CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY~
NOHTHF!IDGE
EFFECTS OF A COLLEGE COURSE
II
IN HUMAN SEXUALITY ON CHANGING
SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPES
!\thesis suL,n"itted in pctr-Lictl satisfaction of
requirements for the degree of f>1aster of Atts
Psychology
by
Barbara Jenice Cutler
.--
'
! .
June, 1980
he
n
The Thesis of Barbara Jenice Cutler is approved:
California State University, Northr··idge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to IllY fine committee members, Donna Hardy, chairperson, Dee Shepherd-Look and Bill Huling for
their contirued guidance, cooperation, helpful criticism, personal
support, and warm encouragemento
I
\'li sh
to express my deep sense of appreciation to Launi s Look
whose time, generosity, enthusiasm, and personal warmth contributed
so much to the realization of this study.
Fina"!ly, I v:ish to give u. speciul 'thanks to my parents, Vi and
JetTY Cutler, for their patience,
understanding~
times of need.,
iii
and support during
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACt(NOWLEDGEMENTS .. " ...
T/\Bl.E OF CONTENTS e
_ABS"'fRJ\CT.
f!"'
v
-11
ll • • • •
• o o e • o
c. o e . eo
-'!1
~co
...
fj
e • • • • • • • • • e • • • • ·• • • o s . e- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
e
&
e
~*"'.
~e
•" o • •,. e
o., o c . u
0
11
o • e e" e •
G
e "' o
e." o . . . . . . . . . . .
~e
fi\ •
e e • • • • • • • • • "• • • • •
• • e . . . . . . . . c • • • • • • .,..
iii
iV
"vii
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION TO THE
STUDY~•o•o•oo•o•~···~•e••••••a•o•••••·l
SEX .. ROLE
STEREOTYPE.Q•••••o~••o•••o••••oA••••••e••••••••••5
SEX ROLE
DEVELOPMENT.eo••••e•••••D••··~•*•e•••··~·········6
BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF SEX-ROLE DEVELOPMENT •••••••••••••••••• ?
PSYCIIOANAL YTIC THEORY o..... o. n. e•• o. o......
SOCIAL LEARNING ·rHEORY
0 0 0. 0 0
e c e
~
.8
a.
11
•••••••
~
•••••••
G. 0 0 • • (\ 0" • • • 0 • • $ .
e
0. 0.
$
fl.
COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT THEORY •• oo••o•·~o··~··••a•••·······15
SUi~W\RY
OF lHE THEORIES OF SEX-ROLE DEVELOPivlENT. oo•••• o •• 18
PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY •• ~••o•o••••~·~·$~0·····~···~·····19
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY •• oo•~·~oo•••oao;o•o••••••••••••••o••22
II.
METHODo•••••••••e~oooeoooooeooooeoeeo•••o••••••••••••••••24
RELIABILITY AND
II In
RESULTS o .., • ~' •
VALIDITYo•o••••o••~·······~··············28
• • e • o u u • e • • • • o
iv
ll
o o • u • o " o e •
$
•
11 ti
o o • o
G •
•
e •
~
e • c. • • ,•
29
IV.
REVIEW OF THE STUDY •• o••oe•oe••·~···•••••••••••••••••••••32
EVALUATION OF
FINDINGSo•••••••••••••••eo••••••••••···~···33
LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY •••••••••• o••••••••••••••36
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH.o.o$•o~~oeo••~o•••••••••37
i
- _j
v
,------- ···-· ---· - --·- -----···-------- ... ----- -·--·---· ---·-- ·-·---- ----·····--- -·--------- -· ----------- ------·-- - -- --···· -----·- -----------1
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
Male Socially Desirable and Female Socially
Desirable Stereotypic Items .•.....•..•....•......•••..••..•... 26
2.
Analysis of Covariance Table for Post-Test
Mean Scores on the Braverman Sex Role Stereotype Questionna·ire'S ...... (' ........ ~ .............•_..•.......... . 31
vi
,.--.- -·--·-
·-···----···---·--··--·~·-··.·-----·---
ABSTRf\.CT
EFFECTS OF A COLLEGE COURSE
IN HUMP,N SEXUALITY
ON CHANGING
SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPES
by
Barbara Jenice Cutler
Master of Arts in Psychology
This study investigated the effects of a multi··disciplinary
col-
lege course in hurr.a.n sexual-ity upon the students• stereotyped sex··role
attitudes.
The format of the class was lecture with didactic discus-
sion combined v1ith experientiz.l':y oriented discussion groups.
A sex r-ole stereotype quc:stionnaire consisting of 55 bipolar Hems
v;as
administel~'~d
sexuality
gl~oup
to !7 femi11cs and 9 males in the exp2:rimental hu.;nan
and 18 females and 8 m:J.les in the control group.
The questionnaire asked the students to rate
males~
females, and
th8mselves with respect to stereotyped masculine and feminine traits.
Th:?.! test of the first hypothesis- that there vmul d be an overall re:duction
in ster-eotyped thinking as a result of the class and group ex-
,perience was only partially supporteda
That is, of the two scales
rm::asure:d (masculine and feminine), only the attitudes concerning the
i·
·male sex role had changed in the expedmental group.
vii
r·· -------- ------·----·---···-··-----
··---· ---··-- -----··-
i.
-~--·
·--·
The second hypothesis - that men and women in the experimental
.!
~roup
would change their attitudes concerning the feminine role more
'
ithan attitudes concerning the masculine role was not supported by
I
'the data.
In fact, the reverse was true in that attitudes towards
'the male role changed.
viii
Chapter l
INTROQUCTION TO THE STUDY
The existence of sex·-rol e stereotyping which ascribes different
characteristics to men and women in our society is 'dell documented;
~hese
roles are incorporated into the self-concepts of both sexes anJ
are deeply ingrained in our society (Anastas·i & Foley, 1949; Block,
1973; Braverman, Fogel, Braverman, Clarkson & Rosenkrantz, 1972;
Carlson, ·1972; Fernberger, 1948; Kamarovsky, 1950; McKee and Sheriffs,
'
1957;
Rcsenkl~antz,
1946; W,y"lie, 1961).
Vogel, Bee, Braverman and Braverman, 1968; Sev-1ard,
Research indicates that sex-role standards may
have detrimental effects upon the full development of capabilities of
both men and women (Block, 1973; Braverman, et al., 1972; Ellis &
Bentler, 1973;
Thistle~
1975).
One reason ttadit·iona1 sex··roles may
be-undesirable is that investigators have found the differential
esteem is accorded the two sexes; males are preferred, females devaiued (Braverman, et al., 1972; BrO\'In, 1958; Deaux & Taynor, 1973;
Elman, Press and Rosenkrantz, 1970; Fernberger, 1948; Goldberg, 1968;
Lyell~
1973; i·;icKee and Sheriffs, 1957; Pheterson, Kiesler, & Gold-
berg, 1971; Rosenkrantz, et al., 1968; Sears 5 Maccoby & Levin, 1968;
Sheriffs &Jarrett, 1953).
~~act·ion
Second, many people express dissatis-
vdth the tractitiona·l sex-roles, each sex envying attributes
granted the opposite sex (Ellis & Bentler, 1973; Polk &Stein, 1972).
1
,.,
(.,
Third, there is a significant amount of research suggesting
I
.
!
ihat individual sex-role assignments are not only non-functional but
perhaps detrimental (Ellis & Bentler, 1973).
Ellis and Bentler
'(1973) mention that the traditional sex-determined roles appear to have
!
hegative consequences for:
I
Personality development (Slater, 1961) •••
originality in females, (Helson, 1967) and
in males (Barron, 1957), level of achievement motivation (Stein &Smithells, 1969;
Veroff, Wilcox &Atkinson, 1953), and
problem solving performance (Carey, 1958
5
p. 28).
Block (1973) notes negative consequences for personal maturity, ego,
and cognitive development.
A fourth reason why traditional sex roles
may be undesirable is that attempts to adhere to them may lead to fear,
anxiety, loss of identity, and intrapsychic conrlict (Braverman, et.
aL~
'1972; Heilbl~un, 1965; Haccoby and Jacklin, ·1974),
Fifth, sex-
role traits are basically mythical, not factual (Maccoby & Jack1in
1974;
Y~chnes,
1973), and, therefore, may be impossible to incorporate
entirely by the persons who are supposed to be heir to them •
. The women•s movement has voiced the price that women may pay for
the feminine role; these costs are documented in psychological literature.
They are:
the devaluation of women in society; a lack of self-
esteem and self-worth (Bardwick, 1971; Bardwick & Douban, 1971;
Douvan, 1960; Douvdn and Ade1sen, 1966); anxiety (Burin in Batdwick,
1971; Guttman in Bardwick, 1971); depression (Bart, 1971; Silverman,
1968); lack of actual achievement
(Horner~
1969; Weistein, 1969);
sexual guilt and dysfunction (Koedt, 1970; Lydon, 1971; Masters &
:Johnson, 1971; Shulman, 1971); and alcoholism (Wilsnack, 1973).
More-
.._1,·
.
---
-~~----
-----
--
3
r··. - ..... ·-····-· ····· ·-·- -··· ....... ··- ......... ····-··--· ..... ···········-····-·-··
--· .---.-. ·-·-··· . . ····-- -- ····-· .
~ver, greater incidence of mental illness (Gove and Tudor, 1973;
---·-·~····
Chesler, 1972) and suicide attempts (Farberow and Schniedman in Gove
~
Tudor, 1973) have also been linked to female role assignments.
''
However~
it is not just the traditional female role which may
have disadvantages. Some sociologists consider that one should not
I
speak of 11 the problem of woman 1 s role in soC'iety 11 but of the "sex-role
broblem'' in order to emphasize that the problem also concerns the
traditional rr:a.le role (Palme, 1972, p. 240).
logical costs of the masculine role are:
Cet·tain social-psycho-·
crime and deliquency (Hub-
bard, 1970; t'!fty, 1970; Sexton, 1969; Steinem, 19/4); drug abuse (Port,
i954; Geis, 1970; Laskowitz, 1965); alcoholism (Chafetz, 1974; Drewery
~nd Rahe, 1969; Hoffman
& Jackson, 1973; McClelland, 1971; Rosen-
berg, 1969); early deaths (Chafetz, 1974; Jourard, 1974; Sexton,
1969); sickness and disease (Dodge &Martin, 1970; Holmes &Rahe,
1967; tdgh accidental mortal tty rate (Sexton, 1969); higher incidence
of suicide (Chafetz, 1969); sexual dysfunction (Brenton, 1966; London,
!~asters &
1974;
Johnson, 1971); mental illness (Coleman, 1972; Gove
& Tudors 1973; McClelland and Watt,
Martin, 1970;
Jarvis~
1~~6);
chronic stress (Dodge and
1975); developmental and learning problems
(Block. 1973; Cohen, 1973; Hartley, 1959; Sexton, 1969) and the pressure of the rnascul inity trap
{Bl~enton,
1966; Gagnon, 1974; Lester,
1969).
Traditional sex-roles not only affect people intrapsychically,
but interpersonally.
~oles
are:
Negative interpersonal effects of stereotypic
conflict between the sexes (Miller &Methner, 1971);
nability to 'love (Kasten, 1973; Miller' & Mothner, 1971); marital
4
unhappiness (Barnard, "!971); sexua 1 dissatisfaction and dysfunction
;
.U4asters
&
Johnson, 1970); rape {Offir, 1975; Selkin, 1975); com-
petition between women {Cardi, 1970; Miller, 1972) and alienation
i
between men (Brenton, 1966; Kasten, 1973; Miller, 1972).
