventative actions.
Within this framework, the subjective nature of sexual harassment, and particularly the fact that the subjective perception of harassment victims is one of the
core criteria for defining it (Prez & Rodrguez, 2013; Prez, 2012) means that
what are called personal definitions of the observers of sexual harassment
become important (OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). That is, knowing what the
members of the university community view as sexual harassment and therefore
that they will perceive themselves as being harassed when facing certain behaviours and will request assistance, and developing training programmes to
improve this knowledge are basic goals in equality plans and, within them, action
protocols for sexual harassment at Spanish universities (Bosch et al., 2012).
This study provides results that might be useful in this sense. Specifically,
because it inquires into how members of the university community perceive a
478
wide range of social interaction behaviours with sexual content (outlined in the
EASIS-U), two major groups of behaviours emerged: those perceived as counting
as sexual harassment and those considered romantic social interactions. This
differentiation occurs with few variations among women and men and among
university students and staff.
When we further examine these results, we see that among the behaviours
perceived as sexual harassment, there is a distinction between the more severe
ones (which would include sexual coercion, sexual propositions or nonverbal
sexual behaviours which occur in an academic setting) and the milder ones
(which would basically include sexualized verbal behaviours). This distinction,
which is primarily linked to the seriousness of the behaviours, largely dovetails
with what has been proposed by the Instituto de la Mujer (2006). From the
standpoint of content, it is quite similar to what has been established by different
international bodies (Council of Europe, 2011; ILO, 2007; WHO, 2003), which
distinguish between sexual blackmail (where a hierarchical superior [or peer] asks
a subordinate for a sexual favour as a condition of getting a benefit in their work
or academic pursuits) and environment sexual harassment (behaviours by hierarchical superiors or other people which create an intimidating, hostile or humiliating work environment for the target of these behaviours). In contrast, proposals
like those by Fitzgerald et al. (1995), which distinguish between unwanted sexual
attention and sexual coercion, and Rotundo et al. (2001) and Bursik and Gefter
(2011), which distinguish between sexual coercion on the one hand and other
kinds of behaviours (verbal vs. nonverbal, etc.) on the other, are less explanatory
in light of the results of this study.
In terms of the analysis of the different sub-samples, as expected there is basic
agreement classifying the most serious, explicit forms (such as sexual blackmail
and direct sexual propositions) as severe sexual harassment; while in the milder
forms there are discrepancies regarding the classification of the different behaviours among the different sub-samples. In this sense, the results are similar to
those described in the previous literature on the topic (Blumenthal, 1998; Gutek,
1995; Rotundo et al., 2001).
We also obtained similar results to those described in terms of a gender effect
(Banerjee & Sharma, 2012; Blumenthal, 1998; Gutek, 1995; Rotundo et al., 2001)
and a position effect (Foulis & McCabe, 1997; OConnor et al., 2004), and to the
joint effect of gender and position (Kelley & Parsons, 2000). Thus, on the one
hand women (particularly university staff members) considered more behaviours
as severe sexual harassment, while men (particularly students) considered more
behaviours as mild sexual harassment. What was particularly striking is that
behaviours like Insistent phone calls at the potential harassment victims
home, Encouraging feelings of guilt by alluding to possible sexual problems
of the potential harassment victim (sexual repression, lack of attractiveness, etc.),
Alleging that the potential harassment victim has their own libidinous thoughts
and Displaying provocative exhibitionistic behaviours to the potential harassment
victim are regarded as severe harassment by female students and all staff, but not
by male students. It is also surprising that males do not associate behaviours like
479
Repeatedly sending notes or letters asking for more intimacy with the potential
harassment victim are classified as mild harassment by males, and that Explicit
request to have sexual relations with other harassment behaviours.[Translation to
be verified]
It is important to note that the study performed is not free of limitations,
primarily derived from the questionnaire used (which was constructed ad hoc and
only provides quantitative data) and the sample (small and not representative for
AASS and TRS, very different in size between staff and students and with no
additional sociodemographic information). What is more, as some studies point
out (OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009), it is more likely for a behaviour to be regarded as
sexual harassment when the harasser has higher status than the harassment victim,
which happened in this case and may magnify the results. Therefore, it is
necessary to further analyse the perception of sexual harassment and the variables
that modulate it at university in order to overcome these limitations.
Despite this, the results obtained provide information on how sexual harassment is perceived in the university setting in Spain, which can contribute to
optimizing preventative actions (Bosch et al., 2012).
480
La percepcin del acoso sexual en el mbito universitario

La percepcin subjetiva de las personas acosadas constituye uno de los criterios
centrales para delimitar qu es acoso sexual (Prez, 2012; Prez y Rodrguez,
2013). Esta percepcin puede venir modificada por diferentes factores y, entre
ellos, particularmente, por el gnero (Bursik y Gefter, 2011; Rotundo et al., 2001).
Desde este punto de partida, para desarrollar acciones de prevencin primaria
(especialmente aquellas dirigidas hacia las formas leves y moderadas de acoso
sexual sobre las que, como se analizar ms adelante, hay menos acuerdo y
donde, por tanto, la subjetividad cobra mayor relevancia) es bsico conocer qu
conductas son etiquetadas como acoso sexual antes de que sean vivenciadas
(definiciones personales de los/as observadores del acoso sexual, e.g.,
OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). En este sentido, el objetivo de este trabajo es
profundizar en el anlisis de las diferencias entre los juicios de hombres y mujeres
sobre qu comportamientos constituyen acoso sexual y cmo se clasifican en el
mbito universitario. Este objetivo cobra relevancia puesto que las universidades
espaolas han de desarrollar, por imperativo legal (LO 3/2007), protocolos para
prevenir y erradicar el acoso sexual.
El acoso sexual ha sido definido en psicologa como un fenmeno subjetivo,
considerndolo como un conjunto de conductas de tipo sexual, fsicas, verbales y
no verbales, que no son deseadas por la persona destinataria, quien las percibe
como ofensivas o amenazantes y no sabe o no puede afrontarlas (Fitzgerald et al.,
1997; Nielsen et al., 2010; OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). Diferentes instancias
internacionales (Consejo de Europa, 2011; OIT, 2007; OMS, 2003) manejan
definiciones muy similares a sta, incorporando una diferenciacin entre dos
tipos de acoso: el chantaje sexual (tambin llamado quid pro quo o de intercambio) y el acoso sexual ambiental (o entorno intimidatorio, hostil o humillante).
En general, puede decirse que la estructura conceptual del acoso sexual
incluye tres elementos clave (Prez, 2012; Prez y Rodrguez, 2013): los sujetos
(caracterizando el sexo y tipo de relacin laboral y jerrquica entre persona
acosadora y acosada); las conductas que pueden catalogarse como acoso; y la
percepcin de stas. Este trabajo se centra en estos dos ltimos aspectos, las
conductas y su percepcin.
Por lo que se refiere a las conductas, ms all de definiciones legales, existe un
amplio conjunto de actuaciones que pueden ser etiquetadas como acoso sexual por
una persona (Bursik y Gefter, 2011) y que han sido agrupadas en bloques o
dimensiones en diferentes trabajos. En la Tabla 1 se incluyen algunos ejemplos.
Las propuestas de Fitzgerald, Gelfand, y Drasgow (1995) y Rotundo et al.
(2001) incorporan tres dimensiones, el chantaje o coercin sexual, la atencin
Acoso de gnero: conductas

groseras, verbales y
simblicas, que conllevan
actitudes hostiles.
Actitudes despectivas
impersonales: conductas que
reflejan actitudes despectivas
sobre hombres y mujeres en
general.
Actitudes despectivas
personales: conductas que
reflejan actitudes despectivas
sobre la acosada
Rotundo, Nguyen y Sackett

(2001)
Dimensiones de las conductas de acoso sexual.
Fitzgerald, Gelfand y
Drasgow (1995)
Tabla 1.
Comentarios verbales de
cortesa no sexuales sobre
el aspecto fsico de la
acosada.
Comentarios verbales
sexualizados sobre la
apariencia fsica de la
acosada.
Acoso leve: chistes de

contenido sexual sobre la
mujer, piropos/comentarios
sexuales sobre las
trabajadoras
(Contina )
Bursik y Gefter (2011)
Instituto de la Mujer (2006)

481
Conductas de contacto fsico de

tipo no sexual.
Conductas de contacto fsico de
tipo sexual (besos, caricias).
Presin para tener citas que no
son deseadas por la acosada.
Proposiciones sexuales:
requerimientos explcitos para
tener encuentros sexuales.
Coercin sexual: requerimientos

para encuentros sexuales o
encuentros forzados que se
ponen como condicin para
un empleo o promocin
Coercin sexual esfuerzos

sutiles o explcitos para
hacer las recompensas en
el trabajo contingentes al
intercambio sexual
Rotundo, Nguyen y Sackett

(2001)
Atencin sexual no deseada:

cualquier tipo de conducta
de naturaleza sexual no
deseada por la persona que
la recibe
Fitzgerald, Gelfand y
Drasgow (1995)
Tabla 1. (Continuacin).
Conductas no verbales de
naturaleza sexual (miradas
lascivas, tocamientos).
Conductas de interaccin en
las que se solicita de modo
insistente y no requerido
una cita.
Acoso leve: pedir

reiteradamente citas,
acercamiento excesivo,
hacer gestos y miradas
insinuantes
Acoso grave: hacer preguntas
sobre su vida sexual, hacer
insinuaciones sexuales,
pedir abiertamente
relaciones sexuales sin
presiones, presionar
despus de la ruptura
sentimental con un
compaero
Acoso muy grave: abrazos,
besos no deseados,
tocamientos, pellizcos,
acorralamientos
Acoso muy grave: presiones
para obtener sexo a cambio
de mejoras o amenazas
realizar actos sexuales bajo
presin de despido, asalto
sexual
Solicitud directa de actividad

sexual a cambio de un
favor
Bursik y Gefter (2011)
Instituto de la Mujer (2006)
482
483
sexual no deseada y el llamado acoso de gnero, que no ser considerado en este

trabajo puesto que en Espaa el acoso por razn de gnero tiene un tratamiento
especfico y diferenciado (ver LO 3/2007). La propuesta del Instituto de la Mujer
(2006) se refiere al nivel de gravedad, ms que al tipo de comportamientos
incluidos. Y la de Bursik y Gefter (2011) incorpora explcitamente los comportamientos verbales, pero no los de contacto. Por ello, se tomar como gua para
clasificar las conductas de acoso una combinacin de estas propuestas, atendiendo, por una parte, a su nivel de gravedad y, por otra, a su contenido
(atencin sexual no deseada, verbal o no verbal, y chantaje o coercin sexual).
Por su parte, la percepcin subjetiva de las personas acosadas constituye, tal y
como se seal anteriormente, uno de los criterios clave para delimitar qu es
acoso sexual (Prez, 2012; Prez y Rodrguez, 2013). As, muchas definiciones
hablan de conductas indeseadas o no buscadas y/o que resultan ofensivas o
humillantes para la persona acosada, remarcando que una conducta tiene esta
consideracin (no intrnsecamente o per se si no) en la medida en que quien la
recibe la considera como tal, de modo similar a lo que ocurrira en el mobbing o
acoso psicolgico (Escartn et al., 2008; Lewis, 2001). A esto habra que aadir
que la percepcin subjetiva de quienes son testigos del acoso cobra importancia
para la prevencin del mismo (OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). La teora social
cognitiva podra proporcionar un marco explicativo para comprender el proceso
subyacente (Bursik y Gefter, 2011), entendiendo que las personas tienen en su
memoria esquemas mentales (a los que recurren para interpretar y etiquetar los
acontecimientos a los que se enfrentan) cuyos contenidos pueden ser modificados
por experiencias personales o factores contextuales.
En este sentido, un significativo volumen de investigaciones empricas ha
mostrado que, efectivamente, diferentes factores individuales y contextuales pueden influir sobre si una interaccin conductual es percibida como acoso (Bursik y
Gefter, 2011). Entre ellos estaran: gnero, edad, raza, clase social, orientacin
sexual, estatus educativo o profesional, experiencias previas, locus de control,
autoestima o creencias sobre sexualidad (Berdahl y Moore, 2006; DeSouza et al.,
2007; Frazier et al., 1995; Gutek, 1995; Kelley y Parsons, 2000; Luthar et al.,
2009; OLeary-Kelly et al.., 2009; Ohse y Stockdale, 2008; Rotundo et al..,
2001), siendo el gnero uno de los que ha recibido ms atencin (Bursik y
Gefter, 2011; OLeary-Kelly et al.., 2009; Rotundo et al.., 2001).
As, Gutek (1995) observ que las mujeres definan el acoso sexual de modo
ms inclusivo, siendo ms probable que identificaran una conducta como acoso
sexual o como menos apropiada, aunque tales diferencias eran menores cuando se
trataba de acoso severo que cuando se trataba de situaciones ms ambiguas o
abstractas, y explicaban una pequea proporcin de la varianza total. Blumenthal
(1998), en un estudio meta-analtico (sobre 83 trabajos publicados entre 1982 y
1996), confirm que las diferencias de gnero en la percepcin del acoso sexual se
daban siempre en el sentido descrito y eran consistentes a travs de edad, cultura y
estatus profesional. Tambin determin que dichas diferencias tendan a ser
pequeas en cuanto a su magnitud; que el efecto de gnero y estatus vena
mediado por el tipo de estmulo empleado en el estudio; que el efecto del
484
gnero era mayor en los trabajos ms recientes; y que el estatus de la persona

