Sex and Sex-Role Influences in Same-Sex Dyads

Author(s): William Ickes, Brian Schermer and Jeff Steeno

Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 373-385
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033807
Accessed: 07-05-2015 12:10 UTC

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.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Psychology
Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Social Psychology Quarterly
1979, Vol. 42, No. 4, 373-385

Sex and Sex-RoleInfluencesin Same-SexDyads*

WILLIAM ICKES
Universityof Missouri-St. Louis

BRIAN SCHERMER
JEFF STEENO
Universityof Wisconsin

Theorizing by Bakan (1966), Bales (1955; 1958), Block (1973), and others suggests that
interactionalinvolvementmay require the application and synthesisof both traditionally
and traditionally"feminine" (i. e., expressive)capacities. This
"masculine" (i. e., instrumental)
view is supportednot onlyby a previousstudyof sex role influencesin mixed-sexdyads (Ickes
and Barnes, 1978) but also by the presentstudyof sex-roleinfluencesin same-sex dyads. The
degree of interactionalinvolvement(e.g., talking,looking,gesturing)was found to be highfor
dyad typesin whichbothinstrumental and expressivecapacities could be integratively applied,
but was found to be low for dyad typesin whichonly one set of capacities (instrumentalor
expressive) could be represented.The degree of satisfactionthat dyad members expressed
regardingtheirinteracctions appeared to vary according to the degree to which the level of
interactionalinvolvementthey experienced was consistent or inconsistentwith their own
predispositionto be expressive. Thesefindingsare discussed in termsof theirimplicationsfor
currentconceptualizationsof sex-roleidentification.

A growingbody of theoryand research 1978; Safilios-Rothschild,1977). In fact,

suggests that the traditionalsex roles in
our culture may be dysfunctionalin a
numberof importantrespects. For exam-
ple, Bem (1975) has summarizedthe re-
sultsof several studies indicatingthattra-
ditionalsex-typingis associated withhigh
anxiety and impaired psychological ad-
justmentand cognitivefunctioning(e.g.,
Cosentinoand Heilbrun,1964; Gall, 1969;
Gray, 1957; Harfordet al., 1967; Mac-
coby, 1966; Sears, 1970; Webb, 1963).
More recent work has linked traditional
sex-typingwith impaired flexibilityand
adaptabilityof behavior (e.g., Bem, 1975;
Bem and Lenney, 1976; Bem et al., 1976),
the maintenanceof power and status dif-
ferencesbetweenmales and females(e.g.,
Henley, 1977; Safilios-Rothschild,1977;
Sattel, 1976), and dysfunctionin social
relationships(e.g., Balswick and Peek,
1971; Bem et al., 1976; Ickes and Barnes,
: This research was facilitatedby a grantto the
firstauthor fromthe National Science Foundation
(BNS 78-10149). The authors would like to thank
Tim Keane, Bill Mowbray,and JudyPerlofffortheir
assistance in codingthe data, and Faye Crosby, Bar-
bara Wallston, and some anonymous reviewersfor
theircommentson an earlier version of this paper.
Address all communicationsto William Ickes, De-
partmentof Psychology,Universityof Missouri-St.
Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO
63121.
373
the work in this area has progressedeven
beyondtheproblem-identification stage to
suggest that a possible solution to these
problems may lie in an androgynous
orientation,one that appears to definea
more appropriate standard for effective
personal functioningand psychological
health (e.g., Bem, 1974; 1975; Bem and
Lenney, 1976; Bem et al., 1976; Deaux,
unpublished;Spence et al., 1975; Spence
and Helmreich, 1978).
If an androgynousorientationis adap-
tive at the personal level, is it adaptive at
the interpersonallevel as well? Are social
interactionsthat include androgynousin-
dividuals somehow "better" (in both
qualitative and quantitativeterms) than
interactionsthat include only stereotypi-
cally sex-typedindividuals?Althoughthe
answers to these questions are not likely
to be simple, some testable hypotheses
relatingto these questions can be derived
fromrecenttheoreticalwork on the topic
of sex-role identification.
A numberof writers(e.g., Bakan, 1966;
Bales, 1955; 1958; Block, 1973) have pro-
posed that social systems are optimally
functionalto the degree that both instru-
mental(i.e., "masculine") and expressive
(i.e., "feminine") capacities are integra-
tively applied (for a review, see Spence