Children's
'
~roblems and psychological disturbances are also linked to sex-roles
(t·1iller, 1972; Pleck
&
Sawyer).
Even the fundamental social issues
pf our times such as peace (Brenton, 1966; Ellsberg, 1973; Mednick &
Tangri, 1972; Miller, 1972; Steinem, 1972; Stone, 1974) and the
~urvival
of the planet (Blake, 1969; Davis, 1967) are said to be
connected to the existing traditional sex-role assignments.
It is apparent that adherence to traditional sex-roles may be
extremely costly.
According to Block (1973), in order for both men
a.nd wo1i1en to achieve their maximum individual potential a.nd persona·!
maturity, conventional sex-roles must
practices must be changed.
femin·ine,
11
the
behaviot~al
b~
redefined and socialization
Through the integration of masculine and
and experiential options of men and women
a1ike vii 11 be broadened and enriched and (everyone) can become more
truly whole, more truly human" (Block: 1973, p. 526).
Changing
stereotypic sex-roles may also alleviate many of the traditional problems and counter-productive patterns in relationships.
Alternative
theories of relationships are being preferred to counteract the sexrole symbiosis commonly found within the institutions of marriage and
:the family (Bern & Bern, 1970; Giele, 1971; 0 1 Nei11 & O'Neill, 1973;
i
'Osofsk_v & Osofsky, 1972; Rossi, 1969).
The char,ge which is most
apparent in all of these alternatives is a redefinition of the tradit;·ional sex-ro1e stereotypes.
5
~-·~···
.
However, despite the overwhelming evidence of the detrimental
bffects of the stereotypic sex-roles and the positive effects of the
!
!integration of the masculine and feminine roles for both men and women,
!
research indicates that counselors and psychologists upheld traditional
1
~ttitudes toward sex~roles (Braverman, Braverman, Clarkson, Rosen:
krantz & Vogel, 1970).
In a landmark study, Braverman, et. al.,
~1970) indicated that clinicians are significantly less likely to
attribute traits which chal~acterize healthy adults to a woman than they
are to attribute these same traits to a healthy man.
Thus, women are
forced in the double bind of being both a healthy woman with one set
of attributes and a healthy adult wi.th another set of attributes.
Research, moreover, indicates that counselors work from a stereotyped
framework and tend to push their clients into certain directions
because of their own sex biases (Schlossbetg & Piettofessa, 1973)o
Carlson (1972) has noted that current personality theories -psychoanalytic theory, social learning theoty, developmental theory and
humanistic psychology- tend to present a largely masculine account
of
personality~
Doherty ( 1972) not m·,1y cha 11 enges the sexual bias in
personality theories but also in the underlying assumptions as well as
methods of research investi gat·i ng sex differences.
Sex-Role Stereotyne
-·---------~-·-¥-··X--
The most extensive discussion of this term is found in a 1972
appra i sa 1 of sex-role ster·eotypes by Braverman, et a1.
sex-role standurds (also, stereotypes) as
n~rted
11
They define
the surn of socially desig-
behaviors that differentiate between men and women;'' "the con-
5
~ensual beliefs about the differing characteristics of men and women
~Braverman, et al., 1972, p. 60). Their investigations conclude that
is a tendency for masculine characteristics to be nore positively
~here
valued than feminine characteristics.
I
•
~ra1ts
Positively-valued masculine
form a cluster entailing competence, rationality and assertion;
~ositively-valued
feminine traits reflect warmth and expressiveness.
!'
~ex-role
definitions are incorporated into the self-concepts of both
men and women.
Moreover, sex--role differences are considered desire-
able by college students and healthy by mental health professionals.
The Braverman, et al. (1972, p. 60) assessment states:
Traditionally, psychologists have uncritically
accepted sex-roles as ess~ntial to personality
development and function ••• The positive values
of sex-role standards have rarely been questioned~
Recently, however, investigators have exPressed concern over possible detrimental effects
~f sex-role standards· upon the full development of
capabilities of men and women (Blake, 1958; Davis~
1967; Hartley, 1961; Horner, 1969; Maccoby) 1963;
Rossi, 1964). Traditional sex-role patterns are
also being chal"lenged by tlte new Feminist movement.
(p.60)
Despite the chal1t.'nges to sex-ro)e stereotypes, the most recent
research confirms the existence of pervasive and
pers~stent
sex-role
stereotypes.
SEX ROLE DEVELOPt<1E:NT
It is likely that a person's sex role development and sex role
behavior are, in
part~
explicable in biological terms, but the extent
.to which this is the case is not at all clear.
It has been argued that
___ ,)'!,·_
7
;People possess an inherent somatic sexuality which organizes their
;psychosexual development.
However, it has also been argued that we
I
:are essentially psychosexually neutral or undifferentiated at birth
'and are mentally neither male nor female.
!
l
.~."!..C!l!?l!ls=_<D_ B~_s is of Sex Differences
The not·ion that masculinity and feminity have constitutiona·l
origins has been accepted for thousands of years.
As recently as the
'last century, major theorists held that there were twc basic constitutional types with minorvar·iationso·
Krafft-Ebing (1922), for example,
believed that there were male and female brain centers, though there
\'·las little evidence to substantiate this theoryo
This biological line
of reasoning is argued in the more recent work of Braverman and his
.
co-workers (Braverman, Klaiber, Kabarjaski
& Vogel, 1968), who main-
tain that known sex differences in cognitive abilities reflect sexrelated d·ifferences in physiology.
These authors survey evidence
which indicates that sex differences are reflections nf divergencies
in relations bet\-:een
11
adrene,~gic
hibitary 11 neural processes.
activating'; and "cholinergic in-
These processes are, in turn, said to
be sensitive to the sex hormones, androgens and estrogens.
Basic
biological gender differences, they say, influence performance of
simple perceptual-motOl' tasks like typing {at which females are
superior) and inhibitary restructLH'ing tasks like problem-solving
(at which males are superior).
Another demonstrat·ion of biological substr·ata are studies show·ing
8
:that sex differences exist at birth.
l
:neon a t_E:s__ I"E~Y~<!ls _that __ th~-
The work of Moss (1967) with
-~~_;)_E;_s_pQs$_~:5~-d.iJfe.rent"i al
patt.erns. ..of.re-
1
iac:tiv:Lty __CJ,i:, __p_irth, gir1s being more susceptible to r.;omforting than
i
',boys, and mothers, in turn, tending to spend less time nurtudng the
I
I
:more irritab-le boys.
:
The relationship between mothers and female
j
reonates is thought to be more mutually rewarding than the relationi
~hip
between mothers and male neonates.
Several investigators have
sex differences in neonates, including the demonstration that
~hown
ina 1e ·infants are, on the average) larger in every dimension and have
relatively more muscular development (Garn, 1958), are more active
(Knap,
1946)~
and seem to have a higher pain threshold than do female
·infants (Lippett & Levy, 1959).
Garn and Clark (1953) have also
shown that males have higher basal metabolism rates than do girls,
suggesting different energy levels.
A series of studies by Bell
(Bell, 1963; Bell & Costello, 1964; Weller &Bell, 1965) indicate
that female infants are more reactive to tactile stimulation and exhibit higher skin conductance than male infants.
The transition from physically based to psychologically based
models of sex r·ole development is most readily accomplished through
the theory proposed by Freud.
His psychoanG lytic approach, heavily
grounded in biological concepts, is one of the earliest and most
comprehensive psychological theories of personality development.
E~~ hoa!l'!l.Y_tj_f_The o2.
Regardless of the form in which it is presented, psychoanalytic
th~ory
makes the critical assumption that a predetermined relationship
~.L__---
9
:
~xists
between the nature of men and women.
Freud assumed that there
i
~re sex-related differences in aggressiveness, dependency, jealousy,
~nd
passivity.
These differences were thought to represent emotional
'
response to unconscious fears and impulses about genital differences.
i
.
Thus, men possess a greater sense of justice than women because of the
~reponderance
of penis envy in the lives of females; female narcissism
0as viewed as a compensation for this presumed sexual inferiority of
women.
Modesty was seen as originating from a desire to hide the
deficiency of female genitals.
According to Freud, direct pen·is envy
9r some compensatory defense mechanism is the constant determining
factor in the deve1opment of the female personality.
Freud maintained
that this relationship between biology and psychological identity
persists throughout development.
Writing in 1933 on this subject,
Freud observed:
'
••• she clings for a long time to get something
like it (pewis), and be1ieves in the possib-Ility
for an extraordinary number of years; and even at
a time \'1hen her know1 edge of rea 1·1 ty has 1~mg s i nee
led her to abandon the fulfillment of this desire
as being quite unattainable; analysis proves that
it still persists in the unconscious, and rntains
a considerable charge of energy." (pp. 160-161)
Thus, whether explaining the felilale's greater sense of modesty or
the male 1 s superiot' sense of morality, a direct correspondence is as·..
sumed between bio-logical and psychological differences.
Accord·ing to Freudian theory, the major differences between males
and females evolve during the Oedipal stage of development, when sexual rivalries between the child and its parents force the child to
identify with the same-sex parent.
It is the process of identification
10
\-1hich ensures the acquis"iton of appropriate male and female traits.
Thus, Freud's conception of the development of sex-role identity is
dominated by the proposition of a unitary mechanism which establishes
masculine and feminine identity in the first years of life, and pet!
~ists
unchanged throughout development.
In Freud's view, fema·le assertion is neurotic behavior stemming
'
from a phal'lic fixation, Oedipal conflict or a "masculinity complex. 11
Freud felt females were biologically inferior, eternally suffering frbm
Lrnconscious penis envy.
Only within the child·-rearing role could the
normal woman be assertive.
~oman's
This apparently has led to the view that
assertive professional and political activities are neurotic
w.anifestat·ions of competition with males.
A similar view of women
that stems from Freudian theory is the notion that the so-called
vagina 1 orgasm is a prerequisite for maturity in \vomen.
The research
6f Masters and Johnson (1966) has presumably helped dispell this
bther psychoanalysts view women in a similar way:
n~th.
Deusch (1944)
wr·otE! that the norma·l female is innately passive and masochistic, and
these traits can only be overcome developmentally by narcissism.
Such
characteristics are not limited to women, as case studies show, and are
thought to be the result of conditional learning.
An alternative psychoanalytic formulation of masculinity and
femininity has been introduced by Erikson (l960)o
In an effort to go
beyond the Freudian emphasis on penis envy, Erikson postulated that
'
the nature of both the male and female sexual organs lead to distinctly
different ways of orienting in the vmrld.
These orientations cor-res-
pond to differences in the male and female personality.
Thus, the
11
r. -·
--···-·-·-·-· ·-·····-------· --·---- ···-·- ·--· ··-··---·-··· -- --··· ··- ·-·-· ----- ·-· ··- -----------. -·--·· --------· --·- --·· -
!
~xternal,
intrusive nature of the male sex organ is presumed to cor-
i
:respond to an active, pragmatic Ofientation which is known as
j
space. 11
11
outer
According to Erikson, this basic masculine orientation is res-
ponsible for the progress as well as the potential destruction of western technological society.
~nt
The female body, with its internal, expect-
reproductive system, is assumed to correspond to the gentle, peace-
ful and static orientation known as
11
inner space." This basic orient-
ation is thought to predispose the female to commit herself to the
love of a man and to the care of their offspring.
In short, Erikson's
central thesis is that the male and female sexual topography corresponds to the basic personality schemata which becomes the defining
attributes of masculin-ity and femininityo
Erikson makes less clear
the process by which physical differences are translated into personal ity schemata.
11
In some instances, the connection between
11
inner' 1 or
outer" space and masculinity-femininity appears to be symbolic or
I
metaphorical, while at other points, Erikson appears to be arguing in
functional evolutionary terms.
