UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Women's bonds and self-esteem Sigal, Marilee 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 S57.pdf [ 5.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054260.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054260-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054260-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054260-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054260-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054260-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054260-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054260-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054260.ris

Full Text

WOMEN'S BONDS AND SELF-ESTEEM by MARILEE SIGAL B.A., McGill University, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept this Thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1987 © Marilee Sigal, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada Department V6T 1Y3 Date Q&kfha* it. DE-6G/81) i i Abstract This study explores women's homosocial bonds and their impact on a woman's self-esteem. In addition, the relationships between liberated behaviour and homosocial bonds, and between liberated behaviour and self-esteem, are explored. The research examines societal devaluation of women in terms of i t s effect on a woman's sense of self. Five measurement instruments were used to test the various constructs measured in this study: Homosocial Bonds were measured by the Bonds Between Women Scale (Woolsey, 1986); social support by the Social Provisions Scale (Russel & Cutrona, 1984); sexist attitudes by the Liberated Behavior Questionnaire (Ghaffaradli-Doty & Carlson, 1979); mastery by the Spheres of Control Scale (Paulhus & Christie, 1981); and self-esteem by the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). One hundred and twelve unmarried, childless women between the ages of 18-26 made up the sample used in this study. A l l these women were students at a local city college and volunteered their time to complete the questionnaire packet after an announcement was made by the researcher. The f i r s t hypothesis, derived from Rawlings and Carter"s (1977) theory, that women who behave in a more liberated manner would have significantly higher scores on measures of homosocial bonds and social support, was supported. The second hypothesis, derived from Bernard's (1976) theory that women who behave in a more liberated manner would have significantly higher scores on the measures of self-esteem and mastery, was also supported. The third hypothesis, drawn from Bernard's (1976) theory that women with stronger homosocial bonds would have significantly higher scores on measures of self-esteem and mastery, was mostly unsupported. The implications of these findings for counselling and suggestions for further research are discussed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Acknowledgements v i i i CHAPTER I: Introduction 1 A. Overview 1 B. Homosociality 3 Friendships 3 C. Bonds Between Women 4 C. Minority Group Status 6 D. Self-esteem 8 E. Objectives of the Study 10 F. Definitions 11 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 13 A. Social Support Networks 13 B. Theories of Homosociality 17 Friendship 18 C. Differential Attitudes Toward Men and Women 22 D. Barriers Between Women 26 E. Minority Group Status 29 F. Self-esteem 37 CHAPTER III: Methodology 42 A. Population and Sample 42 B. Research Procedures 42 C. Hypotheses 44 D. Instrumentation 45 V The Spheres of Control Scale 45 The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 48 The Bonds Between Women Scale 50 The Social Provisions Scale 51 Liberated Behavior Questionnaire 54 D. Data Analysis 55 CHAPTER IV: Research Findings 58 A. Overview of Statistical Procedures 58 B. Description of Sample 59 C. Questionnaire Returns 60 D. Stat i s t i c a l Hypotheses 60 Hypothesis 1 60 Hypothesis 2 64 Hypothesis 3 66 CHAPTER V: Discussion 71 A. Statement of Results 71 Hypothesis 1 71 Hypothesis 2 73 Hypothesis 3 77 Theoretical Significance 80 Implications for Counselling 82 Limitations of the Study 83 Implications for Future Investigations 84 Summary 85 References 87 APPENDICES 98 v i Appendix A: Letter of Introduction 99 Appendix B ( i ) : Bonds Between Women Scale 101 Appendix B ( i i ) : BBWS—items used in the actual analysis of the data 109 Appendix C: Social Provisions Scale 114 Appendix D: Liberated Behavior Questionnaire 118 Appendix E: Spheres of Control Scales 122 Appendix F: Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale 126 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table I: Tabular presentation of the variables, tests, measures and theories 56 Table II: Hoyt Measures of Reliability 58 Table III: Hypothesis 1: Means, Standard Deviations, F values and Probabilities for Liberated Behaviour by Bond Strength and Social Support 62 Table IV: Hypothesis 2: Means, Standard Deviations, F values and Probabilities for liberated behaviour by self-esteem and mastery 65 Table V—Hypothesis 3: F ratios and Probabilities for bond strength by self-esteem and mastery 67 Table VI—Hypothesis 3: F ratios and Probabilities for social support by self-esteem and mastery 69 Table VII: Means for significant differences found in Hypothesis 3 70 Acknowledgements v i i i Many people made the completion of this study a r e a l i t y . F i r s t , I would l i k e to extend my deepest gratitude to my committee chairperson, Dr. Lorette Woolsey, for her guidance, and for sharing with me her incredible wealth of knowledge of research and of women's homosociality. I would also l i k e to express my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Sharon Kahn and Dr. Harold Ratzlaff, for their assistance and patience. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Michael McRae for his unending e f f o r t s in helping me to unravel my data and for encouraging me to do further research. F i n a l l y , my he a r t - f e l t thanks go to Rita Knodel who t r u l y proved how supportive women's friendships can be. This study i s dedicated to the memory of my grandfather, Meyer Kron, who believed that nothing was nobler than the pursuit of knowledge. 1 CHAPTER I: Introduction A. Overview This research examines the question "Do women who value other women (in the form of strong homosocial bonds) have higher self-esteem?" This will be explored in two ways. Firs t , the relational and attitudinal aspects of women's relationships w i l l be measured looking at the structure and quality of a woman's bonds with other women. Secondly, the woman's self-esteem and sense of control in the world w i l l be explored to see if there is a correlation between these constructs. Research focusing on women is becoming more popular as evidence suggests that women's development and l i f e experiences are significantly different than previous more androcentric models have suggested (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1976; Rawlings & Carter, 1977). Until recently, there has been a paucity of information about women. Although research exploring women's experiences has increased, there are s t i l l many gaps in our knowledge of women. One such area is how social support from other women influences a woman's self-esteem. The research on social support networks suggests that active networks serve to moderate the stressful effects of 2 daily living and provide the foundational structure for emotional growth and adaptation (Gottlieb, 1981; Hurd, Llamas & Pattison, 1979; Wiess, 1973). Sarason, Levine, Basham and Sarason (1983) state, "Positive relations with others foster self-reliance" (p. 128). Social support networks appear to be v i t a l to a person's sense of well-being (Carveth & Gottlieb, 1981; Mitchell, 1969), and seem to encourage improved mental health, self-esteem and l i f e satisfaction (Hirsch, 1978; Pattison et a l . , 1979; Sarason et a l . , 1983; Tolsdorf, 1976). As well, social support networks are said to buffer stressful l i f e events and major l i f e changes (Sarason et a l . , 1983). Fisher and Phillips (1982) found that the presence of a confidante provided c r i t i c a l emotional support and guidance and Davidson and Packard (1981) showed that friendship with other women has actual therapeutic value for women. On the other hand, people who lack such support systems are more vulnerable to loneliness, which may lead to boredom, feelings of emptiness, shyness and lowered self-esteem (Russell, Peplau & Ferguson, 1978; Weiss, 1973). In our society women tend to be more active in initiating and maintaining social ties than are men (Fisher & Phillips, 1982; Weiss, 1973). This is especially true of kin ties (Komarovsky, 1967). Yet, some literature on women's support systems has shown that women report greater loneliness than do 3 men (Weiss, 1978), suggesting that women's support relationships may not be providing them with the necessary intimacy and self-affirmation that they need. It appears that further exploration of women's bonds with other women and their style of relating to each other may be warranted. B. Homosociality Whether i t be from socialization, choice, or sexual stereotyping in the job market, most women find that the majority of their social relationships (except for mates and children) are with other women. The term "homosociality" has been used to describe the social, non-erotic bonds between people of the same sex. This is based on Lipman-Blumen's (1976) concept of "homosociality" as "seeking the enjoyment of and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (p.116). There is also a sense of a "common bond" or "special-tie" between people of the same sex as reported by Woolsey (in press), and of a "felt-connection" as reported by Davidson ( 1983) . Friendships Friendships are one aspect of homosociality. Evidence has been gathered showing significant differences in the ways that men and women view their relationships, as well as in the actual style of relating to members of their own sex (Bernard, 4 1976; Tiger, 1970). Women are reported to exhibit greater levels of intimacy and self-disclosure as compared to men (Fischer, 1981), and their same-sex relationships are affectively richer and more enduring than are men's same-sex relationships (Booth, 1972). Women stress the emotional sharing and the social elements of a friendship as being most important to them (Caldwell & Peplau, 1980). Men, on the other hand, appear to value camaraderie, as their same-sex relationships have been characterized as being more activity-oriented (Bell, 1981) and companionable (Gibbs, Auberbach & Fox, 1980) than are women's. C. Bonds Between Women While l i t t l e research has been done in the area of women's same-sex relationships, these bonds have always been an intrinsic part of female experience and history. Smith-Rosenberg's historical survey of nineteenth century homosocial bonds between women describes the v i t a l role that women played in providing emotional and instrumental support for each other. In recent history however, women's bonds have often been described as being superficial, unpredictable (Weiss, 1973), feeble and transitory (Gibbs, Auberbach & Fox, 1980). The current stereotypic view of women's friendships suggests that women are "catty", poor work mates, mistrusting 5 of each other and in competition for male at tent ion (Caplan, 1981 ) Bernard (1976, 1981) pos i t s that modern erosion in the importance of female homosociality i s due to increasing urbanization of fami l ies which has broken important kin and k i th t i e s for women, the devaluation of women's t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e , and the pervasive denigrat ion of women in our soc iety. With the i r shrinking c i r c l e of female contacts, women have become more re l i an t on men to meet the i r emotional needs. But, because men have been soc i a l i zed to be less emotionally expressive than women, they are unable to meet women's r e l a t i o n a l needs adequately. Bernard bel ieves that th i s " r e l a t i o n a l d e f i c i t " makes women more vulnerable to depression and to lowered sel f -esteem. It would appear then, that family and f r iendsh ip t i e s with other women may not only be des i rab le but in fact necessary for optimum mental hea l th. Some researchers have shown that there are d i f ferences in the s ty le and meaning a t t r ibuted to kin versus k i th re la t ionsh ips (Adams, 1968; Komarovsky, 1967), yet i t i s not known whether there are d i f ferences in self-esteem depending upon whether the sources of strong r e l a t i o n a l homosocial bonds are in a woman's kin or non-kin network. Pos i t i ve strong soc i a l re la t ionsh ips between women have been l inked with reduced s t ress , reduced lone l iness (Weiss, 6 1973), enhanced self-esteem (Hurd et a l . , 1979; Rawlings & Carter, 1977; Weiss, 1973), and reduced depression (Bernard, 1976; Pattison et a l , 1979). Researchers (Sarason et a l , 1983; Hirsch, 1978; Tolsdorf, 1976) have indicated that the fulfillment of relational needs is v i t a l for healthy emotional growth. Bernard maintains that only same-sex bonds can f u l f i l l these relational needs for other women yet her ideas have not been empirically tested. Hence, much more work needs to be done to understand the health-enhancing capabilities of women's homosocial relationships. C Minority Group Status Some writers (Hacker, 1951; Rawlings & Carter, 1974) have suggested that women's tendency to undervalue each other can be explained in terms of minority group a f f i l i a t i o n . Allport (1954) and others have theorized that minority groups develop ego defenses in order to cope with the subordination they experience living in a dominant society (Adams, 1978; Hacker, 1981; Lewin, 1941; Rawlings and Carter, 1977). Kurt Lewin (1941) writes that self-hatred is a frequent reaction of minority group members to their group a f f i l i a t i o n . This is shown in a person's tendency to denigrate other people in that group and to accept the dominant group's stereotyped conception of them. 7 Gordon Allport (1954) observed fourteen different types of ego defenses that minority groups often develop in order to cope with discriminatory attitudes in the society. Rawlings and Carter (1974) postulated similarities between those defense mechanisms named by Allport and those observed in women. They stated that one of the most commonly observed ego defenses is "denial of membership" in the disparaged group. This type of disparagement, denial and denigration of one's group may have a profound impact on a woman's self-worth because she internalizes the negative view-point of the dominant group. Another of Allport's (1954) ego-defences is the "strengthening of in-group ties" which Rawlings and Carter (1974) observe in "extropunitive" women, that i s , feminist women who externalize their aggression. Therefore, i t would be important to explore whether non-traditional or feminist women are more likely to have relational and attitudinal bonds that enhance their self-concepts, as Rawlings and Carter suggest. In discussing women as a minority group, Hacker (1951) made a distinction between those who identify themselves as part of an oppressed group and those who are not aware that they are being discriminated against. Hacker described women as having "minority group status", but lacking the awareness of that status. Because of this, women are uniquely different 8 from other minority groups. For instance, women may not build the in-group ties that are necessary in order to support each other. In fact, women tend to view other women as less interesting than men (Toews, 1973), as having low self-esteem and not being very resourceful (Mahoney & Heretick, 1979). In studies comparing the relative value of men and women in society, men, male accomplishments and traits were preferred (Broverman et a l . , 1970; Goldberg, 1968; McKee & Sherrifs, 1959). Isaacs (1981) states that there is a general societal belief of male superiority and female inferiority. This devaluation of women and women's achievements has lowered women's self-esteem, has made women less interesting to each other and has served to weaken the homosocial bonds that women have (Bernard, 1976; Lipman-Blumen, 1976). D. Self-esteem Self-esteem affects virtually everything that people think or do, and the way in which events are subsequently perceived by them (Sanford & Donovan, 1983). High self-esteem is manifested through a greater sense of confidence, poise, and trust that one's judgement is worthy and generally more positive self-appraisal. People with high self-esteem tend to be less introspective, more confident and forthright in their 9 manner and find i t easier to form friendships (Coopersmith, 1967). The socially desirable behaviours exhibited by those with high self-esteem tend to generate encouraging responses from others and to produce more positive behaviours from the individual. This type of reaction encourages higher self-esteem and in turn leads to more self-enhancing behaviours on the part of the individual (Adam, 1978; Rosenberg, 1967). Low self-esteem can often create a "negative" or a "victim's cycle." Those with lower self-esteem are less likely to act on the strength of their own beliefs, leading to mistrust of their decision-making a b i l i t i e s . In addition, people with lower self-esteem are often very self-conscious (Coopersmith, 1967). This may lead to intensive introspection which reduces the chances for positive social experiences and further limits the opportunities for the friendly and supportive relationships which help to bolster self-esteem. Adam (1978) supports this by saying that lowered self-esteem reduces the chances for self-supporting action and cohesion among group members. This sense of isolation may further reduce self-esteem. This is especially relevant for women, who may be lacking a sense of group solidarity (Hacker, 1951) and therefore are not experiencing the supportive and self-enhancing qualities 10 that a sense of group cohesion can provide. However, i t might be expected that with the rise of feminism and the current emphasis on women's solidarity that those women who do identify more strongly with women as a group may be found to experience higher levels of self-esteem and to gain strength and pride from their own membership (Bell, 1981; Chesler, 1973). According to Sanford and Donovan (1984), these issues may be especially relevant for women receiving psychotherapy, as low self-esteem is often at the root of many other problems that female clients present in therapy. One of these problems is lack of assertiveness. According to Butler (1976) lack of assertive behaviour is directly related to how much a woman conforms to society's idea of the traditional feminine woman. Butler suggests that a woman's sense of self and power in her world will increase as she breaks out of stereotypical behaviour patterns and begins to behave in a more assertive and liberated manner. Hence, these results will have implications for women in counselling. E. Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study are to answer the following research questions: 1. Are non-traditional women more likely to have strong 11 relational, attitudinal and homosocial bonds than are traditional women, as predicted by Rawlings and Carter's (1977) theory? 2. Are non-traditional women more likely to have higher self-esteem and sense of mastery than are traditional women as predicted by Bernard's (1976) theory? 3. Do those women who have stronger homosocial bonds have significantly higher self-esteem and a stronger sense of mastery than those who have weaker homosocial bonds, as predicted by Bernard's (1976) theory? F. Definitions Non-traditional woman: In this study non-traditional women were defined as those women who behaved in such a manner as to contravene our culture's traditional feminine stereotypes, i.e. women asking men out on dates, speaking out on women's issues, choosing not to dress in a "feminine" manner, consciously choosing a woman over a man in a professional capacity. Traditional women, then, are those women who show a low incidence of the above behaviours and have likely defined themselves in conformity with our culture's traditional feminine stereotypes. This construct is measured by the Liberated Behaviour Questionnaire which explores the "liberated" or 1 2 non-traditional behaviour that a woman has exhibited over the past year. Homosocial bonds: Homosocial bonds refer to the s o c i a l , non-erotic bonds that men have with men and that women have with women. Homosociality has been defined as "the di f f e r e n t ways that men and women relate to members of their own sex" (Bernard, 1976, p. 227), as "the s o c i a l t i e s or bonds that women have with other women and that men have with other men . . . [including] those with friends, r e l a t i v e s , neighbors and workmates" (Woolsey, in press, p. 4) and as i t i s most cl o s e l y used in t h i s study as "the seeking, enjoyment and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (Lipman-Blumen, 1976, p. 16). This construct w i l l be measured by two scales: The Bonds Between Women Scale (Woolsey, in press) which explores the attitudes of women towards women in general, i . e . their sense of preferring women over men and the degree to which they i d e n t i f y with and value other women. And the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona, 1982) which explores a woman's personal relationships with other women and the levels of support currently being provided. 13 CHAPTER I I : LITERATURE REVIEW The literature in this area can be classified into three main areas. The literature on social support networks and their relationship to self-esteem, the literature on bonds between women and the literature on self-esteem. A. Social Support Networks The research on social support networks suggests that active networks serve to moderate the stressful effects of day to day existence and provide the foundational structure for emotional growth and adaptation (Gottlieb, 1981; Hurd et a l . , 1979; Weiss, 1973). Hurd et a l . contend that a person's social support system is "...intimately linked to the health and well being of a person, both physically and psychologically", and that research linking intimacy with independence and self-esteem (Erikson, 1980) supports the premise that friendships may be the cornerstone to a person's development and subsequent positive mental health. Other studies have shown that people who have strong social support systems are more likely to have higher self-esteem, life-satisfaction and better mental health (Hurd et a l . , 1979; Tolsdorf, 1976). This was reiterated by Russell, Peplau and Ferguson (1978) who found that loneliness 14 correlated with low levels of satisfaction and with feelings of depression, anxiety, emptiness, restlessness and shyness. Social support helps buffer stressful l i f e events (Sarason et a l . , 1983), and enhances a person's sense of well-being (Weiss, 1973). People with high levels of social support tend to be more extroverted, optomistic and feel that they are more in control of their lives. As well, the extent to which one enjoys his/her social encounters and the level to which one values one's friends has a significant effect on self esteem (Hirsch, 1978) . Tolsdorf (1976) defines support as any action or behaviour that functions to assist the focal person in meeting his/her goals or in dealing with the demands of a particular situation. Bott (1971) defines a network as " a l l or some of the social units (individual or groups) with whom a particular individual or group is in contact" (p. 320). Sarason et a l . (1983) define social support as "the existence or availability of people on whom they can rely, people wRo let us know that they care about, value and love us" (p. 127). However, i t is not just the size of a social support network that is the key to alleviating loneliness and enhancing self esteem, but the actual quality of the bonds or nature of the links (Bott, 1971; Mitchell, 1969). Fisher and Phillips (1982) suggest that the a v a i l i b i l i t y of a confidante provides the c r i t i c a l 15 emotional support and guidance that encourages self-reliance and improves mental health. Many factors affect the type and composition of a person's social support network. The total social, economic, educational, and occupational system must be taken into account (Bott, 1971). As well a person's living environment (rural vs. urban), marital status, parental status, gender and age must be considered. Hence, people's support systems vary greatly in structure and size. However, they are likely to include immediate as well as extended family, friends, co-workers, neighbours and spouses. According to Hirsch (1978) self-esteem is significantly related to having networks that are multi-dimensional rather than dense. That i s , friendships that meet many needs in different unrelated areas of one's l i f e . Hurd (1979) contends that normal healthy individuals have networks of between twenty to forty regular people who occupy many different positions in their lives. People high in social support tend to be more skilled in meeting their own psychological needs and in turn can build a broader and more supportive network. Whereas people in distress tend to have much smaller networks comprised of people who are less functional themselves. This leads to smaller and less supportive networks for those who are already more isolated, vulnerable to c r i s i s and are in the greatest need (Mechanic & Greeley, 1976). 16 Women seem especially vulnerable to the effects of poor social support. The literature of women's support systems has shown that women report greater loneliness than do men (Weiss, 1978) and that mothers with small children suffer the most from social isolation and its attendant lowered self-worth (Russell et a l . , 1978). Women low in social support appear to be significantly less happy, more introverted than women high in social support. This distinction is less marked for men than for women(Sarason, 1983) suggesting that the effects of social support are particularily significant to a woman's mental health. Bernard (1976) would support this premise saying that, "the female way of being social — involving bonds, a f f i l i a t i o n , attachment—renders women, because of their learned as well as actual helplessness, more vulnerable to the stresses of deprivation of such ties and hence to depression" (p. 228). Men, who have been socialized to be less emotionally expressive and who have lower a f f i l i a t i v e needs themselves cannot adequately meet the higher a f f i l i a t i v e needs of women. Bernard believes that women who solely rely on men to meet these needs are at risk for what she calls "relational d e f i c i t " . However, Bernard stresses, women would appear to have the necessary s k i l l s for f i l l i n g these relational gaps for each other. 17 B. Theories of Homosociality Homosociality has been defined by Woolsey (in press) as "the social ties or bonds that women have with other women and that men have with other men . . . [including] those with friends, relatives, neighbors and workmates" (p. 4); by Bernard (1976) as "the different ways that men and women relate to members of their own sex" (p. 227) and by Lipman-Blumen (1976) as "the seeking, enjoyment and/or preference for the company of the same sex" (p. 16). This last definition most closely f i t s the concept of homosociality as used in this study. The recent interest in homosociality was spurred by the anthropological research conducted by Tiger (1970). He postulated that men had a genetic and superior "bonding instinct" leading them to form all-male power groups from which women were excluded. Lipman-Blumen, drawing from Tiger's work suggested that men and women do have a tendency to form non-erotic same-sex bonds, but rejected the concept that male bonding was innate. Instead, she maintains that i t is the dominant and more powerful role that men play in society which makes men more interesting to other men and women less interesting to both men and women. 18 Friendship Historically, i t was assumed that friendship was a male perogative as exemplified through literature, film and research (Wright, 1982). Female friendships, on the other hand, were often regarded as a peripheral part of the social system and therefore received very l i t t l e attention (Blau, 1973). Smith-Rosenberg gives evidence that at least in the nineteenth century, women's relationships were a primary part of the social structure, but there is an amazing paucity of information about women's experience in general (Mednick & Oakley, 1981; Stanley & Wise, 1983). Wright (1982) defines friendship as "a relationship characterized by voluntary interdependence in which the individuals respond to one another personalistically or a persons qua persons" (p. 5). He goes on to say that "friendship involves the partner's mutual willingness to commit free time to one another, as well as their positive reactions to one another as unique and important individuals" (p. 5) There are four main benefits that Wright believes friendship provides: 1) ego support values which help build self-esteem and a sense of competence; 2) self-affirmation, which encourages recognition of positive attributes; 3) stimulation of ideas and values; and 4) instrumental help in terms of time or resources. Bell (1981) described friendship 19 as a "voluntary, close and enduring social relationship" (p. 403). Friendships tend to involve large parts of a person's l i f e and provide a great deal of reciprocal pleasure. He suggests that the most important quality of friendship is the feeling of being reaffirmed and reassured by a significant other. Davis and Todd (1982) found that the best friendships were rated as significantly more stable than love relationships. There is much evidence to suggest that women's same-sex relationships differ qualitatively from male same-sex relationships (Caldwell & Peplau, 1980; Tiger, 1970; Wright, 1982). The literature has consistently shown that women show more emotional sharing in their relationships than do men, and that they tend to be the initiators and maintainers of social ties (Bell, 1981; Caldwell & Peplau, 1980; Weiss, 1973). Women were found to have deeper, more intimate and revealing friendships than did men, who were more oriented to a specific task or activity than to self-disclosure (Hacker, 1981; Wright, 1982). As well, women's friendships with other women have been described as therapeutic (Davidson & Packard, 1981), self-validating (Fisher & Narus, 1981), richer in sponteneity and confidences (Booth, 1972), and as a means to grow and develop as a person (Richey & Richey, 1980). It would appear that women are uniquely skilled in meeting interpersonal needs as they are more able to establish 20 close relationships with other women than men are with men (Weiss, 1973). Seiden and Bart (1975) suggested that for women the intimacy of friendship meant a closeness in sharing ideas, worries, joys, dreams and fears, as well as providing the opportunity for expressing feelings and vulnerabilities. In their pilot study of twenty women active in the women's movement the overwhelming majority reported that they had always had warm and significant relationships with other women. It was not that they f i r s t found these friendships in movement activities, but rather that the movement supported them in conceptualizing the value of friendships. Previously, female friendships had often had a "pastime" quality, being regarded as outside the arena of major action, something you do until the "relationship" comes. Friendships with women had a quality of "play," while friendships with men had a quality of being an "investment" in terms of marriage prospects, dating experience which might enhance marriage prospects, and the like (Seiden & Bart, 1975, p.193). There is l i t t l e information on how traditional women view their intimate relationships with other women, although Bell (1981), found that "non-conventional" women had much stronger and more positive homosocial relationships than did "conventional women". Historically, women have always provided each other with emotional and instrumental support. Smith-Rosenberg (1975) describes how the female social world of the nineteenth century revolved around the rituals of courtship, marriage, sickness, sorrow and "bound women together in physical and 21 emotional intimacy" (p. 24). These intimate relationships that women had with each other were fostered by a society that encouraged s t r i c t differences in s o c i a l l y acceptable male and female behaviour. Women needed other women to meet their s o c i a l and emotional needs and through their relationships they "legitimized s i s t e r , mother-daughter and female friendship bonds" (p. 19). According to Smith-Rosenberg, homosocial bonds were encouraged from an early age and th i s promoted identit y formation and healthy s e l f esteem. While many women today s t i l l place a high value on intimate relationships with other women, women are expected to make their primary and intimate attachment to a man (Faderman 1981). Bernard (1976) describes the decline in strong homosocial bonds between women in the twentieth century as a result of a number of factors. F i r s t , because of the changing job market and increased automation both in the home and in the work-place "women's work" began to lose i t s value in the general society. Secondly, close kin and kith t i e s were broken as society became mobile and urbanized. Women, who had, u n t i l these changes, taken for granted the a v a i l a b i l i t y of other women in their extended families and so c i a l c i r c l e s to share their work and the i r l i v e s with, found themselves isol a t e d in small nuclear families, doing work that was undervalued and relying primarily on their husbands to provide 22 them with the emotional intimacy that they needed. Bernard focused her theory of socialization on the different ways in which men and women have been taught to interact socially with members of their own sex. She states that the outcome of female bonding is enhanced mastery and self esteem and in fact, i t has been shown that decreased contact between women has had a detrimental effect on women's mental health and self-concepts (Bernard, 1976; Miller, 1976; Safilios-Rothschild, 1981). Knodel (1986) reports that "by recognizing the importance of a relationship with another woman, a woman, in effect, validates herself and her own experience" (p. 2). Sanford and Donovan (1984) continue this thought by stating "Women affirm each other by virtue of their similarities and empower each other by sharing their different views of the world and ways of coping" (p. 110). C. Differential Attitudes Toward Men and Women The devaluation of women and women's accomplishments is pervasive in our society. J.B. Miller says "It seems that no matter what women have done, i t has not been considered the valuable activity" (1976, p. 75). As far back as 1940 researchers were recognizing a large discrepency in the ways that men and women are valued. Mednick (1979) stated that "...women and their traits and tasks are devalued and have 23 l i t t l e p r e s t i g e , and that t h i s i s t r u e everywhere in the w o r l d " (p. 89) Touhey (1974) expanded t h i s by s ay ing that p r o f e s s i o n s l o s e p r e s t i g e as women en te r them and that men l o s e p e r s o n a l p r e s t i g e as they en te r "women's" p r o f e s s i o n s such as n u r s i n g or c h i l d - c a r e . McKee and S h e r i f f s (1957) found tha t t h e r e was a s y s temat i c p r e f e r e n c e f o r males by both men and women i n almost every s i t u a t i o n . T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l e v a l u a t i o n of men and women was i l l u s t r a t e d i n the 1970 landmark study by Broverman, Broverman, C l a r k s o n , Rosenkrantz and V o g e l . The s u b j e c t s , who were mental h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s , were reques ted to choose from a l i s t of a d j e c t i v e s d e s c r i b i n g a h e a l t h y , mature, competent a) man, b) woman, and c) a d u l t (sex u n s p e c i f i e d ) . The a d j e c t i v e s used to d e s c r i b e a h e a l t h y man and a h e a l t h y a d u l t were s i m i l a r . Such words as independent , adventurous , o b j e c t i v e and a g g re s s i ve were chosen. However, the a d j e c t i v e s chosen to d e s c r i b e a h e a l t h y women were c l o s e r to those d e s c r i b i n g someone m e n t a l l y i l l , i n c l u d i n g words l i k e dependent, e m o t i o n a l , e a s i l y i n f l u e n c e d and s u b j e c t i v e . T h i s double s tandard has put women i n the p o s i t i o n of hav ing to choose between be ing a h e a l t h y a d u l t or be ing a h e a l t h y woman where the two are mutua l l y e x c l u s i v e . To quote Broverman et a l . (1970) Acceptance of an adjustment n o t i o n of h e a l t h , then p l a c e s women in a c o n f l i c t u a l p o s i t i o n of hav ing to dec i de whether to e x h i b i t those p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e f o r men and 24 adults and thus have their "femininity" questioned, that is be deviant in terms of being a woman, or to behave in the prescribed feminine manner, accept second class adult status, and possibly live a l i e to boot (p. 6). This type of double standard in the way men and women are viewed is not restricted to mental health professionals but is reflected in a l l areas of our society. In exploring mens' and womens' same and opposite sex relationships McKee and Sherrifs (1957) found that there was a systematic preference for men by both men and women in a host of different areas. Male approval is seen as more flattering by children and adults (Caplan, 1981). Men are frequently the chosen companion for work or socializing, male opinions are more sought after and respected and men's decisions are regarded more highly during an emergency (Toews, 1973). In fact, the only two areas in which women are preferred by both sexes is as a confidante in an intimate relationship or as a nurturer. Not only are men more highly valued, but both men and women undervalue the quality and accomplishments of women when compared to the identical work done by men. In a study done by Goldberg (1968), he sought to explore the predjudice against women by other women. Two groups of college women were utilized. One group was given an article supposedly written by John T. McKay, the other an article by Joan T. McKay. The women were instructed to rate the articles for value, persuasiveness, profundity, writing style, professional 25 competence, professional status and a b i l i t y to sway a reader. No mention of the author's sex was made. The results showed that the women consistently rated the a r t i c l e written by John T. McKay as more valuable, and the author more competent. Goldberg concluded by saying, Since the a r t i c l e s supposedly written by men were exactly the same as those supposedly written by women, the perception that the men's a r t i c l e s were superior was obviously a d i s t o r t i o n . For reasons of their own, the female subjects were sensitive to the sex of the author, and t h i s apparently irrelevant information biased their judgments. Both the d i s t o r t i o n and the s e n s i t i v i t y that precedes i t are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of prejudice. Women—at least these young college women—are prejudiced against female professionals and, regardless of the actual accomplishments of these professionals, w i l l firmly refuse to recognize them as the equals of their male colleagues (p.30). In a much larger r e p l i c a study conducted in 1983, Paludi and Bauer found that again women favoured the a r t i c l e s that were i d e n t i f i e d as having been written by the John T. McKays. In a similar type of study, Lipton and Hershaft (1984) showed that paintings thought to have been done by men were rated more favourably than were those thought to be painted by women. Pheterson, Kiesler and Goldberg (1971) reported similar findings for paintings which had not won a p r i z e . However, when a painting had previously been evaluated as prize winning, the work of a woman was considered equal to that of a man. Isaacs (1981) suggested that women's opinions of other women have gradually improved over the last f i f t e e n years as a result of a general increase in awareness of 26 women's issues spurred by the feminist movement. In fact, in 1981, Ward showed that the differential effets in judging men's and women's accomplishments was diminishing. And Rose (1985) found that both men and women preferred same-sex friendships, finding cross-sex friendships less helpful and loyal. As well, the women in her study found that same-sex friendships provided greater acceptance and intimacy but less companionship than did cross-sex friendships. Toder's (1980) study compared the reactions of women in a mixed male and female group with women in an a l l female group with regard to an arti c l e written by a woman. Women in the a l l female group gave the female author a higher rating than did the women in the mixed group who were observed to be more influenced by the men. This may be a result of the women undervaluing their own impressions in favour of the men's or the positive, validating and self-enhancing effect that women alone may have had on each other. D. Barriers Between Women Researchers "viewed the general cultural devaluation of women as a direct barrier to women's relationships with each other, because i t has fostered competition for men, has led women to undervalue other women and has encouraged in-group host i l i t y " (Woolsey, in press). Lipman-Blumen (1976) states 27 that since women are not the primary con t ro l l e r s of our soc ie ty ' s resources they have become r e l a t i v e l y uninterest ing to each other. She bel ieves that th i s has lead to the current s i tua t ion in which women undervalue the self-enhancement and va l ida t ion that homosocial re la t ionsh ips can provide. Paula Caplan (1981) explains that bar r ie r s between women are a resu l t of our c u l t u r e ' s devaluation of women and the r e s t r i c t i o n s that have been placed both over t ly and covert ly on women's choices in regards to l i f e - s t y l e , ro les and a c t i v i t i e s . She focuses mainly on the mother-daughter bond stat ing that the mother-daughter re l a t i onsh ip lays the foundations for how a woman fee l s about and re lates to other women in general . She c i t e s f i ve main causes of bar r ie r s between women. F i r s t l y , she says woman's ro le as nurturer has lead women to compete with each other for the r ight man to nurture. Secondly, the devaluation of women has resulted in women undervaluing the i r daughters as compared to sons. "Thus," states Caplan, " in the re la t ionsh ip that lays the "foundation for the i r re la t ionsh ips with other females they f ee l inadequately cherished" (p. 8). Th i rd l y , since women are general ly the primary caretakers of a l l young ch i l d ren , g i r l s see that the i r primary source of f ru s t ra t i on i s other women. Fourth ly, Caplan says women may not bond with other women because of fear of homosexuality. And l a s t l y , i t i s the 28 s i m i l a r i t y between women that may drive them furthest apart. Caplan explains that both the genital-physical s i m i l a r i t y and the fact that society classes women in the same category are relevant here. Daughters may fee l that they are l i v i n g with a "human mirror" (p. 9) who can read their forbidden thoughts. Consequently, they may force a distance between themselves and their mothers in order to allow themselves to grow into separate individuals. Dworkin (1974) expands on t h i s . She explains that since mothers t r a d i t i o n a l l y teach their daughters the proper s o c i a l rules for being a "successful woman," and since many of these rules involve pain (for beauty's sake) and a self-denying approach to l i f e , t h i s breeds anger and tension between the mother and daughter. Dworkin believes that t h i s h o s t i l i t y i s generalized to other relationships with women. Caplan continues, saying that the r e s t r i c t i o n s in the numbers and types of roles that women (especially mothers) are allowed to play may have a serious impact on her growing daughter. If a daughter perceives her mother as being unhappy in a t r a d i t i o n a l role, she may feel angry about the limi t a t i o n s being placed on her own choices and resent being a woman hers e l f . She closes by saying "the poignant thing about many sources of barriers between women i s that they also hold the potenial for strong support and warmth that women can develop and share with each other" (p. 9). 29 E. Minority Group Status The effect of negative and limiting cultural beliefs about women upon their own self-percept ion cannot be underestimated, as they influence a woman's beliefs, actions, and relationships. Studies have shown that women tend to see other women as having low self esteem and few resources (Mahoney & Heretick, 1979). In addition women are assumed to be superficial, unpredictable and in competition for men's attention (Wright, 1982). Women have been characterized as "victims of sexist oppression, devoid of power in their personal lives as well in the social structure, subjects of prejudice and descrimination" (Rawlings & Carter, 1977, p. 57). These qualities of women's experience have lead some researchers to conceptualize women's position in society as being that of a minority group (Hacker, 1957; Lee & Clifton, 1981; Rawlings & Carter, 1977). According to Kammeny (1971), there are four pre-requisites for qualifying as a minority group: 1) the group must have some unique identifying characteristics by which to identify i t (in this case, being a member of the female sex). 2) On the basis of these particular characteristics, groups are set apart for discriminatory treatment as objects of prejudice (told to stay in their places—at home, taking care of children). 3) Members are 30 depersonalized and judged as part of a group (you know, "just like a woman"), and 4) they develop an in-group sense of identification and cohesiveness in oppression (which the women's movement is attempting to achieve). Wirth (1945) defines a minority group as "a group of people who, because of their physical appearance of cultural characteristics, are singled out from others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination " (p. 347). Hacker (1957) claims that women are perceived to suffer from the same disadvantages of other minority groups, but that women lack the sense of in-group identification and awareness of their position in society, so, she has applied the term "minority group status" to them. Lee and Clifton (1981) base their theory on Hacker's (1957) claim that women are unaware of their minority status. They contend that women attribute their lack of success to personal blame rather than to the effects of being part of a minority group. "This," they say, "presents d i f f i c u l t i e s for women's self-concepts, achievement motivation and mental health" (p. 149). On the other hand, those women who do develop awareness of their minority group status can achieve a strong sense of unity and support, as is seen in the rise of women's consciousness-raising groups and women's 31 organizations. Miller (1970) says that women are beginning to recognize the need for a f f i l i a t i o n with other women and that this "great desire for a f f i l i a t i o n is both a fundamental strength and essential for social advance" (p. 88). She concludes that women must focus on interdependence with other women for optimum mental health. One of the f i r s t to write about the effects of discrimination and of minority group status on self-concept was Gordon Allport (1954). He believed that societal attitudes about one's behaviour had a profound effect on a person's self image. He found that victims of prejudice defended themselves by exhibiting certain distinct ego defences. Allport listed fourteen defences that are commonly seen among most victims. As well, he made a distinction between two types of victims-extropunitive and intropunitive. Extropunitive people blame external causes for their problems. This tends to increase in-group ties and self-esteem, whereas intropunitive people blame themselves as the agents of change resulting in a decrease in in-group ties and lowered self-esteem. Rawlings and Carter (1977) have adapted Allport's (1954) concept of intropunitive and extropunitive styles of coping with the world. They describe intropunitive as anger turned inward which leads to in-group ho s t i l i t y and self-hate, and extropunitive as anger turned outward, leading to strengthened 32 in-group t i e s . The chart reproduced below i l l u s t r a t e s how a l l of A l l p o r t ' s defence mechanisms can be ascribed to women. Rawlings and Carter make d i s c t i n c t i o n s between three d i f f e r e n t groups of women—intropunitive t r a d i t i o n a l women, extropunitive t r a d i t i o n a l women and extropunitive feminist women—and the types of defence mechanisms each i s most l i k e l y to use. 33 INTRO-PUNITIVE INDIVIDUALS - Tr a d i t i o n a l Women Denial of Membership in Own Group - deriving pleasure from "thinking l i k e a man" and preferring the company of men. Withdrawal and Passivity - indecision; misdirected anger to persons of less power; d i f f i c u l t y in expressing anger, and avoidance of c o n f l i c t . Clowning - being coy and cute; and humorous self-depreciation. EXTROPUNITIVE INDIVIDUALS - Tr a d i t i o n a l Women Slyness and Cunning - manipulation of men. Neuroticism - narcissism. Competitiveness - put men down, either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y ("castrating female"); and deriving s a t i s f a c t i o n from competing with men. EXTROPUNITIVE INDIVIDUALS - Feminist women Obsessive Concern and Suspicion - hypersensitivity to sexist remarks. Strengthening In-Group Ties - consciousness-raising groups; support groups; campus and community women's centers; f i n a n c i a l and professional and self-help c o l l e c t i v e s ; and cooperative p o l i t i c a l action. Prejudice against Other Groups - anger towards men. 34 Rawlings and Carter's (1977) ideas suggest that many of women's behaviour patterns have been developed in order to cope with their minority status. Although perhaps adaptive under the circumstances, such behaviours may have left women especially vulnerable to mental illness, low self-esteem and feelings of powerlessness. The f i r s t defence relevant to the present study is "denial of membership in own group." It is obvious that women belong to a separate and distinct group from men and therefore cannot truly deny that they belong with women as a group. Yet, i t is possible (and common) for women to deny female membership in a symbolic sense, by valuing and emulating male trai t s , preferring male company, downplaying "feminine" behaviour and being pleased when they are told they "think like a man." Kennedy (1976) calls this type of reaction "horizontal hos t i l i t y " and says: It's women's sense of their own lack of worth that makes sibling rivalry and horizontal h o s t i l i t y so easy. If you have a sense of your own worthlessness, then somebudy else from your class or race or religion is clearly not to be looked up to. This is one of the bases for the pathology of women saying, "I don't get along with women. I get along with men; they're superior, so if I get along with them, I'm superior, but I've lef t a l l my class behind." (p. 87) Seiden and Bart (1975) show that "one's values, preferences, l i f e - s t y l e , problems and world-view" (p. 191) are closely tied to how much we value those who surround us. 35 Sheriff (1934) demonstrated that our perceptions and beliefs are profoundly influenced by our social structure. This influence is especially pronounced i f a higher status is attributed to those others. Because women live in a society in which men are more dominant and valued, they are affected by the pervasive male oriented belief system and i t is not surprising, then, that women often prefer to align themselves with the more powerful group while denying their own group membership. Kitay (1940) agrees, saying, "females have to some extent adopted a prevailing unfavorable male (high prestige group) opinion of themselves" (p. 340). And Miller (1976) states that women have tended to ally with the "winner," that is men or male achievements, and against the "losers"—other women. This, she says, leads to a fraudulent sense of self and the fear that one will be found out. She goes on to say that "no person really experiences such effacement and denial of her or his own experience without simultaneously reacting to i t . One is hurt, or even worse, one feels the threat of annihilation of one's whole being" (p. 57). Groucho Marx's famous quote "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member" (Bartlet, 1980, p. 834) , is apt for the second ego defence to be considered here, "self-hatred." Self-hatred is a frequent reaction of a minority group to other members of their group a f f i l i a t i o n . 36 "This i s shown in a person's tendency to denigrate others of the group and to accept the dominant groups' stereotyped conception of them" (Lewin, 1941). Women are es p e c i a l l y vulnerable to thi s form of self-denigration as they begin to view themselves and other women through a male perspective. "This i s a mysterious phenomenon," say Rawlings and Carter (1977) "because women are hopelessly barred from t o t a l assimilation and yet, they mentally i d e n t i f y with the outlook and prejudices of the male culture toward women" (p. 18). This universally devalued opinion of women, when turned inward, leads to self-hate, poor self-esteem and in-group fighti n g (Rawlings & Carter, 1977). This in-group f i g h t i n g or denigration of the bonds that women have with other women serves to perpetuate lowered self-esteem and the myth that women cannot provide the much needed support for each other. Not a l l the defence mechanisms have negative mental health consequences. For instance the defence of "strengthening in-group t i e s " produces stronger i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with other women, which may lead to enhancement of women's image on both a global and personal l e v e l . Women, such as feminists, who value their relationships with other women may be more l i k e l y to benefit from the advantages of these strong in-group t i e s . But, as has been previously asserted, many t r a d i t i o n a l women seem more l i k e l y to undervalue or deny the bonds that are so c r u c i a l to their self-esteem and mental 37 health and to focus on forming relationships with members of the outside or dominant group. F. Self-esteem Self-esteem has been associated with a person's over-all level of well-being and is an important aspect of a person's self-concept. Self-esteem is believing in one's worth as a human being, i t is the confidence and satisfaction that one has in oneself. Rosenberg (1979) defines self-esteem as "the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object" (p. 7). Sanford and Donovan (1984) differentiate between self-esteem and self-concept: The self-concept or self-image is the set of beliefs and images we a l l have and hold to be true or ourselves. By contrast, our level of self-esteem (or self-respect, self-love, or self-worth) is the measure of how much we like and approve of our self concept. Or, as we've heard i t put, "self-esteem is the reputation you have with yourself." (p. 7) Self-esteem needs to be viewed as a dynamic process throughout the l i f e span. Generally, self-esteem seems to increase with age (Schlossberg, Troll & Leibowitz, 1978). There is an evolving sense of self which grows from coping strategies accumulated from l i f e experiences. Coopersmith (1967) found that people with high levels of self-esteem manifested greater confidence, were more 38 independent, were more popular, found i t easier to form friendships, trusted their own opinions and were able to express themselves more openly. Coopersmith says, . . . favorable self-appraisals apparently have the effect of liberating the individual from the demands of the social groups and from ordinary ways of responding to stimuli and life-situations. By providing the assurance that one's judgement is worthy and one's a b i l i t i e s sufficient to the task, favorable self-attitudes lay the foundation for stable anxiety-free performance (p. 63). On the other hand, low self-esteem in individuals is associated with depression (Battle, 1978), devaluation of the self (Rosenberg, 1981), and high levels of psychological discomfort (Sarason, 1983). In addition, lowered self-esteem reduces the chances for self-supporting action and cohesion (Adam, 1978); i t reinforces dependency and i t makes people fearful of evoking anger and less able to cope with threats to their adequacy. Coopersmith (1967) states that people with low self-esteem are more internally focussed and are therefore less able to view problems objectively. This becomes compulsive self-examination which lowers self-esteem further and decreases the chances for social interaction and the possibilities of friendly and supportive relationships. The strength of a social support network appears to be significantly related to the level of a person's self-esteem, and helps individuals cope with major l i f e changes (Hirsch, 1978). Sarason (1983) demonstrated that self-esteem was positively related to a person's social support and that 39 relationships with significant others fostered self-reliance. He suggested that the number of active social supports was a likely moderator of stressful l i f e events. The actual structure of the social support system appears to be important as well. Hirsch (1978) found that self-esteem was significantly related to having friendships that were more multi-dimensional, that i s , friendships which covered a broader range of unrelated friends. Social support networks which were smaller and had more people who knew each other, were associated with lower levels of self-esteem. The extent to which people value their friends and the group they belong to also has an impact on self-esteem (Hirsch, 1978). This is especially valid for women who, as shown earlier, may tend to devalue other women, both as a group and on an individual basis. Hirsch (1978) says the extent to which a woman values her relationships with other women has a profound effect on her self-esteem. Research also has shown that women with low levels of social support appear to be significantly less happy and more introverted than women with high levels of social support (Sarason et a l . , 1983). Sanford and Donovan (1984) state: For women especially, the impact of relationships with chosen intimates is great. Raised to be nurturers and believing in the importance of nurturing, most women place high value on interpersonal relationships, and our sense of self-worth is tied up with whether we are successes or failures in those relationships. (p. 106) 40 According to Gordon and Hall (1974), the best predictor of a woman's level of satisfaction and happiness is a woman's self-image. The more potent, supportive and unemotional a woman i s , the happier she feels. Therefore, i f a woman's socialization experiences encourage her to be dependent, emotional and suspicious of other women, then her sense of well-being may be threatened. According to Miller (1976), our culture objectifies women and thus erodes self-image. She says "To be considered an object can lead to the deep, inner sense that there must be something wrong and bad about oneself" (p. 58). With the rise of feminism, this devaluation and objectification of women is beginning to be challenged. Rawlings and Carter (1977) believe that feminism provides women with the opportunity to join together and to see themselves as belonging to a unified group with common interests and goals. This "strengthening of in-group ties" fosters improved homosocial bonds and would appear to bolster a woman's self-esteem. Because people are so deeply influenced by the attitudes and expectations of others (Rosenberg, 1979), women who associate with other women who value traits and qualities that women possess, and who share a sense of pride in women's accomplishments, would be expected to value themselves more than those women who do not experience this type of support 41 and encouragement. As well, i t might be expected that these non-traditional women would behave in a manner that is consistent with higher self-esteem, namely, the actions and the expression of beliefs that are reflective of a woman's value system even though they may not be socially desirable (Whitely, 1983). By exploring the differences between traditional and non-traditional women in terms of their social support and levels of self-esteem, this study w i l l examine the relationship between these two constructs. 42 CHAPTER II I : Methodology In t h i s s e c t i o n , the sample, r e s e a r c h p rocedure s , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n des i gn and a n a l y s i s of the data are p r e s e n t e d . A. P o p u l a t i o n and Sample The l i t e r a t u r e has shown tha t s e l f - e s t e e m i s a dynamic c o n s t r u c t a f f e c t e d by age and deve lopmenta l i s sue s (Coopersmi th , 1967). I t was t h e r e f o r e d e c i d e d tha t the p o p u l a t i o n of women to be u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study be l i m i t e d to women between the ages of 18-and 25. T h i s was to c o n t r o l fo r the f a c t tha t s e l f - e s t e e m tends to i n c rea se w i th age. As w e l l , on ly c h i l d - l e s s , unmarr ied women were chosen as the va l ue that women p l a c e on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s appears to change ( F i s h e r , 1981) when women go through such t r a n s i t i o n s as marr iage and c h i l d - b i r t h . B. Research Procedures P r o f e s s o r s who were t e a c h i n g cour ses in p sycho logy , s o c i o l o g y and E n g l i s h d u r i n g the 1986 f a l l s e s s i o n at Langara C o l l e g e were c o n t a c t e d and asked i f s tudent v o l u n t e e r s c o u l d be r e c r u i t e d from t h e i r c l a s s e s . 43 When permission was obtained, a brief announcement was made by the investigator requesting the participation of unmarried, childless women in a study about women's friendships. Students were told that their participation was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without academic penalty. They were also told that participation in the study involved a series of five questionnaires which would take approximately 45-60 minutes of their time to complete. Interested students were given an envelope containing the questionnaires with instructions for their completion, and told that the completion of their questionnaires implied their consent to participate in the study. Subjects were then asked to return the envelopes with the completed questionnaires to class one week later where they were picked up by the investigator. Subject anonymity was ensured. Students were given the name and telephone number of the investigator i f they wished to discuss the study further. To try and control for respondent set and fatigue due to the length of each questionnaire packet, the BBWS was placed f i r s t and the other four questionnaires were placed in random order. 44 C. Hypotheses H y p o t h e s i s 1; I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l women (as shown by s c o r e s on the L i b e r a t e d B e h a v i o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) would o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean s c o r e s on The Bonds Between Women S c a l e and The S o c i a l P r o v i s i o n s S c a l e (same sex i n s t r u c t i o n s ) than would t r a d i t i o n a l women (as p r e d i c t e d by Ra w l i n g s and C a r t e r ' s (1977) t h e o r y ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2: I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l women (as shown by s c o r e s on the L i b e r a t e d B e h a v i o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) would o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean s c o r e s on t h e Rosenberg S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e and the Spheres of C o n t r o l S c a l e than would t r a d i t i o n a l women (as p r e d i c t e d by Bernard's (1976) t h e o r y ) . H y p o t h e s i s 3; I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t women who had s t r o n g e r h o m o s o c i a l bonds (as shown by s c o r e s on The Bonds Between Women S c a l e and the S o c i a l P r o v i s i o n s S c a l e ) would o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean s c o r e s on the Rosenberg S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e and on The Spheres of C o n t r o l S c a l e ( p e r s o n a l e f f i c a c y , i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l and s o c i o p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l ) than would women w i t h weaker h o m o s o c i a l bonds (as p r e d i c t e d by Ber n a r d ' s (1976) t h e o r y ) . 45 D. Instrumentation The f i v e instruments used in t h i s study are a l l instruments which have been designed for use on the general population. Therefore, the assumption of normal d i s t r i b u t i o n i s applicable to the sample used in t h i s study. The Spheres of Control Scale Development of the Scale. The Spheres of Control Scale (Paulhus & C h r i s t i e , 1981) provides a t h e o r e t i c a l extension of existing conceptions of the locus of control construct developed by Rotter (1966). The model developed by Paulhus et a l . involves " p a r t i t i o n i n g the individual's l i f e space in terms of primary behavioural spheres. Thus, the individual's confrontation with the world i s decomposed into three d i s t i n c t theaters" (p. 1253). The model i s based on an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t perspective and reasons that perceived control varies as a function of the d i f f e r e n t expectancies of control the individual exerts within the three domains of interaction with the world. The three domains of control are conceptualized as "personal e f f i c a c y , " which i s defined as control within the nonsocial world in situations of personal achievement; "interpersonal control," which the authors define as interaction with others in dyads and group situations, for 46 example, "defending his or her interests at meetings, attempting to develop social relationships, or maintaining harmony in the family" (p. 1254). The third facet of the model is defined as "sociopolitical control," which is conceptualized as perceived control in situations where the individual's needs conflict with those of the p o l i t i c a l and social system. The conceptual model underlying the scale views these spheres of control as independent dispositions. The Spheres of Control (SOC) subscales were developed and refined over a period of two years. Information concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y , validity and factor structure of the scales was obtained in a series of five psychometric studies. Each subscale consists of 10 items, with "personal efficacy" made up of questions 1-10, "interpersonal control" from questions 11-20 and "socio-political control" from questions 21-30. The number of positively and negatively keyed items are balanced for each scale. Subjects respond to the items on a 7-point Likert scale. Scoring. Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "agree" to "disagree." The scoring for items with negative loadings was reversed before summing each of the three separate scales. Reliability. The authors report that alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the subscales range between .75 and .80. Test-retest correlations at four weeks are above .9 and at six months are 47 above .70. Validity. Paulhus, Molin and Schuchts (1979) investigated the control profiles of varsity football players, varsity tennis players and non-athletes and stated, "The study provides further support for the construct validity of the SOC Scales in that the researchers were able to predict the control pattern unique to each population on the basis of general character descriptions made by raters familiar with such athletes." (p. 1258). Paulhus and Christie (1983) sought to establish the relationship between the various dimensions of the SOC with specific behavioural outcomes. Fi r s t , i t was hypothesized that high social p o l i t i c a l scores were predictive of voting behaviour; that high personal efficacy scores would predict preference for a bargaining game and that high interpersonal control would predict assertiveness in a telephone interview study. Overall, the predicted patterns were confirmed thus supporting the concurrent and convergent validity of the scales. Paulhus and Christie (1983) conclude that "on the whole the research reported here reflects favourably on the r e l i a b i l i t y , validity and u t i l i t y of the SOC Scales" (p. 1262). 48 The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Development of the Scale. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item Guttman Scale designed to measure the "totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object" (Rosenberg, 1969, p.7). Subjects are instructed to respond to the items on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly di sagree. Scoring. The items on this questionnaire were grouped into six categories or items yielding a maximum score of six for each item. Item one was contrived from the combined responses to questions 3,7 and 9; item two from questions 4 and 5; item three from question 1; item four from question 8; item five from question 10; and item six from questions 2 and 6. Rosenberg (1969) noted that the ten questions can be added together to derive a total score. This method of scoring was used in the current investigation. Relia b i l i t y. Internal r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of .92 were reported by Rosenberg (1969). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients over a two week period of .85 were reported by Silber and Tippett (1965). Validity. Rosenberg (1969) tested the construct validity of the scale by looking at the relationship between self-esteem, depressive affect, anxiety and peer group 49 reputation. He found a clear relationship between self-esteem and depressive affect "only 4% of those with the highest self-esteem scores compared with 80% of those with the lowest scores were rated as 'highly depressed' r = .30" (p. 292). As well, he found that on measures of anxiety, 69% of those reporting low self-esteem reported high levels of anxiety. And in a study of high school students (n = 272) the students who obtained the highest sociometric ratings from their peers on the basis of their perceived leadership a b i l i t i e s reported the highest self-esteem. To test the convergent validity of the scale, Silber and Tippett (1965) assessed a sample of college students on two tra i t s , global self-esteem and stability of self-concept by means of four different methods. These were: the Rosenberg Scale, the Kelley Repertory Test, the Health self-image Questionnaire and a psychiatric rating. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale correlated .67 with the Kelley Repertory Test; .83 with the Health Self-image Questionnaire and .56 with the psychiatric rating. Other evidence of convergent validity was reported by Crandall (1973). A correlation of .60 was found between the Rosenberg Scale and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967). 50 The Bonds Between Women Scale Development of the Scale. The Bonds Between Women Scale (BBWS) (Woolsey, 1986) was designed to measure women's attitudes, beliefs, feelings and behaviours toward their own sex as a total group, rather than toward specific female friends or family members. It has been chosen for use in this study because there is no other existing instrument which measures these variables. As bonds between women is a central variable in this study i t is fe l t that the use of this scale is necessary for this research. This scale was only in the i n i t i a l stages of development when the subjects for this study completed i t . Since then an item and factor analysis (based on 1100 men and women from a community sample and a student sample) have been completed on the scale, leading to four concrete factors: a) same gender preference, b) cross-gender preference, c) identification with women, d) valuing relationships with women. (See Appendix B ( i i ) ) . While the original questionnaire had 192 items written from interview data with 35 male and 35 female subjects (Woolsey & McBain, in press), only the 75 items that made up the final four factors were utilized in the data analysis for this study. Scoring. Each item of the BBWS is given a score from 1 (definitely not true) to 6 (definitely true). Scores were 51 calculated for each factor separately. The Social Provisions Scale Development of the Scale. The Social Provisions Scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1984) was designed to assess the usefulness of Weiss' (1974) typology of relational needs f u l f i l l e d by social relationships. The scale contains six sub-scales made up of 24 items, with four items keyed on each provision. Subjects were asked to respond to each question on a four-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. (In this study the SPS was given under same-sex instructions.) Each of the six scales was designed to assess one of the following relational needs; (1) attachment; this provision is met by relationships in which the person receives a sense of safety and security, most often provided by a spouse or romantic partner, but sometimes provided by same-sex friends; (2) social integration; this is most often met by friendships or a network or relationships in which individuals share interests or concerns; (3) opportunity for nurturance; derived from a relationship in which the person feels responsible for the well-being of another, often this is a child; (4) reassurance of worth; which is often provided by co-workers who acknowledge the s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s of the person; (5) reliable alliance; is derived from relationships 52 in which the person can count on assistance under any circumstance, often this is met by close family members and (6) guidance, which most often comes from teachers, mentors, or parental figures who provide advice and assistance. It was fe l t that the Social Provisions Scale was useful as a second measure of the strength of bonds between women. Rather than measuring these bonds in general as does The Bonds Between Women Scale, The Social Provisions Scale measures the attitudes, feelings and bonds between specific women (friends or family). Scoring. A score for each provision was obtained separately. High scores indicated that the individual was receiving that provision. Negatively keyed scores were reversed before scoring. The maximum score that could be obtained was 16 and the minimum 4. Relia b i l i t y. Cutrona, Russell and Rose (1984) conducted a study of stress and social support among the elderly (n = 100). The test was administered twice over a four to six month period. Internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the individual social provisions were a l l above .70 and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .36 to .66. Russell & Cutrona (1984) state that "given that social support may not necessarily be constant over time, these low test-retest correlations do not necessarily imply that the scale is unreliable" (p. 6). 53 A second study conducted by Russell, Altmaier and Van Velzen (1984) on the relationship between social support and teacher burn-out (n = 300) found r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of .60. Validity. Scores on The Social Provisions Scale were found to correlate with measures of social networks (number of relationships and frequency of contact) as well as measures of satisfaction in different types of social relationships among the elderly. Moreover, scores on the social support measure developed by House (1981) were also correlated with The Social Provisions Scale. The pattern of correlations was consistent with those predicted by Weiss. For example, spousal support was correlated with attachment, guidance and opportunity for nurturance. Supervisor support was associated with reassurance of worth and reliable alliance. Finally, Cutrona et a l . (1984) examined the a b i l i t y of The Social Provisions Scale to predict the physical and mental health among the two samples. Social provision scores were significantly related to scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale, with attachment as the most predictive indice of emotional loneliness among the elderly (-.647, p<.00l). Social Provision Scores were also found to be predictive of loneliness (-.371, p<.00l); depression (-.193, p<.0l) and health status (.166, p<.05) among the teacher sample. 54 In summary, "the Social Provisions Scale appears to be a reliable and valid measure of the different relational provisions described by Robert Weiss. Validity for the measure has been indicated by significant relationships with other measures of physical and mental health, including loneliness" (Russell et a l . , 1974, p. 8). Liberated Behavior Questionnaire Development of the Scale. The Liberated Behaviour Questionnaire (Ghaffaradli-Doty & Carlson, 1979) was developed to identify non-stereotypic behaviour that women have exhibited in the past year. The total questionnaire is comprised of three sections, one for a l l women, a second for single women and a third for married women. Only those items which applied to this sample of unmarried, childless women were used. Of these final 39 items, questions were divided between those that referred to specific behaviours that are considered to be liberated, i.e. "I have l i t a man's cigarette"; items that involved publicly speaking out for women's rights, e.g. "I have initiated a discussion on women's rights"; and items that involved non-public behaviours, e.g. "I have turned the T.V. off because i t annoyed me for its sexist view of women." 55 Scoring. For each of the above items, the subject indicated how often she had engaged in that behaviour in the past year in terms of a 5-point scale: 1) never; 2) once, or a very few times; 3) a few times; 4) often; and 5) very often. The responses from the LBQ were separated into a low group (0-25): "traditional women" and a high group (26-high): "non-traditional women." This score (26) represented the mid-point in the total range of scores. Reliability and Validity. No r e l i a b i l i t y and validity values are available for this scale. However, in their study, Ghaffaradli-Doty and Carlson (1979) found that a woman's behaviour (as measured by the LBQ) related positively to measures of self-esteem (r = .67, p<.0l) and in addition those women who held the more liberated views of women's roles and position in society were also more likely to behave in a liberated manner (r = .62, p<.0l). The r e l i a b i l i t y of this measure will not be altered by the elimination of items referring „to married women as the women in this sample would not have responded to that set of questions. D. Data Analysis The s t a t i s t i c a l package LERTAP was used to obtain the HOYT estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for responses on the five questionnaires. The Statistical Package for the Social 56 Table It Tabular presentation of the variables, tests, measures and theories Hypothesis Variables Measure Test Theory 1 . Sex-role attitudes Same-sex bonds Social Support LBQ BBWS SPS ANOVA Rawlings & Carter 2. Sex-role LBQ attitudes Self-esteem RSS ANOVA Bernard Mastery SOC 3. Strength of BBWS bonds Social SPS Support Self-esteem RSS ANOVA Bernard Mastery SOC Key: LBQ - Liberated Behavior Questionnaire (Ghaffaradli-Doty & Carlson, 1979) BBWS - Bonds Between Women Scale (Woolsey, 1986) SPS - Social Provisions Scale (Russel & Cutrona, 1984) SOC - Spheres of Control Scale (Paulhus & Christie, 1981) RSS - Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. A one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to gather information about the differences of the mean scores (Table I). Stati s t i c a l significance was set at the .05 level. It was 57 assumed that the results met the following c r i t e r i a for the use of an F-test: random selection, normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , and homogeneity of variance. Duncan's multiple-comparisons test was conducted on the results for Hypothesis 3. In th i s hypothesis, the women's scores on the BBWS and the SPS were separated into low, medium and high categories. 58 CHAPTER IV: Research Findings A. Overview of S t a t i s t i c a l P r o c e d u r e s The c o m p u t e r i z e d s t a t i s t i c a l package, LERTAP, was used t o o b t a i n an e s t i m a t e of r e l i a b i l i t y f o r each of the f i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u t i l i z e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The HOYT e s t i m a t e s of r e l i a b i l i t y were as f o l l o w s : ( T able I I ) Ta b l e I I : Hoyt Measures of R e l i a b i l i t y Measures S u b s c a l e s HOYT measure of r e l i a b i l i t y Spheres of C o n t r o l S c a l e S o c i a l P r o v i s i o n s S c a l e Rosenberg S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e L i b e r a t e d B e h a v i o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Bonds Between Women S c a l e t o t a l 1 2 3 t o t a l t o t a l t o t a l 2 3 4 .80 .52 .79 .81 .87 .58 .93 .83 59 B. Description of Sample The women who participated in this study (n = 112) were a l l between the ages of 18 and 26. A l l were single and had no children. A l l of these women were enrolled in courses in English, psychology or sociology at Langara College and answered these questionnaires voluntarily on their own time. The population was defined so as to control for change in self-esteem which is affected by age, and change in the value that women place on the friendships and beliefs about other women which change with marital status and the advent of children. The women were asked about their a f f i l i a t i o n s with organizations. Approximately 50% of the women reported belonging to at least one organization. Of those who answered 90% belonged to mixed sex groups and 10% belonged to groups that included only women. Approximately 50% of the women attended mixed-sex activities at least once a month and 30% more than once per week. Only about 25% of the women attended all-female gatherings more than once a month. 60 C. Questionnaire Returns Two hundred and eighty questionnaire packets were di s t r i b u t e d to women who vo l u n t a r i l y offered to complete the questionnaires. Of these 114 were returned, and as two of these were incomplete, 112 completed questionnaire packets were used. This i s a return rate of 40% which was somewhat higher than the 30% expected for such a lengthy response. The two incomplete questionnaires were both returned by women who were lesbians. They reported that although the study interested them, they were unable to answer many of the questions on the LBQ and the BBWS as they had a heterosexual bias. The significance of this w i l l be discussed in Chapter V. D. S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that non-traditional women (as shown by high scores on the Liberated Behavior Questionnaire) would obtain s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean scores on three of the Bonds Between Women Scales: (1) same-gender preference, 3) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with women as a group, 4) valuing women) and the Social Provisions Scale (same sex instructions) and lower 61 mean scores on one Bonds Between Women Scale: 2) cross-gender preference, than would traditional women as was predicted from Rawlings and Carter's (1977) theory. Sex-role Attitudes by Bond Strength (LBQ by BBWS) According to Table III, non-traditional, feminist women were found to have significantly higher mean scores on measures of a) same-gender preference (p=.0l2), b) identification with women as a group (p=.000) and c) valuing women (p=.000), as was predicted from Rawlings and Carter. In addition, non-traditional women were found to score significantly lower on measures of cross-gender preference (p=.002), again supporting the hypothesis. This suggests that non-traditional women place a higher value on having women in their lives as friends and co-workers, for guidance, and in emergencies. These women are also more likely to feel a sense of identification with other women's accomplishments and to feel that their relationships with women are special and important to them. It is important to note that the responses for the LBQ were separated into a low group (0-25): "traditional women" and a high group (26-high) "non-traditional women." Approximately 74% (n=83) of the women f a l l into the category of a traditional woman, while 26% (n=29) f e l l into that of 62 Table III: Hypothesis 1; Means, Standard Deviations, F values  and Probabilities for Liberated Behaviour by Bond Strength and Social Support M e a s u r e L B Q (traditional vs. non-traditional women) BBWS: Means S.D. F Prob. Same-gender pref. lo: 94.5 17.8 6.51 .012* hi: 106.1 26.9 Cross-gender pref. 80.4 20.3 1 0.67 .002* 66.1 16. 1 Identification with 30.6 4.9 28.78 .000* women 36.3 4.4 Valuing women 47.2 6.7 21 .07 .000* 53.6 5.1 SPS: Attachment lo: 13.8 1 .9 7.1 5 .009* hi: 14.9 1 .6 Social Integration 13.6 1 .8 .828 .365 13.9 1 .7 Opportunity for 13.2 1 .9 1 6.02 .000* Nurturance 14.8 1 .5 Reassurance of Worth 14.6 1 .8 5.13 .026* 15.4 1 . 1 Reliable Alliance 14.5 1 .8 7.27 .008* 15.5 .95 Guidance 11.1 1 .9 13.04 .001* 12.7 2.4 63 non-traditional. Sex-role Attitudes by Social Support (LBQ by SPS) Non-traditional women scored significantly higher on a l l but one of the social provisions scales. This indicates that these women are more likely to have the following relational needs met by other women than are traditional women; (1) attachment; (p=.0097); (3) opportunity for nurturance; (p=.000); (4) reassurance of worth; (p=.026); (5) reliable alliance; (p=.008); and (6) guidance; (p=.00l). It must be stressed that this scale was administered under same-sex instructions and therefore cross-sex relationships are not reflected in these scores. Only in the area of social integration were non-traditional women found not to score significantly different from traditional women. Non-traditional women had a mean score of 13.9 and traditional women, 13.6, which is midway between a total possible score of 12 for "agree" and 16 for "strongly agree." As both groups scored highly on receiving this provision i t would seem that a l l women in this sample had a significant number of their social needs met by other women. Because of the high mean scores for both groups i t appears that a l l the women in this sample are receiving high 64 levels of responses to their social needs from other women. Non-traditional women are only more likely to do so. Hypothesis 2 It was hypothesized that non-traditional women (as shown by high scores on the Liberated Behavior Questionnaire) would obtain significantly higher mean scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Spheres of Control Scales (1) personal-efficacy, 2) interpersonal control, 3) socio-political control) than would traditional women, as was predicted from Bernard's (1967) theory (Table IV). Sex-role Attitudes by Self-esteem (LBQ by RSS) Women who reported behaving in a more liberated or less traditional manner were found to have significantly higher mean scores on the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale than were women who behaved in a more traditional manner (p=.01). Although non-traditional women had higher mean self-esteem scores, traditional women also scored f a i r l y high on self-esteem. In fact, approximately 76% of the women scored above the mean on this measure, suggesting that on average, the women in this sample a l l have relatively high self-esteem. 65 Table IV: Hypothesis 2: Means, Standard Deviations, F values  and Probabilities for liberated behaviour by self-esteem and mastery Measure LBQ (traditional vs. non-traditional women) Means S.D. F Prob. RSS: lo: hi : 30.3 33.3 5.6 4.2 6.85 .010* SOC: personal efficacy 49.9 50.9 6.1 6.0 .564 .454 interpersonal control 46.6 54. 1 8.3 6.1 19.64 .000* sociopolitical control 39.8 47.7 7.4 11.9 16.92 .000* Sex-role Attitudes by Mastery (LBQ by SOC) Non-traditional women were found to have higher levels of interpersonal control (p=.000) as measured by the Spheres of Control Scales. As Paulhus (1981) explains, interpersonal control is a reflection of how "the individual interacts with others in dyads or group situations, for example, defending his or her interests at meetings, attempting to develop social relationships, or maintaining harmony in the family" (p. 1255). Non-traditional women tended to be more successful 66 i n accomplishing the above t a s k s . On the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l s c a l e , n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l women r e p o r t e d that they had more c o n t r o l over s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s and were more l i k e l y to take d i r e c t a c t i o n and to b e l i e v e that they c o u l d e f f e c t change than were t r a d i t i o n a l women (p=.000) . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the women on the pers o n a l e f f i c a c y s c a l e , which i s designed to explore a person's sense of c o n t r o l i n the n o n - s o c i a l environment of pe r s o n a l achievement ( i . e . running a marathon, s o l v i n g a r i d d l e ) (p=.454) . Hypothesis 3 I t was hypothesized that women who have stronger homosocial bonds (as shown by high scores on The Bonds Between Women Scale and the S o c i a l P r o v i s i o n s Scale) would o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e and the Spheres of C o n t r o l s c a l e s : (a) pers o n a l e f f i c a c y , b) i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l , c) s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l as was p r e d i c t e d from Bernard's theory. S t r e n g t h of Bonds by Self-esteem and Mastery (BBWS by RSS) With one ex c e p t i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between women who re p o r t e d higher l e v e l s of same-gender 67 Tab la v. F RATIOS AND PROBABILITIES FOR BOND STRENGTH BY SELF-ESTEEM AND MASTERY Measure B B W S (hi/low) Same Gender Preference Cross Gender Preference I d e n t i f i c a t i o n with women Valuing women BaaaanasBDiMBBmi ma F Prob. • • • • . ^ • • • • • • • n i t . F Prob. F Prob. F Prob. ^•••••rw»wi i inwi ' ; RSS: Self-Esteem .342 .711 .308 .735 3.42 .037 i .162 .689 Spheres of Control Personal Efficacy .212 .809. 1.79 .171 2.37 .096 .922 .339 Interpersonal Control 1.74 ..181 .842 .434 .290 .749 .219 .641 S o c i o p o l i t i c a l Control 2.64 .077 2.37 .099 1.58 .210 .437 .510 *signi£icant differences at p<.05 1. See Means; t a b l e IX 68 preference, identification with women and valuing women and those women who reported /ower levels on these three bonds scales. There were also no significant differences between those women who reported lower levels of cross-gender preference and those reporting higher scores on this scale (Tables V, VII). Those women who received high scores on the "identification with women" scale and those who received low scores on the same scale were found to have significantly higher mean scores (X=27.65 and 28.45 respectively) on the measure of self-esteem than did those women who scored in the mid-ranges (X=26.58) on identification with women (p=.037). Social Support by Self-esteem and Mastery (SPS by RSS and SOC) No significant differences were found between the mean scores of women who scored more highly on measures of attachment, opportunity for nurturance, reassurance of worth or guidance in terms of their self-esteem or sense of mastery. However, significant differences were found between the women on "opportunity for nurturance"; on measures of personal efficacy (p=.004) and interpersonal control (p=.0O0). In addition, significant differences were found on "reliable alliance," on the same two measures: personal efficacy (p=.003) and interpersonal control (p=.003) (Tables VI & VII). l a b i a VI : ? RATIOS AND P3C3A2ILITIZS FOR SOCIAL SUPPORT 3Y SZ1?-2ST2ZM AND MASTZRY Measure: S o c i a l P r o v i s i s za Sea l a Attach=er.t Social Integratl .cn Crccrt Nurrur - . i t y for Reassurance of forth Reliable Alliance Guidar.: F "• Prob . F ?= F P rob . F ,5rob. F - .Prob. F J r a b . R S S .487 .616 1.00 370 1.09 .341 .312 .733 1.04 .356 .095 .759 Scharas of Cont ro l Personal Ef f i cacy I .100 .905 .477 622 5.71 . .004 I 2.22 .114 6.16 .003 * 5 . 1.04 .309 • Intarperscr-a" Ccntroi 3.09 .049 I 1..04 .335 9-. 29 .002 \m 2.09 .129. S...Q1 .-003 a . 6. 1'.57 .213 Socio-pol i t i ca l .234 • .791 .363 696 .049 .952 1.76 .177 2.53 .080 1.10 .296 S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e rences at p<.05 * 2 . - 6 . see means: t ab le I X . T a b l e V I I . MEANS FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES FOUND IN HYPOTHESIS 3 Scales Group Means 1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h women l o 28.45 - i by S e l f - e s t e e m : m e d 2 6 > 5 8 J h i 27.65 II 2. Attachment by I n t e r p e r s o n a l l o 4.50 C o n t r o 1 med 4,96 h i 5.48 3 # O p p o r t u n i t y f o r N u r t u r a n c e l o 3.83 — i — by P e r s o n a l E f f i c a c y m e d 5 < A 1 J * h i 5.66 4. O p p o r t u n i t y f o r N u r t u r a n c e l o 4.33 bv I n t e r p e r s o n a l C o n t r o l , / no " . •s? 5. R e l i a b l e A l l i a n c e l o 3.00 by P e r s o n a l E f f i c a c y m e d 5 > Q 4 h i 5.64 J * -6. R e l i a b l e A l l i a n c e l o 2.50 by I n t e r p e r s o n a l C o n t r o l m e ( j 5.12 —' h i 5.38 * s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t p<.05 71 CHAPTER V: Discussion A.' Statement of Results Hypothesis 1 These findings provide clear support for Rawlings and Carter's (1977) theory that extropunitive or feminist women are l i k e l i e r to have strong in-group t i e s . The non-traditional women in thi s study were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to prefer women to men, to i d e n t i f y more strongly with women and to place a higher value on women than were the t r a d i t i o n a l women. In addition, they were l i k e l i e r to have more of their s o c i a l provisions met by other women than were the t r a d i t i o n a l women. It i s suggested that women who behave in a more lib e r a t e d or assertive manner are better able to meet their own needs, and therefore are less dependent on others to f u l f i l l these needs. This i s consistent with M i l l e r ' s (1986) ideas of interdependence. She suggests that as women begin to act more a s s e r t i v e l y and independently, the i r relationships with other women improve. It i s interesting to note that although the women in thi s sample were born and raised at the height of the feminist movement, the majority seem to have been r e l a t i v e l y untouched, at least in terms of their behaviours, by the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l 72 furor that surrounded them. Scores on the LBQ show that a f u l l 74% of the women in this sample f e l l into the "low" category on this scale. This means that, on average, these women engaged in the "liberated" activities in question only "once or a very few times" over the past year. Therefore, only 26% of the women were considered to be "high" on liberated behaviour. That i s , engaging in "liberated" act i v i t i e s on an average of "a few times or often" over the past year. It may be suggested that some of the women who received low scores on the LBQ actually may be supportive of liberated behaviour in theory, but might not risk behaving much differently from those around them. One might expect that this particular population of young and unmarried women would be the least supportive of each other and the most competitive for male attention (Sanford & Donovan, 1984), but in fact almost a l l the women in this sample placed a great deal of value on their same-sex relationships. It seems possible then that while the traditional women may have internalized beliefs about women's inferiority which have weakened their preference for women, they are s t i l l able to experience relatively high levels of seeking and enjoyment of women's company. As evidenced by the results of studies exploring the differential evaluation of men and women (Goldberg, 1968; Kiesler & Goldberg, 1971; Lipton & Hershaft, 1984; McKee & 73 Sherriffs, 1957; Rose, 1985; Toews, 1973), the systematic devaluation of women by other women seems to be waning. The high means scores on the BBWS (Woolsey, 1986) and the SPS (Russell & Cutrona, 1974) might be added to this l i s t of results indicating that positive regard for women by other women is increasing. Hypothesis 2 Bernard's (1976) theory that non-traditional women would have higher self-esteem and a higher sense of mastery was supported on three out of the four possible variables. The level of liberated behaviours was not found to have an impact on a woman's sense of personal efficacy. However, the relatively high mean scores received by traditional and non-traditional women on this scale suggest that both groups of women have a fa i r l y strong sense of their own personal efficacy. Perhaps the traditional women are more similar to the non-traditional women on this s"cale because i t explores the area of personal achievement, and success in this personal realm may not necessarily require liberated or assertive behaviours. Women who behaved in a more liberated manner, however, were significantly more likely to have higher self-esteem and a stronger sense of interpersonal and socio-political control. 74 This might be explained in that many of these more liberated behaviours cross into areas that have been under masculine domain, i . e . asking someone out on a date, i n i t i a t i n g sexual a c t i v i t y , dating someone with less education or earning potential than you have. Other behaviours, such as speaking out on women's rights, consciously using non-sexist language, taking courses in the areas of women's studies, indicate an awareness of women's position in society and a willingness to take action to r e c t i f y i n e q u a l i t i e s . Because women have been s o c i a l i z e d to be passive and non-argumentative, women who choose to behave in a non-prescribed female fashion are taking a r i s k . As Sanford and Donovan (1984) said (in response to the Broverman and Broverman, 1970, study on the q u a l i t i e s that describe a healthy man or woman) "Either you l i m i t your concept of yourself to eleven passive attributes and be a healthy woman, or betray your woman-hood by going beyond these attributes and run the risk of being branded unfeminine and maladjusted" (p. 14). It i s not surprising, then, that women who do behave in a more liberated manner report higher self-esteem. F i r s t l y , a woman would l i k e l y have to feel f a i r l y sure of herself and not be too concerned with others' impressions of her in order to ris k behaving in a s o c i a l l y less acceptable manner. She would have to feel strong enough to withstand the so c i a l pressure from friends, family and society at large who 75 encourage her to return to a "normal" state. Yet once a woman has t r i e d these "liberated" behaviours and withstood the so c i a l pressure, her sense of control and mastery in her personal, interpersonal and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l spheres grows. Taking an active, rather than a passive stance on personal or global issues creates a sense of being in control of one's l i f e . This encourages more active and creative approaches to problem solving and further boosts self-esteem. It would seem that women who choose to l i v e by a more t r a d i t i o n a l set of behaviours may experience a certain perceived lack of control over th e i r l i f e experiences. As Sanford and Donovan (1984) say, "Some women have well-defined self-concepts yet suffer low self-esteem because th e i r sense of who they are is greatly constricted. We see th i s problem p a r t i c u l a r l y among women who have defined themselves in conformity with our culture's t r a d i t i o n a l feminine stereotypes" (pp. 12-13). By taking a more passive role in the personal, interpersonal and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l areas of their l i v e s , these women are, in e f f e c t , perpetuating a cycle of low self-esteem. That i s , by avoiding asserting themselves, these women are l i m i t i n g themselves to those behaviours which discourage a stronger sense of se l f and subsequently are missing out on opportunities to experience self-enhancing behaviours which bolster self-esteem. These findings are also supported by Whitely (1983), who found that masculine (agentic 76 or assertive) behaviour was significantly correlated with self-esteem for both men and women. The corollary of this is also true, that women who exhibit a higher incidence of liberated behaviour may have i n i t i a l l y possessed a higher degree of self-esteem. In this case, women who already feel more positively about themselves may be more likely to take risks in terms of their behaviour. They may be less bound by other people's opinions and more motivated by their own internal judgement. This again may lead to the beneficent cycle of a positive self-image encouraging more assertive behaviour which in turn would raise a women's self-esteem and sense of mastery. A third possibility is that there may not be a direct relationship between self-esteem and liberated behaviour at a l l , but that there is an underlying third variable that is having an effect on these two constructs. Since a l l the women in this sample were young (18-26), single, childless and students one might disregard these variables. However, such things as quality of family relationships, scholastic aptitude, relationships with men, and socio-economic status may serve to affect a woman's degree of liberated behaviour and her self-esteem at the same time. 77 Hypothesis 3 There was only minimal support for Bernard's (1976) theory that women with stronger homosocial bonds have a stronger sense of self. One explanation for this refers to our culture's general devaluation of women and women's traits (McKee & Sheriffs, 1957; Mednick, 1979; Miller, 1976; Touhey, 1974). This suggests that while women may have strong homosocial bonds they may also be downplaying the importance of these bonds. Sanford and Donovan (1984) support this line of thought: Many women we have spoken to have worked hard to live up to our culture's expectations of them. Yet in the process many of these women have learned to devalue the very traits they have aspired to, and consequently have come to look down upon themselves, painting even their positive attributes in a negative light. (p. 14) Hence, even with a supportive social network i t is possible to downplay the importance of the needs being met by devaluing the people meeting those particular needs. So while women may actually prefer other women they may not give much credit to the support these women give them. This may be due to the fact that people tend to take women's nurturant behaviour for granted and therefore praise from a woman has l i t t l e effect, whereas the unexpected or less frequent praise that a man might provide would have a more significant effect on how a woman perceives herself. 78 One interesting finding showed that women who scored either high or low on " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with women" were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to have higher self-esteem than those scoring in the mid-ranges. This apparently contradictory finding may be a r e f l e c t i o n of a cu r v i l i n e a r relationship, suggesting that i t may not be the positive feelings that one has about group membership that enhance self-esteem but rather that having strong feelings about anything may enhance one's self-image. On the other hand, the women who scored on the extremes of thi s scale may already have possessed higher self-esteem allowing them to make a more fo r c e f u l judgement. It i s also possible that two d i f f e r e n t things are occurring here; one, that high self-esteem in the strongly i d e n t i f i e d women i s due to positive feelings about group membership and two, that high self-esteem in the poorly i d e n t i f i e d women i s due to disassociation with women as a group and a sense of having done better. As well, i t does not seem surprising that no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found for strength of homosocial bonds and " s o c i o p o l i t i c a l control" as homosocial bonding refers to r e l a t i o n a l behaviour and not p o l i t i c a l behaviour. One would expect a relationship, then, between strong homosocial bonds and "interpersonal c o n t r o l . " This was p a r t i a l l y supported for the scales of "attachment," "opportunity for nurturance" and " r e l i a b l e a l l i a n c e . " Women who received high scores for 79 "opportunity for nurturance" and "reliable alliance" also scored significantly higher on the measure of "personal efficacy" than did women with low scores. It is interesting to note that these provisions involve feeling responsible for someone else's well-being or being able to count on someone to provide assistance at any time. Based on the hypothesis that a woman's self-worth is strongly tied to her abi l i t y to nurture (Sanford & Donovan, 1984) i t is not so surprising that women with high scores on these two provisions had significantly higher scores on these measures. It might be suggested that Weiss' (1973) other social provisions are less important to a woman's sense of self. In general, however, there is not much support for hypothesis 3. This is contrary to other research which has shown that self-esteem is positively related to social support (Sarason, 1983), to valuing friends (Hirsch, 1978), and to the group one belongs to (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). One explanation for this might be that in trying to control for such variables as age, marital and parenting status, and by using women from only one college, a sample which is too homogeneous, may have been created. This is suggested by the uniformly high mean scores on both the BBWS and the SPS. Therefore, these data have provided information about women who had moderately strong to strong homosocial bonds but has not provided information about those with weak bonds. As well, i t is 80 important to note that in this study only same-sex bonds were explored whereas in previous studies on social support and self-esteem both same-sex and cross-sex relationships were studied (Hirsch, 1978; Sarason, 1983). This may have compounded the problem of homogeneity. In summary, a woman's self-esteem seems to be less a function of how much she values and is bonded to the group that she belongs to than of how liberated she is in terms of her sex-role. In fact sex-role attitude, as defined by the degree of liberated behaviour, appears to be the focal point, as i t is significantly related to self-esteem, mastery, the level to which a woman's social needs are being met by other women and the strength of her homosocial bonds. Theoretical Significance This study w i l l add to the small, but growing body of literature in the area of women's bonds. These findings are important because they challenge the belief that women, in general, prefer cross-sex over same-sex friendships. In fact, many women in this study overwhelmingly reported a very strong a f f i n i t y to women both on a personal level, by having and enjoying relationships with other women, and on a global level, by reporting positive attitudes towards women. This is evidenced by the mean scores a l l falling in a positive 81 direction, even for the groups of women (e.g. traditional women) who evidence less strong bonds with other women. There were very significant differences, however, between traditional and non-traditional women on such measures as self-esteem, mastery, social support and strength of bonds. These findings lend further support to Rawlings and Carter's (1977) theory that feminist women would have stronger in-group ties than would traditional women. As well, they are very consistent with Miller's (1976) ideas of interdependence. This says that as women become more autonomous and begin acting more congruently with their own belief system, their relationships with other women wil l get stronger. The findings uphold Bernard's (1976) theory that women who behave in a more potent manner will have higher self-esteem. This was evidenced by the large, significant differences found between traditional and non-traditional women on the measures of self-esteem and mastery. Gordon and Hall's (1974) belief that a woman's self-esteem is related to how potent she feels is also validated by these findings. However, Bernard's (1976) theory that women can only get their emotional needs adequately met by other women was only partially supported. This suggests that her theory may not be as straight-forward an interaction as Bernard proposes. 82 Implications for Counselling As the results of thi s study have shown, women who exhibit more liberated behaviours have stronger bonds with other women as well as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher levels of self-esteem. Therefore a woman's behaviour has profound impact on her sense of s e l f . With t h i s knowledge, therapists can approach their c l i e n t s from three directions. The f i r s t would be to encourage c l i e n t s to break out of ste r e o t y p i c a l l y feminine molds and to begin to learn and practice more potent, assertive and liberated behaviours. This would i d e a l l y lead to increased self-esteem and stronger homosocial bonds. Secondly, a therapist might begin by validating the positi v e effects of a woman's relationships and encourage the c l i e n t to strengthen same-sex t i e s leading to increased occurrance of liberated behaviours. F i n a l l y , by using other therapeutic techniques, a c l i e n t ' s self-esteem may be raised enough so that she i s more l i k e l y to take the risk of behaving in a non-traditional manner and to see the potential that same-sex bonds have for meeting her needs. As the three constructs of homosocial bonds, self-esteem and liberated behaviour are a l l inter-related, the c l i e n t ' s current needs and strengths would have to be assessed in order to determine at which place intervention would be most appropriate. 83 Limitations of the Study The generalizability of the results is limited to the population of women who, as in the present study, are unmarried college students between the ages of 18 and 26, with no children. As self-esteem tends to increase with age and women's relationships change over time (Block & Greenberg, 1985; Candy et a l . , 1981), one might expect older women who have had more diverse family experiences of marriage and children to exhibit even higher scores on how much they value women in their lives. In addition, as the study was introduced to the potential subjects as one on women's relationships or bonds, i t is possible that those women who had more interest in their relationships and held more positive views about women, were more likely to volunteer their time to support such a study. It must be noted that the nature of a volunteer sample may not be representative of the defined population, let alone the general public. As was mentioned in Chapter IV, two women who were lesbians did not complete their questionnaires, claiming that many of the questions did not apply to them, thus further reducing the generalizability of the study to heterosexual women. It is proposed, however, that based on previous findings, their scores on valuing women would likely be 84 comparable to heterosexual women (Henderson & Woolsey, 1987). No assumptions about their levels of self-esteem or incidence of liberated behaviours can be drawn. Implications for Future Investigations No data were collected on kith versus kin support in this study. As women with higher scores on the social provisions, usually met within the family (opportunity for nurturance and reliable alliance), also had a significantly higher sense of mastery (on some measures), i t would be interesting to explore if social needs met within the family affect a woman differently in terms of sense of self than those social needs met outside of the family. As well, based on the idea that women's self-esteem is related closely to how successful her relationships are (Sanford & Donovan, 1984), one might expect that not a l l of Weiss's (1973) social provisions are equally as important to a woman's self-esteem. This suggests further research in the differential effects of each provision on any number of measures of well-being. Drawing from the finding that the less traditional women possessed higher self-esteem, an investigation into why this small percentage of women were so significantly different from their peers could be conducted. Perhaps by understanding 85 their role models and the events that shaped the i r current behaviour, women and health professionals can encourage women to behave in a more self-esteem enhancing manner. Looking at the r e l a t i v e l y high scores on the BBWS and the SPS, indicating that the majority of women in th i s study valued same-sex relationships and derived high lev e l s of soc i a l support from them, one i s l e f t with the question of why these relationships apparently do not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y relate to self-esteem. In p a r t i c u l a r , future studies should examine the relationships between those variables with a more heterogeneous sample (in terms of BBWS and SPS scores) and with a self-esteem instrument with greater s e n s i t i v i t y and a higher c e i l i n g . Summary This study found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between t r a d i t i o n a l and non-traditional women on measures of self-esteem, interpersonal control and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l . As well, non-traditional women were found to value women s i g n i f i c a n t l y more both on a personal l e v e l in terms of having women play active roles in their l i v e s , and on a global l e v e l in terms of the attitudes and b e l i e f s that they hold about women. Bernard's (1976) b e l i e f that women who have more of t h e i r s o c i a l needs met by other women would have higher 86 self-esteem was not supported. The strength and significance of homosocial bonds between women have been acknowledged in th i s study. Implications for women who have stronger homosocial bonds and for those exhibiting less stereotypical female behaviour were discussed in terms of the self-esteem enhancing properties of these relationships and behaviours. 87 References Adam, B. D. (1978). Inferiorization and "self-esteem". Social Psychology, 41, 47-53. Adams, B. N. (1968). Kinship in an urban s e t t i n g . Chicago: Markham Publishing. Albright, D. G., & Chang, A. F. (1976). An examination of how one's attitudes towards women are reflected in one's defensiveness and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 2, 195-198. Allan, G. (1977). Sibling solidarity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39(1), 177-184. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Bardwick, J. M., & Douvan, E. (1971). Ambivalence: The socialization of women. In V. Gornick and B. Moran (Eds.), Women in sexist s o c i e t y , (p. 147-159). New York: Basic Books. Battle, J. (1978). The relationship between self-esteem and depression. Psychological Reports, 42, 745-746. Beere, C. A. (1979). Women and women's issues: A handbook of t e s t s and measures. London: Jossey-Bass. Bell, R. R. (1981). Friendships of women and of men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 402-417. Bernard, J. (1976). Homosociality and female depression. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 213-238. Bernikow, L. (1980). Among women. New York: Harmony Books. Block, J. D., & Greenberg, D. ( 1985). Women and fri ends hi p. New York: Franklin Watts. Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. American Sociological Review, April, 183-192. Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 38-47. 88 Bott, E. (1971). Family and social networks. London: Tavistock. Broverman, I., Broverman, D., Clarkson, F., Rosenkrantz, P. & Vogel, S. (1970). Sex role stereotypes and c l i n i c a l judgements of mental health. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 34, 1-7. Butler, P. E. (1976). Self-assertion for women: A guide to becoming androgenous. New York: Harper & Row. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8, 721-732. Candy, S. G., T r o l l , L. G., & Levey, S. G. (1981). A developmental exploration of friendship functions in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 456-471. Caplan, P. (1980). Barriers between women: Five viewpoints. Resources of Feminist Research, 19, 8-9. Caplan, P. (1981). Barriers between women. Jamaica, New York: Spectrum. Carveth, B., & Gottlieb, B. (1979). The measurement of social support and i t ' s relation to stress. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 11, 179-188. Chesler, P. (1973). Women and madness. New York: Avon Books. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Franscisco: W. H. Freeman. Coutts, T. L. (1973). Love and intimacy. San Ramon, California: Consensus. Crandal, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes: Revised Edition (pp. 45-168). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Research. Cumming, E., & Schneider, D. (1961). Sibling solidarity: a property of American kinship. American Anthropology, 63, 498-507. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Rose, J. (1984). Psychosocial factors and physical and mental health among the elderly. Manuscript in preparation. 89 Davidson, S., & Packard, T. (1981). The therapeutic value of friendship between women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 495-510. Dickens, W., & Perlman, D. (1981). Friendship over the l i f e cycle. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships, (p. 91-121. London: Academic Press. Dworkin, A. (1974). Woman hating. New York: E. P. Dutton. Eriksen, M. (1987). Enhancing self-esteem in feminist therapy with women. Paper presented at the Section on Women and Psychology, 1987 Institute at the Annual Meeting of The Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, Canada. Erikson, E. (1980). Life cycle. In M. Bloom (Ed.), Life span development, (pp. 19—30). New York: MacMillan Press. Etaugh, C . & Bowen, E. (1976). Attitudes toward women: Comparison of enrolled and non-enrolled college students. Psychological Reports, 38, 229-230. Faderman, L. (1981) Surpassing the love of men: Romantic friendship and love between women. New York: W. M. Morrow. Ferree, M. (1976). Working class jobs: Housework and paid work as sources of satisfaction. Social Problems, 23, 431-440. Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex. New York: Bantam Books. Fischer, L. R. (1981). Transitions in the mother-daughter relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, August , 613-622. Fischer, C , & Phillips, S. (1982). Who is alone? Social characteristics of people with small networks. In Peplau & Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness, (pp. 21-39). Toronto: J. Wiley & Sons. Fischer, J., & Narus, L. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in same sex and other sex relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(3), 444-455. Fransella, F., & Frost, K. (1977). On being a woman: A 90 review of research on how women see themselves. London: Tavistock. Fox, M., & Auerbach, D. (1983). Whatever i t i s , don't c a l l me one: Women's attitudes toward feminism. International Journal of Women Studies, 6, 352-362. Galambos, N., Peterson, A., Richards, M., & Gitelson, I. (1985). The Attitudes Towards Women Scale for Adolescents (AWSA): A study of r e l i a b i l i t y and validity. Sex Rol es, 13, 343-356. Ghaffaradli-Doty, P., & Carlson, E. R. (1979). Consistency in attitude and behavior of women with a liberated attitude toward the rights and roles of women. Sex Roles, 5(4), 396-404. Gibbs, M., Auerbach, D., & Fox, M. (1980). A comparison of male and female same-sex friendships. International Journal of Women's Studies, 3, 261-271 . Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 28-30. Gordon, F., k Hall, D. (1974). Self-image and stereotypes of femininity: Their relationship to women's role conflicts and coping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 241-243. Gottlieb, B. (1981). Social networks and social support. Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage. Graham, M., & Stark-Adamec, C. (1978). The complexity of attitudes toward women: Personal attitudes and their sources. International Journal of Women's Studies, 1, 482-502. Hacker, H. (1951). Women as a minority group. Social Forces, 30 , 160-169. Hacker, H. (1981). Blabbermouths and clams: Sex differences in self-disclosure in same-sex and cross-sex friendship dyads. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 358-401. Henderson, P., & Woolsey, L. (1987). Friendships of lesbian and heterosexual women. Paper presented at the Section on Women and Psychology, 1987 Institute at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, 91 Vancouver, Canada. H i l l , C , & Stul l , D. (1981). Sex differences in effects of social and value similarity in same-sex friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 488-502. Hirsch, B. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major l i f e changes. American Journal of Community Psychol ogy, 8, 159-172. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. New York: Basic Books. Hurd, G., Llamas, R., & Pattison, E. (1985). The structure and function of normal social networks. Huston, T., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115-156. Isaacs, M. (1981). Sex role stereotyping and the evaluation of the performance of women: Changing trends. Psychology of Women Quart erI y, 6, 187-195. Jacobsen, H. (1979). Women's perspectives in research. Atlantis, 4: 2, 98-1 07. Kammeny, F. (1971). Homosexuals as a minority group. In E. Sagarin (Ed.), The other minorities. Grin & Co. Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kennedy, F. (1976). Color me Flo: My hard life and good times. Englewood C l i f f s , New York: Prentice-Hall. Kilpatric, D., & Smith, A. (1974). Validation of the Spence-Helmreich Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Psychological Reports, 35, 461-462. Kitay, P. (1940). Soci ometry, 34, 399-407. Knodel, R. I. (1986). Sisters: Exploring a fundamental female bond. Unpublished master's thesis. University of British Columbia. Komarovsky, M. (1967). Blue collar marriage. New York: Vintage Books. 92 Lee, D., & Clifton, A. (1981). Minority status: The position of women. Sarasota: Century Twenty One. Lewin, K. (1941). Self-hatred among Jews. Contemporary Jewish Record, iv, 219-232. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. In B. Reagan & M. Blaxall (Eds.), Women and the workplace, (p. 15-31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lipton, J., & Hershaft, A. (1984). G i r l , woman, guy, man: The effects of sexist labelling. Sex Roles, 10, 183-194. Lowenthal, F., Thurner, M., Chiriboga, D., & Assoc. (1975). Four stages of life. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Lowenthal, F., & Weiss, L. (1977). Intimacy and crises in adulthood. In Scholssberg & Entine (Eds.), Counselling adults. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole. Lunneborg, P. (1974). Validity of Attitudes Toward Women Scale. Psychological Reports, 34, 1281-1282. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1975). The psychology of sex differences. London: Oxford University Press. Mahoney, J., & Heretick, D. (1979). Factor-specific dimensions in person perceptions for same- and opposite-sex friendship dyads. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 219-225. McClelland, D. (1965). Wanted: A new self-image for women. In R. Lifton (Ed.), The woman in America, (pp. 173-192). Boston. McKee, J., & Sherriffs, A. (1957). The differential evaluation of males and females. Journal of Personality, 25, 356-371. McKee, J., & Sherriffs, A. (1959). Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self-concepts. American Journal of Sociology, 64, 356-363. Mechanic, D., & Greeley, V. R. (1976). The procedure of psychological distress and help-seeking in a college student population. Social Psychiatry, 11, 11-14. Mednick, M. (1979). The new psychology of women: A feminist 93 analysis. In J. Gullahorn (Ed.), Psychology and women: In t ransi st i on. Washington, D.C: V. H. Winston & Sons. Miller, J. B. (1987). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Minnigerode, F. (1976). Attitudes toward women, sex-role stereotyping and locus of control. Psychological Reports, 38, 1301-1302. Mitchell, J. C. (1969). The concept and use of social networks. In J. C. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations, (p. 10-50). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research, (p. 30-61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Paludi, M., & Bauer, W. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What's in an author's name. Sex Roles, 9(3), 381-390. Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specfic measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(S), 1253-1265. Paulhus, D., & Christie, R. (1981). Spheres of control: An interactionist approach to assessment of perceived control. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct, New York: Academic Press. Paulhus, D., & Schuchts, R. (1979). Control profiles of football players, tennis players and nonathletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 199-205. Pheterson, G., Keisler, S., & Goldberg, P. (1971). Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 1145-118. Prescott, S., & Schmid, M. (1977). Oracle or monacle: Research concerning atitudes toward feminism. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 7, 1-12. Rawlings, E., 6 Carter, D. (1977). Psychotherapy for women: Treatment toward equality. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Richey, M., & Richey, H. (1980). The significance of best-friend relationships in adolescence. Psychology in 94 the Schools, 17, 536-540. Rose, S. M. (1985). Same-sex and c r o s s - s e x f r i e n d s h i p s and the psychology of h o m o s o c i a l i t y . Sex Roles, 12, 63-74. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Bas i c Books. Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I . , & Broverman, D. (1968). S e x - 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 tudents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 287-295. Rubin, Z. (1974). L i k i n g and l o v i n g . In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others. Englewood C l i f f s , NY: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . R u s s e l l , D., A l t m a i e r , E., & Van V e l z e n , D. (1984). J o b - r e l a t e d s t r e s s , s o c i a l support and burn-out among tea c h e r s . Manuscript submitted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . R u s s e l l , D., & Cutrona, C. ( 1984). The pr ovi si ons of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Paper presented at the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n convention i n Toronto, O n t a r i o , Canada, August, 1984. R u s s e l l , D., Cutrona, C , Rose, J . , & Yurko, K. (1984). S o c i a l and emotional l o n e l i n e s s : An examination of Weiss' typology of l o n e l i n e s s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(e), 1313-1321. R u s s e l l , D., Peplau, L., & Ferguson, M. (1978). Developing a measure of l o n e l i n e s s . Journal of Personality Assessment , 42, 290-294. S a f i l i o s - R o t h s c h i l d , C. (1981). Toward a s o c i a l psychology of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 377-383. Sanford, L. T., & Donovan, M. E. (1984). Women and self-esteem. New York: Penguin. Sarason, I., Levine, H., Basham, R., & Sarason, B. (1983). A s s e s s i n g s o c i a l support: The S o c i a l Support Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127-139. Sch l o s s b e r g , N., T r o l l , L., & L e i b o w i t z , Z. (1978). 95 Perspectives on counselling adults: Issues and s k i l l s . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publ ishing Co. Seiden, A., & Bart, P. (1975). Woman to woman: Is sisterhood powerful? In N. Glazer (Ed.), Old family/new family, (p. 189-228). New York: D. Van Nostrand. S h e r r i f f s , A., & J a r e t t , R. (1953). Sex d i f ferences and at t i tudes about sex d i f fe rences . Journal of Psychology, 35, 161-168. Simmons, R., & Rosenberg, F. (1975). Sex, sex ro les , and self - image. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 229-258. Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1975). The female world of love and r i t u a l : Relations between women in nineteenth-century America. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1, 2-29. Spence, J . , & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Att i tudes Toward Women Scale: An object ive instrument to measure at t i tudes toward the r ights and ro les of women in contemporary soc iety . JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psyc hoiogy, 2, 66. Spence, J . , Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J . (1973). A short version of the Att i tudes toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220. Spence, J . , Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J . (1974). The Personal A t t r ibutes Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and mascu l in i ty - femin in i ty . JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43. Ste in , S., & Weston, L. (1976). Att i tudes toward women among female co l lege students. Sex Roles, 2, 199-202. Stanley, G., Boots, M., & Johnson, C. (1975). Some Austra l ian data on the short version of the Att i tudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Australian Psychologist, 10, 319-323. Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul . Stark-Adamac, C. (1980). Surmounting the bar r ier s between women. Resources for Feminist Research, 9, 10-11. 96 S t i v e n s , M. (1981). Women, k i n s h i p and the c a p i t a l i s t i c development. In Young, Wolkowltz & McCul lagh ( E d s . ) , Of marriage and the market, (p. 112-126). CSE Books. S t u r d i v a n t , S. (1980). Therapy with women. New York: S p r i n g e r . . T i g e r , L. (1970). Men in groups. New York: V in tage Books. Toder , N. (1980). The e f f e c t of the sexua l compos i t i on of a group on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t women and s e x - r o l e a t t i t u d e s . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 292-310. Toews, L. (1975). S e x - r o l e s , s e l f - h a t r e d and s i s t e r h o o d . Atlantis, 1, 24-37. T o l s d o r f , C. (1976). S o c i a l networks, suppor t , and c o p i n g : An e x p l o r a t o r y s tudy . Family Process, 15, 407-417. Ward, C. (1981). P r e j u d i c e a ga in s t women: Who, when and why. Sex Rol es, 7(2), 163-171 . Weiss , R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social i s olat i on. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P r e s s . West, L. & Z i n g l e , H. (1969). A s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n v e n t o r y f o r a d o l e s c e n t s . Psychological Reports, 24, 439-445. Whi te , G. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n s about women: a f ounda t i on f o r b a r r i e r s . Res our ces for Feminist Resear ch, 9. W h i t l e y , B. E. (1983). Sex r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m : A c r i t i c a l m e t a - a n a l y t i c rev iew. Journal of Personality and Social Ps ychology, 44{$), 765-778. W i r t h , L. (1945). The problem of m i n o r i t y groups . In R. L i n t o n ( E d . ) , The science of man in the world, (p. 341-372) . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Wong, H. (1981). T y p o l o g i e s of i n t i m a c y . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 435~443. Wood, L. (1978). L o n e l i n e s s , s o c i a l i d e n t i t y and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Essence, 2, 259-276. Woolsey, L. K. (1986, J u l y ) . Bonds between women and between men: Theory and measurement of same-sex social relationships. Paper p re sen ted at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Pe r sona l R e l a t i o n s h i p s , H e r z l i a , I s r a e l . 97 Woolsey, L. (in press). Bonds between women and between men, part I: A review of theory. Atlantis: A Women's Studies Jour nal . Woolsey, L. K., & McBain, L. L. (in press). Strengthening the bonds of friendship between women. In K. Storrie (Ed.), W omen--i s ol at i on and bonding: Readings in the ecology of gender. Methuen Press. Wright, P. (1982). Men's friendships, women's friendships and the alleged inferiority of the latter. Sex Roles, 5(1), 1-20. Zander, P., Stotland, L. & Wolfe, A. (1960). Unity of group identification in a group and self-esteem of members. Journal of Personality, 28, 463-478. APPENDICES Appendix A: L e t t e r of I n t r o d u c t i o n 101 Appendix B ( i ) : Bonds Between Women S c a l e BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION A l l I n f o r m a t i o n l a c o m p l e t e l y ANONYMOUS and CCNFIPENTIAC We v o u l d a p p r e c i a t e i t it you would complete every q u e s t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r , we must know your sex and age In order t o analy z e your q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s . 1. Ago 2. Year of b i r t h 3. Sex: B a l e _ _ _ Female 4. Your o c c u p a t i o n ' P a r t n e r ' s - o c c u p a t i o n ( i f married) Parents o c c u p a t i o n s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 . T e a r l y income (approximate g r o s s ) : Tour own Income ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Family income _ _ _ _ _ 6. T o t a l number of years of e d u c a t i o n completed: ( I n c l u d e a l l s c h o o l i n g — elementary, .high s c h o o l , v o c a t i o n a l or t e c h n i c a l , c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y ) 1 - 8 14 18 9 - 11 15 19 12 16 20+ 13 17 7. Current m a r i t a l s t a t u s : S i n g l e Separated or widowed l i v i n g t o g e t h e r _ _ Widowed _ _ H a r r i e d or r e m a r r i e d 8. Tears married 9. Tears l i v i n g t o g e t h e r _ _ 10. Number of c h i l d r e n _ _ 11. Number of other dependents ( e x c l u d i n g spouse) 12. Number of c h i l d r e n o r dependents l i v i n g w i t h you 13. Ages of c h i l d r e n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14. Ages of o t h e r dependents _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15. I s your f i r s t language: E n g l i s h _ _ _ _ Trench Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( P l e a s e s p e c i f y ) C i t i z e n s h i p and Community 16. Have you emigrated t o Canada? Tes _ _ _ _ No I f yes, how many y e a r s have you been i n Canada? 17. c o u n t r y of o r i g i n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18. Oo you i d e n t i f y w i t h an e t h n i c group? Tes No I f y e s , which one? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19 To what e x t e n t do you f e e l your e t h n i c i d e n t i t y i n f l u e n c e s the way you Chink and f e e l : Very much Somewhat • Very l i t t l e Not at a l l _ 20. P l e a s e l i s t any o r g a n i z a t i o n s or i n f o r m a l groups t o which you b e l o n g . ______________________________ 21. How many of t h i s / t h e s e group(s) i n c l u d e both men and wo men ? 22. How many are s e p a r a t e d f o r men and women ( f o r example, women's b r i d g e c l u b , men's b r i d g e c l u b . Kinsmen and K i n e t t e s ) ? 23. How o f t e n do you actend f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o : The mixed sex gr o u p ( s ) _________ >-l O The s e p a r a t e sex "group!s) ________ ^ Tha Sends I M n m Woaan Seals 1 TM» qusstionnalrs dssla with your attitudaa and fs o l l n g s about woaan in gsnsral. Ths question* r s f s r to facial rslationohips only »>d haw* no connection with ssxual rslstionahlpo or aaxuality. Hany oaf th* i t t t t a m U refer to your own s o c i a l ralationahipa with woaan. for axaapla. ralationahipa with feaala friends, f a a i l y . co-workers, nsighbours. and so for t h . Othar stats**nt* rafar to woaan ia_3S0!E3A "~ to tha faaala sax as a who!a. • Do not worry shout vhsthsr you hart tha facta or knowlsdg* about how i t ia for a l l woaan just a i r e ua your own bel i e f s and opinions. !)SS_iaU_Jf"i_2SI!9D9liZi about thass stataaants. • Ztmn i f * O M stataaants de not f i t your exeerlencee exactly, plaaaa anawar thaa uamg THE CHOICZ THAT CCHE3 CLOSEST. • Plaaaa anawar according to how you actually think er f a a l . and not how you would l i k e things to be or thmn thay should ba. THERE ARE SO RIGHT OR WRONG AXSwERS. • Stateaanta algnt s i a i l a r but thay ars d i s t i n c t , so plaaaa anawar thaa lndapandantiy. • Soa* stataaants algnt aaaa awkward. It i s nacassary for rsaaare.1 purpoase to word aoaw a t i c n m t i nagaeivaly, for axaapla. "I do not l l k s to soand tl a a wish woaan." Plaaaa anawar thass as baat you can. a A l l Indorsation i a confidantial. • Tour f i r s t rssctlona ars bast. WCRS A3 3VZCX1.7 A3 TOO CAM. Hark sach atataaant i n tha r i g h t aargln, according to how strongly you b a l l * * * t h a t i t i s t r u * or not t r u * of your general attitudaa and fs s l i n g o about woaan. Wrlta 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. or 6 to stand for ths following: l»Definitely 2"Ho* 3«Tands 4»T«nda 3«Tru* S»Definttely not trua t r u * not to to bo trua ba trua trua 1. Woaan shara sea* coaaon probiaaa just bacauas thay ara 1 . woaan. 2. Thars ara things that ara just eaaiar to ta l k about 2 . With a woaan than with a nan. - ' '"• -" "j 3. Woaan do not add to tha dua l i t y ox ay U f a I 3 . 4. I t l a fun to join othar woaan l n soaa good naturad 4 . taaamg of u n . 3. As frianda. I prafsr ssn to woaan. 3 . 6. Thars i s a u n a * of cesradsshlp and good f o a l i n g whan & . woaan gat together. 7. I haws not Isamsd such f r o * ths woaan l a ay Il l ' s . 7 . 4. X hsws aodslisd s y s s l f a f t e r woaan who haws a u a l l t l s s 8 . that I valu*. 9. I fin d san sera intaraating than woaan. 9 . 10. Tau can count on a job balng dons right whan i t i s don* 10 . by a woaan. 11. I anjoy tha t h r i l l of eoapating aggressively with 11 .. wossn. for axaapla, l n sports. 12. I soldo* have so c i a l relationships with woaan i f I ean 12 .. help i t . 10. In disagrwssants between paopls. I tsnd to sids with 13 .. aan rathsr than with woaan. 14. I f a * l plses*d whan I hoar about woaan who know how to 14 .. stand up to aan. 13. I receive aor* aaotlonal support fros san than fros 13 .. woaan. — O 15. I tr-Jst ssn aors than woaan in poaitiona of authority? 16 .. l«Oafinitely net, trua 2-»ot 3"T«nd» 4»Tenda true not to to £>• b« trua truo 3 3-Truo 6»0efinlt»iy trua 17. Soaaciaaa I Ilka to 90 out, v i t a woaan frlanda juat 17 to snow that I H m a U f a ox* ay own. IS. Whon 1 «a wltn ay ao»n frlanda wai «ra cola to aay ta ana do thingo that would »Hoc« u n i f thoy know. 19. I apand aora tlaa » 1 U aan than with weaan. 1 9 20. fhoro l a aoaething spacial about 'woaan only" j n u g t . 20 21. Sooociaoo i t l a aora fun to bo with woaan Ulan with 21 . aan bacauaa I faal fraar to do t.lxnge 11km talk about M « or Ba cruda. 22. I ae uaualiy *ora eoapotitlva than cooperative! with 22 . 23. I prefar that aan rsthor than woaan tako tha laader- 23 . enip m group dlacuaaione. 24. It ia w a i n to talk with aan than woaan about 24 . raiatlonanipa or feallnge. 23. Whan I haar aan talking sa If thav hava a l l tha 23 . anawara. I cannot halp but think i t i a tl a a for aoaa woaan to epaax up a n d aae thaa atraight. 26. Soaaciaaa I prefer to ba with woaan bacauaa I do not 26 . faal tha »a*m ooligacion to halp and I OOK aftar thaa that I faol with aan. 27. I aa jaaloua of woaan who have accoapliahad aora than 27 • I hava. 28. I do not food e o a i o r c a D l * with io>c woaan. 23 . 29. Soaaciaaa I Ilka to talk with other wonti aBaut haw 29 . hard i t l a to undaracand aan. 30. Rat.-.ar than putting the aaonoaia on protecting waaan'a 30 .. ngnca. I t.linx wo should ba conaidaring aan'a faalinga. 31. Woaan do not ehallanga aa to puan ayaolf to my 31 .. physical l l a i t a . for oxaapia. in aparca, hiking or cliaoing. 32. I truat u n aora than other woaan. 32 .. 33. If loi.ani aaye I •• not Ilka aoat woaan. I faal 33 .. coepliaanced. l«0ofinitoly not truo 2«Hot 3'Tanda 4»7anda trua net to to bo ba truo truo 4 3"Trua 6»0oflnitoly trua 34. I t i a onlr to ba expoctod) that aa attractive) aan 34 e x u i i i trouble bocwaaa two woaan. 33. Sy claoaat frlanda art woaan. 33 . 36. Whan aan start being d i f f i c u l t . It l a a rallax* to got 36 . •way and apand aoaa tlaa with woaan. 37. X would rather halp a aan than a woaan. 37 . 3d. Intalla—tual diacuaaiona ara aora satisfying with 36 . aan than with woaan. 39. Soaatiaaa woaan just have to atick togachor whan aan 39 . atart throwing chair waignt around. 40. I faal • M M * of real freadoa when I aa out with 40 . woaan. 41. I aa thankful to tha woaan In ay l i f * for halping 41 .. to bocoaa who I am today. 42. Woaan naad to atand up for each other 0 0 thoir righto 42 * ara not overlooked. 43. Aa confidante. X prefar aan to woaan. 43 .. 44. Whan I havo to taka on a tough 3 0 0 . X would rathar 44 .. havo a aan than a woaan on ay aida. 43. X prida ayaaif on having eada i t on ay own. without 43 .. tha halp of othar woaan. 46. Ify fnendanipe with woaan ara aora enduring than 46 .. ay frienoampa wit.1 aan. 47. X prafar woaan to aan aa eo-work*ra on • J O B . 47 .. 48. I try to work with other woaan to iaprowa tha 46 ... paaition of woaan in aur aociaty. 49. X feai bactar whan a aan givaa aa a coapllaant than 49 ... wnan a woaan doaa. 50. It ia not laooxtant to >a to work out dlaagreaaanta 30 ... batwaan sysaif ana othar woaan. —• O 31. Bomg with a group of woaan givaa aa a real booat. *^31 ... 7 1-Oefinitely 2»Not 3»Tenda 4«Tende 3»True 6»0efinitaly not trua trua not to to be trua ba trua trua 90. Soaetisea i t ia good just to gat together with a group 90 ox woaan. 91. I pref ar woaan to aan *e taaaaataa. 91 92. Woaan do not have auch to of f e r aacn othar. 92 93. Whan I think ox* woaan in general, I usually think ax 93 "wa" rathar than "thay." 94. Ix 1 had to aalaet a byatandar to help aa with a 94 aarioua eaergency--for axaapla. an accident with asvarsly injured people--! would enoeaa a Ban. 93. I n a i ay woaan frianda whan I cannot aaa thaa a a 93 oftan a a usual. 96. Our aix i l a r experiencee a a woaan sake i t eeaior for as 96 to roiate to woaan tnan to Ban. 97. Whan I hava aoaathing vary aenaitiva and eaotional that 97 I want to talk about. I go to a aan rathar than a woaan. 9s. I find that I gat out of touch with ay woaan frianda 98 vnan X a a involved with a a a n . 99. I so not look forward to being in the coapany of woaen. 99 100. I sake i t a practice to give ay buainwaa to voaan 100 profaaaionala in praferenco to aan. 101. I thmx woaan. ought to ba trsatsd aora f a i r l y in soae 101 things. 102. Through talking with other woaan. I aa abla to fael 102 better about ay own expenancee. 103. Whan X want to try aoaathing aoventuroua or daring I 103 prafar woaan to aan aa eoapanione. 104. I do not agree with the idea of woaan'a liberation. 104 103. I find woaan H i l a r to work with than aen. 103 106. I can count on woaen aora than aan to be there when 1 106 need thwa. 107. Whan I have a choice of couraa inatructora. I 107 generally enoaae a woaan. 8 Indefinitely 2"Hot 3-Tends 4'Tenda 3'True 6»0sflaitsly not trua trua not to to ba true be trua trua 108. Whan I hear ebaut a woaan who has owereosa opposition 108 in order to do whst jQs believed to ba rig h t f o r bar U f a . I f a a l proud to ba s woaan. 109. I cannot sake geaturae of phyaical affection (far 109 exaaple. hugging) with woaan aa aaaily as I can with aen. 110. I d i s l i k e working with woaen. n o 111. Being around other woaan aakea as fael aora confidant 111 in ayself. 112. I cannot ahow ay feelings opsnly around woaen. 112 113. I as proud to bs s woaan. 113 114. Sy relaticnsnips with woaan do not aeet any laportsnt 114 saotional naede for a a . 113. I d i s l i k a jokes that ara uncoaplissntary to woaan. 113 116. I cannot confids in s woaan tha way I can with a aan. 116 117. Soaetiaea I have to go out with woaen ]uac to ahow 117 ay aan that he doee not own ae. 118. At social gatherings. I alaoat alwaya aaek out other 118 woaen• 119. I fael aora preaaure to keep up e good front around 119 woaen than around sen. 120. There is a aenae of challenge, strength, and 120 coaradeehip wnen woaan get together that i a weakened i f aen are inciudeo. 121. In ay experience, there i s less cooperation and 121 consideration in woaen'a groupa than in aixeo groupe. 122. Woaen provide aora of what I need in friendahipa than 122 aen do. 123. It annoye aa wnen woaen coee on atrong about woaen's 123 rights in a aixeo group. 124. I do not aupport woaen who ara trying to aeke things? 124 batter for woaen. UT 123. 1 fael better knowing that I can outdo other woaen. 123 9 1'Oofinitaly 2»Hot 3«Tonds 4"Tonds 3"Truo 6«0ofinitsly not truo truo not to to ba truo bo truo truo 92. I eon t a l k l o r t aaaily with woaan than with aan. 32 33. If I havo tha chance. I try to halp othar woaan got 33 •haad. 34. I do not havo to watch ay language aa auch around 94 woaan aa I do around aan. 93. It i a harder for aa to adait ay ueekneeeu to woaan 99 than to aan. 36. Whan I havo a paraonal probloa that I naod to talk 36 •bout. I uaualiy go to • woaan inataad of • aan. 37. Woaan's opinions ara iaaa laportant to •• than aan'a. 97 •3. Woaan'a rslotienahipa ara leaa coaplicatad than 36 ralationanipa batwaan aan and woaan. 39. Whan man ara praaant. tha talk eaaae loaa wars and 39 i n t i a a t a . - ' *' 60. 1 da not f a a l proud whan I hear about aoaaano boing 60 tha " f i r s t woaan" ta auccaad i n an araa doamatad by •an. 61. Ran luat do not belong in i c i * of tho thingo woaan do 61 together. 62. Working together to win i a not a vary laportant part 62 of * l a i aporta with woaan. 63. I t h i n * woaan should gat anaad on t h a i r own and not 63 axpaet othar woaan to halp thaa. 64. I aa not at ay beat whan I aa with woaan. 64 63. I Co not f a a l aora undaratood by woaan than by aan. 63 66. Whan I naod halp with a vary aarious doclslon. I go 66 to a aan. 67. X f a a l a special connection to woaan i n ganaral. 67 66. X aa reluctant to anow physical or eaotlanal a f f a c t l o n 66 with othar woaan. for fear of baing conaidorad gay. 69. X oftan chooaa to aoand t i a a with woaan avan i f i t 69 aaano s a c r i f i c i n g ay ti a o with a aan. 6 1-Oaflnitaly 2«Nat 3«rondo 4-Tanda 3»Tru« 6 - 0 o f i n i t a l y not truo truo not to to bo truo bo truo truo 70. I f i n d i t aaoiar to work out dioagrooaonta with aon 70 than with woaan. 71. X do not j o i n woaan'a groups) i f X ean holp I t . 71 72. In ganaral. i t i a aora laportant to bo l o y a l to 72 woaan than to aon. 73. X do not f o o l • aenao of belonging whon t a l k i n g to 73 othar woaan about our axporlancaa aa woaan. 74. I t i a laportant f o r woaan to ahara information and 74 rooourcea with each otnor. 79. By ralationanipa with woaan or* vary laportant to aa. 79 75. Woaan ahara • coaaon wiadoa. 76 77. I would rathor work f o r a aan than a woaan. 77 73. Bating with othar woaan l a t a aa know that ay way of 73 seeine thingo ••<*• aanse. 79. X cannot count on woaan to aupport aa or back aa up. 79 80. Working with othar woaan haipa aa to ba cxeotlv*. SO 81. X do not l i k o baing e a o t i o n a l l y c l a s s to othar woaan. 31 82. Aa a r u l a . I da not I l k a baing with greupa of woaan. 82 33. I oftan f a o l an unapokan sens* of understanding 83 batwaan woaan. 34. X uaualiy jo i n tha aon whan p o l i t i c o ara baing 34 disc-uaaad aanouoly i n aixad eoapany. 83. On tha wnola. aon ara aora laportant to aa than are 83 othar woaan. 36. X can tru s t woaan aora than aan whan tha s i t u a t i o n 86 c a l l s for doclaivanasa and leadarsnip. 87. X f a a l a c e r t a i n Sanaa of unity whon working; on • 37 project wlta woaan that X do not f o a l whan aan ara Included. , 88. Aa a r u l a . X aa actio to ba aora open and vulnarabla ® 33 with aan than I an with woaan. 39. X do not havo such in coaaon with aoat woaan. 39 9 l»Oeflnitely 2««Jot 3«Tends 4»Tsnds 3"Trua 6-0afinitsly not t r u * t r u * not to to be t r u * ba t r u * trua 126. Rr relationships with woaan ara a sourea or* s t a b i l i t y 126 and consistency ln ay U f a . 127. Ona of tha rssaens I a* glad to ba a woaan l a that sa 127 such of c i v i l i z a t i o n and progrees i s bsasd on woaan'a achisveaenta. 128. Gsttlng together with a group of woaen to unwind 128 after worn i s an laportant part of ay U f a . 129. I think i t i s okay for woaan to coapete for sen's 129 attention. 130. Being loud and rowdy with a group of woaan aakee a* 130 fael l i k a I can take on the world. 131. I cannot count an the woven I know to look out for a* 131 when the going geta tougn. 132. when personal feelinga are talkod about in a group. X 132 would rathar tha group ba a l l woaan. 133. There i s no reason for woaen to stick together. " 7 133 134. When I went to break free froe r e e p o n a l b l l l t l s s . 134 X would rather go out with woaan than aen. 133. Relationahlpa with woaan ara not a noceeeary 133 part of ay l i f e . 136. X find eonveraationa with woaen boring. 136 137. I would rather aake i t on ay own than with othar 137 woaen'a help. 138. It i s eaaier to be ayaalf with woaen than with aan. 138 139. Hy fnandahipa with woaan provide »o with aoaething 139 aignificantiy different froa ay raiationanipa with aen. 140. I aa inapired by atoriee about woaen who are 140 determined to survive under d i f f i c u l t elreuaatancee. 141. X feel eoapllsanted when I hear aoaeona say sossthlng 141 good about woaen. 142. Soaetiaee I feel jealous of woaen frienda who attract 142 a l l the aen. 10 l«Oefinitely 2»Hot 3»Tenda 4«Tenda 3«True 6«0eflnitely not true trua not to to be trua be true trua 143. X Ilka to act rowdy with woaen frienda to gat a 143 reaction out of aan. 144. X f a a l atronger when X join forcee with other woaen. 144 143. X do not aeek out other woeen to talk to at work er 143 aehool. 146. X usually vote for woaan in preference to Ban 146 candldstss. • :*" 147. X f e s l okay about woaan being outspeksn. 147 148. During f a s i l y gatharinga. X do not l i k a to go o f f and 148 talk with the woaan. 149. X d i s l i k e hearing negative reearko about woeen. 149 130. X do not want to be aaaoeiatad with woaan'a eauaee. ISO 131. There are tiaee when i t l a good to be with other 131 •woaen--they understand. 132. X often fee l jealoua of other woaen. 132 133. I t i a not laportant to aa to have woaan frianda to 133 talk to about ordinary, avaryday thinge. 134. I do not ueualiy get along very w a l l with woaen. 134 133. X would feel lonely without ay relationahlpa with 133 woaen. 1S6. When I n e e d professional help, for exaaple. a doctor 136 or a lawyer. I try to find a woaan. 137. There ia a aenae af wersth and understanding when 137 woaen get togecner. 138. I do not feel that negative coaeenta about woaen in 136 general also r e f l e c t on ae ae a woaan. 139. X l i k a getting together with woeen because ve ara 139 coefartaole with each other. 160. X consider ayeelf quite different fros B o a t woaan. 160 161. I do n o t understand ayaalf better aa a result of tha 0161 tlae I have aoent with woaen. "*J 1S2. I do not fael proua of other woaen'a achieveaents. 162 '..11 i ^ D e f m i t e l y 2=Not 3=Tenda 4=Tends 5*True 6 = D e f i n i t e l y no t t r u e t r u e n o t t o t o bo t r u e be t r u e t r u e 1 6 3 . J do not f a e l n u r t u r e d i n my r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women. I i 3 164. One o f the t h i n g s I e n j o y sfeout b e i n g w i t h o t h e r 1S4 uor»en i s t.ne c h a n c e t o l o o k at. men and t r a d e r e m a r k s . 165 . When t o p i c s l i k e c h i l d c u s t o d y o r a l i m o n y a r e 1 6 5 d i s c u s s e d . X u s u a l l y f i n d m y s e l f s i d i n g w i t h t h e women. 1 6 6 . I do n o t i d e n t i t y w i t h w o m e n i n g e n e r a l . 167. I pay l e s s a t t e n t i o n Co wejnen » h w t f te re a r e men ls>7 a r o u n d . l&S. r f e e l no o b l i g a t i o n t«J s t i c k tip f o r members o f ay 158 s e x -165. Woaen do no t c h a l l e n g e me t o p e r f o r m a t my B e s t . 1*9 1?0. My f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h women a r e e a s i e r t h a n my 170 f r j ervdohips w i t h men b e c a u s e t h e y a r e not c o m p l i c a t e d hy t he p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e x . Women a r e an i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e o f s u p p o r t f o r n e . 171 172. O the r women t r t a t h r e a t t o me. 172 37"». 1 would r a t h e r ask a man t h a n a woman f o r h e l p . 173 I ?4 . when men a r e p r e s e n t , a g r o u p f e e l s l e a s f r e e and 174 e a s y . 1 7 5 . I p r i d e m y s e l f on b e i n g a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d men b e t t e r 175 t h a n o t h e r women. 176 . T a k i n g on p h y s i c a l l y c h a l l e n g i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i t h women 176 g i v e s me an i m p o r t a n t s e n s e o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t . 177 . I u s u a l l y t r y t o get. a n o t h e r woman's o p i n i o n b e f o r e I 177 make an i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n . 1 7 8 . I t does n o t b o t h e r me t o h e a r a woman g o s s i p i n g abou t 178 o t h e r women. 179 . I do not f e e l good a b o u t t h e f e m a l e sex aa a w h o l e . 179 1 8 0 . I do no t t h i n k i t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r women t o back each 180 o t h e r up i n d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s . 1 8 1 . I d i s l i k e t h e e m p h a s i s among women on p r o v i n g 181 f e m i n i n i t y . 108 l » D e f i n i t e l y n o t t r u e 2 -Not 3=Tends 4=Tends t r u e n o t t o t o be be t r u e t r u e 5= True 12 6 = D e f i n i t e l y t r u e 1 8 2 . There i s s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t and s p e c i a l abou t t h e way 182 women can t a l k t o each o t h e r . 1 8 3 . Somet imes i t i s r e a s s u r i n g t o be w i t h women- D e c a u s e we 183 s h a r e t h e same d o u b t s and i n s e c u r i t i e s . 1 8 4 . ftv r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women beccne l e s s i m p o r t a n t t o 184 me when I oa> i n v o l v e d w i t h a, man. 1 8 3 . N e g a t i v e remarks abou t women do no t b o t h e r . .ive any more 185 than, n e g a t i v e r e m a r k s about i».«f\. 186 . I v o D u l d r a t h e r p l e a s e a IAOB t h a n a woman. l&fe 187 . 1 h a t e t o hear a W o m a n d e m e a n i n g o t h e r women. 3 8 7 188 . Sometimes i t f e e l s g r e a t t o go ou t w i t h women who a r e 183 d e f i e n t and d o no t mind s t i r i r i n g «up a. l i t t l e t r o u b l e . 189 . I b o no t t h i n k i t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r women t o h e l p e t h e r 189 woven . 1 9 0 . I can t r u s t m e n more than w o r t n vhen the s i t u a t i o n 190 c e l l s f o r s e n s i t i v i t y and e m o t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 1 9 1 . I f e e l a sense c f p r i d e In b e i n g a woman when I hea r 191 about women's a c h i e v e m e n t s . 192 . I t h i n k i t i s g r e a t t h a t some women a r e t r y i n g t o open 192 up new o p p o r t u n i t i e s and freedoms f o r women. 109 Appendix B ( i i ) : BBWS—items used in the actual analysis of the data Factor 1: Same-gender Preference (factor loadings for student female sample.in parentheses) 26. Sometimes I prefer to be with women because I do not feel the same obligation to help and look after them that I feel with men. (.37) 35. My closest friends are women. (.42) 40. I feel a sense of real freedom when I am out with women. (.54) 46. My friendships with women are more enduring than my friendships with men. (.49) 47. I prefer women to men as co-workers on a job. (.59) 51. Being with a group of women gives me a real boost. (.40) 52. I can talk more easily with women than with men. (.68) 56. When I have a personal problem that I need to talk about, I usually go to a woman instead of a man. (.54) 59. When men are present, the talk seems less warm and intimate. (.59) 72. In general, i t is more important to be loyal to women than to men. (.62) 80. Working with other women helps me to be creative. (.46) 86. I can trust women more than men when the situation calls for decisiveness and leadership. (.55) 87. I feel a certain sense of unity when working on a project with women that I do not feel when men are included. (.68) 91. I prefer women to men as teammates. (.67) 96. Our similar experiences as women make i t easier for me to relate to women than to men. (.58) 100. I make i t a practice to give my business to women 110 professionals in preference to men. (.52) 103. When I want to try something adventurous or daring I prefer women to men as companions. (.57) 105. I find women easier to work with than men. 106. I can count on women more than men to be there when I need them. (.74) 107. When I have a choice of course instructors, I generally choose a woman. (.56) 111. Being around other women makes me feel more confident in myself. (.50) 118. At social gatherings, I almost always seek out other women (.60) 120. There is a sense of challenge, strength, and comradeship when women get together that is weakened i f men are included. (.59) 122. Women provide more of what I need in friendships than men do. (.66) 132. When personal feelings are talked about in a group, I would rather the group be a l l women. (.61) 134. When I want to break free from responsibilities, I would rather go out with women than men. (.58) 138. It is easier to be myself with women than with men. (.66) 144. I feel stronger when I join forces with other women. (.39) 174. When men are present, a group feels less free and easy. (.68) Factor 2: Cross-gender Preference 5. 9. As friends, I prefer men to women. (.56) I find men more interesting than women. (.63) 111 13. In disagreements between people, I tend to side with men rather than with women. (.61) 15. I receive more emotional support from men than from women. (.51) 16. I trust men more than women in positions of responsibility. (.68) 19. I spend more time with men than with women. (.49) 23. I prefer that men rather than women take the leadership in group discussions. (.63) 24. It is easier to talk with men than women about relationships or feelings. (.60) 32. I trust men more than other women. (.74) 37. I would rather help a man than a women. (.67) 38. Intellectual discussions are more satisfying with men than with women. (.69) 43. As confidants, I prefer men to women. (.68) 44. When I have to take on a tough job, I would rather have a man than a woman on my side. (.70) 49. I feel better when a man gives me a compliment than when a woman does. (.61) 57. Women's opinions are less important to me than men's. (.58) 64. I am not at my best when I am with women. (.47) 66. When I need help with a very serious decision, I go to a man. (.61 ) 70. I find i t easier to work out disagreements with men than with women. (.51) 77. I would rather work for a man than a woman. (.67) 85. On the whole, men are more important to me than are other women. (.65) 88. As a rule, I am able to be more open and vulnerable with men than I am with women. (.60) 1 12 97. When I have something very sensitive and emotional that I want to talk about, I go to a man rather than a woman. (.46) 110. I d i s l i k e working with women. (.51) 116. I cannot confide in a woman the way I can with a man. (.44) 121. In my experience, there i s less cooperation and consideration in women's groups than in mixed groups. (.47) 173. I would rather ask a man than a woman for help. (.66) 175. I pride myself on being able to understand men better than other women. (.53) 186. I would rather please a man than a woman. (.69) 190. I can trust men more than women when the sit u a t i o n c a l l s for s e n s i t i v i t y and emotional understanding. (.49) Factor 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n with Women 108. When I hear about a woman who has overcome opposition in order to do what she believed to be right for her l i f e , I fe e l proud to be a woman. (.64) 124. I do not support women who are trying to make things better for women.*1 (-.56) 140. I am inspired by stories about women who are determined to survive under d i f f i c u l t circumstances. (.59) 141. I fe e l complimented when I hear someone say something good about women. (.63) 150. I do not want to be associated with women's causes.* (-.50) 191. I f e e l a sense of pride in being a woman when I hear about women's achievements. (.71) 192. I think i t i s great that some women are trying to open up 1* negatively loaded items 113 new opportunities and freedoms for women. (.58) Factor 4: Valuing Women 3. Women do not add to the quality of my l i f e . * (-.48) 75. My relationships with women are very important to me. (.63) 81. I do not like being emotionally close to other women.* (-.53) 95. I miss my women friends when I cannot see them as often as usual. (.45) 114. My relationships with women do not meet any important emotional needs for me.* (-.66) 126. My relationships with women are a source of stab i l i t y and consistency in my l i f e . (.71) 135. Relationships with women are not a necessary part of my l i f e . * (-.61) 145. I do not seek out other women to talk to at work or school.* (-.38) 155. I would feel lonely without my relationships with women. ( .62) 171. Women are an important source of support for me. (.62) Appendix C: Social Provisions Scale S o c i a l P r o v i s i o n s S c a l e 1 15 In answering the next set of que s t i o n s , please t h i n k about your c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the women f r i e n d s , f a m i l y members, co-workers and community members. Please t e l l me to what extent you agree that each statement describee your c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women. Use the s c a l e 1 to ^  (see below) to give me your o p i n i o n . So, f o r example, i f you f e e l a statement i s very t r u e of your c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women, you would c i r c l e ff4-"strongly agree". I f you f e e l a statement c l e a r l y does not d e s c r i b e your r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women, you would c i r c l e 0 1 - " s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e " . l n S t r o n g l y Disagree; 2-=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4=Strongly Agree. S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y Disagree Agree 1. There a r e women I can depend on to help me i f I r e a l l y need i t . 1 2 3 4 2. I f e e l t h a t I do not have c l o s e personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h women. 1 2 3 4 3. There i s no woman'I can tu r n to f o r guidance i n times of s t r e s s . 1 2 3 4 > 4. There a r e women who depend on me f o r h e l p . 1 2 3 4 5. There a r e women who enjoy the same s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s 1 do. 1 2 3 4 6. I do not t h i n k t h a t women view me as competent. 1 2 3 4 7. 1 f e e l p e r s o n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the w e l l -being of a woman. 1 2 3 4 8. I f e e l p a r t of a group of women who share my a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s . 1 2 3 4 9. 1 do not t h i n k t h a t women respect my s k i l l s .. and a b i l i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 10. If something went wrong, there is no woman who would come to my assistance. 1 2 3 4 11. I have close personal relationships with women that provide me with a sense of emotional security and well-being. 1 2 3 4 12. There are women I can talk to about important decisions in my l i f e . 1 2 3 4 13. I have relationships with women where my competence and s k i l l are recognized. 1 2 3 4 14. There are no women who share my interests and concerns. 1 2 3 4 15. There i s no woman who re l ies on me for her well-being. ' 1 2 3 4 16. There are trustworthy women in my l i f e I could turn to for advice i f I were having problems. 1 2 3 4 17. I feel a strong emotional bond with at least ' one other woman. • 1 2 3 4 18. There is no woman I can depend on for aid i f 1 rea l ly need i t . 1 2 3 4 19. There is no woman I feel comfortable talking about my problems with. 1 2 3 4 20. There are women who admire my talents and a b i l i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 Strongly Disagree 117 Strongly Agree 21. There i s no woman who l ikes to do the things I do. 22. I lack a feel ing of intimacy with a woman. 23. There are women I can count on in an emergency. 24. No woman needs me to care for her. Appendix D: Liberated Behavior Questionnaire Liberated Behaviour Questionnaire n g In t h i s part you are asked about s p e c i f i c things you may or may not have done d u r i n g the past year, r e l a t e d to the r o l e of women. I t i s very important t l i a t you i n d i c a t e what you have a c t u a l l y done, d u r i n g t l i a t p e r i o d . Please use the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e : • 1 - Never; 2 » Once or a very 3 • A few times; 4 - Often; 5 - Very o f t e n . few times; Never 1. When addressing a l e t t e r to an unknown pcrnon who may be a woman, I w r i t e some plirnne l i k e "To whom i t may concern," r a t h e r than "Dear S i r , " o r "Gentlemen". 1 2 3 4 2. I have d e l i b e r a t e l y walked next to the s t r e e t on a sidewalk to avoid Iiaving the man always :» >: walk on t l i a t s i d e . 1 2 3 4 3. I have c o n s c i o u s l y voted f o r women f o r p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e . 1 2 3 4 4. I have c o n s c i o u s l y not purchased products, c i g a r e t t e s , e t c . , because i n t h e i r a d v e r t i s i n g they have portrayed a strong s e x i s t image f o r women, 1 2 3 4 5. I have turned o f f a TV program because' i f ' h a s annoyed me f o r i t s s e x i s t view of women. 1 2 3 4 6. I have picked up something that I have dropped even when I"have been w i t h a man, and/or sometimes I have picked up something n man has dropped, even though he could have picked i t up almost as e a s i l y . i 2 3 4 7. I have t o l d a sexual joke i n mixed company ( i . e . , of both males and females). 1 2 3 4 8. I have l e t h a i r grow on my legs or under my arms. 9. As g i f t s f o r c h i l d r e n I have bought s c i e n t i f i c or mechanical, or other generally considered "maBCuline"toy8 f o r a g i r l , or I have bought some a r t s , c r a f t s , d o l l s , or other generally "feminine" toys f o r a boy. 4 Very Often 10. I liave gone out of my way to open a door for, or give a seat on a bus to an older man. 11. 1 have told a man that I prefer for him not to go out of his way to walk on the street side of a sidewalk, to open doors for me, etc. 12. I have attended a "conclousneBS -rnls ing" meeting for women, or some other group concerned primarily with women's r ights . 13. I have taken n course that would be considered real ly tradit ional ly masculine, e .g. , engineering, science, mathematics, etc. 14. I liave taken or have tried to take but could not work out, a course such as "the psychology of women", or "the sociology of women", etc. 15. I have spoken up in class to state a pro-women's rights posit ion. 16. I have written a paper for a class emphasizing '. the need for women's l iberat ion . 17. I have ini t iated a discussion on women's rights . 18. In making love I have made the f i r s t move. 19. I have attended a r a l l y to support women's r ights . 20. I have pointed out to someone tliat he lias made a "male chauvinistic" joke or comment. .21. I liave talked freely about sex with men. 22. I liave masturbated. » 23. I liave addresses a woman aa "Ms." 24. I have written a le t ter to a l eg i s la tor , newspaper, person, t t t c , on sexism. 25. I liave l i t a man's cigarette. 26. I have repaired household appliances. 27. I have purcliased clothea d e l i b e r a t e l y In order not to look overly "feminine". 121 Very 28. I liave t o l d my f a m i l y and/or acquaintances N e v e r 0 £ t e n t l i a t I am f o r equal r i g h t s f o r women. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I liave used p r o f a n i t y i n mixed company ( i . e . , of both males and females). 1 2 3 4 5 30. I have d e l i b e r a t e l y dressed i n such a way as to avoid l o o k i n g very feminine when I have gone f o r a j o b i n t e r v i e w . 1 2 3 4 5 31. I have pointed out to a woman that a remark t l i a t she has made has i m p l i e d a b e l i e f i n women's i n f e r i o r i t y of men. 1 2 3 4 5 32. 1 have i n v i t e d a man over to my apartment. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I liave dated a man whom I expected at the time would o b t a i n l e s s s c h o o l i n g than myself, e v e n t u a l l y . 1 2 3 . 4 5 34. I have planned the evening f o r a d a t e . 1 2 3 4 5 35. I have asked a man f o r a date. 1 2 3 4 5 36. I have shared the expenses about e q u a l l y when I have dated. 1 2 3 4 5 37. I have picked up my date and done the d r i v i n g f o r the evening. 1 2 3 4 5 38. 1 have asked f o r a man's telephone number, i n order to be a b l e to ask him out l a t e r , 1 2 3 4 5 perhaps. 39. I have t r i e d to make sure t l i a t the man I would l i k e to date has a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards women's l i b e r a t i o n . 1 2 3 4 5 Appendix E: Spheres of Control Scales Spheres of Control Scale 123 Below are 30 statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1 to 7 scale below. Indicate your agreement with each item by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number on the l ine following that item. 1- Strongly Disagree 4=Neutral 2- Disagree 5=Slightly Agree 3=Slightly Disagree 6=Agree 7=Strongly Agree 1. When I get what I want i t ' s usually because I worked hard for i t . 2. When I make plans I am almost certain to make them work. 3. I prefer games involving some luck over games requiring pure s k i l l . 4. I can learn almost anything i f I set my mind to i t . . Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My accomplishments are entirely due to my hard work and a b i l i t y . 6., I usually don't set goals because I have a hard time following through on them. 7. Competition discourages excellence. 8. Often people get ahead just by being lucky. 9. On any sort of exam or competition 1 l i k e to know how well I do re lat ive to everyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 124 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree 10. I t ' s p o i n t l e s s to keep on working on something that i s too d i f f i c u l t f o r me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Even when I'm f e e l i n g s e l f - c o n f i d e n t about most things, 1 s t i l l seem to l a c k the a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I have no trouble making and keeping f r i e n d s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I'm not good at guiding the course of a conversation with several others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. I can u s u a l l y e s t a b l i s h a c l o s e personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with someone I f i n d a t t r a c t i v e . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. When being Interviewed I can u s u a l l y steer the interviewer toward the topics I want to t a l k about and away from those I wish to avoid. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. If I need help i n c a r r y i n g o f f a plan of ' mine, i t ' s u s u a l l y d i f f i c u l t to get others to help. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. I f there i s someone I want to meet I can u s u a l l y arrange i t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I o f t e n f i n d i t hard to get my point of view across to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. In attempting to smooth over a disagreement, I u s u a l l y make It worse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree 125 20. 1 find It easy to play an important part in most group situations. 1 21. By taking an active part in p o l i t i c a l and socia l a f fa irs we, the people, can control world events. 1 22. The average c i t izen can have an influence on government decisions. 1 23. It i s d i f f i c u l t for people to liave much control over the things po l i t i c ians do in o f f i ce . 1 24. Bad economic conditions are caused by world events that are beyond our control . 1 25. With enough effort we can wipe out p o l i t i c a l corruption. 1 i 26. One of the major reasons we have wars is because people don'.t take enough interest in p o l i t i c s . 1 27. There is nothing we, as consumers,' can do to keep the cost of l i v i n g from going higher. 1 28. When I look at i t careful ly I rea l ize i t is impossible to liave any real ly Important influence over wliat big businesses do. 1 29. I prefer to concentrate my energy on other things rather than on solving the world's problems. 1 30. In the long run we, the voters, are responsible for bad government on a national as well as a loca l l e v e l . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix F: Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale ^27 Please read the fo l lowing l i s t of sentences and decide whether you agree or d i sagree wi th them. Use the sca le from 1 to 4 (see below) to descr ibe how you f e e l about each sentence and i n d i c a t e by c i r c l i n g the number beside the statement which d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l . 1 -Strongly Disagree ; 2-Disngree; 3-Agree; ^ S t r o n g l y Agree. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. On the whole I am s a t i s f i e d with mysel f . 1 2 3 4 2. At times I t h i n k I am no good at a l l . 1 2 3 4 3 . I f e e l 1 liave a number of good q u a l i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 4. I am a b l e to do things as wel l as most other people . 1 2 3 4 5. I f e e l I do not liave much to be proud o f . 1 2 3 4 6. I c e r t a i n l y f e e l use l e s s at t imes. 1 2 3 4 7. I f e e l that I am a person of worth at l e a s t on an equal p lane wi th o thers . 1 2 3 4 8. I wish I cou ld liave more respect for myse l f . 1 2 3 4 9. A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d to f e e l tliat I am a f a i l u r e . 1 2 3 4 10. I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards myse l f . 1 2 3 4 

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.831.1-0054260/manifest

Comment

Related Items