Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire

Abstract

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire (SHAQ) is a psychometric instrument designed by Jayne E. Stake and Natalie J. Malovich in 1990 to assess cognitive, evaluative, and behavioral attitudes regarding incidents of sexual harassment within higher education environments. Rooted in social cognitive theory, attribution theory, and feminist psychometrics, the instrument utilizes a vignette-based experimental methodology. Respondents evaluate two standardized, ecologically valid vignettes depicting unambiguous academic sexual harassment scenarios involving female undergraduate students and male faculty members. Across these scenarios, the questionnaire assesses three primary conceptual domains: (a) attributions of responsibility, delineated into Victim Blame, Perpetrator Blame, and No Blame (situational/naturalizing attributions); (b) recommended coping responses, encompassing Confrontation, Compliance, and Avoidance/Ignoring; and (c) anticipated consequences, evaluating projected Emotional Effects (via semantic differential bipolar pairs) and Educational Effects on the target.

The complete instrument presents 36 operational items (18 identical questions administered across two independent scenarios). Items measuring attributions and coping recommendations are evaluated using a 6-point Likert-type agreement scale ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), while anticipated emotional consequences are evaluated on 7-point bipolar semantic differential ratings (0 to 6). Psychometric evaluations conducted on collegiate samples demonstrated robust construct validity, meaningful convergent and discriminant validity patterns with broader gender ideology measures (such as the Attitudes Toward Women Scale), and stable internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging between .68 and .86 across dimensions). The SHAQ remains a foundational tool in social, clinical, organizational, and educational psychology for examining victim-blaming dynamics, institutional climate, rape myth acceptance intersections, and the efficacy of campus sexual misconduct training programs.

Keywords

Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire, SHAQ, sexual harassment, attribution theory, victim blaming, perpetrator accountability, coping responses, campus sexual misconduct, feminist psychology, psychometrics

Authors

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and empirically validated by:

• Jayne E. Stake, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri–St. Louis (UMSL). Dr. Stake is a widely recognized scholar in clinical and feminist psychology, noted for her empirical investigations into women’s self-concept, gender role socialization, academic career advancement, feminist identity development, and systemic discrimination in educational institutions.
• Natalie J. Malovich, Ph.D.: Clinical and research psychologist who completed doctoral and postdoctoral research within the Department of Psychology at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, focusing on social-cognitive attributions of interpersonal violence, gender relations, and harassment dynamics.

Institutional Contact & Historical Inquiries:
Department of Psychological Sciences
University of Missouri–St. Louis
One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA
Correspondence regarding the original psychometric scale can be directed to the faculty archives at UMSL (e-mail: [email protected]).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire (SHAQ) is to provide an objective, standardized, and empirically grounded instrument to investigate the complex psychological dynamics that govern how individuals perceive, explain, and react to sexual harassment in postsecondary educational settings. While epidemiological prevalence studies during the late 1970s and 1980s documented alarming rates of sexual harassment targeting female students by male academic personnel, empirical research had largely lagged in explaining why observers frequently minimize such conduct, rationalize abusive behavior, or fault the target rather than the perpetrator.

Traditional survey methodologies frequently suffered from social desirability bias, abstract hypothetical phrasing, and monolithic operationalizations of harassment. The SHAQ was formulated to overcome these methodological limitations by adopting a stimulus-rich, vignette-based paradigm. By embedding questions within concrete narrative contexts—specifically depicting quid pro quo academic coercion and unwanted physical intrusion coupled with academic vulnerability—the instrument elicits nuanced attitudinal patterns that reflect real-world social appraisals.

