“ Fifi .\‘_ .r' 2' :53“? Win-1:. - 3*, 17-37% Rikki: “6m?! N 'mv lu‘ n Ti i5? 13?; .' .l raid \— 0. fl. 1-. v v~$1 ' n “- (WV ? A} 5‘ . x 11 . n !. I”. l. RABIES Mimiiiiiimifiiflw w 3 1293 01029 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Relational Self-Definition, Social Rejection, and Behavioral Performance in Women presented by Barbara J. Brown has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctoral degree in Psychology 052%" W ”/3/0' & 5(M Major professo/ Dozier Thornton, Ph.D. Date October 301 1993 Lawrence Van Egeren, Ph.D. MS U ts an Affirmatt'w Actt'on/ Equal Opportunity Institution 0 12771 LIBRARY MIchIgan State University ' PLACE N RETURN BOXto romanthbchockomfmm youncord. TO AVOID FINES Mom on at bdoro dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU In An Affirmative Action/Ema) OpportunIty Institution Wain-9.1 RELATIONAL SELF-DEFINITION, SOCIAL REJECTION, AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE IN WOMEN BY Barbara J. Brown A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1993 ABSTRACT RELATIONAL SELF-DEFINITION, SOCIAL REJECTION, AND BEHAVIORAL PERFORMANCE IN WOMEN BY Barbara J. Brown Measures of "Fear of Success" (FOS) have been shown to be related to behavioral performance decrement in women; although findings have been inconsistent. An alternative interpretation of FOS is presented. A rationale is forwarded integrating aspects of Gilligan's (1982) theory of development and Lerner's (1974) observation of envy in relationships to account for this performance decrement. Women's self definition was measured using the Relational Self Inventory (Strommen, et al. 1987) and Attanucci's Self Definition Coding Scheme (1988). Forty women were recruited for this study. Two groups were formed for analysis. The groups consisted of women who define self as 1) considering others and relationship more than self (Other-Oriented Group) or women who 2) consider self more than others or relationship (Self-Oriented Group). It was hypothesized that the Other-Oriented group would decrease performance during competition. It was assumed this group would lessen expression of a valuable self attribute in order to avoid eliciting envy in another thereby curtailing relationship. The subjects completed anagram tests during the following sequence of conditions: Baseline, Solo Competition, Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2. Performance on an anagrams task, defined as a test of intelligence during Solo Competition, did not significantly change between Baseline, Solo Competition, or Male Competition 1; nor did performance change after Male Competition 1 when half the subjects were either accepted or rejected by the male opponent. Contrary to expectation, mean performance for the Other-Oriented group was higher during competition compared to the Self-Oriented group and reached the highest level after being accepted as a future working partner by the male opponent, albeit these differences did not reach significance. Subjective ratings of Task Importance increased during the first three conditions for all women; however, ratings of importance decreased after Male Competition 2 depending upon which confederate had accepted the subject as a future working partner. Characteristics of the male may contribute to either maintaining or decreasing consideration of task importance in a competitive situation. Promising lines of future research are discussed. Copyright by BARBARA JEAN BROWN 1993 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee. Dr. Lawrence Van Egeren for his valuable criticism and support. Our repeated discussion gave me clarity and focus for this project for which I am grateful. Also, Drs. Dozier Thornton, Elaine Donelson, and Raymond Frankmann for their helpful and thoughtful comments. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Bertram Karon for his valuable mentorship throughout this process. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................... 1 Chapter 1 Origins of the "Fear of Success" Construct ............ 9 The Relationship Between Role & Fear of Success ...... 14 Women's Psychological Development: Considerations of Self and Other Beyond Role Enactment............. 21 Envy and The Critical Developmental Transition From "Ideal Feminine Role" To Maturity ................ .. 28 A Reinterpretation of Empirical Findings .. .......... . 35 Measurement of FOS ..... . ............................. S9 Reliability of FOS .................... . ....... .. S9 Validity of FOS ................................. 61 Factor-Analytic Studies ......................... 64 Chapter 2 Hypotheses . .......................................... 70 Method ......... ...................................... 71 Experimental Design ............................. 71 Subjects ... ...... .. ......................... . ........ 72 Measurement ..... . ............................ . ..... 74 Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) ............... 74 Dependent Variable ............................. 74 Attanucci' 3 Self- Definition Coding Scheme (1988). 74 Apparatus ............................................ 77 Materials ............................................. 77 Procedure ............... . .......... . ............. .... 77 Baseline Condition ............................. . 79 Condition 2: Solo Competition .................. 80 Condition 3: Male Competition 1 ................ 81 Condition 4: Male Competition 2 ................ 83 Exit Interview & Debriefing ........ . ................. 83 Chapter 3 Results .............................................. 86 Test of Hypothesis I ............................ 87 Test of Hypothesis II ........................... 89 Test of Hypothesis III .......................... 89 Importance Ratings. ............................. 91 Chapter 4 Discussion, Appendices Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A: B: C: D: E: F: G: H: I: J: References Summary and Conclusion ................... 93 Consent Forms .......................... ...100 Task Rating Form ............. . ........... 103 Exit Interview ............ ...............104 Derivation of Coding Statements ..........106 Examples of Coding Statements.............108 Attanucci's Coding Scheme .... ..... .......109 Pearson Correlation Matrix................112 Estimate of Effects .............. ........114 Coding Statements, Categories I-IV Means..1l7 Condition 2 Instruction Set .............. 118 .......................... .......... ......119 vii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table LIST OF TABLES Pearson product moment correlations between two objective measures of Fear of Success, one anxiety measure of Fear of Failure, and the Horner et a1. (1973) revised projective measure of Fear of Success (page 63). Anagram solution rate by relationship orientation (Self or Other), social manipulation, (Acceptance or Rejection), and performance condition: Means and standard deviations (parentheses) (page 88). Anagram Solution rate for each Group (Self or Other: using Attanucci coding scheme) across three performance conditions: means and standard deviations (parentheses) (page 90). Mean rating and standard deviation (parenthesis) of Task Importance by experimental condition (page 92). Pearson Correlation Matrix (page 111). Estimates of Direct Effects and Indirect Effects (page 115). Estimates of Effects: Information, Not Hearing Message, Category I and Category III on Performance Decrement between Conditions 3 and 4. (page 116). Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Self- Definitional Statements based upon the Attanucci Coding Scheme (n = 40) (page 117). viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure la. Zero Order Correlations for five variables. Figure 1b. Beta Coefficients for five variables. ix INTRODUCTION Decrements in behavioral performance have been observed in women from an alone condition to a competitive condition in achievement motivation studies suggesting a sex difference in performance behavior. M. Horner (1968) proposed that an internal motive, "Fear of Success", might explain this decrement in performance. Horner measured Fear of Success (FOS) by coding responses to a projective cue depicting a female student at the top of her medical school class. The female cue was changed to a male cue for male subjects. Those responses that indicated an avoidance of success, negative consequences for success, outright disavowal of success or bizarre answers were scored as high Fear of Success. Horner found a relationship between F03 and decrement in performance on an anagrams test. Subsequent studies have reported mixed results: Six studies supported the lowered performance of high FOS scorers in a competitive dyad with a male and eight studies have not supported this hypothesis (Tresemer, 1977). Although Horner believed that femininity and social rejection were two basic components of Fear of Success, she did not elaborate on why these two components may function 2 to decrease performance. Her efforts proceeded to increase the reliability of her measure in order to better observe the phenomenon (Horner et a1., 1973). These efforts did not result in reliable documentation of Fear of Success and many began to argue that the validity of the construct was in question. The current study generally accepts Horner's assumption that femininity and social rejection are two important components of behavioral response decrement. However, it differs in a fundamental way. The assumptions underlying this study are based upon a relational model of development. The assumptions underlying the achievement motivation model that Horner used to explain Fear of Success were based upon an internal drive model. Within the latter model, various internal motives may be elicited but little emphasis is given to the role of relationship -- the context in which the individual is embedded -- in the elicitation of these individual motives. In a relational model one cannot separate the individual entirely from the context of relationship; motives must also be understood in terms of the individual's relationship with others. It will be argued that the way one defines one's sense of self in relation to others is critical to interpreting their behavior in relation to another. Therefore, the construct "Fear of Success" is premised upon an internally based fear, or motive, of an event valued 3 by the culture one is a part of, yet, there is relatively little recognition that the concept of "success" is embedded in a cultural value system. Competitive success implies a measure of value (better than or less than) which involves a cultural value regarding relationship (ie. success in a competition means outperforming an opponent -- implicit in this definition of success is a type of relationship between two people whereby one succeeds and another fails). The fact that one succeeds at the expense of another is an important aspect of competition. In contrast to a model that focuses upon the individual and phrases success in terms of winning or losing, a relational model may provide another perspective toward what it means to "succeed" to the individual within the larger context of society. It will be assumed that femininity, in terms of the ideal feminine sex role, is related to behavioral performance decrement in a competitive relationship. The decrement referred to is one from an alone arousal condition to a mixed-sex competitive condition in an achievement motivation situation. When a woman is introduced to a competition with another person a change in the relational context occurs. It is assumed that women will respond to this change in various ways. In the current study, an individual difference factor assumed to be associated with performance decrement is self-definition: how one views one's sense of self in relation to others (Other-Oriented or 4 Self-Oriented). Women who tend to consider others or the relationship, more than their self, will be more likely to consider how their actions will impact the relationship or the other person before they act. Women who consider their self, more than others, will tend to focus primarily upon self attributes and self interest when they act in a relationship. Since it is assumed that Other-Oriented women are more likely to consider the impact of their behavior on another, they are more likely to consider the possible negative consequence of outperforming another on a test of skill. They are more likely to weigh the particulars of the context of relationship (how important is it to do well on a laboratory task ... will it impact a current or future relationship, will it negatively impact the other person, etc.) and determine action based upon these considerations. One possible negative outcome in a competitive situation, is, by definition, that one could lose. Competition is a socially valued form of measuring internal attributes that are valued in society -- what is made explicit is that one "is better than another" at a socially valued task. If one is better than another at a task that reflects a valued internal attribute (for example, intelligence) then an internal conflict may arise between expressing a valuable internal attribute and one's self definition (for example, consideration of others or relationship). Women will act to 5 solve this conflict. Some will tend toward expression of an internally valued quality while others may minimize expression of an internal quality in order to preserve the relationship. The affect of envy may play a role in a competitive relationship -- some women may be sensitive to another's reaction to being outperformed. This sensitivity to another’s reaction is related to a concern for the relationship. Furthermore, social rejection is one component of an envy response. The person who envies can curtail the relationship with the person being envied. At the same time the person being envied can not re-establish relationship while being envied. Other-Oriented women may experience this consequence of envy as threatening to their sense of self and, therefore, will act to diminish the possibility of it occurring, whereas Self-Oriented women may not feel as immediately threatened by the possibility of curtailing relationship. A Consistency with Prior Observations. This alternative interpretive framework of women’s behavioral performance given a relational model is consistent with interpretations of "Fear of Success" in the achievement motivation literature. Often, when "fear" of "success" is specified, discussion typically refers to a "fear of losing one's femininity" (one could read: a fear of losing one's sense of self definition or identity) and/or a "fear of 6 social rejection" (one could read: a fear of losing relationship). Consideration of self and one's identity and consideration of relationship are two central themes of C. Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development (1982). Gilligan's theory provides a framework for understanding the conceptualization of relationship in the current study. H. Lerner’s (1974) clinical observations of envy will also be drawn upon to understand the possible relationship between women's sense of developing self and unconscious and conscious processes of envy in relationship throughout development. Up to this point an alternative perspective has been forwarded to provide a different interpretation of performance decrement in women. A shift away from a drive- centered model to a relational one has been suggested. It is argued that envy plays an important role in subsequent performance in a relational context such that women who are more Other-Oriented will decrease performance in order to diminish the possibility of eliciting envy in another, thereby maintaining the relationship. 0n the other hand, Self-oriented women will maintain behavioral performance of an internally valued attribute and risk curtailing the relationship. In the current study, women's self definition was measured using the Relational Self Inventory (Strommen et al., 1987) and Attanucci's Self Definition coding scheme 7 (1988) -- both instruments were derived from Gilligan’s theoretical ideas. Two groups were formed for analysis. The groups consisted of women who define self as l) considering others and relationship more than self (Other- Oriented Group) or women who 2) consider self more than others or relationship (Self-Oriented Group). All subjects completed four anagram tests. Adjusted anagram solution times were used as a measure of performance during the following sequence of conditions: Baseline, Solo Competition, Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2. All subjects were treated the same during the first three conditions; however, after Male Competition 1, the male confederate who was the subject's competitive opponent either rejected or accepted the subject as a future working partner, thus introducing an Acceptance vs. Rejection condition prior to Male Competition 2. Tests of performance decrement were conducted to analyze whether Other-Oriented women decreased their performance from Solo Competition to Male Competition 1 (the traditional test of the Fear of Success phenomenon). Furthermore, a test was conducted between Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2 to test the expectation that Social Rejection would impact Other- Oriented women's performance more than Self-Oriented women's performance. Before presenting the method of the current study, a brief review of Horner’s Fear of Success concept will be 8 presented in the next chapter. This is intended to provide a historical context for the current study. A discussion of "role" will then follow in order to contrast the way role has been typically viewed in the F08 literature to how it has been viewed within Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development. In the F08 literature, the feminine sex role has been seen as an obstacle to achievement motivation, but it has never been directly challenged as a legitimate model for female self development. In the moral development literature, the idealization of the feminine sex role has been seen as actually undermining female development Gilligan (1982). In addition to these theoretical contrasts, a review of the Fear of Success literature will be presented. This review is not exhaustive in nature; the purpose is to acquaint the reader with various findings and to provide a plausible reinterpretation of the data using this alternative conceptual framework. Since measures of FOS may be tapping into something other than a "Fear of Success", a discussion of relevant psychometric research will also be presented and reinterpreted within this alternative framework where appropriate. Chapters two, three, and four present the Method, Results, and Discussion of the study. CHAPTER 1 Origins of the "Fear of Spgcegg" Construct Research involving Achievement Motivation Theory began in 1948 when John Atkinson and David McClelland documented variations in hunger responses to TAT stimulus cues. From this work investigators in human motivation believed that they could measure the strength of various individual motives in people, such as hunger, sex, achievement, affiliation, or power motives. McClelland's work broadened as he attempted to study socio-psychological explanations of major economic and socio-political events while Atkinson focused his attempts upon specifying the behavioral consequences of the motive to achieve and the motive to fear failure. Atkinson's earliest work involved predicting risk preference, persistence, and level of performance in individuals with high or low achievement motivation. By measuring the motive to approach success using TAT stories, and by measuring Fear of Failure, Atkinson's theory suggested that behavioral predictions could be made based upon individual differences in achievement motivation. Atkinson (1958) stated that a person's motivation toward success is determined by the strength of the internal 10 motive to succeed while taking into account the probability that success will occur. In addition, the incentive value of the event must be salient to the individual. Atkinson used similar logic to understand the tendency to avoid failure: An internal motive to avoid failure was elicited when the probability of failing an event was high and the incentive value of failing was also high. The incentive value of failure was based upon how "bad" the failure is perceived by the person. The motives to succeed or avoid failure are thought to be independent and enduring personality dispositions acquired in childhood. It is assumed that if one were able to know the values of these variables, one could predict the general tendency of behavior. Atkinson and his colleagues found these predictions to hold up fairly well in their earlier research with males. However, when measures of achievement motivation were obtained in women, the consistency of behavioral prediction found in male samples disappeared. During the mid-sixties, Martina Horner, a student of John Atkinson at the University of Michigan, based her doctoral thesis on Atkinson's Expectancy x Value Theory in a study of women's achievement motivation. Horner attempted, first, to postulate an important "missing link" in the motivational assumptions outlined above by suggesting that a "motive to avoid success", if accessible to measurement, 11 could provide an important individual difference variable that could aid in predicting women’s achievement performance. Secondly, she attempted to develop an instrument to measure such a motive. Horner called this construct a motive to avoid success or a "Fear of Success" (F08) and measured it by using the verbal cue, "At the end of her first term finals Anne finds herself at the top of her medical school class." Female subjects were given the "Anne" cue; male subjects were given a "John" cue. Coding for FOS was based upon a presence or absence system. FOS was coded whenever responses included a) negative consequence because of success b) anticipation of negative consequence because of success c) negative affect because of success d) instrumental activity away from present or future success, including leaving the field for more traditional female work such as nursing, school teaching, or social work e) any direct expression of conflict about success f) denial of the situation described by the cue g) bizarre, inappropriate, unrealistic or nonadaptive responses to the situation described by the cue. Horner found three major themes expressed by her subjects: 1) Fear of social rejection, "... fear of losing one's friendships, the loss of one's datable or marriageable quality, actual isolation or loneliness as a result of the success and the desire to keep the success a secret and pretend that intelligence is not a part of her." 2) Doubts 12 about one's normality as a woman, and guilt and despair about success. 3) Denial of the cue or denying effort or responsibility for attaining the successful outcome; and bizarre stories (Horner, 1968, page 105). Therefore, Horner's work suggested that the tendency to achieve in women could be better estimated if one controlled for the tendency to fear success. Horner found evidence that performance behavior changed in women who scored high on FOS; she believed she had evidence for the existence of an internal motive and did not phrase her findings in terms of "incentives" or "probabilities of succeeding" which might, therefore, be products of situational cues. Consequently, most of the subsequent literature on Fear of Success has concentrated on the motive component of Atkinson's original model. Other subjective components of Atkinson's model were largely ignored (”incentive value" or "subjective probability of success"). The debate began to focus upon the "motive—base" interpretation or the "situational-based" interpretation of Fear of Success. As a consequence, the situational argument ignored the capacity of Atkinson's model to accommodate their criticisms (Ward, 1978). Horner (1968) also stated that this motive existed in women and not men. This is based upon her interpretation of her findings (65% of women had FOS compared to less than 10% of men.) According to Horner, women's Fear of Success, like 13 the other motives stated above, constituted a personality disposition which is acquired during childhood due to female sex-role socialization. An incongruency between traditional sex-role and achievement strivings leads to negative expectancies. Indeed, according to Atkinson (1958), in order for a positive correlation between motive and behavior to exist, positive expectancies for performance must also be present. ”Fear of Success" embodies the fears of social rejection or fear of losing one's femininity. Given that it is a learned disposition due to socialization, it was assumed to be resistant to change. In addition, the relationships between any given motive and behavioral performance is neither direct nor simple. For example, within Expectancy x Value Theory, if a need for affiliation is aroused at the same time a need for achievement is aroused, conflicts may arise and the positive correlation between motive arousal and behavioral performance will diminish. This is an important point, since arousal of both the motive to achieve success and the motive to fear success may confound measures of achievement motivation (Horner, 1968). The picture becomes confusing rather quickly, for, as mentioned above, any other salient motive will, if aroused at the time, influence resultant performance behavior. Since Horner's original study (Horner, 1968), the Fear of Success literature has grown. The first major review of 14 research on Fear of Success was by David Tresemer (1977). Many investigators, including Tresemer, believe women experience conflict between achievement roles and the feminine sex role. Since "role" is an important concept in understanding what is meant by a "Fear of Success”, and since it is an important concept in Gilligan's (1982) theory of moral development, it will be discussed further below. The Relationship Between "Role" and Pea; of Success In his book "Fear of Success" Tresemer proposed using a conceptual framework termed the "theory of social boundary maintenance system". This "theory" has corollary theories in a number of different domains within social psychology. For example, social comparison theory and social evaluation theory, the sociology of deviance and conformity, and labeling theory, exchange theory and equity theory as well as others (Tresemer, 1977, p. 50). This "theory" of social boundary maintenance describes the function of various role systems in maintaining social equilibrium, and thus, predictable and stable interpersonal expectations of behavior becomes established within the group. Tresemer believes application of this theory toward understanding the Fear of Success construct may help to elucidate the conflict in women who presumably fear success. The central idea of the theory of social boundary maintenance is the concept of "role". Role is defined as "a set of expectations that has an objective concrete reality 15 and that impinges on individuals because they hold a given social position. A position (or status) is the locus of a person in a network of social relationships. Veroff and Feld stated, "persons are defined, and define themselves, in terms of a shared understanding of how positions (or statuses) are allocated, and what rights (privileges, rewards) and obligations (duties, costs) go with them". (cited in Tresemer, 1977 p. 51). Tresemer points out that the most important part of the definition of role is that of shared expectations of observable behavior. Thus, maintaining consistency with role expectations leads to subsequent behavior. The role literature has a variety of terms to describe conflict that arises when an individual attempts to enact a role within a system of roles, for example, "role ambiguity", "role strain" or "role overload". Role systems have evolved within a social community. Within such a community, discrete areas of behavior are thought to have become arbitrarily associated with the enactment of the role so to confirm and validate the differences between people in the creation of these roles. A number of rewards function to maintain role consistency within a group. First, there are great affiliative rewards. By conforming with the community one receives approval in exchange for conformity with the rules of behavior. This is viewed as a contribution to the group 16 for it upholds expectations of social behavior agreed upon by others. Secondly, according to Eisenstaddt, (cited in Tresemer, 1977,) roles are also attractive to the individual because they are aligned with the main values and norms of society. Roles, in general, tend to reflect the ideals of a given society. Third, enactment of a role helps to achieve a sense of self with inner continuity and sameness, much akin to Eric Erikson's definition of identity. Lastly, to embody a role ultimately affects the person's sense of reality. Within traditional role theory Berger and Luckman emphasize how individuals come to know their place in the world through the enactment of roles, "It can readily be seen that the construction of role typologies is a necessary correlate for the institutionalization of conduct. Institutions are embodied in individual experience by means of roles. The roles, objectified linguistically, are an essential ingredient of the objectively available world of any society. By playing roles, the individual participates in a social world. By internalizing these roles, the same world becomes subjectively real to him" (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 52). It is important to point out, however, even when the individual does not enact roles, and in fact is acting counter to them, that individual is still participating in the social world, albeit, others may react by feeling anxious and negative toward that person since a shared expectation has been violated. Also, although individuals 17 who act without "playing a role" may not be participating in "the objectively available world of any society", they still, I would argue, are experiencing a subjective world. It is important to note Berger and Luckmans' point since it suggests that we come to know ourselves based upon the extent to which our sense of self "embodies" a role. One’s subjective wellbeing appears to be dependent on the successful internalization of roles. Our sense of self comes to be equated with our role in relationship with others, which, in turn, maintains social equilibrium. However, a vulnerability in a theory that emphasizes role is to minimize the individual self, as both Attanucci (1988) and Gilligan (1982) have noted. .A system of loyalty grows out of mutually consenting role enactments. It is possible to note reactions to breaking this loyalty, to undermine the role maintenance rules, such as the reaction a male, or female, might have to another female who goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable achievement behavior for women. Inherent in Horner's (1968) depiction of Ann "at the top of her medical school class" is the notion of deviancy for women. Tresemer notes the threat of deviancy has functioned to maintain social boundary behavior and keep one from enacting role- inappropriate behavior. Therefore, roles function to maintain the homeostatic stability of the social matrix and women's varied responses to Anne's achievement may reflect 18 their understanding of the negative consequences of breaking these rules. Punishment for violating these rules that maintain role behavior can be more powerful in shaping behavior than rewards inherent in enacting the role- appropriate behaviors themselves. Kanouse and Hanson (1972) have documented the bias in individuals toward attentional processes that attempt to discover possible negative outcomes in situations. Individuals are thought to be motivated toward avoiding costs rather than motivated to seek out potential gains. This has implications for trajectories of development if most people seek to avoid costs by not deviating from social norms, rather than seeking potential gains, despite individual costs, and implies a displacement of attention to protecting self more than focusing attention toward both self and others. Tresemer cites Rasmussen and Zander who hypothesized that, "conformity to group standards is tantamount to achievement of the person’s ideal and should result in feelings of success" (Tresemer, 1977, p. 56). Consequently, by expressing role-inappropriate behavior, by not conforming, one will experience a sense of failure. Duval and Wicklund (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 56) point out that a state of "objective self-awareness" results from an awareness of a discrepancy between oneself and an internalized standard of behavior which in turn leads to 19 negative affect and is therefore avoided by the individual. Therefore, feelings of success are possible gpg_negative affect is avoided within this model of "role-congruency". The self becomes consistent with the role and "objective self-awareness" is based upon the successful internalization and maintenance of an externally derived standard of role congruency. Therefore, an assumption is made that by maintaining "role congruency" one avoids negative affect associated with discrepancies arising between a ”self" that is "aware" of being different from a "role". However, within Gilligan's model of development (Gilligan, 1982), this is precisely the awareness needed in women to make a critical transition from the "ideal feminine role" to authentic self-definition, and, therefore, this awareness is not to be avoided. To become aware of discrepancies between one's sense of self and prescribed role may lead to negative affect, however, if one of women's critical developmental tasks is to define their sense of self beyond role terms then it will become important to understand the obstacles that keep women from being successful during this transition period, including acknowledging the presence of -- or the tendency to avoid -- negative affect in both one's self and others. In Gilligan's theory, feelings of success come from negotiating the needs of self and other, a developmental vulnerability is maintaining role consistency at the expense of authentic 20 self definition. The critical pointhere is that one only chooses to enact a role after defining one's sense of self apart from the prescribed role itself. One's sense of success is not based upon internalization of a role at the cost of authentic self-definition. Tresemer cites the work of Backman and Secord who extend the consistency of role portrayal to the relational domain. Backman and Secord state that individuals, "... 'fashion' themselves to better fit a role category to which they belong; the emphasis is not on making use of all one's potential but on shaping all one's behavioral possibilities to achieve self-consistency and the interpersonal benefits of a consistent role portrayal" (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 68). However, within the current discussion, the argument is made that women must attempt to be fully aware of discrepancies between their self and role. In addition, "interpersonal benefits" are not based upon a "consistent role portrayal" but, in fact, may involve confronting negative affect in both self and other, making such painful affect conscious, and thus attempting to reach greater relational maturity through more complex processes of growth. One cost for emphasizing "fitting role categories" as stated above, in Backman and Secord's own words, is simply to "not make use of one's potential". We would then assume in the case of women's achievement motivation, they, too, should not make use of this potential if it is more 21 important for a woman to align her self with the female sex- role so to maintain "consistency" with it rather than consider her full inherent potential. An alternative perspective to role enactment and "role conflict" will be presented. The feminine sex role may actually impede women in their psychological development. Women's Psychological Development: Considerations of Self and Other Beyond Role Enactment C. Gilligan (1982) has identified two basic ways of viewing moral dilemmas, or conflicts, after listening to individuals describe their responses to both hypothetical and real-life moral dilemmas. One perspective is based upon responsiveness to other people with reflection upon the particulars of the context or situation in making decisions; she has termed this perspective a "care voice". The second perspective toward dilemmas involves reflection upon general rules across situations and concern with equality and fair treatment among people; Gilligan terms this perspective a "justice voice". Gilligan (1982) believes that a care and justice “ orientation exists in both men and women but that females typically express more care responses and males express more rights or "justice" responses. In order to reach greater maturity, Gilligan believes that both care and justice perspectives must co-exist within the individual. If one 22 were to focus on one perspective more than the other, a developmental vulnerability occurs for the individual, since he or she may lose sight of the other, or, different voice which can inform them of moral considerations. Gilligan has also extended these considerations, these patterns of decision making, to a concept of self-definition. The care voice is related to the expression of concern for the other person which is a central thema of the "connected self". In contrast, acting from a justice perspective means refraining from, or holding back consideration for, the particular person or relational context of the conflict, and, instead, consult or rely upon general rules of behavior based upon fairness or equality within the social order. Acting from this perspective is termed the "separate self". Vulnerabilities also arise in these self-definitional perspectives. If one focuses upon another more than their self they may lose sight of their sense of self, and lack self-considerations in conflict, etc. On the other hand, if one focuses on their self more than another, they risk losing sight of the importance of relationship and are less likely to consider the particular needs of the other individual involved. Therefore, conscious considerations of both self and other are critical in development toward authenticity and maturity. As mentioned previously, when one emphasizes the importance of role one may minimize the importance of 23 "self". Attanucci (1988), in her study of mothers, underscores the liability of equating role with self. In this study she attempted to identify and measure self statements made by women to describe themselves in relation to self and other apart from the feminine role. Since a critical developmental goal described by Gilligan (1982) is to understand self and other beyond roles, this coding scheme allows for greater specificity in determining what perspectives one takes toward self and other in relationships. This effort to discern a difference between "self" and "role" is relevant to understanding how women view competitive relationships and may help to inform an understanding of competitive behavior in women. Attanucci (1988) outlined four basic possibilities for perspective taking toward self and other within relationship and these are described below. It should be noted that the basic unit for identifying self-definition has to mention a perspective that includes the other person, in some manner, since self- definition is assumed to take place within a relational context. A central assumption in Gilligan's theory is that self-definition can not take place in isolation of relationships throughout development. I. Self Instrumental to Others -- Others Instrumental to Self. This perspective views the self as instrumental to others while the other is instrumental to self. This self 24 descriptor reveals a lack of differentiation between one's self and the role one plays as well as a lack of differentiating the other and their role. The self and the other are described in terms of an objective, third person perspective. In the pure case, a woman would see herself as enacting the feminine role and would strive to enact this role to its fullest. Conflict is not explicitly acknowledged and the relationship is couched in terms of providing mutually beneficial functions in a static system. The woman may not be conscious of tension between the definition of role and self. She would likely be unable to locate sources of tension to this internal dilemma readily. She will typically base actions in terms of role. In the competitive relationship a woman may believe the role script ”women shouldn't beat men". II. Self Instrumental to Others -- Others "In Their Own Terms". Attanucci notes that Categories II & III are contradictions thought to be readily experienced by most women in our society. I will first differentiate Category II from the previous category and then differentiate Category II from Category III. Category II reflects the traditional feminine orientation which emphasizes the female sex-role and hence may be experienced by the female as a tension toward being "self-less" in relation to others. One major difference between Category II and Category I appears 25 to be that a woman who describes herself from a perspective outlined in Category II is more aware of the tension of being "selfless" in relation to another, while the woman who experiences herself using Category I descriptors does not sense a differentiated self that is conscious of this tension. The Category II perspective also suggests that action taken is based upon a self definition that readily focuses upon other and acts, in turn, based upon the terms of the other person. The developmental strengths of this perspective includes consideration of other's needs and expression of the capacity to respond to others. The developmental vulnerability, if a woman takes this perspective more often than one that includes fuller consideration of herself, is that she may lose track of her "self", like that of the woman who describes self strictly in terms of the Category I development. In the competitive relationship this perspective may involve consideration of the particular context (eg., the type of tasks, the other person, and one's relationship to the other person). III. "Self in Self’s Terms" -- Other Instrumental to Self The other possibility of perspective-taking is found in Category III. The tension a woman may experience from this perspective is of being "self-ish" when action is based predominately "for the self". Here, again, like the Category II perspective, the woman is somewhat aware of this 26 tension between self and role; however, the third category explicitly contradicts the traditional female role. This category more closely resembles the traditional masculine perspective toward self and other. The vulnerability inherent in making this perspective predominate is that one may lose sight of the relationship and one's impact upon the other. In the competitive relationship this perspective would rely on general principles of behavior: "one should always do well when tested". The rule of competition (one wins the other loses) is readily accepted and one wants to be a "winner" rather than "loser". It is possible to obtain self-statements in both of these categories from a woman (Category II & III). A woman who vacillates between these two self-descriptors reveals the tension she is likely to feel while consciously deciding ”in who's terms" she will act (Attanucci, 1988). The contextual judgement of a competitive situation is the focus of the current study. It is assumed in this study that the change from an alone competitive situation (Solo Competition Condition) to a mixed-sex competitive situation (Male Competition 1) is a change in relational context whereby a woman who takes a predominately Category II perspective will be more influenced by this contextual change because of the possibility of eliciting a negative reaction in the other. A woman who takes a predominately Category III perspective is not as likely to be influenced 27 by the change in these conditions. Such change in context may actually promote the self assertion of skill since focus on self as being better than another on a measured internal attribute may be an important consideration for someone holding a Category III perspective. IV. Self in Self’s Terms -- Others in Their Own Terms The final category, consideration of self in self’s own terms and consideration of other in their own terms, reveals the ideal expression of maturity which includes mutual respect in relationships. One is able to hold both perspectives -- considering self and other in relationship. Both a justice perspective (I deserve the same consideration I would grant another) and a care perspective (responsiveness toward the other) can co-exist. The vulnerabilities inherent in Categories II and III are now better mediated due to the amount of conscious awareness a woman has of both her self and others when considering how to act. She must still make difficult decisions, but the consequences may be less detrimental to her sense of self and to others for they are based upon greater conscious awareness. Therefore, her choices are more informed because she considers both perspectives vital to knowledge of a "whole self". There is no prediction in the current study regarding how a woman who takes a predominately Category IV perspective will act in the 28 competitive situation. It is important to now introduce a relationship between unconscious envy and the stereotype of the ideal feminine sex-role. This is important for it introduces the existence of a valued "good" object or attribute into considerations of self and other within relationships. In the competitive relationship, the "valued social good" is that related to winning or succeeding. Enyy and The Critical Developmental Transition From "Ideal Feminine Role" To Maturity. Envy, by definition, is a relational affect, the unconscious aim of which is to spoil the "good" of the other (M. Klein, 1946/1975). It has also been defined as, "A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by contemplation of another's desirable possessions or qualities, with a strong desire to have them for oneself. A possession of another that is strongly desired. One who possesses what another strongly desires" (The American Heritage Dictionary, 7th ed.). H. Lerner (1974) in a paper entitled "Early origins of envy and devaluation of women: Implications for sex role stereotypes", describes a "defensive reversal" (Lerner, 1974, p. 543) that is assumed to occur in men toward women. Lerner believes that our gender definitions and the sex-role stereotypes in our culture reflect an attempt to reinstate 29 and maintain in traditional adult relationships all the nurturant qualities of the "good mother". This is why most cultural stereotypes of women contain in them the desirable "feminine" attributes of providing comfort, nurturance, warmth, etc. According to Lerner, the stereotypcially feminine woman is one who embodies these attributes and who does not possess any elements of power, dominance, or control. Within Gilligan's developmental model, women who strive toward the feminine role would be represented in Attanucci's scheme as taking a Category I perspective. Lerner points out that these factors of power and control are within the "imago of the omnipotent, envied mother" from the child's perspective. Lerner goes on to state, "To put it somewhat differently, in conventional adult relationships, males stereotypically experience a defensive reversal of an early matriarchy, yet retain the nurturant functions of the good mother. A psychic and social situation is created in which the adult male retains the good aspects of the mother but is now dominant and in control of a female object on whom, as in the case of his mother, he was initially helpless and dependent, that is, his wife (or female peer) becomes his own child. As long as this defensive reversal of an early dependency situation continues, envy and devaluation of women is subdued or seemingly eliminated; the devaluation of women achieves expression in the reversal itself." (Lerner, 1974, p.543) To further extend this to Gilligan's theory and to restate this proposition: the devaluation of women achieves expression in the embodiment of (or institutionalized 30 identification of) the feminine sex-role. That is to say, when the defensive reversal is not consciously challenged, (expression of assertion of self does not emerge for conscious considerations, eg. Category I perspective or a Category II vulnerability), but role is maintained, it is maintained at the expense of conscious considerations of actions based upon a conscious sense of "self" in relation to others. To the extent that a woman is not conscious of a separate sense of self-definition apart from the feminine ideal role, (a Category I perspective or a Category II vulnerability); and, to the extent that she minimizes the realization of having a self that may also express power or dominance in the world (influence or impact others), a woman lives out the devaluation of self unconsciously. The externally derived concept of role has been valued more than authentic self development. In an evolutionary sense the valuing of role more than the individual may have aided survival; however, there is a relational cost in a value system that supports the devaluation of human self in order to fulfill role demands in a social context of power. Further, one might also note the vulnerability for the Category III perspective here -- the overvaluation of self in relation to the other. However, in the competitive situation, the Category III perspective will aid assertive expression of self. A vulnerability, however, is that a 31 woman who takes a predominately Category III perspective may tend to evoke envy in others, and, this in turn, may function to curtail relation. The devaluation of women's sense of self is accomplished at the increased valuation of a role over the existence of a separate self in her own right. Being "self- less" is the particular vulnerability in a Category II perspective and is maintained, entirely unconsciously, in an earlier phase of Category I development. When one's self does not choose but is subsumed in a role, then one's self becomes devalued. Choice, based upon authentic self- definition, is lacking, perhaps nonexistent in the normal sense of the word. Within traditional relationships (A.female Category I perspective and a male Category I perspective), this defensive reversal serves to contain negative affect in the other (pain of unconscious envy). Thus, one function of enacting roles is to contain unconscious negative affect in relationships. This is a departure from the prior discussion of role within the Fear of Success literature that avoids negative affect in order to obtain feelings of success. Ann and Barry Ulanov (1983) have drawn attention to the relational aspect of envy: to both envying and being envied. They call the experience of envying and being envied within relationships the "envy complex". Here, a 32 fuller understanding of envy, or the "envy complex" will be important within Gilligan's theory of development since it is a dynamic Operative in a relational context, and, from Lerner's observations, has implications for authentic self- definition. The maintenance of unconscious envy in relationships undermines the development of the capacity to show conscious gratitude in relationships (M. Klein, 1946/1975). Therefore, another indicator of maturity in relational terms is the ability to show gratitude for another's "goodness", and in the context of the current discussion, a gratitude that is authentic in nature and one that is not based upon another's loss of self. Also, Sassen (1980) has questioned the basic assumption that the only avenue to success is through competition and suggests that much can be learned about how women define success differently from men. Sassen ties the work of Piaget, Gilligan, and Chodorow to the differences women and men experience in how they construct reality. Further work is needed in the achievement motivation literature to identify the differing ways women view competition and success. There arises a critical transition in development during the vacillation between conscious consideration of self and other which is critical to female development. According to Gilligan, a difficult task for each woman is to achieve a sense of self where she is not defined in terms of the conventional feminine role -- where "goodness" is 33 equated with self-sacrifice. The developmental movement, according to Gilligan, is toward a more truthful acknowledgement of one’s own self that is deserving of the same consideration that one grants others. Within the competitive situation, if a woman acts upon self-less "goodness", one based upon what is acceptable in traditional role terms of the other (the ”ideal female" role), her alignment with this role will serve to contain the others envy in response to her competitive actions. The consequence of action -- outperforming a male -- would be a direct threat to a sense of unconscious equilibrium in the relationship (the containment of negative affect). Negative affect is contained by aligning one's behavior with rules of feminine role behavior. Breaking these rules would be associated with anxiety for women who align more with the feminine role. It is this conflict between role and self expression that contributes to performance decrement.in women who take a predominately Category 1 perspective. Furthermore, women who consider the relationship, more than self, (Category II perspective) may experience the competitive situation somewhat differently. Although an awareness of role behavior (e.g. "women shouldn't beat men", etc.) may be present, this awareness is also accompanied by an awareness of a separate self in relationship with another. It is more likely that women who take a predominantly Category II perspective would view the 34 competitive relationship as having an impact on the present relationship and on future relationship. They may consider the context of the situation and weigh some of the particulars of it. For example, the importance of winning might be weighed against relational factors. A woman may consider how important it is for her to outperform another on a laboratory task, what this might mean for the other person who would face losing or how future relations may be affected. If she learns that the other person has rejected her as a future partner, any considerations she may have had toward this possibility of being rejected would have been confirmed and, it would be expected that this confirmation would challenge, to some extent, her sense of self and, therefore, impact subsequent performance. The difference between a Category II perspective and the Category I role perspective is that there is further refinement in conscious consideration from a Category II perspective regarding how one's actions will impact the other person or relationship. Women using a predominately Category II perspective may act to circumvent expression of various self attributes so to not evoke feelings in the other that would curtail feelings of positive relation. Women who primarily focus upon self more than relationship may choose to express abilities, on their own terms, and stress their own self-acknowledged "good attributes" of self (intelligence, etc.), but this 35 perspective will implicitly be challenging a potential defensive reversal and, therefore, this perspective may risk curtailing relation because of envy. However, performance after rejection would likely remain the same as performance before rejection. Women, who take a predominantly Category III perspective, a self perspective that minimizes the importance of relationships, may be better able to ”cope" with the withdrawal that occurs in relationships when the other experiences envy. Therefore, this perspective lends itself to challenging a socially established defensive reversal (envy related to the gender of the individual) but carries with it the possibility of losing sight of the other in relationship. The preceding discussion attempted to make explicit the conceptual assumptions of how holding various Category perspectives may influence behavioral response in the competitive relationship. A reinterpretation of various findings will now be presented in an attempt to apply the current conceptual model to past research findings in the Fear of Success literature. A Reinterpretation of Empirical Findings Although projective responses elicited from an Opposite sex stimulus cue are not usually considered appropriate for understanding the underlying identification processes of the person responding, some studies have varied the sex of the cue character to see how men, in particular, might respond 36 to a female who is successful. This is an interesting test of men's responses to the image of a successful female. Given Lerner’s assertion of a defensive reversal -- that is -- a splitting of the qualities of warmth and nurturance (the idealized woman) from social power ("rewarded success") one would expect a general tendency to project greater negative imagery onto a successful female. Tresemer (1977, p. 121) found a small effect size across studies suggesting that men, more than women, wrote slightly greater amounts of negative responses to a cue depicting a successful female than women did. This would suggest that men do respond to a successful female cue differently than women. Greater negative imagery may be projected due to greater intensity of envy response based upon perceived difference. It is the perceived discrepancy petween self (envying person) gpg other (envied person) on a particular attribute of value (envied object) that is a necessary condition for an envy response to occur. Men may be more prone to perceiving difference between themselves and a cue of a successful female than females do. The intensity of an envy response can vary from benign to intense. In its most benign form it can resemble a process of identification. Males may experience some threat in becoming consciously aware of having envious feelings toward a female figure because benign envy would suggest wanting to have something the other is perceived to have; 37 however, a defensive reversal is more than just feeling envious. It serves to reverse a power relationship between a less mature position and an adult female. This may be one reason why one of the worse insults to a man is to be referred to as being "like a woman". This envy-based defensive reversal serves to promote a position of power in relation to women, and, in effect, serves to control female behavior by defining what is "good" and "not good" female behavior. If envy of women is maintained in a power system of dominance and submission by separating social power from nurturance, than the level of success reflected in the female stimulus cue itself, in contrast to a male cue, should elicit more negative responses as the cue becomes associated with higher levels of success. In addition, less negative imagery should be projected onto the female figure as the cue is associated with lower levels of success (extending to failure), relative to the male cue. The following studies can be reinterpreted to suggest that an envy response increases in intensity along a continuum of perceived difference. If, for example, gender has nothing to do with negative responses to a female cue, than the gender of the stimulus one would not account for any differences in negative response -- only that person's relative position to others would account for the response (i.e."pure envy" vs. a gender-based defensive reversal 38 elicited by envy). In a study by Paludi (1979) success in competitive situations was shown to be differentially perceived when considering both the sex of the person and the level of success obtained. Paludi’s question was: Is it their position, not their gender, which contributes to negative imagery?. She tested whether less negative imagery would be projected onto "Anne" or "John" if they ranged in the top half of the class instead of "at the top"? In the author's own words, ”It is important to determine the extent to which men and women permit people to be successful before they are devalued" (Paludi, 1979, p. 1320). Paludi's study documents that the frequency of negative imagery is a function of the level of success; furthermore, the slope of this function is dependent upon the gender of the stimulus cue. Significantly more negative imagery was projected onto Anne when she was "at the top" of her class compared to the John cue. Furthermore, this curvilinear function reverses itself so that when Anne is in the "top 25%" of her class considerably less negative imagery was projected onto her while considerably more was projected onto John. The findings of this study are also consistent with Feather and Simon’s (1973) results. They found a tendency to upgrade successful males in relationship to unsuccessful males and to downgrade successful females in relation to 39 unsuccessful females. This is consistent with Lerner's proposal that both men and women experience envious responses to a female figure. In fact, in Paludi's study, both men and women expected the good life for the ”successful -- but not too successful -- Anne" which included marriage and family. In contrast to this, subjects also responded to the highly successful Anne as being concerned with social rejection and ostracism. This finding is consistent with Horner's findings. However, this can be reinterpreted as the acknowledgement of what can happen to a woman as a result of her success. In all likelihood she will face some form of social rejection which is a component of an envy-based response and undermines the development of gratitude in relation. The "not-too-successful" John, in the middle of his class, was viewed as being unhappy and a failure. John's happiness is equated with his level of success whereas Anne's happiness is eluded to if she is not too successful and she is married and has children. Fogel & Paludi (1984) examined responses to Anne and John at the bottom half, bottom 25%, bottom 15%, bottom 5%, or bottom of their medical school class. More negative imagery was projected onto both Ann and John when portrayed at the bottom of the class compared to the "bottom half". However, more negative imagery was projected onto John compared to Anne in the "bottom of the class" one suggesting it is either more acceptable for Anne to be at the bottom of 40 the class, or that is less acceptable for John, or perhaps both considerations occur. In any case, the amount of negative imagery projected depends upon level of success and gender of cue. This provides some evidence for a gender based envy response that is observable depending upon the perceived level of success. Developmentally, if sex roles function to restrict human development by foreclosing options that might otherwise be readily available for conscious consideration (i.e. in a healthier system of power balance), then negative responses to a male or female stimulus cue outside the traditional sex role domain would be expected. Cherry and Deaux (1978) found that males and females had the same pattern of FOS imagery and that this negative imagery appeared to be contingent on the sex of the cue, and, whether success was in a gender appropriate or inappropriate domain such as nursing or medicine. Shapiro (1979) also found that manipulation of the projective cue from "medical school" to "ballet" decreased FOS scores in women and increased them in men. Bremer and Wittig (1980) found that occupational deviance (a nontraditional work domain) and role overload (conflicting roles one has within two domains) inflated FOS scores of both males and females; however, they only studied reactions to a female cue. Janman (1984) replicated the Bremer and Wittig study but also gave a male one in addition to a female cue. The results for the female 41 cue were replicated in the Janman study. However, when a male one was presented in conjunction with role overload and occupational deviance, there were no differences in FOS scores. In fact, men who were seen as fathers and successful in a female dominated occupation were viewed as having the opportunity to experience positive consequences. Janman (1984) concluded that the specific situational variables of occupation and role overload may apply only to women since they specifically interfere with the female sex- role. The male sex role appears to allow for greater opportunities for positive consequences in various role domains, at least more than the female role. This supports the interpretation that more anxiety is elicited when a woman challenges this dynamic where she attempts to succeed in a male domain. In a related area of research Terborg (1977) found self-confidence to be a major achievement related characteristic that has consistently differentiated the sexes. Compared to men, women typically have lower performance expectancies and lower self—evaluations of internal abilities. However, Lenney (1977) has argued that this observation is overly generalized. Based upon a review of the self-confidence literature, Lenney states that women's self confidence is not lower in all achievement situations compared to men. Women appear to be more responsive to situational cues and in some cases self- 42 confidence is even higher than men. Lenney argues that future research should determine those situations where self-confidence is either lower or higher than males. .Assuming that self-confidence is fostered by positive external support and positive experience, then the type of situation which undermines self-confidence is one whereby expression of a skill is met with ambivalence, indifference, or punishment. If women are more sensitive to situational cues, perhaps it is because these cues will afford them some anticipation of positive or negative response on the part of others. These cues may still be important and relevant even when others are not present. If identification with the feminine sex role is valued more than self, then such attention to situational cues would be important external information to confirm.one's sense of identity. It has been hypothesized that high FOS scores are related to high scores on femininity scales since it has been suggested that feminine gender identification may result in conflict with successful performance in a male domain. The traditionality of career choice or college major as well as the traditional background of the mother have also been thought to correlate positively with FOS. According to Tresemer (1977, p. 126), there has been no consistent relationship between F08 and gender-role identification. Perhaps Attanucci's work lends insight here (Attanucci, 1988). 43 A woman who identifies her self with role may enact behavior unconsciously because her sense of self is aligned with the ideal feminine sex role. However, another woman may enact the same behavior in order to obtain something she wants and thus is acting from consideration of her own self- interest. Therefore, both of these women may endorse feminine items on measures of gender identification; however, their motivation differs even though the behavior looks the same. Thus, it is not surprising that measures of FOS have not correlated with gender role identification. In the current study an attempt was made to measure women's orientation toward self and other in relationship apart from gender identification. Although gender identification has not been shown to correlate consistently with FOS, as noted above, in a related line of inquiry the labeling of a task as either "feminine" or "masculine" has been related to some extent with FOS. This type of gender labeling provides situational information about an implicit cultural expectation toward an individual's success on a task based upon their gender. Presumably, if one is male and is asked to do a "feminine task", his failure to do the task well may be excused because of the lesser tie between the behavior and his self definition; the same is true for a female doing a "masculine task". The expectation to do well is not the same across task domains. This labeling is a subtle, yet powerful 44 process because one can devalue the importance of the task and its successful implementation by noting the lack of social expectation that one master such a task or behavior. It is also notable that those tasks perform by women are often devalued in society (i.e. women are typically paid lesser amounts of money for tasks that have been labeled "feminine"). Makosky's work is most relevant to this area (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p.153). Female subjects were asked to work on the same verbal task but the labeling of the task differed between groups. On a "masculine task" they were told that it was associated with other tests of masculinity and professional ability. A second set of subjects worked on a ”feminine task" and were told it was related to femininity and superior homemaking ability. Women with FOS did poorly on the masculine task in an alone, same-sex, and mixed-sex condition giving compelling evidence to suggest that women with FOS are sensitive to the gender labels of tasks. On the other hand, these women may be more sensitive to external cues that may inform them of how their behavior will be received by others if they do well on a certain task, or, it may challenge their concept of identity. Another study by Hundert (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 153) lends additional support to Makosky's findings. Hundert tested only FOS women and found them to perform better on feminine rather than masculine tasks. FOS 45 measures may be tapping into a concern for maintaining female role behavior —- whereby one's sense of identity is associated with certain types of behavior which are rewarded more than other types of behavior. Patty (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 154) tested 325 undergraduates in a between subject design. One group in a "social skills" condition were told that the focus of their tasks had to do with the relationship between creativity and social skills in "formal environments such as clubs, families, or with the opposite sex (assumes a more stereotypically feminine orientation). The other group, "the intellectual" condition, was told that the focus of the tasks was on the relationship between creativity and intelligence (assumes a more masculine orientation). In the third condition subjects were told "we are not sure what the test measures or what it is related to" (neutral condition). FOS imagery increased in the two experimental conditions and the difference between the experimental groups was nonsignificant while the neutral group revealed no increases in FOS. It seems by making "masculine" and "feminine" domains relevant to the task at hand, negative imagery concerning "succeeding" increases. The author suggests that ability might have confounded the results since this was not controlled for; however, Tresemer (1977) has pointed out that ability has not been shown to be related to FOS in a number of studies. 46 Tresemer observes that there are basic problems with designs that attempt to measure sex-role appropriateness. First, the assumption is made that both "masculine" and "feminine" settings are equal and opposite of each other. These qualities that are presented are never measured for the amount of masculinity or femininity that is supposedly conveyed. Secondly, an assumption is made that all individuals consider the gender-role situation or activity using a similar cognitive framework; further, it is assumed that they reach the conclusion that the activity is not only inappropriate to a sex, but, also, it is viewed as personally inappropriate. It would appear to be important to ask what "femininity" or "masculinity" means to each individual; for what it means to be a woman or a man may differ. In addition, what does successful completion of a particular task mean, how important is it to the individual, personally, to do well on a particular task? The Relational Domain The Fear of Success literature also contains studies involving factors relevant to the relational domain (i.e., gender composition of a dyad or group, the performance during mixed-sex competition and cooperation). Some studies have incorporated factors related to intimacy and interpersonal power (women's performance when asked to compete with a dating partner, attributions of success and failure with a subordinate, etc.). 47 A consistent finding between F05 and the cooperative or competitive relationship suggests that women who score high on FOS tend to be more cooperative in Prisoner Dilemma situations. Tresemer (1977) cites three studies to support this observation (Tresemer, 1977, p. 129). FOS present women will, over many trials of a Prisoner's Dilemma Game, tend to stabilize in a pattern of "mutual cooperation" whereas FOS absent women tend to stabilize in a pattern of "mutual defection". If measures of FOS are tapping into, on most occasions, a concern for the consequences of success on relationship, than those women presenting with higher FOS scores may also tend to act cooperatively in relationships compared to those with lower FOS scores. Women who "defect" may tend to compete more than those who tend to "cooperate" -- these women may have a lesser concern for the impact of their "defection" on relation. Tresemer cites six studies (Tresemer, 1977, p.150) which supported the lowered.performance of high FOS scorers in a competitive dyad with a male, and eight studies that did not support this hypothesis. One study found a significant effect in the opposite direction; women with high FOS scores did better in a competitive dyad with males than in an alone condition. Overall, the findings in this area have been inconsistent. The following study focused upon the competitive relationship between dating partners and for this reason is noteworthy. 48 Peplau (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p.151) studied college-age dating couples and found those women with FOS, who also had more traditional gender-role attitudes, performed poorer in competition with their boyfriends compared to the three other subgroups of women: those with FOS who had more liberal attitudes and those women without FOS who had liberal or traditional attitudes. It appears that a combination of traditional attitudes (the extent one identifies with gender-role) and F08 (a concern/focus upon the consequence of success on relationship) may result in observed performance decrements in mixed sex pairs where the individuals are romantically involved. O’Connell (1980) studied college students in competitive groups. Male and female subjects were randomly assigned high or low status positions within same-sex and mixed-sex groups. In the same-sex groups reaction time decreased for those individuals assigned to a low status position and increased in those individuals assigned to a high status position. However, contrary to expectation, both low and high status individuals in a mixed-sex competition improved their performance. According to O'Connell (1980), the findings suggest that status does effect performance for both males and females in same-sex groups and is consistent with prior research in group processes. As for the unexpected finding, O'Connell interpreted it to mean that one's role in the group may be 49 an overriding factor compared to one's status. This "role" is thought to be due to the more liberal attitudes toward women to compete and perhaps the improved performance reflects women performing "to new limits". However, if women were "performing to new limits" why should they so easily allow status assignments in a same-sex group to influence their performance. The author also mentions the possibility of group dynamics within the team as being accountable for the improved performance. However, little discussion was made of what dynamic is occurring within a mixed-sex group that would override low status assignments. Does working for the 'good of the group' specifically promote women's performance contributions? Did some women simply experience support from males for succeeding thus removing the potential conflict of mixed-sex social rejection -- such support may indeed override arbitrary assignments of "low status", in fact, it may directly challenge it. House (1973) studied the relationship between F03 and the gender composition of the group. Women scoring high on FOS tended to choose very difficult tasks in a heterogeneous group. However, in homogeneous groups, women scoring high on FOS tended to choose medium level task difficulty. Within the achievement motivation literature, a choice of a medium level of task difficulty is considered the appropriate choice for those individuals with high 50 achievement motivation, whereas choice of a highly difficult task is seen as setting one's self up for failure. Although House interpreted the results as indicating that women with FOS are self-defeating, the results could be interpreted differently. Women with FOS appear to be making decisions that are not consistent with a strategy toward high achievement when exposed to males but are able to do so when exposed to females. If this is true, what occurs in mixed- sex groups that promote the decision to "set one’s self up for failure"? Perhaps the choice of a more difficult task reflects the conflict these women are experiencing. They at once want to achieve and do well; however, they are in a situation where males are also present. Women who score high on FOS may be attending to the potential negative consequence of their success. A strategy to express this conflict would be to choose a very difficult task to reflect the motive to succeed yet to also chose a more riskier task, more likely to result in less success -- in the latter case they may at the same time avoid potential negative responses to succeeding, yet they can express a drive to excel. Shinn (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p.149) conducted a field study which compared FOS scores in high school students who attended a private all female school to their scores 7 months later when they were in a co-educational environment. Shinn found a significant amount of FOS 51 imagery in the co-educational setting. While FOS was not related to performance in the homogeneous setting, in a co- educational setting a correlation of -.39 was found between performance on the Lowell Scrambled Word Task for those females who scored high on FOS. On the other hand, Halprin (cited in Tresemer, 1977,p.l49) and Groszko (1974) found the interaction between F08 and gender composition of group to have no effect on performance. It is notable that Shinn documented this type of phenomenon in the natural environment (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p.149) and thus some environmental validity, or generalizability, of the construct appears possible, yet, again, the phenomenon has been observed inconsistently in the laboratory. Cognitive attributions for success has also been related to FOS. Locus of control taps the degree to which an individual attributes personal reinforcements to one's own behavior or to external and uncontrollable events in the environment. There is some evidence that FOS appears to be related to higher scores on external locus of control (Rotter's Locus of Control Measure). Tresemer cites three studies which have found low to medium correlations between female FOS scores and external locus of control scores (r = .12 to .45). Males' FOS scores have also been positively correlated with external locus of control. Feather and Simon (1973) related FOS to perception of causal attributions and found those with FOS made more external 52 attributions; those who scored low in FOS made more internal attributions. Perhaps the same attentional processes that underlie locus of control also operate when focusing upon self and other in relationship. One could argue that there are similarities in the cognitive attention process that focuses upon external sources for attribution of causality and attention processes that consider others, aside from self, when making meaning out of events. Likewise, there may be similarities in the cognitive attention process for considering one's self, more than another or relationship, and one's attribution of success or failure in a relationship. For example, if concern for self, more than other, predominates, then if a failure occurred in a relationship, one would likely attempt to attribute failure to the other. If success occurs, one would more likely attribute success to one’s self. However, if concern for other/relationship predominates, which I am assuming is in part related to FOS, then causal attributions for failure in a relationship may be applied toward self. Krusell (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p. 127), has found that FOS present male and female students attributed less responsibility to themselves for success of a subordinate they had trained on a task while attributing more responsibility to themselves if the subordinate failed. The opposite occurred for FOS absent subjects: here they 53 attributed more responsibility to the subordinant if they failed and more to themselves if they succeeded. This study tends to support the ideas outlined above. Attribution of success and failure may be related to how one generally views relationship with others. Indeed, perhaps what is important to note here is the weighing of the relative importance of relationship or achievement success in an individual's life, and ultimately, how one defines success for one's self. A study by Schnitzer (1977) raises the questions of whether success is seen as incompatible with interpersonal satisfactions and whether people who fear success see their relationships as particularly vulnerable. Schnitzer (1977) used Horner's original coding scheme to measure FOS. She had five samples of subjects which she gave various cues to and instructed them to write stories in a manner consistent with the traditional TAT instruction set. In one sample of 55 young women she gave the following cue: "Janet has a feeling that David would like to get to know her better". She notes the themes written by the two groups of women (FOS present and absent) were quite different. Schnitzer (1977) found that women who scored high in FOS wrote nearly three times as many stories revealing a perception of danger when one person begins to like another. (61% FOS present women wrote danger with intimacy themes vs. 22% FOS absent women). 54 In a subsequent sample, 23 female undergraduates responded to a cue which implies further intimate opposite sex contact: "Janet has just accepted a date with one of the most interesting men around". Again, scoring these protocols for either the presence of pleasure or danger, Schnitzer found that all of the danger stories were written by subjects who also scored high on FOS while pleasure themes characterized the stories of those who revealed an absence of fear. In general, it appears women who do not score high on FOS also do not express fears of intimate relationships with men. Furthermore, Schnitzer notes that a particular theme arose in FOS absent women's responses to the cue phrase: "one of the most interesting men around” (Schnitzer, 1977, p.276). FOS absent subjects appear to go out of their way to stress the personal aspects of Janet that the male was interested in and tried to differentiate this from more superficial qualities such as popularity or prestige. Schnitzer observes, "These subjects seemed to want to make it clear that Janet's interest is genuine and personal, not influenced by the opinions of others. None of the F08 present subjects completed the story with this theme.” (Schnitzer, 1977, p. 277). To further understand this "danger theme" Schnitzer gave a third sample the cue: EAlppgpgp_gpg_pggl;yyl;5gg_§gg WW" . Here, because of the stimulus pull of the cue, all stories 55 appropriately reflected some amount of fear. However, the fears described in FOS present and F08 absent women were significantly different and appeared as two broad themes. Fifty-seven percent wrote themes of fear that involved one's self which Schnitzer stated was more "self-focused" while forty-seven percent wrote themes of fear that Schnitzer called more "other-focused". The subgroup of women (fifty-seven percent) that wrote self-focused themes revealed Laura's concern/fear regarding consideration of her own feelings and judgements. Twenty- nine percent of these women wrote that Laura did not feel she was ready for a commitment, 14% hesitated because important differences seemed to exist between her and Ken; another 14% included that Ken's feelings were deeper than Laura's and so she was fearful of hurting him. She is able to consider herself as being separate from Ken gpg she gives consideration of Ken in his terms: of not wanting to hurt him or considering differences between herself and him. She considers her self in "self’s own terms"; however, consideration of Ken is not simply reduced to his being instrumental to Laura in all the stories, his feelings are also considered in this general theme of concern. In Gilligan's theory of development, this is a reflection of maturity (1982). However, a second theme arises to be contrasted with the one just mentioned. According to Schnitzer, other- 56 focused women wrote themes that consider how "she might not be able to please him" or "she might feel less important to him than his other activities", or "he would own her body and might not appreciate it". Laura's affections toward the other would not be reciprocated and she may end up feeling neglected, used or inadequate for the involvement. Forty- three percent of the sample stated that Laura's fear of involvement stems not from consideration of her own feelings, but, from a mistrust of Ken's feelings and his possible behavior toward her. It is important to extend these observations to Gilligan's theory. The statement that ”she might not be able to please him" and "he would own her body and might not appreciate it" suggests pyg_different underlying "subthemes" in this group of women, however, they are assumed to be the same in Schnitzer's coding system. Schnitzer's rationale for coding the two statements as other focused is because these statements focus on Ken rather than on Laura (contrast, for example, the self-focus statement made earlier implying she is not ready for a commitment). I will point out two notable "subthemes" that appear quite different yet Schnitzer has coded them as the same -- "other-focused". In the first subtheme there is an implicit fear of failing to maintain the relationship (she might not "be able to meet his needs") which, in turn, arouses fear and is of focus and concern for her. However, in the second 57 "subtheme", the critical difference is the concern regarding danger to self rather than to the relationship; however, it is coded as focused upon other. For example, "§§_would own her body" and "(he) would not appreciate it" focuses on the other but the danger perceived is quite clearly associated with self. When one contrasts this with the first statement (She might not be able to meet his needs) a focus upon other is present, yet the danger is not to self but to lack of maintaining a relationship (intimacy). It appears that when a perception of danger in intimate relationships with males exists one would need to score for this difference in "perceived danger" based upon whether the thing that is in danger is the self or the relationship. Gilligan (1977) has suggested asking the subject "what is at stake" in order to elicit conflict material, and, to a certain degree, perceived threat. Schnitzer (1977) related the sources of consideration (Laura or Ken oriented) in the previous story to FOS. She found that 77% of those who score high on FOS tell Ken oriented (other focus) stories while 23% tell Laura oriented (self-focus) stories. These proportions are dramatically reversed in the nonfear subjects. Sixteen percent tell Ken oriented stories whereas 84% tell Laura oriented stories. In the future it will be important to measure perceptions of threat to self or other as well as the perception of care for self and other if applying this 58 coding scheme to Gilligan's theory of development. However, it appears that an important underlying dimension in producing negative FOS imagery and negative interpersonal imagery, if one generalizes from projective cues used in this study, are the perceptions of threat to self or other. The current study is a modification of a prior study conducted by Fisher, O'Neal, and McDonald (cited in Tresemer, 1977, p.158). In this study females were told to work on an industrial problem-solving task in competition with a male or female partner (the partners were confederates). After the first performance measure the females overheard a conversation in which they were either accepted or rejected by a confederate. After this conversation they competed with a different confederate of the same sex as the original competitor. On the second task the female completed an anagram task. Only the three-way interaction was significant: women who competed against male partners obtained lower scores on the second performance measure when rejected following success on the industrial problem task or accepted following failure on the industrial problem task. This study brings to light some important questions. What does rejection, after success, mean to a woman? Or, acceptance after she has failed? Does acceptance after failing, for example, mean that others like her -- even when she fails —- and winning is viewed as secondary to this; 59 that winning is viewed as secondary to the maintenance of relationships? Or does acceptance after failure mean that relationships are only maintained if one "holds back" one’s competencies? If she is rejected after succeeding -- what does this suggest to her? If relationships are important -- how does she excel in building her skills when this may impact negatively on relationships with others? These questions have remained unexplored. Measurement of F05 The preceding section dealt with the possibility that FOS was reflective of a concern for the consequence of success on relationship. This section will attempt to review the relevant psychometric literature in order to shed more light on what various measures of FOS may be tapping into. Reliability of FOS. Horner’s (1968) projective measure of Fear of Success was based upon responses to a single verbal cue. She later attempted to revise this measure in order to address the lack of reliability that emerged from subsequent studies (Horner, et al. 1973). Three basic types of reliability of projective measures are the interrater reliability, homogeneity reliability (variations of scores over different cues) and test re-test reliability. The homogeneity reliability for Horner’s original projective measure can not be readily established because the original measure is based upon administration of 60 only one cue. However, the homogeneity reliability of her revised measure has been reported between .60 and .80. Interrater reliability has been reported to vary from .80— .90 for Horner's original measure of FOS (Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975). However, Tresemer (1977) believes a major measurement problem has occurred in what raters have judged to be FOS. He suggests that some judges have incorrectly treated all negative themes in a protocol as evidence of FOS. Thus, the failure to take into account that FOS is contingent on the negative consequences assumed to occur after a success suggests serious methodological flaws in the measurement of FOS. Also, Tresemer points out that Horner's 1968 and Horner et al.'s 1973 measures of FOS do not differentiate more ”realistic" statements of negative consequences (such as sexist responses by others) from less realistic responses (being physically abused, etc.). Tresemer's observation concerning the coding of any negative imagery as ”FOS present" does suggest that confusion will inevitably arise as to what is actually being measured. Therefore, the wide variation of FOS imagery across studies may be due to true variability or measurement variability (20% - 80% FOS imagery in females and 9% - 76% FOS imagery in males) (Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975). Test re-test reliability for various paper and pencil measures of FOS has usually been determined using the Kuder Richardson-20 formula and has 61 varied from .62 to .80. Validity of FOS. Gelbort and Winer (1985) state that there are at least seven measures of Fear of Success and three measures of Fear of Failure in use during the mid- eighties. These authors conducted a multitrait-multimethod validation study of three Fear of Success measures. The two self report measures, one by Zuckerman and Allison (1976), and the other by Pappo (1972), were correlated with Horner's (1973) revised projective measure of F05. The Zuckerman and Allison (1976) instrument attempts to measure the benefits of success, the cost of success, and the respondents' attitude toward success compared to other alternatives. Pappo's (1972) instrument measures self doubt, preoccupation with evaluation, repudiation of competence and self-sabotage behavior. The revised Horner et al. (1973) coding scheme includes weighted measures of FOS imagery: (1) Contingent negative consequences to success [2+]; (2) Noncontingent negative consequences [2+]; (3) Interpersonal engagement [2+]; (4) Relief [1+]; (5) Absence of instrumental activity [1+]; and (6) Absence of mention of other persons [-2]. Correlations between these 3 measures from two separate studies are reported in Table 1. In Gelbort and Winer’s (1985) multitrait-multimethod study, a lack of convergent validity between the objective measures and the projective measure of Horner et al. (1973) was noted. In fact, one measure, Zuckerman and Allison 62 (1976), correlated negatively with the Horner et al. (1973) measure while the Pappo (1972) measure did not correlate with any FOS measure. On the other hand, in Griffore's (1977) study, Pappo's (1972) measure correlated .42 with the Zuckerman and Allison (1976) measure. Both studies suggest that a lack of convergent validity exists between Horner's revised projective measure and these paper and pencil tests. Horner's measure appears to be measuring something different from what nonprojective instruments measure. A study conducted by Reviere and Posey (1978) is worth noting since it provides some evidence of convergent validity, albeit, rather weak evidence. Reviere and Posey (1978) found the Good and Good (1973) measure correlated significantly with the Horner et al. (1973) projective measure (.37; p < .05). The Good and Good (1973) measure appears to tap into the impact success has on interpersonal relationships (Kerney, 1984). Some of the inconsistencies in the Fear of Success literature have been attributed to the possibility that Horner's (1968) and Horner et al.'s (1973) measures are also tapping the Fear of Failure response domain. In the multitrait-multimethod study of Gelbort and Winer (1985) two popular measures of Fear of Failure were found to be statistically unrelated (The Debilitating Anxiety Scale and The Birney et al. (1969) Hostile Press Scale). The Birney et a1. (1969) measure of Fear of Failure correlated 63 Table 1. Pearson product moment correlations between two self report measures of Fear of Success, one anxiety measure of Fear of Failure, and the Horner et al. (1973) revised projective measure of Fear of Success. Griffore (1977] Gelbort & Winer (1985) Horner et al. Horner et al. (1973) (1973) Pappo .11 .16 (1972) Zuckerman & Allison .02 -.32 ** (1976) DAS (Anxiety) .18 * .01 Fear of Failure * p < .053 ** p < .001 64 negatively with Zuckerman and Allisons' (1976) measure of Fear of Success which does suggest some discriminative validity for these measures of FOS; however, it also correlated positively with Horner's (1973) projective measure of Fear of Success. The other scale thought to measure a Fear of Failure is the Debilitating Anxiety Scale which correlated positively with both objective measures of FOS but not with Horner et al.'s (1973) projective measure, offering some evidence for discriminative validity for Horner's instrument. Griffore (1977) concluded that Horner's instrument appears to be situationally specific and stated that researchers should not assume that the 3 measures of FOS (Horner et al. 1973, Pappo, 1972, & Zuckerman anthllison 1976) measure the same construct, nor should researchers assume that they are measuring the construct outlined by Horner (1968), or that they are measuring responses-entirely distinguishable from the Fear of Failure. The Gelbort and Winer (1985) multitrait—multimethod study largely supports Griffore's conclusions. Sactor-Analypic Studies. Factor analytic studies can help to clarify what components of a global construct are being measured; in the case of FOS, it appears to be multi-dimensional. Kerney (1984) conducted a factor analysis of the Good and Good (1973) measure (noted above to correlate positively with 65 Horner et al.'s (1973) projective measure). The analysis yielded four factors for women and five for men. Loadings of four factors were similar for both sexes which included a 1) concern for provoking negative feelings in others, 2) the stress of success may be too burdensome, 3) others might take advantage of them, and 4) their interpersonal relationship would suffer; there were no differences between men and women in overall FOS scores. Kearney (1984) concluded that both males and females appear to believe that high achievement will bring negative feelings toward them and that their interpersonal relationships might suffer. It is interesting to note that both Kerney's (1984) study and the Horner et al. (1973) instrument seem to measure the interpersonal implications of success. Note two of the coding categories for Horner et al.'s {1973) instrument: positive coding for mention of interpersonal engagement [2+] and decrease in the F08 score if there is an absence of mentioning other persons [-2]. Kerney's factor analysis of the Good and Good scale seem to also stress interpersonal themes: "concern for provoking negative feelings in others, others might take advantage of them, and their interpersonal relationship would suffer" (Good & Good, 1973). In contrast, the measure by Pappo (1972) appears to be measuring the individual's preoccupation with evaluation by others along with self-doubt and negative self-evaluations. 66 The relevancy of the interpersonal domain within the item content appears to be limited to measuring the perceptions of negative evaluations on performance (or potential performance). Therefore, anxiety that interferes with performance, as measured by the Pappo measure, may be more aligned with negative evaluation of failure than with the interpersonal evaluations of succeeding. The Zuckerman and Allison (1976) instrument appears to be measuring at least two different domains, according to a factor analytic study conducted by Sadd, Lenaure, Shaver and Dunivant (1978). They found two underlying factors: some items appear to be tapping the negative consequences the individual perceives due to success while another set appears to be focusing on the individual's motivation to excel. Seven of the 27 items on the Zuckerman and Allison measure (Zuckerman & Allison, 1976, p. 423) mention possible interpersonal considerations of success. In an attempt at understanding the face validity of the instrument, I call these items the "interpersonal" items (3,5,7,10,15,16,19). Five of seven are scored as "high FOS". High FOS "interpersonal items" consider the negative ramifications on the relationship, or the perspective of the other person, while the low FOS relational items reveal relational considerations that are predominately self-focused. For example, items scored as high FOS (reinterpreted as considering relationship or others more than self) are: 67 "For every winner there are several rejected and unhappy losers", "A successful person is often considered by others to be aloof and snobbish", "When competing against another person, I sometimes feel better if I lose than if I win", "I become embarrassed when others compliment me on my work", ”In my attempt to do better I realize I might lose many of my friends". Whereas the interpersonal items scored as low FOS (considers self) are: "I enjoy telling my friends that I have done something especially well" and "I am happy only when I am doing better than others". Although it is speculative at this point, these various measures may be tapping 2 basic orientations one might take toward assessing the consequences of success: considerations of one's own self (perhaps provoking envy in relation) and others or relationship (diminishing the potential of envy in relation). One may both focus on self considerations (one's own self-confidence, self-evaluation, motive to excel etc., for example, Pappo, 1972), or considerations of others or the impact on interpersonal relations (such as the subset of items outlined above in the Zuckerman and Allison (1976) measure as well at the Good and Good (1973) and Horner et al. (1973) measures.) In summary, a different theory is forwarded to account for women’s behavioral performance decrement in the competitive situation. Both internal motivation to obtain self-directed goals and consideration toward others and 68 relationship are central features of this theory. These two perspectives -- toward self and toward others -- are central to self-definition (Gilligan, 1982). Outperformance may negatively impact relationships because outperformance may elicit envy in another thereby curtailing relationship. Those who have a greater concern for maintaining relationships may decrease the likelihood to outperform in a given situation. In addition, responses to superior performance is not simply envy based, it is also influenced by gender. Evidence was presented to suggest that negative imagery produced toward a succeeding female is a function of level of success and gender (Paludi, 1979; Fogel and Paludi, 1984). It was argued that this is a defensive reversal toward a female figure who is perceived to have social power and control. This defensive reversal is not challenged but is sanctioned in feminine role behavior. Feminine role behavior has been socially desired in women (warmth and nurturance) yet does not integrate an image of women with competitive skill. Women's alignment with role behavior actually undermines their capacity to consider self and others as outlined by Gilligan (1982). In the competitive situation, factors influencing self-definition (feminine role behavior, expression of self, and concern toward others or the relationship) play a complex role in understanding women's performance behavior. Thus internal motivation and 69 consideration for others (apart from one's self), are two essential factors to consider in a developmental theory of achievement motivation. The next chapter will outline the method of the current study in order to test specific hypotheses relating orientation toward self and other in relationship to behavioral performance. It was hypothesized that women who define their self as considering others, more than self, would decrease their performance when first asked to compete against a male, and again after being rejected by that male as a future working partner. II. III CHAPTER 2 Hypotheses The Other-Oriented group, measured by the RSI, will decrease behavioral performance from 8010 Competition to Male Competition 1. The Other-Oriented group, measured by the Attanucci Coding Scheme, will decrease behavioral performance from Solo Competition to Male Competition 1. The Other-Oriented group, measured by the RSI, when exposed to a male Social Rejection message, will decrease behavioral performance between Male Competition 1 to Male Competition 2. 70 Method Experimental Design The experiment had four conditions, administered in the sequence: Baseline, Solo Competition, Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2. All subjects solved a list of anagrams during each experimental condition. Adjusted anagram solution times are the values of the dependent variable. The Baseline Condition had a noncompetitive instruction set. The Solo Competition Condition introduced a competitive instruction set: all subjects were told the test was a measure of general intelligence. After Solo Competition, feedback was manipulated to reflect high performance. This feedback was intended to promote the subject's consideration of an internally valued attribute. The subject then competed against the male confederate (Male Competition 1). Other-Oriented women were expected to decrease performance between Solo Competition and Male Competition 1. It was assumed that the introduction of another person into the competitive context should elicit consideration of another; this act would result in lower performance for this group. The subject always finished earlier than the male confederate during both Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2, to satisfy the necessary condition of outperformance for an envy response to occur. All subjects were treated the same during the first 71 72 three conditions; however, after Male Competition 1 a between-group variable, Social Manipulation, was introduced. Half the subjects heard a Social Acceptance message while half heard a Social Rejection message from the male confederate. After this manipulation, each subject competed in the Male Competition 2 condition. It was believed that Other-Oriented women would have lower post-rejection performances compared to all others because the rejection would confirm that expression of a valued internal attribute impair a relationship. I predicted that rejection would affect Other-Oriented women more than Self-Oriented women. In summary, there were three independent variables: Group (Self Oriented and Other Oriented); Condition (Baseline, Solo Competition, Male Competition 1, Male Competition 2); and Information (Acceptance & Rejection). Given that the design involves behavioral manipulations to study the negative impact of social rejection, it is. important to note that the study was accepted by a human subjects ethics committee at Michigan State University. Mega Forty female subjects were recruited for the "Work and Relationship Study" and received class credit for their participation. The Relational Self Inventory (RSI) (Strommen, et al., 1987) was administered to male and female undergraduates in six psychology classes. Three hundred forty female students completed the inventory. The purpose 73 of the RSI administration was to identify women who focus primarily on "others" in relationships (Primacy of Other Care subscale), and women who focus primarily on "self" in relationships (Separate/Objective Self subscale). The RSI has four scales: Separate/Objective Self (18 items), Connected/Relational Self (12 items), Primacy of Other Care (14 items) and Self and Other Chosen Freely (16 items). A ten point difference between the Primacy of Other Care and Separate/Objective Self subscales indicates a score in the outer quartiles of the difference score distribution for female subjects. Women scoring]; 10 points on the two subscales were contacted by phone and asked to return to the laboratory. A final item was added to the inventory which asked whether the subject had ever been diagnosed with a learning disability before. If the subject endorsed this item they were excluded from the experiment. Fifty-one Other-Oriented women (15% of the sample) and 86 Self, Oriented women (25% of the sample) met this 10-point difference criterion. Each subject met the selection criterion if her difference score on the RSI subscales was at least 10 points, and was the highest difference score of those who arrived for the experimental session. The mean difference score for subjects who completed the experimental session was 20 with a standard deviation of 10 (range = 10 - 54). Twenty subjects were assigned to the Self-Oriented Group and 74 20 subjects were assigned to the Other-Oriented Group. The mean age was 20 (range = 18 - 50). There were 2 Asian- Americans, 1 African-American and 37 Caucasians. Ninety- five percent of the subjects were middle or upper middle class and 5% were lower middle class or poor. Measurement The Relationship Self Inventopy (RSI). The Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) developed by Strommen et al., (1987) is a quantitative measure of two basic self- orientations, the Connected Self and Separate/Objective Self (Gilligan, 1982). Two subscales of the Relational Self Inventory were used in the current study. The following internal consistencies (Cronbach's Alpha) have been reported: Separate/Objective Self Scale (r = .77 for women; .85 for men); Primacy of Other Care (r = .68 for women; .67 for men) (Strommen et al., 1987). Dependent Variable. The normative solution times reported by Tresselt and Mayzher (1966) were used to adjust the anagram list solution times for each subject. The sum of the normative times for correctly solved anagrams in an anagram list was divided by subject's solution time for that list. These adjusted solution times are the values of the dependent variable. Attanucci Soding Scheme. Attanucci (1988) developed a coding scheme designating four basic categories of self- description which reflect the general progression of 75 Gilligan's developmental theory (1982). An exit interview was conducted (See Appendix C) and questions 10 and 11 of the interview elicited material for coding self definition. Question 10 was: ”How would you describe yourself to yourself, or, if you had to describe yourself in a way that you would know it was really you, what would you say?" Question 11 was: "Think of one man you have had a romantic relationship with. How would you describe yourself in relation to him?" This question differs from Attanucci's (1988) interview. In that interview the question was phrased "... in relation to your husband?" The forty interviews were transcribed; self definitional statements were identified as described by Attanucci (1988) (Also, see Appendix D). Means and ranges for category statements appear in Appendix H. Two advanced clinical psychology graduate students served as raters in the study. Ten interviews were randomly selected to. establish inter-rater reliability. Each self-definitional statement elicited in an interview was coded for membership in one of four categories: I) Self instrumental to others; others instrumental to self. In this category self is described in role terms. Actions are viewed as fulfilling role commitments. II) Self instrumental to others; others in their own terms. In this category self is described as being responsive to others on their terms and consideration of self is secondary. III) Self in self’s terms; others 76 instrumental to self. In this category self is described as being of primary concern and consideration of others is secondary. IV) Self in self’s terms; others in their own terms. This category reflects maturity; description of self reflects consideration of both self and other. Each self-definitional statement was judged independently (Attanucci, 1988). Raters were blind to the subject's RSI and performance scores. The raters did not agree on two statements; these were excluded from further analysis. After estimating reliability, the remaining 30 interviews were randomly assigned to each rater for coding. Reliability was based upon 10 interviews and not 40 due to logistical concerns. Rating scores were adjusted for verbosity, by dividing the rating score (the number of interview statements that were assigned to a particular category) by the subject's total number of interview statements. The resulting. proportions were then multiplied by 100. One interview produced zero classifiable statements; this subject was excluded from further data analysis. In order to test Hypothesis II, those women whose combined Category I and Category II statements reflected 50-100% of their total self-definitional statements, and, who had zero Category III statements, were assigned to the Other-Oriented group (n=9). Those women who had 80-100% of their statements in Category III, and zero statements in Category I, were assigned to the 77 Self-Oriented group (n=8). Apparatus An intercom system was used to guide subjects through the experimental conditions and to present the various experimental manipulations. Volume was adjusted to a standard level throughout the experiment. A stop watch was used by the assistant to measure anagram solution times. Material To assess performance on a competitive task, each subject was administered a separate anagram list during each of the four experimental conditions (The four lists were the same for every subject: A, B, C, & D). The anagram lists were equated in difficulty based upon normative solution times for each individual anagram. (Tresselt & Mayzher, 1966). Each list consisted of eight anagrams; the normative solution time for each list summed to 92 (1,5) seconds. The order of presentation of the lists were randomly.ordered and then assigned to each subject. For example, subject one completed lists A, C, D, & B while subject two completed lists C, D, B, & A during the four consecutive conditions. Procedure Four research assistants worked with the experimenter on the research study (two females and two males). During each experimental session one female served as the subject's assistant and one male served as a confederate. Three subjects and one male confederate were scheduled per 78 experimental session, which took place within 10 days after the general administration of the RSI. Forty subjects who met the selection criterion were assigned to a Self-Oriented or Other—Oriented group based upon the direction of their difference score. The experimenter approached the four subjects (3 females and 1 male confederate) in the waiting area and announced, "We'll begin soon" and stated to the nontarget subjects, ”Your room is ready, please come with me". At this point the experimenter also asked the assistant to have the subject and the male confederate get "started on the forms" and to "help get the other room ready". The difference between nontarget subjects' and the experimental subject's tasks was not announced; it was left ambiguous as the experimenter escorted the nontarget subjects away. The nontarget subjects signed an informed consent form (See Appendix A) and wrote responses to three projective cues recorded on audio-tape. The experimental subject and male confederate were led to the experimental room by a female assistant. The assistant requested that the subject and confederate wait in the experimental room "until the other room was ready" and to fill out the demographic and consent forms (Appendix A). One form specified that the subject would be asked to perform a competitive task and a cooperative task during the experiment. During this period the male confederate built 79 some rapport with the subject. The confederate was instructed to engage in conversation and to attempt to maintain eye contact. He was encouraged to create a friendly peer atmosphere. Conversations with the subject focused upon sharing perceptions of school related activities. The confederate attempted to share his perspective and to inquire about the subject's perspective during the conversation. After 5 minutes the assistant returned and stated to the male "your room is ready". The assistant escorted the male confederate away and then returned to the experimental room. After the male confederate left the experimental room the subject did not see him again; however, she did hear his voice over the intercom system during the acceptance or rejection manipulation. Once the assistant returned to the room the experimenter gave the general instructions. The subject was accompanied only by an assistant during the experimental conditions. Baseline Condition. The first condition began after the male left. It was a noncompetitive baseline performance condition (Condition 1). The subject solved anagrams alone under the following noncompetitive instructions: ”Hello, I wanted to let all of you know that we'll be starting soon. During this experiment I will be talking with you separately in your rooms through this intercom system. I'll be asking you to work on a task related to work performance. First, I want to introduce you to the intercom system -- because of the way the intercom is wired you may be able to hear what is said in other rooms. If you would like to say 80 something to the research assistant and you don't want others to hear your conversation -- please ask the assistant to mute the intercom before you talk. At this point, please make sure you've read the instructions. If you have any questions please talk to the assistant." After a pause, the experimenter asked the subject's assistant if they were ready to begin. In addition, three taped replies of "ready" from fictional assistants were played over the intercom to give the impression that all four subjects were working on the same task and were ready. This was done in order to provide a context of choice; later in the experiment the subject and the male confederate would be asked with whom they wanted to work with on another task. The assistant then instructed the subject to begin. After the subject completed the Baseline Condition she was given a Comment sheet (see Appendix B). gondition 2: Solo Competition. Condition 2 is a Solo Competition Condition. The instructions explicitly stated that the anagrams test is an indicator of general I intelligence and the subject should work as accurately and as quickly as possible. She was also told that her performance would be compared to "national norms" (See Appendix 1). After the subject completed the anagram sheet the assistant left to "score it" while the subject filled out the Comment sheet on how important the task was to her and how satisfied she was with her performance. Within two minutes the assistant returned to the room and gave the 81 subject feedback regarding her performance; therefore, subjects ratings of Task Importance and Satisfaction with performance were completed prior to receiving feedback on their performance. The feedback for each subject was the same: the subject was always told she performed in the "89th percentile compared to agemates" and that this was "a very good score". This was done to elicit attention concerning a valuable internal quality (i.e. intelligence) which is potentially enviable. l Condition 3: Male Qompetition 1. The experimenter then stated over the intercom, ”(Female's name) and Chad, right now I want to talk to just the two of you, the other subjects' intercoms have been turned off at this point. You two did the best on the last anagrams test. Now we're going to give you another test to see which of you can do better. This test has the same difficulty level as the first two tests. It's not any harder. Wait until I tell you to start and tell my assistant when you are finished. Wait until I say begin after the count of three ... will the assistants please tell me when Chad and (female subject’s name) are done ... ready, (pause) one ... two ... three ... begin." After the subject told the assistant she was done the assistant stated "done" in a louder voice toward the intercom. After one minute a taped recording of "Chad's assistant" stated "done" over the intercom at which point the target subject's assistant collected the anagram sheet and gave her the Comment sheet. The belated finish of the male confederate was designed to create a potential envying situation: the female subject always outperformed the male 82 confederate on the task during both Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2. Social Manipulation: Acceptance and Social Rejection Information. After Condition 3 the experimenter announced over the intercom: "The four of you will be asked to take one more anagrams test and then you will work with another student on a cooperative task. Since we're beginning to set up the cooperative task, I wanted to knOW’WhO each of you would like to work with so I'm going to ask the research assistant to turn down the volume on the intercom and find out who you want to work with.” At this point the female assistant walked over to the intercom and briefly clicked it so that it appeared to be "turned down". Before the assistant had a chance to address the subject a recording of "Chad's assistant" was played over the intercom asking him who he would prefer to work with. The male confederate stated over the intercom ”someone else" in the Rejection condition and the name of the female subject in the Acceptance condition. The. Acceptance and Rejection conditions were randomly assigned to each subject. This manipulation was done to incorporate a social rejection aspect of envy which could potentially enter the relationship. The subject's assistant briefly stated in a surprised manner that this (Chad's vocal acceptance - rejection) was not suppose to happen. She then asked the subject whom she would like to work with. The assistant left the room to report the subject's choice. 83 Condition 4: Male Competition 2. Once the assistant returned to the room the experimenter stated, "(Female subject's name) and Chad, you'll be taking another anagrams test. Again, I want to see which of you can do better. Wait until I tell you to begin after the count of 3 and tell the assistant when you are done. Ready... one ... two ... three... begin." One minute after the subject was done the recording of "Chad's assistant" also stated "done". The assistant collected the anagrams and gave the subject a Comment sheet. The assistant left and the experimenter entered the room to begin the exit interview. Exit Interview and Debriefing. After the last condition (Male Competition 2) the experimenter told the subject that there would not be a cooperative task and asked permission to interview her about her experience during the experiment. She was informed that the intercom system was off and that her anonymity was guaranteed. The subject was given a second consent form (See Appendix A). The exit interview then began (See Appendix C). The exit interview consisted of 11 questions. The subject was asked to describe her general reaction to the study and to the competition (Questions 1 - 3). She was also asked about her reaction to being accepted or rejected and her attribution for this event (Question 4 - 7). Furthermore, she was asked to estimate whether her performance changed between the Solo Competition and the Male Competition 1 Conditions (Questions 8 & 9). Lastly, 84 she was asked to describe herself (Question 10 & 11). After the interview was completed the subject went through a debriefing. She was informed that the anagrams test was not regarded as a general indicator of intelligence and that her performance compared to national norms is unknown since national norms are not available (counter to the 89th percentile score feedback). Each subject was told that the male was a confederate and that he was instructed to give her an acceptance or rejection message and that this was done in order to study an aspect of envy in relationships, in particular, being envied. She was also told that the acceptance or rejection message was based upon random assignment. The subject was asked whether she had any concerns with the manipulations in the study. She was given a contact sheet to call the experimenter or the study supervisor if any concerns should arise. Statistical Analysis An estimate of inter-rater reliability was calculated for agreement on Category assignment of self definitional statements using the Attanucci Coding Scheme. The Spearman Rank Correlation was .94. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on all analyses unless otherwise noted. All tests involving the Group factor (Self or Other) were based upon the RSI data; except for the test of Hypothesis II, for which the Self and Other 85 classifications were based upon the Attanucci Coding Scheme. During each experimental session there was a confederate who competed against the subject. Since two males were involved in the research project, a Confederate factor (Confederate 1 vs. Confederate 2) was analyzed for Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2 data in order to estimate error variance associated with the confederate. A two-tailed 5% rejection region was selected for all tests . Results Manipulation Checks The anagram solution rate during Baseline was compared with the rate during 8010 Competition to see whether the competition manipulation increased performances as expected. Performance did not increase under Competitive instructions compared to Baseline instructions F(1,38) = .018 (Msuww = .187) which was counter to expectation. A second check of the manipulation success was conducted. After each condition, the subject rated how important it was to do well on the task on a 6 point scale: 6 = extremely important; 5 = very important; 4 - fairly important; 3 = slightly important; 2 = not very important; 1 = extremely unimportant. If the competitive instruction set was successful, ratings of Task Importance should increase from Baseline to Solo Competition (one subject was excluded from the analysis due to a missing comment sheet). A single degree of freedom contrast between the Baseline Condition and Solo Competition Condition showed that ratings of Task Importance did increase F(1,37) = 8.214; p a .007) (usflww = .299). Overall, the results suggest that the competitive instructions increased the subject's sense of importance of the task from Baseline to Solo Competition but did not increase subject's anagram success. After Condition 3 the between-subject factor Information (Acceptance and Rejection) was introduced. A 86 87 check on the success of the manipulation was performed. All interviews were coded by a single rater (blind to the type of information the subject received) for whether the subject heard the information or did not hear it. Nine subjects did not hear the information while thirty-one did hear it. Therefore, a covariate was created for the analysis based upon whether or not the information was heard. A test of homogeneity of regression slopes was performed. The following interaction tests between the covariate and Group F(1,37) 2.02, Information F(1,37)=.015, and Confederate F(1,37) .018 were nonsignificant. The covariate was entered into all statistical tests involving Male Competition 2 data. Test of Hypothesis I A repeated measure ANOVA was performed involving Group (Self vs Other) x Condition (Solo Competition vs. Male Competition 1) x Confederate (Confederate 1 vs. Confederate 2). The test of the Group x Condition interaction was nonsignificant F(1,36) = .301 (MSme.= .188). Hypothesis I was not supported: The Other-Oriented group did not decrease their behavioral performance when introduced to the Male Competition 1 condition. Table 2 provides Self- Oriented and Other-Oriented group means across the four conditions. 88 Table 2. Anagram solution rate by relationship orientation (Self or Other), social manipulation, Rejection), and performance condition: deviations (parentheses). (Acceptance or Means and standard I Condition I E I IBaseline Solo Male Soc. MaleI I I Comp. Comp. Manipu- CompI I I 1 lation 2 IGroup I I I I I I I Accept .516 I I (n=10) (.518) ISelf I .704 .561 .574 I(n=20) I (.705) (.393) (.642) I I I I Reject .597 ' I (n=10) (.302) l g I Accept .950 Other : .629 .798 .910 (n=10) (1.053) l(n=20) :(.529) (.719) (.811) . I . I Reject .762 : : (n=10) (.526) I I I I 89 Test of Hypothesis II The factor group for the test of Hypothesis II was derived from the qualitative data set (Attanucci Coding Scheme). A Group (Self vs. Other) x Condition (Solo Competition vs. Male Competition 1) x Confederate (Male Confederate 1 vs. Male Confederate 2) repeated measure ANOVA of anagram solution rates was performed. The Group x Condition test was nonsignificant F(1,13) =.277 (MS mwm.= .113); therefore, Hypothesis II was not supported. Table 3 shows Group means for the first three conditions. Test of Hypothesis III A covariate, whether the subject heard the male reject or accept her, was entered into the analysis. The test for Social Manipulation effect F(1, 31) = .164 (MSufiw =.207) was nonsignificant, indicating subjects experiencing Social Rejection and Social Acceptance Manipulations did not differ in anagrams performance between Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2 following a rejection or acceptance experience. The Group x Social Manipulation interaction was also nonsignificant F(1, 31) =.856 (MS =.207), suggesting error that the women’s orientation toward Self and Other was not significantly related to rejection vs. acceptance and did not affect anagram performance. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Group means appear in Table 3. 90 Table 3. Anagram Solution rate for each Group (Self or Other: using Attanucci coding scheme) across three performance conditions: means and standard deviations (parentheses). I Condition I I I I Baseline Solo Male I I Comp. Comp. I I 1 I I I I I I ' : Self I .343 .443 .453 (n = 8) I (.217) (.255) (.319) E I I I I I I .Other I .540 .527 .652 (n = 9) I (.311) (.318) (.660) E I I I I 91 Importance Ratings Although the focus of the study is behavioral performance decrements, subjective ratings of Task Importance were examined for what they might reveal about the women's perception of the task. Two different males acted as confederates in the study. Although this factor did not contribute significantly to variance related to anagram performance, the confederate factor did play a role in accounting for variance in importance ratings. There was a three-way interaction between Confederate (Confederate 1 vs. Confederate 2) x Information (Acceptance vs. Rejection) x Condition (Male Competition 1 vs. Male Competition 2) (F(1,30) = 3.88 MSerror = .168; p = .05). Women accepted by Confederate 1 maintained their ratings of Task Importance from Male Competition 1 to Male Competition 2 whereas women accepted by Confederate 2 decreased their ratings of importance from Male Competition 1 to Male Competition 2. In fact ratings decreased to about the same level as women who were rejected by both confederates (See Table 5). Thus, ratings of Task Importance increased from Baseline to Solo Competition and further from $010 Competition to Male Competition 1 as expected; however, ratings of Task Importance remained the same or decreased from Male Competition 1 to Male Competition 2 depending upon which confederate accepted the subject. 92 Finally, a causal model based upon path coefficients was constructed and tested to possibly provide insight into relationships between the major variables of the study. Since the sample size is small, the interpretations of the model must be regarded as tentative. These results are presented in Appendix G. Key Pearson Correlation Coefficients for this study can be found in Appendix F. Table 4. Mean rating and standard deviation (parenthesis) of Task Importance by experimental condition. Base- Solo Male I Male line Comp. Comp.1 I Confederate Accept ' 5.38 (I 5.27 (.47) (.83) Reject 4.13 4.49 (.99) (.82) A a: O V 2' 4.58 (.98) I (1.22) .p to O A U'I N V DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The current study examined decrements in behavioral performance in a competitive setting -- a phenomenon that has often been studied in the Fear of Success literature -- in relation to women's self-definition within the context of relationship. The results of the study did not support the three hypotheses tested. Contrary to predictions, the women did not 1) decrease behavioral performance from an alone condition to a mixed-sex condition if they defined their self as primarily caring for others (as measured by the RSI), nor did they 2) decrease behavioral performance from and alone condition to a mixed-sex condition if they defined their self primarily in feminine role terms or as considering the other or relationship (as measured by the .Attanucci Coding Scheme), and did not 3) decrease behavioral performance after being rejected by a male opponent. Some possible reasons are given for failure to confirm the hypotheses, and.some suggestions are made for possible improvements of future research. A.sense of self-definition is assumed to be a rather stable concept. It was hypothesized that self-definition, as conceptualized by Gilligan, could be generalized across various situations and into different relational contexts. In the relational context studied here, the female subject and male confederate were relative strangers, although an 93 94 attempt was made to build rapport between the two. Since several studies have documented a decrement in performance in a competitive relationship when the female did not know the male well (Tresemer, 1977; p. 146), it was assumed that the relational context of the current study was adequate in eliciting the conditions necessary to observe a decrement in performance. Perhaps there are specific factors that must be present in a given relationship before self-definition reliably influences behavioral performance. ‘ It was hypothesized that an envy dynamic plays a role in determining how self definition may impact performance via conscious and unconscious processes. In particular, an envy dynamic may influence behavior through conscious means as a woman considers the expression of self and its impact on relationships (Gilligan 1982; Attanucci, 1988), or, by unconscious means via identification with the feminine sex role (Lerner, 1974). In the context of a competitive relationship, it was assumed that an envy conflict arises when expression of a valuable internal attribute conflicts with the valuing and maintaining of a relationship. However, it is plausible that the relational context of the current study did not provide both salient internal and external features needed to create a conflict in considerations of self and other -- an envy conflict strong enough to pose a dilemma for women who tend to consider others in relationship more than self. 95 Consideration of good internal attributes of self may need to be in more direct conflict with the external relationship than was created in the study. Qualities of self and relationship that are deemed worth considering by the subject need to be salient enough to provide the subject with a dilemma or conflict for which they will act to solve. In the current study the salient internal consideration was “intelligence". The salient external consideration was the male and his relationship to the female subject. One is reminded at this point of Gilligan's question, "what is at stake for the individual?". Would it make a difference if an internally valued attribute was considered in the context of a relationship where the competitive partner was also an intimate or potential dating partner of the subject? Is this relational context necessary in order to reliably produce an envy conflict responsible for a decrement in performance? Peplau (cited in Tresemer, p. 151) found that women who scored high on a measure of Fear of Success and who had traditional sex-role attitudes decreased performance when competing with the men they were dating. In the current study, it was argued that a "Fear of Success" was not the primary reason for a decrease in performance, rather, a concern for the impact of "success" on relationship. Concern for the impact of success on a relationship, and thus concern for outperforming the other, may depend not only upon general self-definition, but upon 96 who one is competing against. Indeed, anecdotal evidence from the exit interview suggested that some subjects were aware the male didn't really know them, and so, they didn't view the rejection as personal in nature. There were other aspects of the procedure that may have inadvertently added to a decrease in the salience of relationship as a consideration for the subject. In retrospect, elicitation of considering her impact on another during the first mixed-sex condition may have been diminished because of the physical proximity between the subject and the male. Likewise, after Condition 3, the social rejection message was not delivered in person. This decrease in personal proximity from the original introductory relationship may have been a factor that allowed the subject to minimize consideration of the impact on relation, even though the possibility of working with the male in the future was presented. Although the importance of the relationship is one factor that may influence whether a performance decrement is observed, one would not predict that this factor would be necessary to observe a performance decrement in women who primarily identify with the feminine sex role. From a sex- role perspective toward relationship, it is assumed that the inhibition of a potential envy conflict is incorporated into how well one follows the prescription of sex-role behaviors themselves, and thus, the envy dynamic is maintained on an 97 unconscious level. Therefore, consideration of the importance of relationship vis a vis self definition would be less a factor in performance decrement for those who identify strongly with the feminine sex role. Performance decrement was not observed for women who had a predominately Category I perspective (self instrumental to others; others instrumental to self); however, the sample size was too small to draw conclusions with confidence. The subjects’ ratings of the importance of the task increased from a baseline condition to an alone arousal condition and increased further during the first mixed sex condition. This supports the interpretation that the task did increase in value for the subjects and perhaps represented their consideration of an internal good attribute (ie., intelligence). Between Male Competition 1 and Male Competition 2, ratings of Task Importance were maintained by women who were accepted by Male Confederate 1 but decreased in women accepted by Male Confederate 2. In fact, the latter case decreased to the same level of importance rating compared to women who had been rejected by either male. It is unclear why a difference in ratings across conditions occurred. Perhaps there are certain characteristics that a male brings into the interaction that influence importance ratings for some women. There may be specific relational cues related to attribution of importance such as motivation toward 98 greater closeness with the other individual, physical attractiveness, etc., which may interact with attributions of task importance after acceptance. Future research will need to clarify the attribution process that women use when they are either accepted or rejected by a certain individual after their own exhibited success or failure and what acceptance by particular individual means to them. A few comments about the issue of measurement are in order. The success of observing the expression of an is limited by the reliability and validity of the instruments used to measure the attributes. The two instruments used in this study are assumed to measure the construct of self- definition which was thought to be related to performance decrement in a competitive situation. The reliability of the RSI subscales is acceptable; high inter-rater reliability using the Attanucci Coding Scheme is attainable. The instruments do possess "face validity", and some. validation data are available and were reviewed. However, a multitrait - multimethod validation study of these two instruments has not been conducted to date. We need to know much more about how well these two measures, or methods, accurately measure the concepts described by Gilligan. In summary, there are three possible reasons why the hypotheses were not confirmed: (a) my theory is wrong, (b) the procedure used inadequately tested the theory, and (c) the key variables were measured unreliable and/or invalidly. 99 It remains plausible that if internal (motivational) and external (relational) considerations were both personally and strongly salient one might obtain the necessary conditions to elicit performance decrement arising from one's self-definition. Finally, the subjective ratings suggest that the act of valuing a task representing an internal attribute may vary depending upon whom one is competing against. Before the theory relating self-definition to performance decrement can be tested adequately, major limitations in the experimental procedure and measurement instruments must be addressed. Until then, it will remain unknown whether a motivational Fear of Success, or a concern for the impact of success on relationships, explains behavioral performance decrements in some women. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Consent Forms (CONSENT FORM FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE RSI) Statement of Confidentiality and Research Participation Welcome to the Work, Relationship, & Self Development Study. During this study you will be asked to fill out the Relationship Self Inventory. This study focuses on the basic life domains of work, relationships, and personal development. Your participation in this psychological research will help to contribute to a better understanding of how individuals view these different aspects of their lives. Your participation is appreciated. I understand that my responses during this experiment will be kept confidential. I understand that my individual identity will not be associated with any report of results; results will be reported in an aggregated form. I also understand that I may stop participation in this study at any time without penalty. I agree to participate in this study. Signature Date 100 101 (FIRST CONSENT FORM FOR SUBJECTS IN LABORATORY STUDY) Consent Form Statement of Confidentiality and Research Participation Hello, welcome to the "Work, Relationship, and Self- Development Study". You will be asked to do a series of tasks. The purpose of this study is to understand how people perform tasks when working alone or when working together. At some point in the study you may be asked to do a competitive task and at another point in the study you may be asked to do a cooperative task. Your participation in this study will help further psychological research and your anonymity is assured. You may withdraw your consent to participate without penalty for doing so at any time. Signature Date (SECOND CONSENT FORM FOR SUBJECTS TO BE INTERVIEWED AND AUDIOTAPED) Informed Consent Form Statement of Confidentiality and Research Participation Please sign below if you consent to be interviewed and if you consent to have this interview audio—taped. The interview will be audio-taped in order to acquire accurate information concerning your experience during the experiment. Also, you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time without penalty for doing so. Signature Date 102 (CONSENT FORM FOR NON TARGET SUBJECTS IN LABORATORY STUDY) Informed Consent The purpose Of this study is to understand how people respond to various work-oriented and relationship-oriented situations. You will be asked to respond to three verbal cues on an audio tape. After you finish responding to the cues you are finished with the experiment. Your participation in this study will help further psychological research and your anonymity is assured. You may withdraw your consent to participate without penalty for doing so at any time. Signature Date APPENDIX B Task Rating Form (RATING FORM GIVEN TO THE SUBJECT AFTER EACH CONDITION) Please take a moment to consider how important it was for you to do well at this task based upon the rating scale Consider only the most recent trial period in which you completed the task; not any of the times before. below. Extremely important Very important Fairly important Slightly important Not anhUlm very important Extremely Unimportant 1 When considering this last test -- how satisfied were you with your performance? I'm I'm I'm extremely satisfied with my performance very satisfied with my performance fairly satisfied with my performance only slightly satisfied with my performance not very satisfied with my performance extremely dissatisfied with my performance 103 I-‘Nw-fiUIOS APPENDIX C Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted after the subject finished condition four and was debriefed. All subjects were asked questions 1-3 and 6-13. Given that half the women heard an acceptance message and half the rejection message prior to condition four, questions 4 and 5 reflect this difference. 1) "What was it like for you to go through the experiment -- any reflections or thoughts? 2) "What was it like for you when you were first asked to compete with Chad -- what did you think and feel?" 3) ”Was there anything you felt was at stake when you were first asked to compete with Chad?" 4A) "What was your reaction when he said he wanted to work with you?" 4R) "What was your reaction when he said he did not want to work with you?” 5A) "Why do you think he preferred to work with you and not somebody else?" Prompt: "Do you think it had anything to do with your doing better than him on the anagrams test?" 5R) "Why do you think he preferred to work with somebody else?" (Same Prompt as 5A above.) "I'm going to ask you a couple of questions about envy. I want to define what I mean by the word envy. By being envious, I mean another person dislikes you because you are superior to them or outperform them in some way.” 6) "Did you think, at the time, that he might not have chosen you because he was envious or jealous of you?" 7) "Generally speaking, when you clearly do better, in this case, than a guy, do you ever worry about the fact that they may become envious or jealous of you because you were superior to them in some way or outperformed them in something?" 104 3) 9) 105 "How do you think you actually did on the anagrams task from the time you were asked to compete alone, and told to do as well as you could, to the time you were asked to compete with Chad, do you think your performance stayed the same, went up, or went down?" "Here is your actual performance, as you can see it: ... went up. ... went down. .. stayed the same." If the subject was inaccurate in estimating their actual performance, the experimenter will ask her: 10) 11) "Why do you think it went down?... up? or, stayed the same?" "The last few questions are a bit different from what we've been talking about, I’ll be changing the focus and I'll be asking you some questions about how you would describe yourself." "I'd like you to describe yourself. How would you describe yourself to yourself. In other words, how would you describe yourself in a way that you would know it was really you, what would you say?" "Think of one man you’ve had a romantic involvement with, how would you describe yourself in relation to him?" - APPENDIX D Derivation of Coding Statements The following logic was used to identify a self definitional statement. A self-definitional statement must contain a description Of self in relation to some other person (See Appendix F). It reflects consideration of self, other, or relationship. It must express a coherent idea of self in relationship. A coherent idea may describe how one thinks, feels, or acts in a given relationship. A coherent idea may reflect one’s motivation for an action 1) toward instrumental action (role) in order to meet an external goal or, 2) self considerations or 3) other considerations (placing self considerations aside). It is possible to differentiate differing coherent ideas about the self. Subjective judgement in identifying self definition statements is based upon whether the subject is adding important information to describing a sense of self that illuminates an idea of self -- whether it be in terms of role, self, or the other person or relationship. Below is an example of self-definitional statements taken from the current study. Footnotes are provided to make explicit the logic used to identify the defining features of self definition statements which were later coded. A rationale for discrimination between different self definition statements is given. In response to the question, "How would you describe yourself in relation to a man you've had a romantic involvement with?" ...> 1 This is how I saw myself in relationship (pause) like a little bit more intelligent, a little bit more this and that < but >2 because of the male that I was with I suppressed some of myself, I guess in order to be more acceptable to him < .13-80 I felt that way about myself but it was not always expressed in the relationship because I had to pretty much tame things in myself in order to make it work. < Interviewer: In that relationship, how did it make you feel when you did that? >5 Frustrated, you knew. Oh. frustrated andgyog:know that's probably why the relationship isn't any longer (laughs). 106 107 Interviewer: What happened? >5 I just ended it because of those kinds of reasons, I was not really (pause) not myself with that person and not able to be (pause) so I guess a level of frustration and no self expression<... >6 I really didn't feel myself with him because I wasn't allowed to be, so that’s probably why.< l The self is described in relation to another. A comparison of a self attribute is made in relation to another's self attribute. The self is described in relation to another; however, it differs from statement #1 because the focus is no longer describing self in terms of a comparative attribute but in terms of expressing attributes in relation to the other. A different quality than simply comparing one's attributes to another. The self is described in relation to another; it differs from statement 2 because relationship itself is directly considered more than the other. The self is described in relationship with another; Consideration of self experience and relationship are mentioned. It's different from statement 3 because it describes ending relationship rather than maintaining relationship -- these are two distinct ideas of self in relation to another. The self is described in relationship with another; Self is described as instrumental -- as ending relationship. It differs from statement 4 self consideration whereby self experience in relationship is mentioned -- in statement 5 the self is described as being instrumental and active in actually curtailing relation. The self is described in relationship with another; Self is considered, also, it furthers self description by mentioning that the other obstructed self growth. II. III. IV. APPENDIX E Example of Coding Statements Self in Relation to Husband (From Attanucci; 1984). ”Our marriage is traditional. I am flexible and agree with his decisions about family finances and I make decisions concerning the house and the children. It just naturally works out that way." "I do everything I can to help my husband with what he wants to do." "I expect a lot of strength from my husband, which he doesn't give me, which is difficult. I think it has been difficult learning to cope with a man who has this terrible temper. I try to put myself in someone else's place and he seems to totally lack that." "I just want my own style about things. I'm not going to adjust anymore. I guess it's awful, I'm just going to bulldoze him now." "...and my husband and I are really open with each other as to what we want the children to do, and I just abide when he is gone, by things he believes in and I do, too, and if something happens when he is not there I don't hide it from him, he is included in it. And sometimes that is hard not to protect the kids, but I don't let myself do that, because it sets up real problems, a sneakiness and manipulativeness." 108 APPENDIX F Attanucci's Self-Definition Coding Scheme Attanucci identifies the self-statement units which are units that describe a coherent idea concerning self in relation to another. Questions 10 and 11 of the exit interview were used to Obtain material about descriptions Of self. After the interview was transcribed, self definitional statements were identified. The basic coding unit is a self-statgpept in Attanucci's system. The defining feature of a "self statement unit" is when both self and mention of the "other" exists when attempting to define one's self. To measure 'self definition in relation to another person' -- mention of self in some type of relation to another is necessary and is a basic assumption underlying the coding scheme. The function of coding is to determine what kind of perspective one takes toward self and other in relationship. Therefore, statements made of one's self in isolation, without any reference to another individual, is not coded in any category. Examples of self-definitions that would be coded in a certain category are given in Appendix E. I. Self Instrumental to chers -- cheps ngtrumeptal to Se f. This perspective views the self as instrumental to others while the other is instrumental to self. This self descriptor reveals a lack of differentiation between one's self and the role one plays as well as a lack of differentiating the other and their role. The self.and the other are described in terms of an objective, third person perspective. In the pure case, a woman would see herself as enacting the feminine role and would strive to enact this role to its fullest. Conflict is not explicitly acknowledged and the relationship is couched in terms of providing mutually beneficial functions in a static system. The woman may not be conscious of tension between the definition of role and self. She would likely be unable to locate sources Of tension to this internal dilemma readily. She will typically base actions in terms of perceived role. 109 110 II. Self Instrumental to Others -- Others "In Their Own Terms". Attanucci notes that Categories II & III are contradictions thought to be readily experienced by most ‘women in our society. I will first differentiate Category II from the previous category and then differentiate Category II from Category III. Category II reflects the traditional feminine orientation which emphasizes the female sex-role and hence may be experienced by the female as a tension toward being "self-less" in relation to others. The difference between this Category and Category I is that the woman who describes herself from a perspective outlined in Category II is aware of the tension of being "selfless" in relation to another while the woman who experiences herself using Category I descriptors does not sense a differentiated self that is conscious of this tension. The Category II perspective also suggests that action taken is based upon a self definition that readily focuses upon other and acts, in turn, based upon the terms of the other person. The developmental vulnerability, if a woman takes this perspective more often than one that includes fuller consideration of herself, is that she may lose track of her "self", like that of the woman who describes self strictly in terms Of the Category I phase of development. III. ”Self in Self’s Terms" -- Other Instrumental to Self The other possibility of perspective-taking is found in Category III. The tension a woman may experience from this perspective is of being "self-ish" when action is based predominately "for the self". Here, again, like the Category II perspective, the woman is somewhat aware.of this tension between self and role; however, the third category explicitly contradicts the traditional female role. This category more closely resembles the traditional masculine perspective toward self and other. The vulnerability inherent in taking this perspective more than one that considers the other is to lose sight of the relationship -- one's impact upon the other or the other's self. It is possible to obtain self-statements in both of these categories from a woman (Category II & III). A.woman who vacillates between these two self-descriptors reveals the tension she is likely to feel in consciously deciding ”in who's terms" she will act. Hence, a woman attempts to decide how to act based upon differentiating her self from a role enactment. The ultimate developmental goal is to maintain an orientation that includes consideration of both self and other. 111 IV. Self in Self’s Terms -- chers in Their Own Terms The final category, consideration of self in self’s own terms and consideration of other in their own terms, reveals the ideal expression of maturity which includes mutual respect in relationships. Respect toward self and other based upon being able to hold both perspectives toward self and toward other marks an expression of maturity. Both a justice perspective (I deserve the same consideration I would grant another) and a care perspective (responsiveness toward the other) can co-exist. The vulnerabilities inherent in categories II and III are now better mediated due to the amount of conscious awareness a woman has of her self and others when considering how to act. She must still make difficult decisions, but the consequences may be less detrimental to her sense of maturing self for they are based upon conscious consideration of both self and other. Therefore, her choices are more informed because she considers both perspectives vital to knowledge of a "whole self”. Another way Gilligan has described this orientation is to call it ”self and other chosen freely". .v—‘gm APPENDIX G Table 5. Pearson Correlation Matrix. Hear Cat.1 Cat.2 Cat.3 Cat.4 Info. Info. Cat.1 1.00 Cat.2 -.23 1.00 Cat.3 -.43 -.68 1.00 Cat.4 -.21 -.10 -.21 1.00 Hear Info. .33 -.19 -.17 .08 1.00 Info. .17 .14 -.28 .07 .169 1.00 Anagl AnagZ Anag3 Anag4 RSIGRP Anagl 1.00 Anag2 .48 1.00 Anag3 .37 .41 1.00 Anag4 .40 .34 .41 1.00 RSIGRP -.09 14 .16 .21 1.00 Cat.1 -.17 .24 .02 -.28 .14 Cat.2 .16 .19 .01 .24 .19 Cat.3 -.03 .03 -.06 -.11 -.41 Cat.4 .02 .10 .08 .22 .30 Info. .17 .09 -.06 .04 .02 Hear Info. .11 .02 .01 .03 -.05 Diff Diff 2-3 3-4 Predom.1 Combin.2 Cat.1 -.17 .24 .14 -.40 Cat.2 .16 -.19 .90 .22 Cat.3 -.03 .03 -.93 .16 Cat.4 .02 -.10 -.13 .02 Hear Info. .11 -.02 .04 .06 Info. .17 -.09 .23 -.22 RSIGRP -.05 -.01 .34 -.17 RSI Self RSI Other Cat.1 -.028 .131 Cat.2 .044 .159 Cat.3 .066 -.24 Cat.4 -.187 .009 Predom.1 -.015 .221 Combin.2 .105 -.092 112 113 Table 5 (cont’d) 1 Predom. = 2 Combin.= * Predominance of perspective: Predom. = Category II - Category III. This variable reflects the predominance of one perspective over another. Combination of perspective: Combin = Category II x Category III. This variable reflects conscious vacillation between Category II and Category III perspectives. Such conscious vacillation is thought to be resolved by movement toward Category IV. See Appendix D for definitions of Category 1,2,3, and 4 measures 0 ‘E. '- A 4 A APPENDIX H //’///,/”’Categ°ry I \\\\\\\\ 244 .172 .477 . Information— . 316 ——-> Did Not Hear ——-——>- 06 \ Performance Decrement 3- 4, -.279 -.355 1/036 \) Category III -.092 Figure 1a: Zero Order Correlations. b///////’,,L’+I Category I ////’. b023 47 .283 Information-—-.316-———9Did Not Hear-—_—+w06 Performance i_Decrement 3-4 , g -.185 -.297 .036 \ if /3 Category III (S -.092 Figure 1b. Beta Coefficients. 114 115 Table 6. Estimates of Direct Effects and Indirect Effects. Direct Effects1 .2 = -§m = -.092 P = Performance Decrement p = §c11*n = .023 between Male Comp.1 & g = §Pc1*ln = .283 Male Comp. 2. g_= _fi, = .316 H = Did not Hear Information p_= §0H*I = .470 I = Information (acceptance S = SC3H*, = -.297 coded as 1; rejection 2) g = §c3*m = .036 C1 = Category I g = §c3t*u = -.185 C3 = Category III ;,= §m| = .099 ... Direct effects have been estimated by partial regression coefficients in the above equations in which all variables with direct effects are included. (Cf. Figure 1b). Indirect Effects2 Information . via Category I 8 be = .023 x .283 8 .006509 via Category II = hg = -.279 x .036 = -.010044 via not hearing message = (dec + dfg) = (.316 x .470 x .283)+ (.316 x -.297 x .036)= .0386525 Not Hearing Message via Category I via Category III so = .470 x .283 a .13301 fg = .283 x .036 = .010188 Indirect effects have been measured by the product of the direct effects. 116 Table 7. Estimates of Effects: Information, Not Hearing Message, Category I and Category III on Performance Decrement between Conditions 3 and 4. Zero Spur- Direct In- Order ious3 Effect Direct Information I If I I II via Category I I I I I .0065090I via Category III I I +I—.0100440I via not hearingI I I I .QSBSSZSI message I I I I I I-.092 I-.0351175I -.092 I.0351175 I Total“ = I I I I I -.05688 I I I I I I I I I I Not Hearing ' I I I I Message I I I I via Category I I I +I .13301 I via CategoryIII I I I yQLSISS I .06 I-.18219 I .099 I .143198 I TOtal = I : : : : .242198 ' I I I I I I I I Category I I I ' ' Total = .244 I -.039 I .283 -- .283 I I I I I I I I Category III I I .30 I -.006 I .036 . -- Total = I I I .036 I z I I I I I I I I Spurious effect was derived by subtracting the Total Effect for the variable from the Zero-Order Correlation of the variable. Total effect was derived by adding the direct effect for the variable (holding all other effects constant) to the sum total of the indirect effect for that variable. APPENDIX I Table 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Self- Definitional Statements based upon the Attanucci Coding Scheme (subject n = 40). Mean Standard Dev. Range Total Category I .675 1.269 0-5 27 Category II 2.175 2.171 0-8 87 Category III 2.250 2.171 0-10 90 Category IV .375 1.005 0-5 15 117 APPENDIX J Condition 2 Instruction Set Below is the written instruction set for the Solo Competition Condition. All other competitive instructional sets were given over the intercom by the experimenter. However, the subject read the following written instructions for this condition. To the Subject: I wanted to let you know that the Anagram Test is an indicator of general intelligence. On this next test I'd like you to work as hard and as fast as you can. You may skip an anagram and come back to it again. This is an estimate of your maximum performance -- do as well as you ppssibly can and tell your assistant when you are done. The assistant will compare your performance to national norms and tell you how well you've done. Thank-you, Barbara Brown, M.A. 118 LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Atkinson, J. (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. D. Van Nostrand: Princeton, New Jersey. Attanucci, J. (1988). In whose terms: A new perspective on self, role, and relationship. In C. Gilligan, J. Ward, J. Taylor, with B. Bardige (Eds.). Mapping the moral domain (pp. 201-224). Harvard University Press. Birnery, R.C., Burdick, H., & Teevan, R.C. (1969). Fear of failure. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Bremer, T.H., & Wittig, M. A. (1980). Fear of success: A personality trait or a response to occupational deviance and role overload. Sex Roles, 5, 27-46. Cherry, F., 8 Deaux, K. (1978). Fear of success versus fear of gender-inappropriate behavior. Sex Roles, 1, 97- 101. Feather, N.T., & Simon, J.G. (1973). Fear of success and causal attribution for outcome. Sournal of gersonality, 1; 525-542. Fogel, R. & Paludi, M. (1984). Fear of success and failure or norms for achievement? Sex Roles, le5-6), 431-434. Gelbort, K.R., & Winer, J.L. (1985). Fear of success and fear of failure: A multitrait-multimethod validation study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, g§(4), 1009-1014. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theogy and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 11, 481-517. 119 120 Good, L., & Good, K. (1973). An objective measure of the motive to avoid success. Ps cholo ical Re orts, SS, 1009-1010. Griffore, R.J. (1977). validation of three measures of Fear of Success. Sournal of Personality Assessment,,gl, 417- 421. Groszko, M. (1974). Sex differences in the need to achieve and fear of success. Dissertation Abstracts International. University Microfilms No. 74-24, 639. House, G.F. (1973). Orientations to achievement: autonomous,social comparison, and external. Dissertation Abstracts International. University Microfilms No. 73-24,594. Horner, M. (1968). Sex differences in achievement motivation and performance in competitive and non- competitive situations. Dissertation Abstgacts International. Horner, M., Tresemer, D., Berens, A.E., & watson,R.I.(1973, August). Scoring manual for an empirically derived scoring system for motive to avoid success. Paper presented at the 8lst Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal. Janman, K. (1984). Gender dependency of occupational deviance and role overload as determinants of FOS imagery. European Journal of Social Psychology, l1, 421-429. Kanouse, D.E., & Hanson, L.R. Jr. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E.E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47-62). Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press. Kearney, M. (1984) A comparison of the motivation to avoid success in male and females. Journal of Clinical Ps cholo , ggj4), 1005-1007. 121 Klein, M. (1975). Enyy and gratitude and other works: 1245-1263. New York, Delacorte Press. Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 33(1), 1-13. Lerner, H. (1974). Early origins of envy and devaluation of women: Implications for sex role stereotypes. Sulletin of the Menninger Slinic, SS(6), 538-553. O'Connell, AJN. (1980). Effects of manipulated status on performance, goal setting, achievement motivation, anxiety, and fear of success, The Journal of Social Psychology, IIS, 75-89. Paludi, M.A. (1984). Psychometric properties and underlying assumptions of four objective measures of fear of success. Sex Roles, 1Q, 765-781. Paludi, M.A. (1979). Horner revisited: How successful must Anne and John be before fear of success sets in? P8 cholo ical Re orts, 31, 1319-1322. Pappo, M. (1983). Fear of success: The construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Sournal of Personalit Assessment, 11, 36-41. Pappo, M. (1972). Fear of success: A theoretical analysis and the construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International. Reviere, R., & Posey, T.B. (1978). Correlates of two measures of fear of success in women. Psychological Sadd, S., Lenauer, M., Shaver, P., Dunivant, N. (1978). Objective measure of fear of success and fear of failure: A factor analytic approach. Sournal of Qonsulting and Clinical Psychology, 19(3), 405-416. 122 Sassen, G. (1980). Success anxiety in women: A constructivist interpretation of its source and significance. Harvard Educational Review,,SS(1), 13- 24. Schnitzer, P.K. (1977). The motive to avoid success: exploring the nature of the fear. Ps c 010 of WOme Qua;perly,,l(3), 273-282. Shapiro, J.P. (1979). ”Fear of success" imagery as a reaction to sex-role inappropriate behavior. ournal of Person lit Assessment,.gS(1), 33-38. Strommen, E.A,, Reinhart, MIA., Person, J.L., Donelson, E., Barnes, C.L., Blank, L., et al. (1987, April). Assessment 0 illi an's mode : he relationshi as f inventogy. Paper presented at the Biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. Baltimore, MD. Terborg, J.R. (1977). WOmen in management: .A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, S;(6), 647-664. Tresemer, D. (1977). Pea; of Success. Plenum Press: New York. Tresselt, MJE. & Mayzner, M.S. (1966). Normative solution times for a sample of 134 solution words and 378 associated anagrams. Psychonomic gopograph Supplements, ;S(1), pp. 293-298. 0. Ulanov, A., & Ulanov B. (1983). Sinderella and her sisters. Philadelphia, Nestminster Press. Ward, C. (1978). Is there a motive to avoid success in women? Spmpn Relations, SJ(12), 1055-1067. Zuckerman & Allison (1976). An objective measure of fear of success: Construction and validation. Journal of Personalit Assessment, 39, 422-430. Zuckerman, M. S Wheeler, L. (1975). To dispel fantasies about the fantasy-based measure of Fear of Success. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, S;(6), 932-946. "11111111111111111111“