Because God said so: religious facets of sexual and gender harassment in Christian academia.

Eliason, Kristen ; Hall, M. Elizabeth L. ; Anderson, Tamara L. 等

The present study explored experiences of sexism (sexual and gender harassment) in a Christian university student population. This study assessed the frequency of sexism, documented how sexism is expressed in a Christian context, and evaluated the relationships between sexism and two outcomes, campus climate and college satisfaction. Additionally, it was hypothesized that attribution of gender harassment to the perpetrator's religious belief system would potentiate the negative effects of harassment. 187 female students completed an online questionnaire, including the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire--Short Form (SEQ), the General Campus Climate Scale (GCCS), and the MMPI-2 College Maladjustment Scale (CMS). Results indicated very low rates of sexual harassment. Also, religious attributions for gender harassment had a significantly negative relationship with the outcome variables although they did not moderate these outcomes. Qualitative descriptions of students' experiences with gender harassment were recorded, shedding light on what gender harassing behaviors look like in Christian academia.

In 1972, former president Richard Nixon signed Educational Amendment Title IX making it illegal for academic institutions to exclude participation, deny benefits, or subject students to discrimination based on gender (United States Department of Labor, 1972). Although this amendment was prompted by frustration regarding unequal athletic opportunities, students outside of athletic programs also benefited as it became illegal for teachers to discriminate based on gender in any academic setting. This landmark case both signified the government's recognition of sexism's presence in academia and also encouraged research to explore students' experiences of sexism within academia. Research on students' experiences of sexual harassment and gender harassment (two subcategories of sexism) will be briefly reviewed. While some categorize gender harassment as a subset of sexual harassment (e.g., Huerta, Cortina, Pang, Torges, & Magley, 2006), given its unique role in a Christian population (Hall, Christerson, & Cunningham, 2010), it will be discussed separately here. While previous research has focused on sexual harassment and gender harassment in secular settings, the current study is interested in examining how gender harassment and sexual harassment are experienced by undergraduate students in a Christian higher education setting.

Sexual Harassment in Academia

Sexual harassment in academic settings includes quid pro quo harassment ("requests for sexual favors in exchange for some type of educational participation or benefit"; Hill & Silva, 2005, p. 7) and hostile environment harassment ("harassing sexual conduct that is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it limits a student's ability to participate or benefit from educational activities"; p. 7). Considering the amount of variability within sexual harassment, it is no surprise that while incidences of sexual harassment are frequently reported, these same reporters do not always realize that the behavior they are recalling is an act of sexual harassment (Kalof, Eby, Matheson, & Kroska, 2001). Indeed, while 62% of female students report being the victim of sexual harassment while on their college campuses, actual frequencies may be much higher considering some victims' difficulty in labeling harassment (Hill & Silva, 2005). Sexual harassment both victimizes and is perpetrated by males and females. However, because females are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of sexual harassment (Menard, Shoss, Pincus, 2010), research documenting females' experiences as victims of sexual harassment will be the focus of this review and of this study.

Given the prevalence of sexual harassment in student populations, there has been considerable research on the outcomes of harassment for its victims. Physically; sexual harassment contributes to issues of body image, eating disturbances, and overall greater physical illness (Harned, 2000; Huerta et al., 2006). Psychologically, sexual harassment has been linked to post-traumatic stress, depression, general clinical symptomology, life satisfaction, health satisfaction, and psychological distress (Buchanan, Bergman, Bruce, Woods, & Lichty, 2009; Huerta et al., 2006).

While these aforementioned outcomes may occur for any victim of sexual harassment in or outside academia, specifically of interest for the current study is the influence that sexual harassment has on academic outcomes. Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, and Waldo (1995) discovered that sexual harassment negatively influenced perceptions of academic climate. Specifically, women who reported moderate or high levels of sexual harassment had lower perceptions of their instructors, acceptance, respect, and safety on campus compared to other students who reported no/low levels of sexual harassment. Huerta et al. (2006) found that sexual harassment increased students' levels of psychological distress, which in its turn resulted in lower academic satisfaction. Cumulatively, the psychological distress increased the likelihood that students would disengage from their academic environment and thus achieve at a lower level academically as compared to their non-harassed peers.

Gender Harassment in Academia

Although the word sexism often triggers thoughts of overt acts of discrimination and bias against an individual because of his or her sex, many acts of sexism may now be expressed more covertly due to social and political stigmas and reprimands that often accompany blatant acts of sexism. Gender harassment, a sub-division of sexism, continues to be problematic as it expresses sexist beliefs in a more socially acceptable fashion that is difficult to identify. What separates gender harassment from other forms of sexism is the motivation behind the sexist acts. Gender harassment is not a method by which one attempts to gain sexual cooperation, but rather a behavior that conveys sexist attitudes about a gender (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (2001) further categorize gender harassment, stating that it can consist of sexual objectification, gender role prejudice and stereotyping, or demeaning and derogatory comments.

Acts of sexism, such as gender harassment, are not always hostile in nature but may be benevolently motivated (Glick 8c Fiske, 1997). Ambivalent sexism theory recognizes that sexism is neither purely motivated by hostile nor benevolent feelings but is rather a mix of both. As parts of ambivalent sexism, both hostile and benevolent sexism function to enforce and justify patriarchy and traditional gender roles. However, while hostile sexism is marked by a focus on negating women (i.e., dominative paternalism, derogatory beliefs, heterosexual hostility) benevolent sexism hides behind positive attitudes toward women in traditional gender roles (i.e., protective paternalism, idealization of women, and desire for intimate relations). When studying a Christian population, the distinction between hostile and benevolent sexism is especially pertinent. Religious institutions in the United States, reflecting the larger cultural context, typically reject overtly hostile forms of sexism. Consequently, religious justifications consistent with benevolent sexism (and in particular protective paternalism) arc more commonly used to advocate for patriarchal gender roles. In a study on religiosity and ambivalent sexism, Tasdemir and Sakalli-Ugurlu (2010) concluded that "religiosity [is] a significant predictor of benevolent sexism rather than hostile sexism in predominantly Christian Western countries" (p. 420). Synthesizing these characteristics of gender harassment, the present study defined gender harassment as comments and behaviors that discriminate and derogate based on sex, which may be motivated by hostility benevolence, or a mixture of both.

Gender harassment in an academic student population has been minimally researched. To date, it has only been studied in this population as a sub-category of sexual harassment. As a result, while frequencies of gender harassment in student populations have been documented, the specific outcomes that gender harassment produces have not been studied apart from the other sub-categories within sexual harassment in this population (Brooks & Perot, 1991; Huerta et al., 2006). It is the intent of this study to isolate gender harassment from other forms of sexism in order to discover its unique influence.

The literature addressing gender harassment in other populations has been primarily concerned with how gender harassment affects workplace outcomes. Lim and Cortina (2005) examined the relationship between gender harassment, general incivility, and sexual harassment in the workplace. Results from this study revealed that gender harassment is positively correlated to incidences of both general incivility and sexual harassment. Raver and Nishii (2010) found gender harassment to be strongly correlated with workplace strain outcomes including turnover intentions (intent to leave), organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Not surprisingly, other studies have similarly reported that gender harassment in the workplace increases psychological distress and lowers overall job satisfaction (Parker & Griffin, 2002; Piotrkowski, 1998). Outside of the workplace, gender harassment has been found to significantly increase anger, anxiety, and depression, and significantly decrease sense of comfort and self-esteem (Swim et al., 2001).

Sexual Harassment and Gender Harassment in Christian Academia

Although studies have shown that religiosity is strongly correlated with gender inequitable attitudes (Seguino, 2011), little research exists on sexual harassment and gender harassment in Christian academia. While a handful of studies have documented gender based discrimination among faculty members at Christian institutions (Christerson, Hall, & Cunningham, in press; Garlett, 1997; Hall, in press; Hall, Christerson, & Cunningham, 2010; Hall, Cunningham, & Christerson, 2008; Ingersoll, 2003; Kim, Anderson, Hall, & Willingham, 2010; Sequeira, Trzyna, Abbott, &McHenry, 1995; Walker, 2001) no research was identified regarding the frequency or the outcomes of gender or sexual harassment in a Christian university student population such as the one used for this study.

In a Christian faculty population, Hall, Cunningham, and Christerson (2008) found that 78.6% of the women in their sample reported exposure to gender harassment. Additionally, Garlett (1997) reported incidences of comments from students reflective of patriarchal attitudes. Ingersoll (2003) also reported several female professors who encountered subtle disrespect from students, and challenges from students based on their stereotypical beliefs about the roles of women.

Hall, Christerson, and Cunningham (2010) examined religiously-based gender ideologies within a Christian university faculty population, hypothesizing that gender schemas with a religious basis would influence harassment experiences by increasing their negative effects. This increased negative effect would be the result of sanctified sexism--sexist acts justified by a religious belief system, worldvicw, or biblical interpretation about gender. These acts of sanctified sexism can be expressed as a comment or behavior that is either explicitly or implicitly tied to religious beliefs. Results of the study showed that the negative effects of gender harassment were greater when the act or statement was attributed to a Christian belief system. As frequency of harassing statements increased, the targets who attributed the harassment to the perpetrator's religious beliefs reported significantly more negative experiences of the academic climate than those who experienced non-religious harassment.

The Present Study

In order to prevent and ameliorate the effects of sexism, its prevalence and how it manifests itself must be understood. Given the evidence reviewed above that sexism in religious contexts tends to be benevolently motivated, and that the negative effects of sexism are potentiated when they are perceived to be religiously motivated, the present study sought to extend the understanding of sexism in a religious context. Specifically, we sought to understand how the religious context predicted the frequency and experiences of sexism among students in a Christian university, in three ways. First, this study documented the incidence of sexual and gender harassment among undergraduates in this setting. To date, no study has documented the incidence of different kinds of sexism in a Christian context (though several qualitative studies have documented the existence of sexism in these contexts). Secondly, this study sought to document the ramifications of sexism on academic outcomes in a religious context. Only one study to date has quantitatively explored the consequences of sexism in Christian academia. Whereas Hall et al. (2010) examined the effects of gender harassment among faculty in Christian academia, the present study sought to generalize these findings to a student population, using outcome measures relevant to this group. We hypothesized that sexual harassment and gender harassment would be negatively predictive of general campus climate and college adjustment in a college undergraduate population. In addition, in accordance with Hall et al, we hypothesized that there would be an interaction between gender harassment and religious attributions in their relationship to perceptions of academic climate and college adjustment. More specifically, we hypothesized that those who made a religiously based attribution for acts of gender harassment would report more negative academic climate and decreased college adjustment when compared to those who did not make a religiously based attribution for acts of gender harassment. Finally, qualitative descriptions of sexism reported by participants were used to illustrate how religious ideologies are used in the expression of gender harassment.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

One hundred eighty-seven female participants were recruited from a small, private, evangelical Christian university on the West Coast. A female sample, as opposed to a mixed-gender sample, was chosen because of the documented prevalence of sexism for females as opposed to males (United States Equal Opportunity Employment Division, 2010). The age range in participants was from 18-36, with a mean age of 20 (SD = 2.45), with the majority self-identifying as European American (47.1%), 19.8% as Asian/Asian American, 15% as Latino/Hispanic, 10.7% as of mixed ethnicity, 1.6% as Native American, and 5.9% did not indicate ethnicity. The majority of participants (53.5%) were freshman, 18.2% were sophomores, 13.4% were juniors, and 9.1% were seniors or graduate students. All participants were enrolled in psychology classes and were awarded either class credit or extra credit for participating in this study. Data were collected through an online survey.

Measures

Gender harassment. Experiences of gender harassment were measured by a short five-item questionnaire adapted from Hall et al.'s (2010) three-item scale (item 1 did not apply to the population and item 3 was separated into 4 questions). This measure was chosen because it reflects the most thorough conceptualization of gender harassment, based on qualitative research (Swim et al., 2001), and was modified to improve the psychometric properties of the original item. Item one asks whether one has overheard or been told of demeaning or derogatory comments about women. Items two through five, originally one item in Hall et al.'s measure, concern overhearing or being told of comments that suggest women are unsuited for certain roles (item 2), that stereotype women (item 3), that assume women have different interests than men (item 4), and that express a double standard for men and women (item 5). Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from never to weekly with scores computed by averaging the responses. A higher score indicates more experiences of gender harassment. This measure had an alpha of.86 in the current sample.

