5.. .1 u u . a swell .bu v (I. I .o. m. . . . u.‘ k. a I“ 1300.8 ‘5”... m. 9. A” x...» p... a ”E. n3 . .... Z 3. .1 -. . s . ll .. t. .. ,5 «HRH. 1‘8 . .5 «.4. m... FL haw .... s... “a” .3“ w... .... . :L Ca . ITO; .- t..!.‘ 9J‘ a. O- I... h. 2 'r‘l I. . 2 ‘54‘ u: ixiéat. :2! : (Km 3-) 9 ‘lepc . . I“ "A"? “impr- § ZZ Z Z ZZZ Z 5- 5 ._Z_Z vow- 3. "n 1 CHILD ATTRIBUTES PREFERRED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS CHRISTIE C. RANDOLPH Abstract of MA Thesis Completed Fall Term, 1967 Extendino preliminary work by Hurley, this study explored collece students' perceptions of what constitute the desirable behavioral attributes of 8-year-old children. The identity of desirable or preferred behaviors of children remains largely un- explored because most prior research focused upon undesired be- haviors. The primary objectives of this study were: (a) to ob- tain a substantial sample of behavioral attributes "free‘v nomi~ nated" as desirable: (b) to assess linkaces between such attri— butes and later forced-rapkinqs of the 10 most freeuentlv nomi- nated attribu+e classifications: (c) to identify relationsbios between Hurley's earlier attribute list and the new set of attri- butes: (d) to identify relationships between attribute preferences and the Nanifest Rejection (MR) scale, an independent index of parental punitiveness; and (e) to confirm a relationship between a complex derivative from Hurley's attributes, called the Child Image ("good slave minus stronq personality") index and MR scores. The Child Imade (CI) scores for females were expected to be more in the direction of the "oood slave" (GS) than those for males, and CI scores for girls were expected to be more in the direction of the GS than those for boys. In Phase I, 64 males and 199 females in an undergraduate child psycholoov course at Nichioan State University were asked: (a) to nominate four or more behavioral attributes which "you feel are desirable" in 8—vear-olds, and then to rank these nomi— nations from 1 to 4; (b) to rank-order from 1 to lO Hurley's at— tributes, both for an 8—year-old boy (BOY) and an 8-vear-old qirl (GIRL): and (c) to complete a child-rearing attitude ques- tionnaire, which included the MR scale. A new list of 10 attri— butes was next constructed from the most frequently cited "free nomination" behaviors. In Phase II, ten weeks later, 27 males and 61 females who had completed tasks b and c rank-ordered both the new attribute list and the older Hurley list, both separately for BOY and GIRL. Supporting the validity of these forced-rankings, students who had nominated behaviors subsumed under new list attributes “curious,"“able to make friends, "fun-loving and carefree,""imaqi- native and creative," ”considerate and cooperative," and "neat and clean“ ranked these attributes more highly on the new list than did students not nominatinq such behaviors. The major trend was for both sexes to prefer any specific attribute to the same degree for both BOY and GIRL. The exceptions to this trend were: (a) both sexes ranked "neat and clean," "good student,“ and "re- spectful toward adults" as more important for GIRL than BOY but ”good in games and sports," "curious," and “assertive and self- reliant“ as more important for BOY than GIRL; and (b) females ranked “fun—loving and carefree," “considerate and cooperative,“ and "good, dependable worker" as more important for GIRL than for BOY. The BOY attribute rankinqs showed more cross-sex aqreement than did GIRL rankings. Males tended to assign GS attributes to GIRL while females preferred a blend of GS and "strong per- sonality" (SP) qualities, with greater emphasis upon the latter. These conflicting GIRL attribute preferences imply diffuse ex- pectations, which may pose important identity problems for girls. Both sexes agreed that interpersonal skill attributes, such as "interacts well with others“ and “able to make friends“ are highly desirable qualities in 8-year—olds. The independent MR scale correlated positively with males rankings of "respectful toward adults" but inversely with their rankings of "openly expresses feelings“ and "fun-loving and care- free". Among females, "obediant to parents" correlated positively, while "curious" and "openly expresses feelings“ correlated nega- tively, with MR. As anticipated, CI scores correlated negatively with MR for both sexes. The CI scores for GIRL as compared with those for BOY were in the predicted direction and statistically m Thesis Committeei: John Hfir eyJ 0 Accepted: December 19, 1967 significant. (Chairman), Charles Hanlev, and James Uleman CHILD ATTRIBUTES PREFERRED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS BY fFW Christie C. Randolph A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. John Hurley, chairman of my committee, for his help in planning the study and preparing this manuscript and especially for his continued support over the last two and one half years: Dr. Charles Hanley for his invaluable statistical advice: and Dr. James Uleman, for his helpful suggestions, par- ticularly with respect to category reliability. I wish to express my thanks to Elizabeth Force for rating the free responses and for the many times she proof-read my manuscript. Table of Contents Page ACknOWledgementS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ii LiSt Of Tables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv LiSt Of Appendices O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V IntroduCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l subjeCtS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 leasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Results 14 Preferences for Behavioral Attributes. . . . . . . . 14 Relationship Between Attribute Preferences and MR 18 Sex Differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Relationship Between Attribute Preferences and CI scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 25 RelationshipBetweenCHlAttributes and New AttribUteS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27 Discussion 32 Preferences for Behavioral Attributes. . . . . . . . 32 Relationship Between Attribute Preferences and MR . . 35 Sex Differences in Attribute Desirability and the CI Index...oooooooooooooooooooo 36 RelationShip Among LiSt II AttribUteSo o o o o o o o 37 Research Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O Appendices O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 42 ~. 7 .- v - ‘1 l , r. n l r r-' L- \ . \ n . _. , . Z \ r - ' - o -- e n + r s u .- .\ i n ,Z ‘ H - 1 _ \ , r v '1 N v ’ ’| - N - \ \ A O D "~ 1‘ \ 1 . 41 m r“ . n r n r r \ . .e , - ~. — ~ A A , .— Z ,- ' ~ ,. ~ a a L, ~ . - (‘ h . \ a N 4 - I ’ -1 n r - , r Z , p A :- ~3 r~ 4 . a- Q o» n a s ,- - P . J - 1- ' \ \ n v \ r~ ‘ n ‘5 P It " \ » r‘ r I. v q l-‘ s '4 r- ‘ ~ ,» r - ~. a \ 7‘ v A -\ - .~ l a v.- - W 7- ‘ ' c a o A List of Tables Table Page 1. Percentage of Students Assigning a Specific Rank to Freely Nominated Attributes Incorporated in List II 15 2. Difference Between Mean Ranks of List II Attributes Assigned by Students Nominating These Attributes and Students Not Nominating These Attributes. . . . . . . l6 3. Mean Ranks Assigned by Males and Females to Behavioral Attributes in Lists I and II. . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 4. Correlations Between GS Attributes, SP Attributes, New Attributes, CI Scores and MR. . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Mean Differences Between Ranks Assigned to Behavioral Attributes for BOY and GIRL by Males and Females. . . 23 6. Correlations Between Ranks Assigned to Behavioral Attributes for BOY and the Same Behavioral Attributes for GIRL O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 24 7. GS and SP Attributes Having the Highest Significant Correlation with Each CI Score . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. Significant Correlations Between New Attributes in List II and Bach CI Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Significant Correlations Between List II Attributes and List I GS and SP Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 List of Appendices Appendix page A. Child Relations Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . 42 B. Response Set. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . o . 44 C. List of Behavioral Attributes. . . . . o . . . 45 D. Correlation Matrix of CI Scores, MR Scores, and Rankings of Attributs . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 E. New Attributes in List II Which Meet the Require- ments for Membership in One of Two Opposing Groups. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 53 Introduction This study explored the kinds of behavioral attributes that adults find desirable or prefer in children. A review of the liter— ature on children, parents, parent—child relations, and attitudes pub- lished in the last forty years or so and summarized in Psychological Abstracts revealed that this is an area that is virtually unexplored. Previous investigations of child behavior seem to have focused on misbehavior and to have been solely concerned with the undesira- bility of certain behaviors in children. For example, Stogdill (1933) asked parents, students, and mental hygienists to rate 70 items of child behavior on an attitude scale from 1 to 10 in terms of their degree of seriousness or undesirability. The scale includ— ed items such as, “disobedience," "disrespect,“ “rudeness,“ and "careless of appearance." MacClenathan (1933) had teachers and parents list misbehaviors or unusual behaviors and then condensed this list of behavior traits. Her list was composed of traits like, “cheating,“ "lying," "lack of cooperation," and "lack of respect for authority.“ Teachers were asked to mark the relative frequency of occurance of the traits on the list in each of their pupils and to what degree that child's social adjustment was seriously affected. To the investigator's knowledge, only one study in the literature reviewsiasks the question, “What types of behavior are desirable in children?" Medinnus (I961) constructed a sort of characteristics of 5-year-olds and asked parents of children this age to sort the items in terms of the “ideal 5-year-old." The items in the pool were taken from books, literature, and rating scales. Medinnus stated that a multitude of sources were consulted in order to get complete coverage of the traits which pertinently and significantly describe the 5-year- old. The items retained from the pool were those which were mentioned most frequently and those thought by clinicians to be most predictive of later adjustment. Of the items retained, 42 formed a plus pool and 42 a minus pool. "Is interested in learning new things: asks many questions" and “has a lot of energy and pep: doesn't get tired quickly" are typical of the items in the plus pool, while "lacks drive, no spark” and "cries easily" are typical of the items in the minus pool. Seventy— six parents, 19 sets of parents of boys and 19 sets of parents of girls, were required to sort the two pools of items with the ideal 5-year-oldiJ mind. The items in the plus pool were sorted into seven piles of six items each on acont inuum from. "most important for the ideal 5-year—old to possess" to "least important for the ideal 5-year—old to possess". The procedure for the minus pool was identical, except that the con- tinuum ranged from "least bad for the ideal 5—year-old to possess" to "worst for the ideal 5—year—old to possess." Medinnus reported that the mean of the reliability coefficients for the ideal sort was .51 for the plus pool and .53 for the minus pool. Medinnus was chiefly interested in interparent agreement and intraparent agreement (the ideal sort was compared with a real sort for the parent's own child) and the items differentiating parents on the real and ideal sorts. Although he obtained information on the rank order and mean placement of items in the ideal sort, he did not make this information available in his article. A few years ago, Hurley became interested in what kinds of be- havioral attributes adults prefer in children.1 As a result of his interest, he listed 10 behavioral attributes that came readily to mind and had the students in his child psychology class rank order them in terms of their desirability in 8—year-old children. Empirical data and thoughtful consideration suggested that three of the attributes were congruent with the characteristics of a “good slave" (G8), a person who unquestioningly follows the patterns of behavior established by others for him and submits to authority. In addition, three of the attributes were in agreement with the characteristics of the ”strong‘ personality“ (SP), a person who can function independently of others, make his own decisions, and assert himself. Hurley noted that each person who rank ordered the list of 10 behavioral attributes could be given a composite score by summing the ranks assigned to the GS attri- butes and subtracting the summed ranks assigned to the SP attributes. The composite score presumably reflects the kind of behavior in a child that the ranker prefers. IA high score indicates a preference for the SP, and a low score indicates a preference for the GS. Hurley found that the students' composite scores had a correlation coeffi- cient of -.45 (N=253) with their scores on the Manifest-Rejection (MR) index, a measure of how rejecting parents are, which he and other in- vestigators had constructed (see Footnote 1). The MR index was designed to assess parental attitudes toward child-rearing practices. It is composed of a series of items con- cerning the general inclination of parents to endorse either a sup- portive, accepting, and non-coercive approach to child-rearing prac- tices or a punitive, intimidating, and fear-inducing disciplinary policy toward children. Representative of the kinds of items in the index are: “It is good for children to sometimes 'talk-back' to their parents,“ and "When parents Speak, children should obey." Presumably, this instrument will also reflect the attitudes of the childless toward child—rearing practices. §s agree or disagree with each item on a weighted 5-point scale. The scale score for each S is the sum of the item weights. High MR scores tend to reflect overly punitive and rejecting attitudes toward children. Low MR scores are assumed to reflect a tendency to avoid coercive, punitive, and rejecting behaviors in parent-child inter- actions. The MR index has been found to relate to a measure of one's tendency to punish children called the Punishment (PUN) index (Hurley, 1965). The PUN index consists of 24 items categorized under physical punishment, love-withdrawal, restraint, isolation, shame, threat, and corrective reasoning. Only parents' direct acknowledgements that they might employ the described punishment with their own child were scored positively. The correlation coefficient between MR and PUN was .46 (3:194) (Hurley, 1965, p. 25). The MR index has also been found to be associated with children‘s intelligence. The correlation co- efficient between parents' MR scores and children's IQ (measured by the California Test of Mental Maturity) was -.27 (§=204) (Hurley, 1965, p. 24). Thus, the MR index is related to parents' behavior, that is, the kind of punishment they say they would employ with their children, and to children's behavior, namely, their performance on a test of in- telligence. Hurley's work was the starting point for the present study, which explored the kind of behavior preferred by college students in 8-year- old children. Aside from contributing knowledge in this area, this investigation was justified in view of the relationship between pre— ferences for behavioral attributes and parental behavior, and the pro— bable influence of parental preferences for behavioral attributes on the develOpment of behavioral attributes in children. The study's objectives were: (a)t02aobtain substantial sample of behavioral attributes thought by college students to be desirable in 8—year-old children: (b) to assess linkages between such attributes and later forced-rankings of the 10 most frequently nominated attri- bute classifications: (c) to ascertain relative preferences for Hurley': attributes and the new set of attributes based on the students' nomi- nations: (d) to identify relationships between Hurley's earlier attri- bute list and the new set of attributes: (e) to identify relationships between attribute preferences and the MR index: and (f) to confirm the relationship established between the kind of behavior preferred in children (as measured by the composite scores) and the MR index. In order to achieve objects c and e, the investigator adminis— tered the MR index and repeated the procedure used by Hurley to de- termine the kind of behavior preferred in children. Thus, compoSite scores were derived from the ranks §s' assigned to the 10 behavioral attributes when asked to rank order them in terms of their desirabil— ity in 8-year-old children. College students were selected as S3 in order to facilitate comparison with Hurley's data. In addition, they were readily accessible to the investigator. To achieve objectives a and c, the students were asked to nominate behavioral attributes that "they feel are desirable" in 8—year—old children and later to rank order in terms of desirability a list of attributes based on their own suggestions. The reason for asking the students to nominate attributes was the investigator's belief that the studenué own suggestions would be more representative of their broader preferences than the relative preferences they express for attributes given by the investigator. By the same reasoning, the students' rankings of the attributes in a list of attributes based on their own nominations should be more representative of their preferences than the ranks they assign to attributes in a list given by the researcher. The investigator also felt that the students would have fewer objections and give more thought to ranking a limited number of attributes if they were first given the opportunity to freely express their own attribute preferences. Therefore, the students were requested to give their nominations before they were asked to rank order the 10 behavioral attributes. Students were asked to rank rather than rate the list of attri— butes based on their own suggestions because raters hesitate to make extreme judgments and thus tend to displace rated items in the direction of the mean of the total group (Guilford, 1954, p. 278). Ten was set as the limit for the number of attributes to be ranked because the investigator felt that it would be diffi- cult, if not impossible, to make meaningful discriminations among a larger number of attributes. Scores on the MR index were correlated with the ranks assigned to behavioral attributes nominated by the students to demonstrate a relationship between the students' preferences for these attri~ butes and their behavior. The MR index was selected because Hurley had found that it was related to oneksreported intention to punish children and to one's preferences for behavioral attributes in children. Few hypotheses were formulated in advance since this study was exploratory. Separate data were collected on the preferences of males and females for attributes in boys and girls because the investigator anticipated obtaining differences in the composite scores and the preferences for individual attributes, which could be attributed to the sex of the ranker and differences which could be attributed to the sex of the child being ranked. Despite Medinnus' (1961) failure to find consistent differences between fathers and mothers in their perception of their children regard— less of the sex of the child, this investigator felt that women place less emphasis on the qualities of the SP in children than men do. Thus, composite scores for females were expected to be more in the direction of the GS than those for males. Composite scores for girls were expected to be more in the direction of the GS than those for boys since the investigator felt that our cul— ture stresses the deveIOpment of GS attributes in girls. Method Sgbjects §s were 64 males and 189 females in an undergraduate child psychology course at Michigan State University in the fall of 1965. Among the 253 Ss, there were approximately 98 juniors, 70 seniors, 67 sephomores, 13 freshman, 1 undergraduate enrolled in special programs, and 1 graduate student. Measures Child_Relations Inventory. The Child Relations Inventory (CRI) was administered in its entirety: but only the items in the MR index were scored. This inventory consists of three parts: items 1-30 represent the MR index: items 31-40 and 51-55 represent the Achievement Pressure Scale, and items 41-50 represent the Over- protection Scale (see Appendix A). thlg_lE§S§_£BQ§§- The composite score, which is derived from the rankings of the 10 behavioral attributes originally for- mulated by Hurley, will be referred to as the Child Image (CI) index. Eight out of 10 of these behavioral attributes were reworded so that they might be applied to 8-year-olds and l6-year-olds alike. Hurley's list of 10 behavioral attributes and the revised list are as follows: fisrleyieiiet reliable and conscientious worker expresses feeling directly energetic and vigorous outstanding in scholastic work respectful toward adults independent and self—assertive extremely intelligent skillful in games and sports obedient to parents unusually competent verbally Lie}... good, dependable worker (WORKER) Openly expresses feelings (FEELINGS) alert and active (ALERT) good student (STUDENT) respectful toward adults (RESPECT) assertive and self-reliant (ASSERT) very intelligent (BRIGHT) good in games and sports (SPORTS) obedient to parents (OBEDIENT) expresses thoughts clearly (THOUGHTS) The word in parenthesis following each attribute is intended to be an abbreviation and should not be confused with the attribute it represent These abbreviations will be used from this point on. WORKER, RESPECT, and OBEDIENT are the three attributes which are characteristic of the GS, while FEELINGS, ALERT and ASSERT are the three attributes which are characteristic of the SP. Possible scores on the CI index range from plus 21 to minus 21. High positive scores indicate a preference for the SP, and high negative scores indicate a preference for the GSo Procedure Students were asked to nominate behavioral attributes desir- able in 8-year-olds, to rank order the revised list of behavioral attributes, and to complete the CRI. Only those students who com- pleted both the rankings of the behavioral attributes and the CRI were used as S3. It was thought desirable to invoke an appropriate response set for nominations regarding behavioral attributes viewed as very im- portant in an 8—year-old child. The description of 8-year—olds de- signed for this purpose is in Appendix B. After children of this age were briefly described to them and they had a few moments to re- view their own knowledge of these children, the students were asked to write down on 5“ x 8" cards their name, age, and sex and the be— havioral attributes that they would view as important in an 8—year— old child of the same sex. Several examples of behavioral attributes of all kinds (from telling the truth to being sassy) were given in order to clarify what was wanted from them. The students were asked to give four or more attributes and then to rank from 1 to 4 those attributes they regarded as most essential. Next the SS were asked to rank order from highest to lowest the list of 10 behavioral attributes in terms of their desirability in (a) an 8—year-old boy (BOY), (b) an 8-year-old girl (GIRL), (c) a 16 year-old boy, and (d) a 16 year—old girl (see Appendix C). The order of the first two tasks prevented the students' nominations from being biased by the investigator‘s list of attributes. Finally, they were instructed to complete the CRI, using the middle category sparingly. It was necessary to examine the students' suggested behavioral attributes in order to arrive at a new and more representative list of categories. Each of the attributes nominated was assigned to a category on the basis of the investigator‘s estimation of its suit- ability. For example, “plays by the rules" was assigned to the cate- gory "honest." The categories themselves were determined on the basis of the actual content of the suggestions. In instances of apparent misunderstanding of instructions, the student's nominations were disgarded. When two or more nominations by one individual seemed to mean the same thing, they were counted as one. To gain some information on the reliability of the 18 most frequently used categories, 50 cards bearing the Ss' nominations were chosen at random and each behavioral attribute was placed in one of 19 categories, devised by the investigator, by a new rater. The nineteenth category was reserved for all the attributes which did not fall into any of the preceding 18. Then the category judg- ments of the two raters were compared. The percentage of agree- ment, defined as the ratio of twice the number of times both raters assigned the attributes to the same category to the number of times the category was used by the first rater plus the number of times the category was used by the second rater, was 90% or higher in 12 of the 19 categories. No percentage agreement could be computed for category 18 because this category was used once by the first rater and not at all by the second rater. A complete analysis of these agreement percentages is as follows: 1. Honest 100% 2. Curious 97 3. Interacts well with groups 85% 4. Makes/has friends 91 5. Respectful toward adults 100 6. Independent 89 7. Fun-loving 95 8. Imaginative and creative 100 9. Considerate 8O 10. Responsible 100 11. Neat 100 12. Cooperative 86 13. Generous 100 14. Active 100 15. Good attitude toward school 100 16. Athletic 91 17. Obedient 88 19. Other 84 A new set of behavioral attributes Gist.II)*was derived from the 12 categories most frequently used by the students. Categories 1 and 10 and also 9 and 12 were combined so that the resulting list could be as inclusive as possible. The combinations of categories involved attributes that were closely allied such as, considerate and cooperative, List II is reproduced below. responsible and trustworthy (HONEST) curious interacts well with others (INTERACT). able to make friends (FRIENDS) respectful toward adults (RESPECT) assertive and self-reliant (ASSERT) fun—loving and carefree (CAREFREE) imaginative and creative (CREATIVE) considerate and copperative (CONSIDER) neat and clean (NEAT) The word in parenthesis following the attribute is intended to be an abbreviation and should not be confused with the attribute it stands for. Note that the attribute "curious" has no abbreviation. In the future, the word curious will be capitalized when it refers to the attribute'burious". These abbreviations will be used from this point on. h At the end of fall term, list II was introduced to the students as well as list I. The ranking instructing were the same, but they were asked to rank order each set only in terms of their desirability in BOY and GIRL. List I was ranked for 8-year-olds only, because the investigator had decided that comparisons between preferences for be- havioral attributes in 8—year-olds and 16 year-olds were beyond the scope of this study. List II was ranked for 8—years-olds only, be- cause the suggestions were made for children of this age. Approxi— mately, 36 juniors, 27 seniors, 21 SOphomores, 3 freshmen, and 1 undergraduate in special programs or a total of 27 men and 61 women who had completed both the CRI and the rankings of the behavioral attributes completed this new task. Results Preferences for Behavioral Attributes Ranks assigned to freely nominated attributes. To assess the relative importance of the attributes most freequently nomi- nated by the students as desirable for 8-year-old children, the percentage of male and female students assigning a specific rank (1, 2, 3, or 4) to a nominated attribute incorporated in list II was computed. These percentages are given in Table l. Ranks assigned to list II attributes by students freely nomi- nating these attributes and students not freely nominating these attributes. One would expect that students who had nominated at- tributes which were also incorporated in list II would rank these attributes as more important (lower mean rank) on list II than students who had not nominated themo The difference between the mean rank assigned to each attribute in list II for BOY and GIRL by students who had nominated this attribute or a similar one and the.mean rank assigned by students who had not nominated this attribute or a similar one was tested for significance using a t test for the difference between two means. Of these 20 differences, 9 were significant, 7 at the .05 level, one-tailed, and 2 at the .01 level, one-tailed. Nine of the remaining differences were in the expected direction but not significant, and 2 were not in the expected direction but not significant. These results are report- ed in Table 2. Ranks assigned to behavioral attributes in lists I and II. The mean ranks assigned by male and female students to the behavioral attributes in both lists for BOY and GIRL can be found in Table 3. Table 1 Percentage of Students Assigning a Specific Rank to Freely Nominated Attributes Incorporated in List II __L_Li____LZZ.Li"__“._LZ_ZZi._ Z_ __. Z Attributes Percentage for Each Rank N l 2 3 4 FRIENDS 43 15 19 23 26 l INTERACT 37 25 20 l8 l4 ASSERT 31 26 22 22 16 CAREFREE 28 28 28 20 16 HONEST 24 30 26 2O 31 CURIOUS 23 39 15 23 18 RESPECT 22 30 24 24 17 CONSIDER 18 32 31 19 14 CREATIVE 18 32 31 19 12 NEAT 7 18 32 43 7 Note.--Percentages have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. ..'|"x_ mm HH mm mm mm mm mm an no gm I'll! Ill-'1]. Apmaemulmcov Ho.AnQ e: ApmHAMUIwcov mooAflo e h mo.l wmon mmoh «m®.H whom va.m Fem we oo.a Hm.m Hm.v .vm.a om.m om.v mmonzn me «mv.H oo.v sa.m *mm.a ms.e ms.m m>He.01), -1.30 (p>.05), and 1.31 (p:>.05)° The N for males is 27 and the N for females is 61. The female students regarded being a WORKER as more im— portant for GIRL than the males ranked it for GIRL. However, the males perceived that being a STUDENT and being NEAT are more important for GIRL than the female did. The mean difference between ranks assigned to attributes for BOY and GIRL by male students and by female students was computed and tested for significance in order to determine if the sex of the child effected attribute preferences. (The rank assigned to GIRL was substracted from the rank assigned to BOY.) A t test for matched pairs was substituted for the standard t because the same § ranked the attributes for BOY and GIRL. For male students, 6 of the 20 differences were found to be significant. In 20 tests of significance using the .05 level, one significant dif- ference is expected to occur by chance. The males ranked NEAT, STUDENT, and RESPECT as more important for GIRL and SPORTS, CURIOUS and ASSERT (in list II) as more important for BOY. For female students, 10 of the 20 differences were significant. The females ranked SPORTS, ASSERT (in both lists), and CURIOUS as more important for BOY and NEAT, STUDENT, RESPECT, CAREFREE, CONSIDER, and WORKER as more important for GIRL. These re- sults are given in Table 5. The product—moment correlations between the ranks assigned by males and females to behavioral attributes for BOY and the same attributes for GIRL in both lists can be found in Table 6. These correlations indicate the strength of the relationship between the rank assigned to an attribute for BOY and the rank assigned to the same attribute for GIRL. These correlations were all significant at the .01 level and beyond, except those for STUDENT and SPORTS as ranked by male students. The differences between these correlations for males and females were tested for signi- ficance in the manner described by Walker and Lev (1953, pp. 255—256). None of these differences were significant at the .05 level (two—tailed). CI scores. Differences between the male and female students' CI scores for BOY and the differences between their CI scores for GIRL were computed and tested for significance in the manner pre- Table 5 Mean Difference Between Ranks Assigned to Behavioral Attributes for BOY and GIRL by Males and by Females m ~ ‘—-—=— — —. #-¢— Attributes _ ___ Males (N:24) Females (N=6_l _ _Z Lister, Z WORKER 0 .64** FEELINGS —.13 .16 ALERT .21 -.13 STUDENT 1.71** .75** RESPECT .92** .77** ASSERT -.75 -.95** BRIGHT .42 .31 SPORTS -2.42** -l.92** OBEDIENT .04 .11 THRESETS .25__. Z .11 _ LZSZJI HONEST -.17 —.05 CURIOUS -1.17** , —1.2o** INTERACT .13 .10 FRIENDS .25 -.02 RESPECT -.13 .43 ASSERT l.33* -l.15** CAREFREE -.21 —.74** CREATIVE -.33 .15 CONSIDER .88 .85** NEAT 1:75** 1.51** * p:>.05 ** p>.01 (two—tailed) (two-tailed) Table 6 Correlations Between Ranks Assigned to Behavioral Attributes for BOY and the Same Behavioral Attributes for GIRL _. .— -— .— u—‘--—."~ $111,993,628“... “Whales. £113 271 _ "2.989.195.33291)”. __ _ -__ M... , __-- n . __ZZ_ __- __.Li.St__ I...“ __ZZ _____._ -Z WORKER .76 .77 FEELINGS ' .76 .83 ALERT ' .72 .44 STUDENT .38 .72 RESPECT .72 .72 ASSERT .66 .63 BRIGHT- .81 .74 SPORTS .09 .63 OBEDIENT. .73 .89 THOUGHTS .85 CL_Z. j__ r951. .__ir._il f____ri_- -ListZI; ZZM__ Z__ HONEST .77 .81 CURIOUS ‘ .72 .63 INTERACT .92 .78 FRIENDS .60 .69 RESPECT .76 .77 ASSERT .64 .63 CPREFREE .61 .77 CREATIVE .53 .61 CONSIDER .68 .48 NEAT .59 ----. Z _____Z_,_5Z.3,___._Z__ZZ_Z_Z____ Note.-—For males a correlation of .49 or above is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed)o A correlation of .33 or above is significant at the .01 level (two—tailed) for females. viously described. None were significant, but all of the differ— ences were in the predicted direction. Thus, differences in males and females CI scores can not be attributed to the sex of the ranker. The mean difference (2.08) between male students' CI scores for BOY and GIRL and the mean difference (2.82) between female students' CI scores for BOY and GIRL were tested for significance. (CI scores for GIRL were subtracted from CI scores for BOY.) Both these mean differences were significant at the .01 level and in the expected direction. Thus, differences in BOY and GIRL CI Scores can be at— tributed to the sex of the child being ranked. Relationship Between Attribute Prefggegges apd CI Sgpres The magnitude of the correlations between the attributes and the CI scores indicate the strength of the relationship between them. §S_§ng_S§_att£iNyte§. RESPECT was the GS attribute which re— lated most powerfully to the CI index, in terms of correlating with CI at the highest levels of statistical significance and more fre- quently than the other GS attributes over the series of eight in- dividual CI indices (excluding the cross-sex correlations like RESPECT as ranked for GIRL with a CI Score for BOY). This means that the location of the rank which a student assigns to RESPECT is the beSt predictor of his CI scores. The SP attribute which related most powerfully to the male students' CI scores for BOY was ASSERT, and for GIRL it was FEELINGS. The SP attribute which related most power- fully to the female students' CI scores for BOY and GIRL was FEELINGS. Of the SP attributes, ASSERT is the best predictor of a male students' CI scores for BOY, and FEELINGS is the best predictor of a male stu- dent's CI scores for GIRL. The remaining relationships for female students may be interpreted in a similar way. See Table 7 for a Table 7 GS and SP Attributes Having the Highest Significant Correlation with Each CI Score —- Attributes BOY GIRL CI 1a CI 2b CI 1 CI 2 Males (Nz27) GS RESPECT -.65 -.73 -.78 WORKER -.42 SP ASSERT l .55 .54 FEELINGS .53 .68 Females (N=6l) GS ‘ OBEDIENT -.48 RESPECT -.7O -.63 -.72 SP FEELINGS .33 .57 .34 .59 Note.—-All the correlations for males are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed) or above. For females, all the correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed) or above. a Obtained on the first administration of list Io b Obtained on the second administration of list I. list of the GS and SP attributes having the highest significant product-moment correlation with each CI score. flgwwatgrihgtes; Of the eight new behavioral attributes in list II, the one which showed the strongest positive relationship with the male students' CI scores for BOY and GIRL is CYRIOUS. The new attribute in this same list which marifested the strongest negative relationship with the male students' CI scores for BOY is NEAT, and for GIRL, it is CONSIDER. For female students, the new attribute from list II which showed the strongest positive relationship with the CI scores for BOY is CREATIVE, and for GIRL, it is CURIOUS. The new attribute which manifested the strongest negative relationship is CONSIDER for BOY and HONEST for GIRL. In this case, strength of re- lationship was determined by comparing the magnitude of the signifi- cant product-moment correlations between new attributes in list II and each CI score and then noting the frequency with which these attributes correlated significantlv with the CI scores (the cross—sex correlations were excluded). A list of the significant correlations between new attributes in list II and each CI score for male and female students can be found in Table 8. islefiisnehiefistwesnlgllfitir unit-eased INeW. .Attsibutes Are any of the attributes in list II strongly associated with the CI attributes from list I? Table 9 contains a list of the sig- nificant product-moment correlations between the attributes in list II and the GS and SP attributes in list I. It is important to notice that HONEST had significant positive correlations with the first and second SP attributes and a significant negative correlation with the third SP attribute. Thus, only two of the new attributes, CONSIDER q“) — I.‘ ' n ‘I o.“l--.L—-H—-.._. mum—.0. - a . _ _._A . .t-rr1ut.~.-_._ -T. ._ A 1012'“ Ik _ r ' . D A". .' -———— r*‘1.- - -' _ . .,_ . Table 8 Significant Correlations Between New Attributes in List II and Each CI Score “m,“ ——-— _ Attributes BOY GIRL CI 1 CI 2 CI 1 CI 2 Males (3:27) CURIOUS 51 44 46 44 CAREFREE 45 CREATIVE 42 NEAT . -56 -55 CONSIDER -55 ~42 -68 ~35 HONEST ~42 Females (N;61) CREATIVE 37 48 39 47 CURIOUS 4O 49 INTERACT 27 FRIENDS 29 CONSIDER -3o —42 -38 —34 HONEST -31 -35 -32 -4I NEAT -44 —48 .05 level (two- Note.--All correlations are significant at the tailed) or above. Table 9 Significant Correlations Between List II Attributes and List I GS and SP Attributes Attributes Males (Ne27) Females (N=6l)' BOY GIRL BOY GIRL GS WORKER and HONEST 43 48 37 FRIENDS . -32 -35 RESPECT 26 CAREFREE ~27 CONSIDER 38 48 RESPECT and CURIOUS _ ~46 RESPECT 58 7O 59 56 ASSERT -34 CREATIVE -36 CONSIDER 43 4O OBEDIENT and CURIOUS -49 INTERACT ' -26 RESPECT 68 69 30 37 ASSERT -51 CREATIVE -43 -27 NEAT 4O 34 70— Attributes Males (N=27) Females (Nz6l) __‘f BOY GIRL BOY GIRL__ SP FEELINGS and HONEST ~46 CURIOUS 44 36 RESPECT ~40 CAREFREE 49 55 CREATIVE 31 NEAT -38 ~25 ALERT and HONEST ' -28 INTERACTS 31 25 FRIENDS 38 27 RESPECT ~44 ~33 ~27 CAREFREE 35 CREATIVE 35 36 CONSIDER ~40 NEAT ~39 ~32 ~43 ASSERT and HONEST 41 RESPECT -62 ~52 ~46 ~35 ASSERT 61 63 64 6O NEAT ~31 ~35 Note.—-All correlations are significant at the .05 level (two— tailed) or above. and NEAT are clearly related to the GS attributes. Five of the new attributes, CAREFREE, CURIOUS, CREATIVE, FRIENDS, and INTERACT are clearly related to the SP attributes. 31 - DiscussiOn Ere-.ISISFSSILIPE 5333121 ere; ._ AEIIIiPPIPS Preferences ..:fP_-:L:.. List. 2.1123311“ ibptes_9§-__§£u§ seize. 2919.12 at} 953.. these attributes and of studentswnotmnominating these attributes. Students who nominated CURIOUS, FRIENDS, CAREFREE, CREATIVE, CONSIDER and NEAT viewed these attributes as more important for BOY and/or for GIRL than students who did not nominate them. This indicates that there is a relationship between the students' nomination of attributes and their preferences for attributes in list II and that the student's rankings of list II attributes actually do reflect their preferences. Attributes-prefgrredwin_li§§,I. Male and female students were in almost total agreement on the ranks to be assigned to each of the attributes for BOY. They preferred that BOY have the attributes of the SP; that is, they preferred BOY to be ALERT, ASSERT, and Openly expressive of feelings (ranked first, second, and third, re— spectively). Male and female students did not agree on the ranks to be assigned to seven of the attributes in list I for GIRL. The average difference between the ranks assigned to these attributes by males and females was approximately three. The many discrepancies between the preferences of males and females for these attributes in GIRL suggest that girls are subject to conflicting expectations and thus may experience problems in assuming their role. The males as— signed rank one to ALERT and ranks three and five to RESPECT and OBEDIENT. Females assigned rank one to ALERT, rank two to FEELINGS, rank three to WORKER, and rank four to RESPECT. For the first five ranks, males selected as most preferable one attribute of the SP and two attributes of the GS while females selected two attributes of the SP (ranked first and second) and two attributes of the GS. Thus, the trends are for males to prefer girls who are “good slaves" while the females prefer girls who have a combination of the charac- teristics of the GS and SP, with an emphasis on the attributes of the latter. These findings are not surprising if one is of the opinion that boys in our culture have been encouraged to be more active and inde- pendent than girls. Inklings of a change in the woman's role may be reflected in the students' ranking an attribute of the SP first in importance for GIRL as well as BOY. The "good slave" is prob- ably not as strongly preferred for girls as it was in the years before the feminist movement when women were denied higher education, careers, and the right to vote. These trends suggest that the women seem to have accepted or encouraged this role change more wholeheartedly than the men have since they prefer girls to have more attributes of the SP than men do. Being a STUDENT was perceived by the males to be important for GIRL (ranked second) but not soimportant for BOY (ranked ninth). Fe- males considered that being a STUDENT is relatively unimportant for both sexes (ranked ninth for BOY and eighth for GIRL). It would seem that for girls, pressure for scholastic achievement is exerted by males. It seems