acosadora tena mayor peso entre estudiantes que entre trabajadores/as. El estudio
meta-analtico de Rotundo et al. (2001), sobre 62 trabajos, reconfirm los resultados de Gutek (1995). Estudios posteriores han seguido obteniendo estas diferencias por gnero (Banerjee y Sharma, 2012), aunque en algunos casos moderadas por otras variables, como diferencias culturales o estatus ocupacional
(OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009).
Las diferencias de gnero sealadas podran explicarse desde la teora de la
identidad social (Bowes-Sperry y OLeary-Kelly, 2005), segn la cual las personas organizan su entorno social en endogrupos y exogrupos y tienden, consciente
o inconscientemente, a hacer juicios que faciliten actitudes positivas hacia los
miembros del endogrupo y a actuar ms favorablemente hacia ellos. En consecuencia, sera ms probable que las mujeres se identificasen con las vctimas de
acoso sexual (pues suelen tener ms historias de victimizacin) y los varones con
los perpetradores (rol ms frecuente entre ellos) y que modificasen sus juicios y
actitudes en funcin de esta identificacin.
Los modelos explicativos de tipo sociocultural y orientacin bsicamente
feminista ponen el acento en los procesos sociales de gnero, entendiendo que
el acoso sexual es una de las consecuencias de la desigualdad de gnero y el
sexismo que existen en la sociedad patriarcal y uno de los mecanismos del
patriarcado para controlar a las mujeres y expulsarlas y/o mantenerlas fuera del
mercado de trabajo (Pina et al., 2009; Rospenda et al., 1998). En este marco, la
teora de la socializacin de rol de gnero seala que existen normas y roles que la
sociedad (patriarcal) considera aceptados y aceptables para hombres y mujeres, y
mecanismos para recompensar y sancionar aquellos comportamientos que se
ajustan o transgreden tales normas (Ely y Padavic, 2007). De acuerdo con estas
pautas, las mujeres percibiran las conductas de acoso como ms amenazantes o
como avances de un acoso posterior, mientras los hombres podran sentirse menos
amenazados y percibirlas como ms aceptables, o, incluso, como un cumplido
(Cochran et al., 1997; Rotundo et al., 2001)
Por otra parte, el acoso sexual puede darse en dos mbitos, laboral y
acadmico (Kayuni, 2009; Pina et al.., 2009). Este trabajo se centra en
el mbito acadmico, donde ciertos estudios realizados han sugerido que las
personas ms jvenes son ms tolerantes o indulgentes al clasificar conductas
sociales y sexuales (como el acoso sexual) (Frazier et al.., 1995; Gutek, 1995),
apuntando la existencia de un supuesto efecto estudiante. Sin embargo, otros
(Foulis y McCabe, 1997; OConnor et al., 2004) sealan que, habitualmente, en
este entorno la diferencia de edad coincide con posiciones diferentes (siendo los
participantes ms jvenes estudiantes, y los de ms edad parte del staff), y que
sera la posicin, ms que la edad, la causante de las diferencias halladas. Kelley y
Parsons (2000) observaron, adems, un efecto combinado de gnero y estatus, de
modo que mujeres en diferentes posiciones en la academia (alumnas, profesoras,
personal de administracin) tenan diferentes percepciones de los comportamientos que constituan acoso sexual.
485
Tomando como punto de partida estos resultados, este trabajo se centra en

analizar los juicios sobre qu comportamientos constituyen acoso sexual y cmo
son clasificados stos por hombres y mujeres que ocupan distintas posiciones en
la academia en un contexto universitario espaol. En base a resultados de investigaciones previas, se hipotetiza que se obtendrn dos dimensiones de conductas
de acoso sexual (chantaje o coercin sexual y atencin sexual no deseada) y que
las mujeres y los miembros del staff de la universidad manejarn una definicin
ms inclusiva y amplia de acoso sexual, clasificando un mayor nmero de
conductas de atencin sexual (de gravedad leve o moderada) como tal.
Mtodo
Este estudio se realiz a partir de un diseo seccional descriptivo, esto es, limitado
a una sola observacin, de un solo grupo, en un solo momento del tiempo.
Participantes
La muestra estuvo compuesta por 1693 personas integrantes de la comunidad
universitaria de una universidad pblica espaola. De ellas, 1521 eran estudiantes
(988 mujeres, 523 varones y 10 personas que no indicaron su sexo) y 172
miembros del personal (88 miembros del Personal Docente e Investigador
(PDI), 46 mujeres y 42 hombres, 73 miembros del Personal de Administracin
y Servicios (PAS), 52 mujeres y 21 hombres, y 11 que personas no indicaron su
procedencia, nueve mujeres y dos hombres).
La muestra de alumnado fue seleccionada mediante un muestreo no
probabilstico por cuotas en base a la variable estudios que cursa. Para un
nivel de confianza del 95.5% y para la condicin ms desfavorable
(p = q = 50%), el error fue de 2.36%.
En el caso del personal, se logr la participacin de un 7.1% del PDI (lo que,
para un nivel de confianza del 95.5% y para la condicin ms desfavorable
(p = q = 50%), supone un error de 10.1%) y de un 13.6% del PAS (lo que,
para un nivel de confianza del 95.5% y para la condicin ms desfavorable
(p = q = 50%), supone un error de 10.7%) de la universidad.
Instrumentos
Se administr la Escala de acoso sexual e interaccin social de contenido sexual
en el mbito universitario (EASIS-U, Bosch, 1998), que consta de 38 tems, que
deban ser clasificados en cuatro categoras (ver Apndice 1). Para construir esta
escala se realiz una revisin exhaustiva de la literatura sobre el tema (e.g., Calle
et al., 1988; Fitzgerald et al.., 1995); se seleccionaron aquellas conductas citadas
como ms descriptivas de acoso; y se recab la opinin de dos expertos/as en
derecho penal para que confirmaran la validez de los tems y su ajuste a la
definicin legal de acoso sexual en Espaa. Las cuatro categoras de respuesta
tenan como finalidad que la persona diferencie si se trata de formas de interaccin
486
aceptables entre personas adultas en una escala graduada. El coeficiente alpha de

Cronbach para el conjunto de la escala en esta muestra fue .952.
Con objeto de garantizar al mximo el anonimato y evitar posibles suspicacias
derivadas de la naturaleza del tema de investigacin y del pequeo tamao de la
universidad donde se realiz el estudio, nicamente se solicit a las personas
participantes que indicaran sexo y colectivo de pertenencia.
Procedimiento
Tras determinar el tamao de la muestra de alumnado y la cuota para cada estudio,
se administr el cuestionario en horario lectivo, con la colaboracin de alumnado
previamente entrenado.
Para el personal se trabaj con una muestra de conveniencia. Concretamente,
se habilit una direccin Web para cumplimentar on line el cuestionario y, tras
obtener las correspondientes autorizaciones, se inform al PAS y PDI de la
universidad sobre el estudio y se solicit su participacin. Dada la escasa
participacin inicial, se repiti el envo de mensajes informativos hasta en dos
ocasiones.
En todos los casos, las personas participantes fueron adecuadamente informadas del carcter voluntario y annimo de su participacin en el estudio y de los
objetivos del mismo, observaron y fueron tratadas respetando estrictamente las
normas ticas al uso para realizar una investigacin, y aceptaron voluntariamente
participar sin recibir compensacin a cambio.
Anlisis de datos
Los datos recogidos fueron analizados mediante el paquete estadstico SPSS
(versin 21 para Windows). Para alcanzar el objetivo previsto se realiz un
anlisis factorial de correspondencias mltiple (ACM). Dado que ste produce
un volumen de resultados cuya interpretacin est sometida a mayor subjetividad
de lo habitual en las tcnicas estadsticas de anlisis de datos, se complement con
una tcnica de clasificacin (Lizasoain y Joaristi, 2012). Concretamente, se realiz
un anlisis jerrquico de conglomerados por variables (por el mtodo de
vinculacin inter-grupos), obteniendo como resultante un dendograma, que muestra las agrupaciones sucesivas de stas en conglomerados y re-escala las distancias
reales a valores entre 0 y 25, preservando la razn de las distancias entre los
pasos. De acuerdo con el objetivo previsto, los anlisis se realizaron de modo
separado por sexo y posicin en la comunidad universitaria. Dado el tamao de
las muestras, se agrup al personal (PDI y PAS), realizndose finalmente anlisis
en cuatro submuestras diferentes (alumnos, alumnas, personal masculino y personal femenino).
487
Resultados
En primer lugar, partiendo de la recomendacin de seleccionar el menor nmero
de dimensiones necesarias para explicar la mayor parte de la variacin (Prez,
2005), se procedi a extraer los factores o dimensiones que resultaran ms
explicativos en cada una de las submuestras.
Para el alumnado (alumnos y alumnas) (Tabla 2) se opt por extraer dos
factores (dado que incluir un tercero aportaba una inercia por debajo de .130 y
ningn tem tena valores de discriminacin relevantes en l). En ambos casos, la
dimensin acoso sexual tiene un valor singular ms grande, siendo la que ms
discrimina entre las diversas conductas analizadas e incluyendo tems relativos a
diferentes conductas de acoso (33 para alumnos y 34 para alumnas) que obtienen
los valores de discriminacin ms elevados en esta dimensin y, por tanto, tienen
un mayor peso a la hora de definirla. Por su parte, la dimensin interaccin social
romntica incluye tems (cinco para chicos y cuatro para chicas) con valores de
discriminacin sensiblemente inferiores. Cabe sealar que la nica diferencia
entre alumnos y alumnas se dio en el tem 5, considerado por ellos como
interaccin social romntica y por ellas como acoso.
Para el personal (masculino y femenino) (Tabla 2) se opt por extraer 3
factores (dado que la inclusin de un tercer factor aportaba una inercia por encima
de .170 y haba tems con valores de discriminacin relevantes en l). En ambos
casos, la dimensin acoso sexual tiene un valor singular ms grande, siendo la
que ms discrimina entre las diversas conductas analizadas e incluyendo tems
relativos a diferentes conductas de acoso (31 para personal masculino y 33 para
personal femenino) que obtienen los valores de discriminacin ms elevados en
esta dimensin y, por tanto, tienen un mayor peso a la hora de definirla. En las
otras dos dimensiones hay diferencias entre personal masculino y femenino: ellos
diferencian conductas de interaccin social romntica con y sin proposiciones
sexuales (tems 5, 26, 27 y 37 e tems 1, 8 y 25, respectivamente); y ellas
proposiciones sexuales (tems 10 y 37) y conductas de interaccin social sexualizada (tems 5, 8 y 26).
En definitiva, los resultados obtenidos con el ACM indican que, en el mbito
universitario, y tanto para varones como para mujeres, alumnado y miembros del
staff, la mayora de comportamientos incluidos en la EASIS-U son agrupados
bsicamente en dos grandes dimensiones: acoso sexual e interacciones sociales de
carcter romntico o sexualizado. En esta segunda dimensin es dnde se observan las diferencias ms importantes entre alumnado y miembros del staff y entre
personal femenino y masculino.
Como objeto de profundizar en estos resultados, se realiz un anlisis
jerrquico de conglomerados que proporcion un dendograma para cada una de
las submuestras donde se observan las etapas del proceso de fusin y las distancias entre los elementos fundidos en cada etapa. Observando los resultados
obtenidos, y manteniendo el necesario compromiso entre nmero de clases a
conservar y heterogeneidad dentro de las mismas (Batista & Sureda, 1987), se
tom como punto de corte aquel en el que se produca un salto brusco (cuantificado por el valor del coeficiente obtenido). Esto llev a detener este proceso de
IT1
IT2
IT3
IT4
IT5
IT6
IT7
IT8
IT9
IT10
IT11
IT12
IT13
IT14
IT15
IT16
IT17
IT18
IT19
IT20
IT21
IT22
IT23
Tabla 2.
.004
.411
.424
.408
.093
.550
.292
.182
.439
.423
.561
.624
.665
.679
.386
.672
.635
.588
.415
.639
.742
.671
.581
Acoso
sexual
Alumnas
.088
.086
.195
.180
.205
.296
.139
.225
.255
.276
.305
.281
.313
.328
.139
.350
.418
.357
.268
.298
.239
.244
.244
.017
.583
.487
.445
.075
.516
.386
.125
.536
.493
.637
.809
.820
.805
.361
.820
.831
.796
.407
.814
.784
.729
.631
.036
.038
.119
.169
.099
.228
.093
.095
.209
.239
.306
.263
.211
.235
.137
.330
.419
.361
.260
.350
.268
.284
.252
.013
.332
1.092
1.090
.040
.743
.724
.039
.734
.728
1.091
1.100
1.096
.877
.876
1.093
.877
1.092
.876
1.095
1.091
1.099
.875
Interaccin
Interaccin
social
Acoso
social
Acoso
romntica sexual romntica sexual
Alumnos
Dimensiones obtenidas en el ACM.
.018
.039
.555
.309
.266
.414
.308
.086
.327
.368
.409
.323
.377
.478
.269
.549
.433
.541
.303
.238
.149
.338
.230
Interaccin social
romntica con
proposiciones
sexuales
Personal masculino
Personal femenino
.075
.297
.226
.217
.021
.277
.089
.165
.294
.137
.229
.122
.119
.273
.109
.309
.365
.378
.124
.192
.108
.249
.095
.299
.630
.641
.547
.115
.771
.181
.128
.566
.262
.895
.892
.892
.893
.704
.721
.670
.470
.668
.894
.891
.894
.435
.086
.108
.261
.212
.137
.251
.151
.098
.411
.339
.284
.076
.172
.265
.153
.172
.251
.374
.354
.324
.126
.204
.174
(Contina )
.264
.572
.175
.037
.319
.006
.016
.225
.044
.194
.111
.109
.113
.124
.025
.144
.047
.334
.145
.118
.115
.104
.041
Interaccin
Interaccin
social
Acoso Proposiciones
social
romntica sexual
sexuales
sexualizada
488
.267
.162
.310
.171
.291
.281
.220
.393
.363
.306
.272
.341
.376
.242
.217
9.941
.924
.262
.709
.033
.404
.005
.557
.651
.531
.710
.698
.726
.607
.561
.405
.401
.585
18.665
.972
.491
.551
.720
.023
.383
.009
.610
.722
.603
.734
.823
.700
.722
.682
.453
.394
.446
20.931
.978
.233
.256
.109
.302
.056
.275
.240
.151
.360
.422
.297
.291
.361
.297
.257
.161
8.838
.911
.764
1.092
.017
.253
.012
1.091
1.100
.749
1.092
.489
1.091
1.091
.876
.658
.213
.538
29.034
.992
.309
.369
.042
.475
.045
.343
.297
.221
.511
.399
.204
.185
.473
.338
.344
.177
11.752
.940
Interaccin social
romntica con
proposiciones
sexuales
Personal masculino
(a) Se detuvo el proceso de iteracin dado que se alcanz el valor de la prueba para la convergencia.
(b) Alfa de Cronbach Promedio basado en autovalores promedio.
IT24
IT25
IT26
IT27
IT28
IT29
IT30
IT31
IT32
IT33
IT34
IT35
IT36
IT37
IT38
Total activo
Alfa de
Cronbach
Inercia
Acoso
sexual
Alumnas
Interaccin
Interaccin
social
Acoso
social
Acoso
romntica sexual romntica sexual
Alumnos
Tabla 2. (Continuacin).
Personal femenino
.179
.144
.071
.136
.021
.324
.055
.159
.326
.253
.021
.191
.207
.224
.158
.053
6.817
.876
.603
.672
.433
.284
.557
.520
.884
.861
.473
.519
.788
.830
.661
.440
.331
.619
22.930
.982
.246
.258
.160
.359
.150
.379
.188
.211
.421
.352
.212
.310
.411
.362
.339
.268
9.363
.917
.174
.160
.365
.485
.384
.258
.153
.019
.326
.213
.401
.040
.160
.167
.101
.007
6.622
.872
Interaccin
Interaccin
social
social
Acoso Proposiciones
sexualizada
romntica sexual
sexuales

