1’II1IIIHIIPIWI IW‘ I1III11 1111111111 ”M1II 1 1111111'1I1II1IIII'II:12I1'I11‘ “111111IIIIIIIIIIII'I "II 11 I111-11 I III}: I1 III111II II III 1111I1111II111-‘1111III1-111II1 1I1IIIII11I11I1 ”HI" I II III I, IIII 1pr III III I {III II IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII III ,_ i’II'I 1I111111 III II1111I III 'I‘I ,I111II1I111II1I111 II!.'II‘IIII I1I 111! (‘1I1II1 I I I1II'I1I I1.1;I'II 1I11111 111‘I'1I1111111I1111'1'111111 ' I J; 11111111I'I1‘1III11111111111111I1 III I111 1IIII1I111II1IIII 1’I III1 1111 III I. 1:111 '1 1'111111I1I'1 III III I I "U I II III III 1I III II II I I"" I1 1IIII II IIIII' IIII1I .- “.I III III ‘1'1’1111I'I III 11I II ’111’I111I11III111III1 IIIIIIII‘IIII I11 :3. ' I"I IIIII ,. II111I1 1111fIII11I1‘1I11 I ,'|,IIL I ,1 1I11111111I111I11'1111 1'11I1I1I‘ IIIIIII II IIIIIIII‘ 1II dIIfI IIII I11I1”I II 1 W III, III "I: II1 IIII1IIII111111I11IIIII11111III11III1111 11111111I 111 I IIIIIIII II I. IIIIIIII IIIII . 11111115 III 1IIIII | J I11II11I II II I11 IIII '1I 1III111III11 . 11I1I1!“11 5 ‘I"‘1 u: 1 1 I [I11RIIIII III. M I I11I1111111111111 I11 11111I1I1111111IIIII1II1 IIIIIIIIIIII “111 1 III11 {I‘I‘11I‘I1’1’1‘I1‘1‘1 'I 111i ll 1 IIIII‘ '1 I 111 '11 |I11I1 1 11'I‘1‘111-11I1EIX. I I III II 'II I III III IIIII 11I 111111 1111111111111 1I111III1'1I 1III I‘ 111111111111 1II1I11111I1III1 I IMI III I 1 IIIIIII II III. I III I111II1111 11111111I111’1111 III I111;111 II1111111I IIII"IIII,,I1.II II III _~_. r - _ u ‘ o - -- _. . — c- . ‘ ngS: 0‘ _ ‘ - . .. ' -— om. ' or 4 . - " . _ - .. ’13- ., . _. A0. a..-“ . .I’ _ - -.-a -‘ - O -« "fig“- ?m‘m -.-:- I- . - - ~ —- . no Oc? .a- ._ . ‘— 4 “ .. -. - .‘v-z. . ; " — 3 ‘ ' '-‘ - o - u... ‘ - . . . ' 1 ' g~ , ' . :a... - . ‘ _. -. ‘ ’n '. _,, -, ”' . -,-_..-—~; . 4 . -. - - . " ‘ - __ - -. - - ‘ ..- a. v r - ., .. ~ . n .. .u . . r . o - - ’ ‘- . -,‘ uh I f“ "3—“: 1M - . - £3.15 . . . o .. . u— _.«I.. a - - .LTSé ~ I U nr’b . H, . W HA- . ... .,.-, a “7-3. ~ - s OI DI :n-g)‘ a -.A_.-o...~. T. I111 II I I 1I1'11II11'111I11I'1I111II 1'I IIII' IIII11I1‘1III17' 111I111111111111I £:.;:.~ 4?“... H :X‘}; ‘ -—~.,-. _- bung-r ‘1 0" “as? IIII111111I1111111MIJ1I II I III, I1; .uI I 1111I . "I 1......w‘ Lm-a . M .0...“ ‘ . .- 3 c . ' ‘ ‘ x... .- . o . "- . I. .'. “" fl . '. .— . .—Gl- ‘ ‘ I Q _- -.’. n.. _ -. ,. ... _ ‘._.‘, ‘7‘ eer-Xiu... -' ‘VT_‘. ‘ o-o- - '3’ 1-34- ' .. " ~ - r: .“ ‘ ‘ ‘1' - “‘ "”‘4 ‘ v: " ‘ “'- u . - I}, I‘. 3 .. .- .... .11": 4 fl ‘ | -_- 3.7 - .1' , - ' ' u‘ . ."____ _ . 4 , . _ . ,. .. . . v w .fl ,_ .." :_ H. . - hung-7:}: . "F '1 1 ’ - ._\ w ' . .A . " . . ~ ' 5'“ 1v - ’- ' "nut; " cm 1.-.- - . - . WH- . ... ..;.~-- - «I _.. w": . . a: - g; 1" -.. ~49... - - M- ‘- - . u' ’ - . I - 2.! ‘ ‘3‘ O . ° a. A '> ' . ’ . ... .. .,1',IL# I 11.1I1 1.11 I IiII1III’ I1I1I11P1 -‘ 1| 1111 II’II 1111111I 1fixi111I1I I ‘I'm. .II IIIII III, II II I I .12 11II11III11-111H‘1111 111111111I1111I’“11111111111111 III IIIIIIIIJII1’I,I1II 1I111I11111I1 If. ' , I: 11:1.“ ' 1:: 'I I, I IIflIIJ’p‘ZII I IcII11IIII|III111III11 II II‘II III 1 a’IIIII‘I' W1] IIIIIII1111 1111131Ifil111111 17:}. IIIIIIII III III III I II III III III III III III II; , I; ' THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Effects of Level of Self-Awareness on the Self-Presentation of Individuals Varying in Reported Sex-Role Orientation presented by Horton Chester Hirman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for "1- A - degree in mm {/L. W Major professor Date 541/93 /7i")‘ 07639 MSU LIBRARIES .m— RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE EFFECTS OF LEVEL OF SELF-AWARENESS ON THE SELF-PRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN REPORTED SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION BY Morton Chester Mirman A THESI‘ Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Psychology 1982 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF LEVEL OF SELF-AWARENESS ON THE SELF-PRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN REPORTED SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION Morton Chester Mirman The present study investigated the effects of level of self- awareness on the self-presentation of subjects varying in re- ported sex-role orientation. Subjects were first administered the positive item Bem Sex-Role Inventory. They were then admin- istered, while in one of two self-awareness conditions, five additional inventories, including several measures of the effect- iveness of the self-awareness manipulation. Four hypotheses involving the relationships between sex-role orientation, subject sex, consistency of self-descriptions and level and type of self—awareness were tested. as a result of what appears to have been a ceiling effect for level of self-awareness, the intended self-awareness differences between groups was not found. Consequently two of the hypotheses were not adequately tested. Possible reasons for this, as well as a number of interesting rela- tionships that did emerge were discussed. Thesis Committee: Elaine Donelson, Chairperson William Crano Norm Abeles TABLE OF CONTENTS page List of Tables............................................. iv. List of Abbreviations...................................... v. Introduction............................................... 1 Hypotheses............................................ 9 Method..................................................... 15 Subjects.............................................. 15 Procedure............................................. 15 Measures.............................................. 17 Results.................................................... 24 Descriptive Data...................................... 24 Omnibus F-test........................................ 24 Effects of Individual Experimenters................... 27 Effects of Subject Sex and Experimenter Sex........... 27 Manipulation Check.................................... 28 Hypotheses............................................ 30 Additional Findings................................... 33 Discussion................................................. 35 Manipulation Check.................................... 35 Hypotheses............................................ 38 Sex of Subject and Experimenter....................... 45 Relationship between BSRI and Fenigstein Inventory.... 46 Post-Experimental Inquiry............................. 48 Suggestions for Further Research...................... 49 Tables..................................................... 51 References........................................... ...... 67 Appendix I................................................. 71 Appendix 11................................................ 80 iii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Mean BM, BF, BSD and VARBEM scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation............................ 52 2. Mean BM2, BF2 and BSD2 scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation................................ 53 3. Mean KM and KF scores grouped by self-awareness condi- tion, subject sex and sex-role orientation.............. 54 4. Mean EXS and EXSME scores grouped by subject sex and sex-r016 orientation...oooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooa.o 55 5. Mean FPR, FPU and FSA scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation................................ 56 6. Mean Post-Experimental Inquiry scores grouped by SUbjeCt sex and sex-P018 orientation..cocoon-0.000000... 57 7. Mean Scores on manipulation check indices for-camera and no camera SUbjeCtS0.0000000000000000000000000000000. 58 8. Mean Post-Experimental Inquiry scores grouped by self- awareness condition and sex-role orientation.. .......... 59 9. BM2, BF2, BSD2, KM and KP scores grouped by subject sex and self-awareness condition........................ 60 10. F-tests for effects of self-awareness condition on KM,KF’BI'I2,BF2 and BSD2...O0.0...OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO 61 11. Interscale Correlations (Males)......................... 62 12. Interscale Correlations (Females)....................... 63 13. Interscale Correlations (All subjects).................. 64 14. Correlations between Post-Experimental Inquiry items and self-awareness condition, BM, BF, BSD, KM, EXS, FPR’FPU and FSAOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 65 15. Correlations between Post-Experimental Inquiry items.... 66 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Bem Sex-Role Inventory: BSRI........................Bem Sex-Role Inventory BM..........................Masculinity Scale of the BSRI BF..........................Femininity Scale of the BSRI BSD.........................Social Desirability Scale of the BSRI B2..........................Second BSRI administered BM2.........................BM of the 82 BF2.........................BF of the B2 BSD2........................BSD of the B2 VARBEM......................Measure of the discrepancy be- tween responses on the BSRI and the B2 Kelly Inventory: KM..........................Masculinity Scale of the Kelly Inventory KF..........................Femininity Scale of the Kelly Inventory Fenigstein Self-Consciousness Inventory: PPR.........................Private Self-Consciousness Scale FPU.........................Public Self-Consciousness Scale FSA.........................Social Anxiety Scale Exner Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test: S...........................Self—focus E...........................External-focus A...........................Ambivalent-focus O...........................Other EXS.........................Number of S sentences EXE.........................Number of E sentences EXSMB.......................EXS minus EXE Post- -Experimental Inquiry: Self-Consciousness. ........ .To what extent, if at all, did you feel self-conscious during this experiment? Felt Observed...............To what extent, if at all, did you feel like you were being observed? Felt Distracted.............To what extent, if at all, did you feel distracted by this? Influenced Responses........To what extent, if at all, did you feel it influenced your responses? Felt Anxious................To what extent, if at all, did you feel anxious during this experiment? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the students who assisted in the collec- tion and coding of the data. I would also like to thank Drs. Bill Crano and Norm Abeles for their contributions as well as for the independence they allowed me. For Dr. laine Donelson, my chairperson,'I have a special thanks. Your constant encouragement, the tremendous amount of time and energy you gave and the enthusiasm you shared were well beyond the call of duty. Thank you Marc for helping me to realize that psychology is my first love; if it weren't for you I'd probably be working in a law firm now. I want to thank my family: mom ,dad and Edie. Your love and support was more important than you know. ' And thank you Dori. Your love, your encouragement, and yes, your noodging, were what kept me going. ii In recent years, some traditional notions about sex roles have been questioned (Constantinople,l973; Kelly & Wor- rell,1977). Constantinople (1973) noted that many tests of masculinity and femininity (M/F) have assumed that the con- cept of M/F is: a) a one-dimensional bipolar continuum whose extremes are masculinity and femininity; b) defined by sex differences in frequency of item endorsement: and c) defined by~a single score which places an individual somewhere along this continuum.. Constantin0ple's critique helped to generate a good deal of the current sex-role research, which, for the most part. operates under a new set of assumptions (Bem,l974; Berzins, Welling & Wetter,1978; Hefner, Rebecca & Oleshansky,l975; Heilbrun,l976; Pleck,l975; Spence, Helmreich & Stapp,1975). These are summarized by Kelly and Worrell (1977) as: a) an or- thogonal, two-dimensional model of M/F; b) a socio-cultural definition of sex-roles; c) the sampling of positive, socially valued but sex-typed characteristics; and d) a “response rep- ertoire" model of sex-role style. Because masculinity and femininity are seen as two in- dependent dimensions, the extent of an individual's masculin- ity is not a function of the degree to which that person is lacking in femininity, nor is femininity a function of the level of masculinity. Rather, an individual is placed in one of four sex-role categories based on the extent to which both masculine and feminine socially desirable traits are endorsed (Bem,l974; Berzins, Welling & Wetter,l978: Spence, Helmreich & Stapp, 1975). Thus an individual Whose self- reports are high M - high F, is labeled "androgynous": high M - low F, “masculine sex-typed"; low M - high F, "feminine sex-typed": and low M - low F, "undifferentiated." A primary purpose of this study was to examine sex-role orientation differences in self-description consistency. This issue arises in response to findings in two areas of re- search: a) sex-role orientation and behavioral flexibility, and b) the relationship between maladjustment and variability in personal identity. With regard to this first area, Pleck (1975), Hefner, Rebecca & Oleshansky (1975) and Rebecca, Hefner & Oleshan- sky (1976) have suggested that sex-role development can be best understood as a three stage dialectical process. In the first stage the individual has an "undifferen- tiated" conception of sex-roles. That is, sex-role con- cepts are amorphous and unorganized and there is confusion about one's own gender. In the second stage the individual has a ”polarized", oppositional view of sex-roles. Here the rules of sex-role differentiation are learned, but there is rigidity in their application. There is little tolerance of deviations from sex-role norms in both oneself and in others. In the third stage the individual "transcends" sex- role norms. The androgynous person is free to behave without rigid adherence to conventional sex~role proscriptions. Such an individual is able to display both "masculine" and "femin- ine“ behaviors but does not experience masculinity and femin- inity as a dichotomy. Androgyny is a novel way of exper- iencing one's self that permits an individual to engage in behaviors that are typically dichotomized by others as mascu- line and feminine. Thus androgyny is not simply the ability to engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors, but rather, the transcending of this polarized view of existence.