MSU RETURNING MATERIAL§g P1ace in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from .‘unnzgnnun. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. {" 44--44%é?’13+ MAX 0 4 520:3 PATTERNS IN MASCULINE GENDER ROLE IDENTIFICATION, BODY SATISFACTION AND SELF-IMAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL MALES BY William Reid Ledford A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1984 ABSTRACT PATTERNS IN MASCULINE GENDER ROLE IDENTIFICATION, BODY SATISFACTION AND SELF-IMAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL MALES BY William Reid Ledford It is argued in clinical psychoanalytic literature that homosexuality in males expresses the ego's need to secure masculine components of the ego-ideal. Aspects of this theory were evaluated for a sample of 24 gay men ranging in age from 19 to 45 years. It was found that the stronger a subject's identifica- tion with his father, the closer his actual self-image ap- proximated his ideal self. There was also a high positive correlation between masculine gender role identification and body satisfaction. Finally, the semantic differential con- cepts MYSELF AS I mosr WOULD LIKE TO BE and THE PERFECT LOVER were nearly identical for almost every subject. All of these findings are consistent with psychoanalytic theories. Contrary to psychoanalytic expectations, there seemed to be a positive correlation between emphasis on physical at- tractiveness of sexual object and body satisfaction. A sub- sequent investigation is proposed to test these hypotheses in relation to heterosexual men. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere appreciation to the people who offered their time and support to me during the time it took to complete this project. My chairperson, Dr. Bertram Karon, gave me reassurance that in spite of obstacles, the shortest distance between two points can still approximate a straight line. His ad- vice on method and statistical procedures has been truly valued--for its soundness as well as its parsimony. Dr. Elaine Donelson freely offered her time and energy in a way far beyond what would reasonably be expected of a committee member. Her contributions from the beginning, es- pecially of reference materials and measures, became of in- estimable value to this research. Dr. Terry Stein similarly gave me very much time and assistance. His unique contributions have been indispensable. Without his persistent adherence to conviction I would have at times found myself adrift. This, combined with his willingness to consider alternative points of view, has en- couraged personal and professional growth on my part for which I have not heretofore adequately thanked him. William Bathie has both unselfishly and untiringly helped me to conduct this research and has been unfailing in his commitment to a job well done. I am very much looking forward to our continued collaboration and friendship. Finally, Deborah Berry has offered such personal en- couragement during the course of my study at Michigan State and such highly regarded suggestions on my research, I wonder if I would have had the energy to continue had she not so freely given her support. She remains a dear friend. To all of these people, my deeply felt thanks. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1--INTRODUCTION Historical Review of Psychodynamic Theories of Male Homosexuality Overview of Major Research on Developmental Origins of Homosexuality The Completion Hypothesis Empirical Literature on Self-Concept and Sexual Preference Summary Statement of Hypotheses CHAPTER 2--METHOD Subjects Procedure Instruments Assessment of Variables CHAPTER 3--RESULTS Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Additional Findings CHAPTER 4--DISCUSSION Summary iii vi 14 24 33 44 48 51 51 53 53 56 68 68 69 72 73 82 91 LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX iv 94 99 Table Table Table Table Table LIST OF TABLES Frequency Counts for Major Demographic Variables in Sample Descriptive Statistics for Questionnaire Items Assessing Physical Emphasis Correlation Coefficients Among Body Satisfaction and Physical Emphasis Variables for Sample of Gay Males Correlation Coefficients Among Body Satisfaction and Gender Self-Per- ception/Role Identification Variables Relationships Among Concepts for the Semantic Differential by Dimension 54 70 71 74 76 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Relationships Among Semantic Differential Concepts in Two Dimensions (Evaluation and Potency) vi 79 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There is probably more nonsense written about homosexuality, more unwarranted fear of it, and less understanding of it than any other area of human sexuality. (Pomeroy, 1969, p. 1) There are at least two prominent factors which, in Po- meroy's view, account for the heap of nonsensical litera- ture devoted to the subject of homosexuality. The first of these-is the acceptance of the phenomenon as a single, uni- tary entity. He points out that whereas some homosexuals develop long-term emotional relationships with another per- son of the same sex and live ”monogamously" for as much as the remainder of their lives, others devote themselves to pluralistic (i.e., nonmonogamous) styles of sexual expres- sion. He also observes, in relation to male homosexuals, that some engage in homosexual encounters for money, others may begin homosexual activity when confined to an exclusive- ly male environment. Pomeroy concludes that ...it is obvious that to lump all homosexuals together is as grossly misleading as to lump all heterosexuals together. Homosexuality is no re- specter of age, religion, or social level. It occurs as frequently among physicians, psychia- trists, clergymen, judges and politicians as among truck drivers and ditch diggers. (p. 10) 2 The second factor is a persistent disinclination to ap- proach homosexuality as a sexual variation independent of stereotypes. More specifically, regarding the controversy as to whether homosexuality should be considered a disorder, Pomeroy writes, If my concept of homosexuality were developed from my practice, I would probably concur in thinking of it as an illness. I have seen no homosexual man or woman in that practice who was not troubled, emo- tionally upset, or neurotic. 0n the other hand, if my concept of marriage in the United States were based on my practice, I would have to conclude that marriages are all fraught with strife and conflict, and that heterosexuality is an illness. In my twen- ty years of research in the field of sex, I have seen many homosexuals who were happy, who were par- ticipating and conscientious members of their com- munity, and who were stable, productive, warm, re- laxed, and efficient. Except for the fact that they were homosexual, they would be considered normal by any definition. (p. 10) In the Final Report and Background Papers of the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality (Livingood, 1972), top priority is assigned to refinement of sampling methods to comprise the entire range of homosexual phenomena. It is urged, fur- thermore, that investigations be conducted in a way that in- cludes homosexual individuals who "do not come into contact with medical, legal, or other social control or treatment resources and who therefore have been least studied" (p. 3). In spite of a generally more liberal approach to the issue of homosexuality , however, strong emphasis is still placed by the Task Force on prevention and treatment. 0n the other hand, in the third and most recent edition of the 3 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- III), no general classification exists for homosexuality, but rather for "ego dystonic homosexuality" (American Psy- chiatric Association, 1980, p. 281). This is a change from DSM-II which has stimulated much controversy (Bayer, 1981). Historical Review of Psychodynamic Theories of Male Homo- sexuality Among early theorists who devoted formal study to the subject of homosexuality, it was widely believed that the basis for such same-sex preferences was biological. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, for example, became distinguished for his work in the field of human sexuality in the late nineteenth century. Krafft-Ebing originally believed homosexuality, or "inversion,” as he called it, to be a functional sign of neuropathic and psychopathic degeneration which in most cases was the result of unnamed hereditary factors. He ultimately took the position, however, that homosexuality represented not so much a state of degeneration, but was more likely a simple variation or anomaly. In commenting upon Krafft- Ebing's contribution to our understanding of homosexuality, another early student of human sexuality, Havelock Ellis, writes: At the time of his death, Krafft-Ebing, who had begun by accepting the view, at that time pre- valent among alienists, that homosexuality is a sign of degeneration, thus fully adopted and set the seal of his authority on the view, already ex- pressed by some scientific investigators as well 4 as by inverts themselves, that sexual inversion is to be regarded simply as an anomaly, what- ever difference of opinion there might be as to the value of the anomaly. The way was even opened for such a view as that of Freud and most of the psychoanalysts today who regard a strain of homosexuality as normal and almost constant, with a profound significance for the psychoner- vous life. (Ellis, 1942, pp. 70, 71) Interestingly, although Freud saw homosexuality as an I'arrest" of psychosexual development, he regarded it nei- ther illness nor vice and suggested a rather dismal out- look for those who should undertake to "reverse" it. In 1935, Freud wrote a now well-knmaxletter to an American wo- man whose son was homosexual: Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degra- dation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual func- tion produced by a certain arrest of sexual devel- Opment. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too... By asking me if I can help, you mean, I sup- pose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer. is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual ten- dencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible... What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, ana- lysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed. (Freud, 1935/1963) 5 Basic to the psychoanalytic approach to the origins of homosexuality is what is known as the “biological bisexual- ity of man," a concept which holds the ability of everyone initially to develop sexual feelings without regard to the object's gender to be a phylogenetic given. Seeming to sup- port this hypothesis is the apparently indiscriminant nature of infantile sexuality. Similarly, homosexual behavior has been described by Blos as "part and parcel" of teenage life (Blos, cited in Fraiberg, 1961, p. 78). In addition, ob- servations of frequent homosexual experimentation in adole- scence, at least among males, are well documented. Just as these phenomena may be considered behaviorally manifested vestiges of the original homosexual component of basically bisexual man or woman, what is often referred to as ”situa- tional homosexuality" is seen as a consequence of an innate flexibility of object choice. This type of homosexuality is the homosexual activity of men or women in situations where sexual partners of the other sex are unavailable, such as in prisons or at sea. At the heart of the psychoanalytic ap- proach to homosexuality, then, is the question of what events take place in later development to cause an indivi- dual's sexual preference to be limited to objects of his or her own sex. According to Fenichel (1945), and true to the psychoanalytic tradition, a readiness to develop the homo- sexual orientation is in part determined by constitutional factors among which the hormonal components are crucial (p. 330). Under the pressure of certain conflicts, then, 6 which are discussed below, these constitutionally predis- posing factors may facilitate the development of a homo- sexual orientation. At this point, it is necessary to turn our attention primarily to male homosexuality given that the divergencies between females and males in development necessitate a se- parate discussion for each group, and that the focus of this investigation is homosexuality in males. What is not applicable to this group is not here considered. The classical psychoanalytic position holds the rejec- tion of the heterosexual object in male homosexuality to be distinctly genital. The homosexual man may engage in social relationships with women, come to admire them and develop secure platonic relationships, but is repulsed or frightened by the idea of genital contact with them due to the fact that the homosexual man is dominated by a strong castration complex. For such an individual, the idea of being without a penis is so terrifying that he would not consider engaging in sexual intercourse with a partner who did not have one. According to this perspective, the sight of feminine genitals may arouse anxiety in the male child in two ways: first, once recognizing that there does exist a class of hu- man beings who have no penis, the boy comes to fear that he might lose his as well.. Secondly, certain oral fears may be aroused in which the female genitals are seen as a device for castration, viz., a "vagina dentata." The first sight of the female genitals and the sudden anxiety which it may 7 arouse in a boy is referred to as "castration shock," and may be found in the histories of both homosexual and hetero- sexual males. The decisive factor in terms of object choice is the type of reaction to the shock which an individual un- dergoes. Homosexual men are thought to have reacted by re- fusing heterosexual contact from that point onward (Freud 1909/1963; Fenichel, 1945). According to Fenichel (1945), the homosexual man typi- cally exhibits an oedipal attachment to his mother which Fe- nichel describes as an intense "mother fixation." Central to the phenomenon of homosexuality in males, from this per- spective, is the fact that all object loss or disappoint- ment entails a tendency to regress from the level of object love to the level of identification with the object. Taking the form of castration shock, this disappointment in the mo- ther's genitals precipitates just such a regression. What decides whether the boy becomes homosexual is how and in what respect the regressive identification takes place. It takes place in the boy who later becomes homosexual when be- coming the object which he cannot possess, like his mother, he loves men. Psychodynamic theories advanced subsequent to classical psychoanalysis have characteristically de-emphasized the role of biology in personality development in favor of greater attention to the impact of social forces on the psychologi- cal histories and ongoing mental lives of individuals. Ty-I pically less complex than more orthodox psychoanalytic . 