SEX DIFFERENCES IN SELF-ALLOCATION: A TEST OF THE ”LESS OF A CONNECTION" HYPOTHESIS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PHYLLIS WATTS 1977 ,1 wzw ABSTRACT SEX DIFFERENCES IN SELF-ALLOCATION: A TEST OF THE "LESS OF A CONNECTION" HYPOTHESIS By Phyllis Watts This research was undertaken to test the adequacy of the "less of a connection" hypothesis for explaining sex differences in self- allocation behavior. Results of past reward allocation research have shown that adult females tend to underreward themselves relative to males. In attempting to explain this behavior the "less of a connec- tion" hypothesis argues that traditionally, the work of women has not yielded monetary rewards since the rewards for being a housewife and mother tend to be socio-emotional ones. Therefore, women are not only unfamiliar with the work-pay situation, but also, they have less of their self-concept involved with receiving monetary rewards than do men. However, an alternative hypothesis for explaining this sex difference is that the sex role socialization that women experience reinforces their taking and expecting less for themselves in a variety of situations. It is reasonable to suggest that women's lower self- allocation relative to men is due, at least in part, to a more general tendency to allocate less to themselves. The major purpose of this study was to examine the sufficiency of the "less of a connection" Phyllis Watts hypothesis by exploring possible sex differences in self-reward out- side of the work-pay situation. Various attitudinal and personality components also were expected to influence the self-allocation behavior of women and men. Based on previous research there was some indication that women and men differ in the way that they perceive money; thus, it was expected that women, on the whole, would have a less favorable attitude toward money than men. Secondly, because self-allocation is incongruent with the communal orientation that women are encouraged to develop, it was hypothesized that when compared with men this would be reflected in a less assertive (i.e., more passive) attitude toward self-allocation. Finally, based on the premise that psychological androgyny permits greater situationally effective behavior, it was expected that women who score as being "androgynous" on the Bem Sex Role'Inventory would (a) exhibit similar self-allocation patterns as men; (b) have a more favorable attitude toward money; and (c) have a more assertive atti- Itude toward self-allocation than would women scoring as “feminine." Female and male subjects participated in either a role playing situation, where they were asked to "imagine" what they would do if given the opportunity to actually self-allocate or, in the actual self-allocation. During the experiment subjects were given the oppor- tunity both to allocate their own pay to themselves (up to $4.00) and to give themselves a gift (again, up to $4.00) that was not contingent upon their work. The work for which subjects were paid involved writing short definitions to a number of concepts, including the word "taking." Subsequently all subjects completed a money attitude questionnaire and the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Phyllis Hatts The results of this study provided partial support for the hypothesis that sex differences in self-allocation are not limited to the work context. In the role playing situation women allocated less of both the gift and the pay than did the men. An unexpected reversal of this pattern occurred in the actual self-allocation situation: not only did females take more of the gift than did the males, they took more of the pay as well. These results suggest that when compared with the women in the role playing situation, these women might have had a more agentic orientation toward their environment. This interpretation was supported by the fact that these women tended to score as more "masculine" on the Bem Sex Role Inventory than did the women in the role playing situation. 0n the whole, men thought that money was more important than did women. However, in general, women did not have a more passive orientation toward self-allocation than men. In fact in the actual self-allocation situation women indicated a more active orientation 'toward self-allocation than did men, an attitude that was congruent with their actual self-allocation behavior. Finally, women who scored high in "masculinity“ on the Bem Sex Role Inventory allocated more to themselves than did "feminine" women, though the two groups did not differ in their attitudes about money. Though women scoring high in "masculinity" did have a more assertive attitude toward self- allocation. Taken together these results suggest that sex differences in self-allocation behavior are not limited to the work-pay situation. Moreover,these differences in self-allocation appear to be partially the result, not of biological sex per se, but of differences in sex Phyllis Watts role orientation. Finally, there is some evidence that the underlying reasons for self-allocating relatively large amounts of money differ for men and women who score high on "masculinity.“ For these women it is less a question of considering money important than it is having an assertive attitude toward self-allocation in general. In contrast these men have a more positive orientation toward money which increases the likelihood of greater self-allocation. Master's Committee: Lawrence A. Messé, Chairperson Jeanne E. Gullahorn Andrew M. Barclay SEX DIFFERENCES IN SELF-ALLOCATION: A TEST OF THE “LESS OF A CONNECTION" HYPOTHESIS By Phyllis Watts A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Occasionally in the educational process a student is fortunate enough to find an individual who offers a model of humanistic and scholarly endeavor; who is tolerant of differing approaches to the acquisition and application of knowledge; who provides unfailing encouragement and prudent guidance; in short, a teacher in the finest sense of the word. It is to my great benefit that I found just such a teacher in Larry Messé. My gratitude is best expressed by the know- ledge that his influence has had and will continue to have considerable impact on my academic development. I have been fortunate in other ways as well. Jeanne Gullahorn provided valuable input during all phases of this research. She assisted me in clarifying my thinking and did much to alleviate my needless concerns. Andy Barclay has acted not only as a friend, but as a vital resource during the past two years. His understanding, encouragement and orientation toward psychology have been essential to me. My deep appreciation also is extended to my undergraduate assistants: Mike Cavera, Brian Consterdine, Ken Coots, Tricia Cyman, Tom Detmer, Debbie Gilliand, Cathy Greenberg, Steve Imarino, Kristie Marsh and Karen Rittenhaus. They eased the task of completing this research by being reliable and competent in all they undertook. ii And finally, a very special thanks must go to my son David who has the great capacity of keeping me in touch with the joy of life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sex Differences in Contingent Self-Allocation. . . 2 Sex Differences in Non-Contingent Self- Allocation. . . . . . 8 Attitude Measures: Money and Self-Allocation . . . ll Psychological Androgyny: A Possible Correlate of Sex Differences in Self-Allocation.. . . . . l3 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Major Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Secondary Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 14 II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l5 Pilot Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Self-Allocation Study. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8 Reward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8 Design . . . . . . . . . . l9 Procedure for ActuaI Study . . . . . . . 19 Procedure for Role Playing Situation . . . . . 2T III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Self-Allocation Behavior. . . . . . . . . . 23 Major Hypothesis. . . . . . .. . .’ . . . 23 Secondary Hypotheses: Tests of Possible Correla- tions with Allocation Behavior . . . . . . . 25 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Unexpected Findinqs . . . . . . . . . . . 30 iv CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION. Sex Differences in Self-Allocation . . . Secondary Hypotheses: Tests of Correlates with Allocation Behavior Attitudes Toward Money: Hypothesis l. . Attitudes Toward Self-Allocation: Hypothesis 2 Psychological Androgyny: Hypothesis 3 . Conclusions. APPENDICES Appendix A. Role Playing Situation Questionnaire . B. Instruments Bem Sex Role Inventory . Money Attitude Scale. C. Word Interpretation Task . Scoring Instructions for Word Interpretation Task . REFERENCES . Page 32 32 36 36 37 40 43 47 47 48 49 51 53 LIST OF TABLES Table I. Mean Amount of Money Allocated (in Dollars). 2. Summary of the 2 (Sex of Subject) x 2 (Situation) x 2 (Order of Presentation) x 2 (Gift vs. Pay) ANOVA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Summary of the 2 (Sex of Subject) x 2 (Situation) x 2 (Masculine vs. Feminine Sex Role Orienta— tion) ANOVA. vi Page 23 24 28 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growth of the women's movement has brought with it an increasing concern about the continuing roles traditionally ascribed to _ both women and men in a variety of social situations. One focus of these concerns has been the biases that women experience in the work setting. For example, women are underrepresented in those occupations carrying the greatest prestige and salary; they are the "last to be hired and first to be fired" and the recipients of unequal pay for equal work. The concept of "equal pay" for women is probably the most generally accepted goal of the women's movement. Implicit in the argument for equal pay is the assumption that women are the recipients of unequitable reward distributions. This assumption has been more than adequately documented by the U.S. Department of Labor (l97l). Moreover, closer examination reveals another side to this issue; it is possible that the wage inequities that women experience, in part, are a reflection of differences in the psychological meaning that concepts like money, pay, and work have for women and men. I Research has demonstrated that at least in a laboratory set- ting, women and men do differ in the way that they distribute rewards. Though equity theory (Adams, 1965; Walster, Berschied & Walster, 1976) predicts that rewards will be distributed so that each person's outcomes will be pr0portional to his/her inputs, data indicate that women are not as influenced by this norm as are men (Katz & Messé, 1973; Leventhal & Lane, 1970; Messé & Callahan-Levy, 1975). In fact, women consistently allocate less to themselves relative to men (Calla- han-Levy, 1975; Messé’& Callahan, 1975). The following sections review some of