47 Irnrocent Pliaing or Sexual Harrasment?

Representative Research in Social Psychology

2005, Vol. 28, 47 - 58

Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harassment?

Perceptions of Ambiguous Work-Place
Situations

Anne K. Gordon
Melissa A. Cohen
Eyal Graaer
Steven Rogelberg
Bowling Green State University

We examined attitudes of w k i n g adults regarding ambiguous workplace behaviors.

Participants (N = 1306) evaluated a scenario (1 of 24) involving two individuals of
equal or unequaljob status, of the same or opposite sew, and between whom no contact, a
minimal, or a moderate degree of physical contact was expressed Dependent measures
included the perm'ued seriousness of andcausal attributionsregarding the ofinse. Re-
sults indicated that attitudes toward sexual harassment contain subtle nuances that re-
fict the sex of the perpetrator, victim,and participant, as well as the degree of p h y M
contact involved. Our discussionfocuses on the importance of studyingarnbiguars and
relatively m'm,yet more preva&nt,fop.m of sexual harassment as a complement to the
study of more seriousfwtns of sexual harassment.

Whether they are labeled as such or not, many
individuals will experience behaviors that consti-
tute sexual harassment (Mazer & Percival, 1989;
Tangri,Burt, & Johnson, 1982). Many of these in-
dividuals, predominantly women (Loy & Stewart,
1984), will consequently experience negative psy-
chological, interpersonal, and health outcomes
(Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999).
Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (m), for ex-
ample, found that women experiencesexist hassles
(e.g., being referred to as honey, overhearing con-
descending, sexist jokes) on a weekly basis, and
these hassles are associated with increased anger,
depression, and lower social state self-esteem.
Sexualharassmenthas also been shown to increase
cardiovascular reactivity (Schneider, Tomaka, &
Palacia, 2001). Thus, sexual harassment, sexual
innuendo, sexist remarks, and other fonns of sex-
and gender-based prejudice constitutea pernicious
Author's Note: Results from &is study were presmted at the
2002 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,
New O r h , LA.
Inquiries can be directed to Anne Gordon at
akg@bgnet.bgsu.edu.
aspect of many women's work experiences.
As stated in the Equal hployment Oppor-
tunity Commission 0 guidelines (as cited
in James, 1981), sexual harassment is defined as
Unwelcome sexual advances, re-
quests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature constitute sexual
hmassment when (1) submission
to such conduct is made either ex-
plicitly or implicitly a term or con-
dition of an individual's employ-
ment, (2) submission to or rejec-
tion of such cocnduct by an indi-
vidual is used as the basis for em-
ployment decisions affecting such
individual, or (3) such conduct has
- - p u ' p 0 s e . e of unreason- - .
ably interfering with an
individual's work performake or
creating an intimidating, hostile' or
offensive working environment.
(P. 402)
However, most individualsare likely unaware
of the specifics of these legal definitions. For ex-
ample, Bremer, Moore, and Bildersee (1991) found