‘ This results in the integration of the "masculine" and the "fem- inine", yielding behavior that is neither M, F or both M and F. This integration of what is typically operationalized as M and F results in freedom from sex-role norms, because this distinction is no longer relevant to one‘s behavior. On the other hand, Bem and her colleagues (Bem, 1974; Bem, 1975; Bem & Lenney, 1976; Bem, Martyna & Watson, 1976) have not described sex-role deve10pment as a dialectical pro- cess. Instead, an androgynous individual is identified by the simple possession of both masculine and feminine behav— ioral repertoires. Despite this difference between these two notions of androgyny, both groups see the androgynous person as more behaviorally flexible than nonandrogynous persons. Androgynous persons are thus seen as more adaptable, and thus in some sense, more psychologically mature than others. With regard to the second area - the relationship be-‘ tween maladjustment and variability in personal identity - Block (1961) found that maladjustment, as measured by the psychoneuroticism scale of the California Psychological In- ventory, correlated with personal identity variability, as measured by the variability of subjects' ratings of the ex- tent to which a number of adjectives were felt to be self— descriptive in each of a variety of social situations. The results of this study do not necessarily contradict the find- ings of Bem and her colleagues. Whereas Bem found that androgynous, and thus presumably well adjusted, individuals show greater behavioral flexibility than nonandrogynous indi- viduals, Block's results suggest that adjusted individuals are more consistent in the way that they report experiencing themselves interacting with others. The distinction lies in the difference between behavioral consistency and consistency in one's sense of personal identity. A behaviorally flexible individual would likely have a strong sense of personal iden- tity or inner sameness across situations, while an individual with a weak sense of identity might cling to rigid conven- tional roles out of a need to have an identity which is val- idated by society. The present study examined the relationship between sex-role orientation and consistency of self-description by comparing, across sex-role orientations (as measured by ini- tial scores on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)), the mag- nitude of the discrepancy between the scores on the BSRI administered in two situations. Another area investigated in the present study was con- cerned with the valence of the items of the sex-role invent- ory in use. While several sex-role inventories reflect self- perceptions with regard to socially desirable, sex-typed characteristics, none of these inventories include socially undesirable items. Kelly, Caudill, Hathorn & O'Brien (1977) developed a set of twenty masculine and twenty feminine sex— typed but socially undesirable items and examined subjects' responses to them in relation to their reported sex-role orientation obtained via the positive item Bem Sex Role In- ventory (Bem,l974). They found that differences in endorse- ment of socially undesirable, sex-typed characteristics were related to differences in endorsement of positive, sex-typed characteristics. Among males, androgynous subjects endorsed the fewest, and undifferentiated subjects endorsed the great- est number of these items. For women, the only differences between groups was the tendency for highly feminine sex—typed subjects to endorse relatively few undesirable masculine characteristics in relation to their androgynous, masculine sex-typed and undifferentiated counterparts. Among the aims of this study were the replication of the results of the Kelly et al. (1977) study, and the fur- ther delineation of the relationship between the endorse- ment of positive and negative sex-typed items. It was hoped. that the results of the present study relevant to these aims, along with the results of the study by Kelly et a1. (1977), would be a step toward a better understanding of the indivi- duals in the different sex-role categories, and the eventual refining of the criteria for membership in these categories to take into account subjects' endorsement of both positive and negative sex-typed characteristics. McGillan (1979) has suggested that the context in which an individual is studied may be an important variable in sex-role research. Using the BSRI, she found that an in- dividual's reported sex-role orientation is affected by the sex of the individuals present. The present study investi- gated the impact of both subject and experimenter sex on subjects' reported sex-role orientation, as well as their responses to the negative items in the Kelly inventory. A further question in the realm of contextual effects is: what is the effect of placing an individual in a sit- uation that increases self-awareness, on endorsement of characteristics that are socially desirable or undesirable and masculine or feminine sex-typed? Numerous studies have employed a variety of techniques to manipulate degree of self awareness. A study conducted by Geller & Shaver (1975), for example, provides strong evi- dence that the presence of both a tv camera and a mirror activates self-relevant thoughts. Other studies have indi- cated that the presence of a tv camera alone increases an in- dividual's level of self—awareness (Davis & Brock,l975). Wicklund (1975) has described a theory of self-aware- ness which states that the initial reaction to self-awareness is self-evaluation. If the evaluation is negative and there is no escape from the self-focusing stimuli, an attempt to reduce the source of this negative evaluation — a discrepancy between aspiration and evaluation - will occur. Thus an in- dividual's response to a question which would result in a negative discrepancy, should be substituted by a more desir- able response. However, Pryor, Gibbons, Wicklund, Frazio Hood (1977) found mirror-induced self-focusing attention raised the validity of a scale measuring sociability, as measured by the correspondence between a subject's self- reported sociability and the sociability rating of the subject given by a confederate of the experimenter who interacted briefly with the subject. On the surface, this appears to be inconsistent with Wicklund's theory. Fenigstein, Soheier & Buss (1975), however, have des- cribed two types of self-consciousness: public and private. Public self-consciousness is the awareness of oneself as a social object, whereas private self-consciouness is the awareness of one's inner thoughts and feelings. It seems possible that the apparent inconsistency between Wicklund's theory and the results of the study by Pryor et al.(l977), ‘can be explained by the distinction between public and private self-awareness. Thus, increased public self-aware- ness would result in a greater tendency to respond in a soc- ially desirable way, whereas increased private self-awareness would result in less of a tendency to appear socially desir- able and thus yield presumably more accurate self-reports. While the presence of a camera or a mirror has been amply demonstrated to increase subjects' self-focus, the nature of this change is in need of clarification. This was investi- gated in the present study as described in the Method sec- tion. The question of how level of self-awareness and sex- role orientation effect an individual's self-presentation was investigated by first administering the BSRI to a number of subjects in order to determine their sex—role orientation. They were then asked to indicate - while in one of two self- awareness conditions - how well each of forty socially unde- sirable sex-typed characteristics (Kelly et al.1977), as well as the forty socially desirable sex-typed and twenty soc- ially desirable but sex-neutral characteristics of the BSRI described them. In addition, a check on the effectiveness of the self-awareness manipulation was performed by includ- ing the Exner Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test as well as a number of questions following the experiment requiring the subjects to reflect on their experience. The Fenigstein Self-Consciousness Inventory was designed to measure traits, however, it was thought that it might also be sensitive to transient states as well. Thus this inventory was included in this study as a possible measure of the nature of the change in selfbawareness produced by the self-awareness mani- pulation - that is, whether the changes were in public or private self-awareness. The inventories can be found in Appendix I. HYPOTHESES: Four hypotheses were tested. They involved the rela- tionships between sex-role orientation, subject sex, the en- dorsement of socially undesirable, sex-typed characteristics, level and type of self-awareness and consistency of self- descriptions. These are discussed below. HYPOTHESIS ONE: It was hypothesized that changes in self-awareness would affect responses by altering them along the subjective- ly defined continuum of positiveness of self-presentation. However, as discussed earlier, increased self-awareness can imply an increase in the awareness of oneself as a social ~object (public self-awareness) or an increase in the aware- IO ness of one's inner thoughts and feelings (private self- awareness) (Fenigstein et a1. 1975). One purpose of this study was to determine which of these types of self-awareness would be effected by the camera manipulation. The effects of these changes in self-awareness were expected to differ. Thus two sets of predictions were offered for the relation- ship between level of self-awareness and self-description. An increase in public self-awareness could have the effect of inhibiting the endorsement of items which portray the subject in what is seen as an undesirable light while increasing the endorsement of items which portray the subject in a positive way. On the other hand, an in- crease in private self-awareness could have the effect of de- creasing the inhibition of the endorsement of negative items, while inhibiting the tendency to endorse positive items. The items of concern were the negative, sex-typed items of the Kelly inventory, the positive, sex-typed items of the BSRI and the positive sex-neutral items of the second BSRI. It should be mentioned that altering an individual's level of self-awareness can affect self-report in at least two ways. First, a change in a subject's self-report could be a reflection of a change in the subject's self-perception. A second possible consequence of a change in level of self- awareness could be that as a result of a greater or lesser desire for positive self-presentation, there is a change in 11 reported self-perception, while the individual's actual self- perception remains the same. It cannot be ascertained from this design, which of the two processes is operating (i.e., the subject's self-report could reflect an intentional or an unintentional shift toward greater or lesser positivity in self-presentation). Consequently this distinction was ig- nored and the responses were seen simply as self-descriptions reported to another person. A further complexity is the fact that there are several possible notions of social desirability with regard to sex- typed characteristics. One possibility is that masculinity is valued more than femininity by both males and females. The results of several studies support this notion (Jones, Chernovetz & Hansson,l978: Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Brover- man & Broverman,l968). A second possibility is that subjects would endorse items that were rated as desirable and "typi- cal“ of females as well as those desirable and "typical" of males (BSRI items), but fail to endorse items rated as undesirable and "typical“ of females or undesirable and "typical" of males (Kelly items). A third possibility is that the subjects would see characteristics "typical“ of their gender as desirable. It was hoped that by examin- ing responses to both the positive and negative sex-typed items of the Bem and Kelly scales, as well as the sex- neutral social desirability scale of the BSRI, some light 12 would be shed on this issue. Most of the subjects were between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, a period of transition in sex-role develOpment. According to dialectical theory of sex—role development (Hefner, Rebecca & Oleshansky,l975; Rebecca, Hefner & Oleshansky,l976), an individual develops from an initially undifferentiated state to one dominated by the rigid sex roles of one's gender, and eventually transcends this sex-typed stage by incorporating both masculine and feminine sex-roles. The subjects of this study were expected. to be, for the most part, in the midst of the transition from a rigidly sex-typed mode of being to a more androgynous one. Because of the pressure to conform to the expectations of one‘s gender, and because of the fragility of the an- drogynous mode of being for the individuals in this transi- tion period, it was thought that, for most subjects, sex- typed responses would be seen as socially desirable. If the effect of the camera manipulation was to in- crease public self-awareness, the endorsement of stereo- typical sex-typed items was hypothesized to be accentuated to the exclusion of stereotypical cross-gender characteris- tics. However, if the effect of the camera manipulation was to increase private self-awareness, it was hypothesized that this would have effect of increasing the endorsement of negative items which were "true" (or believed to be true by 13 by the subject), while reducing the endorsement of "inaccur- ate" positive items. That is, the privately self-aware subject would be less likely to deny a characteristic per- sonally seen as socially undesirable because of increased insight regarding the self-relevance of the characteristic. Thus it was hypothesized that if the effect of the cam- era manipulation was to increase private self—awareness then the manipulation would result in less of a tendency to appear socially desirable, presumably increasing the accuracy of self reports. This could explain the results of the study by Pryor et al.