8 formulations, the corresponding conceptualizations of homo- sexuality naturally have assumed the flavors of the theories which spawned them. In general, these later psychodynamic theories will not be elaborated here except as they have some bearing on the hypotheses examined in the present in- vestigation. The theories of Sullivan (1953) and Kohut (1971) are among those which bear such a relevancy. Sullivan (1953) places particular emphasis on the ne- cessity for intense and intimate (not necessarily sexual) preadolescent relationships between boys as a prerequisite to heterosexual development. In this connection he de- scribes a group of boys who had attended high school in a small Kansas town. As adults, the two men who had not par- ticipated in the group's homosexual experimentation were discovered by Sullivan to be overt homosexuals. He adds that ”those who had participated in mutual sexuality were married, with children, divorces and what not, in the best tradition of American society“ (p. 256). Although he does not say that preadolescent homosexual experimentation is necessary to later heterosexual development, he does insist that the need for intimacy manifested toward members of one's own sex normally predates the maturation of the ”lust dynamism." This maturation, according to Sullivan, ideally accompanies a shift in the intimacy need to the other sex. According to this point of view, homosexual behavior, whe- ther transient or enduring, is largely given rise to by "accidents” in which such a shift fails to occur at or near 9 the time of puberty. In other cases, according to Sullivan, the homosexual behavior of an individual may be motivated by a pathological need to separate interpersonal relations based on lust from those based on the need for intimacy. In cases in which this need to separate lust from intimacy leads to dissociation of lust, any of a variety of anoma- lies in personality may be engendered, depending upon the aspect of lust dissociated. Sullivan considers male homo- sexuality in these cases to develop in response to the "un- canny feeling" associated with the female genitals and an- ticipation of the "physical intergenital situation" (p. 275). Kohut (1971) writes,:h1reference to homosexuality and the other psychoanalytically so-called "perversions," "It is ... my impression that specific circumscribed disturban- ces in the narcissistic realm [the narcissistic personality disorders] are usually the nucleus of these widespread dis- orders.” According to Kohut's psychoanalysis, the basis of the narcissistic personality disorders is a disturbance in the ”narcissistic configurations" which evolve in response to normal disruptions to the equilibrium of primary narcis- sism. This comfortable state of oneness with omnipotent objects is, of course, necessarily disturbed by the short- comings of maternal caregiving. The child, then, "replaces the previous perfection by (a) establishing a grandiose and exhibitionistic image of the self: the grandiose self; and (b) by giving over the previous perfection to an admired, 10 omnipotent ... self-object: the idealized parent imago" (p. 25). The term self-object here refers to those object representations which are not experienced as separate and independent from the self. Normally, the grandiosity and exhibitionism of the former are gradually modified and along with the latter are integrated into the adult personality. These two major ”configurations," then, are the precursors, respectively, to normal mature forms of (a) positive self- esteem and self-confidence and (b) the ability for enthusi- asm and admiration for others. Moreover, the grandiose self, once integrated into the adult personality, provides the motive force for ego-syntonic goals and ambitions while the idealized internal representation of the parent (ideal- ized parent imago) is introjected as the idealized superego. An individual with a narcissistic personality disorder, however, has remained fixated on archaic grandiose self-con- figurations and/or archaic idealized ”narcissistically ca- thected" objects (self-objects) and has not had the benefit of integration of these with the rest of his personality. Because they remain unaltered in their unintegrated foam, they threaten the mature self with intrusion of archaic nar- cissistic aims; and the ego remains deprived of the corre- sponding narcissistic investments. Particularly in the realm of object relations, which concerns us in the present study, the regression from normalcy and the corresponding continuance of the narcissistic strivings in the narcissis- tic personality disorders involves a "compelling need for 11 merger with [the] powerful object" (p. 9). Kohut contrasts the process obtaining under favorable circumstances with its failure as follows: Under optimal circumstances the child experiences gradual disappointment in the idealized object-- or, expressed differently: the child's evaluation of the idealized object becomes increasingly real- istic--which leads to a withdrawal of the narcis- sistic cathexes from the imago of the idealized self object to their gradual ... internalization, i.e., to the acquisition of permanent psychologi- cal structures which continue, endopsychically, the functions which the idealized self-object had previously fulfilled. If the child suffers trauma- tic ... disappointment in it, then optimal inter- nalization does not take place. The child does not acquire the needed internal structure, his psyche remains fixated on an archaic self-object in what seems to be an intense form of object hun- ger. (p. 45) Since all bliss and power now reside in the ideal- ized object, the child feels empty and powerless when he is separated from it and he attempts, therefore, to maintain continuous union with it. (p. 37) In addition, these archaic, regressive psychic struc- tures (e.g., grandiose self, idealized parent imago) may be- come sexualized in narcissistic personality disorders; one manifestation of which, in Kohut's opinion, may be homosex- uality. To illustrate this principle, Kohut describes the case of a man, Mr. A., who although not overtly homosexual, reported homosexual attractions of such strength as to lead him to seek analysis. In Kohut's opinion this patient's ho- mosexual preoccupations were subordinate to his overall per- sonality configuration which originated largely from a 12 traumatic disappointment in the idealized father imago in early latency. Consequently, according to Kohut, he was able to obtain a sense of heightened self-esteem only by attaching himself to strong and admired male figures. This tendency was nonsexual in nature, however, insofar as the sexualization of the narcissistic cOnfigurations was only a part of the total narcissistic personality organization. In regard to more specifically sexual acts, Mr. A. never engaged in homosexual activities and--apart from some sexually tinged, playful wrestling in adolescence and the buying of ”physical culture“ magazines which contained photographs of athletic men--his homosexual preoccupations were consummated only in fantasy, with or without masturbation. The objects of his homosexual fantasies were always men of great bodily strength and perfect physique.... Occasionally he achieved orgasm and a feeling of triumph at the thought of masturbating a strong and physically perfect man and draining him of his pow- er. (pp. 69, 70) Kohut regards this sexualization of the narcissistic confi- gurations as having come about via failure in the ego's drive neutralizing capacity prior to the traumatic loss of the patient's idealized parent imago. Kohut considers his fantasies of pursuing physically powerful men and the orgas- tic experience of draining power from ”fantasied imagoes of external perfection" as a means to the vicarious acquisition of the strength and perfection which characterized them. Clearly, then, existing psychodynamic formulations generally regard homosexuality, at least in males, as 13 largely a function of developmental arrest or regression and/or avoidance of heterosexuality. These factors are of- ten posited as interactive with unspecified constitutional predisposers. In particular, psychodynamic theories of male homosexuality, the theories of Sullivan and Kohut among them, often suggest that male homosexuality represents an unconscious striving to complete an identification with a male which normally in accomplished during childhood. Such strivings, then, which in childhood are pregenital for heterosexual males, in homosexual males continue post-puber- tally and are attached to adult masculine objects: conse- quently assuming a manifestly adult sexual character. The mechanisms by which these strivings are satisfied are often referred to in terms of incorporation or intro- jection of qualities of masculinity which have become highly admired, or which consist in a highly admired object--usual- ly the father. Although Sullivan's emphasis is upon inter- personal processes rather than libidinal strivings mediated by the processes of incorporation and identification, he suggests that the absence of preadolescent homosexual ex- ploration and intimacy in males is conducive to adult homo- sexuality. At this point, we turn to a brief survey of some major empirical findings in connection with the psychodyna- mics of sexual object choice. 14 Overview of Major Research on Developmental Origins of Homosexuality In 1952 Bieber and his collaborators (Bieber, et al., 1962) undertook an intensive study of male homosexuality em- ploying 106 male homosexual and 100 male heterosexual sub- jects as controls, all of whom were involved in psychoanaly- tic treatment with members of the Society of Medical Psycho- analysts. This investigation is of importance since it re- presents the first successful attempt at (a) compiling such detailed data from individual psychoanalyses for such a large sample of homosexual men, and (b) subjecting such data to statistical and clinical analysis. In general, Bieber is critical of Freud's emphasis on biological determinants in the etiology of male homosexual- ity, and considers the emphasis to be more suitably placed on family dynamic patterns. What Bieber refers to as the ”classical" situation is one in which the mother is close- binding and intimate, dominant, and takes a deprecatory at- titude toward her husband. The father is described as de- tached and often hostile toward the son in question. Bie- ber and his collaborators conclude that from their statis- tical analysis, the chances seem high that any son exposed to such a parental combination will either become homosexual or develop homosexual conflicts. With regard to what constitutes a close—binding mother, the Bieber group observed that such mothers were sexually overstimulating toward their sons by means of excessive in- timacy or outright seductiveness. Secondly, such mothers 15 sexually inhibited their sons. Although they were sexually overstimulating, they nevertheless suppressed overt manifes- tations of heterosexual responsiveness on the part of the child. Bieber also observes that such suppression seems to have served as a defensive means of concealing from them- selves as well as from others their own sexual feelings to- ward their sons. Most such mothers also held antisexual attitudes which were reflected in a tendency to portray sex- uality as unacceptably distasteful and brutish. Close-binding mothers also had the general tendency to discourage masculine attitudes and behavior patterns on their sons' part and interfered with their peer group parti- cipation, minimizing opportunities for masculine identifica- tion with other boys. These mothers also typically interfered with the fa- ther-son relationship in a number of ways. First, they en- couraged the child's wish for exclusive maternal possession by openly expressing a preference for the son over the fa- ther. Similarly, they fostered father-son competitiveness by finding ways to pit each against the other for maternal favor. The mothers behaved romantically toward the sons in ways that seemed to compensate for deficiencies in the mari- tal relationship, and permitted or encouraged the sons' par- ticipation in situations in which their involvement was not appropriate. Such sons, for example, were sometimes in- volved in parents' arguments or were allowed to sleep with their parents in the same bed. 16 By selecting a particular child for preferential treat- ment, usually the son who later became homosexual, they fos- tered competitive sibling relationships. In addition, they interfered with the development of independence by preempt- ing the decision-making process for the child and "taking over." Theywdiscouraged self-assertiveness and typically in- fantilized their sons by the oversolicitous treatment. According to Bieber, the most striking aspect of the father-son relationships in both homosexual and heterosexual groups was the consistency with which psychopathological phenomena tended to appear. He adds that ”profound inter- personal disturbance is unremitting in the father-son rela- tionships [of the homosexual subjects)" (p. 114). The fa- thers of controls, in addition, presented a far more whole- some picture than fathers of the homosexual subjects. The vast majority of fathers of homosexual men were classified as ”detached," of which most were distant and indifferent, hostile, or dominating-exploitative. Bieber indicates that homosexual development in the sons of such fathers can be largely traced to the fact that paternal detachment, as a traumatic circumstance, is compen- sated for by reparative relationships with other males. The seeking of need fulfillment from other men, according to Bieber, has a clear point of origin in fathers who were de- tached. The Bieber study suggests that sons of such fathers sought in homosexual partners the qualities which were ab- sent in their own fathers such as warmth, friendliness, 17 closeness and the reassurance of physical presence. Bieber suggests that because the detached fathers spent little time with their sons they contributed to the development of homo- sexuality in that they failed to provide the sons with ade- quate male models for identification. Although subsequent investigations indicate that this family constellation occurs with marked frequency in the histories of homosexual men (White and Watt, 1973), this is by no means always the case. There has been ample criticism of Bieber's position that homosexuality per se is a patholo- gical entity even among those who do not dispute his find- ings. Before turning to a discussion of these issues, it might be noted that these findings seem to bear some consis- tency with the psychodynamic hypotheses previously described which suggest that motivations underlying homosexuality in males consist, at least in part, of adult sexual versions of what occurs in all males sooner or later--strivings to- ward appropriation of idealized masculine qualities via phy- sical and/or emotional closeness. Bieber's statement that sons of the detached fathers sought in their homosexual part- ners qualities which were absent in their own fathers is not at all divergent from Kohut's position. This point is made much more strikingly, however, in later treatises by Kaplan (1963) and Tripp (1975), discussed below. Finally, in this connection it is apparent that Bie- ber's findings regarding inhibited peer-group participation among homosexual males as children are in harmony with 18 Sullivan's observations. It might be noted, however, that rather than engendering homosexuality, disruptions to such peer-group experiences might as well have been brought about by variables sometimes associated with homosexual develop- ment such as variant gender-role preferences and lack of traditionally "masculine" interests, or merely the sense of being different (Bieber, et al., 1962; Saghir & Robins, 1973). Precursors to homosexuality, then, would have exist- ed prior to the observed among-peer interactions and could not be said to have arisen from them. Whether the charac- teristic nature of the peer-group interaction bolsters con- stitutionally determined homosexual proclivities is subject to question. Gonsiorek (1982a) observes that Bieber's study is fraught with sampling problems characteristic of those stu- dies involving patients in treatment for psychological prob- lems. Aside from this issue, which is discussed at length below, Gonsiorek describes the Bieber study as noteworthy in regard to researcher bias. He observes that the same psy- choanalysts with whom the subjects were in treatment were those who developed the theory of homosexuality propounded by Bieber et al. These investigators, he notes, additional- ly developed the questionnaire used to test their theory, served as raters in the study, and interpreted the results concluding that their theory had been verified. These facts make it unclear, according to Gonsiorek, as to whether the findings were a function of built-in researcher biases, 19 adding that "it would be difficult to imagine how to build more potential for research bias into experimental proce- dures than the Bieber group did" (p. 69). Hooker (1972), in reference to various studies appar- ently supporting familial pathology theories of homosexual- ity remarks: The evidence from these and many similar studies does not support the assumption that pathological parent-child relations are either necessary or sufficient antecedents or determinants of adult homosexuality. The evidence does indicate, how- ever, that some forms of familial pathology ap- pear to be associated with inoreased vulnerabil- ity of some individuals to homosexual develop- ment, and it suggests that psychopathology is more frequently associated with homosexuality in these individuals. (p. 13) Hooker has been a leading figure in pointing out the un- favorable tendency of researchers to treat homosexuality as a unitary and clinical entity. According to her, the lines of investigation pursued by researchers are largely directed by the prevailing climate of professional opinion. Research on the development of homosexuality, therefore, has general- ly been conducted with its focus on clinical rather than so- cial and cultural phenomena. Furthermore, Hooker points out that phenomena judged as psychopathological which appear es- pecially characteristic of_homosexual groups are often at— tributed to the variable ”homosexuality.” Instead, these may typically represent ”ego-defenses” against victimiza— tion, which are characteristic not only of homosexuals, but 20 of other oppressed minority groups as well (Hooker, 1965). In this connection, however, Schur (1972) has comment- ed: Notwithstanding evidence from the Hooker studies indicating that there may be--even under present circumstances in the United States--some con- firmed homosexuals who appear reasonably ”well adjusted" psychologically, it is hard to see how any homosexual in our society can completely avoid feeling the psychological impact of strong social disapproval and legal condemnation and proscrip- tion. (p. 37) A further consequence of concealment is the fre- quent need to maintain silence in the fact of ex- pressions of contempt for homosexuals. In all this, the homosexual cannot remain unaffected by the pressures....(p. 37) Hooker is particularly critical of conclusions drawn by Bieber that homosexuality is a specific form of psychosexual - disorder. She argues that none of the evidence used to sup- port such an assumption was specific to his homosexual group. Furthermore, she observes that in a number of stu- dies conducted outside of treatment or correctional set- tings, "results obtained by the use of the MMPI, TAT, Ror- schach, and other psychological measures did not justify the conclusion that homosexuality is necessarily and invariably a concomitant or symptom of psychopathology. In many indi- , viduals no evidence of psychopathology was found” (1972, p. 15). Hooker writes: It comes as no surprise that some homosexuals are 21 severely disturbed ... but what is difficult to accept (for most clinicians) is that some homo- sexuals may be very ordinary individuals, indis- tinguishable, except in sexual pattern from in- dividuals who are heterosexual. (1963, p. 159) Gonsiorek (1977, 1982b) has reviewed the literature on homosexuality and psychological adjustment, and emphasizes that a consistent and clear pattern emerging from studies on homosexuality and psychological testing is that homosexuali- ty in and of itself is unrelated to psychological distur- bance. He points out that differences which are obtained between homosexual and heterosexual groups often lie within normal ranges and that attempts to differentiate homosexuals from heterosexuals on the basis of psychological testing ' have been generally unsuccessful. Gonsiorek, then, cautions that although significant differences between groups may be of theoretical interest, these are not indicative of greater disturbance of one group over another unless the former has scores falling in a range which has been validated as psy- chopathological. Secondly, he advises that findings of dif- ference between groups in regard to family constellation are not valid as a basis for inference about difference in psy- chological adjustment of individuals frgm_such families. Hooker tentatively concludes that homosexuality does not exist as a clinical entity, its forms being as varied as are those of heterosexuality; and that homosexuality may be a deviation in sexual pattern which psychologically lies within the normal range.‘ 22 Saghir and Robins (1971), in a much cited study, under- took a detailed investigation of groups of 89 male homosex- uals, 57 lesbians, and corresponding groups of heterosexual controls from a developmental point of view. Their proce- dure involved semistructured interviews which yielded the following findings: Homosexual males and females for the most part show during childhood preferences in terms of roles and identifi- cations which are most typical of the opposite sex. Their findings indicated that the childhood and adolescence of most homosexual men are characterized by a lack of contact with male companions and by a preference for female play- mates as opposed to what was found to be typical for male heterosexuals. In addition, the homosexual males, as boys, generally did not participate in team sports and rough play. The majority of the lesbians reported being tomboys during childhood. They typically had boys as playmates and enjoyed sports rather than dolls and domestic activity. In a recent effort to explore the origins of homosexu- ality, Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) compiled inter- view data for 979 homosexual and 477 heterosexual men and women. The homosexual men were found generally to have been less stereotypically masculine as boys than their heterosex- ual counterparts. More homosexual than heterosexual men re- called some dislike for typical boys' activities and enjoy- ment of those which they_considered to be for girls. On the basis of their path analysis, the researchers 23 conclude that such gender nonconformity is directly related to adult homosexual preference. They also report that the homosexual men identified less with their fathers than did heterosexual men, and less with their fathers than with their mothers. Nevertheless, they add that "our causal ana- lysis convinces us that the tendency for homosexual males to perceive their fathers in a relatively negative fashion has little eventual influence on their sexual orientation” (pp. 61, 62). They point out that influences are not necessarily unidirectional from father to son, but reciprocal in which ”the prehomosexual boy may simply be reciprocating his fa- ther's disinclination to identify with himf (p. 60). It was also found that as children the homosexual men did not dif- fer significantly from heterosexual men in the degree to which they felt similar to and wanted to be like their mo- thers. The authors conclude that as children, identification with the opposite-sex parent appears to have had no signifi- cant impact on whether male as well as female respondents be- came homosexual or heterosexual. Similarly, they argue that identification with same-sex parents seems to have exerted no decisive influence on the development of adult sexual orientation. Nevertheless, they report that there is a pow- erful link between gender nonconformity and the development of homosexuality and that "the homosexual men's generally negative relationships with their fathers ... displayed a very modest but direct connection to their gender 24 nonconformity ..." (p. 190). The authors conclude that on ,the basis of their overall findings, no single phenomenon of family relationships can be singled out as especially conse- quential in the development of adult sexual preference. The ways in which much of this earlier literature may be brought specifically to bear on the present investigation is the is- sue to which we now turn. The Completion Hypothesis According to Tripp (1975), "Homosexuality in all its variations always means that same-sex attributes have become eroticized, that is, have taken on erotic significance. No matter how or when this takes place, each individual per- ceives a disparity between his own qualities as they pre- sently are, and as they might be with certain additions-- thus his struggle to bridge the gap. In all their essen- tials, the sought-after rewards of homosexual and hetero- sexual complementations are identical: the symbolic posses- sion of those attributes which, when added to one's own, fill out the illusion of completeness" (p. 93). This idea, previously described by Freud (1922), Reik (1944, 1957) and others, has been called the "completion hypothesis” (Cen- ters, 1971). Implications of this hypothesis on the study of sexual motivations for homosexual males is the subject of this investigation. In this connection, Tripp (1975) has developed a thorough formulation of the hypothesis specifi- cally in reference to homosexual men. 25 Although he describes several possible theoretical pathways which may eventuate in the development of homosex- ual proclivities in males, he notes that in every case some aspects of maleness have been invested with erotic signifi- cance to the extent that sexual arousal is evoked by act or fantasy in which the stimulus is masculine. He argues that this erotization, by its very nature, appreciates its tar- get. By such a raising of its target's value, the erotiza- tion of male attributes ”alerts a boy to a hierarchy of male qualities and invites him to make comparisons in which his own assets may seem outpaced and outdistanced by those of a particularly admired partner” (p. 78). Erotization always tends to raise the value of the items it touches, not only by exalting them, but by keeping a person's aspiration level soar- ing ahead of his own attainments. Often the result is to make a person feel a sharp disparity between what he has and what he would like to have. Even the ... utterly secure male who has eroticized male attributes is ready to improve what he has by sexu- ally importing refinements and additions from an admired partner. Thus, in a sense, it hardly mat- ters what a person thinks of himself; an exalted ideal is never fully satisfied... (p. 78) What Tripp seems to imply here is that strong urges toward fulfilling an elusive masculine ideal at some level in many cases is an ineluctable component of the homosexual orientation. Tripp takes a critical view, however, of the simplistic assumption that homosexual inclinations are given rise to by feelings of inferiority. He concedes that a 26 correct theory of male homosexuality may legitimately imply inferiority feelings at some level, but only as they arise as a result of eroticizing masculine attributes, not as if the inferiority feelings themselves were responsible for the homosexuality. The act of sexual importation to which Tripp refers is quite thoroughly elucidated elsewhere in the same work. The import-export model of complementation is offered by Tripp as a description of the process underlying both homosexual and heterosexual motivations. Whereas a person of either orientation may "import" qualities admired in a sexual part- ner and lacking in himself, in the homosexual case it would seem that the advantages of complementarity are seriously threatened by direct comparability. Especially on the ana- tomical level it is the case that men are more alike than .they are different. If Tripp's assumptions are correct, the question then arises as to what extent it is possible for a male to consider other men so attractive as to become sexu- ally aroused by them without also being beset by feelings of self-dissatisfaction, and/or persistent strivings toward self-improvement in the area of perceived masculinity. Coming to conclusions similar to those of Tripp, but by a different route, Kaplan (1967) examined same—sex attrac- tions with the psychoanalytic concept of the ego-ideal as a point of departure. He is careful at the outset, however, to point out that homosexual behavior, for both female and male individuals, may be seen as the culmination of a series 27 of experiences and relationships unique to each individual for whom it is chosen as a mode of sexual expression. Thus, with no single, unitary causality implied, the search for the ego-ideal is considered by Kaplan to be a possible fac- tor which plays a part in the development of a homosexual orientation in individuals whose self-images are ”devalued or impaired." Freud considered the neurotic to be "impover- ished in his ego and incapable of fulfilling his ego-ideal" (Freud, cited in Kaplan, 1967). In the narcissistic quest for something to replenish these failing resources, a sexu- al ideal may be chosen “which possesses excellencies to which he cannot attain" (Kaplan, 1967). Kaplan fails to ex- plain his introduction of Freud's observations concerning neurotics to support a theory of homosexuality, but it is clear that a mechanism Freud considered to underlie neuro- sis, Kaplan proposes as a motivational force for homosexual behavior. Kaplan states that individuals whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively homosexual typically place major emphasis on the personal or physical attractiveness of the sexual object chosen; and to an extent considerably greater than do heterosexuals they choose as sexual partners or fan- tasied sexual objects persons who possess characteristics in which they themselves feel deficient. Thus, dissatisfaction with the self, with the way one is, measured againSt internalized standards about how one would like to be, may be one of 28 the major roots of some homosexual feeling and behavior. (p. 356) Kaplan's emphasis here, like Tripp's, is that of the perceived disparity between what one is and introjections of what one would like to be; i.e., between the self-image and ego-ideal. For both male homosexuals and lesbians, then, these feelings may take the form of how one would like to be as a man, and how one would like to be as a woman: re- spectively. In this way, Kaplan suggests that the homosexu- al object choice may be directed more toward the acquisition of an idealized object with whom to identify or introject than toward sexual gratification per se. As possible sup- port for this argument, he offers Bieber's (1962) study of male homosexuals in which the investigators found that al- most half of their subjects saw themselves as physically -~~ frail, inadequate or effeminate. He further speculates that under conditions where a suitably appealing model for mascu- line identification is lacking, the need for such identifi- cation combined with a sense of personal inadequacy and a potent although undifferentiated sexual drive may eventuate in a homosexual adaptation. In a partial response to why the mode of obtaining the desired identification must be sexual, Kaplan makes the observation that the sexual experi- ence may stimulate identification fantasies, thus providing partial motivation for relationships with other men. Orgasm is likened, by Kaplan, to drug-induced euphoria in which the 29 wish to be like one's partner may be intensified and trans- formed into a sensation of such union with the partner that one actually feels he is the partner. At this point, it is useful to return to Kohut's re- marks concerning the psychic fixation on archaic self-ob- jects that appears to manifest itself in what he refers to as an "intense form of object hunger" and "the compelling need for merger with the powerful object" (see page 9). The similarity of Kaplan's observations to Kohut's later remarks in connection with children are striking: Since all bliss and power now reside in the ideal- ized object, the child feels empty and powerless when he is separated from it and he attempts, there- fore, to maintain continuous union with it. (Kohut, 1971, p. 37) Recall as well his comments about the patient, Mr. A., the objects of whose homosexual fantasies were always men of great bodily strength and perfect physique.... Occasionally he achieved orgasm and a feeling of triumph at the thought of masturbating a strong and physically perfect man and draining him of his power. (pp. 69, 70) The theme of power as a component of masculinity and its fantasied acquisition via the sexual experience appears with such frequency in this literature that it is made a point of emphasis in the present study; a point which will be re- marked upon further. 3O Kaplan reports the case of a 21 year old homosexual man who described considerable feelings of physical inadequacy who had often daydreamed of being tall, husky and virile like his father, brothers or some of his classmates. These daydreams, according to Kaplan, became transformed into ho- mosexual fantasies about sex with muscular and extremely powerful and virile men. Furthermore, the patient reported a wish to have his body be more like those of his partners and that sexual relationships became a means by which he was able at least temporarily to approach this goal, even if on— ly in fantasy and feeling. Kaplan argues that the discrepancy between self-image and ego ideal need not center around physical or anatomical details but may involve deficiencies in intellectual endow- ments, socioeconomic status, and interpersonal adroitness as well. In summary, Kaplan concludes that because of such considerable self-dissatisfaction the homosexual man cannot love himself as he is, so he loves his ego-ideal in the per- son of his homosexual partner. From this perspective, homo- sexual behavior is a narcissistic form of gratification. The dynamics implied here furnish a ground upon which the theories set forth by Kaplan, Tripp, and Kohut are aligned. Kaplan, for example, asserts that "Covert admiration for the individual who possesses these highly valued characteristics may become sexualized, and 'instant identification' may be achieved ... in the homosexual relationship" (p. 358). It will be recalled that Tripp goes even beyond this by 31 declaring that once these highly prized attributes are ero- ticized, they are raised in value all the more. This pro- duces a self-perpetuating cycle in which it would seem that one's personal and sexual goals never find their realiza- tion. It may be argued that if'a person feels especially lacking in certain qualities, then this dissatisfaction it— self requires a prior attribution of a high degree of impor- tance to them. These features, then, will be greatly ad- mired when they exist in others, owing to the considerable importance placed on them. Such a "high-intensity admira- tion," according to both Tripp and Kaplan, may lead to the erotization of certain features by homosexual persons in connection with men. These same-sex features, then, repre- sent for homosexuals characteristics which, if appropriated, would make them more like the persons they wish to be. Note that although Tripp argues that the goal of both heterosexu- al and homosexual attachments is symbolically to ”fill out the illusion of completeness," for homosexuals actual pos- session of specifically same-sex attributes desired in lovers is an aspiration. For homosexual persons, then, the objects of erotization are at once stimuli for specifically and identifiably sexual arousal and a part of the conscious ideal self. There is probably no definitive way to ascer- tain whether homosexual behavior is motivated by a narcis- sistic search for the ego-ideal, although the argument may 32 be rendered more plausible if the discrepancy between self- image and ego-ideal is found to be significantly greater for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. Centers (1971) undertook to test such a hypothesis for heterosexual attachments, and obtained findings which failed to support the principle that heterosexual attachments are based upon a motivation to "complete" the ego-ideal. Never- theless, if Kaplan's hypotheses are taken seriously, one would expect self-image--ego-ideal discrepancies not neces- sarily existing for heterosexuals, in homosexual persons. Furthermore, one would expect to find compensatory strivings for objects of love or sex who possess the highly desired qualities. For homosexuals, the qualities sought in a pro- spective lover are also those toward which aspirations are directed, including those qualitites which are anatomical and otherwise isosexual in nature. Although Kaplan states that the envy and idolization of qualities in other men may center around any set of quali- ties and not only physical characteristics, it would seem that this latter aspect of his theory would be the one most likely to prove at least to some extent valid since in this are men most clearly distinguished from women. It is not likely a narcissistic quest for the vicarious acquisition of social facility or status that makes a man homosexual since these qualities may be easily "imported" for women. There- fore, the body image of subjects is a major emphasis of the present investigation. In particular, as noted above, this 33 alleged assignment of such considerable importance to the variable power, especially on the anatomical level, by ho- mosexual men is of such salience in the clinical literature that the role which strivings toward its acquisition play in sexual motivations of homosexual men is a central feature of the present investigation. Empirical Literature on Self-Concept and Sexual Preference Chang and Block (1960) attempted to test the hypothesis that homosexual males are more strongly identified with their mothers and less identified with their fathers than are nonhomosexual males. The investigators heuristically measured strength of identification in terms of the degree of correspondence between a subject's description of the parent under consideration and that of his ideal self. This measure was obtained through the use of a list of 79 adjec- tives to which the subject was to respond as either charac- teristic or uncharacteristic of the given parent and of his ideal self. The hypotheses that homosexual men show a sig- nificantly greater degree of identification with their mo- thers and a significantly lesser degree with their fathers were both supported. An interesting finding, however, was that the homosexual and control groups did not differ signi- ficantly in their degree of self-acceptance as measured by the degree of correspondence between the perceived self and ideal self of subjects. In addition, it was found that the two groups did not differ significantly in regard to the 34 kind of ego ideal to which they aspired. Similarly, Greenberg (1973) found that although male homoseuxal subjects tended to evince greater feelings of alienation from society, they exhibited self-esteem scores comparable to those of heterosexuals on the Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). These findings may be ques- tioned to some extent, however, on the basis that data for his ”control group” were derived from other studies conduct- ed by other researchers as far back as 1955. Sallee (1976) attempted to assess self-concept of male homosexuals as classified according to the variable of sex- role identification. This approach was based upon the sug- gestion that male homosexuals are as variable in their sex- role identification as heterosexuals. Subjects were classi- fied as masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiat- ed according to the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)(Bem, 1974) and were then administered the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS)(Fitts, 1965). Sallee found that no significant dif- ferences obtained in overall self-concept or frequency of sex-role identification classification between homosexual and heterosexual groups, nor did self-concept vary signifi- cantly according to sex-role identification for either group. Sallee notes that significant trends were more likely to be obtained in analyses of individual TSCS scales. Interest- ingly, within the male homosexual group, subjects identified as androgynous and feminine scored higher than masculine and undifferentiated subjects on several TSCS subscales. 35 Using the TSCS as a measure of psychological adjust- ment, Hart (1978) undertook a similar investigation. Gender characteristics were assessed by multiple methods including the BSRI as well as a questionnaire developed by the inves- tigator. In direct contrast to Sallee's findings, Hart re- ports that homosexual men with "normrviolating" gender char- acteristics obtain lower self-concept scores than homosexual men with more typical gender characteristics. She observes that the homosexual subjects who displayed few masculine- typed attributes and many gender traits typically associated with femininity tended to come from disturbed families and suffered from symptoms associated with neurosis, personality disorders, and hypochondriasis as adults. Hart speculates that men with a fragile sense of their own masculinity do not benefit from the feminine typed attributes in their personalities because they experience them as threats to their masculine gender identities. Ra- ther than enhancing adjustment, Hart says, for a man who is less sure of his masculinity these feminine components dimin- ish self-esteem. Somewhat along these lines, Peretti, Bell and Jordan (1976) define a typology of homosexual men on the basis of the nature and outcome of the childhood Oedipal situation. The so-called Oedipal male homosexual is described by these authors as maintaining a great attachment to his mother which 36 should have been resolved roughly between the ages of three and four. The child who does not resolve the Oedipal cri- sis so successfully, then, goes on to internalize feminine characteristics as a dominant part of himself,according to Peretti, et al. These authors maintain that the Oedipal male homosexual is often harassed by feelings of guilt and shame, appears more withdrawn and lonely, and is intent upon concealment of his homosexuality. They add that he does not like what he is and attempts to change himself with or without resort- ing to professional counseling. Finally, they suggest that the Oedipal homosexual man tended to be overprotected by his mother as a child, more dependent upon her, and Openly pre- ferred by her to his father. They add that these boys were also more ”likely to establish a coalition with mothers a- gainst fathers than non-Oedipal male homosexuals.” H Although the specific criteria used for classifying their subjects are not reported by the authors, their re- sults indicate several tendencies in Oedipal subjects which are associated with a negative self-image. Oedipal male homosexuals were found to have less self-worth, self-confi- dence and self-acceptance than non-Oedipal subjects. Self- concepts, self-attitudes and self-motivation were additional variables which, consistent with the hypotheses outlined above, were consistently less favorable for the Oedipal group. In spite of the investigators' failure to specify the bases for classification of subjects, this investigation 37 raises questions concerning the universal applicability of Bieber's findings in regard to homosexuality and suggests a need to reconsider the tendency to approach research as if homosexuality were a developmental and phenomenological uni— ty. Dickey (1961) examined feelings of adequacy in homosex- ual males as defined by two measures: (a) a measure of self- image--ideal-self discrepancy by which traits were rated on a seven-point scale and (b) a direct measure consisting of statements pertaining to adequacy and self-concept to which subjects either agreed or disagreed. Consistent with the findings of Hart, previously cited, Dickey reports that (a) homosexual males who perceive more desirable characteristics in the role of the typical heterosexual male tend to feel more adequate and (b) feelings of adequacy are probably greatest in homosexual males who see themselves as more like the typical heterosexual male than like the typical homosex- ual male as the subjects themselves defined them. It seems, then, on this basis, that a likely candidate among sources of low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy among homosex- ual men who experience them is a large self-ideal perceptual discrepancy in connection with masculinity. Although it has been suggested that such a discrepancy is typically given rise to by insalubrious family dynamics or cross-sex iden- tification patterms, recent research argues that systematic distortions in perceptions of the ideal man and what consti- tutes the ideal male role account for such discrepancies 38 rather than the actual quantity or salience of feminine at- tributes (See Skrapec and MacKenzie, 1981, below). In an effort to assay the components of low self-esteem among homosexual men based on research done by Rosenberg (1965), Sobel (1976) remarks that homosexual men tend to have both low body satisfaction as well as poorly modeled sex typed behavior. In a study designed to assess such body self-image characteristics of homosexual men, Prytula, Well- ford and DeMonbreun (1979) sought to determine whether and to what extent differences existed between heterosexual and homosexual men during adolescence relative to actual body characteristics. They also studied how subjects' body char- acteristics were perceived by their peers and families, and examined their perception of how others perceived the sub- jects' body characteristics. The study investigates the in- teraction of the homosexual man's recalled body image and his oVerall self-concept including interpersonal and famili- al factors which related to his self-image during adole- scence. On the basis of prior research, Prytula, et al. point out that many male homosexuals report low self-esteem and ty- pically have stronger feelings of physical and social inade- quacy than heterosexuals. On the basis of findings reported by Saghir and Robins (1973), these investigators posit that repeated negative feedback prompted by effeminacy in child- hood has contributed to the development of a negative body image and overall self-concept during adolescence: 39 Saghir and Robins (1973) suggest that the dif- ference between the childhoods of most male homosexuals and heterosexuals was not only in the particular behavior patterns of the homo- sexuals during childhood, but also in their physical appearance, the perception of their physical appearance by others, and their per- ception of how their physical appearance was perceived by others. (p. 567) Using their retrospective self-report inventory with scales developed to assess six areas of general adjustment during adolescence, the researchers report that over all scales homosexual males scored significantly lower (in- dicating poorer adjustment) than heterosexual males. They account for this difference as being a result of greater recalled dissatisfaction with general physical characteris- tics and body image as compared to heterosexuals. Further- more, the homosexuals characterized themselves as having significantly different body charactristics, receiving nega- tive feedback because of their body characteristics from peers and/or family, and as having generally less positive body self-images and overall self-concepts during adolescence than did heterosexuals. Prytula et al. suggest further research via longitudinal studies to identify the nature and extent of body image vari- ables as contributors to homosexual preference. Further- more, they point out the necessity for taking such variables into account in connection with therapeutic and prophylactic intervention where indicated. In spite of the fact that the 40 authors do not specify the indications for such interven- tion, it might be added that where such body image concerns are in evidence, both therapeutic and preventive interven- tion might be more appropriately directed toward negative self-concept than toward sexual orientation. These authors do recognize that inferior self-concept may in fact be a variable frequently associated with homosexuality in males though not a causal factor underlying it. Alpert (1978) used a semantic differential rating scale to assess the degree to which homosexual men have internal- ized popular negative attitudes regarding homosexuality. It was hypothesized by Alpert that there is essentially no dif- ference between the way homosexuals and heterosexuals char- acterize the ideal man, but that homosexual men rate them- selves significantly further from their characterizations of this ideal. Alpert found that homosexual and heterosexual men rated the ideal man in essentially the same way. The remaining hypothesis was not confirmed, however, since on several adjective pairs the homosexual subjects rated them- selves as significantly closer to the ideal man than did heterosexuals. Based on these data, Alpert concludes that internalized stigma appears largely confined to feelings of being less adequate than heterosexual men in terms of attri- butes associated with the stereotype of masculinity. In their examination of gender related components to self-perception, Skrapec and MacKenzie (1981) compiled test data for three matched groups of eight homosexual, eight 41 heterosexual and eight preOperative transsexual anatomical males. Self-concept is regarded by these investigators as a composite of interacting subsystems including core self- esteem, core gender identity, etc. They assume that a clear gender identification is the outcome of a developmental pro- cess which involves drawing referents "from an organized system of beliefs as to the psychosexual meaning of being a male or female" (p. 358). In other words, being a male or a female involves having a set of beliefs about physical appearance, gender roles, sexual preference and psychologi- cal makeup. As a process of development, then, individuals incorporate the resultant composite into their sense of self; which makes it inevitable that the individual will as- sess the degree of congruence between his or her gender identity and anatomical sexual identification. Based on results from the Repertory Grid Technique, a procedure derived from Kelly's (1955) theory of personal constructs, the researchers found that transsexual subjects described themselves as more like females. Homosexual sub- jects described themselves as more like males, and the he- terosexuals described themselves as equally similar to males and females. These results were based upon each subject's own descriptions of males and females. Additionally, Skrapec and MacKenzie found that.scores on the Rosenberg SelféEsteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) indi- cated that transsexuals had the most negative global self- esteem and homosexuals the most positive, with heterosexuals 42 scoring in the middle. All compariSons were statistically significant. One heterosexual subject scored at almost max- imum self-dissatisfaction, however, and the authors observe that when this score is removed the heterosexual and homo- sexual groups are not significantly different from each other. Regarding gender identification, the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (Derogatis, 1976) revealed that homo- sexual men more strongly endorsed masculine traits for them- selves in contrast to transsexuals who revealed the most femininity with respect to gender role definition. Inter- estingly, on eight of the ten subscales homosexual subjects scored higher than either group. The only subscale in which the homosexual subjects scored lower than heterosexuals were Affect Balance and Body Image. The latter category had a mean standard score lower than that of any other group on any measure except two (i.e., transsexuals had lower scores On Body image and Gender role definition). Body image was also lowest among mean standard scores for the ten subscales in the homosexual group. Results on the BSRI were equivocal when a comparison was made between t-ratio and median-split procedures for analyzing the data, although according to both methods the homosexual group was found generally to describe themselves in masculine terms. Scores for heterosexual subjects large— ly suggested masculine or undifferentiated gender identities while transsexuals appeared either feminine or androgynous. 43 Since over all measures used to assess gender identity homosexuals generally described themselves in a more rigidly stereotypic fashion with reference to masculinity, the au— thors suggest that One might suspect that the gender identification component of self-concept was most fragile in this group of individuals. The data suggests that they introduced a systematic distortion in- to their perceptions of maleness and male roles. One possible explanation could be the systematic use of denial and reaction formation. The re- sults could be explained by using the idea of com- pensatory masculine responding, where masculini- ty is defensively exaggerated in the face of gen- der role "threat"... Such a response would be un- derstandable in situations where the homosexual's wish for enduring interpersonal relationships is met by a reality of brief, more superficial en- counters. In a sense then, his global self-eval- uation is ”over-determined," with some kind of compensation operating at a cognitive level. (p. 368) Finally, it might be noted that homosexual subjects re- ported a higher global self-regard than self-ratings on the Repertory Grid would suggest. While the correlation between scores on the Rosenberg Scale and the Repertory Grid was significant for the heterosexual subjects (r=0.88, p<.01), no such relationship was found for homosexual (r=0.06) or transsexual (r=0.10) groups. These discrepancies suggest that homosexual subjects, who reported highest global self- esteem, used different referents in describing themselves on the Repertory Grid. This information, along with their aty- pical scores on the Body Image subscale of the Derogatis 44- Sexual Functioning Inventory further suggests that continued exploration of body self-perceptions among homosexual men is an area of potentially revealing investigation. Summary Investigations to date which address self-esteem in global terms generally indicate that no significant differ- ences exist between homosexual and heterosexual men on this dimension. Data on sex role identification are equivocal, with a significant proportion of findings indicating that there are no differences in overall frequency of cross-sex gender identity between groups and that in some cases homo- sexual men describe themselves in more masculine terms than heterosexual men. When subjects are further classified ac- cording to gender role identification there is considerable agreement that male homosexual subjects who see themselves in more feminine terms, as well as those who as children have identified with or developed atypically intense attach- ments to their mothers, are more likely to have more nega- tive self-concepts. Comparable data for heterosexuals are less available and indicate a need for further research. The data support that homosexual men in general, while ex- hibiting more negative self-concepts in some circumscribed areas, have more positive self-perceptions in others. On the basis of a number of investigations it appears that less positive self-concepts of the homosexual men for whom this is a problem are characteristically in the area of perceived 45 masculinity, often in connection with body image in particu- lar. To determine to what extent this is indeed the case and the particular aspects of the masculine self-concept which are most problematic is one aim of this study. A final consideration in this connection is whether discrepancies in self-concept between homosexual and hetero- sexual groups of men result from systematic distortions in concepts of what is appropriately and desirably masculine. In regard to the important implications of this research to psychotherapy, Hart (1978), for example, urges closer atten- tion on the part of the therapist to gender characteristics of clients and to helping them become more secure in their sense of their own masculinity. Kaplan suggests that treat- ment of homosexual men, such as he describes in his afore- mentioned case studies, consist of exploring the origins of the negative self-image which may be found in family dyna- mics, peer attitudes, etc. (Kaplan, 1967). Of perhaps equal importance, however, are the origins of the "ego-ideal" which is itself a "composite of early identifications, in- trojections and wishes” (p. 356). He concludes that “the self-image, the ego-ideal, or both, may be unrealistic con- structs in the patient's mind, he may devalue himself out of proportion to his real life situation" (p. 358). Before turning to a statement of the hypotheses with which this study is concerned, a word about sampling consi- derations is in order. Gonsiorek (1982a) describes the problem of defining and obtaining a suitable sample as the 46 largest single methodological problem in the scientific study of homosexuality. The most frequently used sources of subjects for such research have consisted of psychiatric and legally involved populations, patrons of gay or lesbian bars, and individuals obtained through lesbian and gay or- ganizations. He calls attention to the fact that the phe- nomenon of homosexuality traverses the entire range of so- cial class, age, ethnicity, etc. As a research entity, therefore, it is among those most consistently uncorrelated with demographic groupings typically considered of import- ance to social scientists. Even research which draws homosexual and heterosexual subjects from apparently comparable groups may fail to de- tect subtle interactions between sexuality and other factors such as psychiatric diagnosis. For example, Gonsiorek ob- serves that for reasons less than straightforward, it might be more difficult to be homosexual and schizophrenic than heterosexual and schizophrenic. For these reasons, then, disparities between homosexual and heterosexual patients or legally involved groups may be considerably exaggerated from those which may exist for groups not characterized by such specific problems. The foregoing is not to suggest that sound research on human sexual orientation can be accomplished only with the representative sample, this being a hypothetical construct the approximation of which is our goal. It is less useful to make the degree of this approximation a criterion for 47 "goodness” of our sample than it is to precisely specify limitations on the generalizability of findings. Research using legally or psychiatrically involved samples, then, is useful if the questions asked by the investigator have specifically to do with these populations. Investigators who pose questions about the population at large, however, will find such samples highly limited in their ability to provide reliable or correct answers. These considerations apply equally to samples drawn from gay organizations, which involve subjects likely to be more open about their sexuali- ty and probably more politically conscious: as well as to samples recruited via friendship networks, since they tend to be demographically homogeneous. As Gonsiorek advises, even though it is impossible to obtain a completely representative sample, any sample of homosexual subjects should attempt to mimic the major demo- graphic characteristics of the locality from which the sam- ple is derived and should be as diverse as possible. In cases in which skewness of sample is apparent-~a detailed description of sampling procedure will make limitations on generalizability clear. 48 Statement of Hypptheses Hypothesis 1 For homosexual males there is a positive correlation between degree of body dissatisfaction and the relative degree of importance placed on the physical at- tractiveness of the sexual object. Kaplan (1967) states that: People whose sexual orientation is predominantly or exclusively homosexual usually place major emphasis on the attractiveness of the homosexual object- choice. At times the personal or physical charac- teristics of the potential homosexual partner seem to be of considerably greater importance to the ac- tive homosexual ... than to the person seeking he- terosexual intercourse. (pp. 355, 356) On the basis of this position of Kaplan's as well as Tripp's (1975) observations, cited previously, it would be expected that for homosexual males there would be a significant po- sitive correlation between degree of body dissatisfaction and the degree to which physical attractiveness in the sex- ual object is emphasized. Such a correlation, on this ba- sis, would not necessarily be expected to hold for hetero- sexual males. The purpose of this hypothesis, then, is to assess whether a "search for the ego-ideal" in Kaplan's (1967) terms seems generally to hold for homosexual men with regard to the physical dimension. The extent to which this hypothesis holds for heterosexual males is the focus Ofii subsequent investigation. 49 Hypothesis 2 There is a negative correlation between the degree of present identification with the primary male caregiver in childhood and the degree of discrepancy between self-image and ideal self for male homosexuals. According to Kaplan (1967), "One might speculate that the search for an ego-ideal via homosexual relationships is often a substitute for the more usual ascription of this role to the father" (p. 356). This predicts a negative cor- relation between the degree of childhood identification with a masculine object and the degree of discrepancy between self-image and ideal self for homosexual subjects. The im- plications of Kaplan's observations for the analogous hypo- thesis as applied to heterosexual subjects is not specified although it suggests that homosexual men will show both a higher self-image--ego-ideal discrepancy and a lower degree of masculine identification. To what extent these covaria- tions are present in heterosexual males is the subject of a subsequent investigation currently under way. Hypothesis 3 There is a positive correlation between masculine self-perception/masculine gender role identifica- tion and overall body satisfaction for homosexual males. If data support this hypothesis, then plausibility is enhanced for the position that body dissatisfaction in homo- sexual men for whom it is salient involves deficiency in masculine self-concept and is engendered by weak masculine gender role identification (Bieber, 1962; Hart, 1978; and Skrapec & MacKenzie, 1981). Again, a subsequent 50 investigation will test the validity of this hypothesis as applied to heterosexual men. CHAPTER 2 METHOD Subjects Subjects were 24 male homosexual persons ranging in age from 19 to 45 years, with a mean age of 28. One subject was legally heterosexually married at the time of his participa- tion in the study, but along with the other 23 unmarried subjects affirmed that he had had sex only with men for a period of at least one year. Average highest level of edu- cation completed for subjects in this study was 2% years of college, all subjects having completed at least the equiva- lent of high school. Occupations represented in the sample varied widely, including blue and white collar workers as well as full-time college students. Major demographic fea- tures of the sample are summarized in Table 1. One variable, Self-Disclosure Regarding Sexual Orienta- tion, could not be classified objectively. The values list- ed under this variable in Table l are intended as a roughly descriptive categorization. Subjects were assigned to one of these categories by the examiner as follows: Subjects described as ”not out at all“ were two sub- jects who said, without elaboration, that none of their fa- mily, friends, or acquaintances know they are gay; and one who said he presumes others know but that he never discusses the issue with anyone. Subjects described as "entirely out" were the five 51 52 subjects who said that they were completely open about their sexuality, all of their family and friends knowing they are gay. If they were employed, they also added that they are known as gay by their co-workers. Subjects in the remaining category were described as "partially out." Clearly, there was room for considerable variability in this category. In general, these subjects specified that only some family members and some close friends know that they are gay or that they have not been open about their sexuality with their family and/or their co-workers, but are known by their friends as gay. The subjects were recruited by the investigator and a psychology student at Michiagn State University. Sources through which subjects were obtained were various, includ- ing gay organizations and friendship networks. All sub- jects stated that they had never been hospitalized for a mental or emotional disorder, have not had psychological counseling, psychotherapy or psychotropic medication for at least six months. As suggested above, for the purpose of subject selec- tion, the term "homosexual” is here defined as a man who de- scribes himself as "gay" and as having had exclusively same- sex sexual/romantic involvements for a period of at least one year. Upon completing the questionnaire, subjects were paid $5.00 for their participation in the study as agreed upon prior to their participation. 53 Insert Table 1 about here Procedure Measures were administered by this investigator at the Michigan State University Psychological Clinic. The same instructions for the completion of the measures were given in writing to all subjects (see Appendix), so that they were able to complete the questionnaire/test packet on their own during one two-hour session. Subjects identified themselves on measures only by means of a numerical code, were assured that all materials would be kept confidential, and were told that in no case would names be attached to any test protocol or questionnaire. Instruments The following is a complete list of instruments used in this investigation appearing in the order in which they were administered. A more thorough description of these measures is provided in the subsequent section, "Assessment of Vari- ables.” Semantic Differential Technique (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957) Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, Physical Self Subscale (Fitts, 1965) Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence and 54 Table 1 . Frequency Counts for Major Demographic Variables in Sample Variable Classification Range (in years) Age 19-21 22-25 26-29 30-33 34-37 38-41 42-45 Years High School and Above Education 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 4 4 l 7 2 2 Legal Marital Status Never Married Divorced Married 20 3 1 Occupation Laborer/Hourly Manager/ College/ Worker Clerk Graduate Std. 9522; [4] Factory [6] [9] [5] Worker (2) Computer Hairdres- Systems ser Bricklayer Mgr. Physical Waiter Banker Therapist Real Est. Store- Agent keeper Clerk . Librarian Accountant(2) [No data] 55 Table 1 (cont'd.). Describes Self as "Out” Entirely Partially Not at All Self-Disclosure 5 16 3 Regarding Sexual Orientation Degree of Activity (1-3) (4-7) (8-10) in Gay Organizations No Activity Medium High (lo-point Likert Activity Activity Scale Ratings) 11 5 8 Binary Classification Yes Ne Relationship Status 15 ' 9 (Has a lover/romantic involvement) Church Membership 10 14 (Is a member of an organized religion) Belief in God 13 8 (Believes in a single, personal God) (Missing values-—3) 56 Helmreich, 1978) Body Cathexis Scale (Secord and Jourard, 1953) Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) A questionnaire on personal background and current functioning composed of miscellaneous items, con- structed specifically for this investigation The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is not used in the pre- sent study, but was included in the packet for use in a sub- sequent investigation, currently in progress. Assessment of Variables Variables and concepts referred to in the preceding statement of hypotheses are listed below in connection with the instruments used to measure them and the hypotheses to which they pertain (hypothesis numbers in parentheses): Relative degree of emphasis on physical attractiveness of sexual object (1). The method by which this construct was measured comprises a section of the questionnaire on background and current functioning previously described. In this instance, subjects were presented with a series of blank lines on a page on which they were instructed to fill in the characteristics or attributes most desired in a lover or romantic partner. It was further specified that these might include any details of personality, social, economic, physical or anatomical characteristics, as specifically stated as possible. Subjects were asked to try to list the 57 characteristics as they occurred to them, as honestly as possible, keeping in mind that confidentiality was guaran- teed. For each subject, the number of physical/anatomical characteristics (i.e., those specifically referring to phy- sical appearance) was compared to the number of those refer- ring to general characteristics as a simple arithmetic ratio score. The following additional measures were employed to test Hypothesis 1: subjects were asked to rate the features just listed on a set of lo-point Likert scales ranging from "Least Important” to ”Most Important“ in a lover or romantic partner. The relative degree of emphasis which a subject places on physical attractiveness of the lover or romantic partner was in this case defined as the difference between the mean rankings of physical and of general (nonphysical) personal characteristics. In addition, for each subject, a composite measure of this variable was derived as the pro- duct of the above two values, the ratio and the difference score. Correlations between the degree of body dissatisfaction and the degree of importance placed on physical attractive- ness of the sexual object were obtained as follows: Product- moment correlations were obtained between scores on the Body Cathexis Scale and each of the three previously defined mea- sures of emphasis on physical aspects of the sexual object. Hypothesis 1 will be retained in the event that a signifi- cant positive correlation is found for one of these 58 procedures. Self-image--ideal self discrepangy (2). The semantic differential technique (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957) has been chosen to assess this variable. This is a straight- . forward device which has a considerable range of applicabil- ity and which is less vulnerable than most standard scales to the influence of social desirability factors. The tech- nique is a means by which the connotative or affective mean- ing of a concept for a particular individual may be measured. The technique offers a way of appraising the dissimilarities in meaning among concepts as they exist according to the in- dividual's personal semantic organization as well. In this case, the semantic differential not only will provide qualitative descriptions of the concepts MYSELF AS I AM and MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE; but permits quantifica- tion of the semantic "distance” between them. For this technique, the investigator chooses the con- cepts to be measured, each of which is presented on a separ- ate page. Each concept is rated on a series of 7-point bi- polar scales with an adjective at one end and its opposite at the other. Subjects are instructed to evaluate each of the scales in connection with the concept under considera- tion and to put a check mark along the continuum at a point most descriptive of the relative applicability of the two adjectives. The number of scales used is determined by the investigator as is the particular set of descriptors used for each. Osgood recommends that the investigator 59 intuitively choose scales based on their relevancy to the concept as well as their semantic stability across a set of concepts. Factor analysis of Osgood's original set of 50 scales yielded the three principal orthogonal factors: Evaluative, Potency, and Activity, with the first of these accounting for by far the largest percentage of total variance.. Scales comprising the Evaluative factor are those typically asso- ciated with ”good” and ”had,” such as clean-dirty, beauti- ful-ugly, valuable-worthless, etc. The Potency dimension includes such scales as strong-weak, hard-soft, rugged-deli- cate. The third principal factor, Activity, has those scales which correlate highly with active-passive. Activity frequently includes, quick-slow, tense-relaxed, and excita- ble-calm. OBgood advises that the first criterion in selecting scales be their factorial composition. It is further recom- mended that deciding upon a certain number of scales maximal- ly loaded on each factor and minimally on the remaining two provides subjects with a "balanced semantic space which he may actually use as he sees fit...“ (Osgood, et al., 1957, p. 78). Selection of individual scales to represent each of the three factors were selected for this study on the basis of prior investigations reported by Snider and Osgood (1969). Among earlier applications of the semantic differential technique to certain attitudes about sexual orientation, is Kendrick and Clarke (1967) to which the interested reader is 60 referred. Overall body satisfaction (143). The measurement of this construct in connection with Hypothesis 1 has already been briefly discussed. The evaluation of Hypothesis 3 will similarly depend upon correlations obtained in connection with the Body Cathexis Scale ISecord and Jourard, 1953). Body Cathexis is defined by the authors as the degree to which an individual is satisfied or dissatisfied with vari- ous parts or processes of the body. The original test con- sists of a 46-item list of body parts and functions, al- though some studies have employed a 40-item modification (Jourard and Secord, 1954). These listed functions and parts are rated by subjects on five-point scales ranging from (1) Have strong feelings and wish change could be made somehow (strong negative) to (5) Consider myself fortunate (strong positive). Eleven of the items most negatively ca- thected by a standardization group define the “body anxiety“ subscales, one for male and one for female subjects. The authors report split-half reliability coefficients for the 46-item scale respectively as .83 and .78 for 45 female and 45 male subjects. For the 40-item version Wein- berg (1960) reports coefficients of .75 for females and .84 for males. There have been various approaches to the determination of the Body Cathexis Scale's construct validity as a measure of an individual's overall attitude toward body parts and functions. Secord and Jourard (1953) report a correlation 61 of .58 for women and .66 for men between body cathexis and a global self-concept measure based on an extensive list of characteristics rated against the same rating scale as used for the Body Cathexis Scale. This suggests a degree of con- struct validity for the test in that the way persons feel about their bodies is not unlike their self-referent feelings in many other areas. Similarly, a number of hypothesis tests have used theory-based expected correlations between the Body Cathexis Scale and variables as wide ranging as nudist group affilia- tion (Sugarman and Roosa, 1968» mental illness (Cardone and Olson, 1969), security-insecurity (Weinberg, 1960) and size of body parts (Jourard and Secord, 1954). For a brief over- view of these studies, the reader is referred to wylie (1974). It may be mentioned here, however, that predicted correlations between the Body Cathexis Scale and various of these variables have been obtained to an extent consistent with expectations for construct validity. Because of the general lack of measuring devices which purport to assess the same self-referent domain as the Body Cathexis Scale, convergent validity has not adequately been determined. What information is available on its discrimi- nant validity is considerably less persuasive than studies based on assumed.validity, although considerably more work . along these lines is needed (wylie, 1974). It might also be added that the authors of the Body Cathexis Scale deliberately omitted bodily parts and 62 functions explicitly referring to sexual and excretory func- tions ”because it was feared that their presence in the scale might give rise to an evasive attitude whflfliwould transfer to other items...” (Secord and Jourard, 1953, p. 344). Three decades later such an attitude seems consider- ably less likely, so the form of the Body Cathexis Scale used in the present study includes the additional items 'pe- nis' and "buttocks” added at the end of the form. Finally, although it will not affect actual evaluation of the hypo- theses here listed, these results will be compared with those found on the Physical Self subscale of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). Identification with the primary male caregiver in childhood (2). This and related variables have been pre- viously evaluated by a variety of methods. As described above, Chang and Block (1960) used a list of adjectives to 60 of which a subject was to respond as either particularly characteristic or particularly uncharacteristic first of ideal self, then of father, mother, and actual self. For each of these, subjects were allowed to choose the 60 adjec- tives about which they felt strongly enough to respond, but were required to respond with only and exactly 30 "X's” (par- ticularly characteristic) and 30 30's” (particularly unchar- acteristic). For each subject, a mother identification score and a father identification score was obtained as fol- lows: a score of "1' was assigned each adjective in which the rating given by the subject (”X”, "0", or unmarked) 63 was the same for both iééél self and the parent under con- sideration, and the total of these scores taken as the “identification score." Skrapec and MacKenzie (1981), it will be recalled, used the Role Construct Repertory Test (Repertory Grid Technique, Kelly, 1955) as a measure of gender identification. This procedure permits the subject to devise a set of descriptors according to his or her own system of "personal constructs” rather than respond to a set of predetermined attributes. Skrapec and MacKenzie assessed gender identification in terms of "grid distances“ (i.e., degree of similarity or dissimilarity) between a subject's description of himself and his descriptions of both males and females. Identification is here conceptualized in terms more broad than would be described by any given model and it is understood to comprise elements of imitation, affiliation, admiration, idealization, etc. Because identification in this study has as its emphasis outcome rather than process, it will be assessed as perceived similarity between self and parent under consideration much in the way as discussed in connection with the Chang and Block study described above. Whereas in that investigation identification was determined as the degree of correspondence between descriptions of ideal self and parent, such a correspondence between per- ceived actual self and a given parent is considered a more accurate index of this variable as defined in this study. The semantic differential technique will be used to 64 assess these correspondences since, as has been pointed out, it lends itself as a suitable device to evaluate a number of Nthe hypotheses considered here. The method by which identi- fication will be assessed is identical to that described by Endler (1961), involving use of Osgood's 2 index to measure semantic ”distance” between concepts (Osgood et al., 1957). In addition, instructions for completion of the semantic differential will provide that the concepts FATHER and MO- THER may be replaced by the role name of the primary male and female caregivers in childhood, respectively. Such sub- stitutions will be permitted only if (a) the biological par- ent was absent, and (b) the parental substitute considered functioned in the role typically assumed by the parent. In- stances of these substitutions, if any, will be noted. Fi- nally, although Hypothesis 2 refers specifically to the pri- mary mele caregiver, subjects' perceptions of qualities per-. taining to the primary female parenting individual will be examined in relation to self-perceptions as well, and any findings of relevance and interest will be discussed. Masculine self:perception/masculineggender role iden- tification (3). These two general concepts are listed as a single variable since they are difficult to separate both in terms of theoretical definition and in terms of operational- ization. Masculine self-image (in the nonphenomenal sense) is yet another variable the assessment of which will involve the semantic differential technique, with correspondences be- tween the concepts MYSELF AS I AM and MAN determining its 65 evaluation. In addition, ratings of MYSELF AS I AM vs. WO- MAN will be examined for the two groups and any observations of interest will be noted. Masculine gender role identification will be determined by the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)(Spence and Helmreich, 1978). This is a self-report inventory which con- sists of 24 trait descriptions each applied in the form of a bipolar scale. These are distributed among three general scales labeled Masculinity (M), Femininity (F), and Masculini- ty-Femininity (M-F). The firSt two of these consist of items for which the investigators found indications that they are socially desirable for both sexes, but that the sex to which each pertains is believed to possess the respective qualities to a greater extent. On the other hand, Masculinity-Feminin- ity consists of items the social desirability of which is gender-specific. The scale itself is bipolar, scored in a 'masculine direction. The investigators found significant differences between means for the two sexes on each item in two independent sam- ples of college students. For each of the three scales, dif- ferences were found in the expected directions (Spence, Helm- reich, and Stapp, 1975). In terms of intercorrelations among scales, contrary to conceptualizations which demand a single bipolar masculine-feminine dimension, they found that cor- relations between M and F were low positive in both sexes. The authors consider this finding supportive of a.bi-dimen- sional conceptualization of gender identity. Correlations 66 between the M-F scale and M scale were moderately high positive whereas the correlations between the M-F and F scale for the two sexes ranged from no correlation to low negative. The view of the authors, based on subsequent an- alyses as well, is that the data support a simultaneously bi-dimensional and bipolar model of masculinity and feminin- ity and that the M-F scale has the potential of yielding in- formation not available from the M and F scales alone. Correlations reported between the FAQ and the BSRI on comparable scales, for males and females have ranged from .57 to .75 (Stapp and Kanner, cited in Spence and Helmreich, 1978). Spence and Helmreich speculate that the differences between the two instruments are accounted for by factors such as differing methods by which subjects are required to rate trait descriptions (unipolar vs. bipolar rating scales) as well as methods of M and F scale construction for the two instruments. They point out in addition that a number of the trait descriptions pertaining to the M-F scale of the FAQ were found on both the M and F scales of the BSRI. For Hypothesis 3, appropriate product-moment correla- tions will be computed between scores on the Body Cathexis Scale and each of the two PAQ subscales M and M—F. Similar correlations will be computed between scores on the Body Ca- thexis Scale and the discrepancy scores (Osgood's 2) between the concepts MYSELF AS I AM and MAN. Hypothesis 3 will be retained in the event‘uEKLany one of these correlations is significant in the expected direction, although the possible 67 meanings of any apparent inconsistencies among the correla- tions will be addressed. Since Osgood's Q is used in this study to calculate all "distances" between semantic differ- ential concepts, frequent references are made to distances between concepts as follows: 2 (concept, concept). For ex- ample, Q (MYSELF AS I AM, MAN) is the actual geometric dis- tance between the concepts MYSELF AS I AM and MAN when these concepts are located in three-dimensional ”semantic space." CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Hypothesis 1 Product-moment correlations were computed among scores on measures representing the dimensions Body Satisfaction and Physical Emphasis (emphasis on physical attractiveness of sexual object). Measures pertaining to the former di- mension were the Body Cathexis Scale (BC) and the Physical Self subscale of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS-PS). It will be recalled that to evaluate the latter dimension the following measures were constructed: Physical-General Freguency Ratio (PGFRQRTO). Subjects were asked to list the characteristics or attributes they most look for in a lover or romantic partner. The number of features listed which pertained to physical characteristics was compared to the number of general (nonphysical) fea- tures as an arithmetic ratio. Physical-General Difference in Rank (PGDIFRNK). Sub- jects were instructed to rank the characteristics listed (as described above) on ten-point Likert scales. This variabl- was computed for each subject by subtracting the mean rank- ing of general characteristics from the mean ranking of phy- sical characteristics. Frequency-Rank Product (FRQKRNK). This variable is de- fined as the product of the values for the preceding varia- bles. To the extent that both PGDIFRNK and PGFRQRTO are valid measures of the Physical Emphasis dimension, 68 69 correlation coefficients involving the composite variable are even more sensitive to variations in Physical Emphasis. Distinguishing between physical/anatomical and general at- tributes was found to be straightforward. Because the ques- tionnaire so strongly emphasized that subjects be specific in their responses, the traits listed were in every case un- ambiguous. Descriptive statistics for questionnaire items assessing physical emphasis are listed in Table 2. Insert Table 2 about here Results of two-tailed tests of significance revealed no significant correlations among Body Satisfaction and Physi- cal Emphasis variables. The only correlation approaching significance was between FRQXRNK and Body Cathexis (£=.37, p}<.10), in direct opposition to Hypothesis 1. The other correlations were consistently positive, ranging from .12 to .29. These results are summarized in Table 3. Insert Table 3 about here Hypothesis 2 For each subject, Osgood's 2 index was calculated, re- presenting the "distance" between MYSELF AS I AM and each of the two concepts MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE and 0H NH XME 70 am.H mm.~ om.n HN.N em.m mm.o mm.m om.v mm.h ma.o mN.h mm.~ Ix unflunaumuooucso acuosmw mo mcwxccm mowuowuouocuono Hoowmhnm mo mswxdcm moaumwuouocuono Hmuwcmw mo moccaoonm mowumwuouocumsu Hmowmhsm mo moswsooum mus puma mus puma «us puma dlo whom ma m Hobos Nocmsomum mamemm sounds mowumfiuouooumoo amowmhsosos ozum omumwa mowumwumuomumso Hmofimmno no Hams no Hmumcmwun cosmos mowumaumuocucno Hmowmhno ozuo mum anus sowuconwmmcHU oncoommm cofluoom ouflcccowuuoso nflmcnoem Hoowumnm mcwmmommd mEmuH muwcscowumoso Hem moaumwucum o>fluowuuuoo .N wanna 71 Table 3. Correlation Coefficients Among Body Satisfaction and Physical Emphasis Variables for Sample of Gay Males Body Satisfaction Variable Physical Emphasis Variable PGFRQRTO PGDIFRNK FRQXRNK * Body Cathexis Scale .29 .15 .37 Tennessee Self-Concept .23 .12 .24 Scale (Physical Self) * {p<:.10 72 MY FATHER.1 A moderately high positive correlation was found between the two 2 measures (£=.Sl, 24:.01), confirming Hypothesis 2. When MY MOTHER was used to replace the con- cept MY FATHER in the calculations, the corresponding cor- relation coefficient was a very low negative one (£=-.10, NS). Thus, a greater degree of identification with the fa- ther is associated with a low discrepancy between actual self and ideal self as subjects perceive them. No similar relationship holds in regard to the mother. Hypothesis 3 Correlations among measures representing Body Satisfac- tion and Masculine Self-Perception/Masculine Gender-Role Identification were computed. Measures pertaining to the latter dimension were the Personal Attributes Scale, M and MF scales (FAQ-M, PAQ-MF); and Osgood's 2 measure for the concepts MYSELF AS I AM and MAN. No significant correlation was found between the 2 measure and either Body Satisfaction variable. Significant high positive correlations were found, however, between the PAQ-M and each of the two Body Satis- faction measures (_1_‘=.8O, p< .001 for BC and £=.62, B<.005 1The index here referred to as Q is actually a modified ver- sion of Osgood's measure. To avoid cumbersome manipulation of extremely small decimal values, raw (rather than aver- aged) semantic differential factor scores were used. The relationships among factor scores for the concepts, and hence among the 2, remain unchanged~(see Osgood et al., 1957). ' 73 for TSCS-PS). The PAQ-MF correlated positively with Body Satisfaction as well, although the relationships were con- siderably weaker. Neither of the correlations between Body Satisfaction and the PAQ-F were significant (see Table 4). TInsert Table 4 about here Additional Findings In addition to the results of the preceding hypothesis tests, there were other findings of interest to this investi- gation in connection with Evaluation and Potency, the two primary dimensions of the semantic differential. The find- ings reported here are considered worthy of attention be- cause of the almost invariant patterns in the data which they define. Mean values for concepts discussed below re- fer to averaged raw values for the concepts on the semantic differential. Therefore, the higher the mean value, the more the concept approximates the maximum on the dimension. For example, a higher mean value on Potency for one concept than for another means that the concept has a subjective- meaning for subjects closer to the idea ”strong," "potent," etc. Data are reported below with two-tailed probilities. Evaluative dimension: (A) The concept MY FATHER (i5 9.48) was in virtually every case (22 out of 23 cases) less than MYSELF AS I AM (i=l7.67) on this dimension, and usually substantially.so, E (22)=6.31, p<.001. (B) The concept MY 74 Table 4. Correlation Coefficients Among Body Satisfaction and Gender Self-Perception/Role Identification Variables Gender Self-Perception/ Role Identification Variable Body Satisfaction Q? PAQ-M PAQ-MF PAQ-F Variable *** * Body Cathexis Scale -.07 .80“ .34 .36 ** * Tennessee Self-Concept -.11 .62 .42 .18 Scale (Physical Self) a 2 refers to e (MYSELF AS I AM, MAN). * e<.05. ** p< .005. ** * E< .001. 75 FATHER (ié9.48) was also usually less than MY MOTHER (§= 16.58), 2(22)=3.21,'p<.005. ’(C) There was a much closer correspondence between MYSELF AS I AM (H=l7.67) and MY MO- THER (i=16.58), 5 (23)=.57, NS, than between MYSELF As I AM and MY FATHER (Ra-9.43), I: (22)=5.31, B<.oo1. (D) In 19 out Of 23 cases, MY FATHER (i=9.48) was less than A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE ($14.29) , t (22)=2.S4, g<.05. (E) MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE (H521.46) was usually almost identical to THE PERFECT LOVER (2&20.54). In 20 out Of 24 cases there was not more than a four-point discrepancy between the two values. In slightly more than half of the cases (13 out of 24) the discrepancy was one Of two points or less. Potency dimension: (A) For the majority of subjects (16 out Of 24) every concept had a lower value associated with it than that associated with A POWERFUL MAN on the Po- tency dimension (see Table 5). .Where there were exceptions, they nost often involved only one concept. Insert Table 5 about here Differences among mean values for MYSELF AS I AM, THE PERFECT LOVER, and MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE, which appear in consistent relationship to one another across the two primary factors, were tested statistically. Associated two-tailed significance levels are also listed in Table 5. A m V. . V In moo . v. ..A .mz. (Iv .m~.~H. HRH.G. mm OH “mm” mmoqo mxHH ...zmmm mono: .HA.OH. .He.OH. .He.m. .m~.m. ...m>am .He.eH. emoz mm>oq Ea H some .m~.Hu. 2a: Ham H m« some some H ma meHz .mmme .em.mn. nmmzom a moon»: anm use 24: 14E Hz Hummus zaz 4 no: es zazos Hoempom Hee.uwm A V .mz. 3442 n w He.vm .mméc on OS mmoao ,6 mxHu A w ...zmmm 7. ounce .em.o~. ...m>¢m emoz mm>oq .ee.HH. .mm.eH. H some .HN.HH. .ee.m. H mm HOME Em H mm .em.eH. more 29H: 2a: one more Amo.m. Hummus name use mama»: 24:03 :0: Hz 2a: 4 ummsom 4 nah Hz 242 uSHunan>m m m e e m e . m N H soncmEHa och> coo: so ommcm uomosou mo xsmm HOOHOHO concmeHn an HOHOOOHOMHHQ causcfimm Osu HON muomocou chEd moHnmcowucHOm .m manna 77 .muooocoo omucHoommc on» HOm moch> some ucmmouoou mononusouco EH muonesz .Ouoz me. vs .Alllllwv .ee.m. .mm.m. mm OH mmoao .mm.e. msHH ...zmmm mm>oa Awm.m. oases ...m>am Home Em emos H some .em.e. Amm.m. .om.. ammo H m4 H m4 meHs 2a: Ham .mm.e. .mm.e. more mums use some»: momma: zaz a nausea a 24:03 24: no: as («a H: suH>Huo¢ ...U.unoov m OHQOB 78 Figure 1 shows the spatial relationships among the nine concepts for the two primary dimensions, Evaluation and Po- tency. The variability among means on the Activity dimension was comparatively small, so three-dimensional relationships can readily be estimated from Figure l, with the following exceptions: (A) The mean distance (E) between MYSELF AS I AM and MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE (§=8.71) was less than § between MYSELF AS I AM and A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE (§=13.63), g=3.o, B<.oos.1 (B) E (MYSELF AS I AM, MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE) (8.71)<§ (MYSELF AS I AM, MY FATHER) (17.66), §_=-3.86, 23:.001. (C) E (MYSELF AS I AM, MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE) (8.71)<§ (MYSELF As I AM, MAN) (16.00), g=-3.13, p_<.oos. (D) § (MYSELF AS I AM, THEFERFEC'I LOVER) (8.89)<§ (MY- SELF AS I AM, A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTI- CALLY CLOSE) (13.63), §=-2.54, B<.o1. Insert Figure 1 about here Finally, for the three-dimensional semantic space, MY- SELF AS I AM and MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE were 1Numbers in parentheses are E of the concept pairs preceding them. Probabilities are two-tailed based on WilCoxon's matched-pairs signed-ranks test (see Osgood et al., 1957). 79 Poten means 22 Cy ( ) 20 18 (I. A POWERFUL‘MAN 16 14 12 MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE To BE 10 . MAN THE PERFECT LOVER . 8 {I} MY FATHER ‘I. MYSELF AS I AM 6 O - A MAN WITH WHOM I ~HAVE RECENTLY BEEN 4 ROMANTICALLY CLOSE 2 Evaluation (means) 2 4 6 8 10 20 22 2 4 Figure 1. Relationships Among Semantic Differential Concepts in Two Dimensions (Evaluation and Potency) 80 examined in relation to four Classes of concepts: (a) Lovers--A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMAN- TICALLY CLOSE and THE PERFECT LOVER; (b) Melee--MAN, MY FATHER, THE PERFECT LOVER, A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE; (C) Mothers and Fathers-~MY MOTHER and MY FATHER; and (d) Men and WOmen--MAN and WOMAN There were three findings Of interest to this study in connection with the first of these, Lovers: (1) On all factors, Evaluative, Activity, and Potency, MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE and THE PERFECT LOVER were almost identical in their associated mean values. (2) The Concepts THE PERFECT LOVER and MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE were significantly closer to each other in the three-dimensional semantic space (§é5.92) than either alone was to any other concept (‘LB=15.77;'E<.001 in 12 cases, p<.05 in two cases). (3) MYSELF AS I AM was significantly different (lower) in its associated mean value than THE PERFECT LOVER only on the Evaluative dimension, but was significantly lower than MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE on both Evaluative and Po- tency dimensions (see Table 5). Two findings in connection with the second category, Melee, are the following: (1) MYSELF AS I AM, A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE, THE PERFECT LOVER, and MYSELF AS I 81 MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE each had significantly higher values on the Evaluative dimension than MAN and MY FATHER (24:.05 for the comparisons involving A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE, otherwise, p< .001) . (2) On the Potency dimension, however, the following ordering of variables appeared: A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RE- CENTLY BEEN ROMANTICALLY CLOSE4 honest If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to the other side (but is not really_neutral), then you should Check as follows: 102 generous : : X : : : : stingy or generous : : : : X : : stingy If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale or if the scale is completely irrelevant to the concept, then you should place your check mark in the middle space: generous : X : : : stingy IMPORTANT: (1) Place check marks in the middle of spaces, not on the borders: : : : : : X : (Like this) : : : : 3 : (Not like this) (2) Be sure you Check every scale for every concept-- do not omit any. (3) Never put more than one Check mark on a Single scale. Finally, you sometimes may feel as though you've had the same item before on the test. This will not be the case, so do not look back and forth through the items. DO not try to re- member how you checked similar items earlier in the test. WOrk at a fairly high speed through this test. DO not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impres- sions, the immediate ”feelings” about the items and what they mean to you that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE ASK THE EXAMINER. fast brave emotional possessive accessible weak impetuous individualistic needy compassionate bold playful hard beautiful large nurturing compliant warm rational accepting restrained independent 103 dirty competitive calm harsh generous rugged good peaceable distant passive dominant feminine natural loyal rigid slow cowardly umemotional nonpossessive aloof strong controlled conforming _yproviding heard-hearted meek serious soft ugly small depriving stubborn cold intuitive rejecting expressive dependent Clean cooperative agitated gentle stingy delicate hostile Close active submissive masculine gpretentious disloyal flexible [Note--Nine copies of the above set of scales were ad- ministered to subjects with a different concept heading each page. the following: The concepts used in the present study were MYSELF AS I NOW AM, MY MOTHER, MAN, THE PERFECT LOVER, WOMAN, MYSELF AS I MOST WOULD LIKE TO BE, MY FATHER, A MAN WITH WHOM I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ROMAN- TICALLY CLOSE, and A POWERFUL MAN.] 104 Instructions: Please respond to these items as if you were describing yourself to yourself. Read each item carefully, then select one of the five alternative responses. DO not omit any item. Place a check mark in the appropriate box to the right Of each item to indicate whether you think the statement as applied to you is (1) Completely false, (2) Mostly false, (3) Partly false and partly true, (4) Mostly true, or (5) Completely true. 3’. 6 >1 H :3 .>« H to H H a) >1 Eu {-0 >4 0) H4) H0.) H $4 «am no 4) :4 um "-10 a“; 6’7: 6'2: 83 28. his. 2th mean. SE4 rat-4 l. I have a healthy body. 2. I am an attractive person. 3. I consider myself a sloppy person. 4. I like to look nice and neat all the time. 5. I am full Of aches and pains. 6. I am a sick person.. 7. I am neither too fat nor too thin. 8. I like my looks just the way they are. 9. I would like to change some parts Of my body. 10. I am neither too tall nor too short. 11. I don't feel as well as I should. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. I should have more sex appeal. I take good care of myself physi- cally. I try to be careful about my appearance. I Often act like I am "all thumbs." I feel good most of the time. I do poorly in sports and games. I am a poor sleeper. .... O U1 Entirely False Mostly False Part False and Part True Mostly True Entirely True 106 The items below inquire about what kind of a person you think you are. Each item consists Of a pair Of Character- istics, with the letters A-E in between. For example: Not at all Artistic A....B....C....D....E Very Artistic Each pair describes contradictory characteristics--that is, you cannot be both at the same time, such as very artistic and not at all artistic. The letters form a scale between the two extremes. You are to Choose a letter which describes where yee fall on the scale. For example, if you think you have no artistic abil- ity, you would Choose A. If you think you are pretty good, you might Choose D. If you are only medium, you might choose C, and so forth. Circle the letter that you choose. 1. Not at all ag- A....B....C....D....E Very aggressive gressive 2. Not at all in- A....B....C....D....E Very independent dependent 3. Not at all emo- A....B....C....D....E Very emotional . tional 4. Very submissive A....B....C....D....E Very dominant 5. Not at all ex- A....B....C....D....E Very excitable Citable in a in a major cri- major crisis sis 6. Very passive A....B....C....D....E Very active 7. Not at all able A....B....C....D....E Able to devote to devote self self completely completely to to others others 8. Very rough A....B....C....D....E Very gentle 9. Not at all A....B....C....D....E Very helpful to helpful to others others ‘ 10. Not at all A....B....C....D....E Very competitive competitive ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Very home oriented Not at all kind Indifferent to others' approval Feelings not easily hurt Not at all aware of feelings of others Can make de- cisions easily Gives up very easily Never cries Not at all self-confi- dent Feels very inferior Not at all understand- ing of others Very cold in relations with others Very little need for security Goes to pieces under pressure 107 AOOOOBOCOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE A....B....C....D....E A....B....C....D....E AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE Very worldly Very kind Highly needful of others' approval Feelings easily hurt Very aware of feelings of others Has difficulty making decisions Never gives up easily Cries very easily Very self-confi- dent Feels very supe- rior Very understanding of others Very warm in re- lations with others Very strong need for security Stands up will under pressure 108 Instructions: On the following pages are listed a number Of things Characteristic of yourself or related to you. You are asked to indicate which things you are satisfied with exactly as they are, which things you worry about and would like to Change if it were possible, and which things you have no feelings about one way or the other. Consider each item listed below and encircle the number which best represents your feelings according to the following scale: 1. Have strong feelings and wish Change could somehow be made. 2. Don't like, but can put up with. 3. Have no particular feelings one way or the other. 4. Am satisfied. 5. Consider myself fortunate. 1. hair . . . . . .l 2 3 4 5 2. facial complexion. .l 2 3 4 ’ 5 3. appetite. . . . .1 2 3 4 5 4. hands. . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 5. distribution of hair over body. . .1 2 3 4 5 6. nose . . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 7. fingers . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 8. elimination. . . .1 2 3 4 5 9. wrists . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 10. breathing . . . .1 2 .3 4 S 11. waist. . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 12. energy level . . '.l 2 3 4 5 13. back . . . . . .1 2 3 4 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. ears . . . . . chin . . . . . exercise. . . . ankles . . . . neck . . . . . shape of head . . body build . . . profile . . . . height . . . . age . . . . . width of shoulders arms . . . . . Chest. . . . . eyes . . . . . digestion . . . hips . . . . . skin texture . . lips . . . . . legs . . . . . teeth. . . . . forehead. . . . feet . . . . . sleep. . . . . voice. . . . . health . . . . sex activities. . knees. . . . . 109 N NNN N NNN wwwwww wwwwwwwwwu OJ Nu bob 05.5.5.5 u: (h or In UI (n u: (n u: (n u: «n UI (n u: in UI Ln (m U‘ U1U‘ U'IU'IU1 Ul 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. posture . . . . .1 face . . . . . .1 weight . . . . .1 sex (male or female).l back View of head. .1 trunk . . . . .l penis . . . . .l buttocks. . . . .1 wwwuw w «bub U! UlU'lU'IU'IU'I 111 Instructions: Place a check mark in the appropriate box to show how you feel about yourself . ,3» we! ,3) o 4 o o 0 O O) o o o O o o .9 6: 6: 4” a»? @‘V I? <7 O40 1. I feel that I am a person Of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 2. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a fail- ure. 3. I feel that I have a num- ber of good qualities. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other peOple. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. I take a positive atti- tude toward myself. 7. On the whole I am satis- fied with myself. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10. At times I think I am no good at all. 112 QUESTIONNAIRE PART I About you: Use the space below to describe yourself in as much detail as you think will give a fairly complete picture. Please do not use your name. As usual, con- fidentiality is promised. This sheet will be kept in a place different from where the other test materials are stored so that there will be nothing to identify you on the other tests and questionnaires. 113 PART II SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Instructions: Your answers to the questions below will provide information essential to this study. Please com- plete all items. As usual, confidentiality is promised. Responses will be kept separate from other test materials and under no circumstances will your name be attached. A. Your birthdate B. Racial identification: Black (non-Hispanic) (Circle one) White (non-Hispanic) Hispanic Native American Asian American Other C. Highest education level Specify number of years elementary school, high school, college, etc.: Degrees you hold: Degree Major D. Occupation E. Marital Status (Circle one) 1. legally divorced 2. never legally married 3. separated 4. other If you were ever legally married, how many times? How long were you married each time? (In years and months. Continue on reverse side if necessary.) 114 PART II F. G. Marital history Of parents: Please describe in the space below the marital history Of your parents (natural as well as adoptive). Include all information you have about divorces, remarriages, etc. In addition, you should provide to the best Of your knowledge information about all of the people you have lived with until the age of 21 (whether parents, stepparents, spouses, lov- ers, etc.). Try to be specific: for example, if you were adopted or if your parents divorced and remarried, tell what age you were when each such event occurred. Current living situation: Are you living with anyone now? Yes NO If yes, with whom are you living? with parents with relative(s) other than parent with friend(s) (not a lover) with lover alone other (please specify) Relationships: DO you have a current lover or romantic involvement? (yes or no) If yes, how long have you been involved in this way? If you have a lover or romantic involvement, rate on the following scale how satisfied overall you have been with the relationship during the past six months (circle one number on the scale even if you have been involved for less than six months): 115 Very Very dissatisfied satisfied /112/3/4/5/6/7/8/9-/10/ I. If you are not currently in a relationship such as de- scribed on the preceding page, rate on the following scale how much you would like to have such an involve- ment: / l j 2 / 3 / 4 j 5 j 6 / 7 ,j 8 g] 9 / 10 / Would not like to WOuld like very much have such a rela- to have such a rela- tionship--am satis- tionship. fied as I am. Look at the five sentences below: 1. My lover and I are sexually and romantically involved only with each other and do not have sexual and roman- tic involvements with others. 2. My lover and I are sexually and romantically involved with each other, but sometimes have sexual and romantic involvements with others. 3. I am not currently involved with any one person, but have relatively brief sexual and romantic involvements from time to time. 4. I am not currently involved with any one person, but tend to have relatively long-term sexual and romantic involvements. 5. I am not currently involved with any one person, but tend to have few or no sexual involvements Of any kind. Which of the sentences above best describes your life now? (Circle one of the following numbers): 1 2 3 4 5 Which Of the sentences above best describes your life as you most would like it to be? 1 2 3 4 5 If you have anything to add to the above two questions, please do so in the space below, continuing on the other side if necessary: 116 PART II How long have you considered yourself gay? years/months (Explain below if necessary) Who are the persons to whom you are known as gay--that is, to what individuals have you come out and to what persons are you to any extent Open about being gay? About how many of your friends/acquaintances at your place of work know that you are gay? Is this most Of the people you work with or only a small part? (Explain in a sentence or two) OR IF YOU ARE A STUDENT: About how many of your friends/acquaintances at the school you attend know that you are gay? Is this most Of your friends/acquaintances or only a small part? (Explain in a sentence or two) 117 PART III A. In the space below, describe an imaginary person that is your idea of the perfect lover, companion or romantic partner. Use as much space as you think it will take to give a fairly complete picture. Your identity is not relevant to this study, so keep in mind that no informa- tion other than the code number listed above will be used to identify you. 118 PART IV A. 10. Instructions: List on the lines below the characteris- tics or attributes that you most look for or would like to have in a lover or romantic partner. These may in- clude any details Of personality, social, economic, phy- sical or anatomical Characteristics; but please be spe- cific. The characteristics that you list do not have to be written in order of importance, but try to list them as you think of them, being as honest as possible. You should list only as many characteristics as are of interest or importance to you. If you need more space, please write additional characteristics below the lines provided. Regardless of the number of characteristics that you list, however, it is important that you be specific. Remember, confidentiality is guaranteed and under no Circumstances will your name be attached to this sheet. 119 PART IV B. Now look at the characteristics that you just listed on the preceding page. Each Of the characteristics you listed there corresponds to the scale of the same number below. You are now asked to rate these Characteristics on the corresponding lo-point scale below by placing an "X" in the space above the number on the scale which best illustrates how much interest you have in having that Characteristic in a lover or sexual partner--that is, how important that characteristic in a lover is to you. If you listed more than 10 Characteristics on the preceding page, please rate the remaining characteris- tics in the same fashion by adding enough scales to correspond to the additional characteristics listed. Least Important Most Important 1. / A / / / 1 / z / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 ‘7‘ 8 9 1o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 1o 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 120 PART IV C. Now go back two pages to your list Of Characteristics in Section A and place a Check mark next to the three Characteristics you listed on that page that you think you tend to emphasize'most or that most interests you in connection with a lover, sexual or romantic partner. D. Look at each Of the three items you just selected, and of these, place a ”1" next to the most important, a "2" next to the second most important, and a "3” next to the least important of the three in terms of how much interest you have in finding a lover, sexual or romantic partner with these characteristics. PART V A. Are you a member of an organized religion? Yes No If yes, what denomination? B. In the space below, please describe briefly your reli- gious orientation. If you believe in God or a speci- fic religion, you should describe your beliefs. Also, note whether you feel some conflict between your relir gious values and beliefs and your sexuality, and briefly describe the nature of any such conflict that may exist. Continue on the reverse side if necessary. 121 PART VI A. Please describe below what involvement you have in gay organizations, if any, and rate the extent Of your in- volvement on the ten-point scale below: (Circle one number). 11 l2 /3 /4 /5 l6 /7 /8'/9 /10/ Not involved Very at all involved Describe type Of involvement and type of organization(s): B. About how Often do you visit gay bars? (Specify, for ex- ample, daily, once per week, three times per week, once per month, etc.) C. About how Often do you visit straight bars? (Specify, for example, daily, once per week, three times per week, once per month, etc.)