489
490
agregacin en el nivel 6 de la escala estandarizada para las mujeres y en el nivel 7

para los varones.
Los resultados obtenidos (Figuras 1 a 4) corroboran en trminos generales los
obtenidos en el ACM, definiendo dos grandes conglomerados de conductas de
acoso sexual, uno o dos conglomerados (segn la submuestra) de comportamientos de interaccin social de carcter romntico o sexualizado y un nmero variable
de conglomerados compuestos por un nico tem. Particularmente, el tem 7 no se
agrupa con ningn otro en ninguna submuestra. Esto podra deberse al carcter de
comportamiento (supuestamente) fortuito al que se refiere este tem, que podra
generar dudas en cuanto a su interpretacin.
El primer conglomerado agrupara aquellas conductas de acoso sexual
calificadas como ms graves, segn la propuesta del Instituto de la Mujer
(2006). Las cuatro submuestras analizadas incluyen en l 10 tems relativos a
coercin sexual (tems 13, 21 y 29), proposiciones sexuales (tems 4 y 6) y
conductas no verbales de naturaleza sexual (tems 14, 22, 30, 34 y 38) que
ocurren en un contexto acadmico. En cuanto a las diferencias, mientras los
alumnos incluyen en este conglomerado los 10 tems ya mencionados, el
personal masculino aade dos ms (tems 12 y 20), las alumnas incluyen
total de 16 tems (los mismos que el personal masculino ms los tems 11,
16, 17 y 37), y el personal femenino un total de 24 (los mismos que las
alumnas ms los tems 2, 9, 15, 18, 19, 24, 31 y 33). Estos resultados apuntan
que las mujeres (y, especialmente, el personal femenino), manejan definiciones
ms amplias e inclusivas (por comparacin con el personal masculino y los
alumnos) de lo que sera acoso sexual, incluyendo en este mbito tambin
comportamientos como la presin para tener citas (tems 9, 11, 12 o 19) o
ciertos comentarios (tems 16, 17 o 18).
El segundo conglomerado agrupara aquellas conductas de acoso sexual
calificadas como leves, segn la propuesta del Instituto de la Mujer (2006).
As, las cuatro submuestras analizadas incluyen en l siete tems relativos a
conductas verbales sexualizadas, como comentarios sobre el aspecto fsico
(tem 10), chistes y bromas obscenas (tems 26 y 32), y tambin miradas
insistentes (tems 35 y 36), proximidad fsica excesiva (tem 28) o usar a
una tercera persona para forzar una relacin (tem 23). En cuanto a las
diferencias, los varones (los alumnos y, en menor medida, el personal masculino) incluyen en este conglomerado un mayor nmero de tems (20 el
alumnado y 19 el personal masculino), que las mujeres (16 las alumnas y
nicamente 8 el personal femenino). Es decir, los varones y, en menor medida
las alumnas, consideran un mayor nmero de comportamientos como acoso
leve, incluyendo, por ejemplo, comportamientos como la presin para tener
citas o determinadas conductas verbales sexualizadas.
En cuanto a las conductas de interaccin social de carcter romntico, para
los alumnos y el personal masculino stas se incluyen en un nico conglomerado (que agrupa los tems 1, 5, 8, 25 y 27), mientras para las alumnas y el
personal femenino se diferencian dos conglomerados, uno que agrupa tems
Dendograma que utiliza una vinculacin media (entre grupos)

Combinacin de conglomerados de distancia re-escalados
Figura 1. Alumnos.
491
492

Figura 2. Alumnas.

Figura 3. Personal masculino.
493
494

Figura 4. Personal femenino.
495
relativos a iniciar una relacin (tems 1, 25 y 27), y otro relativo a comportamientos de interaccin social sexualizada (tems 5 y 8).
Discusin
En el actual contexto normativo espaol (LO 3/2007) las empresas y administraciones pblicas, as como las universidades, deben disear e implementar
protocolos de actuacin frente al acoso sexual que incluyan, entre otras, acciones
para su prevencin. En este marco, su carcter subjetivo, y particularmente el
hecho de que la percepcin subjetiva de las personas acosadas constituya uno de
los criterios centrales para delimitarlo (Prez, 2012; Prez y Rodrguez, 2013),
otorga protagonismo a las denominadas definiciones personales de los/as observadores del acoso sexual (OLeary-Kelly et al., 2009). Es decir, conocer qu
entienden los miembros de la comunidad universitaria por acoso sexual y, por
tanto, ante qu comportamientos percibirn que estn siendo acosados/as y
solicitarn ayuda, y desarrollar programas formativos para mejorar este conocimiento se convierten en objetivos bsicos de los planes de igualdad y, dentro de
ellos, de los protocolos de actuacin frente al acoso sexual de las universidades
espaolas (Bosch et al., 2012).
Este trabajo aporta algunos resultados que pueden ser de inters en este
sentido. Concretamente, al indagar cmo perciben los miembros de la comunidad
universitaria un amplio abanico de comportamientos de interaccin social de
contenido sexual (explicitados en la EASIS-U), emergen dos grandes bloques de
conductas: aquellas percibidas como constitutivas de acoso sexual y aquellas
consideradas como interacciones sociales de carcter romntico. Esta
diferenciacin se da, con escasas variaciones, entre hombres y mujeres y entre
alumnado y personal de la universidad.
Al profundizar en estos resultados se observa que, dentro de las conductas
percibidas como acoso sexual se establece una diferenciacin entre aquellas
ms severas (que incluiran coercin sexual, proporciones sexuales o conductas no verbales de naturaleza sexual que ocurren en un contexto
acadmico) y aquellas de carcter ms leve (que incluiran bsicamente
conductas verbales sexualizadas). Esta diferenciacin, vinculada fundamentalmente con la gravedad de las conductas, coincidira bsicamente con la
propuesta del Instituto de la Mujer (2006), y, desde el punto de vista del
contenido, tendra importantes similitudes con establecida por las diferentes
instancias internacionales (Consejo de Europa, 2011; OIT, 2007; OMS, 2003)
entre chantaje sexual (donde un superior jerrquico (o asimilado) solicita a
una persona subordinada un favor sexual como condicin para lograr un
beneficio en el desarrollo de su vida laboral o acadmica) y acoso sexual
ambiental (conductas, ejercidas por superiores jerrquicos u otras personas,
que crean un entorno laboral intimidatorio, hostil o humillante para quien es
objeto de las mismas). En cambio, propuestas como las de Fitzgerald et al.
(1995), que diferencian entre atencin sexual no deseada y coercin sexual, o
de Rotundo et al. (2001) y Bursik y Gefter (2011), que diferencian entre
496
coercin sexual, por una parte, y otros tipos de conducta (verbales vs. no
verbales, etc.), por otra, resultan menos explicativas para los resultados
obtenidos en este trabajo.
Por lo que se refiere al anlisis de las diferentes submuestras, tal y como se
esperaba, existe un acuerdo bsico en cuanto a la clasificacin de las formas ms
graves y explcitas (como chantaje sexual o proposiciones sexuales directas) como
acoso sexual severo; mientras que en las ms leves se observan discrepancias en
cuanto a la clasificacin de los diferentes comportamientos entre las distintas
submuestras. En este sentido, los resultados obtenidos son similares a los descritos
en la literatura previa sobre el tema (Blumenthal, 1998; Gutek, 1995; Rotundo
et al.., 2001).
Tambin se obtuvieron resultados similares a los descritos en cuanto al efecto
del gnero (Banerjee y Sharma, 2012; Blumenthal, 1998; Gutek, 1995; Rotundo
et al.., 2001) y la posicin (Foulis y McCabe, 1997; OConnor et al., 2004), y al
efecto conjunto del gnero y la posicin (Kelley y Parsons, 2000). As, por una
parte, fueron las mujeres (particularmente, las miembros del staff de la universidad) quienes mayor nmero de comportamientos consideraron como acoso sexual
severo; y los varones (particularmente, los alumnos) quienes consideraron un
mayor nmero de comportamientos como acoso sexual leve. Especialmente
llamativo resulta que comportamientos como Llamadas insistentes al domicilio
particular de la persona potencialmente acosada, Alimentar sentimientos de
culpabilidad aludiendo a posibles problemas sexuales de la persona potencialmente acosada (represin sexual, falta de atractivo,...), Atribuir a la persona
potencialmente acosada los deseos libidinosos propios o Mantener conductas
provocadoras de exhibicionismo ante la persona potencialmente acosada sean
considerados como acoso severo por alumnas y personal (masculino y femenino)
pero no por alumnos; que comportamientos como Envo reiterado de notas o
cartas pidiendo ms intimidad con la persona potencialmente acosada sean
clasificados como acoso leve por los varones; o que la Peticin explcita de
mantener relaciones sexuales no est vinculada a otros comportamientos de acoso
para los varones.
Es importante sealar que el trabajo realizado no est exento de limitaciones, derivadas tanto del cuestionario empleado (construido ad hoc y que
proporciona nicamente datos cuantitativos), como de la muestra (pequea y
no representativa para PAS y PDI, muy diferente en tamao entre personal y
alumnado y sin informacin sociodemogrfica complementaria). Adems,
como sealan ciertas investigaciones (OLeary-Kelly et al.., 2009), es ms
probable que una conducta sea considerada como acoso sexual cuando el
acosador es una persona con mayor estatus que la acosada, lo que sucede en
este caso y podra magnificar los resultados obtenidos. Se hace pues necesario
seguir profundizando en el anlisis de la percepcin del acoso sexual y de las
variables que la modulan en el mbito universitario, superando estas
limitaciones.
Sin embargo, y a pesar de ello, los resultados obtenidos aportan elementos
sobre cmo se percibe el acoso sexual en el mbito universitario en Espaa que
497
pueden contribuir a optimizar las actividades preventivas al respecto (Bosch et al.,

2012).
Acknowledgements / Agradecimientos
This study was conducted as part of a research project financed by the Instituto de la
Mujer, part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (INMU 05/09). / Este trabajo se
realiz en el marco de un proyecto de investigacin financiado por el Instituto de la Mujer
del Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (INMU 05/09).
References / Referencias
Banerjee, A., & Sharma, B. (2012). Gender differences in perception of workplace sexual
harassment among future professionals. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 20, 2124.
doi:10.4103/0972-6748.98410
Batista, J. M., & Sureda, J. (1987). Anlisis de correspondencias y tcnicas de
clasificacin: su inters para la investigacin en las ciencias sociales y del comportamiento. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 10, 171186. doi:10.1080/02103702.1987.10822184
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority
women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426436. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.2.426 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of
gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22,
3357. doi:10.1023/A:1025724721559 doi:10.1023/A:1025724721559
Bosch, E. (1998). Estudio comparativo en poblacin universitaria de conductas susceptibles de ser tipificadas como de acoso sexual. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universidad de las Islas Baleares, Espaa.
Bosch, E., Ferrer, V. A., Navarro, C., Ferreiro, V., Ramis, M. C., Escarrer, C., &
Blahopoulo, I. (2012). El acoso sexual en el mbito universitario: Elementos para
mejorar la implementacin de medidas de prevencin, deteccin e intervencin.
Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer.
Bowes-Sperry, L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma
faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288306.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387886
Bursik, K., & Gefter, J. (2011). Still stable after all these years: Perceptions of sexual
harassment in academic contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 331349.
doi:10.1080/00224541003628081
Calle, M., Gonzlez, C., & Nez, J. A. (1988). Discriminacin y acoso sexual a la mujer
en el trabajo. Madrid: Fundacin Largo Caballero.
Cochran, C. C., Frazier, P. A., & Olson, A. M. (1997). Predictors of responses to
unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207226.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00109.x
Consejo de Europa (2011). Convenio del Consejo de Europa sobre prevencin y lucha
contra la violencia contra las mujeres y la violencia domstica. Retrieved 10
December 2012, from: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/.../Convention%20Spanish%20formatted.pdf
DeSouza, E. R., Solberg, J., & Elder, C. (2007). A cross-cultural perspective on judgments of woman-to-woman sexual harassment: Does sexual orientation matter? Sex
Roles, 56, 457471. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9184-6
Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex
differences. Academy of Management Review, 32, 11211143. doi:10.5465/
AMR.2007.26585842
498
Escartn, J., Rodrguez, ., Porra, C., & Martn, J. (2008). Estudio y anlisis sobre cmo
perciben el mobbing los trabajadores. Revista de Psicologa Social, 23, 203211.
doi:10.1174/021347408784135832
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment:
Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17,
425445. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment?
Legal, behavioral and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of
women. In W. ODonohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment
(pp. 528). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and
perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773798. doi:10.1007/BF02936339 doi:10.1007/BF02936339
Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay
definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 2137. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-4560.1995.tb01306.x
Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater
effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447467. doi:10.1207/
s15324834basp1704_3
Instituto de la Mujer. (2006). El acoso sexual a las mujeres en el mbito laboral. Resumen
de resultados. (Ref. 724/04). Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer. INMARK.
Kayuni, H. M. (2009). The challenge of studying sexual harassment in higher education:
An experience from the University of Malawis Chancellor College. Journal of
International Womens Studies, 11, 8399.
Kelley, M. L., & Parsons, B. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s: A university-wide
survey of female faculty, administrators, staff, and students. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71, 548568. doi:10.2307/2649259
Lewis, D. (2001). Perceptions of bullying in organisations. International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 2, 4864. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2001.001221
Lizasoain, L., & Joaristi, L. (2012). Las nuevas tecnologas y la investigacin educativa. El
anlisis de datos de variables categricas. Revista Espaola de Pedagoga, 251, 111130.
Luthar, H. K., Tata, J., & Kwesiga, E. (2009). A model for predicting outcomes of sexual
harassment complaints by race and gender. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 21, 2135. doi:10.1007/s10672-008-90724
Nielsen, M. B., Bjrkelo, B., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Sexual harassment:
Prevalence, outcomes and gender differences assessed by three different estimation
methods. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 252274. doi:10.1080/
10926771003705056
OConnor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melanon, R. (2004).
Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law
and Human Behavior: Psychology, Law and the Workplace, 28, 6995. doi:10.1023/
B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e
OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bates, C. A., & Lean, E. R. (2009). Sexual
harassment at work: A decade (Plus) of progress. Journal of Management, 35, 503
536. doi:10.1177/0149206308330555
Ohse, D. M., & Stockdale, M. S. (2008). Age comparisons in workplace sexual harassment perceptions. Sex Roles, 59, 240253. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9438y
Organizacin Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). (2007). Acoso sexual en el lugar de trabajo.
Retrieved 17 March 2010, from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/
ed_norm/declaration/documents/publication/wcms_decl_fs_115_es.pdf
Organizacin Mundial de la Salud (OMS). (2003). Delitos sexuales. In OMS, Informe
Mundial sobre la violencia y la salud (pp. 160197). Washington, DC: Organizacin
Panamericana para la Salud. Oficina Regional para las Amricas de la Organizacin
Mundial de la Salud.
499
Prez, C. (2005). Mtodos estadsticos avanzados con SPSS. Madrid: Thomson.

Prez, R. (2012). Las limitaciones en la cuantificacin del acoso sexual laboral en Espaa.
Atenea Digital, 12, 199219.
Prez, R., & Rodrguez, C. (2013). Un anlisis del concepto de acoso sexual laboral:
Reflexiones y orientaciones para la investigacin y la intervencin social. Cuadernos
de Relaciones Laborales, 31, 195219. doi:10.5209/rev_CRLA.2013.v31.n1.41647
Pina, A., Gannon, T. A., & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual
harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 14, 126138. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.002
Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence
of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12,
4060. doi:10.1177/089124398012001003
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender
differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
914922. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914
Appendix
Scale of sexual harassment and social interaction with sexual content in the university
setting (EASIS-U),
Below is a description of a series of behaviours and/or situations that can arise
between a male or female professor and their students.
Please circle the category to which you think each of these behaviours and/or situations belongs, according to the following scale:
(A) Behaviours that can be considered a SEXUAL HARASSMENT CRIME.
(B) Behaviours that can be considered OTHER CRIMES (against honour, dignity,
etc.).
(C) Behaviours that are IMPROPER OR RUDE but not criminal.
(D) Social interaction behaviours that are APPROPRIATE among adults.
(1) Voluntarily arranging to go on a date.
(2) Threats.
(3) Comments on a specific part of the anatomy of the potential harassment
victim.
(4) Sending notes, letters or something similar requesting sexual encounters.
(5) Staring.
(6) Explicitly and repeatedly asking to have sexual relations.
(7) Touching non-genital areas in a supposedly accidental way.
(8) Going to third persons as mediators of personal interests.
(9) Taking advantage of supposedly academic situations (office visits, seminars,
tutorials, etc.) to force greater intimacy with the potential harassment victim.
(10) Comments on the physical appearance of the potential harassment victim.
(11) Repeatedly sending notes or letters asking for more intimacy with the
potential harassment victim.
(12) Insistent phone calls at the potential harassment victims home.
(13) Explicit requests to have sexual relations alluding to the benefits this could
bring to the potential harassment victim
(14) Explicit requests for the potential harassment victim to show certain parts of
their body.
(15) Touching in non-genital areas.
(16) Encouraging feelings of guilt by alluding to possible sexual problems of the
potential harassment victim (sexual repression, lack of attractiveness, etc.).
500
(17) Alleging that the potential harassment victim has their own libidinous
thoughts.
(18) Comments on the supposed sex life of the potential harassment victim.
(19) Meeting repeatedly and insistently with the potential harassment victim.
(20) Displaying provocative exhibitionistic behaviours to the potential harassment victim.
(21) Explicit requests to have sexual relations alluding to the harm that could
come to the potential harassment victim.
(22) Deliberately rubbing against the body of the potential harassment victim.
(23) Using a third person to force a relationship.
(24) Continuous public references to the private life of the potential harassment
victim.
(25) Meeting at a party or meeting and starting a relationship.
(26) Frequent obscene jokes in the presence of the potential harassment victim.
(27) Initiating a relationship voluntarily by both parties.
(28) Excessive physical proximity that invades the private space of the potential
harassment victim.
(29) Explicit requests to have sexual relations as a way of paying for a favour.
(30) Supposedly accidentally touching the genital areas.
(31) Continuous public references to the physical appearance of the potential
harassment victim.
(32) Obscene comments in the presence of the potential harassment victim.
(33) Showing signs of having a lot of information about the potential harassment
victim as a tool of intimidation.
(34) Trying to kiss the potential harassment victim without their consent.
(35) Staring, both publicly and privately, at a specific part of the anatomy of the
potential harassment victim.
(36) Staring at the potential harassment victim.
(37) Explicit requests to have sexual relations.
(38) Touching in the genital areas.
Apndice
Escala de acoso sexual e interaccin social de contenido sexual en el mbito universitario
(EASIS-U).
A continuacin se presenta la descripcin de una serie de comportamientos y/o
situaciones que se podran dar entre un profesor o una profesora y su alumnado.
Os pedimos que marquis con un crculo la categora a la cual pensis que corresponde
cada uno de estos comportamientos y/o situaciones, de acuerdo con la siguiente escala:.
(A) Comportamientos que pueden ser considerados como DELITO DE ACOSO
SEXUAL.
(B) Comportamientos que pueden ser considerados como OTROS DELITOS (contra
el honor, la dignidad, ..).
(C) Comportamientos INCORRECTOS O GROSEROS pero no delictivos.
(D) Comportamientos de interaccin social ADECUADOS entre personas adultas.
(1) Acordar una cita voluntaria.
(2) Amenazas.
(3) Comentarios sobre alguna parte concreta de la anatoma de la persona
potencialmente acosada.
(4) Envo de notas, cartas o similares pidiendo encuentros sexuales.
(5) Miradas.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
501
Peticin explcita y reiterada de mantener relaciones sexuales.