that very few individuals within a sample of col-
lege students, personnel, and faculty were aware
of their university's sexual harassment policies.
In the absence of familiarity with the law and
workplace policies, individuals alternatively rely
-on-lay theories regzdkg~whatc o n s t i ~ s e x u a - 4ividual considers harassing will not be perceived
l:
harassment (Pryor, 1985). Lay theories refer, in
this context, to the assumptions, beliefs, and atti-
tudes individuals hold regarding sexual harass-
ment. Although lay theories are not fonnally ar-
ticulated, they are likely to include attributions
regarding locus of causality (Williams, Brown,
L.ees-Haley, & Price, 1995) and influence how in-
dividuals interpret and respond to interactions
with coworkers and supervisors at work
(Rosenberg, Perlstadt, & Phillips, 1993). For ex-
ample, a woman may describe to a female friend
a sexist joke that a male coworker told her. The
friend may respond by saying that the man's be-
havior constitutes sexual harassment and encour-
age her friend to file a complaint The woman di-
rectly involved in the exchange, however, may
strongly disagree with her friend's construal of
her coworker's behavior. Discrepanciesof thistype
occur not because two individuals interpret the
law differently, but because they hold different
lay theories regarding what constitutes sexual ha-
rassment.
Although the prototypical image of sexual ha-
rassment involves a male requiring a female s u b
ordinate to engage in sexual favors in exchange
for advancement, promotion, or a pay raise (ie.,
quid pro quo harassment), most cases of sexual ha-
rassment are not so obvious. Our research assumes
that many interpersonal interactions between em-
ployees are, particularly in their early stages, more
subtleand ambiguous(seealso Gutek & (YConnor,
1995; Inman & Baron, 19%). Smiles, winks, com-
pliments, sexual innuendo and humor, suggestive
glances, or even a touch on the arm or shoulder
are often open to multiple, subjective construals
(Griffin & Ross, 1991). Recipients of such behav-
ior may wonder whether these comments and
behaviors are friendly or sinister in nature, inten-
tional or accidental, a one-time event or likely to
persist
The importance of the subjective construal of
behavior is a major tenet of social psychology
(Asch, 1956; Ross & Nisbett, 1991), as is the no-
tion that ambiguous behaviors are particularly
open to various interpretations. Lay theories re-
garding sexual harassment are, thus, important
to examine for several reasons. As already men-
Innocent Flirting or h i d Harrasment? Aq
tioned, victims themselves may be confused i-,
the perpetrator's behavior and therefore may ri
respond in a clear and consistent manner that cork-
veys that the behaviors are unwelcome. Addition-
ally, many behaviors and interactions that an in-
-mu...# rc
similarly by others, especially by the perpetrator
(Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Gordon
& Miller, 2000). Perpetrators, colleagues and
friends of the perpetrator, and even colleagues
and friends of the victim, may not appreciate how
hurtful and upsethg the alleged harassment felt
to the victim -especially regarding the accsumula-
tion of the offenses over time (Gilbert, 1981). In-
dividuals who do not fully appreciate the situa-
tion as perceived by the victim may be surprised
and confused by the victim's apparent overreac-
tion and misinterpretation. Thus, lay theories are
likely to influence an individual's decision to file
a complaint and may contribute to the often un-
pleasant interpersonal aftermath of filing a com-
plaint (Baker, Terpstra, & Larntz, 1990; Thacker,
1996).
Sex Differences and Same-SexHarassment
Many investigators have documented that
women's conceptdizations of sexual harassment
include a broader array of behaviors than do
men's (e.g., Popovich, Gehlauf, Jolton, Ever+on,
Godinho, Mastrangelo, et al., 1996; Rotundo,
Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001). The documentation of
this discrepancy and that it is usually a woman
rather than a man who is h a r d has influenced
the courts to replace the reasonable person stan-
dard with the reasonable woman standard when
evaluating claims of sexual harassment (Thacker
& Gohmann, l a ) . Appropriately, most research
on sexual harassment has focused on the sexual
harassment of women. However, more recently
the harassment of men by both women and other
mm has become the subject of empirical examina-
tion (e.g., Abelson, 2001; Berdahl, Magley, &
Waldo, 1996). The least studied form of sexual
harassment is that which involves a female per-
petrator and female victim. Interestingly, trends
in the foci of the psychological literature corre-
spond with the rates of occurrence of various
forms of sexual harassment According to Poote
and Goodman-Delahunty (1999), inter-sex sexual
harassment is much more likely to involve a fe-
male victim and a male perpetrator than vice
versa; however, same-sex sexual harassment is
much more likely to involve males than females.
49 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrasment?
These authors note that the same-sex harassment
of men typically involves a hostile workplace en-
vironment, rather than quid pro quo forms of ha-
rassment, which are more characteristic of inter-
sex harassment and the same-sex harassment of
women.
Severity of Harksment and Touch
A wide range of behaviors and verbal ex-
changes may constitute sexual harassment (Baker,
Terpstra, & Larntz, 1990; Johnson, Benson,
Teasdale, Simmons, & Reed, 1997; Wilkerson,
1999). Within the psychological literature, a com-
mon operationalization of the severity of harass-
ment has included the degree of physical contact
involved. Burgess and Borgida (1997), for ex-
ample, examined two levels of severity of offense:
those that involve physical contact of a sexual na-
ture and those that do not. It should be noted
that the perceived severity of harassment may
often be naturally confounded, at least in the
minds of some individuals, with the type of sexual
harassment involved. For example, gender harass-
ment and unwanted sexual attention may be per-
ceived as less harassing than sexual coercion and
also may be less likely to involve physical contact
(Burgess & Borgida, 1997; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, &
Drasgow, 1995).
A touch can convey a variety of meanings. For
example, touching, in the form of a hug is associ-
ated with and connotes intimacy, warmth, and
psychological closeness (Guerrero & Anderson,
1991). A handshake conveys professionalism; a
gentle touch on the cheek c o m m d t e s love and
affection (Lee & Guerrero, 2001). Yet, touch also
conveys informatiop about the power, status, and
dominance of the individuals involved in the in-
teraction, particularly when the touch is non-re-
a p d (Major & Heslin, 1982). More specifkdy,
touchers are perceived as more dominant than
recipients of non-reciprocal touch, whose per-
ceived power is diminished in the eyes of observ-
ers. Just as quid pro quo harassment is often more
blatant and obvious than hostile environment ha-
rassment, q e e f o n n sof buch me more obvious1y
harassing than others. Lee and Guerrero (2001)
have advocated studying touch behaviors that "fall
in the 'gray area' between professiom& non-af-
