Sexual harassment: science tries to explain the Harvey Weinsteins of this world, what they do and why
Sexual misconduct by a number of public figures has emerged this year and the majority of harassers have been males in positions of power. Researchers say there are identifiable patterns to the behaviour and the perpetrators
The list of alleged sexual harassers keeps getting longer and the details of sexual assault and harassment ever more disturbing. The torrent of cases pouring out in news reports and Twitter – tales of men grabbing women, emerging naked from showers uninvited, threatening women’s careers, or worse – raises a horrified question: what makes these men behave this way?
Sure, some of the behaviour can be chalked up to boorish personalities or outright misogyny. But how much of the behaviour is driven by the man himself and how much by the culture around him? What exactly makes one man more likely to sexually harass than another? And what is going on inside their heads when they make unwanted advances?
For more than three decades, John Pryor has tried to come up with an answer to the question. As one of the pioneers in the study of sexual harassment, Pryor invented a test in 1987 to measure a man’s tendency to harass. Called the “Likelihood to Sexually Harass” scale, Pryor’s test has become a cornerstone for research today on sexual harassers.
His test consists of 10 scenarios. In one scenario you must imagine that you are an executive hiring a new secretary. A female candidate explains she desperately needs the job and looks at you in a way that possibly conveys she is attracted to you. How likely are you to give her the job? Offer the job in exchange for sexual favours? Ask her to go to dinner to discuss the job?