Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos.

1/2, January 2004 ( C 2004)

Inuence of Gender Roles on Perceptions of Teacher/Adolescent Student Sexual Relations1

Katherine M. Dollar,2,3 Andrea R. Perry,2,4 Mary Ellen Fromuth,2,5 and Aimee R. Holt2

In this study we explored the effects of respondent gender and the specic gender combination (i.e., cross- and same-gender dyads) on perceptions of a sexual encounter between a teacher and an adolescent student. Respondents (120 male and 120 female undergraduates) read a brief scenario and answered questions about their perceptions of the encounter. Signicant interactions emerged between teacher gender and student gender. For example, the male teacher/male student dyad was viewed as the least normative, and the female teacher/male student dyad was perceived as the most normative. Signicant interactions also were found between teacher gender and respondent gender. Results generally were consistent with gender role stereotypes.
KEY WORDS: teacher/student sexual relationships; gender role attitudes.

Although teacher/student sexual relationships are a documented social concern (Graves, 1994; Michaelis, 1996), there is little empirical research on sexual involvement between teachers and students. Most previous research has focused on teacher/student sexual relationships at the collegiate level (e.g., Malovich & Stake, 1990; Reilly, Lott, & Gallogly, 1986), and only recently have a few researchers (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2001; Timmerman, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991) begun to investigate these encounters in elementary and/or secondary schools. To illustrate the importance of this research, 7% of a national sample of 8th through 11th-grade students reported having been physically sexually harassed (e.g., touched, grabbed, or pinched in a sexual way) by a teacher (AAUW, 2001).
1 Portions

of this paper were presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Kissimmee, Florida, March, 2002. 2 Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 3 Present address: Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi. 4 Present address: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 5 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Psychology Department, Box 436, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132; e-mail: mfromuth@mtsu.edu.

Although teacher/student sexual relationships have attracted some research attention (e.g., Corbett, Gentry, & Pearson, 1993), little is known about how these experiences are perceived. Studying perceptions is important because, even though many states (e.g., Weiss, 2002) have passed specic legislation designed to address the power differential in a relationship involving an authority gure (e.g., such as between a teacher and a student), local school systems often have vague policies. For example, in a study by Anderson and Levine (1999), less than half of the teachers reported that their schools had a policy against, or had cautioned against, physical contact with students. Further, among those teachers who reported that their schools had a policy, 61% reported that it was informal. In the absence of formal policies, individual perceptions may inuence decision making. In addition to unclear school policies, there also is ambiguity in how teacher/adolescent student sexual relationships are viewed. Although sexual relationships between adults and young children are perceived as abusive, relationships involving adolescents are interpreted with more ambiguity (e.g., Kennel & Agresti, 1995; Maynard & Wiederman, 1997). Adolescents themselves often are uncertain if a sexual 91
0360-0025/04/0100-0091/0
C

2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

92 relationship between a teacher and one of their adolescent peers is abusive (e.g., Corbett et al., 1993). Indeed, an experience between an adolescent and an older partner may even be valued as a learning experience (Zani, 1991). The lack of clarity about what constitutes sexual abuse when an adolescent is involved, coupled with the lack of clear guidelines within many school systems, highlights the importance for continued research on perceptions of sexual relationships between teachers and adolescent students. Numerous factors have been found to inuence perceptions of sexual relationships between adults and children/adolescents; the specic gender combination of the adult and the child/adolescent is particularly pertinent. These effects not only have been found in studies that used college students as respondents (e.g., Fromuth, Holt, & Parker, 2001), but also in studies that used professionals as respondents (e.g., social workers, law enforcement ofcials; Hetherton & Beardsall, 1988). To date, most researchers exploring child/adolescent sexual abuse have used only crossgender dyads (e.g., Smith, Fromuth, & Morris, 1997; Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984). One relatively consistent trend is for respondents to view scenarios involving a male teacher and a female adolescent student more negatively than those involving a female teacher and a male adolescent student (e.g., Smith et al., 1997). It is likely that gender role stereotypes inuence perceptions of the specic gender combination. Nelson and Oliver (1998) noted that the sociocultural construction of gender is so deeply ingrained that it is impossible for sexual contact between women and boys to have the same social meaning (even to scholars) as contact between men and girls (p. 560). For example, Broussard, Wagner, and Kazelskis (1991) suggested that differences in perceptions of cross-gender dyads may reect a societal belief that it is more normative and less abusive for a male adolescent to be involved with a woman than it is for a female adolescent to be involved with a man. Indeed, sexual relationships between women and male adolescents may be perceived by some as a means of sex education (Broussard et al., 1991) or as a rite of passage for the adolescent; in contrast, sexual encounters between men and female adolescents may be viewed as more damaging. Similarly, in a recent study that assessed factors that affect perceptions of teacher/adolescent student sexual relationships, Fromuth et al. (2001) suggested that respondents greater acceptance of female teacher/male adolescent sexual relationships may reect gender role stereotypes, wherein male

Dollar, Perry, Fromuth, and Holt adolescents may be perceived as gaining value from these experiences. Although exploring perceptions of cross-gender teacher/adolescent sexual interactions is extremely important, in such studies the gender of the adult is confounded with the gender of the adolescent student. Thus, it is difcult to determine which factors (i.e., teacher gender, adolescent student gender, interaction of both genders) have the greatest impact on perceptions. To understand the complex dynamics of adult/adolescent sexual relationships better, researchers (e.g., Maynard & Wiederman, 1997) have highlighted the value of extending research on crossgender dyads to include same-gender dyads. In addition to the variables that impact perceptions of cross-gender interactions, same-gender dyads are particularly complex because they encompass a unique set of stereotypes regarding same-gender interactions. Indeed, school administrators have been found to view same-gender teacher/student sexual encounters as more harmful than cross-gender relationships (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995). As revealed in a recent study (AAUW, 2001), negative stereotypes regarding same-gender relationships also impact adolescents attitudes; 73% of the junior high and high school students surveyed reported that they would be very upset if someone spread the rumor that they were gay or lesbian. In studies that have compared cross- and samegender dyads, the particular gender combination of the adult and the child/adolescent has been found to inuence perceptions. Specically, same-gender dyads are perceived as more abusive than crossgender dyads (Maynard & Wiederman, 1997). For example, Broussard et al. (1991) found that adolescents were more likely to be viewed as victims of child sexual abuse if they had been involved with an adult of the same gender. Not only are same-gender interactions seen as more detrimental to adolescents, but both male and female respondents attribute more blame to an adult involved with an adolescent of his/her same gender (Maynard & Wiederman, 1997). Because the homosexual nature of the interaction has been shown to impact perceptions, further research is needed in order to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of teacher/adolescent student sexual relationships involving same-gender dyads. In addition to the specic gender combination of those involved, respondent gender also has been found to inuence how experiences of a sexual nature between adults and children/adolescents are perceived. Not only have respondent gender differences

Perceptions of Teacher/Student Sexual Relations emerged in studies of perceptions with high school (Loredo, Reid, & Deaux, 1995) and college students (e.g., Broussard et al., 1991; Wellman, 1993) as respondents, but male and female professionals also appear to interpret adult/child sexual experiences differently (Kendall-Tackett & Watson, 1991). Although not all studies have found respondent gender differences (Crenshaw, Crenshaw, & Lichtenberg, 1995; Kalichman, 1992), there is a relatively consistent trend that women are more knowledgeable about and less tolerant of child sexual abuse than are men (e.g., Wellman, 1993). Not only do women appear to be more aware of what constitutes child sexual abuse (e.g., Broussard et al., 1991), but women also tend to hold more provictim attitudes (Rubin & Thelen, 1996; Spencer & Tan, 1999) regardless of the gender composition of the dyad (Broussard et al., 1991). In contrast, men have a tendency to make more distinctions based on the specic gender composition of the dyad. For example, in a study by Fromuth et al. (2001), it was found that although women did not make such a distinction, men viewed a dyad involving a female teacher and a male adolescent as less abusive than a dyad involving a male teacher and a female adolescent. Although ndings are not always consistent (e.g., Crenshaw et al., 1995), the gender differences that do emerge suggest that respondents, particularly men, are inuenced by gender role stereotypes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of gender on the perceptions of teacher/adolescent student sexual relationships. To minimize possible ethical concerns, college students, rather than high school students, were chosen as respondents. Although all the respondents were legal adults, it is important to note that many were recent high school graduates and were likely to hold attitudes similar to those of high school students. The goal of this study was to expand previous research by exploring perceptions of cross- and same-gender dyads. Specically, we explored the effects of the gender dyad of those involved (male teacher/female adolescent student, male teacher/male adolescent student, female teacher/female adolescent student, and female teacher/male adolescent student), as well as respondent gender on perceptions of these relationships. Further, this study expanded the existing literature by assessing the impact of gender roles as well as gender role stereotypes on these perceptions. For example, respondents were asked to rate whether the adolescent student acted appropriately

93 for his/her gender as well as whether the experience was a normal part of growing up. METHOD Participants Respondents consisted of 120 men and 120 women recruited from a psychology research pool at a public, midsize southeastern university. The majority of the respondents (84%) were 1821 years old; 10% were 2225 years old, and 7% were over 25 years old. Although most were European Americans (78%), the sample also included African American respondents (18%), and respondents of other racial/ethnic backgrounds (4%). Respondents either received extra credit for their participation, or they used their participation as one option to fulll a course requirement. Materials Scenario Respondents were presented with one of four possible scenarios that described a sexual experience between a 29-year-old teacher and a 16-yearold student. The scenarios varied the gender dyad of those involved (i.e., male teacher/female student, male teacher/male student, female teacher/male student, female teacher/female student). The scenario was a modied version of one developed by Smith et al. (1997), which was based on media reports of a local incident. In the current scenario, the adolescent, a student in the teachers class, was described as a new student with a troubled past, including drug and alcohol abuse, running away from home, and previous sexual activity. The teacher was portrayed as taking a special interest (e.g., providing tutoring and encouragement) in the student and as initiating the sexual encounter that consisted of an incident of oral sex. In the scenario, the encounter was not depicted as forceful.

Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of three questions that pertained to respondent demographic information and 23 questions related to the respondents

94 perceptions of the sexual encounter. Except for one item that addressed the possible imprisonment of the teacher, the questions were rated on a 7-point Likert-scale that ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The question about sentencing asked respondents to assign imprisonment time, based on a scale that ranged from 0 to 15 years. The remaining 22 items were divided into seven groups based on the content and topic area: perceived normalcy of the experience, labeling of the incident, victim vulnerability, responsibility of the adult, sexual harm to the student, psychological harm to the student, and legal ramications. Four questions were used to investigate the degree to which the respondents perceived the experience as normal. Respondents were asked if they believed the student involved in the scenario would think the sexual encounter was a normal part of growing up. Further, respondents were asked if the student in the scenario would brag to friends, if the friends would think the experience was cool, and if the students peers would believe the student acted appropriately for his or her gender. Respondents were asked three questions concerning the labeling of the sexual encounter. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate whether they considered the interaction to be a case of sexual abuse, whether they viewed it as a normal part of growing up, and, given the lack of force, whether they saw anything wrong with the relationship. Two sets of questions addressed the role of the student and the teacher in the encounter. Three questions were used to investigate respondents perceptions of the vulnerability of the student. Respondents were asked if the students previous sexual history, as well as past alcohol and drug abuse, contributed to the event. Respondents also rated whether the students current personal problems inuenced the interaction. In order to explore perceptions of the adults responsibility in the sexual encounter, three questions were developed. Respondents were asked whether the teacher took advantage of the students age and the students personal problems as well as whether the teacher was primarily responsible for what occurred. Two different sets of questions addressed the possible sexual and psychological harm to the student. Specically, regarding possible sexual harm to the student, respondents reported whether the event was a positive sexual experience for the student as well as whether it would have a positive effect on the students future sexual attitudes. Further, respondents indicated whether the student would become con-

Dollar, Perry, Fromuth, and Holt fused about his or her sexual orientation because of the experience. Potential psychological harm to the student was measured by three questions regarding whether the student felt very upset, would need counseling, and would have future psychological problems as a result of the experience. Three items that addressed potential legal sanctions for the teacher and, based on a different scale, one item that addressed sentencing were presented. Prior to answering these questions, respondents were presented with a continuation of the scenario that indicated that a social worker had been contacted and had notied the police. Further, the laws and sanctions for sexual battery by an authority gure in Tennessee (i.e., Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure, 1997) were explained. The law denes sexual battery by an authority gure as unlawful sexual contact in which the victim is 1317 years of age and the perpetrator uses authoritative power to accomplish the sexual encounter. After they read the continuation, respondents were asked whether they would nd the teacher guilty of sexual battery by an authority gure in a jury trial and whether the teacher should lose his or her teaching license. Further, respondents were asked to respond to an item that stated that, because the student gave consent, the teacher should not be punished. In a separate question regarding sentencing, respondents were asked to indicate the number of years of imprisonment (015 years) that they would recommend for the teacher in the scenario.

Procedure Prior to participating, the respondents were informed that the study concerned perceptions of adult/adolescent sexual relationships. To avoid inuencing responses, the terms harassment and abuse were not used in the scenario or during recruitment. Respondents completed individual questionnaires in a group setting. The scenarios were distributed in a randomly determined, repeating sequence. Each respondent read only one scenario, and equal numbers of men and women responded to each version.

RESULTS Seven 2 (respondent gender) 2 (teacher gender) 2 (student gender) MANOVAs were conducted to measure perceptions of the normalcy of the experience, labeling of the incident, victim

Perceptions of Teacher/Student Sexual Relations

Table I. ANOVAs and Comparisons of Experiences as a Function of Teacher Gender and Student Gender Male Teacher Male student (Group 1) Variable Normalcy Student thinks this is a normal part of growing up Student will brag to friends Peers will think appropriate Peers will think it is cool Labeling Respondent thinks this is a normal part of growing up Sexual harm to student Student will be confused about sexual orientation Psychological harm to student Student will be very upset Future psychological problems for the student Student will need counseling Legal ramications Teacher guilty of sexual battery Teacher should lose teaching license Teacher should not be punished Sentencing Recommended years of imprisonment
p

95

Female Teacher Male student (Group 3) M 3.27 5.78 4.87 5.52 2.05 SD 1.77 1.42 2.01 1.59 1.49 Female student (Group 4) M 2.83 2.40 2.37 2.35 1.58 SD 1.80 1.67 1.48 1.44 1.01 F (1, 232) 10.66 REGWQ 2>1

Female student (Group 2) M 3.55 4.10 2.68 3.17 1.68 SD 1.62 1.83 1.71 1.72 1.32

M 2.57 1.63 1.83 1.53 1.30

SD 1.65 1.09 1.26 1.20 0.72

234.64 3>2>4>1 64.78 3>1,2,4; 2>1 158.73 3>2>4>1 8.79 3>1

5.65

1.20

3.50

1.74

2.78

1.73

4.55

1.82

89.26 1>4>2>3 36.42 1>2,4>3 22.13 1>2,4>3 44.05 1>2,4>3 9.45 9.06 6.58 19.96 1>2,3 1,4 > 3 2,3,4>1 1>2,3,4

5.23 5.17 4.95 5.83 6.07 1.97 6.70

1.43 1.57 1.59 1.44 1.41 1.46 4.65

4.12 4.28 3.62 4.82 5.53 2.80 3.63

1.65 1.69 1.52 1.97 1.71 2.02 3.76

2.72 3.22 2.82 4.90 5.25 3.55 3.17

1.51 1.67 1.51 1.96 2.06 1.90 3.41

3.98 4.33 4.25 5.33 6.00 3.15 4.80

1.64 1.84 1.85 2.00 1.55 2.19 4.82

.05.

.01.

.001.

.0001.

vulnerability, responsibility of the adult, sexual harm to the student, psychological harm to the student, and legal ramications. For all signicant MANOVAs, subsequent ANOVAs were conducted on individual questions to test for signicant main and interaction effects; signicant interactions were further evaluated using the REGWQ procedure. Main effects that were best accounted for by the interaction effect are not presented in this article.6 To control for the number of follow-up analyses, familywise alphas were set at .05 using the Bonferroni technique (e.g., the MANOVA for normalcy of the experience contained four questions, thus, the alpha was set at .0125 for the signicance level on individual ANOVAs). In addition to the MANOVAs, an ANOVA was conducted to measure perceptions of sentencing. Normalcy of the Experience A MANOVA indicated signicant interactions between teacher gender and student gender,
6 This

material and the nonsignicant ndings are available from the third author.

F (4, 229) = 69.98, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .4500). As seen in Table I, the male teacher/male student dyad was generally viewed as conforming the least to the norms of the peer group; the female teacher/male student dyad was seen as the most consistent with the norms of the peer group. For example, respondents indicated that a male student involved with a male teacher would be the least likely to brag to friends, and his friends would be the least likely to think the experience was cool. A MANOVA also revealed a signicant interaction between student gender and respondent gender, F (4, 229) = 3.29, p = .0120 (Wilkss = .9457). When commenting on a scenario involving a female student, male respondents noted that the student would be more likely to think the experience was a normal part of growing up (female student/ male respondent M = 3.68, SD = 1.79) than did respondents (both men and women) who were commenting on a scenario involving a student of the respondents own gender (male student/male respondent M = 2.82, SD = 1.56; female student/female respondent M = 2.70, SD = 1.55), F (1, 238) = 7.44, p = .0069.

96 Additional main effects for respondent gender emerged on the MANOVA, F (4, 229) = 4.62, p = .0013 (Wilkss = .9254). Men were more likely than women to believe that a student would brag to friends about the encounter (see Table II). In addition, men were more likely than women to indicate that the students friends would consider the experience appropriate for his/her gender and to think that the experience was cool.

