University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects of sex, professional status, and attitudes toward women on female student nurses' reactions to clinical professionals' success and failure

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects of sex, professional status, and attitudes toward women on female student nurses' reactions to clinical professionals' success and failure

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EFFECTS OF SEX, PROFESSIONAL STATUS, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMEN ON FEMALE STUDENT NURSES' REACTIONS TO CLINICAL PROFESSIONALS' SUCCESS AND FAILURE by Joan Brosnan A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) June 19 77 UMI Number: DP24187 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP24187 Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L ___________________________________________ ___ U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K LO S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 ^ K Ed, ' 7 7 BS7L| This dissertation, w ritten by Joan Brosnan under the direction of h.&P.... Dissertation C o m mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y c$4 7 7/1 K Dean D ate.!ty[/U j...% L9n3. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I j I I wish to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Fox, j ; Dr. Stallings, and Dr. Acosta, as well as the additional | members of my preliminary committee, Dr. Magary and I Dr. Nottingham, for their guidance and assistance. I I jwould particularly like to thank my chairman, Dr. Frank i Fox, for his interest and helpful suggestions in the pre- , i paration of this research. j A number of individuals have enhanced my graduate ex- ] i 1 perience. I would especially like to thank Dr. Acosta for j i i ' both his concerned involvement and his valued friendship. j , The encouragement and helpful criticisms of Dr. Handler | I i during the early stages of this research is appreciated. i The willing cooperation of both the nursing in structors and students at Long Beach City College is gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank Venner Farley for her helpful assistance in facilitating the ■ process of conducting this investigation. I I want to thank my parents for their encouragement : of my educational pursuits. I am deeply grateful to my jhusband, William Skilbeck, for generously providing both ' emotional support and technical expertise in the completion ! of this research. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................. . .......... ii LIST OF T A B L E S............................... iv ! CHAPTER i--------- I INTRODUCTION ......................... 1 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .... 17 III METHODOLOGY.................. 43 IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............. 56 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS.................... 100 REFERENCES................................... 109 APPENDICES A SAMPLE EXPERIMENTAL BOOKLET .... 121 I B DISCUSSION OF DEPENDENT MEASURES . . 137 C SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.................. 15 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Significant Results for Three- Way ANOVAs .......... 58 2 Mean Semantic Differential Ratings for Factors in Relation to S e x of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Pro fessional Status .......... 64 3 Mean Semantic Differential Ratings in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Professional Status......................... 67 4 Mean Rated Importance of Different Causal Factors Affecting Outcome in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome and Professional Status . . 73 5 Significant Results for Two-Way ANOVAs on Causal and Specified Consequence Measures . ........... 76 6 Mean Likelihood of Different Possible Consequences of Outcome in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Occupation................. . 78 7 Correlations Between Major Dependent Measures and Attitudes Toward Women Scores and Age, Separately for Sex and Outcome.................. 89 8 Trend Results ....................... 155 9 List of F Values, Degrees of Freedom, and Mean Squares for Significant Results........................ 159 10 List of F Values, Degrees of Freedom, and Mean Squares for Trend Results . 161 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Personality theorists as well as mental health pro fessionals traditionally have regarded sex role development! I — defined broadly as the sum of all socially designated ! behaviors which differentiate men from women — as an es- ! sential and positive aspect of personality development. Recently, however, such uncritical acceptance of the benign■ utility of sex role stereotypes for personality development has been strongly brought into question. The view has been I voiced, first perhaps by radical feminists but increasingly' I by respected social scientists, that sex role stereotypes j are highly prejudicial to women and acceptance of these ! stereotypes limits women in the full expression of their human potential. A rapidly growing and highly provocative ; literature has begun to examine empirically the effects of ! sex role stereotypes. I Sex Role Stereotypes The psychological effects of sex role stereotypes on females are produced, in part, by the overall societal 1 evaluation attached to females and stereotypically femininej I ; characteristics. Current evidence demonstrates rather con-i vincingly that men and masculine characteristics are per ceived more positively, and are seen as more desirable, i than women and feminine characteristics (Dinitz, Dynes, & 'Clark, 1954; Fernberger, 1948; Kitay, 1940; Lynn, 1959; | ; | McKee & Sherriffs, 1957 , 1959 ; Sherriffs & Jarrett, 1953; ! I i Sherriffs & McKee, 1957; Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Brover- j man, & Broverman, 19 6 8). These and other studies suggest j that stereotypically feminine characteristics and behavior 1 are evaluated less positively than corresponding masculine j ones (Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel,j 1970; Neulinger, 1968). | i Recent research suggests that females respond to the i prevalent and consensually endorsed negative evaluation of i female traits by devaluing their worth relative to men I (Broverman et al., 1970; Ellis & Bentler, 1973; Lyell, i 1973; Putnam & Hansen, 1972). Several studies have used ! female subjects to rate stimulus materials which were attributed to either females or males. These studies have shown a consistent pattern for females to rate stimulus materials attributed to females as showing less competence j than the same stimulus materials attributed to males (Bern & Bern, 1970; Deaux & Taylor, 1973; Goldberg, 1967, 1968; Pheterson, Kiesler, & Goldberg, 1971). Goldberg (196 8) ! 2 i ------------------------------------------------------ | suggests that the discrepancy between these evaluations is t I due to anti-feminism in women, comparable in dynamics to i the self-prejudice of minorities described by Allport (1958). : Sex Role Stereotypes and Female Achievement I An important aspect of sex role stereotypes is their ; I t I effect on females' expectations, evaluations, and motiva- i j | tion regarding achievement. The female stereotype is one i | of incompetence and non-achievement. This stereotype has i i j been used to predict that women devalue the likelihood of j .] i 1 their achieving academic success, and attribute their suc- ! cesses to factors other than personal ability and corape- , tence. Gjesme (1973), for example, found that female sub- i jects consistently underestimated their true probability of i succeeding on a task. Crandall (196 9) reported that, rela tive to their own past academic performance, college fe males become increasingly pessimistic about success as they progress in their college careers, while males become in creasingly optimistic; this leads to females who underesti- I mate their true academic achievement, and males who over- I estimate theirs. Similar patterns have been found regard- j ing females' attributions of the cause of successful and j unsuccessful outcomes. Dweck (1973) found that subjects i who attributed their performance outcomes to factors out- ! side of personal control (e.g., "luck") did more poorly than those who attributed their outcomes to factors under i their control (e.g., "effort"). Further, females more fre- i quently denied personal responsibility for their perform ances than did males (and thus did more poorly). Feather j (1969) reported that females were more likely than males | to explain both success and failure as due to external i ! variables such as luck rather than to internal variables such as personal ability. Deaux and Enswiller (1973) have also found that females are more likely than males to at tribute their successes to chance rather than to personal competence. i High-achieving females differ from low-achieving ! i females in several respects, specifically in that they are : more likely to define achievement as feminine, and they are more likely to be nontraditional in their sex role expecta tions. Stein (1971) examined the effects of sex-linked j tasks on achievement behavior in children. He found that I i girls achieved as highly as boys when the tasks were neu- I I I tral or feminine, but significantly more poorly when the ! tasks were masculine. These findings suggest that achieve-; i ment in "masculine" areas is aversive to females, even j i young girls. Fitzgerald and Pasewark (19 71) studied high- achieving females, and report that they tend to be non traditional in their sex role expectations. Berens (19 73) and Bern and Bern (19 73) suggest that achievement motivation 4 in females reflects parental training, and that high- achieving females had parents who taught nontraditional sex roles to their daughters. Frankel (1974) has recently reported that achievement behavior in women is signifi cantly related to acceptance of nontraditional attitudes i toward femininity and appropriate sex role behavior, as well as to positive self-concept. Crandall and Battle j (1970) found that play with opposite sex toys was signifi- j i cantly related to females' intellectual and academic school; performance, suggesting that high achievement in females j i may be related to masculine role identification. ! A persistent frustration to modern personality theo- ! rists has been the inability of achievement motivation j theory (McClelland, 1961; Weiner, 1970, 1972; Weiner & Kukla, 1970), which accurately predicts the achievement- |related behavior of males, to predict the achievement- related behavior of females (French & Lesser, 1964; Veroff,! Wilcox, & Atkinson, 19 53). Horner (.19 68, 19 70, 19 72a, i i i 1972b) has developed a widely cited explanation for this j i j discrepancy. She suggests that the goals of femininity and !achievement are mutually incompatible. Competence, achievement, and competitiveness are perceived as masculine; qualities, and thus females fear a loss of femininity with, j a concomitant social rejection as a consequence of success, \ This produces a "fear of success" for females in competi tive situations, particularly those involving males (1968, p. 225). Horner (1968) studied the prevalence of "fear of success" imagery in males and females using a projective 1 test procedure. Approximately 65 percent of Horner’s female sample showed fear of success versus less than 10 percent of her male sample. Horner (1972a) reported that the females in her sample who showed fear of success had j i high intellectual ability and histories of academic success. i Despite their high achievement, the great majority of thesej women aspired to traditional female careers. Those females I who did not show fear of success were significantly more j likely to aspire to graduate degrees and careers in more j traditional, "masculine," professions. j A number of recent investigations have confirmed the disproportionately high rate of fear of success images in the projective test records of women (Brown, Jennings, & ! i Vanik, 197 4; Feather & Raphelson, 197 4; Feather & Simon, t 19 73, 19 75; Gearty & Milner, 19 75; Monahan, Kuhn, & Shaver,j 1974; Solomon, 1975; Weston & Mednick, 1972). In addition,! i these investigations have extended the basic paradigm to \ different populations (e.g., Feather & Raphelson, 1974; Weston & Mednick, 1972) , modified and refined the assess ment procedures (e.g., Feather & Simon, 1975), and clari fied the implications of these findings for female achieve ment (Brown et al., 1974; Gearty & Milner, 1975; Monahan et al., 1974). To summarize, the studies cited suggest that females perceive achievement very differently than males. Females \ devalue feminine qualities and competence, relative to masculine; they underestimate the true likelihood of J achieving success on tasks requiring competence, and they j over-attribute success to causal factors other than per- \ ! sonal ability; they achieve at a level equal to those of ! males only when the task is defined as a neutral or femin- I i i ine one, or when they have previously rejected traditional | I sex role stereotypes; and they anticipate negative conse- ! i quences will follow from achievement, resulting in a "fear ! i i i I | of success." These data indicate that traditional sex | j i role stereotypes function to hinder female achievement in a variety of ways. ; i Sex Role Stereotypes and the Profession of Nursing | Many sex role stereotypes are associated with work. j Keniston and Keniston (1964) conclude that women perceive | work negatively, since they view work as being "unfeminine, " j Women who work in sex-atypical ("masculine") occupations ' I I are more committed to their careers than women who work in ■ I stereotypically feminine occupations (Tangri, 1972), and ' they value stereotypically feminine traits less highly than | ! women who work in traditional female occupations (Campbell,! 19 71). These studies raise the possibility that women who choose to work in stereotypically feminine occupations may 7 be more prejudicial toward women, and more accepting of traditional female stereotypes, than women who choose to work in nontraditional fields. Concern with the effects of sex role stereotypes on women*s perceptions of work must also address itself to the j effects of these stereotypes on those who work as nurses. j Over seventy percent of American working women work in only four fields — teaching, social work, secretarial work, and nursing (Tangri, 1972). The overwhelming major a t i.ty of nurses are women, and this profession has remained as one of the few work fields open to traditional women. Thus, the sex role stereotypes which have been seen in earlier sections of this review to hinder women's achieve ment h„ave long had full play to limit those women who work in the profession of nursing. An important problem for nursing is to alter society's perceptions of the field so as to recognize the value of nurses' services to the degree it has recognized those of physicians, a male-dominated professional group. Before this aspect of the problem can be resolved, however, it would seem necessary for nurses themselves to recognize their own worth to the degree that I they recognize the worth of physicians. Until nurses see i themselves as competent, achieving, and successful they can hardly expect society to value them in these ways. The self-image of women in nursing has worked to keep the unsatisfactory status quo unchanged. Nurses as well i as other women have been noted for their intuition rather j than intellect, their nurturance rather than productivity, j I and for their dependence rather than independence (Wilson, j i j 1971). The nurse-physician relationship and the nurse- I I administrator relationship have tended to mirror the j i ' : | female-male relationship in society, in which women are i ; | expected to be subservient to males of comparable abilities I (Bullough, 19 71). Schools of nursing have in the past en couraged nurses to accept a subservient role in relation- i ship to physicians, as the common task of nurses' carrying : out physicians' "orders" clearly implies. Stein (19 67) hasj described one aspect of this subservient role for nurses as jthe "doctor-nurse game," in which knowledgeable nurses make; recommendations to physicians, and then permit the physi cian to claim credit for the success of the recommended I action. ' Many of the work responsibilities of the nursing pro fession fit well into the societal stereotype of women as ! i servants and mother-surrogates, in which women are por- i i trayed as serving others through nurturing and caretaking. | Women are frequently characterized as innately, instinc- , tively, or hormonally adept at nurturing, sacrificing and caring for others. As the servant of others, women are j i portrayed as dependent human beings, and ones whose ident- 1 I 9 ity is derived vicariously through others. These concept tions of women emphasize traits of dependence, other'-' orientedness, passivity, and non-assertiveness ( ’ Prather, 1971). Thus it seems that the aim of freeing women from ;stereotypic sex role demands will also serve to free nurses . i t i from sex role and occupational role stereotypes. It is , i t ; important that nurses do not themselves resist change by ; self-perpetuation of the myths of their inferiority to i males or physicians, but this may often occur. Hawley ! ! (19 72) found that women preparing for traditional careers | held more sex stereotypes than women preparing for non- 1 t traditional careers. Hoffman (.19 70) studied student nurses j and found that they scored above the general female popula-, tion on such traits as nurturance, but below the general female population on such traits as aggression and domi- ! i nance. A critical first step, if nurses are negatively j i stereotyping themselves in terms of their sex and their ! professional identity, must be to openly expose this proc- j ess so that it can be altered through improved education j i and awareness. ! i From this review, there appears to be evidence that women who enter a stereotypically feminine field such as nursing identify closely with traditional sex and occupa tional role stereotypes and will favor those who conform 10 to these stereotypes, while disfavoring those who violate these stereotypes. Stereotypically, males and physicians I are expected to succeed while females and nurses are not. ; Thus, successful male physicians and unsuccessful female nurses would be favored most by female nurses. Female j nurses would favor at an intermediate level those who vio- ! i | late one stereotype — female physicians and male nurses. i ! ! Those who oppose stereotypic patterns — unsuccessful male I physicians and successful female nurses — would be least favored by female nurses. Purposes of the Study As the previous review has shown, sex role stereo- 1 havior, including those regarding work. A much neglected j aspect of the effects of these stereotypes is their in- j fluence upon professional nurses1 self-perceptions and per-; I ceptions of members of male-dominated professions such as j medicine. This concern has been rarely studied, and yet j it is a particularly meaningful one for several reasons. ; First, nursing has long been one of the few occupational | areas traditionally open to women. Thus, this profession : seems a likely place to look for the effects of sex role t i and occupational role stereotypes and their destructive I i implications. Second, nursing is a large and important | health care profession. Thus, efforts to improve the i 11 type many aspects of females* perceptions and be- quality of services provided by nurses offer particular I promise for enhancing the quality of professional services ! i offered to large numbers of people. And third, there are strong social forces directing nursing and women into more [ I prominent and varied roles in society. In recent years nurses and women in general have begun to assume roles and responsibilities outside of their traditional ones. The shortage of physicians and the increasing costs of medical j I care would seem to insure a continuing trend for nurses to i I i expand the scope of their work, while legal and social j ( changes would seem to insure a continuing trend for women j i to expand their educational and occupational horizons. j i The present investigation constitutes an empirical j effort to test whether student nurses perceive clinical professionals and the causes for their success or failure i in terms of the clinical professional's sex and/or pro- t fessional status. If sex role stereotyping and self-pre- f judice are the result of fears of personal rejection, as I proposed by Spence and Helmreich (19 72b), and power i struggles with male-dominated professions, then female i I | nursing students should favor women and nurses who succeed.j J However, if sex role stereotypes and self-prejudice result j | from fears of general social disapproval at relinquishing J traditional feminine roles, as proposed by Keniston and Keniston (1964), student nurses should disfavor nurses and 12 ! women who succeed in areas outside of the traditional ones.! 1 ! Indeed, it might well be expected that such self-prejudice j j is most prevalent in an area of professional activity with i which the student nurse herself most closely identifies. ' Hypotheses i j The major hypotheses of this investigation are that | there will be significant interactions between the inde- i j pendent variables of sex, professional status, and outcome. i ! These interactions are hypothesized to show that student | nurses favor those who uphold traditional sex role and | occupational role stereotypes (males and physicians who ! succeed in male-dominated and medically-dominated areas), and disfavor those who violate these traditional stereo- | types (males and physicians who fail in male-dominated and 1 physician-dominated areas). These patterns are also hypo- | thesized to be strongest among those student nurses who i hold the most traditional stereotypic attitudes toward women. More specific hypotheses are: (1) The most favored stimulus person who succeeds will be the male physician. (2) The least favored stimulus person who i succeeds will be the female nurse. (3) The most highly favored person who i I fails will be the female nurse. | (4) The least favored stimulus person who j fails will be the male physician. ; i (5) The female physician who succeeds i and the male nurse who succeeds will j not be favored differently from one i another, and will be favored inter- I | mediately between the male physician | who succeeds and the female nurse who | succeeds. (6) The female physician and the male nurse who fail will not be favored differently from one another, and will be favored intermediately between the j female nurse who fails and the male physician who fails. | ! Definition of Terms ! Attribution: The identifying of causal factors ! which explain why an action produces a certain outcome ! (Heider, 195 8). i Clinical Decision: A decision concerning a clinical i i health-care matter: to diagnose, or to state, the medical j causes which are producing symptoms. i ! Clinical Professional: One who makes clinical health- \ ....................................................................... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ — ■ . . . i | care decision and administers clinical health-care pro cedures : a registered nurse or a physician. 14 Competency; Being fit, sufficient, adequate ; i (Webster’s Dictionary, 1968). | Favor: To endow with special advantage or gifts; to | provide preferential treatment (Webster’s Dictionary, 1968)J | For the purposes of this study, to favor means to evaluate jmore highly, to rate a stimulus person as more potent, i | active, successful, professional, deliberate, and rule- j following and to rate as more characteristic of one’s own I I sex. For the purposes of this study, to favor also means | to attribute success more to ability and effort than to j ease of the task and luck, and to attribute failure more to i difficulty of the task and bad luck than to lack of abilityj i and lack of effort; and to anticipate positive, rather than negative, consequences to follow from success. i Female Sex Role Stereotypes: A non-competency cluster I which includes such attributes as being dependent, sub- i i i jective, passive, non-competitive, and illogical. In addi-I ! tion, such stereotypes impute to females such qualities as ; i being gentle, sensitive to the feelings of others, tactful,1 i religious, neat, quiet, interested in art and literature, j i and having an ability to express tender feelings (Broverman! et al., 1972). Male Sex Role Stereotypes: A competency cluster which! includes such attributes as being independent, objective, ! I 1 active, competitive, logical, skilled in business, worldly,! adventurous, able to make decisions easily, self-confident,! i always acting as a leader, and ambitious (Broverman et al.,, 1972). Outcome: The result of the clinical decision in termsj --------------------------------------------------------------------- i of success or failure. j Sex Roles: Expectations about what men-in-general and what women-in-general should do or be like (Angrist, i 1969). | Sex Role Stereotypes: Highly traditional consensual j I beliefs about the differing characterists of the role and j status of men and women (Broverman et al., 1972). j Status: For the purpose of this study Status refers j to a clinical professional's occupation and training -- j specifically physician vs. nurse. , i Organization of the Remainder of the Study | The second chapter of this study will review the re lated literature on sex role stereotyping. The third ! chapter will describe the methodological procedures of the study. Results and a discussion of the results shall i follow in the fourth chapter. Finally, the fifth chapter ; ! will summarize the study, review the conclusions, and pro- j i pose recommendations for nursing education and implications: i I for future research. I CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The following review will be concerned with and limited to selected aspects of sex role stereotypes on females' perceptions and behavior. Its focus will be on the effects of sex role stereotypes on females' self-per ceptions , inhibition of achievement strivings, personality development, and perceptions of work. First, the dis crepant views of relevant theorists will be examined to substantiate the need to turn to empirical data for an evaluation of the effects of sex role stereotypes. Empir ical data related to the predominantly negative societal evaluation of females and stereotypically feminine charac teristics will then be considered, and the closely-related phenomenon of female self-devaluation will be discussed. Next, the largely inhibiting effects of sex role stereo types on females' expectations of, evaluation of, and moti vation toward achievement will be reviewed. Following this, the effects of sex role stereotypes on females' per sonality development will be examined. And, finally, the 17 effects of sex role stereotypes on females * perceptions of ! work will be reviewed. The review will end with a summary j and conclusions. • i 1 ! Sex Role Development j j There is little doubt that important sex differences j | emerge early in life, and that many of these differences | correspond to stereotypic patterns. Research indicates ; that sex role behavior is well established by the age of j three, and that stereotypic sex role behavior is pronounced| in four and five year old children (Hampson, 1965; Money & Ehrhardt, 1972; Mussen, 1970). Much of this behavior I appears to be the product of social learning rather than J the result of innate biological differences, however. Fromj infancy on there are both obvious and subtle differences in! i the ways that parents and others interact with boys and | girls (Bronson, 1969; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Kagan, 1971). j These differences include the way children are dressed, the; toys they are given, and the activities they are inhibited l from or encouraged to join. Thus, stereotypic behavior ; | expectations are perpetuated and transmitted to children, j i j jat least in part, through, the social learning processes in-| jherent in parent-child interactions. , : Many prominent social theorists have sought to explain| 'why this perpetuation and transmission of sex role stereo- j i I 1 I |types occurs. Parsons (1951) proposes that these stereo 18 types have evolved to meet society's need for the differ- : entiation of functions between men and women. He notes I that the masculine role has traditionally been associated with leadership and responsibility, commensurate with j i males' greater physical strength, while the feminine role Jhas traditionally been associated with nurturance and ex- i pressiveness, commensurate with females' greater childbear ing abilities. Mead (19 35) expresses a similar conclusion regarding the social value of sex role prescriptions in dividing areas of responsibility between men and women. It| must be noted, however, that the social value of rigid sex | I role prescriptions has diminished greatly in recent dec- j ades. Technological advances such as improved contracep tion have reduced the inevitability and demands of child- i care for many women, while pressures for smaller families as a result of over-population pressures have further eroded this role as the only socially valid one for women, j Clearly, new possibilities are emerging for women to func- j tion in roles previously closed to them. However, cultural; belief systems often lag well behind changes produced by I scientific and technological changes, and thereby continue ! i to enforce sex role stereotypes whose function no longer exist. ! Certainly if duration of stereotypes is any measure ! sex role demands will be slow and difficult to change, no 19 | matter how invalid their contemporary social function. Stereotypes prejudicial to women have existed for centu- j ries. Even the Biblical view, with Eve created after Adam and from his rib, suggests a secondary status for women, jWilson (1971) points out that Christianity has long identi fied two basic roles for women, those of madonna or prosti- i jtute. More contemporary views have continued to explain j female behavior in largely negative ways. Thus, Freud | i I (193 3) saw the motivating force of the female personality ) i to be envy of the penis which causes women to feel like ! mutilated men. He described women as passive masochists j who find pleasure in pain, and he considered femininity to j i i be the successful curbing of aggression (Freud, 1933) . i Other theorists who are more sympathetic to women, such as Alfred Adler, have had considerably less influence than | Freud. Adler (see Ansbacher & Ansbachker, 19 56) disputed i Freud’s view and instead saw penis envy as merely a symbol l | of the privileges extended to men and denied to women. \ i Adler felt that culturally determined attitudes about men j and women, rather than inherent differences, accounted for the personality development of women. His position is usually expressed in terms of the concept of masculine pro-I i i I test, by which Adler contended that females strive to.over- j come their sense of inferiority by identifying with the | masculine role. He argued that female infants notice 20 social distinctions which suggest that all things feminine are inherently inferior to all things masculine. This per ception leads them to experience intense inferiority feel- , i ings , since they themselves are female. To strive to over-! come this perceived inferiority, female infants evaluate their role as females negatively and attempt to master a I masculine role. In most instances this leads to negative i i ] sanctions from the dominant culture, chronic excessive anxiety, and eventual identification with and acceptance i I of the "inferior" female role. j This discrepancy between the Freudian and Adlerian j views highlights the lack of consensus between personality j theorists regarding the effects of sex role stereotypes on j females. Thus, it is not to theory, but to empirical evi- , dence -- much of it recent — that one must turn to examine these effects. The focus of this review on the negative effects of sex role stereotypes on females is not intended 1 to suggest that such negative effects fall on females | alone; detrimental effects of such stereotypes on males ! I have -een well documented (Blake, 1968; Davis, 1967; j i i ! Hartley, 1961; Maccoby, 1963; Rossi, 1964). However, it j does seem that the greatest negative influence of sex role ; ! stereotypes falls on females, and thus this aspect of their i I effect carries an urgency greater than the corresponding i 'concern for their effects on males. Societal Evaluation of Females and Stereotypically Feminine Characteristics The psychological effects of sex role stereotypes on I females are produced, in large part, by the overall societal evaluation attached to females and stereotypically jfeminine characteristics. Current empirical evidence !documents rather clearly that men and masculine character- I !istics are evaluated more positively, and seen as more 'desirable, than women and feminine characteristics (Dinitz, |Dynes & Clark, 1954; Feinberger, 1948; Kilay, 1940; Lynn, !1959; McKee & Sherriffs, 1957, 1959; Sherriffs & Jarrett, |1953; Sherriffs & McKee, 1957; Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, 1 !Broverman, & Broverman, 1968). Sears, Maccoby, and Levin i (1957) note, regarding the relative evaluation of the de sirability of male versus female offspring, that the |parents of daughters only report greater happiness about a i I new pregnancy than the parents of sons only. Similarly, j |Pohlman (1969) found that the interval between the first child's birth and conception of the second is longer when the first child is a boy than when it is a girl. Further, the likelihood of having a third child is greater if the first two children are both girls than both boys. Thus, i females seem to be evaluated as less socially desirable than males. In like fashion data suggest that stereotypically feminine characteristics and behavior are evaluated less 22 positively than corresponding masculine ones. Numerous , studies report a positive relationship between the social desirability of behaviors and the clinical ratings of these behaviors in terms of normality, adjustment, and psycho logical health (Cowen, Staiman, & Wolitzky, 1961? Wiener, Blumberg, Segman, & Cooper, 1959; Kogan, Quinn, Ax, & Ripley, 1957). Broverman et al. (1970), using practicing j i mental health clinicians as subjects, found that a psycho- j i I logically healthy adult (sex unspecified) was described as possessing more stereotypically masculine traits than stereotypically feminine ones. Thus, "healthy" adults -- i land therefore socially desirable ones — are seen even by mental health professionals as possessing stereotypically | masculine traits. Broverman et al»1s (19 70) data also in dicated that clinicians rate psychologically healthy women i as differing from healthy men in that the women possessed ! fewer socially valued traits: Women were rated as more | submissive, less independent, less adventurous, less ob- I i jective, more easily influenced, less aggressive, less ! competitive, more excitable in minor crises, more emotionalj more conceited about their appearance, and more easily apt ■ to have their feelings hurt than men. Neulinger (1968) found that psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers'- i ranked the positively valued traits of dominance, achieve- j ment, autonomy, counteraction, and aggression as more in- ! i i 23 dicative of mental health in men than in women, while the negatively valued traits of nurturance, play, deference, and abasement were rated as more indicative of mental health in women than in men. It is noteworthy that these patterns appear to hold for female, as well as male, psychotherapists. Although several studies report a posi tive bias toward females by female psychologists (Haan & Livson, 1973; Lewittes, Mosselle, & Simons, 1973), and a j less rigid stereotyped standard for females by female ver- j sus male counselors (.Mas 1 in & Davis, 1975), the majority of 1 J investigations indicate that female psychotherapists are ; I biased against females (Bingham & House, 1973; Broverman 1 et al. / 1970; Pietrosa & Schlossberg, 1970 ; Vetter, 1974). j Chesler and Richmond (.19 73) , in reflecting upon these data, ( conclude that a double standard exists within the mental ! I j health fields — which often set the guidelines for the i i rest of society — whereby socially valued traits which : suggest psychological health in men (such as independence, j i assertiveness, and aggression) are seen as indicating j If feminine traits are negatively valued and masculine ones positively valued, as the previously cited data sug~ gest, then women who possess masculine traits ought to be i I more socially desirable than those who do not. Deaux i | (1972) reports results consistent with this hypothesis. psychopathology in women. 24 A female stimulus person who was otherwise "feminine" was I rated as more likable by men when she was also competent, a stereotypically masculine trait. Spence and Helmreich j (19 72b) indicate that the attributes of competence and achievement made women more attractive to men regardless I ( of the men's general attitudes toward women. However, the < , \ positive "value" of possessing masculine traits does not j appear to offset completely the negative value of being j female. Deaux and Taylor (19 73) , for example, report that j I males rated highly competent males more positively than highly competent females. : i Thus, there is considerable evidence for the conclu- j i sion that society evaluates males more highly than females,| and masculine characteristics more highly than feminine ; i ones. Yet there is reason to believe that pressures toward I i * I a more equal valuing of sex and sex role behavior are in- t creasing. Elman, Press, and Rosenkrantz (1970) argue that ! there is considerable dissatisfaction with traditional sex role expectations on the part of both men and women. Their study found that sex role stereotypes are quite different ' j i from what people conceive "ideal" males and females to be I like. Ideal males and females were more alike than their ! stereotyped counterparts, and these ideals were character ized by both stereotypically masculine and feminine traits. 25 ! Sex Role Stereotypes and Female Self-devaluation The preceding discussion has led to the conclusion ' that females and feminine characteristics are valued less highly by society than males and masculine characteristics. Investigations suggest that females respond to the preva- | lent and societally-endorsed negative evaluation of female J traits by devaluing their own worth relative to males | (Broverman et al., 1970; Ellis & Bentler, 1973; Lyell, j 1973; Putnam & Hansen, 1972). I In one investigation, Goldberg (1967, 1968) examined i ! the evaluations given by college women to written materials ! attributed either to male or female professionals. The i . materials were identical in content, differing only in the sex and first name ascribed to the author of the materials. The materials were also varied with respect to whether | their content was related to a masculine or feminine pro- I fessional field. The results indicated that college women underrate the professional competence of other women, with the ratings of the materials ascribed to women consistently i I lower than those ascribed to men, regardless of the sexual ; association of the professional field. Goldberg (1968) | | attributes the discrepancy in evaluations to anti-feminism I in women, comparable in dynamics to the self-prejudice of other out-groups as analyzed by Allport (1958). Goldberg's (1967) paradigm has been employed in other settings, with 26 similar findings (Bern & Bern, 1970; Deaux & Taylor, 1973; i Pheterson, Kiesler, & Goldberg, 19 71). Changes with age indicate that both boys and girls show a progressively higher opinion of males, and a lower opinion of females, as they grow up (Prather, 1971). It jthus appears that children learn to value masculinity more ] with age, rather than their own sex. Brown (1958) found ; i i that both boys and girls between the ages of six and ten \ express greater preference for masculine activities than j for feminine ones. Between five to twelves times as many women as men recall having wished that they were of the i opposite sex (Gallup, 1955; Terman, 19 3 8). \ I The pattern of these data suggest that many women j accept traditional sex role stereotypes regarding the rela tive superiority of males over females. As a result, girls devalue being female and often wish that they were male, l while adult women distort their perceptions of females to conform to the stereotype of female inferiority. 1 ! Sex Role Stereotypes and Achievement ! I Closely related to the concept of female self-devalua-j ! . } i tion is that of females' rejection of competence and i i i | achievement by females. The female stereotype is one of I personal and professional incompetence and lack of achieve ment. Acceptance of this stereotype implies that women I should minimize the likelihood of their succeeding, attrib- ute their successes to factors other than personal ability j and competence, and fear the negative social consequences of success. It has often been reported anecdotally that j the harshest criticism of feminists who advocate nontradi- tional behavior for women comes from other women. Indirect i I | support for this observation comes from the important work ! of Horner (1968, 1970 , 1972a, 1972b) and those who have I i 1 !extended her work (Brown et al., 1974; Feather & RapheIson,j 197 4; Feather & Simon, 19 73, 1975; Gearty & Milner, 19 75; | i Monahan et al., 19 74; Solomon, 19 75; Weston & Mednick, 1972). Horner (1970) found that a woman's desire to ! t achieve in academic and occupational activities is often j detrimentally influenced by a motive to avoid success. | She identified this motive as a fear that success in com petitive achievement situations will cause negative conse quences and a loss of femininity (19 70). Horner first * I studied this motive by asking male students to complete a story based on the sentence, "After first term finals, John! finds himself at the top of his medical school class" ! i (1968, p. 225). Female students were given the same sen- ! i tence for completion, except that the name "Anne" and "her- j self" were substituted for "John" and "himself." Horner | i ■ !then scored the resulting stories for evidence of "fear of ] ! ! | success1 1 imagery, in a manner analogous to TAT scoring. | jThe results indicated that 6 5 percent of the female sub- jects evidenced fear of success by writing stories with themes related to strong fear of social rejections as a j I I result of female success, worry over definitions of woman- | hood, or complete denial of the possibility that the situa tion could exist for a woman. Fewer than 10 percent of the male subjects showed similar evidence of the motive to ! i i I avoid success. Horner (1968, 1970) explained these results, in terms of sex role stereotyping, arguing that females who! engage in a traditionally "masculine" professional career anticipate, as well as experience, multiple internal and i i external conflicts. These fears can dissuade many females ! from striving for academic or occupational success when such striving puts them into real or imagined competition j with males. i Weston and Mednick (1972) replicated the Horner (1968) I paradigm with black as well as white female undergraduates, j These results indicate that fear of success is signifi- i cantly more common among white women than black, and that 1 social class per se is apparently not related to the fre quency of fear of success responses in either racial group. Feather and Raphelson (1974) tested for fear of success j among American and Australian undergraduates, and found i that the results were generally quite similar. One excep- ! tion was that American female undergraduates were signifi cantly less likely to show fear of success in response to 29 female achievement than were their Australian counterparts.' The investigators suggest that very recent efforts to j erase sex role stereotypes in the United States may have ' i reduced the prevalence of these responses relative to the Australian group. | Several investigations have focused on factors which i | increase or decrease the frequency of fear of success ; responses. Tomlinson (1974) reported that fear of success ■ is greater when the stimuli are cued by male, as opposed toi I i female, experimenters. Gearty and Milner (19 75), on the ; i jother hand, failed to confirm this finding. These investi gators suggest that fear of success may be enhanced by a male experimenter only when the experimenter's rejection ! is feared by the subjects. Gearty and Milner (1975) also found that the frequency of fear of success imagery was not related to the area of the subject's academic major (e.g., i home economics versus business). However, Breedlove and ! Cicerelli (1974) sampled college females and found that I l i fear of success responses are more frequent when the stimuli relate to nontraditional occupations for females (e.g., i medicine) rather than traditional ones (e.g., education). j Horner (1968, 1970, 1972a, 1972b) has argued that f ear j of success reflects a true personality motive, and thus that it is a relatively general, stable, and enduring ele ment of personality. Several investigators have recently questioned this interpretation of the phenomenon (Feather &; Raphelson, 1974; Monahan et al., 1974). Rather, they argue! I that fear of success responses represent culturally-vali- | i dated sex role stereotypes about what kinds of activities are appropriate for men and women. In essence, these in vestigators suggest that fear of success responses do not reflect the respondent's personality, but his or her know- i ! | ledge of sex-appropriate behavior. Feather and Raphelson j (197 4) tested these two competing hypotheses by expanding \ I i Horner's (.1968) original design to include males responding! to female success cues, and females responding to male j I success cues. The results indicated that both males and females anticipated negative consequences following female | !success, and this was interpreted to support the sex role I ! j 1 stereotyping, and not the personality motive, interpreta tion of the phenomenon. Monahan et al. (19 74) performed a ' similar study, using 10-16-year-old children. These re sults also suggested that both males and females anticipatei negative consequences following female achievement, but ; implicated affective determinants tachievement-related j anxiety in females, and hostility in males) as well. | i Spence and Helmreich (1972b) employed Horner's (1968) paradigm and failed to show the usual fear of success phenomenon. Spence and Helmreich (1972b) suggest that this apparent discrepancy can be reconciled by assuming that the ! 31 females in Horner's study projected their own fears and ' that their personal efforts at achievement would produce | I social disapproval and rejection by men. The females in : their study, they suggest, were rating feelings about the I achievement of another woman, not themselves. Thus, the I (Spence and Helmreich (1972b) results were interpreted as i iindicating that women like and admire women who achieve, J even though many of them may themselves be afraid to aspire * toward achievement because of the anticipated costs. While i this interpretation of the data is somewhat tenuous, it ! i does point out the need to discriminate between women's j I evaluations of achievement by other women, and their evalu-| i ation of personal achievement. i ! The data regarding the "fear of success" motive thus i I suggest that both females and males anticipate negative ! i 'consequences to follow female achievement. It is not yet i clear whether this avoidance of success in fantasy repre- \ sents a true personality motive, or a socially-taught sex ! i role stereotype about acceptable female behavior. In either i case, Horner's (196 8) research paradigm for examining per- j ceptions of success and its consequences has contributed j greatly to a recognition and understanding of the dynamics | i of female underachievement. ! i Other research, using other paradigms, has further j f iclarified the dynamics of female underachievement. Gjesme 32 (1973) , for example, found that his female subjects con- ! sistently underestimated their probability of succeeding j ! on a task. Crandall (.1969) reports that, relative to their! i own past academic performance, college females become in- j creasingly pessimistic about success as they progress in j | their college careers, while males become increasingly j I optimistic. This process leads to females who underesti- ! i i mate their true eventual achievement, and males who over- j l estimate theirs. ! i Similar distortions have been found in females’ attri-1 I butions to account for their successful achievements, j l i Dweck and Reppucci (.1973) report that subjects who attri- i buted their performance outcomes to factors outside of their personal control, such as luck, did more poorly than those who assumed personal responsibility for these out comes. They also found that females more frequently denied; i personal responsibility for their performances than males i i (.and thus did more poorly) . In a related finding, Feather ! (.1969) reported that regardless of their original expecta- 1 tions of success, females were more likely than males to i explain both success and failure as due to external vari ables such as luck, rather than to internal variables such as personal ability and competence. Other investigators (e.g., Deaux & Enswiller, 1973) have confirmed that females i jare more likely than males to attribute their successes to ; i 1 33 chance rather than to personal ability. When young females define achievement as feminine, however, they show substantially higher performance levels than when they define it as masculine. Stein (19 71) j studied the influence of masculine, feminine, and neutral I jtask labels on children's achievement behavior. His data | revealed that.girls achieved as highly as boys when the | i j tasks were labeled as feminine or neutral, but signifi- ! cantly more poorly when they were labeled as masculine. This suggests that achievement in "masculine" areas is j aversive to girls. Stein's (.1971) data also showed that a | measure of masculine-feminine role preference predicted ! the performance scores of girls, but was unrelated to the i performance of boys. Males are known to score consistently higher than i females on achievement motivation and dominance (Fitzgeraldj i i & Pasewark, 1971), and high-achieving females tend to be ] nontraditional in their sex role expectations. Berens i ! (1973) and Bern and Bern (19 73) report that achievement j I motivation m females is a result of parental training, j i with females who are high in achievement motivation j typically having parents who taught nontraditional sex 1 | roles to their daughters. Frankel (1964) supports this relationship. He found that achievement behavior in women was significantly related to the holding of nontraditional ' i ----------------------------*--------------------------------------; | attitudes toward femininity and appropriate sex role be- ! havior, as well as to positive self-concept. Achievement i ! I I 1 j behavior in females has also been associated with accep- ! tance of a masculine role identification. Ferguson and Maccoby (1966) report that fifth grade girls with high j spatial ability had low sex role acceptance/ and Crandall i j and Battle (1970) found that play with opposite sex toys i | was a significant antecedent to females' intellectual and j academic performance in school. Symonds, Multon, and i ! Badarocco (1973) have discussed the role of coping strategy ! I as a factor in female achievement. They suggest that i j cultural expectations impose on women a "dependent" solu- ! i ! , tion for handling anxiety; while men are expected to handle i achievement-related stresses by moving against or away from the obstacles, women are expected to move toward others to i cope. This anxiety coping strategy is thus often incompat ible with achievement, and rejection of the cultural demand for anxiety reduction in this way must accompany female achievement. j | In summary, the data of this section suggest that a j number of dynamics operate to inhibit female achievement. j I Females are taught to fear the social rejection which may ! accompany female achievement, and they distort the likeli- ! hood of achievement efforts resulting in success. When I success is obtained, they tend to attribute this outcome 35 to chance rather than to ability. It is only when females can define achievement as feminine, or reject traditional i sex role expectations and demands, or adopt a masculine role identity that females are able to overcome the sex i role stereotypes which inhibit their achievement. Sex Role Stereotypes and Female Personality Development j i [ Sex role stereotypes appear to have an important in- \ fluence on many aspects of female personality development. | Rejection of traditional sex roles has been associated [ with both beneficial and detrimental personality develop ment in females. Regarding the beneficial effects of such ! rejection of traditional sex role stereotypes, the positive' effects on females' achievement has previously been noted. | In addition, Connell and Johnson (19 70) report that females who adopt male role characteristics manifest more masculine ] personality traits and have fewer feelings of self-pre- i judice than females who adopt female role characteristics ' only. Similarly, Hjelle and Butterfield (1974) found that | I 1 women professing liberal pro-feminist attitudes were more j i self-actualizing than women endorsing traditional social role attitudes. Gordon and Hall (1974) report that incor- ! poration of masculine traits into a woman1s self-descrip- j tion is positively correlated with her estimation of her self-worth. Spence and Helmreich (1972b) make the inter esting observation that pro-masculine bias was particularly! i i 36 marked in women who were most strongly feminist in their ^ attitudes. These researchers caution that even "liberated"' women may often accept stereotyped notions about the supe- ■ I n o n t y of masculine characteristics. However, rejection of traditional sex roles may have j negative as well as positive consequences for some women. | Hollander (1972) found a negative relationship between j academic achievement and social self-esteem in females, ! i I but not in males. Amazingly, females with "A" averages in j high school had significantly lower self-esteem scores than1 females with "C" averages, while the opposite was true for I males. Hollander (.1972) interprets these findings as evi- | ! dence that self-esteem is directly related to acceptance j i of sex-appropriate behaviors, and that rejection of tradi- I tional sex roles is at the cost of self-esteem. While rejection of traditional sex role stereotypes has thus been found to have negative consequences for some j females, acceptance of these traditional stereotypes has I also been shown to carry negative consequences (e.g., Slater, 1961). Numerous studies indicate that, in general, females have lower self-esteem than males (McKee & Sherriffs, 1957, 1959; Rosenkrantz et al., 1968; Sherriffs & Jarrett, 1953). Both males and females perceive males as being more confident, and setting higher performance standards and goal levels. High ego strength is inhibited ' 37 by acceptance of traditional female stereotypes (Gump, 1972). Gump (1972) argues that purposiveness, resourceful ness, and self-direction are inconsistent with the accep tance of a traditional female role, since within this role jwomen achieve personal fulfillment only by fostering ful- i fillment in others. In an investigation of this hypothesis, I Gump (19 72) found an inverse relationship between ego ! i I strength and acceptance of the female sex role, and be- j tween both purposiveness and resourcefulness and rejection | of traditional sex role self-stereotypes. j In sum, these data offer substantial evidence that j sex role stereotypes have pervasive effects on female per- I sonality development. However, an understanding of the * full range of these effects, and the variables which inter act to produce positive rather than negative development, is presently lacking. e j Sex Role Stereotypes and Women's Perceptions of Work j i Many of society's strongest sex-linked stereotypes are occupational stereotypes (i.e., those associated with i work roles): Men are the stereotypic workers, the bread winners, while women are the stereotypic housewives and 1 mothers, who are incompetent outside of the home. Such j pervasive stereotypes can be expected to influence women's perceptions of work outside the home, and, through these perceptions, how likely women are to work, what kinds of | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I work they choose, and how they view themselves if they do i or do not work. j j Keniston and Keniston (1964) report that women per- ; ceive work negatively, and that these negative perceptions | arise out of the view that work is masculine and unfeminineJ They further conclude that the perception of work as ex- ! i clusively masculine is transmitted to daughters by their j mothers, thereby causing women to cooperate in their own oppression. The role of maternal attitudes in the develop-; ment of women’s attitudes toward work has been examined by Clarkson, Vogel, Broverman, Broverman, and Rosenkrantz (19 70). These investigators found that female college students with non-working mothers showed a greater tendency to stereotype men and women, and to differentiate between sex roles -- especially in regards to competence — than similar students whose mothers worked. The daughters of non-working mothers in this study identified competence as a masculine trait which was incompatible with the female i role. Vogel, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosen- | i krantz (19 70) also reported that the children of working mothers are less likely to perceive differences between meni and women than are the children of non-working mothers. ( Thus, these studies suggest that the social stereotype of ! the non-working woman contributes to many women's percep- | tion of work as an exclusively masculine activity, which | 39 is negatively valued in women. They also suggest that i maternal attitudes and work behavior are important in the development of women's perceptions of work and their atti- tudes toward it. j j Research indicates that there is a rather striking i consistency between women's work behavior and their accep- l • I ! j tance or rejection of stereotypic attitudes regarding ! i | ! women and work. Thus, non-working mothers - — i.e., those j ! i whose behavior conforms most closely to the stereotypic 1 i pattern -- are the most likely to devalue the competence i i of women (Baruch, 19 72). Similarly, women who work in i I sex-atypical ("masculine") occupations — i.e., those | ! whose behavior shows the greatest rejection of traditional j I work stereotypes -- are more committed to their careers j i than women who work in stereotypically feminine occupations (Tangri, 1972), and they value stereotypically feminine i traits less highly than women who work in traditional ! i female occupations (Campbell, 1971). Conversely, women j whose attitudes toward work are atypical in that they feel ; I high personal competence are more likely to work, and have ! i fewer children — i.e., those whose behavior is also j atypical -- than women with low personal feelings of com- jpetence (Broverman et al., 1972). Taken as a whole, these i studies suggest that attitudes and behavior toward women and work are generally consistent: Women who work, and I particularly those who work in nontraditional occupations, ! have more positive attitudes toward work and have attitudes I i less prejudicial toward women who work than non-working j i women. | Summary and Conclusions * This review indicates that society values females and ! feminine characteristics less highly than males and mascu- j line characteristics, and that females respond to the pre- j i valent negative evaluation of femininity by devaluing themselves. In the area of achievement, the stereotype of women as less competent than men inhibits female achieve- j ment. Several dynamics were implicated in producing this I I effect: Females are often taught to fear the social re- ! jection which may accompany their achievement, and they tend to underestimate the likelihood of their achievement efforts actually producing success; when they do achieve success, they are likely to attribute the outcome to chance \ i or luck rather than to their own ability and effort. Women; ! who do achieve often do so only after rejecting the stereo-j typic view of women and achievement. The review also foundj that sex role stereotypes have pervasive effects, both j i positive and negative, on female personality development. In the area of perceptions of work, evidence was reported which indicated that many women perceive work as unfeminine, t and which implicated maternal attitudes and work behavior i as important variables in the development of women's per ceptions of work. Working women, and particularly those i : who work in nontraditional occupations, were more positive toward work, and less biased against women, than non-work ing women. Several conclusions are suggested by this review. First, it seems inescapable to conclude that traditional sex role stereotypes exert a pervasive and generally i : negative and inhibitory effect on women. Second, chal- ! lenges to and efforts to eliminate these stereotypes have t i | had at best an only limited impact, and many of these | i I stereotypes continue to exert strong influence on contemp- , orary women. And third, greater awareness of the con- 1 . . ! straining influence of sex role stereotypes on the develop-; i ment and self-expression of women must be promulgated, i | particularly in such areas of stereotypic male dominance i I as achievement and work. 42 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY i I The methodology used in this investigation was based j upon that of Feather and Simon (19 75). However, their | I basic methodology was adapted to fit the slightly altered experimental context, and it was extended to include j several additional dependent measures and to assess the j I # i attitudes of the subjects toward women. | Re s e arch Des i gn ! This investigation employed an experimental design, specifically a three-way analysis of variance design with repeated measures over the third factor (Winer, 1962, ' pp. 337-349). The three manipulated independent variables 1 | were sex, professional status, and decision outcome. Each | of the independent variables had two levels: Male versus I I female sex, physician versus nurse professional status, and | I success versus failure decision outcome. Subjects were j l randomly assigned to one of the four experimental condi- , tions. Each condition required subjects to read and rate two verbal cues, one of which described a clinical profes- sional who made a clinical decision which succeeded, and one of which described a clinical professional who made a clinical decision which failed. The sex and professional i status of the clinical professional was held constant with- i in each experimental condition., but varied across condi- j I _ ! tions. Subjects in all four experimental conditions were | tested simultaneously during the same testing session t>Y j the principal investigator. The order of the two cues and ! the order of outcomes were counterbalanced within each j condition. At the end of each booklet, subjects responded to a 25-item scale designed to measure their attitudes I toward women. j i ! Sample and Sample Selection j Subjects in this experiment were 10 3 volunteer student | nurses. Ninety-seven were female"*" and six were male. The | female nursing students had a mean of 2.88 years of college! i education before they entered the current nursing program, j Their mean age was 25.27, and their median age was 22.85, All of the subjects came from the same nursing program. j l They were all first year students enrolled in an A.A. degree i nursing program at a Southern California community college. ! i ^Although there were 9 7 eligible 'female subjects, one failed to fill out the ATWS, one did not fill out six of the consequence measures, and two did not indicate their ages. These missing data were deleted from the relevant analyses. 44 Successful completion of this program leads to eligibility to sit for the state examination leading to state licensingj as a registered nurse. Male nursing students were allowed J to participate in the study in order to avoid the prematurej disclosure of the true purposes of the experiment. How- i lever, the experimenter separated male students' data from ; ! that of female students, and data from male students were 1 i not analyzed. Materials ----------- t Four forms of the experimental materials were con structed in booklet form. Eight final versions of the booklet resulted since the booklets were counterbalanced I j such that success and failure conditions occurred with j equal frequency in the first and second position within thei booklets. All booklets contained the identically same in troduction to the experiment. Each form of the booklet i described two verbal cue situations, one in which the j clinical professional succeeded in making the correct deci-! I sion, and one in which the clinical professional failed. All forms of the booklet contained the same verbal cues, i except that the sex, professional status, and decision out-; come of the stimulus professional were varied in accordance ! . I iwith the requirements of the experimental design. The de pendent measures contained in the booklets were identical across all conditions, and these were followed by a scale designed to measure attitudes toward women. Procedures for Assigning Subjects to Conditions ! , j Subjects were asked to volunteer to participate in a j study which was evaluating reactions to clinical profes- I ! . ! |sionals in a hospital setting. They were told that they |would read and rate several clinical professionals who 1 i |would be described making a successful or unsuccessful de- i ( icision. The eight versions of the booklet were randomly - distributed to those who volunteered C100 percent of those | asked to volunteer). The booklets were varied across con- j ditions only in that the clinical professional was de- ' ■ jscribed as a male physician, a female physician, a male j i nurse, or a female nurse. ! Procedure I Subjects were tested in one group. Testing began when| subjects were seated, then given one of the eight booklets ; i of stimulus materials and dependent measures. Booklets | i were randomly distributed to subjects, with all eight ver- ' sions of the booklet distributed during the testing session.; A general introduction to the experiment was provided ! i in which subjects were told only that the study was con- i cerned with their attitudes toward clinical professionals j jWho had succeeded or failed in making the correct clinical decision. This introduction was adapted from Feather and Simon (1975), and read as follows: You are going to see several descriptions ; i of a clinical professional who makes a clinical j decision, and subsequently finds out whether this decision was the correct or incorrect one. Your task is to answer some questions about the f clinical professional who made the decision and ; ; ! about why the decision turned out the way it did. I ■ I We are concerned with the general problem of how : people react to various kinds of clinical success and failure. Consequently, each of the statements i describes a situation in which a clinical profes- j i i sional has succeeded or failed in making the J correct decision. Please note that the statements are brief i and supply only a limited amount of information. I In answering these questions, therefore, you , will have to use quite a lot of imagination in thinking about the clinical professional who succeeded or failed. Spend a few seconds trying to form in your mind an idea of what is involved in each situation. ! i There is no need to write your name at the I i top of the page. Answers are anonymous. Work j rapidly, and rely on your first impressions. There are no right or wrong answers, so feel free to give whatever answers you think are most ________________________________________________________________ 47 appropriate. Treat each new situation quite separately. Do not be influenced by your answers to questions about previous situations. As already mentioned, each statement con cerns a person who has made a particular clinical decision and subsequently finds out w h e t h e r that decision was correct or incorrect. The questions about each statement are of three types. One type asks you to describe the person who has succeeded or failed to reach the correct decision, a second type asks you to think about the possible reasons or causes that might have contributed to the clinical professional's success or failure, and the third type asks you to consider some of the possible consequences or effects of that success or failure for the clinical professional. After you have completed these questions for all of the statements, you will be asked to answer some additional questions about some of your attitudes. Remember to use your imagination when you read each short statement. Then go on to answer the questions. Read the instructions carefully and make sure you answer all questions. Do not leave any blank. Please work quickly giving your first impression. 48 This introduction thus was written such that it did not indicate the relevance of the sex or professional status j variables. 1 Subjects then read the first cue and rated the clini- ! cal professional on a set of twenty-five 7-point bipolar ! i adjective semantic differential scales on the basis of "what you think the person might be like"; these scales i i had been constructed for and used in previous research ! i (Feather & Simon, 1975? Piacente et al., 1974). Standard j i semantic differential instructions (Osgood, Suci, & ; i Tannenbaum, 1957) were given for the first verbal cue, but were not repeated for the second. A description of the j semantic differential scales and their reliability and validity is contained in Appendix B. Next, subjects rated the possible reasons or causes for the clinical decision's outcome, using five 8-point scales. Each of the scales followed a heading which listed the possible reason or cause to be rated; these headings, ! i the first four of which were based on the causal dimensions j I of Heider (.195 8) , were: j A. The presence (or lack) of natural ability? B. The presence (or lack) of effort and hard work; C. Good (or bad) luck; ! D. The ease (or difficulty) of the assessment? and, I E. The presence (or lack) of experience. 1 The fifth scale, dealing with experience, was included with| ! the others because of its potential importance as a causal i factor in determining clinical outcomes. All scales were i labeled "Not important at all" at one extreme, and "Very important" at the other extreme, and the data derived from j these scales were keyed in the direction of increasing im- i i portance as a causal factor. A description of the relia- | I I bility and validity of the causal factor scales, excluding the fifth scale, is contained in Appendix B. Third, subjects rated the likelihood of various conse quences following the success or failure experienced by i j the stimulus professional, using eleven 5-point scales. I I The scales were anchored as: Very Likely, An Even Chance, | Unlikely, and Very Unlikely. The scales were adapted from Feather and Simon (19 75) , and represent items from the major areas described by Horner (19 70) in her analysis of projective "fear of success" stories. The scales included j items in the following consequence areas: j I A. Social rejection; j B. Concern about normality; j i C. Denial of the situation; D. Affect; and, E. Instrumental activity. I I I A description of the items and their reliability and valid- I I |ity is contained in Appendix B. 50 When both verbal cues had been rated on the above measures, subjects completed the short version of the | Attitudes Toward Women Scale (.Spence & Helmreich, 19 72a; ; I Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 19 7 3). The short-ATWS is a 25-item inventory in which subjects rate their agreement- i i disagreement with statements which express attitudes toward i | the role of women in society. A 4-point scale was used, j ‘anchored at "Agree strongly," "Agree mildly," "Disagree j mildly," and "Disagree strongly." A description of the ' construction of this inventory and its reliability and validity is contained in Appendix B. The two verbal cues were selected to describe clinical decisions in which success or failure was consistent with, j or inconsistent with, accepted sex and occupational role ; stereotypes. As previously described, the verbal cues and the order of the decision outcome (success versus failure) were counterbalanced within each experimental condition to : control for order effects. The verbal cues read as ! follows; i At a medical conference '(.Ms/ Susan Hudson/ Mr. Steven Hudson/Dr. Susan Hudson/Dr. Steven i ! Hudson), a (registered nurse/registered nurse/ j i physician/physician), finds (herself/himself) in disagreement with everyone else present when (she/he) diagnoses the confusing symptoms of a 51 patient as due to an unusual and rarely en countered disease. However, despite the dis agreement (she/he) continues to believe (her/ his) assessment, and repeats it a second time aloud to the group. Subsequent testing of the patient shows that (her/his) assessment is definitely (correct/incorrect). The confusing symptoms are found to be (de fini tely/definitely not) caused by the rarely encountered disease. During staff rounds (Ms. Ellen Miller, Mr. Edward Miller/Dr. Ellen Miller/ Dr. Edward Miller), a (registered nurse/registered nurse/ physician/physician), finds (herself/himself) in disagreement with everyone else present when (she/he) states that an increase in a patient's symptoms is a negative side effect of the patient's new medication. However, despite the disagreement (she/he) continues to believe in (her/his) assessment, and repeats it a second time aloud to the group. Subsequent testing of the patient shows that (her/his) assessment is (definitely/definitely not) correct: The new medication is found to be (definitely/ definitely not) the cause of the increase in symptoms. When all data had been collected, subjects were I throughly debriefed concerning the hypotheses and pro cedures of the study, and were informed that the results I i of the study would be made available to them through their ; nursing department. All testing was conducted by the principal investigator during one testing session. I I Dependent Measures j After reading each verbal cue, subjects rated the per-, i sonality of the clinical professional, the causal factors ; which led up to the outcome experienced by the clinical professional, and the anticipated consequences which would j be experienced by the clinical professional. After both j I l cues had been rated, subjects rated their agreement or dis- j agreement with statements which expressed attitudes toward : the role of women in society. A more extensive discussion of the dependent measures can be found in Appendix B. i f I Delimitations i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I For purposes of interpretation, the results of this j study were delimited to: j i Cl) First year female student nurses enrolled I i | in a community college nursing program; j i (2) One nursing school program; (3) Nursing students enrolled in an associate degree program which leads to eligibility I to apply for examination and state licens- I ! ing as a registered nurse. It does not I 1 ! necessarily apply to nursing students I i i enrolled in hospital nursing programs, ! B.S. degree nursing programs, or gradu- | i I ate degree nursing programs; and | (4) Female student nurses who volunteered i to participate in the study. Data Analysis Repeated measure analyses of variance were the major data analytic procedure used in this experiment. Where statistically significant interaction effects were found, ' simple effects tests were employed to identify the nature of the interaction (Winer, 1962, p. 340). Where slightly | altered wording was used under success versus failure, j supplementary factorial analyses of variance were performed , on the success and failure data separately. All measures i i were analyzed individually, except for those semantic I ! differential items which have been found in prior investi- ! i gations (Osgood et al., 1957; Feather & Simon, 1975) to - 1 » constitute factors; in those instances, factor scores were computed and analyzed. Finally, correlations between ATWS i scores and ratings of stimulus professionals were computed, i and between ATWS scores and subjects' age. All analyses | t were performed by the DATA-TEXT package of computer statis tical programs (Armor & Counch, 1972) on the IBM 370 com puter of the University of Southern California's University Computing Center. 1 I I 1 CHAPTER IV j | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION i , i i The presentation of results will be made according to , i t j !the categories of dependent measures. First, results from \ i i I . 1 the semantic differential measures of personality percep- i itions will be presented, followed by results from the ! i ! causal factor and anticipated consequences measures. With-j in each category of dependent measures, significant re- | i suits (p - .05) will be presented prior to and separately from trend (.05 p f; .15) results. Where applicable, two- i way factorial analyses of variance, separately for success i and failure data, will follow the overall three-way re- j peated measured analysis of variance. Discussion of the I j results will conclude this chapter. I i Semantic Differential Measures of Personality Perceptions Semantic Differential Factors: Significant Results. Factor scores to correspond with those of Feather and j |Simon (1975) were computed by summing the ratings on the i jfour evaluation adjectives (Nos. 1, 5, 10, and 12), and the four activity adjectives (Nos. 4, 7, 15, and 20), the : 56 four potency adjectives (Nos. 2, 6, 8, and 18), and the . i two rule-following adjectives (Nos. 11 and 19). Adjective J 13 composed the single-item masculinity-femininity factor, j These resulting factors were subjected to a three-way (Sex by Status by Outcome) ANOVA. A Summary of the significant ■ effects revealed by these ANOVAs is presented in Table 1. The means for the factors are presented in Table 2. As can, i i be seen in Table 1, there were significant Outcome main effects on the evaluation, rule-following, and masculinity- i femininity factors, and a significant Sex main effect on the masculinity-femininity factor. Examination of the j i direction of the relevant means (Table 2) indicates that, I as expected, clinical professionals who succeeded were | i evaluated more positively and were perceived as more rule- following than clinical professionals who failed. The re- suits also indicated, however, that clinical professionals j who succeeded were rated as more feminine than clinical | professionals who failed. This somewhat confusing finding ! i is clarified by examination of the value of the means rela tive to the scale itself: Clinical professionals who succeeded were rated near the mid-point (4) of the scale ( X = 3.54) but still on the "masculine" end; clinical pro fessionals who failed were rated even more toward the i "masculine" end (X = 3.23). Thus, clinical professionals overall were rated as slightly masculine, with successful 57 Table 1 Significant Results for Three-Way AN O VAs Variable Evaluation Rule Following Femi ni ne-masculi ne Feminine-masculine tense-relaxed tense-relaxed luck-unlucky active-passive busy-lazy wise-foolish wise-fooli sh * p ^ .05 ** p 2 .01 *** p a .001 Semantic Different!* Source Outcome*** Outcome*** Sex*** Outcome* Semantic D ifferential Outcome*** Sex* Outcome*** Outcome* Outcome*** Outcome*** Sex X Outcome* il Factors Direction of Differences Success > Failure Success;* Failure Females > Males Success^ Failure Adjectives F ailures Success Males,? Females Success> Failure Success> Failure Success t Failure Success> Failure Males Females Females who who who Succeed? Succeeds Fail 5* Males who F a i l N.B. The higher the score, the more the character scored in the direction of the fir s t adjective. Variable lo g ic a l-in tu itiv e restless-quiet honest-dishonest fast-slow fast-slow fast-slow clean-dirty competent-i ncompetent deliberate-impulsi ve professional-novice successful-unsuccessful Table 1 (Cont'd.) Source Outcome*** Outcome** Outcome*** Outcome*** Sex X Outcome* Status X Outcome* Outcome** Outcome*** Outcome*** Outcome*** Outcome*** Direction of Differences Success> Failure Failure > Success Success* Failure Success* Failure Males who Females who Females who Succeed > Succeed * Fail J? Nurse Physician who who Succeed > Succeed Success* Failure Success > Failure Success> Failure Success * Failure Success* Failure Physici who Fail : * p (z .05 ** p $-.01 *** p & .001 Males who Fail an Nurse who > Fail N.B. The higher the score, the more the character scored in the direction of the fir s t adjective. Table 1 (Cont'd.) Variable Source Causal Measures Direction of Differences A b ility Outcome*** Presence of A b ility Causes Success ^ Lack of A b ility Causes Failure Effort Outcome*** Presence of Effort Causes Success 7 Lack of Effort Causes Failure Effort Sex** Males who Fail 3 7- Females who Fail Assessment Outcome*** Ease of Assessment Causes Success *7 D iffic u lty of Assessment Causes Failure Experience Outcome*** Presence of Experience Causes Success yT Lack of Experience Causes Failure * p £r .05 ** p ^ .01 *** p± .001 Variable Table 1 Source 1.) Continues to make accurate (inaccurate) assessments 1.) Continues to make accurate (inaccurate) assements 2.) Studies less hard (harder) in future 3.) Wonders i f f it s in with Others at work 4.) Praised (criticize d ) by supervi sor 5.) Quits job to marry 5.) Quits job to marry * .05 ** p*r ,01 *** p ± .001 Consequence Outcome*** Sex** Outcome*** Outcome*** Outcome*** Outcome** Sex** c r * •d.) Direction of Differences Measures Success 7 Failure Males7 Females Failure leads Success leads to studying to studying harder 7 less hard Failure 7 Success Praise after Criticism after Success 7 Failure Failure > Success Females 7 Males Variable 5.) Quits job to marry Table 1 (Cont’cL) Source Sex X Status X Outcome* Outcome*** Status*** Sex* Outcome*** Status X Outcome** * p i . 05 ** p £ .01 *** pg.OOl 6.) Later becomes famous 6.) Later becomes famous 6.) Later becomes famous 7.) Wonder i f i t is all worthwhile 7.) Wonder i f i t is a ll worthwhile Direction of Differences O n Success: Female physicians Female Nurses and Male Nurses;* Male physicians but O n Failure: Female Nurses^ Female Physicians and Male physicians> Male Nurses Success^ Failure Physicians^ Nurses Males> Females F a ilure s Success Nurse Physician Physician Nurse F a ilT Fail ^ Succeed y* Succeed Variable 8.) Worries about rejection (jealousy) from friend 9.) Throws wild party 10.) Feels has sacrificed too much 11.) Worries others may accuse of studying too hard (not hard enough) * p f .05 ** p * .01 *** .001 Table 1 (Cont'd.) Source Sex X Outcome* Sex** Outcome*** Outcome*** Direction of Differences Males Females Females Males who who who who Fail > Succeed y Fail > Succeed Males^ Females Failure y Success Failure y Success Table 2 M ean Semantic D ifferential Ratings fo r Factors in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Professional Status Sex of Success Failure Rating Character Physician Nurse physician Nurse Evaluation Male 20.44 20.18 16.44 17.00 Female 20,12 20,39 17,92 17,39 Potency Male 21.04 20.91 21,63 20.73 Female 20.24 20,13 20,40 19,78 A c tivity Male 20.74 21.05 20.19 20.14 Female 20,16 19,57 20,40 19,48 Rule Male 8.48 9,23 7.44 8.09 Following Female 8,92 9,44 8,56 8,57 Feminine- Male 2.26 2.68 2,33 2,18 Masculine Female 4,60 4,61 4,28 4,13 Note; The higher the score, the more the character was seen as positive, powerful, active, a rule follower, and feminine in order of the dimensions listed. C \ ► t s . ones more neutral than unsuccessful ones. The remaining significant result was also most predictable, with males ; I being perceived as more masculine than females. I In striking contrast to the data reported by Feather I and Simon (19 75), in which approximately 70 percent of the j j three-way interactions on their measures reached signifi- ■ i | | cance (and most at the .0 01 level), none of the interaction I | terms in the present analyses reached or even approached significance (largest F = .56, p "p- .50) , None of the j factors showed the predicted direction of means with re- ! spect to female nurses or male physicians. Thus, the , I hypothesized three-way interactions were not found, and thej 1 associated hypotheses regarding differential perception of j the personalities of males and females, and of physicians I and nurses, under success versus failure outcomes were not i ' ' " ' i 1 j supported. 