fectionate behavior and sexually suggestive be-
havior to determine the extent to which such be-
haviors are seen as harassing" (p. 202). In this re-
search, we focus on the kinds of touch likely to
fall within this kind of gray area
Power and Status
Power and status differentials have been iden-
tified as important variables when trying to un-
derstand the phenomenology of sexual harass-
ment (C0rr.d~Jackson, 2001; Loy & Stewart, 1984;
Morrow, Mdlroy, & Phillips, 1994).For example,
power and sex may become cognitively linked in
some men; thus, simply being in a position of
power may activateschemas assodated with sexu-
ality and lead some men to interpret the friendly
behavior of women as sexually suggestive (Bargh
& Raymond, 1995). Moreover, Inman and Baron
(1996) note that prototypes of prejudice include
high status perpetrators and low status victims
and document that these prototypes influence
perceptions of prejudice and sexism. On the other
hand, Gutek and Morasch (1982) have argued that
the role of power in sexual harassment has been
overemphasized, given the prevalence of harass-
ment that occurs between individuals with simi-
lar amounts of power and status within an orga-
nization. We believe that because quid pro quo ha-
rassment represents the stereotypical form of ha-
rassment, and because it would be difficult for a
samestatus worker to harass another in this way,
harassment between same-status peers may be
more difficult to recognize and their pernicious
effects on victims may be under-appreciated.
Overview of the Study
The purpose of our study was to examine the
attitudes of a large sample of working adults re-
garding ambiguous workplace behaviors that
may be considered sexual harassment. Most re-
search has relied on college student samples; yet,
older adults have been shown to hold different
attitudes than their younger counterparts regard-
ing sexual harassment (Bremer et at, 1991). We
presented a field sample of working men and
women with brief scenariosdescribingan ambigu-
ous exchange between individualsworking within
the same organization Within these scenarios we
manipulated the following variables: sex of the
_perpetrator,sex of-the,vi&m2thg,~&tive job sta-,., .
tus of the parties involved, and the degree of
physical contact involved. Previous research has
examined these variables, usually in piecemeal
fashion; however, we investigated the effects of
each of these variables within the same study. We
were also able to investigate similarities and dif-
ferences in the evaluations of these scenarios by
men and women (Perry, Schmidtke & Kulikt 1998;
Wiener & Hurt, 2000). Thus, unlike research f c ~
w i n g exclusively on the harassment of women
by men, our study included interactions involv-
ing a male victim and a female perpetrator, as well
as interactions between persons of the same sex.
The individuals involved in our scenarioswere
d e s c n i as occupyirrg the sanie job q o n (i.e.,
equal status) or the perpetrator was described as
the victim's boss (i.e., unequal status). Our sce-
narios involved one individual's commenting on
another's appearance with or without an accom-
panying touch on the shoulder or knee. Thus, the
form of potentially harassing behavior that we
examined is best characterized as sexual attention
expressed between workers. The perception of
these behaviofs as wanted or unwanted, a critical
determinant of whether or not sexual harassment
is perceived, was not explicitly expressed in our
scenarios. Rather, we assumed that participants
would make such inferencesbased on the features
of the situation manipulated within the scenarios.
Dependent measures included a variety of judg-
ments regarding the perpetrator's actions (e.g.,
their offensiveness and cause), sympathy felt for
the victim, the recommended course of action the
victim should take, etc.
Method
Participants
Participants were employees at a Midwestern
company s p e d k i n g in a@tural business and
retailing (N = 1902). After completing a survey
unrelated to the current study, individuals who
were not supervisors within the organization were
asked to complete an additional questionnaire.
Response rate to the optional questionnaire was
approximately 89% (N = 1686: 908 males, 761 fe-
males, 17 sex unspecified). After excluding 250
ma16 and 113 females who completed less than
20% of the scale and the 17 participants who did
not report their sex, the final sample included 1306
participants (658 males; 648 females).
The sample was 92%Caucasian. Participants
reported belonging to 1of 6 age groups: 21% of
the sample (139 males; 129 females) were aged 20
or younger; 25% (172 males; 146 females) were
aged 21 to 30; 17%(107 males; 109 females) were
aged 31 to 40; 19% (97 males; 145 females) were
Further information regarding the circumstances surround-
ing the alleged harassment (e.g., where and when it occurred)
was not requested.
aged 41 b 50; and 19% (134males; 114 females)
were older than age 50. Fourteen participants did
not report their age group. Participants also re-
ported their highest education level: 11%of the
sample did not graduate from high school; 29%
were high school graduates; 37%completed some
college; and 23% had earned a baccalaureate or
graduate degree. Sixty-eight percent of partici-
pants had worked for the organization for less
than six years, and a majority (59%)worked hourly
on a part-time basis. Approximately 10%reported
having been sexually harassed in the workplace1.
Research Design
Five variables were examined within a 2 (Per-
petrator Sex: Male, Female) x 2 (Victim Sex: Male,
Female) x 3 (Degree of Contact No Contact, Mini-
mal Contact, Moderate Contact) x 2 (Relationship
Type: Equal Status, Boss-Subordinate) x 2 (Par-
tiapant Sex: Male, Female) between-subjects d+
sign. No-contact scenarios described only a ver-
bal exchange between the perpetrator and victim;
minimal-contact scenarios described this same
verbal exchange accompanied by the perpetrator's
touching the victim's shoulder; and, moderate-
contact scenarios described the same verbal ex-
change accompanied by the perpetratois touch-
ing the victim's knee. (Sample scenarios appear in
the Appendix.) Number of participants per con-
dition ranged from 38 to 66, with the exception of
one condition in which there were 110participants.
In 23 of the 24 conditions the difference between
the proportion of males and females was less than
or equal to 20%; in the remaining condition the
difference was 29%.
Materials and Procedure
After completing a six-page survey (unrelated
to the current study) on work, supervisory, and
organizationalattitudes, participants read a cover
sheet from the organization that encouraged their
completion of an additional questionnaire. They
were assured that the information they provided
would be anonymous and kept confidential. The
specific purpose of the study (ie., sexual harass-
ment) was not mentioned on the cover sheet.
Participants were randomly assigned to read
1of 24 scenarios. Each scenario described a pair
of individuals who have worked together within
a large organization for 3years, spending approxi-
mately 5 hours a week interacting with each other.
Both individuals were described as "outgoing"
and "well-liked." Within these scenarios the in-

