The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale<\/strong> (LSH), initially constructed by social psychologist John B. Pryor<\/a> in 1987, serves as an empirical instrument engineered to assess men’s behavioral proclivities toward perpetrating quid pro quo sexual harassment<\/a> within organizational and interpersonal hierarchies. Operating from a foundation of socio-cognitive and interactionist psychopathology, the LSH measures an individual’s inclination to leverage differential social, institutional, or occupational power in exchange for sexual access or compliance under explicit conditions of institutional impunity. The classic instrument is structured as a projective, vignette-based assessment comprising 10 distinct contextual scenarios depicting male protagonists possessing decisive decision-making authority over vulnerable female counterparts. Following each narrative, participants evaluate three behavioral response alternatives on a 5-point Likert-type scale<\/a> ranging from 1 (Not at all likely<\/em>) to 5 (Very likely<\/em>), with the primary target metric extracted exclusively from the exploitation-specific query (the critical “b” item).<\/p>\n Psychometrically, the original 10-item target composite exhibits high internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding .90 in undergraduate and non-academic adult male samples (Pryor et al., 1995). Abbreviated two-, four-, and five-scenario variations developed for cross-cultural validation (such as German, Italian, and Chinese adaptations) have demonstrated robust internal reliabilities ranging from .74 to .83. Factor analytic evaluations predominantly sustain a unidimensional conceptual architecture representing an overarching latent trait of sexual exploitation readiness, although occasional two-factor dimensionalities have been identified that correlate so intensely as to validate a single composite score. Criterion, convergent, and discriminant validities are established: the scale correlates predictably with measures of hostile sexism, rape myth acceptance, attraction to sexual aggression, and the cognitive association of power with sexuality, while maintaining negligible correlation with general social desirability. Furthermore, the scale exhibits behavioral predictive validity in laboratory paradigms, such as the computer harassment paradigm and normative conformity experiments, demonstrating that elevated LSH scores predict genuine transgressive behaviors when environmental cues signal organizational tolerance.<\/p>\n Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale, LSH, sexual harassment, quid pro quo, sexual exploitation, social power, person-situation interaction, hostile sexism, rape myth acceptance, psychometrics<\/p>\n The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale was conceptualized and developed by John B. Pryor, Ph.D.<\/strong>, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Illinois State University<\/a>. Dr. Pryor has extensively investigated social stigma, social cognition, and the psychological antecedents of sexual misconduct within vocational and educational ecologies. Correspondence regarding the instrument has historically been directed to John B. Pryor, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4620; email: pryor@ilstu.edu<\/a>.<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric evaluations, theoretical expansions, and modernizations of the construct have been executed in collaboration with prominent behavioral scientists, notably Eric D. Wesselmann, Ph.D.<\/strong>, Professor of Psychology at Illinois State University (formerly affiliated with Purdue University<\/a>), whose research focuses on ostracism, social inclusion, and the situational determinants of antisocial interpersonal dynamics.<\/p>\n The fundamental purpose of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) Scale is to provide an empirical, standardized measure of an individual’s chronic behavioral inclination to exploit interpersonal or structural dominance for sexual access. When Dr. Pryor engineered the instrument in 1987, empirical research into sexual harassment<\/a> was heavily constrained by methodological challenges, notably pervasive social desirability bias<\/a>, retrospective underreporting, and a reliance on post-hoc litigation data. The LSH bypassed these barriers by implementing a projective vignette methodology where the focal assessment tasks simulate real-world vocational dilemmas across diverse institutional settings, such as corporate administration, media casting, academia, hospitality, and healthcare.<\/p>\n From a theoretical standpoint, the LSH operates not as a broad measure of hostile workplace climate or generalized gender antagonism, but rather as an operationalization of a specific behavioral readiness: quid pro quo<\/em> sexual exploitation. Quid pro quo harassment, defined as the conditioning of concrete employment, educational, or professional advancements upon the provision of sexual favors, represents an egregious misuse of formal authority. The theoretical rationale posits that while many men may perceive sexual attraction in professional contexts, those possessing elevated LSH latent trait levels exhibit an uninhibited willingness to instrumentalize structural power imbalances, treating vulnerable women as objects of coercive transactional negotiation.