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 374 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
and Helmreich, 1978). Withregardto the of interactionand mutuallikingwere con-
process of social interaction,this reason- sistentlyquite high.
ing suggeststhatan androgynousorienta- With regard to these data, it may be
tion may be a particularlyeffectiveone, asked why the sex-typed males and
since androgynous individuals possess females who were paired togetherwere
both instrumental and expressive apparentlyunable to apply their respec-
capacities and can presumablyapply both tive capacities interdependently,in the
sets of capacities in theirinteractionswith mannerproposed by Sampson (1977). The
others. A similarconclusion is suggested answer, in the case of dyadic (as opposed
by Bem's (1974; 1975) view of sex-typed to group)interaction,maybe quite simple.
versus androgynousindividuals-a view Although the masculine sex-typed male
which emphasizes the behavioralflexibil- may have the instrumental capacities
ity that results from the hypothesized needed to structureand direct conversa-
ability of androgynous individuals to tion duringa period of potentialinterac-
apply whatever capacities appear to be tion, the extent to which he actually
most appropriatein a given situation. applies his capacities to this purpose
These conceptualizationsare intriguing, mightbe highlyconstrainedby his char-
and their implicationsfor predictingthe acteristicallylow level of expressiveness.
influenceof participants'sex-roleidentifi- Analogously, although his femininesex-
cations on the social interactionof a dyad typedfemale partnermay be predisposed
or larger group deserve furtherexplora- to be far more expressive, her more lim-
tion.In a recentstudydesignedto provide itedinstrumental capacities mayconstrain
some data relevantto thisissue, Ickes and her to a "reactive" type of expressivity
Barnes (1978) unobtrusivelyrecordedand that can occur only in a conversational
analyzed data fromthe initial,spontane- contextthatis structuredand directedby
ous interactionsof subjects in fourdiffer- someone withgreaterinstrumentalskills.
ent types of mixed-sex dyads, char- In other words, the instrumentalbut
acterized as follows: (a) the male was nonexpressivemale may have littleor no
masculine sex-typedand the female was motivationto use his skills to initiateor
femininesex-typed;(b) the male was mas- attemptto maintainconversation,and de-
culine sex-typedand the female was an- spite the fact that his expressive but
drogynous;(c) the male was androgynous noninstrumentalfemale partner may be
and the female was femininesex-typed; stronglymotivatedto interact,the level of
and (d) boththe male and thefemalewere interactionmay stillbe limitedby her de-
androgynous. In line with theorizingby pendencyon himto providethenecessary
Haythorn (1970) and Bem (1974), Ickes structure.The consequence of thisstateof
and Barnes proposed that the sex-role affairsis thereforenot the mutuallyre-
stereotyped interactional styles of the warding interdependenceenvisioned by
masculinemales and thefemininefemales Sampson; it is rathera kind of "interac-
would be socially incompatible and tional stalemate," or impasse that pre-
therefore stress-inducing,whereas the cludes the two individualsfromapplying
more flexible interactionalstyles of the their respective and complementary
androgynous individuals would permit capacities in an interdependentmanner.
them to adapt fairlyeasily to whatever This reasoningsuggeststhat the assump-
type of interactionalstyle their partners tion that expressive and instrumental
displayed (Ickes and Barnes, 1978:672- functionscan be synthesizedthroughin-
673). The data froma range of behavioral terdependentinteractiondoes not neces-
and self-reportmeasures provided strong sarily hold true, at least at the level of
support for these predictions: They re- dyadic interaction.
vealed that the levels of interactionalin- If we question this last (interdepen-
volvement and mutual liking were uni- dence) assumptionbut continueto adopt
formlylowest in the dyads composed of a the two previous assumptions that we
masculine male and a femininefemale, have considered (first,that interactional
whereas in the dyads in whichone or both involvementrequires the application and
participantswere androgynous,the levels synthesis of both instrumentaland ex-

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS 375
pressive functions;and, second, that an- one sex-typedmale and one androgynous
drogynousindividualscan apply whatever male or those composed of one sex-typed
capacities appear to be most appropriate female and one androgynous female
in a given situation),we may be able to (ST-A dyad types), the level of interac-
account fairlyprecisely for the influence tion should depend primarilyon the be-
of various sex-role enactmentsin dyadic havior of the androgynousparticipants.
encounters.Such an approach would not Because two outcomes are possible, an
only permitus to account for the data unequivocal predictioncannot be made.
obtained by Ickes and Barnes (1978) in However, the following contingent
theirstudyofmixed-sexdyads, but would possibilities can be specified: (a) If the
also lead us to propose some fairlyspe- androgynousindividuals in these ST-A
cifichypothesesregardingtheinfluenceof dyads apply both their instrumentaland
stereotypicversus androgynoussex-role expressivecapacities to theinteraction,as
enactmentsin the initial,unstructuredin- they apparently did in the Ickes and
teractionsof same-sex dyads. [These hy- Barnes (1978) study, then the resulting
potheses mustbe limitedto the initial,un- interactionsand the participants'level of
structuredinteractionsof the dyads for satisfactionwith them should resemble
the same reasons offeredby Ickes and those of the A-A dyad types. (b) On the
Barnes (1978).] The purpose of the study other hand, if the androgynousmembers
we reportbelow was to test these various of these ST-A dyads suppress or simply
hypotheses,which may be stated as fol- fail to enact their "role-deviant"
lows: capacities in order to conformto stereo-
Hypothesis 1: In dyads composed of typedsex roles enacted by theirsame-sex
two masculine sex-typed males or two partners,then the resultinginteractions
femininesex-typedfemales (ST-ST dyad and the participants'level of satisfaction
types), the level of interactionshould be with them should resemble those of the
relatively low in both cases. This out- ST-ST dyad types.
come should occur because only one of
the necessary functions-instrumentalor METHOD
expressive-is strongly represented in
these dyads, whereas both functionsare Subjects and Pretesting
required for a high level of interactional The subjects were 62 male and 64
involvement. female undergraduates in introductory
The sex-typedmales should be gener- psychology classes at the Universityof
ally satisfiedwiththe low level of interac- Wisconsih.' They were drawn from a
tion in their dyads, since they are not populationof 616 studentswho had been
stronglypredisposedto be communicative pretestedwith the Bem Sex-Role Inven-
and expressive. However, the sex-typed tory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) earlier in the
females should be generally dissatisfied semester.The BSRI has been widelyem-
with the low level of interactionin their ployed as a measure of sex-role identifi-
dyads, since it frustratestheir strong cation and thereis considerableevidence
communicativeand expressive needs. for its validityin conceptual (Bem, 1974;
Hypothesis 2: In dyads composed of Gandreau, 1977; Morelandet al., 1978) as
two androgynousmales or two androgy- well as behavioralterms(Bem, 1975; Bem
nousfemales(A-A dyadtypes),thelevelof and Lenney, 1976; Bem et al., 1976;
interactionshould be relatively high in Lippa, 1978).
both cases, and the participants'satisfac- Fromtheobtaineddistribution of scores
tion with the interactionsshould be rela- on theBSRI, subjectswho wereeithersex-
tivelyhigh as well. Because both instru-
mentaland expressive capacities are rep- ' The data forsix subjects (2 male, 4 female)com-
resentedin both membersof these dyads, prisingthreeof thedyads (one male A-male A dyad,
the participantsshould have little diffi- one female ST-female ST dyad, and one female
ST-female A dyad) were notincludedin theanalyses
culty maintaininga high level of interac- because at least one of the subjects in each of these
tional involvement. dyads expressed suspicion that the interactionhad
Hypothesis 3: In dyads composed of been videotaped.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 376 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
typedcorrespondingto theirgender(i.e., typed)of the subjects withindyads. Thus,
"' masculine" males and "feminine" in additionto testingthe specifichypoth-
females) or sex-typed as androgynous eses listed above, we analyzed all of the
were contacted by telephone and sched- data in terms of a two-between, one-
uled to participatein the studyin same- withindesign thatvaried sex composition
sex dyads. Sex typingwas determinedby and sex-role composition as the
computingthe differencebetween each between-dyads factors and the relative
subject's femininity score and his or her sex-role stereotypy(ST rank) of the sub-
masculinityscore on the BSRI (cf. Bem, jects within dyads as the within-dyads
1974). Male subjects with a difference factor.Subjects were assigned randomly,
score of -.63 or less were classified as withinthe constraintsimposed by sex and
masculine; female subjects with a dif- sex-role identification, to the six
ference score of .63 or more were between-dydadsconditions, with n= 10
classified as feminine; and subjects of dyads in each condition.
both sexes whose differencescores fell
between these points were classified as
Settingand Equipment
androgynous.These cutoffpoints corre-
sponded to androgynyt ratios of approx- The experimentalroomused as a setting
imately-1.5 and 1.5 and were selected to forthe studywas furnishedto look like a
optimallysplitthe continuousdistribution storage area recently converted into a
of correspondent sex-typed and an- temporarywaiting room (for schematic
drogynousindividualsin the bufferrange views of the room arrangement,see Ickes
that Bem (1974) has defined as "near- and Barnes, 1977:Fig. 1). As in the earlier
masculine" or "near-feminine." studies, a videotape camera and recorder
For reasons discussed elsewhere (Bem, were concealed behind various experi-
forthcoming; Bem et al., 1976; Spence et mentalparaphernaliastacked in a corner
al., 1975; Strahan, 1975), "undiffer- of the room across froma couch and cof-
entiated" individuals (i.e., those whose fee table.
masculinity and femininityscoreswereboth
less than 4.60) were not classifiedas an- Procedure
drogynous.Because it was not feasibleto
recruit enough ("undifferentiated"and During the telephone solicitation,a re-
"sex-reversed" (i.e., "masculine" sex- search assistant (who feignednaivety of
typed females and "feminine" sex-typed what the studywas about) instructedthe
males) individuals to justify creating subjectsto reportto specificwaitingareas
additional dyad types to representthem, within the psychology building. These
individuals in these categories were not areas were physicallyisolated fromeach
included in the presentdesign. other but were on the same floor as the
experimentalroom described above. At
the beginningof each session and priorto
Design
meetingeach pair of subjects, the experi-
As in the previous studies in this series menteractivatedthe videotape equipment
(Ickes and Barnes, 1977; 1978),we sought in the experimentalroom and checked to
to examine behavior at two levels of ensure that it was well-concealed and
analysis. On one level, usingdyads as the operatingproperly.He thenturnedoffthe
units of analysis, we were interestedin lightsin the room and collected the two
how behavior mightvary as a functionof subjects from their respective waiting
the sex composition (male-male vs. areas. (The experimenterwas kept blind
female-female)and the sex-rolecomposi- with respect to the subjects' BSRI
tion (ST-ST, ST-A, and A-A) of the scores.)
dyads. On another level, using subjects The experimenterled the subjects into
withindyads as the units of analysis, we theexperimentalroomand, turningon the
were interested in how behavior might lights,asked them to leave theirbelong-
vary as a functionof the relativesex-role ings by the door and take a seat on the
stereotypy(more sex-typedvs. less sex- couch. He then explained that the first

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS 377
part of the study involved filling out questionnaires and collected the forms
copies of a questionnairebut thathe had fromeach subject as (s)he leftthe room.
just run out of these and would have to Each subject was sworn to secrecy and
obtain some more. Explaining that he then released.
would return"in a minuteor two," the
experimenter lefttheroomto secure some Dependent Measures
freshcopies of the questionnaire,closing To ensure the comparability of the
the door behindhim. He thenactivated a presentdata withthose obtainedby Ickes
stopwatchto timethefive-minute interval and Barnes (1977; 1978), the same
in whichthe subjects were covertlyaudio- categories of dependent measures were
and videotaped. obtained. The firstset of measures was
At the end of this period, the experi- selected to index various aspects of in-
menter returned, announced that the teractional involvement identified by
studywas halfover, and queried the sub- Goffman(1963; 1971), Mehrabian (1974),
jects for possible suspicion of the vid- and others. These measures were coded
eotaping before proceeding further.Fol- fromthe videotape data by two indepen-
lowingthistestforsuspicion,he explained dent judges who were blind to the sub-
that the firstpart of the study had been ject's scores on the pretest personality
designedto examine "the actual behavior measures. Included in this set were mea-
of two strangersduring their initial in- sures of a numberof "static" behaviors
teraction." He showed the subjects how thateitheroccurred only once or did not
thevideotape of theirinteractionhad been vary much over time: who sat first,who
made, assured them that any data taken talked first, interpersonal distance
fromthe tape would be used forstatistical (shoulder-to-shoulder), the degreeofbody
purposes only, and asked themto sign a orientationeach subject maintainedwith
release formgivingtheirconsent for the respect to the other,and the openness of
tape to be used in this way (all subjects each subject's bodyposture [subjectively
agreed to sign the release).2 estimatedon a scale from"closed" (0) to
The experimenterthen explained that "somewhat open" (1) to "very open"
the second part of the study involved (2)]. The interraterreliabilitycoefficients
assessmentof the subjects' perceptionsof for these five measures were 1.00, 1.00,
the interactionin which theyhad just en- .97, .88, and .68, respectively,based on
gaged. Accordingly, each subject was the entiresample.
asked to fill out a posttest questionnaire Also included in the firstset of mea-
designedto elicitperceptionsof his or her sures were some temporallyvariable or
own and the other's behavior duringthe "dynamic" behaviors thatwere recorded
interactionperiod. Before theycompleted from the videotapes by means of push-
the questionnaires, the subjects were button hand panels connected to a spe-
seated in opposite corners of the room, cially designed arrayof clocks and coun-
facing away from each other, and were ters. These included the total frequency
explicitly assured that their responses and duration of verbalizations, directed
would not be seen by the other subject. gazes, mutualgazes, expressivegestures,
The experimenterwaited outside in the and facial expressions of positive and
hall while the subjects completed the negative affect. The negativeaffectmea-
sures were subsequentlydroppedfromthe
2
Subjects run in this paradigmare always made analysis because of theirlow frequencyof
aware at this pointthatno invasion of theirprivacy occurrence and the low interraterre-
has occurred. Because the videotape equipment is liabilities (-. 1 1 and -. 13) obtained for
activated before they enter the room and because
there are no external monitorsor outputs in use them in the present data. However, the
duringthe observationperiod,absolutelyno one but frequencyand durationof a new measure,
thesubjects themselvesknowwhateventstranspired puttingfeet on the table, were recorded
thatare recordedon the tape. This means thatifone and added to the analysis aftera casual
or both subjects exercise the rightto have the tape
erased immediately,insteadof releasingit foruse as
viewing of the tapes suggested the
data, the contentof the interactionwill remaintheir presence of sex differencesfor this be-
own privateconcern. havior. The respective interrater re-