2 Semantic Differential Factors: Trend Results. Ex~ amination of trend findings, while of obviously limited ! value, suggests that the patterns of means on several ] factors was consistent with sex-role stereotyping percep- i ! tions. There were trends for females to be perceived as ! i less potent than males, and more rule-following. It seems ] noteworthy that there were no significant nor trend differ’ - j i j ! I 2 A summary of all trend findings is presented in ' Appendix C, Table 8. ences opposed to the direction predicted by the sex role stereotyping hypotheses, with the possible exception of the previously-discussed Outcome main effect on the masculin- ■ ity-femininity factor. ! i Individual Semantic Differential Adjectives: Signifi- I cant Results. The semantic differential adjectives which i | were not entered into factors, plus the individual adjec- j I i tives entered into the activity factors, were subjected to three-way ANOVAs which paralleled those of the factors. The items composing the activity factor were analyzed i separately to correspond to the analyses performed by Feather and Simon (1975). A summary of the significant i effects revealed by these analyses is presented in Table 1 j (page 58), and the means for these adjectives are presented, in Table 3. These findings show that, as was true for the semantic differential factors, the majority of significant effects were Outcome main effects. Inspection of the means revealed that clinical professionals who succeeded ! i i were perceived as faster, luckier, busier, wiser, more j logical, more honest, more competent, more deliberate, more| I professional, and more successful, as well as cleaner and more active, than clinical professionals who failed. ; i Clinical professionals who failed were perceived as more tense and more restless than those who succeeded. Other significant effects to emerge were a Sex main Table 3 M ean Semantic D ifferential Ratings in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Professional Status Sex of Success Failure Rating Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 1.) pleasant- Male 4.56 4.86 3.52 4.09 unpleasant Female 4.56. 4.74 4.08 4.00 2.) Strong-weak Male 6.22 6.55 5.85 5.64 Female 6.16 6.13 5.88 5.65 3.) lucky-unlucky Male 4.59 4.68 3.67 3.59 Female 4.60 4.74 3.84 3.48 4.) tense-relaxed Male 4.89 4.41 5.44 5.23 Female 4.44 3.70 4.88 4.78 5.) sweet-sour Male 4.19 4.14 3.56 3.64 Female 4.24 4.48 3.96 3.83 6.) hard-soft Male 4.96 4.64 5.33 5.05 Fem a 1 e 5.04 4.48 4.84 4.52 7.) active- Male 6.22 6.41 6.08 5.82 passive Female 6.24 6.22 6.00 6.04 8.) tough-tender Male 5.04 4.82 5.63 5.23 Female 4.68 4.70 5.00 5.04 9.) busy-lazy Male 6.07 6.05 5.22 5.27 Female 6.12 5.96 5.56 5.35 Note: The higher the score, the more the character was scored in the direction of the fir s t adjective listed. Table 3 (Cont'd.) Sex of Success Failure Rating Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 10.) good-bad Male 5.67 5.05 4.33 4.46 Female 5.04 5.13 4.60 4.39 11.) polite- Male 4.33 4.73 3.56 4.09 impolite Female 4.80 4.91 4.48 4.44 12.) valuable- Male 6.04 6.14 5.04 4,82 worthless Female 6.28 6.04 5.28 5.17 13.) feminine- Male 2.26 2.68 2.33 2.18 masculine Female 4.60 4.61 4.28 4.13 14.) wise-foolish Male 6.15 6.09 4.48 4.27 Female 5.80 5.70 4.76 4,35 15.) restless- Male 4.19 4.68 4.89 4,73 quiet Female 4.48 4.30 4,92 4.70 16.) logical- Male 5.15 4.73 3.68 3.86 in tu itiv e Female 5.64 5.44 4.08 3.78 17.) honest- Male 5.74 5.86 4,96 5.05 dishonest Female 6.04 5.65 5.24 5.17 18.) rugged- Male 4.82 4.91 4.82 4.82 delicate Female 4.36 4.83 4,68 4.57 19.) obedient- Male 4.15 4.50 3.89 4.00 disobedient Female 4.12 4.52 4.08 4.13 Note: The higher the score, the more the character was scored in the c\ direction of the fir s t adjective listed. Table 3 (Cont'd.) Sex of Success Failure Rating Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 20.) fast-slow Male 5.44 5.55 4.48 4.41 Female 5.00 5.35 5.04 4.35 21.) clean-dirty Male 4.89 5.00 4.56 4.73 Female 4.96 5.35 4.80 5.09 22.) competent- Male 6.26 6.18 4.70 4.59 incompetent Female 6.32 6.09 5.16 4.70 23.) deliberate- Male 4.81 4.77 3.44 3.14 impulsive Female 4.76 5.39 3.60 3.13 24.) professional- Male 6.19 6.06 4.67 4.59 novice Female 6.32 6.22 5.24 4.70 25.) successful- Male 6.22 6.23 4.26 4.18 unsuccessful Female 6.16 6.17 4.56 4.17 Note: The higher the score, the more the character was scored in the direction of the f ir s t adjective listed. CTi effect, two Sex by Outcome interactions, and a Status by i Outcome interaction. The Sex main effect (Adjective 4) | indicates that males were perceived as more tense than | i - females. The pattern of means for the first Sex by Outcomej interaction (Adjective 14) suggests that successful males j , were favored the most (rated as wisest) , followed by sue- j t cessful, then unsuccessful, females, and with unsuccessful j ! I males disfavored the most (rated the most foolish). The l pattern of means for the second Sex by Outcome interaction (Adjective 20) suggests the same pattern as the first, i 1 ! . I with successful males favored the most (rated as fastest), | I followed by successful, then unsuccessful females, and | l with unsuccessful males favored the least (rated as slow- | est). This interaction appears to reflect a pattern in i which, under success, males were rated as faster than females (but not significantly so), while under failure, j females were rated as faster than males (but, again, not significantly so). The final significant interaction, a Status by Outcome (Adjective 20), showed a pattern in which successful nurses were favored the most (rated as fastest), followed by successful, then unsuccessful i physicians, and with unsuccessful nurses disfavored the j I most (rated as slowest). Simple effects tests showed that j successful physicians did not differ significantly from unsuccessful ones, but that successful nurses were rated 70 significantly more favorably than unsuccessful ones (F = 14.20, df = 1,93). Individual Semantic Differential Adjectives: Trend j Results. Trend results reveal a somewhat mixed picture ! i i with respect to evidence regarding sex role and occupa- 1 I tional role stereotypic perceptions on the individual semantic differential adjectives. There were trends (Table 8) toward a Status main effect on Adjective 4, a Sex main effect on Adjective 16, a Status by Outcome inter-i action on Adjective 23, and a Sex by Status by Outcome interaction on Adjective 20. The Status trend was in the j i I direction of physicians being more tense than nurses, I i which is in the correct direction of an occupational role stereotype. The Sex trend, on the other hand, was in the > direction of females being perceived as more logical than males, which is in the opposite direction to the sex role | stereotype. The Status by Outcome interaction trend showed| a pattern in which successful nurses were rated the most I favorably (i.e., the most deliberate), followed by success ful, then unsuccessful physicians, and with unsuccessful j j i nurses rated the least favorably (i.e., the most impul sive) . The pattern of significance of the simple effects ' tests mirrored the previously-discussed Outcome main effectJ The interaction appears to reflect a pattern in which, under success, nurses are rated as more deliberate than physicians (but not significantly so), while under failure, physicians are rated as more deliberate than nurses (but, ! I again, not significantly so). Thus, here as well as in the} I earlier findings it seems that the outcome of a decision j is a more telling factor in forming impressions of the I 1 stereotypically weak (nurses and females) than the stereo- I I j typically strong (physicians and males). The final trend, j the three-way interaction, showed a complex pattern in which, under success, male nurses were rated the most i favorably (i.e., the fastest) and female physicians were 1 i rated the least favorably (i.e., the slowest), while under I failure, female physicians were rated the most favorably and female nurses the least favorably. Simple effects j tests showed a pattern in which males who succeeded were generally rated more favorably than those who failed (five significant F's). j i Causal Attribution Measures 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i t Significant Results from the Three-way ANOVAs. Signi-; ficant results from the three-way ANOVAs on the causal at- ! i tribution measures are summarized in Table 1 (page 60), and the relevant means are presented in Table 4. These results indicate that the presence of ability, effort, good luck, and experience were all rated as significantly more impor- i ! tant in causing success than their absence was rated as j i » important in causing failure. Also, the difficulty of the 72 Table 4 M ean Rated Importance of Different Causal Factors Affecting Outcome in Relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Professional Status Sex of Success Failure Causal Factors Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 1. A b ility (or Male 7.37 7.41 4.89 5.14 lack of A b ility ) Female 7.36 7.09 4.20 4.70 2. E ffort (or Male 7.37 7.05 4.70 4.77 lack of Effort) Female 7.04 7.09 3.32 3.87 3. Good Luck (or Male 3.70 3.54 3.44 2.68 Bad Luck) Female 3.44 3.65 3.04 2.70 4. Ease of Assess Male 4.82 5.59 6.48 6.77 ment (or D if f i culty of Assess ment) Female 5.12 4.91 6.72 6.30 5. Experience (or Male 6.96 7.18 5.85 6.09 lack of Ex- npripnrpl Female 7.20 6.91 6.16 5.61 assessment was rated as more important in causing failure than the ease of the assessment was rated as. important in causing success. An additional Sex main effect indicated that effort was seen as a more important causal factor for the outcomes of males than females. These differences, | although expected, form only a part of the more extensive jpredictions specified in the original three-way interaction l . hypotheses. None of the obtained three-way interaction terms reached or approached statistical significance for any of the causal attribution measures Call F's< 1, p> .50). Thus, the hypotheses of differential perceptigns of males ! i and females, and of physicians and nurses, under success i I versus failure must be rejected for the causal attribution ! i measures as they were earlier for the semantic differentialj i measures. Trend Results from the Three-way ANOVAs. Examination ! of trend findings (Table 8) suggests that these differences,; although not achieving statistical significance, support | the original sex role stereotyping predictions, A Sex by | Outcome interaction trend suggests that the success of males was attributed more to the presence of effort than was the success of females, while the failure of males was attri buted more to a lack of effort than was the failure of females. Simple effects tests showed that males and females who succeeded did not differ significantly from one 74 another, but that males' failure was seen as more a result of lack of effort than was females' (F = 4.44, df = 1,93). ! 1 f A second trend was found toward a Sex by Status interactionj on Causal Factor 4. Simple effects tests indicated that the interaction reflects a pattern in which the ease/ difficulty of the assessment was more important for male i nurses than male physicians (but not significantly so), but: it was also more important for female physicians than fe male nurses (but, again, not significantly so). Significant Results from the Two-way ANOVAs. The consistent finding of Outcome main effects, showing that attributions for success differ from failure, plus the | ! slightly different wording of items under success and | I failure, indicates that results might be clarified by analyzing the success and failure data separately. The significant findings from the resulting two-way ANOVAs are j summarized in Table 5, and the relevant means are presented1 in Table 4. These analyses indicate that causal attribu- I , I tions differed more between perceptions of males and fe males under failure outcomes than under success outcomes. ; As can be seen from Table 5, there were no significant j i effects for the two-way ANOVAs under success outcomes. i Under failure outcomes, however, there was a Sex main effect which indicated that lack of effort was perceived as !a more important cause of male failure than of female 75 Table 5 Significant Results for Two-Way ANO VAs on Causal and Specified Consequence Measures9 Variable Causal Measures: None Consequences Measures: 8: Worries about jealousy from boyfriend/girlfriend Causal Measures: 2: Lack of e ffo rt Consequence Measures: 1: Continues to make in accurate assessments 4: Is critic ize d by supervisor 11: Worries that others may accuse of not studying hard enough a Source S U C C E S S O U T C O M E Sex* FAILURE O U T C O M E Sex** Sex* Sex* Sex X Status* Direction of Difference Femalesy Males Males 7 Females Males 7 Females Males 7 Females Male physicians^ Female nurses Male nurses7 Female physicians Consequence measures used in two-way ANO VAs analyses were measures 1, 2, 4, 8 and 11. <y\ *p *.0 5 **p £.01 failure. The absence of a significant difference on the i effort measure under success outcomes, added to this signi-I i ficant difference under failure outcomes, helps to clarify the previously-noted Sex by Outcome interaction found in | i jthe three-way analysis: The presence of effort was per- i ceived as equally important in causing the success of males; I and females, but the absence of effort was perceived as J i more important in causing the failure of males than femalesJ i | Trend Results from the Two-way ANOVAs. A single trend| finding emerged from the two-way analyses of the data, and it was a trend toward a Status main effect under the j failure outcome (Table 8). The result suggests that j i I physicians' failure was attributed more to bad luck than | was nurses' failure. i Anticipated Consequences Measures Significant Results from the Three-way ANOVAs. A sum- i mary of the significant effects found in the three-way ANOVAs on the anticipated consequences measures is pre- ! i sented in Table 1 (page 61). The means for these measures \ I are presented in Table 6. Table 1 shows that the most consistent results were Outcome main effects (appearing on j 9 of the 11 measures). The means for these items indicated that those who succeeded were seen, relative to those who l failed, as more likely to continue to make the same assess- t i ments in the future, more likely to receive feedback from : Table 6 M ean Likelihood of Different Possible Consequences of Outcome in relation to Sex of Character in Cue, Outcome, and Occupation Possible Sex of Success Failure Consequence Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 1. Continues to Male 4.07 4.05 2.96 2.96 make accurate (inaccurate) assessments Female 3.92 3.74 2.56 2.74 2. Works less hard Male 1.92 2.14 3.89 3.91 (harder) in future Female 2.00 1.96 3.80 3.44 3. Wonders i f " fits Male 2.27 2.27 3.12 2.91 in" with others at work Female 2.44 2.17 3.04 3.04 4. Praised (or Male 4.04 4.00 3.58 3.41 criticize d ) by supervisor Female 3.88 4.00 3.08 3.04 5. Quits job to get Male 1.65 1.86 2.00 1.96 married Female 2.24 2.04 2.24 2.61 6. Later becomes Male 3.62 3.23 3.19 2.77 famous Female 3.56 2.91 3.00 2.52 7. Wonders i f its Male 2.19 2.09 2.62 2.73 a ll worthwhile Female 2.40 2.09 2.32 2.96 8. Worries about Male 1.96 1.82 2.12 2.23 jealousy (re jection) from friend Female 2.32 2.13 1.96 2.22 Table 6 (Cont'd.) Possible Sex of Success Failure Consequence Character Physician Nurse Physician Nurse 9. Throws a wild Male 2.33 2.46 2.11 2.41 party Female 2.28 1.87 1.92 1.70 10. Feels has Male 1.89 1.73 2.48 2.32 sacrificed too much Female 1.84 1.96 2.20 2.44 11. Accused of Male 1.82 1.91 3.41 3.14 studying too Female 1.88 2.04 2.64 3.22 hard (not hard enough) their supervisors, more likely to become famous in their occupations, less likely to change their study patterns, less likely to wonder if they "fit in" with others at work, less likely to quit their jobs to get married, less likely to wonder if it is all worthwhile, less likely to worry |that they have sacrificed too much, and less likely to |worry about accusations from others. Clearly different i consequences — more positive ones — were anticipated in : response to success than failure. ; A number of Sex main effects were found as well. Malesj relative to females, were seen as more likely to continue ; I to make similar assessments in the future, more likely to I throw a wild party, less likely to quit their jobs to get | married, and more likely to become famous in their occupa tion. One Status main effect was significant. This find ing showed that physicians were seen as more 'likely to be- [ come famous in their occupation than nurses in theirs. Three interaction results achieved significance, a Status by Outcome interaction on Consequence 7, a Sex by Outcome interaction on Consequence 8, and a Sex by Status by Outcome interaction on Consequence 5. The Status, by Outcome finding showed a pattern in which, under failure, nurses wonder more than physicians if it is all worthwhile, but under success, nurses wonder less than physicians. Simple effects tests indicated that physicians who failed 80 were not rated significantly differently than physicians who succeeded; however, nurses who failed were rated as significantly more likely to wonder if it is all worthwhile than nurses who succeeded (F = 12.28, df = 1,92) . This ! j pattern once again suggests that the outcome of a clinical decision is more important in forming impressions of nurses. ' l ; than physicians. The Sex by Outcome effect showed a i classic interaction crossing pattern, such that under suc- I i cess, females were seen as more likely than males to worry j about a negative response from others, while under failure,! females were seen as less likely to worry than males. The i largest cell difference was between successful males and I females, with successful females worrying the most about J another’s jealousy and successful males worrying the least. I I i |The three-way interaction, the only such interaction in the i | ] study to achieve statistical significance, showed a complex' ! j pattern. Under success, females were seen as more likely , than males to quit their jobs to get married; under failure; i however, female nurses were seen as the most likely to quit \ their job and male nurses the least likely. Simple effects tests indicated that unsuccessful female nurses were seen as more likely to quit their job to marry than successful ! male nurses (F = 4.40, df = 1,92), or successful male j physicians (F = 7.58, df = 1,92), and tend to be seen as more likely to quit than unsuccessful male nurses (F = 3.40,| | idf = 1,92). i In summary, the significant results from the three-way: analyses of the anticipated consequences measures provide limited support for sex role and occupational role stereo- i I typic perceptions. Females were rated as more likely than males to experience such negative consequences as failure | to achieve fame in their occupation and worry about nega- | tive responses from others. Similarly, nurses were seen as less likely than physicians to achieve fame in their occupation. Trend Results from the Three-way ANOVAs. Trend find ings supplement the conclusions suggested by the signifi cant results above. Consequence 9, one of the two conse quence measures which failed to show a significant Outcome j main effect, showed a trend in this direction. There were also trends toward Sex main effects on two consequence i measures (Nos. 2 and 4), the first suggesting that males were seen as more likely to change their study patterns in response to an outcome than females, and the second sug gesting that males were seen as more likely to receive feedback from their supervisors than females. A trend toward a Sex by Outcome interaction on Consequence 11 showed a pattern in which unsuccessful males were seen as most likely to worry about the accusations of others, and i successful males the least likely. Simple effects tests showed that, while under success females were seen as worrying more than males and under failure males were seen as worrying more than females, the differences were not j i significant. A Sex by Status trend on this same measure ; showed a pattern in which male physicians were seen as most j likely to worry about the accusations of others and female I physicians were seen as the least likely to worry. Examin- i i ation of the cell means suggests that there was a greater I difference between the worrying of female physicians and ] I nurses than between the worrying of male physicians and j I nurses. A second Sex by Status trend, this one on Conse- | quence 9, showed that male nurses were seen as the most j likely to throw a wild party while female nurses were seen ! as the least likely. Simple effects tests indicated that j male and female physicians were seen as equally likely to !throw a wild party, but male nurses were seen as signifi cantly more likely to do so than female nurses CF - 4.50, t jdf = 1,93). I I , Two three-way interaction trends also were found. The I i first, on Consequence 7, suggests that there are differ- j ences between the patterns for success and failure; Under j i i |success, female physicians were seen as more likely to ! jworry about it all being worthwhile than male physicians, while male nurses were seen as more likely to worry than female nurses; under failure, the pattern reverses and male physicians and female nurses were seen as more likely to i worry than female physicians and male nurses, respectively. Simple effects tests showed that female nurses who fail were seen as more likely to worry than male or female nurses who succeeded (F = 4.69, df = 1,92; F = 4.73, df = 1,92) . The second three-way interaction, on Conse quence 11, was a trend similar to the first: Under suc cess, female physicians and female nurses were seen as morel likely to worry than were male physicians and male nurses, ' while under failure, male physicians and female nurses ^ i i worry more than male nurses and female physicians. The i majority of significant simple effects reflected the Out come main effect, but they also indicated that male j physicians who fail were seen as more likely to worry about accusations from others than female physicians who fail (F = 3.95, df - 1,93). However, these two groups did not differ under success, nor did male nurses who fail differ from female nurses who fail. In general, these trend findings suggest that more positive consequences were seen as likely to befall males than females, and physicians than nurses. The trends also suggest that more positive consequences were seen as likely ! to befall female physicians who fail than female nurses who i f ail. Significant Results from the Two-way ANOVAs. As pre viously noted for the causal factor measures, the preva 84 lence of Outcome main effects plus the slightly different ! wording between success and failure items on five (Nos. 1, : i 2, 4, 8, and 11) of the measures/ suggest the potential value of analyzing the data for these five measures separ- j ately for success and failure. The significant results i j from the resulting two-way (.Sex by Status) ANOVAs are sum- ! marized in Table 4. This table shows that three of the j four significant findings occurred under failure outcomes/ | t and that the most consistent findings were Sex main effects: i (.three of the four) , with an additional Sex by Status in- j teraction. | i Results from the success data show a Sex main effect ' which indicates that females who succeed were seen as more ! likely than males who succeed to worry about jealousy from their boyfriends/girlfriends. This finding, plus the ab sence of a similar finding under the failure outcome, ! clarifies the previously reported Sex by Outcome inter action found in the three-way analysis; Females were seen j as more likely to worry about a negative response from | others, compared to males, only under success outcomes. ItJ i should be noted that this pattern, with females anti.cipat- 1 i ing negative consequences to selectively follow females’ i success, is consistent with Horner's (.196 8) concept of the i |"female fear of success motive." t Results from the failure data (.Table 4) show two Sex J 85 j main effects. The first (Consequence 1) indicates that males, compared with females, were seen as more likely to ! i continue to make inaccurate assessments. The second (Con- j sequence 4) indicates that males were seen as more likely i j than females to be criticized by their supervisors. The ; first effect narrows somewhat the previously reported re- i ; suit from the three-way ANOVA: It would seem that males ; i were seen as more likely to persist in making similar | i assessments, relative to females, only under failure out- ! I j comes; under success outcomes, a trend only was found in j I I j this direction. The second effect failed to appear at all 1 I in the overall three-way analysis. ! The final significant result to be indicated by the j two-way analysis of the failure data was a Sex by Status interaction on Consequence 11. The pattern of means showed male physicians to have been seen as most likely to worry about others accusing them of not studying hard enough, followed by female, then male, nurses, and with female | ! physicians seen as the least likely to have this worry. i Simple effects tests showed that male nurses did not differ from female nurses, but that male physicians were seen as I 1 significantly more likely than female physicians to worry ; about the accusations of others (F = 6.26, df = 1,93). i |There was also a trend for female nurses to worry more than i female physicians (F = 3.54, df = 1,93). Trend Results from the Two-way ANOVAs. Examination of i trend findings (Table 8) for the two-way analyses further j supports the patterns already reported. Two of the three trends occurred under failure outcomes, and all of the ! i trends were in the direction of Sex main effects. The | single trend under success outcome, for males to persist in i , imaking accurate assessments more than females, has already been mentioned. The first trend under failure outcomes was! toward a Sex main effect on Consequence 2, such that males j were seen as more likely than females to study harder in ' i the future. This clarifies the trend, previously discussedJ I i toward a Sex main effect on the three-way analysis; The ! major component of the increased likelihood for males to \ jchange their study patterns, relative to females, comes t from the increased likelihood that males will study harder following failure than females; under success, both males and females were seen as roughly equal in their likelihood ; i of studying less hard. The final trend, toward a Sex main I i | effect on Consequence 11, suggests that males were seen as i more likely than females to worry that others may accuse i 1 them of not studying hard enough when they have failed. J In summary, the pattern of the trend findings, as well; I as of the significant results, indicates that sex was a [ more important variable than status in determining differ- i :ential perceptions of the various consequences. The data patterns also suggest that failure was a more discriminat ing outcome than success. j Relationships Between Attitudes Toward Women f ! Age, and the Major Dependent Measures Correlations were computed to test the relationships between ATWS scores, subjects' age, and the major dependenti i I i i I measures. The results of these analyses are summarized in ; i | Table 7, with separate correlations computed within each of ! the four Sex by Outcome combinations, Of the 84 correlations computed between ATWS scores [ and the major dependent measures, 6 achieved statistical I i significance. The greatest absolute value of any of these j significant correlations was .42, a value which accounts ; i for less than 18 percent of the variance in the data. By chance alone, approximately four correlations significant beyond the .05 level can be expected. Thus, it appears ! that ATWS scores bear no substantive relationship to ■ ratings made on the major dependent measures, and the few f significant correlations found will not be interpreted. Similarly, of the 84 correlations computed between j subjects' age and the major dependent measures, only one i I achieved statistical significance. This is fewer than 1 could be expected by chance alone. Thus, it appears that j subjects' age bears no substantive relationship to rating I made on the major dependent measures, and the single signi-I I I i 88 Table 7 Correlations Between Major Dependent Measures and Attitudes Toward W om en Scores and Age, Separately fo r Sex and Outcome Variable A TW S Age A c tiv ity Factor Success Male -.09 -.04 Fema1e .02 -.06 Failure Male .12 .16 Female .05 -.10 Evaluation Factor Success Male .09 .02 Female -.16 -.23 Failure Male .16 -.04 Female .03 -.07 Potency Factor Success Male -.32* -.06 Female .05 .03 Failure Male -.12 .03 Female .20 .05 Rule Following Factor Success Male .16 -.01 Female -.23 -.29 Failure Male .23 .05 Female .17 -.22 Femi n i n i ty-Mas cu 1 i n i ty Success Male .20 -.08 Female .20 -.05 Failure Male .11 -.12 Female -.36* .02 Cause 1 Success Male -.03 .10 Female -.11 .07 Failure Male -.26 -.10 Female -.01 .04 *p £ .05 **p £ .01 ***P £, .001 N.B. For complete content of causal and consequence measures, see Appendix A Table 7 (Cont'd.) Variable A TW S Age Cause 2 Success Male -.07 .13 Female -.17 .00 Failure Male -.07 -.01 f Female -.18 .12 Cause 3 jSuccess Male -.16 -.01 1 Female .02 -.03 i Failure Male -.23 -.16 ! Female -.14 -.37* 1 Cause 4 Success Male -.22 -.23 Female -.01 .03 Failure Male .20 .15 Female .12 .12 Cause 5 Success Male .01 .06 i Female .03 -.04 Failure Male .01 .28 Female .02 -.05 Consequence 1 Success Male -.15 .19 Female -.15 .15 Failure Male -.07 .20 Female -.03 -.12 Consequence 2 Success Male .01 .17 Female .06 -.07 Failure Male -.04 -.27 Female .03 .06 Consequence 3 Success Male -.28* -.26 Female .11 -.11 Failure Male .01 -.03 Female .03 .01 *p £: .05 **p<£ .01 * * * p < .001 IN.B. For complete content of causal and consequence measures, see Appendix A 90 Table 7 (Cont'd.) Variable Consequence 4 Success Male Female Failure Male Female Consequence 5 Success Male Female Failure Male Female Consequence 6 Success Male Female Failure Male Female Consequence 7 Success Male Female Failure Male Female Consequence 8 Success Male Female Failure Male Female Consequence 9 Success Male Female Failure Male Female A TW S Age .06 .21 -.01 -.04 -.28 -.02 .20 -.15 -.07 -.12 -.19 -.06 -.28 -.16 -.35* -.02 -.16 .00 .08 -.24 .28 -.00 .28 -.09 -.01 -.03 .10 .05 -.05 -.02 -.05 .11 -.05 .16 -.04 -.07 -.42** -.03 .11 .08 -.35* -.13 -.03 -.11 -.14 -.08 .00 -.09 *p - .05 **p « .01 * * * p <£ .001 N.B. For complete content of causal and consequence measures, see Appendix A. 91 Table 7 (C ont'd.) Vari able A TW S Age Consequence 10 Success Male -.16 -.14 Female .12 .13 Failure Male -.25 -.20 Female .06 .09 Consequence 11 Success Male -.09 .03 Female -.07 -.03 Failure Male -.15 -.04 Female .26 .15 *p .05 **p6 .01 ***p t: .001 N.B. For complete content of causal and consequence measures, see Appendix A. ficant correlation found will not be interpreted. A final correlation was computed between ATWS scores and subjects' age. This correlation, although small in magnitude (r = .24), was statistically significant. It indicates that older female nursing students were more | likely to hold positive attitudes toward women than younger i j female nursing students. However, any conclusions drawn | from this correlation must recognize that the relationship I accounted for less than 6 percent of the variance in the data. This finding is interesting in that it reverses the direction of age trends reported by Spence and Helmreich (19 72), who found that the mothers of female college j students were significantly less favorable in their atti- 1 tudes toward women than were their daughters. It may be that the narrower range of ages within the current sample, i the restriction of the present sample to nursing students, or the additional life experiences of the older nursing students, may mediate attitudinal patterns unlike those i found with mother-daughter pairs in a general undergraduate j I I sample. j i i Summary of Results j The hypotheses originally proposed were rejected. However, a more limited and selective kind of sex role and j occupational role stereotyping among female nursing j | 1 students was suggested. Patterns of significance between \ categories of dependent measures suggest that female j student nurses' perceptions of clinical professionals' | personalities differed less with respect to the independent! variables than did perceptions of causal factors and anti cipated consequences. The results suggested, further, that i | sex distinctions were more important than status distinc- i i tions in forming perceptions of clinical professionals, ! and that failure outcomes were more important than success I outcomes. Attitudes toward women did not bear a substan- j tive relationship to the major dependent measures. And, ! finally, a reversal of earlier literature was found in a 1 I low magnitude, but significant, positive correlation be tween subjects' age and their positivity toward women. 