UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessing the generalizability of the BEM Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) : a replication of the BSRI’s item… De Vita, Elsie Lorna 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0469.pdf [ 7.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054129.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054129-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054129-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054129-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054129-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054129-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054129-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054129-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054129.ris

Full Text

ASSESSING THE GENERALIZABILITY OF THE B E M SEX ROLE INVENTORY (BSRI): A REPLICATION OF THE BSRI'S ITEM SELECTION PROCEDURES by ELSIE LORNA DE VITA B.A., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1989  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THB^JN^vTiRSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1995 ©  ELSIE LORNA DE VITA, 1995  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  of  University  of  British  Columbia,  I agree  available for reference  copying  of  department publication  this or  thesis by  of this  for  his  and  for  her  financial  Department  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Columbia  15-08-^  requirements  be  It  is  gain shall  that  agree that  may  representatives.  permission.  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  I further  scholarly purposes  or  thesis  study.  the  not  the  an  advanced  Library shall  permission for  granted  by the  understood be  for  head  that  allowed without  make  it  extensive of  copying  my or  my written  Abstract Since Inventory  i t s construction (BSRI;  Bern,  types of research. replicate the  The i n t e n t  current generalizability  students  in British  (81 m a l e s  results that der  definitions  courses  f o r t h e BSRI t o  first,  more d e s i r a b l e  than the other  fewer  and f i n a l l y ,  the Asian  judges  and t h e  than the other  for  judges;  than d i d the White  on  U.B.C.  i n the current study  o f t h e 60 BSRI i t e m s a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  one g e n d e r  U.B.C.  88  i n t h e mean r a t i n g s  60 BSRI i t e m s b y Bern's S t a n f o r d j u d g e s  judges;  second,  more d e s i r a b l e  b y b o t h male and f e m a l e differences  items  f o r one g e n -  i n the current study;  one g e n d e r  were s i g n i f i c a n t  basis  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s . The  62 o f t h e 73 s e x - t y p e d  found s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  t h e BSRI on t h e  i t e m s were r a t e d a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  in introductory  were a s k e d t o r a t e  additional  there  assess  Two h u n d r e d a n d t e n  enrolled  of gender-typed  than the other r e p l i c a t e d  third,  i n various  o f t h e measure t o s t u d e n t s a t a  used t o c o n s t r u c t  were as f o l l o w s :  Bern (1974)  procedures  and 129 f e m a l e s )  400 a d j e c t i v e s  cultural  a g o , t h e Bern Sex R o l e  o f t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y was t o  Columbia i n Canada.  a n t h r o p o l o g y and s o c i o l o g y original  20 y e a r s  1974) h a s been u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y  Bern's i t e m s e l e c t i o n  university  of  over  more d e s i r a b l e judges.  rated for  Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  i i i  L I S T OF TABLES  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CHAPTER  viii  I:  INTRODUCTION  1  Purpose  4  Implications  5  CHAPTER  II:  LITERATURE REVIEW  7  Overview  7  E v o l u t i o n of  G e n d e r - R o l e Measures  Construction  of  the  Reliability Validity Critiques Research  of  Bern S e x - R o l e  CHAPTER  (BSRI)  the  17 19  Data  20 BSRI  Studies of  P e r s i s t e n c e and Change Summary  Inventory  Data  Employing the  Replication  10  21 BSRI the  26 BSRI  i n Gender R o l e  30 Stereotypes  39 42  III:  METHODOLOGY  44  Design  44  Sample  . . .  45  iv Data C o l l e c t i o n  47  Instrumentation  49  The  Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y  The  Background Information sheet  Rationale for S t a t i s t i c a l  item pool  Analysis  Hypotheses  49 49 50 52  CHAPTER I V : RESULTS  55  Preliminary Analysis  55  Hypothesis  1  56  Hypothesis  2  64  Hypothesis  3  65  Hypothesis  4  78  CHAPTER V : DISCUSSION  83  Limitations  92  Suggestions f o r Future Research  94  Implications  96  for Counselling  Conclusion  97  FOOTNOTE  99  REFERENCES  100  APPENDIX A :  106 THE 73  ITEMS RATED AS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE  DESIRABLE BEM'S  FOR ONE GENDER THAN THE OTHER IN  STUDY  (HER PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING  V  M A S C U L I N E AND F E M I N I N E  ADJECTIVES  FOR  THE B S R I ) APPENDIX  B:  112 BEM'S  APPENDIX  107  I N S T R U C T I O N S FOR THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E  114 SHEET  115 117  EXPLANATION SHEET  118  CONSENT  119  FORM  D:  120 USED  IN  THE  CURRENT STUDY  121  E:  132 BACKGROUND I N F O R M A T I O N  APPENDIX  .  C L A S S INTRODUCTION  S A M P L E OF T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E  APPENDIX  113  C: L E T T E R TO P R O F E S S O R S AND I N F O R M A T I O N  APPENDIX  ...  F:  SHEET  I PSYCHOLOGY C L A S S MEANS AND SD  APPENDIX G:  133 134 135 143  L O C A T I O N MEANS AND SD APPENDIX H :  144 152  I T E M S R A T E D A S MORE D E S I R A B L E FOR MEN B Y MALE RATERS APPENDIX  I:  153 157  I T E M S R A T E D A S MORE D E S I R A B L E FOR WOMEN BY MALE RATERS APPENDIX J :  158 164  I T E M S R A T E D A S MORE D E S I R A B L E FOR MEN BY FEMALE RATERS  165  vi APPENDIX K :  171 I T E M S R A T E D A S MORE D E S I R A B L E FOR WOMEN BY FEMALE RATERS  172  APPENDIX L :  178 R A T I N G S ON THE 60  BSRI  ITEMS  BY M A L E  RATERS  I N THE O R I G I N A L STANFORD S A M P L E  179  APPENDIX M :  182 R A T I N G S ON THE 60  BSRI  ITEMS  BY F E M A L E  RATERS  I N THE O R I G I N A L STANFORD S A M P L E  183  APPENDIX N :  186 R A T I N G S ON THE 6 0  BSRI  ITEMS  BY E U R O P E A N AND  AND I N D O - C A N A D I A N M A L E AND F E M A L E R A T E R S APPENDIX O:  ...  187 199  R A T I N G S ON T H E 60  BSRI  ITEMS  B Y WHITE AND  A S I A N MALE RATERS  200  APPENDIX P :  206 R A T I N G S ON T H E 6 0  BSRI  A S I A N FEMALE RATERS  I T E M S B Y WHITE AND 207  Vll L I S T OF TABLES Table  page  1  E t h n i c i t y of  2  MANOVA P s y c h o l o g y  57  3  MANOVA L o c a t i o n  57  4  66 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s R a t e d as More D e s i r a b l e by B o t h M a l e and Female U . B . C . R a t e r s  for  84 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s R a t e d as More D e s i r a b l e by B o t h M a l e and Female U . B . C . R a t e r s  f o r a Woman  5  the  U.B.C.  Raters  51  a Man 59 61  6  11 Items T h a t R e a c h e d S i g n i f i c a n c e i n Bern's Study, but not i n the C u r r e n t Study  Original  7  R a t i n g s on t h e U . B . C . Sample  60 BSRI Items by M a l e R a t e r s  in  8  R a t i n g s on t h e U . B . C . Sample  60 BSRI Items by Female R a t e r s  9 10 11  12  the in  63 67  the 70  S i g n i f i c a n t Mean D i f f e r e n c e s on t h e 60 BSRI Items Between Bern's S t a n f o r d Sample and t h e U . B . C . Sample  73  S t a n f o r d and U . B . C . Means f o r t h e and N e u t r a l Items o f t h e BSRI  76  Masculine,  Feminine,  D i f f e r e n c e s Between R a t i n g s f o r "a Man" and f o r "a Woman" i n Bern's S t a n f o r d Sample and t h e U . B . C . Sample  77  S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s Between A s i a n and W h i t e Female R a t e r s a n d A s i a n and W h i t e M a l e R a t e r s on t h e 60 BSRI Items  79  viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I Dr.  would l i k e  to  e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o  B e t h Haverkamp, f o r h e r s u p p o r t ,  laughter.  I a l s o would l i k e  to  limitless  my s u p e r v i s o r , patience,  t h a n k my c o m m i t t e e  and  members,  Dr.  J u d i t h D a n i l u k and D r . T a n n i s MacBeth W i l l i a m s , f o r  their  guidance  project.  I  and v a l u a b l e  wish to  students  t h r o u g h o u t my t h e s i s  e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e  i n the  pated i n t h i s  feedback  to  the  a n t h r o p o l o g y and s o c i o l o g y  research study.  professors  and  c l a s s e s who  Their generosity  was  partici-  greatly  appreciated. To my p a r t n e r s can  say  is  friendship  thank you, (it  same p r o c e s s ) . Ratnarajah,  in crime,  Lee,  I c o u l d n o t have done  also helped that Finally,  for his  N o n a , and C o l l e e n ,  y o u were a l l  I would l i k e  s u p p o r t and h i s  to  it  all  without  suffering  program?  your along  t h a n k my h u s b a n d , Ed  c o u n t l e s s hours of  r e a d i n g t h r o u g h o u t my M . A . Do y o u t h i n k y o u c a n s u r v i v e doctoral  I  proof the  the  1 Chapter  I  Introduction During the  women's movement  conceptualization roles  dimension bipolar cited  of  h i g h on m a s c u l i n e versa.  (1973)  Thus,  items would s c o r e  However,  stantinople  1973).  i n a review  concluded that  The Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y i n the  year following  the  height  the  BSRI was  femininity This  of  the  of  shift.  constructs  sex  this  the  role  who  Bern,  research,  1974)  (1973)  was  and  Conincorrect.  developed  challenge,  women's movement. of  scored  items,  a s s u m p t i o n was  40 y e a r s  as  Gough; Terman & M i l e s ,  low on f e m i n i n e  Constantinople's  a reaction against  the  an i n d i v i d u a l  (BSRI;  s e c o n d wave o f  gender-  M a s c u l i n i t y - F e m i n i n i t y (M-F)  continuum ( e . g . ,  i n Constantinople,  the  and f e m i n i n e  had c o n c e p t u a l i z e d  a single  1970s,  a major p a r a d i g m a t i c  a hypothesized  in personality  ends o f  early  t r a d i t i o n a l masculine  and s t e r e o t y p e s u n d e r w e n t  P r e v i o u s measures  vice  of  i n the  and  at  In p a r t ,  masculinity-  measurement:  sex-role  plausible  dichotomy has  hypotheses:  "androgynous;" t h a t feminine,  first,  is,  that  on t h e  situation"  (Bern,  to  1974,  very  and  and c o n v e r s e l y ,  155).  and  appropriateness that  strongly  l i m i t e d i n the  of sex-  range  them a s t h e y move f r o m s i t u a t i o n p.  be  both instrumental  situational  t y p e d i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t be s e r i o u s l y available  two  many i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t  and y i e l d i n g ,  these various behaviours;  behaviours  obscure  t h e y m i g h t be b o t h m a s c u l i n e  both a s s e r t i v e  expressive—depending  served to  of to  2 However,  before  construct  of  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h c o \ i l d be i n i t i a t e d  androgyny,  a new s e x - r o l e  incorporate b i p o l a r i t y of developed  (Bern,  (Cook,  and i s  1985).  It  used,  whether  Because role  (e.g.,  is  the  their  to  only  of  the the  Bernard,  (1992)  BSRI, 60  desirability  and E l t o n  be  a femininity  scale,  1985)  however,  it  significantly  desirable  f o r a woman was  failed  replicate  is  essential  replicate several  whether  their  replicate  her f i n d i n g s .  Bern's i t e m s e l e c t i o n  for  widely  of  other.  other  it  40 m a s c u l i n e  the  f o r a man was more  because  difficult  Walkup and A b b o t t (1978)  for  Ballard-Reisch  significantly  is  asked  found t h a t  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d  the  & Gib-  determine  instrument  " f e m i n i n i t y . " However,  37 o f  may  Bern's o r i g i n a l  more d e s i r a b l e  i t e m r a t e d as  results  to  s t u d i e s have  i n the  over the  Bern's m e t h o d o l o g y ,  ascertain  be  v i e w s o f men and women.  items contained  only  to  and 20  H e l m r e i c h , Spence,  and Edwards and A s h w o r t h (1977)  " m a s c u l i n i t y " and t h e  measure  20 i t e m s make up a  1976;  f o r one g e n d e r  i t e m r a t e d as  to  not  widely  BSRI i t e m s a r e v a l i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s  rate  to  a c u l t u r a l phenomenon t h a t  T h e r e have been no a t t e m p t s t o  judges  be  BSRI c o n t i n u e s  contemporary s t e r e o t y p i c a l  construction  did  most p o p u l a r a n d r o g y n y  60 i t e m s :  Werner & L a R u s s a ,  the  samples'  such i n v e n t o r y to  20 i t e m s compose  items.  over time  1982;  (M-F) d i m e n s i o n needed  perhaps the  and b e c a u s e s e x  change son,  filler  first  contains  masculinity scale, s e r v e as  inventory that  the  1974).  The BSRI was t h e disseminated  the  on  they  to  a failure replicated  and  feminine  to  3 i t e m s w i t h 129 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n classes (1994)  at  the  U n i v e r s i t y of  W a s h i n g t o n . More r e c e n t l y ,  r e p l i c a t e d Bern's r e s u l t s  w i t h 1000  "masculine"  (median age  seemed t o  35 o u t o f  in his  38 s e x - t y p e d  study  H a r r i s d i d not  item p o o l .  relative  given the  ethnic  a l s o addressed  a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of  Masculinity  30-39).  support the  However,  (1994)  BSRI was  range  and " f e m i n i n e "  stereotypes. Harris'  for  Harris  A n g l o - A m e r i c a n p a r t i c i p a n t s who were s h o p p i n g a t  Chicago mall  findings  psychology  diversity  the  these  gender-role  i n the  U.S.A,  i s s u e o f whether  the  current cultural definitions  and F e m i n i n i t y . He f o u n d t h a t  with African-American  of  the  a  include  Together  strength  items  of  BSRI's v a l i d i t y  and H i s p a n i c - A m e r i c a n g r o u p s  was  questionable. R e s e a r c h on g e n d e r - r o l e are p e r s i s t e n t Clarkson,  and s t a b l e  & Rosenkrantz,  s t e r e o t y p e s has  (e.g., 1972;  s t u d y was an a t t e m p t  compare t h e  results  gender-role  stereotypes.  to  Werner & L a R u s s a ,  previous  assess the  They found t h a t  stable,  istics  from the m a s c u l i n e  stereotypes, However, seemed t o feminine  other  be some c h a n g e stereotype.  i n the  r e s e a r c h and change  o n l y were  in  gender  b u t a l s o when some c h a r a c t e r -  characteristics  Werner and L a R u s s a  Although  instrument,  extent of  not  stereotypes r e l a t i v e l y were e l i m i n a t e d  1985).  a different  replicate  i n order to  they  Broverman, V o g e l , Broverman,  Werner and L a R u s s a were i n v e s t i g a t i n g their  indicated that  were  (1985)  and  adopted. a l s o noted that  v a l u a t i o n of  Their results  feminine  the  there  masculine  suggested t h a t ,  even  and  though  4 characteristics  continued to  was some change  i n the  ings,  content  along with H a r r i s '  importance of  be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d of  (1994)  re-examining the  the  by g e n d e r ,  stereotypes.  ethnic  findings,  These  there find-  support  the  BSRI.  Purpose The  purpose of  generalizability (U.B.C.)  of  students,  characteristics gated  this  s t u d y was t o  the  BSRI t o  regarding perceptions  f o r men and women.  f o r the  BSRI f o r t h i s  o r i g i n a l BSRI.  d e s i r a b i l i t y of  for  Specifically,  research  the  this  socially was  Bern's (1974)  Columbia desirable investi-  item  The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  selection of  the  replication  concerning  of  the  o r i g i n a l i t e m s f o r a man and study addressed  the  following  questions: Do U . B . C .  students rate  according to for Will  societal  one g e n d e r  characteristics, a s more  desirable  other?  p r e v i o u s l y r a t e d a s no more  f o r a man o r a woman i n Bern's s t u d y  judged d i f f e r e n t l y  i n the  Do t h e mean r a t i n g s BSRI d i f f e r University  personality  evaluations,  than the  characteristics  desirable  3.  current  British  This question  produced s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s  differential a woman.  of  the  p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d be s u p p o r t e d i f  Bern's m e t h o d o l o g y  2.  U n i v e r s i t y of  by c o n d u c t i n g a r e p l i c a t i o n o f  procedures  1.  ascertain  f o r the  significantly sample  current  and t h e  study?  60 i t e m s c o n t a i n e d  f o r the U.B.C.  be  in  the  o r i g i n a l Stanford sample?  5 Implications If  the  BSRI g e n e r a l i z e s  increase confidence  that  it  to  would a l s o  Canadian u n i v e r s i t y students substantiate extensively  this  sample,  p l e t e r e p l i c a t i o n of the  date,  would  to  other  c u r r e n t study  c l a i m ) . The BSRI c o n t i n u e s to  it  generalize  (although the  i n research, but,  hoped t h a t t h e  a U.B.C.  to  be  cannot  used  t h e r e h a s b e e n no com-  i n s t r u m e n t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n . Bern (1979)  concept of  androgyny would e v e n t u a l l y o u t l i v e  its  usefulness: If  there  is  androgyny,  a moral t o the it  is  concept of p s y c h o l o g i c a l  t h a t b e h a v i o r s h o u l d h a v e no g e n d e r .  there  is  an i r o n y h e r e ,  tains  an i n n e r c o n t r a d i c t i o n and h e n c e t h e  destruction. the  Thus,  concept of  concepts tinct  of  as t h e  into  content.  valence  presupposes  But t o the  a b s o r b e d by t h e  and t h e  its  that  extent that  c u l t u r e , the  i n v i s i b i l i t y . Thus,  own  the disthe  con-  c e a s e t o have  d i s t i n c t i o n s to which they r e f e r w i l l  such blur  when a n d r o g y n y becomes a r e a l i t y ,  androgyny w i l l  have been t r a n s c e n d e d  1053).  In o r d e r t o determine whether the artifact  seeds of  t h e word i m p l i e s ,  f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y w i l l  the concept of (p.  androgyny c o n -  f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y t h e m s e l v e s have  a n d r o g y n o u s message i s  content  etymology of  androgyny n e c e s s a r i l y  and s u b s t a n t i v e  cepts of  f o r the concept of  But  of of  the p a s t ,  androgyny c o n s t r u c t i s  r e s e a r c h must f i r s t  gender-role stereotypes.  This  determine the  an  pre-  s t u d y a t t e m p t e d t o more  6 clearly delineate U.B.C.  students.  gender-related Bern's  (1974)  t h e y may a l s o  to  develop  feminine  By d o i n g s o , of  consistencies  factors  evident.  differences  the  x  androgynous'  throughout t h i s  definitions  a r e r e q u i r e d . Bern e m p l o y e d t h e  to  i n d i v i d u a l s who e n d o r s e  document,  attributes  on t h e  represents  i n d i v i d u a l s who e n d o r s e  the  BSRI and r e j e c t  intended to  the  opposite  Bern's d e f i n i t i o n s  use  the  if  impetus  masculine  and  1992).  term  masculine  are  x  used  their  androgynous'  and  feminine  phrase  x  sex-typed'  sex-appropriate attributes  sex  attributes.  o r i e n t a t i o n or  these terms,  aire r e t a i n e d .  Thus,  c l a r i f i c a t i o n of  whereas  l a b e l or imply sexual  T h i s r e s e a r c h e r chose t o  samples,  and * s e x - t y p e d '  extensively  BSRI e q u a l l y ,  may be  r e s e a r c h may p r o v i d e t h e  (Ballard-Reisch & Elton,  terms  in  since  i n gender s t e r e o t y p e s .  this  to  transpar-  or d i f f e r e n t  a more c u r r e n t m e a s u r i n g i n s t r u m e n t o f  Because  describe  and c h a n g e s  desirability,  in culture,  shifts  have changed,  gender-roles  BSRI  A l t h o u g h changes  s u c h as s o c i a l  be due t o  the  personality characteristics  s t u d y may become  items,  item r a t i n g s  current g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  ratings  attributable to ency o f  the  N e i t h e r term appearance.  but emphasizes  that  on is  7 Chapter  II  Literature The l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d general Next,  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e  Bern's (1974)  described, been used cate the  in this  evolution  section of  in research.  of  Finally,  BSRI and a s t u d y t h a t  the  will  the  addresses be  with  measures.  BSRI w i l l  be  i n s t r u m e n t and how i t  studies that  stereotypes w i l l  begin  gender-role  o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of  along with c r i t i q u e s  in gender-role  Review  attempt  persistence  to  has  repli-  and c h a n g e  described.  Overview Before d i s c u s s i n g important to defined  the  differentiate  previous  relevant  between sex  as b i o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s  and g e n d e r .  1992,  the p.  'raw m a t e r i a l ' of  17-18).  and c o n t i n u e s  This process  noted,  our p e r c e p t i o n of which our world i s that  is  a r e a l i t y that  (p.  370).  the  Yet, their  of  the  irony is  behaviour i s  that  Clarkson,  at  birth  gender  and  As S c h e r and Good  v e r y manner i n  The r e a l i t y has  and c o n s i d e r e d s u p e r i o r t o women and f e m i n i n e V o g e l , Broverman,  makes  (Unger & C r a w f o r d ,  men and m a s c u l i n e b e h a v i o u r s have b e e n p o s i t i v e l y  (Broverman,  is  s h a p e s o u r b e h a v i o u r and  the world and, i n f a c t , organized"  is  what c u l t u r e  The i n f l u e n c e  c a n n o t be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .  "gender  "Sex  a c c u l t u r a t i o n begins  throughout one's l i f e .  gender-stereotypes (1990)  b i o l o g i c a l sex" of  it  i n g e n e t i c c o m p o s i t i o n and  r e p r o d u c t i v e anatomy and f u n c t i o n . . . G e n d e r i s out of  research,  been evaluated  behaviours  & Rosenkrantz,  1972).  e v e n when men a n d women b e h a v e t h e  interpreted differently  same,  (Unger & C r a w f o r d ,  8 1992).  This d i f f e r e n t i a l  differences  in  been a n d r o c e n t r i c , Unger & C r a w f o r d , i n the  psychological  1992).  1970s,  development  Behaviour that  P r i o r to  s u c h as  developed  theory  d i d not  fit  dependency  t i o n of  context  o r how s o c i e t y  to  left  studied  on men,  (cited  & Carter,  1973).  with the  was c o n s i d e r e d  1993).  for  conceptions  Bern, and many o t h e r s not only questioned and women, Recently,  of  gender.  (e.g., the  1974;  Spence,  the  The work o f Helmreich,  long accepted  feminist  r e s e a r c h has  ideal  ford,  Some f i n d  1992).  classifying  behaviours  as  evalua-  the  were  denounced  Constantinople, fight  against  Constantinople, & Strapp,  1974)  s t e r e o t y p e s c o n c e r n i n g men  questioned  the  (Marecek & H a r e - M u s t i n , fault  stereo-  occurred,  b u t a l s o p r o v i d e d new f r a m e w o r k s f o r m e n t a l  androgyny as  for  Bern,  was  independence.  o f women i n p s y c h o l o g y (e.g.,  1992).  normal  T h e r e was no  i n which these behaviours  researchers  women's  women o f t e n  did fit  Androgyny r e s e a r c h has been p a r t o f  traditional  the  i n Unger & C r a w f o r d ,  The women's movement p r o v i d e d a f o r u m i n w h i c h  b y many f e m i n i s t  1977;  s u c h as K o h l b e r g ' s  women w i t h few o p t i o n s  s t e r e o t y p e s and d e p i c t i o n  has  l e s s t h a n men o r  with stereotypes of  Weisstein,  women  s e c o n d wave o f  or p a s s i v i t y ,  1992;  social  the  behaviour that  (Unger & C r a w f o r d , the  (Rawlings  women h a d been  considered pathological; types,  lead  understanding of  or male-centered  were c o m p a r e d t o m o d e l s cognitive  may i n t u r n  behaviour.  Traditionally,  movement  treatment  1991;  with available "masculine"  notion  health. of  Unger & Craw-  androgyny  measures  and " f e m i n i n e "  (e.g.,  9 Lott,  1981),  charging that  ches behaviours  as  gender  this  dichotomization  specific,  rather than  further  entren-  transcending  gender. Others, the  s u c h a s M a r e c e k and H a r e - M u s t i n  proposition that  problematic. sex-role viewed  androgyny i s  a woman's  No a t t e n t i o n  is  whether  a factor,  is  show t h a t  cited  cited  is  is  g r o w i n g body o f  literature  of  For example, i n t i m a c y as degrees of  the  the  another  (Cook, that  S i l v e r b e r g (1986)  aggression  i n w h i c h women  are  the  social  desirable,  an a c c e p t a n c e  research  1992).  just  questions  However, the  high blood pressure  1991). how of  there  mental is  a  in  healthier. establishing  therapy.  which are  High associated  various health  and h e a r t  the  unconditional  l a b e l e d problems  may e x a c e r b a t e  does  t h a n women  of  as p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  i n b r i n g i n g men i n t o  or  of  The male b i a s  1985).  milieu  literature  one example  and c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s ,  male s t e r e o t y p e ,  such as  is  for is  always  maintained.  male s e x - r o l e  instrumental  used  i n Marecek & H a r e - M u s t i n ,  above  h e a l t h measures  Abbott,  is  be  assertiveness  g i v e n t o whether  In a d d i t i o n ,  "male s u p r e m a c y e f f e c t "  acceptance  therapy to  men a r e o v e r w h e l m i n g l y more a s s e r t i v e  The s i t u a t i o n  lems,  something  assertiveness  (Gervasio & Crawford,  with the  lack of  valuing assertiveness reflects  a n d r o c e n t r i c norms. not  However,  p r o b l e m , as  "deficient."  whether  of  consider  T h e y n o t e how a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g i s  resocialization.  as  a goal  (1991),  disease  prob-  (Richmond-  10 Bernard,  Bernard,  courtship violence  and B e r n a r d ,  and s e x - t y p i n g .  naire probing experiences the  Bern S e x - R o l e  students.  Inventory  (Bern,  1974;  who h a d n e v e r  abuse  in a dating relationship.  males  and 68 f e m a l e s )  all  BSRI)  BSRI s c o r e s o f  than those of  other words,  address  It  h a v i n g been  the  t h a n d i d men who d i d n o t  traditionally Because sexes, face  to  ascribed to  Bernard et  explore  contribute  to  this  it  is  issues. ever  found  abusive by  the  p_ = . 0 2 6 ) .  In  s c o r e d more  report having  been  beginning  to  characteristics  to  differentiate  experiences  opportunities essential  It  is  the  that  gender;  and rewards researchers  hope o f  e x p a n d i n g body o f  of  between  this  the they  (Cook, continue  researcher  to  knowledge.  G e n d e r - R o l e Measures  I n a r e v i e w o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y measures, (1985)  (24  men.  expectations,  gender  Evolution of  = 2.02,  b e h a v i o u r and  men and women h a v e d i f f e r e n t  Consequently,  al.  as d e f i n e d  some r e s e a r c h i s  our s o c i e t y continues  different  1990).  24 c o n t r o l men ( t  negative aspects of  of  abusive,  15 men who r e p o r t e d b e i n g  would appear t h a t  (24  any f o r m  men who r e p o r t e d h a v i n g b e e n a b u s i v e  traditionally abusive.  the  and  college  79 s t u d e n t s  w i t h a r o m a n t i c p a r t n e r were more s e x - t y p e d , BSRI,  171  T h e r e m a i n i n g 92 s t u d e n t s  reported either  the  to  experienced  or both i n a dating r e l a t i o n s h i p .  the  question-  between d a t i n g p a r t n e r s  The c o n t r o l g r o u p was composed o f  and 55 f e m a l e s )  that  investigated  They a d m i n i s t e r e d a  w i t h abuse  males  abused,  (1985)  differentiated  between " o l d " and "new" m e a s u r e s .  Cook Earlier  11 instruments that  there  is  femininity measures  adopted a t r a i t  one u n i q u e t r a i t ,  (M-F) t r a i t ,  reflect  between t h e  the  present  by one  score  thought  to  known a s t h e  relevant  belief  to  that  overt  be u n i d i m e n s i o n a l ,  i n both sexes t h a t on a measure  this  belief  These  differences  M-F t r a i t . M-F  consisting  of  one  general  c o u l d be a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y e d  (Constantinople,  be b i p o l a r . B i p o l a r i t y  and f e m i n i n i t y were assumed t o  phenomena.  behavioural to  the  masculinity-  sex-role  s e x e s c o u l d be a t t r i b u t a b l e  was c o n s i d e r e d t o trait  a p p r o a c h , w h i c h embodies  1973).  referred to  It  was  also  how m a s c u l i n i t y  be o p p o s i t e s w i t h i n t h i s  single  dimension. in a pivotal polarity (1985)  article,  Constantinople  and u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f  aspects of as  a continuum w i t h extreme  ninity  at  opposite  from h i s  deviate  gender.  occur at  the  same t i m e ;  h i g h m a s c u l i n i t y meant biological tion  sex  sex  First,  M-F measure. pole  zero)  It  was  and v i c e  measures.  differences  Items t h a t  were c h o s e n ,  femi-  considered indi-  could  versa.  a primary c r i t e r i o n f o r  three  the  appropriate for the  low f e m i n i n i t y ,  Cook  continuum  t h e y were c o n s i d e r e d o p p o s i t e s .  the  the  M - F was  in  on t h i s  m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y  was u s e d a s  i n construction of  distinguished  from the  Second,  (or  w o u l d be p l o t t e d  o r h e r r e s p o n s e s on t h e  vidual's  She n o t e d  m a s c u l i n i t y and e x t r e m e  ends and a n e u t r a l p o i n t  An i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e  undesirable to  observations.  b i p o l a r i t y i n M-F measurement.  viewed  centre.  questioned  these e a r l y M-F measures.  summarized C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ' s  general  (1973)  not  Thus, Third,  item  selec-  clearly  regardless  of  their  12 content  and d i v e r s i t y .  on w h e t h e r different  it  Thus,  separated  a measure's  s u c c e s s was  men's and women's r e s p o n s e s  into  problematic.  (1973)  First,  found these assumptions  Constantinople concluded that  b l y more h e t e r o g e n e o u s t h a n homogeneous, composed o f  several  subfactors  it  rather than a s i n g l e  dimension.  T h i s was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h L u n n e b o r g ' s  stantinople dimensions she  criterion  is  issue of  analysis,  as  for  that  p o l a r i t y was d i f f i c u l t  a valuable  using biological is  sex  of  b e i n g measured a r e s e x - d i f f e r e n c e s  emerged.  Cook  (1985)  the  as  a "new"  the  In other words,  of  the  that  group  measures impor-  separate masculinity  considered mutually exclusive;  could vary along both dimensions.  nor  all  in several  i n c o r p o r a t e d two  scales.  complexity  Finally,  patterns.  new a n d r o g y n y  The new m e a s u r e s  a l s o recognized the  separate  i n response  tant  individuals  Con-  M-F. Basically,  from t r a d i t i o n a l M-F measures  and f e m i n i n i t y were n o t  test,  differences  "old" measures,  o u t l i n e d how t h e  m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y  Second,  investigation.  were d i f f e r e n t respects.  to  possible  not p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l ,  provide a clear d e f i n i t i o n  review of  number o f  of M-F i n t o  area for future  item s e l e c t i o n  Given t h i s  the  than  (1972)  w o u l d be cumbersome.  recommended s e p a r a t i o n  suggested that  does i t  l i k e l y multidimensional rather  t a p p e d by t h e s e m e a s u r e s  although the  proba-  w o u l d be  unidimensional.  factor  measures  M-F i s  M-F i s  b a s e d on h i s  most  thus  and  In other words,  factors  two  groups.  Constantinople  claim,  dependent  The newer  thus, measures  femininity/masculinity  13 dimensions.  A t t e m p t s h a v e b e e n made t o  factors  that  Batlis,  Small,  as w e l l  as  Stockard, Finally,  the  1979;  measures'  & W i l l i a m s , 1987;  new m e a s u r e s  differ  possession of  that  validity  Gross,  & Pincus,  both masculine  old i n that  1979).  they  and f e m i n i n e  f o r everyone,  1977),  Gill,  Locksley & Colten,  from the  prescriptions  various  (e.g.,  b e h a v i o u r s h o u l d be d e p e n d e n t  n o t on s o c i e t a l  the  (e.g.,  Waters, Waters,  u l t i m a t e l y most d e s i r a b l e  position  tion,  androgyny measures  & Erdwins,  Johnson, the  is  the  r e s e a r c h i n g the  assumed t h a t sions  compose  identify  dimen-  reflecting on t h e  for appropriate  situa-  gender  behaviour. Although the  BSRI h a s b e e n one o f  androgyny measures,  various others  Personal A t t r i b u t e s Questionnaire Strapp,  1974,  U n l i k e the for  1975)  BSRI,  is  which r e f l e c t s  characteristics  posed of  perhaps the  s c a l e s of  associated  each s c a l e  significantly scale  sex.  (PAQ; S p e n c e ,  one  are r a t e d as more t y p i c a l  items,  length  sex  the  instrument. desirability  PAQ i s  socially  than the  com-  desirable  other.  a F e m i n i n i t y and a M a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e ; being  ideal  f o r one  sex  be b o t h t y p i c a l o f  The f u l l  social  considered  The  Helmreich, &  n e x t most p o p u l a r  (Masculinity-Femininity) contains  judged t o  popular  have been d e v e l o p e d .  w i t h each sex,  f o r b o t h s e x e s b u t more t y p i c a l o f  for  most  differential  characteristics  instrument contains  the  and i d e a l  s c a l e has  f o r both sexes than the a set  items  A third  unique  items,  items  but  other.  f o r o n l y one  23 m a s c u l i n e  and 13 m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y  of  items  or the 18  ( w i t h one  The  other  feminine item  14 unclassifiable).  A person  is  classified  as  androgynous  if  he p o s s e s s e s a h i g h d e g r e e 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 e f i n e d by t h e positive  PAQ. L i k e t h e  socially  have q u e s t i o n e d categories The ter,  was t o  desirable PAQ,  the  istics.  correlates  f o r the  fashioned  construct  Masculinity  the  (e.g.,  Kelly  ANDRO S c a l e  after  that  of  scales,  composed o f then the  Items were s e l e c t e d  to  if  scales  (dominant-instrumental  the  The  the  Thus,  1978)  sex-role In  contrast  adjectives, behaviours 1985).  the  if  a l i m i t a t i o n on t h e  assessment to  the  (Kelly the  & Worell,  content  cited  they  Bern's The 29  from  the  in Berzins, the  r a n g e was  above  i m p o s e d by  to  toward  1977). PAQ, w h i c h u s e  answer  construction feature  items are keyed t r u e o r f a l s e  femininity  satisfied  content  the  character-  themes o f  items are sentences  to which respondents  A desirable  BSRI a n d  P R F , w h i c h was n o t o r i e n t e d  BSRI and t h e  ANDRO s c a l e  i n t o n e and more  i t e m s were s e l e c t e d  item pool  o r i g i n a l item pool of  F e m i n i n i t y and  include negative  P e r s o n a l i t y R e s e a r c h Form ( P R F ; J a c k s o n ,  & Wet-  intention  and n u r t u r a n t - e x p r e s s i v e ) .  i t e m s and 27 f e m i n i n e  criteria.  BSRI.  As w i t h t h e  t h e y were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e  & Wetter,  1977).  Welling,  f o r the m a s c u l i n i t y and  scales  Welling,  sex-role  & Worell,  items p o s i t i v e other.  ANDRO s c a l e n e g l e c t e d  affect  only  some  (Berzins,  an i n s t r u m e n t w i t h s e p a r a t e  f o r one s e x  masculine  Consequently,  or  as  PAQ c o n s i d e r e d  how n e g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  rationale was  BSRI,  valued c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  and t h e i r  1978)  the  she  describing  "True" or of  the  control for  mainly  "False"  scale  is  acquiescent  (Cook, that  15 response  distortion  (Kelly & Worell,  The A d j e c t i v e C h e c k L i s t  Scales  "formed f r o m a p r e v i o u s l y d e v e l o p e d Femininity  (M-F) s c a l e .  develop  the  revised  instrument.  cited  The ACL S c a l e s  s c a l e s c o n s i s t of  both p o s i t i v e  mixture of  endorsement  d i d not  to  as  contain  U n l i k e the  Heilbrun f a i l e d to  chosen  1976)  was  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 t h a t  items.  this  1976)  other  the  comprise  inventories,  and p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y  item s e l e c t i o n ;  d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n men a n d women.  change  rescored  28 m a s c u l i n i t y  The o r i g i n a l A C L u s e d  a criterion for  List  item s e l e c t i o n  thus,  procedure i n the  (1976)  revision;  identified  fathers  representing  mothers" the  (p.  As d i s c u s s e d  either  this  f o r the  item s e l e c t i o n  males  identified  o l d M-F items  masculine  were e s t a b l i s h e d  below,  females  He renamed t h e  p o l a r e x t r e m e s as  and new norms f o r e a c h s e x scales.  184).  how-  i t e m s were  d i s c r i m i n a t e d between c o l l e g e  with feminine  items  sex-based  Heilbrun  and c o l l e g e  the  examine  i t e m s were i n c l u d e d " t h a t with masculine  to  the  and n e g a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s ;  discuss  adjectives.  