H

J!

J \

   

{\
‘I

H

   

H

W

   

f
\

UH’

   

I

I'

 
  

_'
I
U)

 

AN EXPLORATORY WHEY
0F MASCULINHY AND THE
ATTRIIUFEON OF DOMENANCE AND
LOVE TO PARENTS

“was $09 Wu Dogma 05 pk ,D.
HECHHMN SMW WW?“

deh R. Swan
1965

      
   
   

mzsxs ‘ t

. ..
' “’M' J

LIBRAR 2’

Michigan- State
University

This is to certify that the

‘ thesis entitled
A'N EXPLORATORY STUDY

OF MASCULINITY AND THE ATTRIBUTION
OF DOMINANCE AND LOVE TO PARENTS
presented by

Ralph R . Swarr

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

__P_h_._D_.__ degree him

Major professor

 

Date

\/\j
\LC‘
\‘\
A?
Q
Ul

AA»
is

0-169

 

ROOM USE ONLY

33—
W7

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
OF MASCULINITY AND THE ATTRIBUTION
OF DOMINANCE AND LOVE TO PARENTS

p(
\pfl’ ‘

by Ralph RT Swarr

The present study was designed to investigate some
of the phenomena subsumed under the concept of identifi-
cation and to test empirically hypotheses suggested by
identification process theories. A major assumption of
the research was that an individual's perception of his
parents as reflected by the interpersonal behavior traits
he attributes to them will function as a measure of his
degree of identification withthe parent who has been more
influential in this process. The general prediction was
that the degree of adoption of masculine behavior patterns
in adult males will be positively related to their attribu—
tion to their fathers of interpersonal behavior traits of
dominance and love and negatively related to their attribu-
tion of interpersonal traits of dominance and love to their
mothers.

Ninety—two male undergraduate university students.
served as volunteer, paid subjects. The students used the

Interpersonal Check List once to describe their mother and

 

Ralph R. Swarr

once to describe their father. This Check List includes 128

 

words and phrases which describe various kinds of inter-
personal behaviors. Responses to this instrument were
analyzed so that summary scores representing the behaviors
of dominance and love could be derived. The subjects also
completed the first 420 items of the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory. The Masculinity—Femininity scale

 

scores of the Inventory were the independent variables of

 

this study. Total scores from this scale were assumed to

be a measure of masculine-feminine role behavior and interest
preference. The final task of the subjects involved the
completion of a Family Information Questionnaire which pro—
vided information for excluding the protocols of subjects
whose parents were deceased or divorced.

The data were computer analyzed to obtain multi—
correlation coefficients between the measures of masculinity—
femininity, mother—dominance, mother-love, father-dominance,
and father—love. It was found that no significant positive
relationship existed between the subjects' preference for
masculine behavior and their attribution of dominant and
loving behavior to their fathers as was hypothesized. The
prediction that there would be a significant negative re-
lationship between the preference for masculine behavior
and the attribution of dominant and loving behavior to

mothers was also not supported by the data. Instead a

Ralph R. Swarr

significant positive relationship between degree of mascu-
linity and attributed mother-dominance was found. Also, a
significant negative relationship was found between the two
dependent variables, parent-dominance and parent-love, as
they were attributed to a given parent; and this relation-
ship was found with respect to the subjects' attributions
to both parents.

The results were discussed in terms of behavior rein—
forcement, personality theory and related to some findings
of sociological theorists. It was concluded: (1) that the
basic assumption of the research was not tenable in the
light of the findings, (2) that the results represented a
challenge to rather than support of the central proposition
of identification theories which stresses the importance
of the paternal figure as a model and crucial influence on
the development of sex-typed interests and behaviors in
males, and (5) that the basic learning mechanisms postu—
lated by learning and role theorists as well as reinforce—
ment, personality theorists about the development of
masculine sex-role preference and behaviors may be the

most pertinent interpretation of the findings.

Q/VVL/LVL ‘Uiélll / j A/ a f \jfié(

(/1ka V L/L7M

C/W MW?) [965

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
OF MASCULINITY AND THE ATTRIBUTION

OF DOMINANCE AND LOVE TO PARENTS

BY

Ralph R? Swarr

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1965

Dedicated with love to

JANE

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Bill Kell, the thesis
committee chairman, for his significant contribution to the
author's understanding of human behavior and for the
directed freedom he allowed the writer with reSpect to the
planning, execution, and reporting of the present research.
Thanks are also given to the other committee members, Drs.
Norman Abeles, Harry Grater, and Bertram Karon, for their
constructive comments and suggestions.

The author also wishes to thank Mr. James Clark for
serving as a consultant with respect to the use of the com-
puter programs and facilities. The use of the program
written by Mr. Joel Stutz was also greatly appreciated.

Gratitude is expressed to the students who volunteered
to serve as subjects for this research. Without their co—
operation the study would not have been completed according
to the planned schedule.

Finally, appreciation is expressed to the author's
wife, Jane. She was able to understand the demands of this
work upon her husband, and she gave of her time for the

typing of the manuscript.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

The Concepts of Identification and Sex-
Typing . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . .
Theories of Identification. . . . . . . .
Relevant Research . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. THE INSTRUMENTS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . .
Interpersonal Check List. . . . . . . . .

Masculinity-Femininity Scale of the

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scoring of the Instruments. . . . . . . .
VI. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .
Comparisons Between the Sample Groups . .
Relation of the Results to the Hypotheses

Relation of the MF Scale to the Ego

Strength Scale . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Implications. . . . . . . . .
Implications for Future Research. . . . .
VIII. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

12
15

17

17

20
25
24
24
26
27
50

50
32

57
58
58
59
48
50
55

56

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Criteria for and number of eliminations of
subject protocols from the analyses of the
sample Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Results of the t—test for the significance of
differences between the mean scores of the
Introductory Psychology and the Personality

Theory subjects with reSpect to the variables
Masculinity-Femininity (MFT, dominance, love

and Ego Strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Intercorrelation matrices for the Masculinity-
Femininity (MMPI) and the dominance and love

(ICL) scores of the Introductory Psychology

(N = 26) and the Personality Theory (N = 66)

groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Intercorrelation matrix for the Masculinity-
Femininity (MMPI) and the dominance and love

(ICL) scores of the combined Introductory

Psychology and Personality Theory groups

(N = 92). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Correlations between MMPI Masculinity—Feminin—

ity (MF) and Ego Strength scores of the

Introductory Psychology and Personality Theory
groups and both groups combined . . . . . . . . 57

APPENDIX

A.

LIST OF APPENDICES

General Instructions . . . . . . . . . .
The Interpersonal Check List — Form IV .

Family Information Questionnaire . . . .

-True—false Items of the’Masculinitye

Femininity Scale of the Minnesota Multi—
phasic Personality Inventory . . . . .

vi

Page
57
59

61

65

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

The process of identification in children and adolescents
has been the subject of a considerable amount of theorizing
and empirical research. Stemming from this research and
associated with it has been an increasing number of theoretical
speculations about the nature of the process of identification
and some of its antecedents, concomitants, and consequences
in terms of parent—child interpersonal behavior. Also, it has
generally been conceived that one of the goals or consequences
of the identification process is sex—typing, i.e., the acquisi-
tion of the behavior and personality characteristics of one's
own sex. The implication of these propositions is apparent
for investigations of the interpersonal behavioral character-
istics of subjects and their parents.

Since Freud first introduced the term identification
and later more extensively discussed it (Freud, 1924) as a
mechanism for the resolution of the Oedipus complex, the
concept has taken on a variety of meanings depending on the
context in which it is used. Tolman (1945), Stoke (1950).
Sanford (1955), and others have noted the many meanings
attached to the term. Sanford has stated, "Why not agree that
identification is not an explanatory concept... (p. 107),"
and in his evaluation of the usefulness of the term, he re—'

defined its boundaries.

The increasing diffusion of the meaning of identifi—
cation has increased the implications of the concept beyond
those of Freud's hypothesis to include those of others who
have given their own meanings to the term. The positive
result of these varied implications has been a broadened base
of research about identification theory along with some provo-
cative new theoretical speculations about the familial inter—
personal antecedents and consequences of the identification
process.

Kagan (1958), McCandless (1961), and Lynn (1962) are
among those who have attempted to abstract some of the
phenomena of identification from empirical findings.. It is
generally conceded that one of the consequences or goals of
identification is adoption of the appropriate sex-role.
Another proposition frequently advanced is that important
antecedents of identification are found in the nature and
quality of familial interpersonal behaviors. The identifi-
cation process is also generally believed to vary along such
dimensions as degree of adoption of the appropriate sex-role
and amount of parental and cultural influence.

The present study is designed to investigate some of
the phenomena subsumed under the concept of identification
and to test empirically hypotheses suggested by identification
process theories. The purpose is to study the relationship
between the sex—role preference of a group of male subjects
and the interpersonal behavior traits they attribute to their

parents.

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Concepts of Identification and Sex-Typing

Stoke (1950) and others have credited Freud for the
introduction of the term identification into the psychological
literature. Freud postulated two aspects of identification-—
primary identification referred to the infant's initial,
undifferentiated perception in which an external object is
perceived as part of the self, and secondary identification
was viewed as only beginning after the child had learned to
discriminate a world of objects separate from himself.
Secondary identification is the concept most relevant to the
context and purposes of this review. Stoke (1950) made the
following statement about Freud's use of the term identifi-
cation:

From the wealth of context in which the term is

used it is usually implied that a child gives its

emotional allegiance to one of its parents and attempts

to duplicate in its own life the ideas, attitudes, and

behavior of the parent with whom it is identifying.