51 Innocent Plirting or Sexual Hmasment?
Table 1. Factor Loadings of Questiormaire Items
Seriousness of Offense Causal Attribution
Perpetratof s behavior is .84 Perpetratofs behavior
sexual harassment was due to the kind of
person he/she is
Perpetratofs behavior is .83 Perpetratof s behavior
offensive was due to the kind of
person the victim is
Victim should file a
complaint
Work relationship
between perpetrator and
victim will be affected
This type of comment is
unacceptable in the
workplace
Victim considew
behavior to be sexual
harassment
I feel sympathy for the .80
victim
dependent variables of Perpetrator Sex, Victim
Sex, Degree of Contact, and Relationship Type
were manipulated. (See Appendix.)
After reading the scenario participants re-
sponded to 15close-ended items that represented
the dependent variables. These items assessed the
degree to which the exchanges described in the
scenarios were offensive, unacceptable, and con-
stituted sexual harassment. The latter construct
was assessed from three different perspectives:
participant, perpetrator, and victim. For example,
lxuticipants indicated their agreement with state-
ments such as "Mark's behavior is sexual harass-
ment" "Mark probably considers his behavior to
be sexual harassment." and "Mary probably con-
siders Mark's behavior to be sexual harassment,"
respectively. Participants were asked to indicate
the degree to which they attributed the
perpetrator's behavior to the perpetrator's per-
sonality, the victim's personality, and the work-
place environment. Judgments were also made
regarding how typical the behavior was for the
perpetrator, for bosses in general, and between
this perpetrator and victim' specificalh/.Addition-
ally, participants indicated the degree to which
they felt sympathy for the victim, believed that
the perpetrator would act similarly in the future,
perceived that the work relationship between the
6fd%w
Stability of Offense
Perpetrator will engage
in this kind of behavior
in the future
Perpetrator does this
kind of thing to the
victim all the time
perpetrator and victim would be affected, and
thought the victim should file a complaint. All
dependent measures were assessed on Likert
scales that ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The words "victim" and "per-
petrator" did not appear in any scenarios or any
of the dependent measures; rather dependent
measure were worded in reference to the names
of the individuals described in the scenarios (e.g.,
Mark, Mary).
Results
The 15 main dependent measures were s u b
jected to a principal-axis factor analysis with
varimax rotation. Based on a scree plot and an
eigenvalue cut off of 1, four fadors emerged, ac-
counting for 67.4% of the variance. Items with
factor loadings greater than .70 were included
within that factor. The fourth factor consisted
solely items that did -not-meetour factor-
loading criterion, and therefore were not included
as part of the find factor solution. Two additional
items did not load on any factor. Thus, these four
items ("This is probably the way most bosses/
coworkers act." "Perpetrator considers his/her
behavior to be sexual harassment" "Perpetrator's
behavior is due to the workplace environment"
 'pixqqqo a w aropuxqtq
~ 'u)'= ,Lr 'w > d 'gga a03 P ~ O PWM M'p IaAq q d p uw 'apvr rox
(90~1'I)J 'Xas 3 m d ~ XdXaS lnFlTA X xaS ra)84abd -ra asl~-wmpadxaa n ampar o~ ' ( v A o ~ )
PW m = ,lr 'm > d '16'a= (%I 'I)$ 'xaS WJ!A
X "S JOWqadrad' ~ P 'pauFalcl0
V afi'LO' = rh 'MO' aauvrrv~30 srs4vuw aqvTrmTqInm z x z x
> d 'W06 = (m'1)s 'xJS ~ o ) a g h d F 'ZT' = zh 'MO' 6XZxZvWWPWnsaaM1CWQf q ~ p a p w o ~
> d '6T08 = (9021 'Z)J =uo=) 30 a%aa 30 slJafla WIN 7 q q r
- aw 'JW =a330 30 4m w s a n 30 4!
-pqqa' ~q aw OQ aria .saIqapA q ~ s o d u r ULUOJo~
iZpaupqqooqv araM suopxapq PUWspa.p u p u ~ q p d h a ~ v
aJaM =atJaf uoFlnqwv @ s n Q pue
J ~ @ I S POXPPV '(16' = as ' s z = y\l) mqws. .row3 a f l ~ 30 ~
a ~ssauSnoTJaS a q uo pap-I q q
~~ aW 30 STcmPW?PulUaMllaq a W 9(66' = SUWI -(m= r ) ) qou SVM '=am 30 S % q w 'JW
as '0~7= w)snouas a'om parapp~oaaraM qm -xg p q g a q qnq ' ( L I ~ A W - '09' p w w = 4
-1pxoqns PUBssoq uaawaq s u o ~ ~ v x a ) u l % ~ s m xaIqqar aq OQ p a ~ o ~81~313~ d u o ~ q P~S ~ ~Q v
-q~lW4ualod'TO' = zh 'M'> d 'L6'6 = (9OZT 'IIJ p m aSuag.0 30 s=uSnouaS a u .J'w=f y3laa W ! M
'PaFwo a- d ~ y s u o 9 9 a30 $ s f f a SUWr a q Jof w m SVM = I ~ Ps # ~ u o 3 3
y 'a1qq.m q~soduxo~ asuaffo 30 ssausnouas a q w
.uqnIos ~ o w j - a a ~W~nsar aw of
u0 WM (vAoNV)a m A 30 S I ~ F Utl I a1qv,I, ass . J a w 9 PAW Joua'aM (,;aldoad
~ s a s d quanbasqns
p qsou~I ~ T M A ~ Msyp 4qvqord sr ro)v4adradI,
..-,
9EZ CEZ
53 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrament?
however, each of these effects was qualified by a
Perpetrator Sex x Victim Sex x Participant Sex x
Degree of Contact interaction, F(2 1%) = 6.81, p
< .001, q2= .01, which is described below.
As shown in the top left and top center panels
of Figure 1, female participants evaluating ye-
narios involving female victims of either no con-
tact or minimal contact scenarios did not differ-
entiate the seriousness of the offense based on
the perpetrator's sex, 493) = 1.93, p > .01; t(114) =
.35, p > .01, respectively. However, under both
no contact and minimal contactconditions females
found scenarios involving male victims and male
perpetrators to be more serious than those involv-
ing male vidims and female perpetrators, 4101)
= 3.80, p < .001; t(109) = 4.91, p < .001, respec-
tively. As shown in the top, right panel of Figure
1, female participants considered moderatecon-
tact scenarios involving female victims and male
perpetrators to be more serious than those involv-
ing female victims and female perpetrators, t(94)
= 3.08, p c .01. However, females evaluating mod-
erate-contact scenarios did not differentiate the
seriousness of the offense based on the
perpetrator's sex when the victim was male, t(94)
= .02, p > .01.
As shown in the bottom row of panels of Fig-
ure 1, male participants evaluating scenarios in-
volving female victims within either no contact,
minimal contact, or moderate contactscenarios did
not differentiate the seriousness of the offense
based on the perpetrator's sex, YS9) = .14, p > .01;
t(120) = 1.37, p > .01; t(101) = .30,p > .01, respec-
tively. However, male participants found sce-
narios involving male victims and male perpetra-
tors under all three degrees of contact to be more
offensive than those involving female perpetra-
tors, t(106) = 4.51, p < .001; 4109) = 6.38, p < .001;
t(100) = 7.91, p < ,001,respectively.
The two items that loaded on the Causal At-
tribution factor (see Table 1) were averaged to
form a composite variable, wherem higher num-
bers correspond to a greater causal role of per-
sonality. The composite variable was submitted
to a 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x- 2 ANOVA. Main effects of
perpetrator qx, F(1,1244) = 2262, p < .&v =
.02, and degree of contact, F(2 1244) = 10.41, p <
.001,q2 = .02, were obtained. P e d t y was at-
tributed a greater causal role when the perpetra-
tor was a female (M = 3.56, SD = .79) rather than
a male (M = 3.34, SD = 31). Additionally, person-
ality attributions were similar under no touch (M
= 3.53, SD = .80) and minimal touch (M = 3.53, SD
= .74), and both differed from, being higher than,
the moderate touch conditions (M = 3.31, SD =
.87) at p < .001 in a Tukey's HSD test. Thus, per-
sonality was perceived to play a greater causal
role in the scenarios that portrayed what might
be considered the relatively rarer forms of ha-
rassment, namely, those involving a female per-
petrator and a moderate degree of physical con-
tact.
The two items that loaded on the stability of
offense factor (see Table 2) were submitted to a 2
x 2 x 3 x 2 x 2 MANOVA, which yielded a main
effect of degree of contactI F(4,2470) = 10.38, p c
.001, q2= .02 The univariate analyses for the item
"perpetrator will likely engage in this type of be-
havior in the future" was not signifhnt, F(2,1236)
= 1.29, p > .01. However, a sipficant univariate
main effect for the second item suggested that it
was considered more probable that perpetrators
did "this kind of thing to the victim all the time"
when no touch (M = 2.84, SD = .91) or minimal
contact (M = 2.83, SD = .86) rather than moderate
contact (M = 2.51, SD = .95) was involved, F(2,
1236) = 16.70, p < .001, q2 = .03.A Tukey's HSD
test indicated that the no-contact and minimal-
contact means did not differ from each other, but
both differed from the moderate- contact mean,
p c .001. This finding, in addition to the afore-
mentioned finding regarding the causal role of
personality, suggests that harassment involving
moderate contact, such as a touch on the shoul-
der, are perceived to be less common that those
that involve more innocuous forms of physical
contact.
Summary of Results
Male and female participants evaluating no-
contact or minimalantact scenarios found the ha-
rassment of males by males to be more offensive
than the harassment of males by kmales, but did
not differentiate the seriousness of the harassment
of females on the basis of the perpetratois sex.
This same pattern held for male participantswalu-
ating moderate contact scenarios. A different pat-
- tern of results emerged, however, when female
participants evaluated scenarios involving mod-
erate contact. Here, female participants did not
differentiate the seriousness of the harassment of
male victims on the basis of perpetrator sex but,
instead -and differing from the other condi-
tions- found the harassment of females by males
to be more offensive than the harassment of fe-
malesbyfemdes.

