UNIVERSITY~
CA.LIFORNIA STATE
NORTHRiDGE
THE LEVEL OF SELF CONCEPT
AS A FUNCTION
OF
SEX -ROLE ID:8NTITY AND GENDER
IN COIJLEGE STUDENTS
A thesis submitted in par tia1 satisfaction of the
requirern.ents for the degree of Jvlas ter of Arts in
Education, EducationaLP sychology 1
Counseling and Guidance
by
-
Jeri V. Ruston-Benetato
January, 1979
Vicki Sharp, Adviso1·
California State University, Northridge
ii
DEDICATION
To
'ANDROGYNY'
I am not feminine
I a1n not a sex-object, a home-maker, compliant, dependent,
or inferior, nor do I conform to the 'feminine' rnold.
I am creative, courageous, autonomous, an achiever
and, I am bold!
I am not emotional, coy, cute or manipulative.
I am intelligent, logical, direct and assertive!
I am not masculine
I arn not dominant, controlling, driven and decisive.
I am not strong and silent, powerful and aggressive!
I love people, peace, poetry, art and flowers;
And I hate war, violence, coercion and powers!
I am not feminjne
I fight when attacked
and curse when I am mad.
I am not masculine
I am tender and compassionate
and I cry when I am sad !
I am not feminine, I am sometimes sexually aggressive.
I am not rD.asculine, I am sometimes sexually passive.
I an1. not ferninine.
I a1n not masculine.
I am androgynous !
Being human is my goal
To spontaneously live without a role.
I value uniqueness and indiyjduation;
Auton01ny, growth, and self-actualization.
To be silnply feminine or sirnply masculine has no meaning;
When one can strive to be a fully-functioning human being!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would, first of all, like to thank Dick Darling for his love,
..
mo1·al support, financial assistance and rnos t of all affording me
the opportunity of an equalitarian relationship.
I would like to thank those significant individuals who have,
not only influenced the development of this thesis, but also
enriched my life, in particular Linda Fidell of the Psychology
Departtnent, Jane Prather of the Sociology Department, Janet
Reynolds of the Psychology Education Department and, of course,
Dr. Robert Doctor, my Chairperson, Dr. Rie Mitchell, and
Dr, Vicki Sharp, my Advisors, for their interest, snpport and
guidance,
I would also like to thank Andy Lanto for his statistical
contributions through the intricacies of this resea.rcb_ presentation;
and last, but not least, my good friend, and typist, Mary Lou
Hoffman.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PRELIMINARY MATERIAL
DEDICATION • • • •
0
0
0
•
•
0
ACl<NOWLE DGEMEN TS.
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS. •
ABSTRACT. • • • • •
CHAPTER I
-
•
•
•
..
0
.,
•
....
0
•
.,
C'
0
0
•
0
•
0
•
0
~
0
vii
•
INTRODUCTION
1
Background To The Problem.
The Problem.
Assumptions.
..
• • • •
e
4
e
•
•
•
•
0
...
"
0
•
..
..
•
3
8
9
11
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self Concept As An Indicator Of
Mental Health. • • • •
...
...
Self Concept and Sex Roles • • • •
Sex Roles and Psychotherapeutic
Practices • • • • • • • • •
CHAPTER Ill -
D
•••••o;ooooo
Importance Of The Study. •
-
..
• • • •
Purpose Of The Study.
CHAPTER II
iv
v
0
•
iii
12
15
···~eCIOOO
26
METHOD OF INVESTIGA TIONI
Research Design.
•
.
........ ...
Setting and Sample. • •
v
•
•
•
Ct·
•
•
•
• 32
• 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS {Continued)
PAGE
Instrumentation:
A.
Tennessee Self Concept Scale •
B.
Bern's Sex Role Inventory •
33
~
36
A.
Tennessee Self Concept Scale
38
B.
Bern's Sex Role Inventory • .
40
Limitations of Instruments:
Scoring Procedures • • .
CHAPTER IV
-
43
DATA ANALYSIS
44
Findings and Interpretations.
CHAPTER V
-
CONCLUSION
Speculations.
• •
oo-cG•aooo
Recommendations For Further
Research. • • • • • • • • • o • o - e . o o • c
CHAPTER VI
- REFERENCES
vi
59
60
63
ABSTRACT
THE LEVEL OF SELF CONCEPT AS A FUNCTION
OF SEX-ROLE IDENTITY AND GENDER
IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Jeri V. Ruston -Benetato
Master of Arts
Education, Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
The purpose of this presentation is to investigate the role
of self concept level as a function of gender and sex type.
This
study is based on the premise proposed by Bern (1975) that mental
health doesn 1 t stem from living up to one's traditional sex role,
but rather, that the most flexible and complete individuals combine
the qualities of both masculinity and fe;mininity (androgyny).
vii
The Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale (TSCS) were administered to 132 ft·eshma:n college
students, of which 71 were females and 61 wet·e m.aJes.
Gender
and Sex type (i.e. Undifferentiated, Ferninine, lviasculine, Androgynous) were the Independent Variables.
Sel£ Concept components
(i.e. Behavior, Identity, Self-Satisfaction, Personality Integration)
and Total Positive Score (general level of self-esteem) were the
Independent Variables.
A 4 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance
was perfonned.
Self Concept was not affected by Gender; howevet·, there
was a S~.IQ?-}.fic1'-nt interaction of Sex-type (Androgyny) by Gender on
Self Concept (Identity).
Androgynous individuals scored si_g_nificantl_y_h:igher than
fernirtine and masculine individuals on '!The Behavioral Sel£1
in1portant component o£ self-concept.
1
an
Androgynous individuals also
scored higher on Total Positive Score than masculine and feminine
individuals, though, this diffe renee was not statistically s ignifi c::mt,
androgynous females scored higher than androgynous rnales,
Masculine r:nales scored higher than fe.·:n.inine fenJ.ales
on Total Positive Score, however, this was not statistically significant either.
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background To The Problem
The existence of sex role stereotypes, that is, beliefs
that men and women differ in many of their characteristics, has
been docurr1ented many times
(i.e.
Rosenkrantz~
1968}.
The
degree to which these widely held beliefs represent myth or reality
however, is less easily determined.
The existence of norrnative
sex role expectations guide parents 1 rearing of their children
and hence bring about sex differences which in to.rn confirm and
justify the continuation of these expectations.
Thus, learning to
be a 'psychological' male or female is one of the earliest and n1ogt
pervasive tasks imposed upon the individual by his or her culture.
As children grow older, sex differences bec01ne even more pervasive.
Kagan (1964) and Kor~berg (1966) have noted that the sextyped jndividual becomes motivated, during the course of sex-role
socialization to keep his or her behavior consistent with an internalized sex-role standard.
That is, the individual becomes moti-
vated to Inaintain a self-image as
mas~uline
or feminine.
Thus,
the individual.must suppress any behavior (attitu.des, thoughts,
J
2
feelings, etc.) that might be considered undesirable or inappropriate for his or her sex.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the process whereby
children come to be psychological males or females -the process
of sex-typing - has occupied the attention of psychologists for many
years.
What is surprising, however, is the implicit assumption in
most of this research that sex-typing is a desirable process; that
it is good for girls to inhibit aggression and for boys to inhibit
dependency; that little girls ought to concern themselves with
attractiveness and that little boys ought to concern themselves with
achievement.
Parson & Bales (1955), for example, believe that mascuJ.inity is associated with getting the job done or the problem solved;
whereas femininity is associated with an effective concern for the
welfare of others and the harmony of the group.
Similiarly,
Bakan (1966) has suggested that rnasculinity is associated with an
1
agentic 1 orientation, a concern for oneself as an individual; where-
as femininity is associated with a 'communal' orientation, a concern
for the relationship between oneself and others.
In addition,
Erickson's (1964) anat01nical distinction between 'inner' (female)
and 'outer' (male) space represents masculinity as a 'fondness for
what works, and for what man can make, and femininity as a more
'ethical 1 commitment to 'resourcefulness in peacekeeping and
devotion in healing.
1
Traditionally, the Social Sciences have considered mascu-
4
in the psychological literature.
The concept of psychological
androgyny implies that it is possible for an individual to be both
assertive and compassionate, both instrumental and expressive,
both masculine and feminine, depending upon the situational appropriateness of these various modalities; and it further implies that
an individual may even blen9- these complementary modalities in a
single act.
Sex-typing, for the most part, has been a bipolar measure,
with most individuals assumed to be near either the masculine or
feminine pole.
More recent conceptualizations (Bern, 1974; Spence,
Helmreich, and Stapp, 1975) have conceived sex-typing as bidimensional, with individuals assmned to have differing, and relatively
independent amounts of both masculinity and femininity.
Androgy-
nous individuals attribute high levels of both masculine and feminine
traits to themselves, while those termed undifferentiated report
low levels of both.
Bern ( 1975) found that when individuals engaged in
'inappropriate' or cross-sex activities; sex-typed individuals felt
more discomfort and felt worse about themselves.
She concluded
that psychologically androgynous individuals might be more likely
than either masculine or feminine individuals to display sex role
adaptability across situations, engaging in situationally effective
behavior without regard for its stereotype as more appropriate
for one sex or the other.
Her research suggests that rigid
adherence to narrow sex typing in either direction - masculine or
feminine creates a behavioral deficiency by restricting a person'.s
5
adaptability and self expression.
In fact, Bem believed that sex
typing may lead to poor adjustment and research appears to substantiate this.
Fen1inine women have been described as anxious (Cosentino,
&: Heilbrum, 1964; Gray,
concept (Sears, 1970).
1957, 1959; Webb, 1963), low in self
More recent studies support the idea that
feminine women have significantly lower social self esteem than do
androgynous and masculine women (Bern, 1977; Spence, Helmreich,
and Stapp, 1975; Wetter, 1975).
In addition, strong and biologically
consistent sex typing seems to have a negative effect on intellectual
development in children of both sexes (Maccoby, 1966).
Although
high masculinity in males has been correlated during adolescence
with bette:c psychological adjustment (Mussen, 1961), masculine
adult men tend to have more ego control, less dorninance, less capacity for status, less self acceptance, more need for abasement,
less self assurance, less sociability, and less capacity for intra-·
spection than men reporting masculine traits less strongly,
(Mussen, 1962).
A study by Harford et al. (1967) found masculinHy
in men positively correlated with anxiety, guilt--proneness, tough
poise, neuroticism, and suspicion; it was negatively correlated with
warmth, brightness, emotional stability, sensitivity, bohernianism,
and sophistication.
Despite these findings, it appears that therap-
ists continue to influence the perpetuation of sex typing, the
Brovermans (1970) for example, discovered that psychologists
adhere to the sex-role stereotypes and utilize them in making professional judgments.
They confirmed their hypotheses that clinical
6
judgrr1ents about characteristics of healthy individuals would differ
as a function of the sex of the person judged.
Characteristics
judged healthy for an adult, sex unspecified (pr·esumed to reflect an
ideal standard of health) resembled behaviors judged healthy for men
but, differed from behaviors judged healthy for women.
According
to these clinicians, a woman is to be regarded as healthier and more
mature if she is: n10re subn1issive, less independent, less adventurous, more easily influenced, less aggressive, less competitive,
more excitable in minor crises, more susceptible to hurt feelings,
more ernotional, etc. this was exactly the same description which
these clinicians used to characterize an unhealthy, imrr1ature man
or an unhealthy, im1Y1ature adult (sex unspecified).
The authors
concluded that an adjustment notion of health, plus the existence of
differential norms of male and female behavior leads to a double
standard of lYlental health.
Research conducted by this author ( 1974) revealed similar
findings.
For example, 23% of the therapists believed men and
wonwn needed different qualities to qualify as healthy individuals
(i.e. a wornan should be at ease with her feminine self, receptive,
contented and concerned with her marital status; a man should be
aggressive, have a strong sense of responsibility and be n1ost concerned with his job status.
86% believed that a man would find
greatest satisfaction in his career and 77% believed that a woman 1 s
high€s t fulfil11Y1ent was through marriage.
More recently, the
American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force revealed the
existence of sex bias and sex role stereotyping in psycho-therapeu-
7
tic practice (1975).
Unfortunately, these stereotypes are incorpor-
ated into the self-concept of the individual.
Women and men become
what they are conditioned to believe they should be!
Clinicians, in
reflecting these societal standards, do not create the dilemma in
which individuals find themselves, but they are a powerful influence
in perpetuating these sex-role stereotypes.
Stereotypically m.asculine traits are more often perceived
as socially desirable than are attributes which are stereotypically
feminine.
The fact that women (presumed to possess feminine
traits} do have lower social status than men in our culture, and
that both sexes tend to value men and male characteristics, values
and activities more highly than those of women has been noted by
many authorities (i.e. Brown, 1965).
The tendency for women to
denigrate themselves is evidence of the powerful social pressures
to conform to the sex role standards of our society (i.e. Goldberg,
1968).
It is this author's contention that sex typing restricts
behaviors, attitudes and feelings in very important ways and that
sex typing may be associated with a poorer self concept, particularly for females.
In a modern, complex society like ours, an indi-
vidual regardless of his or her sex, needs to be able to look out for
him/herself and to get things done.
In addition, an individual has
to be able to relate to other human beings as people, to be sensitive
to tqeir needs and to be concerned about their welfare, as well as
to be able to depend on them for emotional support.
Limiting an
individual 1 s ability to respond in one or the other of these two com-
8
plementary domains could be quite harmful to the development of
human potential.
It should also be considered that masculinity and feminity
taken to its extremes could become negative and even destructive.
Thus, the extreme of femininity could produce extreme dependency
and self-denial and extreme masculinity could produce arrogance
and exploitation (as will be discussed in the literature review).
Thus, for fully effective and healthy human functioning, both masculinity and femininity must each be tempered by the other, and the
two must be integrated into a more balanced, more fully human,
that is, an androgynous personality.
The possibility that a single individual can embody both
masculinity and femininity has been expressed by others as well.
Jung (1953) described the anima and animus which he believed to be
present in us all.
Bakan ( 1966) has argued that viability - both for
the individual and for society - depends on the successful integration
of both agency and communion.
Purpose of this Study
This research will attempt to investigate the relationship
between sex typing, androgyny and self concept.
It is hypothesized
that individuals with high degrees of both feminine and masculine
traits (androgynous) will have a better self concept than will sextyped individuals.
In other words, androgynous individuals will be
psychologically healthier than sex-typed individuals.
It is also
hypothesized that masculine individuals will have a better self-
9
concept than feminine individuals; and that undifferentiated
individuals (low on both masculine and feminine traits) will have
poorer self concepts.
Hypothesis
The Null Hypothesis states that there is no significant
difference between the level of self concept of androgynous, masculine and feminine individuals.
The Alternate Hypothesis states
that androgynous individuals will have a significantly higher level
of self concept than either masculine or feminine individuals.
Assumptions
Numerous stuides have indicated that individuals who are
rated high in personal effectiveness (considered to be well-integrated or self-actualizing) are likely to have an optimal self-concept.
Fitts (1972} found a positive cor relation between self -concept and
self -actualization.
Abraham Maslow (1939 & 1942) found, contrary to traditional notions of femininity and psychoanalytic theories, that the
more ''dominant" the woman, the greater her enjoyment of sexuality,
the greater her ability to give herself freely in love.
Women with
dominance feelings were free to be completely themselves, and
this was crucial for their full expression in sex.
They were not
feminine in the traditional sense, but enjoyed sexual fulfillment
to a much greater extent than the conventionally feminine women
he studies.
It appears that the more "dominant" women that
Maslow studied tnay have been androgynous or masculine rather
10
than sex typed.
Later Maslow { 1968) proposed that individuals who are
more self-actualizing are more able to realize their true potentialities and to function in a more creative and effective manner.
He found that positive self concepts are associated with fullyfunctioning individuals.
Rogers {1951, 1961, 1969) sees the fully-
functioning person making more effective utilization of his total
organism in all spheres of activity.
Similarly, Seeman { 1959)
maintains that, with persons who are high in personality integration, each of the organism's subsysten1s --perceptual, cognitive,
physiological -- functions more effectively, as does the total
organism.
Bern { 1975) demonstrated that androgynous subjects of
both sexes display "masculine" independence when under pressure
to conform, arid "feminine" playfulness when given the opportunity
to interact with a tiny kitten, in contrast to nonandrogynous subjects who were found to display behavioral deficits of one sort or
another.
A more androgynous view of oneself has been found to be
accompanied by greater maturity in one's moral judgments
(Black, 19 73) and by a higher leve 1 of social self-esteem (Spence,
et.al., 1975).
Jones, Chernovitz, and Hansson (1978} found that androgynous or masculine females exhibited 1nore positive attributes than
feminine females.
11
It is the hypothesis of this research presentation that
androgynous individuals would be more fully--functioning, and
self-actualizing and thus exhibit a better self concept than sextyped individuals.
ln addition, it is a sub-hypothesis that mascu-
line individuals would exhibit a better self-concept than fetninine
individuals.
Importance of this Study
In education as well as psychology many theorists have
emphasized the importance of self-concept in regard to personality,
learning, and counseling.
According to Fitts ( 19 72) no variable
appears to be more consistent in its association with behavioral
competence than self concept.
If rigid sex roles do inhibit behav-
ior, and possibly contribute to a poor self-concept; and if therapists are operating under the assumption that a strong sex-role
identity is indicative of a healthy personality; then teachers, counselors and psychotherapists will need to re-evaluate these
assumptions.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self Concept as an Indicator of Mental Health
Fitts (1965a 11 1965b 11 1965c and 1970} and Fitts et.aL,
(1971) see the self-concept as being related to performance in two
ways- -indirectly as a correlate or index of self -actualization$ and
directly in its own right.
In the latter sense, the person who has
a clear 11 consistent 11 positive and realistic self-concept will generally behave in healthy 11 confident, constructive and effective ways.
Suchpersons are more secure. confident and self-respecting,
they have less to prove to others; they are less threatened by
difficult tasks, people and situations; they relate to and work with
others more comfortably and effectively, and their perceptions of
the world of reality are less likely to be distorted.
In addition,
the sel.f concept refers to how an individual perceives himself. Self
concept refers to what a person believes he is, how he feels about
himself, and how he believes he acts.
It also refers to how an
individual sees himself physically, morally, and socially (Fitts,
1965 ).
Many clinicians have documented the irnportance of self
concept in making psychological assessments.
Researchers have
noted that the development of a self concept is necessary for an
individual's effectiveness as a learner as well as for his mental·
12
13
health~
Williams and Cole (1968)P and Pouissaint and Atkinson
(1968).
Lewin and Rogers (1963L, Two major exponents of the
phenomenological approach to understanding personality, placed
a major emphasis on the individual self as a mediator of the
physical stimuli and his own resultant behavioro
The privately
·apprehended world as seen by the individual self is the core construct of Lewin's and Rogers' theoretical system.
To Rogers the
most important part of an individual's phenomenal field (how he
sees his world) is the self-concept of the individuaL
self-concept that determines his behavior.
It is this
Dinkmeyer (1965)
contended that the individual who is developing an adequate personality has positive perceptions of self that give him the courage to
function.
He is open to total exe_erience and free to choose.
He
assesses himself honestly and thus his level of aspiration is more
realistic.
This individual does not feel inadequate, but instead
is spontaneous, creative, and originaL
Lipton (1963) contended (while studying Negro selfesteem} that the development of self-esteem should be viewed
within the framework of one's cultural heritage.
He felt that with
the absence of a cultural heritage, a history, and a people's heroes
with which to identify there is an associated absence of selfesteem.
Gayle (1969} stated that the way in which a child looks at
hirnself and his world is caused by the culturally induced behaviors
i.
14
he learns.
The cultural heritage of the group to which the child
belongs influences certain behavior patterns to the extent that
they are often regarded as inborn.
In addition» Gayle contended
that the influence of sub-cultural etlmic and socio-economic
factors will permeate the developing self-concept of the child.
Combs and Snygg (1959) noted that an understanding of
the self concept is paramount to an understanding of man's
behavior.
They described the adequate personality as character-
ized by positive self regard» openness to experience and the
ability to identify with a variety of persons, roles» and institutions.
Bledsoe and Garrison (1962) contended that an individual's
perception of himself may well be the central factor influencing
his /her behavior.
Similarly 1 Rogers ( 1951) emphasized the
significance of self concept in determining human behavior.
In
addition to positive self regard and openness to experience as well
as the ability to establish a wide variety of identifications;
Rogers adds self-regulation and self-direction to describe the
fully-functioning individual.
Vargus (1968) found effective high
self esteem individuals to evidence generally healthier personalities and more warmth and openness in their interpersonal
interactions.
Maslow (1968) assigned a position of central importance
to self-esteem in his hierarchy of needs.
A positive level of self-
esteem was found to be the final prerequisite for a self-actualized
person ('most his identity', more integration, etc.). Jourard (1964)
described a high self concept person as one who would transcend
15
cultural influences, who describes him or herself as a. person,
not as a collection of social roles or an instrument of others,
In sun1n1arizing the literature, tb_ere appears to be good
reason to believe that an individual's self concept is a good indicator of his mental health.
Fitts ( 1965) worked from the general
theoretical framework of Snygg and Combs, Rogers, and Maslow
in the construction and development of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale.
Thus, it is assumed that this measurement of self concept
will be an indica tor of the individual 1 s psychological health.
(For validity and reliability scores, please see Method of
Investigation).
Self Concept and Sex Roles
According to Wylie (1963) there exists much confusion in
regard to the relationship between sex differences and sex roles,
and their influence on self concept.
Rosenkrantz, et, al.
(1968)
found that despite historical changes in the legal status of women,
the sex role stereotypes continue to be clearly defined and held in
agreen1ent by both college women and n1en.
Also the self concept
of men and w01nen are very similar to the respective stereotypes.
In the case of self concept of women, this implies that women also
hold negative values of their worth relative to men.
Rosenkrantz
believed this was surprising since their data were obtained from
enlightened, selected college girls who typically hold their own in
terms of grades when compared to boys.
The authors contended
that the stereotypes continue to exist by reason of a cultural lag.
16
Further evidence of a. 'cultural lag' was noted by Douvan, Kulka,
and Locksley (1976) in their study to see how welt students fit
their school environment.
The girls they surveyed rated success
in w'ork to be just as important to them as success in marriage,
and1ess than 10 percent reported that they only wanted to be wives
and mothers.
Yet, the authors observed, that the schools still
seem to operate as if they believe 90 percent want to be career
housewives.
In a study by Brookover, Patterson and Shailer (1962)
which was concerned with self concept of ability; seventh grade
girls had significantly higher mean self concept of ability scores
than seventh grade boys.
Thus, at least in the area of self con-
cept of ability, it appears that girls at the junior high grade level
have a higher self concept of themselves as learners.
However,
during high school, girls' performance in school and on ability
tests begins to drop, sometimes drastically.
Neiman (1954) noted
that over half of all high school graduates are girls, but significantly less than half of all college students are girls.
Presum-
ably, this should mean that a higher percentage of better female
students go on to higher education, but their performance vis -vis
boys' continues to decline.
form to ''femininity 11 or
11
It appears that the pressures to con-
masculinity 11 increase during adolescence,
which may account for the females decrease in performance.
Why do girls start off better than boys and end up worse?
One of the norms of our culture to which a girl learns to conform
is that only men excel.
This was evident in Lipinski's (1965)
17
study of "Sex-Role Conflict and Achievement Motivation in College
Wom.en, "which showed that thematic pictures depicting males as
central characters elicited significantly more achievement imagery
than female pictures.
Horner (1970) discovered that 65% of the
women and only 10% of the men
avoid success.
11
demonstr2~ted
a definite
11
motive to
She explained the results by hypothesizing that
the prospect of success is perceived as having negative consequences for women.
Rossi (1965) states that the inconsistency between
femininity and successful achievement is so deeply embedded that
most wmnen believe that even wanting something more than
motherhood is unnatural and reflects emotional disturbance within
them.
In addition: she states that social rejection following
success may prevent a woman from fulfilling her other needs for
affection, love, marriage a,nd children.
Assuming that, for most
1nen, active striving for success in competitive achieven1ent
activity is consistent with masculinity and a positive self-concept,
and does not give rise to the expectancy of negative consequences,
it may be that the motive to avoid success is one of the major
factors underlying sex differences detected in research on achievement-related motivation and performance.
Barry, Bacon and
Child, state that socialization practices explains this difference.
''Pressure toward nurturance, obedience and responsibility is
most often stronger for girls, whereas pressure toward achievement and self-reliance is most often stronger for boys,
11
(
1957).
Karen Horney (1950) has recognized that from birth all
18
humans have needs and potentialities in three main areas:
dependency, detachment and expansiveness.
Symonds (1974)
states that women as a group have been pressed and encouraged
to express only their dependency needs, and have been actively
discouraged or even barred from fulfilling their needs for detachment or expansiveness.
As a result the dependent personality is
· called feminine, as though it were biologically predetermined.
Thus, the compliant, dependent, self-effacing personality with
its neurotic need and vulnerabilities is what society considers
normal for women.
She concludes that traditional attitudes
toward women have had a specific harmful effect on their em,otional growth and development on their concept of self.
She believes
that pressues of society restrict women to developing only about
one-third of their potential, rather than developing in all dimensions according to their genetic endowment, predisposition, and
opportunity.
And, she states, one of the greatesthandicaps that
dependent individuals experience has to do with initiating direct
action and accepting its consequences; this inability to initiate
. action for oneself is a serious handicap and contributes to selfhate and self-contempt.
Self-hate and self-contempt among females has been
noted by other authors as well.
Phillip Goldberg (1968) found
that women are prejudiced against women; particularly female
professionals, and will firmly refuse to recognize them as the
equals of their male colleagues.
E. French and G. Lessor (1972)
found that females who valued intellectual attainment felt they
19
must reject the woman's role "intellectual acc01nplishment
apparently being considered, even among intellectual women a
masculine preserve. " In fact) it appears that females have
similar self-perceptions as do individuals of minority groups in
our culture.
Many authors (i.
~·
Allport (1954); Terman and Tyler
(1954), etc. have noted the re1narkable similarity between the
typical "feminine" character structure and that of oppressed
peoples in this country and elsewhere.
For
girls~
they listed such
traits as sensitivity, confonnity to social pressures, response to
environment, ease of social control, ingratiation, sympathy, low
levels of aspiration, compassion for the under-privileged, and
anxiety (Clark & Clark, 1947).
These traits, as well as the others
typical of the ''feminine'' stereotype, have been found in the Indians
under British rule (Fisher, 1954), in the Algerians under the
French, (Fanon, 1963) and in black Americans (Myrdal, 1944).
This pattern repeats itself even within cultures.
In giving TATs
to women in Japanese villages, De Vos (1960} discovered that those
from fishing villages where the status position of women was higher
than in farming communities, were more assertive, not as guilt·:.
ddden and were more willing to ignore the traditional pattern of
arranged marriages in favor of love marriages.
Dr. Pauline Bart (1972) studied depression in middle-aged
women and found that such women had completely accepted their
'feminine' role -- and were depressed' because that role was no
longer possible or needed.
Dr. Phyllis Chesler (1972) points out
i.
20
that it is safer for wo1nen to beconJe 'depressed' than physically
violent.
Physically violent women usually lose physical battles,
are abandoned, considered crazy and unfe1ninine.
Further) she
states, potentially assaultive women would gain fewer secondary
rewards than 'depressed' w01nen, their families would fear, hate:
and abandon them, rather. than pity, sympathize, or 1 protect 1
them.
National statistics and research studies all document a
much higher female to male ratio of depression or manic-depression at all ages.
Lenore Radloff (1978) has noted that depression is more
common among women than men.
She states that recent theories
of depression suggest that the lack of power or helplessness--the
inability to get what you want by your own actions -- and the
belief that you are helpless or powerless may-contribute to
depression.
A review of the research literature shows evidence
of influences in the lives of females which might produce helplessness and foster the development of depression.
According to Guttentag and Salas in (1976 ), females suffer
more from depression because they have learned to be helpless.
They conclude that since the adult female role tends to be defined
as passive and lacking in mastery, women are predisposed or
susceptible to feelings of learned helplessness over a considerable
period of time.
When, in addition, their social experiences con-
firm their lack of power and reinforce their feelings of helplessness, acute depressive symptoms may develop.
S. C. Wilsnack ( 1976) believes that conflict between
21
personality and environmental demands for traditional sex role
behavior can create significant stress and may play an important
role in producing and maintaining alcohol abuse, even in a woman
not internally in conflict about her sex role identity.
She states
that women's attempt to rigidly suppress either "masculine" or
"feminine"
characteristi~s
may produce strains which increase her
dependence on alcohol for relief•.
D. Martin (1976) who has done extensive research on
"Battered Wives 11 states that many women believe that marriage
gives their lives meaning, that they have no value as individuals
apart from their meno
A woman who believes that she has no
value will not have the will to take responsibility for herself.
Thus
states Martin, she will be paralyzed when it comes to making a
radical change for her own sake, rather than for the sake of the
marriage, even though that marriage is a
11
living hell.
11
Howes (1978) has indicated that sex-role stereotyping
plays a key role in the violence of the husband toward the wife.
He states that masculinity in our society is frequently associated
with aggressive, determined, and authoritarian behavior, while
traditional femininity is described as yielding, gentle, passive,
and dependent.
The hypothesis then, he states:. is that some
males, when threatened by unemployment and a highly competitive
society, may resort to physical violence to affirm their masculinity.
In a complementary manner, women 1 s sex role training
encourages accommodating behavior, nonresponsiveness to abuse,
22
inoffensive rejection of
others~
and -- paradoxically -- a tendency
to view men as their protectors.
McKee and Sherifs {1959) noted that girls who grow up
believing that the only important goals are to marry and bear
children, and that these goals will be satisfying and self-fulfilling
throughout their lives often end up reporting low self-esteem and
a great deal of frustration in their marriage,
Jessie Bernard
(1972} has found that more wives than husbands suffer from marital
frustration and dis sa tis faction, more report negative feelings, and
also more wives than husbands seek marriage counseling.
She
states that marriage is far better for males than females, their
mental health is far better than that of never married men, the
suicide rate for single men is almost twice as high as for married
men.
The Valley News & Green Sheet (1976} reported that of all
female suicide attempts, 64. 5o/o were housewives and it was estimated th2.t the housewife will be responsible for about 40% of all
suicide attempts made in the United States during the corning year.
According to Herb Goldberg (1976) males pay a very 'high
price' for being 'top dog'.
1.
He lists the consequences as follows:
Far more boys than girls are seen in Guidance Clinics,
in many cases the ratio of boys to girls was slightly
higher than three to one.
Autism runs three to four
times higher for boys •••• Males are diagnosed as
schizophrenics 42 percent more frequently than
girls.
23
2.
Men are four to five times more likely to die from
bronchitis, enphysema, and asthma than females.
Death rates from cardiovascular diseases and cirrhosis
of the liver are twice as high.
They are also less apt
to seek professional help when ill.
3.
Divorced males have a death rate 3. 16 times the rate for
divorced women,
In all institutions, separated or divorced
men outnumber females by 20 per cent.
4.
Recent studies on stress tolerance suggest that the male
has less capacity to cope with stress.
5.
The positive self-image of the 1nale depends prirnarily on
his success at work.
Thus, many men live in quiet
terror of losing their occupational place and struggle
desperately to maintain it.
6.
The male is six times more likely to be arrested on
p~l'C:9tics c:lJ;;~.rges,
thirteen times more likely to be
arrested for drunkenness, over nine times more likely
to be arrested for offenses against children, fourteen
times as likely to be arrested for weapons offenses,
eleven times more likely to be arrested for gambling,
and three times more likely to be arrested for involvement in a motor vehicle accident.
7.
Up to the age of twenty-four the male rate of suicide is
over three times as high as the female's.
Over the
age of sixty-five, the rate is almost five times as high
24
for the male.
Men have a twelve times higher
ratio of success to failure in suicide attempts in
comparison to women.
He suggests an image of the liberated male as one who "will celebrate all of the many dimensions of himself» his strength and his
weakness, his achievements and his failures» his sensuality» his
affectionate and loyal response to .women and men.
He will follow
his own personal growth path, making his own stops along the
wa.~r,
and revelling in his unique and ever-developing total personhood."
(Page 191).
Toby ( 1966) has noted that violence is required by the
demands of the male role.
He states that one of the social condi-
tions which tends to make sex and violence occur together can be
traced to a need on the part of boys to overcome their unconscious
fear of being feminine by means of compulsive masculinity.
He
states that case studies abound which suggest that violence is not
Til.erely a response to frustration but is felt by the perpetrator to be
required by the demands of the male role; and one response to
doubts about one's masculinity is compulsive masculinity: an
exaggerated insistence on characteristics differentiating males
from females.
(Superior strength and a readiness to exhibit it
make this a clear cut distinction).
J ourard ( 1971) has found that it is far more difficult
for males to self-disclose.
They hide what prevents them from
seeming strorl:g and masculine.
Not only do they talk less about
25
themselves to their spouses, but they talk a lot less about themselves to their sons and daughters than mothers do.
Jourard
concludes that this 'inaccessibility' of m.an, in addition to hampering his insight and empathy, also handicaps him at self-loving, at
loving others, and at being loved.
Similarly, Rubin (1973) has
noted that many men do not understand the1nselves; they fear homosexuality, and consequently draw a rigid line betv1een what they
consider weak (feminine) and strong (masculine)..
Thus, states
Rubin, they will not admit to soft. warm feelings, '\Yhich they
consider feminine; and, this lack of emotional display can have an
adverse effect in their relationships to their family.
Despite some
of these negative consequences of masculinity, Jones, Chernovitz,
and Hansson (1978) found that androgynous and masculine females
were much better of£ than were feminine females, but androgynous
males were not better of£ than masculine malesa
Similarly,
Spence, et. al. ( 1975) found positive correlations between masculinity and social self-esteem; and, Heilbrumand Fromme (1965) found
that masculinity is positively related to psychological adjustment.
However, these studies were administered to college students, and
it appears that for college-aged males, being masculine rnay have
its advantages, but this does not seem to hold with adult males;
for masculinity during adulthood has been correlated with high
anxiety, .P.Jgh neuroticism, and low self-acceptance (Harford et. al.,
1967.; Mussen, 1962).
As previously noted, Bern { 1975) found that psychologically
26
androgynous individuals displayed behavioral adaptability across
situations, engaging in whatever behavior is appropriate, regardless of behavioral stereotypes.
It may be that an individual
required more flexibility and adaptability as he grows older, and
this androgynous trait may be more advantageous to adults than
college -aged individuals.
In sun1marizing this section of the literature review, it
appears that sex typing does have negative effects for both males
and females.
In addition, the literature seems to suggest that
fernininity contributes to a poorer self concept.
Although masculine
males m.ay suffer consequences from. sex typing (in adulthood), it
is felt that masculinity will not effect self concept as significantly
as femininity.
One possible explanation for this is that: masculine
males value a career as foremost and a wife as secondary; thus, the
inability to relate to a spouse may not cause grave consequences;
as his self-concept is tied into his career rather than his marriage.
Whe1·eas, feminine females value their marriage as foremost;
thus, should the marriage not succeed, the consequences may be
quite severe as her self-concept is tied into her marriage and not
her job.
Sex Roles and Psychotherapeutic Practices
As noted in Chapter I, the Brovermans ( 1972) found that
clinicians have a strong negative assessment of what constitutes
n-tental health for women as compared to that of a mentally healthy
adult or a mentally healthy man; and that these assessments
27
reflected the sex role stereotypes prevalent in our society.
This,
according to the Brovermans, puts women in a double bind.
If
they adopt the healthier, more socially desirable behaviors of
the generalized competent adult, they risk censure for not being
appropriately feminine; if they adopt the less healthy and less
socially desirable behaviors of a female, they are deficient in
terms of the standard for a generalized competent mature adult.
A report of the American Psychological Association {APA)
Task Force {1975) on sex bias and sex role stereotyping in psychotherapeutic practice revealed four general areas of perceived sex
bias and sex role stereotyping affecting women as clients of psychotherapy.
The four areas are:
1.
Fostering of traditional sex role (self actualization
for women comes from marriage or
perfecting the role of wife, etc.).
2.
Bias in expectation and devaluation of women
(women are innately masochistic, etc.).
3.
Sexist use of psychoanalytic concepts (labeling
ambition with 'penis envy', etc.).
4.
Responding to women as sex objects, including
seduction of female clients (weighing
physical appearance heavily in the
selection of patients or in setting therapeutic goals, etc. ).
As previously noted, research conducted by this author
(1974) also revealed that therapists held a double standard of mental
28
health.
The therapists (in the survey) indicated that the sexes
suffered from quite different problems.
For example, they
believed that men suffered more realistic fears than women.
Women, they believed, suffered more from free -floating anxieties
and suffered greater emotional difficulties.
The therapists also
believed the sexes found fulfillment quite differently:
86o/o believed
a man would find greatest satisfaction in his career;
77o/o believed
a woman's highest fulfillment would come through marriage.
In
addition, more therapists believed that women would suffer greater
distress than men, should they remain single.
Schwartz
(1974) noted that sexist views were being
perpetuated among social workers and family therapists.
Schwartz
concluded that almost all social workers are more interested in
the anxiety-provoking implications of changing ·s.ex roles than in
the self-actualizing potential that less well-defined sex roles can
provide.
It was further concluded that the issue is the assumption
of male leaders hip before the facts are even explored.
Haan and Livson ( 1972)
while conducting their research.
chanced onto the gender factor
They noted that in evaluating male
clients, male psychologists were more reactive to such unmasculine characteristics as passivity and dependency, while female
psychologists were more sensitive to such unfavorable male traits
as condescension and over -concern with power a.nd self-control.
In evaluating female clients they found that female psychologists
were more alert to stereotypical excesses such as self-dramatization and projection, while male psychologists found the most
29
general unfavorable traits more attributed to females to be
"bitchines s "·
They concluded that 'male psychologists' keep a
sharper eye for defections from the male stereotype (as they define
it), while female psychologists are nwre alert to the excesses of
males in the service of that stereotype.
Unfortunately, it appears that, for the 1nost part, the
goal of therapy has been to restore the person's social adjustment
and his /her 'normal' neurotic tendencies rather than promote the
full development of human potential.
Apparently, this 'adjustment'
point of view does lead to a double standard of psychological
health.
Thus, for a man or a woman to be healthy, from an·
adjustment viewpoint, he or she must adjust to and accept the
behavioral norms for his or her sex.
Sigmund Freud and his disciples are seen as prototypes
of the sex role stereotypes to which many practitioners still adhere.
Basic psychoanalytic theory appears to set women apart as inferior
to man, forever envious of the latter's anatomical structure,
abilities, and intellect.
No theory has been attacked as merciless-
ly as Freudian psychology, yet, according to Hall (1970 ), therapists
continue to be very heavily influenced by its concepts.
Freudian
psychology states Hall, is one of the dominant viewpoints in acaden"lic psychology.
The interpenetration of psychology and psycho-
analysis has grown at an accelerated rate.
Freud 1 s training was primarily in medicine and biology
and thus, it is understandable that he gave primacy to biological
30
factors in fornmlating his theories.
Words like instinctual,
constitutional, innate, biological, and genetic abound in Freud 1 s
writings; no attention was paid to social conditioning and cultural
expectation.
In fact, for a woman to show more 'masculine' traits
(such as aggression, competition, and initiative) is pathological
according to Freudian
the~ry.
Cantarow, et. al. (1969). believes that the prevalence of
psychotherapy in American life works to stabilize oppression by
reconciling women to their condition (90% of all psychiatrists
during the last decade were men, while the clientele is largely
wornen).
They point out that all individuals, but women in particu-
lar, are encouraged to believe that individual ''hang-ups"
although they are the result of objective social conditions -
are
to be treated as isolated, idiosyncractic cases.
Whereas, in Czechoslovakia, for example, the tendency
in family psychotherapy is to assume employment as a part of the
feminine role cone e pt.
Knoblockova and Knoblock ( 196 5) found
if there are marital difficulties associated with a dual-career
situation, psychotherapists are as likely to see the issue as resulting from the husband's difficulties in allowing his wife equal opportunities as they are to see them as resulting from the wife's
deviance in relation to a narrow domestic role conception.
Though many psychiatrists and psychologists such as
Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan, and Erik
Erikson have taken the lead in emphasizing social determinants,
31
they continue to believe that females want first and foremost to be
womanly companions of men, and to be good mothers, though they
may recognize that wo1nen may want to be good scientists or
engineers.
Erik Erikson (1964} whose v1ritings are widely read
and whose influence upon psychologists has been considerable, has
made it his chief task to demonstrate the relations of the ego to
society.
In spite of his studies indicating how the ego's develop-
ment is inextricably bound up with the nature of social organization,
he continues to define a female by her kind of attractiveness and in
the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she
wishes to be sought.
Women's somatic design harbors an 1inner
space 1 , he states, that is destined to bear the offspring of chosen
men, and with it, a biological, psychological, and ethical commitment to take care of human infancy.
It is this author's belief that the perpetuation of an
adjustment view of mental health (double standard) may have
adverse effects for many individuals.
Not only because psycho-
therapists have a great deal of influence over their patients; but,
their roles as "experts 11 leads to consultation to governmental,
and private agencies of all kinds; thus, they are instrumental
in permeating thinking throughout our entire society.
CHAPTER III
METHOD QF' INVESTIGATION
This chapter describes the setting and subject sample
used for this study, the measuring instrun1ents, the experimental
procedures, and the statistical treatment of the data used in
computing the results of this study.
Research
De~ign
The Research Design that will be utilized for this
project is a Two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance.
This
design describes through test score analysis the relationship
between the independent variable, level of self-concept (measured
by the T. S.C. S.) and the two dependant variables, sex of subject
and subject's sex-role endorsement (measured by the B.S. R.I.).
Setting and Sample
This study was conducted at California State University,
Northridge, during the Fall Semester of 1978.
The subjects
comprised 132 Freshn'lan students in both Introductory Psychology
and Introductory Sociology classes.
Seventy-one of these
subjects were fernales and the remaining sixty-one subjects were
tnales.
These classes were chosen because they were believed to
have (approxin'latcly) equal representation of both sexes,
32
Since the
33
subjects share the same education and approxilnate age range,
these two factors will not be considered.
Additional demographic
variables, such as race, religion, and socioeconomic factors will
also not be considered for purposes of this study.
Though nun"lerous
studies have taken these variables into consideration when evaluating self-concept, the data appears to be contradictory.
For
example, Fitts (1965b) concluded (from the original development
for the T. S.C. S. ) that these variables exerted no systematic
effect upon the self concept.
Bartee (196 7) found that disadvantaged
college students, both black and white, have near-average Total
P
Scores (general level of self-esteem).
Johnson (1970) found that
black college Freshmen showed a significantly higher Total P Score
than white college Freshmen.
Whereas George (1969) found that
the P Scores of black adults seem to approximate these of the
T. S. C. S. norm group; however, he noted that their scores reflected
a tendency· toward defensiveness (low SC score and a high DP score).
Instrumentation
The instruments to be used in this study will be the
(a) Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the (b) Bems Sex-Role
Inventory.
The Tennessee Self Concept Scale is a standardized
Likert-type instrument.
The norms for this scale were developed
from a sample of 626 persons.
The standardization sample included
individuals from various parts of the country and ranged in age from
12 to 68.
Fitts (1965) indicated that nonns were based on approxi-
mately equal number.s of both sexes, Negro and white subjects,
34
representatives of all social, economic, and intellectual and
educational levels from sixth grade through the Ph. D. degree.
Fitts attempted to overcome some of the measurement and criterion
problems of measuring self concept by developing his own self
concept measure, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
The T. S. C. S.
is now widely used and prQvides much information that constitutes
sound research.
According to Fitts (1971), the self concept cuts
across, condenses, or captures the essence of many other variables
(motives, needs, attitudes, values, personality, etc.), then we
have a simpler and more central variable with which to deal.
The T. S. C. S. consists of 100 self-descriptive statements
to which the subject responds on a 5-point response scale ranging
from "completely true" to "completely false".
Subjects are
assessed on ten different components of the self concept scales.
These components are described as follows:
1.
Total Positive Score.
This score reflects the
general level of self esteem.
Individuals possessing
high scores would feel that they were persons of
value and worth, they would tend to like themselves,
and }:lave confidence in themselves.
People with low
scores would be doubtful about their own worth, and
would see themselves as undesirable, they would
have little faith or confidence in themselves.
Also,
individuals with low scores would often feel anxious,
depressed, and unhappy.
2.
Identity.
This score reflects how the individual
describes his basic identity -- what he is as he sees
·himself.
35
3.
Self Satisfaction.
This score reflects how an
individual feels about the self he perceives.
In
general, this score reflects the level of self
satisfaction or self acceptance.
4.
Behavior.
This score measures the individual's
perception of his own behavior or the way he
functions.
5.
Physical Self.
This score indicates how an
individual sees his body, his state of health, his
physical appearance, and motor skills.
6.
Moral-Ethical Self.
This score describes the self
from a moral-ethical frame of reference--moral
worth, relationship to God, and feelings of being
a "good'' or "bad" person.
7.
Personal Self.
This score reflects the individual's
sense of personal worth, his evaluation of himself
apart from his body or his relationship to others.
It is a measure of feelings of adequacy as a person.
8.
Family Self.
This score measures an individual's
feelings of adequacy, worth, and value as a family
member.
It refers to the individual's perception of
self in reference to his family.
9.
S~cial
Self. This score reflects the person's sense
of adequacy and worth in his social interaction with
other people in general.
10.
Personality Integration.
This score consists of
25 items, representing a group of subjects judged,
36
by outside criteria, to have a bettc:r-than average
level of adjustment.
The Bems Sex-Role Inventory is a standardized Likerttype instrument also.
The B.S. R.I. has not had the extensive
utilization of the T. S.C. S., it was developed in 1974 by Sandra L.
Bem.
Basically the B.S. R.I. is a new type of sex-role inventory
that does not automatically build in an inverse relationship between
masculinity and femininity.
Thus, it conta-ins a number of features
that distinguish it from other commonly used, masculinity-femininity scales, i.e. the Masculinity-Femininity Scale of the California
Psychological Inventory.
~~9:
(1) It contains both a masculinity scale
a femininity scale, each of which contains 20 personality
characteristics.
(2) Because the B.S. R.I. was founded on a con-
ception of the sex-typed person as someone who has internalized
society's sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and
women, these personality characteristics were selected as mascu··
line or feminine on the basis of sex-typed social desirability and
not on the basis of differential endorsement by males and females
as most other inventories have done.
tion of this test).
(This is an important distinc-
(3) The B.S. R.I. characterizes a person as
masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated as a function
of the difference between his or hew endorsement of masculine and
ferninine personality characteristics.
A description of the B.S. R.I.
is attached.
37
The Masculine, Feminine, and Neutral Items on the BSRI
J\fasculinc items
Ft·minim: itc·ms
?'\eutral items
~~~~=--=--------~------·--------------------------~----------------49. Arts as a lc:ult·r
II. :\ffect innate
S I. ,\<!apt able
46. Aggrcssi\'e
58. Ambitious
22. ;\nalytical
U. ;\sscrtive
10. Athletic
55. Compditi\·c
4. Ddcnds own beliefs
37. Dominant
19. Forcdul
25. Has leadership abilities
7. Independent
52. Individualistic
31. Maices decisions easilv
40. l\fasculinc
1. Self-reliant
34. Sclf-sullicicnt
16. Strong personality
43. \Villing to take a stand
28. Willing to take risks
5. Cheerful
50. Childlike
.)2.
53.
3S.
20.
l·L
59.
.J7.
56.
17.
26.
8.
38.
23.
44.
29.
41.
2.
Compassionate
llucs not usc harsh language
Eagn to sootlw hurt fpefin!'-;
Felllininc
Flat terablc
Gentle
Gullible
Loves rhildrcn
Loyal
Sensitive to the needs uf others
Shy
Soft spoken
Sympath<:tic
Tender
Understanding
Warm
Yielding
36. Conceited
9.
60.
-IS.
15.
Consrkntious
Conventional
Friendly
Happy
.3. lf(·lpful
·1~.
lnl'llirient
24. Jealous
39. Likal,!e
6.
21.
30.
.33.
42.
57.
12.
;\lonely
Reliah!c
Sccn·th-c
Sincere
Solemn
Tactful
Thea I rica!
21. Truthful
1~. UnprcdinJ.l•it'
54. Cnsystcma1ic
Note: The number preceding each item reflects the position of each
adjective as it actually appears on the Inventory. A subject
indicates how well each item describes himself or herself on the
following scale: (1) Never or almost never true; (2) Usually not
true; (3) Sometimes but infrequently true; (4) Occasionally txue;
(5) Often true; (6) Usually true; (7) Always or almost always tru10.
38
Lilnitations of Inst.ruments
A.
The Validity Scores and Reliability Scores of the T. S. C. S.
are as follows:
(1) Validity-
Several scores from this test have remark-
ably high correlations with other measures of personality functioning.
For example, the Taylor Anxiety
Scale correlates -. 70 with Total Positive.
Correlations
from • 50 to • 70 are common with the Cornell Medical
Index and an unpublished Inventory of Feeling Correlations with various MMPI scales are frequently in the
• 50 1 s and. 60's.
Thus it seems safe to conclude that
the scale overlaps sufficiently with well-known measures
to consider it a possible alternative for these measures
in various applied situations.
The items in the original
pool were derived from surveys of the literature on the
self concept and from analyses of patient self-reports.
The final items were selected by seven clinical psychologists who were asked to classify each item as to its
fit with defined constructs.
The final items included
only those on which the judges showed perfect agreement.,
Although the scores seem to have certain content validity,
there has been little work directed toward empirical
validation of individual scores.
(2)
Reliability
- Retest reliability while varying for
different scores, is in the high • 80's..
Sufficiently la~'ge
'?:.
39
to warrant confidence in individual difference measurement.
Thus many psychometric qualities of the scale
meet the usual test construction standards that should
exist in an instrument that hopes to receive wide
usage.
The scale suffers frorn two interrelated
defects.
The first defect reflects the virtually
complete absence of information regarding the internal structure of the scale; the second, the high degree
of over-interpretation, relative to the data base, that
is made regarding various aspects of data involving
the scale.
However the reviewer suspects that the
internal consistency coefficients would be quite high,
considering the large correlations obtained between
scale scores and other measures such as MMPI scales; another reason for such an expectation is found
in the 29 variable intercorrelation matrix; the major
subs cores correlate highly, up to • 91.
provides scores for up to 29 variables.
The T. S.C. S.
VVnile the
intercorrelations among these scores are presented,
no principal components analysis or factor analysis
is reported.
Though the test- retest reliabilities are
quite substantial for the scales for college student
samples, the manual fails to report on reliability for
other samples.
It should be noted that although a
majority of the important scale scores appear to have
high reliability, a number of scores are
unstable~
e. g.
i.
40
some of the variability and conflict subscores.
The
T. S. C. S. has been extensively utilized since its
inception.
(3)
Evaluation -
In terms of its capability of measuring
self concept variables, the problem is one which
faces all research on self concept assessment.
Whether the scale is a measure of the self concept
is always a question - the scale does not allow the
examinee, for example, to use h:is own words to
describe himself and consequently some
that it is not truly phenomenological.
wo~ld
argue
In summary,
the T. S.C. S. ranks among the better measures combining group discrimination with self concept
information.
In all, the T. S.C. S. ·offers great
potential as a promising clinical instrument.
B.
The Reliability Scores and Validity Scores of the
B.S.R.I. are as follows:
(1)
Norms -
Based on Psychology undergraduate students.
Tests were administered to 444 males and 279 females
from Stanford.
Test was also administered to an
additional 117 males and 77 females from Foothill Jr.
College.
The data that these students provided
represented the normative data for the B.S. R.I.
(However, one of the problems with this population
is that it limits generalizability).
41
(2)
Validity_ -
Overall, appears to be measuring what
it is suppose to be measuring.
Mean desirability of
the masculine and ferninine items was significantly
higher for the "appropriate 11 sex, than for the
'iinappropriate'' sex, whereas the mean desirability
of the neutral items was no higher for one sex than
for the other.
Coefficient alpha was computed for
the scores of the subjects in each of the two normative samples - all three scores (masculine, feminine,
soc desirability) were highly reliable.
sample: Masc.: • 86; Fern:
the Foothill sample, Masc:
Stanford
• 80; S.D.: . 75 for
• 86; Fern: • 82, S.D •
• 70.
(3)
Reliability-
Test-retest reliability- Product moment
correlations were computed between the first and
second administrations for the Masculinity, Femininity
Androgyny, and Social Desirability scores.
All four
scores proved to be highly reliable over the four-week
interval (Masc. r • 90; Fern. r • 90; Androgyny r • 93;
Social Desirability r • 89).
In order to estimate the
internal consistency of the B.S. R. L., coefficient alpha
was computed separately for the Masculinity, Femininity, and Social Desirability scores of the subjects in
each of the two normative samples.
The results
showed all three scores to be highly reliable both in
42
the Stanford sample: Masc: • 86; Fem:
• 75; and in the Foothill sample:
• 82; S.D.: • 70.
• 80; S.D.:
Masc: • 86, Fern:
Because the reliability of the
Androgyny ratio could not be calculated directly,
coefficient alpha was computed for the highly correlated Androgyny difference score, felnininity-masculinity using the formula provided by Nunnally (196 7).
for the linear combinations.
The reliability of the
Androgyny difference score was • 85.
(4)
Evaluation -
Bem hoped that the development of this
test would encourage investigators in the areas· of sex
differences and sex roles to question the traditional
assumption that it is the sex-type individual who
typifies mental health and to begin focusing on the
behavioral and societal consequences of more flexible
sex-role self-concepts.
The fact that the B.S.R.I.
is not correlated very highly with other tests, may
somewhat question the validity of this measure1nent
(i.e.
Gui1ford-Zimrnerman: males
• 11, females
• 15; the California Psychological Inventory: males
- • 42
females - • 25), however, the authors state
the fact that none of the correlations is particularly
high indicates that the B.S. R.I. is measuring an
aspect of sex roles which is not directly tapped by
either of these two scales.
43
Scoring Procedures:
The data will be analyzed on the CYBER 173 Computer.
The program is the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) MANOVA.
In addition, The Pearson Corr., and the
Scattergrams will be
utili~ed.
Independent Variables
used (i.e. Masc: 4. 89;
- The BSRI Stanford Norms were
Fem: 4. 76) if subjeces score is less than
4. 89 and less than 4. 76, the subject will be classified as Undifferentiated (I); if the subject's score is less than 4. 89 and greater
than or equal to 4. 76, the subject will be classified as Feminine (2);
if the subject's score is greater than or equal to 4. 89, but less
than 4. 76
the subject will be classified as Masculine (3); if the
subject's score is greater than or equal to 4. 89~ and greater than
or equal to 4. 76, the subject will be classified as Androgynous (4).
(Gender is Male:::
0 and Female::::
1 ).
Dependent Variables - The T. S.C. S. will be scored on
the Total Positive Score and then scored on a break-down of the
total positive score on four variabilities (a) Identity;
Satisfaction (3)
(2) Self
Behavior and (4) Personality Integration.
Assumptions of MANOVA.
I.
plots, straight line best fits data); 2.
Data is Linear (ScatterMultivariate Normality,
(Error Term ha.d at least 10 df, this sample is 114 df. ).
geniety of Covariance Matrices
3.
Homo-
(No group variance greater than
20. 1; largest to smallest variance;
significant - insures homogeniety).
Box's M, sttatistically not
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
First, The Total Positive Score was computed for each of
the Independent Variables: Undifferentiated, Feminine, Masculine
and Androgynous, in addition to Gender, however, the undifferentiated group was discarded because of low representation.
The
androgynous group had scored the highest on Total Positive Score
(reflecting general level of self esteem).
was not statistically significanto
However, this difference
Of the androgynous group,
females scored higher than males; although, this difference was
not statistically significant either.
Masculine Males scored higher
on Total Positive Score than Feminine Females; however, this
difference was also not statistically significant.
These results
are displayed in Table I - "Effects Of Sex Type On Self Concept.
11
Then a 3 X 2 multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the three dependent variables that make up the Total Positive
Score: Behavior, Self Satisfaction, and Identity; in addition to
Integration.
Originally a
4 X 2 was designed, however, one cell
had only two subjects, and the MANOVA requires that each cell
have· at least Jive subjects.
Since the Undifferentiated group had
ten males and only two females, this group was discarded, causing
44
45
TABLE I
EFFECTS OF SEX TYPE ON SELF CONCEPT
GROUP
MALES
FEMALES
FEMININE
34 7 (7N)
334. 6 (32N)
340.8
MASCULINE
341.3 (18N)
321.3 (6N)
331.3
ANDROGYNOUS
346. 8 (26N)
357.4 (31N)
352.0
ADJo MEAN
46
a loss of twelve subjects.
The cells of the 3 X 2 design were of unequal N.
Thus,
the design became nonorthogonal, that is, the test of main effects
and interactions were no longer independent, therefore, the SPSS
MANOVA was utilized.
The variables were entered based on a
priori ordering of importance:
Effects of Sex Type:
Wilks' Criterian for the Effects of Sex-Type was significant,
approximately F (8, 222)::::: 2. 16, p
<· 03.
The results reflect a
moderate association between sex-type and the combined dependent
y_~riables
- Eta squared
Uti::= . 14 (strength of association).
To
analyze the effects of the Independent Variables on the Dependent
Variables a Step Down Analysis was performed on the basis of an
a priori ordering of importance of the dependent variables:
havior;
(2) Self Satisfaction;
Integration.
(3) Identity,
(4)
( 1) Be-
Personality
Bartlet Test of Sphericity was significant, p <:_ • 0001
indicating that a series of Univariate ·F 1 s would not be appropriate
and that the multivariate analysis should be utilized,
Thu·s, each
DV was analyzed in turn with a priori DV' s treated as covariates
and highest priority DV tested in a univariate ANOVA.
Results indicate that Behavior is significantly effected by
sex - type:
F
(2, 114)
5, 25,
< . 01.
See Table II -
Down F Tests For Effects Of Sex-Type On DV 1 s@
11
"Step
In order to
determine where the significance lies, a Post Hoc Comparison
*Experimenter Error Rate of • 04 was achieved by proportioning
alpha for the 4 dependent variables at • 01,
47
TABLE II
STEP DOWN OF F TESTS FOR EFFECTS
OF SEX -TYPE ON THE DVs
Independent Variable is Sex Type.
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
HYPOTHESIS
MEAN SQ
ERROR
MEAN SQ
df
F
*
707. 04
134.71
2/114
5. 25'
SELF-SATISFACTION
27.39
130.13
2/113
.21
IDENTITY
74. 23
39.93
2/112
1.86
PERSONALITY .
INTEGRATION
16. 42
11.63
2/111
1.41
BEHAVIOR
*
p
< . 01
48
was made using the Scheffe Method for Multiple Comparisons
Between Means.
See Table III -
"Adjusted Marginal Means And
Contrasts Of Sex-Type On Behavior.
11
Results were as follows:
1)
!.Y
Behavior -Androgynous individuals scored significant-
higher on Behavior than ferninine and masculine individuals
{Significant at • 05 level, p<. 05).
This indicates that androgynous
individuals have a higher capacity to carry out behavior, and
actualize new capacities than feminine and masculine individuals.
See Table IV 2)
"Effects Of Sex-Type On Behavior.
11
Self Satisfaction - Androgynous individuals scored
higher on Self Satisfaction than either feminine or masculine.
individuals {this was not statistically significant).
"Effects Of Sex-Type On Self Satisfaction.
3)
See Table V -
11
Identity -Androgynous females had a higher score
than feminine females, and to a lessor extent, masculine females;
whereas feminine males had a higher Identity score than either
androgynous or masculine individuals.
Of Sex-Type On Identity.
11
See Table VI - "Effects
However, it should be noted that the
feminine group consisted of 32 females and only seven males, and
the masculine group had 18 males and only six females.
This
sample size may tend to bias the data, as one or two high scores
could affect overall total scores.
4)
Personality Integration -
Masculine males scored the
highest, followed by androgynous females, {this was not statistically significant).
See Table VII - "Effects Of Sex-Type On
49
.
TABLE III
ADJUSTED MARGINAL MEANS
AND
CONTRASTS OF SEX -TYPE ON BEHAVIOR
Estimate for Behavior
(DV)
Sex Type
95% C. I. Limit
MEAN
FEMININE
MASCULINE
109.81
LOWER
UPPER
105.02
114. 61
99. 97
11 o. 81
111. 96
118.07
105.39
ANDROGYNOUS
Post Hoc Comparisons
Sex Type
(0, 1, -1)
F
(1, 114) :=. • 122
Sex Type
(1, 1, -2)
F
(1, 114)
* p <. 05
==
10.375
*
'
50
TABLE IV
EFFECTS OF.SEX TYPE ON BEHAVIOR
MALES
FEMALES
FEMININE
112. 0
107.6
MASCULINE
110.2
100.5
ANDROGYNOUS
114.5
115.4
51
TABLE V
EFFECTS OF SEX TYPE ON SELF SATISFACTION
MALES
FE:MALES
FEMININE
104.2
104.0
MASCULINE
106.6
100.8
ANDROGYNOUS
109. 6
112.7
52,
TABLE VI
EFFECTS OF SEX -TYPE ON IDENTITY
MALES
FEMALES
FEMININE
130.7
122.0
MASCULINE
124.3
120.0
ANDROGYNOUS
122.0
129.0
53
TABLE VII
EFFECTS OF SEX TYPE ON PERSONALITY INTEGRATION
GROUP
FEMININE
MAS CIIL.ThLE
ANDROGYNOUS
MALES
FEMALES
9.14
9.50
11.00
8. 83
9. 19
9.61
.
'
54
Personality Integration.
11
Effects of Gender:
Wilks 1 Criterian was not significant, approximate F
(4, 111)::: 1. 23,
p / . 30, indicating that self conce_e! is not
effeste~_Ey__g~:r:~ •
Interactions:
Using Wilks 1 Criterian, the combined self concE.::pt scores
~~~igni~icantly
gender;
VIII -
effected b_y_!_he interaction of sex-type with
approximate F
11
(8, 222)
2. 17,
p ...(. 05.
Effect Of Sex-Type By Gender On The DVs.
See Table
11
A further
investigation revealed a significant interaction on Identiy.
~
6. 59,
p
< . 002 ).
Gender On Identity.
11
See Table IX
F (2, 112)
''Interaction Of Sex-Type By
It appears that Gender and Sex-Type
(Androgyny) directly effect an individual's score on Identity
(sample sizes for androgynous males and females were almost
identical).
Intercorrelations:
Intercorrelations among variables were all significant at
the • 05 level.
and Behavior -
The highest intercorrelation was between Identity
• 72.
Satisfaction was· • 69;
Intercorrelation between Behavior and Self
and Identity and Self Satisfaction was
• 65.
These components make up the total positive score, reflecting
general level of self esteem.
This is displayed in Table X -
"Intercorrelations Among The Dependent Variables.
The remaining variables, i.e.
11
Physical Self, Moral-
55
TABLE VIII
EFFECTS OF SEX TYPE BY GENDER ON THE DVs
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
BEHAVIOR
SELF-SATISFACTION
IDENTITY
PERSONALITY
INTEGRATION
*
p
"-. .01
HYPOTHES1S
MEAN SQ
ERROR
MEAN SQ
df
F
209.43
134. 71
2/114 1.56
3.12
130. 13
2/113
.02
263.07
39. 93
2/112
6. 59*
7. 65
11. 63
2/111
.66
56
TABLE IX
INTERACTION OF SEX-TYPE BY GENDER
ON IDENTITY
(Mean Averages)
Score (Identity)
Female
132
- - - - - -
130
Male
'"·
128
'
126
124
122
120
118
FEM.
MASC.
ANDRO.
(A person 1 s identity is not only a composite of sex··type androgyny, but of gender as well).
57
TABLE X
INTERCORRELA TIONS AMONG THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
SELF SATPERSONALITY
BEHAVIOR ISFACTION IDENTITY INTEGRATION
BEHAVIOR
L 00
SELF
--SATISFACTION
• 69
1. 00
IDENTITY
• 72
• 65
1.00
• 20
• 29
. 19
PERSONALITY
"INTEG"RTIYON
1.00
58
Ethical Self, Personal Self, Family Self and Social Self were not
utilized because these variables were too highly related and could
not be measured independently, (known as multicolincarity).
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
_§peculations
Androgynous individuals scored significantly higher than
feminine and masculine individuals on 1 The Behavioral Self'. Fitts
(1965} contended that esteem emanates from the self whenever the
1
Behavorial Self' engaged in self-actualizing behavior.
Later,
Maslow {1970) affirmed the same idea --that though self esteem
is essential to self actualization, self actualization is also essential to self esteem. As mentioned in Chapter I, Bern (1975) found
that when individuals engaged in inappropriate or cross -sex activities, sex typed individuals felt more discomfort, and felt worse
about themselves than androgynous individuals.
Thus, it appears
that one 1 s evaluation of his /her behavior is a strong indicator of
his /her self concept, and mental health.
Androgynous individuals overall, scored higher on most of
the self concept variables,
though these· did not appear to be signi-
ficant, except for Identity
(Gender and Sex-type -
androgyny
had a significant effect on an individual's Identity score).
Holmes
(1972) contended that growth in human beings clearly implies a
reduction of stereotypy and an increase in versatility.
If we can
assume that androgynous individuals are more versatile, then this
59
60
study appears to substantiate Holmes' contention.
It was interesting to discover that androgynous characteristics seem to be more beneficial for females.
Jones, et. al. (1978)
concluded from their research that androgyny is not
SJ:)
adaptive for
males as for females, this study seems to bear this out.
Androgy-
nous fe1nales scored highest on Total Positive score, Behavior,
Self Satisfaction, Identity, and second highest on Personality Integration.
Since the Women's Liberation Movement promotes,
encourages, and values the incorporation of masculine characteristics) it would seem that females who are able to do this, might
have a higher regard for themselves.
As noted in the Literature Review, some researchers found
high masculinity in college-aged males associated with better psychological adjustment (i.e. - Mus sen, 1961).
of this study.
This was not true
In fact, masculine males (although they scored high-
er than feminine females) scored lower than both androgynous and
feminine males on most self concept variables.
In conclusion, it seems reasonable to state that androgynous
individuals, and in particular, androgynous females are more apt
to reflect better mental health than either masculine or feminine
individuals.
However, this finding can only be generalized to a
(college) student population.
Recommendations For Further Research
In view of the implications of this research, there appears
to b·e a need for replications (with a larger population, including
adults), as well as extensions of previous research, in addition to
61
new research studies on the effects of sex-type on self concept.
One possible study might be a comparison of self concepts
of homosexual individuals and heterosexual individuals.
Since
fen~-·
inine rnales scored highest on Total Positive score, it would be interesting to investigate, whether males who are classified as feminine are homosexual; and if the Gay Liberation Movement has been
instrmnental in elevating self concepts among homosexual individuals, as the Wornen 1 s Liberation Movement appears to have done for
females (androgynous females scored higher than feminine females
on all variables}.
Another possible study could be an investigation of therapists 1 influence on clients {or teachers' influence on students) in the
area of sex-role endorsement.
A therapi$t 1 s sex-role endorsement
would be established, then a follow-up could bedone on his /her
clients in order to see if androgynous therapists influence their
clients toward becoming more androgynous, and if sex-typed therapists influence their clients toward becoming more sex-typed.
In conclusion, it seems to this author that the implications of
this study are numerous, particularly for the field of psychology. It
seems that therapists rather than maintaining the status quo, thatis,
helping people to adjust to the world as it is, ought to reconsider
s01ne of their assumptions about human behavior, and attempt to
provide a rnore humane environment where self-actualization and
total human development can be accomplished.
In conclusion, this author looks forward to the day when
male and fen1ale roles are less arbitrarily divided.
In such a
62
culture both sexes will find variety, satisfaction and growth and
a more hmnanistic approach to politics and social change may
then transpire.
CHAPTER VI
REFERENCES
Allport, G. The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, Mass.:
Addis on-Wesley~ 1954.
APA.
Report of the Task Force on Sex Bias and Sex-Role
Stereotyping in Psychotherapeutic Practice. American
Psychologist, December 1975, the American Psychological Association.
Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence.
Rand McNally, 1966.
Bart~
Chicago:
Pauline - cited by Phyllis Chesler Women and Madnes~
Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York,
1972.
Bartee, G. M., The Perceptual Characteristics of Disadvantaged
Negro and Caucasian College Students (Doctoral disseration
East Texas State University) Ann Arbor, Mich:
University Microfilms, 1967.
Bern, Sandra L. ~ Sex Role Adaptability: One Consequence of
Psychological Androgyny, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1975. Vol. 31.
Bernard, Jessie The Future of Marriage, Bantam Book, World
Pub. Co., 1972.
Benetato, J. Inequality On The Couch, Feminism, Human
Behavior, Jan., 1974.
Broverman, Inge K., et al., Sex-Role Stereotypes & Clinical
Judgements Of Mental Health., Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1970.
Brown, D. G., Sex-Role Preference in Young Children,
Psycholog_ical Monograph 2 Vo. 70, 1965.
63
64
Cantarow~ Ellen' Diggs, Elizabeth;
Ellis, Katherine; Marx,
Janet, Robinson, Lillian; and Schien, Muriel, I Am
Furious (Female), An essay to formulate perspectives
for the Women's Caucus of the New University Conference,
1969. Cited by Michele H. Garskof in Roles Women Play:
Readings Toward Women's Liberation. Brooks/Cole
Publishing Cornpany, Belmont, ·California, 1971.
Chesler, Phyllis - Women and Madness, Doubleday & Co.,
INC., Garden City, New York, 1972.
Clark, E. & Clarkp M. Racial Identification and Preference in
Negro Children. In T. M. Ne\X.rcomb and E. L. Hartley
(ED's) Readings In Social PsychologYR New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1947.
Cmnbss A. W. and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior, New York:
Harper and Row, 1959.
Consentino, F., & Heilbrum, A. B. Anxiety correlates of sex-role
identity in college students. Psychological Report_s, 1964.
DeVos, G. The relation of guilt toward parents to achievement
and arranged marriage among the Japanese. Psychiatry
1960.
Dinkmeyer, Don C., Child Development: The Ernerging SelL
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1965.
Donvan, Kulka, and Locksley, cited by Gary Gregg in Psychology
Today, 1976.
Erikson, E. Inner and Outer Space: Reflections On Womanhood,
Daedalus, 1964.
Fan on, F., The Wretched Of The Earth, New York: Grove Press,
1963.
Fitts, W. H., Manual for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
.J>Jashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965 (a)
cited by Fitts, 1972.
The Experience of Psychotherapy: What it's like for
client and therapist. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1965 (b).
_ _ _ __, The Self Concept and Human Behavior, Nashville Mental
Health Center, Research Bulletin No. 1, 1965 (c) cited by
Fitts, 1972.
65
Fitts, ¥1. H~, Interpersonal Competence: The Wheel Model.
Dede Wallace Center Monograph, Nashville, Tenn.,
1970, cited by Fitts, 1972.
----::::' Adarns, J. L.; Radford, G.; Richard, W. C.; Thomas
B. K.; Thomas M. M.; and Thompson, W. The Self
Concept and Self--Actualization. Dede Wallace Center
Monograph. Nashville, Tenn., 1972, No .. 3, Cited by
Fitts, 1972.
Fisher, L. _Gandhi, New York: Signet Key, 1954.
George, F. H. The relationship ·of the self concept, ideal self
concept, values: add parental self concept to the
vocational aspiration of adolescent Negro males.
(Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University)
Ann Arbor, Mich: ·University of Microfilms, 1969.
Gayle, R. Developmental Behavior, London~ The Macmillan
Company, Collier -Macmillan, Ltd., 1969.
Goldberg~
Herb, The Hazards Of Being Male: Surviving The
Myth of Masculine Privilege, Nash Publishing, New York,
1976.
Goldberg, Phillip, Are Women Prejudiced Against Women, cited
by Constantina Safilos-Rothschild, Toward A Sociology_
Of Women, Xerox College Publishing, Mass. 1972.
Gray, S. W., Masculinity-femininity in relation to anxiety and
social acceptance. Child Developmen~ 195 7.
Guttentag, M., and Salasin, S. Women, men and mental health.
In Cater, Scott & Martyna, Eds. Women and Men:
Changing Roles and Perceptions. Aspen-Institute for
Humanistic Studies, 1976.
Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner, Theo:de:s of_?ersonality,
Chapter on Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory, John Wiley
&Sons, Inc., NewYork, 1970.
Haan & I... ivson, Stimulus /Response, Psychol~y Today, February,
1972.
Hartford, T. C. Willis, C. H. & Deabler, H. L. Personality
Correlates 0£ Masculinity-Femininity, Psychological
Reports, 1967.
66
Holmes, D. J. Psychotherapy,
Con1pany, 1972.
Boston: Little, Brown &
Horney, K., NeurosiG and Hmnan Growth, New York: Norton, 1950.
Heilbrum, A. B. & Fromme, D. K. Parental identification of
late adolescents and level of adjustment: The importance
of parent-model attributes, ordinal position, and sex
of the child. Journal of Genetic Psycholo_gy, 1965.
Horner, M., Femininity and Successful Achievement: A basic
inconsistency. In Bardwick, et al., ••• Feminine
Personality and Conflict. Belmont: Brooks /Cole, 1970.
Howes, Coleman K.
Domestic Violence: Psychological
Victim Precipitation and Sex-role
Identification, 1978.
~_ustment,
Johnson, H. E. The relationship of the self concepts of Negro
and white college freshman to the nature of their
written work (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas
State University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University
Microfilms, 1970.
Jones, W., Chernovetz, M. E., and Hansson, R. reported in the
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycl!ology, cited in
Opting for Androgyny, Human Behavior, November, 1978.
Jourard, Sydney M., The Transparent Selfi D. Van Nostrand
Company Revised Edition, 1971.
___
__,,
Ph. D. with Ardis Whitman, The Fear That Cheats
Us Of Love, Redbook, October, 1971.
Jung, C. G. Anima and animus. In Two essays on analytical
~ychol..2IIT.!_ Collected works of C. G. Jung. (Vol. 7)
Bollinger Foundation, 1953.
Kagan, J., Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sexrole identity. In M. L. Hoffm.an & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.)
Review of Child .Development Researc]-2. (Vol. 1)
New York~ Russ ell Sage Foundation, 1964.
Koblochova and Knobloch, cited by Michele H. Garskof (Eds.)
Roles Women Play: Readings Toward Women's
Liberation, Brooks/ Cole Publishing Co., Belmont, CA,
1965.
Kolilberg, L.A., Cognitive - developmt~ntal analysis of children's
sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E:. Maccoby (Ed.)
TI1e develop1nent of sex differences, Stanford, Calif. 11
Stanford University Press, 1966.
f
'
67
Radloff, L. S. Sex differences in helplessness-vVith implications
for depression. In Hansen, L. S. and Rapoza, R. D.,
Eds. ~areer Deve!2£!.0.:~nt and Counseling for w·ornen,
Charles C. Thoma, 1978.
Lipton, A., Cultural Heritage and the Relationship to Self
Esteem, Jo~n~al of Educational Sociology, 36,
January, 1963.
Lewin and Rogers (1963}, cited by Healey, Gary William,
Self Concept: A Comparison of Negro-. Anglo-, and
Spanish American Students across Ethnic, Sex and
Socio-economic Variables, A Dissertation, New
Mexico State University, 1969.
Lipinski, B., Sex-Role Conflict and Achieyement Motivation
in College Women, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Cincinnati, 1965.
Maccoby, E. E., Sex differences in Intellectual functionjng.
In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The Developm.ent Of Sex
Differences. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University
Press, 1966.
Martin, D. Battered Wives, San Francisco: Glide Publications,
1976.
Maslow, A. H., Dominance, Personality and Social Behavior in
Women, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 1939.
Self-Esteem (Dominance Feeling} and Sexuality in
Women, Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 1942.
_ _ _ _ _, Toward a Psychology of Being, Princeton, J. V.,
Van Nostrand, 1968.
McKee, J. and Sherifs, A. C. , The Differential Evaluation of
Males and Females, Journal of Personality, 25, 1957.
Muss en, P. H. Some antecedents and consequents of
masculine sex-typing in adolescent boys. Psychological
Monographs, 1961.
---~-·
Long-term consequences of masculinity of interests
in adolescence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962.
Myrdal, G., An American Dilemma.
New York: Harper, 1944.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory,
Hill, .196 7.
New York: McGraw-
68
Parsons & Bales, Fatninly Socialization and Interaction Process
Glencoe, ill. The Free Press, 1955.
Rogersp C. R., _gli ent-Centered
Mifflin, 1951.
~
Ther~;
On Becomin A Person:
Boston: Houghton
Boston, Houghton Mifflin,
19-61.
------·-' Freedom To Learn:
1 ()69.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill,
Rosenkrantz, P. , Vogel, S., Been H., Broverman, I., &
Broverman, D •• Sex role. stereotypes and self concepts
in college students. Journal of Consulting and
_glinical Psychology, 1968.
Rossi, A., Equality Between The Sexes: An Immodest Proposal,
in Robert J. Lifton (Ed.) The Woman In America.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1965.
Rubin, T. I., M.D., Why Men Don't Understand About Men,
Ladies' Home Journal, November, 1972.
__, What Women Don't Understand About Men, Ladies
Home Journal, September, 1973.
Schwartz, M. C., Counseling the Stereotypes, Feminism,
Human Behavior--2 April, 1974.
Sears, R. R. , Relation of Early Socialization Experiences To
Self-Concepts And Gender Role In Middle Childhood,
Child Development, 1970.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. & Stapp, J. Ratings of self
and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to
self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and
femininity, Journal of Personality and Social
Psycho\Qgy, 1975.
Symonds, A., M.D., The Liberated Woman: Healthy and Neurotic,
The American Journal of Psychoanalysis. 34; 1974.
Toby, Jackson, Violence and the rriasculine ideal: Some
qualitative data. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, March, 1966.
69
Yalley News & Green Sheet, October 17, 1976. Suicide:
An Answer For Housewives 1 Loneliness, by
Barbara Craig.
Webb, A, P., Sex-role preferences and adjustment in early
adolescents. Child Developm_ent, 1963.
Williams, R., and Cole, Sturgeon, Self Concept and School
Adjustment, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47,
October, 1968.
WilsnackJ S. C. The impact of sex roles on women's alcohol.
use and abuse. In: M. Greenblatt and M. Schuckit,
Eds.
Alcoholism Problems in_Women & Children,
Grune & Stratton, 1976.
Winer, Frank, The Relationship of Certain Attitudes Toward
the Mother to Sex-Role Identity, Sex-Role Identity,
1961, University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
·wylie, Ruth C., Children's Estimates of Their Schoolwork
Ability as a Function of Sex, Race, and Socio-econorr1ic
Levels.
Journal of Personality, 31, 1963.