Insofar as they are attempting to highlight the
~exual
aspects of
'personality functi ani ng, both Erikson and Freud pas tul ate a pr·edeter~ined
relationship between the nature of male and female biology and
later psychological function.
§_ocj~1 Learn i!l9_]_heor_,t
If psychoanalytic theory may be said to assume a relationsh-ip
between anatomical differences and psychological functioning, social
learning may be said to assume a correspondence between external events
--
#,·
---
-
-
12
r --~-
--~-
-·~<"------ ~ ----~-
·----- ---
-------~----
-------------------- -------- ----- -- ----- ----
--------------~-------
,
hnd internal psychological functioning.
-------------------------- ---------------- ----
The social learning position
. i
asserts that few, if any, sex differences in personality exist that
are not a function of learningo
t~lasculinity and femininity reflect
rorms and values which are internalized by children through direct
~ultural
transmission.
According to social learning theory, masculinity and femininity
'
I
are not the simple results of birth as a boy or a girl.
Gender is as-
to the child at this time based on the biological sex and the
~igned
child
is subsequently treated as a member of that sexo
i
In accord with
cultural prescriptions regarding the manner in which boys or girls are
viewed, different attitudes are evidenced toward children of different
I
.
'
kexes, and different behaviors of children are reinforced.
The set
of rules established for the child is based on the proper sex role,
l
and the aim of the parent is to provide reinforcements which bring
~bout
the adoption and assimilation of the proper role.
Sears (1965)
~rites, "Once society has agreed on a gender label, the gender-approp-
ri5lte fotms of behavior must be learned by the ch-ild 11 (p.l33).
Implicit in the above statement is the idea that therP is nothing inherent in the child that in an absence of reinforcement will give rise
to sex-appropriate behaviors as prescribed by society.
Hence, approp-
riate sex role development presumed to result from sex designation
'
at birth and the subsequent training practices and modeling experiences
that are intended to result in the shaping of the behavior of the child
o that specific masculine or feminine qualities will emerge.
Unfortunately, social learning theory overlooks many complexities
n sex role-development.
A number of sources of variability may dis-
13
;·-·-·-----·-··-
-··-·--· ---·-··-··-"·---····- .. --·
···-····--·----
·---·-- -·· .------· -·--·-·-·-···· -·----·-------·--···---- -·--------- ---------····
turb homogeneity in sex role learning.
For example, ascriptions to
sex role are not necessarily clear and unchanging, but may vary as a
function of culture and of subcultural expectations within the same
society.
In the expression of aggression, differences in sex role
expectations are found among the lower and middle classes in our own
.culture, with greater freedom being allowed in the lower socioeconomic
group.
Additionally, parents and peers evidence a great variety of
~expectations
regarding the qualities expected of an individual.
Last-
; ly~ the nature of masculinity and femininity involves a highly complex
set of personality variables which are not yet completely understood.
'In
t~e
behavioral repertoire of both boys and girls are the disposi-
ftions to respond to similar situations in ways that are not gender'specific.
I
There are numerous situations at various developmental
.levels in which male-female responses are not clearly differentiated
(e.g., male and female vocational pursuits), and consequently there
~are
some classes of behavior and preferences that do not readily fit
'role expectations.
Not~ithstanding,
sex role development does take
place to a satisfactory degree in the majority of individuals.
The
child learns that appropriate sex role behaviors are those for which
only one sex is typically rewarded.
For example, intuitive-feeling
behavior may be viewed as present in both sexes, though categorized
as sex-appropriate for females in our culture.
As a result, such
:behavior is encouraged (that is, reinforced) in females, but not in
'males, although the conditioning of such behavior in males is not
.necessarily aversive.
It is likely that these behaviors are rewarded
i.
'with different frequencies for each sex, and thus each sex tends to
14
i" -"-""" """ ____ ""-""'"" -"""--"""'•"" ____ "_"_" __ - --- •""""' "''"""' "•" "'''"-"--"-'" -"-""""""'-""" --·"'"-- '""--""" """'"' --- ...... --" -·-"""" "" ""' •'""" ·- "'""
~isplay
such behaviors with different
fr~quencies.
Sex-inappropriate
i
;behavior, on the other hand, is 1·ikely to be punished and hence it
I
~sually
!
diminishes in strength and frequency (Mussen) 1969, p. 713).
The social learning theory of sex role development emphasizes
I
;di ffercnti a l employment of rewards and punishments cont ·in gent upon
\
'the child's sex.
The processes considered in social learning theory
are based on this manipulation of punishments and rewards, which
'produce sex-appropriate behavior within the context of family, friends,
i
or peers, with subsequent generalization of this learning.
~on
The adopt-
of sex-appropriate behavior is reflected in the increased freqency
with which such behaviors occur in the repertoire of a boy or girl.
Following this initial learning, a new and more powerful method of
acquiring sex role occurs through imitation learning--the observation
of an appropriate model's behavior resulting in the acquisition of
I
additional and complex behavior patterns.
Finally, the most complicated
sex-appropriate patterns of behavior are gained by the developing
child without evident reinforcement by other agents.
'
.
This has led
social learning theorists to postulate the mechanism of identification,
termed identificacy learning.
This mechanism ·implies that the child
develops a drive or motive to be like a model, typically the parent
of the same sex.
1958)
As certain learning theorists {Mussen, 1969; Kagan,
have suggested, identification occurs in the context of an ·
intimate, satisfying relation between subject and model.
is a stable and enduring sex role identity.
The outcome
~.·
--~,·
----
-----~
15
Cog nit i ve-Dev~!QE_melJ!._ Theor;~
Social learning theory does not deal explicitly with the cognitive
~evelopment
of individuals--with the things people say to themselves
about their sex roles.
Kohlberg has developed a theory of sex-typing
based on cognitive development,
~sts,
and~
as with the social learning theor-
Kohlberg's approach is non-biological£
Kohlberg (1966), influenced by Piaget, said that self-categor-
·ization of 9ender becomes the fundamental organizer of sex role.
Ac·.'
cording·to Kohlberg, recent research indicates that:
Children develop a conception of themselves as having an
unchangeable sexual identity at the same age and through
the same processes that they develop conceptions of
the invariable identity of physical objects. The child's
sexual identity is maintained by a motivated adaptation to
phys i ca 1-soci a l rea 1ity and by the need to preserve a
stable and positive self-image (p. 95).
Kohlberg suggests five ways in which the child's sex-role concepts
'
develop into masculine-feminine values: (1) the tendency to schematize
interests and respond to new interests that are consistent with the
old ones; (2) the tendency to make value judgements consistent with a
self-conceptual identity; (3) the tendency for prestige, competence, or
goodness values to be clearly and intrinsically associated with sexrole stereotypes, e,.g., the associat·ion of masculinity with the values
of strength and· power; (4) the tendency to view basic uniformity to
l
one's own role as moral as par·t of conformity to a general socio-moral
or·der; and ( 5) the tendency to imitate or mode 1 persons who are va 1ued
because of prestige and competence, and who are perceived as like the
self (Kohlberg, 1966, p. 111).
In other words, the individual tells
himself/herself: I am a girl or a boy.
I will watch other girls or
16
:boys behave, and I will behave in like manner"
This selection of
:behavior from ~ex-role stereotypes leads to the development of mast
:culine/feminine values in children, but sex typing is thought to take
:place prior to the point where the child learns these concepts.
Kohlberg clearly descr·ibes how boys and
git~ls co~Jhitively
cate-
:gorize their behavior as being appropriate for their sex, and he sug'gests that the person also strives to be relatively self-consistent.
Considering the vastness of the categories male and female, there
I
·endless \vays of being consistently a boy
at~
a girl.
ar~
Kohlberg's only
:allowance of additional causes for being made within categories is to
:sa.y that. a child 1 s sex role may be influenced by certain environmental
:variables.
!
He does not value the importance of the same-sex parent in
'shaping sex roles, and says,
11
It is not at all clear ~~hether certa·in
parental attitudes can create appropriate sex-role attitudes.
In fact,
certain parental attitudes may create conflict and anxieties inhibit,ing the deve 1opment of appropriate sex-ro 1e attitudes. 11
Kohlberg says that after masculine/feminine values are required, the child tends to identify with same-sex figures.
This
process is the reverse of the sequence in social learning theory in
which identification occurs first, followed by
development of
~asculine/feminine
values.
modeling~
and then the
While Kohlberg 1 s cognitive-
consistency theory serves to explain how individuals select new sex;linked behavior after they have reached the stage of concept formation,
.it does not deal with the effects of the rewards and punishments which
~re
directly ad1ninistered in the
enviro~ment
or the development of sex
typing that takes place before formation of self concept.
17
Self concept formation involves development of attitudes about
sex-appropriate behavior.
To clarify the reiationship between attitudes
I
and concept formation, Zimbardo and Ebbsen (1969) suggest an attitude
has three components:
I
I
~omponent
affect, cognition, and behavior.
The affective
is an invidivual •s emotional response to some object or
person; the cognitive component is an individual •s beliefs about, or
factual knowledge of, the object or person; the behaviorJ.l component
is the individual •s overt behavior toward the object or person.
three components can be measured differently.
The
The affective component
can be measured by self-rat·ings of beliefs or self-reports of kno1·1ledge
about the topic.
The behav·ioral component can be measured by the dirEct
bbservation of behavior.
It is clear that the measures of cognition will differ in a given
individual.
In a classic study, Asch (1946) was able to show that sub-
jects would shift their cognitive attitudes about the length of lines
fairly dramatically if their reports were discrepant from those of the
others in the group.
that
over~
Ori the other hand, there is much evidence to show
behaviors are much more difficult to change.
Thus, for ex-
ample, it is much easier to change an adult 1 s cognitive attitude to
ui think it is fine to combine motherhood and work,'' than to change the
behavior so that a woman becomes a working mother or the spouse of a
working wife supports her work wholeheartedly through behavior change.
Brody (1965) studied the relation between maternal attitudes and
ch"i"ld··tearir.g sty1eso
Only seven out of fifteen constructs espoused
by mothers correlated with their actual behavior.
l-Ienee, there was
only a one-out--of-two relationship between expressed materna 1 att it-
18
'
~des
toward child-rearing and direct ob~ervation measures of the
mother' 1 S behavior tm'lard the child.
1
Thus, when we think of the func-
!tions of attitudes, we must avoid considering changing cognitive at;titudes as leading directly to changing overt behaviors.
i
'Summa~t__Qf_]Jieories
of Sex Role Q_s:velopment
This discussion began with a consideration of the degree to which
biological factors are important in the development of sex roles.
i
,Clear·ly, ·if one believed that sex roles are determined by Mother
Nature and that our current sex roles represent the natural order of
things, then one would be very pessimistic about
change~
If, on
the other hand, sex roles are thought to be primarily a function of
~ocial learning or cognitive development, then all that is required
would be the restructuring of the social order - changes in child
.
rearing, educational institutions, and so ono
All three positions - psychoanalytic theory, cognitive theory,
and social 1ear·ning theory - hold that much in the development of sex
roles is learned behavior which starts at a very early age.
However,
'psychoanalytic theory is deeply grounded in biological bases for differences in gender identity.
typ·lng
begins when the child
,jjl am a boy" and therefore,
analyt'ic thecY'ists
and
The cognitive theorists claim that sex
telL~ himself/herself~
~'Imust
nl am a gjrl''.or
/_.-.-·~··-~
behave in a certain wa.y. 11
Psycho-
social leatning theorists hold that sex-typing
commences at birth when the child begins to imitate highly re1varding
and nurturant role
.tated behaviors are
n~dels,
primarily the parents.
t~einforced
Some of the imi-
and others are punished, depending upon
~.·
-------
19
i·-·-·-- -----·------ . --------·-··--·------------------- -------------------
fhe sex of the child.
"1
sex
The constellation of behaviors which relate to
roles are those involving dependency and aggression.
Dependency,
:passivity, and showing vulnerability all tend to be allowed to girls
i
i
•
.and den1ed to boys.
I
~etting,
On the other hand, aggression, negative attention
physical strength, and toughness tend to be allowed for boys
;
~nd denied to girls.
;
Social learning theorists differ from psycho-
'
analytic theorists in contending that a number of significant models
;influence the child's behavior--mother and father, the media, teachers~
~nd
friends.
In addition, social learning theorists hold that children
of e·lther sex are familiar with the behaviors allowed to the
~nd
othel~
sex
need only to be in a situation where these behaviors are rewarded
in order to exhibit them.
_Psych,9.l9_gj c:a 1
AndrQ_gx_~
In his book The Duality· of Human Existence, Bakan (1966) conceptualized two
~istic
11
fundamental rnoda1it·ies 11 which he argues to be character·-
of all living
for~s:
agency and communion.
Agency is concerned
with the organism as an individual and manifests itself in self-protection, self-assertion, and self-expression.
Communion, according to
Bakan, is descriptive of the individual organism as it exists in some
larger organism of v1hich it is a part.
Communion manifests. itself in
the sense of be ·j ng at one with orther organisms.
descriptive
lnodel
Bakan went beyond the
and conceived a developmental approach in which the
fundamental task of the organism is "to try to mitigate agency with
.communion (p.
14)~
11
Unmitigated agency represents evil; viability
for the inchvidual and fm" society depends on the successful integration
- - - -~.·
-
-
-- - -
-
~.
20
i
'of agency and communi on •
.
I
In Bakan 1 s scheme, the integration of agency and communion for men
i
:requires that self-assertion, self-interest, and self-extension be tem'
I
;pered by considerations of mutuality, interdependence, and joint well
:
lfare.
For women, integration of communion with agency requires that
the concern fm· harmonious functioning of the group, the submersion
1
I
:of self.
The importance of consensus characteristic of communion be
.amended to include aspects of agentic self-assertion and self-ex,pression -- aspects that are essential for personal integration
i
I
:and self-actualiztion.
The concept of
psychologi~al
androgyny has been predicated on the
:assumption that it is possible, in principle, for an individuai to be
!'
both masculine and feminine, both instrumental and expressive, both
jagentic and communal, depending upon the situational appropriateness of
!
the various modalities.
It is assumed that an individual is able to
blend these complementary modalities in a single act.
One is able, for
example, to fire an employee if the circumstances warrant it, but one
is able to do so with sensitivity for the human emothns that such an
'act inevitably produces.
The possibility that a single individual can
embody both masculinity and femin-inity has, of course, been expressed.
by others as well.
Jung (1953) described the anima and an·imus which he
:believed to be present in us all.
;
Perhaps it is possible for people to be both masculine and feminine, but traditional sex roles prevent this possibility from ever becoming a reality
t~omen's
fot~
Liberation
many individual so
~1ovement
Over the last few years, the
has made us all av1are of the many ways that
21
···-··-.. -i
. - .. ------. --
>-----------------·····---~
fears and weaknesses.
•"""·---------
--------- ------- --- ------------- -----···- ------·-·
But there has been very 1ittl e data vlithi n psy-
chology to give legitimacy to these experiential truths.
The goal of
much research to date has been to gather some of the legitimizing data
!in demonstrating that traditional sex roles restrict behavior in impor:tant human ways.
Although there is no previous research which bears on this hypo.thesis directly, a review of the relevant literature nevertheless cor. roborates the underlying assumption that
not be desirableo
a_~igh
level <)f sex-::t)lping may
High fem·ininity in females has consistently been
·correlated with high anxietys low self-esteem and low social
accept~nc:~
• (e.g., Consentino & Heilbrun, 1964; Gall, 1969; Gray, 1957; Sears,
· 1970; Webb, l963)o
Although
high·-· . masculinity
in··-·-····males
has
.--- -.. .... ··- ---·..
,., ·-- ...
.,
, rel atgd during
adql~scence
.
-.-.--
·- -~ ., ·-'
'
·-·
-·· ... , '
"""""
.--
..
'''"•"'
"'""
....
~~~n
cor-
vJith better. psychq l qgi <:;aJ. i:lcijustm~nJ ,0'1t!ssen,
, 1961), it has been correlated during adulthood with high anxiety, high
'neuroticism, and lew self-acceptance (Harford et al., 1967; Mussen,
• 1962)..
i
In addit·ion, gr·eater irJtel.lect.~al.A~X~},<>prnerlt t1a,s.,~~enc()r~·
related consistently w"ith cross
------··----------·--------
- ----· •-·-.v-» •'~''-"'•"
-~-=---'""'A
sex~typing,
iee., VJith masculinity
.. ____,,...... •'•' ..,.,-- '"""""""""""'"·"···-~-
:girls and \'1/ith femininity in boyso
Boys and girls who are more
• sex-typed have been found to have lower overall intelligence, lower
spatial abil"ity, and lower creativity (rv1accoby, 1966).
·jn
------
--
---
~.·
22
Operationally, this study will be limited to those aspects of
;sex-role stereotypes as measured on the Sex-Role Questionnaire, an
l
iinstrument that assesses current individual perceptions of 11 typ-
;
·iccl.l 11 masculine and feminine behavior (Rosenkrantz, et al., 1968;
!
1
Broverman, et a1• , 1970; Braverman, et a1 • , 1972).
i
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The review of the literature has demonstrated some of the detri:menta 1 e·ffects of sex-ro 1e stereotypes.
It is suggested by some
authors that these stereotypes need to be modified so that each
,indi vi dua 1 wi 11 have the option of an androgynous 1"ife style (Block,
1973;
Miller~
1971, 1972; Osofsky a.nd Osofsky, 1972).
This study wili
investigate the degree to which stereotyped attitudes concerning sex
roles can be affectedo
One question raised in the study is whether
a multi-discipiine college course on human sexuality (co-taught by
five professors 5 each from different departments - anthropology) biology,
psycho-logy~
re.iigious studies, ::nd sociology) can bring about
-substantial change in students• sex-role stereotypes.
A second ques-
tion is whether the attitudes about female sex roles will be more
significant'ly affected than those about male sex t'oles.
Previous studies on the effects of didactic college courses on
,stereotyped attitudes have shown 1it.tl e change (Fern berger, 1948;
Murphy~
et aL, 1937; Smith, 1975; Young,
1927)~
These courses differ
from the course used in the present study in that they primatily involved the lecture format while the course in this study utilized
23
f --
..
-------- --·-·-···· ---- ·-· ·-·-----------------
~iscussion groups.
'
l
~ality
The present study hypothesizes that the human sex-
course with the use of discussion groups will significantly en-
hance the students' grasp of the subject matter and this understanding
will result in a change in sex-role stereotyped ideas.
If this hypo-
thesis is correct, it may provide a format for changing other stereotyped ide as
pl~evi ous ly
thought to be impervious to extern a 1 influence.
the hypotheses of this study are:
!
l)
Students enrolled in the present human sexuality class will change
their beliefs concerning male and female sex roles.
2)
The femininity response scale will change more than the masculinity
response scale for both men and women subjects in the direction of
less stereotyped attitudes.
Inherent in the stated hypotheses is the expectation that the
!
human sexuality class will sensitize the subjects to sex-role stereotype issues, and that dissonance reduction will broaden the attitudes
of the students about sex-role stei"eotypes.
Such a f·inding wou-ld mod-
ify previous f-indings that college-aged students are too old to exper'
.
ience attitude changes (Murphy et. al., 1937).
,.),"
-
----
--·
-
24
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
SUBJECTS
The subjects were 52 students currently enrolled at California
State Univers'ity, Northridge.
The experimenta1 group consisted of 26
students participating in a class in human sexuality.
In this
group~
there v1ere 19 fema 1 es and 7 rna 1es ranging in age from 18 to 37.
The subjects in the control group were enrolled in several courses
~ith ·in the university (i .eo, bi o1ogy, anthropo 1ogy, psycho 1ogy,
sociology,
and
re-ligious studies).
Subjects \vere selected from this
population in order to match for major, sex, and age.
There were
eight males and 18 females in this control group ranging in age from
17 to 36 ..
INSTRU~1ENT
An abridged
·fOl~m
of a sex-role stereotype questionna·ire, (see
Appendix A) described by Rosenkrantz et al. (1968), was used to
measure the subjects' self-perceptions and their perceptions of males
and females.
Briefly, the questionnaire consists of 55 bipolar items
each of wh·i ch describes, vJith an adjective or a short phrase, a
particular behavior trait or characteristic such as:
Not ctt all aggressive 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 Very Aggressive
Doesn•t hide emotions 1. .. 2 ... 3 •.• 4 ... 5 ... 6.•• 7 Always hides emotions
at all
One pole of each item can be characterized as typically
i
hmsculine, the other as typically feminine (Rosenkrantz et al.,
On 38 items, 75 percent or better agreement occurred as to
1968).
I
I
l
which po·le characterizes men or women, respectively, i_n both a sample
i
hf
college men
et al., l968)o
and
in a sample of college women.
These items have been defined as
(Rosenkrantz
11
stereotypic 11 •
In a pr·ior· study, (Rosenkrantz, 1968) judgements ''!ere obtained from
'i
~amples
of subjects as to which pole of each item represents the
n~re
~ocia11y desirable behavior or trait for an adult individual in
;
general, regardless of sex.
On 27 of the 38 stereotypic
items~
the
masculine pole was found to be roore socially desirable (male-valued
itemsL aild on the remawing
n
stereotypic items, the feminine pole
~epresents the more socially des i rab 1e one (fema l e- 1.'a 1ued items) o
These items are shown in Table l.
The remaining 17 undifferentiated
:items were excluded from any further consideration.
'
INSTRUCTIONS
Each subject was told that the experimenter was interested in
people 1 s expectations concerning otherso
~magine
The subject was instructed to:
that you are going to meet someone for the first time, and the
'
only thing you knm'l ·in advance is that he is an adult male.
of things
~'/ould
What sort
you expect? The subject was then instructed to place a
slash on each rating scale, and an Mabove each slash, indicating what
26
Table 1
Male Socially Desirable and Fema1 e Social Jy
Desirable Stereotypic Items*
Nasculine Pole
Nale-valued items
Not at all aggressive
Very aggressive
Not at a11 independent
Very independent
Verv 0r.oticnal
Not at all emotional
Does not hide en:otions at al1
Almost always ilides emotions
Very sur j ecU ve
Very objective
Very easily influenced
Not at all easily inflLenced
Very subm·i ss i ve
Very dominant
Dislikes math and science verv much
likes math and scir.nce very m•Jch
Vet·y excitable in a minor crisis
Not at all excitable in a minor crisis
Very passive
Very active
Not at a11 co"'petitive
Very co~ilpetitive
Very illogical
Very logical
Very home-oriented
Very ~torldly
Not at all skilled in business
Very ski 11e:d in business
Very sneaky
Very direct
Does not kno\v the 1~ay of the ~1orl d
Knov1s the WctY of the 1vorld
Feelings easily hurt
Feelings not easilv hurt
Not at all adventurous
Very adv~nturous
Has difficulty rr~'lkirg decisicns
Can make decisions easily
Cries easily
Never cries
Alr.~st never acts as a leader
Almost always acts as a leader
Not at all self-confident
Very self-c~nfident
Vel'Y uncomfortab 1e about being agg·res- Not at all uncomfortable about being
sive
aggressive
Not at all ambitious
Very ambitious
Unable to separate feelings from ideas Easily able to separate feelings from
ideas
Very dependent
Not at all dependent
Ver·y conceited about appearance
Never conceited about appearance
Female valued items
Very ta 1kat i ve
Vuy tactful
Very gentle
Very ahare of .feelings of others
Very religious
Very interested in own appeuance
Very neat in habits
Very quiet
Vet·y strong need for security
Enjoys art and 1iteratlll·e very much
Easily expresses tender feelings
Not at all talkative
Very blunt
Very rough
Not at all mffire of feelinos of others
Not at all religious
Not at all interested in 01'/n appearance
Very sloppy in habits
Very loud
Very 1itt l e need for secul'i ty
Does not enjoy art or literature at ail
Does not express tender feelings at all
'*This table is from Braverman et al. ("1970).