From a research perspective, the SHAQ enables social scientists, organizational psychologists, and legal scholars to:

• Disentangle competing causal attributions, systematically contrasting victim-blaming rationalizations against perpetrator accountability and deterministic “no-blame” excuses.
• Map the behavioral expectations held by campus communities regarding how victims “ought” to respond, contrasting passive or compliant coping strategies with active confrontation and institutional grievance filing.
• Evaluate the subjective appraisal of psychological harm, examining whether observers recognize the affective trauma, anxiety, and institutional alienation induced by faculty misconduct.
• Assess the efficacy of Title IX compliance initiatives, gender equity curricula, and bystander intervention programs by tracking pre- and post-intervention shifts in attitudes.

In applied and clinical settings, the questionnaire provides valuable heuristic insights into the institutional climates that either suppress or facilitate reporting behaviors. By identifying the cognitive heuristics associated with secondary victimization—wherein victims are perceived as flirtatious, calculating, or complicit—the SHAQ assists university administrators and counseling centers in tailoring trauma-informed support structures and dismantling institutional cultures of silent complicity.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SHAQ is multidimensional, reflecting the tripartite cognitive-affective-behavioral architecture of social attitudes toward gender-based mistreatment. Rather than treating sexual harassment attitude as a unipolar continuum of acceptance versus rejection, the SHAQ deconstructs perception into distinct, interacting cognitive components.

1. Attributions of Responsibility

Attributions of responsibility refer to the cognitive inferences observers make regarding the causal locus and moral accountability for an incident of sexual harassment. The SHAQ divides this domain into three orthogonal dimensions:

• Victim Blame: This sub-construct captures beliefs that the target initiated, encouraged, or weaponized her sexuality for academic advantage. Exemplified by statements positing that the student is “hoping that getting to know the professor personally will help her get a better grade” or is “a flirtatious type who enjoys getting special attention,” this dimension mirrors core facets of rape myth acceptance and victim derogation.
• Perpetrator Blame: This dimension measures the explicit identification of the harasser’s behavior as an abuse of authority, an ethical breach, and an intentional exploitation of institutional hierarchy. Illustrative statements affirm that “the professor is using his status unfairly to pressure the student” and that his actions were “unethical and could be harmful to his students.”
• No Blame (Situational/Biological Normalization): This subtle cognitive distortion neutralizes moral culpability altogether by reframing predatory advances as harmless, benign social misunderstandings, or natural, uncontrollable biological urges. Items reflect beliefs such as “the professor probably meant no harm so it should not be taken too seriously” and that he was merely “responding to normal sexual attraction and cannot really be blamed.”

2. Prescribed Behavioral Coping Strategies

This domain captures normative prescriptive beliefs regarding how a female student should navigate an active harassment situation. The questionnaire models three classic stress and coping typologies:

• Confrontive Action: Active, direct resistance aimed at establishing clear personal boundaries and mobilizing institutional safeguards. It encompasses both interpersonal boundary assertion (“Tell the professor that you are not interested in a personal relationship”) and institutional escalation (“Go to the department head and tell him/her about the professor’s actions”).
• Compliance / Appeasement: Submissive adaptation aimed at avoiding immediate academic retaliation by yielding to the harasser’s demands. Prescriptive recommendations include attending private social meetings or capitulating to dinner invitations under the rationalization that “it may help your grade.”
• Avoidance / Ignoring: Passive cognitive and behavioral withdrawal strategies. This involves attempting to minimize contact without addressing the underlying harm, such as “change the subject and try to forget about the conversation” or “avoid any individual conversations with the professor.”

3. Anticipated Consequences and Harm Evaluation

Attitudes toward sexual harassment are deeply informed by the degree to which an observer perceives the event as causing meaningful psychological injury. The SHAQ captures anticipated outcomes through two distinct vectors:

• Emotional Trauma vs. Gratification: Assessed via semantic differential pairs measuring subjective affective states (e.g., insulted vs. flattered, pleased vs. angry, comfortable vs. uncomfortable, relaxed vs. nervous, intimidated vs. powerful, embarrassed vs. proud). Low scores indicate an awareness of psychological distress, terror, and subjugation, whereas high scores reflect a trivializing belief that harassment is an ego-boosting, flattering interaction.
• Educational Consequences: Cognitive expectations regarding whether the student’s academic standing and cognitive development will be sabotaged or artificially enhanced by entering a compromised dynamic with the instructor.

Theoretical Framework

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire is conceptually grounded in three intersecting bodies of social and psychological theory: Heider and Weiner’s Attribution Theory, Lerner’s Just World Theory, and Feminist Sociological Power Theory.

Attribution Theory

Fritz Heider’s (1958) foundational work on interpersonal relations and Bernard Weiner’s (1985) attributional theory of motivation and emotion provide the primary cognitive architecture for the SHAQ. When individuals observe an ambiguous or threatening interpersonal event, they spontaneously generate causal explanations along dimensions of locus of causality (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable). In the context of sexual harassment, observers must determine whether the cause of the harassment resides within the internal, controllable traits of the perpetrator (predatory intent, ethical failure), the internal traits of the victim (seductive attire, academic opportunism), or external, uncontrollable environmental factors (natural sexual attraction, benign misunderstanding). Stake and Malovich (1990) utilized attribution theory to demonstrate that an observer’s causal attribution directly dictates their affective reaction and subsequent coping recommendations.

The Just World Hypothesis and Defensive Attribution

Melvin Lerner’s (1980) Just World Hypothesis posits that individuals possess a profound psychological need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and fair place where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. When confronted with an innocent target experiencing unprovoked exploitation, this fundamental cognitive schema is threatened. To preserve the illusion of a just world and protect themselves from the threatening realization that random victimization can occur to anyone, observers engage in defensive attributions—specifically victim blaming. By conceptualizing the female student as flirtatious or calculating, observers restore cognitive equilibrium, reasoning that her misfortune was earned through her own indiscretions. The SHAQ’s Victim Blame and No Blame subscales directly operationalize these defensive cognitive maneuvers.

Feminist Theory and Sociocultural Power Models

From a feminist structural perspective, sexual harassment is not an isolated expression of misdirected romantic interest or sexual attraction; rather, it is an exercise of patriarchal power that reinforces gender hierarchies and maintains institutional domination over women. Scholars such as Catharine MacKinnon (1979) and Louise Fitzgerald (1990) emphasized that harassment in academia functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that undermines women’s professional autonomy. The SHAQ integrates this framework by embedding severe institutional power imbalances within its stimulus scenarios. It measures whether respondents perceive the professor’s conduct as an illegitimate exercise of systemic authority or trivialize it as natural biological courtship, thereby bridging micro-level social cognition with macro-level sociological structures.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the SHAQ was rigorously established in the original validation investigations published by Malovich and Stake (1990), with further replication across subsequent collegiate and institutional studies.

Construct and Inter-Scale Validity

In the seminal validation sample comprising 224 undergraduate students (113 females, 111 males) at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, intercorrelations among the SHAQ subscales conformed strictly to theoretical predictions. An analysis of bivariate correlation coefficients revealed that:

• Perpetrator Blame was strongly and negatively correlated with Victim Blame (r = –.36, p < .001) and No Blame (r = –.57, p < .001). This confirms that observers who hold the faculty member accountable systematically reject excuses rooted in target complicity or biological determinism.
• Victim Blame demonstrated strong positive associations with recommendations for Compliance (r = +.47, p < .001) and expectations of Positive Educational Effects (r = +.32, p < .01). Observers who faulted the female student were significantly more inclined to advise that she submit to the instructor’s propositions to secure academic advancement.
• Conversely, Victim Blame was inversely correlated with recommendations for Confrontive Action (r = –.30, p < .01) and expectations that the target would suffer Negative Emotional Effects (r = –.44, p < .001). Those who blamed the victim minimized the psychological trauma experienced by her.
• Perpetrator Blame exhibited an inverted pattern: it was robustly correlated with recommendations for Confrontive Action (r = +.45, p < .001) and anticipated Negative Emotional Trauma (r = +.54, p < .001), while inversely predicting recommendations for Compliance (r = –.45, p < .001) and beliefs in Positive Educational Outcomes (r = –.37, p < .01).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was substantiated by examining the SHAQ against validated measures of gender ideology. Most notably, SHAQ scores were correlated with Spence and Helmreich’s Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS):

• Liberal, egalitarian sex-role attitudes on the AWS were positively correlated with Perpetrator Blame (r = +.22, p < .01) and confrontive coping strategies.
• Traditional, conservative sex-role beliefs on the AWS were positively correlated with Victim Blame (r = –.22 with liberal AWS scores, p < .01), No Blame rationalizations, and recommendations that the student appease the instructor.
• Consistent gender differences provided robust criterion-related validity: female respondents scored significantly higher than male respondents on Perpetrator Blame, expectations of emotional distress, and advocacy for institutional confrontation, whereas male respondents exhibited significantly higher scores on Victim Blame and No Blame naturalization.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the SHAQ subscales have been evaluated across experimental and non-experimental administrations, demonstrating sound psychometric reliability for research and group diagnostic applications.

Internal Consistency

Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) calculated across the pooled scenario responses reflect adequate-to-high internal consistency across subscales:

• Perpetrator Blame Subscale: Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently range between .78 and .86, indicating high coherence among items tapping institutional abuse of authority and ethical misconduct.
• Victim Blame Subscale: Cronbach’s α coefficients range between .71 and .79 across male and female collegiate subsamples.
• No Blame Subscale: Cronbach’s α coefficients range from .68 to .76, reflecting moderate but acceptable reliability given the limited item count per scenario.
• Confrontation Subscale: Cronbach’s α values average .74 to .82 across studies, demonstrating strong cohesion between interpersonal refusal and institutional reporting items.
• Compliance Subscale: Cronbach’s α values average .70 to .77.
• Avoidance Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .65 to .72.
• Emotional Consequences (Semantic Differential Index): The composite 6-item bipolar emotional appraisal index demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values consistently exceeding .85 (ranging from .85 to .91 across validation cohorts).

Test-Retest Stability

In sub-cohorts assessed over a 3- to 4-week test-retest interval in educational psychology courses, Pearson correlation coefficients for the broad attributional indices remained stable, ranging from r = .72 to r = .81, indicating that while attitudes toward harassment can be shifted through explicit educational interventions, baseline attributional orientations remain relatively stable across short temporal windows.

Factor Analysis

During the developmental phase of the SHAQ, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) utilizing principal axis factoring with varimax and oblimin rotations were conducted on the item pools for both attributional statements and coping recommendations to determine empirical dimensionality.

Dimensionality of Attributions

Factor analysis of the attribution items across both scenarios confirmed a clear three-factor latent structure accounting for over 58% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Perpetrator Culpability and Ethical Violation (Eigenvalue > 2.5; item loadings ranging from .64 to .83). Items emphasizing the unfair use of academic power and unethical professional practice loaded uniquely onto this factor, showing negligible cross-loadings (< .20) on victim-related items.
• Factor 2: Victim Responsibility and Seduction Heuristics (Eigenvalue > 1.8; item loadings ranging from .59 to .78). Items alleging student flirtatiousness or opportunistic grade-seeking loaded cleanly onto this dimension.
• Factor 3: Normalization and Benign Intent (No Blame) (Eigenvalue > 1.3; item loadings ranging from .55 to .74). Statements positing that the professor meant no harm or acted under uncontrollable biological attraction loaded onto this distinct factor.

Dimensionality of Coping Prescriptions

Factor analysis of the behavioral response items yielded an analogous three-factor solution:

• Factor 1: Active Confrontation and Redress (loadings > .68 for personal confrontation and reporting to the department head).
• Factor 2: Compliant Subjugation (loadings > .62 for dining socially with the instructor and submitting to relationship expectations).
• Factor 3: Passive Avoidance (loadings > .58 for changing the subject and avoiding conversation).

