Construct · 6 fields · 14 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningretaliationcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to harassment is retaliation.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. Meritor held in 1986 that a hostile environment is actionable discrimination even without a tangible job loss; Harris held in 1993 that the environment must be one a reasonable person would find hostile and one the victim in fact perceived as such, with no requirement of psychological injury; Ellerth fixed in 1998 when an employer answers for a supervisor's conduct and gave employers an affirmative defence built on a complaint procedure the employee unreasonably failed to use. Schultz argued that the doctrine's focus on sexual advances had left non-sexual, gender-based hostility under-recognised. Harassment here is an employer's liability for a workplace, proven element by element, and a single offensive remark is ordinarily outside it.[1][2][3][4]
The frequency with which a worker reports experiencing specified behaviours over a defined period, regardless of whether the worker calls them harassment. Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow fixed the sexual form in 1995 with the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, which asks about behaviours in three clusters (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion) and deliberately withholds the label until a final item. Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers built the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised on the same logic for bullying in 2009: twenty-two acts, none of them sexual, with bullying defined by repetition and the target's difficulty in defending themselves. Harassment here is a count of behaviours on a respondent's questionnaire, and the field's central finding is that behaviourally measured exposure runs far ahead of self-labelled harassment.[5][6]
A workplace exposure whose dose predicts downstream outcomes in the exposed population. Willness, Steel, and Lee pooled forty-one studies and nearly seventy thousand respondents in 2007 and estimated the association between sexual harassment and job satisfaction, organisational commitment, withdrawal, physical and mental health, and post-traumatic symptoms, with organisational climate as the strongest antecedent. The construct is whatever the primary studies measured (mostly SEQ-type behavioural counts) treated as an independent variable. Harassment here is a risk factor in an epidemiological meaning, with effect sizes rather than verdicts, and the question is what it does to the people exposed rather than whether anyone is liable.[7]
A course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person fear or substantial emotional distress, made a crime in its own right. California enacted the first stalking statute in 1990, every American state followed within three years, and the federal statute of 1996 added interstate and later electronic conduct. The statutes share a structure: repeated acts, a target, a reasonable-person effect, and in most versions an intent to cause or a knowing disregard of that effect. Spitzberg and Cupach's 2007 synthesis of the empirical literature put lifetime victimisation at roughly a quarter of women and a tenth of men and found that most stalking arises from prior relationships. Harassment here is a pattern of conduct by one identified person, prosecuted by the state, and the required fear separates it from the civil and survey meanings.[8][9]
Repeated negative actions by one or more students against a student who has difficulty defending themselves. Olweus fixed the definition in his 1993 synthesis of the Scandinavian school studies: intent to harm, repetition over time, and an imbalance of power, with a single fight between equals excluded. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire gives students that definition, then asks how often specified things happened in the past couple of months; Solberg and Olweus showed in 2003 that the answer "two or three times a month" is the cutoff at which victims separate cleanly from non-victims on distress and self-esteem. Harassment here is a role in a peer group, measured by a child's self-report against a stated definition, and the power imbalance is the element the other fields do not require.[10][11]
Abusive behaviour delivered through a platform, defined by what the target experienced and classified for the purpose of designing a response. Duggan's 2017 Pew survey asked American adults about six behaviours, from offensive name-calling to sexual harassment and stalking, and reported that four in ten had experienced at least one and that the severe forms fell disproportionately on young women. Vitak and colleagues interviewed women about the strategies they used to mitigate it in 2017, and Blackwell and colleagues showed the same year, through the HeartMob reporting tool, that how a platform's classification scheme names a behaviour shapes whether targets feel their experience counts. Harassment here is a design problem: the unit is the target's report to a system, and the field's distinctive finding is that the label set itself is contested.[12][13][14]
Next
Combine items across the harassment scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct