As expected, this study found homosexual males to be more upset by the most upsetting student behaviors and by all student mistreatment than their heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, ethnic minorities were more upset by all student mistreatment than Caucasians. It was expected that professors in untenured positions would be more upset by such behaviors, and in this study individuals holding ‘other’ positions were more upset by severe student mistreatment. However, only one participant fell in this category and this individual’s tenure status and position of authority is unknown. Regarding level of education, this study yielded results that were opposite of what would be expected. Instructors holding a doctoral degree were more upset by all student mistreatment than those with other degrees. This could be due to other factors such as length of time teaching or number of courses taught, which were not examined in this study.

The most upsetting behaviors in the survey were determined by 70% or higher of participants who had experienced a behavior reporting that they were either moderately or very upset by the behavior. These were among the least common behaviors and are listed in Table 1. Faculty ratings of how upset they were by each of these seven items were averaged to create a scale of the most upsetting behaviors. A 2 (Gender: Male, Female) x 2 (Sexual orientation: Heterosexual, Homosexual) x 2 (Ethnicity: White, All Other Races) x 2 (Disability status: Disabled, Able-bodied) ANOVA was conducted using the most upsetting behaviors scale as the dependent variable. Results showed that homosexual males were significantly more upset by these behaviors than lesbians and heterosexuals of both genders, F (1, 6) = 36.50, p < .001. A separate 2 (Degree: Doctorate, Other) x 6 (Academic rank: Adjunct, Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant, Associate/Full, Librarian, Other) ANOVA using the same dependent variable showed that instructors of ‘other’ ranks were significantly more upset by the most upsetting behaviors, F (3, 4) = 15.45, p < .001, than lecturers and assistant and associate/full professors.

Another scale was created using faculty ratings of how upset they were by all 50 behaviors included in the questionnaire. The same 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA examining personal characteristics of professors was conducted using this scale as the dependent variable. Gay males were found to be more upset by all behaviors than lesbians or heterosexuals of either gender, F (1, 3) = 4.25, p < .01. Also, participants from minority ethnic backgrounds were significantly more upset by all behaviors than white participants, F (1, 10) = 6.26, p < .05. Results of the 2 x 6 ANOVA examining academic characteristics of participants indicated that instructors holding a doctorate were significantly more upset by all behaviors than those with less than a doctoral degree, F (1, 9) = 5.20, p < .05.

How Upsetting is College Student Mistreatment of Faculty Members and Who Gets Most Upset?

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to begin to investigate the occurrence of interpersonal mistreatment of college faculty members by students and how upsetting it is for faculty members to be on the receiving end of these behaviors. Additionally, personal and professional characteristics of participants were examined to determine a tendency for certain groups to be more offended by such behaviors. Results showed homosexual males and those in other academic positions were significantly more upset by the most upsetting behaviors than other groups. Also, homosexual males, participants from minority ethnic backgrounds and those with a doctoral degree were significantly more upset by all interpersonal mistreatment than other groups. It is suspected that since homosexuals and ethnic minorities may be viewed by students as inferior, these individuals may become the target of more frequent or harsher harassment. Therefore, these individuals may have a tendency to be more sensitive to the occurrence of such behaviors.

BACKGROUND

Most of the studies of bullying and harassment have examined the consequences of these behaviors in the context of a relationship involving a perceived power imbalance, such that the perpetrator has some power over the victim (e.g., Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). However, researchers have begun to show the widespread occurrence of individuals in positions of authority experiencing harassment at the hands of a subordinate, known as contrapower harassment (Benson, 1984) such as a teacher subjected to mistreatment by a student (e.g., Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, & Brethour, 2006). Researchers have shown that college faculty members who have been the target of bullying or harassment by students have reported negative effects on their personal well-being and their productivity at work (e.g., McKay et al., 2008). Additionally, other students may suffer due to professors’ loss of enthusiasm and changes to class format and grading criteria in order to avoid conflict with students (Luparell, 2007). Personal characteristics of the instructor, such as gender, may influence their experience of harassment. Lampman et al. (2009) found that female faculty members reported being significantly more upset by all negative student behaviors and experiencing more negative consequences than male professors.

OBJECTIVE

METHODS

ParticipantsParticipants were 107 college faculty members employed at a midsize Midwestern university. The sample was 56.1% female and 43% male; and predominantly (86%) white; predominantly able-bodied (95.3%); and predominantly heterosexual (90.7%). The average age was 50.24 years (SD = 9.77), although only 78 participants reported their age. Seventy-one percent of the faculty members held a doctorate degree, while 28% held other degrees. About 50% of the sample were in untenured positions at the university, while 48.6% were tenured. Faculty members reported teaching between .5 and 37.0 years, with an average of 11.7 years of teaching experience (SD = 9.63).

Measure Participants were invited via email and an announcement posted on the faculty portal of the university website to complete an anonymous web survey. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire reporting how often they had experienced each of a series of 50 specific bullying, cyberbullying, uncivil, and sexually harassing behaviors from a student since they had been teaching in their current position. For each behavior that participants reported having experienced at least once, they were asked how upset they were by the experience. These items were answered using a 4-point scale, ranging from not at all upset to very upset.

DISCUSSIONRESULTS

Christine D. Love and Christine D. MacDonaldIndiana State University

The present study begins to expand the scope of personal characteristics that may affect a faculty member’s perception of how upsetting specific bullying and harassing behaviors may be, as well as which behaviors are the most upsetting.

REFERENCES

Poster for presentation at American Psychological Association Convention, Washington DC, August 2011

Table 1Frequencies and Percentages for Items Included in the Most Upsetting Behaviors Scale

Behavior Moderately or Very Upset n (%)

Sexual assault 1 (100%)Physical violence 2 (100%)Touched you in an aggressive manner 5 (100%)Inappropriately hugged, patted, kissed, fondled,

or pinched you 5 (80%)Made hostile or threatening phone calls to you 16 (75.1%)Invaded your home life 7 (71.5%)Maliciously damaged or stole your property 7 (71.4%)

Benson, K. A. (1984). Comment on Crocker's 'An analysis of university definitions of sexual harassment.' Signs, 9, 516-519. doi:10.1086/494083Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Contrapower harassment in academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual attention. Sex Roles, 60, 331-346. doi:10.1007/s11199-008- 9560-xLuparell, S. (2007). The effects of student incivility on nursing faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 15-19.McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia: A Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 77-100. doi:10.1007/s10672-008-9073-3Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., & Brethour, J. R., Jr. (2006). Teachers who bully students: A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52, 187-198. doi:10.1177/0020764006067234Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127- 162. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x

Table 2Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Most Upsetting Behaviors Scale as a Function of Significant Demographic Characteristics

Group n M SD

Gender & Sexual Orientation Male Homosexuals 1 2.29a .00 Female Heterosexuals 15 0.53b .44 Male Heterosexuals 9 0.32b .14 Female Homosexuals 1 0.29b .00Academic Rank Associate/Full 18 0.46c .29 Assistant 5 0.43c .10 Instructor/Lecturer 2 0.36c .10 Other 1 2.29d .00Note: Means sharing a common subscript are not statistically different.

Table 3Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Overall Level of Upset Scale as a Function of Significant Demographic Characteristics

Group n M SD

Gender & Sexual Orientation Male Homosexuals 3 1.07a .86 Female Homosexuals 5 0.60b .31 Female Heterosexuals 53 0.54b .37 Male Heterosexuals 37 0.44b .32Ethnicity Ethnic Minorities 13 0.76c .53 Whites 87 0.48d .35Degree Doctorate 74 0.57e .40 Other 25 0.38f .31

Note: Means sharing a common subscript are not statistically different.