There are occasional other uses of identification in

Freudian literature aside from the above, but this is

the chief usage and the one with which we shall be

concerned (p. 165).
Freud, in essence, referred to identification as a process in
which the individual takes into himself the psychological

attributes of other people. Also relevant is Bronfenbrenner's

(1958) effort to emphasize that Freud referred to identification

5

 

as a tendency for a child to "take on" the total pattern of
a model and not merely its discrete aSpects, and he noted
the marked emotional intensity by which Freud thought this
pattern is acquired.

Sanford (1955) noted the many meanings that have be—
come attached to the concept identification. In an attempt
to clarify the meaning of the term, he made a distinction
between "identification proper” and “real identification."

He defined the former as a more or less unconsciously

determined maladaptive attempt to handle parental conflicts N
by attempting to behave exactly like the object (i.e., to be

identical with another) and the latter as "essentially an

integration of parental standards and modes of behavior in

a stable ego... (p. 110)" because they serve useful, adaptive
purposes. Real identification represents the use of the term

most pertinent to the purposes of the present study.

Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) define identification
or sex-typing as the development of complex social and emo-
tional behavior which is appropriate to the individual's sex.
They view sex—typing as a result of covert or fantasy role
practice on the part of the child in which all of the feelings,
attitudes, values, and actions of a model are taken on at
least momentarily.

Finally, Mussen and Distler (1959) make the following

statement:

By identifying with his parents... the child begins
to acquire his parent's characteristics, behavior,
values, motivations, and attitudes. Two of the major
consequences of the process of identification are the
development of the super ego, or conscience, and the
acquisition of behavior and personality characteristics
appropriate to his own sex, i.e., sex-typing (p. 550).

Theories of Identification

 

 

The present review includes the following theories which
represent three viewpoints about the identification process
for males: The Defensive Theory of Identification, The Learn—
ing Theory of Identification, and The Role Theory of Identi—
fication.

The Defensive Theory of Identification

Psychoanalytic theory includes the concept "primary
identification" which refers to the initial undifferentiated
perception of the infant boy in which an external object is
perceived as part of the self. As soon as the infant is able
to perceive his environment, he will attempt to relate to
his surroundings through the manipulation of objects and the
incorporation into his mouth of objects with which he has con—
tact. Munroe (1955) defined Freud's usage of the concept as
follows:

The yearning for release from unpleasant stimulation
and from desire is, of course, very closely associated
with the mother. At first the process takes the form
of primary identification, that is, the infant does
not distinguish clearly between the mother's breast

(then the face and gradually the person of the mother)
and his own self (p. 181).

 

 

In addition to the incorporative aspect of primary
identification, the infant begins a process of imitation of
vhat is perceived and manipulated as a primitive attempt at
the mastery of the intense stimuli which surround him.
Fenichel (1945) views incorporation and imitation of objects
as behaviors which are the beginning of object relations,
and in elaborating this developmental phenomenon, he stated:

The concept of primary identification denotes that
actually "putting into the mouth“ and "imitation for
perception's sake" are one and the same and represent
the very first relation to objects. In this primary

identification, instinctual behavior and ego behavior
are not differentiated from each other (p. 57). ".

7‘”
’1

Secondary identification follows primary identification
at a later stage in the child's development. At this period
he is better able to cope with his biological needs, and his
attention is more focused on the discovery of himself as a
social being. His interaction with "significant others,"
both parents and peers, has much emotional meaning for him;
and he has learned to know the seemingly powerful parental
figures on whom his sense of well—being depends. He has also
become aware of the nuances of their relationship with him
that may signify affective acceptance or rejection.

This is the period and the milieu in which Freud (1949)
postulated that the Oedipus complex occurs. He wrote suc—
cinctly about this as follows:

The boy enters the Oedipus phase; he begins to manipu—
late his penis, and simultaneously has phantasies of

carrying out some sort of activity with it in relation
to his mother; but at last, owing to the combined effect

of a threat of castration and the spectacle of women's
lack of a penis, he experiences the greatest trauma of
his life, and this introduces the period of latency
with its attendant consequences (Pp. 29—50).
The boy thus experiences ambivalent feelings of love and hate
for his father who is also his rival for his mother's affection
and the person from whom he fears imaginary castration. In
order to defend against this great "trauma of his life“ and
the intense anxiety associated with it, the boy represses
his incestuous desires for his mother and identifies with his
father. Anna Freud (1957) contributed to the meaning of this
identification process in her discussion of "identification
with the aggressor." She wrote the following:
By impersonating the aggressor, assuming his attri—
butes or imitating his aggression, the child trans—
formed himself from the person threatened into the
person who makes the threat (p. 121).
Thus, in the face of his anxiety, the young boy discovers
that if he allies himself with the aggressive, punitive father,
the threat is reduced; and he approaches an oneness or
”identity" with the powerful parent. He does not, however,
incorporate the father but rather the attitudes, values,
and/or behavior of this figure.

While Freud postulated that the successful resolution
of the Oedipus complex constitutes a vital influence on the
development of masculinity in the boy's character, he also

wrote that the child's views of his parents change as he

grows older and that "identifications take place with these

 

later editions of the parents as well, and regularly provide
important contributions to the formation of character (1955,

p. 92)."

Learning Theory of Identification

Mowrer (1950) is one of several theorists who have
postulated views of the identification process in the context
of learning theory. He made a distinction between what he
calls "developmental“ and "defensive" identification processes.
The former is accomplished via imitation and is motivated by
the love and admiration of the parents. The latter is an
attempt to reduce anxiety caused by fears of punishment and
is synonymous with Anna Freud's (1957) idea of "identification
with the aggressor."

Developmental identification is essentially a result of
a conditioning process in which rewards play a crucial role.
The infant senses (i.e., sees, feels, hears, and smells)
aspects of the person who is the satisfier of his basic needs,
and via a conditioning process these stimuli acquire secondary
reinforcement value. The child's first basic skills of Speech,
walking, and other activities are learned because he earns
parental rewards for his initial efforts in these activities.
Mowrer believes that identification with the father stems
from a positive and affectionate relationship between the
father and the son. The characteristics and responses of a
father who is also an important source of affection and nurtur—

ance will acquire secondary reward properties, and consequently

 

the boy will imitate the father's behavior in order to
“reproduce bits of the beloved and longed-for parent (1950,
p. 615)."

Mowrer hypothesizes that defensive identification begins
at about age two or three. At this time the parents begin to
punish the child for some of his behavior instead of generally
only meeting his wants, and the child no longer views his
parents as all ”good" but also as partly "bad." This combi—
nation of attitudes on the part of the child precipitates
marked anxiety, conflict, and ambivalence at the height of
which he discovers that he can reduce his internal conflicts
and also satisfy his parents by accepting as his own their
standards of behavior and social values. Once he has intro-
jected the parental standards for himself, he tends to
experience self punishment or guilt when he violates these
standards. Mowrer believes that initially both sexes identify
with the mother as the source of the most care and affection,
and that later males shift their loyalties and affections to
a nurturant and rewarding father and learn to behave "along
lines prescribed as correct and proper for members of their

particular sex (1950, p. 579)."

Role Theory of Identification
Role theorists view identification or sex—typing as the
development of social and emotional behavior patterns appro—
priate to the child's sex. They believe that sex-roles are

learned under basic conditions of motivation, performance,

10

and reinforcement. A major motive for such learning is the
child's desire to reproduce pleasant experiences, and he will
enjoy playing the parental role in fantasy if the parental
behavior has been supporting, accepting, and nurturant (Sears,
Maccoby, and Levin, 1957). Emphasis is also placed on the
dominance and involvement of parental models for the assimi—
lation of sex—role behavior. It is maintained that identifi—
cation, or role playing, depends on the power of the identi-
ficand —— a combination of his reward value and his threat
or punishment potential. Brim (1958) made the following more
specific statement:

Given two... persons with whom one interacts and who

differ in power over the actor (the identifier), i.e.,

differ in the degree to which they control rewards and

punishments for the actor, one would predict that the
actor would adopt many of the characteristics of the
powerful as compared to the less powerful other person.

This follows from the fact that it is more important

to the actor to predict the behavior of the powerful

figure, that he is motivated more strongly to take his

role (i.e., to identify), that rewards and punishments
are more impressive and the learning consequently more

impressive (p. 5).

Role theorists generally believe that the boy initially
identifies with his mother because she is typically the source
of his greatest satisfaction during his early experience.
However, very soon sex—role behavior becomes important in the
thinking of the parents, and he is strongly encouraged to
behave according to masculine role standards. Thus, Sarbin
(1954) states:

Early in life, a child is taught acts which are dif—

ferentiated for example according to sex. Little boys
are rewarded or punished for certain kinds of actions;

11

little girls are rewarded or punished for other kinds

of actions. Thus begins the acquisition of actions

for the later performance of one's generalized sex—role

(p. 226).

Thus, the boy receives rewards from both parents for masculine
behavior. However, role theorists emphasize that a strong
motivation for the boy to practice his father's role also
occurs when there is considerable interaction and involvement
with a father who is viewed as a powerful administrator of
rewards and punishments. When this occurs, the boy obtains
valuable father—role practice and consequently begins to adopt
more of the father's characteristics including those associated
with sex—role behavior (Sarbin, 1954).

To summarize, it can be stated that each of the reviewed
theories have placed some importance on the behavior of both
parents and/or the child's perception of that behavior in the
development of identification. The defensive identification
point of View emphasizes the child's ambivalent and fearful
feelings toward his father which are resolved by aligning
himself with his father and his behavior patterns and values
in order to reduce his anxiety. Learning theorists postulate
that identification occurs with a model who is both aggressive
as well as rewarding, but they believe that the male tends
to adopt the values and behavior patterns of a paternal figure
with whom they have experienced warm and affectionate relation—
ships. Role theorists note the reward value of both parents,

but they emphasize that the dominance and involvement of a

12

paternal figure who is both rewarding and punitive is crucial
for the boy's masculine identification and subsequent adoption

of male-role behavior patterns.

Relevant Research

 

A brief review of studies involving the examination of
the relationships between parent-child behavioral phenomena
and the degree of male—role adoption is reported below. While
there has been very little such research testing the defensive
identification theory, a number of researchers have reported
findings which appear to support the learning and role theories
of identification process leading to male sex—role behaviors.

Sears (1955) studied the relationship between child—
rearing factors and sex-typed role playing in children of
kindergarten age. Antecedent factors were obtained from rat—
ings of interviews with the mothers of the subjects. She found
that boys who tend to play the father—role in doll—play activi—
ties had fathers who were warm and permissive in their child—
rearing behavior according to the mothers' reports. To the
extent that doll—play behavior is an index of male—role
preference, it may be inferred that warm and permissive paternal
behavior influenced these boys toward the preference for
masculine behavior.

Sears, Pintler, and Sears (1946) reported that pre—school
aged boys displayed a delay in acquisition of appropriate
male—sex behavior, as measured by projective doll—play re—

sponses, when the father was absent from the home. However,

 

15

they also found that the fathers' presence in the home did
not necessarily result in the boys' adoption of masculine
behavior, but was dependent on the extent to which the father
was involved and/or a dominant influence in meeting the
affectional and other needs of the boy.

Using male college students as subjects, Azimi (1964)
studied the relationship between the preference for specific
roles and behavior patterns (as measured by the MMPI MF Scale)
and the perception of parents as projected in stories to TAT
pictures. He reported that men who preferred culturally
accepted masculine roles and behavior patterns told stories
involving more warm and salient father—son relationships than
those subjects who preferred more feminine roles and behavior.
The latter group of men told stories of mother—son relation—
ships which were rated as more warm and salient than stories
told by the former group of subjects. It was concluded that
both warmth and saliency of parent—son relationships were
significant factors for the development of masculine or
feminine interest patterns in adult males.

Mussen and Distler (1959) administered the IT Scale for
Children (a projective test including 56 cards) as a measure
of sex—typing to a group of kindergarten boys. Structured
doll—play behavior and responses to incomplete family situ-
ation stories were rated in order to measure the amount of
nurturance, punishment, and power (a combination of nurturance

and punishment scores) attributed to each of the parents

14

individually and as units. They found that young boys who

were strongly aligned with the male role perceived their
fathers as more rewarding and nurturant than their more weakly
identified peers did. They interpreted this finding as sup—
port for the developmental theory as formulated by Mowrer.

They also reported that strongly masculine sex—typed boys
perceive their fathers as more punitive than those boys who
were less aligned with the male role. This finding would

seem to lend support to the defensive identification hypothesis.
Finally, they found that boys who were high in masculinity
perceived their fathers as more rewarding and nurturant and
more punitive (as indicated by the power scores) than their
less masculine peers perceived their fathers. They interpreted
this finding as indicating support for role—theory which
maintains that the child is most likely to assimilate the role
behavior of an individual with whom he has intensive inter—
actions and whom he perceives as a dominant and powerful
figure.

Mussen and Distler (1960), in a follow—up study with
kindergarten boys, examined the relationship between masculine
sex-typing (as measured by the IT Scale) and their parents'
child rearing practices (as judged from interviews with the
mothers). They reported that the variables of father—son
relationships are more directly associated with appropriate
sex—typing than are those pertinent to mother—son relationships.

Also, according to the mothers' reports, the fathers of the

 

15

highly masculine group had strong affectional bonds, and

acted more affectionately toward their sons, than the fathers
of boys low in masculinity. These findings were interpreted
as supportive to the developmental and role—playing hypotheses,

although the defensive hypothesis was not supported.

The Problem

Each of these researchers has considered masculine
sex—typed behavior of males as a consequence of successful
identification with the same-sexed parent, although they have
generally recognized the influence of the cross—sex parent 'w
as well as non—familial persons or events on the development
of sex—role behavior patterns. While it would seem likely
that in adults much of culturally accepted masculine behavior
would be learned by the male from peers and others besides
his father, it also is plausible that the inclination or
amenability for learning and adopting Such behavior would
have antecedents in the familial milieu and interaction.

The reported findings tend to support the following
contentions: (1) the adoption of appropriate sex—role be—
havior in males is influenced by the degree of dominance,
strength, and involvement of a father who may at times be
either rewarding or punitive and by the degree of love,
warmth, and affection which a father displays in his relation—
ship with his son; (2) the adoption of sex—typed behavior is
not an either-or proposition, but can vary along such di—

mensions as degree of adoption and parental influence; and

16

(5) the dominance as well as love and warmth of a mother in
her relationships with her son has an important influence
on his sex—typed behavior.

A central proposition suggested by identification
theory and the research findings is that adult behavioral
patterns have antecedents related to the identification pro-
cess. In other words, an individual's adoption of sex-role
behavioral patterns may be assumed to reflect the strength
of his earlier identification with a same—sex or a cross-
sex parent. Q

In this study an exploratory evaluation of this propo-
sition is made by investigating the relationships between
the sex—typed behavior patterns of a group of male subjects
and the interpersonal behavior traits they attribute to their
parents. It is assumed that an individual's perception of
his parents as reflected by the interpersonal behavior traits
he attributes to them will function as a measure of the degree
of his identification with the parent who has been more in—
fluential in this process. The following general hypothem
sis is tested in the present study: The degree of adoption
9£_masculine behavioral patterns in adult males lg

positively related to their attribution to their fathers of

 

interpersonal behavioral traits of dominance and love and

 

negatively related to their attribution of interpersonal traits

 

of dominance and love to their mothers.

——___——._——_—

III. THE INSTRUMENTS OF INVESTIGATION

Interpersonal Check List

 

The Interpersonal Check List (ICL, see Appendix B) was

 

developed by LaForge and Suczek (1955) as a device for measur—
ing a subject's self—perception as well as his perception of
other individuals. The rationale underlying the instrument

is that the subject's responses represent structured communi-
cations about himself and others which he is willing to convey
to the examiner in writing.

The ICL (Form IV) comprises 128 items consisting of
words or phrases which describe different kinds of inter—
personal behaviors, and there are eight items for each of six-
teen interpersonal behavior variables. An intensity dimension
has been built into the check list such that each of the
sixteen interpersonal variables is represented by a four—point
scale. For each variable there is one item for intensity
level 1 which reflects "a mild or necessary amount of the
trait." Intensity level 2 has three items which refer to
”a moderate or appropriate amount of the trait." Three items
are used to reflect intensity level 5, ”a marked or inappro-
priate amount of the trait”; and one item expresses intensity
4, an "extreme amount of the trait."

A detailed description of the development of the check
list was reported by LaForge and Suczek (1955), and a recent

17

18

report on its research uses was made by LaForge (1965).

In the earlier report, the authors indicated that the sixteen
interpersonal variables could be conceptualized as forming
related sectors of a single—plane circumplex. They reported
that adjacent variables on the circular continuum are more
closely related than non—adjacent ones, and the relationship
between two variables is a monotonic decreasing function of
their separation.

With statistical support for the conception of the ICL
content as being represented by the interpersonal variables
as sectors of a circumplex as described above, the authors
were further able to divide the circumplex into eight sectors
of interpersonal behavior patterns. They also divided the
circle by a horizontal axis representing a love—hate (Lov)
continuum and a vertical axis representing a dominance—
submission (Dom) continuum so that the interpersonal behavior
variables could be represented by a circular continuum along
which the sixteen interpersonal categories lie, arrayed
about the two perpendicular axes of Dom and Lov.

The two dimensions dominance—submission and love—hate
can be extracted by a weighted sum of each set of reSponses
to the 128 items. The sixteen interpersonal categories are
alphabetized, and the following formulae for calculating Dom
and Lov summary scores have been formulated:

Dom = A — I + .924 (B+P—H—J) + .707(C+O—G—K) + .585
(D+N-F—L)

Lov = M - E + .924(N+L-D—F) + .707(O+K—C-G) + .585
(P+J—B—H)

19

In the initial presentation of the ICL (LaForge and
Suczek, 1955), the authors reported test-retest correlations
ranging between .64 and .77. LaForge (1965) reported that
a direct measure of internal consistency can be obtained
from the communalities of each of the 16 raw score measures
when their principal components are obtained in factor ana—
lytic studies. The communalities of these variables for
the "self descriptions" of male University of Illinois student
groups ranged from a low of .51 to a high of .86. Considering
that the sixteenths are personality scales of only eight
items, LaForge believed that the communalities were encourag—
ing. The summary scores Dom and Lov obtained from the same
sample have communalities above .90. On the basis of the
factor analysis of the Illinois male students‘ responses,
LaForge concluded that ”the summary scores Dom and Lov con-
tain the important variance of the ICL ... and therefore,
best summarize the information carried by the list (1965,

p. 25).”

On the basis of the above information, the ICL was
believed to be an appropriate instrument for obtaining and
evaluating the attribution of interpersonal traits of sub-
jects to their parents. That is, when the subjects reSponded
to the test items as descriptive of their parents, they may
be said to have attributed to them their own perception of
the parents' interpersonal behavioral traits. Their responses
were then available for appropriate scoring and analysis with

respect to the hypotheses to be tested.

20

The Masculinity—Femininity Scale (MF) 9: the
Minneapolis Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI)

 

 

The MF scale is composed of sixty heterogeneous, true-
false items (see Appendix D) ranging over interests in social
activities, interpersonal relationships, vocational and avo—
cational interests, religious preferences, personal sensitivi—
ties, and candid sexual material. Hathaway (1956) described
the derivation of the MF scale. Pre—college and college stu—
dents as well as other age groups provided data for construct-

ing and validating the measure. Hathaway and McKinley (1951),

 

who developed the scale, indicated that it measures subjects'
tendencies toward masculinity or femininity of interest pat—
terns. Separate T—scores are provided for the two sexes so
that "... in either case, a high score indicates a deviation
of the basic interest pattern in the direction of the opposite
sex. Males with very high MF scores have frequently been
found to be either overt or repressed sexual inverts (1951,

p. 20).“

Dahlstrom and Welsh (1960) list the available research
findings on the test—retest reliability of the MF scale
including college student subjects, and concluded that the
test is quite stable over time. Research reviewed by Drake
and Oetting (1959) indicates that the scale has discriminatory
power in separating masculinity and femininity of interest
and behavior patterns, especially with male subjects. Thus,

assuming that the test responses were a reflection of the

 

21

subject's interest and behavior patterns, the instrument was
believed to be appropriate for the purposes of the present
investigation.

As an attempt to evaluate possible additional meaning
associated with the MF measures, it was decided to correlate
the MF scores with those of Barron's (1955) experimental
MMPI scale for Ego Strength. The difficulty with this pro-
cedure is the fact that eighteen items of the sixty—eight in
the Ego Strength scale were not included in the 420 item
Hastings Short Form of the MMPIl which was to be administered
to the subjects. However, since only two of the items in the
MF and Ego Strength scales overlap, it was believed that such
an analysis might reveal additional meaning associated with
the MF measures.

Barron developed the Ego Strength scale for the purpose
of predicting reSponse to psychotherapy. His item analysis
identified the pretreatment attributes that bore some relation—
ship to the degree of improvement the subjects showed after
individual psychotherapy. Inspection of the item content
and the personality and intelligence test correlates of the
scale led Barron to assume the items to be indicative of dif—
ferences in strength of ego structure. Among the character—

istics which he collectively referred to as ego strength are

 

1Olson (1954) has reported research comparing this form
with the complete MMPI, and Dahlstrom and Welsh (1960) have
discussed..its appropriateness for research and clinical
purposes.

22

physiological stability and good health, a strong sense of
reality, feelings of personal adequacy and vitality, per—
missive morality, lack of ethnic prejudice, emotional out—
goingness and spontaneity, and intelligence. Dahlstrom and
Welsh (1960) have reviewed a number of researches which have
indicated that the Ego Strength scale is a useful predictor
of improved outcome in psychotherapy and as an instrument
that can differentiate psychiatric patients from non—
hospitalized subjects.

Barron (1955) reported a correlation of —.45 between

 

Ego Strength and MF scale scores of a group of male graduate
students; however, the correlation between the same measures
for a group of male clinic patients was -.04. On the basis
of these findings and the assumption that the reduced number
of Ego Strength scale items given to the subjects of the
present study does not invalidate the use of the scale, it
was expected that Ego Strength and MF measures would be
negatively correlated in the present sample of college males.
If such a correlation was found, additional interpretations
could be made relative to the meaning of what the MF scale

measures .

Iv. HYPOTHESES

The general hypothesis, as previously stated, is as

follows:

the degree of adoption of masculine behavioral

patterns in adult males is positively related to their

attribution to their fathers of interpersonal behavioral

traits of dominance and love and negatively related to their

attribution of interpersonal traits of dominance and love

to their mothers.

From this general hypothesis,

hypotheses were formulated:

1.

There is a significant positive correlation
between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and
the amount of attribution to fathers of dominant
interpersonal behavior traits as measured by the
ICL.

There is a significant positive correlation
between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and
the amount of attribution to fathers of loving
interpersonal behavior traits as measured by the
ICL.

There is a significant negative correlation
between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and
the amount of attribution to mothers of dominant
interpersonal behavior traits as measured by the
ICL.

There is a significant'negative‘correlation
between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and
the amount of attribution to mothers of loving
interpersonal behavior traits as measured by the
ICL.

25

the following operational

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. METHOD

The Sample

 

The sample consisted of male college students enrolled
in undergraduate psychology courses at the Michigan State
University during the spring and summer terms of 1965.
Recruitment announcements were made to students enrolled in
the classes on Personality Theory during the spring and
summer terms. In order to increase the size of the sample,
announcements were also made in the Introductory Psychology
classes during the summer term. The students were asked to
volunteer as subjects in a research project attempting to
relate personality characteristics and attitudes toward
parents. They were told that their involvement as anonymous
subjects would include Spending about one hour and fifteen
minutes taking paper and pencil tests in a group situation.
They were further told: that their names would not be used
on the test response sheets; that they would be paid two
dollars ($2.00) for their time; and that they would receive
a printed summary of the findings when the study was com—
pleted.

A total of 114 male students were tested. Eighty—four
subjects were enrolled in the Personality Theory (Pers Theory)
courses and 50 in the Introductory Psychology (Intro Psy)

courses. Students in the former had already taken the

24

25

Introductory course and in some cases one or more other
psychology courses while students in the latter had never
before enrolled in a psychology course. Both groups of
subjects included predominantly Sophomores and Juniors with

a few Seniors and very few Freshmen. Their ages ranged
between 18 and 22. There were no significant age or college-
class differences between the two groups. Of the 114 proto—
cols obtained, eighteen were eliminated from the Pers Theory
group and four from the Intro Psy group. The criteria for
elimination are listed in Table I as well as the number of 1’ 1
protocols deleted from each sample group. Two of the in—
complete tests occurred because the subjects felt they could

not continue responding to the MMPI for personal reasons.

Table I. Criteria for and number of eliminations of subject
protocols from the analyses of the sample groups.

 

Sample Group

 

 

Pers Theory Intro Psy
Either or both parents deceased 10 0
Parents divorced 5 2
Failure to complete the tests 2 1
Not born in the United States 1 1

 

The third incomplete test involved a student's failure to
respond to the items on the second page of the ICL. A check

of the MMPI validity scales revealed no extreme scores which

26

might have indicated that the MMPI responses were not valid.
The number of protocols used in the final analyses was 66
for the Pers Theory group and 26 for the Intro Psy group.

The sample may be considered to be representative of
male students enrolled at that time in either Personality
Theory or Introductory Psychology classes of Michigan State
University who were willing to volunteer as research subjects

under the conditions stated above.

Procedure

The instruments were administered in class or lecture
rooms to groups ranging from 10 to 18 students. Each student
chose one of three possible testing times which were scheduled
so as not to conflict with class attendance.

The subjects were first informed that their partici—
pation in the research would involve completion of two tests
(the ICL and the MMPI) and a questionnaire (Family Information
Questionnaire) all of which would be given to them at the
beginning of the period. They were told first to read care—
fully the sheet of General Instructions (see Appendix A)
clipped on top of the material to be given to them. The stu—
dents were informed that there was no time limit for any of
the tests and that the General Instructions would explain
how and in what order they were to proceed from one test to
the other until they had completed the three parts.

They were allowed to ask questions if they did not understand

the General Instructions. The only questions raised were

 

27

from subjects whose parents were divorced or not living.

These subjects asked how to complete the Interpersonal Check

List (see Appendix B), and they were told to describe their

divorced or deceased parents if they still knew or remembered

them or else to omit the relevant descriptions. As noted

above in the section describing the sample, such subjects'

protocols were not included in the final analyses. A copy of

the Family Information Questionnaire may be found in Appendix C.
Most of the students required between one hour and

fifteen minutes and one hour and forty minutes to complete 1

the tests. Observation by the examiners revealed no evidence

that the subjects were not responding to each test item or

not following the required order for completion of the instru—

ments.

Scoring of the Instruments

 

Templates were prepared for machine scoring of each
MMPI scale. Separate output data cards were obtained for
each scale, and these cards contain punched identifying
information and the total score for the scale. All of the
MMPI validity and clinical scales were scored according to
the instructions given by Hathaway and McKinley (1951), and
the MMPI Ego-Strength scale was scored by summing the number
of answered true—false items listed by Barron (1955) as
being included in the scale. Only the MF and Ego Strength
measures were included in the final analyses. For the MF

scale, each true—false item (see Appendix D) answered in the

28

direction of the interest pattern of the opposite sex was
counted as one point. Thus, for male subjects, low scores
indicate a preference for responding to "masculine" items
and high scores indicate a preference for responding to
"feminine“ items.

The ICL consists of 128 items (see Appendix B), but six
additional alternate items have been included in the list for
future experimental item analysis. LaForge (1965) has sug—
gested this procedure as a means of obtaining information
relative to possible future revisions of the Check List.
Responses to the six alternate items were not scored for the
present study. The test sheets were machine scored yielding
output cards with punched information relative to identifi—
cation and the nature of each item response. The answers
were scored and analyzed according to procedures outlined
by LaForge (1965). A program was written for computer
analysis of the individual item reSponses recorded on the
initial output cards.l For each of the sixteen interpersonal
categories, the number of items marked "True” (of the eight
items in each category) were summed. These category totals
were then used to compute the summary scores Dom and Lov as
described on page 18. This analytic procedure was followed

separately for both sets of responses which the subjects

 

er. Joel Stutz, from the Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University, wrote the program for the analy—
sis of the ICL item response data.

 

29

made with respect to their mother and to their father. Thus,
separate output cards containing the results of this ICL
analysis were obtained for each parent, and these were the
datum cards employed in the final analysis of the experi—

mental hypotheses.

 

IV . RESULTS

Comparisons Between the Sample Groups

To facilitate comparisons between the data of the
two samples, between the various variables within the
samples, and an understanding of the data in general, the
data cards were duplicated and computer analyzed by the
Michigan State University CDC 5600 computer via two separate
programs. The DAP 2 Program1 yielded scattergram analyses
of each of the variables and their relationships with each
of the other variables, and the CORE ROUTINE2 resulted in
the multicorrelations to be presented below.

An early aspect of the data analysis involved a com—
parison of the several variable scores of the two sample
groups of subjects in order to determine whether there
were any significant differences between the measures of
the two groups. Inspection of the data gave no evidence to
suggest that the data were not normally distributed, and
thus it was believed likely that normal parametric statis—

tics might be apprOpriate for tests of significant differences

 

lThe DAP 2 Program was written by Mr. James Clark, of
the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University.
Mr. Clark also served as a consultant on the use of the com—
puter programs and the other facilities of the Michigan State
University Computer Laboratory.

2Available in the library of the Michigan State Uni—
versity Computer Laboratory.

50

 

51

between the variable scores of the two sample groups. To

further evaluate the assumptions underlying parametric

statistics, an F-test for the homogeneity of two variables
was used for all the variables of the two groups. None of
the variances differed significantly except those of the
mother—dominance scores (.05 level). Thus, normal t-test
comparisons were made between the means of all the variable
scores except the mother-dominance measures, and the latter
means were compared with a t—test which does not require
the assumption of homogeneity of variance. The results of

these comparisons are presented in Table II.

Table II. Results of the t-test for the significance of
differences between the mean scores of the
Introductory Psychology and the Personality
Theory subjects with reSpect to the variables

Masculinity—Femininity (MF), dominance, love and
Ego Strength. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Groups N M S t P
MF Intro Psy 26 28.77 4.42 O 71 NS
(MMPI) Pers Theory 66 27.94 5.25 '
Moth—Dom Intro Psy 26 4.40 9.04 0 47 NS
(ICL) Pers Theory 66 5.55 6.60

Moth-Lov Intro Psy 26 5.55 11.07 1 04 NS
(ICL) Pers Theory 66 2.85 11.18 '
Fath—Dom Intro Psy 26 8.07 8.55 0 08 NS
(ICL) Pers Theory 66 7.81 7.64 '
Fath—Lov Intro Psy 26 —5.52 12.75 -0 50 NS
(ICL) Pers Theory 66 —2.14 11.46 '

Ego Strength Intro Psy 26 55.81 4.72 2 O7 025
(MMPI) Pers Theory 66 57.95 4.40 '

 

*-
All the t—tests were two—tailed tests.

 

 

52

The values in Table II show that there were no signifi—
cant differences between the means of the variables relevant
to the hypotheses. However, the means between the two groups
for the Ego Strength scores were significantly different
(.025 level). While the ego strength variable is not salient
to the hypotheses of the study, it was thought that since
the samples differed to this extent, it would be useful to
present separate analyses for the two samples as well as an
analysis including the combined scores of the two groups.
This procedure was followed for subsequent analyses presented

in this chapter.

In this section the hypotheses are restated and the
results are presented in Tables III and IV. The intercorre—
lation matrices for the Masculinity—Femininity (MMPI) scores
and the dominance and love (ICL) scores of the Introductory
Psychology and the Personality Theory groups are presented
in Table III. A similar intercorrelation matrix for the
combined scores of the two groups is found in Table IV.

All of the correlations were tested for significant differ—
ences from a zero correlation. The letters following some
of the correlation values indicate various levels at which
they were significantly different from zero correlations.
Also, correSponding correlations of the Introductory Psy—
chology and the Personality Theory groups were tested for

significant differences, and none of these correlations of

 

55

 

 

 

 

Table III. Intercorrelation matrices for the Masculinity—
Femininity (MMPI) and the dominance and love
(ICL) scores of the Introductory Psychology
(N = 26) and the Personality Theory (N = 66)
groups.a
MF Moth-Dom Moth—Lov Fath—Dom Fath—Lov
MFb
a
g Moth—Dom - . 52 69C
U)
A Moth—Lov —.1569 —.5208f
o
E Fath-Dom -.oeo7 —.oo15 -.0182
H
Fath—Lov -.0274 .1567 —.1070 —.2867
MP
>‘ Moth—Dom —.2846d
$4
8 Moth—Lov -.o114 -.29ose
.C‘.
E Fath-Dom —.1001 .2465 .1719
U)
§ Fath—Lov —.1586 .1151 —.0459 -.5265f
aNo significant differences were found between corresponding
correlations of the Introductory Psychology and Personality

bTheory groups.

Correlation
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant

s with no letter after them are not significant.
at the .05 level.

at the .025 level.

at the .01 level.

at the .005 level.

the two groups were found to differ significantly. Finally,

the scattergrams of each of the variables as they relate to

every other

variable were inspected, and no evidence was

found toindicate that curvilinear relationships existed.

It should be remembered when reading these tables that low MF

 

54

Table IV. Intercorrelation matrix for the Masculinity—
Femininity (MMPI) and the dominance and love (ICL)
scores of the combined Introductory Psychology and
Personality Theory Groups (N = 92).

 

 

MF Moth—Dom Moth—Lov Fath—Dom Fath-Lov.
MFa
b
Moth—Dom —.2955
Moth-Lov —.0555 —.5685C
Fath—Dom —.0876 .1527 .1159
Fath-Lov —.1264 .1512 —.oe79 —.5158b

 

:Correlations with no letter after them are not significant.
cSignificant at the .005 level.
Significant at the .0005 level.

scores indicate a preference for more masculine behavior and
high values indicate a preference for less masculine behavior.

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant positive'
correlation between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and the amount
of attribution to fathers of dominant interpersonal behavior
traits as measured by the ICL.

This hypothesis is not supported. While the corre—
lations between masculinity and the attribution of dominant
behavior to fathers are in the predicted direction for both
groups, the values are so small that they permit the in-

ference of only a negligible or nonexistent relationship.

 

55

Hypothesis 2. There is a significant positive
correlation between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and the amount
of attribution to fathers of loving interpersonal behavior
traits as measured by the ICL.

The results do not support the above hypotheSis”
Although in the predicted direction, the correlations are
not significant and do not allow any inference of a relation-
ship between maSculinity and attribution of loving behaviors »
to fathers. )1

Hypothesis 5. There is a significant negative
correlation between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior patterns as measured by the MF scale and the amount
of attribution to mothers of dominant interpersonal behavior
traits as measured by the ICL.

This hypothesis also is not supported. However, for
both groups of subjects as well as the combined groups, the
correlations are significant in the direction opposite from
that predicted. Thus, the more masculine the subjects were,
the more they tended to see their mothers as behaving in
dominant ways.

Hypothesis 4. There is a significant negative
correlation between the degree of preference for masculine
behavior as measured by the MF scale and the amount of
attribution to mothers of loving interpersonal behavior traits

as measured by the ICL.

 

56

The results do not bear out this prediction. It is
interesting to note that the correlation values, while
small and nonsignificant, are in the direction opposite from
that which was hypothesized. Also, the correlation for the
Introductory Psychology students is slightly higher than
that of the Personality Theory group, although as noted above
in the previous section, these correlations do not differ
significantly. Neither of the correlations are large enough
to infer any relationships between masculinity and attributed
loving behavior to mothers.

Further examination of Tables III and IV shows that for
both groups of subjects, significant negative correlations
are found when the attribution of dominance and the attribu-
tion of love to the same parent were compared. The only
exception was the comparison between father-dominance and
father-love in the Introductory Psychology group. However,
this negative correlation is relatively high and not signifi-
cantly different from the similar comparison in the Personality
Theory group. When the data of the two groups were combined,
the comparisons between dominance and love for the mother
yielded a negative correlation significant at the .0005 level,
and the negative correlation of similar variables for the
fathers is significant at the .005 level. Thus, when the
subjects described a given parent as dominant, they also saw
the same parent as significantly less loving, and when a
parent was viewed as being loving he was also seen as behav-

ing in Significantly less dominant ways.

 

 

57

When the attribution of dominance to mothers and the
attribution of dominance to fathers were compared, none of
the correlations were significant. However, for the Person—
ality Theory group the correlation of .2465 provides some
basis for inferring that there may be a positive relationship
for these subjects between seeing one parent as dominant when
the other is seen as dominant. Comparisons between mother—
love and father—love scores yielded no evidence to infer

a relationship between these variables.

 

Ego Strength Scale

 

The results of the comparisons between the MF and the
Ego Strength scores are presented in Table V. The corre-
lation of these variables is significant for the larger
Personality Theory group. When the groups are combined,
the correlation is also significant so that a positive
relationship between these variables may be inferred from
the results.
Table V. Correlations between MMPI Masculinity—Femininity

(MF) and Ego Strength scores of the Introductory

Psychology and Personality Theory groups and both
groups combined.

 

 

 

 

Groups
Variables Intro Psy Pers Theory Combined Groups
(N = 26) (N = 66) (N = 92)
a b b
MF and Ego Strength -.2958 -.4224 —.5951

 

aNot significant.
Significant at the .0005 level.

 

VII. DISCUSSION

The Findings

It was found that no significant positive relationship
existed between the subjects' preference for masculine
behavior and their attribution of dominant and loving be-
havior to their fathers as predicted in Hypotheses 1 ehg.2.
Thus, neither of these hypotheses were sustained. The pre—
diction of Hypothesis 5 that there would be a significant 3
negative relationship between the preference for masculine H
behavior and the attribution of dominant behavior to mothers
was also not supported by the data. Instead, a significant
positive relationship between masculinity and attributed
mother—dominance was found for both groups of subjects.
There was also no evidence to support the inference of a
significant relationship between degree of masculinity and
attribution of loving behavior to the mothers as predicted
in Hypothesis 1- A significant negative relationship was
found between the two dependent variables, dominance and love,
as they were attributed to a given parent. In other words,
subjects who viewed a parent as more dominant were also
likely to see the same parent as significantly less loving,
and subjects who viewed a parent as more loving also tended
to see the same parent as behaving in significantly less
dominant ways. This relationship was found with respect to

58

59

the subjects' attributions to both of their parents. No
significant relationships were found between the attribution
of the same kind of behavior (i.e., either dominance or love)
to both parents. Finally, a significant positive relation—
ship was found between the MMPI scale variables of masculinity

and ego strength.

Theoretical Implications

 

The findings reported above clearly do not support the
exploratory hypotheses of the Study. These hypotheses were

derived from a central proposition suggested by identifi—

...—~—
...—Ah-

cation theory and research. The proposition is that adult
behavior patterns have antecedents related to the identifi-
cation process, i.e., an individual's preference for sex—role
behavior patterns may be assumed to reflect the degree of his
earlier identification with a same—sex or a cross—sex parent.
The major assumption of the present research was that an
individual's perception of his parents as reflected by the
interpersonal behavior traits he attributes to them will
function as a measure of the degree of his identification
with the parent who has been more influential in this process.
In the light of the findings, this basic assumption does not
seem tenable. Therefore, the research findings represent a
challenge to rather than support of the central proposition
suggested by identification theory and research.

An interesting question which might seem to be implicit

in this research is whether or not an instrument (the ICL)

40

tapping conscious communication would yield results which
are comparable to those reported in the literature in which
projective tests were used? In other words, will findings
about parental behavior obtained from the conscious level
of response be comparable to those obtained from the un-
conscious level of response as reported by previous
researchers? It would seem, upon initial consideration of
the findings, that the question has been answered in the
negative. However, the study was not designed to answer
only this question or to answer it in any direct way. The
research reported in the second chapter involved the use of
projective instruments to obtain unconscious or fantasy
responses related specifically to father—son and mother—son
relationships. The present study made no attempt to elicit
reports of specific parent-son interpersonal behavior.
Rather, the subjects, when responding to the ICL, were asked
to use their own opinion in describing their parents as they
viewed them at the present time. It was assumed that their
responses would be conscious, perhaps defended, but probably
not objective. Thus, the different question of whether
responses obtained in this way about less Specifically
prescribed interactions of parents would yield findings con—
sistent with identification theory and research using other
approaches seems to be answered in the negative.

The above discussion and the nature of the results

indicate that the present findings cannot appropriately be

41

interpreted in terms of identification theory which stresses
the importance of the paternal figure as a model and as a
major influence in the development of masculine interests

and behaviors in males. The most significant finding is

the positive relationship between masculinity and the attribu—
tion of dominant interpersonal behavior to mothers. A related
finding is the significant negative relationship between
mother—dominance and mother—love. Thus, when mothers were
seen as dominant they were also viewed as aggressive and

hostile, since the ICL love measure is calculated by subtract—

-..p—u—vv

ing aggression—hostility scores from love scores.

Freud (1924, 1955, 1949) postulated that the boy resolves
the threat of the Oedipal Situation by allying himself with
the attitudes, values, and behavior of the aggressive, puni—
tive, and powerful father. He believed that resolution of
the Oedipus complex constituted a vital influence in the
development of masculinity in the boy's character, although
he allowed that identifications take place with the child's
later views of the parents as well. The present findings
cannot be directly related to the boy's Oedipal view of his
father, however they indicate that college—age men who have
adopted masculine behaviors and interests tend to view their
mothers as dominant and aggressive while no such relationship
was found with respect to their views of their fathers.

A likely interpretation is that the attributes of parental
behavior as well as the nature of the familial milieu may be

different in this culture as compared to the one Freud

 

42

experienced and understood as he developed his theory.
Further, if it is assumed that a boy's views of his father
are different from his later adult ones in some way that is
characteristic for the Oedipal period, then the assumption
must also be made that his views of his mother's behavior

are also different during that period from those he expresses
when he is a young adult. A more likely interpretation is
that a mother who is seen as dominant and aggressive by the
adult male expressed these same behaviors during the male's

childhood. It can be speculated that such boys were aware

 

of and responsive to their mothers' dominant (rather than
passive and more loving—seductive) behaviors, and that this
awareness and responsiveness functioned to quiet the Oedipal
fears assumed to be related to the fathers. Thus, Freud's
theory may be inappropriate for explaining the mechanisms
involved in the development of masculine role acceptance and
behavior in this culture.

In terms of the present findings, the emphasis of
learning and role theorists on the idea that a father who is
aggressive, dominant, and loving is a crucial influence on
the boy's acceptance and adoption of masculine behaviors is
clearly not supported. However, their explanation of the
learning mechanisms involved in the development of masculine
interests and behavior may represent a more useful interpre—
tation of the present findings. Mowrer (1950) describes

developmental identification as basically a result of a

 

45

conditioning process in which parental rewards have a crucial
influence, and his interpretation of defensive identification
also involves a learning process. The role theorists (Sarbin,
1954; Sears eh el., 1957; and Brim, 1958) also believe that
sex-roles are learned under basic learning conditions of
motivation, performance, and reinforcement. Both groups of
theorists thus interpret the development of appropriate sex—
typed behavior as involving a learning mechanism in which
both parents have reward value. However, their view of the

father's predominant influence, at least in the later stages

 

of sex—role learning in males, is not supported by the
results of the present study.

Sanford (1955) may have introduced some needed clarity
with reSpect to the theories of how sex—role behaviors
develop. He concluded that such "development can be largely
explained, without benefit of either identification or
introjection, on the basis of common forms of learning.

A child learns which of his actions please, and which dis—
please, his parents, which win him love, which disapproval;
he learns what reactions are effective in inhibiting those
impulses which if allowed free rein would lead to catastrophe;
he learns how to regard himself from the way others regard
him; and in building his ego system and his self conception
he learns what to keep and what to discard (1955, p. 117)."
In the light of Sanford's conclusion and drawing from

some of the more recent ideas of behaviorally oriented,

44

reinforcement theorists of personality and psychotherapy as
represented by Lundin (1961) and Wolpe eh el. (1964)
respectively, an interpretation of the present findings may
be formulated. Briefly, most individuals who grow up in

this culture experience more interpersonal contact with their
mothers than their fathers. Thus, the mother is the most
frequent agent of reinforcement with respect to the boy's
behavior. Since the home is frequently the ”mother's domain,"
she tends to have more opportunities for dominant behavior

in the home than the father who may be quite aggressive and
dominant in other situations. Given these considerations,

if the mother is dominant and aggressive and can tolerate
these behaviors in herself without undue anxiety, it would
seem likely that she would also be able to tolerate such
behaviors in her son. Her selective reinforcement of the
boy's dominant, aggressive and other masculine behaviors and
interests would help to shape such behaviors so that they
would gradually conform to socially acceptable standards for
males. It seems likely that such males would consciously
attribute dominance and aggressiveness to their mothers.

On the other hand, a mother who is unable to be dominant
and aggressive may be unable to tolerate such behaviors in
others including her son and perhaps her husband. The learn—
ing environment for such a boy would be quite different from
that where the mother could tolerate and accept appropriate

expression of dominance and aggression as discussed above.

 

 

45

Such behaviors would receive different kinds of reinforce—
ments from the latter kind of mother who may discourage
them, who may become anxious when they are expressed, or
who may elicit guilt feelings in her son after he has ex—
pressed them. Thus, he may learn to avoid them, he may
experience undue anxiety or guilt when he expresses them,
and he may fail to learn appropriate ways of expressing them.
It seems likely that such a boy might fail to learn and
accept some of the important aspects of masculinity in this
culture, and he may attribute little dominance and aggressive—
ness to his mother.

The above interpretation of the results also seems
to be closely aligned with sociological theory and findings
reported by Warner eh _l. (1960). For example, these authors
found a relationship between the level of achievement and
upward social mobility of lower—class background males and
the dominant and aggressive characteristics of their mothers.
These achieving men also had many of the behavior character—
istics such as outgoingness, independence, aggressiveness,
etc. associated with masculinity in this culture. This
reported relationship between dominant mothers and the adoption
of certain masculine behaviors by sons, at least in the lower—
classes, seems to be consistent with the results of the
present study.

The findings of Warner eh l. with respect to lower—

class individuals raise some important questions with

respect to the possible effects which social class variables

46

may have had in the present research. Thus, might there
have been a predominant number of subjects from lower—class
backgrounds in the present samples which may have effected
the nature of the results? Also, if social class background
factors had been controlled, would the reactions of subjects
from the several social class levels have differed signifi—
cantly? Similar kinds of questions might be asked with
respect to possible differences of responses of subjects who
came from rural environments as compared with those from
urban backgrounds. For example, might subjects from rural
backgrounds where the father may play a more visably dominant
and aggressive role and the mother a more submissive one in
the familial interactions differ in their responses as com—
pared with males from urban environments where the familial
roles and interactions may be qualitatively different or
somewhat opposite? These questions cannot be answered in
the context of findings resulting from the present research
design.

The finding that the attribution of dominance to mothers
is related negatively to the attribution of love may support
a Speculation with respect to the college-age subjects in
the present samples. It would be expected that at this age
young men would have relatively strong needs for independence
from their mothers coupled with strivings to be clearly dif—
ferent from them. In effect, they may have needs to reject

the source of strength which has aided them in learning to

 

47

develop masculine interests and behaviors, and therefore
they might tend to see their mothers as less loving while
they may be unable to reject the view that they are dominant.

An assumption underlying this study was that the
preference for sex—role behavior and interest patterns in
adults as measured by the MF scale is a measure of the
success and direction of one's earlier "identification," or
in keeping with this discussion, progress toward adoption
of appropriate sex—role behaviors. This assumption is still
tenable. This measure was used successfully by Azimi (1964),
and the present findings provide no evidence for interpreting
the assumption as untenable. The significant and expected
relationship found between the MMPI and Ego Strength scores
closely parallels the findings reported by Barron (1955).
Thus, the acceptance of cultural standards of masculinity
is related to characteristics subsumed (by Barron) under ego
strength such as physiological stability and good health,
lack of ethnic prejudice, a strong sense of reality, feelings
of personal adequacy and vitality, and emotional outgoing-
ness and spontaneity. This finding clearly supports the
interpretation that degree of masculinity and good emotional
and physical health tend to be related.

This positive relationship between masculine sex—role
behaviors and good health coupled with the finding that males
who have such characteristics attribute dominance and aggres—

siveness to their mothers present a challenge to some of the

 

48

views about the influence of "dominant mothers" expressed

in the popular literature. It has been suggested that the
boys in our culture experience so much exposure to females
who dominate and control their activities (both in the home
as well as in the early years of school) that there may be

a real danger that males in this culture will begin to loose
some of their masculine characteristics. Sometimes the sug-
gestion is also made that the increasing dominance of females
coupled with the seemingly decreasing exposure of boys to
their fathers and other males will have detrimental effects
not only on their masculinity but on their mental health

as well. The present findings provide evidence that these

Speculations may be unfounded.

Implications for Future Research

 

The interpretations given to the present findings
have included a number of interesting theoretical questions
which have implications with respect to future research.
For example, a useful compliment to the present study would
be a replication of the design with the modification that
social class and rural—urban background variables also be
evaluated. If different age groups were used as subjects,
such a replication would also answer questions with reSpect
to the influence of age on the reSponses of the subjects.

Perhaps the most important implication resulting from
the findings and the tentative explanations given to them

is that future researchers might consider the relevance of

 

49

both learning and sociological theory as well as personality
theory when they attempt to answer some of the questions
relating to the development and acceptance of sex—typed
behavior. Definitive answers may depend upon such consider—

ations.

VIII . SUMMARY

The present study was designed to investigate some
of the phenomena subsumed under the concept of identification
and to test empirically hypotheses suggested by identification
process theories. A major assumption of the research was
that an individual's perception of his parents as reflected
by the interpersonal behavior traits he attributes to them
will function as a measure of his degree of identification
with the parent who has been more influential in this process.
The general prediction was that the degree of adoption of
masculine behavior patterns in adult males will be positively
related to their attribution to their fathers of inter—
personal behavior traits of dominance and love and negatively
related to their attribution of interpersonal traits of
dominance and love to their mothers.

Ninety—two male undergraduate university students
served as volunteer, paid subjects. The students used the

Interpersonal Check List once to describe their mother and

 

once to describe their father. This Check List includes 128
words and phrases which describe various kinds of inter—
personal behaviors. Responses to this instrument were
analyzed so that summary scores representing the behaviors
of dominance and love could be derived. The subjects also

completed the first 420 items of the Minnesota Multiphasic

50

 

 

51

Personality Inventory. The Masculinity—Femininity scale
scores of the Inventory were the independent variables of
this study. Total scores from this scale were assumed to

be a measure of masculine—feminine role behavior and interest
preference. The final task of the subjects involved the
completion of a Family Information Questionnaire which
provided information for excluding the protocols of subjects
whose parents were deceased or divorced.

The data were computer analyzed to obtain multi—
correlation coefficients between the measures of masculinity—
femininity, mother—dominance, mother-love, father—dominance,
and father—love. It was found that no significant positive
relationship existed between the subjects' preference for
masculine behavior and their attribution of dominant and
loving behavior to their fathers as was hypothesized. The
prediction that there would be a significant negative relation—
ship between the preference for masculine behavior and the
attribution of dominant and loving behavior to mothers was
also not supported by the data. Instead, a significant
positive relationship between degree of masculinity and
attributed mother-dominance was found. Also, a significant
negative relationship was found between the two dependent
variables, parent—dominance and parent—love, as they were
attributed to a given parent; and this relationship was
found with respect to the subjects' attributions to both

parents.

52

The results were discussed in terms of behavior rein—
forcement, personality theory and related to some findings
of sociological theorists. It was concluded: (1) that the
basic assumption of the research was not tenable in the light
of the findings, (2) that the results represented a challenge
to rather than support of the central proposition of identi-
fication theories which stresses the importance of the
paternal figure as a model and crucial influence on the
development of sex-typed interests and behaviors in males,
and (5) that the basic learning mechanisms postulated by
learning and role theorists as well as reinforcement, per—
sonality theorists about the development of masculine sex—
role preference and behaviors may be the most pertinent

interpretation of the findings.

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Azimi, C. Masculinity, femininity, and perception e;
warmth and saliency 1h parent-son relationships.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State

University, 1964.

 

Barron, F. An ego strength scale which predicts response
to psychotherapy. g. consult. Psychol., 1955, 11,
527-555.

Brim, O. G., Jr. Family structure and sex—role learning by
children: A further analysis of Helen Koch's data.
Sociometry, 1958, 21, 1—16.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The study of identification through
interpersonal perception. In R. Tagiuri and L.
Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception ehd interpersonal
relationships. California: Stanford University Press,
1958, Pp. 110—150.

 

Dahlstrom, W. G. and Welsh, G. S. Ln MMPI handbook: A guide
he use 1h clinical practice and research. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, _1960.

 

Drake, L. E. and Oetting, E. R. Ln MMPI codebook for
counselors. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1959.

 

Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neoursis.
New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1945.

 

Freud, Anna. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London:

Hogarth Press Ltd. 1957.

Freud, S. The passing of the Oedipus complex. In Collected
papers. Vol. 1;. London: Hogarth Press Ltd., 1924,
Pp. 269—276.

 

Freud, S. New introductory lectures 1h psychoanalysis.
New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1955.

 

Freud, S. Ln outline of psychoanalysis. New York: W. W.
Norton —and Company, 1949.

 

55

54

Hathaway, S. R. Scales 5 (masculinity—femininity), 6
(paranoia), and 8 (schizophrenia). In G. S. Welsh
and W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings eh phe
MMPI 1h psychology ehg medicine. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1956.

 

 

Hathaway, S. R. and McKinley, J. C. The Minnesota multi—
phasic personality inventory manual, revised. New York:
The Psychological Corporation, 1951.

 

Kagan, J. The concept of identification. Psychol. Rev.,
1958, §5, 296—505.

LaForge, R. Research use of the ICL. Oregon Research

Institute Technical Report, 1965, 5, No.

LaForge, R. and Suczek, R. F. The interpersonal dimension
of personality III: An interpersonal checklist.
5. Pers., 1955, eg, 94—112.

Lundin, R. W. Personality, eh experimental approach.
New York: Macmillan Company, 1961.

Lynn, D. B. Sex-role and parental identification. Child
Develpm., 1962, 55, 555-564.

McCandless, B. R. Children and adolescents: Behavior and

development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1961.

Mowrer, O. H. Learning theory and personality dynamics.
New York: Ronald Press, 1950.

Munroe, Ruth L. Schools 95 psychoanalytic though . New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1955.

Mussen, P. and Distler, L. Masculinity, identification and
father—son relationships. 5. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1959, 52, 550—556.

Mussen, P. and Distler, L. Child—rearing antecedents of
masculine identification in kindergarten boys.
Childhood Develpm., 1960, 51, 89—100.

Olson, G. W. The Hastings short form of the group MMPI.
5. clin. Psychol., 1954, 19, 586—588.

Sanford, N. The dynamics of identification. Psychol. Rev.,
1955, 55, No. 2, 106—118.

Sarbin, T. Role theory. In G. Lindsey (Ed.), Handbook 5:
social psychology. Vol. 1, Cambridge: Addison
Wesley Publications, 1954, Pp. 225—258.

 

 

 

55

Sears, Pauline. Child rearing factors related to playing
of sex—typed roles. Amer. Psychol., 1955, 5, 451.

Sears, R., Maccoby, Eleanor, and Levin, H. Patterns 5:
child rearing. Evanston: Row Peterson and Company,
1957.

Sears, R., Pintler, M., and Sears, Pauline. Effect of
father separation on pre—school children's doll play
aggression. Child. Develpm. 1946, 11, 217-245.

Stoke, S. An inquiry into the concept of identification.
5. gen. Psychol., 1950, 76, 165-189.

Tolman, E. C. Identification and the post—war world.
5. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1945, 55, 141—148.'

Warner, W. L., Meeker, Marchia, and Eells, L. Social class
1h_America. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

Wolpe, J., Salter, A., and Reyna, L. J. (Eds.). The

conditionihg therapies: The challenge 1h psychotherapy.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.

APPENDICES

 

56

 

 

APPENDIX A

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Please read carefully before beginning to respond to the
research materials.

The questions that you will answer to not represent
achievement test items in the sense that there are right and
wrong answers. Rather they are a means of obtaining responses
from you as an anonymous subject in a research project.

A summary of the research findings will be available next
September in the Psychology Department Office, 109 Olds Hall,
for each of the participants of the study.

Each subject's answer sheets have a randomly assigned
number which will permit identification of his separate 5
answer Sheets as belonging to one person. Do not write your
name on any of the answer sheets. gee phe blue scoring pencil
given to you he mark 311 your answers.

The materials given to you, the general instructions
for each questionnaire, and the order in which you are to
respond to them are as follows:

1. The Interpersonal Check List (ICL) and two separate
IBM answer sheets marked MOTHER and FATHER which are
inserted between the two pages of the ICL. Carefully
read both the "Instructions” for the ICL and the
"Directions" on the answer sheets. Then begin and
mark your answers on the separate answer sheets as
instructed.

 

2. A Booklet for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) which has a separate IBM answer
sheet marked MMPI inserted inside the cover of the
booklet. Read the instructions on the cover of the
MMPI booklet. Then begin the test and mark your
answers on the separate answer sheet.

 

Note that you are to answer only phe first gag items
1h phe MMPI Booklet. The 421st answer space on the
answer sheet is crossed out and STOP is written above
the 421st space to remind you that you are finished
with this test when you have answered the first 420
items.

57

 

 

58

5. A Family Information Questionnaire. There is no
answer sheet for this part, so mark or fill in the
answers directly on this questionnaire as instructed.
When you have completed this questionnaire, you are
finished with your part of the research.

There is no time limit for any of the tests, so when
you complete one section, go on to the next until you are
finished. Before leaving your seat, carefully check to
determine that you have all of the materials which were given
to you. Clip these materials together, return them to the
examiner, and collect your payment.

APPENDIX B

THE INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST - FORM IV

This is a list of words and phrases which describe the way
people behave in relation to one another. First, on the
separate answer sheet marked MOTHER, mark the item true if
the statement is descriptive of your mother, in your opinion,
at the present time. Mark it false if it is not descriptive
of her. When you have answered e11 the items for your mother,
begin with the separate answer sheet marked FATHER and describe
him by the same procedure. This will be your opinion of your
father. Your first impression is generally the best, so go
through the list as quickly as you can. However, be certain
to consider and answer each item.

Able to give orders
. Appreciative
. Apologetic
Able to take care of self

Able to doubt others

27. Complaining

28. Can be indifferent to
others

29. Critical of others

50. Can be obedient

51. Cruel and unkind

Affectionate and understanding 52. Dependent

Acts important

1
2
5
4.
5. Accepts advice readily
6
7
8
9 Able to criticize self

10. Admires and imitates others

11. Agrees with everyone
12. Always ashamed of self

55. Dictatorial

54. Distrusts everybody

55. Dominating

56. Easily embarrassed

57. Eager to get along with

15. Very anxious to be approved of others

14. Always giving advice

15. Bitter

16. Bighearted and unselfish
17. Boastful

18. Businesslike

19. Bossy

20. Can be frank and honest
21. Clinging vine

22. Can be strict if necessary
25. Considerate

24. Cold and unfeeling

25. Can complain if necessary
26. COOperative

58. Easily fooled
59. Egotistical and conceited
40. Easily led
41. Encouraging to others
42. Enjoys taking care of
others
45. Expects everyone to
admire him
*44. Faithful follower
45. Frequently disappointed
46. Firm but just
47. Fond of everyone
48. Forceful

 

*
Alternate items not scored for

59

the present study (see page 28).

 

 

6O

Friendly

Forgives anything
Frequently angry
Friendly all the time
Generous to a fault
Gives freely of self
Good leader

Grateful

Hard—boiled when necessary
Helpful

Hard—hearted

Hard to convince
Hot-tempered

Hard to impress

Impatient with others' mistakes

Independent

Irritable

Jealous

Kind and reassuring

Likes reSponsibility

Lacks self—confidence
Likes to compete with others
Lets others make decisions
Likes everyone

Likes to be taken care of
Loves everybody

. Makes a good impression
. Manages others

. Meek

. Modest

Hardly ever talks back
Often admired

Obeys too willingly
Often gloomy

Outspoken

Overprotective of others
Often unfriendly
Oversympathetic

Often helped by others
Passive and unaggressive
Proud and self-satisfied

. Always pleasant and agreeable

o

Resentful

Respected by others

Rebels against everything
Resents being bossed
Self-reliant and assertive
Sarcastic

Self—punishing
Self—confident
Selfeseeking

100.
101.
102.
*105.

104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.

112.

115?

*114.
115.

116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.

122.
125.

124.
125.
126.

127.
128.
129.
150.
151.
152.

155.
*154.

Shrewd and calculating
Self-respecting

Shy

Sincere and devoted to
friend

Selfish

Skeptical

Sociable and neighborly
Slow to forgive a wrong
Somewhat snobbish
Spineless

Stern but fair

Spoils people with kind-
ness

Straightforward and direct
Stubborn

SuSpicious

Too easily influenced
by friends

Thinks only of self
Tender and soft—hearted
Timid

Too lenient with others
Touchy and easily hurt
Too willing to give to
others

Tries to be too success-
ful

Trusting and eager to
please

Tries to comfort everyone
Usually gives in

Very respectful to
authority

Wants everyone's love
Well thought of

Wants to be led

Will confide in anyone
Warm

Wants everyone to like
him

Will believe anyone
Well-behaved

 

 

APPENDIX C
FAMILY INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Please place a vertical mark above the short line following
each answer which is most applicable to you.

1. Are your parents both living? Yes — No —

2. If the answer is "Nd," please check
one of the following items:

a. Did one of your parents die when
you were a child? Yes - No -
If so, which one? Father - Mother —

b. Did one of your parents die when
you were an adolescent? ' Yes — No —
If so, which one? Father — Mother —

5. Are your parents presently living
together? Yes — No -

4. If the answer is ”No," check one of
the following items:

a. Did your parents divorce each

other when you were a child? Yes — No —
If so, with whom did you live? Father — Mother —
b. Did your parents divorce each
other when you were an adolescent? Yes — No —
If so, with whom did you live? Father — Mother -

c. If you did not live with one of
your parents, please specify with
whom you lived:

When you were a child
When you were an adolescent

5. Are you an only child? Yes — No —

6. If the answer is “No," specify the
following:

a. The order of your birth

61

 

62

b. The number of male siblings:
Older than you

 

Younger than you

 

c. The number of female siblings:
Older than you

 

Younger than you

 

7. Please Specify: Your age , your place of birth

, your class , and your

 

college major

 

After having completed the two tests and this questionnaire,
what do you think the researcher is attempting to assess in
this study?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True-

APPENDIX D

false Items of the Masculinity—Femininity Scale of

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory*

True

140.

205.

204.
217.
226.

251.
259.
261.
278.

282.
295.

297.
299.

think I would like the work of a librarian.

would like to be a singer.

am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex.
used to like drop—the—handerchief.

have often wished I were a girl. (Or if you are a girl)
have never been sorry that I am a girl.

enjoy reading love stories.

like poetry.

would like to be a florist.

would like to be a nurse.

like dramatics.

like collecting flowers or growing house plants.

At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than

I could Speak them.

I like to cook.

I used to keep a diary.

I am worried about sex matters.

HHHHHHHHHHHH

. My hands have not become clumsy or awkward.

If I were a reporter I would very much like to report
news of the theater.

I would like to be a journalist.

I frequently find myself worrying about something.

Some of my family have habits that bother and annoy

me very much.

I like to talk about sex.

I have been disappointed in love.

If I were an artist I would like to draw flowers.

I have often felt that strangers were looking at me
critically.

Once in a while I feel hate toward members of my family
whom I usually love.

I like "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll.

I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex.

I think that I feel more intensely than most people do.

 

36
Adapted from the Booklet for the Minnesota Multiphasic

 

Personality Inventory by Hathaway and McKinley, 1945.

65

64

False
1. I like mechanics magazines.
19. When I take a new job, I like to be tipped off on who
should be gotten next to.
26. I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut
when I'm in trouble.
28. When someone does me a wrong I feel I should pay him
back if I can, just for the principle of the thing.
79. My feelings are not easily hurt.
80. I sometimes tease animals.
81. I think I would like the kind of work a forest ranger
does.
89. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of
the truth.
99. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there
is lots of loud fun.
112. I frequently find it necessary to stand up for what I
think is right.
115. I believe in a life hereafter.
116. I enjoy a race or game better when I bet on it.
117. Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being
caught.
120. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when
I am out in company.
155. I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices.
144. I would like to be a soldier.
176. I do not have a great fear of snakes.
198. I daydream very little.
215. In walking I am very careful to step over sidewalk cracks.
214. I have never had any breaking out on my skin that has
worried me.
219. I think I would like the work of a building contractor.
221. I like science.
225. I very much like hunting.
229. I should like to belong to several clubs or lodges.
249. I believe there is a Devil and a Hell in afterlife.
254. I like to be with a crowd who play jokes on one another.
260. I was a slow learner in school.
262. It does not bother me that I am not better looking.
264. I am entirely self—confident.
280. Most people make friends because friends are likely
to be useful to them.
285. If I were a reporter I would very much like to report
sporting news.
500. There never was a time in my life when I liked to play

with dolls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

M'élll'lllfiilfltfllfllflifllflffliflilflfllflfllll“