When the scenarios involved a moderate de-
gree of contact the perpetrator's behaviors were
attributed to the perpetrator's and victim's per-
sonalities to a greater degree than when no con-
tact or minimalcontact was involved. Interactions
ipvolving,moder~tecontact were also perceived
to be less likely to recur with the same victim.
Attributions to personality were more likely
when female rather than male perpetrators were
involved. Furthermore, potentially harassing be-
haviors that occurred between equal status peers
were considered to be less serious than between
bosses and their subordinates.
Discussion
In this study, we examined working adults'
attitudes regarding ambiguous workplace behav-
iors that may be considered sexual harassment.
The dilemma of identifying and reporting sexual
harassment is partly due to the ambiguity of the
comments and behavior expressed by employees.
Assessing employee attitudes toward sexual ha-
rassment is important for several reasons. First,
the experimental literature on sexual harassment
has relied almost exclusively on convenience
samples of undergraduates with little work expe-
rience and whose attitudes may not generalize to
a broader population (Lengnick-Hall, 1995). Sec-
ond, individuals' attitudes and beliefs regarding
what constitutes sexual harassment may contrii
ute to their responses (sympathy, outrage, casual
disinterest, or humor) to their own as well as oth-
ers' experiences of victimization. Third, although
the use of scenarios in sexual harassment research
has been criticized (Lengnick-Hall), scenario-based
studieshave made many meaningful contributions
to our understanding of the variables that may
operate in contexts outside of the laboratory
(Moyer & Nath, 1998; Sheffey & Tindale, 1992;
Tatf?,1993). Moreover, we believe that scenario-
based research may be useful for demonstrating
what might happen in the workplace rather than
what will happen (Mook, 1983).
. Our participants considered potentially ha-
rassing behaviors communicated by a boss to a
subordinate to be more serious than when com-
municated by one peer to another. That this main
effect was not qualified by any of the other vari-
ables examined within our study attests to its
importance. In other words, boss-to-subordinate
harassment was considered more serious than
coworker-to-coworker harassment under all of
Innocent Fliiting or Sexual Harrasment? 54
the conditions we examined. A power differen-
tial between perpetrator and victim has been
shown to contribute to perceptions of sexual ha-
rassment (Franke, 1997). In fact, a meta-analysis
by Blumenthal(1998) revealed status effects to be
generallyk g e r than sex-differenceeffects in judg-
ments of sexual harassment. B&d on these re-
sults Blumenthal argued that perhaps the status
differences between perpetrator and victim
should be given greater attention relative to sex
differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.
Blumenthal also noted however, and we agree,
that finding small rather than large gender dif-
ferences in perceptions of sexual harassment does
not completely undermine the use of the :reason-
able woman standard as a criterion for deciding
sexual harassment cases. Small statistical effects
can have very important consequences (Hahhan
& Rosenthal, 2000; Rosenthal, 1986) and, there-
fore, should not be dismissed as irrelevant or un-
important Moreover, strategic interference theory
(see Buss, 1989; 2001) suggests compelling reasons
for which men and women may react to sexual
attention and harassment at work differently.
Our results regarding differences between
men and women in terms of the perceived seri-
ousness of sexual harassment are complex, yet
meaningful (see Figure 1). Under all three contact
conditions (no contact, minimal, and moderate
contact), males' perceptions of female victimiza-
tion were not influenced by the sex of the perpe-
trator. In other words, males perceived that fe-
males would respond similarly to harassment re-
gardless of whether it came from a man or a
woman. These perceptions mirror what female
participants actually reported within conditions
involving no or minimalcontad. However, when
contact was moderate (touch on the knee) females
considered harassment of a female by a male per-
petrator to be more serious than that by a female
perpetrator -a perception that male participants
did not seem to appreciate.
Next, we consider judgments made regard-
ing sexual harassment directed toward males.
Under all three contact conditions, male partici-
pants considered the harassment of men by men
to be more serious than the harassment of men
by women. In fact, they considered the harass-
ment of a man by a man, when it involved mod-
erate contact (a touch on the shoulder), to be more
serious (M = 3.53) than the same moderate-con-
tact harassment directed by a man toward a
woman (M = 3.06). In contrast, whether females'
55 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrment?
differentiated the severity of the harassment di-
rected toward males in terms of the sex of the
perpetrator varied depending on the degree of
contact involved. When no contact or minimal
contact was involved, females' judgements of ha-
rassment involving male victims were similar to
those of males, the acts perpetrated by males be-
ing considered more serious. However, when
evaluatingmoderabxontad scenariosfemale par-
ticipants perceived the sexual harassment of male
victims to be siniilarly serious regardless of the
sex of the perpetrator. Thus, men appear to be-
lieve that sexual attention at work directed to-
-E<omenba male by a female is less serious (M = 2.333
ward - - - - - - - - - - - -
o (M = 3.13), and they believed that
sexual attention directed toward a male by an-
other male was more serious(M = 3.53) than women
did (M = 3.13). Differences m perception like these
may have both sacial and legal implications.
We also examined participants' causal attri-
butions. Our results suggest that various
attributional judgments are influenced by the de-
gree of physical contact involved in the interac-
tion. Participants considered interactions involv-
ing no contact and minimal contact, in compari-
son to interactions involving moderate contact,
to be more due to the personalities of the perpe-
trator and victim, and more likely to recur with
the same victim. Together, these attributions may
reflect the belief that flirtatious commenk, either
alone or accompanied by an ambiguous touch, are
more common in the workplace than interactions
involvingmore clearly sexually motivated contact.
Several limitations to our research should be
noted. Our research design did not include con-
ditions in which a subordinate barassehhis/hcx
K~thoUghGZKm of harassment may be
more rare than other forms of sexual harassment,
an examination of working adults' attitudes to-
ward such interactions may prove to be a fruitful
avenue for future research. Also, our scenarios
did not provide much contextual information re-
garding the organizational setting of the scenario
(Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley,
1997). Several studies have shown the harassing
of women within nontraditional work contexts is
perceived to be less serious th& within traditional
work environments (Burgess & Borgida, 1997).
Moreover, our scenarios described only a single
interaction between the perpetrator and victim.
As James (1981) points out, "sexual harassment is
almost always repetitiveD'(p. 403). Thus, our sce-
narios failed to capture some important compo-
nents of the phenomenology of sexualharassment,
ss it is experienced in the workplace.
Our results suggest that men's and women's
attitudes toward sexual harassment contain subtle
nuances that reflect the perpetrator's and victim's
sex, as well as the degree of contact involved (see
aIso Gutek, 1995). This study examined attitudes
toward ambiguousworkplace behaviors best char-
acterized as mild to moderate in terms of their
offensiveness. We believe that these kinds of be-
haviors warrant attention because if unattended
to (e.g., Swim & Hyers, 1999) they may persist
-
- d d f P M m -
2002). Assessments of individuals' attitudes to-
ward relatively mild and ambiguous workplace
behaviors complement the research on more seri-
ous forms of harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1988;
Franke, 1997). Although there are valid reasons
to focus on the more pernicious forms of harass-
ment (e.g., their more serious psychological and
health consequences to the victim, legal ramifica-
tions, cost), more subtle forms are likely to affect
a much larger number of individuals (see Swim et
al., 201). Therefore, attention to subtle forms of
sexual harassment or behaviors precursors of
sexual harassment is warranted.
The EEOC guidelines for sexual harassment
stipulate that "the totality of the circumstance"
will be examined "on a case by case basis." These
tenets suggest a recognition by hvmakers that
the meaning of a behavior lies not in the objective
behavior itself but in the much larger and more
complex psychological and interpersonal context.
Sexual harassment education programs may be
- ~ - 8 e w e €tltese*tsasweE-- l ~
References
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and con-
formity: A minority of one against a unanimous
majority. PsychologicalMonographs, 70,l-70.
Abelson,R (2001, June10).Men are daimmg harass-
ment by men.The N m York Times, [Online].Avail-
. ablg ~~1ytimes.~om/U)01/06/10/busmess/
105AME.hlmr
Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Larnk, K. (1990). The
influence of individual characteristics and sever-
ity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual
harassment Sex Roles, 22,305325.
Bargh, J. A., &Raymond,P. (1995). The Wve misuseof
power: Nonconscious sources of sexual harass-
ment. Journalof Social Issues, 51,85-%.
4
P' D P '1 ~4M?ct= Imqd-d -&I) ' ~ ' m UL-'169 6' V ' V X mal P ~ ~ / U V ? SL4mmm
, 9 "s'~0-s '-v'VFL '3*LIOSLQg "a'1*-of -q yl!M 9 ~ 0 S1a ~w '&I) 'm ')I 'avid
'S%-668 'OS 'mola!3hd P O S ~~~~~I 'LT.'mal aY? Pun Sa-S
/o
pun ~ ~ p o s . w d pun01 .aDmAaIar pmad p m p m a a - m w d ~uo~)n@na o w=ofiofuols
aauap~aidpa~taxad 30 q q :snqqs ~ wpay %p -!=a aq? 30 ~o~)=?Idlrr17ua-T =
-S~n1'(986I)*J.x ' a 1 L ~ P "H 'd'a#?Cl "a 'I 30-1 -3- '(6661) 'f '~~ylsl%l-mUT003 19 "B .M'3md
' m z m '011-' ? V ~ & ~ W 'UI-ZSI 2 8 '.wwwl
1muOSDd ?qnd 7ua-T F a S '(1861) 'f 'samf p u y m o ~ / opzun01- a q d y i oayl ~ pue y u ~ a p ~ v
'6U-LU 'OL 'mol0yAd P S Pun h ? ~ Ul FnXa 30 aDwP!DV a U '(8861) '7
-lad40pnunol -a~rpt+~d 30 suqdaruad uo sadAq ma^ ~g'm 'm'xPlo3 "I'~ayje~s"Y\T
*ad 30 a-nw '(9661) 'S 'x 'm "7'W 'ummr~ ' S m "N 'bm "7 'S ' V y S "d '7'ppla%zl!d
'a-6I . '6%-8LS '28
'6 ' m V S flq0y3hd u! suOH3aKl ?uaun3 '/8010y3hd pZZZddv/o vt101'IapOUI W W % ~ FUe
-n@d p x a s 30 B o ~ o q ~ M-(0002) -3' q a i a ~ 30 qsq v :suogque%ioq q u a u 1 ~ ~ 8pnxas q p
.SSaJd JnnaPWV pua qua-w '(L66I) .I'A'WW
:osa!a U13S '(6VI~'l'dd)% F a ~ m PJHmuqlm 19 "m ' p q e "3' W H "d 'M&SBW"7'p~a%q!d
F ~ " H S Y~ W
-a
almnglm
.a.s9h s u ! , -v
pal1dh50 yoo4pua~'(.spa)
~ 'B -Hq .wsarSwodar. :

--
wospallddv pw vna .=m~pv q a = v m
' S M 'LI 'aol0y3kd
P ~ ~ Y ? ~ ~ w ' ~xo' @ o ow~~) O x % " m ' ~ p m m a i q quau~smmyp x a s %qinsean
'29ITSII '6s '~ol0y3hdP P '(~661)'d 'MoS-JU 19 '-1I4 'ma3'.d -7'pp1aS-d
-0sPun h ~ s ~ d P/J m o i .\pnQ w a l u l '6PL-IU '68 S ' alOX XaS
pu13 'UaUIOM %DUIUO qI@!* MaN :SUOlJVAlaSqO - a a q d y i oayl ~ pqua- pnxas rap&-raw
, ? w n a ) , =ow '(0661) 'W 'BA -' 19 "v 'I @% PUB I- a m 30 w g w x a ~ d m utra'(8661) 3'
' V L S 'tx' S ~ S Zv s / o tmuml .YJOM '3'~sn>119'.~x'@d"E'a'dd~"~'73f
qv UaUIOM 30 q m S S e v p n x x p m 'ia~omds '6WG 'O€ 'smMK7 lVn?F
ap-xas 'sogvi xas '(~861)'gp v i o p lg~ "v'a 'ya7n3 -.tpul purr hp .of=d 7@tqord 30 w%-I/srqws
'99I-ISI 'IS 'smsz ~ ~ 4 pm 0 'rap& $0q 3 a l f ~7 u a U I m p m PA!=
p m o 1 .pxeputqs u e u r o qqrn0sea.1
~ ayl r qspeq -lad 30 SUO!-lrrKI '('1002)-1'3' U @ J P f 19 "f 'd 'a03
w d m a u '(~661)'0 'W 'iomro3,o P "v 'a ' w n 3 'En
'LWLPli 'LI 'aol0y3hd P S pallddv -6IZ 'OI ' m V S U! SU93aUQ?uaun3
pun ~8 w q a ial= 30 w m w ~ = w i w ~ 'saxas q u a a w J m p wn10- ayl ur mop
-9 Pnxas sr a@?*ns MOH '(~66'1)'V *a%a7n3 n~rsuog- PW v q ~ W @ Q'(UIOZ)-W'a'ss"g
's9'1-LVI .LVL-S€L'95
'8 'sdpl~Hrrla21I m r O S u d Pun WS& tmumf 'axre 'mq0y3kd WOS Pun %!lmosfld/o frnuN 7asdn
-po~p v n a ) p m 'rap& 'aStqs pugqaz 30 uog p m ia2m 30 uogmoAa ayl p m a3uiuapal~q3
- ~ ~ ~ \ p n o , L : ~ u r-3~4s ~ :sax= ~ 3ayl -0~ t a~q ? ~~ ~ l~f w'(6861) 3
~ ~'BV'a '=na
%UP(BMa u -(=I) 'v 'd luosrapw ">I '7'aauan3 -u
'6G8 -€9 '€2 'uHalln8 /aol0y2hd P S Pm h!Irnrm-Wd
-618 'VZ '40y3hd PS P ? u m . P k l ut s-aptr i a ~ o ~ [ ~a~a-xas
: d s foqsa?~uauzpadxaq
- ~ u r p w = a p U - P=Y pue'-apur rv- 7ua-w pnxas -&I) 'H gpr%ioa19'-a 'dins
' ~ 4 ~ a0 m3 + ~ n s'(1661) -7'=OX 19 '-M .a'w3 '892-8n 'a 'farrmf ?WS aM03 L
1
-
'ss5w'9Z'~??alln8 -ml I* Q 'Jua-9 IB"=, a? I P 0s aAq noL
-la!~hdws pun h!fmrosad 'laployaq all?30 a h ~ C'('1
I 661) -d-a'-prra v '-a3'ar.w~'v .a'==a
ayl ur w d m p SI :sq jo pwm ayl ur sa- ' L H X 'a'JWV8
-JW a ~ g d ~'(0002) a d '3'V 'JJWI 19'X'V -nH 8 mtrl qua- @nxas JO - M a x d ur
.bP -w J ~ P ~ MJ aOw ??b.-J= v:p*
- o ~ d 0 1 0 ~ 3 ~ d ~ ~a Yu )rJtOr ~ ~ I I - A ~ ~ ~ P-uqs U m o aIqmmmai
~ a u '(8661) -v-1'ppuaumlg
-ueayl qv ppquasard um!sodds -uoF)nIonap m zwns 'oz 'fi~wwMJ
'sa3uanbasuoa 'uopqexa n a u :sari p m gar* ' -- UWOM /O k8qq3hd jmUI 30 qua- PXas
'(JwP)u~pro3 .>I-v UI.w@3Ja~ = Q U O ~ PD v aUL '(%6'1) 'X '3'OPPM 19"1'A ' ~ I S W" I 7-1'FPPJW
% ~ l7!=p30 d u o g v a u '(ZOOZ)'X 'V 'uop1w 'SOOI
'G69-069 L' 366 6' G 'k8010y3hdP O S 8 4 ? p u o ~ ~ dP/ oJ m f
'a010~3hdPS Pun h!~osfld/o 1 - 'syjoys .ra%wnqvsaq- m d d o ~ q a g n 7v 3 ~
30 s a p s pqvpv1% atp 30 aIoi a u :sa!pnqs a u a -*3~ 30 9m033v ~ a ) 8 4 A a dPM A
=YWo~ I ! P P $ 4 ~ ~~0 0 l a'(186'1)l'1'SW~q ~ 3 '(066'1)'X'SW Q MP "V ~~~S 'If2 'Ja)Sfam'%i
57 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrment?
target intoxication: Assessing the effectsof factors
that moderate perceptions of sexual harassment
Journrrl of Applied Social Psychology, 27,1209-1221.
Lee, J. W., & Guerrero, L. K. (2001).Types of touch in
cross-sex relationships between coworkers: Per-
ceptionsof relational and emotionalmessages, in-
appropriat&ess, and sexual harassment. Journal
ofApplied Communication Research, 29,197-220.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment re-
search: A m~thodologicalcritique.Personnel Psy-
chology, 48,841-864.
Loy, P. H., & Stewart, L. P. (1984). The extent and ef-
fects of the sexualharassmentof working women.
SociolopA Focus, 17,3143.
VIJ&W-ged%U&=ardo,
Ivl(1999).Outcomesof self-labeling sexualharass-
ment Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,390-402.
Major, B., & Heslin, R (1982).Perceptions of cross-sex
and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to
give than to receive. Journal ofNonverba1 Behavior,
6(3), 148-162.
Mazer, D. B., &Percival,E. F. (1989).Ideology or expe-
rience? The relationships among perceptions, atti-
tudes, and experiences of sexual harassment m
