Knowledge of sexual harassment has increased since the phenomenon was given a name, but such knowledge may identify only extreme behaviors as harassment (Popovich et al., 1995). There may be a gap between knowl­edge of formal definitions of sexual harassment and application of that knowledge to one’s everyday life experiences. Bursik (1992) reported that the majority of her participants did not perceive that an instructor’s nu­merous unsolicited requests for dates with a student constituted harassment.

Williams and Cyr (1992) note the trap of escalating commitment (based on the foot-in-the-door) technique. Once a harasser has made ges-

tures not refused by the target, the target may find it more difficult to deal with the problem, and observers may no longer see the target as a victim of harassment.

Work organizations and universities have programs or workshops that teach employees about sexual harassment. Brochures and posters explaining formal procedures are available. Workshop leaders have people role play to make women more aware of how men may misinterpret their behaviors and to sensitize men to women’s subtle efforts to rebuff them.

However, increasing knowledge or awareness is not enough. “We can­not respond adequately to harassment without responding also to the in­stitutional conditions that sustain it—the gender stereotypes, occupational stratification, and remedial barriers that are endemic to American work­places” (Rhode, 1989, p. 236).