Sex Roles, Vol. 53, Nos. 1/2, July 2005 ( C  2005) DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-4279-4 The Effects of Subtle Sexual Harassment on Women’s Performance in a Job Interview Julie A. Woodzicka 1,3 and Marianne LaFrance 2 Although we now know about the long-term consequences of moderate to severe sexual ha- rassment, little is known about the immediate effects of more subtle harassment. The present study was designed to examine real-time consequences of subtle sexual harassment in a job interview using objective indicators of job performance. Fifty women were recruited for a job interview. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two interview conditions during which they were asked either three sexual or non-sexual questions interspersed with standard interview questions. In the former, women applicants spoke less fluently, gave lower quality answers, and asked fewer job relevant questions than did those in the non-sexual interview. It thus appears that even relatively mild harassment disrupts immediate performance. KEY WORDS: sexual harassment; performance; interview. Social scientists and lawyers alike know that sex- ual harassment disrupts one’s work life. Survey data indicate, for example, that harassment negatively af- fects both perceptions of job performance (Crull, 1982; Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, 1999) and work sat- isfaction (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1999; Piotrkowski, 1998). In a survey of over 3,000 women, 70% of harassment vic- tims stated that unwanted sexual advances or com- ments interfered with their ability to do their jobs (Dansky & Kilpatrick, 1997). The legal system also acknowledges that sexual harassment is disruptive, producing “work performance stress” as well as “dis- traction from tasks, dread of work, and the inability to work” (Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 1991, p. 1506). In its most severe form, harassment so in- terferes with a target’s ability to do her job that the harassing conduct meets the legal standard for em- ployment discrimination. 1 Department of Psychology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia. 2 Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Washington and Lee University, Department of Psychology, Lexington, Virginia 24450; e-mail: woodzickaj@wlu.edu. Although we know quite a bit about moder- ate and severe forms of harassment, much less is known about the effects of more subtle sexual ha- rassment that might not meet criteria for legally ac- tionable behavior. Further, little is known about real- time objective effects of subtle harassment. Although retrospective self-reports can point to some ill ef- fects, respondents are not likely to recall in detail what the harassment did to their ability to carry out the task at hand. In the current study we sought to ad- dress these issues by focusing on the immediate and observable effects of subtle harassment in the context of a job interview. Sexual Harassment and Its Impact on Work-Related Behaviors Sex-based harassment has been commonly re- ferred to as sexual harassment since the mid-1970s (Schultz, 1998). Since then, researchers have differ- entiated types of sexual harassment according to form, severity, and frequency. For example, a com- mon distinction is between quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The former is based on de- mands for sexual favors in return for job-related ben- efits or to escape retaliation from a superior, and it 67 0360-0025/05/0700-0067/0 C  2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.