were  t h e A d j e c t i v e Check  in Heilbrun,  and 26 f e m i n i n i t y  ever,  (Heilbrun,  bipolar Masculinity-  Basically,  ( A C L ; Gough & H e i l b r u n ,  1977).  or two  feminine sub-  procedure  was  problematic. Baucom (1980) the  California  Baucom,  1980).  k e y e d 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  Psychological The f i n a l  Inventory  scale consisted  i t e m s and 42 f e m i n i n i t y  items.  behavioural  which i s  statements,  ( C P I ; Gough, of  The i t e m s a r e s i m i l a r to  54  in  masculinity  i n the the  cited  from  form of  ANDRO S c a l e  but  16 differs  from t h e  criterion tions.  other  instruments.  f o r item s e l e c t i o n  Kelly  and W o r e l l  As w i t h t h e ACL S c a l e s ,  was b a s e d on s e x - b a s e d  (1977)  question this  the  distinc-  method o f  item  inclusion: T h i s w o u l d seem t o this  scale  is  it  question of  a s s e s s i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l sex  same manner as whether  r e i n t r o d u c e the  roles  c o n c e i v e d by Bern and Spence e t  confounds gender d i f f e r e n c e s  whether in  al.  i n item  the or  endorse-  ment i n t h e b i p o l a r manner o r i g i n a l l y c r i t i q u e d by Constantinople  (1973)  I n h e r summary o f (1985) the  noted the  1106).  "new" a n d r o g y n y m e a s u r e s ,  b r o a d s i m i l a r i t i e s between  superficial scores,  are present  differences  etc.).  ( s u c h as  (1984)  of  the  question of  .65  scales. ferent  for a l l possible  f o r the M a s c u l i n i t y The s t a t i s t i c s measures  of  w o u l d be e x p e c t e d construct.  Also,  the  as  u s i n g the  of  instruments the  item  W i l s o n and Cook  convergent v a l i d i t y  between  They computed t h e median c o r -  p a i r s of  4 major androgyny measures  s c a l e s and .53  f o r the F e m i n i n i t y  i n d i c a t e d some c o n v e r g e n c e androgyny c o n s t r u c t ,  among d i f -  b u t n o t as h i g h  f o r s c a l e s presumably measuring the Cook n o t e d t h a t  the  ranges  androgyny g i v e n t h a t  the v a r i o u s androgyny measures.  as  items,  (e.g.,  separate  as w e l l  p r o c e d u r e s and s c o r i n g methods v a r i e d .  investigated  relations  number o f  However, she warned a g a i n s t  i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e measures  selection  i n both sexes),  Cook  t h e measures  a s s u m p t i o n t h a t m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y a r e  dimensions that  as  the  (p.  classification  of  as  same  individuals  17 i n t o the  sex-role  a n d r o g y n y measure Construction of  categories is  the  may v a r y d e p e n d i n g upon w h i c h  used. BSRI  The BSRI was d e s i g n e d t o measure t h e individual  identifies  with societal  "appropriate" sex-role description  (Bern,  attempted to  In c o n s t r u c t i n g the  f o r one s e x  than the  American c u l t u r e w i t h i n the U n i t e d  t h a t were  of  or masculine i n tone,  neutral  i n tone  scale.  deemed p o s i t i v e and s e v e r a l valence  i n terms o f  and h a l f  students  (positive  masculine,  Half  made a l l t h e  In the w i n t e r o f  either  to  judge the  1972,  seemed  social were  in valence.  i n terms o f  and g e n d e r a s s o c i a t i o n ,  40 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s  and 20 f e m a l e s )  Bern  item either  each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  the  StanLikert  for  no j u d g e  An a d d i t i o n a l 60 s t u d e n t s  rated the t r a i t s  at  used a 7 - p o i n t  i n American s o c i e t y ;  rate both genders.  and 30 f e m a l e )  for a  d e s i r a b i l i t y items  judgments  d e s i r a b i l i t y of  a male o r a female  asked t o  feminine  or n e u t r a l .  f o r d U n i v e r s i t y (20 m a l e s scale  of  a u t h o r and s e v e r a l  judged n e g a t i v e  or negative)  feminine,  and e i t h e r  200 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t  social  were  context  characteristics  g e n d e r was a s s e m b l e d  the  considered  States.  i n valence,  of  self-  i n s t r u m e n t , Bern  other w i t h i n the  was c o m p i l e d by t h e  An a d d i t i o n a l l i s t  desirability  o r h e r own  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 200 p e r s o n a l i t y  j u d g e d t o be p o s i t i v e  students.  in his  i d e n t i f y t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were  more d e s i r a b l e  A list  p r e s c r i p t i o n s of  characteristics  1974).  e x t e n t t o w h i c h an  was  (30  f o l l o w i n g summer. A  male  18 personality if  it  was  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was d e f i n e d  j u d g e d by b o t h m a l e s  significantly significance Of  the  criterion, selected  more d e s i r a b l e level  20 were  f o r the  selected  final  and t e l e p h o n e  the  well  a d e s c r i p t i o n of  73 i t e m s t h a t  20 m a s c u l i n e  contains  this  ten  f o r one  judges  ratings  of  desirability  the  if  sex  it  differ  low s c o r e s socially  she  she  for  1985).  sent  used to  1  a  i n her study,  items.  select  as  the  Appendix A  were  response  items.  second,  From t h i s  measure  The s o c i a l ratings  if  in their list, a  an  first,  and f e m a l e s t o  other;  selected to  set.  that  two c r i t e r i a :  significantly  characteristic.  traits  neutral  passed  than f o r the  then c a l c u l a t i n g the  twenty  a n d 20 were  (Buros,  w i t h D r . Bern,  scale  a  been c r i t i c i z e d  was made  procedures  at  be  this  scale  (Bern, 1 9 7 4 ) i n d i c a t e s  c a l c u l a t e d by r e v e r s i n g t h e and  Bern h a s  j u d g e d by b o t h m a l e s  d i d not  that  negative  satisfied  femininity  contact  other,  to  1974).  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  information  independently  female  than the  (Bern,  selection  a n d 20 f e m i n i n e  was c o n s i d e r e d n e u t r a l  desirable  sex  masculine  information.  Published  was  f o r the  masculinity scale.  copy of  final  f o r one  or  i n b o t h samples  73 i t e m s whose c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  written  as  feminine  and f e m a l e s  JJ < .05, t w o - t a i l e d  n o t d e s c r i b i n g how t h i s After  as  ten  i n d i c a t i n g a tendency  range to  desirability  ten  positive  negative  seven,  oneself  u n d e s i r a b l e d i r e c t i o n and h i g h s c o r e s  and  social  f r o m one t o  describe  it  male and  i n d i v i d u a l ' s mean r a t i n g a c r o s s  The s c o r e s  if  be no more  d e s i r a b i l i t y score  f o r the  item  was items the with  in a  indicating  the  19 opposite.  H o w e v e r , Walkup and A b b o t t (1978)  neutrality to  this  of  approximately half  criticism,  be s c o r e d .  erate  they  Data.  serve  o n l y as  t o good i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y  undergraduate students  1974;  Bern,  1981).  The f i r s t  m a l e s who f i l l e d o u t t h e included 1978.  340  females  they  filler  P s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y , the  r e p o r t e d were c o n d u c t e d o n t h e sity  these items  Bern (1981) d e c i d e d t h a t  Currently,  Reliability  of  questioned and,  BSRI d i s p l a y s  and r e l i a b i l i t y . The  two s a m p l e s  of  s a m p l e i n c l u d e d 279 the  alphas  S t a n f o r d 1973  s a m p l e and t h e  in brackets  is  f o r the  S t a n f o r d 1978  sample):  Scale;  f o r males,  Masculinity. i n the  .78  (.78)  and .87  (.86)  (the  in first  coefficient .75  Masculinity  (.87)  l a r g e enough t o be  for  confident  results.  the  first  S t a n f o r d sample  test  to  (Bern,  reliability culinity  was  scale  .82 the  However, t h e  investigation results.  28 m a l e s  1974).  showed g o o d t e s t - r e t e s t  males.  BSRI  f o r the  The BSRI was a d m i n i s t e r e d f o r a s e c o n d t i m e after  and 444  f o r females,  f o r F e m i n i n i t y and .86  The s a m p l e s i z e s were  (Bern,  sample  f o r the  Femininity scale  analyses  females  second  following coefficient  mod-  Stanford Univer-  i n Introductory Psychology  BSRI i n 1973;  longer  items.  is  f o r the  response  s h o u l d no  coefficient  (.78)  in  a n d 476 m a l e s who c o m p l e t e d t h e  Bern r e p o r t e d t h e  the  and 28 f e m a l e s  f o u r weeks from t h e  1973  The p r o d u c t - m o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  r e l i a b i l i t y : on t h e  f o r females  and .89  r e l i a b i l i t y was  .94  Femininity scale  f o r males; f o r females  on t h e and .76  s a m p l e s i z e was s m a l l and r e q u i r e s  w i t h a l a r g e r g r o u p t o be c o n f i d e n t w i t h  the  Masfor  further the  20 Empirically, to  the  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 do  be v i r t u a l l y u n r e l a t e d  the  following  1978  and t h e  sample):  for  feels  that  BSRI,  since  it  -.14  lack of  is  force  f o r the  f o r the  but r a t h e r ,  1973  .11  the  1973  1978  (-.05).  need  for  relationship treats  and  Stanford  Stanford  and f o r m a l e s ,  an i n v e r s e  Bern r e p o r t e d  f o r the  c o r r e l a t i o n supports  does not  Bern  the  between  them as  indepen-  variables. Data.  There i s  discriminant v a l i d i t y seem t o  of  the  Marlowe-Crowne S c a l e administered  test-retest  relations  information  BSRI s c a l e s o t h e r  a general  zero.  tendency  but r a t h e r ,  it  is  to  the  desirability,  masculinity Thus,  the  above  they  as m e a s u r e d  (Bern, 1 9 7 4 ) .  and f e m i n i n i t y  androgyny s c o r e  respond i n a s o c i a l l y  measuring a very s p e c i f i c sex-typed  is  not  tendency of  The  the  The c o r -  scales  desirable  standards  in  by  and  the  measuring direction,  to  describe  desirable  f o r men and women.  Bern (Bern, 1975; data that  than that  28 m a l e s and 28 f e m a l e s  described  i n accordance with  behaviour  reporting  (MCSDS; Crowne and M a r l o w e , 1 9 6 0 ) .  to  sample  between t h e  MCSDS were n e a r  oneself  little  be u n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s o c i a l  MCSDS was 1973  is  1981).  scales  figure  (.00)  and m a s c u l i n i t y ,  Validity  the  first  i n brackets  females,  Bern,  between t h e  (the  figure  this  femininity dent  correlations  S t a n f o r d samples  sample  (Bern, 1974;  prove  indicates  description  on t h e  validity  the  of  Bern & L e n n e y , that  BSRI.  overt  1976)  cites  behaviour corresponds  As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,  BSRI and o t h e r  some e m p i r i c a l  the  with  self-  convergent  s e x - r o l e m e a s u r e s was  not  as  high  21 a s w o u l d be e x p e c t e d same c o n s t r u c t for  Femininity Critiques  scrutiny. have  .65  f o r the  the  its  Masculinity scales  development,  the  item-total  for f a i l i n g to  She d o e s n o t  I n an a t t e m p t  to  (masculine  measure  (a)  factor  (e.g.,  how t h e  n o r does she  analytic  Bern h a s  as  well  al.  factor  the  Pedhazur & T e t e n -  f i n a l twenty items  the  studies of  respectively.  defined  analysis,  describe  for  how a  positive  neutral  items.  two  classifications inde-  the  BSRI d a t a  1979;  Waters,  have  and P e d h a z u r and T e t e n -  i n data obtained  a feminine  been  techni-  a r e u n i d i m e n s i o n a l and  Waters e t  "warm," " g e n t l e , " and " e a g e r t o masculine  the  on any t h e o r y c o n c e r n i n g  Pedhazur & Tetenbaum,  baum f o u n d f o u r f a c t o r s  described as:  or factor  determine whether  1977).  students,  specify  and f e m i n i n e )  (e.g.,  & Pincus,  university  for  controversies.  was made c o n c e r n i n g t h e  numerous f a c t o r  been c o n d u c t e d Waters,  .53  (1985) M e n t a l Measurement Y e a r b o o k  noteworthy  base the  or negative evaluation  pendent,  and  was  BSRI h a s u n d e r g o n e much c r i t i c a l  m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y  1979).  items  the  correlations  e a c h s c a l e were s e l e c t e d ,  of  correlations  f o r not u s i n g t r a d i t i o n a l s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n  q u e s s u c h as  baum,  The m e d i a n  the  BSRI  o u t l i n e d most o f  nature of  1984).  measuring  4 major androgyny measures  C r i t i q u e s i n Buros'  criticized  as  p a i r s of  supposedly  scales. of  Since  instruments  (Wilson & Cook,  a l l possible  computed as  for  f r o m 252  In g e n e r a l , defined  the  and  factors  by such i t e m s  soothe hurt f e e l i n g s ; "  by i t e m s s u c h a s  571  "dominant,"  (b)  are as a  22  "aggressive," defined  and " a s s e r t i v e ; "  b y i t e m s s u c h as  "self-sufficient;" of  subject  "feminine," Thus,  a factor  by t h e  and " a t h l e t i c "  Bern (1974)  a second masculine  "independent,"  and (d)  and d e f i n e d  (c)  three  (Bern,  "self-reliant,"  labelled items,  as  masculine  and f e m i n i n e  1981).  classification  of  the  questionable  (Harris,  claimed that  it  original  scales;  sion of  BSRI  and w h i c h do n o t  r e m a i n i n g i t e m s as 1994).  As d i s c u s s e d  however,  she  on t h e  contain the  data that  BSRI,  validity  the  data.  the  later  to  feminine later,  the  short  items "masculine" or  link  overt  inventory  is  behaviour with c r i t i c i z e d for  A c r i t i q u e b y Payne content  s o c i e t y and q u e s t i o n s  labels  of  domain o f  the  these scales  1976)  its  cites  some  limited  i n Buros  BSRI i s is  pure  "feminine."  (1985)  s c a l e s does not c o v e r  what e x a c t l y  a  full  i n American measuring.  much more  " m a s c u l i n i t y " and " f e m i n i n i t y "  U s i n g an e i g h t - v a r i a b l e behaviour,  the  (cited  ver-  self-description  ways i n w h i c h men and women d i f f e r  than the  Bern (1979)  developed  Bern & L e n n e y ,  the  masculine  uni-  range of  the  or  two  the  argued t h a t  items  develop  claimed that the  two  (1981) w i t h s c a l e s w h i c h were f a c t o r a l l y  E v e n t h o u g h Bern (Bern, 1975; empirical  of  of  a u n i q u e b i p o l a r f a c t o r makes  was n o t h e r i n t e n t i o n  dimensional the  The s e p a r a t i o n  into  sex  "masculine,"  has been c r i t i c i z e d because t h e  and m a s c u l i n i t y .  and  representing  BSRI i t e m s do n o t p r o v i d e two u n i d i m e n s i o n a l r a t i n g s femininity  factor  They  specific  indicate.  c i r c u m p l e x model o f  interpersonal  W i g g i n s and H o l z m u l l e r (1978) n o t e d t h a t  the  items  23 m a k i n g up t h e  BSRI's M a s c u l i n i t y scale w h i l e most o f  ninity  scale  fell  w i t h i n the warm-agreeable v e c t o r  model.  Thus,  the  the  dimensions  already  Also,  by t h e  major dimensions  aloof-introverted, However,  after  psychological  construct.  by t h e the  BSRI w i l l  eight  dimensions  "Bern's measure o f  reflect  of  the  BSRI.  as  androgyny s c o r e ; masculine her s e l f equal  this  score  and f e m i n i n e  psychological  items  the  a sex-typed  an i n d i v i d u a l  represented  endorsed  attributes  and r e j e c t i o n o f  Helmreich,  and S t r a p p (1975)  the  endorsement opposite  claimed that  sex  thus  on f i v e  procedures an  number o f in his  or  represented whereas  sex-appropriate  attributes.  this  of  50).  attributes, of  sex-typed  calculate  relative  o f m a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e  sex-role  (p.  scoring  t - r a t i o was u s e d t o reflected  personologi-  sex-typed  d e s c r i p t i o n . An a n d r o g y n o u s s e x - r o l e  endorsements  lazy-submissive,  a n d r o g y n o u s o r as  be a n d r o g y n o u s o f  the  the  behaviour  i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviour"  Originally,  not  W i g g i n s and  Another major c o n t r o v e r s y surrounds the of  assess  androgyny  a highly generalizable  classified  tend to  were  same  and a r r o g a n t - c a l c u l a t i n g ) .  c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i r own s t u d y ,  Persons  the  ignoring  interpersonal  cold-quarrelsome,  androgyny appears t o cal  of  while  unassuming-ingenuious,  Holzmuller concluded that  femi-  d o m i n a n t - a m b i t i o u s and w a r m - a g r e e a b l e  Bern's d e f i n i t i o n o f  (gregarious-extraverted,  of  add any new i n f o r m a t i o n t o  i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e s e two o r t h o g o n a l v e c t o r s remaining s i x  dominant-  comprising the  o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y t h a t  identified  vectors.  items  w i t h i n the  ambitious vector,  BSRI d i d n o t  the  fell  Spence,  s c o r i n g procedure  24 incorrectly category  lumped t o g e t h e r  individuals  who s c o r e d h i g h on b o t h t h e  s c a l e s w i t h t h o s e who s c o r e d split  s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e was  four groups: both s c a l e s ) , I n 1977,  Masculine,  leagues'  of  the  items  agreed with t h e i r  (scores  of  i n the  the  theory will  of  of  the  the  culture.  Thus,  behaviour of  the  Bern (1979) d i d n o t femininity  believe that  ing the argued:  find  s c a l e s were n o t one  scales that  of  provide"  (p.  her  the  culture's  fact  that  unidimensional  their  col-  and  she Conher  individuals and masShe  argued members  judges served  standards the  the  underlying  1049).  as  for  items contained  in  standards. the  masculinity  problematic,  s h o u l d employ a m e t h o d o l o g y would guarantee  on  argued t h a t  known by v i r t u a l l y a l l  such c u l t u r a l the  the  scales).  scale,  femininity  s e x e s and t h a t  scales r i g h t f u l l y reflect  respond to  "sex-typed  believes that  informants" about t h e i r  desirable  she  to  are well she  to  c o n s i s t e n t with the  definitions  happens  these d e f i n i t i o n s  "native  the  culture  low on b o t h  Bern h a s  which a s s e r t s t h a t  whatever  among  and h a s made a d j u s t m e n t s .  p r o c e d u r e was  BSRI,  conform t o  culinity that  the  a median-  (scores high  desirability  cerning her item s e l e c t i o n procedures, s c a l e development  Thus,  s c o r i n g procedures  social  comments  femininity  method.  attempted  In terms  and  differentiate  Androgynous  median-split  generally  criticisms.  neutrality has  has  masculinity  suggested to  and U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  Bern (1979)  androgynous  low on b o t h s c a l e s .  Feminine,  Bern a d o p t e d t h e  i n the  for  and  nor d i d construct-  unidimensionality.  She  25 P e d h a z u r and Tetenbaum a r e p u t t i n g t h e before  the  clustered into sex  theoretical  horse.  or the  other....If into  the  The p u r p o s e o f individuals cluster  take  the  attributes  as  for  one  the  "femininity" is  what  or  sex-typed  standard for t h e i r  to  behaviour.  d i s c r i m i n a t e between  hodgepodge  of  those  does form a u n i t a r y  i n d i v i d u a l s f o r whom i t  does  not  1049).  unidimensionality of factor  the  analytic  appear to  orthogonality  the  is  a short  findings  items.  (Bern,  10 i t e m s make up  F e m i n i n e and  (Bern, 1 9 8 1 ) .  considered to  o r i g i n a l BSRI.  It  ing  "instrumental"  (masculinity)  1985).  is  1981). the and 10  masculine  The end r e s u l t  two p u r e f a c t o r s  and " e x p r e s s i v e "  the  internal  be p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y  composed o f  of  form o f  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 and  the  (Buros,  responded to  i n o r d e r t o maximize b o t h the  between them  instrument that  has  lack  10 i t e m s make up t h e m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e ,  i t e m s were s e l e c t e d of  analytic  30 i t e m s :  i t e m s s e r v e as n e u t r a l o r f i l l e r  consistency  she  s t u d i e s by p r e s e n t i n g  The r e v i s e d v e r s i o n c o n t a i n s femininity scale,  be b o t h e r e d by t h e  BSRI s c a l e s ,  BSRI b a s e d on h e r own f a c t o r  traits  calls  hodgepodge  f o r whom t h i s  and t h o s e  it  BSRI i s  A l t h o u g h Bern d i d n o t  the  of  c u l t u r e g r o u p s a hodgepodge  a category  individuals w i l l  cart  arbitrarily  two c a t e g o r i e s p r e s c r i b e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  "masculinity," then the  various  The c u l t u r e h a s  together heterogeneous c o l l e c t i o n s  attributes  (p.  methodological  is  the an  superior  to  represent-  (femininity)  26 When n o r m a t i v e d a t a f r o m two (described ninity  previously)  scores f o r the  was r e s c o r e d ,  o r i g i n a l BSRI  h i g h e r f o r b o t h s e x e s on t h e f o r b o t h s e x e s on t h e  figure  represents  parentheses for  the  (.86)  original  the  for  1973  1978  BSRI,  the  the  was  .84  .91  was  (.85)  A significant  itself.  many f a c t o r  Gross, B a t l i s ,  & Tetenbaum,  1979;  d e b a t e s have  surrounded the  sley  & Colten,  Reisch & Elton, 1978).  Because  femininity  the  1992; some o f  in alpha (.87) was  the  score  was  correlation for for  the  males.  of  Small,  the  & Erdwins,  & Pincus,  instrument  has  instrument  1979;  1977);  (e.g.,  partial replications  Bern,  1979); (e.g.,  Edwards & A s h w o r t h , 1977; this  BSRI  a n a l y s e s h a v e b e e n p e r f o r m e d on  Pedhazur & Tetenbaum,  s t u d i e s have a t t e m p t e d  figure  test-retest  and c r i t i q u e s  Waters, Waters,  1979;  first  As w i t h  research using the  analysis  (e.g.,  The  masculinity score  f o r males.  was  BSRI  involved s t a t i s t i c a l  BSRI  alpha  coefficient  f o r f e m a l e s and .76  p o r t i o n of  F o r example,  internally  f o r f e m a l e s and .87  alpha f o r the  f o r males;  .91  Research Employing the  the  (.84)  femi-  slightly  and t h e  the  s h o r t v e r s i o n had h i g h  f e m a l e s and  but  masculinity scale).  c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the  masculinity score  scale,  S t a n f o r d sample  coefficient  more  (The c o e f f i c i e n t  S t a n f o r d sample:  score  samples  m a s c u l i n i t y and  overall,  femininity  f o r f e m a l e s and .85  reliability: .85  the  femininity  f o r males; .84  is  the  Stanford  the  S h o r t BSRI w e r e ,  c o n s i s t e n t than f o r the  lower  large  Pedhazur  various 1979;  Lock-  and some Ballard-  Walkup & A b b o t t ,  r e s e a r c h has been d i s c u s s e d  in  27 previous here  sections of  this  document,  will  n o t be  discussed  again. Bern h a s  always  maintained that  androgynous s e x - r o l e psychologically  androgynous  healthier  and s e x - t y p e d  i n a v a r i e t y of atypical  then t h e i r  behaviours  masculine  on c o m p a r i n g t h e  behaviours w e l l ,  performed w e l l  T a y l o r and H a l l  (1982)  argued t h a t  measure  with the  1976).  is  essential  superior  functioning hypothesis  sexIn  for construct  appropriate  masculine  respective  that  validity,  and  sex-typed  androgynous traits.  tasks.  individuals  While  this  a t e s t of  the  would r e q u i r e d i r e c t measures  r e s e a r c h employing the  BSRI e x p l o r e s  r e l a t i o n s h i p between a n d r o g y n y and o t h e r m e n t a l h e a l t h self-esteem.  s t u d i e s androgynous  The r e s u l t s  individuals  Windle,  whereas i n o t h e r s ,  predicted well-being  have been e q u i v o c a l ;  i n d i v i d u a l s were p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  than sex-typed  1982).  general,  of  flexibility.  A vast area of  1978),  BSRI,  sex-typed  positive  and f e m i n i n e  evidence  a d a p t a b i l i t y and  the  o n l y demonstrated  a r e h i g h on b o t h m a s c u l i n e  such as  of  by t h e and  whereas  o n l y on g e n d e r  scale relationships  dependent  behaviour  as d e f i n e d  Bern & L e n n e y ,  and  counterparts.  involving sex-typical 1975;  an  androgynous p a r t i c i p a n t s performed both  and f e m i n i n e  individuals  feminine  (Bern,  sex-typed  individuals,  situations  found t h a t  i n d i v i d u a l s with  a r e b e h a v i o u r a l l y more f l e x i b l e  Her e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h f o c u s e d  they  it  (e.g.,  (e.g.,  Kelly  Lamke, the  1982;  measures, i n some  healthier  Orlofsky &  "masculinity  & Worell,  the  1977;  effect" Taylor  & Hall,  28 Silvern associated women,  and Ryan  (1979)  found t h a t  w i t h androgynous v e r s u s  n o t men. U s i n g d a t a o b t a i n e d  students various  (76  women and 71 men)  self-rated  adjustment  adjustment  indices  s u p e r i o r adjustment  t r a d i t i o n a l typing only f r o m 147  they  t h a n d i d a n d r o g y n o u s men (rj < .05  upon t h e  adjustment  as  better  adjusted  index).  Thus,  by d i f f e r e n c e s per  f o r two o f  differences  the  The  adjustment  all  better depending  themselves  difference  scales  (E <  .05  third  (E <  .10).  i n the  among s e x - t y p e s were a c c o u n t e d  in masculinity,  not  for  i n f e m i n i n i t y o r androgyny  se. F l a h e r t y and Dusek  sex of  on  o r JD < .10  A n d r o g y n o u s women r a t e d  and a p p r o a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n c e  adjustment  BSRI and  found t h a t  t h a n d i d a n d r o g y n o u s men.  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e and j> < .01)  the  t r a d i t i o n a l men r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s as  adjusted  among  undergraduate  who had c o m p l e t e d scales,  was  role self  orientation that  reflected  to  s u b j e c t s would s c o r e  the  androgynous  and f e m i n i n e  conclusions  high,  and a d a p t a t i o n "  but  about s u p e r i o r adjustment  possibility  (p.  990).  of  relation  as  if  of  aspect  measure the  the  androgynous measure  role,  high. may be  In  the other  influenced  L i k e Bern ( 1 9 7 4 ,  "an a n d r o g y n o u s  greater  However,  the  expressive  i n o t h e r mental measures.  the  if  s u b j e c t s would s c o r e  F l a h e r t y and Dusek a r g u e d t h a t  leads to  the  orientation,  t r a d i t i o n a l l y feminine  by g e n d e r b i a s e s  tion  They found t h a t  a t r a d i t i o n a l l y masculine  tapped i n t o  1975),  predicted that  s e l f - e s t e e m w o u l d d e p e n d on t h e  was m e a s u r e d .  and m a s c u l i n e  words,  (1980)  behavioural  s t a t e d above,  orientaflexibility  the  29 controversy  l i n k i n g androgyny versus  functioning  is  the  aschematic  shifted  toward gender  schematic  BSRI h a s b e e n u s e d t o  differentiate  between  and g e n d e r  Schmitt & M i l l a r d , most c u l t u r e s  schematic  1988).  with t h e i r  individuals  According to  have d e v e l o p e d  are associated However,  a rich  concepts of  (e.g.,  gender  source  i n d i v i d u a l s v a r y i n how t h e y  Bern,  schema  of  use  the  culture's  has  organize  Bern (1981b) BSRI,  tend to  incoming information using the  found  e n c o d e and  traditional bipolar  uals  dimensions  information.  nongender-related  Thus,  typed i n d i v i d u a l s ,  non-sex-typed are  less  to  individuals,  l i k e l y to  concep-  sex-typed  whereas n o n - s e x - t y p e d  other,  that  them-  m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y dimension, use  1981b;  "man" and "woman."  selves,  as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e  gender  descriptors  evaluate  t h e i r w o r l d , and o t h e r s .  pro-  theory,  t u a l i z a t i o n o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y t o  individuals,  superior  unresolved.  As Bern's r e s e a r c h h a s cessing,  masculinity with  individ-  organize  compared t o  engage i n  sex-  gender-schematic  processing. The measure Bernard et  al.  has  a l s o been u s e d  (1985)  courtship violence and a q u e s t i o n n a i r e dating partners to  investigated  and s e x - t y p i n g .  171  college  of  research. between  They a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e w i t h abuse  BSRI  between  They found t h a t  men who  s c o r e d more t r a d i t i o n a l l y t h a n d i d abusive.  research using the  and f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s  areas  relationship  students.  r e p o r t h a v i n g been  More r e c e n t l y ,  the  probing experiences  r e p o r t e d h a v i n g been a b u s i v e men who d i d n o t  i n other  (Jones,  Bloys,  BSRI l o o k e d a t  sex  & Wood,  The  1990).  roles  30 a u t h o r s gave t h e  BSRI a n d s e v e r a l  friendship questionnaires  to  79 m a l e a n d 85 f e m a l e u n i v e r s i t y u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . A n d r o g y n y was related to  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t enhanced t h e  maintenance of and p o s i t i v e (1990)  close  f r i e n d s h i p s , such as  conceptions  investigated  nisky,  friends.  sex-role  confront e x i s t e n t i a l Avoidance of  of  issues.  a communal o r i e n t a t i o n  Stevens,  Pfost,  and  Potts  o r i e n t a t i o n and t h e w i l l i n g n e s s They a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e  E x i s t e n t i a l Confrontation  & Cleland,  development and  c i t e d i n Stevens  et  scale al.,  to  BSRI a n d t h e  (Thauberger, Ruz-  1990)  to  44  female  and 44 male u n i v e r s i t y u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . T h e y f o u n d t h a t  individu-  i  als to  who s c o r e d a n d r o g y n o u s on t h e facing existential  sex-typed  issues,  reported the  least  While not exhaustive, kinds of  whereas  it  is  willingness.  these studies  give  BSRI.  studies  it  p u r s u e r e s e a r c h on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e  BSRI.  Replication Studies of  the BSRI.  replications,  f o c u s i n g on t h e  Walkup & A b b o t t ,  Given the campuses  (Cook, have to  BSRI  H o w e v e r , a few s t u d i e s  & Elton,  sex-  seemed w o r t h w h i l e  no s t u d y h a s r e p l i c a t e d Bern's o r i g i n a l  (Ballard-Reisch 1994;  the  the  Of a l l t h e  i n c l u d i n g t h e BSRI  i n v e s t i g a t e d mental h e a l t h adjustment,  of  a f l a v o u r of  t h e most p o p u l a r a n d w i d e l y u s e d  G i v e n t h a t many o f t h e  To d a t e ,  receptive  i n d i v i d u a l s who s c o r e d  r e s e a r c h t h a t have employed t h e  r o l e measures, 1985).  BSRI were t h e most  1992;  items  have a t t e m p t e d  construction partial  contained i n the  Edwards & A s h w o r t h ,  BSRI  1977;  Harris,  1978).  i n f l u e n c e o f t h e women's movement o n u n i v e r s i t y  i n the  1970s,  Edwards a n d A s h w o r t h  (1977)  suggested  31 that  items  one s e x the  that  were r a t e d a s  than i n the  end o f  the  and two f e m a l e  other  decade. senior  each o b t a i n e d r a t i n g s items  significantly  i n 1972  more d e s i r a b l e  in  m i g h t no l o n g e r be v a l i d  by  They conducted a s t u d y undergraduate students of  social  judges  teristics  f o r an A m e r i c a n m a l e and h a l f  The t o t a l  sample  went t o of  l i b r a r i e s and s t u d e n t  W a s h i n g t o n campus t o  r a t e d by b o t h m a l e s  in the  a female  was  as  as  second  attempt  without  success.  same a s  explanation dents'  Despite  i n the  first  for the  ratings  of  collection  more  significantly  only  more  item  desirable  reported a  BSRI.  Bern's (1974)  findings  t h e i r second attempt, study.  f a i l u r e to feminine  s u c h as  the  results  a  plausible  They c l a i m t h a t replicate  is  (n = 8 0 ) ,  that  college  and m a s c u l i n e g e n d e r - r o l e s  They a l s o  differences  Bern c o l l e c t e d suggested  i n methods  Likert  also were  stuand her  several of  ( i n d i v i d u a l l y r a t h e r t h a n from a g r o u p ) ; (9-point  desirable  Edwards and A s h w o r t h (1977)  the  gender d e s i r a b i l i t y .  in rating scales  item  challenged  s t e r e o t y p e s had changed s i n c e  explanations,  University  seriously  replicate  conception of  gender-role  other  to  female).  experimenters  significantly  " f e m i n i n e . " These f i n d i n g s  same a r t i c l e ,  charac-  f o r an A m e r i c a n  " m a s c u l i n e " and t h e  and f e m a l e s  BSRI  r a t e d the  u n i o n b u i l d i n g s on t h e  r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f In t h e  the  was  60  r e c r u i t p a r t i c i p a n t s . The o n l y  i n a male t h a n i n a female r a t e d by b o t h m a l e s  (half  p a r t i c i p a n t s . The  and f e m a l e s  male  (experimenters)  d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r the  f r o m 20 m a l e and 20 f e m a l e  i n c l u d e d 160  i n w h i c h two  s c a l e r a t h e r than a  data differences 7-point  32 Likert of  scale);  university  and, d i f f e r e n t i a l  noted t h a t ly  courses).  may h a v e been the  to  instructions  replicate  Although these  influential, to  and p r o b a b l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o  failure  Bern's  judges  or undesirable  (1981)  instructions  ...to  indicate  a man/woman t o We a r e n o t desirable your  the  societal  each of  (male/female)  [personality  trait]  to  p.  it  is  in  Bern's  i n American s o c i e t y  i n your personal  i n a man/woman ( p .  opinion of is.  instructions  (man/woman)  differ  of  for Note:  how  R a t h e r , we want these  17). in their  the  emphasis to  on  sex  person being  rated  1978).  to  replicate  results,  Bern's (1974)  u s i n g h e r r a t i n g s c a l e and i n s t r u c t i o n s . four Educational Psychology  Washington s e r v e d  64).  be  judges  Prompted by t h e s e c o n f l i c t i n g  in  1978,  "how  how o u r s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s e a c h o f  or gender  attempted  (1977)  rate  i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g and i n r e f e r e n c e  (Walkup & A b b o t t ,  (1978)  were t o  these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of  two s e t s o f versus  significant-  possess each of t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  characteristics Thus,  (1978)  findings.  how d e s i r a b l e  interested  judgement  methodological  also differed  (Walkup & A b b o t t ,  asked  in  Edwards and A s h w o r t h ' s  you judge  an A m e r i c a n m a l e / f e m a l e "  selection  Walkup and A b b o t t  Edwards and A s h w o r t h ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s desirable  (convenience  students r a t h e r than students e n r o l l e d  introductory psychology differences  sampling  as  judges;  classes at  18 m a l e s  Walkup and A b b o t t BSRI i t e m  selection  Undergraduate the  students  U n i v e r s i t y of  and 30 f e m a l e s r a t e d  the  33 60 BSRI i t e m s it  f o r a man ("In A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y  f o r a man t o  traits  be...")  40 f e m i n i n e  both female  and m a l e  i n American s o c i e t y tailed).  The r e s u l t s  and 19 f e m i n i n e take r i s k s , direction,  and m a s c u l i n e  judges f o r the  items;  the  tap r e l a t i v e l y  is  the it  for  three  exceptions  18  (loyal,  conclude that  h a v e n o t g i v e n way even society  at  B a l l a r d - R e i s c h and E l t o n  f o l l o w i n g assumptions: BSRI c o n t i n u e t o  after  or not the  c u r r e n t l y p e r c e i v e d as  positive  sixty-five  (100  individuals  community i n t h e w e s t e r n  perceptions  the  First,  judges.  items  face  (p.  items  of  a  12). the  contained  f o r each s c a l e  and 156  in  p a r t i c i p a n t s were  scale;  Two h u n d r e d  females)  65 y e a r s  the  are  f r o m an u r b a n  United States participated i n  the  strong  o f m a s c u l i n i t y and  characteristics.  males  BSRI  f e m i n i n i t y and  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  T h e i r a g e s r a n g e d f r o m 12 t o  (SD=11.5).  predicted  (1992) t e s t e d  whether the  represent  two d e c a d e s whether  first,  to  sex-appropriate  i n the  large"  masculine  "the  of  two-  willing  o n l y f o r female  standards of  desirable  (p < . 0 5 ,  for  enduring d e f i n i t i o n s  j u d g e d by  more  " a p p r o p r i a t e " gender  c u l t u r a l l y defined  Recently,  27.5  37 were  r e p l i c a t e d Bern's f i n d i n g s  c r i t i q u e i n the  and s e c o n d ,  items,  be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  s p u r r e d Bern (1981) t o  behaviour that  femininity  to  but reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  masculinity,  feminist  how d e s i r a b l e  a n d i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ) were s c o r e d i n t h e  These r e s u l t s appears to  rated  is  be...").  Of t h e  study.  and 58 f e m a l e s  f o r a woman ("In A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y  a woman t o  the  and 23 m a l e s  how d e s i r a b l e  the  w i t h a mean age administered  the  of  34  BSRI t o the  complete  BSRI,  the  for themselves.  p a r t i c i p a n t s were g i v e n  BSRI and a s k e d t o (masculine,  level  indicate  feminine,  desirability  feminine,  that  BSRI a r e b o t h p o s i t i v e over the the  negative,  each  item,  or n e u t r a l ) .  