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
liabilitiesfor the total frequencyand du- (male-male vs. female-female) that are
rationof these six dynamicbehaviors(ex- represented in Table 1. In considering
cludingnegativeaffect)rangedfrom.81 to these data, the reader should be reminded
.98 forfrequency,and .75 to .99 fordura- of the caveat that should be applied to
tion, based on a sample of 18 subjects (9 such "sex" differences:As in virtuallyall
dyads). of the previous studies in this area, they
A second set of dependent measures representcomparisonsin whichbiological
coded directly from the videotapes sex is confoundedwiththe subjects' sex-
providedindices of some of the structural role identifications.However, given the
elementsof the interaction:the frequency optionsof (a) testingforthese differences
and durationofperiods of silence and the and being appropriatelycautious about
number of times each subject initiated interpretingthem or (b) not testing for
and/or terminated a conversation se- themat all, the firstoptionis clearlyto be
quence or a mutual gaze. The interrater preferredforthelightitmay shed on these
reliabilitiesforthefrequencyand duration "naturallyconfounded" effects.
of these measures rangedfrom.79 to .99 Given this caveat, it is not surprising
(N= 18). that the data in Table 1 suggestthat the
A thirdset of dependentmeasures was behavior observed in the female-female
based on the subjects' responses to the dyads was more affiliativeand socially
items on the posttest questionnaire. A "expressive" than the behavior observed
numberof these items were used in the in the male-male dyads. Subjects in the
Ickes and Barnes study (1977:324) and female dyads not only sat closer together
concerned various feelingsand behaviors on the couch and oriented their bodies
occurringduringthe 5-minuteinteraction moretowardeach otherbutalso displayed
for which subjects were required to rate more frequentand longerdirectedgazes,
both themselvesand theirpartner.Three mutual gazes, expressive gestures, and
new itemswere added thatwere designed expressionsof positiveaffect(smilingand
to assess subjects' perceptions of their laughing).Moreover, theirratingson the
own and their partners' degree of satis- posttest measure of interpersonalattrac-
factionwiththe interactionthatthey had tionindicatedthattheytendedto like each
just experienced; these will be described other more than did the males.
in moredetail later. Followingthese items Only two of theeffectsshownin Table 1
was the measure of interpersonalattrac- did not seem intuitivelyto reflect the
tionused in the studyby Ickes and Barnes greateropenness or social expressivityof
(1978). This measure was composed of 18 females than of males, and these effects
bipolar adjective dimensions (exciting- were bothfoundformeasures of the ways
dull, sincere-insincere,cold-warm, etc.) that subjects positioned their bodies.
on which the subjects withineach dyad Relative to subjects in the male dyads,
were asked to rate each other. The indi- subjects in the femaledyads maintaineda
vidual ratings on these 18 dimensions more "closed" (i.e., compacted) body
were later summedin orderto compute a posture and were less likely to put their
global index of likingfor the other.3 feetup on thecoffeetable (only9 out of60
females, as compared with 22 out of 60
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION males).
Main Effectsfor Sex Composition Beyond suggestinga number of sex-
related differences in sociability, the
The data revealed several main effects
findingsreportedin Table 1 are notewor-
for the sex composition of the dyads
thy in a number of additional respects.
I Of these various posttest questionnaire items, First, they are quite consistentwith the
only those relevantto the experimentalhypotheses bulk of previous research evidence con-
willbe reportedhere. As in theearlierstudyby Ickes cerningsex differencesin social behavior
and Barnes (1978), the questionnairedata yielded a (for recent reviews, see Deaux, 1976;
numberof otherfindingsthatwere unrelatedto the Frieze and
Ramsey, 1976; Henley, 1977;
hypothesesunderconsideration.It should be noted
thatnone of these additionalfindingswould call into and LaFrance and Mayo, 1978). Second,
question any of the effectsto be reportedbelow. they not only replicate and extend the

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS 379
Table 1. Sex CompositionDifferences:Means for the Male-Male and Female-Female Dyads

Sex Compositionof the Dyads

Dependent Measure Male-Male Female-Female F(1,54)
Directed gazes
Total frequency 18.8 23.0 2.46
Total durationa 49.7 93.0 15.08****
Mutual gazes
Total frequency 13.5 22.0 8.73***
Total duration 17.3 45.1 17.83****
Expressive gestures
Total frequency 4.6 6.3 2.14
Total duration 5.0 8.4 4.11*
Positive affect
Total frequency 7.0 10.9 6.48*
Total duration 8.9 16.9 5.49*
Interpersonalattraction 32.6 41.6 3.66t
Interpersonaldistanceb 50.1 42.7 5.36*
Body orientationc 1.7 6.6 5.99*
Body posture 1.2 .8 14.24****
Feet on table
Total frequency .4 .2 3.50t
Total duration 53.6 19.7 5.56*
Note.When dyads, ratherthan subjects, are the units of analyses, the reportedmeans are based on the
averaged scores of each pair of subjects, not on theircombined scores.
a In seconds. p < .05.
b
In centimeters. ** p < .01.
c In degrees. *** p < .005.
t p < .10. ****p < .001.

