7 . . n ,‘l 11“ Ill
. , a.d«rua...fi‘.fi5 3G .. 553$ . ‘
‘ . 7 .Pr.z;.am:.i§n¢mwm.nt
. . .29.

. NH. .. r ..va. 1.. .1. f.
5 ...

 

 

 

 

 

2 um“:
fl? .. .

I. ”#4 m.33. .
in”? d. ”a. New;
.2 s .. .. =1 .
flaw? ‘ .. V

warm. smug,
,.. Q1. fir. .w. .

41..-?

 
 

:..tUnsntle0.Vvhu.
3 fittvlluv V

I 4 D “Vol

‘31? ,
1 1:42.

.3. .
L. :rmtlavn. .

 

fri‘lh'i.
Ill: v. ‘ ’ Isl!

         

,

. , ‘ - ‘ - Win/«Aminflimflmmg

 

Ilfliilfl'l‘lil‘l’ilHHWEIII‘ITIWISIWiiiliifiifiil

THtooS 3 1293 01565 0314

 

LIBRARY“

Mlchigan State
Universlty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ANDHOBYNY, PECEIVED PEJUDICE AND OUTNESS
AMONG LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL WOMEN

presented by -,

Katari Kaylene Brown

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. (kgeehl Psychology

74;ij

Major professor

Date ”A! 3%???

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove this checkom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afflrmettvo Action/Equal Opportunity Inetttulon
Wane-9.1

ANDROGYNY, PERCEIVED PREIUDICE AND OUTNESS
AMONG LESBIAN AND BISEXU AL WOMEN

By

Katari Kaylene Brown

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1997

ABSTRACT

ANDROGYNY, PERCEIVED PREIUDICE AND OUTNESS
AMONG LESBIAN AND BISEXU AL WOMEN

By

Katari Kaylene Brown

The more likely stigma is, the more likely a person will reveal a
stigmatizing characteristic, but a person with greater resources for reacting
strategically to prejudice is more likely to reveal such a characteristic.
Research suggests that androgynous persons may have greater resources in
the form of behavioral flexibility, interpersonal adaptability, ego development
and ego strength.

The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and measures of outness,
perceived prejudice and relational satisfaction were completed by 345 lesbian
and bisexual women. Subjects were classified as androgynous, masculine,
feminine, or undifferentiated. The study predicted a negative correlation
between perceived prejudice and outness, weakest for androgynous subjects,
as well as greatest outness in public and greatest relational satisfaction for
androgynous subjects. None of the predictions was observed. Androgyny
appears related to greatest outness, but masculinity plays a larger role than
femininity. Femininity appears related to intimacy satisfaction.

Copyright by
KATARI KAYLENE BROWN
1997

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation for the guidance and support of my
committee members, Elaine Donelson, Joseph Reyher, and Andrew Barclay. I
also am grateful for the assistance of Lynda Bennett, Carol Persad, Ralph
Levine, and my spouse, John Sherwood.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ................................................................ 2
Stigma in Relationships ........................................................................... 2
The Androgynous Stereotype ................................................................. 5
Androgyny and Adaptability ................................................................... 5
Interpersonal Adaptability ........................................................... 10
Androgyny and Ego Development ............................................ 11
Androgyny Among Lesbian and Bisexual Women. .......................... 13
Study Overview and Hypotheses ........................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2
METHOD ................................................................................................................. 17
Subjects ........................................................................................................ 17
Materials ...................................................................................................... 21
Procedure ..................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 29
Post Hoc Explanations .............................................................................. 31
Additional Observations and Discussion ............................................. 36
Perceived Prejudice and Gender Role Orientation ................ 37
Comparison of Lesbian and Bisexual Women ....................... 38
Relational Factors and Other Variables .................................... 41
Perceived Prejudice Child Items ................................................ 43
Demographic Characteristics ...................................................... 44
Open-ended Responses ................................................................ 45
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 62

V

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:

Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:

LIST OF TABLES

Outness item and factor correlation matrix .................................... 58
Perceived Prejudice item and factor correlation matrix ............... 59
Relational satisfaction item and factor correlation matrix .......... 6O
Outness / Perceived Prejudice correlations by group .................... 61
Outness Comparisons—Aggregate (t test) ...................................... 62
Outness Comparisons—Own Family (t test) .................................. 62
Outness Comparisons—Partner’s Family (t test) .......................... 62
Outness Comparisons—Public (t test) ............................................. 62
Prejudice Comparisons—Aggregate (t test) .................................... 63
Prejudice Comparisons— Own Family (t test) ............................ 63
Prejudice Comparisons—Partner’s Family (t test) ...................... 63
Prejudice Comparisons—Public (t test) ......................................... 63
Relational Comparisons—Aggregate Satisfaction (t test) .......... 64
Relational Comparisons—Intimacy Satisfaction (t test) ............ 64
Relational Comparisons—Sexual Satisfaction (t test) ................ 64
Relational Comparisons—Togetherness (t test) .......................... 64

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Mean Aggregate Outness by Group ................................................. 65
Figure 2: Mean Aggregate Prejudice by Group .............................................. 65
Figure 3: Mean Outness in Own Family by Group ....................................... 66
Figure 4: Mean Prejudice in Own Family by Group ..................................... 66
Figure 5: Mean Outness in Partner’ 3 Family by Group ................................ 67
Figure 6: Mean Prejudice in Partner" 3 Family by Group .............................. 67
Figure 7: Mean Outness in Public by Group ................................................... 68
Figure 8: Mean Prejudice in Public by Group ................................................. 68
Figure 9: Mean Outness in Les-bi-gay Group ................................................. 69
Figure 10: Mean Prejudice in Les-bi-gay Group ............................................. 69

vii

INTRODUCTION

This study is concerned with lesbian and bisexual women, and the
relationship of gender role orientation to outness, perceived prejudice and
relational satisfaction. Lesbian women often are stereotyped negatively for
being too masculine or androgynous, but greater androgyny may be an asset
for dealing with prejudice.

Social stigma theorists assert that the greater the likelihood of stigma,
or prejudice, the smaller the likelihood that a person will reveal a potentially
stigmatizing characteristic. However, a person with greater resources for
reacting strategically to prejudice is more likely to reveal a potentially
stigmatizing characteristic in the face of prejudice because the potential harm
is seen as more manageable. This theory may be applied to lesbian and
bisexual women, who have the choice of being "out” about their sexual
orientation and risking potential prejudice.

Androgyny research suggests that androgynous individuals, compared
with masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated individuals, may have
greater resources with which to react strategically to prejudice, in the form of
behavioral flexibility, interpersonal adaptability, greater ego development and
greater ego strength. Androgynous lesbian and bisexual women may report
greater outness in the face of potential prejudice because they possess these
greater resources. These same characteristics may allow androgynous

women to experience greater relational satisfaction.

1

Chapter 1
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Stigma in Relationships

Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, Scott and French (1984), in their
social stigma theory, examine the dynamics of ”marked” relationships, in
which one of the parties possesses a characteristic that may serve as a basis for
stigma, or prejudice. They point out that a person with the ability to conceal a
potentially stigmatizing characteristic is in a special situation, in that they can
choose to hide the characteristic in order to avoid potential prejudice. They
report that the tendency for a person to conceal a characteristic that is the
object of prejudice is inversely related to the risk of prejudice perceived by the
person in a particular environment. In other words, the greater the risk of
prejudice, the higher the likelihood of concealment. However, the greater a
person’s resources — such as situational and interpersonal adaptability, ego
development, and ego strength —— the greater the likelihood that he or she
will be able to react strategically to prejudice and improve the outcome
potential of the relationship (i.e., reduce the harmful consequences of
prejudice).

Jones et a1 point out that a person with greater resources for reacting
strategically to prejudice is more likely to reveal a potentially stigmatizing
characteristic in the face of prejudice because the potential harm is seen as

2

3

more manageable. Examples of adaptive strategic reactions to prejudice
include the following: choosing a time and context in which the impact of
revealing the characteristic will be minimal, using interpersonal skills to put
others at ease and allay fears of the stigmatizing characteristic, deflecting
others’ negative evaluations, discovering ways to educate others about
misperceptions and stereotypes in a manner they will not reject, promoting
negative evaluation of the prejudice itself, and redirecting attention to one’s
strengths in ways that reduce the salience of the stigmatizing characteristic
and highlight one’s commonalities with the prejudiced person.

This researcher applied the theory of Jones et al to gay, lesbian, and
bisexual populations, who in most situations can choose to hide or reveal
their sexual orientation. One’s “outness,” or openness about one’s
homosexual orientation, in a given environment will be related to how
much prejudice against homosexuality one perceives or expects in that
environment. Fear of revealing one's heterosexual orientation is not
considered, because heterosexuality is the sanctioned norm and doesn't serve
as the basis for stigma in American society. Were it not for anti-homosexual
prejudice, all or most homosexuals probably would be as “out" about their
sexual orientation as heterosexuals are. Homosexual and bisexual men and
women who choose to reveal their orientation, or “come out,” will be more
likely to do so in less threatening situations, such as among members of the
gay community, trusted friends, and family members whose attitudes they
have assessed for possible prejudice (Herek, 1993; Katchadourian, 1989).
Coming out will be less likely in situations where the threat of prejudice is
higher and the individual perceives signs of negative attitudes toward
homosexuality. Such sentiments are commonly perceived in public,

4

educational and workplace settings (Herek, 1993; Page and Yee, 1985).

This study is concerned with lesbian and bisexual women. According
to Jones et a1, a lesbian or bisexual woman’s voluntary outness in a particular
setting will be inversely related to the level of prejudice she perceives in that
setting. However, if an individual has ample resources — in the form of
behavioral flexibility, interpersonal adaptability, and ego strength — with
which to deal with prejudice, she will be more likely to risk dealing with
prejudice, and reveal a non-heterosexual orientation, because she will see the
potential prejudice as more manageable. Research on how minorities deal
with prejudice in various situations already have suggested that response
flexibility — or possession of and ability to choose from an array of coping
skills from situation to situation, rather than employing narrow response sets
without adjusting for situational variables — helps black women (Lykes,
1983), black families (Barbarin, 1983), Chinese-Canadians (Dion, Dion and Pak,
1992), black, Japanese-American and Mexican-American adolescents (Phinney
and Chavira, 1995) and deaf adults (T idball, 1990) to deal effectively with
prejudice and stigmatization. Response flexibility may act as a salient
behavioral resource for an individual attempting to react strategically to
prejudice, since a variety of coping skills may be required across different
situations in which prejudice might arise. Lykes (1983) asserted that no one
strategy is equally effective in every situation, but that to cope effectively the
person experiencing prejudice must choose between more direct,
instrumental options and less direct, more compromising options,
depending on factors such as minority composition and perceived prejudice
of people in the environment, personal control in the given situation, and
sources of identified difficulty. In other words, a person experiencing

5

prejudice should be flexible in choosing coping options most appropriate for
particular situations.

The Androgynous Stereotype

A common stereotype of lesbians is that they deviate from the
traditional female gender role in ways such as exhibiting fewer feminine
characteristics, more masculine characteristics, and being more androgynous,
or exhibiting a combination of feminine and masculine characteristics. These
putative attributes of lesbian women are generally viewed as undesirable
(Eliason, Donelan and Randall, 1992). This particular stereotype of lesbians
does have some credence. Lesbian women do tend to differ from
heterosexual women in gender role orientation. Although lesbian and
heterosexual women rate similarly on femininity, lesbians rate higher on
masculinity, and are more often “androgynous," or relatively high on both
femininity and masculinity (Dancey, 1992; Mihalik, 1991; Oldham, 1982). This
study was motivated by a desire to identify ways in which this negatively
stereotyped difference may act as an asset for lesbian women. Specifically,
greater androgyny among lesbian women, and possibly bisexual women, may
be associated with greater ability to deal with anti-homosexual prejudice.

Androgyny and Adaptability

Bem (1974) first hypothesized that gender role orientation is related to
behavioral flexibility across situations. A person who has developed a sex-
typed — solely masculine or solely feminine -— internalized self-concept

6
might be consciously or unconsciously motivated to suppress (or be
unmotivated to learn) behavior that is considered undesirable for his or her
gender role in order to maintain a stable self-concept. A solely feminine or
masculine gender role orientation thus could act to limit a person's range of
behavioral options in a given situation. A person who does not differentially
suppress or avoid masculine or feminine behavior, whose self-concept is not
linked to a particular gender role, and who is able to employ masculine and
feminine behavior equally, is termed androgynous. Bern put forth the idea
that androgynous individuals, compared with masculine and feminine
individuals, might be more likely to show gender role adaptability in
different contexts, behaving in a situationally appropriate manner without
regard for a given behavior’ 3 stereotype as more desirable for one sex or the
other. Lobel, Gur, and Yerushalmi (1989), and Marsh and Byrne (1991) have
linked gender role orientation to self-concept and differential suppression or
expression of gender stereotyped behavior.

The Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) is currently the most
widely used gender role orientation measure, though classification methods
have varied. The BSRI’s masculinity and femininity scales, respectively,
appear to measure primarily instrumentality and expressivity (Donelson,
1995; Lazerson, 1981; Spence and Helmreich, 1981), also referred to as agency
and communion (Donelson, 1995; Lazerson, 1981), and dominance and
nurturance (Lazerson, 1981; Wiggins and Holzmuller, 1981). Masculinity,
instrumentality, agency and dominance are associated with self-protection,
self-assertion, competency and ambition. Femininity, expressivity,
communion and nurturance are associated with group preservation, group
harmony, cooperation and warmth. Persons who score high on both

7

dimensions of the BSRI are termed androgynous, and those who score low on
both dimensions are called undifferentiated. Those who score high on
femininity and low on masculinity are feminine, and those who score high
on masculinity and low on femininity are masculine. The masculinity and
feminity scales of the BSRI are generally considered representative of
personality traits that are reasonably stable over time. Reliabilities for test and
retest over a period of four weeks ranged from a=0.76 to a=0.91 (BSRI Manual,
1981). Little study has been done to assess the stability of these scores over
longer periods.

The BSRI has received some criticism. Locksley and Colten (1979)
questioned the validity of using general sex stereotypes as individual
personality measures, and Pedhazur and Tetenbaum (1979) called attention to
the inconsistent social desirability of items. Bem subsequently developed the
short form of the BSRI with items comparable in social desirability on both
scales (Bem, 1979). Spence and Helmreich (1981) claimed there was a logical
contradiction in Bem’s use of the BSRI to tap two orthogonal dimensions
(masculinity and femininity) as well as the unidimensional construct of sex-
typing (calculated using femininity minus masculinity). Bem (1981)
disagreed, countering that the BSRI, like any instrument, can be used as a
theoretical tool relating to any of the dimensions it measures.

Since androgyny is theoretically related to greater behavioral flexibility,
it may be related to the possession of the resources a person needs to employ
adaptive strategic reactions to prejudice as described by Jones et al (1984).
Further inspection of androgyny research reveals that androgynous
individuals may in fact possess greater resources in the form of behavioral
flexibility, interpersonal adaptability, higher ego development, and greater

ego strength.

In relevant research, androgynous subjects usually are compared with
masculine subjects, feminine subjects, and sometimes with undifferentiated
subjects. Bem asserted that androgynous persons possess a wider range of
behavioral options, and tend to perform comparably on different tasks
regardless of their association with gender stereotypes (Bem and Lewis, 1975).
Bem and Lewis found that, in situations that pulled for stereotypically
masculine and feminine responses, androgynous college students displayed
masculine as well as feminine behaviors, whereas masculine and feminine
students differentially displayed behaviors consistent with their gender role
orientation, though the evidence was stronger for women than for men. In a
study by Orlofsky and Windle (1978), androgynous college students performed
well on masculine and feminine tasks, masculine and feminine students
perfom1ed well on tasks congruent with their gender role orientation but
poorly on opposite gender tasks, and undifferentiated students performed
poorly on both sets of tasks. Ho's (1981) study of children’s problem-solving
behavior found that the performance of androgynous subjects exceeded that
of masculine and feminine subjects, but did not significantly differ from the
performance of undifferentiated subjects. Lobel, Gur, and Yerushalmi (1989)
found that masculine and feminine children displayed a preference for
responding to questions associated with the opposite gender role orientation,
whereas androgynous children did not respond to questions differentially.
Heilbrun, with Pitman (197 9) and Mulqueen (1987), concluded that androgyny
may serve as a liability at times if a person encounters difficulty choosing
from their larger, more flexible array of response options.

Some factors correlating with androgyny are similarly related to either

9

masculinity or femininity alone. In these cases, the question is raised
whether the factor in question may be associated more often with one of the
latter dimensions than with androgyny per se. Other variables actually have
a stronger association with femininity or masculinity than with androgyny.
Both androgyny and masculinity are linked to well-being (Pyke, 1985) and
self-esteem (Antill and Cunningham, 1979; Kimlicka, Cross and Tarnai, 1983).
But masculinity may be more responsible for this relationship, through
correlates such as high self-monitoring, internal locus of control, self-
confidence, and positive expectations of achievement and affiliation success
(Lee and Schreurer, 1983). Androgyny and femininity alike are associated
with children’s positive evaluation by teachers as prosocial (Piche and Piante,
1991) and with better global coping skills (Ellis and Range, 1988). However,
Kleinke and Himichs (1983) found high femininity subjects fared best in
adjusting to a novel college lifestyle and gaining social acceptance.

Heilbrun and others (Heilbrun, 1981; Heilbrun and Schwartz, 1982;
Heilbrun and Han, 1986; Lee and Schreurer, 1983) have found evidence
suggesting androgyny may be an asset for women, but not for men, because
women are able to take greater advantage of gender role flexibility through
blending, or combining, masculine and feminine traits. Also, androgyny
appears to be negatively related to stress symptoms in women, but to have no
significant relationship to stress in men (Heilbrun and Han, 1986). Krausz,
Kedem, Ta] and Amir (1992) found that masculinity, not androgyny, was
most adaptive in dealing with work stress among male nurses. Cross sex
typing (high masculinity and low femininity for women; high femininity and
low masculinity for men) (Orlofsky and Windle, 1978), as well as
undifferentiated gender role orientation (Alain and Lussier, 1988; Kimlicka et

10

al, 1983; Krausz et a1. 1992; Prager and Bailey, 1985; Pyke, 1985), tend to be
maladaptive for both sexes.

Though one must be careful to discern between correlates of
masculinity or femininity and correlates of androgyny, we can hypothesize
that androgynous individuals, especially women, may have greater resources
in the form of behavioral options than do non-androgynous individuals.
Androgynous lesbian and bisexual women may be better able to engage in
strategic reactions to prejudice — such as choosing an appropriate time and
context to reveal their orientation — as compared to their non-androgynous

counterparts.
Interpersonal Adaptability

Androgyny appears to be correlated with greater flexibility and
adaptability interpersonally. Babledelis (1978) found androgynous subjects
were more flexible in choosing personal versus social orientations toward
others, and had the most balance between their desire for independence and
their desire for intimacy and affection. Borders and Fong (1984) reported that
androgynous subjects performed equally well in role plays requiring
stereotypically masculine or stereotypically feminine interpersonal responses,
whereas non-androgynous subjects displayed deficits either in both situations,
or in the opposite gender stereotyped response. They also reported
an ous subjects demonstrated a greater capacity for intimacy. Wiggins
and Holzmuller (1981) found androgynous subjects displayed more flexible
interpersonal characteristics than masculine and feminine subjects. Alain
and Lussier (1988) found that androgyny is associated with healthy

11

attachment (as opposed to over-attachment or under-attachment) and
effective adjustment to divorce. In Safir, Peres, Lichtenstein, Hoch and
Shepher’ s (1982) study of married couples, androgyny was associated with
greater sexual satisfaction and freedom from sexual dysfunction.

These conclusions suggest that androgynous individuals may have
greater resources in the form of interpersonal skills than do non-
androgynous individuals. Androgynous lesbian and bisexual women may be
better able to engage in strategic reactions to prejudice —- such as using
interpersonal skills to put others at ease and allay the fear others may harbor
about homosexuality — as compared to their non-androgynous counterparts.

Androgyny and Ego Development

Androgyny appears to be related to greater ego development. Prager
and Bailey (1985) and Waterman and Whitbourne (1982) found that
androgynous individuals exhibited the most successful resolution of
Erikson’s developmental crises, followed by masculine, feminine, and
undifferentiated individuals, in that order. Waterman and Whitbourne
found that masculine individuals did better than feminine individuals on
resolution of Autonomy versus Shame and Initiative versus Guilt (associated
with agentic qualities), and feminine individuals did better than masculine
individuals on resolution of Intimacy versus Isolation (associated with
communal qualifies). Androgynous individuals, however, demonstrated
better resolution on all crises than did masculine and feminine individuals.
Prager and Bailey (1985) also found androgynous individuals to rate highest
on a measure of Loevinger’s ego developmental stages. Androgyny appears

12

to be associated with greater psychosocial and ego development.

Androgyny also has been linked to greater ego strength. Pond (1984)
found that androgynous individuals experienced low anxiety and high
confidence in their ability to deal with stressful situations, compared to
masculine individuals, who experienced high anxiety and high confidence,
and feminine individuals, who experienced high anxiety and low confidence.
Also, compared to masculine and feminine individuals, androgynous
individuals show less discrepancy between how they perceive themselves
and how they would they would like to be ideally. In other words, they have
greater intrapersonal congruence between their real and ideal selves.
Additionally, Pond found that androgynous individuals tend to demonstrate
a more moderate, stable self-concept, in that they endorsed a broader, less
rigid set of items on the Interpersonal Check List compared to masculine and
feminine subjects. Androgynous individuals, with the combination of low
anxiety and high confidence, greater intrapersonal congruence, and self-
concept stability, have greater tolerance for evaluation by self or others. In
other words, they have greater ego strength.

The foregoing studies support the idea that" androgynous individuals
may have greater resources in the form of higher ego development and ego
strength than do non-androgynous individuals. Androgynous lesbian and
bisexual women thus may be better able to engage in strategic reactions to
prejudice such as deflecting others' potential or actual negative evaluations,
as compared to their non-androgynous counterparts.

13

Androgyny Among Lesbian and Bisexual Women

In summary, androgyny is related to adaptability and flexibility in
choosing behavioral response options and in interpersonal situations, as well
as to ego development and ego strength. In the area of behavioral flexibility,
it may have more salient desirable implications for women than for men.

In terms of the theory of Jones et a1 (1984), the androgynous lesbian or
bisexual woman is likely to have greater resources with which to react
strategically to prejudice, in the form of behavioral flexibility, interpersonal
adaptability, higher ego development, and greater ego strength. She’s likely to
exhibit greater outness about her orientation when faced with potential
prejudice, compared to masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated women,
because she will see the potential prejudice as being more manageable.
Androgynous lesbian and bisexual women will hypothetically be more open
about their orientation than masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated
lesbians, given a similar level of perceived prejudice within a particular social
context.

As mentioned before, the greater interpersonal adaptability associated
with androgyny may include a greater capacity for intimacy, healthier
attachment, and greater sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, problem-solving
flexibility (Ho, 1981) and effective anxiety coping (Pond, 1984) may act as assets
in coping with relational discord. For these reasons, the same characteristics
that may allow androgynous individuals to react strategically to prejudice also
may allow them to experience higher relational satisfaction than feminine,
masculine, or undifferentiated individuals.

Although most research on androgyny has been done using

14

heterosexual subjects, there is nothing to indicate that the results are not
generalizable to lesbian and bisexual women. Lesbian women differ little
from heterosexual women on most variables. In fact, women — regardless of
sexual orientation — are more similar than different in their attitudes toward
intimacy (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Duffy, 1985-86; Hurlbert and Apt,
1993; Iasenza, 1991; Peters and Cantrell, 1991; Schreurs, 1993) and sex
(Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Clunis and Green, 1993; Loulan, 1983;
Nichols, 1983; Schreurs, 1993), and on life history variables (Clunis and Green,
1993). Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) and Kurdek (1991) found that although
heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male couples tend to differ in ways related to
gender, conclusions drawn from research with heterosexual couples generally
are applicable to same-sex couples with similar characteristics, and vice versa.

One factor on which heterosexual and lesbian women do seem to differ
is androgyny itself. On the BSRI, both lesbian and heterosexual women rate
similarly high on femininity, but lesbians tend to rate higher on masculinity
(Dancey,1992; Mihalik, 1991 ; Oldham, 1982). Thus, lesbians are more often
androgynous. This characteristic of the lesbian population may be adaptive in
its association with greater resources with which to cope with prejudice.

Androgyny among bisexual women has received little attention.

Study Overview and Hypotheses

In this study, the short BSRI (to measure gender role orientation) and a
questionnaire (to measure perceived levels of prejudice, outness in different

areas of life, relational satisfaction, and demographic information) [see

Appendix A] was administered to volunteer lesbian and bisexual female

15

subjects. Jones et a1 (1984) predict that a negative correlation will emerge
between level of outness and level of perceived prejudice in different settings
of subjects’ lives, such as family, community, school and work. Because
androgyny may be associated with resources for adaptive strategic reactions to
prejudice — in the form of behavioral flexibility, interpersonal adaptability,
higher ego development, and greater ego strength -— this study predicts that
androgyny will moderate the correlation between outness and perceived
prejudice, and that the correlation will be weaker for androgynous subjects
than for masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated subjects, resulting in
androgynous women reporting higher levels of outness in the face of similar
levels of perceived prejudice. Finally, androgynous women are predicted to
report greater relational and sexual satisfaction.

Hypotheses and predictions for this study are as follows:

Hypothesis: A person will be less likely to reveal and more likely to
conceal a characteristic, such as homosexual orientation, the higher the
prejudice against that characteristic he or she perceives in a given
environment.

Prediction 1: There will be a negative correlation between level of
perceived prejudice and level of outness.

Hypothesis: Androgynous persons possess greater resources in the
form of behavioral flexibility, interpersonal adaptability, higher ego
development, and greater ego strength, than do persons with a masculine,
feminine, or undifferentiated gender role orientation, will be better able to
employ adaptive strategic reactions to prejudice, and will be less likely to
conceal a characteristic in the face of relatively high perceived prejudice.

16

Prediction 2: The correlation between level of perceived prejudice and
level of outness will be weakest for androgynous subjects compared to
masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated subjects.

Prediction 3: Androgynous subjects, compared to masculine, feminine,
and undifferentiated subjects, will report on the average a higher level of
outness in the broadest and most public areas on the questionnaire, where the
highest likelihood of prejudice exists.

Hypothesis: Androgynous persons, having greater behavioral
flexibility, greater interpersonal adaptability, higher ego development, and
greater ego strength, are more adaptable in intimate relationships, and will
experience greater relationship and sexual satisfaction than persons with a
masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated gender role orientation.

Prediction 4: Androgynous subjects, compared to masculine, feminine,
and undifferentiated subjects, will report greater relational and sexual

satisfaction.

Chapter 2
METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were solicited in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the
United Kingdom through community and university lesbian-bisexual-gay
organizations, les-bi-gay bookstores [see Appendix B for poster], newsletters
and publications addressing les-bi-gay issues (see ad copy below), and through
word-of-mouth referral. Postings were sent to about 265 internet les-bi-gay
discussion conferences, organizations and contact persons (see posting copy
below), including conferences specifically addressing minority lesbian and
bisexual concerns and interests.

The following advertising copy was used in newsletters and other
paper publications:

LESBIAN & BISEXUAL WOMEN NEEDED: for study on dealing
with prejudice. To receive anonymous questionnaire(s), contact
Katari Brown with your mailing address: (616) 781-9353 or
brownka5@pilot.msu.edu or Department of Psychology, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Michigan State
University sponsored.

The following posting was sent to E-mail conferences, organizations or
contact persons:

Subject: Lesbian / Bisexual Women Study

Message: I am currently conducting a questionnaire study on dealing with
prejudice among lesbian and bisexual women. The questionnaires will be
completely anonymous. If you are a lesbian or bisexual woman and are
interested in participating in this study, please E-mail me your POSTAL
address, and a questionnaire will be sent to you. If you think you or your
organization can distribute some questionnaires, please let me know and I will

17

18

send you several.

Please forward this message to any person or conference where it may be of
interest.

Thank you for your help!
Katari Brown
brownka5@pilot.msu.edu
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
USA

(616) 781-9353

Subjects could request a questionnaire by E-mail, phone, or surface
mail, or obtain a packet from stacks left at bookstores, les-bi-gay organizations,
or local groups. The phone number listed on posters, advertisements and E-
mail postings was linked to an answering machine, on which participants
could leave their addresses or request further information.

The following phone greeting was recorded on the answering machine
for the advertised phone number:

”Thank you for your interest in our study. Leave your name and mailing address
to receive an anonymous questionnaire packet, or, if you already have a
questionnaire, you can indicate that you would like a results summary after the

study. To receive a return call, leave your name, phone number, and times that
you can be reached. Please speak your message clearly after the series of tones.

Thank you for your call."

Questionnaire packets were sent by surface mail and included a
business reply envelope in which to return the completed questionnaire
anonymously. The first page of the questionnaire packet [see Appendix A]
stated that the study was anonymous, that participation was voluntary, and
that a summary of the study results would be mailed to all participants who
had provided addresses.

Completed questionnaires were received from 348 people. If all 789
questionnaires that were sent actually reached individuals, this constitutes a

response rate of around 44%. However, quesh'onnaires sent in quantity to be

19

given out at remote locations may not have been distributed completely, so
the true response rate may be higher. Since questionnaires were returned
anonymously, it was not possible to ascertain differential response rates on
the basis of mode of solicitation. Three questionnaires were returned by
individuals under eighteen years of age and were not included in the
analyses, so the final sample consisted of 345 women.

Classification as lesbian or bisexual was based on self-report, as Iasenza
(1991) found self-definition to be a reliable indicator of sexual orientation. Of
the subjects, 61% identified as lesbian and 39% as bisexual. Of the bisexual
women, 47% identified a preference for female partners, 1 1% for male
partners, and 41% indicated an equal or variable preference in partner gender.
The mean age of the sample was 31 years (SD=10.14), with a range of 18 to 65
years. African-Americans, Latinas, and Asian-Americans were somewhat
under-represented in the sample, though a variety of ethnicities was reported.
Eighty-five percent of respondents reported their ethnicity as White or
European descent, 3% as Hispanic or Latina, 3% as mixed ethnicity, 3% as
Black or African descent, 2% as Mediterranean, 1% as Asian, and 1% as
Native American. One subject identified as Pacific Islander and one as
foreign national, and four subjects did not indicate ethnicity. Thirty-one of
the fifty states were represented by at least one subject in the sample, although
the central part of the country was under-represented. About 5% of
respondents reported their residence to be in Michigan in the Lansing/ East
Lansing area, 10% in other Michigan areas, 29% in the northeastern states,
16% in other midwestern states, 11% in southwestern states (all from
California), 10% in southeastern states, 8% in central states, 2% in south
central states (all Texas), and none in north central states. About 6% of

20

subjects reported living outside the United States (10 in Canada, 7 in
Australia, 3 in the UK, and 2 in Germany).

The sample was relatively well-educated. Three percent of subjects
reported having a high school diploma, 31% some college, 5% an associate’s
degree, 32% a bachelor’ s degree, and 29% a graduate degree. Most of the
subjects reported being employed, and slightly more than half were students.
Sixteen percent of the sample were not employed, 35% were employed part—
time, and 47% were employed full-time or more. Two were retired and three
gave no response. Of those who were employed, 49% reported receiving
hourly wages, 37% indicated they receive a salary, and 9% reported working
by contract. The remaining 4% indicated another form of compensation.
Forty percent of subjects were students and 13% were part-time students. A
range of income levels was represented. Of the American respondents, 35%
reported an annual income under ten thousand dollars, 19% between ten and
twenty thousand, 13% twenty to thirty thousand, 12% thirty to forty
thousand, 6% forty to fifty thousand, and 9% over fifty thousand.

Subjects reported a wide range of spiritual beliefs. Thirty percent of the
sample indicated a religious affiliation of Protestant, Catholic, or other
Christian, and 7% endorsed a Jewish affiliation. Twenty percent indicated a
non-jeudeochristian affiliation, 43% claimed no religious affiliation, and 3%
reported two or more religious affiliations.

Most subjects were in a relationship when they completed the
questionnaires. Seventy percent of subjects reported a current relationship
(11 of these indicated more than one current relationship), and 38% reported
cohabiting with their partners. Thirty-three couples returned their

questionnaires in the same envelope. Fourteen percent of the women

21

indicated that they have a child or children, and 13% reported having
partners with a child or children. About 30% of mothers and partners of
mothers had children living at home.

The women were assigned to groups according to gender role
orientation on the basis of their responses on the BSRI. Thirty-nine percent
were classified as androgynous, 27% as masculine, 13% as feminine, and 10%
as undifferentiated. Eleven percent of the questionnaires were incomplete
and couldn’t be scored for gender role orientation.

Because women who are relatively open about their orientation are
most accessible, a sample representative of all lesbian and bisexual women,
including those who are closeted, was difficult to obtain. Women reporting
lower outness were probably under-represented. The resulting reduction in
range of the outness variable probably had an attenuating effect on the
correlations calculated here. Sampling bias may have affected the outness
variable, since Katchadourian (1989) reported that age, higher income, and
greater education may be associated with greater outness.

Materials

Subjects completed anonymous questionnaires including the short
BSRI. Questionnaire items [see Appendix A] included questions about
demographics, relationship status and living situation. Three sets of rating
scale items were scored: one on level of openness, or outness, about one’s
orientation in various relationships and settings; one on perceived level of
anti-homosexual prejudice in each of these areas; and one on relational and

sexual satisfaction. The first two scales are intended to gauge a subject’s

22

perceived prejudice and outness in different interpersonal contexts. The
second is meant to estimate a subject’ 3 level of satisfaction in several areas of
a current or past relationship.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on each
of the three original scales. On the outness scale, five factors were analyzed:

(1) Outness with Children (a=0.765)(items: outness with your children,

outness with your partner’ 5 children), (2) Outness with Own Family (a=0.820)
(items: outness with your parents, outness with your siblings, outness with
your extended family), (3) Outness with Partner's Family (a=0.852) (items:

outness with your partner’s parents, outness with your partner’ 8 siblings,
outness with your partner’ 5 extended family), (4) Outness with Les-bi-gay

Group (a=0.562) (items: outness with les-bi-gay friends, outness with les-bi-

gay community), and (5) Outness in Public (a=0.935) (items: outness with

heterosexual friends, outness with local community/ neighbors, outness with
acquaintances through church or religious groups, outness with coworkers,
outness with business associates, outness with schoolmates, outness with
professors/ teachers at school, outness with health care workers) [see
Appendix C, Table 1]. The Outness with Children items were ambiguously
related to other items and factors. This may have resulted from
measurement error due to the small proportion of responses on these items
(N =44 and N =35, respectively), or it may be that the relationship with one’s
own and one’s partner’s children correlates uniquely with other variables.
The Outness with Les-bi-gay Group factor is somewhat weak in reliability.
This may be in part because anti-homosexual and anti-bisexual prejudice

were not measured separately.

23

On the perceived prejudice scale, five factors along items parallel to the

outness factors were analyzed. These were: (1) Prejudice from Children

(a=0.593) (items: prejudice you perceive from your children, prejudice you

perceive from your partner’ s children), (2) Prejudice in Own Family (a=0.706)

(items: prejudice you perceive from your parents, prejudice you perceive

from your siblings, prejudice you perceive in your extended family),
(3) Prejudice with Partner’ 5 Family (a=0.789) (items: prejudice you perceive

from your partner’ 5 parents, prejudice you perceive from your partner’ 5
siblings, prejudice you perceive in your partner’ 8 extended family),

(4) Prejudice with Les-bi-gay Group (a=0.870) (items: prejudice you perceive
from les-bi-gay friends, prejudice you perceive in les-bi-gay community), and
(5) Prejudice in Public (a=0.837) (items: prejudice you perceive from
heterosexual friends, prejudice you perceive in local community/ neighbors,
prejudice you perceive from acquaintances through church or religious
groups, prejudice you perceive from coworkers, prejudice you perceive from
business associates, prejudice you perceive from schoolmates, prejudice you
perceive from professors/ teachers at school, prejudice you perceive from
health care workers) [see Appendix C, Table 3]. Consistent with the outness
scale analysis, Prejudice from Children appears to have an ambiguous
relationship with other items and factors. Prejudice in Les-bi-gay Groups,
however, appears to have greater reliability compared to its counterpart in the
outness scale. The other factors are slightly lower in reliability than their
outness scale counterparts. Perceived prejudice is probably less dependent on
the individual and more dependent on external variables, and therefore is

likely to be less predictable than outness.

24

Some items were ambiguous. Four of the outness items (outness with
partner's parents, outness with schoolmates, outness with teachers, outness
with health professionals) loaded highly on the Outness with Children factor,
perhaps because these items were ambiguous in not specifying, for example,
”your teachers” versus ”your children’s teachers.” On both the outness and
perceived prejudice scales, the items pertaining to the subject’ 5 extended
family and to church acquaintances loaded similarly on the family factors and
the Public factors. Outness in these two areas may have a particularly strong
relationship with outness in other areas of one’s life. For the primary
analyses, the child and les-bi-gay factors were not included, since a minority of
subjects had children, and the hypotheses did not specifically address the les-
bi-gay area. However, an aggregate average was calculated using all outness
items and all perceived prejudice items. The factors, Outness with Own
Family, Prejudice in Own Family, Outness with Partner’ 5 Family, and
Prejudice in Partner" 3 Family, Outness in Public, and Prejudice in Public, were
not altered, since they display content validity and the hypotheses were not
dependent on the internal consistency of the scales. The averages of the items
from these factors were considered in the analyses along with the aggregate
averages.

Three factors emerged on the relational satisfaction scale. The factors
were as follows: (1) Intimacy Satisfaction (a=0.861) (items: social intimacy
with partner, intellectual intimacy with partner, recreational intimacy with
partner, emotional intimacy with partner, level of affection expressed by
partner toward you, level of affection expressed by you toward partner),

(2) Sexual Satisfaction (a=0.848) (items: sexual intimacy with partner, quality
of sexual contact, frequency of sexual contact), and (3) Togetherness

25

Satisfaction (a=0.678) (items: amount of time spent with partner, living

situation) [see Appendix C, Table 3). The aggregate average of all relational
satisfaction items was considered in the analysis, along with the average of
the items from each of the three factors.

The questionnaire had some inconsistent items. The questions
concerning the subject’ 3 children and her partner" 3 children did not allow for
indicating shared children [see Appendix A]. This wasn’t a problem in
coding, since most subjects responding to both sets of items clarified their
answers by writing notes on the questionnaire. The outness and prejudice
scales did not separate anti-bisexual and anti-lesbian prejudice, nor indicate
that anti-bisexual prejudice was to be included in ratings of ”anti-
homosexual” prejudice. Some subjects noted this on their questionnaires.
Several subjects rated the two kinds of prejudice separately; in these cases the
mean of the ratings on a given item was used for analyses.

The BSRI measures gender role orientation in terms of two

continuous, statistically unrelated variables, masculinity (a=0.85) and

femininity (a=0.84) (BSRI Manual, 1978). Bem (1975) developed the BSRI
items [see Appendix A under ”Self-Description”] from characteristics rated by
undergraduates as either more desirable (societally) for one gender than the
other, or as equally desirable for females and males. Bem originally classified
people as androgynous if the masculinity and femininity scores were similar,
as masculine if the masculinity score was significantly higher than the
femininity score, or as feminine if the femininity score was significantly
higher, using hert ratio method to determine classification. The greater the
difference between the M and F scales, the more sex-typed, or extreme, in

26

gender role orientation an individual would be. Spence, Helmreich and
Stapp (1975) used their Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) to classify
people according to a median split method. Scoring above the median on
both masculinity and femininity resulted in an androgynous classification,
and scoring below the median on both resulted in an undifferentiated
classification. People scoring above the femininity median and below the
masculinity median were classified as feminine, and people scoring above the
masculine median and below the feminine median were classified as
masculine. Bem later adopted the median split method for the BSRI (Bern,
1979). Bern developed the short BSRI in response to criticisms that masculine
items were more socially desirable than feminine items. The short BSRI
masculinity and femininity scales correlate highly with measures of
instrumentality and expressivity (Donelson, 1995; Lazerson, 1981 ; Spence and
Helmreich, 1981). The median split scoring method was employed here, since
it is the most widely used. In mixed gender samples, the BSRI Manual (1978)
recommends calculating the medians from the sample. However, for a single
gender sample such as this study’s female subjects, the normative sample
medians are provided (F median-=55, M median=4.8). The difference score
between F and M was examined as well, to explore for sex-typing effects.

When it became clear during data collection that most subjects would
not be recruited face to face, an open-ended question on personal experiences
and coping strategies related to prejudice was added to the questionnaire [see
Appendix A]. Seventy-one percent (246) of subjects wrote a response to this
item. These data were not analyzed quantitatively because of time and

resource constraints, but are addressed qualitatively in the discussion section.

27

Procedure

Data collection took place from September of 1996 through February of
1997. Requests ranging from one to 25 questionnaires were received from 355
individuals. About 87% of requests were by E-mail, 11% by phone, and 3% by
surface mail. Fifty-three respondents offered to distribute multiple
questionnaires in their local community. Questionnaires were mailed to
subjects along with business reply envelopes for anonymous return to the
researcher. A total of 789 questionnaires were sent out — 317 individually or
to a couple, and 472 to sixty-five different organizations or individuals who
volunteered to distribute them locally, in quantities of three to twenty. A
reminder of the deadline was mailed in early January by E-mail, or by a
postcard which requested an E-mail address if applicable, since part of the E-
mail database had been lost. The postcard contained the following copy:
Thank you for your assistance with the MSU sponsored women’s study.
I hope to receive all completed questionnaires by January 30, 1997 (This
is a new date for some of you). I’ve received many already, and
appreciate the time you’ve put in! Also, I unfortunately lost many of the
Email addresses I had on record. If you have an Email account, please
drop me a note at brownka5@pilot.msu.edu so that I can send future
communications to you electronically.
Thanks again for your help!

Katari

All communication with subjects took place through this researcher.
A confidential database of names and addresses (when provided) was kept for
the purpose of informing subjects about the study. Subjects’ identities were
not linked to their responses on the questionnaires, nor to whether or not
they had completed a questionnaire. Scoring of questionnaires — as well as

entering, checking, and analyzing of data —— was performed by this researcher.

28

The statistical programs SPSS and CPA were used for data analysis.
Confidence intervals were calculated for comparisons of correlations. The

ttest for independent samples was used to compare means.

Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Evidence was equivocal for all predictions. No predictions were
supported as stated.
Prediction 1: A negative correlation will emerge between level of

perceived prejudice and level of outness.

There was a negative correlation (r op-aggregate = -0.37, a=0.05) between

the averages of all outness and perceived prejudice items [See Appendix C,
Table 4]. This correlation was stronger on the Own Family factors

(r op-ownfanfily = -0.46, a=0.05) and the Partner’ 3 Family factors
(r oP-partnerfam = -0.44, a=0.05) than on the Public factors (r op-public = -0.35,

a=0.05). Item by item, a significant negative correlation emerged in each area

except in the lesbian-bisexual-gay community (r = 0.03, NS) and with the
subject’ 5 children (r =0.02, NS).

Prediction 2: The correlation between outness and prejudice will be
weakest for androgynous subjects compared to masculine, feminine, and
undifferentiated subjects.

The androgynous group did show a weaker aggregate correlation

(r OP-agsresate = -0.33, a=0.05) compared to the masculine group

(r mm = -0.46, a=0.05), though the 95% confidence intervals overlapped

29

30

by .03, as well as compared to the feminine group (r opaggregate = —0.58, (1:005),

but not compared to the undifferentiated group (r op—aggregate = -0.08, NS) [see
Appendix C, Table 4]. On the Own Family and Partner’ 5 Family factors, the
androgynous group showed the weakest correlation among the groups

(r op-ownfamily = —0.36, a=0.05; r op—partnerfam = -O.28, a=0.05), though the 95%
confidence intervals of the androgynous group and undifferentiated group
overlapped by .03 for r op—ownfamily and .04 for r 0;).me [see Appendix C,

Table 4]. Between the Public outness and prejudice factors, the correlation in

the androgynous group (r op—public = -O.29, a=0.05) was weaker than in the

masculine group (r op-public = -0.38, a=0.05), with an overlap in 95% confidence
intervals of .08, and weaker than in the feminine group (r op-public = —O.71,
a=0.05). However, the correlation was stronger compared to that of the
undifferentiated group (r op-public = -0.04, NS) [see Appendix C, Table 4].

Prediction 3: Androgynous subjects, compared to masculine, feminine,
and undifferentiated subjects, will report on the average a higher level of
outness in the broadest and most public areas on the questionnaire, where the
highest likelihood of prejudice exists.

The average of the Outness in Public items reported by the
androgynous group (M =3.98) was significantly higher (t (178) =3.64, (a=0.01)
than in the feminine group (M =3.28), the undifferentiated group (M =3.16),
or the non-androgynous groups altogether (M =3.52) [see Appendix C, Table
5]. However, the difference between the androgynous group and masculine
group (M =3.78) was not significant.

Prediction 4: Androgynous subjects, compared to masculine, feminine,

31

and undifferentiated subjects, will report greater relational and sexual
satisfaction.

The average of the Intimacy Satisfaction items was significantly higher
(t (218) =2.27, a=0.05) in the androgynous group (M =4.08) compared to the

masculine group (M =3.81), but the difference compared to the
undifferentiated group (M =3.87) was not significant. The masculine group

was also significantly lower (t (293) =2.17, a=0.05) on Intimacy Satisfaction

compared to the non-masculine groups as a whole (M =4.05). The Intimacy
Satisfaction value for the androgynous group and the feminine group

(M =4.10) were nearly identical [see Appendix C, Table 14]. There were no
significant differences among the groups on the aggregate average of
relational satisfaction items, on the Sexual Satisfaction factor, or on the
Togetherness Satisfaction factor [see Appendix C, Tables 13, 15 and 16 for

mean values].

Post Hoc Explanations

Prediction 1, based on the ideas of Jones et al (1984), lacked support only
in two areas according to the outness item by prejudice item correlations. The
hypothesis that a person will be less likely to reveal and more likely to
conceal a characteristic the higher the prejudice against that characteristic he
or she perceives in a given environment was not refuted, but may require
rethinking.

A negative correlation was not observed between outness and
perceived prejudice on the lesbian-bisexual-gay community items. It’s

possible that the items themselves were ambiguous. For example, some

32

subjects made note on the questionnaire that prejudice and outness in the
lesbian-gay community versus the bisexual community should be considered
separately, since anti-bisexual sentiment often is present in the lesbian-gay
community but not in the bisexual community. However, when the
correlation between the the les-bi-gay community outness and prejudice
items was calculated separately for lesbian and bisexual subjects, there was no
significant difference. Perhaps the stigmatized peer community simply
constitutes an exception to the predicted negative correlation predicted by
Jones et a1 (1984). In addition, the low variance (0.15) of outness in the Les-bi-
gay Group may be responsible in part for the low magnitude of the outness-

prejudice correlation. The correlation between outness and perceived
prejudice on the items concerning les-bi-gay friends (r = -0.16, a=0.01) was

significant in the expected direction.

A negative correlation was not observed between outness with and
perceived prejudice by the subject’ 8 children. The reason for this may be the
difficulty of concealing of one’s orientation from children because of the
intimacy and proximity of the parentst relationship. Children, unlike
other groups, often live in the same household or visit on a regular basis.
Frequent contact would increase the opportunities for employing adaptive
strategic reactions to potential prejudice. Also, since children are of
subordinate status, the parent has more control over the circumstances and
consequences of revealing her orientation, and thus greater capacity for
adaptive strategic reactions.

Though Predictions 2 and 3 were not supported, the results were not
inconsistent with the hypothesis that androgynous persons will be better able
to employ adaptive strategic reactions to prejudice, and will be less likely to

33

conceal a characteristic in the face of relatively high perceived prejudice
compared to other gender role orientation groups. The correlation between
outness and prejudice for the androgynous group was consistently lower in
each area except Outness in Public, where a nonsignificant correlation was
observed in the undifferentiated group. Examining the size of the
correlation between outness and prejudice may not have been the best way to
test the hypothesis in question, since — despite the outness-prejudice
correlations — the androgynous group reported significantly greater

(t (169) =4.06, a=0.01) Outness in Public (M =3.98) than the undifferentiated

group (M =3.16) [see Appendix C, Table 8] while the means of Prejudice in
Public were not significantly different for the androgynous group (M =2.46)
and the undifferentiated group (M =2.60) [see Appendix C, Table 12]. This
suggests that the androgynous group will report greater outness in the face of
similar levels of perceived prejudice, a conclusion consistent with
androgynous persons possessing greater resources for adaptive strategic
reactions to prejudice and thus having greater outness. Further, the
androgynous group had the highest mean outness in all four areas considered
(aggregate, Own Family, Partner’ 5 Family, Public) [see Appendix C, Tables 5—8],
and there were relatively fewer significant differences in levels of perceived
prejudice [see Appendix C, Tables 9—12]. Inspection of the outness and
perceived prejudice means in graph form [see Appendix D, Figures 1-8] helps
to illustrate this pattern. The androgynous group appears to report greater
outness in the face of similar levels of perceived prejudice.

Masculinity and femininity both correlated significantly with outness.
Masculinity correlated with the aggregate average of outness ratings (r =0.32,

a=0.01), Outness with Own Family (r =0.26, a=0.01), Outness with Partner’ 3

34
Family (r =0.28, (1:001) and Outness in Public (r =0.32, (1:001). Femininity
correlated significantly with aggregate average outness (r =0.14, a=0.05) and

Outness with Own Family (r =0.16, a=0.01). Femininity’s role appears to lie in

the more intimate, less public areas of outness. Since the correlations are
stronger and are significant in more areas for masculinity, and the
androgynous and masculine groups differed in outness less from each other
than from the other groups, masculinity probably plays a stronger role in
outness than femininity. The self-esteem and positive expectations of success
associated with masculinity may contribute to the ability to react strategically
to prejudice in such ways as deflecting others’ negative evaluations or
redirecting attention to one’s strengths. Femininity’s association with
outness seems to be more limited, but nonetheless salient. It is notable that
the feminine group scored higher, though not significantly, on aggregate
outness (M =3.53), Outness with Own Family (M =3.01), and Outness in Public
(M =3.28), than the undifferentiated group (M =3.36, M =2.47, and M =3.16,
respectively), while scoring similarly on Outness with Partner’s Family. The
social affiliation and social adjustment skills associated with femininity may
contribute to the ability to strategically react to prejudice in such ways as
highlighting one’s commonalities with the prejudiced person, or using
interpersonal skills to put others at ease and allay fears about one’s sexual
orientation.

It may be a combination of femininity with masculinity that is
responsible for the slightly larger, though insignificant, differences between
the androgynous and masculine groups in outness [see Appendix C, Table 5—8]
compared to the differences in perceived prejudice [see Appendix C,

35

Tables 9-12]. In a larger sample, this difference might reach significance and
show androgynous individuals to have greater outness in the face of similar
levels of perceived prejudice. Masculinity and femininity both appear to play
a role in outness, with masculinity’s role greater and broader than that of
femininity. Androgyny does appear to be associated with greater outness in
the face of prejudice, but further study is warranted to clarify the specific roles
of masculinity and femininity as well as their combined role.

The results did not support Prediction 4, that androgynous subjects
would report greater relational and sexual satisfaction than the other groups.
Instead, it appears that femininity may be the salient variable associated with
the Intimacy Satisfaction factor, while gender role orientation did not seem to
be associated with the Sexual Satisfaction factor or the Togetherness
Satisfaction factor [see Appendix C, Tables 15 and 16]. The feminine group
was similar on the mean of the Intimacy Satisfaction items (M =4.10)
compared to the androgynous group (M =4.08) [see Appendix C, Table 14].
The differences from other groups did not reach significance for the feminine
group, possibly due to the feminine group’s smaller size (N =44) compared to
the androgynous group (N =132). Femininity was correlated significantly

with Intimacy Satisfaction (r =0.14, a=0.05) whereas masculinity was not.

These findings are consistent with previous research that identified
femininity as a correlate of social skills (Ho, 1981 ; Kleinke and Himichs, 1983;
Piche and Piante, 1991) and the traits of expressivity, communion and
nurturance . Neither masculinity nor femininity correlated significantly with
Sexual Satisfaction or Togetherness Satisfaction.

36

Additional Observations and Discussion

The size of the groups may have had an attenuating effect on the
correlations and significance levels calculated here. The androgynous group
(N =136) was larger than the masculine (N =91), feminine (N =44) and
undifferentiated (N =35) groups. Uneven sample sizes are normal when
classifying samples using the BSRI, and in female samples the androgynous
group tends to represent the largest proportion (BSRI Manual, 1981). A
relatively larger total sample size is required to attain significance in analyses
concerning the masculine, feminine and undifferentiated groups. The self-
report nature of the data gathered limits this study’ s ability to fully test the
hypotheses put forth. Further investigation using more varied methods
would help determine the hypotheses’ utility.

Since subjects were solicited over the internet, the above average
educational level (30% of subjects had a graduate degree) is not surprising.
Though many persons without access to the internet probably were reached
through the manual distribution of questionnaires by volunteer subjects and
organizations, internet users were likely over-represented. Individuals who
are less out or less involved with les-bi-gay organizations and media were not
likely to be reached by this study’ s solicitation. The results are probably most
generalizable to lesbian and bisexual women who are out in the les-bi-gay
community or who are consumers of les-bi-gay literature, and who have the
time and motivation to participate in a voluntary study.

The difference score of the raw BSRI scales, femininity minus

37

masculinity (F-M), correlated negatively with the aggregate average outness
(r = -0.16), with Outness in Public (r = -O.16) and with average outness in
families (r = -.14). The F-M score did not correlate significantly with the
prejudice measures. It appears that the larger a person’s F-M score, Bem’s
(1981) original measure of degree of sex-typing, the lower outness they may be
likely to report.

Perceived Prejudice and Gender Role Orientation

The differences among the groups in perceived prejudice are notable.
The androgynous group reported significantly less (t (168) =2.60, a=0.01)

perceived prejudice in Own Family (M =2.65) compared to the
undifferentiated group (M =3.17) and the non-androgynous groups as a whole
(M =2.93;t (300) =2.32, a=0.05) [see Appendix C, Table 10]. On Prejudice in
Public, the mean for the feminine group (M =2.78) was significantly higher
(t (177) =2.23, a=0.05) compared to the means for the androgynous group
(M =2.46), the masculine group (M =2.46), and the non-feminine groups as a
whole (M =2.48) [see Appendix C, Table 12]. The androgynous group reported
consistently lower perceived prejudice, though the aggregate mean prejudice
was the same for the androgynous and masculine groups (M =2.39). The
feminine and the undifferentiated groups reported consistently higher
perceived prejudice compared to the androgynous and masculine groups,
though most of the differences were insignificant [see Appendix C,
Tables 9-12].

Masculinity may play the principle role in perceived prejudice

38

differences. Masculinity correlated negatively with the aggregate average of

perceived prejudice (r = -0.15, a=0.01), Prejudice in Own Family (r = -0.14,

a=0.05), and Prejudice in Public (r = —0.16, (1:001), but did not correlate
significantly with Prejudice in Partner’ 3 Family. Femininity correlated
negatively with Prejudice in Own Family (r = -O.12, (1:005), but not

significantly with the other prejudice variables. Masculinity may account for
more of the differences in perceived prejudice among the groups, since it
correlates significantly with prejudice in more areas, although femininity
may play a role particularly in perceived prejudice in the subject’s own
family.

Comparison of Lesbian and Bisexual Women

Bisexual individuals are studied less often than lesbian-gay
individuals, and often are not considered separately in studies of people in
same-sex relationships. When research does concern bisexual populations,
the degree of preference for partner gender is seldom considered. This study
offered the opportunity not only to compare lesbian and bisexual women, but
to draw comparisons among bisexual women of varying preferences
regarding partner gender.

The subjects identifying as bisexual were similar to one another on
most of the outness, perceived prejudice, and relational satisfaction variables.

The women who identified as bisexual with an equal preference for partner
gender rated significantly higher (t (57) =2.16, a=0.05) on the average

perceived prejudice among the Les-bi-gay Group (M =2.23) compared to

39

women who identified as lesbian (M =1.41), bisexual with a preference for
females (M =1.54), or bisexual with a preference for males (M =1.63). This may
be due to the ambiguous position of bisexuals in the les-bi-gay community. In
their open-ended responses, many women commented that ”biphobia," or
prejudice against bisexuals, is often present in the lesbian and gay

community. Bisexual women with a preference for female partners may be
able to fit in as ”mostly” lesbian, and bisexual women with a preference for
male partners may spend less time in the les-bi—gay community and thus
have less exposure to and less awareness of anti-bisexual prejudice. Bisexual
women with an equal preference for partner gender may be more visibly
bisexual since there’s a greater likelihood that they will have relationships
with members of both sexes throughout their lives. This visibility may raise
the likelihood of encountering existing anti-bisexual prejudice, thus raising
the amount of prejudice they perceive.

Some examples of anti-bisexual prejudice subjects reported
experiencing in the lesbian and gay community were: being told, ”You pass as
a straight so you can take advantage of heterosexual privilege”; encountering
a ”rule” among lesbian women of not getting involved with bisexuals; being
told, ”You’re afraid to leave your marriage because you’re oppressed
emotionally and socially”; being ”tagged as a traitor” by the lesbian
community for dating a bisexual woman; being told, ”You bring the risk of
AIDS to lesbian women”; being accused of ”sleeping with the enemy
[heterosexuals]” ; and being excluded from lesbian-gay political and other
organizations.

Aside from perceived prejudice in the les-bi-gay community, bisexual

women with different preferences for partner gender didn’t differ

40

significantly from each other, or in significantly different ways from lesbian

women. Therefore, comparisons with lesbian subjects will consider bisexual
subjects all together. Lesbian participants had higher (t (335) =2.73, a=0.01)
femininity scores (M 6.74) compared to bisexual participants (M =5.51).

There was no significant difference between the mean masculinity scores for
the two groups. Accordingly, a slightly higher proportion (7%) of lesbian
women was classified as androgynous, and a slightly lower proportion (9%) as
masculine.

Lesbian women reported significantly greater (t (343) =7.37, a=0.01)
aggregate average outness (Xaggregate=4.11) than bisexual women
(XmfiAl), and scored significantly higher on all outness factors. This
may be due to the greater likelihood that bisexuals can appear heterosexual,
while lesbians may have greater difficulty concealing their orientation.

Bisexual women reported significantly greater (t (304) =3.91, u=0.05) aggregate

average perceived prejudice (XaggregaFZ.61) than lesbian women
(Xaggmgate=2.34), and scored significantly higher on all prejudice factors except
Prejudice from Partner’s Family, where the difference did not reach
significance. This may be a combined result of experiencing prejudice in both

heterosexual and lesbian-gay areas.

Lesbian women rated significantly higher (t (330) =3.40, (11:00]) on the
Intimacy Satisfaction factor (M =4.09) than bisexual women (M =3.76). Since
lesbian participants rated higher on femininity, this difference is consistent
with the correlation between femininity and Intimacy Satisfaction. Since

heterosexual women were found to be similar to lesbian women on

femininity but lower on masculinity (Dancey, 1992; Mihalik, 1991 ; Oldham,

41

1982), an examination of masculinity and femininity in a sample combining

lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual women may be of interest. Lesbian women
also had a significantly higher (I (327) =3.07, a=0.01) mean Sexual Satisfaction

(M =3.79) than bisexual subjects (M =3.40).

Relational Factors and Other Variables

Femininity appears to play a role in satisfaction with relational
intimacy. However, it accounts for only a portion of the variance of one
factor identified in this study. Other variables measured here may be playing
a part as well. The association of the relational satisfaction factors with
outness, perceived prejudice and relationship characteristics was explored.

Outness and prejudice were associated with relational satisfaction
factors. Intimacy Satisfaction was correlated with aggregate outness (r =0.14,

a=0.01), Outness with Own Family (r =0.14, a=0.05), Outness in Public
(r =0.18, a=0.01), and Outness with Les-bi-gay Group (r =0.13, a=0.05).

Togetherness Satisfaction was related to aggregate outness (r =0.11, a=0.05)

and Outness with Own Family (r =0.17, a=0.01). This relationship may result

from greater freedom to express affection and appear as a couple associated

with greater outness. Intimacy Satisfaction was negatively correlated with

aggregate perceived prejudice (r = 0.12, a=0.05) and Prejudice by Partner" 5
Family (r = -0.14, a=0.05). Togetherness Satisfaction was negatively correlated
with aggregate perceived prejudice (r = —0.17, a=0.01), Prejudice by Partner’ 5

Family (r = -0.14, a=0.05). Prejudice in one’s partner’s family, particularly for

42

same sex partners, may be associated with exclusion from family events, and
more frequent separation from one’s partner when she spends time with her

family. Sexual Satisfaction was negatively correlated with aggregate perceived
prejudice (r = -0.11, a=0.05) and Prejudice in Public (r = -0.13, a=0.05). The

association of Sexual Satisfaction and Intimacy Satisfaction with prejudice
may be related to internalization of external prejudice (Brown, 1986) — in
other words, experiencing shame and self-reproach for one’s sexual
orientation which could interfere with enjoying sex and intimacy with a
partner of the same sex. If one prefers a partner of the same sex, such
internalization of prejudice may cause one to avoid relationships with
persons of one’s preferred gender in order to escape negative selfoevaluation,
even though relationships with an opposite sex partner may not be satisfying.
Since bisexual women perceive greater levels of prejudice than lesbian
women, including anti-bisexual prejudice in the les-bi-gay community, they
may have greater levels of internalized prejudice. This would help explain
the lower Intimacy Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction among bisexual
women.

The degree of exclusivity, or monogamy, in women’s relationships was

associated with the relational factors. Greater exclusivity was correlated with
Intimacy Satisfaction (r =0.29, a=0.05) and Sexual Satisfaction (r =0.20, a=0.05).

Subjects reported greater satisfaction with intimacy and sex the more
exclusive their commitment agreement with one another.

Women who live with their partners rated higher outness to their
own family (t (153) =2.72, a=0.01) and to their partners’ families (t (212) =4.33,

a=0.01). The higher ratings of perceived prejudice in their own families by

43

women who don’t cohabit (t (231) =2.14, a=0.05) may be a reason for choosing

not to cohabit and may or may not reflect accurate perceptions. The lower
rating of prejudice by women who do cohabit may be due to these women’s
influence on their family’s prejudice, or possibly to an intrapsychic need to
believe their families are more supportive than they actually are.

Women who reported cohabiting rated higher than non-cohabitors on

the Togetherness Satisfaction factor (t (199) =5.53, a=0.01) but lower on the

Sexual Satisfaction factor (t (233) =2.48, a=0.05). The difference in Sexual

Satisfaction may be related to the connection of cohabitation with longer
duration of the relationship, and the associated decline in sexual frequency in
couples (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983). It is notable that Intimacy
Satisfaction was not significantly different for the cohabiting versus the non-
cohabiting women, a result consistent with Blumstein and Schwartz’s finding
that relationship satisfaction tends to be less associated with sex the longer a
couple is together.

Subjects with children or whose partners had children reported
significantly lower (t (327) =2.24, a=0.05) Intimacy Satisfaction (M =3.76)

compared to subjects without children (M =4.02). The time and effort
parenting requires may at times limit efforts toward building intimacy with a
partner. This is consistent with reports by heterosexual couples of reduced
relational intimacy after having children (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983).

Perceived Prejudice Child Items

As noted earlier, inter-correlations of related self-report scales are

44

usually in the positive direction. The negative correlations in the perceived
prejudice item correlation matrix [see Appendix C, Table 2] were not expected
and are worthy of attention. Only one of these correlations — prejudice by
subject’ 5 children with prejudice by partner’s siblings (r = -0.43) — was
significant (a=0.05). Some of the correlations may have failed to reach

significance because of the small number of subjects with children and a
partner (N =47), and many unusable ”not applicable” answers. The negative
correlations may reflect a unique pattern of perceiving one’s children’s
attitudes toward oneself and one’s attributes. If one perceives a greater
amount of prejudice in areas of life outside the home, one may have an
intrapsychic need to perceive a lower amount of prejudice by one’s most
immediate family, such as children and partner. An alternative explanation
may be that higher perceived prejudice outside one’s immediate family,
viewed in comparison, causes prejudice within the immediate family to
appear greater, and vice versa. The reasons for the negative correlations of
the child prejudice items with other perceived prejudice items merit further

investigation.

Demographic Characteristics

Katchadourian (1989) reported that such characteristics as age, income
and education may be correlated with outness. Demographic characteristics
may be correlated with other variables as well. Outness, as well as perceived
prejudice, masculinity and feminity were examined in relation to
demographic variables to explore for possible associations.

Older participants generally reported greater outness. Age correlated

45

with aggregate average outness (r =0.20, a=0.01), Outness with Own Family
(r =0.31, a=0.01), outness with Partner’ s Family (r =0.20, a=0.01), and Outness

in Public (r =0.11, a=0.05). It appears that lesbian and bisexual women may

become more open about their sexual orientation as they get older. Age did
not correlate significantly with perceived prejudice variables.

In comparing subjects who identified as white with subjects who
identified with a minority ethnicity, only one significant difference was
found. The mean femininity score for white women (M =5.69) was
significantly higher (t (331) =2.41, a=0.05) than for non-white women
(M =5.41). Although a minority (25%) of the non-white group identified as
African-American, this difference is consistent with previous findings that
African-American women adhere less to conventional standards of
femininity than white women (Donelson, 1995). The difference in the mean
feminity score for white and non-white women may be due to differing
sanctions for and definitions of feminine behavior among ethnic subcultures,
or differential sanctioning in the broader society of feminine behavior

according to ethnicity.

Open-ended Responses

Participants who responded to the open-ended question on experiences
of and strategies for dealing with prejudice wrote answers varying in length
from one line to two typed pages. An equal proportion (about 75%) of
subjects from each gender role group provided a response. Some examples

listed by subjects as strategies that work for dealing with prejudice were:

46

trying to get the prejudice person to imagine him or herself experiencing
discrimination, avoiding prejudiced people, being honest, getting to know
people and selecting whom to come out with, using peer pressure, and
withdrawing or ignoring prejudice if one is in danger. Some examples given
by subjects as strategies that don’t work were: being aggressive or overtly
angry, trying to force one’s views on others, and confronting prejudice with
potentially aggressive people.

The open-ended responses were not analyzed quantitatively. Future
inquiry might be directed toward comparing the amount and types of
experiences and strategies listed by subjects from different gender role
orientations. Such analyses might reveal specific information about adaptive

strategic reactions to prejudice relative to gender role orientation.

SUMMARY

Though none of the predictions was observed as expected, some of the
hypotheses did receive support. A significant negative correlation between
outness and prejudice was observed in most areas, but not for the items
concerning the les-bi-gay community or the subject’ 3 children. The outness-
prejudice correlation was not consistently weaker for androgynous subjects.

Androgynous subjects did not report significantly higher public
outness than masculine groups, but androgynous subjects did report
consistently higher outness and consistently similar prejudice levels
compared to masculine, feminine and undifferentiated subjects. Both
masculinity and feminity were associated with outness. Masculinity was
correlated more highly with outness than femininity, and in a broader range
of areas, whereas femininity was correlated more weakly with outness and
more specifically in family relationships.

The androgynous group was not highest on relational satisfaction
factors, but was comparable to the feminine group. The Sexual Satisfaction
factor was not associated with gender role group. Femininity, however,
correlated significantly with the Intimacy Satisfaction factor.

Other characteristics of the data also were explored. Uneven group
sizes, the self-report nature of the data, and self-selection of the sample
should temper interpretation of the results. The femininity minus

masculinity score (F-M) correlated negatively with outness.

47

48

Masculinity and femininity correlated in similar magnitude with
prejudice, but femininity’s role was specific to family relationships. Bisexual
women indicating an equal preference for partner gender rated highest on the
Prejudice in Les-bi-gay Group factor. Lesbian subjects rated higher on
feminity, and were more often androgynous. Bisexual women reported
greater levels of prejudice, and lesbian women reported greater Intimacy
Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction. Subjects’ reports of anti-bisexual
prejudice in the lesbian and gay community merit further investigation.

Outness was associated with Intimacy Satisfaction and Togetherness
Satisfaction. Prejudice was correlated negatively with all three relational
factors. The possible relationship of perceived prejudice and internalized
prejudice should be explored.

Greater relationship exclusivity was associated with Intimacy
Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction. Cohabiting women reported greater
outness and lower perceived prejudice than non-cohabiting women.
Cohabiting women rated higher on Togetherness Satisfaction but lower on
Sexual Satisfaction. Subjects with children reported lower Intimacy
Satisfaction. The items concerning prejudice by children were correlated
negatively with some other items; while only one correlation was significant,
this pattern merits further study.

Age was positively correlated with level of outness. White subjects
rated higher on femininity compared to non-white subjects. Further
qualitative and quantitative analysis of the open-ended responses would be
useful to explore for differences among gender role groups in adaptive

strategic reactions to prejudice.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SUBJECTS

Katari K. Brown
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
135 Snyder Hall

East Lansing, MI 48824
USA

(616) 781 -9353
brownka5@pilot.msu.edu

Dear Research Participant,

Thank you for your interest in our study on dealing with prejudice among lesbian and
bisexual women. This questionnaire takes 12 to 20 minutes to till out. By completing and returning
the questionnaire, you are indicating your voluntary agreement to participate. Your assistance is
much appreciated!

Please separate this cover letter from the questionnaire and retain it tor your intomiation.
Then. fill out the questionnaire, answering as best as you can from your own knowledge and
experience. and mail the completed questionnaire in the envelope included in this packet. To
preserve your anonymity, do not write your name on the questionnaire. it you are in a relationship,
and both you and your partner participate, please return both your questionnaires in the same
envelope. We hope to receive all questionnaires by January 30, 1997.

A summaryoitheresultstrornthestudywill be mailedtoall partic‘pantswhoseaddresses
we have. It you didn't receive your questionnaire by mail, and would like to receive the summary,
please call the above number, give your address, and indicate that you’d like a summary of the
study results.

It you decide not to participate in the survey, ieel tree to pass on this questionnaire to a
friend who may be interested. Alter January. please destroy any unused questionnaires.

Again, your time and participation are much appreciated.

Yours Sincerely.
fl”

Katari K. Brown

49

50

APPENDIX A

Subject Nur'rber
Questionnaire for Subjects

Demraghic lnformtion:

i am female, and my sexual orientation is (check one):
lesbian bisexual, prefer female partners bisexual, prefer male partners
bisexual, equal preference

 

 

Age in years

Ethnicity (check one): Black Native American
Mediterranean Hispanic Asian
White Other (specify)

Place of residence (check one)
Lansing I East Lansing area Kalamazoo area
Battle Creek area Ann Arbor area

____Other (specify city and state)

Education (check one)

__less than high school high school d'ploma some college

__associate’s degree bachelor’s degree graduate degree

Are you ermloyed? (check one) No Yes, part-time Yes, full-time or more
If yes, how are you paid? (check the one that best applies to your main occupation)
_hourly wages __salary _commission _contract
Are you a student? (check one) No Yes, part-time Yes, full-time

\M'iich option best describes your personal annual income level, in dollars? (check one)

less than 10,000 10,000 to 19,999 20,000 to 29,999
30,000 to 39,999 40,000 to 49,999 50,000 to 59.999
60,000 to 69,999 70,000 or more

Which option best descrbes your religious affiliation? (check one)

Fundamental Protestant Conservative Protestant Liberal Protestant
Conservative Catholic Liberal Catholic Mormon
Liberal Jewish Orthodox Jewish None

___Other (specify)

 

51

APPENDIX A

W91:

Which best describes your involvement in lesbian I bisexual / gay organization(s) and / or support groups?
(check one)

__not involved _somewhat involved __actively involved

__hold or have held formal position or office

How many children do you have?
if more than zero, number under 18 years of age
If more than zero, number that live in your household

Which best describes where you live right now? (check one)
own house or condominium __rent house _rent apartment _rent room only
rent dorm room other (specify)

Which best describes your current living situation?
live alone live with relative(s) live with room I housemates
cohabit with partner (Indicate length of cohabitation: __wars __months)

52

APPENDIX A

utness:

indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 your openness about your sexual orientation with each of the below groups
using this rating scale:
in the given group, you are

1-openwithnoone

2-openwithoneortwopeople OR muchconcealment
3-open with some people on some concealment
4-openwithmostpeople OR rnoderatelyopen
5-openwitheveryone OR veryopen

NA - not applicable, nocontact with this group

(circle one nunber or 'NA' for each item)

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your children

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner’s children

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your parents

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner's parents

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your siblings

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner’s siblings

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your extended family

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner's extended family

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Lesbian, bisexual, andlor gay friends

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Heterosexual friends

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Lesbian I bisexual I gay community

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Local community, neighbors

M 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances through church or religious groups
NA 1 2 3 4 5 Coworkers

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Business associates

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Schoolmates

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Professors 1 teachers at school

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Malth care workers (doctors, nurses, therapists, etc)

53

APPENDIX A

Perceived Prejudice:

Indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much prejudice, or anti-homosexual sentiment. you perceive in each of
the following areas, using this rating scale:

1 - no prejudice

2 - low degree of prejudice

3 - some degree of prejudice

4 - moderate degree of prejudice

5- very him degreeof prejudice

NA - not applicable, no contact with this group

(circleonenurrberor'M'foreachitem)

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your children

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner's children

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your parents

M 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner’s parents

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your siblings

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner’s sblings

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your extended family

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Your partner's extended family

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Lesbian, bisexual, and/or gay friends

NA 1 2 3 4 5 Heterosexual friends

M 1 2 3 4 5 Lesbian / bisexual / gay community

M 1 2 3 4 5 Local community. neighbors

M 1 2 3 4 5 Acquaintances through church or religious groups
M 1 2 3 4 5 Coworkers

M 1 2 3 4 5 Business associates

M 1 2 3 4 5 Schoolmates

M 1 2 3 4 5 Professors lteachers at school

M 1 2 3 4 5 Health care workers (doctors, nurses, therapists, etc)

54

APPENDIX A
Relationship information:
Are you currently in a romantic I sexual relationship? No Yes

If not, answer the following items on the basis of your most recent significant relationship.
Indicate how long ago this relationship ended: _years months
(if you’ve never been in a romantic / sexual relationship, check here and skip this page.)

How many children does your partner have?
if more than zero, number under 18 years of age
if more than zero, number that live in your household
How long have you and your partner been a couple? years months
is your partner female or male ?
Which best describes your agreement about sexual exclusivity with your partner? (check one)

conpietely monogamous / exclusive mostly monogamous
open relationship no specific agreement at this tlrne

lndlcateonascalefrom1toStnwsatisfiedyouarewflheachofthefolbwingareasofyomrelaflonship

using this rating scale:
1 - very dissatisfied
2 - somewhat dissatisfied
3 - mostly satisfied
4 - satisfied
5 - very satisfied

(circle one number for each item)

Frequency of sexual contact
Quality of sexual contact

1 2 3 4 5 Emotional intimacy with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Social intlrnacy with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Intellectual intimacy with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Recreational intimacy with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Sexual intimacy with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Level of affection expressed by partner toward you
1 2 3 4 5 Level of affection expressed by you toward partner
1 2 3 4 5 Amount of tlrne spent with partner

1 2 3 4 5 Living situation

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

55

APPENDIX A

Self-description: Use each of the following personality characteristics to describe yourself. That is,
indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 how true of you each of these characteristics is, using this rating scale:

dd-l-h-L—b-A-‘dddd-‘d—A—L—A—‘d—‘d—l-fi—ld—A—‘dd—l

MMMNNNMNNNNNMNMNNNNNNMNNNNMMNN

(#030030303000)QQQQQGQQQQQQQUQQQQQODQ

1 - Never or airnost never true

2 - Usually not true

3 - Sometimes but infrequently true
4 - Occasionally true

5 - Often true

6 - Usually true

7 - Always or almost always tme

4 5 7

##&bbhbhbbbb55#&hhbb#bbbb~hbbb
urcntnmmmtncncnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
diorama:mmmmarmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmm
VNVVVVVVVVVNNNVVVVV‘JVVV‘IVVV‘JV

(circle one number for each item)

Defend my own beliefs
Affectionate
Conscientious
independent
Sympathetic

Moody

Assertive

Sensitive to needs of others
Reliable

Strong personality
Understanding

Jealous

Forceful
Compassionate

Truthful

Have leadership abilities
Eager to sooth hurt feelings
Secretive

Willing to take risks
Warm

Adaptable

Dominant

Tender

Conceited

Willing to take a stand
Love children

Tactfui

Aggressive

Gentle

Conventional

 

 

56

APPENDIX A

in your own words, describe some strategies you find helpful in dealing with prejudice, and in what kinds of

situations you might use particular strategies. Feel free to use examples from your own experience—What
strategies worked or might work? What strategies didn’t work or might not work?

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

POSTER SOLICITATION

VOLUNTEERS
NEEDED

Lesbian and bisexual women needed

for questionnaire study on dealing with prejudice
Please take a questionnaire for yourself,
and I or one for a friend
Completely anonymous—

please don’t write your name on questionnaire

Thank you for your help!

This study is sponsored by Michigan State University
For more information, contact Katari Brown (616) 781 -9353

57

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

m“. en. mu. N“. E

 

mptmpmpepmpwpppopmmnmmemNP

 

8. .- .88. -88 .2... 8.8
8.. 9.8 2.... mm...

8.. .3 8..

8.. Re

8..

, 09,80

 

mud mad mud and 05d mud 00.0 05.0 eed emd emd med med ~0d 50.0 de 00.0 05.0

emd Omd emd de 0nd wed emd 00d mod mod mmd mmd 5d 3.0 Ned and mmd mmd

and Ned wed Pmd med 8.0 end Ned 0~d mmd and de end Gd emd Omd mmd eod

00.0 50.0 mmd Gd mmd Ed and nmd mNd and Ed end smd mmd cod emd nod emd

Rd 00.0 00.0 wed Ped 0nd end end Ned 5.0 55.0 emd mad mud ewd eed mud msd
Egg

nmd mod 3.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 nmd Fed 0~d med wed 0nd Ed eed Fed 50d emd

mnd 8d mud mmd e0d Kd N0d mmd -d eed pmd 0~d mmd Ned and ~0d 00d

~0d e0d med 50.0 50.0 00.0 0nd de nmd mmd _.ed med Ned and 50.0 00.0

and 8.0 00.0 mud 00d and 0~d 0ed and Fed mmd omd ped mmd med

3.0 00.0 ~0d mmd e~d Fwd med and and med Fed emd 2d med

5.0 e0d emd emd -d mmd med pmd mmd 00.0 5.0 mmd 00d

Kd 00d Fed nmd Ned wed eed omd 0ed Ned e0d de

mmd end 0m.o umd wmd mmd oed med med ~0d omd

and and m~d e~d mpd omd 0~d Fwd e~d med

 

0.3.033... m.
6.930%) a.
0.30.0593...) m

@8350} a
0.0530} c
3326
£88353} .0.
$98} A.
main?) 0.
gang} m.
3.28} v.
3518853} m.
8.5.5.3... ~.
£1888...) ..
5.83:0... o.

 

00.0 9.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0N0 -.0 0.0 0m.0 3.8.3.8.} m
00.0 {.0 00.0 00.0 med 0m.0 00.0 $0 ginseng} 0
e00 00.0 0e.0 med and end 3.0 $985!} \.
00.0 and 0e.0 8.0 e00 3.0 Eng} 0
0e.0 00.0 end 50.0 00.0 guinea} m
3.0 050 00.0 96 £1. e
E0 med e~.0 E} m
~00 ~00 Stream-Ex; N
~00 Samoa} —
“fame sagassngasvaog gage

x3e: some—9:00 3.3.0 was Es: 835:0 "a wish

58

59

APPENDIX C

me e“. m“. Nu. E

m.

8...- «001000.000 00.0
8; 9d di pod
8.0 00.0 5.0.

do._. mpd-
8.0

g

 

 

 

~.0.0.v.0.~...0. 0 0 A 0 0 v 0 ~.

00.0 ~00 :0 0~.0 0~.0 00.0 00 ~00 0~0 .00 90 ~00 00.0 00.0 0.0 3.0 00.0 ~00 0.05.03... 00
-0 0.0 .~.0 0.0 ~..0 ~..0 0.0 ~..0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 .00 0.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0. 6.0035033 a
.~.0 00.0 0~.0 .00 00.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0~.0 00.0 ~00 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0~.0- 00.05.80.303 0“.
00.0 8.0 00.0 ~00 3.0 00.0 000 ~..0 80 0.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 0.0 .00 00.0- 8.0. 00025503 m
00.0 ~00 0.0 00.0 .00 00.0 .00. ~00 ~00. 00.0 0.0 -.0. ~00. 2.0 .00. 00.0. 00.0 00.0 305303 .0
.00 9.0 ~..0 00.0 00.0 .~.0 .00 0~.0 Q0 0~.0 0~0 3.0 00.0 00.0 2.0 ~..0 0~.0 0.9 meanness! 0. 0.
00.0 00.0 00.0 .00 0~.0 00.0 0~.0 0.0 00.0 0~.0 00.0 0~.0 00.0 0~.0 0~.0 00.0 .00 8.98 a A.
.00 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0~.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0 2.0 9.0 .00 00.0 ~..0 ~00 3.3930.
00.0 2.0 -.0 00.0 .00 0.0 0.0 0~.0 -0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 -.0 .~.0 seasonal... 0. 0.
8.0 0~.0 ~00 8.0 ...0 0.0 00.0 00.0 0~.0 ~00 ~00 0~.0 0.0 00.0- 00.28 a v.
0~.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0~.0 0~.0 0.0 00.0 ~00 00.0 00.0 0.0 gen—0 0. 0.
00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0~.0 ~00 0~.0 ~00 0~.0 00.0 0.0 3.0. 03.5.35.
-0 00:0 8.0 0~.0 0~.0 0~.0 0~.0 .00 0~.0 00.0 0.0 810188.06. 0. ..
#0 E0 .00 ...0 00.0 00.0 .00 ~00 0.0 0.0. €50.39. 0.0.
R0 ...0 ~..0 .00- 0.0 00.0 0.0 3.0 000. 0.5.0339. b 0
0.0 00.0 ~00 .00 0.0 -0 0.0 8.0 Engage 0
$0 000 -.0 0~.0 0~.0 .80 00.0. 6500.05! a A
00.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 0.0- .~.0. anaemia! 0. 0
0~.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 ~00 353.0830
00.0 00.0 0~.0. 0.0- 5:030
00.0 00.0. ~00. nil 0. 0
~00 ~00 5300.33 3 ~
~..0 6000:.» a .

l "$508 0. 80.32 :30 0800285.. ”0.9. 80%;.

5.302 sewn—ebony 0390.0 0:0 :8: 3:03on 00385.0 "N 200,—.

60

m“. N... E

: op m 0 m 0 m e m N —

 

00.0 Ned med
00.. 00.0

00..

”0:250:00 030$

 

APPENDIX C

de de 0ed Omd mNd 0~.0 mmd mmd Fed mNd 0ed
NNd mmd 00d mmd 0md 00.0 00.0 mmd Ned 0~.0 Ned
mNd med mmd emd 00d e0d mod mmd m0d 00.0 00.0
”0:000. :00 . 60... EB.

 

Fwd pmd N~d m..d mpd N..d mpd mpd NNd 00d mmd
pmd eed 0~.0 mNd eNd Pmd Pmd mmd eNd mmd
med mmd 00d de oed de 0~.0 opd mmd
N0d 0md Ned med med mmd mNd 0md

de med Fwd med med mNd oed

Fed end mmd oed oed eed

med 00d oed mmd med

dmd end mmd 00d

med pmd 00d

Ned mmd

e0d

2 703005000058 0000005000.. n“.
6.0.5 8.000005% .00 xmm we

.0 2... $0988.00. 60505 .0

 

8:03.00032 ..
00500030000000: 0.
88:8 .0300 00 500000: 0
0000000 .0300 00 5:000 m
60.05:. .00 .00 m

000300 >0 00.000000 0
005000 >0 00.000000 0
30550. $850.6 e

.6082... 88:005.: 0
60.000. .0383... N

60.0.00. .0600 .

 

 

500%06 5 02:30:00 830 00030-2000 EB.

“9:0: 39.0323.

0.0502 coma—ebeu Stem use So: :emtawmmam inane—ey— nm 030,—.

61

APPENDIX C

Table 4: Outness/ Perceived Prejudice Correlations by Gender Role Group

 

statistical 95% confidence interval
Group Correlation Value N significance lower bound upper bound
Sample r op-aggregate - O . 3 7 344 p<.05 -O.42 -O. 3 2
Androgynous r op-aggregate - O . 3 3 1 36 p<.05 -0.41 -0. 2 5
Masculine r op-aggregate - 0 . 4 6 91 p<.05 -O. 54 -0. 38
Feminine r op-aggregate - 0 . 5 8 43 p<.05 -0.68 -O.48
Undifferentiated r op-aggregate - O . O 8 3 5 NS -0. 2 5 0.09
Sample r op-ownfamiiy - O . 4 6 333 p<.05 -0. SO -O.42
Androgynous r op-ownfamily - O . 3 6 1 31 p<.05 -0.44 -0.28
Masculine r op-ownfamiiy - 0 . 6 0 90 p<.OS -O. 67 -0. 5 3
Feminine r op-ownfamiiy -O . 5 5 42 p<.05 -0.66 -O.44
Undifferentiated r op-ownfamr’ly - O . 4 0 3 3 p<.OS -0. S S -0. 2 5
Sample r op-partnerfam - O . 4 4 216 p<.OS -0.49 -0. 39
Androgynous r op-partnerfam — 0 . 2 8 93 p<.05 -O. 38 -O.1 8
Masculine r op-partnerfam — 0 . S 6 58 p<.05 -O.65 -0.47
Feminine r op-partnerfam - O . S 2 27 p<.OS -O.66 -0.38
Undifferentiated r op-partnerfam - O . 5 4 1 3 p<.OS -O. 74 -0. 34
Sample r op-pubiic -O . 3 S 342 p<.05 -0.40 -0.30
Androgynous r op—pubiic - O . 2 9 1 32 p<.05 -0. 3 7 -O. 2 1
Masculine r op-pubiic -0 . 3 8 87 p<.OS -O.47 -0.29
Feminine r op-public -O. 7 1 43 p<.05 -O.79 ~0.63
Undifferentiated r op-public - 0 . O4 35 NS -O.21 0.13

 

r op-aggregate: Correlation of average outness ratings with average perceived prejudice

ratings

r op-ownfamr'iy: Correlation between the average score of items from factors Outness with
Own Family and Prejudice in Own Family

r op-partnerfam: Correlation between the average score of items from factors Outness with
Partner’s Family and Prejudice in Partner’s Family

r op-pubir‘c: Correlation between the average score of items from factors Outness in Public and
Prejudice in Public

62

APPENDIX C

0:20 :83an0

 

 

BEE: :8: .832 .093:

5.0 - - - 00.m 33:53:85;
- m0.0 - - 00.m o:_:_Eo....:oz
- - - - 05m 2:382:02
- - - 5.0 ~m.m m§>9:0:<-32
- - 5.0 5.0 0 fin 33:53:35
- mod 5.0 0~.m o:_:_Eou
- - 05m 3:383:
- 000 32523:"

o33> madam

:3:

 

 

35. 8:85:03 00:34..

3232728535 $55 ”was:

9.5.0 :83an0

 

 

 

REE: .Eo... .332 0935‘

5.0 - - - mm m 033353255002
- - - - mm m o:_:_Eou_-:oz
- - - - mm m «53832-52
- - - 8.0 an 3232.05-82
- 0 30 5.0 5.0 tam 33:58:65
- - m0.0 5.m 32:50“.
.. 0 P .0 0~.m 2:383:
- mm.m «30:50:92

m53> 039.0

:30:

 

 

 

0:20 :OmtSEoo
L505 .Eou .omaFdQfiE‘

0 p .0 .. - - ta 33:53:35-52
.. no.0 - - ~06 m:.:_Eo.._-:oz
- - - - 55 o:__:om32-:oz
- - - 8.0 gm “Scxmocuc<-coz
- - 0 p .0 0 p .0 N 3m 33:53:35
- no.0 no.0 0 p .m 055:8”.
.. - 005 3:33:
- 5.m 26:30:24.

33> 05mm

:35

 

 

11.26. 088533 3.33

.32 s .553"— mtufiuamlacoataficu 385.5 8 «33,—.

 

 

.26. 8:85:03. vo_.3-~

.32 0 has—am zip—833500 $2.50 "0 033,—.

 

0:20 :omtmanu
ED :5... duo? .0832.

5.0 - - - 5.m vouazcocoticnéoz
- no.0 - - 00.m o:_:_Eod-:oz
- - - - vmd 3:332:02
- - - 5o 83 macaenczoz
- - 5 0 5.0 0m.m 33:53:55
- 0P 0 5.0 mm.m 855:8”.
- - 004” 3:33:
- 006 msocaaocvc<

o23> $15.3

can:

 

 

.26. 088:_&W8__3-~

.32 : eaglesgfiou 385:0 um 23:.

63

APPENDIX C

0:90 50.50.50

 

0:05 .500 .0002 .6055.

$0 83:50:35-52

 

- 00.0 .. - aim 055500-52
- - - - mm.~ 05.:0002-52
- - - - mmd 0:05605:<-52
- - - - 00.N 53:53:55
- 5.0 5.0 0~.N 055500
- - 00d 0530002
- 0v.~ 00056055.

0:3> 0:000

:00:

 

 

.05. 00:35:90 00.30-N

:8. 0 0.3038358 8352.. a: 2.5

050 5050.50

 

0:05 .500 .0002 .0850.

 

00.0 - n p .m 003::20505-52
- - - - mud 055500-52
- - - - 00.N 053032-52
- - - mod 80 888905-82
- - o F .0 5.0 N P .m 0035:0352:
- - - 00.~ 055500
- - m0.~ 0530032
- m0.~ 0556055

0:3> 0:000

:00:

 

 

.05. 00:00am 00.3fm

:00: .0 >25"— :30'0000:00500 00:030...— 5~ 030,—.

0:80 505050

Eb .50“? .000: .005:
0:0 - - -

.03. 00:05:53 00:20

0:80 50.3050

NNNcriNNdori

MNmmCDv-MW
mva—QN‘DI—

 

0:3>

 

c
a
0

5

5350.05.05-52
055500-52
053032-52
055695352
53:53:35
055500

0530002
05560550.

0~.0

:00. .0 5:30 0.005301050030600 00:00.3..— "2 030k

 

E5 .500 .0002 605:4.

 

Nv.~ :03520505-52
- - .. - Saw 055500-52
- - - - 0¢.~ 05.:0002-52
- - - - 00d 0:0560550-52
- - 0 _ .0 - Rio. 53:55:55
- - - and 055500
- - 0m.~ 0530002
- mm.~ 05569.5(

0:3) 0:93

:00:

 

 

.0>0_ 00:00:36.0 00__3-

:00. .0 80000021000530.000 00:00.3...— 0 030,—.

APPENDIX C

0:80 5050500 0:80 5050500
.505 .50“. .802 .0205. 5.25 .500 .80: .0205

 

 

 

 

- mv.m 00055050552502 09m 00003550055502
- - - - 02m 055500-52 - - - - 00.0.” 055500-52
- - - - :V.m 05.:0002-52 - - - - 00.m 05.30002-52
- - - - o¢.m 05560550502 - - - - and 0:0:60.5:.<-:02
- - - - mm.m 00005050055 - - - - mm.m 080.50.000.05
- - - 0~.m 055500 - - - mm.m 055500
- - on.m 05.:0002 - - mm.m 05.:0002
- 9am 0556055. - _. Em 0:05605:<

5000:8050 0:005:90 0:0 0:_0> Magd- 300555: 0:005:90 0:0 020) 0: m0

:002 :002

 

 

 

 

.20. 8:80:00 02.2-0 .96. 8:850: 3.2.0 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:00. s 00050500900080.5500 50000.0: "3 030,—. :00. 3 530000000 53001000050500 50020—00 “my 0300.
0:80 505050 0:80 5050500
005:: .500 .0002 .6805. 005:: .500 .0002 68—05..
- - - - mm.m 00055800055502 - - - - om.m 00005050553502
- - - - 064m 055500-52 - - - - mud 055500-52
- - mod - moé 05.:0002-52 - - - - mad 05 :0002-52
- - - o 20 om.m 0556055502 - - - - Mn...” 05:» 550-52
- - - - ~05 0000.50.03.05 - - - - 09m 0303:8055:
- o P .o - C 2: 055500 - - - 80 055500
- mod 50 0550002 - - :5 0530002
- 00.0 0556055. - 000 05568.5(
80> al.093- 0082050 28:20.0 9: 30> M0045
:002 :002
.05. 00:00:5E0 :0._0u- .05. 00:85:90 :0__0u-

:00. .0 005000000 50505003100500 50000.0: "3 030... $00. 00020000200 00000005000000.5800 .00—000.0: “my 030,—.

APPENDD( D

APPENDIX D

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 1: Mean Aggregate Outness by Group

M 5.00e

e
a 4.00a
n

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

3.00 *
2.00 ’

1.004

 

 

0
u
t
n
e
s
s

0.00 4

Gender Role Group

Figure 2: Mean Aggregate Prejudice by Group

65

66

APPENDIX D

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 3: Mean Outness in Own Family by Group

M 5.00‘ '
Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

e
a 4.00 *

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 4: Mean Prejudice in Own Family by Group

67

APPENDIX D

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 5: Mean Outness in Partner’ 5 Family by Group

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 6: Mean Prejudice in Partner’ 5 Family by Group

68

APPENDIX D

M 5.00 ’
e Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated
a 4.00 a
n

3.00 a
O

u .i
t 2.00

n
€1.00!

 

 

s
s 0.00 '-

Gender Role Group

Figure 7: Mean Outness in Public by Group

e Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 8: Mean Prejudice in Public by Group

69

APPENDIX D

Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 9: Mean Outness in Les-bi-gay Group

 

e Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated
a 4'oo_i ............................. , .........................................................................................
n

 

 

 

Gender Role Group

Figure 10: Mean Prejudice in Les-bi-gay Group

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alain, M. 8: Lussier, Y. (1988). Sex-role attitudes and divorce

 

experience. Journal of Social Psychology, 128 (2), 143—152. l
Anderson, T. & Leitner, L. (1991). The relationship between the r

Defense Mechanisms Inventory and reported symptomatology in college

females. Personality and Individual Diflerences, 12 (9), 967-969. L

Antill, J. 6: Cunningham, J. (1979). Self—esteem as a function of
masculinity in both sexes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47
(4), 783-785.

Babledelis, G. (197 8). Sex-role concepts and flexibility on measures of
thinking, feeling, and behaving. Psychological Reports, 42 (1), 99-105.

Barbarin, O. (1983). Coping with ecological transitions by Black
families: A psychosocial model. Journal of Community Psychology, 11 (4),
308-322.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (2), 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: a reply to the
Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37 (6), 1047-1054.

Bern, S. L. 8: Lewis, S. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of
psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (4),
634-643.

Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) Manual (1981) copyright by Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc., Distributed by Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA

Blumstein, P. 8: Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples: Money,
Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.

70

71

Borders, L. & Pong, M. (1984). Sex-role orientation research: Review
and implications for counselor education. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 24 (1), 58-69.

Brown, LS. (1986). Confronting internalized oppression in sex therapy
with lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 12 (3-4), 99-107.

Clunis, D.M. 8: Green, GD. (1993). Lesbian Couples: Creating Healthy
Couples for the ’905. Seattle: Seal Press.

Dancey, CF. (1992). The relationship of instrumentality and
expressivity to sexual orientation in women. Journal of Homosexuality, 23
(4), 71-82.

Duffy, S.M. (1985—96). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual
and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexualtiy, 12 (2), 1-23.

Dion, K.L., Dion, K.I(. & Pak, A.W. (1992). Personality-based hardiness
as a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto’s Chinese
community. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24 (4), 517-536.

Donelson, E. (1995). Gender Related Views of Self and Others.
Unpublished article.

Eliason, M., Donelan, C. & Randall, C. (1992). lesbian stereotypes.
Health Care for Women International, 13, 131-144.

Ellis, ].B. & Range, L.M. (1988). Femininity and reasons for living.
Educational and Psychological Research, 8 (1), 19-24.

Glazebrook, CK & Munjas, BA. (1986). Sex roles and depression.
Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 24 (12), 9-12.

Heilbrun, AB. (1981). Gender differences on the functional linkage
between androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 41 (6), 1106-1118.

Heilbrun, AB. 8: Han, Y.L. (1986). Sex differences in the adaptive
value of androgyny. Psychological Reports, 59 (3), 1023-1-26.

Heilbrun, A.B. & Mulqueen, C.M . (1987). The second androgyny: A
proposed revision in adaptive priorities for college women. Sex Roles, 17 (3-
4), 187-207.

 

72

Heilbrun, A.B. & Pitman, D. (1979). Testing some basic assumptions
about psychological androgyny. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 135 (2), 175—
188.

Heilbrun, A.B. & Schwartz, H.L. (1982). Sex-gender differences in level
of androgyny. Sex Roles, 8 (2), 201-214.

Herek, GM. (1993). Documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay
men on campus: The Yale Sexual Orientation Study. Journal of
Homosexuality, 25 (4), 15-30.

Ho, R. (1981). Sex, sex-role typing, and children’s problem-solving
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 115 (2), 219-226.

Hurlbert, DP. 8: Apt, C. (1993). Female sexuality: A comparative study
between women in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of
Sex and Marital Therapy, 19 (4), 315—327.

Iasenza, S. (1991),. The relations among selected aspects of sexual
orientation and sexual functioning in females. Dissertation, New York
University, Ph.D. in School of Education, Health, Nursing, and Arts
Professions.

Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A.H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T., Scott,
R.A., French, R. de S. (1984). Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked
Relationships. New York: Freeman.

Katchadourian, HA. (1989). Fundamentals of Human Sexuality (5th
ed.). Orlando: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kurdek, L. A. (1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in
cohabiting gay and lesbian couples: Integration of contextual, investment,
and problem-solving models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6
910-922.

Kimlicka, T., Cross, H. & Tamai, I. (1983). A comparison of
androgynous, feminine, masculine, and undifferentiated women on self-
esteem, body satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 7 (3), 291-294.

Kivlighan, D.M., Clements, L., Blake, C. & Arnzen, A. (1993).
Counselor sex role orientation, flexibility, and working alliance formation.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 72 (1), 95-100.

73

Kleinke, C.L. & Hinrichs, CA. (1983). College adjustment problems
and attitudes toward drinking reported by feminine, androgynous, and
masculine college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7 (3), 291-294.

Krausz, M., Kedem, P., Ta], 2. & Amir, Y. (1992). Sex-role orientation
and work adaption of male nurses. Research in Nursing and Health, 15 (5),
391 -398.

Kurdek, LA. (1986). Early development of relationship quality in
heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples.
Developmental Psychology, 22 (3), 305-309.

Lee, AG. and Schreurer, V.L. (1983). Psychological androgyny and
aspects of self-image in women and men. Sex Roles, 9 (3), 289-306.

Lazerson, IS. (1981). Psychological androgyny, sex stereotyping, and
mental health. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1981)

Leserman, J., DiSantostefano, R., Perkins, DD. 8: Evans, BL. (1994).
Gay identification and psychological health in HIV-positive and HIV -
negative gay men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24 (24), 2193-2208.

Lobel, T.E., Gur, S. & Yerushalrni, H. (1989). Cheating behavior of sex-
type and androgynous children in sex-stereotyped and no-sex-stereotyped
tasks. Journal of Research in Personality, 23 , 302-312.

Locksley, A. fit Colten, M.E. (1979). Psyhcological androgyny: A case of
mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 6, 1017-
1031.

Loulan, J. (1988). Research on the sex practices of 1566 lesbians and the
clinical applications. Women and Therapy, 7 (2-3), 221-234.

Lykes, MB. (1983). Discrimination and coping in the lives of black
women: Analyses of oral history data. Journal of Social Issues, 39 (3), 79-100.

Marecek, I. (1979). Social change, positive mental health, and
psychological androgyny. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3 (3), 241-247.

Marsh, H.W. 8t Byrne, BM. (1991). Differentiated additive model:
Relations between masculinity, femininity, and multiple dimensions of self-
concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (5), 811-828.

74

Mihalik, GJ. (1991). From anthropology: Homosexuality, stigma, and
biocultural evolution. Special section: Stigma and homosexuality. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1 (4), 15-29.

Nichols, M. (1982). The treatment of inhibited sexual desire disorder
(ISD) in lesbian couples. Women and Therapy, 1 (4), 49-66.

Oldham, S. (1982). Sex role identity of female homosexuals. Journal of
Homosexuality, 8 (1), 41-46.

Orlofsky, J.L. 81: Windle, MT (1978). Sex-role orientation, behavioral
adaptability and personal adjustment. Sex Roles, 4 (6), 801-811.

Page, S. St Yee, M. (1985). Conception of male and female homosexual
stereotypes among university undergraduates. Journal of Homosexuality, 12
(1), 109-118.

Pehazur, E]. 8: Tetenbaum, TJ. (1979). Bem sex role inventory: A
theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37 (6), 996-1016.

Peters, D.K. & Cantrell, PJ. (1991). Factors distinguishing samples of
lesbian and heterosexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 21 (4), 1-15.

Phinney, ].S. 8: Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and
adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 5 (1), 31-53.

Pond, J.H. (1984). Psychological androgyny and adjustment: An
interpersonal conceptualization of the adaptive consequences of sex-role
orientation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 1984).

Prager, K]. 8: Bailey, ].M. (1985). Androgyny, ego development, and
psycvhosocial crisis resolution. Sex Roles, 13 (9-10), 525-536.

Pyke, SW. (1985). Androgyny: An integration. special issue: Sex roles
and sex differences and androgyny. International Journal of Women ’5
Studies, 8 (5), 529-539.

Safir, M.P., Peres, Y., Lichtenstein, M., Hoch, Z., 81: Shepher, J. (1982).
Psychological androgyny and sexual adequacy. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 8 (3), 228-240.

Schreurs, KM.G. (1993). Sexuality in lesbian couples: The importance
of gender. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 49—66.

75

Spence, ].T. & Hehnreich, KL. (1981). Androgyny versus gender
schema: A comment on Bem’s gender schema theory. Psychological Review,
88, (4), 365-368.

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, KL. 8: Stapp (1975). Ratings of self and peers
on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of
masculinity and feminity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,
(1), 29-39.

Stites, MC. (1983). Mental health services for gay students: Gay-
straight Rap. Journal of American College Health, 32 (2), 86-87.

Tidball, K. (1990). Application of coping strategies developed by older
deaf adults to the aging process. American Annals of the Deaf, 135 (1), 33-40.

Waterman, A.S. & Whitbourne, S.I(. (1982). Androgyny and
psychosocial development among college students and adults. Journal of
Personality, 50 (2), 121-133.

Wiggins, IS. 5: Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further evidence on androgyny
and interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Research on Personality, 15 (1), 67-80.

"illilllllllillllllllllli