(l977), which found that mirror induced self- focusing attention raised the validity of a scale measuring sociability. HYPOTHESIS TWO: It was also hypothesized that the effect of the self- awareness manipulation would be mediated by reported sex-role orientation, as well as gender, whether the self-awareness manipulation resulted in increased public or private self- awareness. For example, a masculine sex-typed male who is aware of himself as a social object (public self-awareness) would likely endorse fewer negative feminine characteristics than if he were not self-aware in this way. However, an androgynous male who was publicly self-aware would endorse negative feminine characteristics to about the same extent as he would if he were not self-aware in this way. 14 Similarly, a publicly self-aware feminine sex-typed female would be predicted to endorse fewer negative masculine characteristics than if she were not self-aware. An androgynous female would not be predicted to display such a shift. HYPOTHESIS THREE: It was also hypothesized that there would be sex-role orientation differences in consistency of self-descriptions as measured by the test-retest variability of the subjects' responses to the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Androgynous sub- jects were predicted to have the smallest discrepancies in their responses to the same items of this inventory. If an androgynous person is indeed, in some sense, relatively mature, then such an individual would likely have a more consistent sense of self than a less developed individual and so the self-descriptions were predicted to be more con- sistent over time and across situations. HYPOTHESIS FOUR: It was also hypothesized that the results of the study by Kelly et al.(l977) would be replicated. That is, it was predicted that for males, androgynous subjects would endorse the fewest and undifferentiated subjects the most, social~ 1y undesirable items of both sex-types, while for females, feminine sex-typed subjects would endorse the fewest socially undesirable masculine sex-typed items. 15 METHOD SUBJECTS: The subjects were 96 male and 96 female volunteers from introductory psychology classes at Michigan State Uni- versity. PROCEDURE: The subjects were asked to participate in a study in- vestigating personality traits of college students. The sUb-' jects, tested individually, were given no additional infor- mation regarding the study at the time of the testing, but were told that any questions would be answered at the end of the session (a copy of the instructions can be found in Appendix II). The subjects were ushered into the laboratory and asked to have a seat at the desk in front of them. After signing a consent form they were asked to fill out the BSRI. After completing this inventory one~half of the subjects remained seated at the same desk. The remaining subjects were seated at a second desk - not visible from the first desk - which had two cameras and a tv monitor pointed at the sub- ject. The subjects in both groups were then asked to com- plete the negative item inventory developed by Kelly et a1. (1977), the Public/Private Self-Consciousness Scale by 16 Fenigstein, Scheier & Buss (1975) and Exner's Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (1973) in varying orders as des- cribed below. This was followed by a second administra- tion of the BSRI (82) - identical to the first except for the order in which the items were presented - and a post-ex- perimental inquiry consisting of several questions which re- quested the subjects to describe their experience in the study. The subjects in the camera and tv monitor condition were told that another group of researchers was conducting a project that needed videotapes of people engaged in a variety' of tasks and our group had offered to let them videotape our subjects filling out our questionnaires. The live picture of the subject on the tv monitor in front of the subject was ostensibly there so that the experimenter could be certain that the subject was "on camera" and in focus. The order of the Kelly, Fenigstein and Exner inventor- ies was rotated so that each of the three inventories pro- ceeded and followed each of the other two inventories an equal number of times. The number of permutations of the or- der of presentations of these inventories is six, and since there were two self-awareness conditions (cameras and tv vs. no cameras or tv), there were a total of twelve groups in all. Four male and four female experimenters ran the sub- jects, with each experimenter running one male and one female subject from each of the twelve groups in a predetermined 17 random order. Thus each experimenter ran 24 subjects for a total of 192 subjects in all. Upon completion of the post- experimental inquiry the subjects were debriefed. MEASURES: BEM SEX-ROLE INVENTORY (BSRI): The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem,1974) consists of three 26-item scales, a masculinity scale (BM), a femininity scale (BF), and a social desirability scale (BSD). The EM and BF scales are composed of items selected from a pool of person- ality characteristics that were rated by a set of judges to be "positive in value and either masculine or feminine in tone." Of these items, 20 were selected for the BM scale and 26 for the BF scale by virtue of the ratings of a second set of judges who selected characteristics that they considered significantly more desirable for males than for females (BM items) or significantly more desirable for females than for males (BF items). The social desirability scale consists of 20 items that were selected for their neutrality with respect to sex. Persons completing the inventory indicate the degree to which each characteristic describes them by referring to a seven point scale with zero corresponding to "never or almost never true of me" and six corresponding to "always or almost 18 always true of me.“ BM and BF scores for each subject are determined by computing the mean score for all of the items in each scale. BSD scores are computed in the same way after those items that are socially undesirable are corrected by subtracting each such score from six (e.g., a score of four would be changed to a score of two). Sex-role orientation classifications are made on the basis of an individual's BM and BF scores in relation to the median scores of all of the respondents. Persons scoring above both medians are categorized as androgynous; above the BM but below the BF median, masculine sex-typed: above the BF but below the BM median, feminine sex-typed: and below both medians, undifferentiated. BSRI data is presented in the Results section. VARIABILITY IN REPORTED SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION (VARBEM): As mentioned above, each subject completed the BSRI two times, with the second administration differing from the first only in the order in which the items were presented within the inventory. The second set of BSRI scores (82) were computed in the same way as the first (described above). Consistency of self-description was measured by comparing responses on the BSRI administered first with the responses on the BZ. More precisely, the differences between responses to each of the items on the first BSRI and the corresponding items on the BZ were each squared. 19 These squared differences were then summed and divided by 60, the total number of items on each inventory, to yield the actual VARBEM score. VARBEM scores were than used as an in- dex of consistency of reported sex-role orientation. KELLY'S SOCIALLY UNDESIRABLE SEX-TYPED SCALES: The two socially undesirable, sex-typed scales used by Kelly et a1. (1977) were develOped in the following way. A number of male and female judges rated a pool of adjectives on social desirability and on the degree to which each item was stereotypical of males or of females. Twenty character- istics that were rated as undesirable and more likely to be exhibited by a male than a female were selected to make up the masculine sex-typed scale (KM). Similarly, 20 character- istics that were rated as both undesirable and more likely to be exhibited by a female than a male were chosen to make up the feminine sex-typed scale (KF). Persons completing the inventory indicated the degree to which each characteristic described them by referring to a seven point scale with zero corresponding to "never or almost never true of me" and six corresponding to "always or 'almost always true of me". KM and KP scores for each sub- ject were determined by computing the mean score for all 20 items in each scale. 7 EXNER SELF-FOCUS SENTENCE COMPLETION TEST (SFSC): The Exner Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (Exner, 20 1973) provided one of the indices of the extent to which the subjects were focused on themselves. As the only manipula- tion check in the present study previously demonstrated to be sensitive to an individual's transient states of aware- ness (as opposed to stable traits), this inventory was seen as the primary measure of the effectiveness of the self- awareness manipulation (Davis & Brock, 1975; Carver & Scheier, 1978). The inventory consists of 30 sentence stems, 25 of which contain a self-focus word such as "I", “me“, or "my". Respondents are required to complete each sentence. (A com- plete description of the scoring criteria can be found in Exner (1973)). Briefly, the sentences are scored as follows. Responses which “clearly focus . . . . on the self with little or no regard for the external world" are scored as "self-focused" (S). Responses which "clearly manifest . . . concern with real things or people" are scored as "external world focus" (E). Responses which "clearly contain both 3 and E statements" are scored "ambivalent“ (A). Responses which do not meet the criteria for any of these first three categories are scored “other" (0). In the present study three male and three female under- graduate psychology students received course credit in ex? change for serving as raters. The raters were trained in the use of the Exner scoring procedures in two groups of three. 21 Training was completed when a threesome, working individual- ly, was able to reach the criterion of two or less errors for ten consecutive sample sentences, with an error defined as any discrepancy between raters. The scores used in the present study were: a) the num- ber of self-focused responses by a subject (EXS), b) the number of external world focus responses by a subject (EXE), and c) the number of self-focused responses by a sub- ject minus the number of external world focus responses by that subject (EXSME). Inter-judge reliability of ratings of responses to the Exner SFSC Test was computed by first determining, for each rater, the EXS,EXE and EXSME scores for each subject. The individual raters were treated as items in a scale so that the actual reliability coefficient was the Alpha coefficient for these ”items". The alpha coefficient for EXS was found to be .83; for EXE, .87: and for EXSME, .88. FENIGSTEIN SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS INVENTORY: The Fenigstein Self-Consciousness Inventory (Fenig— stein et al. 1975) was designed to measure individual differ- ences in self-consciousness. Its scales have yet to be val- idated as indices of changes in states of awareness. Still, it was thought that it would be of interest to investigate if this inventory is sensitive to states as well as traits. If this was the case, the scales' ability to discriminate 22 between different types of self-awareness could provide in- formation about the effects of changes in self-awareness. A complete description of the development of the Fen- igstein Inventory can be found in Fenigstein et al.(l975). Briefly, 38 items were selected to sample the following do- mains: a) preoccupation with past, present and future be- havior: b) sensitivity to inner feelings; c) recoqnition of one's positive and negative attributes: d) intrOSpective behavior: e) a tendency to picture or imagine oneself: f) awareness of one's physical appearance and presentation; 9) concern over the appraisal of others. The 38 items were administered to 130 men and women. A factor analysis performed by Fenigstein et al.(l975) revealed three primary factors; the remaining factors con- tained few items and were uninterpretable. The "private self-consciousness" factor (ten items) was concerned with inner thoughts and feelings. The “public self-consciousness" factor (seven items) was defined by a general awareness of the self as a social object that has an effect on others. The “social anxiety" factor (6 items) was defined by a dis- comfort in the presence of others. Persons completing the inventory indicate the extent to which each of the 23 items characterizes them by referring to a five point scale with zero corresponding to "extremely uncharacteristic" and four corresponding to "extremely char- 23 acteristic". Private self-consciousness (PPR), public self- consciousness (FPU) and social anxiety (FSA) scores are com- puted by summing the scores for all of the items in a scale after correcting the scores of the items with negative factor loadings by subtracting that score from four (e.g., a score of one for an item with a negative factor loading would be changed to a score of three). POST-EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY: Upon completion of the second BSRI the subjects were given a short questionnaire which asked them to re- flect on their experience. The questionnaire was composed of five items that focused on the subjects' level of self- awareness and its inpact on them, as well as three Open-ended items that were to be used to screen out subjects who had either heard about the study earlier or who were able to discern, on their own, the purpose of the cameras. (Note: none of the subjects were disqualified.) The subjects were asked to respond to each of the five primary items by referring to the ten point scale accompany- ing each item. These items were: a) "To what extent, if at all, did you feel self-conscious during the experiment?" (this item will heretofore be referred to as "self-con- scious"): b) "To what extent, if at all, did you feel like you were being observed?" (“felt observed"); c) "To what extent, if at all, did you feel distracted by this?" (“felt 24 distracted"); d) "To what extent if at all, do you feel it influenced your responses?" ("influenced responses"): e) "To .what extent, if at all, did you feel anxious during this experiment?" ("felt anxious"). RESULTS DESCRIPTIVE DATA: The mean scores for all 19 dependent variables broken down by subject sex and reported sex-role orientation can be found in Tables one through six. The median BM score for all 192 subjects was found to be 4.26, while the median BF score was 4.23. Sex-role orientation classifications were made on the basis of where an individual's BM and BF scores stood in relation to these median scores. Subjects scoring greater than the median on both scales were categorized as androgynous; less than or equal to the BM median but greater than the BF median, feminine sex-typed: greater than the BM median but less than or equal to the BF median, masculine sex-typed: and less than or equal to both medians, undifferentiated. OMNIBUS F-TEST: An omnibus F-test with subject sex, experimenter sex, selféawareness condition and sex-role orientation as the independent variables was performed for each of the 19 de- 25 pendent variables. MAIN EFFECTS: A significant main effect (p<.65) of subject sex was found for the following variables only: BM (F(l,163)= 4.433, p=.637), BF (F(l,163)=7.334, p=.UU8), BSD (F(l,160)= 4.276, p=.U4U), (BMZ - BM on the second BSRI administra- tion - fell short of significance: F(l,l6d)=2.828, p=.U95), BF2 - BF on the second BSRI administered - (F(l,lGU)=5.6OZ, p=.Ol9), BSD2 - BSD on the second BSRI administered — (F(l, 160)=S.290, p=.023), KM (F(l,l6U)=4.462, p=.036), FSA (9(1. 163)=6.l76), p=.Ol4), self-conscious (F(1,160)=4.844, p= .629), and influenced responses (F(1,16U)=4.423, p=.037). A significant main effect of manipulated self-aware- ness condition was found for felt observed (F(1,l60)=47.603, p=.OUl) and felt distracted (F(1,160)=29.897, p=.001). A significant main effect of sex-role orientation was found for BM (F(3,160)=94.u30, p=.OUl), BF (F(3,160)=99.366, p=.001), (BSD fell just short of significance: F(3,160)= 2.532,'p=.e59), snz (F(3,l60)=69.S25, p=.001), BSDZ (F(3,166)=4.876,p=.OU3), KM (F(3,16U)=3.812, p=.Ull), (KF was short of significance: F(3,l60)=2.158, p=.095), EXS (r(3,1ee)=5.4a3, p=.uui), EXSME (F(3,l6U)=6.l44, p=.ecl), PPR (F(3,l6U)=4.592, p=.OO4) and FSA (F(3,l60)=8.GO3, p=.OOl). No significant main effect of experimenter sex was found for any of the dependent variables. 26 TWO-WAY INTERACTIONS: The effects of the self-awareness condition X experimenter sex interaction were found to be significant for self-conscious (F(l,160)=7.751, p=.DO6) and influenced responses (F(1,160)=5.696, p=.018). The self-awareness condition X sex-role orientation interaction had a significant effect on BFZ only (F(3,l6@)= 3.059, p=.030). A significant subject sex X experimenter sex interac- tion effect was found for FSA (F(1,16U)=6.749), p=.DlO). None of the following two-way interactions were found to have a significant effect on any of the dependent var- iables: subject sex X self-awareness condition, subject sex X sex-role orientation, and experimenter sex X sex-role orientation. THREE-WAY INTERACTIONS: A significant subject sex X exper- imenter sex X sex-role orientation interaction was found for FSA (F(3,16U)=4.447, p=.eu5). Influenced responses was significantly affected by both the subject sex X self-awareness condition X sex-role orient- ation interaction (F(3,160)=3.54U, p=.Ulb) and the self- awareness condition X experimenter sex X sex-role orientation interaction (F(3,l6U)=3.437, p=.018). The effects of the subject sex X self-awareness cond- ition X experimenter sex interaction failed to reach sig- nificance for any of the dependent variables. 27 FOUR-WAY INTERACTION: The effects of the subject sex X self- awareness condition X experimenter sex X sex-role orientation interaction also failed to reach significance for any of the dependent variables. EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTERS: An F-test was performed in order to determine if there were any effects of the individual experimenters on the sub- jects' responses. This was seen as relevant to the general- izability of the results. The analysis revealed that there was no effect of experimenter (p<.05) for any of the depend- ent variables. EFFECTS OF SUBJECT SEX AND EXPERIMENTER SEX: Previous studies have found that a subject's responses are affected by the sex of the subject as well as by the. interaction between subject sex and the sex of the experi- menter present (McGillan, 1979; Roach, 1981; Bem & Lenny, 1976). As mentioned above, the results of the present study yielded a significant (p<.05) main effect of subject sex on a number of the dependent variables but no main effect of experimenter sex on any of the dependent variables. A sig- nificant effect of the subject sex X experimenter sex inter— action was found for FSA. Further F-tests with FSA as the dependent variable revealed no significant experimenter sex ffects for male subjects or for female subjects at the .05 28 significance level. (A pooled estimate of the error was used — see Winer (1971) for a description of the analysis of simple effects.) MANIPULATION CHECK: A number of variables served as indices of the effect- iveness of the presence of the cameras and tv monitor as a manipulation of self-focus. As previously mentioned, there were no significant main effects of self-awareness condition on EXS, EXSME, FPR, FPU or FSA. There were also no signif- icant second or third order interactive effects involving self-awareness condition and any of the other independent variables (subjet sex, experimenter sex, sex-role orienta- tion) on these measures of self-focus. No significant self-awareness condition main effects were found for the self-conscious, influenced responses or felt anxious items of the post-experimental inquiry, while there were significant effects for the felt observed and felt distracted items of the inquiry. In addition, a significant self-awareness condition X experimenter sex effect was found for self-conscious (F(1,166)=7.751, p=.vU6) as well as for influenced responses (F(1,160)=5.696, p=.018). Thus, although the manipulation effected the subjects' descriptions of their experience, it did not appear to pro- duce self-awareness differences between the two groups. It seemed possible that the effects of the cameras 29 diminished over time, reducing the overall effect of the camera by virtue of the minimal effects on those subjects for whom a particular inventory was administered relatively late. Thus, the primary indices of the effectiveness of the manipu— lation, EXS and EXSME - which measured the degree of self- focus - were examined more closely. The Exner SFSC Inven- tory was administered at three different times: for some sub- jects it was given as soon as the tv was turned on; for others, it was the second inventory administered with the tv turned on: for the rest of the subjects it was the third in- ventory administered with the tv on. A one-way analysis of variance was performed on the results of the subjects in the camera condition, with each of the two Exner manipulation check variables - EXS and BXSME - as the dependent variables, and the position of the inventory as the independent var- iable. The results of the analysis reVealcd no signifi- cant effect of position for either EXS (F(2,93)=l.20, p=.3l) or for EXSME (F(2,93)=.86, p=.43). Thus the lack of self- awareness differences cannot be attributed to a dilution of its effects resulting from an habituation effect for those subjects administered the inventory relatively late. Mean scores on the manipulation check indices can be found in Tables seven and eight. 3d HYPOTHESES: HYPOTHESIS ONE: It was hypothesized that changes in self-awareness would affect responses by altering them along a continuum of positiveness of self-presentation. Thus scores on the Kelly scales (KM, KF) and scores on the second BSRI administered (8M2, BF2, BSD2) were predicted to differ for the two self- awareness groups. As mentioned previously, F-tests re- vealed no significant self-awareness condition X subject sex interaction effects for any of these variables. The group means for these variables and the results of the analysis of variance can be found in Tables nine and ten, respectively. HYPOTHESIS TWO: It was also hypothesized that the effects of the camera manipulation on KM and KF scores would be mediated by the sex-role orientation and sex of the subjects. F-test re- sults, however, revealed that this three-way interaction failed to reach significance for KM (F(3,16U)=.659, p=.578) or for KF (F(3,160)=.980, p=.404). In addition, F-tests revealed that the effects of the self-awareness condition X subject sex interaction were not significant for KM (F(1,l6U)=l.343, p=.243) or for KF (F(1.163)=.324, p=.57fl). F-tests also revealed that the 31 effects of the self-awareness condition X sex-role orienta- tion interaction were not significant for KM (F(3,160)=.369, p=.776) or for KF (F(l,l6fl)=.9l6, p=.434). As mentioned above, F-tests also revealed that the main effects of the self-awareness manipulation were not signifi- cant at the .05 level. Mean KM and KP scores grouped by subject sex, sex-role orientation and self-awareness condi— tion can be found in Table three. HYPOTHESIS THREE: The third hypothesis was that there would be sex-role orientation differences in self-description consistency. Specifically, it was predicted that the responses of andro- gynous subjects would show greater test-retest consistency than the responses of masculine or feminine sex—typed or un- differentiated subjects. Variability in responses to the items on the BSRI (VARBEM) served as the index of consist- ency. F-Tests revealed no significant main effects of sex- role orientation on VARBEM (F(3,160)=1.0S6, p=.37fl). In addition, the effects of the sex-role orientation X subject sex interaction on VARBEM was not found to be significant (F(3,160)=.463, p=.7fl9). (The within-test standard devia- tions were also found to be similar for the two administra- tions of the BSRI. The standard deviation scores for BM and 8M2 were .719 and .796, respectively: for BF and BF2, .584 32 and .615: and for BSD and 8802, .447 and .SUfl.) Mean VARBEM scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation can be found in Table one. HYPOTHESIS FOUR: The fourth hypothesis predicted that sex-role orient- ation would be mediated by subject sex in its effects on KM and KP endorsement, as found by Kelly et a1. (1977). F-tests revealed that the sex-role orientation X sub- ject sex X self-awareness condition interaction effects on KM (F(3,160)=.659, p=.578) as well as on KF (F(3,l6fl)=.980, p=.4fl4) were not significant. Consequently the analysis of the effects of sex-role orientation and subject sex on KM and KF endorsement was performed with subjects from both self- awareness conditions combined into one group. The present study did not replicate the sex-role orientation X subject sex interaction effects for KM and KP found by Kelly et al.(1977). F-test results failed to show a significant effect of the sex-role orientation X subject sex interaction on KM endorsement (F(3,160)=.253, p=.859) or on KF endorsement (F(3,160)=.l43, p=.934). Moan KM and KP scores grouped by sex-role orientation and subject sex can be found in Table three. F-tests also found no significant main effects of sub- ject sex (F(l,l6u)=2.158, p=.612) or sex-role orientation (F(3,16@)=2.158, p=.095) on KF endorsement. However, sig- 33 nificant main effects on KM were found for subject sex (F(l,163)=4.462, p=.036) as well as for sex—role orientation (F(3,160)=3.182, p=.flll). Sex-role orientation differences in KM endorsement were thus analyzed further. Duncan's Multiple Range Test, a post hoc procedure which takes into account the number of comparisons being made (Keppel, 1973), was used to make pairwise sex-role orientatiomn comparisons of KM scores. Feminine sex-typed subjects had significantly lower KM scores than subjects in each of the three other sex-role orientation groups. This result differs from the results of the Kelly et al.(l977) study, which found that feminine sex-typed males had signi- ficantly higher KM scores than androgynous males, while KM scores were not significantly different for feminine and masculine sex-typed males. ADDITIONAL FINDTNGS: In order to examine the strength of the relationship between scores on the various scales, a number of correla- tions were computed. Matrices presenting the correlations between BM, BF, BSD, KM, KF, EXS, FPR, FPU and FSA for males, females and males and females combined can be found in Tables eleven, twelve and thirteen, respectively. For males, sig- nificant positive correlations (p<.05) were found between BM and BSD, KM and EXS, while significant negative correlations were found between BM and both KF and FSA. BF was found to 34 be positively correlated with both BSD and FPR, but nega- tively correlated with KM. BSD was negatively correlated with both KM and KP. KM and KF were found to be positive- ly correlated with each other. Finally, FPR was positively correlated with both EXS and FPU. No other correlations between these variables reached the .05 significance level for the male subjects. For females, BM was positively correlated with KM but negatively correlated with KF and FSA. BF correlated posi— tively with BSD, FPR and FPU, but negatively with KM. BSD was negatively correlated with KM, KF and FSA. KF was posi- tively correlated with KM, FPR and FPU. FPU correlated posi- tively with FSA. For males and females combined, BM was positively correlated with KM and EXS, but negatively correlated with KF and FSA. BF was positively correlated with BSD, KF, FPR and FPU, but negatively correlated with KM. BSD correlated negatively with KM, KF and FSA. KF correlated positively with KM, FPR, FPU and FSA. EXS was positively correlated with FPR, while FPU correlated positively with FPR and FSA. These correlations are examined in the discussion section. Correlations were also computed between the post-exper- imental inquiry items and the following variables: self- awareness condition, BM, BF, BSD, KM, KF, EXS, FPR, FPU and 35 FSA. These correlations, which can be found in Table four- teen, are also examined the discussion section. DISCUSSION MANIPULATLON CHECK: The manipulation check measures failed to suggest that the camera manipulation was successful in producing self-aware- ness differences between groups. The Fenigstein scales (FPR, FPU, FSA) were designed to measure traits rather than states.p Thus their insensitivity to transient states of awareness might be said to explain the absence of significant differences for FPR, FPU and FSA. However, the Exner SFSC Test has been shown to be sensitive to changes in states of awareness (Davis and Brock,l975; Carver & Scheier,l978). This leaves unanswered the question of why, in the present study, scores on the Exner SFSC Test were not significantly altered by the preSence of two cameras and a tv monitor. Two explanations for this seem plausible. First of all, it is possible that the presence of an experimenter in the small testing room used to run each sub— ject raised the subjects' level of self-awareness. Thus any elevations in self-awareness due to the manipulation might be attenuated as a result of a ceiling effect resulting from the presence of the experimenter. Since both camera and no 36 camera subjects would be highly self—aware, differences in variables associated with self-awareness would be minimized. The notion of such an increase in self-awareness is supported by the observation that, in the present study, the mean num- ber of self-focused responses to the Exner SFSC stems was 15.2, while the mean number of such responses found by Exner (1973) for a similar population, was 9.5. A second explanation for the absence of a significant effect for the camera manipulation has to do with the impact of completing the BSRI. Carver & Scheier (1978) administered _ both the Fenigstein Self-Consciousness Scale and the Exner SFSC Test to a number of subjects who completed both invent- ories in either an empty room or in front of a mirror. Sep- arating the subjects into those who had FPR scores above the median and those who were below, they found that while low FPR subjects were indeed effected by the presence of the cam- era, high FPR subjects were not. They concluded that this was due to a ceiling effect in that the high FPR subjects were already highly self-aware and so would have a large number of self-focused responses on the Exner inventory. Consequently, the mirrors had little impact on their level of self-awareness and thus also on their EXS scores. The administration of the BSR: in the present study, by increasing the subjects' attention to their inner thoughts and feelings, may have had the effect of making these sub- 37 jects temporarily equivalent to the high FPR subjects in the Carver & Scheier study, thus reducing the impact of the C cameras on their level of self-awareness. A two-way Analysis of Variance performed on the data of the present study failed to yield a significant interaction effect (p<.b5) for FPK level X self-awareness condition on the EXS.scores. However, if the effect of tak— ing the BSRI was indeed to make the subjects in the present study equivalent to the high FPR subjects of the Carver and Scheier (1978) study, then the lack of a significant inter- action in the present study would not be inconsistent with the preposed explanation for the absence of self-awareness condition effects. It should be mentioned that the mean FPR score in the present study (2.63) was found to be identical to the mean FPR score found by Fenigstein et al.(l975) and only slightly higher than the mean in the Carver & Scheier (1978) study (2.60). If the Fenigstein scales are sensitive to changes in states of awareness, then the finding that the mean FPR scores of the present study were nearly identical to those of the Fenigstein et al.(l975) and Carver & Scheier (1978) studies has little bearing on this issue. On the other hand, if these scales are indeed more than just trait measures then the elevated private self-focus explanation proposed to account for the failure of the self-awareness 38 manipulation would be unlikely. Whether or not either of the above two explanations for the failure of the manipula- tion to alter scores on the self-awareness measures is cor- rect cannot be ascertained from the results of the present study. HYPOTHESES: .HYPOTHESES ONE AND TWO: As a result of the apparent self-awareness equivalence between the control and experimental self-awareness groups, the present study cannot be considered an adequate test of hypotheses one and two - the effects of changes in self- awareness on an individual's self-descriptions. hypothesis one was that changes in level of self-awareness would alter subjects' descriptions of themselves along a continuum of positiveness of self-presentation. Hypothesis two was that sex-role orientation would interact with subject sex and self-awareness level in their effects on subject responses. No self-awareness condition differences in endorsement of socially desirable or undesirable items were found for all subjects combined, or for males or females of any sex-role orientation. 39 HYPOTHESIS THREE: It was also hypothesized that there would be sex-role orientation differences in consistency of self-concept which would be reflected in differences in consistency of self- description as measured by VARBEM scores. However, no sex- role orientation differences in VARBEM scores were found in the present study. A number of reasons for this are possi- ble. I First of all, it may be that strength of personal iden- tity is simply not related to sex-role orientation. That is, hypothesis three is incorrect and androgynous, mascu- line and feminine sex-typed and undifferentiated indivi— duals do not differ in the extent to which their self—concept varies. This would have obvious implications for the three stage dialectical theory of sex-role development, which pos- tulates that androgynous persons are, in some sense, further along in their levelOpment and thus have a more stable sense of who they are. A second possibility is that consistency in the way individuals experience themselves is not reflected in the consistency of their descriptions of themselves. A subject with an extremely variable self-concept, for example, may well give self-descriptions that are quite consistent with each other. A self-report measure would thus be an inad- equate way of measuring changes in states. 4D A third possibilty is that the experimental situation itself was not conducive to discrepant self-descriptions. VARBEM is essentially a measure of the discrepancy between responses in two administrations of the BSRI taken approxi- mately 25 minutes apart. It is possible that the combination of the brevity of the time interval between the two admini- strations of the BSRI and the absence of any apparent effects of the self-awareness manipulation made the conditions under which the Bem inventories were taken virtually identical. If this was the case, then the absence of sex-role orienta- tion differences in VARBEM scores should not be seen as in- consistent with the hypothesized relationships between sex- role orientation and consistency of self-concept. since such a relationship might have been found if the BSRI was admin- istered under more disparate conditions. A fourth possibility is that the particular index of self-concept consistency used in this study was an inadequate measure. This could reflect two things. One, the subjects may have been able to remember their responses from the first administration of the BSRI, and this accounts for their low VARBEM (as well as the high correlations between subscales BM and BM2, BF and BF2, and BSD and BSD2). However, the fact that the BSRI is composed of 63 different items, each of which is evaluated on a seven-point scale, in addition to the fact that the two administrations of the BSRI were separ- 41 ated by the administration of three other inventories, argues against this notion. The high degree of consistency in their responses to the BSRI items appears, instead, to be a testi- mony to the reliability of the BSRI. The second issue has to do with the relationship be- tween reliability and validity, as well as the problem with using a trait-sensitive instrument to measure changes in states. While the BSRI may be a reliable instrument, relia- bility does not imply validity. The validity of VARBEM as a measure of changes in states (recall that VARBEM scores are derived from BSRI responses) has not been demonstrated. Thus even if there were differences in consistency of states, VARBEM may not have been sensitive to them. HYPOTHESIS FOUR: The fourth hypothesis was that there would be sex-role orientation diff-rences in the endorsement of negative sex- typed characteristics. Specifically, it was predicted that the sex-role orientation differences in endorsement of the items on the KM and KP scales found by Kelly et al.(l977) would be replicated. That is, among males, androgynous subjects would have the lowest and undifferentiated subjects the highest level of endorsement of KM and KP items, while feminine sex-typed females would endorse KM items to a lesser degree than their androgynous, masculine sexjtyped and undif- ferentiated counterparts. 42 Kelly et al.(l977) concluded that among males, androgy- nous subjects are good at obtaining social reinforcers, which results in a high level of self-esteem and thus relatively. low endorsement of negative items, while undifferentiated subjects are not very good at obtaining social reinforcers. resulting low self-esteem and thus a high level of negative item endorsement. They described the results for the female subjects as less clear and so concluded that androgyny for females may be qualitatively different than it is for males The results of the present study, however, seem to in- dicate that scores on the negative item Kelly scales have more to do with subject sex and the balance between positive masculine and feminine item endorsement than the level of self-esteem presumed to be associated with the various sex- role orientations. First of all, feminine sex-typed individuals, both female and male, endorse negative masculine sex-typed char— acteristics to a lesser degree than their androgynous, undif— ferentiated and masculine sex-typed counterparts. In addi- tion, although two of the three relationships fell short of the .DS significance level, a complimentary pattern appeared to emerge for the KF items. That is, males as well as fe- males, had weaker KF endorsement than their androgynous, undifferentiated and feminine sex-typed counterparts. Secondly, males tended to have higher KM and lower KF 43 scores than females (this was short of the .05 significance level). Third, BM endorsement correlated positively with KM but negatively with KF endorsement, while BF scores correlated positively with KF but negatively with KM endorsement. Thus it appears that individuals who describe them- selves as having positive masculine characteristics, also tend to "own" their negative masculine side, but not their negative feminine side. Conversely, individuals who des- cribe themselves as having positive feminine characteristics, tend to also acknowledge their negative feminine side, but not their negative masculine side. KM and KP endorsement thus appears to be more a function of sex-type than was des- cribed by Kelly et al.(l977). There are two possible implications of this finding. One is that sex-role orientation, as measured by the BSRI, is not related to psychological health as described by Bem (1974) or as described by Hefner, Rebecca & Oleshansky (1975). The virtual identity between androgynous and undif- ferentiated subjects in the extent to which they endorsed negative items of both sex-types lends some support to this notion since androgynous persons are presumed to be the “healthier" of the two groups and so would be expected to have lower KM and KF scores. However, a second possibility is that the masculine 44 and feminine scales of the Kelly inventory are not good in- dices of psychological health. First of all, there is the question of what sort of self-perceptions,or more accurately, self-descriptions, a healthy person would report. Does such an individual actually have fewer negative traits, or a de- creased awareness of the traits that are there, and thus low KM and (F scores? Or would there be a heightened sensitivity. to all aspects of oneself, including one's less desirable features, or a greater willingness to expose these flaws to others and thus high KM and KF scores? Secondly, it is possible that KM and KP are simply not related to psychological health. Further research is needed before any conclusions can be made about the nature of the negative item sex-typed scales of the Kelly inventory. Con- servatism is thus prescribed in the use of these scales as indices of psychological health and/or sex-role develogmental level. Third, it is possible that there is a relationship la— tween psychological health and the endorsement of positive and negative sex-typed items, but that the analyses performed in the present study were not sensitive to this relationship. Specifically, a healthy person might be an individual who has a relatively large number of positive traits, and/or who has a more realistic self—perception or perhaps less of a tendency to exaggerate positive traits and deny negative 4s traits when reporting to others. For this reason, it may not be possible to identify the relationship between these variables without first separating the subjects into those who have low BM and BF scores and high KM and KP scores because of their “honesty" or insightfulness, and those who have such scores because of their relative plethora of neg- ative traits and paucity of positive ones. There is clearly a need for further investigation of this issue. SEX OF SUBJECT AND EXPERIMENTER: The sex of a subject appears to have an impact on re- sponses to the items in the present study. Males scored significantly higher on the BM and KM scales but lower on the BF scale than females. Males also scored lower than females on the KF scale, but this difference was short of the .05 significance level. These results are not surprising in that they corroborate the trivial notion that males endorse masculine characteristics to a greater extent than females and females endorse feminine characteristics to a greater extent than males. As described above, the interaction effects of subject sex X experimenter sex on FSA scores were significant: how- ever the individual comparisons were not. Still, the pattern of means warrants examination. For male subjects the mean FSA scores for male and female experimenters was 2.29 and 2.03, respectively. For female subjects the mean FSA scores for male and female experimenters was 1.96 and 2.14 respectively.' Thus the subjects appeared to have greater social anxiety in the presence of a same-sexed experimenter than in the presence of an experimenter of the opposite sex. This seems to contradict a finding that has been mentioned repeatedly in the literature, namely, that the presence of an experi- menter of the Opposite sex produces greater anxiety than that of‘a same—sexed experimenter (Bem & Lenney, 1976: McGillan, 1976: Roach, 1981). It seems possible, however, that low FSA scores reflect not a low level of social anxiety, but rather, the denial of negative characteristics. This is supported by the finding of a negative correlation between FSA scores and scores on the Bem Social Desirability scale (r=-.21, p=.002). If this is true, then the results could be interpreted as reflecting the tendency to appear socially desirable and thus deny negative characteristics when in the presence of an Opposite-sex experimenter. . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BEM AND FENIGSTEIN INVENTORIES: Another finding in the present study concerned the re- lationship between scores on the scales of the BSRI and the Fenigstein inventory. As previously mentioned, BF endorse- ment was found to be positively correlated with FPR and FPU scores, while BM endorsement was negatively correlated with FSA scores. The negative correlation between BM and FSA scores 47 likely reflects the independence and interpersonal power of the masculine dimension of human existence, which the BM scale is presumed to measure. Endorsement of FSA items indicates a tendency to be shy in new situations, be easily distracted in the presence of another person, get embarassed. have difficulty communicating with strangers, be anxious when speaking in front of a group, and be nervous in large groups - in short, the tendency to feel discomfort in the presence of others. These characteristics are inconsistent with Bakan's (1966) description of the agentic role, which the BM scale is thought to be tapping., According to Bakan, agency is the concern with oneself as a separate entity which is manifested in self-protection, self-assertion . and self-expansion. Thus an individual with a strong agentic orientation would be expected to feel comfortable in social situations where independence is demanded. The positive correlations between BF and both FPR and FPU likely reflect the feeling orientation, introspectiveness and connectedness with others of the feminine dimension which the BF scale is presumed to measure. Endorsement of FPR items indicates a concern with one's inner thoughts and feelings, while endorsement of FPU items suggests an aware- ness of one's impact on others. Both of these character- istics appear to be related to elements of the femininity dimension of the BF scale. The parallel concept described by 48 Bakan, communion, seems to refer to only one of these two aspects of the concept of femininity as measured by the BF scale. Communion, according to Bakan, is the tendency of an individual to merge with other individuals into a single en- tity. It is this concern with one's relationship with others that the FPU scale was apparently sensitive to. The dimen- sion of femininity that Bakan seems to neglect is the intro- spective feeling oriented aspect, and this is what the FPR scale appears to measure. POST-EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY: A number of interesting patterns were found in the responses to the post-experimental inquiry items (see Tables 14 and 15). Subjects in the camera condition reported feel- ing observed and being distracted by this feeling to a greater extent than subjects in the no camera condition. They did not report feeling more self conscious, more anx- ious, or influenced to a greater extent in their respones to the items on the inventories due to the presence of the cam- eras. All of the inquiry items were found to be correlated with each other at the .05 significance level with the excep- tion of the items referring to the extent to which the sub- jects felt anxious and the extent to which they felt that being observed influenced their responses. The correlation between these two items was significant at the .679 level. The finding of intra-inquiry correlations should not be sur— 49 prising in light of the fact that all of the items dealt with the subjects' responses to being observed. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: The present study failed to find a relationship between scores on the FPR, FPU and FSA scales and subject sex. How- ever, the significant relationship bewteen the endorsement of positive masculine and feminine items on the BSRI and the responses to these self-consciousness scales point out the importance of looking at sex-role orientation, as well as gender, when making predictions about an individual. Thus it_ is suggested that future research which deals with variables that appear to be related to gender consider the effects of sex-role orientation as well. It is also suggested that any attempts to replicate the present study consider the following: First of all, in light of the possible self-focusing effect of experimenter pre- sence, it may be advisable to either run subjects in a very large room in order to increase the physical distance between experimenter and subject, or have the experimenter leave the testing room while the subject completes the inventories. The possible self-focusing effects of experimenter presence is an important consideration in all research employing an experimental situation similar to that used in the present study and is an important issue to be researched in and of itself. Secondly, in light of the possible increase in private 50 self-awareness resulting from the initial administration of the BSRI, it may be useful to include a control group which does not begin the testing by completing this inventory. Finally, an interesting idea for further analysis of the present data would be to categorize into sex-role orient- ation groups only those subjects who did not score high on the social desirability scale of the BSRI. Removing those subjects with a positive "set" could alter the categoriza- tions of the remaining subjects and thus reveal relation- ships between sex-role orientation and the other variables examined in the present study which were not found here. TABLES Table 1 Mean BM, BF, BSD and VARBEM scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation. Subject Sex-Role Sex Orientation BM BF BSD VARBEM A 4.97 4.60 4.06 99 F 3.66 4.45 3.97 .92 Males M 4.72 3.64 3.86 72 U 3 71 3 63 3.77 .92 all 4.35 3.91 3.89 .85 A 4.66 4.61 4.11 .84 F 3.63 4.72 4.18 .94 Females M 4.75 3.81 4.03 84 U 3 46 3.76 3.94 .90 all 4.03 4.42 4.16 89 A 4.78 4.61 4.69 .90 F 3 64 4.66 4.13 .94 Males ' and M 4.72 3.68 3.90 .75 Females U 3.62 3.68 3.83 .92 all 4.19 4.16 3.99 .87 ‘ M.-.-—~~.-~§wo~.-g Table 2 Mean BM2, BFZ and BSD2 scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation. Subject Sex-Role Sex Orientation 8M2 BF2 BSD2 A 4.70 4.44 4.16 F 3.37 4.42 4.03 Males M 4.54 3.57 3.95 U 3.52 3.58 3.72 all 4.14 3.84 3.93 A 4.44 4.51 4.23 F 3.33 4.65 4.31 Females M 4.61 3.69 4.98 U 3.19 3.77 3.94 all 3.78 4.34 4.20 A 405‘; 4.48 ‘}02(.‘) F 3.34 4.60 4.25 Males and M 4.56 3.60 3.98 Females U 3.49 3.65 3.81 all 3.96 4.09 4.86 53 condition, Table 3 Mean KM and KP scores grouped by self-awareness KM Self-Awareness KF subject sex and sex-role orientation. Self—Awareness Subject Sex-Role Condition thdition Sex Orientation C NC C+NC C NC C+NC A 1.97 2.18 2.07 1.86 2.11 1.97 F 1.58 1.36 1.50 2.26 1.88 2.13 Males M 1.99 2.37 2.17 1.76 1.77 1.76 U 1.90 2.01 1.97 1.78 2.14 2.01 all 1.90 2.12 2.01 1.87 1.97 1.92 A 1.57 1.80 1.67 1.84 2.20 2.00 F 1.37 1.43 1.40 2.23 2.28 2.26 Females M 2.14 1.70 1.95 2.07 1.43 1.80 U 1.93 1.49 1.68 2.09 2.13 2.11 all 1.62 1.56 1.59 2.06 2.15 2.10 A 1.72 1.95 1.82 1.84 2.16 1.99 F 1.43 1.42 1.42 2.24 2.22 2.23 Males and M 2.03 2.23 2.12 1.84 1.70 1.77 Females U 1091 1083 1086 1091. 201‘} 90(35 all 1.76 1.84 1.80 1.96 2.06 2.01 Note: "C" denotes camera condition "NC" denotes no camera condition 54 Table 4 Mean BXS and EXSME scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation. Subject Sex-Role Sex Orientation EXS EXSME A 16.02 9.08 F 14.97 6.40 Males M 15.28 3.28 U 13.96 6.24 all 14.97 7.61 A 16.38 9.89 F 15.09 6.76 Females M 16.07 8.69 U 14.44 6.77 all 15.47 7.88 A 16.24 9.58 F 15.06 6.68 Males and M 15.40 8.38 Females U 14.14 6.44 all 15.22 7.75 U1 U1 Table 5 Mean FPR, FPU, and FSA scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation. Subject Sex-Role Sex Orientation FPR FPU FSA A 2.84 3.03 2.18 F 2.65 2.75 2.33 Males M 2.61 2.90 1.93 U 2.50 2.83 2.42 all 2.62 2.88 2.16 A 2.75 2.93 l 71 F 2.81 3.25 2.44 Females M 2.67 2.81 1.57 U 2.34 2.67 1 98 all 2.70 3.01 2.05 F 2 77 3.14 2 42 Males and M 2.62 2.88 1.85 Females U 2 44 2.77 2 26 all 2.66 2.95 2.10 Table 6 Mean post-experimental inquiry scores grouped by subject sex and sex-role orientation. Inquiry Items Subject Sex-Role Sex Orientation SC F0 FD IR FA A 3.88 2.76 1.65 2.18 2.71 F 3 17 3.08 2.25 75 1.75 Males M 3.62 2.90 .85 .62 2.65 U 3 59 2.37 1.41 1.11 3.44 all 3.60 2.75 1.32 1.05 2.77 A 2.15 2.04 1.07 .67 2.15 F 2 73 3.22 1.56 .83 2.05 Females M 3.08 3.17 1.75 .75 2.2 U 3.00 2.62 .81 .62 2.31 all 2.66 2.78 1.32 74 2.1 A 2.82 2.32 1.31 1.25 2.36 F 2.83 3 19 1.72 81 1.98 Males and M 3.50 2.96 1.06 .65 2.56 Females U 3037 2046 1019 693 3002 all 3.13 2.77 1.32 .93 2.46 Note: "SC" refers to self-conscious 5‘fi‘M‘J‘ "F0" refers to felt observed "FD" refers to felt distracted "1R" refers to influenced responses "FA" refers to felt anxious 57 Table 7 Mean scores on manipulation check indices for camera and no camera subjects. Condition Means Camera No Camera EXS 14.99 15.44 EXSME 7.60 7 90 FPR 2.69 2.63 FPU 2.96 2.93 FSA 2.09 2.12 “ —- -—- ~4- Table'3 Mean post-experimental inquiry scores grouped by self-awareness condition and sex-role orientation. Self— Inquiry Items Awareness Sex-Role Condition Orientation SC FO FD 1R FA A 2.75 1.10 .95 1.50 2.55 F 2.54 1.65 1.04 77 1.88 80 Camera M 3.92 1.83 .62 .83 2.79 U 3.08 1.35 .73 1.19 2.69 all 3.07 1.50 .33 .88 2.47 A 2.88 3.33 1.58 1.04 2.21 F 3.11 4.67 2.37 .85 2.07 camera H 3014 3093 1043 059 2036 U 3.82 4.18 1.88 .54 3.53 all 3.19 4.03 1.31 .92 2.45 A 2.82 2.32 1.30 1.25 2.36 F 2.83 3.19 1.72 81 1.98 No Camera and M 3.50 2.96 1.06 65 2.56 Camera U 3.37 2.47 1.19 1.53 3.02 all 3.13 2.77 1.32 .90 2.46 Note: "SC" refers to self-conscious "FD“ refers to felt observed "FD" refers to felt distracted "IR” refers to influenced responses "FA" refers to felt anxious Table 9 Mean BM2, BF2, BSD2, KM and RF scores grouped by subject sex and self-awareness condition. Subject Self-Awareness Sex Condition 8M2 BF2 BSD2 KM KF “- Jm—Qo-‘na.’ w‘.c19.!--o w-uwwu g —“ ‘ ‘ No Camera 4.11 3.72 3.92 2.12 1.97 Males Camera 4.16 3.94 3.95 1.94 1.87 No Camera 3.70 4.42 4.23 1.56 2.15 Females Camera 3.86 4.27 4.19 1.62 2.b6 Males No Camera 3.90 4.07 4.06 1.84 2.06 and Females Camera 4.01 4.11 4.U7 1.76 1.96 M u- v _-‘::‘=-=_.=:-v‘_‘ ““m :—..—~4——A “"Jiv~o;—o «90.1 01"". "o'di- '—' '0 a.” \P».}AMOJ5‘6’-“‘Q&”W'fl"m 6o F-tests for effects of self-awareness condition Table 10 on KN, KP, BM2, BF2, 8302. Subjects Source F—ratio Significance Level KM 1.636 >.10 KF .501 >.25 Males (pooled 8M2 .020 >.25 error estimate) BF2 2.710 >.1o BSD2 .005 >.25 KM .023 >.25 KF .140 >.25 Females (pooled 8M2 .000 >.25 error estimate) BF2 3.711 >.05 8802 .150 >.25 KM .602 .44 KF 598 44 all 8M2 .004 .95 BF2 .072 .79 8802 .075 .78 61 Table 11 Inter-scale correlations (Males). BM BF BSD KM KF EXS PPR FPU FSA BM - .13 BF .133 - .19 .25 BSD .033* .008* - 02 -024 -054 KM .008* .UU9* .Dfll* - -.23 .11 -.54 ’.60 KF .623* 0152 0.1001* 0361* - .18 014 -003 004 -092 EXS .339* .091 .386 .344 .412 - .15 .29 -.01 -.02 -.95 .18 PPR .071 .002* .443 .415 .314 .041* - 007 013 -066 Q‘J9 014 015 035 -.35 .36 -.13 -.Q9 .15 -.06 .02 .11 FSA .001* .270 .105 .194 .076 .267 .436 .136 - Note: The upper and lower values in each cell refer to the correlation coefficient and the significance level, respectively. "*" denotes correlations that are significant at the .05 level. 62 Table 12 Inter-scale correlations (Females). BM BF BSD KN KP EXS FPR FPU FSA BM - .04 BF 0357 - .05 .25 BSD 0327 0008* - .19 -.19 -.51 KM 0032* 003U* oUDl* - -019 012 -051 073 KP 0030* 0129 oflfll* ogUl* - .15 ..US .00 003 -089 EXS 0&74 .298 0496 089 0199 — 091 035 -014 005 025 016 FPR 0464 DEU1* 0385 0300 0007* 0&65 - -.O6 .39 -.10 .15 .33 -.08 .50 FPU .277 .001* .177 .075 .061* .210 .681* - —.45 .12 -.25 -.09 .16 -.08 .13 .34 FSA .GUI* .122 .006* .189 .058 .221 .098 .001* - Note: The upper and lower values in each cell refer to the correlation coefficient and the significance level, respectively. "*9 denotes correlations that are significant at the .05 level. 63 Table 13 Inter-scale correlations (all subjects). BM BF BSD KN KP EXS FPR FPU FSA BM - -002 BF 0375 - .05 .32 BSD .249 0501* - .26 -.30 -.55 KM 0091* 0801* 0001* - -022 015 -047 062 KP ODUl* 0013* 0001* 0001* - .14 .91 -037 001 -004 EXS .027* .445 .152 .452 .27Z - .95 032 -097 000 015 017 FPR 0246 .QU1* 0152 0483 0020* 0010* - -002 027 -0D6 016 026 004 045 FPU 0396 0001* 0293 0092 0001* 0298 0091* - ‘033 005 -021 -057 015 -008 00d .23 FSA .UD1* .232 .002* .172 .022* .143 .131 .OUl* - Note: The upper and lower values in each cell refer to the correlation coefficient and the significance level, respectively. "*” denotes correlations that are significant at the .05 level. ' 64 Table 14 Correlations between post-experimental inquiry items and self-awareness condition, BM, BF, BSD, KM, KF, EXS, FPR, FPU and FSA. self- felt felt influenced felt conscious observed distracted responses anxious self- '.02 .45 .31 .51 .00 awareness .372 .001* .001* .426 .477 condition ‘008 ‘098 -018 00.5 -0U5 -012 .928 012 033 -035 BF .051 .125 .043* .343 .190 -019 -013 -023 -ol4 ‘023 BSD .004* .036* .001* .024* .001* .15 -.04 096 017 01.9 KM .021* .275 .192 .011* .005* .12 .08 .23 .15 .12 KF .053 .147 .001* .021* .056 . .02 -.16 -.02 -.v4 .06 EXS .387 .013* .390 .293 .218 —.D3 .06 .11 .04 .05 PPR .345 .185 .064 .280 247 .13 .20 .20 .10 .11 FPU .006* .003* .003* .076 .068 .14 .10 .15 .13 .24 -..__ Note: The upper and lower values in each cell refer to the correlation coefficient and the significance level, respectively. "*“ denotes correlations that are significant at the .05 level. Table 15 Correlations between post-experimental inquiry items. self— felt felt influenced felt conscious observed distracted responses anxious self- conscious - felt .26 observed .001* - felt .29 .51 distracted .001* .001* - influenced ' .24 .16 .37 responses .001* .012* .001* - felt .18 .16 .22 .10 anxious .008 .015* .001 .079 - A L -Note: The upper and lower values in each cell refer to the correlation coefficient and the significance level, respectively. "*" denotes correlations that are significant at the .35 level. REFERENCES Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Bem, S.L., “The measurement of psychological androgyny.". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162. "Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of Journal of Personality and Bem, S.L., 634-643. psychological androgyny." Social Psychology, 1975, 31, (4), Bem, S.L., "On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 42, 196-205. S.L., & Lenney, E., ”Sex-typing and the avoidance of Journal of Personality and Social behavior.“ 33, 48-54. Bem, cross-sex Psychology, 1976, Bem, S.L., Martyna, w. & Watson, C., "Sex-typing and andro- gyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1016-1023. Berzins, J.I., Welling, M.A. & Wetter, R.E., "A new measure of psychological androgyny bsed on the 'Personality Journal of Consulting and Clinical 46. (1). 126-138. role variability and adjustment." Research Form'." Psychology, 1978, Block, J., "Ego identity, Journal of Consulting Psychology, "Physical aggression as a function of objective Journal Carver, S.C., self-awareness and attitudes toward punishment." of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 510-519. Carver, S.C., & Scheier, M.F., "Self-focusing effects of dispositional self-consiousness, mirror presence and audience presence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, (3), 324-332. Constantinople, A., "Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum." Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 289-307. 69 Davis, D. & Brock, T.C., "Use of first person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and prior feedback." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 381-388. Exner, J.E., "Self-focus sentence completion: A study of egocentricity.“ Journal of Personality Assessment, 1973, Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F. & Buss, A.H., “Public and pri- vate self-consciousness: Assessment and theory." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 522-527. Geller, V. & Shaver, P., "Cognitive consequences of self- awareness." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 99-108. Hefner, R., Rebecca, M. & uleshansky, 8., "DevelOpment of sex-role transcendence." Human Development, 1975, 18, Heilbrun, A.B., ”Measurment of masculine and feminine sex- role identities as independent dimensions." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 183-190. Jones, w., Chernovetz, M. & Hansson, R., “The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for males and fe- males." Journal of Co ounseling and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, (2). 398- 313. Kelly, J.A., Caudill, M.S., Hathorn, S. & O'Brien, C.G., "Socially undesirable sex-correlated characteristics: Implications for androgyny and adjustment." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, (6), 1185-1186. Kelly, J.A., Worell, J., "New formulations of sex- roles and androgyny: A critical review.‘ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, (46), 1101-1115. McGillan, V.A., "The variability of sex-roles and social power as a function of sex-role perception and sex-role of the partner." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Negri, T., "Shame and guilt in relation to other aspects of personality." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1978 Pleck, J.H., "Masculinity-femininity: Current and alternative paradigms.“ Sex Roles, 1, (2), 1975, 161-178. Pryor, J.B., Gibbons, F.X., Wicklund, R.A. & Hood, R., "Self-focused attention and self-report validity." Journal of Personality, 1977, 45, 513-527. Rebecca, M., Hefner, R. & Oleshansky, B., “A model of sex- role transcendence." Journal of Social Issues, 1976 32, (3), 197-206. Roach, J.P., "The effects of an experimenter's presence or absence during the administration of the Draw-A-Person Test.“ Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1981. Rosencrantz, P., Vogel, 8., Bee, M., Broverman, J. & Brover- man, D., "Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287-295. Scheier, M.F. & Carver, S.C., "Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation and depression." Journal of Personality and Social Psych- ology, 1977, 35, (9), 625-636. Wicklund, R.A., "Objective self-awareness." In L.Berkovitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Psychology, 8, New York: Academic Press, 1975. Winer, B.J., Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. APPENDIX I ‘V‘ Appendix 1 contains the inventories used in the present study. The inventories are, in order of presentation, the Bem Sex-Role Inventory used in the first administration, the Exner Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, Kelly's socially undesirable sex-typed scales, Fenigstein's self-consciousness inventory, the Bem Sex-Role Inventory used in the second administration and the post-experimental inquiry. In the first BSRI, the items in the masculine, feminine and social desirability scales have been marked, respectively, with a "BM", a "BF" or a "BSD“ preceding each item. The mascu- line and feminine items in the Kelly inventory are marked with a "KM" or a "KF" preceding each item. Finally, the items in the private and public self-consciousness and the the social anxiety scales of the Fenigstein inventory are marked "PPR", "FPU" and “FSA", respectively. These invent- ories were, of course, not marked in this way when present- ed to the subjects. 8 Plaasa usa ths computar shoot providad to record your answers to both parts A and Hats that the first item is number 7. A. 8. Ba aura to answar all 61 questions. Itams 7-66. dascribas you as you aaa yourself. Please indicate how well each of tha following characteristics Usa the 7-point scale shown balow and mark only those boxes on the answer sheet labeled 0-6. ’17) 8. f 3*) 9. r n 10. ’ ') ll. ’ ‘382. ( ) 13. (a?) 14. I..x)15. ’ ) 16. (") 17. (.3))18. (1”) 19. (1?) 20. (683)21' (3") 22. (1?) 23. (391)24- 1") 25. (as) 26. (111)27. (1”) 28. (,v) 29. (f<“)30. (W?) 31. (is) 32. (‘1‘)33. ( -) 34. f3?) 35. (4%))36. Item 67. 67. 0 1 2 3 5 6 L 1 1 1 L A_iL T‘ r I T V I F navsr or always or almost navar almost always trus of ms trua of ms Salf rcliant (3'0 37. Makes decisions easily Yialding (3?) 38. Compassionate Helpful (333)39. Sincere Dafand own beliefs (3'4 40. Self sufficient Chearful (i7) 41. Eager to soothe hurt feelings Moody (“97) 42. Conceited Indapandant (7") 43. Dominant Shy (7") (.4. Soft spoken Conscientious (393) 45. Likeablc Athletic (1") 46. Masculine Affactionata (2?) 47. Warm Theatrical (350) 48. Solemn Assartivs (11) 49. Willing to take a stand Flattarablc (3?) 50. Tandar Happy (353) 51. Friendly Strong personality 3x). 52. Aggrassiva Loyal 3?) 53. Gullibla Unpredictable (153) 54. Inefficient Forcaful (SM) 55. Acts as a leader Feminine (3F) 56. Childlika Reliable (P33) 57. Adaptable Analytical (WW) 58. Individualistic Sympathetic (1?) 59. Does not use harsh language Jealous (339) 60. Unsystematic Has leadership abilities (71) 61. Competitive Sensitive to the needs of othars(q?62. Loves children Truthful (157‘) 63. Tactful Willing to take risks (2") 64. Ambitious Understanding (t?) 65. Gentle Secretive (‘cfi) 66. Conventional Mark the appropriate box to answer How old are you? 0) 1) 18 years 2) 19 years 3) 20 years 4) 21 years '73 17 years or less the following question: 5) 22 years 6) 23 years 7) 24 years 8) 25 years 9) 26 years or older Please complete the sentences below in the space provided: 1) I think: 2) I was happiest when: 3) It's fun to daydream about: 4) My father: 5) If only I could: 6) It's hardest for me: 7)'I wish: 8) As a child: 9) I am: 10) I'm at my best: 11) Others: 12) When I look in the mirror: 13) If only I would: 14) At least I'm not: 15) My sex life: 74 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 30) It upsets me when The thing I like best about myself: Friends: I would most like to be photographed: I guess I'm: My mother: I wonder: The worst thing about me: I always wanted: I try hardest to please: Someday I: My appearance: My parents: If I had my way: I like: 75 K Please use the computer sheet provided to record your answers to the questions below. Be sure to respond to all 40 questions. Note that the first item is number 86 on your answer sheet. Please indicate how well each of the following characteristics describes you as you see yourself. Use the 7-point scale shown below and mark only those boxes on the answer sheet labeled 0-6. G 1 2 3 4 5 6 + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + Never or almost Always or almost never true of me always true of me (KM) 36. dictatorial (KM) 136. unethical (KM) 87. rude (KM) 107. boisterous (KF) 88. backstabbing (KF) 108. vulnerable (KF) 89. deceitful (KF) 139. vindictive (KM) 90. undisciplined (KF) 118. spoiled (KF) 91. too expensive in tastes (KM) 111. egotistical (KF) 92. can't argue objectively (KM) 112. cruel (KM) 93. indifferent (KF) 113. frequently crying (KF) 94. too emotional (KM) 114. impatient (KM) 95. hedonistic (KM) 115. dogmatic (KF) 96. overly sensitive (KM) 116. thoughtless (KM) 97. domineering (KF) 117. emotionally (KM) 98. chauvinistic ‘ inconsistent (KF) 99. overexpression of feel- (KF) 118. fickel ings of insincerity (KF) 119. indecisive (KF) 168. helpless (KM) 12%. overly loud (KF) 161. irresponsible with money (KM) 121. boastful (KM) 182. over bearing KM) 122. tactless (KM) 103. bully (KM) 123. arrogant (KF) 184. irrational problem solver (KF) 124. bitchy (KF) 185. overly critical of same (KF) 125. gossipy sex Please use the computer sheet provided to record your answers to the questions below. Be sure to respond to all 23 questions. Note that the first item is number 128 on the answer sheet. Please indicate how well each of the following statements characterizes you. Use the 5-point scale shown below and mark only those boxes on the answer sheet labeled 3-4. (PPR) (FPU) (PPR) (FSA) (PPR) (FPU) (PPR) (FSA) (FPR) (FSA) (FPU) (FSA) (PPR) (FPU) (FPR) (FSA) (FPU) (FPR) (FPU) (FPR) (FPU) (PPR) (FSA) U 1 2 3 4 + ------- + ------- + --------- + ------- + extremely extremely uncharacteristic 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. characteristic I'm always trying to figure myself out. I'm concerned about my style of doing things. Generally, I'm not very aware of myself. It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations. I reflect about myself alot. I'm concerned about the way I present myself. I'm often the subject of my own fantasies. I have trouble working when someone is watching me. I never scrutinize myself. I get embarassed very easily. I'm self-conscious about the way I look. I don't find it hard to talk to strangers. I'm generally attentive to my inner feelings. I usually worry about making a good impression. I'm constantly examining my motives. I feel anxious when I speak in front of a group. One of the last things I do when I leave my hOUSe is look in the mirror. I sometimes have the feeling that watching myself. I'm concerned about what other people think of me. I'm alert to changes in my mood. I'm usually aware of my appearance. I'm aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem. Large groups make me I'm off somewhere nervous. 77 EL Please use the computer sheet provided to record your answers to the questions below. Be sure to respond to all 60 questions. Vote that the first item is number 167 on your answer sheet. Please indicate how well each of the following statements characterizes you. Use the 7-point scale shown below and mark only those boxes on the answer sheet labeled 0-6. 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 1 L l r l 1 1 1 L r T’ ’rT’ u r never or always or almost never almost always true of me true of me 167. were 197. Tender 168. Reliable 198. Secretive 169. Affectionate 199. Self-sufficient 170. Ambitious 200. Yielding 171. Inefficient 201. Gullible 172. Self reliant 202. Athletic 173. Unoredictable 203. Understanding 176. “body 206. Masculine 17S. Hilling to take risks 205. Shy 176. Friendly 206. Analytical 177. Willing to take a stand 207. Loves children 178. Mates decisions easily 208. Conceited 179. forceful 209. Cheerful 180. Loyal 210. Eager to soothe hurt feelings 181. Likeable 211. Independent 182. Beloful 212. Solemn 183. Assertive 213. Conscientious 186. Sympathetic 216. Has leadership abilities 185. Childlike 215. Truthful 186. Sincere 215. Does not use harsh language 187. Gentle 217. Competitive 188. Adaptable 218. Strong personality 189. Acts as a leader 219. Individualistic 190. Unsystematic 220. Aggressive 191. Conventional 221. Theatrical 192. Feminine 222. Tactful 193. Compassionate 223. Soft-spoken 196. Jealous 226. Flattersble 19S. Dominant 225. Defends own beliefs 196. Hanpy 226. Sensitive to the needs of others 7s: I Please use the space provided on this page to record your answers to the questions below. 153) a. 154) s. 157) a. b. To what extent, if at all, did you feel self-conscious during this experiment? (circle the appropriate number) 0 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely all self-conscious Explain: To what extent, if at all,'did you feel like you were being observed? (circle the appropriate number) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely all conscious of it Explain: 155) a. To what extent. if at all, did you feel distracted by this? (circle the appropriate number) 0 l 2 3‘ 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Extremely all distracted b. Explain 156) a. To what extent, if at all, do you think it influenced your responses? (circle the appropriate number) 0 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Very all much b. Explain: To what extent, if at all, did you feel anxious during this experiment? (Circle the appropriate number) 0 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 8 9 Not at Very all anxious Explain: 158) Did you have any hypotheses about the point of this study? If so, what were they? 159) Have you heard anything about this study? If so, what? 160) Additional Comments: 79 APPENDIX 1 I Appendix II contains the instructions which the exper- imenters used to run the subjects. Prior to any contact with -the subjects, each experimenter was required to demonstrate competence in communicating the instructions. Memorization was discouraged: instead, experimenters were free to refer to the instruction sheets, but were not to read them rotely. The first set of instructions presented were employed for the subjects run in the camera condition: the second set, for the subjects in the no camera condition. 81 Hi (NAME OF PARTICIPANT); my name is (NAME OF EXPERIMENTBR). Have a seat (point to desk 1). For this study you'll be filling out a number of questionnaires. Before we begin I want to inform you that everything you do will be confidential. You will not put your name on any of the forms you fill out, and there will be no other marks with which to identify you. If at any point you feel that you do not wish to continue with the experiment, you are not obligated to stay. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about the study after this session is over. At that time I will also sign the experiment card for your class. I would appreciate it if before we begin you read and sign the consent form in front of you. (Let the participant read and complete the form that is on the desk). (after completion of the consent fofifif' We're studying a number of personality characteristics of college students by having students like yourself fill out some questionnaires. I would like you to begin by first filling out the questionnaire that I'll be giving you using the answer sheet provided. I will be sitting over here (point to chair) doing some work of my own. Let me know when you've completed this first questionnaire. It is important that you answer every question. Note that the first item is number seven. (Hand BSRI and computer answer sheet to participant) Please read the instructions and begin. (after completion of'the BSRI) For this second part I'd like you to have a seat here (point to desk 2). (Turn on cameras and tv monitor while talking). This part is really two studies. First of all, it's a contin- uation of our study of personality characteristics of college students. Secondly, another group of researchers down the hall is conducting a different research project that needs videotapes of people engaged in a variety of tasks. We have offered to let them videotape our partici- pants while you fill out our questionnaires. Now I'd like you to fill out these questionnaires (hand Kelly, Exner, Fenigstein and Bem2 inventories arranged in predeter- mined order to participant) using the answer sheet provided when so indicated. It is important that you complete these 82 in the order that they've been presented. but feel free to stand up and stretch between questionnaires. You'll notice that a number of items appear more than one time. This is inevitable when filling out a large number of ques- tionnaires. Please answer every question. Note what number each questionnaire begins with. Please read the instructions and begin. (After completion of questionnaires turn off camera and tv monitor and hand the post-experimental inquiry to participant.) The main part of this study is over. I'd like you now to com- plete this post-experiment questionnaire. For this questionnaire please record your responses in the space provided below each question. Please read the instructions and begin. Upon completion of the post-experimental inquiry, debrief par- participant. 83 Hi (NAME OF PARTICIPANT); my name is (NAME OF EXPERIMENTER). Have a seat (point to desk 1). For this study you'll be filling out a number of questionnaires. Before we begin I want to inform you that everything you do will be confidential. You will not put your name on any of the forms you fill out, and there will be no other « marks with which to identify you. If at any point you feel that you do not wish to continue with the experiment, you are not obligated to stay. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about the study after this session is over. At that time I will also sign the experiment card for your class. I would appreciate it if before we begin you read and sign the consent form in front of you. (Let the participant read and complete the form that is on the desk). (after completion of the consent toffi} We're studying a number of personality characteristics of college students by having students like yourself fill out some questionnaires. I would like you to begin by first filling out the questionnaire that I'll be giving you using the answer sheet provided. I will be sitting over here (point to chair) doing some work of my own. Let me know when you've completed this first questionnaire. It is important that you answer every question. Note that the first number is seven. (Hand BSRI and computer answer sheet to participant) Please read the instructions and begin. ‘Tafter completion of the BSRI) This part is a continuation of our study of personality char- acteristics of college students. I'd like you to fill out these questionnaires (hand Kelly, Exner, Fenigstein and Bem2 inventories arranged in predeter- mined order to participant) using the answer sheet provided when so indicated. It is important that you complete the questionnaires in the order that they've been presented, but feel free to stand up and stretch between question- naires. Again, it is important that you answer every question. Note what number each questionnaire begins with. Please read the instructions and begin. 84 N C (After completion of questionnaires hand post-experimental inquiry to participant.) The main part of this study is over. I'd like you now to com- plete this post-experiment questionnaire. For this questionnaire, please record your responses in the space provided below each question. Please read the instructions and begin. ~ “—-— Upon completion of the post-experimental inquiry, debrief par- ticipant. 85