general pattern of sex differencesob- (ST-ST, ST-A, A-A). These effectsare

served in the firstof this series of studies
relevantto the threehypotheseswe have
(Ickes and Barnes, 1977), but also tend to
proposed regardingthe level of interac-
support the claim that such differences tional involvementin the various dyad
will emerge most stronglyin between- types. Apart fromthe somewhatanomal-
dyad comparisons of same-sex dyads ous resultsfor the body orientationmea-
(Ickes and Barnes, 1978:676-677). Third, sure, these data uniformlyrevealed that
they exhibit the seemingly paradoxical the interactionsof the A-A dyads were
pattern discussed by Henley (1977) in moreintenseand activelyinvolvingacross
which females appear to be less inhibited a range of relevant indices than were
than males on some behavioral measures those of the ST-ST or ST-A dyads. Sub-
(e.g., gazes, gestures,expressionsof pos-jects in the A-A dyads talked,looked at,
itive affect, interpersonaldistance, and and gestured to each other more fre-
body orientation)while appearing to be quentlyand for longer intervalsthan did
more inhibitedthanmales on others(e.g., subjects in the other dyad types; conse-
body posture and putting feet on the quently,theytended to experience fewer
table). Fourth,these differencesemerged and significantly shorterperiodsof silence
on measures of behavior that are essen- during the five minutes of observation.
tiallynonverbaland which ". . . seem to This patternof differenceswas the same
representthe individual's style of [posi-for both sexes (there were no significant
tioningand] movinghis or her own body interactionsof sex compositionwith sex-
and are not particularly substantive" role composition for any of these mea-
(Bem et al., 1976:1022; bracketsours). sures), and a series of post hoc, orthog-
onal contrasts confirmedthat the A-A
dyads differed significantlyfrom the
ST-ST and ST-A dyad types(Table 2, last
Main Effectsfor Sex-Role Composition
column), whereas the ST-ST and ST-A
Table 2 representsseveral main effects dyad typesdid notdiffersignificantly from
for the sex-rolecompositionof the dyads each other(Table 2, next-to-last column).

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
Table 2. Sex-Role Composition Differences:Means for the ST-ST, ST-A, and A-A Dyads
Sex-Role Composition
of the Dyads
Dependent Measure ST-ST ST-A A-A F(2,54) Fcla Fc2b
Verbalizations
Total frequency 33.2 34.8 48.1 3.60* < 1 7.13**
Total duration 68.4 67.1 105.7 5.15** < 1 10.29***
Directed gazes
Total frequency 17.9 17.7 26.9 5.10** < 1 10.20***
Total duration 60.2 61.9 92.1 3.45* < 1 6.88*
Mutual gazes
Total frequency 7.4 7.5 11.8 3.95* < 1 7.89**
Total duration 13.2 13.8 19.8 1.64 < 1 3.27t
Expressive gestures
Total frequency 4.2 3.6 8.5 7.17*** < 1 14.17****
Total duration 5.2 5.0 9.9 3.84* < 1 7.66**
Silences
Total frequency 2.8 2.2 1.3 2.51 < 1 4.24*
Total duration 108.2 93.0 28.9 3.99* < 1 7.72**
Body orientation 1.4 7.9 3.1 3.78*
Note. ST = stereotypicallysex typed; A = androgynous.
a Contrastcomparingthe mean of the ST-ST dyads withthat of the ST-A dyads.
b
Contrastcomparingthe mean of the A-A dyads withthose of the ST-ST and ST-A dyads.
t p < .10.
*p < .05. ***p < .005.
** p < .01. ****p < .001.

The same series of orthogonalcontrasts dent on each other to provide compen-

computed separately for the male-male
dyads and the female-female dyads
yielded parallel results. In no case for
eitherdata set did themean forthe ST-ST
dyads differsignificantlyfromthatof the
ST-A dyads. However, the series of con-
trasts comparing the ST-ST and ST-A
dyads against the A-A dyads were either
clearly significant(p < .05 for 5 of the
male-male and 5 of the female-female
contrasts) or marginallysignificant(p <
.10 for 3 of the male-male and 4 of the
female-femalecontrasts)in nearly every
case.
This patternof resultsis clearlyconsis-
tent with Hypotheses 1 and 2-
hypotheses which derive from Bales'
(1955, 1958) and Sampson' s (1977) as-
sumptionthat social interactionis an ac-
tivityrequiringthe applicationof both in-
strumental and expressive functions.
When only one set of functionsis strongly
represented (instrumental in the male
ST-male ST dyads, expressive in the
female ST-female ST dyads), the degree
of interactionalinvolvementis relatively
low. However, when both sets of func-
tions are stronglyrepresentedby two in-
teractantswho are not mutuallydepen-
satingfunctions(e.g., the male A-male A
and femaleA-female A dyads), thedegree
of interactionalinvolvementis relatively
high.
Withrespect to the two contingentout-
comes considered in Hypothesis 3, the
presentdata are generallyconsistentwith
the second. To be specific, it appeared
that the androgynous members of the
ST-A dyads did not express their"role-
deviant" capacities but insteadplayed the
gender-correspondent,stereotypical sex
roles to such an extentthat the resulting
interactions were at least superficially
quite similarto those of the ST-ST dyads.
If we assume, in line with Bem's (1974)
analysis, that androgynous individuals
enact whateversex-rolebehaviors appear
mostappropriatein a given situation,then
it follows that androgynousmales would
notdisplaytheirexpressivecapacities and
androgynousfemales would not display
their instrumentalones when interacting
with a stereotypicallysex-typedstranger
of the same sex. In consequence, thelevel
of interactional involvement in these
ST-A dyads would resemblethose of the
correspondingST-ST dyads.
However, in dyads in which androgyn-

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS
ous individuals are interactingwith a
stereotypicallysex-typedstrangerof the
opposite sex [e.g., the ST-A dyads of the
Ickes and Barnes (1978) study],it is un-
likelythattheywould failto express either
their instrumentalor their expressive
capacities. Rather, they would probably
feelfreeto displayboth sets of capacities,
since by doing so theynot only could dis-
play the particularset of capacities tradi-
tionallyassociated withtheirown gender
role, but could also display the opposing
set of capacities that they share in com-
mon with their opposite-sex partners.
Thus, whereas interactionwith a sex-
typedstrangerof the same sex shouldlead
androgynousindividuals to express only
their "role-consonant" (instrumentalor
expressive) capacities, interactionwith a
sex-typed strangerof the opposite sex
should lead them to express both sets of
capacities.
Although this reasoning is somewhat
speculative,it would account fairlyneatly
forthe various findingswe have reviewed
so far. In the case of mixed-sex dyads
(Ickes and Barnes, 1978),it would explain
whythe presence of an androgynousindi-
vidual appeared to facilitatethe level of
interactionin the ST-A dyads so that it
was greater than that observed in the
ST-ST dyads and comparable to thatob-
served in the A-A dyads. In the case of
same-sex dyads (the present study), it
would explain why the presence of an an-
drogynous individual failed to facilitate
the level of interactionin the ST-A dyads
so thatit remainedcomparableto thatob-
served in the ST-ST dyads and fell short
of that observed in the A-A dyads. Be-
yond these considerations,however, the
reasoningwe have just elaborated is in-
Table 3. Interactionsof Sex Compositionand Sex-Role Composition: Means by Dyad Type
Male-Male Dyads
Dependent ST-ST ST-A
Awkward,forced,and strained 2.3 6.1
Smooth, natural,and relaxed 9.9 6.8
Perceived rapportwithother 7.8 5.8
Overall satisfactionwithinteraction15.4a 6.5,
Note. For a given measure,means not sharinga subscriptin commonare significantly
.05 level by two-tailedt-testfor independentgroups.
p < .05.
p < .01.
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
381
triguingbecause it can also be applied to
account for the participants' degree of
satisfactionwith the interactionsin the
various dyad types. It is to these data that
we now turnour attention.
Interactionsof Sex Compositionand
Sex-Role Composition
The data revealed some significantin-
teractionsof sex compositionand sex-role
composition(Table 3) thatare relevantto
our hypothesesregardingthe participants'
level of satisfactionwith their interac-
tions. These effectsappeared foreach of
the threenew self-report measures we in-
cluded to measuretheperceivedqualityof
the interaction(Table 3, top threerows).
The relevant items required subjects to
take the perspectivesof both themselves
and theirpartnersin reporting,"To what
degree did the interactionseem awkward,
forced, and strainedto (you/theotherper-
son)?"; "To what degree did the interac-
tion seem smooth,natural,and relaxed to
(you/the other person)?"; and, "How
much rapportdid (you/theother person)
feel with (the other person/you)?" Re-
sponses to the three items were moder-
ately intercorrelated(the ranges for r,r2,
r,r3,and r2r3were -.58 to -.78, -.27 to
-.37, and .40 to .48, respectively),and the
patternof means in all cases was essen-
tially the same. This patternis revealed
most clearlyin the fourthrow of Table 3,
in whichthe data are reportedforan over-
all measure obtained by substractingthe
subjects' ratingson thefirstitemfromthe
sum of their ratingson the second and
third.
An examinationof these data revealed
fairlyconsistent support for our predic-
Female-Female Dyads Interaction
A-A ST-ST ST-A A-A F(2,54)
4.7 4.9 5.2 4.3 3.21*
8.2 6.6 7.0 8.4 4.29*
7.6 5.6 7.7 8.3 4.66*
11.0abc 7.3, 9.5bc 12.4ab 5.54**
different
beyondthe
 382 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
tions regardingthe participants'satisfac- A second, more fine-grained prediction
tion with the interactionsof the ST-ST would be consistentwith our earlierpre-
and A-A dyads. Althoughboth the male diction in suggesting that satisfaction
ST-male ST and female ST-female ST would tendto be low forboththefeminine
dyads evidenced a relativelylow level of sex-typedfemales and theirandrogynous
interactional involvement, the reported partners in the female ST-female A
level of satisfactionwith the interactions dyads, since the low level of interactionin
was significantlygreater in dyads com- these dyads would presumably be frus-
posed of two masculine sex-typedmales tratingto both. It would differfromour
than in those composed of two feminine earlier prediction, however, in
sex-typedfemales. This outcome is con- specifyingthat only the sex-typedmales
sistentwiththe predictionthat sex-typed would be satisfiedwith the low level of
males-who are not predisposed to be interactionin the male ST-male A dyads,
communicative and expressive-would whereas their androgynous partners
generally be satisfied with a low level would not. Because the androgynous
of interaction, whereas sex-typed males in these dyads were apparently
females-whose expressive needs would locked into relativelyuninvolvinginterac-
be frustrated by a low level of tions in which theirexpressive capacities
interaction-would not (Hypothesis 1). In could not be displayed, they should have
the male A-male A and female A-female experienced the interactionsas consid-
A dyads, the data revealed that the level erablymore stressful,frustrating, and un-
of interactionand the participants'degree satisfactory than did their sex-typed
of satisfactionwere both relativelyhigh, partners. If this were indeed the case,
withsatisfactionapproachingthelevel ob- these hypothesized reactions of the an-
served in the male ST-male ST dyads. drogynousmales could have been primar-
Because instrumental and expressive ily responsiblefor the low level of satis-
capacities were presumably represented faction reportedin the male ST-male A
in both membersof these A-A dyads, the dyads.
interactionsthey experienced were not To determinewhetherthe unexpectedly
only highlyinvolvingbut mutuallysatis- low satisfactionratingsof the male ST-
factoryas well (Hypothesis 2). male A dyads were due primarilyto the
Despite our success in predictingthe androgynousmembersof these dyads, we
relativelevels of satisfactionin the ST-ST computed a series of within-dyadcon-
and A-A dyad types, our contingentpre- trasts on the data to see whether the
dictions regarding satisfaction in the sex-typed and androgynousmembers of
ST-A dyads were clearly less than ade- the ST-A dyads differedin theirpercep-
quate (Hypothesis 3). Indeed, in retro- tions of each other or of the interaction
spect theyappear to have been somewhat itself.By comparingparticipants'ratings
naive. We proposed that if the level of of theirpartnerson each of the 18 dimen-
interactionin these ST-A dyads resem- sions of the attractionmeasure, we found
bled that of the corresponding ST-ST that the sex-typedmales rated their an-
dyads, thenthe level of satisfactionin the drogynous partners as significantlyless
ST-A dyads would also resemblethat of sincere(M = 1.6) and less trustworthy (M
the correspondingST-ST dyads. How- = 1.1) than their androgynouspartners
ever, the unexpectedlylow level of satis- rated them (M's = 2.9, 2.7), t's(9) for
faction reportedin the male ST-male A nonindependentmeans = 2.33, 3.36; p's
dyads appeared to belie thisprediction-a < .05, .01, respectively.We also found,in
predictionwhich, in retrospect,seems to separate analyses of the satisfaction-
have failed to take into account (1) the with-the-interaction measures, that the
differentorientations toward social in- androgynous males in the ST-A dyads
teractionof the sex-typedand androgyn- perceived the interactionsto be signifi-
ous individualswithinthese dyads, and (2) cantly more awkward, forced, and
the influenceof these differentorienta- strained(M = 7.2) thandid theirsex-typed
tions on the dynamicsof the resultingin- partners(M = 5.0), F (1,9) = 9.34, p <
teractions. .02). Taken together,these effects(which