Confirmatory analyses conducted in subsequent research on sexual assault and harassment analogues have verified that multi-scenario vignette structures preserve metric invariance across genders, though mean-level latent intercepts vary significantly between male and female cohorts.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Objective, vignette-based self-report psychometric questionnaire.
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil or digital/computerized survey format. Can be administered individually or in large group testing settings.
• Target Population: Undergraduate and graduate university students, academic faculty, administrative staff, and adult organizational personnel.
• Structure: Comprises two distinct, sequentially presented written scenarios depicting academic sexual harassment, each followed by 18 evaluative items (36 operational items in total):
• Scenario Content:
  • Scenario 1: Quid Pro Quo Coercion. A male professor requests an office conference regarding a failing exam, highlights the student’s academic peril, and invites her to dinner, stating that “getting to know each other better” could resolve her grade.
  • Scenario 2: Physical Intrusion and Explicit Retaliatory Threat. A professor stares repeatedly throughout the term, touches the student’s hair and puts his arm around her after class, and demands an evening office meeting while warning that failure to attend will result in poor essay exam marks.
• Evaluative Sections per Scenario:
  • Attributions of Responsibility (Items 1–6 / 19–24): 6 items measuring Victim Blame (2 items), Perpetrator Blame (2 items), and No Blame (2 items).
  • Recommended Coping Responses (Items 7–12 / 25–30): 6 items measuring Avoidance (2 items), Compliance (2 items), and Confrontation (2 items).
  • Anticipated Affective Consequences (Items 13–18 / 31–36): 6 semantic differential bipolar pairs assessing emotional reactions.
• Response Scales:
  • Attribution and Coping Items: 6-point Likert-type agreement scale scored from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree):
    0 = Strongly disagree | 1 = Moderately disagree | 2 = Somewhat disagree | 3 = Somewhat agree | 4 = Moderately agree | 5 = Strongly agree
  • Affective Consequence Items: 7-point semantic differential bipolar scale scored from 0 to 6 anchored by opposing emotional adjectives (e.g., 0 = Insulted to 6 = Flattered).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Scores are calculated by summing or averaging item ratings within each designated subscale across both scenarios.
  • Victim Blame Score: Sum of items 1, 6, 19, and 24 (Range: 0–20).
  • Perpetrator Blame Score: Sum of items 3, 5, 21, and 23 (Range: 0–20).
  • No Blame Score: Sum of items 2, 4, 20, and 22 (Range: 0–20).
  • Confrontation Score: Sum of items 10, 12, 28, and 30 (Range: 0–20).
  • Compliance Score: Sum of items 8, 11, 26, and 29 (Range: 0–20).
  • Avoidance Score: Sum of items 7, 9, 25, and 27 (Range: 0–20).
  • Affective Trauma Score: Composite score derived from semantic differential pairs (Items 13–18 and 31–36), with directional scoring aligned so that higher scores represent either psychological distress or minimization depending on coding protocol.
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire was developed and formally published in 1990 by Dr. Jayne E. Stake and Dr. Natalie J. Malovich in the academic journal Psychology of Women Quarterly. The instrument was placed in the public scientific domain for academic, non-commercial research and educational assessment purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic scholars, institutional Title IX researchers, or non-profit educational investigators utilizing the scale.

In accordance with standard psychological research ethics and copyright law, appropriate bibliographic citation of the original authors (Malovich & Stake, 1990) must be included in all dissertations, theses, published articles, and institutional evaluation reports. Researchers intending to modify the scenarios, adapt items for commercial organizational settings, or integrate the tool into fee-based institutional training modules should seek permission from the primary author or the copyright holder of the journal (Division 35 of the American Psychological Association / SAGE Publications).

References

• Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990). Sexual harassment: The definition and measurement of a phenomenon. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 21–44). State University of New York Press.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5
• MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. Yale University Press.
• Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00005.x
• Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66.
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)