1 l Discussion i The results of this investigation suggest several con-| elusions. First, the pervasive absence of the hypothesized1 i interaction between clinical professionals' sex, status, and outcome must lead to rejection of the hypotheses of the; study. The data patterns which so thoroughly and convinc ingly permeated the findings of Feather and Simon (1975) on younger females in Australia have not been replicated ! i jwith this population of student nurses. This difference i ! between the Feather and Simon (1975 and present data seems to reflect, in large part, the relatively more positive i i ratings given to successful women by the student nurses, j i I 94 I and the relatively less positive ratings given to unsuc- i i cessful women by the student nurses. The present findings I fail to support the prediction that female student nurses will favor women who fail, and disfavor women who succeed, i ; j Even less evidence for the differential favoring of physi- , cians who succeed and favoring of nurses who fail was \ i found. Whether the present results reflect American as ! i ! ! opposed to Australian views, student nurse as opposed to | senior high school student views or other slight differ- j i i ! ences between the populations of the two studies, remains j ■ unclear. While it is not entirely pleasing to have one's i j experimental hypotheses unsupported by one's data, it is j reassuring to find that student nurses do not show the j dramatic sex-role stereotyping found by Feather and Simon 1 : (1975) . i Second, there was substantial evidence that a limited j kind of sex-role stereotyping occurred in the present data. , The sex or professional status of the clinical professional' I I made little difference in the ratings of personality. How-' i ever, the trends in the semantic differential data were in , I the direction of women being less potent, and more rule-, i following than men, both of which are in the direction of I 1 sex-role stereotyping of women. In addition, more sub stantial and convincing patterns were found to indicate j that the student nurses explained male and female outcomes ! as due to different causal factors. Two of the five causal' i dimensions (and two of the four originally identified by I Heider, 1958) showed significant or trend findings involv- ; i ing sex. These differences indicated that males' outcomes j are more directly a result of their effort than are females! i j and that male nurses are most dependent upon the task dif- ! | ficulty of the four clinical professional groups and female- I » i nurses least. These data suggest that the student nurse | j I raters did not attribute the outcomes of females to any > factor, not even luck, to a differentially high degree. ; But the raters did see the females' outcomes as less caused by their effort than the males' outcomes. This may 1 : | reflect an uncertainty about the causal factors responsible, t j for females' outcomes, which, in turn, may reflect a sense i of powerlessness about controlling the outcomes females I ■ • ■ 1 jreceive. The anticipated consequence data also suggest thei i presence of sex-role stereotyping processes. Females, relative to males, were seen as significantly more likely : ! to be inconsistent in their future assessment, to quit ! I l their job to marry, and significantly less likely to later | become famous, and to throw a wild party, all of which are ! stereotypic female behavior; they were also seen in trends to be less likely to alter their study behavior to fit the j observed outcome, and less likely to receive feedback from i |their supervisors. In all, over half (6 of 11) of the measures showed significant or trend findings involving the sex of the clinical professional. Thus, it would seem j [ that student nurses do perceive a number of important dif- | ferences between the causal factors which account for j i j female success and failure, relative to males, and a number I , of different consequences which are likely to follow their j I I | outcome. j j Third, there was limited, but suggestive, evidence | I i i that nurses and physicians were perceived differently by j the student nurse raters, generally in ways which reflect | occupational role stereotypes. These differential percep tions were most prevalent on the anticipated consequence measures, on which physicians were rated as more likely to become famous in their occupation than nurses. This, too, may reflect a sense of powerlessness on the part of the student raters. The fact that this latter finding was i significant at the .001 level, as opposed to the .05 level ! for the finding that males are more likely to become famous than are females, suggests that female student nurses see the health care system as even more prejudiced against permitting recognition by female nurses than society in general. Fourth, there was suggestive evidence that the conse quences of success and failure differ in meaningful ways ; for males and females. Female nurses who fail were seen I as the most likely to quit their job to get married, while > i | female physicians who succeed were seen as the most likely | i ! j to do so. This pattern suggests that a female nurse is i | "supposed" to succeed in this stereotypically feminine ! | I | | area, but that a female physician is not; in both in- i , stances, abandonment of the work sphere for the stereo- | typic lifestyle of marriage is seen as likely to follow i the violation of occupational stereotypes by females. [ And finally, the data raise methodological questions ' i ! ! concerning the assessment of perceptual stereotypes of pro- i fessional women. The present methodology is a relatively ! "transparent" one, in that the scales have an easily ob- : i ; served relationship to the questions of the research. It j , may be that the close, day-to-day contact of student 1 nurses with clinical professionals blunts their stereotypes I of these professionals; on the other hand, it may be that i , the objective assessment utilized in the present investi- ; ! ; ! gation pulls non-stereotypic results to a greater degree \ than other methodologies. In this connection it can be i ! noted that the high school population of Feather and Simon ‘ I (1975) may well have been more naive about revealing their ! i , stereotypes than were the student nurses sampled in the j present investigation. Alternative methodologies for ! i evaluating the stereotypes and perceptions of student ! nurses deserve further consideration. The research of ; Horner (195 8) employed a projective, non-transparent methodology in assessing achievement-related stereotypes in college students which merits exploration in the pre sent research area. CHAPTER V | i j SUMMARY , CONCLUSIONS, j RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ! i i Problem; A review of the relevant literature suggests| that, as a result of sex role stereotyping, females under- I estimate the abilities of females relative to males; further, male-dominated, high^-status professions such as medicine are favored more than female-dominated low-status j professions such as nursing, also as a result of sex role ' stereotyping. An experimental study was proposed to in vestigate the effects of sex, professional status, and ■ attitudes toward women on female student nurses' reactions j to clinical professionals' success and failure. | I Hypotheses: The major hypotheses of the investiga- | I tion were that the variables of sex, professional status, I i and outcome would interact such that student nurses would ' ! ! I favor success in males and physicians, and would favor 1 ! failure in females and nurses. It was further hypothe sized that this would be most apparent in those student nurses who held the most traditional stereotypic attitudes toward women. 100J Methodology: The experiment employed a 2 by 2 by 2 , repeated measures analysis of variance design. The three ! I manipulated independent variables were the ascribed sex | (male versus female) and professional status (physician 1 versus nurse) of a clinical health-care professional stimu-j ! I j lus person, and the outcome (success versus failure) of a ! j clinical decision made by the stimulus person. The depen dent measures consisted of semantic differential, causal, and anticipated consequence scales, as well as an atti tudes toward women inventory. A verbal cue presented the stimulus person's decision and its outcome. Ninety-seven ! volunteer female student nurses were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions during the same j testing session. Subjects were given a general intro- j duction to the experiment. They then read and rated the stimulus person in each of two verbal cues. The sex and professional status of the stimulus person was held con- j stant across both verbal cues; one verbal cue described | a clinical decision which succeeded, and the other de- I scribed a clinical decision which failed. The combination j of stimulus person sex and professional status varied j i across the four experimental conditions. These combina- | tions were: male physician, female physician, male nurse, j i : and female nurse.. Perceptions of the personality of the stimulus person were rated on a 25-item semantic differen- i i \ I I i 101 tial scale, perceptions of the causal factors responsible for the outcome of the clinical decision were rated on a i 5-item causal factors scale, and perceptions of the anti- | I cipated consequences which would follow this outcome were ; rated on an 11-item anticipated consequences scale, When I both verbal cues had been read and the stimulus persons rated, subjects completed a 25-item attitudes toward women ! inventory which has been shown to assess respondents f ad- ; i herence to traditional versus nontraditional sex role i I stereotypes. Results and Conclusions; The hypotheses originally i proposed were rejected. However, a more limited and ; selective type of sex role and occupational role stereo- I i typing by female student nurses was indicated. Results ( suggested that perceptions of personality were less im- portant than perceptions of causes and anticipated conse- | i quences for detecting sex role stereotyping. Sex was a j more important variable than status in influencing ratings.l The results suggested that males and females who fail were ! t perceived more differently than those who succeeded. At- 1 i J titudes toward women bore little relationship to the de- ! pendent measures. However, there was a significant posi tive correlation between attitudes toward women and sub jects' age. The pattern of ratings suggests that alterna tive methodologies may prove more effective in evaluating i the stereotypes and perceptions of female student nurses. Recommendations and Implications: Nursing education curricula changes are recommended to minimize sex role stereotyping. Implications for future research indicate i | that replication of this research needs to be undertaken among different populations and that different methodo logical procedures merit consideration. I Conclusions On the basis of the findings of this study, it was concluded that: A. The hypotheses originally proposed were not supported. B. A limited kind of sex role stereotyping was indicated in the rating of stimulus persons by female student nurses. C. To a limited extent, nurses and physicians were perceived differently by student nurse raters, generally in ways which reflect occupational role stereotypes. D. Consequences of success and failure differed in meaningful ways for males and females. E. Alternative methodologies for evaluating the stereotypes and perceptions of student nurses need to be explored. 103 Recommendations for Nursing Education The challenge to nursing offered by new awareness of j sex role and occupational role stereotyping must be met by j I i nursing educators. On the basis of the findings of this j study it is recommended that: A. Introductory nursing courses dispel previously learned stereotypes about nursing and sex roles through selected | i readings and classroom discussion. ' B. History of nursing courses incorporate related women's studies as part of the curriculum. The historically parallel ' problems of nursing and women should be addressed in an atmosphere supportive of equality of opportunity for both i i men and women. C. Basic psychiatric nursing courses include ' i curricula designed to increase self- : awareness and a positive self-concept. i D. Nurse educators be trained in constructive 1 I i strategies for changing possible feelings \ of powerlessness among nursing students. E. Nurse educators selectively choose text books which portray stereotypic sex role j development as a reflection of culturally 104 transmitted values and behavioral j attitudes rather than as the natural ! I unfolding of a healthy personality. j Implications for Future Research J Because of the wide discrepancy between the present results, particularly on the personality measures, and those reported by Feather and Simon (1975) with their ' population of high school females, examination of the variables potentially responsible for these differences I deserve further empirical examination. There is some ; evidence that the present sample used was a somewhat j I I atypical group of nurses. The mean female score on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale for the original standard ization sample, a 1972 college sample, was 50.26 (S.D. = 11.68). However, the ATWS mean for the present college , nursing student sample of females was 60.48 (S.D. = 10.35).i | A t-test between these means shows a highly significant ! i difference (t = 7.88, p .001). It therefore seems j clear that the present sample of female nursing students , was significantly more favorable in*their attitudes toward ; women than the typical college population. This group, j further, had a mean of 2.88 years of college education be- I fore they entered the current nursing program. The mean \ i age of these female student nurses was 25.27, and their | i | i I I I i i 105 3 median age was 22.85. Since the typical college age I range for female undergraduate students is 18-21, the j { results of the present study may also indicate that older j women who enter a college nursing program after several years of college study in other areas tend to be more j favorable toward women and less susceptible to sex-role \ i I stereotyping. i i However, this sample of nursing students, containing ! women who had already had several years of college in other! areas and who had only later in life decided to enter the l ! field of nursing, is unrepresentative of the typical# ! younger nursing student. The present investigation needs \ to be replicated in both a more traditional hospital school !of nursing and in a baccalaureate nursing degree program* , The study also needs to be replicated with student nurses i who are completing the program# to determine if stereo- j i i typing increases or decreases as students advance through : their studies in nursing. ! On more than half of the semantic differential adjec- j tives thirty-five percent or more of the raters used the j middle (i.e., neutral) category, and forty-five percent or | i i Although randomly assigned to groups, subjects assigned to the male physician group were found to be significantly younger than subjects assigned to the female nurse group (P • 025) and the male nurse group (p^ .05) . I 3 i more of the raters used this category on thirty percent of I the adjectives. This middlemost category was used far | i more frequently than any other. More then twenty-five per-j I cent of all adjective ratings were in this middlemost j category. The present investigator suspects that the j i \ | tendency of many of the subjects to restrict their ratings j I ' to the center, or "neutral," categories on the semantic j differential scales thus contributed to the lack of signi- j ficance on these measures. Thus, it is recommended that j i future studies contain scales without a mid-point, thereby i forcing subjects to choose one direction or the other. It can also be noted that the cue statements were deliber- ! ately written to describe unconventional behavior on the j part of a clinical professional. It may be that nursing I students are reluctant to use their imaginations in such a i situation, perhaps because nursing schools emphasize con- ■ formity in areas of behavior and dress, which thus may j limit the development of creativity. i i Future studies in the area of perceptions of locus of \ i control by female student nurses are needed to establish j how student nurses see themselves in relationship to their , environment. The data suggest that these subjects may feel: largely unable to influence their environment in positive j i i ways. This may reflect a feeling that control over one's j i life as a student nurse is external. If feelings of power-j 107 lessness are prevalent among such an important group of I health care professionals as nurses, implications of the , difficulty involved in making the health care system more j t responsive to the public are apparent. This entire area | ! merits further experimental consideration, j The relationship between sex-role stereotyping and | self-esteem among female student nurses needs further I i . . ! ! elaboration. If student nurses see negative consequences i I | for success among females m general, with hardly any | j chance for nurses to be recognized by society, how do these| I factors influence their own self-esteem and self image? ' Finally, further research is also recommended for male! and female medical students as well as for male student ; nurses, to determine how they are influenced by sex role I stereotypes. An extension of this research is also re- i commended to determine if health care professionals stereo-j type patients according to their own sex-role attitudes. j REFERENCES REFERENCES Allport, G.W. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday, 195 8. Angrist, S. The study of sex roles. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 2 5 _ , 215-232. Ansbacher, H.L. and Ansbacher, R.R. (Eds.) The 'Individual j Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York; Basic Books, 1956. ; i Armor, D.J. and Couch, A.S, DATA-TEXT Primer: An Intro- j duction to Computerized Social Data Analysis. New York:! The Free Press, 1972. Baruch, G.K. Maternal influences upon college women's attitudes toward women and work. Deyelopmenta1 Psychology, 1972, 6_, 32-37. _____ . The traditional feminine role: Some negative effects. The School Counselor, 1974, 21, 285-289. ; Bern, D.J. and Bern, S.L. Training the woman to know her 1 place. In D. Bern (Ed.), The Psychological Foundations ; of Beliefs and Attitudes. New York: Basic Books, 1970. j Bern, S.L. and Bern, D.J. On liberating the female student. School Psychology Digest, 1973, 2, 10-18. ! i Berens, A.E. Sex role stereotypes and the development of ! achievement motivation. Ontario Psychologist, 1973, 5, ; 30-35. ' ' ' “ j I Bingham, W.C. and House, E.W. Counselors' attitudes toward! women and work. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 19 73, i 22, 16-23. ' ~ ! Blake, J. Are babies consumer durables? Population ■ Studies, 1968, 2_2, 5-25. j Breedlove, C. and Cicerelli, V. Women's fear of success in! relation to personal characteristics and type of occupa- i tion. Journal of Psychology, 1974, 86_, 181-190. Bronson, G. Sex differences in the development of fearful-, ness: A replication. Psychonomic Sciences, 1969, 17, | 367-368. j I Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., 1 Rosenkrantz, P., and Vogel, S.R. Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 1-7. Broverman, I.K., Inge, J.D., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., Rosenkrantz, P., and Vogel, S.R. Sex- role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 2J3 , 59-78. j I Brown, D.G. Sex role development in a changing culture. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, S5, 232-242. i Brown, M., Jennings, J., and Vanik, V. The motive to avoid, success: A further examination. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974 , 8^, 172-176. Bullough, B. The new militancy in nursing. Nursing Forum,! 1971, 10, 273-288. ! i Campbell, D.P. The clash between beautiful women and j science. In A. Theodore (Ed.), The Professional Woman. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Sehenkman, 1971. Chesler, P., and Richmond C. A word about mental health and women. Mental Health, 1973 , 5_7, 5-7. j Clarkson, F.E., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, I.K., j Broverman, D.M. and Rosenkrantz, P. Family size and | sex role stereotypes. Science, 1970, 167, 390-392. : Connell, D.M. and Johnson, J.E. Relationship between sex role identification and self-esteem in early adoles- , cence. Developmental Psychology, 1970, _3, 268. | ! Cowel, E.L., Staiman, M.G., and Wolitzky, D.L. The social : desirability of trait description terms: Applications to a schizophrenic sample. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, 54, 37-45. j Crandall, V.C. Sex differences in expectancy of intel lectual and academic reinforcement. In C. Smith (Ed.), 1 Achievement Related Motives in Children. New York: ] Sage, 19 69. I 111 Crandall, V.C. and Battle, E.S. The antecedents and adult ‘ correlates of academic and intellectual achievement i effort. In J.P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Childi Psychology, V. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; Press, 1970. i Davis, K. Population policy: Will current programs succeed? Science, 1967, 158, 730-739. Deaux, K. To error is humanizing, but sex makes a differ ence. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1972, 3, 20-28. Deaux, K. and Enswiller, T. Explanations of successful [ performance on sex-linked tasks: What1s skill for the s male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality ; and Social Psychology, 1973, 29_, 80-85. I Deaux, K. and Taylor, J. Evaluation of male and female j ability: Bias works two ways. Psychological Reports, i 1973, 32,, 261-262. j Dinitz, S., Dynes, R.R., and Clarke, A.C. Preference for ! male or female children: Traditional or affectional. • Marriage and Family Living, 1954 , 1(5, 128-130. j Dweck, D.S. and Reppucci, N.D. Learned helplessness and , reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of i Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 2_5, 109-116. i Ellis, L.J. and Bentler, P.M. Traditional sex-determined ! role standards and sex stereotypes. Journal of Per- I sonality and Social Psychology, 197 3, 2_5, 28-34. Elman, J.R., Press, A., and Rosenkranz, P.S. Sex-roles and self-concepts: Real and ideal. Paper presented at ; the American Psychological Association convention, : Miami, August, 1970. Feather, N.T. Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure in relation to initial confidence; and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social; Psychology, 1969, 1_3, 129-144. | I Feather, N.T. and Raphelson, A.C. Fear of success in Australian and American student groups: Motive or sex- role stereotype? Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 190-201. 112 Feather, N.T. and Simon, J.G. Causal attributions for j success and failure in relation to expectations of i success based upon selective or manipulative control. I Journal of Personality, 1971a, 3_9, 527-541. j _____ . Attribution of responsibility and valence of out- , come in relation to outcome in relation to initial con- : fidence and success and failure of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971b, | 18, 1973-188. j _____ . Fear of success and causal attribution for outcome.i Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 525-542. | _____ . Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of differ ent consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 3JL, 20-31. Ferguson, L.R. and Maccoby, E.E. Interpersonal correlates ! of differential abilities. Child Development, 1966, 37,1 549-571. ! 1 t Feinberger, S. Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex I differences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948' 12' 97—101. , i Fitzgerald, B. and Pasewark, R. Sex differences on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Psychological ! Reports, 1970, 27_ , 1004. j Frankel, P. Sex role attitudes and the development of I achievement need in women. Journal of Abnormal and j Social Psychology, 1964, 6 8 _ , 119-128. | I French, E.G. and Lesser, G.S. Some characteristics of the > achievement motive in women. Journal of Abnormal and j Social Psychology, 1964, 6 8 ^ , 119-128. i Freud, S. The psychology of women, Lecture xxxiii. In ' New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: : Horton, 1933. | Frieze, I. and Weiner, B. Cue utilization and attribu- tional judgments of success and failure. Journal of j Personality, 1971, 39, 591-605. i 113 Gallup, G. Gallup poll. Princeton, New Jersey: Audience ’ Research, 1955. I Gearty, J.Z. and Milner, J.S. Academic major, gender of examiner, and the motive to avoid success in women. j Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, JjL, 13-14. Gjesme, T. Achievement related motives and school per formance for girls. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 2^6, 131—13 6. i ' Goldberg, P.H. Msogyny and the college girl. Paper pre sented at the Eastern Psychological Association conven- \ i tion, Boston, April, 196 7. i i Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, ! 1968, 5, 28-30. Goldberg, S. and Lewis, M. Play behavior in the year old ( infant: Early sex differences. Child Development, | 1968, 40, 21-31. j I Gordon, F. and Hall, D. Self image and stereotypes of ! femininity: Their relationship to women's role con- j flicts and coping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, j 59, 241-243. i Gump, J.P. Sex role attitudes and psychological well-being:, Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28^, 79-92. ■ Haan, N. and Livson, N. Sex differences in the eyes of j expert personality assessors: Blind spots? Journal of | Personality Assessment, 1973, 3 1 _ , 486-492. j Hampson, J. Determinants of psychosexual orientation. ! In F.A. Beach (Ed.), Sex and behavior. New York: I Wiley, 1965. j I Hartley, R.E. Current patterns in sex roles: Children's 1 perspectives. Journal of the National Association of ! Women Deans and Counselors, 1961, 25, 3-13. i I I I Hawley, P. Perceptions of male models of femininity re- I j lated to career choice. Journal of Counseling j , Psychology, 1972, 19, 208-313. ! : ~ — ! : Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. j | New York: Wiley, 1958. 114 Hjelle, L. and Butterfield, R. Self actualization and women*s attitudes toward their roles in contemporary | society. Journal of Psychology, 1974, 81_t 225-230. j Hoffman, H. Note on the personality traits of student nurses. Psychological Reports, 1970 , 2J7 , 1004. ■ Hollander, J. Sex differences in sources of social self esteem. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972 , 38., 343-347. Horner, M.S. Sex differences in achievement motivation and performance in competitive and non-competitive situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968; Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 30, 407B (University Microfilms No. 69-12, 135). ; _____ . Femininity and successful achievement: A basic i inconsistency. In J.M. Bardwick, E. Douvan, M.S. Hornerj and D. Gutmann (Eds. ) , Feminine Personality and Con- j flict. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 19 70. j . The motive to avoid success and changing aspira tions of college women. In J.M. Bardwick (Ed.), Readings in the Psychology of Women. New York: Harper & Row, 19 72a. _____ . Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 19 72b, j 28, 157-175. ! House, W.C. Actual and perceived differences in male and female expectancies and minimal goal levels as a func- I tion of competition. Journal of Personality, 19 74, 42, 493-509. Kagan, J. Change and Continuity in Infancy. New York: Wiley, 1971. Keniston, K. and Keniston, E. An American anachronism: The image of women and work. American Scholar, 196 4, j 33, 355-375. j < Kilay, P.M. A comparison of the sexes in their attitudes and beliefs about women. Sociometry, 1940, 34, 399-407. 115 | Kogan, W.S., Quinn, R. , Ax, A.F., and Ripley, H.S. Some i methodological problems in the quantification of j | clinical assessment by Q Array. Journal of Consulting j I Psychology, 1957, 2JL, 57-62. j |Kukla, A. The cognitive determinants of achieving be- ; havior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University I 1 of California, Los Angeles, 1970. ! f 'Lewittes, D., Mosselle, J., and Simmons, W. Sex role bias ; in clinical judgments based on Rorschach interpreta- • tions. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1973, 8, 497-498. Lyell, R. Adolescent and adult self-esteem as related to | cultural values. Adolescence, 1973, 8_, 85-92. I ( !Lynn, D.B. A note on sex differences in the development i of masculine and feminine identification. Psychological! ; Review, 1959 , 66_, 126-135. | { [Maccoby, E.E. Women’s intellect. In S.M. Farber and 1 | R.H. Wilson (Eds.), The Potential of Women. New York: McGraw-Hill, 196 3. j 'Maslin, A. and Davis, J. Sex role stereotyping as a factor in mental health standards among counselors in I training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19 75, 22, > 87-91. I L I !McClelland, D.C. The Achieving Society. Princeton, New I Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1961. i i 'McKee, J.P. and Sherriffs, A.C. The differential evalua- I i tion of males and females. Journal of Personality, ! 1957, 2 5 _ , 356-371. \ i ,_____ . Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self- j ' concepts. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 64, ■ 356-363. i i I i i jMead, M. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, j | New York: Morrow, 1935. | I I 'Monahan, L., Kuhn, D., and Shaver, P. Intra-psychic | versus cultural explanation of the "fear of success" j motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 60-64. 116 } * Money, J. and Erhardt, A. Man and Woman; Boy and Girl. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 19 72. I : Mussen, P. (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology. ; New York: Wiley, 1970. i Neulinger, J. Perceptions of the optimally integrated -per-! | son: A redefinition of mental health. Proceedings of ' i the 7 6th Annual Convention of the American Psychological As soci at i on , 1968, 3>, 553-554. Nunnally, J.C. Introduction to Psychological Measurement. : New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. i I Educational Measurement and Evaluation. New York; ■ McGraw-Hill, 1972. ; j ! | O'Leary, V.E, Some attitudinal barriers to occupational ^ i aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin, 19 74, 81,1 809-826. i Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measure ment of Meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of i Illinois Press, 19 57. > i : ! Parsons, T. The Social System. New York; The Free Press,' 1951. < F 1 Penner, L.A. , Hawkins, H.L., Derke, M.C., Spector, P., and . Stone, A. The bumbling experimenter; Obedience as a function of the experimenter competence. Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1_, 241-245. Pheterson, G.I., Kiesler, S.B., and Goldberg, P.A. Evalua tion of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. Journal of ! Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 1 9 _ , 114-118. Piacente, B.S., Penner, L.A., Hawkins, H.L,, and Cohen, S.L. Evaluation of the performance of experimenters as ; a function of their sex and competence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974 , _4, 321-329. Pietrosa, J. and Schlossberg, J. Counselor bias and the female occupational role. ERIC document CG00 60 56, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970, Pohlman, E. The Psychology of Birth Planning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schlenkman, 1969. Prather, J. Why can't women be more like men: A summary j of the sociopsychological factors hindering women's ; advancement in the professions. American Behaviora1 j Scientist, 19 71, 15^, 39-4 7. ; Putnam, B. and Hansen, J.C. Relationship of self-concept and feminine role concept to vocational maturity in ; young women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 1 19, 436-440. | Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, E., Bee, H. , Broverman, I., and ' Broverman, D. Sex role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, , 1968, 3, 287-295. i Rossi, A.S. Equality between the sexes: An immodest pro- | posal. Daedalus, 1964, 93^, 607-652. j Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E. and Levin, H. Patterns of Child; Rearing. New York: Row, Peterson, 1957. \ Sherriffs, A.C. and Jarrett, R.F. Sex differences in attitudes about differences. Journal of psychology, 1953, 35, 161-168. Sherriffs, A.C. and McKee, J.P. Qualitative aspects of beliefs about men and women. Journal of Personality, 1957, 25, 451-464. Slater, P. Parental role differentiation. American Journal of Psychology, 1961, 6_7, 296-311. Simon, J.G. and Feather, N.T. Causal attributions for success and failure at university examinations. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1973, 6_4, 46-56. Solomon, L.Z. Perceptions of a successful person of the same sex or the opposite sex. Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 9_5 , 133-134. ~ “ Spence, J.T. and Helmreich, R. The attitudes toward women 1 scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary l society. Journal Abstract Supplement Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 19 72a, 2 _ , 66 ; (Manuscrip No. 153). | _____ . Who likes competent women? Competence, sex role congruence of interests and subjects' attitudes toward | women as determinants of interpersonal attraction. i Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972b, 2, 197-213. I Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. A short ver sion of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). i Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2_, 219-220. Stein, A.H. The effects of sex-role standards for achieve ment and sex-role preference on three determinants of , | achievement motivation. Developmental Psychology, 1971,] I 4, 219-231. ] 1 ■ 1 j Stein, L. The doctor nurse game. Archives of General j Psychiatry, 1967 , _16 , 699-703 . ] Symonds, A., Moulton, R., and Badarocco, M. The myth of | ; femininity: A panel. American Journal of Psycho- j analysis, 1973 , 3J3, 42-55. I j Tangri, S.S. Determinants of occupational role innovation ! among college women. Journal of Social Issues, 19 72, | 2 8 _ , 177-199. ' | ( | Terman, L.M. Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. f I New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938. : Tomlinson, K. Role variables: Their influence on female ; motivational constructs. Journal of Counseling ! Psychology, 19 74, 2JL, 2 32-2 37. ; Veroff, J. , Wilcox, S. and Atkinson, J.W. The achievement i motive in high school and college age women. Journal | of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 108-119. I I j Vetter, L. Reactions to critics review of the major i approaches to career counseling. Counseling PsychoTo— ] gist, 1974, 4 , 27-29. | Vogel, S.R., Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, * R.E., and Rosenkrantz, P.S. Maternal employment and perceptions of sex-roles among college students. De velopmental Psychology, 1970, 3^, 384-391. Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary. Rev. by J.L. ; McKechmie. New York: World Publishing, 1968. 1 \ Weiner, B. New conceptions in the study of achievement motivation. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experi mental Personality Research, v. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Theories of Motivation. Chicago: Markham Press, 1972. Weiner, B. and Kukla, A. An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, L5, 1-20. Weiner, B. , Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L. , Rest, S., and | Rosenbaum, R.M. Perceiving the causes of success and j failure. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution; Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 197 2. Weston, P.J. and Mednick, M.T. Race, social class, and the motive to avoid success in women. In J.M. Bardwick j (Ed.), Readings on the Psychology of Women. New York: ! Harper & Row, 1972. 1 i Wiener, M., Blumberg, A., Segman, S., and Cooper, A. A ' judgment adjustment by psychologists, psychiatric sociali workers, and college students, and its relationship to j social desirability. Journal of Abnormal and Social | Psychology, 1959 , S 9 _ , 315-321. j I ’ j Wilson, V. An analysis of femininity in nursing. American 1 Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 15, 213-220. j |Winer, B.J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design?| New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. 120 APPENDIX Appendix A Sample Experimental Booklet (Female nurse condition) STUDY BOOKLET Please fill in the following information: Age:____ Sex: M F___ Year in college: 1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th Year in this nursing program: 1st. 2nd.___ Other Other: PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE ASKED TO DO SO General Introduction to the Study In this study, we are interested in examining the attitudes people i have toward clinical professionals in a hospital who succeed or fail in arriving at the correct clinical decision. You are going to see several descriptions of a clinical profes sional who makes a clinical decision, and subsequently finds out whether this decision was the correct or incorrect one. Your task is to answer some questions about the clinical professional who makes the decision and about why the decision turned out as it did. We are con- . cemed with the general problem of how people react to various kinds of clinical success and failure. Consequently, each of the statements describes a situation in which a clinical professional has succeeded or failed in making the correct decision. Please note that the statements are brief and supply only a limi ted amount of information. In answering these questions, therefore, you will have to use quite a lot of imagination in thinking about the ,clinical professional who succeeded or failed. Spend a few seconds trying to form in your mind an idea of what is involved in each situa- :tion. There is no need to write your name at the top of the page. Answers are anonymous. Work rapidly, and rely on your first impres- ! sions. There are no right or wrong answers, so feel free to give whatever answers you think are most appropriate. Treat each new situa tion quite separately. Do not be influenced by your answers to ; GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 123 -2- questions about previous situations. As already mentioned, each statement concerns a person who has made a particular clinical decision and subsequently finds out Tdiether that decision was correct or incorrect. The questions about each statement are of three types. One type asks you to describe the per son who has succeeded- or failed to reach the correct clinical decision, a second type asks you to think about the possible reasons or causes that might have contributed to the clinical professional's success or failure, and the third type asks you to consider some of the possible consequences or effects of that success or failure for the clinical professional. After you have completed these questions for all of the statements, you will be asked to answer some additional questions about some of your attitudes. Remember to use your imagination when you read each short state ment. Then go on to answer the questions. Read the instructions i carefully and make sure you answer all questions. Do not leave any ! blank. Please work quickly giving your first impression. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE ASKED TO DO SO I I 124 -3- Instnictions You will now read a short statement describing a clinical profes sional who makes a clinical decision which succeeds or fails. Then you will rate the clinical professional on a series of descriptive scales. Please make your judgments on the basis of what the clinical profes sional seems like to you. Make your ratings on the scales in order. i ----- Here is how to use the scales: If you feel that the clinical professional is very well described by one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark as follows: safe__X:_:_:__j_:__: dangerous safe___:_:_:__:_:__ : X dangerous If the clinical professional seems quite well described by one side as opposed to the other side (but not extremely so), you should place your ckeck-mark as follows: fair_: _X:___:__:_: : unfair fair___:_:_:___:_: X: unfa-ir If the clinical professional seems only slightly well described by one side as opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should check as follows: t al 1___: _: _X:___:_:__:_shor t tall____ :_:_: : _X:__:_short The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic of the clinical professional you’re judging. If you consider the clinical professional to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally descriptive of the clinical profes sional, or if the scale is completely irrelevant, unrelated to the clinical professional, then you should place your check-mark in the middle space: happy__:_:__: X:__:__:_sad IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-mark in the middle of spaces, not on boundaries: This Not this :___: X :___:___ X__:__ (2) Be sure to check every scale for every clinical profes sional -- do not omit any. (3) Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 125 -4- After you have rated all of the descriptive scales, you will con sider the possible reasons or causes for the clinical professional’s correct or incorrect decision, and you will rate how important or unimportant each was in producing the success or failure of the de cision. For example, if you felt that the clinical professional’s effort was extremely important in producing the success of the de cision, you would place your check-mark as follows: EFFORT Not important at Very important all as a cause ______:__:___:__:___:___: X as a cause and so on. After you have rated all of these possible reasons or causes, you will consider a set of possible consequences or events which might follow the clinical professional’s success or failure, and you will rate how likely you feel each one is to happen. For example, if you felt that the clinical professional was very unlikely to throw a wild party as a consequence of the success or failure, you would place your check-mark as follows: a WILD PARTY _______:_______ :_______ :_______ : x Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely and so on. Remember to use your imagination, work rapidly, and rely on your first impressions. Answer all questions. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE ASKED TO DO SO 12 6 ‘ Read the following statement carefully: STATEMENT: During staff rounds Ms. Ellen Miller, a registered nurse, finds herself 1 in disagreement with everyone else present when she states that an increase in a patient's symptoms is a negative side effect of the patient's new medication. However, despite the disagreement she con- ■ tinues to believe her assessment, and repeats it a second time aloud to the group. Subsequent testing of the patient shows that her assessment is definitely correct: The new medication is found to be definitely the cause of the increase in symptoms. 1. Use the scales below to rate what you think Ms. Ellen Miller, a registered nurse, might be like: (1) pleasant (2) weak (3) lucky ; (4) tense (5) sweet (6) soft (7) active (8) tough (9) lazy ; (10) good (11) polite :(12) worthless ; (13) feminine !(14) wise , (15) quiet , (16) logical (17) honest_ (18) rugged_ (19) disobedient (20) fast i GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE j/2 / unpleasant strong unlucky relaxed sour hard passive tender busy bad impolite valuable masculine foolish restless ^intuitive dishonest delicate obedient slow (21) clean :____ :____:____ :____dirty (2 2) competent_ incompetent (23) impulsive__ ': j_______ _: : de 1 iberate (24) professional_ novice (25) successful • : : : : : unsuccessful II. Use the scales below to rate the importance of each possible reason or cause for Ms. Ellen Miller’s success in arriving at the correct clinical assessment in the previous statement. :a) Not important at PRESENCE OF ABILITY Very important all as a cause : : : ' : ' ' : ' as a cause (2) Not inportant at PRESENCE OF EFFORT Very important all as a cause : : : : : : : as a cause (3) Not important at GOOD LUCK Very important all as a cause : : : : : : : as a cause (4) ; .Not inportant at EASE OF THE ASSESSMENT Very important j ! all as a cause : : : : : : . as a cause (5) Not important at PRESENCE OF EXPERIENCE Very important j ‘ all as a cause : : : : : : : as a cause III. Use the scales below to rate the likelihood that each possible consequence or event will follow Ms. Ellen Miller’s success in arriving at the correct clinical assessment in the previous statement. (1) MS. MILLER CONTINUES TO MAKE ACCURATE CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (2) MS. MILLER STUDIES LESS HARD IN THE FUTURE Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (3) MS. MILLER WONDERS IF SHE "FITS IN" WITH THE OTHERS AT Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (4) MS. MILLER IS PRAISED BY HER SUPERVISOR Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (5) MS. MILLER QUITS HER JOB TO GET MARRIED • • • • Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (6) MS. MILLER LATER BECOMES FAMOUS IN HER OCCUPATION Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (7) MS. MILLER WONDERS IF IT IS ALL WORTHWHILE Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (8) MS. MILLER WORRIES THAT HER BOYFRIEND MIGHT BE JEALOUS • • • Very Likely Likely An Even Chance Unlikely Very Unlikely (9) MS. MILLER THROWS A WILD PARTY • • Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 129 MS. MILLER FEELS THAT SHE HAS SACRIFICED TOO MUCH Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (11) MS. MILLER WORRIES THAT OTHERS MIGHT ACCUSE HER OF STUDYING TOO HARD Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE Read the following statement carefully: STATEMENT: At a medical conference Ms. Susan Hudson, a registered nurse, finds herself in disagreement with everyone else present when she diag- : noses the confusing symptoms of a patient as due to an unusual and ( rarely encountered disease. However, despite the disagreement she j continues to believe her assessment, and repeats it a second time aloud to the group. Subsequent testing of the patient shows that her assessment is definitely not correct: The confusing symptoms are found to be definitely not caused by the rarely encountered disease. 1. Use the scales below to rate what you think Ms. Susan Hudson, a registered nurse, might be like: (1) pleasant unpleasant (2) weak strong (3) lucky unlucky (4) tense relaxed (5) sweet sour (6) soft hard (7) active passive (8) tough tender (9) lazy busy (10) good bad (11) polite impolite (12) worthless valuable (13) feminine masculine (14) wise foolish (15) quiet restless (16) logical intuitive (17) honest dishonest (18) rugged delicate (19) disobedient obedient (20) fast slow i i GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 1-31 (21) clean :____:___ :____ :____: dirty (22) competent : ______________________^incompetent (23) impul s i ve_ j : de 1 iber at e (24) professional : : : : : _novice (25) successful : ' ' : : : ' ' : __ unsuccessful II. Use the scales below to rate the importance of each possible reason or cause for Ms. Susan Hudson's failure to arrive at the correct clinical assessment in the previous statement. ! ( 1) Not important at LACK OF ABILITY Very important all as a cause : : : : : : : as a cause ; ( 2) Not important at LACK OF EFFORT Very important all as a cause j : : : as a cause (3) Not important at BAD LUCK all as a cause : : : : (4) i Not inportant at DIFFICULTY OF THE ASSESSMENT all as a cause : : : : : : ( 5) Not important at LACK OF EXPERIENCE Very important all as a cause : : : : : : : as a cause ,III. Use the scales below to rate the likelihood that each possible consequence or event will follow Ms. Susan Hudson's failure to 1 arrive at the correct clinical assessment in the previous state ment. (1) MS. HUDSON CONTINUES TO MAKE INACCURATE CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS Very Likely " An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely Very important as a cause Very important as a cause GO CN TO THE NEXT PAGE 132 (2) MS. HUDSON STUDIES HARDER IN THE FUTURE Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (3) MS. HUDSON WONDERS IF SHF, ’’ FITS IN” WITH THE OTHERS AT . : i Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (4) MS. HUDSON IS CRITICIZED BY HER SUPERVISOR Very L ikely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (5) MS. HUDSON QUITS HER JOB TO GET MARRIED Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (6) MS. HUDSON LATER BECOMES FAMOUS IN HER OCCUPATION Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (7) MS. HUDSON WONDERS IF IT IS ALL WORTHWHILE Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (8) MS. HUDSON WORRIES THAT HER BCWFRIEND MIGHT REJECT HER Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (9) MS. HUDSON THROWS A WILD PARTY ' • • * Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 13'3 ' (10) MS. HUDSON FEELS THAT SHE HAS SACRIFICED TOO MUCH Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely (11) MS. HUDSON WORRIES THAT OTHERS MIGHT ACCUSE HER OF NOT STUDYING HARD ENOUGH Very Likely An Even Unlikely Very Likely Chance Unlikely GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 1:3-4 IV. The statements listed below describe attitudes toward the role of women in society that different people have. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. You are to express your feelings about each statement by indicating whether you (A) agree strongly, (B) agree mildly, (C) disagree mildly, or (D) disagree strongly. Please indicate your opinion by putting a check-mark over the letter, either A, B, C, or D, which best expresses your feelings about each item. A: Agree strongly B: Agree mildly C: Disagree mildly D: Disagree strongly ;A A" A T X X BCD BCD BCD BCD BCD BCD f f i t f A" B“ (T D" ,x w ~ cr w x ~ b ~ c x w A~ B“ C~“ D" ______ X ~ B~” C~ D~ X" B~ (T“ D~ A B C D GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 1) Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in the speech of a woman than a man. 2) Women should take increasing responsibility for leader ship in solving the intellectual and social problems of the day. 3) Both husband and wife should be allowed the same grounds for divorce. 4) Telling dirty jokes should be mostly a masculine pre rogative . 5) Intoxication among women is worse than intoxication among men. 6) Under modem economic conditions with women being ac tive outside the home, men should share in household tasks such as washing dishes and doing the laundry. 7) It is insulting to women to have the "obey" clause remain in the marriage service. 8) There should be a strict merit system in job appoint ments and promotions without regard to sex. 9) A woman should be as free as a man to propose marriage. 10) Women should worry less about their rights and'more, about becoming good wives and mothers. 11) Women earning as much as their dates should bear equally the expense when they go out together. 12) Women should assume their rightful place in business and all the professions along with men. 13) A woman should not expect to go to exactly the same places or to have quite the same freedom of action as a man. 14) Sons in a family should be given more encouragement to go to college than daughters. 15) It is ridiculous for a woman to run a locomotive and for a man to darn socks. 135 A: Agree strongly B: Agree mildly C: Disagree mildly D: Disagree strongly __________ (16) In general, the father should have greater authority A B C D than the mother in the bringing up of children. (17) Women should be encouraged not to become sexually A B C D intimate with anyone before marriage, even their fiances. (18) The husband should not be favored by law over the A B C D wife in the disposal of family property or income. ___________ (19) Women should be concerned with their duties of child- A B C D bearing and house tending, rather than with desires for professional and business careers. ____________(20) The intellectual leadership of a community should be A B C D largely in the hands of men. (21) Economic and social freedom is worth far more to A B C D women than acceptance of the ideal of femininity which has been set up by men. ____________(22) On the average, women should be regarded as less A B C D capable of contributing to economic production than are men. (23) There are many jobs in which men should be given A B C D preference over women in being hired or promoted. (24) Women should be given equal opportunity with men for A B C D apprenticeship in the various trades. __________ (25) The modern girl is entitled to the same freedom from A B C D regulation and control that is given to the modem boy. stop: do not go BACK to ANY EARLIER sections, close your booklet and WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. APPENDIX B 137 Appendix B Dependent Measures Impressions of Clinical Professional's Personality: Semantic Differential Scales. The bi-polar adjectives i jused, and the order in which they were administered, were i as follows: pleasant-unpleasant, weak-strong, lucky-un lucky, tense-relaxed, sweet-sour, soft-hard, active-pas sive, tough-tender, lazy-busy, good-bad, polite-impolite, worthless-valuable, feminine-masculine, wise-foolish, quiet-restless, logical-intuitive, honest-dishonest, rugged-delicate, disobedient-obedient, fast-slow, clean- dirty, competent-incompetent, impulsive-deliberate, pro- fessional-novice, successful-unsuccessful. The first 21 of these adjectives are taken from Feather and Simon (1975) who selected them from the lists of adjectives which load highly on semantic differential (SD) factors found in Nunnally (1970, pp. 440-441). These first 21 adjectives were combined into factors, following Nunnally (1970), of Evaluation, Potency, Activity, Rule-following, and Masculinity-Femininity. The remaining 4 adjectives were taken from Piacente, Penner, Hawkins, and Cohen (1974), and were included on the basis of their face validity in the context of the present investigation, plus their demon- 1 strated validity in detecting differences in personality ratings in the Piacente et al.(1974) investigation. The reliability and validity of SD scales has been ! established in a wide range of experimental contexts. Only1 I i ( the most relevant of these data for the present investiga- j tion will be summarized here. Additional material can be 1 found in Osgood et al. (1957) and Nunnally (1970, 1972). : Osgood et al. (1957) cite an SD item reliability co- ' ' efficient of .85 (p. 127) based upon a test-retest pro- ! cedure employing 100 undergraduate subjects. Reliability ! checks based upon a joint distribution of test-retest : scores, and an error-of-measurement procedures (pp. 127- ! 138) , showed reliabilities which were highly significant i statistically, and produced errors of measurement of less i | than one scale unit. Osgood et al. (1957) employed esti- ; mates of the reliability of factor scores (pp. 138-140) jwhich showed that shifts in factor scores of between 1.00 i ! (for Evaluation) and 1.50 (for Potency) were significant > ! . ! I beyond the .05 level, while separate estimates of concept , ; meaning taken from eight samples of 25 subjects each j , showed that the reliabilities of concepts were "very j i ; stable" (p. 140), with shifts on the order of .4 scale units significant beyond the .05 level. Concerning the i i validity of SD measurement, Osgood et al. (1957) cite a \ number of experiments -- most employing undergraduate sub- j I ! 139 j 1 jects, as was done in the present investigation --which . 1 j i shows that SD measures correlate well beyond chance levels j with criterion measures (pp. 141-146). Nunnally (1970, I I pp. 438-446) provides a discussion of the wide applicabil- j I | ity of SD procedures to measure attitudes and sentiments, : and concludes that this procedure has become "an important j 'workhorse' in psychology" (p. 446) because of the good j reliability and validity of the measures for many purposes.j Beyond these general conclusions that SD procedures | i ! i are reliable and valid, however, there is evidence for the ' I i specific validity of the scales employed in the present in-i i 1 vestigation. Feather and Simon (19 75) employed the major- 1 \ ; ity of the present measures in a paradigm upon which the i i i present investigation is based. The Feather and Simon (19 75) study employed verbal cues similar to those of the present investigation, and varied the sex of the stimulus person and the outcome of the cue (success versus failure). The subjects used by Feather and Simon (19 75) were female, , as is true of the present investigation, although the 1 * | Feather and Simon subjects were somewhat younger (the ma- ; i ; jority corresponding to high school seniors, with several , i I corresponding to college freshmen) and from a different i country (Australia). The results of the investigation j i I (Feather & Simon, 19 75) strikingly supported the rather ‘ i 1 complex interactions which were predicted (over 70 percent ■, of this investigation's measures showed a Sex of Character in Cue by Outcome interaction, the majority at p less than .001). The pattern of results on the SD measures repli cated earlier data based upon projective measures (Horner, 196 8), and extended these findings in ways predicted from "the fear of success" theory (Horner, 1970, 1972), As Feather and Simon (197 5) note, the trends in their data "were most directly apparent in the semantic differential results" (p. 27). Thus, the SD measures to be employed in the present investigation appear to have demonstrated good construct validity. The remaining four SD measures which were derived from Piacente et al. (1974) also have been shown to validly differentiate perceptions of a stimulus person in an experimental context quite similar to that of the present investigation. All four of the items showed significant (p less than .025) main effects in the predicted direction, using a procedure which employed a videotaped stimulus person. The subjects in the Piacente et al. (1974) were comparable to those of the present investigation, in that both used undergraduate students. The stimulus person was also varied in terms of sex and competence (closely analogous to the success versus failure variable in the present investigation) in the Piacente et al. (197 4) investigation. The consistence of the findings in this study in supporting predictions, plus 141 I the replication of earlier findings (Penner, Hawkins, j I Dertke, Spector, & Stone, 1973), suggests the construct ! i i validity of the four SD measures used in the present in- 1 I i | vestigation. | To summarize, SD measures have been found to be I acceptably reliable and valid in a wide variety of experi- ! ; mental contexts. Two studies which have used the specific ; I | ' measures employed in the present investigation strongly j support their validity in measuring perceptions of person- ! ; ! ; ality with subjects similar to, in research contexts simi- j i lar to, and with experimental procedures similar to those ; i ! employed by the present investigation. i i i j Causal Attributions for Success and Failure; Causal j | Factors Scale. The theoretical basis for distinguishing I between atrributional causes can be found in Heider (195 8) . i Heider hypothesized that the "common man" attempts to I j assign the outcomes of an action to four causal dimensions : j (1) ability, or its lack; (2) effort and preparation, or j , its lack;(3) the difficulty, or ease, of the outcome; and, ! , i ; C4) good, or bad, luck. Measures of these dimensions, or ! < of closely derived ones (e.g., "internal" (ability, effort)! versus "external" (task difficulty, luck) causes, or i "stable" (ability, task difficulty) versus "variable" (effort, luck) causes), have been quite straightforward. . These measures have been frequently used by Weiner and his jcolleagues (Frieze & Weiner, 1971; Kukla, 1970; Weiner, i ■ 1970; Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, 1 i Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1972) , and Feather and his colleagues (Feather, 1969; Feather & Simon, 1971a; 1971b; 1973; 1975; | Simon & Feather, 1973). Both of these research programs, i ; have focused upon causal attributions of success and failure, and thus the same research domain as that of the present investigation. | Frieze and Weiner (1971) had subjects rate the four ! t f : j standard causal factors on a 4-point scale anchored at 0 i i i ! by "Not a cause" and at 3 by "Very much a cause. " Weiner j (19 70) had earlier employed these same items, but using a ^ i f 7-point scale. In a summary of this research program, | Weiner et al. (19 72) note the replicability of findings i I across studies employing similar measures of causal attri- ; i i i bution (e.g., Kula, 1970 and Weiner & Kukla, 1970), and i i j conclude that these data, in general, "appear to be re- ; | liable" (p. 107) . The apparent reliability of these find- j 1 ings supports the reliability of the measures upon which \ I : they are based — measures nearly identical to those em ployed in the present investigation. Construct validity of the measures is suggested by the extensive role of these, i measures in the development and testing of an attributional i ; theory of achievement motivation by this research group ; (Weiner et al., 19 72), and the measures have very good face I validity. In short, the research program of Weiner and his colleagues argues well for the reliability and validity of | I rating scales which assign causal attributions to per- j ceived success and failure. The similarity between the i , subjects most often used in Weiner's research (undergrad- , uate students) and the subjects employed in the present .investigation, plus the similarity in research domains and j 1 ! , experimental procedures, further suggests the validity of j I j 'these measures in the context of the present investigation.! I ; 1 Additional support for the validity of these measures i ! in the present investigation can be found in the work of !Feather (1969) and Feather and Simon (1971a; 1971b; 1973a; 1 [ 1 !1973b; 1975), who have used the exact scales. First, these; I scales have excellent face validity as measures of the four, i dimensions identified by Heider (1958), since they are a jstraightforward adaptation of these dimensions. Second, ! ■ the scales have been used in several investigations whose 1 subjects, research domain, and experimental procedures 1 parallel those of the present investigation (see, espe- ■ i cially, Feather & Simon, 1973b; 1975). And third, the findings obtained with these scales support its construct I \ i ivalidity. Feather and Simon (1973b), for example, used the, ;scales to support their prediction that subjects high in : i fear of success would be more likely than those low in fear! i ■ of success to attribute success to external causal factors : : i i ! ! 144 (i.e., luck, task difficulty) and failure to internal i factors (i.e., ability, effort). This study also used the scales to replicate earlier findings (Feather, 1969; Feather & Simon, 1971b) which were, in turn, predicted from Heider's (1958) theory. The closest analog to the present j investigation's use of these scales in the study of Feather! and Simon (1975). Discussion of the similarity between j i these two experiments m terms of subjects, research do- j mains, variables manipulated, and experimental procedures j has already been given in the earlier section on the SD scales, and therefore will not be repeated here. In summary, the extensive and productive employment | of the Causal Factors Scale in the literature cited sup ports its reliability and validity as a measure of causal attributions. The use of this scale with similar subjects, i in similar research areas, and with similar experimental j procedures supports the validity of its use in the present ; i I investigation. The face validity and construct validity | i of the scale appears to be particularly good. j i Perception of Consequences Resulting from Success or j Failure; Anticipated Consequences Scale. The anticipated | consequences items, and the order in which the items were administered, were as follows; (for the success conditions) Continues to make accurate clinical assessments, studies less hard in the future, wonders if he (she) "fits in" I with his (her) co-workers, is praised by his (her) super- I visor, quits his (her) job to get married, later becomes famous in his (her) occupation, wonders if it is all worth-! jwhile, worries that his girlfriend (her boyfriend) might | be jealous, throws a wild party, feels that he (she) has isacrificed too much, worries that others might accuse him ! I ■ (her) of studying too hard. (For the failure conditions) j Continues to make inaccurate clinical assessments, studies ! : harder in the future, wonders if he (she) "fits in" with | I | 'his (her) co-workers, is criticized by his (her) super- ! I jvisor, quits his (her) job to get married, later becomes , ! famous in his (her) occupation, wonders if it is all worth-i iwhile, worries that his girlfriend (her boyfriend) might : [reject him (her), throws a wild party, feels that he (she) •has sacrificed too much, worries that others might accuse ■him (her) of not studying hard enough. These items are i i adapted from Feather and Simon (1975), and consist of j those 11 items from the 17 original items written by * jFeather and Simon (1975) which showed significant inter- j i [action effects in the original research using this scale, 1 jwith minor word modifications to adapt them for use in the [present investigation. i ; The importance of assessing anticipated consequences l |in the context of the present investigation comes from the t !work of Horner (1970) on the "fear of success" motive. I Horner (1968) obtained projective stories in response to ; j 1 verbal cues which described extreme success or failure obtained by males and females. Analysis of the anticipated I ^ | ; consequences following female success as revealed in these \ , stories suggested five main areas of consequences: Social j , rejection, concern about normality, denial of the situa- j t tion, affect, and instrumental activity. Horner (1970, j j 1972a) employed these categories, and the data from them, ! in formulating her theory of female avoidance of success i ! and achievement. Scoring of the presence versus absence 1 anY o f these categories has proven reliable as a i measure of "fear of success" imagery (e.g., Feather & i i Simon, 19 73, and Weston & Mednick, 1970, report inter- i rater agreement of 81-95 percent), and these data have supported hypotheses based upon the "fear of success" theory (e.g., Feather & Simon, 1973), which suggests their , construct validity in the projective assessment of fear of I p ' success. However, efforts to obtain reliable and valid 1 measures of sub-categories of anticipated consequences | from projective records have failed (e.g., Monahan et al., : : 1974). \ In an effort to overcome the difficulties in reliably ; and validly assessing anticipated consequences from pro jective records, Feather and Simon (1975) constructed a | 17-item Anticipated Consequences Scale. This scale con- tained items related to the five main consequence areas ( identified by Horner (19 70) with subjects rating the like- j lihood of each consequence on a 5-point scale. As the i I authors readily concede, "in terms of the assessment pro cedures used, relatively fresh ground was being broken" i (Feather & Simon, 1975, p. 35). However, this scale showed I the predicted significant interaction effects on 11 of the j j 17 items, in an investigation which employed female sub- : i jects much like those to be used in the present investiga- 1 tion. The authors argue that these strong data patterns i support the validity of the assessment procedures; ; i The use of a variety of objective rating j scales rather than Horner’s (196 8) pro- 1 jective test with its simple present- i absent scoring system would seem to be * an important advance, given the apparently systematic trends underlying most of the i significant effects in the present study. That is, the broad nature of the sex-linked tendencies postulated by Horner were also apparent in the present study, but a more refined scrutiny of these tendencies was possible. (p. 35) | i As was mentioned earlier, the items to be used in the pre- i sent investigation are slight adaptations of the 11 items found by Feather and Simon (1975) to show significant in- ! i teraction effects; these adaptations are consistent with ' the authors’ recommendation that, given the lack of proven ! objective measures in this area, further test and refine ment of their scale be conducted. i In summary, the somewhat limited data available re- 148 j lated to the Anticipated Consequences Scale supports its validity as an objective measure of perceived likelihood i of various consequences which may follow success and failure. The scale has good face validity, and its prior ! i . . . 1 I and apparently valid use m a research domain similar to j that of the present investigation, with similar subjects, and with similar experimental procedures further suggests ; its validity in the context of the present investigation. ; Attitudes Toward Women’s Role in Society; The Atti- I tudes Toward Women Scale (ATWS) , Short Form. The full- , --------------------------- : -----------------------■ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------—— —— -------------------------- i i |length ATWS (Spence & Helmreich, 1972a) was constructed in : ! ; ! response to the absence of contemporary assessment scales which could measure modern attitudes toward the role of .women in society. Items from older scales were culled i I j and revised with updated wording, and additional items iwere written. These items covered attitudes toward women i 1 , I I in the areas of vocational, educational, and intellectual i * i !roles, freedom and independence, drinking, swearing, and i I ! |dirty jokes, sexual behavior, and marital relationships and| I I I obligations. The inventory consists of 55 items, each of I i i 'which expresses an attitude toward women; subjects rate ] ! ! ! agreement or disagreement with each item on a 4-pomt scale. The full-length ATWS was normed on 420 male and 52 9 j i * female undergraduates from several introductory psychology |classes at the University of Texas, Austin, during the ; Fall semester of 19 71, and on 29 3 male and 2 39 female j ; I jundergraduates from similar classes during the Spring i j semester of 1972. Various statistics from the two i 1 , semesters* samples were found to be similar, particularly S for the female subjects. The authors argue that the sta- I t bility in the item distributions across these two samples | indicates that "a reliable phenomenon is being tapped" i : (p. 6) . T-tests indicated that there were significant differ- i ences between males and females on 47 of the 55 items Cat iP less than .05). These findings support the construct I validity of the ATWS as a measure of attitudes toward | i i | women, since men and women were predicted to differ in , their attitudes toward women. To further evaluate the j validity of the ATWS, parents of the second sample were : contacted and asked to complete the full-length ATWS; this resulted in a usable parents samples of 29 2 data sets. ! Comparisons between parents and children showed, consistent I I 'with predictions, that parents were more conservative in | their attitudes toward women than were their children. 1 i : i Also, and again consistent with predictions, comparisons j ' ! < showed that there were significant (at p less than .01) I i I f ! correlations between the attitudes of mothers and daughters, ! and between those of fathers and sons. These patterns of , intergenerational differences and similarities strongly ■ 150 I supports the construct validity of the ATWS. The data from the first sample was next analyzed by | image analysis to identify factors, and the data from the second sample was used to cross-validate the factors ex- \ I tracted from the first sample. These analyses showed that j the ATWS factors did, indeed, have acceptable stability ! across samples: Only two items found to load beyond .40 on the first analysis were found to load at less than .20 on the second analysis, while more than half of the items having a minimum loading of .40 in the first analysis were found to also meet this criterion in the second analysis. The data for women indicated two major factors, the first describing the "conventional woman" in her relationships with men, and the second (and smaller) describing equal treatment for men and women in educational and vocational pursuits. Similar factors were found for men. Spence and Helmreich (19 72a) next compared data from | I the full length ATWS from 267 male and 343 female Univers- i i ity of Texas, Austin, undergraduates with data from the | i i California Personality Inventory Femininity Scale, to j assess the relationship between the ATWS and measures of ■ masculinity-femininity. The authors predicted that there I would not be a significant relationship between these two i measures, and that the ATWS measures something different 1 than masculinity-femininity. The results indicated that ! i correlations between the ATWS and the Femininity Scale were jnot significant (Pearson r = .07 for males, and -.05 for j females), and thus that the ATWS does not measure masculin- ' ity-femininity. j In summary, analyses performed on the full-length ATWS! I suggest that scores are acceptably reliable, that full- | i scale scores validly measure attitudes toward women and not| ! masculinity-femininity, and that full-scale scores and mostj ' of the separate items have good construct validity . ; 1 ( A shortened version of the ATWS was constructed ! , (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 19 73) to accommodate those ! t : I situations in which "testing time is important and a j i ; I numerical score for each respondent rather than informationj | about the distribution of responses to the individual items; ! is sought" (Addendum to Spence & Helmreich, 19 72a). This i ' I \ j short-ATWS consists of 2 5 items selected from the full- j | scale ATWS on the basis of item analyses done on a sample j i - of 2 41 female and 2 86 male undergraduates from introduc- j I I i tory psychology classes at the University of Texas, Austin.; i I i 'Correlations between the short-ATWS and the full-length \ i ' , ATWS were found to be extremely high, .97 for both males | and females. The stability of scores on the short-ATWS and, 1 the full-length ATWS was cross-validated on data from 292 j mothers and 232 fathers from the above student sample; cor-: I relations between the two measures were also extremely high in these parent data, .96 for both mothers and fathers. A principle axis factor analysis of the student data indicated that the short-ATWS is essentially uni factorial, with the first unrotated factor accounting for 67.7 percent of the variance for females and 69.2 percent of the variance for males. These analyses suggest that the reliability and validity of the full-scale scores from the full-length ATWS are preserved in full-scale scores from the short-ATWS. For both instruments, the samples on which the scales were normed and validated correspond closely to the sample used in the present investigation. Thus, the validity of these measures in the context of the present investigations concern for assessment of students' attitudes toward women is supported. APPENDIX Variable Potency Rule Following tense-relaxed fast-slow lo g ic a l-in tu itiv e deli berate-impulsi ve Source Trend Results E Direction of Differences Semantic D iffe re n tia l Factors Sex ,10 Males?* females Sex ,15 Females ? Males Semantic D iffe re n tia l Adjectives Status Sex X Status X Outcome ,12 .13 Sex status x Outcome .14 ,08 physicians ? Nurses O n Success; Male Male Female female Nurse? p h ysicia n ? Nurse? Physician But O n fa ilu re ; Female Male Male female Physician? Physician?Nurse? Nurse Females7 Males Nurse Physician Physician Nurse who who who who succeed ? succeed Fail Fail N.B. The higher the score, the more the character was scored in the direction of the f ir s t adjective. Variable 2.) E ffo rt 4.) Assessment 2.) Studies harder (less hard) in future 2.) Studies harder (less hard) in future 4.) Praised (c ritic iz e d ) by supervi sor 7. ) Wonders i f i t is a ll worthwhile Source Sex X Outcome Sex X Status Sex Status X Outcome Sex Table 8 (C ont'd.) E. Causal Measures .07 .15 Consequence Measures .11 .14 .09 Sex X Status X Outcome .09 Direction of Differences Males Females Males Females who who who who succeed 7 succeed 7 f a il 7 fa il Male Female Male Female Nurse 7 Physician Physician 7 Nurse Males-r Females Physician Nurse Nurse Physician who who who who f a il 7 fa il * 7 - succeed 7 succeed Male Female Feedback 7 Feedback O n Success: Female Male Physicians7 Physicians and Male Female Nurses 7 Nurses but Table 8 (C ont'd.) Variable Source £ 7.) (Continued) 9.) Throws w ild party Outcome .06 9.) Throws w ild party Sex X Status .09 11.) Worries others m ay Sex X Outcome .08 accuse o f studying too hard (not hard enough) 11.) Worries others m ay Sex X Status .13 accuse of studying X Outcome too hard (not hard enough) Direction of Differences O n Failure: Male Female P h ysicia n sP h ysicia n s and Female Male Nurses -r Nurses Success > Failure Male Male Female Female N ursed Physi ci an ^ P h y s i ci an y Nurse Males Females Females Males who who who who f a i l > f a il 'T succeed7 succeed O n Success: Female Male Nurse ^ Nurse and Female Male Phys i ci an 7 Phys i ci an but O n Failure: Male Female Phys i ci an ' 7 Phys i ci an and Female Male Nurse ^ Nurse Variable 11.) Worries others m ay accuse of studying too hard (not hard enough) Source Sex X Status Table 8 (Cont'd.) P .12 Direction of Differences Male Female Male Female Physicians^ Nurse 'T Nurses Physician Two-Way A N O V A s on Causal and Specified Consequence Measures® Consequence Variable 1. Continues to make Sex accurate assess ments Causal Variable 3. Bad Luck Status Consequence Variable 2. Studies harder in Sex the future 11. Worries that Sex others may accuse o f not: studying hard enough S U C C E S S O U T C O M E .12 FAILURE O U T C O M E .15 .12 .12 Males 7 Females Physicians 7 Nurses Males 7 Females Males 7 Females @ Consequence measures used in two-way A N O V A analyses were measures 1, 2, 4, 8, and 11. Table 9 L is t of F Values, Degrees of Freedom, and M ean Squares fo r S ig n ifica n t Results^ Three-Way A N O V A s Variable Source 4 f M S F Evaluation Factor Outcome 1, 93 461.86 66.02 Rule Following Factor Outcome 1, 93 34.89 14.75 Femininity Factor Outcome 1, 93 4.52 5.58 Femininity Factor Sex 1, 93 200,74 77,43 Adjective 3 Outcome 1, 93 49.12 40.66 Adjective 4 Sex 1, 93 14,21 5.04 Adjective 4 Outcome 1, 93 25,35 14.92 Adjective 7 Outcome 1, 93 4.01 5.62 Adjective 9 Outcome 1, 93 23.51 37.40 Adjective 14 Outcome 1, 93 103.90 127.60 Adjective 14 Sex X Outcome 1, 93 3.63 4.45 Adjective 15 Outcome 1, 93 7,53 10.13 Adjective 16 Outcome 1, 93 93.04 39.09 Adjective 17 Outcome 1, 93 24.89 28.63 Adjective 20 Outcome 1, 93 28.20 29.05 Adjective 2 Q Sex X Outcome 1, 93 3,91 4.03 Adjective 2 Q Status X Outcome 1, 93 4.44 4,57 Adjective 21 Outcome 1, 93 3.18 11.33 Adjective 22 Outcome 1, 93 97.80 117.50 Adjective 23 Outcome 1, 93 124.46 68.25 Adjective 24 Outcome 1, 93 93.63 80.71 Adjective 25 Outcome 1, 93 174.39 157.53 Cause 1 Outcome 1, 93 319,95 124.51 Cause 2 Outcome 1, 93 424.95 120.25 @ For a more complete description of adjectives, causes, and consequence measures, see Appendix A 160 Table 9 (Cont'd.) Variable Source i f M S F Cause 2 Sex 1, 93 19,99 7.47 Cause 3 Outcome 1, 93 18.52 7.29 Cause 4 Outcome 1, 93 102.74 31.92 Cause 5 Outcome 1, 93 62.27 35.49 Consequence 1 Outcome 1, 93 62.70 114.06 Consequence 1 Sex 1, 93 3.51 7.33 Consequence 2 Outcome l s 92 146.89 231.86 Consequence 3 Outcome 1, 92 26.03 41,62 Consequence 4 Outcome 1 , 92 23.57 31.26 Consequence 5 Sex 1, 92 8.23 7.12 Consequence 5 Outcome 1, 92 3.00 8.45 Consequence 5 Sex X Status X Outcome 1, 92 2.01 5.66 Consequence 6 Status 1, 92 11.16 14,90 Consequence 6 Sex 1, 92 3.18 4.25 Consequence 6 Outcome 1, 92 9.99 26.48 Consequence 7 Outcome 1, 92 10,21 18.44 Consequence 7 Status X Outcome 1, 92 4.04 7.29 Consequence 8 Sex X Outcome 1, 92 2.09 4.25 Consequence 9 Sex 1, 93 7.17 6,39 Consequence 10 Outcome 1, 93 12.31 29.62 Consequence 1 1 Outcome Two-Way A N O V A s 1, 93 68.08 95.75 Success Consequence 8 Sex 1, 93 3,01 4.16 Failure Cause 2 Sex 1, 93 31.51 6.76 Failure Consequence 1 Sex 1, 93 2.30 4.42 Failure Consequence 4 Sex 1, 92 4.44 4.33 Failure Consequence 1 1 Sex X Status 1 , 93 4.34 3.85 Table 10 L is t of F Values, Degrees of Freedom, and M ean Square fo r Trend Results® Variable Trends fo r Three-Way A N O V A s Source df M S F Rule Following Factor Sex , 93 15.06 2.16 Potency Factor Sex > 93 42.37 2.80 Adjective 4 Status , 93 7.13 2.53 Adjective 1 5 Status X Outcome , 93 1.51 2.03 Adjective 16 Sex , 93 7.07 2.20 Adjective 20 Sex X Status X Outcome » 93 2.26 2.33 Adjective 23 Status X Outcome , 93 5.63 3.09 Cause 1 Sex , 93 6.44 2.34 Cause 2 Sex X Outcome » 93 12.03 3.40 Cause 4 Sex X Status > 93 8.60 2.24 Consequence 2 Sex , 92 2.01 2.54 Consequence 2 Status X Outcome > 92 1.82 2.24 Consequence 4 Sex , 92 3.11 3.03 Consequence 7 Sex X Status X Outcome , 92 1.62 2.92 Consequence 8 Status X Outcome , 92 1.47 3.00 Consequence 9 Sex X Status , 93 3.35 2.98 Consequence 9 Outcome » 93 1.94 3.65 Consequence 1 1 Sex X Status , 93 2.54 2.36 Consequence 1 1 Sex X Status X Outcome , 93 1.83 2.57 Success Consequence 1 Trends fo r Two-Way A N O V A s Sex , 93 1.28 2.52 Failure Cause 2 Status , 93 7.38 2.11 Failure Consequence 2 Sex , 92 1.87 2.52 Failure Consequence 1 1 Sex , 93 2.84 2.52 @ For a more complete description of adjectives, causes, and consequence measures, see Appendix A.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of differential instruction treatments on the problem identification performance of field dependent-independent nursing students

PDF

The influence of nursing curriculum and social factors on nursing students' choice of rural practice in Thailand

PDF

Midlife "baby-boom" women compared to their older counterparts in midlife

PDF

The relationship of maternal factors and socioeconomic level to the reading achievement of 7-11 year-old black students

PDF

The effects of modeling, direct instruction, and competence on children's helping responses

PDF

The attitudes of professional nurses toward nursing research

PDF

Burnout in baccalaureate nursing students as it relates to self-actualization and coping methods

PDF

Relationship of student attitudes on ROTC with attitudes toward purposes and functions of the university

PDF

Beliefs of leaders in education toward status of women

PDF

Medical student attitude toward seeking professional psychological help

PDF

The relationship between experience on the wards and performance with a simulated patient: A study of nurses' skill retention in using the Bird respirator

PDF

The relationship of the educational preparation of nurse supervisors and their perceptions of associate degree nursing graduates' and baccalaureate of science nursing degree graduates' job performance

PDF

Type A behavior, professional role orientation, locus of control and perception of stressors among baccalaureate nursing students

PDF

Paths to sex role redefinition in dual-career women

PDF

Differential effects of three group treatments on self-actualization and attitudes toward the sex roles of women

PDF

Effect of teacher roles and organizational systems upon secondary student attitudes toward organizational climate

PDF

Causal attributions of success and failure of learning disabled and normal students and their mothers

PDF

The relationship of weight loss in an obesity treatment program to expectancy of success and to selected attribution constructs

PDF

An exploratory investigation of women's studies in selected institutions of higher education with emphasis upon the historical background of the status of women and the special needs of women in ...

PDF

Student nurse learning styles based on experiential learning theory from three types of nursing programs

Asset Metadata

Creator Brosnan, Joan (author)

Core Title Effects of sex, professional status, and attitudes toward women on female student nurses' reactions to clinical professionals' success and failure

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag health sciences, nursing,OAI-PMH Harvest,women's studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-452887

Unique identifier UC11245610

Identifier usctheses-c26-452887 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24187.pdf

Dmrecord 452887

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brosnan, Joan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA