Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire

Abstract

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire (SHAQ) was developed by Stake and Malovich in 1990 as a specialized research instrument designed to investigate the underlying psychological factors associated with sexual harassment occurring specifically within educational settings, such as universities and colleges. The scale aims to move beyond documenting incidence rates by exploring the psychological dynamics that perpetuate such behavior. The SHAQ measures respondents’ attitudes across three core domains: the attribution of responsibility for the harassment incident, the perceived appropriateness of various responses to the harassment (e.g., confronting, complying, or ignoring), and the expected effects of the harassment on the victim (both educational and emotional outcomes). The questionnaire employs two detailed scenarios depicting clear-cut incidents of faculty-student sexual harassment, followed by a series of statements rated using 6-point and 7-point Likert-type scales.

Keywords

Sexual harassment, educational settings, college students, attitude measurement, victim blame, perpetrator blame, sex role attitudes, response strategies, psychological dynamics, construct validity.

Authors

Jayne E. Stake, Natalie J. Malovich

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire is to serve as a research tool for systematically exploring the attitudinal landscapes surrounding sexual harassment in academic environments. While the prevalence of harassment in these settings is acknowledged, the psychological mechanisms driving blame, response, and perception remain complex and often misunderstood. The SHAQ was specifically constructed to quantify attitudes regarding the dynamics of power and responsibility between instructors and students.

By using realistic scenarios, the instrument prompts respondents to reveal their opinions on who is responsible for the incident, what the appropriate course of action should be for the victim, and what psychological and academic consequences are likely to follow. This detailed approach allows researchers to examine relationships between these attitudinal components and other relevant psychological variables, such as sex role attitudes.

Construct

The SHAQ measures attitudes across three primary, interrelated psychological constructs related to the perception of sexual harassment incidents:

• Responsibility Attribution: This dimension assesses the extent to which respondents attribute blame for the harassment incident. It is subdivided into three specific categories: victim blame (two questions), perpetrator blame (two questions), and no blame (two questions).
• Appropriate Responses: This dimension evaluates the respondents’ beliefs regarding the most suitable actions a victim should take when experiencing harassment. Sub-dimensions include recommendations for confronting the harassing behavior (two questions), complying with the harasser (two questions), and ignoring the harassment (two questions).
• Effects on Victims: This dimension measures the anticipated consequences of the harassment on the victim. It is divided into educational effects (two questions, assessing impact on grades or academic standing) and emotional effects (six questions, assessing feelings such as anger, comfort, or intimidation).

Validity

Evidence for the construct validity of the SHAQ was demonstrated based on the responses collected from an initial sample of 224 college undergraduates (113 female and 111 male). The established relationships among the measured subscales support the theoretical structure of the instrument, particularly concerning how blame attribution correlates with recommended actions and broader sex role attitudes.

Key findings supporting the validity include:

• Scores reflecting perpetrator blame were found to be negatively correlated with victim blame (r = –.36) and no blame scores (r = –.57), indicating that these attribution styles operate largely in opposition to one another.
• High scores on victim blame were positively associated with recommendations for compliance (+.47) and expectations for positive educational effects (+.32). Conversely, victim blame was negatively related to recommendations for confrontive action (r = –.30), expectations for negative emotional effects (r = –.44), and liberal sex role attitudes (Attitudes Toward Women scores and victim blame: r = –.22).
• In contrast, high scores on perpetrator blame were positively associated with recommendations for confrontive action (+.45), expectations for negative emotional effects (+.54), and liberal sex role attitudes (+.22). Perpetrator blame was negatively related to recommendations for compliance (r = –.45) and expectations for positive educational effects (r = –.37). These correlations confirm that the blame subscales successfully differentiate between attitudes favoring victim support and those favoring compliance or minimization of the incident.

Reliability

Information regarding the internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or test-retest reliability of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire was not explicitly provided in the source material.

Factor Analysis

Information regarding the specific results of any exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis performed on the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire was not explicitly provided in the source material beyond the evidence for construct validity.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude scale; Scenario-based questionnaire

Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil instrument utilizing Likert-type scales.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Students/College Undergraduates

Age Group: Late adolescence to young adulthood (typical college age)

Population Details: Initial validation sample consisted of 113 female and 111 male college undergraduates.

Test Methodology: Respondents read two distinct scenarios depicting instructor-student sexual harassment. After each scenario, they answer questions related to responsibility attribution (6-point scale), appropriate behavioral responses (6-point scale), and emotional/educational effects (7-point semantic differential scale).

Keywords

Psychological assessment, academic environment, student-faculty relationships, sexual harassment attitudes, scale development, college counseling, social psychology, gender studies.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in the source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (for Jayne Stake, University of Missouri-St. Louis)

Correspondence Address: Jayne Stake, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and validated in 1990. Information regarding current usage permissions or associated fees is not provided in the source material, though correspondence should be directed to the corresponding author, Jayne Stake.

Reference’s

• Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 63–81.

Items of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Scenario 1

Suppose that you or a close woman friend of yours is attending classes on this campus. After class one day, a professor asks that you come to his office to discuss your grade with him. When you get there he notes that you barely passed the last exam and are in danger of receiving a D for the course. He then tells you at length how much he enjoys having you in the class, leading up to a dinner invitation. He states that if you “get to know each other better” he might be able to work things out so that you can get a better grade.

The following are a number of statements about the situation that might help to explain why the above incident occurred. Rate your agreement with each of the following comments. Mark the number on your answer sheet that best describes your feeling. Use the following key:

0 = Strongly disagree

1 = Moderately disagree

2 = Somewhat disagree

3 = Somewhat agree

4 = Moderately agree

5 = Strongly agree

1. The student is probably hoping that getting to know the professor personally will help her get a better grade in the course.

2. The professor probably meant no harm so it should not be taken too seriously.

3. The professor is using his status unfairly to pressure the student into dating him.

4. The professor is responding to normal sexual attraction and cannot really be blamed for his actions in the situation.

5. The professor’s actions were unethical and could be harmful to his students.

6. The student is most likely a flirtatious type who enjoys getting special attention from her professors.

   The following are a number of statements describing possible ways that you could deal with the situation. Rate your agreement with each of the following statements. Mark the number on your answer sheet that best describes your feelings. Use the following key:

   0 = Strongly disagree

   1 = Moderately disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Somewhat agree

   4 = Moderately agree 5 = Strongly agree

7. Change the subject and try to forget about the conversation.

8. Go to dinner with the professor and talk over the problems you are having in the class.

9. Continue to work hard in the class and avoid any individual conversations with the professor.

10. Tell the professor that you are not interested in a personal relationship, and that this should have nothing to do with your grade in the course.

11. See the professor on a social basis if he is interested as it may help your grade.

12. Go to the department head and tell him/her about the professor’s actions.

Below is a set of word pairs that describe how you or a close woman friend might feel about this experience. The two feelings in each pair are separated by a 7-point scale, with one word on each side on the scale. For each word pair, mark the number on your answer sheet that is closest to how you think you or your friend might feel.

13. Insulted 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flattered

14. Pleased 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Angry

15. Comfortable 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Uncomfortable

16. Relaxed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nervous

17. Intimidated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Powerful

18. Embarrassed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Proud

Scenario 2

Suppose that you or a close woman friend of yours is attending this campus. Through the course of the semester you notice that a professor in one of your classes frequently seems to be staring at you. When talking with him after class one day about an upcoming essay exam, he puts his arm around you (or the woman friend) and touches your hair. He then suggests that you come to his office at the end of the day so that the exam can be discussed further. He adds that if you fail to do so, you will probably not do as well on the exam as expected.

Questions 19–36 are identical to questions 1–18.