these findings and present some possible explanations for them. Reviewed first are studies that deal with contingent self-allocation, where the self- dispensation of reward is based on some previous task experience, thereby setting a specific context for the allocation. This section is followed by a summary of the research which examines noncontingent self-allocation, in which the reason for the allocation is ostensibly unrelated to a previous task. The third section argues that attitude measures toward both money and self-allocation would provide clearer understanding of the typical behavioral differences that have been found. The final section introduces research questions that are related to the psychological processes that appear to underlie self- allocation behavior. Sex Differences in Contingent SeTfLAllocation The norm of equity has been the major focus of studies of contingent self-allocation. Although specific procedures often differ in minor details the basic structure of these studies is the same. There is an initial task requirement after which a subject distributes a reward; depending on the specific study, the subject allocates the reward only to herself/himself to both herself/himself and a co-worker, or only to the co-worker. For example, one study (Leventhal & Lane, 1970) examined the allocation behavior of men and women in the same sex pairs. Results indicated that women who were told they had done better on the task than their partners tended to use the norm of equality (Deutsch, 1975); ignoring differences in inputs, they divided the reward equally. Conversely, women applied the equity norm only when their performance was inferior to their partners. Men used the equity norm in both contexts. In discussing their findings the authors suggested that women have a tendency to behave accommodatively. This explanation is based on speculations that Vinacke and his collaborator made about the processes that cause sex differences in coalition forma- tion in game situations (Vinacke, 1959; Vinacke & Gullickson, 1964). Vinacke suggested that relative to males, females are more altruistic, more concerned with the welfare of others and generally more accommodative. In exploring this explanation, Messé and Callahan (1975) attempted to minimize the possibility that women would behave accommo- datively. They had each subject determine only her/his own reward or only the reward of another person. Once again significant sex differences were found: women paid themselves less than did men, while both women and men paid other women more. The authors explain their results by suggesting that relative to men, women perceive "less of a connection" between their work and monetary reward. This is expressed through a weaker sense of "own equity" (Lane & Messé, 1972) in women. Thus, women apply the internal standard of what is adequate compensation for their own work less than do men. In a similar study, Messé and Callahan (1975) reasoned that if women do try to accommodate the pe0p1e with whom they interact, then their reward allocation would be most influenced when the expectations of the other person were made explicit. Male and female subjects in this study received a message, supposedly sent by a male or female partner, asking that either the norm of equity or the norm of equality be used to divide the reward. Again, females allocated less to them- selves relative to males. Most interesting was the finding that women with superior inputs tended to take more for themselves only when they received a message invoking equity sent by a male partner. Men were not influenced by the content of a message sent from partners of either sex. In a situation of over-sufficient reward, Katz and Messé (1973) found that males whose inputs were equal to that of their co-worker, divided money equally only when the amount of reward was sufficient. When the reward was over-sufficient they allocated over half of it to themselves. Women divided the money equally regardless of the amount. Katz and Messé speculated that this was due, in part, to "less of a connection" between work and pay that might exist in women. Assuming that there is a developmental pattern in the emer- gence of this sex difference, Callahan-Levy (1975) examined children from the first, fourth, seventh and tenth grades. Children were interviewed individually then allowed to pay themselves for the "work" they had just completed. Contrary to the expectation that no sex differences would be found in the earlier grades, females at all levels allocated less to themselves relative to their male peers. However, the more females indicated that they had "masculine" vocational preferences, the more they rewarded themselves similar to the males. Again, this finding was discussed in terms of the "less of a connec- tion" hypothesis. Thus, there is substantial empirical evidence to support sex differences in self-allocation. In a variety of contexts females, relative to males, allocate less rewards to themselves. What remains to be discovered are the processes that mediate this behavior. The explanations which attempt to grapple with this issue bear closer examination. The accommodative explanation (Vinacke, 1959; Vinacke & Gullickson, 1964) cannot account for the findings that when allocating only to themselves, women took less reward relative to men. It is possible that women were behaving accommodatively toward the experi- menters, though this is unlikely. The "less of a connection" hypothesis attempts to explain what the accommodative explanation can- not, i.e., the sex difference in self-pay behavior. In the actual studies, however, no attitudinal measures were taken, and the behavioral measures alone provide only indirect support for the hypo- thesis. The authors themselves issue a caveat in this regard. Mednick and Tangri (1972) originally asserted that due to the sex role socialization women experience, they learn to expect less monetary reward for their work. Traditionally, the work of women has not yielded monetary rewards, the rewards for being a housewife and mother tend to be socio-emotional ones. Therefore women are not only unfamiliar with the work-pay situation, but also have less of their self or ego involved with receiving monetary rewards. This is plausible though alternative explanations could also account for the findings. Self-esteem could play a role in this sex difference. Though studies investigating this area have generally yielded conflicting results (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) it is possible that women have lower self-esteem than men and this is reflected in their lower self- allocation. Whittaker (1972) has shown that though males scored_higher on a number of self-report measures, this tendency reached statistical significance only twice. It could be that the lower self-payment of women is a manifestation of lower feelings of self-worth. The phrase "you are paid what you are worth" provides anecdotal evidence for a possible behavioral measure of self-concept. Nevertheless, this is speculative, and due to the equivocality of the findings on self- concept, self-esteem most likely plays a negligible role. A more reasonable alternative hypothesis is that the sex role socialization experiences that women encounter reinforce their taking and expecting less for themselves in a variety of situations. Bakan (1966) proposed that humans, in fact all organisms, manifest the Opposing polarity of agency and communion. Agency is manifested in separations, conquest and competitiveness; communion in fusion, acceptance and cooperation. In short, agency represents the masculine principle, communion the feminine. The integration of this polarity is a developmental task for the individual (Carlson, 1972). According to Sampson (1975) the present socialization of women and men has been centered on their roles in the economic system. Especially in this culture males have been socialized to develop agentic traits--which include concerns with "own equity." Females have been encouraged to develop familial roles requiring communal traits-~and concerns with harmony and equality. Part of the sex role socialization of women probably includes encouragement of and social reinforcement for allocating smaller quan- tities of rewards to themselves, relative to the self-allocation socialization of men. A sample of masculine and feminine attributes from the Bem (1974) and Broverman (1972) sex role scales is revealing: Feminine Masculine Gentle Dominant Shy . Forceful .§3m_ Yielding Competitive Sensitive to others' needs Assertive Soft spoken Aggressive Not competitive TVery competitive Very submissive Very dominant Broverman Very passive Very active Not at all self confident Very self confident Not at all aggressive Very aggressive Admittedly, the items represented are stereotypic and bi-polar. Nevertheless the feminine traits hardly portray an individual who would allocate greater portions of rewards to the self. I It is reasonable to suggest that in the studies focusing on contingent self-allocation, particularly when women were allocating money only to themselves, that their lower self-allocation relative to men was due to a more general tendency to allocate less for them- selves. The "less of a connection" hypothesis deals specifically with the work-pay situation, and, thus, could not account for any sex differences in self-reward that were outside this context. However, if the tendency to take less is a more general one, then outside of the work-pay context the sex difference should remain. The major purpose of this study was to examine the sufficiency of the "less of a connection" hypothesis by exploring if there is a sex difference in selfereward even when the reward is not contingent upon work. Sex Differences in Non-Contingent Self-Allocation Typically, studies in non-contingent self-allocation do not focus on the examination of sex differences; thus when differences are found, little attention is paid them. The subjects in all of the studies are children with ages ranging from 4 to 9 years. Though the variables of interest differ considerably, the structure (not the con- tent) of the procedures are markedly similar. Subjects usually were involved in two sequential tasks that are ostensibly unrelated. The initial task was a success-failure experience, an inequitable reward allocation or an affective experience. The second task always was non-evaluative and it provided subjects with the opportunity for non- contingent self-allocation. In a study (Mischel, Coates & Raskoff, 1968) that examined the influence of a success or failure experience on subsequent self- allocation, second and third graders who were led to believe that they had either been successful or had failed at a bowling game task, were instructed to take "tokens" (based on their performance) which could be exchanged for "valuable" prizes. Afterwards, in a non-evaluative maze task children were allowed to reward themselves non-contingently by taking tokens whenever they chose. In both this study and a replication no sex difference was found in the amount of tokens the children self-allocated. Underwood, Moore and Rosenhan (1973) investigated the rela- tionship of affect to self-allocation. Children, 8 and 9 years old, were given a "hearing test." Subsequently, they were asked to focus on either a happy experience, a sad experience or a neutral one (counting for 30 seconds). Immediately following, they were allowed to self-allocate from a "treasure chest“ overflowing with $50.00 in pennies. In all conditions the girls took more than boys. In explaining their findings the authors suggest that girls might be more affected by negative mood states. This explanation, however, does not account for the greater self-allocation in the neutral and positive affect conditions. In a later study (Rosenhan, Underwood & Moore, 1974) with very similar procedures, no sex differences were found. With preschoolers as subjects, Masters (1968) examined the effects of social comparison on subsequent self-allocation behavior. Children in same sex pairs were given "valuable" chips for answering questions correctly. Moreover, the task was structured so that it would be difficult for the child to perceive that she/he had answered a question incorrectly (i.e., What is your name?). After each ques- tion the "paymaster" would allocate chips inequitably-unfavorably, where the partner would receive substantially more, inequitably- favorably, where the partner received substantially less, or equitably, with each child receiving the same. In the control condition the child had no partner. The children were then allowed to play a non-evalua- tive maze game and non-contingently reward themselves with tokens, pennies and pieces of colored paper. He found that females in the inequitable conditions self-allocated more than males. In the equity and control conditions males self-allocated more. This was true for all three rewards. The author proposed that girls at this age might be more sensitive to social comparison Opportunities than are boys. Also that the games boys play may give them increased tolerance for inequities. In a later study Masters (1972) again manipulated social comparison by infbrming second and third grade children that compared TO to other children they had succeeded or failed on a distinctive task, while simultaneously they earned prizes of high (better than other children earned) or low magnitude. Later all children were allowed to reward themselves. In this study the earlier sex difference was reversed. Boys self-allocated more generously when they received a lower reward. The implications of this finding were not discussed. Because of the equivocal findings, no conclusions about sex differences can be drawn. A variety of reasons could account for the ambiguity, the more prominent being the great variation in the initial task requirement that might have inhibited the emergence of a stable pattern of results. The sex of the experimenter also might have influenced the results. In one study (Mischel et al., 1968) a female was the experimenter, in the others, either a male (Masters, 1968, 1972) or adults of both sexes (Rosenhan et al., 1973; Underwood et al., 1974) served as the experimenters. Though no pattern emerged that could be directly attributed to the experimenter's sex, the exact influence of a model's characteristics on children's behavior is unclear (Donelson, 1976). Finally, given that the greatest pressure to adopt the appropriate sex role is more likely to occur during adolescence (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) the age of the children might have influenced the outcome. This study minimized the difficulties present in past studies; it minimized the potential impact of specific tasks by per- mitting a self-allocation before the task; also in each session there was a female and male experimenter with equal power, and it circum- vented problems inherent in examining subjects whose developmental stage varies by engaging college students as participants. ll Attitude Measures: Money and Self-Allocation The majority of the studies previously discussed used money (or money-like tokens) as the reward. However, relatively little is known about people's attitudes toward money. Because attitude measures have rarely been obtained, the hypotheses about feelings toward and evaluations of money are inferred from behavior. Thus, if women are unfamiliar with the work-pay context as the "less of a connection" hypothesis suggests, then it is conceivable that they would overpay themselves relative to men. That they do not could be the result of a general tendency to take less for themselves. It is also possible that women have a less positive attitude toward money than do men. Wernimont and Fitzpatrick (1972), in using the semantic differential, found that women tended to dislike money and also thought that it was "evil.“ Hypothesizing that women are ambivalent about money, Chesler and Goodman (1976) make the distinction between "real" money--the kind that women have to earn, and "magic" money--the kind that men spend on women. Traditionally, there has been a negative sanction against women admitting that they want to make money. Thus, the only "acceptable" money is the kind that "just happens" to them. From this perspective, part of the reason that women who received a message invoking equity from a male partner, actually took more for themselves (Messé & Callahan-Levy, 1975) could be because it was "magic" money-- the kind given by men. If it is true that women are less interested than men in money, less familiar with it, and tend to think of it unfavorably, then it is reasonable to assume that attitudinal measures will reflect this I2 difference. A secondary purpose of this study was to obtain such measures and thereby explore the cognitive component of this behavior. No attitude measures of self-allocation were required in past studies. This is understandable since the cognitive dimension of this behavior is elusive. Basically, self-allocation is the act of taking something for the self. In all of the studies in this area, the act of taking was preceded by an offering that was contingent upon some previous behavior, or an ostensibly non-contingent gift. Thus, this specific taking is a response to and therefore defined by the experi- mental procedure. However, the Oxford English Dictionary (1971) has over 90 entries listing the various ways that "taking" is used. Many of these definitions are incompatible with the experimental parameters mentioned above. Since the act of taking is not limited to a response in some initiated social exchange, and the range of taking behaviors stretches from the most concrete and obvious-~as in taking a book from the 1ibrary--to the more abstract and subtle--as in taking one's "rights," it is reasonable to expect that a more global psychological charac- teristic underlies this range of taking behaviors. This characteristic might be labeled assertiveness. The socialization process that men encounter encourages the internalization of the self-world relationship so that an agentic orientation is developed. In this way the phrase "taking what's rightfully mine" probably sounds more natural to our ears coming from the lips of a male, than from those of a female. Because the self-world orientation of women typically is manifested communally, the characteristic of assertiveness is probably far less dominant than it is in men. Therefore, when compared with men, women 13 might feel less comfortable with taking, or self—allocating. Since at this point any attitudinal differences are speculative, exploring this dimension is justified. To this end an attitude measure of self- allocation was constructed and included in this study. Psycholggical Androgyny: A Possible Correlate of Sex Differences in SeTf-Allocation Psychological androgyny (Bem, 1974, 1975) constitutes the ability to engage in situationally effective behavior without regard to its particular sex role stereotype. This sex role adaptability could be compared to the uniting of the agency-communion polarity that Carlson (1972) discussed. The finding (Callahan-Levy, 1975) that female children who did not underreward themselves relative to males were the same ones who indicated "masculine" vocational interests suggests that these females were more "androgynous" in both their sex role orientation, and their self-allocation behavior. If being psychologically androgynous allows an individual to engage in the most effective behavior for the situation, then in a situation that calls for some assertiveness, women who score high on this dimension would be expected to self-allocate in larger quantities, that is, their self-allocation pattern would be similar to men's. Thus, the Bem Sex Role Inventory was used to explore the relationship between psychological androgyny and self-allocation behavior. Hypotheses Majorgflypothesjs A test of the "less of a connection" hypothesis was the major purpose of this study. If women have a more general tendency to take 14 less for themselves, then when given the opportunity to self-allocate outside of the work-pay context, sex differences should remain. If sex differences were foundonly in the work-pay situation, this can be taken as support for the "less of a connection" hypothesis. However, assuming that women have received social reinforcement for taking less for themselves in general, an alternative prediction is that sex differences, in the form of women's lower self-allocation relative to men, would be found outside of the work-pay situation. Secondary Hypotheses 1. Based on previous findings, both attitudinal and behavioral, it was expected that women, on the whole, would have a less favorable attitude toward money than men. 2. Self-allocation is incongruent with the communal orien- tation that women are encouraged to develop. When compared with men this would be reflected in a less assertive, more passive, attitude toward self-allocation. 3. Based on the premise that psychological androgyny allows greater situationally effective behavior, it was predicted that women who score as being "androgynous" on the Bex Sex Role Inventory would exhibit similar self-allocation patterns as men. Furthermore, they would have a more favorable attitude toward money and a more assertive attitude toward self-allocation than women scoring "feminine." CHAPTER II METHOD This chapter presents the methodology and design that were used to test the hypotheses. The data were collected in two situations. The first situation was essentially a role playing of the actual self- allocation procedures.1 The participants were asked to "imagine" what they would do if they were in the actual self-allocation situation. In the second context the individuals engaged in actual self-allocation. A factorial design was used to determine sex, situation, and order of allocation differences in the self-allocation behavior of women and men. Pilot Study Female and male undergraduates from introductory psychology courses took part in a pilot study. The purpose of this piloting was twofold. First, a factor analysis was planned for the money attitude scale to isolate those items or clusters of items that were 1This study was originally intended to be a simulation of the actual self-allocation study. It was undertaken primarily to insure the actual study was feasible and the procedures to be used were apprOpriate. However, as reported in detail in the next chapters, the results of this study differed markedly from those obtained when subjects actually allocated money. Thus it seemed reasonable to report both studies here. 15 16 most representative of the responses of both women and men. Since this statistical procedure requires approximately ten times the number of subjects as there are items to be analyzed, over 200 subjects were necessary for the 22 item scale. Secondly, to address the problem of measuring attitude toward self-allocation and to have an apprOpriate task for the actual study, a measure was developed that would satisfy both of these requirements. "Taking" is a diffuse concept covering a variety of different acts and settings, many of which are sex role specific. Therefore, a task was devised whereby subjects were presented with various words and asked to render two interpretations for each word; then they were to use each interpretation in a sentence. One of the words that subjects interpreted was the word "taking." The "word interpretation" task was administered at the same time as the money attitude inventory. Because there was some question as to the length of time necessary to complete the task, a record was kept of the amount of time needed for the majority of the subjects to finish. Initially, the task took approxi- mately 25 minutes to complete, since this was too short, additional words were added so that in its final form the Hword interpretation" task took approximately 40 minutes to complete. Based on the responses to the word "taking" a scoring system was developed using the active-passive dimension. Each interpretation was scored separately then totaled to yield a final score for the individual. A score of five (very active) was given for responses such as stealing, grabbing, obtaining through force, etc. A score of four (active) was given to interpretations that were active without being aggressive; responses scored in this category included those 17 that indicated participating in an activity, bringing, moving or transporting, etc. A score of two (passive) was given when the inter- pretation of taking was passive, but the sentence modifying the interpretation was active; for example, receiving--"the doorman takes tickets at the theatre." Finally a score of one (very passive) was given when both the interpretation and the sentence modifying it were passive; for example, accepting-~"she took her fate well." Self-Allocation Study Though this study was conducted under two different situations, the instruments administered were the same, as were the majority of the conditions. Instruments Two instruments were administered: (1) the Bem Sex Role Inventory; and (2) the “monetary attitude scale." Appendix B presents the contents of both instruments. Bem Sex Role Inventory. This scale is a sex role inventory that treats masculinity and femininity as two separate dimensions, thereby making it possible for a person to characterize herself/himself as masculine, feminine or "androgynous" by the endorsement of masculine and/or feminine personality characteristics. The scale consists of 60 adjectives, 20 each of masculine, feminine and natural items. The subject responds to each item by the use of a 7-point scale. On the basis of these responses the subject receives three scores: a femi- ninity score, a masculinity score and an androgyny score. The scale has been shown to be both internally consistent and temporally stable I8 (Bem, 1974). Moreover, it has been used successfully to predict behavior (Bem, 1975). Monetary Attitude Scale. Little has been done in the way of measuring attitudes toward money. The only suitable measure (Wernimont & Fitzpatrick, 1972) used the semantic differential technique. Since a measure providing more specific information was desired, a Likert-type scale was constructed containing 22 items that reflected various social and personal dimensions related to money. Task The "word interpretation" task consisted of eight common verbs, two on each page (the second verb always was "taking"). Instructions for the task, given both orally and in writing, were as follows: You have before you a list of common words that can be inter- preted in a variety of ways. For each word, list the first interpretation that comes to your mind, then write a sentence illustrating your interpretation. Don't be concerned about the dictionary definitions. The important thing is to give your impressions. Furthermore, the experimenters stressed that the task was nonevalua- tive. Appendix C presents a c0py of this instrument and the scoring system that was used to classify (on the active-passive dimensions) reSponses to the word "taking." 39m The total reward available for both the gift and self-pay conditions was $4.00. In a previous study, Lane and Messé (1971) report that undergraduates indicated $2.00/hour to be equitable pay for the task of writing nonevaluative, short—answer essays. Given 19 that the experimental procedure took approximately 60 minutes to complete, $4.00 for each allocation was considered to be a sufficient amount. The money for each allocation was always two $1.00 bills and eight quarters. Design The design in this study was both experimental and correla- tional. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 repeated measures factorial design was employed with (a) sex of subject; (b) type of situation--role playing or real, (c) order of reward--either self-allocation/gift or self- allocation/pay first, and (d) type of self-allocation--gift or pay (a repeated measure) as the four independent variables. Procedure for Actual Study The subjects were volunteers who responded to an advertisement placed in the student newspaper soliciting undergraduates to partici- pate in "behavioral research" for pay. Approximately 250 individuals responded. Those who had taken more than two classes in psychology, who had taken classes in the psychology of women, or who were seniors were not permitted to participate. Forty subjects (20 female, 20 male) were randomly selected from the remaining pool of 150 volunteers and contacted by phone for scheduling. To minimize possible experi- menter effects, experimenters of both sexes called an equal number of subjects of both sexes. During the actual experiment, male and female experimenter pairs were present to conduct the survey. The subjects were tested in groups of four (two males and two females). Upon arrival for the experiment those in the gift first condition were told that in addition to the study that they came for 20 the researchers also were trying to gather preliminary information for another study on how much pe0p1e take when offered a gift. Each subject was given an envelope with the money plus three empty envelopes, one marked "my gift" one marked "gift remainder" and a large manila envelope. They were infbrmed that they could take any amount up to the maximum by placing it in the envelope marked "my gift," then placing any remainder in the appropriately marked envelope, then placing it in the manila envelope, which was to be left in the alloca- tion cubicle to which they were assigned. The experimenters assured the subjects that the gift would in no way influence the amount of pay they were to receive for the actual work they were to do. The subjects then were placed in individual cubicles. When the subjects returned the experimenters explained the word interpretation task to them. They stressed that the task was non- evaluative and that it would take approximately 40 minutes to complete. After the task was completed the subjects were allowed to pay them- selves. Again the same amount of money was issued, with two empty envelopes, one marked "my pay" the other marked "pay remainder." Generally, the instructions were the same; that is, they were told to take any amount up to the maximum by placing it in the envelope marked “my pay," then placing the remainder in the manila envelope. They were reminded that when they returned they still would have two more brief questionnaires to complete which would take approximately ten minutes. Again, subjects were shown into individual cubicles and asked to return to their seats when they finished. At this time they were given the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the money attitude scale, and the verbal instructions for completing them. Upon completion of 21 these instruments, the experimenters collected the materials and thanked the subjects for their participation. In the condition in which self-allocation/pay was first, the procedures were identical except that the subjects paid themselves after working and then were informed of the gift. Procedure for Role Playing Situation The subjects were volunteers recruited from the introductory psychology classes for class credit. Forty subjects (20 female and 20 male) participated in this phase of the study. To minimize possible experimenter effects, both female and male experimenter pairs were present to conduct the study. They presented themselves as having an equal power relationship. Again, the subjects were tested in groups of four (2 males and 2 females). Upon arrival for the experiment, those in the gift first condition were administered a protocol that explained the situa- tion they were to imagine they were in. Basically, the events that occurred in the actual situation were outlined and the individual was asked to indicate at the bottom of the paper how much she/he would take of the gift. After this was completed they were told to go on to the "word interpretation" task, which was explained verbally. Again it was stressed that the task was non-evaluative. When this task was completed the subjects were told to turn to the next sheet of paper that outlined instructions for the pay situation. After this, the subjects completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the “money attitude scale." In the pay first condition, subjects were asked to imagine that they came to earn money. They were administered 22 the "word interpretation" task, then the pay allocation, the gift allocation and finally the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the "money attitude scale." After they completed these procedures they were issued a large envelope, instructed to place all of their materials inside, seal it and drop it in a large box by the door as they were leaving. In this way anonymity was assured. CHAPTER III RESULTS Self-Allocation Behavior Major Hypothesis 2 There were two measures of allocation behavior in this study: (1) the amount of money that the subjects allocated to themselves as a gift, and (2) the amount of money that they paid themselves for com- pleting the task. Table 1 presents means for both self-allocation dependent measures as a function of sex of subject, order of type of self-allocation (gift first or pay first) and the allocation situation (actual or role playing). Table l.