<\/p>\n In research contexts, the instrument is implemented to test interactionist hypotheses regarding interpersonal violence and organizational behavior. Specifically, the LSH allows researchers to examine how individual differences interact with localized social and cultural norms. By isolating individuals who possess the proclivity to exploit authority, investigators can test which environmental interventions, corporate governance policies, or peer expectations either suppress or facilitate transgressive behavior. Clinically and appliedly, the LSH informs organizational psychology, risk assessment frameworks, human resource compliance evaluations, and anti-harassment training development by delineating the socio-cognitive mechanisms that lead harassers to justify, compartmentalize, or enact predatory behaviors under conditions of perceived organizational impunity.<\/p>\n The primary psychological construct measured by the LSH is readiness for sexual exploitation<\/strong>, conceptualized as a dispositional readiness to leverage social, professional, or institutional power to extract sexual concessions from subordinates or vulnerable dependents. The construct operates at the convergence of three theoretical sub-dimensions: cognitive power-sex fusion, perceived impunity rationalization, and empathy deficits toward subordinated targets.<\/p>\n The first core dimension is the automatic cognitive association between power and sexuality<\/strong>. As demonstrated in social-cognitive research, individuals exhibiting elevated propensity for sexual exploitation do not view authority simply as a mechanism for organizational coordination or task execution. Instead, the psychological activation of managerial or patriarchal dominance automatically primes sexual schemas and goals. In high LSH men, possessing superior rank transforms a female subordinate from a professional colleague into an accessible target for romantic or sexual acquisition. This mental fusion blinds the individual to the inherently coercive dynamics of the interaction, leading them to conceptualize transactional demands as natural privileges of structural dominance.<\/p>\n The second sub-dimension of the construct involves impunity-dependent action thresholds<\/strong>. A defining element built directly into the operationalization of the LSH is the explicit contextual clause assuring respondents that “no possible reprisals could happen to you as a result of your action.” The construct does not capture uncontrolled, reckless impulsivity; rather, it assesses calculated opportunism. Men with high latent scores on this construct maintain adequate inhibitory control in environments characterized by strict oversight, zero-tolerance enforcement, and credible punitive outcomes. However, the internal threshold for behavioral enactment plummets when structural checks are neutralized. The construct therefore reflects an opportunistic willingness to transgress ethical and legal standards when the perceived probability of social, occupational, or legal accountability approaches zero.<\/p>\n The third dimension concerns instrumental objectification and localized empathy suppression<\/strong>. Across the scenarios, the female characters are presented in precarious or subordinate positions: a job applicant who is desperate for employment, a waitress who made a financially costly mistake, a student facing academic disqualification, or a young nurse at risk of termination. An individual low in the LSH construct responds to these scenarios with standard empathic processing, normative organizational discipline, or benevolent detachment. Conversely, an individual high in sexual exploitation readiness perceives these crises through an opportunistic lens, viewing the target’s structural distress as leverage to extract sexual compliance. This mechanism requires a distinct affective detachment, where the subordinate’s professional agency and emotional distress are subordinated to the harasser’s immediate sexual interests.<\/p>\n The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale is grounded in Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory<\/strong> and the broader person-by-situation interactionist paradigm<\/strong> of social psychology. Lewin’s classic formulation, $B = f(P, E)$<\/span>, posits that behavior ($B$<\/span>) is a dynamic function of the interplay between internal personal dispositions ($P$<\/span>) and the subjective social environment ($E$<\/span>). Pryor (1987) translated this meta-theoretical model into the study of workplace sexual harassment, asserting that neither individual psychopathology nor organizational culture alone can explain sexually coercive conduct. Rather, harassment manifests when an individual possessing high personal proclivities encounters an organizational climate that condones, tolerates, or fails to sanction such transgressions.