Tocamientos en zonas no genitales de carcter supuestamente fortuito.
Acudir a terceras personas como mediadoras de intereses personales.
Aprovechar situaciones supuestamente acadmicas (visitas al despacho, seminarios, tutoras,...) para forzar mayor intimidad con la persona potencialmente
acosada.
(10) Comentarios sobre el aspecto fsico de la persona potencialmente acosada.
(11) Envo reiterado de notas o cartas pidiendo ms intimidad con la persona
potencialmente acosada
(12) Llamadas insistentes al domicilio particular de la persona potencialmente
acosada.
(13) Peticin explcita de mantener relaciones sexuales haciendo alusin a los
beneficios que eso podra reportar a la persona potencialmente acosada.
(14) Peticin explcita la persona potencialmente acosada de que muestre determinadas partes del cuerpo.
(15) Tocamientos en zonas no genitales.
(16) Alimentar sentimientos de culpabilidad aludiendo a posibles problemas
sexuales de la persona potencialmente acosada (represin sexual, falta de
atractivo,...).
(17) Atribuir a la persona potencialmente acosada los deseos libidinosos propios.
(18) Comentarios sobre la supuesta vida sexual de la persona potencialmente
acosada.
(19) Encontrarse reiteradamente e insistentemente con la persona potencialmente
acosada.
(20) Mantener conductas provocadoras de exhibicionismo ante la persona potencialmente acosada.
(21) Peticin explcita de mantener relaciones sexuales haciendo alusin a los
perjuicios que eso podra reportar a la persona potencialmente acosada.
(22) Roces provocados con el cuerpo de la persona potencialmente acosada.
(23) Utilizar a una tercera persona para forzar la relacin.
(24) Alusiones pblicas y continuadas referidas a la vida privada de la persona
(25) Coincidir en una fiesta o reunin e iniciar una relacin.
(26) Chistes y bromas obscenas frecuentes dichas en presencia de la persona
(27) Iniciar una relacin voluntaria por ambas partes.
(28) Mantener una proximidad fsica excesiva que invada espacio vital de la
persona potencialmente acosada.
(29) Peticin explcita de mantener relaciones sexuales como pago de un favor.
(30) Tocamientos en zonas genitales de carcter supuestamente fortuito.
(31) Alusiones pblicas y continuadas referidas al aspecto fsico de la persona
(32) Comentarios obscenos en presencia de la persona potencialmente acosada.
(33) Dar muestras de tener mucha informacin sobre la persona potencialmente
acosada como factor intimidatorio.
(34) Intentar besar a la persona potencialmente acosada sin su consentimiento.
(35) Miradas insistentes, tanto en pblico como en privado, a alguna parte
concreta de la anatoma de la persona potencialmente acosada.
(36) Miradas insistentes a la persona potencialmente acosada.
(37) Peticin explcita de mantener relaciones sexuales.
(38) Tocamientos en zonas genitales.

La Percepción Del Acoso Sexual en El Ámbito Universitario

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

La Percepción Del Acoso Sexual en El Ámbito Universitario

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Revista de Psicologa Social

International Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0213-4748 (Print) 1579-3680 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrps20

The perception of sexual harassment at

Published online: 14 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 23 November 2015, At: 19:58

Revista de Psicologa Social / International Journal of Social Psychology, 2014

The perception of sexual harassment at university / La percepcin

Universitat de les Illes Balears

English version: pp. 462479 / Versin en espaol: pp. 480497

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

quienes mayor nmero de comportamientos clasificaron como acoso sexual

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Rotundo, Nguyen & Sackett

Fitzgerald, Gelfand &

Gender harassment: rude verbal and

Table 1. Dimensions of sexual harassment behaviours.

Courteous non-sexual verbal

Mild harassment, jokes about

Bursik & Gefter

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Nonverbal sexual behaviours

Mild harassment: repeatedly

Sexual coercion: requests for

Undesired sexual attention: any kind

Sexual coercion: subtle or explicit

Direct request for sexual

Bursik & Gefter

Rotundo, Nguyen & Sackett

Fitzgerald, Gelfand &

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

Table 2. Dimensions obtained in the MCA.

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Dendrogram using the average linkage (between groups)

Figure 1. Male students.

V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Dendrogram using the average linkage (between groups)

Figure 2. Female students.

Perception of sexual harassment / Percepcin del acoso sexual

Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Andres Be] at 19:58 23 November 2015

Dendrogram using the average linkage (between groups)

Figure 3. Male staff.

V.-A. Ferrer-Prez and E. Bosch-Fiol