--Mean Amount of Money Allocated (in Dollars). Allocation Situation Sex of Order of . Subject Allocation Actual Role Play1ng Gift Pay Gift Pay Females Gift First 3.28 3.40 1.90 1.65 Pay First 3.75 3.00 1.65 1.85 Males Gift First 2.80 3.23 2.90 2.55 Pay First 3.08 2.45 1.75 2.63 23 24 The amounts of money that subjects allocated to themselves for both their gift and pay were subjected to a 2 (sex of subject) x 2 (order: gift first or pay first) x 2 (situation: actual or role playing) x 2 (type of allocation: gift vs. pay; a repeated measure) analysis of variance. Table 2, which presents a summary of this ANOVA. indicates that three effects were significant. Table 2.--Summary of the 2 (Sex of Subject) x 2 (Situation) x 2 (Order of Presentation) x 2 (Gift vs. Pay) ANOVA. Source S_S__ g: MS _F_ Sex (A) .56 l .56 25 Order (8) 1.60 l 1.60 .71 Situation (C) 41.51 1 41.51 18.37** A x B 1.70 l 1.70 .75 A x C 13.23 1 13.23 5.85* B x C .26 l .26 .12 A x B x C .10 l .10 .04 Error I 162.82 72 2.26 Allocation (D) .05 l .05 .06 A x D .70 l .70 .78 B x D .06 l .06 .07 C x D .98 1 .98 1.09 A x B x D .10 1 .10 .11 A x C x D .00 l .00 .00 B x C x D 8.34 1 8.34 9.27** A x B x C x D .62 l .62 .69 Error II 64.51 72 .90 £25.05 *fp$.01 As Tables 1 and 2 indicate there were some nonpredicted find- ings. First, there was a main effect for situation, pe0p1e in the actual self-allocation situation allocated more to themselves than did those in the role playing situation. The interaction between sex and situation indicates that subjects behaved as predicted by the major 25 hypothesis only in the role playing situation. In this situation, the men took substantially more gift and pay than did the women. However, in the actual selfkallocation situation, the women appeared to take more than did the men. Tests of simple effects tended to support these conclusions: women in the actual self-allocation took signifi- cantly more on the whole than did women in the role playing situation, £11.72) = 22.48, 25.01. Though the men in the actual allocation situation took somewhat more than those in the role playing situation this difference was not significant, [(1.72) = 1.74. Also, there was a significant difference between the men and women in the role playing situation, with men allocating substantially more to themselves than did women, {(1.72) = 4.26. 95.05; in the actual self-allocation this pattern of means was reversed. but this difference did not reach statistical significance, [(1.72) = 1.84. There also was a non-predicted three-way interaction between the order of presentation, situation and self-allocation. Tests of simple effects revealed that subjects in the actual self-allocation situation took more for their second allocation regardless of whether it was their pay or a gift, [(1.72) = 5.41, 25.05. The opposite was found in the role playing situation, where subjects took more on the first allocation regardless of whether it was the gift or the pay, £11.72) = 4.23, 25.05. Secondary Hypotheses: Tests of Possible Correlations with AllocationTBehavTor Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 predicted that. on the whole, women would have a less favorable attitude toward money than men. In order to test this 26 hypothesis the data for the money attitude questionnaire first were subjected to a factor analysis (principal component, varimax rotation). Those items that loaded above .40 for both females and males were selected for further analysis. The following items loaded on factor 1 for both women and men: (1) The thought of having a lot of money doesn't excite me; (2) I don't think that money is very important and (3) Money is important to me (this item loaded negatively with the factor and therefore was recoded for subsequent analysis). Scores on these three items were summed to make up a composite variable: Impor- tance of money. A similarly selected composite variable was formed for the items: (1) Earning money makes me feel important. and (2) Earning money gives me a good feeling about myself. This variable was named "Real" money. using Chesler's (Chesler & Goodman, 1976) distinc- tion between "real" money the kind that women earn and "magic" money; the kind that men spend on them. The two items that refer to "magic" money were not combined because they loaded in opposite directions with the factors, depending upon sex. They are: (l) I would prefer not to have to earn my own money; and (2) The best kind of money is the kind that someone spends on me. The final item. "Money is basically a good thing," also loaded differentially depending upon sex therefore it was not combined with any of the other variables. The relationships between these and other variables were explored via Pearson product- moment correlation coefficients. On the whole men thought that money was more important than women, [(78) = .275. 25.01. This was more true for the pe0ple in the role playing situation, 5(38) = .428, 95.006, than it was for those in the actual self-allocation procedure. [(38) = .131. Though the 27 difference between women and men for the "goodness" of money item was not significant, [(78) = .05, the relationship between sex and this measure was in the predicted direction. Thus there was some evidence suggesting that women's attitudes toward money were less favorable than those of men. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 predicted that since self-allocation is incon- gruent with the communal orientation that women are encouraged to develop, when compared with men. the interpretations that women generate for the word “taking" would be less assertive. Four raters (2 males, 2 females) who were blind with regard to the purpose of the study and the sex of the subject (all responses were typed on 3 x 5 cards) scored each response according to the system that was provided for this purpose and explained in Chapter II. Inter-rater reliability for this task was r = .67. Contrary to the prediction. there was no difference between men and women regarding their interpretation Of "taking." In fact in the actual self-allocation situation the trend was in the Opposite direction from what was predicted; that is. women tended to interpret "taking" more actively than did men, [(38) = .157. In the role playing situation there was a small trend in the predicted direction, 3(38) = .053. Hypothesis 3 It was predicted that women who scored as psychologically "androgynous“ on the Bem Sex Role Inventory would: (1) exhibit similar self-allocation patterns as men; (2) have a more favorable attitude 28 toward money and (3) have a more assertive attitude toward self- allocation than women who scored as “feminine." Because of the unexpected differences between the two self- allocation situations (i.e., women self-allocated more than men in the actual procedure) it was thought that the subjects in this situation might differ in sex-role orientation from the subjects in the role playing situation. Thus the effects of three variables; sex of subject, type of situation and masculine vs. feminine sex role orien- tation (a repeated measure) were examined via a 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA. Table 3 presents a summary of this analysis. Table 3.--Summary of the 2 (Sex of Subject) x 2 (Situation) x 2 (Mascu- line vs. Feminine Sex Role Orientation) ANOVA. Source _S_S_ _d_f_ _MS E Sex (A) 124.25 1 124.25 .94 Situation (B) 351.05 1 351.05 2.66 A x B 8.56 1 8.56 .06 Error I 10030.38 76 131.97 Sex Role (C) 97.65 1 97.65 .60 A x C 1171.81 1 1171.81 7.25** B x C .76 1 .76 .004 A x B x C 459.07 1 459.07 2.84* Error II 14503.77 76 161.41 €95.10 *fp$.01 As Table 3 indicates, as expected, there was a significant interaction between sex and sex role orientation. On the whole men were more masculine while women were more feminine. The pattern of means that produced a marginally significant second-order interaction between sex, situation and sex-role orientation suggested that women 29 in the actual self-allocation situation were more “masculine" than the women in the role playing situation. Also. men in the actual alloca-l tion procedure were more "feminine" than men in the role playing procedure. Simple effects analysis revealed that the women in the actual situation did not differ significantly on their scores for masculinity/femininity, £11.76) = .02. This was not true for the women in the role playing situation, who were significantly more feminine than masculine. [(1.76) = 3.12. 25.10. The men in the actual self-allocation were similar to the women in that they did not differ significantly on their scores for masculinity/femininity, £(l,76) = .73; however. the men in the role playing situation were significantly more masculine than they were feminine, £(l.76) = 6.83, 95.05. Correlation coefficients that were computed for sex role scores and allocation behavior suggested that there was a relationship between these variables. Women who scored as being more "masculine" on the Bem Sex Role Inventory also tended to allocate more to them- selves, on the whole. 5(38) = -.27, £5.09, and to self-allocate more of the gift, [(38) = -.28, p§.07, than did more "feminine" women. This was true for the women in both allocation situations. Though men in the role playing situation who scored high on masculinity took more in general, {(18) = .33, and more of the gift. [(18) = .34. both of these coefficients failed to reach significance. However the trend is similar to the relationship found between "masculinity" and self- allocation behavior for women. Conversely, the coefficients for the men in the actual self-allocation procedure reversed this trend. For these men high scores on masculinity were associated with lower self- allocation. This trend was not significant for the total amount 3O allocated, [(18) = -.33, but it was significant for the gift, [(18) = -.42, p<.06.2 The second part of this hypothesis. that women who were "andro- gynous" would have more favorable attitudes toward money than "feminine" women was not supported. There was no relationship between any of these attitudinal variables and "androgyny." This was not true for the men, however. "Masculine" men in both allocation situations) tended to think of money as good, 3(38) = -.39. 25.01, and considered it important. [(38) = -.30, 95.06. The final part of this hypothesis which predicted that "andro- gynous" women would have a more assertive orientation toward self- allocation than women scoring "feminine," was supported. Women who scored high in masculinity interpreted "taking" more actively than did “feminine" women, [(38) = -.26, p$.10. Furthermore, women in the actual self-allocation situation--who tended to be more "masculine" than the women in the role playing situation and who self-allocated more than the men in the procedure--interpreted "taking" more actively than the women in the other situation, [(38) = -.33, 95.03. Though the coefficients for the males were congruent with these results they did not reach statistical significance. Unexpected Findings The additional items on the "monetary attitude" scale produced a surprising number of relationships, both between each other and 2Because of the relationships found between masculinity and self-allocation behavior, an analysis of covariance was computed on the data for the main hypothesis controlling for the effects of mascu- linity. Because no differences were found from the original analysis the results from this analysis are not included in this report. 31 across other variables in the correlation matrix. A few of these variables were significantly related to the self-allocation measures. Women who thought that money was important took more gift. [(38) = -.38. gs-OI and more pay. 3(38) = -.4l,‘ps.008, than women who did not believe it was important. Also women in the actual self- allocation who liked to earn their own money allocated more pay to themselves, [(18) = -.40, £5.08, than did women who preferred not to earn their own money. Men in the actual self-allocation who believed that money was good took less gift. [(18) = .51. 95.01; furthermore those who took the most total tended to prefer not to earn their own money, 5(18) = -.40. 25.07. In the role playing situation, men who thought that money was good tended to allocate more to themselves. _r_(18) = -.38, p<.O9. Thus.it appears that attitudes toward money are related to self-allocation behavior. However this relationship seems to be modified depending upon an individual's sex. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The primary reason for conducting this research was to test the adequacy of the "less Of a connection" hypothesis for explaining sex differences in self-allocation behavior. This chapter presents a discussion of the results of this research, and their implications for understanding these sex differences and more general processes that appear to be involved in self-allocation behavior. Sex Differences in Self-Allocation The results of this study provided partial support for the hypothesis that sex-differences in self-allocation are not limited to the work context. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that through socialization women are more reinforced for developing a communal orientation than are men. Results indicated that in the role playing context there were significant differences in the amounts of money that females allocated when compared with males. Moreover, females tended not to differen- tiate between the gift and the pay as much as the males appeared to do. This finding supports the position that outside of the work context women still allocate less to themselves relative to men. However, this does not necessarily imply that these women didn't have less of a connection between work and pay as well. Rather, it suggests that 32 33 their self-allocation behavior was more generalized.. Since the “less of a connection" hypothesis cannot account for this finding it appears that a modification of this explanation is appropriate. Because the role playing situation produced findings that were congruent with the major hypothesis. it was expected that the actual self-allocation situation would replicate these results. Instead. an unexpected reversal occurred: not only did the females take more gift than the males, they took more pay as well. These results suggest that when compared with the women in the role playing situation, these women might have had both a stronger sense of "own equity" and a more agentic orientation toward their environment. This interpretation is supported by the findings that these women tended to score as more "masculine" on the Bem Sex Role Inventory than did the women in the role playing situation. However, because the analysis of covariance, which controlled for the effect of masculinity, did not substantially alter the original findings this explanation is insufficient to account for the different results. Moreover, only considering that women deviated from expectation in the actual self- allocation situation overlooks another finding; that the males in this situation were far more "feminine" than were the role playing males. It is unclear what the self-allocation behavior of these males would have been had they scored less "femininely" than they did. In any event. taken together these results suggest that sex differences in self-allocation behavior are partially the result, not of sex per se, but of differences in sex role orientation. It is possible that women who respond to a newspaper adver- tisement are atypical in that they are more assertive than are women 34 in general. However past research used this technique for soliciting subjects (Katz & Messé, 1973; Messé & Callahan-Levy, 1975) but the sex differences that occurred in these studies were as predicted. Another explanation for the "atypical" results is that the task used in the present research might have been sex biased. That is. women might have perceived themselves as "better" at this kind of task than did the men, and paid themselves accordingly. There are two flaws in this explanation. First, if women did perceive themselves as “better" at this kind of task than did the men, why would this difference have occurred only in the actual self-allocation procedure? Secondly, though this specific task was not pretested for sex bias. tasks similar to this--e.g., writing short answer essays (Lane & Messé, 1971) and proofreading (Messé & Callahan-Levy, 1975)--have been tested in this regard and have demonstrated no sex bias. It undoubtedly is true. however, that there were strong motiva- tional differences across the two situations. Though the subjects in the role playing situation were asked to “imagine" what they would do: (1) if they had come specifically to earn money--the fact was that they came for class credit; and (2) if they were to receive actual mone -- the fact was that they didn't. Because they were in an “as if" situa- tion. it is possible that they were behaving as they would ljk§_to behave rather than as they actually wgglg_behave. Thus, some indi- viduals of both sexes--but especially the women--said that they would have taken none of the gift, a few women (and one man) even said they would have taken nothing at all. This response is unreasonable in light of the fact that they were to have come specifically to earn money. In contrast, only one of the subjects in the actual 35 self-allocation situation took less than a dollar (.75¢) in either the gift or the pay procedure. Thus, it might be that the individuals in the role playing situation were responding in a socially desirable (i.e., sex role "appropriate") way. Because the present study has been the only research to date to find women allocating more to themselves it is unclear which, if any, of these explanations might have been operating to produce the results. Only further research will clarify these questions. A second rather puzzling reversal was the finding that in the actual self-allOcation situation subjects tended to allocate more on the second allocation regardless of whether it was their pay or a gift, whereas in the role playing situation subjects "took" more on the first allocation. Again. given that social desirability was a more salient concern in the role playing situation. the subjects in that part of the research could have deemed it "inapprOpriate" to allocate more to themselves the second time than they did the first. That is. social custom dictates that when taking "seconds“ one should take less than she/he did the first time. In contrast, subjects who were faced with the actual self-allocation seemed not to be constrained by social desirability. In fact, it appears as though these subjects might have acquired the art of self-allocation and the first allocation merely "whetted their appetite." It could be that this tendency would have induced them to take even more if given a third opportunity to self- allocate. Such an interpretation is congruent with the results of Lane and Messé (1971) which indicated that making self-interested allocations heightened the tendency to behave similarly in later reward distribution decisions. 36 Secondary Hypotheses: Tests of Correlates with Allocation BehaVior Attitudes Toward Money: Hypothesis 1 The prediction that women's attitudes toward money would be less favorable than men's was based on various theoretical and empiri- cal investigations in the literature. Chesler (1976) argues that women are ambivalent about money. In contrast, the "less of a connec- tion" hypothesis contends that women are less interested in money and are less familiar with it than are men; while men have more of their self-concept tied to earning money. Since the men in this study tended to think that money was more important than did the women, there is some support for the "less of a connection" hypothesis. This support is not without qualifications, however, since this trend was significant only in the role playing situation. It is also of interest that women who thought that money was important tended to allocate more reward to themselves than did women who considered it to be less important. Secondly, though men tended to endorse the "goodness" of money more than did women, this trend was very small. Thus, the present results suggest that both men and women "perceive" money basically to be good, but they differ in the degree to which they consider it important to them as individuals. Attitudes Toward SelfeAllocation: Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 assumed that since self-allocation is incongruent with the communal orientation that women are encouraged to develop, when compared with men, their interpretations of the word "taking" would be more passive. Contrary to this prediction there was a 37 sizeable trend in the Opposite direction for women in the actual self- allocation situation. This unexpected result, however, was compatible with the differences in actual taking behavior; that is, these women not only interpreted "taking" more actively than did the men in their situation, they actually took more as well. Again this finding empha- sizes the necessity for distinguishing between the concepts of sex and sex role orientation. Since these women tended to be more "mascu- line" and the men more "feminine" than were the female and male sub- jects in the other (role playing) situation their responses were in accord with their sex role orientation rather than their (biological) sex. Though there was a slight trend in the predicted direction for responses to "taking" in the role playing situation these differences were not statistically significant. Perhaps lack of significance was due to the measure itself not being sufficiently refined for assessing attitudes toward self-allocation in a situation, like role playing, in which motivation was rather low and/or diffuse. Moreover the scoring system might have been too judgmental and, thus, too susceptible to generating invalid interpretations. There is some support for this last explanation. since the interbrater reliability was relatively low. Psychological Androgyny: Hypothesis 3 As noted earlier, women in the actual self-allocation situa- tion were, on the whole, more "masculine" in their sex role orienta- tion than were the women in the role playing situation. It was expected that women with a highly "masculine" or agentic orientation 38 toward the world (though not necessarily a low “feminine“ orientation) would manifest this trait by allocating more to themselves than would women who scored low in "masculinity"; that is. agentic women would have patterns of self-allocation behavior that were similar to those that men have been found to have. Since this predicted relationship did occur, the results of the present study support Bem's (1974) con- tention that psychological androgyny provides greater potential for situationally effective behavior. Furthermore, Since "masculinity" in women was associated with allocating more of the gift to themselves, there is some support for the hypothesis that a more communal orienta- tion is associated with less self-allocation outside of the work con- text. Though this relationship also was found for the men in the role playing situation, surprisingly. the relationship between mascu- linity and self-allocation was reversed for men in the actual self- allocation situation. Why this would occur is difficult to explain. It might be that these men associated allocating the gift with a sign of "weakness." That is, they might have considered it apprOpriate to take something earned, but not a "hand out." Or, they could have been operating under the assumption that there is no such thing as a "gift" and were therefore suspicious of it. However, these explanations are speculative and do not explain why this pattern of behavior occurred only in the "masculine" men in the actual self-allocation situation. The second part of this hypothesis, which argued that women who were "androgynous" would have more favorable attitudes toward money than "feminine" women, was not supported. This finding suggests that androgynous women differed from non-androgynous women in their orientation toward self-allocation in general more than they did in 39 their attitude about money. Thus, women who self-allocated in large amounts also might have done so had the reward been something other than money. Again these women might have had a strong sense of "own equity" without necessarily having a stronger positive valence for money as a reward. "Masculine" men appeared to differ in this respect. They had far more favorable attitudes toward money than did "feminine" men. If through socialization men deve10p a stronger connection between work and pay than do women and, therefore, are more likely to define their worth in terms of the acquisition of money, it is understandable that "masculine" men tended to have a strong positive attitude toward this form of reward, even though masculinity in men was negatively related to actual taking behavior. It could be that the self-reward procedure somewhat divests money of its value as an indicator of social worth, since other people are not paying a subject what he "deserves." Thus, under self-allocation, money cannot be used as an instrument of assessing other peOple's feelings about performance and. in this regard, it may be less valuable to "masculine" men. In any event, it appears that a connection between attitude toward money and attitude toward self-allocation is not necessary to produce high levels of monetary reward allocation--especially for women. This conclusion is relevant to the last part of this hypo- thesis--that "androgynous" women would have a more assertive orienta- tion toward self-allocation than would women who scored “feminine." This relationship was especially true of those women in the actual self-allocation situation. There is a possibility that for women. at least. self-allocation in this context is a manifestation of a more 4O assertive or agentic orientation toward the environment rather than a strong connection with money. Though this was true for the males as well. the relationship between "masculinity" and interpreting "taking" actively was decidedly weak. There is some evidence, then, that the underlying reasons for relatively high amounts of self-allocation differ for men and women who score "high" on masculinity. For these women it is less a question of considering money important than it is having an assertive orienta- tion toward self-allocation. However since "masculine" men in the actual self-allocation tended to underreward themselves this explana- tion concerning males is less than complete. and must remain so until further research provides a more complete understanding of the different concerns in men and women that potentially are associated with, and satisfied by, money. Conclusions This study raised more questions than it answered. Though there was some support for the hypothesis that women more generally allocate less to themselves relative to men, it was limited to indi- viduals who were making a hypothetical decision. Nevertheless, various other results provided stronger support for the hypothesis that it is attitude toward self-allocation, coupled with sex role orientation, rather than just an attitude toward money--0r its connec- tion with work--that predicts actual self-allocation behavior in women. These findings suggest that intervention techniques, such as assertiveness training for women, might have greater impact on their 41 self-allocation behavior than would a technique that focused on changing attitudes toward money, per se. Obviously, as noted above, there is a need for further research on a number of issues. The exact role that sex role orientation plays in self-allocation behavior still is unclear. Exactly why women in the actual self-allocation situation paid themselves more than the men also is still unclear, especially since this result contradicts the findings of past studies (e.g., Messé & Callahan-Levy, 1975). Is this finding an indication of a rather permanent reversal in this sex difference? Or is it merely a temporary "pendulum“ swing that is necessary before some form of equalization can occur? These questions must be explored before there can be confidence in the explanations advanced to explain the results Of the present study. Finally. although the primary focus of this research has been on the characteristics of women. it should be noted that this evidence of "underpayment" (or overpayment) on the part of women can be inter- preted as such only relative to the behavior of men. This is neces- sarily the case because men have tended to represent the societal "standard" particularly in this economic context. However, “more" is not synonomous with "better." In this way, though it is surprising and somewhat heartening that women in the actual self-allocation took more for themselves than did their male counterparts, it is not the goal of the women's movement that women should become like men. But rather. that men and women should become like each other with respect to those characteristics of human functioning that are "healthy" and "growth promoting." Neither the communal orientation. nor the agentic orientation has to be--or should be--1imited to an individual of a 42 particular biological sex. Thus, in a sense. the real goal of the women's movement should be (and is) promoting the advent of a world in which there are no systematic sex differences in self-allocation or. for that matter, in any other behavior that limits effective situational or intrapersonal functioning. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ROLE PLAYING SITUATION QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A ROLE PLAYING SITUATION QUESTIONNAIRE Gift First Condition Suppose that you came here today to earn money instead of class credit. When you arrive the experimenters tell you that in addi- tion to the study you came for, they are trying to get some preliminary information about how much peOple take for themselves when offered a gift. You are given an envelope containing $4.00, broken down in the following way: 2 $1.00 bills 8 quarters You are also given two empty envelopes, one marked "my gift," the other marked "remainder." You are told that you can take any amount that you want--from zero to the entire amount--just by placing it in the enve- lope marked "my gift." Any remainder will go in its envelope and then be placed in a red box in the room. Since this is not connected with the study that you came for, your gift won't in any way influence the amount of money you will receive for your actual work. You are shown into a private room so that only you will know how much you take for yourself. Please indicate the amount that you would take for yourself. THE AMOUNT THAT I WOULD TAKE IS: 43 44 Now that you have completed the word interpretation task, the time has come for you to pay yourself for your work. When you pay yourself remember that there is another short questionnaire for you to complete before the experiment is over. You are given an envelope containing $4.00, broken down as follows: 2 $1.00 bills 8 quarters You are also given two empty envelopes. one marked "my pay" and the other marked "remainder.“ You can pay yourself any amount--from zero to the entire amount--by placing it in the envelope marked "my pay." Any remainder will go in the other envelope and be placed in a blue box in the room. You are shown into a private room so that only you will know how much you pay yourself. Remember when paying yourself that there are two additional questionnaires to complete that will take approximately ten minutes. Please indicate the amount that you would pay yourself for your work in this experiment. THE AMOUNT I WOULD PAY MYSELF IS: 45 Pay First Condition Imagine that you came here today to earn money instead of _class credit. In other words that you came here expecting to earn a certain amount of money for the work that you are about to do. 46 Now that you have paid yourself for your work. the experimenters tell you that in addition to the study you came for they are trying to get some preliminary infOrmation about how much people take for them- selves when offered a gift. You are given an envelope containing $4.00 broken down in the following way: 2 $1.00 bills 8 quarters You are also given two empty envelopes, one marked "my gift" and the other marked "remainder." You are told that you can take any amount that you want--from zero to the entire amount--just by placing it in the envelope marked "mv gift." Any remainder will go in its envelope and then be placed in a red box in the room. Since this is not connected with the study that you came for, your gift hasn't influenced the amount of money that you received for your actual work. You are shown into a private room so that only you will know how much ’ you take for yourself. Remember when paying yourself that there are two additional questionnaires to complete that will take approximately ten minutes. Please indicate the amount that you would take for yourself. THE AMOUNT THAT I WOULD TAKE IS: APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B Bem Sex Role Inventory SelfiDescriptiOn: Trait List Please indicate how well each of the following characteristics describe you as you now see yourself. Use the 7 point scale noted. Mark the number that corresponds to your rating on the answer sheet that is provided. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never or Always or almost almost always never true true of me of me 1. Self-reliant 31. Makes decisions easily 2. Yielding 32. Compassionate 3. Helpful 33. Sincere 4. Defends own beliefs 34. Self-sufficient 5. Cheerful 35. Eager to soothe hurt feelings 6. Moody 36. Conceited 7. Independent , 37. Dominant 8. Shy 38. Soft spoken 9. Conscientious 39. Likeable 10. Athletic 40. Masculine ll. Affectionate 41. Warm 12. Theatrical 42. Solemn 13. Assertive 43. Willing to take a stand 14. Flatterable 44. Tender 15. Happy 45. Friendly 16. Strong personality 46. Aggressive 17. Loyal 47. Gullible 18. Unpredictable 48. Inefficient l9. Forceful 49. Acts as a leader 20. Feminine 50. Childlike 21. Reliable 51. Adaptable 22. Analytical 52. Individualistic 23. Sympathetic 53. Does not use harsh language 24. Jealous 54. Unsystematic 25. Has leadership abilities 55. Competitive 26. Sensitive to the needs of others 56. Loves children 27. Truthful 57. Tactful 28. Willing to take risks 58. Ambitious 29. Understanding 59. Gentle 30. Secretive 60. Conventional 47 48 Money Attitude Scale Please indicate your response to each of the following statements by placing a mark on your answer sheet that best reflects your Opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree Slightly Neither agree Disagree Disagree TDisagree agree agree nor disagree slightly strongly 1. Money is important to me. 2. The thought of having a lot of money doesn't excite me. 3. It is important to me that I secure a well paying job. 4. Money is basically a good thing. 5. I don't think it's good to be concerned about money. 6. Having money isn't really satisfying. 7. Earning money makes‘me feel important. 8. Money is the root of all evil. 9. I would prefer not to have to earn my own money. 10. I don't think that money is very important. 11. The amount of money a person earns on the job is a good way of assessing that person's power. 12. Earning money gives me a good feeling about myself. 13. When I think of work, I think Of pay. 14. Making a lot of money isn't a real accomplishment. 15. The best kind of money is the kind that someone spends on me. 16. I would probably take a job that paid well even though there were disadvantages to it. 17. I usually don't think about money. 18. It is embarrassing to admit to wanting money. 19. I don't like to have peOple spend money on me. 20. I think that the amount of money a person earns is a good indi- cator of how much that person is worth in this society 21. I wouldn't take a job that paid well if it inconvenienced my family. 22. Money can't buy happiness. APPENDIX C WORD INTERPRETATION TASK APPENDIX C WORD INTERPRETATION TASK .Class level Sex Major Below is a list of common words that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. For each word, list the first interpretation that comes to your mind. then write a sentence illustrating your interpreta- tion. Don't be concerned about the "dictionary" definitions. The important thing is to give ygu£_impressions. GUIDING 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: 155.139. 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation; Sentence: 2531.115 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: 49 HOLDING 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: NEEDING 1. Interpretation Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: ALLOWING 1. Interpretation: '-Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: QUESTIONING 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation: Sentence: PERMITTING 1. Interpretation: Sentence: 2. Interpretation Sentence: 50 51 Scoring Instructions for Word Interpretation Task This rating system is pretty straightforward. Basically you will be rating how an individual has interpreted the word TAKING. The dimension that you will be using is ACTIVE-PASSIVE. On each data card there are two interpretations and two sentences exemplifying those interpretations. Your job is to rate each of the interpretations separately then total the scores to yield a final score for the indi- vidual. Each interpretation is modified by the sentence that follows it. You will be using a 5-point rating system though actually only 4 numbers will be used. Thus: VERY ACTIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE VERY PASSIVE A score of 5 A score of 4 A score of 2 A score of l A score Of 3 which would be the midpoint is not being used. Examples Of interpretations that would be given a score of 5 (VERY ACTIVE) are: Stealing Jack took the candy bar from the store. Grabbing He grabbed the purse from her hands. Confiscate The police confiscated the materials. Obtaining through force The Russians tool Poland. Taking possession I took the book without telling anyone. A score of 4 (ACTIVE) would be given to the following: Acguiring She is taking the book from her friend. Participate in an activity I am taking a test today. Obtaining I got some food from the refrigerator. 52 Bringing He was taking the packages home. Removing She is taking the broom from its place. Return She took the dress back to the store. Choosing She took the red balloon rather than the green. Moving or transporting I am taking these boxes downtown. Tending He was taking care of her. Opposite of giving The poor women were taking more than they were giving. A score of 2 (PASSIVE) will be given to the following. Notice that the interpretation of taking is passive. but that the sentence modifying the interpretation is active: Receiving A doorman takes tickets at the theatre. She is taking the letter. A score of l (VERY PASSIVE) would be given to the following. Notice that the interpretation and the sentence modifying it are W I am taking his story for granted that it is true. She accepted her fate. Receiving She took the money her parents offered. I would take it if it was given to me. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adams. J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in E_perimental Social Psy__o logy. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Bakan. D. The Duality of Human Existence: AnE Essay on ngchology and Religion. Chicago: Rand McNalTy, 1966. Bem, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psycholpgy_. 1974.42.155- Bem, 5. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal Of Personali_y_and Social P_ychology. 1975, 31(4),“ 634- 643. Broverman, I.. Vogel. S., Broverman, D., Clarkson, F., & Rosenkrantz, P. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal pf Social Issues. 1972, 28. 59-79. Callahan-Levy, C. Inequitable pay; Some possible antecedents jg_§§y: role development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1975. Carlson. R. Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. Journal g£_Social Issues, 1972. 28. 17-32. Chesler, P., & Goodman, E. J. Women. Money 33g Power. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1976. Deutsch, M. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal g: Social Issues, 1975, 31, 137-149. Donelson, E. Development of sex-typed behavior and self concept. In E. Donelson & J. Gullahorn (Eds.), Women: A_ngchologica1 Perspective, in press. Katz. M.. & Messé, L. A sex difference on the distribution of over sufficient rewards. Paper presented at the Meetin s of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1973— Lane, I., & Messé, L. Equity and the distribution of rewards. Journal 9: Personality_and Social ngcholggy. 1971..20. 1-17. 53 54 Leventhal, G., & Lane. 0. Sex, age and equity behavior. Journal 3: Personality and Social £§ychologx, 1970, 15, 312-315. Maccoby E.. & Jacklin, C. The P5 cholog of Sex Differences. ’Stanford: Stanford UfiiVersIty Press:_1974. Masters. J. Effects of social comparison upon subsequent self- reinforcement behavior to children. Journal g£_Personality and Social Psychologxe 1968,‘10(4), 391-40I. Masters, J. Effects of success, failure and reward outcome upon con- tingent and non-contingent self-reinforcement. Developmental £§ychology. 1972,_Z(2), 110-118. Mednick, M.. & Tangri. S. New social psychological perspectives on women. Journal g£_Socia1 Issues, 1972, 28. 1-16. Messé. L., & Callahan, C. Sex and message effects in reward alloca- tion behavior. Presented at the Meetings g: the American Egychological Association, Chicago, 975. Messé. L., & Callahan-Levy, C. Sex differences in the allocation of pay. In press. Mischel. W., Coates. B., & Raskoff, A. Effects of success and failure on self gratification. Journal g: Personality_and Social Psychologx, 1968, 19(4), 38I-390. Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. 1971. Rosenhan. D., Underwood, 8., & Moore, 8. Affect moderates self grati- fication and altruism. Journal g£_Personality_and Social Psychology, 1974, 39(4), 546-552. Sampson. E. On justice as equality. Journal g£_Social Issueg, 1975. 3]: 45-64. Underwood, 8., Moore, 8.. & Rosenhan, D. Affect and self gratification. Developmental Psychologx, 1973, 8(2), 209-214. United States Department of Labor, Wage and Standards Administrations, WOMENS BUREAU. Fact sheet on the Earnings Gap, Washington, D.C.. 1971. Vinacke, W. Sex-roles in a three person game. Sociometry, 1959,.22, 343-360. ' Vinacke. W., & Gullickson, G. Age and sex differences in the forma- tion of coalitions. Child Development. 1964, 35, 1217-1231. Walster, E.. Berscheid, E.. & Walster, W. New directions in equity research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances jg_ex erimental social psychology. 191, 2, New YorR: Academic Press, 1975. 55 Wernimont, P.. & Fitzpatrick. S. The meaning of money. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 1972, 56(3), 218-226. Whitaker. S. Sex differences in self-esteem g§_a function of assi ned masculine andifeminine—Sharacteristics. _Unpufilisfiea_doctoral dissertation. Michigan State UniVerSity, 1972. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles jg Experimental Design. New York: McGraw- , .