<\/p>\n Under this interactionist framework, developed extensively by Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995), the LSH serves as the operational metric for the personal proclivity vector ($P$<\/span>). The individual harasser is characterized by a durable cognitive-behavioral constellation consisting of hostile gender beliefs, authoritarian tendencies, and a proclivity to view social relations through hierarchical power dynamics. However, this internal inclination remains behaviorally dormant under restrictive, transparent environmental conditions. When the environment ($E$<\/span>) introduces ambiguous behavioral norms, managerial passivity, or implicit organizational tolerance, the behavioral threshold is reached, leading to transgressive conduct.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the LSH draws heavily upon the Socio-Cognitive Priming Model<\/strong> pioneered by John Bargh and colleagues. In their seminal collaborative work (Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995), the researchers demonstrated that for men scoring high on the LSH, the concept of social power and the concept of sexual attraction are cognitively linked in long-term memory. When power-related concepts are activated (for instance, through holding a supervisory title or conducting an evaluative interview), sexual concepts and goals are automatically and non-consciously primed. In contrast, for low LSH men, power primes concepts related to responsibility, fairness, and stewardship. This cognitive architecture provides an empirical basis for the construct, indicating that the LSH captures a cognitive configuration in which authority is linked with sexual access.<\/p>\n Finally, the scale incorporates principles from Social Learning Theory<\/strong> and Feminist Sociological Perspectives<\/strong> on gendered oppression. Feminist theories conceptualize sexual harassment not as an expression of misdirected biological libido, but as an assertion of patriarchal hegemony designed to preserve male dominance in economic and vocational spheres. The LSH operationalizes this perspective by presenting scenarios where male protagonists use institutional control to demand bodily compliance, formalizing the theoretical postulate that sexual harassment is an exercise of coercive institutional control masquerading as romantic pursuit.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale has been examined across laboratory, correlational, and behavioral designs over several decades. Empirical studies demonstrate convergent, discriminant, construct, and behavioral predictive validity.<\/p>\n Convergent validity is documented through consistent, statistically significant correlations with validated instruments assessing sexual violence, gender-role ideology, and interpersonal dominance. Pryor and Stoller (1994) demonstrated that the LSH correlates significantly with the Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale<\/em> ($r = .38, p < .05$<\/span>) and measures assessing the endorsement of a dominance function of sexuality<\/em> ($r = .45, p < .01$<\/span>). The scale also exhibits significant convergence with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale<\/em> ($r = .37, p < .01$<\/span>; Begamy & Milburn, 2002), demonstrating that men who endorse cognitive rationalizations for sexual assault score higher in their willingness to exploit organizational authority.<\/p>\n Regarding gender-role attitudes, Siebler, Sabelus, and Bohner (2008) demonstrated that LSH scores correlate moderately with Hostile Sexism<\/a> ($r = .27, p < .05$<\/span>), confirming that antipathy toward women who challenge male authority is linked to the harasser profile. In cross-cultural applications, Lam and Chan (2007) identified significant positive relationships between the LSH and acceptance of premarital sexual opportunism ($r = .29, p < .05$<\/span>), as well as elevated consumption of cyber-pornography.<\/p>\n Discriminant validity is supported by the scale’s relative independence from generalized response styles and socially desirable responding. In his foundational psychometric validation, Pryor (1987) administered the LSH alongside the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale<\/a>, yielding a low, non-significant correlation ($r = -.13$<\/span>). This indicates that despite the transgressive nature of the scenarios, the guarantee of anonymity paired with the projective narrative format minimizes response-distortion biases, allowing the scale to measure exploitative proclivity independent of simple social approval motives.<\/p>\n The instrument’s behavioral validity is supported through controlled laboratory paradigms:<\/p>\n The reliability of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale has been demonstrated across diverse male cohorts, including undergraduate university samples, community adult populations, and international cross-cultural samples. Psychometric evaluations consistently confirm high internal consistency and stability across variations of the instrument.<\/p>\n In comprehensive reviews of the original 10-scenario scale across multiple collegiate samples, Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) reported that Cronbach’s alpha<\/a> coefficients regularly exceeded $\\alpha = .90$<\/span> (ranging typically from .91 to .95). This indicates high item inter-relatedness and minimal measurement error variance within the critical 10-item target metric. The high internal consistency suggests that despite the structural variation across the scenarios (e.g., medical centers, corporate offices, academic departments, publishing houses), the core psychological appraisal regarding the extraction of sexual favors under impunity remains uniform.