”III III

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

11W "IN!

29099

RETURNING MATERIAL§;
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if bdok is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

-.3’c-

 

 

 

PERCEPTIONS OF A WOMAN'S USE OF AUTHORITY

By

Carolyn Rochelle Paulter

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

1985

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF A WOMAN'S USE OF AUTHORITY
By
Carolyn Rochelle Paulter

This study was an investigation of the perceptions
that male and female college students have of a woman
who uses authority and of whether or not students'
gender and own level of dominance affected their
perceptions of the female authority figures.

Forty undergraduate men and eighty undergraduate
women received a projective lead briefly describing a
scene between an authority figure, the division head of
a company, and a subordinate. The gender of the
division head and of the subordinate was varied in each
of the four experimental conditions. The students
wrote a TAT-type story in response to the projective
lead, and subsequently rated the division head on four
Likert-type scales, Legitimate Authority, Positive
Authority, Admired Image and Destructive Image, which
comprised the Story Character Evaluation Scale (SCES)
designed for this study. The students also completed
a demographic questionnaire and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory Dominance Scale.

Four two-way Analyses of Variance, one for each of

the dependent variable scales, were performed. A series

of Pearson Product Moment correlations were also used.

Carolyn Rochelle Paulter

There were significant differences in ratings
between the authority figures on the Legitimate Authority
scale. The female authority figure with a male
subordinate was rated significantly higher than the
female authority figure with a female subordinate or a
male authority figure with a female subordinate. There
were no significant differences in ratings between the
authority figures on the Positive Authority, Admired
Image and Destructive Image scales.

Male and female students did not rate the authority
figures differently on each of the four dependent
variable scales. There were no significant interaction
effects between gender of students and the experimental
condition on the Legitimate Authority, Positive
Authority, Admired Image and Destructive Image scales.
Men's and women's Dominance Scale scores were not
significantly related to their perceptions of the two
female authority figures on each of the scales.

However, nine of the sixteen correlates were in the

predicted direction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Donna Bullock, my
Dissertation Director, for her generous contribution of
knowledge, time and good humor to my research. Her
perspective on the dissertation and her consistently
useful comments enabled me to believe that the
dissertation had an end.

I would also like to thank Dr. Bill Hinds,
Chairperson of my Dissertation Committee and Drs. Elaine
Donelson and Sam Plyler, committee members, for their
guidance.

Mr. Tom Packard provided me with assistance in the
computer programming and analyses of my data. I
appreciate his competent and understanding approach.

I would like to thank the members of my
dissertation support group, Drs. Linda Kron Brundage,
Linda Cohen, Linda Covey and Mary Nowack, for their
encouragement and assistance in clarifying my ideas.

I would also like to express my deep appreciation
to Dr. Max Bruck for inspiring me with the vision of
"a completed dissertation" and for his complex and
stimulating discussions of psychodynamic theory.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the
contributions of my friends who assisted with a variety

of necessary tasks. Their support and caring sustained

ii

me throughout this project. I feel very fortunate to

have such special friends.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 3
Purpose ' 3
Problem in Context 3
Background 10
Definition of Terms 16
Research Questions 18
Hypotheses l9
Significance of Study 20
Limitations ' 21
Overview 23
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24
Introduction 24
Sex Linked Stereotypes - 25
Leadership 39
Attitudes 62
Social Power 72
Success and Achievement 79
Summary 95
CHAPTER III: METHODS 99
Introduction 99
Sample 99
Instruments 104
Procedures 113
Hypotheses and Analyses 119

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSES, RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS 124

2 Way Analyses (ANOVA) Results:

Testing Hypotheses.l, 2, and 3 124
Post Hoc Group Comparisons: Results 127

Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Results: Testing Hypothesis 4 132
Summary 135

iv

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary
Discussion
Implications for Future Research

Appendices

References

141
141
147
166
168

188

k)

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Mean Age of Each Sample Group

Race, Educational Level and Religion
of Men and Women Respondents

Story Character Evaluation Scales
Analyses for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3

Predicted Relationship between Respondents'
Dominance Scale Scores and Ratings of
Female Authority Figures

E Statistics for Experimental Condition X
Each Dependent Variable

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of
Experimental Conditions for Legitimate
Authority

Post Hoc Comparisons for Legitimate Authority

F Statistics for Gender of Respondents X
Each Dependent Variable

E Statistics for Interaction Effect:
Gender of Respondents X Experimental
Condition

Hypothesized Relationship between Respondents'
Dominance Scale Scores and Ratings of Female
Authority Figures

Pearson Corelation between Respondents'
Dominance Scale Scores and Ratings of Female
Authority Figures X Experimental Condition
Summary of Hypotheses and Results

High Admired Image Scale Items for Each
Condition

High Destructive Image Scale Items for
Each Condition

vi

102
103

107

121

122

126

127

128

130

131

133

134

138

157

158

l6. Differences between Selected Admired Images
and Destructive Image Scale Item Means for
Conditions A & B 160

vii

Chapter I
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate
the perceptions that men and women have of a woman
who uses her authority. Some individuals have been
willing to support a woman's use of her authority
both with women and men, while others have been opposed
to its use with a man. The influence of men's and
women's own dominance level on each gender group's
perceptions of the woman in authority was systematically
explored in an effort to determine if that personality
characteristic would differentiate those who support
a woman's use of her authority from those who do not.
This study was also designed to use a nonclinical
normal population to provide evidence regarding an
aspect of psychodynamic theory which suggests that
a woman who uses her authority can arouse certain
fears and reactions different from those aroused by
a man in a similar position.

Problem in Context

 

Support by both men and women of women's attainment
and use of authority is an important step in achieving

economic, political, and social power and in continuing

1

the process of altering inequities faced by women.

At present, barometers which suggest society's ambivalent

sanction of women's achievement and use of authority

are the number of women in positions of authority in

government and economic organizations and the amount

of monetary renumeration accorded women relative to

men. Women are frequently paid less than men (Levitin,

Quinn, & Staines, 1971; Terborg & Ilgen, 1975; U.S.

Department of Commerce, 1972). Another important factor

in earning inequality is derived from gender differences

in power in the workplace according to Robinson and

Kelley, and R003 (cited in Wolf & Fligstein, 1979a).
Women’s participation in the labor market has

increased substantially from 18 million in 1950 to

42.1 million in 1978. However, female workers are

concentrated in clerical, sales, and service positions,

lower status job categories (National Commission on

Working Women, 1978). In 1960 5% of managers were

women as compared to 6% in 1981 (National Organization

of Women, 1982). Women have substantially less

authority in the workplace when the criteria used

are the authority to hire and fire, deterime

the pay of others, and supervise (determine what is

produced and how much) the work of others (Wolf &

3

Fligstein, 1979b). At the higher levels of authority
(hire and fire: pay determination) for each year of
post high school education women receive from one
third to one quarter of the rate of return of men.
Women's qualifications account for only the smallest
percentage of gender differences in on-the-job authority.
Men also obtain greater authority for similar levels
of occupational status than women. For men, being
in a high status position is associated with being
in a position of authority, whereas for women this
association is less likely (Wolf & Fligstein, 1979a).

Two related beliefs which are necessary in a
group's support of the attainment of a particular
goal are a belief in the legitimacy of the goal and
the capacity of its members to either implement or
exercise the goal. Societal sanctions are also necessary
to confirm more widespread legitimacy and enable
institutionalization.

Women have been restricted in developing beliefs
regarding the legitimacy of authority achievement
and usage by their membership in a subordinate group.
Women have traditionally been defined as inferior
and unequal to men (Millet, 1969; Miller, 1976).

Membership in a subordinate group has conspired against

4
women's use of authority by defining acceptable roles,
devaluing the roles permitted women, and designating
women as incapable of performing valued roles (Miller).
In an analysis of the relationship between dominant
and subordinate groups, Miller described this
phenomenon:

Subordinates are usually said to be unable to
perform the preferred roles. Their incapacities
are ascribed to innate defects or deficiencies
of mind or body, therefore immutable and
impossible of change or development...lmore
importantly subordinates themselves can come
to find it difficult to believe in their own
ability....

It follows that subordinates are described
in terms of, and encouraged to develop personal,
psychological characteristics that are pleasing
to the dominant group. These characteristics
form a certain familiar cluster, submissiveness,
passivity, docility, dependency, lack of
initiative, inability to act, to decide, to think,
and the like. In general this cluster includes
qualities more characteristic of children than

adults--immaturity, weakness, and helplessness.

5

If subordinates adopt these characteristics they

are considered well-adjusted (p. 7).

Another factor which has made authority achievement
and its usage by women problematic for both men and
women 'has been the nature of women's roles. Acceptable
roles for women have typically been organized around
the primacy of service to her men and children and
have been extended to being of service to others
(Miller, 1976). Women have been prohibited from the
eXpression of aggression, particularly those forms
which might be considered self-serving (Bernardez,
1978). Women have been raised for affiliation with
others (Chodorow, 1978; Dinnerstein, 1976; Donelson
& Gullahorn, 1977: Miller, 1976). A woman's self
esteem has been derived primarily from the congruence
between her behavior and the idealized image of service
to others and affiliation (Miller).

Various sanctions have been used to keep women
in their place. An ever-present psychological sanction
threatening a woman who speaks or acts with authority
apart from the socially sanctioned role of mother,
is the designation of "being just like a man" or the
accusation of "attacking" or "diminishing men" (Miller,

1976, p. 17). The first designation calls into question

6

the woman's gender identity while the accusations
serve not only to define her as an outcast from her
gender, but also to define her as destructive to a
man, the very person to whom she should be connected
in a loving, non-conflictual bond (Bernardez, 1978).
Sanctions previously used in the work place to keep
women in their place and out of positions of authority
have included the denial of access to professional
schools and apprenticeships in the trades as well
as restricted promotions particularly in positions
involving authority over men.

Until recently, women have had few role models
of either positively powerful or authoritative women
available for admiration, identification or inspiration.
Pinches (1978) in her review of Chesler (1972) notes
"women are socialized to idealize and support male
heroes, while female heroes are starved for protections
and nurturance" (p. 5). The images of women portrayed
on television are stereotypic ones, which reflect
women's lack of power in American society (Tuchman,
1979). Women are "symbolically annihilated" by the
media's trivialization, condemnation and
underrepresentation (Gerber, 1972).

Women have been divided in their support of women's

7
struggle for increased power. Until recently women
have not formed enduring political groups based on
self interest, except for the Suffrage movement (Pinches,
1978). Power and public action have been associated
with men and, thus, have been alien to women (Chesler,
1972). Women have fought against passage of the Equal
Rights Amendment and continue to stand in opposition
to a woman's right to choose abortion.
Both men and women have been ambivalent regarding
greater authority for women. The changes necessary
to bring about a situation in which women would share
equally with men in economic, political, and social
authority arouse resistance. Mayes (1978) commenting
on the fears motivating such resistance noted:
resistance to changing sex role behavior on the
part of men and women involves the deeply embedded
fear that change means chaos and collapse in
the norms and behaviors that govern the most
sacred areas of everyday life, the family and
sexuality (p. 566).
Participation in bringing about such changes,
in addition, requires great courage on the part of
women to create conflict and to tolerate the

"troublemaker" label which goes against the grain

8
of women's socialization (Miller, 1976).

Background

 

Contributions of Anthropology -
Theme of Feminine Evil
Women have been, throughout different cultures
and historical periods, imbued with evil powers. The
images of women in myth, folklore and religion have
provided data for the existence of a theme of feminine
evil. Slavin (1972) in his review of the literature
noted the basic assumption of this theme is that "women
have an extraordinary magical power over men and will
more often than not use this power destructively" (p.l).
Women have been ascribed the powers to defile
or destroy. Primitive cultures attributed to persons
and things mana, a "supernatural power, either good
or bad, infusing everything, but more intensely the
alien and the unusual" (Hays, 1972, p. 27). Women's
biological functions connected with blood and thus
frightening and strange, were linked to bad mana.
A variety of taboos were enforced serving to limit
the spread of her defilement and neutralize her bad
magic (Hays; Rosaldo, 1974). Many of these taboos,
for example those regarding women during menstruation,

survive today.

9
Women have also been perceived as possessing
dangerous sexual powers and this theme is found in
the stories about Pandora, Lilith and Eve. Reik (1957)
believed that the female body was changed into a dangerous
object and as a consequence the sexual attraction
of women was turned into "malicious temptation" by
the prevalent misogynist trends of the late periods
of Greek civilization. Millet (1969) described the
connection between women and sex and her condemnation
enforced by patriarchal religion in these comments:
Patriarchal religion and ethics tend to lump
the female and sex together as if the whole burden
of the onus and stigma it attaches to sex were
the fault of the female alone (p. 51)....
Seduced by the phallic snake, Eve is convicted
for Adam's participation in sex (p. 53)....
Sex which is known to be unclean, sinful, and
debilitating, pertains to the female, and the
male identity is preserved as a human rather
than a sinful one (p. 51-52).
Contributions of Psychodynamic Theory -
Fear of the Powerful Female
A woman who uses her authority may be the recipient

of such labels as castrating, destructive, or attacking.

10
These terms are as Bernardez (1976) noted, expressions
of revulsion and disapproval motivated by "strong
fears of being subjugated and injured by a powerful
female" (p. 64). Such fears have been derived from
the nature of the earliest mother-child relationship,
one marked by the child's helpless dependence on a
mother, typically a woman who "possesses inexhaustible
supplies as well as the power both to inflict and
ward off all pain and evil" (Lerner, 1974, p. 542).
Lerner (1974) and Bernardez (1976) believe that
the child's envy of the mother's omnipotence has
contributed to adult fears regarding the potential
destructiveness of women. Chasseguet-Smirgel (1970)
noted the inevitability of both good and bad images
of the mother and thus of women when she stated:
I believe that a child, whether male or female
even with the best and kindest of mothers, will
maintain a terrifying maternal image in his
unconscious, the result of projected hostility
deriving from his own impotence. . . the child's
primary powerlessness. . . and the inevitable
frustrations of training are such that the image
of the good, omnipotent mother never covers over
that of the terrifying, omnipotent bad mother

(pp. 112-113).

ll

Horney (1967) linked man's dread of women to
the frustration of the small boy's genital impulses
towards the mother which resulted in the boy's feelings
of inadequacy and rejection. Male derision of women
and the concomitant need to be superior are therefore
ways to prevent the reccurrence of the earlier
narcissistic injury of the son by the mother.

Images of a woman in authority as domineering,
angry, or seeking revenge can also originate in beliefs
regarding women's resentment of their subordinate
position and their wish to impose similar treatment
on their oppressors. According to Bernardez (1976)
such beliefs are denied consciously and include the
following ideas:

...women have been "kept down", relegated to

devalued positions and restricted in their choices

and that they live under this tyranny with
resentment, that if "liberated" they would feel
fully justified in imposing similar treatment
upon men and in so doing they would be acting

in identification with the aggressor (p. 64).

Fears regarding women and her potential
destructiveness can be managed defensively by the

devaluation of women (Horney, 1967; Lerner, 1974)

12
and support for a system of male domination
(Dinnerstein, 1976). Devaluation of an envied object
has been a widely recognized defensive strategy
beginning with Klein's (1957) work regarding the infant's
envy of the maternal breast. Klein defined envy as
"...the angry feeling that another person possesses
and enjoys something desirable, the envious impulse
being to take it away or spoil it" (p. 6). Lerner
(1974) postulated that the devaluation of the early
mother's power finds expression in gender definitions
and sex role stereotypes.
Our gender definitions and sex role stereotypes
also reflect an attempt to reinstate and retain
in adult relations all the nurturant qualities
of the "good mother." Thus according to most
cultural stereotypes the desirable "feminine
woman is one who embodies all aspects of the
good mother (e.g. cleaning, feeding, providing
emotional understanding, comfort, softness, warmth),
but who possesses no elements of power, dominance,
and control that are factors within the imago
of the omnipotent envied mother...in conventional
adult relationships males stereotypically experience

a defensive reversal of an early matriarchy,

13

yet retain the nurturant functions of the good
mother. A psychic and social situation is created
in which the adult male retains the good aspects
of mother but is now dominant and in control
of a female object on whom, as in the case of
his mother, he was initially helpless, and
dependent; that is his wife (or a female peer)
becomes his own child. As long as this defensive
reversal of an early dependency situation
continues, envy and devaluation is subdued or
seemingly eliminated, the devaluation of women
achieves expression in the reversal itself (p. 543).
Horney (1967) described three primary measures
by which man can cope with his dread of woman. Man
can deny his dread and attribute characteristics
to women which transform her into a dangerous figure,
worthy of dread. "It is not" he says, "that I dread
her: it is that she herself is malignant, capable
of any crime, a beast of prey, a vampire, a witch,
insatiable in her desires. She is the very
personification of what is sinister" (p. 135).
The second method is the selection of certain
aspects of a woman's personality, for example, her

"emotionality" which is then used as justification

14
for regarding the woman as incapable of responsibility
and independence without any consideration of"whether
this type of woman has been cultivated by a systematic
selection on the part of men"(p. 146). Adoration
and idealization can also serve defensive aims as
Horney noted, "There is no need for me to dread a
being so wonderful, so beautiful, nay so saintly"
(p. 136).

Psychoanalytic explanations regarding perceptions
of women in authority have led this researcher to
select particular types of responses to a woman's
use of authority for investigation.

Definition of Terms

 

For the purpose of this study, special terms
were defined as follows.

Authority

 

Authority was defined as "the right to make a
particular decision and command obedience" (Smith,
1960, 18-19). Authority is both different from and
related to the concept of power. Power is typically
defined as the capacity to influence others (French
& Raven, 1959: May, 1972; Tavris & Offrir, 1977).

An individual can have authority and no power, that

is be unable to influence others. Authority can also

15

be used interchangeably with legitimate power. For
example, French & Raven (1959) described legitimate
power as one type of power based on a relationship
between the influenced and the influencer in which
the influenced perceives the influencer as having
a legitimate right to prescribe behavior for the
influenced and, the influencer perceives the influenced
as having the obligation to comply.
Legitimate Authority

Perception of the authority figure's legitimate
authority was measured by respondents' ratings of
the authority figure on a four-point Likert scale,
Legitimate Authority, developed for this study.
Positive Authority

Perception of the authority figure's positive
authority was measured by respondents' ratings of
the authority figure on a four-point Likert scale,
Positive Authority, developed for this study.

Admired Image

 

Perception of the authority figure's admired
image was measured by respondents' ratings of the
authority figure on a four-point Likert scale, Admired

Image, developed for this study.

l6

Destructive Image

 

Perception of the authority figure's destructive
image was measured by respondents' ratings of the
authority figure on a four—point scale, Destructive
Image, developed for this study.

Dominance

 

Respondent's own level of dominance was defined
as the individual's score on the Dominance Scale of
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Research Questions

 

The three independent variables in this study
were gender of respondents, dominance scale scores
of respondents and the experimental condition (either
a female or male authority figure who was described
in a scene with either a female or male subordinate).
The four dependent variables were the respondents'
ratings of the authority figure on each of the
Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority, Admired
Image and Destructive Image scales.

The following research questions were investigated
in this study:

1. Are there differences between ratings of a

female authority figure with a male subordinate,

17
a female authority figure with a female
subordinate, a male authority figure with
a male subordinate, and a male authority
with a female subordinate on each of the
Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority,
Admired Image, and Destructive Image scales?

2. Are women more likely than men to react
favorably to a female authority figure?

3. Is there a relationship between men's and
women's own level of dominance and ratings
of the female authority figures on each
of the Legitimate Authority, Positive
Authority, Admired Image and Destructive
Image scales?

Hypotheses
The hypotheses tested in this study are presented
below.
Hypothesis 1

HA1:
of the authority figures on each of the four dependent

There are significant differences in the ratings

variables legitimate authority, positive authority,
admired image and destructive image.
Hypothesis 2

HA : There are no significant differences between
2

l8

men's and women's ratings of the authority figures
on each of the four dependent variables, legitimate
authority. positive authority, admired image and
destructive image.

Hypothesis 3

H There is a significant interaction between

A :
exgerimental condition and gender of the respondents
on each of the four dependent variables, legitimate
authority, positive authority. admired image and
destructive image.
Hypothesis 4
HA4: There is a significant relationship between
respondents' Dominance Scale scores and ratings of
the female authority figures on each of the four dependent
variables, legitimate authority, positive authority,
admired image and destructive image.
Significance of Study

As women continue to achieve positions of authority
they will be faced with reactions on the part of both
men and women to their use of authority. One of the
intents of this study was to provide data to further
an understanding of men's and women's reactions to

a woman's use of her authority. It is possible that

women who are better able to understand what can be

19

aroused when they exercise authority can also find
ways to mitigate against the unuseful tendency to
blame themselves or only examine their behavior in
an interactive or group situation.

Psychologists and other mental health professionals
consulted by women, either individually or in couples,
need to understand the significant contributins made
by individual, social and cultural determinants in
shaping responses to a woman's use of authority. An
understanding of men's and women's reactions to a
woman's use of authority can enable psychologists
to be more effective in their work with both men and
women.

Limitations

The intent of this study was to determine whether
female authority figures were perceived differently
than male figures and what influence men's and women's
own level of dominance had on each gender group's
perceptions of the female authority figures. There
were three limitations in this study.

The focus of this study was on the respondents'
perceptions of a fictitious authority figure who was
described as using authority with a subordinate.

Respondents’ perceptions of a fictitious authority

20
figure may be different from perceptions of an actual
woman using her authority.

This study used a sample of undergraduate student
volunteers from the total population of students living
in University residence halls or enrolled in social
science courses during summer quarter. Results can
only be generalized to a volunteer sample of undergraduate
students with similar demographic characteristics.

The instruments used were new scales developed
by the researcher and consequently presented questions
about their reliability and validity. Data obtained
in a pilot study of these scales provided some measure
of the scales' reliability and at least face validity.
Conclusions however can only be tentative until further
research involving these scales provides additional
evidence for their usefulness.

In summary, then, the researcher conducted a
study to investigate perceptions of a woman who was
described as using her authority with a subordinate
held by a sample of men and women undergraduate students.
This study also suggested ways in which men's and
women's own level of dominance affected each gender
group's perceptions of the female authority figures.

