Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: a Synthesis and Critique of the Literature. EPOISAMC! National Inst

DOCOMINT RISUBX ED 175 97 SO 012 106

AUTROR Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina TITLE Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: A Synthesis and Critique of the Literature. EPOISAMC! National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Oct 79 CONTRACT DIE-C-74-0139 NOTE 160p.

EDRS PRICE otC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Access to Education; Achievesent: Changing Attitudes: Develope4 Nations; Developing Nations: Elesentary Secondary Education: Equal Education; *Females: Higher Education; Bales; occupational Aspiration: Occupdtional Nobility; Parent Influence: Role Perception: *Sex Discrimination: Sex Role: *Sex Stereotypes; *Socialization

ABSTRACT This report presents a synthesis and critique of approximately 850 books, research studies, and journal articles appearing between 1960 and 1978 on sex role socializationand sex discrimination. It also offers a number of hypotheses regarding the mergence, maintenance, and elimination of sexdiscrimination. This docusent is presented in six parts. Part I focuses on sexrole socialization, with particular esphasis on sex typing ofbehaviors, vosen's achievesent and motivation, and wosenfseducational and vocational choices. Part II discusses cross-cultural patterns of sex role socialization.in selected developed and developingnations 4ncluding Greece, Sweden, England, The United States and Tunisia. Part II/ xamines occupational and educational sexdiscrimination, with particular emphasis an race and sex discriminationagainst black woman. Parts IV and V survey theory and researchrelated to sex discrimination and sex stratification systems. The final part assesses changes in ilex role stereotypea andidentifies incongruities in menes and moments perceptions about values held by theopposite sex. Information is presentedin essay form, with authors and dates of relevant research identified in parentheses after eachsolar topic. A section of references concludes the document. (Author/DB)

*********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by BEMS are the best that can be made fros the original docusent. *********************************************************************** No I I N. Lrt N-Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: C3 A Synthesis and Critique of the Literature

Constantin Sedios-Rothschild

U S. DEPARTMENT°, HEALTH. EDUCATION A NIELP ARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT MAS SEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM ime PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS SfATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRE- SENTOFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EOUCAT1ON POSITION OK root.,

US. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Pcarkia Roberu Harris, Secretary Mary F. lieny, Assistant Secrete*? fir Education

National Institute of Education Michael Timm, Acting Director

rsc October 1979 ThIscroject wu conducted for the National Innitute of Education,HEW, under contract number NIE-C-74- 0132. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarilyreflect N1E position or policy, and no official eadoesetnent by the National Institute of Education orthe U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be inferred.

ii '5 NOTE TO READER

This publication is the final report from a study that the Women% Research Program of the National Institute of Education funded in 1974. The study had two phases, the first of which was the synthesis and oritique of literature on sex role socialization and sex discrimination in education.The synthesis and critique was conducted in 1974-75 end selectively updated in 1978; it covers literature appearing between 1950 and 1978. The seoand phue of the study consisted of the development oftheoretical model that could explain the emergence, maintenance, and elimination of sex discrimination for both developed and developing countries. The theceetical model will appear as a monograph sometime in 1990.Aeaders interested in receiving that monograph should contact ( mnstantina Safillos-Rothsehild, 8-113 Henderson Human Develop- ment Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 18802. Other NIS publications on sex roles and sex role socialization include an extensive bibliography which was prepared by Dr. Safilios-Rothschild as part of her study, and a volume containing reports of six smaller scale research studies sponsored by the Women% Researel Program. For ordering information on these two documents, please write to the Social Processes/Women% Research Team, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC 20208.

Susan Chipman Assistant Direotor for Learning and Development National Institute of Education CONTENTS

eme

Note to Reader lii PART L SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION 1 1.Sex Role Sociallution sad the Sex Typing of Behaviors 3 2.Samo-Sax and Crose-Ses Influences on Sex Role Socialization 21 3. Woment Achievement and Achievement Motivation 27 4.Women's Educational and Vocational Choleu 43 PART IL CROSS-CULTURAL PATTERNS OF SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION 55 5. Sax Role Socialization Patterns in Selected Societies 57

PART III. SEX DISCRIMINATION 63 6.Sex Discrimination in Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education 85 7.Occupational Su Discrimination 85 S. The Cam of Black Women. Race and Sex Discrimination 91 PART IV. SEX DISCRIMINATION: THEORY AND RESEARCH 95 9.Sex Discriminatiom Thory and Research 97 PART V. SEX STUATIFICATION 113 10. Sex and Other Stratification Systems 115 PART VI. SEX ROLE STEREOTYPES DIE HARD 123 11. Sex Role Stereotypes. Are They Changing and How Much? 125

REFERENCES 131 Part 1.

Sex Role Socialization I. SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATIONAND THE SEX TYPING OF BEHAVIORS

Mnjor Theoretical Approaches to Sea account for variations in growth and development Role Development within sex groups. The three major theoretical approaches to Cognitive development theory as it applies sex role development throughout the life cycle to the development of sex identity has been traditionally have been psychoanalysis, cognitive fostered primarily by Kohlberg (1966). Kohlberg's development, and social leamieg. The psychoana- orientatIon, which is based heavily on the work of lytic approach is moat commonly associated with Piggott inccrporates two of Piaget's basic prin- Freuers biological deterministic interpretation of ciple& (1) that children tmdergo gracitic, sequen- sex roledevelopment. H. believed that the tial stages of cognitive development in which they intimation of drive impulses and kientification master principles shout phenomena that remain promises resulted in the development of sax- constant throughout their lives (e.g., the conser- appropriate behavkwe as malef end females pro- vation of matter) and (2) that children cannot be gramed through childhood.According to Fire- taught a given principle with any degree of stone (1970), Freud's perspectivereflects permanence before they reach * particular stage Noenturies of increasing privatisation of family of maturational development. Once children life, its extreme subjugation of women, and the reach a certain stage of development, the ;tin- sex repressions and subsequent neurosesthis ciple becomes imprinted in their minds.This causer(p.61). Althoughpsychoanalytic procem Is oonsidened to be irreversible. approaches have not fostered a great deal of roman*, distinctions bend on Mo- In applying Pinot% prinolpiss to the devel- 4 -or gander ooncepte continue to exert a opment of sex identity, Kohlberg argues that influence on ideas aboutsex difference& children reach a stage of cognitive development Strict biological determinism should no longer be around age 7 that enables them to aocurately an issue because of concrete evidence as to the label themselves as one sex or the other based on existence, both across cultures and within any bodily images; this labeling is irreversible. Having given culture, of "crossing-over* behavioral dis- made their decision, children then actively struc- positions of sex-typed traits by biologically "pure" ture their experiences and seek out behaviors that males and female& Unfortunately, the idea that they parody, as au appropriate, based on the *anatomy is destinr.stiii influenoes the scientific culturalimages prosented. Although some community in regard to sex roledevelopment empirical support exists for this approach, the issues, especially sex differences in early infancy "realmpereeptioosofesperimente1subject' regarding sex-eppropriate behevior cannot be (Kagan, 1972). manipulated without influeneing the choice of these behaviors in overt actions.Assumptions Doing sway with biological determinism about the sex appropriateness of behavior are does not eliminate bioloa as a potential inflames easier to make in societies that are highlydiffer- on the development of tim individual, including entiated with regard to sex role norms and stereo- thedevelopmentof somegender-related tymm. Butbecauseofvariations between cherecteristice.Kildilareil in bioloa and in the different groups within a society in how they Ada aloinellti has yielded mon valid data when maintainstrictsex-differentiatedrolesand the iimphasis is on the intricate nature at inter- corms, the leap from perception tobehavior has Rationsbetweelthebiological-physiological serious empirical restrictions.When sex role factors and sociuoyenoiogleal factors that lead to :gems begin to loosen up and merge,the intim- sex typing and sex roie developmentsAlthough there is a tendsocy to view the bass as deb,- tomous, a greet deal of variation in biological teeters exists within sex groups.PartioubuV in 1An earlier draft of this chapter was written in moieties that maintnin strict see role dine collaborationwithRobertLein,Assistant booed on culturel stereotypes, moondary sex Professor, Department of Sociology, Wayne State characteristics may become crucial tutors that Univarsity, Detroit, Mich.

3 7 titans of a cognitive development view of Lex behavior."Yet the power of reinforcement to identity become unclear.If transsexual opera- change behavior from "sex inappropriate" to "sex tions ware to increase in munber so that "ex was appropriate" has not been substantiated empir- no longer viewed as an irreversible characteristic, ically. In fact, when mistakes in labeling children what would this mean for the labeling process that are not discovered until after a number of years, supposedly accounts for sex-eppropriate chokes? attempts by socializing agents to change behavior by reinforcing "sex-appropriate behavior" fail in Although futuretechnological innovation most cases (Lindesmith & Strauss, 1968). may make cognitivedevelopmenttheoryas applied to sex roles obsolete, we should remember The subtleties and variations in reinforce- that belief in a "natural" division or differentia- ment need to be studied in much more detail. For tion between 0.6 seem is heavily entrenched in example,reinfercementinthe laboratoryor most Western societies.Given this assumption, experimental situation is often drastically dif- continued research with a cognitive development ferent from reinforcement in real-life interaction. orientation may be useful in specifying ways in Also importantisthe degree to which sex- which different types of environments alter the designated terms, such as "girl" and "boy," serve perceptions andthestructuringof behavior to reinforce a belief in the uniqueness of one sex experienced by children. eompared with the other, besides the obvious physiological differences. Fagot (1974) found that In contrast to the intrapsychic processes even parents who exhibit Jame commitment to that are crucial antecedent conditions in cognitive impartial treatment of their children often res- developmenttheory,sociallearningtheorists pond to them in a sex-differentiated way.The (Mischel, 1966; Sandura & Walters, 1963) empha- degree to which socializing agents unknowingly size the external environment and the role of create cues that foster sex role differentiation is socializing agents who shape the child through often underplayed and misunderstood. reinforcement. The differential reinforcement directed at the child according to her/his sex is In an attempt to clarify some of the dynam- seen as the major antecedent condition to sex- ics involved in sex role differentiation, Lynn typed behaviors.Although the social learning (1959) stressed the importance of three basic approach assumes that imitation is important to concepts: sex role preference, sex role adoption, learning, the sex of the model is not as important and sex role identification.Sex role preference as the =tent of the reinforcement. refers to desires for sex-eppropriate behavior. Sex role adoptibn is the acting out of sex-specific Too often the empirical research based on behaviors; sex role identification becomes the social learning wrongly sesumes that parents and internalized:xi of this proem and includes uncon- other aignifieant socializing agents consistently scious reaction to a sex-specific role. These adhere to sex role stereotypes in their own behav- distinctions have beenfosteredas important ior end in the treatment of children. The process conceptualframeworksinboththeoryand of reinforcement should not be viewed in such a research on sex role socialization; however, their simplisticway. Often the socializing agent empirical validation is limited because of meas- (whether the mother or father) presents confliet- urement problems. Experiments that uncover ing information; that is, the "sex appropriateness" process" to explain a belief in the *naturalness" of her/his own behavior may not meet the of sex differences and that note the importance of society'sexpectations for "sitx-appropriate sex distinctions as salient criteria for children behavior" directed at itirls and boys.Socializing may becomecrucialtothesociallearning agents may in fact differentially reward the same aPPrasch- child for sex-typed behavior. Within the oar:text of reinforcement, it I difficult to pinpoint or to empirically validate what constitutes a reward for girls and boys. Do differentsituations and Role Imitation or Modeling different family environments serve as intervening variables that influenoe how reinforcement Imitation, cc modeling, is a crucial psycho- may *wont far the wobability of a ehildt exhib- logical proms within the social learning approach iting sex-typed behavior? (llandura,1965). Thisapproach emphasizes characteristics of the actor and her orhis A reinforcement model should be tsed with environment that differentially affect the likeli- caution in poat hoe explanations of sex differenoes hood of given behaviors being exhibited. Learning and the sex typing of behavior.If a girl or boy is assumed to take place through imitation that is othibits behavioral traits that are not %ex appeo- positivelyreinforced. A problemwiththis priate," it can be argued that the child was approach is how to define reinforcement as it is reinforcedfordevelopingNsex-iner.r;ropriate applied to given individuals in specific situations.

4 Despite a member of empirical studies, much sex or opposite-sex model and (7) the tYPeof debate and soefusion exists About the rola of the affect that the child has toward the behavior imitation women in the development of a SOX being studied.Is te certain affective distance ideally and sex-elped behaviors in girls end between parents and children more or lea con- boyeGenerally, boys displayed more imitative ducive to imitation?Are behaviors that are not ZZI°than girls when the subject was not displayed for the benefit of onildren but are a part :einft.ved (anderaet al., 1963a, 1963b; of everyday living more conducive to imitation? Mak 1945; Madsen, 1966).For behaviors other Is it esker to learn what not to do, what toavoid than aggrealco, either girls imitated mosthan and reject, than what to do? These arequestions boys or no massureble sex differences ocourred that must be thoroughly researched. (ktyrear & Melee, 1969; Hetherington, 1965). Yet, some studies did not find any sax differences One basic pooblem in the design of most in the imitatioe procea (Mitchel & Liebert, 1966; imitation studies is that they have not been con Bawler. & Mischel, 1965; &name & Kuper%1964; striated to test directly the influence of sex roles Hetherington & Frankis, 1967; Breyer & May, on the imitation process.Many of the findings, 1974 Others indicated that sax differentiae tend when taken collectively, suggest some patterns to disappear when the ohild is rewardedfor that would lead to hypotheses about imitation imitation (Bendier*, 1965; Grano & Brheker, 1972; behavior but do not serve as direct evidenceof Ile David, 1959; Stevenson, 1141). any 'pacific relationship. Whilethis may partially account for the number of conflictingviews One eontrovasy focuses on whether the sex currently held, it severely r.satricts the systematic of the modal is a crucial variable in imitation. formulation of generalizations about the role of Maccoby (1959) and others have argued thatthe imitation in the development of sex identity or female is the more salient model for young sex-typed behaviors. children, essuming that identificationisfirst nude with the mother.However, ocunterargu- Tho often, arfrumptions are made about the meats claim that the father is the realityenforcer ehild environmenC. Although this environment is and that the male becomes a more salientmodel outside of the experimental situation, it may for young children (Rosenblith, 1959; Stevenson et influence the process under investigation. The al., 1963; Epctein & Leverant, 1P413). The impor- imitation of a dominant model versus a passive tance of the sax of the modal may depend on model of either sex may in fact depend on the whether the modeled behavior is sex appropriate child," exposure to similar or different typesof or not. it has often been hypothesizedHut sami- models within the home. often when sen models are imitatd much more The behaviors used in imitation studies they exhibit sex-eppropriate behaviors. Although to some studies suggest that children are morelikely present two major problems. First, the degree to imitate a same-esz model when the behavioris which the behavior implies "sex lateens" "sax appropriate* (Bandies el al., 19631; Ityrear is not oonsidered as a possible contaminant, orif & Thelon, 1969; Maccoby & Wilson, 1957), other itis considered as a possible contaminant, the studies tke not ocafirm this hypothesis (Bosehblithe design does not include appropriatecontrols. 1939; &ran, 1071; Breyer & May, 1970; &endure & Second, many behaviors that appear to be sex Helpers, 1964).Garrett (1971) found imitation of neutral, such as marble dropping, do not have same-sex models with regard to bothappropriate praetical relevance in the everyday world of the and inappropriate sex-typed behaviors. Attempt- child. ing to study imitation he a non-sax-typed vitia- tion, Garrett et al. (1974) found that same-sex Many unknowns still exist about the imita- imitation was mod lOcely to *sour in positive, tion process and the extent to which it maybe nontiweetating situations. he somewhat threaten- diftirentiated between boys and girls, different img, peptise 'Mations, the oombination of a types of relationships and actors, anddifferent male experimeater and a female model ;reduced types of modeled behaviors.Also, a parent may ths most omeetetimitetion in both sexes. become a very powerful %negative* model by being very dissatisfied with her/his traditional sex role Two significant variables not always con- or by deviating from it. sidered in studies of modeling are (1) the natureof the relationship between the child and the tame- Sex Role Preferences assearch on young children has focused 2For an excellent and extensive review of the extensively on the ooneept of sex role preference, literature on this subject, see Garrett st al. which is inherently tied to traditional conceptsof (1974). "masailinity" and "hue ininity" as stereotypically

5 pereeived by adults in a given culture.Studies ference compared with the female preferenee have attempted to monitor children's sex role exhibited by girls (Biller & Borstelmann, 1967). development and to test hypotheses regarding the Several studies have shown that girls learn the theoretical importance of sex role preference for content of masculine sex-typed behaviors better sex role adoption and sex role identification. than boys learn the content of feminine sex-typed Studies conoerned with establishing the existence behaviors(Schell &Silber,1968;Reed & of sex role preferences of girls and boys have Asbjornsen, 19613).Also, when the IT stimulus is applied a variety of measures over the last 20 ambiguou, girls tend to perceive it as a male years.Thews measures include the IT Scaie for stimulue more often than boys tend to perceive it Children (ITSC) developed by Brown (1956), a Toy es a female stimulus (Schell & Silber, 1968; Hall & Preferenee Test (TPT) suggested by De Lucia Keith, 1964; Sher & Lansky, 1968).AU these (1963), and Structured Doll Play (SDP) as used by findings can be interpreted as signifying that both Musson and Dist ler (1959). In each of these girlsandboyshave a greaterinterestin methods, assumptions are made regarding the "masculine" activities and behaviors because they child's choice in a projective situation.In the are awarof the higher prestige and social ITSC, the child is presented with a presumably desirability attached to males and "male" sex-neutral stick figure and asked to make a activities. choice that has been prejudged as soc linked.In the TPT model, the child makes a choice for a The interpretation of these [incline has been hypothstical child whose sex 3 known. In the SDP seriously criticized and their comparability ques- study, dolls reprementing family members are tioned.Schell and Silber (1968) criticized ITSC used, and the child is asked to make choices for for insufficient representativeness of items and the dolls based on hypothetical situations.The formarked variationinclarityofdrawing major assumption for all three measures is that "feminine" as compared with "masculine" items. the choice the child makes represents a projection They suggestthat choices made bychildrenmight of herfhis own rex role preference. be based on a dimension in the test materials other than preferences for sex-typed activities Although serious criticism has justifiably and objects. EV varying the instructions used with been directed toward these measurements, many these types of measures, researchers have elicited researchers continue to use them in attempts to differential responses from the same subjects. determine how girls and boys differ in preference New studies were stimulated by criticisms sug- and variation emu, as well as in developmental gesting that the IT figure is not ambiguous or sex aspects.Differences in the variation scores of neutral but contains primarily °masculine" cues girls and boys are thought to represent the (Brawl, 1962; Sher & Lansky, 1966; Thompson & strength of preferences and the amount of knowl- McCandless, 1970).Reed and Asbjornsen (1988) eckge about the opposite sex's responses.Studies found thatabouthalf of theboys perceived the IT undertaken in the 1950t and 1960's found clear-cut figure u male and about half as female, while differences in the preference *ecru ot girls and most of the girls perceived the IT figure as bays, with girls having more "feminine" scores and female. In the same study, they found that in the boys having mcee "masculine" scares (Brown, most ducky defined *somebody figure," develceed 1958, 1957; Hartup & Zook, 1960; Lansky & by Hogan (1957),theextreme female figure is Mci:ay, 1963;DeLucia,1963;Kagan,1964; perceived as male by 15 percent of the subjects. McCandless, 1967). Because older girls and boys It appears that pre-schoolchildren lack the type show greater differences in the expected direction of perceptual accuracy and coesistency demons- than yotmger children, some researchers claim trated by older children and adults on similar that developmental trends are responsible (Brown, tasks. 1956# 1957; Hartup & Zook, 1960; DeLucia, 1983). Older children of both sexes are more likely to Another factor that contaminates the mean- avoid inapprceriate aex objects when faced with a ing of choosing one toy over another is the degree nx-neutralundesirablealternativethanare to which children ere familiar with the items used younger children of both sues (Hartup et al., in the test.This familiarity may differentially 13). Conflicting results regarding variation in affect their choices for reasons other than sex the sex role preference scares appear, with some role preference. Perhaps the selection of toys has researchers arguing for greater variation in girls' nothing to do with max typing but represents some scores (Brown, 1956, 1957; Ward, 1960 and others previous experience with the specific object inde- arguing for greater variationinboys' mores pendent of the experimental situation, Messer (liarily & Zook, 1960; Lansky & McKay, 1963). and Lewis (1973) were careful to point cut the These latter findinp are often used to suggest difficulty in assessing the significance of class that male aoquisition of "appropriate sex role differences in toy preftreeces without a careful preference" is less complicated (liartup & Zook, study of the types andnumbers of suchtoys found 1960) and that boys show a stronger male pre- in the homes of children in each class group. The

0 comparing girls Studies dealing with sex role preferences in same argument can be used when than they and boys on other dimensions. young children raise more questions answer. The ;se of different measureshes led to questions regarding the ways in which thechoices That these mauurement techniques rep- The choices resent an empirical buts for conclusionsabout sex of young children can be altered. role preference I. debatable.Sher and Lansky offered to the child influence the social rale- (1961) claimed that the standard IT scale meas- meet as well as the interpretation,of the urement is more appropriately wad as a measure findings. Sometimes toy 'choices involve one of sex role knowledge than of sex role preference. "feminine" and one "masculine" toy; sometimes They suggest that the findings of Brown (1962), both toys are considered "masculine"or Hartup end Zook (1980), Hall and Keith (1964), "feminine" but differ in the degree to which they Kohlberg and Zigar (1967), Lefkowitz (1982), and are seen u appropriate for a given sex.At other Reed and Ashjornsan (1968) support such a con- times, sex-inappropriate toys are matched with clusion.This raises the question of whether it is aex-naistral, undesirable rejects. meaningful to define the concept of sex role preferences in terms of cultural standar* of Allthese studies indicate that chlidren "maaculinite and "femainity," as Brown (1962) perceive the existing sex roles and that with age roles. suggested. A different approach, proposed by they increasingly differentiate these sex Lefkowits (1962), was to define sax role pre- What, if anything, these findings imply about sax ference in terms of some modal response in role preference is unknown.Until standardized children of the same sex.In this way, sex role instruments are developed to measure interpret- preemies choices are rated on a same-sex ablebehavioralongasexroleReference oontinuum, the poles of which are deviance and dimension, questions will remain about the devel- nondeviancre with regsect to a given groupof opment of sex-appropriate behavior, avoidance of same-ess peers. Deviance in sexrole preference sex-inappropriatebehavior,easeoflearning is thus defined as divergence from the modeof appropriate sax roles, know e of adult norms semt-sex preferences, but not necessarilyin the regarding ume-= and Wen roles, and direction of the mode of the opposite sex. the actual preritrence for one sex rola over the uther. lf, in fact, children learn both sex roles, as Asking subjects to make direct choicesfor defined by the adult culture, equally well, do they themselves rather than for a figure or ahypo- use this knowledge to avoid choosing theapposite- thetical character tends to be a more complexand sex rola behavior or to choose it,especially when time-consuming procedure, but it probably is a it is considered more desirable? How might same- more valid attempt to operationalize sexrole sex groups versus mixed-sex groupsInfluence the preference as distinct from knowledge of ses role degreetowhichsexrolesareoperating? stereotypes.Using this procedure, Brown (1957) Research using superficial designs that deal with foundthat72 percentofthird rade girls one aspect of these issues creates a masaof preferred the IT figure to be a daddy, and this he statistical differences that are restricted in their concluded that girls prefer the masculine role. usefulness. Although the use of previously However, Lefkowitz (1962) found that only2 designed techniques is methodologically sound, it percent of girls indicated they would ratherbe a does little to advance socialization theory and the daddy whenmakingachoiceifirectlyfor understanding of sex role development in young themselves.Lefkowitz concluded that girls have childr, Thiscriticismhas existedinthe about as much preference for thefeminine role as literatureformanyyears,yetresearchers boys have far the masculine role. continue to use these measures not just as a test of methodological hales but as if they have social Utilizing a different technique, Hartley et relevanceandpracticalsignificanceinthe aL (1962) showed that, when asked about a undsretanding of the processes that lead to sax potential adoption, both boys and girls ; valved role differentiation. adults 4s preferring children of their own sex. When the children were staked what sex they preferred for their own children, girls chose girls and boys chose boys. These Lithos's urged serious Parents' Sex.Differentiated Behavior questioning of the assumption that culturally Toward Children enforoed adult partiality for males is generally Studies of the role parents play in the operatinginchildren's sex role development. When et al. (1971) found that children altered development oftheirchildrenhavefocused their choices of toys to conform with the indi- primarily on childrearing practices until the last cated preferences of other children of their own 15 years; little emphasis has been placed on tis sex; this, adult stereotypes about toychoices and development of sex roles per se. However, other behaviors may not have the same meaning theoretioal formulations that emphasize the rola to the child. of the parent es either a model or reinforcing

7 agent and empirical findings that suggest some These findings do not clearly prove that differences between very young girls and boys differential parental treatment accounts for sex have drawn more attentlo:1 to the role of the differences, but they are crucial in refuting the parentas asocializing agent who actively widely held assumption that children are treated participator in the sex role development of the identically, especially when they are very young. child. The differentialtreatment ofinfantsraises important questions about how parental behaviors might systematically influence the development Many studies rely on interviews with the and growth of children in a sex-differentiated parent (usually the mother) regarding childreering way. behaviors, or they observe mother-child pairs in an experimental setting rather than in a natural- Althoughfewdataexistonfathering istic one. Often, studies using only mothers make (Begner,1970), the probanle influence of the generalizations about both parents as if the father father on the socialization of children, especially were merely an extension of the mother's child- of sons, is often mentioned. Two studies suggest rearing effect on the child.When the father is that the negative effect of fateer dominance seen as a crucial source of influence, independent accounts for low self-concept in boys of the mother, hb role is often measured by (Coopersmith,1967;Sears, 1970). In the asking the mother to report on it.In other cases, Coopersmith study, the behavior of the father was the child is asked for her/his perceptions of the measured an the basis of ratings made by the von; father's, and often the mother's, role. Only rarely in the Sears study, the father's behavior WaS is the father's overt behavior observed. measured on the basis of ratings by his wife. The behavior of the father might alsoinfluence intellectual functioning in young bays (Blanchard Despite these shortcomings, the following & Biller, 1971; Dyk & Within, 1965; Grunebaum et different's' have been reported with respeet to at, 1962).However, in each of the studies cited, parental treatment of boys and girls. Mothers and the father-son interactions were not observed. in fathers verbalize to girls more often than to boys, an observational study, Solomon and associates apeeially in response to girls' vocalizations during (1973) found no significant correlations between the first 3 months of life (Lewis, 1972a; Moss, paternal behavior and the academic achievement 1967; Moss et aL, 196W.More proximal stimula- offifth grade boys. However, a finding of tion is given to bcrgs, and more distal stimulation significantcorrelationbetween thenurturant is given to girls (Lewis, 19724.Boys also get behavior of fathers and the IQ of 4-year-olds Ied more tactile-visual stimulation and are aroused to Raclin (1972) to suggest that the role of the father higher activity levels (Mom, 1967). After 6 may be crucial for this group. months, girls are touched more, but boys receive less proximal stimulation. Throughout the first 6 The role of the father as separate from the months, mothers talk to girls more than to boys mother may have an independent effect on the sex (Goldberg & Lewin 1989). Mothers maintain role development of both girlsand boys. Although physically close and affectionate relationships there is not a great dealof evidence, some with girls for a longer period than with boys empiricalfindingssuggestthatmothers and (Lewis, 1972a).Mothers also expect girls to be fathers treat boys and girls differently (Maccoby more dependent and they give girls more physical & Feldman, 1972; Rothbart & Maccoby, 1968; attention (Droppleman & Schaefer, 1963).Boys Rebelsky & Hanks, 1971). Withregardto are given more independence training (Barry at autonomy behaviors, Nakamura and Rogers (1969) aL,1957),more punishment (Droppleman & showed that mothers' and fathers' expectations Schaefer, 1983), and more intellectual encourage- differentiallypredict sons' and daughters' ment (Lynn & Sawrey, 1912). For pre-achool behaviors. In an observational study, Osofsky and children, mothers pressure boys mars to achieve O'Connell (1972) reportedthatfathers positively and punish them more for showing dependency. reinforced dependent daughters and that mothers Boys' aggresionisrewarded as appropriate exerted more control over dependent daupters. *alumnae* behavior, but girls' aggression is never These findings, along with those of Brim (1957) rewarded, though indirect expressions are tol- and Emmerich (1982), suggest that sex ofparent erated.Ihe presmire on girls is for *feminine and sex of child ere crucial variables inresearch (polities, sueh as neatness, obedience, and con- designs attempting to account for the processes feetnity, but pressure on boys is for independence affectingsexroledevelopmentinchildren. and sohlevement (Hatfield et al., 1987). Mothers Contradictingthestudiesmentionedabove, of girls oastrol verbal protests by withdrawing Emmerich and Smeller (1981) reported a love, but mothers ot boys use negative unctions consistenthickofevidence for sex role (deprivation of privileges) to control verbal pro- differentiation based on sex of parent and sex of tests (Basimrind & Black, 1987). child and suggested that siblings and peers, rather

8 than adults, serve as a baste source of sex-typed influence of one set of behaviors on the other. norms during early childhood. Perhaps it can be assumed that, during the first year of an infant's life, the parents' preeonceived The conflicting findings reported above may sex role notions and sex-differentiated behaviors be the result of simplistic research designs that are often more importantthanthechild's allowinterveningvariablestoconfound the behaviors and that increasingly the child's sex- findings.Using a more complex design, Torgoff differentiated behaviors tend to confirm, (1967) showed that, when looking at achievement- reinforce, and stimulate parental sex- inducing and independence-granting behaviors, the differentiated behaviors. family structure affects the role the parent plays as a modeLMore specifically, the number of In most sex role socialization studies, the siblings, the sex of siblings, and the cyder (male values,characteristics,andachievementsof firxt/female first) systematically create different parents have not been studied as important environments for parental input. Thus, variables that influencethe extentto which generalizations are restricted not only when the parents treat boys and girls differently or ',resent mother is the sole source of data but also when girls and boys with different types of sex role the family structure itself becomes a varieble. messages arei models. At least some mothers and Not only do parent-child interactions seem to be fathersmay holdnonstereotypedsex role affected by the gender characteristics of the attitudesand&splay some sex-inappropriate actors,butresultingpatterns seemheavily abilities, achievements, or behaviors.With the influenced by the gender characteristics of other exception of maternal employment, we know little childreninthe family and their birth order about the socializing effect of parents' sex- (Torgoff, 1967). inappropriateabWties,traits,and behaviors, especially as they are colored by the parent:: and Increasingly, the role of both mothers and others' feelings and reactiona. fathers has been recognized as influential in the sex role development of boys and girls. Research Katkovsky et al. (1964) differentiated the has pinpointedtheomissionofimportant socialization roles played by parents, especially variables. Theseomissions contaminate the with respect to sex-appropriate and sex-inappro- meaningfulness of the conclusions and render priate behavior&'Their purpose was to examine them melees es empirical evidence to support the relationship between the achievement atti- theoretical formulations.Problems in observa- tudes, values, and behaviors of parents regarding tional research include small sample sizes, lack of their own achievements on specific dimensions attempts to replicate findings, soeial pressure andtheachievementattitudes,values,and that causes parents to alter their behavice for the behaviors that parents exhibited regarding their experimenter, and, more importantly, lack of children's achievements on the same dimensions. attemptsto integrate findings and conceptual Achievementareasstodiedwereintellectual schemes to give some direction to studies in this attainment, mechanical skills, physical skills, and area.Having established the parent as a crucial artistic attainment. The general findings showed source of variation, researchers should notjump an expected correspondence between parents' to conclusions about the importance of this factor achievementvaluesforthemselves andthe in shaping the sex role identity of the child.Too achievement values they want to pass on to their often, reseer&ers assume that the influence is children; however, important variations appeared only in one direction, from parent to child. A according to the saxappropriateness of the more complex design, removed fromunidimen- achievement dimension in question and the child's stone' effects, involves a circular system in which gender.Mothers who valued mechanical ability parentsaffectchildrenand childrenaffect for themselves did not encourage this ability in parents (Moss, 1967; Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972; daighters or sons. Fathers who valued mechanical Richards&Bernal,1972). Based onthis ability tended to value it mere for daughters than perspective, itis unclear whether differential for sons.Fathers who valued artistic ability for responses to parents' behaviors Influenc went* themselves tended to also value it for their sons to respond differentially to boys and girls or more than their daughters (Katkovsky et al., whether some mothers and fathers have 1984).Thus, the eorrespondence of achievement preconeelved notions that resultin differential values seems also to hold true between parents treatment of boys and girls regardlesa of the and children of the opposite sax and with respect Dissatisfac- childls responses. Bell (1966) end Moss et al. to sex-ineppropriate achievements. (1989)demonstratedthatchildreninfluence tion with a specific skill that was sex appropriate parents as much as parents influence children. (fatherphysicalskill/motherartisticability) Most probably, the nature of interaction between tendedtobifluence parents to@floorage children's and parents' sex-differentiated development of this skill in their sons, more so behaviors makes it dfficult to asses the relative than when there was satisfaction with the skill.

9 Parents who have ax-inappropriate abilities and or insecurity, they are likely to "overparent" the achievements may serve es positive models for child, thus encouraging dependency.Later born same-sexchildren,unlike°they also transmit children are lea likely to receive the same degree negative mesages shouttheseabilities and of "overparenting" and are therefore lea likely to achievements.Thus, they may become powerful uprose the same degree of dependency. This negative modals, for example, mothers who are generalization of research findinp from girls to diustisfied with the hasewife role (Lipman- boys can be found in some research conducted in Simon, 1972). the 1950k end 1980k. This type of generalization is inappropriate because it assumes that boys and girls are treated alike by parents and becauee Birth Order and Sibling Status dependency is a sex-typed behavior expected from girls but not from boys.Not surprisingly, sub- Examination of birth order and sibling status sequent research has shown that the clifferences provides insights into whether children in various found between first-born and later born females sibling oonstellations are exposed to different sea on anxiety and affiliative behavior are not found role pressures and expectations, as well as to for males; in fact, some studies found that later different pezental and sibling sex role models. born males showed more anxiety anddependency Birth order and sibling status, though not always than first-born males (Gerard & Rabble, 1961; linkedinthe literature,areinherently tied Zimbardo & Formica, 1983; MacDonald, 1988; together in a sex role perspective. Concern with Zucker et al., 1988). birth order differences but not sibling status disregards gender as a crucial variable. MacDonald (1989) formulated a socialization hypothesis to reconcile these differences reported Although birth coder and sibling stress have inempiricalstudies and to reformulate the beenstudiedextensively,thefindinpare understanding of birth order and sibling status as ambiguous and, therefore, add little to theoretical potential sources of influence on social behavior. formulations(Sampson,1965;Warren,1966; According to his socialization hypothesis, first- Rosenfeld, 1966; Murdock & Smith, 1989; Bragg & born children are more thcroughly socialized than Allen, 1970).Birth order and sibling status are later born children, and therefore are more relatedtomany othervariablesthatmay susceptible to the socialization practices of the influence patterned social behavior such as family parents.In addition, the hypothesis assumes that siT" spacing between children, sex ratio of parents socialize thesexesdifferentially, siblings, end characteristics of the socializing especially. ith respect tosex-typed behaviors. agent.Moat otters, these relevent variables are The concept of parents socializing children differ- ivsored in research designs. They should be entially based on the sex of the child does not, studied wing sophisticated methodology because however, take account of differentials sccording they indicate the structural variation in sibling tn the sex of the parent. Thus, within the sociell- and parent-childrelationships, and thus have zation hypothesis as developed by MacDonald, important implications for sex role socialization. both parents are seen as fostering the same stand with respect to sox-typed behaviors.Based on Birth cedar and sibling status studies have these assumptions, MacDonald (1989) argued that focusedon differentdependentvariables, first-born children,in contrastto later born including motives (Dember, 1960 emotional dis- children, feel more pressure to conform to the orders (Schooler, 1964); personality expectations of adults or authority figures.To characteristics(McArthur, 1956); vocational the extent that parents socialize children differ- proforma* and expectation (Mehta & June* entially with respect to their sax, sax differences 1969); preference for complexity versus simplicity between first-born children may be explainable if (Uomman, 1947); and sports participation and the behavior under consideration is sex typed, interests (Landers, 1970).Research relevant to Explicitly with regard to dependency behavior, it sex typing has focused on oonformity, dependency, canbearguedthat,awarding tocultural anxiety, and affilietive behavior. standards, it is oonsidered more "feminine" than *masculine" to express dependency. Through the Schachter (1959), performing anxiety affilia- socialization hypothesis, MacDonald attempts to tion experiments on females, found that in stress allowfor sex differences between first-born situations first-born females prefer to be with children and for the interaction of rex and birth others rather than alone more often than later order in the examination of patterned behavior. born females.This finding was then generalized to both sexes with respect to expected differences in dependency behavior.It was suggested that Support for the socialization hypothesis is parents (especially mothers) spend more time with not conclusive, though it has served as a basis for first-born children and that, out of inexperience deciding how crucial sex rola socialization is to

10 1 4 understanding and predicting behavior patterns of How birth order and sibling status vystem- boys and girls. The socialization hypothesis atically influence the behavioral response of the compels researchers to determine how much Id rests on certain assumptions about the behavior is sax typed and whet effects sex typing child's sex role socialization.These assumptions may have on the results of the experiment. need to be tested empirically. The emphasis on StaceDoeft Id (1989) reported sex differences con- the differential socialization of boys versus girls sisteet with the socialisation hypothesis between is assumed in MacDonald's (1969) socialization first-born and Utter born adults with respect to hypothesis andinthereformulation ofthis withdrawing from an experiment.In an attempt hypothesis within cognitive development theory as to replicate these relationships in a study of suggested by Laosa and Brophy (1972). In the first kindergarten children, Lusa and Brophy (1970), orientation, differential reinforcement by parents usingmeasuresofcreativityand sex-typed is a crucial antecedent condition that accounts for interests, intellectual ability patterns, and pear the differential responee of girls versus boys and relatioos during free play, hypothesized that first- for the potential interaction effects of sex by born boys and girls differ from each other to a birth order. In the second crientation, differential greater degree than later born boys and girls on reinforcement by parents is seen as reflecting variables related to sex typing. The results of this prevailing sex role stereotypes that designate experiment suggest that MacDonald's hypothesis characteristicsandbehaviorsaseithersex flts fairly well, elthough the consistency and appropriate or sex inappropriate.However, the intensity of birth cir.isr effects are more notable degree to which parents actually serve as dif- in girls than in boys.In attempting to replicate ferential reinforcers of sex role stereotypes (much and expand these findings using more extensive less the degree to which bath parents socialize in measures, Lama and Brophy (1972), again using the same way)isoften assumed rather than middle-clan urban kindergarten children, found empiricallyverified. Researcherstendto that direct measures of sex typing eonsistently designate parents' behavior?. and ideologies as negate predictions from MacDonald's hypothesis. crucial and yet to assume little variation among them. The failure of findings to support Mac Donald's socialization hypothesis led Lama That children undergo changes in the transi- and Brophy (1972) to conclude that the two major tion from childhood to adulthood is taken for influencesofMacDonald'shypothesis,more granted. However, the assumption of adult status thorough socialization of first-born children and does not suddenly mean that all changes come to a differential socialization based an sex of child, do halt.In fact, Benedek (1959) suggested that as not interact in any simple linear fashion. Thus, a children change, parents may change too. Lansky sex-by-birth order interaction may be tenable for (1984) directed attention toward the parents' some measures but not for others, and therefore attitudes and behivior as potential sources of MacDonald's socialization hyPotheais should be varistion, which in turn may differentially affect modified. the behavior of the child.Using measures that have traditionally been employed with children, Because of the la& of consistent birth order such as the Gough Scale (Gough, 1952) and the differences, the results of the Laosa and Brophy Franck Drawing Completion Test (Franek & (1972) experiment were reinterpreted within the Rosen, 1949), Lansky (1984) set out to determine context of Kohlberg's (1988) cognitive develop- how parents may differ in sex role identification ment theory.According to Kohlberg, sex typing indifferentfamilystructures. Specifically, comes about largely through cognitive develop- Lansky varied the sibling configuration (same-sex matt (a labeling process), rather than through versus mixed-sex siblings) and the age of a pre- identification procemes or direct reinforcement school child in the home.Although the mascu- for sax-typed behavior.Within this oantext, no linity-femininity patterns of mothers and fathors birth order difference on direct measures of sax were similar in different family structures, tiler typing would be expected. To the extent that the were different correlational patterns between child has intenuslized the sppropriate sex label, masculinity-femininity scores of parents from birth cedardifferences should not occur for differentfamilystructures with childrenof children of the same sex. Consequently, sex differing ages. Lensky suggested that parents differsneesacross ordinalposition should be differ in their sex role identifications and that maintained. Birth order-by-sex interactions would changes in one or both parents may take place be expected only when variables are indirectly over time. Thus, not only may childrenin related to sex typing. Although Lusa and Brophy different family struetures have different models (1972) were not tasting Kohlberg's theory, their from which to develop their sex roles, but parents findings can be explained batter by Kohlberg's may change as the structure of the family theory than by the socialization hypothesis of changes. Parents cannot be coneeptuslized as MacDonald. monolithic sex role socializing wads.

11 Lansicy (1967), continuing to study parents as behavior. These two assumptions allow for a a source of variation,shifted attention from number of new and testable hypotheses based on a masculinity-femininity measures to parental atti- comprehensiveanalyticalframework. For tudes toward children% sex role choices.A Sex instance, in the experiment by Bragg and Allen, Role Attitude Test (SRAT) derived from the pressure for conformity is defined as coming from children% form of the SRAT described by McKay same-sex peers.. Under thiscondition,they (1984) was used to measure parental attitudes. argued, the sex of the subjectwill produce Again, Lansky catcluded that parents should be differential conformity for later born but not conceptualised as a source of variation because first-born subjects.Differential degyees of con- theirattitudes differed accordingtofamily formity in later born subjects would be based on structure.In gener4 parents of boys had more the sex of the older sibling.According to their polarized attitudes, and fathersof mixed-sex theory, whoever is more salient at the time an siblings differed from we smother more than individual learns herlhis sex role will serve as the mothers of mixed-sex siblings. situationalcueinexperimental situationsto account for variations in social behavior.If the Family structure (affected by family size older sibling is of the opposite sex, conformity to and sibling configuration) influences the responses sex-appropriate behavior should be strongest in of the parents, which inturn may influencethe later born children when pressure for conformity sax role development and behaviorofthe child comes from opposite-sex peers rather than from (Rosenberg & Sutton-Smith, 1971). Rosenbergand same-sex peers or from adults. Sutton-Smith (1988,1971)found thatfathers' sccres wese more "masculine" when they had only Although this theoretical perspective helps daughters than when they had a daughterand a to establish the importance of ordinal position, son. Inaddition,fathers' scores were more sex of subject, sex of sibling, and characteristics "feminine" when they had sonsthan when they had of the influence source in predicting sex-typed daughters. Inboththese studies,fathers' secrea behaviors, it still makes assumptions about how varied as a function of sibling configuration but subjects are socialized in a traditional sex role mothers'scores didnot. Inotherstudies, framework. The approach discards the simplistic Rosenberg and Sutton-Smith (1964, 1966, 1971) assumption that a consistent and invariant pattern found that daughters' sex role attitudes were more of conformity behavior will always be exhibited as affected by family members, while the sons' a function of a specified ordinal position. Using a attitudeswere moreaffected by sax role stand- more sophisticatedapproach, researcherscan ards prevailing outside the home. The results led stipulate other important variables, but they still Rosenberg andSutton-Smith,as well asothers, to make assumptions about sex appropriateness based severely criticize research on sex role develop- on traditional standards and images that most ment in the familythatdeals only with the child's "normal" children come to know under similar response or with siblingeffects oneach other. socialization influences. Research that does not examine the family struc- iure may well be only an abstraction of the more Brim (1958) alsoutilized a role theory complete phenomena in operation. Family struc- perspective in attempting to account for variation ture and, more specifically,the gender composi- in sex role learning based on differential sibling tion of children seem to affect the nature of the configurations.The basic hypothesis, which was operating sex role nevus and proceeses during sex originally suggested by Cottrell (1942), was that role socializ.ation. interaction between two persons leads to auimila- thin of roles.This suggests that opposite-sex In an attempt to clarify some theoretical siblings are more likely than same-sex siblings to foundations, Bragg and Allen (1970) 'pacified two incorporate traits of the other sex.In addition, generalaisumptionsabouttherelationship Brim argued that younger siblings are influeneed between ordinal position and conformity in a role more trythis proms than are older siblings, theory perspective.First, Bragg and Allen sug- because the latterhave had more timeto gested that first-born and later born children establish their own role.In reanalyzing data undergo a different process of socialization. supplied by Koch (1956), Brim found support for Specifically, peers are considered more salient these hypotheses. He did not considet how stimuli for later born children, and adults appear parents influence these differential effects.The to be more salient stimuli for first-born children. basic premise of assimilation of roles has implica- Second, Bragg and Allen also attempted to build tions for the child's interaction with parents of sitaational determinants into their basic assump- both sexes, as well as her or his interaction with time; i.e., the more closely the cues in a situation sibli ngs. resemble the family situation in which the subject learned her/his sex role behaviors, the mare likely A methodological note relevant to birth the subject will be to show appropriate sax role order and sibling status studies concerns sampling

12 bias.MacDonald (1969) reported that later born The measurement of sex role preference, subjectsmaybeunderrepresentedinstudy sex role adoption, and sex role orientation can samples because they are les likely to volunteer also be criticized on methodological grounds. To and more likely to miss their appointments. Based some extent these concepts are based on asex- on this finding, MacDonald suggested that, in differentiated culture in which gender is confused experiments dealing with variables related to with sex role, that is,with "masculinity" and birth order, samples should be inspected for birth "femininity." Whether an individual has a male or order Wes. Few studies in which birth order is not female gender identity is different from whether the central focus appear to adjust for possible s/he adopts "masculine" or "feminine" prefer- birth order bias. ences, choices, or behaviors.To the extent that societies allow for changes in sex role norms or Tbe sex ratio of children in the family, as overlapping of sex roles, measurements based on well as their birth order, seems to affect the sex "masculinity" and "femininity" lose their meaning. role norms and socialization processes of these It is here that the theoretical (and ideological) children.Sex ratio seems to be a significant bias becomes importants Within the framework of structurelvariableinsexrolesocialization identification theory and from a traditional view whether at home, in school, or with regard to peer of sex typing, "maseulinity" and *femininity" are influences. Same-sex and mixed-sex settings and considered bipolar concepts.Furthermore, the interactions seem to have %rimy different sex role development of boys as appropriately "masculine" implications. and the development of girls as appropriately "feminine" have been assumed'as essential for the "healthy" yodel and psychological development of Father Absence as a Test of children (Biller & Borstelmann, 1967) and for the Identification and Modeling Theories "healthy" functioning of society.Many of the negative consequences of father absence need re- The absence of the father is considered to examination andreinterpretationinlight of have serious consequences, especially for sons left recent theoretical and empirical developments without a substitute male model. Many empirical concerningandrogynyandtheaccumulating studies, done over the last 30 years, have provided evidenceofthe"positive"implicationsof very little conclusive information about father androgyny for creativity, self-esteem, and social absence.Some research completely disregards adjustment (Bem, 1972, 1974; Spence et al., 1975). the importance of sex roles as a theoretical perspective and looks at the general effects of The limited generalizability of findings due father absence on boys and girls combined (Tiller, to the lack of appropriate controls is another 1951).However, most research gives lip service serious methodological shortcoming. Even esen- to sex roles and looks at the differential effects tie variables such as social class, length of father of father absence on boys and girls.' absence, age of child when father absence began, availability of substitute male models, type of The findinp of father-absent studies have father absence (temporary, intermittent, or per- notbeen conclusive mainly becauseof manent), and reasons for father absence are not methodological problems and theoretical biases. controlled, and therefore conclusions are not A serious methodological problem concerns the meaningful (Herzog & Sudia, 1968, 1969). ambiguousdefinitionsoftheterms"father absence" and "father presence."Some studies Another methodological difficultyresults have lumped together families in which the father from the sole use of mother-child pairs in studies iscompletelyremoved(e.g.,bydeathor of parent-ohild interactionin which sex role desertion) with families in which the father is socializationis of primary importance. This absent but still maintains a relationship with his assumes that the mother plays the crucial child- children (as is often the casein divorce). Other rearing role, that the father complements or studies have compared children from families in reinforces the situation created by the mother, which the father was absent for 2 or more years and that by his very existence the father serves as with all types of two-parent families regardlees of a model fee his male children.That the father the degree to which the fathers were regularly may differentially affect the sex role socializa- absent for more or lass long periods of time. tionofhischildren is oftenoverlooked. Therefore, no solid comparative data exist on the role of fathers in children's sex role socialization 3For an excellent review of the literature on and development. When the father is absent, father absence and the personality development however,hisabsence probablyattracts more of the male child, see Biller (1970).See Biller research interest than it deserves. We probably and Weiss (1970) for a study of the effect of cannot effectively study father absence because father absence on the female child. we have not yeteffectivelystudiedfather

13 17 presence. Assigning validityto identification which supposedly taps the individual's "conscious theories based on father absence studies is a or unconscious pereeption and evaluation of his problem, although itis implied that if boys in maleness and/er femaleness," and therefore is father-absent homrcais be shown to differ considered a more crucial test of how much the significantly fromAye in father-present homes male child is seriously restricted, due to father (in "appropriate sex role development"), then the absence, in the development of his sex Identity position and importance of the father will be (Biller, 1970).Consequently, some designs have firmly established. attemptedto ineteporatemorethanone dimension of sex role development in order to Because father absence studies assume that study compensatory masculinity in father-absent an incompletefamily structureisinherently boys and to get a better grasp of how father pathologic and pathogenic, they focus on the absence affects different aspects of sex role °harmful" effeeis on boys' socialization and devel- development(D'Andrade, 1962; Barclay & opment, including sex role development. Cusumano, 1967; Bilks, 1968; Greenstein, 1966; Research has concentrated on "masculine" sex McCord et aL, 1962; Miller,1961; Mitchell & role development, aggression, intellectual Wilson, 1987). deficits, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, anxiety, overall dysfunctioning, and homosexuality How are other variables affected, and how (Biller,1970). This research assumes that the do they, in turn, intervene either to dilute or to importance of the male model for the boy is increase the negative impact of father absence on verified to the extent that father absence (lack of male soeialization? Variables such as sibling a same-sex role model) affects the expression of influence, substitute masculine models (including an appropriate masculine image. peers, TV, male relatives), end changes in the mother's behavior have been studied (Sutton-Smith The designs of many studies have been et aL, 1968; Nash, 1965; Biller, 1969). These influenced by the conceptualization of sex role studies begin to raise questions about how father development in three major areas: sex role absence can directly affect the development of preference, sex role adoption, and sex role identi- boys. fication (or orientation) (Lynn, 1959). These distinctions are crucial because they (1) involve Although the major area of interest in the different types of measurement, (2) may explain father absence literature has been the effect of conflicting empirical findings, and (3) have dif- father absence on the socialization of boys into ferent implications for theoretical formulations. adult sex roles, some studies have systematically Sex role preferenceisusuallymeasured by looked at how father absence differentially or children's expressed likes and dislikes of toys, separately affects the socialization of girls (Lynn games, and activities assumed to be sex typed. & Sawrey, 1959; Sutton-Smith et aL, 1968; Biller Sex roleadoptionismeasured by observers' & Weiss, 1970. ratinp along bipolar masculine-feminine dimensions. Sex role orientation (oridentifi- Further more motherabsence though cation) is usually measured indirectly by responses obviously existing to a much smallerd;gree than to projective tests and by fantasy play. father absence, has not fostered empirical studies. At least for some designs, the likely comparison The term "compensatory mssculinity" (Lynn group for father-absent subjects would seem to be & Sawrey, 1959; Barclay & Cusumano, 1967) came a matched sample of mother-absent subjects. aboutbecause there werenoconsistent differences between father-absent and father- Biller (1970) postulated that most state- pretent boys on all three of these sex role dimen- ments in this area of empirical research are sions. Sincethefnvestigatorswouldnot hypotheses rather than conclusions and deserve acknowledge the possibility that boys in father- more systematic research.Despite the tenta- absent familia, could be as masculine as bop in tiveness ofhisfindings,Biller conveyed the father-present families,new label was coined to impression that the following statements are imply some kind of "abnormal* adjustment to a derived from studies that have already been donee deviant situation. Although girls are les affected To the extent that sex role preference and by father absence than boys, adoption are measured directly, they are subject girls'personalitydevelopment to social pressures and norms regarding sex roles may also be adversely affected and may merely reflect the degree to which the by it. child has learned to conform to the norms of society. Sex role Identification (or orientation), Father absence for the child also however, is seen as a much more covert process, means husband absence for the

14 mother and is likely to influence inferior position in the sex stratification system. her behavior toward the children. Or girls simply may be responding to greater stimulation in terms of vocalizations they receive Peer influence, sibling influence, from both parents. and surrogate male models are intervening variables that may Sex differences in other areas are often not eerie to mitigate the negative closar-cut *in the literature on infancy.3For impact of father absence. example, some research on attachment cc depen- dentbehaviorreportsgreaterattachment Beaune of "compensatory behavice in girls (Goldberg & Lewis, 1989; Mower masculinity," father-absent boys & lawis, 1972; Brooks & Lewis, 1973; %mike et may appear similar to father- al, 1973), but other research fails to find sox present boys in sex role pre- differences inattachment (Rheingold & ference and sex role adoption. Eckerson, 1669; Coates et aL, 1972a, 1972b; Lewis & Weinraub, 1973; Maccoby & Jacklin, Father-absent boys may be signi- 1973; Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Ainsworth et aL, ficantly different from father- 1971). The reasons for contradictory findingsare present boys in sex role orienta- not clear, but they may be related to one of many tion. methodological problems to be discussed more fully below. Maccoby's (1971) attempt to replicate Father absence and mother absence cannot Goldberg and Lewis' (1969) procedures resulted in be thoroughlystudiedandunderstooduntil different finding's a lack of sex differences but a conceptualizations and research designs are freed great deal of variability within sexes.Levison of many theoretical biases and methodological (1972) suggestedthatthe existence of rejecting problems, and until sex role socializing by fathers, parenb for 16 percent of the girls in the Goldberg both with mothers and separately, is thoroughly and Lewis study (1969) may explain the greater studied. Mader what conditions do same-sex and attaehment behavior rep mted for, girls. ogposite-sez interactions affect what upects of sex role development by what processes?Most 'Dv preference sti. lies, although significant probably, father absence is of little importance by for children in later drtaites of development, show itself; other voidable' determine its impact on sex no strong sex differenct... for children at approxi- role development mately 1 year of age (Messer & Lewis, 1972; Brooks & Lewis, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). The only preference differences that emerge are Sex Differences in Early infancy the preference of boys for large mechanical objects (Bronson, 1971; Jacklin et al., 1973) and of Research on sex differences in early infancy girls for stuffed animals (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; his focused primarily on cognitive processes, Branson, um). This finding was not replicated by attachment behaviors, toy preferences, activity Jacklin et aL (1973). levels, and responses to stressful situations.' Activity levels of 1-year-old, middle-elms Focusing on cognitive developinent, Kagan childrenshownomarkedsexdifferences (1972) saw the female during early childhood as (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969).Messer and Lewis beingmore advancedinthe dimensionsof (1972) suggestedthatthere might be a social class vocaliution (Lewis, 1969), discrimination between difference; they found that lower clan girle stimulus situations (Lewis & Freed le, 1972; LOW* crossed significantly more lines drawn across a 1969), and preference for complex stimuli (Kagan room than did lower clue boys. & Lewis, 1963). The meaning of such afferences is even to interpretation, though some theorists The final area of studies focused on reaction argue for a biological basis (Kagan, 1972; Kagan & to strese-indueed situations.Strus was induced Mose, 1962; Maccoby & Ja.,n, 1973).Levison by setting up a barrier between mother and child (1972) argued that biological explanations al early (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). presenting a loud taped sex differences are maintained because they male voice (Mansoby & Jacklin, 1973)1 or having provide °scientific"justificationsfar women's the mother leave for a short time (Coates et aL, 1972a, 1972b).Again, for 1-year-old children no clear-eut sexdifferences inthe amount ofre- 411his review of sex differences is not exhaustive sourcefulness were shown. orcomprehensive. The articulationof a theoretical model of sex role socialization and sex discrimination guided the synthesis of the For a comprehensive review, see Mattcoby and literature presented. Jacklin (1974a).

18 Lack of consistent empirical designs and the those reported earlier for cognitive processes.in use of nonstandardized procedures for measuring this study, boys were more aggressive and had variables merely add to the oodusion concerning greater activiV levels, and girls were more likely the validity of differences in the data. The use of to imitate a female model. No differences raters, who themselves have sex role stereotypes between the sexes were found in resourcefulness and expectations withregardtodifferential or persistence in overcoming obstacles. Although behavioral dispositions, is an additional source of more studies are needed to determine the stability error.The failure to replicate findings across of such differences across experimental samples, studies raises questious as to the degree to which the suggestion of such differenees at this early underlying differences can be presumed to exist. age creates a bridge for the appearance of other From "he perspective of an interaction setting, differences at the next stage in the life cycle. the behavior of the infant is often observed as if itrepresentssomeunderlyingpredisposition created either biologically or by antecedent con- Sex Differences After Infancy: Some ditions existing in the socialization practices Developmental Issues whichtakeplacepriortoexperimentation. Research of this nature is always done with the Afterinfancy and during the we-school mother present; thus, the mother herself becomes years, few sex differences 'seem to be firmly a source of variation and potential influence on establish0.The major difference that appears the infant's response.The crucial question that constantacrossempiricalstudiesrelatesto remains unenswered in these designs is: How much aggression, with boys scoring higher on measures do differences in infants in experimental settings of aggression and tension than girls (Lansky et al., represent differential treatment by mothers of 1961; Hatfield et al., 1967; Baumrind & Black, boys and girls in the research setting itself? 1967). Aggression is one behavioral disposition thatconsistently prlduces sex differencesin To what extent can reported sex differences observational and experimental stedies (Oetzel, be generalized to boys and girls in different social 1966; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1973;Safilics- classes and ethnic groups? Mod of the studies Rothschild et al., 1975).Cross-cultural anthro- used children of white upper middle class parents pological studies also tend to support sex dif- or of profesionals from an urban university ferencesinaggressiveaLtivity(Spiro,1958; community.Lewis and Weinraub (1974) pointed Whiting, 1963). Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974a) out that studies of attachment behavior using extensive review of empirical literature on sex lowerclassandmiddle-classsubjectshave differences reestablished the beliefthat generally reported higher attachment behavior in aggression is one of the main differences between females, but that studies usiN upper middle class the sexes and that it is traceable through exper- subjects have reported no differences. The imentation to differences that emerge around age generalizability of findings across class lines is, 2 or 21. therefore, questionable. We know even leas about the extent of their generalizability across racial Lansky and emaciates (1961) pointed out that and ethnic lines. differences in aggression may reflect the many definitices currently used.Not only does the So far, only basic behavioral differences expression of aggression split along traditional observed during infancy have been presented in physical-verbal dimensions, but the object of an these studies, utilizing sex as crucial inde- individual% aggressive behavior also varies from pendent variable.A great deal of variability one situation to the next.The authors aiggest exists both within and across sex for the variables that aggressive behavior has different meanings, investigated. Themajorstabledifferences outlets, motives, and defenses for boys and girls. reported relate explicitly to cognitive processes, A basic question about reported sex differences in which show the female to be more advanced than aggressioniswhether the sexesdifferStith the male. Other variables tend to diverge respect to their earessive potential, or whether depending on the specific subjects and design this difference is culturally or experimentally utilizad.From a research point of view, the produced. CampbellandNadelman(1972) significance of such findings I. limited.Other reported on the aggressive fantasias of children. variables, sueh as parental influences on the In their study, nursery school girls equaled boys in socialization of children (which will be reviewed human target saression (throwing darts at a liter),provide some insightinto differential choice ofdsjects)inthefirstsession and responses in infants. exceeded boys in the nut two.Seeond grade children displayed no sex differences until the An extensive study by Pedersen and Bell third session, in which the boys exhibited more (1970), based on group observations of 21-year-old aggression.According to these findings, younger children, reported sex differences that go beyond girls may be at least a: aggressive as boys, and

20 fn.-, ^

older girls, although more inhibited thar their free-play settings, one of which was same sex and male peers, may sometimes show equivalent the other mixed sex (Greenberg & Peck, 1974). In aggression. The researchers suggest that as they the same-sex groups, boys showed more inde- grew older, girls leun to suppress their aggression pendent, assertive, and autonomous behavior; girls more than boys, and that in doing so, they may were more restrained, orderly, and dependent an loam more indirect and socially acceptable ways adults.However, In the mixed groups, boys and to express their aggression. girls tended to modify the extremes of each other's behaviors, resulting in leis destructive Do experimental settings allow the expres- behavior by boys and more independent behavior sion of aggressive tendencies by all subjects? by girls. Male bias may influence the types of behaviors that are investigated. Related to this issue is the The influence of same-sex versus mixed-sex potential bias of raters in both observational and groups raises serious questions *bout experimental experimental studies. Sex-related cues about the designs that seek underlying behavioral disposi- gutter of the observed subject were given to the tions but overlook this variable.Whether it is rater of infants in the earlier studies, but even seen as a product of childrearing practices, innate more such cues were provided to raters in studies psychologicaldifferences,oran interaction of older children. To what extent do the sex role between the two, the expression of a disposition stereotypesoftheratercontaminatethe may be considered either pervasive or situa- measurement of the behavior under investigation? tionally specific. Assuming that dispositions are Meyer and Sobieszek (1972) found thet ratings situationally specific, the sex ratio of the group mede when the sex of the child was ambiguous becomes a crucial variable. were greatly influenced by the gender perceived by the rater and the expected sex-appropriate Maccoby and Jack lin% review of the litera- behaviors. Observers tended to notice more ture (1974a) also showed that other differences behaviors that countered their sex role expecta- besides amount ofaggressive behaviorexist tions and to differentially label similar behaviors between the sexes, namely, greater vedsal ability according to the actor's gender.Thus, a child's of girls end greeter visual-spatial and mathe- vigorous, uninhibited behavior was more often matical ability of boys. Behavioral differtnees on labeled aggressive if the child was perceived to be other variables, such as independence-dependence, a girl.Kleeman (1971) found that differential achievement motivation, and other personality reaction to the same child's behavior depends on attributes, are not substantiated in experimental the sex of the observer. Although the sex and observational studies or in literature reviews designation of the child (infants in this situation) (Crandall et al., 1960; Mischel, 1966; Oetzel, was randomized (designations counterto the 1986; Maccoby & Jack lin, 1973, 1974a).Serious actual sex in half the cases), male and female methodological shortcomings may account for the subjects tended to look at infants of their own sex existence of conflicting results regarding stable in a more positive light than infants of the sex differencesassociated withpersonality opposite sex. The above studies suggest that sex- attributes. The reliability of reported findings is related cues in the setting may systematically weakened by the lack of observational and longi- affect the objectivity of raters' perceptions and, tudinal studies that systematically measure these thus, their conclusions about observed behavioral attributes. Frequently, measurements are not sex differences. standardized with respect to any given attribute. Often researchers have developed measurements Aggression as a behavioral attribute should that are male oriented. Boys and girls growing up not be confused with activity level.Aggression in a us-differentiated culture may develop dif- and activity are usually assumed to be the same ferent ways of expressing the same behavioral as are nonaggression and passivity. Clark andhe; attribute. Stein and Bailey (1973) suggested that colleagues (1969) showed that the choice of dimensions of leadership and intelligence are male activity rather than the activity level per se oriented and do not spply to achievement areas differs for boys and girls.Maccoby and Jacic lin traditionally defined as ofsminine. ',Stein and (1974a) also suggested thatmeasurements of Smiths lls(1969)questionedhowmuchthe attivity are not standardized. Since activity level measures really relate to inappropriate behaviors, is I:snowed by motivational states, they suggest rather than to behaviors that the subjects could or that there islimited usefulnessin identifying might exhibit while interacting in a free environ- stable individual or group differences without ment. moredetailedobservationsofthecontent (quantity and quality) of children play behavicr. W. do not have the empirical data necessary to firmly trace developmental trends from one One creative study design varied the struc- stage to another. There are few empirical data on ture of the situation by observing children in two howprocessesofsexrolesand su-typed

17 21 behaviors develop from early infancy through women, but not for men. They suggest that adulthood. Only a small number of carefully dependent male children learn to suppress this Waned longitudinal studies are found in socializa- response as they grow up in order to conform with tion literature, and vary few of these deal with socially acceptable standards of male behavior. sex role development. "Through theseprocesses,characteristics and behaviors, such as nurturance and expressing Longitudinal studies face the problem of feelings, that are shared equally by boys and girls inceporating variables which may be standardized tp to early adolescence become sex difference at and yet applicable to different stages in the life adolescence (Maccoby & Jack lin, 1974).During cycle.'lb the extent that measurement of any adolescence, dating and peer pressures push boys given dimension differs from one stags to the and girls to mold their behaviors according to sex next, itis unclear whether findings are com- role stereotypes in order to maximize mutual parable ce whether they ars subject to variation acceptance and popularity. From adolescence on, because of differences in the way measeemenb we tend to assume a linear progression toward were taken.Also unknown is the extent to which .further sex typing into adulthood, and then a the measurement may influence the respondent's plateau.As we shall see in Chapter 4, however, behavior at a later time. Studies that look at both reversals in women's choices to less sea-typed parents and children at one time and then at only ones or vice versa occur throughout the college children at a later time might provide suggestive years (and later on), thus raising questions about relationships but do little to establish conclusive assumed sex rola stability and unilinearity. We results about the relationship between variables know very little about the nature of structural and measured at one time in relation to outcome sociopsychologicalfactorsthatmay enhance variables that appear later.Also, the loss of instability of sex typing. We could hypothesize, subjectsincertainlongitudinal studies raises for example, that flexibility, nonauthoritarianism, questions about the degree to which those who and "opennessw may be personality characteristics remain are a legitimate sample of the original associated with less stability and pervasiveness of population. sex typing.Perhaps for some people sex typing tends to be more situational and therefore less In general, the overall trelid is for older stable, and for others it tends to represent a well- children to be more sex typed than younger structured, pervasive cognitive and emotional children, but developmental trends do not seem to outlook. be uniform, one-d1recZiona1, or stable. Some aspects of sex role development may be more One factor that seems to influence the stable than others for a certain age and for child's sex role development is intelligence, a members of one gender more so than for the neglected key factor in personality development. other. McKinney (1969), for example, in applying Kohlberg and Zig ler (1967) compared the develop- choice stabilityto a specific area (friendship ment of bright children with that of average fluctuation), showed that this trait increases with childrencross-sectionally and longitudinally, age and that girls are more stsble than boys. viewing intelligence as an aspect of development However, the whole idea ofstabilityraises with an underlying structural component.'Their questions about how findings in any one experi- approach to child development is consistent with a ment express a reliable rating of differences cognitive development view of sex identity and between the sexes, or eve reliable differences the sex-typing process. Intellectual growth is measured in the subjects, when followup studies seen as transforming the perceived world of the are not done. child, and hence her/his social attitudes. Utilizing a number of meaaures (sex typing of verbal In an extensive longitudinal study done over dependence and imitation, doll play choice that a 30-year period by the Fels Research kuititute, measure attachment and imitation of father and Kagan and Moss (1962) collected data supporting mother, ITSC's, picture tests, and peer pref- the idea that aspects of adult personality are erences), the researchers found that parallel age heavily influenced by early childhood experiences. trends exist in bright and average groups, with More specifically, their findings suggest that con- trends occurring earlier for the bright than for the tinuity in characteristics and behaviors is greatly average group. To the extent that these findings influenced by whether cr not these characteristics . point to underlying dispositions that mightdif- and behaviors are compatible with prevailing sex ferentiate children's responses, they raise the rola stereotypes.Mose considered sex appro- importantmethodologicalquestionofwhat priate are encouraged and reinforced; those con- becomes the appropriate base for comparisons sidered sex inappropriate aro discouraged and when the researcher is looking at and interpreting suppressed.Thus, Kagan and Mow (1960 found sex differences. Keeping Ws constant rather that childhood passivity and dependency were than using chronologicel age may give us different related to adult passivity and dependency for insights about trends and relationships.