surprising that a college population ranks BRIGHT so low (ranked tenth for BOY and ninth for GIRL). Perhaps this re— flects the general population's anti-intellectual bias. Attributes prefergegmin list II. Male and female students did not agree on the ranks to be assigned to seven of the attributes for BOY and eight of the attributes for GIRL. The average difference between the ranks assigned to these attributes was two for BOY and approximately two for GIRL. Thus, conflicting expectations seem to exist for both boys and girls. These conflicting expectations may cause role problems for both sexes. What attributes did the students consider to be most important in list II? Males ranked INTERACT and FRIENDS first and second in im- portance for BOY and GIRL: female students ranked them first and fourth for BOY and first and third for GIRL. Thus, the students agreed that interpersonal characteristics are very important for both sexes. The males viewed attributes like CONSIDER and HONEST, which seem intuitively to be related to the GS image, as next in im- portance for GIRL. However, the females viewed attributes like CREATIVE and CONSIDER, which seem intuitively to be a combination of attributes of the SP and GS, as first in importance for GIRLS after the interpersonal characteristics. (These intuitions are consistent with the empirical data in Table 9.) Thus, at this level of importance females prefer girls to have a combination of attributes of the SP and GS while males prefer girls to have attri- butes of the GS. In addition, the males place more emphasis on GS- like attributes in boys than females do. The males ranked HONEST third in importance for BOY and the females ranked CREATIVE second in importance. Males and females agreed that curiosity and assertiveness and self-reliance are more important for boys than for girls. Male students ranked CURIOUS fourth for BOY and eighth for GIRL and the female students ranked CURIOUS third for BOY and sixth for GIRL. ASSERT was ranked seventh for BOY and tenth for GIRL by the males and fifth for BOY and eighth for GIRL by the females. NEAT and CAREFREE, which seem to be at opposite ends of a con- tinuum of control versus spontaneity (see Appendix D for correlations between these attributes), tend to be rejected by the students as being desirable for children. There was,however, agreement that being NEAT is more important for girls. ASSERT and RESPECT, the attributes which appeared in both lists, tend not to be preferred in list II for BOY or for GIRL as they were, in list I. The males ranked ASSERT second in list I and seventh in list II for BOY, and they ranked this same attribute seventh in list I and tenth in list II for GIRL. The females ranked ASSERT second in list I and fifth in list II for BOY, and they ranked this same attribute sixth in list I and eighth in list II for GIRL. The attri- bute RESPECT was ranked seventh in list I and ninth in list II for BOY and third in list I and sixth in list II for GIRL by male stu- dents. RESPECT was ranked seventh in list I and ninth in list II for BOY and fourth in list I and seventh in list II for GIRL by the female students. The context of the attributes, which varies from one list to the other, seems to have importantly influenced the de- sirability of these two attributes. Belatiezashiaéstween.Astribste Preferences and IF.- -0 Five of the 18 individual attributes had statistically signifi- cant product-moment correlations with the MR index. Thus, preferences for these attributes are associated with attitudes toward child-rearing practices, which in turn are linked with parents' reported intentions to punish children. Two of these five attributes were strongly cor— related with tendencies to punish in only one of the sexes. A Prefer- ence for CAREFREE has a strong negative association with punishment tendencies in males but not females. A preference for CURIOUS (in girls only) has a strong negative association with punishment ten- dencies in females but not males. Males' preferences fiar RESPECT have strong positive associations with their tendency to punish children, and their preferences for FEELINGS has a negativezmsocia- tion with these tendencies. Females‘nreferences for RESPECT and OBEDIENT have strong positive associations with their punishment tendencies, and their preference for FEELINGS has a strong negative association with these same tendencies. For males and females the CI index for BOY was the index most strongly associated with the tendency to punish children. §sx__D_iffer.eD.9_es. .13.. Attribute.Pseirshilityjni111192101 Index The trend is for males and females to prefer any given attribute in a child to the same degree and to consider any particular attri— bute to be equally important for BOY as it is for GIRL. Thus, males and females' perceptionsm u... as .1 3 Lu. .wwuuus. LL EL -.Lc-.L.L LE $.45 INWhp. OLE {fo uNva «MW lint“ L L0“ cc :CL_L LL 5“ «ti... vi) lc.NVAL AT... is -mL .9... -DL :LL utmxl L Q HHmfl H OHwfi LL LL 3 be L Li... .L....L EL mum AND. \LP. ..\.\.,LV..SQL A a! M\ wL 41L. L... i? CAL »: B l<,:.uL .ms. L¢-LL-LWLL L... m. AVE E. 0L-Lren as-e. LLLL L... m... tics -LL «L... 9.. AL- L .LL-nm.cL-sw-WL -oL c,-cL.L -wL PILOLC- LL 3 -LLAL--- LL... nL.. CL -cL..ALL-.c .\c.L_ -,€C_.w are a am. a ate and do .a cmiwiawLes a La. (NL. Cw. \..\ AQ List I GIRL ‘\ Q N L L J t .m- LL YYRR OOII BBGG IIII CCCC .R 12.12M LN,......-Lc- .. .-......L r. .6. .6... -\\C-WC-.-n.m.L-rma .rL - E- L L. - 6.6L 3. -6....L \. . J «A \Q .4. T. N.) \.L TL\.|N.6 JWH-bm-C. L-M-L. N. NV 6. 6...L-6.....-NL 6L ..LLL ..L-..L 6.... -6... L -.N w -.L-LL -66 A 6.\ L... . ..NL. nquL-kw Lam-..L Cw HULL LL... «..L .3. ALL ML .-: -..-..... -.6. 6.... ..Cw Ur.- :L\.-meL er-Gé-Lrw-L fiHmfi H wow. 6. .L ..L ..L E: E Z :L 3 ..6.-...\ -.L“. 9.2-3 LL- N<\...L...-.--L...L.-§.-.. -.L»... A. .-fi- ..L... ,... 6.... .. 6....-.NL 3 6....” L... L J: 6....” - L. 6.- ... L -6.-L-6L.. ..L. -,..-....;6- ”..L «..L 6.62. ..L... ”La: :L-g 6. ..L -,.-..,-.-....C-,.. .6...- 73-. 6:... 6 “mm-LL:- 6. m6.- -.LLL-NL Q- E L... -,.....L. .... ..L... .6, ..L QL-L-L. L5 mm. ”..L-..- OL wC-LwLL-L 6Q -NLL. LL. .7... ..LL .2 LL .w.WAwL-,L.-N NL .Lr. -.L-L 0.6.... .10-6L- 4w 6.6 3..-6L- . LLLL 2.4.... ..L cam-L6,. 0.. L: -3. .L-LL x...) L Cw. -:.L\-LL.L6,..-v- CAL-..L, ALL of -CC L......m-. LLLL-LN AN L6,. {AL mm. -L,a.\- - 6...\. (..L. 2 Kit. 6C; .6 L...-.LC-: #- .....LL...L. - .....-......_.-.. LL m..,...-.....L -3. 2 L. -66. «..L-6- ..,.....\..--L..L-...6-: ... O... ..L ..L...- L. ..L. .. MEN-C926 -L...-..-C-....-LL 6.5. LsW-LV LL ..L- E L ice-Lt? LA... 0L L...L\-LQ -L.LL -w\-Cm 233 -.M mm -49 BOY List II 1 {I 1 CI BOY 2 CI BOY 1 CI GIRL GIRL 2C1 .Q ‘ 3 1}) \I \I U\ f\ N I .1 I I Q 1‘ L 1\ .Q I . 1., Z I-.. 1.. .1 II 1‘ I.. 1.1Q 1 sl...u.. Q\« I I ...-I.. .. 1.11-1.1:1-I.I.1 1» IIQ -.-11. 111.. P 10-... ' K.“ ' f ‘ ‘ N .l .s~ ‘ \N‘K Q J \\ :0. 11.1-1an1ka -.UQF -1Q1.\V\ w...,-U....!1...?1. .-..1 I 1‘ Q I .\ .1. .1 005111.}! R... I1I.1 1 O\1\.iQ\ N \I1 .111N-1\ 1-. \1\ Q .v Q L I 1. \\ ...... \1. r- l I ..\. .14 .1 I . .. I1I fiI-II 1 Q.(.-1r- F 1. I11 »\I.. f1“ I1Q_I .1... .11- 1H1.I1.. I ....H 11..J...I1 ‘1. IA ’ ‘1‘ J ./.\\u 01... .\Q .V \-1 W1VQH1~I1J. r1. 1 1 .I I 1. Q 1. . I -1-II.-1-I..1-.. -I.1.1- .I . NI -11H.._MI.1I.-Q.,.v;...uh11. I II. MI..-N1. III 1.10 ....Q1. N1II .3 I.--II. R1Q 1.111%. 1..I. r110 “N 11w LQrN WQQPKQ 11Q.1Q 1 I..-,1 N... .mu- -m.Q--n1..v-QN r: HIHmfl H wOK m. Q Ir.- II I11..I.1 IIQ . \I \ ON.- 1.1.11.- In Q1“. NIQNQ QDVQI-QU 1\\..1-\1J-s.1N\N. 1.11II11? Q I11. .1111:- Mt.- -.I.1II 12.-1 -Q.I Cw CJ 12.- 1.. 1Q1JU-QV:..-_Q3Q NN- 1... I..-6.1.1.1.; In. -. $7.9 1%. I1...1.1 . III-AI...“ I. ....I... I. CAM-116‘- 'PC.\(.N1Q1F\F I\H h-QKH -: .-..111 .- ...-I11. .11.... II mac -9.-.. 11I. O I». ...»... 1CIQ I N 1 111.1..-I1Q -12 3.. 101.1“.Q {.11-I I1I IC. 1&1.» Q .NW-1CNQI1NQN I1...- -..-1-... .1. 1... 1.... 3.... -....I-2 1Q.N .1Iw 1‘:- \‘1 \.. n..\ 1. .I 1Q. . Fm FIIIQ -N-1.. A11Q n13 I; my \Q1Q1 Q \\ \| _ c \0 I ‘11 ~ 13.1511... 1F- .1 m...- 11.61111... \ _h ..\ ..." I\ AN 1. \‘\..Q« 3131:.-- II C. C. c. LiSt II GIRL 1 CI BOY 2 CI BOY 1 CI GIRL 2 CI GIRL \ I Q: ’J‘. \1 t ‘ \1 C39 f. ‘N \ \u \ \ Q 1V \ -‘1; Q14 R 1.11:1.1 MIG-NM. 1N---\..11I-,.Q-N.I1 1....I 111-I1- SI- I...-.I N..1.II,-111....1I1Q1I 1.1.1- -IQ-N$I© I: IQ yr1wm up IQQ .11-IVIIQI1N1MII 1.11-1.11QJ1 1II1Q m; 11....II1WIIQLQULII11I 1-III IC1I-1I.C CIQ 1: I....Q I-J-N QQ 1211 I1.III.-1IQ .....Q1 WI. NC III1. bx AQ QQ IQ I.1..I-1C-1... -1.“ 111hnI-I1NIQV-N111-111I. FIN Q QQ N..Q1...-I1 Cw C ”.11- NQ. SI 1.-1N \- $1111-51- J -IC CL .3. 1N I1: Cm..- .31-1 1,..1..II .... -I.1I._:-I-I.,I1I III-1.1.11.3... I-1I \‘111 \HIHQ. CQ ..mrvI at“ \VQ 1.”.- Chat __r._.._.-‘ 11,-1.1 -I1.II . I- I I-.. OVI-v NQ Q11 Q). 1 .I I. 1J....Q Q,I_ 1M1 eroIQr11-QI-11NQ ,1: 11.11. .... 161 13.. I _I -II ...-II Q II 3.. 3. (...-I -3. I... ..I-11.1 II l-.Qx\ 5Q. Q1.1J-..1N31Q11—/I.1-CIQ 1I1I~1onI Cw I11... 1.9.- ..I1Q I...» Cu. C. ...II .3 I..-1.13 - 1MM11-I1ch...1I.II-11.w ,11 .1 2 1III1.-N1I-I-1I-..-1.. I .III I. Q -I I $.12. {.11-.N1w...-1.1.I .-.-.1? ....1I1.1.11I.1.c-:MI.IC.1. I-II.1II-cI -c.I1I1.1.-, Ama- -wQ1w.1I1I.II.IIII.I- III-TI Ix 11.1. 110.11.11.11. IQ II -Iw. ...-.1...I.N N: Wm ANQ1I..IQI-»F1CII1IIQ1II.Q I..-1.. JIIw-Nm. N: II -1.I.-1N..Q ch- mW-M.» QQ1QI11N1..\ DQ 1Nm-1C1w1 Qm. ....- 11I-II1W -3. 9.11.1 ...-1. 1: i1.- I.- ...Q1111I I.J.1. -.u..«..I_1-I. Aux... 1R -..-II 1: .r-..\..1F11Q-QQ CI N\. 111I1I...-.m. -15. Co. - I a I..-I. IN, I-QN-Q 1MP. ..I..-w\ 1 1... IQI -CQ 1-I.1.., I-I- .CQFE 1.I1Q 1R-- -1I1.... I.» :1. -I-,..I. UNI-10$ List II BOY \1“‘ . . \_ ‘-/ \ \F - I.\ \F‘. . _ -.. -- L... CF S 3 -....C-FF-QF BF,- F. . . F F I. ..\ u: . \ \1 Cl... -53..“ F.C-FF.-FF.1FF Fu FT. ... F /F . . .... \| -Fwa. --.F 2.1-? ..F.\ FFFF‘F.,_F-FFF - FF -3 -FF F... ..R. C. -FFFF E. C... FF...r..-.,-F.F..FF-F-F.F.F FF CCCFFF FQ FF -FFFF ...,C-F..F.F.-F.F.F.FC EFF. F-FFFA-F- u FF FF I. . 7 .J ‘\ F . 3-2; EFF». -9 FFF F..m.-F-FF.-F..F FF FF -13-FF cF FOFFFF- 91$. F; {.-.-FF C-. FF....,.......FF.F-FFFFF AFFHFF -F.-..F. ,F. I..... FUN. ... F ..UFF. . .. 0 0F F. ‘cFFF. pr .F S... FCC-C. FIFF F J ‘thmb-FKFQ ..JF\.F\ PJ) ‘P(J..I FF . . T; .F ...F F .Fu F1... ..FC (7.5 Jvc‘ (CF F2... r‘ 3.. . .F . .xF .-. . AFFF Saga-FF... 3 CW NFC-FES- FF-c.-F.F.\F.-F..F....-..F Fm FF.- FwFCAme CNHFFFFFCFF. Q... 3.. CF FC Fro FN List II GIRL humn H OHmb FC FsFF FFFF FF...F F0 wF .rS “3 NF Fm FFm -FFF- -FFF. FFF 3 FF -cm-»F-.A.F.F. 9... \..I . ~ . .I- \c. F .. . ix ‘5 C FFF at $5 CICFF 3-3-? 3. CF. FCFCHFFFFF. 0F ..FFF Fw-FF FF... FHFFHF.-FFFF. WW ...-FF. -F...F FFF F.FrF.Q.F.-FFF. Fm .N.w.~FF -FFFF FF FcéF FC .3 S an CF Fm FF -FzFF ..FF 3 Fa... Fan-FF ,QF- -...FFF. v.9. .-FchF-FF-OFFFIQF F...F. £wa- - CFFF FFc. Fax 1F F AC F F. _‘FFC CF... -FC wF ...FF- FF F.) Sufi-F F... ..L-Q. FF-F ..FFF ..FFF. we FF ..CF F.FF-FF.. FF F...,.F. FFF -.F-F. FF 3. FCFFFFFF cm FFF- Cu .F.F Fw Fe 64-..? E OF FFCLF-FFFC :FFF 0.; FFV F FF. -FFC FF. FP F... C FFPF-CF.\ -FFFwd-FF FF $.15 C Fe. 2.. ....FFF cF FF... .2 i E ..F-F... ...FqFFF -FFF-,FF.F-% -QW-QFFF.F.FF -CFufF FmQ NV :FFFFLF FN -FFm Cw. .FFF...1F.\-O€-FLC FFF NJF FuF -FF FF ,F-F..,.-FF ...-F.- FF.- 2 FF. -F-FFFFF.. FF -3. -2 CF .FC .1 ..FFF -NFF Cw -8 F9 ETC... FF 3 Wm C. E («F -Fm 5]. List II GIRL .\- - \‘ kl \ ‘r‘ -. fiHmd HH wow - w (5 k \‘ t x v v:- --. V \ p s I 9 \u I \ L? ..J .... N ... I . II Jo 3 c3 -N.. ......3 N- : ....x .N..-..J -...J.N .-. ..J \ . . ... - .1 I. ...-...N-3 61.-.3}. -....- {-33.3 -N .. N333 mow -N N -.N..M3 ..$\ n N. .0 u ‘N .v .U. \.. NN ll‘v ' \J l J I 1 ..N NNEN NC NS -...P.\:\N.r.\.3 NC. ...- 3N.\. Nm\ C. . \\ \ . N .V. .-\ ‘ (“n Fl. ‘3‘.“ 3‘ «.3 - \l .. .- 12. v . \I ... II \ I, LIA y .I .u V El. ~. Ev ‘ I VJ «\‘N “4‘5 \' AI\ ..IIIU . (V \(I _ fl - ..I . J ..\c ...m .. INN INA i-N..\. 1N\ INN INN-NIH”. N3 AK: . .\~ IN} N--«. .u s. 4‘ . _. \.. 3a.. \ 3N3 . .\. ....r N .13-.- ..-.- H.3- C. ux-N. lCP-C. NC - .--.J -..N J .. -. \ .. .3»; .r\- N ‘N \ NH“ ‘H N 4C...I~ .vNN Q“ PENN INN-KN raw». -..- .3- , __ . ”Ag \NNNJN [NNHJ 3‘\.\ m l\(. I\N\~ Il— “\Nq.\ \‘LwV . I.\ W .mC. -.-..u.-NN-P.m3 NN INK CN emu-w- m-N WW. List II BOY List II GIRL 3» \3 \‘1 \> /\-,7\ 3.33 if) C‘. mefi HH wO-K HLHmfi HH QHWHL .3 .4. 3..-N .3...3\ we wN 3. ...w-N 3.33... .NN .N N r‘ \ '\\ \‘ \q (QC \ .1 1‘“ V J .4 N s 1‘ -\ ,. ‘3 J ‘ 3.. .- 3'5 . \\ . 3 N . .15 J . 6.3 -3 .CC 23 N». LNN..- 3. NA... UN .55 N - I. \o- N u\\ . \.. l\.\ \ .: -.....-.3...3-.....N 33.3 ...... i .... x33 ...-Jx-NN ...-.N...v 3N3x N.\.JN3\ IN....N N3..- 333-.- -.-N3,.-1Nm.-- ”3.3.... ...N.3\33. NP. Lax-wLNN-JeC... NM- 3...... -33....3-30 ...NN -33-93».- 3 3...... Pam-Lu.- A-JN S 1M3 ANN A.Nm-oN-.N.N.m.N-J H.339 3 -NN N333 Aux-3.135 NO -,.-.....-3-..3-.-..3. 33.3. 3.33 .33.. 33.3.3.3- ? 33 -33-_-...3..-N $3... -3.3 - .3.N. 3-M3. x3... .....- -33.... .33.N - 333.. 3.3 NIB .3 3..... $3: 3......- .3-.N-N3N HwN- NN-Zw... 3N... -N--.. 36 -544!“ ...»... -333. 3..... 33.3136 2.... ”W: ...J..\ I..-m: ..-Nh3\. - I 3.3.3.633... C39: 3.. -3... 93- 13” .3.... 433.. : .3. .: 3-N-..N-33- -.-.3....-.. 333...... ...-w -....,.3..._..- -3\ .- .3-N3...-333--.N3.- .....3 3-.JN.3.N- 33--33.. .: ..NNJ INN-DJ INWI Nrnw MC \NL .- 3... . max-«m.- {:- ...: 3..... 3..... ......N-.3.3 -1 -33. puma-.1 : N3 93.3- .,-N.w-N..-. -an N...3... APPENDIX E New Attributes in List II Which Meet the Requirements for Membership in One of Two Opposinc Groups ...-__...- ~_’ ——-——._ *‘JW Wr-~_-~—————-._ Sex of Child Attributes Group A Group B M.— __.—w— -—.- .- __M~~W-,—-r._..————-u_ Male Students (3:27) *— .,_.—-‘-. -—._. ‘- BOY none none GIRL none none —.~-_p—- —.-...._—-—-—~—~.—... ...-- *— ..- ——_“- _w -- _- Female Students (Nz6l) .0 --_v—._ - ... h ..-—_ u- . -v _- _....u—q-o—v—o- —.¢.- .- -—-—- *M—o— BOY HONEST CURIOUS CONSIDER CAREFREE NEAT CREATIVE GIRL HONEST CURIOUS CONSIDER CAREFREE NEAT ’ CREATIVE _-—c.- ‘ -_ .- -_ .— .... ~. .- .-. . .— -a—n--—-———-~ Note.--The requirements for membership are (a) a sicnificant negative correlation (at the .05 level, two-tailed, or above) with at least one member of the other group, and (b) a sioni- ficant positive correlation (at the .05 level, two-tailed, or above) with at least one member of its own group. (MINIMUM!)llflnjmjlfltlllllI 3 1293 0