Feminism, Femininity, Assertiveness

Feminist Identity and Attitudes 1
Running head: FEMINIST IDENTITY AND ATTITUDES
Feminist Identity and Attitudes toward Assertive Behavior: Explaining the Relationship
between Sex-Role Orientation and Assertive Behavior
Karolyn J. Budzek
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Berry Undergraduate Honors Program
University of Dayton
May, 2003
Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................3
Sex-Role Identity and Mental Health ......................................................................5
Assertiveness............................................................................................................8
Explaining the Link between Assertiveness and Sex-Role Orientation ................12
Attitudes Toward Assertiveness ....................................................................12
Feminist Identity ............................................................................................13
The Current Study..................................................................................................14
Method ...................................................................................................................15
Participants.....................................................................................................15
Measures ........................................................................................................15
Procedure .......................................................................................................17
Results....................................................................................................................18
Discussion ..............................................................................................................21
References..............................................................................................................24
List of Tables .........................................................................................................33
List of Appendices .................................................................................................34

Feminist Identity and Attitudes toward Assertive Behavior: Explaining the Relationship
between Sex-Role Orientation and Assertive Behavior
Assertiveness is considered to be a socially desirable trait. Associated with males
and masculinity, assertiveness is often included in sex-role measures as an element of
masculinity (Bem, 1974; Berzins, Welling, & Wetter, 1978; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp,
1975). In contrast, stereotypical femininity is defined in part by an unassertive
interpersonal style. As is expected, a strong correlation is found in many studies between
assertiveness and masculinity (Adams & Sherer, 1985; Lohr & Nix, 1982; Nix, Lohr, &
Stauffacher, 1980; Rodriguez, Nietzel, & Berzins, 1980). For instance, Nix et al. found
that whereas masculinity predicted scores on self-report measures of assertiveness,
femininity and one’s actual gender did not.
Masculinity has been touted as the ideal gender role orientation for positive
mental health and adjustment (Long, 1986; Spence, 1984; Taylor & Hall, 1982; Whitley,
1985). Masculine supremacy in predicting positive outcomes is attributed to the greater
value of masculine traits in American society (Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Bernard, 1980;
Kelly & Worell, 1978; Whitley, 1984). This is in contrast to the findings of similar
studies rating androgyny (high masculinity, high femininity) as the ideal (Bem, 1974;
Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson, 1978; Kaplan, 1980; Spence et al., 1975). The results of
numerous studies involving self-report measures of social skills and behaviors have
favored masculine over androgynous or feminine gender-role orientations (Adams &
Sherer, 1985; Campbell, Steffen, & Langmeyer, 1981; Nix, Lohr, & Mosesso, 1983; Nix
et al., 1980; Robins, 1986).

Femininity is regarded - at best - as irrelevant to mental health, and in many cases
as a predictor of mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, drug impairment,
and general passivity (Antill & Cunningham, 1979; Aube, Norcliffe, Craig, & Koestner,
1995; Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Markstrom-Adams, 1989). The lack of masculinity has
been implicated in mental illness and distress more so than the presence of femininity
(Bromberger & Matthews, 1996; Robins, 1986; Whitley, 1983, 1985; Whitley & Gridley,
1993). Several sources, however, have provided evidence of significant associations
between femininity and positive aspects of mental health including interpersonal
satisfaction, low alcohol consumption, pleasure capacity, and agreeableness (Aube et al.,
1995; Frisch & McCord, 1987; Lubinski, Tellgen, & Butcher, 1983; Zeldow, Daugherty,
& Clark, 1985, 1987, 1989).
Feminist identity can also contribute to assertiveness, as feminist women are
generally perceived as more androgynous than traditional females (Fowler, Fowler, &
Van de Riet, 1973; Jordan-Viola, Fassberg, & Viola, 1976; Leventhal & Matturo, 1981).
Feminists show a high level of collective self-esteem (i.e. self-esteem derived from
membership in a group), a factor adding to the probability of positive mental health
(Smith, 1999; Stoppard & Paisley, 1987). Another element predicting assertive behavior
is one's feelings and perceptions regarding assertive behavior. Ease of assertive
performance is associated with masculinity, while distress in assertion and negative
thoughts about being assertive are associated with femininity (Arrindell et al., 1997;
Frisch & McCord, 1987; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979). This is often seen as the social
norm: assertive males and passive females. Women are not traditionally expected to
exhibit assertive behavior. Because others may see assertive behavior as unfeminine,
highly feminine women may be reluctant to engage in such behaviors. Women are also
less positively evaluated than men for similarly assertive behavior (Cowan & Koziej,
1979; Gervasio & Crawford, 1989).
The current study explores the relationship between assertive behaviors, attitudes
toward assertiveness, sex-role orientation, and feminist identity through a series of self-
report questionnaires. Specifically, I hypothesize that a positive relationship exists
between masculinity and assertive behavior, and no relationship exists between
femininity and assertive behavior. Additionally, I hypothesize that when attitudes toward
assertiveness and feminist identity are statistically controlled, the relationship between
masculinity and assertiveness will be reduced.
Sex-Role Identity and Mental Health
Identifying the causes and predictors of psychological disorders is vital to
effective diagnoses and treatment. Similarly, known correlations between a personality
trait and psychosocial adjustment help therapists develop or discourage these aspects of a
client's personality. The relationship of gender role identity and mental health,
unfortunately, is not always clear.
The link between depression and gender role identity has been studied in great
detail. Initially, a correlation between gender and depression was assumed. Although
twice as many female patients are diagnosed with clinical depression than males (Blehar
& Oren, 1995), many argue this is due to learned helplessness, degree of comfort seeking
help, victimization, or lower social status (Radloff & Rae, 1979, 1981; Nolen-Hoeksema,
2001; Depue & Monroe, 1978). Research by Landrine (1988) indicated that when
subjects described the personality of DSM-III descriptions, depressive disorders were
labeled as women, and severe depressive disorders were described as married women.
Later studies found gender role identity is a better predictor than gender of
depression. Femininity positively correlates with depression (Sanfilipo, 1994; Stoppard
& Paisley, 1987). Implicated in depression also is the lack of masculinity, with
androgynous subjects showing less instances of depression (Lengua & Stormshak, 2000;
Sanfilipo, 1994). This presents femininity not in a more positive light, but merely as
irrelevant. Factors other than gender role account for significant portions of the variance,
including life stress, support systems, and self-esteem (Feather, 1985; Dua, 1993;
Lubinski, Tellgen, & Butcher, 1981, 1983; Stoppard & Paisley, 1987). In a study by
Feather (1985), a significant negative correlation between masculinity and depression
was reduced to non-significance when controlled for level of self-esteem, suggesting
perhaps that societal values play a large role by reinforcing instrumental, masculine
characteristics. Similarly, Radloff and Rae (1979) found that women were more
depressed than men at similar levels of life stress. They further interpreted these
depressive symptoms to be caused by women's vulnerability due to their feminine gender
role socialization. Whitley and Gridley (1993) find that self-esteem and masculinity are
correlated predictors of depression, and self-esteem is the mediator of the masculinity-
depression relationship. It is possible, therefore, that intrapsychic and interpersonal skills
may be developed that could make masculinity and femininity unimportant in assessing
and treating depression.
A survey of studies relating psychological well-being and gender role identity
shows most consistently that masculinity is negatively correlated with interpersonal

behaviors such as hostility and avoidance (e.g. Markstrom-Adams, 1989; Marsh &
Byrne, 1991; Nezu & Nezu, 1987). Studies involving the NEO-PI-R report that
masculinity is strongly negatively correlated with neuroticism (e.g. Jones, Chernovetz, &
Hansson, 1978; Kimlicka, Sheppard, Sheppard, & Wakefield, 1988; Lippa & Connelly,
1990; Whitley & Gridley, 1993; Zeldow, Clark, & Daugherty, 1985).
The perceived superiority of masculine traits is often attributed to their greater
behavioral value in American society (Bassoff & Glass, 1982; Bernard, 1980; Kelly &
Worell, 1978). Independence, self-sufficiency, and athleticism hold special worth in an
individualistic culture, and a person possessing these characteristics is often reinforced
for these behaviors. A person low in masculinity may be socially devalued, and one
would expect to find evidence of reduced self-esteem or possibly psychological
maladjustment (Feather, 1985). It may not be the lack of masculine personality
characteristics that contributes to depressive symptoms, then, but instead decreased self-
worth and lack of social reinforcement. Numerous studies have uncovered a negative
relation between masculinity and social maladjustment, although femininity, for the most
part, has shown to be unrelated (Aube et al., 1995; Markstom-Adams, 1989; Taylor &
Hall, 1982; Whitley, 1988).
This masculinity model of mental health is challenged by androgyny in its
additive form (e.g. Bem, 1974; Campbell, Steffen, & Langmeyer, 1981; Cook, 1985; Hall
& Taylor, 1985), suggesting that femininity has a role in positive mental health. Indeed,
femininity has been correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to
experience, and low psychoticism (Francis & Wilcox, 1997; Lippa & Connelly, 1990;
Marusic & Bratko, 1998; Ramanaiah & Detwiler, 1992). Feminine persons have higher
levels of dyadic adjustment, and are less likely than persons high in masculinity to
overestimate the quality of their interpersonal relationships and behavior (Aube et al.,
1995). Androgynous persons are considered to be the best of both gender roles: better
adjusted, more adaptive, and psychologically healthier (Bem, 1974). The additive model
of androgyny holds that masculinity and femininity are separate constructs, and scoring
both high in masculinity as well as femininity produces androgyny. The androgynous
person, therefore, is more adaptive and can better tailor their personality and reactions to
each situation, since they have access to a broader and more dynamic range of coping
skills (e.g. Campbell et al., 1981; Renk & Creasey, 2003).
A large portion of researchers, however, do not share this belief in the merits of
androgyny. Whitley and Gridley (1993) failed to find significant relationships between
femininity and the Five-Factor model of personality. Taylor and Hall (1982) suggest that
androgynous individuals are not at an advantage compared to masculine individuals
regarding psychological distress. Based on a review of the literature, it seems the current
prevailing view appears to be that of the masculinity model, denying that femininity is a
significantly influential factor in positive mental health.
Assertiveness
Assertiveness and assertive behaviors have been studied and correlated with a
broad range of other constructs. Extraversion, of which assertiveness is an element, has
been linked to well-being in a number of different studies, across demographic and
geographic variables (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Diener, Sandvik, Pavot & Fujita, 1992; Lu
& Shih, 1997). In a study by Herringer (1998) relating facets of extraversion to life
satisfaction, the only significant predictor of life satisfaction for males was assertiveness.
In a study by Kern and Paquette (1992), female undergraduates with assigned roommates
evaluated their roommate on several interpersonal qualities and behaviors. Higher levels
of self-reported assertive behavior were associated with roommates’ perceptions of
greater social competency and likeability. Additionally, Eskin (2003) reports that
adolescents who score high in self-report measures of assertiveness also report having
more friends and receiving more social support.
In a structured naturalistic assessment, low-assertive participants experienced
more anxiety and personal sacrifice during a conflict resolution situation than high-
assertive participant (Delamater & McNamara, 1985, 1991). People scoring low in
assertiveness often take significantly longer to respond to questions about themselves,
their opinions, and their preferences, even when cognitive ability was controlled,
suggesting a possible lack of clarity regarding their own attitudes, opinions, preferences,
goals, and priorities (Collins, Powell, & Oliver, 2000). Students with higher levels of
assertiveness and academic self-efficacy report fewer adjustment problems, and high
assertiveness scores were also associated with less loneliness (Poyrazli, 2001). In
addition, assertive people of both genders are more likely to be hired than nonassertive or
aggressive people, regardless of the sex-role stereotypes of the interviewer (Gallois,
Callan, & Palmer, 1992).
Nix, Lohr, & Stauffacher (1980) examined the relationship between sex, sex-role
orientation, and a self-report measure of assertiveness. Of these factors, masculine sex-
role orientation was the only single predictor of the assertiveness measure, accounting for
52% of the variance. Nix, Lohr, & Mosesso (1984) replicated this finding – a strong
positive correlation between masculinity and assertiveness – with both self-report
measures and role-play measures of assertion. This masculinity – assertiveness
relationship is well replicated in the literature.
Avsec (2002) confirmed American sex-role stereotypes with a Slovenian sample.
The trait of assertiveness was significantly correlated with the ‘average male,’ or
masculine person. Specific female populations participating in assertiveness training (i.e.
agoraphobics, alcoholics) scored higher in masculinity subsequent to the training, further
demonstrating the connection between assertiveness and masculinity (Haimo & Blitman,
1985; Roth, 1996). In a study relating adolescents’ self-perceived outspokenness and
sex-role orientation, Radin (2000) also found a positive correlation between ratings of
outspokenness and assertiveness, and masculine sex-role orientation. Further, Bryant
(1998) investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and sex-role orientation with
self-report questionnaires. Agentic elements of the self-efficacy scale, such as Self-
Assertive Efficacy, were the best predictors of masculinity. In a study by Wallace (1997)
examining the relationship of social assertiveness, dating-related aggression, and sex-
role, social assertiveness was a significant predictor of a masculine sex-role orientation.
Certainly masculinity and assertiveness are extremely strongly related, but it is
not intuitive that therefore one must possess all aspects of masculinity to be assertive.
Twelve of the twenty feminine items on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974),
however, are relevant to a lack of assertion in the domains of communication,
responsivity to others, and influenceability. The twenty masculine items include
independent, strong personality, forceful, self-sufficient, willing to take a stand, and even
“assertive.” Assertive behavior is thus a sex-role violation for the feminine person,
especially a feminine woman who is less positively evaluated for assertion than her
feminine male counterpart. For instance, a study by Cowan and Koziej (1979) involved
participants evaluating audiotapes of spousal interactions. Dominant behavior by the
wife was described as much more masculine and less feminine than identical behavior
performed by the husband. The wife’s submissive behavior, however, was not described
as more feminine and less masculine than the husband’s submissive behavior. Further,
the dominant man’s behavior was attributed mostly to situational factors, although the
dominant woman’s behavior was attributed to internal causes such as mood or
personality.
A review of the literature shows, however, that femininity is often unrelated to
assertiveness, instead of negatively correlated as once might expect (i. e. Avsec, 2002;
Nix et al., 1984; Sazan, 1995). The additive androgyny model of sex-role orientation
may explain this finding: femininity is not the opposite of masculinity, but another
domain entirely. Masculinity involves agentic characteristics such as assertive behavior,
while femininity contains more communal aspects of personality.
In a study by Wildman and Clementz (1986), participants viewed male and
female models responding to interactions in an assertive or non-assertive manner. Male
participants rated the assertive models of both genders as masculine or androgynous,
whereas female participants rated assertive models as masculine. Gervasio & Crawford
(1989) suggest, in a meta-analysis of assertiveness research, that the costs of assertive
behavior for women may be largely linguistic, such as verbal attack, inattention, pointed
silence, joking, or off-task remarks.

Explaining the Link between Assertiveness and Sex-Role Orientation
Atiitudes Toward Assertiveness
In addition to others’ evaluations of assertive behavior, one’s own beliefs and
attitudes regarding assertive behavior can play a role in one’s decision to behave in an
assertive fashion. In mixed-sex or gender-relevant contexts, beliefs about gender status
shape men and women’s assertiveness (Ridgeway, 2001). These beliefs can also create
reactions regarding legitimacy that punish assertive women -- especially in leadership
roles -- for violating their expected sex-role orientation. In a study by Frisch and McCord
(1987), masculine, feminine, and androgynous participants displayed similar levels of
assertiveness and conversational skill when their behavior was evaluated by an
experimenter. Masculine participants of both genders, however, rated themselves as
more skillful and had fewer negative thoughts associated being assertive than feminine
participants. Similar results were found with different populations, specifically reporting
that distress in initiating assertiveness and distress of assertiveness was significantly
negatively correlated with femininity in females (Lubinski, Tellgen, & Butcher, 1981,
1983; Arrindell et. al., 1997). In a study explaining the need for assertiveness trraining in
increasing female participation in small mized-sex task discussion, Lewittes and Bem
(1985) report than a lack of assertiveness when in the presence of men, rather than any
lack of task knowledge or conceptual skill, lowers women’s participation in mixed-sex
discussions. This finding could be explained in the same way, that feminine women may
feel that assertive behavior makes them appear unfeminine, especially in a mixed-sex
context.
Feminist Identity
High levels of feminist identity may also explain the relationship between
masculinity and assertiveness. Gender self-identity is defined as the part of an
individual’s self-concept derived from being male or female (Burn, 1996). Other
researchers have referred to this concept as gender collective self-esteem. There is
evidence that many women – especially women high in femininity – are more likely to
derive self-esteem from social acceptance sources and interdependence relationships than
men or women low in femininity (Carpenter & Johnson, 2001; Cross & Madson, 1997;
Josephs, Markus, & Tafarodi, 1992). In a study by Carpenter and Johnson (2001),
women’s gender collective self-esteem was strongly related to the value they placed on
their gender. Self-esteem was greatest when feminist identity was high and the positive
aspects of womanhood were salient. Similarly, high levels of gender self-identity in
women and low gender self-identity in men are positively related to support for feminist
ideals (Burn, Aboud, & Moyles, 2000).
Lesbian women often have higher masculinity scores than heterosexual women.
It had previously been theorized that this was a result of lesbian women naturally being
more androgynous based on their nontraditional sexual preference. However, when
feminist identity scores were controlled statistically, differences in masculinity were
reduced to non-significance (Finlay & Scheltema, 1999). These results suggest that
feminist ideals are related to a more masculine sex-role, although more in-depth analyses
have not yet been produced. Feminist identification is predicted by not having
conservative beliefs, and having a positive evaluation of feminists. Self-identified
feminists were also more likely to believe in collective action and a merit-based society,
as well as less likely to believe that feminists are lesbians (Liss, O’Connor, Morosky, &
Crawford, 2001).
Women may often avoid appearing unfeminine in a mixed-sex context. Earlier,
the inhibition of assertiveness around men was discussed. Additionally, female
participants given an opportunity to eat a snack – often seen as an unfeminine behavior –
while talking to a confederate ate significantly less when paired with a male (Mori,
Chaiken, & Pliner, 1987). Possibly, women who have feminist beliefs will not present
these beliefs at the risk of violating their feminine gender-role. Alexander and Ryan
(1997), for example, noted that several undergraduate women in their study expressed an
unwillingness to use a feminist self-label if men were present.
The Current Study
The present research reexamined the relationship between sex-role orientation and
assertiveness, using a series of questionnaires administered to female undergraduates, to
determine possible mediating variables of this strong relationship. A strong feminist
identity as well as positive beliefs about assertiveness may mediate the relationship
between masculinity and assertiveness. That is, high levels of feminism have been
correlated with assertiveness, and feminine women often think negatively about acting
assertively. Possibly, women who are high in masculinity (masculine or androgynous
women) are more likely to be feminist. Part of the strong relationship between
masculinity and assertiveness, therefore, may be actually measuring the ability of
feminist identity to predict assertive behavior. In this way, women low in masculinity
can also be assertive and thus obtain psychosocial benefits related to assertive behavior.
We hypothesized that (1) a positive relationship would be found between
masculinity and assertive behavior, and (2) no relationship would be found between
femininity and assertive behavior. Further, we hypothesize that (3) when thoughts about
assertiveness and feminist identity were statistically controlled, the relationship between
masculinity and assertive behavior would be reduced.
Method
Participants
Female undergraduate students (N = 79) enrolled in introductory psychology
courses at a Midwestern, private university participated in the study. Ages ranged from
18 to 22, (M = 19.4, SD=1.09). Ninety-two percent of the participants were Caucasian,
4% Hispanic, and 4% African-American. The students completed self-report measures
for partial course credit. Additionally, a roommate or female friend completed one part
of the questionnaire packet rating the participant.
Measures
Sex-role orientation. The 60-item Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) is a
widely used measure that demonstrates good psychometric properties. Twenty of the
items are scored as the subscale "Masculinity," including “self-reliant” ”forceful,” and
”competitive”. Twenty of the items are scored as the subscale "Femininity," including
”affectionate,” ”loyal,” and ”cheerful.” The remaining 20 items are gender-neutral and
are not scored. Answers are scored on a 7-point likert scale from "Very uncharacteristic
of me" to "Very characteristic of me."

Assertive behavior. The Assertion Inventory (Gambrill & Richey, 1975) consists
of a list of forty interpersonal situations requiring some degree of assertiveness.
Examples of these situations include "Turn off a talkative friend," "Resist pressure to use
drugs," and "Apologize when you are at fault." Participants are asked to rate their degree
of discomfort or anxiety with the situation on a 5-point Likert scale from "None" to
"Very much." Participants then indicate, in the same forty situations, their probability or
likelihood of responding as described if actually in the situation. This probablity was
reported on a 5-point Likert scale from "Always do it" to "Never do it." Finally, the
respondent circles the items that s/he would prefer to handle more assertively. This
measure yields three separate scores: Discomfort in Assertiveness, Response Probability,
and Identification of Situations. Both the participant and their study partner completed
this questionnaire.
Feminist identity. Two main questionnaires have operationalized the stages of
feminist identity development proposed by Downing and Roush (1985). Items selected
from both the Feminist Identity Scale (FIS) (Rickard, 1987) and the Feminist Identity
Development Scale (FIDS) (Bargad & Hyde, 1991) by Fischer, Tokar, Mergl, Good,
Hill, and Blum (2000) were used to measure five stages of feminist development. Each
item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”
The first subscale is Passive Acceptance, the belief that traditional gender roles
are advantageous (e.g., "I think that men and women had it better in the 1950s when
married women were housewives and their husbands supported them."). The second
subscale is Revelation, which is characterized by feelings of anger towards men (e.g.,
"Men receive many advantages in this society and because of this are against equality for
women."). Third is the subscale of Embeddedness and Emanation, which is marked by
feelings of connectedness with other women (e.g., "If I were to paint a picture or write a
poem, it would probably be about women or women's issues."). The fourth subscale,
Synthesis, is based on a positive feminist identity and transcendence of gender roles (e.g.,
"I have incorporated what is female and feminine into my own unique personality.").
The final stage of Active Commitment involves broader social change (e.g., "I am very
committed to a cause that I believe contributes to a more fair and just world for all
people.").
Thoughts about assertiveness. The Assertion Self-Statement Test - Revised
(Heimberg, Chiauzzi, Becker, & Madrazo-Peterson, 1994) consists of 13 Negative
Thoughts about Assertiveness items and 11 items measuring Positive Thoughts about
Assertiveness. Respondents decide how frequently they may have been thinking a
similar thought during an assertive situation. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert
scale from "Hardly Ever" to "Very Often". Examples of items include "I was thinking
that I was too nervous to say what I felt," and "I was thinking that I could benefit by
expressing myself."
Procedure
Participants who signed up for the study were sent via e-mail a packet of eight
questionnaires. The participants' packet included a consent form, a demographics sheet,
the Assertion Inventory, the Assertion Self-Statement Test (Revised), the Bem Sex Role
Inventory, and selected items from the Feminist Identity Scale and the Feminist Identity
Development Scale. The participants' study partner filled out a demographics sheet and
the Assertion Inventory as it pertained to the participant, not themselves. When the
participants returned a completed packet, they were sent via e-mail a debriefing and
received credit in their introductory psychology course.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all ten study variables are reported in Table 1. An alpha
level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.
Hypotheses 1 and 2
We first conducted zero-order correlations between all study variables. Several
significant interactions were found, and the correlation coefficients appear in Table 2.
Consistent with our first two hypotheses, masculinity was positively associated
with participants’ reports of assertive behavior (r = .40, p < .05), and no relationship
between femininity and participants’ reports of assertive behavior was observed, (r = .16,
p > .05). Contrary to our hypotheses, no significant relationship was found between
masculinity and roommates’ ratings of participants’ assertiveness. In fact, all
relationships between roommates’ reports of participants’ assertiveness and the other
study variables were non-significant (Table 2).
Hypothesis 3
We hypothesized that feminist identity and cognitions about assertiveness would
mediate the relationship between masculinity and assertiveness. As seen in Table 2,
negative thoughts about assertiveness were unrelated to reports of assertive

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Measures
Variable Mean SD Min. – Max.
Masculine Sex-Role Orientation 94.16 14.81 62 - 128

Feminine Sex-Role Orientation 98.65 14.64 62 - 127
Self-rated Assertiveness 132.97 15.47 97 - 167
Partner-rated Assertiveness 136.12 15.65 101 - 175
Feminist Identity: Passive Acceptance 27.00 5.59 15 - 40
Feminist Identity: Revelation 29.03 5.83 11 - 40

Feminist Identity: Embeddedness 20.10 4.70 10 - 29
Feminist Identity: Synthesis 21.13 4.56 13 - 35
Feminist Identity: Active Commitment 18.85 4.27 11 - 29
Negative Thoughts about Assertiveness 43.88 4.41 31 - 54
Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations Between Sex- Role Orientation, Assertiveness, Feminist

Identity, and Assertive Thoughts
Sex-Role Assertiveness
Masculine Feminine Self-rated Partner-rated
Masculine Sex-Role --
Feminine Sex-Role .119 --
Self-report Assertiveness .40** .16 --
Partner-report Assertiveness .07 -.10 .09 --
Feminist Identity: -.10 -.17 -.14 -.01
Passive Acceptance
Feminist Identity: .20 .28* .32** -.12
Revelation
Feminist Identity: .13 .24* .14 -.16
Embeddedness
Feminist Identity: -.12 -.03 -.00 -.13
Synthesis
Feminist Identity: -.02 .15 .07 -.10
Active Commitment
Negative Thoughts .02 .16 .01 .03
about Assertiveness
Note. * p < .05. **p < .01.

behavior. However, one subscale of feminist identity, revelation, was positively
associated with self-reported assertiveness, r = .32, p < .05. This subscale of feminist
revelation was also positively correlated with a feminine sex-role orientation; an
unexpected finding, r = .28, p < .05. In order to directly test our mediation hypothesis,
we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression with assertive behavior as the criterion,
feminist revelation in the first step, and masculinity in the second step. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 3. Contrary to hypotheses, the relationship between
masculinity and assertiveness was not significantly reduced when the effects of feminist
revelation was statistically controlled, as indicated by a significant R2 change value on the
second step. Interestingly, feminist revelation predicted self-reported assertiveness even
after the effects of masculinity were statistically controlled, R ² = .06, p < .05 (Table 4).
This suggests that feminist revelation adds a significant increment in the prediction of
assertiveness above masculinity.

Table 3
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Self-report

Assertiveness from Feminist Revelation and Masculine Sex-Role
Variable ß t Sig. R²∆ Sig.
Step 1
Feminist Revelation .24 2.3 .02 .10 .01
Step 2
Masculine Sex-Role .35 3.4 .00 .12 .00
Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Self-report

Assertiveness from Masculine Sex-Role and Feminist Revelation
Variable ß t Sig. R²∆ Sig.
Step 1
Masculine Sex-Role .35 3.36 .00 .16 .00
Step 2
Feminist Revelation .24 2.42 .02 .06 .02
Discussion
The current study replicated the well-established relationship between masculine
sex-role and assertive behavior (e.g. Nix, Lohr, & Stauffacher, 1980; Radin, 2000). As in
previous research, feminine sex-role was unrelated to assertive behavior (Avsec, 2002;
Nix, Lohr, & Mosesso, 1984; Sazan, 1995). However, the hypothesized mechanisms for
these findings, feminist identity and beliefs about assertive behavior, were not supported.
The measure of negative assertive beliefs was not associated with femininity,
masculinity, or assertive behavior. This finding contrasts with that of Arrindell et al.
(1997), who report a positive correlation between distress in assertiveness and femininity
in women. Also contrary to this finding is the results of a study by Frisch and McCord
(1987) that found a correlation between negative thoughts about an assertive task and a
feminine sex-role orientation. In the current study, participants’ attitudes toward
assertiveness did not correlate with self-reports or partner-reports of their assertive
behaviors, suggesting that the thoughts or cognitions regarding behavior are unrelated to
behavior itself. One possibility is that the cognitive component of assertiveness may not
be an important determinant of actual assertive behavior. The difference in self-report
assertiveness and behavioral assertiveness has been documented in some of the research
(e. g. Frisch & McCord, 1987), but often this difference is nonsignificant (Nix et al.,
1984). Alternatively, general attitudes regarding assertiveness may not be as relevant as
the specific cognitions stimulated by a real-life assertive situation.
The results only marginally agree with preliminary research identifying a
relationship between feminism and assertiveness (Carpenter & Johnson, 2001). Finlay
and Scheltema (1999) report that the difference in masculinity scores among lesbian and
heterosexual women are reduced to non-significance when feminist identity scores were
controlled. This suggests some type of relationship between feminism and sex-role
orientation. In the current research, only one type of feminism was correlated with self-
reported assertiveness. This subscale of feminist identity, feminist revelation, uniquely
contributed to the prediction of self-reported assertiveness. Feminist revelation is the
second stage of feminist identity, and is characterized by anger towards men and a
realization of gender discrimination (Downing & Roush, 1985). The revelation stage
begins as a questioning of one’s self and role in society. The revelation-stage feminist
often has feelings of guilt that she has perpetuated gender stereotypes in the past. Her
anger and growing trust in her perceptions of the world often lead to polarized thinking;
women are positive, men are negative. However, the revelation feminist rejects
stereotypically feminine actions and attitudes, without embracing positive aspects of
womanhood.
Feminist revelation was also positively correlated with femininity. This suggests
that while highly feminine women may be assertive around men due to their feminist
identity, they (and their study partner) did not consider themselves assertive by nature.
Many of the adjectives on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) defining femininity
relate to a lack of assertion. While feminist revelation was correlated with self-reported
assertiveness, and femininity was correlated with feminist revelation, a relationship
between femininity and assertiveness was not found.
Although self-reports of assertiveness were correlated with feminist revelation,
partner-reports of participants’ assertive behavior were not. This may be because the
partners rating the participants were female as well. Since men’s opinions of women’s
assertive behavior are often more negative than same-sex opinions (Baucom & Danker-
Brown, 1983; Leventhal & Matturo, 1981), only same-sex partners were used in the
current study. Possibly, feminist women in the revelation stage may be most likely to be
assertive in feminist-salient situations, such as situations involving gender discrimination.
Even though research has shown that women are more likely to conform to gender-typed
behavior when among men (Alexander & Ryan, 1997; Mori, Chaiken, & Pliner, 1987),
perhaps revelation-stage feminists, who reject stereotyped concepts of gender roles, will
act more assertively. To examine this possibility, future research might compare
assertive behaviors in same-sex and mixed-sex groups, in addition to self- and partner-
reports of general assertiveness.
Several areas for future research emerge from this study, including observational
methods of assessing assertiveness. In the current study, self-reports of assertiveness
were statistically unrelated to partner-reports of participants’ assertiveness, suggesting the
need for additional, objective observers. Differences in assertiveness may also be
examined as a function of the sex of the person being confronted. Future research might
examine the precise conditions under which a significant amount of women will appear
gender-typed as feminine, and conversely, the conditions needed for women to cross-type
and act assertively.
The main limitations of the current study include sample size and sample
diversity. A small sample size in relation to the number of variables intended for use in
the regression analyses may have limited our power to detect significant findings.
Further, the limited diversity of our sample restricts the ability to generalize our results.
A predominantly young, college-educated, Caucasian sample may not produce results

that are applicable to the general population. For example, college students may be more
likely to endorse certain types of feminist beliefs than other populations.
Our findings suggest that the strong relationship between masculinity and
assertiveness is not absolute. Although our hypothesized mechanisms did not explain the
relationship, feminist revelation uniquely predicted self-report measures of assertiveness.
Thus, women low in masculinity but high in certain types of feminist ideologies, may
also be assertive, and thus reap the social and psychological benefits associated with
assertiveness and assertive behaviors.

References
Adams, C. H., & Sherer, M. (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological
adjustment: implications for the masculinity model. Sex Roles, 12, 1211-1218.
Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1979). Self-esteem as a function of masculinity
in both sexes. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 47, 783-785.
Arrindell, W. A., Vergara, A. I., Torres, B., Caballo, V. E., Sanderman, R., Calvo, M.
G., et al. (1997). Gender roles in relation to assertiveness and Eysenckian
personality dimensions: Replication with a Spanish population sample. Sex
Roles, 36, 79-92.
Aube, J., Norcliffe, H., Craig, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender characteristics and
adjustment-related outcomes: Questioning the masculinity model. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 284-295.
Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary
American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex
Roles, 43, 499-528.
Avsec, A. (2002). Stereotypes about sex related personality traits. Horizons of
Psychology, 11, 23-35.
Bassoff, E. S., & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental
health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies. Counseling Psychologist, 10,
105-112.
Baucom, D. H., & Danker-Brown, P. (1983). Peer ratings of males and females
possessing different sex-role identities. Journal of Personality Assessment,
47, 494-506.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bernard, L. C. (1980). Multivariate analysis of new sex role formulations and
personality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 323-336.
Berzins, J. I., Welling, M. A., & Wetter, R. E. (1978). A new measure of
psychological androgyny based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 46, 126-138.
Blehar, M. C., & Oren, D. A. (1995). Women's increased vulnerability to mood
disorders: Integrating psychobiology and epidemiology. Depression, 3, 3-12.
Bromberger, J. T., & Matthews, K. A. (1996). A "feminine" model of vulnerability
to depressive symptoms: A longitudinal investigation of middle-aged women.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 591-598
Bryant, N. C. (1998). The relationship between the structural dimensions of self-
efficacy scales and sex role orientation. Unpublished dissertation. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 58B, 4505.
Burn, S. M. (1996). The social psychology of gender. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender
social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42, 1081-1089.
Campbell, M., Steffen, J. J., & Langmeyer, D. (1981). Psychological androgyny and
social competence. Psychological Reports, 48, 611-614.
Carpenter, S., & Johnson, L. E. (2001). Women derive collective self-esteem from
their feminist identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 254-257.
Conway, M. (2000). On sex roles and representations of emotional experience:

Masculinity, femininity and emotional awareness. Sex Roles, 43, 687-698.
Cook, E. P. (1985). Androgyny: A goal for counseling? Journal of Counseling &
Development, 63, 567-571.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Cowan, G., & Koziej, J. (1979). The perception of sex-inconsistent behavior. Sex
Roles, 5, 1-10.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Delamater, R. J., & McNamara, J. R. (1991). Perceptions of assertiveness by women
involved in a conflict situation. Behavior Modification 15, 173-193.
Delamater, R. J., & McNamara, J. R. (1985). Perceptions of assertiveness by high-
and low-assertive female college students. Journal of Psychology, 119, 581-
586.
Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1978). Learned helplessness in the perspective of
the depressive disorders: Conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 87, 3-20.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and subjective
well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in
Personality, 26, 205-215.
Dua, J. K. (1993). The role of negative affect and positive affect in stress,
depression, self-esteem, assertiveness, type A behaviors, psychological health,

and physical health. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
119, 515-552.
Eskin, M. (2003). Self-reported assertiveness in Swedish and Turkish adolescents: A
cross-cultural comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 7-12.
Feather, N. T. (1985). Masculinity, femininity, self-esteem, and subclinical
depression. Sex Roles, 12, 491-500.
Finlay, B., & Scheltema, K. E. (1999). Masculinity scores as an artifact of feminist
attitude: Evidence from a study of lesbians and college women. Journal of
Homosexuality, 37, 139-147.
Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Mergl, M. M., Good, G. E., Hill, M. S., & Blum, S. A.
(2000). Assessing women's feminist identity development: Studies of
convergent, discriminant, and structural validity. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24, 15-29.
Fowler, M. G., Fowler, R. L., & Van de Riet, H. (1973). Feminism and political
radicalism. Journal of Psychology, 83, 237-242.
Francis, L. J., & Wilcox, C. (1998). The relationship between Eysenck's personality
dimensions and Bem's masculinity and femininity scales revisited. Personality &
Individual Differences, 25, 683-687.
Francis, L. J., & Wilcox, C. (1999). Personality and sex role orientation among 17-
19 year old females in England. Irish Journal of Psychology, 20, 172-178.
Frisch, M. B., & McCord, M. (1987). Sex role orientation and social skill: A
naturalistic assessment of assertion and conversational skill. Sex Roles, 17,
437-448.
Gambrill, E. D., & Richey, C. A. (1975). An assertion inventory for use in
assessment and research. Behavior Therapy, 6, 550-561.
Gervasio, A. H., & Crawford, M. (1989). Social evaluations of assertiveness: A
critique and speech act reformulation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 1-
25.
Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Palmer, J. M. (1992). The influence of applicant
communication style and interviewer characteristics on hiring decisions.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1041-1060.
Haimo, S., & Blitman, F. (1985) The effects of assertive training on sex role concept
in female agoraphobics. Women & Therapy, 4, 53-61.
Hall, J. A., & Taylor, M. C. (1985). Psychological androgyny and the Masculinity *
Femininity interaction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 429-
435.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and femininity.
Sex Roles, 31, 653-682.
Herringer, L. G. (1998). Facets of extraversion related to life satisfaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 731-733.
Hirschy, A. J., & Morris, J. R. (2002). Individual differences in attributional style:
the relational influence of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and sex-role identity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 183-196.
Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role
Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929-941.
Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E., & Hansson, R. O. (1978). The enigma of

androgyny: Differential implications for males and females? Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 46, 298-313.
Jordan-Viola, E., Fassberg, S., & Viola, M. T. (1976). Feminism, androgyny, and
anxiety. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 44, 867.
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 391-402.
Kaplan, A. G. (1980). Clarifying the concept of androgyny: Implications for therapy.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 223-230.
Kelly, J. A., & Worell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent behaviors, and
sex of subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in Personality, 12,
179-188.
Kelly, J. A., & Worell, L. (1977). New formulations of sex roles and androgyny: A
critical review. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 45, 1101-1115.
Kimlicka, T. A., Sheppard, J. M., Wakefield, J. A., & Sheppard, P. L. (1988). The
relationship between Eysenck's personality dimensions and Bem's masculinity
and femininity scales. Personality & Individual Differences, 9, 833-835.
Kimlicka, T. A., Sheppard, J. M., Wakefield, J. A., & Cross, H. J. (1987).
Relationship between psychological androgyny and self-actualization
tendencies. Psychological Reports, 61, 443-446.
Klingenspor, B. (2002). Gender-related self-discrepancies and bulimic eating
behavior. Sex Roles, 47, 51-64.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1992). Sex roles, occupational roles, and symptom-
reporting: A test of competing hypotheses on sex differences. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 15, 355-364.
Landrine, H. (1988). Depression and stereotypes of women: Preliminary empirical
analyses of the gender-role hypothesis. Sex Roles, 19, 527-541
Landrine, H., Bardwell, S., & Dean, T. (1988). Gender expectations for alcohol use:
A study of the significance of the masculine role. Sex Roles, 19, 703-712.
Lengua, L. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, gender roles and personality:
Gender differences in the prediction of coping and psychological symptoms.
Sex Roles, 43, 787-820.
Leventhal, G., & Matturo, M. (1981). Males' attitudes towards women: What they
say and what they do. Psychological Reports, 48, 333-334.
Lewittes, H. J., & Bem, S. L. (1983). Training women to be more assertive in mixed-
sex task-oriented discussions. Sex Roles, 9, 581-596.
Lippa, R., & Connelly, S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to
gender-related individual differences. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 59, 1051-1065.
Lippa, R. A. (2001). On deconstructing and reconstructing masculinity-femininity.
Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 168-207
Liss, M., O'Connor, C., Morosky, E., & Crawford, M. (2001). What makes a
feminist? Predictors and correlates of feminist social identity in college
women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 124-133.
Lohr, J. M., & Nix, J. (1982). Relationship of assertiveness and the short form of
the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A replication. Psychological Reports, 50, 114.
Long, V. O. (1986). Relationship of masculinity to self-esteem and self-acceptance

in female professionals, college students, clients, and victims of domestic
violence. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 54, 323-327.
Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Personality and happiness: Is mental health a mediator?
Personality & Individual Differences, 22, 249-256.
Lubinski, D., Tellgen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The relationship between
androgyny and subjective indicators of emotional well-being. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 40, 722-730.
Lubinski, D., Tellgen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity, and
androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 44, 428-439.
Markstrom-Adams, C. (1989). Androgyny and its relation to adolescent psychosocial
well-being: A review of the literature. Sex Roles, 21, 325-340.
Marusic, I., & Bratko, D. (1998). Relations of masculinity and femininity with
personality dimensions of the five-factor model. Sex Roles, 38, 29-44.
Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. M. (1991). Differentiated additive androgyny model:
Relations between masculinity, femininity, and multiple dimensions of self-
concept. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 811-828.
McNamara, J. R., & Delamater, R. J. (1984). The Assertion Inventory: Its
relationship to social desirability and sensitivity to rejection. Psychological
Reports, 55, 719-724.
Nezu, A. M., & Nezu, C. M. (1987). Psychological distress, problem solving, and
coping reactions: Sex role differences. Sex Roles, 16, 205-214.
Nix, J., Lohr, J. M., & Mosesso, L. (1984). The relationship of sex-role
characteristics to self-report and role-play measures of assertiveness in
women. Behavioral Assessment, 6, 89-93
Nix, J., Lohr, J. M., & Stauffacher, R. (1980). Relationship of sex, sex-role
orientation and a self-report measure of assertiveness in college students.
Psychological Reports, 47, 1239-1244.
Nolan-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 10, 173-176.
Poyrazli, S. (2001). The role of assertiveness, academic experiences, and academic
self-efficacy on psychosocial adjustment of graduate international students.
Unpublished dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61A, 2608.
Radin, L. B. (2000). Outspokenness and future expectancies in adolescents: The
relationship of gender and role orientation. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 60B, 6379.
Radloff, L. S., & Rae, D. S. (1979). Susceptibility and precipitating factors in
depression: Sex differences and similarities. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 88, 174-181.
Radloff, L. S. ,& Rae, D. S. (1981). Components of the sex difference in depression.
Research in Community & Mental Health, 2, 111-137.
Ramanaiah, N. V., & Detwiler, F. R. (1992). Psychological androgyny and the NEO
Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 71, 1216-1218.
Renk, K., & Creasey, G. (2003). The relationship of gender, gender identity, and
coping strategies in late adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 159-168.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
637-655.
Robins, C. J. (1986). Sex role perceptions and social anxiety in opposite-sex and
same-sex situations. Sex Roles, 14, 383-395.
Rodriguez, R., Nietzel, M. T., & Berzins, J. I. (1980). Sex role-orientation and
assertiveness among female college students. Behavior Therapy, 11, 353-366.
Rosell, M. C., & Hartman, S. L. (2001). Self-presentation of beliefs about gender
discrimination and feminism. Sex Roles, 44, 647-659.
Roth, L. J. (1996). Sex role attitudes among female alcoholics: Changes due to an
assertiveness group intervention. Unpublished dissertation. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 57B, 2164.
Sanfilipo, M. P. (1994). Masculinity, femininity, and subjective experiences of
depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 144-157.
Sazan, G. (1995). Iranian Jewish immigrant women living in the United States: The
interrelation of acculturation, gender role, assertiveness, and psychological
symptoms. Unpublished dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International,
55B, 5086.
Smith, C. J., Noll, J. A., & Bryant, J. B. (1999). The effect of social context on
gender self-concept. Sex Roles, 40, 499-512.
Smith, C. A. (1999). I enjoy being a girl: Collective self-esteem, feminism, and
attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 40, 281-293.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex-
role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity
and femininity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 32, 29-39.

Spence, J. T. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of
masculinity and femininity. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 59-95.
Stoppard, J. M., & Paisley, K. J. (1987). Masculinity, femininity, life stress, and
depression. Sex Roles, 16, 489-496.
St. Lawrence, J. S., Hansen, D. J., Cutts, T. F., Tisdelle, D. A., & Irish, J. D. (1985).
Sex-role orientation: A superordinate variable in social evaluations of
assertive and unassertive behavior. Behavior Modification, 9, 387-396.
Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods,
and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347-366.
Wallace, D. L. (1997). Masculinity ideology, masculine gender role stress, and
relationship aggression in college men. Unpublished dissertation.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 57B, 5983.
Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic
review. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 765-778.
Whitley, B. E. (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-
analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207-225.
Whitley, B. E. (1988). Masculinity, femininity, and self-esteem: A multitrait-
multimethod analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 419-431.
Whitley, B. E. (1988). The relation of gender-role orientation to sexual experience
among college students. Sex Roles, 19, 619-638.
Whitley, B. E., & Gridley, B. (1993). Sex role orientation, self-esteem, and
depression: A latent variables analysis. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 363-369

Wilcox, C., & Francis, L. J. (1997). Beyond gender stereotyping: Examining the
validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory among 16- to 19-year old females in
England. Personality & Individual Differences, 23, 9-13.
Wildman, B. G., & Clementz, B. (1986). Assertive, empathic assertive, and
conversational behavior: Perceptions of likeability, effectiveness, and sex role.
Behavior Modification, 10, 315-331.
Woolfolk, R. L., & Dever, S. (1979). Perceptions of assertion: An empirical analysis.
Behavior Therapy, 10, 404-411.
Worell, J. (1978). Sex roles and psychological well-being: perspectives on
methodology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 777-791.
Zeldow, P. B., Daugherty, S. R., & Clark, D. C. (1985). Personality indicators of
psychosocial adjustment in first-year medical students. Social Science &
Medicine, 20, 95-100.
Zeldow, P. B., Daugherty, S. R., & Clark, D. C. (1987). Masculinity, femininity, and
psychosocial adjustment in medical students: A 2-year follow-up. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 51, 3-14.
Zeldow, P. B., Daugherty, S. R. (1989). Masculinity, femininity, and multiple
regression: A reply to Holmbeck. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 600-
606.
Tables
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study measures. ...............................................19
Table 2. Zero-order correlations between sex-role orientation,
assertiveness, feminist identity, and assertive thoughts.............................20
Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting self-report
assertiveness from feminist revelation and masculine sex-role.................22
Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting self-report
assertiveness from masculine sex-role and feminist revelation.................22

Appendices
Appendix A. Informed Consent............................................................................41
Appendix B. Demographics Sheet........................................................................42
Appendix C. Demographics Sheet for Study Partner ...........................................43
Appendix D. Assertion Self Statement Test Revised ...........................................44
Appendix E. Assertion Inventory .........................................................................47
Appendix F. Assertion Inventory for Study Partner .............................................49
Appendix G. Bem Sex-Role Inventory.................................................................51
Appendix H. Feminist Identity / Development Hybrid Scale...............................52

Appendix A
Informed Consent To Participate In A Research Project
Project Title: Personality Traits and Feminist Beliefs
Principle Investigators: Dr. Catherine Lutz and Karolyn Budzek
Description of Study: I am being asked to participate in a research project in which I will fill out
questionnaires asking about my personality and beliefs. In addition, my roommate or friend will also fill out
questionnaires asking about my personality. I will receive one credit once both sets of completed
questionnaires are returned to the Psychology Department office in St. Joseph’s 329.
Adverse Effects and Risks: No adverse risks or effects are anticipated.
Duration of Study: This study will last approximately one hour.
Confidentiality of Data: I understand that my name and e-mail address will be retained for the purpose of
contacting me for the debriefing. My responses will be assigned a number; therefore my response will not be
identifiable by my name. A sheet with my name, email address, and code will be stored in a locked file
cabinet separate from my actual responses. This sheet will be destroyed upon my completion of this study.
Contact Person: If I have any questions concerning my participation in this study now or in the future, Dr.
Lutz can be contacted at (937) 229-2164, by e-mail at Catherine.Lutz@notes.udayton.edu, or in St. Joseph's
308. The chair of the Research Review and Ethics Committee, Dr. Charles Kimble, can be reached at (937)
229-2167 or in St. Joseph's 319.
Consent to Participate: I have voluntarily decided to participate in this study. The investigator named
above has adequately answered any and all questions I have about this study, the procedures involved, and
my participation. I understand that the investigator named above will be available to answer any questions
about research procedures throughout this study. I also understand that I may voluntarily terminate my
participation in this study at any time and still receive full credit. I also understand that the investigator
named above may terminate my participation in this study if s/he feels this to be in my best interest. In
addition, I certify that I am 18 (eighteen) years of age or older.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Student Student's Name (printed) Date
_______________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Witness
Research Credit Information:
PSY 101 Section__________________ Instructor ______________________________Credits____

Student ID# or Social Security Number_________________________________________________
Credit for term ____________________________________________________________________
Researcher: Return this form to the Psychology Experiments Box in SJ 329

Appendix B
Demographic Information
1. What is your age?
______________
2. What is your year in school?

______________________
3. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? Choose one.
____ Black or African American
____ Hispanic
____ White or Caucasian
____ Asian or Pacific Islander
____ Arab
____ Native American
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your name:
Your e-mail address:

Appendix C
Demographics for Study Partner

1. Please indicate the length of your relationship with the person for whom you are
completing this study.
________ years ________ months
2. What is your relationship with the subject?

_____ Roommate _____ Friend _____ Other relationship: ___________
3. What is your age?

______________
4. What is your year in school?

______________________
5. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? Choose one.
____ Black or African American
____ Hispanic
____ White or Caucasian
____ Asian or Pacific Islander
____ Arab
____ Native American
Appendix D
ASST-R
People think a variety of things when they are responding in different situations. These
thoughts, along with feelings, determine what kind of responses a person will make.
Below is a list of things you may have thought to yourself at some time while responding
in assertive situations. Read each item and decide how frequently you may have been
thinking a similar thought during the assertive situations.
Circle a number from 1 to 5 for each item. The scale is interpreted as follows:
1 = Hardly ever had the thought
2 = Rarely had the thought
3 = Sometimes had the thought
4 = Often had the thought
5 = Very often had the thought
1. I was thinking that I was too nervous to say what I felt.

Hardly ever 1 2 3 4 5 Very Often
2. I was thinking that the other person would suspect an ulterior motive if I said
anything.
3. I was thinking that the other person should respect an honest expression of
feelings.
4. I was thinking that many people fail to get involved to stand up for themselves in
similar situations, so there is nothing wrong with my keeping quiet.
5. I was thinking that I could benefit by expressing myself.

6. I was thinking that I should act in accord with what I think is right.
7. I was thinking that if I could avoid this situation, I could somehow relieve my
discomfort.
8. I was thinking that it would be selfish of me to let my own feelings be known.

9. I was thinking that I could express myself in a calm, relaxed way.

10. I was thinking that I would appear incompetent or inadequate if I tried to take a
stand.
11. I was thinking that something bad would happen to me if I tried to express myself.
12. I was thinking that the other person wouldn't like me if I offered my opinion.
13. I was thinking that my opinions and decisions should be respected if they are
reasonable.
14. I was thinking that since letting my feelings be known was an effective course of
action in the past, I should do likewise now.
15. I was thinking that I would only be hurting myself by not expressing myself.
16. I was thinking that future interactions with the other person might be damaged if
I didn't say what I felt now.
17. I was thinking that since similar past experience resulted in failure or
ineffectiveness, I shouldn't bother to say anything now.
18. I was thinking that I would probably feel guilty later if I refused to do the person
a favor.
19. I was thinking that there didn't seem to be a good reason why I shouldn't speak
my mind.
20. I was thinking that I would become embarrassed if I let my feelings be known.
21. I was thinking that if I didn't state my opinion now, it might cause problems later
on.
22. I was thinking that my views are important.

23. I was thinking that if I didn't speak up, it will interfere with my plans.
24. I was thinking that a friendly person would not impose his or her views in this
situation.
Appendix E
AI
Step 1: Many people experience difficulty in handling interpersonal situations requiring
them to assert themselves in some way, for example, turning down a request or asking a
favor. Please indicate your degree of discomfort or anxiety in the space provided to the
left of each situation listed below.
1 - None or almost none

2 - A little
3 - A fair amount
4 - Much
5 - Very much
Step 2: Once you have completed this, go over the list a second time and indicate to the
right of each item the probability or likelihood of responding as described if actually
presented with the situation.* For example, if you rarely apologize when you are at fault,
you would mark "4" to the right of that item. Use the following scale to indicate response
probability:
1 - Always do it
2 - Usually do it
3 - Do it about half the time
4 - Rarely do it
5 - Never do it
Step 3: Please indicate the situations you would like to handle more assertively by
placing a circle around the item number.
*NOTE: It is important to assess your discomfort rating apart from your response probability.
Otherwise, one may influence the other. To prevent this, place a piece of paper over your
discomfort ratings while responding to the situation a second time for response probability.
Degree of Situation Response

Discomfort Probability
1. Turn down a request to borrow your car
2. Compliment a friend
3. Ask a favor of someone
4. Resist sales pressure
5. Apologize when you are at fault
6. Turn down a request for a meeting or date
7. Admit fear and request consideration
8. Tell a person with whom you are intimately involved when s/he
says or does something that bothers you
9. Ask for a raise
10. Admit ignorance in some area
11. Turn down a request to borrow money

12. Ask personal questions
13. Turn off a talkative friend
14. Ask for constructive criticism
15. Initiate a conversation with a stranger
16. Compliment a person you are romantically involved with or
interested in
17. Request a meeting or a date with a person
18. Your initial request for a meeting is turned down and you ask
the person again at a later time
19. Admit confusion about a point under discussion and ask for
clarification
20. Apply for a job
21. Ask whether you have offended someone
22. Tell someone that you like him or her
23. Request expected service when such is not forthcoming, for
example, in a restaurant
24. Discuss openly with a person his or her criticism of your
behavior
25. Return defective items in a store or restaurant
26. Express an opinion that differs from that of the person with
whom you are talking
27. Resist sexual overtures when you are not interested
28. Tell a person when you feel that s/he has done something that
is unfair to you
29. Accept a date
30. Tell someone good news about yourself
31. Resist pressure to drink
32. Resist a significant person's unfair demand
33. Quit a job
34. Resist pressure to use drugs
35. Discuss openly with a person his or her criticism of your work
36. Request the return of a borrowed item
37 Receive compliments
38. Continue to converse with someone who disagrees with you
39. Tell a friend or co-worker when s/he says or does something
that bothers you
40. Ask a person who is annoying you in a public situation to stop
Appendix F
AI – for Study Partner

Step 1: Many people experience difficulty in handling interpersonal situations requiring
them to assert themselves in some way, for example, turning down a request or asking a
favor. Please indicate your perception of your study partner’s degree of discomfort or
anxiety in the space provided to the left of each situation listed below.
1 - None or almost none

2 - A little
3 - A fair amount
4 - Much
5 - Very much
Step 2: Once you have completed this, go over the list a second time and indicate to the
right of each item your perception of the probability or likelihood of your study
partner responding as described if actually presented with the situation.* For example,
if she rarely apologizes when she is at fault, you would mark "4" to the right of that item.
Use the following scale to indicate response probability:
1 - Always do it
2 - Usually do it
3 - Do it about half the time
4 - Rarely do it
5 - Never do it
Step 3: Please indicate the situations you think your study partner should handle more
assertively by placing a circle around the item number.
*NOTE: It is important to assess the discomfort rating apart from the response probability.
Otherwise, one may influence the other. To prevent this, place a piece of paper over your
discomfort ratings while responding to the situation a second time for response probability.

1. Turn down a request to borrow your car
2. Compliment a friend
3. Ask a favor of someone
4. Resist sales pressure
5. Apologize when you are at fault
6. Turn down a request for a meeting or date
7. Admit fear and request consideration
8. Tell a person with whom you are intimately involved when s/he
says or does something that bothers you
9. Ask for a raise

10. Admit ignorance in some area
11. Turn down a request to borrow money
12. Ask personal questions
13. Turn off a talkative friend
14. Ask for constructive criticism
15. Initiate a conversation with a stranger
16. Compliment a person you are romantically involved with or
interested in
17. Request a meeting or a date with a person
18. Your initial request for a meeting is turned down and you ask
the person again at a later time
19. Admit confusion about a point under discussion and ask for
clarification
20. Apply for a job
21. Ask whether you have offended someone
22. Tell someone that you like him or her
23. Request expected service when such is not forthcoming, for
example, in a restaurant
24. Discuss openly with a person his or her criticism of your
behavior
25. Return defective items in a store or restaurant
26. Express an opinion that differs from that of the person with
whom you are talking
27. Resist sexual overtures when you are not interested
28. Tell a person when you feel that s/he has done something that
is unfair to you
29. Accept a date
30. Tell someone good news about yourself
31. Resist pressure to drink
32. Resist a significant person's unfair demand
33. Quit a job
34. Resist pressure to use drugs
35. Discuss openly with a person his or her criticism of your work
36. Request the return of a borrowed item
37 Receive compliments
38. Continue to converse with someone who disagrees with you
39. Tell a friend or co-worker when s/he says or does something
that bothers you
40. Ask a person who is annoying you in a public situation to stop
Appendix G
BSRI
Indicate how well each of these 60 personality characteristics describes you on the line to the left
of the word. Use the following rating scale:
1 – Very uncharacteristic of me, extremely non-descriptive

2 – Rather uncharacteristic of me, quite non-descriptive
3 – Somewhat uncharacteristic of me, slightly non-descriptive
4 – Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of me, neutral
5 – Somewhat characteristic of me, slightly descriptive
6 – Rather characteristic of me, quite descriptive
7 – Very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive
______ 1. Self-reliant ______ 31. Makes decisions easily

______ 2. Yielding ______ 32. Compassionate
______ 3. Helpful ______ 33. Sincere
______ 4. Defends own beliefs ______ 34. Self-sufficient
______ 5. Cheerful ______ 35. Eager to soothe hurt feelings
______ 6. Moody ______ 36. Conceited
______ 7. Independent ______ 37. Dominant
______ 8. Shy ______ 38. Soft-spoken
______ 9. Conscientious ______ 39. Likeable
______ 10. Athletic ______ 40. Masculine
______ 11. Affectionate ______ 41. Warm
______ 12. Theatrical ______ 42. Solemn
______ 13. Assertive ______ 43. Willing to take a stand
______ 14. Flatterable ______ 44. Tender
______ 15. Happy ______ 45. Friendly
______ 16. Strong personality ______ 46. Aggressive
______ 17. Loyal ______ 47. Gullible
______ 18. Unpredictable ______ 48. Inefficient
______ 19. Forceful ______ 49. Acts as a leader
______ 20. Feminine ______ 50. Childlike
______ 21. Reliable ______ 51. Adaptable
______ 22. Analytical ______ 52. Individualistic
______ 23. Sympathetic ______ 53. Does not use harsh
______ 24. Jealous language
______ 25. Has leadership abilities ______ 54. Unsystematic
______ 26. Sensitive to the needs of ______ 55. Competitive
others ______ 56. Loves children
______ 27. Truthful ______ 57. Tactful
______ 28. Willing to take risks ______ 58. Ambitious
______ 29. Understanding ______ 59. Gentle
______ 30. Secretive ______ 60. Conventional
Feminist Identity 52
Appendix H
FIDS
Please indicate your own personal feelings about each statement below by marking
the number that best describes your attitude or feeling.
1 – Strongly Agree
2 – Moderately Agree
3 – Neutral
4 – Moderately Disagree
5 – Strongly Disagree
1. I am very committed to a cause that I believe contributes to a more fair and just
world for all people.
Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
2. I want to work to improve women’s status.

3. I am willing to make certain sacrifices to effect change in this society in order

to create a nonsexist, peaceful place where all people have equal opportunities.
4. It is very satisfying to me to be able to use my talents and skills in my work in

the women’s movement.
5. I care very deeply about men and women having equal opportunities in all
respects.
6. I choose my “causes” carefully to work for greater equality of all people.

7. I feel that I am a very powerful and effective spokesperson for the women’s
issues I am concerned with right now.
8. On some level, my motivation for almost every activity I engage in is my

desire for an egalitarian world.
9. I owe it not only to women but to all people to work for greater opportunity
and equality for all.
10. I feel like I have blended my female attributes with my unique personal
qualities.
11. I am very interested in women musicians.

12. I am proud to be a competent woman.

13. I have incorporated what is female and feminine into my own unique
personality.
14. I enjoy the pride and self-assurance that comes from being a strong female.
15. As I have grown in my beliefs I have realized that it is more important to value
women as individuals than as members of a larger group of women.
16. If I were to paint a picture or write a poem, it would probably be about women
or women’s issues.
17. Gradually, I am beginning to see just how sexist society really is.
18. I feel angry when I think about the way I am treated by men and boys.
19. Men receive many advantages in society and because of this are against
equality for women.
20. I never realized until recently that I have experienced oppression and
discrimination as a woman in society.
21. I feel like I’ve been duped into believing society’s perceptions of me as a
woman.
22. My female friends are like me in that we all are angry at men and the ways we
have been treated as women.
23. In my interactions with men, I am always looking for ways I may be

discriminated against because I am female.
24. Regretfully, I can see ways in which I have perpetuated sexist attitudes in the
past.
25. I am very interested in women writers.

26. I am very interested in women artists.

27. I am very interested in women’s studies.

28. I don’t see much point in questioning the general expectation that men should
be masculine and women should be feminine.
29. One thing I especially like about being a woman is that men will offer me their
seat on a crowded bus or open doors for me because I am a woman.
30. I like being a traditional female.

31. I think that men and women had it better in the 1950s when married women
were housewives and their husbands supported them.
32. If I were married to a man and my husband was offered a job in another state,
it would be my obligation to move in support of his career.
33. I think that most women will feel most fulfilled by being a wife and mother.
34. I think it’s lucky that women aren’t expected to do some of the more dangerous
jobs that men are expected to do, like construction work or race car driving.
35. I do not want to have equal status with men.

36. I evaluate men as individuals, not as members of a group of oppressors.

37. I just feel like I need to be around women who share my point of view right
now.
38. I feel that some men are sensitive to women’s issues.

39. I share most of my social time with a few close women friends who share my
feminist values.

Feminism, Femininity, Assertiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feminism, Femininity, Assertiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feminist Identity and Attitudes 1

Running head: FEMINIST IDENTITY AND ATTITUDES

between Sex-Role Orientation and Assertive Behavior

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Berry Undergraduate Honors Program

Sex-Role Identity and Mental Health ......................................................................5

Explaining the Link between Assertiveness and Sex-Role Orientation ................12

Attitudes Toward Assertiveness ....................................................................12

Feminist Identity ............................................................................................13

The Current Study..................................................................................................14

List of Tables .........................................................................................................33

List of Appendices .................................................................................................34

between Sex-Role Orientation and Assertive Behavior

Assertiveness is considered to be a socially desirable trait. Associated with males

and masculinity, assertiveness is often included in sex-role measures as an element of

1975). In contrast, stereotypical femininity is defined in part by an unassertive

interpersonal style. As is expected, a strong correlation is found in many studies between

that whereas masculinity predicted scores on self-report measures of assertiveness,

femininity and one’s actual gender did not.

1985). Masculine supremacy in predicting positive outcomes is attributed to the greater

favored masculine over androgynous or feminine gender-role orientations (Adams &

et al., 1980; Robins, 1986).

Femininity is regarded - at best - as irrelevant to mental health, and in many cases

as a predictor of mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, drug impairment,

1993). Several sources, however, have provided evidence of significant associations

between femininity and positive aspects of mental health including interpersonal

& Clark, 1985, 1987, 1989).

Feminist identity can also contribute to assertiveness, as feminist women are

membership in a group), a factor adding to the probability of positive mental health

is one's feelings and perceptions regarding assertive behavior. Ease of assertive

performance is associated with masculinity, while distress in assertion and negative

1979; Gervasio & Crawford, 1989).

report questionnaires. Specifically, I hypothesize that a positive relationship exists

between masculinity and assertive behavior, and no relationship exists between

masculinity and assertiveness will be reduced.

Sex-Role Identity and Mental Health

Identifying the causes and predictors of psychological disorders is vital to

effective diagnoses and treatment. Similarly, known correlations between a personality

unfortunately, is not always clear.

subjects described the personality of DSM-III descriptions, depressive disorders were

depression. Femininity positively correlates with depression (Sanfilipo, 1994; Stoppard

Feather (1985), a significant negative correlation between masculinity and depression

was reduced to non-significance when controlled for level of self-esteem, suggesting

depressive symptoms to be caused by women's vulnerability due to their feminine gender

correlated predictors of depression, and self-esteem is the mediator of the masculinity-

depression relationship. It is possible, therefore, that intrapsychic and interpersonal skills

and treating depression.

A survey of studies relating psychological well-being and gender role identity

shows most consistently that masculinity is negatively correlated with interpersonal

The perceived superiority of masculine traits is often attributed to their greater

Worell, 1978). Independence, self-sufficiency, and athleticism hold special worth in an

individualistic culture, and a person possessing these characteristics is often reinforced

would expect to find evidence of reduced self-esteem or possibly psychological

maladjustment (Feather, 1985). It may not be the lack of masculine personality

Hall, 1982; Whitley, 1988).

This masculinity model of mental health is challenged by androgyny in its

femininity has been correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to

both high in masculinity as well as femininity produces androgyny. The androgynous

skills (e.g. Campbell et al., 1981; Renk & Creasey, 2003).

androgynous individuals are not at an advantage compared to masculine individuals

significantly influential factor in positive mental health.

broad range of other constructs. Extraversion, of which assertiveness is an element, has

been linked to well-being in a number of different studies, across demographic and

of self-reported assertive behavior were associated with roommates’ perceptions of