The study attempted to develop several Likert type

21

scales designed to assess perceptions of an authority
figure.
Overview

Literature related to sex linked stereotypes,
leadership, attitudes. social power, and success and
achievement is reviewed in Chapter II. The design
of this study, including the nature of the sample,
the instruments, the hypotheses and analyses are
described in Chapter III. The data are presented
and analyzed in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a
summary and interpretation of the results of the study.

Implications for further research are also noted.

Chapter II
Review of the Literature

Introduction

 

To date there have been three studies directly
concerned with the evaluation of a woman's use of
authority (Beauvais, 1978; Jacobson, Antonelli, Winnings,
& Opeil, 1977; Mayes, 1978). However, a body of research
exists in five areas, sex-role stereotypes, leadership,
attitudes, social power, and success and achievement
which should be useful in understanding men's and
women's reactions to a woman's use of authority.
Researchers in the area of sex-role stereotypes have
specified what are the expected characteristics of
men and women and in what ways perceptions of women
have changed. These studies are suggestive of whether
perceptions of women embody characteristics either
necessary for or compatible with the use of authority
and whether certain groups hold perceptions of women
more consistent with the use of authority. In studies
of leadership reactions to women in various positions
of authority have been delineated and the influence
of attitudes towards women on judgements about the
woman in authority have ben suggested. Evidence regarding
beliefs in a woman's right to hold a position of

authority and her ability to function effectively

22

23

in such positions has been provided by studies in
the area of attitudes. Factors which are associated
with favorable attitudes towards women in authority
will also be noted.

Researchers in the area of social power have
suggested the types of social power or methods of
influence which are expected and acceptable for use
by a woman and the consequences of violating these
expectations. Judgements regarding a woman who uses
legitimate authority, one type of social power, are
directly relevant to this study. Researchers in the
area of success and achievement have suggested whether
reactions to a woman's use of her authority may be
partly a manifestation of higher valuation given to
men (their actions and products) than to women. They
have also suggested how much credibility may be given
to a woman for her position of authority and the ways
in which her authority can be devalued.

Sex Linked Stereotypes
Traditional Femininity and Masculinity

Judgements about a woman's use of authority are
related in several ways to sex linked stereotypes.
First as Pinches (1978, p. 25) noted "men and masculinity

are valued more than women and femininity; regardless

24

of the contest in which the comparisons are made

(Fernberger, 1948; Kittay, 1940; Denitz, Dynes & Clark,

1954; Lynn, 1959: McKee & Sherriffs, 1957, 1959; White,

1950; Sherriffs &Jarrett, 1955)." Dominance and authority

use are in accord with sanctioned masculine roles

and not compatible with acceptable feminine roles.

A woman who exerts her authority particularly with

a male subordinate may be viewed as deviant (not of

her gender) and abnormal and may as a consequence

engender hostile or otherwise negative evaluations.
Evidence for the agreement of both genders regarding

characteristics differentiating men from women is

provided by the 1972 study of Brovermen, Vogel, Broverman,

Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz. Broverman and her associates

asked college students to rate the degree to which

a variety of bipolar attributes were characteristic

of an adult man, adult woman, and themselves. Forty-one

items were selected that had substantial (75%)

agreement among men and women participants as to which

pole was more descriptive of the average man than

the average woman or vice versa. Two subsequent groups

of college students then chose either the feminine

or masculine pole of each attribute based on its social

desirability. The masculine pole was selected as more

25

socially desirable on 29 items or 70% of the

stereotypic traits. The feminine pole was selected

as more socially desirable for only 12 items or 30%

of the attributes. The list of feminine characteristics
consisted of 70% which were perceived as undesirable

as compared to the 30% of masculine characteristics
deemed undesirable (Pinches, 1978).

Factor analysis revealed that the pool of 41
stereotypic items were comprised of two orthogonal
domains. The male-valued items appeared to comprise
a competency cluster and contained such attributes
as independence, aggressiveness, dominance, and skilled.
Women were viewed as relatively lacking in these traits
and were characterized (relative to men) as more dependent,
subjective, passive, noncompetitive and illogical.

The second domain, the female-valued items, contained
such items as gentle, sensitive to feelngs of others
and tactful and was denoted the "warmth expressiveness"
cluster. Men were typically portrayed as relatively
lacking in these traits.

In a related study Freeman (1979) had female
and male undergraduate students rank order fifteen
paragraphs descriptive of the manifest needs measured

by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS).

26

The students rank ordered the manifest needs either

for an average person of own sex and opposite sex,

for an ideal person of own sex and opposite sex or

for themselves. Those respondents who completed the
rankings for self also completed the EPPS. Male and
female students were in agreement, with the exception
of the orderliness and exhibitionism ratings, regarding
their rankings of needs descriptive of the average
female. The image of the average female included

such high ranked needs as heterosexuality, affiliation,
change, achievement, and nurturance. Autonomy,
dominance, and aggressiveness were among the needs
rated as least descriptive of the average female.

The average male was characterized as having high
heterosexual, achievement, dominance, and autonomy
needs and low intraception, succorance, orderliness,
deference, and abasement needs. Of particular interest
were men's and women's significantly different mean
rankings of aggressiveness. The female students ranked
aggressiveness asaahigh need, whereas the male students
ranked it as a much lower need for the average male.
The ideal woman was described as having low aggressiveness,
abasement, exhibitionism, and dominance needs and

high needs for nurturance, achievement. affiliation,

M-‘~

27

and succorance by both men and women. They agreed
that the ideal man has high needs for achievement,
endurance, affiliation, and nurturance and low needs
for aggressiveness, abasement, exhibitionism and
succorance. In comparing the female with male students'
mean needs rankings for the average women with the
average man an essentially similar perception of the
needs emerged. Of special interest for this study
was men's and women's agreement regarding the significant
difference in mean dominance rankings given to the
ideal man as compared to the ideal woman. Support
is provided for a shared belief that women ought to
be substantially less dominant than men. However,
men and women reported no difference in their self
rankings of dominance needs. Both genders reported
relatively low dominance rankings, which were also
reflected in their EPPS scores.
Changes in Sex-Role Stereotypes

Some evidence for changing sex role stereotypes
is provided by Petro and Putnam (1979). School counselors
were asked to complete the Sex Role Stereotype
Questionnaire for perceptions of men and women. The
counselors indicated substantially different perceptions

from those of the samples used to construct and revise

28

this instrument by Broverman and her colleagues.

The counselors were in agreement with the earlier
groups that women are more easily influenced, affectively
expressive, excitable, passive, and vulnerable than
men. However, the counselors endorsed eleven items,
nine male valued and two female valued, as
differentiating between men and women in contrast
to the original 38 stereotypic items. Counselors
rejected beliefs that women are less aggressive,
independent, objective, ambitious and leadership oriented
than men and that men are less conceited about their
appearance or less emotional than women. Male
counselors believed women to be less interested in
math and science, less skilled in business, and less
adventurous and self confident than man. Women were
perceived as more illogical, sneaky, uncomfortable
with their own aggression and dependent than men by
the women counselors. Men were portrayed as more
knowing about the ways of the world and more able
to separate feelings from ideas relative to women
by the female counselors.

The researchers concluded that the women tended
to hold more negative, traditional, and possibly more

damaging views of women than did the men. Yourby and

29

Arafat (cited in Pinches, 1978) found that women
had more liberalized views regarding women's roles.
The female counselors did, however, attribute twice
as many female valued traits to women than did the
male counselors. An additional finding of interest
was that men were perceived by both sexes to have
as much of the "warmth expressive" characteristics
as women. Apparently the image of men has changed.

The data reported by Peterson (1975) are consistent
with.this change. Women students were asked to rate
themselves,their mothers, their fathers, their closest
male peers, career women, and the perceptions of women
attributed to their mothers, fathers and closest male
peer on twelve bipolar trait scales. Half of the
scales were female positive and the other half were
male positive. Men were perceived almost as positively
as women on the "warmth expressiveness" trait cluster
with the exception of the high ratings given to perception
of mother. An additional finding of interest was that
career women were perceived to be significantly more
rational, independent, dominant, calm, aggressive,
and unemotional than any other person. The career
woman was also viewed as more poised and tactful but

less sensitive, modest, and warm than the others.

30

Additional support for the findings of Petro
and Putnam regarding changes in the images of men
and women is provided by Kravetz (1976). University
affiliated women, members of a wide assortment of
social and political groups, half of whom described
themselves as active members of the women's movement
and the other half as nonmembers completed the Sex
Role Stereotype Questionnaire. An equal number of
women described a healthy adult man, a healthy adult
woman and themselves. The respondents did not hold
different views of a healthy man and a healthy woman.
For 35% of the stereotypic items no differences in
mean scores were obtained. Men and women were viewed
as similar on eight male valued traits, aggressive,
objective, unemotional, active, almost never cries,
acts as a leader, and able to separate feelings from
ideas and, on five female valued items, talkative,
gentle, quiet, aware of feelings of others, and expresses
tender feelings. Members and nonmembers of the women's
movement did differ in their ratings of these 13 traits.
Healthy men, healthy women, and themselves were portrayed
by movement members relative to nonmembers as less
likely to hide emotions, less competitive, ambitious,

and skilled in business but more likely to be independent,

31

dominant, direct, and adventurous. The data support
an image of women encompassing characteristics that
have traditionally been associated with masculinity,
for example, independence and dominance. Movement
membership was apparently associated with an image
of men characterized by a reduction in several traditional
masculine traits (competitive, ambitious, skill in
business). Members attributed greater emotional
expressiveness to both men and women than did nonmembers.
Sex-Role Stereotypes of
Feminigts vs. Nonfeminists Women

Researches who examine differences in the perceptions
of women by feminists compared to nonfeminists should
help delineate the development of new images of women
characterized by positive feminine traits, the
incorporation of positive masculine traits, and the
rejection of a devalued feminine image.

Nielson and Doyle (1975) had feminist and
nonfeminist college women describe their perceptions
of self, men in general, women in general, the ideal
woman, and women in the women's liberation movement
using a seven-point bipolar adjective list. Both groups
of students viewed the ideal woman as very high on

such positive female traits as warmth, poise, and

32

sensitivity. Feminists in contrast to the nonfeminists
attributed significantly greater dominance and
boastfulness to their perception of the ideal woman.
The nonfeminists' perceptions of men and women were
more consistent with traditional sex role stereotypes.

Feminists, however, depicted a phenomenon different
from that described in previous research, that is a
view of women ranked high on positive female traits
and one of men rated higher on masculine but negative
traits. The nonfeminists' evaluations of women
were negative relative to that of the feminists
particularly their ratings for self and women in
general. Both groups manifested essentially the
same self description with two important differences.
Feminists perceived themselves relative to women
in general to be more dominant and rational, although
not different from women in general on the remaining
six traits. However, the nonfeminists rated women
in general relative to themselves significantly
more negatively on all traits except for degree
of poise. The researchers concluded that the data
are suggestive of "a closer psychological identity
with women as a group on the part of feminists" (p. 93).

Feminists and nonfeminists also differed in their

33

respective views of women involved in the movement.
The nonfeminists perceived "movement" women as more
dominant than did the feminists, but also rated "movement"
women less positively on all other characteristics
except for poise. "Movement" women were thus perceived
as significantly more boastful, cool, insensitive,
humorless, irrational, sexless, unintelligent, emotionally
disturbed, unjust, and unattractive by the nonfeminists
than by the feminists. The feminists perceived "movement"
women as high on positive "masculine" qualities (dominance
and wittiness) as well as on positive feminine ones '
(modesty, sensitivity, and warmth).
Sex-Role Inconsistent Behavior

Behavior which violates sex role stereotypes
often arouses more severe sanctions than that which
is sex~role consistent. (Costrich, Feinstein, Kedder,
Maracak, & Pascale, 1975; Deaux & Taynor, 1973; Feather
& Simon, 1975) In three related studies Costrich
et al. found that "aggressive " women were disliked
more and seen as more in need of therapy than "aggressive"
men. "Passive" men were also disliked more and seen
as more in need of therapy than "passive" women. Out
of role behavior on the part of women receives more

critical reactions than that by a man. A "dominant"

34

woman's behavior was rated more extremely than was
that of a submissive man (Cowan & Koziej, 1979). The
dominant women were rated as more masculine and less
feminine than the dominant men. In contrast the submissive
men were not rated as more feminine and less masculine
than the submissive women. The dominant woman's behavior
was perceived to be caused more by internal factors,
her mood and personality, than that of her male
counterpart. When compared with the dominant man's
behavior, her behavior was also rated as more typical
of the person and with less attention given to
environmental determinants (mood of the other or event)
of her behavior.
Problems Associated with Sex-Role
Stereotype Studies

Researchers in the area of sex-role stereotypes
typically require respondents to rate a unitary category.
adult woman or adult man, on a variety of bipolar
attributes. One assumption of this type of research
is that unitary valid stereotypes exist for each gender.
Clifton, McGrath, and Wick (1976) provide evidence
for the existence of distinctive stereotypes for housewife,
bunny, and a nontraditional role which includes strong

commonality betwen the attributeSascribed to stereotypes

35

for clubwoman, career woman, and woman athlete. The
nontraditional stereotype is characterized as ambitious,
competitive, persistent, and independent and is
differentiated from the stereotypes of housewife and
bunny. Women perceived greater commonality between

the nontraditional role and that of housewife than

men, ascribing active, hardworking, alert, and confident
to perceptions of housewife, clubwoman, career woman,
and female athlete. Women also perceived the career
woman as direct and rational although a majority of

men did not include these traits in their stereotype.

An additional problem with the studies in this
area is derived from the use of preselected adjective
checklists, which as Clifton et al. (1976) noted (citing
Ehrilich & Rinehart, 1963) for example, can limit
respondents choices particularly if the checklists
have not been updated.

Relevant Predictions

Several predictions relevant to this study are
suggested by sex-role stereotype studies. In this
study a woman who is described as using her authority
with a male subordinate can be viewed as manifesting
aspects of such traits as activity, independence,

objectivity, or dominance. Evidence is provided suggesting

36

that men and women are perceived similarly on some

of these traits and that perceptions of career woman
include these traits (with the substitution of dominance
for aggressive). Therefore, descriptionscfifa woman

who uses her authority with a male subordinate should

be rated equally with those of a man using his authority.
However, researchers in other areas, for example attitudes
and leadership, suggest that the gender of the person

in authority and of the person with whom authority

is used are salient factors. Evidence is also provided
indicating that out of role behavior by a woman is

more severely rated than that by a man. While it

seems logical to predict that a woman who uses her
authority with a man will be the recipient of unfavorable
ratings and may be perceived as more destructive than

her male counterpart, the research was not clear enough
to make directional hypotheses.

Evidence is also provided suggesting that some
women, for example those who identify themselves as
either women's movement members or feminists are more
likely to include dominance and directness as acceptable
aspects of their perception of self, woman, and the
ideal woman than are nonmembers. It was expected

that a woman's own level of dominance would affect

37

her perceptions of the female authority figures in
this study. Women respondents' scores on the measure
of dominance were expected to be positively related
to their ratings of each of the female authority figures
on the dependent variables of legitimate authority,
positive authority and admired image and, negatively
related on the destructive image variable.
Leadership

Research concerned with the evaluationcfifwomen
in various ledership roles, i.e. group consultant,
manager, or supervisor, is relevant as it is in such
roles that women apart from their domestic sphere
of influence, achieve and use authority. Patterns
of tolerance for or rejection of women's use of authority
have been suggested by findings in this area. Differences
in men's and women's responses to authority use by
a woman have also been indicated by this research.
Men and women may have different fears and wishes
aroused by a woman who uses authority which are especially
problematic for each gender.

Support for the inclusion in this study of a
personality measure, the Dominance scale of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory, is provided by

research regarding the relationship between attitudes

38

towards women and attributions for the female leaders'
performance. The power of attitudinal sets in shaping
perceptions of external reality is highlighted by
several studies. Data that are more often obtained
from participants in ongoing interaction are provided
by research in the area of leadership. For example,
simulated organizations or self study groups, rather
than one time only experimental situations are frequently
used along with a single paper and pencil measure.
Managerial and Supervisory Styles

Researchers interested in the evaluation of women's
leadership behavior have generally reported two kinds
of findings, either 1) comparative ratings of various
leadership or managerial styles for men and women
leaders or 2) the relationship between managerial
style, leader subordinate gender pair combination
and job satisfaction. The differences reported may
be attributable to which particular factors were examined
in any given study and to the type of setting, laboratory
or field. Bartol, Doll, and Martin (cited in Bartol
& Butterfield, 1976) have indicated that women in
leadership positions do not function differently than
their male counterparts. Female leaders are not usually

rated as less effective or less favorably than their

39

male counterparts (Bartol, 1974; 1975; Bartol
& Wortman, 1975; Day & Stogdill, 1972; Jacobson et
al., 1977; Maier, 1970; Osborn & Vicars, 1976; and
Rosen & Jerdee, 1973). Some contrary evidence is
provided by Haccoun, Haccoun and Sallay (1978) in
the one reported study using a non student and non
white collar sample. Male garment production workers
generally rated the male supervisor as more effective
than the female and indicated greater satisfaction
with him. Jacobson and Effretz (1974) found that
men were judged more critically than women as leaders
but judged more leniently than women as followers.

The gender of the leader appears to exert an
effect on the evaluation of particular leadership
styles, though conflicting results are provided. Certain
styles are deemed more appropriate for a woman than
for a man. Female leaders portrayed using an incongruent
style are rated not surprisingly less favorably
than their male counterparts.

Rosen and Jerdee (1973) had undergraduate students
and banking supervisors rate the effectiveness of
four management styles: threatening, reward, friendly
dependent, and helping when used with various manager-worker

gender pairs. Male and female supervisors were not

40
rated differently when using either the threatening
or helping approach. However, female supervisors
using the reward style were rated less favorably than
male supervisors using the same style. Supervisors
using the friendly dependent approach with the opposite
sex workers received more positive ratings than those
using it with same sex subordinates. Haccoun et al.
(1978) found that female supervisors using an authoritarian
approach were rated more unfavorably than males.

Bartol and Butterfield (1976) had management
students rate the effectiveness of four styles somewhat
different than those used by Rosen and Jerdee (1973).
The student raters were given a written description
of a female or male manager, using one of four styles
in a specific situation with a subordinate of an unspecified
gender. Female managers using the consideration style
were rated more favorably than male managers. Female
managers using the initiating structure style were
rated less favorably than their male counterparts.
Female and male managers were not rated differently
when using the production emphasis and tolerance for
freedom styles.

Inconsistent findings have been produced by studies

regarding the relationship between gender of the leader,

41
subordinate gender, perception of leader behavior,
and job satisfaction. Bartol and Wortman (1975) and
Osborn and Vicars (1976) using different sample groups
of employees of large government psychiatric institutions
found that subordinates of female supervisors were
not significantly more or less satisfied with their
female supervisors than were those of male supervisors.
The gender of the leader did not produce a consistent
effect on perceptions of leader behavior ratings with
one exception. Bartol and Wortman reported that the
female supervisors were rated significantly higher
on the initiating structure behavior dimension than
were male supervisors. The researchers indicated
that this finding may have been an artifact because
the female supervisor sample was overrepresented by
nursing and dietetics supervisors, occupational areas
which according to Georgopoulos (cited in Bartol &
Wortman, 1975) encompass a large number of strict
procedures. Field and Caldwell (1979) found significantly
higher satisfaction with supervisors among female
subordinates with a female supervisor as compared to
those with a male supervisor. However, the effect
of gender of the leader interacting with gender of

the subordinate on job satisfaction was not substantial.

42

A female supervisor's leadership style may
differentially effect the job satisfaction of her
female and male workers. Petty and Lee (1975) had
nonacademic university library employees rate their
perception of two dimensions of supervisors behavior,
consideration and initiating structure, and then
complete a measure of employee job satisfaction.
The female supervisor's staff's satisfaction was
significantly more related to perception of her
consideration behavior than was that of the male
supervisor's staffs. Male workers supervised by
a: woman indicated a decrease in job satisfaction
with an increase in perception of the female
supervisor's initiating structure behavior. In
contrast, women supervised by a woman reported increased
job satisfaction with the perception of the female
supervisor's initiating structure behavior. Petty
and Miles (1976) using a different sample group,
subordinates of directors of social service organizations,
found results consistent with those of Petty and
Lee. In addition, the satisfaction of the staff
of a male supervisor with that supervisor was
significantly more related to the perception of

supervisor's initiating structure behavior than

43
was that of the female supervised staff. Men
supervised by men reported a high positive correlation
between supervisor's initiating structure behavior
as opposed to the very low correlation reported
by men with female supervisors.

In one additional study by Petty and his colleagues
(Petty, Odewahn, Brunning & Thomason) reported by
Terborg (1977) results inconsistent with those of
the two previously cited studies were reported.

The previous design was improved with the modification
of the supervisor satisfaction measure and an increase
in the minimum cell size to 68 as compared to five

in the other two studies. All leader behaviors

were positively correlated with satisfaction with
supervisor with just one exception, production emphasis.
The gender of the supervisor and of the subordinate
did not affect the relationship between perception

of various leader behaviors and both satisfaction
with work and with supervisor.

Responses to Authority Usage in Groups

Authority exerted by a woman particularly that
viewed as traditionally masculine, and characterized
by "formal, objective, nonnurturant, asexual adherence

to rules and boundaries" (Mayes, 1978, p. 567) engenders

44

strong responses on the part of both men and women,
and is frequently marked by criticism, hostility,
and/or fearfulness. Reactions to female authority
are markedly different from those towards male authority.

A field study by Mayes (1978) is noteworthy for
its use of participant observer data (detailed small
group histories, pre and post group questionnaires,
videotapes, and audiotapes) obtained from six female
and twelve male-led Tavistock groups over the course
of four group conferences. The Mayes research is
also of special importance in that group participants
were members of a university community "in the midst
of strong polarization between men in positions
of power and authority and women seeking access
to these position" (p. 557). The female group
consultants held nursing, psychiatry and faculty
positions. The male consultants were primarily
professors without tenure and did not always hold
higher occupational status positions than their
female counterparts. The consultants were all trained
in the Tavistock group model, which prescribes specific
authoritarian behavior of the leader in the role
of group consultant to facilitate the small group's

study of itself. Group members were psychiatric

45

residents, nurses, social science students and mental
health workers. They participated in mixed gender
groups. Male group members reacted to female authority
with either hostility or dependence. Mayes provides
a rich description of the men's response.