A 75%  and  as  its  agreement classify  positive,  and f e m i n i n e  of  supported i n t h i s positive,  only  orientation.  Because  is  difficult  to  to  Bern's  the masculine  items f o r the  they  f a i l e d to  findings.  s e s s i n g each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . first  desirability  may h a v e of  each  Bern's i n s t r u c t i o n s  influenced  item.  of  Bern (1974)  change  It  is  and a 7 - p o i n t  B a l l a r d - R e i s c h and E l t o n replication  Thus,  (1992) is  f o r men and women.  the  for  one  W h i l e many rated  and o n l y feminine  Bern's p r o c e d u r e s , are  first  it  comparable BSRI  p e r c e i v e d t h e m s e l v e s as  pos-  responding to  the  how r e s p o n d e n t s difficult Likert  to  self-report  rated  ascertain  s c a l e were  suggested that  of  the  r a t e d the  required to  in perceptions  of  results  The p a r t i c i p a n t s  extent to which they  study.  orientation  follow  determine whether t h e i r  (1974)  items of  " m a s c u l i n e " was  " f e m i n i n e " was r a t e d a s more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  istics  as w e l l  and p e r c e i v e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  i t e m s were r a t e d a s  extent of  orientation  i n order to  or n e u t r a l ,  masculine  o t h e r were n o t  a s more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  measure  the  the  or n e u t r a l .  The a s s u m p t i o n s  of  assessments of of  and r e t u r n o f  a modified v e r s i o n of  p o p u l a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y  an i t e m a s m a s c u l i n e ,  sex  their  or neutral)  (positive,  w i t h i n the  negative,  Upon c o m p l e t i o n  a  the whether  used.  complete  f u l l y understand  socially  desirable  the  character-  35 Harris indicator  (1994) of  Femininity.  current cultural He n o t e d t h a t  BSRI d i d n o t definitions nant white that  investigated  "account of  society  f o r any p o s s i b l e  and any o f  ethnicity  the  segment o f  the  500 m a l e s  D a t a were c o l l e c t e d stopping patrons at were  asked t o  20 f e m i n i n e BSRI.  items,  questionnaire factor Waters,  the  the  equating  ethnicity  was  P a r t i c i p a n t s were 30-39 y e a r s  & Pincus,  19 o f  the  of  middleage.  participate.  20 m a s c u l i n e  20 n e u t r a l i t e m s  (e.g., 1977)  between t h e  slightly  as-  g r o u p was  items,  biasing nature.  sexes.  to  participants received  f o r the  instructions  to  the  the from  the  1979;  served  primari-  H a r r i s u s e d Bern's  accommodate  They  Also,  Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, showed t h a t t h e y  by  19 o f  contained i n  and i n s t r u c t i o n . However, he c h a n g e d t h e  instructions  groups:  Anglo-American,  Each c u l t u r a l  range of  their potential  analytical studies  scale  study.  female)  " m a s c u l i n e " a n d " f e m i n i n e " were d e l e t e d  l y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e Likert  groups:  (p.  i n two C h i c a g o a r e a s h o p p i n g m a l l s  and t h e  due t o  Waters,  sub-cultures  m a l e and 1500  random and a s k i n g them t o  respond to  The i t e m s  (1500  females.  and r e p o r t e d a m e d i a n age  cultural  b e h a v i o u r between d o m i -  l e s s than i d e a l ,  and 500  in  the  American p o p u l a t i o n . "  cultural  sumed t o measure c u l t u r e i n t h i s  class  differences  and H i s p a n i c . W h i l e n o t i n g t h a t  w i t h c u l t u r e was  composed o f  valid  o f M a s c u l i n i t y and  various ethnic  from 3000  representing three  African-American,  BSRI was a a  Bern's o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f  D a t a were c o l l e c t e d  participants  definitions  d e s i r a b l e m a l e and f e m a l e  comprise a large  243).  whether t h e  three rate  7-point  wording of cultural the  items  36  according to culture," were to  either  both  the  with.  A s w i t h Bern's s t u d y ,  items f o r e i t h e r  a man o r f o r  judges  had t o  Bern's ( 1 9 7 4 ) c r i t e r i a ,  rate  an i t e m a s  one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  j u d g e was  asked  a woman, b u t n o t  other  for  it  to  for  all  of  the  man  t h a n a woman (JJ < . 0 1 ) . F o u r t e e n o f  were  r a t e d as  both the  (p. < . 0 1 ) : f l a t t e r a b l e ,  male  reach s i g n i f i c a n c e  f o r the  female  f o r one g e n d e r  judges,  most  for  genders  the  conceited,  of  the  more d e s i r a b l e  (conventional,  able,  sincere,  rated  more d e s i r a b l e 19 f e m i n i n e  i t e m s were  friendly,  other  items  to to  more  by b o t h m a l e and  r a t e d as  significantly  judges.  F i v e items  female  different  (adaptable,  and u n s y s t e m a t i c )  happy,  helpful,  and t r u t h f u l )  differed  a  f o r a woman t h a n a  i t e m s was r a t e d a s  unpredictable,  judges  for  judges.  than the  theatrical,  a s more d e s i r a b l e  judges  and c h i l d l i k e f a i l e d  were  i n the  raters.  neutral  f o r a woman. The f e m a l e  likable,  were r a t e d as  f o r a woman t h a n a man b y f e m a l e  male and f e m a l e  inclusion.  f o r a woman t h a n a man b y m a l e r a t e r s ;  items  desirable  judges  neutral  b y one g r o u p o f  tactful,  for  l o y a l and u n d e r s t a n d i n g f a i l e d  f o r the  desirable  the  more d e s i r a b l e  reach s i g n i f i c a n c e  the  for  and male  items s i g n i f i c a n t l y  significantly  A l t h o u g h none o f  female  female  more d e s i r a b l e  be c o n s i d e r e d  (1994) found t h a t 19 m a s c u l i n e  b o t h male and  significantly  Harris  as  each  they  genders. According to  man  "African-American  o r " H i s p a n i c c u l t u r e " d e p e n d i n g on w h i c h g r o u p  affiliated  rate  "American c u l t u r e , "  nine reli-  more  Note t h a t  items they  judges  rated  the  rated  also rated  five  37 items  (ineffective,  nificantly  moody,  more d e s i r a b l e  secretive,  When e t h n i c i t y For the  was c o n s i d e r e d ,  r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  easily,  judges).  f a i l e d to  forceful,  and w i l l i n g t o  for  tender,  sensitive to  the  d i d not  hurt  flatterable,  gentle,  the  feminine  eager to desirable  items  raters.  (childlike,  soothe hurt f e e l i n g s ,  f a i l e d to  eager to  soothe loyal,  reach significance  judges  does not use and g e n t l e )  desirable  childlike,  loves c h i l d r e n ,  The male  reach  others,  as more  (cheerful,  harsh language,  b o t h male and f e m a l e  13  items  needs o f  does not use  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g )  for  raters).  compassionate,  sympathetic,  use  self-reliant,  risks  warm, and y i e l d i n g )  a woman t h a n a man. E l e v e n i t e m s  feelings,  does not  easily,  take  f o r b o t h male and f e m a l e  soft-spoken,  by b o t h  reach significance  The H i s p a n i c g r o u p r a t e d o n l y 8 f e m i n i n e  shy,  other  f o r a man t h a n a woman  makes d e c i s i o n s  gullible,  i t e m s were  The H i s p a n i c g r o u p r a t e d  i t e m s a s more d e s i r a b l e  (affectionate,  by  apparent.  39 s e x - t y p e d  (makes d e c i s i o n s  and f l a t t e r a b l e  b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  the  than the  harsh language,  significance  item  gender  were  f o r one g e n d e r  judges  strong-personality,  opposite  differences  36 o f  male and f e m a l e  (assertive,  f o r the  sig-  judges.  Anglo-American group,  masculine  and t a c t f u l )  f o r a man t h a n a woman. T h e  " t a c t f u l " was r a t e d more d e s i r a b l e b o t h male and f e m a l e  solemn,  also rated four harsh  as  for of  language,  significantly  more  f o r a man t h a n f o r a woman.  Among t h e  African-American group,  i t e m s was r a t e d as  significantly  none o f  the  more d e s i r a b l e  masculine  f o r a man t h a n  38 for  a woman by b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  items  (ambitious,  individualistic) rated six  defends  to  risks)  take  rated three w i l l i n g to  (analytical, desirable  and  a s more d e s i r a b l e  f o r a man, w h e r e a s  females  items  ( a c t s as  own b e l i e f s ,  items  risks)  forceful,  for  items:  and t e n d e r )  males  masculine  a stand)  female  judges  as  and items  more  separate  Four items  (cheerful,  r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  items  Note t h a t  more d e s i r a b l e  cheerful,  f o r the  raters.  harsh  opposite  language,  (affectionate,  cheer-  and warm) as and  f o r men b y m a l e r a t e r s f o r men by  sympathetic,  Male  whereas  sympathetic,  was r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  of  f o r a woman,  sympathetic,  shy,  needs  f o r a woman t h a n  does not use  as more d e s i r a b l e  rated six  the  African-American  (childlike,  loves c h i l d r e n , soft-spoken,  (childlike)  ( s e n s i t i v e to  were r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g )  raters.  and w i l l i n g  f o r the A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n group with  a man by b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  nificant.  compe-  strong-personality,  rated three  o n l y two i t e m s  loyal,  were  (dominant,  and w i l l i n g t o t a k e  r a t e d f o u r items  ful,  easily,  f o r a man. M o r e o v e r ,  and f e m a l e s  judges  the  aggressive,  f o r a woman t h a n f o r a man.  feminine  others  a leader,  makes d e c i s i o n s  as more d e s i r a b l e  A s i m i l a r pattern arose the  four  leadership a b i l i t i e s ,  masculine take  Males r a t e d  a n a l y t i c a l , has  different  titive,  raters.  sig-  yielding)  and one  item  female  c h i l d l i k e were  g e n d e r by b o t h m a l e and  rated female  raters. Harris' BSRI as  (1994)  study  an i n d i c a t o r o f  lends  support to  the  "American" c u l t u r a l  v a l i d i t y of  definitions  of  the  39 m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y t o d a y . other c u l t u r a l  groups  is  However,  questionable.  s t u d y c l e a r l y showed a s i g n i f i c a n t desirability compared t o Thus,  the  samples differ  ratings  of  difference  definitions  somewhat  across  not her r e s u l t s ; (1992)  the  study.  attitudes  concluded that  a f a i l u r e to  However, t h e i r  findings  (1978)  and seemed t o  stereotypes.  his  results  different also  find  but o n l y f o r t h o s e from A n g l o - A m e r i c a n  research,  1972;  supported the  and o b j e c t i v e ,  stability  varied  in and  from  v a l i d i t y of  the  culture.  of widespread  S h e r r i f f s & McKee,  intellectual,  women a r e t h o u g h t  stereotypes  documented  men a r e p o p u l a r l y b e l i e v e d  whereas  decades.  Stereotypes  have been w e l l  competitive,  two  that  (1994) m e t h o d o l o g y  BSRI,  about gender d i f f e r e n c e s  last  relative  (1974),  The e x i s t e n c e a n d p e r s i s t e n c e  methodology,  B a l l a r d - R e i s c h and  age g r o u p s )  and Change i n G e n d e r - R o l e  her  f o l l o w e d Bern's  Although H a r r i s '  (e.g,  Edwards and  are suggestive  Bern's  al.,  by n o n - A m e r i c a n  replicate  may h a v e c h a n g e d o v e r t h e  sample demographics  independent,  this  between  the  same c a n be s a i d f o r t h e  procedures completely  this  in  o f m a s c u l i n i t y a n d f e m i n i n i t y may  O n l y t h e Walkup and A b b o t t s t u d y  Broverman e t  presented  cultures.  Ashworth study s i g n i f i e s  Persistence  with  p a r t i c i p a n t s when  BSRI may n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u s e  gender-role  validity  A n g l o - A m e r i c a n and H i s p a n i c - A m e r i c a n p a r t i c i p a n t s .  because  sex-role  Results  African-American  To s u m m a r i z e , Bern (1981)  Elton  its  1957). to  (e.g., According  be more d o m i n a n t ,  unemotional, to  to  be more  logical, submissive,  40 dependent,  emotional,  irrational,  sensitive,  nurturant.  The d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e r e  d i s p a r i t y between c u r r e n t and p a s t addressed  i n a study  attempted  to  and  has b e e n c o n s i s t e n c y  gender-role  by Werner and L a R u s s a  replicate  conforming,  or  conceptions  (1985),  was  which  r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d b y S h e r r i f f s and McKee  (1957). Briefly, female  S h e r r i f f s and McKee  (1957) g a v e 50 male and 50  undergraduate s t u d e n t s from i n t r o d u c t o r y  classes  at  Sarbin's  the  list  U n i v e r s i t y of of  200  adjectives  "Check t h o s e a d j e c t i v e s women)."  Half  w i t h women,  the  California  p a r t i c i p a n t s checked the  Seventy-one  often  to  men and 61 a d j e c t i v e s  often  to  women  adjectives  (p < . 0 5 ) .  unfavourable adjectives.  and t o women classified  were p r i n t e d . T h e y were a s k e d true of  men  p a r t i c i p a n t s b e g a n w i t h men a n d h a l f  but a l l  its  two c a r d s on w h i c h  which are i n g e n e r a l  genders.  rated for  psychology  to  (or  began  adjectives  for  both  were a s c r i b e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  more  were a s c r i b e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  The l i s t  more  included both favourable  Each a d j e c t i v e  had p r e v i o u s l y  and  been  d e s i r a b i l i t y o r u n d e s i r a b i l i t y when a p p l i e d t o men (McKee & S h e r r i f f s ,  as  1957).  Each a d j e c t i v e  f a v o u r a b l e o r u n f a v o u r a b l e on t h e  was  basis of  its  median r a t i n g . Werner and L a R u s s a years study.  after Fifty  S h e r r i f f s a n d McKee female  collected  their  d a t a i n 1978,  (1957) h a d c o n d u c t e d  and 50 male s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d  introductory psychology at  (1985)  course  at the  B e r k e l e y were g i v e n two c o p i e s o f  19  their  i n an  U n i v e r s i t y of  California  S a r b i n ' s 200-item  adjective  41 checklist asked t o  (Sarbin,  in Sherriffs  favourable  women"  result  often  one  to  (Werner & L a R u s s a ,  and u n f a v o u r a b l e  nificant  adjective's  sex  than to  statistical  T h e y were  in general  1985,  the  an a d j e c t i v e  other  result  data,  1957).  p.  true  1091).  a d j e c t i v e s were i n c l u d e d .  indicated that  study with t h e i r  was  (p < . 0 5 ) .  i n the  the  A sigmore  By c o m p a r i n g and McKee  (1985)  each (1957)  proposed  information regarding  and c h a n g e s i n s t e r e o t y p e s o v e r  of  Both  assigned  Sherriffs  Werner and L a R u s s a  r e p l i c a t i o n would p r o v i d e  cies  & McKee,  "check t h o s e a d j e c t i v e s w h i c h a r e  men" o r " . . . o f  the  cited  that  consisten-  intervening  two  decades. The r e s u l t s gender-role (44/71)  of  the  adjectives  be p a r t o f  However, the  the  (47/61)  many p r e v i o u s l y  a n d 1978.  to  of  the  adjectives  different  f o r one g e n d e r  f o r a man t h a n a woman i n t h e  to  demanding,  hostile,  considerate,  in  women.  men i n 1957 were n o t other  and  rated  in  1978  data  to  more  (e.g., and 13  as  1978.  a d j e c t i v e s were a d d e d  self-centered)  friendly,  1957  ascribed  stereotype of  15 new a d j e c t i v e s were r a t e d as  a d j e c t i v e s were r a t e d a s more t y p i c a l (e.g.,  men i n  adjectives  than the  undifferentiating  typical  1978  1978  percent  f o r respondents  women i n 1957  stereotypes:  bossy,  the  in  Sixty-two  ascribed to  assigned  current  ful,  l i m i t e d change  male s t e r e o t y p e  adjectives assigned  significantly Also,  the  remained p a r t of  27 o f  was  significantly  Seventy-seven percent  t o women i n 1957  14 o f  there  s t e r e o t y p e s between 1957  continued to 1978.  indicated that  resourcenew  f o r a woman t h a n a man i n  cooperative,  unselfish,  42 meek).  Interestingly,  majority of the  Werner and L a R u s s a  adjectives  were f a v o r a b l e o n e s dropped from the majority of the  dropped from t h e  (20/27),  stereotype adjectives  Thus,  seemed t o 1957  and  despite  added t o  the  stereotype  o f women ( 1 1 / 1 4 ) . the  the  o f men  Similarly,  stereotype  (11/13),  added t o t h e male s t e r e o t y p e  (14/15).  found t h a t  w h i l e u n f a v o r a b l e ones tended t o  t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y were f a v o r a b l e tives  (1985)  whereas  be  the  o f women i n the  new a d j e c -  were a l m o s t a l l u n f a v o r a b l e  persistence  of  stereotypes,  be c h a n g e i n t h e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e  there  two s e x e s  between  1978.  Summary A review of studies  the  literature yields  c o n f l i c t i n g evidence.  t h a t g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d Bern's p r o c e d u r e s ( H a r r i s ,  Walkup & A b b o t t ,  1978)  found t h a t t h e r e had been l i t t l e  i n r a t i n g s by A n g l o - A m e r i c a n m a l l dent f o r the  60 BSRI i t e m s .  her procedures found t h a t the  1994;  change  s h o p p e r s and u n i v e r s i t y  Other s t u d i e s o n l y items  that d i d not that  Two  stu-  follow  continued to  be  r a t e d more d e s i r a b l e f o r a man and f o r a woman b y u n i v e r s i t y students  and u r b a n r e s i d e n t s  " m a s c u l i n e " and " f e m i n i n e " , 1992;  i n western United States respectively  Edwards & A s h w o r t h ,  1977).  Werner and L a R u s s a ' s  (1985)  were g e n d e r s t e r e o t y p e s teristics  & Reisch,  r e s e a r c h found t h a t not  relatively stable,  only  b u t a l s o when c h a r a c -  were e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e m a s c u l i n e a n d f e m i n i n e  stereotypes, changes  (Ballard  were  new c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a d o p t e d . T h u s ,  appear not t o  simply r e f l e c t  the b l u r r i n g of  "the conceptions  43 o f men and women, adjectives  because  have emerged i n t h e  the  place  It  would appear t h a t  of  item pool  possible  to  (400  investigate  characteristics  desirable  i n the  f u r t h e r the  to  The u s e  p.  operate of  the  take 1098). to  Bern's  c u r r e n t s t u d y made  issue of  (1985)  item s e l e c t i o n  determine the  (1974) it  extent to  noted,  last  masculine  to  which and  conduct a r e p l i c a -  procedures.  Such a  current generalizability of  of  socially  f o r men and women. As Werner and  "Given the  large  and l e g i s l a t i o n  decade,  to which s t e r e o t y p i c years"  is  students regarding perceptions  activism,  i n the  in recent  current study  characteristics  discussion, change  the  Bern's (1974)  BSRI t o U . B . C .  LaRussa  items)  by g e n d e r .  1985,  to  stereotypes.  replication will the  each sex  a r e added a n d / o r d r o p p e d f r o m t h e  The p u r p o s e o f of  of  some mechanism c o n t i n u e s  characteristics  original  tion  stereotype  nonsignificant  t h o s e d r o p p e d " (Werner & L a R u s s a ,  differentiate  feminine  new and p r e v i o u s l y  it  is  conceptions  amount o f r e l a t i n g to  relevant of  (Werner & L a R u s s a ,  the  to  debate, sex-role  assess the  two s e x e s h a v e  1985,  p.  1090).  extent changed  44 Chapter  III  Methodology Design The g o a l bility  of  British for  of  the  this  s t u d y was t o  Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y  Columbian u n i v e r s i t y  this  In t h i s  used  i n the  study the  employed,  results.  students.  the  Thus,  not  the  an e x p e c t a n c y  procedures,  BSRI s i n c e  between t h e  i n the  selected  of to  the the  instruments  study.  B e c a u s e my  c o n s i s t e n c i e s and c h a n g e s use  of  the  original  and t h e  procedures  i n i t i a l BSRI  so t h e  Bern (1974)  procedures  d e s c r i b e d h e r sample  summer.)  half  h e r d a t a i n two s e s s i o n s ;  questionnaire  following  the  1  S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y i n 1972,  (Bern c o l l e c t e d  completed the  remainder of  1994 ).  As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,  male  the  described  c u r r e n t s t u d y m a t c h t h o s e d e s c r i b e d b y Bern ( 1 9 7 4 ; communication,  noted,  are  i n the  half  meth-  development,  Bern's s a m p l e and p r o c e d u r e s  otherwise  at  in  varied  Unless  undergraduates  research  particular  below.  personal  BSRI.  appropriate.  current study of  to  survey  and  present  s a m p l i n g and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n  characteristics  1974)  the  replicate  instructions,  Bern's o r i g i n a l s t u d y ,  seemed most  Because  to  generaliza-  The m e t h o d o l o g y  term " r e p l i c a t i o n " r e f e r s  was t o more c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e  odology  Bern,  original construction  u s e d by Bern (1974) were a d o p t e d goal  (BSRI;  p u r p o s e was a p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n o f  research design  methods  i n v e s t i g a t e the  d u r i n g the  winter  of  female  as  and  40  judges  1972  and 60  No o t h e r d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n  100  did  was  45 supplied were  (e.g.,  race,  age,  SES) o t h e r t h a n t h a t  the  e n r o l l e d i n introductory psychology  courses.  Bern (1974)  a list  sonality  asked the  judges  characteristics,  according to  societal  one g e n d e r o v e r t h e  to  w h i c h she  beliefs  other.  of  rate  400  and h e r s t u d e n t s  their  The 400  of  students  social  items  compiled,  desirability  o r d e r . The j u d g e s  items  f o r a man o r f o r a woman; no j u d g e was a s k e d  rate the  characteristics  instructions  as  item-by-item t - t e s t s  Basically,  feminine  Of t h e  feminine  listed  if  f o r one s e x  by b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  (32  to  the  400  items  as t h e  basis  for  item  a 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 was  or masculine  more d e s i r a b l e  samples.  A copy of  the  c a n be f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x B .  Bern u s e d selection.  d e s i r a b i l i t y of  f o r both genders.  for  arranged i n  alphabetical either  rated the  were  per-  it  was  than the  judges,  items  judged t o other  be  defined  significantly  (p < . 0 5 ,  two-tailed)  i n b o t h t h e w i n t e r and summer  rated,  73 s a t i s f i e d  and 41 m a s c u l i n e  items).  these c r i t e r i a  These items  are  i n Appendix A .  Sample The c u r r e n t s t u d y m a l e and 129  female)  i n c l u d e d 210 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s  from t h e  U n i v e r s i t y of  who were e n r o l l e d i n i n t r o d u c t o r y s o c i o l o g y courses. years), 21.  The mean age was w i t h 79 p e r c e n t  Fifty-four  enrolled course.  22.31  of  the  percent of the  i n a psychology  100  years  (range  British  class,  Columbia  and a n t h r o p o l o g y f r o m 17 t o  s a m p l e between t h e s t u d e n t s were  (81  either  45  ages o f  18 and  currently  o r had p r e v i o u s l y t a k e n  the  46 The student  registrar's enrollment  sociology  office  courses.  It  backgrounds as t h o s e d o m i n a t e l y from t h e Science  appeared t h a t courses  Arts  faculty,  the  This  chances  anthropology,  students e n r o l l e d were  i n psychology  faculty.  grounds i n c r e a s e s  p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n on  i n introductory psychology,  a n t h r o p o l o g y and s o c i o l o g y  from the  at U . B . C .  from s i m i l a r  courses: with the  in educational  s t u d e n t s were next  largest  the  results  from t h i s  w o u l d be c o m p a r a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n p s y c h o l o g y as were t h e The  ethnic  (Canadian) 29.5 cent,  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n Bern's (1974)  43.3  percent,  breakdown o f percent,  the  and m i s s i n g  5.7  s a m p l e was a s  percent.  percent,  other  4.3  percent,  mary l a n g u a g e other  12.9  and m i s s i n g  was E n g l i s h  percent, office  background,  therefore  this The  sample  is  First  2.9  White  percent,  Asian  Nations  of  1.0  spoken  by p a r e n t s  C h i n e s e 23.3  percent.  the  U.B.C.  g r o u p s were t h e n c o m p i l e d i n t h e  percent, the  pri-  Unfortunately,  the  ethnic  p o p u l a t i o n as  their ethnic  a  whole.  b a c k g r o u n d . The  f o l l o w i n g manner: t h e  g r o u p was composed o f  s t u d e n t s who were C a u c a s i a n , b o r n  Canada,  E n g l i s h a t home; t h e  composed o f  at  c o u l d n o t be d e t e r m i n e d how r e p r e s e n t a - r  students s e l f - r e p o r t e d  and who s p o k e  per-  percent,  d o e s n o t k e e p r e c o r d s on s t u d e n t s ' it  courses,  C h i n e s e 11.4  percent;  percent,  and m i s s i n g  registrar's  tive  61.0  11.0  percent,  2.4  study  follows:  The p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e  home by s t u d e n t s was E n g l i s h 8 1 . 9  back-  study.  White (European)  Indo-Canadian 9.5  pre-  group  s i m i l a r i t y in educational that  and  Canadian in  E u r o p e a n g r o u p was  s t u d e n t s who were C a u c a s i a n , e i t h e r  b o r n i n Canada  47 or  i n Europe  (parents  were b o r n i n E u r o p e ) ,  o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h a t home parents  spoke  a language  (even p a r t o f  who s p o k e a  the  time),  language  and whose  o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h a t home; t h e  First  N a t i o n s g r o u p i n c l u d e d a s m a l l number o f  s t u d e n t s who s p o k e  E n g l i s h and a F i r s t  A s i a n and I n d o - C a n a d i a n  groups  the  i n c l u d e d s t u d e n t s b o r n i n Canada and t h o s e b o r n a b r o a d .  The l a s t  two g r o u p s  E n g l i s h as language. 'White'  Nations d i a l e c t ;  both  a first  included a mixture of language  and t h o s e who s p o k e  Although l e s s than i d e a l ,  and ' A s i a n '  particular  ethnic  s t u d e n t s who  are used t o  the  denote  use  of  it  as  spoke a  second  terms such  as  a f f i l i a t i o n with a  group.  Data C o l l e c t i o n Because in  Bern's (1974)  introductory psychology  solicit  the  ing the  department's  sample c o n s i s t e d classes,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n of  p a r t i c i p a t i o n was d e c l i n e d due t o research subject psychology  pool.  the  study to  individual  C).  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , because The same  department of of  English  professors (one  100  100  the  of  letter  allowed the  s t u d e n t s by  100  instructors  was s e n t t o  S e v e r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y and  i n s t r u c t o r consented  to  take  have t h e  contactHowever,  the  purpose  (see  of  Appendix  participation  instructors and t o  to  include  o u t l i n i n g the  time r e s t r i c t i o n s ,  research to  of  was made t o  a n t h r o p o l o g y and s o c i o l o g y , classes.  enrolled  was made  limited size  letters  psychology  students  research subjects.  A second attempt  s t u d e n t s by s e n d i n g  was r e f u s e d .  an a t t e m p t  psychology  coordinator of  of  the  in  the  coordinator  sociology  place during class  questionnaires  handed  time out  48 in class). they for  The E n g l i s h d e p a r t m e n t d e c l i n e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n b e c a u s e  had a l r e a d y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e i r the  students to  standardize  procedures  a brief  asked to  a s much as  i n the  emphasized the  part of  "We a r e n o t each of  all  read the  form c o n t a i n e d  the  the  students  confidential  the  the  17).  is.  (86.7  the  total  No j u d g e to  read  Appendix C ) . They  s h e e t and t h e  instructions  consent  that  that  stated:  how  desirable  R a t h e r , we want y o u r  judgement  these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  their  identity  was  in a  kept  names n o t be p l a c e d on any  and by u s i n g c o d e numbers  the  students completed the  and r e t u r n e d i t  to  the  to  com-  questionnaire  researcher.  One  same i n t r o d u c t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  but  package a t  to  home a n d r e t u r n e d i t  the  The " t a k e home" g r o u p c o m p r i s e d a s m a l l p o r t i o n of  to  researcher  r e q u i r e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 m i n u t e s  percent)  classroom r e c e i v e d the completed the  In o r d e r  and  data.  The m a j o r i t y o f  in class  the  (see  The p a r t i c i p a n t s '  questionnaire  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e plete.  study.  i n your personal o p i n i o n of  by r e q u e s t i n g  pages o f  identify  (p.  and J a n u a r y ,  ( A p p e n d i x C ) . The i n t r o d u c t i o n  how o u r s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s e a c h o f  the  studies  approved classrooms  possible,  Bern's (1981)  these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  man ( o r woman)"  1994  i n the  explanation  package  interested  five  participate  introduction to  were t h e n  of  i n December,  T h e r e s e a r c h e r went i n t o  i n v i t e d the  of  research  year.  The d a t a were c o l l e c t e d 1995.  quota of  next  (13.3  class. percent)  sample. rated the  d i s t r i b u t i o n , the  characteristics  questionnaire  f o r both genders.  packages  were o r g a n i z e d  Prior into  49 four groups: women, Also,  female  female  judges  judges  (i.e.,  alternating by t h e  judges  females  the gender  rating  r a t i n g men.  f o r which they  were  " f o r a woman" o r " f o r a man") was a r r a n g e d i n  sequence.  Thus,  when t h e  r e s e a r c h e r i n each c l a s s ,  as p o s s i b l e .  judges  r a t i n g men, and m a l e j u d g e s  f o r m a l e and f e m a l e  rating  r a t i n g women, m a l e  the  T h e r e were more f e m a l e  and 39 m a l e s  r a t e d the  a n d 42 m a l e s r a t e d t h e  items  items  p a c k a g e s were d i s t r i b u t e d f o u r g r o u p s were a s judges  equal  t h a n male j u d g e s :  f o r a woman, and 66  63  females  f o r a man.  Instrumentation The i n s t r u m e n t t h a t was u s e d i n t h i s original addition,  item pool used t o  construct the  The 400  age  item q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  were c o m p i l e d by Bern and s e v e r a l current study.  istics  deemed t o be p o s i t i v e An a d d i t i o n a l l i s t  itive  or negative  Bern's  of  received the  instructions  200 t r a i t s  a copy o f  for  In  provide  heritage. 400  of  items  that  were u s e d  in  200 c h a r a c t e r -  t h a t were c o n s i d e r e d  the  g e n d e r were a l s o actual  in  poscom-  questionnaire.  were u s e d ,  however,  " A m e r i c a " i n o r d e r t o make  f o r Canadian students. f o r a woman and h a l f  Background I n f o r m a t i o n Sheet. sheet requested  included to  graduate students  i n s t r u c t i o n s and r a t i n g s c a l e  instructions suitable  1974).  the  and e i t h e r m a s c u l i n e o r f e m i n i n e  " N o r t h A m e r i c a " was s u b s t i t u t e d the  (Bern,  The o r i g i n a l  and n e u t r a l i n t e r m s o f  Appendix D c o n t a i n s (1974)  and e t h n i c  The i t e m p o o l c o n s i s t e d  tone.  piled.  BSRI  a b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t was  sample d e m o g r a p h i c s , s u c h as  the  r e s e a r c h s t u d y was  Half  the  judges  f o r a man.  The b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n  ( A p p e n d i x E) i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g g e n d e r ,  50 student ways:  status,  first,  participant  and e t h n i c i t y .  ethnicity and h i s  Canada was a s k e d ;  and h i s  1 separates  the  rater,  and t h e  was r e q u e s t e d  or her parents  finally,  participant  E t h n i c i t y was d e r i v e d i n  the  gender  primary  because  p a r t i c i p a n t s were  the  classes,  100  the  the  in  the Table  and g e n d e r o f  the  items.  d a t a w o u l d be c o m p r o m i s e d  f r o m a n t h r o p o l o g y and  sociology  a q u e s t i o n was a d d e d t o  asked whether t h e y  had t a k e n a  the  psychology  class.  Rational  f o r Method o f  Statistical  As w i t h Bern's (1974) by-item t - t e s t s  as  the  study,  basis  for  Analysis the  present  strategy  tors  Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979).  (e.g.,  argued t h a t  the  characteristics and t h a t  for potentially  initial  list  of  was r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  However,  200 g e n d e r - l i n k e d  i t e m was  this  1/160000; t h e  more d e s i r a b l e  number o f  reach significance  Thus,  rationale  the  for using  items  in a l l  crit-  personality  groups of  f o r any 200  only i f other  t-tests  of  individual  .00125.  seemed  it  judges.  expected  f o u r g r o u p s was  individual  judges  two g r o u p s o f  out of  fac-  Bern (1979)  f o r one o r t h e  o c c u r r i n g by c h a n c e  chance t o  Some have  as m a s c u l i n e o r f e m i n i n e  two s e x e s by b o t h men and women i n t h e  The p r o b a b i l i t y o f  item-  c a p i t a l i z i n g on c h a n c e  was r a t e d by f o u r i n d e p e n d e n t  an i t e m was d e f i n e d  study used  item s e l e c t i o n .  icized this  the  s p o k e n by  are r a t i n g the  and n o t p s y c h o l q g y c l a s s e s ,  information sheet that  language  ethnicity  f o r which they  seemed u n l i k e l y t h a t  whether  a t home was r e q u e s t e d .  according to  Although i t  next,  and g r a n d p a r e n t s were b o r n  or her parents  judges  directly;  several  by  51 Table 1 Ethnicity of the U.B.C. Raters Ethnicity  Male Raters (n)  Female Raters (n)  Row  Rating Men  Rating Women  Rating Men  Rating Women  Totals (n)  White  18  16  31  26  91  European  1  6  7  9  23  Asian  14  7  20  21  62  Indo-Canadian  4  5  5  6  20  Missing  5  5  3  1  14  Column Totals (n)  42  39  66  63  N = 210  52 a p p r o p r i a t e a n d was a d o p t e d i n t h i s were a l s o  Item-by-item  u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e mean r a t i n g s  BSRI i t e m s U.B.C.  study.  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  sample,  as w e l l  different  t-tests  across  the  f o r t h e S t a n f o r d and  as f o r t h e s t u d e n t s  from d i f f e r e n t  ethnic  backgrounds. It  was i n t e r e s t i n g  t o note t h a t  tailed  r a t h e r than the o n e - t a i l e d  tailed  test  considers  both t a i l s  Bern (1974) u s e d t h e t w o -  test  of significance.  of the e r r o r  curve,  ing the researcher to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e ferences 1989).  b e t w e e n two means  The o n e - t a i l e d  made t h a t  test  a difference  S i n c e t h e BSRI i t e m s more d e s i r a b l e  in either  were e x p e c t e d  test.  the two-tailed  chance  being  (rated  i t seemed  Bern's u s e o f t h e t w o - t a i l e d ratio  dif-  direction.  t o be d i r e c t i o n a l  (t or z value)  significance.  for a  as  feasitest dif-  F o r the purpose of  t e s t was u s e d i n t h e c u r r e n t  and p r o v i d e s some a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t identifying  of  allow-  d i r e c t i o n (Borg & G a l l ,  f o r one g e n d e r o v e r t h e o t h e r ) ,  to reach s t a t i s t i c a l  replication,  level  be i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d  did require a larger c r i t i c a l ference  thus  i s u s e d when a p r e d i c t i o n i s  will  b l e t o use a o n e - t a i l e d  The t w o -  study,  erroneously  differences.  Hypotheses The f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s Hypothesis HI:  study:  1.  The 73 i t e m s desirable will  were t e s t e d i n t h i s  t h a t were r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e o t h e r  i n Bern's s t u d y  be r a t e d a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d e s i r a b l e  current  study.  more  i n the  53 HO:  The 73 i t e m s t h a t desirable will the  current  items,  i n the  current  beyond the  other  i n the  more d e s i r a b l e  in  w i l l be  f o r one g e n d e r  rated  than  the  o r i g i n a l 73,  more d e s i r a b l e current  will  f o r one  be  gender  study.  3.  There w i l l  be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y mean r a t i n g s  S t a n f o r d sample British  (U.B.C.,  on t h e  (Bern, 1974) (U.B.C,  difference  60 BSRI i t e m s f o r  and t h e  1994-95)  n o t be a s i g n i f i c a n t  mean r a t i n g s  Columbia  significant  on t h e  (Bern, 1974)  Columbia  HO: There w i l l  U n i v e r s i t y of sample.  difference  60 BSRI i t e m f o r t h e  between  the  Stanford  and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f 1994-95)  the  British  sample.  4.  T h e r e w i l l be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y between t h e  mean r a t i n g s  those students HO:  study  study.  than the  Hypothesis  i n Bern's  o r i g i n a l 73,  more d e s i r a b l e  significantly  between t h e  HI:  beyond the  r a t e d as  sample  other  significantly  No a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s ,  Hypothesis HI:  than the  more  study.  significantly  other  significantly  2.  Additional as  HO:  f o r one g e n d e r  n o t be r a t e d a s  Hypothesis HI:  were r a t e d a s  significant  across  from d i f f e r e n t  ethnic  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y between t h e  mean r a t i n g s  BSRI i t e m s  the  ethnic  for  backgrounds.  significant  across  t h o s e s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t  the  difference  difference  BSRI i t e m s  for  backgrounds.  54  S u p p o r t f o r t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e BSRI w o u l d r e s u l t b y rejecting the  null  the n u l l hypothesis  accepting the n u l l hypothesis  hypothesis  f o r hypothesis  f o r hypothesis hypothesis  two a n d t h r e e .  f o r hypothesis  f o r hypothesis  one and a c c e p t i n g The o p p o s i t e ,  one a n d r e j e c t i n g  the  null  the  c u r r e n t g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e BSRI t o a U . B . C . Hypothesis four i s  hypothesis ethnic  is  rejected,  two a n d t h r e e ,  may q u e s t i o n sample.  an e x p l o r a t o r y h y p o t h e s i s .  If the  null  one c o u l d h y p o t h e s i z e  people  from  that  b a c k g r o u n d s w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w s o f t h e s e x e s m i g h t be  more e x t r e m e  in their ratings  o f t h e BSRI i t e m s ;  they would c o n s i d e r s t e r e o t y p i c a l  traits  i n other  a s more d e s i r a b l e  t h o s e from l e s s  t r a d i t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d s . The a c c e p t a n c e  null  f o r hypothesis  hypothesis  difference  between t h e g r o u p s '  f o u r would i m p l y t h a t ratings.  words, than  of the  there  i s no  55  C h a p t e r IV Results The and  previous chapter d e s c r i b e d the  procedures for data c o l l e c t i o n  b o t h Bern's (1974) presents  the  s t u d y and t h e  results  The  statistical  the  c u r r e n t study to  of  software  the  and s t a t i s t i c a l  current research.  analyses  a n a l y z e most o f  U.B.C.  characteristics  f o r each of  analysis, This  the  the  60 BSRI i t e m s  data.  for  section  hypotheses.  p a c k a g e SPSS f o r Windows was u s e d  c o m p a r i n g t h e means on t h e s a m p l e and t h e  sample  in  The t - t e s t s  f o r the  Stanford  s a m p l e were c a l c u l a t e d by h a n d .  Preliminary Analysis Prior to performed to first,  testing  the hypotheses,  ensure t h a t  the  two a n a l y s e s  f o l l o w i n g groups d i d not  p a r t i c i p a n t s e n r o l l e d i n psychology  compared w i t h t h o s e who were n o t ; completed the completed i t  second,  100 c l a s s e s  in  class. analysis  of variance  (MANOVA)  istics.  is  a  statistical  f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r g r o u p s d i f f e r on more t h a n  20 m a s c u l i n e and 20 f e m i n i n e  analysis  were  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . A MANOVA ( g r o u p x i t e m s ) the  differ:  q u e s t i o n n a i r e a t home were c o m p a r e d w i t h t h o s e who  Multivariate technique  were  items  i n the  was p e r f o r m e d on BSRI.  A separate  was p e r f o r m e d f o r e a c h g r o u p on b o t h s e t s o f F o r example,  p a r t i c i p a n t s who f i l l e d o u t t h e  characterquestion-  naire  a t home, were c o m p a r e d w i t h t h o s e who c o m p l e t e d i t  class  f o r b o t h the m a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e The  two g r o u p s d i f f e r e d .  in  items.  MANOVA t e c h n i q u e was u s e d t o p r o v i d e an o v e r a l l  ment o f w h e t h e r t h e  one  P i l l a i ' s Trace  assesstest  56 statistic  was c h o s e n b e c a u s e  (Norusis,  1993).  it  is  t h e most p o w e r f u l and r o b u s t  T a b l e s 2 and 3 p r e s e n t  t h e MANOVA  results.  A p p e n d i c e s F and G c o n t a i n t h e means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s for  the  g r o u p s s e p a r a t e d by " e n r o l l m e n t i n p s y c h o l o g y  "location", psychology  respectively. 100 v e r s u s  In both i n s t a n c e s  d i d not d i f f e r items,  significantly  therefore,  the  H y p o t h e s i s 1. items  r a t e d as  The f i r s t  other  significant  Before  study to  observe  desirability. deviations  the  groups  20 m a s c u l i n e and 20  hypothesis  feminine  together. p r e d i c t e d that the  73  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d e s i r a b l e f o r  i n Bern's (1974) i n the  addressing this  sidered separately  on t h e  in  100" and  in class"),  d a t a were a n a l y z e d  t h a t were r a t e d a s  gender than the  ("enrolled  not e n r o l l e d i n psychology  " q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m p l e t e d a t home v e r s u s  100" and  one  study would c o n t i n u e t o  current study. first  hypothesis,  f o r t h e m a l e and f e m a l e  gender d i f f e r e n c e s  the  judges  i n r a t i n g s of  d a t a were i n the  con-  current  item  A p p e n d i c e s H a n d I c o n t a i n t h e means a n d s t a n d a r d  f o r the  items  r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  f o r men and f o r  women by m a l e r a t e r s ; A p p e n d i c e s J and K c o n t a i n t h e means and standard deviations  f o r the  men and f o r women by f e m a l e items  as d e s i r a b l e  respectively); woman,  female  number o f  be  items  raters.  Female judges  f o r men t h a n d i d male  however,  judges  for  r a t e d more  (124  and 7 7 ,  when r a t i n g t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a  and m a l e j u d g e s  items  r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  as d e s i r a b l e  i t e m showed a r e v e r s a l ; male  rated approximately the (118  and 1 1 0 ,  judges  same  respectively).  One  r a t e d " s a r c a s t i c " as more  Table 2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Comparing Psychology 100: Students Enrolled in the Course Versus Those Who Were Not, (a)  Source: Psychology 20 Feminine Items Boxs M = 256.42 20 Masculine Items Boxs M = 287.00  DF  Value  Exact F  P  143  0.09762  0.77348  0.74  1.06142  0.26  0.87649  0.62  1.21047  0.02  210,74296 166  0.09551  210,96303  (a) Multivariate Test Statistic is Pillai's Trace.  Table 3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Comparing Location: Questionnaire Completed at Home Versus in Class, (a)  Source: Location 20 Feminine Items Boxs M = 378.34 20 Masculine Items Boxs M = 345.38  DF  Value  Exact F  P  145  0.08059  0.63549  0.88  1.15188  0.07  0.88941  0.60  1.15187  0.07  210,4738 169  0.09523  210,6645  (a) Multivariate Test Statistic is Pillai's Trace.  58 desirable  f o r men, w h e r e a s f e m a l e  more d e s i r a b l e  f o r women.  male and f e m a l e  judges  appropriateness; for  their  own  This  400  items r a t e d ,  female  p. < . 0 5 ,  raters,  (32  The U . B . C .  In t h e  present  found t o  male and f e m a l e p < .05,  Tables  4 and 5.  failed  to  these  than the  73  to  criteria  but not  gender desirable  significantly  4 lists  the  be more d e s i r a b l e Bern (1974)  Bern's (1974)  charac-  5 lists  the  f o r a woman. found items),  r a t e d over double the  compared t o  66  p <  .05,  number o f  Stanford  sample  respectively). study,  62 o u t o f  be s i g n i f i c a n t raters  (28  2-tailed. Table  the  73  items t h a t  were r a t e d a s  feminine  significant  i t e m s and 34  These items are a l s o  6 lists  the  Bern by b o t h  masculine identified  in  11 i t e m s f r o m Bern's l i s t  i n the  current study.  for either  f o r both groups of  raters,  male o r thus  A l l 11  that of  female  e l u d i n g Bern's  inclusion.  Eighteen of continued to  as more  i t e m s a n d 41 m a s c u l i n e  reach significance  for  on w h i c h  of  f o r a man and T a b l e  items reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  raters,  as  o t h e r b y b o t h male and  Table  items t h a t  sample  significant 73,  items),  the  feminine  versus  (1974)  selection  "sarcastic"  2-tailed.  thought  Appendix A c o n t a i n s  (150  same i t e m  o n l y one  150 were r a t e d as  deemed more d e s i r a b l e  84 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  i t e m s as  in their  each group r a t e d  f o r one g e n d e r  2-tailed.  i t e m was t h e  differed  more d e s i r a b l e  significant  r a t e d the  gender.  Of o v e r  teristics  judges  the  20 i t e m s i n t h e  be r a t e d a s  significant  BSRI m a s c u l i n i t y  scale  f o r a man a n d 17 o f  the  20  59 Table 4 6 6 Characteristics Rated as More Desirable for a Man by Both Male and Female U.B.C. Raters Able to be aggressive without feeling discomfort*  Decisive (b) Defends own beliefs * (a)(s)  Able to withstand emotional pressures (b)  Does not give up easily ** (b)  Abrupt (b)  Dominant * (a)(s)  Acts as a leader * (a)  Effective (b)  Aggressive * (a)(s)  Enterprising*  Ambitious * (a)  Experienced ** (b)  Analytical * (a)  Fearless*  Arrogant ** (b)  Feelings not easily hurt(b)  Assertive * (a)(s)  Firm*  Athletic * (a)  Forceful * (a)(s)  Boastful (b)  Hard-headed (b)  Bold*  Has leadership abilities * (a)(s)  Brave (b)  Independent * (a)(s)  Bright (b)  Individualistic * (a)  Businesslike*  Industrious (b)  Calculating (b)  Knows the way of the world*  Capable in emergencies (b)  Likes a good argument*  Certain (b)  Logical (b)  Competent (b)  Makes decisions without regard for the  Competitive * (a)  feelings of others*  Courageous (b)  Masculine * (a)  Cunning (b)  Materialistic (b)  Daring*  Mathematical *  60 66 Characteristics Rated as More Desirable for a Man by Both Male and Female U.B.C. Raters Never cries (b)  Self-confident (b)  Objective (b)  Self-controlled (b)  Opinionated (b)  Self-reliant * (a)  Opportunist (b)  Self-sufficient * (a)  Outspoken*  Skilled*  Persistent (b)  Skilled in business*  Possessive (b)  Sly (b)  Precise (b)  Strong-minded*  Resourceful (b)  Willing to take a stand * (a)(s)  Scientific *  Willing to take risks * (a)(s)  * Items reached significance (p<.05) in Bern's original study (1974). ** Items reached significance (p<.05) in Bern's winter sample of 40 Stanford judges, but failed to reach significance for both male and female raters in the summer sample (60 judges). (a) Masculine items on the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). (b) Additional Items: items that reached significance (p<.05) in the current study, but not in Bern's original study. (s) Items contained in the Short BSRI.  61 Table 5 84 Characteristics Rated as More Desirable for a Woman by Both Male and Female U.B.C. Raters Able to devote oneself to others (c)  Easily expresses tender feelings (c)  Absent-minded (c)  Emotional (c)  Accommodating (c)  Empathy (c)  Affectionate * (a)(s)  Excitable** (c)  Agreeable (c)  Expresses emotions easily (c)  Appreciative (c)  Expressive (c)  Artistic (c)  Fashionable (c)  Attractive (c)  Feminine * (a)  Bashful*  Flatterable * (a)  Cheerful * (a)  Flexible (c)  Childlike * (a)  Forgiving (c)  Comfortable when people express emotion (c) Friendly (b) (c) Compassionate * (a)(s)  Generous (c)  Compliant*  Gentle* (a) (s)  Congenial (c)  Giving*  Conscientious (b)(c)(s)  Glamourous (c)  Considerate (c)  Graceful*  Cooperative (c)  Gracious (c)  Cordial (c)  Helpful (b) (c)  Creative (c)  Helpless*  Cries without shame (c)  Humble (c)  Dependent ** (c)  Impressionable (c)  Does not use harsh language *(a)  Innocent*  Eager to soothe hurt feelings *(a)(s)  Kind (c)  62 84 Characteristics Rated as More Desirable for a Woman by Both Male and Female U.B.C. Raters Kind-hearted (c)  Sentimental (c)  Kittenish*  Sexually attractive (c)  Loves children * (a)(s)  Sexy (c)  Loving (c)  Showy (c)  Neat (c)  Shy * (a)  Nice (c)  Simple*  Passive (c)  Soft-spoken * (a)  Patient (c)  Submissive*  Pays attention to own physical appearance* '(c)Supportive (c) Playful (c)  Sympathetic * (a)(s)  Pleasant (c)  Tender * (a)(s)  Polite (c)  Tender-hearted*  Quiet (c)  Thoughtful of others (c)  Romantic (c)  Tolerant (c)  Seductive (c)  Warm * (a)(s)  Sensitive (c)  Warm-hearted*  Sensitive to the needs of others * (a)(s)  Worrier (c)  Sensuous (c)  Yielding * (a)  * Items reached significance (p<.05) in Bern's original study (1974). ** Items reached significance (p<.05) in Bern's winter sample of 40 Stanford judges, but failed to reach significance for both male and female raters in the summer sample (60 judges), (a) Feminine item on the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). (b) Neutral item on the BSRI. (c) Additional Items: items that reached significance (p<.05) in the current study, but not in Bern's original study, (s) Items contained in the Short BSRI.  63 Table 6 11 Items That Reached Significance in Bern's Original Study, but not in the Current Study Significance in the Current Study Male Raters  Female Raters  no  yes  yes  no  Makes decisions easily *  no  yes  Persuasive  no  yes  Rugged  no  yes  Strong-personality * (s)  no  yes  Worldly  no  yes  yes  no  no  yes  yes  no  no  yes  Masculine Items (a) Blunt Little need for security  Feminine Items (b) Faithful Gullible * Loyal * Understanding * (s) (a) Items rated as more desirable for a man. (b) Items rated as more desirable for a woman. * Items contained in the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). (s) Items contained in the Short BSRI.  64 items i n the desirable that  femininity  scale  continued to  f o r a woman, p < . 0 5 ,  failed  to  2-tailed.  reach s i g n i f i c a n c e  and " s t r o n g - p e r s o n a l i t y "  (these  the  the  female  judges  significance the  three  both  feminine  items t h a t  culinity  Bern,  Table  and t h e  p < .05,  feminine  of  the  f o r women by  short  i n the  i n the  the  SBSRI  femininity  masscale  f o r a man and a woman,  item  (understanding)  rated  v e r s i o n of  T a b l e s 4 and 5 c o n t a i n  masculine  for  judges.  10 i t e m s  10 i t e m s  2-tailed.  reach  these  (strong-personality)  that  failed  items reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  to  reach  f o r the  female  only).  items,  significant, than the  (88/150)  2.  The s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s  beyond the  o r i g i n a l 73 t h a t  predicted that Bern (1974)  w o u l d be r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  other  significant  as  f a i l e d to  reach significance  female  the  for  and " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " . Of  f a i l e d to  Nine of  the  item  (these  Hypothesis tional  1981).  6 lists  significance judges  "loyal",  be r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  respectively, items.  items t h a t  were f o u n d w i t h t h e  s c a l e and n i n e  continued to  easily"  items reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  f o r women by t h e  Similar results (SBSRI;  items  a n d " g u l l i b l e " a n d " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " were  as more d e s i r a b l e  BSRI  The m a s c u l i n e  " l o y a l " was r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  judges,  more  were "makes d e c i s i o n s  feminine  were " g u l l i b l e " ,  judges,  t h e male  only);  be r a t e d a s  i n the  by t h e  current study.  U.B.C.  judges,  were a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s  significant  (56  feminine  150  found gender  items r a t e d  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 59  (meaning t h a t  i n Bern's s t u d y ) .  88 a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s  Of t h e  f o r one  addi-  as  percent  t h e y were n o t  T a b l e s 4 and 5 a l s o c o n t a i n i t e m s a n d 32 m a s c u l i n e  rated the  items).  65 B e c a u s e Bern d i d n o t (masculine, items,  it  feminine,  i n d i c a t e the gender  or neutral)  of the  assignment  original  c a n n o t be d e t e r m i n e d how many o f t h e  list  of  88 a d d i t i o n a l  i t e m s were p r e v i o u s l y deemed n e u t r a l i n t e r m s o f  gender.  only exception  three  items  is  current the  study.  >  Conscientious' is  r a t i n g s on t h e  3.  also  one o f  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s  the  L lists  stated  significant difference  60 BSRI i t e m s  the U n i v e r s i t y of  f o r the  neutral  the  items  f o r the  female  standard deviations and T a b l e  8 lists  Table  (Bern,  sample.  f o r the  7 lists  60 BSRI i t e m s  the  t h e mean 1974)  Appendix  60 BSRI  and Appendix M l i s t s  judges.  f o r the  between  (U.B.C.)  t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s  information  t h a t t h e r e would  S t a n f o r d sample  B r i t i s h Columbia  Bern's S t a n f o r d m a l e j u d g e s  judges  and  SBSRI.  be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  for  The  were r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e f o r a woman i n  Hypothesis  and  20 n e u t r a l BSRI i t e m s :  p r e v i o u s l y r a t e d as n e u t r a l ( f r i e n d l y , h e l p f u l ,  conscientious),  of  f o r the  400  the  items  same  t h e means and  f o r the U . B . C .  same i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e  male  female  judges. When t h e mean r a t i n g s on t h e for  Bern's s a m p l e a n d t h e U . B . C .  t-tests,  many o f  these r e s u l t s .  the  items  sample u s i n g i t e m - b y - i t e m  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Table  Most n o t i c e a b l e were t h e male j u d g e s  women on t h e m a s c u l i n e i t e m s . r a t e d 16 o f t h e  60 BSRI i t e m s were compared  The m a l e s  9 reports  ratings  i n the U . B . C .  for  sample  20 m a s c u l i n e i t e m s h i g h e r i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a  woman t h a n d i d t h e  Stanford  sample.  The f e m a l e  judges  in  the  66 U.B.C.  sample r a t e d s i x  of  the  woman t h a n d i d Bern's s a m p l e ; items  l o w e r f o r a man t h a n d i d Bern's p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Comparing  rated six judges  items  20 f e m i n i n e  lower  Stanford  the  BSRI,  f o r the  Table  the ford  10 shows t h e  masculine,  masculine  items  women was s i g n i f i c a n t l y mean.  feminine,  f o r the  greater  masculine  items  sample;  however,  this  ratings  F o r example,  on t h e m a s c u l i n e  consider  their  male  to  of  Once a g a i n , judges  the  rating  S t a n f o r d male  raters  judges'  r a t e men l o w e r on  sample compared w i t h t h e  study,  for  f o r the  the  feminine  the  Stan-  significance  magnitude of  "a man" and f o r  items  items  i n Bern's s t u d y and 1.30  raters.  female  and n e u t r a l s c a l e s  U.B.C.  were  f o r b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  these f i g u r e s .  replicated  to  f i n d i n g only approached  20 m a s c u l i n e a n d 20 f e m i n i n e  ratings  judges  means and s t a n d a r d  than the  U.B.C.  Bern's (1974)  between t h e  rent study,  male  2-tailed).  Compared t o ference  i n the  is  current study.  T h e r e was a t r e n d f o r f e m a l e  (p < . 1 0 ,  2.69  two s a m p l e s  f o r Bern's s t u d y and t h e  mean on t h e  U.B.C.  the  l o w e r i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a woman t h a n  compare t h e  s c a l e means.  deviations  the  a  judges.  A n o t h e r way t o overall  items,  i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a woman and t h e  r a t e d f o u r items  the  also  higher for masculine  on t h e  they  items  r a t e d seven  two s a m p l e s  did  20 m a s c u l i n e  difference for  i n the items,  Table  current study.  A l t h o u g h b o t h S t a n f o r d and U . B . C .  i n the  11  cur-  judges'  "a woman" was This  as w i t h t h e judges  the  contains  between m a l e  "a man" and f o r  as w e l l  dif-  "a woman" on  l e s s extreme  judges.  the  rated  trend female the  67 Table 7 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.69  1.14  42  4.00  1.24  39  Aggressive  4.71  1.42  42  3.31  1.42  39  Ambitious  5.88  1.11  42  4.71  1.25  38  Analytical  4.64  1.36  42  3.72  1.50  39  Assertive  5.24  1.07  41  4.03  1.46  38  Athletic'  6.10  1.06  42  5.28  1.45  39  Competitive  5.88  0.92  42  4.08  1.68  39  Defends own beliefs  5.64  1.10  42  4.67  1.42  39  Dominant  4.50  1.55  42  2.51  1.41  39  Forceful  4.17  1.68  42  2.92  1.31  39  Has leadership abilities  6.05  1.00  41  4.51  1.50  " 39  Independent  5.67  1.07  42  4.08  1.72  39  Individualistic  4.88  1.52  42  3.95  1.67  39  Makes decisions  5.07  1.46  42  4.82  1.19  39  Masculine  6.00  1.20  41  1.51  0.85  39  Self-reliant  5.07  1.25  41  4.26  1.33  34  Self-sufficient  5.54  1.10  41  4.76  1.44  38  Strong-personality *  5.15  1.33  41  4.53  1.59  38  Willing to take a stand  5.46  1.05  41  4.55  1.41  38  Willing to take risks  5.24  1.02  41  4.34  1.34  38  easily *  68 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.52  1.40  42  6.38  0.78  39  Cheerful  5.10  1.19  42  5.92  0.84  39  Childlike  2.14  1.10  42  3.33  1.56  39  Compassionate  4.52  1.52  42  6.10  0.88  39  Does not use harsh  3.86  1.71  42  5.23  1.83  39  4.24  1.48  42  5.56  1.12  39  Feminine  1.81  1.38  42  6.21  0.89  39  Flatterable  3.40  1.35  42  5.03  1.14  39  Gentle  4.00  1.65  37  5.33  1.29  36  Gullible *  1.81  1.40  42  2.31  1.36  39  Loves children  4.83  1.43  42  5.85  1.14  39  Loyal  5.40  1.25  42  6.41  0.60  39  Sensitive to the needs  4.54  1.31  41  5.82  0.90  38  Shy  2.34  1.13  41  3.79  1.55  38  Soft-spoken  3.05  1.43  41  4.49  1.22  37  Sympathetic  4.37  1.11  41  5.34  1.19  38  Tender  4.05  1.36  41  5.61  0.82  38  Understanding *  5.10  1.28  41  5.58  0.92  38  Warm  4.68  1.33  41  6.16  0.55  38  Yielding  2.76  1.48  41  4.18  1.34  34  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  69 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of SD Cases  Adaptable  5.26  1.08  42  5.21  1.08  39  Conceited  1.83  1.32  41  1.56  1.23  39  Conscientious (a)  4.57  1.13  42  5.32  0.90  38  Conventional  3.85  1.44  41  4.00  1.50  39  Friendly (a)  5.48  1.13  42  6.05  0.86  39  Happy  5.36  1.45  42  5.85  0.78  39  Helpful (a)  5.19  1.22  42  5.67  0.70  39  Inefficient  1.55  1.04  42  1.77  1.27  39  Jealous  2.38  1.55  42  2.05  1.43  39  Likable (b)  5.40  1.15  42  6.13  0.80  39  Moody  2.07  1.26  42  1.92  1.55  39  Reliable  5.68  1.06  41  5.55  1.03  38  Secretive  2.73  1.42  41  2.68  1.77  39  Sincere (b)  4.54  1.03  41  5.45  0.89  38  Solemn  3.34  1.31  35  3.37  1.22  30  Tactful  4.34  1.32  38  4.17  1.52  35  Theatrical  3.19  1.27  41  3.54  1.54  37  Truthful (b)  5.39  1.26  41  6.13  0.78  38  Unpredictable  3.73  1.53  41  3.21  1.65  38  Unsystematic  3.00  1.52  39  3.51  1.47  37  * Reached significance for female raters only (p<.05). (a) Rated as significantly more desirable for women (p<.05), by both male and female raters. (b) Rated as significantly more desirable for women (p<.05), by male raters only.  70 Table 8 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.08  0.98  66  3.70  1.32  63  Aggressive  4.15  1.59  66  2.81  1.46  63  Ambitious  6.12  0.97  66  4.24  1.57  63  Analytical  4.35  1.54  65  3.40  1.17  62  Assertive  5.45  1.18  66  3.95  1.50  63  Athletic  5.85  1.11  66  4.59  1.43  63  Competitive  5.18  1.24  66  3.52  1.54  63  Defends own beliefs  5.53  1.15  66  4.65  1.47  63  Dominant  4.12  1.61  66  2.37  1.45  63  Forceful  3.66  1.78  64  2.76  1.27  63  Has leadership abilities  6.06  1.08  64  4.18  1.27  62  Independent  6.09  1.05  64  4.41  1.56  63  Individualistic  5.47  1.38  64  4.16  1.52  63  Makes decisions easily  4.98  1.32  64  4.37  1.30  63  Masculine  6.37  0.93  64  1.78  1.10  63  Self-reliant  5.06  1.29  62  4.31  1.39  59  Self-sufficient  5.63  1.26  63  4.58  1.22  62  Strong-personality  5.40  1.04  63  4.11  1.44  62  Willing to take a stand  5.57  0.95  63  4.44  1.27  61  Willing to take risks  5.49  0.88  63  4.32  1.10  60  71 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.07  1.53  66  6.22  1.05  63  Cheerful  5.22  1.13  66  6.06  0.98  63  Childlike  2.11  1.25  66  3.44  1.66  63  Compassionate  5.05  1.57  66  6.22  1.07  63  Does not use harsh  4.09  1.74  66  5.37  1.52  63  3.98  1.68  66  5.52  1.50  63  Feminine  1.40  0.90  65  6.14  1.16  63  Flatterable  3.19  1.25  62  4.95  1.55  62  Gentle  3.95  1.63  53  5.33  1.33  55  Gullible  1.41  0.82  63  2.79  1.59  63  Loves children  4.83  1.53  64  6.14  1.03  63  Loyal *  5.72  1.39  64  5.11  1.26  62  Sensitive to the needs  5.00  1.51  63  6.13  0.97  62  Shy  2.25  1.22  63  3.29  1.31  62  Soft-spoken  2.71  1.48  63  4.43  1.36  60  Sympathetic  4.62  1.48  63  5.85  0.95  61  Tender  4.27  1.62  62  5.62  1.11  61  Understanding  5.37  1.20  63  5.75  0.93  61  Warm  4.98  1.28  63  5.97  0.91  63  Yielding  2.73  1.38  59  4.24  1.61  59  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  72 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the University of British Columbia Sample Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.25  1.20  65  5.56  0.99  62  Conceited  1.83  1.25  65  1.66  1.01  62  Conscientious (a)  4.82  1.42  66  5.41  1.12  63  Conventional  3.72  1.38  65  4.19  1.37  58  Friendly (a)  5.75  1.14  64  6.21  0.83  63  Happy (b)  5.53  1.18  64  5.97  0.92  63  Helpful (a)  5.17  1.08  64  5.71  0.97  63  Inefficient  1.25  0.74  64  1.45  1.00  60  Jealous  2.33  1.45  64  1.89  1.21  63  Likable  5.75  0.99  64  5.95  0.99  63  Moody  1.92  1.22  63  2.03  1.37  63  Reliable  5.86  1.11  63  5.76  1.04  62  Secretive  2.35  1.31  63  2.61  1.37  62  Sincere  5.19  1.20  63  5.31  1.20  62  Solemn  3.18  1.34  56  2.78  1.23  58  Tactful  4.70  1.42  60  4.85  1.39  60  Theatrical (b)  2.61  1.14  62  3.03  1.23  59  Truthful  5.70  1.28  63  5.77  1.15  61  Unpredictable  3.32  1.52  63  3.20  1.42  60  Unsystematic  2.73  1.44  62  2.70  1.39  56  * Reached significance for male raters only (p<.05). (a) Rated as significantly more desirable for women (p<.05), by both male and female raters. (b) Rated as significantly more desirable for women (p<.05), by female raters only.  73  Table 9  Between Bern's Stanford SamDle and the U.B.C. Sample (a) Masculine Items  Male Raters Rating Men  Female Raters  Rating Women  Dif. (b) t Value  Dif.  t Value  Rating Men Dif.  t Value  Dif.  t Value  -0.78  2.29*  +1.52 4.34**** -0.73  2.28*  Acts as a leader  -1.96 6.53****  Aggressive  -1.23 3.73**** +0.93 2.51*  Ambitious  -1.67 ^ g -j ****  Analytical  -0.92  Assertive Athletic  -0.62  2.63*  ,  -1.39 3.86****  2.30*  -2.16 6.00****  Competitive  Rating Women  +0.73 2.12*  -1.60 4.32**** +0.66  2.36*  Defends own beliefs Dominant Forceful  -0.83 +0.95  2.68**  2.50*  +1.66 4.26****  Has leadership abilities  -1.23 3.24***  Independent  -1.48 3.61****  Individualistic  -0.99  2.41*  Makes decisions easily  -0.82  2.48*  Masculine Self-reliant  +0.77 2.67** -0.94  Self-sufficient Strong-personality  2.94**  +0.94 3.36***  -2.08 5.62**** +0.81 2.79**  +0.56  Willing to take a stand  -0.87  2.49*  Willing to take risks  -0.90  2.73**  -0.85  2.30*  -0.54  2.35*  , -0.94  3.13**  -0.84  3.00**  2.33*  74 Significant Mean Differences on the 60 BSRI Items Between Bern's Stanford Sample and the U.B.C. Sample (a) Feminine Items  Male Raters Rating Men Dif.  Childlike  t Value  Female Raters  Rating Women Dif.  t Value  Rating Men Dif.  t Value  Rating Women Dif.  t Value  +0.95  3.28*  -0.73 3.48***  Compassionate Does not use harsh language Feminine Flatterable  -0.60  2.50*  Gentle Gullible Loves Children  +1.03 3.68*** -0.61  2.1*  +0.97 2.77** +0.55  2.04*  Loyal  +1.41 5.22***  Tender  +0.51  2.32*  Understanding  +0.54  2.35*  +0.70  2.00*  Warm Yielding  +0.66 2.75** -0.61  2.03*  +0.53  2.52*  Significant Mean Differences on the 60 BSRI Items Between Bern's Stanford Sample and the U.B.C. SamDle fa} Neutral Items  Male Raters Rating Men  Conscientious  Dif.  t Value  +0.63  2.33*  Female Raters  Rating Women Dif.  t Value  Rating Men Dif.  t Value  Friendly Helpful  -0.57  2.71**  Jealous  +0.95  2.50*  Secretive Sincere  Dif.  t Value  -0.61  3.05**  +0.58  2.07*  +0.65  2.03*  +0.65 2.17* +0.66 2.75**  Solemn  -0.71  Tactful  +0.83  2.37*  Theatrical  -1.07  2.97** 2.74**  Truthful  Rating Women  +0.61  2.18*  -0.63  -0.86  2.53*  -1.38 3.83****  2.29*  Unpredictable Unsystematic  (a) Negative differences (- dif.) indicate that the mean in Bern's (1974) study was less than the mean in the current study (rated as more desirable in the current study). Positive differences (+ dif.) indicate that the mean in Bern's study was greater than the mean in the current study (rated as less desirable in the current study). (b) Comparisons were performed only on differences greater than 0.40. Only significant results are reported. * p < .05, 2-tailed  ** p < .01, 2-tailed  *** p < .002, 2-tailed  **** p < .001, 2-tailed  76 Table 10 Stanford and U.B.C. Means for the Masculine, Feminine, and Neutral Items of the BSRI Items  Male Raters(a) Rating Men  Female Raters(b)  Rating Women  Rating Men  Rating Women  X  SD  X  SD  X  SD  X  SD  Masculine Items  5.59  1.04  2.90  1.22  5.83  1.10  3.46  1.36  Feminine Items  3.63  1.11  5.61  1.02  3.74  1.39  5.55  0.98  Neutral Items  4.00  1.08  4.08  1.07  3.94  1.10  3.98  1.17  Masculine Items  5.33  1.22  4.03  1.41  5.33  1.22  3.83  1.37  Feminine Items  3.83  1.36  5.23  1.10  3.90  1.38  5.23  1.24  Neutral Items  3.94  1.27  4.16  1.20  3.95  1.24  4.10  1.16  Stanford Sample  U.B.C. Sample  (a) The means for male raters rating women on the masculine items differed significantly for the two samples, t = 3.32, p < .002, 2-tailed. (b) The means for female raters rating men on the masculine items approached differing significantly for the two samples, t = 1.79, p < .10, 2-tailed.  77 Table 11 Magnitude of Mean Difference Between Ratings for "a Man" and for "a Woman" in Bern's Stanford Sample and the U.B.C. Sample (a) Male Raters Stanford  t  Masculine Items  2.69  14.41*  Feminine Items  1.98  12.13*  U.B.C  Female Raters t  Stanford  t  U.B.C.  t  1.30  4.33*  2.37  10.22*  1.50  6.52*  1.40  5.00*  1.81  8.28*  1.33  5.78*  * p < .001 (a)Foreach sample the individual means for the 20 feminine items and the 20 masculine items were added then divided by 20 to compute a scale mean. This computation was performed separately on ratings for "a man" and for "a woman", as well as for male and female raters. The scale means for "a man" were then subtracted from the scale means for "a woman" to arrive at a difference score.  78 masculine for  the  and f e m i n i n e  across  genders  Hypothesis nature.  It  nificant  to  4.  significantly  (p < . 0 0 1 ) ,  was s m a l l e r  The f o u r t h h y p o t h e s i s  predicted that  difference  only.  purposes  A s i a n male r a t e r s ,  Table  judges)  f o r men, t h r e e r a t i n g women, items  the  the  cells,  significant  60 BSRI i t e m s .  were  f o r men, two  r a t i n g women,  raters  of  groups  descrip-  t h e means  f o r W h i t e C a n a d i a n and  F o r male r a t e r s  significant.  items  the  means  were  Type I e r r o r ,  and  raters.  t-tests  r a t i n g the  f o r male  F o r female  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e ;  f o u r items  and  and A s i a n and W h i t e m a l e  significant.  b e i n g performed f o r each group of  risk  for  item-by-item  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e ;  5 items  BSRI  statistical  f o r W h i t e C a n a d i a n and A s i a n f e m a l e  items  sig-  b a c k g r o u n d s . Due  Appendix P l i s t s  per group c o u l d reach s i g n i f i c a n c e  best.  ethnic  60 BSRI i t e m s  comparing A s i a n and White female  inflated  across  are reported s o l e l y  respectively.  12 r e p o r t s t h e  on t h e  in  W h i t e E u r o p e a n and I n d o - C a n a d i a n g r o u p s  f o r the  standard deviations  t-tests  study.  was e x p l o r a t o r y  i n Appendix N. Appendix O l i s t s  standard deviations  raters  current  in  t h e r e w o u l d be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  c a s e s i n some o f  f o r the  ( b o t h m a l e and f e m a l e  the  desirable  was c o n d u c t e d on t h e W h i t e C a n a d i a n and A s i a n  The means  raters  more  difference  b e t w e e n t h e mean r a t i n g s  s m a l l number o f  analysis  the  i n the  f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s from d i f f e r e n t  the  tive  as  " a p p r o p r i a t e " gender  ratings  items  items  raters,  raters raters for  With three  s t r i c t l y by c h a n c e .  these r e s u l t s  items  rating  female 60 items Given  are t e n t a t i v e  at  the  79 Table 12 Significant Differences Between Asian and White Female Raters and Asian and White Male Raters on the 60 BSRI Items Items  White Raters  Asian Raters  X  SD  N  X  SD  N  Affectionate*  4.22  1.26  18  5.14  1.35  14  Loyal*  5.72  1.36  18  4.71  1.07  14  Warm*  4.44  1.34  18  5.36  1.51  14  Adaptable***  4.81  0.91  16  6.00  0.82  7  Affectionate**  6.13  0.96  16  6.86  0.38  7  Jealous***  2.50  1.79  16  1.14  0.38  7  Self-reliant**  3.62  1.04  13  4.86  1.07  7  Understanding*  5.31  1.01  16  6.00  0.58  7  Unsystematic*  2.36  1.10  28  3.30  1.78  20  Yielding*  2.57  1.23  28  3.37  1.38  19  Childlike*  3.88  1.75  26  2.90  1.51  21  Gullible*  2.31  1.19  26  3.33  1.96  21  Masculine***  1.42  0.76  26  2.34  1.26  21  Willing to take a stand*  4.17  1.24  24  4.90  1.22  21  Male Raters Rating Men  Male Raters Rating Women  Female Raters Rating Men  Female Raters Rating Women  * p < .05, 2-tailed - p < .02, 2-tailed * p < .01, 2-tailed  80 The mean d i f f e r e n c e s woman and j u d g e s the  60 BSRI i t e m s f o r  A p p e n d i c e s O and P c o n t a i n  When Bern's i t e m s e l e c t i o n  two g r o u p s  (i.e.,  more d e s i r a b l e raters),  sample  (all  masculine  the  ethnic  For the  an i t e m had t o  white  i t e m s as  findings groups  symbol  i t e m s as  f a i l e d to  raters (s)," failed  (s)  significantly  f o r the  after  "makes d e c i s i o n s  to  reach significance  with the the  desirable  f o r the  the  judges  than the  masculine  of  and  whole  more d e s i r a b l e  The m a s c u l i n e  f o r b o t h male and own b e l i e f s  (s),"  feminine  harsh language,"  items  female "forceful  items  that  judges  "gullible," (s)."  Note  (loyal),  the  and f e m i n i n e  i t e m s as  significantly  The f e m a l e  For the  no more d e s i r a b l e  judges  for  iden-  item  "appropriate" gender.  16  feminine  (SBSRI i t e m s a r e  item).  the  rated  f o r a man t h a n a  f o r b o t h male and f e m a l e  one  r a t e d 12 i t e m s as  other.  judges  " l o y a l , " and " u n d e r s t a n d i n g  exception  rated a l l  SBSRI  easily;"  were " c h i l d l i k e , " "does n o t u s e  that,  the  i t e m s and e i g h t  each  "defends  and  "loves c h i l d r e n ( s ) , "  to  significantly  from t h o s e o f  more d e s i r a b l e  reach significance  were " a t h l e t i c , "  the  o t h e r b y b o t h male  b o t h male and f e m a l e  significantly  items reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  that  be r a t e d a s  differed  a woman t h a n a man. E i g h t m a s c u l i n e  by t h e  for  combined).  sample,  woman and 14 f e m i n i n e  tified  rating  p r o c e d u r e s were a p p l i e d  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  female  judges  r a t i n g men were a l s o a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y  W h i t e and A s i a n g r o u p s .  results. the  on t h e  female  neutral f o r one  judges more  items, gender  r a t e d " f r i e n d l y , " "happy,"  81 "helpful,"  " l i k a b l e , " and " t h e a t r i c a l " a s more d e s i r a b l e  woman and t h e for  male  judges  a man and " s i n c e r e "  rated  "adaptable  more d e s i r a b l e  In the A s i a n group o n l y e i g h t nificantly  more d e s i r a b l e  and f e m a l e  judges  competitive, masculine, female  judges  own b e l i e f s reliant,  (s),  "warm ( s ) "  "likable"  the  of  the  neutral  first,  nificantly  the  62 o f  other:  (s))  the  differences  of  Asian (defends  self-  items  "tender  more  only  (s),"  and  f o r a woman t h a n a man.  judges  no more  rated  desirable  "adaptable" judges  and  rated  f o r a woman. the  second.,  c u r r e n t s t u d y were Bern (1974)  U.B.C.  as  found other  sigrepli-  88 a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s were  more d e s i r a b l e  i n the  the  significantly  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  o t h e r by b o t h male and f e m a l e significant  male  (s),  easily,  feminine  (s),"  73 i t e m s t h a t  current study;  significantly  as  male  items  f o r a woman a n d f e m a l e  results  more d e s i r a b l e  i n the  masculine  i t e m s were r a t e d a s  as more d e s i r a b l e  To s u m m a r i z e ,  sig-  athletic,  Note t h a t  makes d e c i s i o n s  a stand  (s),  abilities  (s)).  "sympathetic  as more d e s i r a b l e  "conscientious"  r a t e d as  risks  were r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  cated  (s),  take  "feminine,"  Seventeen of  follows:  take  aggressive  f o r a man t h a n a woman. Of t h e  "cheerful,"  for  forceful  f o r a woman.  leadership  r a t e d a l l but f i v e  and w i l l i n g t o  desirable  has  a  desirable  i t e m s were r a t e d as  a leader,  (s),  and w i l l i n g t o  more  f o r a man t h a n a woman by b o t h  ( a c t s as  dominant  (s)"  for  f o r one g e n d e r judges;  mean r a t i n g s  third, on t h e  than there  60 BSRI  the were items  82 by Bern's S t a n f o r d j u d g e s Asian  judges  i t e m s as other  i n the  current study  significantly  than d i d the  and t h e  U.B.C.  r a t e d fewer  more d e s i r a b l e  White  judges.  judges; of  and f i n a l l y , the  f o r one g e n d e r  60  BSRI  than  the  the  83 Chapter V Discussion This study the  investigated  Bern S e x - R o l e  university  Inventory  sample  research that  the current g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of (BSRI;  in British  has f o c u s e d  Bern,  Columbia,  c u r r e n t study  and  r e p l i c a t e d her methodology.  The desirable  contained i n the  The r e s u l t s  are  BSRI,  u s e d b y Bern  discussed  which are s t a t e d  i n the  1  73 i t e m s  that  were  r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e o t h e r  n o t be r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y  study.  The n u l l  73 i t e m s .  hypothesis  Sixty-two  items  Bern's s t u d y were sex-typed  also  BSRI i t e m s ,  items  f o r the majority of a n d 34 m a s c u l i n e )  items  feminine  items  in  O f t h e 40  a n d 17 f e m i n i n e  i n the current study.  the  that  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e o t h e r  18 m a s c u l i n e  and n i n e  study  i n the current  r a t e d so i n t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y .  were r a t e d a s s i g n i f i c a n t masculine  more d e s i r a b l e  (28 f e m i n i n e  more  i n Bern's (1974)  was r e j e c t e d  were r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  items  Similarly,  o f t h e SBSRI were  nine rated  significant. The  r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l  hypothesis  f o r hypothesis  s u p p o r t e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e BSRI w i t h t h i s other words, all  previous  form.  Hypothesis  as  Unlike  i n c l u d e d t h e o r i g i n a l 400 i t e m s  f o l l o w i n g each of the f o u r hypotheses,  will  to a multi-ethnic  Canada.  on t h e 60 i t e m s  the  null  1974)  because  o f t h e same  items  the U . B . C . that  U.B.C.  sample.  sample c o n t i n u e d t o r a t e  Bern's (1974)  one  sample r a t e d as  In  almost  84 significantly the  more d e s i r a b l e  BSRI may be v i e w e d While t h i s  as  f i n d i n g speaks t o  Bern's i t e m s e l e c t i o n  BSRI i t e m s a r e p o s i t i v e gender n e u t r a l  is  these issues d i r e c t l y ? hypothesis for  two,  i n t o n e and t h a t  Bern's  (1974)  findings  of  (1994)  findings  Abbott's  (1978)  study.  40 m a s c u l i n e  samples.  ogy.  Harris'  (median age sample,  the  has  thus  differences  claim  to  Also,  as  assumption t h a t  the  neutral  be d i s c u s s e d  the  items  are  address  under desirable  full  scale  employed the  replications comparisons 60 BSRI  of can  items.  c u r r e n t s t u d y were c o n g r u e n t  Both s t u d i e s  Bern's (1974)  with  found t h a t  a large  number o f  BSRI i t e m s r e p l i c a t e d w i t h s a m p l e was p e r h a p s  S t a n f o r d sample  i n that  their the  they  were  students enrolled i n introductory psychol-  (1994) m a l l range of  BSRI.  that  f o r A n g l o - A m e r i c a n s and Walkup and  and f e m i n i n e  American u n i v e r s i t y  nor can i t  procedures,  The Walkup and A b b o t t (1978)  most s i m i l a r t o  imply  judges.  h a v e been no o t h e r  Harris's  the  as w i l l  o r i g i n a l item s e l e c t i o n  the  gender  i t e m s were r a t e d a s more  o n l y be made w i t h r e s e a r c h t h a t Basically,  sample.  The c u r r e n t s t u d y d i d n o t  however,  a few n e u t r a l  there  the  other,  this  does not  u n d e r l y i n g the  a woman t h a n f o r a man b y U . B . C . Because  it  (1992) n o t e d ,  problematic.  to  d u r a b i l i t y of  were v a l i d ,  rationale  B a l l a r d - R e i s c h and E l t o n  the  claimed,  techniques  theoretical  than the  being generalizable  s t e r e o t y p e s w h i c h Bern (1979)  support the  f o r one g e n d e r  sample  30 t o  39)  making comparisons i n ages o f  the  represented than the  typical  problematic.  samples,  an o l d e r age  as w e l l  group  university  However, as t h e  given  cultural  the  85 confound, results  the  of  similarities  the  between H a r r i s '  c u r r e n t study are q u i t e  findings  and  compelling. Although  these findings  are not c o n c l u s i v e ,  one c o u l d s p e c u l a t e  lack  and t h e  gender  of  It that for  change  is  d i f f i c u l t to  found t h a t a man was  1992;  odologies  i n t e r p r e t the  f o r a woman was  l a r g e r t h a n w o u l d be  two.  significantly feminine the  150  items  items items  study).  feminine  items  The n u l l  was r a t e d  as  (Ballard-Reisch& Although the  of  o r i g i n a l 73,  hypothesis  will  was r e j e c t e d  items  were  rated  f o r one g e n d e r o v e r t h e items)  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 59 p e r c e n t  by t h e  U.B.C.  (88/150)  t h e y were n o t r a t e d a s  methseems  were  and 32 m a s c u l i n e  null  the  hypothesis,  rated  other for as (84  judges.  Of  additional  significant  i n Bern's 56  items.  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of null  be  other  T h e 88 a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s were composed o f  from a c c e p t i n g t h e  content  studies  desirable  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  and 66 m a s c u l i n e  By a c c e p t i n g t h e the  beyond the  more d e s i r a b l e  Support f o r the resulted  other  d i s c r e p a n c y between r e s u l t s  One h u n d r e d and f i f t y  (meaning t h a t  (1974)  the  only item that  "feminine"  more d e s i r a b l e  current study.  hypothesis  of  2  significantly  i n the  the  expected.  No a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s , as  results  Edwards and A s h w o r t h , 1 9 7 7 ) . the  about  stereotypes.  o n l y i t e m t h a t was r a t e d a s more  were d i f f e r e n t ,  Hypothesis  of  " m a s c u l i n e " and t h e  more d e s i r a b l e Elton,  the  tenacity  the  the  hypothesis this  BSRI w o u l d have for hypothesis  would have  suggested  BSRI was an a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  of  two. that  86 c u r r e n t m a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e gender s t e r e o t y p e s America. for  However, t h e  number o f  one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  double t h a t of the content  of the  whether the  BSRI c o n t i n u e s  due t o  cultural  difference  Thus,  stereotypes  r a t e d a s more d e s i r a b l e  the question a r i s e s  have changed,  i n the  two s a m p l e s ,  are s o l e l y  over whether  and c o n s e q u e n t l y ,  to describe these  a time/cohort difference,  change i n s t e r e o t y p e s  North  o t h e r i n t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y was  Bern's s t u d y .  However,  items  in  stereotypes.  p l u s a confounded  conclusions concerning  speculative.  B e c a u s e 88 a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s were r a t e d as  significantly  more d e s i r a b l e f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e o t h e r i n t h e c u r r e n t study,  it  w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g t o  different  i n content  nificant.  If  would t h e y (e.g.,  see  compared t o t h e  whether these items  items  t h a t Bern f o u n d  a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s were p e r f o r m e d on t h e s e  l o a d on t h e  same f a c t o r s  P e d h a z u r & T e t e n b a u m , 1979;  i d e n t i f i e d i n the  BSRI  Waters, Waters, & Pincus,  o r w o u l d new f a c t o r s  emerge? A l t h o u g h a p o r t i o n o f  items  seem r e d u n d a n t ( e . g . ,  " k i n d " and " k i n d - h e a r t e d ; "  different  aspect  For example, significantly physical  of  more d e s i r a b l e f o r a woman seemed t o  pays a t t e n t i o n t o  sensuous,  (fashionable,  "pays a t t e n t i o n t o  as  describe  attractive,  own p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e ,  sexually attractive,  a  n o t d i s c o v e r e d by Bern.  i t e m s t h a t were r a t e d  appearance and s e x u a l i t y  glamourous, tive,  the  these  o t h e r s may be t a p p i n g i n t o  of gender stereotypes s e v e r a l of  sig-  items  1977)  " o p i n i o n a t e d " and " o u t s p o k e n " ) ,  are  sexy).  With the  seduc-  exception  own p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e , " none o f  these  87 items  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  data r e f l e c t s  the  i n Bern's (1974)  influence  of  the  study.  P e r h a p s Bern's  s e c o n d wave o f  the  movement on women's  a p p e a r a n c e and c l o t h i n g s t y l e .  possible  items  that  stereotype  that  generation; t i o n of  these  these  feminist  the  items  (e.g.,  m a n i p u l a t i o n o f women's backlash against  neutral as  and women,  because  continues  to  From t h e that  sizing still  feminine  1098).  operate results  to of  It  objectifica-  Wolf,  In f a c t ,  1991)  describe a  and h e l p f u l ) ,  from p r e v i o u s  suggest t h a t  sex-role  violent  were  as  rated  research  changes  b l u r r i n g of  of  each sex  hypothesis  e l i m i n a t i o n of  this  f o r a woman t h a n a man by b o t h  differentiate  activism,  many  previously rated  in  gender  conceptions  to  o f men  adjectives  take the  would appear t h a t  considerable  current  t h e m e d i a a n d , more  items  (s),  the  stereotype  also  and s o l i d a r i t y .  The f i n d i n g s 1985)  continued  place  one and two we c a n i n recent  by  gender.  speculate decades.  p u b l i c i t y , and l e g i s l a t i o n distinctions,  of  some mechanism  characteristics  gender s t e r e o t y p e s have changed l i t t l e  Despite  is  new and p r e v i o u s l y n o n s i g n i f i c a n t  h a v e emerged i n t h e (p.  of  three  more d e s i r a b l e  "simply r e f l e c t  those dropped"  the  and a p p e a r a n c e as  progress  conscientious  judges.  the  1991;  sexuality  Werner & L a R u s s a , do n o t  of  music v i d e o s .  Faludi,  feminist  (friendly,  m a l e and f e m a l e  roles  influence  as m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ,  significantly  (e.g.,  may s p e a k t o  highly sexualized  writers  Also,  an a s p e c t  It  h a s become e v e n more p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e  women t h r o u g h t h e  recently,  represent  women's  empha-  men and women a r e  p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t  on v a r i o u s  88 characteristics Good  (1990)  opposition  noted t h a t to  the  'family values' example,  (Werner & L a R u s s a ,  is  by r e c e n t  change  distinct  (cited  insidious roles:  governmental  of  gender  status  i n Bernard,  components  i n the  and s t a b i l i t y  S c h e r and  and i n d i r e c t  "The e m p h a s i s  administrations,  (p.388).  roles,  is  for  and k e e p i n g  Thus,  there  on  for  every  also a  force  quo.  1976)  concept  distinguished of  role:  norms and c o n d u c t o r a c t u a l b e h a v i o u r . change  However,  maintaining t r a d i t i o n a l roles  to maintain the  Sarbin  also  and men r e s t r i c t e d "  movement t o w a r d s fighting  is  changes i n gender  a way o f  women o p p r e s s e d  there  1985).  in sex-role  between  expectations  I n an a r t i c l e  two or  concerning  norms and b e h a v i o u r ,  Bernard  found t h i s  d i s t i n c t i o n h e l p f u l b e c a u s e norms a n d b e h a v i o u r  not  coincide.  always  F o r example,  behaviour then conform; or the follow.  Also,  and s t e r e o t y p e s ,  norms may n o t )  affairs.  but the  but behaviour not. the  third  norm may c h a n g e  b e h a v i o u r may c h a n g e  b e h a v i o u r may change  norm may change  the  the  artifacts  h i s t o r y of (p.  people,  that  possibility  as  the  or  our c u r r e n t s t a t e "Gender r o l e s They a r e  established  our  but  of  are  not  simply  d u r i n g the  short h i s t o r y of  the  roles  ( b e h a v i o u r may c h a n g e  (1990) n o t e d :  h a v e become  as w e l l  and t h e norm  norms may n o t ;  d i v i n e l y o r d a i n e d : They a r e not unchangeable. cultural  and  When c o n s i d e r i n g g e n d e r  may p a r t l y r e p r e s e n t  As S c h e r and Good  do  long  society"  388).  Hypothesis  3  There w i l l mean r a t i n g s  n o t be a s i g n i f i c a n t  on t h e  difference  60 BSRI i t e m s f o r t h e  between  the  S t a n f o r d sample  (Bern,  89 1974)  and t h e  sample. items.  The n u l l  judges.  items  items  resulted  accepting the there  Stanford  null  judges  judges  as  study.  Also,  female  null  hypothesis  20 BSRI  judges  f o r hypothesis  i n support f o r the hypothesis  the  v a l i d i t y of  results  to  rate  Stanford  three the  w o u l d have  U.B.C.  would  BSRI.  By  suggested  judges  desirability ratings  the  findings  f o r the  of  the  woman t h a n d i d t h e  four of  the  d e s i r a b i l i t y of  seven of  than d i d the  items  feminine  and Bern's of  the  60  d i s p a r i t y between  sex-typed less  t h e male  character-  i n the  judges  current  rated  the  higher in d e s i r a b i l i t y for a  items  lower  judges;  in d e s i r a b i l i t y for the  female  judges  a  rated  items  h i g h e r i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a woman,  items  lower  i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a woman,  the masculine  items  l o w e r i n d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r a man  feminine  S t a n f o r d female  From t h e s e f i n d i n g s , desirable  sample,  S t a n f o r d male  the masculine the  U.B.C.  the masculine  women a n d s i x  of  on t h e  suggest that  "a man" and " f o r "a woman" was  majority of  of  U.B.C.  BSRI  S t a n f o r d male  l o w e r f o r a man t h a n d i d t h e  concerning the  ratings  for  and  r a t e d the  the  items.  istics  six  f o r many o f  judges  was a c o n s e n s u s between t h e  However, the  male  1994-95)  judges.  have a l s o  BSRI  U.B.C.  (U.B.C.,  h i g h e r f o r a woman t h a n d i d t h e  Accepting the  that  the  Columbia  was r e j e c t e d  T h e r e was a t r e n d f o r t h e  masculine  female  British  hypothesis  In g e n e r a l ,  masculine  the  U n i v e r s i t y of  judges.  we may s p e c u l a t e  characteristics  that  the  conceptions  f o r a man and f o r a woman have  90 changed s l i g h t l y appear t h a t  since  Bern's (1974)  characteristics  o r i g i n a l study.  t r a d i t i o n a l l y ascribed to  masculine r o l e  a r e b e c o m i n g more a c c e p t a b l e  Interestingly,  there  feminine  was n o t t h e  characteristics;  sample d i d not n o t i c e a b l y  on t h e  feminine  important to slightly judges  even though t h e  two s a m p l e s  m a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e As p r e v i o u s 1972;  Werner & L a R u s s a ,  the  between t h e  was  1985),  of  gender  mean r a t i n g s  accepted  ratings  two s a m p l e s  f o r men is  female  the m a j o r i t y of f o r the  the  genders.  Broverman e t  al.,  gender s t e r e o t y p e s are speaks  It  differed  b o t h m a l e and rate  the  persistent  l o u d l y and c l e a r l y  stereotypes.  f o r the  across ethnic  the  f o r t h e m a l e and f e m a l e  fered  f o r a few o f  trend  i n the  the  significant  60 BSRI i t e m s  the  BSRI i t e m s .  fewer  BSRI i t e m s  one g e n d e r t h a n t h e These f i n d i n g s scales of  items  as  for  (see  Table  12),  judges  significantly  those hypothesis  Although the  A s i a n and W h i t e r a t e r s  d a t a f o r t h e m a l e and f e m a l e  rate  difference  b a c k g r o u n d s . The n u l l  majority of  means  femininity  from  S t a n f o r d sample.  (e.g.,  be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  from d i f f e r e n t  sample t o  the  4  There w i l l  students  indicated  raters  in their  differently  The c u r r e n t f i n d i n g a l s o  tenacity  Hypothesis  continued to  BSRI i t e m s  r e s e a r c h has  and s t a b l e . to  differ  in their desirability ratings,  i n the  the  same t r e n d f o r men w i t h  compared w i t h t h e  note t h a t  would  f o r women.  b o t h male and f e m a l e  U.B.C.  items  It  only  there i n the  dif-  was  a  Asian  more d e s i r a b l e  for  other. may s u g g e s t t h a t the  the  m a s c u l i n i t y and  BSRI may be a l e s s v a l i d measure  of  91 m a s c u l i n i t y a n d f e m i n i n i t y among A s i a n g r o u p s with the  A s i a n sample,  it  was  acceptable  adopt both t r a d i t i o n a l l y masculine as  defined  according to  also possible  that  the  between t h e  culture their  as  sexes.  feel  In o t h e r words,  of  North American gender  to  it  is  knowledgeable to  differen-  North American  of  gender compared  their  to  own c u l t u r e may  p e r m i t n a r r o w e r b e h a v i o u r f o r men and women, perceptions  However,  less  T h e y may a l s o s e e i n terms  that  characteristics,  o r a r e more r e l u c t a n t  less differentiated  own s u b c u l t u r e .  and f e m i n i n e  Asian students  appeared  f o r men and women  North American c u l t u r e .  about North American c u l t u r e , tiate  It  therefore  their  s t e r e o t y p e s may be more  liberal. Harris' requested  study d i f f e r e d  participants  is  assertive?" rate  the  ferent.  it  T h e y may v i e w  the  the  rate  the  F o r exam-  instructions:  f o r a man t o  A s i a n group r e c e i v e d the  it  be  instructions  results  w o u l d be  "North American" c u l t u r e as a person's  "How  to  dif-  significantly level  of  i n t o m a i n s t r e a m N o r t h A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y may p l a y a  i n how t h e y  requires  i n that  groups to  following  than "Asian C u l t u r e . " A l s o ,  acculturation  ethnic  in African-American culture  Perhaps i f  study  own c u l t u r a l s t a n d a r d s .  i t e m s f o r t h e i r own c u l t u r e ,  different  role  their  African-Americans received  desirable  present  from d i f f e r e n t  BSRI i t e m s a c c o r d i n g t o ple,  from the  assess gender  stereotypes.  further research before  Obviously, this  any s u b s t a n t i a l  conclusions  area can  be d r a w n . Due t o  the  c a n be g i v e n t o  small  s i z e of  the A s i a n sample,  these f i n d i n g s .  However,  n o t much w e i g h t  as H a r r i s  (1994)  found  92 with African-American validity  of the  BSRI may be q u e s t i o n a b l e w i t h c u l t u r e s  than Anglo-American. sample i n t h e  and H i s p a n i c - A m e r i c a n p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  It  is  i n t e r e s t i n g to  ( e i g h t and 13,  respectively),  items  a leader,  ( a c t s as a n d has  respectively),  a n d were i n a g r e e m e n t athletic,  leadership a b i l i t i e s ) ;  culinity  (five  and  use  developing c u l t u r a l  dom-  (tender  some  t h e two c u l t u r e s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f  and f e m i n i n i t y , and a l s o  six  eight,  f o r o n l y two i t e m s  mas-  t h a t b o t h c u l t u r e s may d i f f e r  from w h i t e o r A n g l o - A m e r i c a n g r o u p s . Thus, mended,  for  items  t h e A s i a n and H i s p a n i c  feminine items  and were i n a g r e e m e n t  between  Harris'  competitive,  and warm). T h e s e f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e may be similarities  Asian  same number o f m a s c u l i n e  aggressive,  groups b o t h e n d o r s e d fewer  other  that the  c u r r e n t s t u d y and t h e H i s p a n i c group i n  study endorsed approximately the  inant,  note  the  specific  as H a r r i s r e c o m -  sex-role  inventories  among n o n - A n g l o segments o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n seems  for  vital.  D e l i m i t a t i o n s and L i m i t a t i o n s The s a m p l e u s e d i n t h e results sity  may be g e n e r a l i z e d .  students  present  study r e s t r i c t s  P a r t i c i p a n t s were f i r s t  enrolled in Arts  courses.  Because a  and n o t a p r o b a b i l i s t i c s a m p l e was d r a w n , to  t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , o r even t o  year u n i v e r -  convenience  we c a n n o t  students  t o whom t h e  from  generalize other  faculties. Also, different results  it  is  possible  from s t u d e n t s  incomparable to  t h a t Canadian students  i n the United S t a t e s , Bern's (1974)  findings.  may be  t h u s making  the  The s a m p l e s may  93 differ  i n terms of  U.B.C.  is  culture,  multi-cultural  whereas  was p r e d o m i n a n t l y w h i t e ; accessible and  university.  play a s i g n i f i c a n t  stereotypes.  The  research design  thus  l i m i t i n g the  being subject  to  the  Stanford,  r a t i n g of students  relied solely type of  influence  p a r t i c i p a n t s were r a t i n g t h e n o t t h e i r own, t h e circumvented.  is  As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,  i n the  problem of  status.  Stanford's student  body  r e l a t i v e l y more a very  expensive  e t h n i c i t y may  gender  stereotypes.  s h o u l d be e m p l o y e d f o r a  study t o determine whether t h e r e  gender  ques,  i n 1972  than i s  a S t a n f o r d sample o f  replication in  role  and s o c i o e c o n o m i c  enrollment to U . B . C .  f o r more s t u d e n t s ,  exclusive  Ideally,  ethnicity,  h a v e been  on s e l f - r e p o r t  changes  techni-  i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e as w e l l of  items  social  desirability.  according to  social  as  Because  societal  views,  d e s i r a b i l i t y was p a r t i a l l y  However, o t h e r c o n f o u n d s p e r s i s t e d :  first,  p a r t i c i p a n t s may h a v e i n a d v e r t e n t l y r e p o r t e d on t h e i r own v i e w s of  desirable characteristics  societal  perceptions,  societal  views;  asked to  r a t e the  norms,  thus,  l e s s knowledgeable that  this  even though t h e  second, items  students of  f o r men and women r a t h e r t h a n  as d i s c u s s e d  i n s t r u c t i o n s asked above,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were  a c c o r d i n g to North American  from d i f f e r e n t  for  gender  e t h n i c b a c k g r o u n d may be  t h e s e n o r m s ; and t h i r d ,  s t u d y may be t a p p i n g d i f f e r e n c e s  it  that  is  possible  c a n n o t be  iden-  tified. Once a g a i n i t  is  important to  i t e m r a t i n g s may be due t o  shifts  note  that  a l t h o u g h changes  i n gender s t e r e o t y p e s ,  they  in  94 may a l s o be a t t r i b u t a b l e desirability, different  to  various  transparency of  factors,  items,  such as  differences  social  in culture,  or  samples.  Suggestions f o r Future Research This study bility  of  the  sought  While the  ment f o r t h e  i n v e s t i g a t e the  Bern S e x - R o l e  students e n r o l l e d at Canada.  to  the  to  rate  c r i t e r i a were a p p l i e d ,  the  items contained  White p a r t i c i p a n t s , due t o  by e t h n i c  the  i n the  size  and t h e  ethnic  groups  is  instru-  the  When Bern's  Asian participants  feminine  items.  item seemed  than d i d However,  exploratory nature of  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h e x p l o r i n g the  with different  in  the  emerged when  groups.  to  Columbia  BSRI d i f f e r e n t l y  p a r t i c u l a r l y the  s m a l l sample  hypothesis,  the  1974)  v a l i d i t y of  discrepancies  p a r t i c i p a n t s were s e p a r a t e d selection  British  supported the  sample,  generaliza-  ( B S R I ; Bern,  U n i v e r s i t y of  results  total  Inventory  current  v a l i d i t y of  the  r e q u i r e d . In p a r t i c u l a r ,  A s i a n and I n d o - C a n a d i a n c u l t u r e s  c o u l d be  investigated  this BSRI  the  more  closely. In the  current study,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were n o t own b e l i e f s , came up t o  it  is  asked to  rate  but r a t h e r s o c i e t a l  the  researcher  important to the  t h e i r p e r s o n a l v i e w s were d i f f e r e n t .  that  c o u l d be r e s e a r c h e d  b e h a v i o u r change sible  that  at  different  idea of  rates.  Several  Thus,  whether  another  to  fact  area  norms and  F o r example,  even though s o c i e t y c o n t i n u e s  their  students  and commented on t h e  that  the  the  items a c c o r d i n g to  expectations.  afterwards  is  note t h a t  it  may be  pos-  promote t r a d i t i o n a l  95 conceptualizations  of  men and women a s d e s i r a b l e ,  may be a d o p t i n g more a n d r o g y n o u s v i e w s f o r Another question  different  whether  increase  there  has been as  androgynous group o v e r the methodology be t o past  that  review three  scoring  studies that  i n the  three  have  see  sexes,  size  the  other  sex-typed  area to  items,  i n the  while  current study,  w o u l d be t o  is  qualitatively  the  individuals  conduct  identified  factors the  explored further.  as  i n the  society  a factor  the  size  of  still the  88  f o r one g e n d e r  different  analysis  than  an a s p e c t  investigate to  BSRI,  of  t h a n Bern this  determine  same f a c t o r s  composing the  to  differently.  One way t o  a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s l o a d on t h e  been p r e v i o u s l y  u s i n g the  would  BSRI o v e r  may be t a p p i n g i n t o  found i n her o r i g i n a l study.  Finally,  question  whether  r a t e d as more d e s i r a b l e  (1974)  different  possible  appropriate for  be e x p l o r e d i s  stereotypes that  the  One  g r o u p . An i n c r e a s e  gender  question  of  the  proportion of  men and woman a r e d e f i n i n g t h e m s e l v e s  "additional"  norms  question  of  administered the  whether  issue of  the  study t h i s  between c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  A t h i r d that  whether  is  decades.  a n d r o g y n o u s g r o u p may s u g g e s t t h a t ,  differentiates  the  i n the  the  androgynous group has changed i n comparison  those s c o r i n g i n the the  last  rates,  c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o  decades to  themselves.  t h a t may be r e l a t e d t o  and b e h a v i o u r c h a n g i n g a t  individuals  or  that  have  whether  emerge. issue of  ethnicity  As w i t h H a r r i s ' s  BSRI c o u l d s u b s t i t u t e  a n d a c c u l t u r a t i o n s h o u l d be study  (1994),  another c u l t u r a l  researchers group i n  the  96 instructions possible of  to  to  target  explore  different  the  effects  North American gender  used  i n the  of  years  c o u l d a l s o be i n c l u d e d a s  Implications  for Counselling  the  of  North American  sex-role  sexes i s 1990).  i n terms  non-  however,  first  of  language measure  culture.  (Cook,  masculine  as  the  negative  implica-  s t e r e o t y p e s have b e e n a g r o w i n g c o n c e r n  receiving greater  However,  perceptions  c r i t e r i o n of  movement m a r c h e s on t h e  mental h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n  appropriateness  also  An a c c u l t u r a t i o n  a more s t r i n g e n t  into  tions  according to  i n Canada.  assimilation  feminist  is  a s i m i l a r methodology  c a n be e m p l o y e d ;  d a t a c a n be a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y  As t h e  It  a c c u l t u r a t i o n on  F o r example,  current study  s p o k e n and number o f  groups.  s t e r e o t y p e s h e l d b y members o f  North American c u l t u r e s . that  ethnic  1985).  and f e m i n i n e  acceptance  The  situational  behaviour for  (Stevens,  as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y ,  in  Pfost,  dichotomizing  o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y may r e q u i r e  both & Potts, behaviour  further  attention. Berzins of  (1979)  mental h e a l t h  counselling  has  suggested that  adopted,  androgyny measures  outcome  measures  to  in counselling  clients' (1990)  a n d r o g y n y as  is  d i r e c t i o n has t a k e n p l a c e . used  if  as  It  is  a way t o  determine feasible  if  facilitate  p e r s o n a l views surrounding gender.  noted:  o u r work i s  "Ignoring the  an i n v i t a t i o n t o  impact of disaster"  c a n be u s e d  change  that  the  in  as  this  BSRI c o u l d  exploration  be  of  As S c h e r a n d Good  conceptions (p.  a model  388).  of  gender  Conceptions  on of  97 gender ever,  have a p o w e r f u l e f f e c t using the  and c l i e n t ' s  comfort  that  the  as  level  If  then the  status  of  consideration  of  f o r many c l i e n t s  i n our s o c i e t y .  i n the  is  research  (if  not  But can  issue of  be  clients).  assertiveness training whole  arena  as  factors all  used  in  desirable.  women's  D i s r e g a r d i n g such f a c t o r s  t r e a t i n g the  has b e e n  accepted  sociopolitical  women may be m i s s i n g t h e  to  is  1974)  androgyny i s  a s was n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,  equivalent  it  How-  counsellor's  i n d e t e r m i n i n g what o c c u r s  concept  and d i s r u p t i v e  towards  process.  instruments.  Bern,  behavioural f l e x i b i l i t y  therapy without  example,  (BSRI;  instrument;  BSRI may be u s e f u l  desirable,  futile  with u s i n g such  Inventory  a research  counselling.  counselling  BSRI i n t h e r a p y w o u l d d e p e n d on t h e  The Bern S e x - R o l e primarily  on t h e  For  geared inferior  w o u l d be  symptom r a t h e r t h a n t h e  underlying  problem. To d a t e  research  has been e q u i v o c a l ; stereotyped health to  also reflect  functioning,  the  androgyny w i t h s u p e r i o r  society continues  masculine  determine whether  cal  linking  sex  this  role.  androgyny i s of  over-value  Consequently,  male b i a s  measures  to  (Cook,  the  measures  1985).  related to  adjustment  of  Thus,  greater  m e n t a l h e a l t h must  mental  in order  psychologibe  reevaluated. Conclusion It ever  was t h e  hope o f  e x p a n d i n g body o f  Given that  the  this  researcher  to  contribute  r e s e a r c h concerning gender  Bern S e x - R o l e  Inventory  (BSRI;  Bern,  to  the  stereotypes. 1974)  is  such  98 a w i d e l y used measure,  the  purpose of  gate the  current g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  students  in British  Columbia.  conducting a r e p l i c a t i o n of the  BSRI t o  items for  the  s t u d y was t o  BSRI t o  investi-  university  T h i s q u e s t i o n was a d d r e s s e d  Bern's i t e m s e l e c t i o n  by  procedure  for  o r i g i n a l BSRI. In g e n e r a l ,  the  this  this  the  findings  sample;  contained i n the  other.  18 o f  the  significance.  Interestingly,  significance  i n Bern's (1974)  nificantly current  more d e s i r a b l e  i n the  significantly When t h e  study,  more  40  sex-typed  desirable  short v e r s i o n of  20 s e x - t y p e d  many i t e m s  the  items  that  r a t e d as  f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  the  reached  f a i l e d to  were a l s o  of  other  reach sigin  the  study.  Other r e s u l t s ratings  generalizability  s t u d e n t s r a t e d 35 o f  BSRI a s  one g e n d e r t h a n t h e  BSRI was c o n s i d e r e d ,  supported the  for  suggested that  "a man" and f o r  present  study.  the  "a woman" h a d d e c r e a s e d  Finally,  the  other ethnic  g r o u p s was q u e s t i o n e d .  exploratory,  further research is  conclusions  c a n be d r a w n .  d i s c r e p a n c y between  a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Because  this  required before  slightly the  BSRI  hypothesis any  firm  to was  99  Footnote  Dr.  Bern was c o n t a c t e d  following  by m a i l  and by t e l e p h o n e .  r e q u e s t s were made:  a)  Access  b)  Alternately,  to  the  significant similarly  mean r a t i n g s a list  to  of  of  the  compare w h e t h e r  (the  i t e m s were  list  If  o r d e r was  requested.  the  the  the  400  approximately final  i t e m s were p r e s e n t e d  alphabetically  70  40  information that to  subject  In response  I requested  questions to  b),  A p p e n d i x C) and f o r c )  she  in alphabetical  a)  she  order.  able to  the  400  the  20  easily information  retrieve  reached s i g n i f i c a n c e  recalled that  the  pool.  was n o t  a n d d) , no  was  to  o r i n a random  s e q u e n c e was r a n d o m , a c o p y o f  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70 i t e m s t h a t  presented  rated  o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h was c o n d u c t e d o v e r  In response  available.  items.  rated  are s t i l l  from which the  Any d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e  ago,  of  either  sequence.  accessible. was  they  BSRI manual s t a t e s t h a t  The o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e  Given that years  o r i g i n a l 400  chosen.)  participants,  d)  the  i t e m s w h i c h were  items reached s i g n i f i c a n c e ,  c)  The  the (see  i t e m s were  100 References Ballard-Reisch, the  D., & Elton,  Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y :  revisited. Baucom,  Sex R o l e s ,  D. H . (1980).  Psychological  Journal  of  S.  Journal Bern,  S.  L.  of  (1975).  Psychology,  The measurement  and a s e x - r o l e  of  L . (1979).  44,  typology.  psychological Psychology,  of  femininity  262-271.  adaptability:  androgyny. J o u r n a l  31,  construct  CPI m a s c u l i n i t y and  correlates  Sex r o l e  androgyny.  42.,  155-162.  One c o n s e q u e n c e  634-643. T h e o r y and measurement  of  androgyny: A r e p l y  P e d h a z u r - T e t e n b a u m and L o c k s l e y C o l t o n c r i t i q u e s .  of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , S.  L . (1981).  manual. Bern, S . to Bern,  Spence S.  The BSRI and g e n d e r  Psychology, J.  33.,  (1976).  behaviour. Bernard,  Professional  Sex-typing of  88,  and t h e  Personality  A reply 369-371.  avoidance  of  and S o c i a l  48-54. Change and s t a b i l i t y  Journal  of  J . L . , Bernard,  ship violence  Journal  Press.  schema t h e o r y :  and H e l m r e i c h . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w ,  L . , & Lenney, E . (1976).  Journal  1047-1054.  CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s  cross-sex behaviour.  Bernard,  37,  The Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y :  Palo A l t o ,  L . (1981b).  of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  to  Bern,  and  291-306.  C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  psychological  Bern, S .  27(5-6),  P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment.  L . (1974).  Gender o r i e n t a t i o n  A psychological  Independent  scales:  Bern,  M. (1992).  Social S.  Issues,  in sex-role 32.(3),  L . , & Bernard,  and s e x - t y p i n g .  norms and  207-223.  M. L . ( 1 9 8 5 ) .  Family Relations,.  34(4),  Court573-76.  101 Berzins,  J . I.  (1979).  and p s y c h o t h e r a p y . Berzins,  J . I.,  measure  Borg,  of psychological Journal  W. R . & G a l l ,  Broverman,  R. E . (1978).  a n d r o g y n y b a s e d on t h e  248-254. A new  Personality  o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  I.  M. D. (1989).  (5th'ed.).  K . , Vogel,  Psychology,  Buros,  O. K . (1985).  ed.).  t o a famous E . P.  New Y o r k : Longman.  P . S.  Journal  (1972). of Social  Sex-role Issues,  stereotypes: A 28,  The n i n t h m e n t a l measurement  Highland Park,  Constantinople,  E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h : An  S. R. , Broverman, D. M . , C l a r k s o n ,  E . , & Rosenkrantz,  current appraisal.  Cook,  o f Women Q u a r t e r l y , 3.,  theory,  126-138.  introduction  F.  Psychology  Androgyny, p e r s o n a l i t y  W e l l i n g , M. A . , & Wetter,  Research Form. 46,  Discussion:  N J : Gryphon  A . (1973).  59-78.  yearbook.  (9th  Press.  M a s c u l i n i t y - F e m i n i n i t y : An e x c e p t i o n  dictum? P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Bulletin,  (1985).  Psychological  androgyny.  (1990).  Gender and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  80,  389-407.  New Y o r k :  Pergamon  distress.  Journal  Press. Cook, of  E . P.  C o u n s e l l i n g and Development,  Crowne,  D. P . , & Marlowe, D. (1960).  desirability  independent  Consulting Psychology, Edwards,  371-375.  A new s c a l e o f  of psychopathology.  24,  Psychological S.  women.  Journal  (1991). New Y o r k :  1(4),  of  Applied  501-507.  B a c k l a s h : The u n d e c l a r e d war a g a i n s t Crown.  of  A r e p l i c a t i o n study  f o r t h e Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y . Measurement,  social  349-354.  A . L . , & Ashworth, C . D. (1977).  item s e l e c t i o n  Faludi,  68,  American  102 Flaherty,  J . F . , & Dusek,  J . B.  (1980).  r e l a t i o n s h i p between p s y c h o l o g i c a l of  self-concept.  18(6),  Psychology, Gill,  S.,  scales. R.,  expressive  Batlis,  Attributes  A.  47,  (1994).  identity:  sex  role  role  identities  8,  D. C ,  as  Bloys,  sex  Clinical  masculine  44,  J . T . , & Gibson,  role  f o r the  Bern  241-273. and  dimensions.  Psychology,  feminine  Journal  of  183-190. R. H . (1982).  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  N . , & Wood,  Psychology,  L . K. (1982).  adolescence.  Personal  C o n s u l t i n g and  31(3-4),  independent  M. (1990).  Sex  Psychology  21(3-4),  J.  New f o r m u l a t i o n s  (1977).  45,  review.  Journal  of  and  133-145.  of  of  sex-roles  C o n s u l t i n g and  1101-1115.  A d j u s t m e n t and s e x - r o l e  Journal  Sex-roles  Sex R o l e s ,  and androgyny: A c r i t i c a l  Lamke,  and t h e  Factor  656-663.  J . A . , & Worell,  Clinical  androgyny  (1979).  item s e l e c t i o n  Measurement o f  1972-1982.  friendship patterns. Kelly,  of  C.  a determinant of  Sex R o l e s ,  R. L . , Spence,  Bulletin, Jones,  Inventory  Journal  E t h n i c i t y as  (1976).  attitudes  (1987).  1122-1124.  C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Helmreich,  A . , & Erdwins,  A r e p l i c a t i o n study of  A. B.  S.  375-400.  Bern S e x - R o l e  Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y . Heilbrun,  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  17(7-8),  Questionnaire.  Psychology.,  the  components  d i m e n s i o n and c r i t i q u e o f  N . , Small,  the  of  984-992.  Sex R o l e s ,  structure of  Harris,  of  a n d r o g y n y and  Stockard, J . , Johnson, M . , & Williams,  Measuring the  Gross,  Journal  An i n v e s t i g a t i o n  orientation  Youth and A d o l e s c e n c e ,  11(3),  in 247-259.  Locksley,  A . , & C o l t e n , M. E . (1979).  case of mistaken Psychology, Lott,  B.  (1981).  elimination C.  37,  identity?  A feminist  o f gender  171-180).  Lunneborg,  Marecek,  Psychology,  of androgyny:  attributions  15,  (Eds.),  Toward t h e  G e n d e r and n o n v e r b a l  Dimensionality 28,  In  behaviour  o f MF. J o u r n a l  of  313-317. R. T . (1991).  A short  history  Psychology  of  the  o f Women  521-536.  J . P., & Sherriffs,  evaluation  and S o c i a l  for learned behaviour.  Feminism and c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g y .  Quarterly, McKee,  critique  J . , & Hare-Mustin,  future:  of Personality  New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g .  P . W. ( 1 9 7 2 ) .  Clinical  androgyny: A  1017-1031.  Mayo & N . M . H e n l e y  (pp.  Journal  Psychological  A . C . (1957).  o f males and f e m a l e s .  The d i f f e r e n t i a l  Journal  of Personality,  25,  356-371. Norusis, 6.0.  M. (1993). Michigan:  Orlofsky,  Pedhazur,  adaptability,  (1978).  and p e r s o n a l  E . J . , & Tetenbaum, T . J . A theoretical  Personality  Rawlings,  Sex-role  orientation,  adjustment.  E. I.,  Sex  Roles,  Thomas.  Bern Sex R o l e  and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  and S o c i a l & Carter,  (1979).  Psychology,  D. K. ( E d s . ) .  f o r women: T r e a t m e n t t o w a r d e q u a l i t y . C.  release  804-811.  Inventory: of  Advanced s t a t i s t i c s  SPSS I n c .  J . L . , & Windle, M. T .  behavioural 4(6),  SPSS f o r windows:  37,  critique.  Journal  996-1016.  (1977).  Psychotherapy  Springfield,  IL: Charles  104 Richmond-Abbott, over the Scher,  M. ( 1 9 9 2 ) .  life  cycle  M . , & Good,  gender  issues  Development, Schmitt, the  M a s c u l i n e and f e m i n i n e ;  (2nd e d . ) .  G. (1990).  R. T .  Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y  between g e n d e r - s c h e m a t i c  Sherriffs, beliefs  19(9-10),  A. C ,  Special  feature  Journal  of  (1988).  Construct v a l i d i t y  on  C o u n s e l l i n g and  370.  B. H . , & M i l l a r d ,  Sex R o l e s .  roles  McGraw-Hill.  Introduction:  in counselling. 68,  New Y o r k :  Gender  ( B S R I ) : Does t h e  BSRI  and g e n d e r - a s c h e m a t i c  of  distinguish  individuals?  581-588.  & McKee,  J . P.  a b o u t men and women.  (1957). Journal  Qualitative of  aspects  Personality,  25,  of 451-  464. Silverberg,  R. A .  male m y s t i q u e . Silvern,  (1986).  Springfield,  L . E . , & Ryan,  sex-typing  on t h e  Bern S e x - R o l e  Attributes Questionnaire:  Psychology,  Spence, self to  4(43),  A measure  and p e e r s on s e x  role  of  Personality  M. J . , P f o s t ,  and  masculinity  the  5(6),  sex  role  739-763.  The P e r s o n a l stereotypes  Selected  Documents  617).  & Strapp, J .  s e l f - e s t e e m and c o n c e p t i o n s  Stevens,  of  J . T . , Helmreich, R . ,  Journal  the  adjustment  (1974).  JSAS C a t a l o g o f  (MS N o .  role  Is  Sex R o l e s ,  & Strapp, J .  and m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y . in  Self-rated  Inventory:  adjustment?  J . T . , Helmreich, R . ,  f o r men: T r a n s c e n d i n g  I L : C h a r l e s C . Thomas.  V . L . (1979).  primary p r e d i c t o r of Spence,  Psychotherapy  (1975).  attributes  Ratings  and t h e i r  of  relation  of  masculinity  and  femininity.  and S o c i a l  Psychology,  32,  29-39.  K. S.,  & Potts,  M. K.  (1990).  Sex-role  105 orientation sues. Taylor,  Journal M. C ,  Theories, 92,  and t h e of  willingness  confront  existential  C o u n s e l l i n g and D e v e l o p m e n t ,  & Hall,  methods,  J . A.  (1982).  68(4),  Psychological  and c o n c l u s i o n s .  is-  414-416.  androgyny:  Psychological  Bulletin,  347-366.  Unger,  R.,  & Crawford,  psychology. Walkup,  New Y o r k :  on t h e  Measurement, Waters,  2(1),  Weisstein, fantasy  N.  life  of  fantasies  of  anthropologist. Werner,  P.  sex-role Wiggins,  D. ,  (1978).  and f e m i n i n e  Psychology  the  Wilson,  his  friends,  Psychology,  (1991).  the  Sex R o l e s ,  46(1), E . P.  androgyny i n s t r u m e n t s . N.  constructs  item  Psychological  the  Factor  items from 40,  12  2(2),  (9/10),  Journal  or,  the  ( w i t h some a t t e n t i o n and t h e  male  and c h a n g e  in  1089-1100.  Psychological of  to  195-210.  Persistence  (1978).  the  567-570.  female;  male b i o l o g i s t  G . W. ( 1 9 8 5 ) .  & Holzmuller, A.  (1977).  Reports,  Feminism & Psychology,  & Cook,  Applied  sex-typed  male p s y c h o l o g i s t  stereotypes.  F. R.,  S.  Psychological  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o u r . Clinical  C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n of  L . K . , & Pincus,  & LaRussa,  J . S.,  feminist  63-71.  Inventory.  (1993).  A  McGraw-Hill.  of masculine  Bern S e x - R o l e  Women a n d g e n d e r :  Bern Sex R o l e I n v e n t o r y .  C . W., Waters,  analysis  the  M. (1992).  H . , & A b b o t t , R. D.  selection  Wolf,  to  androgyny  C o n s u l t i n g and  40-52.  (1984).  Sex R o l e s ,  Concurrent v a l i d i t y of 11,  813-837.  The b e a u t y m y t h . T o r o n t o : V i n t a g e B o o k s .  four  APPENDIX A  Bern's P r o c e d u r e s  for  Selecting  and F e m i n i n e A d j e c t i v e s  The 7 3 Items R a t e d as Desirable Bern's  f o r the  Masculine BSRI  Significantly  f o r One G e n d e r T h a n t h e  Study  More  Other  i  107  The f o l l o w i n g outlines culine  i n f o r m a t i o n was s e n t by D r . S a n d r a Bern.  her o r i g i n a l procedure  and f e m i n i n e  adjectives  been c o p i e d v e r b a t i m , h o w e v e r , clarification ters  is  needed.  i n order to  Criterion: desirable  f o r one  sex  b o t h male and f e m a l e samples.  Note:  this  1974)  f o r the  The i n f o r m a t i o n h a s  a r e made i n c a p i t a l  let-  them f r o m Bern's t e x t .  be s e e n a s  than f o r the  other  i n both the  means t h a t  mas-  comments have b e e n added when  had t o  judges  for selecting  BSRI.  T h e s e comments  differentiate  Each a d j e c t i v e  (Bern,  It  significantly  (p_ < . 0 5 ,  2-tailed)  w i n t e r and t h e  four independent  more by  summer  c r i t e r i a were  applied.  Winter:  48 m a s c u l i n e  criteria.  Of t h e s e ,  eliminated. masculine  and 38 f e m i n i n e 14 m a s c u l i n e  T h i s was done  and f e m i n i n e  jectives  I  just  feminine  adjectives  summer c r i t e r i a .  adjectives. Tests.  adjectives.  equalize  Also to  At t h i s  point,  met t h e  winter  adjectives the  were  number o f  eliminate  certain ad-  34 m a s c u l i n e  and 34  remained.  and 6 f e m i n i n e  adjectives  An a d d i t i o n a l 2 m a s c u l i n e  eliminated i n order to inine adjectives.  and 4 f e m i n i n e  i n order to  didn't like.  Summer: 4 m a s c u l i n e  adjectives  equalize  R e m a i n i n g were  the  adjectives  number o f  28 m a s c u l i n e  They c o m p r i s e o u r f i n a l  f a i l e d t o meet were  masculine and 28  the  and f e m -  feminine  M a s c u l i n i t y and F e m i n i n i t y  108  Masculine * A b l e t o s e p a r a t e i d e a s from A c t s as a l e a d e r Aggressive Ambitious Analytical Assertive Athletic Bold Competitive Daring D e f e n d s own b e l i e f s * Does n o t g i v e up e a s i l y Dominant Forceful Has l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t i e s Independent Individualistic L i k e s a good argument L i t t l e need f o r s e c u r i t y Makes d e c i s i o n s easily Masculine Mathematical Outspoken * Realistic Scientific Self-reliant Self-sufficient  passed  Adjectives  feelings  Skilled Strong-minded Strong personality Talented W i l l i n g to take a stand W i l l i n g to take r i s k s Worldly  A l s o met t h e w i n t e r c r i t e r i a , but eliminated A b l e t o be a g g r e s s i v e w i t h out f e e l i n g d i s c o m f o r t * Arrogant, proud Blunt Businesslike Enterprising * Experienced Fearless Firm * Freethinking Knows t h e way o f t h e w o r l d Makes d e c i s i o n s w i t h o u t regard f o r the f e e l i n g s of others Persuasive Rugged S k i l l e d i n business  1)  48 i t e m s judges.  c r i t e r i o n i n t h e w i n t e r sample o f  2)  Of t h e s e 48, 7 f a i l e d t o p a s s c r i t e r i o n i n t h e summer s a m p l e 60 S t a n f o r d j u d g e s ( i n d i c a t e d by an a s t e r i s k * ) .  3)  L e a v i n g 41 i t e m s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n both samples.  more d e s i r a b l e  40 S t a n f o r d of  f o r men t h a n women  AN ITEM HAD TO BE RATED SIGNIFICANT BY BOTH THE WINTER AND SUMMER SAMPLES TO PASS CRITERION. OUTSIDE OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE, BEM DID NOT DESCRIBE HOW SHE CHOSE ITEMS FOR ELIMINATION.  109  Feminine  Adjectives  Affectionate Cheerful Childlike Compassionate Compliant * Dependent Does n o t u s e h a r s h l a n g u a g e Eager t o soothe h u r t f e e l i n g s * Excitable Faithful Feminine Flatterable Gentle Giving Graceful Gullible Innocent  * *  *  * A l s o met t h e w i n t e r c r i t e r i a , but e l i m i n a t e d Bashful Helpless Simple, naive Warm-hearted  c r i t e r i o n i n the  Kittenish Loves c h i l d r e n Loyal P a y s a t t e n t i o n t o own p h y s i c a l appearance Selfless S e n s i t i v e t o t h e needs o f others Shy Silly Soft-spoken Submissive Sympathetic Tender Tender-hearted Understanding Warm W i l l i n g t o make s a c r i f i c e s for others Yielding  1)  38 i t e m s p a s s e d judges.  winter  sample  2)  Of t h e s e 38, 6 f a i l e d t o p a s s c r i t e r i o n i n t h e summer o f 60 S t a n f o r d j u d g e s ( i n d i c a t e d b y an a s t e r i s k * ) .  3)  L e a v i n g 32 i t e m s s i g n i f i c a n t l y men i n b o t h s a m p l e s .  more d e s i r a b l e  of  40  Stanford sample  f o r women t h a n  41 MASCULINE ITEMS + 3 2 FEMININE ITEMS = 7 3 ITEMS IN TOTAL THAT WERE RATED SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DESIRABLE FOR ONE GENDER OVER THE OTHER.  110 Items t h a t d i d n o t s a t i s f y c r i t e r i o n i n t h e summer sample o f j u d g e s I s i t more d e s i r a b l e f o r one man" v e r s u s " f o r woman." Adjectives  Male Judges  sex  than f o r the  no  yes  Does n o t g i v e up easily  no  yes  Realistic  no  no  Talented  no  no  Dependent  yes  no  Excitable  yes  no  P a y s a t t e n t i o n t o own p h y s i c a l appearance  no  yes  Selfless  no  no  Silly  yes  no  W i l l i n g t o make s a c r i f i c e s for others  yes  no  L i t t l e need security  for  e.g.,  "for  Female Judges  Able to separate i d e a s from f e e l i n g s  Mathematical  other,  yes  yes  yes  yes  *A11 f o u r o f t h e s e e l i m i n a t e d as masculine adjectives.  *A11 s i x o f t h e s e e l i m i n a t e d as feminine adjectives.  * A l s o e l i m i n a t e d as masculine adjectives to e q u a l i z e the # o f m a s c u l i n e and feminine adjectives. T h e y were b o t h q u i t e low i n s o c i a l desirability.  Ill Final  28 M a s c u l i n e  Adjectives  A c t s as a l e a d e r Aggressive Ambitious Analytical Assertive Athletic * Bold Competitive * Daring D e f e n d s own b e l i e f s Dominant Forceful Has l e a d e r s h i p abilities Independent Final  * *  * * *  Individualistic * L i k e s a g o o d argument Makes d e c i s i o n s e a s i l y Masculine * Outspoken * Scientific Self-reliant Self-sufficient * Skilled * Strong-minded Strong-personality W i l l i n g to take a stand W i l l i n g to take r i s k s * Worldly 28 F e m i n i n e  Affectionate Cheerful Childlike Compassionate Compliant Does n o t u s e h a r s h l a n g u a g e Eager to soothe h u r t f e e l i n g s Faithful Feminine Flatterable Gentle Giving Graceful Gullible Innocent  Adjectives *  Kittenish Loves c h i l d r e n Loyal S e n s i t i v e to the of others Shy Soft-spoken * Submissive Sympathetic Tender * Tender-hearted Understanding Warm Yielding  needs  E i g h t m a s c u l i n e and e i g h t f e m i n i n e i t e m s were e l i m i n a t e d t o s h o r t e n t h e s c a l e s ( i t e m s i n d i c a t e d by an a s t e r i s k * ) . NO INFORMATION WAS GIVEN CONCERNING HOW THESE ITEMS WERE CHOSEN FOR ELIMINATION.  112  APPENDIX B  Bern's I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the  Questionnaire  113  The I n s t r u c t i o n s P r o v i d e d by Bern t o S e l e c t F e m i n i n e , M a s c u l i n e , and F i l l e r Items We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n A m e r i c a n s t e r e o t y p 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 . On t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s y o u w i l l be shown a l a r g e number o f 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 . We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o i n d i c a t e how d e s i r a b l e i t i s i n A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y f o r a man t o p o s s e s s e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . N o t e : We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n o f how d e s i r a b l e e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s . R a t h e r , we want y o u r judgement o f how o u r s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a man. Example:  healthy Mark a 7  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d EXTREMELY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 6  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d VERY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 5  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d QUITE DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 4  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d MODERATELY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 3  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d SOMEWHAT DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 2  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d SLIGHTLY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 1  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d NOT AT A L L DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Note: I f y o u come t o an a d j e c t i v e w h i c h seems s o ambiguous t h a t you c a n n o t b r i n g y o u r s e l f t o r a t e i t , no m a t t e r how h a r d y o u t r y , mark t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w i t h an " X " . P l e a s e do n o t l e a v e any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c unmarked. Thus, i f you f e e l t h a t i n our s o c i e t y g e n e r a l l y , i t i s extremely d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y , n o t a t a l l d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be f a t , q u i t e d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be c a r e f r e e , and somewhat d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be c o m i c a l , t h e n y o u w o u l d r e s p o n d a s follows: Healthy  7  Carefree  5  Fat  1  Comical  3  APPENDIX C  Letter to Class  Professors  Introduction  Explanation Consent  Form  Sheet  and I n f o r m a t i o n  Sheet  116 Research Study:  P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Women and Men  The Bern S e x - R o l e I n v e n t o r y (Bern, 1974; BSRI) was d e s i g n e d t o i m p l e m e n t e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h on t h e c o n s t r u c t o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d r o g y n y . T h i s c o n s t r u c t r e f e r s t o t h e b l e n d i n g o f p o s i t i v e masc u l i n e and f e m i n i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h i n a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l ; i t i m p l i e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s c a n b e h a v e i n a f l e x i b l e manner t o a c c o m modate t h e s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n r e l y i n g on s o c i e t a l sex-role p r e s c r i p t i o n s t o d i c t a t e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r . Thus, androgynous i n d i v i d u a l s c a n be b o t h a s s e r t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e d e p e n d i n g on t h e situation. The p u r p o s e o f t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y i s t o c o n d u c t a r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the BSRI. Such a r e p l i c a t i o n i s i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e t h e BSRI c o n t i n u e s t o be u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e r e s e a r c h community. F o r example, the PsychLIT S i l v e r P l a t t e r a b s t r a c t s y s t e m (1989) l i s t s 419 e n t r i e s r e f e r e n c i n g t h e B S R I . G i v e n t h a t o v e r 20 y e a r s h a v e p a s s e d s i n c e i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n , some have q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r t h e i n s t r u m e n t c o n t i n u e s t o r e p r e s e n t s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r men and women. The c u r r e n t study w i l l attempt to address the f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s : 1. Do UBC s t u d e n t s r a t e 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 , a c c o r d i n g t o s o c i e t a l e v a l u a t i o n s , a s more d e s i r a b l e f o r one s e x o v e r t h e o t h e r ? 2. I f i t e m s f r o m t h e BSRI a r e n o t j u d g e d by UBC s t u d e n t s as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r e i t h e r s e x , have i t e m s p r e v i o u s l y r a t e d as i n s i g n i f i c a n t t a k e n t h e i r p l a c e ? I n d e v e l o p i n g t h e B S R I , Bern a t t e m p t e d t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were c o n s i d e r e d more d e s i r a b l e f o r one s e x t h a n t h e other w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of American c u l t u r e . A l i s t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 200 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 , t h a t seemed t o be p o s i t i v e i n v a l u e and e i t h e r f e m i n i n e o r m a s c u l i n e , i n t o n e , was c o m p i l e d b y t h e a u t h o r and s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s . An a d d i t i o n a l l i s t o f 200 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t seemed n e u t r a l i n t o n e i n t e r m s o f g e n d e r were a s s e m b l e d f o r a S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y s c a l e . H a l f t h e i t e m s were p o s i t i v e i n v a l u e and h a l f were n e g a t i v e . I n 1973 Bern a s k e d 100 S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n f i r s t y e a r c l a s s e s t o use a seven p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e t o r a t e the d e s i r a b i l i t y of each charac t e r i s t i c f o r e i t h e r a man o r a woman i n A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y (no j u d g e was a s k e d t o r a t e b o t h ) . A 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 was d e f i n e d as f e m i n i n e o r m a s c u l i n e i f i t was j u d g e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d e s i r a b l e f o r one g e n d e r t h a n t h e o t h e r (p < . 0 5 , t w o - t a i l e d ) b y b o t h male and f e m a l e r a t e r s . Of t h e 73 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t s a t i s f i e d t h i s c r i t e r i a t w e n t y were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e and t w e n t y were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e . A r e p l i c a t i o n w i l l allow researchers to a s c e r t a i n the current g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e BSRI t o U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (UBC) s t u d e n t s . B e c a u s e t h e s a m p l e s a r e d i f f e r e n t , comparisons between t h e two a r e l i m i t e d ; h o w e v e r , c h a n g e s i n g e n d e r - r e l a t e d r a t i n g s o f 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 may be s u g g e s t i v e o f s h i f t s i n g e n d e r s t e r e o t y p e s s i n c e Bern's o r i g i n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e B S R I . A l s o , c h a n g e s i n r a t i n g s may b r i n g i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e c o n t i n u e d use o f t h e BSRI, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h a m u l t i - e t h n i c p o p u l a t i o n . R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y , a r e p l i c a t i o n a f t e r more t h a n 20 y e a r s i s w a r r a n t e d .  117  Class  Introduction  H e l l o . My name i s E l s i e De V i t a . I am a M . A . s t u d e n t i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y a t U . B . C . I am c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g on my t h e s i s w h i c h i s t i t l e d " P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Women and M e n . " I am h e r e t o d a y t o a s k f o r y o u r h e l p i n c o n ducting this research. The s t u d y i n v o l v e s c o m p l e t i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t ; t h i s t a k e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40-50 minutes. I i n c l u d e d a background i n f o r m a t i o n sheet because I h o p e d t o i n c l u d e p e o p l e f r o m many d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s f a i l e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y and h a s made i t d i f f i c u l t to generalize r e s u l t s to other ethnic groups. A t t h i s p o i n t I w o u l d l i k e t o hand o u t t h e p a c k a g e s w h i c h c o n t a i n an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r m , a c o n s e n t f o r m , and t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e r e s h o u l d be 13 p a g e s i n t o t a l . A f t e r r e a d i n g t h i s m a t e r i a l , i f y o u s t i l l h a v e q u e s t i o n s I w i l l be h a p p y t o answer t h e m . Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s c o m p l e t e l y v o l u n t a r y and w i l l i n no way a f f e c t y o u r s t a n d i n g i n t h i s c o u r s e . I f y o u c h o o s e n o t t o p a r t i c i p a t e , t h e r e i s a s p o t f o r y o u t o i n d i c a t e on t h e c o n s e n t form. P l e a s e r e a d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y . You a r e a s k e d t o r a t e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r e i t h e r a man o r a woman. I w o u l d a l s o l i k e t o stifess-- t h e l a s t two s e n t e n c e s o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s : We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n o f how d e s i r a b l e e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s . R a t h e r , we want y o u r judgement o f how o u r s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a man (woman). When y o u a r e f i n i s h e d , p l e a s e p u t e v e r y t h i n g b a c k i n t n e e n v e l o p e and reptsoajn i t t o me. I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k y o u i n M-  T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  118 Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1L2 Tel: (604) 822-5259 Fax: (604) 822-2328  E l s i e De V i t a , M . A . C a n d i d a t e S u p e r v i s o r : Beth Haverkamp, P h . D .  Research Study:  Perceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  Women and Men  Dear P a r t i c i p a n t : I am w r i t i n g t o r e q u e s t y o u r h e l p w i t h a r e s e a r c h s t u d y t h a t I am c o n d u c t i n g . As a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t , t h i s s t u d y c o n s t i t u t e s the f i n a l requirement f o r a Master of A r t s i n C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The p u r p o s e o f my s t u d y i s t o e x p l o r e s o c i e t a l attitudes towards gender r o l e s . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s e n t i r e l y v o l u n t a r y and w i l l n o t a f f e c t y o u r s t a n d i n g i n t h i s c o u r s e . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n f i d e n t i a l and c o d e numbers w i l l be u s e d t o e n s u r e a n o n y m i t y . S h o u l d y o u c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e , y o u w i l l be r e q u e s t e d t o c o m p l e t e a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a d e m o g r a p h i c s s h e e t . T h i s s h o u l d t a k e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40-50 m i n u t e s and s h o u l d be comp l e t e d i n c l a s s time then immediately returned to the r e s e a r c h e r . A c o p y o f t h e t h e s i s w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e i n t h e M a i n l i b r a r y a t U . B . C . upon c o m p l e t i o n . S h o u l d y o u h a v e any q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t u d y , p l e a s e c o n t a c t me a t t h e above number. Thank y o u i n a d v a n c e f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n w i l l be i n v a l u a b l e t o t h i s r e s e a r c h w h i c h h o p e s add t o t h e body o f k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g g e n d e r i s s u e s . Sincerely,  Elsie  De V i t a  to  T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  119 Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1L2 Tel: (604) 822-5259 Fax: (604) 822-2328  I n f o r m e d C o n s e n t Document  r  E l s i e De V i t a , M . A . C a n d i d a t e S u p e r v i s o r : B e t h Haverkamp Research Study: Perceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  Women and Men  T h i s s t u d y on g e n d e r r o l e s i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d by g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t and r e s e a r c h e r , E l s i e De V i t a , i n t h e D e p a r t ment o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. As a p a r t i c i p a n t , I w i l l be a s k e d t o c o m p l e t e a q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h t a k e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40-50 m i n u t e s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be c o m p l e t e d d u r i n g c l a s s t i m e and w i l l be r e t u r n e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r a t t h e end o f c l a s s . A t t h i s p o i n t my commitment i s o v e r . By c o m p l e t i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I g i v e my a g r e e m e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s s t u d y on g e n d e r r o l e s . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i m p l i e s c o n s e n t . However, I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I am f r e e t o w i t h d r a w my c o n s e n t and s t o p my p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t any t i m e . T h i s w i l l n o t a f f e c t my s t a n d i n g i n t h e c o u r s e . I am f r e e t o l e a v e t h e c l a s s i f I d e c i d e not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. A l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s w i l l be r e c o r d e d by c o d e number, my name i s n o t r e q u i r e d , and a l l i n d i v i d u a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l . I have had a c h a n c e t o a s k any q u e s t i o n s I want a b o u t t h i s s t u d y on g e n d e r r o l e s , and t h e y h a v e b e e n a n s w e r e d t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s acknowledges r e c e i p t o f a copy o f consent form i n c l u d i n g a l l a t t a c h m e n t s . Please  check  one:  I  agree  to  Code  #:  Dated:  participate  I chose not to  participate  APPENDIX D  Sample of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Used i n the Current Study  121 Instructions We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n N o r t h A m e r i c a n s t e r e o t y p 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 . On t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s y o u w i l l be shown a l a r g e number o f 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 . We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o i n d i c a t e how d e s i r a b l e i t i s i n N o r t h A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y f o r a man t o p o s s e s s e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . N o t e : We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n o f how d e s i r a b l e e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s . R a t h e r , we want y o u r judgement o f how o u r s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a man. Example:  healthy Mark a 7  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d EXTREMELY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 6  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d VERY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 5  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d QUITE DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 4  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d MODERATELY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 3  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d SOMEWHAT DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 2  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d SLIGHTLY DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Mark a 1  if in  i t i s c o n s i d e r e d NOT AT A L L DESIRABLE A m e r i c a f o r a man t o be h e a l t h y .  Note: I f y o u come t o an a d j e c t i v e w h i c h seems so ambiguous t h a t you c a n n o t b r i n g y o u r s e l f t o r a t e i t , no m a t t e r how h a r d y o u t r y , mark t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w i t h an " X " . P l e a s e do n o t l e a v e any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c unmarked. Thus, i f you f e e l t h a t i n o u r s o c i e t y g e n e r a l l y , i t i s extremely d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o b e h e a l t h y , n o t a t a l l d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be f a t , q u i t e d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be c a r e f r e e , and somewhat d e s i r a b l e f o r a man t o be c o m i c a l , t h e n y o u w o u l d r e s p o n d a s follows: Healthy Fat  __7  1  Carefree  5  Comical  3  122 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  Able to be aggressive without feeling discomfort Able to criticize others without feeling uneasy Able to devote oneself to others Able to empathize with the feelings of others Able to separate ideas from feelings Able to withstand emotional pressures  4 Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Anxious Apathetic Appreciative Arbitrary Arrogant, proud Artistic Assertive Astute Athletic  Abrupt  Attractive  Absent-minded  Bashful  Accommodating  Biased  Active  Blunt  Acts as a leader  Boastful  Adaptable  Boisterous  Adventurous  Bold  Affectionate  Brave  Aggressive  Bright  Agreeable  Broad-minded  Alert  Businesslike  Aloof  Cagey  Ambitious  Calculating  Amusing  Calm  Analytical  Candid  Animated  Capable in emergencies  7 Extremely Desirable  123 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  Carefree  3 Somewhat Desirable  4 Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Concerned about the future  Careful Careless  Congenial Conscientious  Casual Cautious Certain Changes mind easily Charming Cheerful Childlike Choosy Clean Clear-thinking Clever Clumsy Comfortable when people express emotion  Conservative Considerate Consistent Conventional Convincing Cool-headed Cooperative Cordial Courageous Courteous Crafty Creative Cries without shame  Compassionate  Critical  Competent  Cultured  Competitive  Cunning  Complex  Cynical  Compliant  Daring  Compulsive  Decisive  Conceited  Dedicated  Concerned about group harmony  Defends own beliefs  7 Extremely Desirable  124 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4 Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Defiant  Efficient  Deliberate  Emotional  Democratic  Energetic  Dependable  Enterprising  Dependent  Entertaining  Dignified  Enthusiastic  Diligent  Erratic  Diplomatic  Ethical  Direct  Excitable  Disciplined  Experienced  Disorganized  Expresses emotions easily  Dissatisfied Does not give up easily Does not use harsh language  Expressive Extravagant Extroverted  Dominant  Fair-minded  Down-to-earth  Faithful  Dynamic  Fashionable  Eager  Fearless  Eager to soothe hurt feelings  Feelings not easily hurt  Earnest  Feminine  Easily expresses tender feelings  Fickle Finicky  Easygoing Effective  Firm Flashy  7 Extremely Desirable  125 1 Not At All Desirable Flatterable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4  Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Has a good sense of humour  Flexible Has leadership abilities Flirtatious Hasty Forceful Haughty Forgetful Headstrong Forgiving Forthright Frank Free-thinking Friendly Generous Genial Gentle Giving Glamourous Glib Good Good-natured Gossipy  Helpful Helpless Hides his/her emotions High-strung Honest Hopeful Humane Humble Humourous Idealistic Imaginative Impartial Impatient Impersonal  Graceful Impolite Gracious Impractical Greedy Impressionable Gullible Impulsive Happy Incisive Hard-headed  7 Extremely Desirable  126 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4  Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Inconsistent  Law-abiding  Independent  Lazy  Individualistic  Level-headed  Industrious  Light-hearted  Inefficient  Likable  Informal  Likes a good argument  Inhibited  Likes security  Innocent  Literary  Innovative  Little need for security  Insightful Intellectual Intelligent Intense Interesting  Lively Logical Loves children Loving Loyal  Introspective Lucky Intuitive Lusty Inventive Makes decisions easily Irrational Jealous  Makes decisions without regard for the feelings of others  Just Masculine Kind Materialistic Kindrhearted Mathematical Kittenish Mature Knows the way of the world  Meddlesome  7 Extremely Desirable  127 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4  Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Melodramatic  Optimistic  Messy  Organized  Methodical  Original  Mischievous  Outgoing  Moderate  Outspoken  Modest  Overconfident  Moody  Passionate  Moral  Passive  Moralistic  Patient  Neat  Pays attention to own physical appearance  Nervous Perceptive Never cries Perfectionist Nice Persistent Nonchalant Persuasive Not conceited about own physical appearance  Philosophical  Not easily influenced  Playful  Not excitable in the time of crisis  Pleasant Poised  Objective Polite Obliging Pompous Observant Possessive Obstinate Practical Open-mouthed Precise Opinionated Preoccupied Opportunist  7 Extremely Desirable  128 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4  Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  Principled  Romantic  Productive  Rugged  Profound  Sarcastic  Protective  Scientific  Prudent  Secretive  Punctual  Seductive  Purposeful  Seeks out new  Quick  6 Very Desirable  experiences  Quiet  Self-assured  Rash  Self-centered  Rational  Self-confident  Realistic  Self-conscious  Reasonable  Self-controlled  Rebellious  Self-critical  Reckless  Self-denying  Refined  Selfish  Relaxed  Selfless  Reliable  Self-reliant  Religious  Self-righteous  Reserved  Self-sacrificing  Resourceful  Self-sufficient Sensible  Respectful Responsible  7 Extremely Desirable  Sensitive  Restless  Sensitive to the needs of others  Rigid  Sensuous  _.  129 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4 Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Sentimental  Strong-minded  Serious  Strong-personality  Sexually attractive  Stubborn  Sexy  Subjective  Shortsighted  Submissive  Showy  Superstitious  Shrewd  Supportive  Shy  Suspicious  Silly  Sympathetic  Simple, naive  Systematic  Sincere  Tactful  Skeptical  Tactless  Skilled  Talented  Skilled in business  Talkative  Sly  Temperamental  Smug  Tender  Snobbish  Tender-hearted  Sociable  Tense  Soft-spoken  Theatrical  Solemn  Thinks before acting  Sophisticated  Thorough  Spirited  Thoughtful  Spontaneous  Thoughtful of others  Stingy  Thrifty  Straightforward  Tolerant  7 Extremely Desirable  130 1 Not At All Desirable  2 Slightly Desirable  3 Somewhat Desirable  4  Moderately Desirable  5 Quite Desirable  6 Very Desirable  Touchy  Vain  Trusting  Versatile  Trustworthy  Yigourous  Truthful  Vivacious  Unassuming  Warm  Uncomplaining  Warm-hearted  Uncompromising  Willing to accept change  Unconcerned about having the approval of others  Willing to make sacrifices for others  Unconventional  Willing to take a stand  Understanding  Willing to take risks  Unemotional  Withdrawn  Unpredictable  Witty*  Unselfish  Worldly  Unsystematic  Worrier Yielding;  7 Extremely Desirable  131  The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t some b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n . G i v e n t h a t U . B . C . has s u c h a d i v e r s e s t u d e n t b o d y , I hope t o i n c l u d e p e o p l e f r o m many d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s f a i l e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y a n d h a s made i t d i f f i c u l t to generalize r e s u l t s to other ethnic groups. Please t a k e a few moments t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n s . 1.  Age:  3.  Part-time  2. student  Full-time  Undergraduate Ethnic  5.  Were y o u b o r n i n Canada? Yes  6.  no,  Background No  how many y e a r s h a v e y o u b e e n  Were y o u r p a r e n t s b o r n i n Canada? I f t h e y been h e r e ? Father:  7.  student Graduate  4.  If  Sex: M  Yes  No  Yrs  here? no,  Mother:  Were y o u r g r a n d p a r e n t s b o r n i n Canada? I f have t h e y b e e n h e r e ?  how many y e a r s Yes no,  No  have Yrs  how many y e a r s  Paternal Grandparents: G r a n d f a t h e r : Yes No G r a n d m o t h e r : Yes No  Yrs Yrs  Does n o t Does n o t  live live  i n Canada i n Canada  Maternal Grandparents: G r a n d f a t h e r : Yes No G r a n d m o t h e r : Yes No  Yrs Yrs  Does n o t l i v e Does n o t l i v e  i n Canada i n Canada  What i s t h e p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e s p o k e n by y o u , your parents, , a t home? 9.  A r e y o u c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n , o r have y o u p r e v i o u s l y t a k e n , p s y c h o l o g y 100 c o u r s e ? Yes No  a  APPENDIX E  Background Information Sheet  133  The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t some b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n . G i v e n t h a t U . B . C . h a s s u c h a d i v e r s e s t u d e n t b o d y , I hope t o i n c l u d e p e o p l e f r o m many d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has f a i l e d t o a c k n o w l e d g e c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y a n d h a s made i t d i f f i c u l t to generalize r e s u l t s to other ethnic groups. Please t a k e a few moments t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n s . 1.  Age:  3.  Part-time  2. student  Full-time  Undergraduate Ethnic  5.  Were y o u b o r n i n Canada? Yes  6.  no,  Background No  how many y e a r s h a v e y o u b e e n  Were y o u r p a r e n t s b o r n i n Canada? I f t h e y been h e r e ? Father:  7.  student Graduate  4.  If  Sex: M  Yes  No  here? no,  Mother:  Yrs  Were y o u r g r a n d p a r e n t s b o r n i n Canada? I f have t h e y b e e n h e r e ?  how many y e a r s Yes no,  No  have Yrs  how many y e a r s  Paternal Grandparents: G r a n d f a t h e r : Yes No G r a n d m o t h e r : Yes No  Yrs Yrs  Does n o t Does n o t  live live  i n Canada i n Canada  Maternal Grandparents: G r a n d f a t h e r : Yes No G r a n d m o t h e r : Yes No  Yrs Yrs  Does n o t Does n o t  live live  i n Canada i n Canada  8.  What i s t h e p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e s p o k e n b y y o u , your p a r e n t s , , a t home?  9.  A r e you c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n , o r have you p r e v i o u s l y t a k e n , p s y c h o l o g y 100 c o u r s e ? Yes No  a  134  APPENDIX F  Means f o r U . B . C . and R a t e r s n o t  Raters Enrolled  Enrolled  i n Psychology  i n Psychology  100  100  135 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Male Raters: Enrolled in Pscyhology 100 Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.83  0.99  18  3.80  1.15  15  Aggressive  4.50  1.42  18  3.40  1.55  15  Ambitious  5.72  1.27  18  4.60  1.06  15  Analytical  4.50  1.38  18  3.00  1.46  15  Assertive  4.94  1.09  17  4.33  1.50  15  Athletic  6.17  0.86  18  5.00  1.69  15  Competitive  5.83  0.79  18  4.33  1.80  15  Defends own beliefs  5.56  1.10  18  4.33  1.68  15  Dominant  4.17  1.62  18  2.33  1.54  15  Forceful  3.89  1.94  18  2.60  1.12  15  Has leadership abilities  6.11  0.76  18  4.60  1.76  15  Independent  5.83  0.92  18  3.67  1.91  15  Individualistic  4.83  1.25  18  3.27  1.83  15  Makes decisions easily  5.22  1.00  18  5.07  1.22  15  Masculine  6.11  1.08  18  1.33  0.49  15  Self-reliant  5.11  1.08  18  3.92  1.19  13  Self-sufficient  5.56  1.10  18  4.73  1.28  15  Strong-personality  5.00  1.19  18  4.13  1.85  15  Willing to take a stand  5.33  1.24  18  4.20  1.66  15  Willing to take risks  5.50  0.79  18  4.27  1.53  15  136  Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Male Raters: Enrolled in Pscyhology 100 Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.72  1.49  18  6.20  0.86  15  Cheerful  5.00  1.03  18  5.87  0.64  15  Childlike  2.22  1.06  18  3.27  1.83  15  Compassionate  4.78  1.77  18  5.87  0.92  15  Does not use harsh  3.61  1.38  18  5.13  2.00  15  4.72  1.02  18  4.73  1.44  15  Feminine  2.11  1.75  18  6.20  0.77  15  Flatterable  3.33  1.41  18  4.93  1.10  15  Gentle  3.88  1.76  17  5.57  1.16  14  Gullible  1.89  1.57  18  2.27  1.44  15  Loves children  4.83  1.38  18  5.67  1.35  15  Loyal  5.11  1.28  18  6.33  0.62  15  Sensitive to the needs  4.17  1.29  18  6.07  0.80  15  Shy  2.11  0.90  18  4.13  1.41  15  Soft-spoken  3.11  1.41  18  4.67  1.40  15  Sympathetic  4.50  0.99  18  5.33  1.29  15  Tender  4.11  1.28  18  5.47  0.99  15  Understanding  5.33  0.97  18  5.53  1.06  15  Warm  4.89  1.37  18  6.00  0.65  15  Yielding  3.06  1.76  18  3.75  1.54  12  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  137 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Female Raters: Enrolled in Psychology 100 Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.19  0.88  43  3.66  1.44  38  Aggressive  4.28  1.62  43  2.63  1.30  38  Ambitious  6.05  1.07  43  4.50  1.52  38  Analytical  4.38  1.59  42  3.43  1.17  37  Assertive  5.49  1.32  43  3.87  1.49  38  Athletic  5.81  1.22  43  4.39  1.39  38  Competitive  5.19  1.33  43  3.61  1.39  38  Defends own beliefs  5.51  1.20  43  4.55  1.59  38  Dominant  4.28  1.65  43  2.34  1.46  38  Forceful  3.64  1.81  42  2.84  1.26  38  Has leadership abilities  5.98  1.20  42  4.14  1.38  37  Independent  6.10  1.12  42  4.37  1.73  Individualistic  5.52  1.33  42  4.08  1.75  38  Makes decisions easily  5.19  1.31  42  4.32  1.42  38  Masculine  6.39  0.73  42  1.76  1.15  38  Self-reliant  5.15  1.41  40  4.37  1.44  35  Self-sufficient  5.68  1.31  41  4.61  1.10  38  Strong-personality  5.46  1.05  41  4.21  1.45  38  Willing to take a stand  5.59  1.00  41  4.58  1.29  38  Willing to take risks  5.49  0.90  41  4.43  1.14  37  A  38  138 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Female Raters: Enrolled in Psychology 100 Feminine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.98  1.54  43  6.16  1.20  38  Cheerful  5.14  1.23  43  6.00  1.01  38  Childlike  2.12  1.35  43  3.29  1.64  38  Compassionate  5.05  1.66  43  6.05  1.23  38  Does not use harsh  4.16  1.62  43  5.37  1.65  38  4.72  1.47  43  4.53  1.43  38  Feminine  1.47  1.03  43  6.24  1.13  38  Flatterable  3.17  1.22  41  5.14  1.48  37  Gentle  3.78  1.66  36  5.24  1.37  33  Gullible  1.54  0.95  41  2.82  1.63  38  Loves children  4.64  1.53  42  6.26  1.08  38  Loyal  5.62  1.46  42  6.16  1.21  37  Sensitive to the needs  4.59  1.60  41  5.55  1.43  38  Shy  2.34  1.41  41  3.26  1.37  38  Soft-spoken  2.66  1.61  41  4.39  1.40  36  Sympathetic  4.51  1.63  41  5.87  0.96  38  Tender  4.28  1.72  40  5.53  1.13  38  Understanding  5.34  1.22  41  5.71  0.96  38  Warm  4.90  1.30  41  5.97  0.94  38  Yielding  2.65  1.42  37  4.17  1.65  36  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  139 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Male Raters: Not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.57  1.33  21  4.13  1.32  23  Aggressive  5.00  1.34  21  3.26  1.39  23  Ambitious  6.00  1.00  21  4.82  1.40  22  Analytical  4.67  1.39  21  4.17  1.40  23  Assertive  5.52  1.03  21  3.82  1.47  22  Athletic  6.05  1.24  21  5.57  1.20  23  Competitive  5.95  1.07  21  3.96  1.64  23  Defends own beliefs  5.81  1.03  21  4.87  1.25  23  Dominant  4.76  1.55  21  2.65  1.37  23  Forceful  4.38  1.50  21  3.17  1.40  23  Has leadership abilities  6.15  0.81  20  4.48  1.38  23  Independent  5.43  1.21  21  4.35  1.61  23  Individualistic  4.86  1.82  21  4.35  1.47  23  Makes decisions easily  5.19  1.54  21  4.61  1.16  23  Masculine  6.00  1.30  20  1.61  1.03  23  Self-reliant  5.10  1.37  21  4.40  1.39  20  Self-sufficient  5.57  1.16  21  4.82  1.59  22  Strong-personality  5.43  1.40  21  4.68  1.32  22  Willing to take a stand  5.52  0.87  21  4.73  1.20  22  Willing to take risks  5.19  1.08  21  4.45  1.22  22  140 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Male Raters: Not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.48  1.40  21  6.52  0.73  23  Cheerful  5.19  1.29  21  6.00  0.95  23  Childlike  1.90  1.04  21  3.35  1.43  23  Compassionate  4.43  1.36  21  6.26  0.86  23  Does not use harsh  4.19  1.94  21  5.26  1.79  23  3.90  1.64  21  4.87  1.25  23  Feminine  1.43  0.87  21  6.17  0.98  23  Flatterable  3.38  1.36  21  5.09  1.20  23  Gentle  4.00  1.50  18  5.14  1.39  21  Gullible  1.62  0.97  21  2.39  1.34  23  Loves children  4.67  1.49  21  5.96  1.02  23  Loyal  5.76  1.14  21  6.43  0.59  23  Sensitive to the needs  4.33  1.35  21  5.95  0.84  22  Shy  2.38  1.20  21  3.64  1.62  22  Soft-spoken  2.95  1.47  21  4.33  1.11  21  Sympathetic  4.33  1.24  21  5.32  1.17  22  Tender  3.95  1.43  21  5.68  0.72  22  Understanding  5.00  1.38  21  5.59  0.85  22  Warm  4.43  1.33  21  6.23  0.43  22  Yielding  2.52  1.17  21  4.48  1.17  21  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  141 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Female Raters: Not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.05  0.79  22  3.76  1.13  25  Aggressive  4.00  1.51  22  3.08  1.66  25  Ambitious  6.23  0.75  22  3.88  1.59  25  Analytical  4.41  1.40  22  3.36  1.19  25  Assertive  5.32  0.84  22  4.08  1.53  25  Athletic  5.95  0.90  22  4.88  1.48  25  Competitive  5.18  1.10  22  3.40  1.78  25  Defends own beliefs  5.55  1.10  22  4.80  1.29  25  Dominant  3.82  1.56  22  2.40  1.47  25  Forceful  3.68  1,76  22  2.64  1.29  25  Has leadership abilities  6.23  0.81  22  4.24  1.13  25  Independent  6.09  0.92  22  4.48  1.29  25  Individualistic  5.36  1.50  22  4.28  1.10  25  Makes decisions easily  4.59  1.26  22  4.44  1.12  25  Masculine  6.36  1.26  22  1.80  1.04  25  Self-reliant  4.91  1.06  22  4.21  1.35  24  Self-sufficient  5.55  1.18  22  4.54  1.41  24  Strong-personality  5.27  1.03  22  3.96  1.43  24  Willing to take a stand  5.55  0.86  22  4.22  1.24  23  Willing to take risks  5.50  0.86  22  4.13  1.01  23  142 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Enrolled in Psychology 100 and Judges not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Female Raters: Not Enrolled in Psychology 100 Feminine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.36  1.50  22  6.32  0.80  25  Cheerful  5.41  0.96  22  6.16  0.94  25  Childlike  2.09  1.11  22  3.68  1.70  25  Compassionate  5.05  1.46  22  6.48  0.71  25  Does not use harsh  4.05  1.99  22  5.36  1.32  25  4.45  1.53  22  4.20  1.29  25  Feminine  1.27  0.55  22  6.00  1.22  25  Flatterable  3.24  1.34  21  4.68  1.65  25  Gentle  4.35  1.54  17  5.45  1.30  22  Gullible  1.18  0.39  22  2.76  1.56  25  Loves children  5.18  1.50  22  5.96  0.93  25  Loyal  5.91  1.23  22  6.04  1.34  25  Sensitive to the needs  5.09  1.48  22  5.83  1.09  24  Shy  2.09  0.75  22  3.33  1.24  24  Soft-spoken  2.82  1.22  22  4.50  1.32  24  Sympathetic  4.82  1.14  22  5.83  0.94  23  Tender  4.27  1.45  22  5.78  1.09  23  Understanding  5.41  1.18  22  5.83  0.89  23  Warm  5.14  1.25  22  5.96  0.88  23  Yielding  2.86  1.32  22  4.35  1.58  23  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  143  APPENDIX G  Means f o r U . B . C . at  Raters  Home and R a t e r s  who C o m p l e t e d t h e  who C o m p l e t e d i t  in  Questionnaire  Class  144 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Male Raters: Take Home Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD :  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.50  0.84  6  4.80  1.10  6  Aggressive  4.50  1.05  6  3.40  1.52  6  Ambitious  6.33  0.52  6  5.20  0.45  6  Analytical  4.33  1.75  6  4.20  1.79  6  Assertive  5.83  0.41  6  4.60  0.89  5  Athletic  6.33  0.82  6  5.80  0.45  5  Competitive  6.00  0.89  6  4.20  1.64  5  Defends own beliefs  5.83  0.41  6  4.40  1.34  5  Dominant  4.67  1.86  6  2.40  1.52  5  Forceful  4.17  1.72  6  3.40  0.89  5  Has leadership abilities  6.17  0.41  6  4.60  0.55  5  Independent  6.33  0.82  6  4.60  0.55  5  Individualistic  5.00  1.79  6  4.20  1.30  5  Makes decisions easily  5.50  0.84  6  5.00  0.00  5  Masculine  6.17  0.98  6  1.40  0.55  5  Self-reliant  5.17  1.33  6  4.00  1.00  5  Self-sufficient  5.83  0.75  6  5.40  0.55  5  Strong-personality  5.83  0.75  6  4.80  0.84  5  Willing to take a stand  5.83  0.75  6  4.40  0.55  5  Willing to take risks  5.17  1.17  6  4.80  0.84  5  145 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Male Raters: Take Home Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.67  1.51  6  6.40  0.89  5  Cheerful  5.00  1.26  6  6.00  0.00  5  Childlike  1.67  0.82  6  2.80  1.10  5  Compassionate  4.83  1.94  6  5.40  0.89  5  Does not use harsh  4.00  2.10  6  5.00  1.22  5  4.67  1.37  6  5.00  0.71  5  Feminine  1.33  0.82  6  6.40  0.55  5  Flatterable  3.00  1.10  6  4.60  1.14  5  Gentle  3.17  1.72  6  5.20  0.84  5  Gullible  1.00  0.00  6  1.60  0.55  5  Loves children  5.00  1.90  6  5.60  1.14  5  Loyal  6.17  0.98  6  5.80  0.84  5  Sensitive to the needs  4.00  1.67  6  5.60  0.55  5  Shy  2.33  0.52  6  3.80  0.84  5  Soft-spoken  3.17  1.83  6  4.40  0.89  5  Sympathetic  4.67  1.51  6  4.80  0.45  5  Tender  3.50  1.38  6  5.60  0.55  5  Understanding  4.50  1.38  6  5.40  0.55  5  Warm  4.00  1.79  6  6.20  0.45  5  Yielding  2.33  1.21  6  3.60  1.14  5  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  146 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Female Raters: Take Home Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD :  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.78  1.20  9  3.25  1.39  8  Aggressive  3.78  1.79  9  2.75  1.67  8  Ambitious  6.22  0.83  9  3.62  2.26  8  Analytical  3.78  1.48  9  3.38  1.67  8  Assertive  5.78  0.83  9  3.63  1.85  8  Athletic  6.00  0.87  9  3.88  1.81  8  Competitive  4.89  1.27  9  2.63  1.92  8  Defends own beliefs  5.56  1.24  9  4.75  1.67  8  Dominant  4.44  1.42  9  2.25  1.58  8  Forceful  3.78  1.64  9  2.38  1.30  8  Has leadership abilities  5.78  0.67  9  4.25  1.67  8  Independent  5.89  0.60  9  4.00  1.85  8  Individualistic  4.78  1.39  9  3.38  1.60  8  Makes decisions easily  4.78  1.20  9  3.75  1.04  8  Masculine  6.56  0.73  9  2.13  1.36  8  Self-reliant  5.25  1.04  8  4.00  1.60  8  Self-sufficient  5.33  1.32  9  4.75  1.75  8  Strong-personality  5.56  1.24  9  3.38  1.69  8  Willing to take a stand  5.56  1.33  9  4.00  1.41  8  Willing to take risks  5.33  1.00  9  4.25  0.71  8  147 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Female Raters: Take Home Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.56  1.51  9  6.50  0.76  8  Cheerful  5.44  0.88  9  6.25  0.71  8  Childlike  2.33  1.32  9  4.00  1.51  8  Compassionate  5.44  0.88  9  6.38  0.52  8  Does not use harsh  4.33  1.41  9  4.63  2.13  8  3.44  1.59  9  4.38  1.60  8  Feminine  1.44  0.53  9  6.25  1.04  8  Flatterable  3.13  1.46  8  5.75  0.71  8  Gentle  4.80  1.10  5  5.86  1.07  7  Gullible  1.56  1.33  9  3.13  1.25  8  Loves children  5.11  1.45  9  6.13  0.83  8  Loyal  6.67  0.50  9  6.50  0.76  8  Sensitive to the needs  5.56  1.33  9  5.88  1.46  8  Shy  2.11  0.93  9  3.75  1.58  8  Soft-spoken  2.78  1.56  9  4.50  0.76  8  Sympathetic  4.89  1.05  9  6.00  0.93  8  Tender  4.00  1.66  9  5.88  0.83  8  Understanding  5.89  1.45  9  5.88  0.64  8  Warm  5.22  1.56  9  6.13  0.83  8  Yielding  3.00  1.58  9  4.62  1.19  8  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  148 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Male Raters: In Class Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.72  1.19  36  3.88  1.23  34  Aggressive  4.75  1.48  36  3.29  1.43  34  Ambitious  5.81  1.17  36  4.64  1.32  33  Analytical  4.69  1.31  36  3.65  1.47  34  Assertive  5.14  1.12  35  3.94  1.52  33  Athletic  6.06  1.09  36  5.21  1.53  34  Competitive  5.86  0.93  36  4.06  1.70  34  Defends own beliefs  5.61  1.18  36  4.71  1.45  34  Dominant  4.47  1.52  36  2.53  1.42  34  Forceful  4.17  1.70  36  2.85  1.35  34  Has leadership abilities  6.03  1.07  35  3.88  1.23  34  Independent  5.56  1.08  36  4.00  1.83  34  Individualistic  4.86  1.50  36  3.91  1.73  34  Makes decisions easily  5.00  1.53  36  4.79  1.27  34  Masculine  5.97  1.25  35  1.53  0.90  34  Self-reliant  5.06  1.26  35  4.31  1.39  29  Self-sufficient  5.49  1.15  35  4.67  1.51  33  Strong-personality  5.03  1.38  35  4.48  1.68  33  Willing to take a stand  5.40  1.09  35  4.58  1.50  33  Willing to take risks  5.26  1.01  35  4.27  1.40  33  149  Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the  Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Male Raters: In Class Feminine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Affectionate  4.50  1.40  36  6.38  0.78  34  Cheerful  5.11  1.19  36  5.91  0.90  34  Childlike  2.22  1.12  36  3.41  1.62  34  Compassionate  4.47  1.46  36  6.67  0.84  34  Does not use harsh  3.83  1.66  36  5.26  1.91  34  4.36  1.48  36  4.82  1.38  34  Feminine  1.89  1.45  36  6.18  0.94  34  Flatterable  3.47  1.38  36  5.09  1.14  34  Gentle  4.16  1.61  31  5.35  1.36  31  Gullible  1.94  1.47  36  2.41  1.42  34  Loves children  4.81  1.37  36  5.88  1.15  34  Loyal  5.28  1.26  36  6.50  0.51  34  Sensitive to the needs  4.37  1.26  35  6.06  0.83  33  Shy  2.34  1.21  35  3.79  1.63  33  Soft-spoken  3.03  1.38  35  4.50  1.27  32  Sympathetic  4.31  1.05  35  5.42  1.25  33  Tender  4.14  1.35  35  5.61  0.86  33  Understanding  5.20  1.26  35  5.61  0.97  33  Warm  4.80  1.23  35  6.15  0.57  33  Yielding  2.83  1.52  35  4.28  1.36  29  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  150 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Female Raters: In Class Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.12  0.95  57  3.76  1.30  55  Aggressive  4.21  1.57  57  2.82  1.44  55  Ambitious  6.11  0.99  57  4.35  1.44  55  Analytical  4.45  1.54  56  3.41  1.09  54  Assertive  5.40  1.22  57  4.00  1.45  55  Athletic  5.82  1.15  57  4.69  1.36  55  Competitive  5.23  1.24  57  3.65  1.46  55  Defends own beliefs  5.53  1.15  57  4.64  1.46  55  Dominant  4.07  1.65  57  2.38  1.45  55  Forceful  3.64  1.81  55  2.82  1.26  55  Has leadership abilities  6.11  1.13  55  4.17  1.22  54  Independent  6.13  1.11  55  4.47  1.53  55  Individualistic  5.58  1.36  55  4.27  1.48  55  Makes decisions easily  5.02  1.34  55  4.45  1.32  55  Masculine  6.35  0.97  55  1.73  1.06  55  Self-reliant  5.04  1.33  54  4.35  1.37  51  Self-sufficient  5.69  1.26  54  4.56  1.14  54  Strong-personality  5.37  1.01  54  4.22  1.38  54  Willing to take a stand  5.57  0.88  54  4.51  1.25  53  Willing to take risks  5.52  0.86  54  4.33  1.15  52  151 Ratings on the 40 Sex-Typed BSRI Items by Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire at Home and Judges Who Completed the Questionnaire in Class Female Raters: In Class Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.00  1.54  57  6.18  1.09  55  Cheerful  5.19  1.17  57  6.04  1.02  55  Childlike  2.07  1.25  57  3.36  1.68  55  Compassionate  4.98  1.65  57  6.20  1.13  55  Does not use harsh  4.05  1.80  57  5.47  1.40  55  4.79  1.40  57  4.40  1.36  55  Feminine  1.39  0.95  56  6.13  1.19  55  Flatterable  3.20  1.23  54  4.83  1.61  54  Gentle  3.87  1.66  48  5.25  1.36  48  Gullible  1.39  0.71  54  2.75  1.64  55  Loves children  4.78  1.55  55  6.15  1.06  55  Loyal  5.56  1.42  55  6.06  1.31  54  Sensitive to the needs  4.63  1.57  54  5.63  1.29  54  Shy  2.28  1.27  54  3.22  1.27  54  Soft-spoken  2.70  1.47  54  4.42  1.43  52  Sympathetic  4.57  1.54  54  5.83  0.96  53  Tender  4.32  1.63  53  5.58  1.15  53  Understanding  5.28  1.14  54  5.74  0.96  53  Warm  4.94  1.23  54  5.94  0.93  53  Yielding  2.68  1.35  50  4.18  1.67  51  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  152  APPENDIX H  Items Rated as More D e s i r a b l e f o r Men by Male Raters  153 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Male Raters* Items Able to be aggressive  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  4.15  1.37  41  3.46  1.25  39  5.69  1.02  42  4.77  1.22  39  Abrupt  3.10  1.39  39  2.30  1.53  37  Acts as a leader  5.69  1.14  42  4.00  1.24  39  Aggressive  4.71  1.42  42  3.31  1.42  39  Ambitious  5.88  1.11  42  4.71  1.25  38  Analytical  4.64  1.36  42  3.72  1.50  39  Arrogant  3.26  1.67  42  2.21  1.23  38  Assertive  5.24  1.07  41  4.03  1.46  38  Athletic  6.10  1.06  42  5.28  1.45  39  Boastful  2.29  1.45  41  1.74  0.99  39  Bold  5.21  1.30  42  3.51  1.50  39  Brave  6.02  0.90  42  4.33  1.44  39  Bright  5.88  0.92  42  5.23  1.29  39  Businesslike  5.05  1.30  41  4.05  1.34  39  Calculating  3.90  1.46  42  3.03  1.13  38  Capable in  6.14  0.75  42  5.08  1.58  38  Certain  5.12  1.13  42  4.53  1.25  38  Competent  5.83  1.15  42  5.33  1.13  39  without feeling discomfort Able to withstand emotional pressure  emergencies  154 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Male Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Competitive  5.88  0.92  42  4.08  1.68  39  Courageous  5.71  1.24  42  4.31  1.51  39  Cunning  3.95  1.41  41  3.26  1.72  38  Daring  4.74  1.38  42  4.08  1.72  39  Decisive  5.61  0.97  41  4.46  1.10  39  Defends own beliefs -  5.64  1.10  42  4.67  1.42  39  Defiant  3.69  1.51  42  2.81  1.45  37  Does not give up easily  5.88  1.09  42  4.69  1.34  39  Dominant  4.50  1.55  42  2.51  1.41  39  Effective  5.45  0.88  40  5.00  1.09  35  Efficient  5.67  0.93  42  5.23  0.99  39  Enterprising  5.20  1.15  41  4.59  1.42  37  Experienced  5.57  1.02  42  4.38  1.55  37  Fearless  5.26  1.19  42  3.77  1.60  39  Feelings not easily hurt  5.52  1.23  42  4.08  1.66  39  Firm  5.02  1.08  41  3.90  1.47  39  Forceful  4.17  1.68  42  2.92  1.31  39  Hard-headed  3.37  1.69  41  2.26  1.33  38  Has leadership abilities  6.05  1.00  41  4.51  1.50  39  Hides his/her emotions  3.62  1.91  42  2.46  1.32  39  Independent  5.67  1.07  42  4.08  1.72  39  Individualistic  4.88  1.52  42  3.95  1.67  39  Industrious  5.22  1.24  41  4.03  1.50  38  155 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Male Raters* Items Knows the way of the  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  5.17  1.27  42  4.51  1.36  39  Likes a good argument  4.19  1.31  42  3.44  1.64  ' 39  Little need for security  4.20  1.66  41  2.89  1.41  38  Logical  5.14  1.14  42  4.62  1.12  39  Masculine  6.00  1.20  41  1.51  0.85  39  Materialistic  3.98  1.69  42  2.38  1.48  39  Mathematical  4.00  1.56  42  3.34  1.40  38  Makes decisions  2.40  1.48  42  1.49  0.64  39  Never cries  4.21  2.08  42  2.56  1.47  39  Objective  4.98  1.07  42  4.46  1.17  37  Opinionated  4.29  1.42  41  3.13  1.56  38  Opportunist  5.07  1.31  41  4.11  1.50  38  Outgoing  5.63  0.99  41  5.16  1.13  38  Outspoken  4.28  1.40  40  3.43  1.57  37  Persistent  4.88  1.01  41  4.18  1.43  38  Possessive  3.12  1.36  41  2.50  1.50  38  Precise  4.73  1.00  41  4.22  1.13  37  Resource  5.27  0.90  41  4.82  1.11  38  Rigid  3.15  1.48  40  2.16  1.33  38  Sarcastic (a)  2.93  1.21  41  2.24  1.55  38  world  without regard for the feelings of others  156 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Male Raters* Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Scientific  4.02  1.39  41  3.37  1.40  38  Self-confident  5.66  1.26  41  4.63  1.26  38  Self-controlled  5.27  1.16  41  4.62  1.16  37  Self-reliant  5.07  1.25  41  4.26  1.33  34  Self-sufficient  5.54  1.10  41  4.76  1.44  38  Shrewd  3.31  1.61  39  2.47  1.37  38  Skilled  5.61  0.77  41  4.68  1.12  38  Skilled at business  5.37  1.14  41  4.26  1 31  38  Sly  3.56  1.29  41  2.57  1 35  37  Strong-minded  4.98  1.33  41  4.00  1.59  38  Suspicious  3.12  1.45  41  2.39  1 29  38  Talented  5.49  0.87  41  5.03  1 05  38  Unemotional  3.54  1.52  41  2.24  1 46  38  Willing to take a stand  5.46  1.05  41  4.55  1 41  38  Willing to take risks  5.24  1.02  41  4.34  1 34  38  * p < .05, 2-tailed. (a) sarcastic was rated as more desirable for men by male raters; the same item was rated as more desirable for women by female raters.  APPENDIX I  Items Rated as More D e s i r a b l e f o r Women by Male Raters  158 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items Able to devote oneself  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  4.83  1.40  42  5.59  1.09  39  Absent-minded  1.38  0.91  42  2.03  1.33  39  Accommodating  4.43  1.29  42  5.33  1.18  39  Affectionate  4.52  1.40  42  6.38  0.78  39  Agreeable  4.50  1.38  42  5.18  1.10  39  Appreciative  4.79  1.32  42  5.85  0.88  39  Artistic  3.69  1.32  42  4.92  1.16  39  Attractive  5.76  1.36  42  6.82  0.45  39  Bashful  2.20  1.24  40  4.10  1.41  39  Cheerful  5.10  1.19  42  5.92  0.84  39  Childlike  2.14  1.10  42  3.33  1.56  39  Comfortable when  4.45  1.66  42  5.42  1.37  38  Compassionate  4.52  1.52  42  6.10.  0.88  39  Compliant  3.71  1.39  38  4.77  1.61  35  Congenial  4.24  1.14  37  5.17  1.12  35  Conscientious  4.57  1.13  42  5.32  0.90  38  Considerate  5.12  0.92  42  5.62  1.14  39  Cooperative  4.95  1.23  42  5.72  0.89  39  Cordial  4.54  1.27  39  5.34  1.34  32  to others  people express emotions  159 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Courteous  5.02  1.18  42  5.74  0.91  39  Creative  4.74  1.53  42  5.38  1.09  39  Cries without shame  2.79  1.60  42  4.26  1.65  39  Dependent  2.10  1.28  42  4.49  1.76  39  Does not use harsh  3.86  1.17  42  5.23  1.83  39  language  •  Down-to-earth  5.10  1.03  42  5.62  1.18  39  Eager to soothe hurt  4.24  1.48  42  5.56  1.12  39  Earnest  4.20  1.02  40  4.89  1.47  35  Easily expresses  3.36  1.53  42  5.56  1.05  39  Easygoing  5.05  1.27  42  5.72  0.92  39  Emotional  3.00  1.33  42  4.59  1.46  39  Empathy  4.45  1.53  42  5.56  1.17  39  Enthusiastic  5.17  0.96  42  5.69  0.86  39  Ethical  4.52  1.25  42  5.24  1.32  38  Excitable  3.67  1.54  42  4.56  1.52  39  Expresses emotions  3.40  1.47  42  4.59  1.47  39  Expressive  3.88  1.35  42  5.18  0.97  39  Faithful  5.52  1.11  42  6.38  1.02  39  Fashionable  4.71  1.61  42  5.62  1.18  39  feelings  tender feelings  easily  160 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Men Cases  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Women Cases  Feminine  1.81  1.38  42  6.21  0.89  39  Flatterable  3.40  1.35  42  5.03  1.14  39  Flexible  4.76  1.01  42  5.51  0.94  39  Forgiving  4.33  1.34  42  5.79  0.83  39  Friendly  5.48  1.13  42  6.05  0.86  39  Generous  5.10  1.06  42  5.77  0.90  39  Gentle  4.00  1.65  37  5.33  1.29  36  Giving  4.71  1.20  42  5.67  1.06  39  Glamour  3.33  1.41  42  5.13  1.38  39  Good-natured  5.14  1.30  42  5.87  0.89  39  Graceful  3.40  1.38  42  5.41  1.27  39  Gracious  4.02  1.31  41  5.36  1.06  39  Helpful  5.19  1.22  42  5.67  0.70  39  Helpless  1.40  0.86  42  2.39  1.35  39  Honest  5.38  6.23  0.77  39  Hopeful  4.74  1.11  42  5.42  1.03  38  Humane  4.81  1.25  42  5.92  0.77  39  Humble  4.38  1.43  42  5.05  1.21  39  Imaginative  4.79  1.22  42  5.38  0.99  39  Impressionable  3.31  1.65  42  4.03  1.53  39  Innocent  3.29  1.50  42  5.03  1.44  39  Kind  5.24  1.14  42  6.05  0.86  39  161 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Men Cases  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Women Cases  Kind-hearted  5.05  1.40  42  6.13  0.77  39  Kittenish  1.78  0.95  37  4.00  1.80  37  Law-abiding  4.76  1.48  42  5.56  1.33  39  Likable  5.40  1.15  42  6.13  0.80  39  Lively  4.81  1.02  42  5.39  0.95  38  Loves children  4.83  1.43  42  5.85  1.14  39  Loving  5.36  1.19  42  6.46  0.68  39  Loyal  5.40  1.25  42  6.41  0.60  39  Lusty  4.18  1.87  40  5.31  1.56  39  Moral  4.69  1.18  42  5.33  1.34  39  Neat  4.67  1.20  42  5.38  1.21  39  Nice  5.02  1.28  41  6.00  0.86  39  Observant  4.76  1.19  42  5.24  0.75  38  Passionate  4.66  1.33  41  6.13  0.88  38  Passive  2.63  1.30  40  3.97  1.84  36  Patient  4.66  1.44  41  5.53  0.92  38  Pays attention to own  4.38  1.64  42  5.36  1.44  39  Playful  4.32  1.23  41  5.76  0.91  38  Pleasant  5.17  1.07  41  6.03  0.75  38  Polite  5.34  1.13  41  5.82  1.04  38  Quiet  3.02  1.08  41  4.16  1.41  38  Romantic  4.93  1.31  41  5.89  1.06  38  physical appearance  162 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Wen Cases  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Women Cases  Seductive  4.00  1.45  40  5.63  1.28  38  Sensitive  4.32  1.31  41  6.00  0.81  38  Sensitive to the needs  4.54  1.31  41  5.82  0.90  38  Sensuous  3.78  1.39  40  5.95  0.91  37  Sentimental  3.80  1.09  40  4.92  1.12  38  Sexually attractive  5.73  1.14  41  6.74  0.50  38  Sexy  5.02  1.60  41  6.79  0.41  38  Showy  2.59  1.41  41  3.60  1.68  35  Shy  2.34  1.13  41  3.79  1.55  38  Silly  2.49  1.31  41  3.21  1.36  38  Simple  2.27  1.42  41  3.11  1.54  38  Sincere  4.54  1.03  41  5.45  0.89  38  Soft-spoken  3.05  1.43  41  4.49  1.22  37  Spirited  4.68  1.01  41  5.45  1.08  38  Submissive  2.53  1.25  38  4.17  1.45  35  Supportive  4.85  1.24  5.68  0.90  38  Sympathetic  4.37  1.11  41  5.34  1.19  38  Tender  4.05  1.36  41  5.61  0.82  38  Tender-hearted  4.15  1.44  41  5.74  0.92  38  Thoughtful of others  4.98  1.24  41  5.76  0.71  38  Tolerant  4.54  1.21  41  5.24  1.00  38  of others  163 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Male Raters* Items  Mean Rati ng and SD Number of for Wen Cases  Mean Rating and SD Number of for Women Cases  Trusting  5.22  1.41  41  5.76  0.85  38  Truthful  5.39  1.26  41  6.13  0.78  38  Vivacious  4.28  1.28  36  5.26  1.24  34  Warm  4.68  1.33  41  6.16  0.55  38  Warm-hearted  4.76  1.53  41  6.18  0.65  38  Worrier  1.80  1.08  41  2.58  1.69  38  Yielding  2.76  1.48  41  4.18  1.34  34  * p < .05, 2-tailed.  APPENDIX J  Items Rated as More D e s i r a b l e f o r Men by Female Raters  165 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items Able to be aggressive  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  4.06  1.61  66  3.43  1.51  63  3.45  1.71  66  2.78  1.51  63  5.14  1.46  66  4.41  1.32  59  5.67  1.28  66  4.84  1.63  63  Abrupt  2.48  1.34  63  1.75  1.20  59  Active  6.08  0.83  66  5.21  1.23  63  Acts as a leader  6.08  0.98  66  3.70  1.32  63  Adventurous  5.50  1.24  66  4.57  1.29  63  Aggressive  4.15  1.59  66  2.81  1.46  63  Alert  5.35  1.25  66  4.83  1.13  63  Ambitious  6.12  0.97  66  4.25  1.57  63  Amusing  5.27  1.24  66  4.66  1.17  62  Analytical  4.35  1.54  65  3.40  1.17  62  Arrogant  3.00  1.73  66  1.98  1.16  63  Assertive  5.45  1.18  66  3.95  1.50  63  Astute  4.78  1.47  51  3.79  1.32  42  Athletic  5.85  1.11  66  4.59  1.43  63  Blunt  2.97  1.44  65  1.97  1.04  62  without feeling discomfort Able to criticize others without feeling uneasy Able to separate ideas from feelings Able to withstand emotional pressures  166 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Boastful  2.21  1.30  66  1.62  1.02  63  Bold  4.88  1.46  66  3.37  1.50  63  Brave  5.97  0.96  66  4.14  1.33  63  Bright  5.89  0.88  66  5.17  1.25  63  Businesslike  5.11  1.50  66  4.05  1.30  63  Calculating  2.88  1.55  65  2.05  1.23  61  Candid  4.12  1.30  60  3.60  1.31  57  Capable in  6.29  1.06  66  5.34  1.31  62  Certain  5.39  1.20  64  4.44  1.36  61  Clear-thinking  5.83  0.90  66  5.15  1.23  62  Clever  5.80  1.08  66  4.83  1.34  63  Competent  5.91  1.06  66  5.18  1.26  62  Competitive  5.18  1.24  66  3.52  1.54  63  Complex  4.06  1.46  65  3.33  1.60  61  Convincing  4.77  1.37  65  4.18  1.31  62  Cool-headed  5.03  1.36  66  4.34  1.37  61  Courageous  5.80  1.01  66  4.27  1.29  63  Cunning  3.02  1.55  62  2.27  1.23  62  Cynical  2.11  1.04  62  1.76  0.97  62  Daring  4.86  1.32  66  3.87  1.54  63  Decisive  5.32  1.14  66  4.41  1.33  63  Defends own beliefs  5.53  1.15  66  4.65  1.47  63  emergencies  167 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Deliberate  3.90  1.36  63  3.30  1.26  56  Direct  4.92  1.19  66  4.23  1.31  60  Does not give up easily  5.64  1.02  66  4.33  1.36  63  Dominant  4.12  1.61  66  2.37  1.45  63  Effective  5.39  0.88  64  4.77  1.20  60  Enterprising  5.40  1.03  63  4.04  1.25  55  Experienced  5.52  1.15  65  4.32  1.36  59  Fearless  5.03  1.27  64  3.40  1.36  63  Feelings not easily hurt  4.91  1.48  65  3.74  1.41  62  Firm  4.92  1.20  64  3.70  1.24  63  Forceful  3.66  1.78  64  2.76  1.27  63  Forthright  4.51  1.12  53  4.00  1.33  54  Frank  4.52  1.27  64  3.42  1.22  62  Free-thinking  4.94  1.34  64  4.30  1.36  61  Hard-headed  3.02  1.58  62  2.32  1.29  63  Has leadership abilities  6.06  1.08  64  4.18  1.27  62  Headstrong  3.38  1.59  63  2.76  1.28  63  Impolite  1.63  1.33  64  1.25  0.54  63  Independent  6.09  1.05  64  4.41  1.56  63  Individualistic  5.47  1.38  64  4.16  1.52  63  Industrious  5.38  1.17  63  3.98  1.52  60  Innovative  5.08  1.11  63  4.13  1.27  60  Intellectual  5.63  1.16  64  4.76  1.23  63  168 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X Cases SD  Intelligent  6.00  1.02  64  5.14  1.23  63  Intense  4.30  1.35  64  3.43  1.36  60  Inventive  4.81  0.92  64  3.90  1.22  61  Knows the way of the  5.39  1.34  64  4.06  1.37  62  Level-headed  5.14  1.30  64  4.45  1.53  62  Likes a good argument  4.22  1.44  64  3.27  1.47  63  Logical  5.22  1.25  64  4.62  1.30  63  Makes decisions easily  4.98  1.32  64  4.37  1.30  63  Makes decisions  2.09  1.49  64  1.52  1.01  63  Masculine  6.37  0.93  64  1.78  1.10  63  Materialistic  3.39  1.39  64  2.76  1.49  63  Mathematical  4.20  1.51  64  2.90  1.25  63  Mature  6.02  0.93  64  5.14  1.26  63  Messy  1.83  1.03  63  1.41  0.64  63  Methodical  3.68  1.57  62  3.20  1.06  59  Never cries  3.60  1.92  63  2.55  1.46  62  Not easily influenced  4.84  1.33  63  3.68  1.23  63  Not excitable in time of  5.11  1.58  63  4.21  1.39  61  5.19  1.16  63  4.42  1.22  62  world  without regard for the feelings of others  crisis Objective  169 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Opinionated  3.97  1.53  63  3.05  1.41  63  Opportunist  4.75  1.70  63  3.18  1.54  60  Outspoken  4.39  1.27  62  3.59  1.58  63  Overconfident  2.87  1.65  63  2.16  1.19  63  Persistent  4.54  1.46  63  3.60  1.19  62  Persuasive  4.56  1.52  63  4.06  1.26  63  Possessive  2.90  1.50  63  2.25  1.34  63  Practical  5.19  1.13  63  4.65  1.27  63  Precise  4.48  1.15  62  3.97  1.34  61  Productive  5.59  1.01  63  4.81  1.27  62  Protective  5.30  1.33  63  4.25  1.74  61  Purposeful  5.08  1.20  63  4.48  1.23  60  Realistic  5.46  1.03  63  4.95  1.15  62  Rebellious  3.46  1.61  63  2.73  1.46  62  Reserved  2.90  1.56  62  3.43  1.31  61  Resource  5.31  1.07  62  4.47  1.28  60  Responsible  6.05  0.97  63  5.60  0.98  62  Restless  2.52  1.36  62  1.95  1.00  60  Rigid  2.10  1.11  61  1.62  0.84  61  Rugged  5.08  1.52  63  2.60  1.44  62  Scientific  4.05  1.56  63  2.80  1.14  61  Seeks out new  5.29  0.91  63  4.60  1.32  62  experiences  170 Items Rated as More Desirable for Men by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Self-assured  5.73  0.92  63  4.71  1.42  62  Self-confident  5.76  1.23  63  4.79  1.46  62  Self-controlled  5.13  1.23  63  4.56  1.35  61  Self-reliant  5.06  1.29  62  4.31  1.39  59  Self-sufficient  5.63  1.26  63  4.58  1.22  62  Serious  4.86  1.22  63  4.13  1.03  61  Skeptical  3.19  1.35  63  2.65  1.04  60  Skilled  5.68  1.01  63  4.56  1.31  62  Skilled in business  5.68  1.29  63  4.31  1.22  62  Sly  2.73  1.62  63  2.10  1.11  61  Straightforward  4.60  1.26  63  4.08  1.42  61  Strong-minded  5.17  1.12  63  3.78  1.30  62  Strong-personality  5.40  1.04  63  4.11  1.44  62  Stubborn  2.73  1.49  63  2.11  1.12  62  Thinks before acting  5.00  1.32  62  4.50  1.40  60  Thorough  4.98  1.34  63  4.50  1.23  58  Vigorous  4.73  1.57  59  4.05  1.18  55  Willing to take a stand  5.57  0.95  63  4.44  1.27  61  Willing to take risks  5.49  0.88  63  4.32  1.10  60  Worldly  5.07  1.21  61  4.38  1.24  61  * p < .05, 2-tailed.  APPENDIX K  Items Rated as More D e s i r a b l e f o r Women by Female Raters  172 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items Able to devote oneself  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of Cases X SD  4.92  1.40  66  5.49  1.24  63  Absent-minded  1.40  0.80  65  2.04  1.35  63  Accommodating  4.37  1.38  65  5.47  1.18  62  Affectionate  5.07  1.53  66  6.22  1.05  63  Agreeable  4.63  1.31  66  5.51  1.23  61  Appreciative  5.00  1.37  65  5.77  0.97  63  Artistic  3.41  1.31  66  4.57  1.24  63  Attractive  5.86  1.28  66  6.60  0.96  63  Bashful  2.40  1.46  66  3.66  1.58  62  Careful  4.45  1.38  66  5.02  1.24  62  Changes mind easily  1.86  0.93  66  2.51  1.68  63  Cheerful  5.22  1.13  66  6.06  0.98  63  Childlike  2.11  1.25  66  3.44  1.66  63  Clean  5.82  1.42  66  6.24  1.04  63  Comfortable when  4.52  1.63  66  6.06  1.24  63  Compassionate  5.05  1.57  66  6.22  1.07  63  Compliant  3.38  1.28  61  4.31  1.86  58  Concerned about group  3.76  1.58  66  5.47  1.29  62  to others  people express emotions  harmony  173 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Congenial  4.46  1.29  52  5.13  1.57  48  Conscientious  4.82  1.42  66  5.41  1.12  63  Conservative  3.58  1.27  65  4.07  1.35  61  Considerate  5.21  1.27  66  6.14  0.78  63  Cooperative  5.17  1.08  66  6.00  0.90  63  Cordial  4.81  1.27  59  5.29  1.26  58  Creative  4.44  1.19  66  5.00  1.21  63  Cries without shame  2.98  1.83  66  4.17  1.76  63  Cultured  4.79  1.32  66  5.24  1.38  62  Dependent  2.36  1.68  66  3.95  1.95  63  Does not use harsh  4.09  1.74  66  5.37  1.52  63  3.98  1.68  66  5.52  1.50  63  4.02  1.78  66  5.60  1.37  63  Emotional  3.39  1.54  66  4.56  1.74  63  Empathy  4.55  1.59  66  6.03  ..74  63  Excitable  3.82  1.60  65  4.56  1.64  62  Expresses emotions  3.82  1.64  65  5.25  1.37  63  Expressive  4.33  1.43  64  5.38  1.25  63  Fashionable  4.68  1.26  65  5.76  1.24  63  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings Easily expresses tender feelings  easily  174 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of SD Cases . X  Feminine  1.40  0.90  65  6.14  1.16  63  Fickle  1.62  1.17  60  2.18  1.21  57  Flatterable  3.19  1.25  62  4.95  1.55  62  Flexible  4.59  1.28  64  5.40  1.23  63  Flirtatious  3.71  1.42  63  4.48  1.80  63  Forgiving  4.91  1.32  64  5.76  1.19  63  Friendly  5.75  1.14  64  6.21  0.83  63  Generous  5.39  1.20  64  5.93  0.95  63  Genial  4.56  1.13  48  5.39  1.17  47  Gentle  3.95  1.63  53  5.33  1.33  55  Giving  4.95  1.29  64  5.76  1.13  63  Glamour  3.06  1.32  64  5.13  1.57  63  Gossipy  1.55  0.78  64  2.35  1.66  63  Graceful  2.97  1.60  64  5.71  1.08  63  Gracious  3.98  1.56  64  5.57  1.23  61  Gullible  1.41  0.82  63  2.79  1.59  63  Happy  5.53  1.18  64  5.97  0.92  63  Helpful  5.17  1.08  64  5.71  0.97  63  Helpless  1.27  0.60  64  2.67  1.71  63  Humble  3.98  1.60  64  4.78  1.44  63  Impressionable  2.87  1.50  63  3.94  1.41  62  Innocent  2.61  1.49  64  4.78  1.57  63  175 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Intuitive  4.27  1.36  64  4.90  1.29  62  Kind  5.22  1.32  64  5.94  0.97  63  Kind-hearted  5.17  1.43  63  6.03  0.95  63  Kittenish  1.92  1.45  61  4.13  1.74  56  Light-hearted  4.08  1.54  59  4.83  1.34  59  Loves children  4.83  1.53  64  6.14  1.03  63  Loving  5.39  1.43  64  6.43  0.84  63  Meddlesome  1.68  0.94  62  2.08  1.22  59  Melodramatic  1.95  1.27  60  2.47  1.34  58  Modest  4.02  1.22  62  4.62  1.26  63  Neat  4.52  1.47  63  5.29  1.16  63  Nervous  1.63  0.83  63  2.05  1.14  63  Nice  5.06  1.37  63  5.85  1.08  62  Obliging  4.10  1.34  60  4.93  1.29  60  Passive  2.18  1.35  62  3.30  1.67  61  Patient  4.83  1.43  63  5.63  1.25  63  Pays attention to own  4.74  1.56  62  5.95  1.25  63  Playful  4.41  1.46  63  5.02  1.29  63  Pleasant  5.40  1.12  63  5.77  0.98  62  Poised  4.52  1.42  60  5.45  1.21  62  Polite  5.32  1.33  63  6.05  0.94  63  Quiet  2.90  1.07  63  3.90  1.55  63  physical appearance  176 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Refined  3.90  1.44  61  4.77  1.53  61  Relaxed  4.81  1.15  63  5.41  0.92  61  Religious  3.00  1.40  61  3.76  1.25  58  Romantic  5.40  1.37  63  5.94  0.97  62  Sarcastic (a)  4.90  1.23  63  5.74  1.12  61  Seductive  4.35  1.71  62  5.18  1.37  62  Self-conscious  2.35  1.42  62  3.00  1.65  62  Self-denying  2.43  1.36  56  3.02  1.75  58  Selfless  3.32  1.72  59  4.67  1.90  61  Self-sacrificing  3.87  1.40  61  4.88  1.57  60  Sensitive  4.76  1.56  63  5.66  1.31  62  Sensitive to the needs  5.00  1.51  63  6.13  0.97  62  Sensuous  4.64  1.72  59  5.84  1.08  63  Sentimental  3.97  1.72  63  5.14  1.18  63  Sexually attractive  5.83  1.13  63  6.37  0.98  62  Sexy  5.46  1.51  63  6.29  1.06  62  Showy  2.23  1.29  62  2.81  1.47  62  Shy  2.25  1.22  63  3.29  1.31  62  Simple  1.76  1.20  63  3.37  1.65  62  Soft-spoken  2.71  1.48  63  4.43  1.36  60  Subjective  2.88  1.39  56  3.54  1.42  54  of others  177 Items Rated as More Desirable for Women by Female Raters* Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Submissive  1.75  0.87  55  3.59  1.62  59  Supportive  5.30  1.25  63  5.90  0.94  62  Sympathetic  4.62  1.48  63  5.85  0.95  61  Tender  4.27  1.62  62  5.62  1.11  61  Tender-hearted  4.23  1.76  62  5.80  1.01  61  Theatrical  2.61  1.14  62  3.03  1.23  59  Thoughtful  5.32  1.32  63  5.75  1.03  61  Thoughtful of others  5.13  1.52  63  6.05  1.06  61  Tolerant  4.62  1.17  63  5.33  1.24  60  Understanding  5.37  1.20  63  5.75  0.93  61  Unselfish  5.02  1.39  63  5.70  1.16  61  Warm  4.98  1.28  63  5.97  0.91  63  Warm-hearted  4.94  1.60  63  6.10  0.94  62  Worrier  1.71  1.04  63  2.40  1.53  60  Willing to accept  4.92  1.18  62  5.35  0.95  60  2.73  1.38  59  4.24  1.61  59  change Yielding * p < .05, 2-tailed. (a) sarcastic was rated as more desirable for women by female raters; the same item was rated as more desirable for men by male raters.  178  APPENDIX L  Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters i n the O r i g i n a l S t a n f o r d Sample  179 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Masculine Items  Ratings or Men  Number of  Ratings fc r Women Number of  X  SD  Cases  X  SD  Cases  Acts as a leader  5.92  0.91  25  2.04  1.06  25  Aggressive  4.92  1.15  25  2.08  1.08  25  Ambitious  6.08  1.04  25  3.04  1.43  25  Analytical  4.92  1.28  25  2.80  1.08  25  Assertive  4.92  1.06  25  2.64  1.29  25  Athletic  5.48  1.05  25  3.12  1.36  25  Competitive  5.60  1.29  25  2.48  1.01  25  Defends own beliefs  5.88  1.01  25  4.20  1.41  25  Dominant  4.92  0.97  25  1.68  0.85  25  Forceful  5.12  1.17  25  2.72  0.94  25  Has leadership abilities  6.00  0.76  25  3.28  1.43  25  Independent  5.88  1.17  25  2.60  1.35  25  Individualistic  5.28  1.40  25  2.96  1.51  25  Makes decisions easily  5.52  1.01  25  4.00  1.44  25  Masculine  6.40  0.76  25  1.36  0.76  25  Self-reliant  5.84  0.99  25  3.32  1.03  25  Self-sufficient  5.96  1.06  25  2.68  1.38  25  Strong-personality  5.96  0.79  25  3.83  1.52  25  Willing to take a stand  5.80  0.96  25  3.68  1.31  25  Willing to take risks  5.28  0.94  25  3.44  1.23  25  180 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Feminine Items  Ratings or Men :  Number of  Ratings fc>r Women Number of  X  SD  Cases  X  SD  Cases  Affectionate  4.60  1.47  25  6.56  0.58  25  Cheerful  4.88  1.26  25  6.20  0.76  25  Childlike  1.72  0.94  25  3.92  1.35  25  Compassionate  4.44  1.16  25  6.28  1.10  25  Does not use harsh  3.76  1.23  25  5.92  0.86  25  4.04  1.37  25  5.88  0.88  25  Feminine  1.08  0.28  25  6.64  0.64  25  Flatterable  2.80  1.53  25  4.80  1.56  25  Gentle  4.00  1.04  25  6.36  0.64  25  Gullible  1.20  0.41  25  3.28  1.37  25  Loves children  4.56  1.16  25  6.40  0.87  25  Loyal  5.40  1.00  25  6.44  0.65  25  Sensitive to the needs  4.56  1.08  25  5.80  1.12  25  Shy  2.08  1.15  25  3.52  1.64  25  Soft-spoken  3.36  1.32  25  4.84  1.38  25  Sympathetic  4.32  0.99  25  5.76  1.13  25  Tender  3.56  1.16  25  6.12  0.88  25  Understanding  5.16  1.07  25  6.12  0.88  25  Warm  4.48  1.16  25  6.44  0.71  25  Yielding  2.64  1.32  25  4.88  1.30  25  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  181 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Male Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Neutral Items  Ratings or Men :  Number of  Ratings fc>r Women Number of  X  SD  Cases  X  SD  Cases  Adaptable  5.30  1.16  25  4.90  0.99  25  Conceited  2.00  1.31  25  1.73  1.03  25  Conscientious  5.20  0.92  25  4.90  0.88  25  Conventional  4.00  1.69  25  4.00  1.07  25  Friendly  5.50  0.85  25  5.90  0.57  . 25  Happy  5.60  1.08  25  6.00  1.05  25  Helpful  5.40  0.84  25  5.10  0.99  25  Inefficient  1.33  0.62  25  1.40  0.83  25  Jealous  2.67  1.29  25  3.00  1.60  25  Likable  5.50  1.08  25  6.00  0.67  25  Moody  2.00  0.93  25  1.93  0.80  25  Reliable  5.70  0.82  25  5.20  0.92  25  Secretive  2.57  1.40  25  3.13  1.73  25  Sincere  5.20  0.79  25  5.30  1.06  25  Solemn  2.80  1.15  25  2.80  1.66  25  Tactful  4.80  1.14  25  5.00  1.05  25  Theatrical  2.87  1.25  25  2.47  1.13  25  Truthful  6.00  0.67  25  5.50  1.08  25  Unsystematic  2.14  0.95  25  2.13  1.30  25  * Bern (1974) described the Stanford sample as 100 first year studentshalf male and half female. The current researcher assumed that the raters were subsequently divided equally into the two groups (either rating the items for "a man" or "a woman").  APPENDIX M  Ratings Raters  on t h e i n the  60 BSRI Items by Original  Stanford  Female Sample  183 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  5.96  1.27  25  3.17  1.09  25  Aggressive  5.08  1.47  25  2.27  1.43  25  Ambitious  6.32  0.90  25  4.08  1.55  25  Analytical  5.08  1.22  25  3,09  1.44  25  Assertive  5.60  1.12  25  3.17  1.34  25  Athletic  5.64  1.41  25  3.96  1.27  25  Competitive  5.84  1.14  25  3.44  1.50  25  Defends own beliefs  6.00  0.96  25  4.68  1.52  25  Dominant  5.64  1.04  25  1.64  1.08  25  Forceful  5.32  1.35  25  2.96  1.24  25  Has leadership abilities  6.20  1.23  25  3.92  1.35  25  Independent  6.40  0.96  25  3.56  1.56  25  Individualistic  5.80  1.08  25  4.00  1.50  25  Makes decisions easily  5.56  1.08  25  4.48  1.39  25  Masculine  6.71  0.75  25  1.24  0.60  25  Self-reliant  6.00  0.91  25  4.00  1.58  25  Self-sufficient  5.84  1.43  25  3.64  1.41  25  Strong-personality  5.96  0.89  25  3.60  1.47  25  Willing to take a stand  6.00  0.82  25  4.16  1.57  25  Willing to take risks  5.64  0.95  25  3.48  1.36  25  184 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Feminine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women Number of X SD Cases  Affectionate  4.88  1.48  25  6.32  0.75  25  Cheerful  5.36  1.19  25  6.20  0.87  25  Childlike  1.92  1.08  25  3.40  1.50  25  Compassionate  4.60  1.61  25  6.32  0.69  25  Does not use harsh  3.83  1.52  25  5.64  1.15  25  4.28  1.70  25  5.84  0.90  25  Feminine  1.36  0.76  25  6.56  0.71  25  Flatterable  3.24  1.79  25  5.12  1.13  25  Gentle  4.16  1.70  25  6.28  0.79  25  Gullible  1.48  0.96  25  3.12  1.39  25  Loves children  4.64  1.50  25  6.24  1.01  25  Loyal  5.32  1.38  25  6.52  0.71  25  Sensitive to the needs  4.80  1.50  25  6.08  0.81  25  Shy  2.12  1.17  25  3.44  1.61  25  Soft-spoken  2.48  1.09  25  4.80  1.12  25  Sympathetic  4.32  1.38  25  5.76  0.97  25  Tender  3.88  1.59  25  6.28  0.79  25  Understanding  4.76  1.45  25  6.28  0.68  25  Warm  4.48  1.39  25  6.28  0.79  25  Yielding  2.88  1.51  25  4.52  1.26  25  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  185 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Female Raters in the Original Stanford Sample* Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.60  0.97  25  5.40  0.84  25  Conceited  1.73  0.80  25  1.53  1.06  25  Conscientious  5.10  1.45  25  5.00  1.05  25  Conventional  3.73  1.39  25  4.00  1.41  25  Friendly  5.40  1.08  25  5.60  0.84  25  Happy  5.80  1.23  25  5.80  1.23  25  Helpful  5.30  1.06  25  5.50  1.08  25  Inefficient  1.13  0.35  25  1.33  0.72  25  Jealous  2.33  1.40  25  2.47  1.19  25  Likable  5.80  1.23  25  5.80  1.14  25  Moody  1.93  1.07  25  1.80  1.01  25  Reliable  5.90  0.99  25  5.70  0.95  25  Secretive  3.00  1.13  25  2.80  1.57  25  Sincere  5.30  1.34  25  5.70  1.57  25  Solemn  2.47  1.13  25  2.53  1.06  25  Tactful  5.00  0.47  25  5.50  1.18  25  Theatrical  2.67  1.29  25  2.47  1.19  25  Truthful  5.90  1.29  25  6.00  1.16  25  Unpredictable  2.80  1.47  25  3.40  1.72  25  Unsystematic  2.13  0.92  25  2.62  1.39  25  * Bern (1974) described the Stanford sample as 100 first year studentshalf male and half female. The current researcher assumed that the raters were subsequently divided equally into the two groups (either rating the items for "a man" or "a woman").  APPENDIX N  R a t i n g s on the 60 BSRI Items by European and Indo-Canadian Male and Female Raters  187 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Male Raters(a) Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  4.00  0.63  6  Aggressive  4.33  1.75  6  Ambitious  4.50  1.05  6  Analytical  3.83  1.72  6  Assertive  4.50  1.76  6  Athletic  5.33  1.21  6  Competitive  3.50  1.87  6  Defends own beliefs  4.83  1.94  6  Dominant  2.67  1.51  6  Forceful  3.00  1.67  6  Has leadership abilities  4.67  1.37  6  Independent  4.67  1.75  6  Individualistic  4.33  1.97  6  Makes decisions easily  5.33  1.21  6  Masculine  1.67  0.82  6  Self-reliant  4.75  1.71  4  Self-sufficient  4.60  2.30  5  Strong-personality  5.40  1.14  5  Willing to take a stand  5.60  0.89  5  Willing to take risks  5.20  1.48  5  188 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Male Raters(a) Feminine Items  Ratings tor Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  6.67  0.52  6  Cheerful  6.17  0.98  6  Childlike  4.17  2.23  6  Compassionate  6.67  0.52  6  Does not use harsh  5.83  1.94  6  6.00  1.10  6  Feminine  6.33  1.21  6  Flatterable  4.67  1.51  6  Gentle  5.00  2.10  6  Gullible  1.83  0.98  6  Loves children  6.50  0.55  6  Loyal  6.83  0.41  6  Sensitive to the needs  6.60  0.89  5  Shy  3.40  1.52  5  Soft-spoken  4.00  2.00  5  Sympathetic  5.60  1.14  5  Tender  6.00  0.71  5  Understanding  5.80  0.84  5  Warm  6.20  0.45  5  Yielding  4.20  1.48  5  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  189 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Male Raters(a) Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.17  1.17  6  Conceited  1.00  0.00  6  Conscientious  6.00  0.89  6  Conventional  4.33  2.16  6  Friendly  6.67  0.52  6  Happy  6.17  0.98  6  Helpful  5.83  0.75  6  Inefficient  2.00  2.45  6  Jealous  1.50  0.84  6  Likable  6.50  0.55  6  Moody  2.33  2.34  6  Reliable  6.40  0.55  5  Secretive  3.00  2.35  5  Sincere  5.80  1.30  5  Solemn  2.25  1.26  4  Tactful  5.50  1.29  4  Theatrical  4.00  1.73  5  Truthful  6.40  0.89  5  Unpredictable  4.20  2.39  5  4.00  1.87  5  Unsystematic  r  (a) Note: when ethnicity was considered, the cell sizes decreased (i.e., for European men rating the items for men, only one student fit the category). When n < 3, means were not reported.  190 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Female Raters Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.57  0.53  7  4.00  0.71  9  Aggressive  4.86  1.95  7  3.33  1.50  9  Ambitious  6.71  0.49  7  5.00  1.22  9  Analytical  5.14  1.95  7  4.25  0.89  8  Assertive  5.86  1.07  7  4.44  1.13  9  Athletic  5.86  0.90  7  4.11  0.60  9  Competitive  5.86  1.21  7  3.67  1.41  9  Defends own beliefs  5.86  0.90  7  5.11  1.05  9  Dominant  5.43  1.27  7  2.22  0.97  9  Forceful  5.29  1.98  7  3.11  1.36  9  Has leadership abilities  6.29  0.95  7  4.11  1.17  9  Independent  6.43  0.98  7  3.89  1.76  9  Individualistic  5.86  1.21  7  3.89  2.03  9  Makes decisions easily  4.71  1.38  7  4.22  1.30  9  Masculine  5.71  1.89  7  1.78  0.97  9  Self-reliant  5.14  1.21  7  4.57  1.40  7  Self-sufficient  5.71  1.38  7  4.89  0.78  9  Strong-personality  5.71  0.76  7  4.44  1.13  9  Willing to take a stand  5.71  0.49  7  4.44  0.88  9  Willing to take risks  5.43  0.98  7  4.44  0.73  9  191 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Female Raters Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.43  1.90  7  6.11  1.17  9  Cheerful  5.14  0.90  7  4.89  1.45  9  Childlike  1.43  0.79  7  3.11  1.45  9  Compassionate  4.29  1.70  7  5.78  1.20  9  Does not use harsh  4.29  2.21  7  4.44  1.67  9  language  7  Eager to soothe hurt  2.86  1.77  feelings  7  9 5.22  1.79  7  9 9  Feminine  1.43  0.79  7  5.89  1.54  9  Flatterable  2.00  1.15  7  4.78  1.79  9  Gentle  5.20  1.92  5  4.14  2.12  7  1.00  0.00  7  2.67  1.32  9  Loves children  4.71  1.80  7  5.44  1.67  9  Loyal  5.14  1.95  7  5.88  1.73  8  Sensitive to the needs  4.14  1.46  7  5.67  1.58  9  Gullible  ,  of others  7  9  Shy  1.43  0.53  7  2.67  1.22  9  Soft-spoken  2.00  1.15  7.  4.50  1.20  8  Sympathetic  4.14  1.21  7  5.44  1.51  9  Tender  3.14  1.07  7  5.11  1.45  9  Understanding  4.86  1.35  7  5.56  1.13  9  Warm  3.86  1.46  7  5.44  1.51  9  Yielding  1.83  1.17  6  4.50  1.41  8  192 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by European Female Raters Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.14  1.68  7  5.44  1.13  9  Conceited  1.71  0.95  7  1.78  0.97  9  Conscientious  4.71  1.98  7  5.22  1.48  9  Conventional  3.71  1.70  7  4.43  1.13  7  Friendly  5.43  1.81  7  5.56  1.24  9  Happy  5.71  1.11  7  5.78  0.97  9  Helpful  4.43  1.62  7  5.11  0.93  9  Inefficient  1.14  0.38  7  1.22  0.44  9  Jealous  1.71  1.50  7  1.78  1.09  9  Likable  5.86  0.90  7  5.11  1.45  9  Moody  1.29  0.76  7  1.22  0.67  9  Reliable  5.71  1.38  7  5.67  0.87  9  Secretive  2.00  1.53  7  3.00  1.80  9  Sincere  5.00  1.00  7  5.00  0.87  9  Solemn  3.14  1.35  7  2.00  0.82  7  Tactful  4.00  1.15  7  4.89  1.36  9  Theatrical  2.00  1.55  6  2.13  0.83  8  Truthful  4.71  0.49  7  5.33  1.22  9  Unpredictable  3.29  2.14  7  3.22  1.30  9  Unsystematic  2.43  1.62  7  2.43  1.40  7  193 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Male Raters Masculine Items  Ratings For Men SD X  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  4.00  1.63  4  4.40  1.14  5  Aggressive  4.25  2.06  4  3.40  0.55  5  Ambitious  5.75  1.26  4  4.60  0.55  5  Analytical  4.00  1.83  4  4.20  1.30  5  Assertive  5.50  0.58  4  4.60  1.14  5  Athletic  4.75  0.96  4  5.80  1.30  5  Competitive  5.75  0.96  4  4.00  1.22  5  Defends own beliefs  6.00  0.82  4  4.20  1.92  5  Dominant  5.25  1.50  4  2.00  1.22  5  Forceful  4.75  1.71  4  2.80  1.10  5  Has leadership abilities  5.50  1.29  4  4.40  1.14  5  Independent  4.50  2.08  4  3.80  1.10  5  Individualistic  3.00  1.83  4  3.20  0.84  5  Makes decisions easily  4.50  2.38  4  4.60  0.55  5  Masculine  4.75  1.71  4  1.20  0.45  5  Self-reliant  5.50  1.73  4  5.00  1.00  5  Self-sufficient  5.50  1.00  4  5.20  0.45  5  Strong-personality  3.50  2.08  4  4.60  1.14  5  Willing to take a stand  5.50  0.58  4  4.20  1.10  5  Willing to take risks  4.75  0.96  4  4.20  1.30  5  194 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Male Raters Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  4.25  2.50  4  6.20  0.84  5  Cheerful  4.25  1.71  4  6.20  0.84  5  Childlike  1.75  0.96  4  3.60  1.52  5  Compassionate  3.75  1.71  4  5.80  1.10  5  Does not use harsh  2.75  1.50  4  5.80  1.10  5  3.00  2.16  4  5.60  0.89  5  Feminine  2.25  1.89  4  6.00  0.71  5  Flatterable  2.75  1.26  4  4.80  0.84  5  Gentle  4.00  2.00  3  5.80  0.84  5  Gullible  2.75  2.36  4  2.60  0.89  5  Loves children  4.50  1.73  4  5.80  1.30  5  Loyal  6.25  0.50  4  6.00  0.71  5  Sensitive to the needs  4.00  1.41  4  5.60  1.14  5  Shy  1.75  0.96  4  4.00  0.71  5  Soft-spoken  1.75  0.96  4  5.00  1.00  5  Sympathetic  4.50  1.29  4  4.40  1.52  5  Tender  4.25  1.71  4  5.20  1.30  5  Understanding  5.00  2.16  4  5.40  1.14  5  Warm  3.75  1.71  4  6.20  0.45  5  Yielding  3.75  2.22  4  4.40  1.52  5  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  195 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Male Raters Neutral Items  Ratings For Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  4.25  1.50  4  5.80  1.10  5  Conceited  2.00  1.41  4  1.41  0.89  5  Conscientious  4.75  1.26  4  5.00  0.71  5  Conventional  4.50  1.73  4  3.60  1.52  5  Friendly  5.25  1.71  4  5.60  0.55  5  Happy  5.50  1.91  4  6.00  0.71  5  Helpful  5.50  1.29  4  5.60  0.89  5  Inefficient  2.25  2.50  4  1.60  0.55  5  Jealous  2.50  3.00  4  2.40  1.52  5  Likable  5.75  1.26  4  5.80  0.84  5  Moody  2.50  2.38  4  1.40  0.55  5  Reliable  5.75  1.26  4  5.00  1.00  5  Secretive  2.75  0.96  4  2.20  1.64  5  Sincere  4.25  0.96  4  5.20  1.30  5  Solemn  3.33  0.58  3  3.50  1.00  5  Tactful  5.25  0.96  4  3.80  1.79  5  Theatrical  3.50  1.73  4  2.60  0.89  5  Truthful  4.00  1.41  4  5.80  0.84  5  Unpredictable  3.75  1.71  4  2.80  1.10  5  Unsystematic  4.00  2.00  3  3.40  1.52  5  196 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Female Raters Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader  6.20  0.84  5  3.33  1.21  6  Aggressive  5.40  0.89  5  2.33  1.37  6  Ambitious  6.00  0.71  5  2.83  2.32  6  Analytical  4.20  1.92  5  3.00  1.26  6  Assertive  5.80  0.45  5  3.17  1.83  6  Athletic  6.80  0.45  5  3.33  1.51  6  Competitive  6.20  0.84  5  2.67  1.97  6  Defends own beliefs  5.20  0.45  5  3.83  1.83  6  Dominant  4.00  2.00  5  1.83  1.60  6  Forceful  3.60  2.07  5  2.00  0.89  6  Has leadership abilities  6.40  0.89  5  3.50  1.87  6  Independent  6.40  0.55  5  3.67  1.86  6  Individualistic  5.80  1.64  5  2.83  1.17  6  Makes decisions easily  4.80  1.64  5  3.83  1.47  6  Masculine  6.60  0.89  5  1.67  1.63  6  Self-reliant  5.00  1.41  5  4.00  1.79  6  Self-sufficient  4.80  1.79  5  4.33  1.63  6  Strong-personality  5.80  1.10  5  3.83  1.72  6  Willing to take a stand  5.80  0.45  5  3.67  1.63  6  Willing to take risks  5.80  0.45  5  3.67  1.21  6  197 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Female Raters Feminine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.20  1.30  5  6.67  0.52  6  Cheerful  5.40  0.55  5  6.33  0.52  6  Childlike  1.80  0.84  5  4.33  1.37  6  Compassionate  5.40  0.89  5  5.67  2.34  6  Does not use harsh  3.80  2.05  5  5.67  2.34  6  4.60  1.52  5  6.17  1.33  6  Feminine  1.20  0.45  5  6.67  0.52  6  Flatterable  4.80  0.84  5  5.83  1.17  6  Gentle  3.40  2.07  5  6.17  0.98  6  Gullible  1.60  0.89  5  3.50  1.52  6  Loves children  4.80  1.79  5  6.83  0.41  6  Loyal  5.60  1.52  5  6.67  0.82  6  Sensitive to the needs  5.20  1.48  5  6.67  0.82  6  Shy  2.40  1.14  5  4.83  0.98  6  Soft-spoken  2.40  1.14  5  4.33  0.82  6  Sympathetic  5.00  1.22  5  6.17  0.75  6  Tender  6.00  1.41  4  6.50  0.55  6  Understanding  5.60  1.52  5  5.83  1.17  6  Warm  5.00  1.58  5  6.50  0.84  6  Yielding  2.50  1.91  4  5.33  1.86  6  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings  of others  198 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Indo-Canadian Female Raters Neutral Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.40  1.52  5  5.67  0.82  6  Conceited  3.40  2.30  5  2.33  1.51  6  Conscientious  5.40  1.14  5  5.83  1.17  6  Conventional  3.40  1.82  5  4.80  1.79  5  Friendly  6.20  1.30  5  6.00  1.10  6  Happy  4.80  1.10  5  6.17  0.75  6  Helpful  5.20  1.30  5  6.00  0.89  6  Inefficient  1.80  0.84  5  2.17  2.40  6  Jealous  4.40  2.41  5  1.50  0.84  6  Likable  ' 6.00  0.71  5  6.33  0.82  6  Moody  3.00  1.22  5  2.67  2.25  6  Reliable  6.00  1.22  5  6.33  0.82  6  Secretive  2.80  1.10  5  2.33  1.86  6  Sincere  5.00  1.41  5  5.33  1.37  6  Solemn  3.00  0.82  4  3.17  1.47  6  Tactful  5.33  1.53  3  3.83  1.72  6  Theatrical  3.20  0.45  5  3.50  0.84  6  Truthful  5.60  1.52  5  6.50  0.84  6  Unpredictable  4.60  1.52  5  2.33  1.51  6  Unsystematic  3.20  1.10  5  2.50  1.76  6  APPENDIX O  R a t i n g s on t h e White  60 BSRI  and A s i a n M a l e  Items  Raters  200 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by White Male Raters Masculine Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader***(a)  5.72  1.07  18  3.38  1.36  16  Aggressive ***(a)  4.72  1.45  18  3.06  1.29  16  Ambitious ***(a)  6.17  0.86  18  4.60  1.30  15  Analytical ***(a)  4.89  0.96  18  3.19  1.22  16  Assertive **(a)  5.28  1.32  18  3.73  1.53  15  Athletic  6.28  0.89  18  5.56  1.31  16  Competitivc**(a)  5.94  0.87  18  4.25  1.69  16  Defends own beliefs  5.39  1.24  18  4.75  1.24  16  Dominant ***(a)  4.56  1.58  18  2.56  1.41  16  Forceful  3.89  1.41  18  3.06  1.24  16  Has leadership  6.06  1.21  18  4.50  1.75  16  Independent ***(a)  5.83  0.86  18  3.44  1.90  16  Individualistic ***(a)  5.39  1.38  18  3.31  1.45  16  Makes decisions easily  5.17  1.42  18  4.63  0.96  16  Masculine ***(a)  6.39  0.92  18  1.56  1.03  16  Self-reliant **(a)  5.11  1.41  18  3.62  1.04  13  Self-sufficient ***(a)  5.83  0.92  18  4.25  1.53  16  Strong-personality *(a)  5.44  1.20  18  4.25  1.57  16  Willing to take a stand*  5.50  1.38  18  4.38  1.26  16  Willing to take  5.22  1.06  18  4.25  1.06  16  abilities ***(a)  risks **(a)  201 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Hems by White Male Raters Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate ***(b)  4.22  1.26  18  6.13  0.96  16  Cheerful *(b)  5.00  1.08  18  5.69  0.79  16  Childlike  2.22  1.11  18  2.88  1.41  16  Compasionate **(b)  4.67  1.64  18  5.88  0.89  16  Does not use harsh  4.06  1.86  18  4.88  2.09  16  4.11  1.45  18  5.63  0.81  16  Feminine ***(b)  1.56  1.50  18  6.06  0.93  16  Flatterable ***(b)  3.39  1.42  18  4.88  0.89  16  Gentle *(b)  3.81  2.10  16  5.08  1.12  13  Gullible  1.94  1.59  18  2.38  1.31  16  Loves children  5.00  1.50  18  5.56  1.26  16  Loyal  5.72  1.36  18  6.31  0.60  16  Sensitive to the needs  4.44  1.54  18  5.63  0.81  16  Shy **(b)  2.50  1.29  18  3.69  1.35  16  Soft-spoken **(b)  3.00  1.50  18  4.44  1.09  16  Sympathetic *(b)  4.06  1.26  18  5.06  1.12  16  Tender **(b)  4.00  1.71  18  5.50  0.63  16  Understanding  4.78  1.31  18  5.31  1.01  16  Warm ***(b)  4.44  1.34  18  5.94  0.57  16  Yielding ***(b)  2.11  1.28  18  4.15  1.46  13  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings ***(b)  of others **(b)  202 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by White Male Raters Neutral Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable *  5.61  0.92  18  4.81  0.91  16  Conceited  1.83  1.65  18  1.81  1.38  16  Conscientious  4.50  1.29  18  5.00  0.93  15  Conventional  3.83  1.72  18  3.81  1.56  16  Friendly  5.61  1.14  18  5.94  0.85  16  Happy  5.22  1.52  18  5.69  0.60  16  Helpful  4.78  1.40  18  5.50  0.63  16  Inefficient  1.39  0.70  18  1.62  0.72  16  Jealous  2.72  1.56  18  2.50  1.79  16  Likable  5.28  1.32  18  6.00  0.89  16  Moody  2.11  1.41  18  1.94  1.53  16  Reliable  5.50  1.10  18  5.13  1.02  16  Secretive  2.94  1.66  18  2.94  1.91  16  Sincere **  4.33  1.19  18  5.19  0.66  16  Solemn  3.00  1.50  17  3.36  1.12  11  Tactful  4.39  1.20  18  3.86  1.03  14  Theatrical  2.83  1.04  18  3.53  1.51  15  Truthful  5.50  1.25  18  5.88  0.62  16  Unpredictable  3.83  1.54  18  3.37  1.45  16  Unsystematic  2.83  1.34  18  3.56  1.26  16  * p < .05, 2-tailed; ** p < .01, 2-tailed; *** p < .001, 2-tailed. (a) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a man than a woman by both male and female white judges, (b) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a woman than a man by both male and female white judges.  203 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Male Raters Items  Ratings For Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader **(a)  6.00  0.88  14  4.43  1.40  7  Aggressive **(a)  4.86  1.17  14  3.00  1.53  7  Ambitious  5.50  1.34  14  5.43  0.98  7  Analytical  4.50  1.61  14  4.43  1.90  7  Assertive  4.85  0.90  13  4.43  1.27  7  Athletic *(a)  6.21  0.97  14  4.71  1.80  7  Competitiv6*(a)  5.86  1.17  14  4.29  1.80  7  Defends own beliefs *  5.64  1.15  14  4.43  1.51  7  Dominant *(a)  4.50  1.56  14  2.86  1.57  7  Forceful **  4.21  2.04  14  2.43  0.98  7  Has leadership  6.14  0.77  14  4.57  1.62  7  Independent  5.57  0.94  14  4.57  1.72  7  Individualistic  4.57  1.40  14  4.29  1.70  7  Makes decisions easily  5.36  1.08  14  5.29  0.95  7  Masculine ***(a)  6.00  1.04  14  1.57  0.98  7  Self-reliant  4.86  1.03  14  4.86  1.07  7  Self-sufficient  5.21  1.37  14  5.29  1.11  7  Strong-personality  5.14  1.17  14  4.43  1.72  7  Willing to take a stand*  5.43  0.85  14  4.29  1.60  7  Willing to take risks*(a)  5.36  1.08  14  4.00  1.63  7  abilities ** (a)  204 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Male Raters Feminine Items  Ratings For Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate ***  5.14  1.35  14  6.86  0.38  7  Cheerful *(b)  5.50  1.16  14  6.29  0.49  7  Childlike  2.14  1.03  14  3.00  1.15  7  Compassionate*  5.00  1.30  14  6.29  0.95  7  Does not use harsh  4.07  1.59  14  5.14  1.68  7  4.79  1.25  14  5.86  1.07  7  Feminine ***(b)  1.93  1.07  14  6.57  0.79  7  Flatterable  3.71  1.38  14  5.00  1.41  7  Gentle  4.46  0.88  13  5.43  1.51  7  Gullible  1.64  1.01  14  2.14  1.07  7  Loves children  5.07  1.33  14  5.71  1.38  7  Loyal **  4.71  1.07  14  6.29  0.49  7  Sensitive to the needs  4.64  1.01  14  5.43  0.79  7  Shy*  2.00  0.88  14  3.29  1.89  7  Soft-spoken  3.36  1.34  14  4.67  1.37  6  Sympathetic *(b)  4.71  0.91  14  5.57  0.79  7  Tender ***(b)  4.07  0.83  14  6.00  0.58  7  Understanding  5.43  1.09  14  6.00  0.58  7  Warm **b)  5.36  1.15  14  6.14  0.38  7  Yielding *  3.00  1.36  14  4.33  1.21  6  language Eager to soothe hurt feelings *  of others  205  Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Male Raters Neutral Items  Ratings For Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable*  4.93  1.07  14  6.00  0.82  7  Conceited  1.77  0.93  13  1.14  0.38  7  Conscientious  4.50  1.02  14  5.43  0.98  7  Conventional  3.69  1.03  13  4:43  1.40  7  Friendly  5.64  1.08  14  5.86  1.07  7  Happy  5.64  1.15  14  5.71  1.11  7  Helpful  5.64  1.01  14  5.86  0.69  7  Inefficient  1.64  0.93  14  1.43  0.79  7  Jealous  1.93  1.07  14  1.14  0.38  7  Likable*  5.21  1.05  14  6.14  0.69  7  Moody  2.00  0.88  14  2.57  1.72  7  Reliable  5.86  1.03  14  5.86  0.38  7  Secretive  2.36  0.93  14  2.43  1.13  7  Sincere  4.79  0.97  14  5.57  0.53  7  Solemn  3.60  1.26  10  4.17  0.75  6  Tactful  3.82  1.60  11  4.29  1.60  7  Theatrical  3.36  1.45  14  3.14  1.35  7  Truthful  5.36  1.15  14  6.14  0.90  7  Unpredictable  3.57  1.79  14  3.00  1.41  7  Unsystematic  3.23  1.83  13  2.83  0.75  6  * p < .05, 2-tailed; ** p < .01, 2-tailed: ***p < .001, 2-tailed. (a) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a man than a woman by both male and female Asian judges; (b) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a woman than a man by both male and female Asian judges.  APPENDIX P  Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items White and A s i a n Female Raters  207 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by White Female Raters Masculine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader ***(a)  6.06  0.93  31  3.77  1.37  26  Aggressive **(a)  3.81  1.40  31  2.62  1.39  26  Ambitious ***(a)  6.03  0.91  31  4.46  1.27  26  Analytical *(a)  4.23  1.41  30  3.46  0.81  26  Assertive ***(a)  5.39  0.88  31  4.04  1.37  26  Athletic **  5.81  0.98  31  5.04  1.22  26  Competitiv€***(a)  5.13  1.15  31  3.31  1.46  26  Defends own beliefs***  5.55  1.23  31  4.38  1.36  26  Dominant ***(a)  3.87  1.59  31  2.23  1.21  26  Forceful *  3.47  1.66  30  2.69  1.16  26  Has leadership  6.13  1.01  30  4.04  1.02  25  Independent ***(a)  6.07  1.14  30  4.35  1.52  26  Individualistic *(a)  5.13  1.50  30  4.27  1.37  26  Make decisions  4.93  1.11  30  4.23  1.07  26  Masculine ***(a)  6.37  0.67  30  1.42  0.76  26  Self-reliant **(a)  5.18  1.09  28  4.12  1.27  25  Self-sufficient ***(a)  1.40  5.62  29  4.32  1.03  25  Strong-personality***(a)  5.34  0.94  29  3.76  1.45  25  Willing to take a  5.59  0.82  29  4.17  1.24  24  5.41  0.82  29  4.09  1.04  23  abilities ***(a)  easily *  stand***(a) Willing to take risks ***(a)  208 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by White Female Raters Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate***(b)  5.13  1.38  31  6.42  0.76  26  Cheerful ***(b)  5.32  1.08  31  6.35  0.63  26  Childlike ***  2.03  1.11  31  3.88  1.75  26  Compassionate***(b)  4.84  1.55  31  6.42  0.64  26  Does not use harsh  3.90  1.66  31  5.73  1.15  26  3.77  1.71  31  5.92  0.98  26  Feminine ***(b)  1.42  0.81  31  6.42  0.81  26  Flatterable ***(b)  3.00  1.15  28  4.92  1.58  25  Gentle ***(b)  3.63  1.44  24  5.55  1.10  20  Gullible **  1.40  0.72  30  2.31  1.19  26  Loves children ***  4.73  1.57  30  6.31  0.97  26  Loyal  5.70  1.29  30  6.15  1.32  26  Sensitive to the needs  4.90  1.50  29  6.20  0.76  25  Shy ***(b)  2.21  1.15  29  3.44  1.23  25  Soft-spoken ***(b)  2.72  1.22  29  4.40  1.29  25  Sympathetic ***(b)  4.55  1.53  29  5.92  0.65  24  Tender ***(b)  3.90  1.52  29  5.54  1.02  24  Understanding *  5.17  1.14  29  5.79  0.78  24  Warm ***(b)  4.86  1.06  29  5.88  0.74  24  Yielding ***(b)  2.57  1.23  28  4.42  1.53  24  language *** Eager to soothe hurt feelings ***(b)  of others *** (b)  209 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by White Female Raters Neutral Items  Ratings or Men X SD :  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.23  1.15  31  5.56  1.04  25  Conceited  1.65  1.14  31  1.50  0.81  26  Conscientious  4.94  1.48  31  5.54  0.81  26  Conventional  3.68  1.30  31  4.28  1.49  25  Friendly **  5.63  1.03  30  6.35  0.56  26  Happy *  5.53  1.11  30  6.12  0.86  26  Helpful **  5.20  1.10  30  5.92  0.80  26  Inefficient  1.07  0.25  30  1.38  0.77  24  Jealous  2.40  1.22  30  1.96  1.18  26  Likable *  5.50  1.01  30  6.15  0.73  26  Moody  1.62  0.78  29  2.12  1.40  26  Reliable  5.79  1.01  29  5.64  1.15  25  Secretive  2.38  1.15  29  2.40  1.19  25  Sincere  5.03  0.98  29  5.24  1.27  25  Solemn  2.84  1.25  25  2.58  1.21  24  Tactful  4.66  1.54  29  5.13  1.29  23  Theatrical *  2.45  1.09  29  3.17  1.15  23  Truthful  5.69  1.20  29  5.67  1.17  24  Unpredictable  3.00  1.41  29  2.96  1.33  23  Unsystematic  2.36  1.10  28  2.83  1.23  23  * p < .05, 2-tailed; ** p < .01, 2-tailed; *** p < .001, 2-tailed. (a) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a man than a woman by both male and female white judges, (b) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a woman than a man by both male and female white judges.  210 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Female Raters Masculine Items  Ratings For Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Acts as a leader***(a)  6.05  0.83  20  3.62  1.53  21  Aggressive *(a)  4.20  1.77  20  3.00  1.58  21  Ambitious ***  6.05  1.23  20  4.00  1.58  21  Analytical **  4.45  1.54  20  3.24  1.41  21  Assertive **  5.20  1.67  20  3.76  1.64  21  Athletic *(a)  5.75  1.45  20  4.62  1.72  21  Competitiv€*(a)  4.80  1.36  20  3.86  1.49  21  Defends own beliefs  5.50  1.28  20  4.95  1.60  21  Dominant **(a)  4.15  1.60  20  2.76  1.84  21  Forceful  3.55  1.64  20  2.95  1.43  21  Has leadership  5.85  1.31  20  4.48  1.36  21  Independent **  5.95  1.10  20  4.86  1.39  21  Individualistic **  5.80  1.15  20  4.62  1.32  21  Makes decisions easily  5.15  1.60  20  4.76  1.51  21  Masculine ***(a)  6.55  0.83  20  2.24  1.26  21  Self-reliant  5.15  1.35  20  4.50  1.50  20  Self-sufficient **  5.85  0.88  20  4.81  1.47  21  Strong-personality *  5.40  1.23  20  4.43  1.47  21  Willing to take a stand  5.50  1.28  20  4.90  1.22  21  Willing to take  5.60  0.99  20.00  4.62  1.16  21.00  abilities **(a)  risks**(a)  211 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Female Raters Feminine Items  Ratings for Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Affectionate  5.30  1.72  20  5.86  1.35  21  Cheerful **(b)  5.05  1.47  20  6.14  0.91  21  Childlike  2.30  1.49  20  2.90  1.51  21  Compassionate  5.45  1.70  20  6.29  0.90  21  Does not use harsh  4.25  1.62  20  5.38  1.36  21  language * Eager to soothe hurt  21 4.50  1.54  20  5.05  1.83  Feminine ***(b)  1.40  1.19  20  5.90  1.26  21  Flatterable ***  3.50  1.10  20  4.95  1.43  21  Gentle **  4.18  1.59  17  5.38  1.02  21  Gullible ***  1.53  1.07  19  3.33  1.96  21  Loves children **  4.95  1.39  20  6.05  0.74  21  Loyal  5.85  1.35  20  6.00  1.14  21  Sensitive to the needs  5.40  1.57  20  6.10  0.89  21  Shy  2.60  1.47  20  3.00  1.22  21  Soft-spoken **  3.00  1.97  20  4.65  1.50  20  Sympathetic **(b)  4.75  1.62  20  5.90  1.00  21  Tender *(b)  4.75  1.62  20  5.76  1.04  21  Understanding  5.70  1.17  20  5.81  0.98  21  Warm *(b)  5.45  1.28  20  6.14  0.73  21  Yielding  3.37  1.38  19  3.65  1.60  20  feelings  of others  212 Ratings on the 60 BSRI Items by Asian Female Raters Neutral Items  Ratings or Men X SD  Number of Cases  Ratings for Women X SD  Number of Cases  Adaptable  5.21  1.18  19  5.62  0.97  21  Conceited  1.79  1.03  19  1.65  1.09  20  Conscientious *  4.45  1.19  20  5.24  1.30  21  Conventional  3.63  1.21  19  3.95  1.15  20  Friendly  5.85  1.04  20  6.33  0.73  21  Happy  5.55  1.36  20  5.90  0.94  21  Helpful  5.35  0.75  20  5.76  1.00  21  Inefficient  1.40  1.14  20  1.45  0.76  20  Jealous  2.00  1.12  20  2.00  1.41  21  Likable  5.95  1.05  20  5.95  0.97  21  Moody  2.35  1.63  20  2.14  1.20  21  Reliable  5.95  1.23  20  5.76  1.04  21  Secretive  2.40  1.57  20  2.81  1.29  21  Sincere  5.45  1.32  20  5.52  1.25  21  Solemn  3.61  1.54  18  3.05  1.15  20  Tactful  5.05  1.18  19  4.81  1.40  21  Theatrical  2.80  1.06  20  3.10  1.45  21  Truthful  5.95  1.43  20  5.90  1.14  21  Unpredictable  3.55  1.39  20  3.71  1.49  21  Unsystematic  3.30  1.78  20  2.79  1.51  19  * p < .05, 2-tailed; ** p < .01, 2-tailed: ***p < .001, 2-tailed. (a) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a man than a woman by both male and female Asian judges; (b) Items that were rated as significantly more desirable for a woman than a man by both male and female Asian judges.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054129/manifest

Comment

Related Items