2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

222
Findings are mixed concerning whether the severity of the wrong-doing predicts increases
in retaliation. Near and Miceli (1986) reported that retaliation was related to the seriousness of the
wrong-doing but later argued that severity of retaliation can not be reliably measured across
contexts because contextual and individual variables make a standard hierarchy of severity difficult
to determine. (Miceli & Near, 1992). Magley and Cortina (2002) attempted to model severity by
assigning harassing behaviors to hostile environment, or hostile environment plus quid pro quo
categories. They found a small but significant relationship between harassment that included quid
pro quo behaviors and increased experiences of retaliation; however they note that differences
between retaliation associated with hostile environment experiences and those associated also with
quid pro quo were minimal, suggesting that retaliation is associated with both types of
harassment. In a second study, Cortina and Magley (in press) dichotomized work mistreatment into
either incivility alone or incivility with sexual harassment (arguably a more severe type of wrongdoing)
but found no relationship between type and retaliation. Thus, research attempting to link
severity of wrong-doing to retaliation has, to date, been largely unsuccessful.
Primary and Secondary Appraisal
The target's subjective assessment of whether the harassing event was stressful or
threatening and their subsequent responses may prove useful when attempting to better
understand the relationship of wrong-doing to retaliation. We draw on Lazarus and Folkman's
(1984) cognitive stress framework and its application to sexually harassing events (Fitzgerald,
Swan, & Fischer, 1995; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997) to explore the role that appraisal
plays in the process of retaliation following from an unprofessional, gender-related event.
Primary appraisal is the cognitive evaluation of an event to determine whether it is "stressful,"
whereas secondary appraisal is the process of determining a response to the event or stressor
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Appraisal is thought of as a complex process, influenced by
multiple determinants that can change as the stressful event changes. In the case of sexual
harassment and other UGRB, influencers are thought to include individual, contextual, and
objective factors. Fitzgerald, Swan et al. (1997) consider that the stressfulness of a harassing
event inheres in the appraisal of the event (as stressful) rather than in the event itself and suggest
that the frequency, intensity, and duration of the harassment, the victim's resources and personal
attributes, and the context (e.g., organizational climate, gender context) all make up evaluations
of whether the event is stressful or threatening. Appraisal, in turn, is linked to decisions about
response and to outcomes.
Secondary appraisal, or coping, is thought of as attempts to manage both the stressful
event and one's cognitive and emotional reactions to the event (Fitzgerald, Swan et al., 1995).
Responses to UGRB can include reporting the behavior, confronting the person, seeking social
support, behavioral avoidance (e.g., avoid the person), and cognitive avoidance (e.g., pretend not
to notice, try to forget). 3 Reporting, the most studied form of coping has been linked to
retaliation to the reporter (Bergman et al., 2002; Hesson-McInnis, 1997), particularly when
reporting wrong-doing outside of one's organization (Near & Miceli, 1986) or when reporting
harassment to multiple people in official positions (Magley & Cortina, 2002). Confronting a
harasser is associated with increased retaliation (Cortina & Magley, in press; Stockdale, 1998).
Indeed, complaining about the retaliation itself can result in further retaliation (Near & Miceli,
1986). The type of response can also interact with the status of the target and the harasser. In a
sample of federal court employees, work-related retaliation increased when the target confronted
offenders who held more organizational power, and personal retaliation increased when the
harasser was more powerful and the target sought social support (Cortina & Magley, in press).
3 See Fitzgerald, Swan et al. (1995) for a detailed description of coping responses.
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003