The majority of the males would not cooperate

as subordinates with the goal of the leader.

They were not task oriented. Although males

outnumbered females in every group, in female-led

groups they spoke less often, initiated conversation

less frequently and reacted less to female initiated

conversation than women....Most [men] proceeded
to reject all her remarks . . . She was described
by the men as "manipulative", "devious", "inhuman",

and "cruel".

Males in the female-led groups regularly
expressed a fear of having lost control. Women
were described as "plotting against" them....

They expressed doubt about the "real" sex of

the leader....As long as men were in control,
sex-role behavior was what is considered "normal",
hence, male feelings of discomfort, frustration,
and impotency were related to their loss of

control . . .[Men] experienced loss of control

46
when every level of their ability to function
as males came into question. This was particularly
important in the area of sexuality. Loss of
control was revealed to mean loss of sexual control
(p. 561).

Males adopted several strategies to gain control

over the situation. Some openly advocated rebellion
. Others suggested leaving the leader and

moving the group to another location without

informing her. Some men insisted that one or

the other of them had to "seduce" the leader

assuming that male control would result. When

these strategies failed with the leaders, the

men turned to the female participants and claimed

deprivation. They tried to persuade the women

to "give up this nonsense" and "act natural".

They pleaded that the female leader was trying

to immobilize them (p. 562).

Women participants who refuse to give up their
assertive roles received the brunt of male and
female anger....The few women who blamed the
men for the problems in the groups were harshly
rebuked. It was hinted that these women were

lesbians and were trying to "destroy the male

47
world"....There were strong efforts on the
part of the men and some of the women to prevent
any woman-to-woman pairs in the small groups.
Women who did not conform were ostracized from
informal activity (p. 563). On the other side
a few men coped with the femaleness of the
leaders by identifying her as mother ignoring
her "coldness" and trying to gain her approval
by being "good boys." They said they couldn't
help feeling dependent on the female leaders
and they decided not to fight it. About one-third
of the males in female-led groups were passive
throughout the meetings. These men, when questioned,
acknowledged their respect and liking for the
assertive women participants and female leaders.
Resentful of what they considered a lack of
female closeness, these men expressed fears about
their masculinity and became more comfortable
with their dependent postures (p. 561).
Male leaders evoked substantially less hostility
and more admiration from their male group members
than did their female counterparts. Men's competition
with the leader was not marked by strong hostility.

The men admired and identified with the leader who

48
was viewed as competent and deserving of his leadership
position. These men did not express any need for
female reassurance or seem to notice the lack of
female authority.

The responses of women in the female-led groups
stood initially in sharp contrasttxathose in the
male-led groups. In the beginning of the group
these women were "outspoken", "dominant", "assertive",
and more "task oriented" than the men. The female
leader seemed to have had an empowering affect on
the women. In contrast the behavior of the women
in the male-led groups was characterized by competition
for the attention of the male leader,noncompetitiveness
for leadership, and hostility, jealousy and
suspiciousness towards other female group members.

These women were described as less assertive,

but more sullen and angry than their counterparts

in female-led groups. Anger among male-led

women was directed inward rather than towards

male members or leaders (p. 564-565).

Female authority can arouse for women significant
and profound conflicts regarding their loyalty to
men and women and can result in the renunciation

of the individual woman's personal power. Previously

49

empowered women in the female-led groups became
less outspoken and reported dreams regarding their
conflicting loyalties. Male members in several
female-led groups were requested by the women to
"take over and save the group." In the final small
group session women increasingly looked to the men
for direction. In this way the women renounced
both their leadership and identificatory bond with
the powerful female leader. Those few women who
did not follow this pattern of reverting back to
the more stereotypic pattern of male-female
relationships, marked by the women's submission
to the superiority of male authority were the target
of hostility both from members of their own gender
group and men.

Data consistent with that of Mayes are provided
by Beauvais (1976) and Cytrynbaum and Brandt (1979).
Beauvais had participants in female consulted all
female groups, female consulted all male groups,
male consulted all female groups, and male consulted
all male groups rate the group consultant using
semantic differential scales. Male group members
responded differently to their male consultant.

Both female and male consultants were evaluated by

50

participants as equally nonexpressive of feelings.
However, men and women viewed their female consultants
as "distant" and "contemptuous," whereas only women
viewed the male consultants in this manner. Male
members did not perceive the male consultants as
"distant" and "contemptuous." The nonresponsive
analytic role was perceived as more incongruous
for a woman than for a man.

Borman, Pratt, and Putnam (1978) also reported
on men's response to the rise of female leadership.
College students in conjunction with a course in
small groups and organizational communication participated
in the development of an organization, Group Dynamics
Inc. (GDI) over a ten week period. At the midpoint
observer data were collected. Each of the five divisions
comprising GDI wrote case studies describing role
emergence, leadership, cohesion, task norms, social
tension and shared fantasies using videotape and
audiotape material. Each member also wrote a fantasy
diary regarding his or her division. Nonparticipant
observers studied the data and completed divisional
case studies. Within this organization women, and
not men, rose to positions of leadership. The primary

male response to female leadership was "withdrawal

51

from active participation." This group of men maintained
a noncooperative stance without directly challenging
the female leadership. A second group of men who had
been unsuccessful in a bid for leadership indicated
that "to lose in the conflict with a female was
symbolically a loss of a different quality than if they
had lost out in a leadership battle with another man"
(Borman et al., p. 151). A third group maintained
participation which was characterized by the verbal
expression of male conspiracies and joking along with
the disclaimer of any meaningful intention in their
teasing and sarcastic comments. Borman et al. described
a particular male fantasy in response to female
leadership:

The emergence of female task leadership was

accompanied by the reoccurence of fantasy themes

linking leadership with male potency. The most

common scenario depicted a male member who in

his struggle for leadership lost to a female

competitor and in doing so lost his sexual potency.

Males feared that they as drones who fertilized

the group process might be killed or ostracized

from the group by the black widow (p. 154).

The researchers indicated that for a majority of

52

the men acknowledgement of competent female leadership
engendered a double bind. The denial of competent
female leadership aroused the representation of "male
chauvinist pig" and invited social disapproval.
Acknowledgement for these men was equivalent to the
status of "castrated eunuch." The fantasied
dramatization of woman as mother was called upon as
another less frightening and more familiar image and
one which substantially reduced her feared power.
Influence of Gender of Person
in Authority on Subordinate

A woman’s use of her authority with a man frequently
invites more severe negative sanctions than would be
aroused in the situation of female authority use with
a woman or male authority use with either gender.
Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, and Opeil (1977) had
college students rate an authority figure portrayed in
written descriptions with various gender pairs, in the
following four situations: parent-child, employer-
employee, professor-student, and police officer-
driver. In each of the situations the subordinate
attempted to provide an excuse or explanation for
his or her behavior violating some rule. The authority

figure does not yield and maintains a firm stand with

53

the subordinate. Male and female raters did not
evaluate the authority figures differently. However,
the female authority figure exerting her authority
with a male subordinate, except in the parent child
situation, was rated more harshly (using a semantic
differential dimension "right/wrong") than in any
other gender pair combination. The evaluation of the
female authority figure was significantly affected
by the gender of her subordinate. In contrast,
judgements regarding the male authority figure were
not affected by the gender of his subordinate.

Several additional findings of interest occurred
in the second part of the Jacobson et al. study in
which perceptions of the authority figure who failed
to exert his or her authority were examined. Female
authority figures were not rated more positively than
male authorities. However, a woman who was lenient
with another woman was judged significantly more
negatively (using the semantic differential dimensions
"wrong" and "incompetent" ) than a lenient authority
in any other gender pair combination. A woman who
is lenient with a woman is judged more favorably,

except in the Officer situation, than one who exerts

54

her authority. Male authority figures are not judged
more critically for leniency toward a man nor for
exerting authority with a woman.

Female leaders can have a positive effect on
women (Bartol, 1974, 1975; Bromley, 1982; Field &
Caldwell, 1979; Mayes, 1978; Munson, 1979). In a
subsequent analysis of the 1974 data Bartol (1975)
examined the longitudinal effects of member satisfaction
in female-led teams with all male members and those with
mixed membership. Female members' satisfaction with
task structure decreased significantly in the male-led
mixed membership teams but increased somewhat in the
female-led mixed teams over the course of the simulation
exercise.

A woman in a position of high authority may have
a differential effect on men and women. The female
authority may represent for her female subordinate
an identificatory model inspiring admiration and the
desire to put forth hard work. For a male subordinate
a female authority may engender a loss of self esteem
as working under a woman can represent domination
by a woman and the attendent loss of masculinity.
Bromley (1982) had college students rate male and

female supervisors with high and low power in a role play

55
situation. Both male and female students indicated
they would work significantly harder for a male
supervisor. However, the women would work hardest
and be most satisfied working for a high power female
supervisor. In contrast, male respondents indicated
that they would work least hard and be least satisfied
working for a high power female supervisor.

Field and Caldwell (1979) in a replication study
of Osborn and Vicars (1976) used a larger sample of
university library employees with ongoing work experience
with male and female supervisors. Male and female
employees were found to be alike in all but two respects.
The women were somewhat older and had fewer children
than their male counterparts. Participants rated
various aspects of job satisfaction. Women supervised
by a woman were significantly more satisfied with
their supervisors than those supervised by a man. The
female supervised women were also more satisfied with
their work than were the male supervised men.

Mayes (1978) in the previously decribed study
found that women in the female-led Tavistock groups
behaved at least in the early stages of the group in
a more instrumental and assertive manner than their

counterparts in the male-led groups. In some contexts

56

women in authority positions, for example supervisors,
engendered more favorable reactions than men on the
part of both men and women. Munson (1979) selected
65 social work practitioners from among 19 social
welfare agencies in three adjoining states. The social
workers rated their supervisors on 15 variables having
to do with administrative, general, helping, and
teaching satisfaction. Female supervisors were rated
significantly more positively on two thirds of the
variables examined regardless of the gender of the social
worker. Male social workers with female supervisors
rated their supervisors significantly more positively
than those with male supervisors. Men and women
supervisors were not perceived as differing in
relationship or task orientation.
Ipfluence of Attitudes toward Wbmen
in Leadership Positions

Responses to female leadership can be substantially
affected by attitudes regarding the role of women in
leadership positions and the gender composition of
the group. Yerby (1975) divided college students
into small groups according to scores on the Attitude
to Female Leadership scale. The measure is comprised

of two primary factors, "equality of leadership potential

57
between males and females" and the "unessentiality
of the subordination of women to men", both derived
from a factor analysis of 80 variables. Students
participated in the task group, a role play in which
a "boss", the female leader, attempted to convince
her three workers (either three women, three men, or
one man and two women) to alter their work method.
In the structured version, the leader was provided
with an alternative work schedule, whereas, in the
unstructured situation the leader provided her own
solution from the available information. Group members
rated their perception of the female leader and their
satisfaction with the group. Mixed sex groups with
positive attitudes towards female leadership were the
most satisfied with the female leaders' commitment
to the group. The least satisfied groups were those
with mixed sex membership with negative attitudes
towards female leadership and those all male groups
with positive female leadership attitudes. Leaders
of the all female and mixed positive attitude groups
and the all female negative attitude groups were
rated significantly better than those of the all male
positive attitude and the mixed negative attitude

groups. All male negative attitude groups rated their

58
leaders significantly better than the all male
positive groups. Mixed membership groups were the
most satisfied with the distribution of talk in the
group and with members' originality. Group members
with more flexible sex-role attitudes reacted more
favorably to female leaders in groups comprised of
women and men.

Rice, Bender, Richter and Vitters (1980) found
that men's attitudes towards women can affect their
attributions regarding female leaders' and groups'
performance, and the female leaders' perceptions
of their power. Male first year cadets at the U.S.
Military Academy were divided into four person groups
according to their scores (traditional or liberal)
on the Spence & Helmreich Attitudes towards Women
scale (AWS). The small groups were conducted by either
a female or male cadet leader and completed two tasks,
a scale drawing ofaibuilding (structured task) and
the development of a proposal regarding increased
enlistment (unstructured task). Objective measures
of group performance for each of the tasks were
provided. Members also completed post task
questionnaires regarding perceptions of leaders'

behavior (initiating structure and consideration),

59

group atmosphere, group performance, and attributions
regarding leader and group performance. Traditional
men made negative attributions regarding the female
leaders' performance whereas liberal men evidenced a
profemale basis. Traditionals in female-led groups
credited luck as a more important factor in performance
whereas the traditional men in male-led groups attributed
hard work and member cooperation as more salient
factors in performance. The female leader's perception
of her power in the group was affected by the attitudes
of her group members. Female leaders of the traditional
groups in comparison with those of the liberal groups
indicated their perception of a less significant role.
Male leaders of the traditional groups indicated the
opposite perception of their role, that is of greater
importance than those of the liberal group. Liberal
groups reported similar perceptions of group
atmosphere in the female and male led groups. However,
traditional group members indicated a more positive
group atmosphere in the male-led groups.
Problems Associated with Laboratory Studies
of Management Styles

Studies investigating the evaluationcfifmanagerial

styles used by men and women have in common a

60

shortcoming derived from the short term laboratory
study. Participants in these studies were typically
presented with a short description of a situation in
which a manager used one or another style of management
with either a male or female subordinate or with a
subordinate of unspecified gender. Participants
were asked to rate the "manager" on some measure of
effectiveness or worker satisfaction. Significant
results may be a methodological artifact as Riger
and Galligan (1980) noted:

The artificial short-term nature of the

laboratory experiment may heighten the salience

of ascribed or visible permanent roles, such

as those related to gender, and may thus elicit

responses based on role stereotyping (p. 904).
In contrast field studies typically involved participants
who have had an ongoing work history with the supervisor
or manager, and therefore had more information available
than was provided in the laboratory experiments. The
salience of gender may consequently be diminished in
field studies (Field & Caldwell, 1979).
Field Studies vs Small Group Studies

The field studies reviewed in the area of leadership

are of two kinds. 1) Studies regarding the relationship

61

between gender of supervisor and employee, supervisor
style, and employee satisfaction and 2) those concerned
with the reactions of group members to male and
female leaders in small groups. Different results
are provided by each type of study. In field studies
of supervisor style and employee satisfaction male
and female supervisors who were perceived as using
either an initiating structure or consideration style
were not the recipients of less favorable employee
satisfaction ratings when certain factors which covary
with gender of the supervisor were controlled. These
factors include age, education and experience of
supervisors and their employees (Osborn & Vicars;
1976), type of occupation, level within the organization
and extent of professional training (Bartol; Brief &
Oliver; Renwick & Tossi cited in Riger & Galligan, 1980).

In contrast differences in reactions to female
and male leaders have been found in small group studies
which examine men's and women's reactions to a leader's
use of a particular kind of authority, for example,
that used in the Tavistock self study group. Female
leaders were the recipients of negative reactions.
The gender of the leader has been a salient factor in

combination with members' attitudes towards women in

62
small groups in which members complete a task. One
such example is the devaluation of the role of the
female leader in influencing group performance by
male group members with traditional attitudes towards
women.
Relevant Predictions
Several. predictions regarding reactions to a woman
who uses her authority are suggested by this body of
research. It was expected that a woman's use of
authority would engender different reactions than a
man's use of authority. Women were expected to be
more tolerant than men of awoman's use of authority
with a man. Men respondents' own level of dominance
as measured in this study were expected to affect
their perceptions of the female authority figures.
Men's dominance scores were expected to be negatively
related to their perceptions of each of the female
authority figures on the three dependent variables
of legitimate authority, positive authority and admired
image and positively related on the fourth variable
of destructive image.
Attitudes
Beliefs regarding women's capability to assume

positions of authority and function effectively in

63
such positions have been delineated by research in
the area of attitudes. Researchers in this area have
indicated whether women respond more favorably than
men to women in authority. Evidence regarding factors
which affect reactions to women in authority has also

been provided.

Attitudes Regardipg Women's Capability
for Positions of Authority

Cultural sex-role stereotypes have embodied an
image of women which has been incongruent with the
use of power and legitimate authority and the
attainment of high level positions (Bromley, 1982).
Research evidence exists for the belief shared by both
sexes that women possess fewer desirable characteristics
than men for managerial positions (Massengill & Di Marco,
1979; Powell & Butterfield, 1979; Rosen & Jerdee, 1974;
Schien, 1973, 1975). Schien (1973, 1975) had male
and female middle managers from a variety of insurance
companies throughout the U.S. rate a multi-item
descriptive index for either women in general, men
in general, or successful managers. Both groups
agreed that successful managers are more similar
to men than to women on such representative

characteristics as aggressiveness, ambitiousness,

64
competitiveness, desire for responsibility, and
objectivity. Male managers only viewed managers as
more similar to men than women with regard to the
following items: emotionally stable, steady, analytic
ability, logical, consistent, and well informed.
Female managers held a different view of women than
their male counterparts and one which embodied the
characteristics of emotional stability (items:
emotionally stable and steady) and rational thinking
(items: logical, consistent, analytic ability) aspects
of psychological maturity. Female managers apparently
did not believe that these characteristics were the
sole province of men. Men and women managers agreed
that successful managers are more similar to women
than men with regard to helpfulness, humanitarian
values and the awareness of other's feelings. A
significant resemblance was found between the ratings
for men and successful managers. Both groups of
managers held similar perceptions of managers. However,
only female managers reported a significant similarity
between ratings of managers and women, although a
significantly lower similarity than the one for
managers and men.

Massengill and Di Marco (1979) in a replication

65
using a more diverse sample of managers essentially
corroborated the findings reported by Schien. While
some changes in characteristics differentiating among
men, women and managers were found, men and managers
continued to be perceived as more similar than men
and women or managers and women. Female managers
perceived greater similarity between managers and
men than that reported on by Schien (1975). The female
managers' perception of greater similarity between
managers and women than that of male managers was
attributed to differences in their perception of
women rather than that of managers. The female
managers' self perceptions were most likely reflected
in their ratings of women.

Two additional findings concerning differences
between the perceptions of male and female managers
are noteworthy. Both genders shared an image of women
as relatively lacking in dominant and aggressive
characteristics. However, women were perceived as
significantly lower than both men and managers on
two and one half as many items in the dominant
aggressive category by male managers than by female
managers. Apparently male managers held an image of

women which was considerably more devoid of such

66
characteristics than that held by the female managers.
One explanation is that men typically differentiate
themselves and are differentiated from women along
the dominance aggressive dimension. Women are
consequently viewed as having little if any of the
characteristics which are cornerstones of male
identity. Women managers on the other hand may have
more of a syntonic awareness of and experience with
the dominant and aggressive aspects of themselves and
are more able to view women in ways which are
consistent with such an image. Finally in the item
category ”ego strength" (representative items high
self regard, emotionally stable) male managers rated
women as different from men and managers on six items,
whereas the female managers reported no such
differences.
Beliefs about Women in Positions

of Authority over Men

 

Research evidence exists as well for the belief
that women should not be in positions of power and
authority in which they are clearly and legitimately
dominant to men. The belief that women should not
supervise male or mixed worker groups is shared by

persons at various levels (Bass, Krussell & Alexander,

67
1971: Bowman, Worthy & Greyser, 1965; Kanter, 1977a;

Caplow; National Manpower Council; Oppenheimer; Whyte
cited in Wolf & Fligstein, 1979a). Kamorovsky (1973)
in a replication of her original study regarding
cultural contradictions and sex-roles indicated that
the findings continue to suggest "an adherence to
deeply internalized norms of male occupational
superiority pitted against the principle of equal
opportunity irrespective of sex" (p. 111).

Several studies reported workers' preference
for a male supervisor (Bass et al., 1971; Bowman et
al., 1965; Kanter, 1976), although contradictory
evidence is provided by others (Field & Caldwell,
1979; Munson, 1979). Greene (1976) in a survey of
Gallup poll data regarding attitudes toward women
bosses over a twenty—year period noted little
attitude change. Respondents to the 1975 Gallup
Opinion Poll indicated (by a nine to one margin) a
preference for a male boss in a new job situation.
Women's Attitudes towards Female Managers

Women have a more positive attitude than men
regarding women in positions of authority as managers.
Bowman et a1. (1965) in a survey of two thousand

successful executives equally divided between men

68
and women found that one and three-quarters as many
women as men believed that a woman would be comfortable
in a position of authority. One and one-half as many
women as men believed that a woman would be comfortable
working for another woman. More women than men believed
that a man would be comfortable working for a woman.
However, very few respondents of either gender
subscribed to a belief in male comfort with a female
superior. One-quarter of the male and three-quarters
of the female executives indicated a perception of self
as comfortable working for a woman.

Additional support for women's more positive
attitudes toward women as managers is available (Collins,
Waters, & Waters, 1979; Matteson, 1976; Terborg, Peters,
Ilgen, & Smith, 1977). Highly educated women seem
to have the most favorable attitudes toward women as
managers, a finding which held up on cross validation
(Terborg, et al., 1977). Collins et al. (1977) had
college students complete the Bem Sex Role Inventory
(BSRI) and the Women as Managers Scale (WAMS). Sex-
role orientation was significantly related to attitudes
toward women as managers, though in significantly
different directions for male as compared to female

students. Students who were more own sex-role

69

stereotyped, that is female students with feminine
and men with masculine sex-role orientations, had more
negative attitudes toward women as managers. Attitudes
toward female managers can affect the attributions
persons make regarding a female manager's success.
For example, male managers with negative attitudes
attributed the female manager's success to external
factors, chance and task ease, whereas male managers
with a positive attitude attributed her success to
internal factors, ability and hard work (Garland &
Price, 1977).
Influence of Job Experience with Women

Inconsistent data are provided regarding the
relationship between on-the—job experience with
women and the perception of her managerial potential.
Bass et al. (1971) found that male managers with female
subordinates held the most unfavorable attitudes.
Male managers with no on-the-job experience with
women held positive attitudes. Managers with female
colleagues perceived women as lacking in career
orientation and dependability but on the other five
factors measured held attitudes in between those of
men who supervised women and those with no female

subordinates or colleagues.