Dollar, Perry, Fromuth, and Holt A signicant interaction on the MANOVA also was found between teacher gender and respondent gender, F (3, 230) = 3.11, p = .0273 (Wilkss = .9611). As seen in Table III, male respondents were more likely to indicate agreement with the statement that there is nothing wrong with the relationship when the scenario involved a female teacher rather than when it involved a male teacher. Female respondents did not make this distinction. There was no statistical difference between how female respondents viewed a scenario that involved a male teacher and how they viewed a scenario that involved a female teacher. In addition to the interaction effects, a signicant main effect emerged on the MANOVA for respondent gender, F (3, 230) = 8.15, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .904). When asked about the normalcy of the experience, men were more likely than women to view the encounter as a normal part of growing up (see Table II).

Labeling of the Incident On the MANOVA, a signicant interaction was found between teacher gender and student gender, F (3, 230) = 3.28, p = .0218 (Wilkss = .9590). As seen in Table I, respondents viewed the female teacher/male student dyad as a more normal part of growing up than the other gender combinations.

Table II. ANOVAs for Perceptions of Experience as a Function of Respondent Gender Respondent gender Men Variable Normalcy The student will brag to friends Peers will think the student acted appropriately for gender Students friends will think the experience was cool Labeling Respondent thinks this experience is a normal part of growing up Responsibility of the adult Teacher took advantage of students personal problems Sexual harm to student Positive sexual experience for student Positive effect on students future sexual attitudes Student will become confused about sexual orientation Psychological harm to the student Student will be very upset Student will experience future psychological problems Legal ramications Teacher should lose teaching license Sentencing Years imprisonment for teacher
p

Women SD 2.28 2.11 2.23 M 3.16 2.63 2.83 SD 2.09 1.85 1.94 F (1, 232) 11.29 9.02 10.48 23.29 6.94 23.96 7.40 8.61 10.02 15.37 8.60 13.28

M 3.80 3.25 3.45

2.00

1.46

1.31

0.71

4.37

1.81

4.94

1.59

2.33 3.22 3.82

1.76 2.04 1.98

1.49 2.55 4.43

0.93 1.87 1.89

3.70 3.83

1.80 1.88

4.33 4.67

1.73 1.67

5.40

1.88

6.03

1.50

3.62

4.05

5.53

4.53

.05. p .01. p .001. p .0001.

Perceptions of Teacher/Student Sexual Relations

Table III. ANOVAs and Comparisons of Experiences as a Function of Teacher Gender and Respondent Gender Male teacher Female teacher

97

Male respondent Female respondent Male respondent Female respondent (Group 1) (Group 2) (Group 3) (Group 4) Variable Labeling Because there was no force, the respondent sees nothing wrong in this relationship Sexual harm to student Positive sexual experience for the student Positive effect on the students future sexual attitudes Legal ramications Teacher guilty of sexual battery Teacher should not be punished Sentencing Recommended years of imprisonment
p

M 2.32

SD 1.66

M 2.30

SD 1.64

M 3.42

SD 2.12

M 2.10

SD 1.50

F (1, 232) REGWQ 8.28 3>1,2,4

1.77 2.53

1.16 1.88

1.47 2.55

0.93 1.97

2.90 3.90

2.06 1.97

1.52 2.55

0.95 1.79

9.93 7.77

3>1,2,4 3>1,2,4

5.47 2.18 4.78

1.78 1.61 4.40

5.18 2.58 5.55

1.81 1.97 4.57

4.60 3.97 2.45

2.21 2.15 3.31

5.63 2.73 5.52

1.58 1.76 4.52

7.79 1,4 > 3 11.54 3>1,2,4 4.78 1,2,4>3

.05. p .01. p .001.

Victim Vulnerability No signicant interactions or main effects were found for the MANOVA conducted on questions addressing victim vulnerability.

Responsibility of the Adult A MANOVA indicated a signicant main effect for teacher gender, F (3, 230) = 8.08, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .9047). Respondents were more likely to believe that the male teacher (male teacher M = 5.18, SD = 1.76; female teacher M = 4.10, SD = 1.83) took advantage of the students age, F (1, 238) = 21.97, p < .0001. Respondents also were more likely to believe that the male teacher (male teacher M = 4.93, SD = 1.70; female teacher M = 4.38, SD = 1.72) took advantage of the students personal problems, F (1, 238) = 6.16, p < .05. A significant main effect emerged on the MANOVA for respondent gender as well, F (3, 230) = 4.74, p = .0032 (Wilkss = .9418). As seen in Table II, women were more likely than men to believe that the teacher took advantage of the students personal problems.

As seen in Table I, respondents indicated that students involved in same-gender dyads, particularly the male teacher/male student dyad, would become more confused about sexual orientation than would students involved in cross-gender dyads. In addition, a signicant interaction between teacher gender and respondent gender was found on the MANOVA, F (3, 230) = 5.27, p = .0016 (Wilkss = .9357). Male respondents viewed a scenario involving a female teacher as being a more positive sexual experience and having a more positive effect on future sexual attitudes than a scenario involving a male teacher (see Table III). Statistically, female respondents did not make any distinction based on the gender of the teacher. A signicant main effect was found for respondent gender on the MANOVA, F (3, 230) = 10.04, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .8842). For example, female respondents were more likely than male respondents to indicate that the student would become confused about sexual orientation as a result of the experience (see Table II).

Psychological Harm to the Student A MANOVA indicated a signicant interaction between teacher gender and student gender, F (3, 230) = 19.07, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .8008). Respondents believed that a male student involved with a male teacher would be the most likely to be very upset, experience future psychological problems,

Sexual Harm to the Student A MANOVA revealed a signicant interaction between teacher gender and student gender, F (3, 230) = 29.86, p < .0001 (Wilkss = .7197).

98 and need psychological counseling as a result of the experience (see Table I). In addition to the interaction effects, a main effect emerged on the MANOVA for respondent gender, F (3, 230) = 6.37, p = .0004 (Wilkss = .9233). As seen in Table II, women were more likely than men to report that the student would be upset by this encounter and would experience future psychological problems. Legal Ramications A MANOVA revealed a signicant interaction between teacher gender and student gender, F (3, 230) = 4.54, p = .0041 (Wilkss = .9441). As seen in Table I, respondents were more likely to nd a male teacher involved with a male student guilty of sexual battery by an authority gure than either the male teacher/female student dyad or the female teacher/male student dyad. Compared to samegender dyads, respondents were less likely to agree that a female teacher involved with a male student should lose her teaching license. In contrast, compared to other gender dyads, respondents were less likely to indicate that a male teacher involved with a male student should not be punished. A signicant interaction on the MANOVA also emerged between teacher gender and respondent gender, F (3, 230) = 4.35, p = .0053 (Wilkss = .9463). Compared to male respondents commenting on a scenario involving a male teacher, male respondents commenting on a scenario involving a female teacher showed greater agreement with the statement that the teacher should not be punished. Female respondents did not make this distinction (see Table III). In addition, male respondents were less likely to nd a female teacher guilty of sexual battery by an authority gure than were male and female respondents who commented on a scenario that involved a teacher of their own gender (see Table III). A signicant main effect on the MANOVA for respondent gender also was found, F (3, 230) = 2.96, p = .0330 (Wilkss = .9628). Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to agree that the teacher should lose his or her teaching license (see Table II). Sentencing An ANOVA indicated a signicant interaction between teacher gender and student gender, DISCUSSION

Dollar, Perry, Fromuth, and Holt F (1, 238) = 19.96, p < .0001. A male teacher involved with a male student was assigned more years of imprisonment than the teacher involved in any of the other gender dyads (see Table I). Signicant interaction effects also emerged on the ANOVA between teacher gender and respondent gender, F (1, 238) = 4.78, p = .0298. Male respondents indicated that a female teacher should receive fewer years of imprisonment than a male teacher. Female respondents did not make this distinction (see Table III).

Although there is a growing body of research on attitudes toward child sexual abuse, few researchers have explored perceptions of sexual relationships between teachers and adolescent students. To understand these relationships better, we explored the impact of gender and gender role stereotypes on perceptions of teacher/adolescent student sexual relationships. As hypothesized, gender role expectations emerged as an important factor that inuenced respondents perceptions. Respondents made distinctions among the four gender dyads that reected gender role stereotypes; the relationship between a female teacher and a male adolescent student clearly was viewed as the most normative dyad. For example, the respondents indicated that the students peers would be more likely to view the relationship within this dyad as appropriate and cool. Respondents also viewed this relationship as the most likely to evoke bragging to friends and the least likely to cause psychological harm and confusion to sexual orientation, which further suggested that the relationship between a female teacher and male adolescent student was perceived as more normative. The perception of the relationship between a female adult and a male adolescent as more positive is not only consistent with previous research on college students perceptions (Fromuth et al., 2001; Smith et al., 1997), but it also is consistent with gender role stereotypes and sexual scripts. As others (Broussard et al., 1991) have suggested, male adolescents may believe that they are supposed to value experiences with older women and view this type of relationship as a learning experience. Thus, as Nelson and Oliver (1998) noted, rather than viewed as abusive, the sexual involvement of a boy with a woman may be perceived as status-enhancing. This reliance on sexual scripts (e.g., the notion that male adolescents should value sexual encounters with adult women) may be

