The effect of sexist attitudes on the perception of visual artists by community college and university students

This study compared the effects of sexist labeling on the perceptions of visual artists by the community college and university students and determined their sex role orientation. The 370 students were shown five slides of an artist's works and were given six versions of an artist's biography. It contained embedded sexual labeling (woman, girl, person/ she, man, guy, person/he). The Artist Evaluation Questionnaire was administered to the female and male community college and university students that required the students to evaluate the female and male artists on several aspects of affective and cognitive measures. The questionnaire consisted of 9 items that had to be rated by the participants. In addition, the students filled out the Demographic Questionnaire and the BEM Sex Role Inventory, titled the Attitude Questionnaire. The Analysis of Variance testing procedures were administered to analyze the responses. The results disclosed gender differences in students' ratings. The female artist's work, when the artist was referred to by the neutral sexual label, "person", received significantly higher ratings from the female students. The male students gave the female artist her highest ratings when she was referred to by the low status sexual label, "girl". Both sexes did not express statistically significant preferences for any of the male sexual labels. Gender difference became apparent when it was found that female students rated both sexes equally, and their ratings were lower than those of the male students. The male students rated the female artist's work higher than the work of the male artist. The analysis of the sex role inventory questionnaire revealed the absence of the feminine (expressive) and masculine (instrumental) personalities among the students. The personalities of almost all the students were androgynous, with a few within the range of the near feminine, and a few within the range of the near masculine. The study reveals that there are differences in perception of sexual labels among the community college and university students.

The boundaries of acceptance: Do expectations for the complainant's psychological injury affect legal decisions in a sexual harassment case

Research indicates that people engaged in legal decision-making use a host of biases and preconceptions to guide their decisions about whether the evidence presented to them is reasonable. However, few theories address how such expectations affect legal decision-makers. The present study attempted to determine if social judgment theory (SJT) can explain how and when legal decision-makers rely on expectations for the complainant's psychological injury in a hostile environment sexual harassment case. Two experiments provided undergraduate participants with a written summary of a hostile work environment allegation that first manipulated participants' expectations about reasonable psychological injuries (mild v. severe), and then presented them with actual severity levels of psychological injury (ranging from minimal to extreme). Experiment 1 (N = 295) hypothesized and found that participants who expected severe injuries perceived a greater range of psychological injuries to be reasonable than participants expecting mild injury. Experiment 2 ( N = 202) used similar methodology and investigated whether perceived reasonableness for the injury allegations affected legal decisions. Experiment 2 hypothesized that participants expecting severe psychological injury should render more pro-complainant decisions than participants expecting mild psychological injury. This result should be most pronounced when participants receive a moderate injury allegation, since this allegation was perceived as reasonable by participants expecting severe injury, but unreasonable by participants expecting mild injury. Consistent with SJT, participants who received a moderate injury but expected a severe injury found more liability than participants who received a moderate injury but expected a mild injury. Inconsistent with SJT, participants' expectations did not affect their compensatory damage decisions. In fact, more severe injury allegations increased damage awards regardless of participants' expectations. Although the results provide mixed support for applying SJT to legal decisions in sexual harassment cases, they emphasize the continuing role of oft-unstudied extra-legal factors (juror's expectations and psychological injury severity) on legal decisions.