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS 383
were unique to the male-male ST-A dyad bers possess the required expressive
type) suggest that despite theirapparent capacities but are lacking in the instru-
effortsto conform to the interactional mentalones (e.g., dyads composed of two
style of their masculine sex-typed feminine sex-typed females), a similar
partners,the androgynousmales foundit outcome occurs. Althoughthe level of in-
difficultand stressfulto play thisrole and teractiontends to be low in both of these
at some level were not convincingin their dyad types, the characteristicdifferences
enactmentof it. Althoughtheirown frus- in the participants'needs to be expressive
trationand theirpartners'perceptionthat and communicativeresultin a high level
somethingwas "wrong" may both have of reportedsatisfactionwith the interac-
contributedto the low satisfactionratings, tionin thefirstdyad typebuta low level of
it seems likelythat the firstof these two satisfaction in the second. However,
factorswas primarilyresponsiblefor the whenthe two dyad memberspossess both
overall result. instrumentaland expressive capacities
As a finalpoint,it should be noted that (e.g., dyads composed of two androgyn-
if we have devoted considerable space to ous males or females), the resultinglevel
thefindingsreportedin thissectionas well of interactionalinvolvementis generally
as the previous one, we have done so for high and the participants'level of satis-
good reason. The data reportedin thepre- factionis relativelyhighas well.
vious section are importantbecause they Finally, when one dyad member is
suggest that the level of behavioral in- characterizedas possessing eitherinstru-
volvementin same-sex dyads is essentially mental or expressive capacities (e.g., is
an interpersonal phenomenon that de- stereotypicallysex-typed) and the other
pends upon the degree to which both ex- dyad member is characterized as pos-
pressive and instrumentalcapacities are sessingboth sets of capacities (e.g., is an-
applied. The data reportedin the present drogynous),the resultinglevel of interac-
sectionare also important;however,their tion appears to depend on whether the
importancelies in the implicationthatthe second individual displays both sets of
level of satisfactionwiththe interactions capacities in the context of the interac-
of same-sex dyads is essentially a per- tion. If, as apparently occurred in the
sonal phenomenon which depends upon presentstudy,the second individualsup-
the degree to which the individual's ex- presses the set of capacities that is not
pressive needs have (or have not) been shared by the other,the resultinglevel of
frustrated.A detailed understandingof interactionis relativelylow and the par-
sex-role influencesin dyadic interactions ticipants' satisfactionagain reflects the
will clearlyrequirean appreciationof the degree to which their expressive needs
processes occurringat bothof these levels have been frustrated.But if,as apparently
of analysis. occurredin the studyby Ickes and Barnes
(1978), thesecond individualdisplaysboth
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
sets of capacities, the level of interaction
is relativelyhighand reportedsatisfaction
Viewed collectively,the overall pattern is relativelyhighas well.
of results that we have reviewed above These data may have some important
is remarkably consistent with the as- implicationsfor the contrastingviews of
sumption that interactionalinvolvement androgynypresented by Sampson (1977)
requires the application and synthesisof and by various other authors(e.g., Bem,
both expressive and instrumentalfunc- forthcoming; Deaux, unpublished;Spence
tions. The present data suggest that and Helmreich, 1978). In contrast to
when the two membersof a dyad possess Sampson's speculation that androgyny
the required instrumentalcapacities but may discourage interactional involve-
are relativelylacking in the expressive ment, the data from this and an earlier
ones (e.g., dyads composed of two mas- study (Ickes and Barnes, 1978) indicate
culine sex-typed males), the resulting that it may have exactly the opposite ef-
level of interactionalinvolvementis low. fect. In initial,unstructuredinteractions
Analogously, when the two dyad mem- involvingtwo strangers,dyads composed

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

of two stereotypicallysex-typedindividu- ticipantsare independentlycapable of ini-

als displayed consistentlyless interac- tiating and maintainingthe interaction
tional involvementacross a range of be- withouthaving to depend on compensat-
havioral measures than dyads composed ing interactionalfunctionsbeing provided
of two androgynousindividuals,and this by the other.Because thismorevoluntary
effectwas observed in same-sex as well as typeof interdependencewould seem to be
mixed-sexdyads. Thus, the data offerno best characterizedby the interactionsof
supportfor Sampson's assertionthat an- androgynous,as opposed to sex-typed,
drogynyis likelyto contributeto "human individuals, we submit that it may be
isolation" and "alienation," but offer appropriateto view androgynyas theideal
substantialsupportforthe claims by Bem of an essentially healthy culture,not an
(forthcoming); Deaux (unpublished), unhealthyone.
Spence and Helmreich (1978) and others
that androgynyis likely to facilitatein-
teractionalinvolvement.
By implication,the data suggestthat,in REFERENCES
dyadic interactionsat least, the synthesis Bakan, D.
of expressive and instrumentalfunctions 1966 The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago:
by means of an interdependentintegration Rand McNally.
may not be as desirable or as easily Bales, R. F.
1955 "Adaptive and integrative changes as
achieved as Sampson (1977) has implied. sources of strainin social systems." In A.
For example, in what is presumablythe P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales
prototypic case in which each dyad (eds.), Small Groups: Studies in Social In-
memberpossesses the particularset of in- teraction.New York: Knopf.
strumentalor expressive capacities that 1958 "Task roles and social roles in problem-
solvinggroups." In E. E. Maccoby, T. M.
the otherlacks (e.g., a dyad composed of Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (eds.),
a masculine sex-typed male and a Readings in Social Psychology (3rd ed.).
femininesex-typedfemale), the outcome New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
of an attemptedinteractionmay notbe the Balswick, J., and C. Peek
1971 "The inexpressive male: A tragedy of
smoothintegrationof complementarysets American society." The Family Co-
of functionsbut rather an interactional ordinator20:363-368.
impasse of a sort that actuallyprecludes Bem, S. L.
such integration (Ickes and Barnes, 1978). 1974 "The measurement of psychological an-
Given an empiricallydocumented out- drogyny."Journalof Consultingand Clini-
Psychology42:155-162.
come of this type, we are not persuaded Bem, S. calL.
that Sampson's concept of interdepen- 1975 "Sex-role adaptability:One consequence of
dence is as conducive to social relatedness psychologicalandrogyny."Journalof Per-
as his analysis mightsuggest.Althougha sonalityand Social Psychology31:634-643.
Bem, S. L.
strictlyinterdependentsynthesisof func- Forth- "Beyond androgyny:Some presumptuous
tions might appear viable and perhaps com- prescriptionsfor a liberated sexual iden-
even desirable in theory,we suggestthat ing tity.'"In J. Shermanand F. Denmark(eds.),
in practice it is not only vulnerableto the The Future of Women: Issues in Psychol-
sort of interactionalimpasse described ogy. New York: PsychologicalDimensions.
S. L., and E. Lenney
above but is also characterizedby a coer- Bem,1976 "Sex-typingand the avoidance of cross-sex
cive, "forced" quality that derives from behavior." Journalof Personalityand So-
the participants' necessity to deal with cial Psychology33:48-54.
each other from a position of mutual Bem, S. L., W. Martyna,and C. Watson
weakness ratherthan fromone of mutual 1976 "Sex-typingand androgyny:Furtherexplo-
rationsof the expressive domain." Journal
strength.If it is assumed thatthe interac- of Personality and Social Psychology
tions of two individualsare the most re- 34:1016-1023.
warding when the interdependencethey Block, J. H.
establish is voluntaryratherthan forced, 1973 "Conceptions of sex roles: Some cross-
cultural and longitudinal perspectives."
thenthe degree to whichinterdependence American Psychologist28:512-526.
is truly voluntarymay depend in large Cosentino, F., and A. B. Heilbrun
measure on the degree to whichboth par- 1964 "Anxiety correlates of sex-role identityin

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEX ROLES IN SAME-SEX DYADS
college students.'" Psychological Reports
14:729-730.
Deaux, K.
1976 The Behavior of Women and Men. Mon-
terey,CA: Brooks/Cole.
Un- "Sex-related patterns of social interac-
publ. tion." Invited paper presentedat the 50th
annual conventionof the MidwesternPsy-
chological Association, Chicago, 1978.
Frieze, I. H., and S. J. Ramsey
1976 "Nonverbal maintenanceof traditionalsex
roles." Journal of Social Issues 32, No.
3:133-141.
Gall, M. D.
1969 "The relationship between masculinity-
feminityand manifestanxiety." Journalof
Clinical Psychology25:294-295.
Gaudreau, P.
1977 "Factor analysis of the Bem Sex-Role In-
ventory." Journalof Consultingand Clini-
cal Psychology45:299-302.
Goffman,E.
1963 Behavior in Public Places. New York: The
Free Press.
Goffman,E.
1971 Relations in Public. New York: Basic
Books.
Gray, S. W.
1957 "Masculinity-feminity in relationto anxiety
and social acceptance." Child Develop-
ment28:203-214.
Harford,T. C., C. H. Willis, and H. L. Deabler
1967 "Personality correlates of masculinity-
femininity." Psychological Reports
21:881-884.
Haythorn,W. W.
1970 "Interpersonal stress in isolated groups."
In J. E. McGrath(ed.), Social and Psycho-
logical Factors in Stress. New York: Holt,
Rinehart,and Winston,Inc.
Henley, N. M.
1977 Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal
Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ickes, W., and R. D. Barnes
1977 "The role of sex and self-monitoring in un-
structureddyadic interactions."Journalof
Personalityand Social Psychology35:315-
330.
1978 "Boys and girls together-and alienated:
On enacting stereotyped sex roles in
mixed-sex dyads." Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology36:669-683.
LaFrance, M., and C. Mayo
1978 MovingBodies: NonverbalCommunication
This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
385
in Social Relationships. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Lippa, R.
1978 "The naive perception of masculinity-
femininity on the basis ofexpressivecues."
Journalof Research in Personality12:1-14.
Maccoby, E. E.
1966 "Sex differencesin intellectualfunction-
ing." In E. E. Maccoby (ed.), The Devel-
opmentof Sex Differences.Stanford,CA:
StanfordUniversityPress.
Mehrabian,A.
1974 Nonverbal Communication. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Moreland,J. R., N. Gulanick,E. K. Montague,and
V. A. Harren
1978 "Some psychometricpropertiesof the Bem
Sex-Role Inventory." Applied Psycholog-
ical Measurement2:249-256.
Safi'lios-Rothschild, C.
1977 Love, Sex, and Sex Roles. Englewood
Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sampson, E. E.
1977 "Psychology and the American ideal."
Journalof Personalityand Social Psychol-
ogy 35:767-782.
Sattel, J. W.
1976 "The inexpressivemale: Tragedyor sexual
politics?" Social Problems 23:469-477.
Sears, R. R.
1970 "Relation of early socialization experi-
ences to self-conceptsand gender role in
middle childhood." Child Development
41:267-289.
Spence, J. T., and R. Helmreich
1978 Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psy-
chological Dimensions, Correlates, and
Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Spence, J. T., R. Helmreich,and J. Stapp
1975 "Ratings of selfand peers on sex-roleattri-
butes and theirrelationto self-esteemand
conceptions of masculinityand feminin-
ity." Journalof Personalityand Social Psy-
chology 32:29-39.
Strahan, F.
1975 "Remarks on Bem's measurementof psy-
chological androgyny: Alternatives,
methods and a supplementaryanalysis."
Journalof Consultingand Clinical Psychol-
ogy 43:568-571.
Webb, A. P.
1963 "Sex-role preferencesand adjustment in
early adolescence." Child Development
34:609-618.