university students. Sex Roles, 20,135-147.
Mook, D. G. (1983).In defense of external invalidity.
American Psychologist, 38; 379387.
Morrow, P. C., McElroy,J. C., &Phillips,C. M. (1994).
Sexualharassmentbehaviors and work related per-
ceptions and attitudes. Jam?alof Vocafional B e b
ior, 4S, 295-309.
Moyer, R S., & Nath, A. (1998). Some effects of brief
training interventions on pe~ceptions of sexualha-
rassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
333-356.
Perry, E. L., Schmidtke,J. M., & Kulik, C T. (1998).Pro-
pensity to sexually harass: An exploration of gen-
& w v 3 , L a - - -
Popovich, P. M., Gehlauf, D. N., Jolton,J. A, Everton,
W.J.,Godinho,RM,Mastrangelo,P.M.,&Somers,
J. IvL (1996). Physical attractiveness and sexualha-
rassment Does every picture bell a story or every
story draw a picture? Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 26,520342.
Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person's understanding of
sexual harassment Sex Roles, 13,273-286.
Rosenkrg,.J,Perlstadt H,,.&Phillips, W. R F. (1993).
Now that we are here: Discrimination, disparage-
ment, and harassment at work and the experience
of women lawyers. Gender & Society, 7,415-433.
Rosenthal, R (1986).Media violence, anantisocialbehav-
ior, and the social consequences of small effects.
Journalof S d Issues, 42,141-154.
Ross, L. D., & Nisbett R. E. (1991). The person and the
s i f w t hPertpcfiues O f d psychology. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D.-H., &Sackel* P. R.(2001). A
meta-analytic review of gender differencesin per-
ceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86,914-922.
Schneider, K.T., Tomaka, J., & Palacios, R. (2001).
Women's cognitive, affective,and physiologicalre-
actions to a male coworker's sexist behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied S o d Psychology, 31,1995-2018.
Sheffey,S., & Tindale, R S. (1992).Perceptions of sexual
harassment in the workplace.Jarrnal $Applied SO-
cial Psychology, 22,1502-1520.
Swim,J. K., &Hyers,L. L. (1999).Excuse me: What did
you just say?!: Women's public and private re-
sponses to sexist remarks. Journal of Ewmnfal
------------
social Psychology, 35,6848.
Swim, J. K, Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J.
(2OO1). Everyday sexism: Evidencefor its incidence,
nature, and psychological impact from three daily
diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57,3143.
Tangri, S. S., Burt,M. R, &Johnson,L. B. (1982).Sexual
harassment at work: Three explanatory models.
Journal of Social Issues, 38,3354.
Tata, J. (1993).The structureand phenomenon of sexual
harassment Impactof category of sexuallyharass-
ing behavior, gender, and hierarchical level. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,199-211.
Thacker, R A. (1996).A descriptivestudy of situational
and individual influences upon individuals' re-
sponses to sexual harassment Human Relations,
49,1105-1112.
Thacker, R. A, & Gohmann, S. F. (1993).Male/female
diffemxes mperceptions and effects of hostile en-
vironment sexual harassment: "ReasonableJf as-
sumptions. Public Personnel Management, 22,461-
472.
WhitleyfB. E. (1988). Sex differencesin heterosexuals'
attitudes toward homosexuals: It depends upon
---------
what you ask. Journul of Sex ResewZhIZQ,2WZ9T
Whitley, B. E., &Kite, M.K. (1995). Sex differences in
attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on
Oliver and Hyde (1993).Psychdo@ BuUefin, 117,
146-154.
W-, R L., &Hurt,L. E.(2000).How do people evalu-
ate socialsexual conduct at work? A psycholegal
model. Journalof Applied Psychdog, 85,7585.
Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). The impad of p b level wd-
prior training on sexual &assment labechg k d
remedy choice. Journal OfAppliedSocial PsychOlogy,
29,1605-1623.
willians,c.w.,~~~n,~.s.,~Haley,P.R~ &Price,
J. R (1995). An attriitional (causald i m d n a l )
analysisof ~~ of sexual har-ent Jm-
of Applied Social Psychobgy, =, 1169-1183.
 Irmocent FGrthg or Sexual Harrasment? 58

Appendix
Female Perpetrator, Female Victim, Comment
Only, Peer Worker Relationship
Donna and Lisa work at a large organization. Donna
_andLisa hold thi same position in the company. Donna
has worked with Lisafor 3 years. They are both outgo-
ing individuals and are well liked by others in the wm-
puny. They interact directly with one another approxi-
mately 5 hours per week Donna and Lisa have never
socialized outside of company functions. They have a
good working relationship, and haw not had any seri-
ous conflicts. Last week a@ a meeting, Donna said to
Lisa, "You Zook .aery attractive in that suit. You should
wear it'niore often."
Male Perpetrator, Male Victim, Comment with
Shoulder Touch, Peer Worker Relationship

Mizrk and Jim work at a large organization. Mark and

Jim hold the same position in the wmpany. Mark has
worked with Jim for 3 years. They are both outgoing
individuals and are d l liked by others in the wmpmy.
They interact directly with one another approximately
5 hours per week Mark and Jim have never socialized
outside of wmpanyfuncfions. They have a good w k -
ing relationship, and hazw not had any serious conjlicts.
Last week after a meeting, Mark put his a m around
Jim's shoulde~and said to him, "You look vwy attrac-
tive in that suit. You should wear it w e often."

Male Perpetrator, Female Victim, Coxmnt .

with Knee Touch, Boss-Subordinate Relation-
ship

Jim and Donna work at a large organization. Jim is

Donna's boss. Donna has worked for Jim f m 3 years.
They are both outgoing individuals and are well liked
by others in the wmpany. They interact directly with
one another approximately 5 hours per week. Jim and
~onna'havenever socialized outside of companyfunc-
tions. They have a good working relationship, and have
not had any serious conficts. Last week a@ a meeting,
Jim placed a hand on Donna's knee and said, "You look
very attractirk in that suit. You should wear it w e
often."