L. ~.\.fl§\..fi\.w&.n.....t .. -....... Rxxv_fl§.......x.q¢..:::. 5,. [l‘ :51... .. . 3:3... 3 i #1.. , , . . IV.“ ‘.sH-Jv....n\ at 3...: i... u a... , . . :3. . m . . . rt.ji......4.. a Am... a . . . _ . . . ...... .......... .... h.../..”.waqve.wnm3afiq% . . r». .37. . . .. .v I «f.» t, . . .. at? ... 5..., .7”. 'u . .‘ '1‘: ,b‘wfi ‘:.41.Itl..o|. . 1.5(3 r .01... v ‘33....3. . .35.... {I ‘\ ,4 y’L'.‘ :- . 3. .. 53.15.35 I. . 1 .. .- II\’I5QH v: II I. ri.......\...u1%. fl..- . <.\.§ >1 5...- 59} 0.- ; 7 5?: . , \II D KAI.‘ Hull, .53... . .1. .. . . . , . . . . .r. us .. - I .. . . . $1.3..vrltzzta. 4-....- 4.. -1r.r..1.: 9. 6.... .‘a53! . $ :4 ,l,‘ ’4 II 1):... Di... .‘v k | «‘- . ,. .E'. I. l g. .1- ... . . .2? .z . VrVI...Ul’- :‘v« v... n 9.33... .3..- 51.... s...l.oefl...... ‘ivrh-r‘i v:- 2.2.21..- 2 1¥¥3I¥uenu£ r21)... .. .1. v u . . 2 .u... .2... NW: . or .14... . $U§I|d H .I 3“” . . Orv»... .51)....) an... ...) I". suvx‘luvla :)r.idv1 .{rtbl15:. I, ILYA 6.... unusr‘.:.ln; Innis-Dc .9. o‘IIIl.1r. ‘ . . .. .t. ...t»\lvu. - I;.3|£II\\III 1:7. ’0 a:|o.l)pru. :s\1v|. :9: -7 I!!! .51. . . .0. tr. nub-Ir I..... .Q). I.I.:Y In . 9.0!- . .vtt... Lllcn , .i 33.1-1.9: .|\\..! .1: z. a... I.- t . VI-|\.v.l..!.: .nh.l9ll . . tutti... 4lrI|-.v7/v.4. buIObAtL;t,.)' vipcvbl...rr.. 1-).)‘111 '.r~.ro.1.fnllkl.:. .5:.al«:.)rl:llc..bvl. ill‘ 4 . Ir... 34.1.71. .frkic‘.-..I:.I....L . .. .5. {fvg.tll)lu£.¥..rflla. . . . .. f.‘.l?..!\.l.ra .gémg TIME 31 S LIBRRA 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1121111111 31293 016914362 This is to certify that the thesis entitled RELATIONSHIP SELF STYLE, MASCULINITY, AND SELF-ESTEEM AS PREDICTORS OF DEPRESSION: RESULTS OF A PATH MODELING APPROACH presented by Diane K. Windischman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M . A . degree in P320110 1093/ a x WNW.” Major professor Date m / m/ M47 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE \ 1 4L fip"v‘ rAER .1 1' 380 I Jt9L3 8 3 2111055 1/95 CICIRC/DatoDuepss-p. 14 RELATIONSHIP SELF STYLE, MASCULINITY AND SELF-ESTEEM AS PREDICTORS OF DEPRESSION: RESULTS OF A PATH MODELING APPROACH BY Diane K. Windischman 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 RELATIONSHIP SELF STYLE, MASCULINITY AND SELF-ESTEEM AS PREDICTORS OF DEPRESSION: RESULTS OF A PATH MODELING APPROACH Diane K. Windischman Relationship self style (RSS) refers to the extent to which maintaining connection with other persons (Connected Self, CON; Primacy of Other Care, POC; Self and Other Care, SOC) or de—emphasizing relationship while focusing on one’s own achievements (Separate Self, SEP) is central to self— organization. Using path analysis, this study examined how RSS influenced the relationships among masculinity (Mas), self-esteem (SE), and depression (CES—D) in 195 women and 89 men. Mas predicted SEP in women and men; in women SEP predicted CES-D and mediated the Mas-SE relationship, which mediated a SEP—CES—D relationship. Mas predicted SOC in women and in men; in men SOC positively predicted SE, and through SE, CES-D. SOC did not predict SE in women, but did unexpectedly predict CES—D. Mas negatively predicted POC, significant in men only. SE mediated a POC—CES—D relationship in women and in men. CON positively predicted SE in men only. SE mediated the CON—CES-D relationship. Copyrighted by DIANE K. WINDISCHMAN 1997 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated with love and gratitude to my Mother, who has just turned a lively 80, and in loving memory of my Father. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing this thesis became a spiritual test after a time. A test of faith, of endurance, of humility, of friendship, of honor, of perseverance and of trust. Most of all, this process taught me to ask for help, and to gratefully accept whatever assistance people were willing to give, because it was not something I could ever have accomplished alone. And the help I needed continued to appear when I asked —— "Ask and you shall receive...." There are many people to thank; who kept the faith and cheered me on. Head cheerleader, Cris Cramer, supported.me in every way. Probably the hardest for her was putting up with papers all over the kitchen table for weeks on end. I do appreciate the tolerance, the encouragement, and the café lattes at the coffee shop. My committee chair and friend, Ellen Strommen, kept the faith when many a lesser soul would have wavered. Elaine Donelson, in the throes of her own creation, provided a role model of persistence and shared her wealth of knowledge about women. Ralph Lavine is the kindest person; he helped put the method in my madness —— a statistical whiz I am not. Becky Campbell and David Loveland taught me about Idsrel. Randy Fotio, from the Computer Center, saved.me more than once. Bret Fuller, a kindred. spirit and. new friend, helped. me to understand my results. I appreciated the comments and suggestions from the DIG group. Susie Pavick just knows everything, and has shared her knowledge often. My typist, Denise, was great; she could read my writing. My mom, Mary Cary Rudes, both encouraged me and offered financial help from time to time. Even more important is the emphasis she and my father gave to education; they valued it so much! Neither of their mothers were able to finish high school. Grandma Leutz’s mother died and Grandma had to care for her father; Grandma Rudes worked in the family general store. They continued to mourn the loss of their educations, and believed fervently in education for women when that was not the norm. So, here I am. I lost my father and two friends to cancer during this process. As someone for whom relationships are very important, I will miss sharing this accomplishment.with.them.IMy sister, DeIla.Meyer, listened.and cheered me on; my brothers Merrill and Terry, and my sister— in-law Kym made me laugh. I would also like to thank my spiritual family; Marty, Barb, Nancy, Jane, Joyce, Carmen, Jean, Carol and Mary for prayers, encouragement, listening to me complain, and.helping me to keep the end in View. I thank Michigan State University Counseling Center staff for' their' patience and. support, especially my Sexual Assault Program staff. vi Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge my children; Woody, Robin, Erik, Jenny, Judith, Danny, Geoff, Lana, Seaver, Sarah, and most recently, Derik, for all the time that I didn’t spend with them while I worked on my education, and for their pride in Mom or Grandma. I love you all. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables Introduction Relationship Self Style Conceptualizing Masculinity and Femininity Androgeny, Masculinity, and Adjustment Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masculinity, Femininity, and Depression Relationship Self Style, Self-Esteem, M—F, and Depression . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses Methods Subjects Instruments Relationship Self Inventory Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale . Rosenberg Self— Esteem Inventory Masculine Attributes Scale of the Gough—Heilbrun Adjective Checklist Other Instruments . . . . . . Procedure Analyses Results Descriptive Statistics Relationships Among Relationship Self Styles and Other Variables . . . . . . . . . Path Analyses Model Fit . Results Common to all Relationship Self Styles Results Specific to Each Relationship Self Style viii 21 21 21 24 25 26 28 28 29 31 31 32 34 35 36 41 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Findings Common to all Relationship Self Styles . . 43 Findings Specific to Each Relationship Self Style . 45 Further Discussion, Limitations of Research and Future Directions for Research . . . . . . . . 48 Appendices Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 76 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Path Model 2. Path Models Containing the Variable Connected Self 3. Path Models Containing the Variable Self and Other Care (SOC) 4. Path Models Containing the Variable Primacy of Other Care (POC) 5. Path Models Containing the Variable Separate Self (SEP) 38 39 4O LI ST OF TABLES Table 1. Revised Relationship Self Inventory Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha) 2. Revised Relationship Self Inventory Scale Intercorrelations for Women and Men 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Observed Variables 4. Intercorrelations Among the Observed Variables for the Total Sample 5. Intercorrelations Among the Observed Variables for Women and Men 6. Four Estimates of Goodness of Fit cl: Item-Scale Total Correlations and Scale Reliabilities of the Revised Relationship Self Inventory c2: Intercorrelations Among the Observed Variables for Women and Men, Corrected for Attenueation xi 24 31 32 33 36 67 75 INTRODUCTION The aim of this research is to examine relationship self style, masculinity, and self—esteem as predictors of depression. Depressbma is a common, well documented problem, with women affected almost twice as often as men. Masculinity (or instrumentality) has appeared to offer some protection from depression, and that protective function has been attributed to self—esteem. The relationship ibetween. masculinity' and depression.weakens or disappears when the level of self-esteem is taken into account (Feather, 1985; Tennon and Herzberger, 1987; Whitley, 1984). Relationship self style is a mode of being in relationship‘with.others; this will be described.in subsequent sections of this chapter. Aspects of relationship self style, particularly the separate self style and the primacy of other care style, are correlated with masculinity (Donelson, Strommen, Frasetto and Reinhart, 1990). Aspects of relationship self style are also correlated with depression and with self—esteem (Pearson, Reinhart, Donelson, Strommen, Barnes, Blank, Cebollero, Cornwell, and Kamptner, 1985), with patterns differing for women and for men. However, there has 2 been no previous examination of whether or how relationship self style affects the connection between masculinity, self- esteem, and depression. The following sections of this chapter will expand these statements about relationship self style, depression, and masculinity. Relationship Self Style "Relationship self" is a termehich refers to the mode of being in relation to others which is characteristic of a healthy person’s self—organization (Pearson, et a1., 1985). Drawing upon Gilligan (1982), one can differentiate between two styles of relationship self, which provide a foundation for patterns of interaction.with others. They are the separate self, based.uponmwhat(Gilligan.(1982) calls the justice voice, and the connected self, based on what Gilligan calls the care voice. The separate self, or justice voice, is centered upon individual achievement and emphasizes separation from others. Moral judgments are based on consideration of individual rights, equality and fairness. One with this orientation may be especially' vulnerable to .isolation. and. to 'threats of enmeshment with others. This style is thought to be more characteristic of men. Gilligan suggests that the justice voice is familiar to us from theories such as those of Kohlberg, Piaget and Erikson, but that there is no similar theoretical representation of the care voice. 3 The connected self, or care voice, is centered upon relationships and emphasizes attachment and connection with others. Moral judgments are based. upon issues of care, nurture, equity and compassion. People with this orientation are vulnerable to threats of abandonment and tx>lme coming enmeshed. with. others. This style is thought. to be :more characteristic of women. The connected self draws not only on Gilligan (1982), but also on the similar notions of self—in—relationq a theoretical concept from J. B. Miller, Jordan, Surrey, Kaplan, Stiver and others at Stone Center, Wellesley College. These theorists also note the absence of self—in—relation and the emphasis on separation in prevalent psychodynamic theories and clinical orientations. Gilligan and Miller and her colleagues agree that care voice/self—in—relation are more characteristic of women. Gilligan, however, is careful to point out that both men and women use both voices, and that the particular voice used depends upon context, as well as one’s sex. The connected style may be further subdivided into two styles of relating to self and others, similar to and based upon, Gilligan's (1982) levels of care voice. Primacy of other care describes a less mature form.of self-in—relation.in which the needs of others are primary. This style closely matches the cultural prescription for women. Self and other care describes a more mature form of care orientation in which one considers one's own needs, as well as those of others. While 4 the Stone Center group did not specifically label these two orientations, they did.discuss in.a.number of their papers the importance of valuing self, and the risks and vulnerabilities of women where orientation is primarily towards others (Pearson, et a1., 1985). Pearson et a1. (1985) explored the relationship of relationship self style in women and men to variables including depression. (measured. with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)), and self esteem (measured with the Rosenberg Self—Esteem Inventory). These measures were intended to access the psychological health of subjects endorsing the various self styles. A second study (Donelson, et a1., 1990), compared the relationship self style to related.concepts such as sex roles, measured by the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the Spence and Helmreich’s Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Interesting relationships were demonstrated with relationship self style, depression.and self—esteem on the one hand, and relationship self style and gender roles on the other. However, when comparing results of the two studies and thinking about what might be expected.based on studies of sex, depression, and self—esteem in the literature, there appeared to be some anomalies. This observation piqued.my interest and served as the spur to the present study. For example, one finding of interest in the first study is that for women there are positive correlations between 5 Primacy of Other Care (POC) and depression (r=.l9, p=.01), and negative correlators between Primacy of Other Care and self— esteem (r=—.12, p=.05). Women.who put others’ needs first tend to be depressed and have low self—esteem. For men, Primacy of Other Care (POC) was not significantly related to depression or self esteem (Pearson, et a1., 1985). Women’s scores on Separate Self also showed a positive correlation with depression (r=.16, p<.01) and a negative correlation with self—esteem (r=—.18, p<.Ol). Men’s scores in Separate Self were not significantly correlated with depression or with self—esteem. When women experienced themselves as more separate, they appeared to experience lowered self—esteem and more depression, while men did not seem to be negatively affected by a separate self style. In the sex role study, Donelson, et al. found that in women there:is a positive correlation.between Primacy of Other Care and femininity (r=.22, p<.01),eux1a.negative correlation between Primacy of Other Care and masculinity (r=.23, p<.Ol) on the Bem Sex Role Inventory. If masculinity is hypothesized to protect against depression through self—esteem (Feather, 1985; Tennon, et a1., 1987; Whitley, 1984), it would make theoretical sense that women whose scores positively correlate with Primacy of Other Care (POC) and.negatively correlate with masculinity might have scores that associate positively with depression and.negatively with self—esteem” as was the case in the Pearson, et a1., study. 6 In contract, Separate Self Style scores in women correlated positively with masculinity (r=.29, p<.01) on the BEM; yet in the Pearson, et a1. study, Separate Self style was associated positively with depression and negatively with self—esteem. One might wonder, in the case of Separate Objective Self style in women, if masculinity is failing to protect against depression, and why. This is one question that the present research addresses. Conceptualizing Masculinity and Femininity Ann Constantinople (1973), wrote a critique of then current conceptions of masculinity (M) and Femininity (F) which challenged a.rnnflxa: of widely prevalent assumptions: that F and M‘were "whatever distinguishes males from females," that physical and psycho—social makeups are equivalent, that following gender stereotypes is normal while any deviation from them is not. Another assumption was that M and F are opposites, with F falling at one end of a bipolar scale and M at the other. In this view, as one is more F, one is less M, or vice versa. Some M—F tests, created within this tradition, were developed by choosing items that men and women answered differently in describing themselves (Donelson, 1996); used only men as subjects, assuming any statement that they did.not endorse :must. be feminine, or, even. more extreme in its implicit assumption, the M—F scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway and McKinley, 7 1943) was developed on 13 gay men, assuming gay men were feminine. Constantinople’s (1973) critique influenced psychologists’ thinking about M-F in a number of ways. Femininity and masculinity are no longer inherently assumed linked to biological sex, nor are they considered polar opposites. Two improved instruments for M—F measurements, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1974), and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974), showed three features that distinguished them from earlier instruments (Donelson, 1996) .Both measure F and M on separate, unipolar dimensions, low to high, so that M and F are not opposites. One can be high or low on either, or both. Both also use a social rather than a biological criterion of M-F, and both were developed to have the two scales be equally desirable so that feminine people don’t have to say more negative things about themselves than masculine people do. Since this research concerns the Mas scale and not the FEM scale, FEM is not discussed. Spence, Helmreich and Stapp (1975) suggested a four—fold classification of M—F scores, which is possible with the unipolar measurement of M and F as separate dimensions. People are categorized as above or below the median in M or F. A sex— typed person is one who scores above the median at the dimension corresponding to biological sex and below the median on the other. A cross—sex typed person shows the opposite 8 pattern, scoring low on the dimension corresponding to biological sex and.high on the dimension for the sex.not one’s own” A.person.who scores high.oniboth.dimensions is considered androgynous, one who scores low on both dimensions is undifferentiated. While this classification scheme has been criticized for loss of information and lack of reliability (Blanchard—Fields, Suhrer-Roussel and Hertzog, 1994; Cohen and Cohen, 1975; Pedhazur and Tetenbaum, 1979; Spence, 1984, it has nonetheless been productive in research. For example, one frequent finding is that both women and men in a given category behave similarly to each other in ways that differentiate them from people in all subjects. Participants rated.tflma self- descriptive value of items on a five—point scale: 1:"Not like me at all," to 5="Very much like me." Scale alphas are satisfactory for all scales (see Table 1). 23 Table 1 Revised Relationship Self Inventory Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha) Separate/ Connected/ Objective Relational Primacy of Self and Self Self Other Care Other Care Women .77 .76 .68 .78 (N=930) Men .85 .76 .67 .77 (N=228) The scale intercorrelations (see Table In show relationships between scales which. fit. with theory. The inventory is appropriate for use with men as well as women. However, the theorizing on which the RSI is based has been drawn primarily from women’s development. Thus, patterns of inter—connection. between. Relationship Self and. other psychological phenomena have been articulated for women more than for men. 24 Table 2 Revised Relationship Self Inventory Scale Intercorrelations for Women and Men (From Original Study) Separate/ Relational/ Objective Connected Primacy of Self and Self Self Other Care Other Care Separate/ ---- -.23 .09 .40 Objective Self Relational/ —.33 --—— .56 .52 Connected Self Primacy of -.01 .73 —-—- .10 Other Care Self and .26 .58 .19 -—-- Other Care Chosen Freely Note. a = 1145 Intercorrelations for women above the diagonal; Intercorrelations for men below the diagonal Corrected for attenuation Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies IDepression. Scale (CES-D; IRadloff, 1977). This scale was chosen because it is more oriented toward assessment of nonclinical depression than other widely used.depression scales. The CES—D (Radloff, 1977) is a 20—item self—report scale designed to measure a wide range of depressive symptomatology in the general population, not in a clinical sample. Respondents are asked to indicate how often within the past week they have experienced the items as applicable to themselves, using a 4-point rating scale of frequency per week, where 1=Rarely or None of the Time (less than one day), 2=Some or a Little of the Time (1-2 days), 25 3=Occasionally or a Moderate Amount of Time (3—4 days), and 4=Most or All of the Time (5—7 days). Radloff (1977) reports high internal consistency (.85) and adequate test—retest reliability (.54). Validity was established.by patterns of correlations with other self—report measures, by correlations with clinical ratings of depression, and by relationships with other variables which support its construct validity (significant life events, perceived need for treatment, improvement after treatment). Reliability, validity and factor structure were similar across a ndde variety of demographic characteristics in the general population samples tested. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory The Rosenberg Self—Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self—esteem. This is a 10—item self—report scale which asks respondents to strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with items reflecting positive or negative attitudes toward the self. Rosenberg (1965) reports test—retest reliability of .92 and internal consistency of .72. The scale has been shown to be empirically related to depressive affect, anxiety, and peer—group reputation (Rosenberg, 1979). Convergent validity has been shown with measures of the same concept based on different methods: Kelly Repertory Test (a self—ideal discrepancy test), a self—image 26 questionnaire, and psychiatrist’ s ratings (Silber and Tippett, 1965). Masculine Attributes Scale of the Gough-Heilbrun Adjective Checklist The Gough—Heilbrun Adjective Checklist (ACL) (Gough and Heilbrun, 1971), consists of 300 adjectives which can be scored for a number of personality variables. The original scales of interest were nurturance, autonomy; expectation, and achievement. However, the scale of interest for this research is aa more recently developed scale, measuring masculinity (Heilbrun, 1976). The Masculine Attributes Scale (Mas), a subscale of the ACL, (Heilbrun, 1976), selected items which discriminated between college males who identified with masculine fathers and women who identified with feminine mothers. MAS contains 22 items scored +1 for endorsement. This scale is intended to serve three functions of measurement: (1) to distinguish between male and female respondents, (2) to place individuals along a continuunton.which.higher scorers will be described as more:masculine:by observers or acquaintances and.lower scorers as less masculine and, (3) to differentiate between individuals having modal vs. non—modal sexual preferences (Gough and Heilbrun, 1980). Items on the Mas are not all socially desirable. Robert Wilson.and.Ellen.Piel Cook (1984) examined.concurrent validity of the ACL, Mas and FEM scales (Heilbrun, 1976), PAQ (Spence, 27 et al. 1974), BSRI (BEM, 1974), and the ANDRO scale (Berzins, et a1., 1978), through the use of correlational and factor analytic techniques. One factor, instrumentality, attracted masculinity' scale factors (Parsons, 1976) from. all four instruments and appeared to define the common items of the masculinity scales. Salient first order factors included a dominance—leadership factor which included six items from the ACL-Mas. The .ACL—mas also had four items in a "gender identified" factor (masculine, handsome, tough, strong), as well as two items in "perseverance," two items in "friendly self-confidence," six items in "uncaring narcissism," and six items in an "ingenuity" factor. Since scores are correlated with total number of adjectives checked, separate norms for the masculinity (and femininity) scales were developed by quartiIe of behaviors checked. Standard scores in which the effect of numbers checked is removed must be used in studies of the diagnostic and predictive implications of the scale (Gough, 1983). The necessary adjustments were made to our data using the conversion table provided in the ACL manual. The scale contains 22 items, all scored +1 for endorsement (see Appendix B for a complete list of Mas items). Examples are assertive, enterprising, and masculine. The normative sample of 5,238 males had a raw score mean of 8.62 on Mas, SD=4.41. The 4,164 females had a mean of 6.71, SD=3.90. The difference of 1.91 in favor males was highly 28 significant (f=21.94, p<.001). The point-biserial correlation for the differences was .22 (Gough, 1983). Other Instruments Other instruments administered, not relevant to this study, included selected scales from the EASI—III Temperament Survey (Buss and Plomin, 1975); Reinhart’s Agency and Communion Scales (Reinhart, 1985); and two subscales of the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI; Hirschfeld, Kierman, Gough, Barrett, Korchin, and Chodoff, 1977). For analysis of these instruments, see Pearson, et a1., 1985. Procedure Subjects completed packets containing the RSI, all of the measures previously described, and a survey requesting demographic information” TheeRSI was always administered.first to avoid effects of test order on responses to the RSI. The remaining instruments were divided into four sets which were arranged in four different orders chosen so that each set appeared in first, second, third, and fourth testing orders. Approximately equal numbers of packets in each order were distributed at each test session. The packets took about an hour to complete. Undergraduate students were recruited from courses in Introductory and Developmental Psychology for participation in group testing sessions. The adult women from the on—campus 29 enrichment program were recruited through distribution of the materials to interested persons as they went to lunch, for completion at their convenience. Large boxes were placed in convenient locations for returning packets; participants could also mail in their packets at a later date. About 1,000 packets were originally'distributed; of these, about half were returned complete. RSI’s were included in the scale development analysis. However, not everyone who filled out an RSI also completed the remaining materials. The numbers of participants for whom scores on both RSI and other scales are available is 289; 195 women (including both students and adults), and 89 men (all students). This research was approved by UCRIHS in March, 1985. Analyses Descriptive statistics for the sample were calculated providing frequencies, means and standard deviations. A correlational matrix was completed to explore hypotheses regarding expected patterns oficorrelations for the relational perspectives of CON, POC, SOC and SEP, with the variables of masculinity, self—esteem and depression. A series of path analysis were executed to explore the hypotheses regarding the association of the variable masculinity with the variables relationship self styles (CON, SOC, POC AND SEP), self—esteem and depression. See Figure 1. 30 /)| Self-esteem e A Masculinity CESD \\\\\\\\$ RSI Scales Figure l - Path Model Separate path models will be executed for the total sample, females, and males combined with each of the relationship self styles, 12 models in all. RESULTS The sample selected for this research consisted of those participants who completed all relevant measures. The resulting sample consisted of 195 women whose mean age was 29.76, with a standard deviation of 15.59; and 89 men whose mean age was 23.64, with a standard deviation of 10.90. Table 3 presents the means and standard.deviations for the resulting sample for the variables Connected Self (CON), Primacy of Other Care (POC), Self and Other Care (SOC), Separate Self (SEP), depression, self-esteem and masculinity, listed by total sample, women and men separately. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the Observed Variables Women Men Total Variable M SD M SD M SD Connected Self 4.05 .56 4.00 .45 4.03 .51 Primacy of Other Care 3.25 .53 3.25 .44 3.25 .50 Self and Other Care 3.86 .50 3.91 .46 3.88 .49 Separate Self 2.60 .51 2.75 .59 2.64 .54 Depression 1.66 .54 1.80 .52 1.70 .54 Self Esteem 3.25 .53 3.24 .52 3.24 .52 Masculinity 13.26 5.12 13.67 5.06 13.39 5.10 Note. Total p,= 284; p_for women = 195; g_for men = 89 31 32 Relationships Among Relationship Self Styles and Other Variables Pearson correlations were computed to explore intercorrelations among all variables. Correlations for the total sample are presented in Table 4, and for women and men in Table 5, with correlations for women presented above the diagonal and correlations for men presented below the diagonal. Correlations for‘ women and :men, corrected for attenuation, appear in Appendix C. Table 4 Intercorrelations Among the Observed Variables for the Total Sample V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V1.Connected 1.00 .47** .39** —.22** -.05 .08 .05 Self V2.Primacy 1.00 .09 .06 .20** -.23** —.12* of Other Care V3.Self and 1.00 .26** —.01 .14** .22** Other Care V4.Separate 1.00 .18** -.09 .30** Self V5.Depression 1.00 -.50** -.09 V6.Self Esteem 1.00 .24** V7.Masculinity 1.00 Note. Q,= 284 ** Correlation is significant at the p<.01 level (1—tailed) * Correlation is significant at the p<.05 level (1—tailed) 33 Table 5 Intercorrelations Among the Observed.Variables for Women and Men V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V1.Connected .51** .36** —.20** —.01 .05 -.06 Self V2.Primacy .33** .07 .08 .17“r —.21** -.10 of Other Care V3.Self and .47** .14 .25** .08 .08 .21** Other Care V4.Separate Self —.29** .02 .27** .15* —.08 .32** V5.Depression -.15 .26** —.25** .18* —.43** -.O9 V6.Se1f Esteem .19* -.29** .30** -.10 - 65** .26** V7.Masculinity .00 -.18* .25** .27** -.10 .20* Note. For Women (N=195, above the diagonal), for Men (N=89, below the diagonal ** Correlation is significant at the p<.01 level (l—tailed) * Correlation is significant at the p<.05 level (l-tailed) As anticipated” inrwomen, CON showed.significant positive correlations with POC and SOC, and a significant negative correlation with SEP. SOC also showed a significant positive correlation with SEP. Masculinity showed expected significant positive correlations with SOC, SEP, and Self Esteem. Self Esteem, in turn, showed expected significant negative correlations with POC and depression. Depression showed significant positive correlations with POC and SEP, as expected. In men, CON showed the same pattern of significant positive correlations with POC, SOC, and negative correlations with SEP. In addition, in men CON showed an anticipated significant positive correlation with self-esteem. As expected, masculinity showed significant negative correlation with POC in men, and significant positive correlations with 34 SOC and SEP and with self—esteem, although the correlation with self—esteem was weaker than the corresponding correlation in women. Self-esteem also showed strong negative correlations with POC and Depression. Depression showed significant positive correlations with POC and SEP, and a strong negative correlation with SOC. This was expected, but different from women, in whom SOC does not correlate significantly with depression. Path Analyses In order to answer the questions in the research hypotheses, a path analysis with manifest variables was used. For the sake of parsimony, and to avoid multicolinearity, each of the RSI variables was entered in a separate path model. All path models are shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. Each of the four models, one for each RSI scale, was analyzed separately for the total group, women and menu Models for Connected Self (CON), Self and Other Care (SOC), Primacy of Other Care (POC), and Separate Self (SEP) are designated.as Models 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Models for total group, women and men separately, are designated as a, b, and c, respectively under each Relationship Self Style. For example, Model 2a is Connected Self (CON), total sample. 35 Model Fit AMOS (James L. Arbuckle, 1996) was used to conduct the path analysis. Four estimates of goodness of fit are reported in Table 6, including the Chi—Square Estimate, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), and the Normed Fix Index (NFI). Model Fit was excellent in each case. However, in the first run of Model 1a, b, and c, the from Mas to CON was not significant. That path was dropped.path to allow CON to become an exogenous variable, allowing for two separate paths to SE in this model. 36 Table 6 Four Estimates of Goodness of Fit FI AGFI NFI Model 1 — Connected Self Style (CON) a. z? (2, 2.: 284) = .97, p< .62 1.00 .99 .99 kn g? (2, p.= 195) = .86, p< .65 1.00 .99 .98 c. £5 (2, n = 89) = .17, p< .92 1.00 .99 1.00 Model 2 — Self and Other Care (SOC) a. g? (1, n = 284) = .176, p< .67 1.00 1.00 1.00 kn g? (1, Q = 1905) = 0.0, p< .99 1 00 1.00 1.00 c. g? (1, Q = 89) = .332, p< .56 1.00 .98 1.00 Model 3 — Primacy of Other Care (POC) an 55 (1, g = 284) = .564, p< .45 1.00 .99 .99 IL a? (1, g = 195) = .159, p< .69 1.00 1.00 .99 c. g? (1, g = 89) = .320, p< .57 1.00 .98 .99 Model 4 — Separate Self (SEP) a” 35 (1, g = 184) = .06, p< .80 1.00 1.00 1.00 h» g5 (1, g = 195) = .12, p< .73 1.00 .98 1.00 c. g? (1, g_= 89) = .00, p< 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Note. Estimates include: 1. Chi Squared.Goodness of Fit Test (X5) 2. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), 3. Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, and 4. Normed Fit Index (NFI) Results Common to All Relationship Self Styles Results that apply to all Relationship Self Styles will be discussed first, followed.by discussion of each.Model (1-4) that represents a particular style. Path models for CON, POC, SOC and SEP, with significant paths (CR>1.69) denoted by an asterisk, are illustrated in Figures 2—5, respectively. 37 .25' - 56"=’ m m 2.. - 01 C011. .27' m 2b. COD. .20‘ mas 2C. Figure 2: Path Models Containing the Variable Connected Self (CON) mete; Significant paths noted by asterisk. Total Sample Female Sample Male Sample 38 .22' se -.50' e2 cemi 3a. Total Sample .22’ .06 3b. Female Sample 3c. Male Sample Figure 3: Path Models Containing the Variable Self and Other Care (SOC) Note. Significant paths noted by asterisk. 39 4a. Total Sample .25' mas 4b. Female Sample 4c. Male Sample Figure 4: Path Models Containing the Variable Primacy of Other Care (POC) Ngte+ Significant paths noted by asterisk. 4O 5a. Total Sample 5b. Female Sample 5c. Male Sample Figure 5: Path Models Containing the Variable Separate Self (SEP) Ngte. Significant paths noted by asterisk. 41 All hypotheses 3pertaining 13) all. relationships were supported. As predicted, the direct path between masculinity and depression in women or in men was not significant. Masculinity did not directly contribute to depression. The path from Masculinity (Mas) to Self-esteem (SE) was positive and significant, aSjpredictedq in all Relationship Self Styles for women, and in CON and SEP for men; and positive but not significant in POC and SOC for men. The path from SE to Depression.(CES—In was negative and significant in every case, with B’s for women smaller than for men in each case. Beta weights for women ranged from Q = —.41 to —.44, and for men, fl = —.63 to -.65. This finding was stable, occurring in all Relationship Self Styles and was as predicted. Results Specific to Each Relationship Self Style All hypotheses pert ining to CON were also supported. As predicted, Mas did not dontribute to Connected Self (CON), (see Figure 2) so, as previously mentioned, the path from.Mas to CON in Model 1 was deleted. CON contributed positively to SE in men, but not in women, as predicted. The first three hypotheses pertaining to SOC were supported. The fourth was not. The path from Mas to Self and Other Care (SOC) was positive and significant in both women and men, as predicted. Also, as predicted, the path from SOC to SE was significant and.positive for men, but not for women. However, the path from SOC to CES—D in women was positive and 42 significant. This was not expected; nonsignificant paths in both women and men were predicted. The path from SOC to CES—D in men was not significant. All hypotheses pertaining to POC were supported” The path from Mas to Primacy of Other Care was negative in.both.men and women, but only significant in men, as predicted. The path from POC to SE was negative and significant in both women and men, as predicted. The path from POC to CES—D is not significant in men or women, as predicted. It appears that the significant POC—CES—D correlations reported in Table 4 are attributable to the negative relationship of POC with Mas and its corresponding reduction in self—esteem. All predictions pertaining to SEP were also supported. The path from Mas to Separate Self is positive and significant, and the path from SEP to SE is negative and significant, as predicted” In women, the path from.SEP to CES- D is positive and significant, as predicted; in men, this path does not reach significance, also as predicted. In summary, all hypotheses were supported except for the unanticipated significant path from SOC to CES—D in women. DISCUSSION This research is an effort to examine ways in which the variables masculinity, relationship self style, and self— esteem impact depression. A further interest is to explore ways in which the paths to depression differ for men and women. Overall, the hypotheses of the study were well supported” I‘will first discuss those hypotheses pertaining to all relationship self styles, then examine hypotheses related to each style individually. Findings Common to All Relationship Self Styles The hypothesis that there 'was no direct link from masculinity to depression was upheld. As other researchers (Feather, Feather and Stoppard, 1985) have observed, and I also hypothesized, masculinity contributed to depression through self—esteem, and it did so in both men and women. The hypothesized positive path from masculinity to self—esteem, especially in women, may explain why masculinity appears to protect against depression. In women, the positive path from masculinity to self—esteem was significant in each model. Masculinity appears to be an important element of womens’ self—esteem in all relationship self styles. This may add 43 44 support for the masculinity model of adjustment in this culture. For men, the path from masculinity to self-esteem was positive, and significant in.the:models for Connected.Self and Separate Self, but accounted for less of the variance in Self and Other Care (SOC) and Primacy’ of Other Care (POC). Masculinity is an important predictor of self-esteem for men, but an orientation in which other care plays a role may be equally or more important depending upon the orientation in question. SOC and POC, connected styles in which the needs of others are explicitly factored in, contribute more to self- esteem in men than does masculinity in these instances. This is not the case for women; CON and SOC do not contribute to womens’ self—esteem. Perhaps a connected style is socially taken for granted in women. Might this then contribute to strong socialization for these attributes, thus reducing the variance? For men, on the other hand” a connected style in conjunction with masculinity may contribute positively' or negatively' to 'valuing or esteem. of self, depending on the particular relationship self style. As CON or SOC increases, a man may do well in many arenas. As POC increases, in contrast, self—esteem suffers in men and.women, but more so in men. While caring for others can be a healthy style, if one does not also take into account one’s own.needs, lower self—esteem and depression may be the outcome in both women and men. 45 The path from self—esteem (SE) to depression (CES—D) is negative and significant for both men and women in all relationship self styles. While self—esteem is an important predictor of depression in men and women” it is more important for ‘predicting depression for men than for women. This difference is stable across all relationship self styles. Why is this so? It does not seem tornatter what "goes in" to self—esteem, self—esteem seems to impact depression more in men than in women. More of male identity'may be tied.up in self—concept or self—efficacy, so that men are more vulnerable to changes in self—esteem. Or perhaps changes in womens’ self—esteem do not as readily lead to depression; more of womens’ depression may be determined by external events, or coping styles such as rumination. This would seem to be an area where additional research could help to explain this finding. Findings Specific to Each Relationship Self Style Hypotheses for CON were supported. Mas was unrelated to CON in men or in women. CON did not contribute directly to self—esteem or to depression in women. As mentioned, a CON style in men does make a significant positive contribution to self—esteem, and through self—esteem, to depression. In the CON style, SE mediates both the masculinity—depression relationship and the CON—depression relationship in men. 46 Predictions concerning SOC were upheld, with one exception. Masculinity does indeed contribute to a SOC orientation, as predicted, in both men and women. In order to actively care for oneself, one could draw upon characteristic Mas attributes (from the ACL), such as confidence, assertiveness, self-confidence; perhaps cleverness, frankness, steadiness, and strength. In men, SOC contributes significantly to the variance in self-esteem, but does not contribute directly to depression” For women, SOC leads not to self-esteemq but to depression.directly and positively; It may be that for women, the potential disruption in relationships brought about.by choosing oneself and.one’s own care, possibly at the expense of cmher important relationships, leads to depression. It may be a choice between losing aspects of oneself to sustain a relationship or risk the relationship to assert one’s own.needs; a double bind which.may'be depressing. Or it may be the "other" care that leads to depression, either by'creatirmr conflict in relationships or complicated feelings (such.as guilt) about caring for oneself. Whatever the reason, self—esteem is not the issue here. It is the direct path from SOC to depression in women that was not predicted. In a sample of college-age men, it may also be the case that SOC pertains to family of origin, with sustained connections and good relationship leading to self—esteem, while college women may be asserting themselves and renegotiating the relationships 47 with family of origin; the disruption could lead to depression. Predictions pertaining to Primacy of Other Care (POC) were supported. Masculinity contributes, or rather, lack of masculinity, contributes to POC significantly for men. The path from. Mas to POC in women was negative, but not significant. The higher one is in POC, the less masculine they are likely to be. Men and women who endorse POC would be unlikely to consider themselves confident, frank, egocentric, or forceful (see complete list of 22 adjectives in Mas scale in Appendix B). The path from POC to self-esteem is negative and significant for both women and men. Self—esteem mediates the POC—depression relationship. The path from POC to depression is not significant in men or in women. POC in men contributes more to the variance in self-esteem than does masculinity. This is not the case for women. A style in which one cares for others even at one’s own expense predicts lower self-esteem, thus more depression. POC may be particularly difficult for men, whom society expects to be more separate; indeed, for him separation is a mark of mental health. As a man increases in POC, which is the societal stereotype for women, he could be subject to derision from others. It may be especially hard for men who are considered Sissies. Such stigmatization could. lead. to self—criticism, a sense of inadequacy as a man, and thus depression. For women, in contrast, SE mediates the Mas—CES—D relationship. The more 48 masculine, the lower the POC scores and the higher the SE scores. Thus, for both men and.women, the negative zero—order correlation of POC and CES-D is mediated, but by different routes. As predicted, Mas made a significant contribution to a Separate Self Style (SEP). In fact, Mas contributed more to the variance in SEP than in any other self style. As predicted, SEP contributed to lower self—esteem in women and men, but the path to SE from SEP was not significant for men, for whom SEP is socially accepted. The direct path from SEP to depression is also significant for women, as hypothesized. In the case of SEP, there are three routes to depression for women; through self—esteem, through SEP to self—esteem, and through SEP to CES—D. It seems possible that for women, to whom society assigns a cxmmmnal function, a separate self style leads to loneliness, to a sense of alienation, and a sense of inadequacy as a woman. Further Discussion, Limitations of Research and Future Directions for Research For women and men, masculinity predicts positive self— esteem, unless masculinity leads to a separate self. Then it leads to lower self—esteem and to depression, especially in women,whom society expects to have a connected self style. It seems likely that, with a larger sample of men, the paths from SEP to SE and CES—D would also be significant. While a connected style seems more salient for men than women in 48 masculine, the lower the POC scores and the higher the SE scores. Thus, for both men and women, the negative zero-order correlation of POC and CES—D is mediated, but by different routes. As predicted, Mas made a significant contribution to a Separate Self Style (SEP). In fact, Mas contributed more to the variance in SEP than in any other self style. As predicted, SEP contributed to lower self-esteem in women and men, but the path to SE from SEP was not significant for men, for whom SEP is socially accepted. The direct path from SEP to depression is also significant for women, as hypothesized. In the case of SEP, there are three routes to depression for women; through self—esteem, through SEP to self-esteem, and through SEP to CES—D. It seems possible that for women, to whom society assigns a cxmmmnal function, a separate self style leads to loneliness, to a sense of alienation, and a sense of inadequacy as a woman. Further Discussion, Limitations of Research and Future Directions for Research For women and men, masculinity predicts positive self— esteem, unless masculinity leads to a separate self. Then it leads to lower self-esteem and to depression, especially in women,whom society expects to have a connected self style. It seems likely that, with a larger sample of men, the paths from SEP to SE and CES—D would also be significant. While a connected style seems more salient for men than women in 49 predicting SE and CES-D, a SEP style seems more salient in women. Important sex differences appear in.hOW'important SE is in predicting depression, in how SOC and CON relates to SE, and.in.how SOC relates to depression. Self—esteem mediates the Mas-CES—D relationship, and in most cases SE also mediates the self style—CES—D relationship. Exceptions include the SOC-SE and CON-SE relationships in women. Relationship self style also mediates the Mas—depression relationship in SOC and SEP in women. Overall, in most cases, the road to depression is primarily through self—esteem. Self—esteem clearly predicts depression, with masculinity acting through self—esteem. in :men and. women. to predict depression” Masculinity acts through.SEP and.POC, then through self—esteem in women to predict depression; and through SOC and POC, then through self—esteem in men. SEP and SOC contribute directly to depression in women, and masculinity also interrelates to depression in women through SEP and SOC. A limitation of this research is the use of the ACL—Mas scale to measure masculinity. One criticism of masculinity scales which very likely applies to the IKE; is that they represent multiple factors, so that one cannot be sure to what to attribute significant effects. While this research focused.on the role of masculinity in predicting depression, it would be interesting to see what femininity would contribute to this model. Research that focused.upon the difference»demonstrated between the influence 50 of self—esteem upon depression in women and men could help to explain this finding. Another direction for further exploration would be to include mfinorities in the sample, or (k) a cross—cultural comparison. It might also be interesting to see if changes have occurred in the college population in the ten years since the data for this study was collected. APPENDIX A RESEARCH CONSENT FORM APPENDIX A June 1985 Dear College Week Participant: During College Week 1984, a research project took place that asked many of the participants how relationships were a part of their identity. The results were very clear. Last year’s College Week women were consistently a "caring" group, who highly valued being interconnected with.others. We found.these results so important that Jane Pearson is currently teaching a course for this year’s College Week that describes, discusses and expands upon our research. It is titled, "Women’s Development: The Importance of Empathy, Care and Relationships." We also presented the results of the research at a psychology conference, and have found a high level of interest in this topic from other social scientists. We are continuing this line of study, and hope that you will decide to participate. This year, we are asking that all College Week participants take an hour or so to sit down and complete the enclosed questionnaire packet. Please note that your'participation.iSjpurely'voluntaryu If you participated in last year’s study and are interested in participating this year, we would greatly appreciate your input again. You’ll notice that your answers are confidential——do not put your name or other identifying information on the questionnaire itself. While we hope that you will complete the entire packet, you are free to stop at any point if you choose to do so. After you have completed the packet, return it, and the pencil, in the envelope to your main dorm desk, where there will be a box labeled "Relationship Identity Project," and simply leave it in the box. If you choose to complete only part of the packet, or none at all, please return your packet in the envelope as well. If you would like to receive a brief summary of this year’s project outcomes, please fill out your name and address on the last page of the packet, and return it to the same box separate from your envelope containing your packet. To be sure that you understand your rights as a research participant, read through the following statements: I freely consent to take part in the study of relationship identity being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ellen Strommen, Professor, Department of Psychology; Michigan State 51 52 University. I understand that the study deals with relationships in people’s lives; I have been given a clear explanation of my part in this work, which is to complete a questionnaire. I understand that.I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidentiality and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, group results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. I understand that my compliance in completing the questionnaire constitutes my informed consent for participation in the study. If you agree with the statements, then go ahead and begin work on the questionnaire. Thank. you for your assistance in completing the questionnaire. Sincerely, Ellen A. Strommen Professor APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B Revised Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) Instructions: Read each statement.below'and.decide howwmuch it describes you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding circle on your answer sheet. Not Like Very Much Me at All Like Me 1 2 3 4 5 1. I often try to act on the belief that self-interest is one of the worst problems facing society. 2. A close friend is someone who will help you whenever you need help and knows that you will help if they need it. 3. I cannot choose to help someone else if it will hinder my self—development. 4. I want to be responsible for myself. 5. In.making decisions, I can neglect my own values in order to keep a relationship. 6. I find it hard to sympathize with people whose misfortunes I believe are due mainly to their shortcomings. 7. I try to curb my anger for fear of hurting others. 8. Being unselfish with others is more important than making myself happy. 9. Loving is like aicontract: If it’s provisions aren’t.met, you wouldn’t love the person anymore. 10. In my everyday life I am guided by the notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 11. I want to learn to stand on my own two feet. 12. I believe that one of the most important things that parents can teach their children is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others. 13. I try not to think about the feelings of others when there is a principle at stake. 53 54 Not Like Very Much Me at All Like Me 1 2 3 4 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. I don’t often do much for others unless they can do some good for me later on. Activities of care that I perform expand both me and others. If what I want to do upsets other people, I try to think again to see if I really want to do it. I do not want others to be responsible for me. I am.guided.by the principle of treating others as I want to be treated. I believe that I have to look out for myself and mine, and let others shift for themselves. Being unselfish.with others is a way I:make:myself happy. When a friend traps me with demands and negotiation has not worked, I am likely to end the friendship. I feel empty if I’m not loosely involved with someone else. Sometimes I have to accept hurting someone else if I am to do the things that are important in my own life. In order to continue a relationship it has to let both of us grow. I feel that my development has been shaped more by the persons I care about than by what I do and accomplish. People who don’t work hard to accomplish respectable goals can't expect me to help when they’re in trouble. Relationships are a central part of my identity. I often keep quiet rather than hurt someone’s feelings, even if it means giving a false impression. If someone offers to do something for me, I should accept the offer even if I really want something else. The worst thing that could happen in a friendship would be to have my friend reject me. 55 Not Like Very Much Me at All Like Me 1 2 3 4 5 31. If I am really sure that what I want to do is right, I do it even if it upsets other people. 32. Before I can be sure I really care for someone I have to know my own true feelings. 33. What it all boils down to is that the only person I can rely on is myself. 34. Even though I am sensitive to others’ feelings, I make decisions based upon what I feel is best for me. 35. Even though it’s difficult, I have learned to say no to others when I need to take care of myself. 36. I like to see myself as interconnected with a network of friends. 37. Those about whom I care deeply are part of who I am. 38. I accept my obligations and expect others to do the same. 39. I believe that I must care for myself because others are not responsible. 40. The people whom I admire are those who seem to be in close personal relationships. 41. It is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions have on others. 42. True responsibility involves making sure my needs are cared for as well as the needs of others. 43. The feelings of others are not relevant when deciding what is right. 44. If someone asks me for a favor I have a responsibility to think about whether or not I want to do the favor. 45. I make decisions based.upon.what I believe is best for me and mine. 46. Once I’ve worked out my position on some issue I stick to it. 56 Not Like Very Much Me at All Like Me 1 2 3 4 5 47. I believe that in order to survive I must concentrate 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. more on taking care of myself than on taking care of others. The best way to help someone is to do what they ask even if you don’t really want to do it. Doing things for others makes me happy. All you really need to do to help someone is to love them. I deserve the love of others as much as they deserve my love. You’ve got to look out for yourself or the demands of circumstances and of other people will eat you up. I cannot afford to give attention to the opinions of others when I am certain I am correct. If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something for them. Caring about other people is important to me. If other people are going to sacrifice something they want for my sake I want them to understand what they are doing. When I make a decision it’s important to use my own values to make the right decision. I try to approach relationships with the same organization and efficiency as I approach my work. If I am to help another person it is important to me to understand my own motives. I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends. 57 APPENDIX B The Gough—Heilbrun Adjective Checklist #1 Instructions: Reach each of the following adjectives and decide whether it describes you or not. If the adjective describes you, blacken a "1" on.your big blue answer sheet. If it does not describe you, blacken a "2" on your answer sheet. Mark the adjective which describes you as you really are, not as you would like to be. Work quickly, don’t spend too much time on any one item. 1 = Describes me 2 = Does not describe me 1. efficient 19. sympathetic 37. disorderly 2. loyal 20. self-centered 38. disorderly 3. alert 21. severe 39. friendly 4. queer 22. bitter 40. ingenious 5. leisurely 23. frivolous 41. autocratic 6. conventional 24. deliberate 42. unscrupulous 7. spineless 25. irritable 43. adventurous 8. unambitious 26. rude 44.1ndividualistic 9. distractible 27. moody 45. poised 10. aloof 28. forceful 46. original 11. industrious 29. wholesome 47. demanding 12. soft-hearted 30. rattlebrained 48. polished 13. cautious 31. cold 49. thrifty 14. frank 32. patient 50. unexcitable 15. mannerly 33. charming 51. complaining 16. irresponsible 34. unrealistic 52. hasty 17. show—off 35. strong 53. playful 18. blustery 36. fearful 54. impatient 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 1 = Describes unintelligent good-natured flirtatious energetic methodical fairminded quiet shallow spunky anxious enterprising lazy cool withdrawn whiny rigid foolish helpful generous apathetic quitting courageous cooperative high -strung me 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 58 Does rebellious tactless obnoxious interests wide effeminate kind nervous independent handsome absent—minded indifferent touchy initiative emotional precise intolerant self—punishing headstrong calm retiring cruel clear-thinking suspicious dependable not 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. describe me excitable tolerant distrustful boastful sociable worrying superstitious robust outgoing dependent outspoken aggressive interests narrow tense assertive stingy loud realistic gloomy stable serious warm infantile unemotional 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 1: witty self—confident weak shrewd trusting self—pitying wary fault-finding shiftless progressive noisy conscientious rational resentful smug sarcastic talkative deceitful sophisticated discreet complicated determined meek prudish humorous dissatisfied 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 59 Describes me spontaneous unfriendly simple formal relaxed ambitious unconvential informal pessimistic evasive self-denying 2 Does not describe me 60 APPENDIX B The Gough—Heilbrun Adjective Checklist #2 Instructions: Continue 'with. these adjectives as you did before, now starting with number 1 on THE SECOND BIG BLUE ANSWER SHEET. 1 = Describes me 2 = Does not describe me 1. thorough 17. cowardly 33. adaptable 2. dull 18. sexy 34. thoughtful 3. daring 19. unkind 35. conservative 4. timid 20. despondent 36. self—seeking 5. confident 21. logical 37. bossy 6. reserved 22. greedy 38. mischievous 7. mature 23. good—looking 39. loving 8. painstaking 24. tough 40. zany 9. fickle 25. nagging 41. tactful 10. idealistic 26. vindictive 42. opportunistic 11. clever 27. conceited 43. reflective 12. feminine 28. commonplace 44. coarse 13. sharp-witted 29. awkward 45. dreamy 14. hurried 30. reliable 46. understanding 15. arrogant 31. quick 47. modest 16. forgetful 32. stolid 48. peaceabable 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 1 = Describes me self—contro natural sentimental foresighted pleasant capable reckless dominant selfish suggestible defensive optimistic jolly fussy artistic considerate confused slow sensitive easy going affected cynical dignified uninhibited careless lled 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 61 2 = Does cheerful unassuming forgiving sincere steady honest spendthrift unstable opinionated appreciative immature versatile sulky imaginative practical persistent wise stubborn mild slipshod obliging civilized temperamental affectionate hostile not describe me 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. stern peculiar hard-headed unselfish active impulsive preoccupied healthy undqxndflfle silent insightful .argumentative curious sly attractive moderate intelligent persevering emimsnfimic submissive prejudiced shy snobbish contented restless 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 1129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 1 = Describes me gentle inhibited resourceful egotistical inventive pleasure—seeking reasonable masculine changeable quarrelsome unaffected praising thankless organized 62 2 Does not describe me 63 APPENDIX B ACL Mas Scale Items (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980) Masculine attributes: Mas Indicative item (N222) aggressive, argumentative, assertive, clear—thinking, clever, confident, conservative, cool, egotistical, enterprising, forceful, frank, handsome, hard— headed, masculine, robust, sarcastic, self—confident, sharp— witted, steady, stern, strong. 64 APPENDIX B (CES—D) Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Below is a list of some of the ways you may have felt or behaved. By using the same small red answer sheet, indicate how often you have felt this way during the past week by darkening thezappropriately numbered circle. Use the following scale to mark your responses. Occasionally or a Moderate Amount of Time (3—4 days) 3 Most or All of the Time (5-7 days) 4 I was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with I felt that I was just as good as other people. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. I felt that everything I did was an effort. future. Rarely or Some or None of a Little the Time of the (less than Time 1 day) (1-2 days) 1 2 1. 2. 3. help from my family and friends. 4. 5. 6. I felt depressed. 7. 8. I felt hopeful about the 9. I thought my life had been a failure. 10. I felt fearful. 11. My sleep was restless. 12. I was happy. 13. I talked less than usual. 14. I felt lonely. 15. People were unfriendly. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 65 enjoyed life. had crying spells. felt sad. felt that people disliked me. could not get "going." 66 APPENDIX B Rosenberg Self—Esteem Inventory Instructions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding circle on the same blue answer sheet. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 1. I feel I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel I am a failure. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10. At times I think I am no good at all. 66 APPENDIX B Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory Instructions: Read.each statement below'and.decide howwmuch it describes you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding circle on the same blue answer sheet. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 1. I feel I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel I am a failure. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10. At times I think I am no good at all. APPENDIX C RSI ITEM—SCALE CORRELATIONS APPENDIX C Table C1. Item-Scale Total Correlations and Scale Reliabilities of the Revised Relationship Self Inventory Women Men Separate/Objective Self Item-total Scale Item—total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha Correlationa Alpha I believe that in order to survive I must concentrate more on taking care of myself than on taking care of others. .50 .77 .49 .85 I try not to think about the feelings of others when there is a principle at stake. .36 .37 Even though I am sensitive to others’ feelings, I make decisions based upon what I feel is best for me. .31 .41 The feelings of others are not relevant when deciding what is right. .39 .47 I try to approach relationships with the same organization and efficiency as I approach my work. .21 .36 I cannot choose to help someone else if it will hinder my self-development. .50 .58 I cannot afford to give attention to the opinions of others when I am certain I am correct. .45 .59 67 Item Loving is like a contract: If its provisions aren’t met, you wouldn’t love the person any more. When a friend traps me with demands and negotiation has not worked, I am likely to end the relationship. I find it hard to sympathize with people whose misfortunes I believe are due mainly to their own shortcomings. I make decisions based upon what I believe is best for me and mine. In my everyday life I am guided by the notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." What is all boils down to is that the only person I can rely on is myself. Once I’ve worked out my position on some issue I stick to it. 68 APPENDIX C Item—total Scale Item-total Scale Correlatitmf Alpha Correlationa Alpha .41 .36 .32 .36 , .43 .53 .32 .46 .43 .62 .40 .48 .23 .37 69 APPENDIX C Item-total Scale Item-total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha Correlationa Alpha You’ve got to look out for yourself or the demands of circumstances and other people will eat you up. .46 .54 I believe that I have to look out for myself and mine, and let others shift for themselves. .57 .71 I don’t often do much for others unless they can do some good for me later on. .41 .49 People who don’t work hard to accomplish respectable goals can’t expect me to help when they’re in trouble. .47 .56 Relational/Connected Self Activities of care that I perform expand both me and others. .50 .76 .60 .76 Caring about other people is important to me. .59 .67 Doing things for others makes me happy. .51 .60 If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something for them. .42 .52 I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends. .43 .30 I f 70 APPENDIX C Item—total Scale Item-total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha Correlationa Alpha Relationships are a central part of my identity. .48 .39 Those about whom I care deeply are part of who I am. .51 .45 It is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions have on others. .40 .46 Being unselfish with others is a way I make myself happy. .38 .35 I like to see myself as interconnected with a network of friends. .42 .30 I believe that one of the most important things that parents can teach their children is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others. .41 .44 I am guided by the principle of treating others as I want to be treated. .39 .45 Primacy of Other Care All you really need to do to help someone is to love them. .29 .68 .35 .67 71 APPENDIX C Item—total Scale Item-total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha Correlational Alpha If someone offers to do something for me, I should accept the offer even if I really want something else. .41 .44 The worst thing that can happen in a friendship would be to have my friend reject me. .35 .47 I feel empty if I’m not closely involved with someone else. .32 .36 I often try to act on the belief that self-interest is one of the worst problems facing society. .30 .33 The people whom I admire are those who seem to be in close personal relationships. .33 .26 The best way to help someone is to do what they ask even if you don’t really want to do it. .43 .30 Being unselfish with others is more important than making myself happy. .48 .52 I feel that my development has been shaped more by the persons I care about than by what I do and accomplish. .37 .19 72 APPENDIX C Item-total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha I try to curb my anger for fear of hurting others. .41 In making decisions, I can neglect my own values in order to keep a relationship. .28 If what I want to do upsets other people, I try to think again to see if I really want to do it. .36 I often keep quiet rather than hurt someone’s feelings, even if it means giving a false impression. .43 A close friend is someone who will help you whenever you need help and knows that you will help if they need it. .34 Item—total Correlationa .46 .23 .30 .45 .27 Scale Alpha Self and Other Care Chosen Freely True responsibility involves making sure my needs are cared for as well as the needs of others. .38 .78 Sometimes I have to accept hurting someone else if I am to do the things that are important in my own life. .30 .40 .17 .77 Item If other people are going to sacrifice something they want for my sake I want them to understand what they are doing. I want to learn to stand on my own two feet. I do not want others to be responsible for me. I deserve the love of others as much as they deserve my love. If someone asks me for a favor I have a responsibility to think about whether or not I want to do the favor. I believe that I must care for myself because others are not responsible for me. Even though it’s difficult, I have learned to say no to others when I need to take care of myself. In order to continue a relationship it has 73 APPENDIX C Item—total Scale Correlational Alpha .40 .53 .35 .31 .43 .45 .31 to let both of us grow. .52 If I am to help anothe person it is important to me to understand my own motives. r .47 Item-total Correlationa .44 .59 .46 .32 .40 .46 .42 .40 .38 Scale Alpha 74 APPENDIX C Item-total Scale Item-total Scale Item Correlationa Alpha Correlational Alpha I want to be responsible for myself. .63 .50 I accept my obligations and expect others to do the same. .47 .51 Before I can be sure I really care for someone I have to know my true feelings. .37 .32 When I make a decision it's important to use my own values to make the right choice. .43 .45 If I am really sure that what I want to do is right, I do it even if it upsets others. .42 .46 aCorrected for item overlap. 75 Table C2. Intercorrelations Among the Observed Variables for Women and Men, Corrected for Attenuation V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V1.Connected .98 .61 -.33 -.01 .08 -.11 Self V2.Primacy .46 .14 .15 .29 -.38 -.19 of Other Care V3.Self and .61 .19 .41 .11 .13 .35 Other Care V4.Separate -.36 .02 .34 .22 —.13 .54 Self V5.Depression —.19 .33 —.30 .20 —.60 -.13 V6.Self Esteem .24 -.38 .38 —.12 —.77 .43 V7.Masculinity .00 —.25 .31 .33 .90 .80 Note. For Women (g_= 195, above the diagonial), For Men (g.= 89, below the diagonal LI ST OF REFERENCES LI ST OF REFERENCES Antill, J.K., and Cunningham, J.D. The relationship of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny to self—esteem. Australian Journal of Psychology, 32, 195-207. Arbuckle, J.L. (1996). Amos for Windows: Analysis of moment structures version 3.6 (Manuel). Small Waters Corporation. Aubé, J., and Koestner, R. (1992). Gender characteristics and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 485-493. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally. Belle, D. (1990). Poverty and.women’s mental health. American Psychologist, 45(3), 385-389. Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155- 162. Bem, S.L. (1975). One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634- 643. Berzins, J.I., Welling, M.A., and Wetter, R.E. (1978). The PRF ANDRO scale user’s manual. Unpublished. manual, University of Kentucky. Bibring, E. (1953). The mechanism. of depression. In P. Greenacr’e (Ed. ) , Affective Disorders . New York: International University Press. Blanchard—Fields, F., Suhrer—Roussel, L., Hertzog, C. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: Old questions, new answers. Sex Roles, 30, 423—457. Block, J.H., Gjerde, P.F., and Block,.JgH. (1991). Personality antecedents of depressive tendencies in 18-year—olds: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 60, No. 5, 726—738. 76 77 Carmen, E., Russo, N., and Miller, J.B. (1984). Inequality and women’s mental health: An overview. In Rieker, P., and Carmen, E. (Eds.), The Gender Gap in Psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press. Chodoff, P. (1974). Depressive personality. In R.J. Friedman and M.M. Katz (Eds . ) , The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research. Washington, D.C. : V.H. Winston. Cota, A.A., Reid” A., Dion, K.L. (1991). Construct validity of a diagnostic ratio measure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 25, 225-235. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389—407. Cunningham, J.D., and Antill, J.K. (1980). A comparison among five masculinity—femininity—androgyny instruments and two methods of scoring androgyny. Australian Psychologist. 15, 437—448. Deaux, K., and Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender—related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-384. Donelson, E. Women’s Experiences: A Psychological Perspective. Mountainview, CA: Mayfield Publishing, 1998. Donelson, E., and Gullahorn, J. (Eds.). (1977). Women: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Wiley & Sons. Donelsonq E., iMcKinneyy J., Strommen” E.A., (1985). Relationship self: It’s connection with sex roles, relationship orientation, and moral stance. Unpublished paper. Donelson, E., Frassetto, S., Reinhart, M.A., and Strommen, E. (1990). Revisioning women as learners: A psychological perspective. Paper presented at the joint meetings of the Women’s Studies Program and the 27th Annual Modern Literature Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Doyle, J.A., and Paludi, M.A. (1991). Sex and Gender (2nd set). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. 78 Faden, V.B. (1977). Primary Diagqnoses of Discharges From Nonfederal General Hospital Psychiatric Inpatient Units, U.S., 1975 (Mental Health Statistical Note 137). Rockville, MD: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publications. Feather, N.T. (1985). Masculinity, femininity, self-esteem, and subclinical depression. Sex Roles, 12, 491-500. Frieze, I.H., Whitley, B.E., Hanusa, B.H., McHugh, M.C. (1982). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in casual attributions for success and failure. Special Issue: Sex differences in casual attribution for success and failure: A current assessment. Sex Roles, 8, 333-343. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. (1984). Re—mapping the moral domain: New images of self in relationships. Paper presented at conference, Reconstructing Humanism, Stanford. Humanities Center, February 18-20, 1984. Gilligan, C., Lyons, N.P., and Hammer, T.J. (1989). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescengirls at Emma Willard School. Troy, New York: Emma Willard School. Golding, J.M. (1988). Gender differences in depressive symptoms: Statistical considerations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 61—74. Gough, H.G., and Heilbrun, A.B. (1971). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gough, H.G., and Heilbrun, A.B. (1980). The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hammen, C.L., and.Pedesky, C.A. (1977). Sex differences in the expression of depressive responses on the Beck Depression Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 609—614. Heilbrun, A.B., Jr. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex—role identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and. Clinical Psychology, 44, 183- 190. Horwitz, A.V. (1982). Sex—role expectations, power, and psychological distress. Sex Roles, 8, 607—623. 79 Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., Cohen, S.H., and Nicol, T.S. (1980). PACKAGE 1980: A system of FORTRAN routines for the analysis of correlational data. (Available from Academic Computing Services, Baylor University, Waco, TX). Jack, D.C. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jack, D.C., and Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 97—106. Kaplan, A.G. (1984). The "self—in—relation": Implications for depression 111 women. Work 1J1 Progress. Stone Center, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA. Kaplan, A. (1986). The self—in—relation: Implications for depression in women. Psychotherapy, 23(2), 234—242. Kovacs, M. (1989). Affective disorders in children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 44(2), 209—215. MCGrath, E., Ketta, G.P,, Strickland, B.R., and Russo, N.F. (1990). Women and depression: Risk factors and treatment issues. American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C. Miller, J.B. (1986a). Toward.a New Psychology of Women. Second Edition. Boston: Beacon Press. Nezu, A.M., and Nezu, C.M. (1987). Psychological distress, problem solving, and coping reactions: Sex role differences. Sex Roles, 16, Nos. 3/4. Nolen—Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259—282. Nolen—Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569—582. O’Heron, C.A. and Orlofsky, J.L. (1990). Steroeotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 58, 134—143. Orlofsky, J.L., and O’Heron, C.A. (1987a). Development of a short—form Sex Role Behavior Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 267—277. 80 Orlofsky, J.L. and O’Heron, C.A. (1987b). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientation: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1034—1042. Orlofsky, J.L., and Stake, J.E. (1981). Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to striving and self—concept in the achievement and interpersonal domain. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 218-233. Parsons, T., and Bales, R.F. (1955). Family, socialization.and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pearson, J.L., Reinhart, M.A., Donelson, F.E., Strommen, E.A., and Barnes, C.L. (1985). Marital Status and Gilligan’s Developmental Theory of Care of Self and Other. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Pearson, J.L., Reinhartq M.Au, Donelson, F.E., Strommen, E.A., and Barnes, C.L. (1985). Marital Status and Gilligan's Developmental Theory of Care of Self and Other. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Pedhazur, E.J., and Tetenbaum, T.J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996- 1016. Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Radloff, L.S. (1975). Sex differences in depression: The effects of occupation and marital status. Sex Roles, 1, 249—265. Radloff, L. S., and Menroe, M. (1978). Sex differences in helplessness: With implications for depression. In L.S. Hansen.and.R.S. Rapoza (Eds.), Career Development and.the Counseling of Women, 1991—221. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Reinhart, M.A., Pearson, J.L., Kamptnar, N.L., Cornwell, K., Barnes, C.L, Strommen, E.A., and Donelson, E. (1985). Assessment of Gilligan’s Model: Development of the relationship self inventory; Paper 3presented. at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 81 Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Salzman, L. (1974). Interpersonal factors in depression. In F.F. Flack and S.C. Droghi (Eds.), The Nature and Treatment of Depression. New York: John Wiley. Sherriffs, A.C. and McKee, J.P. (1957). Qualitative aspects of beliefs about men and women. Journal of Personality, 25, 451—467. Silber, E. and Tippett, J. (1965). Self—esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16(4), 1017—1071. Spence, .J.T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, enmi gender— related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research, In B.A. Maher and W. Maher (Eds.). Progress in Experimental Research, (Vol. 13, pp. 2-97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., and Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43. (Ms. No. 617). Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex—role attributes and their relation to self—esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29—39. Strommen, E.A., Reinhart, M A., Pearson, J.L., Donelson, E., Barnes, C.L., Blank, L.S., Caballero, A.M., Cornewell, K., and Kamptner, N.L. Assessment of Gilligan’s Model: The Connected and Separate Selves: Draft. Stromman, E.A., Reinhart, M.A., Pearson, J.L., Barnes, C.L., Blank, L., Caballero, A.M>, Cornwell, K., Donelson, E., Kamptner, N.L. (1987). Assessment of Gilligan’s Model: The revised relationship self inventory. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD. Tennon, H., and Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self— esteem, and the absence of self—protective attributional biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 72—80. 82 Weissman, M.N., and Klerman, G.L. (1979). Sex differences and the etiology of depression” In.E.S. Gomberg and V. Franks (Eds.), Gender and Disordered Behavior. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1983). Sex—role orientation and self- esteem: A critical meta—analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 773-786. Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1984). Sex-role orientation and psychological well—being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, Nos. 1/2. Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1988). Masculinity, femininity, and self— esteem: A multitrait-multimethod analysis . Sex Roles, 18, 419—431. Whitley, B.E., Gridley, B.E. (1993). Sex role orientation, self-esteem, and.depression: A latent variable analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 363-369. Williams, J.E. and Bennett, S.M. (1975). The definition of sex stereotypes via the Adjective Check List. Unpublished manuscript, Wake Forest University. Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1990). Measuringfi sex stereotypes: A mmltinational study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111