Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 10, Issue 5–6, pp 445–456 | Cite as

A status theory of the evaluation of sex-role and age-role behavior

  • Saul Feinman
Article

Abstract

An earlier investigation formulated a status theory of behavioral choice evaluation to explain the lesser approval for cross-sex-role behavior of males than of females. Since males are often assigned higher prestige, their deviation from male to female behavior represents a movement from higher to lower status, resulting in a loss of approval. To determine that the fit of previous data with the theory was indeed due to the status characteristic of sex roles, the current study used the theory to predict the evaluations of appropriate and cross-role behavior concerning age roles as well as sex roles. Furthermore, the effect of status upon evaluation was hypothesized to reside in the association of status with social value and, in turn, the effect of social value upon evaluation. Subjects were 57 male and 40 female university students who provided approval ratings of either appropriate or cross-age-role and sex-role behavior. For sex and age, cross-role behavior received less approval for the higher status actor. This indicated that the lesser approval of cross-sex-role behavior of males was due to the differential status ranking of male and female roles, rather than to some other feature more specific to sex roles. The proposition that social value is the explanatory link in the effect of status upon evaluation is supported by the results.

Keywords

Status Theory Status Characteristic High Status Lower Status Choice Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aries, P. Centuries of childhood. New York: Random House, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. Beere, C. A. Women and women's issues: A handbook of tests and measures. San Francisco: Bass, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 48–54.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, J., Cohn, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 1972, 37, 241–255.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, J., Fisek, J., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, S. R. Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, D. G. Masculinity-femininity development in children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 197–202.Google Scholar
  9. Bullough, V. L. Transvestites in the Middle Ages. American Journal of Sociology, 1974, 79, 1381–1394.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. Discriminative parental solicitude: A biological perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, 42, 277–288.Google Scholar
  12. Deaux, K. The behavior of women and men. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 80–85.Google Scholar
  14. Etaugh, C., & Brown, B. Perceiving the causes of success and failure of male and female performers: A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 103.Google Scholar
  15. Feinman, S. Approval of cross-sex-role behavior. Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 643–648.Google Scholar
  16. Feinman, S. Why is cross-sex-role behavior more approved for girls than for boys? A status characteristic approach. Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 289–300.Google Scholar
  17. Fling, S., & Manosevitz, H. Sex typing in nursery school children's play interests. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 146–152.Google Scholar
  18. Hartup, W. W., & Moore, S. G. Avoidance of inappropriate sex-typing by young children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 467–473.Google Scholar
  19. Hesselbart, S. Women doctors win and made nurses lose: A study of sex role and occupational stereotypes. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1977, 4, 49–62.Google Scholar
  20. Lansky, L. M. The family structure also affects the model: Sex-role attitudes in parents of preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 139–150.Google Scholar
  21. Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. P. Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: Applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, (3), 111–124.Google Scholar
  22. Lynn, D. B. A note on sex differences in the development of masculine and feminine identification. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 126–135.Google Scholar
  23. Meeker, B. F., & Wietzel-O'Neill, P. A. Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 91–105.Google Scholar
  24. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  25. Millman, M. She did it all for love: A feminist view of the sociology of deviance. In M. Millman & R. M. Kanter (Eds.), Another voice. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. Mischel, H. K. Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 157–166.Google Scholar
  27. Newson, J., & Newson, E. Cultural aspects of childrearing in the English-speaking world. In M. P. M. Martin (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social world. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  28. Neugarten, B. L., Moore, J. W., & Lowe, J. C. Age norms, age constraints, and adult socialization. American Journal of Sociology, 1965, 70, 710–717.Google Scholar
  29. Press, I., & McKool, M., Jr. Social structure and status of the aged: Toward some valid cross-cultural generalizations. Aging and Human Development, 1972, 3, 297–306.Google Scholar
  30. Rabban, M. Sex-role identification in young children in two diverse social groups. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1950, 42, 81–158.Google Scholar
  31. Riley, M. W., Johnson, M., & Foner, A. Age strata in the society. In M. W. Riley, M. Johnson, & A. Foner, Aging and society: Vol. 3: A sociology of age stratification. New York: Russel Sage, 1972.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenkrantz, P. S., Vogel, S., Bee, H., Broverman, I., & Broverman, D. Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287–295.Google Scholar
  33. Ross, D. M., & Ross, S. A. Resistance by preschool boys to sex-inappropriate behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 342–346.Google Scholar
  34. Sarbin, T. R., & Allen, V. L. Role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  35. Sheehan, T. Senior esteem as a factor of socioeconomic complexity. Gerontologist, 1976, 16, 433–440.Google Scholar
  36. Stein, A. H., Pohly, S. R., & Mueller, E. The influence of masculine, feminine, and neutral tasks on children's achievement behavior, expectancies for success and attainment values. Child Development, 1971, 42, 195–207.Google Scholar
  37. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saul Feinman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of WyomingLaramie

Personalised recommendations