Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Psychological androgyny, sex stereotyping, and mental health Lazerson, Judith 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A2 L39.pdf [ 8.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054253.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054253-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054253-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054253-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054253-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054253-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054253-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054253-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054253.ris

Full Text

PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY, SEX  STEREOTYPING, AND MENTAL HEALTH by Judith Lazerson B.A. , M.A. , M.Ed New York University, 1963 Columbia University, 1964 , Tufts University, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION The Faculty of Graduate Studies Faculty of Education Department of Counselling Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard: UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1981 (C) Copyright: Judith Schoenholtz Lazerson, 1981 i n In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or pu b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of CoU-AS&i VSt|dr.olog| t| The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date JMXAMJ^ 12} 1% j DE-6 (2/79) ABSTRACT Purpose The f i r s t purpose of the present study was to i n v e s t i -gate the d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological androgyny and sex stereotyping in a group of non-psychotic p s y c h i a t r i c out-patients. The second purpose was to explore the differences between androgynous male and female patients and sex typed male and female patients on a variety of mental health variables including self-esteem, severity and pattern of psychopathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y . Procedure The 103 patients were seeking admission to an out-patient psychotherapy program at a university h o s p i t a l . To measure psychological androgyny the nurturance (LM) scales and the dominance s c a l e s (PA) from the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980) were used and i n i t a l l y scored according to the t - r a t i o method (Bern, 1974). Given the nature of the obtained d i s t r i b u t i o n , a recategor-i z a t i o n based on a modification of the o r i g i n a l t - r a t i o method was used to form the groups examined in subsequent analyses. The androgynous and sex typed patient groups were compared for s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the four mental health variables. Self-esteem was measured and analyzed two i i ways. F i r s t , the patients' scores on the Rosenberg S e l f -Esteem Scale were analyzed in a 3 x 2 analysis of variance. Second, the discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f was determined by patients rating the IAS twice. Contingency tables, r e a l by id e a l , were constructed to show the d i r e c -tion and amount of s h i f t from r e a l to ideal sex type category. The s e v e r i t y and pa t t e r n of psychopathology were measured by the MMPI c l i n i c a l scales and the MMPI content scales (Wiggins, 1966). To determine the c l i n i c a l group differences on the MMPI c l i n i c a l scales, the mean score for each scale was plotted on a MMPI p r o f i l e for each sex typed group. The 13 MMPI content scales were separately analyzed in thirteen 3 x 2 analyses of variance. Social adjustment, as measured by the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , was analyzed for sex type group differences in f i f t e e n 3 x 2 analyses of va r i a n c e . To determine i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y , the p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y of the sex type groups' scores on the IAS was analyzed using the F-ratio and following Wiggins and Holzmuller (1979). Results In the d i s t r i b u t i o n of androgyny and sex type groups, very few patients were androgynous., The greatest proportion of patients for both sexes was feminine or hyper feminine in sex type (90 of 103). i i i In the exploration of sex type group differences on measures of mental health, androgynous patients had s i g n i f i -cantly higher self-esteem on the RSE and they had le s s discrepancy between the i r r e a l and i d e a l s e l f scores than the extreme sex typed hyper feminine group. The androgynous patients' MMPI p r o f i l e s indicated less psychopathology and a d i f f e r e n t pattern of psychopathology as compared to the other sex type groups. On three of the 13 content scales, androgynous patients had s i g n i f i c a n t l y less pathology than the extreme sex typed group. There were no group d i f f e r -ences on the s o c i a l adjustment measure. The androgynous males showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y than the other male groups as measured on the IAS. It was concluded that in t h i s sample the androgynous patients, or those with a balance of dominance and nurtur-ance, tended to have better mental health than stereotyped feminine or hyper feminine patients. It seemed to be the lack of dominance or assertiveness rather than nurturance which predicted the severity of mental i l l n e s s in ' the patient group. Psychological Androgyny, Sex Stereotypi and Mental Health Table of Contents I Chapter 1 Concepts of Femininity and Masculinity: The Emergence of Psychological Androgyny Introduction Purpose of the Study II Chapter 2 Literature Review: A Turn Toward Androgyny Introduction H i s t o r i c a l Background The Development of Androgyny Scales Psychological Androgyny and Mental Health Hypotheses III Chapter 3 Methodology The Setting and Subjects Procedure Data Analysis IV Chapter 4 Results and Discussion Hypotheses V Chapter 5 Conclusion Summary of the Study Conclusions and Interpretations Limitations of the Study Future Research VI Bibliography VII Appendices v LIST OF TABLES Table 3.0 Demographic Characteristics 68 4.0 Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s 91 4.1 Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Item Analysis 94 4.2 I n i t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sex Type Categories 96 4.3 Recategorization of Sex Type Groups 99 4.4 ANOVA Table f o r Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) ' 104 4.5 Patient Means for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) 104 4.6 Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Female Patients 106 4.7 Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Male Patients 107 4.8 MMPI Content S c a l e s — F - R a t i o 123 4.9 Table of Means—Content Scales Raw Scores 123 4.10 IAS Transformed P r o f i l e Means and P r o f i l e Variations for Each Sex Type Group 127 v i LIST OF FIGURES , Figure 4.0 Structure of the Interpersonal Variables in Patient (Real) Rating 93 4.1 Sex Type Groups With Males and Females Combined: MMPI 110 4.2 Total Male Patient Group: MMPI 111 4.3 Total Female Patient Group: MMPI 112 4.4 Male Sex Type Groups: MMPI 115 4.5 Female Sex Type Groups: MMPI 116 v i i LIST OF APPENDICES Append ix A Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales 164 B Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 168 C RSE Scoring Directions 169 D Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t 172 E Consent Form 173 F D i r e c t i o n s f o r Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l Adjective Scales 174 G Structure of the Interpersonal Variables in the Patient Sample 175 H Demographic Contingency Tables 177 I Analyses of Variance for Non-significant Content Scales 184 J B a r t l e t t ' s Test for Homogeneity of V a r i -ance 186 K Analyses of Variance—Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t 188 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank co-workers, friends, professors, and my family for their support and encouragement during the writing of thi s thesis. Dr. Ferdinand Knobloch, Annalies Camfferman, Angelo Guzzetti, Dr. P a t r i c i a Schwartz, and Val Kaneva were patient colleagues at the Day House. Carolyn Malhey and Val Kaneva graciously helped with scoring the test r e s u l t s . Frank Flynn's assistance as a computer analyst was invaluable. My thesis committee, Dr. Stephen Marks, Dr. Sharon Kahn, Dr. Todd Rogers, and Dr. Jerry Wiggins gave freely of their time. I e s p e c i a l l y appreciated the confidence Ferdinand and J i r i n a Knobloch always had in my a b i l i t i e s . And most important, without the strong hand and good sense of humor from my husband, Marvin, and my son, Jared, the task would have seemed impossible. ix 1 Chapter 1 CONCEPTS OF FEMININITY AND MASCULINITY: THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY Introduction No more than 15 years ago, few questioned t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions about femininity and masculinity. Men were expected to grow up "masculine" and women "feminine." Implicit in th i s view was the b e l i e f that good mental health was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with a man's masculinity and a woman's femininity. At the same time a seemingly contra-d i c t o r y view was held which clashed with the b e l i e f that men and women should f o l l o w d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l paths. C l a s s i c a l psychoanalysts, in p a r t i c u l a r , viewed a woman's vu l n e r a b i l i t y to neurosis as part of her nature. Thus, even when l i v i n g out her destiny as a female, a woman was perhaps doomed to neurotic tendencies. This assumption had a pro-found e f f e c t on the diagnosis of mental i l l n e s s and views toward women in general. In reaction to the t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the b i o l o g i c a l emphasis in male and female development, psychologists influenced by the feminist movement in the 1960's sought new psychological explanations for sex d i f -ferences i n patterns of mental health. M i l l e r (1976) sug-gested that women's s o c i a l roles were undervalued by society and that t h i s had a devastating e f f e c t on their self-esteem. Chesler (1973) looked more intensively at the bias in diagnosis of mental i l l n e s s and found c l i n i c i a n s strongly 2 influenced by s o c i a l norms. It followed from these argu-ments that with the equalization of s o c i a l roles between men and women, there would be fewer sex differences in the patterns of mental health. The concept of psychological androgyny (Bern, 1974), a balance between t r a d i t i o n a l mascu-l i n e and t r a d i t i o n a l feminine behaviors, was offered as a theo r e t i c a l revision of c l a s s i c a l views of masculinity and femininity. Psychological androgyny has been cited by many as a conceptual breakthrough. Walum (1977) suggested i t was "one of the most powerful concepts to have recently emerged" (p. 100). " It d i r e c t l y challenges a latent assumption in most psychological research: sex-typing i s good for the i n d i v i d -ual and for the society" (p. 101). Walum concluded, "One of the major s o c i a l tasks, therefore, w i l l be the job of l e g i -timizing androgyny through the r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n of agents of s o c i a l control" (p. 102). Lips and C o l w i l l (1978) and Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble, and Zellman (1978), in the i r texts on sex r o l e s , argued that androgyny seemed to be closely associated with behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y , therefore, mental health. Both suggested that r i g i d s o c i a l i z a t i o n into any role may lead to poor functioning and behavioral i n f l e x i b i l i t y . Pleck (1975) and Rebecca, Hefner, and Oleshansky (1976) incorporated psychological androgyny into their models for sex ro l e development and viewed androgyny and sex role transcendence as an ultimate developmental goal. They suggested there 3 would be no fear of punishment for v i o l a t i n g sex role norms when sex-role stereotypes are transcended. Kaplan and Bean (1976) also offered a d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. For them, i t was f l e x i b i l i t y of sex r o l e . The androgynous person behaved in an integrated feminine and masculine way. They hoped that eventually the.behavior of men and women would not be associated with gender stereotypes. Psychological androgyny, as opposed to being masculine or feminine, was suggested as a s o c i a l and psychological solution to the stereotypic behaviors t r a d i t i o n a l l y demanded of i n d i viduals. It was expected that individuals with a balance of male and female interpersonal behaviors would have b e t t e r mental h e a l t h , i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e h a v i o r a l f l e x i b i l i t y (Bern, 1974). As a f i r s t step to test t h i s hypothesis, researchers in the area of psychological andro-gyny began to develop measures to i d e n t i f y an individual's sex stereotype (Bern, 1974; Berzins, Wellings, & Wetter, 1978; Heilbrun, 1976; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975; Wiggins,/ 1978). A number of tests emerged as well as studies comparing subjects who were androgynous to those who were stereotyped in a variety of dimensions related to mental health. The concept of psychological androgyny, as conceived by Bern (1974) and further developed by Spence and Helmreich (1978), conceptualized m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y as orthogonal dimensions, most c l o s e l y represented by the 4 concepts of instrumentality and expressivity (Bern, 1979; Spence & Helmreich, 1979). For them the androgynous person would have behaviors (Bern, 1974) or self-concept (Spence & Helmreich, 1979) which included both the masculine and feminine. They rejected the assumption that masculinity and femininity were opposite ends of a continuum and eliminated such areas as interests and a c t i v i t i e s in t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y . Bern went f u r t h e r and operationalized her d e f i n i t i o n by stating that the andro-gynous person would demonstrate behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y in a l l s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e d e x p r e s s i v i t y and i n s t r u -mentality. The androgynous person would be y i e l d i n g when necessary and assertive according to the requirements of the s i t u a t i o n . By reinterpreting femininity and masculinity in terms of instrumentality and expressivity or agency and communal-i t y , both Bern and Spence and Helmreich attempted to move away from the vagueness associated with the broad concept. However, these terms were s t i l l too broad and there was more meaning in the d e f i n i t i o n of psychological androgyny as a balance of interpersonal b e h a v i o r s — p r i m a r i l y dominance and nurturance (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1979). The sex stereo-typed person would lack a balance and be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on one dimension than the other as measured by a test to determine sex type. Mental Health and Femininity and Masculinity The important epidemiological studies of gender d i f f e r -ences in mental health provide some of the background for the emergence of psychological androgyny in the 1970's and for the present research. Epidemiological studies of sex differences in mental health give empirical support to the theo r e t i c a l view, prevailing in c l a s s i c a l psychoanalysis and i m p l i c i t in psychological models, that women's psychological development i s perceived as more d i f f i c u l t and re s u l t s in higher rates of mental i l l n e s s . Gove (1979), in a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , reported that women had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher r a t e s of h o s p i t a l admissions for both neuroses and psychoses than men. One and one-half to two times as many women were diagnosed neur-o t i c . In community surveys, as well, women continued to show higher rates of neuroses than men. Weissman and Klerman (1979) documented that women pre-dominate among the depressives. Women attended physicians more than men for a l l i l l n e s s e s . Even in community surveys of women who had not sought help, the figures on depression were similar to those from health f a c i l i t y reports. They argued the figures could not be considered an a r t i f a c t . Contrary to what some believed, "women do not have more s t r e s s f u l l i f e events and do not judge l i f e events more s t r e s s f u l " (p. 397). Women did have more symptoms, and they stated t h i s was not due to trying to impress the interviewer 6 nor was i t because women were more l i k e l y to admit symptoms than men. The higher proportion of neuroses among women i s not explained adequately by t r a d i t i o n a l personality theory. If the theories did account for feminine and masculine develop-ment, one would expect that individuals who followed the "normal" developmental sequence would not be prone to mental i l l n e s s . On the other hand, i f "normal" development i s not desirable and for women i t may not be, then one would expect d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n to show up i n some way. Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) added credence to the argument that what some theories and s o c i a l stereotypes described as healthy are viewed by c l i n i c i a n s as sick. Recently, t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l explanations emerged to account for the higher rates of mental i l l n e s s among women. In Gove's view, women experienced greater role stress than men, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the women were married. In thei r functions as mothers and housewives, they received l i t t l e s o c i a l recognition, no f i n a n c i a l reward, experienced boredom, and constantly t r i e d to conform to others' demands (Gove, 1979). He suggested that equalization of s o c i a l r ole w i l l diminish sex differences. Weissman and Klerman (1979) combined s o c i a l learning and so c i e t a l stress factors into one model to explain higher rates of depression among women. They attributed causes to low s o c i a l status, discrimination, and legal and economic in e q u i t i e s . The Brown and Harris 7 (1978) community survey offered further support for s o c i a l causes. Brown and Harris found significance in factors such as loss of mother in childhood, three or more children under 14 l i v i n g in the home, the absence of a supportive intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p with a boyfriend, and the lack of a part- or ful l - t i m e job. Weissman and Paykel (1974) found marital d i s t r e s s contributed to higher rates of depression. Some suggest c l i n i c a l bias as a factor in higher rates of i l l n e s s among women. In Whitely's (1979) review of the l i t e r a t u r e , he found although c l i n i c i a n s had biases as Broverman e_t a l . (1970) demonstrated, there was no evidence t h e i r views effected t h e i r actual judgments during therapy. Seligman's (1974) "learned helplessness" model of f e r s the major s o c i a l learning explanation for high rates of female mental i l l n e s s . He explained depression among women as a re s u l t of s o c i a l i z a t i o n to a role which l i m i t s the behavioral repertoire to behaviors associated with t r a d i -t i o n a l f e m i n i n i t y . M i l l e r (1976) suggested that the combination of low s o c i a l s t a t u s , the undervaluing of feminine behaviors, and females' avoidance of c o n f l i c t contributes to mental i l l n e s s in women. Psychological androgyny, as a new theo r e t i c a l model, makes i t possible to ask questions about the rel a t i o n s h i p of mental i l l n e s s to gender and sex stereotype. For example, are women who conform to the i r stereotype more or less adjusted as compared to those who are androgynous or 8 masculine typed? In a neurotic patient group, what pro-portions of men and women have feminine stereotyped behav-iors? The t r a d i t i o n a l theories indicate that those who are stereotypic in feminine behaviors w i l l predominate in a n e u r o t i c p a t i e n t group. Studies on c l i n i c a l samples indicate support for the high proportion of men and women patients to describe themselves with stereotypic "feminine" behaviors (Berzins e_t a_l. , 1978). Since p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny not only challenges t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of f e m i n i n i t y and mascu-l i n i t y , but also o f f e r s a new model of mental health, new ways of examining the rel a t i o n s h i p of mental health and sex stereotyping are open to research. Purpose of the Study Although psychological androgyny has been associated with good mental health, the rel a t i o n s h i p has received l i t t l e attention. Vogel (1979), Worell (1978), and Logan and Kaschak (1980) ca l l e d for further research on the rel a t i o n s h i p between mental health and androgyny. Almost a l l of the work that has been done thus far has used normal populations, usually students. Studies have focused on the rela t i o n s h i p between androgyny and self-esteem (Spence & Helmreich, 1978), androgyny and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978), androgyny and b e h a v i o r a l f l e x i b i l i t y (Bern, 1974; Bern & Lenney, 1976), and androgyny and adjustment (Deutsch & G i l b e r t , 1975; Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson, 1978; Silvern & Ryan, 1979). Recently, some have 9 suggested masculinity i s a better predictor of adjustment than androgyny (Silvern & Ryan, 1979). These r e s u l t s were similar to Latorre, Endman, and Gossman (1976), who found h o s p i t a l i z e d p s y c h o t i c and non-psychotic p a t i e n t s rated themselves higher on femininity than a group of normal adults. However, these studies have not systematically investigated androgyny and sex typing in groups of persons with mental health problems and have not explored how the stereotyped and androgynous persons d i f f e r in the area of psychopathology and s o c i a l adjustment. Psychological andro-gyny seems to be a v a l i d construct among normal populations but to what degree i t exists among persons who suffer from psychological d i s t r e s s needs further investigation. This study was an exploration of psychological andro-gyny in a group of non-psychotic outpatients attending a day c l i n i c at a•large university h o s p i t a l . The general mental health of the patient group was examined in terms of a number of mental health variables: self-esteem, psychopath-ology, s o c i a l adjustment or l i f e problems, and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . These categories of mental health r e f l e c t c r i t e r i a suggested by Strupp and Hadley (1977). In th e i r t r i p a r t i t e model of mental health, they pointed out the importance of measuring a patient's adjustment from three perspectives, the individual's self-esteem, the person's s o c i a l adjustment in terms of his or her a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l s o c i a l r o l e s , and c l i n i c a l and psychological evaluation of an individual's psychopathology and interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . 10 Accepting t h i s view of mental health, the following research questions were addressed in the present study: 1) What i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of androgyny, stereotyped, and crossed sexed persons in a group of male and female non-psychotic patients? 2) How do androgynous patients d i f f e r from stereotyped patients in self-esteem? 3) Do androgynous patients d i f f e r from sex typed patients in the patterns of psychopathology reported or severity of psychopathology? 4) Do androgynous patients rate the severity of l i f e problems or s o c i a l adjustment d i f f e r e n t l y than the sex typed patients? 5) Do androgynous patients d i f f e r from stereotyped pa-tie n t s in interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y ? D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Specialized terms have emerged from the research on psychological androgyny. The s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s which are described below refer to those terms most often used in the present investigation. Masculine stereotyped or m a s c u l i n i t y : i n t h e i r broadest usage, refer to behavior, d i s p o s i t i o n s , propensi-t i e s , and tendencies t y p i c a l l y associated with men in our culture. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they are used in the present study to refer to the dominance score (dominance-ambitious scale) on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales (Wiggins, 1980). A person who rates high on dominance i s considered 11 to be higher on masculinity than a person who rates lower on dominance. Feminine stereotyped or femininity: in th e i r broadest usage refer to behavior, d i s p o s i t i o n s , propensities, and tendencies t y p i c a l l y associated with women in our culture. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they are used in the present study to refer to the nurturance score (warm-agreeable scale) on the Inter-personal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1980). A person who rates high on nurturance i s considered to be higher on femininity than a person who rates lower on nurturance. Psychological androgyny: i s a balance of masculinity (dominance) and femininity (nurturance). In s t a t i s t i c a l terms there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the scores on the dominance (dominance-ambitious) scale and nurturance (warm-agreeable) scale on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1980). An androgynous person refers to a person who has a balance of dominance and nurturance as interper-sonal behaviors. Sex typed or sex stereotyped: persons have a s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r dominance and nurturance scores. They are lacking a balance of dominance and nurturance behaviors and are lab e l l e d in the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotype. The stereotyped person's behavior i s limited in the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotype. A male or female can be masculine or feminine stereotyped. 12 Cross typed: persons measure in the opposite d i r e c t i o n to their gender on the dominance and nurturance scales, for example, the masculine stereotyped female. Psych i a t r i c population: refers to those persons who i d e n t i f y in themselves recognized ps y c h i a t r i c symptoms as described by the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic Manual (1968) and diagnosed by a mental health professional according to the DSM I I . Mental health: i s determined by ind i v i d u a l s ' s e l f -esteem or s e l f s a t i s f a c t i o n , their a b i l i t y to function in society, and their degree of psychopathology as evaluated by themselves, mental health c l i n i c i a n s , and standard psycho-l o g i c a l measures. In the chapters which follow, a discussion of the h i s t o r i c a l background to the emergence of psychological androgyny, the recent l i t e r a t u r e on psychological androgyny and mental health, and the research h'ypotheses are pre-sented. The l i t e r a t u r e review i s followed by a description of the methodology used in the present study including the sett i n g , measures, selection of subjects, and procedures. The results and discussion are then presented, followed by the conclusion which suggests some theoreti c a l and empirical implications of the present study. 1 3 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: A TURN TOWARD ANDROGYNY Introduction Although androgyny i s a term with a long l i t e r a r y history (Gelpi, 1974; Secor, 1974), i t was only recently adopted as an important construct in psychology when Bern (1976) introduced psychological androgyny as a reconceptual-iz a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l views of masculinity and femininity. The new model challenged the t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions which c l a s s i f i e d the stereotyped person as healthy and interpreted deviations from c u l t u r a l sex-roles as maladaptive. Support for a new approach was found in the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l atmosphere of the late 1960's with the f l o u r i s h i n g of the feminist movement, as well as in the th e o r e t i c a l views of Jung (1953), Parsons and Bales (1955), Bakan (1966), Carlson (1971), and Block (1973). A l l hypothesized a d u a l i s t i c model of masculinity and femininity and rejected the t r a d i -t i o n a l bipolar model. Their positions suggested masculine and feminine t r a i t s could exist in varying amounts in the same i n d i v i d u a l . For Jung they were anima and animus; for Parsons and Bales they were instrumentality and expressivi-t y ; and Bakan's dichotomy was agency and communion. Although their models d i f f e r e d , they provided the theoreti-c a l background for the new construct with d e f i n i t e s o c i a l and emotional implications. "If our s o c i a l aim can become, both c o l l e c t i v e l y and i n d i v i d u a l l y , the i n t e g r a t i o n of 14 \ o agency and communion, t h e b e h a v i o r a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l o p t i o n s o f men and women a l i k e w i l l be broadened and en r i c h e d and we a l l can become more t r u l y whole, more t r u l y human" (Block, 1973, p. 526). A new model of mental h e a l t h emerged from the theory o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Bern (1974) and Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975) suggested the person who has both f e m i n i n i -t y and m a s c u l i n i t y or communality and i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y would be h e a l t h i e r . There was not complete agreement on a d e f i n i t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny b u t f o r Bern the andrognynous person would be more f l e x i b l e i n b e h a v i o r . Spence e_t _ a l . (1 975) and Spence and H e l m r e i c h (1 978 ) s t r e s s e d that the androgynous person would have high s e l f -esteem. Kaplan (1976) emphasized p e r s o n a l i t y i n t e g r a t i o n f o r the androgynous i n d i v i d u a l . In t h i s chapter, three broad t o p i c s r e l a t e d to psycho-l o g i c a l androgyny are reviewed. The f i r s t i s the h i s t o r i c a l background; the second i s the emergence o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l a ndrogyny, i t s measures and models; and t h i r d i s the r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g androgyny to mental h e a l t h . In r e v i e w i n g the l i t e r a t u r e , the h i s t o r i c a l background f o r the emergence o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny i s found i n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r i e s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of sex r o l e development, and i n e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s on sex d i f f e r e n c e s . The chapter proceeds to a d i s c u s s i o n of the major c o n t r i b u t o r s to the androgyny model i n c l u d i n g Bern (1974), Spence and Helmreich (1978), B e r z i n s et a l . (1978), H e i l b r u n (1976), and Wiggins 15 and Holzmuller (1978, 1981). Their research i s described in terms of th e i r measures of androgyny, scoring procedures, and the o r e t i c a l contributions. This i s followed by a description of studies r e l a t i n g androgyny to the mental he a l t h v a r i a b l e s : self-esteem, s o c i a l adjustment, and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . H i s t o r i c a l Background Psychoanalysis and Femininity and Masculinity Psychoanalysis o f f e r s one of the most comprehensive psychological theories of our time and any discussion of the concepts of masculinity and femininity cannot overlook the theories from th i s perspective which have had a pervasive influence on our views of male and female personality development. In examining the psychoanalytic theories, two important points are s i g n i f i c a n t . The f i r s t i s that there i s no one monolithic psychoanalytic viewpoint. Second, the b e l i e f in the i n f e r i o r i t y of women due to thei r b i o l o g i c a l endowments i s accepted by some, partly accepted by others, and rejected by s t i l l others. But the overriding assumption for most i s that gender determines personality. There i s a dichotomy between the masculine and feminine and, i f women move toward the masculine or men toward the feminine, the re s u l t i s pathological or at least problematic. For many, i t i s easy to dismiss the work of the psycho-analysts. Strouse (1974) eloquently warns against t h i s . 16 For the dogma of woman's 'anatomical i n f e r i o r i t y ' i s only the most accessible and e a s i l y miscon-strued element in a system of ideas whose s i g n i f i -cance for feminism i s that i t suggests so much about interactions between s o c i a l organization and the deepest l e v e l s of sexuality ... and an under-standing of them has to be a basis for any pro-found p o l i t i c a l or psychological understanding of women. (p.11) At the same time, psychoanalysts reexamining t h e i r contributions in thi s area have become more s e l f c r i t i c a l . Gelb (1973) wrote: Psychoanalysts have contributed to the view-- of women as weak, i n f e r i o r , passive, f r a g i l e , s o f t , v a c i l l a t i n g , dependent, unreliable, i n t u i t i v e ... Men have been polarized as aggressive, c o n t r o l -l i n g , strong, superior, proud, independent, ven-turesome, competitive, hard and a t h l e t i c . (p.367) In his psychoanalytic theory, Freud attempted to o f f e r a comprehensive explanation for the development of the masculine and feminine psyche. His ideas were refuted w i t h i n the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c movement by Horney (1935), Thompson (1943), Klein (1928), Erikson (1968) and others, as well as outside psychoanalysis. Feminists have been out-raged and have written extensively on Freudian misconcep-tions ( M i t c h e l l , 1974). Others such as Janeway (1974) suggested that Freud was not putting women into an i n f e r i o r place but describing how women arrived at a s o c i a l l y disad-vantaged position. However, "the fact remains ... that h i s theory tended to j u s t i f y the r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on women rather than to question t h e i r necessity" (Lips & C o l w i l l , 1 978, p.38)'. C l a s s i c a l Freudian theory supported f i v e important assumptions related to masculinity and femininity which contribute to maintaining present stereotypes. F i r s t , Freud stressed the differences between men and women in the devel-opment of personality and conceptualized their development, not only as dichotomous, but also as bipolar. To be healthy, the male followed the masculine pattern of develop-ment and the female took the feminine path. Second, the differences between men and women were irrevokable since they were rooted in physiology. Third, female psychosexual development was portrayed as more d i f f i c u l t than for the male. This was attributed to the woman's f a i l u r e to resolve her Oedipus Complex completely. Fourth, feminine personal-i t y t r a i t s were i d e n t i f i e d as passive and m a s o c h i s t i c indicating i n f e r i o r i t y as opposed to the more powerful and dominant male t r a i t s . F i f t h , a l l of the above factors led to the conclusion women were more vulnerable to neurosis than men (Freud, 1925). Horney (1935) and Thompson (1943, 1950, 1964) posed the most serious challenge to the c l a s s i c a l a nalytic view of men and women from within the psychoanalytic movement. Their th e o r e t i c a l contributions to feminine and masculine per-sonality development explain, in d i f f e r e n t terms, the under-lying assumption in the c l a s s i c a l position—women's i n f e r i -o r i t y . Horney d i r e c t l y challenged c l a s s i c a l theory as a "masculine mode of thought" (Horney, 1926, p. 9). 1 8 Horney argued that the " s o c i a l subordination of women" contributes to women's feelings of i n f e r i o r i t y . Although Horney attempted to move away from the t r a d i t i o n a l view of the feminine personality, she saw many women's wish to be men as a central issue in their personality. This wish was seen as pathological. Some of the reasons women may be predisposed to maso-chism cited by Horney are c u l t u r a l factors, such as lack of outlets for sexual expression, popular views about the i n f e r i o r i t y of women, economic dependence of women on men, and r e s t r i c t i o n of occupational opportunities. Masochistic attitudes are favore'd in women and discouraged in men. ' Dependence on the opposite sex, i n h i b i t i o n of independence, and absorption in f a l l i n g in love are considered s o c i a l l y desirable t r a i t s . In agreement with Horney (1935), Thompson (1943) stressed c u l t u r a l conditions to explain women's i n f e r i o r i t y . Like Horney, th i s i s not considered a b i o l o g i c a l condition but a s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n . She goes much further than Horney in her attempts to explain a feminine personality. Thompson (1943),refuted Freud's view that women's i n f e r i o r i t y was related to penis envy. She argued that what women envied was the power men had, not the penis. Penis envy could be viewed as a symbolic wish for the penis which equals power. The t y p i c a l t r a i t s associated with women, noted in the psychoanalytic l i t e r a t u r e as greater narcis-sism, need to be loved, r i g i d i t y , p a s s i v i t y , and masochism 19 a r e the r e s u l t s o f economic h e l p l e s s n e s s a c c o r d i n g t o Thompson. She suggested t h e i r p r eoccupation with t h e i r need to be lo v e d , t h e i r appearance, and t h e i r development o f other negative t r a i t s had been j u s t i f i e d i n p a r t because they had to depend on men and had no s e c u r i t y o f t h e i r own. I m p l i c i t i n Thompson's work was the view t h a t women may be more s u s c e p t i b l e to n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s due to t h e i r s o c i a l l y i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n . I f women u t i l i z e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f u l l y , they must i n e v i t a b l y c o n f l i c t with c o n v e n t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a l u e s . By e m p h a s i z i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the fe m a l e sex st e r e o t y p e , both Horney and Thompson gave some support f o r the development o f a new view of f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y as represented i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. The c u l t u r a l p o i n t o f view made i t p o s s i b l e to view feminine and mascu-l i n e b e h a v i o r s as changeable and not f i x e d by b i o l o g y . But they adhered to the view o f f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y as unidimensional which i s r e j e c t e d i n the new concept o f androgyny. Jung (1953) adopted an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e i n understanding m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y . He d i d not a p p r o a c h the male and femal e p s y c h e s as s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s p o w e r f u l l y determined by p h y s i o l o g y nor d i d he s t r e s s c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . Instead, h i s view was more a b s t r a c t as were other aspects o f h i s theory. For him there was a masculine and feminine p r i n c i p l e which could e x i s t 20 within one individual in varying amounts. Jung's arche-types, anima and animus, l a i d the groundwork for further developments in the f i e l d which continued to emphasize theoretical p r i n c i p l e s of masculinity and femininity. Erikson's theory on masculinity and femininity combined the b i o l o g i c a l orientation found in Freud, the c u l t u r a l position of Thompson, and the typologies as represented by Jung. "History and personality and anatomy are our j o i n t destiny" (1974, p. 323). The b i o l o g i c a l influence for him i s s t i l l a major determinant of male and female behavior, far greater than Horney and Thompson would acknowledge. The modalities of woman's commitment and involve-ment, for better and for worse, also r e f l e c t the ground plan of her body. We may mention only women's capacity on many level s of existence to (actively) include, to accept, to have and h o l d — but also to hold on, and to hold i n . (1974, p. 126) Sociological and Additional Psychological Views of Femininity and Masculinity Thinkers outside psychoanalysis tended to explain sex stereotyping in d i f f e r e n t ways. So c i o l o g i s t s , including Parsons and Bales (1955) and Bakan (1966) continued to characterize the differences between men and women along stereotypic l i n e s . Psychologists, such as Kohlberg and Zigler (1976) and Bandura (1969, 1977) offered t h e o r e t i c a l models to explain the development of gender id e n t i t y and tended to perpetuate the t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions of femi-n i n i t y and masculinity. 21 In Parsons and Bales' (1955) a n a l y s i s o f the f a m i l y s o c i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s , s o c i o l o g y , psychology, and psychoan-a l y s i s are i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a systematic model of p e r s o n a l i t y development. They suggested a dichotomy, i n s t r u m e n t a l vs. e x p r e s s i v e , as the two b a s i c o r i e n t a t i o n s around which the male and female developed. The i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e r e p r e s e n t s tasks o r i e n t e d to work and managing business e x t e r n a l to the home and the e x p r e s s i v e r o l e o r g a n i z e s the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n the home. Each i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r n a l i z e s a system o f s o c i a l o b j e c t (person) r e l a t i o n s which i n c l u d e both expres-s i v e and i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e s . T h i s i s a complex pro c e s s . Without e x p l o r i n g i t f u l l y here, the r e s u l t i s a s t e r e o t y p i c view of masculine and feminine development. S i m i l a r l y , David Bakan's (1966) work i s rooted i n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . He too, p o s t u l a t e d two b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l i f e — c o m m u n i o n and agency. He argued that the i n t e g r a t i o n of communion and agency i s fundamental to human, emotional, and s p i r i t u a l growth. Men and women are brought together i n t h e i r s t r i v i n g f o r such i n t e g r a t i o n . For him, agency r e f e r s to the need to p r o t e c t , expand, and a s s e r t o n e s e l f and to separate from other b e i n g s . Communion i s the tendency to conduct and u n i t e with other beings. Due to the d i f f e r e n t r e p r o d u c t i v e r o l e s , agency i s stronger i n males and com-munion i n females. L i k e Freud, he accepts a p l a c e f o r b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n h i s theory. However, u n l i k e Freud, he emphasizes human p e r s o n a l i t y growth through i n t e g r a t i o n o f the two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s . Bakan's view can be e a s i l y 22 compared to Parsons and B a l e s . The e f f o r t s to develop a theory o f androgyny i n the 1970's were based on both the Parsons and Bales and Bakan models and s t r o v e to i n t e g r a t e the d u a l i t i e s posed by them. Other p s y c h o l o g i s t s have taken at l e a s t two q u i t e d i f f e r e n t approaches toward the study o f f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y . One d i r e c t i o n , as represented by Terman (1936) and Strong (1943) was to assume sex d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d and t h a t they could be v e r i f i e d through measurement s c a l e s . The e a r l i e s t m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s developed by Terman and M i l e s (1 936 ) u n f o r t u n a t e l y were >not based on any t h e o r e t i c a l model. A more t h e o r e t i c a l approach to the a c q u i s i t i o n , of sex s t e r e o t y p e s emerged from the school of developmental" psychology. In the 1950's and 60's two important t h e o r i e s were o f f e r e d to e x p l a i n how c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e gender r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s which d i f f e r e d from the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n theory o f f e r e d by the p s y c h o a n a l y s t s . Bandura's (1969, 1977) s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory attempted to e x p l a i n how those i n the c h i l d ' s environment shaped the c h i l d ' s sex r o l e s o c i a l i z a -t i o n . Through a complex i n t e r a c t i o n between reinforcement o f p a r t i c u l a r sex r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s by p a r e n t s , peers, and o t h e r s , and m o d e l l i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s as w e l l as popular p e r s o n a l i t i e s , the c h i l d would begin to develop masculine and feminine b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o i r e s . The c h i l d would s e l e c t to i m i t a t e c e r t a i n models and ignore o t h e r s . Kohlberg and Z i g l e r , i n t h e i r c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l model 23 (1976) p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s which p a r a l l e l e d P i a g e t ' s . They e x p l a i n e d t h a t the c h i l d could ignore the r einforcement s t r a t e g i e s o f o t h e r s i n o r d e r to m a i ntain c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y . The c h i l d s e l e c t e d those b e h a v i o r s "which confirm h i s emerging o r g a n i z a t i o n of s e x - r o l e con-c e p t s " (Kohlberg & Z i g l e r , 1976, p. 365). Both Bandura and Kohlberg and Z i g l e r r e j e c t e d the p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s of sex r o l e development found i n c l a s s i c a l p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . Although both d i d not a t t a c h any e x p l i c i t judgments of i n f e r i o r i t y to the female r o l e , they d i d not c h a l l e n g e t r a d i t i o n a l concepts. In summary, c l a s s i c a l p s y c h o a n a l y t i c theory e f f e c t i v e l y c a s t s a shadow on feminine development. T h i s was i n p a r t a m e l i o r a t e d by the c u l t u r a l o r i e n t a t i o n s of Horney and Thompson. Jung and s o c i o l o g i s t s , Parsons and Bales and Bakan attempted to e x p l a i n m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y i n terms o f archetypes or s o c i a l r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . For these l a s t three t h e o r i s t s , masculine and feminine t r a i t s c ould be i n t e g r a t e d i n one i n d i v i d u a l ; however, the masculine t r a i t s would predominate i n men and the feminine t r a i t s would predominate i n women. Bandura's s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory and Kohlberg's c o g n i t i v e developmental approach both c o n t r i b u t e d to understanding sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y by s t r e s s i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n between l e a r n i n g and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . In g e n e r a l , the major p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s attempted to e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l i t y and gender but o n l y few 24 sought to counter the association between femininity and soc i a l and psychological i n f e r i o r i t y . Empirical Research on Dimensions of Femininity and Masculinity In addition to the broad dimensions of femininity and m a s c u l i n i t y , p s y c h o l o g i s t s began to measure p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t y p i c a l l y assigned to men and women. Some personal-i t y theories implied or e x p l i c i t l y stated that women were passive, dependent, gentle, u n i n t e l l i g e n t , and i n f e r i o r to men; whereas men were seen as active, aggressive, i n t e l l i -gent, independent, and superior to women. Researchers in the l a s t 15 years attempted to determine i f these t r a i t s did d i f f e r e n t i a t e men and women (Frieze et al., 1978; Maccoby & Jac k l i n , 1974). The strongest r e s u l t s on t r a i t differences between men and women were found in aggression studies (Frieze ^ t a_l. , 1978). Although studies on sex differences in the areas of aggression, dependence, nurturance, emotion-a l i t y , self-concept, and verbal and math achievement were in the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotype, the res u l t s were not con-s i s t e n t , nor as strong as commonly believed. However, in general results supported the s i m i l a r i t i e s between men and women rather than the differences. Frieze ef. a_l. (1978 ) argued, when differences on personality t r a i t s were found, the studies on sex differences must be viewed cautiously due to the uncontrolled experimental bias. " A l l the method-o l o g i c a l problems may mean that one reason there i s empirical support for many stereotypes i s that a s u f f i c i e n t 25 number of studies simply e l i c i t stereotypic responding" (p. 66). Even though some studies revealed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences between the groups of men and women, they did not look at differences within the groups. For example, questions such as, "who were the women or men who rated themselves as anxious," were never answered with the methodology used in these studies. Criticisms of Tra d i t i o n a l Masculinity-Femininity Measures Constantinople's (1973) pivotal a r t i c l e reviewing the major tests of masculinity and femininity raised s i g n i f i c a n t methodological questions in regard to t r a d i t i o n a l M-F mea-sures. She explored the basic problems so l u c i d l y , her a r t i c l e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on new developments in the f i e l d . At t h i s point in the history of the term M-F as a psychological construct, i t i s not clear whether our approach to i t s measurement i s at f a u l t or whether the term as such should be dropped from the psychologist's vocabulary because i t s refer -ents vary so widely that i t adds l i t t l e to our understanding of behavior. (p.389) Traditional M-F measures assumed both unidimensionality and b i p o l a r i t y of the t r a i t s . Constantinople challenged both assumptions and argued that b i p o l a r i t y which measured ex-treme masculinity at one end of the • scale and extreme femi-n i n i t y at the other, was incorrect. She hypothesized femininity and masculinity were two separate dimensions independent of each other. In addition, she argued that 26 existing tests ignored the l i k e l i h o o d that M-F was multi-dimensional. She concluded, "Multidimensional analysis may reveal that there are certain patterns of t r a i t s that appear more often in healthy males than healthy females, but the pattern may be d i f f e r e n t for most masculine versus least masculine men and most feminine and least feminine women" (p. 405). Constantinople's a r t i c l e was successful in generating new approaches to masculinity and femininity. Most popular has been the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), the f i r s t new measurement based on the construct of psychological andro-gyny (Bern, 1974). In a very short time both the construct and the measure were broadly adopted. The Development of Androgyny Scales After Bern (1974) proposed the concept of psychological androgyny and developed a measure to test a person's sex •type, other investigators developed measures and attempted to explore androgyny in d i f f e r e n t ways. The work of Spence et a l . (1975) and Spence and Helmreich (1978) offered the most d i r e c t challenge to the Bern position both in theoreti-c a l and empirical terms. The work of Heilbrun (1976) and Berzins e_t _al. ( 1 978) was an extension of Bern's concepts rather than a challenge. The more recent studies of Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1979) proposed a more careful d e f i n i -tion of psychological androgyny and a measure to determine the interpersonal behaviors was included in the d e f i n i t i o n . In t h i s section these developments are reviewed. 27 Bern's Contribution "In a society where r i g i d sex role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n has already outlived i t s u t i l i t y , perhaps the androgynous person w i l l come to define a more human standard of psychological health" (Bern, 1974, p. 162). Implicit in Bern's work was her attempt to s h i f t t r a d i t i o n a l views which assumed mental health was, in part, equated with high masculine scores for men and high feminine scores for women, toward the view that individuals can be "both masculine and feminine, both as-sertiv e and y i e l d i n g , both instrumental and expressive, depending on the s i t u a t i o n a l appropriateness" (Bern, 1974, p. 155). She went on to argue that a r i g i d l y masculine concept and stereotypic feminine s e l f concept may be l i m i t i n g . Independent f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e s were b u i l t from a pool of 200 items prepared by Bern and her students. Student judges were asked to rate the d e s i r a b i l -i t y of each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (for example, warm, dominant) in American society for either a man or a woman, on a Li k e r t scale from 1 to 7. The items q u a l i f i e d when the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was judged independently by both females and males to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more desirable for a man/woman than for a woman/man. From this group of items, 20 were selected for the masculine or feminine scale. They also generated an additional 200 items that "seemed to be neither masculine nor feminine" (p. 156). Those items rated as desirable for men and women formed the 20 item the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale. She reported that "the men and women 28 were n e a r l y equal i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f s e x - a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and the d i f f e r e n c e s between them" (p. 156). The c o n s t r u c t i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n terms of the sc o r -ing procedure. "The BSRI c h a r a c t e r i z e s a person as a func-t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e between h i s or her endorsement o f masculine and feminine p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " (Bern, 1974, p. 155). The s c a l e y i e l d s one score which demon-s t r a t e s the person i s e i t h e r sex-typed or androgynous. F i r s t , the f e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y scores are c a l c u l a t e d as the mean s e l f r a t i n g f o r each s c a l e , ranging from 1 t o 7. Then the "degree of sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g i n the person's s e l f - c o n c e p t " i s d e f i n e d as "the student's t r a t i o f o r the d i f f e r e n c e between a s u b j e c t ' s m a s c u l i n i t y and feminine endorsement" (p. 159). With t h i s s c o r i n g method, a person i s c onsidered androgynous with a t value between 1. A person i s stereotyped when h i s / h e r t value i s g r e a t e r than 1. For Bern, t h i s meant that an androgynous sex r o l e represented "the equal endorsement o f both masculine and feminine a t t r i b u t e s " (p. 159). She adds " i t i s measuring a very s p e c i f i c tendency to d e s c r i b e o n e s e l f i n accordance with sex-typed standards o f d e s i r a b l e behavior f o r men and women" (p. 159). The o r i g i n a l v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s were based on two c o l l e g e samples. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d 34% o f males and 27% o f females i n the Stanford sample were androgynous, 36% of the 29 men were masculine-typed and 34% of the women were femi-nine-typed (Bern, 1974). In the F o o t h i l l s J r . College sample, there was a greater number of androgynous subjects. In further studies, Bern attempted to estab l i s h the predictive v a l i d i t y of her construct and to c l a r i f y the operational d e f i n i t i o n s ' of psychological androgyny (Bern, 1975; Bern, 1977; Bern & Lenney, 1976; Bern, Martyna, & Watson, 1976). In a series of behavioral studies, Bern' tested her hypothesis that androgynous persons would be more f l e x i b l e i n a v a r i e t y of sex-typed s i t u a t i o n s than stereotyped persons. She predicted masculine persons would demonstrate assertive, instrumental, and goal d i r e c t i v e behaviors in s i t u a t i o n s where these behaviors were r e q u i r e d . The feminine person would demonstrate nurturance and a f f e c t i v e q u a l i t i e s in situations which demanded these behaviors. Those who were low on both M and F dimensions were expected to show behavioral d e f i c i t s . In a l l the studies, subjects were assigned categories based on the i r BSRI score—mascu-l i n e , feminine, or androgynous. Bern (1 976) concluded from her studies on the "i n s t r u -mental" and "expressive domains" (p. 1022) that the re s u l t s for men were more consistent than for women. She general-ized that the androgynous males demonstrated both i n s t r u -mental and expressive q u a l i t i e s in situations from standing up for t h e i r opinion to being sympathetic. In general, the masculine males showed low nurturance in a l l situations 30 compared to other men. On the other hand, the feminine-typed male was low in "independence." The pattern for women was more complex. The androgynous women were seen as high i n s i t u a t i o n s demanding nurturance and independence; however, the feminine women were low in independence and high in nurturance. The masculine woman was also high in independence and in nurturance. In spite of t h i s complex picture for women, Bern argued that the androgynous indivi d u -a l i s capable of being both nurturing and independent r e l a t i v e to the s i t u a t i o n a l demands. She extended the d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny: It further implies that an individual may blend these complementary modalities in a single act, being able, for example, to f i r e an employee i f the circumstances warrant i t but with s e n s i t i v i t y for the emotion that such an act inevitably pro-duces . (Bern, 1977, p. 196) Studies by other researchers have supported Bern's findings. This work has occurred in three areas: construct v a l i d a t i o n , further analysis of the BSRI, and investigation of the correlates and antecedents to psychological andro-gyny. Even c r i t i c s of Bern's work, Kelly and Worell (1977), praised her behavioral v a l i d a t i o n studies. They argued that the BSRI was able to predict a rel a t i o n s h i p between the sex type category and responses to stereotypic a c t i v i t i e s and they supported "the notion that cross sex behavior i s r e s t r i c t i v e and perhaps motivationally problematic for cross sex-typed persons" (p. 1112). They agreed with Bern's 31 hypothesis that feminine-typed females lack masculine t r a i t s necessary for "instrumentality" and the spontaneous expres-sion of t r a d i t i o n a l feminine behaviors such as supportive-ness and positive emotional expression. Wakefield, Saseky, Friedman, and Bowden (1976) assessed the differences in organization of sex role t r a i t s for men and women. They speculated that although the behavior for androgynous men and women may look the same, the behavior may have d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s . Using two independent factor analyses, they compared a number of variables including the M-F scale in the MMPI and other t r a d i t i o n a l personality measures with the BSRI. The re s u l t s indicated the sex type variables for both sexes were si m i l a r . The re s u l t s support-ed the independence of the androgyny factor from M-F on personality inventories and from "the degree of sex-typing" (p. 770). Those males and females high on M-F scales were not high on the androgynous scale (or nonandrogynous). They argued t h i s supported Bern's contention that men must overcome the pressure to conform to a masculine stereotype and females have to overcome pressures toward a female sex type to become androgynous. They claimed t h i s indicates androgyny has d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s and may have1 d i f f e r e n t implications for men and women. Spence 1s Contribution Although there i s some overlap, 'there are important d i s t i n c t i o n s between Bern's view of androgyny and the Spence 32 and Helmreich (1978) view. They suggested that sex stereo-types are sets of expectations men and women have about "appropriate behaviors" (p. 13) for each sex. These are po s i t i v e l y sanctioned for one sex and "ignored" by the other. They distinguish the acting out of role behaviors from the "internal properties" of individuals' sex role a t t r i b u t e s . Sex role involves a multitude of roles and role combinations for each individual from the home to the o f f i c e , in dress and conduct. Each person orders h i s or her repertoire according to i t s importance and the rewards and costs. For thi s reason, they suggested correlations among a l l categories of role behaviors may vary considerably. Not only do s i t u a t i o n a l factors influence the enactment of sex roles but also do "such internal dispositions as attitudes toward appropriateness of maintaining t r a d i t i o n a l sex-role d i s t i n c t i o n s , personal preferences for certain kinds of a c t i v i t i e s and perceptions ( r e a l i s t i c and u n r e a l i s t i c ) , of the posi t i v e or negative consequences, of acting in certain ways" (p. 14). It i s t h i s group of " s e l f - v a r i a b l e s " which Spence and Helmreich (1978) b e l i e v e are most d i r e c t l y responsible for the degree to which masculine or feminine sex role behavior i s exhibited in a given s i t u a t i o n . Spence and Helmreich disagreed with Bern's (1974, 1976) view that there was a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between psycho-l o g i c a l masculinity and femininity and sex role behaviors. Whereas Bern stated that psychological androgyny was related to f l e x i b i l i t y in role performance, Spence and Helmreich 33 argued these generalizations could not be made and that the c o r r e l a t i o n between a person's masculine and feminine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and his or her role behaviors was " l i k e l y to be weak" (p. 115). In agreement with Block (1973), they conceptualized psychologically androgynous persons as being freer to develop th e i r own goals and values and adopt or re j e c t the s o c i a l l y prescribed sex role behaviors according to their own needs and a b i l i t i e s . "Some individuals may become tr u l y androgynous, in the sense of accepting equally their expressive and instrumental q u a l i t i e s and associated with 'personhood' rather than gender" (p. 118). Like Bern, they formulated a d u a l i s t i c conception of masculinity based on Bakan's (1966) work. For them the core property of femininity was "communion" and for masculinity, "agency." In their Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), their M scale referred to instrumental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and their F scale to expressive and communal t r a i t s . They also included a M-F scale in their measurement. The f u l l version of the PAQ, 55 items, was drawn from items used in the Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire of Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, and Broverman (1968). Students were asked to rate 55 items as either the t y p i c a l adult male or female, the t y p i c a l college student of each sex and the t y p i c a l i d e a l i n d i v i d u a l of each sex. F i f t y - f i v e items were selected from those that showed a "consistent stereotype" (p. 32) related to sex differences. The items were not only c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s commonly believed to d i f f e r e n t i a t e men and 34 women but also t r a i t s where men and women self-reported differences. The ideal ratings were used to divide the PAQ items into three scales: Feminine, Masculine and Masculine-Feminine. Eighteen items were "female-valued" and twenty-three, "male-valued" (Spence et a l . , 1975, p. 30). Thirteen items were mixed and placed on the M-F scale. They retained t h i s M-F scale in spite of an apparent contradiction and "conceptual embarrassment of having to embrace simultan-eously a d u a l i s t i c and bipolar model of masculinity and femininity" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p. 20). In the PAQ, respondents rated themselves on a five-point scale on each of the bipolar items (for example, not at a l l aggressive to very aggressive, p. 23). Spence and Helmreich (1978) used the median s p l i t method to categorize the androgynous, feminine, masculine, and undifferentiated persons. According to t h i s method, median scores on the M and F scales are determined for a to t a l sample with males and females combined. The subjects are then c l a s s i f i e d in a 2 by 2 table according to th e i r position above or below the median on each scale. Spence ^ t a l . (1975) argued that a d i s t i n c t i o n needed to be made between those scoring low on masculinity and femininity (undifferentiaged) and those scoring high on each (andro-gynous) . Androgyny was not just ,a "balance" of masculinity and femininity as described by Bern, but a high degree of both attributes (Kelly & Worell, 1977). They admitted there 3 5 were pr o b l e m s w i t h t h i s method p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r s m a l l samples and f o r between group comparisons. Spence and H e l m r e i c h ( 1 9 7 8 ) n o t e d two d i f f e r e n c e s between the s c a l e s . F i r s t , BSRI uses a t r a i t i n v e n t o r y and respondents are asked how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s i t of them. On the PAQ, s u b j e c t s are asked to place themselves on a b i p o l a r s c a l e . They speculated t h i s has an e f f e c t but do not know what i t i s . Secondly, the t r a i t items on the BSRI are d e s c r i p t i o n s which are judged to be more d e s i r a b l e f o r one sex than the o t h e r . A d i f f e r e n t method was used i n b u i l d i n g the PAQ. As a r e s u l t , the items on the PAQ M-F s c a l e are on both the M and F s c a l e s o f the BSRI. Spence and Helmreich's ( 1 9 7 8 ) s e l f - e s t e e m study showed t h a t masculine women re p o r t e d themselves higher i n s o c i a l competence and sel f - e s t e e m as compared to t r a d i t i o n a l women. Feminine-typed males were equal to feminine-typed females on t h i s measure. In terms o f gro u p s c o r e s , androgynous s u b j e c t s s c o r e d h i g h e s t on s e l f - e s t e e m , w i t h m a s c u l i n e s u b j e c t s next. Bern ( 1 9 7 7 ) had s i m i l a r r e s u l t s using the BSRI s c a l e and the same s e l f - e s t e e m measure. In a r e p l i c a -t i o n of t h e i r p r evious work with c o l l e g e students (Spence e_t a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) , Spence and Helmreich ( 1 9 7 8 ) confirmed e a r l i e r r e s u l t s i n a l a r g e h i g h school sample. Males scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the M and M-F s c a l e s than females and s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on F. Support was a l s o found f o r the b i p o l a r i t y o f the s c a l e s . When the students were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o rding to the median s p l i t method, the l a r g e s t 3 6 percentage of each sex was conventionally stereotyped and s m a l l e s t c r o s s - t y p e d . When socio-economic c l a s s was examined, lower class students had a lower percentage of androgynous subjects and higher percentage of undiffer-entiated as compared to upper class groups. The androgynous students had the highest self-esteem scores, followed by the masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated. Spence and Helmreich (1978) recognized the l i m i t a t i o n s of college student samples and expanded their investigations to junior and senior high school students with more diverse socio-economic and demographic factors. A smaller group of subjects including students from foreign countries, scien-t i s t s , and homosexuals was also sampled. The r e s u l t s with Lebanese, I s r a e l i , and B r a z i l i a n students were more complex and only partly replicated findings on American students. In the homosexual sample, males scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than an unselected college sample on M and M-F and higher on F, whereas lesbians were higher on M and M-F. Self-esteem was as high as with the college students. Female v a r s i t y athletes and female Ph.D. s c i e n t i s t s scored higher on M and M-F than a comparison group of female college students. Male s c i e n t i s t s scored higher than college males on M and M-F. Spence and Helmreich suggested these data support the hypothesis that m a s c u l i n i t y and femininity do "have impor-tant i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t r e a l - l i f e behaviors" (1978, p. 72). 37 Heilbrun's ACL Measure and Berzins' PRF ANDRO Scale Both Heilbrun (1976) and Berzins et a l . (1978) devel-oped anydrogyny measures from existing personality measures. Heilbrun (1976) revised the sex role scale from the Adjec-tive Check L i s t (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) to extend the masculinity and femininity scale. The scale was b u i l t on the adjectives which characterized college males i d e n t i f i e d with masculine fathers (for example, aggressive, arrogant) and behaviors c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of college females i d e n t i f i e d with feminine mothers ( f o r example, a p p r e c i a t i v e , con-siderate). College student norms were developed. A variety of v a l i d i t y studies were conducted which revealed serious problems with Heilbrun's methodology and i l l u s t r a t e d the assumptions underlying h i s concept of psychological androgyny.' For example, he sought to find a re l a t i o n s h i p between androgyny scores on his scale and adjustment. Two indices of adjustment were considered. The f i r s t index of adjustment was a "role consistency" v a r i a b l e . As an i n d i c a t i o n of r o l e c o n s i s t e n c y , the androgynous subjects were expected to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores on both M and F than the stereotyped and undifferentiated subjects. The res u l t s were in the pre-dicted d i r e c t i o n on t h i s measure. Then he examined the rel a t i o n s h i p between sex-typing and students' adjustment. I "Maladjustment" was indicated by those students seeking help at a student counselling center and "adjusted" were those who were not in counselling at the center. As expected, the 38 number of low masculine-low feminine s u b j e c t s was s i g n i f i -c a n t l y l a r g e r i n the maladjusted group. However, he d i d not c o n f i r m the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t e r e o t y p i c s u b j e c t s would d i f f e r from androgynous i n the maladjusted group. The d i f f e r e n c e s d i d not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , y e t he concluded " t h a t "androgynous l a t e a d o l e s c e n t s , as i d e n t i f i e d by M a s c u l i n i t y and F e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s used i n combination, are b e t t e r adjusted than t h e i r peers who present other sex r o l e i d e n t i t i e s " ( H e i l b r u n , 1976, p. 189). B e r z i n s e_t a l . (1978) developed a f o u r t h s c a l e to measure p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny based on a widely used m u l t i s c a l e p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y , the P e r s o n a l i t y Research Form. The BSRI was used as the e s s e n t i a l b a s i s f o r con-vergent v a l i d i t y on the new PRF ANDRO s c a l e . The mascu-l i n i t y s c a l e i n c l u d e d three themes from the int r u m e n t a l dimension on the BSRI, s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l ascendency, o r i e n t a t i o n toward r i s k , and autonomy. Items s e l e c t e d f o r the f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e were based on nurturance, a f f i l i a t i v e -e x p r e s s i v e concerns, and s e l f - s u b o r d i n a t i o n themes. The PRF items c o n s i s t e n t with these themes were used i f they were judged by r a t e r s as more d e s i r a b l e i n men/women than i n women/men. The s c a l e s were comprised o f 29 m a s c u l i n i t y items and 27 f e m i n i n i t y items. They were keyed t r u e - f a l s e and c o n t r o l l e d f o r acquiescence. Each item was a s e l f d e s c r i p t i v e statement ("I seek out p o s i t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y " ) r a t h e r than an a d j e c t i v e o r b r i e f phrase as found i n the BSRI. The s c o r i n g method was the median s p l i t approach 39 advocated by Spence et al. ( 1 975). "A l i m i t a t i o n on the content range i s imposed, of course, by the o r i g i n a l item pool of PRF, which was not oriented toward sex assessment" (Kelly & Worell, 1977) . Validation studies were conducted with a cross-section of samples, of 6,000 subjects. In addition to the usual student samples, eighteen d i f f e r e n t samples were tested including: policemen, drug addicts, accountants, in-patient a l c o h o l i c s , depressed women, and gay men and women. The highest masculinity scores were found among policemen, men majoring in accounting, and male dental students, whereas the c l i n i c a l l y depressed women, newlywed women, and women enrolled in a weight reduction program had the lowest. Berzins ^ t a l . (1978) argued their r e s u l t s corroborated the t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of m a s c u l i n i t y as a mixture of s o c i a l - i n t e l l e c t u a l ascendency, r i s k taking, and autonomy. The highest femininity scores were found among high school, college, and "general population" women, whereas most male groups, gay women, and women majoring in accounting scored the lowest. In the c l i n i c a l samples, male schizophrenic outpatients and a l c o h o l i c i n p a t i e n t s showed feminine sex t y p i n g . Berzins et al. noted that male alco h o l i c s had not been depicted previously as feminine-typed by t r a d i t i o n a l M-F scales. However, they considered i t reasonable that the alcoholics would score low on a masculine scale r e f l e c t i n g a dominant-instrumental dimension. The c l i n i c a l l y depressed 40 women scored lowest on masculinity of a l l groups and their femininity score appeared to be at the group mean. Dominance-Nurturance Position Bern's o r i g i n a l conceptualization of androgyny stressed androgyny as r e f l e c t i n g f l e x i b l e interpersonal behaviors. Both Bern (1979) and Spence and Helmreich (1978) based their masculine and feminine scales on the dimension of mascu-l i n i t y as i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y or agency and f e m i n i n i t y as communality or expressivity. Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981) suggested reconceptualizing these broad terms into s p e c i f i c interpersonal behaviors, dominance and nurturance. Empiri-cal evidence, found in the reported factor analytic studies, showed that the Bern masculinity scale was characterized by dominance and the femininity scale by nurturance. The two scales, dominant-ambitious (PA) and warm-agreeable (LM), on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1979) more closely measured dominance and nurturance than the BSRI (Bern, 1974) or other t y p i c a l l y used androgyny scales (PAQ, Spence et a l . , 1975; ACL, Heilbrun, 1976; PRF ANDRO, Berzins et a l . , 1978). The use of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1979) as a measure of psychological androgyny i s based on two assumptions. The f i r s t represents a t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n that p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny i s a balance of interpersonal behaviors. Bern gives i m p l i c i t support for thi s view but Spence and Helmreich define androgyny in d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l terms. The second i s that dominance 41 and nurturance, as interpersonal behaviors, are the primary factors found in the BSRI masculinity and femininity scales, respectively, and most closely r e f l e c t t r a d i t i o n a l mascu-l i n i t y and femininity. The discussion of the IAS reviews these two assumptions then proceeds to d e s c r i b e some ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the measure. Although Bern repeatedly discussed androgyny in terms of desirable personality t r a i t s , without specifying them as i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviors, her o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n and examples of androgynous persons refer to behaviors of an interpersonal nature. Androgynous persons were hypothesized as "both assertive and y i e l d i n g , both instrumental and expressive" (1974, p. 155). Androgynous persons could more freely engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors; they would be more f l e x i b l e and less r e s t r i c t e d in their behav-i o r s . Much of Bern's research has been directed toward demonstrating that androgynous persons are more f l e x i b l e and l e s s r i g i d across s i t u a t i o n s than stereotyped persons. Worell (1978) noted Bern's emphasis on interpersonal behav-iors as a basis for her view of behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y and t h i s i s consistent with Wiggins' p o s i t i o n . Both Bern and Spence et a l . (1975) f a i l e d to give up the t r a d i t i o n of re l a t i n g attributes or behaviors on the scales to gender. As Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981) argued, in reference to Bern, using terms l i k e agency and commonality as tied to gender only perpetuates the view of masculinity and femininity as bipolar. When dominance and nurturance are 42 used i n s t e a d , i t i s p o s s i b l e to get away from the inappro-p r i a t e gender a s s o c i a t i o n s . T h i s i s f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e d , as Wiggins and H olzmuller pointed out, i n t h a t a high score i n e i t h e r dominance or nurturance r e v e a l s nothing i n i t s e l f . These b e h a v i o r a l dimensions must be examined i n r e l a t i o n to one another. L o c k s l e y and C o l t e n (1979) s p e c i f i c a l l y c r i t i c i z e d the Bern and Spence and Helmreich s c a l e s f o r using " p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s developed around aggregate d i s t i n c t i o n s between the c a t e g o r i e s o f b i o l o g i c a l sex to measure i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y r e g a r d l e s s of b i o l o g i c a l sex" (p. 1020). Use of the dominance and nurturance s c a l e s overcomes t h i s type of d i f f i c u l t y . They were not b u i l t based on sex d i f f e r e n c e s but most c l o s e l y r e f l e c t i n t e r p e r s o n a l behav-i o r s . F a c t o r analyses c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d dominance and nurturance as f i r s t o rder f a c t o r s on the BSRI (Bern, 1974). Gaudreau's (1977) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s gave the most support f o r the o r t h o g o n a l i t y o f the Bern masculine and feminine s c a l e s . Waters, Waters, and Pincus (1977) and Moreland, G u l a n i c k , Montague, and Harren's (1978) f a c t o r a n a l yses o f the BSRI y i e l d e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s to those r e p o r t e d by Gaudreau. Whitton and S w i n d e l l s ' (1977) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f e d Empathy (nurturance) and Power (dominance) as two of f i v e primary f a c t o r s . Edwards, Van Buren, and Z a b r i s k i e ' s (1978) a n a l y s i s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d f i v e f a c t o r s , two of which were s p e c i f i c a l l y l a b e l l e d nurturance and dominance. When Gaa, 4 3 Liberman, and Edwards ( 1 9 7 9 ) t r i e d to c l a r i f y what factors were to be found in the BSRI and PAQ, empathy, leadership, independence, and assertiveness were four of the f i v e f i r s t order factors on the BSRI. The PAQ yielded similar types of factors: empathy, emotional, aggressive, and s e l f - c o n f i -dent. Pedhazur and Tetenbaum ( 1 9 7 9 ) conducted three separate factor analyses and their r e s u l t s , again, c l e a r l y supported the view that dominance and nurturance were the factors most c l e a r l y represented in the scales. They i d e n t i f i e d three f a c t o r s : i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y , a s s e r t i v e n e s s or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y , and immaturity (e.g., t r a i t s l i k e conceited and g u l l i b l e ) . Although they argued these represented too narrow a domain, i t was th i s narrow-ness which added c l a r i t y to what was being measured on androgyny scales. The Interpersonal Adjective Scales developed by Wiggins ( 1 9 7 9 ) were based on the e a r l i e r work of Leary ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Leary operationalized Sullivan's ( 1 9 5 3 ) interpersonal theory by developing a set of personality measurements including an interpersonal circumplex. He defined interpersonal behavior as "behavior related overtly, consciously, e t h i c a l l y , or symbolically to another human being ( r e a l , c o l l e c t i v e or imagined)" (p. 4 ) . The personality variables s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from concern were p h y s i o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l factors, interest patterns, p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l a t t i -tudes, and sensation and perception variables. Wiggins' ( 1 9 7 8 ) d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior, "dyadic 44 interactions that have r e l a t i v e l y clear-cut s o c i a l (status) and emotional (love) consequences for both participants ( s e l f and others)" was based on Foa and Foa's (1974) theor-e t i c a l work which distinquished interpersonal t r a i t s from the other variables mentioned by Leary. The circumplex designed by Wiggins (1979), based on Foa and Foa's (1974) interpersonal variables, was considered to have the advan-tage of representing on a vector any behavior which was a "meaningful interpersonal event" (Wiggins, 1979, p. 399). The behaviors Bern described can be seen in terms of t h i s circumplex model. In Leary's model, the interpersonal variables of interest were c o l l a b o r a t i o n — l o v e and su c c e s s — power and in the Wiggins' circumplex they were warm-agree-able and ambitious-dominant. Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978) demonstrated, in empir-i c a l terms, that androgynous persons d i f f e r e n t i a t e d them-selves from sex-typed persons in the interpersonal domain. They c l a s s i f i e d subjects using the BSRI to determine sex stereotype. When given a l i s t of 1,710 adjectives which included i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s , temperament and mental t r a i t s , character t r a i t s , attitudes, mental predicates, and so c i a l r o l e s , the sex role groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d from each other on adjectives which were interpersonal (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978). For example, the androgynous males rated themselves as warm and submissive while the masculine males reported themselves as dominant and cold. 45 Empirical support for the position that dominance and nurturance are the most generalizable pair of orthogonal interpersonal vectors was offered by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981). They examined the hypothesis that any pair of orthogonal i n t e r p e r s o n a l v e c t o r s from the i n t e r p e r s o n a l circumplex (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981) r e f l e c t i n g desirable differences for men and women may provide the basis for indices of androgyny. Three orthogonal constrasts, lazy-submissive ("femininity") vs. cold-quarrelsome ("masculini-t y " ) , unassuming-ingenuous ("femininity") vs. a l o o f - i n t r o -verted ("masculinity") and gregarious-extroverted ("feminin-i t y " ) vs. arrogant-calculating ("masculinity") were analyzed with the expectation they would be able to c l a s s i f y subjects as stereotyped, near-stereotyped, or androgynous as e f f e c -t i v e l y as the ambitious-dominant vs. warm-agreeable contrast u t i l i z i n g the t - r a t i o . Results indicated that the ambi-tious-dominant vs. warm-agreeable constrast offered the most consistent and generalizable support to analyze patterns of stereotyping. In an unpublished study, Lazerson (1980) explored the d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological androgyny using the LM and PA scales in a group of 91 working adults. This was a more heterogeneous sample than g e n e r a l l y used i n andyrogyny research. The majority of the 52 females were between the ages of 18-35; 40% were single and a similar proportion were married; 80% had some university education; and a l l were professionally employed or in service jobs. In the group of 46 39 males, the majority were between the ages of 26-45; 64% were married; 85% had some university t r a i n i n g ; and 64% were employed as professionals. Using the t - r a t i o method (Bern, 1974) Lazerson found the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sex type categories as follows: for the females, 29% androgynous, 21% near feminine, 29% feminine, 10% near masculine, and 12% mascu-l i n e typed; and for the males, 30% androgynous, 14% near feminine, 36% feminine, 8% near masculine, and 11% mascu-l i n e . When the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the demographic; variables and the sex type categories were explored, no clear r e l a t i o n s h i p could be established. In thi s study, the LM and PA scales did distinguish sex type categories for t h i s group of adults. Scoring Procedures There i s considerable controversy over scoring pro-cedures used to operationalize the construct of androgyny. Each of the standard methods, the s i g n i f i c a n t t method (Bern, 1974) and the median s p l i t method (Spence e_t a l . , 1975), has l i m i t a t i o n s (e.g., Bern, 1977; Downing, 1979; Lenney, 1979; Strahan, 1975). In Bern's i n i t i a l method, a person i s c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous when the t value for the d i f f e r -ence between his/her scores on the masculinity and feminini-ty scales i s between ±1.025 (-1.025<t<1.025). In this view, androgyny i s a r e l a t i v e balance of masculinity and feminini-ty. Those considered sex-typed are subjects who have a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (feminine, t>2.025 and masculine t<-2.025) between their masculinity and femininity scores. 47 She includes a t h i r d category, near sex-typed (1.025>t>2.025 for females and -2.025<t<-1.025 for males). Given these categories are not gender-bound, the method also i d e n t i f i e s persons who score cross sexed, masculine females and feminine males. Bern's scoring procedure was c r i t i c i z e d (Spence et. a l . , 1975; Strahan, 1975) for including persons who scored low on both masculinity and femininity (low-lows) in the andro-gynous category. Spence ^ t a l . and l a t e r Bern (1977) argued t h i s low-low group d i f f e r e d from high-high androgynous persons p a r t i c u l a r l y in the area of self-esteem. They argued, as well, that those persons measuring low on both "masculinity" and "femininity" scales did not seem to f i t conceptually into the androgynous category. Spence proposed that the median s p l i t method separated them from the andro-gynous category. The fourfold c l a s s i f i c a t i o n proposed by Spence e_t a l . (1975) also has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . Subjects are c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous when they score above the median on both the masculine and feminine scales; sex-typed or cross sex-typed when one score i s above and the other below their respective medians; and undifferentiated when both scores are below the median. This method, however, abandons the idea of balance between "masculinity" and "femininity;" the low-lows are dropped to another category. In addition, subjects who have a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in th e i r masculinity and femininity scores w i l l s t i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous and persons 48 who do not have a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in their masculini-ty and femininity scores w i l l s t i l l be considered sex-typed. Spence and Helmreich (1978) note that t h e i r method has d i f f i c u l t i e s when sample sizes are small and the data may have some " s t a t i s t i c a l d i s t o r t i o n . " They also suggest a method must be c a r e f u l l y used when between group comparisons are being made. A number of researchers (Jones e_t a_l., 1978; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978, 1979) have argued to retain the t-method because i t was f a i t h f u l to the o r i g i n a l Bern conception of androgyny as a balance. This view was given further support with evidence that a reanalysis of data using both the t-method and the median s p l i t yielded r e s u l t s which were not a l l that d i f f e r e n t (Bern, 1977; Berzins et a l . , 1978; Jones et a l . , 1978; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978). When Bern (1977) reanalyzed a l l her data using the median s p l i t , she found, in general, her i n i t i a l r e s u l t s using the t-method were strengthened. However, Downing (1979) reviewed a number of studies including her own which analyzed re s u l t s based on the BSRI u t i l i z i n g both the t - r a t i o and the median s p l i t and found the outcomes were changed in s i g n i f i c a n t ways depend-ing on the scoring method. Contrary to Bern's (1977) finding, the results were not strengthened but produced a d i f f e r e n t pattern of r e s u l t s . She suggested a "hybrid" method combining the assumptions found in both procedures. Others (e.g., Bern, 1977; Kelly & Worell, 1977) have suggest-ed using regression analysis as a solution to the scoring 49 problem. The l i m i t a t i o n with t h i s method was that i t did not s p e c i f y r e g r e s s i o n procedures and overlooked the conception of androgyny as a balance of both dominance and nurturance. The t - r a t i o method remains the most t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound and empirically l o g i c a l approach. Most of the reanalysis using both methods show few s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the r e s u l t s . It i s possible to i d e n t i f y those persons who are the low-lows. In general, most studies report very few in t h i s category, l e s s than one percent (Bern & Lenney, 1976). They can be analyzed separately or dropped i f necessary. The t - r a t i o makes i t possible to determine those persons who are not quite achieving a balance nor are f u l l y stereotyped, the near-stereotyped persons. Summary of Androgyny Measures and Models Since the development of the BSRI (Bern, 1974), four additional measures of psychological androgyny emerged, each based on s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t assumptions and each with i t s own l i m i t a t i o n s . In summary, the four established scales (BSRI, PAQ, ACL, PRF ANDRO) vary in t h e i r conceptualization of andro-gyny, the i r operational d e f i n i t i o n s , item selection pro-cedures, item contents, and answer formats. This i s d r a m a t i c a l l y apparent i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the masculine and feminine scales from the four established scales. 50 Ke l l y and Worell (1977), in a c r i t i c a l review, re-ported : (1) The BSRI (1974) indicates r e l a t i v e independence of the M and F scores (r=.11 to -.14) (2) The PAQ (Spence et a l . , 1 975) M and F scales are s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y correlated for both sexes. (3) The PRF ANDRO (Berzins et al. , 1978) sex role scales are independent f o r males (r=-.10) but modestly negatively correlated for females (r=-,24). (4) The ACL had negative correlations between masculinity and femininity scales, (r=-.24 for females and r=-.41 for males) . With th i s lack of agreement on the operational i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n of androgyny, i t becomes d i f f i c u l t to generalize the r e s u l t s of studies. Some studies use the median s p l i t method and others the t - r a t i o . K e l l y , Furman, and Young (1978) examined the interscale comparability of four androgyny measures, the BSRI, PAQ, PRF ANDRO scale and the ACL. When the Masculinity and Feminin-i t y scales were compared, the correlations were f a i r l y high. The mean correlation for the Masculinity scales was .71 and for Femininity scales was .62. Since a l l the scales assign subjects to one of four typologies using the median s p l i t method, they investigated whether the same individuals would be assigned to the same sex category by each pair of scales. They analyzed the assignments based on pairs of scales and the r e s u l t s indicated that only 56% of the subjects between 51 any two scales were assigned for the same categories. The agreement dropped to 39% when adjusted for chance. The majority of the subjects were c l a s s i f i e d d i f f e r e n t l y when a second inventory was used. Androgyny research has seen the development of a variety of androgyny measures and empirical studies to operationalize the concept. The warm-agreeable (LM) and ambitious-dominant s c a l e s (PA) from the Int e r p e r s o n a l Adjective Scales, as proposed by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1981), overcome some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s found with the existing measures. They operationalized the d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny as a person with interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y which confirmed Bern's o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n . They also found support for Spence and Helmreich's (1978) evidence that the androgynous person would have high self-esteem. Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s have found d i f f e r e n c e s between androgynous males and females. The preliminary work of Bern also indicated that masculine typed subjects may do as well as androgynous on some variables. Psychological Androgyny and Mental Health This section i s a review of the studies r e l a t i n g psychological androgyny to mental health, including the variables of self-esteem, s o c i a l adjustment, and int e r -personal f l e x i b i l i t y . Androgyny and Self-Esteem In their self-esteem studies using large high school and college student samples, Spence and Helmreich (1978) consistently found that androgynous men and women had the highest mean self-esteem as compared to masculine typed and feminine typed. The measures they used were the PAQ and their own self-esteem measure, the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI). Their r e s u l t s were extended in a study (O'Connor, Mann, & Bardwick, 1978) using the same measures on a middle class suburban sample. A l l of the other self-esteem studies have f a i l e d to report the same r e s u l t s . In the other research, the trend indicates that both the androgynous men and women and the masculine men and women have the highest self-esteem as compared to the other groups. In some cases, the masculine typed are higher than the androgynous typed on self-esteem. Bern (1977), Wetter (an unpublished study reported in Kell y & Worell, 1 977) and Hoffman and F i d e l l (1 979) found the androgynous and masculine subjects high in self-esteem. Bern also found that high self-esteem in men was s i g n i f i -cantly related to masculinity and not to femininity scores. Women high in self-esteem were high in both their femininity and masculinity scores. Those women with low femininity and masculinity scores were low in self-esteem and those high in one and low in the other were moderate on self-esteem. In a study of a larger group (N=369) of middle class women, Hoffman and F i d e l l (1979) also found the masculine typed and 53 androgynous women to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on self-esteem as compared to the feminine typed using the BSRI and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965). Jones, Chernovetz, and Hansson (1978) determined the ideal s e l f rating in a student sample by asking them to rate the BSRI twice. In the second ra t i n g , they indicated the desired change for each item. In th i s normal sample, the res u l t s were similar to those found by Deutsch and G i l b e r t (1975) where the most desired change was on masculine items. Males desired greater increases in masculinity items and r e l a t i v e l y less increases in femininity items than female subjects. Feminine-typed females desired more masculine t r a i t s than the masculine or androgynous females. This indicated a tendency among the males not to desire an increase on the feminine items. The finding led Jones et. a l . (1978) to suggest that there was no indication that males desire androgyny since they did not choose to increase feminine t r a i t s "suggesting a sense of s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s i n t e r e s t in the areas of nurturance, emotionality and so fort h " (p. 309). Deutsch and G i l b e r t (1975) explored the rela t i o n s h i p between s e l f concept and androgyny and used Rogers' concept discrepancy between s e l f and s e l f ideal in the design. They categorized student subjects according to the t - r a t i o . Low discrepancy persons were those whose scores f e l l into the same sex type category for their r e a l and ideal ratings and high discrepancy persons were those whose scores f e l l into a 54 sex type category for their ideal rating d i f f e r e n t than the sex type category for the re a l s e l f r a t i n g . They compared male and female high and low discrepancy groups with scores on an adjustment measure but not with androgyny or sex type category. They found the less "adjusted" females had high discrepancy. In more recent studies (Holahan & Spence, 1979; Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979), further evaluations of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between masculinity-femininity, self-esteem, and neuroticism were examined. F i r s t , the PAQ was extended to include s o c i a l l y undesirable t r a i t s as well as desirable t r a i t s for femininity and masculinity dimensions (Spence et a l . , 1979). Then two studies were conducted, one among psychology undergraduate students and the other with c l i e n t s at the student counselling service. In the student group, the correlation between masculine scores for men and women and neur o t i c i s m were negative as expected. However, unexpectedly, f e m i n i n i t y scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to neuroticism. The authors suggest, " t h i s expres-siveness and interpersonal s k i l l s as measured by F+, appear to contribute b e n e f i c i a l l y to s o c i a l competence and s e l f -esteem but to be unrelated to the kind of emotional d i s -turbances—anxiety, depression, tapped by the neuroticism scale" (Spence e_t a_l. , 1979, p. 15). The negative feminine t r a i t s of verbal aggressiveness had the highest p o s i t i v e correlations to neuroticism for both sexes. 55 When Berzins (1979) and Kaplan (1979) measured small female c l i e n t populations they found more than 50% were androgynous. Kaplan thought that these persons who come for psychotherapy and measure androgynous must d i f f e r from "normal" androgynous persons in self-esteem. Berzins (1979) measured a group of c l i e n t s and normal women with the PRO ANDRO and an interpersonal check l i s t and found the £wo groups did d i f f e r on self-esteem. High self-esteem andro-gynous women had high l e v e l s of assertiveness and a f f i l i a -tion and low le v e l s of submission and h o s t i l i t y . Andro-gynous females with low self-esteem had p r o f i l e s higher in hos t i l e submission. Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare the resu l t s of the self-esteem studies because d i f f e r e n t variables have been i n v e s t i g a t e d , some patt e r n s emerge. In ge n e r a l , both androgynous and masculine subjects tend to have high s e l f -esteem with the masculine typed persons exceeding the andro-gynous in some cases. High self-esteem seems related to endorsement of masculine t r a i t s such as assertiveness. Androgyny and Adjustment Chevron and Quinlan (1970) related sex rol e stereo-typing among men and women to depression. Undergraduate student volunteers were given three measures: the Broverman Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire, a s e l f - r a t i n g depression scale and a depressive experience rating scale. On the sex role scale scores were computed on competency, warmth, and expressiveness. Results indicated there was a pos i t i v e 56 rela t i o n s h i p between females who described themselves as low' on warmth and expressiveness and depression, whereas males scored higher on the depression scale when they were low on competency. The authors argued that the sex role stereo-types had d i f f e r e n t subjective meanings for men and women. The males who saw themselves as warm, as compared to other males, seemed more "vulnerable to depressive experiences associated with Dependency" (p. 682). For women, Warmth-Expressiveness was a p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e . "In summary, the present findings appear to r e f l e c t the culture's greater a t t r i b u t i o n of health to the t r a i t s and behaviors associated with masculinity, that i s competence, as well as to con-forming to one's own sex role" (p. 682). The authors warned that conclusions could not be drawn from c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies and go further to suggest another interpretation of the data. They hypothesized that persons prone to depres-sion demonstrated t h e i r low self-esteem by d e s c r i b i n g themselves as deviating from t r a d i t i o n a l sex r o l e ; the subjects may perceive themselves as deviant in t h i s area which may in turn contribute to the depression. Holahan and Spence (1979) gave some support to the Chevron and Quinlan (1970) view in t h e i r investigation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of undesirable masculine and feminine t r a i t s and neuroticism. In a neurotic group of males and females, the males scored low on desirable masculine and feminine t r a i t s . The females were low on desirable mascu-l i n e t r a i t s but not the desirable feminine t r a i t s . However, 57 neurotic females endorsed the undesirable masculine t r a i t s . This led the authors to conclude: It i s possible that the presence of negative cross-sex-typed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s more consistent with emotional disturbance than the manifestation of sex-congruent negative a t t r i b u t e s . (Holahan & Spence, 1979, p. 16) Unfortunately, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s d i d not examine the re l a t i o n s h i p of androgyny per se to the masculinity-feminin-i t y and mental health variables. Jones e_t al. ( 1 978 ) provided the most extensive evidence for questioning of the hypothesis that androgynous persons are the most adjusted. They gave the BSRI to college students and then measured them on a variety of dimensions including feminist ideology, gender i d e n t i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y and adjustment, i n t e l l e c t u a l competence, helplessness, and sexual maturity. Their r e s u l t s showed that m a s c u l i n i t y r a t h e r than androgyny c o n t r i b u t e d to adjustment in males and females. Masculine males were most adjusted on a l l variables. Androgynous males had more problems with drinking and externality of control than masculine males. The feminine males did the worst. On the personality and adjustment measures (introversion-extro-version scale, neuroticism, locus of control, and problem drinking scales), females had no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for sex type except that the masculine typed females were more extroverted than the androgynous or feminine typed females. When a l l the re s u l t s were examined, the masculine typed females were even more feminist, more p o l i t i c a l l y aware, 58 more extroverted, more popular with the opposite sex, more heterosexually involved than androgynous females. "The more masculine in or i e n t a t i o n , the more adaptive, competent and secure the female subject was" (p. 310). They suggested i t was s u r p r i s i n g that the b e t t e r adjusted females, the masculine-typed females, were those who violated s o c i a l norms for their sex. Although, i f the society rewards instrumentality, getting the job done, t h i s i s not so surprising. "Thus the important issue becomes not whether one has internalized the t r a i t s and behaviors appropriate to one's gender but the extent to which one has assimilated the tendencies most highly valued by the society" (p. 311). This was further supported by their r e s u l t s in another study (Jones ^ t a l . , 1978) where students were asked to rate t h e i r ideal s e l f on the BSRI. There was s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t toward desiring masculine t r a i t s . In a more recent and well-constructed study on adjust-ment and stereotyping, Silvern and Ryan (1979) demonstrated further support for the G i l b e r t and Deutsch and Jones' e_t a l . conclusions. They found that androgynous women and masculine-typed men in a student sample reported superior adjustment as compared to androgynous men and feminine females. They went further and determined that the groups who had superior adjustment reported high masculinity scores as determined by the BSRI. However, the r e s u l t s on adjustment and androgyny were not e n t i r e l y consistent. Logan and Kaschak (1980) reported 59 no differences between sex type groups on a wide variety of mental health variables in a student sample. In their study of 369 adult women, Hoffman and F i d e l l (1979) found no rel a t i o n s h i p between feminine women and androgynous and masculine women on general mental health, locus of control, or neuroticism (as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory). This study was the only reported investigation of androgyny and adjustment in an adult population. Further work on adult samples i s necessary to confirm Hoffman and F i d e l l ' s findings. The e f f o r t s to re l a t e endorsement of cross sex typed t r a i t s to depression (Chevron & Quinlan, 1970) and neuroticism (Holahan & Spence, 1979) are provocative and also need further investigation. Androgyny and Interpersonal F l e x i b i l i t y Bern hypothesized that androgynous persons had a balance of masculinity (dominance) and femininity (nurturance) and therefore could vary t h e i r behavior to meet s i t u a t i o n a l demands. In a variety of experiments referred to e a r l i e r , she confirmed t h i s hypothesis. Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978), in the i r study with a university sample, explored the p o s s i b i l i t y that "the f l e x i b i l i t y of androgynous persons may be part of a broader pattern of f l e x i b i l i t y that i s expressed i n a l l or most dimensions of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior" (p. 49). To confirm t h e i r prediction, they expected androgynous su b j e c t s to have a f l a t t e r , l e s s v a r i a b l e i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o f i l e across 16 i n t e r p e r s o n a l vari a b l e s . Their r e s u l t s were confirmed for males but not 60 for females. The interpersonal p r o f i l e for the androgynous males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y less variable as compared to the stereotyped males. However, the androgynous females' p r o f i l e s were as variable as those of the stereotyped females. The androgynous females endorsed behaviors which were opposite to the stereotyped females. Wiggins and Holzmuller suggested androgynous males and females do not r e f l e c t the same set of dis p o s i t i o n s . In a r e p l i c a t i o n of th i s study (1981), with another group of students, their o r i g i n a l prediction that androgynous subjects would demon-strate greater interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y was confirmed for males and females. K e l l y , O'Brien, and Hosford (in press) demonstrated b e h a v i o r a l f l e x i b i l i t y of androgynous subjects i n an experiment u t i l i z i n g role played interpersonal situations. They tested the subjects in situations requiring refusal assertiveness and commendatory assertiveness. Androgynous females were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d females on commendatory assertiveness but did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the masculine or feminine typed females. On refusal assertiveness, androgynous females were reported to do better than other sex type categories but no s t a t i s -t i c s were provided. For males, the androgynous males were s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior to the other sex type groups. The investigators reported the androgynous males were able to use the cross-sexed response of commendatory assertiveness 61 better than the other male sex type groups but again did not report s t a t i s t i c s . There are few investigations of androgyny and inter-personal f l e x i b i l i t y and they are l i m i t e d to student samples. The r e s u l t s are not clear; androgynous subjects showed behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y in two of the three studies. In a l l the studies, there were reported sex differences. Hypotheses The l i t e r a t u r e i s f a i r l y consistent in reporting that androgynous persons tend to rate higher in self-esteem and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y as compared to the feminine sex type category. In many s t u d i e s , the masculine typed subjects do as well or better. It seems that both androgyny and masculinity may indicate better adjustment on s e l f report measures. It i s also clear that there are d i f f e r -ences between androgynous males and females on the mental health and other variables, therefore any study must examine sex differences. Very few studies exist using c l i n i c a l samples, although hypotheses about androgyny and psycho-l o g i c a l adjustment pervade the l i t e r a t u r e on androgyny. In t h i s study of psychological androgyny and mental health in a group of non-psychotic outpatients, the follow-ing hypotheses were tested: 1 ) There i s a larger proportion of feminine sex typed patients as compared to androgynous patients. i) Androgynous men and women have higher self-esteem on a global measure than feminine stereotyped men and women. i i ) Androgynous patients describe their ideal s e l f as androgynous while the feminine stereotyped patients are expected to demonstrate greater s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or low self-esteem by rating their ideal in the d i r e c t i o n of masculinity or androgyny and thereby indicating greater s h i f t in categories. Sex typed patients d i f f e r from androgynous patients in the pattern and severity of their psychopathology. Sex typed patients d i f f e r from androgynous patients in soc i a l adjustment. Androgynous p a t i e n t s have g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than sex typed patients. 63 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY In th i s study, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of psychological andro-gyny in a group of male and female neurotic out-patients was determined using, as a new measure of androgyny, the LM and PA scales of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1980) and the t - r a t i o method of categorization. Androgynous male and female patients were then compared to stereotyped male and female patients on a number of mental health variables including self-esteem, severity and pattern of psychopathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t group d i fferences. The procedures followed in completing the study are described in the present chapter. A description of the c l i n i c setting and the selection of patient subjects i s presented f i r s t . Then the androgyny measure, the Inter-personal Adjective Scales, and the scoring procedure are presented followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the remaining measures. The chapter concludes with a description of the data preparation and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used in the analysis. The Setting and Subjects The Day House i s a day centre f or 20 adult non-psy-chotic patients and i s part of the Health Sciences Centre Hospital, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Established 64 in 1972, the program i s located in a separate f a c i l i t y near the h o s p i t a l . A playing f i e l d and garden surround the house and contribute to a non-hospital atmosphere of warmth and f r i e n d l i n e s s . The Day House program has a l l the features of a therapeutic community and includes additional factors which compare favorably with other forms of psychotherapy such as b r i e f i n dividual psychotherapy with a p s y c h i a t r i s t . The basic postulates of the program are: 1) The community i s small, no more than 20 patients; 2) It i s isolat e d , making i t easier to analyze each event in the community as part of a complex pattern of interactions of patients and s t a f f ; 3) The t o t a l group program i s a model of r e a l l i f e groups, p a r t i c u l a r l y the family and working group; 4) The program d i f f e r s from r e a l l i f e by including games, plays, and fantasy a c t i v i t i e s which encourage patients to develop new l i f e s k i l l s and find creative solutions to l i f e problems; 5) Community r u l e s , rewards, and d i s c i p l i n e make the p a t i e n t s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r treatment and the therapy of their fellow patients; and 6) The s i g n i f i c a n t persons of the patient (family members, sexual partners, friends, coworkers, and bosses) are included in the therapy. Each year the centre treats about 150 patients who are referred from a number of d i f f e r e n t sources including: 65 g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s , p r i v a t e p s y c h i a t r i s t s , community mental h e a l t h workers, h o s p i t a l p h y s i c i a n s , and f r i e n d s . T h i r t y - t h r e e percent have had at l e a s t one pr e v i o u s hos-p i t a l i z a t i o n and the m a j o r i t y have had a t l e a s t one p s y c h i -a t r i c c o n t a c t before coming to the Day House. The admission procedure to the Day House i s intended to t e s t the p a t i e n t ' s m o t i v a t i o n . When p a t i e n t s are r e f e r r e d , they are informed b r i e f l y about the program by t h e i r d o c t o r s and asked to attend an o r i e n t a t i o n meeting a t the Day House. Information concerning the p a t i e n t ' s problems i s gathered by the Day House s e c r e t a r y from the r e f e r r i n g p h y s i c i a n o r from the p a t i e n t d u r i n g the i n i t i a l telephone r e f e r r a l conversa-t i o n . Some p a t i e n t s may have to wait one month bef o r e r e c e i v i n g an appointment. A l l candidates who attend the i n t r o d u c t o r y meeting are shown a short f i l m and presented with a b r i e f l e c t u r e about the ps y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c program, community e x p e c t a t i o n s , r u l e s , and admission procedures. The p a t i e n t s are then asked, i n the group s e t t i n g , to d e s c r i b e and d i s c u s s the problems which brought them to the Day House. P a t i e n t s who decide a g a i n s t the treatment are r e f e r r e d back to t h e i r d o c t o r s . Of the remaining p a t i e n t s , those who are s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n the program, and who are cons i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e (non-psychotic) by the t h e r a p i s t , are i n v i t e d to stay the r e s t o f the day f o r a formal p s y c h i a t r i c assessment i n t e r v i e w . During the day, the p r o s p e c t i v e c a n d i d a t e s have lunch with the e x i s t i n g p a t i e n t group a f t e r which they have t h e i r i n t e r v i e w with a t h e r a p i s t from the 66 assessment team. I f they are s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n the program and t h e t h e r a p i s t f e e l s t h e y a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y motivated, they are i n v i t e d to r e t u r n two days l a t e r f o r group acceptance. In t h i s meeting, the candidates present themselves to the e x i s t i n g p a t i e n t group who vote on t h e i r admission. There t y p i c a l l y are dropouts between the i n i t i a l assessment and those who r e t u r n f o r group acceptance. The p a t i e n t who i s f i n a l l y accepted to the program r e p r e s e n t s a person considered to be w e l l motivated f o r psychotherapy. At both the o r i e n t a t i o n meeting and the assessment i n t e r v i e w , commitment to community r u l e s i s s t r e s s e d . These i n c l u d e d a i l y attendance, p u n c t u a l i t y , w r i t i n g a d i a r y and p r e s e n t i n g a l i f e s t o r y , i n v i t i n g f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s to a weekly therapy group, abstinence from use o f a l l drugs, and no c o n t a c t with other t h e r a p i s t s . P a t i e n t s who abuse med i c a t i o n , a l c o h o l , or s t r e e t drugs are asked to make a v e r b a l commitment to a b s t a i n d u r i n g the treatment. F u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l aspects of the program i s emphasized, p a r t i c u l a r l y work and s p o r t s . P a t i e n t s who r e f u s e any one of these requirements are asked not to seek admission u n t i l they can accept these p a r t s of the t h e r a p e u t i c c o n t r a c t . S e l e c t i o n of S u b j e c t s The 103 male and female p a t i e n t s who sought admission at the Day House from A p r i l 1 , 1980 through J u l y , 1980 formed the sample considered i n the present study. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the sample are summarized i n Table 3.0. A l l were diagnosed as non-psychotic by the t h e r a p i s t . The 67 primary diagnosis on admission was neurotic depression for about 65% of the male and female patients and anxiety neurosis for 23%. The remaining 12% were diagnosed as either marital maladjustment, personality disorder, adjust-ment reaction, obsessional neurosis, or substance abuse. (These diagnoses were considered the i n i t i a l working diagnosis which could be changed by the therapist af t e r the patient had become better known.) The t o t a l sample included 58 females and 45 males. Their ages ranged from 18 to 59. Over 70% of both gender groups were under age 35 with only 3% of the females and 4% of the males over 46. Twenty-two of the 56 females were single whereas 21 of the 44 males were single. There were 19 married females and 15 divorced or separated women. For the men, 13 were married and 10 were divorced or separated. In regard to education, 25% of the women had not graduated from high school; however, t h i s was true of only about 14% of the males. Just over 20% of both groups had a grade 12 education. Only 16% of the women, as compared to 39% of the men, had completed university and had a graduate degree. About 7% of males and females had vocational t r a i n i n g . In terms of occupational status, 38% reported them-selves as unemployed. Twenty-one percent of the women were working in sales or c l e r i c a l jobs and 10.7% were housewives. Eleven percent of the males were s k i l l e d laborers and another 11% were in some managerial capacity. TABLE 3.0 Demographic Characteristics N = 103 Demographic Frequency Percentage Variable Female Male Female Male Gender 58 45 Age 1 8-25 16 8 27.6 17.8 26-35 30 26 51.7 57.8 36-45 9 7 15.5 15.5 46 + 3 4 5.2 8.9 Marital Status Single 24 22 41.3 48.9 Married 19 1 3 32.8 28.9 Separated or divorced 1 5 1 0 25.9 22.2 Education Under grade 1 2 1 4 6 24. 1 13.3 Grade 12 14 9 24.1 20.0 Some university 1 7 10 - 29. 3 22.2 University 9 1 2 15.5 26.7 Post graduate 0 5 0 11.1 Vocational 4 3 7.0 6.7 Occupation Unemployed 21 18 36.2 40.0 Welfare 1 0 1.7 0 Housewi fe 6 0 10.3 0 Unskilled labor 1 1 1 .7 2.2 S k i l l e d labor 1 5 1 .7 11.1 Clerk sales 1 2 3 20.8 6.8 Managerial 0 5 0 11.1 Professional 4 6 6.9 1 3.3 Student 8 6 13.8 13.3 Arts 4 1 6.9 2.2 I n i t i a l Diagnosis Neurotic depression 36 29 62. 1 65.9 Neurotic anxiety 1 5 1 1 25.9 22.8 Marital maladjustment 0 2 0 4.5 Personality disorder 2 2 3.4 4.5 Adjustment reaction 4 0 6.9 0 Obsessional neurosis 1 0 1 .7 0 Substance abuse 0 1 0 2.3 69 Seven percent of the women and 14% of the men were profes-s i o n a l s (teachers, p r o f e s s o r s , and d o c t o r s ) . Students comprised 11 % of both groups. A. Psychological Androgyny Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales The I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales (IAS) (Wiggins, 1 979) are a set of eight bipolar clusters formed from a r e v i s i o n of Leary's (1957) 16 i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Based upon Foa and Foa's (1974) "facet analyses of cognitive components of s o c i a l perception," the eight clusters are: dominant-ambitious, lazy-submissive, gregarious-extroverted, arrogant-calculatory, warm-agreeable, unassuming-ingenuous, aloof-introverted, and cold-quarrelsome. Each of the bipolar variables within each clu s t e r i s measured with eight items. Following a complex selection procedure, these items were chosen from among 817 i n t e r -personal adjectives extracted from Norman's prime categories of 4,063 fa m i l i a r and non-obscure terms (Wiggins, 1978, 1 979). Each item i s rated on an eight-point L i k e r t scale (extremely inaccurate to extremely accurate). Normative and cross-validation studies (Wiggins, 1979) revealed an internal consistency for the eight bipolar scales of .80 based on student and so c i a l worker samples. The g r e g a r i o u s - e x t r o v e r t e d s c a l e (NO) had the highest i n t e r n a l consistency with a c o e f f i c i e n t alpha of .897 and unassuming-ingenuous (JK) had the lowest with a c o e f f i c i e n t alpha of .801 for the to t a l samples. The means for a l l the 70 samples ranged from 2.66 on the cold-quarrelsome s c a l e (DE) to 6.41 on the warm-agreeable s c a l e (LM). S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f r e p o r t were found i n the p a t t e r n s o f endorsement and were c o n s i s t e n t with North American sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s (Wiggins, 1979, p. 407). Based upon the r e s u l t s o f these v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s , Wiggins (1979) r e p l a c e d 48 a d j e c t i v e s i n the o r i g i n a l s c a l e with l e s s awkward a d j e c t i v e s from the o r i g i n a l l i s t o f 817 i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r a i t s f o l l o w i n g the same method as used i n b u i l d i n g the o r i g i n a l s c a l e . T h i s r e v i s e d form of the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s , a copy of which i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix A, was used i n the present study. Since no psychometric data were a v a i l a b l e f o r the r e v i s e d form, t e s t and item analyses of the Revised IAS were completed as p a r t of the study. Use of Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s The r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e Scales was used to determine the sex type category f o r a l l s u b j e c t s and to assess the i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y o f the s u b j e c t s . D e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. P s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny was measured using the dominant-ambitious (PA) and the warm-a g r e e a b l e (LM) s c a l e s from the r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980). These s c a l e s most a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviors of dominance and nurturance found i n the broad concepts t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y . The dominant-ambitious and warm-agreeable s c a l e s each c o n s i s t o f 16 71 adjectives from a t o t a l of eight vectors on the IAS. The dominant-ambitious scale measures c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as p e r s i s t e n c e , s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e , and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . The warm-agreeable scale measures tender-heartedness, respect-fulness, and accommodation. The subjects are asked to rate themselves on an eight-point Likert scale according to how accurately the items describe them. The scale ranges from "extremely inaccurate" to "extremely accurate." Scores are the sums of the subjects' responses on the eight-point Likert scale for a l l items on the IAS. On a given scale, the scores may range from 16 to 128. Using these scores, and the t - r a t i o scoring procedure (see Chapter 2, pp. 46-47), each subject i s c l a s s i f i e d into one of f i v e sex type c a t e g o r i e s : androgynous, — 1< t <1 ; feminine, t>2; near feminine, 1<t<2; masculine, t<-2; and near masculine, -2<t<-1 . The use of the dominant-ambitious (PA) and warm-agree-able (LM) scales to determine psychological androgyny was validated by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1981). In a student sample, the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI, Bern, 1974) masculinity scale had a correlation of .804 with PA and PA had an internal consistency, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha, of .861. The BSRI femininity scale had a c o r r e l a t i o n of .840 with LM and LM had an internal consistency, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha, of .823. When "inappropriate items" were removed from the BSRI masculinity and femininity scales, the correlations with PA and LM increased (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1979). These data, 72 together with the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c r e s u l t s presented i n Chapter 2, provided strong evidence that the c o n s t r u c t s of dominance and n u r t u r a n c e were c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y . B. Self-Esteem Self-esteem was assessed using two d i f f e r e n t measures. The f i r s t , the Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e , was an e f f i c i e n t method of tapping g l o b a l self-esteem; w h i l e the second, the r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s ( W i g g i n s , 1980) provided more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale The Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (RSE) i s a g l o b a l measure o f s e l f - r e g a r d designed to overcome many of the d i f f i c u l t i e s found i n more complex measures. Wylie (1974), i n her e x t e n s i v e review of s e l f - c o n c e p t measures, recommend-ed the RSE f o r i t s u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y and b r e v i t y . By using a Guttman S c a l e , Rosenberg has c o n s t r u c t e d a " s t r a i g h t f o r -ward way to b u i l d a measure of g l o b a l s e l f - r e g a r d which w i l l have the d e s i r e d u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y " (Wylie, 1974, p. 181). The RSE c o n s i s t s o f 10 f u l l s e n t e n c e i t e m s (see Appendix B). Subjects are asked to r a t e the extent to which they b e l i e v e each statement d e s c r i b e s themselves using a f o u r - p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e ( s t r o n g l y agree to s t r o n g l y d i s -a g r e e ) . To c o n t r o l f o r the acquiescent response s e t , the p o l a r i t y of items i s a l t e r n a t e d . The ten items are grouped i n t o s i x s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s . Each of the s i x c a t e g o r i e s 73 receives a t o t a l score of +1 or -1, regardless of the number of items in each group, (as shown in Appendix C), then the six scores are summed. A score of six indicates low self-esteem and zero high self-esteem. Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales Self-esteem was also examined in terms of the discrep-ancy between rea l and ideal s e l f as measured by the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Carl Rogers (1961) con-sidered the discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f to be the basis of an individual's self-concept. For him, the s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d person had a low discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f . For the purpose of measuring self-esteem, the IAS, described e a r l i e r , was administered twice to each subject. F i r s t , subjects were asked to respond in the usual way, according to how accurately each adjective described them in the present (their r e a l s e l f ) . On the second administra-tio n , they were asked to respond to each item in terms of how they would l i k e to be (their ideal s e l f ) . Following the psychological androgyny scoring procedures described above, thei r sex type category was determined for each administra-t i o n . The d i r e c t i o n and amount of s h i f t from th e i r " r e a l " sex type category was taken as a r e f l e c t i o n of the discrep-ancy between real and ideal s e l f . 74 C. S e v e r i t y and P a t t e r n of Psychopathology Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory The Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI), a widely employed s e l f r e p o r t c l i n i c a l i n v e n t o r y (Graham, 1 977), was used to i d e n t i f y the s e v e r i t y and range o f psychopathology w i t h i n the sample. I t was scored i n two ways: i n terms o f the 13 v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s , y i e l d i n g an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f a s u b j e c t ' s psychopathology (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1972), and i n terms of i t s 13 content s c a l e s (Wiggins, 1966), p r o v i d i n g more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about p a r t i c u l a r areas of psychopathology. V a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . The s t a n d a r d i z e d i n v e n t o r y c o n s i s t s o f 566 t r u e - f a l s e items designed to e l i c i t a range of s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s from each s u b j e c t . The f u l l s e n t e n c e i t e m s were drawn from p r i o r p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s and cover p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t symptoms and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The ten c l i n i c a l s c a l e s i n c l u d e : h y p o c h o n d r i a s i s (Hs), d e p r e s s i o n (D) , c o n v e r s i o n h y s t e r i a ( H y ) , p s y c h o p a t h i c d e v i a t e ( P d ) , m a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y (Mf), paranoia (Pa), p sychasthenia ( P t ) , s c h i z o p h r e n i a ( S c ) , hypomania (Ma), and s o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n ( S i ) . The four v a l i d i t y s c a l e s were b u i l t i n t o the measure to c o n t r o l f o r d e v i a n t t e s t t a k i n g behavior. The "Cannot Say" s c a l e accounts f o r items not answered or where both were answered. An excess number of unanswered q u e s t i o n s lowers the s c o r e s . The L s c a l e or " L i e " s c a l e d e t e c t s the persons o b v i o u s l y t r y i n g to show themselves i n a good l i g h t . On the 75 F s c a l e , persons are i d e n t i f i e d who choose i n a d i r e c t i o n o f l e s s than 10 percent o f the normals. T h i s i n d i c a t e s a d e v i a n t response. "The F s c a l e i s the s i n g l e best MMPI index o f degree o f psychopathology" (Graham, 1977, p. 153). The K s c a l e i s a c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r o r i g i n a l l y designed to i n d i c a t e and c o r r e c t f o r c l i n i c a l d e f e n s i v e n e s s . The raw scores f o r a l l s c a l e s a re converted to a T-score (mean 50, S.D. 10), and presented on a p r o f i l e . The b a s i c norms were d e r i v e d from l a r g e samples o f normal Minnesota a d u l t s and ado l e s c e n t s and provide the b a s i s f o r the T-score c o n v e r s i o n s . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the scores does not depend on the e l e v a t i o n o f a s i n g l e score but to the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the scores i n the p r o f i l e . Pathology i s u s u a l l y i n d i c a t e d by e i t h e r low or high T-scores o u t s i d e normal range. T y p i c a l l y , 70 i s considered a hig h score and 45, low. The p r o f i l e i s u s u a l l y coded by one o f a v a r i e t y of systems and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are made by the combina-t i o n o f s c a l e e l e v a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i c r u l e s (Dahlstrom et a l . , 1972). When b u i l d i n g the c l i n i c a l s c a l e s , an e m p i r i c a l keying approach was used and the o b j e c t i v i t y o f the t e s t improved as compared to other p e r s o n a l i t y measures (Graham, 1977). The o r i g i n a l pool o f 1,000 items came from e x i s t i n g p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s c a l e s , p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l case h i s t o r i e s , r e p o r t s , and t e x t books. The authors s e l e c t e d 504 items to t e s t with v a r i o u s types o f c r i t e r i o n 76 groups, i n c l u d i n g normals, m e d i c a l , and p s y c h i a t r i c pa-t i e n t s . Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d normals from p a t i e n t s with a s p e c i f i c d i a g n o s i s were used to c o n s t r u c t a p a r t i c u -l a r c l i n i c a l s c a l e r e f l e c t i n g t he p a r t i c u l a r c l i n i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e . C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n f o r each o f the c l i n i c a l s c a l e s was completed using d i f f e r e n t groups of normal and c l i n i c a l s u b j e c t s . T e s t - r e t e s t c o e f f i c i e n t s computed from a sample o f male and female p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s ranged from .86 on the F s c a l e to .59 on the psychopathic d e v i a t e (Pd) s c a l e f o r females, and from .89 on the d e p r e s s i o n (D) s c a l e to .86 on the hypo c h o n d r i a s i s (Hy) s c a l e f o r males (Dahlstrom et a l . , 1975). The c l i n i c a l s c a l e s o f the MMPI are h i g h l y i n t e r c o r -r e l a t e d which makes i t u n l i k e l y t h a t o n l y one s c a l e would be el e v a t e d f o r a s u b j e c t . T h i s i s due to the r e p e t i t i o n o f items i n d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s . It was b e l i e v e d , a t f i r s t , t h a t the s c a l e s could be scored to y i e l d a s p e c i f i c d i a g n o s i s but at present the inv e n t o r y i s considered e f f e c t i v e i n g i v i n g a broad c l i n i c a l p i c t u r e . " R e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s are found among i n d i v i d u a l s from d i f f e r e n t c l i n i c a l groups" (Graham, 1977, p. 5). C o r r e l a t e s o f s p e c i f i c s c a l e s have been developed so t h a t a p a t t e r n of scores i n d i c a t e s i n f o r m a t i o n about t y p i c a l p a t i e n t s with those s c o r e s . For an index o f o v e r a l l adjustment, i n a d d i t i o n to the F s c a l e , the number of s c a l e s e l e v a t e d over 70 p r o v i d e s a gene r a l p i c t u r e . MMPI content s c a l e s . The keying procedure i n the MMPI d i d not c o n s i d e r the content o f the i n d i v i d u a l items. 77 Instead items were s e l e c t e d because they d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e m p i r i c a l l y the c r i t e r i o n groups. In an attempt to c l a r i f y the content, Wiggins (1966) developed, from the o r i g i n a l 26 c o n t e n t a r e a s , 13 c o n t e n t s c a l e s . These s c a l e s were " m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , m o d e r a t e l y i n d e p e n d e n t , and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e major c o n t e n t dimensions o f the MMPI" (Graham, 1977). The content s c a l e s could add to the c l i n i c a l p i c t u r e presented by the MMPI, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the MMPI p r o f i l e s o f two p a t i e n t s appeared the same. In s i t u a t i o n s such as t h i s , the p a t t e r n o f content s c a l e scores could vary, thereby adding to the understanding o f a p a r t i c u l a r p a t i e n t . The 13 content s c a l e s are: s o c i a l maladjustment (SOC), d e p r e s s i o n (DEP), feminine i n t e r e s t s (FEM), poor morale (MOR), r e l i g i o u s fundamentalism (REL), a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t (AUT), p s y c h o t i c i s m (PSY), o r g a n i c symptoms (ORG), f a m i l y problems (FAM), manifest h o s t i l i t y (HOS), phobias (PHO), hypomania (HYP), and poor h e a l t h (HEA). In s c o r i n g , the c u t o f f s cores a re not as w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d as f o r the c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . T-scores o f 60 to 70 are suggested f o r high scores and from 40 to 50 f o r low scores (Graham, 1977). Normative data are based on a v a r i e t y o f samples i n c l u d i n g u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s and a M i n n e s o t a n o r m a t i v e g r o u p . Wiggins (1966) re p o r t e d i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s ( c o e f f i c i e n t alpha) ranging i n value from .505 to .892 (p. 14) . 78 V a l i d i t y s t u d i e s have been completed i n which the content s c a l e s were r e l a t e d to the standard MMPI c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . On some s c a l e s the c o r r e l a t i o n s were so high the content s c a l e s seemed to be measuring i d e n t i c a l f a c t o r s ; on ot h e r s c a l e s the c o r r e l a t i o n s were lower i n d i c a t i n g they were measuring unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The scores from v a r i o u s c r i t e r i o n g r o u p s i n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s , A i r F o r c e e n l i s t e d men, and p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s have been found to d i f f e r . S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were a l s o found between p s y c h i a t r i c d i a g n o s i s and r e s u l t s on the content s c a l e s (Wiggins, 1966). Other s t u d i e s have found, i n p s y c h i a t r i c samples, good c o r r e l a t i o n s between the content scores and other p s y c h i a t r i c measures (as rep o r t e d i n Graham, 1977). D. S o c i a l Adjustment Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t i s used as p a r t of the assessment procedure a t the Day House. I t y i e l d s c l i n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the p a t i e n t as w e l l as q u a n t i f y i n g the s e v e r i t y of problems, thus p r o v i d i n g immediate i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n o f the areas of l i f e the p a t i e n t s p e r c e i v e as most d i f f i c u l t (Knobloch & Knobloch, 1979). The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t i s a l i s t o f 15 statements r e p r e s e n t i n g t y p i c a l problem areas r e l a t e d to s o c i a l adjustment p a t i e n t s u s u a l l y present d u r i n g psycho-therapy (see Appendix D) . The problem c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e : 1) mood, 2) symptoms, 3) s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , 4) a c c e p t i n g p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n or d i s a b i l i t y , 5) appearance, speech, 79 expression, 6) work, study, money, 7) sex partner (and sex), 8) children, 9) father (male authority), 10) mother (female authority), 11) s i b l i n g s (peers), 12) friends, people in general, 13) d a i l y routine, 14) free time, and 15) philoso-phy of l i f e . The Goal L i s t i s completed by the therapist during the assessment interview. Space i s provided next to each category where the therapist can i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c nature of the patient's problem (such as mood: "feels hopeless about f u t u r e ; " symptoms: "anxious i n crowds," "headaches"). At the end of the interview, the patient i s asked to rate each problem. Although the ratings are from 0 to 5, no problem to extreme problem, each item has d i f f e r e n t meanings attached to the score categories. For symptoms, 0 represents no complaint, 1 minimal, 2 mild, 3 moderate, 4 severe, and 5 can hardly be worse, strong, frequent; for sex partner, 0 rating means no problem, 1 much more s a t i s f i e d than d i s s a t i s f i e d , 2 more s a t i s f i e d than d i s s a t i s f i e d , or e f f i c i e n t l y seeking solutions, 3 more d i s s a t i s f i e d than s a t i s f i e d , 4 bad relat i o n s h i p or miss partner, 5 extremely bad or destructive re l a t i o n s h i p or missing partner. The scores for the t o t a l l i s t range from 0 to 75. Since only limited psychometric data were available, test and item analyses of the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were completed as part of the present study. 80 E. I n t e r p e r s o n a l F l e x i b i l i t y Revised I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s A c c o r d i n g to the i n t e r p e r s o n a l model developed by Leary and e x t e n d e d by W i g g i n s (1979), p e r s o n s w i t h g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y are expected to have a behavior r e p e r t o i r e which i n c l u d e s a l l v e c t o r s on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (Wiggins & H o l z m u l l e r , 1978). Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1981), working with two psychology student samples, found that the i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y o f andro-gynous men and women d i f f e r e d from t h a t of sex-typed and near sex-typed men and women. A r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e , which r e f l e c t e d s e l f r e p o r t e d behaviors i n a l l v e c t o r s , was confirmed f o r androgynous males i n both s t u d i e s . P r o f i l e s with g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y were found among the stereotyped males as expected. Stereotyped males spiked high on the dominance s c a l e and low on the submissive and warm s c a l e . However, androgynous females d i f f e r e d i n the two s t u d i e s . Only i n the second (1981) d i d the androgynous females have a r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e . In order to extend the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of Wiggins' and H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978, 1981) f i n d i n g s to a p a t i e n t sample, s i m i l a r a n a l y ses were c o n s i d e r e d . With student samples, they s t a n d a r d i z e d the IAS scores using norms developed from the same sample. T h i s procedure was considered inappro-p r i a t e i n the' present study of p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . U n l i k e t h e s t u d e n t samples, the p a t i e n t sample r e p r e s e n t e d a d e v i a n t group o f a d u l t s , whose scores would be expected to 81 d i f f e r from normal a d u l t s . Rather than using norms from the p a t i e n t sample, norms from a n o n - p a t i e n t a d u l t sample (Lazerson, 1980) were used s i n c e they would provide a more s u i t a b l e b a s i s f o r comparison. F o l l o w i n g the procedures o f Wiggins and H o l z m u l l e r , the 16 b i p o l a r s c a l e s o f the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) were scored to y i e l d separate means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the t o t a l normal group o f men and the t o t a l normal group o f women (Lazerson, 1980). Each male and female p a t i e n t ' s raw score was transformed f o r each s c a l e using the a p p r o p r i a t e male or female normal r e f e r e n c e group. Using the transformed s c o r e s , the mean f o r each o f the 16 s c a l e s was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each sex type group s e p a r a t e l y f o r males and females. T h i s y i e l d e d a mean p r o f i l e f o r each sex t y p e g r o u p , s t a n d a r d i z e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the t o t a l same-sex, normal sample. The index o f p r o f i l e v a r i a t i o n was the v a r i a n c e of the p a t i e n t s ' sex type group's p r o f i l e of mean standard s c o r e s . Using the F r a t i o with 15 degrees o f freedom, the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a i r s o f group p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l -i t y were analyzed. Procedure A l l o f the data were c o l l e c t e d as p a r t o f the Day House admission. 1) Each Monday, a t the time of r e g i s t r a t i o n , a p a t i e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and economic d a t a were recorded by the s e c r e t a r y , together with the i n i t i a l c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s g i v e n by the t h e r a p i s t . Permission 82 to use data c o l l e c t e d from measurements was obtained from each p a t i e n t a t t h i s time (see Appendix E ) . 2) The t e s t i n g s e s s i o n f o r the MMPI took p l a c e f o l l o w i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n . Each p a t i e n t was given the book l e t and answer sheet. A s t a f f member read the d i r e c t i o n s on the f r o n t o f the bo o k l e t and answered q u e s t i o n s . The p a t i e n t s were then asked to complete the t e s t i n the wa i t i n g room. 3) P r i o r to the assessment i n t e r v i e w , but f o l l o w i n g lunch, each p a t i e n t was given the RSE and the r e v i s e d I n t e r -p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to f i l l i n the s c o r i n g sheet f o r the IAS twice, f i r s t , i n terms o f how they d e s c r i b e themselves a t present and second, how they would d e s c r i b e t h e i r i d e a l s e l f . A s t a f f member a d m i n i s t e r e d the t e s t a c c o r d i n g t o d i r e c t i o n s provided on the f r o n t o f the t e s t (see Appendix F) and was a v a i l a b l e to answer q u e s t i o n s and o f f e r synonyms of words not understood by the s u b j e c t . 4) When the t e s t s were completed the su b j e c t brought the m a t e r i a l to the Day House s e c r e t a r y who c o l l e c t e d and f i l e d the da t a . 5) The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was f i l l e d i n by the t h e r a p i s t d u r i n g the assessment i n t e r v i e w , using the p a t i e n t ' s words, and ra t e d by the p a t i e n t at the end of the i n t e r v i e w . 83 Data A n a l y s i s Data F i l e The RSE, c l i n i c a l and v a l i d i t y s c a l e s o f the MMPI c o r r e c t e d f o r the K f a c t o r (Dahlstrom et al., 1972), and the MMPI content s c a l e s were handscored by the i n v e s t i g a t o r f o l l o w i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r i n g guides. Ten percent o f the t e s t s were r e s c o r e d to pro v i d e a check on s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t y ; the percentage agreement acr o s s a l l t e s t s and s c a l e s was 99.4%. These t e s t s c o r e s , the demographic i n f o r m a t i o n , and the item scores f o r both a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f the r e v i s e d I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s and the Problem Goal L i s t were then entered i n t o a computerized data f i l e w ith 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . Analyses The d a t a a n a l y s e s were completed i n f o u r s t a g e s . F i r s t , the demographic data were analyzed. In the second stage, the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f the r e v i s e d IAS and the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was determined. In the t h i r d s t a ge, the d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f sex typed group scores f o r the sample were determined and i n the f o u r t h stage, the r e l a -t i o n s h i p s between sex type category and mental h e a l t h were examined. Demographic d e s c r i p t i o n of s u b j e c t s . Using the SPSS FREQUENCIES o p t i o n (Nie, H u l l , Jenkins, S t e i n b r e n n e r , & Bent, 1975), the f r e q u e n c i e s and percentages o f the d i s t r i -b u t i o n f o r the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were determined separate-l y f o r male and female p a t i e n t s : age, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , 84 education, occupation, and diagnosis. The comparisons were made between males and females using the SPSS CROSSTABS (Nie et a l . , 1975). In the demographic categories for education, occupation, and diagnosis, some of the i n i t i a l information was l o g i c a l l y combined to make a n a l y s i s p o s s i b l e . A chi-square test of independence (Glass & Stanley, 1975) was computed in those cases where the expected frequencies s a t i s f i e d the test's requirements. Internal consistency. Both the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales and the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were recently developed tests for which no r e l i a b i l i t y informa-t i o n was a v a i l a b l e . Consequently, item analyses were performed pr i o r to the i r use in subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. Using the test analyses package LERTAP (Nelson, 1974), the internal consistency of the eight scales of the revised IAS was determined for each of the two administrations in thi s study: patient's real s e l f and patient's ideal s e l f . Following Wiggins (1979), a p r i n c i p a l components solution using the scale scores was then obtained to confirm the c i r c u l a r i t y f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Components corresponding to eigenvalues greater than one (Kaiser, 1960) were retained; no rotations or transformations were per-formed. The component analyses were completed using the SPSS FACTOR option (Nie et a l . , 1975). Item analyses, again using LERTAP, were completed for the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . 85 D i s t r i b u t i o n of sex type c a t e g o r i e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the sex type c a t e g o r i e s (androgynous, near s t e r e o t y p e d , and stereotyped) were determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r male and female p a t i e n t s . Following Bern (1974), a t - r a t i o score was computed f o r each s u b j e c t from h i s / h e r warm-agreeable and dominant-ambitious s c a l e s on the IAS: ( n - l ) s j r | + 1 ) n1 n2 where and are the means f o r the warm-agreeable and 2 2 dominant-ambitious scores r e s p e c t i v e l y , and are the corresponding v a r i a n c e s and n^ and are the corresponding number of items. The a c t u a l computation of the t - v a l u e s was completed using the SPSS T-TEST o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975). Based on t h e i r score, s u b j e c t s were assigned to one of f i v e sex type c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : androgynous, — 1 < t<1; near feminine s t e r e o t y p e , 1<t<2; feminine s t e r e o t y p e , t>2; near masculine s t e r e o t y p e , -2<t<-1; and masculine s t e r e o t y p e , t<-2. Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f sex-type c a t e g o r i e s f o r p a t i e n t s were then determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r males and females using SPSS FREQUENCIES o p t i o n (Nie, et a l . , 1975). E x p l o r a t i o n o f G r o u p D i f f e r e n c e s i n M e n t a l H e a l t h  1 . Self-Esteem. A 3 x 2 (sex type-by-gender) f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f the t o t a l scores f o r the RSE was performed to t e s t the hypotheses s t a t e d i n Chapter 2. Since the c e l l s i z e s were not e q u a l , the assumption o f the 86 homogeneity of variance was tested. To complete th i s test, the design was treated as a one factor design with six l e v e l s . Using SPSS ONEWAY (Nie et a l . , 1975), the assump-tion of equal variance was examined with Bartlet's test (Kirk, 1968) at the .05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e . Scheffe's simultaneous multiple comparison procedure (Kirk, 1968) was applied following i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i g n i f i c a n t group or gender-by-sex type interaction. The .05 le v e l of s i g n i f i -cance was used for the analysis of variance, while the .10 le v e l (Scheffe, 1959, p. 71) was used for the post hoc multiple comparisons. The analysis of variance was com-pleted using the SPSS ANOVA option (Nie et a l . , 1975), while the Scheffe tests were hand computed. 2. S e v e r i t y and patterns of psychopathology. The analyses of the v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l scales followed the c l i n i c a l procedure d e s c r i b e d i n Dahlstrom, Welsh, and Dahlstrom (1972) f o r p l o t t i n g MMPI p r o f i l e s and were interpreted according to Graham (1977). Each of the 13 scale means was computed and p r o f i l e s plotted for the following: sex type groups for a l l males and females plotted on female norms; a l l male sex type groups combined plotted on male norms; a l l female sex type groups combined plotted on female norms; sex type groups for males plotted on same sex norms; and sex type groups for females plotted on same sex norms. In a l l cases, the means were computed using the SPSS COMPUTE program. 87 As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , the MMPI content s c a l e s p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l c l i n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Unlike the v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s , where the p r o f i l e s were examined together, the 13 content s c a l e s were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . T h i r t e e n 3 x 2 (sex type-by-gender) f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y ses o f v a r i a n c e o f the t o t a l scores f o r each content s c a l e were performed to t e s t the hypothesis s t a t e d i n Chapter 2. Si n c e the c e l l s i z e s were not e q u a l , the assumption o f homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e was t e s t e d as above. The .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was used f o r the ANOVA, while the .10 l e v e l (Scheff§, 1959, p. 71) was used f o r the post hoc m u l t i p l e comparisons. The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was conducted using the SPSS ANOVA o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975), while the Scheffe t e s t s were hand c a l c u l a t e d . 3. S o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t . To d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among sex type groups on s o c i a l adjustment, f i f t e e n 3 x 2 f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y ses o f v a r i a n c e o f the t o t a l scores f o r each o f the 1 5 problem areas i d e n t i f i e d i n the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t were computed. The SSPS ANOVA o p t i o n (Nie et a l . , 1975) was used. I t should be noted that the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s es d e s c r i b e d above f o r the content s c a l e s and the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was chosen over m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s due to the i n s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e s f o r the male and female andro-gynous groups (see Chapter 4, p. 97). In these c e l l s , the number o f dependent v a r i a b l e s exceeded t h e number o f s u b j e c t s i n the category. 88 4. Interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . To determine interper-sonal f l e x i b i l i t y , the p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y for each of the sex type c a t e g o r i e s f o r men and women s e p a r a t e l y was calculated following the analysis described by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978, 1981) and found on pp. 79-81. The SPSS COMPUTE program was used to c a l c u l a t e means, standard deviations, and transformed scores while the variances and F-ratios were hand computed. A l l the computer analyses were performed on the Amdahl V6II computer at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 89 Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s and d i s c u s s i o n are presented i n t h i s chapter following the same order of topics used in Chapter 3 to describe the data analyses. The information i s presented in two parts. The f i r s t part includes a comparison of the demographic data for male and female patients, and test analyses of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales and the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . In the second part, the hypotheses are restated, followed by a presentation of the re l e v a n t r e s u l t s . The f i r s t hypothesis concerned the di s t r i b u t i o n s of sex type categories, while the second through f i f t h hypotheses concerned the r e s u l t s of the analyses of sex type group differences on the mental health variables considered. A l l hypotheses were tested at the .05 lev e l of sig n i f i c a n c e . Comparison of Patient Demographic Characteristics When the male patients were compared to the female patients as described in Chapter 3, pp. 67-70, there were no si g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups for a l l demo-graphic categories including diagnosis (x2=1-732 for age, X2=.580 for marital status, and x2=.113 for occupational status). Significance could not be determined for educa-t i o n a l l e v e l due to i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l s i z e s . 90 Test Analyses of Interpersonal Adjective Scales and Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) The test analysis of the IAS was conducted to determine the internal consistency of the revised scales and to reconfir m the c i r c u l a r i t y of the s c a l e s based on the postulated circumplex model (Wiggins, 1979). The results of the test analysis on the raw IAS scores are provided in Table 4.0. The l a s t column indicates that the internal consistency for a l l scales, for both sets of data (except JK), exceeds .78 (patients' r e a l rating and patient ideal r a t i n g s ) . The scales of pa r t i c u l a r interest in t h i s study, PA and LM, each had good r e l i a b i l i t y for a l l samples, ranging from .79 to .90. The Interpersonal Adjective Scales were based on a stru c t u r a l model which assumes that any one interpersonal t r a i t can be c l a s s i f i e d on a scale located within a circum-plex space. In the building of the i n i t i a l circumplex, Wiggins confirmed the c i r c u l a r i t y based on the results of pr i n c i p a l components analysis conducted for each of the four samples considered. The same factor analytic procedure was repeated in thi s study. Intercorrelations were obtained among the eight interpersonal scales for each of the two ratings: patients' real and patients' i d e a l . Using p r i n -c i p a l components analysis, two p r i n c i p a l components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were found. This confirmed the res u l t s of Wiggins (1979). In the patients' r e a l ratings, the two components accounted for 68.0% of the variance and, 91 TABLE 4.0 Interpersonal Adjective Scales Means, Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s N = 103 Circumplex NO. Of Standard Internal Scale Items Rating group Mean Deviation Consistency PA 16 Real 66.54 15.37 .84 b Ideal 101.11 8.97 .79 BC 16 Real 50.41 17.23 .91 Ideal 37.32 14.62 .91 DE 16 Real 50.84 15.17 .89 Ideal 3.06 11.73 .91 FG 16 Real 77.02 15.45 .86 Ideal 43.94 11.68 .84 HI 16 Real 78.50 14.73 .81 Ideal 35.59 10.81 .82 JK 16 Real 80.77 10.81 .69 Ideal 80.36 9.45 .60 LM 16 Real 95.38 10.85 .84 Ideal 101 .77 9.51 .84 NO 16 Real 77.43 13.09 .86 Ideal 102.57 9.85 .86 ^Total scale scores range from 16 to 128 Hoyt's Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y Note: Scale l a b e l s are: PA = ambitious-dominant; BC = arrogant-calcu-l a t i n g ; DE = cold-quarrelsome; FG = alo o f - i n t r o v e r t e d ; HI = la z y -submissive; JK = unassuming-ingenuous; LM = warm-agreeable; NO = gregarious-extroverted. Patient r e a l indicates patients rating of themselves i n the present; patient i d e a l i s t h e i r rating for t h e i r i d e a l s e l f . 92 for the ideal ratings, the two components accounted for 67.3% of the variance. Plots of the unrotated factor pattern confirmed the c i r c u l a r i t y and b i p o l a r i t y of the scales as hypothesized. The graph for the patient r e a l s e l f rating i s presented in Figure 4.0; the remaining graph i s shown in Appendix G. Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t had been developed over the past f i v e years at the Day House as part of the problem oriented record. The measure was considered a good c l i n i c a l measure of s o c i a l adjustment. However, no previous r e l i -a b i l i t y studies or factor analysis had been done on the instrument. The results of the test analysis including the means, standard deviations, and item-test correlations are presented in Table 4.1. The test analysis indicated good r e l i a b i l i t y for the t o t a l score with the Hoyt Estimate at .93. For the purposes of t h i s study no further analyses were performed; however, a factor analysis would be needed to determine the factors in the measure. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Distribution of Sex Type Groups The f i r s t research hypothesis presented in Chapter 2 was: there i s a larger proportion of feminine sex typed patients as compared to androgynous patients. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . For the s u b j e c t s , t - r a t i o s were computed between their scores on the dominant-ambitious (PA) 93 COMPONENT 1 .9 .8 .DE .FG .7 .HI .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 . 1 .BC COMPONENT 2 (-) -.1 (+) .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 .1 .2 -•2 -.3 -.4 -.5 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 PA. . JK -.6 -.7 .NO .LM -.8 -.9 FIGURE 4.0: STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN PATIENT (REAL) RATING (PA=Ambitious-dominant; BC=arrogant-calculat-ing; DE=cold-quarrlesome; FG=aloof-introverted; HI=1azy-submissive; JK=unassuming-ingenuous; LM=warm-agreeable; and NO=gregarious-extro-verted.) TABLE 4.1 Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Item Analysis (N = 103) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Items 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Mean 4.29 4 .17 4.11 2.57 3.19 3 .63 3.84 2.04 3.37 3.16 2.58 3.21 3.58 3 .74 2.68 50.2 Standard Deviation 1.76 1 .65 1.64 1.68 1.69 1 .75 1.88 1.67 1.85 1.85 1.64 1.67 1.79 1 .75 1.66 18.23 Item-test C o r r e l a t i o n .768 • 779 .849 .523 .652 • 718 .681 .374 .572 .567 .598 .712 .718 • 739 .521 .93 a aHoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y Note: 1 = Mood; 2 = Symptoms; 3 = S e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ; 4 = Accepting my p h y s i c a l condition, d i s a b i l i t y , or i l l n e s s ; 5 = Appearance, speech, expression; 6 = Work/study/money; 7 = Sex partner (and sex); 8 = My children; 9 = Father (male authority); 10 = Mother (female authority); 11 = Sibl i n g s ; 12 = Friends, people i n general; 13 = Daily routine; 14 = Free time; 15 = Philosophy of l i f e 95 and warm-agreeable (LM) s c a l e s on the IAS. A c c o r d i n g to the t r a d i t i o n a l t - r a t i o method o f c a t e g o r i z i n g sex type groups, androgynous s u b j e c t s were those with a score of — 1<t<1 ; near feminine s t e r e o t y p e s u b j e c t s , 1<t<2; feminine s t e r e o t y p e , t>2; n e a r m a s c u l i n e s t e r e o t y p e , -2<t<-1; and m a s c u l i n e s t e r e o t y p e , t<-2. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 4.2. As shown, onl y f i v e female p a t i e n t s and s i x male p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous. T h i s r e p r e s e n t e d 8.6% of the females and 13.3% of the males. Within the androgynous group, one female was androgynous with low scores on both PA and LM. Of the female p a t i e n t s , 49 (84.4%) were c l a s s i f i e d feminine and three (5.2%) near feminine. Only one female was c a t e g o r i z e d as masculine s t e r e o t y p e d . The r e s u l t s f o r males were more s u r p r i s i n g with 38 of the 45 male p a t i e n t s c r o s s i n g over to the feminine or near feminine sex type c a t e g o r i e s . Only one was near masculine s t e r e o t y p e d . R e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . According to the t r a d i t i o n a l t - r a t i o method f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g s u b j e c t s , the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d feminine stereotyped f o r both the males and females. At f i r s t g l a n c e , there seemed to be l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n among p a t i e n t s ; however, w i t h i n the feminine and near feminine groups combined there was a c o n s i d e r a b l e range o f t v a l u e s , from 1 to 9. Due to the v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the feminine stereotyped group, c o n s i d e r a -t i o n was g i v e n to r e c a t e g o r i z i n g the p a t i e n t s to both 96 TABLE 4.2 I n i t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sex Type Categories N = 103 Frequency Percentage Females Males Female Males Androgynous Near feminine Feminine Near masculine Masculine Total (-1<t<1 ) (1<t<2) (t>2) (-2<t<-1 ) (t<-2) 5 3 49 0 1 6 4 34 1 0 8.6 5.2 84.4 0 1.8 1 3. 3 8.9 58. 6 2.1 0 58 45 100.0 100.0 97 highlight the range of their t values and to c l a r i f y the relationships between pathology and sex type categories. The recategor iz a t i o n of the sex type groups was as follows: t-value Sex Type Category — 1< t<1 Androgynous 1<t<4 Feminine t>4 Hyper Feminine -4<t<-1 Masculine t<-4 Hyper Masculine With th i s recategorization, i t was possible to examine the extremes while at the same time retaining the central part of the i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t o r y scheme. It represented a r e v i s i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s r a t h e r than a dramatic change. With the new categories the o r i g i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l appeal of the t - r a t i o method i s maintained. This scoring method stresses the importance of a balance of behaviors associated with t r a d i t i o n a l masculine and feminine stereotypes. The r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n maintains the concept of balance by r e t a i n i n g the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. The l i t e r a t u r e on androgyny research i n d i c a t e s that these categories are often combined to f a c i l i t a t e analysis (Bern, 1974). The o r i g i n a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the near stereo-typed and stereotyped was a r b i t r a r y . The new system changes the previous method only in thi s d i s t i n c t i o n . Any score equal to or greater than the absolute value of four was taken as an indication of an extreme masculine or feminine stereotype and labelled hyper masculine or hyper feminine. 98 This seemed l o g i c a l l y sound in that these subjects have described themselves in extreme terms; that i s , they had very large s i g n i f i c a n t difference between their t r a d i t i o n a l -l y masculine interpersonal behaviors (PA), and t r a d i t i o n a l l y feminine interpersonal behaviors (LM). Furthermore, when a pathological sample i s used, as in t h i s study, extreme re s u l t s are not e n t i r e l y surprising. Therefore i t i s necessary to find new ways within the old method to revise the system without v i o l a t i n g the basic assumptions. Results. With the revised sex type categories, the number of androgynous subjects remained the same: f i v e female and six male patients (see Table 4.3). The d i s t r i b u -tion of the patients across the other sex type categories was: for the females, 25 were feminine stereotyped and 27 hyper feminine stereotyped (46.6%); for the males, 22 were feminine stereotyped and 16 were hyper feminine (35.6%). As in the o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , one female patient and one male patient were masculine stereotyped and none were hyper masculine. The outstanding feature of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sex stereotyping in the sample was the low number of androgynous and masculine stereotyped male and female subjects. This confirmed the hypothesis that the male and female patients would tend toward the feminine stereotype. The patients described themselves as possessing interpersonal behaviors which have been c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y feminine stereotyped, s i g n i f i c a n t l y lacking in t r a d i t i o n a l masculine interpersonal 99 TABLE 4.3 Recategorization of Sex Type Groups N = 103 Frequency Percentage Females Males Females Males Androgynous (-1<t < 1 ) 5 6 8. 6 1 3. 3 Feminine (1<t<4) 25 22 43. 1 48. 9 Hyper Feminine (t>4) 27 1 6 46. 6 35. 6 Masculine (-4<t<-1) 1 1 •' 1. 7 2. 2 Hyper Masculine (t<-4) 0 0 0 0 Totals 58 45 100. 0 100. 0 I 1 00 behaviors. They viewed themselves as moderately nurturing but low in dominance. The revised sex type categories were used in the subsequent stages of a n a l y s i s . A f t e r the demographic analyses, three subjects were dropped: one female andro-gynous subject with low scores on the LM and PA scales and both masculine stereotyped patients. These patients were deleted since the number of subjects in the corresponding categories was i n s u f f i c i e n t for analysis. Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Sex Type Categories. Prior to testing hypotheses two through f i v e , the associa-tion between the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the sex type categories were examined separately for the male and female patients. Contingency tables, which are shown in Appendix H, were constructed for each demographic variable by revised sex type categories using SPSS CROSSTABS (Nie e^ t a l . , 1975). Due to the small expected c e l l sizes (below 5), i t was not possible to perform s t a t i s t i c a l tests of associa-tion . Males. For the hyper feminine males, 10 were single or married and 7 were divorced or separated. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the feminine typed males was similar, with one exception, one less male was married. For the androgynous men, three were single (3) and one was divorced. The one masculine male was single. In terms of education, the trend for the hyper feminine and feminine was the same; the lowest propor-tion had less than grade 12, the next largest proportion had 101 grade 12 and 50% or more had u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g . For the androgynous males, 5 of the 6 were u n i v e r s i t y educated. The one masculine typed male was a l s o u n i v e r s i t y educated. The o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f the hyper feminine males was as f o l l o w s : 50% unemployed, 37% employed, and 13% st u d e n t s . For the feminine males, 41% were unemployed, 50% employed, and 9% students. Eighteen percent o f the androgynous males were unemployed w h i l e 67% were employed and 18% were students. The one masculine male was a student. Females. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l s t a t u s i n d i c a t e d the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n , 50%, of hyper feminine women was s i n g l e , and the next h i g h e s t , 31%, was d i v o r c e d or sep-a r a t e d , and the l e a s t p r o p o r t i o n , 18%, ma r r i e d . In the feminine sex type, equal numbers were s i n g l e or married (9) with the remaining 4 i n the d i v o r c e d or separated category. The l a r g e s t number of androgynous women was s i n g l e (4), and an equal number was married or d i v o r c e d or separated ( 1 ) . The one masculine type female was s i n g l e . In the d i s t r i b u -t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , the l a r g e s t number of hyper feminine women had u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g , the next l a r g e s t had grade 12, and s l i g h t l y fewer had l e s s than grade 12. For the feminine females, the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n was u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n e d , with the next l a r g e s t having l e s s than grade 12 edu c a t i o n , followed by those with grade 12. Three o f the androgynous women were u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n e d and one had l e s s than grade 12. The one masculine female had grade 12 1 02 education. In terms of occupational status, the d i s t r i b u -tions for the hyper feminine and feminine females were similar with equal numbers of unemployed and employed. Between 20% to 25% were students or housewives. For the androgynous women, each category had one subject. The one masculine typed female was a student. Sex Type Group Differences In t h i s stage of analysis, the feminine stereotype, hyper feminine stereotype, and androgynous male and female patients were compared for group differences on a variety of p e r s o n a l i t y measures i n d i c a t i n g psychopathology. The res u l t s and discussion are presented starting with the most general measure of self-esteem, and then proceeding in turn to the MMPI c l i n i c a l and v a l i d i t y scales, the MMPI content scales, Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , and the Interpersonal Adjective Scales as a measure of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . Hypothesis 2: Self-Esteem The hypotheses tested were that: 1 ) androgynous male and female patients have higher self-esteem on a global measure of self-esteem than feminine stereotyped men and women and 2) androgynous patients describe their ideal s e l f as androgynous while the feminine stereotyped patients are expected to demonstrate greater s e l f - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or low self-esteem by stating their ideal in the d i r e c t i o n of masculinity or androgyny and thereby indicating greater 1 03 s h i f t in categories. It was expected that higher s e l f -esteem for androgynous patients would be demonstrated by: 1) the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and 2) the discrepancy between rea l and ideal s e l f scores on the IAS. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Measure. It was predicted that the androgynous subjects would have higher self-esteem on the RSE. The r e s u l t s of the 3 x 2 (group-by-gender) analysis of variance, reported in Table 4.4, show that both group and gender were s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i -cance. The corresponding interaction was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Since the c e l l sizes were not equal, and given the desire to treat each of the two factors equally, the experimental design approach was adopted for the analysis (Overall & Spiegel, 1968; Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). B a r t l e t t ' s test showed the assumption of the homogeneity of variance was met at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Application of Scheffe's multiple comparisons test to the group and gender means shown i n Table 4.5 revealed s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.10) between the hyper feminine patients and the androgynous patients; the two remaining comparisons were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, the androgynous p a t i e n t s d i d have higher self-esteem than the extreme feminine typed subjects. Examination of the means for gender revealed that the males had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher general self-esteem than females (p<.05). I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . The discrepancy between rea l s e l f and ideal s e l f i s summarized in the 104 TABLE 4.4 ANOVA Table for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE ) Source df ss MS F Group 2 10.333 5.166 3. 159* Gender 1 9. 397 9.397 5. 745* Group x Gender 2 7.350 3.675 2. 247 Residual 94 153.745 1 .636 Total 99 183.999 1 .859 *p < .05 TABLE 4.5 Patient Means for Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) Sex Type Group Means Hyper feminine 4. 75 Feminine 4.21 Androgynous 3.80 Gender Female 4.67 Male 4. 05 Note: Scores on RSE range from 1 to 6. 1 i n d i c a t e s the highest s e l f -esteem and 6 the lowest. 1 05 contingency tables presented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 for female and male patients respectively. The tables i l -lu s t r a t e the d i r e c t i o n and amount of s h i f t between rea l and desired sex type category. For the t o t a l female patient group, 27 had their real rating as hyper feminine, 25 were feminine, and 6 were masculine and hyper masculine stereo-type. Only one of the 27 hyper feminine females did not s h i f t categories on her ideal rating (see Table 4.6). Thirty-seven percent shifted one category to stereotype feminine, and 59% shifted two or more categories. Forty-one percent of the hyper feminine women c l a s s i f i e d as hyper feminine for the re a l s e l f were categorized as androgynous for their i d e a l . Five rated their ideal as masculine or hyper masculine. For the feminine stereotyped female patients ( r e a l ) , 56% were c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous for their i d e a l , with only three (12%) choosing a masculine stereotype (more dominance) for their i d e a l . However, 32% or eight feminine typed subjects remained the same for t h e i r i d e a l . Two of the f i v e androgynous subjects moved toward the masculine stereotype (dominance) and one toward the feminine. (This analysis retained a l l 103 subjects due to the interest in d i r e c t i o n a l i t y for those who were masculine typed and low-low androgynous.) The low-low subject remained androgynous f o r her i d e a l but was no longer low-low. The one masculine typed female subject remained the same for her i d e a l . TABLE 4.6 Real Sex Type and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Female Patients (N = 58) Ideal Hyper " Hyper Categories Feminine Feminine Androgynous Masculine Masculine Row To t a l Real Hyper Feminine 10 11 4 1 27 D 3.7 37.0 40.7 14.8 3.7 46.6 Feminine 0 8 14 3 0 25 0 32.0 56.0 12.0 0 43.1 Androgynous 0 1 2 1 1 5 0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 8.6 Masculine 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 0 1.7 Column t o t a l 1 19 27 9 2 58 1.7 32.8 46.6 15.5 3.4 100.0 Frequency; Row percentage TABLE 4.7 Real Sex Type Category and Ideal Sex Type Category Contingency Table for Male Patients (N = 45) Ideal Hyper Hyper Categories Feminine Feminine Androgynous Masculine Masculine Row Total Real Hyper Feminine 0 3* 8 5 0 16 0 18.8 50.0 31.3 0 35.6 Feminine 0 4 11 6 1 22 0 18.2 50.0 27.3 4.5 48.9 Androgynous 0 1 4 1 0 6 0 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 13.3 Masculine 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 100.0 0 0 2.2 Column t o t a l 0 8 24 12 1 45 0 17.8 53.3 26.7 2.2 100.0 Frequency; Row percentage 1 08 In contrast to the females, more male patients made the s h i f t into the masculine sex type category. Twenty-nine percent of the males as compared to 19% of the females chose a masculine sex type as their ideal as shown in Table 4.7. Of the 38 males who were i n i t i a l l y categorized as hyper feminine or feminine, only seven remained feminine stereo-typed. The ideal androgynous category had 24 male patients as compared to six on the real r a t i n g . As with the female patients, most males shifted out of the hyper feminine category to androgyny (50%) or masculine stereotype (31%). The results from the real and ideal ratings on the nurturance (LM) and dominance (PA) scales of the IAS confirm the predictions by i l l u s t r a t i n g considerable d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on these dimensions for both male and female patients. The greatest desired change i s for those subjects in the most extreme feminine stereotype. One interpretation for the amount of s h i f t i s that many subjects desired more dominance in their interpersonal behavioral repertoire. Support for the view that androgyny i s a desirable condition i s found in the results of male (53.3%) and female (46.6%) patients who rated themselves androgynous or balanced for their ideal s e l f . Hypothesis 3: Severity and Pattern of Psychopathology It was hypothesized: sex typed patients d i f f e r from androgynous patients in the pattern and severity of the i r psychopathology. To determine sex type group differences in psychopathology, the sex type group p r o f i l e s on the v a l i d i t y 1 09 and c l i n i c a l scales from the MMPI were plotted. The MMPI p r o f i l e s were analyzed according to the c l i n i c a l procedures in Dahlstrom et al. (1972) using Graham's (1977) c l i n i c a l method of interpretation. The resu l t s of the MMPI analyses are presented f i r s t , followed by the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the content scales (Wiggins, 1966). Each of 13 MMPI content scales was analyzed separately for group and gender. MMPI V a l i d i t y and C l i n i c a l Scales. The p r o f i l e s are presented from the most general to the s p e c i f i c : f i r s t , a comparison of the three sex type groups for the to t a l patient group plotted on female norms; second, the t o t a l male p r o f i l e and total female p r o f i l e each plotted separate-l y on same sex norms; t h i r d , the male sex type group p r o f i l e s and the female sex type group p r o f i l e s each plotted separately on their same sex norms. Before describing the sex type group and gender p r o f i l e differences shown in Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, i t i s important to note that the patient group p r o f i l e s as seen in Figure 4.1 are t y p i c a l of neurotic patients (Lanyon, 1968). The inverted "V" pattern for the v a l i d i t y scales (L, F, K) indicates the "presence of psychological deviance and the recognition of th i s state" (Lanyon, 1968, p. 6). This i s a d i s t i n c t i v e pattern for neurotic subjects. In general, the patient groups had elevated scores on a l l scales, particu-l a r l y depression (D), psychasthenia ( P t ) , s c h i z o p h r e n i a (Sc), and psychopathic deviate (Pd). These results indicate Figure 4.1 Sex Type Groups with Males and Females Combined The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory TorTc ? L F K I 2 3 4 S 6 ? * 9 0 Hs - .SK D Hy P d - M K Ml Po Pi^lK S c - I K M Q ^ 2 K S. For Rttccrair.j TorTc Additional Scaies TorTc "> — :20 40-r r 3 5 -7 0 -^-:oe - 95 - 6$- : - 6 0 - ; — 3 0 -- ; r 6 C - 5°-: r 7 i *!>~ ; .4i— 2 0 -3 0 •: - ii 2S-£-5-SC 1 5 - 20^ iS— r 4--- j . 1 0 - : ; N Welsh Code Hyper Feminine (43) 428"736'1019-5/F'K L: Feminine (47) 482 67"31091-5/F'K L: Androgynous (10) 4"278 91063-15/F'K:L/ I l l Figure 4.2 Total Male Patient Group (N=44) The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 112 Figure 4.3 Total Female Patient Group (N=56) The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 1 1 3 t h a t the p a t i e n t group, as a whole, tends to be depressed and a n x i o u s w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y p r o b l e m s . Lanyon (1968) suggested that the combination of high d e p r e s s i o n and Pd scores i n d i c a t e s p a s s i v e - a g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y . Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e across an e n t i r e p a t i e n t group, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e f l e c t e d i n the group p r o f i l e s are evident i n the t y p i c a l Day House p a t i e n t group as shown i n the d i a g n o s i s i n Table 3.0. Thus the group p r o f i l e s do conform to what i s observed i n the c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of p a t i e n t s . T o t a l sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s . W i t h i n the g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of pathology r e f l e c t e d by the p r o f i l e s of a l l groups, there are important c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the sex type groups. F i g u r e 4.1 shows the p r o f i l e s f o r each sex type group, with the males and females combined, and using the f.emale norms. The p r o f i l e f o r hyper feminine i s the h i g h e s t , with feminine stereotype next h i g h e s t and androgyny lowest. For s c a l e s D, Pd, and Sc, the hyper feminine typed group had T scores 80 or over with Pt over 75. The feminine typed group had scores of over 70 on the same four s c a l e s ; however, the androgynous typed group exceeded 70 o n l y on Pd. The androgynous t y p e d p a t i e n t s had lower s c o r e s on d e p r e s s i o n (D), psychasthenia ( P t ) , and s c h i z o p h r e n i a ( S c ) . These r e s u l t s confirmed the hypothesis that there would be a c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e i n the s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n i n p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y between the androgynous and s t e r e o t y p e d 1 14 patients. The f l a t t e r and lower p r o f i l e of androgynous typed patients indicates less pathology for t h i s group. Group differences for each gender. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 i l l u s t r a t e the differences between the males plotted on male norms and females plotted on female norms. The male p r o f i l e i s generally more elevated and approaches or exceeds 80 on the D, Pd, Pt, and Sc scales. The pattern of the p r o f i l e was similar for females but the same four scale scores were closer to 75. Males also had the Hy scale over 70. These differences indicate that the males in t h i s patient group had greater pathology than the females on the dimensions refl e c t e d in these MMPI p r o f i l e s . Throughout t h i s description the masculinity-femininity s c a l e can only be mentioned with extreme c a u t i o n . Constantinople (1973) has c a r e f u l l y shown the assumptions on which the scale was developed are sex biased and u n j u s t i -f i e d . The scale items r e f l e c t endorsement for interests and a c t i v i t i e s associated with stereotypic female behavior such as l i k i n g cooking and dramatics or wanting to be a l i b r a r -ian. In t h i s patient group there i s a tendency for a l l patients to endorse these items. However, high or low Mf scores are not to be interpreted as an indication of an individual's "masculinity" or "femininity" per se but only of l i k i n g interests which have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with females. There i s a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor in high scores on this scale as well (Wiggins, 1966). 115 Figure 4.4 Male Sex Type Groups The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory TbiTc L F ) * S 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 H s « . S K D Hy M - . 4 K Ml Po Pi *1K S c - i K M o - ^ K Si For Rdcordin; Additional Scales TorTc Hi-iK 5 Hr Pd-.4K Mf Pa Pr-IK Sc-IK M a - J K Si 1 * S 4 8 6 7 8 9 0 TorTc N Welsh Code Hyper Feminine (16) 2*748"315 6' 9 10-F'K/L Feminine (22) 2j$7"54' 361910-F' K-L: Androgynous ( 6) 47852' 362-910/F-K/L: 116 Figure 4.5 Female Sex Type Groups The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory TorTc ? 1 2 0 -1 2 s * » 6 7 * 9 0 - i 1 K .H*-iK D Hy Pd-».4K Ml Pa p , - i K Sc-IK Maf . 2K S, For R«cordjng Additional Scales 115 -110-^  105 -100-f W -9 c " i 85 -80— 130— -75 i 1 2 ° -30-50-50-45-65-60- 60-30-20- 20-45-»" . - / - V . . / i« 25-55-50-45-30-70-65-60-55" 50-45-20-^ 15-15-: 10-10-30-- 2 5 ~ 10-— 120 r " 5 7-!i0 «• 105 • f-100 — 90 r 8 5 -7-B0 . — 7 C r 65 - ~ K r 55 • --so r 45 — 40 r ^5 7 - 3 0 — 25 — 2: — C K H5- .5K D Hy Pd-.4I' M: Pc 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 0 N Hyper Feminine (27) Feminine (25) Androgynous ( 4) Welsh Code 28 47" 3610* l-9/5:F'U 482 736' 1910-5:F'LK: 24' 78910-63 1/5:F-LK: 1 17 Group differences for male sex type groups and female  sex type groups. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 i l l u s t r a t e the p r o f i l e s of the sex type groups separated by gender. When these p r o f i l e s are plotted separately, there are d i s t i n c t i v e c l i n i c a l differences within the female sex type group's and the male sex type group's p r o f i l e s and between the male and female sex type group's p r o f i l e s . Males. The androgynous males were lower on a l l scales except Pd compared to the hyper feminine and feminine males. The greatest difference among the three sex type groups occurred on the depression scale. On D, the hyper feminine subjects exceeded 90 and the feminine males were over 82, while the androgynous males were at 72. The hyper feminine and feminine male patients' mean scores were over 78 on Pt and Sc, while mean scores for the androgynous males were less than 74 on these scales. On Pd, the male androgynous typed patients had similar scores to the feminine typed males. In addition, for both the hyper feminine and feminine males, hysteria (Hy) and paranoia (Pa) were quite elevated. Again, the ove r a l l pattern for males tended to be similar for a l l groups with a fl a t t e n i n g of the p r o f i l e for the androgynous group. Graham's (1977) two-point code method of interpreting p r o f i l e s provides an alternative way of looking at group d i f f e r e n c e s . In h i s system, Graham developed p r o f i l e descriptions for each possible two-point combination of elevated scales. A subject's p r o f i l e i s then interpreted in 118 l i g h t o f these d e s c r i p t i o n s . For the hyper feminine typed male p r o f i l e the two p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n (2,7) r e f l e c t s e x c e s s i v e worry, o v e r - r e a c t i o n to s t r e s s , vague somatic complaints, and c l i n i c a l d e p r e s s i o n . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s high e x p e c t a t i o n s , f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , and a tendency to be r i g i d . These persons l a c k a s s e r t i v e n e s s and tend to e l i c i t n urturance from o t h e r s a c c o r d i n g to Graham (1977). The feminine typed males two p o i n t combination (2,8) i n d i c a t e s more severe psychopathology than (2,7) when these s c a l e s are e l e v a t e d . These s u b j e c t s may be more s u s p i c i o u s , have somatic complaints, and experienced more d i f f i c u l t y with i n t i m a c y . S i m i l a r to the p r e v i o u s group (2,7), t h i s p r o f i l e (2,8) r e f l e c t s people who have problems with a s s e r t i v e n e s s . The androgynous typed males tend to have p r o f i l e s (4,7) r e f l e c t i n g symptoms of a n x i e t y and d e p r e s s i o n and some a c t i n g out behavior such as d r i n k i n g or sexual p r o m i s c u i t y . T h i s group i s considered l e s s n e u r o t i c but having p e r s o n a l -i t y problems. Females. The hyper feminine females have mean scores a t 80 or over on D, Pd, Pt, and Sc; the feminine female p a t i e n t s have mean scores over 75 on D, Pd, and Sc; whereas the androgynous female p a t i e n t s have scores above 70 o n l y on the D and Pd s c a l e s (see F i g u r e 4.5). On Ma, the hyper feminine females have the lowest scores and on S i the hyper feminine have the h i g h e s t scores f o l l o w e d i n turn by the androgynous and feminine females. 1 1 9 When the two-point code system i s used, the hyper feminine female p r o f i l e (2,8) i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e r i o u s psychopathology (Graham, 1977). They are d e s c r i b e d as dependent, having problems being a s s e r t i v e , i r r i t a b l e , not expr e s s i n g themselves d i r e c t l y , f e e l i n g e a s i l y h u r t , and em o t i o n a l l y d i s t a n t . The feminine typed p r o f i l e (4,8) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f persons who tend to have poor s o c i a l adjustment and resentment toward a u t h o r i t y . They tend to f e e l i n s e c u r e and have exaggerated needs f o r a f f e c t i o n and a t t e n t i o n . There may be s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n as w e l l as a tendency to blame o t h e r s . The androgynous female p r o f i l e (2,4) a l s o i n d i c a t e s problems with s o c i a l adjustment but o f t e n these persons, i f they are not i n t r o u b l e with the law, may f u n c t i o n adequately. Females vs. males. When each female sex type group 1 s p r o f i l e (see F i g u r e 4.5) i s compared to each male sex type group's p r o f i l e ( F i g u r e 4.4), there are some important d i f f e r e n c e s . The mean scores f o r the hyper feminine typed females are f i v e p o i n t s lower on D, Pt, Sc, and Pd than the hyper feminine typed males. When the feminine females are compared to the feminine males, t h e i r D s c a l e score i s e i g h t p o i n t s lower than the males. Pd i s j u s t above 80 f o r the females and at 76 f o r the males of t h i s group. Both Pt and Sc are lower f o r the females o f t h i s group than f o r the males. For the androgynous females, i n c o n t r a s t to the androgynous males, D and Pd are most e l e v a t e d . The male androgynous p a t i e n t s have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n with 120 Pd, Pt, and Sc elevated. Mania (Ma) and s o c i a l introversion (Si) are higher for the androgynous females than for the males. Androgynous males may be less s o c i a l l y introverted than the females but they seem to be more depressed and anxious. Both groups have problems with s o c i a l norms. Using Graham's system (1977), the androgynous males' p r o f i l e (4,7) i s t y p i c a l of persons i n s e n s i t i v e to the consequences of t h e i r behavior with episodes of acting out followed by some g u i l t and self-condemnation. They have somatic complaints i n c l u d i n g headaches, f a t i g u e , and tension. These persons tend to be dependent and insecure according to Graham's interpretation. The female andro-gynous p r o f i l e (2,4) i s characterized by tendencies to manipulate others producing tensions in long-term r e l a t i o n -ships, acting out with drugs and alcohol, and some remorse which may not be sincere. Beneath a facade of competence, they f e e l inadequate and d i s s a t i s f i e d and are rebellious toward s o c i a l values (Graham, 1977). Based on t h i s i n t e r -pretation of these p r o f i l e s , i t i s apparent that there i s a s l i g h t difference between androgynous typed males and female patients, with the males showing more symptomology. In Graham's system, the hyper feminine males' mean p r o f i l e (2,7) i s more similar than d i s s i m i l a r to the hyper feminine females (2,8). These p r o f i l e s indicate patients who have problems with assertiveness, somatic complaints, feelings of hopelessness, and inadequacy. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , feminine males (2,7) d i f f e r from the feminine females' 121 p r o f i l e (4,8). The male p r o f i l e s (2,7) i n d i c a t e n e u r o t i c complaints and g e n e r a l f e e l i n g s o f inadequacy, whereas the females (4,8) are more i n d i c a t i v e o f persons with poor s o c i a l adjustment, c o n f l i c t with a u t h o r i t y , tendency to blame o t h e r s , and p o s s i b l e s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n . D i s c u s s i o n . The r e s u l t s of MMPI p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the hyper feminine and feminine typed groups of males and f e m a l e s have more p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y i n c l u d i n g symptoms, f e e l i n g s of inadequacy, l a c k o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s , and i n d i r e c t methods o f emotional e x p r e s s i o n . In c o n t r a s t , the andro-gynous groups tend to have l e s s symptomology. T h e i r d i f f i -c u l t i e s are more i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to a u t h o r i t y and s o c i a l v a l u e s . They are not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l a c k of a s s e r t i v e n e s s as the p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e f o r other groups. The tendency f o r the p a t i e n t group of androgynous males and females to have high Pd scores as compared to t h e i r o t h e r c l i n i c a l s c a l e s i n d i c a t e s some a n t i - s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s or c o n f l i c t with e s t a b l i s h e d s o c i a l norms. Although the sex typed p a t i e n t s had even higher Pd s c o r e s , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to s p e c u l a t e whether the reason f o r the e l e v a t i o n among the androgynous p a t i e n t s i s due to i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s which l e a d to some r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t e s t a b l i s h e d s o c i a l norms. I t i s even more important to note that the s t e r e o -typed group's p r o f i l e s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l a c k o f a s s e r -t i v e n e s s (Graham, 1977) i n c o n t r a s t to the androgyny groups where t h i s does not seem to be a problem. I f a s s e r t i v e n e s s can be c o r r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d with dominance (PA), those 122 persons c a t e g o r i z e d stereotyped hyper feminine and feminine are expected to have pathology a s s o c i a t e d with low domi-nance. These r e s u l t s confirm the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t there would be sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n o f psychopathology on the MMPI v a l i d i t y and c l i n i c a l s c a l e s . MMPI Content S c a l e s In c o n t r a s t to the standard MMPI, the content s c a l e s "were designed to r e f l e c t r e l i a b l e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a l o n g i n t e r p r e t a b l e s u b s t a n t i v e d i m e n s i o n s and gro u p d i f f e r e n c e s , where found, w i l l serve to enhance r a t h e r than d e f i n e the meaning of the content s c a l e i n v o l v e d " (Wiggins, 1966, p. 14). To determine group d i f f e r e n c e s , a 3 x 2 (group-by-gender) a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was computed separ-a t e l y f o r each o f the 13 content s c a l e s . B a r t l e t t ' s t e s t i n a l l i n s t a n c e s showed the assumption o f the homogeneity o f va r i a n c e was tenable a t the .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a l l 13 s c a l e s (see Appendix J ) . Table 4.8 r e p o r t s the r e s u l t s o f the f i v e s c a l e s where s i g n i f i c a n c e was found among the mean scores a t the .05 l e v e l . The r e s u l t s f o r the remaining s c a l e s (on which no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found) are shown i n Appendix I. The three s c a l e s where sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s were found a r e : poor morale (MOR), o r g a n i c symptoms (ORG), and phobias (PHO). The r e s u l t s o f Scheffe t e s t s a t .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t on a l l three s c a l e s the androgynous male and female p a t i e n t s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s . 1 23 TABLE 4.8 MMPI Content Scales---F R a t i o Source df FEM MOR ORG FAM PHO Group 2 .03 5 .11* 3.96* .79 3 .38* Gender 1 59.35* 4 . 05* .28 6.43* 7 . 21 ** Group x Gender 2 .61 1 .43 .20 .17 1 .40 R e s i d u a l 94 13.50 1 4 . 88 37.51 9.11 18 . 32 *p < .05 **p < .01 Note: FEM = Feminine i n t e r e s t s ; MOR = poor morale; ORG = o r g a n i c symptoms; FAM = f a m i l y problems; PHO = phobias TABLE 4.9 Table of Means—Content Scales Raw Scores Sex Type Group FEM MOR ORG FAM PHO Hyper Fern (4 3) 15.31 17.20 12.91 9.27 1 0.72 Fem (47) 15.14 15.51 1 1.64 8. 94 9.49 Androgynous (10) 1 5.32 1 2.85 6.81 1 0.04 6.87 Gender Female (56) Male (44) 17.76 16.59 11.99 12.00 15.02 11.33 9.90 10.79 8.34 8.45 1 24 The androgynous group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the feminine group o n l y on o r g a n i c symptoms. In none o f the i n s t a n c e s was the i n t e r a c t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t . As expected, where there were d i f f e r e n c e s , the androgynous p a t i e n t s f a r e d b e t t e r . S i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s were found on four content s c a l e s : feminine i n t e r e s t s (FEM), poor morale (MOR), f a m i l y problems (FAM), and phobias (PHO). On a l l four s c a l e s the mean scores f o r the females were g r e a t e r than the mean scores f o r the males (see Table 4.9). The r e s u l t s show sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s on the thre e content s c a l e s which are most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to ne u r o s i s with one major e x c e p t i o n . There were no d i f f e r -ences between groups on the de p r e s s i o n (DEP) s c a l e . T h i s was not the case with MMPI p r o f i l e s where the d i f f e r e n c e s on D were apparent. Although the m e t r i c s f o r the content s c a l e s and the MMPI c l i n i c a l s c a l e s d i f f e r , i t would be expected that i f the MMPI s c a l e f o r dep r e s s i o n showed group d i f f e r e n c e s t h i s would a l s o occur f o r the content DEP s c a l e _ i f they were m e a s u r i n g s i m i l a r a s p e c t s o f the d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r . However, the content d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e can be considered a purer measure of de p r e s s i o n than D on the MMPI (Mezzich, Damarin, & E r i c k s o n , 1974) and i s s i m i l a r to the type o f de p r e s s i o n o f t e n found i n p a t i e n t s s u f f e r i n g from major d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study s i n c e none of the p a t i e n t s were s e v e r e l y 1 25 c l i n i c a l l y depressed. In t h i s p a t i e n t sample, where there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on low morale, low morale may more c l o s e l y r e f l e c t " depression" or i n t h i s case n e u r o t i c d e p r e s s i o n . The low morale s c a l e (MOR) i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low s e l f c o n f i d e n c e , f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , hopelessness, and de s p a i r and i s more t y p i c a l o f the type o f de p r e s s i o n found i n psychotherapy p a t i e n t s . High endorsement o f t h i s s c a l e i n d i c a t e s s e n s i t i v i t y to the r e a c t i o n o f o t h e r s . There tends to be o v e r l a p with the DEP s c a l e which s t r e s s e s g u i l t y f e e l i n g s and apprehension. Another apparent c o n t r a s t with the MMPI p r o f i l e r e s u l t s worthy o f d i s c u s s i o n i s the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on the s c a l e s r e f l e c t i n g s o c i a l deviancy, a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t (AUT) and manifest h o s t i l i t y (HOS). For a l l s u b j e c t s the MMPI p r o f i l e had elev a t e d (Pd) psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e s . Based on the r e s u l t s o f the content s c a l e s , which show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on AUT and HOS content i n the Pd s c a l e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the .sex type groups on Pd must be due to other f a c t o r s such as f a m i l y problems r a t h e r than to a u t h o r i t y c o n f l i c t and manifest h o s t i l i t y . Hypothesis 4: S o c i a l Adjustment The h y p othesis r e l a t e d to s o c i a l adjustment s t a t e d t h a t : sex typed p a t i e n t s d i f f e r from the androgynous p a t i e n t s i n s o c i a l adjustment. A 3 x 2 a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (group-by-gender) was conducted f o r each o f the 15 items on the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the three sex type groups and 1 26 between males and females. No s i g n i f i c a n t group or gender d i f f e r e n c e s were found on any o f the problem areas (See Appendix K ) . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that f o r t h i s p a t i e n t group, a l l p a t i e n t sex type groups had these problem areas i n common. Hypothesis 5: I n t e r p e r s o n a l F l e x i b i l i t y I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d : androgynous p a t i e n t s have g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the sex typed p a t i e n t s . In Wiggins' and H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978, 1981) s t u d i e s on student s u b j e c t s , i t was p r e d i c t e d that the male and female andro-' gynous p a t i e n t s would have a l e s s v a r i a b l e or f l a t t e r p r o f i l e on the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s than the sex typed p a t i e n t s . The f l a t t e r p r o f i l e could be i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f l e c t i n g a balance of behaviors a c r o s s the 16 i n t e r p e r -sonal s c a l e s . The p r e d i c t i o n that there would be l e s s v a r i a n c e or r e l a t i v e l y f l a t p r o f i l e s f o r androgynous male p a t i e n t s was confirmed. The v a r i a n c e f o r androgynous males was .2086; f o r feminine typed males was .3065; and f o r hyper feminine males was .7157 as r e p o r t e d i n Table 4.10. A comparison of these three v a r i a n c e s r e v e a l e d t h a t the v a r i a b i l i t y f o r the hyper feminine males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the androgynous males a t the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . By e x a m i n i n g each male g r o u p ' s p r o f i l e , t h e r e were some important f e a t u r e s of c l i n i c a l i n t e r e s t . The hyper feminine male p r o f i l e s had low s p i k e s on dominance (PA) and e x t r o v e r -s i o n (0), and a high spike on l a z y - s u b m i s s i v e (HI). T h i s TABLE 4.10 IAS Transformed P r o f i l e Means and P r o f i l e Variances for Each Sex Type Group (N = 100) Females (56) Males (45) Scale Hyper Fem Feminine Androgynous Hyper Fem Feminine Androgynous P -3.1426 -1.590 -1.1026 -.5128 -.1127 .0788 A -2.0871 -.9885 -.2795 -1.7096 -.9082 .0080 B -.5064 -.0371 .8991 .0780 .2538 .5066 C .1176 .3351 .7984 .1741 .2646 .2874 D -.1762 .2663 1.2971 .1539 .2190 .2944 E .8722 1.2659 2.1397 .2877 .3902 .4719 F 1.9044 1.9629 3.0769 .4096 .5018 .5698 G 1.5183 1.1940 1 .2672 .4825 .6126 .4691 H 2.9203 2.4646 2.8480 2.1757 1.2642 1 .1400 I 2.6370 1 .8759 1.6515 .7959 .7876 .5834 J .4864 .3803 -.1333 .2379 .2086 .1089 K .5015 .3608 .0613 .8009 .4693 -.8501 L .7276 .3978 -1.1658 .1929 .0749 -.0800 M .0854 -.0220 -1 .2495 .191 1 .1497 .0715 N -1.0068 -.8723 -1.5922 .0885 .0592 .0352 0 -1.2903 -.7931 -.8287 -1.1470 -.9741 -.4500 X .2223 .3875 .4805 .1687 .2038 .2028 s 2 2.6412 1 .3056 2.2255 .7157 .3065 .2086 Note: P = dominance; A = ambitious; B = arrogant; C = c a l c u l a t i n g ; D = cold; E = quarrelsome; F = aloof; G = introverted; H = lazy; I = submissive; J = unassuming ; K = ingenuous ; L = warm; M = agreeable; N = gregarious; 0 = • extroverted. 1 28 p a t t e r n was repeated i n each group but was g r e a t e r i n the hyper feminine males. Fo r the f e m a l e s , the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t androgynous s u b j e c t s would be l e s s v a r i a b l e and demonstrate g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y was n o t c o n f i r m e d (see T a b l e 4.10). Here the r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to Wiggins and H o l z m u l l e r (1978). The index of p r o f i l e v a r i a b i l i t y was 2.6412 f o r hyper feminine females; 2.2255 f o r the andro-gynous females; and 1.3056 f o r the feminine females. None of the d i f f e r e n c e s was s i g n i f i c a n t . The female p r o f i l e s tended to have high s p i k e s on l a z y (H), submissive ( I ) , a l o o f ( F ) , and i n t r o v e r t e d (G), and low s p i k e s on dominant (P), ambitious (A), g r e g a r i o u s (N), and e x t r o v e r t e d ( 0 ) . In a d d i t i o n , the androgynous female p r o f i l e s had high s p i k e s on c o l d (D), quarrelsome ( E ) , and were low on warm (L) and agreeable (M). These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d the androgynous female group d e s c r i b e d i t s e l f i n terms of more negative a s p e c t s o f dominance ( c o l d - q u a r r e l s o m e ) and lower i n nurturance than the other female groups as w e l l as a l l the male groups. These r e s u l t s on androgynous women's p r o f i l e p a t t e r n d i f f e r e d from W i g g i n s ' and H o l z m u l l e r ' s (1978) f i n d i n g s . They found the p r o f i l e s of the androgynous women to be the o p p o s i t e of the s t e r e o t y p e d , h i g h on dominance and low on i n t r o v e r s i o n . Summary In some cases, p r e d i c t i o n s were confirmed. Ninety percent of the p a t i e n t s f o r both sexes were ste r e o t y p e d 1 29 feminine i n t h e i r sex type. The new sex type c a t e g o r i e s used t o i d e n t i f y an extreme st e r e o t y p e d group i n d i c a t e d a high p r o p o r t i o n of male and female p a t i e n t s i n the extreme hyper feminine category. In the e x p l o r a t i o n of sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s on measures o f mental h e a l t h , androgynous typed p a t i e n t s tended to have h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m , l e s s p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , and g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y when there were s i g n i f i -c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . Androgynous male and female p a t i e n t s had higher s e l f - e s t e e m as measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e ; they had l e s s d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e i r r e a l and i d e a l s e l f scores than the extreme s t e r e o t y p e d , hyper feminine group. The androgynous male and female p a t i e n t MMPI p r o f i l e s i n d i c a t e d l e s s psychopathology and a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of psychopathology as compared to the other two sex type groups. On three o f the 13 MMPI content s c a l e s , androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s pathology than the extreme stereotyped group and on one content s c a l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s pathology than the s t e r e o -typed group. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s on the s o c i a l adjustment measure, the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the andro-gynous male p a t i e n t s and the hyper f e m i n i n e males on i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y as measured by the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . However, the androgynous females d i d not d i f f e r from t h e o t h e r f e m a l e g r o u p s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y . 1 30 Throughout the study o f group d i f f e r e n c e s , sex d i f f e r -ences were i d e n t i f i e d but the p a t t e r n s were not c o n s i s t e n t . Women p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s e l f - e s t e e m on the RSE than men. Male MMPI p r o f i l e s were more e l e v a t e d than the female p r o f i l e s . The sex type group MMPI p r o f i l e s showed c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s f o r males and females. Female sex type groups d i d not show a p a t t e r n c o n s i s t e n t with the males on i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y . As suggested i n other s t u d i e s , there i s some support f o r the view t h a t male androgynous persons do not look the same as female andro-gynous persons. 131 Chapter 5 CONCLUSION Summary of the Study Review o f the Purpose and Procedure The purpose of the study was to determine the d i s t r i b u -t i o n o f sex type c a t e g o r i e s i n a group o f non-psychotic p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s a t t e n d i n g a day c l i n i c a t a u n i v e r s i t y h o s p i t a l and to explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sex type c a t e g o r i e s and the f o l l o w i n g four mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s : s e l f - e s t e e m , s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n o f psycho-pathology, s o c i a l adjustment, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y . The androgynous and sex type c a t e g o r i e s were measured by the nurturance (LM) and dominance (PA) s c a l e s from the I n t e r -p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s (IAS) (Wiggins, 1980) and assigned a c c o r d i n g to the t - r a t i o s c o r i n g procedure (Bern, 1974). To measure s e l f - e s t e e m p a t i e n t s r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s on t h e Rosenberg Self-esteem S c a l e (RSE). They a l s o rated the IAS a second time according to how they would d e s c r i b e t h e i r i d e a l s e l f . The d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e a l and i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g was i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n o f s e l f - e s t e e m . The s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n of psychopathology was measured by the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI) and the MMPI content s c a l e s (Wiggins, 1966). S o c i a l adjustment was determined by the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t , and i n t e r p e r -s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y was measured by the 16 s c a l e s o f the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e s . A s e r i e s o f two-way 1 32 analyses of v a r i a n c e (group-by-gender) was performed to determine s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a l l the mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s with the exception of the MMPI p r o f i l e s where a c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was used. R e s u l t s E x a m i n a t i o n o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny r e v e a l e d t h a t , as p r e d i c t e d , higher p r o p o r t i o n s of male and f e m a l e p a t i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d as f e m i n i n e stereotyped than any other category. The obtained d i s t r i b u -t i o n was such that i t was considered p r o f i t a b l e to r e d e f i n e the feminine c a t e g o r i e s so as to be b e t t e r able to analyze p o s s i b l e group d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the o r i g i n a l feminine category. The androgynous category was l e f t unchanged ( — 1 < t < 1 ); however, the near feminine and feminine c a t e g o r i e s were r e d e f i n e d as feminine (1<t<4) and hyper feminine ( t > 4 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e r e were o n l y two p a t i e n t s c a t e g o r i z e d as masculine with the i n i t i a l s c o r i n g system, the masculine c a t e g o r i e s were r e d e f i n e d as masculine (-4<t<-1) and hyper m a s c u l i n e (t<-4) t o m a i n t a i n the symmetric d e f i n i t i o n embodied i n Bern's o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s . Three groups were r e t a i n e d f o r the subsequent a n a l y s e s : androgynous (n=10), feminine (n=47), and hyper feminine (n=43). Because o f the small number (n=3), p a t i e n t s c l a s -s i f i e d as m a s c u l i n e and low-low androgynous were no t considered f u r t h e r . Examination of the d i f f e r e n c e s among the three r e t a i n e d groups r e v e a l e d that f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , the androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r g l o b a l s e l f -1 3 3 esteem than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s and there were g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n s of s h i f t i n sex type c a t e g o r i e s between r e a l and i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g s f o r both hyper feminine and feminine p a t i e n t s . Sex typed p a t i e n t s d i d d i f f e r from the androgynous i n the s e v e r i t y and p a t t e r n o f psychopathology as determined by a c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the MMPI and on three of the content s c a l e s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among groups on s o c i a l adjustment. There was g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y f o r the anydrogynous males as compared to the feminine males but the d i f f e r e n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the female sex type groups. Throughout the study o f sex type group d i f f e r e n c e s , sex d i f f e r e n c e s were i d e n t i f i e d but the p a t t e r n s were n o t c o n s i s t e n t . Female p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower g l o b a l s e l f - e s t e e m r a t i n g s , higher raw scores on fou r of the content s c a l e s (feminine i n t e r e s t s , FEM; low morale, MOR; f a m i l y problems, FAM; and phobias, PHO), and l e s s i n t e r -p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the male p a t i e n t s . In c o n t r a s t , the male p a t i e n t s had g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y between r e a l s e l f and i d e a l s e l f as an i n d i c a t i o n o f low s e l f - e s t e e m . The male p a t i e n t s had g r e a t e r psychopathology than the females as determined by the MMPI p r o f i l e s where t h e i r scores were more e l e v a t e d on t h e d e p r e s s i o n , p s y c h a s t h e n i a , and s c h i z o p h r e n i a s c a l e s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s e f f e c t s . S i n c e the primary i n t e r e s t was i n the androgynous p a t i e n t s and how they compared to the stereotyped p a t i e n t s , 1 3 4 more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s o f these comparisons are pre-sented i n the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n s . Androgynous vs. hyper feminine typed p a t i e n t s . Andro-gynous p a t i e n t s had b e t t e r mental h e a l t h on three o f the fo u r mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s . The androgynous male and female p a t i e n t s had higher s e l f - e s t e e m , l e s s psychopatholo-gy, and a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f psychopathology than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s . The androgynous p a t i e n t s ' MMPI p r o f i l e was onl y e l e v a t e d on the psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e , whereas the h y p e r f e m i n i n e p a t i e n t s had h i g h l y e l e v a t e d scores on d e p r e s s i o n , psychopathic d e v i a t e , and sc h i z o p h e n i a s c a l e s . On three content s c a l e s , the androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s pathology than the hyper feminine p a t i e n t s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s on s o c i a l a d j u s t m e n t . The androgynous males d e m o n s t r a t e d g r e a t e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y than the androgynous females. Androgynous vs. feminine typed p a t i e n t s . The andro-gynous p a t i e n t s had s u p e r i o r mental h e a l t h as compared to the feminine typed p a t i e n t s on two mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s . There was g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e a l and i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g s f o r the feminine typed p a t i e n t s compared to the androgynous p a t i e n t s . And, the androgynous p a t i e n t s ' MMPI p r o f i l e s had lower e l e v a t i o n s on a l l s c a l e s except mania, psychopathic d e v i a t e , and psychasthenia where they were s i m i l a r to the feminine p a t i e n t s . On one content s c a l e 1 35 (ORG) the androgynous p a t i e n t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s c o r e s . Androgynous males vs. androgynous females. On two of the mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s , psychopathology and i n t e r p e r -sonal f l e x i b i l i t y , there were d i f f e r e n c e s between the andro-gynous males and f e m a l e s . The androgynous male MMPI p r o f i l e s showed a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n than the androgynous females with lower e l e v a t i o n s on the d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e and hig h e r e l e v a t i o n s on the psychopathic d e v i a t e , psychasthen-i a , and s c h i z o p h r e n i a s c a l e s . The i n t e r p e r s o n a l f l e x i b i l i t y o f the androgynous males was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the androgynous females. C o n c l u s i o n s and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s The f i n d i n g s of the present study c o n t r i b u t e i n three ways to the understanding of the nature of p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. The f i r s t i s a f u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny. The second i s the u t i l i z a -t i o n o f a new measure of androgyny which e f f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e s the new d e f i n i t i o n . The t h i r d i s a demonstration of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between androgyny, sex s t e r e o t y p i n g , and mental h e a l t h f o r a group of p s y c h i a t r i c o u t - p a t i e n t s . T h e o r e t i c a l C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the D e f i n i t i o n of Andro- gyny. Bern's (1974) i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of psycho-l o g i c a l androgyny viewed the androgynous person as having a balance of t r a d i t i o n a l masculine and feminine b e h a v i o r s . The d e f i n i t i o n was not u n i f o r m l y accepted by a l l androgyny r e s e a r c h e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Spence and Helmreich (1978), who 1 36 confused the d e f i n i t i o n by arguing i n terms of i n t e r n a l mechanisms which mediate gender r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r s . In s p i t e of the c o n f u s i o n , the concept of balance had conceptual appeal. A f u r t h e r c o n t r o v e r s y remained over how to d e f i n e the dimensions o f the balance. Bern argued i n f a v o r o f agency and communality and Spence and Helmreich i n f a v o r o f i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y and e x p r e s s i v i t y . In the present study, f o l l o w i n g Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981), androgyny was d e f i n e d i n terms of dominance and n u r t u r a n c e . A l t h o u g h W i g g i n s and H o l z m u l l e r p r o p o s e d androgyny be d e f i n e d i n terms of dominance and nurturance, they measured i t using the Bern Sex Role Inventory. In an u n p u b l i s h e d s t u d y , L a z e r s o n (1980) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h e d e f i n i t i o n by using the PA and LM s c a l e s of the IAS to measure, r e s p e c t i v e l y , dominance and nurturance b e h a v i o r s . A p p l i c a t i o n of the same procedure i n the present study was again s u c c e s s f u l . The d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny i n these terms had the e f f e c t o f : 1) e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny and an a c t u a l measure of androgyny, and 2) making i t p o s s i b l e to measure the dimensions o f dominance and nurturance on a s c a l e which was gender-free i n i t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and c o n s t r u c t i o n . When dominance and nurturance are d e f i n e d as the dimensions of androgyny, i t becomes p o s s i b l e to c l a r i f y and i n t e r p r e t the meaning of the r e s u l t s i n l i g h t o f these dimensions r a t h e r than i n l i g h t o f the broad and vague terms 1 37 masculinity and femininity. It i s thi s kind of interpre-t a t i o n which adds to the t h e o r e t i c a l understanding of androgyny so often confused by lack of d e f i n i t i o n . The s p e c i f i c theoretical implications of thi s new d e f i n i t i o n are discussed further in the section on Implications in t h i s chapter. Contributions to the Measurement of Androgyny. The v a l i d i t y of the PA and LM scales of the IAS as a measure of psychological androgyny in a patient population was extended in the present study. The measure did successfully d i s t i n -guish sex type categories within a group of out-patients, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the categories were revised. With the t - r a t i o method of Bern (1974) the majority of patients were c l a s s i f i e d feminine stereotype. Revision of the sex type categories led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a high proportion of patients extreme in their stereotype. Use of the revised categories (see p. 132 and Chapter 4), showed the l i m i t a -tions of the t-score system as defined by Bern (1974) for a patient sample. This study demonstrated the importance of a r e d e f i n i t i o n of categories when determining the sex type of populations with mental health problems. In addition, use of the PA and LM scales permitted examination of the patients who shifted from hyper feminine and feminine type towards androgyny or masculine type. Androgyny, Sex Stereotyping, and Mental Health. The present study gave some support to psychological androgyny as a new model of mental health. Unlike previous studies 1 38 which had explored the model i n student p o p u l a t i o n s , t h i s study was an i n t e n s i v e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the mental h e a l t h o f androgynous and sex stereotyped p a t i e n t s . On a number of important mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s androgynous p a t i e n t s d i d have b e t t e r mental h e a l t h than stereotyped feminine pa-t i e n t s . The androgynous p a t i e n t s were found to have higher s e l f - e s t e e m and l e s s psychopathology as measured by the MMPI. On t h e i r MMPI p r o f i l e s , the androgynous men had g r e a t e r symptoms of a n x i e t y and s o c i a l deviancy whereas the andro-gynous females had g r e a t e r d e p r e s s i o n and s o c i a l deviancy. P a t i e n t s who are androgynous may experience s o c i a l c o n f l i c t and r o l e s t r a i n due to t h e i r sex type. For the androgynous males t h i s may be an x i e t y provoking, but f o r the androgynous females i t may be a f a c t o r i n t h e i r d e p r e s s i o n . I t i s not unusual f o r women to respond to s o c i a l s t r e s s with depres-s i o n (Weissman & Klerman, 1979). The MMPI p r o f i l e s f o r the three groups o f males showed high l e v e l s o f a n x i e t y and s o c i a l pathology. The andro-gynous males d i d have l e s s d e p r e s s i o n than the feminine typed males. These p a t t e r n s were not s u r p r i s i n g i n th a t males who d e s c r i b e d themselves i n t r a d i t i o n a l feminine terms would be expected to experience high a n x i e t y as w e l l as de p r e s s i o n with i t s a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s of hopelessness and worthlessness. It was important to note t h a t the more feminine the male d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f , the higher the l e v e l of dep r e s s i o n and a n x i e t y . 1 3 9 Among the females, the level s of depression and anxiety also increased with degree of femininity. Across the female groups, there was v a r i a b i l i t y in the MMPI p r o f i l e s . This variation in pattern of psychopathology was also evident in the female scores on the Interpersonal Adjective Scales. The androgynous females had more extreme scores in a l l interpersonal areas related to the more negative aspects of dominance, cold and arrogant, yet were below norms on more p o s i t i v e dominance behaviors. The feminine and hyper feminine females were closer to norms on the warm and agreeable scales and were high on the more passive behaviors of submission and introversion. They were lower than andro-gynous females on both posi t i v e and negative dominance areas. This p i c t u r e of the androgynous female group indicated problems related to inappropriate u t i l i z a t i o n of dominance behaviors; whereas the feminine and hyper feminine groups tended to have a notable lack of dominance. Implications of the Feminine Stereotype and Androgyny The study confirmed expectations that patients who are hyper feminine sex typed w i l l have lower self-esteem and a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of psychopathology than androgynous patients. As predicted, the patients predominantly de-scribed themselves in t r a d i t i o n a l feminine terms. There i s theo r e t i c a l as well as other empirical support for these r e s u l t s on women. However, there i s l i t t l e in the l i t e r -140 ature to e x p l a i n why so many of the males were feminine typed. Recent e f f o r t s to e x p l a i n the predominance o f depres-s i o n and other n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s among women have focused on s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s and c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s . The gen e r a l view i s that women e x p e r i -ence s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and economic i n e q u i t i e s . They may be s o c i a l i z e d to avoid c o n f l i c t and behave i n a h e l p l e s s f a s h i o n when under s t r e s s . However, men who f a i l e d to develop s u f f i c i e n t dominance may have experienced s o c i a l s t r e s s because they were unable to meet s o c i a l r o l e expecta-t i o n s f o r t h e i r gender. The f i n d i n g s from recent work on p a t t e r n s of male and female f a n t a s y completed by May (1980) r a i s e some p o s s i b l e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the present r e s u l t s . Using p r o j e c t i v e s t o r y - t e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e s , May i l l u s t r a t e d p a t t e r n s of sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n fa n t a s y from c h i l d h o o d to adulthood. The fantasy p a t t e r n i n male a d u l t s , as demon-s t r a t e d i n t h e i r s t o r y t e l l i n g , showed t h e i r themes begin with p h y s i c a l and emotional excitement but end with c o l l a p s e and f a i l u r e . These "normal" a d u l t male s t o r i e s r e f l e c t e d the need to be i n c o n t r o l . When t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y char-a c t e r i s t i c s were e x p l o r e d , they tended to d e s c r i b e t h e i r response to s t r e s s as r e a c t i n g with anger to o t h e r s around them. On the other hand, the female a d u l t s t o r i e s began with s u f f e r i n g and doubt, then went on to success and happiness. These women tended to be in v e s t e d i n concerns o f 141 nurturance, succorance, and endurance. The fantasy patterns in women were found to be associated with i n h i b i t i o n of anger when under stress or attack. Although May does not stress the theme of anxiety, the male fantasies, with t h e i r endings of destruction and doom, i l l u s t r a t e high le v e l s of anxiety. The female fantasy pattern indicates some anxiety at the beginning but end in denial and an almost pollyanna view of overcoming obstacles. It seems that anxiety may be associated with t r a d i t i o n -a l male behaviors of dominance, power, and competition. The healthy male fantasy patterns indicate that men may develop a way to tolerate higher lev e l s of anxiety than women. Underlying dominance and power may be the constant fear of losing, but healthy males may have found ways to deal preventively with this anxiety in their fantasy l i f e . In terms of mastery (Bandura, 1977), the male fantasy pattern seems to indicate e f f o r t s to overcome fear of f a i l u r e , an anxiety r e l a t e d to competition. If males have found psychological ways to tolerate anxiety, they may be more l i k e l y to engage in greater r i s k taking behavior than stereotypic women. Unlike the males, the women seemed not to use fantasy to help them master c o n f l i c t . In the present study, most of the male patients described themselves in stereotypic feminine terms. One possible explanation for these r e s u l t s suggests that the i n a b i l i t y to t o l e r a t e anxiety inhibited the development of dominance, assertive-ness, and risk-taking in these males. It suggests a similar 142 p a t t e r n f o r women. I t i s important to note t h a t i n the present study male n e u r o t i c a n x i e t y and d e p r e s s i o n scores on the MMPI were c o n s i s t e n t l y higher than females f o r each sex type group. Males who f a i l to develop s u f f i c i e n t dominance behaviors may have g r e a t e r despondency and a n x i e t y than females. I t may be t h a t , when males f a i l t o f u l f i l l the t y p i c a l male r o l e , they are v u l n e r a b l e to n e u r o s i s . Females who do f u l f i l l the female s t e r e o t y p e a l s o seem v u l n e r a b l e to n e u r o s i s . For both males and females, neuroses seems to be a s s o c i a t e d with a l a c k o f dominance and i t s a s s o c i a t e d b e h a v i o r s of r i s k - t a k i n g and com p e t i t i v e n e s s . The d e f i n i t i o n o f androgyny as a balance o f dominance and nurturance i m p l i e d t h a t the androgynous person would b e n e f i t from both b e h a v i o r s . The r e s u l t s o f the pr e s e n t study r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y of the importance of dominance behaviors f o r males and females. The p a t i e n t group was no t a b l y l a c k i n g i n dominance. However, these p a t i e n t s g e n e r a l l y had moderate s e l f r a t i n g s on nurturance. Although many of these p a t i e n t s entered therapy with complaints about d i f f i c u l t y i n a c h i e v i n g or keeping i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e i r psychopathology does not seem to be r e l a t e d to l a c k of or excess o f nurturance. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s i n agree-ment with Holahan and Spence (1979) who found that there was no c o r r e l a t i o n between f e m i n i n i t y (nurturance) and neuro-t i c i s m . A q u e s t i o n must be r a i s e d about the l a c k o f masculine typed male and female p a t i e n t s i n the sample. T h e i r f a i l u r e 143 to appear could be interpreted as an indication that the masculine typed person had s u p e r i o r mental h e a l t h as compared to the androgynous and feminine or hyper feminine typed person. However, their lack of presence in t h i s patient sample may be explained by either the uniqueness of t h i s neurotic sample or the prevalence of other types of mental disorders in the masculine typed group or the f a i l u r e of t h i s group to seek psychotherapy as a solution to t h e i r psychological problems. Limitations of the Study There are three main l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, two of which are unique to this study while the third relates to problems inherent in androgyny research in general. F i r s t , sex type group comparisons were made between sex typed patients and androgynous patients based on very few patients in the androgynous category. In 100 patients, only 10 were androgynous. With a larger number of t o t a l subjects, i t would have been possible to examine the rela t i o n s h i p between a l l sex type categories and the mental health variables. In order to have increased the number of androgynous subjects to 10 males and 10 females, i t would have been necessary to increase the duration of the data c o l l e c t i o n . A second alternative i s possible as well. It would be possible to increase the number of androgynous subjects by changing the s t a t i s t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of psychological androgyny which was used: — 1 < t < 1 . This i s a conservative d e f i n i t i o n which limited the number of subjects who had a s t a t i s t i c a l balance 1 44 of dominance and nurturance. I t would have been p o s s i b l e to broaden the d e f i n i t i o n and s t i l l m aintain the conception of a balance. However, f o r the purposes of t h i s study the c o n s e r v a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n was maintained because the androgyny s c o r i n g procedure was a l r e a d y f r a u g h t with c o n t r o v e r s y . To have r e d e f i n e d androgyny, as w e l l as the other sex type c a t e g o r i e s , would have gone beyond the scope of t h i s study but can be suggested f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Secondly, t h i s r e s e a r c h used a new measure of s o c i a l adjustment, the Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t . No p r e v i o u s r e l i a b i l i t y o r v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s had been done on the measure. Although there were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r -ences on s o c i a l adjustment, i t may have been due to the i n s e n s i t i v i t y o f the instrument r a t h e r than the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . A s t a n d a r d i z e d measure of s o c i a l adjustment such as the C l a r k Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment S c a l e (Frank, Hoehn-Saric, Imber, Liberman, & Stone, 1978) may be more r e l i a b l e i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t was chosen because i t had been used as a c l i n i c a l instrument f o r four years a t the Day C l i n i c and the t e s t a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d h i g h i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r the f u l l s c a l e s . However, the measure w i l l need f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to b e t t e r a s c e r t a i n i t s v a l i d i t y . The t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n , common to most androgyny r e -s e a r c h , r e l a t e s to the general concept of androgyny and the terminology generated by the c o n s t r u c t . As d i s c u s s e d i n Chapters 1 and 2, there i s a h i s t o r y of c o n f u s i o n centered 145 around the d e f i n i t i o n s of masculinity and femininity. Bern (1974) and Spence et a l . (1975) suggested thinking in terms of agency and communality or instrumentality and expres-s i v i t y rather than masculinity or femininity. In t h i s study, dominance and nurturance (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981) were o f f e r e d as independent t r a i t s which c h a r a c t e r i z e behaviors more associated with men and women, respectively. However, in spite of t h i s e f f o r t at c l a r i t y , confusion tends to occur when sex typed persons are referred to as masculine typed or feminine typed. It would be better to describe persons as nurturant typed or dominant typed; high nurturant or high dominant. It i s too easy to blur the d i s t i n c t i o n s between masculinity and femininity which are very broad dimensions with the psychological aspects of these con-st r u c t s , psychological masculinity and femininity. Future Research A number of provocative areas remain open to future research. In terms of the research questions raised in the present study, i t would be important to raise similar questions in a broad range of samples including non-patient adults representing similar demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as in the present patient sample. In addition, other patient groups could be explored such as drug abusers, sex offend-ers, and psychotics. It i s l i k e l y the pattern of low dominance would be replicated but these groups may also be associated with low nurturance. 1 46 Further research issues relate to the d e f i n i t i o n of psychological androgyny. The present study defined andro-gyny in terms of dominance (PA) and nurturance (LM), yet i t i s l i k e l y that other i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimensions can be included in the d e f i n i t i o n . Constantinople (1973) strongly s t r e s s e d the m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of m a s c u l i n i t y and femininity, yet the present sex stereotype measures have not been sophisticated enough in the i r development to tap multi-dimensionality aspects of M-F. Some researchers such as Holahan and Spence (1979) have begun to examine the negative aspects of psychological masculinity and femininity. In terms of the IAS, other dimensions of M-F may be re f l e c t e d in other orthogonal contrasts such as DE (cold-quarrelsome) as the masculinity dimension and HI (lazy-submissive) as the femininity dimension. Another area of investigation often neglected in andro-gyny research i s the c l i n i c a l dimension. It would be useful to explore, through in-depth history-taking and interviews, i f the h i s t o r i e s and present l i f e s tyles of androgynous patients d i f f e r e d from those who were sex typed or cross sex typed. The exploration could focus on the individual's development of nurturance and dominance patterns including parental attitudes and peer influences. Early emotional expression associated with these behaviors could be compared to present emotional expression in r e l a t i o n to dominance and nurturance behaviors. As i t i s apparent from t h i s study, many male and female patients come into therapy because of 1 4 7 p r o b l e m s w i t h dominance. They u s u a l l y want t o l e a r n a s s e r t i v e n e s s s k i l l s . T h i s l e a d s to another area o f resea r c h which i n c l u d e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the n u r t u r a n c e d i m e n s i o n and e x p l o r a t i o n of psychotherapy outcome i n r e l a t i o n to changes i n nurturance-dominance. There i s a trend with popular l i t e r a t u r e to s t r e s s the importance of nurturance f o r both men and women. I t seems there now may be higher s o c i a l v a lue placed on nurturance behaviors i n men than there was a number o f years ago. I t would seem that f o r s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g , a person needs a moderate amount of n u r t u r i n g b e h a v i o r s . However, i t i s l i k e l y that men could get by with c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than women i n t h e i r s o c i a l encounters. But what about people who have extremes, low or hi g h , on nurturance; what are the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f these people r e a l l y l i k e ? F u r t h e r , can nurturance or dominance, or both, change as a r e s u l t o f psychotherapy, a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g , or s e l f h e l p programs? Is one dimension more amenable to change than another? These i n t e r e s t i n g ques-t i o n s remain open t o r e s e a r c h . Androgyny r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l i n i t s i n f a n c y . With f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and study, the area remains f e r t i l e f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the dimensions o f nurturance and dominance. The p r e s e n t s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t b e h a v i o r s a s s o c i a t e d with the feminine s t e r e o t y p e were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of n e u r o t i c psychotherapy o u t - p a t i e n t s . The r e s u l t s on the mental h e a l t h v a r i a b l e s confirmed what was p r e d i c t e d i n the 1 48 l i t e r a t u r e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of mental health and the feminine stereotype. The androgyny concept, by suggesting a person can have both masculinity and femininity, demands that femininity be explored in relationship to masculinity. Femininity or nurturance in i t s e l f cannot be considered pathological but only when i t i s seen in rela t i o n s h i p to a lack of dominance (masculinity) . It seemed to be the lack of dominance or assertiveness rather than nurturance which affected the mental health of these patients. The lack of masculine sex typed patients made i t d i f f i c u l t to suggest whether they were healthier or l i k e l y to have d i f f e r e n t types of emotional disturbances and therefore tended not to seek psychotherapy. The low numbers of androgynous patients in the sample indicated that androgynous persons may have lower rates of mental i l l n e s s or may have d i f f e r e n t patterns of mental disturbance than in the present patient group. The r e s u l t s of androgynous patients who were present in the sample gave support for the view that androgyny or a balance of nurtur-ance and dominance does mediate the severity of mental i l l n e s s . Although i t i s apparent that a l l patients suffer to some extent, those who have a balance of dominance and nurturance behaviors may be less vulnerable to c l a s s i c symptoms and psychopathology. Perhaps the emotional disturbance in the androgynous patients i s related to t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e their dominance and nurturance behav-iors in ways which maximize their interpersonal repertoire. 149 BIBLIOGRAPHY A d l e r , A. Sex. In J.P. M i l l e r (Ed.), P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and women. Bal t i m o r e : Penquin Books, 1973. American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n . Committee on Nomenclature and S t a t i s t i c s , D i a g n o s t i c and s t a t i s t i c a l manual of  mental d i s o r d e r s (2nd. ed.) Washington, D.C: Author, 1 968. Ashmore, R.D., & Del Boca, Sex s t e r e o t y p e s and i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y theory: Toward a c o g n i t i v e s o c i a l psycho-l o g i c a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . Sex Roles, 1979, 51(2), 219-248. Bakan, D. The d u a l i t y of, human e x i s t e n c e . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Bandura, A. S o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977. Bandura, A. S e l f e f f i c a c y . Psychology Review, 1977, 84, ( 2 ) , 191-215. Bandura, A., & W alters, R.H. T h e o r i e s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and exposure to m u l t i p l e models. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart ( E d s . ) , Sex d i f f e r e n c e s : C u l t u r a l and developmental  dimensions. New York: Urizens Books, 1976. Baucom, D.H. Independent m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e s on the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, _4_4 (5), 8 76. Bazin, N.T., & Freeman, A. The androgynous v i s i o n . Sex  Roles, 1974, _2, 185-215. Bern, S.L. The measurement of p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Jour- n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162. Bern, S.L. Probing the promise of androgyny. In Kaplan, A. & Bean, J . ( E d s . ) , Beyond sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s : Readings  toward a psychology of androgyny" Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Co., 197 6. Bern, S.L. On the u t i l i t y o f a l t e r n a t i v e procedures f o r a s s e s s i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t - ing & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 45_ (2 ), 196-205. 1 50 Bern, S.L. Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum & Locksley-Colten c r i t i q u e s . Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, (6), 1 047-1054. — Bern, S.L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1980, in press. Bern, S.L., & Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality & Social  Psychology, 1976, 33 (1), 45-54. Bern, S.L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. Sex typing and andro-gyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1976, 3_4 (5), 1016-1023. Berzins, J.I. Discussion: Androgyny, personality theory, and psychotherapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1979, 3_ (3), 248-253. Berzins, J.I., Welling, M.A., & Wetter, R.E. A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the personality research form. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psy- chology. 1978, 46 (1), 126-138. Block, J.H. Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspec-t i v e s . American Psychologist, 1973, 2_8, 51 2-525. Bridges, J. Correlates of sex role and attitudes toward women. Psychological Reports, 1978, 4_3, 1279-1282. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Fisch, M. Psychological androgyny and college students' judgements of mental health. Sex  Roles, 1980, 6 (4), 575-579. Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, P.S., & Vogel, S.R. Sex role stereotypes and c l i n i c a l judgements of mental health. Journal of  Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1970, 3_4, 1-7. Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current reappraisal. Journal of Soc i a l Issues. 1969, 28_ (2), 59-78. Brown, G.W., & Harris, T. Social o r i g i n s of depression: A  study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock Publications, 1978. Carlson, R. Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting  & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 37 (2), 267-277. 1 5 1 C h e s l e r , P. Women and madness. New York: Avon Books, 1973. Chetwynd, J . , & Ha r t n e t t , 0. The sex r o l e system: Psycho- l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . London: Routridge & Kegan Paul, 1977. Chevron, E. & Qui n l a n , D.M. Sex r o l e s and gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n the experience o f d e p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal  Psychology, 1970, 87_ (6), 680-683. Chodorow, N. The r e p r o d u c t i o n of mothering: P s y c h o a n a l y s i s  and the s o c i o l o g y of gender. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1978. Co n s t a n t i n o p l e , A. M a s c u l i n i t y - f e m i n i n i t y : An exce p t i o n to a famous dictum? P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, 8_0, 389-407. Dahlstrom, W.C., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. An MMPI hand- book, V o l . 1: C l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota P r e s s , 1972. Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L. An MMPI hand- book. V o l . I I : Research a p p l i c a t i o n s . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minneapolis Press, 1975. DeFronzo, J . , & Boudreau, F. Furth e r r e s e a r c h i n t o a n t i -cedents and c o r r e l a t e s o f androgyny. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, 1979, 44_ (1 ), 23-29. Deutsch, C.J., & G i l b e r t , L.A. Sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s : E f f e c t i n p e r s p e c t i v e s o f s e l f and and oth e r s and on perso n a l adjustment. J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 23 (4 ), 373-379": Deutsch, H. Motherhood and s e x u a l i t y . In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart ( E d s . ) , Sex d i f f e r e n c e s : C u l t u r a l and develop- mental dimensions. New York: U r i z e n s Books, 1976. Deutsch, H. The psychology o f women i n r e l a t i o n to the f u n c t i o n s o f r e p r o d u c t i o n . In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women  and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. Dixon, W.J., Ed. BMDP-77 Medical computer programs p s e r - i e s . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1977. Downing, N.E. T h e o r e t i c a l and o p e r a t i o n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r measure-ment. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 (3), 284-29T: ~ 1 52 Edwards, K.J., Van Buren, J.H., & Z a b r i s k i e , F.C. The m u l t i -dimensional s t r u c t u r e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny and r e l a t i o n s h i p to s e l f concept. Unpublished paper. Toronto: 1978. E r i k s o n , E. Once more the inner space. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1 974. E r i k s o n , E. Womanhood and the inner space. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. F a r i n a , A., & Hagelauer, H.D. Sex and mental i l l n e s s : The g e n e r o s i t y o f females. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1975, 43 (1), 122. Foa, V.G., & Foa, E.B. S o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e s of the mind. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111.: Ch a r l e s C. Thomas, 1974. Foushee, H.C., Helmreich, R.L. & Spence, J.T. I m p l i c i t t h e o r i e s o f m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y : D u a l i s t i c or b i p o l a r ? Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3, (3), 259-269. Frank, J . , Hoehn-Saric, R., Imber, S., Liberman, B., & Stone, A. E f f e c t i v e I n g r e d i e n t s of S u c c e s s f u l Psycho- therapy . New York: Brunner-Mazel, 1978. Freud, S. Female s e x u a l i t y (1931). In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. Freud, S. F e m i n i n i t y (1933). In J . Strouse, (Ed.), Women  and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. Freud, S. Some p s y c h i c a l consequences o f the anatomical d i s t i n c t i o n between the sexes (1925). In J . Strouse (E d . ) , Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h -e r s , 191T: F r i e z e , J . , Parsons, J . , Johnson, P., Ruble, D., & Zellman, G. Women and sex r o l e s : A s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Toronto: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1978. Gaa, J . C , Liberman, D. , & Edwards T.A. , A comparative f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f the Bern Sex Role Inventory and the P e r s o n a l i t y A t t r i b u t e s Q u e s t i o n n i a r e . J o u r n a l of  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, _3J5(3), 592-599. Garnets, L., & Peck, J.H. Sex r o l e i d e n t i t y , androgyny, sex r o l e transcendence: A sex r o l e s t r a i n a n a l y s i s . Psy- chology o f Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 (3), 270-283. 153 Gaudreau, P. Factor analysis of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 45, 299-303. Gelb, L.A. Masculinity-femininity: A study i n imposed i n -equality. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973. Gelpi, C. The p o l i t i c s of androgyny. Sex Roles, 1974, 2, 151-160. Gese l l , A. The mental growth of the pre-school c h i l d . New York: Macmillan Company, 1928. Gilberstadt, H., & Duker, J. A handbook for c l i n i c a l and  act u a r i a l MMPI interpretation. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1965. Glass, G.V., & Stanley, J.G. S t a t i s t i c a l methods in educa- tion and psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1 975. Good, P.K., & Branter, J.P. A p r a c t i c a l guide to the MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1974. Gough, H.G., & Heilbrun, A.B. Manual for the Adjective Check  L i s t and the Need Scales for the ACL. Palo Alto, C a l i f . : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Gove, W.R. Sex differences in the epidemiology of mental disorders: Evidence and explanations. In E. Gomberg & V. Franks (Eds.). Gender and disordered behavior: Sex  differences in psychopathology. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 19/9. Gove, W.R. Mental i l l n e s s and psychiatric treatment among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1980, 4 (3), 345-359. Graham, J.R. The MMPI: A p r a c t i c a l guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. H a l l , G.S. Bi o l o g i c a l and anthropological differences be-tween the sexes (1905). In Lee, P.C. & Stewart, R.S. (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental  dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976. Harris, D. Androgyny: The sexist myth. Sex Roles, 1974, 2, 171-184. ~ Heilbrun, A.B. Sex role, instrumental-expressive behavior, and psychopathology in females. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1968, 73, 131-136. 154 Heilbrun, A.B. Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role i d e n t i t i e s as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 44 (2), 1 8 3 -Heilbrun, C.G. Toward a recognition of androgyny. New York: Knopf, 1 9 7 T . Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Holahan, C.K. Psychological androgyny and sex role f l e x i b i l i t y : A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychol- ogy, 1 9 7 9 , 37 ( 1 0 ) , 1 6 3 1 - 1 6 4 3 . Hoffman, D.M., & F i d e l l , L.S. Char a c t e r i s t i c s of androg-ynous, undifferentiated, masculine, and feminine mid-dle - c l a s s women. Sex Roles, 1 9 7 9 , _5 ( 6 ) , 7 6 5 - 7 7 9 . Hogan, H.W. The measurement of psychological androgyny: An extended r e p l i c a t i o n . Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 7 , 33_ ( 4 ) , 1 0 0 9 - 1 0 1 X Holahan, C.K. & Spence, J.T. Desirable and undesirable masculine and feminine t r a i t s in counseling c l i e n t s and unselected students. Unpublished manuscript, 1 9 7 9 . Horney, K. Feminine psychology, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1 9 6 7 . Horney, K. The f l i g h t from womanhood: The masculinity com-plex in women as viewed by men and women ( 1 9 2 6 ) . In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 9 7 3 . Horney, K. The problem with feminine masochism ( 1 9 3 5 ) . In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 9 7 3 . Janeway, E. On female sexuality. In J. Strouse (Ed.), Women  and analysis. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1 9 7 4 . Johnson, P. Women and power: Toward a theory of e f f e c t i v e -ness. Journal of Social Issues, 1 9 7 6 , 3_2 ( 3 ) , 9 9 - 1 1 1 . Jones, W.H., Chernovetz, M.O., & Hansson, R.D. The enigma of androgyny: D i f f e r e n t i a l implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 46 ( 2 ) , 2 9 8 - 3 1 3 . Jordan-Viola, E., Fassberg, S., & V i o l a , M. Feminism, an-drogyny, and anxiety. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 44 ( 5 ) , 8 7 0 - 8 7 1 . 155 Jung, C.G. Two essays on an a l y t i c a l psychology. In Collected  works (Vol. 7). New York: Pantheon Press, 1953. Kaiser, H.F. The application of the electronic computer to factor analyses. Educational Psychological Measure- ment, 1960, 2£, 141-151. Kalin, R. Methods for scoring androgyny as a continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1 979, 44_, 1 205-1 206. Kalin, R. & Tilby, P. Developmental and va l i d a t i o n of a sex-role ideology scale. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 731-738. Kaplan, A. C l a r i f y i n g the concept of androgyny: Implications for therapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1976, 3 (3), 223-230. Kaplan, A., & Bean, J. (Eds.). Beyond sex role stereotypes:  Reading toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Company, 1976. Kel l y , J.A., Furman, W., & Young, V. Problems associated with the typological measurement of sex roles and androgyny. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 978, 4J[ (6), 1574-1576. K e l l y , A.J.A., O'Brien, C.G., & Hosford, R. Sex roles and soc i a l s k i l l s : Considerations for interpersonal adjust-ment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, In press. Kelly, J.A., & Worell, J. New formulations of sex roles and androgyny: A c r i t i c a l review. Journal of Consulting &  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 977, 4_5 (6), 1101-1115. K e l l y , J.A., & Worell, L. Parent behaviors related to mascu-l i n e , feminine, and androgynous sex role orientations. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (5), 843-851 . — Kenworthy, J.A. Androgyny in psychotherapy: But w i l l i t s e l l in Peoria? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1979, 3_ (3), 231-239. Kerlinger, F.N., & Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple regression and  behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Kirk, R.E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behav- i o r a l sciences. Belmont: Brooks Cole Publishing Com-pany, 1 968. 156 K l e i n , H., & Willerman, L. Psychological masculinity and femininity and t y p i c a l and maximal dominance expression in women. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1 979, 37 (1 1 ), 2059-2070. K l e i n , M., Early stages of the Oedipus complex (1928). In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: Cultural and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizens Books, T9T6~; Knobloch, F . , Se Knobloch, J. Integrated psychtherapy, New York: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1979. Kohlberg, L., & Zi g l e r , E. Physiological development, cogni-tive development and s o c i a l i z i n g antecendents, 1967. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, T9T6~. Kravetz, D . F . Sex role concepts of women. Journal of Con- sulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 976, 4_4 (3), 437-443. Latorre, R.A. Gender and age as factors in the attitudes toward those stigmatized as mentally i l l . Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43_ (1 ), 97-98. Latorre, R.A., Endman, M., & Gossman, I. Androgyny and need achievement in male and female psychiatric inpatients. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 32_ (2), 233-235. Lanyon, R.I. A handbook of MMPI group p r o f i l e s . Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,1968. Lazerson, J. Nurturance and dominance as dimensions of psychological androgyny. Unpublished paper. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A func- t i o n a l theory and methodology for personality evalua- tion . New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957. Lee, P. Psychology and sex differences. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and develop- mental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976. Lee, P., & Stewart, R.S. (Eds.). Sex differences: Cultural and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, TTTW. Lenney, E. Concluding comments on androgyny: Some intima-tions of i t s mature development. Sex Roles, 1979, 5 (6), 829-840. 157 L i p s , H.M., & C o l w i l l , N.L. The psychology of sex d i f f e r - ences . New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1978. L o c k s l e y , A., & C o l t e n , M.E. P s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny: A case o f mistaken i d e n t i t y ? J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l  Psychology, 1 979, 37_ (6), 1017-1031. Logan, S.D., & Kaschak, E. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f sex, sex r o l e , and mental h e a l t h . Psychology of Women Quarter-l y , 1980, 4 (4), 573-579. Maccoby, E.E., & J a c k l i n , C.N. The psychology of sex d i f f e r - ences . S t a n f o r d : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974. Marecek, J . S o c i a l change, p o s i t i v e mental h e a l t h , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. Psychology of Women Q u a r t e r l y , 1979, 3 ( 3 ) , 241-247. May, R. Sex and fant a s y : P a t t e r n s of male and female d e v e l - opment. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1980. Mezzich, J.E., Damalin, F.L. & E r i c k s o n , J.R. Comparative v a l i d i t y o f s t r a t e g i e s and i n d i c e s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s o f d e p r e s s i v e s t a t e s from other p s y c h i a t r i c c o n d i t i o n s using the MMPI. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Se  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 974, _42 , 691-698. M i l l e r , J.B. (Ed.). P s y c h o a n a l y s i s and women. B a l t i m o r e : Penguin Books, 1973. M i l l e r , J.B. Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press, 1976. M i l l i m a n , M. Observations on sex r o l e r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of  Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 772-776. M i l l i m e t , C.R., & V o t t a , R.P. Aquiescence and the Bern Sex Role Inventory. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1 979, 43_ (2 ) , 1 64-165. M i t c h e l l , J . On Freud and the d i s t i n c t i o n between the sexes. In J . Strouse (Ed.), Women and a n a l y s i s . New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. Money, J . Gender r o l e , gender i d e n t i t y , core i d e n t i t y : Usage and d e f i n i t i o n o f terms, J o u r n a l of the American Acad- emy of P s y c h o a n a l y s i s , 1 973, (3), 397-405. Moreland, J.R., Gulanick, N. , Montague, E.K., Sr Harren, V.A. Some psychometric p r o p e r t i e s o f the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1978, 2 (2), 249-25F: ' 1 58 Morgan, C.S. Female and male attitudes toward l i f e : Impli-cations for theories of mental health. Sex Roles, 1980, 6 (13), 367-380. Nelson, L.R. Guide to LERTAP and interpretation. University of Otago^ Department of Education, 1 974. Nie, N., H u l l , C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. S t a t i s t i c a l package for the s o c i a l sciences,  2nd ed. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1975, Nielsen, J.M., & Doyle, P.T. Sex-role stereotypes of femin-i s t s and non-feminists. Sex Roles, 1975, 2 ( 1 ) ' 83-95. O'Connor, K., Mann, D.W., & Bardwick, J. Androgyny and s e l f -esteem in the upper-middle class: A r e p l i c a t i o n of Spence. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, £ 6 ( 5 ) , 1168-1169. Overall, J.E., & Spiegel, D.K. Concerning least squares analyses of experimental data. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1968, 7_2, 31 1-322. Parsons, T., & Bales, R.F. Family s o c i a l i z a t i o n and in t e r - action process. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955. Pedhazur, E.J., & Tetenbaum, T.J. Bern Sex Role Inventory: A Theoretical and methodological c r i t i q u e . Journal of  Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1979, 37, (6), 996-1 Ul6. — Pleck, J.H. Masculinity-femininity: Current and alternative paradigms. Sex Roles, 1975, 1_ (2), 161-178. Powell, B., & Reznikoff, M. Role c o n f l i c t & symptoms of psychological d i s t r e s s in college-educated women. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (3), 473-479. — Pyke, S.W. Androgyny: A dead end or a promise. In C. Stark-Adanec (Ed.), Sex roles: Origins, influences, and  implications for women. Montreal: Eden Press, 1980. Rebecca, M., Hefner, R., & Oleshansky, B. A model of sex role transcendence. In A. Kaplan & J. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex role stereotypes: Readings toward a psy- chology of androgyny. Boston: Brown L i t t l e & Co., 1976. Rogers, CR. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961. 159 Rosen, B., & A r e s h e n s e l , C.S., The chamelion syndrome: A s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension o f the female sex r o l e . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 3_3 , 605-615. Rosenberg, S. S o c i e t y and the adol e s c e n t s e l f - i m a g e . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965. Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I . , & Broverman, D.M. Sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p e s and s e l f - c o n c e p t s i n c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1968, 32 (3), 287-295. Rubin, L. Women of a c e r t a i n age: The m i d l i f e search f o r s e l f . New York: Harper & Row, P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1979. Scheffe, H. The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Secor, C. Androgyny: An e a r l y r e a p p r a i s a l . Sex Roles , 1974, 2, 161-169. Seligman, M.E. Depression and learned h e l p l e s s n e s s . In R.J. Friedman and M.M. Katz ( E d s . ) , The psychology of de- p r e s s i o n : Contemporary theory and r e s e a r c h . Washington, D.C: V.H. Winston, 1974. Sherman, J.A. S e x - r e l a t e d c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s : An essay on  theory and evidence. I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C. Thomas, 1978. S i l v e r n , L.E., & Ryan, V.L. S e l f - r a t e d adjustment and sex-typing on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory: Is ma s c u l i n -i t y the primary p r e d i c t o r o f adjustment? Sex Roles , 1979, 5_ (6), 739-763. Smith, R. & Brad l e y , D.W. Fac t o r v a l i d a t i o n and refinement of the sex r o l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the a t t i t u d e s toward women s c a l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, 1 979 , 4_4, 1 155-1 1 74. Spence, J.T. Androgyny as t r a i t and as r o l e : Unresolved i s s u e s . Unpublished manuscript, 1979. Spence, J . , & Helmreich, R. M a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i n i t y : T h e i r p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimensions, c o r r e l a t e s , and ante- cedents . A u s t i n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas P r e s s , 1978. Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. The many face s o f androgyny: A r e p l y to L o c k s l e y and C o l t e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  & S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 37 (6), 1032-1046. 1 60 Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Holahan, C.K. Negative and positiv e components of psychological masculinity & femininity and their relationships to self - r e p o r t s of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Person- a l i t y & Soc i a l Psychology, 1 979, 3]_ (1 0), 1631-1 644. Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of s e l f and peers on sex role attributes and their r e l a t i o n to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femi-n i n i t y . Journal of Personality & Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32 (1), 29-39. Stephenson, S.P. Sex roles and sex role stereotypes. Unpub-lishe d manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1 978. Stephenson, S.P. Women and depression: Diagnostic framework and theoretical aspects. Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1979. S t o l l , C. Male and female: S o c i a l i z a t i o n , s o c i a l r o l e s , and so c i a l structure. 2nd. ed. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. Pub., 1978. S t o l l e r , R. Facts and fancies: An examination of Freud's concept of bi s e x u a l i t y (1973). In J. Strouse (Ed.), Women and analysis. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1 974. S t o l l e r , R.J. Primary femininity. Journal of American Psy- choanalytic Association, 1976, 2_4, 59-78. S t o l l e r , R.J. The sense of femaleness, 1978. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973. Strahan, R.F. Remarks on Bern's measurement of psychological androgyny: Alternative methods and a supplementary analysis. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43 (4), 568-571 . Strong, E.K., J r . Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1943. Strouse, J. (Ed.). Women and analysis: Dialogues on psycho- analytic views of femininity. New York: Grossman Pub-l i s h e r , 1 974. Strupp, H.H., & Hadley, S.W. A t r i p a r t i t e model of mental health and therapeutic outcomes. American Psycholo-g i s t , 1977, 187-196. 161 S u l l i v a n , H.S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1953. Tarr, L. Developmental sex-role theory & sex-role attitudes in late adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1 978, 4 2, 807-814. Terman, L.M., & Miles, C C . Sex and personality: Studies in  masculinity and femininity. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1 936. Terman, L.M., & Miles, C C . Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity & femininity. In P. Lee & R.S. Stewart (Eds.), Sex differences: C u l t u r a l and developmental  dimensions. New York: Urizen Books, 1976. Thompson, C. Penis envy in women. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis and Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1 973. Thompson, C. Some effects of the derogatory attitudes toward female sexuality. In J.B. M i l l e r (Ed.), Psychoanalysis  & Women. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1973. Thompson, C. On women. New York: Mentor Books, 1964. Vogel, S. Discussant's comments, symposium: Applications of androgyny to the theory and practice of psychotherapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1979, 3 (3), 255-257. Wakefield, J.A., Saseky, J., Friedman, A.F., & Bowden, J.D. Androgyny and other measures of masculinity-femininity. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (5), 766-770. Walum, L.R. The dynamics of sex and gender: A s o c i o l o g i c a l  perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1977. Waters, C.W., Waters, L.K., & Pincus, S. Factor analysis of masculine and feminine sex typed items from the BSRI. Psychological Reports, 1977, 40_, 567-570. Weissman, H.M., & Paykel, E.S.. The depressed woman: A study  of s o c i a l r elationships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19/4. Weissman, N., & Klerman, G. Sex differences and the epidemi-ology of depression. In E. Gomberg & V. Franks (Eds.), Gender and disordered behavior: Sex differences in psychopathology. New York: Bunner-Mazel Publishers, 1 979. 162 Weitz, S. Sex roles: B i o l o g i c a l psychological and s o c i a l foundations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Wesley, F., & Wesley, C. Sex role psychology. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1977. Whetton, C. and Swindells, T. A factor analysis of the Bern Sex Role Inventory. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 33, 150-153. Whiteley, B.E., J r . Sex roles and psychotherapy: A current appraisal. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86 (6), 1309-1321. Wiggins, J.S. Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Un-published, University of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1980. Wiggins, J.S. Taxonomy of interpersonal t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms. Unpublished paper, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979. Wiggins, J.S. A psychological taxonomy of t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 3_7 (3), 395-41 2. Wiggins, J.S. Substantive dimensions of s e l f - r e p o r t in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs, 80 (22), 1966. — Wiggins, J.S., & Holzmuller, A. Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting & C l i n - i c a l Psychology, 1 978, 46_ (1 ), 40-52. Wiggins, J.S., & Holzmuller, A. Further evidence on andro-gyny and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . Journal of Research  in Personality, 1981, J_5, 67-80. Williams, J.E., & Bennet, S. The d e f i n i t i o n s of sex stereo-types v i a the Adjective Check L i s t . Sex Roles, 1975, 1 (4), 327-337. ~ Worell, J. Sex roles and psychological well-being: Perspec-tives on methodology. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1978, 46^ , 777-1 001 . Wylie, R.C. The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Yonge, G.D. The Bern Sex-Role Inventory: Use with caution i f at a l l . Psychological Reports, 1978, 43, 1245-1246. 1 63 Zeldow, P.B. Psychological androgyny and attitudes toward feminism. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, 44 (1), 150. I l l Extremely Very Quite inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate 1. Bashful-2. Lacks purpose 3. T r u s t i n g 4. Modes t 5. Kind 6. Contrary 7. S e l f - d i s c i p l i n e d 8. F o r c e f u l 9. Conceited 10. Impersonal 11. Bold 12. Pleasant 13. Unassuming 14. Companionable 15. I n h i b i t e d 16. Impractical 17. Sympathetic 18. S i l e n t 19. Aloof 20. P e r s i s t e n t 21. S l i c k 22. Firm 2 3. Emotional 2 4. Swell-headed 2 5. Well-mannered Appendix A 4 5 6 S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Quite inaccurate accurate accurate 26. Not devious 27. D i s r e s p e c t f u l 28. Disorganized 29. C o r d i a l 30. Spineless 31. J o l l y 32. C r a f t y . 33. S e l f - c o n f i d e n t 34. Determined ; 35. Ruthless 36. S u l l e n 37. C a l c u l a t i n g 38. Quiet 39. Cheerful 40. Unfeeling 41. Big-headed 42. U n d i s c i p l i n e d 43. E n t h u s i a s t i c 44. Reserved 45. Sincere 46. Productive 47. C r u e l 48. Appreciative 49. Submissive 50. Pushy 164 1 1 Very Extremely accurate accurate 51. Dependent 52. Bubbly 53. Uncooperative , 54. C h a r i t a b l e 55. Unargumentative 56. Neighborly 57. Unsympathetic 58. Self-doubting 59. Approachable 60. Humble 61. D e c e i t f u l 62. F o r g i v i n g 63. Impolite 64. Detached 65. Hard-hearted 66. Undemanding 67. Embittered 68. Solemn 69 . Persevering 70. H o s t i l e 71. Tender 72 . F r i e n d l y 73. Cocky 74. Iron-hearted 75. Tricky 1 2 3 4 xtremely Very Quite S l i g h t l y naccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate 76. Inconsistent 94. 77. Gentle-hearted 95. 78. Introverted 96. 79. Respectful 97.. 80. Loud-mouthed 98. 81. Withdrawn 99. 82. Soft-hearted 100. 83. Lazy 101. 84. Dominant 102. 85. Outgoing 103. 86. Self-defeating 104. 87. Uncharitable 105. 88. Meek 106. 89. I r r i t a b l e 107. 90. Boastful 108. 91. Nonegotistical 109. 92. Inexperienced 110. 93. • Cooperative 111. i i x A 165 5 6 7 8 S l i g h t l y Quite accurate accurate Very accurate Extremely accura te Shy _L_ 1 1 2 • Unfriendly Grateful 113. Unproductive Distant 114. Ill-mannered Good-natured 115. Show-off Domineering 116. Persuadable Passive 117. Exploitative Rude 118. L i v e l y Irresponsible 119. Organized Sneaky 120. Assertive Unpretentious 121. Tolerant Genial 122. Unsociable AccomiDoda ting 123. Steady Cold-hearted 124. Unsophisticat Self-assured 125. Talkative Timid 126. Courteous Industrious 127. Extraverted Tender-hearted 128. Congenial Sly Revised Jrtterr^rsonal Adjectdve Scales Ambitious 7. Self-Disciplined 20. Persistent 34. Determined 46. Productive 69. Persevering 109. Industrious 119. Organized 123. Steady A. LXardnant 8. Forceful 11. Bold 22. Firm 33. Self-Confident 84. rjominant 98. Domineering 107. Self-Assured 120. Assertive Arrogant 9. Conceited 24. Swell-Headed 41. Big-Headed 50. Pushy 73. Cocky 80. Loud-Mouthed 90. Boastful 115. Show-Off C. Calculating 21. Slick 32. Crafty 37. Calculating 61. Deceitful 75. Tricky 102. Sneaky 111. Sly 117. Exploitative Cold 35. Ruthless 40. Unfeeling 47. Cruel 57. Unsympathetic 65. Hard-Hearted 74. Iron-Hearted 87. Uncharitable 106. Cold-Hearted E. Quarrelsome 6. Contrary 27. Disrespectful 53. Uncooperative 63. Impolite 70. Hostile 89. Irritable 100. Rude 114. Ill-Mannered Aloof 10. Impersonal 19. Aloof 36. Sullen 64. Detached 67. Embittered 96. Distant 112. Unfriendly 122. Unsociable G. Introverted 1. Bashful 18. Silent 38. Quiet' 44. Reserved 68. Solemn 78. Introverted 81. Withdrawn 94. Shy H . L a z y I. Submissive 2. Lacks Purpose 16. Impractical 28. Disorganized 42. Undisciplined 76. Inconsistent 83. Lazy 101. Irresponsible 113. Unproductive 15. Inhibited 30. Spineless 49. Submissive 58. Self-Doubting 86. Self-Defeating 88. Meek 99. Passive 108. Timid J. Unassuming 4. Modest 13. Unassuming 55. Unargumentative 60. Humble 66. Undemanding 91. Non-Egotistical 103. Unpretentious 121. Tolerant K. Ingenuous 3. Trusting 26. Not Devious 45. Sincere 51. Dependent 92. Inexperienced 95. Grateful 116. Persuadable 124. Unsophisticated L. Warm 5. Kind 17. Sympathetic 23. Emotional 4 8. Appreciative 71. Tender 77. Gentle-Hearted 82. Soft-Hearted 110. Tender-Hearted M. Agreeable 25. Weil-Mannered 29. Cordial 54. Charitable 62. Forgiving 79. Respectful 9 3. Cooperative 105. Accamodating 126. Courteous N. Gregarious 12. Pleasant 14. Companionable 56. Neighborly 59. Approachable 72. Friendly 97. Good-Natured 104. Genial 128. Congenial 0. Extroverted 31. Jolly 39. Cheerful 43. Enthusiastic 52. Bubbly 85. Outgoing 118. Liyely 125. Talkative 127. Extroverted Appendix B: Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale 2 3 4 agree disagree Strongly disagree 1) On the whole, I am s a t i s f i e d with myself. 2) At times I think I am no good at a l l . 3) I f e e l I have a number of good q u a l i t i e s . 4) I am able to do things as w e l l as most other people. 5) I f e e l I do not have much to be proud of. 6) I c e r t a i n l y f e e l useless at times. 7) I f e e l that I am a person of worth, at l e a s t on an equal plane with others. 8) I wish I could have more respect f o r myself. 9) A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d to f e e l I am a f a i l u r e . 10) I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward myself. 169 Appendix C: RSE Scoring Directions SCALES AND SCORES TABLES D-l through D-6 are Guttman scales; D-7 through D - l l are scores. The Guttman scale items are here presented i n order from the strongest to the weakest responses. In the questionnaires, of course, the items were presented i n a d i f -ferent order. In the Self-Esteem Scale, p o s i t i v e and negative statements were presented a l t e r n a t e l y i n order to reduce the danger of respondent set. In other scales, the items were i n t e n t i o n a l l y scattered at d i f f e r e n t points throughout the questionnaire. In a l l of the scales and scores presented, " p o s i t i v e " responses are indicated by a s t e r i s k s . Where contrived items have been used, the basis f o r scoring the contrived items i s indicated. R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y and S c a l a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s appear at the foot of the Guttman scales. A l l other indices are based upon unweighted scores. D- l : Self-Esteem Scale " P o s i t i v e " responses i n d i c a t e low self-esteem. Scale Item I was contrived from the combined responses to the three questions l i s t e d below. I f a respondent answered 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 p o s i t i v e l y , he r e -ceived a p o s i t i v e score f o r Scale .Item I. If he answered 1 out of 3 or 0 out of 3 p o s i t i v e l y , he received a negative score f o r Scale Item I. I f e e l that I'm a person of worth, at le a s t on an equal plane with others. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree *4_ Strongly disagree Appendix C I f e e l that I have a number of good q u a l i t i e s . 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d to f e e l that I am a f a i l u r e . *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree Scale Item II was contrived from the combined responses to two self-esteem questions. One out of 2 or 2 out of 2 p o s i t i v e responses were considered p o s i t i v e f or Scale Item I I . I am able to do things as w e l l as most other people. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree * 4 Strongly disagree I f e e l I do not have much to be proud of. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree Scale Item I I I I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward myself. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree Appendix C Scale Item IV On the whole, I am s a t i s f i e d with myself. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree *3 Disagree *4 Strongly disagree Scale Item V I wish I could have more respect for myself. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree Scale Item VI was contrived from the combined responses to two self-esteem questions. One out of 2 or 2 out of 2 p o s i t i v e responses were considered p o s i t i v e . I c e r t a i n l y f e e l useless at times. *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree At times I think I am no good at a l l . *1 Strongly agree *2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y and S c a l a b i l i t y R e p r o d u c i b i l i t y : 93% S c a l a b i l i t y (items): 73% S c a l a b i l i t y ( i n d i v i d u a l s ) : 72% l e a f 172 m i s s e d i n numbering Appendix E CONSENT FORM I agree to take part i n a research p r o j e c t conducted by s t a f f member, Ju d i t h Lazerson during the Day House assessment and treatment program. I understand t h i s w i l l include p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s which w i l l be used f o r research purposes. Research pr o j e c t s conducted at the Health Sciences Centre H o s p i t a l are important f o r the purpose of i n -creasing knowledge about the patient and improving p a t i e n t care. The material gathered w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l be coded so that i n d -i v i d u a l patients cannot be i d e n t i f i e d . I understand that my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s e n t i r e l y voluntary. I may withdraw at any time and my r e f u s a l w i l l not e f f e c t my r e c e i v i n g treatment at the Day House. Signature Appendix F Name DESCRIBING MYSELF On the pages that follow, you w i l l find a l i s t of words that are used to describe people's personal characteristics. For each word i n the l i s t , i n d i -cate how accurately the word describes you. The accuracy with which a word describes you i s to be judged on the following scale: 1 1 1 1 1 A Z 8 Extremely Very Quite Slig h t l y Slightly Quite Very Extremely inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate Consider the word BOLD. How accurately does that word describe you as a person? If you think that this word i s a quite accurate description of you, write the number "6" to the l e f t of the item: A BOLD If you think that this word i s a s l i g h t l y inaccurate description of you, write the number "A" -next to i t , i f i t is very inaccurate, write the number "2", etc. If you are uncertain of the meaning of a word, raise your hand and we w i l l define i t for you. Appendix F Name DESCRIBING MY IDEAL SELF On the pages that follow, you w i l l f ind a l i s t of words that are used to describe people's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For each word i n the l i s t , i n d i -. - cate how accurately the word describes your Ideal s e l f (how you would like-to be). Your i d e a l s e l f may include some of the same choices as you used for des-cribing yourself. On the other hand, you may choose d i f f e r e n t characteristics for your i d e a l s e l f . The accuracy with which a word describes you i s to be judged on the following scales: 1 2 3 4 5 .6 2 1 Extremely Very . Quite S l i g h t l y Slightly Quite Very Extremely inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate Consider the word BOLD. How accurately does that word describe you as a person? If you think that this word i s a quite accurate description of you, write the number "6" to the l e f t of the item: b BOLD If you think that this word i s a s l i g h t l y inaccurate description of you, write the number "4" next to i t , i f i t i s very inaccurate, write the number "2", etc. If you are uncertain of the meaning of a word, rai s e your hand and we w i l l define i t for you. APPENDIX G STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN THE PATIENT SAMPLE 176 .JK .LM FACTOR 1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 • HI FG. FACTOR 2 (-) .NO ,9 .8 .2 .1 .PA -.1 .1 .2 -.2 -.3 -.4 -.5 -.6 -.7 -.8 -.9 (+) ,3 .4 .5 .6 DE. .8 .9 BC. STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES IN PATIENT (IDEAL) SAMPLE (PA=ambitious-dominant; BC=arrogant-calculating; DE=cold-quarrlesome; FG=aloof-introverted; HI=lazy-submissive; JK=unassuming-ingenuous; LM=warm-agreeable; and NO=gregarious-extroverted.) 177 APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC CONTINGENCY TABLES 178 Sex Type Category and Marital Status Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45) Single Married Divorced or Separated Row Total Sex Type Hyper 8 3 5 16 Feminine 50.0 18.8 31.3 35.6 Fernijiine 9 9 4 22 40.0 40.9 18.2 48.9 /Androgynous 4 1 1 6 66.7 16.7 16.7 13.3 Masculine 1 0 0 1 -100.0 0 0 2.2 Column Total 22 13 10 45 48.9 28.9 22.2 100.0 1 7 9 Sex Type Category and Marital Status Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58) Single Married Divorced or Separated Row Total Sex Type Hyper 10 10 7 27 Feminine 37.0 37.0 25.9 46.6 FenLinine 10 9 7 26 38.5 34.6 26.9 44.8 Androgynous 3 0 1 4 75.0 0 25.0 6.9 Masculine 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1.7 Column Total 24 19 15 58 41.4 32.8 25.9 100.0 180 Sex Type Category and Education Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58) Under Grade 12 Grade 12 University Vocational Row Total Sex Type Hyper 5 7 13 2 27 Fenuriine 18.5 25.9 48.1 7.4 46.6 Ferrdnine 8 6 10 2 26 30.8 23.1 38.5 7.7 44.8 Androgynous 1 0 3 0 4 25.0 0 75.0 0 6.9 Masculine 0 1 0 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 1.7 Column Total 14 14 26 4 58' 24.1 24.1 44.8 6.9 100.0 181 Sex Type Category and Education Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45) Under Grade 12 Grade 12 University Vocational Row Total Sex Type -Hyper 3 4 8 1 16 Feirrijiine 18.8 25.0 50.0 6.3 35.6 Ferrdnine 2 5 13 2 22 9.1 22.7 59.1 9.1 48.9 /Androgynous 1 0 5 0 6 16.7 0 83.3 0 13.3 Masculine 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 100.0 0 2.2 Column Total 6 9 27 3 45 13.3 20.0 60.0 6.7 100.0 182 Sex Type Category and Occupational Status Contingency Table for Female Patients (N=58) Employed Students & Unemployed non-professional Professional Housewives Total Sex Type Hyper 10 6 4 7 27 Fenu_nine 37.0 22.2 14.8 25.9 46.6 Feminine 11 7 3 5 25 42.3 26.9 11.5 19.2 44.8 Androgynous 1 1 1 1 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 6.9 Masculine 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 100.0 1.7 Column Total 22 14 8 14 58 37.9 24.1 13.8 24.1 100.0 Sex Type Category and Occupational Status Contingency Table for Male Patients (N=45) Unemployed Employed non-profes sional Professional Students & Housewives Total Sex Type Hyper Feminine 8 50.0 5 31.3 1 6.3 2 12.5 16 35.6 Feminine 9 40.9 7 31.8 4 18.2 2 9.1 22 48.9 Androgynous 1 16.7 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 6 13.3 Masculine 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0 1 2.2 Column Total 18 14 7 6 45 40.0 31.1 15.6 13.3 100.0 APPENDIX I ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR NON-SIGNIFICANT CONTENT SCALES 185 Appendix I. Analyses of Variance for Non-significant Content Scales MMPI Content Scales - F-Ratio Source df SOC DEP REL AUT HOS HYP HEA PSY Group 2 2.26 2.38 .45 1.60 .99 1.83 2.62 1.96 Gender 1 .01 1.49 1.42 .06 .04 3.40 1.86 1.23 Group x Gender 2 1.72 .47 .15 .31 .17 .54 .97 .03 Residual 94 / APPENDIX J BARTLETT'S TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCE Appendix J . B a r t l e t t ' s Test for Homogeneity of Variance Content Scales Soc Dep Fem Mor Rel Aut Psy Org Fam Hos Pho Hyp Hea F S t a t i s t i c .412 .597 1.682 .493 2.289 2.287 1.227 1.165 .465 .358 .726 .823 .456 188 APPENDIX K ANALYSES OF VARIANCE — VANCOUVER PROBLEM GOAL LIST Appendix K: Analyses of Variance -- Vancouver Problem Goal L i s t Source df. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Group 3 1.89 .30 .57 2.80 .63 .26 1.29 .24 .73 .90 .79 1.32 .98 2.34 1.15 Gender 2 1.20 3.17 1.31 .10 .48 1.06 2.36 .99 2.39 1.51 .43 .77 .14 .01 .13 Group x Gender 2 1.27 .80 .23 .82 1.70 1.15 1.63 3.96 1.18 1.44 .26 .94 .89 .00 1.16 Residual 85 

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.831.1-0054253/manifest

Comment

Related Items