PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY, SEX STEREOTYPING, AND MENTAL HEALTH

by

Judith Lazerson B.A. , M.A. , M.Ed

New York University, 1963 Columbia University, 1964 , Tufts University, 1968

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

The Faculty of Graduate Studies Faculty of Education

Department of Counselling Psychology

We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard:

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1981

(C) Copyright: Judith Schoenholtz Lazerson, 1981

i n

In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or pu b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of CoU-AS&i VSt|dr.olog| t|

The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5

Date JMXAMJ^ 12} 1% j

DE-6 (2/79)

ABSTRACT

Purpose

The f i r s t purpose of the present study was to i n v e s t i ­

gate the d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological androgyny and sex

stereotyping in a group of non-psychotic p s y c h i a t r i c out­

patients. The second purpose was to explore the differences

between androgynous male and female patients and sex typed

male and female patients on a variety of mental health

variables including self-esteem, severity and pattern of

psychopathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l

f l e x i b i l i t y .

Procedure

The 103 patients were seeking admission to an out­

patient psychotherapy program at a university h o s p i t a l . To

measure psychological androgyny the nurturance (LM) scales

and the dominance s c a l e s (PA) from the I n t e r p e r s o n a l

A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980) were used and

i n i t a l l y scored according to the t - r a t i o method (Bern, 1974).

Given the nature of the obtained d i s t r i b u t i o n , a recategor-

i z a t i o n based on a modification of the o r i g i n a l t - r a t i o

method was used to form the groups examined in subsequent

analyses.

The androgynous and sex typed patient groups were

compared for s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the four mental

health variables. Self-esteem was measured and analyzed two

i i

ways. F i r s t , the patients' scores on the Rosenberg S e l f -

Esteem Scale were analyzed in a 3 x 2 analysis of variance.

Second, the discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f was

determined by patients rating the IAS twice. Contingency

tables, r e a l by id e a l , were constructed to show the d i r e c ­

tion and amount of s h i f t from r e a l to ideal sex type

category.

The s e v e r i t y and pa t t e r n of psychopathology were

measured by the MMPI c l i n i c a l scales and the MMPI content

scales (Wiggins, 1966). To determine the c l i n i c a l group

differences on the MMPI c l i n i c a l scales, the mean score for

each scale was plotted on a MMPI p r o f i l e for each sex typed

group. The 13 MMPI content scales were separately analyzed

in thirteen 3 x 2 analyses of variance. Social adjustment,

as measured by the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , was analyzed

for sex type group differences in f i f t e e n 3 x 2 analyses of

va r i a n c e . To determine i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y , the

p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y of the sex type groups' scores on the

IAS was analyzed using the F-ratio and following Wiggins and

Holzmuller (1979).

Results

In the d i s t r i b u t i o n of androgyny and sex type groups,

very few patients were androgynous., The greatest proportion

of patients for both sexes was feminine or hyper feminine in

sex type (90 of 103).

i i i

In the exploration of sex type group differences on

measures of mental health, androgynous patients had s i g n i f i ­

cantly higher self-esteem on the RSE and they had le s s

discrepancy between the i r r e a l and i d e a l s e l f scores than

the extreme sex typed hyper feminine group. The androgynous

patients' MMPI p r o f i l e s indicated less psychopathology and a

d i f f e r e n t pattern of psychopathology as compared to the

other sex type groups. On three of the 13 content scales,

androgynous patients had s i g n i f i c a n t l y less pathology than

the extreme sex typed group. There were no group d i f f e r ­

ences on the s o c i a l adjustment measure. The androgynous

males showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y

than the other male groups as measured on the IAS.

It was concluded that in t h i s sample the androgynous

patients, or those with a balance of dominance and nurtur­

ance, tended to have better mental health than stereotyped

feminine or hyper feminine patients. It seemed to be the

lack of dominance or assertiveness rather than nurturance

which predicted the severity of mental i l l n e s s in ' the

patient group.

Psychological Androgyny, Sex Stereotypi and Mental Health

Table of Contents

I Chapter 1 Concepts of Femininity and Masculinity: The Emergence of Psychological Androgyny

Introduction Purpose of the Study

II Chapter 2 Literature Review: A Turn Toward Androgyny

Introduction H i s t o r i c a l Background The Development of Androgyny Scales Psychological Androgyny and Mental Health Hypotheses

III Chapter 3 Methodology

The Setting and Subjects Procedure Data Analysis

IV Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

Hypotheses

V Chapter 5 Conclusion

Summary of the Study Conclusions and Interpretations Limitations of the Study Future Research

VI Bibliography

VII Appendices

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.0 Demographic Characteristics 68

4.0 Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s 91

4.1 Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Item Analysis 94

4.2 I n i t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sex Type Categories 96

4.3 Recategorization of Sex Type Groups 99

4.4 ANOVA Table f o r Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) ' 104

4.5 Patient Means for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) 104

4.6 Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Female Patients 106

4.7 Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Male Patients 107

4.8 MMPI Content S c a l e s — F - R a t i o 123

4.9 Table of Means—Content Scales Raw Scores 123

4.10 IAS Transformed P r o f i l e Means and P r o f i l e Variations for Each Sex Type Group 127

v i

LIST OF FIGURES ,

Figure

4.0 Structure of the Interpersonal Variables in Patient (Real) Rating 93

4.1 Sex Type Groups With Males and Females Combined: MMPI 110

4.2 Total Male Patient Group: MMPI 111

4.3 Total Female Patient Group: MMPI 112

4.4 Male Sex Type Groups: MMPI 115

4.5 Female Sex Type Groups: MMPI 116

v i i

LIST OF APPENDICES

Append ix A Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales 164

B Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 168

C RSE Scoring Directions 169

D Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t 172

E Consent Form 173

F D i r e c t i o n s f o r Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l Adjective Scales 174

G Structure of the Interpersonal Variables in the Patient Sample 175

H Demographic Contingency Tables 177 I Analyses of Variance for Non-significant

Content Scales 184

J B a r t l e t t ' s Test for Homogeneity of V a r i ­ance 186

K Analyses of Variance—Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t 188

v i i i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would l i k e to thank co-workers, friends, professors,

and my family for their support and encouragement during the

writing of thi s thesis. Dr. Ferdinand Knobloch, Annalies

Camfferman, Angelo Guzzetti, Dr. P a t r i c i a Schwartz, and Val

Kaneva were patient colleagues at the Day House. Carolyn

Malhey and Val Kaneva graciously helped with scoring the

test r e s u l t s . Frank Flynn's assistance as a computer

analyst was invaluable. My thesis committee, Dr. Stephen

Marks, Dr. Sharon Kahn, Dr. Todd Rogers, and Dr. Jerry

Wiggins gave freely of their time.

I e s p e c i a l l y appreciated the confidence Ferdinand and

J i r i n a Knobloch always had in my a b i l i t i e s . And most

important, without the strong hand and good sense of humor

from my husband, Marvin, and my son, Jared, the task would

have seemed impossible.

ix

1

Chapter 1

CONCEPTS OF FEMININITY AND MASCULINITY: THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY

Introduction

No more than 15 years ago, few questioned t r a d i t i o n a l

assumptions about femininity and masculinity. Men were

expected to grow up "masculine" and women "feminine."

Implicit in th i s view was the b e l i e f that good mental health

was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with a man's masculinity and a

woman's femininity. At the same time a seemingly contra­

d i c t o r y view was held which clashed with the b e l i e f that men

and women should f o l l o w d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l paths.

C l a s s i c a l psychoanalysts, in p a r t i c u l a r , viewed a woman's

vu l n e r a b i l i t y to neurosis as part of her nature. Thus, even

when l i v i n g out her destiny as a female, a woman was perhaps

doomed to neurotic tendencies. This assumption had a pro­

found e f f e c t on the diagnosis of mental i l l n e s s and views

toward women in general.

In reaction to the t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f s , p a r t i c u l a r l y

the b i o l o g i c a l emphasis in male and female development,

psychologists influenced by the feminist movement in the

1960's sought new psychological explanations for sex d i f ­

ferences i n patterns of mental health. M i l l e r (1976) sug­

gested that women's s o c i a l roles were undervalued by society

and that t h i s had a devastating e f f e c t on their self-esteem.

Chesler (1973) looked more intensively at the bias in

diagnosis of mental i l l n e s s and found c l i n i c i a n s strongly

2

influenced by s o c i a l norms. It followed from these argu­

ments that with the equalization of s o c i a l roles between men

and women, there would be fewer sex differences in the

patterns of mental health. The concept of psychological

androgyny (Bern, 1974), a balance between t r a d i t i o n a l mascu­

l i n e and t r a d i t i o n a l feminine behaviors, was offered as a

theo r e t i c a l revision of c l a s s i c a l views of masculinity and

femininity.

Psychological androgyny has been cited by many as a

conceptual breakthrough. Walum (1977) suggested i t was "one

of the most powerful concepts to have recently emerged" (p.

100). " It d i r e c t l y challenges a latent assumption in most

psychological research: sex-typing i s good for the i n d i v i d ­

ual and for the society" (p. 101). Walum concluded, "One of

the major s o c i a l tasks, therefore, w i l l be the job of l e g i ­

timizing androgyny through the r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n of agents of

s o c i a l control" (p. 102).

Lips and C o l w i l l (1978) and Frieze, Parsons, Johnson,

Ruble, and Zellman (1978), in the i r texts on sex r o l e s ,

argued that androgyny seemed to be closely associated with

behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y , therefore, mental health. Both

suggested that r i g i d s o c i a l i z a t i o n into any role may lead to

poor functioning and behavioral i n f l e x i b i l i t y . Pleck (1975)

and Rebecca, Hefner, and Oleshansky (1976) incorporated

psychological androgyny into their models for sex ro l e

development and viewed androgyny and sex role transcendence

as an ultimate developmental goal. They suggested there

3

would be no fear of punishment for v i o l a t i n g sex role norms

when sex-role stereotypes are transcended. Kaplan and Bean

(1976) also offered a d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. For them, i t

was f l e x i b i l i t y of sex r o l e . The androgynous person behaved

in an integrated feminine and masculine way. They hoped

that eventually the.behavior of men and women would not be

associated with gender stereotypes.

Psychological androgyny, as opposed to being masculine

or feminine, was suggested as a s o c i a l and psychological

solution to the stereotypic behaviors t r a d i t i o n a l l y demanded

of i n d i viduals. It was expected that individuals with a

balance of male and female interpersonal behaviors would

have b e t t e r mental h e a l t h , i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e h a v i o r a l

f l e x i b i l i t y (Bern, 1974). As a f i r s t step to test t h i s

hypothesis, researchers in the area of psychological andro­

gyny began to develop measures to i d e n t i f y an individual's

sex stereotype (Bern, 1974; Berzins, Wellings, & Wetter,

1978; Heilbrun, 1976; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975;

Wiggins,/ 1978). A number of tests emerged as well as

studies comparing subjects who were androgynous to those who

were stereotyped in a variety of dimensions related to

mental health.

The concept of psychological androgyny, as conceived by

Bern (1974) and further developed by Spence and Helmreich

(1978), conceptualized m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y as

orthogonal dimensions, most c l o s e l y represented by the

4

concepts of instrumentality and expressivity (Bern, 1979;

Spence & Helmreich, 1979). For them the androgynous person

would have behaviors (Bern, 1974) or self-concept (Spence &

Helmreich, 1979) which included both the masculine and

feminine. They rejected the assumption that masculinity and

femininity were opposite ends of a continuum and eliminated

such areas as interests and a c t i v i t i e s in t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n

of f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y . Bern went f u r t h e r and

operationalized her d e f i n i t i o n by stating that the andro­

gynous person would demonstrate behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y in

a l l s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e d e x p r e s s i v i t y and i n s t r u ­

mentality. The androgynous person would be y i e l d i n g when

necessary and assertive according to the requirements of the

s i t u a t i o n .

By reinterpreting femininity and masculinity in terms

of instrumentality and expressivity or agency and communal-

i t y , both Bern and Spence and Helmreich attempted to move

away from the vagueness associated with the broad concept.

However, these terms were s t i l l too broad and there was more

meaning in the d e f i n i t i o n of psychological androgyny as a

balance of interpersonal b e h a v i o r s — p r i m a r i l y dominance and

nurturance (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1979). The sex stereo­

typed person would lack a balance and be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

higher on one dimension than the other as measured by a test

to determine sex type.

Mental Health and Femininity and Masculinity

The important epidemiological studies of gender d i f f e r ­

ences in mental health provide some of the background for

the emergence of psychological androgyny in the 1970's and

for the present research. Epidemiological studies of sex

differences in mental health give empirical support to the

theo r e t i c a l view, prevailing in c l a s s i c a l psychoanalysis and

i m p l i c i t in psychological models, that women's psychological

development i s perceived as more d i f f i c u l t and re s u l t s in

higher rates of mental i l l n e s s .

Gove (1979), in a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , reported

that women had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher r a t e s of h o s p i t a l

admissions for both neuroses and psychoses than men. One

and one-half to two times as many women were diagnosed neur­

o t i c . In community surveys, as well, women continued to

show higher rates of neuroses than men.

Weissman and Klerman (1979) documented that women pre­

dominate among the depressives. Women attended physicians

more than men for a l l i l l n e s s e s . Even in community surveys

of women who had not sought help, the figures on depression

were similar to those from health f a c i l i t y reports. They

argued the figures could not be considered an a r t i f a c t .

Contrary to what some believed, "women do not have more

s t r e s s f u l l i f e events and do not judge l i f e events more

s t r e s s f u l " (p. 397). Women did have more symptoms, and they

stated t h i s was not due to trying to impress the interviewer

6

nor was i t because women were more l i k e l y to admit symptoms

than men.

The higher proportion of neuroses among women i s not

explained adequately by t r a d i t i o n a l personality theory. If

the theories did account for feminine and masculine develop­

ment, one would expect that individuals who followed the

"normal" developmental sequence would not be prone to mental

i l l n e s s . On the other hand, i f "normal" development i s not

desirable and for women i t may not be, then one would expect

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n to show up i n some way. Broverman,

Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) added

credence to the argument that what some theories and s o c i a l

stereotypes described as healthy are viewed by c l i n i c i a n s as

sick.

Recently, t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l explanations

emerged to account for the higher rates of mental i l l n e s s

among women. In Gove's view, women experienced greater role

stress than men, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the women were married. In

thei r functions as mothers and housewives, they received

l i t t l e s o c i a l recognition, no f i n a n c i a l reward, experienced

boredom, and constantly t r i e d to conform to others' demands

(Gove, 1979). He suggested that equalization of s o c i a l r ole

w i l l diminish sex differences. Weissman and Klerman (1979)

combined s o c i a l learning and so c i e t a l stress factors into

one model to explain higher rates of depression among women.

They attributed causes to low s o c i a l status, discrimination,

and legal and economic in e q u i t i e s . The Brown and Harris

7

(1978) community survey offered further support for s o c i a l

causes. Brown and Harris found significance in factors such

as loss of mother in childhood, three or more children under

14 l i v i n g in the home, the absence of a supportive intimate

r e l a t i o n s h i p with a boyfriend, and the lack of a part- or

ful l - t i m e job. Weissman and Paykel (1974) found marital

d i s t r e s s contributed to higher rates of depression. Some

suggest c l i n i c a l bias as a factor in higher rates of i l l n e s s

among women. In Whitely's (1979) review of the l i t e r a t u r e ,

he found although c l i n i c i a n s had biases as Broverman e_t a l .

(1970) demonstrated, there was no evidence t h e i r views

effected t h e i r actual judgments during therapy.

Seligman's (1974) "learned helplessness" model of f e r s

the major s o c i a l learning explanation for high rates of

female mental i l l n e s s . He explained depression among women

as a re s u l t of s o c i a l i z a t i o n to a role which l i m i t s the

behavioral repertoire to behaviors associated with t r a d i ­

t i o n a l f e m i n i n i t y . M i l l e r (1976) suggested that the

combination of low s o c i a l s t a t u s , the undervaluing of

feminine behaviors, and females' avoidance of c o n f l i c t

contributes to mental i l l n e s s in women.

Psychological androgyny, as a new theo r e t i c a l model,

makes i t possible to ask questions about the rel a t i o n s h i p of

mental i l l n e s s to gender and sex stereotype. For example,

are women who conform to the i r stereotype more or less

adjusted as compared to those who are androgynous or

8

masculine typed? In a neurotic patient group, what pro­

portions of men and women have feminine stereotyped behav­

iors? The t r a d i t i o n a l theories indicate that those who are

stereotypic in feminine behaviors w i l l predominate in a

n e u r o t i c p a t i e n t group. Studies on c l i n i c a l samples

indicate support for the high proportion of men and women

patients to describe themselves with stereotypic "feminine"

behaviors (Berzins e_t a_l. , 1978).

Since p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny not only challenges

t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of f e m i n i n i t y and mascu­

l i n i t y , but also o f f e r s a new model of mental health, new

ways of examining the rel a t i o n s h i p of mental health and sex

stereotyping are open to research.

Purpose of the Study

Although psychological androgyny has been associated

with good mental health, the rel a t i o n s h i p has received

l i t t l e attention. Vogel (1979), Worell (1978), and Logan

and Kaschak (1980) ca l l e d for further research on the

rel a t i o n s h i p between mental health and androgyny. Almost

a l l of the work that has been done thus far has used normal

populations, usually students. Studies have focused on the

rela t i o n s h i p between androgyny and self-esteem (Spence &

Helmreich, 1978), androgyny and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y

(Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978), androgyny and b e h a v i o r a l

f l e x i b i l i t y (Bern, 1974; Bern & Lenney, 1976), and androgyny

and adjustment (Deutsch & G i l b e r t , 1975; Jones, Chernovetz,

& Hansson, 1978; Silvern & Ryan, 1979). Recently, some have

9

suggested masculinity i s a better predictor of adjustment

than androgyny (Silvern & Ryan, 1979). These r e s u l t s were

similar to Latorre, Endman, and Gossman (1976), who found

h o s p i t a l i z e d p s y c h o t i c and non-psychotic p a t i e n t s rated

themselves higher on femininity than a group of normal

adults. However, these studies have not systematically

investigated androgyny and sex typing in groups of persons

with mental health problems and have not explored how the

stereotyped and androgynous persons d i f f e r in the area of

psychopathology and s o c i a l adjustment. Psychological andro­

gyny seems to be a v a l i d construct among normal populations

but to what degree i t exists among persons who suffer from

psychological d i s t r e s s needs further investigation.

This study was an exploration of psychological andro­

gyny in a group of non-psychotic outpatients attending a day

c l i n i c at a•large university h o s p i t a l . The general mental

health of the patient group was examined in terms of a

number of mental health variables: self-esteem, psychopath­

ology, s o c i a l adjustment or l i f e problems, and interpersonal

f l e x i b i l i t y . These categories of mental health r e f l e c t

c r i t e r i a suggested by Strupp and Hadley (1977). In th e i r

t r i p a r t i t e model of mental health, they pointed out the

importance of measuring a patient's adjustment from three

perspectives, the individual's self-esteem, the person's

s o c i a l adjustment in terms of his or her a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l

s o c i a l r o l e s , and c l i n i c a l and psychological evaluation of

an individual's psychopathology and interpersonal r e l a t i o n s .

10

Accepting t h i s view of mental health, the following research

questions were addressed in the present study:

1) What i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of androgyny, stereotyped, and

crossed sexed persons in a group of male and female

non-psychotic patients?

2) How do androgynous patients d i f f e r from stereotyped

patients in self-esteem?

3) Do androgynous patients d i f f e r from sex typed patients

in the patterns of psychopathology reported or severity

of psychopathology?

4) Do androgynous patients rate the severity of l i f e

problems or s o c i a l adjustment d i f f e r e n t l y than the sex

typed patients?

5) Do androgynous patients d i f f e r from stereotyped pa­

tie n t s in interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y ?

D e f i n i t i o n of Terms

Specialized terms have emerged from the research on

psychological androgyny. The s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s which are

described below refer to those terms most often used in the

present investigation.

Masculine stereotyped or m a s c u l i n i t y : i n t h e i r

broadest usage, refer to behavior, d i s p o s i t i o n s , propensi­

t i e s , and tendencies t y p i c a l l y associated with men in our

culture. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they are used in the present

study to refer to the dominance score (dominance-ambitious

scale) on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales (Wiggins,

1980). A person who rates high on dominance i s considered

11

to be higher on masculinity than a person who rates lower on

dominance.

Feminine stereotyped or femininity: in th e i r broadest

usage refer to behavior, d i s p o s i t i o n s , propensities, and

tendencies t y p i c a l l y associated with women in our culture.

S p e c i f i c a l l y , they are used in the present study to refer to

the nurturance score (warm-agreeable scale) on the Inter­

personal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1980). A person who

rates high on nurturance i s considered to be higher on

femininity than a person who rates lower on nurturance.

Psychological androgyny: i s a balance of masculinity

(dominance) and femininity (nurturance). In s t a t i s t i c a l

terms there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the scores

on the dominance (dominance-ambitious) scale and nurturance

(warm-agreeable) scale on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales

(Wiggins, 1980). An androgynous person refers to a person

who has a balance of dominance and nurturance as interper­

sonal behaviors.

Sex typed or sex stereotyped: persons have a s i g n i f i ­

cant d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r dominance and nurturance

scores. They are lacking a balance of dominance and

nurturance behaviors and are lab e l l e d in the d i r e c t i o n of

the stereotype. The stereotyped person's behavior i s

limited in the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotype. A male or

female can be masculine or feminine stereotyped.

12

Cross typed: persons measure in the opposite d i r e c t i o n

to their gender on the dominance and nurturance scales, for

example, the masculine stereotyped female.

Psych i a t r i c population: refers to those persons who

i d e n t i f y in themselves recognized ps y c h i a t r i c symptoms as

described by the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic

Manual (1968) and diagnosed by a mental health professional

according to the DSM I I .

Mental health: i s determined by ind i v i d u a l s ' s e l f -

esteem or s e l f s a t i s f a c t i o n , their a b i l i t y to function in

society, and their degree of psychopathology as evaluated by

themselves, mental health c l i n i c i a n s , and standard psycho­

l o g i c a l measures.

In the chapters which follow, a discussion of the

h i s t o r i c a l background to the emergence of psychological

androgyny, the recent l i t e r a t u r e on psychological androgyny

and mental health, and the research h'ypotheses are pre­

sented. The l i t e r a t u r e review i s followed by a description

of the methodology used in the present study including the

sett i n g , measures, selection of subjects, and procedures.

The results and discussion are then presented, followed by

the conclusion which suggests some theoreti c a l and empirical

implications of the present study.

1 3

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW: A TURN TOWARD ANDROGYNY

Introduction

Although androgyny i s a term with a long l i t e r a r y

history (Gelpi, 1974; Secor, 1974), i t was only recently

adopted as an important construct in psychology when Bern

(1976) introduced psychological androgyny as a reconceptual-

iz a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l views of masculinity and femininity.

The new model challenged the t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions which

c l a s s i f i e d the stereotyped person as healthy and interpreted

deviations from c u l t u r a l sex-roles as maladaptive. Support

for a new approach was found in the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l

atmosphere of the late 1960's with the f l o u r i s h i n g of the

feminist movement, as well as in the th e o r e t i c a l views of

Jung (1953), Parsons and Bales (1955), Bakan (1966), Carlson

(1971), and Block (1973). A l l hypothesized a d u a l i s t i c

model of masculinity and femininity and rejected the t r a d i ­

t i o n a l bipolar model. Their positions suggested masculine

and feminine t r a i t s could exist in varying amounts in the

same i n d i v i d u a l . For Jung they were anima and animus; for

Parsons and Bales they were instrumentality and expressivi­

t y ; and Bakan's dichotomy was agency and communion.

Although their models d i f f e r e d , they provided the theoreti­

c a l background for the new construct with d e f i n i t e s o c i a l

and emotional implications. "If our s o c i a l aim can become,

both c o l l e c t i v e l y and i n d i v i d u a l l y , the i n t e g r a t i o n of

14 \

o

agency and communion, t h e b e h a v i o r a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l

o p t i o n s o f men and women a l i k e w i l l be broadened and

en r i c h e d and we a l l can become more t r u l y whole, more t r u l y

human" (Block, 1973, p. 526).

A new model of mental h e a l t h emerged from the theory o f

p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Bern (1974) and Spence, Helmreich,

and Stapp (1975) suggested the person who has both f e m i n i n i ­

t y and m a s c u l i n i t y or communality and i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y would

be h e a l t h i e r . There was not complete agreement on a

d e f i n i t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny b u t f o r Bern the

andrognynous person would be more f l e x i b l e i n b e h a v i o r .

Spence e_t _ a l . (1 975) and Spence and H e l m r e i c h (1 978 )

s t r e s s e d that the androgynous person would have high s e l f -

esteem. Kaplan (1976) emphasized p e r s o n a l i t y i n t e g r a t i o n

f o r the androgynous i n d i v i d u a l .

In t h i s chapter, three broad t o p i c s r e l a t e d to psycho­

l o g i c a l androgyny are reviewed. The f i r s t i s the h i s t o r i c a l

background; the second i s the emergence o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l

a ndrogyny, i t s measures and models; and t h i r d i s the

r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g androgyny to mental h e a l t h . In r e v i e w i n g

the l i t e r a t u r e , the h i s t o r i c a l background f o r the emergence

o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny i s found i n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c

t h e o r i e s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of sex r o l e development,

and i n e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s on sex d i f f e r e n c e s . The chapter

proceeds to a d i s c u s s i o n of the major c o n t r i b u t o r s to the

androgyny model i n c l u d i n g Bern (1974), Spence and Helmreich

(1978), B e r z i n s et a l . (1978), H e i l b r u n (1976), and Wiggins

15

and Holzmuller (1978, 1981). Their research i s described in

terms of th e i r measures of androgyny, scoring procedures,

and the o r e t i c a l contributions. This i s followed by a

description of studies r e l a t i n g androgyny to the mental

he a l t h v a r i a b l e s : self-esteem, s o c i a l adjustment, and

interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y .

H i s t o r i c a l Background

Psychoanalysis and Femininity and Masculinity

Psychoanalysis o f f e r s one of the most comprehensive

psychological theories of our time and any discussion of the

concepts of masculinity and femininity cannot overlook the

theories from th i s perspective which have had a pervasive

influence on our views of male and female personality

development. In examining the psychoanalytic theories, two

important points are s i g n i f i c a n t . The f i r s t i s that there

i s no one monolithic psychoanalytic viewpoint. Second, the

b e l i e f in the i n f e r i o r i t y of women due to thei r b i o l o g i c a l

endowments i s accepted by some, partly accepted by others,

and rejected by s t i l l others. But the overriding assumption

for most i s that gender determines personality. There i s a

dichotomy between the masculine and feminine and, i f women

move toward the masculine or men toward the feminine, the

re s u l t i s pathological or at least problematic.

For many, i t i s easy to dismiss the work of the psycho­

analysts. Strouse (1974) eloquently warns against t h i s .

16

For the dogma of woman's 'anatomical i n f e r i o r i t y ' i s only the most accessible and e a s i l y miscon­strued element in a system of ideas whose s i g n i f i ­cance for feminism i s that i t suggests so much about interactions between s o c i a l organization and the deepest l e v e l s of sexuality ... and an under­standing of them has to be a basis for any pro­found p o l i t i c a l or psychological understanding of women.

(p.11)

At the same time, psychoanalysts reexamining t h e i r

contributions in thi s area have become more s e l f c r i t i c a l .

Gelb (1973) wrote:

Psychoanalysts have contributed to the view-- of women as weak, i n f e r i o r , passive, f r a g i l e , s o f t , v a c i l l a t i n g , dependent, unreliable, i n t u i t i v e ... Men have been polarized as aggressive, c o n t r o l ­l i n g , strong, superior, proud, independent, ven­turesome, competitive, hard and a t h l e t i c .

(p.367)

In his psychoanalytic theory, Freud attempted to o f f e r

a comprehensive explanation for the development of the

masculine and feminine psyche. His ideas were refuted

w i t h i n the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c movement by Horney (1935),

Thompson (1943), Klein (1928), Erikson (1968) and others, as

well as outside psychoanalysis. Feminists have been out­

raged and have written extensively on Freudian misconcep­

tions ( M i t c h e l l , 1974). Others such as Janeway (1974)

suggested that Freud was not putting women into an i n f e r i o r

place but describing how women arrived at a s o c i a l l y disad­

vantaged position. However, "the fact remains ... that h i s

theory tended to j u s t i f y the r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on women

rather than to question t h e i r necessity" (Lips & C o l w i l l ,

1 978, p.38)'.

C l a s s i c a l Freudian theory supported f i v e important

assumptions related to masculinity and femininity which

contribute to maintaining present stereotypes. F i r s t , Freud

stressed the differences between men and women in the devel­

opment of personality and conceptualized their development,

not only as dichotomous, but also as bipolar. To be

healthy, the male followed the masculine pattern of develop­

ment and the female took the feminine path. Second, the

differences between men and women were irrevokable since

they were rooted in physiology. Third, female psychosexual

development was portrayed as more d i f f i c u l t than for the

male. This was attributed to the woman's f a i l u r e to resolve

her Oedipus Complex completely. Fourth, feminine personal­

i t y t r a i t s were i d e n t i f i e d as passive and m a s o c h i s t i c

indicating i n f e r i o r i t y as opposed to the more powerful and

dominant male t r a i t s . F i f t h , a l l of the above factors led

to the conclusion women were more vulnerable to neurosis

than men (Freud, 1925).

Horney (1935) and Thompson (1943, 1950, 1964) posed the

most serious challenge to the c l a s s i c a l a nalytic view of men

and women from within the psychoanalytic movement. Their

th e o r e t i c a l contributions to feminine and masculine per­

sonality development explain, in d i f f e r e n t terms, the under­

lying assumption in the c l a s s i c a l position—women's i n f e r i ­

o r i t y . Horney d i r e c t l y challenged c l a s s i c a l theory as a

"masculine mode of thought" (Horney, 1926, p. 9).

1 8

Horney argued that the " s o c i a l subordination of women"

contributes to women's feelings of i n f e r i o r i t y . Although

Horney attempted to move away from the t r a d i t i o n a l view of

the feminine personality, she saw many women's wish to be

men as a central issue in their personality. This wish was

seen as pathological.

Some of the reasons women may be predisposed to maso­

chism cited by Horney are c u l t u r a l factors, such as lack of

outlets for sexual expression, popular views about the

i n f e r i o r i t y of women, economic dependence of women on men,

and r e s t r i c t i o n of occupational opportunities. Masochistic

attitudes are favore'd in women and discouraged in men. '

Dependence on the opposite sex, i n h i b i t i o n of independence,

and absorption in f a l l i n g in love are considered s o c i a l l y

desirable t r a i t s .

In agreement with Horney (1935), Thompson (1943)

stressed c u l t u r a l conditions to explain women's i n f e r i o r i t y .

Like Horney, th i s i s not considered a b i o l o g i c a l condition

but a s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n . She goes much further than

Horney in her attempts to explain a feminine personality.

Thompson (1943),refuted Freud's view that women's

i n f e r i o r i t y was related to penis envy. She argued that what

women envied was the power men had, not the penis. Penis

envy could be viewed as a symbolic wish for the penis which

equals power. The t y p i c a l t r a i t s associated with women,

noted in the psychoanalytic l i t e r a t u r e as greater narcis­

sism, need to be loved, r i g i d i t y , p a s s i v i t y , and masochism

19

a r e the r e s u l t s o f economic h e l p l e s s n e s s a c c o r d i n g t o

Thompson. She suggested t h e i r p r eoccupation with t h e i r need

to be lo v e d , t h e i r appearance, and t h e i r development o f

other negative t r a i t s had been j u s t i f i e d i n p a r t because

they had to depend on men and had no s e c u r i t y o f t h e i r own.

I m p l i c i t i n Thompson's work was the view t h a t women may be

more s u s c e p t i b l e to n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s due to t h e i r s o c i a l l y

i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n . I f women u t i l i z e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f u l l y ,

they must i n e v i t a b l y c o n f l i c t with c o n v e n t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s

and v a l u e s .

By e m p h a s i z i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the fe m a l e sex

st e r e o t y p e , both Horney and Thompson gave some support f o r

the development o f a new view of f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y

as represented i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. The c u l t u r a l

p o i n t o f view made i t p o s s i b l e to view feminine and mascu­

l i n e b e h a v i o r s as changeable and not f i x e d by b i o l o g y . But

they adhered to the view o f f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y as

unidimensional which i s r e j e c t e d i n the new concept o f

androgyny.

Jung (1953) adopted an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e

i n understanding m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y . He d i d not

a p p r o a c h the male and femal e p s y c h e s as s e p a r a t e and

d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s p o w e r f u l l y determined by p h y s i o l o g y nor

d i d he s t r e s s c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . Instead, h i s view was more

a b s t r a c t as were other aspects o f h i s theory. For him there

was a masculine and feminine p r i n c i p l e which could e x i s t

20

within one individual in varying amounts. Jung's arche­

types, anima and animus, l a i d the groundwork for further

developments in the f i e l d which continued to emphasize

theoretical p r i n c i p l e s of masculinity and femininity.

Erikson's theory on masculinity and femininity combined

the b i o l o g i c a l orientation found in Freud, the c u l t u r a l

position of Thompson, and the typologies as represented by

Jung. "History and personality and anatomy are our j o i n t

destiny" (1974, p. 323). The b i o l o g i c a l influence for him

i s s t i l l a major determinant of male and female behavior,

far greater than Horney and Thompson would acknowledge. The modalities of woman's commitment and involve­ment, for better and for worse, also r e f l e c t the ground plan of her body. We may mention only women's capacity on many level s of existence to (actively) include, to accept, to have and h o l d — but also to hold on, and to hold i n .

(1974, p. 126)

Sociological and Additional Psychological Views of Femininity and Masculinity

Thinkers outside psychoanalysis tended to explain sex

stereotyping in d i f f e r e n t ways. So c i o l o g i s t s , including

Parsons and Bales (1955) and Bakan (1966) continued to

characterize the differences between men and women along

stereotypic l i n e s . Psychologists, such as Kohlberg and

Zigler (1976) and Bandura (1969, 1977) offered t h e o r e t i c a l

models to explain the development of gender id e n t i t y and

tended to perpetuate the t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions of femi­

n i n i t y and masculinity.

21

In Parsons and Bales' (1955) a n a l y s i s o f the f a m i l y

s o c i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s , s o c i o l o g y , psychology, and psychoan­

a l y s i s are i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a systematic model of p e r s o n a l i t y

development. They suggested a dichotomy, i n s t r u m e n t a l vs.

e x p r e s s i v e , as the two b a s i c o r i e n t a t i o n s around which the

male and female developed. The i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e r e p r e s e n t s

tasks o r i e n t e d to work and managing business e x t e r n a l to the

home and the e x p r e s s i v e r o l e o r g a n i z e s the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s

w i t h i n the home. Each i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r n a l i z e s a system o f

s o c i a l o b j e c t (person) r e l a t i o n s which i n c l u d e both expres­

s i v e and i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e s . T h i s i s a complex pro c e s s .

Without e x p l o r i n g i t f u l l y here, the r e s u l t i s a s t e r e o t y p i c

view of masculine and feminine development. S i m i l a r l y ,

David Bakan's (1966) work i s rooted i n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . He

too, p o s t u l a t e d two b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l i f e — c o m m u n i o n

and agency. He argued that the i n t e g r a t i o n of communion and

agency i s fundamental to human, emotional, and s p i r i t u a l

growth. Men and women are brought together i n t h e i r

s t r i v i n g f o r such i n t e g r a t i o n . For him, agency r e f e r s to

the need to p r o t e c t , expand, and a s s e r t o n e s e l f and to

separate from other b e i n g s . Communion i s the tendency to

conduct and u n i t e with other beings. Due to the d i f f e r e n t

r e p r o d u c t i v e r o l e s , agency i s stronger i n males and com­

munion i n females. L i k e Freud, he accepts a p l a c e f o r

b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n h i s theory. However, u n l i k e Freud, he

emphasizes human p e r s o n a l i t y growth through i n t e g r a t i o n o f

the two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s . Bakan's view can be e a s i l y

22

compared to Parsons and B a l e s . The e f f o r t s to develop a

theory o f androgyny i n the 1970's were based on both the

Parsons and Bales and Bakan models and s t r o v e to i n t e g r a t e

the d u a l i t i e s posed by them.

Other p s y c h o l o g i s t s have taken at l e a s t two q u i t e

d i f f e r e n t approaches toward the study o f f e m i n i n i t y and

m a s c u l i n i t y . One d i r e c t i o n , as represented by Terman (1936)

and Strong (1943) was to assume sex d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d and

t h a t they could be v e r i f i e d through measurement s c a l e s . The

e a r l i e s t m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s developed by Terman

and M i l e s (1 936 ) u n f o r t u n a t e l y were >not based on any

t h e o r e t i c a l model. A more t h e o r e t i c a l approach to the

a c q u i s i t i o n , of sex s t e r e o t y p e s emerged from the school of

developmental" psychology.

In the 1950's and 60's two important t h e o r i e s were

o f f e r e d to e x p l a i n how c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e gender r e l a t e d

b e h a v i o r s which d i f f e r e d from the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n theory

o f f e r e d by the p s y c h o a n a l y s t s . Bandura's (1969, 1977)

s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory attempted to e x p l a i n how those i n the

c h i l d ' s environment shaped the c h i l d ' s sex r o l e s o c i a l i z a ­

t i o n . Through a complex i n t e r a c t i o n between reinforcement

o f p a r t i c u l a r sex r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s by p a r e n t s , peers, and

o t h e r s , and m o d e l l i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s as w e l l as

popular p e r s o n a l i t i e s , the c h i l d would begin to develop

masculine and feminine b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o i r e s . The c h i l d

would s e l e c t to i m i t a t e c e r t a i n models and ignore o t h e r s .

Kohlberg and Z i g l e r , i n t h e i r c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l model

23

(1976) p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s which p a r a l l e l e d

P i a g e t ' s . They e x p l a i n e d t h a t the c h i l d could ignore the

r einforcement s t r a t e g i e s o f o t h e r s i n o r d e r to m a i ntain

c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y . The c h i l d s e l e c t e d those b e h a v i o r s

"which confirm h i s emerging o r g a n i z a t i o n of s e x - r o l e con­

c e p t s " (Kohlberg & Z i g l e r , 1976, p. 365). Both Bandura and

Kohlberg and Z i g l e r r e j e c t e d the p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s of sex

r o l e development found i n c l a s s i c a l p s y c h o a n a l y s i s .

Although both d i d not a t t a c h any e x p l i c i t judgments of

i n f e r i o r i t y to the female r o l e , they d i d not c h a l l e n g e

t r a d i t i o n a l concepts.

In summary, c l a s s i c a l p s y c h o a n a l y t i c theory e f f e c t i v e l y

c a s t s a shadow on feminine development. T h i s was i n p a r t

a m e l i o r a t e d by the c u l t u r a l o r i e n t a t i o n s of Horney and

Thompson. Jung and s o c i o l o g i s t s , Parsons and Bales and

Bakan attempted to e x p l a i n m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y i n

terms o f archetypes or s o c i a l r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . For these

l a s t three t h e o r i s t s , masculine and feminine t r a i t s c ould be

i n t e g r a t e d i n one i n d i v i d u a l ; however, the masculine t r a i t s

would predominate i n men and the feminine t r a i t s would

predominate i n women. Bandura's s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory and

Kohlberg's c o g n i t i v e developmental approach both c o n t r i b u t e d

to understanding sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y by s t r e s s i n g

the i n t e r a c t i o n between l e a r n i n g and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . In

g e n e r a l , the major p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s attempted to e x p l a i n

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y and gender but o n l y few

24

sought to counter the association between femininity and

soc i a l and psychological i n f e r i o r i t y .

Empirical Research on Dimensions of Femininity and Masculinity

In addition to the broad dimensions of femininity and

m a s c u l i n i t y , p s y c h o l o g i s t s began to measure p e r s o n a l i t y

t r a i t s t y p i c a l l y assigned to men and women. Some personal­

i t y theories implied or e x p l i c i t l y stated that women were

passive, dependent, gentle, u n i n t e l l i g e n t , and i n f e r i o r to

men; whereas men were seen as active, aggressive, i n t e l l i ­

gent, independent, and superior to women. Researchers in

the l a s t 15 years attempted to determine i f these t r a i t s did

d i f f e r e n t i a t e men and women (Frieze et al., 1978; Maccoby &

Jac k l i n , 1974). The strongest r e s u l t s on t r a i t differences

between men and women were found in aggression studies

(Frieze ^ t a_l. , 1978). Although studies on sex differences

in the areas of aggression, dependence, nurturance, emotion­

a l i t y , self-concept, and verbal and math achievement were in

the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotype, the res u l t s were not con­

s i s t e n t , nor as strong as commonly believed. However, in

general results supported the s i m i l a r i t i e s between men and

women rather than the differences. Frieze ef. a_l. (1978 )

argued, when differences on personality t r a i t s were found,

the studies on sex differences must be viewed cautiously due

to the uncontrolled experimental bias. " A l l the method­

o l o g i c a l problems may mean that one reason there i s

empirical support for many stereotypes i s that a s u f f i c i e n t

25

number of studies simply e l i c i t stereotypic responding" (p.

66). Even though some studies revealed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­

ences between the groups of men and women, they did not look

at differences within the groups. For example, questions

such as, "who were the women or men who rated themselves as

anxious," were never answered with the methodology used in

these studies.

Criticisms of Tra d i t i o n a l Masculinity-Femininity Measures

Constantinople's (1973) pivotal a r t i c l e reviewing the

major tests of masculinity and femininity raised s i g n i f i c a n t

methodological questions in regard to t r a d i t i o n a l M-F mea­

sures. She explored the basic problems so l u c i d l y , her

a r t i c l e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on new developments in the

f i e l d .

At t h i s point in the history of the term M-F as a psychological construct, i t i s not clear whether our approach to i t s measurement i s at f a u l t or whether the term as such should be dropped from the psychologist's vocabulary because i t s refer ­ents vary so widely that i t adds l i t t l e to our understanding of behavior.

(p.389)

Traditional M-F measures assumed both unidimensionality

and b i p o l a r i t y of the t r a i t s . Constantinople challenged both

assumptions and argued that b i p o l a r i t y which measured ex­

treme masculinity at one end of the • scale and extreme femi­

n i n i t y at the other, was incorrect. She hypothesized

femininity and masculinity were two separate dimensions

independent of each other. In addition, she argued that

26

existing tests ignored the l i k e l i h o o d that M-F was multi­

dimensional. She concluded, "Multidimensional analysis may

reveal that there are certain patterns of t r a i t s that appear

more often in healthy males than healthy females, but the

pattern may be d i f f e r e n t for most masculine versus least

masculine men and most feminine and least feminine women"

(p. 405).

Constantinople's a r t i c l e was successful in generating

new approaches to masculinity and femininity. Most popular

has been the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), the f i r s t new

measurement based on the construct of psychological andro­

gyny (Bern, 1974). In a very short time both the construct

and the measure were broadly adopted.

The Development of Androgyny Scales

After Bern (1974) proposed the concept of psychological

androgyny and developed a measure to test a person's sex

•type, other investigators developed measures and attempted

to explore androgyny in d i f f e r e n t ways. The work of Spence

et a l . (1975) and Spence and Helmreich (1978) offered the

most d i r e c t challenge to the Bern position both in theoreti­

c a l and empirical terms. The work of Heilbrun (1976) and

Berzins e_t _al. ( 1 978) was an extension of Bern's concepts

rather than a challenge. The more recent studies of Wiggins

and Holzmuller (1978, 1979) proposed a more careful d e f i n i ­

tion of psychological androgyny and a measure to determine

the interpersonal behaviors was included in the d e f i n i t i o n .

In t h i s section these developments are reviewed.

27

Bern's Contribution

"In a society where r i g i d sex role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n has

already outlived i t s u t i l i t y , perhaps the androgynous person

w i l l come to define a more human standard of psychological

health" (Bern, 1974, p. 162). Implicit in Bern's work was her

attempt to s h i f t t r a d i t i o n a l views which assumed mental

health was, in part, equated with high masculine scores for

men and high feminine scores for women, toward the view that

individuals can be "both masculine and feminine, both as­

sertiv e and y i e l d i n g , both instrumental and expressive,

depending on the s i t u a t i o n a l appropriateness" (Bern, 1974, p.

155). She went on to argue that a r i g i d l y masculine concept

and stereotypic feminine s e l f concept may be l i m i t i n g .

Independent f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e s were

b u i l t from a pool of 200 items prepared by Bern and her

students. Student judges were asked to rate the d e s i r a b i l ­

i t y of each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (for example, warm, dominant) in

American society for either a man or a woman, on a Li k e r t

scale from 1 to 7. The items q u a l i f i e d when the personality

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was judged independently by both females and

males to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more desirable for a man/woman

than for a woman/man. From this group of items, 20 were

selected for the masculine or feminine scale. They also

generated an additional 200 items that "seemed to be neither

masculine nor feminine" (p. 156). Those items rated as

desirable for men and women formed the 20 item the s o c i a l

d e s i r a b i l i t y scale. She reported that "the men and women

28

were n e a r l y equal i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y

o f s e x - a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and the d i f f e r e n c e s

between them" (p. 156).

The c o n s t r u c t i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n terms of the sc o r ­

ing procedure. "The BSRI c h a r a c t e r i z e s a person as a func­

t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e between h i s or her endorsement o f

masculine and feminine p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " (Bern,

1974, p. 155). The s c a l e y i e l d s one score which demon­

s t r a t e s the person i s e i t h e r sex-typed or androgynous.

F i r s t , the f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y scores are c a l c u l a t e d

as the mean s e l f r a t i n g f o r each s c a l e , ranging from 1 t o 7.

Then the "degree of sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g i n the person's

s e l f - c o n c e p t " i s d e f i n e d as "the student's t r a t i o f o r the

d i f f e r e n c e between a s u b j e c t ' s m a s c u l i n i t y and feminine

endorsement" (p. 159). With t h i s s c o r i n g method, a person

i s c onsidered androgynous with a t value between 1. A

person i s stereotyped when h i s / h e r t value i s g r e a t e r than

1. For Bern, t h i s meant that an androgynous sex r o l e

represented "the equal endorsement o f both masculine and

feminine a t t r i b u t e s " (p. 159). She adds " i t i s measuring a

very s p e c i f i c tendency to d e s c r i b e o n e s e l f i n accordance

with sex-typed standards o f d e s i r a b l e behavior f o r men and

women" (p. 159).

The o r i g i n a l v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s were based on two

c o l l e g e samples. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d 34% o f males and 27% o f

females i n the Stanford sample were androgynous, 36% of the

29

men were masculine-typed and 34% of the women were femi­

nine-typed (Bern, 1974). In the F o o t h i l l s J r . College

sample, there was a greater number of androgynous subjects.

In further studies, Bern attempted to estab l i s h the

predictive v a l i d i t y of her construct and to c l a r i f y the

operational d e f i n i t i o n s ' of psychological androgyny (Bern,

1975; Bern, 1977; Bern & Lenney, 1976; Bern, Martyna, & Watson,

1976). In a series of behavioral studies, Bern' tested her

hypothesis that androgynous persons would be more f l e x i b l e

i n a v a r i e t y of sex-typed s i t u a t i o n s than stereotyped

persons. She predicted masculine persons would demonstrate

assertive, instrumental, and goal d i r e c t i v e behaviors in

s i t u a t i o n s where these behaviors were r e q u i r e d . The

feminine person would demonstrate nurturance and a f f e c t i v e

q u a l i t i e s in situations which demanded these behaviors.

Those who were low on both M and F dimensions were expected

to show behavioral d e f i c i t s . In a l l the studies, subjects

were assigned categories based on the i r BSRI score—mascu­

l i n e , feminine, or androgynous.

Bern (1 976) concluded from her studies on the "i n s t r u ­

mental" and "expressive domains" (p. 1022) that the re s u l t s

for men were more consistent than for women. She general­

ized that the androgynous males demonstrated both i n s t r u ­

mental and expressive q u a l i t i e s in situations from standing

up for t h e i r opinion to being sympathetic. In general, the

masculine males showed low nurturance in a l l situations

30

compared to other men. On the other hand, the feminine-

typed male was low in "independence." The pattern for women

was more complex. The androgynous women were seen as high

i n s i t u a t i o n s demanding nurturance and independence;

however, the feminine women were low in independence and

high in nurturance. The masculine woman was also high in

independence and in nurturance. In spite of t h i s complex

picture for women, Bern argued that the androgynous indivi d u ­

a l i s capable of being both nurturing and independent

r e l a t i v e to the s i t u a t i o n a l demands. She extended the

d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny:

It further implies that an individual may blend these complementary modalities in a single act, being able, for example, to f i r e an employee i f the circumstances warrant i t but with s e n s i t i v i t y for the emotion that such an act inevitably pro­duces .

(Bern, 1977, p. 196)

Studies by other researchers have supported Bern's

findings. This work has occurred in three areas: construct

v a l i d a t i o n , further analysis of the BSRI, and investigation

of the correlates and antecedents to psychological andro­

gyny.

Even c r i t i c s of Bern's work, Kelly and Worell (1977),

praised her behavioral v a l i d a t i o n studies. They argued that

the BSRI was able to predict a rel a t i o n s h i p between the sex

type category and responses to stereotypic a c t i v i t i e s and

they supported "the notion that cross sex behavior i s

r e s t r i c t i v e and perhaps motivationally problematic for cross

sex-typed persons" (p. 1112). They agreed with Bern's

31

hypothesis that feminine-typed females lack masculine t r a i t s

necessary for "instrumentality" and the spontaneous expres­

sion of t r a d i t i o n a l feminine behaviors such as supportive-

ness and positive emotional expression.

Wakefield, Saseky, Friedman, and Bowden (1976) assessed

the differences in organization of sex role t r a i t s for men

and women. They speculated that although the behavior for

androgynous men and women may look the same, the behavior

may have d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s . Using two independent factor

analyses, they compared a number of variables including the

M-F scale in the MMPI and other t r a d i t i o n a l personality

measures with the BSRI. The re s u l t s indicated the sex type

variables for both sexes were si m i l a r . The re s u l t s support­

ed the independence of the androgyny factor from M-F on

personality inventories and from "the degree of sex-typing"

(p. 770). Those males and females high on M-F scales were

not high on the androgynous scale (or nonandrogynous). They

argued t h i s supported Bern's contention that men must

overcome the pressure to conform to a masculine stereotype

and females have to overcome pressures toward a female sex

type to become androgynous. They claimed t h i s indicates

androgyny has d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s and may have1 d i f f e r e n t

implications for men and women.

Spence 1s Contribution

Although there i s some overlap, 'there are important

d i s t i n c t i o n s between Bern's view of androgyny and the Spence

32

and Helmreich (1978) view. They suggested that sex stereo­

types are sets of expectations men and women have about

"appropriate behaviors" (p. 13) for each sex. These are

po s i t i v e l y sanctioned for one sex and "ignored" by the

other. They distinguish the acting out of role behaviors

from the "internal properties" of individuals' sex role

a t t r i b u t e s . Sex role involves a multitude of roles and role

combinations for each individual from the home to the

o f f i c e , in dress and conduct. Each person orders h i s or her

repertoire according to i t s importance and the rewards and

costs. For thi s reason, they suggested correlations among

a l l categories of role behaviors may vary considerably. Not

only do s i t u a t i o n a l factors influence the enactment of sex

roles but also do "such internal dispositions as attitudes

toward appropriateness of maintaining t r a d i t i o n a l sex-role

d i s t i n c t i o n s , personal preferences for certain kinds of

a c t i v i t i e s and perceptions ( r e a l i s t i c and u n r e a l i s t i c ) , of

the posi t i v e or negative consequences, of acting in certain

ways" (p. 14). It i s t h i s group of " s e l f - v a r i a b l e s " which

Spence and Helmreich (1978) b e l i e v e are most d i r e c t l y

responsible for the degree to which masculine or feminine

sex role behavior i s exhibited in a given s i t u a t i o n .

Spence and Helmreich disagreed with Bern's (1974, 1976)

view that there was a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between psycho­

l o g i c a l masculinity and femininity and sex role behaviors.

Whereas Bern stated that psychological androgyny was related

to f l e x i b i l i t y in role performance, Spence and Helmreich

33

argued these generalizations could not be made and that the

c o r r e l a t i o n between a person's masculine and feminine

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and his or her role behaviors was " l i k e l y to

be weak" (p. 115). In agreement with Block (1973), they

conceptualized psychologically androgynous persons as being

freer to develop th e i r own goals and values and adopt or

re j e c t the s o c i a l l y prescribed sex role behaviors according

to their own needs and a b i l i t i e s . "Some individuals may

become tr u l y androgynous, in the sense of accepting equally

their expressive and instrumental q u a l i t i e s and associated

with 'personhood' rather than gender" (p. 118).

Like Bern, they formulated a d u a l i s t i c conception of

masculinity based on Bakan's (1966) work. For them the core

property of femininity was "communion" and for masculinity,

"agency." In their Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ),

their M scale referred to instrumental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and

their F scale to expressive and communal t r a i t s . They also

included a M-F scale in their measurement. The f u l l version

of the PAQ, 55 items, was drawn from items used in the Sex

Role Stereotype Questionnaire of Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee,

Broverman, and Broverman (1968). Students were asked to

rate 55 items as either the t y p i c a l adult male or female,

the t y p i c a l college student of each sex and the t y p i c a l

i d e a l i n d i v i d u a l of each sex. F i f t y - f i v e items were

selected from those that showed a "consistent stereotype"

(p. 32) related to sex differences. The items were not only

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s commonly believed to d i f f e r e n t i a t e men and

34

women but also t r a i t s where men and women self-reported

differences. The ideal ratings were used to divide the PAQ

items into three scales: Feminine, Masculine and Masculine-

Feminine. Eighteen items were "female-valued" and twenty-

three, "male-valued" (Spence et a l . , 1975, p. 30). Thirteen

items were mixed and placed on the M-F scale. They retained

t h i s M-F scale in spite of an apparent contradiction and

"conceptual embarrassment of having to embrace simultan­

eously a d u a l i s t i c and bipolar model of masculinity and

femininity" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p. 20). In the PAQ,

respondents rated themselves on a five-point scale on each

of the bipolar items (for example, not at a l l aggressive to

very aggressive, p. 23).

Spence and Helmreich (1978) used the median s p l i t

method to categorize the androgynous, feminine, masculine,

and undifferentiated persons. According to t h i s method,

median scores on the M and F scales are determined for a

to t a l sample with males and females combined. The subjects

are then c l a s s i f i e d in a 2 by 2 table according to th e i r

position above or below the median on each scale. Spence ^ t

a l . (1975) argued that a d i s t i n c t i o n needed to be made

between those scoring low on masculinity and femininity

(undifferentiaged) and those scoring high on each (andro­

gynous) . Androgyny was not just ,a "balance" of masculinity

and femininity as described by Bern, but a high degree of

both attributes (Kelly & Worell, 1977). They admitted there

3 5

were pr o b l e m s w i t h t h i s method p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r s m a l l

samples and f o r between group comparisons.

Spence and H e l m r e i c h ( 1 9 7 8 ) n o t e d two d i f f e r e n c e s

between the s c a l e s . F i r s t , BSRI uses a t r a i t i n v e n t o r y and

respondents are asked how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s i t of them. On

the PAQ, s u b j e c t s are asked to place themselves on a b i p o l a r

s c a l e . They speculated t h i s has an e f f e c t but do not know

what i t i s . Secondly, the t r a i t items on the BSRI are

d e s c r i p t i o n s which are judged to be more d e s i r a b l e f o r one

sex than the o t h e r . A d i f f e r e n t method was used i n b u i l d i n g

the PAQ. As a r e s u l t , the items on the PAQ M-F s c a l e are on

both the M and F s c a l e s o f the BSRI.

Spence and Helmreich's ( 1 9 7 8 ) s e l f - e s t e e m study showed

t h a t masculine women re p o r t e d themselves higher i n s o c i a l

competence and sel f - e s t e e m as compared to t r a d i t i o n a l women.

Feminine-typed males were equal to feminine-typed females on

t h i s measure. In terms o f gro u p s c o r e s , androgynous

s u b j e c t s s c o r e d h i g h e s t on s e l f - e s t e e m , w i t h m a s c u l i n e

s u b j e c t s next. Bern ( 1 9 7 7 ) had s i m i l a r r e s u l t s using the

BSRI s c a l e and the same s e l f - e s t e e m measure. In a r e p l i c a ­

t i o n of t h e i r p r evious work with c o l l e g e students (Spence e_t

a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) , Spence and Helmreich ( 1 9 7 8 ) confirmed e a r l i e r

r e s u l t s i n a l a r g e h i g h school sample. Males scored

s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the M and M-F s c a l e s than females

and s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on F. Support was a l s o found f o r

the b i p o l a r i t y o f the s c a l e s . When the students were

c l a s s i f i e d a c c o rding to the median s p l i t method, the l a r g e s t

3 6

percentage of each sex was conventionally stereotyped and

s m a l l e s t c r o s s - t y p e d . When socio-economic c l a s s was

examined, lower class students had a lower percentage of

androgynous subjects and higher percentage of undiffer­

entiated as compared to upper class groups. The androgynous

students had the highest self-esteem scores, followed by the

masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated.

Spence and Helmreich (1978) recognized the l i m i t a t i o n s

of college student samples and expanded their investigations

to junior and senior high school students with more diverse

socio-economic and demographic factors. A smaller group of

subjects including students from foreign countries, scien­

t i s t s , and homosexuals was also sampled. The r e s u l t s with

Lebanese, I s r a e l i , and B r a z i l i a n students were more complex

and only partly replicated findings on American students.

In the homosexual sample, males scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower

than an unselected college sample on M and M-F and higher on

F, whereas lesbians were higher on M and M-F. Self-esteem

was as high as with the college students. Female v a r s i t y

athletes and female Ph.D. s c i e n t i s t s scored higher on M and

M-F than a comparison group of female college students.

Male s c i e n t i s t s scored higher than college males on M and

M-F. Spence and Helmreich suggested these data support the

hypothesis that m a s c u l i n i t y and femininity do "have impor­

tant i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t r e a l - l i f e behaviors"

(1978, p. 72).

37

Heilbrun's ACL Measure and Berzins' PRF ANDRO Scale

Both Heilbrun (1976) and Berzins et a l . (1978) devel­

oped anydrogyny measures from existing personality measures.

Heilbrun (1976) revised the sex role scale from the Adjec­

tive Check L i s t (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) to extend the

masculinity and femininity scale. The scale was b u i l t on

the adjectives which characterized college males i d e n t i f i e d

with masculine fathers (for example, aggressive, arrogant)

and behaviors c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of college females i d e n t i f i e d

with feminine mothers ( f o r example, a p p r e c i a t i v e , con­

siderate). College student norms were developed.

A variety of v a l i d i t y studies were conducted which

revealed serious problems with Heilbrun's methodology and

i l l u s t r a t e d the assumptions underlying h i s concept of

psychological androgyny.' For example, he sought to find a

re l a t i o n s h i p between androgyny scores on his scale and

adjustment. Two indices of adjustment were considered.

The f i r s t index of adjustment was a "role consistency"

v a r i a b l e . As an i n d i c a t i o n of r o l e c o n s i s t e n c y , the

androgynous subjects were expected to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y

higher scores on both M and F than the stereotyped and

undifferentiated subjects. The res u l t s were in the pre­

dicted d i r e c t i o n on t h i s measure. Then he examined the

rel a t i o n s h i p between sex-typing and students' adjustment. I

"Maladjustment" was indicated by those students seeking help

at a student counselling center and "adjusted" were those

who were not in counselling at the center. As expected, the

38

number of low masculine-low feminine s u b j e c t s was s i g n i f i ­

c a n t l y l a r g e r i n the maladjusted group. However, he d i d not

c o n f i r m the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t e r e o t y p i c s u b j e c t s would

d i f f e r from androgynous i n the maladjusted group. The

d i f f e r e n c e s d i d not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , y e t he concluded

" t h a t "androgynous l a t e a d o l e s c e n t s , as i d e n t i f i e d by

M a s c u l i n i t y and F e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s used i n combination, are

b e t t e r adjusted than t h e i r peers who present other sex r o l e

i d e n t i t i e s " ( H e i l b r u n , 1976, p. 189).

B e r z i n s e_t a l . (1978) developed a f o u r t h s c a l e to

measure p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny based on a widely used

m u l t i s c a l e p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y , the P e r s o n a l i t y Research

Form. The BSRI was used as the e s s e n t i a l b a s i s f o r con­

vergent v a l i d i t y on the new PRF ANDRO s c a l e . The mascu­

l i n i t y s c a l e i n c l u d e d three themes from the int r u m e n t a l

dimension on the BSRI, s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l ascendency,

o r i e n t a t i o n toward r i s k , and autonomy. Items s e l e c t e d f o r

the f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e were based on nurturance, a f f i l i a t i v e -

e x p r e s s i v e concerns, and s e l f - s u b o r d i n a t i o n themes. The PRF

items c o n s i s t e n t with these themes were used i f they were

judged by r a t e r s as more d e s i r a b l e i n men/women than i n

women/men. The s c a l e s were comprised o f 29 m a s c u l i n i t y

items and 27 f e m i n i n i t y items. They were keyed t r u e - f a l s e

and c o n t r o l l e d f o r acquiescence. Each item was a s e l f

d e s c r i p t i v e statement ("I seek out p o s i t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y " )

r a t h e r than an a d j e c t i v e o r b r i e f phrase as found i n the

BSRI. The s c o r i n g method was the median s p l i t approach

39

advocated by Spence et al. ( 1 975). "A l i m i t a t i o n on the

content range i s imposed, of course, by the o r i g i n a l item

pool of PRF, which was not oriented toward sex assessment"

(Kelly & Worell, 1977) .

Validation studies were conducted with a cross-section

of samples, of 6,000 subjects. In addition to the usual

student samples, eighteen d i f f e r e n t samples were tested

including: policemen, drug addicts, accountants, in-patient

a l c o h o l i c s , depressed women, and gay men and women. The

highest masculinity scores were found among policemen, men

majoring in accounting, and male dental students, whereas

the c l i n i c a l l y depressed women, newlywed women, and women

enrolled in a weight reduction program had the lowest.

Berzins ^ t a l . (1978) argued their r e s u l t s corroborated the

t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of m a s c u l i n i t y as a mixture of

s o c i a l - i n t e l l e c t u a l ascendency, r i s k taking, and autonomy.

The highest femininity scores were found among high school,

college, and "general population" women, whereas most male

groups, gay women, and women majoring in accounting scored

the lowest.

In the c l i n i c a l samples, male schizophrenic outpatients

and a l c o h o l i c i n p a t i e n t s showed feminine sex t y p i n g .

Berzins et al. noted that male alco h o l i c s had not been

depicted previously as feminine-typed by t r a d i t i o n a l M-F

scales. However, they considered i t reasonable that the

alcoholics would score low on a masculine scale r e f l e c t i n g a

dominant-instrumental dimension. The c l i n i c a l l y depressed

40

women scored lowest on masculinity of a l l groups and their

femininity score appeared to be at the group mean.

Dominance-Nurturance Position

Bern's o r i g i n a l conceptualization of androgyny stressed

androgyny as r e f l e c t i n g f l e x i b l e interpersonal behaviors.

Both Bern (1979) and Spence and Helmreich (1978) based their

masculine and feminine scales on the dimension of mascu­

l i n i t y as i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y or agency and f e m i n i n i t y as

communality or expressivity. Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981)

suggested reconceptualizing these broad terms into s p e c i f i c

interpersonal behaviors, dominance and nurturance. Empiri­

cal evidence, found in the reported factor analytic studies,

showed that the Bern masculinity scale was characterized by

dominance and the femininity scale by nurturance. The two

scales, dominant-ambitious (PA) and warm-agreeable (LM), on

the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1979) more

closely measured dominance and nurturance than the BSRI

(Bern, 1974) or other t y p i c a l l y used androgyny scales (PAQ,

Spence et a l . , 1975; ACL, Heilbrun, 1976; PRF ANDRO, Berzins

et a l . , 1978).

The use of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins,

1979) as a measure of psychological androgyny i s based on

two assumptions. The f i r s t represents a t h e o r e t i c a l

p o s i t i o n that p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny i s a balance of

interpersonal behaviors. Bern gives i m p l i c i t support for

thi s view but Spence and Helmreich define androgyny in

d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l terms. The second i s that dominance

41

and nurturance, as interpersonal behaviors, are the primary

factors found in the BSRI masculinity and femininity scales,

respectively, and most closely r e f l e c t t r a d i t i o n a l mascu­

l i n i t y and femininity. The discussion of the IAS reviews

these two assumptions then proceeds to d e s c r i b e some

ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the measure.

Although Bern repeatedly discussed androgyny in terms of

desirable personality t r a i t s , without specifying them as

i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviors, her o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n and

examples of androgynous persons refer to behaviors of an

interpersonal nature. Androgynous persons were hypothesized

as "both assertive and y i e l d i n g , both instrumental and

expressive" (1974, p. 155). Androgynous persons could more

freely engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors; they

would be more f l e x i b l e and less r e s t r i c t e d in their behav­

i o r s . Much of Bern's research has been directed toward

demonstrating that androgynous persons are more f l e x i b l e and

l e s s r i g i d across s i t u a t i o n s than stereotyped persons.

Worell (1978) noted Bern's emphasis on interpersonal behav­

iors as a basis for her view of behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y and

t h i s i s consistent with Wiggins' p o s i t i o n .

Both Bern and Spence et a l . (1975) f a i l e d to give up the

t r a d i t i o n of re l a t i n g attributes or behaviors on the scales

to gender. As Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981) argued, in

reference to Bern, using terms l i k e agency and commonality as

tied to gender only perpetuates the view of masculinity and

femininity as bipolar. When dominance and nurturance are

42

used i n s t e a d , i t i s p o s s i b l e to get away from the inappro­

p r i a t e gender a s s o c i a t i o n s . T h i s i s f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d ,

as Wiggins and H olzmuller pointed out, i n t h a t a high score

i n e i t h e r dominance or nurturance r e v e a l s nothing i n i t s e l f .

These b e h a v i o r a l dimensions must be examined i n r e l a t i o n to

one another.

L o c k s l e y and C o l t e n (1979) s p e c i f i c a l l y c r i t i c i z e d the

Bern and Spence and Helmreich s c a l e s f o r using " p e r s o n a l i t y

i n v e n t o r i e s developed around aggregate d i s t i n c t i o n s between

the c a t e g o r i e s o f b i o l o g i c a l sex to measure i n d i v i d u a l

d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y r e g a r d l e s s of b i o l o g i c a l sex" (p.

1020). Use of the dominance and nurturance s c a l e s overcomes

t h i s type of d i f f i c u l t y . They were not b u i l t based on sex

d i f f e r e n c e s but most c l o s e l y r e f l e c t i n t e r p e r s o n a l behav­

i o r s .

F a c t o r analyses c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d dominance and

nurturance as f i r s t o rder f a c t o r s on the BSRI (Bern, 1974).

Gaudreau's (1977) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s gave the most support f o r

the o r t h o g o n a l i t y o f the Bern masculine and feminine s c a l e s .

Waters, Waters, and Pincus (1977) and Moreland, G u l a n i c k ,

Montague, and Harren's (1978) f a c t o r a n a l yses o f the BSRI

y i e l d e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s to those r e p o r t e d by Gaudreau.

Whitton and S w i n d e l l s ' (1977) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f e d

Empathy (nurturance) and Power (dominance) as two of f i v e

primary f a c t o r s . Edwards, Van Buren, and Z a b r i s k i e ' s (1978)

a n a l y s i s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d f i v e f a c t o r s , two of which were

s p e c i f i c a l l y l a b e l l e d nurturance and dominance. When Gaa,

4 3

Liberman, and Edwards ( 1 9 7 9 ) t r i e d to c l a r i f y what factors

were to be found in the BSRI and PAQ, empathy, leadership,

independence, and assertiveness were four of the f i v e f i r s t

order factors on the BSRI. The PAQ yielded similar types of

factors: empathy, emotional, aggressive, and s e l f - c o n f i ­

dent. Pedhazur and Tetenbaum ( 1 9 7 9 ) conducted three

separate factor analyses and their r e s u l t s , again, c l e a r l y

supported the view that dominance and nurturance were the

factors most c l e a r l y represented in the scales. They

i d e n t i f i e d three f a c t o r s : i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y ,

a s s e r t i v e n e s s or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y , and immaturity (e.g.,

t r a i t s l i k e conceited and g u l l i b l e ) . Although they argued

these represented too narrow a domain, i t was th i s narrow­

ness which added c l a r i t y to what was being measured on

androgyny scales.

The Interpersonal Adjective Scales developed by Wiggins

( 1 9 7 9 ) were based on the e a r l i e r work of Leary ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Leary

operationalized Sullivan's ( 1 9 5 3 ) interpersonal theory by

developing a set of personality measurements including an

interpersonal circumplex. He defined interpersonal behavior

as "behavior related overtly, consciously, e t h i c a l l y , or

symbolically to another human being ( r e a l , c o l l e c t i v e or

imagined)" (p. 4 ) . The personality variables s p e c i f i c a l l y

excluded from concern were p h y s i o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l

factors, interest patterns, p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l a t t i ­

tudes, and sensation and perception variables. Wiggins'

( 1 9 7 8 ) d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior, "dyadic

44

interactions that have r e l a t i v e l y clear-cut s o c i a l (status)

and emotional (love) consequences for both participants

( s e l f and others)" was based on Foa and Foa's (1974) theor­

e t i c a l work which distinquished interpersonal t r a i t s from

the other variables mentioned by Leary. The circumplex

designed by Wiggins (1979), based on Foa and Foa's (1974)

interpersonal variables, was considered to have the advan­

tage of representing on a vector any behavior which was a

"meaningful interpersonal event" (Wiggins, 1979, p. 399).

The behaviors Bern described can be seen in terms of t h i s

circumplex model. In Leary's model, the interpersonal

variables of interest were c o l l a b o r a t i o n — l o v e and su c c e s s —

power and in the Wiggins' circumplex they were warm-agree­

able and ambitious-dominant.

Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978) demonstrated, in empir­

i c a l terms, that androgynous persons d i f f e r e n t i a t e d them­

selves from sex-typed persons in the interpersonal domain.

They c l a s s i f i e d subjects using the BSRI to determine sex

stereotype. When given a l i s t of 1,710 adjectives which

included i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s , temperament and mental

t r a i t s , character t r a i t s , attitudes, mental predicates, and

so c i a l r o l e s , the sex role groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d

from each other on adjectives which were interpersonal

(Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978). For example, the androgynous

males rated themselves as warm and submissive while the

masculine males reported themselves as dominant and cold.

45

Empirical support for the position that dominance and

nurturance are the most generalizable pair of orthogonal

interpersonal vectors was offered by Wiggins and Holzmuller

(1981). They examined the hypothesis that any pair of

orthogonal i n t e r p e r s o n a l v e c t o r s from the i n t e r p e r s o n a l

circumplex (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981) r e f l e c t i n g desirable

differences for men and women may provide the basis for

indices of androgyny. Three orthogonal constrasts, lazy-

submissive ("femininity") vs. cold-quarrelsome ("masculini­

t y " ) , unassuming-ingenuous ("femininity") vs. a l o o f - i n t r o ­

verted ("masculinity") and gregarious-extroverted ("feminin­

i t y " ) vs. arrogant-calculating ("masculinity") were analyzed

with the expectation they would be able to c l a s s i f y subjects

as stereotyped, near-stereotyped, or androgynous as e f f e c ­

t i v e l y as the ambitious-dominant vs. warm-agreeable contrast

u t i l i z i n g the t - r a t i o . Results indicated that the ambi­

tious-dominant vs. warm-agreeable constrast offered the most

consistent and generalizable support to analyze patterns of

stereotyping.

In an unpublished study, Lazerson (1980) explored the

d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological androgyny using the LM and PA

scales in a group of 91 working adults. This was a more

heterogeneous sample than g e n e r a l l y used i n andyrogyny

research. The majority of the 52 females were between the

ages of 18-35; 40% were single and a similar proportion were

married; 80% had some university education; and a l l were

professionally employed or in service jobs. In the group of

46

39 males, the majority were between the ages of 26-45; 64%

were married; 85% had some university t r a i n i n g ; and 64% were

employed as professionals. Using the t - r a t i o method (Bern,

1974) Lazerson found the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sex type categories

as follows: for the females, 29% androgynous, 21% near

feminine, 29% feminine, 10% near masculine, and 12% mascu­

l i n e typed; and for the males, 30% androgynous, 14% near

feminine, 36% feminine, 8% near masculine, and 11% mascu­

l i n e . When the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the demographic;

variables and the sex type categories were explored, no

clear r e l a t i o n s h i p could be established. In thi s study, the

LM and PA scales did distinguish sex type categories for

t h i s group of adults.

Scoring Procedures

There i s considerable controversy over scoring pro­

cedures used to operationalize the construct of androgyny.

Each of the standard methods, the s i g n i f i c a n t t method (Bern,

1974) and the median s p l i t method (Spence e_t a l . , 1975),

has l i m i t a t i o n s (e.g., Bern, 1977; Downing, 1979; Lenney,

1979; Strahan, 1975). In Bern's i n i t i a l method, a person i s

c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous when the t value for the d i f f e r ­

ence between his/her scores on the masculinity and feminini­

ty scales i s between ±1.025 (-1.025<t<1.025). In this view,

androgyny i s a r e l a t i v e balance of masculinity and feminini­

ty. Those considered sex-typed are subjects who have a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (feminine, t>2.025 and masculine

t<-2.025) between their masculinity and femininity scores.

47

She includes a t h i r d category, near sex-typed (1.025>t>2.025

for females and -2.025<t<-1.025 for males). Given these

categories are not gender-bound, the method also i d e n t i f i e s

persons who score cross sexed, masculine females and

feminine males.

Bern's scoring procedure was c r i t i c i z e d (Spence et. a l . ,

1975; Strahan, 1975) for including persons who scored low on

both masculinity and femininity (low-lows) in the andro­

gynous category. Spence ^ t a l . and l a t e r Bern (1977) argued

t h i s low-low group d i f f e r e d from high-high androgynous

persons p a r t i c u l a r l y in the area of self-esteem. They

argued, as well, that those persons measuring low on both

"masculinity" and "femininity" scales did not seem to f i t

conceptually into the androgynous category. Spence proposed

that the median s p l i t method separated them from the andro­

gynous category.

The fourfold c l a s s i f i c a t i o n proposed by Spence e_t a l .

(1975) also has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . Subjects are c l a s s i f i e d as

androgynous when they score above the median on both the

masculine and feminine scales; sex-typed or cross sex-typed

when one score i s above and the other below their respective

medians; and undifferentiated when both scores are below the

median. This method, however, abandons the idea of balance

between "masculinity" and "femininity;" the low-lows are

dropped to another category. In addition, subjects who have

a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in th e i r masculinity and femininity

scores w i l l s t i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous and persons

48

who do not have a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in their masculini­

ty and femininity scores w i l l s t i l l be considered sex-typed.

Spence and Helmreich (1978) note that t h e i r method has

d i f f i c u l t i e s when sample sizes are small and the data may

have some " s t a t i s t i c a l d i s t o r t i o n . " They also suggest a

method must be c a r e f u l l y used when between group comparisons

are being made.

A number of researchers (Jones e_t a_l., 1978; Wiggins &

Holzmuller, 1978, 1979) have argued to retain the t-method

because i t was f a i t h f u l to the o r i g i n a l Bern conception of

androgyny as a balance. This view was given further support

with evidence that a reanalysis of data using both the

t-method and the median s p l i t yielded r e s u l t s which were not

a l l that d i f f e r e n t (Bern, 1977; Berzins et a l . , 1978; Jones

et a l . , 1978; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978). When Bern (1977)

reanalyzed a l l her data using the median s p l i t , she found,

in general, her i n i t i a l r e s u l t s using the t-method were

strengthened. However, Downing (1979) reviewed a number of

studies including her own which analyzed re s u l t s based on

the BSRI u t i l i z i n g both the t - r a t i o and the median s p l i t and

found the outcomes were changed in s i g n i f i c a n t ways depend­

ing on the scoring method. Contrary to Bern's (1977)

finding, the results were not strengthened but produced a

d i f f e r e n t pattern of r e s u l t s . She suggested a "hybrid"

method combining the assumptions found in both procedures.

Others (e.g., Bern, 1977; Kelly & Worell, 1977) have suggest­

ed using regression analysis as a solution to the scoring

49

problem. The l i m i t a t i o n with t h i s method was that i t did

not s p e c i f y r e g r e s s i o n procedures and overlooked the

conception of androgyny as a balance of both dominance and

nurturance.

The t - r a t i o method remains the most t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound

and empirically l o g i c a l approach. Most of the reanalysis

using both methods show few s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the

r e s u l t s . It i s possible to i d e n t i f y those persons who are

the low-lows. In general, most studies report very few in

t h i s category, l e s s than one percent (Bern & Lenney, 1976).

They can be analyzed separately or dropped i f necessary.

The t - r a t i o makes i t possible to determine those persons who

are not quite achieving a balance nor are f u l l y stereotyped,

the near-stereotyped persons.

Summary of Androgyny Measures and Models

Since the development of the BSRI (Bern, 1974), four

additional measures of psychological androgyny emerged, each

based on s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t assumptions and each with i t s

own l i m i t a t i o n s .

In summary, the four established scales (BSRI, PAQ,

ACL, PRF ANDRO) vary in t h e i r conceptualization of andro­

gyny, the i r operational d e f i n i t i o n s , item selection pro­

cedures, item contents, and answer formats. This i s

d r a m a t i c a l l y apparent i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the

masculine and feminine scales from the four established

scales.

50

Ke l l y and Worell (1977), in a c r i t i c a l review, re­

ported :

(1) The BSRI (1974) indicates r e l a t i v e independence of the

M and F scores (r=.11 to -.14)

(2) The PAQ (Spence et a l . , 1 975) M and F scales are

s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y correlated for both sexes.

(3) The PRF ANDRO (Berzins et al. , 1978) sex role scales

are independent f o r males (r=-.10) but modestly

negatively correlated for females (r=-,24).

(4) The ACL had negative correlations between masculinity

and femininity scales, (r=-.24 for females and r=-.41

for males) .

With th i s lack of agreement on the operational i d e n t i ­

f i c a t i o n of androgyny, i t becomes d i f f i c u l t to generalize

the r e s u l t s of studies. Some studies use the median s p l i t

method and others the t - r a t i o .

K e l l y , Furman, and Young (1978) examined the interscale

comparability of four androgyny measures, the BSRI, PAQ, PRF

ANDRO scale and the ACL. When the Masculinity and Feminin­

i t y scales were compared, the correlations were f a i r l y high.

The mean correlation for the Masculinity scales was .71 and

for Femininity scales was .62. Since a l l the scales assign

subjects to one of four typologies using the median s p l i t

method, they investigated whether the same individuals would

be assigned to the same sex category by each pair of scales.

They analyzed the assignments based on pairs of scales and

the r e s u l t s indicated that only 56% of the subjects between

51

any two scales were assigned for the same categories. The

agreement dropped to 39% when adjusted for chance. The

majority of the subjects were c l a s s i f i e d d i f f e r e n t l y when a

second inventory was used.

Androgyny research has seen the development of a

variety of androgyny measures and empirical studies to

operationalize the concept. The warm-agreeable (LM) and

ambitious-dominant s c a l e s (PA) from the Int e r p e r s o n a l

Adjective Scales, as proposed by Wiggins and Holzmuller

(1978, 1981), overcome some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s found with

the existing measures. They operationalized the d e f i n i t i o n

of androgyny as a person with interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y

which confirmed Bern's o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n . They also found

support for Spence and Helmreich's (1978) evidence that the

androgynous person would have high self-esteem.

Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s have found d i f f e r e n c e s between

androgynous males and females. The preliminary work of Bern

also indicated that masculine typed subjects may do as well

as androgynous on some variables.

Psychological Androgyny and Mental Health

This section i s a review of the studies r e l a t i n g

psychological androgyny to mental health, including the

variables of self-esteem, s o c i a l adjustment, and int e r ­

personal f l e x i b i l i t y .

Androgyny and Self-Esteem

In their self-esteem studies using large high school

and college student samples, Spence and Helmreich (1978)

consistently found that androgynous men and women had the

highest mean self-esteem as compared to masculine typed and

feminine typed. The measures they used were the PAQ and

their own self-esteem measure, the Texas Social Behavior

Inventory (TSBI). Their r e s u l t s were extended in a study

(O'Connor, Mann, & Bardwick, 1978) using the same measures

on a middle class suburban sample.

A l l of the other self-esteem studies have f a i l e d to

report the same r e s u l t s . In the other research, the trend

indicates that both the androgynous men and women and the

masculine men and women have the highest self-esteem as

compared to the other groups. In some cases, the masculine

typed are higher than the androgynous typed on self-esteem.

Bern (1977), Wetter (an unpublished study reported in

Kell y & Worell, 1 977) and Hoffman and F i d e l l (1 979) found

the androgynous and masculine subjects high in self-esteem.

Bern also found that high self-esteem in men was s i g n i f i ­

cantly related to masculinity and not to femininity scores.

Women high in self-esteem were high in both their femininity

and masculinity scores. Those women with low femininity and

masculinity scores were low in self-esteem and those high in

one and low in the other were moderate on self-esteem. In a

study of a larger group (N=369) of middle class women,

Hoffman and F i d e l l (1979) also found the masculine typed and

53

androgynous women to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on self-esteem

as compared to the feminine typed using the BSRI and the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965).

Jones, Chernovetz, and Hansson (1978) determined the

ideal s e l f rating in a student sample by asking them to rate

the BSRI twice. In the second ra t i n g , they indicated the

desired change for each item. In th i s normal sample, the

res u l t s were similar to those found by Deutsch and G i l b e r t

(1975) where the most desired change was on masculine items.

Males desired greater increases in masculinity items and

r e l a t i v e l y less increases in femininity items than female

subjects. Feminine-typed females desired more masculine

t r a i t s than the masculine or androgynous females. This

indicated a tendency among the males not to desire an

increase on the feminine items. The finding led Jones et.

a l . (1978) to suggest that there was no indication that

males desire androgyny since they did not choose to increase

feminine t r a i t s "suggesting a sense of s a t i s f a c t i o n or

d i s i n t e r e s t in the areas of nurturance, emotionality and so

fort h " (p. 309).

Deutsch and G i l b e r t (1975) explored the rela t i o n s h i p

between s e l f concept and androgyny and used Rogers' concept

discrepancy between s e l f and s e l f ideal in the design. They

categorized student subjects according to the t - r a t i o . Low

discrepancy persons were those whose scores f e l l into the

same sex type category for their r e a l and ideal ratings and

high discrepancy persons were those whose scores f e l l into a

54

sex type category for their ideal rating d i f f e r e n t than the

sex type category for the re a l s e l f r a t i n g . They compared

male and female high and low discrepancy groups with scores

on an adjustment measure but not with androgyny or sex type

category. They found the less "adjusted" females had high

discrepancy.

In more recent studies (Holahan & Spence, 1979; Spence,

Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979), further evaluations of the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between masculinity-femininity, self-esteem,

and neuroticism were examined. F i r s t , the PAQ was extended

to include s o c i a l l y undesirable t r a i t s as well as desirable

t r a i t s for femininity and masculinity dimensions (Spence et

a l . , 1979). Then two studies were conducted, one among

psychology undergraduate students and the other with c l i e n t s

at the student counselling service. In the student group,

the correlation between masculine scores for men and women

and neur o t i c i s m were negative as expected. However,

unexpectedly, f e m i n i n i t y scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y

related to neuroticism. The authors suggest, " t h i s expres­

siveness and interpersonal s k i l l s as measured by F+, appear

to contribute b e n e f i c i a l l y to s o c i a l competence and s e l f -

esteem but to be unrelated to the kind of emotional d i s ­

turbances—anxiety, depression, tapped by the neuroticism

scale" (Spence e_t a_l. , 1979, p. 15). The negative feminine

t r a i t s of verbal aggressiveness had the highest p o s i t i v e

correlations to neuroticism for both sexes.

55

When Berzins (1979) and Kaplan (1979) measured small

female c l i e n t populations they found more than 50% were

androgynous. Kaplan thought that these persons who come for

psychotherapy and measure androgynous must d i f f e r from

"normal" androgynous persons in self-esteem. Berzins (1979)

measured a group of c l i e n t s and normal women with the PRO

ANDRO and an interpersonal check l i s t and found the £wo

groups did d i f f e r on self-esteem. High self-esteem andro­

gynous women had high l e v e l s of assertiveness and a f f i l i a ­

tion and low le v e l s of submission and h o s t i l i t y . Andro­

gynous females with low self-esteem had p r o f i l e s higher in

hos t i l e submission.

Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare the resu l t s of the

self-esteem studies because d i f f e r e n t variables have been

i n v e s t i g a t e d , some patt e r n s emerge. In ge n e r a l , both

androgynous and masculine subjects tend to have high s e l f -

esteem with the masculine typed persons exceeding the andro­

gynous in some cases. High self-esteem seems related to

endorsement of masculine t r a i t s such as assertiveness.

Androgyny and Adjustment

Chevron and Quinlan (1970) related sex rol e stereo­

typing among men and women to depression. Undergraduate

student volunteers were given three measures: the Broverman

Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire, a s e l f - r a t i n g depression

scale and a depressive experience rating scale. On the sex

role scale scores were computed on competency, warmth, and

expressiveness. Results indicated there was a pos i t i v e

56

rela t i o n s h i p between females who described themselves as low'

on warmth and expressiveness and depression, whereas males

scored higher on the depression scale when they were low on

competency. The authors argued that the sex role stereo­

types had d i f f e r e n t subjective meanings for men and women.

The males who saw themselves as warm, as compared to other

males, seemed more "vulnerable to depressive experiences

associated with Dependency" (p. 682). For women, Warmth-

Expressiveness was a p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e . "In summary, the

present findings appear to r e f l e c t the culture's greater

a t t r i b u t i o n of health to the t r a i t s and behaviors associated

with masculinity, that i s competence, as well as to con­

forming to one's own sex role" (p. 682). The authors warned

that conclusions could not be drawn from c o r r e l a t i o n a l

studies and go further to suggest another interpretation of

the data. They hypothesized that persons prone to depres­

sion demonstrated t h e i r low self-esteem by d e s c r i b i n g

themselves as deviating from t r a d i t i o n a l sex r o l e ; the

subjects may perceive themselves as deviant in t h i s area

which may in turn contribute to the depression.

Holahan and Spence (1979) gave some support to the

Chevron and Quinlan (1970) view in t h e i r investigation of

the r e l a t i o n s h i p of undesirable masculine and feminine

t r a i t s and neuroticism. In a neurotic group of males and

females, the males scored low on desirable masculine and

feminine t r a i t s . The females were low on desirable mascu­

l i n e t r a i t s but not the desirable feminine t r a i t s . However,

57

neurotic females endorsed the undesirable masculine t r a i t s .

This led the authors to conclude:

It i s possible that the presence of negative cross-sex-typed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s more consistent with emotional disturbance than the manifestation of sex-congruent negative a t t r i b u t e s .

(Holahan & Spence, 1979, p. 16)

Unfortunately, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s d i d not examine the

re l a t i o n s h i p of androgyny per se to the masculinity-feminin­

i t y and mental health variables.

Jones e_t al. ( 1 978 ) provided the most extensive

evidence for questioning of the hypothesis that androgynous

persons are the most adjusted. They gave the BSRI to

college students and then measured them on a variety of

dimensions including feminist ideology, gender i d e n t i t y ,

p e r s o n a l i t y and adjustment, i n t e l l e c t u a l competence,

helplessness, and sexual maturity. Their r e s u l t s showed

that m a s c u l i n i t y r a t h e r than androgyny c o n t r i b u t e d to

adjustment in males and females. Masculine males were most

adjusted on a l l variables. Androgynous males had more

problems with drinking and externality of control than

masculine males. The feminine males did the worst. On the

personality and adjustment measures (introversion-extro­

version scale, neuroticism, locus of control, and problem

drinking scales), females had no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for

sex type except that the masculine typed females were more

extroverted than the androgynous or feminine typed females.

When a l l the re s u l t s were examined, the masculine typed

females were even more feminist, more p o l i t i c a l l y aware,

58

more extroverted, more popular with the opposite sex, more

heterosexually involved than androgynous females. "The more

masculine in or i e n t a t i o n , the more adaptive, competent and

secure the female subject was" (p. 310). They suggested i t

was s u r p r i s i n g that the b e t t e r adjusted females, the

masculine-typed females, were those who violated s o c i a l

norms for their sex. Although, i f the society rewards

instrumentality, getting the job done, t h i s i s not so

surprising. "Thus the important issue becomes not whether

one has internalized the t r a i t s and behaviors appropriate to

one's gender but the extent to which one has assimilated the

tendencies most highly valued by the society" (p. 311).

This was further supported by their r e s u l t s in another study

(Jones ^ t a l . , 1978) where students were asked to rate t h e i r

ideal s e l f on the BSRI. There was s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t toward

desiring masculine t r a i t s .

In a more recent and well-constructed study on adjust­

ment and stereotyping, Silvern and Ryan (1979) demonstrated

further support for the G i l b e r t and Deutsch and Jones' e_t

a l . conclusions. They found that androgynous women and

masculine-typed men in a student sample reported superior

adjustment as compared to androgynous men and feminine

females. They went further and determined that the groups

who had superior adjustment reported high masculinity scores

as determined by the BSRI.

However, the r e s u l t s on adjustment and androgyny were

not e n t i r e l y consistent. Logan and Kaschak (1980) reported

59

no differences between sex type groups on a wide variety of

mental health variables in a student sample. In their study

of 369 adult women, Hoffman and F i d e l l (1979) found no

rel a t i o n s h i p between feminine women and androgynous and

masculine women on general mental health, locus of control,

or neuroticism (as measured by the Eysenck Personality

Inventory). This study was the only reported investigation

of androgyny and adjustment in an adult population.

Further work on adult samples i s necessary to confirm

Hoffman and F i d e l l ' s findings. The e f f o r t s to re l a t e

endorsement of cross sex typed t r a i t s to depression (Chevron

& Quinlan, 1970) and neuroticism (Holahan & Spence, 1979)

are provocative and also need further investigation.

Androgyny and Interpersonal F l e x i b i l i t y

Bern hypothesized that androgynous persons had a balance

of masculinity (dominance) and femininity (nurturance) and

therefore could vary t h e i r behavior to meet s i t u a t i o n a l

demands. In a variety of experiments referred to e a r l i e r ,

she confirmed t h i s hypothesis. Wiggins and Holzmuller

(1978), in the i r study with a university sample, explored

the p o s s i b i l i t y that "the f l e x i b i l i t y of androgynous persons

may be part of a broader pattern of f l e x i b i l i t y that i s

expressed i n a l l or most dimensions of i n t e r p e r s o n a l

behavior" (p. 49). To confirm t h e i r prediction, they

expected androgynous su b j e c t s to have a f l a t t e r , l e s s

v a r i a b l e i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o f i l e across 16 i n t e r p e r s o n a l

vari a b l e s . Their r e s u l t s were confirmed for males but not

60

for females. The interpersonal p r o f i l e for the androgynous

males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y less variable as compared to the

stereotyped males. However, the androgynous females'

p r o f i l e s were as variable as those of the stereotyped

females. The androgynous females endorsed behaviors which

were opposite to the stereotyped females. Wiggins and

Holzmuller suggested androgynous males and females do not

r e f l e c t the same set of dis p o s i t i o n s . In a r e p l i c a t i o n of

th i s study (1981), with another group of students, their

o r i g i n a l prediction that androgynous subjects would demon­

strate greater interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y was confirmed for

males and females.

K e l l y , O'Brien, and Hosford (in press) demonstrated

b e h a v i o r a l f l e x i b i l i t y of androgynous subjects i n an

experiment u t i l i z i n g role played interpersonal situations.

They tested the subjects in situations requiring refusal

assertiveness and commendatory assertiveness. Androgynous

females were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

females on commendatory assertiveness but did not d i f f e r

s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the masculine or feminine typed females.

On refusal assertiveness, androgynous females were reported

to do better than other sex type categories but no s t a t i s ­

t i c s were provided. For males, the androgynous males were

s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior to the other sex type groups. The

investigators reported the androgynous males were able to

use the cross-sexed response of commendatory assertiveness

61

better than the other male sex type groups but again did not

report s t a t i s t i c s .

There are few investigations of androgyny and inter­

personal f l e x i b i l i t y and they are l i m i t e d to student

samples. The r e s u l t s are not clear; androgynous subjects

showed behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y in two of the three studies.

In a l l the studies, there were reported sex differences.

Hypotheses

The l i t e r a t u r e i s f a i r l y consistent in reporting that

androgynous persons tend to rate higher in self-esteem and

interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y as compared to the feminine sex

type category. In many s t u d i e s , the masculine typed

subjects do as well or better. It seems that both androgyny

and masculinity may indicate better adjustment on s e l f

report measures. It i s also clear that there are d i f f e r ­

ences between androgynous males and females on the mental

health and other variables, therefore any study must examine

sex differences. Very few studies exist using c l i n i c a l

samples, although hypotheses about androgyny and psycho­

l o g i c a l adjustment pervade the l i t e r a t u r e on androgyny.

In t h i s study of psychological androgyny and mental

health in a group of non-psychotic outpatients, the follow­

ing hypotheses were tested:

1 ) There i s a larger proportion of feminine sex typed

patients as compared to androgynous patients.

i) Androgynous men and women have higher self-esteem

on a global measure than feminine stereotyped men and

women.

i i ) Androgynous patients describe their ideal s e l f as

androgynous while the feminine stereotyped patients are

expected to demonstrate greater s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or

low self-esteem by rating their ideal in the d i r e c t i o n

of masculinity or androgyny and thereby indicating

greater s h i f t in categories.

Sex typed patients d i f f e r from androgynous patients in

the pattern and severity of their psychopathology.

Sex typed patients d i f f e r from androgynous patients in

soc i a l adjustment.

Androgynous p a t i e n t s have g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l

f l e x i b i l i t y than sex typed patients.

63

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

In th i s study, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological andro­

gyny in a group of male and female neurotic out-patients was

determined using, as a new measure of androgyny, the LM and

PA scales of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins,

1980) and the t - r a t i o method of categorization. Androgynous

male and female patients were then compared to stereotyped

male and female patients on a number of mental health

variables including self-esteem, severity and pattern of

psychopathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l

f l e x i b i l i t y to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t group

d i fferences.

The procedures followed in completing the study are

described in the present chapter. A description of the

c l i n i c setting and the selection of patient subjects i s

presented f i r s t . Then the androgyny measure, the Inter­

personal Adjective Scales, and the scoring procedure are

presented followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the remaining

measures. The chapter concludes with a description of the

data preparation and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used in the

analysis.

The Setting and Subjects

The Day House i s a day centre f or 20 adult non-psy­

chotic patients and i s part of the Health Sciences Centre

Hospital, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Established

64

in 1972, the program i s located in a separate f a c i l i t y near

the h o s p i t a l . A playing f i e l d and garden surround the house

and contribute to a non-hospital atmosphere of warmth and

f r i e n d l i n e s s .

The Day House program has a l l the features of a

therapeutic community and includes additional factors which

compare favorably with other forms of psychotherapy such as

b r i e f i n dividual psychotherapy with a p s y c h i a t r i s t . The

basic postulates of the program are:

1) The community i s small, no more than 20 patients;

2) It i s isolat e d , making i t easier to analyze each event

in the community as part of a complex pattern of

interactions of patients and s t a f f ;

3) The t o t a l group program i s a model of r e a l l i f e groups,

p a r t i c u l a r l y the family and working group;

4) The program d i f f e r s from r e a l l i f e by including games,

plays, and fantasy a c t i v i t i e s which encourage patients

to develop new l i f e s k i l l s and find creative solutions

to l i f e problems;

5) Community r u l e s , rewards, and d i s c i p l i n e make the

p a t i e n t s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r treatment and the

therapy of their fellow patients; and

6) The s i g n i f i c a n t persons of the patient (family members,

sexual partners, friends, coworkers, and bosses) are

included in the therapy.

Each year the centre treats about 150 patients who are

referred from a number of d i f f e r e n t sources including:

65

g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s , p r i v a t e p s y c h i a t r i s t s , community

mental h e a l t h workers, h o s p i t a l p h y s i c i a n s , and f r i e n d s .

T h i r t y - t h r e e percent have had at l e a s t one pr e v i o u s hos­

p i t a l i z a t i o n and the m a j o r i t y have had a t l e a s t one p s y c h i ­

a t r i c c o n t a c t before coming to the Day House.

The admission procedure to the Day House i s intended to

t e s t the p a t i e n t ' s m o t i v a t i o n . When p a t i e n t s are r e f e r r e d ,

they are informed b r i e f l y about the program by t h e i r d o c t o r s

and asked to attend an o r i e n t a t i o n meeting a t the Day House.

Information concerning the p a t i e n t ' s problems i s gathered by

the Day House s e c r e t a r y from the r e f e r r i n g p h y s i c i a n o r from

the p a t i e n t d u r i n g the i n i t i a l telephone r e f e r r a l conversa­

t i o n . Some p a t i e n t s may have to wait one month bef o r e

r e c e i v i n g an appointment. A l l candidates who attend the

i n t r o d u c t o r y meeting are shown a short f i l m and presented

with a b r i e f l e c t u r e about the ps y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c program,

community e x p e c t a t i o n s , r u l e s , and admission procedures.

The p a t i e n t s are then asked, i n the group s e t t i n g , to

d e s c r i b e and d i s c u s s the problems which brought them to the

Day House. P a t i e n t s who decide a g a i n s t the treatment are

r e f e r r e d back to t h e i r d o c t o r s . Of the remaining p a t i e n t s ,

those who are s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n the program, and who are

cons i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e (non-psychotic) by the t h e r a p i s t , are

i n v i t e d to stay the r e s t o f the day f o r a formal p s y c h i a t r i c

assessment i n t e r v i e w . During the day, the p r o s p e c t i v e

c a n d i d a t e s have lunch with the e x i s t i n g p a t i e n t group a f t e r

which they have t h e i r i n t e r v i e w with a t h e r a p i s t from the

66

assessment team. I f they are s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n the

program and t h e t h e r a p i s t f e e l s t h e y a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y

motivated, they are i n v i t e d to r e t u r n two days l a t e r f o r

group acceptance. In t h i s meeting, the candidates present

themselves to the e x i s t i n g p a t i e n t group who vote on t h e i r

admission. There t y p i c a l l y are dropouts between the i n i t i a l

assessment and those who r e t u r n f o r group acceptance. The

p a t i e n t who i s f i n a l l y accepted to the program r e p r e s e n t s a

person considered to be w e l l motivated f o r psychotherapy.

At both the o r i e n t a t i o n meeting and the assessment

i n t e r v i e w , commitment to community r u l e s i s s t r e s s e d . These

i n c l u d e d a i l y attendance, p u n c t u a l i t y , w r i t i n g a d i a r y and

p r e s e n t i n g a l i f e s t o r y , i n v i t i n g f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s to a

weekly therapy group, abstinence from use o f a l l drugs, and

no c o n t a c t with other t h e r a p i s t s . P a t i e n t s who abuse

med i c a t i o n , a l c o h o l , or s t r e e t drugs are asked to make a

v e r b a l commitment to a b s t a i n d u r i n g the treatment. F u l l

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l aspects of the program i s emphasized,

p a r t i c u l a r l y work and s p o r t s . P a t i e n t s who r e f u s e any one

of these requirements are asked not to seek admission u n t i l

they can accept these p a r t s of the t h e r a p e u t i c c o n t r a c t .

S e l e c t i o n of S u b j e c t s

The 103 male and female p a t i e n t s who sought admission

at the Day House from A p r i l 1 , 1980 through J u l y , 1980

formed the sample considered i n the present study. The

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the sample are summarized i n Table 3.0.

A l l were diagnosed as non-psychotic by the t h e r a p i s t . The

67

primary diagnosis on admission was neurotic depression for

about 65% of the male and female patients and anxiety

neurosis for 23%. The remaining 12% were diagnosed as

either marital maladjustment, personality disorder, adjust­

ment reaction, obsessional neurosis, or substance abuse.

(These diagnoses were considered the i n i t i a l working

diagnosis which could be changed by the therapist af t e r the

patient had become better known.) The t o t a l sample included

58 females and 45 males. Their ages ranged from 18 to 59.

Over 70% of both gender groups were under age 35 with only

3% of the females and 4% of the males over 46. Twenty-two

of the 56 females were single whereas 21 of the 44 males

were single. There were 19 married females and 15 divorced

or separated women. For the men, 13 were married and 10

were divorced or separated.

In regard to education, 25% of the women had not

graduated from high school; however, t h i s was true of only

about 14% of the males. Just over 20% of both groups had a

grade 12 education. Only 16% of the women, as compared to

39% of the men, had completed university and had a graduate

degree. About 7% of males and females had vocational

t r a i n i n g .

In terms of occupational status, 38% reported them­

selves as unemployed. Twenty-one percent of the women were

working in sales or c l e r i c a l jobs and 10.7% were housewives.

Eleven percent of the males were s k i l l e d laborers and

another 11% were in some managerial capacity.

TABLE 3.0

Demographic Characteristics

N = 103

Demographic Frequency Percentage Variable Female Male Female Male Gender 58 45

Age 1 8-25 16 8 27.6 17.8 26-35 30 26 51.7 57.8 36-45 9 7 15.5 15.5 46 + 3 4 5.2 8.9

Marital Status Single 24 22 41.3 48.9 Married 19 1 3 32.8 28.9 Separated or divorced 1 5 1 0 25.9 22.2

Education Under grade 1 2 1 4 6 24. 1 13.3 Grade 12 14 9 24.1 20.0 Some university 1 7 10 - 29. 3 22.2 University 9 1 2 15.5 26.7 Post graduate 0 5 0 11.1 Vocational 4 3 7.0 6.7

Occupation Unemployed 21 18 36.2 40.0 Welfare 1 0 1.7 0 Housewi fe 6 0 10.3 0 Unskilled labor 1 1 1 .7 2.2 S k i l l e d labor 1 5 1 .7 11.1 Clerk sales 1 2 3 20.8 6.8 Managerial 0 5 0 11.1 Professional 4 6 6.9 1 3.3 Student 8 6 13.8 13.3 Arts 4 1 6.9 2.2

I n i t i a l Diagnosis Neurotic depression 36 29 62. 1 65.9 Neurotic anxiety 1 5 1 1 25.9 22.8 Marital maladjustment 0 2 0 4.5 Personality disorder 2 2 3.4 4.5 Adjustment reaction 4 0 6.9 0 Obsessional neurosis 1 0 1 .7 0 Substance abuse 0 1 0 2.3

69

Seven percent of the women and 14% of the men were profes­

s i o n a l s (teachers, p r o f e s s o r s , and d o c t o r s ) . Students

comprised 11 % of both groups.

A. Psychological Androgyny

Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales

The I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales (IAS) (Wiggins,

1 979) are a set of eight bipolar clusters formed from a

r e v i s i o n of Leary's (1957) 16 i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s .

Based upon Foa and Foa's (1974) "facet analyses of cognitive

components of s o c i a l perception," the eight clusters are:

dominant-ambitious, lazy-submissive, gregarious-extroverted,

arrogant-calculatory, warm-agreeable, unassuming-ingenuous,

aloof-introverted, and cold-quarrelsome.

Each of the bipolar variables within each clu s t e r i s

measured with eight items. Following a complex selection

procedure, these items were chosen from among 817 i n t e r ­

personal adjectives extracted from Norman's prime categories

of 4,063 fa m i l i a r and non-obscure terms (Wiggins, 1978,

1 979). Each item i s rated on an eight-point L i k e r t scale

(extremely inaccurate to extremely accurate).

Normative and cross-validation studies (Wiggins, 1979)

revealed an internal consistency for the eight bipolar

scales of .80 based on student and so c i a l worker samples.

The g r e g a r i o u s - e x t r o v e r t e d s c a l e (NO) had the highest

i n t e r n a l consistency with a c o e f f i c i e n t alpha of .897 and

unassuming-ingenuous (JK) had the lowest with a c o e f f i c i e n t

alpha of .801 for the to t a l samples. The means for a l l the

70

samples ranged from 2.66 on the cold-quarrelsome s c a l e (DE)

to 6.41 on the warm-agreeable s c a l e (LM). S t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f r e p o r t were found i n the

p a t t e r n s o f endorsement and were c o n s i s t e n t with North

American sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s (Wiggins, 1979, p. 407).

Based upon the r e s u l t s o f these v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s ,

Wiggins (1979) r e p l a c e d 48 a d j e c t i v e s i n the o r i g i n a l s c a l e

with l e s s awkward a d j e c t i v e s from the o r i g i n a l l i s t o f 817

i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s f o l l o w i n g the same method as used i n

b u i l d i n g the o r i g i n a l s c a l e . T h i s r e v i s e d form of the

I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s , a copy of which i s i n c l u d e d

i n Appendix A, was used i n the present study. Since no

psychometric data were a v a i l a b l e f o r the r e v i s e d form, t e s t

and item analyses of the Revised IAS were completed as p a r t

of the study.

Use of Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s

The r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales was used to

determine the sex type category f o r a l l s u b j e c t s and to

assess the i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y o f the s u b j e c t s .

D e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. P s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny was

measured using the dominant-ambitious (PA) and the warm-

a g r e e a b l e (LM) s c a l e s from the r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l

A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980). These s c a l e s most

a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviors of dominance

and nurturance found i n the broad concepts t r a d i t i o n a l l y

a s s o c i a t e d with m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y . The dominant-

ambitious and warm-agreeable s c a l e s each c o n s i s t o f 16

71

adjectives from a t o t a l of eight vectors on the IAS. The

dominant-ambitious scale measures c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as

p e r s i s t e n c e , s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e , and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . The

warm-agreeable scale measures tender-heartedness, respect­

fulness, and accommodation. The subjects are asked to rate

themselves on an eight-point Likert scale according to how

accurately the items describe them. The scale ranges from

"extremely inaccurate" to "extremely accurate." Scores are

the sums of the subjects' responses on the eight-point

Likert scale for a l l items on the IAS. On a given scale,

the scores may range from 16 to 128. Using these scores,

and the t - r a t i o scoring procedure (see Chapter 2, pp.

46-47), each subject i s c l a s s i f i e d into one of f i v e sex type

c a t e g o r i e s : androgynous, — 1< t <1 ; feminine, t>2; near

feminine, 1<t<2; masculine, t<-2; and near masculine,

-2<t<-1 .

The use of the dominant-ambitious (PA) and warm-agree­

able (LM) scales to determine psychological androgyny was

validated by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1981). In a

student sample, the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI, Bern, 1974)

masculinity scale had a correlation of .804 with PA and PA

had an internal consistency, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha, of .861.

The BSRI femininity scale had a c o r r e l a t i o n of .840 with LM

and LM had an internal consistency, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha, of

.823. When "inappropriate items" were removed from the BSRI

masculinity and femininity scales, the correlations with PA

and LM increased (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1979). These data,

72

together with the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c r e s u l t s presented i n

Chapter 2, provided strong evidence that the c o n s t r u c t s of

dominance and n u r t u r a n c e were c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

t r a d i t i o n a l m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

B. Self-Esteem

Self-esteem was assessed using two d i f f e r e n t measures.

The f i r s t , the Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e , was an e f f i c i e n t

method of tapping g l o b a l self-esteem; w h i l e the second, the

r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s ( W i g g i n s , 1980)

provided more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n .

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (RSE) i s a g l o b a l

measure o f s e l f - r e g a r d designed to overcome many of the

d i f f i c u l t i e s found i n more complex measures. Wylie (1974),

i n her e x t e n s i v e review of s e l f - c o n c e p t measures, recommend­

ed the RSE f o r i t s u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y and b r e v i t y . By using

a Guttman S c a l e , Rosenberg has c o n s t r u c t e d a " s t r a i g h t f o r ­

ward way to b u i l d a measure of g l o b a l s e l f - r e g a r d which w i l l

have the d e s i r e d u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y " (Wylie, 1974, p. 181).

The RSE c o n s i s t s o f 10 f u l l s e n t e n c e i t e m s (see

Appendix B). Subjects are asked to r a t e the extent to which

they b e l i e v e each statement d e s c r i b e s themselves using a

f o u r - p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e ( s t r o n g l y agree to s t r o n g l y d i s ­

a g r e e ) . To c o n t r o l f o r the acquiescent response s e t , the

p o l a r i t y of items i s a l t e r n a t e d . The ten items are grouped

i n t o s i x s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s . Each of the s i x c a t e g o r i e s

73

receives a t o t a l score of +1 or -1, regardless of the number

of items in each group, (as shown in Appendix C), then the

six scores are summed. A score of six indicates low

self-esteem and zero high self-esteem.

Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales

Self-esteem was also examined in terms of the discrep­

ancy between rea l and ideal s e l f as measured by the revised

Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Carl Rogers (1961) con­

sidered the discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f to be

the basis of an individual's self-concept. For him, the

s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d person had a low discrepancy between rea l

and ideal s e l f .

For the purpose of measuring self-esteem, the IAS,

described e a r l i e r , was administered twice to each subject.

F i r s t , subjects were asked to respond in the usual way,

according to how accurately each adjective described them in

the present (their r e a l s e l f ) . On the second administra­

tio n , they were asked to respond to each item in terms of

how they would l i k e to be (their ideal s e l f ) . Following the

psychological androgyny scoring procedures described above,

thei r sex type category was determined for each administra­

t i o n . The d i r e c t i o n and amount of s h i f t from th e i r " r e a l "

sex type category was taken as a r e f l e c t i o n of the discrep­

ancy between real and ideal s e l f .

74

C. S e v e r i t y and P a t t e r n of Psychopathology

Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory

The Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI),

a widely employed s e l f r e p o r t c l i n i c a l i n v e n t o r y (Graham,

1 977), was used to i d e n t i f y the s e v e r i t y and range o f

psychopathology w i t h i n the sample. I t was scored i n two

ways: i n terms o f the 13 v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s ,

y i e l d i n g an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f a s u b j e c t ' s psychopathology

(Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1972), and i n terms of i t s

13 content s c a l e s (Wiggins, 1966), p r o v i d i n g more s p e c i f i c

i n f o r m a t i o n about p a r t i c u l a r areas of psychopathology.

V a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . The s t a n d a r d i z e d

i n v e n t o r y c o n s i s t s o f 566 t r u e - f a l s e items designed to

e l i c i t a range of s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s from each s u b j e c t . The

f u l l s e n t e n c e i t e m s were drawn from p r i o r p e r s o n a l i t y

i n v e n t o r i e s and cover p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t symptoms

and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The ten c l i n i c a l s c a l e s i n c l u d e :

h y p o c h o n d r i a s i s (Hs), d e p r e s s i o n (D) , c o n v e r s i o n h y s t e r i a

( H y ) , p s y c h o p a t h i c d e v i a t e ( P d ) , m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y

(Mf), paranoia (Pa), p sychasthenia ( P t ) , s c h i z o p h r e n i a ( S c ) ,

hypomania (Ma), and s o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n ( S i ) .

The four v a l i d i t y s c a l e s were b u i l t i n t o the measure to

c o n t r o l f o r d e v i a n t t e s t t a k i n g behavior. The "Cannot Say"

s c a l e accounts f o r items not answered or where both were

answered. An excess number of unanswered q u e s t i o n s lowers

the s c o r e s . The L s c a l e or " L i e " s c a l e d e t e c t s the persons

o b v i o u s l y t r y i n g to show themselves i n a good l i g h t . On the

75

F s c a l e , persons are i d e n t i f i e d who choose i n a d i r e c t i o n o f

l e s s than 10 percent o f the normals. T h i s i n d i c a t e s a

d e v i a n t response. "The F s c a l e i s the s i n g l e best MMPI

index o f degree o f psychopathology" (Graham, 1977, p. 153).

The K s c a l e i s a c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r o r i g i n a l l y designed to

i n d i c a t e and c o r r e c t f o r c l i n i c a l d e f e n s i v e n e s s .

The raw scores f o r a l l s c a l e s a re converted to a

T-score (mean 50, S.D. 10), and presented on a p r o f i l e . The

b a s i c norms were d e r i v e d from l a r g e samples o f normal

Minnesota a d u l t s and ado l e s c e n t s and provide the b a s i s f o r

the T-score c o n v e r s i o n s . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the scores does

not depend on the e l e v a t i o n o f a s i n g l e score but to the

c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the scores i n the p r o f i l e . Pathology i s

u s u a l l y i n d i c a t e d by e i t h e r low or high T-scores o u t s i d e

normal range. T y p i c a l l y , 70 i s considered a hig h score and

45, low. The p r o f i l e i s u s u a l l y coded by one o f a v a r i e t y

of systems and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are made by the combina­

t i o n o f s c a l e e l e v a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i c r u l e s

(Dahlstrom et a l . , 1972).

When b u i l d i n g the c l i n i c a l s c a l e s , an e m p i r i c a l keying

approach was used and the o b j e c t i v i t y o f the t e s t improved

as compared to other p e r s o n a l i t y measures (Graham, 1977).

The o r i g i n a l pool o f 1,000 items came from e x i s t i n g p e r s o n a l

and s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s c a l e s , p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l

case h i s t o r i e s , r e p o r t s , and t e x t books. The authors

s e l e c t e d 504 items to t e s t with v a r i o u s types o f c r i t e r i o n

76

groups, i n c l u d i n g normals, m e d i c a l , and p s y c h i a t r i c pa­

t i e n t s . Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d normals from p a t i e n t s

with a s p e c i f i c d i a g n o s i s were used to c o n s t r u c t a p a r t i c u ­

l a r c l i n i c a l s c a l e r e f l e c t i n g t he p a r t i c u l a r c l i n i c a l

d i s t u r b a n c e . C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n f o r each o f the c l i n i c a l

s c a l e s was completed using d i f f e r e n t groups of normal and

c l i n i c a l s u b j e c t s . T e s t - r e t e s t c o e f f i c i e n t s computed from a

sample o f male and female p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s ranged

from .86 on the F s c a l e to .59 on the psychopathic d e v i a t e

(Pd) s c a l e f o r females, and from .89 on the d e p r e s s i o n (D)

s c a l e to .86 on the hypo c h o n d r i a s i s (Hy) s c a l e f o r males

(Dahlstrom et a l . , 1975).

The c l i n i c a l s c a l e s o f the MMPI are h i g h l y i n t e r c o r -

r e l a t e d which makes i t u n l i k e l y t h a t o n l y one s c a l e would be

el e v a t e d f o r a s u b j e c t . T h i s i s due to the r e p e t i t i o n o f

items i n d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s . It was b e l i e v e d , a t f i r s t , t h a t

the s c a l e s could be scored to y i e l d a s p e c i f i c d i a g n o s i s but

at present the inv e n t o r y i s considered e f f e c t i v e i n g i v i n g a

broad c l i n i c a l p i c t u r e . " R e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s are found

among i n d i v i d u a l s from d i f f e r e n t c l i n i c a l groups" (Graham,

1977, p. 5). C o r r e l a t e s o f s p e c i f i c s c a l e s have been

developed so t h a t a p a t t e r n of scores i n d i c a t e s i n f o r m a t i o n

about t y p i c a l p a t i e n t s with those s c o r e s . For an index o f

o v e r a l l adjustment, i n a d d i t i o n to the F s c a l e , the number

of s c a l e s e l e v a t e d over 70 p r o v i d e s a gene r a l p i c t u r e .

MMPI content s c a l e s . The keying procedure i n the MMPI

d i d not c o n s i d e r the content o f the i n d i v i d u a l items.

77

Instead items were s e l e c t e d because they d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

e m p i r i c a l l y the c r i t e r i o n groups. In an attempt to c l a r i f y

the content, Wiggins (1966) developed, from the o r i g i n a l 26

c o n t e n t a r e a s , 13 c o n t e n t s c a l e s . These s c a l e s were

" m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , m o d e r a t e l y

i n d e p e n d e n t , and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e major c o n t e n t

dimensions o f the MMPI" (Graham, 1977). The content s c a l e s

could add to the c l i n i c a l p i c t u r e presented by the MMPI,

p a r t i c u l a r l y when the MMPI p r o f i l e s o f two p a t i e n t s appeared

the same. In s i t u a t i o n s such as t h i s , the p a t t e r n o f

content s c a l e scores could vary, thereby adding to the

understanding o f a p a r t i c u l a r p a t i e n t .

The 13 content s c a l e s are: s o c i a l maladjustment (SOC),

d e p r e s s i o n (DEP), feminine i n t e r e s t s (FEM), poor morale

(MOR), r e l i g i o u s fundamentalism (REL), a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t

(AUT), p s y c h o t i c i s m (PSY), o r g a n i c symptoms (ORG), f a m i l y

problems (FAM), manifest h o s t i l i t y (HOS), phobias (PHO),

hypomania (HYP), and poor h e a l t h (HEA). In s c o r i n g , the

c u t o f f s cores a re not as w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d as f o r the

c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . T-scores o f 60 to 70 are suggested f o r

high scores and from 40 to 50 f o r low scores (Graham, 1977).

Normative data are based on a v a r i e t y o f samples i n c l u d i n g

u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s and a M i n n e s o t a n o r m a t i v e g r o u p .

Wiggins (1966) re p o r t e d i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s

( c o e f f i c i e n t alpha) ranging i n value from .505 to .892 (p.

14) .

78

V a l i d i t y s t u d i e s have been completed i n which the

content s c a l e s were r e l a t e d to the standard MMPI c l i n i c a l

s c a l e s . On some s c a l e s the c o r r e l a t i o n s were so high the

content s c a l e s seemed to be measuring i d e n t i c a l f a c t o r s ; on

ot h e r s c a l e s the c o r r e l a t i o n s were lower i n d i c a t i n g they

were measuring unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The scores from

v a r i o u s c r i t e r i o n g r o u p s i n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s , A i r F o r c e

e n l i s t e d men, and p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s have been found to

d i f f e r . S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were a l s o found between

p s y c h i a t r i c d i a g n o s i s and r e s u l t s on the content s c a l e s

(Wiggins, 1966). Other s t u d i e s have found, i n p s y c h i a t r i c

samples, good c o r r e l a t i o n s between the content scores and

other p s y c h i a t r i c measures (as rep o r t e d i n Graham, 1977).

D. S o c i a l Adjustment

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t

The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t i s used as p a r t of the

assessment procedure a t the Day House. I t y i e l d s c l i n i c a l

i n f o r m a t i o n about the p a t i e n t as w e l l as q u a n t i f y i n g the

s e v e r i t y of problems, thus p r o v i d i n g immediate i d e n t i f i c a ­

t i o n o f the areas of l i f e the p a t i e n t s p e r c e i v e as most

d i f f i c u l t (Knobloch & Knobloch, 1979).

The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t i s a l i s t o f 15

statements r e p r e s e n t i n g t y p i c a l problem areas r e l a t e d to

s o c i a l adjustment p a t i e n t s u s u a l l y present d u r i n g psycho­

therapy (see Appendix D) . The problem c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e :

1) mood, 2) symptoms, 3) s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , 4) a c c e p t i n g

p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n or d i s a b i l i t y , 5) appearance, speech,

79

expression, 6) work, study, money, 7) sex partner (and sex),

8) children, 9) father (male authority), 10) mother (female

authority), 11) s i b l i n g s (peers), 12) friends, people in

general, 13) d a i l y routine, 14) free time, and 15) philoso­

phy of l i f e .

The Goal L i s t i s completed by the therapist during the

assessment interview. Space i s provided next to each

category where the therapist can i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c

nature of the patient's problem (such as mood: "feels

hopeless about f u t u r e ; " symptoms: "anxious i n crowds,"

"headaches"). At the end of the interview, the patient i s

asked to rate each problem. Although the ratings are from 0

to 5, no problem to extreme problem, each item has d i f f e r e n t

meanings attached to the score categories. For symptoms, 0

represents no complaint, 1 minimal, 2 mild, 3 moderate, 4

severe, and 5 can hardly be worse, strong, frequent; for sex

partner, 0 rating means no problem, 1 much more s a t i s f i e d

than d i s s a t i s f i e d , 2 more s a t i s f i e d than d i s s a t i s f i e d , or

e f f i c i e n t l y seeking solutions, 3 more d i s s a t i s f i e d than

s a t i s f i e d , 4 bad relat i o n s h i p or miss partner, 5 extremely

bad or destructive re l a t i o n s h i p or missing partner. The

scores for the t o t a l l i s t range from 0 to 75. Since only

limited psychometric data were available, test and item

analyses of the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were completed

as part of the present study.

80

E. I n t e r p e r s o n a l F l e x i b i l i t y

Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s

A c c o r d i n g to the i n t e r p e r s o n a l model developed by Leary

and e x t e n d e d by W i g g i n s (1979), p e r s o n s w i t h g r e a t e r

i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y are expected to have a behavior

r e p e r t o i r e which i n c l u d e s a l l v e c t o r s on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l

A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (Wiggins & H o l z m u l l e r , 1978). Wiggins and

Holzmuller (1978, 1981), working with two psychology student

samples, found that the i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y o f andro­

gynous men and women d i f f e r e d from t h a t of sex-typed and

near sex-typed men and women. A r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e ,

which r e f l e c t e d s e l f r e p o r t e d behaviors i n a l l v e c t o r s , was

confirmed f o r androgynous males i n both s t u d i e s . P r o f i l e s

with g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y were found among the stereotyped

males as expected. Stereotyped males spiked high on the

dominance s c a l e and low on the submissive and warm s c a l e .

However, androgynous females d i f f e r e d i n the two s t u d i e s .

Only i n the second (1981) d i d the androgynous females have a

r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e .

In order to extend the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of Wiggins' and

H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978, 1981) f i n d i n g s to a p a t i e n t sample,

s i m i l a r a n a l y ses were c o n s i d e r e d . With student samples,

they s t a n d a r d i z e d the IAS scores using norms developed from

the same sample. T h i s procedure was considered inappro­

p r i a t e i n the' present study of p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . U n l i k e

t h e s t u d e n t samples, the p a t i e n t sample r e p r e s e n t e d a

d e v i a n t group o f a d u l t s , whose scores would be expected to

81

d i f f e r from normal a d u l t s . Rather than using norms from the

p a t i e n t sample, norms from a n o n - p a t i e n t a d u l t sample

(Lazerson, 1980) were used s i n c e they would provide a more

s u i t a b l e b a s i s f o r comparison.

F o l l o w i n g the procedures o f Wiggins and H o l z m u l l e r , the

16 b i p o l a r s c a l e s o f the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s

(IAS) were scored to y i e l d separate means and standard

d e v i a t i o n s f o r the t o t a l normal group o f men and the t o t a l

normal group o f women (Lazerson, 1980). Each male and

female p a t i e n t ' s raw score was transformed f o r each s c a l e

using the a p p r o p r i a t e male or female normal r e f e r e n c e group.

Using the transformed s c o r e s , the mean f o r each o f the 16

s c a l e s was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each sex type group s e p a r a t e l y f o r

males and females. T h i s y i e l d e d a mean p r o f i l e f o r each sex

t y p e g r o u p , s t a n d a r d i z e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the t o t a l

same-sex, normal sample. The index o f p r o f i l e v a r i a t i o n was

the v a r i a n c e of the p a t i e n t s ' sex type group's p r o f i l e of

mean standard s c o r e s . Using the F r a t i o with 15 degrees o f

freedom, the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a i r s o f group p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l ­

i t y were analyzed.

Procedure

A l l o f the data were c o l l e c t e d as p a r t o f the Day House

admission.

1) Each Monday, a t the time of r e g i s t r a t i o n , a p a t i e n t ' s

e d u c a t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and economic d a t a were

recorded by the s e c r e t a r y , together with the i n i t i a l

c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s g i v e n by the t h e r a p i s t . Permission

82

to use data c o l l e c t e d from measurements was obtained

from each p a t i e n t a t t h i s time (see Appendix E ) .

2) The t e s t i n g s e s s i o n f o r the MMPI took p l a c e f o l l o w i n g

r e g i s t r a t i o n . Each p a t i e n t was given the book l e t and

answer sheet. A s t a f f member read the d i r e c t i o n s on

the f r o n t o f the bo o k l e t and answered q u e s t i o n s . The

p a t i e n t s were then asked to complete the t e s t i n the

wa i t i n g room.

3) P r i o r to the assessment i n t e r v i e w , but f o l l o w i n g lunch,

each p a t i e n t was given the RSE and the r e v i s e d I n t e r ­

p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to

f i l l i n the s c o r i n g sheet f o r the IAS twice, f i r s t , i n

terms o f how they d e s c r i b e themselves a t present and

second, how they would d e s c r i b e t h e i r i d e a l s e l f . A

s t a f f member a d m i n i s t e r e d the t e s t a c c o r d i n g t o

d i r e c t i o n s provided on the f r o n t o f the t e s t (see

Appendix F) and was a v a i l a b l e to answer q u e s t i o n s and

o f f e r synonyms of words not understood by the s u b j e c t .

4) When the t e s t s were completed the su b j e c t brought the

m a t e r i a l to the Day House s e c r e t a r y who c o l l e c t e d and

f i l e d the da t a .

5) The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was f i l l e d i n by the

t h e r a p i s t d u r i n g the assessment i n t e r v i e w , using the

p a t i e n t ' s words, and ra t e d by the p a t i e n t at the end of

the i n t e r v i e w .

83

Data A n a l y s i s

Data F i l e

The RSE, c l i n i c a l and v a l i d i t y s c a l e s o f the MMPI

c o r r e c t e d f o r the K f a c t o r (Dahlstrom et al., 1972), and the

MMPI content s c a l e s were handscored by the i n v e s t i g a t o r

f o l l o w i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r i n g guides. Ten percent o f

the t e s t s were r e s c o r e d to pro v i d e a check on s c o r i n g

r e l i a b i l i t y ; the percentage agreement acr o s s a l l t e s t s and

s c a l e s was 99.4%. These t e s t s c o r e s , the demographic

i n f o r m a t i o n , and the item scores f o r both a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f

the r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s and the Problem

Goal L i s t were then entered i n t o a computerized data f i l e

w ith 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n .

Analyses

The d a t a a n a l y s e s were completed i n f o u r s t a g e s .

F i r s t , the demographic data were analyzed. In the second

stage, the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f the r e v i s e d IAS and the

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was determined. In the t h i r d

s t a ge, the d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f sex typed group scores f o r the

sample were determined and i n the f o u r t h stage, the r e l a ­

t i o n s h i p s between sex type category and mental h e a l t h were

examined.

Demographic d e s c r i p t i o n of s u b j e c t s . Using the SPSS

FREQUENCIES o p t i o n (Nie, H u l l , Jenkins, S t e i n b r e n n e r , &

Bent, 1975), the f r e q u e n c i e s and percentages o f the d i s t r i ­

b u t i o n f o r the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were determined separate­

l y f o r male and female p a t i e n t s : age, m a r i t a l s t a t u s ,

84

education, occupation, and diagnosis. The comparisons were

made between males and females using the SPSS CROSSTABS (Nie

et a l . , 1975). In the demographic categories for education,

occupation, and diagnosis, some of the i n i t i a l information

was l o g i c a l l y combined to make a n a l y s i s p o s s i b l e . A

chi-square test of independence (Glass & Stanley, 1975) was

computed in those cases where the expected frequencies

s a t i s f i e d the test's requirements.

Internal consistency. Both the revised Interpersonal

Adjective Scales and the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were

recently developed tests for which no r e l i a b i l i t y informa­

t i o n was a v a i l a b l e . Consequently, item analyses were

performed pr i o r to the i r use in subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l

analyses.

Using the test analyses package LERTAP (Nelson, 1974),

the internal consistency of the eight scales of the revised

IAS was determined for each of the two administrations in

thi s study: patient's real s e l f and patient's ideal s e l f .

Following Wiggins (1979), a p r i n c i p a l components

solution using the scale scores was then obtained to confirm

the c i r c u l a r i t y f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Components

corresponding to eigenvalues greater than one (Kaiser, 1960)

were retained; no rotations or transformations were per­

formed. The component analyses were completed using the

SPSS FACTOR option (Nie et a l . , 1975).

Item analyses, again using LERTAP, were completed for

the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t .

85

D i s t r i b u t i o n of sex type c a t e g o r i e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n s

of the sex type c a t e g o r i e s (androgynous, near s t e r e o t y p e d ,

and stereotyped) were determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r male and

female p a t i e n t s . Following Bern (1974), a t - r a t i o score was

computed f o r each s u b j e c t from h i s / h e r warm-agreeable and

dominant-ambitious s c a l e s on the IAS:

( n - l ) s j r | + 1 ) n1 n2

where and are the means f o r the warm-agreeable and 2 2

dominant-ambitious scores r e s p e c t i v e l y , and are the

corresponding v a r i a n c e s and n^ and are the corresponding

number of items.

The a c t u a l computation of the t - v a l u e s was completed

using the SPSS T-TEST o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975). Based on

t h e i r score, s u b j e c t s were assigned to one of f i v e sex type

c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : androgynous, — 1 < t<1; near

feminine s t e r e o t y p e , 1<t<2; feminine s t e r e o t y p e , t>2; near

masculine s t e r e o t y p e , -2<t<-1; and masculine s t e r e o t y p e ,

t<-2. Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f sex-type c a t e g o r i e s f o r

p a t i e n t s were then determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r males and

females using SPSS FREQUENCIES o p t i o n (Nie, et a l . , 1975).

E x p l o r a t i o n o f G r o u p D i f f e r e n c e s i n M e n t a l H e a l t h

1 . Self-Esteem. A 3 x 2 (sex type-by-gender) f i x e d e f f e c t s

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f the t o t a l scores f o r the RSE was

performed to t e s t the hypotheses s t a t e d i n Chapter 2. Since

the c e l l s i z e s were not e q u a l , the assumption o f the

86

homogeneity of variance was tested. To complete th i s test,

the design was treated as a one factor design with six

l e v e l s . Using SPSS ONEWAY (Nie et a l . , 1975), the assump­

tion of equal variance was examined with Bartlet's test

(Kirk, 1968) at the .05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e . Scheffe's

simultaneous multiple comparison procedure (Kirk, 1968) was

applied following i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i g n i f i c a n t group or

gender-by-sex type interaction. The .05 le v e l of s i g n i f i ­

cance was used for the analysis of variance, while the .10

le v e l (Scheffe, 1959, p. 71) was used for the post hoc

multiple comparisons. The analysis of variance was com­

pleted using the SPSS ANOVA option (Nie et a l . , 1975), while

the Scheffe tests were hand computed.

2. S e v e r i t y and patterns of psychopathology. The

analyses of the v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l scales followed the

c l i n i c a l procedure d e s c r i b e d i n Dahlstrom, Welsh, and

Dahlstrom (1972) f o r p l o t t i n g MMPI p r o f i l e s and were

interpreted according to Graham (1977). Each of the 13

scale means was computed and p r o f i l e s plotted for the

following: sex type groups for a l l males and females plotted

on female norms; a l l male sex type groups combined plotted

on male norms; a l l female sex type groups combined plotted

on female norms; sex type groups for males plotted on same

sex norms; and sex type groups for females plotted on same

sex norms. In a l l cases, the means were computed using the

SPSS COMPUTE program.

87

As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , the MMPI content s c a l e s p r o v i d e

a d d i t i o n a l c l i n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Unlike the v a l i d i t y and

c l i n i c a l s c a l e s , where the p r o f i l e s were examined together,

the 13 content s c a l e s were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . T h i r t e e n 3 x

2 (sex type-by-gender) f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y ses o f v a r i a n c e o f

the t o t a l scores f o r each content s c a l e were performed to

t e s t the hypothesis s t a t e d i n Chapter 2. Si n c e the c e l l

s i z e s were not e q u a l , the assumption o f homogeneity o f

v a r i a n c e was t e s t e d as above. The .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e

was used f o r the ANOVA, while the .10 l e v e l (Scheff§, 1959,

p. 71) was used f o r the post hoc m u l t i p l e comparisons. The

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was conducted using the SPSS ANOVA

o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975), while the Scheffe t e s t s were hand

c a l c u l a t e d .

3. S o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t . To d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e were

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among sex type groups on s o c i a l

adjustment, f i f t e e n 3 x 2 f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y ses o f v a r i a n c e

o f the t o t a l scores f o r each o f the 1 5 problem areas

i d e n t i f i e d i n the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were computed.

The SSPS ANOVA o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975) was used. I t

should be noted that the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s es d e s c r i b e d

above f o r the content s c a l e s and the Vancouver Problem Goal

L i s t was chosen over m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s due to the

i n s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e s f o r the male and female andro­

gynous groups (see Chapter 4, p. 97). In these c e l l s , the

number o f dependent v a r i a b l e s exceeded t h e number o f

s u b j e c t s i n the category.

88

4. Interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . To determine interper­

sonal f l e x i b i l i t y , the p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y for each of the

sex type c a t e g o r i e s f o r men and women s e p a r a t e l y was

calculated following the analysis described by Wiggins and

Holzmuller (1978, 1981) and found on pp. 79-81. The SPSS

COMPUTE program was used to c a l c u l a t e means, standard

deviations, and transformed scores while the variances and

F-ratios were hand computed.

A l l the computer analyses were performed on the Amdahl

V6II computer at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia.

89

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The r e s u l t s and d i s c u s s i o n are presented i n t h i s

chapter following the same order of topics used in Chapter 3

to describe the data analyses. The information i s presented

in two parts. The f i r s t part includes a comparison of the

demographic data for male and female patients, and test

analyses of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales and the

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . In the second part, the

hypotheses are restated, followed by a presentation of the

re l e v a n t r e s u l t s . The f i r s t hypothesis concerned the

di s t r i b u t i o n s of sex type categories, while the second

through f i f t h hypotheses concerned the r e s u l t s of the

analyses of sex type group differences on the mental health

variables considered. A l l hypotheses were tested at the .05

lev e l of sig n i f i c a n c e .

Comparison of Patient Demographic Characteristics

When the male patients were compared to the female

patients as described in Chapter 3, pp. 67-70, there were no

si g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups for a l l demo­

graphic categories including diagnosis (x2=1-732 for age,

X2=.580 for marital status, and x2=.113 for occupational

status). Significance could not be determined for educa­

t i o n a l l e v e l due to i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l s i z e s .

90

Test Analyses of Interpersonal Adjective Scales and Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t

Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS)

The test analysis of the IAS was conducted to determine

the internal consistency of the revised scales and to

reconfir m the c i r c u l a r i t y of the s c a l e s based on the

postulated circumplex model (Wiggins, 1979). The results of

the test analysis on the raw IAS scores are provided in

Table 4.0. The l a s t column indicates that the internal

consistency for a l l scales, for both sets of data (except

JK), exceeds .78 (patients' r e a l rating and patient ideal

r a t i n g s ) . The scales of pa r t i c u l a r interest in t h i s study,

PA and LM, each had good r e l i a b i l i t y for a l l samples,

ranging from .79 to .90.

The Interpersonal Adjective Scales were based on a

stru c t u r a l model which assumes that any one interpersonal

t r a i t can be c l a s s i f i e d on a scale located within a circum­

plex space. In the building of the i n i t i a l circumplex,

Wiggins confirmed the c i r c u l a r i t y based on the results of

pr i n c i p a l components analysis conducted for each of the four

samples considered. The same factor analytic procedure was

repeated in thi s study. Intercorrelations were obtained

among the eight interpersonal scales for each of the two

ratings: patients' real and patients' i d e a l . Using p r i n ­

c i p a l components analysis, two p r i n c i p a l components with

eigenvalues greater than 1 were found. This confirmed the

res u l t s of Wiggins (1979). In the patients' r e a l ratings,

the two components accounted for 68.0% of the variance and,

91

TABLE 4.0

Interpersonal Adjective Scales Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s

N = 103

Circumplex NO. Of Standard Internal Scale Items Rating group Mean Deviation Consistency

PA 16 Real 66.54 15.37 .84 b

Ideal 101.11 8.97 .79

BC 16 Real 50.41 17.23 .91 Ideal 37.32 14.62 .91

DE 16 Real 50.84 15.17 .89 Ideal 3.06 11.73 .91

FG 16 Real 77.02 15.45 .86 Ideal 43.94 11.68 .84

HI 16 Real 78.50 14.73 .81 Ideal 35.59 10.81 .82

JK 16 Real 80.77 10.81 .69 Ideal 80.36 9.45 .60

LM 16 Real 95.38 10.85 .84 Ideal 101 .77 9.51 .84

NO 16 Real 77.43 13.09 .86 Ideal 102.57 9.85 .86

^Total scale scores range from 16 to 128 Hoyt's Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y

Note: Scale l a b e l s are: PA = ambitious-dominant; BC = arrogant-calcu­l a t i n g ; DE = cold-quarrelsome; FG = alo o f - i n t r o v e r t e d ; HI = la z y -submissive; JK = unassuming-ingenuous; LM = warm-agreeable; NO = gregarious-extroverted. Patient r e a l indicates patients rating of themselves i n the present; patient i d e a l i s t h e i r rating for t h e i r i d e a l s e l f .

92

for the ideal ratings, the two components accounted for

67.3% of the variance. Plots of the unrotated factor

pattern confirmed the c i r c u l a r i t y and b i p o l a r i t y of the

scales as hypothesized. The graph for the patient r e a l s e l f

rating i s presented in Figure 4.0; the remaining graph i s

shown in Appendix G.

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t

The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t had been developed over

the past f i v e years at the Day House as part of the problem

oriented record. The measure was considered a good c l i n i c a l

measure of s o c i a l adjustment. However, no previous r e l i ­

a b i l i t y studies or factor analysis had been done on the

instrument. The results of the test analysis including the

means, standard deviations, and item-test correlations are

presented in Table 4.1. The test analysis indicated good

r e l i a b i l i t y for the t o t a l score with the Hoyt Estimate at

.93. For the purposes of t h i s study no further analyses

were performed; however, a factor analysis would be needed

to determine the factors in the measure.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Distribution of Sex Type Groups

The f i r s t research hypothesis presented in Chapter 2

was: there i s a larger proportion of feminine sex typed

patients as compared to androgynous patients.

C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . For the s u b j e c t s , t - r a t i o s were

computed between their scores on the dominant-ambitious (PA)

93

COMPONENT 1

.9

.8 .DE

.FG .7 .HI .6

.5

.4

.3

.2

. 1

.BC

COMPONENT 2 (-) -.1 (+)

.7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 .1 .2 -•2

-.3

-.4

-.5

.3 .4 .5 .6 .7

PA.

. JK -.6

-.7 .NO

.LM -.8

-.9

FIGURE 4.0: STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN PATIENT (REAL) RATING (PA=Ambitious-dominant; BC=arrogant-calculat­ing; DE=cold-quarrlesome; FG=aloof-introverted; HI=1azy-submissive; JK=unassuming-ingenuous; LM=warm-agreeable; and NO=gregarious-extro-verted.)

TABLE 4.1

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Item Analysis (N = 103)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Items

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total

Mean 4.29 4 .17 4.11 2.57 3.19 3 .63 3.84 2.04 3.37 3.16 2.58 3.21 3.58 3 .74 2.68 50.2

Standard Deviation 1.76 1 .65 1.64 1.68 1.69 1 .75 1.88 1.67 1.85 1.85 1.64 1.67 1.79 1 .75 1.66 18.23

Item-test C o r r e l a t i o n .768 • 779 .849 .523 .652 • 718 .681 .374 .572 .567 .598 .712 .718 • 739 .521 .93 a

aHoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y

Note: 1 = Mood; 2 = Symptoms; 3 = S e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ; 4 = Accepting my p h y s i c a l condition, d i s a b i l i t y , or i l l n e s s ; 5 = Appearance, speech, expression; 6 = Work/study/money; 7 = Sex partner (and sex); 8 = My children; 9 = Father (male authority); 10 = Mother (female authority); 11 = Sibl i n g s ; 12 = Friends, people i n general; 13 = Daily routine; 14 = Free time; 15 = Philosophy of l i f e

95

and warm-agreeable (LM) s c a l e s on the IAS. A c c o r d i n g to the

t r a d i t i o n a l t - r a t i o method o f c a t e g o r i z i n g sex type groups,

androgynous s u b j e c t s were those with a score of — 1<t<1 ; near

feminine s t e r e o t y p e s u b j e c t s , 1<t<2; feminine s t e r e o t y p e ,

t>2; n e a r m a s c u l i n e s t e r e o t y p e , -2<t<-1; and m a s c u l i n e

s t e r e o t y p e , t<-2. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n are

d i s p l a y e d i n Table 4.2. As shown, onl y f i v e female p a t i e n t s

and s i x male p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous. T h i s

r e p r e s e n t e d 8.6% of the females and 13.3% of the males.

Within the androgynous group, one female was androgynous

with low scores on both PA and LM.

Of the female p a t i e n t s , 49 (84.4%) were c l a s s i f i e d

feminine and three (5.2%) near feminine. Only one female

was c a t e g o r i z e d as masculine s t e r e o t y p e d . The r e s u l t s f o r

males were more s u r p r i s i n g with 38 of the 45 male p a t i e n t s

c r o s s i n g over to the feminine or near feminine sex type

c a t e g o r i e s . Only one was near masculine s t e r e o t y p e d .

R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . According to the t r a d i t i o n a l t - r a t i o

method f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g s u b j e c t s , the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f

p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d feminine stereotyped f o r both the

males and females. At f i r s t g l a n c e , there seemed to be

l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n among p a t i e n t s ; however, w i t h i n the

feminine and near feminine groups combined there was a

c o n s i d e r a b l e range o f t v a l u e s , from 1 to 9. Due to the

v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the feminine stereotyped group, c o n s i d e r a ­

t i o n was g i v e n to r e c a t e g o r i z i n g the p a t i e n t s to both

96

TABLE 4.2

I n i t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sex Type Categories

N = 103

Frequency Percentage Females Males Female Males

Androgynous

Near feminine

Feminine

Near masculine

Masculine

Total

(-1<t<1 )

(1<t<2)

(t>2)

(-2<t<-1 )

(t<-2)

5

3

49

0

1

6

4

34

1

0

8.6

5.2

84.4

0

1.8

1 3. 3

8.9

58. 6

2.1

0

58 45 100.0 100.0

97

highlight the range of their t values and to c l a r i f y the

relationships between pathology and sex type categories.

The recategor iz a t i o n of the sex type groups was as

follows:

t-value Sex Type Category

— 1< t<1 Androgynous 1<t<4 Feminine

t>4 Hyper Feminine -4<t<-1 Masculine

t<-4 Hyper Masculine

With th i s recategorization, i t was possible to examine the

extremes while at the same time retaining the central part

of the i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t o r y scheme. It represented a

r e v i s i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s r a t h e r than a

dramatic change.

With the new categories the o r i g i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l appeal

of the t - r a t i o method i s maintained. This scoring method

stresses the importance of a balance of behaviors associated

with t r a d i t i o n a l masculine and feminine stereotypes. The

r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n maintains the concept of balance by

r e t a i n i n g the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. The

l i t e r a t u r e on androgyny research i n d i c a t e s that these

categories are often combined to f a c i l i t a t e analysis (Bern,

1974). The o r i g i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the near stereo­

typed and stereotyped was a r b i t r a r y . The new system changes

the previous method only in thi s d i s t i n c t i o n . Any score

equal to or greater than the absolute value of four was

taken as an indication of an extreme masculine or feminine

stereotype and labelled hyper masculine or hyper feminine.

98

This seemed l o g i c a l l y sound in that these subjects have

described themselves in extreme terms; that i s , they had

very large s i g n i f i c a n t difference between their t r a d i t i o n a l ­

l y masculine interpersonal behaviors (PA), and t r a d i t i o n a l l y

feminine interpersonal behaviors (LM). Furthermore, when a

pathological sample i s used, as in t h i s study, extreme

re s u l t s are not e n t i r e l y surprising. Therefore i t i s

necessary to find new ways within the old method to revise

the system without v i o l a t i n g the basic assumptions.

Results. With the revised sex type categories, the

number of androgynous subjects remained the same: f i v e

female and six male patients (see Table 4.3). The d i s t r i b u ­

tion of the patients across the other sex type categories

was: for the females, 25 were feminine stereotyped and 27

hyper feminine stereotyped (46.6%); for the males, 22 were

feminine stereotyped and 16 were hyper feminine (35.6%). As

in the o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , one female patient and one

male patient were masculine stereotyped and none were hyper

masculine.

The outstanding feature of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sex

stereotyping in the sample was the low number of androgynous

and masculine stereotyped male and female subjects. This

confirmed the hypothesis that the male and female patients

would tend toward the feminine stereotype. The patients

described themselves as possessing interpersonal behaviors

which have been c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y feminine stereotyped,

s i g n i f i c a n t l y lacking in t r a d i t i o n a l masculine interpersonal

99

TABLE 4.3

Recategorization of Sex Type Groups

N = 103

Frequency Percentage Females Males Females Males

Androgynous (-1<t < 1 ) 5 6 8. 6 1 3. 3

Feminine (1<t<4) 25 22 43. 1 48. 9

Hyper Feminine (t>4) 27 1 6 46. 6 35. 6

Masculine (-4<t<-1) 1 1 •' 1. 7 2. 2

Hyper Masculine (t<-4) 0 0 0 0

Totals 58 45 100. 0 100. 0

I

1 00

behaviors. They viewed themselves as moderately nurturing

but low in dominance.

The revised sex type categories were used in the

subsequent stages of a n a l y s i s . A f t e r the demographic

analyses, three subjects were dropped: one female andro­

gynous subject with low scores on the LM and PA scales and

both masculine stereotyped patients. These patients were

deleted since the number of subjects in the corresponding

categories was i n s u f f i c i e n t for analysis.

Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Sex Type Categories.

Prior to testing hypotheses two through f i v e , the associa­

tion between the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the sex

type categories were examined separately for the male and

female patients. Contingency tables, which are shown in

Appendix H, were constructed for each demographic variable

by revised sex type categories using SPSS CROSSTABS (Nie e t

a l . , 1975). Due to the small expected c e l l sizes (below 5),

i t was not possible to perform s t a t i s t i c a l tests of associa­

tion .

Males. For the hyper feminine males, 10 were single or

married and 7 were divorced or separated. The d i s t r i b u t i o n

of the feminine typed males was similar, with one exception,

one less male was married. For the androgynous men, three

were single (3) and one was divorced. The one masculine

male was single. In terms of education, the trend for the

hyper feminine and feminine was the same; the lowest propor­

tion had less than grade 12, the next largest proportion had

101

grade 12 and 50% or more had u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g . For the

androgynous males, 5 of the 6 were u n i v e r s i t y educated. The

one masculine typed male was a l s o u n i v e r s i t y educated. The

o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f the hyper feminine males was as

f o l l o w s : 50% unemployed, 37% employed, and 13% st u d e n t s .

For the feminine males, 41% were unemployed, 50% employed,

and 9% students. Eighteen percent o f the androgynous males

were unemployed w h i l e 67% were employed and 18% were

students. The one masculine male was a student.

Females. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l s t a t u s i n d i c a t e d

the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n , 50%, of hyper feminine women was

s i n g l e , and the next h i g h e s t , 31%, was d i v o r c e d or sep­

a r a t e d , and the l e a s t p r o p o r t i o n , 18%, ma r r i e d . In the

feminine sex type, equal numbers were s i n g l e or married (9)

with the remaining 4 i n the d i v o r c e d or separated category.

The l a r g e s t number of androgynous women was s i n g l e (4), and

an equal number was married or d i v o r c e d or separated ( 1 ) .

The one masculine type female was s i n g l e . In the d i s t r i b u ­

t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , the l a r g e s t number of hyper

feminine women had u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g , the next l a r g e s t had

grade 12, and s l i g h t l y fewer had l e s s than grade 12. For

the feminine females, the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n was u n i v e r s i t y

t r a i n e d , with the next l a r g e s t having l e s s than grade 12

edu c a t i o n , followed by those with grade 12. Three o f the

androgynous women were u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n e d and one had l e s s

than grade 12. The one masculine female had grade 12

1 02

education. In terms of occupational status, the d i s t r i b u ­

tions for the hyper feminine and feminine females were

similar with equal numbers of unemployed and employed.

Between 20% to 25% were students or housewives. For the

androgynous women, each category had one subject. The one

masculine typed female was a student.

Sex Type Group Differences

In t h i s stage of analysis, the feminine stereotype,

hyper feminine stereotype, and androgynous male and female

patients were compared for group differences on a variety of

p e r s o n a l i t y measures i n d i c a t i n g psychopathology. The

res u l t s and discussion are presented starting with the most

general measure of self-esteem, and then proceeding in turn

to the MMPI c l i n i c a l and v a l i d i t y scales, the MMPI content

scales, Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , and the Interpersonal

Adjective Scales as a measure of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y .

Hypothesis 2: Self-Esteem

The hypotheses tested were that: 1 ) androgynous male

and female patients have higher self-esteem on a global

measure of self-esteem than feminine stereotyped men and

women and 2) androgynous patients describe their ideal s e l f

as androgynous while the feminine stereotyped patients are

expected to demonstrate greater s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or low

self-esteem by stating their ideal in the d i r e c t i o n of

masculinity or androgyny and thereby indicating greater

1 03

s h i f t in categories. It was expected that higher s e l f -

esteem for androgynous patients would be demonstrated by: 1)

the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and 2) the discrepancy

between rea l and ideal s e l f scores on the IAS.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Measure. It was predicted that

the androgynous subjects would have higher self-esteem on

the RSE. The r e s u l t s of the 3 x 2 (group-by-gender)

analysis of variance, reported in Table 4.4, show that both

group and gender were s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i ­

cance. The corresponding interaction was not s i g n i f i c a n t .

Since the c e l l sizes were not equal, and given the desire to

treat each of the two factors equally, the experimental

design approach was adopted for the analysis (Overall &

Spiegel, 1968; Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). B a r t l e t t ' s test

showed the assumption of the homogeneity of variance was met

at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .

Application of Scheffe's multiple comparisons test to

the group and gender means shown i n Table 4.5 revealed

s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.10) between the hyper feminine

patients and the androgynous patients; the two remaining

comparisons were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, the androgynous

p a t i e n t s d i d have higher self-esteem than the extreme

feminine typed subjects. Examination of the means for

gender revealed that the males had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher

general self-esteem than females (p<.05).

I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . The discrepancy

between rea l s e l f and ideal s e l f i s summarized in the

104

TABLE 4.4

ANOVA Table for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE )

Source df ss MS F

Group 2 10.333 5.166 3. 159*

Gender 1 9. 397 9.397 5. 745*

Group x Gender 2 7.350 3.675 2. 247

Residual 94 153.745 1 .636

Total 99 183.999 1 .859

*p < .05

TABLE 4.5

Patient Means for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

Sex Type Group Means

Hyper feminine 4. 75

Feminine 4.21

Androgynous 3.80

Gender

Female 4.67 Male 4. 05

Note: Scores on RSE range from 1 to 6. 1 i n d i c a t e s the highest s e l f -esteem and 6 the lowest.

1 05

contingency tables presented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 for

female and male patients respectively. The tables i l ­

lu s t r a t e the d i r e c t i o n and amount of s h i f t between rea l and

desired sex type category. For the t o t a l female patient

group, 27 had their real rating as hyper feminine, 25 were

feminine, and 6 were masculine and hyper masculine stereo­

type. Only one of the 27 hyper feminine females did not

s h i f t categories on her ideal rating (see Table 4.6).

Thirty-seven percent shifted one category to stereotype

feminine, and 59% shifted two or more categories. Forty-one

percent of the hyper feminine women c l a s s i f i e d as hyper

feminine for the re a l s e l f were categorized as androgynous

for their i d e a l . Five rated their ideal as masculine or

hyper masculine. For the feminine stereotyped female

patients ( r e a l ) , 56% were c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous for

their i d e a l , with only three (12%) choosing a masculine

stereotype (more dominance) for their i d e a l . However, 32%

or eight feminine typed subjects remained the same for t h e i r

i d e a l . Two of the f i v e androgynous subjects moved toward

the masculine stereotype (dominance) and one toward the

feminine. (This analysis retained a l l 103 subjects due to

the interest in d i r e c t i o n a l i t y for those who were masculine

typed and low-low androgynous.) The low-low subject

remained androgynous f o r her i d e a l but was no longer

low-low. The one masculine typed female subject remained

the same for her i d e a l .

TABLE 4.6

Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Female Patients (N = 58)

Ideal Hyper " Hyper

Categories Feminine Feminine Androgynous Masculine Masculine Row To t a l

Real

Hyper Feminine 10 11 4 1 27 D

3.7 37.0 40.7 14.8 3.7 46.6

Feminine 0 8 14 3 0 25 0 32.0 56.0 12.0 0 43.1

Androgynous 0 1 2 1 1 5 0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 8.6

Masculine 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 0 1.7

Column t o t a l 1 19 27 9 2 58 1.7 32.8 46.6 15.5 3.4 100.0

Frequency; Row percentage

TABLE 4.7

Real Sex Type Category and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Male Patients (N = 45)

Ideal Hyper Hyper

Categories Feminine Feminine Androgynous Masculine Masculine Row Total

Real

Hyper Feminine 0 3* 8 5 0 16 0 18.8 50.0 31.3 0 35.6

Feminine 0 4 11 6 1 22 0 18.2 50.0 27.3 4.5 48.9

Androgynous 0 1 4 1 0 6 0 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 13.3

Masculine 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 100.0 0 0 2.2

Column t o t a l 0 8 24 12 1 45 0 17.8 53.3 26.7 2.2 100.0

Frequency; Row percentage

1 08

In contrast to the females, more male patients made the

s h i f t into the masculine sex type category. Twenty-nine

percent of the males as compared to 19% of the females chose

a masculine sex type as their ideal as shown in Table 4.7.

Of the 38 males who were i n i t i a l l y categorized as hyper

feminine or feminine, only seven remained feminine stereo­

typed. The ideal androgynous category had 24 male patients

as compared to six on the real r a t i n g . As with the female

patients, most males shifted out of the hyper feminine

category to androgyny (50%) or masculine stereotype (31%).

The results from the real and ideal ratings on the

nurturance (LM) and dominance (PA) scales of the IAS confirm

the predictions by i l l u s t r a t i n g considerable d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

on these dimensions for both male and female patients. The

greatest desired change i s for those subjects in the most

extreme feminine stereotype. One interpretation for the

amount of s h i f t i s that many subjects desired more dominance

in their interpersonal behavioral repertoire. Support for

the view that androgyny i s a desirable condition i s found in

the results of male (53.3%) and female (46.6%) patients who

rated themselves androgynous or balanced for their ideal

s e l f .

Hypothesis 3: Severity and Pattern of Psychopathology

It was hypothesized: sex typed patients d i f f e r from

androgynous patients in the pattern and severity of the i r

psychopathology. To determine sex type group differences in

psychopathology, the sex type group p r o f i l e s on the v a l i d i t y

1 09

and c l i n i c a l scales from the MMPI were plotted. The MMPI

p r o f i l e s were analyzed according to the c l i n i c a l procedures

in Dahlstrom et al. (1972) using Graham's (1977) c l i n i c a l

method of interpretation. The resu l t s of the MMPI analyses

are presented f i r s t , followed by the r e s u l t s of the

s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the content scales (Wiggins, 1966).

Each of 13 MMPI content scales was analyzed separately for

group and gender.

MMPI V a l i d i t y and C l i n i c a l Scales. The p r o f i l e s are

presented from the most general to the s p e c i f i c : f i r s t , a

comparison of the three sex type groups for the to t a l

patient group plotted on female norms; second, the t o t a l

male p r o f i l e and total female p r o f i l e each plotted separate­

l y on same sex norms; t h i r d , the male sex type group

p r o f i l e s and the female sex type group p r o f i l e s each plotted

separately on their same sex norms.

Before describing the sex type group and gender p r o f i l e

differences shown in Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, i t i s important

to note that the patient group p r o f i l e s as seen in Figure

4.1 are t y p i c a l of neurotic patients (Lanyon, 1968). The

inverted "V" pattern for the v a l i d i t y scales (L, F, K)

indicates the "presence of psychological deviance and the

recognition of th i s state" (Lanyon, 1968, p. 6). This i s a

d i s t i n c t i v e pattern for neurotic subjects. In general, the

patient groups had elevated scores on a l l scales, particu­

l a r l y depression (D), psychasthenia ( P t ) , s c h i z o p h r e n i a

(Sc), and psychopathic deviate (Pd). These results indicate

Figure 4.1

Sex Type Groups with Males and Females Combined

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

TorTc ? L F K I 2 3 4 S 6 ? * 9 0

Hs - .SK D Hy P d - M K Ml Po Pi^lK S c - I K M Q ^ 2 K S. For Rttccrair.j

TorTc Additional Scaies

TorTc ">

— :20

40-r

r

3 5 -7 0 -

^-:oe

- 95

- 6$- :

- 6 0 - ; —

3 0 -

- ; r 6 C

- 5°-: r 7 i

*!>~ ;

.4i—

2 0 -

3 0 •: - ii

2S-£-5-SC

1 5 - 20^

iS—

r 4-

-- j .

1 0 - : ;

N Welsh Code Hyper Feminine (43) 428"736'1019-5/F'K L: Feminine (47) 482 67"31091-5/F'K L: Androgynous (10) 4"278 91063-15/F'K:L/

I l l

Figure 4.2 Total Male Patient Group (N=44)

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

112

Figure 4.3 Total Female Patient Group (N=56)

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

1 1 3

t h a t the p a t i e n t group, as a whole, tends to be depressed

and a n x i o u s w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y p r o b l e m s . Lanyon (1968)

suggested that the combination of high d e p r e s s i o n and Pd

scores i n d i c a t e s p a s s i v e - a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y . Although

i t i s d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e across an e n t i r e p a t i e n t

group, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e f l e c t e d i n the group p r o f i l e s

are evident i n the t y p i c a l Day House p a t i e n t group as shown

i n the d i a g n o s i s i n Table 3.0. Thus the group p r o f i l e s do

conform to what i s observed i n the c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of

p a t i e n t s .

T o t a l sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s . W i t h i n the g e n e r a l

p a t t e r n of pathology r e f l e c t e d by the p r o f i l e s of a l l

groups, there are important c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the

sex type groups. F i g u r e 4.1 shows the p r o f i l e s f o r each sex

type group, with the males and females combined, and using

the f.emale norms. The p r o f i l e f o r hyper feminine i s the

h i g h e s t , with feminine stereotype next h i g h e s t and androgyny

lowest. For s c a l e s D, Pd, and Sc, the hyper feminine typed

group had T scores 80 or over with Pt over 75. The feminine

typed group had scores of over 70 on the same four s c a l e s ;

however, the androgynous typed group exceeded 70 o n l y on Pd.

The androgynous t y p e d p a t i e n t s had lower s c o r e s on

d e p r e s s i o n (D), psychasthenia ( P t ) , and s c h i z o p h r e n i a ( S c ) .

These r e s u l t s confirmed the hypothesis that there would be a

c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e i n the s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n i n

p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y between the androgynous and s t e r e o t y p e d

1 14

patients. The f l a t t e r and lower p r o f i l e of androgynous

typed patients indicates less pathology for t h i s group.

Group differences for each gender. Figures 4.2 and 4.3

i l l u s t r a t e the differences between the males plotted on male

norms and females plotted on female norms. The male p r o f i l e

i s generally more elevated and approaches or exceeds 80 on

the D, Pd, Pt, and Sc scales. The pattern of the p r o f i l e

was similar for females but the same four scale scores were

closer to 75. Males also had the Hy scale over 70. These

differences indicate that the males in t h i s patient group

had greater pathology than the females on the dimensions

refl e c t e d in these MMPI p r o f i l e s .

Throughout t h i s description the masculinity-femininity

s c a l e can only be mentioned with extreme c a u t i o n .

Constantinople (1973) has c a r e f u l l y shown the assumptions on

which the scale was developed are sex biased and u n j u s t i ­

f i e d . The scale items r e f l e c t endorsement for interests and

a c t i v i t i e s associated with stereotypic female behavior such

as l i k i n g cooking and dramatics or wanting to be a l i b r a r ­

ian. In t h i s patient group there i s a tendency for a l l

patients to endorse these items. However, high or low Mf

scores are not to be interpreted as an indication of an

individual's "masculinity" or "femininity" per se but only

of l i k i n g interests which have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated

with females. There i s a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor in high

scores on this scale as well (Wiggins, 1966).

115

Figure 4.4

Male Sex Type Groups

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

TbiTc L F ) * S 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

H s « . S K D Hy M - . 4 K Ml Po Pi *1K S c - i K M o - ^ K Si For Rdcordin;

Additional Scales

TorTc Hi-iK 5 Hr Pd-.4K Mf Pa Pr-IK Sc-IK M a - J K Si 1 * S 4 8 6 7 8 9 0

TorTc

N Welsh Code Hyper Feminine (16) 2*748"315 6' 9 10-F'K/L

Feminine (22) 2j$7"54' 361910-F' K-L:

Androgynous ( 6) 47852' 362-910/F-K/L:

116

Figure 4.5

Female Sex Type Groups

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

TorTc ?

1 2 0 -

1 2 s * » 6 7 * 9 0 - i 1 K .H*-iK

D Hy Pd-».4K Ml Pa p , - i K Sc-IK Maf . 2K S, For R«cordjng

Additional Scales

115 -

110-

105 -

100-f

W -

9 c " i

85 -

80— 130— -

75 i 1 2 ° -

30-

50-

50-

45-

65-

60- 60-

30-20- 20-

45-

»" . - / - V . . / i« 25-

55-

50-

45-30-

70-

65-

60-

55"

50-

45-

20-^ 15-15-

15-

: 10-

10-

30-

- 2 5 ~

10-

— 120

r " 5

7-!i0

«• 105

• f-100

— 90

r 8 5

-7-B0

. — 7 C

r 65

- ~ K

r 55

• --so

r 45

— 40

r ^5

7 - 3 0

— 25

— 2:

— C K H5- .5K D Hy Pd-.4I' M: Pc

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 0

N Hyper Feminine (27) Feminine (25)

Androgynous ( 4)

Welsh Code 28 47" 3610* l-9/5:F'U 482 736' 1910-5:F'LK:

24' 78910-63 1/5:F-LK:

1 17

Group differences for male sex type groups and female

sex type groups. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 i l l u s t r a t e the

p r o f i l e s of the sex type groups separated by gender. When

these p r o f i l e s are plotted separately, there are d i s t i n c t i v e

c l i n i c a l differences within the female sex type group's and

the male sex type group's p r o f i l e s and between the male and

female sex type group's p r o f i l e s .

Males. The androgynous males were lower on a l l scales

except Pd compared to the hyper feminine and feminine males.

The greatest difference among the three sex type groups

occurred on the depression scale. On D, the hyper feminine

subjects exceeded 90 and the feminine males were over 82,

while the androgynous males were at 72. The hyper feminine

and feminine male patients' mean scores were over 78 on Pt

and Sc, while mean scores for the androgynous males were

less than 74 on these scales. On Pd, the male androgynous

typed patients had similar scores to the feminine typed

males. In addition, for both the hyper feminine and

feminine males, hysteria (Hy) and paranoia (Pa) were quite

elevated. Again, the ove r a l l pattern for males tended to be

similar for a l l groups with a fl a t t e n i n g of the p r o f i l e for

the androgynous group.

Graham's (1977) two-point code method of interpreting

p r o f i l e s provides an alternative way of looking at group

d i f f e r e n c e s . In h i s system, Graham developed p r o f i l e

descriptions for each possible two-point combination of

elevated scales. A subject's p r o f i l e i s then interpreted in

118

l i g h t o f these d e s c r i p t i o n s . For the hyper feminine typed

male p r o f i l e the two p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n (2,7) r e f l e c t s

e x c e s s i v e worry, o v e r - r e a c t i o n to s t r e s s , vague somatic

complaints, and c l i n i c a l d e p r e s s i o n . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s high

e x p e c t a t i o n s , f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , and a tendency to be

r i g i d . These persons l a c k a s s e r t i v e n e s s and tend to e l i c i t

n urturance from o t h e r s a c c o r d i n g to Graham (1977). The

feminine typed males two p o i n t combination (2,8) i n d i c a t e s

more severe psychopathology than (2,7) when these s c a l e s are

e l e v a t e d . These s u b j e c t s may be more s u s p i c i o u s , have

somatic complaints, and experienced more d i f f i c u l t y with

i n t i m a c y . S i m i l a r to the p r e v i o u s group (2,7), t h i s p r o f i l e

(2,8) r e f l e c t s people who have problems with a s s e r t i v e n e s s .

The androgynous typed males tend to have p r o f i l e s (4,7)

r e f l e c t i n g symptoms of a n x i e t y and d e p r e s s i o n and some

a c t i n g out behavior such as d r i n k i n g or sexual p r o m i s c u i t y .

T h i s group i s considered l e s s n e u r o t i c but having p e r s o n a l ­

i t y problems.

Females. The hyper feminine females have mean scores

a t 80 or over on D, Pd, Pt, and Sc; the feminine female

p a t i e n t s have mean scores over 75 on D, Pd, and Sc; whereas

the androgynous female p a t i e n t s have scores above 70 o n l y on

the D and Pd s c a l e s (see F i g u r e 4.5). On Ma, the hyper

feminine females have the lowest scores and on S i the hyper

feminine have the h i g h e s t scores f o l l o w e d i n turn by the

androgynous and feminine females.

1 1 9

When the two-point code system i s used, the hyper

feminine female p r o f i l e (2,8) i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e r i o u s

psychopathology (Graham, 1977). They are d e s c r i b e d as

dependent, having problems being a s s e r t i v e , i r r i t a b l e , not

expr e s s i n g themselves d i r e c t l y , f e e l i n g e a s i l y h u r t , and

em o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t . The feminine typed p r o f i l e (4,8) i s

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f persons who tend to have poor s o c i a l

adjustment and resentment toward a u t h o r i t y . They tend to

f e e l i n s e c u r e and have exaggerated needs f o r a f f e c t i o n and

a t t e n t i o n . There may be s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n as w e l l as a

tendency to blame o t h e r s . The androgynous female p r o f i l e

(2,4) a l s o i n d i c a t e s problems with s o c i a l adjustment but

o f t e n these persons, i f they are not i n t r o u b l e with the

law, may f u n c t i o n adequately.

Females vs. males. When each female sex type group 1 s

p r o f i l e (see F i g u r e 4.5) i s compared to each male sex type

group's p r o f i l e ( F i g u r e 4.4), there are some important

d i f f e r e n c e s . The mean scores f o r the hyper feminine typed

females are f i v e p o i n t s lower on D, Pt, Sc, and Pd than the

hyper feminine typed males. When the feminine females are

compared to the feminine males, t h e i r D s c a l e score i s e i g h t

p o i n t s lower than the males. Pd i s j u s t above 80 f o r the

females and at 76 f o r the males of t h i s group. Both Pt and

Sc are lower f o r the females o f t h i s group than f o r the

males. For the androgynous females, i n c o n t r a s t to the

androgynous males, D and Pd are most e l e v a t e d . The male

androgynous p a t i e n t s have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n with

120

Pd, Pt, and Sc elevated. Mania (Ma) and s o c i a l introversion

(Si) are higher for the androgynous females than for the

males. Androgynous males may be less s o c i a l l y introverted

than the females but they seem to be more depressed and

anxious. Both groups have problems with s o c i a l norms.

Using Graham's system (1977), the androgynous males'

p r o f i l e (4,7) i s t y p i c a l of persons i n s e n s i t i v e to the

consequences of t h e i r behavior with episodes of acting out

followed by some g u i l t and self-condemnation. They have

somatic complaints i n c l u d i n g headaches, f a t i g u e , and

tension. These persons tend to be dependent and insecure

according to Graham's interpretation. The female andro­

gynous p r o f i l e (2,4) i s characterized by tendencies to

manipulate others producing tensions in long-term r e l a t i o n ­

ships, acting out with drugs and alcohol, and some remorse

which may not be sincere. Beneath a facade of competence,

they f e e l inadequate and d i s s a t i s f i e d and are rebellious

toward s o c i a l values (Graham, 1977). Based on t h i s i n t e r ­

pretation of these p r o f i l e s , i t i s apparent that there i s a

s l i g h t difference between androgynous typed males and female

patients, with the males showing more symptomology.

In Graham's system, the hyper feminine males' mean

p r o f i l e (2,7) i s more similar than d i s s i m i l a r to the hyper

feminine females (2,8). These p r o f i l e s indicate patients

who have problems with assertiveness, somatic complaints,

feelings of hopelessness, and inadequacy. A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,

feminine males (2,7) d i f f e r from the feminine females'

121

p r o f i l e (4,8). The male p r o f i l e s (2,7) i n d i c a t e n e u r o t i c

complaints and g e n e r a l f e e l i n g s o f inadequacy, whereas the

females (4,8) are more i n d i c a t i v e o f persons with poor

s o c i a l adjustment, c o n f l i c t with a u t h o r i t y , tendency to

blame o t h e r s , and p o s s i b l e s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n .

D i s c u s s i o n . The r e s u l t s of MMPI p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t

the hyper feminine and feminine typed groups of males and

f e m a l e s have more p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y i n c l u d i n g symptoms,

f e e l i n g s of inadequacy, l a c k o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s , and i n d i r e c t

methods o f emotional e x p r e s s i o n . In c o n t r a s t , the andro­

gynous groups tend to have l e s s symptomology. T h e i r d i f f i ­

c u l t i e s are more i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to a u t h o r i t y and s o c i a l

v a l u e s . They are not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l a c k of a s s e r t i v e n e s s

as the p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e f o r other groups.

The tendency f o r the p a t i e n t group of androgynous males

and females to have high Pd scores as compared to t h e i r

o t h e r c l i n i c a l s c a l e s i n d i c a t e s some a n t i - s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s

or c o n f l i c t with e s t a b l i s h e d s o c i a l norms. Although the sex

typed p a t i e n t s had even higher Pd s c o r e s , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g

to s p e c u l a t e whether the reason f o r the e l e v a t i o n among the

androgynous p a t i e n t s i s due to i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s

which l e a d to some r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t e s t a b l i s h e d s o c i a l

norms. I t i s even more important to note that the s t e r e o ­

typed group's p r o f i l e s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l a c k o f a s s e r ­

t i v e n e s s (Graham, 1977) i n c o n t r a s t to the androgyny groups

where t h i s does not seem to be a problem. I f a s s e r t i v e n e s s

can be c o r r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d with dominance (PA), those

122

persons c a t e g o r i z e d stereotyped hyper feminine and feminine

are expected to have pathology a s s o c i a t e d with low domi­

nance. These r e s u l t s confirm the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t there

would be sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s e v e r i t y and

p a t t e r n o f psychopathology on the MMPI v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l

s c a l e s .

MMPI Content S c a l e s

In c o n t r a s t to the standard MMPI, the content s c a l e s

"were designed to r e f l e c t r e l i a b l e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s

a l o n g i n t e r p r e t a b l e s u b s t a n t i v e d i m e n s i o n s and gro u p

d i f f e r e n c e s , where found, w i l l serve to enhance r a t h e r than

d e f i n e the meaning of the content s c a l e i n v o l v e d " (Wiggins,

1966, p. 14). To determine group d i f f e r e n c e s , a 3 x 2

(group-by-gender) a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was computed separ­

a t e l y f o r each o f the 13 content s c a l e s . B a r t l e t t ' s t e s t i n

a l l i n s t a n c e s showed the assumption o f the homogeneity o f

va r i a n c e was tenable a t the .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r

a l l 13 s c a l e s (see Appendix J ) . Table 4.8 r e p o r t s the

r e s u l t s o f the f i v e s c a l e s where s i g n i f i c a n c e was found

among the mean scores a t the .05 l e v e l . The r e s u l t s f o r the

remaining s c a l e s (on which no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were

found) are shown i n Appendix I. The three s c a l e s where sex

type group d i f f e r e n c e s were found a r e : poor morale (MOR),

o r g a n i c symptoms (ORG), and phobias (PHO). The r e s u l t s o f

Scheffe t e s t s a t .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t on

a l l three s c a l e s the androgynous male and female p a t i e n t s

scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s .

1 23

TABLE 4.8

MMPI Content Scales---F R a t i o

Source df FEM MOR ORG FAM PHO

Group 2 .03 5 .11* 3.96* .79 3 .38*

Gender 1 59.35* 4 . 05* .28 6.43* 7 . 21 **

Group x Gender 2 .61 1 .43 .20 .17 1 .40

R e s i d u a l 94 13.50 1 4 . 88 37.51 9.11 18 . 32

*p < .05 **p < .01

Note: FEM = Feminine i n t e r e s t s ; MOR = poor morale; ORG = o r g a n i c symptoms; FAM = f a m i l y problems; PHO = phobias

TABLE 4.9

Table of Means—Content Scales Raw Scores

Sex Type Group FEM MOR ORG FAM PHO

Hyper Fern (4 3) 15.31 17.20 12.91 9.27 1 0.72

Fem (47) 15.14 15.51 1 1.64 8. 94 9.49

Androgynous (10) 1 5.32 1 2.85 6.81 1 0.04 6.87

Gender

Female (56)

Male (44)

17.76 16.59 11.99

12.00 15.02 11.33

9.90 10.79

8.34 8.45

1 24

The androgynous group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the

feminine group o n l y on o r g a n i c symptoms. In none o f the

i n s t a n c e s was the i n t e r a c t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t . As expected,

where there were d i f f e r e n c e s , the androgynous p a t i e n t s f a r e d

b e t t e r .

S i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s were found on four content

s c a l e s : feminine i n t e r e s t s (FEM), poor morale (MOR), f a m i l y

problems (FAM), and phobias (PHO). On a l l four s c a l e s the

mean scores f o r the females were g r e a t e r than the mean

scores f o r the males (see Table 4.9).

The r e s u l t s show sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s on the

thre e content s c a l e s which are most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to

ne u r o s i s with one major e x c e p t i o n . There were no d i f f e r ­

ences between groups on the de p r e s s i o n (DEP) s c a l e . T h i s

was not the case with MMPI p r o f i l e s where the d i f f e r e n c e s on

D were apparent.

Although the m e t r i c s f o r the content s c a l e s and the

MMPI c l i n i c a l s c a l e s d i f f e r , i t would be expected that i f

the MMPI s c a l e f o r dep r e s s i o n showed group d i f f e r e n c e s t h i s

would a l s o occur f o r the content DEP s c a l e _ i f they were

m e a s u r i n g s i m i l a r a s p e c t s o f the d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r .

However, the content d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e can be considered a

purer measure of de p r e s s i o n than D on the MMPI (Mezzich,

Damarin, & E r i c k s o n , 1974) and i s s i m i l a r to the type o f

de p r e s s i o n o f t e n found i n p a t i e n t s s u f f e r i n g from major

d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s

i n t h i s study s i n c e none of the p a t i e n t s were s e v e r e l y

1 25

c l i n i c a l l y depressed. In t h i s p a t i e n t sample, where there

were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on low morale, low morale may

more c l o s e l y r e f l e c t " depression" or i n t h i s case n e u r o t i c

d e p r e s s i o n . The low morale s c a l e (MOR) i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

low s e l f c o n f i d e n c e , f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , hopelessness, and

de s p a i r and i s more t y p i c a l o f the type o f de p r e s s i o n found

i n psychotherapy p a t i e n t s . High endorsement o f t h i s s c a l e

i n d i c a t e s s e n s i t i v i t y to the r e a c t i o n o f o t h e r s . There

tends to be o v e r l a p with the DEP s c a l e which s t r e s s e s g u i l t y

f e e l i n g s and apprehension.

Another apparent c o n t r a s t with the MMPI p r o f i l e r e s u l t s

worthy o f d i s c u s s i o n i s the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

on the s c a l e s r e f l e c t i n g s o c i a l deviancy, a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t

(AUT) and manifest h o s t i l i t y (HOS). For a l l s u b j e c t s the

MMPI p r o f i l e had elev a t e d (Pd) psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e s .

Based on the r e s u l t s o f the content s c a l e s , which show no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on AUT and HOS content i n the Pd

s c a l e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the .sex type groups on Pd

must be due to other f a c t o r s such as f a m i l y problems r a t h e r

than to a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t and manifest h o s t i l i t y .

Hypothesis 4: S o c i a l Adjustment

The h y p othesis r e l a t e d to s o c i a l adjustment s t a t e d

t h a t : sex typed p a t i e n t s d i f f e r from the androgynous

p a t i e n t s i n s o c i a l adjustment. A 3 x 2 a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e

(group-by-gender) was conducted f o r each o f the 15 items on

the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t to determine i f there were

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the three sex type groups and

1 26

between males and females. No s i g n i f i c a n t group or gender

d i f f e r e n c e s were found on any o f the problem areas (See

Appendix K ) . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that f o r t h i s p a t i e n t

group, a l l p a t i e n t sex type groups had these problem areas

i n common.

Hypothesis 5: I n t e r p e r s o n a l F l e x i b i l i t y

I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d : androgynous p a t i e n t s have g r e a t e r

i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the sex typed p a t i e n t s . In

Wiggins' and H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978, 1981) s t u d i e s on student

s u b j e c t s , i t was p r e d i c t e d that the male and female andro-'

gynous p a t i e n t s would have a l e s s v a r i a b l e or f l a t t e r

p r o f i l e on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s than the sex

typed p a t i e n t s . The f l a t t e r p r o f i l e could be i n t e r p r e t e d as

r e f l e c t i n g a balance of behaviors a c r o s s the 16 i n t e r p e r ­

sonal s c a l e s .

The p r e d i c t i o n that there would be l e s s v a r i a n c e or

r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e s f o r androgynous male p a t i e n t s was

confirmed. The v a r i a n c e f o r androgynous males was .2086;

f o r feminine typed males was .3065; and f o r hyper feminine

males was .7157 as r e p o r t e d i n Table 4.10. A comparison of

these three v a r i a n c e s r e v e a l e d t h a t the v a r i a b i l i t y f o r the

hyper feminine males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the

androgynous males a t the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . By

e x a m i n i n g each male g r o u p ' s p r o f i l e , t h e r e were some

important f e a t u r e s of c l i n i c a l i n t e r e s t . The hyper feminine

male p r o f i l e s had low s p i k e s on dominance (PA) and e x t r o v e r ­

s i o n (0), and a high spike on l a z y - s u b m i s s i v e (HI). T h i s

TABLE 4.10

IAS Transformed P r o f i l e Means and P r o f i l e Variances for Each Sex Type Group (N = 100)

Females (56) Males (45) Scale Hyper Fem Feminine Androgynous Hyper Fem Feminine Androgynous

P -3.1426 -1.590 -1.1026 -.5128 -.1127 .0788 A -2.0871 -.9885 -.2795 -1.7096 -.9082 .0080 B -.5064 -.0371 .8991 .0780 .2538 .5066 C .1176 .3351 .7984 .1741 .2646 .2874 D -.1762 .2663 1.2971 .1539 .2190 .2944 E .8722 1.2659 2.1397 .2877 .3902 .4719 F 1.9044 1.9629 3.0769 .4096 .5018 .5698 G 1.5183 1.1940 1 .2672 .4825 .6126 .4691 H 2.9203 2.4646 2.8480 2.1757 1.2642 1 .1400 I 2.6370 1 .8759 1.6515 .7959 .7876 .5834 J .4864 .3803 -.1333 .2379 .2086 .1089 K .5015 .3608 .0613 .8009 .4693 -.8501 L .7276 .3978 -1.1658 .1929 .0749 -.0800 M .0854 -.0220 -1 .2495 .191 1 .1497 .0715 N -1.0068 -.8723 -1.5922 .0885 .0592 .0352 0 -1.2903 -.7931 -.8287 -1.1470 -.9741 -.4500

X .2223 .3875 .4805 .1687 .2038 .2028

s 2 2.6412 1 .3056 2.2255 .7157 .3065 .2086

Note: P = dominance; A = ambitious; B = arrogant; C = c a l c u l a t i n g ; D = cold; E = quarrelsome; F = aloof; G = introverted; H = lazy; I = submissive; J = unassuming ; K = ingenuous ; L = warm; M = agreeable; N = gregarious; 0 = • extroverted.

1 28

p a t t e r n was repeated i n each group but was g r e a t e r i n the

hyper feminine males.

Fo r the f e m a l e s , the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t androgynous

s u b j e c t s would be l e s s v a r i a b l e and demonstrate g r e a t e r

i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y was n o t c o n f i r m e d (see T a b l e

4.10). Here the r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to Wiggins and

H o l z m u l l e r (1978). The index of p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y was

2.6412 f o r hyper feminine females; 2.2255 f o r the andro­

gynous females; and 1.3056 f o r the feminine females. None

of the d i f f e r e n c e s was s i g n i f i c a n t . The female p r o f i l e s

tended to have high s p i k e s on l a z y (H), submissive ( I ) ,

a l o o f ( F ) , and i n t r o v e r t e d (G), and low s p i k e s on dominant

(P), ambitious (A), g r e g a r i o u s (N), and e x t r o v e r t e d ( 0 ) . In

a d d i t i o n , the androgynous female p r o f i l e s had high s p i k e s on

c o l d (D), quarrelsome ( E ) , and were low on warm (L) and

agreeable (M). These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d the androgynous

female group d e s c r i b e d i t s e l f i n terms of more negative

a s p e c t s o f dominance ( c o l d - q u a r r e l s o m e ) and lower i n

nurturance than the other female groups as w e l l as a l l the

male groups. These r e s u l t s on androgynous women's p r o f i l e

p a t t e r n d i f f e r e d from W i g g i n s ' and H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978)

f i n d i n g s . They found the p r o f i l e s of the androgynous women

to be the o p p o s i t e of the s t e r e o t y p e d , h i g h on dominance and

low on i n t r o v e r s i o n .

Summary

In some cases, p r e d i c t i o n s were confirmed. Ninety

percent of the p a t i e n t s f o r both sexes were ste r e o t y p e d

1 29

feminine i n t h e i r sex type. The new sex type c a t e g o r i e s

used t o i d e n t i f y an extreme st e r e o t y p e d group i n d i c a t e d a

high p r o p o r t i o n of male and female p a t i e n t s i n the extreme

hyper feminine category.

In the e x p l o r a t i o n of sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s on

measures o f mental h e a l t h , androgynous typed p a t i e n t s tended

to have h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m , l e s s p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , and

g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y when there were s i g n i f i ­

c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . Androgynous male and female

p a t i e n t s had higher s e l f - e s t e e m as measured by the Rosenberg

Self-Esteem S c a l e ; they had l e s s d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e i r

r e a l and i d e a l s e l f scores than the extreme s t e r e o t y p e d ,

hyper feminine group. The androgynous male and female

p a t i e n t MMPI p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e d l e s s psychopathology and a

s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of psychopathology as compared to

the other two sex type groups. On three o f the 13 MMPI

content s c a l e s , androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s

pathology than the extreme stereotyped group and on one

content s c a l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s pathology than the s t e r e o ­

typed group. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s on

the s o c i a l adjustment measure, the Vancouver Problem Goal

L i s t . There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the andro­

gynous male p a t i e n t s and the hyper f e m i n i n e males on

i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y as measured by the I n t e r p e r s o n a l

A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . However, the androgynous females d i d not

d i f f e r from t h e o t h e r f e m a l e g r o u p s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l

f l e x i b i l i t y .

1 30

Throughout the study o f group d i f f e r e n c e s , sex d i f f e r ­

ences were i d e n t i f i e d but the p a t t e r n s were not c o n s i s t e n t .

Women p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s e l f - e s t e e m on the

RSE than men. Male MMPI p r o f i l e s were more e l e v a t e d than

the female p r o f i l e s . The sex type group MMPI p r o f i l e s

showed c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s f o r males and females. Female

sex type groups d i d not show a p a t t e r n c o n s i s t e n t with the

males on i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y . As suggested i n other

s t u d i e s , there i s some support f o r the view t h a t male

androgynous persons do not look the same as female andro­

gynous persons.

131

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

Summary of the Study

Review o f the Purpose and Procedure

The purpose of the study was to determine the d i s t r i b u ­

t i o n o f sex type c a t e g o r i e s i n a group o f non-psychotic

p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s a t t e n d i n g a day c l i n i c a t a

u n i v e r s i t y h o s p i t a l and to explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between

the sex type c a t e g o r i e s and the f o l l o w i n g four mental h e a l t h

v a r i a b l e s : s e l f - e s t e e m , s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n o f psycho­

pathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y .

The androgynous and sex type c a t e g o r i e s were measured by the

nurturance (LM) and dominance (PA) s c a l e s from the I n t e r ­

p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980) and assigned

a c c o r d i n g to the t - r a t i o s c o r i n g procedure (Bern, 1974). To

measure s e l f - e s t e e m p a t i e n t s r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s on t h e

Rosenberg Self-esteem S c a l e (RSE). They a l s o rated the IAS

a second time according to how they would d e s c r i b e t h e i r

i d e a l s e l f . The d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e a l and i d e a l s e l f

r a t i n g was i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n o f s e l f - e s t e e m . The

s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n of psychopathology was measured by the

Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI) and the

MMPI content s c a l e s (Wiggins, 1966). S o c i a l adjustment was

determined by the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , and i n t e r p e r ­

s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y was measured by the 16 s c a l e s o f the

I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . A s e r i e s o f two-way

1 32

analyses of v a r i a n c e (group-by-gender) was performed to

determine s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a l l the mental

h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s with the exception of the MMPI p r o f i l e s

where a c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was used.

R e s u l t s

E x a m i n a t i o n o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l

androgyny r e v e a l e d t h a t , as p r e d i c t e d , higher p r o p o r t i o n s of

male and f e m a l e p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d as f e m i n i n e

stereotyped than any other category. The obtained d i s t r i b u ­

t i o n was such that i t was considered p r o f i t a b l e to r e d e f i n e

the feminine c a t e g o r i e s so as to be b e t t e r able to analyze

p o s s i b l e group d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the o r i g i n a l feminine

category. The androgynous category was l e f t unchanged

( — 1 < t < 1 ); however, the near feminine and feminine c a t e g o r i e s

were r e d e f i n e d as feminine (1<t<4) and hyper feminine ( t > 4 ) .

A l t h o u g h t h e r e were o n l y two p a t i e n t s c a t e g o r i z e d as

masculine with the i n i t i a l s c o r i n g system, the masculine

c a t e g o r i e s were r e d e f i n e d as masculine (-4<t<-1) and hyper

m a s c u l i n e (t<-4) t o m a i n t a i n the symmetric d e f i n i t i o n

embodied i n Bern's o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s .

Three groups were r e t a i n e d f o r the subsequent a n a l y s e s :

androgynous (n=10), feminine (n=47), and hyper feminine

(n=43). Because o f the small number (n=3), p a t i e n t s c l a s ­

s i f i e d as m a s c u l i n e and low-low androgynous were no t

considered f u r t h e r . Examination of the d i f f e r e n c e s among

the three r e t a i n e d groups r e v e a l e d that f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , the

androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r g l o b a l s e l f -

1 3 3

esteem than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s and there were

g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n s of s h i f t i n sex type c a t e g o r i e s between

r e a l and i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g s f o r both hyper feminine and

feminine p a t i e n t s . Sex typed p a t i e n t s d i d d i f f e r from the

androgynous i n the s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n o f psychopathology

as determined by a c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the MMPI and

on three of the content s c a l e s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s among groups on s o c i a l adjustment. There was

g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y f o r the anydrogynous males

as compared to the feminine males but the d i f f e r e n c e s were

not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the female sex type groups.

Throughout the study o f sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s , sex

d i f f e r e n c e s were i d e n t i f i e d but the p a t t e r n s were n o t

c o n s i s t e n t . Female p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower g l o b a l

s e l f - e s t e e m r a t i n g s , higher raw scores on fou r of the

content s c a l e s (feminine i n t e r e s t s , FEM; low morale, MOR;

f a m i l y problems, FAM; and phobias, PHO), and l e s s i n t e r ­

p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the male p a t i e n t s . In c o n t r a s t ,

the male p a t i e n t s had g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y between r e a l s e l f

and i d e a l s e l f as an i n d i c a t i o n o f low s e l f - e s t e e m . The

male p a t i e n t s had g r e a t e r psychopathology than the females

as determined by the MMPI p r o f i l e s where t h e i r scores were

more e l e v a t e d on t h e d e p r e s s i o n , p s y c h a s t h e n i a , and

s c h i z o p h r e n i a s c a l e s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t

i n t e r a c t i o n s e f f e c t s .

S i n c e the primary i n t e r e s t was i n the androgynous

p a t i e n t s and how they compared to the stereotyped p a t i e n t s ,

1 3 4

more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s o f these comparisons are pre­

sented i n the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n s .

Androgynous vs. hyper feminine typed p a t i e n t s . Andro­

gynous p a t i e n t s had b e t t e r mental h e a l t h on three o f the

fo u r mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s . The androgynous male and

female p a t i e n t s had higher s e l f - e s t e e m , l e s s psychopatholo­

gy, and a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f psychopathology than the

hyper feminine p a t i e n t s . The androgynous p a t i e n t s ' MMPI

p r o f i l e was onl y e l e v a t e d on the psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e ,

whereas the h y p e r f e m i n i n e p a t i e n t s had h i g h l y e l e v a t e d

scores on d e p r e s s i o n , psychopathic d e v i a t e , and sc h i z o p h e n i a

s c a l e s . On three content s c a l e s , the androgynous p a t i e n t s

had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s pathology than the hyper feminine

p a t i e n t s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s on

s o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t . The androgynous males d e m o n s t r a t e d

g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the androgynous

females.

Androgynous vs. feminine typed p a t i e n t s . The andro­

gynous p a t i e n t s had s u p e r i o r mental h e a l t h as compared to

the feminine typed p a t i e n t s on two mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s .

There was g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e a l and i d e a l

s e l f r a t i n g s f o r the feminine typed p a t i e n t s compared to the

androgynous p a t i e n t s . And, the androgynous p a t i e n t s ' MMPI

p r o f i l e s had lower e l e v a t i o n s on a l l s c a l e s except mania,

psychopathic d e v i a t e , and psychasthenia where they were

s i m i l a r to the feminine p a t i e n t s . On one content s c a l e

1 35

(ORG) the androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower

s c o r e s .

Androgynous males vs. androgynous females. On two of

the mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s , psychopathology and i n t e r p e r ­

sonal f l e x i b i l i t y , there were d i f f e r e n c e s between the andro­

gynous males and f e m a l e s . The androgynous male MMPI

p r o f i l e s showed a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n than the androgynous

females with lower e l e v a t i o n s on the d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e and

hig h e r e l e v a t i o n s on the psychopathic d e v i a t e , psychasthen­

i a , and s c h i z o p h r e n i a s c a l e s . The i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y

o f the androgynous males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the

androgynous females.

C o n c l u s i o n s and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

The f i n d i n g s of the present study c o n t r i b u t e i n three

ways to the understanding of the nature of p s y c h o l o g i c a l

androgyny. The f i r s t i s a f u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n

of the d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. The second i s the u t i l i z a ­

t i o n o f a new measure of androgyny which e f f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e s

the new d e f i n i t i o n . The t h i r d i s a demonstration of the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between androgyny, sex s t e r e o t y p i n g , and mental

h e a l t h f o r a group of p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s .

T h e o r e t i c a l C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the D e f i n i t i o n of Andro­

gyny. Bern's (1974) i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of psycho­

l o g i c a l androgyny viewed the androgynous person as having a

balance of t r a d i t i o n a l masculine and feminine b e h a v i o r s .

The d e f i n i t i o n was not u n i f o r m l y accepted by a l l androgyny

r e s e a r c h e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Spence and Helmreich (1978), who

1 36

confused the d e f i n i t i o n by arguing i n terms of i n t e r n a l

mechanisms which mediate gender r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s . In s p i t e

of the c o n f u s i o n , the concept of balance had conceptual

appeal. A f u r t h e r c o n t r o v e r s y remained over how to d e f i n e

the dimensions o f the balance. Bern argued i n f a v o r o f

agency and communality and Spence and Helmreich i n f a v o r o f

i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y and e x p r e s s i v i t y .

In the present study, f o l l o w i n g Wiggins and Holzmuller

(1981), androgyny was d e f i n e d i n terms of dominance and

n u r t u r a n c e . A l t h o u g h W i g g i n s and H o l z m u l l e r p r o p o s e d

androgyny be d e f i n e d i n terms of dominance and nurturance,

they measured i t using the Bern Sex Role Inventory. In an

u n p u b l i s h e d s t u d y , L a z e r s o n (1980) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h e

d e f i n i t i o n by using the PA and LM s c a l e s of the IAS to

measure, r e s p e c t i v e l y , dominance and nurturance b e h a v i o r s .

A p p l i c a t i o n of the same procedure i n the present study was

again s u c c e s s f u l . The d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny i n these

terms had the e f f e c t o f : 1) e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between the t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny and an

a c t u a l measure of androgyny, and 2) making i t p o s s i b l e to

measure the dimensions o f dominance and nurturance on a

s c a l e which was gender-free i n i t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and

c o n s t r u c t i o n . When dominance and nurturance are d e f i n e d as

the dimensions of androgyny, i t becomes p o s s i b l e to c l a r i f y

and i n t e r p r e t the meaning of the r e s u l t s i n l i g h t o f these

dimensions r a t h e r than i n l i g h t o f the broad and vague terms

1 37

masculinity and femininity. It i s thi s kind of interpre­

t a t i o n which adds to the t h e o r e t i c a l understanding of

androgyny so often confused by lack of d e f i n i t i o n . The

s p e c i f i c theoretical implications of thi s new d e f i n i t i o n are

discussed further in the section on Implications in t h i s

chapter.

Contributions to the Measurement of Androgyny. The

v a l i d i t y of the PA and LM scales of the IAS as a measure of

psychological androgyny in a patient population was extended

in the present study. The measure did successfully d i s t i n ­

guish sex type categories within a group of out-patients,

p a r t i c u l a r l y when the categories were revised. With the

t - r a t i o method of Bern (1974) the majority of patients were

c l a s s i f i e d feminine stereotype. Revision of the sex type

categories led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a high proportion of

patients extreme in their stereotype. Use of the revised

categories (see p. 132 and Chapter 4), showed the l i m i t a ­

tions of the t-score system as defined by Bern (1974) for a

patient sample. This study demonstrated the importance of a

r e d e f i n i t i o n of categories when determining the sex type of

populations with mental health problems. In addition, use

of the PA and LM scales permitted examination of the

patients who shifted from hyper feminine and feminine type

towards androgyny or masculine type.

Androgyny, Sex Stereotyping, and Mental Health. The

present study gave some support to psychological androgyny

as a new model of mental health. Unlike previous studies

1 38

which had explored the model i n student p o p u l a t i o n s , t h i s

study was an i n t e n s i v e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the mental h e a l t h o f

androgynous and sex stereotyped p a t i e n t s . On a number of

important mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s androgynous p a t i e n t s d i d

have b e t t e r mental h e a l t h than stereotyped feminine pa­

t i e n t s . The androgynous p a t i e n t s were found to have higher

s e l f - e s t e e m and l e s s psychopathology as measured by the

MMPI.

On t h e i r MMPI p r o f i l e s , the androgynous men had g r e a t e r

symptoms of a n x i e t y and s o c i a l deviancy whereas the andro­

gynous females had g r e a t e r d e p r e s s i o n and s o c i a l deviancy.

P a t i e n t s who are androgynous may experience s o c i a l c o n f l i c t

and r o l e s t r a i n due to t h e i r sex type. For the androgynous

males t h i s may be an x i e t y provoking, but f o r the androgynous

females i t may be a f a c t o r i n t h e i r d e p r e s s i o n . I t i s not

unusual f o r women to respond to s o c i a l s t r e s s with depres­

s i o n (Weissman & Klerman, 1979).

The MMPI p r o f i l e s f o r the three groups o f males showed

high l e v e l s o f a n x i e t y and s o c i a l pathology. The andro­

gynous males d i d have l e s s d e p r e s s i o n than the feminine

typed males. These p a t t e r n s were not s u r p r i s i n g i n th a t

males who d e s c r i b e d themselves i n t r a d i t i o n a l feminine terms

would be expected to experience high a n x i e t y as w e l l as

de p r e s s i o n with i t s a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s of hopelessness and

worthlessness. It was important to note t h a t the more

feminine the male d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f , the higher the l e v e l of

dep r e s s i o n and a n x i e t y .

1 3 9

Among the females, the level s of depression and anxiety

also increased with degree of femininity. Across the female

groups, there was v a r i a b i l i t y in the MMPI p r o f i l e s . This

variation in pattern of psychopathology was also evident in

the female scores on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales.

The androgynous females had more extreme scores in a l l

interpersonal areas related to the more negative aspects of

dominance, cold and arrogant, yet were below norms on more

p o s i t i v e dominance behaviors. The feminine and hyper

feminine females were closer to norms on the warm and

agreeable scales and were high on the more passive behaviors

of submission and introversion. They were lower than andro­

gynous females on both posi t i v e and negative dominance

areas. This p i c t u r e of the androgynous female group

indicated problems related to inappropriate u t i l i z a t i o n of

dominance behaviors; whereas the feminine and hyper feminine

groups tended to have a notable lack of dominance.

Implications of the Feminine Stereotype and Androgyny

The study confirmed expectations that patients who are

hyper feminine sex typed w i l l have lower self-esteem and a

d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of psychopathology than androgynous

patients. As predicted, the patients predominantly de­

scribed themselves in t r a d i t i o n a l feminine terms. There i s

theo r e t i c a l as well as other empirical support for these

r e s u l t s on women. However, there i s l i t t l e in the l i t e r -

140

ature to e x p l a i n why so many of the males were feminine

typed.

Recent e f f o r t s to e x p l a i n the predominance o f depres­

s i o n and other n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s among women have focused

on s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s and c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , and

p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s . The gen e r a l view i s that women e x p e r i ­

ence s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and economic i n e q u i t i e s . They

may be s o c i a l i z e d to avoid c o n f l i c t and behave i n a h e l p l e s s

f a s h i o n when under s t r e s s . However, men who f a i l e d to

develop s u f f i c i e n t dominance may have experienced s o c i a l

s t r e s s because they were unable to meet s o c i a l r o l e expecta­

t i o n s f o r t h e i r gender.

The f i n d i n g s from recent work on p a t t e r n s of male and

female f a n t a s y completed by May (1980) r a i s e some p o s s i b l e

p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the present r e s u l t s . Using

p r o j e c t i v e s t o r y - t e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e s , May i l l u s t r a t e d

p a t t e r n s of sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n fa n t a s y from c h i l d h o o d to

adulthood. The fantasy p a t t e r n i n male a d u l t s , as demon­

s t r a t e d i n t h e i r s t o r y t e l l i n g , showed t h e i r themes begin

with p h y s i c a l and emotional excitement but end with c o l l a p s e

and f a i l u r e . These "normal" a d u l t male s t o r i e s r e f l e c t e d

the need to be i n c o n t r o l . When t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y char­

a c t e r i s t i c s were e x p l o r e d , they tended to d e s c r i b e t h e i r

response to s t r e s s as r e a c t i n g with anger to o t h e r s around

them. On the other hand, the female a d u l t s t o r i e s began

with s u f f e r i n g and doubt, then went on to success and

happiness. These women tended to be in v e s t e d i n concerns o f

141

nurturance, succorance, and endurance. The fantasy patterns

in women were found to be associated with i n h i b i t i o n of

anger when under stress or attack. Although May does not

stress the theme of anxiety, the male fantasies, with t h e i r

endings of destruction and doom, i l l u s t r a t e high le v e l s of

anxiety. The female fantasy pattern indicates some anxiety

at the beginning but end in denial and an almost pollyanna

view of overcoming obstacles.

It seems that anxiety may be associated with t r a d i t i o n ­

a l male behaviors of dominance, power, and competition. The

healthy male fantasy patterns indicate that men may develop

a way to tolerate higher lev e l s of anxiety than women.

Underlying dominance and power may be the constant fear of

losing, but healthy males may have found ways to deal

preventively with this anxiety in their fantasy l i f e . In

terms of mastery (Bandura, 1977), the male fantasy pattern

seems to indicate e f f o r t s to overcome fear of f a i l u r e , an

anxiety r e l a t e d to competition. If males have found

psychological ways to tolerate anxiety, they may be more

l i k e l y to engage in greater r i s k taking behavior than

stereotypic women. Unlike the males, the women seemed not

to use fantasy to help them master c o n f l i c t . In the present

study, most of the male patients described themselves in

stereotypic feminine terms. One possible explanation for

these r e s u l t s suggests that the i n a b i l i t y to t o l e r a t e

anxiety inhibited the development of dominance, assertive­

ness, and risk-taking in these males. It suggests a similar

142

p a t t e r n f o r women. I t i s important to note t h a t i n the

present study male n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y and d e p r e s s i o n scores on

the MMPI were c o n s i s t e n t l y higher than females f o r each sex

type group. Males who f a i l to develop s u f f i c i e n t dominance

behaviors may have g r e a t e r despondency and a n x i e t y than

females. I t may be t h a t , when males f a i l t o f u l f i l l the

t y p i c a l male r o l e , they are v u l n e r a b l e to n e u r o s i s . Females

who do f u l f i l l the female s t e r e o t y p e a l s o seem v u l n e r a b l e to

n e u r o s i s . For both males and females, neuroses seems to be

a s s o c i a t e d with a l a c k o f dominance and i t s a s s o c i a t e d

b e h a v i o r s of r i s k - t a k i n g and com p e t i t i v e n e s s .

The d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny as a balance o f dominance

and nurturance i m p l i e d t h a t the androgynous person would

b e n e f i t from both b e h a v i o r s . The r e s u l t s o f the pr e s e n t

study r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y of the importance of dominance

behaviors f o r males and females. The p a t i e n t group was

no t a b l y l a c k i n g i n dominance. However, these p a t i e n t s

g e n e r a l l y had moderate s e l f r a t i n g s on nurturance. Although

many of these p a t i e n t s entered therapy with complaints about

d i f f i c u l t y i n a c h i e v i n g or keeping i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

t h e i r psychopathology does not seem to be r e l a t e d to l a c k of

or excess o f nurturance. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s i n agree­

ment with Holahan and Spence (1979) who found that there was

no c o r r e l a t i o n between f e m i n i n i t y (nurturance) and neuro­

t i c i s m .

A q u e s t i o n must be r a i s e d about the l a c k o f masculine

typed male and female p a t i e n t s i n the sample. T h e i r f a i l u r e

143

to appear could be interpreted as an indication that the

masculine typed person had s u p e r i o r mental h e a l t h as

compared to the androgynous and feminine or hyper feminine

typed person. However, their lack of presence in t h i s

patient sample may be explained by either the uniqueness of

t h i s neurotic sample or the prevalence of other types of

mental disorders in the masculine typed group or the f a i l u r e

of t h i s group to seek psychotherapy as a solution to t h e i r

psychological problems.

Limitations of the Study

There are three main l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, two of

which are unique to this study while the third relates to

problems inherent in androgyny research in general. F i r s t ,

sex type group comparisons were made between sex typed

patients and androgynous patients based on very few patients

in the androgynous category. In 100 patients, only 10 were

androgynous. With a larger number of t o t a l subjects, i t

would have been possible to examine the rela t i o n s h i p between

a l l sex type categories and the mental health variables. In

order to have increased the number of androgynous subjects

to 10 males and 10 females, i t would have been necessary to

increase the duration of the data c o l l e c t i o n . A second

alternative i s possible as well. It would be possible to

increase the number of androgynous subjects by changing the

s t a t i s t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of psychological androgyny which was

used: — 1 < t < 1 . This i s a conservative d e f i n i t i o n which

limited the number of subjects who had a s t a t i s t i c a l balance

1 44

of dominance and nurturance. I t would have been p o s s i b l e to

broaden the d e f i n i t i o n and s t i l l m aintain the conception of

a balance. However, f o r the purposes of t h i s study the

c o n s e r v a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n was maintained because the androgyny

s c o r i n g procedure was a l r e a d y f r a u g h t with c o n t r o v e r s y . To

have r e d e f i n e d androgyny, as w e l l as the other sex type

c a t e g o r i e s , would have gone beyond the scope of t h i s study

but can be suggested f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

Secondly, t h i s r e s e a r c h used a new measure of s o c i a l

adjustment, the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . No p r e v i o u s

r e l i a b i l i t y o r v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s had been done on the

measure. Although there were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r ­

ences on s o c i a l adjustment, i t may have been due to the

i n s e n s i t i v i t y o f the instrument r a t h e r than the l a c k o f

s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . A s t a n d a r d i z e d measure of

s o c i a l adjustment such as the C l a r k Personal and S o c i a l

Adjustment S c a l e (Frank, Hoehn-Saric, Imber, Liberman, &

Stone, 1978) may be more r e l i a b l e i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The

Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was chosen because i t had been

used as a c l i n i c a l instrument f o r four years a t the Day

C l i n i c and the t e s t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d h i g h i n t e r n a l

c o n s i s t e n c y f o r the f u l l s c a l e s . However, the measure w i l l

need f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to b e t t e r a s c e r t a i n i t s v a l i d i t y .

The t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n , common to most androgyny r e ­

s e a r c h , r e l a t e s to the general concept of androgyny and the

terminology generated by the c o n s t r u c t . As d i s c u s s e d i n

Chapters 1 and 2, there i s a h i s t o r y of c o n f u s i o n centered

145

around the d e f i n i t i o n s of masculinity and femininity. Bern

(1974) and Spence et a l . (1975) suggested thinking in terms

of agency and communality or instrumentality and expres­

s i v i t y rather than masculinity or femininity. In t h i s

study, dominance and nurturance (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981)

were o f f e r e d as independent t r a i t s which c h a r a c t e r i z e

behaviors more associated with men and women, respectively.

However, in spite of t h i s e f f o r t at c l a r i t y , confusion tends

to occur when sex typed persons are referred to as masculine

typed or feminine typed. It would be better to describe

persons as nurturant typed or dominant typed; high nurturant

or high dominant. It i s too easy to blur the d i s t i n c t i o n s

between masculinity and femininity which are very broad

dimensions with the psychological aspects of these con­

st r u c t s , psychological masculinity and femininity.

Future Research

A number of provocative areas remain open to future

research. In terms of the research questions raised in the

present study, i t would be important to raise similar

questions in a broad range of samples including non-patient

adults representing similar demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as

in the present patient sample. In addition, other patient

groups could be explored such as drug abusers, sex offend­

ers, and psychotics. It i s l i k e l y the pattern of low

dominance would be replicated but these groups may also be

associated with low nurturance.

1 46

Further research issues relate to the d e f i n i t i o n of

psychological androgyny. The present study defined andro­

gyny in terms of dominance (PA) and nurturance (LM), yet i t

i s l i k e l y that other i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimensions can be

included in the d e f i n i t i o n . Constantinople (1973) strongly

s t r e s s e d the m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of m a s c u l i n i t y and

femininity, yet the present sex stereotype measures have not

been sophisticated enough in the i r development to tap multi-

dimensionality aspects of M-F. Some researchers such as

Holahan and Spence (1979) have begun to examine the negative

aspects of psychological masculinity and femininity. In

terms of the IAS, other dimensions of M-F may be re f l e c t e d

in other orthogonal contrasts such as DE (cold-quarrelsome)

as the masculinity dimension and HI (lazy-submissive) as the

femininity dimension.

Another area of investigation often neglected in andro­

gyny research i s the c l i n i c a l dimension. It would be useful

to explore, through in-depth history-taking and interviews,

i f the h i s t o r i e s and present l i f e s tyles of androgynous

patients d i f f e r e d from those who were sex typed or cross sex

typed. The exploration could focus on the individual's

development of nurturance and dominance patterns including

parental attitudes and peer influences. Early emotional

expression associated with these behaviors could be compared

to present emotional expression in r e l a t i o n to dominance and

nurturance behaviors. As i t i s apparent from t h i s study,

many male and female patients come into therapy because of

1 4 7

p r o b l e m s w i t h dominance. They u s u a l l y want t o l e a r n

a s s e r t i v e n e s s s k i l l s .

T h i s l e a d s to another area o f resea r c h which i n c l u d e s

f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the n u r t u r a n c e d i m e n s i o n and

e x p l o r a t i o n of psychotherapy outcome i n r e l a t i o n to changes

i n nurturance-dominance. There i s a trend with popular

l i t e r a t u r e to s t r e s s the importance of nurturance f o r both

men and women. I t seems there now may be higher s o c i a l

v a lue placed on nurturance behaviors i n men than there was a

number o f years ago. I t would seem that f o r s u c c e s s f u l

i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g , a person needs a moderate amount

of n u r t u r i n g b e h a v i o r s . However, i t i s l i k e l y that men could

get by with c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than women i n t h e i r s o c i a l

encounters. But what about people who have extremes, low or

hi g h , on nurturance; what are the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f these

people r e a l l y l i k e ? F u r t h e r , can nurturance or dominance,

or both, change as a r e s u l t o f psychotherapy, a s s e r t i v e n e s s

t r a i n i n g , or s e l f h e l p programs? Is one dimension more

amenable to change than another? These i n t e r e s t i n g ques­

t i o n s remain open t o r e s e a r c h .

Androgyny r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l i n i t s i n f a n c y . With

f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and study, the area remains f e r t i l e

f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the dimensions o f nurturance and

dominance. The p r e s e n t s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t b e h a v i o r s

a s s o c i a t e d with the feminine s t e r e o t y p e were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

of n e u r o t i c psychotherapy o u t - p a t i e n t s . The r e s u l t s on the

mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s confirmed what was p r e d i c t e d i n the

1 48

l i t e r a t u r e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of mental health and the

feminine stereotype. The androgyny concept, by suggesting a

person can have both masculinity and femininity, demands

that femininity be explored in relationship to masculinity.

Femininity or nurturance in i t s e l f cannot be considered

pathological but only when i t i s seen in rela t i o n s h i p to a

lack of dominance (masculinity) . It seemed to be the lack

of dominance or assertiveness rather than nurturance which

affected the mental health of these patients. The lack of

masculine sex typed patients made i t d i f f i c u l t to suggest

whether they were healthier or l i k e l y to have d i f f e r e n t

types of emotional disturbances and therefore tended not to

seek psychotherapy.

The low numbers of androgynous patients in the sample

indicated that androgynous persons may have lower rates of

mental i l l n e s s or may have d i f f e r e n t patterns of mental

disturbance than in the present patient group. The r e s u l t s

of androgynous patients who were present in the sample gave

support for the view that androgyny or a balance of nurtur­

ance and dominance does mediate the severity of mental

i l l n e s s . Although i t i s apparent that a l l patients suffer

to some extent, those who have a balance of dominance and

nurturance behaviors may be less vulnerable to c l a s s i c

symptoms and psychopathology. Perhaps the emotional

disturbance in the androgynous patients i s related to t h e i r

i n a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e their dominance and nurturance behav­

iors in ways which maximize their interpersonal repertoire.

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A d l e r , A. Sex. In J.P. M i l l e r (Ed.), P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and women. Bal t i m o r e : Penquin Books, 1973.

American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n . Committee on Nomenclature and S t a t i s t i c s , D i a g n o s t i c and s t a t i s t i c a l manual of mental d i s o r d e r s (2nd. ed.) Washington, D.C: Author, 1 968.

Ashmore, R.D., & Del Boca, Sex s t e r e o t y p e s and i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y theory: Toward a c o g n i t i v e s o c i a l psycho­l o g i c a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . Sex Roles, 1979, 51(2), 219-248.

Bakan, D. The d u a l i t y of, human e x i s t e n c e . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

Bandura, A. S o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977.

Bandura, A. S e l f e f f i c a c y . Psychology Review, 1977, 84, ( 2 ) , 191-215.

Bandura, A., & W alters, R.H. T h e o r i e s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and exposure to m u l t i p l e models. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart ( E d s . ) , Sex d i f f e r e n c e s : C u l t u r a l and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizens Books, 1976.

Baucom, D.H. Independent m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s on the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, _4_4 (5), 8 76.

Bazin, N.T., & Freeman, A. The androgynous v i s i o n . Sex Roles, 1974, _2, 185-215.

Bern, S.L. The measurement of p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Jour­ n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S.L. Probing the promise of androgyny. In Kaplan, A. & Bean, J . ( E d s . ) , Beyond sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s : Readings toward a psychology of androgyny" Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Co., 197 6.

Bern, S.L. On the u t i l i t y o f a l t e r n a t i v e procedures f o r a s s e s s i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t ­ ing & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 45_ (2 ), 196-205.

1 50

Bern, S.L. Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum & Locksley-Colten c r i t i q u e s . Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, (6), 1 047-1054. —

Bern, S.L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1980, in press.

Bern, S.L., & Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1976, 33 (1), 45-54.

Bern, S.L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. Sex typing and andro­gyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1976, 3_4 (5), 1016-1023.

Berzins, J.I. Discussion: Androgyny, personality theory, and psychotherapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1979, 3_ (3), 248-253.

Berzins, J.I., Welling, M.A., & Wetter, R.E. A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the personality research form. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psy­ chology. 1978, 46 (1), 126-138.

Block, J.H. Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspec­t i v e s . American Psychologist, 1973, 2_8, 51 2-525.

Bridges, J. Correlates of sex role and attitudes toward women. Psychological Reports, 1978, 4_3, 1279-1282.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Fisch, M. Psychological androgyny and college students' judgements of mental health. Sex Roles, 1980, 6 (4), 575-579.

Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, P.S., & Vogel, S.R. Sex role stereotypes and c l i n i c a l judgements of mental health. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1970, 3_4, 1-7.

Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current reappraisal. Journal of Soc i a l Issues. 1969, 28_ (2), 59-78.

Brown, G.W., & Harris, T. Social o r i g i n s of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock Publications, 1978.

Carlson, R. Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 37 (2), 267-277.

1 5 1

C h e s l e r , P. Women and madness. New York: Avon Books, 1973.

Chetwynd, J . , & Ha r t n e t t , 0. The sex r o l e system: Psycho­ l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . London: Routridge & Kegan Paul, 1977.

Chevron, E. & Qui n l a n , D.M. Sex r o l e s and gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n the experience o f d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 87_ (6), 680-683.

Chodorow, N. The r e p r o d u c t i o n of mothering: P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and the s o c i o l o g y of gender. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1978.

Co n s t a n t i n o p l e , A. M a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y : An exce p t i o n to a famous dictum? P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, 8_0, 389-407.

Dahlstrom, W.C., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. An MMPI hand­ book, V o l . 1: C l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota P r e s s , 1972.

Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. An MMPI hand­ book. V o l . I I : Research a p p l i c a t i o n s . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minneapolis Press, 1975.

DeFronzo, J . , & Boudreau, F. Furth e r r e s e a r c h i n t o a n t i -cedents and c o r r e l a t e s o f androgyny. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1979, 44_ (1 ), 23-29.

Deutsch, C.J., & G i l b e r t , L.A. Sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s : E f f e c t i n p e r s p e c t i v e s o f s e l f and and oth e r s and on perso n a l adjustment. J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 23 (4 ), 373-379":

Deutsch, H. Motherhood and s e x u a l i t y . In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart ( E d s . ) , Sex d i f f e r e n c e s : C u l t u r a l and develop­ mental dimensions. New York: U r i z e n s Books, 1976.

Deutsch, H. The psychology o f women i n r e l a t i o n to the f u n c t i o n s o f r e p r o d u c t i o n . In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974.

Dixon, W.J., Ed. BMDP-77 Medical computer programs p s e r ­ i e s . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1977.

Downing, N.E. T h e o r e t i c a l and o p e r a t i o n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r measure­ment. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 (3), 284-29T: ~

1 52

Edwards, K.J., Van Buren, J.H., & Z a b r i s k i e , F.C. The m u l t i ­dimensional s t r u c t u r e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny and r e l a t i o n s h i p to s e l f concept. Unpublished paper. Toronto: 1978.

E r i k s o n , E. Once more the inner space. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1 974.

E r i k s o n , E. Womanhood and the inner space. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974.

F a r i n a , A., & Hagelauer, H.D. Sex and mental i l l n e s s : The g e n e r o s i t y o f females. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43 (1), 122.

Foa, V.G., & Foa, E.B. S o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e s of the mind. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111.: Ch a r l e s C. Thomas, 1974.

Foushee, H.C., Helmreich, R.L. & Spence, J.T. I m p l i c i t t h e o r i e s o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y : D u a l i s t i c or b i p o l a r ? Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3, (3), 259-269.

Frank, J . , Hoehn-Saric, R., Imber, S., Liberman, B., & Stone, A. E f f e c t i v e I n g r e d i e n t s of S u c c e s s f u l Psycho­ therapy . New York: Brunner-Mazel, 1978.

Freud, S. Female s e x u a l i t y (1931). In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974.

Freud, S. F e m i n i n i t y (1933). In J . Strouse, (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974.

Freud, S. Some p s y c h i c a l consequences o f the anatomical d i s t i n c t i o n between the sexes (1925). In J . Strouse (E d . ) , Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h ­e r s , 191T:

F r i e z e , J . , Parsons, J . , Johnson, P., Ruble, D., & Zellman, G. Women and sex r o l e s : A s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Toronto: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1978.

Gaa, J . C , Liberman, D. , & Edwards T.A. , A comparative f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f the Bern Sex Role Inventory and the P e r s o n a l i t y A t t r i b u t e s Q u e s t i o n n i a r e . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, _3J5(3), 592-599.

Garnets, L., & Peck, J.H. Sex r o l e i d e n t i t y , androgyny, sex r o l e transcendence: A sex r o l e s t r a i n a n a l y s i s . Psy­ chology o f Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 (3), 270-283.

153

Gaudreau, P. Factor analysis of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 45, 299-303.

Gelb, L.A. Masculinity-femininity: A study i n imposed i n ­equality. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973.

Gelpi, C. The p o l i t i c s of androgyny. Sex Roles, 1974, 2, 151-160.

Gese l l , A. The mental growth of the pre-school c h i l d . New York: Macmillan Company, 1928.

Gilberstadt, H., & Duker, J. A handbook for c l i n i c a l and act u a r i a l MMPI interpretation. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1965.

Glass, G.V., & Stanley, J.G. S t a t i s t i c a l methods in educa­ tion and psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1 975.

Good, P.K., & Branter, J.P. A p r a c t i c a l guide to the MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1974.

Gough, H.G., & Heilbrun, A.B. Manual for the Adjective Check L i s t and the Need Scales for the ACL. Palo Alto, C a l i f . : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.

Gove, W.R. Sex differences in the epidemiology of mental disorders: Evidence and explanations. In E. Gomberg & V. Franks (Eds.). Gender and disordered behavior: Sex differences in psychopathology. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 19/9.

Gove, W.R. Mental i l l n e s s and psychiatric treatment among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1980, 4 (3), 345-359.

Graham, J.R. The MMPI: A p r a c t i c a l guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

H a l l , G.S. Bi o l o g i c a l and anthropological differences be­tween the sexes (1905). In Lee, P.C. & Stewart, R.S. (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976.

Harris, D. Androgyny: The sexist myth. Sex Roles, 1974, 2, 171-184. ~

Heilbrun, A.B. Sex role, instrumental-expressive behavior, and psychopathology in females. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 131-136.

154

Heilbrun, A.B. Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role i d e n t i t i e s as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 44 (2), 1 8 3 -

Heilbrun, C.G. Toward a recognition of androgyny. New York: Knopf, 1 9 7 T .

Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Holahan, C.K. Psychological androgyny and sex role f l e x i b i l i t y : A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychol­ ogy, 1 9 7 9 , 37 ( 1 0 ) , 1 6 3 1 - 1 6 4 3 .

Hoffman, D.M., & F i d e l l , L.S. Char a c t e r i s t i c s of androg­ynous, undifferentiated, masculine, and feminine mid­dle - c l a s s women. Sex Roles, 1 9 7 9 , _5 ( 6 ) , 7 6 5 - 7 7 9 .

Hogan, H.W. The measurement of psychological androgyny: An extended r e p l i c a t i o n . Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , 33_ ( 4 ) , 1 0 0 9 - 1 0 1 X

Holahan, C.K. & Spence, J.T. Desirable and undesirable masculine and feminine t r a i t s in counseling c l i e n t s and unselected students. Unpublished manuscript, 1 9 7 9 .

Horney, K. Feminine psychology, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1 9 6 7 .

Horney, K. The f l i g h t from womanhood: The masculinity com­plex in women as viewed by men and women ( 1 9 2 6 ) . In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 9 7 3 .

Horney, K. The problem with feminine masochism ( 1 9 3 5 ) . In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 9 7 3 .

Janeway, E. On female sexuality. In J. Strouse (Ed.), Women and analysis. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1 9 7 4 .

Johnson, P. Women and power: Toward a theory of e f f e c t i v e ­ness. Journal of Social Issues, 1 9 7 6 , 3_2 ( 3 ) , 9 9 - 1 1 1 .

Jones, W.H., Chernovetz, M.O., & Hansson, R.D. The enigma of androgyny: D i f f e r e n t i a l implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 46 ( 2 ) , 2 9 8 - 3 1 3 .

Jordan-Viola, E., Fassberg, S., & V i o l a , M. Feminism, an­drogyny, and anxiety. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 44 ( 5 ) , 8 7 0 - 8 7 1 .

155

Jung, C.G. Two essays on an a l y t i c a l psychology. In Collected works (Vol. 7). New York: Pantheon Press, 1953.

Kaiser, H.F. The application of the electronic computer to factor analyses. Educational Psychological Measure­ ment, 1960, 2£, 141-151.

Kalin, R. Methods for scoring androgyny as a continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1 979, 44_, 1 205-1 206.

Kalin, R. & Tilby, P. Developmental and va l i d a t i o n of a sex-role ideology scale. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 731-738.

Kaplan, A. C l a r i f y i n g the concept of androgyny: Implications for therapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1976, 3 (3), 223-230.

Kaplan, A., & Bean, J. (Eds.). Beyond sex role stereotypes: Reading toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Company, 1976.

Kel l y , J.A., Furman, W., & Young, V. Problems associated with the typological measurement of sex roles and androgyny. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 978, 4J[ (6), 1574-1576.

K e l l y , A.J.A., O'Brien, C.G., & Hosford, R. Sex roles and soc i a l s k i l l s : Considerations for interpersonal adjust­ment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, In press.

Kelly, J.A., & Worell, J. New formulations of sex roles and androgyny: A c r i t i c a l review. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 4_5 (6), 1101-1115.

K e l l y , J.A., & Worell, L. Parent behaviors related to mascu­l i n e , feminine, and androgynous sex role orientations. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (5), 843-851 . —

Kenworthy, J.A. Androgyny in psychotherapy: But w i l l i t s e l l in Peoria? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1979, 3_ (3), 231-239.

Kerlinger, F.N., & Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple regression and behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

Kirk, R.E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behav­ i o r a l sciences. Belmont: Brooks Cole Publishing Com­pany, 1 968.

156

K l e i n , H., & Willerman, L. Psychological masculinity and femininity and t y p i c a l and maximal dominance expression in women. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1 979, 37 (1 1 ), 2059-2070.

K l e i n , M., Early stages of the Oedipus complex (1928). In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: Cultural and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizens Books, T9T6~;

Knobloch, F . , Se Knobloch, J. Integrated psychtherapy, New York: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1979.

Kohlberg, L., & Zi g l e r , E. Physiological development, cogni­tive development and s o c i a l i z i n g antecendents, 1967. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, T9T6~.

Kravetz, D . F . Sex role concepts of women. Journal of Con­ sulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 976, 4_4 (3), 437-443.

Latorre, R.A. Gender and age as factors in the attitudes toward those stigmatized as mentally i l l . Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43_ (1 ), 97-98.

Latorre, R.A., Endman, M., & Gossman, I. Androgyny and need achievement in male and female psychiatric inpatients. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 32_ (2), 233-235.

Lanyon, R.I. A handbook of MMPI group p r o f i l e s . Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,1968.

Lazerson, J. Nurturance and dominance as dimensions of psychological androgyny. Unpublished paper. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980.

Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A func­ t i o n a l theory and methodology for personality evalua­ tion . New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957.

Lee, P. Psychology and sex differences. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and develop­ mental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976.

Lee, P., & Stewart, R.S. (Eds.). Sex differences: Cultural and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, TTTW.

Lenney, E. Concluding comments on androgyny: Some intima­tions of i t s mature development. Sex Roles, 1979, 5 (6), 829-840.

157

L i p s , H.M., & C o l w i l l , N.L. The psychology of sex d i f f e r ­ ences . New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1978.

L o c k s l e y , A., & C o l t e n , M.E. P s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny: A case o f mistaken i d e n t i t y ? J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l Psychology, 1 979, 37_ (6), 1017-1031.

Logan, S.D., & Kaschak, E. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f sex, sex r o l e , and mental h e a l t h . Psychology of Women Quarter-l y , 1980, 4 (4), 573-579.

Maccoby, E.E., & J a c k l i n , C.N. The psychology of sex d i f f e r ­ ences . S t a n f o r d : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974.

Marecek, J . S o c i a l change, p o s i t i v e mental h e a l t h , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 ( 3 ) , 241-247.

May, R. Sex and fant a s y : P a t t e r n s of male and female d e v e l ­ opment. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1980.

Mezzich, J.E., Damalin, F.L. & E r i c k s o n , J.R. Comparative v a l i d i t y o f s t r a t e g i e s and i n d i c e s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s o f d e p r e s s i v e s t a t e s from other p s y c h i a t r i c c o n d i t i o n s using the MMPI. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Se C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 974, _42 , 691-698.

M i l l e r , J.B. (Ed.). P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and women. B a l t i m o r e : Penguin Books, 1973.

M i l l e r , J.B. Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press, 1976.

M i l l i m a n , M. Observations on sex r o l e r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 772-776.

M i l l i m e t , C.R., & V o t t a , R.P. Aquiescence and the Bern Sex Role Inventory. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1 979, 43_ (2 ) , 1 64-165.

M i t c h e l l , J . On Freud and the d i s t i n c t i o n between the sexes. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974.

Money, J . Gender r o l e , gender i d e n t i t y , core i d e n t i t y : Usage and d e f i n i t i o n o f terms, J o u r n a l of the American Acad­ emy of P s y c h o a n a l y s i s , 1 973, (3), 397-405.

Moreland, J.R., Gulanick, N. , Montague, E.K., Sr Harren, V.A. Some psychometric p r o p e r t i e s o f the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1978, 2 (2), 249-25F: '

1 58

Morgan, C.S. Female and male attitudes toward l i f e : Impli­cations for theories of mental health. Sex Roles, 1980, 6 (13), 367-380.

Nelson, L.R. Guide to LERTAP and interpretation. University of Otago^ Department of Education, 1 974.

Nie, N., H u l l , C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. S t a t i s t i c a l package for the s o c i a l sciences, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1975,

Nielsen, J.M., & Doyle, P.T. Sex-role stereotypes of femin­i s t s and non-feminists. Sex Roles, 1975, 2 ( 1 ) ' 83-95.

O'Connor, K., Mann, D.W., & Bardwick, J. Androgyny and s e l f -esteem in the upper-middle class: A r e p l i c a t i o n of Spence. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, £ 6 ( 5 ) , 1168-1169.

Overall, J.E., & Spiegel, D.K. Concerning least squares analyses of experimental data. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1968, 7_2, 31 1-322.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R.F. Family s o c i a l i z a t i o n and in t e r ­ action process. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955.

Pedhazur, E.J., & Tetenbaum, T.J. Bern Sex Role Inventory: A Theoretical and methodological c r i t i q u e . Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, (6), 996-1 Ul6. —

Pleck, J.H. Masculinity-femininity: Current and alternative paradigms. Sex Roles, 1975, 1_ (2), 161-178.

Powell, B., & Reznikoff, M. Role c o n f l i c t & symptoms of psychological d i s t r e s s in college-educated women. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (3), 473-479. —

Pyke, S.W. Androgyny: A dead end or a promise. In C. Stark-Adanec (Ed.), Sex roles: Origins, influences, and implications for women. Montreal: Eden Press, 1980.

Rebecca, M., Hefner, R., & Oleshansky, B. A model of sex role transcendence. In A. Kaplan & J. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex role stereotypes: Readings toward a psy­ chology of androgyny. Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Co., 1976.

Rogers, CR. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961.

159

Rosen, B., & A r e s h e n s e l , C.S., The chamelion syndrome: A s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension o f the female sex r o l e . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 3_3 , 605-615.

Rosenberg, S. S o c i e t y and the adol e s c e n t s e l f - i m a g e . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965.

Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I . , & Broverman, D.M. Sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s and s e l f - c o n c e p t s i n c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32 (3), 287-295.

Rubin, L. Women of a c e r t a i n age: The m i d l i f e search f o r s e l f . New York: Harper & Row, P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1979.

Scheffe, H. The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959.

Secor, C. Androgyny: An e a r l y r e a p p r a i s a l . Sex Roles , 1974, 2, 161-169.

Seligman, M.E. Depression and learned h e l p l e s s n e s s . In R.J. Friedman and M.M. Katz ( E d s . ) , The psychology of de­ p r e s s i o n : Contemporary theory and r e s e a r c h . Washington, D.C: V.H. Winston, 1974.

Sherman, J.A. S e x - r e l a t e d c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s : An essay on theory and evidence. I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C. Thomas, 1978.

S i l v e r n , L.E., & Ryan, V.L. S e l f - r a t e d adjustment and sex-typing on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory: Is ma s c u l i n ­i t y the primary p r e d i c t o r o f adjustment? Sex Roles , 1979, 5_ (6), 739-763.

Smith, R. & Brad l e y , D.W. Fac t o r v a l i d a t i o n and refinement of the sex r o l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the a t t i t u d e s toward women s c a l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1 979 , 4_4, 1 155-1 1 74.

Spence, J.T. Androgyny as t r a i t and as r o l e : Unresolved i s s u e s . Unpublished manuscript, 1979.

Spence, J . , & Helmreich, R. M a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y : T h e i r p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimensions, c o r r e l a t e s , and ante­ cedents . A u s t i n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas P r e s s , 1978.

Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. The many face s o f androgyny: A r e p l y to L o c k s l e y and C o l t e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 37 (6), 1032-1046.

1 60

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Holahan, C.K. Negative and positiv e components of psychological masculinity & femininity and their relationships to self - r e p o r t s of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Person­ a l i t y & Soc i a l Psychology, 1 979, 3]_ (1 0), 1631-1 644.

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of s e l f and peers on sex role attributes and their r e l a t i o n to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femi­n i n i t y . Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32 (1), 29-39.

Stephenson, S.P. Sex roles and sex role stereotypes. Unpub­lishe d manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1 978.

Stephenson, S.P. Women and depression: Diagnostic framework and theoretical aspects. Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1979.

S t o l l , C. Male and female: S o c i a l i z a t i o n , s o c i a l r o l e s , and so c i a l structure. 2nd. ed. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. Pub., 1978.

S t o l l e r , R. Facts and fancies: An examination of Freud's concept of bi s e x u a l i t y (1973). In J. Strouse (Ed.), Women and analysis. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1 974.

S t o l l e r , R.J. Primary femininity. Journal of American Psy­ choanalytic Association, 1976, 2_4, 59-78.

S t o l l e r , R.J. The sense of femaleness, 1978. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973.

Strahan, R.F. Remarks on Bern's measurement of psychological androgyny: Alternative methods and a supplementary analysis. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43 (4), 568-571 .

Strong, E.K., J r . Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1943.

Strouse, J. (Ed.). Women and analysis: Dialogues on psycho­ analytic views of femininity. New York: Grossman Pub­l i s h e r , 1 974.

Strupp, H.H., & Hadley, S.W. A t r i p a r t i t e model of mental health and therapeutic outcomes. American Psycholo­g i s t , 1977, 187-196.

161

S u l l i v a n , H.S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1953.

Tarr, L. Developmental sex-role theory & sex-role attitudes in late adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1 978, 4 2, 807-814.

Terman, L.M., & Miles, C C . Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1 936.

Terman, L.M., & Miles, C C . Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity & femininity. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976.

Thompson, C. Penis envy in women. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 973.

Thompson, C. Some effects of the derogatory attitudes toward female sexuality. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis & Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973.

Thompson, C. On women. New York: Mentor Books, 1964.

Vogel, S. Discussant's comments, symposium: Applications of androgyny to the theory and practice of psychotherapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1979, 3 (3), 255-257.

Wakefield, J.A., Saseky, J., Friedman, A.F., & Bowden, J.D. Androgyny and other measures of masculinity-femininity. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (5), 766-770.

Walum, L.R. The dynamics of sex and gender: A s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1977.

Waters, C.W., Waters, L.K., & Pincus, S. Factor analysis of masculine and feminine sex typed items from the BSRI. Psychological Reports, 1977, 40_, 567-570.

Weissman, H.M., & Paykel, E.S.. The depressed woman: A study of s o c i a l r elationships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19/4.

Weissman, N., & Klerman, G. Sex differences and the epidemi­ology of depression. In E. Gomberg & V. Franks (Eds.), Gender and disordered behavior: Sex differences in psychopathology. New York: Bunner-Mazel Publishers, 1 979.

162

Weitz, S. Sex roles: B i o l o g i c a l psychological and s o c i a l foundations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Wesley, F., & Wesley, C. Sex role psychology. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1977.

Whetton, C. and Swindells, T. A factor analysis of the Bern Sex Role Inventory. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 33, 150-153.

Whiteley, B.E., J r . Sex roles and psychotherapy: A current appraisal. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86 (6), 1309-1321.

Wiggins, J.S. Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Un­published, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1980.

Wiggins, J.S. Taxonomy of interpersonal t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms. Unpublished paper, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979.

Wiggins, J.S. A psychological taxonomy of t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 3_7 (3), 395-41 2.

Wiggins, J.S. Substantive dimensions of s e l f - r e p o r t in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs, 80 (22), 1966. —

Wiggins, J.S., & Holzmuller, A. Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting & C l i n ­ i c a l Psychology, 1 978, 46_ (1 ), 40-52.

Wiggins, J.S., & Holzmuller, A. Further evidence on andro­gyny and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . Journal of Research in Personality, 1981, J_5, 67-80.

Williams, J.E., & Bennet, S. The d e f i n i t i o n s of sex stereo­types v i a the Adjective Check L i s t . Sex Roles, 1975, 1 (4), 327-337. ~

Worell, J. Sex roles and psychological well-being: Perspec­tives on methodology. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, 46 , 777-1 001 .

Wylie, R.C. The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974.

Yonge, G.D. The Bern Sex-Role Inventory: Use with caution i f at a l l . Psychological Reports, 1978, 43, 1245-1246.

1 63

Zeldow, P.B. Psychological androgyny and attitudes toward feminism. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (1), 150.

I l l Extremely Very Quite inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate

1. Bashful-

2. Lacks purpose

3. T r u s t i n g

4. Modes t

5. Kind

6. Contrary

7. S e l f - d i s c i p l i n e d

8. F o r c e f u l

9. Conceited

10. Impersonal

11. Bold

12. Pleasant

13. Unassuming

14. Companionable

15. I n h i b i t e d

16. Impractical

17. Sympathetic

18. S i l e n t

19. Aloof

20. P e r s i s t e n t

21. S l i c k

22. Firm

2 3. Emotional

2 4. Swell-headed

2 5. Well-mannered

Appendix A

4 5 6 S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Quite inaccurate accurate accurate

26. Not devious

27. D i s r e s p e c t f u l

28. Disorganized

29. C o r d i a l

30. Spineless

31. J o l l y

32. C r a f t y

. 33. S e l f - c o n f i d e n t

34. Determined

; 35. Ruthless

36. S u l l e n

37. C a l c u l a t i n g

38. Quiet

39. Cheerful

40. Unfeeling

41. Big-headed

42. U n d i s c i p l i n e d

43. E n t h u s i a s t i c

44. Reserved

45. Sincere

46. Productive

47. C r u e l

48. Appreciative

49. Submissive

50. Pushy

164

1 1 Very Extremely

accurate accurate

51. Dependent

52. Bubbly

53. Uncooperative ,

54. C h a r i t a b l e

55. Unargumentative

56. Neighborly

57. Unsympathetic

58. Self-doubting

59. Approachable

60. Humble

61. D e c e i t f u l

62. F o r g i v i n g

63. Impolite

64. Detached

65. Hard-hearted

66. Undemanding

67. Embittered

68. Solemn

69 . Persevering

70. H o s t i l e

71. Tender

72 . F r i e n d l y

73. Cocky

74. Iron-hearted

75. Tricky

1 2 3 4 xtremely Very Quite S l i g h t l y naccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate

76. Inconsistent 94. 77. Gentle-hearted 95. 78. Introverted 96. 79. Respectful 97.. 80. Loud-mouthed 98. 81. Withdrawn 99. 82. Soft-hearted 100. 83. Lazy 101. 84. Dominant 102. 85. Outgoing 103. 86. Self-defeating 104. 87. Uncharitable 105. 88. Meek 106. 89. I r r i t a b l e 107. 90. Boastful 108. 91. Nonegotistical 109. 92. Inexperienced 110. 93. • Cooperative 111.

i i x A 165

5 6 7 8 S l i g h t l y Quite accurate accurate

Very accurate

Extremely accura te

Shy _L_ 1 1 2 • Unfriendly

Grateful 113. Unproductive

Distant 114. Ill-mannered

Good-natured 115. Show-off

Domineering 116. Persuadable

Passive 117. Exploitative

Rude 118. L i v e l y

Irresponsible 119. Organized

Sneaky 120. Assertive

Unpretentious 121. Tolerant

Genial 122. Unsociable

AccomiDoda ting 123. Steady

Cold-hearted 124. Unsophisticat

Self-assured 125. Talkative

Timid 126. Courteous

Industrious 127. Extraverted

Tender-hearted 128. Congenial

Sly

Revised Jrtterr^rsonal Adjectdve Scales

Ambitious

7. Self-Disciplined 20. Persistent 34. Determined 46. Productive 69. Persevering

109. Industrious 119. Organized 123. Steady

A. LXardnant

8. Forceful 11. Bold 22. Firm 33. Self-Confident 84. rjominant 98. Domineering

107. Self-Assured 120. Assertive

Arrogant

9. Conceited 24. Swell-Headed 41. Big-Headed 50. Pushy 73. Cocky 80. Loud-Mouthed 90. Boastful

115. Show-Off

C. Calculating

21. Slick 32. Crafty 37. Calculating 61. Deceitful 75. Tricky

102. Sneaky 111. Sly 117. Exploitative

Cold

35. Ruthless 40. Unfeeling 47. Cruel 57. Unsympathetic 65. Hard-Hearted 74. Iron-Hearted 87. Uncharitable

106. Cold-Hearted

E. Quarrelsome

6. Contrary 27. Disrespectful 53. Uncooperative 63. Impolite 70. Hostile 89. Irritable

100. Rude 114. Ill-Mannered

Aloof

10. Impersonal 19. Aloof 36. Sullen 64. Detached 67. Embittered 96. Distant

112. Unfriendly 122. Unsociable

G. Introverted

1. Bashful 18. Silent 38. Quiet' 44. Reserved 68. Solemn 78. Introverted 81. Withdrawn 94. Shy

H . L a z y I. Submissive 2. Lacks Purpose

16. Impractical 28. Disorganized 42. Undisciplined 76. Inconsistent 83. Lazy

101. Irresponsible 113. Unproductive

15. Inhibited 30. Spineless 49. Submissive 58. Self-Doubting 86. Self-Defeating 88. Meek 99. Passive 108. Timid

J. Unassuming

4. Modest 13. Unassuming 55. Unargumentative 60. Humble 66. Undemanding 91. Non-Egotistical

103. Unpretentious 121. Tolerant

K. Ingenuous

3. Trusting 26. Not Devious 45. Sincere 51. Dependent 92. Inexperienced 95. Grateful

116. Persuadable 124. Unsophisticated

L. Warm

5. Kind 17. Sympathetic 23. Emotional 4 8. Appreciative 71. Tender 77. Gentle-Hearted 82. Soft-Hearted

110. Tender-Hearted

M. Agreeable

25. Weil-Mannered 29. Cordial 54. Charitable 62. Forgiving 79. Respectful 9 3. Cooperative

105. Accamodating 126. Courteous

N. Gregarious

12. Pleasant 14. Companionable 56. Neighborly 59. Approachable 72. Friendly 97. Good-Natured

104. Genial 128. Congenial

0. Extroverted

31. Jolly 39. Cheerful 43. Enthusiastic 52. Bubbly 85. Outgoing

118. Liyely 125. Talkative 127. Extroverted

Appendix B: Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale

2 3 4 agree disagree Strongly

disagree

1) On the whole, I am s a t i s f i e d with myself.

2) At times I think I am no good at a l l .

3) I f e e l I have a number of good q u a l i t i e s .

4) I am able to do things as w e l l as most other people.

5) I f e e l I do not have much to be proud of.

6) I c e r t a i n l y f e e l useless at times.

7) I f e e l that I am a person of worth, at l e a s t on an equal plane with others.

8) I wish I could have more respect f o r myself.

9) A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d to f e e l I am a f a i l u r e .

10) I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward myself.

169

Appendix C: RSE Scoring Directions

SCALES AND SCORES

TABLES D-l through D-6 are Guttman scales; D-7 through D - l l are scores. The Guttman scale items are here presented i n order from the strongest to the weakest responses. In the questionnaires, of course, the items were presented i n a d i f ­ferent order. In the Self-Esteem Scale, p o s i t i v e and negative statements were presented a l t e r n a t e l y i n order to reduce the danger of respondent set. In other scales, the items were i n t e n t i o n a l l y scattered at d i f f e r e n t points throughout the questionnaire.

In a l l of the scales and scores presented, " p o s i t i v e " responses are indicated by a s t e r i s k s . Where contrived items have been used, the basis f o r scoring the contrived items i s indicated. R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y and S c a l a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s appear at the foot of the Guttman scales. A l l other indices are based upon unweighted scores.

D- l : Self-Esteem Scale " P o s i t i v e " responses i n d i c a t e low self-esteem.

Scale Item I was contrived from the combined responses to the three questions l i s t e d below. I f a respondent answered 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 p o s i t i v e l y , he r e ­ceived a p o s i t i v e score f o r Scale .Item I. If he answered 1 out of 3 or 0 out of 3 p o s i t i v e l y , he received a negative score f o r Scale Item I.

I f e e l that I'm a person of worth, at le a s t on an equal plane with others.

1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree *4_ Strongly disagree

Appendix C

I f e e l that I have a number of good q u a l i t i e s . 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree

*3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree

A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d to f e e l that I am a f a i l u r e .

*1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree

Scale Item II was contrived from the combined responses to two self-esteem questions. One out of 2 or 2 out of 2 p o s i t i v e responses were considered p o s i t i v e f or Scale Item I I .

I am able to do things as w e l l as most other people. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree

*3 Disagree * 4 Strongly disagree

I f e e l I do not have much to be proud of. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree

Scale Item I I I I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward myself.

1 Strongly agree 2 Agree

*3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree

Appendix C

Scale Item IV

On the whole, I am s a t i s f i e d with myself. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree

*3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree

Scale Item V

I wish I could have more respect for myself. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree

Scale Item VI was contrived from the combined responses to two self-esteem questions. One out of 2 or 2 out of 2 p o s i t i v e responses were considered p o s i t i v e .

I c e r t a i n l y f e e l useless at times. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree

At times I think I am no good at a l l . *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree

R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y and S c a l a b i l i t y

R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y : 93% S c a l a b i l i t y (items): 73% S c a l a b i l i t y ( i n d i v i d u a l s ) : 72%

l e a f 172 m i s s e d i n numbering

Appendix E

CONSENT FORM

I agree to take part i n a research p r o j e c t conducted by s t a f f member, Ju d i t h Lazerson during the Day House assessment and treatment program. I understand t h i s w i l l include p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s which w i l l be used f o r research purposes. Research pr o j e c t s conducted at the Health Sciences Centre H o s p i t a l are important f o r the purpose of i n ­creasing knowledge about the patient and improving p a t i e n t care. The material gathered w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l be coded so that i n d ­i v i d u a l patients cannot be i d e n t i f i e d .

I understand that my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s e n t i r e l y voluntary. I may withdraw at any time and my r e f u s a l w i l l not e f f e c t my r e c e i v i n g treatment at the Day House.

Signature

Appendix F

Name

DESCRIBING MYSELF

On the pages that follow, you w i l l find a l i s t of words that are used to describe people's personal characteristics. For each word i n the l i s t , i n d i ­cate how accurately the word describes you. The accuracy with which a word describes you i s to be judged on the following scale:

1 1 1 1 1 A Z 8 Extremely Very Quite Slig h t l y Slightly Quite Very Extremely inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate

Consider the word BOLD. How accurately does that word describe you as a person? If you think that this word i s a quite accurate description of you, write the number "6" to the l e f t of the item:

A BOLD

If you think that this word i s a s l i g h t l y inaccurate description of you, write the number "A" -next to i t , i f i t is very inaccurate, write the number "2", etc.

If you are uncertain of the meaning of a word, raise your hand and we w i l l define i t for you.

Appendix F

Name

DESCRIBING MY IDEAL SELF

On the pages that follow, you w i l l f ind a l i s t of words that are used to

describe people's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For each word i n the l i s t , i n d i -

. - cate how accurately the word describes your Ideal s e l f (how you would like-to

be). Your i d e a l s e l f may include some of the same choices as you used for des­

cribing yourself. On the other hand, you may choose d i f f e r e n t characteristics

for your i d e a l s e l f . The accuracy with which a word describes you i s to be

judged on the following scales:

1 2 3 4 5 .6 2 1 Extremely Very . Quite S l i g h t l y Slightly Quite Very Extremely inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate

Consider the word BOLD. How accurately does that word describe you as a

person? If you think that this word i s a quite accurate description of you,

write the number "6" to the l e f t of the item:

b BOLD

If you think that this word i s a s l i g h t l y inaccurate description of you,

write the number "4" next to i t , i f i t i s very inaccurate, write the number

"2", etc.

If you are uncertain of the meaning of a word, rai s e your hand and we

w i l l define i t for you.

APPENDIX G

STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN THE PATIENT SAMPLE

176

.JK

.LM

FACTOR 1

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

• HI

FG.

FACTOR 2 (-)

.NO ,9 .8 .2 .1

.PA

-.1 .1 .2

-.2

-.3

-.4

-.5

-.6

-.7

-.8

-.9

(+)

,3 .4 .5 .6 DE. .8 .9

BC.

STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN PATIENT (IDEAL) SAMPLE

(PA=ambitious-dominant; BC=arrogant-calculating; DE=cold-quarrlesome; FG=aloof-introverted; HI=lazy-submissive; JK=unassuming-ingenuous; LM=warm-agreeable; and NO=gregarious-extroverted.)

177

APPENDIX H

DEMOGRAPHIC CONTINGENCY TABLES

178

Sex Type Category and Marital Status Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45)

Single Married Divorced or Separated Row Total

Sex Type

Hyper 8 3 5 16 Feminine 50.0 18.8 31.3 35.6

Fernijiine 9 9 4 22 40.0 40.9 18.2 48.9

/Androgynous 4 1 1 6 66.7 16.7 16.7 13.3

Masculine 1 0 0 1 -

100.0 0 0 2.2

Column Total 22 13 10 45 48.9 28.9 22.2 100.0

1 7 9

Sex Type Category and Marital Status Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58)

Single Married Divorced or Separated Row Total

Sex Type

Hyper 10 10 7 27 Feminine 37.0 37.0 25.9 46.6

FenLinine 10 9 7 26 38.5 34.6 26.9 44.8

Androgynous 3 0 1 4 75.0 0 25.0 6.9

Masculine 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1.7

Column Total 24 19 15 58 41.4 32.8 25.9 100.0

180

Sex Type Category and Education Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58)

Under Grade 12 Grade 12 University Vocational Row Total

Sex Type

Hyper 5 7 13 2 27 Fenuriine 18.5 25.9 48.1 7.4 46.6

Ferrdnine 8 6 10 2 26 30.8 23.1 38.5 7.7 44.8

Androgynous 1 0 3 0 4 25.0 0 75.0 0 6.9

Masculine 0 1 0 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 1.7

Column Total 14 14 26 4 58' 24.1 24.1 44.8 6.9 100.0

181

Sex Type Category and Education Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45)

Under Grade 12 Grade 12 University Vocational Row Total

Sex Type -

Hyper 3 4 8 1 16 Feirrijiine 18.8 25.0 50.0 6.3 35.6

Ferrdnine 2 5 13 2 22 9.1 22.7 59.1 9.1 48.9

/Androgynous 1 0 5 0 6 16.7 0 83.3 0 13.3

Masculine 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 100.0 0 2.2

Column Total 6 9 27 3 45 13.3 20.0 60.0 6.7 100.0

182

Sex Type Category and Occupational Status Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58)

Employed Students & Unemployed non-professional Professional Housewives Total

Sex Type

Hyper 10 6 4 7 27 Fenu_nine 37.0 22.2 14.8 25.9 46.6

Feminine 11 7 3 5 25 42.3 26.9 11.5 19.2 44.8

Androgynous 1 1 1 1 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 6.9

Masculine 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 100.0 1.7

Column Total 22 14 8 14 58 37.9 24.1 13.8 24.1 100.0

Sex Type Category and Occupational Status Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45)

Unemployed Employed

non-profes sional Professional Students & Housewives Total

Sex Type

Hyper Feminine

8 50.0

5 31.3

1 6.3

2 12.5

16 35.6

Feminine 9 40.9

7 31.8

4 18.2

2 9.1

22 48.9

Androgynous 1 16.7

2 33.3

2 33.3

1 16.7

6 13.3

Masculine 0 0

0 0

0 0

1 100.0

1 2.2

Column Total 18 14 7 6 45 40.0 31.1 15.6 13.3 100.0

APPENDIX I

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR NON-SIGNIFICANT CONTENT SCALES

185

Appendix I. Analyses of Variance for Non-significant Content Scales

MMPI Content Scales - F-Ratio

Source df SOC DEP REL AUT HOS HYP HEA PSY

Group 2 2.26 2.38 .45 1.60 .99 1.83 2.62 1.96 Gender 1 .01 1.49 1.42 .06 .04 3.40 1.86 1.23 Group x Gender 2 1.72 .47 .15 .31 .17 .54 .97 .03 Residual 94

/

APPENDIX J

BARTLETT'S TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE

Appendix J . B a r t l e t t ' s Test for Homogeneity of Variance

Content Scales Soc Dep Fem Mor Rel Aut Psy Org Fam Hos Pho Hyp Hea

F S t a t i s t i c .412 .597 1.682 .493 2.289 2.287 1.227 1.165 .465 .358 .726 .823 .456

188

APPENDIX K

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE — VANCOUVER PROBLEM GOAL LIST

Appendix K: Analyses of Variance -- Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t

Source df. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Group 3 1.89 .30 .57 2.80 .63 .26 1.29 .24 .73 .90 .79 1.32 .98 2.34 1.15

Gender 2 1.20 3.17 1.31 .10 .48 1.06 2.36 .99 2.39 1.51 .43 .77 .14 .01 .13

Group x Gender 2 1.27 .80 .23 .82 1.70 1.15 1.63 3.96 1.18 1.44 .26 .94 .89 .00 1.16

Residual 85