'19 z 2 Social Class children.Nadelman (1973) suggests that culture, aex of child, parental behavior, and soeioeconomic Social class as a crucial variable systemat- status of the family interact in a complex fashion. ically affecting studies of sex differencesin At this point, it is not possible to determine the children has not generated a great deal of role social class may play in the developmeat of research. Probablyoutofpracticalityor sex typing.However, the question of how the availability, the typical research 'endeavor tuts potential middle-class biases of many researchers used middle-class children.Therefore, can find- may lead them to overlook social class as a ings be generalized across socioeconomic groups? crucial variable, or even to ignore the fact that Social class arid childrearing practices have been different classes may define sex roles differently, the subjectof much interestinsocialization is of utmost importance. Class variations may be literature.Yet, systemetic designs that control complicatedfurtherby racialandethnic for sex of parent and sex of child are few. Some variations in sex role definitions and sex role researchers have reported marked variatiots in socialization processes.For example, Thompson parents' behavior and a narrowing gap between the and McCandless (1970) concluded that "Negro girls classes (Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Devereux et aL, ... are learning the attitudes associated with the 1962). assertive role lower-class black women are forced to play" (emphasis added). On what basislro decision made that one sax is forced into rather When the child's behavior is the focus of than chooses a certain behavior?It swears that, attention, conflicting reports of class differences since assertive behavior is usually associated with also persist.Many studies indicate marked class "middle-classdefinitionsofmasculinity,"the differences with respect to awareness ofsex role exbtence of this attribute in lower class females patterns. Working-class children are mare aware is precluded from being part of the "normal" role of distinct sex roles than middle-class children definition that may deviate from the "miodle- (Rabbsits 1950; Hall & Keith, 1964; Hartley, 1960; class definition." Hartley & Hardesty, 1964). Rosen (1964), usinga structured questionnaire, showed that perceptions of fathers more than perceptions of motherscan Conclusion partially account for reported class differences. Nadelman (1973), using ink drawings, reported Research on sex role socialization is neither trends in the hypothesized direction; middle-class thorough nor well integrated with theory.Many children showed more cognizance and less rigidity large research gaps remain; interpretations of than working-claaa children. The assumptionthat findings and resulting conclusions are at best is usually fostered to explain these differences is speculative. This chapter examined selected that"masculine"and"feminine"behavioral aspects of the sex role socialization proeesses stereotypes ara more clearly demarcated in the occurring in the home. Rut sex role socialization lower classes than they are in the middle classes. also takes place when children watch TV, read, Middle-class parents are assumed to allow more and play with peers or toys; It continues whmn overlapping of sex roles.Lefkowitz (1962), using they go to sehooL Pew sophisticated studies have peer deviance as a measure of sex role definitions, attempted the difficult task of separating the concluded the opposites The boundaries between roles of the various socialization agents. Itis sex roles are defined less rigidly by lower class hoped that researchers will recognize sex role as a children than hy middle-class children. And crucial variable in the conceptualization, design, findings by Brown (1956), Hartup and Zook (1960), and measurement of socialization studies, and not and Radin (1972) suggest that there are no class merely pay lip service to the importance of sex differences with regard to six role preferences of role awareness.

19 2 a 2. SAMESEX AND CROSSSEX INFLUENCES ON SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION

Although there is some variability according normative reference group that sets standards of to social clue and age, same-sex influences appropriate behavior.Since the most important generally are much more important than cross-sex goal for adolescent women is popularity and since influenese for adolescents and askilts.For men, popularity is measured by how much they are liked other men seem to be the important reference by boys, male acceptance is paramount. The groups;theiropinions and standards heavily importance of opposite-sex friends, therefore, is influence behavior.Women, on the other hand, greater for women than for men (Woelfel, 1972). are more open to erase-sex ielmences. Theories and experimental studies show that Practically all (94 percent) of the bast other men constitute the important reference friends of boys in the fourth through seventh group for men, since they occupy the higher, more grades are elm boys. For SS percent of the boys, powerful position in the sex stratification system. allfive of theiralmostfriendsare boys The theory expounded by Miller (1972) states (Rowe, 196E. When boys and girl' find them- essentially that men see only other men as selves in settings in which they can interact and valuable people whose opinion counts, and there- play together, such as the nursery school or the fore they would also like to be loved by men. elementary school, they tend to segregate into However, since affective relationships between same-sax groups (Joffe, 1971; Guttentag & Bray, menaresocially taboo, men must seek 197f). AL observation study of a class of II- to 10- affirmation from other men symbolically. yeer-oldo organized to encourage students to Therefore, they try to impress other men through mum* responsibilityfortheir own turning less direct means, such as by demonstrating their showad thatthe self-initiated help patterns achievements through high-prestige positions, Job between the students were all same-sex patterns; promotions, and other status symbols. Men there was practically no cross-su help pattern of compete with each other in order to prove that aey kind (Danko & Watson, 1974). they are worthy of admiration. Other studies found that preadoteseent end Since mon cannot show affection towards adolescent boys (and girls) consider same-ese other men, they must turnto women (the social leterutions to be more reinforcing than subordinate, powerless persons whom they do not opposite sex interactions (Meyer, 1959) and that admire) for love and sexuality.Therefore men same-esx attitudes for both boys and girls at all compete for the love of women in order to grads levels am mon favorable than opposite-sex dominate other men (Safillos-Rothschild, 1977). attitudes (Harris & Tung, 1957). Also, Mandl of This behavioris unrelated to the female sex theMSS SOXare much more Influential than object, but relevant to the male-male relation- opposite-asx friends for high school Junior boys ship. When interacting with women, man can (Weeil4 1972). FInally, adoleseents of both eues allow themselves to show feelings and no longer teed to sonfide much more in seree-su than need to compete with tub other. oppositaraex bleeds (Mulcahy, 1973). Lipman-Bluinan (1974) formulated a similar Min are Primarily Influenced by theory, called "homosoolal view of sex roles," which suggests that men have a predicesition to Other Men be interested in and excited by other mon. This Although same-sex friends and peers are predisposition is fostered and reinforced by the much more significant than opposite-sex peers for existing sex stratification system, which gives women as wall as men, the overall evidence mon control of valuable resources. Men can indkates that this is more consistently true for satisfy most male needs (including sexual needs, awe at an ages. Beginning in adolescence, women Lipman-Blumen argues) and, in *dation, they can seam to have two equally important reference turn to each nther for power, status, income, pups.Although they oonfidt in and receive oonnections, and influence.Thus, men are much mace from other women, they use men as a more Interesting to other men than are women.

21 2 4 Women actually must become sex objeets in order onlywaytohandlethissituationwasto to divert men from their interest in other man. completely ignore the sexuality of the woman and relegate her to a low, marginal status (Wolman & Mactcoby and gladdin (1974), in their review Frank, 1973). ofseveralsexdifferencestudies,present abundant evidence that the activity level of boys Anotherstudy(Aries, 1974)usedsix increases when they are in the company of other experimental groups of five to seven members boYsg disk aggression and competitiveneu is each.Two were all male, two were an female, stimulated, and they more often attempt to and two were mixed. The groups met for five 1 dominate other boys than girls.These data hour sessions to become acquainted with each t Miller's and Lipman-Blumen's theories and other. Two observers, using Bales' (1970) method te that Miller's formulation may be more of reeording each time a member spoke and to complete, since it explains not only why men whom, gathered the interactiondata. The esteem the opinions and prefer the company of sessions were tape recorded, and the content of men, but also why they feel the need to cempete the interactions was analyzed on the General with and to dominate each other. inquirer,acomputer-aidedcontentanalysis system (Stone et al., 1966).The results showed These theories also have been substantiated that in mixed groups, males initiated and received byexperimentalstudiesonthenatureof more interactions than females, assuming et least interactions between men compared with those two of the top three ranks in every session. Males between men and woman. One study (Wolman & addressed significantly more of their interactions Frank, 1973) examined the interactions that take to the group as a whole in all-male groups than place when a "solo" woman finds herself in a they did in mixed groups (Aries, 1974).Bales professionalpeer group such as psychiatric (1975; suggests that interaction to the group as a residents or psychiatric graduate students.The whole is an exercise of power or influence in that study analyzed six peer groups of graduate groan- students or psyctdatric residents, each containing one woman, and examined the men's reaction of These findings represent good experimental this woman.It also investigated the teehniques evidence for Miller's (1972) and Lipman-Blumen's that the woman used to counteract the men's (1974) theories, since they show that men are reactions and the eventual outcomes.The men much mare concerned with having power over continued to talk among themselves, other men than over women.The experiments intellectualizing rather than expressing feelings, show clearly that there is much greater pressure even though their training placed high value on for men to establish themselves in all-male groups expressingfeelings. Emotionalitybecome than in mixed groups. Furthermore, males in all- identified as feminine behavior, and the men male groups speak very little of themselves, their avoided it because a woman was present.They feelings, or their relationships with significant tendedtoemphasizetheirmasculinityby others (Aries, 1974). reinforcing the norm of intelleetualization.The men also avoided allying with the woman in any These conclusionsagree withthoseof way, became they feared that they might thus Mahrabian (1971), who stated that men "posturally share her deviant role and they did not want to convey a more potent and dominant attitude" than disrupttheall-malecohesiveness. They women and are less affinitive and intimate in maintained their dominance by overt aggression, interactions,especially when interacting with usually verbaL The men tended to relieve their other men.The findings thus far support this anxiety by acting it out, for example, by joidng theory: men feel that it is inappropriate for them and arguing rather then asking for help or to express feelings when interacting with other revealing ambivalence, lack of knowledge, or men, but that it is appropriate to impress them fearall labeled as feminine behaviors. and therefore symbolically gain their acceptance and admiration.The experiments support the It became very clear that regardless of the hypothesis;theyindicatethatthegreatest woman's behavior and the coping teohniques she concern of members of all-male groups is how used to beeome accepted into the group, she was their peers perceive them. 'They want to compete always defined as deviant or marginaLIn fact, with each other in terms of knowledge, interest, Use men did everything possible to isolate her in politics, travel, and so forth (Aries, 1974). order to maintain the atmosphere of all-mele interaction.The woman's pregame made sexual In direct contrast to the themes of competi- attraction both possible and aciosptable. This tion and status that characterized the interactions made the woman even more threatening, linos a in all-male groups, the themes of intimacy and sexual relationship with her would disrupt the all- interpersonal relatiorm charaeterized the male relationships and friendships. Therefor:, the interactions in all-female groups.Among the

2? women, there was flexibility in the rank order of showed that men tend to overchoose men, while speaking. Activespeakerssaidtheyfelt women les frequently choose women. When uncomfortable if they took up too much time, and asked to ethose persons they respect, men in some sessions they were silent ea that others overwhelmingly chose men (82 percent of the eould assume leadership.Therefore, women in choices), whereas only 80 percent ofwomen chose all-female coups developwaysto express women (Greenberger & Sorensen, 1970). affection and concern in their social interactions with otLer women (Aries, 1970 Although same-sex peers seem to be most important, there is evidence thatacceptance by When men and women were in the same one set of peers is related toacceptance by the group, soma very interesting interaction patterns other.The more a boyor girl is accepted by and changes occurred. The behavior of males in same-sx peers, the greaterthe chines that s/he mixed groups changed dramaticelly: they referred will also beaccepted by oppositasex peers much more often to themselves and their feelings (Reese, 1088).Again, however,this relationship and less often to achievements, knowledge, and seems to be stronger for boys. hobbies.This indicates that the presence of women changes the all-male style of interacting, causing men todevelopamore personal Boys who are highly accepted by other boys orientation, with increased one-to-one also tendto be accepted by girls (Reese, 1962), interaction,greaterself-evaluation, and lees probably because the same-sex acceptance by aggression (Arise, 1974). In mixed groups, men do boysisanimportantcriterionforfemale not have to be preoccupied with impressing other acceptance, guaranteeing that the boy is "accep- mon but can concentrate on establishing relation- table" and *masculine."Therefore, approval by ships with women (with whom they do not have to other males is extremely valuable in itself not compete, but who have value as sex objects). only as one form of self-validation, but also because it enhances boys' acceptance by girls. In mixed groups, women tended to interact more with men than with women, since women are The importance and effectiveness of the not socially significant to each other in a mixed type of influence and pressure that peer groups group and are socialized to compete with each exert on menand women is a very important other for the attention and affection of males issue.Some studies have shown that males are (Aries,1974). Another important changein less persuadable than females in mus communica- womenis behavior in a mixed group wasthat, tions (Abelson & Lesser, 1958; Janis & Field, 1958) probably due to the presence of men, they spoke and in autokinetic situations (Whittaker, 1903). tiating only 34 percent of the total inter- Another ttudyindicatesthatmale influence action, and they discussed achievements and sources have a significantly greater persuasive social institutions, subjects that are traditionally effect than female sources, even more for far, ..le male conoerns, lase than men and less than MAIM subjects than for male subjects (Whittaker, 1665; in all-female groups (Aries, 1974). Whereas men Saltuteln & Diamond, 1967).Thus, women ten in mixed groups are no longer competing with to be more influenced than men, and males s other maa and can be more relaxed, introspective, more effective influences than females. and. expeessive, women tend to bosoms more conetrained, because they feel they must behave There is further evidence that the degree of in a sas-appeopriate, Le., subordinate, manner. sex role identification for females is related to They curb talking,initiating interactions, and the degree to which they can be influenced. The showing unfeminine concerns with achievement, same type of relationship does not hold true for leadereitip, or power (Aries, 1874). males, for whom ability to be influenced is related to self-esteem (Ugly, 1989).Thus, the more Theisfinding'sclearly show why *solo* feminine girls are, the more they tend to be women in a profamional peer group encounter influenced. Another study shows that for females, prnblems. By definition they are equal in status popularity is related to need for approvaLFor to the man of the gram, and this is a greatly males, the same kind of relathnehip does not hold; disturbing element. Mont behavior in this context in fact, there is a negative relationship between and the dynamics of the interactions are geared need for approval and popularity (Tulkin et al., toward restoring the balance by placing (or 1880. According to Crandall (191111), females who forcing) woman into an inferior, deviant position. score low on soeial desirability frequently initiate occasion, expreseed both physieally and verbally, A study of interpersonal choices among andless frequently withdraw fromattacks. *dor high school faculty further substantiates Therefor% unconventional girls do not behave the feet that a man's reference group is other men awarding to feminine sex role stereotypes, and and that only man's opinions emelt.The study this probably explains their lower popularity.

23 All these studiesindicatenot only that Because men greatly influence women's women are more influeneedthan men, but also plans and behavior, it is important to assesshow thattheytend to be more influenced by men than much deviation from a feminine stereotyped they by other womene factthathighlightsthe behavior men are willing to accept before importance of opposite-sex peers for women. The penalize women or pressure them to change and studies also show that the more women adhere to behave according to sex role stereotypes. feminine sex role stereotypes, the more they need tobe approved by others, the more they behave Another study, eonduated with 270 boys and accordingto sociallydesirablenorms, and the 305 girls stratified wording to social alas* rase, more theyareinflueneedby otherpeople, and IQ, showed that boys are generally more especiallymen. conservative than girlsintheir opinions on women's role (Entwisle & Greenberger, 1972). This study also showed that low-income black and How Same-Sex and Cross-SexPeers white boys were much more tolerant of working Influence Women's Behaviors women, poaibly reflecting the economic needin high-poverty areas for wpm= to work. When examining how ume-sex and crosreex peers influence women to behave according to sex One of the most interesting findings of this roles, two questions are crucial: study was that high-IQ, white middle-clue boys tended to have the most conservative views about To whatextentare woman women,s work.The data reported in this study aeeepted by other women when revealed potential pressure against middle-class they are not behaving according girls' academic achievement as reflected in the to sex role stereotypes? conservative views of their male classmates (Entwine & Greenberger,1972). Itseems, What kind of pressures are put therefore, that the opposite-sex peer group for upon women byoppcsite-esx hfgh-IQ, white middle-class girls would tend to peers when they are riot behaving pressure these girls to forget the high educational according to sex rolestereo- and occupational aspire:ions that would make tYPes? them tough competition for these boys. Thus, this very conservative group of boys influences girli Thefirst issue isrelevant, partly because negatively even if they ars not friends, sines they there is a relationship between the extent of represent their obligatory opposite-sex peer group women's acceptance by other women and the whose opinions count, especially in adolescence. extent of their acceptance by men. In addition, it After all, these boys are potential data, and girls is important to examine the extent to which concerned with popularity cannot ignore them else: women who are rejected by men because they do their opinions. not uehave aoeording tc six role stereotypes are accepted and supported by female friends and The data on a solo woman in a professional peers. The existing evidence is negative. Women peer group showed how uncomfortable men were ratethe occupational prestige of women in with an equal-status woman. In fact, men traditionally masculine occupations lower than punished her through a variety of psychological that of men in such occupations, while they rate mechanisms, such as by rejecting her and by the prestige of women in feminine occupations ignoring her sexuality (Wolman & Frei*, 1973). higher than that of men in the same occupations An el ieriment with a mixed-sex group in which a (Bose, 1973). But even mare important is the target female was encouraged to talk much more, finding from an experimental study showing that increase her participation, and exhibit leadership women were eager to associate with abright found that the men disliked the overly loquacious female ooworker but reluctant to choose a bright target female more than a similarly behaving woman friend.Woman wars *bald to associate male. Furthermore, they continued to dislike her socially with bright women or women who do not even after she stopped behaving in a sex-inappro- behave according to sex role stereotypes, but they priate manner (Schwartz, 1970). did not mind having their help in accomplishing a task. Exactly the opposite was true for men (Davis & Spinier, 1974). These findings are Men can punish women and pressure them to important, for they Indicate that women who do stop behaving in a sex-inappropriate way by act behave awarding to sex role stereotypes do rejecting them in dating, courtship, and marriage. not have the support, friancbhip, and esteem of Since women's greatest fear is that their sex- other women. It is difficult to determine whether inapprepriatebehaviorwillmake themless itI. women'sdisapproval thatismore desirable to men, male approval represents a instrumentalincausingmen'srejectionor powerful premire. A study by Komarovdcy (1973) vice versa. owed that even intelligent upper and upper 24 27 middle clue Harvard men who would date highly behave in a sex-wpropriate way. But within the intelligent and Interesting women wanted a wife American style of dating, if a girl is rejected by a who is a little less intelligent than they are and "star"(apopular boy) because sheistoo who would be wllling to choose family respon- intelligent or not conventionally feminine, her sibilities over a career. overall popularity suffers. It is important to examine the processes by A vicious circle can be triggered through whieh women learn that in order to be popular which the girl loses self-confidence. She gets the theymustbehaveaccordingtosexrole clear message that in order to be popular with stereotypes. Unquestionaoly, there are some boys boys, she must revert to strict sex-appropriate who accept and even prefer an intelligent girl who behavior.It takes an unusually strong girl to has ambitious oceupational plans.Therefore, a withstand rejection by boys, and the girla who can girl should be able to find one boy to date who will do this tend to have much higher educational like her even though sheisintelligent, high aspirations and higher career and achievement &thieving, and ambitious. However, according to motivations. Other coping meehanisms are to the American definition of popularity, itis not bypass dating during adolescence and postpone it sufficient for a girl to have one boyfriend.It is until later or to date infrequently and only boys the number of dates with different boys the that accept and admire intelligent, interesting determines the degree of popularity. girls.But even those techniques require great strength, since stereotypes dictatethat only Onearticle(Husbands, 1970)clearly unattractive girls do not date. described some of the shortcomings of American dating:it is usually superficial, and consequently More recent data from the early and middle the roles of the partners are rigidly defined. 1970's indicate that many boys and young men Since the dating pattern is casual and multiple and have become "liberated,* accepting and even pre- there is no opportunity for couples to get to know ferring women who are notconstrained by ach other well, the set of norms that governs the feminine stereotypes. A nationwide study of high interwetion must necessarily be based on sex role echool students showed that about one-third of the stereotypes. Because American dating is so girls who planned to work even when their superficial,short-lasting,andmultiple,the children ware young, who did not plan an early participantsareprimarilyconcernedwith marriage, and who refused to mold themselves impression management rather than with getting according to the wishes and needs of boys dated as to know each other. They must rely on the blue- often and as many boys as traditional "feminine" prints provided by apex role stereotypes in order to girls (Rosen & Aneshensel, 1976).Increasingly, assure smoothinteractionandpredictability girls eo,Ithoose whether to behave within the (Husbands, 1970).Hence, boys and girls come to narrow age of sex-appropriate behaviors and associate popularity with adherence to sex role options,andevenwhentheychoosesex- stereotypes and femininity with desirability. inappropriate behavior and thus expand their options, they can still be popular, desirable, and Dating patterns in other societies in which attractive. The only difference is that they may dating involves only two people or groups without be popular with different types of boys than those arty particular pairing tend to be more helpfuL girls who limit themselves to sex-appropriate These patterns provide social support and reassure options and behaviors.If we evaluate the boys women of their desirability, even when the women who are (or claim to be) hUlerated," that is, the do not behave according to sex role stereotypes most liberal or the mom competent (Sahibs- (see chapter 5). They are more helpful because it Rothschild, 1979; Bayer, 1975), then we must is always possible for a girl to find one boy who conclude that girls who reject sax role stereotypes likes her and approves of her, even if she does not are not the losers. 3. WOMEN'S ACHIEVEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

Until the early 1960% research and writings Horner hypothesized that the motive to on achievement and achievementmotivation avoid maces is significantly more characteristic commetrated on men and produced littleon the ofwomenthanofmenandalsomore needs and motivations of MUM (Alper, 1974). characteristic of high achievement-oriented, high- The lack of interest in studying this aspect of ability women, who aspire to or are capable of women's behavior may have been partly caused by achieving success,than of low achievement- equivocal or contredictory findings oa women's oriented, low-ability women, who neither aspire to achievement motivation (McClelland et al., 1953). nor are able to achieve success (Horner, 1915). The amumptioathat male and female Horner's first hypothesis was aupported by data in achievementmotivatiooewaregovernedby which over 65 percent of the subjects, coeds from meentially the same laws was also misleading the University of Michigan, told avoidance-of- (Alper, 1974). KNOW stories following the stimulus "after first- term finals, Anne fin& hermit at tho top of bar .As early as the 1950's, Field (1951) pointed medical school clam," while over 90 percent of outexistingdifferencesbyconoeptualizing the male subjects told success stories following achievement motivation in women (but not in the "John" form of stimulus. Similariy, her second man)selinkedtotheneedforsocial hypothesis was partially omported because Homer acceptability, that is, the need to be liked. Field's found that the motive to evoldMOMS tended to work further discouraged research on women's be more frequent among women who were in the achievement becauseitwasinterpreted by honorsprogramthanamong otherwomen, McClelland et al. (1953) and other researchers to althoughthistrendwasnotstatistically mean that the achievement motive was less significant (Homer, 19811). central for women than the &Malys motive, and therefore that women were not "good" subjects for the study of achievement (Alper, 1974). Thus, Horner had, furthermore, hypothesized that 'Latina Horner's (1965,1559, 1970) study of the motive to avoid success would tend to thwart women's achievement appeared in almosta total theperformanceof women much mom in researeh void.Aeoordingly, har findings were aituations of inte-Nersonal competition,more so taken at facie value, created a great stir, and were against male the.*genet female competitors. almost %unquestioningly used to explain the lesser This hypothesis was aimed on the assumption that, aphieveasents of women. sincemenju4ewomen'sfent Minftyand desirability, competing with them and winning out over them would tend to diminish the desirability and acceptance of women by monan assumption The "Fur41.151cau Make" which, as we shall see,isnot consistently supported by tests.To test this hypotheds, she A000rdieg to Horner, because woman view compared the performance level of 30 male and femieleity sad achievement as two desirable but 30 female subjects on several achievement tasks mutually gudesive goals and bemuse theyare in a Lege mixed-sex, oompetitive situation with eager to be liked by others, sepecially men, they the objects' subsequent performanoe M a strictly are more likely to &vele, a "fear-cf-ameees =competitive but achievement-oriented motive* (or motive to avoid summes).This is a situatiominthelattersituation,theonly disposition to bosoms anzious about =aiming competition involved the task and the subjects' bosom of the tweeted motive internal standar& of excellence (Homer, 1961). WM as social rejection ce feellupocimmoirratise hi this gram, 13 of the 17 girls who had scored unfeminine). The preeence ofa motive to avoid high on the motive to avoid mootss performedat moons implies that the desire of women to a significantly lower levelin the mixed4sx achieve may be thwarted by their anxiety about competition then they did in the noncompetitive *Restive coasequeneas and by their moiety and situation. On the other hand, 13 of the 13 girls ambiealeoee about the desirability of achievement who hid sowed lea in fear of swam did better ma moms (Horner, 1972). under the competitive than the nonoompetitive

27 2 9 condition, and so did most (two-thirds) of the Although a great number of studies have boys. replicated Horneris research, in 1972 she reviewed and discussed only the replication studies that supported her earlier research, ignoring those that Horner's findings on the prevalence of a varied greatly from her own conclusions. She motive to avoid success among women spread like refers to her study with Rhoem (1968), a small fire because they seemed to explain many other study by Schwenn (1970), another of her own later finding's and to "blame the victim" for the lack of studies (Horner, 1970), and a study by Watson achievement. A recent study (Limneboeg & (1970), as well as the studies by Prescott (1971). Rosenwood, 1972), however, tested and chal- One similarity in these studies is the very high lenged McClelland et al.'s (1953) and Horner's theaffiliative percentage ofsubjects (between 81 and 88 (1988,1970) assumptionthat percent),predominantly women, with fear-of- motive is more important than the achievement success imagery. Theonly exception isPrescott's motive for woman. College men and women were study, which included male freshmen, 47.2 percent asked what makes them happy, sad, and angry. of whom reported fear-of-suceess imagery. The The responses indicated that typical sources of only lower percentages were reported by Homer happiness for both sexes were internal and had to and Rhoem (1968).in this study, only 47 percent do with finding one's identity, defining personal of the girls at the 7th grade level reported fear- goals, and growing in self-acceptance and self- of-success imagery, although 60 percent of the awareness. In both sexes, typical sources of anger llth grade girls gave reports of such imagery. and sadness, an the other hand, were external, Thesefindingsdid notinvalidateormodify thatis,war,pollution,poverty,injustice, HornerU own theory, since she had hypothesized overpopulation, and ignorance. A common type of that women's fear at success would tend to achievement response was one which actually increase with age because of a growing concern represented a fusion of the affiliative motive and withfemininity,aswellastheincreasing the achievement motive; that is, the person would relevance and feasibilityof achievement and be happiest if s/he could have a rewarding career success in women. end also help others (Lunneborg & Rosenwood, 1972). Therefore, this study presente evidence of the breakdown of sex stereotypes with regard to A number of other methodological limita- the relative presence of need affiliation and need tions in Homer's studies as well as in the replica- achievement among men and women. The lack of tion studies that have followed her methods and statistical significance in three out of the four techniques have to do with the scoring methods, differences that were in the direction of greater the types of category combinations used, and the achievement in males and greater affiliation in sampling of respondents and their representa- females is particularly important. Thus, it would tiveness in terms of social class, parents' charae- be more accurate for psychologists to describe teristies,race, and other relevant background college men and women as currently possessing data. both needs, with men increasingly becoming more concerned with loving and close interpersonal One of the criticisms of scoring relates to relationshipsandwith womenincreasingly the sex of the scorer.In a study by Robbins and becoming more concerned with pride in academic Robbins (1973), scoring was done by two coders, and occupational achievement. one male and one female (as opposed to the 1968 Homer study, which used two females who agreed 91 percent of the time for 90 protocols).There was 94 percent agreement for the 119 stories Replications and Criticisms of Horner's examined. The researchers found that the men's Fear-of-Success Motive storiesabout Johnshowed thegreatest differences between male and female coders. Although Horner's research and conclusions have been seriously challenged, they did have a Another criticism centers around the coding great impact and gave rise to several research categories used by Homer.When a dichotomy studies which tried to replicate her findings or to between avoidance and nonavoidance of success examine how the results would change if several was not used,and a third category,called of the variables were changed or if additional "ambivalence about success," was used instead, variables were introduced. Her work stimulated a female coders scored many more responses in that greet deal of critical thinking, and even though category.Therefore, when ambivalent responses the validity of her findings has been questioned, are combined with the fear-of-suecess categoq die can ba viewed as the psycholcgist who directly (asHorneestwo-category schema requires), and indirectly helped develop research and theory differences between male and female coders are on women's achievement motivation. nonsignificant but are most marked in the Anne story told by female respondents.Under these by using a "mixed" category, which included conditions, female scorers are more likely to find totally unrelated responses (that is, responses that fear-of-suecess imagery than males, though still cannot bevalidlyclassifiedunder "fear of to a much less degree than in any of Horner's success") and responses that had a common college samples. If female coders are used ambivalence about success (an ambivalence which exclusively (u inHorner's and some of the does not imply the presence of a powerful motive replication studies) and the number of scoring to avoid success). Probably Horner's rationale was categories is restricted to two, the apparent that any kind of response that does not clearly extentoffear-of-successimagery may be subscribe to success implies fear of success; unwittingly augmented.This is because many however, such a rationale seems farfetched. peopleexpressconflictoverwhetherthe achievement of success is worth the price, even While it is often difficult to distinguish the though they do not necessarily contemplate giving methodologicalfrom themoreconceptual it up altogether. (This scoring procedure may also criticisms of Horner's work, there are two sets of explain why women with the motive to avoid outstanding criticisms that can be viewed as success caninfact achieve highly.) This conceptual-theoretical rather thanstrictly methodologicalproblemwasaecentuatedin methodological. One issue, raised mainly by Horner's study, since her coders knew that all the Tresemer (1974), relates to the appropriateness of Anne stories were written by females and all the the definition and conceptualization of success. John stories by males. These coders might well Tresemerquestionswhethersuccessisan have been swayed bytheirexpectationsin objective standard that is impoesd by society and borderline eases (Rosenthal, 1966). that, in American society, is usually associated with the acquisition of status and money, or Tresemer (1974) was even more critical of whether itis a much more complex concept, Homer's scoring teehniques, reporting that he subjectively defined and not be evaluated found no extensive scoring manual with sample exclusively in terms of objee criteria and stories for making sure that coders will rate standards.He rallies the issiit 4,f whether the stories alike and no standard procedure for testing stimulus question should not be '.,sat Anne or John all motivation constructs. Re also pointed out a has reached a subjectively defined success, such different type of scoring limitation in Horner's as "after much work Judy has finally gotten what data in that all types of negative comment: were she wanted."In this way, Tresemer claims, he grouped together as "motives" to avoid suceess. would not impose assumptions and definitions of In fact, he argues that these negative comments success on the respondents but would be able to represent very different types of responses, sueh tap their dispositions about personal success and as negative responses that refer to negative their views of their own ability to reach goals, and antecedentsinthe stories, thatis,negative thus lessen the influence of situations that have experiencesduringthe strugglefor sueces& special meaning in our culture (Tresemer, 1974). &receding to Tresemer, this type of response The issue that Tresemer raises refers to the represents approximately 96 percent of the girls' extent to which we can identify high achievement responses (a percentage he obtained when he with successa success defined in the American moored Horner's original stories according to her culture, at least up to the middle 1960's, in terms system).Additionally, he noted that about 15 of status position.After all, achievement is a percent of the girls mentioned negative events broaderconceptthatreferstodifferent thatwereactuallyunrelatedtosuccess. definitions of success, which vary with changing Therefore,heclaims,thesetwodifferent cultural standards, beliefs, and values (ineluding categories of negative comments should not be subcultural values), as well as many other social lumped together with answers that refer to and cultural factors.His criticism is important negative consequences of success (Tresemer, because it warns us about the dangers involved in 1974). identifying high achievement with a cultural definition of success prevailing at a particular Aiper's (1974) research also showed that to time andin aparticularculture, and not obtain a category similar to what Horner called a necessarily accepted by the entire population, as "fe^r-of-success motive,"she had to combine was done in Horner's study. different types of answers (some of which did refer to the dangers of amens), ite wellas some Trissemer's criticism takes on more thatwereunrelatedtoeitherachievement importance when we examine it in the light of striving or talk completion.The implication of Hoffman's data, which show that while in Horner's this methodological criticism is that the scoring 1963 study only I peroent of men showed fear-of- techniques wed by Homer UMW to inflate the success responrs, in 1971, 77 percent of the men pereentage of fear-of-success themesinthe and 65 percent of the women gave responses that responses obtained.This Inflation MIS achieved could be coded as "motive to avoid success"

a. 1 (Hoffman, 1974).The men% stories seemed to answers ineluding the motive to avoid success question the value of sum= itself, at least in when the reference to medical school was present, academic and professional realms.Their stories only 50 percent were now giving this response. were, however, different in content from women% Furthermore, when Alper substitutedthe stories, with only 1$ percent of the male stories reference to medical school with a reference to making aro, reference to social rejection, while nursing school, she found that women who were the most frequent female story indieated that being trained to become nurses gave mucous Anne suffered social rejection as a result of her stories in 86 percent of the cues.The same ausesse. women gave success stories in only 20 percent of thecasesthatreferredtomedical school. Some people would argue that these more However, the same two forms used with liberal meant findings by Hoffman reflect arts students evoked success and avoidance stories brghtou about partly by the Women'sLibelraant:seiin equally often (Alper, 1974).Similarly, in another Movement, which has freed women somewhat study where the reference to medical school was from the fear of success, and partly by the replaced by a reference to a school of education, eounterculture ethic, which tends to devalue the significantlyfeweravoidancestorieswere importance of hard work and financial =CCM for reported by women than when the reference to both men and women. Tresemer (1974), however, medicalschoolwasincluded(Breedlove & claims that the available data from different Cicerelli, 1974). studies do not actually show such a shift in attitudes in meant years. ,When he arranged the Although the reference to a traditionally diffetent achievement studies in chronological feminine occupation diminishes the motive to order, he found no trends in the 5 years since avoidsuccess(instudies by Alper and by Horner reported her research to support the Breedlove end Ciceroni), a considerable contention that changes have oceurred in social percentage of women, whether in traditional values that would explain why men reported a "feminine" fields or not, continue to show the higher rate of fear of success in 1971. motive to avoid suecesa. The question that must be raised, twn, is why aoes the decrease in the Another issue, partly methodological and imagery related to the motive to avoid success partly conceptual, with important implications for diminish but not altogether disappear? The the conceptualization of women's achievement explanation may be that women who are classified motivation la whether the motive to avoid success as reporting the motive to avoid success actually (as investigated originally by Horner and as belong to two categories:(1) women who are replicated by many other investigators) refers to quiteconcernedaboutbehavinginasex- ;macaw in general or to a motive to avoid sex- inappropriate way, and therefore are anxious to inappropriate achievement in a sex-inappropriate avoid successor competing with men in a field or activity.Sines the original stimulus masculine field; and (2) women who are very presented by Horner defined success for women as eoncerned with being feminine in an even more "being at the top of the class in a medical school," traditional sense, which precludes the possibility gametes was achievedin a sex-inappropriate of any type of high achievement in either a behavior. The women had not only achieved masculine or a feminine field.Thus, when the highlya behavior which in itself tends to be sex referencetomedical schoolisreplaced by inappropriatsbut they had achieved highly in a referenee to a feminine occupational field, a "masculine" field. We cannot, therefore, be sure considerable percentage of woman no tomer to what extant the measured motive to avoid report the motive to avoid success, since the swoop is intrinsically related to avoidance of women in the first category now feel free to sueoessortoavoidanceofbeinglabeled aehieve and succeed. Stories reporting the motive smasculine" because of sex-inappropriate to avoid suceess do not, however, disappear occupational pursuits (Tresemer, 1974). altogether, because the women in the second category ars still inhibited or at least ambivalent This criticism seems valid, since several about achieving and succeeding, since studies that eliminated the reference to medical achievement itselfisconsidered incompatible school or replaoed modem in medical school with with femininity. mucosa in nursing school obtained significantly more success dories and fewer avoidance-d- The validity of this achievement typolozy ames stales. for example, a study undertaken amoog women is supported and amplified by by Alper (1974) dropped the reference to medical another research study.This study reports that school and instead posed the following stimulus women who respond with motive to avoid amass questions"lifter first-term finals, Anne finds stories aspire to traditionally feminine herald at the top of her claw" Mper found that occupations, while those who do not respond with whereasnpatentof Wellesley women gave such stories choose either feminine or masculine

30 3 2 occupations. The study also foundthat women storiesaboutwomenengaged in tasksof who & not report the motive to avoid success fall considerable importance, and Muir efforts are into two categoriesi(1) those who do not aspire typically highly successful.'Their success stories to careers outside the home (and therefore have generilly include four different themes; success no reason to fear amen); and (2) those who want through hard work; support by an achieving female a career. Furthermore, women who want a career model; achievement through cooperative efforts; can be abdivided into those who have resolved all and achievement facilitated by competition or ambivalenceabout awes,inanycontext rivalry (Alper, 1974). (masculine or feminine) and feel free to choose an atypical female career, and those who have Alper also reports that those who, accept as resolved their ambivalence about amen only well as those who reject sex role stereotypes when ittakes place within a sax-appropriate relate stories that involve dangers of success. contest in which they do not have to compete However, there are significant differences in the with men (Anderson-Patty & Shelley,1974). frequency of reporting danger stories and in the Criticisms of the meaning of the presenee or nature of the projected danger. Those who accept absence of themotive to avoid success are quite sex role atereotYpes much more frequently report fruitful and point to a typology of women based on danger stories, and they present the danger as their ambivalence toward amen,their affecting either the achiever or her interpersonal motivations, the nature of the maces they want, relationships. Oi the other hand, those who reject the oonditions under which they want to succeed, sex rolestereotypes describe the danger as and how much they want to achieve. unrelated to the person or her relationships but pertaining to the project which fails.Hence, for Someinvestigatorshave examined how women who do not adhere to sex role stereotypes, womenb acceptence of sexrole stereotypes, the dangers accompanying sumse have very particularly stereotypes that define high achieve- different implications, since they affect careers ment (especially inmasculinefields) as sex- but not personal lives (Alper, 1974). What Alper's inappropriate behavior in women, influences their findings suggest is that the imagery of avoidance achievement motivation. These researchers have of amens, as reported by Homer, corresponds to also studied how this acceptance influences the the kinds of stories and projeetions about women's extent to which women show a motive to avoid achievement and success made by women who SUCCUIL Lesser and his colleagues (1983), for adhere to sex role stereotypes. example, report that, unlike underachievers, high- achieving high school girls do not accept the cultural dictum that achievement is a masculine A furtherstudy by Alperandher behavior and inappropriate for women.Another collaborators(1972),inwhichthepersons study conducted by Mper used a Wellesley Role- presentedina chemical laboratorysituation Orientation Scale (WROS), which Is a 24-item included a man and a woman (with the man being pencil-and-paper self-rating scale mudding of the worker in some cases and the woman being the three 7-item subscales and three filler items. The worker in others), the findings are particularly three areas tapped by the subsea's. ari (1) treits interesting, because they show how the perception that college girls generally regard as feminine of the stimulus isdistorted according to the rather than as masculine; (2) role activities that degreetowhichwomenacceptsexrole college girls find acceptable for themselves u stereotypes. When women accept stereotypes women; and (3) career and/or career-oriented (even when the woman is the worker and the man activitiesthatcollegegirlsconsidermore is just looking on), they report s success story appropriate for man than for Women (Alper, 1974). rather than an avoidance-of-success story. In Alper found that subjects who accept the sex role responding with a success story, however, they stamotypes may respond with what appear to be present the man as the woman's instructor, success stales, but the achievement goal is likely showing her how to perform the task. In this way, to be very different.Thus, in stories set in the the success portrayed in the story is credited to peesent, the focus of unmarried women is the the man rather than to the woman, mho appears as attainmentof husbands, that is, using a novice or an assistant. However, when the man aohievament to realize their main goalmarriage. is the worker, the women never prurient him as the in future-oriented stories, married women who assistant but always as the professor or the person take jobs presumably do so after the children are who solves the problem at hand, and the woman is grown;also,women whoacceptsexrole poetrayed as an assistant, learning or observing in stereotypes write about women doing the chores order to learn how to perform the task. The as they work for men.In other words, women reverse is true for women who do not accept sex themselves ars not the achievers, but serve as role stereotypes. When the woman is the worker, auxiliaries to the real achievers, men. Women these women credit the emus either to the joint wbo do not accept sex role stereotypes usually till efforts of the two people or to the woman

31 presented in the role of the worker (Alper et al., example, high !school girls who &wept competition 1972). for grades u appropriate to the female role achieve higher grades (matched for verbal ability) Some researchers have claimed that if the than those who do not (Houts & Entwisle, 1968). fear-of-success responees to the female stimulus Similarly, in the absence of ability differences occurred exclusively among females,it would between those who had accepted and those who indicate that women areambivalent or have had rejected sex role stereotypes, there was a negative attitudes towardachievement and face tendencyforthosewho hadrejectedthe an internal conflict.lf, onthe otherhand, fear- stereotypes to achieve a higher grade average at of-succes responses occur exclusively in response the end of the year in which they served as to the female stimulus, but equally among both subjects (Alper, 1974). Lipman-Blumen (1972) also sexes, then a afferent kind of explanation msy be found that women who held the traditional view of appropriate.Thestereotypes dealingwith the the female role did not plan to go to graduate appropriateness of achievement for women may school, whereas most of the women with a be learned and accepted by both sexes and simply contemporery viewpoint did. Women with a reflected in these responses (Monahan it al., traditional sex role ideology believed that the only 1974). Actually, in a study of high school students type of appropriate achievement for women was from the eth through the llth grades, a greater vicarious,throughmarriageto an achieving percentage of males than females responded husband (Lipman-Blumen, 1972). negatively to the female stimulus,while therewas no difference in the percentage of boys and Orli The research studies reviewed suggest that, who gave negative responses to the male stimulus. instead of most women having an underlying These findinp suggest that both boys and girls motive to avoid ounces (as Horner wanted us to tendto accept sexrolestereotypes,which believe), women% achievement motivation may be indicatesthat females embarking on a better explained by how unquestioningly sax role profelonalcareer,especially in a sex- stereotypes are accepted. Therefore, instead of a fate field,canexpect many difficulties, dichotomy between women who show the motive hardships, and internal and external conflicts. to avoid success and those who do not, the Suenessful females in these fields wow often following continuum may be more appropriate: viewed by students ot both sexes as unattractive, immoral, and dissatisfied (Monahan et al., 1974). Women who accept the tradi- Therefore, the authors conclude that Horner's tional sex role ideology, which results and their own can be accounted for by both indicates that any ivw direct sues' degree of adherence to conventional sex achievement is inappcuprste for role stereotypes. However, they acknowleege women and incompatible with that it may be necessary to tap an additional femininity. Only"vicar ious" dimension, since not only do both sexes express achievementis open to these awareness of the negative female stereotype, but women (Lipmen-Ellumen, 1972). also girls are aware of potential internal conflict andtrytoavoidtheconflietivesituation Women who accept only the sex (Monahan et al., 1974). rolestereotypeaccordingto which achievement for women is In a comparative stutly of college students in notappropriateinmasculine Australia and the United States, male subjects occupations but is acceptable in ware found to write a lamer proportion of fear- feminine fields and activities. of-aireemstories to the Anne stimulus than to the John stimulus.However, both sexes provided Women who reject the similarthematicmaterialoonoernircthe traditional sex role ideology and differentconsequencesotmale and female who feel free to achieve in any success (Feather & Raphelson, 1974). Hence, field or activity. Hcener's procedure seams to tap not only socially acquiredtheoriesorstereotypesaboutthe appropriate achievements for males and females Testing Horner's Original Hypotheses in our society, but also the consequences of violating the norms for each sex, which are The relationship between fear-of-success equally sterobtYPsd. Imagery end actual achievement of women is unclear and unproven.Actually, the presence of The degree to which women accept the fear-of-success imageryin women% responses traditional sex role stereotypes has been found to doss not seem to inhibit their achievement as be significantly related to scholastic achievement Horner hod hypothesized.In feet, Horner found aswell as to educationalaspirations. For that such imagery was more prevalent among 32 3 4 woman honor students (Tresemer, 1974). Another approximately the same proportion of negative study reports that the presence of the motive to sentences as those about John.The women's avoid success does not prevent women from being responses about John were similar to the men's, sucessefUL it found that 27 percent of wives who but fewer women wrote stories with a high do not earn an ineome write stories with fear-of- number of negative sentences about Anne than success imagery; among thou who earn one-tenth about John.In addition, the study found that to six-tenths of the family income, 42 percent more men than women wrote denial stories and write stories with fear-of-success imagery; and men were more likely to write denial stories about among wives who earn six-tenths or more of the Anne than about John. More than twice as many family income, 81 percent write fear-of-success men as women wrote denial stories about Anne, stories (Moore,1974). Thus,it seems that indicating that men tend to be more afraid of Homer's original hypothesis is not substeetiateds women's success than women are of their own fear-of-success imagery does not inhibit women's (Levine & Crumrine, 1973). Thus,Horner's achievement.It may be that the more a woman second hypothesis is not substantiated. defies sex role stereotypes and behaves in a sex- inappropriate manner (by earning as much as or Finally,Horner'sthirdhypothesis,that more than her husband), the more she becomes women can be expected to show more fear-of- anxious that her husband (or others) will not like success motive when competing with men than her behavior. Fear of the possible negative when competing with women, is substantiated by oonsequences of success does not, however, seem the data, as we saw earlier. Women who rompete to keep women from suceeeding. with women show less fear-of-success motive, but it does not altogether disappear. A study of high Coming now to the second hypothesb, that school students in coed and noncoed high schools the fear-of-success motive is found in women (who had attended coed or noneoed elementary much more often than in men, Tresemer (1874) schools) showed that girls in noncoed sdhools reports that in the 61 studies that have examined showed consistently less fear of success than girls the motive to avoid success (many of them in coed schools.Furthermore, those who had published or unpublished Ph. D. dissertations or attended a noncoed elementary school showed papers), the rate of fear-of-success stories varies almost no fear of success (Winchell et al., 1974). from 11 percent to 88 percent, with a median of This hypothesis seems to be amply substantiated. 47 percent.Thirty-six of these studies included men, and the pareantage of men responding to the female stimuluswith fear-of-succeathemes Who Are the Women Who Are Not ranged from 14 percent to 88 percent, with a Afraid To Succeed median of 43 peroent, that is, not much lower than the levelfor women reportingfear-of- The second major type of methodological 'mem themes.Indeed, in about 17 of the 36 limitation in Homer's study (as well as in many of studies, males had higher levels of fear-of-success the replicationstudies)liesinthe types of imagery than women. For example, a study populations sampled.Horner appears to have had conducted among high school students ranging little concern with the representativeness of the from 9 to 17 years of age showed that the fear-of- respondents or with the role that might be played success stories were not more frequent among by the respondents' social class or racial, ethnic, girlsthan among boys and were not more religious, and other background characteristics. prevalent in reaction to female than to male cues For example, in her original study, 78 percent of (Jackaway, 1974).In fact, this study did not the 59 girls who scored high on fear of success simport the hypothesis that sex differences in came from predominantly upper middle and fear-of-maces* motivation exist in children in middle-class homu and had successful fathers pedu 4 through 10.The same study reported who were businessmen or professionals, but only that the number of fear-of-success responses 35 percent of the 31 subjeets who scored low in made by 10th grade boys to the male stimulus fear of success had similar backgrounds. It is not were significantly higher than those made to the insignificant that 65 percent of the women who female stimulus.These findings conflicted with did not show fear of success were of lower middle the results of several pilot studies which indicated class background (Homer, 1972).Most of the that ocillage-age males respond with more fur-of- later replieation studies fail to report the social success stories to female cues (Jackaway et al., classcomposition of themale andfemale 1972). Levine and Crumrine (1973) contradict the respondents. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain findings of Horner and the researchers who to what extent the variability in the respondents' replicatedHorner'swork. They foundno social class backgrounds may be the primary difference in the percentage of fear-of-success reason for the variability in the percentage of replies by sex of respondent or by sex of stimulus. those who present the motive to avoid success in They also found that men's stories about Anne had their stories.

33 Robbins and Robbins (1973) suggested that 1988). Other authors (Lipman-Blumen, 1973) have the difference in the percentage of women who discussed the "minus femininity" that accompanies give fur-of-success stories in Horner's study (65 a successful woman, thatis,the automatic percent) and in their own study at Rutgers (48 discreditingprocessregardingasuecessful percent) may be due to differences in the social woman's femininity and sexuality. Actually, some class eomposition of the two samples. They studies show that women who are ambivalent suggest that, sinee women at Rutgers come from about success in their careers also tend to be lower middle class families end often are the first ambivalentaboutsuceess in theirclose in the family to go to college, these women may interpersonalrelationshipsandabouttheir view the experience as the gateway to new femininity(Anderson-Patty & Shelley,1974; opportunities and, for this reason, have higher Makosky,1972; Anderson-Patty,1974). This levels of aspiration than upper middle and middle- ambivalence, not only about achievement but also elms Radcliffe or University of Michigan women. about femininity, in women who report fear-of- RobbinsandRobbinsalsopointoutthat success stories seems to be related to their fear differences in percentages of reported fear-of- of competing with men and, therefore, to their success imagery might well reflect sampling fear of jeopardizing even further their femininity errorsandbiasesduetothesmalland and their chances of being desirable to men. unrepresentative samples of college students used Another study showed that women were allowed in the two studies.Hence, it is very difficult to to explore and fulfill their intellectual potential make any claim concerning the generalizability of when they did not have to compete with men with achievement findingi as they apply to the student whom they had an intimate relationship.Thus, bodies of the studied schools, let alone Ls they success over male colleagues was tolerated, but apply to college students or young adults in higher achievement than a fiance or a husband general (Robbins & Robbins, 1973). was still viewed as disruptive and undesirable (Gray-Shellberg et al., 1972). A number of studies report that the race of therespondentsignificantlyaffectswomen's A study of likability, however, showed that motivation to avoid success (Weston & Medniek, women competent at so-ealled masculine tasks 1970; Moore, 1974; Randall-Puryear & Mednick, were rated more likable by both sexes than either 1975). Randall-PuryearandMednick,for so-calledfeminine competent or Incompetent example, report that black college women at four women (Spence & Helmreich, 1972). And another campuses consistently showed less fear of suceess study reported that men select bright women as than white women.Also, Moore (1974) reports partners for both social and intellectual talks and that the highest percentage of fear-of.uccess do not reject bright women as partners because of stories (50 percent) was elicited from white males theirability and ambition (Davis & Splegler, speaking about Anne, while the lowest percentage 1974). The study also showed that men prefer a (23 percent)was produced by black females bright male friend but not a bright male coworker, speaking about John. The percentage of fear-of- who might prove to be too much competition. success stories was virtually the same for black Women, off the other hand, were eager to females speaking about Anne as for bleck males associate with a bright female coworker but were speaking about John.On the other hand, while reluctanttochoose a bright woman friend white females were more likely to tell fear-of- because, for women, social competition Ls more success stories about John than Anne, white males relevant than academic or occupational oorrespondingly showed more fur of success competition (Davis & Splegler, 1974). It generally about Anne than John. Therefore, race seems to appears that men avoid competition with a bright be a very important variable and may account for male in an achievement situation, while women at least some of the variability in percentages of avoid social competition with bright women. The fearvf-suocess stories, to the extent that black fact that men and women use different criteria males and females were included or excluded from forselecting work and social partners may different samples. contribute to women's fear of success.Because women choose a different type of partner for intellectual and social tasks, they may ammo Fear of Success or Fear of Rejection that men choose women partners on the same by Men basis, and therefore they fear that they may be rejected socially if they succeed academically. Horner assumed that women feel ambivalent Anotherpossibleexplanationisthatsince and afraid of success became they perceive academic success isgenerallyconsidered successas incompatible with femininity. masculine,women may disapproveofhigh- Accordingly, success tends to make women leu achieving women because they consider them as desirable to man (who feel threatened) and may deviating too much from established sex role lead to their being rejected by men (Horner, norms.Thus, it does not appear that women's

34 6 fears of rejection are consistently realistic. Fear toward their children.Still fewer studies have of success is realistic to some extent. Successful pursued the nature of the relationship between the women may be still liked, but they do tend to sex-differentiated behavior of both parents and threaten both other women with whom they may the degreeofgirls'and boys'achievement compete for men as well as men who have to motivation (Safilioe-Rothschild et al., 1975). For compare their achievements with them as fiances example, one study of mothers of boys and girls or husbands. The problems involved in a woman's ages 3 to 8 found that mothers stress achievement success seam to lie more in others who have to and punish dependency more froquently in pre- learn how to deal with it than in herself. school boys than girls.In general, mothers seem to accept dependency in their daughters, but not their sons.Mothers also tend to put pressure on A great deal of evidence suggests that their pre-school daughters for obedience and women's fears of rejection by men, their fears of conformity, while they put preseure on their pre- leek of desirability, and their ambivalenee about school sons for independence and achievement their femininity can be alleviated by a close and (Hatfield et al., 1967).Another study confirmed stable relationship with a man who accepts and these data, finding that mothers of pre-school aupports their achievement strivings. In the girlsarestricteraboutneatness,demand Schwenn study (1970), for examPlet girls who obedience more often, control verbal protests, and showed anxiety about success and social rejection use withdrawal of love much more than mothers and changed their career aspirations toward a of pre-school boys. On the oontrary, mothers of more traditional direction ware either not dating pre-school boys seem to use negative sanctions at all or were dating man who did not approve of (such as deprivation of privileges) and to tolerate career women. On the contrary, girls who scored verbal protests more often than mothers ot girls low or high in fear of success but continued to (3aumrind & Slack, 1967). Hoffman (1972), in her strive for innovative careers (despite their fear of excellent review of research on early childhood success) were either engaged to or seriously experiences and woment achievement motivation, dating men who were not against and were not presented findings that directly and indirectly threatened by their success or their occupational refer to the type of independence training that goals (Schwenn, 1970). girls (in contrast to boys) receive in their early years. She concluded that girls receive less Another study found that older female effective independence training and encourage- graduate students showed significantlyhigher ment than boys and that mothers of girls give achievementmotivationthandidgroupsof independence significantly later to girls than to youngerfemalegraduateorundergraduate boysa tendency that was particularly strong in etudents (Lubetkin & Lubetkin, 1971).Although this study did not make specific reference to the the middle class (Hoffman, 1974; Collard, 1964). marital status of the two groups of women, the Not only is the dependency of girls tolerated and even encouraged by mothers, but a much greater probabWty is much higher that the older female degree of parental anxiety and protectiveness le graduate students were married.This factor extended to girls than to boys (Hoffman, 1972). probably explains the difference in achievement Hoffman quotes some indirect evidence to support motivation because the fact that these older the fact that mothers are anxious about the female students were able to return to graduate independent behavior in dauohters but are happy school indicates approval and support by their about such behaviorin wis (Hoffman, 1972). husbands. Parents think of girls as more fragile, despite the greater maturity and sturdiness of the female infant (Garai & Schionfold, 19811), and behavioral observations of infants have shown that boys aro Origins of High Achievement Motivation handled more vigorously than girls (Moss, 1987), Hoffman also mentions another related parental A very important issuein the study of behavior, labeled woverhelp," that might hinder achievement is the nature of the relationship the development of independence in daughters. If between the socialization experiences of boys and the parent responds to the ohild's crying ce asidng girls end the type and extent of their achievement for help too quickly, the child never develops the motivation. The literature tends to neglect roma ability to tolerate frustration, to tackle problems, of the famiki antecedents in women% achievement and to explore possible solutions.It seams that motivation; when they are examined, the research mothers tend to help girls muoh more often than is usuaBy based on the mother-daughter rela- boys when the child is faced with a difficult task tionship and very rarely on the father-daughter (Hoffman, 1972). relationship (Walters & Stennett, 1971). Some studies have examined only the degree of sex Turning now tomothers'achievement- differentiation in mothers' or fathers' behavior related characteristics and behaviors and their

35 effect on women's success orientation, we find demands by mothers for both achievement and that women who are characterized by absence of independence seem to be more effective in the the motive to avoid success (as defined by Horner) context of a warm and supportive relationship tend to have mothers who are employed in mascu- with the mothet.The study by Berens (1973) line ocaupatione significantly more often than indicates that a warm and permissive relationship daughters who are characterized by the motive to with the mother, usually more characteristic of avoid success (Anderson-Patty, 1974). Also, girls, also helps boys to develop achievement reviews of studies on the familial origins of motivation. achievement orientations have shown that there ere two dimensions of parent-child relations that Berens (1972) reports elsewhere that the r .11 most crucial:the "loving-rejecting* and the socialization for high need achievement seems to "casual-demanding" dimensions (Hammeyer et al., befacilitatedwhen thereisa balanceof 1972). Somestudieshiveexaminedthe interaction and support combined with controls, relation:hip between one parent's (usually the expectations, and achievement demands. She mother's) loving-rejecting or casual-demanding found, for example, that boys with low need- interaction with the daughter and the daughter's achievement were getting inadequate support and achievement motivation, but only a few studies too muchcontrol. Infact,theyreceived have examined therelationship between the significantly much more positive interaction than compound effect of both parents' interaction either type of control. Boys with high need (Miller, 1973). Girls who were competent readers achievement received about equal amounts of had mothers who were less affectionate and less support and control in all types of parent-child nurturant than the mothers of girls who were poor interactionsandhad,therefore,abalanced readers. Furthermore, mothers who set high pattern of socialization.Girls with high need standards fortheirdaughters'intellectual achievement received significantly more positive achievement had daughters who were more interaction than negative control, but overall proficient on both the reading and arithmetic their pattern was more balanced than was true far achievement tests.However, girls whose fathers either of the groups with low need achievement. stresped intellectual competence scored lower on Theimportantfactorsforsocializationin the reading achievement test than did girls whose achievement appear to be parental expectation fathers were less concerned with their intellectual and demands for achievement and independence, abilities.It seems, therefore, that girls' higher made at .an appropriate age (in Berens' sample, academic achievement is related to mothers who around age 5, or school entrance age), coupled are less affectionate, less nurturant, and more withpositiveinteraction or supportand a demanding of high achievement, while girls with moderate amount of control (Berens, 1972). A affectionate, nurturant, less demanding mothers etudy by Miller (1973) also concluded that among have lower academic achievement (Crandall et thegirlswhosemotherswerelovingand al.,1964). Furthermore, girls who performed demanding and whose fathers were rejecting and especially well on the reading or arithmetie casual, many had high achievement orientations. achievement tests had fathers who praised and When the situation was reversed, that is, when rewarded more often and who criticized and rejecting, casual mothers and loving, demanding punished their general intellectual behaviors less fathers werefound,girlsshowed verylow often. However, we do not know what the achievement orientations. combinedeffectofmothers'andfathers' behaviors is upon girls' scholastic achievement. The development of achievement motivation Similarly, another study showed that mothers who inwomen requiresabalanceofmaternal were demanding tended to have daughters who nurturance, affection, and restrictiveness, high were achievement oriented, while those who ware demands for independence and achievement, and a camual tended to have daughters who were not. certain distanee from mothers, which gives girls On the other hand, fathers who were overtly inmeetoexploreontheirown (seethe concerned tended to have daughters with lower comprehensive review in this area by Stein & rade point averages than those who were not Bailey, 1973).It seems, therefor*, that there is a (Tou & Lindholm, 1974). curvilinear :elationship between the aehievement behavior of girls (and to some extent boys) and the Atleastthreestudieshave looiced degree of maternal nurturance and affection. A specificallyatthe combinations ofparental high degree of affection and nurturanoe, which is behaviors that seem to be associated with high very often directed toward girls, seems to otitis a achievement motivation in girl's. AU three studies girl's potential to stand on her own feet, to found that, in general, the earlier the demands for develop a self separate from that of the mother independence are made on girls, the higher their (Hoffman, 1974), and to develop an achievement level of achievement motivation (Berens, 1973). motivation. A high degree of maternal nurturance Strong encouragement of achievement and early and affection tends to overprotect girls and to

36 "oversocialize"them,to useBronfenbrenneris as to how the tasks could be performed. These (1901)terminology. A moderate degree of indications may explain the development of lower warmthandsupport,combinedwithsome achievement motivation in women. punishment and distance on the part of mothers, is associated with independent* and achievement- Also, when mothers tend to be verbally Irisntedbehavior,probablybecausesuch a demanding or intrusive, to give verbal stimulation, oombinstion has a"toughening"effectthat toeritieizechildrenforpooracademic enablesthegirltofacedifficultiesand accomplishments, to restrict object experimenta- competition and to take risks.However, an tion, to arouse anxiety in order to make children extensive study of competence in pre-school more cautious and less exploratory, and to be children showed that at the other extreme, emotionally and effectively close to etuidren, this extensiveuseofcoercivepunishmentby constellation of behaviors is likely to develop a authoritarian parents resulted in low autonomy high verial abilftyinchildren, but not high and achievement-oriented behavior (Baurnrind, nonverbal aptitudes. Nonverbal aptitudes, on the 1971). contrary, seem to develop bast when the child is free to explore and experiment on his or her own. There is some incompatibility between the Mothers in general tend to be more restrictive in development of femininity and the development of raising daughters, and it has been observed that achievement motivation in girls.It has been girls usually score lower on physics achievement found,for example, that the development of tests, which emphasize nonverbal skills, and much femininity in fins is related to parental warmth, higher on verbal tests, Other studies indicate that restrictivenesr psychological forms of discipline the more a girl identifies with her mother, the (love withdrawal), paternal dominance, paternal less likely she is to be a high achiever. She is less masculinity,andreinforcementoffeminine likely to excel in mathematics, analytic skills, behaviors (Hetherington, 1967).On the other creativity, and game strategies. Plank and Plank hand, the development of masculinity in boys is (1934) found that outstanding women enhanced bymaternaldistanceratherthan mathematicians were closerto and identified warmth, which also tends to enhance achievement more withtheir fathers than theirmothers. motivation. Thus, a high degree of maternal Similarly, Mari (1960) found that females high in warmth and nurturance(esPeciallywhenit analytical ability tended to identify with their involves babying, protectiveness, and other forms fathers. This may be because such identification of holding the child close to the mother) inhances indicates a close relationship with the father, who "femininity"ingirls,thatis,dependency, plays a balancing role in one socialization process, passivity, and nonassertiveness. These or it may simply be a positive modeling effect. characteristicsappearnegativelyrelatedto achievement orientation (Stein & Bailey, 1973), In conclusion, the development of implying that femininityisincompatible with arthievement motivation, as well as the degree to achievement.This belief seems to be substan- which women adopt a more contemporary sex role tiated by several studies which indicate that ideology (and therefore the degree to which they higheroverall"masculinity"scoresforgirls do not feel restrained by traditional feminine sex (Oetzel, 1961; Milton,1957; Kagan & Kogan, role stereotypes) is contingent upon achieving a 1970), as well as specific masculinity traits, such certain degree of psychological distance from as aggressiveness (Sutton-Smith etal.,19841 families (especially mother') and to developing a Kagan and Moss, 1982), are related positively to sense of individuality (Hoffman, 1974; Lipman- various achievement measures. Blumen, 1972). Lipman-Blumen found that 83 percent of the women who reported that they Another parental behaviorwhich seems admired neitherparentadhered tothe important for the development of achievement contemporary sex role ideology. Furthermore, motivationisthe type of help exteoded to women who reported that they did not try to children ,during task performance. When parents please either parent and who sought to keep their provide some general direction for an interest in distance were more likely to adhere to the achievement tasks performed by their children contemporary sex role ideology than women who and expect and permit the children (especially the tried to please both parents.Lipman-Blumen girls) to perform on their own, the conditions are (1972) also found that, of the women who reported more conducive for the girls to develop a high that they were constantly criticized by both achievement motivation and a low degree of parents, 64 percent held the contemporary view. anxiety than when parents provide specific help Women with the contemporary viewpoint, she with specific tasks (Herman, et al., 1972). There reports, tended t.t have a critical mother, while are some indications,however,that parents, women with a traditional viewpoint recalled especially mothers, tend to help girls more with having a critical father.In general, Lipman- specific tasks than to giVe them general directions Blumen (1972) indicates that the rejection of the

37 2 9 maternal life pattern may force adolescent girls approval of others. This need to be approved and to seek new approaches to their own lives.it is, likedis much strongervis-a-vismen, whom therefore, related to a greater tendency for women perceive as a more salient reference group women to adoptthe contemporary ideology, as well as more traditional than themselves with especially when they do not admire their mothers regard to sex-eppropriate achievement behavior. because they regard them as unsuccessfuL This, As we shall see in chapter 11, men actually hold of course, was true up to now because the large more traditional views about women% majority of mothers either did not work and occtpational roles and achievements. Hence, achieve outside the home or, when they worked, women's desire to achieve can be thwarted by were not often satisfied with the type of work and their anxiety concerning evaluation and possible achievements they had. Infact, they often rejection by men. Some data, however, indicate viewed work as a necessity or an unpleasant task. that the desire for love and approval can also have Therefore,they could become only negative apositiveeffectonwomen'sachievement achievement models for their daughters. That is, motivation.In fact, the Crandall' and others daughters had to reject what their mothers had (Crandall, 1963;Crandall, 1964;Garai & been in ordar to feel psychologically inclined Schienfeld, 1969) have suggested that toward achievement Asincreasinglymore achievement behavior in girls is motivated not by mothersthemselveshavehighachievement mastery strivings, as is true for boys, but by motivation, and as they work and achieve in a affiliative motives. Infact,in two different varietyofoccupations,includingmasculine studies, nursery school and elementary school occupations, they also act as positive achievement girls' achievement efforts were motivated by a models for their daughters.Their daughters can desire for social approval to a greater extent than admire them and identify with them and thus be were boys' achievement efforts (Lahtinen, 1964; propelled toward achievemef,t.Anderson-Patty's Tyler et aL, 1962; Crandall et at, 1964). (1974) pertinent research findings indicate that the mother's employment in masculine Actually, es long as academic performance occupations is significantly related to the Ounce is compatible with affiliative motives, we can of the motivetoavoid successinwomen. expect that the girls' scholastic achievement will However, a balanced mother-daughter relationship be high (Hoffman,1974; Wyer,1967). For in terms of affection, closeness, support and example, in elementary schools, excellence is control, separatenen and distance might always rewarded with love and approval by parents, beassociatedwithgirls'developmentof teachers, and peers. But in college and in independence, autonomy, and high achievement professional pursuits, love is less frequently the motivation. But separateness and a certain reward for top performance;if anything, the distance does notimply rejection or lack of reverse is often true. In fact, high achievers must warmth; it only implies a relationship between be able to withstand the loneliness that comes two Individuals, a mother and a daughter, who with high achievement and success. The early and both must have autonomy and space to explore consistent concern of girls with social approval and grow. and love, which led Kagan (1964) to say that boys try to figure the task and girls try to figure the teacher, may be handicapping girls, since at a Affillative Motive of Achievement very early age they are concerned not so much with developing cumpetence and skills that will Some authors have examined to what extent enable them to muter the tasks, but with pleasing the affiliative needs of women interfere with the teacher or with pleasing whoever requires their achievement potentials. Hoffman (1974) them to achieve. writes that academic and professional women frequently allow their concern with affective relationships to interfere with the full use of their Explanations of Success and Failure cognitive capacities. In general, thereis a tendency for *WWI in group discussion and in Another set of research studies is concerned intellectual argument to sacrifice brilliance for with how men and women explain sum= or rapport.Thera is some evidence, for example, failure and with how these explanations influence that women who perform well academically do so their expectations far success and failure and in cooperative pursuit and exchanges with other their persistence in tasks, regardless of success or students so as not to decrease acceptance by failure. Theseprojectsalsoexplorethe peers, while men tend to achieve much more often interrelations among the types of explanetions and as "loners,' (Wyer, 1967). achievementmotivation. Ingeneral,this relationship seems so strong that Frieze (1975) As we have seen in other sections of this raisesthe question of whether achievement volume, women more than men requirethe motivation produces different types of

98 4 0 explanations for success and failure, or whether females, while the response set of confidence with what has bun labeled "achievement motivation" regard to achievement-related behaviors is more is the result of certain learned patterns of oftenassimilatedbymales. Thissax- axplaisting success end failure. Weiner (1972) differentiated assimilation of response sets may adopts the latter interpretation and demonstrates atleastpartiallyaccountforthesex- that many of the behavioral differences between differentiated expectations about excelling in new high and low achievement-motivated males can be tasks (Vaughter et al., 1974). parsimoniously explained by reference to their attributional tendencies. Other studies suggest that the sax rola relatedness of the task must be considered in Let us look now at the evidenee on sex- massing expectancies about success or failure differentiated expectations about success and (Hoffman & Maier, 1966).The "masculine or failure and on the sex-differentiated types of "feminine label of a task has been shown to explanations attributed to success or failure. affect performance in that girls usually do better Numarouestudieshaveshownthathigher in tasks labeled "feminine and boys usually do expectations for personal success are held by better at tasks labeled "masculine," even when the males than by females in American society. For actual content or difficulty of the tasks is the example, Crandall's work (1969) documents the same (Montemeyor, 1972; Milton, 195* Stein & pnerally low expectancies of girls end women in Smithells, 1969). Evidence suggests that not only a misty of tasks and settings.The results is the actual performance of men and women consistently show that males have generally differentattasks labeled asmasculine or higher initialexpectationsthan females. feminine,butalsotheirexpectations about Moreover, when objective ability estimates are performance are different and are affected by the available, males tend to overestimate their future sex appropriateness of the task (Stein et al., successes, while females tend to underestimate 1971). Finally,notonlyareone'sown their future performance (Crandall, 1969). expectancies about achievement performance affected by the sex appropriateness of the task, Similar results were obtained by Jackaway but so are the expectations that others hold about (1974), who foundthatfemales approached one's performance (Daum & Emswiller, 1975). achievement situations with general pessimism andlackofself-confidence and thattheir While the available evidence indicates that expeotancy estimates were much lower than male women have lower expectations about expectancyestimatesconcerningsuccessin achievement and excellence than men, there are different tuks.She also found that females several factors which may modify and attenuate generally underestimated their actual this finding.First, stereotypes *bout women% performance, whereas males overestimated theirs. modesty may lead women to undervalue their abilities and expectations of achievement and may Other researchers have replicated Crandall's even &press their level of expeetations. On the findings with a variety of age groups and tasks otherhand,men,actingaccordingtothe (Montanelli & Hill, 1969; Me Mahon, 1972; Small et masculine stereotypes, which make them self- al.,1973; Brim et al.,1969; Feather,19691 confidentand supporttheirexpectations of Rychman a Sherman, 1973; Bar-tal and Frieze, excelling in all situations, might overvalue their 1973). A recent etudy found that most men level of expectations concerning performance and expeoted that they would excel in a new task, excellence.&woad, the labeling of a task as whereas women almost uniformly expected that feminine, regardless of the difficulty involved in they would not. It appeared that many of the men performing the task, tends to increase women's suds their expectancy decisions based on the sex expectationsof performance and excellence, role stereotype of male competence to achieve while the reported 1114Mtatialti are lower for a exeallenos and that exesseive objective evidence "masculine task. would have to be provided to alter the high expectations of these men. Females, on the other Studies that have examined the types of hand, assumed inoompetence to excel in a new explanations attributed to moms and failure task unless there was multiple objective evidence point out that maximum pride and security in to the contrary and unless this objective evidence successarederivedfromexplanationsthat wee specific to the new task. These data indicate attribute success to internal and stable factors, thst females assimilate the stereotypic feminine such as ability (Frieze, 1975). The more we tends expectation of incompetence to excel while males to attribute success to ability and failure to bad assimilate the stereotypic masculine expectation luckorinsufficienteffort,thehigherthe of competence to excel (Vaughter et al., 1974). persistence in performing tasks and the higher the This study also proposed that the response set for achievement motivation. After all, bad luak can verbal display of modesty is assimilated more by always turn to good luek, and lack of sufficient

-4 - 41 effort can always be controlled by one's own wili success in order to maintain their marriages and increased appropriately to guarantee success. (Poloma, 1972). Currently available studies have demonstrated that high aohlevement-inotivated men tend to Some studies show that women tend to explain succors in terms of high ability and effort internalize failure and to explain it as lack of and failures in terms of lack of effort (Kukla, ability (licinshon, 1971, 1972; Crandall et aL, 1972).This lack-of-effort explanation of failure 1965;Zander et aL, 1972.) Other studies, leads to a greater subsequent effort and accounts however, have Pined to replicate these findings for the motivating effects that failure has on high (Feather, 1969; Frieze, 1973a). The implications achievement-motivatedmales(Weiner,1972; of these findings are serious, for when women Atkinson, 1964). Also, it has been fount that high attribute failure to lack of ability, they have little achievementmotivationinmenisusually motivation to attempt tasks at which they have associated with higher estimates of personal already failed, since lack of ability i2 a stable ability (Bar-tel & Frieze, 1973; Kukla, 1972). On factor guaranteeing failure next time around. the other hand, men with a low achievement This type of explanation of failure, t-efore, may motivation tend to explain their successes in be another important factor contribulg to lower terms of external causes (good luck rather than achievementexpectationsandloweractual ability) and their failures in terms of low ability achievement in women. (Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Weiner & Potepan, 1970). This type of explanation of suceess and failure " is not very clear, however, to what extent permits high achievement-motivated men to feel externalization of successisnecessarily proud when they succeed and to be motivated to combined with the internalization of failure, a try again when they fail. deadlycombinationforwomen's achievement motivation. Frieze (1975), who reviewed the literature, remarks that women who hope for Women, on the other hand, have been found success may attribute failure to lack of ability, to explain success less often in terms of their own while those who have already decided not to try ability (McMahon, 1971; Frieze, 1973a). This and have low aspirations use luck to explain both finding indicates that women use luck much more success and failure.However, a study of high- often as an explanation of success than do men aohieving women found that they tend to explain (Bar-tal & Frieze, 1973; Feather, 1969; McMahon, both success and failure as results of effort 1972). Thus, women who explain success as a expended in the pursuit of achievement, although result of luck rather thin ability tend to feel less the differences between their responses and those proud of their success and less confident about oflow-achievingwomenwerenotalways repeating that success. The tendency for women statistically significant. to externalize success much more than men may actually permit them to pursue success and to It is interesting to note that even the high- achieveconsiderablydespitetheirpossible achieving women, who explain their success and ambivalence about success and achievement. One failure more often in terms of hard work and study, for example, has suggested that this type of effort, tend to have lower estimates of their own externality may be a defense mechanism that is abilities than men (Frieze,1973a; Bar-tal & important because it allows women to achieve Frieze, 1973).This is a very significant finding withoutperceivingtheirbehaviorassex because it shows thst even high-achieving women inappropriate (Thurber, 1972).Another study has are not as self-confident as men and lack the concluded that women who exhibit the motive to internalized belief about competence that men avoid success perform better on a Digit Span have. (backwards) following easy and external eont.,o1 Some studies have examined the underlying instructions, while women who do not exhibit the cause for women's achievement and performanoe motive to avoid success perform batter following expectations.According to traditional sex role difficultandinternalcontrolinstructions stereotypes, men are supposed to be more active, (Anderson-Patty, 1974).This evidence supports striving, intelligent, powerful, and independent the ftnding that externalizing success, basing it than women (Braverman et al., 1972). co good luck, probably permits women who fear Furthermore, until recently, there was consistent that success may detract from femininity to evident* that both women and men did not expect perform wall while feeling that they are keeping women to perform well and to achieve highly their femininity.Furthermore, by underplaying expectations that may have been quite influential and not feeling proud about their success, women in determining women's achievement behavior. are lass threatening to men who can deal better The study by Goldberg (196E,for example, with their wives' good luck than with their ability. showed that women college students evaluated In the late 19601s, high-achieving wives in dual- articles supposedly written by women lower than careermarriages used such explanationoof the same articles when they were supposedly 40

1. 4 2 written by men.Similar results were found by example, reported that boys tended to respond Pheterson et al. (1971), who had female subjects more aggressively then girls, displaying judge paintings.Again, the paintings presumably destructiveandemotionalresponses,facial painted by female artists were rated lower than expressions,rationalization,andhelp-seeking those presumably painted by men. However, when behaviors. Girls, however, significantly more the women were told that the paintings had won a often than boys, tried to solve the problem alone, prize, their evaluations were equal. seeking contact and information. It is interesting Supportiveness of women for other women was, to note that in this study the boys' behavior was however, also shown in the study by Deaux and juAred more aggressive than the girls', while, in Taynor(1973),inwhichmenratedhighly fact, the boys exhibited more destructive and competent men higher on intelligence and general emotional responses; the girls responded more competencethancomparablewomen,while rationally by trying to solve the problem alone and womentendedtoratecompetentwomen to seek contact and information.It was never relatively higher on competence than comparable pointed out that the girls were more constructive men. It seems, therefore, that in the 1970's andrationalthantheboys, since such an women have become more supportive of other interpretation would not be consonant with sex women and havehigherexpectationsabout role stereotypes. women's competence and achievement. This may We can conclude that women who interpret be a consequence both of greater self-confidence failure as a result of lack of eMlity tend to be less in women and of an awareness that women who wiling to undertake simaar tasks since their are successful must be much better and work estimate of the probability of success and their much harderthanmen. Therearesome motivation tend to be low.Also, to the extent indications of other changes that may affect the that women adhere to sex role stereotypes, they level of women's expectations, and studies carried may believe that they are not competent,they out in the second half of the 1970's may show that may be modest about their competence, and they expectations for achievement and performance may tend to withdraw from difficult tuks. are no longer influenced by sex differences. One of the very important variables that has The attribution of different types of expla- often been overlooked in the controversy about nations for success and failure in men and women is their and in high- and low-achieving individuals has women's achievementmotivation intelligence. There are some indications that important implications concerning continuation of highly intelligent women tend to have less anxiety taskperformance and willingness to perform (and not much more anxiety than men). On the difficult tasks.Crandall and R.abson (1960) found other hand, the highest level of anxiety b found in that grade school girls are more likely than boys women with average or above-average, but not to withdraw from threatening situations in which very high, intelligence.Also, women who are the probability of success is not high and to seek extremely high achieving are less amdous than help from adults and peers. They also found that other women and not more anxious than men boys will attempt to mister previously failed (Loughlin et al.,1965). Therefore, the actual tasks,whilegirlsare more apttorepeat achievement of highly intelligent women may not previously successfUl ones.These differences their were not evident at the nursery school level but beinterferedwithpartly because of were clearly present by early grade school. These intelligence (which also tends to safeguard them from formal and informal institutional findings reflect relevant sex-differentiated discrimination) and partly because they do not mobilization experiences, documented in a study have very high levels of anxiety, even regarding that observedmothJr-claughter interactionsin task solving with 10-year-olds. The study showed success. that the mothers of girls who were good in Phillips (1962) reports that an increase in mathematics or spatial relations allowed the girls anxiety results in lower achievement in women to solve tasks by themselves, while the mothers of and that women with low anxiety tend to have girls with good verbal *ills were more intrusive, much higher achievement than women with high offering help, suggestions, and criticism (Bing, anxiety.In general, the interactive effects of 1993). It seems, therefore, that mothers of sex, age, intelligenee, social class,race, and daughters are more likely than mothers of sone to anxietyupontheactualachievementand be intrusive and to give help with tasks.This motivation of boys and girls has been inadequately indicates that girls learn to rely on adults for investigated.Much more research is necessary halp, rsther than try to cope and explore solutions before we can obtain a clearer pictureof the by themselves. interrelationships between all these variables and The interpretations of girls' reactions to the factors thut contribute to the outcome of failure (in comparison with boys' reactions) may actual performanee and achievement in different represent sexist assumptions. One study, for settings and under different conditions.

4 3 4. WOMEN'S EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL CHOICES

Choke Between Career and Marriage work continuity and allow them to stop working whiletheirchildrenareyoung (Herman & Sedlacek, 1974).Recent stereotypes that des- From an early age, a MOAN unlike a man, ignate the traditional "feminine" occupations as must decide the role of work and marriage in her the most flexible and compatible with motherhood life. She has several options: are questionable.In Europe,a profession like To have a weer and not marry. dentistry, which is flexible and compatible with motherhood, is considered a "feminine" occupa- To marry and not work. tion. To combine career and marriage, There is a continuum of career commit- trying to excel at both. ments for women.At one extreme are women who choose marriage and motherhood over a To combine career and marriage, career, and at the other extreme are those who making compromises in both. decide on a continuous career even if it means staying single or childless.Women who enter To combine work and marriage, high-prestige,masculineoccupationsusually making compromises in her work. choose careers over families. (Rosen,1973; Herman & Sedlacek, 1974; Nagely, 1971; Levine, To combine both, making com- 1988). Women who choose traditional female promisesinherfamily(by occupations usually have a career that requires remaining childless or by them to make many compromises in order to raise marrying not the preferred man, a family (Davis & Meson, 1985).Educational but the one who accepts and aspirations as well as attainment are also deter- supports her work plans). mined by the career and marriage choice that women make, since early marriage usually inter- The choice that young women makeis rupts a woman's education (Mulvey, 1963). important became it relates to all other educational and occupational plans. If women decide There is some evidence that men also may that marriage is preferable to a career, they may experience some role conflict. Although men are not plan to go to college and tsually will not plan not faced with the dilemma of choosing between to go to graduate school. The type and level of marriage and career, they do face some conflicts. thsir educational aspirations are limited by career For example, one study (Adamek & Goudy, 1988) or marriage plans. Many middle and upper middle indicated that 40 percent of men and 29 percent clam women attend and occasionally finish college of woman thought tied family and occupational Deems* education is considered desirable for a responsibilities fitterfON with each other.The girl.Aside from a career, education can provide women's responses may be explained by the fact adversityiosurance, and many believethat that these woman were in home eccoanics and educated woman make better mothers. education, which are fields considered to be more compatible with marriage sine* they do not Career and marriage decisions are important require uninterrupted woric pattern&The mon tutors for woman when chooskg an eduoatioul viewed themselves primarily as family members field. Noma not planning permanent eareets do and received satisfaction from their families. At not elms* professions that require long, arduous least 70 pentad of the men and 83 percent of the training, work continuity, or keeping up with women designated the family u their primary :tzrsuoh as law, medicine, or fields that source of satisfaction, while 22 percent of the a Fh. A (Levine, 1988). Woman without men and 8 perceet of the women chose their atrong weer commitments usually select tradi- occupation. As dual careers become increasingly tional female occupations, such as nursing or widespread and as men and women find that they elementary sehool edueetka, that do not require must Mare the responsibWty for household chores

43 4 and childcare, the need for this kind of research Almquist and Angrist (1970, 1971) further becomes even greater. reported that career salient women more often had workinc mothers, tended to hold a variety of Shirley Angrist (1972) conducted probably part-time summer jobs during college, selected the best study of women's choices between career male-dominated occupations, and were influenced and marriage. Because her study was longitudinal, more by teachers and occupational role models involving college students from the freshman year than by family and peers. The non-career salient through graduation, she was able to study not only women, on the other hand, more often were the background of the women, but also the sorority members, dated steadily or were engaged, changes in their plans throughout collegt.. In 1969 had mothers activeinleisurepursuits,ithd and 1970, when the Women's Liberation Movement selected traditionalfemale-dominated occupa- still had not made a significant impact, almost no tions.They interpreted these findings to mean woman said that she would work when she had that career salient women, although the minority, children of pre-school age if her husband's salary are not socially deviant, but receive enriching was adequate (Angrist, 1972).Even women who influences from their families, teachers, college could euliy choose both work and career usually professors, and other work role models. anticipeted at least one interruption while their children were very young. Only 14 percent of the Probably the most important finding was college students wanted to work when they had that the non-career salient women tend to be pre-school children, even if their husband's salary conventional and conformingthe popular girls were adequate.About one-third of the women who date frequently, go steady,or become indicated that they planned to work when their engaged during college.Rossi (1967) similarly children were grown, even with an adequate reported that career-oriented women tend to be income provided by the husband (Anglia, 1972). much leas conventional and much more Inde- pendent than marriage-orlented women. Rossi also reported that career-oriented women start Eveninthe1970's,after the Women's dating later; date leas in high school and college; Movement had made a significant imput, most have leas appreetation for young children, visiting women planned either to quit work when their relativeo, planning, and organizing; and have a children were very young or to work part time consistently higher interest in reading, studying, (Mandle, 1975; Mason & Bumpus, 1975; Para lius, and other solo activities.The timing of datfw.: 1975).The movement has helped most college may be at least as important, if ,rot ,no, e so, Vito women realize that a career is compatible with the frequency (Vetter a Lewis,ludo,silica marriage and motherhood, but the belief that delayeddatingimplieslessconcern with infants must be taken care of by their mothers popularity and allows girls to use their energy and seems to be quite resistant to change, even among intelligence in studying and achieving. activist feminists (Mend la, 1975). The evidence about the socialization experi- Angrist further divided her sample into ences of career-oriented girlsis consistent with "career ulient" women, who consider their career the evidence about the eocialization experiences the most salient aspect of their lives even though ofhigh-achievingwomen. Botharelea they may not nocesurily work steadily, and "non- influanced by parents; their parents disapprove of career salient" women, who place theirmarriage their career orientation (Vetter & Lewis, 1984); and children above their career.Using this dis- they tend to postpone dating, engagement, and tinction, she found that 40 percent of the fresh- marriage; and they seem to be less concerned with man women in her sample began as non-career approval (Herman & Sedlecek, 1974) and popu- salient and remained so as seniors, while only 7 larity. Therefore, both high achievement and high percent wars career salient throughout the 4 career orientation require strength, autonomy, years.The "changers" consisted of 17 percent and the courage to go against parental, peer, and who became non-career salient by senior year and socialpreaures tobesociable,"nice,"and 35 meant who changed from non-career salient popular. by senior year and 35 percent who changed from non-eamer salient to career ulienLTherefore, Since there are no data on these women's at the senior year, she found that 57 percent of attractiveness, it is possible that some of them the women ware non-career salient and 43 percent had no chokes but to postpone dating, engagement, were career salient.She also found that most and marriage because they could find no attrac- changes in favor of a career ware made early in tive, desirable men.Therefore, they channeled the senior year.Most dramatic of the converts their energies into achievement. Itisalso INN the 14 percent who were firmly non-career possible that there was an interaction between oriented for 3 years but became career criented these women's high achievement orientation and as "anion (Angrist, 1972). their lack of interest in dating that led them to

44 44 divert effort and energy from grooming and dating thinking of both daughters and sons. A mother's to seholutie pursuits. negative work esperiences may reinforce her childrense perception that men and women are in There is some golden.* that high school girls feet different, sines the received message may be who do not conform to traditioaal ideals of that their mother Is unhappy in her work because femininity ars no longer penalised by being working is leappropriate for women. This uplains unpopular, but date as much es u *feminine" girls wly some studies report that maternal empWr (Icasa & Aneshensel, 1971).It seems, therefore, ment helps young women perceive airwr-reUted that schievement and Omar orientation no longer achievement as *feminine* only when this employ- lestd inexorably to lowliness and unpopularity. ment exposes the girls to feminine model of work oompetiew (Baruch, 1972). There is evidence that girlfriends and boyfriends prosily influence the final choice between How women perceive men's attitudes toward eerier sad marriage (Edwards, 1980. The influ- the MIS of women helps determine their decisions ent* of boyfriends an young women's decisions about =rear and marriage. As late as 1911, the about weer and marriage as well as type of Women's Liberation Movement ideology had not occupation is shown by research on women's affected eollege men; they did not favor women's paroeptions of what min think about women's employment after marriage, preening that their rola and how thew octal= dint womsn's wives not work unless absolutely necessary. One cuter decisions. Probabky the most clear-cut study (McMillin et al., 1971) showed that while 12 evidenee comes from a study by Hawley (1972). percent of collmge men preferred that their wives Hawley found that women who believe that mon in not work at all dter marriage, only 2.7 percent of general, end especially the signifloant men in collage women preferred not to work aftm. mar- their now, do not use gender as a basis for riage.Thirty-eight percent of college men pre- evaluating behaviors usually work outside the ferred that their wives not work after children home end have careers.On the other hand, were born unless ateolutely necessary; only 12.7 woman who believe that mon evaluate behaviors putout of the women had the same preference. aocordirer to gender tend to chows marriage On the other hand, 72 portent of the women instead of a career. wanted to work before children ware born and after the children grew older,while only 40 Another study (Matthews & Tiedemen, 1984) percent of the men had the ume preference. similarly concluded that how a woman perceives Although 7.9 percent of the women wanted to men's attitudes towards her use of intelligence is work continuously after marriage, only 3.8 per- important when she plans for career and marriage. cent of the men wanted their wives to do so If a woman believes that men respond negatively (McMillin et al.,1971).The same data broken to women who use their intelligenee, she %wally down by man's academic major showed that men decides against a career. Furthermore the study studying business, 'clones, and mathematics pre- ehowed that women with such aperception tend to ferred the least career involvement for their feel intelleetually inferior to men.Therefore, wives, while education, humanities, and social they mey adopt, perhaps defensively, a realm of solute majors were more accepting of working their own, muth as homemaking. wiVes (91091111114 1972). Another study (Voidst al., 1974) showed In the 1970% the Women's Movement has that when mothers work, their children do not affseted men, although slowly. In1989-70, pwasive masculine and feminine behaviors as between ens-third and one-half of Ivy League dichotomous, but as overlapping. Ms study college men were ambivalent toward or had showed that working mothers erne as male models rejected sex role stereotypes. About half of them not only for daughters but also indirectly for sons, would have dated int.Ulgent, competent women who see possible rola modals for their future who ware in a ',masculine major; about half would wised Ifetweill employment tends to influence have married intallipnt, competent women who how children sod yoimg adults pereeive and evalu- planned careers after marriage, and they were ate male and female behaviors, and therefore even willing to halp out with some domicile and indirectly influences their attitudes toward the childrearing tasks. Their careers, however, would oompatibility of swear and marriage for women *leaks take premium over those of their wives, (Vogel et al., 1974). and they exposited their wives not to work after children ware born butto assume fullroe- Maternal employment, however, is an bed- potability for the children (Homarovsky, 1978). ticket faster unless combined with favorable personal ecinsequeness.It is the combination of Later on in the 1970% U percent of college the mother's employment withpositive attitude men aocepted women's uninterruptedcareers toward hie work that faeilitates the androgynous (Ahbad-Yehia, 1970 and wore willing to corn-

45 4 6 promise (Cummings, 1977).It seems, therefore, concepts plan more ismovative roles; they intend that women who are not oonstrsined by "feminine to enter graduate school, to have fewer children, stereotypes, are intelligent, and aspire to careers and to work while their children are yoimg. Thus, increasingly will find men to data and marry woman who perceive themselves as being rela- without having to compromise their own aspira- tively leis feminine are more likely to plea to tions. combine employment with childrearing than are women who perceive themselves as relatively 'Pao studies have considered the relationship more feminine. between the degree to which young women adore to sex role stereotypes and the decisions they make about career and marriage. One study, in a sense longitudinal, examined sex role stereotypee Educational Aspirations and Attainment and thecareer-versus-marriagedecisionsof women in 1969 and 1973 (Para lius, 1975).This The first issue of concern in the area of study found that by 1989, women were over- educational aspiration and ettainment is whether whelmingly free of sex role stereotypes, but women's educational and occupational choices still believed that the husband's occupation coincide or must be treated separately. The precedence. &it in 1973, while every item of the available evidence suggests a high correlation scale measuring sex role ideology showed an between educational and occupational choices, a increase toward the feminist perspective, the correlation that is much higher among men than most impressive change was that most of the among women (Morrill et AL,1970). Since a respondents were willing to support oempatiocal considerable degree of variance is unaccounted equality even within the family. for (in this study, approximately 50 percent), the advisability of wing the two choices interchange- This change in women's sex role ideology ablyI.questionable. Otherauthorshave was accompanied by a significant change in their cautioned about the differences in timing and attitudetowardthecareer-versus-marriage generality between an occupational and an educa- dilemma. In 1989, half of the women intended to tional choice. For example, the choice of a combine marriage, family, and a career, while the career 10 years before starting to work is not the other half intended to work until the birth of the same as the choice of a high school curriculum or first child end to return to work when the children college program, the implications of which must were grown. (These findings are consistent with be accepted at once.To say I want to be a Angrist's findings, discussed earlier.) But in 1973, doctor* at age 12 is fantasy, but to say "I'm sign- thorn was an increase in the percentage of women ingtpforthecollege preparatorygeneral who wanted to work continuously throughout their am* in the 10th grade is an important choice married lives and a decrease in the percentage of 1950 Thus, unless an educational choice women who planned to interrupt their careers in or aspiration has definite implications for an order to care for children. Therefore, women who occupationalchoice,itisnotconsistently intended to combine marriage, family, and core& correlated highly with occupational choice. It shifted from planning aninterruptedcareer 11Prtly is important to consider eduaational toward planning a "double-track* pattern of con- eellseparately from occupational choices. currentwork,motherhood,andhomemaking This is especially true for girls for whom the (Farelius, 1975).This indicates that in 197$1 by oorrelation between the two choices seems to be which time the Women's Liberation Movement had weaker due to important intervening variables, made a significant impact at least on college such as marriage, dating, the early birth of women's values, young women no longer perceived children, and having to work to support the career and marriage as incompatible but planned husband. to combine them as men have always been able to do. The educational choice involves several aspects.First, the choice of curriculum to be Similar findings have been reported by Luria followed in high school and, later, in collage has (1974), who studied the marriage and canter plans important cumulative and developmental implica- of 1969 and 1970 women college graduates. tions, since early course choices can facilitate, Another study (Vogel et aL, 1974) concluded that complicate, or altogether exclude later educe- college women with more stetaotypia self-con- tiocal choices.For example, a girl's decreasing cepts (that is, those who see themselves as warm exposure to math and science courses after the and expressive) plan more traditional roles. Thus, eighth grade drastically reduces Mr ability to they have lower educational aspirations, want to take more advanced courses later on and to enter have more children, and plan to work only after most scientific fields. Second, curriculum choices their children have entered school. On the other refleot level of educational aspiration.Finally, hand, Callao women with less stereotypic self- they determine the mak in college.

46 4 7 The extent to which educational aspirations statusinfluenced daughters' educational aspira- correlate with eduoational attainment is impor- tions. The type of ached, coeducational or single tant, particularly to women. Through high school, sex, also influeneed women's educational aspira- the correlation is higher for girls than for boys. tions, but none of the esx role attitude items used Atter high school, the discrepancy between educa- was found to be important (Ray, 1974). The latter tional aspirations and attainment is greater for finding may be explained by the narrow range of women thanformen, andthisdiscrepancy items used and by the fact that sex role stereo- increases at the graduate level.This greater typio beliefs now are considered conservative; incoogruency for women is due to intervening therefore, liberal women would tend to reject variables, such as marriage, children, moving such beliefs regardless of how they really felt. when the lasband's job requires it, or the need to support a student husband. Another clausal model studio the evolution of educational aspirations from the 9th through A study of 1,249 intellectually gifted college 12th grades (Williams, 1972).It applied to men students in Minnesota indicated another set of and women and included intellectual ability and variables that may lower the educational aspira- academic achievement at grade 9; socioeconomic tions and, even more, educational attainments of background; teachers' and parents' expectations at intelligent women (Faunae, 1968). This study grade 10; pears' aspirations at grade 10; and a showed that freshmen women who did not gradu- similar set of variables at grade 12. This model, ate faced problems involving impulse control, which included a large number of variables that aggressive behavior, and hostile feelings.They affect the development of educational aspirations, ware individualistic and nonconforming, and they is much more comprehensive than Rey's. had problems with their families, including conflicts with parents and siblings.They also had Path analysis of panel data from 3,687 difficulty in getting along with peers and lacked students enrolled in general academic programs at 14f-confidence.They were awkward with men the 12th grade showed that the models for girls and had sexual adjustment problems.in contrast, and boys differed. For girls, the expectations of woman who graduated seemed more conventional, teachers, followed by their peers' early aspira- temperate, and modest. They wire opthnistie and tions, grade 9 academic performance, grade 11 self-confident, and they had adequate defenses, performance, socioeeonomic background, and the good ego strength, and sound psychological inte- early expectations of theirparents,areall gration.They tried to project a positive moral influential. However,peers' aspirations and and social image. These women were also teachers' expectations gradually become more characterized as cooperative, reasonable, willing important than parents' expectations. It must also to accept suggestions, clear thinking, alert, res- be kept in mind that socioeconomic background is ponsive, and enthusiastic. important in the development of a girl's educational aspirations. Uwe there was no correepand- The woman who dd not graduate did not fit ing offset on boys, these findings suggest the the sex-appropriate stereotypes as reflected in eduoation for girls is considered to be more of a their more aggressive behavior, lack of control, luxury.Girls' intellectual ability and academic and hostile feelings.Their behavioral noncon- achievement help determine teachers' end parents' formity and conflicts with peers and family sug- expectations, hence girls' educational aspirations. gest that they were critical, questioning, and Thissuggeststhateducationisconsidered unwnling to accept criticism and suggestions. appropriate and worthwhile only for those girls They were discouraged and felt rejected by their who are oompetent and achieving (Williams, 1972). peers end teachers, which led them to reject the Lipman-Blumen (1972) presented a wholecollege experience (Faunae, 198E. different model tested on collage women in the Although the relevant data are not available, it is late 1980's.This study examined in detail the possible that gifted woman who do Dot fit the effects of the relationship with both parents, model of am-appropriate behavior are %cooled especiallythemother,varioussocialization out* of Gallego, sinew they are not the oqnforming impedances, the mother's employment status, *nice girls with whom college professors are used relationships with sameeeit and crom-sex peers, to Warmth* the girls' sex role ideology, and other factors upon What variables are important in determining their educational goals.The model is oompre- woman; educational aspirations and choices? One handy% and even though it omits teacher- and causal modal includes the variables of family, school-related variables, makes a great contribu- school, end sex role attitude.Thsthig of the tion because it includes women's sex role ideology. model by a path analysis showed that two family Lipman-Blumen found theta variablet-perosived parental pressure to Women witha oontemporary academie attainment and mother's employment nonstereotypie sax rola ideology

47 have higher educational =Ora- educationalespirationsand a tion than women with a tradi- career orientation. tional -a role ideology. Women who have a traditional Women with a vicario= =Neve- su role ideology and do not mint mods tend to have low valueintellectual qualities tend echscaticea1 =Orations as well as to mem while still in °allege. a traditional sax role ideology, Women who lave a more while women with a direct contemporary sex role ideology schlevemesit mode tend to have and value intellectualqualities highereducationalaspirations tend to postpone marriage until end a more eontemporary su after=liege (Lipman-Mullen, role ideology. 1972).This finding agrees with other studies (Bayer, 1969). Girls who have high educational aspiration and are encouraged by both parents or their mothers go to graduate school tend to A similar model applied byStockard (1977) have a more contemporary sex on undergraduate students in 1973 empirically role ideology. aupports Lipman-Blumen's earlier model. Stockard concluded that: (1) high family status is Women with a contemporary su related to both men's and women's nontraditional roleideoloa and highedu- attitudes toward the role of women; (2) nontradi- cational aspiration develop a tional women tend not to use their mothers as certainpsychological dbtanoe models; (3) woman who rate themselves as more from their families and a tense like their fathers than their mothers are more of individuality in adolescence. likely to hold nontraditional views; and (4) women &cob women do not try to plasm withnontraditional beliefs have somewhat distant theirparentsand awe to relationshipswith both parents (Stockard, 1977). admire them. They regard their These findings were replicated by Tangri (1972), parents as frustrating and, who concluded that women who choose nottradi- particularly the mother, as Meal careers consider themselves similar to their critical. However, admiration fathers, buthavecognitive distance from both for end closeness to both parents parents. is associated with a more Midi- tional sexroleideology and lowereducationalaspirations. A womanveeducationalaspirationsere These findinp reflect the late crucially&Hooted bymaternalmnploynent. 1980%, when mothers were often Deughters et employed mothers have significantly fnntrated, =choppy housewhru higher ecknational capitation than daughters of or dissatisfied working women nonworidng women (Sassmrind & Blacks 1967). who served as negative achieve- UPcian-Bluments study, however, showed that ment modals. Probablythis although maternal employment in itself does not situation is now reversed. have any significant effect, the mother% satiable- tion with homemaking does.Mothers who are Women with contemporary dissatisfied as homemakers serve as negative beliefs are lonelier during models kr their daughters; they tend to raise adolescence thantheir pews, their daughters with a contemporary su role whi/e women holding traditional ideology and tho high educational aspirations sex rob beliefs ire Seis gkeiy to (Lipman-Biumen, 1972). be lone,. This agrees with the findings examined earlier, which indicated that woman who are Another variableinfluencing edooationid MON oriented tend to date Ism, aspirations is the marital plans of young boys end to be kw palmier, sad to study girls. One study of a large sample et high school end think by themselves.Atti- students in grades 9 through 12 showed that tudes tower s. dating, popularity, percent of the varianoe among girls was explained independenee from parents, indi- by their marital plans (Bayer, 1989).This ilk.- viduality, and theabilityto trate, that early marriage chestically curtails a withstand modal premium seem yang woman%eduoationelandoocupationsl to be Mated tobothhigh aspiraticos sad options.

48 49 Earliest Age at Which Career Versus first two or three Fades are more likely to develop career interests.Of course, even girls Noncareer Choices and Occupational who have more masculine interests and do not Chokes are Made adhere to sex role stereotypes in their pre-school One longitudinal study using ist, an, RN years or the first grade have eonformed by the and 12th graders described how Garb" and by what fourth grade to the traditional sex role stereo- processes young girls decide tpon a career (Tyler, types. But this freedom from sex role stereotypes 1964). IVler, using the Strong Vocational Interest in the earlier years permits girls to explore their Blank, showed that as early as the 10th grade inclinations without restrictions and to become there are career and noncereer girls. By the Ilth interested in a career (Tyler, 1964).Whether a grade, the distinctions were even stronger and girl delays in accepting the feminine role and its more clear cut. By the llth or 12th grade, scares attachedstereotypiclimitationsaffectsher onmasculinity-femininitytestsshowedno ability to choose a career, even though most girls difference between career and noneareer girls. eventually accept the traditional feminine role. At the 12th grade the only difference between career and nonagreer girls was in response to the The review of literature by Leifer and following item on the Minnesota Test: "Women% Lesser (1975) on the age at which girls begin to work and men% work should be fundamentally make occupational choices is fairly exhaustive. different in nature."Career girls were more One study reports that as early as age 3, boys and likelyto disagreewiththisstatement than girls are aware of many different occupational noncareer girls.Probably the most important choices as well as stereotyped male and female finding of this study was that in 1st grade there occupational roles.Children at that age already was a Agnificant difference between the maseu- tend to accept the existing sex differentiation in occupations (Beuf, 1974; Meyer, 1970). Also, Unity-femininity scores of those who at the 10th, there is research evidence that children between llth, and 12th gades were distinguished as career ages 3 and 6 clearly show sex-differentiated and normareer girls.In the lit grade, the career patterns in career awareness and occupational group showed more masculine scores, on the choices.Girls, for example, tend to name many avseage, that, the noncareer group. fewer occupations than boys, and many girls At the fourth grade level, the data cer inter- indicate that they wbh to be mothers. Boys, personal relations and the personality of career however, rarely mention "father" as an occupation and noncareergirlsareofgreatinterest. (Kirchner & Vondracek, 1973). In the same study, Although no differences were large enough to be when children were asked what they expected to statisticallysignificant,there was a definite be, not what they wished to be, girls more often pattern in the direction of the mean differences. than boys could not suggest another occupation. Girl* in the career group were rated lower by When girls did give another ocmpation, it was their claismatre than girls in the noncareer group often more sex appropriate than the first. These on the traits most admired by children of that age sex differences were apparent for both black and (less popular, less good looking, less active, and whitechildren,although black children were poorer than the others). They were also rated as generallylesableto name specificadult bossier, more restless, more talkative, and more occupations they wished to hold (Kircluier & interested in reading.Such trends suggest that Vondracek, 1973). the social adjustment of many girls who later on (at the 10th, Ilth, and 12th gades) develop career Looft(1971) reportedsex-stereotyped Interests may have bean slightly inedequate in the occupational choices among first graders, and 4th grade. Nelson (1961) studied children in the second grade. In both studies, boys chose many more occupations It seems that the development of career than girls (le versus 0), and more boys were able interest in girls may be increased by problems in to name a seoond oectpation.Looft (1971) also their relationships with peers during middle child- sweats that girls stop selecting alternate careers hood. A girl who does riot consider herself to be earlier than boys, since girls recognise that they good looking cr popular may feel free to become a cannot °hangs their preferences easily become student and develop an independent life. few jobs are open to women.Thus, girls in the concentration on academic success and elementary grades have a far narrower range of choosing a career represents an alternative basis occupational choices than boys.Several studies forsuocessoccupationalratherthansocial report that boys *loot two to three times as (Tylsr, 1964). Of course, some girls select careers mew different occipations as girls and that because they have outstanding talents that are roughly two4hirds of the girls at this age level enexiraged. Furthermore, the study suggests that choose either secher or nuns (Clark, 10671 girls who do not accept traditional sex role Deutsch, 1960; Nelson, 1962; Nagel, 1973; O'Hara, stereotypes during the pre-school years and the 1962) ce motherhood.

49 5 0 The occupational choices of girls reflect an Some evidence suggests that black girls have acceptance of traditional sax role expectation'. higher occupational aspirations than black boys Foe example, no girls exprosed a desire to be a (Barnett & Baruch, 1973). and that they are politician, scientist, lawyer, doctor, sports hero, esubouraged more than white girls to work full or any other role deemed erestigious but inap- time and in higher status profemions (Gump & propriate for women. From kindergarten through Rivers, 1973).It was also found that lower class the sixth grade, girl% report that women clan work girls, like iniddle-elaa girls, choose predominantly only in certain "feminine" occupations such as feminine occupations. However, lower class girls nurse, waitress, or librarian, while men are not choose secretary, an occupation never chosen by similarly limited (Schimberg & Goodman, 1972). middle-class girls, and give answers like "bum," In addition, girls and minority children often "dummy," or "mother" more often than middle- underestimate their own abilitiesto &thence class girls (Clark, 1985).Another study showed educationally and enter high-status professional that lower class girls more often preferred white- occupaticas (Wylie, 1963). oollar and professionaloccupations than did middle-class girls or lower clam boys (Clark, 1967). The latter findinp can be explained Furthermore, as early as the third grade, partially by the race of the lower class girls, 90 both boys and girls clearly understand the prestige percent of whom were black.Finally, another attachedtovariouscareers (GeFleur,1063; study showed that lower class girls choose specific Simmons,1962). Their prestige rankings of specific occupations correspond highly with adults' careers earlier than middle-class girls (Lee & renkings of the same occupations (Hansen & King, 1964). Caulfield, 1969; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1971). There are some indications that girls who do These perceptions are similar regardless of the not make their occupational choice until the third children's social class or race (LeFebvre & Bohn, or Mirth grade and girls who make masculine 1971). choices when they are 5 to 7 years old tend to later make innovative choices, sometimes choos- The feet that girls are so aware of the ing masculine, high-prestige occupations. prestigeofoccupations,coupledwiththeir acceptance of sex role stereotypes in jobs, indi- The development of sex role attitudes tends cates that from an early age girls are aware of to determinetheseoccupationalchoices. the sex stratification system and of their inferior, Children accept these stereotypes by age7 subordinate position within it.This awareness (Bardwick, 1971; Kohlberg, 1966;McCandless, probably explains their tendency to underestimate 1969; Mischa!, 1970; Musson, 1969). The moment their own abilities to enter Wi-datue occupa- girls adopt the feminine stereotypes, their occu- tions.Thus, while bays and girls maks occupa- pational choices are restricted.Therefore, it is tional decisions at about the same age, their crucial that girls be able to delay crystallizing sex decisionmaking promisesdiffer. The more role stenotypes.By not accepting the over- prestigious a boy considers an occupation, the simplified form in which pre-school children see more likely he is to allows it.A girl's occupa- sexual stenotypes, a girl can make broader tional preference, on the other hand, is either occupational choices and both boys and girls can uirelated cr negatively related to her perception have experiences and choose careers that are not of occupational prestige (Barnett, 1973; Barnett & based ce sex roles (Tyler, 1964). Baruch, 1973). Fewer studies have examined adolescent shifts in occupational choices, and no studies have One study, however, shows that while boys examined shifts in occupational choices that occur are aware of occupational prestige, fourth grade during the early school years. The few studies of girls rank the professions of doetoeartist, and shifts in occupational choices during adolescence writer quite a bit lower then the clatirly feminine show the greatest effect on boys' and girls' sax- &Impatiens of nurse, secretary, and kindergarten inappropriate occupational choices, while mis- teacher (Simmons,1962). This*femininity" appropriatechoicesremainmoreconstant dimension in girls may operate before the devel- (Carmody et a)., 1972; Rosenberg, 1957; Schmidt opment of a general prestige dimension, and it & Rothney, 1955).Although the occupational may partially explain why girls make occupational choices of high school students change consid- choices that lack prestige according to adult erably from the freshman to senior years, there is rankings, but not their own. Also, this restructur- some evidencethattheoccupationalvalue ing of occupational prestige may represent an hierarchies of high school girls do not change attempt to deal with the unequal, inferior status much.The rank order correlations for occupa- to which the sex stratification system relegates tional values were 0.95 from 6th to 10th grade, 0.52 from 10th to 12th grade, and 0.46 from lith to

50 1 12th grade. Thus, early concepts of occupational pondents seem flexible and pragmatic in their Malice and sex-stereotyped occupations persist aspirations for adult life. foto adulthood.Early occupational choices that conform to cultural definitkem of sex-appropriate 'These data indicate that intervention during employment tend to be more stable than those undergraduate years could help young woman Wile* do not. make occupational choices that are free from stereotypic restrictions. Even in the senior year, There is considerable research on shifts in intervention could successfully stabilise atypical women% oc-apational choicesduringcollege occupational choices and widen the range of years. One study found no significant oorrelations oho ices. betweea the plans reported by students in their freshman and senior years, a finding that held true Considering the shifting patterns in women% for males, females, blacks, whites, and students of occupational choices at different ages, no par- high and low socioeconomic levels (Baird, 1973). ticular age representa the most appropriate time A large national study surveyed collage students for effective intervention. Intervention before or in their freshman year and 4 years later.The shortly after ege 7 (in the second or third grade) study showed that many more women than men might not succeed because of later, continuous changed majors airing these years, shiftingpre- shifts in women% occupational choices *socially dominantly from sex-inappropriate to sex-appro- sex-inappropriate choices. Therefore, evenif priate majors (Astin & Panos, 1989).Finally, a early intervention were successful in helping girls longitudinalstudy by Angrist(1972)showed make sex-inappropriate occupational choices as change, in collage women's occupational choices often as sex-appropriate ones, it is likely that from the freshman to the senior year.By their those same girls would later decide on sex- sonic( year, the women had more specific career appropriate careers. plans: 64 percent of college seniors, 53 percent of juniors, and 52 percent of sophomores felt that Two strategies are indicated to increase they had a definite ocetpational plan compared occupational choices.One is to affect a girl's with only 31 percent of freshmen. Still,36 choice indirectly by freeing her from sex roles percent of seniors remained undecided about rather than by directly affecting the range of careers.The study also indicated that only 15 occupational choices.If intarvention techniques percent of the college women had consistent successfully freed girls from sax role constraints occupational choices throughout collage, while 14 through the age of 12 or 14, for example, they percent never made an occupational choice. The probably would be more fres to consider a wider remaining 71 percent oscillated between decision range of choices, including sex- and indecision. It was also found that among inappropriate, prestigious occupations. The seniors, the moat frequently chosen occupations wend alternat ve co supplementary strategy ware high school teachers and collage professor, would be to intervene at an early age, with later and both of these occupations were chosen more intervention daring high school and college years frequently by senior: than by students at any to support sex-inappropriate choices. other stage.The study also indicated that 18 percent of the college students chose typical and Some researchers have examined change and 11 percent chose atypical fields durigwr all 4 continuity in women% occwational choices. One college years. Thus, over one-thire the studyfound that among college women, the students made stable choices with respect to ihe mother% employment status or the reasons why sex appropriatenem of the chosen occupation. she worked did not distinguish occupational "per- Many &Is, bowel's", changed from theuncon- sisters" from "nonorsisters" (Harmon, 1972). This ventional fields by junior year; 39 percent changed study alio reported that the history of previous from atypioal to typical women'scooupations by choices did not differ consistently between women *aloe year, while 25 percent changed tomascu- who persisted in their ostelesatianal choke§and linefields. Although senior woman showed those who did not. This agrees with other findings intetest in professional work, most chow tradi- reported by Harmon, which show that pampa- tionallyfeminine professionalfields (Angrist, tional plans at age 11 do not differ between 1972). women later identified as career committed or nonoommitted (Harrows, 1970).Interestingly, a lack of persistence seems to be related to being Oa thebasisof her longitudinal data, later born as opposed to first born (Harmon, 1972). Angst* ooncluded that collage women manifest an First-born women are significantly more per- menus to available careers.They readily and sistent in the academic majors chosen, at lust frequently change their minds about potential with respectto sex-appropriateoocupational adult life choices. Two characteristios emerges choices ouch as nursing, medical technology, and notions of women% roles are shifting, and res- social work. 51 52 Schwerta's study (1989) of *persists's" and their husbands should help with household tasks l'honpersisters" among women whooriginally (Nagely, 1971). planned to go into medical school, although not quantitativeorin any way methodologically Other studies have concluded that women sophisticated,found thatthose who decided with a modern sex role ideology tend to make against attending medical school usually followed nonstereotypic occupational choices. One study other professional careers or went to graduate found that women choosing atypical occupations school, most often in nonftminine fields. 'The hold more liberal(lessstereotypic) attitodes study *hews that the occupations and educational toward women's roles in society (Kerman, 1973). of the parents, the birth position in Hawley (1972) found that women who make non- btitillivanirlyld,and high wheal and college academic stereotypic occupational choices perceive that the performanee did not differ in any way between aignificant men in their lives believe that women those who attended medical school and those who can perform well in businemand professional entered other fields. 'Me women who finally did areaswithoutjeopardizingtheirmarriages, go into medicine had often beoome interested in families, or femininity.Sim also found that being * physician during elementary school or women who chose mathematics or science felt even earlier.However, tne desire to become a that women should be free to compete with MCI doctor intensified during high sehool. Several of in all areas, even male-dominated ones, and they the women said someone in their family, a doctor felt that men thought that women who worked or a nurse, had acted as a role modeLAt the outside the home were more interesting than other extreme, several women went to medical those who did not.Also, women in mathematics school even when their parents were against it. and seismse rejected the notions that men think it more important for a women to be beautiful than Some of the women who decided against intelligent, that men approve of women who me medicine said that they saw the medical profes- feminine wiles to get their way, and that men sion as uninteresting and found science courses want women toflatterthem by appeariN tedious. Others said that they shifted their career helpless. Women who felt free to choose maths- interest when they discovered a more exciting medics or science had a model of femininity that Mild.Finally, several woman changed because :Bowed the widest range of educationaland they feared that the commitment necessary to career choices without violation of sexualidentity become a physician would leave them too little (Hawley, 1972). time and energy for their marriage, children, or any type of personal life (Schwartz, 1969). Rand (1968) found that freshmen women who wanted careers scored significantly higher than freshmen women who wanted to be homemakers As Road (1985) wrote, although the medical on masculine characteristics related to interest, profession has changed, its public image remains potential, achievement, and competencies, but rooted in the past; a physician still projects the that they also scored higher on a numbee of the image of a dedleated man modeled on the general feminine variables. Rand concluded that career- practitioner of "horse and bugge days, on call oriented women seem to have redefined their role night and day, 7 days a week. Few women realize to include behaviors appropriate to both sexes, the flexibility offered by some mecialities as well whilehomemaking-oriented women restrict as the different ways in which one can follow a themselves to the traditional feminine role.It medical career. seems that censer women ere "feminine plus." On the other hand, several other studies Factors Associated with Nonstereotypic have concluded that women who have high occu- pationalaipirationsand enternonstereotypic Occupational Choices of Women careers not only have unusual motivation and In conclusion, there is a high correlation intellmetual ability, but also a certain toughness between a womea's sex rale ideologl and her that enables them to withstand frequent rejection, choice of noutereotypie occupational fields. One discouregement, and subtle or overt punishment study reports that women who are pioneers in for being ambitious and entering the masculine nonstereotypic fields (such as personnel manager, domain (Rani, 1970; Bechtold & Warner, 1971; chemistry, mathematics, biology, medicine, eco- Nelson, 1971; O'Leary & Braun, 1972). nomies, or law) are likely to refuse to give up their careers if their husbands request it and are Similarly, Tangri (1972) found that college reluetant to move for the take of their husbands' seniors whose occupational choiceswere sex professional advanument.Pioneers feel that inappropriate (fields in which women represent their passional aetivittesare at lout as lug than 30 percent of the labor force) charm,- important as these of their husbands and that tensed themselves as unconventional, intellee- 0 3 tual, and deviant from the extreme feminine logical, analytical, and critical thinking).Also, modal.Profestional and professionally oriented dna an cadets at the Coast Guard Amidemy show woman, especially in =stereotypic ompatIons, that significantly more women than men have deecribed themselves as nonconforming,self- fathers who would be classified as upper or upper reliant,flexible,self-directed,highinego middle clam (Safilios-Sothschild et al., 1978). strength, and with a strong need for autonomya profile generally antitheteral to the feminine sex Fox (1974) reported that one structural rolestereotype. Themecharacteristicshelp variable, the percentage of women on the faculty women make nonstereotypic choices by enabling in afferent departments, is extremely important them to wit/stand rejection, purtishment, and in determining whether women make stereotypic social premium to be popular. Furthermore, these or nonstersotypia educational and occupational traitshelpwomentopostponedating and choices.The more women on the faculty of a marriage tmtil they find men who approve of them particular department, the greater the percentage and their career choices. of women who chose to specialixe in that field. However, this was not true when the women were Some studies report that women who choose clearly tokens. When only one woman was on the =stereotypic °mentionsconsistentlycome faculty, her rwesence often &Med es a negative from higher social clan backgrounds and have role modal, since it accentuated the deviance of a highly educated fathers. The same does not hold woman in that field. When there are only one or true for men (Warts, 1967; David, 1971). Another two worlen faculty members, they may act as a study Indicated that higiwa clam women in non- negativerolemodelbecausea numberof stereotypic occupations coma from higher income idiosyncratic factors make them dissatisfied or familiesthathadhighlyeducatedmothers unsuccessful in their careers or their lives (Fox, (Harman, 1973).This study indicated that these 1974). Women faculty members can act as women were higher achieving students, obtained positive role nu...iels only when there are enough better grades in high school and °allege, end ware of them to make this occupational choice appear more theory oriented (they had a propensity for normal to students.

53 5 4 Part II.

Cross-Cultural Patterns of Sex Role Socialization

3 ii 5. SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION PA1TERNS IN SELECTED SOCIETIES

In addition to examining research findings Inaddition,thelongersuch concerningsexrolesocializationpatterns, crises last and the more men available from only a limited number of societies, become involved, the more acute we shall develop a number of relevant hypotheses the worker shortages become in with respect to selected societies that deserve manyvitalpositionsandin special interest.In studying these findings or in occupations that must be filled if formulatinghypothesesconcerningsexrole thesociety is tocontinue socializationpatternsandconsequencesfor functioning. Hence,women woment profaulonal roles,itis important to usually are increasingly allowed delineate the core factors that might bring about to fill them. changes in sex role socialization. Let us now examine the types of changes in There is some evidence that the following the status of women, the extent to which they types of major macro-sociological changes can occur as a result of the stimulus factors pre- bring about significant changes in at least some sented, and how these changes are or may be *sputa of the status of woman. linkedtochangesinsexrolesocialization patterns.First, in the U.S.S.R. and the Pastern (1) Major shifts in political ideol- European nations, all indications (and considerable ogies that entail social equality evidenceis available)show that womenis as a basic principle and that educational and occuprtional options gonad over specificallyspelloutequality a much wider range than in most other societies between men and women.The (Finland is en outstanding exception)(MAIM Marxist and the Maoist 1966; Safillos-Rothschild, 1971; Sullerot,1971; sociopolitical ideologies are Barker, 1972). However, there is also a consensus outstanding examples that are that the widening of woments educational and interpretedandimplemented occupational options is not related to women's differently in the U.S.S.R., the greater chances for occupational upward mobility, various Eastern European especially to top, prestlzious, power-vested, or nations, as well as Cuba and deeisionmakingpositions(Sokolowskal 1965; China. Barker, 1972; Alzon, 1973). In addition, there has been no redefinition of ment and women's roles in (2) Major ideological changes the family and the society, and so woman, even expressed through some kind of a when they work in the same occupations as their social movement, such as the husbands, have the responsibility for housework Women's Liberation Movement in and childcare (Barker, 1972; Akan, 1973; Safillos- the United States or the ux role Rothschild, 1974).In fact, Russian women spend, debate in Scandinavian nations. after work, an average 2i to 4 hours per day in housework and childcare and 5 hours an Sunday; (3) Crises, especially those creating they week at home three times as muoh as their worker shortages, such as wars, husbands, who enjoy twice as much leisure time as nationalist revolutions, their wives (Barker, 1972; Alton, 1973). Actually, and guerrilla warfare (Lipman- for some oategoriu of women (uuch as night-shift /Rumen, 1973),With the excep- workers) sleep becomes the rarest commodity tions of wars, women are usually (Barker, 1972), and physical exhaustion is reported allowed to actively participate in to plague all women. nationalist ueriaings, revolutions, and guerrilla warfare, evecially when the risks are quite high and Paper presented at the American Educational everyone willing to fight and die Research Association Annual Meeting, represents a makable resource. Washington, D.C., April 2, 1975.

57 Althoughthere are no specific research thisequal emphasis on redefining men's and studies on sax role socialization in the U.S.S.R. or women's roles and on eradicating Internalized sex any of the Eastern European nations, it is possible rolestereotypesthatact as psychological to hypothesizeaboutchildren%socialization barriers, efforts have been made to break down massages. Children in these societies are exposed the a.pcial structural, as well as the psychological, to sex stratification systems different from the internalized barriers to @ex equality. Thus, some one prevailinginthe United States. While social policy, legislation, and social pressure hat American children perceive that within each class aimed at diminishing the degree of sex differen- thereisa sustratificationsystem, the tiation in boys' and girls' socialisation experiences differences between men's and women% individual in school, in readings, in media, etc. Such efforts (and not derived2) access to income, prestige, and have been more systematic and long-lasting in power become wider in the middle and upper Sweden, where eines 1982 girls and boys have been middle classes. Children in the U.S.S.R. and required to take the same courses in elementary Eastern European societies probably perceive a school, so that boys study cooking, sewing, and more uniform picture of a meshed social and sex childcare and girls take manual handicrafts and stratification system Women occupy sizable other "masculine" subjects (Linner, 1971).Ele- portions of the lower and lower middle strata, mentary school textbooks free of sexism were while men overwhelmingly dominate the higher already available and being used in the late strata. sixties.In addition, legislative changes, such as the normalization of part-time work for men and How does the significant breakdown of sex women, the transformation of maternity leave differentiationin educational and occupational into paid 6-month parental leave that can be choicesaffect boys' and girls, sex role taken in any portion by fathers or mothers, and conceptions? And in the absence of masculine and the availability of 21 days of paid leave per year feminine occupations, to what do boys and girls to fathers and mothers to enable them to stay attribute the perceived social inequalities based home and take care of sick children, have all on sex? How do boys and girls evaluate men and contributed to partial redefinition of Swedish women when they are socialized by mothers who men's andwomen's roles (Safillos-Rothschild, not only are equal to their fathers in terms of 1974). As early as 1969, 11 percent of fathers in occupation and knowledge, but also make their Gothenburg stayed home to take care of a sick lives comfortable and provide for all their needs? child; 72 percent of the Swedish husbands shared th self-esteemof women in these societies theresponsibility of "wuhing up" with their much higher than that of American women? And wives, 66 percent helped with cooking, and 63 do men evaluate men and women equally?Much percent helped with cleaning (Women in Sweden in exciting research awaits to be carried out in this the Light of Statistics, 1971). area.

Second, several societies have been affected In view of the above changes in at leut by organized ideologies directly aimed at changing some of the school socialization experiences of the status of women, either expressed through boys and girls and in the role models provided by social movements, such as in the United States, mothers and fathers with regard to division of England,Holland,Canada, andAustralia,or labor and responsibWty in the family, it could be through milder discussions leading to social policy, espected that young Swedish children wou: have such as the sex role debate in the Scandinavian fewer sex role stereotypes then older children, countries. A distinctivefeatureofthese who have been less affected by recent changes. ideologies, loosely referred to as the women's However, a study conducted in 1969 in Uppsala liberation ideology, has been the goals of widening reported that boys and girls ages 5, 8, 11, and 15 women's educational and occupational options, were equally aware of and influenced by sex role equalizing woment access to, and treatment in, stereotypes, whereas girls were aware earlier and education and employment, redefining the roles of to a greater extent than boys (Dahl,1969). men and women, and changing woman/woman and Anothes mut study showed that despite many man/woman interpersonal relations.Because of structural changes, mothers still hold a double standard in their expectations of boys and girls. They tend to be much mor tolerant ofboys' rulabreaking anddeviant behavior, while they It must be clarified hare that we are consistently expectgirlsto conform to rules and social talking about women% individuallyachieved conventions much more than boys (Some Data on position in stratification systems rather than the Sox Role Socializationin Sweden, 1975). position in which they may be classified on the Interestingly, the father's role was confined to basisoftheir derived status throughtheir playing with children, consoling them, and taking husband's achievements. care of them in the night.

37 Thus, it seems that even whin structural process involved permanent structural chews changes directly affect sex rola socialization that persisted and evolved after the end of the patterns,thesocializationoutcomeisnot crises.Thus, beginning with 1950, when national immediately modified and the extent of sex role statistics again became available, birth rates stereotyping is not reduced. Most probably, when drastically declined; they continued to decline the Swedish children who are now 5 to 10 years slowly but steadily throughout the fifties and old have children, a greater variety of structural sixties. Theratecfilliteracydecreased changes in this area will have come about; the sex drastically; women increasingly entered masculine rolesocialisationpatternsmaybemore occupation;abortion,althoughillegal,was profoundly affected and the socialization outcome practiced widely, safely, and at a low cost by all more markedly different. reputable physicians; and the practice of "surgical virginity" indicated that premarital sex had spread Third, Lipman-Blumen's research on to rural and traditional urban girls who ware still societies which have undergone wars as crises concernedaboutmaintainingthefacadeof involving worker sheetages shows that severel virginity (Safillos-Rothschild, 1969). societies have a dedifferentiation process that allows women a greater range of occupational and Mthoughallthesechangesarewell pulitical options. This higher degree of women's documented and can be attributed to the long- participation in employment, occupations, and termdedifferentiationprocessesduringthe politics during wars tends to diminish after the decade of crises, itis difficult to assess how crisis is owe, but the levaling-off point le usually directly they are related to changes in sex role higher than It was before the onset of the crisis socializationpatterns. One clear-cut direct (Lipman-Blumen, 1973).The available data from linkage can be found in the decreased birth rate, Greece egree with Lipman-Blument data from the which resulted in a considerable number of one- United States and England. girl or two-girl families, especially in the middle and upper middle classes in Athens and the urban Before 1939, Greece was a traditional, rural areas (in which the average numter of children is Mediterraneansocietyresembling the Middle 1.2).In one-girl families, the girl is socialized to Eastern and North African Arab societies in its highachievementthroughherparents'high social structure as well as its prevailing values educational and occupational expectations as well and attitudes, especially those pertaining to the as through continuous encouragement and support. dominant cultural value of honor. The status of These girls are expected to carry the family name women was quite low in all respectsiilliteracy (which they literally do by means of hyphenated rates for women were high; paid employment was names after marriage) and are socialized without rare;birth rates were high; women had no much regard to sex role stereotypes, at least in politicalrights; and the honor code was so thearea of achievement (Safillos-Rothschild, restrictive that women were altogether deprived 1972).Not only are they free, but they are also of freedom, including even physical mobility encouraged to enter high-prestige and high-paying unless in the oompeny of older women or their occupations that will assure them a higher social husbands, fathers, or brothers. From 1939 through position.However, there is no information on 1949 an =interrupted chain of crises took place in whether their freedom from sex role stereotypes Greece: the Italian war; the Italian and then the in this area is accompanied by similar freedom German oocupation, with the concurrent under- from sex role stereotypes hi other life sectors. pound guerrilla warfare; the Communist uprising right after the end of the Second World War; and Ontheother hand, some socialization the ensuing long civil war up to 1949. experiences of Greek girls that cannot be attributed to the decade of crises are of crucial Throughout this decade, women played an importance for the development of high self- increasingly active role in fighting, particularly in esteem and the freedom to achieve and grow the underground guerrilla warfare and the civil without concern for whether their choices will war,bothextremelyriskyanduneertain make them popular with boys. The play patterns activities.In this decode of crisis, during which of urban middle and upper middle class girls women ware squally involved with men in secret between the ages of 8 and 13 or 14 reveal the minimal= aad guerrilla warfare groups and castanet of same-sex, well-organized groups that ware silting their lives as frequently, they and meet regularly in a park or a street to play a others not directly involved wars increasingly variety of competitive games with a similar group allowed to =roll ia masculine flakis, to take of girls. Winning In these games carries individual positions never before open to women, and to and collectiveprestige and may lead to a enjoy more freedom, including more sexual free- leadershippositionwithinthe group; hence, dom.Probably dire to the extended duration of competitionisusuallyfierce. The important the accumulated aims, the dedifferentiation features of these play groups are that (1) girls are

59 for competitive and aggressive in fighting forprestige insteadof"playingdumb"inexchange and leadership; (2) duringthese years girls are popularity. totally uninterested in boys, whomthey find the It is interesting to note that an Indianstudy boring and nuisanee,thusresembling club adolescent psychology of American boysvis-a-vis of the friendship patterns and the social girls; and (3) they have high esteemfor the participation of adolescent boys andgirlsin winners and theleaders,andthisprobably Calcutta shows that boys, in general, and upper facilitates the development of highself-esteem, middle class girls participate more often in social and well clubs than in dyadic friendships.Social clubs in especially in girls who are successful that liked in the all-girl group. India serve about the same social functions the structured games and parea describedabove serve for Greek boys andgirlstuis, it was found This play stage is followed by a stageduring girls in boys, not that the Indian boys and upper middle class which girls slowly become interested who join the social clubs and Interact withinthis romantically but as companions with whom to go context with youngsters of their own age are out socially. This social outing doesnot, however, socialized into competitive and coordinated group take the form of dyadic dating.instead, a parea action aswell as into leadership.Itisnot is formed, that is, a grow; of boys andgirls who do girls movies, the surprising, therefore, that the proportion of things together, like going to parties, "whoenteroccupations,particularlythose theater, and so on.There is no pairing between requiring universalistic and achievement-oriented individual boys and girls, and in fact suchpairing dispositions, appears to be related directly to is strictly tabooed. If it were to occur, thecouple participation in age groups" rather than in dyadic would be teased and laughed at andforced to friendships (Beech, 1972). withdraw from the parea.Thb type of group friendship persists through high school and goes on Much more cross-cultural research is needed throughout college, although the compositionof a on the various play activities aswell as the paret may ehange, or 'Nsindividual may shift variety of avenues for social contacts between from one parea to another.The existence of a boys andgirlsoutside of dating andtheir msa in these girls' lives from thetime they are consequences for girls' ability to achieveand to 15-br 16 years old is of great significancesince it makemarital,educational,andoccupational provides them with a variety of frienedyand choices. congenial boys to dance with, to talk with, totry out thoughts on, or to go outwithof course, Finally, let us consider the case of societies always in a group with other girls. The boys inthe in which no ideological, political, orstructural ea provide them with acceptanceand security, factors have stimulated changes in the status of prevents them from competing withother womensoeieties characterized by a more or less girls for a boy's attention; instead, theyshare with rigid social stratification system.Most of the other girls a number of boys.Thus, they do not Arab societies fallinthis category, with the have to mold their personalities toplease and possible exeeption of Tunisia, where some changes flatter the boys; on the contrary, boys andgirls were introduced by the Governmentduring the have a chance within the context of the pareato last decade. get to know each other and accepteach other as they are. Because they get to know and like each In these societies, women's social inferiority other, occasionally a boy and girlwho have is considered "natural" andinescapable, and a belonged to the same pares for many years start rigidsexstratification systemis based upon dating each other in thehearly 20% butalways religious and moral ideologies aswell as "natural outside the context of the ms. laws." inthissocietalcontext,sexrole socialization practices and processes openlyand clearly teach boys that they are thedominant, Itcan be hypothesized that theGreek to institution of mga allows a girl to achievehighly important people and teach girls subjugation aresex men. There are no ambiguities about who inschool (the highschools occupies what position in this sexstratification segregated) without feeling anxious that she may The message passed on to girls is also ba leas popular among boys and enjoyless social system. life because of her scholastic success. Fun, clearsThere is no way to escape or to rebel life against the system; they are entirelypowerless. association with interesting boys, and social inferior are guaranteed through the paearegardless of Girls are effectively socialized into the As a role by observing their mothers cry andtheir the girl% intelligence or scholiiiarsuccess. fathers beeome angry at their mothers forhaving matter of fact, intelligent girls usually have a borne a girl instead of a boy. They arebossed by higher statue in a mi_a than less intelligent ones. age) and even Thus,girlsare encouraged todeveleotheir their brothers (regardless of their intelligenee and knowledge in order to be admired beaten by them without parentalinterference.

tia 9 c".

They are unequally treated with regard to food; presented in this chapter will stimulate extensive the bed is given to boys, and when there is not research in different types of societies. enough, girls ars the ones left hungry. They (swot but note that all women around them have (1) Egalitarian ideologies super- to obey men, are afraid of men, and art often imposedbythestatemay mistreated by men. In addition, girls are clearly increue the range of women's and openly told that they me not important sines educational and occigaticnal they are gall girls and that they cannot do many options but can have little effect things became they we girls. on sax role socialization and the degree of sex stereotyping. Sex Became the sex role socialization practices rola pocialization processes and and psvcesses are so clear and powerful, moat thedefinitionofmen's and girls accept their inferior poaltion and do not women's roles ars hypothesized cisallenge msn's domination. Therefore, while to be effected more by sex role there is blatant institutional six discrimination, ideologies exprened associal we can hypothesize that the varied types of movements,althoughtangible indirect, informal, and disguised sex changes may require two or discrimination practiced in the United States and three generations. Scandinavian societies do not exist in Arabian societies because, in fact, there is no need for (2) Same-sex play groups that them. In the absence of informal sex discrimina- provide girls with competitive tion,it may be hypothesized that girls who experiences as well as acceptanos managetoescapetheoppressivesaxrole andprestigefor winning socialiutioncanachievehighlywithfew and/or mixed-sex obstacles in their way, especiallysince friendship limns (in adolescence institutional barriers in developing societies can and early adulthood) that replace be lifted on the basis of particularistic criteria. dating, singly or in combination, Thera I. actually evidence that upper and upper are hypothesized to enable girls middle class girls escape the oppressive sex role to develop intellectually and to socialization because their highsocial status achieve highly without fear of makes them valuable people. The ume holds true loss of femininity and popularity. for exceptionally intelligent or otherwise gifted (3) In societies with formalized, girls from other social glance who often come to institutionalized patterns of sex be recognized as such by their parents and role socialization and sex teachers. Research, however,isneeded to discrimination, there is no need indicate by what mechanisms and dynamics these far informal, indirect, and girls escape the oppressive sax role socialiration disguised sex discrimination. and whit aspects of this socialisation they may Consequently, thosegirls who not be able to escape. manage to escape the sax role constraints transmitted thsvugh evident that there is a great research socialization can achieve highly gap in ths area of croes-cultural studies of sax and occupy important positions rolesocialization. Hopefully,thefollowing by being treated as exceptional hypotheses wound which same evidrecewas cases.

el 60 Part M.

Sex Disaimination

61 6. SEX DISCRIMINATION IN PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher's Gender: Who Discriminates boys are independent, energetic, Against Whom? and assertive. Ws chapterexaminesthehypotheses, Girls are more likely than boys theories, and amumptions about the effects of the to be rewarded and boys are teacher's gender on dfferent aspects of scholastic much more likely than girls to be achievement in boys and girls.This struotural punished in the school environ- element has been singled out quite often because ment. of great concern with the lower rate of icholastic achievement in boys than in girls, especially at Boys are much more frustrated the elementary school level.At that level, boys than girls and consequently en- generally receive poorer grades than girls (Carter, gage in more aggremive behavior 1952; Maecoby, 1988; Lester et al, 1972); repeat than girls. classes more often (Wall et al., 1987)1 ors more often problems in terms of both behavier and It is srgued that in the United Stetu the achievement (Berlin,1969;Kinsbourne,1962; atmosphere in school is feminine because of the Caplan & Yinibourne, 1974); more lower on overwhelming presence of female teachers and scholuticachievementtestsofarithmetic, feminine values. Most investigators tend to reading, and verbal ability (Gates, 1981; Loughlin emaciate feminine values with female teachers et aL, 1985); and tend to be punished for disrup- and do not examine to what extent values con- tive behavior more often (Brophy & Good, 1970; ducive to the smooth running of any institution Jackson & Labaderne, 1967).interestingly, boys' con be considered feminine in light of sea role poodle scholastic achievement at the elementary stereotypes.Actually, this contention receives school level I. blamed on the teachers rather than considerable support from research which found on the boys.Would as much concern have been thst student teachers prefer students described as expressed and research done if girls had been the dependent, passive, and acquiescent and react lass poor performers, or would their poorer per- favorably to students portrayed as independent, fcrmances have been attributed to biological assertive,andactive(Feshbach,1989). Of infericrity? interest I the fact that both male and female teachers assigned the highest mean preference One model proposed to explain sex dif- ratings to conformist, rigid girls and the lowest ferences in scholastic achievement at the ele- ratings to independent girls.Good and Grouwns mentary and high school levels can be called the Urn) found that teachers preferred eooperative, netainine model, because it conceptualizes the permit,* students to flexible, nonconforming stu- school wvironment as "feminine as perceived by dents. Despite evidence indicatingthat the boys sad girls(Sexton,1970;Peltier,1988; tendenciesofteacherstoelicitfeminine (amble & Wart*, 1988; Lacksley, 1974).The behaviors from both boys and girls (perhaps to model's basic argument iss make the teacher's life easier) dspend on the type of elementary school or high school, some investi- The structure of opportuaities gators maintain that elementary schoolsare and demands in school is such "feminized," that female teachers are primarily that rewards are most often responsible for this feminization, and that this sex achieved by verbal, compliant, imbalance is detrimental to young schoolchildren, and introspective individuals and particularly to boys. that punishment is received primarily by tadepoodent,sose- Another reason for concern with the pre- getk, and assertive individuals. dominance of woman as teachers at the elementary level has bean the fact that many In general, girls are verbal, com- children eithar have no father or have fathers who pliant, and introspective,and are absent for short or long periods due to

85 62 divorce,remarriage,and/or workpatterns Triplett (1968) assigned kindergarten and (Vroegh, 1973; Lee & Wolinsky, 1973). In general, first grade children to either ail-male sections father absence and lack of father participation in taught by male teachers or coeducational sections thildrearing have been found to lead to lower taught by female teachers. Although boys in both academic achievement in both boys and girls groups had the same scholastic achievement, boys (Blanchard & Biller, 1971; Deutsch & &own, 1964; in the all-male group scored higher on tests of Hetherington & Deur, 1971). More specifically, a self-esteem and attitudes toward teachers and relationshiphas been found betweenfather school.Unfortunately, this study confounded the absence and deficitsin appropriate sex role sox of the teachers with sex-grouping procedures. Identity development in boys and girls.In turn, As Lee and Wolinsky (1973) pointed out, one does deficits in sex role development have been found not know if the male teacher, or the male peers, to be related to academic achievement problems orthe combination enhancedtheattitudinal (Anastasiow, 1985; Ferguson & Maccoby, 1966; growth of the boys in the all-male group. Shaw & White, 1985). No matter what theory of sax role identity development one adheres to, the A study of 49 classrooms conducted by father seems to be an important teeter.Theo- Clapp (1967) showed that the 19 male teachers retically, then, a father substitute in the form of were not more successful than the 30 female a male teacher in the elementary clueroom would teachers in producing high reading achievement promote the development of appropriate identity among different groups of fifth grade boys. Asher inboysandgirls,particularlythosewho and Gottman (1972) found that fifth grade boys experience a great deal oi father absence. Energy taught by male teachers did not show improved that had been spent solving identity problems reading actdtwement over fifth grade boys taught could then be direeted toward achieving in the by female teachers in either of the 2 academic clam:own (Vr 0eght 1973). years studied.Forslund and Hull (1972) studied the sixth grade classrooms of 47 male and 48 Severalstudies, some of whichare female teachers and found that boys identified methodologically quite sophisticated, have tested more withmaleteachersthan with female the effect of the teaeher's sex upon the scholastic teachers, and both boys and girls perceived male achievement of children, particularly of boys. teachers as more rewarding than female teachers. However, a serious methodological flaw in many However, there was no significant difference in of these studies has been their predominant focus students' achievement under male and female on the scholastic achievement of boys and girls, teachers. that is, upon outcome rather than process. A better strategy would be to focus on behavioral Lshaderne and Cohen (1972) studied 53 processes, that is, on differentials in male and classrooms to determine the effects of 14 male female teachers' treatment of boys and girls, and and 39 female fifth grade teachers on a variety of then to examine selective outcomes which bear a measures. Most of the msasures showed no logical relationship to the behavioral differences teacher by sex effect; those that did show an between male andfemaleteachers(Lee & effect generally favored the female teachers.In Wolinsky, 1973). particular, boys and girls taught by females had higher science achievement scores end more The following studies have foeused primarily positive attitudes toward school than students on outcome. McFarland (1969) assigned first taught ay males. grade children to one of two classes.The first class combined a stpervising female teacher with Brophy and Lsosa (1971) compared a kinder- 28 male college Juniors as student teachers, garten taught by a husband and wife team with sequentially scheduled over the school year; the another taught by a female teacher. The kinder- second class had a female supervisor and a female garten taught exclusively by the female teacher teacher. McFarland found that the class with the provided the typical feminizing environment con- female toacher and female supervisce performed sisting largely of materials appropriate for socio- significantly better on arithmetic than the elan dramatic play and for arts and (traits. The other with the male student teachers; both classes made kindergarten, taught by the husband and wife approximately the same gabs on tests of reading, team, provided a very different environment.In personality, and sea role identification. The flaw addition to the usual supplies, it featured equip- in this study was that the only constant and ment for large-muscle activity, such as ropes and experienced adult in the male student teacher rope ladders, an obstacle course, a fort, a work- group was the female supervising teacher.'Me bench equippedwithtools,and many other male teachers were part-time, transient, inexperi- masculine-oriented items.The husband and wife encedapprentices who probablyplayed a splitteaching duties more or lea randomly, secondary rolein the group (Lee & Wolinsky, except that the husband regularly read aloud to 1978). the children, in a deliberate attempt to associate reading with the masculine role.A total of 14 father's presence or absence did not have any boys and 20 girls in the team-taught kindergarten effect an performance (Vroegh, 1973). The author and 19 boys and 25 girls in the female-taught recognized that there are some limitations to the kindergarten were studied in the first year. In the study's conclusions.First, father presence was second year, the numbers of students were 20 and represented on a continuum rather than as a 21, and 20 and 28, respectively.Despite the dichotomy of father absence or presence. Second, conscious efforts of the male teacher, his pre- the generality of the conclusion is limited to the sence did not affect either the boys cr the girls to effects on children from a higher socioeconomic any significant degree. There were no significant stratum, since 75 percent of the fathers had effects on measures of sex role differentiation, occupations that were predominantly classified as interests,ormotivation. Childrentaught professional, technical, managerial, or proprie- exclusively by the female teacher made slightly tary, that Is, occupations involving considerable greater gains in verbal skills, and children in the absence as a normal part of the fathers' work other class made slightly greater gains in spatial obligations.Third, the study was conducted on abilities.These minor differences were probably the basis of only 1 years intervention by a male due to differences in equipment and curriculum teacher, probably too short a time for possible rather than to the presence of the male teacher. benefits to be evident (Vroegh, 1973). Attempts to anociate reading with the male role failed; at the end of the year, the children in both Vroegh (1973) questioned whether specific classes associated books and reading with the qualities of the male teacher, in addition to his female role. gender, might constitute an important factor in determining his effectiveness as a father sub- Carter (1952) investigated grading differ- stitute.Sexton (1969) also stated that not just enees in six beginning algebra classes, three of any male will do as the appropriate model for a which were taught by women and three by men. teacher; he proposed that strong, vigorois males 'The teachers were well matched in terms of certi- are required.Good et al. (1973) questioned, but fication, experience, and training.He found no ultimately dismissed, the potential advantages of significant differences in mental ability among masculine teachers for the scholastic performance the groups. There were no significant differences of boys.Of interest in this context is the fact in tested algebra achievement,either within that the image of male grade school teachers has groups or among them (i.e., girls versus boys or been anything but masculine. An article by female teachers versus male teachers).Althoiiibh Siedenkapp and Goering (1971) attemptedto there were no measurable ability or achievement enhance the image of male grade school teachers differences, a look at students' algebra grades by presenting six male teachers who had starred in indicated that female teachers gave significantly competitivesports,especiallyinfootballor higher grades than male teachers, that girls were baseball. The same studyfoundthatmen awarded significantly higher grades than boys, and employed as elementary school teachers, adminis- that girls' grades were significantly higher "an trators, or stpervisors had the same masculinity- boys' regardless of the sex of the teacher. femininity scores (as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Slunk and by an original test In conclusion, all studies that have tried to for personal characteristics) as high school social relate the sex of the teacher to outcome variables scienceteachers. Also,elementaryschool such as student reading ability or achievement administrators were more masculine than the based on some kind of scholastic test have failed lower grade and musid teachers, but fifth and to show any significant relationship. The studies sixth grade teachers received nearly the same showed that sex differences in scholastic outcome scores as the administrators.The merit of high persist whether the teacher is male or female. masculinity for male teachers is questionable, and the above findings are not convincing as to the Vroegh (1973) considered the effect of male "masculinity" of teachers. teachers upon boys' academic achievement and upondifferenttypesoffather presence or We will now focus on studies that examined absence.The author hypothesized that a male processes and outcomesstudies that determined teacher supplements or substitutes for the male whether there were behavioral differentials in the model for boys whose fathers are totally absent or treatment of boys and girls by male and female not frequently available.The study, conducted teachers and what their effects were on boys' and with 416 white fourth and fifth grade boys and girls' achievement. Carter (1952) concluded that girls in the classrooms of 14 male and 14 female maleteachershadthesametendencyto teachers, does not support the popular claim that downgrade boys as female teachers, but that it the vademie problems of boys in the elementary was much less pronounced.Lee and Wolinsky schools are in large part due to the leek of male (1973), in one of the best studies in this area, teachers in the classroom.The extent of the conducted a projset in 18 classrooms; 6 had two 6/

alt female teachers, 6 had a male and a female women take advantage of the leadership responsi- teacher, and 8 were taught by three teams, each bility they are assigned by their teachers, at least consisting of a male and a female head teacher. in the early grades? Do female teachers continue The 18 classes ranged from preschool through to assign leadership roles to girls throughout high second grade.For the interview section of the school? study, which had a totel sample of 72 children, 3 boys and 3 girls were randomly selected from each Male and female teachers were equally of the 12 classrooms that had both a male and a inclined to relate to children in groups. Male female teacher. Each teacher and auistant teachers almost always responded to groups which teacher in the sample was observed for a total of the children spontaneously formed, but seldom 2 hours, and each child was individually inter- initiated groups.Female teachers, on the other viewed for approximately 5 minutes by a female hand, initiated groups about as often as they graduate student. responded to them.Female teachers initiated groups about three times as often asmale Lee and Wolinsky (1973) found that female teachers; male teachers were about twice as teachers gave almost twice as many sanctions as responsive to groups as female teachers.More- male teachers; thus, female teachers seemed to over, male teachers were more inclined than be more evaluative in their approach to children female teachers to relate to same-sex groups. than male teachers. However, the ratio oi Thus, either male teachers approached same-sex approval to disapproval was approximately the groups morethanfemaleteachers ormale same for male and female teachers. Boys teachers encouraged, intentionally or otherwise, resolved about twice as many sanctions as girls; same-sax grouping in their classrooms. that is, boys were subject to more evaluation than girls. There was a marginally significant relation- Male teachers related equally to male- and ship between sex of child and type of sanction. neuter-type activities; female teachers related to Although boys received slightly more approval neuter-type activities. There was a startling than girls, they received about 21 times u much tendency for teachers, regardless of their sex, not disapprovaLIn other words, girls' behavior was to become involved in female-type activities. approved more often than disapproved, but the reverse held for boys. Female teachers appeared to have more salience for the children, but when boys were Male teachers were found to be four times asked which teacher they preferred, they made a more evaluative toward boys than toward girls, significant shift toward the male teacher; girls and female teachers were slightly more evaluative expressed an equal preferenceformale and toward boys.Male and female teachers were femaleteachers. The majority of students equally disapproving of boys.But male teachers thought that their teachers liked them, and there were very approving of boys, and female teachers was a distinct tendency for both boys and girls to were slightly more approving of girls.Female think that their male teachers liked them better teachers, however, were inclined to be more than their female teachers, indicatinran inter- ving of boys than of girls; the reverse held actionbetweensexofteacherandpupil tcitael3For:approvals. perception of positive feelings. Only 20 percent of the female teachers' The students were asked two questions about sanctions included physical contact, and it was whether they thought their teachers preferred equally distributed between boys and girls. On the boys or girls.In the abstract, children of both other hand, male teachers used physical contact sexes saw female teachers as preferring girls and 30 percent of the time, and it was all directed at male teachers ashaving no sex preference. boys.It would seem that, in addition to being However, when they were asked to name their relativelynonevaluativetowardgirls,male teachers' favorite student (I.e., when asked to toachers were physically reserved with them. think in ooncrete terms), a very different pattern emerged. Boys reported that their male teachers Female teachers made about 50 percent strongly preferred boys and attributed neutrality more leadership assignments than male teachers. to their female teachers.Girls maintained that There was also a significant tendency for teachers both male and female teachers preferred girls. to assign leadership positions to pupils of their own sex. These data indicate that male teachers Sikes (1971) compered the behavior of male provide boys with much more leadership experi- and female teachers toward male and female ence than female teachers. Considering that most students in comparable situations. Eight male and teachers are women, it is perplexing that girls do eight female student teachers were observed not become leaders later on, since they receive an interacting with junior high school students. Boys early start in leadership training. Why don't were more active in the classroom and received

68 more teacher criticism, but they also had more of ing that only dependent boys are inclined to all other kinds of contacts with teachers, includ- imitate female teachers. ing positive ones. Thus, the students' sex clearly made a difference. However, only 1of 62 Madsen (1966) investigated the modeling measures of interaction between tuther's sax and value of male teachers for nursery school child- student's sex was considered statistically signi- ren. He found that young boys imitated the ficant: female teachers were more likely to seek aggressive behavior of familiar male teachers out boys than girls for work-related aontacts, pre- significantly more than girls did. He also found sumebly to check their work and give help if that girls ware instigated to more nonimitative nue:eery.Other than this one significant dif- aggresion than boys; that is, girls translated their ference, which suggests that female teachers deal aggressive actions into more feminine forms. with male students batter than male teachers do, Insteadofpunching,hitting, and throwing a the findings overwhelmingly demonstrate that "Bobo" doll, they pushed, batted, slapped, pinched, male teachers have precisely the same patterns of and squashed it.Apparently children in this age interaction with male and female students as rangehavealreadybeensocializedtoan female teachers.Male teachers do not seem to awareneas that oppoeite-sex teachersare display greater sympathy or favoritism toward generilly inappropriate models (Madsen, 1969). boys.The overall results strongly Indicate that, Where institutional constraints permitted (as in at least at the elementary school level, sex dif- the earlygrades,when constraintsars len ferences in scholastic achievement and sex dif- powerful), both teachers and children seemed to ferences in student behaviors in schools with only be locked into sex-typed behavioral patterns. femaleteacherscannotbeattributed toa That is,teachers appeared to bias classroom tendency of these teachers to favor girls over conditions toward children of the same sex, and boys (Brophy & Good, 1970). children seemed to imitete teachers of the same sex (Lee, 1973). A similar conclusion was reached by Lee Although some evidence exists that male (1973), who claimed that the more severe the teachers, at least in the very early grades and at institutional constraints on teacher behavior, the the preschool level, may create a classroom less manifest are sex role constraints. When atmosphere that is more conducive to boys (in institutional constraints are less powerful, as in that it has more masculine elements and allows the early grades, there appears to be an inter- more expressionofatgression),noresearch action between sax of teacher and sex of child. evidence indicates that these aspects, or the fact This interaction is manifested by the child through that male teachers tend to give more leadership her/his selective display of imitative behavior to boys and to evaluate them more than female (Lee, 1973).Therefore, it seems that the sex of the teacher isa more significant operational teachers, are linked to any differential impact on aspect of classroom ecology in the earliest grades outcomes. and that the introduction of male teachees into Although the literature on male and female the elementary school would have the greatest teachers' impact on students has assumed that impact an these grades.When they maks a dif- school, as currently structured, may be dysfunc- ference, male teachers seem to create a clue- tional for young boys or incompatible with their room atmosphere more congenial to young boys "nature," very little concern hu been focused on than female teachers do.In other words, male the possible dysfunctional effects school may have teachers tend to reinforce boys' earlier sax role on girls.Since most teachers are female and the socialization experiences and encourage boys' school norms and rulesfollowed by teachers masculine sex role indoctrination, which, school is compatible with the feminine socializa- according to the present goals of Title DEin tion of girls and that girls have an easy time in education, is undesirable because it tends to limit school, like school, do well, and are approved and boys' range of choices. rewarded within the schoolenvironment. Recently, however, a few authors have postulated Another set of studies was concerned with that the better a girl tends to be as a student in the effect of the sex of the teacher on the imita- elementary and high school and the more she tive behavice of children.The main hypothesis complies with the teachers' demands in order to was that children are inclined to imitate only be rewarded and approved, the more she becomes tuchers of the same sex. Portugas and Feshbach locked into her sex role and socialized to habitual (1972) found that third and fourth grade girls modes of behaving that ars essentially inoom- imitated filmed female teacher models signif- patiblewithautonomy,independence,and icantly more than boys did.They also found a ansertivenesqualities amociated with compe- significant positive correlation between depend- tent and effective adult functioning (Lee, 1973; ency and imitation in middle-clue boys, suggest- Sadicor & Sadker, 1972; Grambe & Waetjen, 1966).

fi It other words, as Lee (1973) pointed out, boys run groups. Girls in all-girl climes were less task short-term danger because they do not aceept oriented than those in mixed-su groups, but this the teacher's oopression and therefore will not pettern can be accounted for by statistically satisfy her, but girls run a loreg-term danger significant differences in the lecturing style of became the teacher is generally too succesaful in teachers in the all-boy or all-girl groups versus maldng them aocept theiroppression in the the mixed-sex groups.Teachers lectured and e choolan environment that *mourns, children dominated the all-boy climes to a significant to adoptasaicrocriate behavior a paesive extent; they did this less frequently with the approach to turning. Teachers thus contribute to control (mixed-sex) clams, and least of all with the 4oversociallution" of girls that was begun by the all-girl groups.Pupil classroom behavior was their parents and that is seriously dysfunctional consistent with this trend.The all-girl eiltallS for their long-range development. spent a smaller percentage of their time in task performanee roles than did the corresponding Boys, on the other hand, manage not to mixed-sex control groups. Also, there was a devalue themselves, even when they do not significant and noticeable trend for girls in the aehieve in school; instead, they blame the teacher all-girlclawstoprefer=classroomor and the school for their academic failure and seek nonacademic activities at the end of the experi- alternativeavenuesofachievement(sports, ment.This was interpreted to mean that these games) togainself-confidence. They are girls missed the ocotact with boys at an age when supported in this tendency by other growth insti- dating becomes salient (Fisher & Waetjen, 1966). tutioss in our society that promote assertiveneas, But a more plausible explanation may be that activity, initiative, and a drive toward mastery those in all-girl clams received leap teaching and for boys, that is, behaviors which are strongly lessinterestfromteachers. Iftrue,this associated with effeetive learning. Also, boys highlights the discriminatory dangers of =- often make accommodations with schools; that is, segregated education. they develop a tolerance for punishment (it can baeome a bodge of masculinity).They learn in ESL and Peterson (1971) studied junior high spite oftheinstitution, and ultimately they school students. The students were placed in exploit official institutions of learning for certi- same-sex classes, butthisseparation was fication purposes (high school diplomas, college inadequate, since the students wore in a same-sex degrees).Thus, the LIMO should be not whether class for only five-sixths of the school day (in teachers are male cr female, but what negative classes sueh as science,mathematics, social effects the feminine norms of educational institu- studies,English, physical education, and home tions have upon girls. economics). Every clay, students spent an hour or more in mixed-sex classes, a fact that may have greatly contaminated ths findings and diminished Sex Composition of the Classroom the validity of the study. The nature of the design raises questions as to the validity of the finding Considerable ccacern has been expressed that sex segregation does not make any difference about evidence indicatim that girls mature earlier in the academie achievement, self-discipline, self- than boys, which implies (sie some authres claim) concept, sexroleidentification,orattitudes that boys probably do not catch up with girls, in toward school of boys or girls. terms of intellectual maturity, until late in high school or cannel.Several educators and social Experiments of the same type conducted in scientists have hypothesised that boys° poorer earlier grades showed that same-sex or mixed-sex performance in elementary school is due to their groupings made a difference.In one experiment, having to compete with the more mature girls. children in grades one tothreewereseparated They postulate that this competition considerably into all-male and mixed-sex classes; boys in sli- handicaps and frustrates boys, resulting in low mes classes emaciated reading-related items scholasticachievement. Becauseofthese with males more than boys incoeducational concerns, several experiments have been under- classes (McCracken, 1973). The strongest and taken to examine whether boys do better wholes- most consistent effects across grades were fee tinily when they are in same-sex or mixed-sex items such as reader, phonics workbook, and eckicational settings. library card, which were used in all three grades. Items used primarily in the first grade showed a Fisher and Waetjen (1966) studied eighth strong group effect in this grade, butnot in the grade boys and girls, wing performance in inathe- other two grades.Thus,it appearedthat boys matics and English as the achievement criteria. attending an all-male school were more likely to The findings on the 199 subjects showed that judge school-related reading as a aisle activity differences in reading and vocabulary than boys attending coeducational classes, at least achievement favored pupilsinthe mixed-sex during the first three grades. However, this offset is limited primarily to items actually used Something seemed to happen to la school and does not generalise to other readier both boys and teachersin related items (Meereckaa, coeducationalsetting. This change became evident during lierakamp and Price (072) separatcd first the next year, when a new gram grade children into one all-boy and one atl-girl of children (boys end girls) was map for a year. As a coatrol, the groupinge for observed. The boys were turned the first grade clam In the nut yea were off in the coeducational setting. ecedweatimul. The same teachers taught the two Their quick activit$ and frank- first erode chum. Standardised test aeons at nessofteninterferedwith the end of the year, compared with the initial teacher goals. Their noncon- - sweet revealed that same-sex grouping formity and originality offended had a very favorable effect on first grade boys in the girls' values of industry and spelling and total readiog.First grade girls, conformity. Girls swiftly however, outperformedfirstobaddiboysin reacted with criticism and pro- arithmetic regardless of treatment. Other find- scriptiveremarks, andthe ings revealed differenoes in classroom behavior teacher was pressured hy the adjustment. Girls in the same-sax group tended to girls to discipline the boys. Boys' bslessdistractiblethan boys and girlsin hesitancy and shyness about sue- coaducaticoal clams. They also tended to be less cus with academia tasks became verbally expressive and more gregarious than dramatically clear in the coedu- chlidren in other classes.On the task-oriented cational setting.They became dimensice, the all-boy group and the girls in easily discouraged, dropped their coeducational classes ranked significantly higher tasks quickly, sad left their seats than children in the other two grams. Some more to socialize or investigate some- detailed qualitative data reported by teachers and where else in the room. camselors fcemed the basis of the following tentative Venda that are well worth considering: Boys became more of a behavior problem u the girls dominated Boys in all-boy group wanted to the classroom. Sometimes they have contacts with the tucher were uncooperative and =con- and seamed to manage trollable. academics best when they had some input in ongoing decision- Boys warm las willing to work making. Theywerevery with paper and pencil and were outapoken, telling the teacher easily bored. Girls, on the other frankly when they did not want hand, got more satisfaction from to do something, and they were writing and made their figures capable of offering good alterna- and letters more carefully and tives. (Boys refined to stay in a lerbly, a discouraging state of narrow channel,always com- affairs for the boys. municatingin theircandid, insistent way that there was Girls insisted on conformity to more than one route to follow.) higher standards of playground management. Theybecame °waive and punitive, oonstantly la ---0 liroune,the creativity reprhnanding the boys. The ofboystlwivedwithinthe teacher believed that the same reasonablelimitsset by the boys would not have presented Weaker. behavior problems and would haft dealt with each other in a more honest and van wey in ail There was much physical contact all-boy class. bayou boysinthe all-boy groups, such as hugs for friends Boys seemed to prefer active and blows for boys who provoked participation and an open struc- them. The boys tended to strike ture, with little conearn for time out whoa displeased, but they except for savoring . investigat- used few verbal taunts and had a ing, and expressing their reac- greetdealofsympathetic tions, and they seemed to do uederstanding. better in all-toy groups. Girls in

71 the coeducational clam, on the parents, and child-en for same-sex classes in the other hand, tended to be more f1rst few grades.'an data indicated that con- positively task oriented. siderably more reading games were played by boys Teacherobservationsalmost in all-boy classes than by boys in mixed-sex that these girls, with boys in the alums. Some of Strickler's informal observations class,may have been more are intrigtdng: apprehensive about conformity and the need for more structure. Several girls in the all-girls class They wanted theteacherto assumed the more aggressive structure leernktg and sat ruin role usually played by boys and and limits. became more critical of mit- takes made by other girls. Coeducation may indeed be a wno-now for boys, bemuse it has failed to adapt itself to the In same-sex groups, girls became .*natural* qualities of the mats student. But more active and had lea regard educators have failed to look critically at the for the "good err role which traditional role expectations foe the female stu- they usually played in a mixed- dent. Coeducation may be a lio-no" for the 6- sax group. year-old girl, too.And for 4- and 5-year-olds! Instead of playing the role of little mothers and A "masculinized program was overpowering the boys, girls need encouragement appropriate for girls, too.Girls to savor and explore with the abandon of boys. related well to male resource What is not good ice boys not neoessarily good persons and helpers and enjoyed for girls either O(ernicamp & Primly 1972; Sacker boy-oriented stories. & Sadicer, 1974 Grimly & Waatjan, 1966). Strickler's program was designed specifically Hurley (1964, 1985) reported that, when boys to muculinize the boys' school experience in and girls in the third, fifth, and sixth grades were order to foster learning and improve their per- separated into all-boy and all-girl clammy stu- ception of the school, but it seems to have had dents in the 1111M*481 clams oonsistently did beneficial affects for girls, too. batter than matched controls.One group of students remained in same-sex classes for both In conclusion, when boys and girls were the fifth and sixth grades. In this group, the boys segregated by sex during the first three grades, continued their considerable advantage over the some aspects of boys' scholastic performance, controls in the wood consecutive year, but the such as reading, improved. Sex segregation during girls did not.Perhaps arouod the fifth or sixth thefirstgrades seems to have had other grade, girls ages 11 to 12 start being interested in beneficial effects upon boys and girls. They boys, end the variable of popularity becomes tended to become freed from sex role stereotypic relevant.Hurley (1964, 1955) reported that fifth limitations.Girls in same-sex clams were able grade boys io ume-emt clams were noisisrt more to amume aggressive toles, to explore, and to be enthuslutic,moreexperimental,andmore themselves.,Hut when the experiments with sex imaginative than girle-e result to be Imputed, if segregation were conducted in higher grades, the early grades have done their job of making especistly in the seventh or eight grade, when girls °aloe* and capable of learning the lemon but dating starts, significant differences ware not not learning how to learn.Boys in ume-sex found in scholastic performance or in sax-typed classes seamed less inhibited in displaying girl- behaviors of boys or girls in same-sex or mixed- type interests than boys in mile& u classes. sex clams. Similarly, girls in ail-girl groups seemed more ready to was interest in boy-type subjects and Iutitstional Sexism: Textbooks, setinities. They also appeared less worried about vales and about over* up deficiencies than Curriculums, Achievement Tests, and girl* in misedeex dame.The data on which Educational Hierarchy these conclusions are based are not bard and quintlflable, tot still they suggest a need to The content of readers, textbooks, and other *amine the potential of same-sex Wanes, not eduoational materials is another type of structural only for promoting academic achievement but also sexism found in schools.Because of the perfor freeing children of sax role stereotypes vasiveness of this type of sexism, it has been (Smith, 1972). practically impossible to find nonsexist madam, texts, or materials (Levy & Stacey, 19731 Fresher Filially, Strickler (1970), In a preliminary & Walker, 1972; DeCrow, 1972; Sadker & Frazier, report, cited enthtniastio support among teachers, 1973# Taylor, 1974 Jacklin & Illischel,1973#

12 6 9 Saari° et al., 1972; &met, 1972; Weitzman et aL, function of word choice but rather a function of a 1972; Grambs,1972). Thisinstitutionalized content selection that %MS male slanted. This example of sexism is not a variable but truly a selection procedure might well account for some constant.We will be able to investigate the of the sex differences in achievement obtained at differentialimpact of sexistversus nonsexist different levels, especially at the high school level educational materials only after some nonsexist wheregirlsbecomemore awareofwhat readers are developed and after some student constitutessex-appropriatebehavior. lIttle groups have read only nonsexist readers, texts, (1974) stated that discriminatory effects, brought and other educational materials. As a matter of about by this type of bias in achievement tests, fact, most current readers and other educational may exist in mathematics, a subject in whichgirls materials not only reflect the society in terms of of high school age achieve lower setores (Maccoby sexism but even exaggerate reality by portraying & Jacklin, 1974).Part of this effect may be society as being more sexist than it is. explained by an inadvertent bias in selecting test items. Donlon (1971) reported that the mean Attempts to eliminate stereotypic roles in difference between males and females on the educational materials are insufficient.Graebner mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude (1972) found that the portrayal of women's roles Test would be at least partly redueed by a change has not changed in elementary texts over the last in test items.Tittle (1974) argued that the mean oecade.Fathers are still presented as the sole scores might be more nearly equal if a balance providers and deeisionmakers foe fiunilles and are existed in the number of items that appear to involved exclusivelyintraditional, stereotyped favor one sex andif the number of abstract male activities.Mothers are depicted virtually algebra items were increased. nim ously as homemakers and nurturers.On rare occasions when they are portrayed as working women,thtyhaverstereotyped Teachers' Sex-Differentiated Behaviors "feminine" occupation. Mothers are presented as dull,ineffectualpeople,almosttotallypre- 'No very important issues concerning the occupied with housework and shopping, incapable roleofteachersarewhetherornottheir ofsolving problems, and even stupid. Other behaviors are sex differentiated and in what way studies have shown that the portrayal of blacks, sex-differentiated behaviors affect the scholastic but not of men and women, has become less achievement of boys and girls.Several inves- stereotypic (Salpunas, 1973). The few changes to tigators reported that teachers exhibit and use texts that were made focused mainly or, cor- mechanisms that are subtly and not-so-subtly sex recting sexist language and on improving the differentiated.For example, Levy and Stacey male-female ratio of characters rather than on (1973) reported that, when teachers separate girls correcting substantive content. and boys tor seating, lining up, hanging up coats, etc., they unwittingly call attention to sex dis- Other structural va.lables that, due to their tinctions and sex roles.The choice of monitors prevalence, have tended to be constants are:a also teaches sex roles:"Girls water the plants; sexistcurriculum(Sadker &Frazier,1973; boys movt, the chairs." Saari() et al.,1972); a sexist hidden curriculum (Sadker & Frazier, 1973); and a male-dominated Chasen (1974) found that teachers believe educational hierarchy within each school, with boys to be innately more aggressive and girls men most often occupying such supervisory posi- innately more passive, yet they admitted being tions as school board member, superintendent, and more aetive in discouraging aggressive behavior in principal and with women acting as teacher, girlsthaninboys,thus encouraging a self- especially in the lower grades (Heyns, 1972).To fulfilling prophecy.Similarly, teachers reported the extent that Title LX is implemented, we may that they felt boys' muscles more frequently than see more schools with a nonsexist curriculum and girls' and told boys Met they were strong more a better hierarchical structure through Want* of often than they told girls; but they did not seem men and women among teachers In the lower to be aware that if boys are told they are strong grades and among the administrators.Thus, the and girls are not, they will tend to act accord- sex ratio of the school hierarchy may become an ingly. Teachers also reported that aggressive important structural variable. behaviorinthe teacher-child interaction was encouraged more in boys than in girls. Boys were Another type of institutional sexism is built actively encouraged to play in the block corner into achievement tests, especially mathematics more often than girls, block play being one way to achievement tests. A study of eight major build strength.Boys were also encouraged to do achievement tests found a content bias in favor of woodworking, while girls were encouraged to do males. The bias did not appear to be primarily a collage, a sedentary, passive activity.

7 3 Only 12 percent of the teachers frequently scholasticfailure and, thus, make themselves eneouraged boys to play with dolls; 53 percent doubly unacceptable (Caplan & Kinsbowne, 1974). encouraged them sometimes; and 35 percent Girls who are law achievers but act "nice" can rarely or never did so.These responses can be still please the teacher and win her approval contrasted with the encouragement that teachers because their behavior conforms with sax role gave boys to play with blocks and woodworking: stereotypes. In fact, unless the level of the girls' 79 percent of the teachers said that they often achievement is too low, they may be preferred encouraged boys to play with blocks, and 88 over high-achieving and intellectually aggressive pesvent said that they often encouraged boys to girl& do woodworking. Teachersalsohad more emotional resistance to letting boys play with Another observation study (Brophy & Good, dolls than to letting gists play with blocks.In 1970) concluded that boys gave more correct general, teachers felt that there was equality of answers but received more criticism than girls. treatment of girls and boys in the classroom, and The teachers criticized boys for whom they held they resisted very much the implication that they low expectations much more often than girls for may have sex stereotyped boys and girls (Chasen, whom they held similar expectations and, of 1974). Of course, this perceived equality of course, much more often than they criticized boys treatment appears to be largely a myth, analogous or girls for whom they held high expectations. to the "separate but equal" myth of racially Also, boys received more direct questions from segregated Southern schools, where the teachers the teaches* than girls and they were praised more also believed that there was equality. frequently when they gave correct answers. Several studies of the sex-differentiated The differential data concerning praise are behaviors of teachers corroborate the finding that surprisinginviewofthepreponderanceof boys tend to be criticized much more frequently criticism directed toward boys. The data suggest than girls (De Groat & Thompson, 1949; Lippitt & that teaehars are generally more evaluative in Gold, 1959) and that teachers are more likely to responding to boys and more objective in re- use a harsh tone when criticizing boys (Spaulding, sponding to girls. Boys are praised more often for 1983; Waetjen, 1982; Jackson & Lahaderne, 1970. ccrrect responses and criticized more often for However, several studies, which replicated the incorrectresponsesorfailurestorespond teacher tendency to be more critical toward boys, (although the latter difference is not statistically also found that the same teachers praised boys significant).This last finding is of great impor- more than girls (Meyer & Thompson, 1956; Meyer tance because sex-differentiated behavior on the & Lindstrom, 1969; Jackson & Lahaderne, 1967; part of teachers may be responsible for placing Felsenthal, 1970). Otherstudies havethrown boys under greater pressure to aultieve than girls. much more light onto the meaning of these Also, boys were found to have more interactions findings. A studycondisoted by Lippitt and Gold with the teacher than girls and appeared to be (1959), in which each child was observed by two generally more salient in the teacher's perceptual people, concluded that teachers paid more atten- field.Teachers tended to direct more evaluative tionto social behavior thanto performance comments towardboys,bothabeolutelyand behavicc of low-statusmilscompared with high- relat ively. status pupils.Evidently, whether student had low or high statusin terms of achievement led to The largestandmostobviousabsolute differential social evaluation and response on the difference in evaluative comments occurred with part of the teacher, as well as on the part of teacher criticism and disapproval, which were classmates.The teachers' responses depended directed far more frequentV at boys.However, even more on whether they were interacting with much of this difference appears to come in the a low-status girl or boy.Low-scatus boys tended form of behavioral criticismand disciplinary to receive more criticism Min their high-status contactsratherthancriticismsinacademic classmates, but low-status girls received more performance or work-related contacts. Among support. Teachers were friendly slightly more boys, the difference appears attributable ,more to often tolow-status thari high-status girls, but frequentdisruptivebehavior,which brinp were neutralor unfriendlymore often to low - criticism upon them, rather than to a consistent status boys (Lippitt & Gold, 1959). teacher set or bias of greater criticism toward boys than toward girls in equivalent situations More recent data show that sociaLapproval, (lkophy & Good, 1970). or "being nice," is an alternative to high achievement for girls, and they tend to take this option In another observational study, Jackson and whim they do not do well scholastically. Boys, on Lahaderne (1987) found that boys more often than the other hand, according to what masculine girls were actively engaged in coping with the stereotypes dictate, tend to react aggressively to network of rules, regulations, and routines which 74 affeu' them as students.Because of this, they divide male and female students according to tended to have higher percentages of managerial level of achievement. interchanges with their teachers.Whenever the fOur teachers observed responded to instances of Martin (1972) examined why teachers inter- classroom misbehavior, they were almost always act with and criticize boys much more than girls. reacting to a boy. if eontrol messages are treated He found that boys who were behavior problems as crude measures, then sixth grade boys as a interacted with teachers significantly more than group received 8 or 10 times as many menages as boys who were not behavior problems, and more their female classmates.The researchers also than girls, regardless of their classroom behavior. found that another sex difference in teacher-pupil 'Me high rate of student-teacher interaction for interaction was revealed in observed relationships boysfoundbyotherinvestigatorsmay be among the three different menage categories characteristic of only a small percentage of (i.e.,instructional,managerial,andcontrol problem boys. Martin (1972) also determined that menages). Boys, who were active in instructional teacher criticism tends to be concentrated an a interchanges, tended also to be active in man- small group of misbehaving boys rather than on agerial interchanges. Those same boys tended to boysingeneraL This research agrees with receive more then their share of disciplinary previous findings that treatment of low-achieving menagesfromtheteacher. A similar boys is consistently negative. phenomenon was not apparent for girls.If boys have as many brushes with teachers as the data In observing teacher-student interactions in indicate, the teachers may find it advantageous to four pre-school programs, Biber etal.(1972) sidestep as many open clashes as possible.Thus, concluded that female teachers had more instruc- they sometimes might use instructional or men- tional contacts with girls, and that in three of the agerie! menages as preventive measures for programs girls received more positive reinforce- averting harsher and more disruptive interchanges ment than boys. A basic sex difference, however, (Jackson & Lahaderne, 1967). existed in the number of contacts. Teachers were not more reinforcing of girls than of boys when An observation study (Good et aL, 1973) of frequency of contact was controlled.This is the seventh sad eighth grade classrooms concluded only study that shows a definite tendency for that boys ware much more active and interacted female teachers to favorgirls over boys in more frequently with the teachers.Boys were classroo m interact ions. asked a higher percentage of process questions, and girls were asked a higher percentage of prod- In conclusion, the available evidence shows uct and choice questions. Although the boys that boys tend to have a greater amount of con- received both more positive and more negative tact with teachers than do girls.If we take into contacts from teachers, proportionately more of account the findings of Jackson and Lahaderne the girls' contacts were positive. Thus, even (1967), in which the classroom environment differs though boys have more frequent contacts with quitemarkedly fromstudenttostudent,it teachers, a given contact is more likely to be becomes important to specify the factors that are negative for boys than for girls. The study found crucial In determining the type of environment that high-achieving students were treated more that a given classroom provides for a given favorably than low-achieving students. High- student. Jackson and Lahaderne (1967) found that achieving males received the most favorable some students have so little contact with the tescher treatment; low-achieving boys had the teacher that it is as if they were in a huge class- poorest contact patterns with teachers. Low- room with hundreds of students, while others have achieving boys were imperially likely to receive such frequent individual contact with the teacher high rates of teacher criticism, little teacher that itis as if they were slitting in a classroom feedback about their academic work, and little with only a handful of students.Hence, itis opportunity to respond.Low-achieving girls also important to examine whether sex by itself, or in had a relatively poor pattern of teacher contact, interaction with other factors, plays a crucial role hut not nearly as poor as that of low-achieving indetermining the kind of environment and boys. Thesefindingsareconsistentwith stimulation that the clawnvom provides for a previously discussed trends showing boys to be given boy or girl. more salient than girls in the classroom and to receive more frequent teacher feedback as well as In examining the studies already reviewed, more intense teacher effect. These data, as well we clearly see that sex is a very important vari- as data reviewed earlier, underline the importance able.it becomes even more meaningful to under- ofachievementasadifferentiatingfactor. standing the types of differentiated behaviors that Previous findings that boys received relatively teachers emit if it is combined with the degree of inferiorteachertreatmentmayhave been boys' or girls' achievement, or with the type of reported bemuse investigators failed to further expectations that the teachers hold for each child.

75 The pattern is striking:Low-achieving boys or sidered sex-appropriate or sex-inappropriate boys for whom the teachers hold low expectations behavior for boys and girls. This phenomenon may arethe "worstoff,"probably because low- explain why observational studies of dependency achieving boys go against prevailing sex role showed no consistent sex differences but why stereotypes, which dictatethat they must be high dependency ratings usually showed girls to be achievers and leaders, ifthey areto live up tothe more dependent than boys. The same hives- norms ofmasculinity. Therefore,teachers tigators reported that:"If a child behaves in an become the punishers of the sex-inappropriate exuberant, uninhibited fashion on the screen, the behavicr exhibited bythese boys. Low-achieving behavior was more likely to be labeled aggressive boys, as we have seen, reset saressively to their if the child was thought to be a girl than if it was faMwe (according to masculine stereotypes), thus thought to be a boy.Behaviors were especially making themselves even less acceptable to the noticedifthey runcounter to sex-role teachers.The teachers criticizedtheseboys the stereotypes." Therefore, regardless of whether or most, and they tended to become unfriendlyand not boys andgirlsexhibitsex-differentiated punitive toward them without trying to help or behaviors, teachers may be more inclined to support them. However,teachersbehavior perceive sex differences in the student's behavior, toward low-echievinggirlswas much more since they expect them to exis.A.After all, it is supportive and friendly,becausegirls'low not that difficult to single out behaviors from achievement does not go against sex role stereo- boys' and girls' repertories compatible with sex typesand socialexpectations. role stereotypes and to consistently reinforce them so that the children will eventually most At the other extreme, boys who are high often exhibit sex-appropriate behaviors. This achievers tend to receive the most favorable methodological caution should be kept in mind treatment by teachers, since they live up to when one exsunines observational data of students' masculine stereotypes.The same is not exactly sex-differentiatedbehaviors,especially during true for high-achieving girls.Although teachers kindergarten and the first few grades. Because of must necessarilyreward girls for high scholastic thisteacherbias,questionnaireorinterview achievement, they are les enthusiutic and more studies concerning the sex-differentiated ambivalent because high achievementisnot beheviors of girls and boys probably have little suppoied to be compatible with femininity. Some validity. Observational studies :nay be more evidence suggests that intelligent girls get poorer valid, but are probably not devoid of observer grades in high school when they hold a con- bias. temporary sex rale ideology than when they hold a traditional one(Doherty&Culver, 1975). The available observational studies show Therefore, if we were to rate the treatment of that, in general, boys are much more active and teachers in terms of stimulation, support, praise, interact more frequently with the teacher (Good andreward,the highest ratings would go to high- at al., 1973; Brophy & Good, 1970; Martin, 1972). achieving boys, then to high-achieving girls, and That boys seem to be much more active and to then to low-achieving girls.The lowest rating have more contacts with the teacher seems to be would go to low-achieving boys, who represent tbe accounted for by the low-achieving boys, who also "Cinders Ilae of the elementry school system. tend to be disruptive to the cluaroom routine. For example, Good et al. (1973) stated that low- achievingboysmayinfluencetheteacher's Interaction Between Students' and treatment of them through their aggressiveness, their inattentiveness, and their even and deviant Teachers' Sex.Differentiated Behaviors behavior, which make teachers impatient and punitive toward them.Martin (1972) found that, A considerable degree of interaction exists inthe case of second grade students, boys betwess teachers' and students' sex-differentiated designated as behavior problems attracted much behaviors; one sat of behaviors tends to reinforce more attention from their teachers than girls who the other. Before examining studies of how often ware considered behavior problems. Itis, of students exhibit sex-differentiated behaviors or by course, understandable that boys would attract what processes students' sex-differentiated more attention from teachers when they are behaviors influence the teachers' behaviors and behavior problem; but itis not clear why the vice verse, it le important to consider some evi- same pattern does notholdtrueforgirls. dence regarding biases that observers may have Probably, girls considered to be behavior problems when studying the behaviors of schoolboys and did not disupt the clenroom routine Jr display schoolgirls. aggressiveness. Instead, they tended to exhibit passivity, dependency, and withdrawal (Martin, Meyer and Sobiaszek (1972) showed that 1972). Their *deviant" behaviors followed sex role observers seemed to be sensitive to what is con- stereotypes and tended, therefore, to be sex-

711 appropriate behaviors. Because the girls' behavior ferentiated behaviors and expectations(Hist, followed feminine stereotypes, teachers did not 1970; Adelman, 1969; Bloom, 1971; Finn, 1972). wander itproblem (Caplan, 1974).Problem boys have also been found to aak the teacher more What evidence exists on teachers' sex- questions than other boys or girls. Twirlers may differentisted expectations and sex role fete:act more with these boys in order to nuintain ideologies?Palardy (1989) considered the effect control by keeping the boys' attention foamed on of teachers' sex-differentiated expectations only their work end the teacher (Martin, 1972).Girls' on boys' scholastic achievement in reading ability. feminine ladoetriaatiou may make their behaviors, When first grade teachers believed that boys ware even when tbey are "deviaor or reactions to far leas successful than girls at learning to read, scholastic failure, acceptable to teachers. the boys achievedleas(accordingtoa aandardized reading test) than a comparable Klein (1971)provided some information group of boys whose teachers believed that boys conowning the nature of theinfluence that were as successful as girls at learning to read studentbehaviorhasonteacherbehavior. (Falardy, 1969). Finn (1972) showed that teachers Positive student behavior influenced the teachers in urban schools held sex-differentiated to Ina positive behaviors, but negative student expectations (that imply lower achievement for behaviorelicitednegativeteacherbehavior. girls) in the case of white, but not black, children. Similar data indicating a systematic relationship The investigators also found that, in suburban between teacher behavior and student behavior schools in which most children were from upper have bean reported (Cody, 1988; Gordon, 1968; middle clam white families, teachers expected u Harvey et al. 1968; Lahaderne, 1967; Merriment much from girls as from boys (Finn, 1972).This 1968). Although a exerelation between these two finding confirms that upper middle clams women seta of behaviors nu been shown, no evidence feel more free to achieve than women from lower exists to indicate a causal relationship.Other socioeconomic backgrounds. studies indioate that stueQnt behavior influences the behavior of counselors (Bandura at aL, 1969; Little research has been carried out on Gamiky & Farwell, 11166; Heller et aL, 1963; teachers' sex role stereotypes end the extent to & Snyder, 1983). which teachers' sex role ideology affects the scholastic performance and achievement of boys Evidence points to a considerable and girls.Chafetz (1974) reported a study of interaction between student behavior and teacher kindergarten,first,second,andthirdgrade behavior, but it is not clear whose behavior is the teachers in the San Antonio, Tex., area. A most important, that is, whether it is initially the considerable difference was found in the extent to teachers'sex-differentiated behaviors that which teachers adhered to sex role stereotypes, account for and reinforce the students' sax- but no attempt was made to construet a wale differentiated behaviors, or vice versa.Good et measuring sex role ideology. Instead, the teachers al.(1973) concluded that sax differencesin were given a number of statements, such as clateroom interaction patterns are mostly due to "Aggression is a biologically innate trait of males students and that teachers ars primarily reacting but not females," and were asked to indicate their to the -a differentials presented by boys and level of agreement or disagreement with them. girls. However, no hard evidence exists to About one-third of the female teachers reported substantiate this hypothesis;probably,an that occasionally, if not more often, they felt leteraction between the two sets of behaviors personally "compelled to act les knowledgeable wham During kindergarten and the first grades, than they are in ceder to impran a man." Two out the teachers' sex-differentiated behaviors and of three teachers agreed, at least to some extent, expectations may amount more for students' sex- with the assertion that "most women have only differentiated behaviors than later on (Finn, 1972; themselves to blame for not doing better in life" Hist, 1970. (Chafe% 1974).However, this study does not indicate whether differential adherence to tradi- Many studies have fecund more on the sex- tional sex role ideology influenees students' echo- differeatiated behaviors of teachers than on their testi() behavior and, if so, to what extant. su-differentiated expectations,values,end :=4whieh may be the most significant Chasen (1974) repoeted considerable varia- in determining the types of behaviors tion in teachers' adherent., to traditional sex role !Wilsey elicit from students.After the second ideology. For example, 46 percent of the teachers Pad; Withal 1S0 longer have to rely only on stated that boys were born more aggressive than their expectations, attitudes, and values, but must girls and 33 percent aid that girls were born more seafrontbays' andgirls'eleareutsex-dif- ;restive than boys.Again, the study did not faceatiatedbehaviorsandaccomplishments, Indicate to what extent teachers who accept the prodmitiinpartbytheteachers'sex-dif- traditional sex rola stereotypes about bays and

77 girls exhibit sez-differentiated behaviors in the factors. Sophisticated studies classroom and provide sex-differentiated mes- are needed to determine how sages to boys and girls.Nor did the research these factors separately and in report to what extent teachers with a contempor- combination affect teacher ary sex role ideology treat boys and girls as expectation&Teachers' charac- individuals rather than as members of a class, thus teristicssuchassexrole allowing the children to behave independently of ideology, authoritarianism, sex role stereotypes. Finally, one Canadian study rigidity, conservatism, self- (Ricks & Pyke, 1973) found that female teachers' confidence, activism, and degree had the same sex role ideology as suburban house- of upward social mobility must wives and that most of them (57 percent) did not be studied in conjunction with ful thatitwas a teacher's responsibilityto the formation of achievement facilitate sex role changes. Hence, teachers tend expectations. These teacher to act as "gatekeepers" rather than as "change characteristics tap other agents-" prejudices besides sex prejudice andmaybeimportant in determining how teachers react Research Gaps tostudents' characteristics as wallasthenatureofthe A striking number of important gaps exist in achievement expectations they research on sex discrimination in elementary and for m. secondary education. Many findings about girls as well as about sex role socialization and sax What are the modeling effects of discrimination processes are oftenincidental, teacher characteristics and since the research had focused on the scholastic behaviors beyond the teacher's performance of boys.Most crucial research gape gender? Teachersdisplaya can currently be classified into three general range of more or less sex-typed areas: behaviorsand. characteristics which probably influence To what extent do teachers and students' sex typing. students adheretotraditional sex role ideology and how much doesthis adherenceinfluence Additional research should study the pro- their behavior in the classroom? cesses that teachers use to sample and reinforce More specifically, how does the sex-appropriate behaviors in boys and girls and the degree of teachers' adherence to subtle or not-so-subtle processes they use to particulardimensionsofthe discourage iex-inappropriate behaviors. We need traditionalsexroleideology moredetailedinformationconcerningthe influence what types of dynamics involved in the many facets of tucher- behaviorsthey exhibit toward studentinteraction and theeffectsofthis boys and girls as well as the way interaction.Research should also investigate the they treat boys and girls who sexroleandachievementimplicationsof behave in a sex-appropriate or a schoolgirls'nonconformingbehaviors inthe sex-inappropriate manner? classroom, when they are sex appropriate and Studies should investigate these when they are not sex appropriate.We need to questions and also the links that know whether or not, under what conditions, and exist between teachers' differ- to what extent girls who behave as boys in terms ential adherence to traditional of disrupting the class are treated the same as sex role ideology and boys' and problem boys by teachers.Also, how do high- girls' scholastic achievement. achieving, noncompliant, but conforming boys and girls (a combination totally ignored in literature) What are the most important fare in terms of teacher treatment, grades, learn- factorsintheformationof ing,andsextyping? Finally,whetsex- teachers' achievement expecta- inappropriatebehaviorsingirls,under what tions? Although the students' conditions(e.g.,combinedwithwhatother genderis averyimportant characteristics in these girls), are punished with factor, otherstudentcharac- poor grades, rejection, or referral to school social teristics such aa social clam, workers and psychologists? Under what conditions race, ethnic status, intelligence, do these behaviors benefit girle by helping them to attractiveness,andtypeof learn how to learn instead of merely to follow personalityarealsosalient school rules and learn the lesson?

72$ No study has examined the teacher's role in informal. Formal sex disorimination may be influencing the level of girb' and boys' educational subdivided into indirect sex discrimination and aspirations cr occupational choices, or, in the case institutional sex discrimination. of goals, their decisions and aspirations to work ir not to work, as well as their definitions of moms,.This area is well worth investigating, Formal Sex Discrimination with regard to both elementary and high school teachers. Crucial variables in such a study would Indirect sex discrimination is discrimination include the teachers' sex role ideology, their that takes place indirectly at one level of achievement aapirations, and their definitions of education because sex discrimination took place mimeo for men and women. How do these earlier in theeducational proeem or in other life teacher characteristics relate to girls' and boys' sectors such as the family. For example, women educaticeal and occupationalaspirationsand are not eligible for ordo notfeel qualified to attainment ? pursue fields such as science or mathematics In college because discrimination processes during Another important shortcoming of most high school prevented them fromacquiring a solid oboervationalstudiesisthattheyfocus on background inthese fields (Flanagan, 1986). Thus, elementary school classrooms and, to a much because a smaller percentage of girls follow the lesser extent, an high school classrooms, but never academic program in high school, the preclusion on college classrooms. Similar processes may be of some academic options is achieved without the taking place at the college level.Observational need for direct sex discrimination against girls at studies, in all the crucial areas suggested above, the college level. Also, because high school ahould be undertaken at the college level as well. vocational counselors and parents discourage some girls from going to college ce from pursuing high- With the Increasing amumption by women of prestige, masculine occupations, there is often no supervisory and administrative positions in the need for direct sax discrimination in order to edueationalsystem, and theintroductionof exclude women from these fields.Women have nonsexist textbooks and policies into the school been "put in their place" earll %. by other agmits setting, we may be able to awns the effects of and processes. these structural variables on boys' and girls' scholasticachievementandeducationaland Mother type of indirect sex discrimination occupational aspirations.It is important to pin- takes place because of the lack of female faculty point school systems in which these changes have members to serve as models for college women been implemented already and to compare them (Ekotroin,1972;Sells,1973;Holmstrom dc with school systems in which these changes have Holmstrom, 1974; Ibbias, 1971; Fox, 1974). The not yet been implemented or have been only scarcity of women on the faculties of schools and partially implemented.As Title IX is imple- departmentsisdueto occupational sexdis- mented, slowly and unevenly in different schools crimination, which inturn. indirectly becomes and in different regions, cities, and neighborhoods, educational sexdiscrimination. Furthermore, a variety of interventions are taking place; only because sex discrimination exists in ;emotion, somaofthemarecarefullydesignedand tenure, and pay patterns, the few women on the evaluated.'The study by Guttentag and Elroy faculty are moat ofteninthe lower ranks, (1978) should be a model for evaluations of untenured and underpaidfacts that tend to nonsexist interventions because of its thorough accentuate the marginality of professional women gathering of data on student& sex role attitudes (see chapter 7). before and after the interventions.There is a need for a systematic examination of all nonsexist One important reason for women's higher interventions in education (espeeially those in dropout rate, especially from graduate school, some way evaluated) so that the wealth of infor- seems to be the lack of female faculty models mation about the dynamics of teachers' and with whom they can identify and discuss problems, students'saxtypingandsex-differentiated anxieties, and future plans (Sells, 1973; Bernard, behaviors and interactions can be tapped. 1964; Holmstrom & Holmstrom, 1974). As Tobias (1970 put it, a female professor can say, *You Sex Discrimination in Higher Education know, when I was your age, I was just like you," a statement that can riallnlre the female student Sex discrimination in higher education may thatherpeoblemsand&milletsarenot be divided into two major categories:formal and exoeptional or grave. Up to now, the assumption has been that female professors would tend to have more positive attitudes than male profemors 1For a review of these studies, see Safilios- toward female students.We may find, however, Rothschild (Ina that a variety of personality and attitudinal

710 iti factors, aside from gender, will increasingly tend of mothers or future mothers from graduate todifferentiatemale and femaleprofessors' programs, fellowships, or research assistantships attitudes and behaviors in this area. ('IbC's, 1971; Report of the Subcommittee on the Status of Academic Women on -6e Berkeley Thelackoffemalefacultymodels, 9.stasWO). especially in masculine fields, is a powerful factor in diverting women from these disciplines, since Women% marital status often results in their their absence clearly underlines the inappropriate- being discriminated against on other grounds. ness of the field for women. This effect can be Because women often must follow their husbands found not only when there is no female faculty wherever their job or education takes them, they member but alma when there is only one token have to transfer credits from one university to female faculty member (Fox, 1974). another.In the proceu, they lose a considerable number of credit hours and a lot of time by having Female paduate students seem to be more to takecoursesover,by havingtosatisfy sensitive to interpersonal difficulties with faculty different sets of requiAments, and by having to members than male graduate student& Woman reorient themselves to different academic milieus also seem to be more sensitive to recognition by (Pullen,1970;Ruslink,1989; Shoulders,19611; professcrs and to be deterred in their graduate Clem, 1969).In some cases, the nature of the work by emotional strain and self-doubt& In view move may be such that women can no longer of these findings, the reported bias of faculty pursue their academic programs, because such members toward male students can be devastating programsarenotofferedatanyofthe to women (Holmstrom & Holmstrom, 1974). universities within mica.Therefore, rigid policies regarding transfer of credits mainly dis- An additional eumple of indirect sex discriminate against women. crimlnatim in academia occurs because women are discriminatedegalnstwithin the family. According to severalstudies,fewer married Overt institutional sex discrimination takes women than mingle women enroll as undergraduate place not because of prejudiced persons' actions or graduate students, and married women tend to but because discriminatory rules and processes drop out of college in larger mimbers than single have been built into the educational institution. or divorced women (Feldman, 1973; Lord, 1969). Probably the best illustration of overt institu- Marriage was the reason given by 42.5 percent of tional sexdiscriminationwas the automatic the women surveyed for not going to graduate exclusion of female students from men's colleges school (Lord, 1988).Ludeman (1961) found that and univrrsities (and, of course, the automatic marriageairingorrightafterhighschool exclusion of male students from woment col- diminished even more drasticallya woman's leges). Regardless of the attitudes held by profes- chances of attending college. By 1977, however, sorsInd administrators,theother sex was women seemed to have the same chance of excluded because the statutes of the university attending college as men, ierioe 49 portent of required it.For many years, single-sex colleges fi-nhmen were woman (Magarrell, 197E. were accepted, and w),:in some women started complaining that their exclusion from some men's Woman who marry while in college, or right collegesconstituted sexdiscrimination,their after graduation, and continue with their graduate contention was not accepted.The courts ware studies do so en a part-time basis more often than brought in to decide upon the validity of their married men (Feldman, 1973).The need to take claim. up studies on a part-time basis is due to sex discrimination within the family, where women An excellenPiØcount of the legal arguments are assigned the major responsibility for the and decisions in th1sarea is provided by Shaman householdandforchildcare. Part-time (1971).The issue wildly arose as women com- attendanceingraduate school oonstitutes a plained that they mule not attend the moat pres- disguised type of sex discrimination with serious tigious school in their State in a field such as consequences for women. Thus, the vialcus circle engineering, because it was often a men's college. of sax discrimination is triggered.The birth of Or women complained that they oould not attend children to a female student or even the mere the local university becauseitwas a men% fact of pregnancy or suspected pregnancy com- college,andcouldnotmove becausetheir pounds the dsgree of sex discrimination egilnet huabande attended the men's college or worked in women in various forms (Myers, 1964; Goodwin, thattown. Courts have been reluotantto 1988; Hembrough, 1988; Shoulders, 1953). Some- recognize sex segregation as similar to race time! the diecrimination Ls thinly disguised as a segregation and to outlaw sex-based admission policy applying to pregnant students, not women! policies at the college and universitylevels At other times, it is a direct and oveRiesclusion (Shaman, 1971). The main counterarguments

80 preeented to allegations that these policies con- they would harm and disrupt their lives (Shaman, stitute sex discrimination have buns 1911; Ewald, 1971). Sex segregation of colleges and Arents fee sex ted colleges and universities does not constitute universities have continued mainly bemuse of sex discrimination because, in tears that the admission of woman to ulares most caseswithinthe same eollages (and, to a lesser extent, the admission of State, there is a wide range of men to women's colleges) might lower the quality State colleges and universities of education offered.Of course, an unspoken- that women can attend.This is reason wail a reluctanee to spoil the all-nutla not a valid argument became the atmosphere of ment colleges that men cherish different colleges and universit- and that protects them from female intruders. ies vary considerably with regard to physical facilities, scope of An official argument given for the desk.- cusriculums, quality of teaching, ability of women% colleges was that they allowed campua atmosphere, and women to achieve more freely without fear of academie reputation.Even the losing the men with whom they would otherwise betterwomen%collegesare be competing (Jencks & Eiseman, 1988). A considered inferior to the better oounterazgument was that t. ooeducational college men% or coeducational schools environment has many advantages, such as provid- (Sharman, 1971). The best known ing the opportunity to relate to male classmatu women% schools have had on other than a sexual basis (Jencks & Eiseman, smeller endowments, hive 1961) and forcing women to find awing techniques received a smaller share of cor- and to resolve any conflicts they may perceive poratecontributions(Bunting, between achievement and femininity (Susman, 1901), and have had more limited 1971). No researcher hes yet been able to present facilities and smaller ranges of any valid legal or soclopsychological argument for courses, eapecially in masculine maintaining this type of segregation. ay the-mid fields.Thus, women have been 1970% the battle was wont Practically all single- discriminated against by having sexcollegesandimiversitieshadbeoome fewer high-qualityeducational coeducational. options than men (Harris, 1970). A differenttype of sex discrimination Thethemetical possibilityof involves admission policies at the undergraduate women attending schools else- and graduate levels. Some of these practices have where inthe same Stateis been blatant, such as quotas established for limited by several factors, which womeninmanydepartments,schools,and make this possibility not only universities (Cross, 1971; Phelps, 1972; MoBee & inconvenient,butalsocon- Suddick, 1974).The existence of arbitrary sex siderably more expensive (not quotas most often discriminates against women being able to live at home or because these quotas restrict the number of having to commute a qualified women who can be acknitte4 but allow considerable distance) and the admission of less qualifted men (Croak 11171). stressful to woman who must Quotas restrict competition for adminion within choose between their marital life each sex, women competing with women end man and furthering their education competing with men, and thus allow men to be (Shaman, 1971; Ewald, 1971). admitted even when they are less qualified than some rejoined women (Mau & fluddick, 1970. Whenever E could be proved to the court's These quotu have been rationalised on the besie satiefeetion that the exclusion of weasels from a of women's higher grades in high school (or rather, ism* soilage resulted in a Iowa quality of on high school teachers' tendencies to give higher esktetko for them (bemuse other echoois in the redo to girls) and oa the basis of woment earlier State mad not provide the same quality of admission to college.Without quotas, the argu- adueation), woment exclusion was held moon- ment goes, wasps would be overwhelmingly stituticael.Also, sea discrimination of tNe type filled with women and therefore men would be was Judged unconstitutiooal when it could be "disoriminated against" (Phelps, 1971; McBee & roved that woment exclusion from a men's &Wick 1974). Higher grades have been required songs imposed a stressful situation on them. of female than of male applicants (Ilan & Such a situation wu viewed u forcing women to Suddick,1974). Hales and NM* (1974) +shwa between theirmarital life and their sumined whether differential admissions criteria edieetion, bemuse if they hid to go elsewhere, by ea were *tillable. After adjusting for initial

111 8 differences, high school averages,. and Scholastic educationand since women'sintegration into Achievement Test aeons by means of separate ROTC, NROTC, and the militaryacademies,this regression equations for each sex, the investiga- overt institutional sex discrimination in financial tors found that the use of arbitrary differing cut- aid has probably been eliminated. At the national off scorn in a quota system was both unwarranted level, the average financial award of any kind is and discriminatory. much higher far men than for women (Haven dc !torch, 1972). A smaller proportion of women hold Beciause higher standar& have been used in part-time jobs while they are students, especially admittingwoman tocollage, womenwith as research assistants to (predominantly male) relatively low grades have been much less likely faculty members (Salmon, 1974).That female to attend epilogs than men with equally low graduate students have fewer opportunities than grades(Worts, 1984). Medium-abilityand men to be involved in faculty research projects is especiallyhigh-abilitygirlshavebeen len discriminatory, not only because this type of diserisninated against, but low-ability girls have financial aid is not equally available to them but not had much of a chance (Walston et al., 1971). also because they are cut off from a most At the graduate level and in profenional schools, valuable research experience. In some fields, women who were admitted had a higher under- women are appointed as teachingassistants less graduate grade point average than men (Hunter, often than men because of a reluctance to have 1981). An unequal rejection rate was also found women teach male students(Salmon, 1974).In for men and women because each sex was judged some cases,university policy has disqualified separately (Ekstrom, 1972). The current trend for pregnant women from holding a research assist- first-year college students to include almost an antship. This type of overt en discrimination has equal percentage of men and women suggests that been practically eliminated. some of these discriminatory admissions policies may no longer be in effect. In many cases, fellowships were not granted to female students whose husbands earned an Salmon (1974) showed that, although women adequate income. The latter policy compounded have generally been discriminated against by the the problems of middle-class and upper middle formal admissions policies of most departments classmarried women who attended graduate and schools, the degree of discrimination against school despite grudging husbands, who resented them hu been much greater in prestigious urd- the loss of comfort a housewife provides arid who versitiu.When there is an abundance of highly had to pay not only for childcare (or a house- qualified applicants, mei are clearly preferred by keeper) but also for the Wet tuition. This policy the top schools (Salmon, 1974).(The drop in would not have been discriminatory if it had been college eventuate in the early 1970's may have applied equally to men.But MA are granted resulted in qualified women !icing considered in fellowships regardless of the income level of their larger numbers than previously.In fact, in the working wives (and at least some of them have 99 late 1970% woman aocrount for almost all professional wives).It is not imown whether the percent ot the growth in undergraduate en- type of sex discrimination has been eliminated. rollment.) Medium-rangeuniversitiesfavor qualified woman, those who except for discrimination would have been admitted to the top schools, Certain trends are revealed when the above while low-level colleges and universities, which evidence concerning admissions and financial aid are forced to consider female applicants (since policies foe women is examined in relation to good male applicants havebeenselected by higher women% college attendance probabilities by socio- level universities), tend to favor women less, economic status and ability. Women's chances of probably bemuse many at the female applicants attending college are determined by a have low ability.These women are, therefore, combination of their social clan background and doubly discriminated against (Salmon, 1974). their ability. Women of low eociosconomic status have the *me dunce as men only when they have Finally, in some universities, in some fields, high scholastic, ability ("A" grade average in high and for soma types of financial aid, sex discrimi- school); women ci high socioeconomic status have nation policies are prevalent. With the exception the same chance as men even if they have of professional fields, women oonstitute a lager medium-high scholasticability(V" grade shoe of fellowship recipients than of applicants, average).Only when women &op below this possibly because only top womenapply (Salmon, ability level are their chances lower than those of 1974). Some types of fellowships and scholarships men (Werts, 1989).Thus, -women of Iow mob- have been available only to men, such aa athletic economic status and medium or law ability are the scholarships and Government support through the most dircriminated against in terms of college Army and Navy Reserve Officers"Fraining Corps attendance, partly because of Aess parental en- (Ekstrom, 1972). Since the passage of Title IX in couragement and mythological andfiNincial

82 9 support and partly because of admission policies. Informal Sex Discrimination These an the same women who, if they make it to oollap, may have lesschance of obtaining This type of sex discrimination results from fellowships or other financial aid. We do not know the prejudiced attitudes of individual professors if this trend was modified with the upsurge of and administrators who may discriminate on the women's college enrollment in the late 1970's. basis of gender subtly or overtly, not because they are obliged to do eo by institutional rules and Disguised institutional sex discrimination policies but because of their own values and refers to policies that do not appear to discrimi- beliefs. As a matter of fact, their behavior may nate against women because they refer to a "uni- sometimes be in clear contradiction to the official versalistic*criterion,such as age,full-time philosophyandprinciplesoftheuniversity. status, residency requirements, or rules about Probably, as more male and female administrators transferring credits.Ail these criteria, though and professors free themselves of sex role stereo- apparently unrelated to the student's gender, are types, informal sex discrimination will become in fact related to it.Because of prevailing sex lea common. role stereotypes and sex discrimination in the familialmilieu, significantlymore female Because most types of informal sex dis- students (especially at the graduate echool level) crimination are while and frequent, if not every- than male students are 35 years or older; attend day, oceurrences, they am be stressful and ir- college on a pm.t-time basis; have to transfer ritating and even &Iva a woman outof a several times because of their spouses' moves; and professional or masculine field or out ofPh. D. need more time to complete the requirements for program. Very often, male faculty attitudes a degree. 11w existence of a more or less formal translate into "severe psychological harassment age limit of 35 years for admission to many andintimidation*orhumiliationforfemale universities constitutes a disguised form of sex students(Beckman, 1970;Campbell, 1973). discrimination because many more women than Women are belittled (Beekman, 1970); ignored, men apply to college, especially to graduate even when they represent 25 percent of the school, after Hat age (Lyon, 1964; Randolph, student body; spotlighted with irony, amusement, 1965; Blackwell, 1963).Similarly, some types of or anger; stereotyped; or rejected as intellectual financial aid (e.g., some f are seldom or beings (Campbell, 1973). never available to older students Hunter, 1967). A pilot study conducted at Berkeley (Sells, 1973) showed how effective these more subtle and The requirement of full-time study in most informal sex discrimination practices can be. graduateprograms andprofessionalschools, They seem to constitute the underlying reason for ostensibly a universal rule, hits female students women dropping out of graduate school in higher much harder than male students (Hembrough, proportions than men.The study showed that 1968; Class, 1969; Bunting et aL, 1970; Riesman, female graduate students reported significantly 1965; Myers, 1984).Because of this rule, many less often than men that they were treated as woman cannot become physicians or lawyers, colleagues or apprentices by their professors in cannot qualify for Ph. D. programs, or have to the following fields:psychology, anthropology, postpone these plans, at least until their family the biological sciences, sociology, history, English, responsibilities permit them to pursue full-time and mathematics. The difference was not signifi- studyat whieh time they are oiten discriminated cant in chemistry and physics (Sells, 1973). In against because of their ageEven if they are those fieIds, sax discrimination may be balanced admitted on a part-time basis, women are dis- by the fact that some of the women are more criminatedagainstbecauseoftenpart-time outstandingthan most ofthe men so that students do notqualifyfor internships, profesorq invest time and energy in them despite fellowships,scholarships, and othertypes of thefactthat they are women. While the fisinocial aid (Mayden, 1970; Ekstrom, 1974. differences in the early years war. not significant (Sells,1973),many more female than male students in the edvancad years of graduate school Finally, although rules about transferring (fourth year cr more) reported that they were not credits or accepting transfer students apply to all taken seriously by their profesors.The closer students,theydiscriminateagainstwomen women come to academie accomplishments that because women are predominantly affected by enable them to compete with men, the more they them (Pullen,1070;Ruelink,1969; Shoulders, receive informal sex discrimination aimed at 1963; Claw, 1969).Similarly, rules about time discouraging and belittling them. requiremeats often discriminate against woman because of their imbordinata and overburdened Thus, femide students ere not encouraged, positkis within the family (Ekstrom, 1973). guided, and adopted as proteges by predominantly

83 male faculty as male students are (Randolph, probably more prevalent within masculine fields, 1965). They are subjected to a multitude of where women still constitute a relatively small negative attitudes of different types and inten- minority,ratherthanwithinthegraduate sities. Of oourse, sometimes the sponsorship programs of feminine or "neutral" fields or within system craws sex lines (Husbands, 1972), but feminine professional schools (e.g., nursing and then it is often mixed with other motives, such as occupational and physical therapy).There are explicit or latent sexual attraction.Crass-sex exceptions, but not enough systematic research is intellectual relationships may not be as chal- available for is to make clear distinctions,Nor lenging as same-sex ones because of potential do we know the "tipping point° (in terms of the sexual attraction and because of the danpr of peroentage offemalestudents)afterwhich behaving according to sex role stereotypes, which professors no longer discriminate against women. woulddestroytheprofessionalrelationship Research on these matters would provide impor- (Husbands, 1972). tant information as to the appropriate mix of male and female students necessary for the informal sex discrimination techniques are elimination of informal sex discrimination.

64 7. OCCUPATIONAL SEX DISCRIMINATION

The literature on occupational sex discrimi- and treatment practices of bank supervisors was notion *an be described in a typology similar to recently reported (Rosen & Jerdee, 1974). Unless the one appropriate to sex discrimination in higher denialofaccesstowomenisentirely education.In addition, the distinction between institutionalized, their actual chances of access mess sex discrimination and treatment sax depend mainly upon their own level of ability and discrimination is useful (rerborg & Bgsn, 19741 the degree to which gatekeepers adhere to sex Levitie et al., 1971). role stereotypes regarding women's work interest, continuity, and potential. Therefore, the relevant research findings fall in the category of informal Overt Institutional Sex Discrimination occupational sex discrimination. There is no need to specifically document The available evidence indicates that, on the that women have been overtly and consistently average, women are consistently offered lower excluded from the most prestigious,highest salaries than men, regardless of their quali- paying, masculine occupations.Until recently, fications (Terborg & Veen, 1974). Because no data the religiose and military occupations were closed existrelatingthe magnitude of discrepancy towomen,regardlessoftheidiosyncratic between beginning salaries of men and women prejudices of employers.And now that women with the employer's (or personnel manager's) sex have been admitted to military academies, they role Ideology, we cannot determine the extent to are still barred from combat as well as from which this type of discrimination is institution- serving aboard ships and are therefore, cut off alized as an explicit policy or depends upon the from the important upward mobility avenues. gatekeepers' prejudiced beliefs.Of course, this Antinepotism rules have served the same function economic discrimination may often be due to in academia and industry, although this type of indirect or disguised sex discrimination, due to institutionalpolicyisthinlydisguisedas a women employees' older age, type of recom- universalistic rule (Simon & Rosenthal,1987; mendations(notfromimportant,influential Dinerman,1971). Women havc, thusbeen persons),or graduation from lessprestigious effectively excluded from academic positeons and saboolL a varieV of profesaional and industrial positions because they had the unlucky idea of marrying Once woman have been hired, treatment sex someone in the same field. discrimination tends to become more overt and clean-aut the more women perim.rn well and aspire While limited access to woman was institsi- to top deciiionmaking and policy positions (Miller tionallsed in other masculine prestigious occupa- et al., 1974).Woman have often been openly tions, there was usually room for exceptions when bypassed for promotions that would place them in the woman was outstanding, unusually supervisory poeitions over men, despite the fact persevering, or a personal soquaintanoe of the that they were the most qualified for thme employment gatekeeper, or when the gatekeeper positions,simply becausetheywere women was sot prejudiced against women and was willing (McCune, 1970; Kuhket et al., 1974), and it has to put his beliefs into action.For example, a been well documented that there are few female study of deans, chairmen, and faculty members full professors, deans, provosts, or presidents in showed that when the qualifications ware equal, a academie(Safilice-Rothechild,1974. Again, male candidate wee chain; only when the woman despite a considerable degree of overtnees in the was clearly superior wm she offered the job inetitutionalization of the denial of promotion to Mame, 1970).Similar findings wire reported women, much of the discrimination is in fact from a study of psychnlogy chairperson., in whioh indirect or disguised so that organisations Can not only hiring but also the level at which a Ph. D. appear to be fair toward women. would be *USW a position depended at least as sew* on the parson's sex as on the pereont to neat we have been discussing what seadsmie achievements (Fidell, 1970). A similar haPPersto women inmasculine field,. In type of sex discrimination in the simulated hiring femininefields, there le no occupational aeons

83 6 2 sex discrimination, but the findings on treatmtat or part-time status as a legitimate reason for sex discrimination show that it varies with the lower salary and indefinite delay in promotion. percentage of men in the predominantly feminine Furthermore, women's geographic mobility has field.Thus, a study of librarians showed that been cirasticelly restricted because they had to according tathe percentage of Mel in the stay where their inethend's job wu located. Thus differentsubspecialties, womencould be women could not acmt betty job offers in other promoted to high positions. Only in subapecialties locations, nor could they use such offers in order such as school Ubrartarahip, in which only 6 to improve their status (Dinerman, 1971). A study portent art men, could women get promoted to of women microbiologists showed that little has top leadership positions and have power. In changed recently (Kashket et al.,1974h 93 subspecialties such as academic librarianshil, in percent of the women doctorates answered that which one-third are men, this minority of men they would be willing to move only iftheir controls all the toplaitions of power in the field husband could find a satisfactory position in the (biros= & Grimm, £.171).Similar trends have same location before moving, but only 20 percent been reportod for social work and teaching, in of the men made such c Nnditions for their wives' which the minority of men has the leadership and employment. the power (Lyon & Surlo, 1973). A snowball effect seems to be operating with regard to treatment sex discrimination. Because women are hired at lower salary levels Indirect bstitutioul Sex Discrim!nation than men, and because they are given less chance to gain experience in challenging, responsible Under this category is included discrimina- assignments (Terborg & Egan, 1974; Kay, 1972) tion based on women's education, type of profes- and to participate in management training (Rosen sional acquaintance and zupport network, part- & ilerdee, 1974), they often do not have the time employmentstatus,publicationrecord, chance to develop the qualifications and skills work-relatedexperience,andskills,factors requiredforpromotiontotopmanagement indirectly influenced by their gender and the positions.In the professioos, because women are ZinPte sex roles. With regat.1 to access sex not invited to present papers (Yokopenic et al., mritetion,women are often discriminated 1974), to write chapters in influential books, to against beeause they have not graduated from the become visiting lecturers, to serve on review and top wheels, which (as we have seen) are the ones editorial boards (Kuhket et aL.,1974), or to that discriminrte most against women. Or they belong to powerful male cliquesthat make are discriminated ag.iinst because they are not decisionsaboutthedistribution of "goodies" usually the proteges of influential male profeuors (Epstein, 1970; Dinerman, 1971), they do not have who, through the informal communication net- the same chances as men to become visible, well work, secure the best jobsr their favored stu- ;mown, and prtigious. Hence, they can then be dents (Epstein, 1970). Or ttey are discriminated "objectively" discriminated against in terms of against because they clic ot get the opportunity raises,promotions,andotheroccupational in graduate school to du research with a creative rewards. professor that would lead to significant research In general, when women are not altogether interests and experience as wall as publications excluded from occupations on the basis of institu- (Salmon, 1973, 1974). Like blacks, women exper- tional policies, other types of informal and insti- ience considerable educational discrimination at tutional sex discrimination seem to come into the college level, the results of which can be used play. In general, the more there is of one type of to discriminate against them *Rhin the occupa- discrimination, the More there is of the otherf tional setting withoet since the consequences of one type of sex dis- status. Educational diserir.iution has placed crimination serve as the basis and the legitimation them in a disadvantaged position that can be for the other. claimed to warrant differential treatment in the occupational context Also,because woman are discriminated Disguised Institutional Sex Discrimination against within the family and birdened with all household and childcareresponsibilith...;they often can work only part time or must take time A ry basic type of disguised occupatiunal off (especially when the children are small) and sex discriminationisthe sex segregation of sacrifice time tt.-t could be used to write articles occupations into masculine snd feminine and the and books or ..vply for research money.Thus, sex segregation of subspecialties within each their subordinate position in the family puts them occupation. The existing sex segregation of in a disadvantaged position in the world of work, occupations constitutes sex discrimination skies amployert can use their lower productivity because occupations labeled *feminine" are low.

86 status, low-pay, auxiliary occupations; the same them after having had to discontinue working to holds true for subspecialties labeled feminine, take care of young children. even within masculine, prestigious occupations (Epstein, 1970; Safilios-Rottschild, 1974).The Parental status (namely, having pre-school "feminine" label is rationalized in terms of the children) in eombination with sex status (being a nreturant nature of these occupationscompatible woman) has also been used to discharge women with women's "nature and their alleged flexibility from Jobe. The courts did not eonsider this type in that they can easily go in and out of these jobs of practice as constituting sex discrimination without much penalty (Cow & Rokoff, 1971). (Landau & Dunahoo, 1971).The same held true Because vocational counselors, teachers, for the use of pregnancy to diseharge or to not professors, parents, and employers steer women hire pregnant women in a variety of jobs, from toward these low-pay and low-prestige "feminine research assistants to salesladies to secretaries. occupationsorsubspecialties, women are The argument was made that it was the pregnant discriminated against by becoming cut off from status and not gender that necessitated these the more prestigious and financially rewarding decisions! (Landau & Dunahoo, 1971).In recent fields. Furthermore, even when trained similarly years,however,courtshavereversedtheir to men, women are often hired or relegated to positionintheseissues,andithasbeen more routine, supportive, auxiliary positions in established as sex discriminationinthe legal which diey can help men achieve (Lipman-Blumen, seem. 1973).This happens more often in the case of nonspecialized training (e.g., a bachelor's degree nother type of disguised sex discrimination in liberal arts or English), but it has been reported is the one based on women's limitations in physical even in the ease of women lawyers (Epstein, endurance and inability to Ilft heavy weight; it has 1974).In addition, in many occupational settings excluded women from a number of jobs and separate work classifications are used for men and occupations, regardless of their individual ability women in designating essentially the same type of to perform the tasks involvedinthese jobs work; these classifications allow employers to (McKelvey, 1971).Work arbitrators have upheld discriminate against women in terms of salary and such occupational restrictions as valid, although in advancement posaibilities (Landau & Dunahoo, recent years some arbitrators and court decisions 1971). Two well-known cases are the distinction havejudgedthemassexdiscriminatory, between cleaning women and janitors and between concluding that decisions concerning the stewardesses and bursars. appropriateness of jobs should be made on an individual basis (McKelvey, 1971). One study of graduate and undergraduate students in management showed that when asked jc,.that require extensive travel, about the most important qualifications of men geographic relocasons, long hours, some degree of and women applicants for a white-collar job, their danger, and/or occasional abusive language have .sex role stereotypes conditioned them to perceive been restricted to men, because women as a class the woman as an applicant for a clerical job and were considered unable to handle them due to the man as an applicant for an administrative their familial responsibilities as well as their management position. And this occurred despite "helpless," dependent nature (McKelvey, 1971). the fact that the question posed to them indicated Thus,travelingsalespersons'jobsand some the same qualifications and job aspirations for the newspaperjobs,such asnightreporters, man and the woman (Cecil et al., 1973). Thus, the photographers, or crime reporters, have been institutionalized departmentalization of jobs and unavailable co women (Lublin, 1972). positionsmayleadpersonnel managers and employerstodiscriminate against women regardless of their sex role ideology, because Informal Occupational Sex some poiritions are traditionally held by women Discrimination and others by men. The degree to which employment gatekeepers adhere to sex role stereotypes is of Other types of disguised sex discrimination crucial importance in determining whether and at may occur en the basis of the universalistic what level women ean enter male-dominated criteriaof age,parentalstatus,pregnancy, occupations as well as what their chances are for physical wealmess, and inability to lift weight, all promotion and advancement. Several studies have of which have been used in discriminating against shown that employees, managers, or management women. Whenever occupations have age ceilings students hold stereotypic views of women (Bass et for entry or practice, women are hit mush harder al., 1971; Rosen & Jerdee, 1974; Gilmer, 1961; since,as we have seen,they oftenenter Hagen & Kahn, 1974; Terborg & Been, 1974; occupations later than men or want to return to Schein, 1973; Bryce, 1970). One study of 174 male

6 4 managers working full time and taking courses in The criteria for what constitutes the Graduate School of Management showed that a successful performance are not most of them had negative stereotypes regarding always clear cut and precise. women and their relationship to work (Bass et al., Within this context of vagueness 1971). They felt that rules of etiquette and and ambiguity, sex role politeness define the interaction between the stereotypescandistort the sexes in publicthis deference possibly interfering supervisors' perception of in work interactions.Tbey did not feel that women's level of performance women make good supervisors because man and and belittle it in comparison to women would feel uncomfortable with a woman 'men's performance (Terborg & supervisor, and they felt that women were not as Bgen, 1974). dependable as men due to their biological and personal characteristics.It is important to note Even when supervisors perceive that manatees who had had women as subordinates thatwomen's performanceis or peers tendedto have the most negative very good, due to stereotypil stereotypes about women workers, in the former beliefs, it is attributed to luck casepossiblybecauseofthelow work (Terborg & Ilgen,1974). The commitment of woman (and men) in low-status repetition of successful perform- jobs and in the latter case, probablybecause ance over a considerable time women peers threatened them (Bass et al., 1971). period may convince supervisors that it is due to ability (Kelley, A study of bank supetvisors showed thate 1987). They have less confidence in the Supervisors and employers, due ability of a female supervisor tostereotypicbeliefsabout thanamalesupervisorto working women, tend to have appraise the seriousness of a lower expectations of women. performance problem. They do not identify them as competent and superior to others They relied much more on sex and worthy of being guided and role stereotypes in the case of helped to develop their abilities ambiguous administrative deci- and advanoe.Thus, women are sionslackingclear-eutred notassignedchallengingand establishedprocedural rules, demanding duties that give them such as when male employees more experience and more self- behavedinanonstereotyped confidence sothat they can manner by asking leave to take handle difficult tasks. They may care of small children or by expect less ofthemselves, askingforleave without pay eventually even resulting in a (Room & Jerdee, 1974). lower performance Ievel (Torbert & Ilgen, 1974; Epstein, 1973). Similarly, Gilmer (1981) found that 85 percent of male managers believed that women would be inferior to men in superviscey jobs, are more It hasbeenfoundthatwithinthe neurotic, have a higher absenteeism rate, and occupationalsetting,menarefacedwith terve more work-related problems than MIL In ItePetlee,01.FAilee .044.!APilet.0101. while wellin ar general, the available studies regarding gate- more often required to adjust to rules that are keepers' sex role stereotypes indicate, as Terborg particular to their relationship with a' male boss. and Hien (1974) have concluded, that according to Similarly, organizational rewards offered women the beliefs held, men are more independent, are often in accord with sex role stereotypes (such objective, and competitive, and therefore better as little presents or being taken out for lunch) suited for managerial and top scientific positions, ratherthan more substantial and impersonal while women, being passive, drdendent, rewards (Acker & Van Houten,1974). Both emotiona!, and nurturant, are less well suited for aspectsofser,differentiatrdtreatmentare responsible positions in business. discriminatory because they imply that women are nottreatedobjectivelyintermsoftheir performancelaidarenotobjectivelyand Given these stereotypic views of working cornmensurstelyrewarded. Instead,their women on the part of managers, supervisors, and evaluation and rewards are determined on the employers, women are not promoted even when basis of idiosyncratic and unstable criteria which they perform well becauses fluctuate unpredictably and require a commitment

88 8 4 beyondtheformal andimpersonal work brains do not mix," beautiful women who achieve commitment.This fact tends to intensify the occupationally are not taken seriously. Itis vague:mos and ambiguity inherent in the criteria assumed that they "slept their way through" with for judging the quality of work performance and key men (Prather, 1971; Smith, 1972).On the to IL sex-differentiated criteria ip judging rher hand, unattractive women are assumed to men and women. have entered masculine fields or to be highly achieving because they are compensating for their Because women are caught le such per- inadequate affective and sexual life (Prather, socialized work relationships, the approval, friend- 1971; Smith, 1972; Campbell, 1988). Hence, ship, and support of supervisors become more attractive women are more discriminated against, important to them than to men. Thus, approval in especially when they are high achievers eompeting the work setting is important to women because with men. They may not be hired, or they may of both structural factors and their socialization not be chosen as assistants and proteges by super- experiencos whieh have conditioned them to need visors and managers. Hence, they may be the approval of significant others. That is why the bypassed for later promotions because males do "cold war" techniques used by men when women not want to have their behavior and motives are miceessful and ambitious are often effective. questioned by colleagues and wives (Tobias, 1971). One study reports, for example, that while a Or their exclusion from some jobs may be due to competent woman will be wanted the appropriate the fact that men wish to avoid the doubly status, she will no longer be liked and will be more disruptive effect that an attractive woman can likely to lose her job than an equally competent have in an all-male work context.Furthermore, man. Men, end to a lesser extent women, punish attractive and successful women are more of a high-performing women with rejection. The threatto men thanunattractive,successful study, furthermore, showed that men did not like women, probably because men are afraid that the women in competitive contexts, regardless of former could subordinate them both effectively their level of competence, although a high degree and oecupationally. of competence aggravated their dislike.Since menalmostalwaysmakedecisionsabout But women workers are also discriminated promotions, tenure, or who must be let go in ease against because of their image as "servants," of retrenchments, and since "disliking"is an which implies the myth that women will work for important and relevant factor in these decisions, verylittlemoneyorgratisasvolunteers women are often informally but substantially (especially when they like the employer or the discriminated against (Hagen & Hahn, 1974). work ) and that they are best suited for nurturant occupations through which they can help other Similar findings were reported by another people. This myth follows women even after they study, which indicates that the more women have reached top positions, where they may still improve their position in an organization (in terms encounter expectations to fulfill these types of of rank, expertise, or authority), the more they roles(Prather,1971).Forexample,women tend to lose the friendship and respect of their professionals, much more often than men in colleagues as well as influence and access to similar positions, are expected to volunteer their information (Miller et al., 1974).Thus, it seems time and services at no pay for a variety of that high-status women are targets of greater worthy causes. informal discrimination, fact that mey tend to dampen the ambition and the wil:ingneu of Another type of informal sax discrimination women to work hard, since the result has both that takes place within the occupational context --pleasant and unpisaunt elements (Miler et al., is the feet that even when women are promoted to 1974; Hagen & Bain, 1974). The "cold war" may supervisory positions, they are usually not granted be relatively effective even in the case ot women sufficient autonomy and remain "undor the thumb" who have a more contemporary sex role ideology of their male supervisors. Their lack of autonomy and do not place undue value on being liked.It and decisionmakingissizable(initself and seems that women who manage to reach high- relative to that held by men insame-level statue positions are lone-distance runners who positions) and they are aware that their power Is mustendivelonelinessandrejectionfrom limited (Chernik and Phelan, 1974; Athanuelades, adolucence throughout their lives. 1974). Their subordinates are also aware of their limited power and do not view them as their real Another type of informal diserimination supervisors (Hensen, 1974).Thus, it seems that directed toward women is linked to their degree even when women are promoted, they are never oS physical attractiveness, slime women have been entrusted with the same autonomy end power as viowed, as Prather (1971) points out, either as men.In this way, their image and position ere %servants* or as "sex objects." Because there is a undermined, since itfa clear that they do hot stereotype lirt in the case of woman "beauty and really count.

8V ti Yet another type of informal sex discrimina- discrimination, sinee they perceive that they have tion, little researched and discussed, refers to less authority, less decisionmaking power, less women% attractiveness, a characteristic which autonomy, and less freedom to disagree with their hu been largely irrelevant when men are hired or suPeriors.Their male and female subordinates promoted. In the ease of women, however, their were also in agreementthatthere ia attractiveness enhanced, if not determined, their discrimination against women in business and chances to be hired, especially in awdliary and/or government organizations (Athanassiades, 1974). "decorative" oceupations such assecretariee, A study of newspaper women showed that only receptiordsts,salesladies,waitresses, steward- halfofthem believed that theywould be esses, or assistants.In this way, working women discriminated against in promotions, and over half in these jobs were fulfilling not only a serving role of newspapermen agreed with them (Lublin, 1972). but also a "sex object" role (Safi lios-Rothschild, This lower degree of reported awareness is most 1978). probably due to the narrow specification of sex discrimination only in terms of promotion. A Having examined the different types of small percentage (15 percent) of academic women occupationalsexdiscriminationandhaving also reported that antinepotism had hurt their concluded that the extent and consequences of careers (Simon et aL, 1966), bur that does not this discriminationare considerable, the imply that all academic women are not aware of important questionis: To what extent are the sex discrimination involved In antinepotism or working women aware of discrimination? The in many other types of sex discrimination in results from different studies vary, since they academ ia. include different populations of women and do not control for male- or female-dominated Another study of a national probability occupations or for the type of sex role ideology sample of persons living in households, 18 years held by these women.Basically, two important old or older and working for pay 20 holm a week factorsshapetheirexperiencesandtheir or more, included 351 women and 895 men perceptions.One study of 163 Barnard College employed full time and on a regular basis (Levitin alumnae, half of whom were teachers, showed et aL, 1971).This study examined the extent of that over two-tidrds of them were aware of sex objectiveandperceiveddiscriminationand discrimination. Half of ail these women felt that reported that while 05 percent of women were they had experienced it personally.There were financially discriminated against (the important yarnIti..ns, however.More women in discrimination being much more slrious in the professional occupations (other than teaching) case of high-status and white-collar occupations), were aware of sex discrimination than teachers; only 7.9 percent of them felt that they were more women with high than with low salaries and discriminated against on their !obiThe authors more single than married women were aware of explain this large discrepancy in the fact and were exposed to sex discrimination (Gould & that women use other women rat len Ult Pagano, 1972).Thus, the evidence shows that reference group, partly because , )t know women in masculine and high-paying positioni are what men are paid and partly kiecL avey may more aware of sex discrimination, partly beeause not Nave overcome their socialization into the they experience more of it. inferiorsexstatusandfeeluneasyabout comparingthemselves with men (Levitin et al., A study of women in managerial positions 1971). Thus, itis more difficultfor them to showedthattheyarealsoawareofsex perceive the extent of sex discrimination.

90 6 7 & THE CASE OF BLACK WOMEN: RACE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION

Two importantissuesoften raised are are craftworkera and supervisors. Furthermore, whether the double-minority sthtus of black craftworkers and even male operatives earn much women is an advantage or a disadvantage, and more thanfemale clericalworkers. Black whether sex causes more discrimination than race. professional women as a group earn only $17 more Some authors, loch as Epstein (1973) and Bock par year than black male craftworkars (Almquist, (1989), mote that the professional status of black 1974). women in traditionally "masculine" professions such as law and medicine is high, and that a higher It seems, therefore, that females, regardless percentage of black women than black men are in of race, are discriminated against. Havens (1972) these professions.Other authors hav shown, found that, acdording tc 1963 U.S. census data, however, that neither the overall position of bleak the median salary for the most remunerative women workers nor the income level of black occupational category for all professional women female professionals is better than that of black corresponded with the median income of male men, white men, or white women (Almquist, 1974; laborers, who ranked seventh (least remunerative Featherman, 1974; Spotty 1973). category) for men. Almquist (1974) notes that although more Examination of median earningsforall black women than black men are professionals and occupations reveals major discrepancies between black women stay in school longer than black men, males and females. Females are underrepresented a large number of black female professionals are in the highest paying jobs of each occupational nurses and tuchers. These occupations tradi- category.In the professions, women are under- tionally are reserved for females, and the wages represented among physicians, surgeon', dentists, era equivalent to those of some male blue-collar lawyers, and architects and overrepresented in the workers.Using U.S. census and labor data to lowest paid strata of social workers, elementary compare black males and females in professions school teachers, librarians, nurses, and medical that are not traditionally female dominated and and dental technicians.Furthermore, women in low paying, Almquist eliminated nurses, three blue-collar categories had higher median dieticians, therapists, and tuchers below college earnings than women inthe sales category. level from the data on professional women. This Median earnings in the 1980 census, ranked by reduced the number of black female professional categories, showed a major discrepancy between workers from 11.3percentto 3.99 percent. male and female earnings in sales; this category Eliminating "hue occupations from the black was ranked only seventh for females but fourth male professional group reduced professional for males (Havens, 1972). As noted in chapter 7, walkers only from 15.111 pereent to 4.43 percent. the situation changed little during 1970%. Thus, ueept for nurses and teachers (whose ---peofessiosil-status ranks about in the middle), Given that black females are discriminated there were *dually more professional black melee against on the basis of sex, it I. important to note than Nook- teMales.Furthermore, black males one surprising exceptiombolder educated black Wed** tisu as professionals earned, on the women have an advantage over better educated alPeriare, NOV $3,9110 more annually, even though white women.Using 1970 MOW data, Sorkin bleak farad's had, on average, more years of (1972) found that among woman with le years or sch(K l (Alrequist, 11174). more of ednution, nonwhites (92 percent of whom ware black) had a median income of $7,744, Inotherthanprofeesdonaloccupations, whereas white women with equivalent levels of Almoist showed that black women are much education had a median income el only $5,995. more disadvu than black men. Slack women are mote to=its-collar workers Sorkin also noted that in 1970 the average blieit men so many black salary of nonwhite female elementary and 'mond- iWooten are seetataries.Bleak men are more ary school teachers (the higheat paying profes- lik* to be managers or administrators, and more sional occupation employing line numbers of

91 women) tuns $7,311, whereas white female ele- and females was $4,470, a difference explained by mentary and secondary school teachers had a sex discrimination. However, theincome median income of $5,902.Sorkin ascribed this difference due to race discrimination between difference not to the intermittent employment black males and white males was only $1,772. patterns of white women versus full-time employ- This strongly suggests that black women are ment patterns of black women (as noted by disadvantaged mainly because of sex rather than Moynihan),buttolowermobilityrates of race.It further suggests that sex discrimination nonwhite college graduates, who are more likely is less prevalent among blacks than among whites. to remain with one employer and therefore earn IncE-setly, being bin* may be an asset to highly higher incomes because of seniority.Although educated women, but black women who are not black women are discriminated against on the welleducated dosuffermoreeconomically basis of sex, the second minority status (race) of because of their douhle-minority status. well-educated black women tends to diminish income differences. Thus, there is less economic Of the four race/sex groups, black women discrimination against relativelywell-eUucated made the greatest occupational gains between nonwhite women than. against poorly educated 1960 and 1070from 42 percent of what white nonwhite women. males earned in 1960 to nearly 50 percent in 1970. However,this wasnotduetolesswage Nevertheless, black women are stillthe discrimination, but ratherto occupational most severely disadvantaged group economically. advances (Almquist, 1973).For example, among This was clearly documented by Almquist (1973), black women, there was a decline in the number who assessed the income loss of black women due of household workers and a simultaneous increase to discrimination on the basis of both sex and in the number of professional workers (from 7.5 race. Almquist subtracted the average actual percent to 11.3 percent) and a dramatic increase income of ell black women from the standardized inthe number of clerical workers (from 8.4 income levels that black females would have percent to 19.4 percent).These trends probably earned if they had the same age, educational, reflecttherising educational level of black occupational,andregionalcharacteristicsas women, as documentedby Sorkin (1972). white men.The difference between the stand- However, as of 1971, the unemployment rate ardized income and actual income was posited to among black females was very high (Almquist, result from discrimination. The measure was 1973; Featherman, 1972; Sorkin, 1972). Sorkin somewhat conservative since it did not take into (1971) noted that this may have been caused account interactive effects among factors such as partially by the earanee of black women into education, occupation, and previous discrimination occupations with less employment security.For processes and was based only on current wage example, workers in clerical and sales positions discrimination. experience higher unemployment rates than those in domestic work.Furthermore, employers are In comparing the four occupational groups usingmorejanitorialand domesticservice (black females, black males, white females, and agencies,businessesthathire predominantly white males) andinstandardizing the black males (Featherman, 1972). females' Income as a percentage of the higher group's income, Almquist found that black females Barrett and Morgenstern (1974) also noted earned 77 percent of what white females earned, that blacks and young persons generally exper- 54 percent of what black males earned, and only ience a cycle of frequent job changes and periods 39 percent of what white males earned.The of unemployment when charging jobs.This may actual income difference between white females reflect a selective entry of uneducated, unskilled andblack females was $1,203, and the persons into dead-end jobs that prcride neither standardizationfor education and occupation fringe heneflts nor training for future advance- explained the entire income difference (Almquist, ment. Theresult isstructurallyinduced 1973). This indicates that when education and unemployment and a negative attitude toward occupation ars controlled, race does not deter- work. On the job,racial as wall as sexual mine a woman's wages.The educational dif- harassment is probably experienced more ferences between the two groups, however, show frequently by black women and tends to reduce that educational opportunities are affected by their work commitment (Bonney, 1974). Black race discrimination and reflect differences in teenage females -nay have high unemployment social class composition of the two racial group!. rates because employers prefer to hire whites first (Sorkin, 1971). When the black females' income was standardized to that of black males, the income dif- Black women of low socioeconomic status ferenoe due to sex discrimination was $2,501. The are more disadvantaged than whites of the same parallel income difference between white males status because of their high fertility rates, high 92 c 9 unemployment, and inadequate welfare benefits. of them (twice as many as white women) are Due to sociocultural differences, black women sympathetic to the Woman's Liberation Movement desire fewer child-en than white women, but they (The 1972 Virginia Slims American Women% Poll, give birth to their first child earlier (Presser, 1972).However, there is evidence that working 1971; Sorkin, 1971; Micassi, 1974). Furthermore, black women are more accepted by black men according to Presser, the earlier the first child is than white women are by white men, and black born, the more children the woman will eventually men give more positive evaluations of black have. Once a young black woman experiences her women than white males give of white females first birth, the spacing of subsequent births will be (Ross & Walters, 1973; Turner & Turner, 1974a). shorter than for white women.In general, this Also, there is evidence that black mothers have high fertility rate curtails educational options, higher educational occupational aspirations subaequenttrainingopportunities,andwork for their daughters than for their sons 'Brook et advancement Adolescent black mothers are less aL,1974; Buck & Austrin,1971; Weston & likely to complete high school and hold a steady Mednick, 1970).Black adolescent girls, aware of job.Also, the nature of the work available to these high parental aspirations (Kim, 1969; Brook uneducated, lower class young mothers et al., 1974), have higher self-esteem and self- contributeslittleto their motivation to avoid confidence than adolescent white girls (Simmons further pregnancies. The probabilityis high, & Rosenberg, 1975) and have been less often therefore, that they will continue having children, afraid of success (Weston & Mednick, 1970). although having a second, third, or fourth child does not have SS dramatic an effeet on partici- It seems, therefore, that a blaek womants pation in educational or work roles aS having the socioeconomic status determines whether being a first child.Only black women in professional, black and a woman translates into a double- technical,and kindred occupations limitthe minority status. Work has been an absolute neces- number of children they have, and they do so to a sityforthesurvivalofwomenoflow greater extent than white women of the same socioeconomic status as well as for their children. occupational status (Presser, 1971). This as well as the obligation to be strong, reliable, and eompetent may have boosted their Black women are also more likely than white self-confidence and self-esteem, but it has not women to be single parents. This decreases their freed them from a position subordinate to that of marriage options and increases the likelihood that black men within the family and in interpersonal they will depend on welfare (Presser, 1971; Scott, relationships.It can be claimed that black women 1974).Policies toward black women on welfare of low social status have represented a triple- are paternalistic.Agency workers assume that minority group. fathers normally head a household, and unmarried women with small children are treated as deviants Middle-class black women have been better to that norm. They are rarely given job training, able to avoid negative, discriminatory effects, and of those who do get training, few are given especially when they felt psychologically free to jobs that are not dead end, monotonous, and make "masculine" occupational choices.As long without benefits.Welfare neither provides good as they remained "women" and accepted male childcare services nor supports higher education, dominance regardless of educational and but channels the recipients into poorly paying jobs occupational achievements, they had the support when the children go to school and encourages of black men. them to seek marriage as a "solution" to their problems (Iglitzin, 1974). In summary, all of the above 'data need careful reexamination n the light of current and Black women, particularly those who are ongoing changes in black MOWS ability to achieve uneducated or poorly educated, are more aware of highlyintheeducationalandoccupational sex discrimination than white women; 87 percent domains.

93 ,4

Part IV.

Sex Discrimination: Theory and Research 9. SEX DISCRIMINATION: THEORY AND RESEARCH '

Sex is the basis of discrimination in all &aim and Smite (1974), in a pioneering article, societies. Everywhere, sex stratification systems have dealt with the overlapping race, sex, and make for an coequal distribution of wealth, power, class statuses and the individual's consciousness of and prestige at the basis of gender. Since women relative discrimination on the basis of each of usually oecupy the inferior position, they are the these characteristics. They claim that individuals ones who receive a lesser (or no) share of the tend to attribute experienced social inequality to valued societal goods. Of course, men may .1so the onecriterionthatexplainstheirstatus be discriminated agsinst on th3 basis of ti Ar incongruency or status inconsistency (Hreba & gender in some areas (such as child custody), but Breda, 1974). Working-class women, for example, never with respect to the most valued goods: who beeome educated but whose education does wealth, power, and prestige. not translate into economic, prestige, cr power gains as it does for men in the same economic However, because several salient stratifica- class, will tend to (accurately) attribute experi- tion systems coexistin most societies, every enced inequality to their gender rather than to individual occupies a position in each one of them. their clan position (Blum & Coleman, 1970; These differentstratificationsystems may Harbeson, 1971; Epstein, 1973a).Evidence from a inclene: *Wel (clam), racial, religious, ethnic, recent study of adolescents supports Hraba and age, t, and health stratification. Most often Braito's (1974) contention. This study showed that the of each individual's statuses in all the eartiest self-placement into social identities these stratification systems is unevon in that the was made in terms of gender rather then on the individual may occupy the subardinate position in basis of race or class position.Gender was the cno or more systems, the superordinate position in second most salient social identity following age another system, and a middle status in other for both black and white ninth grade students, systems. A woman, fur example, may be black, while race was ranked 7th by black students and middle class, young, and diubled.And another 10th by white students, and identity had the woman may be white, working class, Jewish, old, lowest saliency of all social identities (Wellman, and healthy.Thus, the dvree of discrimination 1970. directed against differed women is,in fact, determined not only on the basis of gander but Probably the best studied overlapping strati- also on the basis of a number of interacting ficaticm systems and the varying degree of ensuing statuses they occupy on all salient gratification discrimination ere the race and sex stratification syetena. Some of tnesii statuses may compound irems and, to some extent, the clue stratifica- the degree of discrimination directed against tion system. All available evidence indicates womee, and others may neutralize their sex status that,at lust withinthe Amerioan society, sad thus minimize us discriminatice. occupying the double superordinate position of a white ntala r;ives the individual extraordinary While the extant to which any individual is advantages of opportway and access to valued diseriminated against depends upon the unique societal goodr, regardless of his merits (Senior oombittation of statuses aihe occupies on the Rothoeldld, 1974a). different overlapping stratification systems, no theorysystematically treats this problem, and In one study, several transcripts reflecting little empirical-relevant evidence is available. differentlevels of performance, ability, end gredes were sent to universities and colleges all over the United States to be evaluated and consid- dmpter was previously published in slightly ered for admission. Accompanying each tran- different form, in Came Studiu on Human Rights script were names and pictures Identifying it as and fundamental Freedoms:A Werfa St belonging to a male or female, white or black, or the Voimdsticn ,or with the identifying characteristics varied to Studies by Martimis lb* &Suet represent each race-sex group st each level of 7. scholastic ability and achievement.The results

97 02 showed that among males, white applicants were enhanced their status since high-status white men clearly chosen regardless of ability. Furthermore, could have sexual access to black women, if they low-ability and low-achievement white males wished, without having to offer income and status were chosen over white or black females of equal through marriage in return.Until recently, the or even higher ability, unless the women were black woman was supposed to be psychologically quite obviously superior (Waster et al., 1971). and socially rewarded by the mere fact that a Thus, among men, the supsrordinate position in white man was interested in a sexual association the race stratification system is the determining with her. factor in the access to valued goods. For women, their subordinate position in the sex stratification Actually, it is important to note that black system seems to be so pervasive that they are professional women earn more on the average consistently discriminated against regardless of than white professional women (Sorkin,1972). race,unless they have such an outstanding This is partly because black women seem to have scholasticachievementthatgatekeepersare been less restrained from entering high-paying willing to let them in the circle of the "chosen *masculine" occupations and partly because black few." women have lower geocaphical mobility and hence greater seniority (Sorkin, 1972).Almquist There is also considerable evidenee from (1973), however, found that after standardizing for developing societies that women with high social education and occupation, norace discrimination status experience little sex discrimination due to in terms of wages is evident between white and their status (Safi lios-Rothschild, 1974a).Their black women. However, when the black female's superordlnate position in the class stratification income is standardized to that of the black male, system exempts them from the restrictions and the income difference due to sex discrimination is constraints of sex role stereotypes and ensures high(namely,$2,501). Furthermore, white them, almost equally with men, access to and females, standardized in terms of education and control of the valued goods of wealth, prestige, occupation to white males, earn on the average and power. High social status can neutralize the 94,470 leas than white males, while the income inferior sex status only in societie, in which the difference (due to race discrimination) between prevailing class stratification system tends to be black end white males is only 91,772 (Almquist, rigid.There is little upward social mobility in 1973).It seems that being black may be indirectly these societies, and the prevailing criteria are an asset to highly educated women over similarly particularistic and even famillstic.High-status educated white women. Black women who are not men favor high-status women over the lower well educated may sufferan economicdouble status men, thus safe guarding that wealth, pro- penalty from their doublemincrity status. In tige, and power will remain within the class general, sex discrimination appears to exceed race confines. discriminationsines,aftercontrollingfor education and occupation (access to which is Black women seem to have attracted con- greatly inhibited by sax end race discrimination), siderable attention and research interest partly Income discrepancies are larger betweenblack because they represent a clear-cut cue of a men2nd women than between black and white "double-minority status" and because research women or between black and white men. evidence shows that in some circumstances their low status in both the race and sex stratification systems becomes an advantage (Epstein, 1973b; Despite the many different overlapping stra- Bock, 1989). Epatein (1973b) found that black tification systems and the fact that the degree of professionel women who entered prestigious discrimination that any woman experiences is occupations stereotyped as "masculine" within the determined by the particular configuration of American society (such as law, medicine, or statuses she occupies in these stratification sys- engineering) managed to obtain higher income and tems, many of the theories and research studio status than blaek professional men or white have abstracted sex discrimination and dealt with professional women. Her explanation was that itexclusively. Possibly a definitionof sax these black women were nonthreatening to white discrimination is necessary at this point. Sex men and were allowed access to prestigious discrimination refers to the differential treatment "masculine" fields and even a considerable degree of women and men onthebasisoftheir of occupational achievement. These black women categcrical membership, that is, on the basis of were nonthreatening to white men because their their gender, without consideration of individual double-minority status placid them outside the differences in terms of ability, competence, incli- realm of institutionalized rules of exchange since nation, and commitment. they could not exchange sexual attractiveness for the right to enjoy desired goods.Their sexual The sex stratification system is maintained, possession by white men in no concrete way and women are assigned and kept at the sub-

99 t.3 ordinate position by means of eex role socializa- overt, blatant sex discrimination. In societies and tion as well as by sex discrimination.Sex role in periods in which the type of dress, the overall socialization refers to the cognitive and learning appearance, the tenons and the existing norms proposes by which women (and men) internalize about behavior established and aceentuated dif- the sex rola ideology, that is, a complex body of ferences between men and women, we find the derootyped beliefs about the "nature (lateens most blatantsexismand sexdiscrimination and weak) of women and the sex-appropriate directed against women. The veils worn by mean for sharing in the distribution of valued women in Muslim °pantries provide a striking goods (that is, income, status, and power). example of the creation of and the accent planet' upon a visibledifference between men ant Successful sex role socialization guarantees women.Sines differences could, at lust theo- the bringing up of sexist individuals who will retically, result in sex discrimination in either discriminate on the basis of gender; uphold sexist, direction, itis the content of the accentuated pesjudioed values; and maintain the sex strati- differenoesthathelpstounderlinewoman's fication system.The existence of a sex strati- subordinate, dependent position.The crinolines, fication system is legitimized by respected and the corsets, the long narrow skirts, the dainty influential ideologiesreliglous, moral, or shoes, the long hair all helped underline not only scientificor by some combination of such ideo- the existence of two separate worldsthe "man% logies.Depending upon the type of society and world" and the "woman's world"but also the the provanig degree of social differentiation and weak, hatpins, and dependent "nature" of women. coinplazity,thetype of legitimizing ideology varies. The more "closecr a society in terms of social mobility and the less socially differentiated It must be pointed out, however, that the and complex, the more the legitimation of present trendinthe United States and most women's subordinate positionisderived from Western European countries toward unisex practically immutable religiousand/ormoral clothes, hair styles, and appearance, especially ideologies. The more a society is "open," soeially among the young, is a helpful and necesary but differentiated,andcomplex,themorethe not eufficient condition to break down sexism and legitimation is predominantly derived from sci- sex discrimination.Probably overt, blatant sex entitleideology,whichcanbe potentially discrimination is affected by this unisex tendency, attacked for its correctness on more "objective," which plays down the anatomical and physical scientific (and hence subject to proof and change) differences between men and women.And it is grounds. again this openly proclaimed type of sex dis- criminationthe overt, blatant typethat is first and most affected by non-discrimination legisla- Sex Prejudice tion, policies, and ideologies. But unless psychological sexism is eradicated, sex discrimination ' Turning now to examine the nature of sex goes underground and becomes more disguised and prejudice (or sexism) and its behavioral correlates, subtle, but no les invidious. And because of its the existing literature deals mainly with race subtlety, it is more deadly end more persistent. prejudice and only infers the extent to which existing theories end research findings are equally applicable to sexism. The belief theory of Other studies have shown that highly prej- prejudice suggests that when an individualis udiced individuals tend to make grow dis- perceived as black or a woman, the tendency is to criminations under stress (thsn in more neutral make usumptions about his/her different beliefs, situations),toincludethesubjectoftheir assumptions which account for our negative peajudica. in.. the. eame category with. an ianocent feelings and discriminatory actions toward that bystander, and to project their hostility onto the iodiekkiaL The assumption that another individual latter. L.prejudiced people react to stress with will not validate one's belief systems tends to atendencytomake finerdifferentiations dispose one negatively toward that person (Banks, (Berkowitz,1981). These findings from race I974). Furthermore, it seems that prejudice, prejudice become very relevant since, they agree racism, or suism fa the outcome of a combination with observitions that under the present stressful of the tendency by those who are alrudy prej- conditions of unemployment, inflation, and severe udiced to perceive blacks or women as dissimilar budget outs, men and women who are highly sexist to themeelves and of the tendency forthis tend to make more gross sexistevaluations, perception of dissimilarity to trigger an even jucklments, and decisions than before, especially if greater degree of prejudice. theyarepersonallyinvolvedinpotentially threateningsituationsintermsofincome, In feat, the belief theory can explain some employment, promotion, tenure, or accessto spiels of seldom that are expressed by means of power.

99 The important Lsues area To what extent is demonstrated sex discrimination. sexism translated into sex discrimination? What Therefore,even highlypreju- is the type of sex discrimination?What are the diced individualsespecially conditions that tend to enhance or depress the those in prominent, decisionmak- acted-out degree of sex discrimination? Available ingpositionsoftenhaveto studies on the relationship between race prejudice masktheirprejudiceandto and race discrimination have shown that reported refrain from overt sax attitudes and actual behavior are not consistent discrimination or are required to (Marton, 1949; Ross, 1956; Simpson & Yinger, 1950; take action against ongoing overt Westie, 1964).Highly prejudiced individuals tend sex discrimination. This to be more inconsistent because they are affected situation creates cogmtive by a ()weber of conditions and social constraints, dissonance in them, since they such as prevailing values regarding the nature, remain as prejudiced as ever, but rights, and treatment of blacks or women and the at least some of them cope with type of relatiazhip and interaction with the the resulting stress by reexamin- person In question (Linn, 1965; DeFriese & Ford, ing their beliefs about women 1968; Warner & Dennis, 1970. Nonprejudiced and by lessening the degree to individualsarequiteconcernedaboutand which they are saaist (Sefilice- influenced by how they think others will interpret, Rothschild, 1974a). evaluate, and react to their behavior vis-a-vis blacks or women (Linn, 1965; Fenckich, 1967; (3) Some individuals who are not Warner & Dennis, 1970.This explains why, once sexist may discriminate against theWomen% LiberationMovementideology women in one context but not in became widespread in theUnited States. another.Because sex prejudice Scandinavia, and some other Western European is not unidimensional, some men nations, some menwho were never sexistfelt may be free of prejudice with free to treat women es equals and as individuals respect to women's educational and to discontinue discriminatory behaviors they andoccupationalrightsand adhered to in the past because of perceived social options but may be unwilling to constraints (Safilios-Rothschild, 19744. treat women as equals in the familial, sexual, and affective Thepresent,persisting poor agreement contexts (Safillos-Rothschild, between sexism and sex-discriminatory behavior 19724. may be attributed to the following principal reasons. Itmust be emphasized thatitisvery difficult to draw conclusions regarding the degvee (I) Prejudiced people may appear to of agreement between sexist attitudes and beliefs be free of sexism according to and sex-discriminatory behavior partly because it standard attitude measures, is increasingly difficult to. accurately measure especially if they are well edu- sexistattitudesandpartlybecause research cated and can, therefore, effec- hitherto has seldom tapped varieties of sexist tively dissimulate socially behsvior beyond the overt, blatant type of sex "undesirable" attitudes, such as discrimination. Inconsistencies are, therefore, sexistattitudes. As sexism probably due to measurement shortcomings rather increasingly becomes something than to actual, meaningful discrepancies. that "nice" people should not feel, subtle measures are needed to tap the dimensions involved. A Typology of Sex Discrimination Apparent inconsistenciesbe- tween attitudesandbehavior Sex discrimination may be expressed and may be only measurement arti- acted out differently according to the type of facts and may in fact represent a society, the prevailing values about equality and good fit between 'autism and sex- freedom, the social desirability of sex discrimina- discriminatory behavior. tion,the degree of sax prejudice, the acting individual, the value attached to the "goods" at (2) In many educational and occupa- stake, as well as the characteristics of the women tional settingsintheUnited toward whom the sex discrimination T:directed. StatesendafewEuropean While we shall consider the effect of each of societies,therearepsycho- these factors on the type and intensity of sex logical, social, and occasionally discrimination, it is helpful to start with a concise economic sanctions imposed for typology of sex discrimination. This includes two

100 :major categories;formal and informal sex dis- prevailingvalues),sexratioof teachers or crimination.The first category is divided into professors and school or college administrators, indirectandinstitutionalsexdiscrimination and sex-segregated schools and cellos's, represent (emprised of overtand diquised sexdis- discriminatoryfeatures against which consid- miminatiord. erable legal and popular polemics must be aroused before they can be attacked and changed. Institutional members, such as teachers, school Formal Sex Discrimisatton administrators, and vocational counselor; can partially counteract the sax differentiation of This term refers to sexist behaviors that curriculums and fields if they do not themselves have been formalized as policies, laws, rules, or endorsetheappropriatenessofsuchsu preeedents and are followed as "due proem.' diffetentiation. Formal sex discrimination may vary according to the degree of directness and the degree of Institutionalsexdiscrimination may be ovalness of the discriminatory actions. overt, if the institutional processes and policies openly discriminate on the basis of gender, or Indirectsexdiscrimination.Thisterm diaguised, if sex discrimination takes place under mtnatLco take place at the guise of another, more universal and socially one level or setting on"objective" grounds acceptable criterion, such as age limit for college because overt and informal sex discrimination vas admissions, undesirability of credit transfers, or suceessfully carried out at previous levels ce In exclusion of part-time students from graduate and other contexts.For example, considerable sax professional schools (which discriminate almost discrimination at the university level is indirect entirely against women college students). In some because overt and informal sex discrimination at cases, the disguise used for sex discrimination is the elementary and high school level as well as ridiculous, as when university policies excluded within the femily has already eliminated many ftstudents from research amistantships options; shaped espirations, likes, and dislikes; arZrtherfinancial aid to graduate students) on stifled Umtata and potentials; and instilled mis- the basis of their "pregnancy rather than on the appropriate fears and cceitrols. basis of gender"!

Institutional sex discrimination.--Thia term Informal Sex Discrimination refers to sex-discriminatory behavior that has been built into the formal policies of institutions. Thistermreferstosex-discrimiLatory Thistype of structural,institutionalized sex practioss and behaviors of prejudiced individuals discriminationtendstobeperpetuated by that may vary considerably with respect to the prejudicedandnonprojudicedpersonsalike degree of overtness or subtlety.Since informal (Burkey, 19Th Illauner, 1972; Bericanovic, 1973; sox discrimination is carried out by prejudiced &nacho1974;Benokraltis &Foggia, 1974). individuals, it may take place regardless of the belated, nonprejudiced individuals in powerless degree of institutional sex discrimination present. positions cannot go effectively against In its subtlest forms, informal sox discrimination institutional 442 discrimination, even iftheir can be succemfully practiced even when the coneeknemen is raised signineantly to recognize formal policies and rules of an institution not only 4431-diseriminatary punnets. Many nonprojudiud are nondiscriminatory but clearly forbid and even individualsaronotoonsciousofthesex- punish sex discrimination. discriminatory nature of many policies they follow and Mellow in which they engege. When, Whit:.all typos of mx discrimination are however, many individuals within an institution usually fouad in all societies, different types of are nonprejudieed and bourne conscious of sexdiscrimination ars more relied won in different diecriminatory institutional proumm, they can societies.One of the important societal dif- charge these promote, especially if at least some ferences is tbe explicitness and thorougimess of of them have power and societal and/or legal the prevailing sex role socielization promo. The support.It can be argued that some structural more cloud a society and the las equality is aspects of institutions willeh are directly and valued and legitimized by influential political and indirectly overtly sex discriminatory are to a social ideologies, the more Pexism can be overt. large extent beyond the control of individual Then the socialization of children can explicitly institutiocal members, regardless of their degree and systematically prepare them to fit in a Ovid of sexprejudiee. Taking theeducational sex stratificatice system. Little girls am made institution se an example, structural features ouch feel Ism important and valuablethan their esmix-differentiatedcurrimdums andfields brothers in all circumstances. Parents are proud (determined by sentralized higher authorities and of their sons and bre; about them to friends and

101 96 relatives.Even when they have to punish them On the other hand, the more social mobility harder and more frequently, it is clear that tney becomes possible or expected in a society, the have an admiration and a weakness for them and more universalistic are the criteria (actually or fortheir rough, ubruly, "masculine" behavior. ideally) used, the more equality becomes valued Boys are given the bast morsels of food and, in and legitimized by major ideologies, and the more cases of food scarcity, they are given most of the sex role socialization and sex discrimination tend food while girls suffer from malnutrition.Girls to become subtle and disguised under other more observe the subservient position of their mothers, acceptable pretences. Girls am told that they are who take orders from their fathers, are shouted at different from boys, but equally important.At when they have disobeyed these orders, and are the same time parents, teachers, and the media treated es servants and objects. Girls also witness admire and emphasize masculine pursuits, mascu- the family drama when another girl is born instead line characteristics, masculine achievements, and of an expected and hoped-for boy.Everybody is male heroes.Girls ere encouraged to do well in unhappy, tears are shed, and not infrequently the school, but the message is clear that if they are father is angry and turns his anger against his wife too intelligent and too highly achieving, boys will who "can only bear girls." Furthermore, the not be interested in taking them out and will not message that the subordinate position is the girLs' fall in love with them.Girls are brought up with rightful place in the sex stratification system gets the rhetoric that they are free to do whatever across to them by the fact that brothers (even they wish but are carefully indoctrinated and those younger ?hen their sisters) become the steered to do the "right things," that is, to accept protectors, controllers, and overseers of their the constraints of feminine stereotypes in order to sisters, and have the right to beat them up, to be loved and accepted. embarrass them, to shout at them, and to run their lives.With such clear-cut, explicit, and Since this type of more subtle and psy- poignant sex role socialization experiences, girls chological sex role socialization may not be have to be born reoels to attempt or be able to consistently successful or always expertly carried escape their "natural" subordinate positionin the out, and because sex discrimination cannot be sex stratification system. blatant, a great wealth of techniques and means to discriminate proliferate as chicks at different critical points of access. Thus, elaborate indirect Inclosed societies with relativelylittle means of sex discrimination, disguised sex dis- upward social mobility, people clo not have aspira- crimination,andinformalsexdiscrimination tions and expectations to change theirlives techniques ere used. The last are relied upon the significantly fromthat oftheir parents and most fcr controlling "deviants" from sex-stereo- therefore tend to accept their assired place. In typed options and behaviors.Some informal sex such societies, a particularistic rather than a discrimination techniques require actors who are universalisticcrientation accentuates women's aware of their sexism; in others, the sexism may inability to escape traditional sex role stereotypes be unconscious. The fact that often unknowingly and sex-stereotyped options since decisions and sexist individuals successfully use informal tech- evaluations are made on the basis of what one's niques of ecx diserimination was clearly demon- sex is ("a woman") rather than on the basis of strated in the United States after the widespread what one can do (individual abilities, talents, and dissemination of the "sex role ideology." When competence). some teachers, professors, parents, vocational counselors, administrators, employers, or therapists realized how sex discriminatory many In Lech societies, beeause sex role socializa- of their techniques, arguments, advice, or sug- tion is so explicit, pervasive, and thorough and geMions were, thay became anxiousto change because sex discrimination is also self -understood, them since they had not been aware of their sexist cleareut, and overt,thereis no need for behavice. elaborate and subtle sex discrimination. Thus, there is no nee t!to rely upon disguised insti- The important feature of sex discrimination tutketal or informal sex discrimination.Nor is in open, universalistic-oriented societies is that there a need for systematic societal checks at sex discrimination in all its forms is pervasive in different eritical points in order to screen out all eocietal structures and institutions at all women who may have slipped through. Be NUM of levels. Even women who have managed to escape this, the very few women who escape the sex role the limitations of an effective sex role socializa- socialization can, if they are highly intelligent or tioncannotgetthroughthemany sex-dis- of high status, beat sex discrimination by using crifainatory checks built into all important access their particularistic characteristics (high inteW- points. FUrthermere,themoreopenand gence or social status) and manage to reach high universalistic the society purports to be, the more positions and enjoy considerable power. women and men are given the impression that

102 they are making frei choices and that decisions recent stu* examined the nature of interactions concerning them are made on the basis of objec- that take place when a solo woman finds herself in tive,uidverulisticcriteria. As long as no a professional peer group, such as a group of particular social movement has made "gender" a psychiatric residents or Psychiatric graduate stu- suspect criterion,it continues to be used as a dents, and the effect these interactions have on valid, substantivecriterionfordifferentiating the training and integration thence: of the women "appropriate" fields, positions, promotions, (Frank & Wolman, I973). The study showed that in salaries, and other options for men and women. esch ef the six peer groups observed, the men reacted negatively to the woman "intruder" in Following the Women's Liberation -Movement their all-male group and used a variety of tech- and ensuing sex role ideology, it becomes clear niques to neutralize her presence and preserve the that geodes is a suspect criterion on which to base all-male atmosphere and quality of interaction. valid decisions. Sex discrimination becomes Men continuedtotalkbetween themselves, illegal, but it does not disappear; it only goes intellectualizing feelings rather than expreseing underground. New subtler, more scchisticated them as they are required to do during psychiatric strategies and teehniques are devised in order to training, because in this way they could emphasize disguiseorenforce sexdiscriminationwhile their masculinity. Also men avoided pairing.or in officially complying with nondiscriminatory rules any way allying with the lone woman in order to and- policies.The most well-known technique is avoid disrupting the cohesiveness between the tokenism, by which the complying institution male members or sharing her deviant and marginal admits only one (or two) female students or hires role.The possibility for sexual attraction made one (or two) female employees, professors, or the womares presence even more threatening, administrators in an all-male field.Itis only since such an occurrence would constitute a highly recently, however, that research has shown the disruptive element in the male relationships and dynamics by which such tokenism truly constitutes friendships. Men handled this potentiality for us discrimination. sexual attraction by completely ignoring the womanls sexuality and by condemning her to a low For example, research on the tyre or role and marginal status. Consistently the solo woman models that token faculty women provide for was defined as deviant, was isolated, and was female students has shown that such faculty made peripheral and marginal regardless of her women tend to accentuate the marginalityand behavior, her personality, or the type of coping inappropriateness of women in the professional techniques used.Thus, women are clisariminated fieldinvolved. Women,therefore, aredis- against by their male peers since their forced criminated againstinthat they do not feel marginality seriously interferes with the outcome enoouraged to opt for masculine fields, and the of their training.Some become so discouraged available research findings show that in fact they that they drop out altogether and others enjoy choose fields much lea often in universities and limited training experiences because they are departments in which there is an insufficient excluded from the group (Frank & Wolman, 1973). number of women faculty models to normalize their professional choice. Furthermore, token Some recent evidence is even more disturb- women faculty members may occasionally serve ing,indicating even when larger numbers of as negative models because of their own peculiar women are admitted to previouslymasculine icilosyncracies or lifestyles, which again tend to professional schools, such as medical schools, stand out instead of being normalized within a institutional policies that require the subdivision larger groim of faculty women (Litton-Fox, 1973). of students into smaller groups serve to reduce Token women faculty members have in the past the presence of woman to only one in each group. acted (and are still occasionally acting) as nega- A recent survey of woman medical students tive models through the "queen bee° syndrome, showed that they were told informally but firmly that is, by actively discouraging women from that no more than one girl should belong to each entering the field, by being hostile toward women, small instructiGnal group of usuclly seven to eight and byactivelydiscriminatingagainst them students (Campbell, 1973). Sometimes the reason through grades and research opportunities. Thus, forthis dispersion of woman was clear and departments of engineering or physics can comply explicit: "Women shouldn't get triffether, so they with affirmative action by adding one or two start protesting, agitating, and10 WSWoment women to their faculty without in fact diminishing lAb nonsense."But even when the rationale was the degree of indirectdiscriminationagainst not explicitly dated, the results were clearly women students. discriminatory against the women, as a recent study of such gsoups of medical students in an Tokenism in student admissions at different anatomy class showed (Frank, 1975).Similar to levels hss proved even more discriminatory and the fate of the solo psychiatric trainee, the solo destructive for the women students involved. A female medical student in the instructkaal small

103 groups in the Anatomy class was totally ignored (Lynn & Sawrey, 1972).Mothers maintain phy- and excluded Trom the topical conversation by her sically close and affectionate relationships with fellow medical students, was made marginal, and their daughters for a longer period of time than had little chance to participate in the crucial with their sons (Lewis, 1972); they reward them training experiences (Frank, 1975). more, and they punish them less. Daughters, therefore, tend to receive much more affection All the above recent evidence from small- and approval while sons receive a better balance group research in the United States suggests that of positive and negative reactians from their when overt sex discrimination becomes illegal, mothers.Actually, girls seem to suffer from too prejudiced individuals revert to subtler, informal much love and maternal concern. Some psy- sex discrimination that can be documented and chologists have pointed out that mi.lhers and combated only with great difficulty.This is the fathers tendto be much more anxious and priee that societies pay when legal and social protective toward their daughters than toward charges take place before the large majority of their sons and, therefore, even to encourage individuals have values and attitudes consonant dependency in them as a guarantee that they will with these changes.It is interesting to speculate remain protected by the parents (Hoffman, 1975). about the form that sex discrimination will take Thus, despite the greater maturity and sturdinoss now that even these subtler techniques have been of the female infant (Garai & Schienfeld, 1968), uncovered and made public.Will sexist people parentsareanxiousabouttheindependent give up or become even more ingenious? behaviors of girls and happy and relaxed over similar behaviors by boys. As Hoffman (1975) concluded, a maternal Content of Sex Discrimination sex-differentiated behavior that could be labeled "overhelp" may be the most detrimental behavior Turning now to the content of sex discrim- for daughters' development of independence and ination,we shallexaminetheaccumulated achievement motivation.If the parent responds evidence from a considerable number of research to the child's crying or asking for help too quickly, studies which have shown the dynamics of sex the child never has a chance to develop the ability discrimination within the context of concrete to tolerate frustration, to tackle the problem by settings.We shall limit our presentation to the itself, and to explore possible solutions. There is educational and occupational setting for which evidence that mothers tend much more quickly there is sufficient research evidence. Most of the and frequently to help girls than boys when faced relevant research, especially with regard to sex with a difficult task.Thus, girls learn to be discrimination at the elementary school liavel, has dependent upon adults for help rather than trying taken place in the United States and canada. to cope with problems and difficult situations and Whenever relevant research is available from the exploring solutions by themselves. U.S.S.R., Sweden, Poland, or other countries, it will be incorporated into the discussion. Furthermore,mothersplaceagreater Sex Discrimination at the Elementary and High degree of pmssure for achievement and indepen- coLli Levels dence on their boys of pre-school age than on their girls.In addition, mothers tend to reward At these levels, sex discrimination may be boys'aggressionasappropriate"masculine" indirect, overt institutonal, or informaL Indirect behavior while girls' aggression is never rewarded sex discrimination at the elementary school level andonlyindirectexpressionsatbestare has been mainly aecomplished outside the schools tolerated.Mothers place pressure on girls for in the family end by the mass media. Available "feminine" neatness, obedience, and conformity research has amply documented that mothers and while the pressure on boys is for independence and fathers behave differently toward daughters and achievement (Hatfield et aL, 1987). Another sees from the time of birth (Lynn & Sawrey, 1962; observation study showed, similarsy, that fathers Dropplemen & Schaefer, 1983; Moss, 1967; Moss et significantlymoreoftenpositivelyreinforce aL, 1989; Goldberg & Lewis, 1980; Limit, 1972). dependentratherthanindependent daughters Someof thesesex-differentiatedpartal (Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972). behaviors are of great Interest because of the implications they have for the long-range educa- It seems that high achievement motivation tional behavior and achievements of daughters and irgirlsisfostered by exactly those parental KIM Boys, for example, are giver n.fie and behaviors which are the opposite of those foster- earlier independence training (Collard, 1084); more ing "femininity." Namely, achievement motivation NnisNnent (Droppleman & Schaefer, 1983); and is higher in girls when their mothers are less more encouragementintellectuallythangirls affectionate and leas nurturant and when they set

104 high standards for their daughters' intellrctual tur, most of which are quite overt.The first achievement.Furthermore, daughters al.(more such feature is the sex composition of the faculty, proficientinboth reading andarithmetic which in most countries is quite skewed toward achievement tests when their mothers hold high thefemale sexatthelowergradesand achievement expectations (Crandall et al., 1964). increasingly toward the male sex at higher grades While the best condition for fostering "femininity" and in administrative positions. Probably the in girls appears to be maternal affection and American case represents an exteeme, since only nurturance (Hetherington, 1967), the best type of 2 percent of the elementary school teachers are maternal behavior for high-achievement socializa- malewhile veryfew womenare school tion is a balance of warmth combined with some tldministrators, but similar situations are punishment and distanee on the part of mothers as replicated in several societies.Such a clearly well as high expectations for achievement and sex-differentiated school hierarchy transmits the independence (Berens, 1972; Stein & Bailey, 1973). message to girls that women, even when they Thus, mothers'"over-affection"lavishedon work, occupy subordinate positions in which they daughters represents the subtlest and sweetest but must obey men and abide by their decisions. Such also probably one of the most potent types of sex a message is quite powerful in helping eonsolidate discrimination. All these socialization studies, theeffects ofthe continuous informal sex- most of which are observational, suggest that girls discriminatory practices to which girls (and boys) and boys are differentially conditioned by their are subjected. parents so that by the time they go to school, they: Childrenare exposed to sexist books and illustrated material even before they can read and (1) Are bware of existing sex role to clearly sexist texts from the time they can stereotypes and sex-appropriate read. Content analyses of elementary school behaviors. texts of all types (history, literature, and even arithmetic)carriedoutintheUnited States (2) Have already been influenced by (DeCrow, 1972; Saario et al., 1973; Taylor, 1973; their parents' sex-differentiated Frazier & Sadicer, 1973; Levy & Stacey, 1973; behaviors such that girls have a Stacey et al., 1974); in Sweden (Fredriksson, 1969; greater tendency to be obedient, Berg, 1969); and in Norway and Finland (Berg, neat, passive, and dependent, and 1969) show that readers not only reflect the sex boys have a greater tendency to stratification systemin the society but even be aggeassive, disobedient, wipes reality by portraying an even more sexist independent, exploring, and crea- society thanistrue at present. Fathers are tive. presented as the sole breadwinners and decisionmakers and as exclusively involvedin There tendencies, instilled in children by traditional stereotyped male activities.Mothers parental sex role socialization and reinforced are depicted almost exclusively as homemakers through all the books and comics they read and all and nurturers.When they are shown as working the television shows and advertiseipents they see, women, they are nurses, teachers, or secretaries. constitute significant indirect sex discrimination Furthermore, mothers are presented as dull, inef- since they pave the way for sex discrimination in fectual, almost totally preoccupied with house- school. work and shopping, incapable of problem-solving, and even stupid. The more children advance in school, the more indirect sex discrimination builds up from The sex-diseriminatory power of such sexist grade to grade.The more intense the informal school readers is enormous since children learn end institutional sex discrimination on the part of within the context of a lesson (hence within the teachers, curriculums, readers, and school struc- context of official knowledge and wisdom), the tures has been in early grades, the more indirect appropriateness and even desirability of a sex sex discrimination operites in later grades. Boys stratification system in which women must occupy and girls tend increasingly to behave according to the subordinate position.Thus, all their previous sexrolestereotypesandfurthertojustify perceptions regarding such a sex-stratification teachers' sex-differentiated behaviors and system become solidified with the seal of educa- expectations and all types of ongoing sex-dis- tion and science. These sexist readers make criminatory practices. children (especially boys) feel that sex discrimination is a "natural" process that everybody follows. Once boys and girls start going to school (from kindergarten on), they are faced with a Probably the most effective type of sex number of institutional sex-discriminatory fea- discrimination to which school children are sub- jeeted is the informal set of sex-discriminatory teachers' sex-differentiated behavior tendsto behaviors on the part of teachers.It must be place a greater pressure on boys than on girls to emptwsized that, as is often true with informal achievea patternthatreinforcestheone sex discrimination, those who practice it may not produced by similar sex-differentiated parental be conscious of the nature of their behavior cr of behaviors. its implications and consequences for the students involved. This may be due partly to naivete Research findingsindicate that teachers concerning what behavior constitutes sex dis- interact much more often with boys than with crimination and partly t* lack of understanding of girls, and these interactions are both positive and the dynamics involved in the translation of a negative. One observation study concluded that teacher's behavior or expectation into a student's boys had more interactions with the teacher than behavior. A recent study (Chasen, 1974) illus- girls and appeared to be generally more salient in trates well the above points. the teacher's perceptual field (Brophy & Good, 1970).Another observation study of seventh and The interviewed elementary school teachers eighth grade classrooms concluded that boys were felt that they treated szhoolgirls and schoolboys more active and interacted more frequently with equally in theclassroomandresistedthe teachers and that boys received more contacts implication of possible sex stereotyping in their from teachers, both positive and negative, while behaviors or thoughts regarding their students. girls received fewer contacts but proportionately When asked specific questions about their beliefs more positive ones (Good et al., 1973). In terms of and behaviors, however, it became clear that they these findings,girls seem tobeagainst held sexist beliefs and exhibited sex- discriminated in that they have fewer contacts differentiated behaviors that were discriminatory andinteractions ws.th theteacherandare toward girls.They reported, for example, that experiencing a less stimulating school environ they believed that boys are innately more aggres- ment than boys. sive and girls are innately more passive.They alsoadmittedthattheywere activelydis- couraging aggressive behavior in girls (but not in Researchers have foundthatteachers boys), thus facilitating a self-fulfilling prophecy. approve of girls more than boys because they fit Teachers reported that aggressive behavior in better the desirable institutional-type behavior of teacher-child interactions was encouraged more in dependent, docile, passive, and obedient children boysthaningirls. Furthermore,teachers who do not disrupt the classroom routine.One reported feeling boys' muscles more frequently study showedthatstudentteachersprefer than girls' and telling boys more often than girls students described as dependent, passive, and that they were strong.They encouraged boys to acquiescent and react less favorably to students do while girls were portrayed as independent, assertive, and active. woodworking, mostly In fact, all student teachers, men and women, encouraged to do cc Ilagea sedentary, passive atisign the highest mean preference rating to activity.More specifically, the majority of the conformist, rigid girls while the independent girls teachers said that they often encouraged boys to receivethelowest rabings (even lower than play with blocks or to do woodworking while only independentboys,who seemto bebetter a few of them encouraged boys to play with dolls. tolerated) (Good & Grouwns, 1972). Thus, it seems It is interesting to note that there was emotional that the teachers' ideal of a schoolchild coincides resistance on the part o; the teachers to boys' with the "feminine" stereotype, a fact that may pllayhv with dolls cr to girls' playing with blocks appear to be beneficial to girls in the short range (Chazen, 1974). but which is clearly detrimental to them in the long range. A number of observation studies eonducted in American elementary and high schools have documented the teachers'sex-differentiated Already socialized at home and by the media behaviors that constitute a different type of sex to behave according to sex role stereotypes, girls discrimination directed toward boys and girls. receive a very powerful reinforcement to do so throughtheteachers'approval and rewards, Some findings show that teachers praist, including good grades. Thisprocess proves well as criticize boys more frequently than girls. detrimental to girls after a few years since they One observation study concluded that boys were become locked into their sex roles and socialized asked more direct questions by the teacher than tohebitualmodesofbehavior,whichare girls.Boys ware also praised more frequently essentially incompatible with autonomy, inde- when they gave correct answers and criticized pendence, and assertiveneucharacteristics more often for incorrect answers or failures to associated with achievement and with competent respond (Brophy & Good, 1970). These findings are andeffectiveadultfunctioning(Grambs & significant because theyindicatethatthe Waetjen, 1966; Sadker & Sadker, 1972; Lee, 1973). 106 h Boys, on the other hand, because of their upon them when they fail tofulfill the sex- "masculine" socialization already begun at home, appropriate level of achievement. tendtodisplease teachers and attracttheir punishment and criticism but are able to maintain their high level of activity as well as their Sex Discrimination in Higher Education autonomy, independence,assertiveness, and intellectual curiosity.Boys can, thus, attract a greater share of the teacher's attention and At this level, indirect sex discrimination possibly become further stimulated by such inter- '..scomes very importantThiecause of the consider- actions.The teachers' tendency to give lower able discrimination that has already taken place grades to boys thantogirls(partially as a at lower levels. Because women are "cooled out" of science and mathematicscoursesinhigh punislunant for disruptive behavior) may, in some school, most of the "masculine," high-prestige cases, tend to reinforce boys' relatively greater academic fields in college are closed to them emphasis upon learning rather than won pleasing because of their poor background (Flanagan, 1966). the teacher cc obtaining good grades. Also, because vocational counselors in high school as well as parents have already discouraged girls Gender and scholastic achievement have from entering high-prestige, "masculine" fields, been shown to be mutually interactive variables thereis often no need to apply further sex- that affect the teacher's behavior toward the discriminatory rules and practices at the college students.More specifically, available research level.Women have been convinced to stay in indicates that teachers tend to tolerate low-level "their place," that is, to enter the few appropriate scholastic achievement better in girls than in boys "feminine" fields, if they go to college at all. since, according to sex role stereotypes, boys are clearly supposed to be leaders and to achieve Another type of indirect sex discrimination highly (Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Good et al., 1973). at the college level takes place because women Because of teachers' high expectations for boys, are discriminated against when they get married theirfailuretoachieveispunishedwith or have children.Discriminationinthis area disapprovaland rejectionwhilethe teachers results from the fact that they are assigned the behave more cordially to girls with similar low- major (if not the exclusive)responsibility for achievement levels (Lippitt & Gold, 1959).The household tasks and childcare. Thus, a high school more recent study (Good et al., 1973) showed that marriage or a marriage right after high school low-achievement boys are especially likely to be graduationrtasticallydiminishes awoman's highly criticized by teachers, to receive little chances oattending college (Ludernan,1961). teacher feedback about their academic work, and Also, married women in general enroll as graduate to get little opportunity to respond.The study or undergraduate students in smaller numbers than showed that while high-achievement boys have single women and tend to drop out of college in more frequent and more supportive contacts with 'Larger numbers than single or divorced women teachersthanhigh-achievementgirls,low- (Feldman, 1973; bard, 1988). Because women have achievement boys have fewer and more negative to follow their :rusbands wherever their job or contacts with teachers than low-achievement girls education takes them, they usually lose credit (Good et al., 1973).Low-achievement girls have hoursintransferring from one universityto social approval for 'being nice" as an alternative another and have their training lengthened by to high scholastic achievement, while the only having to satisfy oifferent sets of requirements alternatives open to low-achievement boys are (Pullen, 1972; Rus link, 1969; Shoulders, 1968; Class, athletic prowess or aggressive behavior (Caplan & 1969). Kinsbourne, 1974). Until recently in the United States and in Thus, girls are again discriminated against many other nations, overt institutional sex dis- whether they are high or low achievers.When criminationwas bestillustrated by the sex- they are high achievers, they have less interaction segregated colleges and universities.Repeatedly with and less supportive feedback from teachers courtshadbeen reluctantto recognize sex than high-achieving boys.When they are low segregation as similar to race segregation and to achievers, they are under less pressure to strive outlaw sexist admiscion policies at the college and toward a higher level or alternative types of university level (Shaman, 1971).The arguments achievementsincetheyarestilllikedand were that there are many different women's as approved a by the teacher, as long as they stay well as eoeducational colleges and universities quiet, compliant, and dependent.It also seems that women can attend and that many of the that low-achieving boys are discriminated against women's colleges are of high quality. Even when a by the extreme pressure placed upon them to college is not accessible to a woman in the town achieve and the painful social rejection inflicted or city where she lives, she can always go to a

107

1 u college in another city (Shaman, 1970. Neither of countries si.ch as the United States, since it tends these arguments is valid.In most societies, sex to be more socially acceptable than overt sex segregationatthehighereducationlevel discrimination.The best examples of such dis- constitutessexdiscrimination becausemeres eamination at the university level are the follow- colleges are usuitily more richly endowed, offer a greater variety of courses and curriculums baia including those preparing students for high-pres- (0 The existence of a more or less tige, "masculine" fieldshave better teachers, and formal age limit in admissions. enjoy a better academic reputation (Shaman, 1971; It discriminates primarily against Bunting, 1961).Furthermore, moving to another women who return to college (at city or another State in order to attend a college the undergraduate or graduate thatoffersthedesiredcurriculummakes level)atage 35 duetothe education much more expensive for women (since prevailing discriminatory division they can no longer live at home) or outright -oflaborwithin thefamily impossible (when they are married and cannot (Blackwell, 1963; Lyon,1964; move away) (Shaman, 1971; Ewald, 1970. Randolph,1965;Johnstone & Rivera, 1965; Hunter, 1967). A different type of blatant institutional sex discrimination coneerns imposing quotas limiting (2) Strict rules and policies regard- the number of women admitted to engineering. ing the transfer of credit hours. medical, and law schools, as well as graduate Againtheydiscriminatepri- pregrams (Cross,1971; Phelps, 1972; McBee & marily against women who often Soddick, 1974). Women are thus discriminated musttransferduetotheir against regardless of whether they are qualified or husbands' moves (Shoulder:, 1968; not. Only outstanding women are admitted; Class, 1969; Ruslink, 1969; Pullen, otherwise men are preferentially admitted even if 1972). less qualified than the women applicants (Cross, 1971; McBee & Suddick, 1974).Clearly, average (3) Requirements of full-time atten- women do not stand a chance (Werts,1966; dancethroughouttheentire Waltser et aL, 1971; Hunter, 1967). The degree of training (or at least for 1 to 2 discrimination against women applicants is much years) in graduate programs and greater inprestige universities thanin other professional schools. These rules universities (Salmon, 1974). actaspowerfulbarriersto women'sentry(Myers, 1964; Therearealsodiscriminatorypolicies Riesman, 1965; Hembrougn, 1968; regarding some types of financial aid available to Class, 1968; Bunting et al., 1974). men and women college students. First, a number Women'sfrequentinabilityto of fellowships and scholarships connected with attendfulltimeisdueto athletics or Reserve Offieers' 'Training Corps are indirect sex discrimination with- open only to men. Second, fewer women are given inthefamily(discriminatory part-time research assistantships, which provide division of labor) and to some not only adequate financial aid but also valuable extent to their lesser access to research apprentice experience (Salmon, 1974). r,cholarships and fellowships Third, in "masculine" fields, women are leis often because of overt or informal sex appointed teaching assistants since there is a discrimination. Thus, many reluctance to have women teach men students qualified and interested women (Harris, 1970).Finally, discriminatory university cannot become physicians, policies exclude women but not men fellowship lawyers,pharmacists,resear- applicants on the basis of their spouse% income, chers, or university professors policiesthatseriouslydiscriminateagainst when they are young. They have middle-ineomemarried women who wantto to postpone their studies until attend graduate school.Such women, regardless their children are grown up, at of merit, must either work part time (something which time they are discrim- often very difficult because of their familial inated against on the basis of responsibilities) or be financially dependent upon age. theirhusbands,who oftenatleastmildly disapprove at their attending graduate school. When all other types of sex diseriminution have been unsuccessful in keeping women out of the university, "masculine" fields, or the graduate D edsexctiscriminationhas 1 ten program, sexist faculty and administrators can Inc ns ed upon during the last decades in still screen women out by means of informal sex

108 discrimination. Women are "cooled out" by means terms of both attitudes and behaviors. In Greece, of a number of techniques and strategies that can for example, it is widely accepted by now that be grouped into three major categories. women should have equal educational opportunities with men at all levels (Safi lia-Rothschild, (I) Humiliation or severe psychol- 1972a) and, in fact, an equal percentage of men ogical harassment and intimi- and women complete high school,while 3L6 dation (Campbell, 1973). percent of women attend college (Statistical Yearbook of Greece, 1973).When, hovevVFr, t (2) Belittling; (ignoring the mdstence comes to women's employment, only about one- of women students, even when third of men and women think that married they represent 25 percent of the women should work (Safilios-Rothschild, 1972a) student body in a masculine field and, in fact, only 27,8 percent of Greek women do like medicine; and rejection of work(StatisticalYearbookofGreece 1973). women asintellectualbeings Thus, women are often not allowed entry into an (Campbell, 1973). A study at the occupation, even when they are qualified to do so; UniversityofCaliforniaat and if they manage to enter an occivation, they Berkeley reported that women are bwariably discriminated agsinst in a variety students ware significantly less of waystreatment diacrimination (Terborg & oftenthan mentreated as Ilgen, 1974; Levitin et aL, 1971). colleaguesorapprentices by theirprofessorsnotonlyla A basic entry type of occupational sex "masculine" fields such as discrimination ea"Wri ed out by means cif indirect, mathematics and the biological institutional,overt,andinformalstrategies, sciences but also in psychology, policies, and rules refersto the labeling of sociology, history, and anthropol- oecupations as "masculine" and "feminine."This ogy. The same study showed labeling is discriminatory because in all societies that woman students are taken and periods the occupations that are classed as less seriously professionally by "feminine" are the low-status, low-pay, auxiliary theirprofessors eveninthe occupations cr the monotonous, routine jobs that advanced yearsofgraduate men are willing to relegate to women.Men, on school and that these subtle but the other hand, keep for themselves the occupa- potent discriminatory behaviors tions of higher prestige and pay as well as those constitute Ma underlying reason that we more interesting and provide access to far woment dropping outof power. Whenever an initially low-status and low- graduate school (Sails, 1973). pay occupation, due to ongoing social changes, becomes more prestigious, better pr 'el, or vested (3) Preferential treatment of men with some power,it becomes reclassified as with regard to research auist- "masculine," and men start to dominate it.The antships and opportunities for reverseoccurswhen an occupation becomes research experience. reclassified as "feminine."The occupation of secretary is a good illustration of an occupation which in many African countries is still relatively Clearly, the only women who have a chance well paid and prestigious and is dominated by men. to enter and, more important, to graduate from in Western societies, on the other hand, where it "mattuline"fields,professionalschools,and carries little prestige and where administrative graduate programs have the highest qualifications; positions are better paid and more promising, are the most stubborn and resilient, with strong secretarial jobs are held by women, while men nerves end a "thick *in"; and have sufficient with the same educational qualifications can enter income to allow them to attend on a full-time administrative jobs labeled "masculine" (Safilios- basis (when they are not granted a fellowship) by Rothschild, 1974a). hiring domestic help.This portrait of the women who an enter professional schools and graduate programs and succeed in "masculine" fields makes It is importent to note that the sex labels Itapparent that women are overwhelmingly attached to occupations are usually justified on discriminatedagainstinmany ways atthe the basis of sex role stenotypes and varying university level. interpretations of sex-related characteristics.In the U.S.S.R., meek:ins Ls labeled a *feminine" occupation because itis a relatively low-status Occupational Discrimination and low-payingoccupation, butthelabelis justified in terms of women's nurturant "nature" In most countries educational discrimination ((goldberg, 1972; Dodge, 1966). In the diminishes b:Atre oceivational discrimination, In United States, however, where medicineisa

109 highly prestigious and very well-paying occupa- Finally, an indirect type of sex discrimination, it is labeled "masculine," and the label is tion in the famiW-s-7ystem, resulting from the Justified on the basis of the high degree of com- wife's (legal and social) obligation to go where her mitment necessary that women are unable to husbandis job takes him, Ls still drastically limiting make because of their familial responsibilities. womene geographic mobility and their degree of Aetuelly, of course, the usual justification of the accesstojobs,particularlydesirablejobs. built-in flexibility in occupationslabeled Despite the few sensational reported cues in "feminine" (such as teaching in elementary school) which professional couples in the United States or is false.In fact, many of the occupations labeled Sweden live in different cities in order for both to "masculine"dohavemuch moreflexibility be able to hold their jobs and despite the fact that (Safi lios-Rothschild, 1972b).Occupations such as some men in the academic field and industry will medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, research work, or not consider an offer unless job opportunities (or, teaching atthe imivarsity levellabeled more rarely, an offer) are available for their "inasculine" in the United States and several other wives, these cases still represent the minority. A societies,ean provide considerableflexibility recent study of women microbiologists reported because the professional can largely set his/her that 93 percent of the women doctorates would be own hours and can work fewer than 40 hours per weling to move only if thee husband could find a week in an office setting.In some societies, of satisfactory position in the Alfile location before course, such as Finland, Hungary, Poland, the moving, but only 20 percentof the men made U.S.S.R., Denmark, and Greece, pbarmacy and suchconditionsfortheirwives' employment dentistry have recently become preeeminantly (Kashket et al., 1974). "feminine" occupations (or equally open to both sexes) partly because of this built-in flexibility But even when women are hiPos.: treatment (Satos- Rot hsch ild, 1972a). sexdiscriminationcontinues. lieavailable evidenceindicates that they are eensistently offered, on the average, lower salaries than men When women do become trained for a mas- regardless of their qualifications (Terborg & Ilgen, culine field because of their outstanding qual- 1974).These salary differentials may represent ifications or different combinations of circum- partly blatant and partly indirect sex discrimina- stances, entry discriminatory practices tend to tion due to womene older average age, recom- screen them out or to relegate them to lower mendations from less powerful people, graduation positions with leas pay and fewer advancement frrm less prestig'ous schools, or lack of valuable probabilities than are offered to men. Studies of research or apprentice experience.With respect university administrators (Simpson, 1970; Fidell, to advancement and promotions, all types of sex 1970) and bank supervisors (Rosen & Jerdee, 1974) discrimination continue to operate and to become have shown that qualifications being equal, a male more overt and clear cut the more women do well candidate will be chosen over a woman unless the andaspireto top decisionmaking and policy woman is clearly superior.Furthermore, women positions (Miller et al., 1974). Women are, in fact, may not have access to prestigious positions most often bypeased, either openly or increasingly simply because they lack the information about under some socially acceptable pretext, for pro- these jobs and because they are not recommended motions that would place them in supervisory for these jobs by powerful, top-ranking men in the positioes over men, even when they are the best field.Most of the jobs in academia as well as industry at high levels, especially the "plums," qualifiedforthesepositions (McCune,1970; have always been filled through the informal Kashket et aL, 1974). 'buddy" communication network between males (Epstein, 1970). But the existence of similar buddy Promoting a woman to a supervisory position systems among salesmen,skilledworkers, over men would, in fact, break down the pre- construction contfactors, union leaders, and so on vailing sex stratification system, and that is why has been all too powerful in keeping women out of the reluctance to do so is great and the resistance a wide range of positions in all types of "mascu- very strong.Several studies of mate managers line occupations. The recent requirement in the (Bassetal., 1971;Gilmer,1991)and bank United States and some other societies for wide supervisors (Rosen & Jerdee, 1974) showed that advertisement of openings has, to some exteet, not only do they hold stereotypic views of women, mitigated but by no means neutralized this type of but they also have less confidence in the ability of occupational sex eacrimination.Probably the a female supervisor than a male supervisor, and development of an equally powerful women's they would feel uncomfortable with a woman communication network can help fight effectively swervisor.These strong resistances to having a this type of sex diecrimination, as the recent woman supervisor explains why men the experience of American professional women has top administrative (or all administrative) Hone proven. even in occupations dominated by women, such as social work, elementary school teaching (Lyon & rejection and an atmosphere of "cold war," the Saari°,1973),andlibrarianship. A recent intensity of which increases as they prove to be American study showed that among librarians, more competent, ambitious, and successtul (Hagen women can get promoted to top positions and have tk Kahn, 1974).The more women improve their power only insubspecialties,such as school position in an organization, the more they tend to librarianship, in which only 6 percent are men. In lase the friendship and respect of their colleagues other subspecialties, such as academic (Miller ot aL, 1974).Thus, when men have to librarianship, in which one-third are men, this recognize a woman's competence and 411,01V her to minority controls all top positions of power in the achieve significantly, they punish her psycho- field (Krems & Grimm, 1970.Similar patterns logically for her deviance by withdrawing their have been documented for Poland (Sokolowska, friendship, approval, and liking, thus forcing her .1965) and the U.S.S.R. (Dodge, 1966). to a painful isolation that dampens her success.

Often women can be bypassed for promo- It seems, therefore, that a woman who tions becatne, by means of a variety of dis- attempts to break through the existing sex strat- criminatory practices and behaviors, they have ificatioa system by entering a "masculine" field or not been given the opportunity to acquire the by aspiring and achieving highly (snd, thus, acquir- necessary qualifications and experience. They are ing prestige and possibly also power and a higher given fewer chances to gain experience in chal- income) must be a unique being to be able to lenging, responsible assignments (Terborg & figen, survive all the types of sex discrimination to 1974; Kay, 1972) and to participate in management which she will be subjected. She must be a very training (Rosen & Ilerdee, 1974).They are less strong person not to bend under the harassment or often invited to present papers (Yokopenie et al., the derogatory remarks of teachers and peers. 1974), to write chapters in influential books, to She must be intelligent, competent, and hard become visiting lecturers, to serve on review and working in order to be able to make it without any °di:oriel boards (Kashket et aL,1974), and to eneouragement so that she can continuouely prove temporarily take the place of the sick supervisor she is superior to most men.And, finally, she or the *bunt bosa. run, eventually they can be must be independent enough to be able to go on despite psychological rejection and active dislike more "objectively" discriminated against in terms on the part of colleagues and acquaintances. This of raises, promotions, and other occupational hu been the essence of sex discrimination: While rewards. many men, even mediocre ones, can enter prestigious fields, compete, aspire, and achieve as One ofthe moat painful and effective highly as they can, it is only the unusual woman, informaltechniquesc.foccupationalsexdis- intellmtually and paychologically, that can enjoy crimTnation to which women are subjectedis the same options. Part V.

(5 Sex Stratification

1u 7 10. SEX AND OTHER STRATIFICATION SYSTEMS

Until recently, theorists, particularly those gation between men and women.Even within working with stratification, have resisted studying occupational settingsin which both men and ses u part ole stratification system equivalent women are workin there are usually parts desig- to those that are racial or ethnic. The reason for nated as "male" settings and others as "female," a this could be that the stratifieation theorists separetion used to accentuate women% subordi- belonged to the privileged sex, and since the sex nate status. ranking was not a problem to them, they never perceived it as a stratification criterion. Because AccatingtoBerreman(1972),ifone these theorists accepted the sex role ideologies, accepts van der Burghet statement that "race ean they also accepted sex mating as a manifestation be treated as a special case of invidious status of biological differences (Berreman, 1972; Millet, differentiation or a 'pedal criterion of certifica- 1970.SCOO theorists, especially in the late tion* (van der Berghe, 1987), sex must also be 19601s,consideredthepossibUityof asax accepted as a criterion of stratification.In most stratification system but they usually rejected it societies, the relationship of males to females is a because substantive issues, such as the mode of lifelong supariwity-inferiority OM based either on recruitment,socialization,membership,and the characteristics of birth-escribed separation , structural arrangements of people in sexually and stratification or inborn psychological and ranked categories" seemed more important. social comequences. Both stem from similar factors in early socialisation and from stenotypes Acoording to &outman (1972), although sex and prejudices enacted and enforced by dffering isdetermined atconoeption,itisneither roles and opportunities, rationalized by ideologies contingent on ancestry,endcgamy, or other of differential intrinsic capabilities and lestained arrsegamentsofmarriageorfamilynor and defended through the combination of power predictable.Ke notes that the significance of and vested interest that is common to all birth- sexual differences is, however, largely defined ascribed inequality. Berreman points out that the socially; cultural expressions vary widely over biologicalrationalehasbeenusedasthe time and ipso&As a concomitant, males and justification for sex discrimination, as it has for females have no distinct ethnic or regional all birtb-ascribed, dominance-exploitation histosy, but they do have distinct social histories relationships (be they caste in India or ethnic or in every satiety.The universal coresidence of racial discrimination).Such a rationale implies males and females within the household has real, significant, unavoidable, and natural differ- precluded lifelong separate male and female ences that must be acted won (Barreman, 1272). societies. But this arrangement does not preclude distinetmale and female socialinstitutions, patterns of social interaction within and between Review of Conceptualizations of the these categories, or male and female subcultures and dialect& Sex Stratification System Margit Eichler (1273b) is one of the few Barna= does not discues the fact that theorists who have examined in some detail the msny societies withrigid sexstratification differentooncaptsof the sex stratification epitome have definite rules of spatial segregation system: as a east* system, a social clams system, between MINI and women. Rouses in such or a minority group.She notes that the concept Societies have separate female parts and strict of women as a oasts proposed by llyrdal (1944) rules about when and tmdar what circumstances implies a permanent rather than a temporary one sex is allowed to cross into the other sees disability beoause of ascribed charactsristics, a part of the ham&Furthermore, the distinct rimed rather than an open system, a rigid caste patternsofeducationalandoccupational line tot variable caste relations, and, of pours*, a mgreption, prevalent in most societies to varying atrialinterdiction of intermarriage. Andreas degrees and forms, indicate a oonsiderable extent (1271) devilled a similar theory of sex stratifi- of ph/sisal, spatial, and soclopayehologioal sign- cation as a taste system.

115 lug Eichler, however, thinks that the concept of In the class analysis of women described by the power relatioeship between men and women as Newton (1969), the roots of the secondary status a oasts system does not represent the current of women are economic, and women as a group situation.She points out that, despite the fact haveadefiniterelationto the means of production, although different from that of men. thatNMisbirthascribed and thereisa hierarchical grading of the sexes, woman are not Benston wrote that women can be defined as a andogamas and do not have a distinct culture in group of people responsible for the productionof the sense of a outs culture.' It is true that there simple use values in those activities associated is something thatis lowly called "women's with home and family.These use values are world" and "men's world"; sex segregation at contraxtedwith exchange values,which are related to eommodity production and characterize social gatherings; different areas of concern by the work of most men. Althouigh women do work sex; different types of drum different types of for wages, as a group they have no structural relationships both within one sex and between the responsibility in this area, and such work ordi- sues, such ea sex-specific grooming and dating Coesistent with leisureactivities;and narily is regarded as transient. behavior;sex-specific the emphasis on household labor, Benston(1969) stereotped perceptions by members of each sex argued that essentially housework has not been about themselves and the other sex. But there is Industrialized or accepted on an equal basis with also fairly wide area of overlapping behavior, supecially between employed men and women other means of production, such as those for (Eichler, 1973b). Furthermore, there is no doubt which men are primarily responsible. that the range of social and economic differences within one sax is as great as that between the IndiscussingBenston's concept,Eichler saxes. Although women segroup are economie- pointed out nut none of her arguments seems to underprivileged, be substantiated by existing evidence.Benston's ally,*Delany, and politically class analysis suffers because, although it includes there is no doubt that some women are better off all women, she makes her definitions and obser- economicallyandsociallythansomemen. Amundsen (1971) also found the oasts system too vations applicable only to nonearning housewives. extremeto.explainthepowerrelationship Hence, Eichler concluded that Benston's analysis between men and women.There are too many is incomplete and cannot be applied to all women. exceptions to the rule to assume a rigid strati- Finally,Eichlerexaminedconcepts of fication system such as the one suggested by women as a minority group.As early as 1952, cute. Hacker defined women as a minority group, although the majority of women did not then display aminority group consciousness(thus Eichler(1973a)alsocriticizesLenski's deviating from at least one of the defining concept of women as a Wass, wan aggregation of characteristics of a minority group),She based persons who stand in a similar positionwith her concept on the fact that womenmanifest respect to some form of power, privilege, or many of the psychological characteristicsimputed prestige"(lanald,1966). Eichler found this to self-conscious minority groups, such as group analysis tmsatisfactory since it did not allow for a self-hatred (exhibited in a person's tendency to distinction between employed and unemployed denigrateother membersofthegroup), women and treated marriage and employment as acceptance of the dominant group stereotypes, iftheywere mutually exclusive ice women. and attempts to distance oneself from the group Lensici (1966) claimed that competition through (Hacker, 1951).Another sociologist, Jochimsen, marriage is the least risky route for woman. also elaborated on the characteristics of minority Through marriage, womee an obtain a substantial group behavior among women.She listed the interestin their husbaees Income, enter into followingtans: self-hatred,low salf-image exclusive circles, and have the leisure to do the expressed in the need to be admired by others, things they wish, that is, achieve the route to exaggerated egoism,ceaselessself-reflection, vicarious achievement as defined by Lipman- hatred for others, resignation, and extreme bore- Blume (1972).Eichler criticises this concept dom. According to Jochimsen, the overall life- because marriage and the economic roles of style, patterns of thought, and forma of women's women are not mutually exclusive, andincreasing behavior could only be described as demoralized numbers of women are competing simultaneously (Jochimsen, 1969). in the accoomic andmarriagemarkets. Furthermore, economic competition differsin nature because lt is between men and women as Eichler (1973) correctly pointed out that the wellasamongwomen;himarriage,the concept of women as a minority group ten* to competition is only among women, with men es put too much emphasis on the results of the the prizes (Eichler, 1973). existing power relationship, in which clearly men

116 3 are dominant and women are subordinate. It does than that derived from her husband or when the not say anything about the nature of the power husband's derivedstatusishigherthanhis relationships as attempted in a class and cute individually achieved status. In both cases, analysis.Eichler goes on to make a fundamental because the status configurations challenge the distinctionbetweenwomen's derivedand status hierarchy dictated by the sax stratification individually achieved status.A woman obtains system, a spouse could be penalized by being derived status by her association with a man grantedstatus lower than either type warrants. either ,er father (as long as she is unmarried and to sOmo extent indirectly even after she is Collins (1271) is another theorist who de- married) or her husband. Women who do not have scibed man-woman relationships as a sex stratifi- an individually achieved status derive it from a cation system. Accordingtohim, women man, and thus they era dependent on mon for their qonstitute the subordinate class because women statue. Eichler, therefore, suggested that there is take orders from men, but can give orders only to an overlap between the sex stratification and the other women (only men can give orders to men). social stratification system= If only the derived This principle is, of course, modified when the sax socioeconomic status of women were examined, stratification system interacts with other systems women would be consistently ranked according to that might place a higher status woman in a thestatusderivedfrom their husbands. position to give orders to a lower status man. Therefore, although wives are considered to have According to Collins, the sex stratification system lower status than their husbands, they are often cams aboutbecausemencouldphysically assigned higher status than men ranked lower than dominate woman who were vulnerable because their husbands. This evaluation takes place they traditionally bore and raised children.This regardless of the woman's percale qualifications. system is maintained as long as women do not have equal status or moss to status lines. They, However, when the social stratification of therefore,maketheirsexualityascarce employed women is considered, women differ commodity to be exchanged for men's status lines; .from men in at least two dimensions:they are in- return, men have exclusive sexual rights to underrepresented in the upper strata; and, within their wives.Collins' (1971) theory about the each stratum, they occupy a lower level than men, unequal exchanges between husbands and wives even within female-6ominated occupations, such coincides with thoee of Safilios-Rothschild (1978, as librarian (Blankenship, 1967; Archibald, 1970; 1977a). Jude*, 1960.Since increasingly more married women are employed, the tw statuses If sex stratification exists, there should. be (individuallyachievedandderived)arenot evidence of unequal distribution of wealth, power, entirely unrelated and tend to overlap. Not only and prestige based on sex or, as Eichler (1974) can a woman occupy both statuses, but she can calls it, of "sex status."If a sax stratification also pass in and out of either, by terminating or system is to be accepted as a real stratification beginning work again or by marrying or divoreing. criterion operating within American society, it If the if&P between the derived status and the must explain theme differences on the basis of sex actual independent status is too great, the higher rather than class, race, or ethnicity. status can carry over to the lower one, since the woman's derived status was always assumed to be A recent study, using sophisticated tech- above or at leer squal to her individual status niquesof dataanalysis!(pathanalysisand (Richter, 1973).Increasingly, Uwe is a need to regressioneoefficients),definitely established analysethetheoreticalimplications ofthe that sex was the most significant direct and reversesituation(Watson & Barth,1984). unmediated depressanton actual eduoational Eichler's analysis was important because it intro- attainment. Thiseffectremaineddespite duced the concepts of women's derived and simultaneous controls on a lance number of individuallyachieved status in the sex educational variables, such as academic ability, stratificatico system end its overtop with the social class background, performance, eckicational social stratification system. goal, cademic self-cone/0, curriculum enrollment, and the influences of significant Safilioe-Rothechild(1975)usecr Elehleris others, such as parents, teachers, and peers concepts of derived .and individually achieved (Alexander & Eckland, 1974). ttatus and applied it to both spouses, since husband, can also gain positive or negative +status This study replicated earlier data by Sewell from their wives' wealth or occupation. She and Shah (1967, 1969), Sinn social class back- showed how a sex stratification system mdsts by ground influences were shown to be a double Indicating bow it operates when the two spouse's liability for women. 'Mese influences were found statuses do not coincide, eepecially when the to be considerably more determinant of high wife's individually achieved status is much higher school process and outcome variables for females

117 10 than for males, while academic ability was more ranking areas of public health and psychiatry important for males.That these results were (Epstein, 1972). consistent for both educational goals and attainment suggc..itheimportance of sexrole Men and women in the same occupation do socialisationinexplainingatleastsome not have the same occupational prestige.Moat differences. This interpretation is reinforced by studies found that even when a woman has a high- Sewell and Shah's (1967) finding that even when prestige job, she usually has lower prestige than social class background and ability are controlled, men in the same occupation because sex status la females ars less likely to plan for, attend, and more important than occupational status.Thus, gradeate from college. the oecupational prestige of a given occupation varies with the gender ef its incumbent. Walker Fine lly, the study by Alexander and Eck land and Bradley (1979),for example, found that (1974) showed that women are more influenced womenin"masculine" occupations had less than men by family origins (social class and prestige than men in the same job, but men in mother's education) than by ability, more so in "feminine"occupations had aboutthe same high school than in college.In high school, the prestige as their female peers.Men, therefore, women take courses to prepare them for college, were penalized for relinquishing their superior and their class standing is influenced more by position by entering a "feminine" occupation and their socioeconomic status than by their ability. were not given more prestige than women.In The reverse is true for men. But in college, these another study, Nilson (1972) found that both men trends are tempered (Alexander & Eck land, 1974). and women in sex-inappropriate occupations had These latter findings are at odds with those lower occupational presfge than men and women reported earlier by Sewell and Shah (1967) and in sax-appropriate occupations. suggest that the role of sex in the college attainment process merits further study. In a later study, Nilson (1976) replicated her earlierfindings, but also found that men in It seems, therefore, that sex status is an "feminine" oceupations were penalized more than important factor in determining the educational womenin"masculine"occupations. The chances and attainment of both men and women, explanation for the latter finding seemed to be the effects of which cannot be explained by other that women in "masculine" occupations received stratificationcriteria,suchas socioeconomic higher status, but men in "feminine" occupations status or ability.It is worth noting that in 1977, were downgraded and, therefore, viewed less when considerable "cracks" existed in the sex favorably than the tranogreuing women.Bose's stratification system, as many men as women (1973) data regarding the lower prestige of women in prestigious or "masculine* occupations agreed were welled In college(Megan* 11, 1978).Sex status remained, however, an important factor for with the above evidence.In "feminine" and low- those who received a 1%. D. degree or attended status occupations, women were assigned higher professional schools (SafilierRothschild, 1978). prestige than men. These American data agree with those from Additional evidence that sex is a real strat- other countries.A study conducted in Zambia ification criterion comes not only from the fact showed a significantly lower ranking of prestigious that occupations are labeled as °feminine" or occupations triton the incumbents ware females; "masculine" in all societies, but also that feminine thistrendwasparticularlytrueformale occupationehavelessprestige,pay,and respondents (Hicks, 1969).Nuthall (tang) found decisionmakingpower. Femaleoccupations that in New Zealand the sex of the incumbent was usually depend on cheap labor; they also do not important in producing differences in the status require much training, career eontinuity, keg- renkings of occupational roles. The data indicated range commitments, or extensive sacrifices of aronsistenttendencyforteachingasan time and energy (Kincade-Oppenhalmer, 1968). occupation te be held in slightly higher regard for Working women also tend to occupy the low- women than for men.The study suggests that statue, low-preetige, and lass powerful jobs. For when a man enters i female occupation, he example, female clerical workers are file clerks challenges the sex stratification system and is and typists; in the school systems the women are penalized by being asiigned lower occupational teachers and the men are administrators; ea prestige (Nuthall, 1969). service workers, woman cluster in the lowest paying domestic jobs, below porters and janitors It seems, therefore, that men and women (male jobe). Even within professional occupations who challenge the sex stratification system by much as law, women primarily are found in low- occupying sex-inappropriate occupations tend to ranking specialties, such as matrimonial and rsal be penalized by receiving less prestige and that estate work. Women doeters cluster in the lower sex more than occupation determines prestige.

118 The latter holds true, however, only in the csse of type of occupational ranking seems relevant to women, since men tend to be penalized more than the earnings of women in different occupational women when they occupy "feminine" occupations, categories, and this system of ranking does not which often imply a downgrading status for men. overlap with that for men. This evidence strongly indicates the existence of a sex stratification Besides lowering the assigned occupational system based on the distribution of income by prestige of woman who occupy "masculine" oocupational categories. oeaupations, demograptdo, historical, and experimental evidence shows that when a number In 1974 women earned only about 60 percent of woman enter a previously masculine occupation as much as men. This gap was still larger in sake with hilitt Prestige end high PRY, the Prestige end and high-level professional positions Qiandbook on pey of that occupation tend to drop, and men tend Women Workers,1975). Although by lef to 'band= it.Thus, the occupation beoomes womeni collage enrollment included several high- redefined as feminine, and the prevailing sex prestige fields, 40 percent of employed women stratifination system b not disturbed. still concentrated in 10 fig& in which women comprised 70 to SO percent of the workers. This Grow(1987) alsonotedthetthe clustering contributed to their low wages. demographic findings on changesinthe sex structure of occupations might indicate that To summarize, sex status is an important whenever large numbers of women enter an stratification criterion since: occupation, men beginto seek employment aimewhere. A historinal analysis of the percentage Women do not have the same of females within selected occupations in Caneda educational aspirations and from 1931 to 1951 showed a clear and consistent attainments as men, especially pattern: When woman went into an occupation, at high levels. the average income of that occupation seemed to go down.However, when men entered a new Women are restricted to *fem- occupation, the average income seemed to go up. inine"typesoftraining and This pattern indicates that sex oomposition of an education which usually do not oeoupation partially doter:nines the monetary prepare them for professional value put on the services performed (Eichler, jobs, but only for auxiliary, low- 1974). paying, low-prestige occupation& Finally, experimental evidenoe lupports the Women, even when they are theory that the movement of large numbers of educated forhigh-status, sex- wows* into a prestigious ooeupation reduces its inappropriate occupations, have prestige. In one study, when subjects ware led to less chance than men to get a believe that theproportionof female job, and wnen they do, they are practitioners in a high-status oocupation would usually assigned to lower status imam" theyevaluatedthe,prestigeand positions. desirabilityofthesocupation much lower (rcehey, 1974). Women have much less chance to be promoted or to receive equal The fact that significant income pay for coal work. differentials have been reported between man and woman even when their educetico, training for a Sax is a criterion used to distribute prestige partieular job, or seniority are the same further and wealth as well as power.Ever: when women supports the mistimes of a sex stratification oocupy power-invested, high-statue Welke Paid system. positions, they rarely reach the top levels. OM study using 19430. U.S. ammo data found that a rank ordering of groos categories by median earninp revealed important discrepancies Relationship Between Sex and Other between females and males. The major one, for Stratification Systems the sales category, nuked seventh for females and fomith for males.The most rennmerative Once it is established that there is a sex oeeupaticaal eategory for females (profeesional) stratifloation system, it is important to focus on correconded to the seventh-ranked category for the relationship between different stratification males (lsboser). In addition, fir females, median sYstems. Sex and weal, racial ethnic: end ether esrainp of blue-eollar gram categories ranked systems undoubtedly overlap, but little theory or above Mow for the sales category. A different research has dealt with their interaction. When

119 in the United Statesin1980. Ocoupational two or more systems overlap, does a high statusin of one system neutralize low etatus inanother?Is differentiation refers to the degree dissimilarity in the occupational compositionof high status in one area so important that the end ineumbent can enjoy a subordinate !status in two white men and white women, white women or mcee systems? Doesthis entail * double- or black men, and white men and black woman. triple-minority status for the incumbent because Unfortunately, when referring to occupational of compounded low status? These questionshave differentiation they failed to consider specific important theoretioal impliestions, since women occupation',but insteadlookedatbroad positions in occupational categories. This shortcoming Is occupy both dominant or subordinate of sex social, racial, ethnic., age, and otherstratification extremely important because a high degree occupations systems. differentiationexistsinspecific within broad occupational categories.Whether There is some evidence that in societies the conclusions of this study werevalidis with little social mobility, upper class and upper questionablesince occupational differentis.tion middleclass women enjoy a dominant status according to sex is so seriously underestimated. despite their sex, and they tend to be freeof the Thus, the finding that race is morepowerful than restrictions imposed on other women(Safilios- sexindeterminingoccupationalcomposition Class consciousness becomes except in the two youngest age groupscannot be Rothschild, 1974). occupational so rigid that high social status overrides anyother accepted as valid. Their finding that characteristics, including inferior sex or racial differentiation on the basis of both sox and race differentiation based status.A study done in Brazil on class status had higher values than either on only sax or race mightwell hold, even after the found class to be more important than race within (luncimen, 1972). occupational sex composition is examined specific occupations (Martin & Poston, 1972). of the age In tome societies, the interaction interaction with the sex stratification system mightenable Additionalresearchonthe either between sex and racial stratificationsystems is older women to occupy a higher status than shows that sax younger men or women. Thisinteraction is not, examined in chapter 8. It example, discrimination generally is greater thanracial however, the earns cross-culturally. For important in Western societies such as the United States,in discrimination and that class status is which a woman's life expectancy is quite high, in determining whether being black and awoman higher than that of men, and in which there is no is a double penalty or an advantage. legitimate role for grandmothers, older women theoretical have a low status. In feet, older womentend to Only one paper worked out the implications of overlapping membership(Bbaba & have a lower status than either older men or is younger men and women. But in developing Braito,1974). The authors ststed that it is problematic that people perceive theirunequal soeieties, in which a woman's life expeetaincy class, low and grandmothers are valued anduseful, old life chances only in terms of their wonomic age defines a woman as "asexual"and brings not as the Marxist model wouldhave us believe. sometimes also People might ale° attribute economicinequality considerable familial and largely ignored economic power (Safilios-Rothschild, 1977tn Bart, to their race and sex, hypotheses in the study of consciousnessformation.Arabi 1989). and Braito argued that in contemporaryAmerica important unequal life chances are structuredalong several Someauthorsrecognizethe be racial theoretical consequences of simultaneousstrati- statuses, and as a consequence there can fication systems based on age, sex, clan, and and sexual as well as economic inequality. *Welty. They realize that several status corn- binatimm can provide a powerful empirical clue to attributetheir the nature of a moiety's overall stratification Whichstatusespeople causal inequality to and which status they choose as system, since it is passible to attribute relevantfortheir coneciousnesecanvary weights to how uch of these factors determines singled Pew researchers, according to different factors. The anthers prat**, power, ce income. out "status incongruently," or *status however, have worked out the nature andeffects inconsistency," as one of the most important of interections for people cm:copying different factors. They proposed that people might statusesindifferentstratification systems attribute their economic inequality to their race (Lieberson, 1970). orsexratherthantoclassinastatus inconsistency represented by high-class Martin and Poston(1972)systematically qualifiutions (education) and low-class rewards examined ooeupational differentiation by saxand (income). Renee, they argue that minorities, race in 88 standsrd metropolitanstatistical areas including women, might more often become

120 conscious of their racial and sexual inequality Their conclusions probably hold true only for than of clan exploitation and attribute their males, SLIMS even upper clans white women in such lower opportunities to these statuses. They base developed societies such as the United States have this anrument on the well-documented fact that experienced *ex discrimination from generation to for blacks and women, achievement of quali- generation. This common experience of sex fications (such as education) does not translate discrimination could override the experiences of into the mune economic, status, or power gains as age discrimination. it dose for men in the same position (Blum & Duncan, 1967; Blum & Coleman, 1970; Harbison, 1971; Epstein, 1973).These authors claim that Height Stratification System: A New parents who are blacks and/or women make their Dimension in the Status Profile children more race or sex conscious than clam eoescious (Hraba & Braito, 1974). Clinical as well as empirical evidence shows that height could also affect stratification. This Theimportanceofracialandsexual is important because, on the average, women are consciousness is supported by the fact that these smaller than men, although height discrepancies identities are formed comparatively early end can exist between the sexes in different cultures, be at least as important, if not more so, for classes, and ethnic groups. adolescents as class identities. A recent study of both black and white ninth grade students' self- A clinical study by Harnett et aL (1974) placement found that sex was the second most consistently showed the importance of height. salient social identity following age.Race was Both males and females maintained twice as much ranked seventh by black students and tenth by distanoe between themselves and a tall person white studentm elan identity ranked lowest of all than between themselves and a short person. The social identities, next to the last and last by both sex and height interaction was aignificant only at black and white students (Wellman, 1971). Thus, the 0.20level,butbecause there were no adolescents seem to be aware of their imolai referencestothesubjectsaboutsexor idenUtlem their racial and sexual identities are attractiveness and because the object persons more important than their class identities; and made no effortto be particularly appealing their sexual identities are the most salient of ail sexually, the sex variable was possibly attenuated. Hrabe and Braito (1974) stated that research studies in this area should focus on how people of These findings take on added importance different age groups compare their life chances when compared with clinical findings from other with those of different racial, sexual, arid alass studies.At the behavioral level, obedience In groups end what interest groups they are most mibjects increases as the authority figure moves likely to join to improve their circumstances. away from the subjects (Milgram, 1965); more Such studies could help describe the agreeable rssponses were produced by subjects interrelationships among different stratification claw to the authority figure.In fact, Bleck systems as perceived by individuals. (1970) argued that the extent to which the behavior of an individual is affected by another is At least one article dealing with age and a function of the distance between them. The social stratification concludes that the more closer the distance, the stronger the stimulus intent the feelings of subordination due to racial, characteristicsassociatedwithothersare emelt class, or ethnic discrimination, the less the perceived.Thus, at decreasing distances height generational differences and the greater the will become an increasing factor in personal continuity of experience among different ago influence.This could explain why man, who are groups (Laufer & Bangstcm,1974). Repent usually taller than women, have been able to midmost according to these authors, indicates influenee and make women obey them, @venially that a generation that responds simultaneously to in aloes, interpersonal relationships. class, rectial, and sexual exploitation by necessity mutes the generational issues. Racial oppression Furthermore,empiricalresearchfrom and poverty are reexperienced try each generation. different areas of interpersonal relation and , This element of generational continuity is too achievement demonstrated thatheightisan powerfulforgenerationaldif ferentiationto important stratification variable.Marriage data overcome. The authors concluded that it is only show that men normally marry women who are among the white, upper middle clue and upper smaller than they so they can "look down upon" Iwo* groups that subordination Ls their wives.Women, on the other hand, must function of age, creating the Feasibility for marry men who are somewhat taller so they cen agotisiod milieus. That is why the upper strata "look up tow their husbands.Therefore, short are most auseeptible to generational discontinuity males and tall females have problems in and its consequences (Laufer & Bengston, 1974). and in choosing a marital partner (Feldmen,"771111).

121 1, 4 Thisrelationshipbetween heightand mate higher the academic status attributed to a person, selection is indicative of the status of women in the taller the student subjects thought she or he our society.Males are supposed to be more was. Thus, status and height are highly correlated dominant and have more power than females, and in the same way that being male is correlatei one way for men to be dominant is to be taller. with high status (Feldman, 1971).

Some professions, such as policeman and Thisstratificationsystemisimportant fireman, have explicit height regulations. These because it overlaps considerably with the sex requirements are present although there is nothing stratification system. A double-minority status inherent in the duties of either occupation that results from women's smaller elm The norms requires tall employees. These recluirements about how tall a woman reiust be to have high suggest,therefore,discriminatorypractices status might be different from those for men; thus against small people. Feldman quoted two a certain height for women could represent a low surveys. One, done attheUniversity of status for a man but an acceptably high status for Pittsburgh Busineu School, found that tall men (6 WORM. feet 2 inches and above) received a beginning salary 12.4 percent higher than graduates of the The existence of a height stratification same school who were under 6 feet (Deck, 1971). system also raises the following research quota.= Another study reported by the Wall Street Journal Have tall women experienced less legal, educa- (November 25, 1969) indicated that shorter men tional, and occupational discrimination than small might have more difficulty obtaining a job than women?Also, height stratification raises many tall men, since recruiters made a hypothetical other research quutions aboutits effectin choice that indicated an overwhelming preference determining the status of women in different in hiring a tall person over a short person, all societies and at different times. Has it made any other qualifications being equal.Similar height difference that women in a particular culture diecrimination can be found in spoil and in were, on the average, as tall as or taller than movies.In movies, short actors rarely play the men?Did this help them achieve equality with romantic leads but often portray devia its who are men? Did their height allow them to participate either funny, bad, or tough.Feldms; indicated in more powerful and prestigious activities and that the media often make derogatewy comments roles? Finally, regardless of the average height of about a person who is short when evah..ting his or women, has there been a historical relationship her occupational or political performance. A between height and the pultions of power and social psychological experiment found that the prominence occupied by women?

asi-a 122 - Part vis

Sex Role Stereotypes Die Hard 11. SEX ROLE STEREOTYPES: ARE THEY CHANGING AND HOW MUCH?

Journalists and social scientists alike are good example of the operationalization of sex role claiming that sex roles are changing and that sax stereotypes as personality traits is the bipolar role stereotypes influence and constrain people's questionnaire developed by Rosenkrantz (1968) to lives lass now thaninthe past. However, elicit beliefs about traits associated with males aseavament of these changes is difficult because and females. This questionnaire has been used in there art many dimensions involved in sex role toto and inshortened or modified form by stereotypes which have not been carefully delin- researchers such as Elman and associates (1970), eated and studied.Furthermore, since these Sroverman et id. (1970), Huang (1971), and Vogel dimensions are not highly intercorrelated, changes and associates (1974).To assess how important occurring in one dimension do not necessarily these traits are to self-definitions, Rosenicrantx imply changes in others. (1968) also investigated which of these traits are incorporated into the self-concepts of male and The impetus for change is the Women's female students.Similarly, Elman and assoeiates Liberation Movement and the resulting diffuse (1970) examined real and ideal roles as well as liberation ideology and variety of consciousness- self-concepts among college students in order to raising experiences (rap groups, mus media assess how closely the real self resembled the programs, books, sex role classes, etc.). Although ideal self, the ideal sex role, and the stereotypic some stimuli are concrete, many changes have sex role. come about from less tangible events because the liberation ideology has by now become widespread and influenced people, even those who are not Since the existing sex stratification system aware of it or are actually fighting against it. For assigns higher value to "masculine" traits and somepeople,thefirstcrackinsexrole behaviors, this positive evaluation and the corre- stereotypie beliefs came when talking with a more sponding devaluation of "feminine" traits and "liberated" blend or lover; for others, it came behaviorsisa crucial dimension of sex role &ring a very traumatic divorce. It is, therefore, stereotypes. Many resurchers did, in fact, study not so simple to decide when is "bsfore" and when this dimension by asking students to evaluate the is*after"inassessing changesinsex role social desirability of traits deemed "masculine" or stereotypes.Furthermore, the changes are not "feminine" (Rosenkrantz, 1988; Ross & Walters, uniform throughoutthe society. There are 1973; Johnson, 1969; Turner & Turner, 1974). This dimensionwassomewhatdifferentlyopera- important differences between man and women, tionalleed by Morris (1974) and by Polk and Stein younger and older people, those living in small (1972), who examined beliefs about the advantages townsandthoseliving in largecities, conservatives andliberals,authoritarianand and disadvantages of being a man or a woman. nosmuthoritarian people, and so on. Thelattertypeof approaeh hasthe methodological advantage of tapping people's sex Opersdoos baba of Sex Rote role stereotypic beliefs more indirectly, and Stereotypes therefore it yields more reliabledata. Furthermore, Komarovsky (1978) used elements Sax rolestereotypesinclude two large from scales developed by Kammeyer (1984) and 44441ihelmst(1) personality traits associated with Johnson (1989) to tap "positive," "negative,* and and considered appropriate for men or for women; "neutral" sex role stereotypes about men and and (2) behaviors associated with and considered women. Appropriate for men or for women. Other researchers operationalized sex role While several researchers have operational- stereotypesinterms of beliefsaboutmis- ised role stereotypes as personality traits or appropriatebehaviors. Hawley(1972),for behaviors, there has been less concern about example, developed a quastionntire to men identifying the different dimensions involved. A beliefs about women's behaviors, characteristics,

125 and rights which was also used by Kaplan and havetocompetewithhigh-achievingand Goldman (1973). competent women, and they will probably become subordinate to more succossful women. This As the Women's Movement made existing aspect of sex equality is threatening since it sex role ideologies more explicit,it became disrupts sex stratification in the workplace, which increasingly apparent that the labeling of a trait is probably the backbone of the sex stratification or behavior as "masculine" or "feminine" vas the system. remit of a particular type of sax role ideology. Thus, the study of sex role stereotypri and of the In a 1970 survey, using a national probability extent to which they ware changing required sample of ever-married women under 45, Mason studying the existents, and evolution of sex role and Bumpau (1974) found two mejor clusters of ideologies.Indeed, resurchers started to opera- intercorrelateditems,a"core genderrole tionalise sex role ideologies, which included sax ideology encompassing attitudes toward women's role stereotypic beliefs as well as ideological and domestic and maternal role and a cluster of normative statements. Also, because the Woment attitudes toward woment equal labor market Movement focused attention and concern on rights."The items included in the "core gender woment roles, most researchers devised scales role ideology" are;(1) the belief that women are and questionnaires to measure stereotypic beliefs happiest when at home (a rationalization about about women's roles and sex role as the nature of women); (2) the desirability of apPliad to women rather than man. Farrell 1974) dividing labor between men and women; and (3) formulated some items tapping attitudes toward beliefs about possible emotional damage suffered metes traditional roles, expectations, and by pre-school children of working mothers. Ths behaviors as will as toward men's liberation. items under "equal labor market rights" include Dijkers (197$) developed items measuring the beliefs about woment rights to the same job attitudes toward men'straditionalroles and opportunities as men and to equal pay for equal behaviors. work.(11 is interesting to note that the "equal labor market rights" items are not intercorrelated With regard to sex role ideology scales, enough to constitute a cluster when a nonwhite Lipman-Blumen's(1972)scale, Osmondand sample is used.)No items in these two clusters Martin's (1975)scale, and the Meier (1971) are correlated with other items dealingwith Feminine Social Equality Scale are among the maternity leave and childcare centers. Thus, the most widely used.Osmond and Martin's smile dimension of equal pay and work opportunities for (1975) includes items measuring attitudes toward women isnot related to items referring to women's roles both within and outside the family, societal supporta for working mothers, especially sex role stereotypes about characteristics and mothers with small children (Mason & Bumper, behaviors, as well as attitudes toward the content 1974). It seems, therefore, that items referring to the oonditions that make it possible for mothers and the strategies of sax rola changes. of small children to work may constitute 4 different dimension, one thatisresistant to Dimensions of Sex Role Stereotypes change. and Sex Role Ideology Although not enough effort has been put into delineating the different dimensions of sex role Type and Level of Measurement stereotypes or ideology, there is considerable evidence that different dimensions do exist and The type and level of measurement of sex that attitudes in one are not necessarily good role stereotypes is becoming more important as predictorsofattitudesinothers(Safilios- more people become exposed to the liberation Rotheehl Id, 1971, 1972; Osmond & Martin, 1975). ideology, or at least to its rhetoric.'This I. Osmond and Martin (1975) found, for eximPle particularly true for college-educated men and that men who rejected moat of the female women who, even though they still have sex role stereotypic items and reeponded with modern stereotypes, do notliketo appear *sexist.* ideology regarding woment and men's familial Although sexismhas not yet taken on the roles as well as the content and strategies of sex connotation of immorality that 'racism has, it is role change could not fully accept women in not "fashionable" or "cool* to be sexist.Sexism professional work roles.In the latter area, they does imply traditional, conservative values; for still had negative stereotypes about career women some people it also implies right-wing politics, and women in high potltions.Possibly, the full which makes Itsocially unacceptable in many aeoeptanoe of these women is a **perste chador circles. Therefore, direct questions about sax role of attitudes which resist change because of the stereotypes or sex equality may indicate the threatening consequence of sax equality; man will subjects' sophistication, intelligence, and

128 1 conservatism rather than their sex role beliefs, lath:in betweenthesubject's gender and thegender and therefore validly differentiate only those at of the average person on whom they project these the two extremes.At present, probably only stereotypes (Kaplan & Goldman, 1973). Herman observationaltechniqueswillyieldreliable and Sedlaeak (1973) used an adaptation of tht information. Situational Attitude Scale to measure sexism instead of racism.The scale wasadaptedto However, probably up to the late 1980's or compareman'sattitudestoward womenin early 1970% indirect questions and approaehes nontraditional roles (such as pollee officer) with mayhaveyieldedsomewhatreliabledata, their attitudes toward men in the same roles, depending upon the level of measurement. Global differences in the two sets of responses reflecting questions about women's rights or sex equality the respondents' sex role stereotypes.Through have rather consistently yielded positive responses this technique, the social desirability of nonsexist from men, sinceitwas easy to agree with answers may be avoided to some extent. egalitarian principles.However, when men were asked whether they would be willing to share Observational studies of elementary and responsibility for childcare so that their wives secondary teachers' classroombehaviors have could pursue careers, or whether they would be showed significant discrepancies between sex role threatened If their wives made more money than stereotyped beliefs reported by the teachers and they did, they were more clearly differentiated as theiractualsex-differentiated behaviors(see *sexist" or "nonsexist" (Steinman & Fox, 1986). chapter 6). These findings raise serious questions These specific questions, which spell out how sex about how closely reported sex role stereotypic e quality will affect men's lives and how they must beliefs correspond toand predict actual behaviors, redefine their own roles so that their wives can since many actors are not aware of the sex-typing redefine theirs, often alienate men from the idea and stereotyping influences on their behaviors. of liberation (Tavris, 1973). if these questions are not asked, many men who are not prepared to change their attitude tcward the division of labor What Sex Role Stereotypes and at horn. or to relinquish sexual control over Ideologies Are Changing, How Much, women are found to be favorable to the Equal and Among Whom? Rights Amendment (Osmond & Martin, 1975). Almost all of the "before and after" studies Furthermore, positive responses to inthisarea were conducted among college nonstersotypia statements may sometimes mask students, andtheconclusionscaenotbe stereotypic beliefs.For example, a man who generalized beyond this population, which is the responds "positively" to a hypothetical situation most exposed to the "liberation" ideology.The involving a female gas station attendant may do nature and extent of change varies with the year so because he is viewing herprimarily as a sex inwhichthe *after* study was carried out; the object and finds the idea exciting, which is a dimensions of sex role stereotypes or sex role stereotypicresponse. Also,ahypothetical ideology thatthestudy was tapping; the gender of situation that is unlikely to occur may elicit more the respondents; the region of the country; and egalitarian responses than a situation thatis thesociopsychologicalcharacteristicsof the pereeived as possible.For instance, when asked respondents. whether they would vote for qualified woman for President, French men and women, who would Studies carried out between 19S0 and 1971 see the situation as highly unlikely, may answer showed little change because it seems that the more affirmativelythan American men and liberation ideology was not yet seriously accepted women, who wouldsee thesituation as more andits impactwas not felt before 1972 or 1973. poesible (Safilics-Rothechild, 1974; Virginia Slims Neufeld t al.(1974), who replicated earlier American Women's Opinion Poll, 1972). studies in 1970, found, for example, that if there was any ;thane*, it was toward more sox role Researchers halve tried to cope with these stereotypingamongbothmen and women measurement problems by including different respondents. Physical attraetiveness was still levels of measurement, that is, by trying to assess considered more important for women than for the extenttowhich men and women see men, and physical feats and vocational success themselves as sex typed as well as the extent to were considered more important for men. Other which they see most men (or the average men) and studies of college students in 1970 also showed most females (or the average female) as sex typed that sax role stereotypes were projected on the (signWombats, 1970; Unger & Sifter, 1974). average man or woman and that more desirable Others have assessed only the extent to which characteristics (such as perseverance,logical subjects project sex role stereotypes onto the thinking, control of emotions) were attributed to average man and woman andexamined the owe- men, while women were felt to have positive

127 characteristicsonlyinterms of sensitivity, to work continuously throughout marriage.It is concernforthewelfareofothers,and interesting,however,thatmoatofthese unselfishness (Ross & Walters, 1973; Kaplan & "liberated' men were either married men whose Goldman, 1973; Unger & Siiter, 1974). wives went to work or back to school after the children had ;Trown up and who, therefore, could Three studies comparing collage studanb in afford to be liberated, or upper middle clam men 1973 or 1974 with students in the 1960's report who may have felt that the salaries of two significantchangesinsaxroleIdeology as professional people con buy high-quality childcare. reflected in work and marriage plans.Pare lius (1974) used two independent random samples of women, onein1999 and one in 1973, in a Orcutt and Inmon (1974) compared data Midwestern womsn's college that was especially collected in 1973 on a college population of males sensitive to the Women's Liberation Movement, and females with data collected In 1961 on single offering various courses and activities related to femalecollegestudents. The1973study women. She found that the women in 1973 were replicated five items with high reliability (they morestronglyorientedtowardwork,more formed a Guttman scale and had a coefficient of supportive of equal rights and duties for both reproducibility of 0.93 in the first study and 0.66 sexes, and more upectant of help from husbands in the second) from the 1981 study. Single with housework and childcare, if not absolute females in 1973 were compared with those in 1961 equality in the divkion of labor in the home. A to determine the degree of traditional or modern greater percentage of the women in the 1973 sex role orientation.The total proportion of sample did not view motherhood and marriage as "modern" females in 1973 exceeded that of the women's moat important goals in life.However, 1961 sample beyond the 0.001 level of statistical as few women in 1973 as in 1989 were willing to significance. (Both samples, however, were tome marriage or motherhoodinorder to consistentin showing a tendency for college mmdmize occupational success.College women seniors to be somewhat more "modern" than in 1973 wanted to combine work, marriage, and women at the lower class levels.) motherhood and perceived the three roles as compatible.This differs significantly from the Although the Parelius (1974), Ahdab-Yehia earlier perceptions and realities of women who (1975), and Orcutt and Inmon (1974) studies show wanted a career; most of them had to forego significant changes in menss and women's sex role marriage and/or motherhood or could not have a ideologies and life plans, we cannot conclude from career union they were divorced while still young these studies that men and women now have less (Rood,1974;Campbell & Sammy1987). stereotypic views of themselves and of each Interestingly, this compatibility was reported even other. Itispossiblethat despite all these though there was very little change in women's reported changes, at least some men and women perceptions of men's views. Women in both still believe that there are basic biological and samplestendedtoviewmenasbasically psychological differences between the sexes, and traditional intheirsex roleorientation, we do not know how and under what conditions particularly on issues of marital end maternal these beliefs affect their behaviors. roles far women.In fact, the 1973 sample saw men as somewhat more conservative than the 1969 sample; most women, whether traditional or DatafromMalon'i(1973)non-college feminist, believed that men wanted traditional student sample also show that more women in wives.However, one direction of change among 1973 than in 1970 agreed that women should have women who in 1973 identified themselves as equalJobopportunitieswithmen and be feminists was that half of them believed men considered equally for executive and political wanted to marry womeq who would contribute positions. Also, more women thooght that a equally to the support of the family. Also, a few woman's job should be kept for her when she is more feminists in 1973 than in 1969 thought that having a baby and that men should help with men would be willing to help with housework housework. Moreover, fewer women in 1973 than (Patellas, 1974). in 1970 agreed with the sex differentiation of "breadwinning"and"household endchildcare Similar data were reported by Ahdem-Yellia ties." However, there were (1975) from studies conduated in a Midwestern direrlibillr eineesInsampling procedures; the 1973 university in 1964 and 1974. Most of the women sample Included younger, better educated women wanted to combine marriage, motherhood, and a than the 1970 sample.And since Glazer.Malbhs career in 1974, whereas only a tiny percentage (1974) found younger women to be less traditional wanted to do the same in 1984.Men's attitudes than older women, it is difficult to assess the had also changed significantly.In 1974, about 10 extent of the change or to be certain about what timer more men than in 1984 expected their wives changes have occurred. Men seem to be changing their attitudes ment, creativity, and a sense of competence more slowly than women, since only studies (1Comarovsky, 1976; Ellis & Bent ler, 1973; Frieze, conductedin 1974, 1975, orlaterreport 1974; Bayer, 1975; Joesting & Joesting, 1973). significant changes in their willingness to redefine This set of variables diffarentistes much better their own rolesin order to allow women to between sexist and nonsexist men than women, redefine their roles. Komarovsky's data, collected since men seem to need much more confidence in in 198940, already showed some changes in that themselves and their abilities before they can about half of the Ivy League men she studied accept women as equals and as competitors. would date a woman majoring in a "masculine" field and enjoyed the company of an Intelligent A third set of variables focuses on employ- woman. But very few (only 7 percent) were ment of the mother, especially a mother who is williag to modify their own roles to accommodate positiveaboutherwork, has successfully their wives' careers (Kontarovsicy, 1976).Some combined the maternal and work roles, or has a men were open to enjoying the "pleasant" aspects professional job (Hoffman, 1974; LIpmen-Blumen, of women's liberation but were not willing to pay 1972).One small study found that women whose its cost.Orcutt and Inman's 1973 data showed mothers had been employed while they were that women ware more likely than men to have a growing op perceived males as being more warm modernviewofthefemale sexrole(the and expreasive than those who had homemaking difference is significant at the 0.0t1 level) and mothers (Vogel et al., 1974).This may be an that personal protest activity was significantly effect of more role sharing by husbands whose related to sex role orientation for both females wives work. Women whose mothers worked also and males, but particularly for females. Nine out tended to perceive women as being somewhat of 10 high-protest women, compared with 6 out of more competent and men as less competent than 10 high-protest men, were "modcen" in sex role did women whose mothers were homemakers. On orientation.Thus, we can detect a "chauvinism theotherhand,menwhosemothers were gap" even among high-protest men and women employedalsoperceived more warmthand (Orcutt & Inmon, 1974). But in 1975, college men expressiveness in men than those whose mothers were found to be more open to compromise with were not employed. However, their mother's their future wives or girlfriends on the lifestyle employment status did not change their view of thattheywouldfollow,including egalitarian women's competence. Both men and women who styles that would require significant redefinitions had working mothers saw their own sex as having of roles (Cummings, 1977). positive characteristics traditionally associated with the opposite sex more than did children of Withregardtothesoeiopsychoiogical homemakers (Vogel et aL, 1974). characteristicsthattendtobesignificantly related to nonstereotypic beliefs, behaviors, and While overall the sociopsychological charac- sex role ideology, three different sets a variables teristics of nonsexist men and women tend to be seem to emerge. One set includes nonconformity, Increasingly normalized, there Is also an opposite liberal social ideology, nonreligiousness, and social tendency toward polarization among both men and activismin general (beyond activisminthe women. We could, therefore, expect that the Women's Movement) (Orcutt & !ninon, 1974; Ellis above sets of variableswill continue to dif- & Bent ler, 1973; Ferdinand, 1984; Bayer, 1975; ferentiate between sexist and nonsexist people, Ball-Rokeach,1976). Althoughthissetof although the degree of normalization will probably variablesapplies almost equallyto men and continue to be greater among college-educated woman, it seems to be even more important for People. men. As long as nonsexist attitudes and behaviors are labeled "radical," or at least "liberal," and as going egaInst the established power structure, inch attitudes and behaviors are adoptedin Potential Strains and Incongruities defiant!. of the sex stratification system and Between Men and Women involve a partial rejection of "legitimate" status and power. For women, the trend toward As sexralestereotypes and ideologies normalisation Is greater, since edoption of a change at different rates for men and women, modern sex roleIdeology cuts across more there will probably be some strains and incon- differentgroupsof womenthanofmen. gruities in their perceptions of each other. There Nevertheleu,the samefactorsdifferentiate is evidence, for example, that women tend to among women, although theirdifferentiating, perceive men as well as the larger society U more power is weaker. sex role stereotypic than do men. Women perceivemen ISviewingwomeninmore The second set of variables involves inteill stereotypic terms than males do in responses to salf-esteem, self-confidence, high achieve- questions about the avenge woman, and ley perceive more dissimilarity between the average Anothertypeof perceptualincongruity man's and average woman's traits than do men indicates that men ar ... women still do not feel (Kaplan & Goldman, 1973).Also, women would very comfortable outside the security of tradi- ideally like men to be androgynous, whereas men tional sex roles and do not blow how they would ideally like to be masculine and think that compare with the majority of people. Both women want them to be so (Deutsch & Gilbert, college Merl and women tend to see the average 1979). man andtheaverage womanina more stereotyped way then they see themselves (Unger & Miter, 1974; Lunneborg, 1970). An alternative Furthermore, it has been found that each explanation may, of course, be that they are more sex perceives the values of other young people of truthful about their sex role beliefs when they are the same sex quite lucidly, but tends to mis- not talking about themselves, but the earlier perceive the values of the opposite sex, even explanation may also be a tenable one. though the sax rankings of values by both sexes tend to be quite similar.Discrepancies were A number of possible strains, real as well as found between women's rankings of the traits they hypothetical, emerge when these findings are thought were valued by men and the rankings of juxtaposed against the earlier findings of reported these traits by the men themselves, and vice changes in'before and after" studies among verse. The content of these discrepancies college students. How do women reconcile their indicates that perceptions about values of the conviction that work, marriage, and career are opposite sex tend to reflect popular notions about compatible and their desire to have all three with sex roles rather thanreality,and therefore their pereeption that most men atill want a opposite-sex rankings by both males and females traditional woman? How are men affected by the reflect stereotypic views.Males think females incongruities between men's and women's sex role aremorenurturantandconcernedabout perceptions? What is the nature of dynamics that interpersonalbehaviorthanfemalesthink determines the outcome of sex role negotiations themselves to be, and females think males are in different types of men/woman relationships as more independent, ambitious, intellectual, and well es the method for resolving incongruities? logical than males think themselves to be (Unger The available evidence does not allow us to deal & Niter, 1974). with these questions at present.

130 References

t I

1 z 3 1. Sex Role Soda Lebo and the Sex Typing of Behaviors

Ainsworth, M.D.& & Ball, S. M.1970.Attach- Barry, H., III, Bacon, M. K., & Child, L L 1957. A ment, exploration, and aspiration: Illustra- moss-cultural airvey of some sax ted by the behavior of one year-olds in a differencesinsocialization,Journalof strange situation, Child Development 41:49- Abnormal and Social Pxychology 35:3217-332. 67. Baumrind, ft & Black, A. E. 1987.Socialization Ainsworth, M. D. S., Ball, S. IL, & Stayton, D. J. practicesassociated with dimensiovs of OIL Individual differencesinstrange competence in pre-school boys and girls, situation behavior of one year-olds.In The Child Develsment 39491-328. of Human Social Relations. Edira byH. L lichafter, Londom Academic Press, Bell, R. 1988. A reinterpretation of the direction pp. 17-57. ofeffectsinstudiesinsocialization, Psychological Review 75:81-95. Bapdura, A. 4985. Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses, Journal of Personality Bern, S. 1974. The meastwement of psychological and Social PsychologY1:589-505. androgyny, Journal of Consulting ond cal Psychology 8212):1112-195. Bandura, A. & Ropers, C. J.1964. Transmission of patterns of self-rsinforeament through Bem, S.1972. cho 4, Looks at Sex Roles: modeling, Journ*I of Abnormal and Social Where Have 1"n Psychology 9911-9. Gone? Paper presented at die varsity of Southern California Symposium on Women, May. Bandura, A. & Mischa!, W. Modification of self-imposeddelayofrewardtiwough Boned*, T.1959. Parenthood as a develop- exposuretoliveand symbolic models, mental phase, Journal of the American Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Psychoanalytic AssocieCan 7:399417. 2$91111-765. Signor, J. J. 1970. Fathering research and prat:- Bandies, A., Ron, D., & Rose, S.1963a. Imfta- tic* implications, The Family Coordior tion of fIlm-madiated aggressive models, 19:357-362. Mof Abnormol and Social Psych:Amy Bilk?, H. B.1970.Father absence and the personality development of the male child, Dovideernintal Pre:Warr 3(2):191-211L Bandies,A.,Ross,D., & Roes, L 11183b. Viearious reinforeemontandimitative Biller, H. B. 1999. Fatima abeenos, matarnal leans*, Jo:n* nt Abnormal_ And Social ansourageniant and sex rola development in fttetalt 7-11.7. Idadargartall *Re WM 2WIL2Mitg.Mel 44:539-54L Sandur *litre, R. 1943. Sod* Learning malt New YorW Biller, H. B. 19$9. A multiage investigation of masculine developmont In kindorgartin age bosm, Clinetio Paveholocv Monocapht MD- linelay, A. 0. & Cusumano, D.I917.Father- abase's,erose-sexidentityandfield- Biller, H. B. & Borstelmann, L. J. Mt Maar dependent behavior inmale adoleeconts, lino developmentsAn intagrativ* review, ElliapsysAmt 314243-250. Merrill-Palmer Quartirly 111253-294.

133 .144 Biller, H. B. & Weiss, & D.1970. The father- Carlson, R.1965.Stability and change in the daughter relationship and female personality adolescent's self-image, Child Development development, Journal of Genetic 38:859-66& Psychology, p. 114. Clark, A. H. at aL1989.Free-play in nursery Blanchard, H. W. & Biller, H. B. 1972.Father school children, Journal of Child ItsychologY availabilityandacademicperformance andPsychiatryandAllier -01soinlines among third grade boys, Develoonental 10(3)205-216. Psychologv 4401-305. Coates, B., Anderson, E., & Hariup, W. W. 1972a. Bragg, B. W. & Allen, V. L. 1970. Ordinal position Interrelations in the attachment behavior of and conformity: A roletheory analysis, human infants, Developmental Psychology Soclometry 33(4):371-38L 6:218-230. Branton, M.1968, The American Mele. New Coates, B., Anderson, E., & Hartup, W. W. 1972b. York: Coward-McCann. The stability of attachment behaviors in the human infant, Developmental PsychologY Breyer, N. L. & May, J. G. Jr,. 1970. Effect of sex 81231-237. end race of observer and model on imitation learning, Psychological Reports 27:830-648. Colley, T. 1959. The nature and origins of psychosexual identity, Psychological Review Brim, 0. G., Jr. 1957. The parent-child relation 66:185-177. es a social system: I. Parent andchild roles, Child Development 28443-384. Coopersmith, S.1967. The Antecedents of Self- Esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Brim, O. G.1958. Family structure and sex role learning by children: A further analysis of Cottrell, L. S., Jr.1942. The analysis of situa- Helen Koeht data, Soclometry 21:1-15. tional fields in social psychology, American Sociological Review 7:370-382. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1961. The charging American child-A speculative analysis, Journal of Crandall, V. J., Preston, A., & Rabson, A. 1980. Social Issues 1708-18. Maternal reactions and the developmentof independence and achievement behavior in Branson, W. C. 1971.aploratory Behavior of 15 young children, Child Development31:243- Month-Old Infants In a NOVIf Situation. 25L Paper presented at the Society or Research inChild Development Meetings,!Winne- D'A.ndrade, R. G. 1962. Father Absence and Cross-Sex Identification. Unpublished Vol* APO- Ph. D.dissertation,HarvardUniversity, Brooks, J. & Lewis, N.1973.At .ehment Be- Cambridge, Mass. havior in Thlrtee-Month-01BOpposItej±eX spar presentec at the society roe DeLuoia, L. A. 1963. The toy preference test: A Research in Child Development Meeting's, means of sex roleidentification,Child Philadelphia. Development 34:107-117. Brown, D. G. 1982. Sex role preference in young children: Methodological problems, Psycho- Dember, W. N. 1984. Birth order and needaffilia- tion,Journal ofAbnormal andSocial logical Reports 11:477-478. PsycholifiriCrit Brown, D. G. 1957. Idasculinity-femininity development in children,Journalof Devereux,E.C.,Jr.,Bronfenbrenner, U., & Consulting Psychology 21197102. &wit G. J. 1962. Patterns of parental behavior in the United States of America and Federal Republic of Germany: A cross Brown, D. G. 1986. Sex role preference in young Internetionalikicial children, Psychological Monographs70(14) national comparison, (whole no. 40. Science Journal 1413h488-506. Campbell, J. 11. & Nadelman, L. 1972. Report No. Douvan,E. 1957. Character Processesin tiv Developmental Fractal, lepertment of Adolescence. Paper presented aithe Pvishologyi University of Michigan. AmericiWirsychological Association Annual thapiablished manuscript. Convention, New York, September. 134 1 Drcppleman, L. F. & Schaefer, E. S.1963. Boys' Gerard, H. S. & Rabbi*, .1. M.1961.Journal of and girls' reports of maternal and paternal Abnormal and Social Psarchology 62:586-592. behavior, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67:848-654. Goldberg, S. & Lewis, H. 1969. Play behavior in the year old infants Early sax differences, Dyk, R. & Witkin, H.1965.Family experiences Child Development 40:21-31. related to the development of differentiation in children, Child Development 36:21- Gough,H. 1952.Identifyingpsychological 56. femininity, Educational Psychological Measurements 12:427-439. Eisensnan,R. 1967. Birth-order andsex differencesinaesthetic preferencefor Greenberg, S. B. & Peck, L. F. 1974. AStudyof complexity-simplicity, Journal of General Pre-SchoolersaSpontaneousSoelilinter- Psychology 77:121-26. action Patterns in Three Settings: Ail Female, a Male, and Coed.Paper pre- Emmerich, W. 1962. Variations in the parent role seated at the American Education Associa- as a function of the parents' sex and the tion, Chicago. child's sex and age, Merrill-Palmer Warted/ 8:3-11. Greenstein, J. H.1966.Father characteristics and sex typing, Journal of Personality and Emmerich, W. & Smeller, F.1954. The role of Social Peychology 3:271-277. patterning of parental norms, Soclometry 27382-390. Grunebaum, H. G. et al.1962.Fathers of sons Epstein,R. & Leverant, S. 1983. Verbal with primary neurotic learning inhibition, conditioning and sex role identification in American Journalof Orthepsychiatry children, Child Development 3499-106. 321462-471

Fagot, B. I. 1974.Sex differences in toddlers' Grusec, J. E. & Brinker, D. B., Jr.1972.Rein- behaviors and parental reaction, Develop- forcement for imitation as a social learning mental Psychology 1(0554-558. determinant with implications for sex-role development, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21:149-158. Fagot, B. I.1968. Family interaction effects of masculinity-femininity, Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology 8:117-120. Guardo, C. & Bohan, J. B.1971. Development of a sense of self-identity in children, Child Development 4211909-1921. Firestone,S.1970. TheDialecticofSex. New York: Bantam Books. Hall, M. & Keith, R.1964. Sex role preference Franck, K. & Rosen, E. 1949. A projective test of among children of upper and lower classes masculinity-femininity,Journalof Con- social class, Journal of Social Psychology sulting Psychology 13:247-256. 62d01-110. Hartley, R. E.1960. Children's concepts of male Fryrear, J. & Thelon, M. H. 1989.Effect of sex and female roles, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of model and sex of observer on the imita- 6183-91. tionof affectionatebehavior,Develop- mental Psychology b298. Hartley, R. E. & Hardesty, P. P. 1964. Children's perceptionsof sexrolesinchildhood, Journal of Genetic Psychology 104:43-51. Garrett, C. S.1971. The Effects of Modeling on the Develmment of St:01We Behavior in Hartley, R. IL, Hardesty, F. P., & Gorfein, D. S. dildren. U pubhedI. D. dissertation, 1962. Children's perceptions and expressions Iowa rte University, Ames. of sex role preference, Child Development 33:221-227. Garrett, C. S., Cunningham, D. J., & &below, J. 0. 1974. Effects of vicarious consequences and Hartup, W. W., Moore S. G., & Sager, G.1963. modal and sex on imitative behavior in first Avoidance of biappropriate sex typing by gradechildren,Journal ofEducational youngchildren,JournalofConsulting Psvchology 86(0940-947. Psychology 27:467-473.

135 Hartup, W. W. & Zook, E. A.1960.Sex role Kagan,J. 1972. The emergence of sex preferences in three and four year old differences, School Review 80(2):217-227. children, Journal of Consult's% Psychology 24:420-428. Kagan, J.1964.Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role identity. Review of Hatfield, Z. S., Ferguaon, L. R., & Al Pert. R- Child Development Research. Edited by N. 1987. Mother-child interaction and the L. Hoffman & L. Hoffman,New York: aocialiaation process, Child Develgiment Russell Sage Foundation. 38:365-414. Herzog, E. & Sudis, C. E. 1989. Family structure Kagan, J. & Lewis, M. 1965. Studies of attention and compositiomResearch considerations. in thehumaninfant, Merrill-Palmer In Raee, Research and Reason: Social Work Quarterly 1195-127. Pe Ives. NewYork: National of Social Workers, pp. 145-164. Kagan, J. & Moss, H. A. 1962. Birth to Maturity: A StudyinPsychologicalDevelopment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Herzog, E. & Sudla, C. E. 1988. Fatherless homes: A review of the research, Children Katkovsky, W., Preston, A., & Crandall, Y. J. 15:177-182. 1964. Parent's achievement attitudes end theirbehaviorwiththeirchildrenin Hetherington, E. M. 1987. The effects of familial achievement situations, Journal of Genetic variables on sextyping on parent-child Psycholoctv 105:105-121. similarity, and on imitation in children.In Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Kleeman, S. 1971. The Influence of Adults on Sex Iditedby J. P. Hill,Mirmeapoliss The Role Development Th..est as quoted University of Minnesota Press, pp. 82-107. in revision, 1972). Honors thesis, University of Chicago. Hetherington, E. N. 1965. A developmental study of the effects of sex by the dominant parev_ Koch, H. L. 1956.Sissiness and tomboyishness in on sax role preference, identification, and relation to sibling characteristics, Journal of imitation in children, Journal of Personality Genetic Psychology 88:231-244. and Social Psycholm 2:188-194. Kohlberg, L.. 1966.A cognitive-developmental Hetherington, B. M. & Prankie, G. 1967. Effecta analysis of children's sex role concepts and of parental dominance, warmth and conflict attitudes. In The Development of Sex onimitationinchildren,Journalof Differences. Nited EyE. E. Maccoby, Personality and Social Psychology 6119-125. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Pros, pp. 82-173. Hicks, D. 1985.Imitation and retention of film- Kohlberg, L. & Zigler, E.1967.The impact of mediated aggressive peer and adult models, eognitive maturity on the development of Journal of Personality and Social Psycholori sex role attitudes in the years four to eight, 2397-100. Genetic Psychology Monographs 75:89-165. Hogan,R.A. 1957. Children's Sex Role Preference with the IT II' las quoted in Landers, D. M. 1970.Sibling sex status and npublished M.A. ordinal position offsets of females sport thuds, University of Denver. participation and interests, Journal of Social Ps:Lobel:4m 80,247-248. Jaeiclin,C. N., Manooby, E.E., & Dick, A. E. 1973.Harrier behavior and toy preferences Lanky, L. M.1967.The family structure also Sex differenoes (end their ebeence) in the affects the model: Sex role attitudes in year old child, Child Development 44:146- parentsofpre-schoolchildren,Merrill- 200. Palmer Quarterly 131139-150. Juran, C. K.197L The Efftcts of Sublect and Model Sex on Imitative Behavior with Sex- Lansicy, L. N.1984.The family structure also ibpublished Ph. D.dim- affects the model: Sex role identification in niversity of Maryland, Collage parents of pre-schoolchildren,Merrill- Palmer Quarterly 10:39-50.

136 7 Lansicy, L. SI., Crandall, V. J., Ragan, J., & Baker, Liebert, B., McCall, R., & Hanratty, M.1971. C. T.1961.Sex differences in aggression Effectsofsex-typedinformationon and its correlates in middle-class children'stoypreferences,Journalof adolescents, Child Development 32185:5g. Genetic Psychology 119:733-736. Lsmicy, L. M. & McKay, G.1963. Sex role pre- Undesmith, A. R. & Strauss, A. L.1968. Social ferences of kindergarten boys and girls: wILLN., ad ed, NewYoric Some contradictory results, Psychological tWinston. Reports 13:415-421. Lipman-Blumen, J.1972.How ideology shapes Lama, L. M. & Brophy, J. E. 1972. Effects of sex women's lives, Scientific American and birth order on sex role development and 226(1)134-42. intelligence, Developmental Psychology 11(3):409-415. Lynn, D.1959. A note on sex differences in the development of masculine and feminine Laos& I.. M. & Brophy, J. E.1970. Sex and birth identifieation, Psychological Review 66:126- order interaction in measures of sex typing 135. and affiliationin kindergarten children, Proceedings Atheof nnualW._11 Convention Lynn, D. B. & Sawrey, W. L. 1962. Sex o the AT-f--m-1-iMro&-4-All'rrnean136111M-n. differences in the personality development of Norwegian children, Journal of Genetic Lefkowitz, M. M. 1962. Some relationships Psychology 101:367-374. between sex role preference of children and other-parent and child variables, Lynn, D. B. & Sawrey, W. J. 1959. The effects of 10:43-53. father absence on Norwegian boys and girls, Journal of Abnormal and Social PsychologY Levison, C. A. 1972. Sex Differentiation in Early 59:258-26i. Infancy: Problems in Methodefom and InIer0retation of Data. Paper presentel at Maccoby, E. E.1971. Sex Differences and Their ligihrestarn fiRiaogical Amociatl:m Implications for Sex Roles. Paper presented Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, May 4-6. at the American Psychologianl Association Annual Convention, Washington, D. C. Lewis, M. 1972a. State as an infant-environment interactiom An analysis of mother-infant Maccoby, E. E.1959.Role taking in childhood behavior as a function of sex,Merrill- and its consequences for social learning, Palmer Quarterly 18395-121. Child Development 30:230-252. Lewis, U. 1972b. Parents and childrem Sex role Maccoby, E. E. & Feldman, S. S.1972.Mother development, School Review 80:220-240. attachment and stranger mentions in the Lewis, U. 1969. infanb' responses to facial third year of life, Monograph of the Society stimuliduringthefirstyear oflife, for Research in Child Development 37:1-118. Developmental Psychology 1:95-121. Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. 19174a. The Lewis, M. & Freedle, R.1972.Mother-infant Psycholcgy of Sez Differences.Stanf dyads The cradle of meaning, Research Nenford Universipi Pres& Bulletin,Princeton,N.J.: EducatloAll %sling Service. Maccoby, H. E. & Jacklin, C. N. 1974c. What we Lewis, & Weiaraub, M.1974. Sex of parent know and don't know about sex differences, and sex of child:Socioemotional develop- Psychology Today, pp. 109-112. ment. In Sex Differences in Behavior. Edited by R. C. Friedman, R. M. Richert, & R. L. Van de While, New Yorks John Wiley Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N.1973.Stress, & SOUL activity, and proximity seeking: Sex dif- ferencesinthe yearoldchild,Child Low* U. & Weinraub, M.197$. Sex of Parent Development 44134-42. and Sex of Childs Socioemotional Develop- meni. Paper cemented at the International Macooby, E. E. & Wilson, W. C. 1957. Identifica- iSrtute for the Study of Human Reproduc- tion and oLservational learning from films, tion Conference on Sax Differencesin Journal of Abnormal and Social PsYchoktIV Behavior, Tuxedo, N.Y., October. 55376-87. 137 MacDonald, A. P., Jr.1919.hlaulfentations of Mischol, W. 1986. A social learning view of sex differential levels of socialization by birth diffsronces in behavior.In The Develo4 order, Duelopmental Psychology 1:455-492. ment of SoxDifferences. Editod L E. gacooby, Stanford, Calif.:Stanford MacDonald, A. P., Jr.1961. AnxieV Affiliation Mayoralty Press, pp. 55-111. and Social bolatiom Manifestations of bittorentiat Levels of §ociallution by Birth Mischol, W. & Liebert, R. M.1966.Effects of Order. Vapub limbed Ph. D. discrepancies between observed and imposed Corcall University, Ithaca N.Y. reward critoria on their acquisition and transmission, Journal of Personality and Madsen, C.1968.Nurturance and modeling in Social Psychology 3145-53. pre-schoolers, Child Development 39:221- 236. Mitchell, D. & Wilson, W. 1967. Relationship of father absence to masculinity and popularity McArthur, C. 1956. Personality of first and ef delinquent ber Pgehological HeOorts second children, Psychiatry 1947-54. 20:1173-1174. McCandless, B. R. 1967. Chlidrem Behavior and Moss, H. A. 1967. Sex, age, and state as Development. New 42.---$31-rinaiiZr, determinants of mother-infant interaction, Winston. Merrill-Palmer Ruarterly 13119-35. McCord, J., McCord, W., & Thurber, E.1962. Mois, H. A., Robson, K. S., & Pederson, F. 1969. Some (Mats of paternal absence on male Determinants of matornal stimulation of children. Journal of Abnormal and Social infants and oonsequences of troatment for Psychology 64:361-369. later reactions to strangars, Developmental Psychology 1:239-246. IluDevid, J. W. 1959. Imitative behavior in proschoolchildren,PsycholosicalMono- Murdoch, P. A. & Smith, G. F. 1989. Birth ordsr graphs MOM and affiliation, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1:23-245. MoRay, G. H.1964. Some Dimensions of Sex- ', inK indeertenChildren: An tu. Musson, P. R. 1969. Early sex role developmant. Cam- In Handbook of Socialization:Theory and dissertation,HarvardUniversity, Renarch. &Iliad by b. A. &shin, ago: bridge, Mus. iriNally, Inc., pp. 707-731. MoiCinney, J. P. 1969. The development of choice stability in children and adolescents, Musson, P. & Distier, L. 1959. Masculinit iden- Journal of Ganetic Psychology 113:7943. tificationandfather.sonrelationships, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholoity 51350-3$6. Melds, P. H. & Juneja, S.1969.Birth order, vocational preference and vocational expec- Nadelman, L.1973.Sex identity in American tation, Indian Journol of Psychology 46257- children: Memory, knowledp, and prof- 70. arena:: tut. Report No. 32, Developmental Program,UniversityofMichigan,Ann Mosier, S. O. & Lewis, N. 1972. Social elms and sox differences in tho attachment and play Arbor. behavior of the one year-old infant, Merrill- Maicassura, C. Y. & Rages, M. M. 1919. Parents' biineL9mqell 11/296-301. tions of autonomous bohavior and =is autonomy, Dovelopmental Meyer, J. W. & Sobiessek, B. L 1272. The effect of sex on adult interpretation of child Iisechoklax 1(5)1113-617. bohavior, Developmintal Psychology 6:42- Mang, J. 1965. The father in contemporary 41. culture and curront psychological literature, ghat, Development 36t211-297. Miller, B.1961.Effocts of Fathor Absence and Mother's Ey tion of taiher on Ibs Social- Osteal, I. U. 1968. Annotated blbliognphy. In ed DevelomentofSexDigo:repose. la University, ted by Maoothy, Stanfor4 Califà Stanford Univarsity Pros.

138

1e, 9 Osofsky, J. & O'Connell, E. 1972. Parent-child Rosenberg, B. G. & Sutton-Smith, B. 1988. interaction. Daughtersaffectsupon Family interaction effects on masculinity- mother's and father's behaviors, payola:- femininity, Journal of Personality and Social mental Pirhology 7(2):157-1611. Psychology 8s117-120. Rosenberg, Pedersen, F. A. & Bell, R. Q. 1970. Sex B. G. & Sottar-Smith, B. 1966. differences in preschool children without Siblingassociations,familysize,and histories of complications of pregnancy and cognitiveabilities,JournalofGenetic delivery, Developmental Psychology 3d0-15. Psrhology 107:271-279. Rosenberg, B. G. & Sottar-Smith, B.1984. The Rebhan, M. 1950. Sex role identification in young relationship of ordinal position and sibling childrenintwo diversesocialgroups, sex status to cognitive abilities, Genetic %oho logy Moncsraphs 42:81456. Psychonomie Science 1:81-112.

Eadin, N. 1972. Father-child interaction and the Rosenblith, .1. F.1959. Learning by imitation in intellectualfunctioning of four-year-old kindergarten children, Child Development boys, Developmental Psychokay 6(0353- 30:89-80. 361. Roeenfe ld, H. M.1986. Relationships of ordinal Radio, N. 1989. Childrearing Antecedents of positiontoaffiliationand achievement itive Development in Lower Class-Pre- motives; Direction and generality, Journal Se Children. UnpublishedPh.D. of Personality 34:487-480. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Rothbart, M. K. & Maceoby, B. B. 1988. Parents' differential reactions to sone and daughters, Rabe 'sky, F. & Hanks, C.197LFathers' verbal Journal of Personality and Social Psychology interaction with infants in the first three 4237-243. months of life, Child Development 4203-68. 6afillos-Rothschild, C., Polk, B., & Stein, R. 1975. Reed, C. & Felker, D. W. 1974. Sex Differences Sax role socialization and sex differences. in the Self Concept of Elementary School InEmanrl Child Development.Edited by W. Children. Paper presented at the American is,Munich: InstituteforEarly tducational Research Association Annual Convention, Chicago. Sampson, B. E.1985. The study of ordinal posi- Reed, M. R. & Aabjornsen, W. 1966. Experimen- tion:Antecedents and outcomes, P tal alteration of the IT scale in the study of in Experimental PersonalityResearchtrri!r sax role preference, Perceptual and Motor 228. Skills 26:15-24. Schachter, S. 1959. The Psychology of Affiliation. *Mingo Id, H. L. & Eckerman, C. 0. 1969. The Stanford, Calif.: Stanlord University Press. Infant's free entry into the new environment, Journal of Experimental Child Schell, R. E. & Silber, J. W.1988.Sex role Psycho ;sty lisih-213. discrimination among young children, Perceptual and Motor Skills 27:379-389. tiohards, V. P. & Bernal, J. F.1972.Social interaction in the first days of life.In The Schooler, C.1964.Birth order and hospitaliza- of Human Social Relations.Edri0 tion for schizophrenia, Journal of Abnormal Schaffer, New YorksAcademic Pres. and Social Psychology 891574-576. Sears, R. R. 1970. Relation of early socialization Rosen, R. 1984.Social class and the child's experiences to self concepts and gender role perception of the parent, Child Develvment inmiddle childhood,Child Develotment 34:1147-1lss. 4:287-289. Rosenberg, B. 0. & Sutton-Smith, B.1971. Sex Sears, R.,Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H.1957. roleidentityandsiblingoompositIon, Patterns of Child Rearing.Evanston, Ilia Journal of Genetic Pychology118:29-32. Row, Peterson. Sher, M. A. & Lansky, L. M. 1968. The IT scale Stevenson, H. W., Keen, R. & Knights, R. M. for children. Effects of variations in the sex 1963.Parents and strangers as reinforcing specificity of the IT figura, Merrill-Palmer agents for children's performance, Journal Querterly 14423-330. of Abnormal and Social Psychology Of-W- U& Sher,M. A. & Lansky, L. M. 1966.Sibling associations,familysizeandcognitive Sutton-Smith, B., Rosenberg, B. G., & Landay, F. abilities,Journal of Genetic Psychology 1988. Father absence, effects of families of 107271-279. different sibling composition, Child Development 301213-1222. Skolnick, A.1973.The Intimate Environment: Thompson, N. L., Jr. & McCandless, B. R. 1970. 2770orinie Marrisge and the Family. Boston: IT score variations by instruction style, Little,/lrown & Co. Child Development 41:425-436.

Solomon, D. et el.1973.Parent behavior and Tiller,P.O. 1958. Father-absenceand child academic achievement atriving and personality development of children in sailor related personality characteristics, Genetic families,Nordisk Psychologi's Monograph Psychology Monographs 83d73-273. Series 91-48.

Torgoff,I. 1967. Parent's Differential Sex- !peke, E., Zelazo, P., Kagan, J., & Kotelehuck, lypingControlAttitudesandFamily M. 1973. Father interaction and separation Structure.Paper presented at the Society protest, Developmental Psychology 9:83-90. ror§r-udy for Research in Child Development, New York. Spence, J. T. et al.1975.Ratings of self and peers on sex-roleattributes andtheir Ward, W.D. 1968. Variance of sexrole relation to self-esteem and conceptions of preference among boys and girls, muculinityandfemininity,Journalof Psychological Reports 23:487-470. Personality and Social Psychology 32:29-39. Warren, J.R. 1966. Birth order and sovial behavior, psychological Bulletin 65:38-49. Spiro, M. E. 1958. Children of the Kibbutz. Cambridge, Masa.: HarvardUniversity Whiting, B. B., ed. 1963. Six Cultures: Studies of Press. Child Rearing. New riork: John Wile Sons. Stain, A. H. & Bailey, U. M. 1973. The socialization of achievement orientation in females, Wiggins,R. G. 1981. Differences inself Psichological Bulletin 803345-348. perceptions of ninth grade boys and girls, Adolescence 8(321491-496. 1969. Age and sax dif- Stein, A. & Smithalls, J. Zimbardo, P. & Formica, R.1963.Emotional ferences in children's sex role standards comparison and self-esteem as determinants aboutachievement,DevelopmentalPsy- of affiliation, Journal of Personality 31:141- chology 1:252-259. 162. Stevenson, H. W. 1961. Social reinforcement with Zucker, R. A., Manosevitz, M., & Lanyon, R. I. children as a function of CA, sex of E, and 1968.Birth order, anxiety and affiliation sex of S, Journal of Abnormal and Social during a crisis, Journal of Panonally and Psychology 671147-154. Social Psychology 81354-359.

2. Same-Sex and CrossSex Influences on Sex Role Socialization

Abelson, IL P. & Lesser, CL 1958. The measure-Aries, E.1974. Interaction Patterns and Themes ment ot persuasibility in chiltken.th Per- of Male, Female and Mixed Groupe. Taper sonality and PereuasibWtY.Edited by rt. presented at the American Psychological Janis et al., itew HavensYale University Association Annual Convention, New Pres. Orleans.

140 Bales, R. F.1970.Personality and Interpersonal Joffe, C.1971. Sex role socialization and the Behavior. New Yorks Ro lt,Rinehart & nursery school: As the twig is bent. Journal Wia-ton. of Marriage and the Family 33(4:467-475.

Bayer, A. C.1975. Sexist students in American Komarovsky, M. 1973. Presidential address: colleges: A descriptive note, Journal of Some problems in role analysis, American Marriage and the Family 37(2):391-6-97. Sociological Review 38(0649-662.

Bose, C. E. 1973.Jobs and Gender:Sex and Lipman-Blumen, J.1974. Chanzisa Sex Roles in Occupational Prestige. Baltimore, Mda the American CulturesFuture -Directions for Johns Hopkins University Center for Metro- nesurch. Washington, D.C.:-National politan Planning and Research. !MMus-Xi-of Education.

Crandall, V. 1968. Personality characteristics Maccoby, E. & Jacklin, C.1974.Psychological andsocialandachievementbehaviors Sex Differences and Their Implications. emaciated with children's social desirability Unpublishedpaper,StanfordUniversity, reaponse tendencies, Journal of Personality Stanford, Calif.: and Social Psychology 41(5):477-486. Mehrabian, A. 1971. Seating arrangement and Damico, S. & Watson, K. 1974. Peer Helping conversation, Sociomet 34(4:291-289. Relationships:An Ecolorp: Study of an glementary biassroom. presented at Meyer, W. J. 1959. Relationships between social the American Educational Research need strivings andthe development of Association Annual Convention, Chicago. heterosexual affiliations, Journal of Abnor- mal and Social Psychology 59:51-57. Davis, L. S. & Splegler, M. D.1974.BrIght and Ambitious: Kiss of Death for omen. Miller, J. B. 1972. Sexual inequality: Men's PaperpresentedattheAmerican Psy- dilemma,AmericanJournalofPsycho- chological Association Annual Convention, analysis 32(2):147-155. New Orleans. Mulcahy, G. A. 1973. Sex differences in patterns Eagly, A. H. 1969. Sex differences in the relation of self-diselosure among adolescents: A between self-esteem and lusceptibiilty to developmental perspeetive, Journal of Youth socialinfluence,JournalofPersonality and Adolescence 2(4):343-358. 37(0581-591. Entwisle, D. R. & Greenberger, E. 1972. Adoles- Reese, H. W.1966. Attitudes toward the oppo- cents' views of women's work role, American site sex in late childhood, Merrill-Palmer Journal of Orthopsychiatry 42(4):84S-658. Quarterly 12(2)1157-163.

Greenberger, E. & Sorensen, A.1970. Interper- Reese, H. W.1962.Soclometric choices of the sonal choices among a junior high school same and opposite sex in late childhood, faculty, Sociology of Education 44:198-216. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 8:173-174. Guttentag, M. & Bray, M. 1976. Undoing Sex Stereotypes. New Yt 'its McGraw- Rosen, B. C.& Aneshensel, C. S. 1976.The Co. chameleon syndromes A social psychological dimension of the female sex role, Journal of Harris, O. B. & Meng, L S. C.1957.Children's Marriage and the Family 38(3)1605-617. attitudestoward peersandparentsas revealed by sentence completion,Child Development 28:401-411. Rowe, G. P. 1968. Peer activities of pre- adolescents, Journal of Cooperative Husbands, E. '1'.1970. Some social and psycho- Extension 60h71-78. logical consequences of the American dating system, Adoleseenee 5r451-462. Willy:I-Rothschild, C. 1979. Second Natu es SocializationIsDestiny, Berkeley, Cair.7 Janis,1. L. & Field, P. 1958. Sex differences and ttniversliy of California Prem. personality factors related to persuasibility. In PersonalitLand Persuasibility.. Edited by Safillos-Rothschild, C.1977. Love, Sex and Sex I. et al.,NewHavens Yob Roles. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:-Prentice- University Prem. Rilr

141 I LI;2 fialtssteln, H. D, & Diamond, R. 1967. Transfer Whittaker, J. D. 1965. Sex differences and of social Influences Effect of peer's sax, susceptibility to interpersonal persuasion, Psychological Reports 20:343-350. Journal of Social Psychology 66(1191-94.

&thwarts, E. 1970, Roles and Leades Whittaker, J. D. 1963. farnmkWa of Si*I*1 Dynamics: A of Attitudes Influence in the Autokinetic Situation. Un- thePamela sex SAS.enior-honors thesis, published study, North Dakota aate Univer- ITEFV-2111vania. sity, Fargo. Stone, P. J. et al. 1966. The General higulret: A Woelfel, J.1972.Significant others and their compter Approach to ContentAntra. role relationship to students in a high school Camidge, Kam: The MIT Fres. population, aural Sociology 37(1h97.

Thlicin, S. IL, Mulls, J. P., & Conn, L. K. 1969. Wolman, C. & Frank, H. H. 1973. Gender Need for approval and populsrity: Sax deviancy in male peer groups. differences in elementary school students, of the Sint Annuel ConventtonPmaeoritt Journal of Consulting_ and Clinical Psychol- American Itycholctical Association 811063- gm 311:35-39. 1064.

3. Women's Achievement and Achievement Motivation

Alper,T. G.1974.Achievement motivation in Baumrind, D. & Black, A. E. 1967.Socialization college women: A now-you-see-it-now-you- practices anociated with &mansions of don't phenomenon, American Pmchologist competence inpreschool boys and girls, 29:194-203. Child Development 34:291-327. Alper, T. G., Loot, H., Bragg, H., & Eister, D. Z. Berens, A. E. 1973. Sex-role stereotypes and the 1972, lbe Effect ofthe Sex of the development of achievement motivation, Stimulus-Cue on the Achrevement Ontario Psychologist 5(2):3045. Women.Unpulilished Mir a. Berens, A. E. 1972.Socialization of need for achievement in boys and girl's Proceedings Anderson-Patty, U.1974.The Arousal of the of the Annual Convention of the American Motive to Avoid Success An Extenslooand liyehologicel Association 'apt. 1):273-274. %at of the Theory. Paper presented et the Southeastern Psychologioal Association Elieri,J. 1960.Parental identification, accep- Annual Convention, Hollywood, Fla. tance of authority and within-sax differences in cognitive behavior, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60276-79. Anderson-Patty, R. & Shelley, H. P. 1974. Motive to Avoid Weems A Profile. Paper Bing, E. 1963. Effect of childrearing prectices on presented at the Southeastern Psycilological developmentof differentialcognitive 11seociation Annual Convention, Hollywood, abilities, Child Development 34s131-441. Fla. amedlove,C.J.& Cicerelli, V.G. 1974. Atkins" J. W. 1954. An Introduction to Motive- Woman% fear of success in relationto Prinertoe, Li Van Nostrana. personalcharacteristicsandtypesof oocupation, Journal of PsychologvMid Bar-tel, D. & Prisms, I. 1973. Achievement halfh151-190. Ifigraiw_rm_rawonand der as Determinants Of Brim, O. G., Jr. et al. 1959.American Beliefs Thub11Ihed piper, University of Pitisburgh. and Attitudes About Intelligence. Hew York: Russell lags Iroundation. Baumrkid, D. 1971. Current patterns of parental authority, Bronfenbrenner, U. 1961. The changing American 1-1 ina, Pts child, Journal of Social Imes 17(1)26-11.

142 &overman, L K., Raymond, &, Braverman, D M, Dwyer,C.A. 1974. Children'sSex-Role & Clarks^ F. S. 1972.Sax-role stereo- Standards and Sex-Role Wen kation and types: A current appcaisal, Journal of Social Ittafrtalat to Achimement. Issues 211,59-71. of California. Swim*. Collard, E. D. 1964. Achimement Motivø in the Four-Vogt-Old al Id and 5 ftelat to Mather, N. T. 1949. Attribution of responsibility and mimes of moons and failars in rela- Unpublished Ph. diasertaaon, varsity tion to initial confidence and weaved of Minh Igen, Ann Arbor. locus el control. Journal of Moiling and Social Psychology 13,120-144. Crone Ian, V. C. 1969. Su diffaraices in expectancy of intellectual and academic rein- Peathsr, N. & Raphalson, A. C. 1974. Fur of forcement. In Achievement-Related success in Amtratian and Amble/in student Motives in Chi Idtan. Whoa by e.1'. thssith, groups, Motive for sex-rols stemotype, Row fires Ikussall Sage Foundation. Journal of Personality 42(0190-201, Crandall, V. C. 9e4. Achievoment behavior in young children, ,Young Children 20:77-90. Field, W. F. 1951.The Effects of Theinatie Zouiperrion upon Certain 114tperimentally Crandall, V. C., Katkowsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Ands. Unpublished Ph. D. disser- 1965. Children's bollsf in their arm control tation, Universiv ofMaryland, College of minforcemont in intellectual-acadsmio Park. achievement situations, Child Dmelopmont, Freeman, J. 1971. The social construction at the 36:91-101. second sex. In Roles Women Play, Raadinp lbward Women's Liberation.Edited by M. Lvandall, V. J. 1963.Achievement,In Child R. Garekof, Belmont, Calif., Brooks/Cole. nrInk...7.10.11il'he2nd Yearbook orig a ty or Frieze, L H. 1975. Woment expectations for and t. L Edited by IL W. &weapon, Chicago, causal attributions of woes and knurl,. In University of Chlosgo Press. Women and AchievementsSocial Motiva- tional Analyses.Edited by M. Medniii et Crandall, V. J., Dewey, R., Katkowsky, W., & al.. Now Yorks Halsted Pram. Priam, A.1944.Parents' attitudes and Waylessandgradeschoolchildren's Prime, I. 1973a. Studios of Information Ptoma- academie nehimasonts, Journal of Genetic, in(endtheAttributiomilPromoin Psyehology 104s53-6& Achievement-Related dontexts. Unpub- Delved Ph. D. dissertation,University of Crandall, V. J. & Baboon, A. 1960.ChildrenV California at Los Angeles. repetition cholas in an intelinctual schlove- moat situation following mesa and failure, Prime, 1. 1973b.Sex Differences in Perceivini Journal of Ganntic Psveholoay 971191-16& theCauses or &scamsand "Mum tinpublishnd paper, University of Pittsburgh. Dabs 1., & epistler, M. 1974. 1ght and Ambittoau Kiss of Death for = Garai. J. & Seisinnfeld, N. 1964. Sex differs:ma ikiper preselnd at tho American in mental and behavioral bolts.Genetic, logical Asemiation Annual Convention, Now Psychology 110110176,111 77,169-299. Orleans. Demi, N. & limastiler, T. 1975. ExplanAons of Goldberg, L. R. 1961.Simpla models or simple aucnasful performanee on sa-liniced tasks: process?,American Psychologist23,413- What's skill for ths male is link for the 495. female, Journal of Personality end Social Gray-Shellberg, L., Stone, S., & Villaraal. S. 1972. A Conrorison Across lime of the Double Standard In -Carlow Conflict Siltuotions. Dam, N. & Tonne. J. NIL Evaluation of male raperpresentedattheUnToarailyof and fowls ability,eiss works both ways, California al Los Angeles Symposium on Six 32411114/3L Rolm and Sex Differsnoes. 143 R. Jaokawry, R. 1974.Sax differeneas in develop- Hatfield, J. S., Ferguson, L. R., & Alpert, mut of fur ot moans, Child StudyJournal 1967. Motber-cMld intimation and the socialisation proms, Child Development 401a1-79. 313365-414. Jaokaway, R., Steinberg C., & Teevan,R. 1972. Sax Diffarances in Fear of &accessand the Heroin* M. J. II" Tarim*, J. A., &Maas, P. Rèlatlonsip Bitlfedfl Fear of Success md 1972. Achievement motivation and furof failure in family and admen, Mese JIM tnivarany of New York atAlbanypapar. fevohologY et520-521. Kagan, J. 1964.Acquisition and significance of Hetherington, E. M. 1967. ins effects offamily au-typing and sex-role identity. In Review valobloo on nem-trping, anwont-child of Child Dev ment Research, W-E similarity, and on imitation in ohildren. !tilted by M. L.offman & L. W. Hoffman, Minnuota Symposium on Child ihao New Yorks Rusin Sage Foundation. vol. 1. ted by J. P. University ot Minnasota Press. Kagan, J. & Kogan, N. 1970.Individuality and oognitive performance. ,In CarmichasIts Hoffman, L. R. & Maier, N. R. F. 1968.Social Edited in Manual of Child Pricholocy, voL 1. tutorsinfluencingproblensolving by P. H. Dumont kew Yorks Miley. women, Journal of Personality andBooial PsychologY 4412-390. 'Ulan, J. & Mom, H. A. 1952,Birth to MaturitY. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Hoffman, L. W. 1974. Moots of matarnal employment on the (Mild: A review of the Kammnyer, R. C. W., Miller S. J., & Developmental Poycholony research, 71. P. F. 1972. The Younm Minority Boy 111$ 10(2)404-228. clue tootventant Hoffman, L. W. 1972. Early childhood American Sociological Association Annual experiences and women'sachievement Convention, New Orlaans. motivss, Journal of Social issues 21K0129- 155. Katz, U. 1974.Unpublished study cited by D. Transmit.Fur of success:Popular but Horner, M. 1972. Toward an understanding of unoroven, Psychology lbday 7152-85. achisvement-relatnd conflictsin women, Journal of Social issues 26(2h157-175. Kukla, A. 1972.Attributional determinants of achiavemant-rilatnd behavior, Journal of Horner,M. 1970. Femininity and suoussful Pirsonality nnd Social Pacholory-111111P nolstiumant.A basic inoonsistaney.In Feminine Pnrsimality akd Confltot.Editad by Hardwick, Douvan, florner & Gutman, Belmont, Calif.t Brooka/Cole. Lahtinen, P. 1964.The Effect of Failure and 11 action an Horner, N. 1969. Woman's willtofail, IJK D. dissertation, entity of Michigan, FsYnbologY Thday 3(6)&41, 6$. Ann Arbor.

Horner, U. 19118.Sax Mittman in Aeldav' Lesser, G. LI Krawitg, R. N.,& Packard, R. mint Motivation and Performanos in Corn- 1963. Experimental arousal of aohlavement um motivation in adamant girls, Journalof npublithedPh. 1). IlnivarsIty Abnormal Social Psychology 46(1)15946. of Michigan, Mm Arbor. Levine, A. & Crumrine, J. 1973. Women Sormir, U. & Ilium, W. ISIS. FaaT at Mummy A Problem ;7-7,1ei Avoid laaatio and C Paw presented at Gs eWomen. Sociological Aisociation Annual Convantion, Vairirsity of-Illeingan, Atm Arbor. New York. Moots, P. S. & Entwiele, D. a. 1914Amodensie Lipman-Blumsn, J. 1973. The ineariousAchieve- aohievunont el fort among females. mint Ethic and Noll-Itacirtional -Rolesfat Attievemeal attitudes and eas-role Women. Pspar pruenind atho 'Eastern orientation, JOUIVAI Conndting Marogical SocietyAnnualConvention, Psycholocr MOM. New York.

144 Lipman-Mumen, J. 1972.How ideology shapes Milton, G. A. 1957. The effects of sex-role women% lives, Scientific American Identification uPon Problem solving skill, ng1M4-42. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholoct 331208-212. Leigh lin, L. J., O'Connor, H. A., Powell, M., & Parsley, K. 91., Jr. 1965. An investigation Monahan, L., Kuhn, D., & Shaver, P. 1974, Intra- of sex differences by intelligence, subject- psychic versus cultural explanations of the matter area, grade and achievement level on fearofsuccessmotive,Journalof three anxiety scales, Journal of Genetic Personality and Social Psychology 29(0180- Psycho log!: 106(2h207-215. 84. Lubstkin, B. S. & Lubetkin, A. L. 1971. Achieve- Montanelli, D. S. & Hill, K. T. 1969.Children's ment motivation in A competitive situatiom achievement tattoos and performance The older female graduate student, Journal as a function two consecutive reinforce- of Clinical Psychology 27(2)z289-27L- ments, Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoa 13:115-129. Lunnshorg, P. W. & Rosanwood, L. M. 1972. Need affiliation and achievement: Declining sexdifferences,PsychologicalReports Montemeyor, R. 1972. Childre Performance on 31(0795-791. and Attraction to an Aethity as a Function of Masculine, -Feminine or Neutral Labels Makoaky, V. P. 1972. 1ear of Success Sex Role and Sex-Role Preference.Paper presented Orientation of thir-TWiti-U-npet: ve at the Eastern Psychological Assodation Con/litre:1 as Verlag.' Affecting Woman's Annual Convention, New York, April.

Per iitnanoe Achleveinent-Oriented Iiitions.Paper preuntdat the Mid- Moore, K. A. 1974.Fear of Success: Its Dis- western Psychological Association Annual tribution,Reliability.,Antecedentryand Convention. Commences of Motive to Avoid Success Imag Among Females in a Me Man McClelland, D. C., Atidnson, G. W., Clark, R. A., Surv Paper presentsat Owe & Lowell, E. L. 1953.The Achievement S. j jcal Association Annual Motive. New York: Appleton-Century- Convention, MontreaL Mars. Koss, N. A. 1987. Sex, ago and state as deter- MoDavid,J.,Jr. 1959. Somerelationships minantsofmother-infant interaction, between social reinforcement and scholastic Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 13:19-35. achievement, Journal of Consulting Psychology 23:151-154. Oetral, R. M. 1981.The Relationship Between MeMahon,1. D. 1972. SexDifferenessin Sex RoleAcceptanceandCognitive tran7of Stumm as a Function of Abilities. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Staniar( aper presented at the Eastern DnIvaraity, Stanford, Calif. hological Association Anrua! Convention, New York, ApriL Pheterson, 0. L, Kiesler, S. B., & Goldberg, P. A. 1971. Evaluation of the performance of McMahon, 1 D. April 1971. in woman as a funotico ot their sax, achieve- Causal Ations Follow Weems an7 ment and personal history, Journal of Per- Mbyte.Paper protected athe Eastern tronalitv and Social Psycholoo 19:114-116. IWZRogiesi Association Annual Conven- tion, Hew York, April. Phillips, B. N. 1982. Sex, social clam and anxiety Miller, S. J. 1973.Parent-Child Relations and as souroes of variation in school achieve- Woman's Achievement Orientations.Paper ment, Journal of FAucational PsycholosY prese-siological 53(0316-322. Association Annual Convention, Washington, D.C. Plank, E. H. & Plank, R. 1954.Emotional com- ponentsinarithmeticlearning as wen G. A. 1959.Sex differences in problem through autobiographies. in The Psyc- solving as a fraction of role appropriateness analytic Stiatrof the Child, voL EC oftheproblemcontest,Psycholozical byH.S. al., New YorksInterna- !Worts, lis705-708. tional Universities Prem. Pelona, M. U. 1972. Role oonfliet and the Stein, A. H., Pohly, S. R., and E. Mueller. 1971. married professional woman.in ltword a The influence of masculine, feminine and Stainfiziretonoleomest. Edited by neutraltasks on children's achievement Musa Xerox behavior,expectanciesofSUCCelland Collage Publishing, pp. 187-191. attainmentvalues,ChildDevelotment 42(1)1195-207. Prompt*, D.1971.Effie:ley-related imagery, education and politics.Unpublished honors Stein,h. * Smithells, J. 19511.Age and sex thuis, Harvard University. differences in childrent sax-role standards about achievement, Developmental Pays:hol- Randall-Puryear,G. & Mattis*,U.S. 1975. m 1(01252-259. Mack militancy, affective attachment, and the fear of memo in Wank collage women, Button-Smith, B., Crandall, Y. J., & Roberts, J. U. Journalof Consultingand Clinical 1984. Achievement and Strategic Issycheelogy. ln press. Competence. Paperpresentedatthe Eastern Psychological AssociationAnnual Convention, New York, ApriL Robbins, L. & Robbins, E. 1973. Comment on: Toward an understanding of achievement- Thurber, S. 1972. Defensive externality and related conflict in women, Journal of Social academic achievement by women, ftt- hems 29W:133-137. etiological Reports 30(2h454. Rosenthal, R. 1956.Experimenter Effects in Toullatos, J. & Lindholm, B. 1974. Correlates of Behavioral Reaserch. Wew York: Appleton- Attitudes Toward the Female Ais Role and Century-Crofts. AchFevement, Affiliation, and Power Idotrviition of College Women. Unpublished Rychrnan,R.U. & Sherman, M. P. 1973. paper, Auburn University. Relationship betweenselfesteemand internal-externalcontrolformenand Trasemar, D. 1974. Fur of mesas Popular but woman, Psycholoeies1 Reports 32(3)11108. unproven, Psycholooy Today 9:82-85.

liarilim-Rothschild,C.,Polk,B.,drMain, R. Tyler, F. B., Rafferty, J. Es, & nier, B. B. 1982. 1975. Sex-rolesocialisationandsax Relationships among motivations of parents differences. A review chapterinhe Uri and their children, Journal of Genetic Psy- ChigAlimamisDev it. Edited by W. Ft chology 101189-81. or Early Socialization. Yaughter, R., Gubernick, D., Matomian, J., & Hulett, B. 1974.ilex Difference, in Au- lichwenn, M. 1970.Arousal of the Motive to 114._.nic ill.tationsandAchievement. Avoid &mom. presented at the American Perlin- Outs, Harvard University. logical Association Annual Convention, New Orleans. Basal et al. 1973. Su Differences in Caldron's Walborif: B. 1989.Physics, femininity and crea- Outer and Self PercePtionlan a tivity, Developmental Psychology1(1)i47- !rola= fla Situation. Unpublished Mors Ual of CaliforniaatLos Ando& Walters, J. & Stemsett, N. 1971. Parent-child relationship's A deem% review of research, IOU", J.T. & Hoshareich, R. 1272. The JournalofMarriageendtheFenny attitudm toward women soaks As objective 3m1h70-111. instrument tO measure attitudes towsrd the rietts sad roles of women in matemporery Watson, P. 1970.Individual differences in chil- society, c ot_!?et.d Documents in dren's reactions to frustrative non-reward, Journal of Experimentel Child Psyelsoloa 1buur21e-234. nab, A. & Bailey, M. M. 1973. The socialisation of achievement orientationinfemales, Weiner,B. 1972. TheoriesofMotivation. breftlabsuilega $0(0345-311. Chimps Markham Press.

140 Weiner, B. & Kukla, A. 1970.An attributional male and femalehighschoolstudents, analysis of achievement motivation, Journal Journal of Educational Psychology of Psrsonality and Social Psycho logY 154- WM6-730. 0. Wainer, B. & Potepan, P. A. 1970.Personality Wyer, R. S., Jr. 1967.Behavioral correlates of aorrelatme and aftoctive reactkons toward soadsmte achievernontsConformity under exams ot amending and failing collage achievement-end affiliation-ineentive con- students, Journal of Educational Psychology ditions, Journal of Personality and Social 61:144451. Psychology 6 I3J:255-213. Weston, P. J. & Meckoick, U. T. 1970.Race, Zander, A., Fuller, R., & Armstrong, W. 1992. social elan and the motive to avoid mann Attributed pride and shame in group and in women, JournalofCroas-Cultural self,JournalofPersonalitY and Social Payehology 1(3)1214-291. Perholossf 731348-352. Winehell, R. et cL 1974. Impact of co-oducation Zunich, 1044.Children's reaction to failure, on "fear a success" imagery expensed by Journal of Genetic Psychology 104:11-24.

-4. r Jell%Educational and Vocational Choices

Adamek, R. J. & Goody, W. J.1968. Identifica- Bardwiek, J. M. 1971.Psychology of Women} A tion,sex and changeincollege major, Study of Elio-Cultural Co :acts. tiew York: Sociology of Education 39(2)11113-199. Tiarper & Row. Almquist, E. & Angrist, S. S. 1970. Career Barnett, R. C.1973. The Relationship Between salienceand &typicality of occupational Occupational Prestige: A Study of Sex choice among college women, Journal of DifferencesandAgeTrenas. Paper Marriage and the Family 32(0:242-249. presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Montreal, Angrist, S. 1972. Changes in women's work Canada, August. aspirations during college (or work does not opalcareer),InterngionalJournalof Bornett, R. C. & Baruch, G.1973. Occupational Sociology of the Faintly 2(1)18747. and Educational Aspirations and pacts- Cons;A Review of Empirical Li erature. Angrist, S. 1971. Measuring women's career linpallshed manuscript. commitment, Soolotleal Focus 2(3)329-34. Baruch, G. K. 1972. Maternal influences upon Astin, A. W. & Ponce, R. J.1969. The Educa- college women's attitudas toward women tional and Vocational Development of Col- and work, Developmental Psychology 60)332- lege Students. Washington, D.C.: American 37. Council on &Wootton. Baumrind, D. & Black, A. E.1967.Socialization practices associated with dimensions of Bachtold, L. M. & Werner, E. E. 1971. Personality competence in preechool boys and girls, profilesofwomenpsychologists3 Three Child Divelopment 39:291-327. generations, Developmental Psychology 5(2)3273-278. Bayer, A. E. 1989.Marriage plans and educationalaspirations,American Journal of Baird, L.1973. The Graduates. Princeton, N.J.: Sociology 15:239-244. Educational Testing Service. Beta!, A. 1974. Doctor, lawyer, housohold drudge Banducel,R. 1987. The effort of mothar's Journal of Communications 24:147-145. employment on the achievement aspirations and expectations of the child, Personnel and Carmody, J. F., Fenske, R. E., & Scott, C. S. Outdone. Journal 463263-267. 1972. Changes in Goals. Plans, and Back- ground Characteristicsof College-Bound Barclay, L. K. 1974. The emergence of vocational High SchoolStucients.-Report No.52. expectations in pre-school children, Journal Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing of Vocational Behavior Service.

147 Clark E. T.1987.Influence of sex and social Fox, G. 1..1974. Some Observations and Data on class on oecupational preference and per- the Availability of Same Sex Rae Models as wtion, Personnel and Guidance Journal a Factor in undaraduate Career Chace. 45(0440-444. Paper presented at the Society far the Study ofSocialProblemsAnnualMeetings, Clark E. T.1945.. Status level of occupations Canada. chosen and rejected by middle end lower- class boys and girls, Psychological Reports Gump, J.P. & Rivers,L. W. 1973. The 17(1)401-302. Consideration of Race in Efforts to End M. was. Waidngton, l.C.zlational ksatitute Clark,E. T. & Mims, K. F. 1957. Peers ErEducation. perceptions of Negro and white occupational preferences, Personnel and Guidance Journal Gysbers, N. C. et al.1969.Characteristics of 46:215-291. homemakerandcareer-oriented women, Journal of Counselinsi Psychology 15(6h541- Cummings, L. D.1977. ltion and 146. for Alternative o f FarunPirresitS PerninIsm and Valuetretch Among Collve Men. Paper presented at the Eastern Hansen, .1. C. & Caulfield, T. J.1969.Parent- IGEologicil Association Meeting, New York, childoccupationalconcepts,Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 3:69-275. David, D. 1971. Career Patterns and Values: A Hariton, E. B. & Singer, J. L 1974.Women's Study of Men and Women in Salome JR fantasies during SCAlle intercourse: Nor- NewYork: Cofumisia mative and theoretical Implications, Journal ersity,Ibreauof Applied Social ofConsultingandClinicalPsy@ZEFY Ressarth. 42(3)1313-322. 1965. Davis, F. & Olsson, V. L. The career Harmon,L.W. 1972. Variables related to outlgok of professionally educated women% persistence in educational plans, womens Thecase of collegiatestudent nurses, Psychistry4 Journal for the Study of Journal of Vocational Behavior 2(2h143-153. Interpersonal Processes 25(0334-345. Harmon, L. W.1970.Anatomy of career commitment in women, Journal of Counseling Davis, J. A. 1971. Great Aspirations. Chicagos Psychology 17(1):7740. National Opinion lesearch Center. Hawley, P.1972.Perceptions of male models of DeFleur, M. L. 1963.Children's knowledp of femininity related to career choice, Journal occwational roles and prestige: Preliminary of Counseling Psyeholoo 19(0308-313. report, Psychological Reports 13:760-76L Nelson, R.1971. Women mathematicians and the Deutsch, M. 1960. Minority grow and class creative personality, Journal of Consulting status as related to social and perscoality and Clinical Psychology 36(2):210-220. factres in scholastic achievement, Mono- =of the&mist/.forAt:Wid Herman, M. H. & Secilsoak, W. E. 1974. Career loay, No. 2. Orientation of UniversitY and High WWI Dole, A. A.1984. Sex as a factor in the deter- Women. Unpublished paper,Marylend mination of educational choice, Journal of trwrisit, College Park Counseling Center. General lospholosy 71(2)417-371. Karmen, F..1. 1973. Womons Personal and Mutt* C. N.1919.Cultural values and rola Envi Fa ors in Role IdentifIca decisions A study of educated woman, Journal of Counseling PsYchqlogy 11038-40. or Study of Evaluation, Unlvsasraity of California. Fame, P. IL1961.Personality charaeteristice and vocationalinterestrelatedtothe Kinnane, J. F. & Bannon, Sr. 14. M.1964.Per- college perslatenos el academically gifted wired parental influmm and work-value women, &Ingot choloty orientation, Personnel and Guidance Journal 15s31-40. 43:273-279.

141 19 Kirchner, E. P. & Vondracek, S. L 1973. What Do Mathews, B. & Tledeman, D. V. 1064. Attitudes You Want To Be When You GrotThijilli towardcareerandmarriageandthe Vocational Choice in Children Al Led twee to da velopment of life style in young women, Dix.Paper presented at The Society for Jownal of Counseling Psychology 111375-384. WesearchinChildDevelopmentAnnual Convention, Philadelphia. McCandless, B. R. 1969. Problems of child rearing inachangingsociety, Family Kohlberg,. L.1986.A cognitive-developmental Coordinatf18:291-293. analysis of children's su role concepts and attitudes. In The Development of Sex McMillin, M. R.1972. Attitudes of college men Differences. ildited by E. E. Maccoby, towardcareerinvolvementofmarried NOT° fa Stanford University Press. women,VocationalGuidanceQuarterly 21(1)4-11. Komarovsky, M. 1976. Dilemmas of Masculinity. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. McMillin, N. R. et al.1971. Opinions on career involvement of married women, National Lee, B. 1.. & King, P. 1964. Vocational choices of Association of Women Deans and Counselors ninth grade girls and their parents' occu- Journal 34(3)121-124. pational levels, Vocational Guidance Quarterly 12:163-167. Meyer, J. A. 1970. High school effects on eollege intentions, American Journal of Sociology Lefebvre, A. & Boim, N. J.1971.Occupational 76:59-70. prestige as seen by disadvantaged black children, Developmental Psychology 4:173- Mischel, W.1970.Sex-typing and socialization. 177. In Carmichaers Manual of Child Psychology, vol. 2. Edited by P. H. Musson, Leifer, A. D. & Lessor, G. S. 1975. Development New York: John Wiley & Sons. of Career Awarenes in Children. CambrOge, Mass.: tenter for Research In Morrill, W. H. C., Miller, 13., & Thomas, L. 1970. Children's Television, Graduate School of Educationalandvocationalinterestsof Eckwation, Harvard University. college women, Vocational Guidance Quarterly 19:85-89. Levine, A. G.1988.Marital and Occupational Plans of Women Ililsrofesional Schooli Mulvey,M.C. 1963. Psychologicaland Lew Medicine/ Nursing, Tesehln& Unpub- sociological factors in prediction of career lished Ph. D. diasertation, Yale University, patterns of women, Genetic Psychology New Haven, Conn. Monographs 81(2)309-388. Lipman-Blumen, J.1972.How ideology shapes women% lives, Scientific American Musson, P. H. 1969. Early sex role development. 226(1)44-42. In Handbook of SocializatiomTheory and Research.Edited by O. A. Gosin, Looft,W. R. 1971. Sex differences in the McNally, Inc., pp. 707-731. expressionofvocationalaspirationsby elementary school children, Developmental Naply, D. L. 1971. Traditional and pioneer Psychology 5(2)1366. working mothers,Journal of Vocational Behavior 1(0331-341. Luria,Z. 1974. Recentwomencollege graduates: A study of rising expectations, Nelson, C. 191111. Changing roles of men and AmericariJournal of Orthopsychiatry women: Illustrations from Egypt, Anthropo- 44(3h312-326. togieel Quarterly 41(2)57-77. Mandle, J. D.1975.Unclergradiate activists in the Woment Movement and their public: Nelson, J. C.1968.Interests of disadvantaged Attitudes towards marriage and the family, and advantaged Negro andwhitefirst Sociological Poetw 81257-269. paders, Journal of Negro Education 37:168- 173. Mason, K. O. & Bumpass, L. L. 1975.U.S. women's sex-role ideology, 1970, American O'Hara, R. P. 1962. The roots of careers, Journal of Sociology 110:1212-1219. Elementary School Journal 823277-280.

149 140 O'Leary, V. E. & &SUN J. S. 1972. Antecedents Schmidt, J. L. & Rothney, J. W. M. 1955.Vari- and Correlates of Professional Careerism ability of vocational choices of Ngh school Anderitra_slomes. Unpublishal manuecript, students, Personnel and Guidance Journal varsity, Rochester, Mich. 34:142-146.

Parana, A. P. 1975. Emerging sex role attitudes, Schwartz, J. J.1969.Medicine as a vocational expectations, and strains among collage choke among undergraduate women, women, Journal of Marriage and the Family National Association of Women Deans and 37:148-151. 13316-ri"laarnW51/1:137:1- 1.

Rand, L.1968.Masculinity or femininit ?Dif- Siegel, C. L.P. 1973. Sex differences in ferentiating career-oriented and ocetesational choices of second graders, homemaking-oriented college freshman Journal of Vocational Behavior 3(0:15-19. women, Journal of Counseling Psychology 15(5, pt. 1)3444-450. Simmons, D. D. 1962. Children's ranking of Rey, L. D. 1974. Predicting Women's Educational occupational prestige, Personnel and Aspirations: The Influenees of School, Guidance Journal 41432-336. Pamny. and Sas Role Attitudes.Paper ;assented atthe American Sociological Simmons, R. G. & Rosenberg, M. 1971. Functions Association Annual Convention, Montreal, of children's perceptions of the stretifica- Conde. Hon system, American Sociological Review 98:235-249. Rosen, B. & Aneshensel, C. S. 1978. The chameleon syndromes A social psychological dimension of the female sex role, Journal of Stockard, J. 1977. The Influence of Family Marriage and the Family 311:805-8177" Background and Other Experiences on the Sex Role kelated Attitudes of Male and Rosen, R. A. H.1973.Occupational Role In- Female IAmMs.escenand Yo Adults. =eid ers and Sex Role Attitudes. Unputp- Paper presented iit-thli-----Wideret paper,WayneStateUniversity, the American Sociological Association. Detroit, Mich,

Rosenberg, M.1957. Occupations and Values. TanErit S. S. 1972. Determinants of occupational Glencoe, 111.3 Free Press. roleinnovation among collegewomen, Journal of Social Inues 25(2h177-199. Rani, A. S.1970. Status of women in graduate departments of sociology 1988-1989, 'IVler, L.1964. Antecedents of two varieties of American Sociologist 5:1-12. vocationalinterests,Genetic Nye:holm, Monographs 70(0177-227. Rossi, A. S. 1967. Ambivalence in women: Should we plan for the real or the ideal? Adult Leadership 16:100-102, 118. Vetter, L. & Lewis, E. C. 1064. Some correlates of homemaking versus career preference Rossi, A. S. 1985. Barriers to the career choice of among college home economics students, engineering, medicine, azsd science among Personnel and Guidance Journal 42(0593- American women. In Women and the 5911. ScientificProfessions. EditedbyJ. Mattfleid & C. Van Ahen, Cambridge, Vogel, S. R. et al.1975. Sex role self-concepts Mena The MIT Press. and life style plans of young women, Journal ofConsultingandClinicalPsycholon Safilios-Rothschild, C. et aL 1978. Sex role 431427. socialisation and sex differences.In Earl Child Development. Med by W. Ftheñ Warts,C. 1987. Career choicepatterns, )(mats Institute for Early Socialization. Sociology of Education 40(4)3413-358.

Schimberg,N.K. & Goodman,J. 1972. Williams, 1'. H.1972.Educational aspiration= Imperative kr change: Counselor use of the Longitudinal evidence on their development strong vocational interest blank*Impact in Canadian youth, Sociology of Education 11025-29. 45(2)1107-131. Wylie, R. C. 1963. Children's estimates of their Yoesting,D. R. & Bohlen,J. 1968. A schoolwork ability as a function of sex, race, longitudinal study of migration expeetations andsocioeconomiclevel,Journalof and performances of young adults, Journal personality 31:203-224. of Human Resources 3(0485-496.

5. Sex Role Socialization Patterns in Selected Societies

Aleon, C. 1973. La Femme Potiche et la Femme Safilioslothschild, C.1974. Women and Social Bonniche. Paris: Fran:mils Ms. Ipero. PoIIcy.Englewood Cliffs, N..1.1Prentice- Barker, G. R. 1972. La femme en Union Sovietique, Sociologie et Societes 4(2):159- Safilios-Rottochild, C. 1972. Toward a Sociology 191. of Women. Lexington, MAL111.1 Xerox

Basch, M. IL1972. Sex Role Development and Age Group Participation in Calcutta. Paper Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1971.A crom-aultural presented attheAmerican Sociological examination of women's marital, educational Association Annual Convention, New and occupational options, Acta Sociologica Orisons. 14(1-2):96-113.

Dahl, G. 1989. Barns Konsrollsuppfatthbw Safilios-Rothschild, C.1969.Honor crimes in tUtprisrs' Comprehension of Sex Roles). contemporary Greece, lite British Journal of ,Sweden; UppsalaUniversity, Sociology 20(2)405-216. research reports from the Department of Sociology. Sokolowska, M.1965.Some refloctions on the differontattitudesof men and women Dodge, N. T. 1968. Women in the Soviet toward work, International Labor Review Ecuzwom . Baltimore, Md.: The Johns 9235-50. University Press. Some Data on Sex Role Socialization in Sweden. Linner, B. 1971. What does equality between the 1975. Mimeographed. sexesimply?, AmericanJournalof Orthopsyctdatry 41747-756. Sullerot, E.1971. Woman, SocieVt and Change. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. lapman-Biumen, J.1973. Role dedifferentiation as a system respome to crisis: Occupational Women i_g n I_WW1.,..Statistics. 1971. and political roles of women, Sociological nu Labor Inquiry 43(2)105-129. Connell.

6. Sex Discrimination ki Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education

Adelman, H. S. 1989.Reinforcement "fleets of Bandurs,A.,Lipsher,D., & Miller,P. 1969. adult =reaction on expectancy of under- Psychotherapists' approach-avoidancs reac- act:Wing boys, Child Develooment 40111- tions to patients' expressions of hostility, 122. Journal of Coneultins PeV0117101(1 Beekman, L. 1970.Effects of studints perfor- Anastastow, N. 1985. Success in school and boys' mance on leaders' and observirs' attributions sexrolepath:rue,ChildDevelooment of causality, Journal of Educational Psy- 36s1053-1066. choloss 61:76-51. Asher, S. & Gottman, J. 1972.Sex of Teacher Berlin, I. 1969. A Psychiatric View of Learning and Student Teathing Aehievement. Paper Diadere.Froceedinp of 61st Rose Con- presentedat IheAmericanEducational mince on Pediatric Rosearch-Learning Dis- RN:earth Association Annual Convention, orders in Children.Columbus, Ohio ROSS Chicago, M. Laboratories. 151 i 4 2 Bernard, J. 1984. Academic Womon. University Chafetz, J. S.1974.Masculine, Feminine, or Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Human?Itasca, Ill.:F. E. Peacock Pub- liaM Mir, H., UMer, L. B., & DyerJ. L. 1972. Chasen, B. 1974. Sex role stereotyping and Feminization in pre-school,14evelopmental prekindergarten teachers, Elementary Psychology 7(1)46. School Journal 74(4):220-235. Biedankapp, U. & Goering, J. 1971. How 'mas- Clapp, R. 1967. The Relationship of Teacher Sex culine' are male elementary teachers?Phi to Fifth Gra4 Bo Achievement Gains and Delta Happen 53:115. lona &mutation, Stanford University. Bleekwe II, G. W. 1963.The college end the continuing education of women, Educational Clefs,E. 1968. A modest proposal for the Record 4433-39, educatingofwoman, AmericanScholar 38:618-627. Blanchard, R. W. & Mier H. B. 1971.Father availabilityandaciademicperformance Cody, W. 1966. Control and resistance in a slum among third-grade boys, Developmental Psy- school, Elementary School Journal 67:1-7. chology 4:301-305. Cron, K. P. 1971.The Undergraduate Woman. Bloom, B. S. 1971. Mastery learning. in Mastery Research Report No. 5. Waslington, D.C.% Edited by .1. H. Block, New York: American Association for Higher Education. 1tRJneMrt & Winston. DeCrow, K. 1972.Look, Jane, look!See Dick Brophy, J. & Good, T. 1970. Teachers' communi- run and jump! Admire him! In Sex Differ- cationofdifferentialexpectationsfor ences andDiscriminationinEducation. children's classroom performances Some Edited by S. Anderson, Worthington, Ohio: behavioral data, Journal of Educational PsY- Charles A. Jones Publishing Co. chology 61365-04. DeGroat, A. & Thompson, G. 1949.A stutty of Brophy, J. & Laosal L. 1971.Effect of a male the distribution of teacher approval and teacher on the sex-typing of kindergarten disapprovalamongsixthgradepupils, children, Proceedings of the 79th Annual Journal of Experimental Education 18:57- Convention of the American Psychological 75. Association 6:169-170. Deutsch, U. & &own, B. 1964. Social influences inNegro-whiteintelligencedifferences, Bunting, J. W. 1981. The relation of business to Journal of Social blues 20124-35. women's higher education, Educational Re- cord 422116-95. Doherty, B. G. & Culver, C. 1976. Sex-fole identification,ability,andachievement Bunting, U. Graham, P. A., & Wasserman, B. among high school girls, SociologY ofEduca- 1970. Academic freedom and incentive far tion 49:1-3. women, Educational Record 51498-391. Donlon, T. F. 1971.Content Factors in Sex Campbell, U. A. 19mitsinflwman52Votilda Girl Go Into Differences on Testquestions.Paper pre- 9 Medical sented atthe gew England Educatiocal guide for Women. Privately printed. ResearchOrganizationAnnualSleeting, Boston. Caplan, P. J. 1974.Sex and Other Factors as Determinants of 111WraiNERRI Ekstrom, R. B. 1972.Barriers to Women's Par- ter.:Paper presented at the American ticipstion in Poet- ion.A Wchokgical Aseociatica Annual Conven- Review of the Literature. Research Builetin ticet, Kew Orleans. 72-49. Peinceton, N.J.s Educaticeal Meting Service. Caplan, P. J. & Kinabourne, U. 1974.Sex dif- femme' inresponseto schoolfailure, Ellis, J. R. & Peterson, J. L. 1971.Effects of Journal of Learning Disabilities 7(4)149-52. same sex class organiution on junior high school students' academic achievement *elf- Carter, R. 1952. How invalid are marks Ausigned discipline, self-concept, sex role identifica- Igtev aebers?Journal of Educational PsY- tion and attitude toward schooL Journal of April, pp. 218-128. Eduoational Research 84:455-484.

152 1 4 Ewald, L. S. 1971.Sox discrimination in higher Good, T. & Grouwns, D. 1972. Reaction of Male education: Constitutionalequalityfor and Female Teacher ltainees to l)eserip- women? Journal of Family Law 10(0327- tions of Elementary §:Aloof Pu its.Tech- 343. nical Report go. 62, tenter for Research in Social Behavior, University of Missouri at Feldman, S. D. 1973. impediment or stimulant? Columbia. Maritalstatus and graduateuducation, American Journal of Sociology 78:982-994. Good, T., Sikes, J., & Brophy, .7. 1973.Effects of teacher sus and student sex on classroom Fa leant/ad, a 1970. Sex Differenees in Expres- interaction, Journal of Educational Fg- sive Thought of Gifted Children in the chology 65(1):74-87. Classroom. American Educational Research Association, ERIC. Ed. 039-106. Goodwin, G. G. 1988.The Woman Doctoral Recipient.Unpublished doctoral disserta- Ferguson, L. R. & Maccaby, E. E. 1966.Inter- tion, Oklahoma State University. personal correlates of differential abilities, Child Development 37:549-572. Gordon, L J. 1968. The assessment of classroom emotional climates by means of the observa- Feshbach, N. D. 1969.Student teacher pre- tion schedule and record, Journal of Teacher ferencea of elementary school pupils varying Education 17:224-232. in personality characteristics, Journal of Educational Psychology 80126-132. Graebner, D. B. 1972.A decade of sexism in readers, The 114sadim Teacher, October, Finn, .7. D. 1972.Expectations and the educational environment, Review of Educational vol. 26. Research 421387-410. °tuba, J. D. 1972.Sex-stereotypes in instructional materials, literature, and languages A Fishr, J. K. & Weetjen, W. B. 1966. An investi- survey of research, Women Studies gationoftherelationship between the Abstracts 1:1-4, 91-94. separation by sex of eighth grade boys and girls and English achievement and self- Grambs, J. D. & Weetjen, W. B. 1956. Being concept, Journal of Educational Research equally different: A new right for boys and 59(9):40g-412. girls,The National Elementary Principal 48:5947. Flanagan, J. C. 1906. Quality education for girls, Women's Educntion 5(4):1-7. Guttenteg, M. & Bray, M. 1976. Undoing Sex Mpo a, New York: McGraw-BIlL Forslund, hi. A. & Hull, R. E. 1972.Sex-role identification and achievement at preado- A. S. 1970. The second sex in academe, lescence,joulaelarRoc lountainSocial Amorican Association of University Pro- Science ?mom Buletin 50:213-295. Fox, G. L. 1974. Some Observations and Data on Harvey, G. J. et al. 1968.Teachers' beliefs, the AvailabilieFOroem as classroom atmosphere and student behavior, a Fedor in Undenunduate Career Choice. AmericanEducationalResearehJournal Paper presented at the Society far the Study 51151-166. ofSocialProblemsAnnualMeetings, Canada. Haven, E. W. & Horah, D. H. 1972. How College Students Finance Their Eduoation. New Fresher, B. & Walker, A. 1972. Sex roles in early Yorks College Entrance Examination Board. readingtextbooks, ReadingTeacher 251E1741-749. Heller, K., Myers, R., & Kline, L. 1983.Inter- viewer behavior as a function of stand- Garnsicy, N. & Farwell, G. 1958. Counselor ardised client roles, Journal of Conadting behavior as a function of client hostility, Psychology 2":117-122. Journal of Counseling Psycholce 13:184- 190. Hembrough, B. L. 1986. A two-fold educational challenges The student wife and the mature Gates, A. I. 1981.Sex differences in reading woman student, Journal of the Association ability,The ElementarySchoolJournal of Women Deans and Counselors 29114-167, 111:431-434. summer.

153 4 4 Hetherington, E. U. & Deur, J. L. 1971.The Kornkamp, E.. & Price, F.. 1972.Co-education offsets of father absence on child develop- may be a ''no-no" for the six year old boy, ment, Younig Children 26(0233-248. Phi Delta Haman 53:662463.

Hers, B. 1972.Down up the staircasesSax Kinsbourne, U. 1919. Neuropsychological and roles, profeasionalization, and the status of neurophysiologicalaspectsofloaning teachers. In en Differences and disorders, Proosedings of list Rom Con- crimination in Educa6on. Editelby S.B. ference cm Petric Research-Learning Anderson, Worthington, OhiosCharles A. bisorders In Cdrisn. Columtius, Ohio: Jamas Publishing Co. Roes Laboratories. lioimetrom, E. L & Holmstrom, R. W. 1974. The Klein, & 1971.Student influence on teacher plightofthe woman doctoralstudent, behavice, American Educational Rs:march AmericanEducationalResearchJournal Journal 6:4111-411. Lahaderne, IL M. 1967.AdaptIon to School Hunter,T. 1967. The status of women in Settings:A Study of Attitudes Australia, Indian Journal of Social Work and Matmom Behavior. Office of Educe- 26(2)s161-167. MIFIM1WflariT, 2943. Hurley, J. F. 1985. Lehaderne, H. & Cohen, & 1972.Freedom and Report of Project Evalua- Fairness: A Comparison of Male and Female tions; A Study of Aff-tot and All-Girl leachareln Elementary_Claserooms. Paper drama at the Thfrd and Fift Gado Levels presented at the itmelaan Educational and an Evaluation ater /Two Years in Same Research Association Annual Convention, Sex Classes. Fairfax, Vms Office of Chicago. lsipliZIWiaServices,FairfaxDeent4' School Board. Las, P. C. 1973. The slyly classroom experience: Masculine or feminine?, Perspectives on Hurley, J. F. 1944.Report of Project Evalua- Education 6110-15. tions:Instructional Grouping 1,Sex at the Fifth Grade )..evel-A Study 0All-Boy and t,... Los, P. C. & Wolinsky, A. L. 1973. Male teachers AU-Girlnrin Fairfax, Ne.s Mks of of young childrem A preliminary empirical Services,FairfaxCounty study,YOUng School Board Children 28:342-352. Husbands, S. 1972. Women's place in higher Lester, E. P., Dudek, S., & Muir, R. C. 1972. Sax aducatioa, School Review 601261-274. differences in the performance of school children, Canadian Psychiatric Association Jaoklin, C. N. & Mischal, H. N. 1973. As the twig Journal 11473-271i. is bent-Sox rolestereotypinginearly readers, School Psycholm Digest 2(3)40- 311. LevYt S. & Stacey, J. 1973. Sexism in the elementary schools A backward and forward Jackson, P. & Lahaderne, H. 1967. Inequalities of tut:her-pupil contacts, Psycho/ogy in the leek, Phi Delta Know 55:105-109. Schools, 4:204-211. Lippitt, IL & Gold, U.1959. Classroom social Jackson, P. & Lahaderna, H. 1971. Inequalities of structureas a mental health problem, tescher-pupil contacts.In The Expectance Journal of Social Issues 15(1)1404E. of Schooling. Edited by U. Silberman, Mew Yorks Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Locksley, A.1974. Tow UI nit 3teel/0W. Jonas, C. lc Riesman, D. 1966. The Academic of the H mint. Paper Revolution. Garden City: Doubleasy & Co. pres.nr. a Association Annual Convention, New Johnstone, J. & Rivera, R. 1983. Volunteers for Orleans. Learning. Chicago: Aldine. Kaden, X. 1970. Report on Women in Cantina- lelleduce_tim Vashington, D.C. DJ. of Education.

154 l 4 Loughlin, I.. J., O'Connor, AL A., Powell, M., & Meyer, J. W. & Sobissaek, B. L 1972. The effect Parsley, K. AL, Jr.1965. An investigation of sex on adultinterprJtation of child of sex diffarencos by intellipace, subject- behavior, Developmental Psychology 8:42- matter area, grade, and achievonsat level 49. on three anxiety soak's, Journal of Genetic Psychology 1061207-215. Meyer, W. & Undstrom, D.1969. The Distribu- tion of Thacher Approval and 151sa val of Ludaman, W. W.1961. Nanning female college Head Start ehLIciren.Report to Office attandances Causes and implications, - of Eoonomic Opportunity. tional Forum 254505407. Meyer, W. J. & Thompson, G. G.1956. Teacher Lyon, R. 1964. Married women and the academic interaction with boys as contrasted with tradition,JournalofHigherEducation girls.In Sex differences in the distribution 35:251-255. of teacher approval and disapproval among sixth grade children, Journal of Educational Meocoby, E., ed.1966. The Development of Sex Psychology 47:385-391. Differs:Ices. Stadord, Calif.:Stanford Vaiversitl Prom Morrison, V. B. 1985. Teacher-Pupil Interaction in Elementary Urban Schools.Office of Alaeoeby, E.E. & Jack lin, C. N. 1974.The tducation Pima Report, ED 003385. Psychok:sy of Sex Differences.Stanford, ftinfred University-Preas. Myers, C. A. 1964. Special problems encountered by mature women undergraduates, Journal of the National Association of Women-Wns Maccoby, E. & Jack lin, C. 1971.Sex Differences and Counselors 24:137-139. and noir lnwlloatlons for Sex Ro es. Paw presented at the American cal Oilman, R. M. 1971. Campus 1970: Where Do Association Annual Convention, Washington, We Stand? Washington: AAUP. D.C. Palardy, M.1989.What teachers believe, Mat Madison, C.1968.Nurturance and modeling in children achieve, Elementary School Journal pro-schoolors, Child Development 39221- 69:370-374. 236. Peltier, G.1988.Sex differences in the school. Msgarrall, M. 1978. Women a000unt for 93 Problem and proposed solution, Phi Delta percont or enrollment gain, Chronicle of Kappan 50:350-354. Higher &location 15:1. Phelps,M. 0. 1972. Does sax make a di:- Martin, R.1972.Student sex and behavior as foram:0, College and University 48:9041. determinants of the typo and frequency of teacher-etudent contacts, Journal of School Portuges, & P4. & Fuhbach, N. D.The influence ofsoxandsocioethnicfactorsupon Psychology 10:339-347. imitation of teachars by alementary school childron, Child Development 43(4)1911-419. McBee, L. & Suddick, D. 1974. Differontlal freshmanadmission by sex,National Pullen, D. L.1970.The educational establish- AssociationforWomenDeansjAdmin- ment: Wasted women. In Voices of the New istrators anti taunniors Journal 37(2):76-77. Feminism. Edited by 11.L. Thompson, Boston: Beacon Press. MeCracken, J. H. 1973. Sex typing ot reading by boys attending all male alma, Develop- Pyks, S. W. & Ricks, F. A. 1972. The counselor mental itycholoa 8:148. and the female client, School Counselor 20(0280-2944 Worland, W. J.1969. Aro girls really smarter? Randolph, K. S. 1965.The Mature Woman in Elementary School Journal 70411:14-19. Doctor:RI Programs.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. McNeil, J. D. 1964. Programmed instruction versususualolamroomproceduresin Report of the Subcommittee on the Status of teaching boys to road, American Educational Academic Woman on the BerkeIey Campus. Research Journal 11111-ni. 1970.

155 i 4 6 Ricks,F. A. & Pyke, S. W. 1973. Teacher Maw, U. C. & WHts, P. 1..1905. Therelation- perceptions and attitudes which foster or ship between child-parent identification and maintain sex role differences, Interchange academicunderachievement,Journalof 4(1)41-33. Clinical Psychology 21:10-13.

Rieman, D.1995. Some dilemmas of women's Shoulders, J.1901.Junior Collatie-An Attrac- educatka, samaimigmsla 46424-434. tion to Women. Columbia, Mo.: Unlvere)ty of 'Rawl. Hist, R. C. 1970. Student social class and teacher expectations: The *eV-fulfilling Sikes,J.1971.Differential Behavior of Male prophecy In fano eduoation, Harvard Edu- and Female aationel Rev 4w 40(3):411-451. theortatkin,Iiniversity of Texas at Austin. Rus link, D. H.1943. N ed Women Resurn Smith, N. P. 1972. He only does it to annoy. in tion fEduce SexDifferencesmidDiscriminationin TAiucation. gdfilia by 1.B.Anderson, ew York Ueiversity. Virdliiiiifon,Ohio: CharlesA.Jones Publishing Co. gusia, P. D. & Snyder, W. V.1913. Counselor anxiety in relation to ammint of clinical Salmon, L. C. 1974. Do Women Greduate experience and quality of affect demon- Students Get a Raw MHO Paper presented strated by client, Journal of Consulting, at the Meetings of thePublic Choice ftftlact 24411-363. Society, New Haven, Conn., March 21. Searing T. N., Jaoldin, C. N., & Tittle, C. X. 1972. Spaulding, R.1963.Achievement, Creativity, Sex-role stereotyping in the public school*, and Self -Conesjot Correlates a Tisieber- Hvrd Reg..4._eview 43(3)41111-413. Pupil Tranuctions in Elementary Schools, Cooperative Research Noject -No. 1352, flakier, N. & Frasier, N. 1973. Sexism in School Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of and Society. New York: Harper & low. Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. eadker, M. & Sadker, D. 1972. Sexual discrimination in the elementary schools, The National Stern, R. H.1970.Review articlesSexism in Illementery Princioel 11:41-45. foreign language textbooks, For_ame language Annals 9(4)494-299. Safilims-RoUwohild, C. 1910 (forthooming). What permits and educators do.Chapter 10 in Strickler, R. W.1970. Thomas Coeburn Elemen- Second Nature,Socialization k Destiny, tarySchool HinderIrten-Primary_gu- Ukiah Calif.0University of California culinization Protect969-72 and Kinder- Pros. garten-PrimaryMasculinlutlonProleot 1970-7L Unpublished 'am- Saipunas, A.1973. Survey of textbooks detects 15i1chool District, Astor:, Pa. less bias against Blacks but little to please feminists, The New York Times, March 21. Taylor, M. E. 1973. Soz-role stereotypes in children'sreaders, Momentary English 50(7)4043-1047. Sells, L. W. 1973, Sex Differenoes in Gra:Nate School Paper preeented at the Tittle, C. X. 1974. Sex bias in educational Association Annual measurement: Fact or fiction, Measurement Meet*, New Yak, Aug. IL 11(4):219-3311. Sort" F. 1170. How the American boy le lbbles, S. 1171. Woman Is Wed and Obiect in femielied, Prietioloni Thdav 3($)43-39, SS- Hon. emaciation addreas-at 17. for Women, Sept. 10.

Sentra, P. H.1969. The Feminized Male. New L, Xuenota, E., & kits, D., eds.1909. Yorks Random Howe. tho Cod ea Sem^ J. U.1171. College edmiesion policies baled on us and the equal protection Triplett,1.. 1901. Elementary educetion-A elause, Metal* Lew Retie* 21(1)191.413. =Ws "let lathaMISE 710h31. 154 17 1973.The relationaldp of au of Weitunan et al.1972. Servolo socialisation in teacher and fatherpresence-abeanne to picturebook forpreschoolchildren, academia achievement, Prowled he American Journal of Socials:4w 7211123- 1150. likmajon, W. 1962. Warts, C. E.1141. A comparison of male vs. b learning swam?, facial*collegeattendance probabilitiu, iftrikataM, 21311-14. atealswinglasmtkm 41(1)s103-110. Wall, W. D., SinmeU, P. J., a Obon, W. C.19112. farz: rob An international Study. Wats, C. E.len. Sax differences in coHnie attends's**,NationalMeritScholarship 200. Waists., I., Cleary, T. A., & Clifford,M. N. 1971. The effect of race andsax on online Zinset, O.1972. What Children Read In Schools flooloton of Eduoatios 44:237- Critical Analysis or Primary itesientlud- E44. books. New Yorks Grupe & ftatton.

7. Occupational Sex Diserimination

Ariker, J. ilk Van Houten, D. L 1974. Diffaiential Dicerman, 13. 1971. Su discriminationin reerultmant and controls The ses MMus.- academia,JournalofHigherEducation In of organiutions, Administrative Menu 42i263-2116. Quartarit 111(1),211-230. Epstein, C. P. 1974. The Woman Lawyer. Athsmandades, J. C.1974. An investigation of Chien% Ula University or Chloap Pram nine commussioation pats= of (amain oubordinates in hieraroldeal organiutions, Epstein, C. P. 1973.StructuringMONOfor 37(3)3102410- womon: Guidelinesforgat Na stionofc Pass, S. N. et al. 1971. Hale =wars' attitudes toward working seamen, American ilabavicral liciettist 191121-339. Epstein, C. 1970. Enommtering Use male establishments lax status limits on womoses earners in the professions, Amerinatts Jours* byes, 11. A.1910.Charactaristios of woman Wang eseoutive, managarial, end other of Sociology 75465-992. Idgh level positions in four arms of businea, Jalisegg20,4210A-4212A Pidell, L. L 1970. Empirical verification of au discrimination in hiringpractical in Campbell, D. P. 19411. The Detwun payaboloa, American Psychologist 2940114- pay w pre- 1001. PitiohdaSicial Assosdation Asmual Corwastion, San Gilmer, IL1061.industrkd Peychology.Hew Prestoisso, Aug. 31. Yorks McGraw-AL Caen, IL A., Filiag no J., & Olins, P.1973. Goss4 J. S. & Pagano, A. 1972. Sms disarimine- Pereeivad Worland. of soiectod variables tine and ashievusent, " mend to *abate melt and female job appli- of We an ant* heenditestaign 101217-404. Hague R. & Ka/m, A.1974.Diseriminatign Marna, D. A. ik Phelan, J. 0. 1974. Attitudes ot Competent Woman. (Abskst women inmanagement, I.11.. T lepil=keda paper, Iowa State Univarsity. gattiediggilltielatti 201 Hansen,D. 1E74. le.. /2.4iff trwa...g Oaser, P. 1.. & itokorf, O. 1971. Women ln the 3galtrifty Paper grown =Lineal worlds Social dioruption and dialogical Association Annual jo41111 problems 1111131-1199. Convention, New Orleans. 137I Ka Mut, E. R. et al.1974.Status of woman Prather, J. 1971. Why omit women be more like microbiologist, Science 183(4124)14U-494. mem A summary of the sociopsychological factors hindering womenb advancoment In Kay, 114. J.1972. A positive approach to women the professions, American Bohavioral in manngement, Personnel Journal 51(0439- Scientist 15(2):172-181. 410. Rosen, B. & Jet6se, T.1974.Effects of appli- Kelley, H. H.1987. Attribution theory in social anti sex and difficulty of job on evaluation psychology. In Nebraska Sy um on ofcandidatesformanagerialposition, Motivation. EditecTby D. Levine,Diversity Journal of Applied Psychology 59:511-512. ot Nebraita. Knew, C. L. 1971. Women in Librarianship: The Safilioa-Rottschild, C.1079. Women and work: Malority Rules/Papar pmented at the Policy implications and prospects for the 'American Sociological Association Annual future. In Women Working. Edited by A. IL Convention, Donver, Colo. Stromberg & S. flarkess, Palo Alto, Calif.* Mayfield Publishing Co. Atropos, C. L. & Grimm J. W.1971. Wotnen in Librarianship:The3 Malority Rules+ hper Safilios-Rothschild, C.1974. Women and Social preeeniad at the Annual Meeting of the Policy.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: *entice- Gam& Sociological and Anthropological BalL Association, Athens, Ga. Schein, V. E. 1973. The relationship between sex Landau, E A. & Dunahoo, R. L.1971. Sex dis- role stereotypes and requisite management crimination in employment:A survey of characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychol- state and Federal romedies, Drake Law six 57:95-100. Review 20(9)325-27. Simon, 8.8 Clark, S., & Tifft, L. 1968. Of Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L.1971. nepotism,marriage and pursuitof an Sex discrimination against the Amorican academic career, Sociology of Education working woman, AmericanBehavioral 39:344-358. Scientist 15(2)1237-254. Lipman-Blumen, J. 1973. The Vicarious Achieve- Simon, R. & Rosenthal, E.1957.Profile of the mentEthic--Non-lteadiaonalRoles/or woman Ph. D. in economicshistory and )(omen. Paper presentod at Annual Meeting sociology, Journalof the American R-TW Eastern Sociological Society, New Association of University of Wome&0sf7- York, April 13-15. 29. Lublin, J. & 1972. Discrimination against women Simpson, L.1970. A myth is bettor than a miss, in newarooms:Fact or fantasy, Journalism Men gat the edge in academic employment, Quarterly 49(2)1357-361. College and University &sinus, February, pp. 72-73. Lyon, C. & Surto, T.1973.Women in public education: Sexual discrimination in promo- Sm h,R. W. 1972. Covert Discrimination tions, Phi Dolts Kaman 54(2)315-20. *Met Women asColl Pew prented a McCune, & 1970.Discrimination of women as Association Annual Convention, Honolulu, viewed by finale ARID members, TraInIr September. aniantraitinil 5411)444L MoKelvey, J. 11171. Sex and the single arbitrator, Salmon, L. C. 1974. Do Women Graduate industrialandLeberRolationp Revkliw Studate Get a Raw D3T Paper preset:tut IninFra. at meetingsofthePublic amine Society, New Haven, Conn., Much. WWI L. Labovitz, S., & Fry, L.1974.Dif- feranom in the Orisnisationhl Experienoes Salmon, L. C.1973. Women in doctoral *dm- Wo ant V and regarding r"""-TVIEM: t'*-17!" How Clues pusslei pro- institutionaldiscrimination,Reeearch in seated a 1, . Annual tiostica 1:299-332. Convention, Montresl. Hister

159 I 4 9 Terborg, & Don, D. R. 1974. A Theoretical of Businoso and Professional Woment Clubs, to Sex Discrimfnation in Feb. 20. prawn cal Association Annual Convention, New Yokopenic, P. A., Bourque, L. B., & Brogan, D. COMA& 1974. Prole:atonal Communication Networks: A Case Stuj of Women in the 'Miss,S. 1971. Psychological end Social in Barriers to Women on the Job. T "Onpublisheef mamacript,Universityof delivered to The lrort5 &mina -Federation California at Loa Angeles.

S. The Case of Black Women: Race and Sex Discrimination

Almquist, E. M. 1914. Black Women in the Labor Featherman, D. L. 1974. 'bends in Occupational Forces The lanceof a Decade. Mobility by Race and Sex in the dated Vapartment of iforth 'fixes State St_i_k_19112--1972. Paper presented at the University. Wearement and Modela in Stratification and MobiliV Research, Toronto, August Abaquist, E. M. 1973.The Income Lames of Work ciiim.00151;1men: Product of &cis' Featherman, D. L. 1972. Achievement mien- m t spec presented tations and socioeconomic career iTISKmerican Sociological ..noalation attainments, American SooioloKieel Review Annual Convention, New York. 371131-143. Havens, E. 1972.intergenerational ocoupational Barrett, N. S. & Morgenstern, R. D. 1974. Why do mobility: Comparison of patterns, blacks and women have high unemployment Americen Socio151cal Review 37(3);775- rates?, Journalof Human Resources 9(0452. Iglitain, L. B. 1974. A cue study in patriarchal Bock, E. W. 1989. Farmer's daughter effect: The politics: Women an welfare,American case of the Negro female professional, Behavioral Scientist 17(4):41147-504. Pitylon 32(0117-26. Kim, K. H. 1069. The Social Context of Bonney, N. L. 1974. Job Tralnlni and the Mack tional and Educational AvirZt-s Worker: A can Adolescents. Ph.D. dissertation, Paper presented at the Amer Ann Arbor, Mich.; Association Annual Convention, University Microfilms no. 694047. Montreal. Miami, A. L.1974.FertWty Patterns of Black VIII:. in thW.na_ilu...warLaboraces Ibme Tentativre Brook, J. S. et aL 1974. Aspiration levels of and prism a e forchildren: Age,sex, race,and ilar Association, Nan Jon, Calif. socioeocnomic correlates, Journal of Genetic Peveholoin? 124:3-16. Presser, H. B. 197L The timing of the first birth, female roles and black fertility, Milbank Sok, M. & Austria, H. 1971. Factors related to Memorial Fund Quarterly 49% Pi- OM school achievements in an enonomically disadvantaged wow, Child Development Roes, B. & Walters, J. 1973.Perceptions of a 4211913-1929, sample of unitsrsity men oonoerning women, Journal of Genetic Plycholoiy 1224211329- Cbarut, G. 1972. Las Francaises: Sont-Elles des 336. CU:rya:nes? IWE715EU1 IMBirer. Scott, P. B. 1973.Contemporarx and Historical lastain, C.F.1073. Black and females 'The on the Role of BlackWomen in double whammy, Pivahology Todq 7(3)47- liMvemepeper.MO BUMLiberationist andFeminist

159 Simmons, R. & Rosenberg, P. R.1975. Su, Turner, B. F. & Turner, C. B.1974b. Race, au sex roles, and self-image. Journal of Youth and perception of the occupational oppor- and Adolescueo 4(31:229-2iL tunity structure among college students, Sociological Quarterly. In press. Sorkin, A. L. 1972. Edueation and booms of nonwhite 1110MIIA. Journal of Negro Education Virginia Mims American Women's Opinion Poll. 100235-243. 1972. A Survey of the Attitudes of Women on Their Roles in Politics and the Economy. Soridn, A.L.1971. Occupational status and Combated by Louis Harris & Associates, unemployment of non-white women, Social be. forces 49(3)1393-399. TUrner, B. F. & Turner, C. B. 1974a. Evaluations Weston, P. J. & Mednick, M. T. 1970. Race, social of woman and mon among black and white class, and the motive to avoid success in *allegestudents,SociologicalQuarterly women, Journal of Cross-Cultural 15M:442-455. payeboion 1(3):294-291.

9. Sex Dherhninadon: Theory andResearch

Almquist, E. 1973. The Income Losses of Working Blackwell, G. W. 1953.The college and the Black Women: Produat of Ude-rand Sexual continuing education of women, Educational Iscriminat7.0. Paper prosentod at the Record 44:33-39. Annual Meeting of the American Sociolog- ession in America. ical Assoc:lotion, New York. Blamer, R. 1972.. Racial New York: Harper & w. Banks, W. C.1974. Toward an Attributional Model Blum, Z. D. & Coleman, C. S. 1970.Lonifitudlurl of Pre udico. Iraper presented at the Annual Effocts of Education on the income and Muting of the AmericanPsychological Oceutional 'Prestige of Blacks and Whites. Association, New Orleans. The Joh= Hopkins ljnlverslty, The Center for the Study of Social Organization of Bass, IL M. et al. 1971.Male managers' attitudes Schools. towne4 working women, American Behav- Book, F. W. 1989. Farmer's daughter effect: The ioral Scientist 151221-236. case of the Negro female professionals, Banokraitis, N. & Feagin, J. 1974.Institutional Phylon 300h17-28. Racism: A Review and Critical Assessment Brophy, J. & Good, T. 1970. Teachers' communi- of LIterature. Paps, presented at the cationofdifferentialexpectationsfor Annual Mesiing of the American Sociolog- children'sclasaroomperformanom Some ical Association, Montreal. behavioral data, Journal of Educational Psy- chology 61:385-3/4. Boras, A. B. 1972.Sooiallution of need for achievement in boys and girls, Prom:dings B:mting, J. W. 1911.The relation of Walnut to of the Annual Convention of the Am n women%highereducation,Educational Record 42:237-295. BM& K. W. 1969. Schoolbooks and roles of saxes, Bunting, AL, Graham, P. A., & Wasserman, E. 1931.Academic freedom and inoentive for Martha 5:39-57. N13 womon, Educational Record 51:398-391. Borkanovie, B. 1973. Some Hans 7111711. 7.7111L.17 aurkoy, R. AL 1971.Racial Discrimination and pram a rr-rr. L. of Public Poltcy in tRirgralUts. Turootci the Amegoan Sociological Amociation, Now to. C. Heath da. York. Basch, R. J. 1974.Some Dynamics of Racial Berkowits, L.1911.Anti-Semitism, judgmantal Stratification in the United Sates.Paper processes, and displaeamont of hostility, preeented at the Annual Mooting of tho Amorican Sociological Association, Montreal.

180 Campbell, N. A. 1973.Why would a girl go into Epstein, C. F. 1973b.Structuring suooms for medicine? Monograph. New York. woman/ Guidelinesforgatekeepans, NationalAssociationfor Women Caplan, P. J. & Hinsbourne, M. 1974. Sex Administrators,anadounallors differences in response to school failure, S7t34-42. Journal of Learning Disabilities 7(4):49-32. Ewald, L. 15. 1971.Sex discrimination 'in higher Chalon, B. 1974. Sex role sternotyping and pre- education: Constitutional equality for kiodergarton towhees, Elemontsry School women? Journal of Ff041111/ Law 100)1327- Journal 741223-139. 343. Class, E. 1969. A modest proposal for tho educa- Feldman, S. D. 1973.Impediment cc stimulants ting of women, American Scholar 3110118- Maritalstatusand graduate, Ameriom 827. Journal of Sociology 78/992-994.

Collard, E. D. 1984.Achiovement Motive in the Fandrich, J. M. 1967. A study of the ueociation Four-Year-Old Child ana ko 'Relationship to among verbal attitudes, commit/wont, and Aohlevemeni N ta.. ancies of the Mother. overt bshaviorin difforent esperimontal rspublished Ph. &ortolan, dilvarsity situations, Social Forces 45:347-355. of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Fidel, L. S. 1970.Empirical verification of sex discrimination in hiringprattles'in Crandall, V. J., Dewey, R., Katkovsky, W., & pathology, American Psytholokist 2511094- Preston, A.1984. Parents' attitudes and 1098. behaviorsandgradeschoolchildren% academic achievements, Journal of Genetic Flanagan, J. C. 1961. Quality education for Orb, Pathology 10413346. Woman% Education 5(4)s1-7. Cron, K. P. 1971.The undergraduate women, Rosearch Ration No. 3. Wathington Amer- Frank, H. April 1973. m Socialization of Fresh- ican AmociatIon for Weber Education. women Medical Students.Paper patented at the Annual Meeting of the Amorican DeCrow, K. 1972. Look, Jane, look! See Dick run Educational Etowah Association, and jump! Minim him!In Sex Differences Washington, D.C., April. and Discrimination in Education. Eiltod by Frank, H. H. & Wolman, C. 1973. Gender deviancy Binderson, Worthington, Ohios Charism A. in male peer groups, Proceedings of the 91st Jones. Annual ConventionoftheAmason Deities*,G. & Ford,W.S.1969. Oput ostoupency-what whites say, what they do, Fraziar, N. & Sadkar, M. 1973. Sexism in School Transaction 543-56. and Society. New Yorks Harper & Row. Dodge, N. J. 1966. Woman in the Soviet Economy. Fredrikmon, I. 1910.Konstrollar I Laroboekar. Baltimore, Md.: The Joists Ifotsidns Univer- StockholmSwedisg loins Finials Labour sity Prem. CounoiL Droppleman, L. F. & Schsefsr, E. S. 1963. Boys' Garai, J. & Schianfald, U. 1968. Soz differences aod girls' molts of maternal and patsrnal in mantal and behavioral traits, Genetic behavior, Journal of Abnormal and Social Payelwrion, 6/(0848454. Psycholoeics1 linhotrools 771189-299. Gilmer, B.1981.Mistrial PsvcholorbNew SOWN C.1970. Enoounteringthemale Yorks McGraw-HIL establishments Su status limits an women's careers in the professions, Amarican Journal Goldberg, N. P. 1972. Women in &visa economy, of Sociology 75:945-962. The Review of Radical Political Economics 440180-74. Epstein, C. P.1973a.Positive effocts a the multiple negatives Explaining the mucous of Goldberg, L & Lewis, U. 1969. Play behavior in blaok profossiunal women, American the year-old infantsEarly sax differences, Jougsal of Sociolog 781913-935. Child Develooment 40:21-31. Good, T. & Grouwns, D. 1972.Reaction of male Hunter,T.1987. The statusof women in and female towhee trainees to descriptions Atntralia, Indian Journal of Social Work ofelementaryschoolpupils,Technical 211(0$181-187. t No. ILCenter far Researth in = & Rivera, iL 1985.Volunteers for Betmvior, University of Missouri at Johnston; Columbia. laarnins. C' leaps Aldine. GOOCI, T. L., Sikes, J., & Brophy, J. 1973. Effects Kashket, E. R. et al. 1974.Status of woman of teachir sex and student sex on classroom microbiologists, Science 1830124):488-494. interaction, Journal of Educational Psych:goo 85(0:74-17. Kay, M. J. 1972. A positive approach to women in management, Personnel Journal 51(1h38-4L (timbal J. & Wanton, W. las&Being equally different; A new right for boys and girls, Brom*, C. L. & Grimm. 197L Women in Librar- National Elementary Principal 4615947. i Rulee'llie Paper Annual the Ameri- Hagan, R. & Kahn, A. 1944. Discrimination can Sociological Association, Denver. AgainstCompetent Women. (Abstract) Unpublished paper, Iowa State University, Lee, P. C. 1973. The early classroom exporience: Ames. Masculine or feminine?,Perspectives on Harbison, G. E. 1971.Choice and Challenr for Education 5*10-15. Amide= Women.Cambridge, Mama Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. 1971. _the8611419can PITU1Whing Con Inc. Sex discrimination against the American working woman, AmericanBehavioral Harris, A. S. 1970. The second sax in academia, Scientist 15(0237-254. American Association of University Pre- femors Bastin 5i128$-295. Levy, B. & Staciy, J.1973. Sexism in the elementary schoob A backward and forward look, Hatfield, J. S.,Ferguson, L. R., & Alpert, R. Phi Della Kansan 55d05-109. 1987. Mother child interaction and the socialisation proems, Child Development Lewis, M. 1972.State as an infant-environment 311:385-414. interaction: An analysis of mother-infant behavior as a functioning of sex, Merrill- liamtslaitangt 1986. A two-fold educational Palmer Quarterly 18:95-121. The student wife and the mature Association of woman student,National Linn, L. S. 1985.Verbal attitudes and ovart Women Desist Administrators and Coun- behavior: A study of racial discrimination, selors 19d83-197. Social Forms 43:353-384.

Hetherington, E. M. 1987. The effect of familial Lippitt,1.. & Gold, M. 1959.Classroom social variables on sex typing, on parent-child structureas amental hsalth problem, .similarity, and on imitation in childrsn.In Journal of Social issues 15(0:40-49. Mirmasota teimpoeum on Child cho vol. I.Edited by J. P. Hill, The Univarsity of Minnesota Preis, pp. 82- Litton-Fox, 0. 1973. Nice Girl: The Behavioral '07. Legacyofa Value Construct Paper permeated at the kaftans' Counoil an Family Halation; Toronto, October. Hoffman,L.W. 1975. EarlyChildhood =normandWomen'sAchievomsnt Lard, M. E. M. 1988. Mature Women and tropublishad doctoral dissertation, =of Doctor of Mame* V.. i:raiiRity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. doctoral dissertation, Uvarsity of Wisconsin. *aim, J. & Braito, IL 1974. Social Foe mation of Conseiousnam of Kind:and Class. ."Paper Ludeman, W. W. 196LDeclining female college Presented at the Annual Malting of the implications, American Sociological Association, attandanos: Causes and Montreal. Educational Forum 25:505-507. Lynn, D. a & Sawray, W. L.1982. Sex differences Randolph, K. a. 1985.Tilt Mature Woman in in the personality development of Norwegian Doctoral Prorams. Unpublished doctoral children, Journal of Genetic Psycho 10157 dissertation, Indiana University. 102387-374. Rieman, D.1985.Some dilemmas of woment Lyoa, C. & Surto, T. 1973.Women in public edueation, Educational Record 461424-434. educatioalSexual discrimination in promotions, Phi Delta Kappan 504115-20. ROW A. M. 1956. Intergroup relations Lyon, R. 1984. Married women and the academic United States prejudicesPertinent theory tradition,JournalofHigherEducation forthe studyofsocial change, Social 354251-255. Problems 41173-176. McBee,L. & Suddick, E. D. 1974.Differential Rosen, B. & Jerdee, T. H.1974. Influence of sex freshmanadmissionbysex,National role stereotypes on personnel decisions, Association for Women Deans, Administra- Journal of Wed Psychology 59:9-14. tors and Counselors Journal 37(2):75-77. Ruslink, D. H.1969.Married Womenk Resump- McCune, S. 1970.Discrimination of women as tion of Education in Preparation for Teac viewed by female ASTD members, 'Mining Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Development Journal 23024-38. Y-ork University. Surio, T. N., Nagy, C. * Title, C. 1973. Sex role Mar WI, R. K. 1949. Discrimination and the Amer- stereotyping in the public schools, Harvard ican greed.In Discrimination and National Educational Review 43:386-413. Welfare. Edited by R. M. Mitchum, New Val-flamer. redker,M. & Sadker,D. 1972. Sexual awrimination in the elementary schools, Millar,J.,Labovitz,S.,& Fry,L.1974. The National Zementary Principal 52:41-45. Differences in the Organizational Esperi- ewes or women and Men: Resources, Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1974a. Women and Social Vested Interutsi an41 Discrimination. Paper !Pep Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice- presented at the-ARiarli efr7Wet of the American Sociological Association, Maatreal. Wilke-Roth:child, C. 1974b.Development of Models forUnderstanding the Processes aims, H. A. 1967.Sex age and state as deter- Involved in Sex Discriminailon.gationai minant of mother-infant interaction, Institute of Education Contract N1E-C-74- Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 13:19-36. 0139. Mom, H. A., Robson, K. S., & Pedersen, F. 1989. SafWas-Rothschild, C. 1972a.The options of Determinents of material stimulation of Greek men and women, Sociological Foos infants and consequences of treatment for later reactions to strangers, Developmental 5(2):71-83. Psvchology 11239-246. Safilioe-Rothschild, C. 1972b. Toward a Sociology of Women. Lexington, maw: Xerox Myers, G. 1914. Labor force participation of College-Publishing. suburban mothers, Journal of Marriage and the Family 28(3):306-311. Sells, L 1973. Sex Differences in Graduate Oedsky, J. D. & O'Connell, E. J. 1972.Parent- School Survival.Paper presented at the child interactiomDaughter's effects upon AnnuarMeeting of the American mother.' and fathere behaviors, Develop- Sociological Association, New York. mental Psychology 7I2h157-1611. Shaman, J. M.1971.College admissions policies Phelps, M. W. 1972. Does sex make a difference?, based on sex and theaqua] protection College and University 41190-9L clause, Buffalo Law Review 20311609-823. D. 1..1972.The educational establish- Shoulders, J. 1988. Junior College-An Attraction ment: Wasted women. In Voices of the New to Women.Columbia, MO.:University of Faminim. Bestow Beacon Prem. 111UL-- Simpson, L.1970. A myth is better than a mins Terborg, J. R. & ilgen, D. B.. 1974. A Theoretical Man gat ths edge in academic employment, Approach to Sex Discrimination in Tn- College and University Madness 411372-73. ditianafly ons. tram presented at thSAnnua1 Meeting of the Mammon, G. E. & Yinger, M. 1951.Racial and American Psychological Association, New Cultural Minorities. New 'forks lierper. Orleans.

Sokolowska, M.1965.Some reflections on the differentattitudes of man and women Welder, E., Cleary, T. A., & Clifford, N. N. 1971. toward work, International Labor Review The effect of raoe and sax on college admis- 92:35-50. sion, Sociology of Education 44237-244. Salmon, L.1974. Do Women Graduate Students Warner, L. G. & Dennis, R. 1971. Prejudice versus Get a Raw Deal?Paper presented at tise discriminations An empirical example and limning of the Public Choice Society, March theoretical extension, Social Forces 21. 49(4):473-484. Sorkin, A. L. 1972.&lucation, occupation, and Wellman, a 1971.Social identities in black and income of nonwhite women, Journal of white, Sociological Inquiry 41:57-66. Negro Education 41(0343-351. Warts, C. E.1966.Sex differences in college Stacey, J, Berand, S., & Daniels, J., eds.1974. attendance,NationalMeritScholarship And Jill Came Tumb AftersSexism in Corporation Research Report 2(1):11. MW OD. NSW Westie, P. R. 1964. Race and ethnic relations. In Statistical Yearbook of Greece.1973.National Handbook of himtilir._wptxodernSock .Edited by litatistical Service of Greece, Athens. arts, cago: McNally,pp. 576-619. Stein, A. & Halley, H. N. 1073. The socialization of achievmentorientationinfemales, Yokopenie, P. A., Bourque, L. B., & Brogan, D. Psychological Bulletin 80(5):345-366. 1974. Professional Communication Net- works: A Case St of Women In the Taylor, N, E. 1073. Sex role stereotypes in mer can la OM ehildren's readers,illementamEnglish thspublishedmanuscript, Universityof 50(7)d0454047. California, Los Angeles.

10. Sex and Other Stratification Systems

Alexander, K. L. & Eckland, B. K.197.1.Sex Bart, P. B. 1969. Why women's status changes in differences in the educational attainment middle agesThe turns of the social ferris proems,AmericanSociologicalReview wheel, Sociol casiOIA!_.:_tum 311-18. 39116S-6112. Benda:, M. 1969. The political economy of Amundsen, K. 1974. Social Policy bsues Affect- women's liberation, Monthly Review 21(4). ins Women's Pobtical Roles.Paper presented at ths American Amociation for the Advancement ci Science Annual Convention Berreman, G. D.1972. Race, cute, and other in the section on Science and Public! Policy, kividious distinctions in social stratification, San Frandsoo, Feb. Li. RACE 13(0395-414. Amundsen, H. 1971. The Mlenced Maiceity. New Blankenship, W. C. 1967. Head librarians: How Yorks Prantioe-itin. many mem How many women, College and Research Libraries News 24(1):4148. Andrau, C.1971.Sex and Cade in America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.s Prentice-Hall. Blau, P. M. de Duncan, O. D. 1967. The American Arehibald, K. 1970. Sex and the Public Service. Occunatienal Structure.New York:John Ottawas Queen's Prrnter. Wilay and Sons.

164 Blum, Z. D. & Coleman, C. S. 1970. Longitudinal Gros, E.1957.Plus a change?...The sexual Effects of Education on the bloom. and structure of occupations over time, Social Problems 16:198-208. varsity, The Center for the Study of Social Hacker, H.1951.Women as a minority group, Organiution of Schools. Social Forces, April.

Handbook on Women Workers. 1975. Washington, Bose, C. E. 1973.Jobs and Gender:Sex and D. t.L 15spartment of Labor, Women's Occupational Prest4e. Baltimore, Md.: The Bureau, Employment and Standards Adminis- Johns HopkinsUniversityCenterfor tration. Metropolitan Planning and Research, Shriner Hall, Homewood Campus. Harbeson, G. E.1971. Choice and Challenge for the American Woman.Cambridge, Mass.: Collins, R. 1971.A conflict theory of sexual stratification, Social Problems 1:4-21. magaiEkii5M2 Inc. Harnett, II.J., Bailey, K. G., & HartleY. C. S. Deck, L. 1971. Short workers of the world unite, 1974. Body height, position and sex as Psychology Today, August, p. 102. determinants of personal space, The Journal of Psychology 87:129-138. Dijkers, M. P. J. M.1978 (forthcoming).The Social Standint of Individuals and Famifirsi Hicks, R. E. 1959.The relationship of sex to An-"Em trical lnvestIgatloa. Unpublishea occupational prestige in an African country, arse State Univer- Personnel and Guidance Journal 47(7):885- city, Detroit, Mich. 870.

Eichler, Id. 1974. The Double Standard u an Hraba, & &alto, R. 1974. Social Formatlop of Indicator of Sex Status Differentials. Paper Consciousness of Kind: Race, presented at the Annual Meeting of the %per presented at the Annual Meeting of Sociological Association, Montreal. theAmericanSociologicalAssociation, Montreal. Eichler, U. 1973a. An annotated selected bibliography of bibliographies on women. In Jochimsen,L. 1989. Frauen In der Bundes- Women inCanada. EditedbyM. L. republik:Die Mehrheit, die sich wie eine Stephenson, TorontmNew Prue, pp. 291- minderheit Verbs% Kursbuch 17. 331. Judo*, S.1908.Woman in the Public Service: Eichler, U.1973b. Women as personal depend- Their Utilization andniployment. m- ents.In Women in Canada. Edited by U. L. ks and Research Branch, Canada Depart- Stephenson, Toronto: New Press, pp. 35-55. ment of Labour.

Rincade-Oppenheimer, V.1968.Sex-labeling of Epstein, C. F. 1973. Positive effects of the jobs, Industrial Relations, May, pp. 219-234. multiple negative: Explaining the mucosa of black professional women, American Journal Klock, R. E. 1970. Interaction distance and of Socioloey 78:912-935. nonverbal agreeing responses, British JournmelSoc and Clinical cW--- Epstein,C.F. 1972. Bringing Women in: Rewards, Punishment, and tile &nature Aehlevement.Paper presented at the New Laufer, R. S. & Bengtson, V. L.1974.Genet- York Academy of Sciences Conference on teimiukromandsacia,Stratification in Adva=ead Successful Women inthe Sciences and sty.Paper preientldáfth. Analysis of Determinants, May 12. Annual gosling of the American Sociological Association, Montreal.

Feldman, S. D. 1971. The Presentation of Short- Lensid, G. 1985. Power a_sumthr_.Privi eirr.1 A Theory ness in Everydaj UfllI&ght-- of Social a ca on. ew fn American AocIsty: lbwaxda Socloloev of !fibre.%per presented at the Annual oftheAmericanSociological Lieberman, S. 1970. Stratification and ethnic Association, Denver. groups, SOCiAlOttiela Inquiry 40:172-181.

155 ej Lipmen-Bluasee, J.1972.liow Weo logy shapes Safilloe-Rothschild, C. 1977b. Sexuality, power, women's Eves, Scientific American and freedom among *older' women. In The 2111(1)44-4L Vsw Women. Edited by 1.. lc1I, 11.ri 14-g.Israel,EnglewoodCliffs,N Magarra 11 M. 1971. Women account for 93 Spectrum Books, Prentice-Hall. permit of enrollment gain, Chronicle of likber Education 13(17)11. Safilicw-aothschild,C. 1976. A macro-nod mirro-examination of family power and Martin, W. T. & Poston, D. L. 1972. The loves An exchange model, Journal of occevational :Imposition of white females: Marriage and the Family, vol. 31101=- Sexism, reciem end omsupational differentia - Um:, Social Forces 30(3)449-355, Safilicts-Rothschild,C. 1975. Familyand stratificatiom Somemacrosociological observations and hypotheses, Journal of Ingrate, 11.1N5. Some conditions of obedience Marriage and the Family 378955-811: and &obedience to authority, Human Bela- tkas 11:57-77. Safillos-Rothschild, C.1974. Women and Social ;V. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice- Millet,N.Y.: IC.1970. DoublaYse. Sexual Politics. Garden City, Sewell, W. H. * Shaw, V. 198L Parents' Myrdal, G. 1944, An MIMIC les ditmtna. In The education and children's educational OrProblem and Modern fiemocri: aspirationsand achievements, American r431ark, Undo: lierper and ftt Sociological Review 33(2):191-20L Sewell, W. H. & Shaw, V.1907. Socio-economic Wilma, L. B.1978.The occupational and sex status, intelligence and the attainment of relatedcomponents of socialstanding, higher education, Sociology of Education Weldon and Social Research80(3)421- as. 4011-23. Stefflre, B. et al.1988. The relationship of sex Nilson, L. B.1972. Toward a Status-Attainment to occupational prestige,Personnel and Model for Womem The Occupational Cons- Guidance Journal 48(8)1765-772. onants 01 a Woman's SocialStanding. Unpublished paper, Department of Socio- Touhey, J. C. 1974. Fifects of additional women logy, University of Wisconsin, Madison. professionals on ratings of occupational prestige, Journal of Personality and Social Nutholl, G. A. 1989.Research notesSex in Psycholow 29W188-89. differences in ratings of the accwational status of teaching, New Zealand Journal of Van der Burghe, P. L.1987.Race and Racism. Educational Studies iMs110-179. New Yorks John Wiley & Sons. Walker, C. A. & Bradley, Di S. 1973. Women and Runciman, W. G.1972. Race end social strati- Occ.iptional Prestige.Paper proofed if fies:floc, RACE 13(4):497-509. theAnnual Meetbg oftheAmerican Sociological Associatioo, New York. Safilloe-Rothsehild, C. 1971. Women and modern Watson, W. B. & Barth, E. A. 1984. Questionable Dmvel000dia of Social Sciences. assumptions in the theory of social strati- Princeton, 14.J.s Arete Pulalishing Co. fication, Pacific Sociological Review 7;10- 18. Eafilice-Zothechild, C. 1977a, Lpvei Nsx, and Sex Englewood Cliffs, ILI: Pnatice- Wellman, B.1971. Social identities in black and marRoles. white, Sociological Inquiry 41:5748.

11. Sex Role Stereotype= Are They Changing andHow Much?

M. 1975. Attitudes Toward Amason, L. J. 1983. The marital adjustment end Women's Wok Commitments Chang= marital roledefinitions of husbands of 71111V117C-Treptigisied boctoral working and non-working wives, Marriage sriine State University, Detroit, Mich. and Family Living 25(2)s119-195.

185 Ball-ltakaaah, S. J.1976. Receptivity to eexual Entwkle, D. R. & GreenbergerE. 1972. Adoles- etPlelitY, Peeifie-Sodiolosical Review cents' views of women's Ivork' role, American 19(0519440. Journal of Orthopsychiatry 42(4h6411-056. Bayer, A. IL1975. Sexist students Iss American Farrell, W. 1975. The Liberated Man. New Yorks loille!ssA descriptive note, Journal of Bantam. surriage and the Family 37(2)1391:- erdinand, T. N. 1964.Psychological femininity Blodt, J. H. 1973. Conceptions of sex roles Some and political liberalism, Soolometry erme-culturel and longitudinal perspeetives, 27(1)37547. American Psychologkt 211(4)512-524. Frieze, L H. 1974. Chanting Self-Images and Sex Boyd, 11. 1914. Be wen the Suess The Role Stereotypes in CAleee Women. Paper Results of *rrr'n! presented at the American Psy Paper presented at the Annotation -Annual Conventioroirells and Anthnopolop Association, A. 25. Orleans. &alto, L & Powers, E. A. 1972. What the Other Garland, T. N. 1970. The Better Half: The Male Half 'Minks:The Implications of Female inthe Dual Profession Family. Paper for Work Demands. Ames, presented atthe American Sociological lows, id Relations Center, lowa Association Annual Convention, Washington, State University. D.C. gravernseni I. N., Braverman, D. 11., Cbuicann, F. Gluer-Malbin, N. 1974. How Women Think iteeenkrants, P. S., & WO, S. R. 1970. About Women'Social Correlates of Mti- Sex-role stereotypes and clinical jurtmants tudes Relevant to the Womenis Movement. of mental health, Journal ot _Consulting and Paper presented at the Society for the Study Clinieal Parholoo 34:1-f. of Social Problems, MontreaL

Campbell, D. P. & Soliman, A. N.1997.The Hawley, P.1972. Perceptions of male models a Vocational Interests of Woman in Paye femininity related to career choice, Journal 'Paper presented at the iildwestern of Counseling Psychology 19(4).3011-313. cal Amociation Meetings, Ching% 5 Illy. Herman, M. H. & Sedlacek, W. E.1973.Sexist Cummings, I.. D.1977. lion and attitudes among male university studenti, for Alternative of Famrssalrte Feminism and Value tab Among College Journal of College Student Personnel 14(6)1 ken. faper presented at the Eastern T44-549. Association Meeting, New York. Batmen, L. W. 1974. Effects of maternal employment an the child: A review of the Deutsch, C. J. & Gilbert, L. A. 1976.Sax role research, Developmental Psycholosy 10:204- stenotype'sEffeet of perceptions of self 229. and others on personal edjustment, Journal of Counselins Psychology 23473-379.-- Huang, L. J.1971. Sex role stereotypes and self concepts among American and Chinese Mows, M. P. 1 U. 197$. The Social Standing of students, Journal of Comparative Family Individuals and holiest An Ms Waal Studies; 2(2)1215-234. )nvestigittka.Unpublished Ph. D. Go, Wayne &tate University, Detroit, Mich. Joesting, J. & Joasting, R. 1973. Equalitarianism and onativity:A tentative relationship, Psychological Reports 32(3, pt. 2)d125-1126. Elie, L. J. & Beatles, P. H.1973.Traditional seXileterminedroleMender* andsex Johneon, H. P. 1969. The teeters amociated with stereotypes,Journal ofPersonality and the males tendency to negatively stereotype Sordal Psycholoev 25Ws29-34. the female, Sociological Focus 2(3)41-39. Elnan, J. at al.1970.Sal-roles and self con- Johnson, M. et aL1974. rxpresivenese Re- ceptesReal and ideal, Proceedings of the Evaluate4. Paperpresentedatthe Annual Conventkm of the American oho- trim Sociological Amociation Annual Convention, Montreal.

167 td, Parellus, A. P.1974. Em Sex-Rola MU- Kanuneyer, K. 1944. Femi labe roles An analysis tudesk Expectations1 anCStr.bw Among of attitude consistency, Joanal Fla presented at ihe and the Family 26(3):29 . or thi Study of Social Probity= Kaplan, R. 14. & Goldman, R. D. 1973. Stereo- Annual Convsntion, Montreal. types of oallage studsnts toward the avsrage :sant and womanti attitude toward women, Polk, B. & Stein, R.1972.Roles. Norms and Journal cg Counseling Psycholoey 20(5/1 Stereotypes., Unpublished paper. 459-4112. Komarovsky, M. Dilemmas of Masculinity. New Palma, M. M.1970.The Mirth of tha Equali- Yorio W.W. Morton and Co. tarian Family: FamIlial Roles and the Wofassio.710_..4,21:JAI Was. Lipsan-Blumen, J.1972.How ideology sin a woment lives, Scientific American21r): Assoc:latices Annual Convention, Washington, 34-42. D.C. Lunneborg, P. W.1970.Sternotypic aapncts In Rosankrantx, P.1951. Sex-role stersotypes and muculinity-femininity measurement, Jour- salf-toncepts in college students, Journal of nal of Consulting and Clinical Psycho Consulting and Clinical Psychology 32:287- 148113-1 IL 295. Roes, S. & Walters, J.1973.Perceptions of Moon, K. O. 1973. Muting Champ in Sex-Role sample of university men coneerning woman, Definitions via Attitude Ada, Prom:ad:1gs Journal of Go:Attic Psychology 122(0329- of- the Amarican Statistical Association, 338. Social Steadies Section, pp. 131-141. Rossi, A. S. 1904. Will science change marriage?, Muon, K.O. & Swaps's', L. L.1974.U.S. Saturday Review, Deo. 5, pp. 75-77. womsens asx-role ideology, 1970. American Journal of Sociology. In press. Safillos-Rothschild, C.1974. Wo%nn and Social Erg.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.iPrentice- Meir, H. C. 1971. Mother-Centeredness and Co Youth's TAttitucles %ward Social oromens me _p Woe-Rothschild, C. 1972. The options of presented at the American Greek men and women, Soaloloxical Fowls °gloat Ampoolation Annual Convention, 5(2):71-93. Denver. Safilios-Rotheohild, C. 1971.A oroas-culturel Morris, M. B.1974.I Enjoy Beinc a Girls The study of woment marital, educational and Persistence of gtsmotypic Views ol Sax occupational options, Acta Soajologioa 14(1- Was.Paper presented at the American 2):96-113. BRiaogical Amociation Annual Grovention, Montreal. Steinman, A. & Fox, D. J.1905.Male-female perceptions of the fornais rale ka the United Nsuflatly E." Lingmeyer, D., & Seeman, W.1974. States, Journal of Psychology 94:265-276. Some sex robs;tereotypes and plisonal preferences, Journal of PinsonalityAsila- Tavris, C.1973. Who lives woment libsration- mint $11(3)1247-254. and why: The cam of the unlibisratod Ow% J. D. & Inman, R. R. 1974. The im0a14.9f liberals, Journal of Social himett 20)1171- StudentActivismonFemale Sex-Ula tesT at Us Turner, B. F. 1974.Sociallution and career Assocation Annual orientation among black and white *olive Convantios, Montrnal. women, Journal ofVocationalRahaviisr 5:307419. Osmond, M. W. & Martin, P. it. 1975. AL r_f_t- ticaliazation et Dyadic lboshangis-Wri Turns., B. F. & Turner, C. B. 1974. Race and ass Model. Paper presentaa at the Differences in Evaluating 110113111 /madam iipaiologies1 Asmocintion Annual pup:Ethan:id paper, MI-varsity of Convention, Montreal. Maisaohusetts. 10 9 Urger, L & Biter, R.1974.Sex-Role Stsiso- on Their Roles in Polities and the Economy. types We *hi of a "Grain of Truth." eondueted by Louis &air and Assoelates, presented at the Eastern Psycho- Ina logicalAssociationAnnualConvention, Philadelphia, Pa., ApriL Vogel, S. R. et aL 1974. Sex-role self-concepts Virginia aims American WomenV Opinion Poll. and life style, Journal of Consulting and 1972. A Surve/ of the Attitudes of Women Clinical Psychology, in press.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE1 Ig7g-g3f-590/iwil

169 16 0