Attribution of gender harassment. For each of the five gender harassment items, if respondents reported gender harassment a follow-up question asked them to indicate whether the statements appeared to be motivated by the perpetrator's Christian beliefs, by responding yes or no (Hall et al., 2010). Given that this scale does not consist of a set of different items that reflect a common construct, but rather consists of the same item that is repeated five times, calculation of internal reliability is not appropriate. Responses were coded as either 0 (no) or 1 (yes) with scores computed by averaging the responses. Higher scores indicate greater attribution of gender harassment to the perpetrator's Christian belief system.

Sexual harassment. Experiences of sexual harassment were assessed by the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire-Short Form (Cortina et al., 1995), a shortened version of the original Sexual Experiences Questionnaire developed by Fitzgerald, Shullman, Bailey and Richards (1988). This measure contains eight questions prompting participants to recall if they have experienced different kinds of sexual harassment (i.e., gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion). Responses were indicated on a five point liker. Scale (1 never to 5 most of the time). Cortina et al. (1995) reported an alpha of.85 with the shortened version. In the current sample, the scale had an alpha of.67. Analysis of the items showed that there was no variability on items four and seven ("Continue to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you have said 'no'"; "Made you afraid that you would be treated poorly if you didn't cooperate sexually") because all participants indicated that they had never experienced these instances of sexual harassment. In addition, on item five ("Touched you [e.g., laid a hand on your bare arm, put an arm around your shoulders] in a way that made you feel uncomfortable") only three participants indicated experiencing this kind of harassment. Once these three items were deleted the alpha rose to.71 Given that the alpha could not be raised to acceptable levels without omitting almost half the items and thus compromising the integrity of the instrument, this scale was not included in any subsequent analyses involving inferential statistics. However, data from the scale were used to document frequencies of sexual harassment.

Academic climate. Academic climate was assessed through the General Campus Climate scale (GCCS), a measure developed for a study examining sexual harassment on college campuses (Cortina et al., 1995). The original scale consisted of five subscales that were calculated separately (instructor, acceptance, confidence, respect, and safety). The measure was revised in 2002 (personal communication, May 2010) and now consists of 26 statements rated on a seven-point scale (1- strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree). Although multiple factors still underlie these items, Cortina (personal communication, May 2010) now suggests using a total score rather than subscales. Scores were calculated by averaging the responses with higher scores indicating a more positive evaluation of campus climate. While alpha levels for the most current version are not available from the author, alpha levels for the initial administration of this measure exceeded.70 for all subscales and were at.88 for the total score in the current study.

College adjustment. College adjustment was assessed through the MMPI-2 College Maladjustment Scale (CMS). The CMS contains 41 items used to assess one's level of adjustment with college. Each item is awarded either zero or one point and is summed together to obtain a final score. A high score on this scale indicates a lack of adjustment in college. In the original sample it obtained an alpha of.85 (Lauterbach, Garcia, & Gloster, 2002). In the present sample this measure possessed an alpha level of.87. As one of the most popular personality inventories, the MMPI has strong reliability and strong validity as demonstrated through the tens of thousands of studies that have verified its generalizability (Kaplan & Successor, 2005).

RESULTS

Data Preparation

All scales were assessed for normality. All fell within normal limits forkurtosis and homoscedasticity except the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (skewness = 3.63 and kurtosis = 16.70), which could not be resolved through transformations. Consequently, as noted in the measures section, this measure was used only for descriptive purposes. All other scale descriptives including intercorrelations among the items are listed in Table 1.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Coefficients, and Correlations
for Variables

                          Gender                Sexual   Campus
Variable      Means   SD  Harass.  Attribution  Harass.  Climate

Gender
Harassment     2.17  .77
Attribution     .26  .24      .01
Sexual
Harassment     1.11  .24    .39 *       .2.5 *
Campus
Climate        5.60  .69   -.27 *         -.13     34 *
College
Adjustment
Satisfaction    .38  .19   .26 **          .10      .22   -.52 *

Note. Coefficient alphas appear on the diagonal. * p < 0.5, ** p <.01.

Frequency of Sexual Harassment and Gender Harassment

Given the poor reliability of the SEQ in the current sample, as described in the measures section, the measure could not be used to test the hypotheses. However, frequencies of reported sexual harassment were used to compare the current sample to samples drawn from an undergraduate population in a non-Christian institution (Table 2). Although frequencies were reported in the article describing the development of the SEQ (Fitzgerald et al., 1988), this was published in 1988 and consequently it was felt that a more contemporary sample would be desirable. Seven studies using various versions of the SEQ on an undergraduate population in the last five years were identified (Berdahl, 2007; Buchanan et al., 2009; Hitlan, Schneider, & Walsh, 2006; Huerta et al., 2006; Menard et al., 2010; Reder-storff, Buchanan, & Settles, 2007; Yoon, Funk, Kropf, 2010); however none utilized the eight item version used in the current study and none reported item level frequencies. However, Huerta et al. (2006) reported frequencies of the three types of harassment included in the SEQ, utilizing a 12 item version of the SEQ. Their sample, from a small public university in the northwestern United States, consisted of 1,455 female participants of which 91% identified as White/European American. All participants were eighteen years of age or older and were enrolled as either full or part-time students. These data were used for comparison purposes. Overall, the percentages were similar across most categories with the exception of "unwanted sexual attention" which was experienced at a much higher frequency in the secular university setting.

Table 2
frequencies from Sexual Harassment Scale

                 Sexual                Unwanted
               Harassment    Gender      Sexual     Sexual
                 Overall   Harassment  Attention  Coercion

Huerta et al.       56.6%       52.3%        30%       2.7
Current Study         54%         30%         4%        2%

Gender harassment, as measured by the Gender Harassment Scale, was experienced by 97% of participants. Participants reported either overhearing or being told demeaning and derogatory comments about women (80%), comments that suggest women are unsuited for certain roles (88%), comments that stereotype women (90%), comments that assume women have different interests than men (81%), and comments that express a double standard for men and women (61%). No comparison groups arc available for these data as the revised measure was created for this study and has not been used elsewhere. The SEQ also contains a gender harassment subscale. In the current study 30% of participants experienced gender harassment (SEQ items 1, 3, 6) whereas Huerta et al. found that 52.3% of their participants had been the victims of gender harassing behaviors. The difference in frequencies between the Gender Harassment Scale and the SEQ Gender Harassment items is likely due to the greater specificity of the questions in the Gender Harassment Scale.

Outcomes of Gender Harassment

It was hypothesized that sexual harassment and gender harassment would have negative ramifications on general campus climate and college adjustment. Given the low reliability of the SEQ, this hypothesis was tested only with respect to gender harassment. Additionally, it was hypothesized that there would be a significant interaction between gender harassment and religious attributions on perceptions of academic climate and college adjustment. Specifically, it was expected that those who made a religiously based attribution for acts of gender harassment would report a more negative academic climate and decreased college satisfaction when compared to those who did not make a religiously based attribution.

Two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to test these hypotheses, as they allow for the testing of moderation. The gender harassment and attribution of gender harassment to Christian beliefs variables were centered and an interaction term was created by multiplying the gender harassment variable and the gender harassment attribution variable. For each of the regressions, the centered harassment variable and the centered attribution to Christian beliefs scale were entered in the first model. The interaction term was entered in the second model.

The first regression explored the relationship between gender harassment and Christian attributions for gender harassment, and the criterion variable of genera] campus climate. Results indicated that attribution to a Christian belief system did not significantly moderate the relationship between gender harassment and general campus climate. However, the regression was significant (F(3,179) = 6.42, p =.01) indicating that gender harassment did have a negative relationship to general campus climate ([beta] = -.26, p <.01; see Table 3). Interestingly, attribution of the harassment to the perpetrator's Christian belief system also independently contributed to negative campus climate ([beta] = -.15, p <.05).

Table 3
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

Scale/Dependent  Model     Variable  [beta]     p     R  [R.sup.2]
Var.

General Campus   Model   Harassment   -27 *  .001   .30        .09
                 1

Climate                 Attribution    -.13  .074
                 Model   Harassment  -.26 *  .001
                 2 **
                        Attribution  -.15 *  .043
                         Harassment    -.09  .235
                                  X
                        Attribution

College          Model   Harassment   .26 *  .001  .278        .08
Satisfaction     1
                        Attribution     .10  .168
                 Model   Harassment   .26 *  .001
                 2 ***
                        Attribution     .09  .223
                         Harassment    -.03  .666
                                  X
                        Attribution

Scale/Dependent        R
Var.             [DELTA]

General Campus       .01
Climate

College              .01
Satisfaction

* Indicates Significance

** F(3,179) = 6.42, p =.O01

*** F(3,176) = 4.97, p =. 002.

The second regression explored the relationship between gender harassment and Christian attributions for gender harassment, and the criterion variable of college adjustment. Results again indicated that Christian attribution was not a significant moderator between gender harassment and college satisfaction. However, as in the first model, the regression was significant (F(3,176) = 4.97, p =.01) indicating that gender harassment had a negative relationship with college satisfaction (see Table 3; note that higher scores on the college satisfaction measure indicate greater dissatisfaction).

Qualitative Descriptions of Gender Harassment

In each case in which participants attributed an experience of gender harassment to the perpetrator's belief system, they were asked to describe the incident. Both authors categorized each statement independently and then met to discuss items where there were discrepancies in the coding. After discussion, the authors arrived at 100% agreement. Statements were categorized according to Swim et al.'s (2001) divisions of gender harassment including traditional gender role prejudice and stereotyping, demeaning and derogatory comments and behaviors, and sexual objectification. Of the 104 statements given by participants, 53 were categorized as gender role prejudice or stereotyping ("[Women] are housekeepers, make babies, at home moms, emotional, need men"; "That they should be kept at home, they shouldn't work at all and a Christian woman with a career is not right"), 22 as demeaning and derogatory comments and behaviors ("Women are too emotionally focused and cannot sustain a stable mindset to make valid decisions"; "Women can't drive, you can't because you are a girl, Go back to the kitchen"), and eight as sexual objectification ("Asking bra sizes, asking if I would have sex before marriage"; "Flirting, stalking through facebook, asking for my number, giving praises to my physical appearance in an uncomfortable way"). Additionally, there were eight responses that were categorized as mixed gender role prejudice and demeaning and derogatory comments ("Women can't teach in the church. They don't know the Bible well enough"; "Women are made to serve under men. Women are made to reproduce and care for their children. Husbands have the last say, it doesn't matter what the wife thinks."). A fourth category was added to encompass the eight statements that did not easily fit in any of the previously mentioned categories. Statements in this category expressed neutral feelings toward the question (e.g., "The usual talk about how girls and guys like different TV shows and movies is what I usually hear").

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that females' experiences of sexism in a Christian university setting are predominantly by acts of gender harassment rather than by acts of sexual harassment. The difference between levels of gender harassment and levels of sexual harassment is striking. In fact, so little sexual harassment occurred that extreme skewness and kurtosis made this variable unusable in the statistical analyses. In contrast, gender harassment was experienced at some level by almost all participants and had a negative relationship to campus climate and college adjustment. Students experienced all types of gender harassment including demeaning and derogatory comments, comments that suggest women are unsuited for certain roles, comments that stereotype women, comments that assume women have different interests than men, and comments that express a double standard for men and women.

Contrary to the researchers' hypotheses, attribution to a Christian belief system did not significantly moderate the relationship between gender harassment and the outcome variables. This was different than Hall et al.'s (2010) findings in a similar study with a faculty population. Hall et al. found that attribution of harassment to a Christian belief system seemed to ameliorate the negative effects on workplace climate at low levels of harassment, and potentiate the negative effects at high levels. Conversely, in the current study, the harassment itself and the attribution of this harassment to the perpetrator's Christian belief system each contributed to negative consequences (with Christian attribution approaching significance for college maladjustment). Developmental processes might help explain the differences between the two populations. Because the majority of participants in the current study were freshmen, many were likely in the late adolescent identity phase characterized by exploration of what it means to be a female in terms of relationships and vocation, and a reshaping of their Christian beliefs. This normal developmental phase of college freshman stands in stark contrast to the development of Christian professional adults who have chosen to teach in Christian institutions. The latter were more likely to have arrived at an achieved sense of gender, vocational, and religious identity. It is also more likely that this sample had achieved some measure of integration of these different aspects of identity. This allowed for religiously-based challenges to their gender and vocational identity to impact them in more nuanced ways. In contrast, in the freshmen sample, these nuances were not observed; gender harassment and religious attributions each contributed independently to negative outcomes.

Qualitative data from participants sheds light on the types of harassment that female students experience on a Christian university campus. Many of the statements were attributed to the perpetrator's Christian belief system, and many contained explicitly Christian content or justification for the harassing statement. It should be noted that the majority of the statements were categorized as reflecting gender stereotyping, and were often phrased as limiting the sphere of women's active participation, in ways reflective of benevolent sexism. This is consistent with research indicating that benevolent forms of sexism predominate in conservative religious settings. In addition to the harmful correlates of gender harassment found in this study, participants' abilities to recollect specific sexist statements suggests the internalization and subsequent harm of sexist comments.

A few limitations of the study should be noted. First, all participants came from one Christian university. All religiously-affiliated institutions are not homogeneous; therefore, the results may be limited in their applicability to other similar institutions. The sample was also largely European American. Cautions should be taken in applying these findings to more ethnically diverse contexts particularly in light of the complications resulting from the intersection of sexism and racism (e.g., Kim et al., 2010). Additionally, this study's use of both self-report and online collection of data may have influenced the reliability of data collected.

These results have implications for addressing sexism in a Christian university setting. As a part of sexism that is only beginning to be recognized, gender harassment must be considered seriously when confronting sexism in a Christian setting. While this study found that experiences of sexual harassment were minimal, Christian institutions must responsibly continue to combat forms of sexism such as gender harassment that are perhaps less overt yet still damaging. Faculty should be trained to recognize acts of gender harassment so that they can both monitor their own words and behaviors and discourage gender harassment in the student body. Likewise, faculty members might instigate small processing groups, role playing, and experiential activities both in and outside of classes to help students become more aware of the harmful effects of sexism on their campuses. Psychology classes, which often focus on interpersonal functioning, might find integration of these activities both applicable and augmentative to the information already being presented in their lectures. Finally, in a clinical setting, data from this study might better equip therapists who are working with college students experiencing both sexual and gender harassment.

The results of this study indicate the urgency that is needed in combating gender harassment. This study's sample consisted primarily of freshmen (53.5%) in only their second collegiate academic semester. However, this short amount of time was sufficient for participants to both experience gender harassment at their university and report negative academic outcomes, which may be the result of the gender harassment (although it should be noted that the suspected causal relationship will require long-term studies to confirm). This has significant implications for retention of female students. Swift measures should be taken to prevent harassment that may so quickly influence students.

Theologically, the results of this study suggest that Christian communities often fall short of the edifying, supportive context described in New Testament teachings, and help pinpoint specific kinds of interactions that contribute to the negative outcomes documented here. In this study, when participants were prompted to give examples of gender harassment, many reported instances in which members of the Christian community limited their involvement in the church based on their gender. Examples include, "Women are not supposed to be in high church positions and men have more opportunities in the church," and "Women can't teach in the church, they don't know the Bible well enough." Although members of the church differ in opinion regarding women's leadership roles in the church, both of these comments also suggest an unequal if not derogatory view of women's opportunities or abilities. Additionally, results of this study should challenge the church community towards greater accuracy of biblical reading and interpretation. While a variety of biblical interpretations on gender roles can be defended scripturally, biblical interpretation becomes hazardous to the community when statements such as" ... she should just get married and have kids because it [is] biblical" are communicated in ways that imply "God is on my side." These types of comments cause harm over and above the negative impact of gender harassing statements.

In the future, in addition to establishing the causality relationships suggested by the current study, researchers might replicate this study with a different population. Older students including undergraduates of junior-senior status, graduate students, and seminary students may have had greater exposure to gender harassment and thus provide different results worth investigating. Also, curriculum to inform and train students to recognize, combat, and cope with acts of sexism, including more covert modes such as gender harassment, need to be developed. While Christian institutions may in word promote the goodness and equality of both sexes, practical applications for how to strive toward these high standards are lacking. With the foundation of equality already laid, training to persist in this way is the next practical step.

REFERENCES

Berdahl, J. L (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,425-437.

Brooks, L, & Perot A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.

Buchanan, N. T., Bergman, M.E., Bruce, T. A., Woods, K. C, & Lichty, L.L. (2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and racial harassment on college students' well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31,267-285.

Christerson, B., Hall, M. E. L., & Cunningham, S. (in press). Women faculty ac an evangelical university: The paradox of religiously driven gender inequalities and high job satisfaction. Education and Religion.

Cortina, L. M., Swan. S., Fitzgerald, L F, & Waldo, C. (1995). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22,419-441.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. F., Bailey, N., [pounds sterling]v Richards, M. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior,.52,152-175.

Garlert, M. W. (1997). Female faculty on [he fringe: Theologizing sexism in the evangelical academy. Research on Christian Higher Education, 4, 69-97.

Click, P., & Fiskc, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,119-1.35.

Hall, M. E. L (in press). Finding a home in academia: Gender equity at CCCU institutions. In T. Chesnes & S. Joeckel (Eds.), The Christian college phenomenon: An empirical study. Abilene, T"X: Abilene Christian University Press.

Hall, M.F. L, Christerson, B., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Sanctified sexism: Religious beliefs and the gender harassment of academic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(2). 181-185.

Hall, M E. L, Cunningham, $., & Christerson, B. (2008). Biota University gender climate study, La Mirada, CA: Biola University.

Harned, M. S. (2000). Harassed bodies: An examination of the relationships among women's experiences of sexual harassment, body image, and eating disturbances. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 536-348.

Hill, C, & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org.

Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T, & Walsh, B. M (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 5.5, 187-195.

Huerra, M, Cortina, L. M, Pang, J. S., 'Forges, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2006). Sex and power in the academy: Modeling sexual harassment in the lives of college women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 616-628.

Ingersoll, J. (2003). Evangelical Christian women: War stories in the gender battles. New York: New York University Press.

Kalof, L., Eby, K. K., Mathcson, J. L, & Kroska, R.J. (2001). The influence of race and gender on student self-reports of sexual harassment by college professors. Gender & Society, IS, 282-302.

Kaplan, R. M,, & Saccuzzo, D. P (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Kim, C. L., Anderson, T. L, Hall, M. E. L, & Willingham, M. M. (2010). Asian and female in the white Cod's world: A qualitative exploration of discrimination in Christian academia. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 13(5), 453-465.

Lauterbach, D., Garcia, M., & Glower, A. (2002). Psychometric properties and predictive validity of the Mt Scale of the MMPI-2. Assessment, 9(4), 390-400.

Urn, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496.

Menard, K. $., Shoss, M. L, & Pincus, A. L. (2010). Attachment and personality predicts engagement in sexual harassment by male and female college students. Violence and Victims, 25, 770-786.

Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name calling?: Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 195-210.

Piotrkowski, C. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed white and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(1), 33-43.

Raver, J., & Nishii, L. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful?: Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment, journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 236-254.

Rederstorff, J. C., Buchanan, N. T., & Settles, I. H. (2007). The moderating roles of race and gender-role attitudes in the relationship between sexual harassment and psychological well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31 50-61.

Seguino, S. (2011). Help or hindrance? Religion's impact on gender inequality in attitudes and outcomes. World Development, 39, 1308-1321.

Sequeira, D.-L., Trzyna, T., Abbott, M. L., & McHenry, D. S. (1995). "The kingdom has not yet come": Goping with microinequities within a Christian university. Research on Christian Higher Education, 2, 1-35.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L, Cohen, L. L, & Ferguson, M.J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57(l),31-53.

Tasdemir, N., & Sakalh-Ugurlu, N. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62,420-426.

United States Department of Labor. (1972). Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. Available from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm.

United States Equal Opportunity Employment Division. (2010). Sexual harassment charges EEOC and FEPAs combined [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/ecoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm

Walker, J. N. (2001). Pragmatic paradoxes of gender and authority at a Christian university: Ethnography and analysis of female academicians' narratives. Research on Christian Higher Education, 8, 19-42.

Yoon, E., Funk, R. S., & Kropf, N. R (2010). Sexual harassment experiences and their psychological correlates among a diverse sample of college women. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25, 8-18.

KRISTEN ELIASON, M. ELIZABETH L. HALL, and TAMARA L. ANDERSON Rosemead School of Psychology Biola University

AUTHORS

ELIASON, KRISTEN. Address: 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, CA 90639. Title/Institution Affiliation: Kristen received her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Biola University and plans to continue her studies in a Clinical Ph.D. program in the fall. Degree: B.A., Psychology, Biola University. Interests: Discrimination, gender, and religion.

HALL, M. ELIZABETH L Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90639. Title: Associate Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D., Clinical Psychology, Biola University. Specializations: Women's issues, missions and mental health, integration of psychology and theology.

ANDERSON, TAMARA L. Address: 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90638. Title: Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of Graduate Students, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University. Degree: Ph.D., California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles. Specializations: Gender issues, attachment, ethics and law, and conflict resolution, in addition to previous work in the area of eating disorders.