The participants included 94 females and 97 males. The two hypotheses tested were that (1) women but not men would display stronger judgments of harassment when using the reasonable woman standard, and (2) this relationship would be strongest for women who identified with harassed victims and men who did not. The researchers presented the participants with an in-group identification measurement task followed by the fact pattern in two cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. Results revealed gender and in-group identification efforts, but not legal standard effects. Findings draw into question the effectiveness of the reasonable woman standard to offset the consistent differences in how men and women make judgments on sexual harassment. Finally, the law's effectiveness in resolving cases involving hostile work environments would only be enhanced if it took as its starting point a reliable and valid picture of the social reality depicted in the reasonable person and victim standards. Tables and 60 references