Sex-role attitudes across two cultures: United States and India

This study tests whether students from India hold more traditional sex role attitudes compared to students from the US, whether women from either country hold more liberal sex role attitudes than males, and whether socioeconomic and demographic factors are better predictors of sex role attitudes among women of either culture. Data were obtained in 1978 from a sample of 409 undergraduate students from three Mississippi colleges in the US and 419 undergraduate and graduate students from three educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, India. Sex role attitudes are measured by scaling developed by Scanzoni (1975). Out of a total possible score of 100, the mean values are 69.09 for the US sample and 53.62 for the Indian sample. Differences between the means for all 20 sex role attitudes are statistically significant. Results indicate that US females and Indian females had less traditional sex role attitudes than their respective counterparts. Mother role, wife role, father role, and total sex role attitude were more traditional among males in India compared to males in the US and among females in India compared to females in the US. More traditional attitudes were held by males in India with lower educated fathers and unemployed mothers. Religion was the only variable significantly related to Indian female students. In the US, traditional sex role attitudes of males were significantly related to high maternal income and residence in urban areas. More traditional sex role attitudes among US females were related to increasing age and marital status. Stepwise analysis reveals that the most powerful explanatory factors were sex and mother's occupation among Indian students and sex, father's income, and year in college among US students. What little variance was explained was explained by more variables in the US sample, and the best model predictors explained more variance in the US sample.     

Pursuing and distancing: the construct and its measurement

Although the concept of interpersonal pursuing and distancing has been introduced and used clinically, the lack of a reliable and valid measure has deterred its more formal investigation and relevance to personality theory. The Pursuing-Distancing (P-D) Scale, a 92-item measure of the behavioral expression of these characteristics, was developed. Evidence for internal consistency as well as internal support of construct validity is presented and discussed. An 80-item revised scale is available from the authors and is currently being evaluated in a variety of external validation settings.     

Evaluation of the BSRI masculine and feminine items using desirability and stereotype ratings

This study empirically tested Bem's (1974) assumption that the BSRI Masculinity and Femininity scales measure sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women in American society. The adequacy of items in the two scales was evaluated by Bem's (1974) criteria using two types of desirability and stereotype ratings. Results obtained in all the experimental conditions except one involving Bem's desirability instructions and Bem's rating scale did not support the tested assumption. Implications of these results for revising the BSRI scales were discussed.     

Perception of social distributions

Accurate representation of the distribution of social attitudes and behaviors can guide effective social behavior and is often essential for correct inferences. We examined the accuracy of people's beliefs about the distributions of a large number of attitudinal and behavioral dimensions. In two studies we measured actual attitudes and behaviors in a student population, and we assessed beliefs by asking subjects to estimate the distribution of 100 students on these dimensions. We examined the accuracy of subjects' perceptions of the means, standard deviations, and distribution shapes. Subjects showed a number of systematic biases, including overestimation of dispersion and overestimation of the means of behavioral distributions and a false consensus bias, but their overall accuracy was impressive.