OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records ! I . m x ._ l 62" i?" u‘ 1“? u K ' . r-Z-vw (TAN 1 0 I996 ABSTRACT FATHER ABSENCE DURING CHILDHOOD, MATERIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN, AND THE SEX-ROLE DEVELOPMENT OF MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS BY Hugh Edward Jones The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effect of the mothers'attitudes toward men upon the mascu- line development of young adult males whose fathers had been absent during part of their childhood. The underlying theo- retical position of the study is that the male child learns to be masculine through identifying with his father. It is further assumed that the masculine development of the child depends upon the presence of the father in the family. The following four hypotheses were formulated: (1) At- titudes of mothers of father-absent subjects toward men are positively related to the masculinity of sex-role orientation of their sons; (2) father-absent subjects have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than father-present subjects; (3) subjects who became father- absent during the period from birth to their fifth birthday have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role ori- entation score than subjects who became father-absent after Hugh Edward Jones their fifth birthday, and (4) a significantly greater number of father-absent subjects as compared to father—present show the typically feminine pattern of intellectual functioning (verbal score higher than mathematical score). Subjects of the study were 60 male undergraduate students at Michigan State University. Thirty of the subjects were from homes where the father had been consistently present, and thirty were from homes where the father had been absent due to divorce or separation for at least two years before the subject reached age 12. These groups were matched with respect to age, socio-economic status, number of siblings, race, and grade point average. A list of Semantic-Differential rating scales consisting of 24 items with a high loading on the Evaluative Factor were used to assess mothers' attitudes toward men. The measures of masculinity of sex-role orientation included the Franck Drawing Completion Test, a projective technique in which the subject is asked to complete 36 drawings, and an adapted ver- sion of the Berdie Femininity Adjective Check List. The Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability was used to test intel- lectual functioning. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to analyze statistically the relation- ship between maternal attitude and masculinity while 5 tests were used to compare masculinity scores of father-present with father-absent subjects and early father-absent subjects with late father-absent subjects. The Chi-square test was used to Hugh Edward Jones compare the frequency of occurrence in each group of the mascu- line and feminine patterns of intellectual functioning. The first hypothesis of the study that positive maternal attitudes toward men would relate positively to masculine development of father-absent sons was not supported. In fact, there was a trend in the opposite direction. With the Franck Drawing Completion Test, marginal support was found for the hypotheses related to differences in masculinity of father- present and father-absent subjects and early father-absent and late-father-absent subjects. There was strong replica- tion of previously published findings that early father- absent subjects differ significantly with respect to mascu- linity from father-present subjects while late father-absent subjects do not. The Adjective Check List did not discrimi— nate between the father-present and father-absent groups. The prediction that more father-absent subjects would show the typically feminine pattern of intellectual functioning was not supported. Additional findings include the following: (1) Mothers of father-absent subjects rated men significantly lower than did mothers of father-present subjects, and (2) Father absent subjects did not appear to be intellectually impaired by the absence of a father. Late father-absent subjects achieved significantly greater verbal and mathematical aptitude scores than did father—present and early father-absent subjects while e«ax-lyfather-absent and father-present subjects demonstrated Hugh Edward Jones almost equal achievement in these areas. With respect to father-absent subjects, it was found that the presence of an older brother was related to increased masculinity, but the presence of a stepfather functioned in the opposite direc- tion. It was concluded that the failure of the present study to more strongly replicate previous findings may be related to problems of theory and instrumentation. Implications of the findings were discussed and suggestions for future re- search made. FATHER ABSENCE DURING CHILDHOOD, MATERNAL ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN, AND THE SEX-ROLE DEVELOPMENT OF MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS BY Hugh Edward Jones A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1975 To Vernell, Gilbert, and Derrick, for their love, support, and great patience during my years as a "pro- fessional student" To Levite and Ever Lee Jones, who, though they had little formal edu- cation themselves, taught me its value and sacrificed that I might attain my educational goals To Frances Broadhurst, whose friend- ship and encouragement throughout the years has been a source of great inspiration To the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Great Dreamer of our day from whom I caught a glimpse of the vision "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!" Martin L. King, Jr. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this manuscript represents the cumula- tive efforts of a number of people. I am especially grateful to Dr. Albert Rabin who has served both as my academic advis- er and my dissertation chairman. His encouragement, guidance, ready availability, and confidence in my abilities have fa- cilitated the completion of this undertaking. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Gilbert DeRath, Dr. Gordon Williams, and Dr. Lawrence Messé, members of the com- mittee, who offered valuable suggestions and assistance. A special thanks to Dr. Lucy Ferguson who participated in the early formulation of the study. In many respects this has been a family and community project. My good friends, Dr. Lee June and his wife, Shirley, spent many hours scoring the Adjective Check List protocols. They have also been a consistent source of support and en- couragement. My brother, Herbert Jones, and Barbara Boles, assumed responsibility for scoring the Semantic-Differential which, because of experimentation with a number of scoring techniques, proved to be a difficult task. My brother-in-law, John Thomas, has been faithful throughout the course of this research in lending a hand whenever I needed it. Others who have offered their assistance include my friends, Donald Casterline and Joseph Etua, and my brothers-in-law, David and iii Matthew Thomas. My thanks to each of these persons for the contributions they have made. A special thanks to my beloved friends, Jack and Mary Ellen Lothamer, for their efforts in scoring the projective measure. Their hard work and patience during the difficult task of establishing reliability and judging drawing-completion protocols are greatly appreciated. I also wish to thank Dr. Gerald Rosenbaum and my fellow psychology interns at Lafayette Clinic who offered helpful suggestions in analyzing and presenting the data. Dr. David Lachar and Mr. William Berman, also of the Lafayette Clinic, offered valuable statistical assistance for which I am ex- tremely grateful. I owe a special word of thanks to my friend, Mrs. Betty Uphaus, whose eager anticipation of typing this manuscript was a strong motivational factor to my getting it done. A special word of thanks is due to my wife, Vernell, who has not only provided moral support but has actively partici- pated in various aspects of this research, and to my youngsters, Gilbert and Derrick, and Pascal, for their encouragement and understanding during the preparation of this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my relatives and friends who have encouraged and nurtured me. I am especially grateful for all Black people of the past and the present, whose blood, sweat,and tears, have made this opportunity available to me. I trust I can be worthy of their sacrifices, and that I will utilize my skills to bring about justice, healing, and re- conciliation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . a . . . . Freudian Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . Status Envy Theory . . . . . . . . . . Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspects of Sex-Role Development . . . . Sex-Role Orientation . . . . . . . . Sex-Role Preference . . . . . . . . . Sex-Role Adoption . . . . . . . . . Effects of Father Absence upon Sex-Role Development The Mother-Son Relationship and Father Absence. . . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESES . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 METHOD AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Instruments . . . . . . Family Background Questionnaire . . Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability Measurements of Sex-Role Orientation Franck Drawing Completion Test. . . Femininity Adjective Check List . . Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA. . . . . RESULTS . O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Results . . . . . . . . . . Page vii ix Nooqqmmmc-Aw w H 19 21 21 21 21 22 23 25 31 34 37 39 41 41 49 Page DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 The Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 An Unrelated, Incidental Finding . . . . . . . . . 59 Theory and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Measurement Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Measurement of Maternal Attitude . . . . . . . . 64 Measurement of Masculinity of Sex-Role Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Subject Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . 70 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . 73 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Adjectives checked significantly more by females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2. Adjectives checked significantly more by males 29 3. Characteristics of subjects--age, ordinal position, number of siblings, grade point average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Subjects' ages at fathers' departures. . . . . 36 5. Correlation between attitudes of mothers toward men and their sons' masculinity score (Adjective Check List) . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. Correlation between attitudes of mothers toward men and their sons' masculinity score (Adjective Check List--masculine adjectives only) C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 42 7. Correlation between attitudes of mothers toward men and their sons' masculinity score (Franck Drawing Completion Test) . . . . . 43 8. A comparison of masculinity scores for father- absent and father-present subjects . . . . 44 9. A comparison of masculinity scores for early father-absent and late father-absent subjects 45 10. A comparison of masculinity scores for early father-absent, late father-absent, and father-present subjects (Franck Drawing Completion Test). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11. A comparison of the incidence of masculine and feminine cognitive patterns in father- absent and father-present subjects . . . . 46 12. Mean verbal and mathematical scores on Henmon- Nelson Test of Mental Ability . . . . . . . 48 vii Table Page 13. A comparison of attitudes toward men scores (Semantic Differential) of mothers of father-absent subjects and father-present subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 14. Comparison of attitudes toward men scores (Semantic Differential) of mothers of father-absent subjects who remarried and those who did not remarry . . . . . . . . . 50 15. Comparison of masculinity scores of father- absent subjects with older brothers and without older brothers (Franck Drawing Completion Test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 16. Comparison of masculinity scores of father- absent subjects with stepfathers and with- out stepfathers (Franck Drawing Completion Test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 viii APPENDIX A. LIST OF APPENDICES Family Background Questionnaire . . . . . . Responses of Males and Females to Femininity Adjective Check List--Michigan State University--l974 . . . . . . . . . . . . Femininity Adjective Check List--University of Minnesota--l955 . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions for Semantic Differential . . . Semantic Differential Rating Scale . . . . Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information Regarding Study and Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 77 81 85 86 87 89 90 91 INTRODUCTION Considerable attention has been given to the impor- tance of the mother-child relationship in personality develop- ment with comparatively little exploration of the impact of the father-child relationship upon personality development. Mothers in western industrial society have been seen as meet- ing the expressive needs of the family while the father's role has been that of meeting instrumental needs-~providing eco- nimically for the family. Until recent years, in western society childrearing has been seen as the mother's responsi- bility with the father playing an insignificant role in social- izing the child (Gorer, 1948). An underlying thought has been that men are not particularly interested in assuming childrear- ing responsibilities. "Fathering" has not been seen as an es— sential masculine role function whereas mothering has been con- sidered an important aspect of the feminine role. In their review of family research between 1929-1956, Peterson and his collaborators (1959) found only eleven (11) articles pertain- ing to the father-child relationship but 160 dealing with the mother-child relationship. Nash's (1965) review of nineteenth century child-rearing literature demonstrates the lack of rec- . ognition of the father's role. The increasing prevalence of fatherless families and the concomitant social, economic, and psychological problems 1 experienced by such families has stimulated considerable in- terest in the father's role. Wynn (1964) points out that the fatherless family is a source of concern in many industrialized countries. Recent reports (Herzog & Sudia, 1970) suggest that more than ten percent of the children in the United States-- more than six million--live in fatherless families. Such families are especially prevalent in lower-class black communi- ties (Moyniham, 1965). In terms of psychological impact, there is considerable evidence that boys from fatherless homes tend to be more femi- nine in their sex-role orientation than boys from homes where the father is present. (Burton & Whiting, 1960; Heatherington, 1966; Leichty, 1960; Winch, 1949). ‘While the father's role in the masculine development of the male is of greater importance than that of the mother (Biller & Borstelmann, 1967), there is some evidence that the mother-son relationship can have either a positive or negative effect on the personality development of a boy from a fatherless home (Hilgard, Neuman, & Fisk, 1960: McCord et al., 1962; Pedersen, 1966). The mother's at— titude toward masculinity and men could possibly affect the way she interacts with her son and thus affect aspects of his sex-role development. The present study represents an attempt to examine the effect of the mother's attitude toward men on her father-absent son's sex role development. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Biller and Borstelmann (1967), in their review of the literature on masculine development discuss four theories (or. hypotheses as they prefer to call them): Freudian theory, status-envy theory, learning theory, and role theory. Con- curring with Bronfenbrenner (1960), they consider the latter three theories to be derivatives of Freudian theory. Freudian Theory Freudian (1950, 1955) theory considers the child's relationship with both parents to be an important determinant of sex-role development. During the Oedipal period, ages 3 to 5 years, the male child, wanting complete possession of his mother, begins to see the father as his aggressive com- petitor. Being small, weak, and helpless, the child fears that his physically powerful father will castrate him. In order to allay the castration anxiety, the boy resolves the Oedipus Complex by identifying with the aggressive father and repressing his Sexual feelings for his mother. The boy then learns to be masculine through identifying with the father. According to Bronfenbrenner (1960), Freud, in his latter writ- ings, discusses "an identification of an affectionate sort" between the boy and his father and suggests that this affec- tionate dependency on the father may facilitate the boy's 3 identification with him (Bronfenbrenner, 1960, p. 20). Status Envy Theory Whiting's (1959) status envy theory of identification postulates that a boy will learn to be masculine only if he perceives his father (or a father surrogate) as the primary consumer of valued resources. Biller and Borstelmann (1967) indicate that this theory can be seen as an extension of the Freudian conception of identification with the aggressor since "identification with the aggressor is the outcome of a rival- rous interaction between the child and the parent who occupies an envied status" (Bandura & Walters, 1963, p. 94). Learning Theory Mowrer (1950), utilizing the works of Sigmund and Anna Freud on identification, attempts to reformulate their theory into learning theory concepts. He distinguishes two mechanisms of identification, developmental and defensive. Defensive identification is similar to Freud's concept of identification with the aggressor while developmental identifi- cation is similar to anaclitic identification, a Freudian con- cept used to explain how girls, fearing loss of love, identify with the mother. Although Mowrer does not rule out the possibility that identification with the aggressor plays some part in masculine development, he does stress the importance of developmental identification in the sex-role development of both boys and girls. Mowrer postulates that the basis for developmental identification is an affectional link between the parent and child motivating the child to imitate the behaviors of the parent as a way of avoiding the feeling of loss of love when the parent withholds rewards or is absent. Similar to Freudian theory, Mowrer considers the boy's initial identification to be a non-sex typed one with mother, but around age four the father becomes a greater source of reinforcement and the boy, imitating the father, becomes masculine. Similar viewpoints are expressed by other learning theorists (Sears, 1957; Stoke 1950) who consider masculine development to be positively re- lated to the degree of warmth and affection the father shows his son or conversely, the amount of love and respect the son has for his father. Role Theory Role theory, combining aspects of both Freudian and learning theory, postulates that a boy will identify with the person who is most powerful in interacting with him--who has greater control over rewards and punishments. Proponents of this theory include Brim (1955), Cottrell (1942), and Parsons (1955). Bronfenbrenner (1960) indicates that the only novel conception of role theory as presented by Parsons is that "the child identifies not with the parent as a total person, but with the reciprocal role relationship that is functioning for the child at a particular time" (Bronfenbrenner, 1960, p. 32). In Parson's view, the boy identifies with the father's instru- mental role, thus becoming masculine. As Biller and Borstelmann (1967) indicate, all of these theories stress the importance of the father-son relationship and the son imitating the father, although they have different emphasis. Freudian theory views the father as basically threatening and punitive; status-envy theory, as primary con- sumer of resources; learning theory, as affectionate and re- inforcing; and role theory, as controller of resources. From each of these theoretical perspectives, a boy from a fatherless home would be expected to experience some difficulty in mascu- line development. Aspects of Sex-Role Development Attempts at conceptualizing different aspects of sex- role development have been made by Brown (1956), Cooley (1959), Fenichel (1945), Lynn (1959, 1962), and Miller and Swanson et al., (1960). Lynn (1959) discussed three related aspects of sex-role development: sex-role preference, sex~role adoption, and sex-role identification. Based on these earlier concep- tualizations, Biller and Borstelmann (1967) described the fol- lowing three aspects of sex role: 1. Sex-role orientation is part of one's self-concept--how he views himself--in that it is a person's own conscious and/or unconscious evaluation or perception of his masculinity and/or femininity. According to Biller and Borstelmann, a boy's sex- role orientation develops between ages one and three when he begins to discriminate himself as a male and to view himself positively. Perceiving himself as more similar to his father than his mother seems to be especially important. Thus the availability of a father or other significant older male as a discriminable male object is an important prerequisite for the development of a masculine sex-role orientation. Biller (1971a) equates the concept of sex-role orientation with Kagan's (1964) concept of sex-role identity. 2. Sex-role preference "refers to an individual's relative desire to adhere to cultural prescriptions and proscriptions of the masculine and feminine role" (Biller and Borstelmann, 1967, p. 260). While sex-role orientation involves one's per- ception of himself, sex-role preference relates to his evalua- tion of certain opportunities available in his environment. This involves discrimination between socially—defined symbols of representations of sex-role and relates to preferences for certain attitudes, roles, and activities (Biller, 1971a). For the male child, the task involves developing interests in ac- tivities, toys, etc. that are considered sex appropriate. 3. Sex-role adoption relates to the way others in a society View a person's behavior in terms of masculinity and feminity. This judgment is made on the basis on an individual's publicly observable behavior, especially in social contexts. Biller (197hfl contends that sex-role adoption has many facets and warns against the danger of simply equating it with a particu- lar behavior such as physical aggression. In assessing mascu- linity of adoption, he feels that one should consider "the degree of the individual's assertiveness, competitiveness, in- dependence, and activity directed toward physical prowess and 'mastery of his environment..." (Biller, 197k» p. 9). Passivity, timidity, and dependency are behaviors which he associates with an unmasculine adoption. In contrast to sex-role orientation which is related to the individual's view of himself, sex-role adoption pertains to the way a person is perceived by other mem- bers of his society (Biller, 1971a). Effects of Father Absence upon Sex-Role Development A number of writers (Biller and Borstelmann, 1967; Biller, 1970; Burton and Whiting, 1961; Nash, 1965) consider the primary effect of father absence to be the retardation or distortion of normal sex-role development in boys. Utilizing theories of identification, these writers assume that the father's presence is critical in the boy's sex-role development. According to their view, a boy learns to be masculine by iden- tifying with the father and imitating his behavior. Biller and Borstelmann (1967) present considerable evidence of the impor- tance of the father-son relationship in masculine development. They consider a warm relationship with a masculine father to be a highly significant factor in a boy's sex-role development. In one of the earliest studies of father absence, Sears, Pintler, and Sears (1946) examined the effects of father absence upon the aggressive behavior of three to five year old pre- school children as reflected in doll play. They found that father absent boys manifested less doll play aggression than father-present boys. Stolz and her collaborators (1954) found that 4-8 year old boys who were separated from their fathers during the first two years of their life (due to military service) were generally regarded by their fathers as "Sissies." They also found that these boys were less assertively aggres- sive and independent in their peer relations than boys who had not been separated from their fathers. Data in this study were collected through interviews with both parents, observa- tion of the children in social activities with peers and adult leaders, and observation of the children in projective play activities. In a study of four-and-five year old disadvantaged black children, Santrock (1970) found that father-absent boys ex- hibited less masculine and more dependent behavior in standard- ized doll play situations than did father-present boys. The two groups did not differ, however, in the amount of physical aggression. Maternal interviews also revealed that the father- absent boys were less aggressive as well as less masculine and more dependent than the father-present boys. A number of studies indicate that boys who have been sepa- rated from their fathers during the pre-school years, even after the father returns, continue to be less masculine than boys whose fathers have been consistently present. Carlsmith (1964) found that among middle and upper class high school males, early father absence was related to the patterning of the College Board Aptitude scores. Contrasting the usual male pattern of math score higher than verbal score, the pattern of the father-absent subjects was more frequently the same as the female pattern: verbal score higher than math score. 10 Leichty (1960) studied male college students whose fathers were absent due to military service when the boys were between the ages of three to five and a matched group whose fathers were present. On the Blacky Pictures, fewer of the father- absent students said "Blacky" would like to pattern himself after his father, more often choosing "mother" or "Tippy," a sibling. This item was conceived as a projective indication of underlying sex-role orientation, the father-absent males being presumably less masculine. Biller (1970) suggests that it would be helpful to know how many of the father-absent boys in this study chose Tippy, the sibling, because this identifica- tion could also be indicative of masculine sex-role orientation. Comparisons of the human figure drawings of father-absent and father-present boys have been made in a number of studies. Phelan (1964) found a higher rate of father absence among ele- mentary school-age boys who drew a female first as compared to those who drew a male first. Biller (1968a) found that father- absent kindergarten boys as compared to father-present boys were significantly less likely to draw a male first or to clearly differentiate their male and female drawings. Other studies have failed to find the predicted relationship between father absence and figure drawings (Domini, 1967; Lawton & Sechrest, 1962; Tiller, 1958). There is some evidence that there is a differential effect of father absence upon the boy's sex-role development dependent upon the age at which the absence occurs. Father absence be- fore the age of 4 or 5 has a profound effect upon masculine 11 development. Heatherington (1966) found that 9-12 year old father-absent boys whose fathers left in the first four years showed considerable disruption of sex-typed behaviors while those whose fathers left after age five did not differ sig- nificantly in these behaviors from father-present youngsters. Boys who were father-absent before age four were rated by male recreation directors as more dependent, less aggressive, and as engaging in fewer physical contact games. Biller (1969a) reported similar findings. He found that father-absent five year old boys had significantly less masculine sex-role ori- entation (fantasy game measure) and sex-role preferences (game choices) than did father-present boys. Age differences in on- set of father absence were noted, however, in that boys who became father absent before the age of four had significantly less masculine sex-role orientations than those who became father absent in their fifth year. Research by Money (1965) and Hampson (1965) also indicates that the first two or three years of life are crucial in the development of one's sex- role orientation. Biller suggests that different aspects of sex role may not be affected in the same way by father absence. His (1968b) study of six-year-old lower class boys and of five-year-old boys (1969b) indicate that sex-role orientation (as measured by the It Scale for Children) is more affected by father ab- sence than sex-role preference (asking the boys to name the boys they like) or sex role adoption (as rated by teachers). 12 There is considerable evidence (Greenstein, 1966; Miller, 1961) that there is relatively little difference among lower class adolescent father-absent and father—present boys with respect to sex role development. This may be attributed in part to earlier peer identification. Nash (1965) and Steimel (1960) among others suggest that, masculinity is related to the general amount of contact boys have with adult males. Brothers, uncles, grandparents, neigh- bors, teachers, and other adult males may play an important role. There is evidence that boys with brothers are more mas- culine than boys with sisters, especially in two-child families where the children are close in age (Biller, 1968a; Sutton- Smith, Roberts, & Rosenberg, 1964). Biller (1968a) has demon- strated that the presence of an older brother lessens the ef- fects of father absence, but it does not completely compensate for the presence of a father, a more important factor in mas- culine sex-role development. The Mother-Son Relationship and Father Absence There is considerable evidence (Grunebaum et al., 1962; Helper, 1955; Sears, 1953) that in intact homes maternal atti- tudes toward the father are important in the personality de- ve10pment of the children. In a study of boys who were academic underachievers, Grunebaum et al. found that the mother's per- ceptions of their husbands as inadequate and incompetent was a contributing factor. Pauline Sears (1953) reported that kindergarten boys who adopted a feminine rather than a masculine 13 role in doll play had mothers who were critical of their hus- bands. Biller (l97lb)suggests that the mother-son relationship can have either a positive or a negative effect on the father- absent boy's sex-role and personality development. Bach (1946) reported that mothers may mediate the father's absence to the child through "father-typing." He defined "father-typing" as the personality characterizations of the father that mothers represent to the child, e.g., "Your father is a hard and mean man;" "Your father is kind and generous." Bach was able to show differences in young children's father fantasies as a function of father-typing. McCord, McCord, and Thurber (1962) found that the presence of a disturbed or rejecting mother was related to various behavior problems (sexual anxiety, regres- sive behavior, and criminal acts) in father-absent boys, but such problems were less frequent among boys whose mothers were apparently well-adjusted. Pedersen's (1966) study of military families presents evidence suggesting that psychologically healthy mothers may be able to counteract the effects of father-absence. Mothers of a group of emotionally disturbed 11 to 15 year old boys were found to be significantly more disturbed (as measured by the MMPI) than mothers of a similar group of non-disturbed children. Both the disturbed and non-disturbed groups had ex- perienced relatively extensive father absence, but it was only in the disturbed group that degree of father absence was re- lated to level of maladjustment (as measured by the Rogers 14 Scale of Adjustment). Biller (1971t9emphasizes the importance of the mother describing the absent father's masculinity in positive terms, i.e. general competence, strength, and physical competency. He warns that depreciation of the father's masculinity might cause the child to act in an unmasculine manner. Biller writes: "It is assumed that the mother can, by rein- forcing specific responses and expecting masculine behavior, increase the boy's per- ception of the incentive value of the mascu- line role. This, in turn, would seem to promote a positive view of males as salient and powerful, thus motivating the boy to imitate their behavior." (Biller, 1971, p. 236). Biller (1971b)and others (Dai, 1953; Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951) are especially critical of lower class black matriarchal families where, they maintain, maleness and masculinity have relatively low value. Commenting on the lower-class black matriarchal family, Kardiner and Ovesey state, "The greatest damage to the group as a whole is done by the injury in the boy's mental life to his parental ideal. He never hears the father's role lauded--only condemned" (1951, p. 347). There is considerable evidence suggesting that lower-class father- absent black males suffer more than father-absent whites in terms of their sex-role orientations (Barclay & Cusumano, 1967; Biller, 1968b). One could argue, however, that the stereotype view of masculine sex-role orientation as defined by the pre- dominant white culture is inappropriate for blacks. A redefi- nition of masculinity from the perspective of the black ex- perience thus may be indicated. In addition, the generalization 15 that lower class black women present men so negatively is a questionable one that may be based more upon racial bias and stereotypes than upon empirical data. The mother's feelings about masculinity and men in general can_greatly influence the mother-son relationship and may de- termine in part, how the mother responds to her son's mascu- line strivings. Biller (197lm postulates the following: "The degree to which a mother perceives her son as similar to his father is related to the boy's behavioral and physical charac- teristics as well as to particular maternal attitudes" (p. 229). That is, if the son either strongly resembles or is perceived by the mother as resembling the father behaviorally and physically, the mother would be more likely to expect his behavior to approximate that of the father than if there were little father-son resemblance. The mother's attitude toward the absent father can be in- fluenced considerably by the reason for his absence. Benson (1968) found that it was easier for a mother to talk positively about a husband who had died than one who had deserted her. It becomes difficult for the mother to present the father positively in light of the conflict and competition concerning the children that often is associated with divorce of separa- tion. Among the factors that affect the extent of the influence of maternal attitudes toward the absent father are the father- child relationship prior to father absence and the child's age when the father leaves. Biller, (1971a)provides the following l6 example: "...the father-absent boy who has had a positive relationship with his father up until ten years of age is less likely to be influenced by negative maternal views con- cerning the father than the boy who was paternally deprived even before his father's absence." (Biller, 1971a p. 84) Biller (1971a contends that a mother can facilitate her son's sex-role development by having a positive attitude to- ward the absent father and males in general, and by consistent- ly encouraging masculine behavior in her son. Parental re- actions to aggressive and assertive behavior have been found to influence the personality development of boys from intact homes. Sears, Alpert, and Rau (1965) found that parents who permitted and accepted aggressive and assertive behavior in their preschool-age sons had highly masculine sons. In con— trast, restrictive, autocratic parents produced sons who were passive, conforming, and dependent. With father-absent boys, maternal encouragement of mascu— line behavior appears to be particularly important. In a study of kindergarten boys, Biller (1969b) assessed maternal encouragement of masculine behavior with a multiple choice questionnaire. He found maternal encouragement of masculine behavior to be significantly related to the father-absent boy's masculinity which was assessed by a game preference measure and a multidimensional rating scale completed by teachers. Father-absent boys whose mothers accepted reinforced assertive, independent, and aggressive behavior were more masculine than 17 father-absent boys whose mothers discouraged these behaviors. Maternal encouragement for masculine behavior was not signifi— cantly related to masculine development of father-present boys. In a later study, Biller and Bahm (1971) found that the degree of perceived maternal encouragement for masculine be- havior was highly related to the masculinity of junior high school boys who had been father-absent since before the age of five. A Q-sort procedure was used to assess perceived maternal encouragement for aggressive behavior while an adjec- tive check list was used to assess their masculinity. Those boys who perceived their mothers as encouraging assertive and aggressive behavior had much more masculine self-concepts than those who perceived their mothers as discouraging such behavior. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Although previous research has demonstrated that the mother-son relationship can have either a positive or nega- tive effect upon the boy's sex role and personality develop- ment (Biller, 1970), and there have been some data suggesting that the mother's attitude toward the absent father may af- fect the personality development of males, to date there has been no systematic, empirical investigation of how the mother's attitude toward the father affects the sex-role development of the male child. This is the problem to which the present study addresses itself. However, rather than looking specifically at how the mother feels toward the absent father, the decision has been made to assess how the mother feels about men in gen- eral. We can assume that the mother's attitude toward men is a reflection of her attitude toward her son's father. It is felt that participants in the study will be less threatened by and more Open in sharing their feelings about "men in general" than they would in responding specifically to questions about their husbands or ex-husbands. Biller (1970) in his overview of previous research on fatherless boys, suggests that sex-role orientation, rather than sex-role preference or sex-role adoption, is most affect- ed by father absence. Sex-role orientation has been defined as part of one's self-concept--one's conscious or unconscious 18 19 perception of his masculinity or femininity. Following Biller's suggestion, in this study, we shall examine specifically the impact of the mother's attitude toward men upon the sex-role orientation of father-absent males. HYPOTHESES Biller (1969b) found that in father-absent families, mothers who accepted and reinforced aggressive and assertive behavior appeared to have much more masculine sons than mothers who discouraged such behavior. Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume that the mother's attitude toward men in general and masculinity could affect the sex-role development of her son. One would expect that a mother could facilitate her father- absent son's sex-role development by having a positive atti- tude toward men. In all likelihood, such a mother would en- courage her son's masculine strivings such as assertiveness, aggressiveness, and independence. On the other hand, it might be expected that a mother who had negative attitudes toward men would discourage such masculine behaviors. Hypothesis I: Attitudes of mothers of father absent subjects towards men will be positively related to the masculinity of sex-role orientation of their sons. Biller's reviews (1970,197Lfi present considerable evi- dence that the sex-role development of boys from fatherless homes is disrupted. 20 Hypothesis II: Father-absent subjects will have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than father present subjects. As indicated in the review of the literature, father ab- sence before the age of four or five appears to have a profound effect upon masculine development (Biller, 1970). The follow- ing hypothesis basically replicates the work of Heatherington (1966), Biller (1969b), and Biller and Bahm (1971). Hypothesis III: Subjects who became father-absent during the period from birth to their fifth birthday have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than sub- jects who became father-absent after their fifth birthday. Carlsmith (1964) found that early and long separation from the father results in greater ability in verbal areas than in mathematics while no separation produced relatively greater ability in mathematics. She also found that late, brief separations often produced an extreme elevation in mathe- matical ability, but this finding was not as reliable as her earlier finding. Based on Carlsmith's findings, the following prediction was made: Hypothesis IV: A significantly greater number of father- absent subjects as compared to father-present show the typically feminine pattern of intellectual functioning, (verbal score higher than mathematics score). METHOD Description of Instruments Family Background Questionnaire Biller (1970) found that a number of factors such as grade level, age, social class, age at which father absence began, and sibling distribution could contribute to differ- ences in sex-role development. Therefore, in the present study an attempt was made to control such variables by match- ing father-absent and father-present groups as closely as possible. A Family Background Questionnaire (Appendix A) de- veloped by this investigator was administered to all partici- pants in the study as a means of assessing some of these vari- ables. Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability Intelligence level has also been reported by Biller (1970) as a variable affecting sex-role development. In the present study university grade point averages were used as a means of matching father-absent and father-present groups on this vari- able. In order to test hypothesis four regarding the differ- ential patterning of verbal and quantitative scores for father- absent and father-present subjects, the Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability, College Level--Form B was used. This test yields both a Quantitative and a Verbal score as well as-a 21 22 total IQ score. The Henmon-Nelson contains 100 items arranged in order of increasing difficulty. The College Level form is designed for use with students from the freshman year of college through the first year of graduate school. The test is appropriate for group administration with instructions given only once at the beginning of the 40-minute testing period. A self-marking answer sheet with a carbon panel that transfers students' answers to a scoring page inside the answer sheet was used. The carbon mark for a correct response falls within a printed box located on the scoring page; all carbon marks falling out- side the boxes are incorrect. The Henmon-Nelson IQ scores correlate highly with achieve- ment test scores and teachers' grades. "The median coefficient for total achievement battery scores versus IQ is .79 (range .64 to .85). Average grades and IQ produced a median 5 of .60 with a range of .09 to .74" (Lefever, 1959, p. 342). The ease of administration and scoring, the appropriateness for group administration, and the fact that the test yields both verbal and quantitative scores made it very attractive for the pur- poses of this study. Measurements of Sex-Role Orientation An important dimension of sex-role development is sex- role orientation, one's perception of his own relative mascu- 1inity or femininity. Although a necessary concept, sex-role orientation has proven to be difficult to define and to measure 23 (Biller, 1971a). Self-descriptive techniques such as adjective check lists appear to be a particularly appropriate way of measuring self-perceptions of masculinity-femininity (Biller and Bahm, 1970; Heilbrun, 1965). Biller (19Tkfl writes, "... sex-role orientation is not easily measurable in many indivdu- als because of their defensiveness and/or adherence to social expectations. Thus, special indirect or projective situations (such as drawings, fantasy, play, and TAT-like responses) have often been used so that the individual may express sex-role inclinations which might otherwise be constrained by social and conscious self-expectations" (Biller, 197Lfl p. 10). Two measures, one projective and one direct, of sex-role orientation were utilized in this study: the Franck Drawing Completion Test and the Femininity Adjective Check List. 1. Franck Drawing Completion Test The Franck Drawing Completion Test contains thirty-six simple geometric figures which the subject elaborates in any manner he wishes. Criteria for analyzing both style and con- tent of drawings have been developed by Franck. In their pretest, Franck and Rosen (1949) found that men were more likely to expand the area of the original figure, to close objects that were open, to draw angular shapes, pro- trusions, and unsupported lines. Women, on the other hand, tended to elaborate internal spaces and to draw open objects-- rounded and blunted shapes, and supported lines. They also found that men tended to draw "active" objects such as 24 automobiles and fountains that filled most of the drawing space while women drew passive objects such as furniture and interiors of homes. Norms for citizens of eight countries are cited in Franck's scoring manual. In each sample, the groups of men differed significantly from and in the same direction from the groups of women. After training, scoring differences between scorers were low with the reliability co- efficients ranging from .84 to .90. Franck's test has been used successfully in measuring sex-role orientation by Miller and Swanson (1960) and Biller and Barry (1971). The fact that it is not significantly re- lated to the following verbal tests of masculinity and femi- ninity: the Terman-miles Attitude Interest Analysis Test (1936), the M-F scale of the MMPI (1943), and the M—F scale of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (1945) suggests that it meas- ures something other than attitudes and interests--conscious sex identity. Franck and Rosen (1949) also contend that their Drawing Completion Test also has the advantage of being re- latively unrelated to the experience of the two sexes. In the present study, two raters* were trained to score the Franck Drawing Completion Test. Based on a well-defined scoring system developed by Franck, each drawing was scored either masculine or feminine. After the training period, the raters were asked to score three sets of five tests not used in the study. The percentage of agreement between them was 83, 84, and 86 respectively on the three trials with a mean *These raters were Jack and Mary Ellen Lothamer. 25 agreement of 84.3. The subjects' drawings were subsequently randomly distributed to them, and they were not aware of any demographic information about the subjects. The score de- rived indicates the number of drawings completed in the mascu- line and in the feminine manner and could range from 0 to 36 in either direction. The masculine score was interpreted as a measure of masculinity of sex-role orientation. 2. Femininity Adjective Check List The "Femininity Adjective Check List" developed by Ralph Berdie (1959) is the second measure of sex-role orientation used in the present study. Berdie developed the list by re- viewing Gough's Adjective Check List (Gough, 1955) and other adjectives that had been found to be related to masculinity/ femininity scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the California Psychological Inventory. The Check List contained 148 adjectives including the following: active, assertive, athletic, curious, emotional, foresighted, independent, ner- vous, sensitive, submissive, tough, warm, and worried. The Femininity Adjective Check List was standardized on a sample of 600 students who were asked to complete the check list in the summer of 1955 prior to their matriculation as freshmen at the University of Minnesota. The standardization sample included 200 women freshmen in the College of Science, Literature, and the Arts (SLA), 200 male freshmen from the same college, and 200 male freshmen from the Institute of 26 Technology (IT). The 200 SLA men and the 200 IT men were di- vided randomly into two groups of 100, with 100 of the SLA men and 100 of the IT men being included in the standardization groups. The other male groups were considered the non- standardization groups. Thus the 100 SLA men and the 100 IT men were combined and compared to the 200 SLA women. These subjects were given the list five times with different in- structions. Initially, they were instructed to check those adjectives which they thought applied to themselves. In ana- lyzing item response frequencies on these self-descriptions for the male and female groups, 15 items were found to be checked more by men than by women at the .05 level of signifi- cance, and 46 items were checked significantly more often by the women. Thus, 61 of the 148 items significantly differ- entiated the male and female groups. The scoring scale adopted gives positive weights of one to the 46 items checked significantly more often by females and a negative weight of one to the items checked significantly more often by males. (See Appendix C for differentiating ad- jectives). The scores, therefore, could possibly range from 46--the most feminine score to -15, the most masculine score. The scale is called a "femininity scale" rather than a "mascu- linity scale" since most of the items which determine the score are items which are marked more characteristically by women than by men. For the standardization group, the mean score for the 200 " 27 SLA women was 16.7, and the mean scores for the male groups were 7.9 for SLA men and 7.7 for IT men. The women's scores ranged from 0 to 31 while the scores of the men ranged from -6 to 28. In 1957, another group of entering freshmen were tested, and the women received a mean score of 15.6 while the SLA men received a mean score of 9.1 and the IT men, a mean score of 8.1. A group of 43 homosexual men tested in 1957 re- ceived a mean score of 18.9. Berdie (1959) reports high test-retest reliability (5:81) and higher inter-scale correlations which suggest that the scale is reliable enough for the kinds of group research for which it was developed. Correlations between the Check List and the masculinity scores on the Strong Blank and the MMPI are positive and statistically significant. Since a number of social and political changes have taken place which could possibly have affected how masculinity and femininity are defined since the Femininity Adjective Check List was standardized in 1955, the decision was made to estab- lish more contemporary norms by administering the instrument to students currently enrolled at Michigan State University. The Check List was administered to 130 male and 160 female undergraduate students in introductory psychology courses. Of the 148 adjectives on the Check List, 21 were found to be checked significantly more at the .05 level by men and 13 were checked significantly more by women. Table I lists the ad---~ jectives checked more by males while Table II lists those check- ed significantly more by females. TABLE I Adjectives checked significantly more by females Adjective Males Females Chi-Square (n=130) (n=160) l. Affectionate 87 135 12.17* 2. Cheerful 71 106 4.08*** 3. Curious 87 125 4.58*** 4. Determined 67 110 8.93* 5. Emotional 61 111 14.98* 6. Feminine 2 117 151.91* 7. Flirtatious 25 55 9.16* 8. Gentle 84 115 43.08* 9. Graceful 17 51 14.12* 10. Sensitive 87 139 16.60* 11. Sentimental 69 119 14.28* 12. Gracious 35 72 10.07* 13. Submissive 13 33 6.07** * p<.01 ** p<.02 *** p<.05 28 TABLE II Adjectives checked significantly more by males Adjective Males Females Chi-Square ff (n=130) (n=160) 1. Athletic 77 52 20.75* 2. Clever 66 54 8.56* 3. Distrustful 35 20 9.71* 4. Enterprising 41 28 7.80* 5. Foresignted 59 45 9.29* 6. Insightful 65 59 5.05*** 7. Logical 100 92 12.09* 8. Masculine 90 1 156.78* 9. Methodical 43 33 5.75** 10. Rational 102 103 6.87* 11. Reckless 13 6 4.58*** 12. Rough 20 6 11.90* 13. Self-controlled 84 82 5.23*** 14. Sharp-witted 40 30 5.66** 15. Straightforward 80 73 7.29* 16. Suspicious 50 39 6.69* 17. Shrewd 27 11 7.64* 18. Tough 29 9 8.57* 19. Unaffected l6 9 4.05*** 20. Unemotional 17 6 7.43* 21. Virile 44 3 53.99* *p<.01 **p<.02 ***P<-05 29 30 It is interesting to note that now only 34 adjectives differ- entiate males and females whereas in Berdie's study there were ~61. In Berdie's study, 46 adjectives were checked signifi- cantly more by females while only 13 were checked signifi- cantly more by them in the present study. In Berdie's study, 15 adjectives were checked significantly more by males, but that number increased to 21 in the present study. The Femininity Adjective Check List was chosen for use in the present study because it provides an easily obtainable index of psychological masculinity and femininity; it is easily administered and scored, and because it has been demonstrated to have some internal validity and to be reliable. The score derived by each subject was considered as a "masculinity of sex-role orientation" score. In the present study the Adjective Check List was scored by assigning a positive weight of one to each adjective checked in the masculine direction. That is, a positive weight of one was assigned to each of the 21 masculine adjectives checked and to each of the 13 feminine adjectives not checked. No score was assigned to feminine adjectives that were checked. The scores, therefore, could range from 0--no adjectives checked in the masculine direction--to 34--a11 adjectives checked in the masculine direction. In addition, the check list was scored also for number of masculine adjectives check- ed, number of feminine adjectives checked, and by Berdie's system described above. The score derived by each subject was 31 considered as a "masculinity of sex-role orientation" score. Semantic Differential It has been demonstrated that the mother's evaluation of the father is of critical significance in the personality development of boys from fatherless homes (Biller, 1971). Bach (1946), Diamond (1957), and Neubauer (1960) present clini- cal cases that dramatically illustrate the way in which a mother's consistent negative comments about the absent father can cause the son to develop a negative self-concept and mal- adaptive behavior. In the present study, it was hypothesized specifically that the mother's attitude toward men was related to the development of her son's sex-role orientation. The Semantic Differential (Osgood, 1952) was used to assess the mother's attitude toward men. A list of semantic differential scales (Appendix F) with detailed instructions (Appendix E) and an accompanying cover letter (Appendix D) explaining the purpose of the study was mailed to the mother of each partici- pant. The Semantic Differential was also administered to the subjects themselves as a safeguard in the event that the re- turn rate from mothers had been unsatisfactory. Subjects were instructed to respond as they thought their mothers would. The Semantic Differential was developed initially by Osgood (1952) as a technique for measuring the meaning of con- cepts, but it has also proved to be a valuable tool in per- sonality research (Osgood et al., 1957). The Semantic Dif- ferential is essentially a combination of controlled associa- ‘ tion and scaling procedure. In the present study, for example, 32 thanother of each subject was provided with the concepts "men" and "women" which she was asked to evaluate on a set of bi- polar adjectival scales. She was asked to indicate for each item (pairing of a concept with a scale) the direction of her association and its intensity on a seven point scale. Although the study required only the mothers' attitudes toward men, it was the thinking of the writer that mothers would feel more i comfortable about rating both "men" and "women" rather than rating only "men." Having them rate both groups also made the purpose of the study less obvious. The scales for "men" and "women" were counterbalanced in order to prevent position set. In factor analyzing Semantic Differential data, Osgood et al., (1957) found three major factors: (1) Activity, (2) Evaluation, and (3) Potency. For the purpose of measuring the mother's attitude toward men, twenty-four scales with a high loading on Osgood's Evaluation factor were selected. Since all of the scales represent the same factor, they were alter- nated in a polarity direction (e.g. fair--unfair but worthless-- valuable) as suggested by Osgood et al., (1957) as a way of preventing the formation of position preferences. The concept to be rated appeared at the top of the page. Each of the positions on the Semantic Differential scale was assigned a digit of +3 to -3 with the positive values as- signed to a positive judgment, a negative value assigned to a negative judgment, and zero assigned to a neutral judgment. For example: 33 Fair ___: ___: ____ ___ ___: ___ ___ +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 Use of the neutral position was discouraged unless absolutely Unfair necessary. Since there Were 24 scales on which judgments were to be made, a subject's score could range from +72--all positives-- to -72--a11 negatives. The score derived from this instrument was considered as reflecting the mother's attitude toward men. 34 Subjects Subjects of the study were a group of sixty (60) under- graduate students at Michigan State University. Thirty of the subjects were from homes where the father had been con- sistently present while the other 30 were from homes where, due to divorce or separation, the father was out of the home for at least two years before they were age 12. All of the father-present and approximately one-half of the father-absent subjects were enrolled in introductory psychology courses and volunteered to participate in the study in order to fulfill the research participation requirement for these courses. These students signed up on sheets provided by the investi- gator to indicate their interest in the study. The complete battery of tests was administered to approximately 120 stu- dents who volunteered for the study. Subsequent examination of the data revealed that about 30 of them did not meet the criteria for the study. Therefore letters were sent to the mothers of ninety of these students--70 father present and 20 father-absent. Sixty-two of the letters sent to the mothers of father-present boys were returned while all 20 of those sent to mothers of father-absent boys were returned. The other 20 father-absent boys responded to a classified ad placed in the university newspaper (See Appendix G). A total of 23 subjects were recruited through the ad, but only 18 mothers returned the rating scales. Thus, there was a total of 38 complete protocols for father-absent subjects. 35 Of these, eight were eliminated for various reasons including the following: (1) father's absence was due to circumstances other than divorce or separation (usually death); (2) father left after the son was age 12, and (3) there was not a two- year period during which no adult male figure was in the home. The father-absent and father-present groups were matched closely for race, socio-economic status, age, number of sib- lings, grade point average. (See Table 3) The father-present group ranged in age from 17 to 23 with a mean age of 19.66 while the father-absent group ranged from 17 to 29 with a mean age of 20.16. The mean grade point average was 2.89 for the father-present group and 2.91 for the father-absent group. The father-present group had an average of 2.5 siblings while the mean number of siblings for the father-absent groups was 2.2. The father-absent group was subdivided into two groups, early father-absent (N=14) and late father absent (N=16). The early father-absent group ranged in age from 6 months to 5 years (mean + 2.25 years) when their fathers left the family. The late father-absent group ranged from 5 years to 12 years with a mean of 8.35 years. (See Table 4) Of the father-absent subjects, 13 came from homes where the mother had remarried. For those from homes where the mother had remarried, the average length of father-absence was 4.5 years. Sixteen of the fathers had remarried. 36 TABLE 3 Characteristics of Subjects--Age, Ordinal Position, Number of Siblings, Grade Point Average* Father-Present Father-Absent Mean Age 19.66 20.16 Mean Number of Siblings 2.5 2.2 Oldest Child 8 6 Only Child 2 5 Second or Third Child 17 15 Fourth Child or More 3 4 Mean Grade Point Average 2.89 2.91 *No significant differences TABLE 4 Subjects' Ages at Fathers' Departures N Range Mean Early Father Absence 14 6 mos.-5 years 2.25 years Late Father Absence 16 5-12 years 8.35 years 37 Procedure Several one and one-half hour testing sessions were held. During the initial part of the sessions, subjects were given a written explanation of the purpose of the study and a state- ment of informed consent (Appendix H) which they were asked to read and to sign before they were allowed to participate in the study. They were informed of the need to assess their mother's attitudes toward "men" and "women." A copy of the letter that would be sent to parents and a copy of the form she would be asked to respond to were shown to potential par- ticipants. The following battery of tests were administered during the sessions: (1) Family Background Questionnaire; (2) Henmon- Nelson Test of Mental Ability; (3) Femininity Adjective Check List, and (4) the Semantic Differential. Standardized instruc- tions were used with the Henmon-Nelson. On the Femininity Ad- jective Check List, subjects were asked to check those adjec- tives which applied to themselves while on the Semantic Dif- ferential they were asked to rate men and women on the various scales as they thought their mothers would. A letter explaining the study (Appendix I) and copies of the Semantic Differential along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope were mailed to the mother of each person participat- ing in the study. They were encouraged to complete and to re— turn the forms immediately. If letters were not returned with- in three weeks of the mailing date, a follow-up letter was sent. Each Semantic Differential sent was coded with numbers so that 38 the investigator could identify them without the respondent's signature. Based on the information gained from the Family Background Questionnaire, subjects meeting the aforementioned criteria for father-absence were identified. They were closely matched for age, grade level, I.Q., social class, and sibling distribu- tion with a father-present group. STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA Since Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a re- lationship between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex- role orientation, a Pearson product-moment correlation co- efficient (E) was used to test this hypothesis. The 3 ratio or Student's t was used to test Hypothesis 2 related to mean differences in masculinity of sex-role orientation scores of father-absent and father-present sub- jects. It was also used with Hypothesis 3 where mean scores of early father-absent and late father-absent subjects were compared. This statistical procedure is especially appropri- ate in a study such as the present one where N's are small. Because both hypotheses were directional, one tailed tests were utilized. Chi-square (X2) was used to analyze Hypothesis 4 related to frequency of the typically masculine pattern of intellectual functioning, math higher than verbal, as compared with the typically feminine pattern, verbal higher than math. Justifica- tion of this test was based on the dichotomous nature of the data, and because it is a non-parametric statistical technique. A chance probability level of .10 was selected as appro- priate for the discussion of these data. Generally the .05 level is interpreted as an appropriate "significance" cut-off for research, but because of the preliminary nature of the 39 40 data, it was the investigator's judgment that the .10 level should be employed. aAny findings must be interpreted cau- tiously. RESULTS Hypothesis I: Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a positive relationship between the attitudes of mothers of father- absent subjects toward men and the masculinity of sex-role orientation of their sons. This hypothesis was not supported either with the Franck Drawing Completion Test or with the Adjective Check List. In fact, on both measures the results were in the opposite direction to what had been predicted. A negative relationship between positive maternal attitude toward men and masculinity of sex-role orientation was found for father-absent subjects. In the regular scoring of the Adjective Check List (scoring in the masculine direction), a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of -.27 was obtained. (See Table 5) This value is almost significant at the .10 level of confidence. When scoring the Adjective Check List for the number of masculine adjectives checked, a correlation coefficient of -.31 which is significant beyond the .10 level of confidence was produced. (Table 6) 41 42 TABLE 5 Correlation between Attitudes of Mothers toward Men and Their Sons' Masculinity Score (Adjective Check List) a 3. P Father-Absent 30 -.27 N.S. Father-Present 30 .05 N.S. Total 60 -.08 N.S. TABLE 6 Correlation between Attitudes of Mothers toward Men and Their Sons' Masculinity Score (Adjective Check List-Masculine Adjectives Only) a _r_ a Father-Absent 30 -.31 p<.10* Father-Present 30 -.002 N.S. Total 60 -.15 N.S. Similarly, with the Franck, Drawing Completion Test, a correlation of -.21 was obtained, indicating a negative re- lationship (though not statistically significant) between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex-role orientation. *Two-tailed t test 43 TABLE 7 Correlation between Attitudes of Mothers toward Men and Their Sons' Masculinity Score (Franck Drawing Completion Test) lz IH (w Father-Absent 30 -.21 N.S. Father-Present 30 .29 p<.10 Total 60 .09 N.S. It is interesting to note that with the Adjective Check List the correlation coefficient with the Semantic Differen- tial for the father-present subjects is miniscule (r = .05 and .002) indicating almost no relationship while with the Franck, there is a marginally significant positive relation between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex-role orienta- tion (5 = .29, p<.10). The coefficient of correlation between the Adjective Check List and the Franck is .287 which is slightly above the .10 level of confidence. Hypothesis II: It was hypothesized that father-absent subjects would have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orienta- tion score than father-present subjects. Although the mean scores were in the predicted direction for both the Franck and the Adjective Check List (Table 8, the difference reached sta- tistical significance only for the Franck. A one-tailed t 44 test of the Franck means produced a value of 1.414 which is significant beyond the .10 level of confidence. Thus, hy- pothesis two was marginally confirmed with the Franck. On the other hand, with the Adjective Check List a statistically insignificant 3 value of .689 was obtained. TABLE 8 A Comparison of Masculinity Scores for Father-Absent (FA) and Father-Present (FP) Subjects E F_A 2 2 Franck 19.96 18.56 1.414 p<.10 Adjective Check List 13.83 13.26 .689 N.S. Hypothesis III In hypothesis 3 it was postulated that subjects who be- came father-absent before age 5 would have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than subjects who became father-absent after their fifth birthday. With the Franck,there was a trend in support of this hypothesis which was marginally significant. A one-tailed t test pro- duced a value of 1.278 which is significant slightly above the .10 level of confidence (p<.11). (Table 9) In contrast, with the Adjective Check List the means were almost equal with the early father-absent subjects' score being slightly higher than that of the late father-absent. 45 TABLE 9 A Comparison of Masculinity Scores for Early Father-Absent (EPA) and Late Father-Absent (LFA) Subjects EFA LFA _t_ g Franck 17.6 19.4 1.278 p<.11 Adjective Check List 14.0 13.8 .140 N.S. The data also indicate (Table 10) that with the Franck, early father-absent subjects had a significantly lower & = 2.33: p<.01) masculinity score than father-present sub- jects while late father-absent subjects did not differ sig- nificantly from father-present subjects. (t = .44, p = n.s.) Both tftests were one-tailed since the hypothesis was direc- tional. TABLE 10 A Comparison of Masculinity Scores for Early Father-Absent (EFA), Late Father-Absent, and Father—Present (FP) Subjects (Franck Drawing Completion Test) Father-Present Early Father-Absent t P 19.96 17.6 2.33 p<.01 Father-Present Late Father Absent 19.96 19.4 .44 N.S. Hypothesis IV: Hypothesis 4 stated that more of the father-absent sub- jects would show the more typically feminine pattern of in- tellectual functioning with verbal score higher than mathematics 46 score than would father-present subjects. This hypothesis was not supported as demonstrated in Table 11. In fact, a larger number of the father-present subjects (N=l8) showed the more feminine pattern than did father-absent subjects (N=14). ' TABLE 11 A Comparison of the Incidence of Masculine and Feminine Cognitive Patterns in Father-Absent and Father-Present Subjects Verbal Higher Math Higher than Math than Verbal Chi (Feminine) (Masculine) Square P Father Absent 14 16 N.C.* Father Present l8 18 Total 32 28 Early Father Absent 8 6 1.16 N.S. Late Father Absent _8 18 Total 14 16 Early Father Absent 8 6 .0315 N.S. Father Present 18 18 Total 26 18 Late Father Absent 6 10 2.12 N.S. Father Present l8 18 Total 24 22 *Not computed, frequencies in wrong direction Since Carlesmith (1964) suggests that early and long father-absence is more associated with the typically feminine 47 pattern than late, brief separations, the data were further analyzed to determine whether those who had become father- absent before age five showed this pattern significantly more than those who became father-absent after age 5. Table 11 shows that the data are in the predicted direction, but the obtained chi-square of 1.16 is not significant. Table 11 also shows that neither the early father—absent nor the late father-absent group showed this pattern significantly more than the father-present group. Table 12 demonstrates that only father-present and early father-absent subjects had sizable differences in their mean verbal and math scores with verbal higher than math. The dif- ference for the total father absent group was negligible (-.27) while the late father-absent had math slightly higher than verbal (1.25). Although not statistically significant, what is striking is the difference in the mean math and verbal scores for the father-present and father-absent groups. The mean math score for the father-present subjects is 73.62 while it is 78.59 for the father-absent group. Similarly, the mean verbal score for the father-present subjects is 75.82 while it is 78.87 for the father-absent subjects. Dif- ferences between mean math and verbal scores for the early father-absent and late father-absent subjects are considerable but reach statistical significance only for the math scores (t = 1.665; p<.05). Late father-absent subjects also differ 48 TABLE 12 Mean verbal and Mathematical Scores on HenmonrNelson Test of.Menta1 Ability Father-Present Math verbal Math minus verbal 73.62 75.82 -2.2* Early FathereAbsent DEdil verbal Math minus verbal 73.71 75.64 -1.93* Father-Present Math verbal thh1minus verbal 73.62 75.82 -2.2* Father-Present (Math verbal Math Minus verbal 73.62 75.82 -2.2* Father—Absent .E 78.59 1.045 78.86 .632 -.27* Late FatherbAbsent 83.13 1.665 81.88 .901 1.25* Early Father-Absent 73.71 .017 ‘Z§;§g_ .030 -l.93* Late Father-Absent 83.13 1.701 81.88 1.049 1.25* I’U N.S. N.S. p< .05** N.S. N.S. p< .1o*** N.S. *No significant difference. **One-tailed t_test “mm-tailed 3 test 49 significantly from father-present subjects in math. Early father-absent and father-present performed almost identically in both areas. Late father-absent subjects received the highest scores in verbal as well as mathematical aptitude. Additional Results An interesting finding in the study is the difference in the mean scores on the Semantic Differential of the mothers of father-absent subjects as compared to those of father-present subjects. Table 13 shows that the mean score for mothers of father-absent subjects is 20.9 while the mean score for mothers of father-present subjects is 37.8. A t score of 3.577 was obtained with a probability beyond the .001 level of confidence. These data suggest that mothers who had divorced or separated from their husbands at some point were much more negative about men than mothers whose marriages had remained intact. TABLE 13 A Comparison of Attitude Toward Men Scores (Semantic Differential) of Mothers of Father-Absent Subjects and Father-Present Subjects N Range Mean Score 8 8 Father-Absent 30 -24 to 60 20.9 3.557 p<.001* Father-Present 30 5 to 72 37.8 *Two-tailed 8 test. 50 In order to ascertain whether the attitudes toward men of the mothers of father-absent subjects were affected by their subsequent experiences with men, the mean scores of those who had been remarried and those who had remained single were obtained (Table 14). These data indicate that women who had subsequently remarried rated men less positively (i=16.3) than women who had remained unmarried (i=21.4), but this difference was not statistically significant. TABLE 14 Comparison of Attitudes Toward Men Scores (Semantic-Differential) of Mothers of Father-Absent Subjects Who Remarried and Those Who Did Not Remarry N Range Mean Score 8 8 Remarried 14* -21 to 47 16.3 .681 N.S. Not Remarried 16 -24 to 60 21.4 *Two of the 14 mothers who remarried were subsequently divorced from their second husbands. One of the mothers had been married 6 times. Since the presence of an older brother or a stepfather could potentially affect the masculine development of father- absent subjects, comparisons of father-absent subjects with and without older brothers and with and without stepfathers were made. Table 15 shows that subjects with older brothers received a higher mean Franck masculinity score than subjects without older brothers (3 = 1.596 Ex .12) However, as demonstrated in Table 16, father-absent subjects with step- fathers obtained a lower mean masculinity score on the Franck 51 than subjects without stepfathers (t = 1.723 p< .10) TABLE 15 Comparison of Masculinity Scores of Father-Absent Subjects with Older Brothers and without Older Brothers (Franck Drawing Completion Test) N Mean Score 8 8 Older Brother 12 20 1.596 p<.12* No Older Brother 18 17.6 TABLE 16 Comparison of Masculinity Scores of Father-Absent Subjects with Stepfathers and without Stepfathers (Franck Drawing Completion Test) N Mean Score 8 8 Stepfather 14 17.3 1.723 p<.10* No Stepfather 16 19.6 *TmrtaihXitLU§n£ DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to examine the ef- fect of the mother's attitude toward men upon the sex-role orientation of young male adults whose fathers had been ab- sent from the home due to divorce or separation for a period of at least two years during their pre-adolescence. Two of the four hypotheses were marginally supported by the data. A review of the results and their implications follows. Theoretical variables of design and sample,and directions for future research will also be discussed. The Findings Hypothesis 1 that there would be a positive relation- ship between the attitudes of mothers of father-absent sub- jects toward men and the sex-role orientation of their sons was not corroborated by this research. In fact, the data indicate a negative relationship between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex-role orientation of the son. This finding is consistent with both measures of sex-role orienta- tion, the Adjective Check List and the Franck Drawing Comple- tion Test. Because the support for the negative relation- ship of these variables is marginal (See Tables 6 and 7), one can question the degree of conclusiveness of the data. This is a curious phenomena in light of the clinical findings 52 53 (Diamond, 1957; Neubauer, 1960) which suggest that father- absent boys whose mothers are negative toward men are less masculine than those whose mothers regard men positively. The following speculations are offered as possible reasons a father-absent subject's masculinity of self-concept would increase as a function of the mother's negative attitude toward men. One could hypothesize that instead of incorporat- ing the mother's negative view of men, as had been the theo- retical assumption of this study, because of her negative view of men, a father-absent son would find it difficult to identify with his mother and would thus be more likely than a father-absent male whose mother was positive, to seek out male models with whom to identify. Another possibility is that a mother with negative attitudes toward men could com- municate the message "You have to be more of a man than your father was!" to her son, thus facilitating his development of a more masculine self-concept. Biller (1971a) indicates that maternal overprotection frequently is a concomitant of father absence. This overpro— tection stifles a boy's strivings for competence and independ- ence. It seems reasonable to assume that mothers who are nega- tive toward men would be less likely to overprotect their sons, allowing them the freedom to develop independence and to identify with male models who may be available. Stendler (1954) found that many first graders who were rated as over- dependent by their teachers came from families where the father 54 was absent. Biller (1971a) also suggests that maternal over- protection of a father-absent boy can contribute to passivity in peer interactions, whereas the father-absent boy whose mother may be rejecting or indifferent is more likely to seek peer acceptance. Among lower class father-absent boys, the gang becomes an avenue through which his needs for affection and attention are satisfied. A factor which may have contributed to the negative find- ing regarding maternal attitude and the son's masculinity is the fact that college students, for whom peer identification is very likely more important that father identification, served as subjects for the study. It must be kept in mind, however, that the foregoing explanations are highly specula- tive and based on marginal trends in the data. The finding regarding the relationship between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex-role orientation of father- present subjects is contradictory. With the Adjective Check List, the evidence suggests no relationship, which is consis- tent with Biller's (1971a) contention that in the father- present home the mother's evaluation of the father is not as crucial to the son's masculine development because the model is available. However, with the Franck, there is a marginally significant positive relationship between maternal attitude and masculinity of sex-role orientation. These apparently contradictory findings may be related to problems with the instruments which will be discussed later. 55 Hypothesis 2 that father-absent subjects would have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than father-present subjects, was marginally supported by the Franck but was not supported by the Adjective Check List. The failure of the present data to more strongly sup- port this well-established finding is related to the afore- mentioned problems with the measuring instruments of sex-role orientation as well as to other methodological difficulties which will subsequently be discussed in detail. Hypothesis 3 which postulated that early father-absent boys would have significantly lower mean masculinity of sex- role orientation score than late father-absent boys received marginal support from the Franck, but was not supported by the Adjective Check List. As with Hypothesis 2, the failure of the current research to more strongly replicate this find- ing which has received considerable support in the literature (Heatherington, 1966; Biller and Bahm, 1971) is very likely related to methodological problems. A number of studies have demonstrated that early father- absent boys are consistently less masculine than father- present boys, but these differences have not been found in comparing late father-absent boys with father-present boys. Biller and Bahm (1971), in a study of junior high school boys, found that those who became father-absent before age five were less masculine on an adjective check list measure of mascu- linity of self-concept than father-present subjects. This 56 finding is replicated with the Franck in the present study, for early father-absent subjects differed significantly (See Table 10) from father-present subjects while the mean score for the late father-absent group was not significantly dif- ferent from that of father-present subjects. It was predicted in Hypothesis 4 that a significant num- ber more father-absent subjects than father-present subjects would show the alleged "typically feminine" pattern of cogni- tive functioning (verbal higher than math) than father-present subjects. This hypothesis was not confirmed. In fact, more father-present subjects showed this pattern than father- absent subjects. Since Carlesmith (1964) reported that this pattern was especially related to early, long separations from the father, the data were analyzed further to determine whether early father-absent subjects showed this pattern significantly more than late father-absent subjects. Table 11 shows that this pattern was seen more in early father-absent subjects than in late father-absent subjects, but the difference is not statistically significant. 'Similarly, there was no sta- tistically significant difference between the frequency of this pattern with early or late father-absent subjects as compared to father-present subjects. An examination of mean Quantitative and Verbal scores (Table 12) reveals that father-absent subjects generally scored higher (though not statistically significant) than father-present subjects. Late father-absent subjects received the highest scores on both the Verbal and Quantitative measures, 57 differing significantly in math from the early father-absent and father-present subjects. It is not clear why the late father-absent group surpassed the other groups. One possi- bility to be considered is that it is related to the selection procedure in which many father-absent subjects were recruited through an advertisement in the university newspaper. In some respects, this may be less of a random selection than with the father-present subjects who were obtained through the human subject pool. However, the fact that approximately an equal number of early father-absent subjects were recruited through the advertisement argues against this possibility since early father-absent subjects scored considerably lower than late father-absent subjects. Additional Findings The statistically significant difference in the Semantic- Differential ratings of men by mothers of father-absent sub- jects as compared to those of father-present subjects was an interesting additional finding of the present research. Women whose husbands had been absent due to divorce or separation rated men significantly lower than women who had not experi- enced such a separation. The ratings of the women who had been divorced or separated ranged from -24 to 60 with a mean of 20.9 while the ratings of women who had not been divorced or separated ranged from 5 to 72 with a mean of 37.8. A question to consider is whether the divorced or separated women's lower ratings of men reflect an attitude that developed 58 as a result of the divorce or separation (an effect of the divorce) or whether, in fact, it was their original attitude which may have contributed to the marital difficulty that led to the divorce (a cause of the divorce). In addition to the finding that mothers of father-absent subjects differed significantly from mothers of father-present subjects in their ratings of men, it was also found that among the mothers of father-absent subjects, those who had remarried rated men considerably lQEEE than those who had not remarried. In at least two cases, multiple marriages were reported for the mothers. Although the writer had previously assumed that women who remarried would feel more positively toward men, it seems reasonable that women who had not remarried and thus had not had their negative views of men continuously reinforced, would be likely to feel more positively toward men. An im- portant factor for which we do not have data is an under- standing of why these mothers have remained unmarried. Is it for religious or ethical reasons? Do they think it's best for the children? Has the opportunity for marriage been avail- able to them? Thus, the failure to remarry may be related to a number of variables other than attitudes toward men. One could speculate that those who did remarry may have con- sciously chosen "losers" who would reinforce their negative feelings about men. Another interesting finding of the present study is that among college students, father-absent subjects do not appear to be intellectually impaired by the lack of a paternal figure. 59 Father-absent subjects achieved higher mean verbal and quanti- tative aptitude scores on the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability than did father-present subjects. This is contradic- tory to the findings of a number of investigators (Sutherland, 1930; Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg, and Landy, 1968) that the father-absent child suffers intellectual deficits. Sutherland (1930), in a study of Scottish children, found that father- absent subjects scored significantly lower on an intelligence test than father-present subjects. Maxwell (1961), using a group of 8 to 13 year old children referred to a British psychiatric clinic, found that those children whose fathers had been absent since age five performed below their age norms on a number of tests. The deficits seen in these chil- dren were in the areas of social knowledge, perception of details, and verbal skills. It is interesting to note that children who became father-absent before age 5 did not differ significantly from the age norms. In contrast, Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg, and Landy (1968) found that males who became father- absent early in life were more likely to have lower college aptitude scores than father-present males. An Unrelated, Incidental Finding A finding which is not directly related to the problem addressed in the study is the Adjective Check List change in women's self-descriptions since 1955 (See Appendix B for Adjectives which discriminated women in 1955). When Berdie 60 (1959) developed the Check List, 46 adjectives were checked significantly more by women whereas in the present sample only 13 were checked significantly more by women. Among the adjectives which no longer discriminate men and women are self-hatred ones such as obnoxious, selfish, implusive, ner- vous, shallow, shy, thoughtless, and worried. It is inter- esting to note that neither "dependent" nor "aggressive" were among the current adjectives that discriminated males and fe- males. With females, "dependent" has been replaced by "de- termined." Whereas 15 adjectives were endorsed significantly more by men in 1955, in the current data, 20 are endorsed significantly more by men. The additional ones include clever, distrustful, logical, rational, unaffected, and unemotional, all of which are compatible with those which were endorsed significantly more by males in 1955 and again in l974--athletic, foresighted, masculine, rough, shrewd, suspicious, tough, and Virile. Thus, the self-descriptions of men did not change significantly. Theory and Design It was the theoretical assumption of this study that boys learn to be masculine by identifying with their fathers. Thus, the father-son relationship was seen as critical in masculine development, and it was assumed that a boy whose father was absent for a prolonged period during childhood would not be as masculine as a boy whose father was present. 61 Since there was some marginal support of the hypothesis re- lated to the disrupted masculine development of father-absent subjects, it is felt that the theoretical base is valid. How- ever, because the support is marginal, an examination of theory is indicated. It appears that the difficulty with the theory lies not with its general premise (and thus does not need com- plete revision) but with the fact that it is too broad in as- suming that father-absent boys would naturally be less mascu- line than father-present boys without delineating other vari- ables that might effect masculine development. There is evi- dence that father presence alone does not insure that a boy will develop a masculine concept and that father—absence per se does not necessarily mean that a boy will develop an inadequate masculine self-concept. The following are empirical data and a theoretical explanation which may account for the failure of the current data to more strongly support the predictions. Biller (1971a) identified several characteristics of fathers that are conducive to the development of a positive masculine self-concept in their sons including paternal mascu- linity, paternal nurturance, paternal limit-setting, and pa- ternal power. Biller (1968a) found the quality of the father- son relationship to be more important than the amount of time the father spends at home. A number of studies (Hartup, 1962; Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) suggest that the degree to which the father exhibits masculine behaviors is a critical factor in the father-present boy's masculine development. Bronfenbrenner 62 (1958) found that adolescent boys who were low in masculinity came from homes where the father assumed a traditionally feminine role. Kagan (1958) found that over 40 percent of boys rated low in aggression by their teachers, as compared to only about 10 percent of those rated high in aggression, viewed their mothers as being the "boss at home." A warm, nurturant father appears to be able to facili- tate his son's masculine development. Pauline Sears (1953) found that boys who assumed the father role in doll play ac- tivities tended to have warm, affectionate fathers. Mussen (1961) found that adolescent boys with masculine interests on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, described their fathers as more nurturant and positive than did boys with unmasculine interests. Several researchers have presented findings which suggest that paternal limit setting is related to masculine develop- ment. Altucher (1957) found that more high masculine adoles- cent boys as compared to low masculinity ones, said their fathers set limits for them. Similar results with male college students were reported by Moulton et a1. (1966), however, there have been some contradictory findings regarding paternal limit setting. Mussen and Distler (1959) found that kindergarten boys who showed highly masculine projective sex-role behavior perceived their fathers as more punitive than did boys who were low in masculinity. A similar trend was reported by Mussen and Rutherford (1963) with first grade boys. In each 63 of these studies, however, perceiving the father as nurturant was related to high masculinity. Perceiving the father as powerful appears to be a factor contributing to masculine development. Mussen and Distler (1959) found that boys*whoseprojective sex-role play was highly masculine perceived their fathers as more "powerful" than did boys who were low in masculinity. These data suggest that a number of factors are involved in masculine development, which if taken separately, would not insure that a boy would become masculine. What seems to be critical is a warm relationship with a masculine father. Boys whose fathers are passive, ineffectual, or punitive will be less masculine than boys whose fathers are nurturant and play a decisive role in the family. Therefore, the theoreti- cal assumption that father-present subjects will be more mascu- line than father-absent subjects is questionable to the ex- tent that it fails to account for variables described above which can affect the masculine development of the father- present subject and other variables (See Review of Literature) which affect the masculine development of father-absent sub— jects. The present research design is deficient to the ex- tent that it failed to take into account some of these criti- cal variables. 64 Measurement Techniques Measurement of Maternal Attitude The Semantic—Differential is a flexible instrument which has much support as a measuring device (Osgood et al., 1957). ‘In the present study which used all adjectives with a high loading on the Evaluative factor, there may have been a ten- dency for subjects to respond in the socially desirable di— rection. However, the fact that there was a wide range in the scores with mothers of father-absent subjects differing significantly from mothers of father—present subjects in their ratings suggests that there was variability in the pat- terns of response and argues against the reasoning that the results were significantly influenced by "social desirability." A limitation of the present design in which only maternal attitudes was measured in the absence of a behavioral refer- ence point with which to compare subjects. Does the fact that a mother rates men positively necessarily mean that she presents men positively to her son or reinforce his masculine strivings for independence, assertiveness, and mastery? The attitudinal information would be much more meaningful if we had time-samples of the mother's actual interaction with her son in a natural setting or in a structured setting where the interaction would focus around men in general or around the father. 65 Measurement of Masculinity of Sex-Role Orientation The masculinity of sex-role orientation scores obtained from the Adjective Check List and the Franck Drawing Comple- tion Test played a major role in the failure of the current research to more strongly replicate findings that have been previously obtained. In evaluating the results, there are two possible approaches to understanding the negative find- ings and the marginal nature of the positive findings. First, it can be assumed that the instruments are invalid measures of sex-role orientation that were not significantly discrimina- tive to test these hypotheses. Second, it can be assumed that. the instruments are valid measures, but the theoretical basis is questionable. Father presence may no longer be as im— portant as it once was. The first option is to assume that the measures are in— valid. This is a tenable interpretation in light of the low, statistically insignificant correlation between the instru- ments and, in some cases, the contradictory information ob- tained from the two measures. For example, with the Adjec- tive Check List there was no correlation between maternal attitude and the masculinity of father-present subjects while with the Franck there was a marginally significant positive relationship. Another argument for the invalidity of the Adjective Check List is the fact that regardless of which norms were used, the results were insignificant and inconsistent. The 66 only marginally significant result obtained from the Adjective Check List was the negative correlation with maternal attitude. Also, that was the only point at which it was consistent with the Franck. In all of the other analyses, the Adjective Check List failed to discriminate control and experimental groups. The Franck Drawing Completion Test appears to be slightly more valid than the Adjective Check List in that it gave mar- ginal support to predictions regarding differences between father-absent and father-present subjects and between early father-absent subjects and late father-absent subjects. How- ever, this support in both cases was not substantial enough to warrant certainty of its validity. The second alternative interpretation of the fact that the results did not confirm some of the predictions is that the measures are valid. The failure to replicate previous findings more strongly may be due to the fact that childbear- ing and socialization practices have changed considerably since many of the studies regarding the differences in mascu— linity of father-present and father-absent subjects were done. Now, other socializing agents have a much greater impact upon personality development including mass media-~especially television. Previously, parents, especially the mother, as- sumed the major responsibility for the socialization of the child, however, that pattern has begun to change with school and other social institutions participating much more in the socialization of the child as increasingly both parents be- come involved in the work force. 67 In addition to possible differences in socialization practices that might have contributed to the present results, the theoretical limitations discussed previously are applica- ble. Father presence itself may no longer be a critical vari- able in masculine development. What is critical is the na- ture of the father's interaction with his son. A strict, warm, masculine father appears to be able to facilitate masculine development. In the United States, most boys are father- absent to the extent that most fathers are away from home a substantial amount of the day due to their work, and many, when not at work, interact minimally with their children. Thus, the lack of availability of the father of father-present subjects could also be a contributing factor to the marginal differences in masculinity of the two groups evidenced in the current results. Subject Variables There is a strong possibility that subject variables, not controlled or accounted for, affected the data so that predictions were not confirmed. On the Henmon-Nelson, es— pecially, variations in motivation and test-taking attitudes may have contributed to the failure to confirm the hypothesis related to differences in cognitive styles of father—absent and father-present subjects. Although an attempt was made to match subjects on a number of crucial variables that have been found to affect the masculinity of father-absent and 68 father-present subjects including age, race, grade, intelli- gence, sibling distribution, and socio-economic status, there were undoubtedly some imperfect matchings due to the limited pool from which choices could be made. There were also some other critical variables which were not controlled. The availability of father surrogates was a variable not controlled in the present study. The criterion upon which father absence was based was that the father had to be out of the home for at least two years before the subject was age 12 with no other adult male living in the home. A brother, uncle, grandfather, teacher, male neighbor, or scout leader may pro- vide a masculine model for a father-absent boy. Nash (1965) found that masculinity was related to the general amount of contact boys have with adult males. Santrock (1970), in interviewing mothers, found that father-absent boys who had a father-substitute were less dependent than father-absent boys with no father-substitute. The results of the present study indicate that father-absent boys with older brothers were more masculine than those without older brothers. This finding has been previously obtained by a number of investi- gators (Santrock, 1970; Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg, and Landy, 1968). Biller (1968a) found, however, that while the presence of a male sibling may lessen the effects of father absence, it does not completely compensate for the lack of a father with respect to the boy's masculine development. The present findings show that boys with stepfathers, in contrast to what might have been predicted, have lower mean masculinity scores 69 than boys with stepfathers. This lower masculinity score for boys with stepfathers may be related to the fact that, in some cases, stepfathers are rejecting of their stepsons, and, even if the stepfather is accepting, the son may reject him, resenting his relationship with the mother. Another important variable that influences sex role development which was not controlled in the present study is the subject's peer group interaction. Biller (1971a) main- tains, "The masculine role model provided by the peer group can be particularly influential for the paternally deprived boy" (p. 17). In lower class neighborhoods, peer modeling seems to be especially significant. Adolescent gangs provide the lower class father-absent boy with substitute masculine models (Miller, 1958). A final limitation of the present sample relates to the failure to assess father availability of the father-present subjects. Father—present subjects whose had low available fathers would not be expected to differ significantly in terms of masculinity than father-absent subjects. In the present study, all that is really known about the father-present sub- jects in terms of family interaction is that the parents are married to each other and living together. We know nothing of the nature of the interaction of the parents with each other or with the child. It would have also been helpful to have known what the father-absent subjects relationship with their fathers had been prior to his departure or what their 70 subsequent relationships with stepfathers or the mother's boyfriends had been.‘ Suggestions for Future Research The hypothesized relationship between maternal attitude toward men and the sex-role development of father-absent (and father-present) males needs further investigation. Because ofthe marginal nature of the negative relationship found in the present study, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions. Instead of focusing on attitudes, it might be productive if future research would attempt to secure a more meaningful sample of maternal behavior and to determine the kinds of maternal behavior and the aspects of the mother-son relation- ship which affect the sex-role develOpment of the father- absent son (Biller, 1971a). Considerable knowledge had been derived from attitude investigations, however, attitudes re- main difficult to measure. Part of this difficulty is re- lated to the multi-level nature of attitudes and the tendency of some respondents to deny their attitudes or to answer in the socially desirable directions. Thus, information obtained from questionnaires may be inaccurate appraisals of the re- spondents' thinking, but even if it is a fairly accurate assessment, it may not reflect their behavior. For example, in the present study, it does not necessarily follow that women who rate men positively value masculinity and present men positively to their sons. Projective play situations in 71 which the mother and the son interact around a doll family stimulus or having the mother respond to thematic materials aimed at eliciting feelings about the father or men in general may be possible ways of assessing the mother's evaluation of men. Such techniques may be used in conjunction with other attitudinal measures as the Semantic Differential. One of the strongest criticisms of father-absence studies (Biller, 1971a) is the tendency to treat father-absent and father-present children as if they were a homogeneous group. Future studies should carefully match subjects on such varia- bles as sociocultural background, intelligence, and on the quality of the mother-son relationship. As indicated previous- ly, in the present study, little is known about the mother-son interactions of either the father-absent or father-present group. With the father-present subjects, information about the nature of the father-son relationship is critical as well as information about the relationship between the parents. Future studies should attempt to identify father-present sub- jects who are from homes where the father is warm and nurturant, masculine, and a salient figure in the family. The impact of father surrogates and peer group inter- actions are fruitful areas of further research. These are variables which have been found to affect masculine develop- ment and should be-controlled in matching father—absent and father-present subjects. Additional research comparing the masculine development of father-absent boys with father- 72 present boys from low father availability and high father availability families is an area of potentially productive research. S UMMARY The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effect of the mothers' attitudes toward men upon the mascu- line development of young adult males whose fathers had been absent during part of their childhood. The underlying theo- retical position of the study is that the male child learns to be masculine through identifying with his father. It is further assumed that the masculine development of the child depends upon the presence of the father in the family. The following four hypotheses were formulated: (1) At- titudes of mothers of father—absent subjects toward men are positively related to the masculinity of sex-rOle orientation of their sons; (2) father-absent subjects have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than father-present subjects; (3) subjects who became father-absent during the period from birth to their fifth birthday have a significantly lower mean masculinity of sex-role orientation score than subjects who became father-absent after their fifth birthday, and (4) a significantly greater number of father- absent subjects as compared to father-present show the typi- cally feminine pattern of intellectual functioning (verbal score higher than mathematical score). Subjects of the study were 60 male undergraduate students at Michigan State University. Thirty of the subjects were 73 74 from homes where the father had been consistently present, and thirty were from homes where the father had been absent due to divorce or separation for at least two years before the subject reached age 12. These groups were matched with respect to age, socio-economic status, number of siblings, race, and grade point average. A list of Semantic-Differential rating scales consisting of 24 items with a high loading on the Evaluative Factor were used to assess mothers' attitudes toward men. The measures of masculinity of sex—role orientation included the Franck Drawing Completion Test, a projective technique in which the subject is asked to complete 36 drawings, and an adapted ver- sion of the Berdie Femininity Adjective Check List. The Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability was used to test intel- 1ectua1 functioning. A pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to analyze statistically the relation- ship between maternal attitude and masculinity while t tests were used to compare masculinity scores of father—present with father-absent subjects and early father-absent subjects with late father-absent subjects. The Chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of occurrence in each group of the masculine and feminine patterns of intellectual function- ing. The first hypothesis of the study that positive maternal attitudes toward men would relate positively to masculine development of father-absent sons was not supported. In fact, 75 there was a trend in the opposite direction. With the Franck Drawing Completion Test, marginal support was found for the hypotheses related to differences in masculinity of father— present and father-absent subjects and early father-absent and late father-absent subjects. There was strong replica- tion of previously published findings that early father- absent subjects differ significantly with respect to mascu- linity from father-present subjects while late father-absent subjects do not. The Adjective Check List did not discrimi- nate between the father-present and father-absent groups. The prediction that more father-absent subjects would show the typically feminine pattern of intellectual functioning was not supported. Additional findings include the following: (1) Mothers of father-absent subjects rated men significantly lower than did mothers of father-present subjects, and (2) Father-absent subjects did not appear to be intellectually impaired by the absence of a father. Late father-absent subjects achieved significantly greater verbal and mathematical aptitude scores than did father-present and early father-absent subjects while early father-absent and father-present subjects demonstrated almost equal achievement in these areas. With respect to father-absent subjects, it was found that the presence of an older brother was related to increased masculinity, but the presence of a stepfather functioned in the opposite direction. It was concluded that the failure of the present study to 76 more strongly replicate previous findings may be related to problems of theory and instrumentation. Implications of the findings were discussed and suggestions for future research made. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FAMILY BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE FAMILY BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions: The following information will be used as a means of deter- mining which persons meet the criteria for inclusion in the study and of separating participants into similar groupings. All of the information you provide on this questionnaire will be held confidential and in publishing the data, only numbers and per- centages will be used with your anonymity being preserved. At the end of the questionnaire you will be asked to list your mother's name and address so that we may send her the same rating scales on "men" and "women" that you have been asked to fill out. You will also find attached to this questionnaire a copy of the cover letter that will accompany the forms that will be sent to your mother. If you have questions about this pro- cedure, please feel free to discuss them with the experimenter. Please answer all questions that apply. Thank you very much for your cooperation. 1. Name 2. Age__ 3. Date of Birth 4.1flaoecfifBfldil __jfi Stabs Omruxy 5. Have you ever lived.outside U.S.A.? ______ How long? Tamrageiien 6.)&ar:h1Cbkamnl__}he§h.___3kmh.____Jun.___J&afior____Gnmhmme ‘L.Gnmk:Pohn:Amamge 8.1%mififl.sumxm:____Shrfle___Janiad___JfiNonxflM&qn ____Wmimed 9.1mpecn'Edmdc(hnup: vufite _____Chkmmo Bunk: _____}merflxu1Indflm1 ___Oriental ___Other (Eicplain) 77 78 Family Background Questionnaire -2 10. NBrital Status of Parents: Mather (Check all that apply) Divorced or Separated Married to‘ your father Remarried (year remarried ) Widowed (year husband died ) Single (never married) Other (Explain) Father (Check all that apply) Divorced or Separated Married to your mother Remarried (year remarried 1 ) Widowed (year wife died ) Single (never Married) Other (Explain) 11. If parents are divorced or separated answer the following. (If parents are not divorced or separated, go on to item 12) . A. B. How old were you when your parents became divorced or separated? With which parent did you live following the divorce or separation? nother father How often did you have contact with the other parent (parent with whan you did not live) following the divorce or separation? daily every 6 mnths once a year other (Bcplajn) weekly nonthly every 3 nonths If either nother and/or father are remarried, how old were )2; when remarriage occurred? mther : Your Age Father: Your Age 79 Family Background Questionnaire—3 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. Father's Occupation (Please be specific) Mother's Occupation Father's Education— (Mark last grade completed) 4-8 9-11 Completed High School Sone College ___Bachelors degree __Some Graduate Work ___Masters degree ___Doctorate degree Mother ' 3 Education— (Mark last grade conpleted) ___4-8 __9-11 ___Completed High School ___Sone College ___Bachelors degree ___Some Graduate Work ___Masters degree ___—Doctorate degree Sex and ages of your brothers and sisters: (oldest to youngest) 1. Sex M F Age 2 . Sex M F Age 3. Sex M F Age 4. Sex M F Age 5 . Sex M F Age 6. Sex M F Age 7. Sex ___M F Age (If you need additional space, please use back of this page) If your parents are married to each other, please answer the following questions. II) NOI' ANSWER IF YOUR PARENTS ARE DIVOKIED OR SEPARATED. A. Wasyomfatherinthehoneallthetime(exceptforshort trips away for no sore than two weeks at a tine for vacation or business purposes) when you were growing up? ___yes no__ Pleaseexplainifyouranswertotheaboveism. 80 Family Background Questionnaire--4 17. B. If your father was not in the home consistently, how old were you when he left hone? . ' Age C. How much contact did you have with your father after he left hare? ___daily weekly ___Ironthly ___every 3 nonths every 6 months ___once a year ___other (Explain) 18. thher's name and address (so we can forward rating form to her) Name Address street City State Zip APPENDIX B RESPONSES OF MALES AND FEMALES TO FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST-- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY-~1974 RESPONSES OF MALES AND FEMALES TO FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY-~1974 MALES FEMALES ADJECTIVE n=l30 n=160 Chi Square 1. Active 100 108 3.14 2. Aggressive 44 42 0.98 3. Alert 81 94 0.38 4. Affectionate 87 135 12.17* 5. Ambitious 76 92 0.03 6. Anxious 59 87 2.32 7. Argumentative 43 58 0.32 8. Appreciative 105 121 1.10 9. Artistic 36 60 3.12 10. Assertive 36 41 0.16 11. Athletic 77 52 20.75* 12. Autocratic 18 15 1.42 13. Boisterous 19 23 0.003 14. Bold 23 23 0.59 15. Calm 76 80 2.42 16. Capable 104 127 0.02 17. Cautious 90 111 0.0007 18. Charming 38 53 .50 19. Cheerful 71 106 4.08*** 20. Civilized 90 111 0.0007 21. Clear-thinking 83 89 2.008 22. Clever 66 54 8.56* 23. Coarse 9 5 2.25 24. Cold 17 11 3.16 25. Commonplace 18 15 1.42 26. Complicated 68 89 0.32 27. Confident 69 67 3.61 28. Conscientious 83 111 0.99 29. Conservative 46 71 2.41 30. Considerate 96 133 3.72 31. Contented 45 62 0.53 32. Conventional 21 31 0.51 33. Cool 30 35 0.06 34. Courageous 32 31 a 1.16 35. Cruel 7 6 0.45 36. Curious 87 125 4.58*** 37. Demanding 50 61 0.0034 38. Dependent 32 54 2.87 39. Determined 67 110 8.93* 40. Distrustful 35 20 9.71* 81 RESPONSES OF MALES AND FEMALES TO FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY--1974 (cont'd) ADJECTIVE 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. Dominant Dreamy Effeminate Emotional Enterprising Fair-Minded Feminine Flirtatious Forceful Foresighted Fussy Gentle Graceful Gracious Greedy Hasty Helpful Hostile Humorous Imaginative Impatient Impulsive Independent Industrious Initiative Insightful Intelligent Interests-Narrow Interests-Wide Intolerant Jolly Kind Leisurely Logical Luxury-loving Mannerly Masculine Mature Methodical Mild Moderate Modest Nervous Noisy Obnoxious MALES FEMALES n=130 n=160 30 34 47 71 3 8 61 111 41 28 83 109 2 117 24 55 24 23 59 45 32 55 115 84 17 51 35 72 14 15 23 25 93 128 7 6 86 89 86 90 53 83 49 65 85 103 52 53 49 48 65 59 98 129 18 14 93 129 9 11 32 41 98 117 70 78 100 92 63 62 59 79 90 l 103 120 43 33 44 41 56 52 55 68 53 73 10 8 4 6 Chi Square 0.14 2.01 1.42 14.98* 7.80* 0.59 151.91* 9.16* 0.88 9.29* 3.25 43.08* 14.12* 10.07* 0.15 0.22 2.83 0.37 3.32 2.95 3.55 0.26 0.03 1.47 1.91 5.05* 1.16 1.77 3.30 0.0002 0.04 0.19 0.74 12.09* 2.76 0.46 156.78* 0.72 5.75** 2.34 3.43 0.0010 0.69 0.90 0.10 RESPONSES OF MALES AND FEMALES TO FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY-~1974 (cont'd) ADJECTIVE 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. Organized Outgoing Out-of—doors Outspoken Painstaking Patient Peaceable Persevering Planful Precise Progressive Rational Reckless Refined Resentful Reserved Restless Robust Rough Rude Self-centered Self-controlled Selfish Sensitive Sentimental Serious Shallow Sharp-witted Shrewd Shy Simple Sincere Slow Soft-hearted Spontaneous Steady Stolid Straight-forward Strong Submissive Suspicious Sympathetic Tactful Temperamental MALES FEMALES n=130 n=l60 58 88 51 66 74 81 35 41 14 17 64 74 86 89 45 54 37 60 38 49 57 71 102 103 13 6 31 36 16 31 56 69 46 61 24 17 20 6 7 5 33 34 84 82 18 28 87 139 69 119 94 106 2 3 40 30 27 11 59 63 29 49 100 133 16 21 68 98 48 68 43 54 9 7 80 73 54 56 13 33 50 39 85 118 61 65 40 50 Chi Square 3.09 0.12 1.14 0.06 0.0015 0.26 3.32 0.02 2.63 0.07 0.01 6.87* 4.58*** 0.07 2.64 0.00 0.23 3.63 11.89* 0.92 0.70 5.23*** 0.71 16.60* 14.27* 1.23 0.05 5.66** 7.64* 1.06 2.52 1.74 0.04 2.34 0.93 0.01 0.89 7.29* 1.30 6.07** 6.69* 2.39 1.16 0.01 RESPONSES OF MALES AND FEMALES TO FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY--l974 (cont'd) ADJECTIVE 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. Tense Thorough Thoughtful Thoughtless Timid Tolerant Tough Trusting Unaffected Unambitious Understanding Unemotional Unkind Versatile Vigorous Virile Warm Weak Worried *p<.01 **p<.02 ***p< . 05 MALES FEMALES n=130 n=160 36 46 86 3 19 80 21 74 16 7 91 17 3 73 44 44 79 4 41 48 45 122 7 26 92 9 89 9 10 120 6 4 80 40 3 113 12 59 Chi Square 0.18 1.75 3.60 0.92 0.15 0.48 8.57* 0.05 4.05*** 0.03 0.90 7.42* 0.01 1.09 2.73 53.98* 3.11 2.69 0.90 APPENDIX C FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 1955 FEMININITY ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 1955 Feminine Adjectives Masculine Adjectives Affectionate Appreciative. Artistic Charming Cheerful Complicated Curious Dependent Dreamy Effeminate Emotional Feminine Flirtatious Graceful Gracious Humorous Implusive Kind Mannerly Modest Nervous Obnoxious Outgoing Outspoken Refined Restless Selfish Sensitive Sentimental Serious Shallow Shy Sincere Slow Soft-Hearted Spontaneous Submissive Sympathetic Temperamental Thoughtless Tolerant Trusting 'Unaffected Understanding Warm WOrried 8S Aggressive Athletic Calm Cautious Cool Foresighted Interests Wide Masculine Wild Out-of—Doors Rough Shrewd Suspicious Tough Virile APPENDIX D LETTER TO MOTHERS Department of Psychology Olds Hall, Room 109 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear Parent: Your son has agreed to participate in a research project for his psychology course in which we are studying the atti- tudes of sons and their mothers towards men and women. Your son has read this letter and is aware that it is being sent to you. We are hopeful that you will be willing to assist us in this project by completing the enclosed rating forms. In all likelihood, you will be able to complete the forms in five minutes or less. Please read the instructions carefully before you respond to the forms. After you have completed them, please enclose both pages in the enclosed, stamped, self-addressed envelope and return immediately. We would like to have all of the forms returned before the end of the term. It is not neces- sary for you to sign your response as we are interested’only in categorizing responses by numbers and percentages. The in- formation you provide will be held confidential. Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you have questions about the project, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Hugh E. Jones, M.A. Doctoral Candidate Department of Psychology A. I. Rabin, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology 86 APPENDIX E DIRECTIONS FOR SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL DIRECTICNS FOR SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL DIRECTIONS The purpose of this study is to secure your impressions about men and women in general by having you judge them against a series of descriptive scales. In responding to the scale, please make your judgments on the basis of what these things mean to yg_. You are to rate these concepts on each of these scales in order. Here is how you are to use these scales: If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check mark as follows: Fair X . . - ___ ___. ___' .———' Unfair Fair : : : : : : x : Unfair If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check-mark as follows: Fair : x : : : : : : Unfair Fair : : : : : : : Unfair If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as op- posed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should check as follows: Fair : : x : : : : : Unfair Fair : :- : : x : : : Unfair If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the concept, or if the scale is completely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place your check mark in the middle space: Fair : : : x : : : : Unfair Please remember to (1) be sure to check every scale for each concept. (2) never put more than one check mark on a single scale. 87 88 DIRECTIONSFOR SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL (continued) Although some items may be similar, they are all different. Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Work at fairly high speed throughout this test. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impression which is important here. ~ Thank you very much for your c00peration. Please Note. Although the middle space indicates that both sides are equally characteristic of a concept or that the scale is irrelevant, you are requested not to use it unless absolutely necessary. APPENDIX F SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL RATING SCALE Please rate Sociable Unselfish Bad Strong Cruel Grateful Quarrelsome Perfect Dirty Graceful Ugly . Radiant Painful Successful Low HaPPY Meaningful Worthless Progressive Dishonest Positive Disreputable Believing Foolish SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL RATING SCALE Men Unsociable Selfish Good Weak Kind Ungrateful Congenial Imperfect Clean Awkward Beautiful Shaded Pleasurable Unsuccessful High Sad Meaningless Valuable Regressive Honest Negative Reputable Skeptical Wise APPENDIX G ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT WANTED for PSYCHOLOGY STUDY Male students who lived with mothers alone at least 2 years before age 12 following a divorce or separation. Please come to Olds Hall 203 -- Wednesday, October 23 at 6 or 7:30 p.m. or call Hugh Jones, 882-5806 to arrange for 1-1/4 hour testing session. Par- ticipants will be paid $3.00. 90 APPENDIX H INFORMATION REGARDING STUDY and INFORMED CONSENT INFORMATION REGARDING STUDY The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of various kinds of family backgrounds and parental attitudes upon personality development. One of the specific variables we will be examining is attitudes towards men and women. Since we consider your participation in the study as a learn- ing experience for you, the following provisions have been made for you to obtain feedback about the study: (1) A meet- ing will be held toward the end of Spring quarter to let you know where I am in regards to the study. Since I do not ex- pect to complete analyzation of the data prior to the end of the term, the information you will receive at this meeting will be necessarily somewhat inconclusive, therefore, a second provision has been made. (2) When the data analyses is com- plete, written feedback will be made available for those re- questing it. If you would like written feedback, please write your name and the address where you can be contacted late summer or early fall, 1975, in the space provided below. Name Address Number Street City State Zip Family Attitudes Study Student Number INFORMED CONSENT I, , have been presented (your name, PRINT) with adequate information about my participation in this re- search, and in light of this information, I am freely volun- teering to participate. I understand that the confidentiality of information I provide will be protected and that my anonymity as a participant will be preserved in any presentation or publi- cation of this research. I further understand that a cover letter and rating forms which I have examined may be mailed to my mother or my maternal surrogate. Date Signature 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Altucher, N. "Conflict in Sex Identification in Boys." Un- published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1957. ‘ Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing (3rd ed.). London: MacMillan, 1968. Bach, G. R. "Father-Fantasies and Father-Typing in Father- Separated Children," Child Development, 1946, 17, 63-80. Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H. Social Learning_and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, Barclay, A. G. & Cusmano, D. "Father-Absence, Cross, Sex Identity, and Field Dependent Behavior in Male Adolescents." Child Development, 1967, 38, 243-250 Berdie, R. F. "A Femininity Adjective Check List," Journal of Applied PsychologY, 1959, 43, 327-333. Biller, H. B. "A Multiaspect Investigation of Masculine Devel- opment in Kindergarten age Boys." Genetic Psychology Biller, H. B. "A Note on Father Absence and Masculine Devel- opment in Young Lower-Class Negro and White Boys." Child Development, 1968, 39, 1003-1006. (b) ’ Biller, H. B. "Father Absence, Maternal Encouragement and Sex Role Development in Kindergarten Age Boys," Child Development, 1969, 40, 539-546. (a) Biller, H. B. "Father Dominance and Sex-Role Development in Kindergarten-Age Boys," Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 87-94. (h) Biller, H. B. ”Father Absence and the Personality Develop- ment of the Male Child," Developmental Psychology: 1970, 2, 181-201. Biller, H. B. Father, Child, and Sex Role, Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 1971. (a) 92 93 Biller, H. B. "The Mother-Child Relationship and the Father Absent Boy's Personality Development," Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1971, 17, 227-241. (b) Biller, H. B. and Bahm, R. "Father Absence, Perceived Maternal Behavior, and Masculinity of Self-Concept among Junior High School Boys," Developmental Psychology: 1971, 4, 178-181. Biller, H. B. and Borstelmann, L. J. "Masculine Development: An Integrative Review," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 253-294. Block, J. The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield, I11.: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Brim, O. G. "Family Structure and Sex-Role Learning by Children: A Further Analysis of Helen Koch's Data," SQQIQESLIY: 1958. 21: 1‘15- Bronfenbrenner, U. "Freudian Theories of Identification and Their Derivatives." Child Development, 1960, 31, 15-40. Bronfenbrenner, U. The Study of Identification Through Inter- personal Perception." In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.) Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958, 110-130. Brown, D. G. "Sex-Role Preference in Young Children." Psychological Monograph, 1956, 70, No. 14 (Whole No. 421). Burton, R. V. and Whiting, J. W. M. "The Absent Father and Cross-Sex Identity," Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 7, 85-95. Carlsmith, L. "Effects of Early Father-Absence on Scholastic Aptitude,” Harvard Educational Review, 1964, 34, 3-21. Cooley, T. "The Nature and Origin of Psychological Sexual Identity," Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 165-177. Cottrell, L. S. ”The Adjustment of the Individual to his Age and Sex Roles,: American Sociology Review, 1942, 7, 617-620. Dai, B. ”Some Problems of Personality Development among Negro Children." In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. New York: Knopf, 1953. Diamond, S. Personality and Temperament. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. 94 Domini, G. P. "An Evaluation of Sex-Role Identification among Father-Absent and Father-Present Boys," PsychologY: 1967, 4, 13-16. Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945. Freud, S. "Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes." In Collected Papers, Vol. V. London, Hogarth Press, 1950, 186-197. Freud, 8. "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego." In J. Strachey (Ed.), The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud Vol. I. London, Hogarth Press, 1955, Gorer, G. The American People: A Study of National Character. New York: Norton, 1948. Gough, H. G. Reference Handbook for the Gough Adjective Checklist.Berke1ey: University of California, Inst. of Personality Assessment Research, 1955. Gough, H. G. The Adjective Check List. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1952. Greenstein, J. M. "Father Characteristics and Sex-Typing," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 271-277. Grunebaum, M. G., Hurwitz, I., Prentice, N. M., and Sperry, B. M. "Fathers of Sons with Primary Neurotic Learning Inhibition," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1962, 32, 462-463. Hampson, J. L. "Determinants of Psychosexual Orientation." In F. A. Beach (Ed.), Sex and Behavior, New York: Wiley, 1965. Hartrup, W. W. "Some Correlates of Parental Imitation in Young Children." Child Development, 1962, 33, 85-96. Helper, M. M. "Learning Theory and the Self-Concept," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 184-194. Hetherington, E. M. "Effects of Paternal Absence on Sex- Typed Behaviors in Negro and White Pre-adolescent Males," Journal of Personality and Social Psychologx. 1966, 4, 87-91 0 Herzog, E. and Sudia, C. E. Boys in Fatherless Families. Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Development, Children's Bureau, 1970. 9S Hilgard, J. R., Neuman, M. F., & Fisk, F. "Strength of Adult Ego FollOwing Bereavement," American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 1960, 30, 788-198. Itkin, W. "Some Relationships between Intra-Family Attitudes and Preparental Attitudes Toward Children," Journal of Genetic Psychology: 1952, 80, 221-252. Jenkin, N. & Vroegh, K. "Contemporary Concepts of Masculinity and Femininity," Institute for Juvenile Research Reports, 1964, 1, No. 5. Kagan, J. "The Concept of Identification. Psychological Kagan, J. "Acquisition and Significance of Sex Typing and Sex-Role Identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.) Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, 137-167. Kardiner, A., & Ovesey, L. The Mark of Oppression. New York: Norton, 1951. Kohlberg, L. & Zigler, E. "The Impact of Cognitive Maturity on the Development of Sex-Role Attitudes in the Years Four - Eight. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 89-165. Lawton, M. J. & Sechrest, L. ”Figure Drawings by Young Boys from Father-Present and Father-Absent Homes," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1962, 18, 304-305. Lefever, D. W. “Review of the Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability." In Buros, O. K. (Ed.), The Fifth Mental Measure- ments Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1959, 342. Leichty, M. M. "The Effect of Father-Absence during Early Childhood Upon the Oedipal Situation as Reflected in Young Adults, Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6, 212-217. Lynn, D. B. ”A Note on Sex Difference in the Development of Masculine and Feminine Identification," Psychological Review, 1959,66, 126-135. Lynn, D. B. "Sex Role and Parental Identification," Child Development, 1962, 33, 555-569. Maxwell, A. E. "Discrepancies between the Pattern of Abilities for Normal and Neurotic Children. Journal of Mental Science, 1961, 107, 300-307. 96 McCord, J., McCord, W. & Thurber, E. ”Some Effects of Paternal Absence on Male Children," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1962, 64, 361-369. Miller, B. ”Effects of Father Absence and Mother Evaluation of Father on the Socialization of Adolescent Boys,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, 1961. Miller, D. R. & Swanson, G. E. et al., Inner Conflict and Defense. New York: Holt, 1960. Miller, W. B. "Lower-class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency, Journal of Social Issues, 1958, 14, 5-19. Money, J. "Psychosexual Differentiation." In J. Money (Ed.), Sex Research: New Developments, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965. Moulton, P. W. et al., "The Patterning of Parental Affection and Dominance as a Determinant of Guilt and Sex Typing." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 363-365. Mbwrer, O. H. ”Identification: A Link between Learning Theory and Psychotherapy. In Learnin Theor and Person- ality Dynamics, New York: Ronald Press, 1950, 573-616. Moynihan, D. P. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Labor, 1965. Mussen, P. H. "Some Antecedents and Consequences of Mascu- line Sex-Typing in Adolescent Boys." Psycholpgical Monographs, 1961, 75, No. 2 (Whole No. 506). Mussen, P. H. and Distler, L. "Child-rearing Antecedents of Masculine Identification in Kindergarten Boys." Child Development, 1960, 31, 89-100. Mussen, P. H. & Rutherford, E. "Parent-child Relationships and Parental Personality in Relation to Young Children's Sex-Role Preferences." Child Development, 1963, 34, 589-607. Nash, J. ”The Father in Contemporary Culture and Current Psychological Literature." Child Development, 1965, 36, 261-297. Neubauer, P. B. "The One-Parent Child and His Oedipal Develop- ment," Psychoanalytic Studies of the Child, 1960, 15, 286-309. 97 Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measure- ment. Neijor : Basic Books, 1966. ‘ Osgood, C. E. et al., The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Osgood, C. E. "The Nature and Measurement of Meaning." Psychological Bulletin, 1952, 49, 197-237. Parsons, T. "Family Structure and the Socialization of the Child." In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958, 35-131. 7 Pedersen, F. A. "Relationships between Father-Absence and Emotional Disturbance in Male Military Dependents," Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1966, 12, 321-331. Phelan, H. M. "The Incidence and Possible Significance of the Drawing of Female Figures by Sixth-Grade Boys in Response to the Draw-A-Person Test," Psychiatric Quarterly, 1964, 38, 1-16. Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, Bee, H., Broverman, I., and Broverman, D. M. "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Self-Concepts in College Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287-295. Sanford, N. "The Dynamics of Identification," Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 106-118. ’7 Santrock, J. W. "Paternal Absence, Sex-Typing, and Identifica- tion," Developmental Psychology. 1970, 2, 264-272. Sears, Pauline S. "Child-Rearing Factors Related to Playing of Sex-Typed Roles," American Psychologist, 1953, 8, 431 (Abstract). Sears, Pauline S. "Doll Play Aggression in Normal Young Children: Influence of Age, Sex, Sibling Status, Father's Absence, Psychological Monograph, 1951, 65, No. 6 (Whole No. 323). Sears, R. R. "Identification as a Form of Behavior Develop- ment." In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The Concept of Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957, 149- 161. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, I11.: Row, Peterson, 1957. 98 Sears, R. R., Pintler, M. H. & Sears, P. S. "Effects of Father Separation on Preschool Children's Doll Play Aggression, Child Development, 1946, 17, 219-243. Sears, R. R., Rau, L., & Alpert, R. Identification and ghild Rearing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1965. Shaw, M. E. & Wright, J. M. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967. * Shoben, E. J. "The Assessment of Parental Attitudes in Relation to Child Adjustment," Genetic Psychology Monograph, 1949, 39, 103-148. Snider, J. G. & Osgood, C. E. Semantic Differential Technique, A Sourcebook, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Steimel, R. J. "Childhood Experiences and Masculinity- Femininity Scores," Journal of Counseling PSYChOlOSYI 1960, 7, 212-217. Stendler, C. B. "Possible Causes of Overdependency in Young Children." Child Development, 1954, 25, 125-146. Stoke, S. M. "An Inquiry into the Concept of Identification." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1950, 76, 164-184. Stolz, L. M. et al., Father Relations of War Born Children. Stanford: Stanford UniVersity Press, 1964. Sutherland, H.E.G. "The Relationship between I.Q. and Size of Family in the Case of Fatherless Children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1930, 38, 161-170. Sutton-Smith, B., Roberts, J. M. & Rosenberg, B. G. "Sibling Associations and Role Involvement,” Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10, 25-38. Sutton-Smith, B., Rosenberg, B. G., and Landy, F. ”Father- Absence Effects in Families of Different Sibling Composi- tions." Child Development, 1968, 38, 1213-1221. Tiller, P. 0. "Father-Absence and Personality Development of Children in Sailor Families," Nordisk Psychologi Mono- graph Series, 1958, 9, 1-48. ' Whiting, J. W. M. ”Sorcery, Sin, and the Superego: A Cross- Cultural Study of Some Mechanisms of Social Control.” In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposipm on Motivation, 1959, Lincoln: University 6fiNebraska Press. 1959, 174-195. 99 Winch, R. F. Identification‘and Its Familial Determinants. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962. Wynn, M. Fatherless Families. London: Michael Joseph, 1964. "IWilli1111111171111111“