<\/p>\n To accommodate practical constraints in organizational and multi-measure experimental research, abbreviated iterations of the LSH have been validated:<\/p>\n Temporal stability evaluations via test-retest administration over intervals ranging from two to six weeks have demonstrated stability coefficients exceeding $r_{tt} = .80$<\/span>, indicating that the LSH captures an enduring socio-cognitive disposition rather than a transient affective state.<\/p>\n The underlying latent dimensionality of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale has been evaluated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal components analysis<\/a> (PCA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n In the original psychometric validation of the 10-scenario version, Pryor (1987) conducted principal components analyses on the critical target items (the 10 “b” items representing direct quid pro quo exploitation). The results yielded a clean, unrotated single-factor solution. The primary general factor accounted for substantial shared variance (frequently exceeding 45% to 55% of the total variance across validation cohorts), with all 10 critical items exhibiting substantial factor loadings ranging from .55 to .82 on the primary latent dimension. The scree test indicated an eigenvalue drop after the first component, with subsequent factors producing eigenvalues well below typical retention criteria (e.g., Kaiser’s eigenvalue > 1 rule)<\/span>.<\/p>\n While unidimensionality represents the standard consensus, subsequent empirical investigations have explored potential multi-factor configurations. Perry, Schmidtke, and Kulik (1998) examined the latent structure within gender-differentiated workplace samples, identifying a possible two-factor structure. These factors typically distinguished between:<\/p>\n However, Perry and colleagues observed that scales derived from these two extracted factors were highly correlated ($r > .70$<\/span>). Because separating these dimensions yielded negligible incremental predictive validity, the authors concurred with Pryor’s initial formulation: the critical items are best treated as a homogeneous, unidimensional scale. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating the single-factor model typically report acceptable goodness-of-fit indices across diverse populations (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] $ge .93$<\/span>, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] $ge .91$<\/span>, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] $le .06$<\/span>), confirming structural validity.<\/p>\n Below is the operational specifications and administration framework for the Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) Scale:<\/p>\n The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale was initially published in 1987<\/strong> in the peer-reviewed academic journal Sex Roles<\/em> (Pryor, 1987). As an academic psychological measurement instrument, the scale was placed into the public scientific domain for non-commercial educational, scholarly, and experimental research purposes. No user licensing fees or standardized test-kit purchase costs are required to administer the scale for empirical study.<\/p>\n Researchers intending to utilize the scale in experimental or applied field settings are expected to follow standard academic attribution practices, citing the foundational publications (Pryor, 1987; Pryor et al., 1995). Given the sensitive nature of the measured construct and the potential for institutional risk, ethics review boards (such as Institutional Review Boards<\/a> [IRBs]) typically require strict procedural anonymity (e.g., untracked survey links, physical dropboxes) to minimize participant evaluation apprehension and prevent data de-anonymization.<\/p>\n Below are primary academic references documenting the theoretical foundation, psychometric properties, and behavioral validation of the LSH:<\/p>\n A comprehensive psychometric analysis of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale (LSH), assessing men’s proclivity for quid pro quo sexual exploitation under conditions of organizational impunity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[858,2,79],"tags":[27744,27742,27743,6,16420,22756,259],"class_list":["post-9389","psych_scale","type-psych_scale","status-publish","hentry","category-personality-assessment","category-psychometrics","category-social-psychology","tag-john-pryor","tag-likelihood-to-sexually-harass-scale","tag-lsh","tag-psychometrics","tag-quid-pro-quo","tag-sexual-harassment","tag-social-psychology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/9389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_scale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/9389\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Convergent and Construct Validity<\/h3>\n
Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Behavioral and Ecological Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Structure<\/h3>\n
Multidimensional Investigations and Bifactor Interpretations<\/h3>\n
\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
12. References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n