7O

Ezell, Odewahn, and Sherman (1981) suggested
that the perception of one aspect of a woman's
management competence is affected by having been
supervised by a woman. The public welfare agency
managers who had a female supervisor held
significantly more favorable attitudes regarding
a female manager's competence motivation than those
with no experience with a female supervisor. However,
ratings of the female manager's competence ability
and environment were not affected by having been
supervised by a woman. Terborg et a1. (1977) reported
that level of interaction with women on the job (as
subordinates, peers, or superiors) did not adequately
predict attitudes towards female managers.
Influence of Age on Attitudes toward Female Managers

Inconsistent data are also available regarding
the effect of age on attitudes toward women as
managers. Some support exists for the finding that
age favorably affects men's attitudes. Men's
acceptance of women in management increased with
age, such that male executives over the age of forty
had more favorable attitudes (Bowman et al., 1965).
More favorable attitudes regarding a female manager's

competence ability were held by male managers over the

71

age of fifty (Ezell et al., 1981). Other studies have
indicated that age had no appreciable effect on
attitudes regarding women as managers (Bass et al.,
1971: Terborg et al., 1977). Matteson (1976) reported
that the number of years of work experience, with the
effect of age partialed out, adversely affect men's
and women's attitudes. Men and women with more years
of work experience held more negative attitudes.
Schien (1975), however, found that women managers with
less than five years of experience held more negative
attitudes.
Relevant Predictions

Several predictions regarding reactions to a
woman who uses authority are suggested by research
findings in this area. Women were expected to hold
more favorable attitudes than men toward a female
authority figure. For example, women respondents
were more likely than men to perceive the female
authority figure as having certain characteristics
(clear thinking, fair-minded) which could make the
use of authority potentially less frightening and
more legitimate. Respondents' own level of dominance
were also expected to affect, albeit in different

ways for each gender group, their perceptions of the

72
female authority figures.

Social Power

 

An understanding of the ways in which women are
allowed to use power is provided by research in the
area of social power. Cultural sex-role stereotypes
would suggest that women should not be powerful in
a direct authoritative manner. Women are expected
to be less direct than men and more sneaky
(Broverman et al., 1972). Women are typically expected
to use indirect or manipulative forms of power (Johnson,
1978). In this culture, strong prohibitions have
existed against women's achievement and usage of
legitimate authority, particularly with men.
Traditionally, a woman's use of her authority has been
restricted to interactions with her children and possibly
domestic servants (Johnson, 1976). A substantial
portion of mythology consists of images of women
as destructively powerful or evil (Hays, 1964; Lederer,
1968: Slavin, 1972).

Types of Power

 

French and Raven have delineated a typology of
power. These researchers conceive of a power base
as referring to the "particular nature of the

relationship between the influencer and the

73

influenced which is the source of power" (cited in
Johnson, 1978, p. 303). The following are the six
power bases described by Johnson based on Raven's
typology.

l. coercion; one person can threaten the other
with some form of punishment.

2. reward; one person promises some form of
reward to the other.

3. referent; one appeals to the similarity and
liking between herself or himself and the other.

4. legitimate; one acts in terms of one's right
to influence and the other's obligation to comply.

5. expert; one uses superior skills or knowledge.

6. information; one persuades the other with
information about the outcome of the other's
compliance.
Types of Power & Sex-Role Stereotypes

Johnson (1974) examined the effects of sex-role
stereotypes on reactions to the use of various forms
of social power. Students rated the extent to which
each of fifteen power bases was feminine or masculine
using a hypothetical situation questionnaire. The
ratings indicated that helplessness, referent, and

indirect power were regarded as feminine. In contrast,

74
expert, legitimate, and informational were rated as
highly masculine power bases. In the second part
of the study participants indicated gender and
power base differential reactions to the influencer
when informed of the gender of the influencer. Users
of "female" power were rated as less powerful,

aggressive, cold and competent than were users of

male power. Of particular relevance to this study
is Johnson's finding that the female influencer using
a male power base was rated as being significantly
more powerful, aggressive, and cold, but not more
competent than a male influencer. One interpretation
of this finding is that the woman is punished for her
violation of her role. When presented with the
opportunity to select a method of influencing another,
the female students typically selected a feminine
type of power noticably rejecting the use of expert
power. The male students usually selected masculine
types of power with a predominant rejection of
helplessness. An additional finding of interest was
that participants'feelings of competence increased
over the course of the experiment except for those
women selecting helplessness.

In a related study Johnson (1976) investigated

75

the differential expectations as the gender of the
influencing agent. Undergraduate psychology students
were presented with hypothetical ways in which X
could attempt to induce Y to change his or her opinion
regarding a legal case. The students rated how likely
it was that X was a female and how likely it was that
X was a male. Another group of students using a
second hypothetical situation questionnaire rated
the femininity and masculinity of the influence
method. Coercion, legitimate, expert, and
informational power, three of the four predicted male
power bases and indirect information, were significantly
more expected of men than of women. Two, personal
reward and sexuality, of the nine hypothesized female
power types were found to be significantly more likely
of a female influencer whereas four of the five
predicted and one not predicted, indirect information,
bases were associated with a male influencer. Johnson
concluded that these findings may be suggestive of
a phenomenon similar to that reported in Broverman
et a1. (1972).

namely males are allowed to show "feminine"

characteristics but females are not allowed

to have "masculine" traits. That is, it's

76

acceptable (or expected) that only males will

use the strong aggressive types of power; yet

males are also allowed to use the other bases.

Females, however, are limited in our society's

expectation to the less powerful bases

(pp. 107-108).

The use of legitimate authority can be less
effective than helplessness for a woman. Gruder and
Cook (1971) had college students arrive for a
psychological experiment to discover a note from
the experimenter with a request for the student to
perform a task. The experimenter's room contained
articles suggestive of the gender of the experimenter.
The note either indicated a straight legitimate request
relying on position or one based on helplessness. The
female experimenter was more successful with a request
based on helplessness than one based on her legitimate
authority. The male experimenter was more successful
with either a request based on helplessness or
legitimate authority than was the female experimenter
using a request based on legitimate authority.

Additional support for the negative consequences
of a woman's use of traditional masculine power is

provided by Falbo, Hazen and Linemon (1982).

77
Undergraduate students evaluated the likeability,
competence, attractiveness, and credibility of male
or female speakers delivering a speech regarding
child care centers (female content) or the banning
of Saturday night specials (gun control-male type
content). The speaker ended the speech with either
an influence type based on helplessness, stereotypically
feminine, or one based on expertise, stereotypically
masculine. Speakers using opposite sex influence types
were rated as less likeable than those using the
gender appropriate type. The female speakers using
expertise were rated as less likeable than the expert
male speakers. Male speakers relying on helplessness
to influence others were rated as less likeable than
their female counterparts. The expert female
speakers were rated as less competent than the males
using the helplessness influence strategy. However,
the expert female speakers did not obtain lower
attractiveness or trustworthiness ratings than their
male counterparts. Speakers using a cross sex type
influence method did not achieve lower effectiveness
ratings than those using a more gender typical
influence strategy. The researchers also noted one

additional speaker gender effect. Female speakers

78
were rated as significantly more competent, trustworthy
and qualified than were the male speakers.

Relevant Predictions

 

Several predictions relevant to this study are
suggested by research in the area of social power.
The authority figures in this study were described
as using legitimate authority, a type of power which
is typically viewed as "masculine." While it seems
logical to predict that the female authority figures
with the male subordinate would incur more negative
reactions than the male authority figures, the
research was not clear enough to make directional
predictions. In some studies a female influencer
using a male power base was perceived as more
aggressive, powerful and cold and less likeable than
a male influencer. However, in other studies the
female influencer is not perceived as less
trustworthy or effective than the male influencer.
The effect of the gender of the individual being
influenced was not specified in these studies.
Therefore it seems logical to predict that there
were differences in the ratings of the authority
figures on each of the dependent variable scales.

It was also expected that men would rate the male

79
authority figures more favorably than women.

Success and Achievement

 

Responses toward men and women who achieve have
been suggested by studies in the area of success and
achievement. Evidence as to whether a woman is rated
on par with a man for the same accomplishment has been
provided by research in this area. Researchers have
also suggested how much credibility is given to a woman
for her achievements by clarifying to which factors her
accomplishments are attributed.

Evaluation of Women's Performance

 

Inconsistent results have been produced by studies
concerning the evaluation of women's performance. A
prototypical and often widely cited study has been that
of Goldberg (1968) who claimed that "women consider
their own sex inferior" (p. 28). Female college
students rated professional articles in male-identified
fields (law and city planning), female-identified fields
(elementary education and dietetics) and neutral
(linguistics and art history) fields, written either by
a female or male author. Goldberg indicated that the
male authors were rated more favorably in all fields,
though in fact significant differences in ratings were

obtained only in city planning, linguistics, and law,

80
that is, three of the six fields (Mischel, 1974).
Other researchers (Levenson, Burford, Bonno & Davis,
1975: Mischel, 1974; Pheterson, Kiesler & Goldberg,
1971; Soto & Cole, 1975; Trilling, 1976) have not
supported Goldberg's findings. Evidence for a
profemale bias on the part of women in certain
situations has been provided.

Levenson et a1. (1975) had college students grade
student essays. The female college students rated the
essays written by women more favorably than those
written by men. Mischel (1974) found that the gender
of the author enhanced the evaluation of work in some
fields, while adversely affecting it in others, and
having no effect on evaluations in still other fields.
College students rated the articles in one of the two
male fields, city planning, significantly more favorably
when attributed to a male author. Female-authored
articles in dietetics were also rated significantly
more favorably than those credited to a male author.
Articles in the remaining fields showed no effect for
gender of the author though two of these fields, law
and education, were gender-linked fields. Trilling
(1975) found that the more a woman identified with

women, that is, perceived herself as similar to her

81
view of the average woman, the less likely she was to
evaluate a woman's product less favorably than that of
a man.

Influence of Gender & Competence on

 

Performance Evaluation

 

The differential evaluation of performance may be
affected by level of competence. Deaux and Taynor
(1973) had college students rate either a male or female
applicant of "high" competence or "low" competence for
a study abroad scholarship program. The "high
competent" male applicant was rated more positively
than the "high competent" female. However, "low
competent" males were rated significantly less favorably
than their female counterparts. The researchers
concluded that a "male stimulus person appears to be
evaluated along a broader range, appearing more
competent at the positive end of the scale but suffering
greater devaluation under conditions of low competence”
(p. 262). Pheterson et a1. (1971) provided findings
which were somewhat contradictory to the aforementioned.
College students rated paintings either by a male or
female artist presented as an entry level or award
winning piece. Successful female artists (award

winners) were rated as favorably as the comparable male

82

artists. However, the not-as-yet successful female
artists (entry level works) were judged significantly
less favorably than those by their male counterparts.
Additional support for the effect of status level as
well as gender of the subject is provided by Peck (1978).
Undergraduate education students evaluated articles
written by a fictitious male or female author of either
high or low professional status. The female
participants evaluated the work of the high status
female author more favorably than did the men.

A competent woman has frequently engendered more
unfavorable responses than a competent man. Ferber
and Huber (1975) had over twelve hundred college
students evaluate their former college teachers. Men
rated their female teachers in comparison with their
male teachers significantly less favorably in four of
the seven subject areas. Female teachers evaluated by
male students received significantly less favorable
ratings than those rated by female students or the
male teachers rated by either gender. An additional
relevant finding was that for both men and women
favorable evaluations of former female teachers were
associated with a significant decrease in preference

for male teachers. Contact with competent women acts

83
to decrease prejudice among male and female college
students.

The adverse effect of female gender on the
perception of competency has also been suggested by
Fidell (1970). Fidell sent fictitious vitae belonging
to either a male or female psychologist to the chair
of each psychology department with a graduate program.
The chairperson was asked to indicate impressions of
the applicants' chances of receiving an offer for a
full time position and at what level. The female
psychologists received a greater number of offers at
the assistant professor level than the male
psychologists. The male psychologists received a
broader distribution level of appointments. They also
received more "on line" (academic positions with tenure)
responses than did the female psychologists.

Perceptions of a competent women's likeability
can be affected by the extent of involvement in
interacting with her. Hagen and Kahn (1975) had
undergraduates either compete with, cooperate with or
observe two men or two women who were making predictions
regarding a student's future. One of each pair was
designated as either "low competent" or "high competent."

The competent woman was liked by the male students

84

only when her performance was observed and the male
students were not involved in interactions with her.
The competent woman was more likely than the competent
man to be excluded from the group. Students were more
likely to include an incompetent woman than an
incompetent man in the group. Attitudes toward women
can also affect the likelihood of exclusion from the
group. Men with liberal attitudes toward women were
less likely to exclude the competent woman than those
with more traditional attitudes. However, the
researchers noted that "even men with liberal attitudes
toward women do not particularly like a competent
woman" (p. 373). A woman's competency can represent
for a man a threat to or even an assault on his self
esteem and thus can arouse counteragression toward the
woman as a response to the "threat" (Coser; Kahn &
Ryan; Sherriffs, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherriffs; cited
in Hagen & Kahn, 1975). Spence and Helmreich (1972)
have provided data regarding the relationship between
attitudes toward women and liking which is consistent
with that of Hagen and Kahn.

Inconsistent data have been provided indicating
that competent women were preferred over incompetent

ones by observers of either gender (Deaux, 1972;

85

Spence & Helmreich, 1972). Hagen and Kahn (1975)
examined the differences between the nature of the
interactions in their study and that of Deaux (1972)
and Spence and Helmreich (1972) in an effort to explain
the differences in the obtained results. The
researchers noted that in the latter studies videotapes
of the competent women were presented in a situation in
which the observer had no further interaction with the
stimulus person, the competent woman. Hagen and Kahn
speculated that this type of design may not call forth
prejudice against a competent woman to the same extent
as one in which the subject is involved in an
interaction with the competent woman. Evidence is
provided indicating that behavior in actual contrast
to hypothetical situations is not comparable (Campbell,
1963; Miller, 1972; Wicker, 1969).
Alternate Theoretical Paradigms

An understanding of negative reactions to a
woman's use of authority or competency is aided by an
aspect of dissonance theory, the effect of expectancy
disconfirmation (Festinger, 1957; Watts, 1968). A
woman who uses her authority with a male subordinate
may be perceived as holding an unexpected position,

"boss," and acting in an unexpected manner by using

86

her authority. A person confronted with a
disconfirmation of his or her expectations can either
change his or her beliefs, punish the other, or
attribute the unexpected behavior to chance. The
disconfirmation of expectations which diminish self
esteem leads to the greatest dissonance (Aronson, 1969).
Competency is a valued attribute in our society and a
critical component of male sex-role adequacy which, as
WOlowitz (1979) notes is "one of the major cornerstones
of ego identity in many cultures and is especially the
basis of self respect in complexly competitive cultures
such as our own" (p. 11). For men raised in this
culture, sex-role adequacy has been closely connected
‘with a belief in male superiority in various
performance realms and the central value of power and
domination (Bernardez, 1981; Farrell, 1974; Filene,
1974; Goldberg, 1977). Consequently a paradigm in
which a man is under the authority of a woman can
arouse for the man a greater loss of self esteem in
comparison with any other gender pair combination.
Differential Attributions for Performance
by Men and Women

Research concerning attributions of causation of

positive and negative outcomes is an area of

87
achievement research which is relevant to the present
study. Researchers in this area have suggested that
a wbmen's successful performance is credited to a
different set of factors than is a man's. Men are

believed to be more responsible than are women for
success and positive outcomes, whereas women are viewed
as more responsible for failure and negative outcomes"
(Pinches, 1978, p. 38).

Researchers (Feather, 1969; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla,
Reed, Rest & Rosenbaum, 1972) have suggested that
expected success or failure should be attributed to
internal factors such as ability or effort, while
unexpected success or failure should be attributed to
external factors such as chance or task ease. On this
basis Deaux and Emswiller (1974) hypothesized that
gender inconsistent achievement or successful
performance on a cross sex-typed task would be
attributed to chance. Undergraduate students rated
male and female confederates on either a masculine or
feminine typed task. Identical performance by men
and women was not attributed to identical factors.
Successful performance on the masculine typed task by

men was attributed to skill, whereas the woman's

successful performance on the same task was credited

88
to chance. The man's successful performance on the
feminine-typed task was not attributed to chance as
expected but rather to skill as was the woman's.
Performance on the masculine-typed task was rated more
favorably although the tasks were pretested for equal
difficulty. Male and female students manifested similar
patterns of judgments suggestive of biases that were
equally held.

Feather and Simon (1973, 1975) found, consistent
with the work of Feather and Raphelson (1974) that among
a group of Australian private school girls, a male
stimulus person's success in a variety of occupations
was attributed to ability more than was a female
stimulus person's success. A woman's success in
comparison with the man's was attributed more to lack
of task difficulty, that is, ease of course of study
rather than to her ability. The woman's failure was
attributed more to personal deficiencies than was a
man's failure, which was accounted for by external
factors. The men were also evaluated more positively
and were seen as more powerful and less feminine if
successful. The women in contrast were rated more
positively and powerfully and as more feminine if they

failed. The results reported by Feather and his

89

colleagues (Feather & Simon, 1973, 1975; Feather &
Raphelson, 1974) may be of limited applicability. The
samples used can be considered selective and biased
and as a result may preclude generalization to the
population of American undergraduate students.

Differential attributions regarding successful
performance by men and women seem to be well
established in both boys and girls by the fifth grade.
Etaugh and Brown (1975) found that subjects in the
fifth, eighth, eleventh grades, and in college held
similar attributions regarding successful and
unsuccessful performance on a masculine-typed task
by men as opposed to women. A woman's success in
mechanics, an unexpected outcome, was more often
credited to her effort (an unstable factor) than was
a man's. The identical performance by a man, an
expected outcome, was more often attributed to his
ability (a stable factor) than was the woman's. These
findings are consistent with those of Weiner et a1.
(1971) regarding the relationships between expected
outcome and stable factor attributions (ability, task
difficulty) versus unexpected outcome and unstable
factor attributions (chance and effort).

Another type of judgment regarding a person's

90

behavior or performance relevant to this study is that
of blame or culpability for either the behavior or the
outcome. Some data exist which suggest that women may
be blamed more than men for destructive outcomes.
Fernberger (cited in Pinches, 1978) had men and women
subjects indicate which traits were more characteristic
of men or women. Women and men subjects were in
agreement regarding women's culpability for trouble.
Lansky, Crandall, Kagan and Baker (1961) indicated
that adolescent girls in comparison with their male
peers assumed more responsibility for destructive
outcomes. Hoffman (1974) reported the essentially
consistent finding that girls and women were more apt
to experience guilt and worry about the effects of
their behavior than were boys and men.

Researchers have found that a woman is in some
contexts likely to be perceived more favorably than
a man by women. Pinches (1978) had college women write
a projective story involving an argument between a man
and a woman in which the argument had either a
nonspecified, negative, or positive outcome on the
couple's relationship. The female students then rated
the male and female story characters using the Story

Character EValuation Scale (SCES), a multi-item

91
Likert-type scale measuring perception of destructive
dominance, hostility, love, appeal, ego strength and
immaturity. The students also assigned credit or blame
for the argument to each of the story characters and
completed the Spence and Helmreich Attitudes toward
WOmen Scale (AWS). Irrespective of the female college
students' sex-role ideology (liberal, traditional or
moderate) and of the information provided regarding
the impact of the argument outcome on the couple's
relationship, the female story character received
significantly more favorable ratings regarding
attributions for credit and blame for the argument
than the male character. However, the researcher noted
some modest support for the belief that women are
blamed more for the argument than are men. The belief
that the argument should have been prevented was
positively correlated with attribution of blame and
negatively associated with attribution of credit to
the woman.

No relationship was found between opinions
regarding the argument and the SCES ratings for the
male story character. Both male and female characters
received favorable personality trait ratings although

the female story character was rated more favorably

92
than the male character. The female character was not
rated as substantially different on the destructive
dominance or immaturity item cluster from the male
character. Traditional women were not more critical
of the female story character for excessive aggression,
domineering behavior or egoism than were liberal women.
However, the traditional women attributed more
destructive dominance than any other group to the
female story character when the outcome of the argument
was specified. The liberal women attributed less
destructive dominance than the traditional or moderate
women to the female story character when the argument
outcome was specified. In the negative outcome
condition, the liberal women indicated a noticeable
increase in attribution of blame to the woman. The
female character was the recipient not only of more
blame but was also characterized as more hostile by
liberal women than by either the traditional or
moderate ones. Pinches presented a variety of
interesting explanations for this unexpected finding.
The liberal women were also more unfavorable in their
ratings of both the male and female story character
for undesirable weakness and aggression.

Profemale bias on the part of women has also been

93
reported by other researchers. Pinches (1978), in her
review of studies by Cookie; Jaffee et al.; Priest and
Wilhelm; and Taylor and Epstein, noted the increased
likelihood of same sex favoritism in situations
involving conflict between an individual woman and a
man.

Relevant Predictions

 

Several predictions regarding judgments about a
woman who uses authority are suggested by research in
the area of success and achievement. It was expected
that women would rate the female authority figures
more favorably than men. Differences in the ratings
between the authority figures on each of the dependent
variable scales were expected. The research was not
clear enough to make directional predictions.

It was possible that the position and/or behavior
of the female authority figure who uses authority with
a male subordinate would be perceived as sex-role
inconsistent and thus unexpected. Consequently she
would engender the judge's anger and adverse responses
for being in a position to exert authority, a position
she achieved by luck rather than ability. In this
respect her authority usage would be perceived as more

unpredictable and potentially more dangerous than that

94
of her male counterpart whose perceived ability would
serve as a reassurance against his wanton use of
authority. It was also possible that the female
authority would be credited with achieving her position,
possibly an unexpected one, on the basis of her effort
and thus would be the recipient of very favorable
reactions.

The extent to which respondents in this study
perceived the subordinate as vulnerable to criticism
or rejection by the authority figure could affect
judgments about the authority figure. It was possible
that the male subordinate would be perceived as
vulnerable to the rejection of his ideas and the demand
for compliance by the female authority. Therefore, the
female authority figure would be blamed more than the
other authority figures and would be the recipient of
negative ratings. However, it was also possible that
the female subordinate would be perceived as more
vulnerable to the rejection of her ideas than the male
subordinates. Therefore, either of the authority
figures with a female subordinate could be blamed more
than the authority figures with a male subordinate.

Finally, it was also expected that respondents'

dominance scale scores would be related to perceptions

95
of the female authority figures. Men's dominance scale
scores were expected to be positively related to
perceptions of the female authority figures'
destructive image and negatively related to perceptions
of admired image, legitimate authority and positive
authority. Women's dominance scores were expected to
be positively associated with perceptions of the female
authority figures' admired image, positive authority,
and legitimate authority and negatively associated with
perceptions of destructive image.
Summary

Research findings in five areas, sex-linked
stereotypes, leadership, attitudes, social power and
success and achievement, have been reviewed. Several
major findings emerged which are relevant to this study.
WOmen were not perceived as more lacking than men in
characteristics which are compatible with the
achievement of high level positions and the use of
authority, for example, independence, leadership
orientation and aggressiveness. However, when ratings
of personality needs for each gender group, rather
than a sex-role stereotype questionnaire, were used to
assess perceptions, dominance is perceived by both men

and women to be a much less important need for a woman

96
than for a man. Sex-role perceptions of a career woman
were sometimes distinguished from those of a woman by
the inclusion of such items as dominant, rational and
unemotional.

Women in positions of authority, for example as
managers, were more easily able than men to hold a
perception of a woman which embodies the qualities of
rational thinking, emotional stability and some
dominance related characteristics. Differences in the
perceptions held by feminist as compared to nonfeminist
women were also found. Women typically in university
settings who are affiliated with the women's movement
valued more than non-affiliated women such attributes
as directness and dominance.

Inconsistent findings are available regarding the
evaluation of different leadership styles. A woman
who used a sex-role inconsistent style, for example
initiating structure or reward, was rated less
favorably than a man in laboratory studies comparing
men's and women's use of various management styles.
However, perceptions of a female manager's use of
sex-role inconsistent styles did not appear to
influence workers' satisfaction when factors which

covary with the gender of the workers and the manager

97
were controlled. In other contexts, a woman's use of
authority, for example in Tavistock-type self study
groups, engendered criticism, hostility, and
fearfulness on the part of male and female group
members. Evidence has been provided suggesting that
a woman in a position of authority can have an
empowering effect on women but not on men. Men's
attitudes toward the role of women has been shown to
affect their attributions regarding the female leader.
Men with traditional attitudes toward the role of women
devalued the role of the female leader more than men
with liberal attitudes.

An association between gender and certain types
of power has been indicated by research findings in
the area of social power. For example, legitimate
authority and expert power have been associated with
men and helplessness, referrent, and personal reward
have been associated with women. The use of a male-
identified power type by a woman has engendered
unfavorable evaluations. For example, a woman using
a male-identified power type has been perceived as more
aggressive, cold, wrong, and less likeable than a man.
A woman's use of legitimate authority has been less

effective than her use of helplessness.

98

Evidence for the equal evaluation of achievement
by men and women has been provided by studies in the
area of success and achievement. However, evaluations
of the woman's achievement has been affected by her
level of competence or status. A competent woman in
some contexts has engendered more unfavorable responses
than a competent man. An aspect of dissonance theory,
the effect of expectancy disconfirmation, has been
useful in providing an explanation of negative
reactions to a woman's competency or use of authority.

Researchers concerned with the attribution of
causation for positive and negative outcomes have
indicated that a woman's successful performance is
attributed to a different set of factors than is a
man's. Successful performance by a woman on a sex-role
inconsistent task was perceived as an unexpected
outcome and consequently was attributed to chance
rather than to ability. In addition, some evidence
has been provided suggesting that women were blamed
more for destructive outcomes than men. However, in
some contexts women were likely to be perceived more

favorably than men.

Chapter III
Methods
Introduction

A sample of college men and women were presented
with a written description of a fictitious authority
figure, either Susan Brooks or David Crane, who uses
his or her authority with a subordinate, either Brian
Dean or Helen Green. The respondents were asked to
write a TAT-type story about the interchange between
the authority figure and the subordinate and to respond
to a list of statements asking for evaluations of the
authority figure. Respondents also completed a measure
of dominance.

There were three independent variables in the
study, gender of respondents, dominance scale scores
of respondents, and the authority figure described
in one of four experimental conditions.

The four dependent variables were the respondentS'
evaluations of the authority figure on the four scales
which were Legitimate Authority (LA), Positive
Authority (PA), Admired Image (AI), and Destructive
Image (DI).

Sample
The sample consisted of 401na1e and 80 female

undergraduate students at a large midwestern university

99

100

who volunteered to participate in this research

and who completed the one-session testing.
Approximately one-half of the sample (18 men and

39 women) was selected 'from students living in

a university residence hall complex during the Spring
quarter of 1984. The complex was selected on the
recommendation of the Director of University Housing.
It is a large complex with six halls housing 1,309
men and 1,044 women students. The researcher hoped
that the easily accessible testing area would be

an incentive for student participation. One hundred
and twenty-two residents were randomly selected

and contacted either by letter (see Appendix A)

or phone with a reminder note (see Appendix B).
Twenty students or 16 2/3% of those contacted completed
the testing. Additional residents were recruited
with a letter (see Appendix C) sent to 800 men and
800 women residents. Thirty-seven students (9 men
and 28 women) or 2.19% of those contacted volunteered.
The names, campus addresses, and phone numbers of

the residents were obtained from a computer listing
of the complex residents compiled by University

data processing with the prior approval of the Office

of the Registrar. The researcher paid the data

101

processing fee fOr the Listing of men and women
residents.

The extremely low rate of participation in
this research during Spring quarter of 1984 along
with substantially decreased residence hall enrollment
during summer quarters made an alternate method
of respondent recruitment necessary. Twenty-two
men (55% of the total sample of men) and forty-one
(51% of the total sample of women) were recruited
from undergraduate students enrolled in social science
courses during Summer quarter of 1984. The researcher
anticipated that students in social science courses
would be more interested in this research and,
therefore, would be more likely to volunteer for
this study than students enrolled in courses in
other divisions.

The mean age of the men and women was comparable
(see Table l; Men=20.55 years, Women=20.25 years).
While the mean age for each gender group of students
recruited during Spring quarter was different from
the mean age of the Summer quarter students, these

differences were not significant.

102
Table 1

Mean Agg of Each Sample Group

 

 

 

MEN WOMEN
Spring Summer Total Total Spring Summer
N-18 N=22 N=4O N480 N=39 N=4l
I 19 21.32 20.55 20.25 18.94 21.62
S.D. .908 3.445 2.96 2.292 .916 2.509

 

The total sample of men and the total sample of
women were comparable on the demographic variables of
race and education level (see Table 2). There were
two striking differences between each gender group on
the religion variable. The sample of women students
consisted of a larger percentage of Catholics
(Women=46.6%; Men=27.5%) and a small percentage of
students with no religious affiliation (Women=3.7%;
Men=15%) than the sample of men students.

All students were offered a token payment. The
residence hall students were offered the opportunity
to place their names in a prize drawing for one of

seven prizes including $100. Summer students were

also able to enter a prize drawing although the

103
Table 2

Race; Education Level and Religion of Men and

Women Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Men Women
Rggg

Black 12.5% 8.8%
Caucasian 85 86.2
Hispanic 0 3.7
American Indian O 0
Other 2.5 1.2
Education

Freshman 37.5 31.3
Sophomore 25 22.5
Junior 15 16.2
Senior 22.5 30
Other 0 0
Religion

Catholic 27.5 46.2
Jewish 5 1.2
Protestant 35 31.3
Other 17.5 17.5
None 15 3.7

 

104
prizes were considerably smaller ($20, $15, & $10).
In addition, each summer student who participated
in this research received a coupon for a free ice
cream. Students recruited from psychology courses
were also given credit by the course instructors.
Instruments
A TAT-type written cue, the projective instrument,
was designed to present respondents with a situation
in which an authority figure uses his or her authority
with a subordinate. Two sets of measurements were
used. The first, the Story Character Evaluation
Scale, assessed respondents' evaluations of the
authority figure on each of the four scales of
Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority, Admired
Image and Destructive Image. The second measure
used was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory Dominance Scale which assessed respondents'
own level of dominance.
Projective Instrument
A projective instrument was designed to present
respondents with a situation in which an authority
figure exerts his or her authority with a subordinate
(see Appendix D). The format is based on the TAT.

The projective instrument is an adaptation of the

105
one developed and used by Pinches (1978) in her
dissertation research. In lieu of the standard TAT
pictures, a brief written description of an authority
figure was presented to the respondents. Respondents
were asked to write projective stories according to
the TAT manual instructions. Stories were used as a
way to involve students and elicit individual content.
The researcher did not analyze the content of the stories.
One experimental stimulus with four variations
was used. The basic stimulus is that of an authority
figure, the division head of a large company with a
subordinate on his or her staff and working under his
or her direction, who is in the midst of a meeting in
which the superior rejects the project plan of the
subordinate. The superior indicates that the
subordinate's compliance with an alternate project
plan, one which the authority figure developed, is
expected. The four variations of this stimulus are:
A. Female - Male
The division head is a women (Susan Brooks)
and her subordinate is a man (Brian Dean).
B. Female - Female
The division head is a woman (Susan Brooks)

and her subordinate isaawoman (Helen Green).

106

C. Male - Male
The division head is a man (David Crane)
and his subordinate is also a man (Brian
Dean).
D. Male - Female
The division head is a man (David Crane)
and his subordinate is a.woman (Helen
Green).
The projective test forms consist of a page titled
Story Form which includes background information,
a scene description and story instructions for one
of the four stimulus variations followed by two
blank pages. The story instructions are an adaptation
of TAT plot instruction. After writing a story
respondents then completed the Story Character
Evaluation Scale.
Story Character Evaluation Scale (SCES)

A series of statements were designed to investigate
the respondents' evaluations of the authority figure
(see Appendix E). The SCES permits a rating of
the authority figure from one to four on 42 Likert-type
items. These 42 items constitute four scales. The
number and type of items in each scale along with

the scale's reliability are summarized in Table 3.

107

Table 3

The Story Character Evaluation Scales

 

 

Type of Number
Scale Item of Items Reliability

Legitimate

Authority (LA) Statement 4 .73
Positive

Authority (PA) Statement 2 .70
Admired Personality

Image (AI) Traits 15 g .91
Destructive Personality

Image (DI) Traits 21 .94

 

These internal consistency coefficients were calculated.
using Cronbach's alpha.

ngitimate authority (Items 11, 14, 18 & 19).
Four statements comprise a measure of the respondent's
perception of the authority figure's legitimate
authority. The statements were derived from Smith's
conceptualization of authority as "the right to
make a particular decision and command obedience"
(M.G. Smith, 1960, 18-19). Respondents rated the
authority figure on each of the statements using
a Likert-four-point scale with (1) indicating strong

agreement and (4) indicating strong disagreement

108

with the statement. For purposes of data analyses
two changes were made in the scoring. First, the
Likert-four-point scale of l, 2, 3, and 4 was changed
to 0, 1, 2, and 3. This change was made to
accommodate the preference of the individual performing
the computer analyses of the data. Second, the
item scoring was changed such that a high score
on any item was consistent with high Legitimate
Authority and a low score on any item was consistent
with low Legitimate Authority. Therefore, the scores
given to items #11 and #19 were reversed.

The following statements are written in the
most general format. The appropriate authority
figure and subordinate were substituted for each
of the stimulus variations on the SCES completed
by respondents.

11. The authority figure has the right to
reject the subordinate's plan.

14. The authority figure does not have the
right to have the subordinate comply with an alternate
plan.

18. The authority figure is a bitch (bastard)
to work for.

19. The authority figure should make major

109

decisions affecting Regional Health Care Associates.
Positive Authority (Items 16 and 20). Two
items comprise the Positive Authority (PA) scale
and are a measure of the respondent's perception
of the person in authority as exercising his or
her authority in a fair and constructive manner.
The two items were written and used by Pinches (1978).
Responses on these items may be studied separately
from responses on the Legitimate Authority scale.
Respondents were asked to rate the authority figure
on a four-point Likert scale with (1) indicating
strong agreement with the statement, (2) indicating
moderate agreement with the statement, (3) indicating
moderate disagreement with the statement, and (4)
indicating strong disagreement with the statement.
For purposes of data analyses the Likert-four-point
scale of l, 2, 3, and 4 was changed to 0, l, 2,
and 3 to accommodate the preference of the individual
performing the computer analyses of the data. A
low score on each of the Positive Authority items
was consistent with low Positive Authority.
The following statements are written in the
most general format. The appropriate authority

figure and subordinate were substituted for each

110

of the stimulus variations on the SCES completed
by respondents.

16. The authority figure is not helpful and
constructive with the subordinate.

20. The authority figure created trouble between
herself (himself) and the subordinate.

Personality traits list. The Personality Traits

 

List contains 36 items grouped into two clusters,
Admired Image and Destructive Image. Three judges
independently assigned the items of the Personality
Trait List to the clusters described below. Items
on which the three judges were in agreement were
included in the Pesonality Traits List given to
respondents.

On the Personality Traits List the respondent
was asked to rate the authority figure on a four-point
scale according to whether the trait was viewed
as (1) very true of the person rated, (2) somewhat
true of the person rated, (3) rather unlike the
person rated or (4) very unlike the person rated.

For purposes of data analyses the Likert-four-point
scale of l, 2, 3, and 4 was changed to 0, 1, 2,
and 3 to accommodate the preference of the individual

performing the computer analyses of the data. The

lll
scores given to each item were also reversed with (0)
indicating the trait is viewed as very unlike the person
rated and (3) the trait is very true of the person rated.
This change was made so that interpretation of high scores
on the Admired Image and Destructive Image scales would be
consistent with high Admired Image and high Destructive
Image.

The person who is rated highly on the Admired Image
cluster of items is seen as capable and admired. She or
he has a good sense of her or his rights and abilities
without infringing on the rights of others. The source
and number of each of the Admired Image items is presented
in the following list.

PG 23. assertive

PG 30. clear thinking

31. competent
G 32. confident
34. constructive
PG 38. fair-minded
40. full of life
G 42. imaginative
G 43. intelligent
44. knowledgeable
P. 45. likeable

P 46.
G 49.
52.
56.

112
loving
resourceful
self-disciplined

undefstanding

The high scorer on the Destructive Image cluster

of items is seen as having a strong personality

coupled with a lack of appreciation for the rights

of others.

This person is pushy, coercive, and

acts in ways which are injurious to the self esteem

of others.

The source and number for each of the

Destructive Image items is presented in the following

list.

P 21.
G 22.
P 24
25.

G 26.
27.

28.

PG 29.
PG 33.
P 35.
P 36.
PG 37.

too aggressive
arrogant
attacking
authoritative
autocratic
belittling
blaming

bossy
conceited
controlling
critical

demanding

113

PG 39. fault finding
PG 41. hostile
P 47. overpowering
P 48. rejecting
PG 50. rigid
51. ruthless
53. self-seeking
P 54. spoiled

57. unfair

 

PG = Items used by Pinches and taken from the Gough

ACL‘
G = Items taken from the Gough ACL
P = Items used by Pinches

Sixteen of the total 36 items contained in
the Personality Traits List were taken from the
Gough Adjective Checklist (ACL, Gough & Heilbrun,
1971) which is described below. Nine items were
taken from the SCES developed by Pinches (1978).
Eleven items were included which in the judgement
of the researcher seemed to add to the available
nuances of the clusters.

The Gough ACL is a 300 item checklist devised

114

in 1952 from earlier versions of the scale (Gough

& Heilbrun, 1971). Scores can be obtained for 24
scales. Fifteen of these scales represent the basic
human needs described by Murray (1938) and further
elaborated by Edwards (1954). The ACL was devised
to note professional observers' perceptions of individuals
for whom psychological assessment was required.
Gough & Heilbrun (1980) reported alpha coefficients
for the scales ranging from .56 to .95 (median p
.76) for men and from .53 to .94 for women (median
g .75). The range of test-retest coefficients was
from .34 to .77 (median g .65) for men and from

.45 to .86‘(median‘£ .71) for women.

Pinches (1978) as part of her doctoral research
developed a 54-item personality trait list to measure
female subjects' ratings of a female and a male
story character involved in an argument. The items
were arranged into six clusters, three of which
represented the positive pole of self ascendence,
love and dependence dimensions. The three other
clusters represented the negative pole of the dimensions.
Each cluster contained nine traits in the first
version used and was based on interjudge agreement

for item placement. Revisions in the SCES were

115
made resulting in a final version of the SCES after the
data were scored. Such revisions were necessary due to
the low reliability of some of the original clusters.

Dominance Scale

 

Respondents' degree of dominance was measured using
the 60 items which comprise the Dominance Scale of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
developed by Gough, McClosky and Meehl. A Kuder
Richardson 21 coefficient of .70 has been reported.
Evidence for the validity of the scale was based on a
distribution of raw scores for each of the two subsamples
(most and least dominant) in the two criterion groups.
Gough et al. (1951, p. 364) noted that although the
number of cases in the two subsamples was small, "that
for the cases scored on the total scale, the
discrimination between the most and least dominant
subsample was very good." A X'= 37.06 and a S.D. = 8.47
were reported for the college sample.

The scale was developed using a peer group nomination
technique. The sample of subjects used in the scale
development consisted of 100 college and 124 high

school students who were asked to nominate members

116

of their groups they considered to be the most and
least dominant. The following directions for the
nomination of most and least dominant persons were
given to the students:
The dominant person tends to be the "stronger"
in face-to-face personal situations, for
instance, with friends, salespeople, etc. He
is able to influence others, to gain their
automatic respect, and if necessary pg control
them. He is not readily intimidated or defeated,
and his own feelings in most face-to-face
situations seem to be feelings of safety,
security, personal rightness, and self-confidence.

Such people are often described by others as

 

 

 

"forceful,” "masterful," "strong", "confident,"
"authoritative," and "sure of himself." People

 

 

with low dominance are submissive. They appear
and feel weaker in face-to-face contacts.

They find it hard to assert themselvesL to
stand up for their rights and opinions, and

are more easily influenced and intimidated

by others. When a dominant and submissive
person come into conflict, the dominant

one gets his way.

117

There are three things to be especially careful
about in rating dominance:

1. Do not assume that "dominance" means
domineering or "autocratic." While most
domineering people are dominant, not all
dominant people are domineering. Dominant
people do not necessarily become leaders, or

go out of their way to control and influence
others. But whether they do or not, they create
this effect of masterful, self-assurance and
others are often influenced by them. They

may be very fair and reasonable: they may

not want to lead people; yet still this basic
dominance shows through.

2. Please rate on the basis of the person's
actual behavior, not on the basis of how you
think he would like to act, or how he fancies
himself in his daydreams, etc. We want to

know how dominant he is in actual behavior.

3. Remember that some people get into positions
of prestige and power and thus control others,
even though they may not be particularly
dominant, for instance, because they are very

bright, or have much money, etc. Do not confuse

118

this with the personal trait of dominance,

which we are asking you to judge.

(Gough et al., 1951, p. 361).
A criterion group for item analyses was selected
from the nominations. Thirty items from a series
of 150 items developed by Gough et a1. and 28 items
from the MMPI were selected for the Dominance Scale,
all of which differentiated between the least and
most dominant groups in both the high school and
college sample.

Procedures

 

The students were tested usually in small groups.
Each student was given a research booklet containing
an Informed Consent form (see Appendix F), Personal
Information form (see Appendix G), General
Instructions (see Appendix H), one of four Story
Forms (see Appendix D), the Story Character Evaluation
Scale (see Appendix E) and a computer answer form.
After completing the Story Character Evaluation
Scale the student turned in the research booklet
and then completed the MMPI Dominance Scale.I

During the Spring quarter testing the researcher

read aloud each section of the Experimenter's Manual

119

(see Appendix 1). However, during the summer quarter
testing sessions the researcher did not read aloud
each section of the manual. Each student instead

was provided with a brief written description of

the study (see Appendix J) and instructions for
completing the research booklet material (see
Appendix K). This change was made to provide students
with greater scheduling flexibility. The researcher
was available during the testing sessions to answer
any questions.

The student's participation in this research
was completed after he or she turned in the Opinions
about Self Questionnaire. Each student completed
a prize drawing ticket. Each of the students selected
in the prize drawing was notified with a letter
containing the prize (see Appendix L).

Hypotheses and Analyses

The aim of this study was to provide data to
answer the following questions:

1. Are there differences in ratings between
each of the authority figures on each of the dependent
variables?

2. Are women more likely than men to react

favorably to the female authority figures?

120

3. What is the effect of men's own level of
dominance on perceptions of the female authority
figures on each of the four dependent variables?

4. What is the effect of women's own level
of dominance on perceptions of the female authority
figures on each of the four dependent variables?

The hypotheses tested in this study are presented
below.

Hypothesis 1

There are significant differences in ratings
between each of the authority figures on each of
the four dependent variables (legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and destructive
image).

Hypothesis 2

There are no significant differences between
men's and women's ratings of the authority figures
on each of the four dependent variables (legitimate
authority, positive authority, admired image and
destructive image).

Hypothesis 3

There is a significant interaction between

experimental condition and gender of respondents

on each of the four dependent variables (legitimate

121

authority, positive authority, admired image and
destructive image).
Analyses

Four separate 2 X 4 two-way Analyses of Variance
for unequal cell size were planned to test hypotheses
l, 2, and 3. Thus there was one ANOVA for each
of the four dependent variables on the Story Character
Evaluation Scales (Legitimate Authority, Positive
Authority, Admired Image, and Destructive Image).
The analyses for hypotheses l, 2, and 3 are summarized

in Table A.

Table 4

Analyses for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3

 

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

 

Gender Condition
(M,F) (A,B,C,D)
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Legitimate Authority 2 X 4 ANOVA
Positive Authority 2 X 4 ANOVA
Admired Image 2 X 4 ANOVA

Destructive Image 2 X 4 ANOVA

 

122

Hypothesis 4
There is a significant relationship between
respondents' Dominance Scale scores and ratings
of the female authority figures on each of the four
dependent variables on the Story Character Evaluation
Scale (Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority,
Admired Image, and Destructive Image) as described

in Table 5.

Table 5
Predicted Relationship between Respondents' Dominance

Scale Scores and Ratings of Female Authority Figures

 

Experimental Legitimate Positive Admired Destructive
Condition Authority Authority gggmgge Image
Men Respondents

A - - - +

3 - - - +

 

Women Respondents
A + + + -

3 + + + -

 

Note: A = Female authority figure with male subordinate
B - Female authority figure with female subordinate
- - Predicted negative relationship between dominance
scores and dependent variable
+ a Predicted positive relationship between dominance

scores and dependent variable

123

Analyses

A series of Pearson Product Moment correlations

were planned to test hypothesis 4.

Chapter IV
Data Analyses, Results and Conclusions

Several statistical procedures were used to
analyze the differences between the four experimental
conditions. First, a series of 2 X 4 two-way
Analyses of Variance followed by post hoc group
comparisons were used to analyze between group
differences on each of the four Story Character
Evaluation Scales. Second, a series of correlation
coefficients were calculated between each gender
group's dominance score and each of the scores
on the dependent variables of legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and destructive
image for condition A and B.

2 Way Analyses (ANOVA) Results:
Testing Hypotheses l, 2, and 3

Four separate two-way Analyses of Variance
were used to test hypotheses l, 2, and 3. The
four dependent variables were legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and destructive
image. The independent variables were experimental
condition (A,B,C,& D) and gender (male or female)

of the respondents.

124

125

Hypothesis 1

Alternative Hypothesis HA There
nla,b,c,d
is a significant difference in ratings between
the authority figures on each of the
legitimate authority, positive authority,
admired image and destructive image variables.

Hypothesis 2
Null Hypothesis H There
0
2a,b,c,d
is no significant difference between men's
and women's ratings of the authority
figures on each of the legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and
destructive image variables.
Hypothesis 3
Alternative Hypothesis HA There is
3a,b,cd
a significant interaction between experimental
condition and gender of respondents on each
of the legitimate authority, positive authority,
admired image and destructive image variables.
Hypothesis 1

The two-way statistical tests for experimental

condition are reported in Table 6.

126

Table 6
F Statistics for Experimental Condition x

Each Dependent Variable

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Scale F P
Legitimate Authority 4.169 .008*
Positive Authority 1.045 .376
Admired Image 2.225 .089
Destructive Image 1.405 .245
2_<.05

A series of two-way Analyses of Variance
indicated a significant result for experimental
condition on the legitimate authority variable.
Specifically F=4.l69 p (.008. Since_p<..008 is
less than.é?=.05, the pre-established significance
level, there was a significant difference and
the decision to reject Hola was made. No significant
results were obtained for experimental condition
on the 3 other dependent variable scales, Positive
Authority, Admired Image and Destructive Image.
Therefore, H was supported while HA were

Ala lb,c,d
UOt .

127
Post Hoc Group Comparisons: Results
Tukey's post hoc group comparisons were used
to investigate the between experimental condition
contrasts that accounted for the significant effect
on the dependent variable of legitimate authority.
Mean scores and standard deviations for the
experimental conditions on the legitimate authority

variable are presented in Table 7.

Table 7
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Experimental

Condition for Legitimate Authority

 

Condition
A B c D
X 2.22 1.65 1.92 1.71
S.D .61 .79 .658 .716

 

Contrast One: Experimental Condition A versus
Condition B

There was a statistically significant difference
between experimental condition A (Female authority
figure with male subordinate) and condition B (Female

authority figure with female subordinate) on the

128
dependent variable of legitimate authority, p (.05.
Post hoc comparisons for legitimate authority are

presented in Table 8.

Table 8

Post Hoc Comparisons for Legitimate Authority

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value P .05
Contrast l .5722 *
(A with B)
Contrast 2 .3083 ns
(A with C)
Contrast 3 .5167 *
(A with D)
Contrast 4 -.2639 ns
(B with C)
Contrast 5 .0555 ns
(B with D)
Contrast 6 I .2083 ns
(C with D)

 

Contrast Two: Experimental Condition A versus
Condition C
There was no statistically significant difference

between condition A (female authority figure with

129

male subordinate) and condition C (male authority
figure with male subordinate) on the legitimate
authority variable.
Contrast Three: Experimental Condition A
versus Condition D

There was a statistically significant difference
between condition A (female authority figure with
male subordinate) and condition D (male authority
figure with female subordinate)<n1the legitimate
authority variable, p (.05.
Contrast Four: Experimental Condition B versus
Condition C

There was no statistically significant difference
between condition B (female authority figure with
female subordinate) and condition C (male authority
figure with male subordinate) on the legitimate
authority variable.
Contrast Five: Experimental Condition B versus
Condition D

There was no statistically significant difference
between condition B (female authority figure with
female subordinate) and condition D (male authority
figure with female subordinate) on the legitimate

authority variable.

130

Contrast Six: Experimental Condition C versus
Condition D

There was no statistically significant difference
between condition C (male authority figure with male
subordinate) and condition D (male authority figure
with female subordinate) on the legitimate authority
variable.

Hypothesis 2

The ANOVA statistical tests for gender of
respondents for the legitimate authority, positive
authority, admired image and destructive image

variables are reported in Table 9.

Table 9
F Statistics for Gender of Respondents x Each

Dependent Variable

 

Dependent Variable Scale F P
Legitimate Authority 2.324 .130
Positive Authority .850 .359
Admired Image .069 .793
Destructive Image .114 .736

 

No significant results were obtained for gender of

131

respondents on the legitimate authority, positive
authority, admired image, and destructive image
variables. The decision was made thereforerunzto
reject HoZa,b,c,d'
Hypothesis 3

The F statistics for the interaction effects
between gender of respondents and experimental condition
for the legitimate authority, positive authority,
admired image and destructive image variables are

reported in Table 10

Table 10
F Statistics for Interaction Effect: Gender of

Respondents x Experimental Condition

 

Dependent Variable F P
Legitimate Authority .750 .524
Positive Authority 1.144 .335
Admired Image .781 .507
Destructive Image 1.391 .249

 

No significant results were obtained for
interaction effects between gender of respondents

and the experimental condition for the legitimate

 

\
a (l‘lJ l/llllll‘lllll I.

 

132

authority, positive authority, admired image and
destructive image variables. The decision was made
therefore not to reject H°3a,b,c,d and hypothesis 3
was not supported.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Results:

Testing Hypothesis 4

Sixteen Pearson Product Moment correlation
coefficients‘werecalculated, eight for each gender
group. Within each gender group a separate
correlation coefficient was calculated between
respondents' dominance scores and each of the scores
on the dependent variables (legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and destructive
image) for the female authority figure with a male
subordinate (Condition A) and then for the female
authority figure with a female subordinate (Condition
B).
Hypothesis 4

Alternative Hypothesis HA There is
4a,b,c,d
a significant relationship between respondents'
dominance scores and ratings of the female authority
figures for the legitimate authority, positive
authority, admired image and destructive image

variables as described in Table 11.

133

Table 11
Hypothesized Relationship between Respondents'
Dominance Scale Scores and Ratings of Female

Authoritprigures

 

 

Experimental Legitimate Positive Admired Destructive
Gender Condition Authority Authority Image Image
Men A - - - +
3 - - - +
Women A + + + -
B + + + -

 

Note: A 8 Female authority figure with male subordinate
B = Female authority figure with female subordinate
- = Predicted negative relationship between dominance and
dependent variable
+ = Predicted positive relationship between dominance and

dependent variable

 

The obtained correlations are reported in

.o

Table 12.

134

.cofiufipcou doucosfiuodxo some c“ mucmp=0dmou wqmswm ON

I!
C.‘

 

 

 

 

.cofiuwupoo Houcwsfiuwaxo como a“ muchCOQmwu mama 94 u m”
Aomv Aomv Acme Acme
mum. ¢H¢~.n de. mmam. mom. smoo. ooo. Nmmo.
AONV Aomv Aomv Aomv
mum. cmea.u mma. swam. Nmm. mmo. .Noo. am. cameo:
Aoqv Aoav Aoav AOHV
cod. woom.u seq. Hoem. omm. qqma. NNN. wmmw.
Acav Aoqv .o~. Rode
mmq. m-0.1 wmm. Mama. owq. coco.u mm. mama.
m M m M m M m M «cw:
ommaH uwmsH muHuOSup< muauozupc :oHqucou encuo
m>wuo=uumwo pmufiEp< w>fiufimom mumsfioflwwq manpowewumdxm pmpcwu
:ofluflpcoo amquEmeaxm x mmnpmfim mufiuonup< mamawm mo museumm

 

ppm mmuoom mqmom

wnzmeJSEOn—

.mquUCOQmwM Cwm3umn mCOHumH@HHOU COmHmwm

Na manme

135

No significant correlations were obtained. For
men respondents the correlation between Dominance
Scale scores and ratings of the female authority
figure in Condition A on the positive authority
variable was the only one of the eight correlations
obtained in the predicted direction. For women
respondents all of the obtained correlations were
in the predicted directions. The decision was made
therefore not to reject H°4a,b,c,d and hypothesis 4
was not supported.

Summary

Four main hypotheses were tested to investigate
the effect of respondents' gender, dominance scale
scores and gender of the authority figure subordinate
pair on men and women college students' perceptions
of a female authority figure on the four variables
of legitimate authority, positive authority, admired
image and destructive image. The Alpha level was
set at .05 for each test. A series of 2 X 4 two-way
Analyses of Variance were performed to examine the
relationship between gender of respondents and the
experimental condition. The results, with one exception,
did not establish significant differences between
the students' perceptions of the authority figures.

The only significant result obtained

136

provided partial support forHAla. This result
suggested that a female authority figure with a male
subordinate was perceived as having significantly
more legitimate authority than two (Condition B &

D) of the three authority figures. No significant
differences were obtained between men and women
respondents' ratings of the authority figures on

the four dependent variables. No significant
interaction effects were obtained between gender

of respondents and the experimental condition on

each of the dependent variables. A series of Pearson
correlation coefficients were calculated to determine
the relationship between men and women students'
dominance scale scores and perceptions of the two
female authority figures on each of the dependent
variables. These results basically did not establish
any significant relationships between men and women
students' dominance scale scores and perceptions

of the female authority figures. For men respondents
one of the eight obtained correlations was in the
predicted direction. For women respondents all of
the obtained correlations were in the predicted
direction.

In Table 13 the hypotheses for each of the

137
variables along with the type of statistical test,
alpha level, actual level of significance and the

decision are summarized.

1138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beware op omflwmm moo. mo. .< .pcoo aweoz.
» COmummm
666m66 66 nmawma --. no. In .6:60 cmzv
u coaummm
Summon Cu uoqflmm mm. mo. A< pcou cot. huflhozon< mumawuflwwu
u COmHQmm mlmmmMflMamm mqo:
666_66 66 66_amu mam. mo. use:
666fi66 66 umeemu om“. no. one:
666nm» 6a 66226; new. me. use:
<>Oz< mm3-o3& Mamag m>wou3pomaa
666n66 on omsama “on. no. unar
sumflwp 66 umsamu mas. me. use:
s66n66 66 umsamu owe. no. 636:
<>oz< »63-oze mmmawlmwwmama
eumflmt on nmssma 0mm. no. nmo:
oumflmu ob omsama 6mm. mo. nmo:
oommmu Ou pmdamm omm. mo. A:0:
<>oz< >m3-oas woetocoa< m>fiawmom
u66e66 on nmemma sum. mo. mmo:
zumflmt os nmssmi ems. mo. mmox
omuumflwm moo. mo. 6H6:
m<>oz< s63-63e wmsponus< audawwamma
:oqmaowa mo:mu«wficm«m mo .N umwh «Homfium> acupcmoma mammsuoa>z

qw>wq «mzuod

. O‘II’Q' 'Icl-I't

. lel --'O,-I

 

 

 

muqznzm pen ammuzooa>z mo >umEE:n

ma mans?

139

.mswm admo ~mpqm:3 ppm m“

 

<>cz< >o3-oza :uam a <>oz< N13-oz.

 

 

 

...d
uumfimp 66 uoswma new. no. .m .ucoo cases.
p ppmummm
bounds 0o pu~HmL nmm. no. .4 .pcou cmeozs
p comumwm
666nm. 6. 66__aa «6.. mo. .n .ucou :62.
u :Ouuuom
macaw» om podamm was. mo. .< .pcou cot. mmma— a>auopuumoo
. u :Ouuuom filmmmmmwamm use:
sumac. 6s 66—36a ~m_. ma. .a .ucou cases.
a centre;
auaqot oz 66_.aa was. mo. .< .ucoo cases.
a douuoom
uuwaot oz uu__6a sea. no. .a .ucou cat.
H :onuaom
auwaot on 66_.aa can. no. .< .ucou =62. mmmamnmwmwmmq
u cached; mlmmmmmwmmm oqo:
666.6. 66 66.26a «on. ma. .n .6660 cases.
L rematch
sooaot 66 66.26a «an. no. .< .ucoo cases.
L etched;
soaawt oz 66.s6a can. no. .n .ccou :62.
u-:dduuwm
“canon ou po__om cos. we. .c .pcou cot. aoauozupc o>dummom
u:=outcoa mnwmmmmwamm nee:
suoamt 66 66..aa 66:. an. .a .vcou c6563.

.mvmmmmzmu

140
Hypothesis 1 for legitimate authority was supported.
Hypothesis 2 was tested in the null form and there were
no significant differences between men's and women's
ratings of the authority figures. Hypothesis 3 was not
supported. Hypothesis 4 for significance was not
supported but nine of the obtained correlations were in

the predicted direction.

Chapter V
Summary, Conclusions, Discussion and
Implications for Future Research

This chapter is divided into three sections.

The first section is a summary of this research project.
The second section is a discussion of the findings
with respect to the theoretical concepts upon which
the study was based and the final section suggests
implications for future research.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate
men and women college students' perceptions of a
woman who uses authority and to determine whether
or not students' gender and dominance affected
their perceptions of the female authority figures.
Perceptions of the person in authority were assessed
in the following four areas: legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired and destructive image.

Each was measured by a scale developed for use in
this particular study.

The need for this study was based on the belief
that support for women's attainment and use of authority
is an important step in the achievement of economic,
political, and social power by women. As women continue

to seek access to positions of authority they will

141

142
be in situations requiring them to exercise authority
with others, both men and women. No recent studies
have addressed questions such as whether or not authority
used by a woman is endorsed by being as legitimate as
authority used by a man or whether a woman's use
of authority with a man is perceived as particularly
destructive. Women as well as men need to understand
the ways in which responses to a woman's use of
authority can elicit different and possibly more
hostile reactions than authority used by a man.
Without such an understanding people will continue
to react in familiar albeit frequently restrictive
ways without considering in what ways their own fears
may color their perceptions of a woman's use of
authority.

There have been only three studies directly
concerned with the evaluation of a woman's use of
authority. None of these studies specifically examined
multiple aspects of authority evaluation or sought
to determine in what ways personality characteristics
such as dominance might affect perceptions of the
female authority figures. Inconsistent findings
have been provided by the literature related to

evaluations of different leadership styles. In

143

laboratory studies when men's and women's use of
various management styles were compared a woman who
used a sex-role inconsistent style, for example,
initiating structure or reward, was rated less favorably
than a man. However, perceptions of female managers'
use of such styles did not appear to influence worker
satisfaction when covarying factors were controlled.
In other contexts a woman's use of authority, for
example in Tavistock self study groups, engendered
criticism, hostility, and fearfulness on the part

of both men and women. Evidence is also available
suggesting that a woman in a position of authority
can have an empowering effect on women but not on
men and that women have more favorable responses

to her.

Researchers in the area of social power have
indicated that certain types power are associated
with each gender. The use of a male-identified-power-type,
for example legitimate authority or expert power,
by a woman has engendered unfavorable reactions.

The woman may be perceived as more aggressive, cold
or wrong and less likable than a man.

Researchers in the area of sex-role stereotypes

have indicated that certain characteristics, for

144

example dominance and directness are valued
differently in a woman by various groups (feminists
vs. nonfeminists; women managers vs. men managers).

The sample for this study consisted of forty
undergraduate men and eighty undergraduate women
students enrolled at Michigan State University during
Spring or Summer quarter of 1984. The mean age of
the men was 20.55 years. The mean age of the women
was 20.25 years. The sample was predominantly Caucasian
(85%). The sample of women students consisted of
a larger percentage of Catholics (Women=46.6%;
Men=27.5%) and a smaller percentage of students with
no religious affiliation (Women=3.7%; Men=15%). All
participants in this study were volunteers.

A written projective lead was designed which
stated that an authority figure, the division head
of Regional Health Care Associates, was having a
meeting in which he or she rejected the subordinate's
plan and expected compliance with a plan the division
head had developed. The gender of the division head
and of the subordinate was varied in each of the
four experimental conditions. The respondents wrote
a TAT-type story about the interchange and evaluated

the division head on four scales, Legitimate Authority,

145

Positive Authority, Admired Image and Destructive
Image. Each scale required the respondent to rate
the division head on four-point-Likert-type-items
assessing the subjects' perceptions of the division
head's legitimate authority, positive authority,
and attributions of admirable and destructive
personality'traits.

After completing the items on the four scales
which together were labeled Story Character Evaluation
Scale in the respondents' research booklets,
respondents received the MMPI Dominance Scale.
Demographic data were also obtained. The forty men
and eighty women were tested typically in small mixed
group sessions which lasted about one hour.

Four two-way Analyses of Variance, one for each
of the dependent variable scales (Legitimate
Authority, Positive Authority, Admired Image and
Destructive Image) were performed with appropriate
post hoc measures to analyze differences between
treatment groups given the respondents' perceptions
of the authority figures. A series of Pearson Product
Moment correlations were also calculated to determine
the relationship between respondents' dominance and

perceptions of each of the female division heads

146

on the Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority,
Admired Image and Destructive Image scales.

There were no significant differences in
perceptions of the authority figures on three of
the four dependent variable scales (Positive
Authority, Admired Image and Destructive Image).
There was a significant difference in perceptions
of the authority figures on the legitimate authority
variable. The female authority figure with a male
subordinate was perceived as having significantly
more legitimate authority than the female authority
with a female subordinate or a male authority with
a female subordinate. Men and women respondents
did not have significantly different perceptions
of the authority figures on any of the four dependent
variable scales. Respondents' dominance scores and
perceptions of each of the female division heads
on the Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority,
Admired Image, and Destructive Image scales were
not significantly related. For women respondents
all of the obtained correlations were in the predicted
direction. For men respondents only one of the eight

obtained correlations was in the predicted direction.

147

Discussion

 

According to aspects of psychodynamic theory
and research in the areas of sex linked stereotypes,
leadership, attitudes, social power, and success
and achievement men's and women's perceptions of
an authority figure were expected to be influenced
by the gender of the authority and subordinate. An
interaction between the gender of the authority figure-
subordinate duo and the respondents' gender was also
anticipated. It was further expected that perceptions
of the female authority figures would be related to
respondents' dominance scores albeit in different
directions for each gender. This section is a
discussion of the results of this study with reference
to the theoretical constructs. The limitations of
the study are also discussed.

Psychodynamic theory suggests for reasons more
fully discussed in Chapter I that use of authority
by a woman can arouse reactions marked by greater
disapproval and or fear than authority use by a man.

It was possible that a female authority figure
who was described as using authority would be perceived
more unfavorably than a male authority figure on

each of the perceptions of the authority figure scales

148

(Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority, Admired

Image and Destructive Image). It was also expected

that women would perceive the female authority figures

more favorably than men. Men were expected to perceive

the male authority figures more favorably than women.
Psychodynamic theory also postulates that an

individual can react more favorably to behaviors

and aspects of another individual's personality which

are a valued part of the self or part of an idealized

self image and for which manifestations in another

do not diminish important aspects of self esteem.

A paradigm in which a man is under the authority

of a woman can arouse for the man a greater loss

of self esteem in comparison to the other authority-

subordinate pairs because it violates an important

aspect of male sexorole adequacy. In this culture

male sex-role adequacy is closely connected with

a belief in male superiority in various performance

realms and the central value of power and domination

(Bernardez, 1982;Farrell,l974; Filene, 1974;

Goldberg, 1977). Therefore, it was expected that

dominance in men respondents would be negatively

associated with perceptions of the female

authority figures on the positive scales

149

of Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority and
Admired Image and positively associated with perceptions
of the female authority figures on the Destructive
Image scale. For women, dominance was expected to
be positively related to perceptions of the female
authority figures on the positive scales of Legitimate
Authority, Positive Authority and Admired Image while
negatively associated with the Destructive Image
scale. Underlying this expectation is the assumption
that dominance (as measured for this study) in women
indicates an acceptance of related behaviors and
characteristics within the self and thus the capacity
to positively affirm these in another woman without
injury to self esteem.
Legitimate Authority

One major finding of this study was that the
female authority figure with a male subordinate was
perceived as having significantly greater legitimate
authority than two (Condition B & D) of the three
other authority figures. She was not, however, perceived
as significantly different than the male authority
figure with the male subordinate on the Legitimate
Authority scale. Several nonsignificant results

on each of the other three dependent variables are

150

consistent with the results on the Legitimate
Authority scale. In each case, the female authority
with the male subordinate was perceived more
favorably than the other authority figures.

One interpretation of the significant finding
is that men as well as women now support a woman's
use of authority with a man. Women's favorable
responses towards a woman in a position of authority
has been suggested by findings from previous research
(Bartol, 1974; 1975: Bromley, 1982; Field & Caldwell,
1979; Munson, 1979). Cookie, Jaffee et al., Priest
and Wilhelm, and Taylor and Epstein (cited in Pinches,
1978) as well as Pinches found evidence for profemale
bias on the part of women in situations involving
conflict between an individual woman and a man. Some
researchers (Garland & Price, 1977; Rice et al.,
1980; Yerby, 1975) have also noted the effect of
attitudes towards the role of women on responses
to a woman in a leadership position. Men as well
as women respondents in this study may have held
positive attitudes towards the role of women vis
a vis men. They may have also recognized that extra
ability, talent and/or effort are required for a

woman to achieve a position of authority with a man.

151

Therefore, the female authority figure with a male
subordinate could have been perceived as more deserving
of her position and was granted greater legitimate
authority than either the female authority with the
female subordinate or the male authority with the
female subordinate.

One interpretation of the significantly less
favorable rating given to the female authority figure
with the female subordinate than to her counterpart
(Condition A) is that it may reflect a devaluation
of a position of authority over another woman as
well as negative sanctions for violation of the value
that women should be good to their own and work
cooperatively together. The woman in a position
of authority with another woman may arouse fantasies
of the idealized mother (Chodorow, 1982). She may
be expected to be all nurturing, accepting, and selfless.
The female authority figure's rejection of the
subordinate's plan and the demand for her compliance
may have been perceived as a rejection and criticism
and thus a violation of the expectations for the

idealized mother. The female authority figure‘s

violation was possibly reacted to with disapproval

expressed by diminished legitimate authority.

152

It is also possible that women may have reacted
more negatively than men to a woman's use of authority
with a woman. women may have identified with the
female subordinate and as a consequence fears of being
dominated by a powerful woman (i.e., mother) were
aroused. Devaluation of the authority of the woman
with a female subordinate was therefore a way to handle
such reactions. Women may have also identified with
the female authority figure and were motivated to deny
her legitimate authority as a way of repudiating their
own competitive or dominance impulses vis a vis mother
and other women. Women's unfavorable ratings of the
female authority figure with a female subordinate may
have contributed more than men's ratings to the
significant difference in ratings between the female
authority figures in conditions A and B. Men's mean
ratings of the two female authority figures on the
Legitimate Authority scale were similar (Men Condition
A=2.2: B=2). Women's mean rating of the female
authority figure in condition A was similar to men's
ratings (WOmen A=2; Men A=2.0). WOmen's mean ratings
of the female authority figure in condition B were

more unfavorable than their ratings of the female

153

authority in condition A (Women A=2.24; Women B=
1.48) and more unfavorable than men's ratings
Women B=l.48; Men B=2.2).

One additional explanation for the significant
differences in ratings between the female authority
figure with the male subordinate and the two other
authority figures (female authority figure with
female subordinate and male authority figure with
female subordinate) on the Legitimate Authority
Scale is that men and women may believe that a woman
should not be subordinate to either a man or woman.
Men and women may have been expressing resentment
for the domination of a woman with the attribution
of significantly less legitimate authority to each
of the two authority figures who were described
in positions of authority with a female subordinate
than to the female authority with a male subordinate.
In their support of a woman's use of authority
with a man, men and women may also be expressing
a wish to reverse the typical male dominant female
subordinate relationship. For women this wish may
be fueled by an identification with the aggressor
and thus the desire to put men in the same position

women have found themselves in. For men the wish

154

to reverse the traditional paradigm may also express
wishes to make reparation to women for the injustices
suffered under male domination.

There was no significant difference in ratings
of the authority figures on the Legitimate Authority
Scale between men and women, a finding which was
in accordance with the researcher's prediction.
There was also no significant interaction effect
between gender of respondents and the authority
figures, a finding which was contrary to the researcher's
prediction. Men apparently rated the authority
figures in a pattern similar to that of the women
in this study. Men as well as women rated the female
authority figure with the male subordinate more
favorably than the male authority figure with the
female subordinate.
Positive Authority, Admired Image and
Destructive Image

In the present study no significant differences
were found in the ratings between the authority
figures on each of the Positive Authority, Admired
Image and Destructive Image scales. One interpretation
of this finding is that the respondents have an

image of the female authority figures which is similar

155

to that of the male authority figures and is consistent
with the use of authority. Apparently the female
authority figures were perceived as having as much
of the characteristics necessary for their position
and use of authority as the male authority figures.

A belief that women possess fewer desirable
characteristics than men for managerial positions

has been suggested by previous research (Massengill

& DiMarco, 1979; Powell & Butterfield, 1979; Rosen

& Jerdee, 1974; Schien, 1973; 1975) and was not
supported by the findings of this study. The results
of this study are, however, consistent with that

of other researchers (Kravetz, 1976; Nielson & Doyle,
1975; Peterson, 1975; Petro & Putnam, 1979) who

found that the sex-role stereotypes for men and
women were similar.

Another interpretation of the nonsignificant
differences in ratings between the female and male
authority figures on the Positive Authority, Admired
Image and Destructive Image scales is that men and
women now consider a woman's use of authority to
be as acceptable as a man's. The female authority
figures were not blamed significantly more than

the male authority figures nor were the male authority

156

figures perceived as significantly more admirable
than the female authority figures. Support for
a woman in a position of authority who acts in a
direct and authoritative manner is also suggested.
It is interesting to note that in previous studies
of a woman using authority (typically in the case
of female-led self study groups) differences were
found indicating more hostile reactions to the female
leader, a finding which was not supported by the
results of this study. One explanation for the
difference in findings may be that fearful and/or
disapproving responses to a woman in authority are
aroused only under certain conditions. These
conditions may include "group or institutional
characteristics that encourage regression (i.e.,
unclear role definitions, unclear delineation of
tasks, structureless groups, contradictory
expectations)" (Bernardez, 1983, p. 45).
Additional Item Analyses

However, several findings suggest a more ambivalent
response to the female authority figures although
no significant differences were obtained in the ratings
between the female and male authority figures on

the Admired Image and Destructive Image scales.

157

High Admired Image scale items for each condition
are reported in Table 14. High Destructive Image
items for each condition are reported in Table 15.
An item was designated "high" for a particular
condition if the authority figure received a higher

rating on that item than the other authority figures.

Table 14

High Admired Image Scale Items for Each Condition

 

A B C D
clear thinking assertive competent confident
imaginative fair-minded constructive
intelligent full of.life
knowledgeable loving
likable

self disciplined

understanding

 

Table 15

158

High Destructive Image Scale Items for Each Condition

 

A

arrogant
bossy
conceited
demanding
fault finding
hostile

rejecting

B C

autocratic attacking

belittling authoritative
blaming self seeking
controlling

critical

overpowering

ruthless

spoiled

D

too aggressive

unfair

 

The female authority in Condition A was

perceived more favorably than the other authority

figures on half of the admired image items.

This

authority figure was also perceived less favorably

than the others on seven, or one-third of the destructive

159

image items. In comparison the male authority figures
(Conditions C & D) were perceived more favorably
on one and two items respectively of the Admired
Image scale. The male authority figures were perceived
less favorably on three and two items respectively
of the Destructive Image scale.

The female authority in Condition B was apparently
the recipient of more negative evaluations than
the other authority figures. She was perceived
more favorably on four of the admired image items
but less favorably on eight of the destructive image
items or more destructive items than any other authority
figure. One noteworthy finding was that the female
authority with the female subordinate was perceived
as significantly less knowledgeable, likable and
understanding and significantly more autocratic,
blaming, and spoiled than the other female authority
figure (see Table 16). One possible explanation
for these results is that this sample of college
students may believe that women ought to work cooperatively
together. A woman in a position of authority over
another woman is punished for her violation of this
norm with the attribution of more negative (destructive

image) characteristic to her than to any other

160
Table 16
Differences between Selected Admired Image and
Qgggguctive Image Scale Item Means for

Condition A & B

 

 

Difference

Item between Conditions DF Value
competent A-B 51 1.42
knowledgeable A-B 56 2.48*
likable A-B 57 2.58*
understanding A-B 58 2.82*
autocratic A-B 53 -2.5*
blaming A-B 56 -1.87*
rejecting A-B 53 2.41*
spoiled A-B 57 -2.32*

 

Note. t-tests for independent samples with unequal
population variance were calculated.

*2 .05 one tailed test

authority figure. This authority figure is also
the recipient of more low scores (6) than any other
authority figure on the Admired Image scale. The

significant differences in ratings between the

161

female authority figures in condition A and B on

selected Admired and Destructive Image individual

scale items is consistent with the results on the

Legitimate Authority scale. The female authority

figure with the female subordinate (condition B)

was perceived as having significantly less legitimate

authority than the female authority figure in

condition B.

Relationship between Respondents' Dominance

Scores and Perceptions of the Female Authority Figures
In the present study no significant relationships

were found between respondents' dominance scores

for each gender and perceptions of the female authority

figures on any of the four scales. Previous research

has highlighted a relationship between the Bem Sex

Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Woman as Manager Scale

(WAMS). a measure of attitudes toward women as

managers and between the BRSI and perceptions of

a female group leader. One possible explanation

for the results in this study is that the measure

of dominance used is not at all comparable to the

BSRI. Dominance may not be directly related to

perceptions of female authority figures as originally

predicted but may be substantially affected by other

162

more critical variables such as self esteem, level
of anxiety, or rigidity of congitive style. It
is also possible that the hypothesized relationships
between dominance and perceptions of the female
authority figures would exist only in the case of
individuals with extremely high or low dominance
scores. The sample size used in this study did
not permit any adequate test of this speculation.
Alternate Explanations

Some of the researcher's predictions were not
confirmed by the results of this study. No
significant differences were found in the ratings
of the authority figures on the Positive Authority,
Admired Image, and Destructive Image scales. There
were no significant interaction effects between
respondents' gender and the experimental condition
on the Legitimate Authority, Positive Authority,
Admired Image and Destructive Image scales. Finally,
there were no significant relationships between
respondents' dominance scale scores and perceptions
of each of the female authority figures on each
of the four dependent variables (legitimate authority,
positive authority, admired image and destructive

image). Consequently, alternate explanations of

163

the findings will be discussed. Alternate explanations
for the significant results on the Legitimate
Authority scale are also noted.

One possible explanation of the findings is
that the written description of a scene between
an authority figure and subordinate used in this
study is not an effective cue for the arousal of
some of the measured responses. Strong disapproving
reactions to authority use by a women maylxaelicited
only in certain situations, unlike that of this
study, in which a person is involved with and affected
by the person in authority.

It is also possible that some differences may
be of the sort not detectable on a paper and pencil
measure. Possibly the scales developed for this
study to measure respondents' perceptions are too
crude to get at less consciously available reactions
which can more adequately be tapped by a completely
projective instrument. It is also possible that
the small number of scale items, for example, on
the Legitimate Authority and Positive Authority
scales, decreasd reliability. While the Admired
Image and Destructive Image scales consisted of

a larger number of items than the other two scales,

164

these scales contained a small number of items in
comparison with typically used scales.

The variables measured in this study may not
be the variables which affect perceptions of authority
use by a woman. Other factors such as respondents'
self esteem and level of anxiety or the consequence
of the authority figure's behavior for the subordinate
may affect perceptions of the female authority figure
more than the respondents' own level of dominance.

Social desirability may be an alternative explanation
for the significant results on the Legitimate Authority
scale possibly heightened by the nature of this
study, the presence of a woman researcher and a
political climate filled with the anticipation of
the nomination of the first woman candidate for
Vice President. Significant differences in ratings
between the authority figures were found only on
the Legitimate Authority scale, one consisting of
item statements, unlike the Admired and Destructive
Image scales, which focused on the rights of the
authority figure. Such statements may be more
susceptible to socially desirable responses.

It is also possible that the sample of students

who participated in this study were more profemale

165

than the general college population. These students
may have been more committed to a conscious idealogy
of support for the legitimacy of female authority
with a male subordinate in a workplace situation

as a way to compensate for previous inequities.

Another factor accounting for the lack of
significant results on the Admired Image, Destructive
Image and Dominance scales could be the small sample
size. Twenty-five men and twenty-five women were
proposed for each of the four experimental conditions.
However, each experimental group consisted of twenty
women and ten men. Only two experimental conditions,
those involving the female authority figures, or
twenty men and forty women were used to study the
relationship between respondents' dominance for
each gender and perceptions of the female authority
figures. It is possible that a larger sample might
increase the likelihood of detecting differences.

In summary then possible methodological problems
could have accounted for the results, the most likely
being the small sample size and social desirability
factors. The following generalizations are made:

1. Men and women college students may not

perceive a female authority as less admirable or

166

more destructive than a male authority.

2. Men and women college students perceive
the female authority with a male subordinate as
having greater legitimate authority than the female
authority with a female subordinate or the male
authority with a female subordinate.

3. Men and women college students do not have
different perceptions of the authority figures.

4. Men and women college students' dominance
scale scores are not associated with each gender's
perceptions of the female authority figures. Dominance
may not be the relevant factor influencing perceptions
of the female authority figures.

Generalizability of this study is limited to the
population described.

Implications for Future Research

Future research could be useful in clarifying
the factors contributing to the greater legitimacy
granted a woman who uses authority with a male
subordinate. Given the nature of this finding and
the selectivity of the sample further studies are
needed to determine whether this finding represents
changes in attitudes across populations other than

that of college students. The inclusion of

167

instruments in addition to a measure of dominance
could also be fruitful. Dominance may not be directly
related to perceptions of awoman's use of authority.
Other variables, for example self esteem, level
of anxiety or rigidity of cognitive style, may mediate
the effect of dominance on perceptions.

Several changes in the design of this study
could enhance the meaning of the obtained findings.
A larger sample might enable the detection of
differences and provide support for the findings
of this study. Samples drawn from diverse populations
would permit comparisons between groups with varied
SES, education, and religious affiliation. Changes
in the selection and assignment of respondents could
provide data regarding the differential effect of
level of dominance on perceptions of authority use.
Respondents could be selected and assigned to groups
on the basis of dominance score, for example high,
low and moderate. Finally it would be interesting
to change the form of the cue from a written
description of a scene between an authority and
subordinate to either an audiotape or film vignette

depicting an exchange between the two people.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

lst $100

2nd 3 50 Where House Records
Gift Certificate
(or $50)

3rd Gift Certificate for
dinner for 2 at
Beggars Banquet ($25)

4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th --
Bells Pizza Gift Certificate
Good for one 10" 2-item
pizza
Dear Student,

You have been randomly selected from undergraduate
students living in a MSU residence hall complex to
participate in this study. You will be offered the
chance to win one of 7 prizes as a token payment for

your participation in this study.

All you need to do is come to Multipurpose Room D

 

in the Brody Building on Sunday April 15th at 7:30 PM.

 

 

The study will take 1% hours and involves completing
several brief questionnaires concerned with your
perceptions of a workplace situation.

I know that as a student you have many demands on
your time and oftentimes have too little time to do
all that is required of you. However, I hope that you
can help me in completing the research which is

required for my Ph.D.

Srgcerely<A < (f7: ffifi
. 14"» ~ ‘ “L '{.o( .,
Carolyn R1 Paulter

Ph.D. Candidate, MSU

168

APPENDIX B

C75
lip/9
:w _,, \\\
\ PRJ-ZE' /

RESEARCH STUDY REMINDER

lst $100

2nd $50 Where House Records
Gift Certificate
(or $50)

3rd Gift Certificate for
dinner for 2 at
Beggars Banquet ($25)
4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th
Bells Pizza Gift Certificate

Good for one 10" 2-item
pizza

Dear

I want to thank you for indicating your interest
in taking part in this research study when I called
you earlier this week. Please note the following
information:

DATE: Sunday, May 6, 1984

TIME: 7:00 P.M.

PLACE: Brody Building--Multipurpose Room B'

PRIZE-DRAWING TICKETS: To be completed on Sunday.

Winners will be selected on May 25.

q

\

Sincerely, ,2 a
I '.
fife/ALLII « //f {H

Carolyngh.. Paulter,
Ph. D. Candidate, MSU

169

APPENDIX C

6’
3’ ’eé“.
\9 PR1 1E ”9%

lst 3100

2nd 550 Where House Records
Gift Certificate (or 550)
3rd Gift Certificate for dinner
for 2 at Beggars Banquet (525)

4th. 5th. 6th. & 7th
Bells Pizza Gift Certificate--
Good for one 10” Z-item pizza

Dear

I am writing to offer you the opportunity to take part in 3 simple
research ptOjeCC which is part of my Ph.D. program. In return for
giVLng one hour of your time you can enter your name in a prize drawing
and have a chance to win one of the above noted prizes.

Each participant in the study will be given a brief written
description of a scene between two people and asked to write a brief
story about the scene and to rate the story characters on a set of
adjectives. All answers will be con.fidential. The entire study takes
between 45 minutes and one hour to complete.

If you are interested in participating, please select 333 of the
following dates:
TUESDAY, May 15, 1984
TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: Brody Building--Multipurpose Room A
Or ------ . -------------------------------------------------------------
WEDNESDAY. May 16, 1984
TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: Brody Buildingo-Multipurpose Room B
Or-----o— -------- ----«-- ----------------------------------------------
SUNDAYLyggy 20, 1984
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Brody Building--Multipurpose Room A

*Prize Drawing Tickets: To be completed at time of study. Winners
will be selected on May 25 and notified by
mail.

Sipcerely. ;
[.C-~O(;Ar(~k ‘((._
Carol ' R. Paulter
Ph.D. Candidate. MSU

*Research Project Approved By:

J. Hall. Director, University Housing

MSU Committee on Human Research

Dept. of Counseling & Educational Psychology

170

APPENDIX D

Story Form -- Form A*
Please read the following background information

Susan Brooks is the division head of large company.
Brian Dean is on her staff reporting directly to Brooks.
Brian Dean has been working hard on an important project.
some

Susan Brooks and Brian Dean are having a meeting
in which Brooks turns down Dean's project plan and
indicates that she expects his compliance with an
alternate plan, one she has developed.

STORY INSTRUCTIONS

Write a brief story using the following sheets
of paper. Include the following information in
your story:

1. What led up to Susan Brooks' rejection of
Brian Dean's plan?

2. Describe how each felt before the meeting.

3. What happens during the meeting?

4. Describe how each felt afterward.

REMEMBER There are no right or wrong kinds of stories.
Just try to make the story as imaginative as you can.

Try to spendruimore than 15 or 20 minutes on
this section in order to allow time for completion
of the remainder of the booklet.

* The three variations of the Story Form are:

Form Division Head Subordinate
B Susan Brooks Helen Green
C David Crane Brian Dean
D David Crane Helen Green

171

APPENDIX E

STORY CHARACTER EVALUATION SCALE

Below is a list of statements about Susan Brooks.

Please evaluate her by filling in the appropriate

number for each statement on your computer answer

form.

The numbers correspond to the following options:
1 means you agree strongly with the statement.
2 means you agree somewhat with the statement.
3 means you disagree somewhat with the statement.

3 means you disagree strongly with the statement.

*Please do not skip any items.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.
l8.
19.

20.

Susan Brooks has the right to reject Brian
Dean's plan.

Susan Brooks obtained her position as division
head based on her outstanding performance
record.

Susan Brooks relies heavily on others himaking
decisions.

Susan Brooks does not have the right to have
Brian Dean comply with an alternate plan.

Susan Brooks is in an envied position as
division head.

Susan Brooks is not helpful and constructive
with Brian Dean.

Susan Brooks has a powerful position.
Susan Brooks is a bitch to work for.

Susan Brooks should make major decisions affecting
Regional Health Care Associates.

Susan Brooks created trouble between herself
and Brian Dean.

172

your

each

Below is a list of personality traits. Describe

perceptions of Susan Brooks by rating her on

of these traits.

1

IN

.3.

A

means

me ans

means

means

the trait
the trait
the trait

the trait

is
is
is

is

very true of Susan Brooks.
somewhat true of Susan Brooks.

rather unlike Susan Brooks.

 

very unlike Susan Brooks.

 

*Please record your answers on your computer answer form.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.

too aggressive

arrogant

assertive

attacking

authoritative

autocratic
belittling

blaming

bossy

clear thinking

competent

confident

conceited

constructive

controlling

critical

demanding

fair minded

fault finding
full of life

hostile

imaginative

intelligent

173

l_means the trait is very true of Susan Brooks.

 

2 means the trait is somewhat true of Susan Brooks.

 

3 means the trait is rather unlike Susan Brooks.

 

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

4_means the

trait

knowledgeable

likeable

loving

overpowering

rejecting
resourceful
rigid
ruthless

self—disciplined

self seeking

spoiled
strong

understanding

unfair

is

very unlike Susan Brooks.

 

174

 

APPENDIX F

INFORMED CONSENT (SPRING)

I have understood the study to be conducted regarding perceptions
of workplace situations. I have been given the opportunity to ask
further questions about the details and procedures of the study
and have had my questions answered to my satisfaction. I also
understand that, within restrictions of confidentiality, the
general results of the study will be made available to me.

With the understanding and assurance that my name and or my
responses on instruments will not be used in any reports based

on this study, I agree to participate in the study.

Specifically, I hereby agree to provide the information requested
in this study. I also agree to cooperate in providing whatever
additional data may be requested if I am one of the individuals
selected for a debriefing interview at the conclusion of this
study, I also understand that I am free to withdraw from the
study at any time. ‘

I further understand that the only'benefit I will receive for
participating in this study is that my name along with the names
of the other participants in this study will be entered in a
prize drawing. I have been informed of the possible prizes.

Signature

 

Name

 

Campus Address

 

Student Number

 

Date

 

Project Director: Carolyn R. Paulter, Ph.D. Candidate
Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology
Michigan State University

175

APPENDIX G

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Please mark the appropriate box on your computer answer

l.* Age a) Under 18

b) 18

d) 20

e) 21

2. Rggg. a)
b)

C)

d)

e)

Black

Caucasian
Hispanic
American Indian
Other

3. Education Level a) Freshman

4. Religion

b) Sophomore
c) Junior
d) Senior
e) Other

a) Catholic
b) Jewish

c) Protestant
d) Other

e) None

5.’ Father's Education Level

a) Some high school

b) High school graduate
c) Some college

d) College graduate

e) Graduate education

(Summer quarter participants who were older than
21 years were asked to fill in their age on the computer

form)

177

6. Father's Occupation Level: On his job my father
a) Supervises the work of others (determines what
others do)
b) Determines the pay of others
c) Hires and fires others
d) All of the above. (Skip #7 and go on to item #8)
e) None of the above. (If father is employed,
skip #7 and go on to #8).
7) Father's Occupation Level (cont.): On his job my
father
a) Supervises the work and determines the pay of
others
b) Supervises the work of others and hires and
fires others
c) Determines the pay of others and hires and
fires others
d) Father is not employed
e) Father is deceased or disabled from working
8) Mother's Education Level
a) Some high school
b) High school graduate
c) Some college
d) College graduate
e) Graduate education '
9. Mother's Occupation Level: On her job my mother
a) Supervises the work of others (determines
what others do)
b) Determines the pay of others
c) Hires and fires others
d) All of the above (Skip #10)
e) None of the above (If mother is employed,
skip #10)

178

10. Mother's Occupation Level (cont): On her job
my mother

a) Supervises the work and determines the pay
of others

b) Supervises the work of others and hires
and fires others

c) Determines the pay of others and hires and
fires others

d) Mother is not employed

e) Mother is deceased or disabled from working

179

APPENDIX H

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This booklet contains an exercise and a list
of questions. Each of these is preceded by
instructions explaining how to respond and record
your reactions. For the list of questions you will
be asked to mark your responses on the answer sheet
which has been inserted in this booklet. Please
do not bend or fold the answer sheet.

Please do not put your name on the booklet or
answer sheet.

Please begin and continue through the booklet.
If you have questions come quietly to the front of the

room and ask the researcher. -

180

 

APPENDIX I

EXPERIMENTER'S MANUAL
Introduction

I am Carolyn Paulter and I am a graduate student
in Counseling Psychology. The study in which you
are participating is part of my doctoral research.

I am interested in how people View some situations
which occur in the workplace. In this part of the
study I am studying reactions to a situation between
a boss and employee.

During the study you will be presented with
a written example of a boss-employee interaction.
Your task will be to write a brief story about this
interaction and to answer a list of questions about
your reactions to the event.

Description of Study

The experiment is divided into two parts. You
will have about 15 minutes to write your story and
up to about 30 minutes to answer the questions about
the people in your story. In the second part of
the experiment you will be asked to complete a series
of questions calling for your opinions about yourself.
The entire experiment will require no more than

1 hour to complete.

181

Informed Consent

I will now answer your questions (Are there
any questions?). Those persons interested in
participating in this study will please remove the
Informed Consent Form from their booklets and place
your booklet on the floor. Please read the form
and then sign it completing the indicated information.
Persons not interested in participating in this
study are free to leave.

Personal Information Form

Please remove the blue computer answer form
from your booklet. Do not fill in your name. Complete
the student number and sex grid in the lower left
hand corner, using the scoring pencil you were given.
Please make heavy black marks that fill the circles
completely. You may now open your booklet and beginning
with question 1 answer each of the 10 questions
unless directed to leave unanswered a particular
question. Please record your answers on the computer
answer form. After you have answered question #10,
please stop until I give you further instructions.

Instructions

Please turn to page 3, and look at the top

of the page. You will see the words "Story Form”

followed by some background information and a scene

182

description. Please read the instructions about
what you ought to include in your story. You are
to use the blank pages attached to page 3 to write
your story.

I will tell you when 10 minutes have passed
by writing the time on the board. You will have
another five minutes to complete your story. After
I announce that 15 minutes are passed, you should
complete your story and begin the questions which
follow in your booklet and are labeled Story Character
Evaluation Scale. The Story Character Evaluation
Sggig should take about 30 minutestxncomplete.
If you complete your story sooner, you may proceed
to the questions sooner. When you have completed
your story and the questions, you can bring your
test booklet to me. Please keep your computer answer
form with you. You can then take the Opinions About

Self queStionnaire which is Part II of this study

 

to complete. When you have completed the Opinions
About Self questionnaire you can turn in your computer
answer form and the questionnaire.

You can then complete a Prize Drawing ticket
by writing your name and student number on the white
card and placing the card in the box marked Prize

Drawing. The drawing will take place on May 25

183

 

 

 

and the winners will be notified.

***Please do not discuss the details of this
study, for example the scene descriptions or
specific questions, with others as I will be asking
other residents to participate.

If you have any questions during the study,
please come quietly to the front of the room and

ask me. You may begin.

184

APPENDIX J

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
='=*P1ease read the following before you complete

the Informed Consent Form.

Description of the Study

The experiment is divided into two parts. In
the first part you will be presented with a written
example of a boss-employee interaction. Your task
will be to write a brief story about this interaction
and to answer a list of questions about your reactions
to the event. In the second part of the experiment
you will be asked to complete a series of questions
calling for your opinions about yourself.
Informed Consent

Please ask the researcherany questions you
may have beforeyou complete the Informed Consent
Form. Please remove the Informed Consent Form from
your booklet. Read the form and sign it completing
the indicated information.

If you are not interested in participating

in this study you are free to leave.

185

 

APPENDIX K

‘I

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (SUMMER)

*Please remove the computer answer form from your
booklet. Do not fill in your name. Complete the

 

student number and sex grid in the lower left hand

 

corner, using the scoring pencil you were given.
Please make heavy black marks that fill the circles
completely. Please do not bend or fold the computer
form.

Please begin and continue through the booklet. If
you have any questions come quietly to the front
of the room and ask the researcher.

 

**When you have completed item 57 you can bring
your test form to the researcher. Please keep your
computer answer form. You can then take the Opinions

 

about Self questionnaire to complete, which is Part II

 

of this study. When you have completed the Opinions
about Self questionnaire you can turn in your computer

 

answer form and the questionnaire.
Please do not discuss this study with others.

 

 

**Prize Drawing After you turn in your questionnaire

 

and computer answer form you can complete a prize
drawing ticket. Please write your ppm; and address
on the ticket and place it in the Prize Drawing
box. Winners will be selected and notified at the
completion of this study.

186

APPENDIX L

LETTER TO PRIZE WINNERS

 

RESEARCH STUDY LOTTERY PRIZE DRAWING ANNOUNCEMENT
(Spring)

June 4, 1984

Dear

I am pleased to inform you that your prize ticket
was selected as one of the 7 winners in the research
study lottery prize drawing. I had been unable
to notify you earlier as I was out of town on an
unexpected trip.

Enclosed you will find your prize.

Silpcerely,

/\ MAQ’ ’1

Carolyn . Paulter
MSU Dept. of Counseling
and Educational Psychology

RESEARCH STUDY LOTTERY PRIZE DRAWING ANNOUNCEMENT
(Summer)

March 27, 1985
Dear

I am pleased to inform you that your prize ticket
was selected as one of the 3 winners in the research
study lottery prize drawing.

Enclosed you will find your prize.

Singerely, /7
/ L/cZ.’ be¢ t (LCZ/AJLLZII

Carolyn R. Paulter
MSU Dept. of Counseling
and Educational Psychology

187

 

REFERENCES

 

References
Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance:
A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 2-34). New York: Academic Press.
Bartol, K. M. (1974). Male versus female leaders:
Effects of leader need for dominance on
follower satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 11, 225-233.

Bartol, K. M. (1975). The effect of male versus 1

 

female leaders on follower satisfaction and
performance. Journal of Business Research,
3, 33-42.

Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, S. (1976). Sex effects
in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 9;, 446-454.

Bartol, K. M., & Wortman, M. S. (1975). Male versus
female leaders: Effect on perceived leader
behavior and satisfaction in a hospital.
Personnel Psychology, 28” 533-547.

Bass, B. M., Krussell, J., & Alexander, R. A.
(1971). Male managers'attitudes toward working
women. American Behavioral Scientist, 15,

221-236.

188

189

Beauvais, C. A. (1976). The family and the work
group: Dilemma for women in authority.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 31,
35953.

Bernardez, T. (1976). Unconscious beliefs about
women affecting psychotherapy. North Carolina
Journal of Mental Health, 1, 63-66.

Bernardez,'r.(l978). Women and anger: Conflict
with aggression in contemporary women.

Journal of American Medical Women's Association,
33, 215-219.

Bernardez, T. (1982). The female therapist in
relation to male roles. In K. Solomon & N. B.
Levy (Eds.), Men in transition: theory and
therapy. (pp. 439-461). New York: Plenum Press.

Bernardez, T. (1983). Women in authority:
Psychodynamic and interactional aspects.
Social Work with Groups, 3(3), 43-49.

Borman, E. G., Pratt, J., & Putnam, L. (1978).
Power, authority, and sex: Male response to
female leadership. Communication Monograph,

3;, 119-155.

 

190

Bowman, G. W., Worthy, N. B., & Greyser, S. A.
(1965). Are women executives people? Harvard
Business Review, 33, 14-17.

Bromley, S. (1982, August). Women in positions
of high power. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. H.,
Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972).
Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal.
Journal of Social Issues, 33, 59-78.

Campbell, D. (1963). Social attitudes and other
acquired behavioral dispositions. In S. Koch
(Ed.), Psycholggy: A study of a science
(Vol. 6, pp. 94-172). New York: McGraw Hill.

Chasseguet-Smirgel, J. (1970). Feminine guilt and
the Oedipus complex. In J. Chasseguet-Smirgel,
C. J. Laquet-Parat, B. Grunberger, J. McDougall,
M. Torok, & C. David (Eds.), Female sexualipy:
New psychoanalytic views (pp. 94-134). Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering:
Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

191

Chodorow, N., & Contratlo, S. (1982). The fantasy
of the perfect mother. In B. Thorne (Ed.),
Rethinking the family (pp. 54-75). New York:
Longman.

Cliffton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Wick, B. (1976).

. Stereotypes of women-—a single category? 33y
Rpipp, ;, 135-146.

Collins, M., Waters, L. K., & Waters, C. W. (1979).
Relationships between sex-role orientation and
attitudes toward women as managers.
Psychological Reports, 53” 828-830.

Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kedder, L., Marecek,
J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes
hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role
reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
33, 520-530.

Cowan, G., & Koziej, J. (1979). Perceptions of
sex inconsistent behavior. Sex Roles, 3, 1-10.

Cytrynbaum, S., & Brandt, L. (1979, August).

Women in authority: Dilemmas for male and female
subordinates. Paper presented at the American

Psychological Association, New York.

 

192

Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Leader
behavior of male and female supervisors: A
comparative study. Personnel Psychology,
g3, 353-360.

Deaux, K. (1972). To err is humanizing. But sex
makes a difference. Representative Research
in Social Psychology, 3, 20-28.

Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations
of successful performance on sex-linked tasks:
What's skill for the male is luck for the female.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

32, 80-85.

Deaux, K., & Taynor, J. (1973). Evaluation of male
and female ability: Bias works two ways.
Psychological Reports, 33, 261-262.

Dinnerstein, D. (1976). The mermaid and the minotaur:
Social arrangements and human malaise. New
York: Harper & Row.

Donelson, E., & Gullahorn, J. (1977). Individual
and interpersonal achievement. In Donelson,

E., & Gullahorn, J. (Eds.), Women: A psychological

perspective (pp. 168-188). New York: Wiley.

 

193

Edwards, A. (1954). Manua1-Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule. New York: The Psychological
Corporation.

Ezell, H. H., Odewahn, C. A., & Sherman, J. D.
(1981). The effects of having been supervised
by a woman on perceptions of female managerial
competence. Personnel Psychology, 33, 291-299.

Falbo, T., Hazen, M. D., & Linimon, D. (1982).

The cost of selecting power bases or messages
associated with the opposite sex. Sex Roles,
3, 147-157.

Farrell, W. (1974). The liberated man. New York:
Bantam Books.

Feather, N. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility
and valence of success and failure in relation
to initial confidence and task performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

33, 129-144.

Feather, N. T., & Raphelson, A. C. (1974). Reactions
to male and female success: A cross-cultural
study of fear of success in Australian and
American student groups. Journal of Personality,

3;, 190-201.

194

Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. (1973). Fear of
success and causal attribution for outcome.
Journal of Personality, 33, 525-542.

Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. (1975). Reactions
to male and female success and failure in
sex-linked occupations: Impressions of
personality, causal attributions and perceived
likelihood of different consequences. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 20-31.

Ferber, M. A., & Huber, J. A. (1975). Sex of
students and instructor: A study of student bias.
American Journal of Sociology, 33, 949-963.

Festinger, L. (1957). An introduction to the theory
of dissonance. In A theory of cognitive

dissonance (pp. 1-31). Palo Alto: Stanford

 

University Press.

Fidell, L. S. (1970). Empirical verification
of sex discrimination in hiring practices
in psychology. American Psychologist, 33,

1094-1097.

195
Field, H. S., & Caldwell, B. E. (1979). Sex of
supervisor, sex of subOrdinate and subordinate
job satisfaction. Psycholggyyof Women Quarterly,
3, 391-399.
Filene, P. G. (1974). Him/Herself: Sex roles in

modern America. New York: Harcourt BraCe

‘ "" flatworms-13 ,

Jovanovich, Inc.

Freeman, H. R. (1979). Stereotypes, self-concepts,

 

(1:.

and measured personality characteristics in
college women and men. Sex Roles, 3, 99-103.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The
bases of social power. In D. Cartwright &

A. Zander (Eds.L.Group dynamics: Research and
theory (pp. 259-269). New York: Harper & Row.

Garland, H., & Price, K. H. (1977). Attitudes
toward women in management and attributions
for their success and failure in managerial
positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33,
29-33.

Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence in television drama:
Trends and symbolic functions. In G. G. Comstock
and E. I. Rubinstein (Eds.), Media content and
control: Television and social behavior (pp. 28-187).

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

196

Goldberg, H. (1977). The hazards of being ma3g.
New York: New American Library.

Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against
women? Transaction, 3 (5),28-30.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1971). Manual-
Adjective Checklist. Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Gough, H., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P. (1951). A
personality scale for dominance. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psyohology,j33, 360-366.

Greene, S. (1976). Attitudes toward working women
have a 'long way to go'. Gallup Opinion Index,
333, 32-46. -

Gruder, c. L., & Cook, T. D. (1971). Sex,
dependency and helping. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 33, 290-294.

Haccoun, D. M., Haccoun, R. R., & Sallay, G. (1978).
Sex differences in the appropriateness of
supervisory styles: A nonmanagement View. Journal
ongpplied Psychology, 33, 124-127.

Hagen, R. L., & Kahn, A. (1975). Discrimination
against competent women. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 3, 362-376.

 

197

Hays, H. R. (1972). The dangerous sex. The myth
of feminine evil. New York: Putnam.

Horney, K. (1967). The dread of women: Observations
in the specific differences in dread felt by
men and women respectively for the opposite
sex. In H. Kellman (Ed.), Feminine psychology
(pp. 133-146). New York: W. W. Norton.

Jacobson, M., Antonelli, J., Winnings, P., &
Opeil, D. (1977). Women as authority figures.
The use and nonuse of authority. Sex Roles,
3, 365-375.

Jacobson, M., & Effertz, J. (1974). Sex roles
and leadership: Perceptions of the leaders and
the led. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 33, 383-396.

Johnson, P. B. (1974). Social power and sex-role
stereotyping. Dissertation Abstracts International,
33, 24063.

Johnson, P. B. (1976). Women and power: Toward
a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social

Issues, 2(3), 99-110.

 

198

Johnson, P. B. (1978). Women and interpersonal
power. In I. H. Frieze, P. B. Johnson, D. Ruble,
& G. Zellman (Eds.). Women and sex roles: A
social psychological perspective (pp. 301-320).
New York: W. W. Norton.

Kamarovsky, M. (1973). Cultural contradictions
and sex roles: The masculine case. In J. Huber
(Ed.), Changing women in a changing sociepy
(pp. 111-122). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1976, May). Why bosses turn bitchy.
Psychology Today, pp. 56-60, 89-91.

Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the
corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions
on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses
to token women. American Journal of Sociology,
33, 965-990.

Klein, M. (1957). Envy and gratitude. New York:
Basic Books.

Kravetz, D. E. (1976). Sex role concepts of women.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

_4_4_., 437-443.

 

199

Lansky, L. M., Crandall, J. J., Kagan, J., & Baker,
C. T. (1961). Sex differences in aggression
and its correlates in middle class adolescents.
Child Development, 33, 37-57.

Lederer, W. (1968). The fear of women. New York:
Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.

Lerner, H. E. (1974). Early origins of envy and
devaluation of women: Implications for sex role
stereotypes. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,
33, 538-553.

Levenson, H., Burford, B., Bonno, B., & Davis, L.
(1975). Are women still prejudiced against
men? A replication and extension of Goldberg's
study. Journal of Psychology, 33, 67-71.

Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1971).
Sex discrimination against the American working
women. American Behavioral Scientist. 33,
238-254.

Maier, N. R. F. (1970). Male versus female discussion
leaders. Personnel Psychology, 33, 455-461.

Massengill, D., & Di Marco, N. (1979). Sex role
stereotypes and requisite management characteristics:

A current replication. Sex Roles, 3, 561-570.

 

200

Matteson, M. T. (1976). Attitudes toward women
as managers: Sex or role differences.
Psychological Reports, 33, 166.

May, R. (1972). The meaning of power. In 3913;
and innocence: A segrch for the3ppprce of
violence (pp. 99-120). New York: W. W. Norton.

Mayes, S. S. (1979). Women in positions of
authority: A case study of changing sex roles.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
3, 556-568.

Miller, A. G. (1972). Role playing: An alternative
to deception? A review of the evidence.
American Psychologist, 33, 623-636.

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology
of women. Boston: Beacon Press.

Millet, K. (1969). Sexual politics. New York:
Doubleday.

Mischel, H. (1974). Sex bias in the evalution
of professional achievements. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 33, 157-166.

Munson, C. E. (1979). Evaluation of male and
female supervisors. Social Work, 33, 104-110.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality.

New York: Oxford University Press.

 

201

National Commission on Working Women. (1978).

An overview of women in the workplace. Washington,
D.C.: Center for Women and Work.

National Organization of Women. (1982). ERA facts.
Washington, D.C.: NOW.

Nielson, J., & Doyle, P. (1975). Sex-role

. stereotypes of feminists and nonfeminists.
Sex Roles, 3, 83-95.

Osborn, R. N., & Vicars, W. M. (1976). Sex
stereotypes: An artifact in leader behavior
and subordinate satisfaction analysis.

Academy of Management Journal, 33, 439-449.

Peck, T. (1978). When women evaluate women, nothing
succeeds like success: The differential effects
of status upon evaluation of male and female
professional ability. Sex Roles, 3, 205-213.

Peterson, M. J. (1975). The asymetry of sex-role
perceptions. Sex Roles, 3, 267-282.

Petro, C. S., & Putnam, B. A. (1979). Stereotypes:
Issues of attitudinal changes. Sex Roles, 3,

29-39.

 

202

Petty, M. M., & Lee, K. G. (1975). Moderating
effect of sex of supervisor and subordinate
on relationship between supervisory behavior
and subordinate satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 3, 624-628.

Petty, M. M., & Miles, R. H. (1976). Sex role
stereotypes in a female dominant work culture.
Personnel Psychology, 33, 393-404.

Pheterson, G. I., Kisler, S. B., & Goldberg, P.
A. (1971). Evaluation of the performance of
women as a function of their sex, achievement
and personal history. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 33, 114-118.

Pinches, S. K. (1978). Sexism in women's judgements
of an argument between a man and a woman.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The
"good manager": Masculine or androgynous?

Academy of Management Journal, 33, 395-403.

 

203

Rice, R. W., Bander, L. R., & Vitters, A. G. (1980).
Leader sex, follower attitudes toward women
and leadership effectiveness: A laboratory
experiment. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 33, 46-78.

Riger, S., & Galligan, P. (1980). Women in
management: An exploration of competing paradigms.
American Psychologist, 33, 902-910.

Rosaldo, M. Z. (1974). Women, culture and society:
A theoretical overview. In M. Z. Rosaldo &

L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture and sociepy
(pp. 18-41). Stanford, Ca1if.: Stanford
University Press.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1973). The influence
of sex-role stereotypes on the evaluation of
male and female supervisory behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33, 44-48.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1974). Sex
stereotyping in the executive suite. Harvard

Business Review, 33, 45-58.

 

204

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1975). The psychological
basis for sex-role stereotypes: A note on Terborg
and Ilgen's conclusions. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 33, 151-153.

Sanday, P. R. (1974). Female status in the public
domain. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.),
Women, cultureypand society (pp. 190-206).
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Schien, V. E. (1973). The relationship between
sex-role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
33, 95-100.

Schien, V. E. (1975). Relationship between
sex-role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33, 340-344.

Slavin, M. O. (1972). The theme of feminine evil:
The image of women in male fantasy and the effect
on attitudes and behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Smith, M. G. (1960). Government in Zazzau. London:
Oxford University Press.

Soto, D. H. & Cole, C. (1975). Prejudice against

women: A new perspective. Sex Roles, 3, 385-393.

 

 

205

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). Who likes
competent women? Competence, sex-role congruence
of interests and subjects' attitudes toward
women as determinants of interpersonal attraction.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 197-213.

Tavris, C., & Offir, C. (1977). The longest war:

Sex differences in perspective, New York: Harcourt
Brace & Jovanovich.

Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: A
research review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
33, 647-664.

Terborg, J. R. & Ilgen, D. R. (1975). A
theoretical approach to sex discrimination in
traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 352-376.

Terborg, J. R., Peters, I. H., Ilgen, J. D. R.,

& Smith, F. (1977). Organizational and personal
correlates of attitudes toward women as managers.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 89-110.

Trilling, B. A. (1976). Factors related to women's

prejudice against women. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 33, 41833-4184B.

 

 

206

Tuchman, G. (1979). Women's depiction by the mass
media. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 3, 528-542.

U. S. Department of Commerce.(1972). We the American
Epggp. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.

Watts, W. A. (1968). Predictability and pleasure:
Reactions to the disconfirmation of expectancies.
In R. D. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire,

T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum
(Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A
sourcebook (pp. 469-478). Chicago: Rand McNally

& Co.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, In, Restg S. &
Rosenbaum, R. M. (1972). Perceiving the
causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones,

D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett,

S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution:
Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95-102).
Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus action!

The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral
responses to attitude objects. Journal of

Social Issues, 33, 41-78.

 

207

Wolf, W. C., & Fligstein, N. D. (1979a). Sex and
authority in the workplace: The causes of sexual
inequality. American Sociological Review, 33,
235-252.

Wolf, W. C., & Fligstein, N. D. (1979b). Sexual
stratification: Differences in power in the work
setting. Social Forces, 33, 94-107.

Wolowitz, H. M. (1979). Paranoia and power.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan,
Department of Psychology, Ann Arbor.

Yerby, J. (1975). Attitudes, task, and set
composition as variables affecting female leadership
in small problem solving groups. Speech Monographs,

3;, 160-168.