Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To European Journal of Psychology of Education
Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To European Journal of Psychology of Education
with the Adaptation Level of These Students and the Attitudes of the Teachers Towards Them
Author(s): Christiane Pich and Chantal Plante
Source: European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 6, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1991), pp. 423435
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422264
Accessed: 07-05-2015 11:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422264?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Journal of Psychology of Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Christiane Pich
Chantai Plante
Universit
Canada
Laval,
The
that in school
in the
suggests
setting, particularly
the boy well-adapted
and being the object
of a positive
or feminine
from the teacher, is the one displaying
expressive
behaviors.
To verify
the existence
three
of this relationship,
primary
attitude
literature
grades,
type
instruments
were
between
aged
administered
six
and
seven
to 38
teachers
The
years-old.
are evaluated
who
results
evaluated
181
boys
indicate
that
boys
than
as being masculine
as being more
as feminine,
whereas
as
boys perceived
boys perceived
obtain
scales.
higher scores on the anxiety and prosocial
as androgynous
and feminine
and evaluated
as prosocial
perceived
and
the
student
role,
at
least
such
as
aggressive
being feminine
Boys classified
are the object
whereas
the opposite
results
to
support,
the masculine
sex
school
by certain
defined
settings.
An
related
Achenbach
1978;
number
important
of problems
26.6%
studies
have
1979;
of boys
demonstrated
that
adjustment
& Edelbrock,
In school,
1984).
of
to school
& Whitmore,
Rutter, Tizard,
to 15%
compared
the
prevalence,
than
higher
1970;
Tremblay
among
boys,
for behavior
problems
(Kelly, Bullock, & Dykes, 1977). Rubin and Ballow's longitudinal study (1978) indicates that
the
of boys
proportion
primary
year
whereas
sixth
grades.
This
fifth and
seems
to be closely
established
between
interactions
with
frequently
rejected
and
identified
school
are perceived
linked
them
the
higher
(Gilly,
the
percentage
teachers
1980).
(Brophy
&
Good,
negatively
behavioral
having
to the teacher's
(Brophy
more
as
for girls,
decreases
of school
Evertson,
1974;
Good
(Clift
in first grade
to
observed
among
maladjustment
reported
&
by them
is around
6.4%
of the student
perception
It is often
difficulties
from
1981;
&
&
that
1972;
1979;
more
1983),
Willis
Gilly,
or every
13%
in
boys
experience
Kedar-Voivodas,
Brophy,
Sexton,
and
boys
35%
negative
are
more
&
Brophy,
1974)
1980;
Hartley,
1978;
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
424
C. PICHE
Stevenson,
Parker,
evaluation
of teachers,
less
less
obedient,
classroom
Wilkinson,
account
less
hard-working,
and
situation
& Fish,
Hegion,
into
taking
less
& C.
1976).
when
Effectively,
cooperative
&
(Clift
we consider
success
as being
adapted
to the
(Stevenson
et al.,
less
1979),
academic
the overall
are perceived
boys
Sexton,
girls to experience
than
likely
PLANTE
1976).
to certain
According
these
1977)
role
and
facts
the pupil's
to a certain
displayed
researchers
the
suggest
role
as
and
Within
this
1983).
the school
itself as perceived
&
Smithells,
& Hughes,
(Etaugh
Kent
&
Tonick,
Broverman,
&
Best,
To these
associating
structure
been
on,
society
settled
(Gilbert,
1981;
feminine
with
considered
environment,
domains,
certain
brings
the ease
by which
academic
that
the
Voivodas
&
work
Attachment
rejection.
by academic
from
teacher
or emotional
the teacher's
to consider
Theses
attitudes
things,
the
lead
behaviors
conformist
dependant,
of attachment
independent,
the
and
pupil
to four
displayed
and
concern
assertive
and
to the
a worthy
different
types
by the
obedient
conformist
role.
are
that
Within
thus
favoring
influenced
strongly
by his personal
attributes
observable
behaviors
Faucher,
Some
1978).
between
the
the
academic
and
strategies,
through
&
Brophy
studies
a teacher
by
(sex,
and
report
a pupil
and
routine
to the school
(Kedar
tie generated
of liking
students.
of
of interactions
(Brophy
behaviors
1969;
her
and
&
(feminine-type
(Feshbach,
by the pleasure
felt working
fondness
or
reflects
or
a lack
(masculine
brought
depend
refusal
conveys
behaviors)
bring
& Oackland*
type behaviors)
by the
involvement.
upon,
1981).
about
of committment
professional
Evertson,
Helton
Evertson
indifference,
Rejection
his
and
Brophy
concern,
attachment,
Indifference
recipient
and
(1972)
teachers:
feelings
students
behaviors
in the teacher
non
and
among
shy or unobtrusive
as
and
in the child.
problems
towards
part
found
refers
Concern
to
element
it remains
in the social
teaching
attitudes
role
as an affectionate
is defined
child.
a particular
been
adjusted
1979).
up by Good
taken
(1969)
identifies
with
Medway,
respective
have
to be an
appear
a significant
learning
and
interactions
capacity
behaviors)
the
or androgynous
be more
would
adjustment,
plays
themselves
negative
(instrumental
on
concept
by which
(1978),
studies
of boys
and
(Pederson
and/or
This
1981).
These
1974).
the adjustment
1979;
masculine
attitudes
repertoire,
androgynous.
several
Deutsch,
to the school
masculine
either
Helmreich
of individuals
of being
maladjustment.
the masculine
though
to his pupil's
and
and
Katz
and
in his behavioral
are called
Spence
Silvern
well-adapted
display
of school
they express
of attitudes
can
of interaction
of a student
Tannembaum,
Silberman's
and
behaviors);
to diminish
who
&
particular
boy
Vogel,
Bennett
Williams,
and
(1978)
as having,
characteristics
Good,
conforms
progression
development
may contribute
(1981)
the child
school
boys
(Broverman,
1978;
school
if the young
type
all a way
&
with
feminine,
androgynous
to adopt
Helmreich,
of Silvern
on both
classified
feminine
being
&
and
Waldroop,
(Brophy
performance,
the
affect
O'Leary,
as
Even
to which
above
prizing
of students
types
high
scales.
to the dynamic
the teacher
Serbin,
to the phenomenon
respect
of the teacher
contribution
school
and
1978;
of the situation
scoring
Gilbert,
& Canaday,
or perceived
1975)
yet as
passivity
Robinson
the work
(1974,
of being
reinforce
and
individuals
behaviors)
it is not
If masculine,
to be
are those
(expressive
or disadvantages
advantages
our
by Bern
and
among
identified
of
Stein
1969;
Kellog,
approve
ourselves
to the needs
according
individuals
feminine
ask
In psychology,
operationalized
androgynous
carried
facts, we can
behaviors.
behaviors
add
and
for others
Spence
of masculinity
would
feminine
we can
studies,
high
1972;
Kedar
1980;
activities
concern
identified
that teachers
sex
supports,
the behaviors
Gilly,
1964;
(Kagan,
Lee,
submission,
1969;
often
Rosenkrantz,
level
those
feminine-type
and
&
Clarkson,
Considering
has
behaviors
out
it is pointed
as dependency,
& Patterson,
Fagot
1973),
1975).
(1986)
1975;
and
such
between
of the school
aspect
&
masculine
literature
1973;
(Lee,
students
grades
the
scientific
incompatibility
the feminine
framework,
between
The
in the classroom
by the primary
of behaviors
then
Kedar-Voivodas
1980;
situation
setting.
highlights
valued
are emphasized;
1969)
the expression
which
the behaviors
Voivodas,
Good,
of a conflictual
by the school
defined
this postulate
extent,
by boys
&
Biddle,
(Bank,
existence
among
Among
about
1977)
lead
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
other
those,
attitudes
whereas
to attitudes
MASCULINITY,
of indifference
in a review
and
passive
and
rejection
of the
are
the object
are
boys
considered
teacher's
and
school
less
behaviors
to boys
compared
we examined
of more
part
we verified
Then,
when
the object
repertoire
the teacher's
behaviors.
Finally,
if
examined
in their
from
concern)
of the teacher
first, we
so,
environment
are
(1983)
towards
positive
the attitude
do
behaviors.
environment
to boys
compared
To
masculine-type
feminine-type
being
behaviors.
feminine-type
(attachment
as
extent
students.
having
to the
more
to the school
part
feminine
Kedar-Voivodas
1977).
these
to verify to what
as having
well-adjusted
as having
well-adjusted
the
as
or identified
less
or identified
perceived
so-called
particular
attitude
positive
perceived
presents
adopt
among
& Oackland,
attitudes,
attempted
or identified
of a more
to boys
if masculine
adjustment
perceived
boys
compared
from
study, we have
to school
effectively
teachers'
who
children
receptive
In the present
is related
on
Helton
1969;
(Feshbach,
literature
425
ANDROGYNY
FEMININITY,
if boys
attitudes
positive
well-adjusted.
Method
Subjects
The
of this research
subjects
students.
These
different
french-speaking
McRoberts
first grade
(1976)
are 38 teachers
children
the
sample
(1 male
between
aged
schools
public
scale,
are
in and
around
all
represents
and
37 females)
6 and
7 years
old
and
their
and
come
city. Assessed
Qubec
socio-economic
181 male
from
16
by the Blishen
levels.
Procedure
Once
the approval
collect
the data.
period
involved
takes charge
in a different room.
the
the MFA
a questionnaire
QECP
that
upon
to the last
assessing
school
to classify
and
convenient
will
classrooms
of the school
while
have
principals
most
assistant
of students
been
time
spend
a whole
are thus
visited
year
(april-may).
the teacher
obtained,
for them
to
day
in each
over
an eight
The
research
are:
level
adjustment
the students
those
identifying
the
Thirty-eight
months
group
of the school
a research
questionnaires
the
and
to determine
in the study.
These
allowing
and
boards
teachers
of the whole
indifference
Overall
the
the
corresponding
assistant
out
with
It is agreed
of the classrooms
week
of the school
made
are
agreements
of each
as masculine,
individuals
student;
feminine
the object
being
and
and,
androgynous
of attachment,
concern,
rejection.
for average
of 20
groups
students,
the teachers
an
spend
entire
day
filling
questionnaires.
Instruments
d'valuation
Questionnaire
discriminate
such
the children
the
difficulties,
is used.
This
des
results
adjustment
d'valuation
Questionnaire
questionnaire
au
comportements
school
presenting
des
from a twinning
prscolaire
those
au
comportements
between
In
(QECP).
from
problems
the Preschool
not
order
prscolaire
Behavior
to
presenting
(QECP)
questionnaire
(Behar & Stringfield, 1974; Fowler & Park, 1977) and the Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire
(Weir
&
Behavior
Duveen,
1981).
Questionnaire
(aggressiveness,
Initially
allows
and/or
hyperactivity)
Prosocial
Behavior
analysis
of the data
the integration
conceived
Questionnaire
gathered
to measure
the identification
from
internalizing
assesses
positive
1161 boys
maladjusted
of the children
(anxiety,
behaviors
in the school
on one
hand
the
Preschool
behaviors
externalizing
behaviors
at the kindergarten
identifies
behaviors,
showing
social
level
the two
withdrawal).
setting.
in Montreal,
factors
The
factorial
following
aggressiveness
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
426
C. PICHE
and
social
withdrawal
component
of which
12.2%
score
The
of
evaluated
.89
reports
reports
score,
he
correlation
of .84.
Behavior
.72
studies
observation
& Daniels-Beirness,
Rutter
1985).
The
an
the
advantage:
minimum
score
score
For each
20).
femininity
on
and
feminine
has
This
perception,
instrument
aggressive,
& Helmreich,
and
indicates
characteristics
are
found
masculine
boy,
the boys
considered
rather
& Clark,
Meginbir,
Khan,
of
these
assessment
Rubin
1983;
& Weatherall,
evaluations
psychiatric
subscale
and
manifests
evaluated.
(MFA).
The
score
score
0, maximum
itself frequently
on
questionnaire
about
themselves
question
prosocial
(13 items,
minimum
items,
(6
comprises
and
subscale
minimum
child
could
QECP,
internalizing
items,
(10
femininity
the
instrument,
if the behavior
list
characteristics
of
feminine
(score),
masculinity
the masculine
and
and
and
boy
in an
so
a boy
every one
masculine,
boys
This
as
perceived
questions
being
both
way
belongs
being
classification
which
and
characterize
more
Secondly,
characteristics
identified
in the list)
that
way
and
masculine
of a
is typical
(androgynous).
according
category
from
rather
considered
allows
being
(Spence
the teacher
feminine
to one
(ex:
hurt)
or masculinity.
in a behavioral
defines
exclusive
boys
feminine
easily
being
checks
more
masculine
so-called
emotional,
being
(ex:
characterize
stages,
boys
three
total
average
validity
an externalization
it includes
for each
0)
or her class
rather androgynous.
these
the
Rubin
externalizing,
subscale
masculine
classifies
androgynous
To
which
considered
being
and
a feminine
the teacher
Thirdly,
those
in his
distinctly
an
clinical
a new
the
girls or femininity
if these
Hoge,
obtain
(1974)
Rutter
to the
reliability
between
1982;
internalization
indicates
and
and
Using
Questionnaire
Concerning
1986;
into
an
26),
first a
comprises
1978).
behavior
reliability
between
of
so the teachers
independent)
being
maladjustment
characteristics
to their
according
used
total
withdrawal.
(score
masculinity
been
to the
Stringfield
& Cluss,
agreement
to the aggressiveness
the inter-judge
relationships
& Emptage,
a prosociability
never
1) or
Questionnaire
and
score
and
Preschool
reliability.
by the teachers,
(score
occasionally
and
questionnaires
out
and
12)
Behar
the
evaluation
0, maximum
score
0, maximum
two
Filled
For
(Campbell
social
simultaneous
of behavior.
aspects
and
of these
twining
score.
& Gagnon,
Charlebois,
reliability.
get a test-retest
(1981)
Moller,
the
(principal
negatively
-.26)
inter-judge
inter-judge
an
using
and
demonstrated
reports
aggressiveness
(r
whereas
.66
Rubin,
also
score
assessment
of the behaviors
(1967)
subscales
have
1983;
is correlated
behaviors
prosocial
is explained
Desmarais-Gervais,
score
to the total
and
factor
of the variance
(Tremblay,
method
Duveen
Weir and
and
direct
teachers'
correlation
Questionnaire
several
the
the
correlation
measures,
44%
withdrawal
by the test-retest
(1967)
factor)
PLANTE
the third
hand,
rotation,
to the social
reliability
been
has
the other
indicated
(r = -.38),
r = -.43).
score
on
by the prosocial
It is also
1985).
and
with varimax
analysis
& C.
and
feminine
boys
of masculine,
the identification
all
three:
a possible
boys
being
feminine
by the teachers.
suggested
by Silberman
(1969)
and
taken
up
again
by
Silberman (1971), Good and Brophy (1972), Jenkins(1972), Evertson, Brophy and Good (1973),
Willis and Brophy (1974), Brophy and Good (1974), Brophy and Evertson (1981), are added.
These
questions
attachment
4)
and
1.
2.
3.
are
to the identification
of the individuals
1), concern
2), indifference
lead
(question
written
as
If you
could
would
you
If you
could
you
problems
being
respectively
3) and
(question
the object
rejection
(question
of it, which
ones
which
ones
followed:
a few boys
keep
another
year
joy
pick?
would
Which
(question
devote
all
your
you
be
attention
to boys
having
difficulties,
pick?
boys
would
or their
least
prepared
to
talk
about
their
progress,
behaviors?
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
their
of
4.
If your
class
to have
The
of the
to be reduced
by a few boys,
which
would
ones
be relieved
you
removed?
summing
four
was
427
ANDROGYNY
FEMININITY,
MASCULINITY,
of these
up
answers
attachment,
groups:
the classification
provides
concern,
and
indifference
into
of the individuals
one
rejection.
Results
Masculinity,
The
femininity,
by the teachers,
the
MFA.
Table
distribution
feminine.
Table
done
or a total
male
attitudes
feminine
by adding
of
in the different
first grade
their
perceive
1 presents
of the boys
been
has
teachers'
in the masculine,
of the subjects
grouping
perceived
and
androgyny
171 designations
students
as
being
as
on
data
that
for 10 children),
the majority
then
androgynous,
the
of the teachers
and
masculine,
finally
Distribution
such
masculine,
and
feminine
Groups
of a more
as being
53
30.99
26.32
73
42.69
of more
concern
7V=
ni)
(indifference,
rejection
deviations
and
boys
.05).
rejection)
the Chi
are
effectively
second
of each
to feminine
androgyny
objective
as
28%
masculine
masculine,
was
being
group
and
to
perceived
feminine
boys
masculine
subscales
and
boys:
and
24%
androgynous
and
be the
or identified
of
feminine
48%
would
masculine
feminine,
attitudes
the distribution
boys:
are
the object
of the attachment
masculine
being
of more
negative
(x2p,
attitudes
of the indifference
20%
and
attachment,
and
feminine.
adjustment
feminine,
that
androgynous
being
school
perceived
teachers'
masculine
32.5%
feminine
to boys
reveal
the
than
concern)
as being
compared
analysis
related
Conversely,
47.5%
femininity,
perceived
Boys
square
androgynous,
compared
being
the teachers
from
rejection.
or identified
perceived
from
(attachment,
being
p <
7.464,
boys
Masculinity,
Our
Results
attitudes
positive
=
attitude
characteristics
and
boys
to verify if boys
indifference
concern,
45
positive
as
identified
Feminine
masculine.
androgynous
groups,
Masculine
we wanted
First,
object
androgynous
Frequency
Androgynous
of
categories,
of the teachers
androgynous
(missing
It indicates
groups.
and
the classification
up
or
differences
in the school
adjustment
The
and
androgynous.
of the
QECP
are
means
distributed
as
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
level
standard
following:
428
C. PICHE
& C.
PLANTE
Table 2
Means
and standard
deviations
three subscales
of the QECP
Groups
Masculine
53
Feminine
This
boys.
and
On
indicates
subscales
that
Internalization
6.43
2.24
4.24
3.49
4.54
8.71
SD
4.32
2.85
4.27
4.22
3.19
7.78
SD
4.59
2.34
5.12
mean
than
for
the
the mean
the mean
boys
on
the
internalization
by the masculine
of the masculine
of variance
analysis
the three
feminine
obtained
and
on
each
and
androgynous
the
Prosociability
2.64
the
on
(MFA)
5.83
one-way
between
boys
7.85
subscale,
The
boys.
differences
significant
androgynous
is higher
the externalization
androgynous
and
SD
73
table
feminine
Externalization
45
Androgynous
prosociability
of masculine,
the feminine
subscale
shows
groups.
Table 3
a) Analysis
of variance
on the three subscales
of the results
externalization,
Source
Subscales
(QECP)
of
of masculine,
internalization
df
variation
Externalization
Internalization
Prosociability
and androgynous
feminine
and prosociability
(QECP)
Sum
of
Mean
squares
square
286.75
Inter-group
Error
168
573.51
4178.53
Total
170
4752.04
Inter-group
Error
96.04
168
1016.48
Total
170
1112.53
Inter-group
Error
129.44
168
3568.86
Total
170
3698.30
boys
(MFA)
11.53***
24.87
48.02
6.05
7.94**
64.72
21.24
3.05**
Duncan's
test on
Variable
the
variables
externalization,
Groups
internalization
and
prosociability
MFA
Externalization
7.849
53
Masculine
Externalization
4.219
73
Externalization
3.488
45
Androgynous
Feminine
Internalization
Internalization
4.577
45
Feminine
3.191
73
Internalization
2.641
53
Androgynous
Masculine
Prosociability
8.706
45
Feminine
Prosociability
AB
7.779
73
Prosociability
6.434
53
Androgynous
Masculine
Note. * The mean scores from the same group do not differ significantly between them.
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(QECP)
MASCULINITY,
between
Differences
subscale,
target
F(2,168)
for the prosociability
and
how
the
means
differ
subscale,
only
2)
the mean
them
F(2,68)
reveals
obtain
boys
3) are significant
(Table
.001,
among
masculine
1)
of boys
groups
11-53, p <
429
ANDROGYNY
FEMININITY,
subscale,
3-05, p <
.05.
Duncan's
that:
a mean
significantly
on the externalization
higher
subscale;
of the so-called
from
significantly
the
3)
of
androgynous
boys
is thus
and
Androgynous
boys
and
are
higher
feminine
characterized
by a
more
similar
means
high
than
the
boys
with
on
boys
the
differs
boys;
from
on
higher
the mean
boys,
either
of externalizing
whereas
to feminine
masculine
level
subscale
androgynous
significantly
different
significantly
behaviors
internalizing
is
boys
the
of the masculine
the mean
being
and
masculine
feminine
than
not
in the internalization
boys
of the
means
so-called
subscale
prosocial
behaviors
the
prosociability
Masculinity
level
of
mean
the
one
of them.
and
behaviors
opposite
is
their
mean
low
true
for
on
and
prosociability
the
of the
a low
femininity.
externalizing
internalization
dimensions.
Teachers'
We
wanted
of more
object
Table
a)
attitudes
and
school
to verify
positive
adjustment
if boys
attitudes
evaluated
as
from
teachers
the
being
better
adjusted
to school
to boys
compared
less
would
be
the
well-adjusted.
Means
groups
scores
on
of boys from
the three subscales
the attachment,
of the QECP
Subscale
Externalization
Internalization
Prosociability
concern,
indifference
(QECP)
Internalization
Prosociability
rejection
Attachment
Concern
Indifference
Rejection
5.25
4.67
7.50
4.98
12.00
6.57
2.98
SD
3.37
M
SD
2.91
4.40
2.80
2.77
4.52
2.10
2.76
2.84
8.68
6.69
4.42
SD
4.85
4.45
7.13
3.66
3.32
b) Analysis
of variance
of the results of boys from the attachment,
concern,
and rejection
on the subscales
and prosociability
internalization
groups
Subscales
and
Source
of
df
variation
Sum
of
indifference
Mean
squares
square
Inter-group
Error
94.19
31.39
167
1013.48
6.06
Total
170
1107.68
Inter-group
Error
3
167
335.53
3364.30
Total
170
3699.83
111.84
20.14
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5.17*
5.55*
430
C.
The
on
the
mean
of attachment,
Boys
QECP.
whereas
internalization
means.
.001)
The
non
and
of the scores
boys
than
and
and
boys
by the boys
subscale
indifference
and
and
have
groups
and
concern
indifference
being
to another
a higher
have
groups
to the attachment
the rejection
boys
indifference
belonging
from
achieved
from one
varies
rejection
rejection
than
the attachment
subscale
subscale,
concern
a higher
groups.
have
groups
mean
On
the
the lowest
= 5.55,
with repeated
on the prosociability
measures
(^(3,167)
=
and internalization
indicates significant differences.
5.17, p < .001) subscales
(F(3,167)
on the externalization
subscale
the use of the
of the variance
required
homogeneity
The
p <
subscale
from
boys
PLANTE
to the
belonging
the prosociability
& C.
indifference
concern,
on the externalization
groups,
on
4 indicates
of Table
reading
the object
PICHE
of variance
analysis
Kruskal-Wallis
Test.
For
this
.001 level.
at the p <
significant
the
variable,
A posteriori
chi
of 26.2586
value
square
comparisons
(Duncan
with
as
3 d.f.
indicate
p < 05)
procedures;
that:
the
a)
means
lower
from
and
are
c)
the
rejection
from
boys
boys
from
the
that
the
results
Results
rejection
less
group.
conclusive.
<
on
and
the indifference
subscale
groups
the mean
than
of the
let us
consider
whereas
and
the
(p <
group
externalization
.01),
better
to this
adjustment
the concern
for boys
to the
belonging
indifference
and
environment,
setting
for boys
is true
and
subscales
to the school
adjustment
the opposite
from
boys
concerning
than
externalizing
.01).
reflect a better
group,
less
the indifference
.05),
the internalization
subscale
described
previously
{p <
(p
score
to the attachment
belonging
groups
of the boys
groups;
are significantly
group
group
group
a low
concern
indifference
the means
group;
the concern
on the prosociability
and
from
the prosociability
the rejection
rejection
attachment
differ significantly
the attachment
on
higher
the
the
from
boys
Considering
score
of the boys
significantly
and
high
from
boys
subscale
the means
b)
of
on the internalization
group
are
Discussion
Masculinity,
The
with
internalizing
internalization
whereas
prosociability
in
androgyny,
internalization
students
androgynous
Internalization
teachers.
and
Good
the objects
the class,
according
not
low
scores
to the
literature,
as
by
high
score
the
externalization
on
the
and
attittudes
associated
the
feminine
masculine,
particular
a variable
on
subscale,
externalization
of
characteristics
prosocial
in the studies,
appear,
behaviors
to Silberman
Willis
of rejection
do
generate,
to
on
score
is more
masculinity
characterized
a low
related
and
does
according
(1974),
is
sample,
Externalizing
or aggressive
Externalization,
distinguishes
and
that
and
among
with
either
attitudes.
or negative
positive
our
subscales.
is
Femininity
subscales
notice
(aggressiveness)
positive
at the characteristics
If we look
we
of more
boys
boys.
androgyny,
behaviors
behaviors.
(anxiety)
and
and
femininity
masculinity,
feminine
to masculine
compared
associated
and
part
attitudes
and
that androgynous
associated
and
demonstrate
results
attitudes
teachers'
and
androgyny
femininity,
and
and
not conform
(1969),
Brophy
indifference.
(1974)
More
to the established
certain
characterizing
Jenkins
and
and
Brophy
precisely,
rules
Good
(1972),
children
(Silberman,
in the present
boys
and
Evertson
rejected
1969),
Brophy
(1981)
(1972),
students
by the teacher
disobey
(Garner
study,
Brophy
being
disturb
& Bing,
1973), show serious discipline problems (Jenkins, 1972; Good & Brophy, 1972; Willis & Brophy,
1974;
Brophy
&
Good,
1974)
and
are
generally
restless,
inattentive,
and
aggressive
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(Brophy
MASCULINITY,
&
Evertson,
Children
1981).
milder
way
(Willis
&
Brophy,
d'valuation
rejection
boys
on the prosociability
than
masculine
behaviors
and
In
the
children
studies
indifference
and
conformist
or
to dependent
attitudes
not
and
(Feschbach,
and
toward
verified
(Feschbach,
as
perceived
about
from
school
industrious
(Brophy
behaviors
attitudes
In
are
the
and
dependent
rise
give
1977).
to the
way
boys.
among
of rejection
whereas
1977)
to independent
by the teachers
Children
1973).
femininity)
in this
masculine
appropriate
and
of
and
on this subscale
concern.
Oackland,
react
androgynous
masculine
by
shown
feminine
and
scores
nonconformist
with
&
have
leading
and
has
to attitudes
for
display
& Oackland,
more
could
behaviors
feminine
and
related
mean
and
Bing,
bring
Helton
1969;
conformist
&
Helton
associated
evaluated
which
from feminine
higher
1972);
masculinity)
1969;
(behaviors
masculine,
if boys
to attitudes
we
Consequently,
and
nonconformist
of distinct
expression
present
more
effectively
we
study,
have
independent
nonconformist.
Masculinity,
femininity,
If masculine
also
teachers
been
reported
of attachment
independent
with
are
boys,
by the teachers,
(Garner
attitudes,
attitudes
negative
have
(QECP),
behaviors
but obtain
& Brophy,
more
put forward
perhaps
prscolaire
prosocial
cooperative
teachers'
generating
in a
problems
boys.
as perceived
Good
behavior
aggressiveness
masculine
with attitudes
and
431
display
and
groups,
concern
masculine
characterize
of the QECP
1974;
behaviors
and
au
associated
among
of attachment
may
concern
on
(behaviors
comportements
boys
subscale
sociable
1981),
and
teachers,
among
& Good,
(Brophy
Evertson,
restlesness
are associated
boys)
the attachment
situation
among
(androgynous
boys
of indifference
the school
which
behaviors,
and
androgynous
&
des
of externalization
level
If externalizing
indifference
with
Disobedience,
1974).
the Questionnaire
a higher
the object
being
still incompatible
but
ANDROGYNY
FEMININITY,
to those
part,
boys
as
perceived
less
are
on
the object
school
by Silvern
adjustment
of more
to the
well-adjusted
reported
scores
and
androgyny
and
Katz
attitudes
negative
school
from
environment.
since
(1986)
the teachers,
These
masculine
results
are
obtain
boys
they
are
similar,
in
significantly
the
subscale
whereas
feminine
aggressiveness
(externalization)
boys obtain
subscale
On
significantly
higher scores on the anxiety and social withdrawal
(internalization).
the other hand,
in studies
and Sexton
the teachers
by Silvern
(1978)
the
(1969),
perceived
masculine
to the school
situation
boys as less well-adjusted
to feminine
compared
boys.
higher
These
role could
Voivodas,
(ex:
whereas
aggressiveness)
behaviors.
It seems
observation
Teachers
Boys
and
low
and
school
scores
obtain
group
anxiety
and
indifference
characteristics
and
on
of children
children
the rejection
group.
the two
for example,
behavior
between
obtain
group
and
anxiety
mean
scores
subscales;
are
less
classified
are better
to negative
does
boy
that a systematic
concerning,
relationship
prosociability
groups
androgynous
this statement:
not
bias
has been
masculinity,
in the
school
the elements
such
present
of evaluation
types
introduced.
may
setting,
have
from
lead
which
evaluated.
adjustment
the
high
the
it is not unlikely
concept
important
or
to qualify
biases
onhe
from
or
this
of an
attitudes
rejection
that these
and
perception
to associate
feminine
important
of stereotypes
presence
the teacher
the
however
adjusted
The
high mean
scores
on the aggressiveness
the results
conclusive.
in the
attachment
to the school
attachment
we
know
and
the boys
in
look,
group,
situation
children
whereas
subscale
concerning
When
on the prosociability
subscales
aggressiveness
when
how
mean
the
scores
the
it is not
boys
low
subscale
from
literature,
surprising
compared
at
the
to note
to the children
to reinforce
the work
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of
432
C. PICHE
the teacher,
1973),
child's
the
same
to
understand
their
the
inattention,
On
the
children
Brophy,
1974).
students
the results
that
get lower
the
subscale
closely
could
facilitate
1983)
conformism
children
to
According
1981),
and
are
highly
and
them
success
academic
not
adjustment
as restlessness,
(Kedar
rules
(Silberman,
systematically
Willis
1974;
Good,
&
to the behaviors
correspond
of the rejection
ability
us
the
requirements
such
by attributing
&
their
help
nonconformism
(Brophy
do
could
researchers,
the established
against
attributes
the limited
and
activity
to explain
certain
by behaviors
underestimate
negative
seem
children
rejection
mostly
of school
explain
a higher
when
children
differences
Good
and
the
not those
other
defined
hand,
a new
the
toward
peers,
and
whereas
the QECP
was
and
results,
precisely,
the
the positive
had noticed
reported
may
(1981)
mostly
identified
and,
(1974)
of the child
Brophy
toward
the
Evertson
(1981)
the teacher
whereas
in our
fear when
faced
by Brophy
with
to communicate
be explained
perhaps
Brophy
behaviors
assesses
by behaviors
operationalized
and
to
pertaining
different
More
Evertson
ours
and
Willis
cooperative
behaviors
studies
foresee
had
(1974)
indifference
the anxiety-social
children.
their results
sociable
let us
and
Brophy
aggressive),
In fact, our
the
on
internalization.
Good
assessed.
by a refusal
part
some
had
indifference
between
internalization-type
situation
whereas
to the variables
considered
internalization
study,
observed
related
have
(1974)
Brophy
among
higher
However,
and
and
being
than
scores
of students
children
of internalization
ones.
aggressive
and
prosociability
and
(1974)
Brophy
last
groups
of the variables
less
though
and
boys
adjusted
rejection
boys
subscale
to the
different
prosocial,
concern
even
boys,
respectively
being
and
compared
this inconsistency
But,
by some
seem
boys
boys
the prosociability
of the concern
level
teacher
concern
on
and
behaviors
with
teachers
rejection
of these
by Willis
social
were
themselves
(attachment
in the case
particularly
On
the
the indifference
scores
characteristics
studies
and
concerning
indicate
and
setting.
Evertson,
rather
could
environment
withdrawal
the
same
probabilities
these
attachment
from
the
level,
If the attachment
boys,
&
(Brophy
and
characteristics,
(Kedar-Voivodas,
and
& Bing,
(Garner
environment.
to the school
data
to meet
disturbing
Obviously,
These
1977).
behaviors
appropriate
cooperative
achievement
those
distinguish
the lowest
Oackland,
of the
to the
do not seem
in school
appreciated
where
display
sociable,
1982).
maladjustment
academic
to these
environment
environment,
behaviors
1983):
environment
an
aggressiveness
Voivodas,
in the school
the characteristics
These
1969),
&
Valois,
school
children
rejection
of the school.
to this
&
way
adjustment
1969).
to
adjustment
(Silberman,
tidy (Helton
approved
(Bertrand
PLANTE
are achievers,
1972),
Brophy,
and
dependent
with those
supported
In
and
(Good
passive,
compatible
the
they require
in the classroom
& C.
of withdrawal,
worry,
sadness.
Conclusions
The
adjustment
results
show
level
that
environment
and
concur
those
with
perceive
the view
femininity
sex
role
are
by Silvern
reported
boys
of still existing
more
is characterised
is less
& Jacklin,
well
adjusted
of the masculine
Finally
and
our
to the reality
boys
(as
are
perceived
Sexton
internalizing
results
support
of the
school
adjusted
the teachers.
related
to
the
These
that
results
support
whereas
turning
Lueptow,
the hypothesis
environment:
1976;
school
teachers
to aggressiveneness
(Block,
the
The
findings
these
behaviors
by their teacher)
them.
demonstrating
Moreover,
boys.
remains
better
(1969)
towards
teachers
from
attitude
feminine
masculinity
by prosocial
1974).
individuals
masculine,
by the teachers,
as perceived
of the
and
than
between
the relationship
boys
attitudes
positive
(1978)
negatively
stereotypes:
the
feminine
of a more
the object
to study
of first grade
and
boys
and
androgynous
masculine
Maccoby
behaviors
of these
was
research
characteristics
androgynous
school
1985;
of the present
objective
and
feminine
the
out
more
aggressive
incongruous
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
with
MASCULINITY,
the behaviors
We
may
1 male)
valued
certainly
is typically
teachers,
The
elements
behaviors
culturally
and
classroom
their
it would
boys,
own
we may
emphasis
the
environment
biases.
also
educational
sections
process.
towards
with
masculinity
such
appear
wish
the development
lead
to
diminish
important
questionning
for a lesser
way,
to sensitize
the
whole
the
and
teachers
educational
decision
of
their importance
physical
the
school
for
existence
of
to
possible
as
within
boys
we
know
it today,
conformism
and
a greater
system
making
towards
especially
autonomy,
adjustment
to the
and
province.
that a stereotyped
masculine
towards
chances
the
and
and
results
of female
exclusively
in our
level
assertiveness,
on passivity
emphasis
of autonomy
almost
masculinity
as
attitudes
negative
in this
different
of obtaining
at this
1983).
female
(37
bring us on to emphasize
associated
may
Kedar-Voivodas,
In fact, if we acknowledge
the teachers
and
1981;
of the teachers
composed
from
like
sex
situation
perception
Without
certainly
on
sample,
of the school
in the preceding
discussed
Evertson,
of the
on the possibility
and
our
However,
representative
&
(Brophy
influence
students,
teachers.
of the whole
general
restlessness
those
of male
setting
the possible
of male
on the perception
with a majority
and
in the school
question
433
ANDROGYNY
FEMININITY,
in the
classrooms.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
46, 478-488.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior profile II: Boys aged 12-16. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 47, 223-233.
Bank, B. J., Biddle, B. J., & Good, T. L. (1980). Sex roles, classroom instruction and reading achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 199-132.
Behar, 1, & Stringfield,S. (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 10, 601-610.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex-role adaptability: one consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 634-643.
Bertrand, Y., & Valois, P. (1982). Les options en ducation. 2me. d., Gouvernement du Qubec. M.E.Q. Qubec.
Blishen, R., & McRoberts, H. A. (1975). Socio Economie Index for Occupations in Canada. Revue canadienne de Sociologie
et d'Anthropologie, 13, 74-79.
Block, J. H. (1976). Issues, problems, and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of the Psychology of
Sex Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22(4), 283-308.
Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosentkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex role stereotypes:
A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
Campbell, J. B., & Cluss, P. (1982). Peer relationships of young children with behavior problems. In K. H. Rubin &
H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood, (pp. 323-351) New York: Springer-Verlag.
Clift, P., & Sexton, B. (1979). ...all things nice. Educational
Etaugh, C., & Hughes, V. (1975). Teacher's evaluations of sex-typed behaviors in children: The role of teacher sex and
school setting. Developmental Psychology, 11, 394-395.
Evertson, C., Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1973). Communication of teacher expectations: First grade. Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 3(374), 60.
Fagot, B. I., & Patterson, G. R. (1969). An in vivo analysis of reinforcingcontingencies for sex-role behaviors in the
preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 1, 563-568
Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Student teacher preferences for elementary school pupils varying in personality characteristics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 126-132.
Fowler, P. C., & Park, R. M. (1979). Factor structure of the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire in a normal population.
Psychological Reports, 45, 599-606.
Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Body, L. (1979). Sex role socialization and achievement in mathematics. In M. A.Witting &
A. C. Peterson (Eds.). Sex related Differences in Cognitive Functioning, (pp. 303-332). New York: Academic Press.
Garner, J., & Bing, M. (1973). The elusiveness of Pygmalion and differencesin teacher-pupil contacts. Interchange, 4, 34-42.
Gilbert, L. A. (1981). Toward mental health: The benefits of psychological androgyny. Professional Psychology, 12, 29-38.
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
434
C.
PICHE
& C.
PLANTE
Gilbert, L. A., Waldroop, J. A., & Deutsch, C. J. (1981). Masculine and feminine stereotypesand adjustment: A Reanalysis.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 790-794.
Gilly, M. (1980). Matre-lve: Rles institutionnels et reprsentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 617-624.
Harthley, D. (1978). Sex and social class: a case study of an infant school. British Educational Research Journal, 4, 75-81.
Helton, C. R, & Oackland, T. D. (1977). Teacher's attitudinal responses to differingcharacteristics of elementary school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 261-265.
Hoge, R. D., Meginbir, L., Khan, Y., & Weatherall, D. (1985). A multitrait-multimethodanalysis of the preschool behavior
questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 119-127.
Jenkins, B. (1972). Teachers' views of particular students and their behavior in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Chicago.
Kagan, J. (1964). The child's sex role classification of school objects. Child Development, 35, 1051-1056.
Kedar-Voivodas, G. (1983). The impact of elementarychildren's school roles and sex roles on teacher attitudes: an interactional
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 415-437.
Kedar-Voivodas, G., & Lee, P. C. (1977). Sex role and pupil role in early childhood education. In L. G. Katz (Ed.),
Current Topics in Early Childhood Education, (Vol. 1), (pp. 105-118). Norwook, N.Y.: Ablex.
Kedar-Voivodas, G., & Tannembau, A. J. (1979). Teacher's attitudes toward young deviant children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 800-808.
Kellogg, R. (1969). A direct approach to sex role identification of school-related objects. Psychological Reports, 24, 839-841.
Kelly, T. J., Bullock, L. M., & Dykes, M. K. (1977). Behavior disorders: Teachers' perceptions. Exceptional Children,
43, 316-317.
Lee, P. C. (1973). Male and female teachers in elementaryschools: An ecological analysis. Teacher College Record, 75, 75-98.
Lueptow, L. B. (1985). Conceptions of femininityand masculinity: 1974-1983. Psychological Reports, 57, 859-862.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Standford: Standford University Press.
Medway, F. J. (1979). Causal attributions for school-related problems: Teacher perception and teacher feedback. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71, 809-818.
Pederson, E., & Faucher, T. A. (1978). A new perspective on the effects of first grade teachers on children's subsequent
adult status. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 1-31.
Petro, C. S., & Putnam, B. A. (1979). Sex-roles stereotypes: Issues of attitudinal changes. Sex Roles, 5, 29-39.
Robinson, B. E., & Canaday, H. (1978). Sex-role behaviors and personality traits of male day care teachers. Sex Roles, 4,
853-865.
Rubin, K. H., & Clark, M. L. (1983). Preschool teachers' ratings of behavioral problems: Observational, sociometric
and social-cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 273-285.
Rubin, R. A., & Ballow, B. (1978). Prevalence of teacher identified behavior problems: A longitudinal study. Exceptional
Children, 45, 102-111.
Rubin, K. N., Daniels-Beirness, T., & Hayvren, M. (1982). Social and social cognitive correlates of sociometric status
in preschool and kindergarten children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 338-348.
Rubin, K. N., Moller, L., & Emptage, A. (1986). The preschool behavior questionnaire: a useful index of behavior problems
in elementary school-age children? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 86-100.
Rutter, M. (1967). A children's behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 1-11.
Rutter, M., Tizzard, J., & Whitmore, K. (1970). Education, Health and Behavior. New York: Robert E. Krieber.
Serbin, L. A., O'Leary, K. D., Kent, R. N., & Tonick, I. J. (1973). A comparison of teacher response to the preacademic
and problem behavior of boys and girls. Child Development, 44, 796-804.
Sexton, P. (1969). The Feminized Male. New York: Random House.
Silberman, M. L. (1969). Behavioral expression of teacher's attitudes toward elementary school children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 60, 402-407.
Silberman, M. L. (1971). Teachers' attitudes and actions toward their students. In M. Silberman (Ed.), The Experience
of Schooling. New York: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.
Silvern, L. E. (1978). Masculinity, femininity in children's self-concepts: The relationship to teachers'judgments of social
adjustment and academic ability, classroom behaviors, and popularity. Sex Roles, 4, 929-949.
Silvern, L. E., & Katz, P. A (1986). Gender roles and adjustment in elementary school children: A multidimensional
approach. Sex Roles, 14, 181-202.
Spence, J. T., & Helmereich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity: their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and
Antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stein, A., & Smithells, J. (1969). Age and sex differencesin children's sex-role standards about achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 1, 252-259.
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MASCULINITY,
FEMININITY,
435
ANDROGYNY
Stevenson, H., Parker, P., Wilkinson, A., Hegion, A., & Fish, E. (1969). Predictive value of teachers' rating of young
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 507-717.
Tremblay, R., & Baillargeon, L. (1984). Les difficults de comportement d'enfants immigrants dans les classes d'accueil
au prscolaire,. Revue canadienne de l'Education, 9(2), 154-170.
Tremblay, R. E., Desmarais-Gervais, L., Charlebois, P., & Gagnon, C. (1985). The preschool behavior questionnaire in
a francophone population: factor structure, norms and validity. Paper presented at the International Society for
the study of Behavioral Development, Tours, France.
Tremblay, R. E., Gagnon, C., Pich, C., & Vitaro, F. (1986). Prvalence et stabilit des difficults de comportements
en milieu scolaire: de la maternelle la premire anne d'cole primaire. Rapport de Recherche. Ecole de Psycho
Education. Universit de Montral.
Vitaro, R., Tremblay, R., Gagnon, C., Pich, C, & Royer, N. (1987). Difficults de comportement et valuation par les
pairs l'cole maternelle: instrumentation, liens avec les sources adultes d'valuation et dpistage des marginaux.
Rapport de Recherche. Ecole de Psycho-Education. Montral.
Weir, K., & Duveen, G. (1981). Further development and validation of the Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire for use by
teachers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 357-374
Williams, J. E. , Bennett, S. M., & Best, D. L. (1975). Awareness and expression of sex stereotypes in young children.
Developmental Psychology, 11 635-642.
Willis, S., & Brophy, J. (1984). Origins of teachers' attitudes toward young children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
66, 520-529.
Wise, G. W. (1978). The relationship of sex-role perception and levels of self-actualization in public school teacher. Sex
Roles, 4, 605-617.
Key
words:
Sex
role,
School
adaptation,
Teacher
attitudes.
Received: March 1990
Revision received: August 1990
Christiane Pich. Ecole de psychologie, Pavillon Flix-Antoine-Savard, Universit Laval, Cit universitaire, Qubec,
Canada G1K 7P4.
Current theme of research:
Early intervention with high psychosocial risk children
Chantai
Plante. Ecole de psychologie, Pavillon Flix-Antoine-Savard, Universit Laval, Cit universitaire, Qubec
Canada G1K 7P4.
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions