Eastern Illinois University The Keep

Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications

1978 Androgyny and Psychological Adjustment of Heterosexual and Homosexual Women Deborah R. Donison Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in Psychology at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program.

Recommended Citation Donison, Deborah R., "Androgyny and Psychological Adjustment of Heterosexual and Homosexual Women" (1978). Masters Theses. 3236. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/3236

This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PAPER CERTIFICATE #2

TO: Graduate Degree Candidates who have written formal theses.

SUBJECT: Permission to r ep roduce theses.

' The University Library is receiving a number of requests from other institutions asking permission to reproduce dissertations for inclusion in their library holdings. Although no copyr ight laws are involved, we feel that professional c ourtesy demands that permission be obtained from the author before we allow theses to be copied.

Please sign one of the following statements:

Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University has my permission to lend my thesis to a reputable college or univers ity for the purpose of copying it for inclusion in that institution's library or research holdings.

'j ') (/I •'/.f" if // /c date Author

I respectfully request Booth Library of Eastern Ill inois University not my th s s reproduced because allow e i be 

Date Author

pdm Androgyny and Psychological Adjustment -or Heterosexual and Homosexual Women

(TITLE)

BY

Deborah R. Don�son

THESIS

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

Master of Arts

IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CHARLESTON, ILLINOIS

I HEREBY RECOMMEND THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE GRADUATE DEGREE CITED ABOVE

7/21/7fDATE ADVISEf ' •

' 1.----e· r' ' I -;;!lfARTMENT HEAD A�1IDnOG'nJY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

OF HE'fEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL WOlVIEN

BY

DEBORAH R. DONISON

B.A. in Psych., University of Windsor, 1976

ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 1•Iasters of Arts in Psychology at the Graduate School of Eastern Illinois University

CHAHLESTON, ILLINOIS

1978 .i

Abstract

Early research on t.'.'1e study of le0t: ·1n'. sr:1 »:2.s l.ar:�·c_:;ly csycno- analyticaily oriented and contended t.nat h:)l'1D:.::r�x'.:3.Lity was a form of psychopathology. I•.any have found that Cer::ale homos1�xu3ls have a deep sense of inferiority and suffer from neu�cticis�. �ecent investigation however, indicates that this is not necessarily the case. It has now been found that lesbians are nc �ore �eurotic than female heterosexuals. Furt hermore , several other investL�a­ tors have found lesbian s to be better adjusted, in some respects, than heterosexual women.

Such difference s are accountable for a nu�ber of reasons in­

cluding the use of nonpatient sub j ects , reduction in saEnling error s and the use of non-projective rather than projective tech­ niques. The Comrey Personality Scales (CPS), which is a non­

projective device, provides a comprehensive, multi-dimensional assessment measuring the major personality characteristics of 2n adult.

Sandra L. Bern, also interested in the study of psychological adjustment, pioneered the study of andro�yny. �he questioned the assumption that it is the sex-tyned in di victual •:1ho tynifies mental health, and focused on the behavioral and social consequences of more flexible sex-role concepts. Be� (1174) has developed the

Bem Sex �ole Inve ntory (BSriI), an instr��ent that differentiates between sex-role tyres. She c le.s sifi es t::ese a_s :-'."!3 sc1; Une, 2

. ,,._,, .._.,.. l ,--. fe�inine sex-typed individunls �v01 ' ...,.- _; 'J· ;. �- . ..L \:5

---. .-_ .,.-... - - '\ .-., andro�ynous individuals do not. -�- ... ; (_� '- _, '

cnga�e more freely in whatever heh�vior

its stereotyre as masculi.'le or

It was hynotnesized that there would be a corr·ela- tion between androgyny and nsycholo�ical adiust�2nt for both the

heterosexual and homosexual women, en the b�.:.�� a:�d :i :�. it \ii} s

sec ondly hypothesized that there would be a si ·n:fica�t difference

between lesbians and heterosexual women on levels of anaro�yny,

nsycholo�ical adjustment and demographics. Thir�ly, it was hy-

pothesized that lesbi a ns "in the closet" ·.. 101Jld be less andro,:';ynou.s and less psychologically ad .i u sted than tho se "out of the clo:::.et."

It was further hypothesi ze d that the lonr:er a lesbian was "in the

clos e t , " the less androgynous and less psycholo�ically adjusted

she would be, and the lon�er sh e was "out of the closet," the more

andro�ynous and adjusted she would be.

Seventy-five lesbians and seventy-five heterosexuals from

Detroit, �ichi�an were given the BSrtI, CFS and demog raphic sheet

developed by the experimenter. They were classified into the appropriate sex-role cate�ories according to their endo rsem ent of

factor s on the BSrll. keans and t-ratios were found for each of

the BSRI's Androgyny and Social Desirability scales. The raw

scor2s were a lso obtained from the CFS.

A discri�jnant analysis was used to diff0renti2te between

the heterosexual and homosexual grour's on lev<::>ls of andro.rryny,

rsycholo�ical adjustment and demograrhics. Additionally, a 3

in the discriminant analysiH but involve� �he inaenenaEnL vari- bles of: a) lesbians in or out of the closet, b) now lo�s they were in, and c ) how lonr� they v.rere out. lear:::;cn -�r\)TJCT, ;:o:�:ent correlations v.rere also computed.

rlesults indicated there was a si�nificant positive relation-

,., . , .. snip,. b-'-e�ween an d ro�yny an d psycnaio�icaL adJustment as measur ea'b y the CFS. The discriminant analysis found a si�nificant difference between homosex1�a1 and het0rosexual wo;;;en on two out o:· five demo-

�rauhics, six out of nine CfS scale s and three out of four B3dI scales . Results of the t-test and Pearson correlations indicated that lesbians in the closet were si�nificantly less andro�ynous and l e ss adjusted in six out of nine CFS scales than those out of the closet. Furthermore, it was found that the longer a woman was out of the closet the more androgynous and adjusted she was in six out of nine CfS sca les . Conversely, the longer a woman was in the c loset , the le ss adjusted and less adjusted she was in six out of nine CFS scales. The canonical analysis further sun­ ported th e hypothesis that lev e ls of andro o.;yny and adjustment were

related to len�th of time in and out of the closet, but was not as strong, as the supoort given by the t - t e st and P e ar so n correla­ tions. Table of Contents

l'a -e

Abstract . • 1-3

l Acknowl e dr�emen ts . •+

Introduction • 5-18

Research Problems • • • • 5-7

Projective 'l'est Data • • • • • • • • • • • 7-9

Nonorojective Test Data • • • • • 9-15

Andro6yny and Psychological Adjustment 15-17

Statement of th e Problem • • • • • • 17

Hypotheses • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18

Method . • • • • • • • • • • • • • lY-22

Subjects • • • • • • • • • • • • 19-20

Instruments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20-21

Frocedure • • • • • • • • • • • • 21-22

Results • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22-42

Analysis I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22-35 35-42 Analysis II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 43-52 Discussion • • • • • • • • • • •

Conclusions and Hecommendations • • • • • • • • 52-54

Appendix i . • • • • • • • • • 59

Appendix ii • • • • • • • • • • • 61 4

Acknowled�ements

The author would like to thank LouL-;r.:: ,.Tac'.·:son, 1au.l ranek l·h. iJ., and John Rearden Ph.D. for their time, supnort a�d su��esLions in the completion of thi s thesis. The assistance in the sta�istical analy sis by John H.earden Ph.D. was invaluable and ,o;reatly appre­ ciated. The author would also like to thank Sue Stoner for sunrort,

assistance and genuine intere st in my endeavors. A very spec ial thanks goes to Pat LaRochelle, to whom this paper is dedicated, for her continuou s in spiration, support and optimism throu�hout the course of this paper and year. /.: /

A.narogyny and Psycholo.c:icaJ ;d,iu: tnc:1t

Deborah rl. Jonison

Eastern Illinois University

A recent trend in psycholo�ical research hos indicatej the

need to study the psychologv of women injenenrie�tly from studjes

of men (Manni on, 1967). One area larr�ely ne,f!,lected is tho.t of

female homosexuality. As Saghir and 1lobins ( 19/0) and others

have recognized, lesbianism is not a reversed ima�e of male

sexual inversion, and merits an investigation of its own. As a

result, there has been an upsurge in the study of female homo-

sexuality, performed from various theoretical perspectivss, rro-

ducing seem ingly inconsistent and contradictory results.

Rese arch Iroblems and Review of the Literature

Previous research has been nla gued with a number of serious

problems. The most str ik i ng and noteable are sam�lin � difficul- ties .

The central question is that of what constitutes a representa-

tive sample of homosexuals in general. Fart of the prob l em lies

in the definition of "homosexual. " The Kinsey ..:tating Sca le has

been a definite asset in provi ding a workable solution to the

definition.

In many earl ier studies, sarr:nles vrnre often aravm from legally or nsvchiatrically involvea ��· 27�U-�J_lS. c:::c; sar::nlcs are 6 unacceptable for a number of reasons. Any comp0rison between homosexual patient groups and heterosexual nonpatient groups is decept ive ; the patient vs. nonpatient status is overriding, re­ gard le ss of sexual orientation. Comparisons between homosexuals and het ero sexua l patients are often difficult to derive conclu­ sions from, for there are psychological problems in add iti on to the issue of sexual orientati on , and one is hard pressed to de­ cide when the psychological prob lem ends and the sexual orienta­ tio n problem begins { Gonsiorek , 1977).

Legally involved samples are inappropr iate , as are sa mples from institutions such as the armed forces. The sa lient feature here is that the homosexual behavior has come to the attention of the authorities. Given the adverse consequen ces of sucn involve­ ment , and the fact that mo st homo sexuals do not become legally invo lved because of their homo sexua l behavior, this sample prob­ ably includes a number of homosexuals who se reality testing or behavioral controls are tenuous (Gonsiorek, 1977). Often , homo­ sexuals who bec ome legally involved become so not because of private sexual relationships with a consenting adult, but because such relationships are e ither not private, not consenting, or not with an adult or bec ause of other circ11mstances like solicitation, entrapment or prostitution. Obviously, these sample s wi ll be deviant and not comparable to simply being homosexual without legal difficulties.

Homo s exuality in prison must be viewed cauti ously , for it may reflect more about the social heirarchy among prisoners than it doe s about homos exual ity Ofoney, 1972b). 7

r-:ore recent studies t.cmd to use nnorna 1u or "fnnc t ionin�n homosexual samples and have used subjects from gay bars, homo­ sexual political and social or�anizations and clubs, and homo­ sexual social and friendshin networks. l�1Dwever, such S'Jliir'les still remain biased. Gay bar samrles heavily tap individuals with alchohol problems. Such samples may also be skewed toward young, introverted individuals lackin� a stable sexual partner.

F'urther sources in the gay communit,y estimate that no more than

2m� of homosexuals go to r;ay bars with any frequency ( Gonsiorek,

1977}.

Homosexual organizations are likely to mainly include mili­ tant individuals, or at lea st those "out of the closet." Samples using friends of the experimenter and derived contacts may be biased in the direction of being like the experimenter.

To provide a better sample, the experimenter should choose one that mimics the major demographic characteristics of the area from which the sample is drawn. homosexual subjects should be taken from as wide a variety of sources as possible, for while this will not eliminate sampling di fficulties, it should reduce them.

Persons with psychiatric or legal involvement should be screened out, unless the clearly stat ed �oal is to obtain sam­ ples so involved.

Projective Test Data

Those studies employin� proje�tive technioues have been de­ rived from nsychoanalytic theories. In accord with these, projective techniques are expected to uncov0r si�ns of maternal

hostility, primit ive re�ressions and fixations, or siPns of penis

envy Ofannion , 1977). On e of the most frequently used tools has

been the rl.orschach. Armon (196'.J) ·... .ras the fir�3t to do a compara- tive analysis of sp e ci fi c content and rrocess cate�ories from a

sample o f non patient le sbi an Horschach protocols. She concluded that since major di fferences were not found, that. homosexuality w as not a clinical entity. She further added that it would be un-

wise to "assume that homos e xu ality is associated with gross per­ sonality disorders" ( p. 309 ) .

Hopkins (1970) utiliz ed the florschach to car2y out a study

of 24 nonpatient lesbians matched with a contro l group of 24 het erosexual women. Th e homosexual sample �ave fewer overall re­ sponses which Hopkins interpreted to mean inhibited emotional

reactivity. H opkins also confirmed Arman's su gsest i o n of maternal hostility on the basis that the homosexuals chose the rl.orschach

Card VII as the least liked card. This card is generally con -

sidered to represent femal es or the mother .

Riess, Safer and Yotive (1974 ) reviewed projective data on

female homosexua lity and concluded that there are more commonali- ties than differences between homosexual and heterosexual women,

and that t here is l ittl e from the lit erature to suggest that fe-

male homosexuality is a spe cifiable clinical entity.

In addition to t he problem involved in attemptinG to draw

me anin � ful conclusions from a handful of studies, Riess, et al.,

(1q74) no t ed that one of the probl ems in reviewin� the l ite ra tu re

nroi. ective ap�roache s is the abse nce of consiste ncv or on � . .. f' '}

functionino; ponulations of hornoscxual2 2:-::J othe::s or:: dl::o�urbed

samrles. Their cone 1 us ion vm c; th9 t nu statements could be made with such incsnsistcncv.

Among various problems cited by Zubin (lq is his f'ind- ing that research on the rtorschach h2s failed to nroJuce evidence

of the techni que ' s clinical validity. ln a later study (Zubin,

1956) it was demon strated that a s1.bjects' response can be in- fluenced by numerous factor s unrelate�i to the ·0nc:.mscious content

of the s ub ject including such variables as the examiner-subject

interaction, the personality of the tester, the physical surrounJ-

inEr,s, and variations in administration.

In an attempt to establish the .ti.orschach's clinical validity,

Lon g and Karon ( 1969 ) demonstrated that a well-trained Rorschach trainee could correctly identify the sex of q out of 13 male and

6 out of 16 fema le patients . Unfortunately, none of the salient

features of the procedure were e xp la ined, and the "probability of

this study being replicated is severely diminished by such poor exposition" { Bur es , 1972, p. 439).

l·inen reviewins the rlorschach for the Seventh mental measure- ments vearbook, McArther stated that validation studies have had mixed results with n egative findin�s most o ften occurrins under

five conditions. One of these in cluded is "when the crite rion is a waste- basket word: orsanicity, schizophrenia, homosexuality"

(Buros, 1972, p. 442).

Nonrroiective Test Data

Freedman (1968, 1970, 1975a, 1975b) used the Eysenck lC

Fersonality Inventory, a test snecifically directed toward mea­ surinf'., neurotic ism and emotional instability, and the i·ersonal

Orientation Inventory (POI), a measure of self-F.ct.ualization, to a ssess the p sychological ad,iustment of heterosen;al a!'1d homosexual women. lt was found that there were no Sif\nificant differences between the two groups in a .rc-lobal measurement of psychological ad � us tment . He found the members of the lesbian �roun no more neurotic than the control group, and that homosexuality is not nece s sarily related to psychological disturbance. Freedman found that the homosexual group functioned significantly better in sev­ era l areas, as indicated by their scores on the FOI. It was sug­

�ested that the lesbians had a greater degree of inner-direction, an ability to live by one's o�m va lues, with an internal locu s of evaluation. They value the same things in life that self­ actua lized people do, and tend to live in the prese nt. They have greater spontaneity and a greater acceptance of the ir own aggres­ sive i mpulses , a sensitivity of responsiveness to their own needs and feelings and a capa city for develon in� relationships unencum­ bered by exaggerated expe ctations and obligations. It was also found that the lesbian women were no less self-accepting than the control sample.

Freedman concluded that women who engaged in homosexual re­ lations are to a certain extent, different in their psychodynamics from heterosexua l l:Tomen, but pointed out that in most instances it is difficult to determine whether those differences are initially part of the core aspects of the lesbian personality, or whether they are the result of the lesbians response to society pres sures 11 that force her to become inner-directed, aware, sensitive and self reliant. Eowever, these differences do no detract from the ability of the lesbian to function effectively in society.

Kenyon's (196S) study concluded that lesbians were si�ni- ficantly higher in neuroticism, usinr; the f,;n�dsley 1°ersonali ty lnventory ( MFI) and the Cornell kedical Index health •,mestion­ naire ( CMI).

Sie�elman (1972) criticized Kenyon's interpretation, for a l though it was found that lesbi ans scored h.J <'.!,her on neuroticism than heterosexual women, the mean homosexual J:�euroticism s c ore was lower than the mean score of a mixed group of English univer­ sity student s, and much lower th an the average score of a group of neurotics, reported in the MPI manual.

Hopkins (1969) selected the 16PF to compare 24 lesbian and

24 heterosexual women . These were the same subj ects used in the author's Rorschach study (1970) cited earlier. It was concluded that a good general descriptive term for th e avera�e lesbian would be "independent," since Factor A sh owed them to be detached ,

Factor E indicated dominance and assertiveness, Fac tor M showed they were more bohemian and Factor Q2 indic at ed they were more

self-sufficient than controls . Furthermore , Factor III, alert roise, sug�ested lesbians had a resilient personality .

Saghir and Robins (1969) studied 57 nonpatient lesbians matched with controls and found that there was no significant differences in the prevalence of neurotic disorders between les­ bians and matched controls.

Thompson, McCandless and Strickland ( 1971) studied 84 12 non pa ti snt 1 csbians matched with cont r() � s. 1;tLU 7 �nr� the Ad ,iecti ve

Check List (ACL) and the Semantic Uifferential Test (�LJT1 for the evaluative dimension (clear-dirty, happy-sad, fresh-stale) taken from Os ::ood, Suci and Tannenbaum ( 195?). Tt-wre ,,:ere nc signifi­ cant differences between the two grours oti1(c;r than t!.at tr,e one

ACL scale indicated lesbians to be hir;h in self-confidence.

Wolff ( 1971), found lesbians to po ss<-;ss a hia:her de:jree of aggression and a highf'r incidence of abuse and violence than hetero­ sexual women. Th is is in agreement with one of Freedr.:an's (1968) findinr:s which indicated his subjects accepted their agp;ressive impulses. ln agreement with projective data from Armon (1960) and Hopkins (1970) that lesbians had less gratification froK per­ sonal relat ionships and suffered inhibitBd emotional reactivity,

Wolff found her subjects to be shy and tense. And in agreement, with findings from Saghir, rlobins, �v'albran and Gentry ( 1970), she noted an increased incidence in psychophysiological disturbances and a significantly greater degree of alcoholism in the lesbian sample. The e;eneral conclusions drawn by Wolff of greater distur­ bance in lesbians, is in agreement with Kenyon's (1968) findings.

Wolff's findin�s, however, must be viewed in light of the lack of methodolo�ical rigor used in her study. One major criti­ cism is her total reliance on her own interpretation and clinical objectivity, which is psychoanalyt ically based.

Loney (1972) studied 11 nonpatient self-labelled lesbians by means of a auestionnaire and the Family Adjustment Te st, utilizing

12 heterosexual women for controls. .::.ihe found that the majority of the homosexual i·wmen were "married" to other women, that is 1? .J..._../ were involved in healthy, continuin� jnterrersonal relationships, which directly contradicts Wolff's (1971) findings.

Wilson and Green (1971) attempted to validate the finding that lesbians show different personality �rofiles on nonrrojec-

tive instruments without those differences necessarily• bein2'u pathological. The California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the

Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EFPS), the Eysenck Per­ sonality Inventory (EFI} and a brief personal history question- naire were given to each of the 46 lesbian and 46 heterosexual women. Homosexual women were higher on scales measuring LJOmi- nance, Capacity for Status, Good Impression, Intellectual

Efficiency and Endurance. The heterosexual group was signifi- cantly higher in neuroticism and higher on scales Heterosexuality and Femininity. The findings of greater freedom from neurosis in the lesbian sample agrees with Freedrnans' findings (1968, 1970, 1975a, 1975b) and the general conclusions Hopkins (196�} tends to draw from her 16PF study.

Siegelman ( 1Cl72 ) studied 84 nonpatient lesbians and contrasted the results of psychological tests with those of heterosexual fe- male controls. Homosexual women ·were significantly more goal- directed and self-accepting than the controls. The lesbian group also had higher scores on tendermindedness and dominance, and lower scores on depression, submission and anxiety. His findings are in agreement with those of Armon (1960), Freedman (1968),

Hopkins (1969), Thompson, McCandless and Strickland (1971} and

Wilson and Green (1971). The psychoanalytic contention that 1L

female homosexuals have a hjo;her dercndsncy need >:.c::s not snr-

ported by Siegelman or Hopkins. Soccarides (1963), Caprio (1954},

rtomrr (1965), �ilbur {1q65), and haye,

win, Gershwin, Kogan, Torda, and vJilbur ( l

that female homosexuals have a deer. sense

the results of much of the above research contrauicts such find-

ings and conclusions.

The examination of Caprio' s study reveals its sa:;�pling prob-

lern, which may go unnoticed otherwise. Th.iE; study was baseci upon

his clinical patients, on information p,iven to him by fellow

therapists, and on information gathered "when (he) circled the

globe with the specific purpose of accumulating scientific infor­

mation dealing with the prevalence and practices of lesbians in

various parts of the world" (Caprio, 1954, p. 119). Closer investisation, as Delores Klaich (1974) reveals, indicates his

world-wide explorations seem to have centered around interviewing

prostitutes, and where necessary, he "enp:aged in the services of

a 'taxi driver' who acted as an interpreter" (p. 120).

Riess, Safer and Yotive (1974) presented a review of the

nonprojective data and concluded that while there are personality

differences that distinguish lesbians from heterosexuals these

differences are not pathological in nature. Hather, the lesbian is seen as more dominant, autonomous, assertive, self-actualizing

and inner-directed than her heterosexual counterpart. In some

ways she has been described as healthier than the heterosexual

control s , both in terms of freedom from neurosis and productivity 15

in the professional world. This r1ictvre does net SUT:rort the

psychoanalytic position that the lesbian is a malfunctioning

neurotic.

Androgvnv and Fsychological Adjustment

Sandra L. Bem has introduced the concert and measurement of

androgyny. She has questioned the traditional assumption that it

is the sex-tyned individual who ty�ifies mental health, and fo­

cuses rather on the behav ioral and social consequences of more

flexible sex-role concepts.

wnereas a narrowly mascu line self-concept might inhibit be-

"haviors that are sterotyped as feminine, and a narrowly feminine

self-concept might inhibit behaviors sterotyped as masculine,

"a mixed, or androgynous, self-concept might allow an individual

to freely engage in both masculine and feminine behaviors" (Bern,

1974, p. 155). For years, American society has considered masculinity to be

the sign of the psychologically healthy male, and femininity to be

the mark of the psychologically healthy female ( Bern, 1975 ). rle­

cently, however, the women's liberation movement has argued that

our present system of sex-role differentiation has outlived its

usefulness and that it now serves only to prevent men and women

from developing as .full, complete beings. Supporters of the

movement contend that people should no longer be socialized to

conform to outdated standards, but that they should be encouraged

to be androf;Ynous. People would then have the psychological

freedom to engage in whatever behavior seemed rnost effective at

the moment, irrespective of its sterotyne ( Bern, 1975). 16

In a recent series of studies, bem (1975) has found that androgynous individuals of both sexes seem to vary their behaviors cross-situationally so that they are able to do well at both masct:line and feminine behaviors, whereas sex-typed ind.iv iduals do not. Juanita \'iilliarns exrlored sex-role identif ica-:ion and mental health in her re-evaluation of psychoanalytic theory, and demonstrated how identification with a sex-ty�ed same-sexed parent may not be as healthy as Freud and his followers have argued. The results of her data sug:;est that two-thirds of the high school females identified with ascendant-dominant traits in mothers or fathers, while less than one-third identified with retiring, passive qualities. Those identifying with ascendant, dominant fathers were more confident, self -reliant , assertive and self­ accepting than those who saw themselves and their mothers as being retiring and passive (Kaplan & Bean, 1976).

Further support for the concept of androgyny has been found, for high femininity in females has consistently been correlated with high anxiety, low self - esteem and low social acceptance

(Consentino & Heilbrum, 1964; Gall, 1969 ; Gray , 1957; Sears, 1970;

Webb, 1963).

Block , Van der Lippe, and Block {1973) found that andro­ gynous women tended to be more outgoing, more successful pro­ fessionally, and less rest ricted p ersonalities than sex-typed women.

Women have �en erally been exemplified by the fo llowing traits: dependence� passivity, fra gility, nonaggression , noncompetitiveness, subjectivity, inability to risk, emotional lability and 17

supportiveness { Bardwick &:. Dorvan, 1971). Such sex-traits

themselves are not totally undesirable, nor pathological. Rather,

pathology accrues from either of the two extremes: only sex­

typed reactions and/or the absense of responses that are assigned

to the opposite sex.

Statement of the Problem

The studies on the psychological adjustment of hornose)..'Ual

women have produced inconsistent and contrary findings due to a

number of research problems, particularly those of sampling pro­

cedures. Recent studies have begun to attempt to control many of

these earlier confounding or uncontrolled variables, and have

found that although lesbians differs in a number of personality

dimensions from their heterosexual counterparts, they are not

less psychologically adjusted, and are in some cases, more ad­

justed. Luch more research is required here since sucJ:-1 v-rell

constructed research is limited to date.

Bern's (1974, 1975) studies, as well as those of her followers,

Lave recently shown that the androgynous individual has greater

nsychological adjustment and freedom to engage in a wider range

of behaviors, irrespective of their stereotype, than the sex-

typed individuals. Additional research is also required here

for the concept itself is relatively new and extensive research i1as not been carried out.

In an attempt to add more information to both the psychologi­

c:al adjustmen.t of· homosexual women and the concept of androgyny,

,,he present investigator will conduct two analyses to tc�st the

"ollowing hypotheses. 13

Hypotheses

Analvsis I

It is hynothesized that there wi ll be D positive co rrela­ t ion betwe en andro gyny a nd psycholoe;ical ad,iustment fo r both the heteros exual and homose�1al groups on th e Comrey Fersona lity

Scales (CPS ) and the Bern Sex Role Inventory {BSHI). It is secondly hypoth esized that there wi ll be a significant difference betwe en lesb ian and hetero sexual wo men on levels of andro gyny , p sycholo gical adjustment and demographic data .

Ana lysis II

The second analysis is designed to i nvest iga te the differ­ ences between lesbians who are "in the closet11 and those li eut of the closet" . "In the closet" refers to women involv e d in homo­ sexual rel ationships , but who do not proclaim their h omos exua lity to society for persona l , social and occupational reasons . Those

"out of the closet" inc lude women invo lved in homosexual rela­ t i on shin s wh o do proclaim th eir homo s exuality to society.

It is hypothe s i zed that lesbians "in the closet" will be les s androgynous and less p sycholog ically adj usted than those "out of the closet. " It is further hypothesized that the longer a l e s ­ bian is "in the closet" the less androgynous and less psycholo g i ­ cal ly a d j usted she will be , and the longer she has been "out of the closet" the more androgynous and mo re psychologically ad j us ted she will be. 19

Me thod

Sub j e c ts

Subjects were 75 female homos exua ls and 75 female hetero- sexual s wh o were drawn from the area of Detroit , I

. sexua l contacts were obtained through : a) personal fri ends of the experimenter, b) a gay ba r , c) wom en from a gay l ib e ra t i on organization and d) additio na l leads from both a) and b) in- eluding some women who have not " come out of the closet."

Heterosexual subjects were drawn proport ionally from equivalent

po pulations .

To be included in the homos exual group , a potential subject was required to rate herself on the Kinsey Rating Scale {Kinsey ,

Pomeroy , & .Martin , 1953 ) as "exclusively homo s exual ." A potential h etero sexua l subject wa s required to ra te herself "exc lusively / hetero s exua l." The sample wa s exc lusive in sexual orientation to

reduce the contaminating fa ctors that inci dental and bisexual b eh aviors may bring about . All subjects were "single" to elimi­ nate po ssible differences in the soc ial and sexua l lives of ma rried and single women .

A sub ,j e c t wa s not included in the study if she had eve r

spent time in prison or p sy ch iatric ho s pita l , because of the

apparently high rate of "situational homosexuality" in suc h sit­ uations ( Hassell & Smith , 1975 ). A subject wa s also not included

if she wa s pres ently undergoing psychological or psych i atric

treatment due to th e further po ssibility of contaminating re sults ,

and to maintain a nonpatient po pu lati on . 20

Effo rt wa s taken to have the hetero ;::; exua l and homosexual

subjects comparable in rega rds to age , occupation , reli�ion , edu­ cation , income , and age at wh ich they accepted their sexua l orientation. Twenty subjects were discarded durin ,;; testing be­ cause o f deviations in these areas .

Instruments

The Comrey Personality Scale ( CFS ) wa s chosen for it yields a "comprehensive multidimensional" description of the major areas of the adult personality domain. The inventory utili zes 160 mostly first-person pronoun statements to increase accuracy and self-disclosure. I t also compri ses 40 ho�ogeneous item subscales

(4 items per scale and 5 subscales per fa ctor) and mP-asures 8 personality demension. These are Trust vs . Defensiveness, Order­ l iness vs. Lack of Compulsion , Social Conformity vs. rlebellious­ ness, Activity vs . Lack of Ene rgy , Emotional Stability vs .

Neuroticism , Extroversion vs. Introversion , Masculinity vs. Femi­ ninity , and Empathy vs. Egocentricism. �alf of these items are positively and half negatively worded; and the examinee responds by using one o f the two 7-choice rating scales. Twenty items are

included to provide a validity scale (8 items ) and a response bias

scale (12 items ) bringing the total number of statements to 180

(Comrey , 1970).

An outstanding feature of the CPS compared with other person­ ality inv entories , is the development of homogeneous item clusters , labeled as factored homogeneous item d imensions (FHID) to consti­ tute various facto rs (Buros, 1972) . The FH ID' s serve th e same 21 funct ion as a subt e st in a multiple aptitude battery having two or more subtests to mea sure each fac t o r . Th e factor lo a dings thus obtained are much more reliable than those based on indi­ vidual items. In addit ion , even individua l iterr:s in th e crs provide a decided edge over a number of the inventori es (16FF,

MMPI , EPI , CFI ) b e c au s e of the wider spread of item respo n s e choices ( a 7-point scale instead of the usual two-or-thre e-choice items ) . Exc e llent homogeneity coefficients are reported fo r the

$ personality scales . Spl i t - half reli abilities ranged from . 87 for ¥asculinity vs. Feminin ity to .95 for �motional �tabil ity vs.

Neuroticism, and .96 for Extroversion vs. Introversion ( Buros, 1972 ).

The second paper and pencil test utilized was the Bern Sex

Ro le Iny entory (BSRI ) to indicate whether sub j ects were androgy­ nous or sex- typed. The instruments consists of 60 personality characterist ics: 20 feminine, 20 masculine and 20 neutral. Scores are derived for Ma sculinity , Femininity , Androgyny and Social

Desirability.

Th e Kinsey Rating Scale (Kinsey , Pomeroy , and Martin , 1953 ) was also uti lized as it best defines sexual ori entation.

Th e classification of occupations followed the outline of the

United States Department of Labor' s dictionary of occupati onal titles (U�S. Department of Labor, 1965 ), with a slight modification to include the c ategory of students.

Proced ure

All subjects were told that the purpose of the present study was to obtain more info rmation about women in today's society , 22 and that th eir anonymity wa s r;ua ranteed.

Subjects in both groups were administered the Bern �ex Ro le

I nventory (BSRI ) and the Comrey Personality Scales {CPS) in alternate sequenc e, along with a demograph ic sheet developed by the experimenter (see Appendix ii ). r.fost subjects finished with­ in a 50 minute period, although some required up to 70 minutes.

Means and t-ratios were found for each of the BSRI's Androg­ yny scales to determine wh ether a subject wa s classified a s mas­ culine , feminine or androgynous . Means were also obtained to determine levels of social desirability for each subject. Raw scores were obtained for each CPS test , also.

First , a discriminant analysis wa s used to differentiat e between the heterosexual and homo sexua l ·groups in terms of andro gyny , psychological adjustment and demograph ic characteris­ tics. A second analysis employed a canonical correlation wh ich ut ilized the same dependent variables as in the discriminant analysis, but invo lved the independent variab les of: a) lesbians wh o were either in o r out of the closet , b) how long they were in , and c) how long they were out , if out .

Re sults

Analysis I

Means , standard deviations , a pooled within-groups correla­ tion matrix and un ivariate F ratios were c omnuted on the homo­ sexual and heterosexual groups using a discriminant analysis program from SPSS (Nie , Jenkins , Steinbrenner & Bent , 1975). A stepwi se disc riminant analysis wa s a lso computed (METHOD: B.AO ) to 23 identify th e subset of variables wh ich be�:;t di scrir: in;:i ted hetero­ s e xua l from h omose xua l wom en . Pearson product moment correlations we re c omput ed separa tely for both heterosexua ls and homosexuals.

Th e results from the correlation of the CF:) and b�);{I arc presented in Table 1. It is important to clarify at this point that t he closer the andro gyny score is to zero , the more andro ;;y­ nous an individual is. Th erefore , wh ile several of the sip;nifi­ cant correlation s b e tween andro gyny and the Cro s c al es appear to be negat i v e , the relationship is actually a po sitive one . Th e low andro gyny score and h igh CPS score ( n egat i ve correlation ) is a po s i t ive relationship in reali ty since a low andro gyny s c o re is indic ative of a high level o f and ro gyny . Th erefore, fo r a posi­ tive relationship between andro gyny and th e CPS s cal e s , the androg­ yny sco re must be low and the CFS score high.

Significant ne gati ve correlations are found betwe en Androg­ - yny and Ac ti v i ty (r=.71, p �. 01 ) , Emotional St ab i li ty (r= .58, p <.

- • 01 ), Extroversion ( r= - • 58 , p<. 01 ), and Mas c ul i n i ty (CFS) ( .::- • 58 , p�. 01 ). Significant positive correlations are found between

Andro gyny and Social Confo rmity (r•.24 , ��.01), and Empathy (r•.16, llL.05). Ivia sculinity (BSRI) is found to be pos i t ively correlated with the CFS scales of Activity (r_•.77, llL.01), Emo t ional Stabili­ ty (r.=. 44 , Jlc:. . 01) , Extrov e rsion Cr.=.5 7 , ll�• 01 ) and lvlasculini ty ( r=

.74 , 12""' ·01). Femi n i ni ty (BSRI ) is positively correlated with un­

pathy (r:=.L2, ll�Ol) and Social Conformity (.I:=.17, 12.'•05). �ocial

Desirability {BSd.I ) is foun d to be positively correlated with

Activity Cr:= .33, .p.� 01) , Emotional Stability {r:=.25, JJ.'.01) and

Ext rov er:ii on Cr:•20 . , ,p.'• 01) (see Table la & lb ). Table la

Pearson Correlations for all subjects (N=lSO) on

__ _ _ _ --� __ � D�mogr�phics, q_PS an!i, _�_R:r s�ores

Response Order Social Occup . Educ . Inc ome I Orient . I Bias Trust I liness Conforml ty I Activity Age I

Occupation 1 .00 Education - .)6** 1.00 Income -.61** .55** 1.00 - . 01 .02

• oo • 6 • • 1. oo l - I . 0 I . 08 I 09 I i __ . _: .22** .16* [-�--- -�]� �------�-----!___ .2'.3** .10

*£.<... 05 **E,<- . 01 Table lb

Pearson Correlations for all subjects (N=l50) on

Demographics J CPS and BSRI scores

Emotional Extro -

------·· · ------.. . . -- - -- � - - , -

Ag�-- - ___ L'\ O_s.cu�a ti.2!,!. l "'d£ .• u c a ��.. ., () n l, [: I

1��-=--·•. ·'- .;,._ .• t--· ,., ,,j 1-�--·= t).,.. ; en *_.,,'at1( ·i \ -� .. L .. -···" --

:,ne-spons·-:-e_1.�.L:·��-�-----r·- .. - ::;llne�;-i- - i I Social

C o_n for£111t� . Activlt'I

Emotional Stab ilitv 1 . 00 Thttroversion .64** 1.00 Masculinity .35** .64** 1.00

Emoathv .16* -.18* -.51** 1.00 Masc . ·'l-1** .57** . 74* * -.32** 1.00

Fem . .01 - . 17* -.42** .42** - .29** 1.00 SS * SS* . . Androa: . - . SS** - . * - * .16* . * 29** 1.00 - ?9* l\) vi SD 1 .2 5** . 20** .28** -.02 . 26** - . 08 -.33** 1.00

*E_ <. 05 **E_<. 01 26

Result s of the Pearson correlations betwe en CPS and BSRI

scales for the two groups separately are presented in Table 2.

The significant po sitive correlations betwe en And�':_; gyny and CPS

scales for the hetero sexual group are wi th '.foial e Gonfo Tffity

{ r: . 3 9, 12£.· 01 ) and Empathy ( r= . 20, .:Q�05 }. Sir:nificant negative

correlations are found between Androgyny and Activity Cr:=- .70, 12 - � 01 ) , Emo tional �tability (r= .56, 12�.01), Extroversion (£= -.59,

12�•0 1) and Jv.asculini ty Cr:=- . 56 , 12'"• 01).

For the homos exua l group , a signifi cant positive correlation

exists between Andro gyny and Orderliness { r.= . 2 5, n � 05 ). Sj gn i­

fic ant negative correlations are also found with Trust (r=-.50, - Q'. 01) , Activity ( r= -.7 3 , QC::. 01 ), Emotional Stability (r- .61, 12. - ..:... 01} , Extroversion (£: • 57, 12.'• 01 ) and Masculinity ( r= • 60, �.:::...

• 01 }.

The heterosexual group accumulated a total of 18 out of 36

po ssible significant correlation s between the BSHI and C f S , with

one half being posit ive (r=.16, J2.�. 05) and the other nine being

negative (£=.21, 12� 01). The homo sexual group had a total of 23

out of 3 6 possible significant correlations with 16 of these being

po sitive ( r= .16, £'9 05) and seven negative ( £= . 16 , 12c::..05) (see

Table 2a & 2b) .

Table 3 represents Pe arson product moment correlations for

each of the BSRI scales with each other for th e t wo groups

separately. ¥. a sculinity and Femininity are negatively correlated

in both groups, but it is only significant for the heterosexual

women ( r=-. 37, 12�. 001). V:a scvlin:lty and Andrc fr,�rny are nep;ati vely Table 2a

Pearson Correlation Coefficients of the BSRI and CPS

all Subjects (N =l50)

Heterosexuals

Response Order- Social Emotional Ext:ro- Bias Trust liness Conformity Activity Stability version Masc . Emnathy

. ** ** .42** * * -. )9** :•1asculine 12 -.16 -.06 - . 43 . 78 • .58 * . 75*

F' eminine - .16 .20 . 01 .13 - . 28** - . 08 - . JO** -.52** .49**

- 6* Androgynous . 12 - . 08 * -.70** 56** - • .5 * .20*' - .10 .39* .:. . . 59** "'·

SD - . 06 . 01 - . 07 - .09 .J.5** .17 .14 .28** - . 04

- I - �"'"

*r?_<. 0 5 **.12.""· 01

0_)

�... Table 2b

Pearson Correlation Coefficients of the BSRI and CPS

for all Subject_s (N=l5Q) __� ------···· _

Homosexuals Order Social Emotional Extro- : ReBispasons e Trust liness Conformity Activitv Stab ility version I� _f1as�. Empathy I I I _ I Masculine .21* I .29** -.JO** - .15 .77** .40** . 54* * • 72** I -. 15

- . 16 -.24* .2 * F'eminine . OJ I . JO** .J7** .27** .18 . 05 5

� * Androgynous -.15 - . 50** .25* - . lJ - .7)** - . 61* - . 57** -.60*'* . OJ ·-·-"'···-·-· - I ,..., ...... ,,.,

-. 6 • SD - . 05 .2)* 0 I .18 I .JO** I .43** .J2** I .26** 0.5

- t , -���..... � -···----'"'' ...... - ...... - __

*12."-· 05 **�. 01

"\) :'G- 29

correlated for both the heterosexuals {£: .79, r�. 001 ) and homo-.

sexuals <.r.= - • 7$ , �..; 001) , wh ile .Masculinity and Soc ial Desirability are positively c o rrela ted (I•.28, ��. 007 and r= .23, �. 025), re­

spectively , in both groups. femininity and Androp:yny are po;_:;i­

tively correlated for both grours but only sir,nificant {r=.L;.2 , .Ll

.i::. .001 ) for the heterosexuals. Androgyny and Social Desirability are n ega t ively correlated for both the homo sexua ls {x=-.33 , � ..::...

.002 ) and heterosexuals (r=-.33 , �. 002 ).

Next , the transformation of �' s to Fisher's z coeffi cients wa s computed to determine wh ether or not the differences betwe en the correlations of the het erosexual and homos exual grour:s were

significant . Significant diffe renc e s were found between the corre­

lat ions of these two groups with the va.riable pairs of Ifasculinity­

Femininity (z•l.45, .E '.05) , Masculinity- SD {z• .324, £'.05), Feminin­

ity-Andro gyny (z•2.39, p<.05) and Femininity- SD (z=.396, E�.05).

Non- significant differences were found between the groups' corre­

lations with the variab le pai rs of �� sculinity-Androgyny and

Andro gyny- SD (se e Tab l e 3 ). 30

Table 3

Pearson Correlations of the Four BSRI

scales for Heterosexuals and Homosexuals

Heterosexuals Homos exuals

Variable Pair Coefficient Significance Coefficient Siimificanc e lasculine-Feminine - .369 .001 -.146 .106

'asculine-Androgynous -.790 .001 -.779 .001

asculine-SD .280 . 007 .228 .025

---

'eminine-Androgynous .422 . 001 .048 .)42

'eminine-SD - . 157 .089 .089 .224

- .ndrogynous -SD -.JJO I . 002 -.328 .002 �< ,,__ ,,., ...

Results of th e discriminant analysis are presented in Table

4. 'i'h e o nly two demo graphic vari ab les that discriminat e between

homo s exuals and het ero s exuals are education , F( 1, 148 ) =4. 53 , .p.�. 05 ,

and age of acceptanc e of sexual orientation , F(l,14c q=25.84, 12 L..

.01, wi th the homo s exual women having a higher level of education

than the heterosexuals , as well as being older wh en they a ccepted

their sexual orientation. Homosexuals on the CFS scales were signifi-

c ant ly mo re orderly , F( l,148 )=13.28, £L. Ol , socially confo r::: ing , F

emo­ (l,l4S ) i-14.. 51 , .P.L. 01, physically active , F(l,148 )=9.64, .£�01,

tionally stable F(l,148 )-20.99, p ....:..01, and extroverted F(l,ll+S )=l+.76

p4-. 05, wh ile the het erosexual 31

group scored higher only on Response Bias , F(l,148 ) =173 .66, 12.L

.Ol, wh ich indicates they describe th emselves in a way wh ich

confo rms wi th the cultural standards of appro priate behavior.

Significant diff8rences are also found betwe en the two groups on the

BSRI scal es. Th e homos exual group is significantly mo re masculine ,

F{ 1, 148 ) =4 . 31, .Q<.. 05 , androgynous F{ 1, 148 ) =12 . 28 , £<... 01 , and scored higher on Social Desirability F(l,148 )=14.48 , Q<. 01 , than the het erosexual women . No signific ant differences are foun d between het eros exual and homos exual women regar ding , age , occupation , in­

come , trust , wo rthiness, masculinity (CPS) and Femininity (BSRI).

A chi-squa re analysis wa s conducted on the demographic variab les of Religion sinc e each religion wa s given only a nominal value in the discriminant analysis. Chi-square results , however, indicate there is no significant differenc e between the gro ups regarding ;J._ religion ( '!( ( 8)=11 . 07 , p7. 0 5) (see Table 4) .

Table 5 presents the results of the stepwi se method criterion of Ra.o 's V discriminant analysis, wh ich is a generalized distance mea sure . Each of the variables selected is th e one wh ich con- ·-

stitutes the largest variance in V wh en added . to the previous variables. Th i s amount s to the overall separation of the groups and is an efficient means of appro ximately locating th e best set of discriminating variables. The present results indicate th e best set of variables to distinguish heterosexuals from homo­ sexuals to be Response Bias , Age of Acc eptanc e of Sexual Ori enta- tion , Activity , Orderliness , So c ial Conformity , Occupation , Ext ro ­ version , Androgyny , f>ia.sculini ty (CFS ) and Emo tional Stability .

From this, an eigenvalue (2.712), canonical correlation ( .85) and Tab1e 4

Summary of Demographic , CPS , and BSRI scores of ' Heterosexuals and Homosexuals

Heterosexuals I Homosexuals

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation 1 F. sl Age 33 .64 8 .81} Llam�da·

Occupation • 0 Education 1.24 . 0 1.14 1.43 I Income .q97 I .399 Or i entation 14 .56 . 90 16.24 2.72 .851 gs_. 842**

Response Bias 39 . 63 5.84 29.09 J .72 .460 i 17J . 66()lH•

Trust io2.68 11 .87 103.80 6.44 .99? I!�� Orderliness 106 .95 10.43 111 . 76 4. 70 , .918 I 13 .281**

S ocial ,-- . ---- Conformity 10) .11 11. 63 109.04 · 6.82 I .911 -11-.i..512··�-u -- I Activity 18 .44 98 .93 90.95 12 .50 .9• 39 Y-""""\ ""''"r____ 9.61>1**____ ,.,.,, • .,,. Emotional l St.ab ilit:v 83 . 03 18 .88 95.11 12 .84 __&:f (� .. 1�-�!2i .��-···�--· Extroversion 90.64 17 .69 96. )9 14.38 . .969 I 4.76' v* ·�·-· .. ·-····-· ··---- Masculinity 62.17 17 .96 67.27 13 .49 .97LL.___ ,J!§j2___ Emoathv 100.61 16.16 10? .17 s . 55 .931 I 11 . 0Sl** Masc . 4.02 1.)0 4.42 1.01 .972 i 5.24 .81 5 .02 . 6J r�·.,··�.2oz_� Fem. .978 -·· 3.321. \.>)

. !\) 4.8C 2.91 2.75 92 . Andro,g: . J.76 l....!-.-J 2 29,2�- SD . 4.8� . ,54 25 .13 .34 .911 I -�·47811·*

*:e.<. 05 **:L?_<.01 33

Table 5

Summary of the Mt;>st :piscri.mini:1.t1ngJ�ble s

·---·

Variable F Wilks lambda S im.lif1c ance V change Significance

Response Bias l?J .66 .46 0 173 .66 0

Orientation 18 .22 .41 .001 39.87 .001

Activitv 24 .38 , 35 0 60 . 3 6 .001

Orderliness 13 . 38 . 32 .001 38 . 91 .001 locial Conformitv 6 . 97 .29 .001 23 .50 .001

Occunation 2.63 .29 .001 9 . 36 .002

�troversion 2.30 .28 .001 8.40 .004

Androgynous 2 . 59 .28 .001 9.69 .002

Masculinity 1.48 .27 .001 5.66 .01?

�motional S tab111tv 2 . 34 .27 .001 9.14 .003

Income .34 . 27 . 001 1.36 .243

Wi lks lamb da (2.69, p�.001) were computed . The eigenva lue

measures th e relat ive importance of the func tion. When its value

is high, th e discriminating ability of the variables is great.

The canonical correlation is the measure of association between

the simple discriminant function and the set of dummy variables

wh ich defines group membership, i.e. , homos exual vs. heteros exual.

Wi lks lambda is another criterion for eliminating d isc riminant

functions , wh ich tests the stat i stical significance of discrimina­

ting informat ion not already account ed for by the earlier func tions.

As each function is derived , starting wi th zero functions , Wilks

lambda is computed. The lar�er the lambda is , the less information

remaining. Th e high eigenvalue and lm.·1 �'ii lks la::nb da in the present and summed over all discriminating v2 riables produc ins the subject' s discriminant score ; 2.,>n fo r heteroscxua l sub.' ect num- ber one , and • 34 for homose xua l subject 15�). 'i'l1 e m.::an of t11e:.e dis criminant scores fo r cases within a pa rticular �roun is the group c entro i d , wh ich is the mo st t''oical locDtion of a case from that .e:;roup in the discriminant function space. A comnarison of the group means on each function tells how fa r avart the �roups are along that dimension. These functions are arranged in order of d e c rea s ing importance. The group cent ro ids in th e present s tudy are 1.63 6 for the h e t e ro s e xual group and 1.636 for the homo sexua l group. Prediction results indicat e that 73 of the 75 heterosexuals (97.3%) are correctly classifi ed a s heterosexuals by c omput ed discriminant scores, and 74 of the 75 homo sexua ls

( 98 . 7%) were corr·ectly cla ssified as homo s exua l s. Overall , the perc entage of known cases c o rre c t ly classified is 98;s (".l...{ = 138. 240 , p�. 001).

Ana lysis II

A Student 's t-test wa s computed to test the difference be­ tween homosexual women who were "in the closet" and those "out of the closet . " Pearson pro duc t moment correlations of demographics,

CPS and BSRI s c a l e s were comput ed for both of th e s e groups separate­ ly. Also , a cano n i c a l correlation ana lysis was performed which utilized the same dependent vari ab l e as in the f i rst analysis

( exc luding age and religion ) but i nvolved the ind ependent variabl e s of: a) those wh o were eithe r in or out of the clo s e t , b ) how long they were in , and c ) how long they we re out , if out. 36

Tab le 6 presents the results of the t-tests. A signifi cant difference ( t { 6 J.19 ) =- 5.2 6, ,£<.01) is found betwe en the two groups in regard to ase , wi th those in th e closet older than those out .

Women out of the c lo set are also signifi cantly mo re educate d

(t(53.36):J.97, 12,�. 0l ) having ·a mean indicative of completing college , wh ile t hos e in the closet have a mean of completion of junior colle�e . Th ose out of the closet are found to be more trusting of oth ers (1(64 .15)=5.66, J2.�.01) , socially confo rming

( t(45 .46)=2 .37), 12.�. 05) , physically acti v e ( t (42.21)= 7.17, ��. Jl) emotiona lly s tab l e (t(64.79)=7. 57, £�.01), extroverted ( t ( 57 .68 ) =

7.26, _£<. 01 ) a nd tough-minded (1(40.69)=4.43, J2.<- . 0l) than those wh o are in the clo set. There a re also s ign ifi c ant differences b etwe en the groups on the three BSRI scale s of fJ,a sculinity

(t(36 .37)=6.81, _£c::. .Ol) , Andro gyny (t(46.36)=-8.00, _£<. 01 ) and

So c ia l Desirability (t(46.00)=3.53, 11<. 0l ) with those "out" des­ cribing themselves as more masculine , androgynous and in a more

socially desirable direction on items that are neutral with re­

spec t to sex (see Table 6). 37

Table 6

t-test of Demographics , CPS and

BSRI for 28 Homosexuals in and 47 out

______of the...... -..;;.__,.;...;;.. Closet ______

r In the Closet Out of the Closet

N •28 N•47

I riable Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation t-va.lue I 40.04 6 .98 J0. 77 8.02 -5 .26** :unation 1.54 2.43 2.87 J.95 1.82 �a ti on 3.29 1.15 4.)6 1.11 J . 9?** :ome 2 . ?9 .99 J.28 1.61 1.63 en tati on 1 6.86 3.49 1 5 . 8? 2.08 -1 . 3 6 sponse Bias 28 .39 J . J9 29.51 J.88 1.Jl aist 99 . 36 4 .92 . 106�45 5 .77 5 .66** derliness 111 .89 6.34 111 .68 J.46 -.16 e1al Conform! ty 106.i;4 7.71 110. 53 5.83 2 .37* tivitv 88 .04 11 .35 105.43 7.76 7 . 17** ot1onal s tab ill tv 8'5.38 4.84 100.91 12 .62 ? . 57** :t.roversion 84.43 10.94 103 .51 11 .13 7 . 26** sculinitY '"lB . 61 14.78 72 . 43 9.5? 4.43**

Dathv 106 . 19 5.34 107.64 5 . 68 • Qr; sculinitY 3.51 1.01 4.94 .54 6 .81** 111n1nitv 4.)9 . 64 5 . 08 . 6J .97 drO&mlV 5.42 2 .27 1.42 1.76 -8.00** cial Desirabilitv s .oo 0 5 . 21 .41 3. 5)** i� Ol !'· 05 38

Table 7 presents the Pearson product moment correlations o f the 18 dependent varia ble s (demographics, CPS and BSRI scales ) with women in and out of the closet , separately. Concerning demograph i c s, it is found that th e longer a women is "outn th e greater her level

of education (r•. 51 , Q� .001 ) and income (£=.49, Q�. 001 ). 3io-n:::> ifi- cant positive correlations are a l so found with the CfS scales of

Trust (£=.36, Q'• OOl ), Activity (r=. 59 , £' ·001), Emotional

Stability Cr:= . 64 , n.:::.. 001) , Ext rov ersion (r=. 54, Q<.001) , Masculini­ ty Cr:• . 48 , QC::• 001 ) and Res ponse Bias ( r•. 3 3, Q '"• 002 } , with women out of the clo s et . The longer one is out of the closet , the more masculine (BSRI) (£•. 59 , n�.001) she is, and more androgynous

(r• .66, £�. 001) . Re s ponding in a soc i a l ly des irab l e way also in­ crea se s the longer a woman is out of the clo set (r=.3 4, Q� OOl).

The longer a woman is "in" the closet is positively corre lated with age (£•.63, Q<. 001 } and Andro gyny (£•.60, n<. 001 ). The latter in- dicates that the longer a woman is in th e closet , the less androgynous she is. The longe r a woman is in the closet , the

lower her educational level is (r= .48, n<. 001 }, income (r= .20,

Q�. 041 ), soc i al conformity (r• . 34, £'· 001 ), level of phys ic al activity (£• .69, £.::..001) , and trust i n others (£• .58, £<.001);

Emotional stability (£• • 53, Q<• 001 ) , extroversion ( r= • 67 , Q<. 001 ) and ma sculinity (CPS ) (r• .50, Q<-. 001 } all , too , de c r eas e wh en

length in the c lo set increa ses. The BSRI scales of lVJa sculin ity

(£= .62, Q.c:....001 ) and Social Desirabi lity (r= .28, 12.'• 007 ) also

indicate decreases wh en length of tim e in the closet increases

(see Table 7). 39

Table 7

Pearson Correlations of the Demographics ,

CPS and BSRI for the number of years Homosexuals

C urrently out of the Closet Currently in the Clos et

ariable Pair Coefficient Sianificance Variable Pair Coefficient Simiificance

ut-Age . 022 . 425 In-Age .628 .001

ut-Occupati on -.091 . 220 In-Occupation -.127 .138

ut-Education . 511 .001 In-Education - . 479 .001

lut-Income .485 .001 In -Income -.202 .041 lut-Orien tati on -.102 .192 In-Orienta�ion .128 .138

Response Response lut-Bias .:no .002 In-Bias -.175 .067

lut-Trust .357 .001 In -Trust -.576 .001

lat-Orderliness -.038 .374 In-Or.derliness -.039 .370 Social Social lut-Conformi tv . 037 .375 In-Conformi tY -.343 .001

lut-Acti vi tv . 593 . 001 In-Activity -.688 .001

Emotional Emotional lut-Sta bility . 63? .001 In-Stability - . 526 .001 �t-Extroversion .541 .001 In-Extroversion -.666 .001

Out-Masculinitv .482 .001 In-Masculinity -.496 .001

Out-Emnathv .115 .163 In-Enmathv - . 138 .119

Out-Masculinitv .588 . 001 In-Masculinity - . 619 . 001

Out-Femininit v .060 .306 In-Femininity -.11)'5 .093

Out-AndrO.IZ'VllV -.66 . 001 In-Andro&rvnv . 601 .001

Social Social Out-Desirability . 34 .001 In-Desirab1Htv - . 282 . OCfl 40

Transformation of .!:'s to fj sher1 s z coefficients determined wh ether or not the differences between the correlations of the two groups were significant. Significant di fferences were found between the correlations of the two grouns with the va riable pairs of Ovt/In-Age (z=J .64, .£.....,.01), Out/In-Occ upation (z=.216 ,

11�.05), Out/In-Education {7=.192 , R�.05), Cut/In-Income \z=l.698 , ll"'- •05 ), Out/In-Response Bias (z=.930, J2.c... 05) , Out/In-Trust (z=l.314 ,

114.05 ), Out/In-Social Conformity (z=l.836, ,£� 0 5) , Out/In-Activity

(z=. 570, J2."-.05), Out/In-Emotional Stability (z=.666 , 12� 0 5), Out/

In-Extroversion (z=.750, ll'-• 05), Out/In-Masculinity (BSRI ) (z=.186 , ll-'•05), Out/In-Femininity (z=. 570, 11�05), Out/In-Androgyny (z=.354,

11�. 05) and Out/In-SD {z=.169 , 11<:.-. 05) . No significant differences were found with the va riable pairs of Out/In-Orientation, Out/In­ Orderliness, Out/In-Masculinity , and Out/In-Empathy.

Table g repo rts the three coefficients of canonical correla- tions , together with the corresponding pairs of canonical variates. The first pair of canonical variates seems to identify homos exuals who are primarily in the closet. They have a low activity level, low level of occupation and do not have a very high income. They appear to be masculine on the CFS , but more feminine than mascu­ line on the BSRI . This first canonical correlations is .858 indi­ c ating that the amount of variance shared by the first two canon­ ical variates i s 74 perc ent . The second pair of canonical variates s eems to su�gest this group is mainly an older �roup , fo r these women have been (or still are ) in for a long time , and many have been out for a great length also. Th ese women are socially 41 rebellious rather than conforming, emotionally stable , have a high education and income level and are somewhat andro gyno us.

'I'hey are also t ru stwo rth y of others , were young wh en they acc epted their age of sexua l orienta tion, and am:�ear to be physically in­ active. This second c anon ical correlation is .822 indicating that the amount of var i ance shared by these second two canonical variates is 68 perc ent . The third pa ir of canonical variates seems to identify lesbians wh o have been out a long time . Th ese women are seen as ma sculine on the CFS and not so on the BSHI . The latter shows them to be mo re androgynous and feminine. It is also seen that they are more concerned about responding in a socia lly de­ sirable manner. Th ese women were older wh en th ey accepted their sexua l o rientation and hav.e a higher occunational level. They a re not very trusting of others , nor are they extroverted or em­ pathetic . Th ey are , however , v iewed as emotionally stable. This third canonical correlation is .529 wh ich indicates that the amont of varianc e sha red by these third two canonical variates is 28 per­ cent. This latter canonical correlation is foun d to be non­ significant .. (�(16)•21.025, 12_<'.178 ), wh ile the first canonical c orrelation (�(54)-178. 613 , 12.4. 001 ) and the second (�(34)=93 .

149 , 12.'· 001 ) a re found to be significant ( see Table 8). !'able 8

Canonical Corr elations Coefficients on

Status and 17 dependent variables for

------'-Homos'------exual_,;.;,, Wo-----men �-�--·---

------� -----'-

Coefficients for Canonical Variables of the firs t set

Status Coefficients CoefficiE)nts Coefficients

Out Out -.3 77 - .8)1 1.283

Out In .069 .704 -1.308 In In .752 1.224 .201

Coefficients for Canonical Variables of the second set

Dependent Variables Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients

Occupation ... 31. 2 .039 .290 Education -.162 .237 -.101

Income -.216 .Sll .162

Orientation -.044 - . 337 .506

Resl>onse Bias -.110 .032 .105

Trust -.032 -.J86 - . 203 Orderliness -.084 -.O?O .028

- Soc ial Conformitv . 143 - .621 . 036

Activitv -.499 -.J06 -.OJl

Emotional Stab ilitv -.OBJ .607 .470

Extroversion -.096 .OJ2 -.J68

- Masculinity . 242 . 553 .6J6

Empathv - . 077 .106 -.289

Masculinitv -.286 -.lJJ -.954

Femininitv -. lJl .014 -.240 And.rotNnv . 044 -.402 -.404 Social Desirabilitv -.074 -.034 . 472 43

Di scussion

Th e hypothesis that there would be a positive correlation be­ tween andro gyny and psychological adjustment fo r both the hetero­ sexua l and homos exua l groups wa s partially supported. rlesults from the correlations indicate that out of th e nine CPS scales ,

Andro gyny (BSriI ) wa s signifi cantly po sitively correlated with only two sets of these scales , Social Conformity a nd Empathy. Further­ more , significant negative c orrelations were found in both g roups between Andro gyny and Activity , Emotiona l Stability, Extroversion and Ma sculinity. In addition , correlations between the CFS and

Andro gyny scales for th e two groups separately sh owed that signi­

fi c ant positive correlations were found between Androgyny and

Social Conformity , and Empathy for the heteros exua l group , and between Andro gyny and Orderliness in the homo s exua l group. Again ,

significant negative correlations were found betwe en Andro gyny and th e CPS scales wh en the groups were examined separately. These were the very same significant negative correlations found wh en the groups were looked at tog ether, with the only difference being the inclusion of the Trust scale , wh ich wa s significantly nega­

tively correlated with Androgyny in the homo sexua l group .

· Th e se results lend support to Bern' s (197 5 ) findings and position that the androgynous individua l has greater psychological adjustment and fre edom to enga �e in a wi der range of behaviors ,

irrespective of their stereotype , than sex-typed individuals. It wa s also found that li.:a sculinity { B::.>R.I ) correlated mo st sig;nificantly in the positive direction with adjustment, , for V: ·';re were signi­ ficant positive correlations wi th 4/9 Cl S scales fo r the hetero­ sexuals ( Activity , Emo tional 0tability, tixtroversiDn 2nd i•.ascvlin­ i ty ) and 5/9 for the homos exual 2;roup , wr.ich were th e same scales as those for the heterosexuals, with th e inclusion of Trust.

Such findings indicate there is a positive relationship be­ tween Androgyny and four of the nine CtS scales , and a negative relationship with two other CPS scales. Results indicated that the more androgynous a woman wa s ( regardless o f sexual orienta­ tion) the more active, emotionally stable, extroverted and masculine she wa s. Lack of any significance, positive or nega­ tive, correlating Androgyny and rlesponse Bias, Trust and Order­ liness indicates that Andro gyny is independent from these measures and is not related.

It must be clarified that all that may be deduced from the present findings is that there is a significant positive relation­ ship between Androgyny and at least half of the CFS scales wh ich measure adjustment . There has been no previous research bearing directly upon the relationship, or correlation, between androgyny and psycho­ logical adiustment as a ssessed by personality inventories , so one may only speculate at this point .

It would appear logical for Andro gyny to be positively correlated (and, therefore, negatively related} with the Social

Conformity scale since the concept itself is a rejection of stereo­ typed sex-roles and go es against society's definitions. �hy a 45 significant negative relationsh ip wa. s also found w:ith :�mpa thy is purely speculative. Closer examination of the definition of the

Empathy-Egocentrism s c a l e clarifies this somewhat. Andro gynous individuals were found to be more eg;ocentric , wh ich , aceording to

Comrey , indicat es they tend to be concerned about themselves and their goa ls and are relatively uninterested in dedicating their lives to serving others. This may also be interpreted as being independent and/or autonomous , as we ll as egocentric , wh ich wo ul d be highly fitting since androgynous women are nonconforming.

A significant positive relationship with emotional stabi lity has been postulated by Bern (1974 , 1975) , and she states that andro gynous individua ls are more stable and less neurotic than nonandrogynous people because of tneir freedom to engage in a wide range of beh avior; irresp e ctive of their sterotype, than nonandro gynous individuals. It would also fo llow , then , that these women-would be more active, extrovert ed and tough-minded.

The fact that Masculinity (BSRI ) was positively correlated with at least· half of the CPS scales is not so surprising since

Bern (1975 ) found a similarity between the sex-reversed and andro gynous women in her study. She states it suggests that rowing up female in our society may be sufficient to give virtually all women at least an adequate threshold of emotional responsiveness. "It further suggests that wh at differentiates women from one another, is not the domain of expressiveness or communion , but wh ether their sense of instrumentability or agency has been sufficiently nourished as well" (p. 5a-59). 46

The second hypothesis tha t th ere would be a significant difference between het erosexua l and homo s exua l women on levels of an dro�yny , psychological adjustment. and demo graphics wa s substanti ated. homo sexual women had a hi�her mean level of education and were a l so older than heterosexua l subjects wh en th ey a ccepted their sexual orientation , but no signific ant diff­ erences were found between the two groups conc erning age , occupa­ t io n , income o r rel i gi on . Kenyon 's (1968 ) study also indicated that wh en it came to e ducati on , there was a significant differ­ ence in that 27. 6�; of the l esb ians and only 15. 4�� of the c ontro l s went to un ivers ity. It can be sp eculat ed that l e sbians may have remai n ed in school to pursue careers wh ile her heterosexua l count e rpa rt s left to b ec ome wives and mo th ers .

The fact that lesbians were older than heterosexuals wh en they acc epted thei r sexual ori entation is relatively c l e ar since many homos exuals have had previous heterosexual exp erienc es and did not fully acc e pt and/or indulge in homosexual practices until later in their l i f e . Kenyon (1968 ) found that over one-half of th e lesbians (57.7%) had had s ome earlier heterosexual experi­ ence and that 34% had been enga ged at some po int . It was also found that the mean age for the first physical experience wa s o l de r , that is, b e twe en 21-45 y ea rs of age.

It may also be possible that the lesbian does not acc ept her sexual ori entati on until a late r date due to societal or peer pressures. Fema les wh o once refused to act upon homo s exual impulses and settled for alternatives such a s asexuality or 4? frididity in het e ro s e xual relationships may be more wi lling at a l at er time to enter into a lesbian relationsh ip (Chafety ,

Sampson , Beck & West , 1974 ).

Lesbians in th e present study were also signifi cantly mo re ord erly , socially confo rming , physically active, emo tionally stab l e , ext rovert ed and empathet i c than her h e te ro s exua l sisters.

No d i ffe rence s were found between the two groups on trust or mas­ culinity mea sure s , and the heterosexua l group scored higher only on Res ponse Bias.

The failure to find female homosexuals more neurotic than fema le hetero s exuals in the pre sent study a gree s with the repo rt s of Armon (1960) , Freedman (196$ , 1970 , 1975a , 1975b), Hopkins · ( 1969 ) , 3aghir and Robins (1969 ) and Wilson and Green (1971).

Th e indi c at ions from the pres ent study that lesbians are better adjust ed in some respects than heterosexuals , has also been reported by Freedman ( 1968 ), Hopkins (1969), Wilson and

Green (1971) and Ri e ss , Safer, and Yo t ive (1974). Very li tt l e has been report ed , however , a s to why th e s e differences exist.

Greater physical activity may be related to the fact that les­ bian s have been found to be mo re ac tive as c h i ldren than hetero­

sexua l fema l e s . Kaye et al. , ( 1967 ) found that as c h i ldren ,

lesbians pre ferred active , boy's games and were mo re competitive with others than fema le heterosexual children. Thompson et al. ,

( 197 3 ) also found lesbians more a th l et ic and tomboyish in their youth . This h i gh ac tivity level and competi tive drive from

chi ldhood may explain the high activity and ext roversion l eve l s

found in their adulthood. 48

Th e higher social conformity may be accounted for by the

Comrey' s definition , wh ich includes indi viduals who re::-;pect the law and seek approva l of others. Homosexuals have been seeking acceptance by society for ma ny years and would , tnr;refore , likely score high in this area. Respecting the law more than hetero­ sexua ls may occur due to the fear of exposure and/or harassment concerning their homos exuality. i'hey may th erefo re avoid all possible contacts with the law to avoid such difi iculties. lt is also possible that the higher empathy lev el in lesbians i s connected with their position in society. The pressures and difficulties of growing up gay may predispose these women to being more sympathetic and helpful because of their ovm personal experi ences.

Why th ese women are more emotionally stable may be because they are active , ext roverted individual s . It may also be because they are more independent and inner-directed as Freedman (1970 ) found , wh ich would lead to greater emotional stability. The effect of minority group status postulated by some sociologi sts

(Cory, 1963 ) may also bear upon this inner-direction, independenc e and emotional stability . These sociologists say that homos exuals, like other minority groups , are objects of negative, punitive and prejudicial attitudes held by many in society. It is well known in the psychology of prejudice that individuals to wh om c onstant censure is directed develop certain coping dev ices and self- perceptions in response to this prejudice.

The hieher rtesponse Bias score for the heterosexual woman is 49 difficult to interpret since these warren descr ibPd themselves in a more positive , aopropriate way than the hon:os exuals , wh ich may infer differences in self-concepts, or may reveal that hetero­ sexuals gave an unrealistically p;ood il�.rress:i.on of tnemselves.

Th e third hypothesis that lesbians in the closet wo uld be less androgynous and less psychologi cally adjusted than those out of the closet vm s supported. Those 71 in" were foi...; nd to be signi­ ficantly more defensive , rebellious, inactive , neurotic , intro­ verted and feminine .

No previous research has concerned itself with such a c om­ parison , therefore , any conclusions are purely speculative . It would appear logical than women in the closet would be l e ss adjusted and androgynous since they would undoubtedly be more concerned about keeping their homosexuality unknown to others , and would want to fit into the mainstream of a "straightn society as much as possible. Living androgynously would not be conducive to this , and may draw unwanted attention to their sexual ori enta­ tion. These women would then be feminine, physically inactive and defensive. It would also appear likely for them to be neurotic and introverted since they must conceal a part of them­ selves to move along unobtrusively in society . The possible nega­ tive consequences of being "out" including alienation , loss of employment and �eneral haras sment from oth ers , could all very well be some reasons for remaining in the closet. lt may a lso be that these women view themselves as sick , as the traditional psychia­ tric model sugp;ests , wh i c h could lead to int roversion and 50 neuroticism. Kaplan and Bean (1Q76 ) felt the consequence of

internaliz ing this role is an enormo us reservoir of self-hate.

This is not to say that it is recognized or accepted as such ;

indeed most women would deny it. It may be expressed in a num­

ber of way s such as defensiveness of the glory and destiny of her ro le.

Th e fact that these same women are rebellious is not as

clear, since such individua ls are inc lined to challenge the laws

and institutions of society, res ent control, accept non-conformity

in others and are non- conforming themselves ( Comrey , 1970). Per­

haps these women do challenge the laws and society but in areas

other than legislature involving homos exuality , wh ich would ex­

pose them . They could also very po ssibly resent control but not

act upon it overtly , or may handle it through displacement . They

may also accept non-confo rmity in others because of their empathic

and understanding qualities.

La stly , the hypothesis that the longer a lesbian is in the

closet and the less androgynous and psychologically adjusted she

wi ll be, and the longer she has been out , the more androgynous

and adjusted she will be, wa s support ed. Pearson correlations

showed significant positive relationships between the length of

time out of the closet and levels of Androgyny , Trust , Act ivity ,

Emot ional Stability , Ext roversion and �a sculinity (BSRI and CPS).

They also indicated signifi cant negative relationships between

the length of time "in" and levels of Androgyny , Trust , Social

Conformity, Activity , Emotional Stability , Extroversion and Mas­

culinity (BSnI and CFS). 51

A�ain , no previous research bears directly unon th is hypothesis , and one ma y only surmise explanations. It wo uld appear to follow that this hypoth esis wo uld be surported since there wa s a difference found between beinp; in and out of th e closet , with the greater androz;yny and stability associated with being "out."

The canonical analysis did not lend such c lear support as the Fearson correlations , for the first pa ir of canonical variates that appear to have identifi ed women primarily in the closet did not show them to be sign ificantly high or low in andro J?;yny or in

7 out of 9 CPS scales. However, the fact that they were not highly androgynous or psychologically adjusted does lend support in itself.

The second canonical variate identifi ed an older group for it included women who were (or still are ) in for a long time , and those wh o have been out for a long time also . Although somewh at androgynous, their adjustment is variable, being physically in­ active and rebellious on the one hand and emotionally stable and trusting on the other hand. Such lack of uniformity here may be due to the lack of homogeneity within the group; that is, because it consisted of both those in and out of the closet for a great length . Another explanation may be that these women who were in for a great length and that these same women are now out , and have been so for quite a period of time . The high androgyny , emotional stability and trust may be a by-product, or explained, by the fa ct that they are now "out." The rebelliousness may have 52 also grown in the process of coming out ; standing un to society

instead of hiding behind it. The remaining- areas of adi,, ustment may require further work and more time "out" , for they are still in the process of growth and change.

Unfortunately , the third canonical va riat e pa. i r, wh ich ' appeared to identify lesbians who h ad been out for a long time was found to be non-signifi cant and, therefore its' interpreta­ tion i s not a contribution to the understanding of these women .

Conclusions and Rec ommendations

The overall findings suggest several conclusions about the psychological concomitants of lesbianism. The first is that there are qualitative differences in personality characteristics be- tween lesbians and heterosexual women , at least in the present groups; and that they , in fact, appear more adjusted in several areas. These differences, then , do not detract from the ability of these women to function effectively in soci ety , since they a re not negative in na ture . It is further seen that lesbians out of the closet are the mo st well-adjusted individuals.

Homosexuality is embedded in a very complex social frame­ wo rk . The processes involved in the way society h a ndles it, and vice versa , are o rdered in some way , yet subject to variability dependent on the personalities of the individuals involved.

Society's reactions to homosexuality ha s_a potentially powerful and negative effect on those involved. It would appear that this is th e most parsimonious place to seek explanations if lesbians encounter more difficulti es or disnlay poorer psycholo�ical 53 adjustment , and it appears that that many do not . It is now clearer that th e once s to ngly unheld fa. llacy th-st homosexuality is a sign of psychopathology is being recognized as noth inG more than just that -- a fa llacy. Well conducted research utilizing non-patient , lar�e and varied samples , as well as more stringent methodology has contribut ed to this. however, much more res earch is necessary to further investigate the sociological and psycho­ logical concomitants of lesbianism. Future research should not only be concerned about wh ether lesbians differ from heterosexua l women , but attempt to explain why more empirically since much to date is pure speculation. Studies should also concern themselves with possible differences within the lesbian population itself, such as those between women in and out of th e clo set . Cro ss­ validation is necessary before any conclusive statement s hold any real meaning.

Future research should also explore the concept of andro gyny more fully , for a more complete exploration of its possible con­ nection with adjustment , with both heterosexuals and homo sexuals.

Researchers should explore the possibil ity of the Androgyny scale correlating with other adjustment devices, or attempt to explain why , if negative or independent relationsh ips are found . If an androgynous soci ety is to develop, many changes wi ll ha ve to be made early in the socialization and education processes. Children brought up wi th new patterns of socialization and education could develop alternative directions for individua l �rowth determined by persona l inclination and abj_lities ra ther than by phys iologi cal s e x or ste reotyped sex-roles. 54

However, it is impo rtant for us in the social scienc es to

further explore this concept before advocating any radical

changes. f e rhap s Andro gyny has a oo sitive relationshiD with

some areas of adjustment , and negative and/or indenendent rela­ tionships with other areas. These and many other questions must be answered before any real conclusive statements can be made.

In summary , it is necessa ry that researchers concern them­

selves with future investigations in the areas of lesbianism and androgyny , sinc e very little conclusive da ta has been collected to date in either of these a rea s , and possible new trends may

emerge as a result of such research . 5 5

References

Armon , V. Some personality variables in overt fe�ale horno sex­ ua lity. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1960 , 21... , 2c12-309.

Bardwick , J. , & Do rwan , E. Ambiva lence: Th e soc ializat ion of wo men . In Go r nick , &Moran , B. , (eds. ) Women in Sexi st Socie ty. New York : Basic Books , 1971.

Bern , s. L. The measurement of psychological andro f_;yny . Journal of C onsulting and Clinical Psychology , 1 974 , b:.£, 155-162 .

Bern , S.L. Sex-role adaptability : one consequenc e of psychologi­ c al androgyny . Journal of Personality and Social I-sychologv, 197 5, 21, 634-643 .

Block , J., Van der Li pp e , A. , & Block , J. Jex- role and socializa­ tion patterns : Some personality concomitents and environmental antecedents. Journal of Consulting and Clinica l Psychology , 1973 , l±.1,, 321-341.

Buros , O.K. The Seventh mental measurement s yearbook . New Jersey : Gryphon Pres s, 1972 .

C aprio , F .S. Fema le homo sexuality. London : Peter Owen , 1955.

Chafety , J. s. , Sampson , P. , Beck , P. , & West , J . �� sculin� Feminine or Human: An overview of the sociology of sex roles. Itasca: Pea cock , 1974. -

Comrey , A.L. Comrey Personality Scales. California : Educational and Industrial Testing Services, 1970.

Consentino , F. , & Heilbrun , A.B. Anxiety correlates of sex-role identity in college students. Psychological Repo rts, 1964, 14 , �29-730.

Cory, D. W. Th e Lesbian in America. New York: Citadel , 1964.

Freed.man , M. Homo sexuality among women and psychological adjust­ ment. Dissertation Ab stracts; 1968 , 28 , 4294B-4295B.

Freedman , M. Bel- mont , California :

Freedman, M. Far from illness: homo sexuals may be healthier than straights. Psvchology Today , 1975, 8, 28-32. ( a ) 56

Freedman , M. Persona l communication , April 14 , 1975. (b)

Ga l l, M. D. Th e relationship betwe en m2, scl:J_j ni ty and fer�inini ty and manifest anxiety. Jo1Jrna l of Clinica1 fsvchologv, 1969 , 3,2, 294-295.

Gonsiorek , J .C. Psychological adjustment and Homos exuality. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psvchology, 1977 , 1( 2 ), 45, 2-10 .

Gray , S. VJ. I�la sculinity - femininity in relation to anxi ety and social acc eptance. Child Development , 1957 , 28 , 203-2lh.

Hassel , J. & Smith , W. L. Female homo sexuals' Concept of delf, Ivien , and Women. Journal of Persona lity Asses�,ment , 197 5, .12., 2, 154-159.

Hopkins, J. Th e lesbian personality. British Journal of Psvchi­ a t ry , 1969 , 115, 1433-1436.

, Hopkins , J . Lesbian signs on th e Ho rschach. British Journal of Pro iective and Personality Study , 1970, 12., 7-14.

Kaplan , A. , &. Bean , J •. Beyond sex- role stereotypes: readings towa rd a psychi atry of androgyny. Bo s ton: Little , Bro�m & C o ., 1976.

Kaye , H. , Berl , s. , Clare , J ., Sleston, M. , Gershwin , B . , Gershwin , P. , Kogan, L. , To rda , c. , &. Wilbur , B . Homos exuality in women . Archives of General Psychiatry, 1967 , 11., 626-634.

Kenyon , F. I. Studies in fema le homo s exuality. IV: Social and psychiatric aspects. British Journal of Fsychiatry, 1968 , 114 , 1337-1343 .

K insey, A.G. , Pomeroy , W.B. , &. .Martin C.W. Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders , 1953 .

· Klaich, D. Women-Women: attitudes towards lesbianism. New York: Simon and Schus ter , 1974.

Loney , J . Background fac tors , sexual experiences , and attitudes toward treatment in two "normal" homos exual samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972 .

Long, F. J. & Karon , B.F. tlo rschach Va lidity as Measure d by the Identification of Individual Patients. Journal of Fro,jective Technioues and Personality Assessment , 1969 , ..11 , 20-24.

�-';annion , K. Female Homo s exuality : A comprehensive review of theory and research. C a t alog of Selected Doc1;ments in I-sych­ oloP:v , 1976 , (1) , l�4 , 1-3 . 57 r,:oney , J. Fubertal h o rmon e s and homos exua lity , bisexua lity , and heterosexua lity. In NH.'}{ task fo rc e on horrQ.sexuali ty : final repo rt and background . DH �W Fub l . No. (HS.l\::} 72-9116 , 1972 ( b ) , 73 -74

Nie, N. , Hull , C.H. , Jenkins , J. G. , Steinbrenner, K. , & Bent , J.H. SF SS - Statistical fackage for the Social Sci enc es. �.S.A. : Mc Graw-h ill , Inc. , 1975.

Osgood, C.E. Suci, G. J. &. Tannenbatun , P.h. Th e measurement of meaning. Urbana , IL: University of Illino is Press, 19 57 .

Riess , B.F. , dafter, J. , & Yotive , W. }sychological test data on female homosexuality. A review of the literature. Journal of homos exuality , 1974 , 1, 71-8 5.

Romm , M.I. 3exua lity and homo sexuality in women. In i''.armour , ed. , Sexua l Inversions. New York : Basic Books , 1965.

Saghir, M. , & Ho bins , E. Homos exuality : I. Sexual behavior of the female homo sexual . Archives of General Fsychiatry, 196g , 192-201.

Sa ghir , M. , Robins , E. , W�lbran , B. , & Gent ry , K. Eomosexuality : IV. Psychiat ric disorders and disability in the female homo­ sexual. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 , 127 , 147-154.

Sears , R. R. Rela t ion of ear ly s o cia li z a t i on experi ences to self­ concepts and gender role in middle childhood. Child Development , 1970 , 41, 267-289.

Siegelman , M. Adj u s tment of homo s exuals and h e t e ro s exua l wo men. British Journal of F syc n iat ry , 1972 , 120 , 477-481.

Soccari d e s , c.w. Th e historical development of theoret ic a l and clinical conc epts of overt female homosexuality. Journal of American Psychoanalytic A s soci at ion, 1963 , 2, 384-414 .

Soc.carides , C.W. The overt homo sexual. British J ournal of Psychi­ a t ry , 1972 , 120, 477-481.

Thompson , N. , M c C andles s , R. , & Strickland , B . Personal a dj ust­ ment of the ma le and female homo sexua l and heterosexual. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 1.a, 2 3 7-240.

U.S. Depa rtm ent of Labor , Di cti o nary of Occupational Titles , Volume I, De fi nit ion s of Titles , )rd edition, 196 5.

Webb , A. P. Sex-role preferences and adjustment in e a rly adoles­ cents. Child Develonment , 1963 , 34, 60Q-618. 58

Wi lson , M. , & Green , rt. Persona lity char�cteri stics of female homosexua ls. F svcholor:ica1 >leno :rts, 1cn1, 28 , h07 -1.� 12.

Wilbur , C.B. Clinical asoects of fema le honosPxua lity. In Sexual lnversions (ed. Jv:armour ). New York : ba sic L�ooks , 1965.

Wo lff , C. Love betvrnen wom en . New York : Harrer }., lbw , 1971.

Zubin , J. Fa ilure of the H.orschach technique . .Journal of l'ro iec­ tive Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1951, , lq , 303-315.

Zubin , J. Th e non-projective a spec ts of the ib rschach experiment : I. Introduction. Journal of boc ial I-sycholo1e;y, 1956 , li-h , 179- 192 . 59

Appendix i

Bern Sex-Hole Inventory • L D mllr.°lH';:t�... .,, ...... ---- .�... ·.. ,_

unn:a.r-ked.

F.xample : sly

siy· . 61

Appendix ii

Demographic Sheet The purpose of this qucstionairrc is to obtain a more cor.1pl cte pie-

ture of each woman as an individual , in areas not covered by tho test- ing material . The questi onairrc iD anonymous so there is no need to sign your name. Pl ease an swer all of the questions an d do so ri ght on the questi onairre sheet. Fill in the appropriate sp a c es as well as checking the appropriate spac es proviucd.

Age__ _

Education (pleas e check lri chest level cospl eted) : El e1.r:enta ry_ __ _ Secondary college Jr. ----

College ___

hasters----

Doctorate ---- Other (pl eas e speci fy)

Income per year: un der $5000 --,,---

betwe en $5000-$ 1G,OOO---- beh;een $10 ,000-$15,000_ __ betwe en$ 15, 000-$20 ,000

between t20,ooo-f;:30 ,ooo ___

over ;;30 , 000 ---

��arital __ status : single --- i:,arri cd---- di vorced separated

vli dov:cd----

Sexual orientati on: l:xclusi vcl y hctcro::;cxual with no homosexuality_ __ _ Freco: ;inant1y heterosexual & only incidentally

11 ocosc:xuC"'ll ------� Frcd o:::in:rntly hctcro..;cxual but oore than incicientally SC ): U !"1 o�-:0 o.l------�

Eq_ually heterosexual &: hor.10sexual ------� Age at whi ch you accepted your sexual orientation____ _

If ex clusi vely homosexual , arc you 11:1.n the cl oset" or "out of tho cl oset":

In---- Out ----

( 11in the cl oset" re fers to women involved in homos exual relationships, but who do not procl ai m their horr.oscxuality to society for vari ous rc�G onD including personal , social and occupational ones. Those "trnt of the cl osct11 incl ude wo1n en invol ved in honoscxual relati onships who do procl .::d:c1 their homosexuality to s o ciety .)

If "out" how long havE: you been "in"

If 11out11 how long have you been "out"------

If "in" ho\'/ long have you been i•in"

you ever been � p r s o : yes Have in i n ___ no

Have you ever been in a psychiatric hospital : yes____ no

Are you presentl y un dergoinG psychol o[;ical or psychiatric treat::cent :

yes___ no