\lHHllW‘lmlmlWNHWWW(WWWlllHlNll

      
     

  

1O
8
H

\100

  

—'co
m

new.“
mailman state .
University

 

‘—

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Accurate? o 7" Person Peru/94mm

05 (24 Fahd-(M (7f 56c Ko/c
OrlehMfi‘Ox/L

presented by
Aileen Lljnn CCl/r’d

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M i .A‘ 5 degree in (:<.,L3( IN“: I ( UK (:3

 

 

 

%/ / r / Major professor
Date 3/ g?
/ /

0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

MSU

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
JIIIICI-IIL your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
55'5".- 1 -.’. m ..
e; 4?; "“ g: ww-

 

 

 

 

 

ACCURACY OF PERSON PERCEPTION AS A
FUNCTION OF SEX ROLE ORIENTATION

By

Alison Lynn Card

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1983

ABSTRACT

ACCURACY OF PERSON PERCEPTION AS A
FUNCTION OF SEX ROLE ORIENTATION

By
Alison Lynn Card

This study investigated whether androgynous persons are more
accurate person perceivers than those of a masculine, feminine, or
undifferentiated sex role orientation. Undergraduates of these four
sex role orientation groups as measured by the short form of the
Bem Sex Role Inventory (s-BSRI; Bem, l981) interacted in a play
encounter with a child and in various psycho-dramas with another
undergraduate.

Comparisons between the child's ratings of the undergraduates'
behavior in the play encounter and the undergraduates' inferences of
the child's perceptions indicated that androgynous persons were more
accurate than persons of other sex role orientations. Comparisons
between undergraduate's ratings of their partners on the masculinity,
femininity and neutral scales from the s-BSRI and their partners
actual ratings indicated than androgynous persons were not more
accurate than masculine and feminine persons. Undifferentiated persons
were the least accurate. The nature of the perceptual rating variable

is an important component when assessing accuracy.

To Roger, for his patience, support
and always available ear.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my thanks to Gary Stollak who was always
available to assist me in this project, lending his advice and support
and to Linda Jackson and Larry Messe for the expertise and assistance
they made available to me. Special thanks to Gary and Linda for
making this study possible.

I would also like to thank Nick Ialongo and Peggy Spiegel for
their assistance in gathering data, as well as numerous undergraduates.
Additionally, Nick's assistance and patience during my statistical
analysis was invaluable.

Finally, to my family and to Roger, my deepest gratitude for
their ever ready support and faith which helped keep me going

throughout this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.
INTRODUCTION

Person Perception . . .
Perceptions and the Interpersonal Process
Person Perception and Perceptual Accuracy
SRO Research. . . .
The Measurement of SRO. .
SRO and Behavioral Flexibility. .
Behavioral Flexibility and Person Perception
Conclusions . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses

METHODS .

Overview .
Subjects . .

Children

Undergraduate Subjects.
Measures .

Short Form of the Dem Sex Role Inventory (5- BSRI):

Perception of Adult Playmate Inventory (PAPI).
Post Session Questionnaire (PSQ) .

Design. . . . . .
Procedure. . .
Statistical Analyses .

RESULTS .

Hypothesis 1. .
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the PAPI.
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis.
ANOVA . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2.
Masculine Discrepancy Scores.
Feminine Discrepancy Scores .
Neutral Discrepancy Scores

iv

Page

vi

—l

Page

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Summary and Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
APPENDICES

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix D 50
Appendix E 59
Appendix F 62

FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table

N
o

\JO‘U'I-hw

10.

ll.
12.
l3.

l4.

LIST OF TABLES

Behavioral Flexibility Studies .

PAPI Discrepancy Scores: Multiple Regression Analysis .
PAPI: ANOVA Results

PAPI ANOVA: Means and Number of Subjects

Masculine Discrepancy Scores: Multiple Regression Analysis
Masculinity Discrepancy Scores: ANOVA Results.

Masculine Discrepancy Scores ANOVA: Means and Number
of Subjects . .

Feminine Discrepancy Scores: Multiple Regression Analysis
Feminine Discrepancy Scores: ANOVA Results.

Feminine Discrepancy Scores ANOVA: Means and Number of
Subjects . . .

Neutral Discrepancy Scores: Multiple Regression Analysis .
Neutral Discrepancy Scores: ANOVA Results .

Neutral Discrepancy Scores ANOVA: Means and Number of
Subjects . . .

PAPI: Means and Standard Deviations .

vi

Page

22
24
25
27
28

29
31
32

33
34
35

36

INTRODUCTION

In the past it was assumed that gender-linked behavior was best
understood from the perspective of a linear model, wherein sex
determined sex role which,in turn, affected personality. Thus,
femininity-masculinity was viewed as a bipolar dimension; a concep-
tualization that emphasized differences between the sexes rather than
similarities (Kaplan & Bean, l976). This unidimensional characteri-
zation of masculinity and femininity implicitly assumed that one
person could not incorporate characteristics of both masculinity and
femininity.

In the 1970's this unidimensional, bipolar view of sex roles
began to be questioned (Bem, l974; Constantinople, l973; Spence,
Helmreich, & Stapp, l975). Investigators concluded that individuals
can and do possess both masculine and feminine characteristics. The
research following these conclusions has attempted to discover how
persons differ along the dimensions of masculinity and femininity
and to identify the implications of this reconceptualization of sex
role orientation (SRO) for understanding complex human functioning.

Among the implications which follow from such a reconceptualization
is the idea that there are differences in the cognitive and interpersonal
behavior of those with different SROS. For example, how a person per-
ceives another, and how he or she behaves with that other may be

affected by this individual's own, as well as the other's SRO.

l

2

The present study was conducted within the framework of a
larger investigation which examined differences in cognitions, per-
ceptions, and behaviors of undergraduates of varying SROs, who en-
gaged in interactions with a child and another undergraduate.
Specifically, the present study was designed to examine whether
differences in the SROS of subjects are associated with differences
in the degree of accuracy with which they perceive their interpersonal
encounters. It was expected that androgynous persons would be more
accurate person perceivers than those of other SROS. Subjects were
classified as one of four SRO types: androgynous persons, who perceive
themselves as having a high degree of positive, socially desirable
masculine and femine characteristics; masculine persons, who perceive
themselves as having a high degree of positive masculine characteristics
and a low degree of positive feminine characteristics; feminine persons,
who perceive themselves as possessing a high degree of positive feminine
characteristics and a low degree of positive masculine characteristics;
and undifferentiated persons, who perceive themselves as low on both

sets of characteristics.

Person Perception

 

Perceptions and the Interpersonal Process

 

The importance of understanding perceptions in the interpersonal
process must be underscored. As Sullivan (l953) argues, the act of
perceiving is interpolated between outside reality and our cognitions.
Kelly (1955) states that what a person perceives is the base from which
the person acts. When persons differ in the way they construe or

perceive an event, their subsequent behavior often differs. Kelly

3
states, "If we can predict accurately what others will do, we can ad-
just ourselves to their behavior" (p. 96). Snyder's (1974) concept of
self-monitoring reflects this construing process. Self-monitoring
involves the ability to monitor or control one's self-presentation and
change one's self-presentation in differing circumstances. Thus, self-
monitoring is the ability to "read" a situation and judge what would
be the appropriate behavior. Thus, the ability to act appropriately in
a situation is related to the accuracy of a person's perceptions.
Indeed, Leary (1957) and Sullivan (1953) argue that psychopathology
may be the result of a large discrepancy between a person's perceptions
and consensually agreed upon reality. A greater understanding of
those characteristics associated with greater accuracy and fit of
perceptions and reality has ramifications for interpersonal behavior.
More accurate and less biased perceptions may be associated with
better adjusted and congruent interpersonal behavior (Messé, Stollak,

Larson, & Michaels, 1979).

Person Perception and Perceptual Accuracy

I Many variables have been found to affect the processes of person
perception, including degree of accuracy. For example, group member-
ship (Dennis, 1951; Tagiuri, 1969), past experience (Dennis, 1951;
Kelly, 1955), a person's construction of the world and the variables
they deem important (Bruner, 1951; Dennis, 1951; Dornbusch, Hastorf,
Richardson, Muzzy, & Vreeland, 1965; Kelly, 1955; Sullivan, 1953),
stereotypes of others (Snyder, Tanke, & Berschild, 1977), the external
environmental cues (Bruner, 1951), and the degree of consistency in

the characteristics of others (Asch, 1946; Tagiuri, 1969) have all

4

been found to influence perceptual processes. The judgment of accuracy
of perceptions is a very complex process which must take into account
the variables mentioned above as well as measurement artifacts to be
discussed below.

Past research on perceptual accuracy has often used the concept
of empathy (e.g., Dymond, 1949). Empathy in this context refers to
the heightened ability to infer characteristics of the other and, thus,
accurately predict how the other will act (Bucheimer, 1963). The
usual paradigm for examining empathic ability consisted of comparing
A's inferences of B with B's self-judgment, and using the absolute
difference in these measures as the indication of empathic ability.

The lower the difference score, the more empathic or accurate the
perceiver was judged to be (Bronfenbrenner, Harding, & Gallwey, 1959;
Cline, 1964; Cronbach, 1955; Hastorf & Bender, 1952).

However, Gage and Cronbach (1955) argue that this previous index
could yield inflated estimates of accuracy and they developed three
components of accuracy scores to better assess the construct of accuracy.
They describe these components using the following paradigm: A rates
self, B rates self, and A predicts how B rated self. These aspects are
"real similarity" which is the actual agreement of A's and B's self-
ratings, "assumed similarity", which is the agreement between A's
self-rating and A's prediction of B, and "accuracy" which is the
agreement of B's self-rating and A's prediction (the only measure used
in previous research, generally). They note that when there is high
real similarity between persons and the judges assumes similarity
between him or herself and the other, the result is "accuracy".

However, had the real similarity been low, the judge's assumption of

5
similarity would ggt_have led to "accuracy". In these cases,
"accuracy" was the function of assumed similarity and real similarity
not of the ability to predict the other's responses "accurately".
Therefore, the use of the discrepancy score between B's self-rating and
A's prediction was not necessarily only a measure of accuracy but,
could be reflecting the processes just described. Any discussion of
accuracy must take these artifacts into consideration.

As noted above, many variables affect the perceptual process
(e.g., group membership, stereotypes of others), however, one variable
which has received little investigation in relation to the perceptual
process and the judgment of accuracy, is SRO. Ickes (1981) hypothe-
sized that androgynous persons are likely to be more accurate person
perceivers, since they are more behaviorally flexible than are persons
with other SROS. He speculated that this greater adaptability could
be the result of more accurate perceptions. The present research was
designed to investigate this hypothesis in an attempt to achieve
greater understanding of characteristics associated with perceptual

accuracy.

SRO Research

 

The Measurement of SRO

 

A person's SRO is generally defined from scores derived from the
Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974), its revised short form, the
s-BSRI (Bem, 1981), and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ;
Spence et al., 1975), and its expanded version of the Extended PAQ
(EPAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979). Subjects are categorized

as androgynous, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated on the

6
basis of their masculine (M) and feminine (F) scores obtained from
these instruments. There currently is a debate in the SRD literature
regarding the applicability or usefulness of the construct of SRO
(Constantinople, 1973; Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1983; Locksley
& Colten, 1977; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Tellegen & Lubinski, 1983;
Jackson, Hunter, Stollak, & Ialongo; Note 1). There does, however,
appear to be rather widespread agreement that these scales are
measuring the characteristics of instrumentality and expressivity
(e.g., Lubinski et al., 1983; Spence, 1983) which are generally
associated with masculinity and femininity, respectively. At the very
least, then, these scales may be viewed as measuring one aspect of
personality which is generally associated with masculinity and

femininity at this point in our culture.

SRO and Behavioral Flexibility

 

One of Bem's (1974) original assertions regarding androgyny was
that androgynous persons would be more behaviorally flexible. Depending
on the requirements of the situation they could act in a masculine/
instrumental fashion or a feminine/expressive fashion, as both
characteristics are consonant with their view of themselves. However,
sex-typed persons, due to their sex-typed view of themselves would not
be able to readily express behaviors that were inconsistent with their
SRO. Thus, masculine persons would not behave expressively, nor would
feminine persons behave instrumentally.

In a series of studies begun initially by Bem and her colleagues,
researchers have attempted to examine this behavioral flexibility

hypothesis. A summary of these studies appears in Table 1, which

 

mo. v.m

Autogmm-c_mmv

 

z: a so A z< a m: mu?_mp=ms=cpmcfi 2:
2d
mo. v.m AFmLow>mzmmv m: mump .Pmucwz
z: x 2m a z< "nope: cowpwcmou uomew< z< Hmmm a Axmwopco
—oo. v.m .mw.m u Apepmm apmgow>mgmmv
umgauuxmm v ummgm>mguxmm w z< mcowuummm xuw>wuu<upmoa
1. 2;
Foo. v.m .m¢.m u Apepvp Autogam-tpmmv m: mmm_
cquuuxmm v cmmgm>mguxmm a z< mucmgmeogm pr>wuu< z< Hmmm .amccmo a 5mm
moo. v.m .mm.m u Amumm Apmgo_>m;mmv
m: x z< a Zn metamomwd m>_ptoaaam uz:
1. 2m
mo. v.m .~_.~ u Ammvu apmgo_>m;omv m2 okmp .compmz a
m: A z< a z; xnmm saw: mucmgzugaz z< Hmmm .mcapgmz .smm
mo. v.m .mo.~mm
so A z< "mmFmEmd
moo. v.m .mm.mrm A_mtow>m;amv
m: A z< a 2; "mmsz convex saw: mucmgngzz
1. 2d
Po. v.m .-.mup apmgow>mgomv mm:
2; v z< a m: scoecou ca mcammmgm mz< Hmmm mmmp .smm
mu_:mmm eo xgm523m mmpnmwgm> ucmucmamo maaogo cam acmszgumcH xvaum

 

 

mawusam xpvaawxm_a _~Low>m;mm

— m4m<p

 

 

umumwpcmgmeewucz u zau
mcwcwsmu u sea
mcwpzommz u mzn
mzocxmoguc< u z<m
Apmgow>mcmmv
m: mcwpmm acmsmmmggmnEm
8. v m :Logmmimc
z: a z< A z; a m: "mafia: mcwpmm mucmgmemga z: mnmp
2m .cmgmpoz
Aucoamm1+mev m: a .muchm
Foo. v.m m.omm Lozpo A z< mcwumm “LomEou z< o<a .guwmgepm:
8. v m .2. u 83.... :29;ng
xuwpwnwxmpu a z< quFwawxm_m
to cowumpmm "mmpmsom to mmczmmmz zgoumgonmo
.1 mopmum
8. v m .NN. u 88.. E L a z
»p__wn_xmpa Apaonmm-c_amv m: pmw_xom;u mnm_ .cae“_a
a z< we cowpmpmm ”mops: aucmumwmcoo mpomuxmm z< m>wpumwu< a cagnpvmz
mppammm to agmssam mmpammgm> ucmucmawo masocm omm ucmsagumcH xcaum

 

 

A.u:oov P m4m<h

9
includes the major results associated with SRO. Sex differences are
included where differences in SRO are associated differentially with
the two sexes. In addition, only those dependent variables relevant
to a discussion of behavioral flexibility are included.

As a result of Bem's assertions regarding behavioral flexibility,
flexibility was generally defined as the ability to meet the
situational requirements, be they masculine or feminine. The
laboratory measure of flexibility used by Heilbrun and Pitman (1979)
was flawed in this regard. Their laboratory conditions appeared to
require masculine behavior (independence, self-enhancement, and
competitiveness), not flexibility, which they defined as the ability
to act in a masculine ang_feminine manner. Thus, flexibility was
not necessarily an indication of an ability to meet the requirements
of the situation and so their results should not be interpreted as
supporting Bem's hypothesis.

Overall, however, an inspection of Table 1 indicates that the
studies which assessed instrumental/expressive behaviors and which
used behavioral situations appeared to support the hypothesis of
greater behavioral flexibility for androgynous persons as compared
to persons of other SROs. The data generally indicated that
androgynous persons are more capable of responding in an instrumental
or expressive fashion than persons of other SROs, depending on the
requirements of the situation. The data presented in Table 1 also
indicated that differences in males and females often were found even
Twith SRO taken into account. Therefore, it would seem desirable to

continue to assess sex differences in addition to the variable of SRO.

10
Behavioral Flexibility and Person Perception

At this point an important question must be raised: Why are
androgynous persons more capable of behavioral flexibility? Bem and
Lenney (1976) argue, in part, that sex-typed persons are motivated to
avoid cross sex behavior. Helmreich et al., (1979) however, presented
evidence to refute this hypothesis. They found that androgynous and
masculine persons evidenced higher levels of comfort across three task
situations (masculine, feminine, neutral) which led them to conclude that
it is high levels of instrumentality and self-esteem which determine
level of comfort, rather than motivational differences, as Bem and Lenney
argue. Ickes (1981) as stated earlier, suggests a different hypothesis,
that the difference in flexibility may be related to the greater person
perception and social cognition skills of androgynous persons.
Androgynous persons may be more accurate person perceivers than those of
other SROs, and as a result can adapt their behavior accordingly. They
accurately perceive whether a situation requires masculine or feminine
behavior and then act in such a manner so as to meet these situational
requirements.

This hypothesis regarding person perception has received little
direct investigation. For example, Falbo (1975) did not study androgyny,
per se. However, she found that those person who were less conforming
to sex role stereotypes were more likely to rely on person related
information to guide their behavior. This pattern may be related to
perceptual accuracy and subsequent greater flexibility of androgynous
persons. Non-sex-typed persons used perceptual information to guide

their behavior.

11

In two studies, Heilbrun (1981) examined the social cognitive skills
and personal defensiveness, respectively, of persons of different SROs in
an attempt to determine the reasons behind differences in behavioral
flexibility. In the first study, he combined two scores which were
indicative of intraception and social insight to form a social cognition
score. The data indicated the following pattern for males, androgynous
males received the highest social cognition scores, masculine males
received the next highest cognition scores, whereas feminine and
undifferentiated males received the lowest scores. In contrast, female's
SRO was not related to social cognition. Thus, this data indicates
partial support (male data) for androgynous persons hypothesized greater
social cognitive scores in comparison to persons of other SROS.

In the second study, using the same subject population, Heilbrun
found that androgynous females were more defensive than other females,
whereas androgynous males were the least defensive of the males.
Defensiveness was defined as the inclination to repress, project, or
rationalize information which would be distressing to a person or
threatening to her or his self-esteem. Heilbrun argued that defensiveness
served as a moderator variable between social cognition and behavioral
flexibility. He argued further, that cross sex behavior is generally
disapproved of in our society, particularly for males. Thus, androgynous
males who have a low level of defensiveness are unable to overcome social
barriers and perform cross sex behavior, even though their superior
social cagnitive skills suggest that they may be capable of performing
cross sex behavior. Androgynous males may perceive the situation
accurately and may recognize the needed behavior, but if this behavior

is viewed as feminine, they are unable to perform such behavior as the

12
social disapproval which would result would be a threat to their self-
esteem. Androgynous females, on the other hand, are able to protect
themselves from social disapproval due to their high level of defensive-
ness and can, therefore, perform cross sex behavior. This data does not
provide clear support for viewing behavioral flexibility of androgynous
persons as a function of superior social cognitive skills.

Additionally, this study raised an important point. Androgyny may
have differential implications for males and females. As Baumrind (1982)
argues, masculine behaviors are generally viewed as more favorable in our
society and, thus, it becomes relatively easier for women to behave in an
instrumental fashion than for men to behave in a more feminine
expressive manner. There is less stigma associated with the former.
Results regarding androgynous persons should also examine the differences
between androgynous males and females.

A study by Harackiewicz and DePaulo (1982) did attempt to assess
differences in accuracy of person perception in relation to SRO. They
assessed person accuracy, situation accuracy, and person X situation
accuracy. They concluded that females, particularly feminine females
were better at person predictions, while males (androgynous and masculine)
were better at situation predictions. There were no significant results
with respect to person X situation accuracy. However, some caution
regarding these results appears warranted. Harackiewicz and DePaulo's
assessment of accuracy appears to be problematic. They did not compare
a judge's ratings of a person with the person's self-rating, rather they
compared a judge's ratings of a stimulus person in a written scenario
with the composite score of all those persons who were in the same SRO as

the stimulus person. Thus, the stimulus person's profile and the scores

13
used as indicative of their behavior may not have been an accurate match.
Additionally, there were no actual behavioral interactions.

The little research conducted in the area has neglected actual
interaction and its resultant effect on accuracy of perception. Gage and
Cronbach (1955) state that "social perception as measured is a process
dominated far more by what the Judge brings to it than by what he takes
in during it" (p. 420). When reading a brief statement about another,
judges have relatively little information on which to base their
judgment and may, as a result, rely more heavily on their own assumptions
regarding persons than when they have more information at their disposal.
An actual interaction would be likely to furnish this additional relevant
information. The present study attempted to remedy the potential flaw of
past work by having undergraduates actually interact with each other and
a child and then rate these individuals and themselves on various

instruments designed to assess their perceptual accuracy.

Conclusions

 

While there is a debate with regard to the construct of SRO as
measured by such instruments as the BSRI and the PAQ, both of these
instruments have been useful in examining the instrumental and expressive
behavior generally associated with masculinity and femininity in our
present-day society. A major area of investigation with regard to SRO
as measured by these instruments has been behavioral flexibility. While
the literature is rather inconsistent in its findings, those studies
that employed actual behavioral situations and measured instrumental/
expressive behavior have tended to support the hypothesis that

androgynous persons are more flexible; that is, they can respond in an

14
instrumental or expressive fashion, depending on the requirements of the
situation. Ickes' (1981) hypothesis regarding androgynous persons greater
social cognition skills has received little investigation and it is to

this end that this study was conducted.

Hypotheses

 

This study was designed to investigate the accuracy of person
perception in relation to SRO. An interaction between two undergraduates
and a child served as the basis for examining perceptual accuracy.
Following the interaction, undergraduates predicted how the child would
respond to an instrument assessing the undergraduate's behavior during
the interaction with the child. In addition, undergraduates rated their
partners on several items from a s-BSRI and their responses were compared
to their partner's actual ratings. Specifically, this study was designed
to examine the following hypotheses:

1) Undergraduate's inferences of children's perceptions of the
undergraduates and the children's perceptions of the undergraduates will
differ as a function of the undergraduate's SRO. Persons with an
androgynous SRO will be more accurate person perceivers as compared to
persons of other SROs.

2) Undergraduates'perceptions of their partner's responses will
differ as a function of the perceiver's SRO. Persons with an androgynous
SRO will be more accurate at assessing their partner's responses than

will persons with other SROs.

METHODS

Overview

The first part of this study consisted of children and undergraduates
interacting in a play encounter for one-half hour. Following this period
each child was interviewed about her or his perceptions of the two
undergraduates with whom he or she interacted. The pairs of undergrad-
uates then interacted for another one-half hour in various hypothetical
"marital" psycho-dramas to assess how persons of varying SROs interact
with one another. Following this period, each undergraduate filled out
several questionnaires, among which were those relevant to the present
study. One instrument measured his/her perceptions of the child, and
his/her behavior with the child, as well as his/her inferences of the
child's perceptions. Another questionnaire assessed his/her perceptions

of his/her adult partner.

Subjects
Children

First grade children from the East Lansing public schools were
recruited to participate in this study. A letter (see Appendix A) was
sent to parents describing the study. The letter was accompanied by a
postcard which the parents returned to Michigan State University if they
were interested in having their child participate. A follow-up phone
call was made to answer any further questions parents might have had
about the research. A total of 24 children were recruited in this manner,
10 females and 14 males.

15

16

Undergraduate Subjects

Students in Introductory to Psychology courses were recruited to
serve as subjects. Following a brief discussion of the study, 1780
interested students filled out the s-BSRI (see Appendix B). From this
subject pool, 96 subjects (one-half males and one-half females), who both
best represented the various SROs and were available for the actual
interaction, participated in the play encounter and "marital"

psycho-dramas.

Measures

Short Form of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (s-BSRI)

The s-BSRI (Bem, 1981) was used to identify the subject's SROS.
This instrument was chosen because of its wide use in the literature
examining SRO, particularly with regard to behavioral flexibility.
Earlier concerns with regard to the factor structure of the BSRI (e.g.
Gadreau, 1977; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979) concerning the number of
factors present and the use of the items labeled masculine and feminine
led to its revision. Factor analyses of the s-BSRI have shown it to have
a better factor structure with instrumentality, expressivity, and social
desirability or neutral scales (Lubinski et al., 1983; Jackson et al.,
Note 1). This questionnaire was scored on a five-point Likert scale and

was coded 1-5.

Perception of Adult Playmate Inventory (PAPI)

 

To obtain children's perceptions of the undergraduates and the
undergraduates'inferences about their own behavior, as well as their view
of their own behavior and finally, their view of the child, a shortened

version of the PAPI was used for all subjects (see Appendices C & D for

17

children and undergraduates, respectively). The PAPI was developed by
Gerald Michaels specifically for use in obtaining young children's
perceptions of adults. A study by Michaels, Messé, & Stollak (Note 3)
examined 7-year old children's perceptions of undergraduates and a
subsequent factor analysis revealed five factors, (a) adult competence,
(b) adult sociability, (c) adult child centeredness, (d) adult altruism,
and (e) adult permissiveness. These factors are very similar to other
characteristics or factors which have been found to be relevant and
salient for children in regard to their perceptions of others, for
example, sociability, affiliative tendencies and potentially hostile acts
(Yarrow & Campbell, 1963) and loving, punishing and demanding (Siegelman,
1965). The PAPI was shortened for this study as the original was
considered to be too long for the Children in the present research.

The revised PAPI consists of bipolar responses arranged such that
a person chose one response and then qualified the degree to which it
applied. The items were arranged so that sometimes a positive response
occurred first and sometimes a negative one. Each item was coded 1-4,

with a higher score indicative of a more positive response.

Post Session Questionnaire (PSQ)

 

This questionnaire was developed for the larger study to obtain
undergraduates' perceptions of their partners along a variety of
dimensions. For this study, 23 items from the s-BSRI (8 from the M
scale, 7 from the F scale, and 8 from the NE scale) were used (see
Appendix E). The items were reduced to one word descriptors of a bipolar
nature and persons were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Responses were

coded 1-7 in the same directions as the s-BSRI was coded.

18

Design
Each child interacted with a pair of undergraduates, first alone
with each one and then with both, together. The following seven groups

1 (a) androgynous male with

of SRO pairs were included in this study:
androgynous female, (b) masculine male with feminine female, (c)
androgynous male with feminine female, (d) androgynous male with masculine
female, (e) undifferentiated male with undifferentiated female, (f)
masculine male with androgynous female, and (g) masculine male with
masculine female. The children were randomly assigned to undergraduate

pairs, with some children participating with more than one pair of

undergraduates over the course of the study.

Procedure

After obtaining parental permission for the child's participation
in the study, he or she was transported from home to the research site
by an experimenter. If the parents agreed, the child was also paid $1
for participation in the study. Also, if the parents so wished, they
could accompany the child to the university.

Once at the research site, the child was introduced to one of the
pair of undergraduates with whom he or she would interact. The child
and first undergraduate played together for five minutes. Following this
five-minute segment, the child played alone with the second undergraduate.
After the second five minutes had elapsed, both of the undergraduates and
the child were instructed to "imagine they were a family and to play
together" for 10 minutes. After this 10 minutes had expired, the trio
was asked to continue to imagine they were a family and to "draw a

picture of a family doing something."

19

After the drawing session the child was taken to another room to be
interviewed while the undergraduate continued to interact in six "marital"
psycho-dramas. In this phase of the encounter the undergraduates were
instructed to pretend that they were married and enact six different
scenes depicting typical marital problems. Upon completion of these
tasks the undergraduates filled out various questionnaires. They
received either $5 or research participation credit. The playroom
encounter lasted approximately one-half hour and the psycho-dramas were
of approximately the same duraction.

The questionnaires answered by the children were read to them by an
experimenter. They were administered in a counter-balanced manner. Upon

completion of her or his participation, the child was taken home.

Statistical Analyses

 

A confirmatory factor analysis using communalities in the diagonals
was performed on the PAPI to assess whether the factors that were present
in the Michaels et al., (Note 3) study were also present in this study.
To assess unidimensionality, clusters were examined for internal
consistency and external parallelism. The resultant PAPI score served
to form the dependent variable for hypothesis 1; the comparison of the
undergraduates' inferences and children's perceptions as a function of SRO.

The three summary scores from the s-BSRI and the PSQ (M, F, NE)
were used to form the dependent variables for hypothesis 2. Three
accuracy or discrepancy scores were formed, with a lower discrepancy
score indicating greater accuracy. These three discrepancy scores were
formed by taking the absolute difference between the undergraduates'

ratings of their partners on the M, F, and NE scales, and their partner's

20
actual responses on each of the respective scales.

For both hypotheses stepwise multiple regression analysis was
performed to determine the best model for predicting perceptual accuracy.
In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to expand on the
findings from the regression analysis.2

Several independent variables were considered to be important in the
regression analyses. These were sex (e.g. Heilbrun, 1981), M, F, and NE
scores, the M X F interaction which served as an index of androgyny
(Lubinski et al., 1983), and assumed similarity (AS) (Gage and Cronbach,
1955). Assumed similarity consists of the degree to which a person
assumed the other is like him or herself and is assessed by comparing a
person's actual responses with their predictions regarding the other.

For hypothesis 1, AS consisted of the absolute difference between the
undergraduates' self-perceptions and their inferences regarding the
children’s perceptions. For hypothesis 2, AS scores were formed for each
dependent variable by taking the absolute difference between the
undergraduates' self-ratings and their ratings of their partners. In
addition, real similarity (RS) (Gage and Cronbach, 1955), which is the
degree to which two people are actually similar, was included for
hypothesis 2. Real similarity was assessed by taking the absolute
difference between each pair of undergraduates' actual self-ratings.

Three RS scores were formed one for each of the three dependent variables,

based on the M, F, and NE scales.

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1

 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the PAPI

The correlation matrix for all 15 items was quite flat (within
sampling error) which is indicative of internal consistency and
therefore, unidimensionality. Additional examination of various cluster
structures as indicated by Michaels et a1.'s (Note 3) factor analysis and
examination of internal consistency and external parallelism also
indicated that only one factor was present in this questionnaire. This
factor was entitled Adult Sociability and the resultant factor score was
used to form the dependent variable. The same pattern was evident in
both the children's perceptions of the undergraduates and the undergrad-
uates' inferences of the children's perceptions, lending further support
to the robustness of this one factor. The means and $05 for both children
and undergraduates are presented in Appendix F. The responses tend to be

positively skewed.

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

 

Stepwise multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the
best model for predicting accuracy of undergraduates' predictions.
Discrepancy scores, the absolute difference between the undergraduates'
.inferences and the children's perceptions served as the dependent variable.
A lower discrepancy score was indicative of greater accuracy. Table 2
contains the relevant data. Only two variables contributed significantly to
3?, androgyny (M X F) which was entered on step one, 3? change = .26, p < .001

21

Poo. v as

 

22

 

_.o. v d...
«wmm.m no.1 mN.- co. mm. Po. co. 2 .o
skpm.m co. Po. oo. Rm. om. FF. xmm .m
kw—m.m vp.- N¢.1 _o. om. om. m_.P u .v
kwmo.Fp N_.- m—.- _o. mm. mm. Fm. mz .m
s«m_.mp cm.- mm.- mo. em. mm. w~o.m m< .N
¥«ow.P~ Fm.- Fm.- mm. mm. Fm. wwom.pm u x z ._
m __mcm>o m a mmcmgu m a gmucm umgmucm ampm

_mwptoa mpsewm mm N mpg.p_=z o“ L o_nm_to>

 

 

mwmxpmc< cowmmmgmmm mFQprzz

”mmgoum zucmamcomwa Hm<a

N m4m<p

23
and AS, 3? change = .09, p_< .01. These two variables account for a
large proportion of variance (5? = .34). To determine whether androgyny
remained significant with AS controlled, the partial regression
coefficient for androgyny was examined following the inclusion of AS and

androgyny remained significant (B_= .53, p_< .001).

AQEAQ§

A three-way ANOVA was performed using a 2(sex) by 2(mascu1inity
scores, low and high) by 2(femininity scores, low and high) design.3 The
results (see Table 3) indicate that the main effects for masculinity
scores, {(1, 65) = 7.30, p_< .01, and femininity scores £11, 65) = 17.34
p_< .001, were significant, as well as the interaction between sex and

4 Examination of the means

masculinity scores 5(1, 65) = 7.85, p_< .01.
(see Table 4), with a lower mean indicative of a lower discrepancy,
indicated that those with high femininity scores (M'= 7.33) were more
accurate than those withlcwvfemininity scores (M'= 12.07) and those with
high masculinity scores (M'= 8.35) were more accurate than those with low
masculinity scores (M'= 12.12). While the interaction between M and F
scores was not significant, the regression analysis found this
interaction to be significant and so post hoc comparisons were performed
to examine this discrepancy. Androgynous persons were more accurate than
masculine and feminine persons, t(63) = 5.32, p_< .001, and in turn
androgynous persons were more accurate than undifferentiated persons

t(32) = 2.40, p_< .01, while the latter group did not differ significantly

from masculine and feminine persons 3(37) < 1, ns.

24

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3
PAPI: ANOVA Results
Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares DF Square F
Main Effects
Sex .41 1 .41 .02
M 158.59 1 158.59 7.30*
F 376.80 1 376.80 17.34**
Interactions
Sex X M 170.54 1 ‘ 170.54 7.85*
Sex X F 31.09 1 31.09 1.43
M X F 10.65 1 10.65 .49
Residual 1412.68 65 21.73
*p < .01

**p < . OOI

25

 

 

 

 

:2 as m as 8: 83 a: :
8.: 2.: a :2 8.2 2.: 2.2 a
mmgoum

:mwz xpwcwpzummz mFmsou xmm
3: E .m :3 a: 32 E m
8.: 3.2 a a: 2.: 8.: 8.: a

so; 6pm:
:3: :3 :3: 33 :3: 33

xpwcwcwsmu aawcwcmEmm zuwcmpzummz

a: as $3 2: as a: m
2.: 8.2 :3 2.2 3.: 2.... a
:3: 33 :3: 33 2:5... 3::
mgoum xgwcvzwswm mgoum zuwcwpzummz xmm

 

 

muomnazm mo Lwaszz vcm mcmmz H<>oz< Ha<m
a m4m<H

26

Hypothesis 2

 

Masculine Discrepancy Scores

Stepwise Multiple Analysis. All the variables except NE scores
contributed significantly to R? (see Table 5). A large proportion of the
variance in masculine discrepancy scores was accounted for by this model
(3? = .76). While AS entered first, the other variables continued to
contribute to the explanation of the variance. Examination of the
directions of the partial correlations coefficients indicates that
females are more accurate than males (5y2.1 = -.37), and that higher
feminity scores (5y4.123 = -.31) and lower masculinity scores (Ey3.12 =
.30) were also associated with accuracy. The partial correlation for the
androgyny index (Ey6.12345 = .68) indicated that the relationship between
androgyny and accuracy was opposite to that predicted; as androgyny
increased so did residual inaccuracy.

ANQXA, The same three-way ANOVA as was used for hypothesis 1 was
employed for all ANOVAs. The results (see Table 6) indicated that the
main effects for sex [(1, 84) = 15.72, p_< .001 and for M scores, [(1, 84)
= 10.07, p_< .01 were significant. In addition, the interaction between
sex and M scores [(1, 84) = 4.31, p_< .05, and between M and F scores,
[(1, 84) = 20.13, p_< .001 were significant. Examination of the means
(see Table 7) indicated that females (M_= 1.19) are more accurate than
males (M_= 1.74) and that those with high M scores (M_= 1.35) are more
accurate than those with low M scores (M_= 1.71). Post hoc comparisons
revealed that androgynous persons were more accurate than undifferentiated,
3(46) = -4.20, p.< .001, but androgynous persons were 1e§§_accurate than

masculine and feminine persons, 3(67) = 2.12, p_< .05.

27

Foo. v xx

 

 

S. v m...
«rem._m «F. m:.- oo. mm. mm. mm._ 2 .N
rrem.mm mm. mm.- Pm. mm. um. «www.mm a x z .o
«rm¢.~_ oq. mm. mo. mm. «m. «tnc.mp mm .m
«www.mp Fm.- m~.- mo. me. we. row.“ m .c
«*¢N.o_ om. m~.- mo. Fe. «m. rop.m z .m
«www.mp nm.- om.- op. mm. mm. «t:¢.:~ xmm .N
reom.em om. om. mm. mm. om. krom.¢m m< .P
d Fpmgm>o a m mmcmgu m m gmpcu cmemucm ampm

::_:::: epeewm N: N e:::p::z 0: : e::::::>

 

 

mwmemc< :owmmmgmmm mFQpraz "mmcoum xocmmeaumwo m::P:Ummz

m m4m<h

28

TABLE 6

Masculine Discrepancy Scores:

ANOVA Results

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Var1ation Squares DF Square F

 

Main Effects

 

Sex 10.12 1 10.12 15.72***
M 6.49 l 6.49 10.07**
F 2.38 1 2.38 3.69
Interactions
Sex X M 2.78 1 2.78 4.31*
Sex X F .67 l .67 1.04
M X F 12.96 1 12.96 20.13***
Residual 54.83 84 .64
*E.< .05
**E.< .01

*** < .001

29

 

 

 

 

:3 as m :3 a: :3 as e
3.: $2 a 8.: m: a. 3.: a
mmgoum
cow: zpwcwpzummz mpmsm: xmm
a: 3: ...:. :3 as 83 E m
8. :3 a 8.: mm: :2 :3 m
30: mpg:
:3: se.. :3: 33 :3: :3
mmsoum mmgoum mmgoum
xuwcwcwam: xpwcwcwew: zuwcwpaommz
as a: :3 as $3 a: m
R: 8.. mm: :2 22 e: m
:3: 33 :3: 33 32:: 2e:
mgoum xuwcwcwem: mgoom qucwpzummz xmm

 

 

mpumwnzm we Lanszz can mammz

u<>oz< mwgoum :ucmamEUmwo mcwpzommz

N m4m<h

3O

Feminine Discrepancy Scores

 

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis. The only variables which
2

 

contributed significantly to R were RS and F scores, with the total
model accounting for 22% of the variance. RS ([_= .25) was positively
associated with the discrepancy, while higher F scores were again
associated with greater accuracy (5&6.12345 = -.28).

ANQMA, The main effect for sex was significant, [(1, 82) = 4.55,
p_< .05 (see Table 9). The means reveal that females were more accurate

than males (M_= .75 and M_= .99, respectively; see Table 10).

Neutral Discrepancy Scores

 

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis. Those variables contributing

 

significantly to R2 (see Table 5) were AS, NE and androgyny scores. The
model accounted for a large proportion of variance (R2 = .52). Again,
androgyny's relation to inaccuracy was positive (ry6.12345 =.31).

ANQXA, The F X sex interaction, [(1, 80) = 4.51, p_< .05 and the
M X F interaction [(1, 80) = 10.18, p_< .01 were significant (see Table
12, means, Table 13). Post hoc comparisons revealed that androgynous
and undifferentiated persons did not differ significantly, [(44) = -l.29,
ns, nor did androgynous persons differ significantly from masculine and
feminine persons, 3(67) = 1.43, ns. However, undifferentiated persons
were 1e§§_accurate than masculine and feminine persons [(50) = 2.46,

p_< .05.

F0. v %*
mo. v.m:

mvgmuwgo xgpcm Home we: own 2

 

31

 

eeem.m :N.- so.. No. NN. Ne. emm.m : .:
em:.N mo. :o. :o. :2. 9:. mm. : x z .m
e_N.m N:.- No. No. m_. mm. No.N : .e
_:mm.m ::.- mo.- No. m_. em. a:.: m: .N
emN.: :N.- ON.- :0. 02. Nm. me.m xem .N
:m:.: mN. mN. :o. co. mN. rm:.e m: .2
: ::::e>o : : em:::u : : :e::m eeeeeem :eem
:e::::: e_:ewm N m_:::_=: 0: : e_:e::e>

 

 

mwm>ch< cowmmmemmm mpawupsz ”mmgoum aucmamgom_o mcwcwsm:

m m4m<b

32

TABLE 9
Feminine Discrepancy Scores:

ANOVA Results

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares DF Square F
Main Effects
Sex 1.31 1 1.31 4.55*
M .32 l .32 1.11
F .03 l .03 .11
Interactions
Sex X M .17 1 .17 .60
Sex X F .39 1 .39 1.37
M X F .23 1 .23 .79
Residual 23.54 82 .29

 

*p_< .05

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

:2 SN: 1:. 3N: EN: SN: 8: m
a. 2. a :. S. S. 8. a
mmgoom
AN: 3: m ANN: SN: 82 E m
2. 8.: a 2.: mm. 8. 8. .2.
3:: e2e:
:3: 33 :3: 33 :3: :3
mmgoum mmeoum mwgoum
3.2.2.25: 3.2335“. 32:38:
3: :2: 33 SN: :3 a: m
8. mm. B. Nm. 2. mm. m
:3: 33 :3: 33 22:: 3e:
mgoom Au::::_smm mgoum xpwc:_:ummz xmm
muumwnzm mo gmnszz can memo:

u<>oz< mmcoum zocmnmLUmwo mcwcwsm:

op m4m<h

34

8:. v at

 

 

2o. v.mr

e:mN.o: No. oo.- oo. Nm. NN. NN. xem .N

ermm.N: 2m. eo. mo. Nm. NN. emm.N : x z .:

erom.N: :o.- :o. 0:. Ne. we. NN. : .m

::oN.m_ m:.- :o.- :0. Ne. Ne. ON.: : .e

e:ON.ON NN. :2. mo. me. Ne. o:.m m: .N

e::m.NN :e. :o.- :2. me. me. eeNN.oN m: .N

erwN.NN Nm. Nm. NN. NN. Nm. eemN.NN m: .2

: _:::e>o : : em:e:u : : :eeem :e:ee:: :eem

_:_::e: e::::m N: N e:::p_:: 0: : e_:::::>

 

 

memx—mc< :owmmmgmmm ornwupzz “mmeoom mucmamgomwo Fmguzmz

FF MAm<h

35

TABLE 12
Neutral Discrepancy Scores:

ANOVA Results

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares DF Square F

 

Main Effects

 

Sex .03 1 .03 .13
M .10 1 .10 .50
F .02 1 .02 .08
Interactions
Sex x M .25 1 .25 1.26
' Sex x F .88 1 .88 4.51*
M x F 1.98 1 1.98 10.18**
Residual 15.59 80 .20
*2.< .05

**p_< .01

36

 

 

 

 

:va :N: m 3N: 8N: SN: :N: m
2. 8. a 2. 8. NN. N2. a
mmeoum
sow: xuwc3238mmz mpmsm: xmm
3: 2: a SN: :3 :2 E N.
:m. 3. s. S. 8. 2. Nm. .2
3o; 6:82
:3: :3 :3: :3 :3: :3
mmeoum mmgoom
auwcwcwsm: :u_::=:sm: apwcwpsummz
a: :3 8.3 SN: 8: :3 m
K. 2. E. 2. N2. 2. a
:3: :3: :3 3:5: 2::
mgoum zpwcwcwem: mgoum :pmcwpzumez xmm

 

 

muomnnzm $o Lonszz new memo:

n<>oz< mmgoum :u:mgmgum:o Fmguzmz

m— m4m<h

DISCUSSION

The analyses provided clear support for hypothesis 1. Androgynous
persons were more accurate at predicting a child's response regarding
adult sociability than were persons of other sex role orientations. In
addition, the androgyny term accounted for a large proportion of the
variance in discrepancy scores. While Lubinski et al., (1983) argue that
the androgyny or the M X F interaction term should be entered following
the main effects, the purpose for stepwise multiple regression is to
determine what combination of variables in what order are the best
predictors of accuracy. Clearly, the androgyny index was a good predictor
of accuracy, as hypothesized.

This accuracy has implications for adult-child interactions.
Androgyny may be beneficial with regard to parent-child interactions. As
Bem et al., (1975) found, androgynous persons were more nurturant than
masculine persons with a baby. Russell (1978) found that androgynous
fathers reported spending more time in caretaking activities and play
with their children than did masculine or undifferentiated fathers.
Stollak, Jackson, & Ialongo (Note 3) found that androgynous persons were
more accepting of a child's feelings as determined by scores on the Porter
Parental Acceptance Scale, as compared to feminine and undifferentiated
persons. When compared to undifferentiated persons, androgynous persons
also had significantly higher scores indicative of Treating the Child as
a Unique Person and Granting the Child Autonomy -- a mixture of both

instrumental and expressive dimensions.

37

38
Michaels, Messé, & Stollak (1983) report a positive relationship between
parental accuracy and children's adaptive behavior. It may be that an
androgynous person's greater accuracy would have positive consequences
for the child. Baumrind (1982) reported, however, greater competency for
children of sex-typed rather than androgynous parents. For example,
daughters of sex-typed parents were somewhat more cognitively competent
and significantly more optimally competent than daughters of androgynous
parents. Further research in this area is indicated to more fully explain
the relationship between perceptual accuracy and its resultant effects on
behavior. Sex role orientation does appear to be a useful dimension in
this regard.

Assumed similarity played an important role in predicting accuracy
in regard to masculine discrepancy scores, although not to the detriment
of the other variables. Females tended to perceive masculine character-
istics in their male partners as would be expected by the socialization
process. The results also indicated that a high femininity score and a
low masculinity score are associated with perceptual accuracy,
substantiating the accuracy<rffeminine females. Androgynous persons'
lower accuracy may be explained by Bem's (1979) assertion that sex-typed
characteristics are less relevant to androgynous persons when processing
information about others. Undifferentiated persons, due to their low
level of masculine and feminine characteristics, may also view these
characteristics as unimportant when processing information about others,
as well as themselves. Although it may be that their lack of accuracy in
discerning these traits in others may explain their lack of those
characteristics in themselves; if they are unable to perceive these

traits they are unable to acquire them.

39

The regression model accounted for less variance in feminine
discrepancy scores than was the case for masculine discrepancy scores,
suggesting that other factors not assessed in this study were influencing
the perceptual accuracy process in regard to feminine discrepancy scores.
The results indicate that females and those with high femininity scores
are more accurate in their perceptions regarding their partners. This
data, along with the data for the masculine discrepancy scores, suggests
that feminine persons, and females in general, have well-developed person
perception skills. This is in support of Harackiewicz and DePaulo's
(1982) results which indicated that females were more accurate at person
predictions. Clearly, hypothesis 2 was not supported by this data. The
androgyny index was not an important variable in explaining feminine
discrepancy scores.

With regard to neutral discrepancy scores, the importance of assumed
similarity was again noted. In addition, the androgyny index was
associated with accuracy, but h1the opposite direction to that predicted.
However, the results from the ANOVA indicate that androgynous did not
differ significantly from masculine and feminine persons. This suggests
that the nature of the dependent variables may be an important factor in
the prediction of accuracy as a function of sex role orientation.

The differences in the results across the analyses appear to be due,
in large measure, to the nature of the dependent variable. Androgynous
persons appear to have superior social cognition skills when their
sociability is assessed following a positive interchange with a child.
lHowever, when androgynous rate persons on sex-typed and neutral
characteristics, they do not retain this superiority over persons of

other sex role orientations. For predicting sex-typed characteristics,

40
those who are higher on sex-typed characteristics themselves, particularly
those who are high on feminine characteristics, are more accurate. They
are more aware of sex-typed characteristics. However, persons who were
high on both masculinity and femininity were not as accurate as those who
were high on only one. This was not the case with regard to neutral
discrepancy scores. For neutral discrepancy scores, self-perceptions
regarding one's own neutral traits were the important factor in the
prediction of accuracy.

Taken as a whole, the data from hypothesis 2 suggests that one's
self-perception regarding a characteristic is an important variable in
predicting perceptual accuracy. In addition, the importance one ascribes
to a variable effects the ability to perceive that variable. As stated
above, Bem (1979) argues that sex-typed characteristics are not important
variables to androgynous persons when processing information about others.
The data regarding masculine and feminine discrepancy scores supports
Bem's assertion. Androgynous persons were not accurate perceivers of sex-
typed characteristics in comparison to masculine and feminine persons.

The data also suggests that being high on masculinity and/or femininity
is generally more beneficial than being low on both sets of characteris-
tics. The lower accuracy of undifferentiated across all three conditions
indicates that those who are low on both sets of characteristics are
quite inaccurate in comparison to those of the other SROS. While the
regression analysis for hypothesis 2 suggests that androgynous persons
are less accurate than undifferentiated, the ANOVA results do not support
this. When masculinity and femininity are removed from the M X F
interaction term in the regression analysis, what may be left to explain

the variance in scores are other interpersonal variables. Undifferentiated

41
persons appear to be the most inaccurate and previous research suggests
that undifferentiated persons are shy (Wiggins 81 Holzmuller, 1978;
Jackson et al., Note 1) and it may be shyness dimension which is
correlating positively with inaccuracy. It would be expected that those
who are shy and uncomfortable in interactions would not actively attend
to characteristics of the other and, therefore, they are less accurate.

While this study was important as perceptual ratings followed actual
interaction, one of the limitations was the lack of assessment of the
effects of the context of the interactions on the subsequent perceptions.
This may have been particularly important with regard to feminine
discrepancy scores which remained largely unexplained. The fact that
these interactions were "marital" may have pulled for certain behavior.
The full repertoire of a person‘s behavior may not have been presented so
that the partner's perceptions were based on one kind of behavior and may
have been accurate in this regard while not reflecting the person's more
diverse view of themselves. A greater range of interactions and assessment
of their effects on accuracy would be helpful in more fully understanding
the process of perceptual accuracy.

Further, the undergraduates' ratings of the children's perceptions
and the children's ratings<rfthe undergraduates were directly connected
to the play encounter. However, the undergraduates' ratings of their
partners were not directly connected to their previous encounter. They
were not ratings of the actual behavior of the other in the encounter,
but they were extracting sex-typed and neutral characteristics on the
'basis of the interchange. Ratings which assessed actual behavior may
have led to different results. Thus, the limited range of the dependent

variables affects the generalizability of these results.

42

Summary and Implications

 

The data presents equivocal support for the hypothesis that
androgynous persons are more accurate person perceivers. The data from
the children's portion of the study tends to support this hypothesis,
while the undergraduates' data does not. As this data is equivocal with
regard to accuracy, a clear relationship between accuracy and behavioral
flexibility cannot be drawn. Variables such as contextual variables,
characteristics of the perceiver (e.g. sex), characteristics of the
object of the perceptions (e.g. child or adult) and perceptual rating
variable (e.g. sociability, M & F scores) must be assessed. Studies by
Wiggins & Holzmuller (1978) and Jackson et al., (Note 1) suggest that
sex role orientation is related to interpersonal variables; undifferen-
tiated persons placed on the shy dimension of the interpersonal circle,
androgynous person on the extraverted dimension. These dimensions may be
related to behavioral flexibility. Undifferentiated persons are less
flexible due to their uncomfortableness in interactions which may also
effect the accuracy process; they attend less to other's characteristics.
Androgynous persons who are extraverted may jump right into a siguation
behaving appropriately as they are not sorely lacking in perceptual
skills. In addition, due to their extraversion, they may also be more
accurate on such variables as sociability.

Additional research which assesses a broader range of interpersonal
variables in relation to sex role orientation would be beneficial. The
expansion of our definitions of masculinity and femininity could lead to
a more thorough understanding of the relationship between sex role
orientation and other variables such as perceptual accuracy. Additionally,

perceptual accuracy cannot be viewed as an all-encompassing concept. Thus,

43
a person's accuracy with regard to one variable or characteristic is not
necessarily indicative of their accuracy with regard to a different
variable or characteristic. Both sex role orientation and perceptual
accuracy are multi-dimensional phenomena and assessment procedures must

take this into account.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PARENTS

44
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

immense-arr or investment . mu menu. - bll\.llu.A.\ - mu
armament annulus: MIllWi '

Dear rareat(s):

I an a laculty member in the Psychology Department'at Michigan State
University. Sole of you have previously helped and participated in our past
research sltorte. Sena of you have helped us in our training or future mental
health professionals. we need help again. '

we are about to begin a study of the child caregiving attitudes and
behavior o! a group of undergraduates. Along with each student completing
tests and questionnaires we would like to videotape each student engaging in
a 112 hour unstructured play encounter with a young child. We need a large
nunber of 3-6 year old children to help in this part of the research.

Specifically. one of our assistants would pick-up n volunteering child
at his/her hone (and at his/her and the family's convenience), bring him/her
to one of our University playroens where slhe would spend 112 hour in a-Eree
and unstructured play encounter with one and then two undergraduates. The
play encounter will be videotaped through a onedway nirror so that we can
later rate and analyse the undergraduate's behavior. He are‘gg£_speci£ically
interested in the child's actions. After the play session one of our assistant
will then drive the child back to his/her hone. . ‘

If the parent(s) pornit us we would like to pay each child $1.00 for
his/he: help. whether we pay~the child or not will be up to the child's
parent s).

If your child night be interested in volunteering to help and you will
pernit it or if you are interested in learning nore about our research, please
conplete the enclosed post card and return it via the 0.8. nail. Your
conpletion and return of the card does‘gg£_nean your child is committed to
help. It only neans that we will call you and answer all questions. At the
conclusion oi the phone call you and your child can nahe a tinal decision-to
help or not.

0! course. all returned cards and all material collected in our research
will rennin confidential and will not be sharedwwith anyone without your
written per-lesion.

Along with our thanks to you for reading this note and considering our
request we would like to thank the East Lansing Public School Administration
for their help in distributing this letter to children to bring home to you.

Sincerel ' ’.. ,
'4' ’ . o g - ..’.--. .-
l6: “96¢. ,fl‘flq'I‘é)
,/ ,/ ..
Gary E. Stollak. Ph.D. Telephone Henbers: 353-3877 or
Professor at Psychology 355-9561

N.“ I so on Allen-dew As lawn/FM {Moody loud-lace

APPENDIX B
S-BSRI

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document
have not been filmed at the request of
the author. They are available for
consultation, however, in the author's
university library.

These consist of pages:

45-46, APPENDIX B

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uni '
Micr 1|ms
lntemational

300 N. ZEEB RD. ANN ARBOR. M148106l3131761~4700

45

INSTRUCTIONS

All the questions in this booklet are to be answered on the printed answer sheet.
You must use a '2 pencil.

Before you begin, fill in the information requested on the answer sheet. Do not
fill in any number or letter under FORM. Please write your telephone number in
the bottom right hand corner of the answer sheet.
The tens below inquire about what kind of a person you think you are. Each item
consists of the end points of a personality characteristic, with the letters A,
8.6.0.8, in between. For example:

mt .t ‘11 ‘ni‘tic AOOOOOEOCOOOCOIOOODOOOOIB v.” .rti‘tic
The letters form a scale between the two extremes. You are to choose a letter
which describes .where 122 fall on that characteristic. For example, if you
think you have no artistic ability, you would choose A. If you think you are
pretty good, you might choose D. If you are only medium, or think you are in the
middle on that .characteristic, you might choose C, and so forth.

Now go ahead and answer the questions on the answer sheet. Be sure to answer
every question, even if you're not sure, and use a '2 pencil.

REMEMBER TO ANSWER QUICKLY: YOUR FIRST IMPRESSION IS THE BEST.

1. Almost never defend A.....B.....C.....D.....E Almost always defend
my own beliefs my own beliefs

2. Not very affectionate A.....B.....C.....D.....B Very affectionate
3. Not very conscientious A.....B.....C.....D.....B Vary conscientious
4. Not very independent A.....B.....C.....D.....B Very independent
5. Not very sympathetic A.....B.....C.....D.....B Very sympathetic
6. Not very moody A.....B.....C.....D.....B very moody

7. Not very sensitive to Very sensitive to the needs
the needs of others A.....B.....C.....D.....E of others

8. “at very “semi" AGO-.03....OCODOOODOIOOOE van assertive
9. Not very reliable A.....B.....C.....D.....E very reliable

10. Not a very strong
personality A.....B.....c.....D.....B A very strong personality . ,

11. Not very understanding A.....B.....C.....D.....B Very understanding
12. Not very jealous A.....B.....C.....D.....B Very jealous

13. Not very forceful A.....B.....C.....D.....E Very forceful

16.
15.
16.

17.

18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.

27.
28.
29.
30.

46

mt very comuaioute A.OCOOBCOOOOCODOOODOOCOOB

Not very truthful

Not ouch leadership
ability

Not too eager to soothe

hurt feelings
Very secretive

Not willing to take
risks

Not very warm

Not very adaptable
Submissive

Not very tender
Conceited

Rot very willing to
take a stand

Not very "fond of
children

Not very tactful
not very aggressive
Not very gentle

Very conventional

AOOIIOBOOOOOCO0.0.0.0000:

AOOOOOBOOOOOCOOOIODOOOOOB

AOOOOOBOOOCOCOOOOODOOOOOB

A.OOOOBOOOOOCOOOOODOOOOOB

A...OIBOIOOOCOOOOODOOOOOB

AOOOOOBOOOOOCOOOOODOOOOOE

A0.000BOOOOOCIOOOODOOOOOE-

AOOOCIBOOOOOCOOOOODOOIO.3
AOOOOOBOOOOOCOOOOODOOOCOE

A0...OBIOOOOCOOOIODOCOOOB

AI.OOOBOOOOOCOOOOODOOOIOE

A.....B.....C.....D.....E
A.....B.....C.....D.....E
A.....B.....C.....D.....E
A.....B.....C.....D.....E

A.OOOOBOOOOOCOOOOODOOOOOB

Very compassionate
Very truthful

Much leadership
ability

Very eager to soothe
hurt feelings

lot very secretive

Willing to take risks
Very warm

Very adaptable
Dominant

Very tender

Rot conceited

Very willing to take
a stand

Very fond of children
Very tactful

very aggressive

Very gentle

Not very conventional

APPENDIX C
CHILDREN'S PAPI

47

‘Date: ' Child's Name:

 

Interviewers Instructions

Read the following instructions to the child :"I'. going to ask you some
questions about how you felt about the people yeflrjust played with. Some
children feel the same wey about both the people they played with, they think
the man was a lot of fun and the woman was a lot of fun too. Some children
think that the woman was a lot of fun and the teen was unfriendly. Other
children think that the use was a lot of fun and the woman was unfriendly. I
went you to tell me how you felt about the man and the woman. It's OK if you
feel the seas about both of thel.end it's OK if you feel different about both
of them. 'irst I'n going to ask you about the womanCman)
who you just played with".

 

After giving them the first questionnaire give than the second one and
say, “flow, I want you to tell me how you felt about the maniwoman)
who you Just played with. Remember to tell me how you really feel."

To administer the questionnaire you read the statements in capital letters
to the child and circle the child's answer. Then read the qualifying state-
ments to the child that are underneath the child's first response and circle
the child's response.

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HE WAS NICE 03:, HE HAS MEAN
Was he very nice Was he very mean
or or
Has he a little nice Has he a little mean
HE HAS WORRIED OR HE HAS CAIN
He was a little worried e was a little calm
or or
He was very worried He was very calm
HE WAS ANGRY OR HE WAS CHEERFUL
Was he a little angry ’Was he a little cheerful
or or
Has he very angry Has he very cheerful
HE WAS IMPATIENT OR HE WAS PATIENT
Was he very impatient was he very patient
or or
Was he a little impatient Has he a little patient
YOU LIKE RIM OR YOU DON'T LIKE HIM
50 you like him a little You don't IiEe him a little
or or
Do you like him very much You very much don't like him
HE ASKED STUPID QUESTIONS 05 RE ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS
ittle A tt e
or or
A lot A lot
HE DIDN'T LAUGH OR SMILE OR HE LAUGHED AND SMILED
Some of the time Some of the time
or or
host of the time Most of the time
HE MADE FRIENDS WITH YOU OR HE VASN'T YOUR FRIEND
I‘lot at at a l
or or
____A little ____Usuelly not
HE WANTED YOU TO PLAY HE LET YOU PLAY WHATEVER
WHAT HE WANTED OR YOU WANTED TO

 

A little? __A little—_
or 01'
A lot A lot

HE LET YOU MAKE THE

49

EE MADE UP THE RULES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RULES OR
at A lot
or or
A little A little
HE SEMED LIKE HE WOULD HE LIKED TO PLAY WITH YOU
RATHER BE SOMEWHERE ELSE OR
A little ll little
or or
A lot A lot
HE CARED ABOUT HOW HE DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE
YOU FELT OR AEOUT HOW YOU FELT
A lot lNot at a
or or
A little Usually not
IT DIDN'T MATTER TO HIM HE WANTED YOU TO LIKE HIM
WHETHER YOU LIKED HIM OR
It didn't matter much A‘llttle
or or
It didn't matter at all A lot
I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY WITH I WOULD NOT LIKE TO PLAY WITH
THIS PERSON AGAIN OR THIS PERSONPAGAIN
Probably yes Probably not
or or
____Definitely yes ____Definitely not
I HAD A BAD TIME OR I HAD A GOOD TIME

 

 

4—-¥

retty

or
Very bad

re y goo
or

Very good

APPENDIX D
UNDERGRADUATE ' S PAPI

50

Date Student Rainer
INSTRUCTIONS

Please read the following statements carefully. Greek the appropriate
state-eat underneath the general question which best describes your
behavior and feelings during the just coqleted playroom encounter with
the child. these questions refer only to the period of time you spent
with the child.

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WAS NICE OR I WAS MEAN
I was very nice was very mean
or or
I was a little nice ____I'was a little mean
IWAS womurn on I us cm!
I was a little worried I was a little calm
or or
I was very worried ____I was very calm
I WAS ANGRY OR I WAS CHEERPUL
I was a little angry was a itt e c eer u
or or
I was very angry I was very cheerful
I WAS IMPATIENT OR I WAS PATIENT
I was very Impatientl “—‘I was very’patlent
or or
I was a little impatient I was a little patient
I ASKED STUPID QUESTIONS OR I ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS
tt e i t e
or . or
A lot A lot
I DIDN'T LAUGH OR SMILE OR I LAUGHED AND SMILED
Some or the time Some 0 the time
or or
Host of the time Most of the time
I MADE FRIENDS WITH THE I DIDN'T MAKE FRIENDS WITH
CHILD OR CHILD
A lot Not at all
or or
A little Usually not
I WANTED TO PLAY WHAT I I LET THE CHILD PLAY WHATEVER
WANTED OR SHEzflE WANTED TO
A little A itt e
or

A lot

or
A lot

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I LET THE CHILD MAKE THE I MADE UP THE RULES
RULES - ogii
I Iot ___;A lat
or or
A little A little
I WOULD RATHER HAVE BEEN I LIKED PLAYING WITH THE
SOMEWHERE ELSE OR CHILD
I‘ITttIe ‘_I IIttle
or or
A lot A lot
I CARED ABOUT HOW THE I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HOW THE
CHILD FELT OR CHILD FELT
A lot Not at all
or or
A little Usually not
IT DIDN'T MATTER TO ME I WANTED THE CHILD TO LIKE
WHETHER THE CHILD LIKED ME
ME OR
It diHfiTt matter much A little
or or
It didn't matter at all A lot
I HAD A BAD TIME OR I HAD A GOOD TIME
Pretty SEE . retty 300

or or
Very bad Very good

53

' Student Nutter

W

This questionnaire is very similar to the one you just ooqsleted.
This tins check the statements which best describe-what or how you felt
about the child in the preceding playroom encouter.

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HE WAS NICE OR HE WAS MEAN
as he very nice lWas 9 very mean
or or
Was he a little nice Was he a little mean
HE WAS WORRIED OR HE WAS CAIM
e was a little worried e was a ittle calm
or or
He was very worried He was very calm
HE WAS ANGRY OR HE WAS CHEERFUL
Was he a little angry as e a tt e cheerful
or or
Was he very angry Was he very cheerful
HE WAS IMPATIENT OR HE WAS PATIENT
Was he very impatient Was he very patient
or or
Was he a little impatient Was he a little patient
YOU LIKE HIM OR YOU DON'T LIKE HIM
Do you like him a little You don't like him a little
or or
Do you like him very much You very much don't like him
HE ASKED STUPID QUESTIONS OR HE ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS
A little A little
or or
A lot A lot
HE DIDN'T LAUGH OR SMILE OR HE'LAUGHED AND SMILED
Some of the time Some of the time
or or
Most of the time Most of the time
Q MADE FRIENDS WITH YOU OR HE WASN'T YOUR FRIEND
A lot Not at all
or or
A little Usually not
HE WANTED YOU TO PLAY HE LET YOU PLAY WHATEVER
WHAT HE WANTED OR YOU WANTED TO

 

 

A little 4A little
or or
A lot A lot

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HE WAS NICE OR HE WAS MEAN
Was he very nice as e very mean
or or
Was he a little nice Was he a little mean
HE WAS WORRIED OR HE WAS CALM
e was a little worried He was a llttle calm
or or
He was very worried He was very calm
HE WAS ANGRY OR HE WAS CHEERFUL
was he a little angry Was 5e a little cheerful
or or
Was he very angry Was he very cheerful
HE WAS IMPATIENT OR HE WAS PATIENT
Was he very impatient Was he very patient
or or
Was he a little impatient Was he a little patient
YOU EIKE HIM OR YOU DON'T LIKE HIM
Do you like him allittle You don't like him a little
or or
Do you like him very much You very much don't like him
HE ASKED STUPID QUESTIONS OR HE ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS
A little A little
or or
A lot A lot
HE DIDN'T LAUGH OR SMILE OR HE LAUGHED AND SMILED'
Some of the time Some of the time
or or
Most of the time Most of the time
El; 'MADEERIENDS WITH YOU OR WASN'T YOUR FRIE‘D
A lot Not at all
or or
A little Usually not
HE WANTED YOU TO PLAY HE LET YOU PLAY WHATEVER
WHAT HE WANTED OR YOU WANTED TO
A little A little
or or
A lot A lot

56

Student Mt

mum-nous

This is the seas questionnaire you just completed. This time we
would like you to imagine that you were the child.iu the preceding

playroom situation. Answer the following questions about your behavior
and feeling- from. the Vviswm‘lnrmi. the child.

. Thu, the questions at.
about your behavior and teenage, but should be moved as you feel
.550. guy; would have mwered than it we asked him/her about your
behavior.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHE WAS NICE OR SHE WAS MEAN
Was she very nlce as s e very mean
or or
Was she a little nice Was she a little mean
SHE WAS WORRIED OR SHE WAS CALM
e was a ttle worrIEH‘ e was a 'ttli calm

or or
She was very worried She was very calm
SHE WAS ANGRY OR SHE WAS CHEERFUL
Was she a little angry Was she ao little cheerful

or
Was she very angry Was she very cheerful
SHE WAS IMPATIENT OR SHE WAS PATIENT
Was she very impatient Was she very patient

or

Was she a little impatient Was she a 1.little patient
YOU LIKE HER OR YOU DON'T LIKE HER
Do you 9 er a littli’ You don't like Fer a llttle’

or or
Do you like her very much You veg: much don't like her
SHE ASKED STUPID :QUESTIONS OR SHE ASKED GOOD QUESTIONS

ittls itt e
or or
A lot A lot
SHE DIDN'T LAUGH OR SMILE OR SHE LAUGHED AND SMILED
ome of the time ome o t e me
or or
Most of the time Most of the time
SHE MADE FRIENDS WITH YOU OR SHE WASN'T YOUR FRIEND
Allotr ll at at a
or

A 0little Usually not
SHE WANTED YOU TO PLAY SHE LET YOU PLAY WHATEVER
WHAT SHE WANTED OR YOU WANTED TO

 

 

TITttie A little
or or
A lot A lot

58

SHE LET YOU MAKE THE

SHE MADE UP THE RULES

 

RULES OR
at Allot
or or
A little A little

SHE SEMED LIKE SHE WOULD OR
RATHER BE SOMEEHERE ELSE

SHE LIKED TO PLAY WITH YOU

 

itt e Tllttle
or or
A lot A lot

SHE CARED ABOUT HOW
YOU FEET OR
A lot

or
A little

IT DIDN'T MATTER TO HER
WHETHER YOU LIKED HER OR

SHE DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE
ABOUT HOW YOU FELT
Not at a

or
Usually not

SHE WANTED YOU TO LIKE HER

 

It didn‘t matter much ’A little
or or
It didn't matter at all A lot

I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY WITH
THIS PERSON AGAIN OR
ro y yes
or
Definitely yes

I WOULD NOT LIKE TO PLAY WITH
THIS PERSON AGAIN
Probably not

or
Definitely not

 

 

I HAD A BAD TIME OR I HAD A GOOD TIME
Pretty baa' retty good

or or
Very bad Very good

APPENDIX E
PSQ

59

Student No.

 

PSQ

The purpose of this questionnaire is to measure your perception of
your partner by having you Judge him/her against a series of descriptive
scales. Therefore. on a scale of one to seven please indicate how well
you feel each of the following characteristics describes your partner.
In completing this questionnaire, please make your judgments on the
basis of your own personal impressions. You are to rate the person on
each of these scales in order.

For example, if you feel that your partner is veg! sophisticated
you would place an remark as follows: . '

Sophisticated very: x : : : : : : :not at all
q— .

On the other hand. if you feel that your partner is not at all
sophisticated, you should place your remark as follows:

Sophisticated very: : : : : : : 1 :not at all

If you feel that your partner is somewhere "in-between" on‘
sophistication. you should mark that space on the scale that best
describes how sophisticated you feel helshe is. For example, if you
feel that your partner is neutral on sophisticAtion, equally sophisti-
cated and unsophisticated, or if sophistication is irrelevant, unrelated
to the person. then you should place an r-mark in the middle space. as
shown below:

Sophisticated very: : : : x : : : :not at all

Make each scale item a separate and independent judgment. Work at
a fairly fast pace through this questionnaire. Do not worry or puzzle
over individual items. On the other hand. please do not be careless,
because we want your true impressions.

IMPORTANT: (1) Place your r-marks in the middle of the spaces. not
on the boundaries:

this not this
: X : : : : x :

(2) Be sure you check every scale - do not omit any
(3) Never put more than one x-mark on a single space.

sensitive

reliable

strong personality
understanding
jealous

forceful
compassionate
truthful
leadership ability

eager to soothe
hurt feelings

secretive

willing to take
risks

warm
adaptable
submissive
tender
conceited

willing to take
a stand

fond of children
tactful
aggressive
gentle
conventional

patient

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:____

60

 

very: :

very: :

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very: ~

very:

O.

 

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

very:

not

not

not

not

not

00:

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

30:

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

not

at

RC

8t

It

It

it

it

It

It

at

at

It

It

It

8t

It

Ct

at

It

at

at

at

at

It

all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all
all
all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all
all
all
all

61

 

 

 

 

fault-finding very: : : : : : : : not at all
cooperative very: : : : : : : : not at all
talented very: : : : : : : : not at all
domineering very:__: : : : : : : not at all
unappreciative very: : : : : : : : not at all

 

Answer the following questions by putting an‘Efmark in the appropriate

scale.

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

How did you feel about your participation in these kinds of tasks?

disliked it very much, liked it very much,
very uncomfortable : : : : : : : :very comfortable

How much would you enjoy working with your partner in a future
experiment?

very little:

:very much

 

How much did you like your partner?

very little: : : : :

:very much

How much would your partner win personal affection and liking from
others?

very little: :

' :very much

How would your partner fit in with your circle of close friends?

definitely not definitely
fit in : ' :fit in

How would you rate the interaction in terms of how comfortable you
felt it was? Did you feel the interaction was awkward, forced, and
strained; or was it smooth, natural, and relaxed; or was it somewhere
in between?

awkward, forced, smooth, natural,
and strained : : : : . . :and relaxed

APPENDIX F
PAPI: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

62

 

 

 

 

TABLE 14
PAPI: Means and Standard Deviations
Chi1dren UG
Question M SD SD
1. 3.03 1.66 2.74 .50
2. 2.89 1.65 2.43 .48
3. 3.03 1.64 2.71 .50
4. 2.81 1.66 2.72 .58
5. 3.03 1.67 2.40 .34
6. 2.79 1.63 2.06 .28
7. 2.49 1.62 2.50 .48
8. 3.00 1.66 2.39 .35
9. 2.93 1.73 2.66 .63
10. 2.33 1.76 2.64 .58
11. 3.07 1.65 2.36 .44
12. 2.83 1.75 2.44 .57
13. 2.62 1.67 2.46 .47
14. 2.89 1.63 2.24 .27
15. 3.02 1.66 2.38 .32

 

REFERENCES

FOOTNOTES

1. A1though a11 possib1e SRO pairings were desired, the limited
number of subjects in varying SROS resu1ted in on1y seven groups of pairs.

2. Ana1ysis of covariance may have been desirabTe for these
analyses, with assumed simi1arity serving as the covariate. However, due
to mechanica1 difficu1ties associated with the ana1ysis of covariance and
the fact that assumed simi1arity did not exp1ain a11 the variance in
discrepancy scores, ANOVA was emp1oyed instead.

3. For this ana1ysis, as we11 as subsequent ANOVAs, the majority of
the resu1ts must be viewed as tentative due to the unequa] ce11
frequencies.

4. The tota1 1ack of feminine males in this study prec1uded the
investigation of a11 sex X M or sex )( F interactions, as the high
femininity ma1e ce11 consists of on1y androgynous ma1es and the 10w

mascu1inity ma1e ce11 consists of on1y undifferentiated ma1es.

63

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., Sto11ak, G. 0., & Ia1ongo, N. (1983).
Construct inva1idity of new sex r01e inventories: Imp1ications
of research on mascu1inity and femininity. Journa1 of PersonaTity
and Socia1 Psycho1ogy. In review.

2. Michae1s, G. v., Messé, L. A., & Sto11ak, G. E. (1977). Chi1dren's
socia1 perceptions: Re1ationship to chi1d behavior in an
interpersona1 setting. Unpub1ished manuscript. Avai1ab1e from
Gera1d Michae1s, Dept. of Psycho1ogy, Syracuse University.

3. Sto11ak, G. E., Jackson, L. A., & Ia1ongo, N. (1983). Sex r01e
orientation and chi1d caregiving. Paper presented at the meeting
for the Society of Research in Chi1d Deve10pment (SRCD),

Apri1, 1983.

64

REFERENCES

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.

 

Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more effective persons
and parents? Child Development, EE, 47-75.

 

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 783-785.

Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of
psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, E1, 634-643.

 

 

Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the
Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of
Personality and Social ngchology, E2, 1047-1054.

 

Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem sex role inventory: Professional manual. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bem, S. L. & Lenney, G. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross
sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social ngchology, g3,
48-54.

 

Bern, S. L., Martyna, N., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny:
Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, E3, 1016-1023.

 

 

Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., & Gallwey, M. (1959). The measurement
of skill in social perception. In D. C. McClelland, A. L. Baldwin,
U. Bronfenbrenner, & F. L. Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and society,
Princeton, NJ: 0. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. _

 

Bruner, J. S. (1951). Personality dynamics and the process of perceiving.
In R. R. Blake & G. V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: An approach to
personality. New York: The Ronald Press 66.

 

 

Bucheimer, A. (1963). The development of ideas about empathy. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 19, 61-70.

 

Cline, V. B. (1964). Interpersonal perception. In M. A. Maher (Ed.),
Procress in experimental personality research, (Vol. 1). New York:
Academic Press.

 

 

65

66
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception of a
famous dictim? Esychological Bulletin, E9, 389-407.

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on "understanding of
others" and "assumed similarity". Esychological Bulletin, EE, 177-l93.

 

Dennis, W. (1951). Cultural and developmental factors in perception. In
R. R. Blake & G. V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: An approach to
personality. New York: The Ronald Press Co.

 

 

Dornbusch, S. M., Hastorf, A. H., Richardson, S. A., Muzzy, R. E., &
Vreeland, R. S. (1965). The perceiver and the perceived: Their
relative influence on the categories of interpersonal cognition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 434-440.

 

Dymond, F. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathetic ability.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1§(2), 127-133.

 

Falbo, T. (1975). The effects of sex and "masculinity" on person-and-
space related perception. Sex Roles, 1, 283-295.

Gage, N. L. & Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Conceptual and methodological
problems in interpersonal perception. Esychological Review, pg,
4ll-422.

 

Gaudreau, P. (1977). Factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4E, 299-302.

 

Harackiewicz, J. N. & DePaulo, B. M. (1982). Accuracy of person
perception: A component analysis according to Cronbach. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, E, 247-256.

 

 

Hastorf, A. H. & Bender, I. E. (1952). A caution respecting the
measurement of empathetic ability. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51, 5074-5076.

 

Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1981). Gender differences in the functional
linkages between androgyny, social cognition and competence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106-1118.

 

Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. & Pitman, D. (1979). Testing some basic assumptions
about psychological androgyny. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
135, 175-188.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Holahan, C. K. (l979). Psychological
androgyny and sex role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, g1, 1631-1644.

 

Ickes, W. (1981). Sex role influences in dyadic interaction: A
theoretical model. In C. Mayo & N. Henly (Eds.) Gender and nonverbal
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlay.

67

Kaplan, A. G. & Bean, J. D. (1976). Beyond sex-role stereotypes:
Readings toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Little Brown
& Co. '

 

 

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York:
N. W. Norton & Co.

 

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York:
The Ronald Press Co.

 

Locksley, A. & Colten, M. E. (1977). Psychological androgyny: A case of
mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,
1017-1031.

 

Lubinski, 0., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity,
femininity and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 428-439.

 

Major, B., Cornevale, P. J. 0., & Deaux, K. (1981). A different
perspective on androgyny: Evaluations of masculine and feminine
personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 988-1001.

 

 

Messé, L. A., Stollak, G. E., Larson, R. H., & Michaels, G. Y. (1979).
Interpersonal consequences of person perception processes in two
social contexts. Journal of Personalitygand Socia1 Psyghology, E1,
369-379.

Michaels, G. Y., Messé, L. A., & Stollak, G. E. (1983). Seeing parental
behavior through different eyes: Exploring the importance of person
perception processes in parents and children. Genetic Psychology_
Monographs, l07, 3-60.

 

Orlofsky, J. L..& Windle, M. T. (1978). Sex role orientation, behavioral
adaptability and personal adjustment. Sex Roles, 5(6), 801-811.

Pedhazur, E. J. & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A
theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, E1, 946-10l6.

 

Russell, G. (l978). The father role and its relation to masculinity and
femininity and androgyny. Child Development, 42, 1174-1181.

 

Siegelman, M. (1965). Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner's questionnaire for
children concerning parental behavior. Child Development, §§,
164-174.

 

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, E9, 526-537.

68

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. 0., & Berschild, E. (1977). Social perception and
interpersonal behavior: 0n the self-fulfilling nature of social
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, EE,
656-666.

Spence, J. T. (1983). Comments on Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's
"Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct
concepts". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 440-446.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and
positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and
their relationships to neurotic acting out behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, E2, 1673-1682.

 

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and
peers on sex role attitudes and their relation to self-esteem and
conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, EE, 29-39.

 

Sullivan, H. H. (1953). The interpersona1 theory of psychiatry. New York:
w. W. Norton & Co.

Tagiuri, R. (1969). Person perception. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co.

 

Tellegen, A. & Lubinski, D. (1983). Some methodological comments on labels,
traits, interaction, and types in the study of "femininity" and
"masculinity": Reply to Spence. Journal of Personalityyand Social
Psychology, 44, 447-455.

 

Wiggins, J. S. & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and
interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 4g, 40-52.

 

Yarrow, M. R. & Campbell, J. D. (1963). Person perception in children.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 4, 57-72.

 

 

 

12

93 03082 6

IIll“(mull”(TNlul‘rillllfilim'