L.
27
I
'he/she expected an "adult male 11 to be like (masculinity response).
l
,When the subject finished this
rating~
he/she was told to go through
!
the scales
1
i1
second tirr.e, this time imagin-ing that he/she \'las meeting
I
'
.an
11
a.dult fema1e 11 for the first time.
The subject was told to place
his/her slashes according to what he/she expected an
11
adult female 11
1
i
;to be
like~
~esponse)e
to
and to make his/her ratings with the letter· F (feminin·ity
When the subject had finished, he/she was instructed
proceed through the scales a final time and to rate himself/her-
self accord·ing to what he/she was like, identifying his/her slashes by
~he letter S (self response).
Instructions to rate the male and fe-
male were counterbalanced in presentation.
In all cases,
self·~ratings
were made last, since it was desired that self-ratings be made in
'reference to the two previous r-atings.
In this way, a self rating in-
dicatec: a per·ceived differ·ence (or similarity) between the self and
members of the same or opposite sex with respE:ct to a g·i ven trait.
NORr~s
Responses to the Braverman Sex-Role Stereotype Questionnai1·e have
been obta. i ned from more than 509 men and 503 women, both married and
single, with a wide range of educational levels and ranging in age from
17 to 60 yearso
Male and female subjects were divided by sex into
three age groups, making a total of six groupso
Within each groups
the proportion of 5ubjects agreeing that a given pole was more characteristic of men or of women, was calculated fo1· each item and all items
on which agreement differed (Braverman et al., 1968)o
28
r-:--·- ----- -------------- ·----- :----------- ----
----- --------- - .-----·----- ------- ---- ------···-- --- ---·-·- --- ------
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
.
I
I
!!
I
The Braverman Stereotype Questionnaire has reasonably high internal
I
reliability.
The correlations of odd with even items based on 150
!subjects are for
male~valued items;
e81 (masculinity response), .83
:(femininity response), .89 (self response).
For female valued items,
.the correlations are: .80, .. 58, .72, for the mascu'linity, feminity,
!
:and self responses respectively. (Rosenkrantz et al. 1968).
Since the questionnaire was designed to be a research tool for
~investigators of consensual patterns of perceptions in the sex-role
'
,areas;
it is not a test of these patterns that requires validation.
:were there to be a test, the consensual patterns would be the assumed
·validating criteria •
. DESIGN
The present
st~dy
used a 2 X 2 design (experimental versus control
group X male versus female subjects)~
The dependent variables were
.the responses to the Braverman Sex-Role Stereotype Questionnaire
'v1hich measures three factors:
Perceptions of female sex roles (femin-
ine response); pet'ceptions of male sex roles {masculine response); and
self-ratings of one 1 s own sex role attributes (self
response~)
The
• sex-role questionnaire was administered in the beginning of the human
sexuality course (pre-test measure) and again near the end of the
. semester· (post-test
mE~asure).
Both pre- and post-test scores were
summed Rcross cases within each of the three response categories.
29
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
The ra\'1 data was summed across cases on the three factors (masculine, feminine, and self response) and a mean was derived for each
In order to establish the homogeneity of the sample, cor-
factor..
'related t tests \'Jere used to compare the pre-test scores for both
l
J
'experimental and control groups.
A significant difference was found
:between the experimental and control groups on pre-test scores.
This
difference was corrected for by employing analysis of covar·iance.
In
.essence, the pre-test scores for both groups were statistically equal'ized.
A probability level of p = .05 was chosen as the significance
level because of the
explm~ator·y
In comparing the data
~Y
nature of this study.
a) main effect (pre- versus post-test);
'b) group (experimental versus control); and c) sex of subject (male
:versus female), the significant result found was that of the masculine
:response.
This significant
differenc~
in the masculine response was
found in both the main effect comparison (p = o006) and the group
,comparison (p = .002).
No other significant difference in sex-role attitudes was found.
:Therefore, the
i
fil~st
hypothesis, which predicted that there would be
·a change toward less stereotyped attitudes as a result of the class
in human sexuality, was supported only by the affect on the rnascu.linity
' sea 1e (how men and \'Jomen view the rna 1e ro 1e).
The second hypothesis,
·which predicted that the feminine response scale would change more
.
i
-··-···--
--~---------·-··
--~·----
·---- ---
-----·-·-
~--
... -·-··-----------. ..
·-·----·--·-···-
-~-----
--- ··----
...
!than the masculine r·esponse scale was contrad·icted.
In other \'lords,
!
inot only was there no significant change·in the feminine response
i
!scale, but a significant difference occured in the masculine response
i
iscale.
-
--~-----
32
---- ·-·---------~-~-----------------·- ------· ·-----------·-
------~
-····-----------------·--·--·-··-·---------··--·--
--
·-···-·--·-········---..-·-
---·-·.
--·.
------- ·--·--
..
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
There is a conflict between the overt laws and ethics existing in
our society and the covert but real customs and mores that significantly shape an i ndi'vi dua 1 1 s behav·i or.
ibility in the prescribed female
masculine role.
t~ole
Women are afforded more f1 ex-
than men are afforded in their
Enormous overl a.p undoubtedly exists between the sexes
:with respect to behavior and personality traits.
However, women pos-
I
JSess traHs of logical ability,
objectivity~
independence, etc. to a
;greater degree than men possess characteristics of emotionality, ex:pressiveness, etco
Thus, \'lhile American society cont·inually emphasizes
·equality of opportunity and freedom of choice, social pressures to\'Jard
conformity \'lith the sex-ro 1e stereotypes tends to restrict the actua 1~
ization of personality of each individual.
The present study provides
:evidence that students accept these sex role stereotypes, at least ·im··
, plicitly.
By accepting the stereotypPs, they help to perpetuate them.
, REVIEW OF THE STUDY
This study was designed to measure the effects of a class in
,human sexual-ity on the stereotyped thinking about sex roles among a
·college population.
· 1)
Two hypotheses were proposed in this study:
The experience in the human sexuality_ class vwuld cause a conver-
.33
·-·l
gent effect on stereotyped thinking among both men and women sub-
I'
jects.
2)
Judgment about the female sex role would, after the human sexuality
class, be more convergent than judgments about the male sex role.
The instrument which \vas chosen (the Braverman Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire) measures men•s and women•s beliefs concerning their
perceived sex roles.
'
[EV_!\LUATION OF FINDINGS
The findings of this study indicate that the human sexuality
;course brought about a change in the subjects• sex-role attitudes on
the masculine response scale.
However, no effect was evident
•the feminine or self response scales.
on
either
This suggests that stereotypic
'attitudes about the male role are more susceptible to change, in both
men and women, in an educational setting than the attitudes about female roles.
The contE.mt and/or format of the educational experience
·is a relevant factor in this change since no comparab-le shift in at•titudes was found in the control group which was enrolled in courses
1
in which sex roles were not discusseda
This finding seems to coritra-
diet the hypotheses of Young (1927) and Fernberger (1948) who suggest
that emotionally charged opinions (such as those of sex-role stereo;types) are, by their nature, deep seated and therefore difficult to
!-
:change.
34
r-·--
-----··----·-·---- --------------
--~-----~----
r~en and women in the present study differed in that whi1 e women
i
!
'did not change theil~ view of women's roles men unden1ent a sign·ificant
i
F:hange in their view of men's roles.
A possible explanation can be
i
btfered to interpret this finding.
In general, men are less aware of
I
the costs of sex-role conformity than are vJomen (Heilbrum 1968). In
.
'
addition~ the present SOC1at restriction of the male roie alluws fewer
I
~
I
response alternatives for the expression of mascul·inity.
i so 1a ted in terms of sex
1~0 1e
~·1en
at~e
more
alternatives and experience more peer
pr·essure to maintain trad-itional sex role identity (Brenton 1966).
The
i
human sexuality class afforded men and women more opportunity for exploration of alternative sex role beliefs and behaviors for men than
i
they may have previously experiencedo
I
As a result, less stereotyped
attitudes were ascribed to the masculine ro1P.
It is interesting to
note that even though there was a significant sh'ift in perceptions of
male roles, men did not change their perceptions of themselves.
In contrast to the perceptions of the masculine role, the feminine sex-role did not change, perhaps because current social conditions
afford women more opportunity to view sex role alternatives and thereby allows a greater rang2 of sex-role behaviors, beliefs, and identity.
With the recent movement for women 1 s 1i ber·ati on, they may be more free
from traditional sex-role attitudes
5
thus seemingly more inner-direct-
ed, less conforming to outer definitions and, therefore, more self-act-
~alized than meno
Consciousness-raising groups began in the women's movement as
discussion groups for womeno
groups as a forum to examine
More recently, men have adopted these
theh~
· ma 1e image, to break out of sex-
35
!role stereotyping nnd to examine their focus on \'/Omen a.s primarily
I
\sexua·l (Farren, 1975). Homen have long s·ince been mote in touch with
!their~ feelings and their ro1es as disadvantaged and detrimental, but
I
I
!it has only been recently that men have allowed themselves to be in
!
!touch with their feelings and are becoming a\·'lare that their sex.-role
!
!identity is as oppressive as the females' role is for ·women (Sarachild,
I
h971).
The confusion over the appropriate sex-role behavior presently
~xperienced
by
l
both men and women indicates a great need for a new
j
~efinition
of the sex roles.
It must be recognized that sex-role
related problems in our society are on the rise and all indicat·ions
II
$how these problems will continue to rise over the next few years.
Therefore, the importance of sex role problems and how they affect
male-female relationships must be stressed, especially ·in courses on
human sexuality.
At this time, certain questions must be answered if and when men
~nd
women are to gain greater insights into their own natures and the
~ature of the opposite sEx.
The data overwhelmingly suggests that
commun·ication between the sexes, as to what they want for themselves
and for each
othet~,
has been no more effective for men than for women.
It mo.y be that higher· education sharpens the confusion for contemporary
men and
v-wmen~
The conflict may be in the tradition of society- indus-
trialization, technological change, the steadily increasing use of
women
as a productive part of the work force, urbanization, the break,
down of the family and the resultant and concomitant stresses of everyday living (Seward, 1971).
Finally, a possible cause of male-female
l
~onflict may be related to psychological and social development of
';'
.men and \'/omen in a rapidly changing society.
''
j
LIMITATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The lack of significant effect in comparing some
'
attitudes could be attributed to several factors:
~f
the sex-role
the low response
'
'
~ate
to the questionnaire, the age of the respondents, the lack of an
explicit consciousness-raising format and the limitations of the
questionnaireo
'
The low response rate to the questionnaire in this study is shown
in that only 26 out of more than 200 students enrolled in the course
participated in the experiment.
These 26 students do not necessarily
constitute an unbiased or representative sample of the students in the
class.
The age of the students could have been a factor in the lack of
significant results.
have been found to
High school students, but not college students,
respo~d
in the predicted direction to materials
presented (Murphy et al., 1937). Thistle (1975) observed some movernent ·in attitudes among graduate students in encounter gr·oups.
format v1hich Thistle (1975) found· to be most effective \'lith
uate students was the consciousne_ss-raising formatp
he1~
The
grad-
She found those
students who were in these groups reported:
1)
~lore
pos-itive attitudes towards the women•s liberation movement;
37
r---- ···-··· ·····- -·---·-······-·········- .... ···--·· ----···
i
i
2)
More convergent thinking on the usually stereotyped sex-roles such
as
dominant~
assertive, and aggressive behaviors for both sexes;
and
b)
I
30 more similar perceptions of females and males in terms of
I
i
emotionality.
Perhaps·the format of the class in the present study was less effective
,than is possible for the purpose of attitude change.
Finally, the limitations of the instrument itself may have contributed to the lack of significance found herein.
Smith (1975)
found that reported successes in attitude change in sensitivity groups
depended more on the ·instrument used to measure that change than
any other single factoro
on
And though Thistle (1975) did report change
using the same instrument used here, Braverman (1978) stated that the
quf.!stionnaire had not been designed to measure change on repeated
a.dmi ni stt'a tions.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One distinct improvement on the current study wou.ld be to gain
the cooperation of the professors ·involved so that they would require
or at least urge their students to reply to the questionnaire.
A more
cr·uciu.l improvement would be the use of a consciousness-raising format
in the class
.rJ.tid'
expetientially-oriented discussion groups.
Another
38
variation within this context is suggested by Thistle's (1975) study
in which she divided her subjects into
mixed-sex groups.
s~me-sex
groups as well as
This variation of the independent variable of sex
could be easily accomplished in the weekly discussion groupso
REFERENCES
Bakan, D.
Jh~_
Duality of Human Existence.
Chicago:
Rand t1cNa11y,
1966.
Balswlck, J. Oo, & Peek, C. W. The inexpressive male: A b'agedy of Am._...
erican society. __
Family
Coordinator, 1971, ·20, 363-368.
_,.________
J~ & Douvan 9 E.
Ambivalence: The socialization of women. In
Gornick, V. & !"loran, B., 1~omen in sexist society: Studies i~·,:er
~nct pm·1ex1 e:;~ne~2_.
New Yorr:-·s·as fc-Books~-r97T;--14i~TS"9-.---·
Hardwick,
·
Barnard, J.
Moran.
The paradox of the happy rna.- riageo
~Jomen
In
Gornick~
Vivian f,
in sex·ist society_, 1971, 99-ll7o
Barrett, C. J., Berg, P.I., Eaton, E. M., Pomeroy, E. Lo Implications
of women's liberation and the future of psychotherapy. Psychothera[Jt_:Jheory, Research and Practice, 1974, 11, 1l~i5. - - - ;
Barry, Ho, Bacon, M. &Child, I. A cross-cultural survey of some sex
differences in socialization. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 1957, ~' 327-332e
-Bart, P. B. Depression in middle-aged womena
19TI , 99-117 ..
In Gornick & Moran,
L. & Bern~ D. La Training the woman to know her place: The
power of a non~·conscious ideo-logy. In Garskof, M. tL Rol,::s
\'l'omen p!0.y: Readings toward vwmen 1 s liberationo Be1mot1f~-Talif­
m;;riia :-Brcioks-Co1 e Pub·i i st1ing -Compilny ~-1971':-
Bern~ S~
E. f't, & Cohen, L. R. t~en and women: Per·sonality patterns
and cont1·asts. Genetic P~chology t~cn~graph;;_, 1959, 5~, 101-155.
Bennett~
Biller, H. A multiaspect investigation of masculine development in
kindergarten age boys~ G~D~_t i c Psycho_l ogy_J1.CY1Q_graphs, 1968:1 ?.§._,
89-138.
B'l'ller, H. & Borstelmann, L. Mascu"line development: An integ·,·ative
review. t~lerrill-Palmer Quarte.!:.lz_, 1967, .l~-' 253-294.
Block, J. H.
tudinal
Conceptions of sex role:
prosp(~ctives.,
Some cross cultural and longiAmerican Psycho10tjist, 1973, 28, 512-526.
Brenton, Ms Jhe -~~~1eri~~ male~
1i cat i ons-:-1 966"
Braverman, Do
~i~
Greenwich, Connecticut:
Persor.al communicat-ion,
Narch, 1978.
Fawcett Pub-
40
'Braverman, L K., Braverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. L, Rosenkl~antz, P.,
·
& Vogel~ S. Ro· Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of
mental health. Journal of Consl!]ting Psxcholo_9L, 1970 9 34_, 1-7.
Braverman, I. K.~ Vogel, S. R., Braverman, D. M., Clarkson, F~ Eo &
Rosenkrantz, Po So Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal.
aournal ..9f Social !_ssues_, 1972, 28, 59-78u
Brown, D. G..
~~1asculinity-femin·inity
Bl~own,
Sex-role development in a changing culture.
1958, 54, 232-242.
.?...!. Cons~ting
D.. G..
~~llJ~~D~,
development in children.,
Psychology, 1957, 21_, "!97-202"
Journa 1
Psycho1ogica·l
Caffrey, B. Factors involving interpersonal and psychological characteristics: A review of empirical findings. In Social stress and
cardiovascular disedse, The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1967
(April), 45(2)~ 119-139.
·
Carkhuff, Re R~, & Berenson, B$ G. The counselor is a man and a woman.
_Personnel and Guidance Joui'na 1; 1969, 48, 24-28.
Cheek, F. E.
Jou~!.'~!
A serendipitous finding:
. _of
Abnorrna l
an~
Sex roles and schizophrenia.
Soc i ~l~cJl£l.£9X.~ 1964, 69, 392~400.
C'l.:tr'ksull ~ i~. E., Voge 1 ~ So R., Brovermo.n, L K", Braverman~ De M~, &
Rosenk1~a.nt.z, P. s..
Family size and sex-role stereotype. Scien~~'
1970, ]2]_, 390-392.
Deaux, K.. , & Taynor, J.
·
works two v.rays.,
Evaluation of male and female ability:
Psychological Reports, 1973, 32, 261-262.
De\,ltsch, H. Jhe psycho 1o_gy of It/omen
New York:
1944, p. 138, as cited in Brenton, i966o
9
B·ias
Grune & Stratton,
D·iamond, N.. A critical evaluation of the ontogeny of human sexual
behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology, 1965, 40, 147-175.
Douvan, Ee
Sex differences in adolescent character processes.
1960, §_, 203-211.
Merrill-
_Pa~er .Q_y_~terl)~,
Ehrlich, C. The male sociologists• burden: The place of women in marriage and family texts. Journal of t~arri.~-~--'"'!.nd the F~~~il£., 1973,
_33' 42'1 "' 430.
Ellis, L. J8, & Bentler, P. M. Traditional sex-determined role standards and sex stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Socia ·1
Psycholo.g.t, 1973, 25_, 28-35o
Farrell, W. The 'liberated man--Beyond masculinity: Freeing men and
their Eelati_onshiPSJvith I!Omen. New York: Bantam Books, 1975.
41
-·-~-·------~~---~--
;Farrell,~~.
--- ·-----·----------.....
··-
i~en's libel~ation.
--·------------------------------------- -·-----·-·· ---------
···- ..
- --··---
Scholastic: T_~cher.:_, 1973 (Nov.), 14-17.
'
'Fernberger, S~ Persistence of stet~eotypes concerning sex differences.
'
Journa 1 of Abnorma 1 and Socia 1 J:.?..ychcD..2.a}~, 1948 ~ 43, 97-1 OL
:Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N.
.
1973, 6, 90-98o
Psycho~
The young agressors.
Today,
-·
Fort, J. Ps
Heroin addiction among young men,
Psychiatr,t, 1954, Q,
25i-259.
Freud, S. J.hrce cqntriby_~ions to t~e theory of_2_ex (1_9..9.§lo New York:
Eo P, Dutton and Compnay, lnco,l962.
The relationsh·ip between masculinity-femininity and mani-·
fest anxlety. Journal of Clinical Psy_s:ho~, 1969, .?2_, 294··295c
Ga"ll, M.D.
.
Garai, J. E~ Sex differences in mental health.
.Q_graehs., 1970, ~' 123-142.
:Garn, So l•io
.
Genetic Psychology Mon-
Fat, body size, and growth in the newborn.
!!uman Biolog.x_,
1958, }0_, 265-280.
Garn, S. M~, &Clark, Lo C~ The sex difference in the basal metabolic
rate. Child Development, 1953, 24, 215-224 •
. Giele, J. Zo Changes in the modern family: Their impact en sex roles.
American Journa 1 of Orthoosychi_atry ~ 1971, .i!_~ 757·-766 •
. Gillespie, Ee Who has the power? The marital struggle.
·
!~arri age and the Fami "!.,t, 1971, 33, 445-·4580
.
.
T~~nsact ion,
' Go·! dberg, P. Are women prejudiced against women?
E_, 28-30 .
. Gornick, Ve, &Moran, B~
·
and powerlessness.
Journal of
Women in sexist society: studies in power
New York: Basic- Books:-1971
, Gove, W. R. &Tudor, J. F. Adult sex roles and mental illness.
can Journal of Soc_:iolog,t. 1973, 78, 812-835 •
• Graham, P.. Ao
Women in
1968,
academe~
Ameri-
Science, 1970, 169, 1284-1290.
,Grunebaum, f·t, ~,, Hu~witz, Io, Prentice, N.. M., & Sperry, B. M. Fathers
of sons w1th pnmary neurotic learning inhibitions. American
JQ_!!_rnaJ..-.2f_.Q_rthoesych i a tr1_, 1962, l?_, 462-412
0
Hacket, H" l'lo The new burdens of' masculinity.,
_Livin_Q_, 1957, JJ.., 227-23:->.
------
tvlarriage and Far!liJy
Hampson, ..1.. l o Determinants of psychosexu-al Ol''ientation.
In Beach, F.
42
(''~-------------
'
i
1
----
---------- ---
A. {Ede ).,
'----
-
-
-- ----------
----------------
Sex a.nd behavior. New York:
- '---
John Wi"ley & Sons, 1965,
108·-132.
~ampson, J~
i
:
L., & Hampson, J~ G. The ontogenesis of sexual behavior in
man.In Young, Wo C~ ( Ede), Sex and internal secretions. Volume II.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkin~, 1961, 1~01-1432.
Hartley, Rt E. Sex-role pre~sures in the socialization of the male
child$ Psychological R_eports,_ 1959, 5, 457~468.
R., E. A developmental view of female sex-role definition and
identif·ication. Nerrill_-Pal,!ller Quarterly, 1964, 10, 3-16.
Hal~tley,
j
Heilbrun, A. B.. Sex-role identity ·In a_dolescent females:
'
paradox. Adolescence, 1968, l' 79-88o
Hochschild, A. R. A review of sex-role researcho
Socio1_?_9X_, 1973, 78_, 1011-i029.
A theoretical
American Jotn·na l of
Horner, M,. So Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts
·
in women. Journa1 of Social Issue~, 1972, 28, 157-176.
Ingram, B. L. The negative psychological effects of sex-role stereo.
typing: Primary prevention in the elementary and secondary schoo-ls.
Uripub.lished manuscript, University of Southern California, 1975.
,Johnsor;~ \~ ..
Bo, & Terman, Lo M.. Personality characteristics of happily
married, unhappily married, and divorced couples. Character and
fers_C?.!:!~liJ:_x_, 1935, 3, 290-311.
-------
Jourard, So Mo Jhe transparent self! New York:
·
Co., 1971.
Kagan, J.
The concept of identificati_on.
Kagan, J ..
Check one:
Van Nostrand Reinhold,
Psy~hological
§_§_, 296-305.
Male, female.
Reports_, 1958,
Psychology_ Today, 1969,
Knop, C. A., The dynamics of nev;ly born babies.
1946, ~2, 721-728.
Journal of
-~s
39-41.
Pediatrics~
Knudten, R. D. Social-psychological causes of crime. In KnOdten, R.
(Ed .. ) Crjm? in a complex societyo Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey
Press,l970, 279~304.
Kohlberg, L A cognitive-developmenta1 analysis of children's sex-role
concepts and attitudes. In Maccoby, E. E. (Ed.). The development
of sex differenceso Stanford~ California: Stanford University
Press0%6-;82- '! t3.
Komarovsky, M$
·
Cultural contradictions and sex roles.
1946, 5~, 184- ·1 89.
p.f_~oc i o ~_Q_gy_,
American Journal
43
Komarovksy, M. Functional analysis of sex-roles.
Revi e\~-' 1950, ]2, 508-516 .
American Sociolo_gjcaJ..
.Komarovsky ~ f1. Cultural contradictions and sex roles: The masculine
case. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 873-874.
l
L«skov.titz, D$ Psychological characteristics of the adolescent addict.
In Harms, E. (Ed.). Drug addiction in youth. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1965, 67·~85o
.Linner, B. L,!hat does equality betv1een the sexes ·imply?
nal of_ __9_rthopsyclliatry2 _ 1971, !!.l.' 747-7568
American Jour··
London, I. Frigidity, sensitivity, and sexual roleso In Pleck, t•l. J.
·
H., & Sa\vyer, J. Men and mascu'linity. Englewood, New Jersey:
Prent~~e-Hall, Inc~;-197~~~43~ ~
Lye 11, Ro G.
'
values~
Adolescent and adult self-esteem as related to cultural
Ado1esc~r.ce, 1973, ~' 85-92o
Lynn, Do Bo Sex differences in identification development.
'
1961' £1_, 372-383.
Sociorn~t'Cl,
Lynn, Do Bo Parental and sex role identification: A theoretical formu 1at ion :-BerKe 1ey: f1cCl utchan Pub ·1 is hi ng-Corpora t ion, 1969.
~1accoby,
E. E.. (Ed.). T~e dey__eloR_~~nt__Q_f.sex_di_fferences.
Califoriria: Stanford Univers·ity Press, 1966e
Stanford,
Haccoby, Eo E., & Jacklin, C., N.. The psychology of sex differences.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974D
Naris, R., Social forces in urban suicide. Homevwod, Illinois:
- '1969, as cited ·--rn· Gove&Tudor, 1973-o
~1asters,
W.. H., & Johnson, V.
Churchill Ltd., 1970.
Human sexual
inade~.
Dorsey,
London: J. & A.
Mays, J. B. Crime and Social Class. In Mays, J. B. (Ed.)
its treat.!e_n(~Tow:ion :-L01lgii1a·n, 1970, 43-68.
Crime and
----
.McC1e11and, D~ C., &Watt, N. F. Sex-role alienation in schizophrenia.
·
~_Qurna 1 _
_Q_f. Abnor·ma 1 .J2.i:cho ·1 ogx 5 1968, _I}_, 226-239.
,McKee, J~ Po, &Sheriffs, A. C.. The differential evaluation of males
and females. Journal of Personality~ 1957, ~S, 356-371,
NcKee, J. P. & Sheriffs, Ao C. Men's and \'/Omen 1 s beliefs, ·idea 1s, and
self-conceptso Americ~.!!_\.1ourQa1 of Socio'lo_gx._, 1959, 64, 356-363.
44
~1ead,
~1a1e
Mo
New York:
t·1illett,
K~
and female: A study of the sexes in a cha__!lging world_.
t~entor, 1949·.
Sexual Politics. New York:
Doubleday, 1969.
Miller~ L1.
8. Sexua 1 i nequa 1 ity: Men 1 s di 1emma (A note on the Oedipus
complex, paranoia) and other psychological concepts)o American
Journal of Psychoanalysis_, 1972, l?._, 147-155.
'
;
Niner, J. B.. , & l~othner, I~ Psychological consequences of sexual inequality@ American Journal of Orthopsychiatr.y_, 1971, ±L,
767-775.
t~illman,
M. Observation on sex-role researche
an_d the Family, 1971, l_~, 772-776.
Journal of
t~1a.r.rias.§_
Mischel, Wo, & Liebert, R. M. The role of power in the adoption of
·
self reward pattel~ns. Child DevelopmE~nt, 1967, 38, 673~683.
Money, Jo Developmental differentiations of femininity and masculinity
compared. In Men and civilization: The potential of woman.
New York: McGravv-1-1111, '1963, 51-65.
t~oss,
H. Ao Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant interaction. r~et'ril1-Pa1mer Quarter·lyo 1967, 13, 19-46.
Mm'lrer" 0,, H. Learning the8ry
· Ronald, 1950.
~ersona1ity
dynamicso New York:
Nurphy, G., ~1urphy, L.. B., & Ne~·1comb, T. M. Experimental and social
p_sycho1_s>gl_. New York: Harper, i937, 946-953.
~1ussen,
P., & Distler, L. Masculinity, identification, and father-son
· relationships. Journal _of Abnormal and Social Psychologyo
1959,
. 59, 350-356.
No, &O'Neill, G. Open marriage: Implications for human
service systems. The Family Coordinator~ 1973, 22, 449-456.
O'Neill~
Osofsky, J. Do, & Osofsky, H. Jo Androgyny as a life style.
CoQr~inatoc~ 1972, ~' 411-418o
Pa1me, 0. The emancipation of mano
237-246.
Journal of Social
Issues~
The
Family
1972, _28,
Parker, F. B. Self-role strain and drinking disposition at a prealcoholic age level. Journal <;rF Social Psycho1Q9.Y_, 1969, J.Ji,
55-61.
Pat~kec,
Go V. C.
check list.
Sex differences in self-description en the adjective
Educational and Psychological ~1~}~~ernent, 1969, _?2_,
45
:---- --·--·
l
--~--
--· ---- ---
--~---~------~-----
· -- -··- ·------- --------------- ------------·--·- ---·- --------.!------ ---- -·-·-· -.. -···- -· --- ------
99-113.
parsons, T., & Bales, Ro F. Family~· socialization, and interaction
·
process. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1955.
payne, DG E., & Mussen, P. H. Parent-child relations and father ·identi:
fication among adolescent boys. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psycho 1ogy, 1956, .§.?._, 358··362o
pheterson, G$ I., Kiesler, So B., & Goldberg, P. A. Evaluation of the
performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and
personal history. Journal of Persona'li_ty and Soc_}!:ll Psycholo_g_L,
1971' ]2_, 114-118.
Pleck, J. H., & Sawyer, ,J. ~1en and masculini_ty_. Englewood Cliffss Ne\v
!
Jersey: Prentice-Hall~~74.
B., &Stein, R. B. Is the grass greener on the other side?
In Safilios-Rothchild (Ed.) Toward a socioloqy of women. Lexington, Massachusetts: Xerox College Publishing, 1972, 14-23.
Polk~ B~
Rahe, Ro H,, Meyer, M., Smith, M., Kjaer, G., &Holmes, To H. Social
stress and illness onsete Journal of Psy~hosomatic Researc~, 1964)
8~ 35-44.
Riley, M. W., Johnson, M. E., & Babcock, s. s. Woman's changing occu~a­
tional role: A research report .. The American Behavioral Scientist, 1963~ 33-37.
C. r~. Determinants of psychiatric illness in young people.
British Journal_of Psychiatry, 1969, ]_~, 907-915.
·
Rosenberg~
Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, s., Bee~ H., Braverman, L Ko, & Braverman, Do
· M. Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students.
· ---·Jour·~al of Consultinq and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287-295.
-----...);-·
Rosenthal , R., & Jacobson, L Pygma 1ion in the c1ass room: Teacher
expectations ~~upils' intellectual deve"loprnent.. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, Winston, l968o
-~-
Rossi,
A~
So
Sex equality:
The beginnings of ideology.
Humanis!_, 1969,
29_, 3-6 & 16.
Rudy, A. J..
1969~
l'
Sex~role
perceptions in early adolescence.
Adolescence,
453-470.
Rutherford, E. E. 1\ note on the relation of parental dominance as a
decision maker in the horne to children 1 s ability to make sex-role
discriminations" Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1969, _114, "185-191.
46
-------·-·--·--· ----- ·--·· -··--- -------- ~
·-·
----··· --~-------.
---····-------···
--------
..
----- -~--- ----------·-- ------------
Safi*lios-Rothchild, C. TovJard a sociolOJ!L Of women. Lexington, Massachusetts, Xerox College Publishing, 1972~
~canzoni,
John Sexual Bargaining.
New Jersey:
Spectrum Books, 1972.
!
Sears, P. So, Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing.
·
Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 195/ as c1 ted by Rosenkrantz
et al. 1968.
Sedgwick, Bo R. The contribution of sex and traditional versus nontraditional role occupation on the perception of adjustment by
others. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973 (March), 33
(11-13)' .54990
Seyle,
H~
-
The stress of life .. New York:
Sexton, Po C. The feminized male.
as cited in Brenton, 1966a
McGraw-Hill Book Goa, 1956.
New York:
Vintage Books, 19695
Go H.. , &Larson, Wo Ro Adolescent concepts of social
sex roles in the United States .and the b,ro Germanies. Human
Deve1opn~n~, 1968, }l, 217-248.
Seward~
Ao C., & Jarrett!> R. f. Sex differences in attitudes about
sex differences. Journal of Psychology, 1953, ~§_, 161-168.
Sherriffs~
Sherriffs, A. C. &McKee~ J. P. Qualitative aspects of beliefs about
men and vmmen. Journal of Pel~sonality, 1957, 25, 451-464~
Silverman, Co The epidemiology of depressiono Baltimore:
Press, 1963.
Johns Hopkins
Smith, P. B. Controlled studies of the outcome of sensitivity training.
· Psychological Bulletin, 1975) 82, 597-622.
Smith, To Factors involving sociocultural incongruity and change: A
review of empirical f·indings. The Milbank ~1en1orial Fund Quarter·ly,
1967, 45 (2), 25-39.
Stengel, Eo §u~_i_sle and a-~~emot_~d suicide ..
as cited in Gave & Tudor~ 1973.
Stroller, R. J.
Sex and gender. New York:
Baltimore:
Pengu·in, 1969,
Science House, 1968.
Thistle, L. The effects of consciousness-raising versus encounter
·
and same vel~sus mixed sex groups on sex ro 1e attitudes and
self perceptions of graduate students in a counselor/psychotherapist training program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1975.
Vogel, S. R., Braverman, I. K., Braverman, Do M., Clarkson, F. E.,
47
&Rosenkrantz, Po So Maternal employment and perception of sexroles among college studentso Developmental Psxchology, 1970, l,
384-39"1.
~~ard,
W. De
Variance of sex-role preference among boys and girls.
Reports, 1968, 23, 467-470.
fsychQl~gical
Wellers Gq Mo, & Bell, Ro Q. Basal skin conductors and neonatal state.
Child Development, 1965, 36. 647-657o
':Kinde, Kuche, Kirche 11 as scientific law: Psychology
constructs the female. In Mofgan, R. Sist~rhood is powerful.
New York: Vintage, 1970, 205-220.
Weisste·in~
N..
C. Sex-role identity in female alcoholismo
Ab_normaJ Psychology_, 1973, 82, 253-261.
Wilsnack~ S~
Journal of
Xoung, D.. Some effects of a course in American race problems on the
race prejudice of 450 undergraduates of the Un·iversity of Pennsylvania.G Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho'log_,y_, 1927, 22,
235~242o
f --·-- ··----·---·-----···--·-· ----- -- ---- __,_______ --·-·····--·---..··--··--· -------··-··--··---- ------------·-- ---··-·-·
!
APPENDIX A
THE
BROVERMAN SEX-ROLE
STEREOTYPE QUESTIONNAIRE
49
1.... -·· -·
1L~OR
digit& o!
yo~r-Social
Security No.
Anthro;:>olo;;y
IHolor;y
Psychology
Rcli;;ious
i~
Last
(check one)
Sex:
r
H
Stu~~~s
Sociology
l!ndcclared
At;e:
r;;sn:.rc:rc:;s
\;-e '-"C:Jld like to kl1o•• sonctld.n; abot.:: ~·:-~n:. peo~le expect oth:!r ;:e:ople t'' ~!.
L~~binc that ycJ are £Oing to :-:-.cet sc~l:!c;:~ for :ne firs: t.~~-=~c, z.~1C ti~2 c~:~::
tha!. yot;. kno"w: ::,_ advance is t~1.::. i1e ~s c.::. ~d 1-:.J!. ~·
For exa::-~?~.::! 1 ._-:,at \:otd.C you c~.?i.!.::. ao.:::.~.,;L J~ic :L,i~~~~ :. !" ~ls ... :. .. ::~
~cul~ yoL cx~cc~?
c!
th~
cc!ct
r::=~
Stro~£ disli~e
l';l C2.CH S~2:c,
::!c:t::.:.·. :::.;t. a
for
..=;.];:<~.en:.:
1:..-::~r
Stro~:
M
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4.,~.5.} •• 6 •••• 7
the c.Jlor re::
~-~,:::
r
likiti~:
tr.c c.o;.ox; rcl:
EE.GI:; :iL::?..E!
l.
.....
j,
Net at .311 ag;;ressive
1•••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
,.._
i:-.C~pencl.ent
1 ..... 2 ..... 3- •••• ,4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
c-,,~ststent
1 •••• 2 •••• 3,,.,!. •••• 5 ••
~
all
·'i..l'-
3t
;\~t
ilt f
Jl
~..6.,
•• 7
L•••• .::.,,., ;,., ••• :. , •• , 5., .. E., •• ,-:
5.
6.
!~ot
Dv~:?::;
~t
&l~
net
realistic
b.~::c
;,.:'"'~.ays
Alt.C'·S t
e=.otio:1s
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 ••
at all
i.
l, •• .c: •••• 3 •• ,,4, ••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
Gcft:::Cs
,.~
•••• 5-1111116., •• 7
e:-.~;
Neve-r
0\o."':l
t,c l!(!f ~
(: 1·...·::.:; s
•·:.: ;:.. '_;-
t i.c:1 s
Cc·!cn~s
t-e:icfs
l.w •• 2 •••• 3 .••• 4•••• 5.,,.6 •••• 7
~.
Al~a~s t~i~~~
;-.c t irt.b
Xevcr t 1: ~ :1-;-; .. ~: ~ :·.c
before
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 .••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
1 ..... : •••• 3 •••• .:. •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
acl ir.;;
50
Pai:c 2
11.
Xot at a11
c~s1ly
Very
cn~il:;
1 •••• 2 •• ~.3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 .••• 7
in flu<'!~c-~j
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
\'t:!ry
Dislikes :::ath and
Gci.ence very ouch
1 •••• 2 .•.• 3 •.•. 4.~ .• 5 .••
Lik('s r:,.t:;
very mJ::;,
14.
Not at all reckless
1 •••• 2., .• 3 •••• ~ •••• 5 •••• 6 ••.
15.
Got at all excitable
in~ crises
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 ... ~6 •••• 7
~ c::i..si~
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
Very active
influenced
13.
16,
Very
17,
Very assertive
18.
~ot 2t all able to
devote self co~?letely
p~ssivc
~6
•• ,.7
~7
Very cxc:i~.::~~lr::
1, ,, ,2 •••• .3. ···'•· •• • 5 •.• ,G,,,, 7
to others
1•••• 2 •••• ! .... 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 ••.• 7
19.
Very blu:.t
1 •••• 2 ..... 3 •••• 4 •••. 5 •••• 6 • ••• 7
'20.
rcry rcu;;;
1 •••• 2 •••. 3 •••• 4 •• ,,5 ••.• 6 ..... 7
21,
!lc·t a~ .a:: hel;::ul
to otters
l •••• 2 •••. J ••
co;;;pe tit i ve
1•••• 2 •• , .3 ••. ~4 ••• ,5 •••. 6 •.•• 7
-~4 ••••
5 •.•• 6 •••• 7
Able tc C:-:o·.-c:::o sc.:
complete>:• to
ctiiers
\'cry
ge;~:
:e
to ethers
1•••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •• ~.s ... i6 •••• 7
23.
Very
2t..
\'ery ho:::e oriented
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• ~ ••.• 6 •• ,.7
25.
Not at a:: s;;.illed
in t-\..i si:&e ss
1•••• 2 •••• 3 .•.• 4 •••• 5.,,,6 •••• 7
illc~ical
clc~!r.;._nl
Very skillcc
business
1•••• 2 •••. 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 5 •••• 7
27.
Kn:··.·s t:-e .,;ay of
tbe \.·orlC
28.
Does no:.
of the "..:or 1·.:
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 ..... ~ •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
hurt
29.
~ot
30.
Not at. a:: a\:are oi
the fccli~iS of ot~ers
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •.•. 4 ••.• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
~ot
1•••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
3l.
at all odvcnturous
at all reliGious
,.,
-·~.
:::~
Feelin.;s e'"sil;:
r~~l!~:;:s r'a::'t
eZlsily r,;.;:-t ·
~~:-;o·. .;
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 ...• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 ..... 7
1 •••• 2 •••• 3•••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 ••
~.7
Very
a~vent~rc~s
Very
a~o.•a:-.:-
feel!~t;s
cf ~C.-2
of c: .. ;.;r~
Ver)' into.:;-c::tc.:: i:1
O'"-'n aprt.~:tr.::icc
51
Page J
33.
Can cake decisions
c.:;sl.ly
easily
34.
Gives
35.
l·:cv,:,r cries
.36.
Alees: never acts
as a
37.
l~eve
\lp
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 ..... 7
:;cvc:.r g1ve5 u~ casi ly
1•••• 2 •••• 3•••• 4 •••• 5 ••• ~6 •••• 7
Cries very
Al~ost
1•••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5.,.,6 ••
r t.:c-rried
~.7
Very ';uiet
~o.
!-;ot ~:. all
self -cc::£ i~e:':
41.
feels very
42,
Ah:.;ys
43.
l~c:
a sta:ic
ta~:es
l:ttle
v~ry
\'cry "lo;-;:::
\"r·::.:·
Ft.:~.~.!:
l, ••• 2., • • 3 • ••• 4. •• .5 •••• t. •••• 7
!;2-;E
ve:-:: ---·-=ri..C'r
r ta.:-:es a st..;.aC.
i:lt.c~ L
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• s .... 6 ..... i
n~2d
l~a~!C
:;a !.a;
..::z.:. . re:s:.;:.·.-e
fo~
45.
tO SC?a:::ate
ideas
feeli~iS £:::~=
1•••• 2 •••• 3•••• 4 •••• 5 •••• £ •••• 7
1..... :: •••• 3 •• •'&4 ••• -. s ..
(' .{; ..• "7
1.
t e
Ea5!lv
I
0
•
2• t
I
1
3• 1
1 0
4 e-
I
0 0
5
<!
•
6
-J
1
_, 1
7
: (. :2 :
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• t.. •• ,,5, •• ,6., •• 7
l., •• 2 ...... 3, .... 4 ••••
[n~~:..·s
s .... f ..... 7
:::.e:-G~~::::
r-.e~:
c:·::~t: ~ie:-:.ce
1 ..... ::. •••• .3 •••• 4 ••• ,5, ••• 6 • ., •• 7
\-·~:y
!·t::s::ess
Dc\:S
r;.c:t
a
~~o~:
se~arc:~
~ . .~ C ~ S
~:a:--. .:
1.,. ,: •, •• 3 ... ,, 4, ••• 5.,,. 6.,,.?
1•••• 2•••• 3 •• ,.4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
Vc=y
::
£ ;_·: ~-.
'-'-:!-~.. :-:~c:-.
Avo! C s
a:. all res.::less
a~lc
:. :-.; S
\'c:-y .;;:;;e:-.::ie:::.
49.
52.
~-:~1:-
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 ...... 6 •••• 7
:..e ;.:1g
secc.:::i:y
~:ct
~cts
a:. all ;.::::::;:::for-
lc .z: otl:.
a-gsrcssive.
t.:~
sc:.
al~~y.
Al~dvs ~o~r~~~
1 ..... 2 •••• :-> •••• 4 •••• s .•.. t.. •••• 7
i~ferior
c~~ily
!cace~
ss a
l •••• z•. ~.3 •••• 4 •• ~.s ... ~6 •••• 7
39.
(6,
t:.::~:.ia6 dec!..:.!.::::-.s
1•••• 2 •••• 3 •• ~~4 ••• u5 •••• 6 •••• 7
lead~r
38.
44.
!i.1s df fficul :y
1 •••• 2 •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
xcel~n;s
C:.V.?:-,::.::
~:
~::
:..e::~£2:"
easily
::~~cei:ed
a~~eara~:e
1•••• : •••• 3 •••• 4 •••• 5 •••• 6 •••• 7
l" • , , ::. , ... 3 ... , .. 4. , •• 5, ••• fi •• , , 7
F" r;..· ;~ :·::
1 ..... : •••• 3 •• ••''·•• .5 ..... 6., •• i
::ot ;!:
l ..... : •••• J ..... 4 •••• s . * •• 6 •••• 7
\'cry th:id
;:..ll :-..:,; . .·;'i~~i:.>l~
52
Page 4
No•w we: vould like you to r,o throu~h the.>e same scales for a second time;
agai.n ic:.>s.;inc that you are cectir:g a person for tllc first ti:.:c <J::c
the o:lly· infomatio:1 you r:..ivc is th.;;.t. she ls an r:~.:_~!t fe:r:3lt.:_.
l:~is tine,
please place a slash 0:1 e.:~c!:! scale acccrcin;; to 'l.:aat you ,,:oulJ c:-::c:ct an
.!£~..1 t !s.:.:.ZJ.le. to be 1 i~c.
?ut nn F ~Oove your scc0nG slash on cac:1 s~alc.
~~2. !:.£. ~ !!?.. E 2 ri-: ~ J.:.g..:,.
Finally, please go throu;;h these sa::w
.sc.~le.s
placi.:-l[; a slash on cac~, s::ale zcco¥di::; to
1 a':>ove the tl:ird slash o-;1 ~ach scale.
for a third
~·nat ~ 1:.~
a:~<:!
1...!.!5_S!_•
l::~t
rut
:i:.c,
.:~
r.~ace three slaz;iH!S
on each scc.le, and that you nave identified each slasf: \o.'i\.:h a le::.:.c:.
\olhcu you have finished, cheoci:. back tv make sure you r.<lve
1,
Briefly describe your reason(s) for enrolling in
2,
\,1Jat do you hope to leam frc.:! this course?
T'na."l;. you
t~is
course,