Psy~hologicalReports, 1975, 37,669-670.
@ Psychological Reports 1975
SELF-REPORTED MASCULINITY-FEMININIn AS RELATED TO SELF-ESTEEM BERT R. SAPPENFIELD A N D CYNTHIA L. HARRIS University of Montana Summary.-A test was made of the prediction that "masculine" males will report higher self-esteem than "feminine" males and that "feminine" females will report higher self-esteem than "masculine" females. The prediction was supported for 33 undergraduate males but not for 45 females. It has been shown that the halo effect occurs in self-perception as well as in the perception of others (Sappenfield, 1971). This suggests that persons who perceive themselves as being high on any given socially desirable trait should be expected to perceive themselves more favorably than persons who perceive themselves to be low on such a trait. In other words, the scores on any test of a desirable trait should be positively related to scores on a test of self-esteem. The present smdy tested the prediction that, if masculinity is socially desirable in males and if femininity is socially desirable in females, then "masculine" males will give self-reports of higher self-esteem than "feminine" males and "feminine" females will give self-reports of higher self-esteem than "masculine" females. Thirty-three males and 45 females (volunteer students from an introductory psychology class) were administered a test of self-esteem and a tesc of masculinirg-femininity. Ss were tested anonymously in group sessions. They used a single answer sheet for both tests. The test to assess self-esteem. which is called the Self-evaluative Inventorv. .. was designed to test S's degree of body-cathexis and self-cathexis, as these concepts have been defined by Secord and Jourard (1953). This inventory included 40 body-cathexis items and 40 self-cathexis items, arranged in an intermixed random order. The former items included such phrases as "my facial complexion," "my posture," "the appearance of my teeth," "my physical strength," etc. The latter items included such phrases as "my sense of duty," "how friendly I usually am," "my self-assertiveness," "how kind I usually am," etc. Instructions required S to evaluate "how much you are satisfied with each of these characteristics as you perceive them in yourself," according to a 5-point scale, extending from "I am extremely dissatisfied with this characteristic" to "I am extremely well satisfied with this characteristic." Although the inventory has nor yet been demonstrated to be a valid test of self-esteem in terms of empirical comparisons with recognized tests of self-esteem, it seems reasonable that scores on body-cathexis and self-cathexis should function as assessments of this variable. Each score on the Self-evaluative Inventory could theoretically vary between the limits of 40 and 200. The actual body-cathexis scores, for the present sample of Ss, varied from 102 to 188 for males and from 108 to 186 for females. The self-cathexis scores varied from 101 ro 178 for males and from 8 0 to 191 for females. The obtained Pearsonian r of .57 between these two sets of scores, for both sex groups combined, suggests that, although both scores assess a common variable, the two scores cannot be treated as being equivalent to each other. The test to assess masculinity-femininity was a modification of the Revised CMM (Sappenfield, 1968). The tesc and its instructions were modified for use with an IBM answer sheet, so that Ss were instructed to use a 5-choice scale instead of the original
B. R. SAPPENF1EL.D
670
&
C. L. HARRIS
7-choice scale. The Revised CMM was scored on only 2 1 of the 36 items. These 21 items were considered to be valid items for assessing masculinity-femininity, as indicated by an analysis of data from a previous study (Sappenfield, 1968). Each of the 21 items had been found to discriminate significantly (p < .05 to p < ,001,on the basis of chi-square tests), for both sexes, between ratings of "the ideal person" of S's own sex and ratings of "the ideal person" of the opposite sex. The scores on the Revised CMM, as scored for this study, had a possible range from 21 to 105. The actual range, for Ss of this study, was 36 to 72 for males and 48 to 90 for females. The mean scores discriminated between the male and female groups of the present study (59.55 for males and 68.93 for females; t = 4.71, p < .01). The higher scores on the Revised CMM denote the feminine end of the masculinity-femininity scale. A comparison of "masculine" males (below median on the Revised CMM) with "feminine" males (above median on the Revised CMM) yielded significantly different mean scores, in the predicted direction, on both body-cathexis and self-cathexis. Mean body-cathexis scores were 149.56 for "masculine" males and 132.56 for "feminine" males ( t = 2.36;p < ,025,one-tailed test). Mean self-cathexis scores were 145.13 for "masculine" males and 128.88 for "feminine" males ( t = 2.43; p < ,025,one-tailed test). Also, the ss between Revised CMM scores and Self-evaluative Inventory scores were significantly negative (-.40 for body-cathexis; -38 for self-cathexis). However, similar comparisons for the female Ss failed to yield any significant differences; and +s between Revised CMM scores and those on the Self-evaluative Inventory were not significantly different from zero. It can be concluded that the predicted relationship between masculinity-femininity and self-esteem has been established for male college students, but that no evidence has been found in the present study for a similar relationship in the case of the females. There appear to be at least two possible explanations for this failure to establish a relationship between masculinity-femininity and self-esteem for the female Ss. One explanation has to do with the possibility that the Revised CMM is a better test for males than for females, as was suggested in a previous paper (Sappenfield. 1968). The other explanation concerns the probability chat recent changes have occurred in female attitudes toward the feminine role, so that "masculinity," as it is usually defined, is beginning to be perceived as a socially desirable characteristic for females as well as for males. REFERENCES B. R. The Revised CMM as a test of perceived M-F and of self-report SAPPENFIELD, M-F. Journal o f Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32,
92-95. SAPPENFIELD, B. R. Social desirability, the halo effect, and stereotypical rception in person perception and self-perception. P a c e p t d and M o t o ~~ b i l c1971, 33,
683-689. SECORD,P. F., & JOURARD, S. M. An appraisal of body-cathexis: body-cathexis and the self. Jorrrnal o f Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17, 343-347. Accepted August 15, 1975.
,
@ Psychological Reports 1975
SELF-REPORTED MASCULINITY-FEMININIn AS RELATED TO SELF-ESTEEM BERT R. SAPPENFIELD A N D CYNTHIA L. HARRIS University of Montana Summary.-A test was made of the prediction that "masculine" males will report higher self-esteem than "feminine" males and that "feminine" females will report higher self-esteem than "masculine" females. The prediction was supported for 33 undergraduate males but not for 45 females. It has been shown that the halo effect occurs in self-perception as well as in the perception of others (Sappenfield, 1971). This suggests that persons who perceive themselves as being high on any given socially desirable trait should be expected to perceive themselves more favorably than persons who perceive themselves to be low on such a trait. In other words, the scores on any test of a desirable trait should be positively related to scores on a test of self-esteem. The present smdy tested the prediction that, if masculinity is socially desirable in males and if femininity is socially desirable in females, then "masculine" males will give self-reports of higher self-esteem than "feminine" males and "feminine" females will give self-reports of higher self-esteem than "masculine" females. Thirty-three males and 45 females (volunteer students from an introductory psychology class) were administered a test of self-esteem and a tesc of masculinirg-femininity. Ss were tested anonymously in group sessions. They used a single answer sheet for both tests. The test to assess self-esteem. which is called the Self-evaluative Inventorv. .. was designed to test S's degree of body-cathexis and self-cathexis, as these concepts have been defined by Secord and Jourard (1953). This inventory included 40 body-cathexis items and 40 self-cathexis items, arranged in an intermixed random order. The former items included such phrases as "my facial complexion," "my posture," "the appearance of my teeth," "my physical strength," etc. The latter items included such phrases as "my sense of duty," "how friendly I usually am," "my self-assertiveness," "how kind I usually am," etc. Instructions required S to evaluate "how much you are satisfied with each of these characteristics as you perceive them in yourself," according to a 5-point scale, extending from "I am extremely dissatisfied with this characteristic" to "I am extremely well satisfied with this characteristic." Although the inventory has nor yet been demonstrated to be a valid test of self-esteem in terms of empirical comparisons with recognized tests of self-esteem, it seems reasonable that scores on body-cathexis and self-cathexis should function as assessments of this variable. Each score on the Self-evaluative Inventory could theoretically vary between the limits of 40 and 200. The actual body-cathexis scores, for the present sample of Ss, varied from 102 to 188 for males and from 108 to 186 for females. The self-cathexis scores varied from 101 ro 178 for males and from 8 0 to 191 for females. The obtained Pearsonian r of .57 between these two sets of scores, for both sex groups combined, suggests that, although both scores assess a common variable, the two scores cannot be treated as being equivalent to each other. The test to assess masculinity-femininity was a modification of the Revised CMM (Sappenfield, 1968). The tesc and its instructions were modified for use with an IBM answer sheet, so that Ss were instructed to use a 5-choice scale instead of the original
B. R. SAPPENF1EL.D
670
&
C. L. HARRIS
7-choice scale. The Revised CMM was scored on only 2 1 of the 36 items. These 21 items were considered to be valid items for assessing masculinity-femininity, as indicated by an analysis of data from a previous study (Sappenfield, 1968). Each of the 21 items had been found to discriminate significantly (p < .05 to p < ,001,on the basis of chi-square tests), for both sexes, between ratings of "the ideal person" of S's own sex and ratings of "the ideal person" of the opposite sex. The scores on the Revised CMM, as scored for this study, had a possible range from 21 to 105. The actual range, for Ss of this study, was 36 to 72 for males and 48 to 90 for females. The mean scores discriminated between the male and female groups of the present study (59.55 for males and 68.93 for females; t = 4.71, p < .01). The higher scores on the Revised CMM denote the feminine end of the masculinity-femininity scale. A comparison of "masculine" males (below median on the Revised CMM) with "feminine" males (above median on the Revised CMM) yielded significantly different mean scores, in the predicted direction, on both body-cathexis and self-cathexis. Mean body-cathexis scores were 149.56 for "masculine" males and 132.56 for "feminine" males ( t = 2.36;p < ,025,one-tailed test). Mean self-cathexis scores were 145.13 for "masculine" males and 128.88 for "feminine" males ( t = 2.43; p < ,025,one-tailed test). Also, the ss between Revised CMM scores and Self-evaluative Inventory scores were significantly negative (-.40 for body-cathexis; -38 for self-cathexis). However, similar comparisons for the female Ss failed to yield any significant differences; and +s between Revised CMM scores and those on the Self-evaluative Inventory were not significantly different from zero. It can be concluded that the predicted relationship between masculinity-femininity and self-esteem has been established for male college students, but that no evidence has been found in the present study for a similar relationship in the case of the females. There appear to be at least two possible explanations for this failure to establish a relationship between masculinity-femininity and self-esteem for the female Ss. One explanation has to do with the possibility that the Revised CMM is a better test for males than for females, as was suggested in a previous paper (Sappenfield. 1968). The other explanation concerns the probability chat recent changes have occurred in female attitudes toward the feminine role, so that "masculinity," as it is usually defined, is beginning to be perceived as a socially desirable characteristic for females as well as for males. REFERENCES B. R. The Revised CMM as a test of perceived M-F and of self-report SAPPENFIELD, M-F. Journal o f Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32,
92-95. SAPPENFIELD, B. R. Social desirability, the halo effect, and stereotypical rception in person perception and self-perception. P a c e p t d and M o t o ~~ b i l c1971, 33,
683-689. SECORD,P. F., & JOURARD, S. M. An appraisal of body-cathexis: body-cathexis and the self. Jorrrnal o f Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17, 343-347. Accepted August 15, 1975.
,
