A Meta-Analytic Review of Family Structure Stereotypes Author(s): Lawrence H.

Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, Dennis Mapes Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 52, No. 2 (May, 1990), pp. 287-297 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353026 . Accessed: 23/02/2011 13:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

LAWRENCE H. GANONG, MARILYN COLEMAN, AND DENNIS MAPES

University of Missouri-Columbia

A Meta-analyticReview of Family StructureStereotypes

Family structure is a social category that is potentially a cue for the formation of stereotypes. A meta-analytic review was conducted to examine the research literature on stereotypes related to family structure. Three questions were addressed: (a) Are married adults perceived more favorably than adults who are not married? (b) Are adults who are parents perceived more favorably than adults who have not reproduced? (c) Are children whose parents are married to each other perceived more favorably than children whose parents are not married to each other? Separate metaanalyses were conducted for each question. Twenty-six studies were reviewed; the dependent variables in all comparisons were measures of stereotypes related to family position or family structure. The effect sizes for the comparisons of marital status and of parent's marital status were moderate; the effect size in the parental status comparison was smaller, but large enough to support the contention that family structure is a cue by which stereotypes are formed. For all three comparisons, traditional nuclearfamily status was perceived more positively than other family structure statuses.

People have a need to organize cognitively the huge amount of information they encounter each day (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). Fortunately, the brain processes information in a manner that perDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri-Columbia, 31 Stanley Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.

mits a manageable interpretation of a complex environment. This is accomplished through the creation of cognitive categories or schemas, which are clusters of associated facts and thoughts for attending to, encoding, and retrieving information. If one feature of a schema is recalled, then other parts of the schema also are activated into memory. A stereotype is a special kind of cognitive schema, called a role schema, in which the central concept is a group of people who share a common characteristic (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). A stereotype is defined as a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people (Ashmore and Del Boca, 1981). In stereotyping, people (a) categorize individuals other than themselves, (b) attribute a set of characteristics to all members of each category, and (c) attribute that set of characteristics to any individual member of each category (Blalock and DeVellis, 1986). A cultural stereotype exists when there is an identified category of people about whom there are generalized, widely held consensual beliefs (Pettigrew, 1981). Stereotypes are oversimplified, overgeneralized, and widely accepted beliefs (Snyder, 1981). Most research on stereotypes has focused on social categories such as race, gender, physical attractiveness, religion, ethnicity, and occupations. Family structure is another social category and a potentially salient cue for stereotyping, as are family positions related to different family structures (e.g., divorced mother, stepfather). However, surprisingly little research has been done on stereotypes related to family structure, despite the

Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (May 1990): 287-297

287

288 fact that American families are diverse and family forms are used to identify and label individuals (e.g., she is a divorced mother, he is a stepfather). Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? Are there cognitive schemas for family positions? Research on samples of college students (Etaugh and Malstrom, 1981; Fine, 1986), teachers (Fry and Addington, 1984; Santrock and Tracy, 1978), nurses (Morgan and Barden, 1985), and counselors and social workers (Bryan, Ganong, Coleman, and Bryan, 1985) indicates that family structure is a salient social category by which people are stereotyped. What is the nature of family structure stereotypes? It has been argued that, in Western culture, the nuclear family is the measure or standard against which other family forms are judged (Barnard and Corrales, 1979; Satir, 1982). It has also been argued that nuclear families are stereotyped as functional and "normal" and all other family structures are stereotyped as dysfunctional (Cherlin, 1978; Price and Balswick, 1980; Uzoka, 1979). Empirical support for these claims has been somewhat mixed. Some researchers have found nuclear family members to be evaluated more positively than members of other family forms (Bryan, Coleman, Ganong, and Bryan, 1986; Etaugh and Malstrom, 1981; Ganong and Coleman, 1983; Morgan and Barden, 1985), while other researchershave found either no differences in evaluations of people believed to be from different family structures (Etaugh and Foresman, 1983; Goldstein-Hendley, Green, and Evans, 1986) or that single people were evaluated more highly than married persons (Etaugh and Riley, 1981). The literature on family stereotypes has important social implications. If there are negative stereotypes of individuals who reside in nonnuclear families, then being identified as having membership in a nonnuclear family may affect a person in a variety of ways. First, cultural beliefs about a group that are rigidly held and overly simple may affect how information about the group is cognitively processed. For example, only data that fit the stereotype may be perceived; information that does not fit may either be ignored completely or distorted so that it can be assimilated into the existing set of beliefs (Snyder and Cantor, 1979; Snyder and Swann, 1978). This distortion has been found not only to affect perceptions of

Journal of Marriage and the Family incoming information (Darley and Gross, 1983) but also to influence the recollection of previously received information (Snyder and Uranowitz, 1978). Family stereotypes could affect evaluations of adults in the workplace and children in school. For example, if an individual's stereotype of stepmothers is that they are unloving and mean, then neutral or even positive behavior by a stepmother may be perceived and labeled as uncaring simply because such a perception is consistent with the stereotype. Stereotypes also may influence behaviors directed toward members of stereotyped groups (Snyder and Swann, 1978). This clearly has farreaching implications for persons from nonnuclear families; being treated differently because of one's marital or parental status is potentially among the most subtle forms of discrimination that a person may experience. It has been argued that facing cultural beliefs about divorce and single parenting adds significantly to the stress encountered in a single-parent family (Ferri, 1984). Clinicians have asserted that cultural stereotypes related to stepfamily status are a source of stress to stepfamily members (Visher and Visher, 1988). The literature on role schemas related to different family structures has not been reviewed previously. Since the findings from this body of research appear to be inconsistent, we decided that quantitative methods of reviewing would be appropriate. Quantitative reviews of research are useful for summarizing and integrating bodies of literature that are characterized by seemingly contradictory findings (Cooper, 1984; Hedges and Olkin, 1985). The purpose of this review was to examine critically the research literature on stereotypes related to family structure. Three different questions are addressed: (a) Are married adults perceived more favorably than adults who are not married? (b) Are adults who are parents perceived more favorably than adults who have not reproduced? (c) Are children whose parents are married to each other perceived more favorably than children whose parents are not married to each other? By employing meta-analytic techniques, we can determine both the presence and the magnitude of any differences. Further, we can assess whether differences in study outcomes can be explained by variations in study characteristics such as sampling procedures or measurements.

Family Structure Stereotypes

METHODS

289

Literature Search

words stereotype, attitudes, perceptions, person perception, and beliefs, combined with family structure, family forms, marital status, parental status, marriage, broken home, stepparent, stepmother, stepfather, stepchild, childless, mother,

The effect size estimateused was the d index, the differencebetweenthe two group meansdivided by their pooled standarddeviation.It was computed by dividingthe differencebetweenthe two means by the averagestandarddeviationof the listsof located two groups. The effect sizes were correctedfor father, anddivorce.The references studies were also used as sources for relevant samplesize biases by using the weightedintegraresearch.The searchyieldedover 120documents. tion method developed by Hedges and Olkin To be includedin this review,a studyhadto be (1985). In studieswith more than one effect size, an average effect size was computed for each an empiricalinvestigationof beliefs about infrom dividuals from different family forms, one of study. Whenthe data could not be retrieved which had to be a nuclear family. Although the studies,it was assumedthat the effect size was researchers used a varietyof termsto de- zero and the probabilitylevel was equal to .50 primary scribethe dependentvariables they weremeasur- (Cooper, 1984). to Homogeneityanalyseswerealso performed ing (e.g., stereotypes, perceptions, beliefs), varied studieswereincludedin this reviewif the meaning see if the effect sizes in each meta-analysis of the term was consistentwith the definitionof significantlyfrom what would be expectedfrom earlierin this article. samplingerroralone (HedgesandOlkin, 1985).A presented stereotypes was calculatedand, if significant,furOf the documents yieldedby the search,26 met chi-square ther analyses were performed to determine the inclusioncriteria.All of thesewerereported in of effects could be exin re- whetherthe heterogeneity professional journalsand all werepublished of the studies. cent years;dates of publicationrangefrom 1978 plainedby characteristics Two othermethodsof combiningstudyresults to 1989.These studiesare listedin the Appendix. were used because it was often not possible to calculatean effect size. One methodwas a count Meta-analytic Techniques Used of test resultsin which the proportionof signifiwere conductedfor com- cant differences in an expected direction were Separatemeta-analyses of marriedadultsand compared to the proportion that wouldhavebeen parisonsof (a) stereotypes adultswith othermaritalstatuses,(b) stereotypes expectedby chance (Rosenthal,1978).The other of parentsand nonparents,and (c) stereotypes of methodconsistedof combining p values.Foreach childrenwhose parentsare marriedand children comparisonthe one-tailedprobabilitylevels and whose parentsare not married to each other. The the associated standardnormal deviate Z were in all comparisons variables weremeas- recorded.The Z scoresweresummedand divided dependent ures of stereotypesrelatedto family position or by the squareroot of the numberof studiesin the familystructure. comparison (Rosenthal, 1984). The resultingZ Several characteristics of study participants scorewas then converted back to p. Thisvalueinwere coded: ages, gender, occupation, marital dicates the probabilitythat the results of these status, and parentalstatus. This informationwas comparisons could have been produced by as eitherthe proportionof the samples chance. expressed in a particular of males It is possible that the studies retrievedfor a category(e.g., proportion and females) or as means (e.g., age). Several meta-analytic reviewarea biasedsampleof all the of the studieswere also recorded: studies actually conducted. Therefore,the Failcharacteristics year of publication,the samplingmethod (prob- safe N was calculated,an estimateof the number the type of stimulus of unretrieved studieswith exactnull results(p = ability or nonprobability),

Computer searches of Psychological Abstracts (1970-1989), Social Science Abstracts (19701989), Dissertation Abstracts International (1970-1989),and the NationalCouncilon Family RelationsDatabasewereconducted,usingthe key

used (written vignette, videotape, audiotape, photograph,other), the family structuresbeing compared,the type of dependentvariable(e.g., personalityrating, competencerating), and the genderof the targetperson.
Effect Size Estimate

290 .50, Z = 0) that would have to exist before the significant findings would be reversed (Cooper, 1984). The Fail-safe N is a measure of the robustness of the findings. To calculate the Failsafe N, the Z's were summed, this total was divided by the standard normal deviate of the designated significance level (p = .05, Z = 1.645), the results were squared, and the number of studies in the analysis was subtracted from the squared figure (Cooper, 1984).
RESULTS

Journal of Marriage and the Family were published since 1984. In 13 studies the samples consisted of college students. Sample sizes were generally large; all but two were larger than 150. All of the studies used a brief written description of the target person as the stimulus. Nine presented the stimulus in a written vignette (Bryan et al., 1985, 1986; Dukes, 1989; Etaugh and Malstrom, 1981; Etaugh and Petroski, 1985; Etaugh and Stern, 1984; Etaugh and Study, 1989; Ganong, Coleman, and Riley, 1988; Russell and Rush, 1987), three used a job application (Etaugh and Foresman, 1983; Etaugh and Kasley, 1981; Etaugh and Riley, 1983), three contained a label identifying the target (Fine, 1986: Ganong and Coleman, 1983; Morgan and Barden, 1985), and one presented the stimulus in a videotaped interview (Ganong, Coleman, and Riley, 1988). Both male and female target persons were used in 11 studies, and in 4 studies all the targets were female (Etaugh and Petroski, 1985; Etaugh and Study, 1989; Ganong, Coleman, and Riley, 1988; Morgan and Barden, 1985). The marital status most frequently compared to the "married" status was "never married" or "single"; 10 studies made this comparison. Five studies in-

A summary of the sample sizes, weighted effect sizes, confidence intervals, the Z statistic, the number of tests per study, and the number of tests with a statistically significant difference are shown in Tables 1-3. Marital Status Fifteen studies contributed to this analysis. It was possible to calculate effect sizes for 10 studies. The counting method and combined p values were computed for all 15 studies (see Table 1). The earliest study was published in 1981; 10

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF META-ANALYTIC STATISTICS AND STUDY CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH ON MARITAL STATUS STEREOTYPES

95% Confidence

Study
Etaugh and Kasley (1981) Etaugh and Malstrom (1981) Etaugh and Riley (1983) Etaugh and Foresman (1983) Ganong and Coleman (1983) Etaugh and Stern (1984) Etaugh and Petroski (1985) Morgan and Barden (1985) Bryan et al. (1985) Bryan et al. (1986) Fine (1986) Russell and Rush (1987)

Sample WeightedEffect Size (d)a Size

368 168 160 160 208 416 168 15 375 696 175 320 .1395 .5775 .4866 1.0447 .1990 .5271 .6460 .2750

Limitsfor d Lower Upper Z

.1278 .4754 .4788 1.0374 .1553 .4663 .6385 .2715 .1512 .6796 .4944 1.0520 .2427 .5880 .6535 .2785 1.55 2.33 .12 .62 2.15 1.36 1.18 3.29 2.33 3.59 2.37 4.71

Study Testsb Characteristicsc

5/8 10/20 1/14 3/8 15/18 11/20 10/20 1/1 2/4 15/24 16/18 11/21 1/1/1/1/2 1/2/1/2/2 1/1/1/1/2 1/2/1/1/2 1/3/2/3/2 1/2/1/2/2 1/2/1/2/1 2/1/2/3/1 2/3/2/2/2 1/4/2/2/2 1/3/2/3/2 1/1/1/2/2

Ganong,Coleman,and Riley (1988)

43

1.0900

1.0540 1.1260 1.90 6/7

1/1/2/2/1

1/5/1/2/1 .2369 1.08 2/5 198 .2312 .2255 Etaugh and Study (1989) 0.00 0/2 1/3/2/2/2 144 Dukes (1989) aEffect sizes are positive when differences are in the married status direction and negative when differences favor other marital statuses. bThe first value is the number of tests that were statistically significant in the expected direction (married I other marital statuses). The second value is the total number of tests. cThe first study characteristic is sample (1 = college students, 2 = helping professionals); the second characteristic is marital statuses compared to married targets (1 = single, 2 = widowed, divorced, never married, 3 = remarried, 4 = widowed, divorced, never married, remarried, 5 = divorced); the third characteristic is the dependent variable (1 = personality ratings, 2 = competence ratings); the fourth characteristic is the stimulus used (1 = written vignette, 2 = job application, 3 = label); the fifth characteristic is the target's gender (1 = female only, 2 = male and female).

Family Structure Stereotypes

TABLE2. SUMMARY OF META-ANALYTIC AND STUDY CHARACTERISTICS OF STATISTICS RESEARCH ON PARENTALSTATUS STEREOTYPES

291

Effect Sample Weighted

Study Size Size (d)a .0333 -.0279 .0751 -

95% Confidence Limitsfor d

Lower Upper Z Testsb .0651 1.65 7/14 .91 4/8 -.0388 0 0/8 0/14 .0866 .06 3/14 2/2

Characteristicsc

Study

.0015 192 2/2/1/1/2 Polit (1978) 113 000 1/2/1/1/2 Calhoun and Selby (1980) 368 -.0170 1/1/2/1/2 and Kasley (1981) Etaugh 160 1/1/2/2/2 Etaugh and Riley (1983) .0636 270 1/3/1/1/1 Shields and Cooper (1983) 45 Callan (1985) 1/2/1/1/2 aEffect sizes are positive when differences are in the parent status direction and negative for differences favoring childless status.

in the predicted direction(parent> childof teststhatwerestatistically bThefirstvalueis the number significant less). The secondvalueis the total numberof tests. = = the secondcharacteristic is sample(1 collegestudent,2 community cThefirststudycharacteristic members);
is parental statuses compared (1 = parent, childless, 2 = parent, voluntarily childless, nonvoluntarily childless, 3 = happily pregnant, unhappily pregnant, childless); the third characteristic is the dependent variable (1 = personality rating, 2 = competence rating); the fourth characteristic is the stimulus used (1 = written vignette, 2 = job

is the target'sgender(1 = femaleonly, 2 = male and female). the fifth characteristic application);

cluded the category of "remarried," 5 included "widowed," and 6 included "divorced" target persons. All of the investigations used either evaluative ratings of the target's personality or ratings of the target's competence as dependent measures. The effect sizes were coded so that positive values represented more positive evaluations of married individuals. The 10 studies in which effect sizes were calculated had a total sample of 2,061. The overall weighted effect size was +.4918, indicating that married persons were evaluated more positively than persons in other marital statuses (see Table 1). The 95% confidence interval ranged from .4036 to .5801. The confidence interval does not contain zero, so it can be concluded that there is a difference in how persons of various marital statuses are perceived. This finding is a robust one, as indicated by the large Failsafe N of 266. An effect size of .50 is generally considered moderate in the social sciences (Cooper, 1984). The variance in effect sizes was greater than that predicted by sampling error (x2 = 53.50, df = 9, p < .01). As a consequence of the similarity of the studies in design, sampling, and other characteristics, only four study characteristics were examined to see if they affected the results. Planned contrasts revealed no differences in effect sizes due to the method of stimulus presentation (vignette, job description, label), the marital statuses compared, and the gender of the target persons (both genders, females only), but

effect sizes were found to be related to the investigator. There were three groups of researchers who examined marital status: Etaugh and colleagues (4 studies); Ganong, Coleman, and colleagues (4 studies); and researchers represented by one study (Fine, 1986; Russell and Rush, 1987). Studies done by Etaugh and colleagues were found to have smaller effect sizes than studies conducted by Ganong, Coleman, and colleagues. Neither of the research teams differed from the researchers who had published one study of marital status stereotypes. The differences between the two research teams is puzzling but is perhaps due to differences in what was being measured. Ganong, Coleman, and colleagues used several instruments that were evaluative ratings of the target's personality, whereas Etaugh and her colleagues used evaluative ratings of target competence. The counting methods support the results of the effect size analysis. The proportion of the 190 tests found in these studies that reported more positive evaluations for married persons was .57, a proportion that differs significantly from what would be expected by chance. The combined p value was .0005. Parental Status Six studies compared the perceptions toward persons of different parental statuses. Five studies were conducted since 1980. None of these were simply investigations of individual's perceptions

292 of parents and nonparents. In three studies, perceptions of parents were compared with perceptions of both voluntarily childless and involuntarily childless adults (Callan, 1985; Calhoun and Selby, 1980; Polit, 1978), and in a fourth investigation, childless adults were compared with happily pregnant and unhappily pregnant adults (Shields and Cooper, 1983). All except the study by Polit (1978) consisted of college student samples and all utilized written descriptions as stimuli. In all of these studies the dependent variables were evaluative ratings of the target. Effect sizes were coded so that positive values represented more favorable evaluations of parents. Effect sizes could be computed for three studies (see Table 2). The overall weighted effect size was + .0072. The confidence interval was -.1388 to +.1532. Since the confidence interval included zero, it cannot be concluded that parents are evaluated more positively than adults who do not have children. The total variation in effect sizes was not significantly different from that predicted by sampling error (X2 = .26, df = 2, p = .88). The proportion of tests that showed a significant difference in the direction of more positive evaluations for parents was .27, a proportion that did not differ significantly from what would be expected by chance. This is consistent with the results of the combined probability test that indicated there was not a difference in perceptions

Journal of Marriage and the Family of parents and nonparents (p = .10). When parents are compared only to voluntarichildless adults, however, a different picture ly emerges. The weighted effect size for this comconfidence interparison was + .4369, with a 95%0o val ranging from + .0778 to + .7962. The proportion of significant results in the favor of parents was .70, and the combined p value for these three studies was .01. It appears that parents are viewed more positively than adults who choose not to have children. Parent's Marital Status Nine studies were included in this analysis. All but one were published since 1984. Sample sizes were generally large (30 to 696) and consisted of college students (Bryan et al., 1985, 1986; Glanz, Ganong, and Coleman, 1989; Santrock and Tracy, 1978; Siebert, Ganong, Hagemann, and Coleman, 1986), helping professionals (Bryan et al., 1985; Fry and Addington, 1984), and teachers (Fry and Addington, 1984; Fuller, 1986; Goldstein-Hendley, Green, and Evans, 1984; Guttmann and Broudo, 1989; Santrock and Tracy, 1978). Five of these studies compared perceptions of children whose parents were married, to perceptions of children living with only one parent. Three compared remarried parents and stepparents to married parents, and one study used five different parental marital statuses as

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OFMETA-ANALYTIC STATISTICS ANDSTUDY CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH ONPARENTS' MARITAL STATUS STEREOTYPES

Study Santrock and Tracy (1978) Fry and Addington (1984) Bryan et al. (1985) Bryan et al. (1986) Siebert et al. (1986) Goldstein-Hendley et al. (1986) Fuller (1986)

Effect Sample Weighted

Size 30 600 375 696 68 54 91 Size (d)a .7993 .3910 .4693 .1476 -

95% Confidence Limitsfor d

Lower .6328 .3463 .4088 .0877 Upper .9658 .4357 .5298 .2075 Z 1.60 .21 3.09 2.33 .50 0 2.33 Testsb 10/16 5/48 4/4 17/24 1/10 0/2 2/2

Characteristicsc 2/1/3/2/1 2/1/3/2/1 2/3/1/1/2 1/2/1/1/2 1/1/3/1/1 2/1/3/2/1 2/1/2/3/2

Study

149 .5185 .4619 .5751 1/3/3/2/2 .55 4/18 (in press) aEffect sizes are positive when differences are in the parents' marital status direction and negative when differences favor other parents' marital statuses. bThe first value is the number of tests that were statistically significant in the expected direction (married parents > other parents' marital statuses). The second value is the total number of tests. cThe first study characteristic is sample (1 = college students, 2 = helping professionals); the second is parents' marital status compared to married parents (1 = divorced, 2 = widowed, divorced, remarried, never married, 3 = remarried, 4 = remarried, divorced); the third is the dependent variable (1 = personality rating, 2 = questionnaire, 3 = personality rating and predicted behavior); the fourth is the stimulus used (1 = written vignette, 2 = videotape or film, 3 = written questionnaire); the fifth is the target gender (1 = male only, 2 = male and female).

Guttmann and Broudo(1989) Glanz, Ganong,and Coleman

76

1.9506

1.9000 2.0012 2.33

3/3

2/4/3/1/1

Family Structure Stereotypes stimuli. Four studies employed videotaped stimuli, four used brief written descriptions of the target child, and one utilized a questionnaire as the stimulus. The dependent variables were evaluative ratings of the child's personality or behavior. Six studies asked subjects to predict the child's behavior in addition to personality ratings (Fry and Addington, 1984; Glanz, Ganong, and Coleman, 1989; Goldstein-Hendley, Green, and Evans, 1986; Guttmann and Broudo, 1989; Santrock and Tracy, 1978; Siebert, Ganong, Hagemann, and Coleman, 1986). Effect sizes were calculated for six studies. They were coded so that positive values indicate more positive evaluations of children whose parents were married. The overall weighted effect size indicates that children whose parents were married were evaluated more positively than children whose parents were not married (d = +.5188). The 95% confidence interval was + .3110 to + .7266. The Fail-safe N was 268. The variation in effect sizes did not differ from what would be predicted by sampling error (X2 = 1.22, df = 5, p = .05). All nine studies were included in the counting and combined p methods of cumulating findings. The proportion of tests with significant results was .36. This differed from the proportion expected by chance. The combined p value was .0005. Thus, these findings support the conclusion from the effect size calculations that children whose parents are married are evaluated more positively than children whose parents are not married.
DIscUSSION

293 who are voluntarily childless are perceived less positively than parents. These results indicate that cultural stereotypes related to family structure have not changed in recent years, despite increases in family diversity (e.g., never-marriedmothers, divorce, and remarriage). Although there is evidence that tolerance of divorce has increased in recent decades, more tolerant attitudes have not been found to be related to a reduction in negative perceptions of divorced individuals (Gerstel, 1987). Slight changes over time in the content of some family stereotypes might be expected, but as long as a particular family structure or family position is a salient social category, a stereotype is likely to be associated with it.

Implications of Stereotyping It should be kept in mind that stereotypes are not necessarily bad. There are, however, some potentially negative implications for members of stereotyped groups. First, stereotypes distort perceptions so that what is perceived is consistent with already held beliefs; negative stereotypes, therefore, lead people to evaluate the stereotyped group less favorably regardless of what behavior is observed (Darley and Gross, 1983). For researchers, the existence of family structure stereotypes creates problems when data are obtained in studies from raters (such as teachers) who know the target person's family structure prior to the rating. Previous knowledge of family structure is likely to influence how behavior is evaluated. Differences in ratings may be due to stereotyped expectations rather than actual behavioral differences. Another potential problem of stereotyping is that beliefs about a group may affect interactions with members of that group (Snyder, 1981; Snyder and Swann, 1978). Stereotyped groups may be treated differently than other groups. Research is needed to examine the effect of family stereotypes on behavioral interactions. Family structure stereotypes may also influence how members of different family forms perceive and value themselves. There is evidence that this is so for stepfamily members (Coleman and Ganong, 1987; Visher and Visher, 1988), divorced people (Gerstel, 1987), and single adults (Cargan, 1986). A negative evaluation of one's family structure may lead to lowered self-esteem.

The results of this review provide some support for the contention that family structure is a cue by which stereotypes are formed. Further, these results support the assertion that the nuclear family is the standard by which other family forms are evaluated; these studies generally agreed that individuals believed to be from nuclear families are evaluated more positively than individuals believed to be from other family forms. We can conclude with some confidence that married adults are perceived more favorably than adults with other marital statuses, and that children whose parents are married are perceived more favorably than children whose parents are not married to each other. The findings for parental status are not quite as clear, but they do indicate that adults

294 Unanswered Questions The validity of these speculations is not known. Most of the research examined in this metaanalysis focused only on the fundamental question, "Do family structure stereotypes exist?" No researcher investigated the effects of stereotyping on subsequent cognitions and data gathering, on interpretations of previously acquired data about the target person, or on interactions between the study participant and the target person. Only one study attempted to assess behavior toward a target person (Ganong, Coleman, and Riley, 1988). The practical impact of family structure stereotypes, therefore, has not yet been investigated. It would be premature to conclude that the existence of family structure schemas that rate nuclear family members relatively more positively than those from other family forms means that nuclear family members are treated more positively. It also is not known if subsequent evaluations of a person are affected by knowing their marital or parental status. Finally, these studies do not allow us to draw any conclusions about how family schemas influence self-perceptions. Clearly, much more research is needed to discover the extent to which these stereotypes have meaning in people's daily lives. Another area needing further study concerns the potential relationships between family structure cues and other information that may be used to categorize people, such as race, age, socioeconomic status, and religion. For example, it may be that certain family structure schemas are more (or less) salient when combined with information about other personal charactristics (Bryant, Coleman, and Ganong, 1988). Similarly, it may be that family schemas are "activated" only under certain situations or when specific behaviors are observed. Unfortunately, these studies do not contain much information regarding (a) the salience of family structure schemas compared to other person-relevant schemas, (b) the interaction of family schemas with other schemas, and (c) the pervasiveness of family schemas. Are family structure schemas utilized only in the absence of other information, or are data about a person's family among the most important pieces of information that can be gathered? How widespread are family structure schemas-are they employed only in situations in which family data are relevant or are they used regardless of the setting? Are there subcategories of

Journal of Marriage and the Family family structure schemas (e.g., is marital status information evaluated differently for different races)? These are just some of the many questions that need to be addressed regarding the utility and pervasiveness of family stereotypes. It should be noted that some of the studies did include independent variables that potentially could have influenced or interacted with the marital status, parental status, or parents' marital status variables. This represents a beginning effort to shed light on the context of family structure schemas. Another unanswered question has to do with the effect of personal experience on the formation of family structure schemas. Only a few researchers examined the effect of this variable on parental status (Callan, 1985), marital status (Fine, 1986), and parents' marital status (Fuller, 1986; Goldstein-Hendley et al., 1986). It is not possible, however, to draw conclusions from these few studies. It seems logical to assume that stereotypes about nonnuclear family forms would be related to whether or not one lived in a nuclear family. On the other hand, since stereotypes are composed not simply of idiosyncratic beliefs but also of culturally shared beliefs, it could be argued that personal experience has little or no effect on family structure stereotypes. This question awaits further investigation. Finally, little can be concluded from these studies about the content of family structure schemas. Research is needed that would identify the specific parameters of various family schemas. It is not enough to know that nuclear family members are evaluated more positively than members of other family forms. Characteristics of Studies The studies reported here are fairly homogeneous. They are characterized by (a) limited use of independent variables that may interact with or influence family stereotyping, (b) dependent variables that are evaluations of the target's personality, competence, or expected behaviors, (c) written self-report responses, particularly the semantic differential technique, (d) nonprobability sampling procedure, (e) samples composed mainly of college students, and (f) stimuli consisting of written descriptions of targets. The majority of these studies were done in the midwestern United States, and all were conducted since 1978.

Family Structure Stereotypes The similarity of samples, research design, and measurement is a limitation of this body of research. The relative absence of study-generated effects on these results was due primarily to the lack of variability in study characteristics. This similarity in methods makes it difficult to discern the reason for the significant study-level effect of different researchers on the marital status comparison, and since investigators tended to use the same designs repeatedly, we cannot know for sure why there was a difference between research teams. It may be that stereotypes related to competence are of smaller magnitude than personality-based stereotypes. Future investigations of cognitive schemas related to family structure and family roles need to vary from the well-trod path of these 26 studies in order to establish with greater certainty the pervasiveness and the parameters of these schemas. The information about target persons presented to respondents tended to be minimal; written descriptions were usually brief, and visual stimuli were typically presented for only a few minutes. Furthermore, the data presented about target persons generally were fairly neutral, presumably because the researchers wanted to control for as many variables as possible. The fact that respondents in these studies were willing and able to make judgments based on the minimal information presented indicates the power of family structure as a social category for schema construction; in recent years it has been reported that respondents are unwilling to make stereotyped judgments based on little data even when they hold the stereotype (Quattrone and Jones, 1980). On the other hand, the methods used in these studies often did not have a great deal of external validity; such designs may inadvertently accentuate the importance of family information. Future research should (a) examine the influence of family structure stereotypes on subsequent cognitions, data gathering, and interactions; (b) clarify the contents of family structure stereotypes; and (c) investigate the salience and pervasiveness of family structure vis-a-vis other role schemas. Methods should include more "real life" stimuli and samples should consist of a wider variety of people. Measurement should also include more than one instrument. The potential implications of family structure stereotypes are serious ones that hold importance for a large

295 number of people. This meta-analytic review has shown the need for more research in this area.

REFERENCES

Ashmore,Richard,and FrancesDel Boca. 1981."Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping." Pp. 1-35 in D. L. Hamilton (ed.), and Intergroup CognitiveProcessesin Stereotyping Behavior.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. Barnard, Charles, and Ramon Corrales. 1979. The of FamilyTherapy.SpringTheoryand Techniques field, IL: CharlesC Thomas. Blalock, Susan, and BrendaDeVellis. 1985. "Stereotyping:The link betweentheoryand practice."Patient Educationand Counseling8: 17-25. Bryan, Linda, MarilynColeman, LawrenceGanong, and HughBryan.1986."Personperception: Family structure as a cue for stereotyping." Journal of Marriageand the Family48: 169-174. Bryan, Hugh, LawrenceGanong, MarilynColeman, andLindaBryan.1985."Counselors' of perceptions and stepchildren." Journalof Counselstepparents ing Psychology32: 279-282. Bryant, Lois, MarilynColeman, and LawrenceGanong. 1988. "Raceand familystructure stereotyping: of blackand whitenuclearfamiliesand Perceptions stepfamilies." Journal of Black Psychology 15: 1-16. Calhoun, Lawrence,and James Selby. 1980. "Voluntary childlessness,involuntarychildlessness,and having children:A study of social perceptions." FamilyRelations29: 181-183. Callan, Victor. 1985. "Perceptions of parents, the voluntarily and involuntarilychildless: A multidimensional scalinganalysis." Journalof Marriage and the Family47: 1045-1050. Cargan, Leonard. 1986. "Stereotypesof singles: A corss-cultural comparison." InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology27: 200-208. Cherlin, Andrew. 1978. "Marriageas an incomplete institution." American Journal of Sociology 84: 634-649. Coleman,Marilyn,and Lawrence Ganong. 1987."The culturalstereotyping of stepfamilies."Pp. 19-41 In K. Pasley and M. Ihinger-Tallman (eds.), Remarriage and Stepparenting:Current Research and Theory.New York:Guilford. Cooper, Harris. 1984. The IntegrativeResearchReview. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage. Darley, John, and Paget Gross. 1983. "A hypothesis bias in labelingeffects." Journalof Perconfirming sonalityand Social Psychology44: 20-33. Dukes, Richard.1989. "The Cinderella myth:Negative evaluationsof stepparents."Sociology and Socio73: 67-72. logical Research Etaugh, Claire, and Ethel Foresman. 1983. "Evaluations of competence as a functionof sex andmarital status." Sex Roles 9: 759-765. Etaugh, Claire, and Helen Kasley. 1981. "Evaluating competence: Effects of sex, marital status, and

296 parentalstatus." Psychologyof WomenQuarterly 6: 196-203. Etaugh, Claire, and Joann Malstrom.1981. "The effect of maritalstatuson personperception."Journal of Marriage and the Family43: 801-805. Etaugh, Claire,and BarbaraPetroski. 1985. "Perceptions of women:Effects of employment statusand maritalstatus." Sex Roles 12: 329-339. Etaugh, Claire, and Sue Riley. 1983. "Evaluating of womenand men: Effects of marital competence and parentalstatus and occupationalsex-typing." Sex Roles 9: 943-952. Etaugh, Claire,and JoanneStern. 1984. "Personperception:Effectsof sex, maritalstatus,andsex-typed occupation."Sex Roles 11:413-424. of Etaugh,Claire,and GinaStudy. 1989. "Perceptions mothers: Effects of employment status, marital status, and age of child." Sex Roles 20: 59-70. Ferri, Elsa. 1984. Stepchildren:A National Study. AtlanticHighlands,UK: Humanities. of stepparents: VariaFine, Mark. 1986. "Perceptions tion in stereotypes as a functionof currentfamily structure."Journalof Marriage and the Family48: 537-543. Fiske, Susan, and ShelleyTaylor. 1984. Social Cognition. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley. Fry, P. S., and Jean Addington.1984. "Professionals' negative expectationsof boys from father-headed families:Implications for the training single-parent of child-care professionals." British Journal of Developmental Psychology2: 337-346. Fuller, Mary Lou. 1986. "Teachers' perceptionsof children from intact and single-parentfamilies." School Counselor31: 365-373. Ganong, Lawrence, and Marilyn Coleman. 1983. "Stepparent:A pejorative term?" Psychological Reports52: 919-922. Ganong, Lawrence,Marilyn Coleman, and Cynthia of marRiley. 1988. "Nursingstudents'stereotypes ried and unmarried pregnantclients." Researchin Nursingand Health 11: 333-342. Gerstel, Naomi. 1987. "Divorce and stigma." Social Problems34: 172-186. Glanz, Dayna, LawrenceGanong, and MarilynColeman. 1989."Effectsof clientgender,diagnosis,and family structure on first impressions." Western Journalof NursingResearch11: 726-735. Susan, VirginiaGreen,and James Goldstein-Hendley, Evans. 1986. "Effects of teachers'marital status and child'sfamilymaritalstatuson teachers' ratings of a child." Psychological Reports58: 959-964. Guttmann,Joseph, and MarcBroudo. 1989. "The effect of children'sfamily type on teachers'stereotypes." Journalof Divorce 12: 315-328. Hedges, Larry, and Ingram Olkin. 1985. Statistical Methodsfor Meta-analysis. Orlando,FL:Academic Press. Morgan, Barbara, and Martha Barden. 1985. "Unwed and pregnant: Nurses'attitudestowardunmarriedmothers."Maternal ChildNursing10:114-117.

Journal of Marriage and the Family Pettigrew, Thomas. 1981. "Extendingthe stereotype concept." Pp. 1-35 in D. Hamilton(ed.), Cognitive Processesin Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. to family-size Polit, Denise. 1978."Stereotypes relating status." Journal of Marriageand the Family 40: 105-114. Price, Sharon, and Jack Balswick. 1980. "The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion and remarriage." Journalof Marriage and the Family42: 959-972. Quattrone,George, and Edward Jones. 1980. "The perceptionof variabilitywithin in-groupsand outfor the law of smallnumbers." groups:Implications Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 38: 141-152. Rosenthal, Robert. 1978. "Combiningeffects of independent studies." Psychological Bulletin 85: 185-193. Procedures Rosenthal, Robert. 1984. "Meta-analytic for Social Research.BeverlyHills, CA: Sage. Russell, Joyce, and Michael Rush. 1987. "The effects of sex and marital/parentalstatus on performanceevaluationsand attributions."Sex Roles 17: 221-236. Santrock,John, and Russel Tracy. 1978. "Effects of children'sfamily structurestatus on the developmentof stereotypes by teachers."Journalof Educational Psychology70: 754-757. Satir, Virginia. 1982. "Remaking the stepfamilies' image." StepfamilyBulletin2(3/4): 18. and PamelaCooper.1983."StereoShields,Stephanie, and nontraditional types of traditional childbearing roles." Sex Roles 9: 363-376. Siebert, Katherine, Lawrence Ganong, Virginia Hagemann,and MarilynColeman.1986. "Nursing students'perceptions of a child:The influenceof information on family structure." Journal of AdvancedNursing11: 333-337. nature Snyder,Mark. 1981. "On the self-perpetuating of social stereotypes." Pp. 183-212 in D. L. Hamilton(ed.), CognitiveProcesses in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Snyder, Mark, and Nancy Cantor. 1979. "Testing aboutotherpeople:The use of historical hypotheses Social Psyknowledge." Journalof Experimental chology 15: 330-342. Snyder,Mark,and WilliamSwann. 1978. "Behavioral confirmationin social interaction." From social to socialreality."Journalof Experimenperception tal Social Psychology14: 148-162. Uranowitz.1978."ReconSnyder,Mark,and Seymour of structingthe past: Some cognitiveconsequences person perception." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36: 941-950. Uzoka, A. 1979. "The myth of the nuclear family: Historical backgroundand clinical implications." AmericanPsychologist34: 1095-1106. Visher,Emily,and JohnVisher.1988.Stepfamilies: Old Loyalties,New Ties. New York:Brunner/Mazel.

FamilyStructure Stereotypes
APPENDIX PRIMARY STUDIES USED IN THE META-ANALYSIS

297

Bryan,Ganong,Coleman,and Bryan, 1985 Bryan,Coleman,Ganong,and Bryan, 1986 Calhounand Selby, 1980 Callan, 1985 Dukes, 1989 Etaughand Foresman,1983 Etaughand Kasley, 1981 Etaughand Malstrom,1981 Etaughand Petroski, 1985 Etaughand Riley, 1983 Etaughand Stern, 1984 Etaughand Study, 1989 Fine, 1986

Fry and Addington,1984 Fuller, 1986 Ganongand Coleman, 1983 Ganong,Coleman,and Riley, 1988 Glanz, Ganong,and Coleman, 1989 Green,and Evans, 1986 Goldstein-Hendley, and Broudo, 1989 Guttmann Morganand Barden,1985 Polit, 1978 Russelland Rush, 1987 Santrockand Tracy, 1978 Shieldsand Cooper, 1983 Siebert,Ganong,Hagemann,and Coleman, 1986

SEXUAL

IMAGES

OF

THE

SELF

THE PSYCHOLOGYOF EROTIC SENSATIONS AND ILLUSIONS StateUniversity ofNewYork SEYMOUR FISHER Health Center at Science

Syracuse

of sexualresponsiveness SexualImages of the Selfopens novel # Mediators that have inboth women and men perspectiveson majorissues inthe area * World-view correlatesof women'sprepuzzledresearchers persistently and that were originally ferences forclitoral vs. vaginalstimulation of humansexuality in hisearlier and of sexualdysfunction book, * Predictors exploredby Fisher TheFemaleOrgasm. correlatesof orgasmconsistencyinwomen * Concernabout sexualcomfortand This volumeintegrates the mostrecent satisfaction of sexualpartners researchconcerned withsexualbehavior + Thesecret agenda of parentsto inhibit the a paradigmbased on self and sexuality within of theirchildren Inaddition, * Cultural definitions of the "proper* and body-imageconstructs. it documentspromising new "necessary" conditionsforproducingsexual formulations regarding: arousal
OFFERI Prepaid OrdersOnly $34.50 0-8058-0439-0/1989/345pp./$49.95 SPECIAL

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 365 Broadway,Hillsdale, NJ 07642 201/666-4110 FAX#201/666-2394