Perceptions of Teacher/Student Sexual Relations based, to some degree, on the glorication in the popular media of these relationships (Broussard et al., 1991). For example, this theme is evident in recent, popular television series targeted to adolescents such as Dawsons Creek. The ndings of the current study are particularly striking because the older woman in this case was actually the students teacher and in a position of power over the adolescent. Thus, respondents appeared to minimize the effect of the inherent power difference between a teacher and an adolescent student, and instead they relied on sexual scripts in judging these situations. Also consistent with gender role stereotypes and with attitudes toward same-gender relationships (e.g., Maynard & Wiederman, 1997), the same-gender dyads in this study were viewed more negatively than the cross-gender dyads. Among the four dyads, the male teacher/male adolescent student dyad was viewed as the most inappropriate; it was viewed as causing the most confusion to the students sexual orientation and as causing the most psychological harm. Further, the teacher involved in this relationship was perceived as the most deserving of punishment. Indeed, the recommended jail time for a male teacher involved with a male student (6.70 years) was more than twice the recommended time for a female teacher involved with a male student (3.17 years). Although not as striking as with the male teacher/male student dyad, the female teacher/female student dyad also was viewed more negatively than some other dyads. For example, a female student involved with a female teacher was viewed as being more likely to be confused about her sexual orientation than students involved in cross-gender relationships. The perceptions of the male teacher/male student dyad are consistent with gender role stereotypes and likely reect a negative bias against same-gender relationships. As Broussard et al. (1991) found in a study on attitudes toward child sexual abuse, adolescents were viewed as more harmed if they were involved with an adult of the same gender. Further, in handling actual cases of students sexually abused by teachers, school superintendents viewed reports of sexual abuse involving same-gender interactions as more credible and as more harmful to the victim than cross-gender dyads (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995). As in previous research (e.g., Wellman, 1993), differences also emerged for respondent gender. As others have found (e.g., Broussard et al., 1991), women tended to view these relationships more negatively than men did regardless of the specic dyad. For example, women were more likely than men to view the

99 teacher as taking advantage of the students personal problems, as well as to view the student as more likely to be upset by what happened and to experience future psychological problems. Others (Broussard et al., 1991) have suggested that womens greater likelihood of being sexually victimized may contribute to their hightened sensitivity to these issues and their greater knowledge of what constitutes abuse. Consistent with other research ndings (e.g., Waterman & Foss-Goodman, 1984), male respondents tend to be more attuned to the specic gender composition of the dyad. In the current study, although female respondents did not make such a distinction, male respondents tended to make some distinctions based on the gender of the teacher. For example, when a female teacher rather than a male teacher was involved, men were more likely to think that it was a more positive sexual experience for the student and would have a more positive effect on the students sexual attitudes. Further, when a female teacher was involved, men recommended fewer years of imprisonment. These ndings are consistent with the meta-analysis by Kite and Whitley (1996) that found that men uphold gender roles more rigidly than women do. Although the respondents in this study were close in age to the students in the scenarios, the use of a college sample restricts the generalizability of the study. For example, perhaps older respondents may have a better understanding of the long-term consequences of these types of experiences. Further limitations of this study involve the scenarios themselves. The scenarios used in this study only focused on adolescent students, and the ndings would likely vary by specic characteristics of the scenarios such as the age of the student. In addition, although these ndings are generally consistent with what is actually reported in school settings, the extent to which the attitudes expressed in this study would affect actual behavior is unknown. It would be benecial for future researchers to explore how respondents own sexual history and interactions with teachers inuence their perceptions of these relations. Gender role stereotypes are apparent in a variety of contexts including the school setting. In the current study, these stereotypes were found to inuence perceptions of teacher/student adolescent sexual relationships. Of concern is how these perceptions may impact the reporting by and treatment of victims of these types of relationships. If, for example, peers view a relationship as cool, it might be difcult for an adolescent boy to view a relationship

100 with a female teacher in a negative light and to report it to the authorities. This is of particular concern because, although not universal, some research (Rudin, Zalewski, & Bodmer-Turner, 1995) suggests that abuse by a female perpetrator is as traumatic as abuse by a male perpetrator. On the other hand, a male student involved with a male teacher may face different challenges. A male student victimized by a male teacher may fear peer rejection if this experience was disclosed to anyone. Indeed, as found in the AAUW (2001) study, the majority of junior high and high school students would be concerned if a rumor was spread that they were gay or lesbian. A further concern is that the gender role stereotypes evident in this study may extend to how school ofcials charged with handling these cases respond to actual reports. In a study of decision making among professionals, Hetherton and Beardsall (1998) noted that not only was sexual abuse committed by women viewed as less harmful and less serious than abuse by men, but victims of female-perpetrated abuse were less likely to receive protection. Results of a study of actual school personnel also suggests that gender role stereotypes may enter into decision making. Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) reported that a common statement from superintendents when describing actual abuse cases was . . . He shouldnt have done it, but those girls wear such short skirts (p. 517). Because gender role stereotypes not only inuence perceptions of teacher/adolescent student sexual relations, but also may inuence the disclosure and handling of such situations, there is a need to provide continuing education to school personnel on this topic. In addition to developing specic policies, it may be helpful to educate teachers, school psychologists, and school administrators on how their own gender stereotypes and attributions may inuence the way they handle actual cases of teacher/student sexual involvement. The current study also illustrates the need for continued research on this topic. For example, it is important to investigate how a persons individual characteristics, such as own his/her abuse history, may inuence perceptions of these experiences.

Dollar, Perry, Fromuth, and Holt

Broussard, S., Wagner, W. G., & Kazelskis, R. (1991). Undergraduate students perceptions of child sexual abuse: The impact of victim sex, perpetrator sex, respondent sex, and victim response. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 267278. Corbett, K., Gentry, C. S., & Pearson, W., Jr. (1993). Sexual harassment in high school. Youth and Society, 25, 93103. Crenshaw, W. B., Crenshaw, L. M., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1995). When educators confront child abuse: An analysis of the decision to report. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1095 1113. Fromuth, M. E., Holt, A., & Parker, A. L. (2001). Factors affecting college students perceptions of sexual relationships between high school students and teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10(3), 5973. Graves, B. (1994). When the abuser is an educator: Dealing with sex abuse allegations becomes an all-too-common task for school leaders. School Administrator, 51(9), 814, 1618, 20. Hetherton, J., & Beardsall, L. (1988). Decisions and attitudes concerning child sexual abuse: Does the gender of the perpetrator make a difference to child protection professionals? Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 12651283. Kalichman, S. C. (1992). Clinicians attributions of responsibility for sexual and physical child abuse: An investigation of casespecic inuences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(2), 33 47. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Watson, M. W. (1991). Factors that inuence professionals perceptions of behavioral indicators of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 385 395. Kennel, R. G., & Agresti, A. A. (1995). Effects of gender and age on psychologists reporting of child sexual abuse. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 612615. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336353. Loredo, C., Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1995). Judgments and denitions of sexual harassment by high school students. Sex Roles, 32, 2945. Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 6381. Maynard, C., & Wiederman, M. (1997). Undergraduate students perceptions of child sexual abuse: Effects of age, sex, and gender-role attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 833 844. Michaelis, K. L. (1996). Theories of liability for the sexual misconduct of teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 540 554. Nelson, A., & Oliver, P. (1998). Gender and the construction of consent in childadult sexual contact: Beyond gender neutrality and male monopoly. Gender and Society, 12, 554 577. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333358. Rubin, M. L., & Thelen, M. H. (1996). Factors inuencing believing and blaming in reports of child sexual abuse: Survey of a community sample. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(2), 81 100. Rudin, M. M., Zalewski, C., & Bodmer-Turner, J. (1995). Characteristics of child sexual abuse victims according to perpetrator gender. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 963973. Sexual Battery by an Authority Figure, 7 Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13527 (1997). Shakeshaft, C., & Cohan, A. (1995). Sexual abuse of students by school personnel. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 512520. Smith, H. D., Fromuth, M. E., & Morris, C. C. (1997). Effects of gender on perceptions of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(4), 5163.

REFERENCES
American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. Anderson, E. M., & Levine, M. (1999). Concerns about allegations of child sexual abuse against teachers and the teaching environment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 833843.

Perceptions of Teacher/Student Sexual Relations

Spencer, T. D., & Tan, J. C. H. (1999). Undergraduate students reactions to analogue male disclosure of sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8(4), 7390. Timmerman, G. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated by teachers and by peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power, culture, and gender in secondary schools. Sex Roles, 48, 231244. Waterman, C. K., & Foss-Goodman, D. (1984). Child molesting: Variables relating to attribution of fault to victims, offenders, and nonparticipating parents. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 329 349.

101
Weiss, K. (2002). Authority as coercion: When authority gures abuse their positions to perpetrate child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11(1), 2751. Wellman, M. M. (1993). Child sexual abuse and gender differences: Attitudes and prevalence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 539 547. Wishnietsky, D. H. (1991). Reported and unreported teacher student sexual harassment. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 164169. Zani, B. (1991). Male and female patterns in the discovery of sexuality during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 163178.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.