Citation
Male-female perceptions of aggressive communicators in terms of requisite managerial characteristics

Material Information

Title:
Male-female perceptions of aggressive communicators in terms of requisite managerial characteristics
Alternate title:
Male - female perception of aggressive communicators in terms of requiste managerial characteristics
Creator:
Brown, Claire Damken
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 222 leaves : ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Aggressiveness ( lcsh )
Management ( lcsh )
Sexism in communication ( lcsh )
Aggressiveness ( fast )
Management ( fast )
Sexism in communication ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-198).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Department of Communication.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Claire Damken Brown.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
16860299 ( OCLC )
ocm16860299
Classification:
LD1190.L48 1985m .B76 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
MALE/FEMALE PERCEPTIONS OF AGGRESSIVE
COMMUNICATORS IN TERMS OF REQUISITE
MANAGERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
by
Claire Damken Brown
B.A., University of Colorado, 1973
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Communication




iii
Brown, Claire Damken (M.A., Communication)
Male/Female Perceptions of Aggressive Communicators in Terms of
Requisite Managerial Characteristics
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Jon A. Winterton
This investigation examines the relationship between
male/female perceptions of managerial potential and communication
acts perceived as aggressive in an organizational setting. Female
and male managers read a short account of a dialog between two
subordinates in which one subordinate used aggressive
communication behavior. Dialogs were identical while sex of the
subordinates varied: male-male, female-female, and Person A-Person
B a case with no gender indicated. Each subject read one
version of the dialog and completed a series of 5-point rating
scales using requisite managerial descriptors. It is hypothesized
that both male and female managers will perceive requisite
managerial characteristics more favorably in the aggressive
communicating male than in the aggressive communicating female.
By "more favorably" it is meant that the subjects will more
strongly agree with the requisite managerial characteristics as
suitable descriptors of the managerial potential of the aggressive
communicating person in the dialog. The aggressive communicating
female will be perceived less favorably by male and female
subjects in terms of requisite managerial characteristics. The
results are discussed in terms of male/female interpretations of
managerial potential and perceptions of male/female aggressive
behavior.


To my husband, Larry,
and
my parents, Margaret and John Damken


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION............................................. 1
Definitions and Hypothesis............................. 15
II. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................. 22
Sex Role Differences and Perceptions................... 23
General Sex Role Attributes and Stereotypes........ 23
Perceptions of Communicator Style.................... 29
Sex Differences in Perceptions of Behavior......... 34
Conclusions........................................ 38
Sex Differences and Authority........................ 39
Attributions of Leadership........................... 39
Perceptions of Authority and Power................... 48
Conclusions.......................................... 53
Sex Differences and Aggression......................... 56
General Sex Differences and Aggression............... 56
. Perceptions of Aggression............................ 64
Sex Differences and Verbal Aggression............... 69
Conclusions......................................... 75
Sex Differences and Managerial Characteristics....... 81
Sex Stereotypes in the Workplace..................... 81
Sex Differences and Management Communication....... 92
Managerial Characteristics
96


vi
Conclusions........................................ 110
General Conclusions................................... 116
III. METHODOLOGY............................................. 119
Development of Dialog................................. 120
Experts in the Field Consulted........... 124
Pilot Study........................................... 124
Study................................................. 130
Subjects............................................ 130
Instrument.......................................... 131
Procedures.......................................... 137
Independent and Dependent Variables................. 138
Further Definitions and Proposed Statistical
Analyses............................................ 139
Data Analyses....................................... 140
IV. RESULTS................................................. 144
Subject Population.................................... 144
Establishment of the Main Character as Aggressive... 145
Analyses of Hypotheses................................ 147
Hypothesis 1........................................ 147
Hypothesis 2........................................ 162
Hypothesis 3........................................ 165
Hypothesis 4........................................ 166
Other Hypotheses.................................... 167
Other Variables..................................... 168
V. CONCLUSIONS............................................. 172
Implications........................................ 187


vii
Areas for Future Research........................... 189
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. 192
APPENDIX
A. Pilot Study Dialog A and Questionnaire................. 199
B. Pilot Study Dialog B and Questionnaire................. 203
C. Cover Letter Example................................... 207
D. Study Dialog and Questionnaire......................... 208
E. Successful Manager Questionnaire....................... 217


TABLES
Table
I. Pilot Study Subject Population....................... 126
II. Pilot Study Means and Standard Deviations............ 128
III. Subject Population................................... 144
IV. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable D -
Perceived Aggression of Person A and Variable E -
Perceived Aggression of Person B.................... 146
V. Analysis of Variance for Variable D Perceived
Aggression of Person A and Variable E Perceived
Aggression of Person B.................................. 147
VI. Means and Standard Deviations for Male Adjectives... 149
VII. Means and Standard Deviations for Female Adjectives. 150
VIII. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable A -
Summed Male Adjectives and Variable B Summed
Female Adjectives........................................... 152
IX. Analysis of Variance for Variable A Summed Male
Adjectives........................................... 153
X. Analysis of Variance for Variable B Summed Female
Adjectives........................................... 155
XI. Analysis of Variance for Individual Male Adjectives:
Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F..... 157
XII. Analysis of Variance for Individual Female
Adjectives: Probability, of Significant Relationships
PR > F............................................... 158
XIII. Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance
for Variable H Summed Responses to Significant
Male Adjectives............................................ 160


ix
XIV. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable C -
Summed Male Phrases................................... 161
XV. Analysis of Variance for Variable C Summed Male
Phrases............................................... 162
XVI. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable G -
Summed Sex Stereotype Responses....................... 168
XVII. Analysis of Variance for Variable G Summed Sex
Stereotype Responses.................................. 169
XVIII. Analysis of Variance for Variable A with Age as an
Independent Variable.................................. 170
XIX. Analysis of Variance for Variable B with Age as an
Independent Variable.................................. 170


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade research focusing on sex differences
in many areas has increased. Studies examining male/female
perceptions of conflict, aggression, and managerial behavior have
been conducted. Baird, Jr., (1976) presented a review of research
in sex differences in group communication.1 Baird noted that while
sex differences were examined in many studies, this factor was not
always mentioned in the title of an article, so some pertinent
information may not have been found. Baird cites stereotypes of
typical male and female roles from Bardwick and Douvan.2 They
state that "males are commonly thought to be independent,
aggressive, competitive, task-oriented, outwardly oriented,
assertive, self-disciplined, stoic, objective, innovative,
analytic-minded, and unsentimental; females are thought to be
dependent, fragile, nonaggressive, noncompetitive, inner-oriented,
interpersonally oriented, empathetic,sensitive, subjective,
1. John E. Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences in Group Communication: A
Review of Relevant Research," Quarterly Journal of Speech 62
(1976): 179-92.
2. Cited in Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences," J. Bardwick and E.
Douvan, "Ambivalence: The Socialization of Women," Women in
Sexist Society, V. Gornick and B. Moran, eds., (New York:
Basic Books, 1971) 225-41.


2
intuitive, and supportive." Baird suggests that boys and girls
learn the correct roles by being positively reinforced by their
parents for appropriate male/female behavior and "discouraged from
engaging in behaviors judged inappropriate."3 He posits that while
females are permitted feminine behavior and masculine tomboy
behavior, males are permitted only masculine behaviors and
therefore receive more negative responses from others regarding
their behavior. Baird suggests that these negative responses push
males to use task oriented behavior and accomplishments for
approval.4 5 Differences between boys and girls in their learned
appropriate male/female behaviors "in turn should produce sex
differences in communicational behaviors."6 Baird's analyzation of
research supports his hypothesis for a sex role theory of
behavior: females are "more interpersonally oriented because they
often receive positive responses from others, while males are more
object-oriented because others often give them negative
responses."6
Karre examines relationships among self-concept, social
interaction, and sex role stereotypes. Karre points out that
"stereotyped sex roles inhibit full development of positive self-
3. Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences" 180.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid


3
concepts by prescribing from birth appropriate behavior for boys
and girls. These prescriptions define sexual roles and extend to
many areas of functioning." Wenar confirmed that "boys of pre-
school and school age are more aggressive than girls in their
overt behavior and in their fantasies; girls are dependent,
passive, and conforming in their overt behavior and fantasies."6
Karre states that we impose our own restrictions by the
assumptions we make about ourselves and others. Ideas for freeing
children from sex role stereotypes are also discussed.
A descriptive study had male and female undergraduates
rate a typical and desirable man or woman. Items were rated "in
terms of (1) how typical it would be for a man (woman) to possess
each characteristic and (2) how desirable it would be for a man
(woman) to possess each characteristic."9 Items found to be
typical and desirable in a man were: aggressive, not excitable in
minor crisis, mechanical aptitude, acts as leader, dominant, good
at sports, and competitive. Items found to be typical and
desirable in a woman were: kind, cries easily, gentle, expresses
7. Idahlynn Karre, "Stereotyped Sex Roles and Self-Concept:
Strategies for Liberating the Sexes," Communication Education
25 (1976): 43-52.
8. Cited in Karre, "Stereotyped Sex Roles," C. Wenar, Personality
Development From Infancy to Adulthood (Boston: Houghton-
Hifflin, 1971) 224.
9. Thomas L. Ruble, "Sex Stereotypes: Issues of Changes in the
1970's," Sex Poles 9 (1983): 397-402. Data were collected in
1978.


4
tender feelings, and neat. Other typical male items were:
independent, skilled in business, outspoken, self-confident, takes
a stand, ambitious, not easily influenced, active, knows ways of
world, loud, interested in sex, makes decisions easily, doesn't
give up easily, stands up under pressure, not timid, likes math
and science, adventurous, sees self running show, outgoing, feels
superior, and forward. Other typical female items were:
emotional, grateful, home-oriented, strong conscience, creative,
understanding, considerate, needs approval, devotes self to
others, aware of others' feelings, excitable in a major crisis,
enjoys art and music, doesn't hide emotions, tactful, feelings
hurt, helpful to others, religious, likes children, warm to
others, and need for security.10 Ruble found "a difference between
stereotypes (of the typical person) and attitudes (about desirable
characteristics). While attitudes may have changed in the 1970's,
stereotypes remained remarkably stable."11 In comparing these
results with a similar 1974 study, Ruble concluded that the
stereotypes remained strong while more variance was seen in the
attitudes.
Stereotypes or "overgeneralizations" about men and women12
help us reduce uncertainty. Stereotypes help maintain a
10. Ibid., p. 400.
11. Ibid., p. 397.
12. Barbara Eakins and R. Gene Eakins, Sex Differences in Human
Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978) 6.


5
comfortable state (less stress) since we are experiencing
certainty about situations around us. They add a predictability
to our world. "People tend to construct their impressions of
others by interpreting the other person's appearance [sex] and
behavior."13 Impressions also are influenced by the sex of the
source and our use (whether subconscious or not) of sex
stereotypes. When we are presented with a situation new to us, we
may initially rely on our stereotypes to evaluate the speaker or
situation. If we must determine the best applicant for a nursing
job, we may lean toward selecting a female. Our female
stereotypes such as pleasant, well mannered, kind, gentle, and
aware of feelings of others, may confirm the "certainty" we need
in selecting a female over a male applicant. In selecting a male
for this job, some "uncertainty" may exist regarding his ultimate
success in this position. Male stereotypes such as dominant,
aggressive, unemotional, and ambitious, lend uncertainty to
selecting a male for this position. Yet in a different situation,
these stereotypes might lead us to prefer a male to a female
(selecting a new bank manager). While reducing uncertainty,
stereotypes may increase our chances of incorrectly perceiving a
new situation by infringing on a full use of available
information.
13. Victoria O'Donnell and June Kable, Persuasion An
Interactive-Dependency Approach (New York: Random House, 1982)
114.


6
"Assuming for the moment that leaders (both male and
female) behave similarly, we may perceive behavioral differences
where none in fact exists."14 Due to our sex role socialization,
if we generally think of males in certain roles (speaker, high
status, more authority) and females in certain roles (submissive,
passive, helper), then when we see a male or female acting in
contrast to our expectations we might consider that person as
being "out of place." Hastorf et al. examine how we develop
perceptions of people. They state that "our past experiences and
purposes play an absolutely necessary role in providing us with
knowledge of the world that has structure, stability, and meaning.
Without them, events would not make sense. With them, our
perceptions define a predictable world, an orderly stage for us to
act on."1B Hastorf et al. continue by discussing implicit
personality theories which produce "assumptions about
relationships between personality traits in other people, so that
knowing some things about a person permits us to infer other
things."15 16 These implicit personality theories are "assumed
correlations between traits which we carry around in our heads"
and "are generalizations from behavior we may have observed in
14. B. A. Fischer, Small Group Decision Making (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1980) 222.
15. Albert Hastorf, David Schneider, and Judith Poleka, Person
Perception (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970) 10.
16. Ibid., p. 15.


7
ourselves and one or two other persons."17 They suggest that once
we have learned these theories, we use them as a "general rule"
which is_ similar to the production of a "group stereotype."
Hastorf et al. define stereotype as "a set of characteristics
which is assumed to fit a category of people" and an
"overgeneralization".19 In the case of a stereotype and the
implicit personality theory, "the perceiver infers something about
the stimulus person which is not given directly by the information
known about him."19 By attributing "certain characteristics to all
members of each group," we may "create stability and meaning" in
our world but we "do it at the risk of inaccuracy."20 If we are
surprised to see a male or female in a particular managerial
position or job occupation, it is recommended that we attempt to
understand this perception of "surprise" by examining our own
implicit personality theories and stereotypes which we have
learned to use to make sense of our world.
A female assuming aggressive behavior in the work place
may be acting differently than our stereotypes have led us to
believe is correct female behavior. When a male or female behaves
in a manner that we perceive as incongruent with how they "should"
17. Ibid., P- 16.
18. Ibid., pp. 46-7
19. Ibid., P- VO
20. Ibid., pp. 16-7


8
behave, we may feel some stress and dissonance. "Dissonance is
assumed to be uncomfortable, and the individual is therefore
motivated to reduce it, usually by altering his cognitions about
either the world or himself."21 Perhaps we will ignore or deny
that the behavior has occurred; we also may reduce the importance
of this incongruent behavior; or, use the incongruent behavior to
reinforce and justify our stereotypes. The outcome will be the
same: reduced stress and reduced dissonance.
Social judgement theory points out that "attitude change
will be less in relation to a person's ego-involvement in the
issue that is, the greater the ego-involvement, the larger the
latitude of rejection, and the smaller the latitude of
noncommitment, the less the attitude change."22 Social judgement
theory developed by Sherif and Sherif, is based on the concept
that "people respond to ideas and objects through their
perceptions of the world or a social situation. Such perceptions
or reference points serve as yardsticks to measure new
information."23 "Social perception has as its basis a reference
point that is internal and derived from our past experiences. The
response to communication is influenced by such reference
points."24 Ego-involvement is seen as "the degree of involvement
21. Ibid., p. 84, Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance.
22. O'Donnell et al. 53.
23. Ibid., p. 41.
24. Ibid


9
of a person and how the person's life is affected by the issue."25
The "direction of an attitude (like-dislike)" is examined as the
"intensity of that attitude is revealed through the level of ego-
involvement. 2 6 It is suggested that males and females are to some
extent ego-involved in maintaining sex stereotypes. The degree to
which they are ego-involved is reflected in their acceptance of
males' and females' display of sex-incongruent behavior. The more
ego-involved we are, the less we will favorably respond to sex-
incongruent behavior in the work place and to attempts which
promote equality between the sexes. Males may fear additional job
competition as the number of females increases in predominantly
male occupations. Both males and females are faced with their
changing roles which in turn decrease their predictability of the
world while increasing ambiguity and their stress level. As
females advance in predominately male organizations, stress levels
may increase for males and females as they both reevaluate correct
organizational behavior and rules. The extent of ego-involvement
may be seen in how fiercely we fight to maintain our stereotypes
and/or ignore those people who want to change our attitudes.
Fitzpatrick and Winke examined conflict strategies in
interpersonal relationships between same sex and opposite sex
friends. The authors "found no significant differences in the
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid


10
conflict strategies adopted by males and females with their
opposite sex others. A number of significant differences did
emerge however, in male and female same sex friendships."27 In a
same sex relationship males used nonnegotiation strategies more
often while females used personal rejection, empathetic
understanding or emotional appeals.
In discussing the development of hostile and aggressive
habits in males and females, Zillman quotes from a study by
Hokanson, Willers, and Koropsak:29
Females undergo a set of learning experiences in which
making nonaggressive responses to someone else's
aggression is rewarded: in the specific sense of thereby
effectively reducing the other person's aversive
behavior, and in the general sense that this behavior
conforms to cultural norms and expectations. Males, on
the other hand, evidently have learned that meeting
another's aggression with counter-aggression is both an
effective and a socially sanctioned means of controlling
a peer's aversive behavior.
Zillman continues stating that "since the prevailing cultural
norms of social conduct favor males to be aggressive and
females to be friendly toward an annoyer, sex differences in
coping with annoyance must be expected."29 He further explains:
27. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Jeff Winke, "You Always Hurt the One
You Love: Strategies and Tactics in Interpersonal Conflict,"
Communication Quarterly 27 (1979): 3-11.
28. Dolf Zillman, Hostility and Aggression (Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1979) 355. The quotation is cited from J. E.
Hokanson, K. R. Willers, and E. Koropsak, "The Modification
of Autonomic Responses during Aggressive Interchange," Journal
of Personality 36 (1968): 386-404. See p. 388.
29. D. Zillman, Hostility 355.


11
If males are socially rewarded for aggression (esteemed
for being tough) and socially punished for failing to
fight (devalued for being "sissies"), males should
readily develop aggressive habits and, when provoked,
should experience relief only after retaliation. ... if
females are punished for aggression (devalued as
"bitchy") and rewarded for failing to fight (admired for
behaving in a subdued manner), females should indeed
become nonaggressive. They should, when provoked, take a
submissive route out of annoyance and experience relief.
Phelps and Austin in their discussion of anger ask, "why
have women lived with their inability to express anger fully and
directly?"30 They refer to women's overt expression of anger as a
taboo. They propose that one of the reasons for this taboo "is
that women have been taught that it is not "lady-like" or feminine
to show that they are angry. They have been intimidated by the
threat of being called "bitchy," "castrating," "nagging,"
"aggressive," or "masculine"."
In their research review of sex differences in aggression,
Maccoby and Jacklin conclude that "evidence is strong that males
are the more aggressive sex."31 They refer to aggression as "the
intent of one individual to hurt another."32 They discuss the
"view that the two sexes are actually equivalent in aggressive
motivation but that girls are conditioned to be afraid of
displaying their aggressive tendencies openly."33 However, they
30. Stanlee Phelps and Nancy Austin, The Assertive Woman (San Luis
Obispo: Impact, 1975) 120.
31. Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex
Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974) 274.
32. Ibid., p. 227


12
feel that this view is weak and inconsistent. Maccoby and Jacklin
support the position that males are definitely more aggressive
than females due to biological reasons such as level of sex
hormones.
Curtis explored hostility and anger in terms of over-all
psychological adjustment. Curtis discussed how hostility, which
included rage, resentment, and anger could be "recognized,
managed, and ultimately re-channeled into adaptive behavior," and
be considered "an influential determinant of an individual's
adjustment."33 34 The current study examines aggressive communication
behavior and its influential relationship to perceptions of
managerial potential.
Rohner examined cross-cultural research supporting the
hypothesis that "sex differences in aggression are universal, but
that within limits the differences are also highly susceptible to
experiential modification."35 Male children were found to be more
aggressive than female children. Rohner distinguished aggression
from assertion as seen in the following definitions.36
33. Ibid., p. 274.
34. John M. Curtis, "Styles of Dealing with Hostility,"
Psychological Reports 51 (1982): 79-83. This idea is cited
from A. Bandura, Aggression'. A Social Learning Analysis
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973) and L. Berkowitz,
Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1962).
35. Ronald Rohner, "Sex Differences in Aggression: Phylogenetic
and Enculturation Perspectives," Ethos 4 (1976): 57-72.
36. Ibid., p. 59


13
Aggression is defined ... as any behavior that is
intended to hurt another person, oneself, or some thing.
Aggression is revealed physically by such behaviors as
fighting, hitting, biting, kicking, pushing, pinching,
and scratching. It is revealed verbally in such forms as
bickering, quarrelling, telling someone off, sarcasm,
making fun of someone, criticizing him, humiliating him,
cursing him, or saying thoughtless, unkind, or cruel
things. Assertiveness refers to an individual's
attempts to place himself in physical, verbal, or social
priority over others, for example, to dominate a
conversation or a group's activities, or to insist upon
or stress one's will over that of others. An individual
may be assertive verbally, physically, or both. Forms of
verbal assertiveness include making confident,
declarative statements, often without regard for evidence
or proof, or pushing forward one's own point of view.
Physical assertiveness includes various forms of
offensive physical action. But when this offensive
action (either physical or verbal) has the intention of
hurting someone or something, then it becomes aggression,
not assertiveness. Thus aggression and assertiveness are
often closely related forms of behavior, a major
distinction being the intentionality of hurting.
Aggression implies such an intention. Assertiveness does
not.
Frodi, Macaulay, and Thome examined aggressive behavior of
adult males and females in a review of experimental literature.37
Aggression was described as "behavior whose goal is the injury of
some person or object" and anger was viewed as "the emotional
state resulting from a frustration presumably creating a readiness
for aggressive acts."38 They found "that women apparently consider
aggression to be inappropriate behavior in many" instances; and
37. Ann Frodi, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Pauline Thome, "Are Women
Always Less Aggressive than Men? A Review of the Experimental
Literature," Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 634-60.
38. Ibid., p. 635. Frodi states that their definitions of
aggression and anger are the same as those used by L.
Berkowitz.


14
that "there may be some categorical differences in what makes
women and men angry, and differences in the outcome of
arousal that depend on what the provoked person is attending to,39 40
(such as attending to one's angry feelings versus an evaluation of
someone who insulted you). They also found consistent evidence
for these conclusions:
aggressiveness and various assertive or dominance traits
are less approved among women than among men,
behavior that is given the neutral or positive label of
assertiveness when seen in men may be seen as sick or
excessive aggression in women,30
men were sometimes found to be more aggressive than women,
and women were very seldom found to be more aggressive
than men.*1
Thus it appears that "aggression", a potentially valuable
male behavior, has been filtered out of the acceptable female
behaviors. Is aggressive communication behavior critical to both
a male's and female's managerial success? These areas will be
further explored in the "Review of the Literature" section. In
the next section, definitions and hypotheses will be clarified.
39. Ibid., p. 654.
40. Ibid., p. 652.
41. Ibid., p. 639


15
Definitions and Hypothesis
The dialog used in this study takes place in a conflict
situation. Filley describes a situation ripe for conflict as
relationships "which involve real or perceived differences between
two parties"; "the interests of the parties are mutually exclusive
- that is, where the gain of one party's goal is at the cost of
the other's or where the parties have different values."42 43 Filley
makes a distinction between two types of conflict: competitive and
disruptive. In competitive conflicts "there can be a victory for
one party only at the cost of the opponent's total loss"; "the way
in which parties interact is governed by a set of rules."
Competitive conflicts involve mutually incompatible goals and have
an emphasis on winning.4 3 In disruptive conflicts there is no set
of rules and the emphasis is not on winning. Instead the emphasis
is on defeating, harming, or in some way reducing the opponent by
expedience in an environment of anger, stress, or fear. "In
extreme cases, the parties in disruptive conflict will abandon
rational behavior and behave in any manner necessary to bring
about the desired outcome, the goal of the defeat."44 A disruptive
type conflict is used in this study, as one subordinate abandons
42. Alan C. Filley. Interpersonal Conflict Resolution (Glenview:
Scott, Foresman Co, 1975) 1.
43. Ibid., p. 2.
44. Ibid., p. 3.


16
rational behavior and uses anger to reduce the opponent.
Aggression has been described as the expression of anger
which "takes the form of approach behavior directed toward the
infliction of psychological or bodily harm."45 Berkowitz states
"aggression is defined as behavior whose goal is the injury
of some person or object," and anger is viewed as "the emotional
state resulting from a frustration presumably creating a readiness
for aggressive acts."46 "Frustration is said to be any
interference with some on-going goal-directed activity.1,4 7
Berkowitz views aggression and hostility as synonymous and anger
as the "drive state" which can produce aggressive actions.46 48
Phelps and Austin describe an aggressive person as one who
humiliates and depreciates the person with whom they are speaking.
An aggressive person also displays egocentric, vicious, and
obnoxious behavior, and has a destructive effect on others.49
Zillman describes aggressive behavior as "any and every activity
by which a person seeks to inflict bodily damage or physical pain
upon a person who is motivated to avoid such infliction."60
45. Harry F. Harlow, James L. McGaugh, and Richard F. Thompson,
Psychology (San Francisco: Albion, 1971) 106.
46. Quotation from L. Berkowitz cited in the article by A. Frodi
et al., "Are Women Always Less Aggressive."
47. Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression'. A Social Psychological
Analysis, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962) xi.
48. Ibid., p. xii.
49. Phelps and Austin 12.


17
Hostile behavior is viewed as the infliction of harm, "where harm
denotes any experience associated with suffering not resulting
from physical injury."50 51
This study draws from the mentioned definitions of anger
and aggression. In this study, aggressive describes behavior
directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm;
hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others.
Anger is defined as a hostile emotion which may stem from
frustration or from feeling used and/or put down.52 Anger and
aggression are operationally defined in the methodology section.
Anger can stem from frustrations during a conflict.
Aggression might then occur in the escalation of the conflict. As
stated by Filley, "a competitor changes his behavior from a
rational pursuit of a strategy of winning to an irrational act of
aggression."53 "Persuasion, power and force are all acceptable
tools for achieving conflict resolution."54 These tools are used
by J. Hall's "tough battler" in the Model of Conflict Management
Style.55 The tough battler may be seen as disruptive in that he'll
50. D. Zillman 33.
51. Ibid., p. 32.
52. Phelps and Austin, p. 121, define anger as an emotional
reaction to being used or put down. This definition comes
from G. Bach and P. Wyden, The Intimate Enemy (New York;
William Morrow, 1969).
53. Filley, p. 6.
54. Ibid., p. 50-1.


18
use anger and frustration against the opponent and even members of
his own group until he has insured his win position. Anger and
aggression may occur in the conflict when anger takes control and
the goal of mutual satisfaction for both parties is no longer in
sight. The mechanism for controlling the anger and aggression is
as Curtis has suggested, the use of non-belligerent confrontation
methods during the conflict resolution.55 56
Requisite managerial characteristics are those
characteristics that are ascribed to successful middle managers as
found in the studies by Schein.57 58 A listing of these
characteristics can be found in the section concerning
methodology. Managerial potential refers to predicted successful
managerial ability as perceived from current abilities. A
definition of sex stereotype comes from Rosen and Jerdee's study:
"perceptions and expectations of what is appropriate behavior for
males and females".5 B These studies are further examined in the
"Review of the Literature" section and operational definitions are
55. Ibid., p. 50.
56. Curtis 79.
57. Virginia E. Schein, "The Relationship Between Sex Role
Stereotypes and Requisite Managerial Characteristics," Journal
of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100. V. E. Schein,
"Relationships Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite
Management Characteristics Among Female Managers," Journal of
Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 340-44.
58. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "The Influence of Sex-Role
Stereotypes on Evaluations of Male and Female Supervisory
Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 44-8.


19
in the methodology section.
Conflict, by definition, brings parties of incompatible
views together. Anger and aggression are difficult emotions to
avoid especially if a competitive or disruptive conflict develops.
By understanding how anger and aggression are affecting the
conflicting parties and how these behaviors are perceived, we can
try to avoid a conflict resolution that is not satisfactory to
both parties.
The nature of many organizational settings can be viewed
as competitive. The interactions in the organization are governed
by a certain set of rules, written and/or unwritten. Even if the
employees are working as a "team," it would seem that at some
point, their supervisor would have to make decisions concerning
the employees' salary increases, promotions, and job assignments.
Employees may have incompatible goals when they realize only one
of them will be promoted, or receive a bonus, or be selected for
the management training program. Supervision's employee selection
may depend on how well that employee interacts in the
organizational setting. The work place can be good for developing
team spirit. The work place can also be good for developing
employee frustrations which can lead to anger and aggressive
communication behavior. By becoming aware of how aggressive
communication behavior is perceived in the work place, we may
learn where and when this type of behavior is viewed as a valuable
asset to an employee.
The dialog in the current study, involves aggressive


20
communication behavior in a subordinate dyad that varies by sex
(male-male, female-female, Person A-Person B). Due to males' sex
role orientation allowing for expression of aggressive behavior
(more so than females are allowed to express aggressive behavior),
it is felt that the aggressive communicating male will be
perceived more favorably in terms of agreement with managerial
descriptors than the aggressive communicating female. Using
requisite managerial descriptors to determine managerial potential
will add information as to how aggressive communication behavior
is viewed in the corporate setting. The general question under
study asks, "Is perception of managerial potential related to the
sexual identification of the aggressive communicators?" Gathered
data will either support or not support the following experimental
hypotheses:
Aggressive communicating males when communicating with
other males, will be rated more positively by male
supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial
potential than aggressive communicating females.
Aggressive communicating males when communicating with
other males, will be rated more positively by female
supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial
potential than aggressive communicating females.
Aggressive communicating females when communicating with
other females, will be rated more negatively by male
supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial
potential than aggressive communicating males.


21
Aggressive communicating females when communicating with
other females, will be rated more negatively by female
supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial
potential than aggressive communicating males.


CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The background and review of the literature surveys four
main areas of sex differences research: perceptual; authority;
aggressive; and managerial. Each section begins with a general
review of pertinent literature. The section then progresses to
more complex studies which directly provide more focused
information germane to the study at hand.
The review begins with an exploration of relevant research
regarding sex role differences and perceptions. Studies examined
concern general sex role attributes and stereotypes; perceptions
of communicator style and communicator behavior; and sex
differences in perceptions of behavior.
Research in the area of sex differences and authority is
examined next. Studies reviewed concern leadership, and authority
and power. The third section surveys studies regarding sex
differences and aggression. General sex differences associated
with aggression are explored. Research areas concerning
perceptions of aggression and verbal aggression also are examined.
The concluding section of surveyed literature involves sex
differences and managerial behavior. Studies reviewed concern sex
stereotypes, sex differences and management communication, and
managerial characteristics.


23
Sex Role Differences and Perceptions
Areas of research in this section are: general sex role
attributes and stereotypes; perceptions of communicator style and
behavior; and sex differences in perceptions of behavior. These
studies review sex stereotypes and discuss stereotypes such as
aggressive and passive which are viewed as positive
characteristics for one sex and as negative characteristics for
the other sex. Male/female differences in self perceptions of
communicator style and misperceptions of communicator behavior
such as friendliness, competence, and aggression are also
illustrated.
General Sex Role Attributes and Stereotypes
Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp examined various self-report
questionnaires and the influence of masculinity and femininity.
Spence et al. speculated that "subjects' tendency [sic] to report
differences between the sexes should be at least moderately
correlated with the degree to which their self-image corresponds
with the stereotype."1 The authors developed the "Personal
Attributes Questionnaire" based on a version of the "Sex Role
Stereotype Questionnaire" by Rosenkrantz et al.2 The research by
1. Janet T. Spence, Robert Helmreich, and Joy Stapp, "Ratings of
Self and Peers on Sex Attributes and Their Relation to Self-
esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Femininity," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975): 29-39.
2. Cited in Spence, the "Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire" is
from P. S. Rosenkrantz, S. R. Vogel, H. Bee, I. K. Broverman,.


24
Spence et al. is included in this review of literature because
items used on the "Personal Attributes Questionnaire" were of
interest. Items were divided into three categories on^the basis
of several samples of male and female college students rating
characteristics of the "ideal" male and female. The descriptor
categories included: female-valued such as' gentle, neat,
emotional; male-valued such as not timid, competitive, outspoken;
and sex specific items that were considered either male or female,
such as aggressive-male, dominant-male, feelings hurt-female, and
needs approval-female. It was thought these sex role attributes
would influence and corroborate the choice of descriptors used in
the rating scale of the current study.
Spence et al. had subjects complete the "Personal
Attributes Questionnaire" to rate themselves on a series of items,
then make a comparison "between the typical male and female
college student" on a similar series of items.3 4 Data indicated
that "students perceived more differences between the typical male
and female college students than are revealed by their self-
perceptions."* Sex role stereotyping was more prevalent in
determining the characteristics of the typical male and female
and D. M. Broverman, "Sex-Role stereotypes and Self-concepts
in College Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 32 (1968): 287-295.
3. Ibid., p. 32.
4. Ibid., p. 33.


25
than in the self report of characteristics. However, "mean self-
ratings were compared [and] for 35 of the 55
items, there were significant differences in the self-ratings of
the two sexes in the direction of the stereotype."5 6
Three studies were conducted by Costrich, Feinstein,
Kidder, Marecek, and Pascale confirming penalties for male and
female sex role reversals.6 In each study, subjects used rating
scales to evaluate males and females who either conformed or did
not conform to sex role stereotypes. The three studies attempted
"to assess others' reactions to men's dependency and passivity and
to women's aggression and self-assertion. It was expected that
while aggressive-assertive men and passive-dependent women would
fare well in social ratings, passive-dependent men and
aggressive-assertive women would receive poorer ratings."7 Of
importance to the current study were Costrich's methodologies and
research findings. Using three different methods Costrich et al.
examined different situations where a woman's "aggressive,
masculine, dominant manner" might be perceived differently than a
man's identical behavior.
5. Ibid.
6. Norma Costrich, Joan Feinstein, Louise Kidder, Jeanne Marecek,
and Linda Pascale, "When Stereotypes Hurt: Three Studies of
Penalties for Sex-Role Reversals," Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 11 (1975): 520-530.
7. Ibid., p.521.


26
Their first study employed male and female confederates
trained to play either aggressive or passive parts in small
mixed-sex group discussions. "Aggressive confederates were told
to attempt to control the group by taking a dissenting
position from the majority on 2 of the 3 problems so that it would
be possible to change the group's opinion; give 3 arguments for
the dissenting position; [and] ask for a compromise. ."8
To check that aggressive or passive males or females had
not overacted their parts and therefore influenced the results,
Costrich et al. used tape recorded discussions in their second
study. There were two scripts (aggressive and passive) where a
student acting either passively or aggressively, discussed a class
grade problem with a counselor.8 Subjects heard one version of the
tape and used scales to describe the students' behavior.
In the third study by Costrich et al., subjects read
accounts of ten psychotherapy discussions between patients and
their therapists. In two of the passages, the patient was overtly
aggressive toward the therapist10 while in two other passages, the
8. Ibid., p. 521-22. "Passive confederates were instructed to
act as agreeing spectators; refrain from assuming leadership;
and, assent to the group decision by saying, "Yes, I think
that would be the best choice."
9. Ibid., p. 525. "The same male and female voices recorded both
the passive and aggressive scripts, so the voice quality did
not differ for the two roles".
10. Examples of overt aggression by the patient were: "Are you
stupid or something? Look I've had it with you. .You can
go screw yourself. You're not human, you're a machine .
. ." (527).


27
patient expressed dependency11 on the therapist. "Identical
written dialogs that were merely attributed to a man or woman"
were used to eliminate the possibility that actors might have
overplayed their parts and influenced the subjects' judgments.
The sex of the dependent and aggressive patient varied; the sex of
the therapist was not indicated; and sex of subject was not
recorded.
In Costrich's studies, subjects used semantic differential
scales which included descriptors such as dominant-submissive,
popular-unpopular, aggressive-passive, crude-polite, and
masculine-feminine. In the second study, subjects also were asked
"whether the student on the tape needed psychotherapy."12 Subjects
in the third study were asked to indicate the likableness of the
patient and the seriousness of the patient's problem.
The "popularity ratings and perceived psychological
adjustment of both passive-dependent men and aggressive-assertive
women were adversely affected."13 Findings for the first study
include: "the more submissive the man's rating, the less popular
he was"; "a significant triple interaction between the sex of the
subject, sex of the confederate, and behavior of the confederate
11. Examples of patient dependency were: "Please, please help me!
. Help me be my old self. ... It would be good for me to
see you more often. I I could just call you whenever I felt
that I really needed to talk to you" (527).
12. Ibid., p. 525.
13. Ibid., p. 520.


28
suggests that men may react more strongly than women to sex role
violations"; and "popularity of dominant women suffers as much as
that of dominant men."14 Subjects in the second study perceived
the "aggressive" tape recording "as more Dominant, Aggressive,
Crude, and Masculine"15 than the "passive" recording. Results
indicated that an "aggressive woman and passive man were both seen
as more in need of therapy than their stereotyped counterparts."16
The more dominant the man was perceived to be, the less he was
viewed as in need of therapy; the more dominant the woman was
seen, the more she was viewed as needing therapy: "inappropriate
behavior produced distorted perceptions, even with identical
scripts."17 Results from the third study illustrated that
"aggressive women and dependent men were liked less than their
dependent and aggressive counterparts"; "aggressive women and
dependent men were given equally high ratings of the seriousness
of their problems, while dependent women and aggressive men were
viewed as less seriously disturbed."16 Costrich notes that these
three studies "also demonstrate the two-sided nature of sex-role
stereotyping. The results of each study show that men were
14. Ibid, p. 523.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 526.
17. Ibid., p. 526.
18. Ibid., p. 528.


29
given no more leeway to deviate from their stereotypic roles than
were women."19
Costrich's research and methodologies directly relate to
the methodology of the current study. As Costrich suggested, use
of identical written dialogs eliminates the possibility of the
actors' overacting their roles, or using varying voice inflections
and tone to influence the subjects' perceptions. In Costrich's
studies, no references were made to viewing the aggressor in terms
of leader or desired managerial characteristics. In these
studies both parties were not aggressive or overtly aggressive
during the dialogs.
In the current study one of the two subordinates acts
aggressively; the aggressor is then evaluated in terms of
requisite managerial characteristics. The subordinates' behaviors
are further described in the chapter discussing methodology.
Perceptions of Communicator Style
Montgomery and Norton researched sex differences in
communicator style by examining self perceptions of communication
behavior.20 Norton "defines communicator style as the way one
verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning
should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood."21
19. Ibid., p.529.
20. Barbara M. Montgomery and Robert W. Norton, "Sex Differences
and Similarities in Communicator Style," Communication
Monographs 48 (1981): 121-32.


30
Paraverbally refers to the "sounds a person makes that accompany
his or her verbal messages" including voice pitch, diction, and
emotional nuances.21 22 Communicator image and ten communicator
styles which previously had been determined by Norton's research2
are used in the study. Communicator image is "defined as a
general assessment of the effectiveness of a person's style of
communicating."24 Brief definitions of each style are given
below.2 5
dominance: "any communication device or strategy...which lessens
the communication role of another"
contentiousness: "refers to the somewhat negative connotations
associated with argumentative and aggressive behaviors"
preciseness: "those behaviors which communicate a concern for
accuracy, documentation, and proof in informative and
argumentative discourse"
attentiveness: able to identify a portrayed emotion, more
sensitive to tone of voice, able to perceive
21. Ibid., p. 122.
22. John F. Cragan and David W. Wright, Communication in Small
Group Discussions A Case Study Approach (St. Paul: West
Publishing, 1980) 176. This definition was given for
paralanguage.
23. Montgomery and Norton cite definitions of communicator style
from: Robert W. Norton, "Foundation of a Communicator Style
Construct," Human Communication Research 4 (1978): 99-112.
24. Ibid., p. 126.
25. Ibid., p. 123-26.


31
implications from dialogs
friendly; snowing an interest in people and "a capacity for the
establishment of interpersonal relationships"
open: "signals that the content of a message is representational
of a communicator's actual feelings, beliefs, and
opinions"
relaxed: "calm, collected, relatively free from nervousness and
anxiety in his/her communication"
animated and dramatic: "active high-energy-expending
behaviors[which] serve to exaggerate or color
communication content" animated includes "the frequency,
amount and intensity of such behaviors as eye contact,
gestures, facial expressions, and body movement";
dramatic refers to story telling and relating anecdotes
impression leaving: "the impact a communicator has upon those with
whom he/she interacts"
Over 1,100 students completed the "Communicator Style
Measure Short Form" which had been developed and tested earlier
by Norton and others. Results indicated that "males see
themselves as significantly more precise than females see
themselves"; "females reported higher levels of animated styles
than males"; and, "there were no consistent differences in
behaviors associated with impression leaving, contentious, open,
dramatic, dominant, relaxed, friendly, and attentive styles."26


32
These results point to more similarities than differences between
male and female self-perceptions of communicator style.
Montgomery and Norton conclude that studies such as theirs of
communication sex differences will "help researchers and educators
better understand the communication process."27
The relationships between "male-female differences in
perceptions of subjects' own and their best-liked others'
communication behavior" were examined in a descriptive study by
Fitzpatrick and Bochner.215 Subjects (college students) rated
themselves and others by using the "Interpersonal Behavior
Inventory"2 s consisting of statements about observable
interpersonal behaviors that are grouped into categories such as
nurturance, dependence, control, and sociability. Examples of
statements from some of the categories30 follow:
nurturance: "Give help or counsel to people who are having
difficulty." "Manifests a genuine interest in the
problems of others."
26. Ibid., p. 121.
27. Ibid., p. 132.
28. Mary A. Fitzpatrick and Arthur Bochner, "Perspectives on Self
and Others: Male-Female Differences in Perceptions of
Communication Behavior," Sex Roles 7 (1981): 523-35.
29. Cited by Fitzpatrick and Bochner from M. Lorr and D. M.
McNair, "Expansion of the Interpersonal Behavior Circle,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2 (1965): 823-30.
30. Fitzpatrick and Bochner 528.


33
dependence: "Tries to get others to make decisions for him."
"Seeks to have others choose or select for him, jobs,
clothes, food, and even recreation."
control: "Uses, exploits, or manipulates others for his own ends."
"Strives for symbols of status and superiority to
others."
detachment: "Keeps shyly in the background in a social gathering."
"Stays away from social affairs where he will have to
meet new people."
Males viewed "themselves as more controlling and
detached"; "females saw themselves as more nurturant and more
dependent." Thus, males and females held stereotyped views of
their own communication behavior. In opposite sex interaction the
communication behaviors were nurturant and dependent; in same-sex
interaction the communication patterns were attention-seeking and
self-dramatizing. "These self-perceptions are significant for
they may serve as a basis for judging the interpersonal behavior
of others as well as for evaluating one's own interpersonal
behavior and identity."31 This research is relevant to the current
study because it illustrates that male-female perceptions of
communication behavior vary.
31. Cited by Fitzpatrick and Bochner from J. Kagan, "The
Acquisition and Significance of Sex Typing and Sex Role
Identity," Review of Child Development Research M. L. Hoffman
and L. W. Hoffman, eds., (New York: Russell Sage, 1964) 136-
37.


34
Sex Differences in Perceptions of Behavior
Abbey illustrated that men misperceive women's intentions:
friendliness from the opposite sex could be misperceived as a sign
of sexual interest. A male and female conversed for 5 minutes
while a hidden male and female observed. "Male actors and
observers rated the female actor as being more promiscuous and
seductive than female actors and observers rated her"; "males
rated the male actor in a more sexualized fashion than the females
did"; more males were "sexually attracted to the opposite-sex
actor than females were."32 Abbey suggests that "men are more
likely to perceive the world in sexual terms and to make sexual
judgments than women are." The method included an evaluation of
the "quality of conversation" and subjects' "reactions to the male
and female actors." Half the observers using scales of descriptors
such as flirtatious, intelligent, considerate, and seductive,
rated the female actor first while half rated the male first.
Either a male or female experimenter was present while subjects
observed the male and female actors. Sex of the experimenter did
not influence the subjects' responses. It is mentioned in Abbey's
discussion that although "males and females in our experiment were
equally likely to make sexual judgments [perhaps] males were
simply more willing to admit them."33 This research demonstrates
32. Antonia Abbey, "Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly
Behavior: Do Males Misperceive Females' Friendliness?"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982): 830-
38. See p. 830.


35
that males do misperceive females' friendliness. Is it plausible
to argue that males also misperceive females' anger and hostility?
Male-female perceptions of male-female aggression and anger will
tie examined in the current study.
Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill, viewing sex as a status
characteristic, proposed that "since men have higher status than
women, men are expected to be more competent than women and it is
expected that competitive or dominating behavior is legitimate for
men but not for women."33 34 Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill reviewed
several "empirical studies as related to task appropriateness,
group problem solving, conflict, dominating behavior and role
expectations ... in support of this theory."35 In support of the
proposition that "dominating or aggressive behavior is more
acceptable from men than from women, regardless of competence,"36
Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill reported research by Wahrman and
Pugh.37 In Wahrman and Pugh's study, male subjects established
procedural rules for a group problem solving task. A male or
33. Ibid., p. 838.
34. B. F. Meeker and P. A. Weitzel-O'Neill, "Sex Roles and
Interpersonal Behavior in Task-Oriented Groups," American
Sociological Eeview 42 (1977): 91-105. See p. 91.
35. Ibid., p. 91.
36. Ibid., p.101.
37. Cited in Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill: R. Wahrman and M. D.
Pugh, "Sex, Nonconformity and Influence," Sociometry 38
(1974): 137-47.


36
female confederate appearing competent or incompetent was
introduced to the group and proceeded to break the established
procedural rules. "The subjects accepted influence attempts by
nonconforming men whether competent or incompetent, although
incompetence somewhat reduced the influence. The competent
nonconforming female had somewhat less influence than the
competent nonconforming male, but the incompetent nonconforming
female had virtually no influence."3e
The following study also examines differences in
male/female behavior. The methodology used by Olejnik, Tompkins,
and Heinbuck influences the current study. Olejnik et al.
examined differences in males' and females' allocation of rewards
to male and female children in team and competitive situations.38
Subjects (college students) read a vignette describing children's
task participation and then determined the rewards (M & M candies)
they would give to each child. The authors found a significant
effect of sex of subject: males gave more rewards to the more
productive child. Sex of child also was effected: "the more
productive boys received more rewards than the more productive
girls."40 The more productive worker in a competitive situation
38. Ibid., p. 101.
39. Anthony B. Olejnik, Brigette Tompkins, and Claudia Heinbuck,
"Sex Differences, Sex-Role Orientation, and Reward
Allocations," Sex Roles 8 (1982): 711-19.
40. Ibid., p. 714.


37
was allocated more rewards than the more productive worker in a
team condition. In Olejnik's second study, the sex role
orientation of the subjects was ascertained using the "Bern Sex
Role Inventory,"41 before the subjects read the vignettes.
However, this time the children's names and sex were not included
in the passages. Subjects with "a masculine orientation allocated
more rewards to the more productive worker than individuals with
either an androgynous or feminine sex role orientation." By
eliminating the variable sex of child, one might better examine
the reward allocation behavior of the subjects. The sex role
orientation of the subjects affected the results. Those of a
masculine orientation (whether male or female) allocated rewards
equitably. Those of a feminine sex role orientation (male or
female) allocated rewards equally. It would be interesting to
attempt similar methods in the current study: eliminate references
to the sex of the characters in the scenarios and have the
subjects rate the aggressor's behavior. It is also plausible that
the same type of results would be obtained, having measured the
sex role orientation of the subjects. Those subjects having a
masculine nature might perceive in an employee more masculine
managerial qualities such as logical, competent, or objective,
than those subjects having a feminine or androgynous nature.
41. Cited in Olejnik et al. Note 4. S. L. Bern and C. Watson,
"Scoring Packet: Bern Sex Role Inventory," unpublished
manuscript, Stanford University, Department of Psychology,
1976.


38
Conclusions
To the extent that males and females view themselves and
others stereotypically, these same stereotypes are carried over
and used in the workplace. Spence et al. illustrated that males
and females view themselves and the typical male and female in
terms of stereotypes. Fitzpatrick and Bochner found that males
and females had basically stereotyped views of their communication
behavior: males were more controlling and detached while females
were nurturant and dependent. However, Montgomery and. Norton
found more similarities than differences in ^nale/female self-
perceptions of communicator style (including dominance). Males
thought themselves more precise, while females thought themselves
more animated.
Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill, and Costrich et al. dealt with
sex stereotypes and aggression. Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill
reviewed research where dominant and aggressive behaviors were
more acceptable from males than females, without regard to their
level of competence. Costrich et al. found that males and females
were penalized for sex role reversals: aggressive-assertive women
and passive-dependent men were rated less popular and in more need
of psychological help than their counterparts (aggressive-
assertive men and passive-dependent women) who conformed to their
sex role behaviors. Abbey's data indicated that males
misperceived females' friendliness in a conversation. Olejnik et
al. found that males and females perceived the same behavior
differently and therefore, made rewards differently to boys and


39
girls. Males gave more rewards to productive boys than to
productive girls.
These studies indicate that as situations vary, the amount
of and need for stereotyping also varies. At times when males and
females behave in unexpected, sex-incongruent ways (females more
productive or aggressive, males more passive), we use our
stereotypes to sort out these differences, reducing our feeling of
stress, but also reducing our intake of potentially pertinent
information.
Sex Differences and Authority
The following studies examine the relationship of sex
differences and the use of authority, power, and leadership. The
research reviewed explores the difficulties of women being or not
being sought as leaders. These studies examine subjects'
perceptions of a female as a leader; division of task and
maintenance behavior in a dyad; and, stereotypes from perceptions
of nonverbal cues affecting the attribution of leadership.
Differing perceptions of males and females formally designated as
leader and having authority are reviewed. A study involving sex
role expectations and power is also examined.
Attributions of Leadership
As an effort to understand stereotyped perceptions of
women as ineffective leaders and differing perceptions of women in
management roles, Brown examined 32 female leader studies "which
employed leader sex as a dependent or intervening variable."42


40
Studies were examined with reference to three leadership theories:
trait theories which seek out traits or characteristics of a good
leader; style theories which look for the best style of leadership
such as democratic or autocratic; and, contingency theories which
examine leadership effectiveness with regard to the particular
situation or environment.
After reviewing these studies. Brown could not state
whether or not males or females made better leaders. He found,
however, that "even though the traditional sex-stereotyping is
pervasive, the widely held belief that women make inferior leaders
seems to give way in actual work situations."4 3 Trait studies were
found to "consistently support the traditional attitude that women
lack adequate leadership characteristics.1,44 There was "a great
deal of sexual bias among both students and practicing managers"42 43 44 45 46
(as subjects). The trait studies compared "the perceived
attitudes, values, and behavior attributed to women with the same
perceived characteristics of men and/or managers."4 6 Studies by
Bass et al. and Schein indicated that the stereotype of males more
42. Stephen M. Brown, "Male Versus Female Leaders: A Comparison
of Empirical Studies," Sex Roles 5 (1979): 595-611. See p.
597.
43. Ibid., p. 607.
44. Ibid., p. 595.
45. Ibid., p. 607.
46. Ibid., p.597.


41
closely resembles the characteristics of a successful manager than
the stereotype of a woman.4 7
Style studies and contingency studies revealed a definite
division in attitudes of students and managers toward female
leaders. Style theory research involved "either similarities
and/or differences between male and female leadership styles."47 48 49
In style research using managers as subjects, studies by Helmich,
Chapman, Bedian et al., and Miner, indicated "no sex-style
differentiation."48 The style studies having students as subjects
resulted in perceived male and female style differences. The
contingency research examined studies where sex was a possible
influencing factor on leadership roles. The majority of studies
having students as subjects, supported the traditional female
stereotypes (submissive, supportive, weak) concerning female
47. Cited in Brown, p. 597. B. Bass, J. Krusell, and R.
Alexander, "Male Managers' Attitudes toward Working Women,"
American Behavioral Scientists 15 (1971): 221-36. The two
studies Brown cites by V. Schein (1973, 1975) are reviewed in
the current study in the following section discussing sex
differences and managerial characteristics.
48. Ibid., p. 605.
49. Cited in Brown, p. 605. D. Helmich, "Male and Female
Presidents: Some Implications of Leadership Style," Human
Resource Management 13 (1974): 25-26. J. Chapman, "Comparison
of Male and Female Leadership Styles," Academy of Management
Journal 18 (1975): 645-50. A. Bedian, A.. Armenakis, and B.
Kemp, "Relation of Sex to Perceived Legitimacy of
Organizational Influence," The Journal of Psychology 94
(1976): 93-99. J. Miner, "Motivation to Manage Among Women:
Studies of Business Managers and Educational Administrators,"
Journal of Vocational Behavior 5 (1974): 197-208.


42
leadership style and effectiveness. The majority of style and
contingency studies using managers as subjects -did not support
traditional female stereotypes, finding no differences between
male and female leadership style.
Brown suggests that the differing attitudes between
students and managers "raises the issue of whether a socialization
process occurs which modifies the attitudes of practicing managers,
toward female leaders.50 However, where there were fewer sex
differences found among style and contingency manager studies, in
trait manager studies there remains much sex stereotyping
confirming that managerial characteristics were "more congruent
with males than females."51 These differing results illustrate how
conclusions vary depending on the population used. Both subject
populations agreed with the traditional female stereotype in the
trait studies. Perhaps the style and contingency studies were
seeking information in a manner different than the trait studies,
so that the results varied according to the subject population.
Or perhaps both students and managers view an effective leader as
possessing male stereotyped characteristics (aggressive, dominant,
task-oriented); however, the style and situation influences how
the effective leader, whether male or female, displays these
traits. It seems then to avoid stereotyping when selecting and/or
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., p. 608.


43
examining a leader, one might benefit from attending to the
leadership style or influence of the environment rather than
attending to the sex of the leader.
Stitt, Schmidt, Price, and Kipnis discuss social roles,
stereotyping, and the integration of women into positions of
organizational leadership. This serves as a preface to their
research "designed to assess leaders' behaviors, group
productivity, and subordinate satisfaction in a situation in which
sex of leader, sex of subordinate, task, basic leadership
instructions, and education level were controlled."62 Task and
supervisor satisfaction were examined after groups of subjects
(college students) with either an autocratic or democratic leader,
worked on a task. The study found that "male and female leaders
displayed comparable leadership behaviors" when compared "with
either leader's instructions or follower sex." Moderate
differences were perceived by male followers "between autocratic
and democratic leaders, but female followers perceived much larger
differences between autocratic and democratic leaders."63 "Male
leaders reported setting more deadlines, demanding more, ordering
more, and allowing their followers to work on their own less than
did female leaders."54 "Followers reported that male leaders
52. Christopher Stitt, Stuart Schmidt, Karl Price, and David
Kipnis, "Sex of Leader, Leader Behavior, and Subordinate
Satisfaction," Sex Roles 9 (1983): 31-42. 53
53. Ibid., p. 38.
54
Ibid.


44
kidded more and allowed them to work on their own less than did
female leaders."66 Followers "were more satisfied with democratic
leaders than with autocratic leaders,"56 but female followers
showed a greater difference in satisfaction between the two styles
than male followers. Of relevance to the current study was the
fact that although both male and female autocratic leaders
received the same instructions which included "be dominant and
aggressive", these male and female leaders were perceived by male
and female followers as using comparable behaviors.
Yamada,. Tjosvold, and Draguns, using college students as
subjects, found that "sex composition and sex appropriateness of
the situations affected the style of interaction more than
cooperation" during face-to-face interactions between same-sex and
mixed-sex dyads.57 The authors state, "in mixed-sex dyads males
were task oriented and females maintenance oriented; presumably,
sexual identity was used to make this division." They also found
that in "same-sex.dyads the distribution of task and maintenance
behaviors was worked out in the interaction."56 Sex appropriate
behavior for role play involved female-linked behavior (a
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid., p. 39.
57. Elaine Yamada, Dean Tjosvold, and Juris Draguns, "Effects of
Sex-linked Situations and Sex Composition on Cooperation and
Style of Interaction," Sex Roles 9 (1983): 541-53. 58
58. Ibid., p. 541.


45
registered nurse or kindergarten teacher) or male-linked behavior
(an airplane pilot or mathematician).53 "Participants cooperated
more in the male linked than in the female linked situation."50
Males and females rated their knowledge of the male linked
occupations much lower than their knowledge of the female linked
occupations. Male and female subjects who indicated less
knowledge about an occupation cooperated more than those subjects
who professed a greater knowledge. This study was considered
relevant to the current research due to the findings and
discussion regarding sex appropriateness of the situation and sex
composition of dyads.
Of interest to the current study was the discussion by
Porter, Geis, and Jennings, involving stereotypes and good
intentions from their study of women as leaders.61 They relate a
theory by Campbell62 which describes a psychological mechanism of
how stereotypes influence perception.
59. Sex appropriate careers were selected from the Occupational
Handbook (1974) and Careers for Women in the 70's (1973).
College students were asked to rate the selected careers
according to male-female social roles and whether the career
"conformed to their idea of the role of a person of their own
sex."
60. Ibid., p. 547.
61. Natalie Porter, Florence Geis, Joyce Jennings (Walstedt), "Are
Women Invisible as Leaders?" Sex Roles 9 (1983): 1035-1049.
62. Cited by Porter et al., p. 1036. D. T. Campbell, "Stereotypes
and the Perception of Group Differences," American
Psychologist 22 (1967): 817-29.


46
The mechanism is the role of stereotypes in the process
by which incoming sensory data are transformed into
conscious perceptions. According to Campbell, human
perceptions of the world are in fact interpretations of
incoming sensory stimuli. These interpretations are
based partly on the actual stimulus objects and partly on
existing cognitive organization (knowledge, beliefs,
expectancies, hopes, fears, etc.). Early-learned
stereotypes operate as implicit beliefs and expectancies.
The interpreting occurs in neural processing before the
stimulus registers as a conscious perception. Since we
are not conscious of our neural processing, we believe
our perceptions are veridical [sic], when in fact they
have already been interpreted before we become conscious
of them. Once the perceptions themselves are biased, any
judgment based on them, and especially unprejudiced
judgments, must inevitably produce discrimination.
Porter et al. suggest that although one may be attempting to view
a situation fairly and with good intentions (without
discrimination), "perceptual bias based on prevailing stereotypes
produces discrimination."6 3
The "head of the table" cue was used by Porter et al. to
examine attributions of leadership. They predicted that a woman
sitting at the head of the table would not be viewed as a leader,
but a man in the same position would. They also predicted that
discrimination would not be affiliated with subjects' sex role and
conscious intentions.64 Photographic slides were taken of a group
of five people seated at a table. Either a male or a female sat
at the head of the table in mixed sex or same sex groups which
were described as "graduate students working as a team on a 63
63. Ibid., p. 1036.
64. Ibid., p. 1037


47
research project"65 Subjects (college students) were assigned to
groups as masculine, feminine, or androgynous, as determined by
their scores on the "Bern Sex Role Inventory." Each group of
subjects viewed one slide and, while viewing that slide, was asked
to rate the members on several dimensions. These dimensions were
"five 7-point scales: Quiet-Talkative, Intelligent-Not
Intelligent, Submissive-Dominant, Cold-Warm, and Leader-
Follower."66 After rating the group members, subjects were
administered a feminist scale to assess "individuals' agreement
with feminist attitudes."67
Porter et al.'s results indicated that the head of the
table cue identified women and men as leaders in same sex groups.
In the mixed sex groups, a male sitting at the head of the table
was viewed as the leader, but a woman in that position was not
viewed as the leader. Regardless of subjects' sex role and
feminist ideology scores, results for attributing leadership were
the same. "The lack of significant individual differences effects
was consistent with the hypothesis that stereotyping in this
situation occurred below awareness and in spite of subjects'
conscious belief systems."66 There were no differences between
65. Ibid., p. 1039.
66. Ibid., p. 1040.
67. Ibid., p. 1038.
68. Ibid., p. 1044


48
feminist and nonfeminists, and masculine, feminine, and
androgynous persons in their decisions regarding leadership
attribution in this situation. Even with an organization's good
intentions illustrated by affirmative action programs and
managerial training programs to better qualify women for
promotions, there is still sex stereotyping occurring perhaps more
at an unconscious level than we would like to have ourselves
believe.
Perceptions of Authority and Power
In a study of male/female co-leaders of small groups,
Greene, Morrison, and Tischler concluded that "female co-leaders
could be liked but not highly respected for or perceived as
possessing task-relevant attributes, even when they were invested
with comparatively more formal authority for achieving the task
than their male counterparts."69 Group "members' associations to
gender were more powerful determinants of their appraisals of co-
leader competence and influence than were their associations to
formal authority."70 Subjects consisted of mental health
(psychiatric, psychology, social work, counseling) students
participating in a two day conference to learn about group
processes. Each conference had co-leaders: either a male or
69. Les R. Greene, Thomas L. Morrison., and Nancy G. Tischler,
"Gender and Authority Effects on Perceptions of Small Group
Co-Leaders," Small Group Behavior 12 (1981): 401-13.
70. Ibid., p. 409.


49
female designated as having "ultimate authority" and a male or
female assigned the role of associate consultant. Each conference
was divided into two small groups of approximately 10 members with
the consultant and associate consultant moving between groups.
Group members completed questionnaires reflecting their
perceptions (task leadership, sensitivity, knowledgeable,
friendliness) of the co-leaders. From tape recordings of
particular sessions co-leader comments were analyzed "according to
gender and authority status" to insure that co-leaders verbal
behavior was similar. Female co-leaders designated as having more
authority, were perceived as more "emotionally responsive" than
the male co-leaders designated as having authority. Male co-
leaders regardless of their assigned authority were viewed as more
instrumental, active, potent, and insightful than the female co-
leaders.71 Male and female co-leader abilities were perceived
using traditional sex stereotypes rather than using the formal
authority or status assigned to them as co-leaders of mixed sex
groups.
An experimental study conducted by Jacobson, Antonelli,
Winning, and Opeil, looked at "two experiments designed to
investigate the effect of sex role stereotypes on evaluations of
authority figures."72 Subjects (male and female students) read
71. Ibid., p. 408.
72. Marsha B. Jacobson, Judith Antonelli,. Patricia Winning, and
Dennis Opeil, "Women as Authority Figures: The Use and Nonuse
of Authority," Sex Roles 3 (1977): 365-75.


50
vignettes "in which an authority figure confronted a subordinate
who had transgressed in some way and then [the subject] evaluated
the authority figure on a variety of dimensions."
Jacobson et al. define the exertion of authority as the
use of one's power to engage in active, assertive, and aggressive
behavior. The authors propose that these adjectives are in
parallel with the traditional male sex role and therefore "the
exertion of authority is a masculine act, one that is appropriate
for a man but generally inappropriate for a woman."73 The authors
state that male authority figures who "come down hard" on their
employees may not be well liked but will be viewed as simply doing
their jobs. Female authority figures who "come down hard" on
their employees will be viewed more negatively than the male
authority figures. Jacobson et al. also state that "a special
kind of hostility is reserved for the woman who has power and uses
it." A woman is permitted to use authority over a child in a
teaching or parenting situation (traditional sex role behavior).
A woman using authority in a nontraditional position (police
officer, professor, or employer) may be viewed more negatively
than a male in such a position.
Jacobson's methodology is relevant to the current study.
Vignettes described four situations that varied according to sex
of authority figure and sex of the subordinate. Each experiment
73. Ibid., p. 366.


51
used either a hard line authority behavior or lenient authority
behavior.74 The authority figures used authority in the hard line
situation, not in a harassing manner, but in a situation where the
subordinate had displayed inappropriate behavior. The four
vignettes involved either a parenting, police officer, professor,
or employer situation. The subjects completed a series of 10
rating scales that referred to the authority figure. Descriptors
used could easily be applied to requisite managerial behavior,
although this specific reference was not made. Descriptors
included considerate-inconsiderate, flexible-rigid, fair-unfair,
and competent-incompetent.75 In the current study, one vignette is
used which describes a dialog between two subordinates. One of
the subordinates uses aggressive communicative behavior. Sex of
the subordinates in the dialog varies: 2 male, 2 females, or 2
persons (sex is not indicated). Similar descriptors used in the
current study include: helpful and aware of feelings of others
74. An example of a hard line situation (367): In the Employer
situation Audrey (Arthur) Melrose tells Joan (John) Caldwell
that she (he) is very dissatisfied with a business report that
Joan (John) wrote. The. employer reminds the employee that
past work also has been of poor quality. The employee
apologizes and says she (he) will do better from now on, but
the employer fires her (him).
An example of the lenient situation (371): The Employer
situation is the same, however, instead of firing the employee
on the spot for current and past poor work, the employer gives
her (him) one more chance and expects to see an improvement in
her (his) work.
75. The remaining descriptors were easy to please-hard to please,
calm-excitable, warm-cold, forgiving-vindictive, and
understanding-argumentative.


52
(similar to considerate-inconsiderate); objective (fair-unfair);
steady, consistent (flexible-rigid); and, well informed, logical,
analytical ability (competent-incompetent).
The authority figure in the first experiment took a hard
line against the subordinate. In this situation "a female
authority figure being firm with a male subordinate was evaluated
most negatively." The authority figure in the second experiment
was lenient with the subordinate. In this case, "the female
figure being lenient with a female subordinate was evaluated most
negatively."76 No significant relationship was established
regarding the sex of the subject. The current study examines a
more aggressive type of behavior, does not look at lenient
authority behavior, uses desired managerial characteristics as
descriptors, and has only one organizational setting where two
subordinates interact.
In a descriptive study, Horwitz investigated the
relationship between sex role expectations and power, and rates of
psychological distress.77 Power "refers to the control of
resources and a dominant role in the family",76 and refers only to
interpersonal relationships. Results indicated "that people [men
and women] who occupy powerful roles have low rates of distress,
76. Ibid., p. 365.
77.. Allan Horwitz, "Sex-Role Expectations, Power, and
Psychological Distress," Sex Roles 8 (1982): 607-23.
78. Ibid., p. 609.


53
regardless of whether they conform to or deviate from role
expectations. The occupation of the powerless role is, however,
particularly productive of distress when the occupant of this role
deviates from sex-appropriate behavior."78 Horwitz discusses his
findings in terms of interpersonal power, male-female social
roles, and perceptions of role expectations. Horwitz concludes
with an interesting prediction: "if sex role expectations change
and women come to occupy more powerful roles, sex differences in
distress will decline."60 In terms of the current study many women
in organizational settings are in a more powerless role than
males; an attempt to deviate from sex appropriate behavior appears
to create more distress. If a female subordinate acts
aggressively (nob sex appropriate behavior) in an interaction with
a male superior (uses power with low personal distress), then
surely the female would be at a disadvantage. The female would be
experiencing her own distress while being viewed negatively due to
her atypical behavior.
Conclusions
Perceptions or lack of perceptions of an aggressive
communicating woman as having managerial potential are examined in
the current study. Identical dialogs attributing identical work
habits to either a male or a female are used. Work habits include 79
79. Ibid., p. 607.
80. Ibid., p. 621.


54
progresses steadily, challenges and masters each job level,
possesses technical expertise, and uses their skills to
successfully identify and analyze potential problem areas. This
study may reveal male and female managers' (as subjects) sex
stereotypes regarding the leadership potential of an aggressive
communicating woman.
As demonstrated in the studies reviewed, women indeed are
faced with many difficulties when entering the managerial ranks.
Even when a female is fully confident of her leadership abilities
(technical expertise, problem solver), she may not even be viewed
as the leader. As illustrated by Greene et al., even when a woman
was invested with more formal authority than her male assistant,
the male was perceived as more competent and having more influence
than the female leader. Porter et al. indicated that in a mixed
sex group, the nonverbal cue of "head of the table" did not signal
a woman in that position as leader, but a man in that position was
perceived as the leader (regardless of subjects' androgynous or
feminist views). More difficulties faced by a woman manager
include others' sex stereotypes of her behavior. Brown's review
of leadership research found that using different subject
populations gave different results. Trait studies with students
and managers as subjects supported a stereotyped attitude of women
lacking leadership characteristics. Style and contingency studies
supported traditional stereotyped views of women as leaders, when
the subjects were students; but generally did not support
stereotyped views when the subjects were managers.


55
The managerial woman herself, may or may not use
stereotyped behavior depending on the situation. Yamada et al.
found that sex composition of a dyad and sex congruency of the
situation influenced task and maintenance behaviors. In same sex
dyads, subjects interacted to determine task and maintenance
behaviors. While in mixed sex dyads, males and females assumed
stereotyped roles: males were task oriented and females were
maintenance oriented. In either case, a woman manager's behavior
when contrasted with a man manager's behavior, may be viewed
negatively. Results from Jacobson et al. indicated that a female
authority being firm with a male subordinate was perceived
negatively and when lenient with a female, was viewed even more
negatively. In other situations, males and females may view her
behavior as comparable to a male manager's behavior. Data from
studies by Stitt et al. illustrated that when males and females
were told to lead autocratically by being dominant and aggressive,
male and female subjects perceived the leaders as using comparable
behaviors.
For a woman to be in a managerial position at all,
especially in a male dominated organization, may produce more
stress than she initially bargained for. Horwitz' results showed
that women and men in powerful roles experience less stress
whether or not they conform to sex role expectations. But those
people in powerless roles experience stress and even more so when
they deviate from sex-appropriate behavior. The above mentioned
difficulties contribute to viewing women as more suited to being


56
followers than leaders.
Sex Differences and Aggression
Research concerning general sex differences and aggression
is examined. An attempt is made to understand "aggression" as
defined and studied by several different methods as seen in the
research that follows. Research involving aggression and
perceptions of effectiveness, and situations that effect different
forms of aggressive behavior are reviewed. Studies concerning
male/female aggressive reactions as determined by level of
electric shock or intensity of blows from a foam club are
examined. Also noted are studies identifying types of
provocations and words that are perceived as aggressive (name-
calling). Surveyed studies also reflect more specific behavior
such as aggression against a female; aggressive expression and
guilt from aggressive acts; and, attributions of aggressive
behavior.
General Sex Differences and Aggression
Taylor and Epstein conducted experimental research
examining the relative aggressiveness of male and female subjects
to male and female opponents in competitive, aggressive
confrontation in which the winner could inflict pain upon the
loser."1 "Aggression was measured by the magnitude of shock the 81
81. Stuart P. Taylor and Seymour Epstein, "Aggression as a
Function of the Sex Interaction of the Sex of the Aggressor


57
subject set for bis opponent to receive."82 The subjects
(undergraduate students) were unaware that the experimenter
controlled the level of shocks and that there actually was no
"opponent". The researchers confirmed their predictions. Male
subjects "reacted aggressively to provocation by male opponents
and unaggressively to female opponents. Females, while
unaggressive to female opponents, reacted to provocation by male
opponents in a highly aggressive manner."83 The authors suggest
this female reaction to provocations from males is due to the
males departing from expected gentlemanly and socially accepted
behavior.
Richardson, Vinsel, and Taylor investigated the
"aggressive behavior of female subjects who held liberal or
traditional beliefs concerning the role of women in modern society
. as a function of provocation by traditional or liberal male
opponents."84 Subjects were.female undergraduates selected as
liberal or traditional according to their scores on the "Attitudes
Toward Women Scales."85 The male subject was a confederate who
and the Sex of the Victim," Journal of Personality 39 (1967):
474-86.
82. Ibid., p. 477.
83. Ibid. p. 485.
84. Deborah Richardson, Anne Vinsel, and Stuart Taylor, "Female
Aggression as a Function of Attitudes Toward Women," Sex Roles
6 (1980): 265-71.
85. Cited by Richardson et al. J. T. Spence and R. Helmreich,
"The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An Objective Instrument to


58
"advocated either the acceptance or rejection of the equal rights
amendment."06 This study was based on ideas that behavior of a
more liberated woman would appear more masculine and would
therefore be more aggressive than a traditionally-minded woman's
behavior. Previous research cited in the study indicated a
positive relationship between aggression and traditional views.86 87
Aggression was measured by "the magnitude of shock set by the
subject for her [male] opponent."80 Results showed that in this
structured "competitive reaction-time paradigm" which allowed for
physical aggression (shock) but no verbal interaction, the
"liberal females behaved less aggressively than the traditional
females": "they behaved in a nonaggressive manner toward both
traditional and liberal male opponents."88 89
Males' aggressive responses to unexpected aggressive
behavior from a female were examined in the next study cited. It
Measure Attitudes toward the Rights and Roles of Women in
Contemporary Society," JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology 2 No. 66 (1972).
86. Ibid., p. 269.
87. Richardson et al. referenced R. W. Guenther and S. Taylor,
"Physical Aggression as a Function of Racial Prejudice and the
Race of the Target," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 27 (1973):207-10 and S. Taylor and I. Smith,
"Aggression as a Function of Sex of Victim and Male Subject's
Attitude Toward Women," Psychological Reports 35 (1974):
1095-1098.
88. Ibid., p. 268.
89. Ibid., p. 269.


59
has been suggested that through the socialization process "males
are permitted and often encouraged to behave in an aggressive
manner with other males, but are discouraged from displaying
aggression to females, even in the event of provocation."30 The
relationship between chivalry and nonverbal communication of
aggression was examined by Young, Beier, Beier, and Barton. They
investigated "whether chivalrous styles are deeply ingrained
responses or are only 'skin deep', and whether men who view women
in a more egalitarian light will treat them more 'roughly' than
men who do not."31 Game aggression "was measured by the average
intensity of the subjects' blows" given by a "cloth-covered
[Bataca club] foam bat."32 In a game aggression situation the
"Pro-Lib" males (preferring a liberal role for women) did respond
more aggressively (more intense blows) than the "Anti-Lib" males
(preferring a traditional role for women) toward their female
opponent (a trained confederate). The Pro-Lib males responded in
the same manner toward the nonaggressive female (using defense
only) and the aggressive female (using a fixed rate of attack).
The Anti-Lib group behaved more aggressively (were not as
chivalrous) toward an aggressive woman than a "less aggressive 90 91 92
90. David M. Young, Ernst Beier, Paul Beier, and Cole Barton, "Is
Chivalry Dead?" Journal of Communication 25 (1975): 57-64.
See p. 57.
91. Ibid., p. 58.
92. Ibid.


60
woman. When the female confederate aggressively attacked, the
"Anti-Lib subjects displayed less reserve and increased the rate
and intensity of their blows. Thus, when faced with an unexpected
situation breaking the convention of the "less aggressive woman,"
the Anti-Lib subjects responded in a less chivalrous fashion by
stepping up their attacks."93 94 95 Young et al. suggest that "perhaps
some of the social antagonisms encountered in political, business,
and social interactions between "traditional" men and "liberated"
women can be explained in terms of reactions to unexpected role
communication."9 4
In a descriptive study, Brown, Jr. and Tedeschi
hypothesized that similar coercive actions (threat or force)
"performed by the same actor would result in differential
attributions of aggression by observers depending on the
instigatory" (offensive) or responsive (defensive) type of
action.9 5
93. Ibid., p. 63.
94. Ibid.
95. Robert C. Brown, Jr. and James T. Tedeschi, "Determinants of
Perceived Aggression," Journal of Social Psychology 100
(1976): 77-87. See p. 80.


61
In the offensive conditions, one actor initiated an
altercation by issuing a threat or by issuing a threat
followed by an attempted delivery of noxious [sic]
stimulation (i.e., a punch to the head). In the
defensive threat condition, the defensive actor responded
to the threat by issuing a counterthreat, and in the
defensive force condition, the defensive actor responded
to force with counterforce (i.e., he punched the
offensive actor in the midsection).
Perceptions of live action scenarios and videotaped scenarios
produced the same results: "offensive use of coercion [sic] was
rated significantly more aggressive than defensive use of coercion
[sic]"; actors (male) using "harm-doing [physical attack] coercion
[sic] defensively were perceived as less aggressive than all other
actors" except for those who used no coercion. The subjects
completed rating scales of polar adjectives, giving their
impressions of actor A and actor B, who were male actors with
specific parts to play (offensive or defensive). Sex of subject
was not examined as a variable. Adjectives such as good-bad,
strong-weak, severe-lenient, hard-soft, aggressive-nonaggressive,
used in this study also could be used to determine the positive
and negative aspects of managerial behavior.
Research by Driscoll illustrated how persons "high or low
in naturally occurring aggression differ in attributions made to
others engaged in an aggressive interaction."96 Subjects (college
students) viewed a videotaped aggressive scene, then completed a
96. James M. Driscoll, "Perception of an Aggressive Interaction as
a Function of the Perceiver's Aggression," Perceptual and
Motor Skills 54 (1982): 1123-34.


62
person-perception questionnaire and a self-report yielding
information concerning their own high and low aggression behavior
rates. Persons rated high in aggression perceive "greater injury,
negative reactions, and domineering and make greater causal
distinction among stimulus persons."97
Wyer, Jr., Weatherly, and Terrell38 dealt with the
following hypotheses:
1. Males will exceed females in direct expression of aggression
while females will exceed males in the need to inhibit
aggression (that is in guilt over expression of
aggression).
2. Among males, those who are both high in direct aggressive
expression and low in guilt over aggressive expression will
have the highest academic effectiveness.
3. Among females, those who are both low in direct aggressive
expression and high in guilt over aggressive expression will
have the highest academic effectiveness.
In this descriptive study, Wyer et al. defined academic
achievement "as the degree to which performance exceeds or falls
short of what would be predicted on the basis of aptitude alone."
Academic effectiveness was determined using the students' grade
point average and their Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Subjects
(undergraduate students) completed the Siegel (1956) "Manifest
Hostility Scale."89 Judges categorized results, reflecting "the
97. Ibid., p. 1123.
98. Robert S. Wyer, Jr., Donald Weatherly, and Glenn Terrell,
"Social Role, Aggression, and Academic Achievement," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (1965): 645-49. 99
99. Cited by Wyer et al.: S. M. Siegel, "The Relationship of
Hostility to Authoritarianism," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 52 (1956): 368-72.


63
tendency to commit acts of aggression, the tendency to experience
aggression, and the extent to which guilt associated with
aggression is absent." On the basis of this information, subjects
were placed in categories according to aggressive tendencies and
achievement; various comparisons were made. Results supported the
first two hypotheses; the third hypothesis was not supported
although results approached significance. "Males acknowledged
significantly more aggressive acts and showed significantly less
guilt over aggression."100 "Males high in tendency to commit acts
of aggression and low in aggression guilt were significantly
higher in academic effectiveness than other male subjects."101
Females "both low in direct aggressive expression and high in
guilt over aggressive expression had the highest academic
effectiveness"102 although this result was not significant.
The authors broaden these results in a discussion relevant
to the current study. They state that when direct expression of
hostility and aggression are acceptable aspects of one's social
role, this expression is manifested in areas which are relevant to
this role. Dominance and aggression needs acquire a positive
value in an academic setting; when these values are directly
manifested, academic effectiveness increases.103 Wyer et al. also
100. Ibid., p. 647.
101. Ibid., p. 648.
102. Ibid., p. 648.
103. Ibid., p. 649.


64
state that when overt acts of aggression are inconsistent with
one's social role, the acts are displaced into areas which do not
contradict primary role expectations. It is easy to make the
transition from an academic setting to an organizational setting
where males and females desire job effectiveness; they will use
and view aggression and dominance differently.
Perceptions of Aggression
The hypothesis that "frustration in situations congruent
with traditional sex roles will elicit higher levels of aggression
from both women and men than will frustration in sex role
incongruent situations" was examined by Towson and Zanna.104 Male
and female subjects (undergraduate students) read either a
masculine oriented passage (body building exam) or a feminine
oriented passage (dance exercise exam) describing a frustrating
event. Subjects compared themselves to the frustrated person in
the passage while completing rating scales. Items in the rating
scale related, to the appropriateness of aggressive responses to
the frustrating event (actions by another student). The types of
aggression included: "physical (e.g., pushing, shaking, striking);
verbal (e.g., name calling); indirect, nonobvious (e.g.,
downgrading the student to other students, preventing the student
from performing well in the future .); and appeal to
104. Shelagh M. Towson and Mark P. Zanna, "Toward a Situational
Analysis of Gender Differences in Aggression," Sex Roles 8
(1982): 903-14.


65
legitimate authority (e.g., reporting the student to the relevant
authority)."105 106 Both male and female subjects in "gender-congruent
conditions" perceived that situation as "more important and
advocated more aggressive responses than did subjects in gender-
incongruent conditions." In the respective sex-congruent
situations, women were as aggressive as men; but they were never
more aggressive than men. Towson and Zanna suggest that perceived
differences of the importance of the sex role congruent tasks also
may have influenced the subjects' judgments and aggressive
responses.
Frodi surveyed 70 female and 60 male students to determine
what constitutes provocation.106 Frodi noted that many studies on
aggression used the same means of provocation for males and
females but that males and females might perceive the provocation
differently. As an illustration Frodi discusses experiments that
use the delivery of electric shocks. Sex related differences in
the aggressive behavior measured may be differences in other
emotions such as fear or anxiety of the provocation. Electric
shock may be an aggressive behavior measure for males, but it may
be a fear or anxiety measure for females. Frodi's survey asked
"what is the most anger-provoking behavior a girl (guy) your age
could display toward you?"107 Responses were categorized
105. Ibid., p. 907.
106. Ann Frodi, "Sex Differences in Perception of a Provocation, A
Survey," Perceptual and Motor Skills 44 (1977): 113-14.


66
accordingly: "(1) Physical/Verbal Aggression, e.g., "when a guy
punches me in the nose, when a friend yells at me;" (2) Lack of
Sensitivity, e.g., "when he (she) ignores me, disturbs me when I'm
studying, is late for an appointment, a date;" (3) Condescending
Attitude, e.g., "when he (she) treats me like I'm no good, acts
superior, tries to step on me, criticizes my personality,
intellect, career;" (4) Lack of Efficiency, e.g., "when you want
something repaired, and it is not done on.time, or properly. .
II 1 0 B
Results from Frodi's research indicated "that most
typically men are angered by the display of physical or verbal
aggression by another male but, given a female provoker, a
condescending attitude triggers hostile feelings. For women, on
the other hand, the most anger-provoking behavior is condescending
treatment, regardless of the sex of the provoker."107 108 Frodi
concludes that experiments trying to examine aggressive behavior
must pay attention to the types of provocation used on male and
female subjects. Condescending attitudes are used to provoke
anger in the current study and are reviewed in the methodology
section.
Kanekar, Nanji, KOlsawalla, and Mukerji hypothesized "that
107. Ibid., p. 113.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid., p. 114.


67
aggression or retaliation against a female and especially by a
male should be negatively evaluated."110 Subjects (college
students) read a scenario describing an act of aggression. This
study is significant because it compared the subjects' (male and
female) perceptions of an aggressor (male and female), the
victim's sex, and whether or not the victim was retaliating.
Seven-point scales were used to rate the victim and aggressor.
The scales included descriptors such as intelligence, morality,
adjustment, and likability. Results indicated that "the
nonretaliating victim was evaluated more positively than the
retaliating victim,"111 across all conditions. Results relevant
to this study "suggest that whenever there was aggression or
retaliation against a female by a male, the female was likely to
be evaluated negatively."112 A male as a target of female
aggression "was rated lower on morality and adjustment than the
male victim of male aggression."113 An unexplained result showed
that male subjects "gave a higher rating on intelligence to the
victim of female rather than male aggression (p<.05), and a higher
intelligence rating was given to the male aggressor when the
110. Suresh Kanekar, Villy Nanji, Maharukh Kolsawalla, and
Gitanjali Mukerji, "Perception of an Aggressor and a Victim of
Aggression as a Function of Sex and Retaliation," Journal of
Social Psychology 114 (1981): 139-40.
111. Ibid., p. 139.
112. Ibid.
113. Ibid


68
nonretaliating victim was female rather than male (pc.Ol)."114
Although the findings were not consistent, "they do show that the
same action gave rise to different judgments depending on the sex
of the actor, the sex of the target of the action, and the sex of
the judge."115 Kanekar et al. compare the results to "attribution
theory according to which atypical behavior is more informative
about a person than is typical behavior."116 They continue stating
that "in most cultures a man's aggression against a woman
represents atypical behavior which may affect negatively the
perceptions of both aggressor and victim."117
Research by.Borden explored the idea that "when an
individual has an opportunity to aggress and he is in the presence
of others, he will use whatever information is available
concerning the observer's values and expectations in order to
maximize the probability of favorable outcome."118 Aggression was
measured by the intensity of electric shocks given to an opponent.
Male subjects (college students) observed by a male aggressed more
than those observed by a female. When explicit values (aggressive
114. Ibid., p. 140.
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid.
117. Ibid.
118. Richard J. Borden, "Witnessed Aggression: Influence of an
Observer's Sex and Values on Aggressive Responding," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1975): 567-73.


69
- karate club instructor or pacifistic organizer of Society
Against Nuclear Expansion) were assigned to the observer, the
subjects' aggressive activity varied accordingly. There was no
relationship in this instance between the sex of the observer and
the aggressive behavior. Although there were "no overt
indications of approval or disapproval from the observer," the
subjects modified their behavior in "anticipation of approval from
the observer."118 Borden suggests that "relatively subtle
characteristics of the social situation surrounding an altercation
do influence the expression of physical aggression by the
participants."12 0
Sex Differences and Verbal Aggression
Driscoll examined verbal aggression (name-calling) and
developed "a procedure for its quantitative manipulation."119 120 121
College students rated 316 pejorative epithets "for
aggressiveness, frequency of use in aggressive interchanges, and
frequency of not knowing their meaning."122 Words were presented
in the statement, "You _____!" and were followed by a 7-point
scale from least aggressive to most aggressive. Subjects were to
119. Ibid., p. 572.
120. Ibid., p. 570.
121. James M. Driscoll, "Aggressiveness and Frequency-of-
Aggressive-Use Ratings for Pejorative Epithets by Americans"
The Journal of Social Psychology 114 (1981): 111-26.
122. Ibid., p. 112.


70
imagine that the word had been used in anger against them and
determine "how much aggression would the use of the word
signal."123 A table of the words, their aggression ratings, and
the frequency-of-aggressive-use is included in Driscoll's report
to facilitate "the manipulating or measuring of verbal
aggression" in future studies. This table was referenced when
establishing the scenarios used in the current study.
Using attribution theory as a base, Rosen and Jerdee
proposed that pleading behavior (meek, mild) conforms more with
female sex role behavior, providing "little information for
making nonstereotypic attributions about her motivations or future
behavior."124 A female using an aggressive, threatening approach
"might be seen as highly at variance with sex role expectations
and might therefore lead to attributions of extreme agitation and
even intent to develop a litigable case."125 A threatening appeal
would be more productive for a female, but it also may produce a
negative resistance such as "greater oppression for the
complainant"12 5 from the manager.
123. Ibid., p. 114.
124. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "Effects of Employee's Sex
and Threatening Versus Pleading Appeals on Managerial
Evaluations of Grievances" Journal of Applied Psychology 60
(1975): 442-45. See p. 443.
125. Ibid., p. 443.
126. Ibid


71
Subjects (bank managers) read a description of a grievance
situation which involved either a male or female as the source and
varied the type of complaint (threatening vs. pleading) "on
managerial judgments of requests for rectification of
injustice."12 Two different grievance situations were used. In
one situation, the manager had failed to take positive action in
support of the employee's career by not nominating the employee
for a training conference while sending others with less
seniority. In the threatening version, the employee stated, "I
insist I get the opportunity this year. This request deserves
immediate attention. I expect to hear from you right away on this
or I am going to take immediate action." For the pleading
version, the employee stated, "I would be very grateful for the
opportunity to participate this year. Thank you very much for
your consideration."126 The other situation involved status
inequity where the employee was not given the same physical work
environment as others at the same job level. The employee in the
threatening version stated, "If no action is forthcoming I will
not hesitate to make an issue of this at the next officers'
meeting. I want action on this immediately." In the pleading
version, the employee stated, "I wonder if you could look into
this and find out if anything can be worked out. Would there be 127 128
127. Ibid.
128. Ibid., p. 444.
I


72
any possibility of getting another desk location?"129 130 131 132
From their study of the relationship between methods of
making appeals and managerial evaluations of grievances, Rosen and
Jerdee concluded that "when the appellant was male, a polite,
pleading appeal was very favorably received, and an aggressive,
threatening appeal was fairly well received. When the appellant
was female, an aggressive, threatening appeal was quite favorably
received, but a polite, pleading appeal was much less well
received."190 There were no interactions found involving subjects'
sex as a variable. Rosen and Jerdee suggest that "women who
follow what they consider to be appropriate sex role behavior and
demonstrate deference to managerial judgments may end up victims
of their own sex role stereotypes."191
Following the premises of expectancy theory which
"suggests that people develop normative expectations about
appropriateness of communication behavior that differ for males
and females,1,132 Burgoon, Dillard, and Doran suggested "that
females using verbally aggressive strategies which are more
expected of male sources, should be less effective than if they
129. Ibid.
130. Ibid., p. 442.
131. Ibid., p. 445.
132. Michael Burgoon, James P. Dillard, and Noel E. Doran,
"Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion The Effects of Violations
of Expectations by Males and Females," Human Communication
Research 10 (1983): 283-94. See p. 283.


73
conformed to normative expectations and used less aggressive
strategies."133 Persuasive strategies were predetermined as more
commonly male or female. "Statements using threat and aversive
stimulation" were male strategies while "altruism and positive
moral appeals" were female strategies.134 Verbal aggressiveness is
not fully defined; reference is made to highly intense language
but examples of the different strategies are not supplied.
College students completed questionnaires which indicated their
psychological sex roles. Those who were found to be highly
masculine or highly feminine were categorized as "Traditional
Receivers." Those who were "Nontraditional Receivers" were
androgynous or undifferentiated with regards to sex roles. Sex of
source, persuasive strategy, and subject sex varied. There were
significant effects as predicted between subject sex and source
sex, and source sex and strategy used. Burgoon et al. found that
"males and females are constrained by message strategies as well
as language choices"135 in persuasive attempts. Data collected
indicated that "males are expected to use more aggressive
persuasive strategies, and to the extent that they do not conform
to such expectations, attitude change is inhibited. However,
females are not expected to use such aggressive strategies and are
133. Ibid., p. 285-86.
134. Ibid., p. 288.
135. Ibid., p. 292.


74
penalized when they are the source of unexpectedly aggressive
and/or antisocial message strategies."136
Lowery, Snyder, and Denney, viewed aggressive behavior as
dependent on the situation in which the behavior occurred.137
"Three conditions must be present before observers will label a
behavior as aggressive: (1) the actor must be perceived as having
malevolent intent, (2) the actor must be perceived as acting
offensively rather than defensively, and (3) the actor's behavior
must be perceived as antinormative."136 In an experimental study
by Lowery et al. results did not support the hypothesis that "a
female is perceived as more aggressive than a male when both make
identical aggressive statements."138 Subjects (college students)
read a passage describing a situation where the experimenter acts
aggressively (degrades subject's experimental efforts, calling
them stupid and stating that a third grader could do better)
toward a student subject. The subjects then completed a rating
scale which used adjectives from the "Differential Emotion
136. Ibid., p. 293.
137. Carol R. Lowery, C. R. Snyder, and Nancy W. Denney,
"Perceived Aggression and Predicted Counteraggression as a
Function of Sex of Dyad Participants: When Males and Females
Exchange Verbal Blows," Sex Roles 2 (1976): 339-46.
138. Cited by Lowery et al. p. 340: T. R. Kane, P. Doerge, J. T.
Tedeschi, "When is intentional harm-doing perceived as
aggression?" Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Montreal, August,
1973.
139. Ibid., p. 344


75
Scale"14 0 and also indicated how they would have responded toward
such behavior from the experimenter. No perceived aggressiveness
occurred "between a male insulting another male and a male
insulting a female." "A female who insulted another female was
perceived as more aggressive than a female who insulted a male."
Conclusions
From the reviewed studies one notes that aggression is a
difficult feeling/word/behavior/perception to define and capture.
Various studies indicate that aggression is a behavior measured as
a response to provocation. Aggressive behavior is a measure of
magnitude of electric shock delivered to one's opponent (Taylor
and Epstein, Richardson et al., Borden), or the measure of
"intensity of blows" from a foam bat (Young et al.). Richardson
et al. and Young et al. relate their subjects' traditional views
(advocating traditional roles for women) and liberal views
(advocating liberal roles for women) to measures of aggression
from provocation. Richardson et al. find that liberal females
responded less aggressively (less intensive shock settings) toward
both traditional and liberal males, than the traditional females
responded. Young et al. find that liberal males acted more
aggressively (more intense blows from a foam bat) than the
traditional males acted. Liberal males reacted more aggressively 140
140. Lowery 342. Scale referenced from C. E. Izard, Patterns of
Emotions (New York: Academic Press, 1972).


147
presents a two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version x Subject
Sex) for variables D and E.
Table V
Analysis of Variance for Variable D Perceived
Aggression of Person A and Variable E Perceived
Aggression of Person B
Variable D Responses Describing "Aggressive CHaracter"
No variance.
All 82 replies described Person A/Bill/Betsy as aggressive.
Variable E Responses Describing Other Character
sv* SS df MS F PR > F
Group 0.72 2 i 0.36 0.84 0.4360
Sex 0.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 1.0000
Group x Sex 0.63 2 0.32 0.74 0.4815
Error 32.65 76 0.43
*SV = Source of Variance, SS = Sum of Squares,
df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square,
F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance
>
There was no variance for variable D as all subjects selected the
same response (1.0) to describe Person A/Bill/Betsy. There were
no significant relationships (p < .05) for variable E.
Analyses of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1:
. Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with
other males will be rated more positively by male
supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential
than will their female counterparts.
The first hypothesis was tested by analyzing means and
standard deviations for each individual male and female
descriptor, the summed total of all the male adjectives (variable
A), the summed total of all the female adjectives (variable B),


148
the summed total of all the significant (p < .10) male adjectives
(variable H), and by two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version
x Subject Sex) for the individual adjectives and variables A, B,
and H. The results of these analyses yielded only partial support
{from variable H) for this hypothesis.
Means and standard deviations for the individual male and
female adjectives did not support Hypothesis 1. Although a few
individual adjective's means were in the direction predicted, the
majority of the adjective's means were not supportive of this
hypothesis. Subjects were asked to rate the managerial potential
of the aggressively communicating character (Person A, Bill or
Betsy) in the dialog they'd just read. Subjects' responses to
each of the 22 rating scales representing 14 male and 8 female
adjectives in Section I of the questionnaire were scored from 1 to
5 (1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly
disagree, 5 = strongly disagree). Tables VI and VII present means
and standard deviations of male and female supervisors' scores in
each version of the dialog for each male and female adjective.


149
Table VI
Keans and Standard Deviations for Male Adjectives *
Means/Standard Deviations*
Character: Person A Bill Betsy
Subjects: Male Female Male Female Male Female
Adjective:
Ambitious 1.6/1.1 1.4/.63 1.1/3.5 1.6/1.4 1.1/.28 1.0/0.0
Analytical Ability 2.7/1.2 2.7/.73 2.6/.99 3.3/.78 3.0/.82 2.9/1.1
Competitive 1.5/1.1 1.1/.36 1.6/1.2 1.2/.39 1.1/.28 1.1/.35
Consistent 3.2/1.4 3.2/1.1 2.9/1.0 3.2/.94 3.0/.82 2.9/1.1
Desires Responsi- bility 1.8/1.0 1.7/.91 1.7/.62 1.9/1.4 1.2/.83 1.7/1.1
Emotionally Stable 4.0/.71 4.1/.86 4.0/.76 4.3/.65 4.0/1.0 4.6/.63
Forceful 1.5/.66 1.1/.36 1.1/.26 1.4/1.2 1.1/.28 1.1/.26
Leadership Ability 4.5/.66 4.4/.76 4.7/.59 4.7/.89 4.7/.47 4.8/.41
Logical 3.6/.77 3.1/.95 3.1/.70 4.2/.83 3.7/.85 3.7/1.1
No Desire For Friendship 2.1/.86 2.0/.88 2.5/1.3 2.3/1.4 1.9/.95 1.8/1.0
Objective 4.0/.91 4.4/.76 3.9/1.3 4.3/.97 4.2/.98 4.5/.52
Self Confi- dent 2.1/1.4 1.7/.99 1.7/1.4 1.3/.89 1.5/.88 2.2/1.5
Steady 3.3/1.1 3.7/.91 3.5/.99 4.1/.90 3.9/1.1 3.5/.92
Well Informed 2.9/.69 3.6/1.0 3.3/.98 3.6/.90 3.4/1.3 3.7/1.1
*scale used: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided,
4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree


150
Table VII
Means and Standard Deviations for Female Adjectives *
Means/Standard Deviations*
Character: Person A Bill Betsy
Subjects: Male Female Male Female Male Female
Adjective:
Aware of Feelings of Others 4.7/.63 4.7/.61 4.8/.41 5.0/0.0 4.7/.75 5.0/0.0
Cheerful 4.3/.85 4.4/.76 4.5/.83 4.8/.39 4.5/.66 4.9/.26
Creative 3.2/.83 3.4/.76 3.0/.65 3.8/.94 3.2/.83 3.9/.99
Helpful 4.8/.60 4.8/.43 5.0/0.0 5.0/0.0 4.9/.38 5.0/0.0
Humani- tarian Values 4.6/.77 4.8/.58 4.8/.41 5.0/0.0 4.7/.63 5.0/0.0
Intuitive 3.4/.87 3.6/.94 3.2/.77 4.3/.97 3.2/1.2 4.1/.96
Modest 4.9/.37 4.8/.43 4.9/.26 4.8/.39 4.8/.38 4.9/.35
Sophisti- cated 4.2/.99 3.9/.92 4.3/.80 4.4/.79 4.0/1.2 4.6/.63
*scale used: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided,
4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree
The first hypothesis predicted the aggressively
communicating male, Bill, rather than the aggressively
communicating female, Betsy, would be perceived as having more
managerial potential in terms of more frequent scores of agreement
on the male adjectives. From Tattle VI it can be seen that male
supervisors perceived Betsy rather than Bill, as having more
managerial potential as defined by the following male adjectives',
competitive, desires responsibility, no desire for friendship, and


151
self confident. Male supervisors equally perceived Betsy and Bill
on the male adjectives ambitious, emotionally stable, forceful,
and leadership ability. On 8 of the 14 male adjectives, male
supervisors rated Betsy better than or equal to Bill's managerial
potential. Bill was perceived by the male supervisors as having
more managerial potential than Betsy on 6 male adjectives:
analytical ability, consistent, logical, objective, steady, and
well informed.
Means and standard deviations on the female adjectives in
Table VI indicated that male supervisors rated Betsy equally or
more positively than Bill on 7 of the 8 adjectives. These
adjectives were: aware of feelings of others, cheerful, helpful,
humanitarian values, intuitive, modest, and sophisticated.
Creative was the only female adjective that male supervisors rated
Bill more positively than Betsy. Female supervisors rated Betsy
equally or more positively on 4 of the 8 female adjectives. These
adjectives were: aware of feelings of others, helpful,
humanitarian values, and intuitive. Note that both male and
female supervisors perceived the aggressive communicating male,
Bill, more positively in terms of the adjective creative.
Scores on all 14 male adjectives were summed to form a new
variable, A. The lowest score possible was 14 indicating strong
agreement with each male adjective as descriptive of the perceived
aggressive character's managerial potential. The highest possible
score was 70 indicating strong disagreement with each male
adjective as being descriptive of the perceived aggressive


152
character's managerial potential.
Each subject's scores on the eight female adjectives were
summed to form a new variable, B. The lowest possible score was 8
indicating strong agreement with each female adjective as being
descriptive of the perceived aggressive character's managerial
potential. The highest possible score was 40 indicating strong
disagreement with each female adjective as being descriptive of
the perceived aggressive character's managerial potential. Table
VIII presents means and standard deviations for variables A and B
for male and female subjects in each dialog.
Table VIII
Means and Standard Deviations for Variable A summed Male
Adjectives and Variable B summed Female Adjectives
Means/Standard Deviations*
Character: Person A Bill Betsy
A Summed Male Adjectives* **
Total of
All Groups
M*** **** 38.7 / 6.7 37.9 / 5.4 37.6 / 4.4 38.1 / 5.5
F 38.4 / 3.8 41.3 / 4.5 39.4 / 4.8 39.6 / 4.4
Tot 38.6 / 5.3 39.4 / 5.2 38.5 / 4.6 38.8 / 5.0
B Summed Female Adjectives****
M 34.0 / 3.4 34.5 / 1.6 33.9 / 3.2 34.2 / 2.7
F 34.4 / 2.4 37.2 / 2.2 37.3 / 2.1 36.3 / 2.6
Tot 34.2 / 2.9 35.7 / 2.3 35.7 / 3.1 35.2 / 2.9,
scale used: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree,
3 = undecided, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree
**14 responses summed; 14 = lowest score possible,
70 = highest score possible
***M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total
****8 responses summed; 8 = lowest score possible,
40 = highest score possible
Hypothesis 1 was tested by using a two-way analysis of


153
variance (Dialog Version x Subject Sex). Table IX displays the
analysis of variance for variable A, the summed total of male
adjective scores.
Table IX
Analysis of Variance for Variable A Summed Kale Adjectives
sv* ss df MS F PR > F
Group 12.89 2 6.45 0.26 0.7743
Sex 51.52 1 41.52 2.05 0.1563
Group x Sex 52.36 2 26.18 1.04 0.3578
Error 1909.66 76 25.13
*SV = Source of Variance, SS = Sum of Squares,
df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square,
F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance
There were no significant (p < .05) relationships concerning
variable A. The Sex of Subject effect though not statistically
significant, F(2, 76) = 2.05, p < .16, was further examined.
Weans indicated that male supervisors across all three groups
tended to perceive the aggressive communicating character whether
male or female, more positively than the female supervisors
perceived this character in terms of the male adjectives. These
results did not support Hypothesis 1.
With reference to variable A, male supervisors evaluated
the aggressively communicating male character positively (group
means = 37.9). However, contrary to what Hypothesis 1 predicted,
male subjects also evaluated the perceived aggressively
communicating female equally as positively (group means = 37.6).
Male and female subject scores for the dialog between Person A
and Person B where no sex of the communicators was indicated,


154
showed relatively similar group means with smaller standard
deviations for the female scores (male sores: means = 38.7, std
dev = 6.7; female scores: means = 38.4, std dev = 3.8). Refer to
Table VIII for complete means and standard deviations for variable
B. When no sex was indicated, male and female supervisors
similarly rated the managerial potential of the perceived
aggressively communicating Person A. However, when sex of the
communicators was indicated, male supervisors rated the perceived
aggressive communicator whether male or female as having more
managerial potential than Person A, where no sex was indicated.
Male supervisors rated the perceived aggressively communicating
female as having slightly more managerial potential than her male
counterpart. Female supervisors rated the aggressive communicator
whether male or female as having less managerial potential than
Person A, where no sex was indicated. Female supervisors rated
the perceived aggressively communicating male as having less
managerial potential than Person A and Betsy. These results did
not lend support to Hypothesis 1.
Regarding responses to the female adjectives, male and
female subject ratings of Person A where no sex of the
communicator was indicated, were quite similar. Refer to Table
VIII for these means and standard deviations. In terms of the
female adjectives, male subjects evaluated the aggressively
communicating male slightly more negatively than they evaluated
Person A. Male subjects evaluated the aggressively communicating
female slightly more positively than they evaluated Person A. In


155
terms of female adjectives, female subjects rated the aggressively
communicating male much more negatively than they evaluated Person
A. The female subjects rated the aggressively communicating
female slightly more negatively than they rated her male
counterpart.
Table X presents the analysis of variance for variable B,
the summed total of female adjectives.
Table X
Analysis of Variance for Variable B Summed Female Adjectives
SV*
SS df MS F PR > F
Group 40.67 2
Sex 93.37 1
Group x Sex 35.65 2
Error 491.39 76
20.34 3.14 0.0487
93.37 14.44 0.0003
17.83 2.76 0.0699
6.46
*SV = Source of Variance, SS = Sum of Squares,
df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square,
F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance
There were significant relationships involving Group, Sex, and
Group x Sex. However, these results were not supportive of
Hypothesis 1. The significant Group interaction, F( 2, 76) =
3.14, p < .05, is derived from supervisors perceiving Person A,
the case where no sex was indicated, as having more managerial
potential in terms of these female adjectives than that of Bill or
Betsy. The main effect for Sex, F(l, 76) = 14.44, p < .0004,
showed that male supervisors across all three studies perceived
the aggressive character more positively in terms of these female
adjectives than the female supervisors perceived the same
character.


156
To further analyze Hypothesis 1 and the male and female
adjectives, a separate analysis of variance for each male and
female adjective was calculated. Tables XI and XII present the
probability of significant relationships for the male adjectives
and the female adjectives.


157
Table XI
Analysis of Variance for Individual Hale Adjectives:
Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F
Adjective Group Sex Group x Sex
Ambitious 0.09* 0.88 0.21
Analytical Ability 0.66 0.39 0.20
Competitive 0.33 0.15 0.52
Consistent 0.58 0.92 0.81
Desires Re- sponsibility 0.53 0.32 0.54
Emotionally Stable 0.48 0.036** 0.59
Forceful 0.33 1.00 0.11
Leadership
Ability 0.29 0.93 0.73
Logical 0.42 0.31 0.0045***
No Desire For Friendship 0.12 0.47 1.00
Objective 0.53 0.06* 1.00
Self Confident 0.55 0.93 0.16
Steady 0.64 0.44 0.18
Well Informed 0.51 0.07* 0.62
significant interactions, p < .10
** p < .04
*** p < .005


158
Table XII
Analysis of Variance for Individual Female Adjectives:
Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F
Adjective Group Sex Group x Sex
Aware of Feelings of Others 0.35 0.12 0.51
Cheerful 0.15 0.03* 0.58
Creative 0.53 0.003** 0.41
Helpful 0.047* 0.51 0.59
Humanitarian Values 0.34 0.048* 0.76
Intuitive 0.69 0.0017** 0.21
Modest 0.75 0.65 0.72
Sophisticated 0.39 0.39 0.24
*significant interactions , p < .05
** p < .004
Table XI displays a significant effect for Group on the
adjective ambitious, F(2, 76) = 2.46, p < .10. Means from Table
VI indicate that Betsy was perceived as more ambitious than Bill
or Person A. There were main effects for Sex on the adjectives
emotionally stable, F(l, 76) = 4.54, p < .05, objective, F(l, 76)
= 3.59, p < .07, and well informed, F(l, 76), p < .08. Male
supervisors perceived the aggressive communicator as more
*>
emotionally stable, objective, and well informed, than the female
supervisors perceived this character. There was a main effect for
Group x Sex for the adjective logical, F(2, 76) = 5.81, p < .005.
While males perceived the aggressive character as more logical in


159
terms of managerial potential than the females perceived this
character, females perceived Person A as more logical than Bill or
Betsy {Bill was perceived as least logical). Hales perceived Bill
as most logical and Betsy as least logical.
Data in Table XII present a significant interaction for
Group on the female adjective helpful, F(2, 76) = 3.16, p < .05.
Male and female supervisors perceived Person A as more helpful
than Bill or Betsy. There were main effects for Sex on four
female adjectives: cheerful, F(l, 76) = 4.64, p < .04; creative,
F(l, 76) = 9.17, p < .004; humanitarian values, F(l, 76) = 4.04, p
< .05; and intuitive, F(l, 76) = 10.62, p < .002. Across all
three groups, males perceived the aggressive character more
positively than the females did on those adjectives.
From the significant relationships, p < .10, found for
individual male adjectives in Table XI, a new variable, H, was
formed. This variable was derived from summing the values of the
significant male adjectives from Table XI: ambitious, emotionally
stable, logical, objective, and well informed. Means, standard
deviations, and an analysis of variance for variable H appear in
Table XIII.


160
Table XIII
Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance for
Variable H Summed Responses To Significant Male Adjectives
Means/Standard Deviations*
Character: Person A Bill Betsy
Total of
All Groups
M**
F
Tot
16.1 / 2.8
16.6 / 1.8
16.4 / 2.3
15.5 / 2.4
17.9 / 3.2
16.6 / 3.0
16.3 / 2.7
17.5 / 2.3
16.9 / 2.5
15.9 / 2.6
17.3 / 2.4
16.6 / 2.6
Analysis of Variance
sv* SS df MS F PR > F
Group 4.46 2 2.23 0.35 0.7083
Sex 39.62 1 39.62 6.15 0.0153
Group x Sex 11.91 2 5.95 0.92 0.4010
Error 489.29 76 6.44
*SV = Source of Variance, SS = Sum of Squares,
df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square,
F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance
**M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total
There was a main effect for Subject Sex, F(l, 76) = 6.15,
p < .02, as seen in Table XIII. Means for variable H indicate
that male supervisors rated the aggressive communicating person
more positively (means = 15.9) than females rated this person
(means = 17.3); this finding supports Hypothesis 1. Although not
statistically significant, the overall group means show that male
and female supervisors rated the aggressive male character Bill
more positively than they rated the aggressive female character
Betsy (Bill means = 16.6, Betsy means = 16.9). This result is
in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1.
It was anticipated that variable C would support
Hypothesis 1. This was not the case. Recorded scores on the male


161
characteristic phrases were summed to form variable C. If the
aggressive character's name was indicated next to a phrase
descriptive of males, then a score of l was assigned to this
response. If the aggressive character's name was not indicated
than a score of 0 was assigned to the response. A low score of 0
would indicate that none of the six male phrases were perceived as
being descriptive of the aggressive communicator. The highest
possible score of 6 would indicate that all 6 male phrases were
perceived to be descriptive of the aggressive communicator. Table
XIV presents the means and standard deviations of variable C for
male and female subjects in each dialog.
Table XIV
Means and Standard Deviations for Variable C summed Hale
Phrases
Means/Standard Deviations*
Total of
Character; Person A Bill Betsy All Groups
C Summed Male Phrases*
M** 1.9 / 1.9 1.9 / 1.0 2.8 / 1.5 2.2 / 1.5
F 1.4 / 1.4 2.3 / 1.4 2.3 / 1.3 2.0 / 1.4
Tot 1.6 / 1.6 2.1 / 1.2 2.5 / 1.4 2.1 / 1.5
*6 male phrases, 1 point per male phrase selected,
total possible = 6
**M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total
Means for variable C indicate that male subjects perceived the
male phrases as more descriptive of the aggressively communicating
female's behavior than the aggressively communicating male's
behavior. This finding does not support Hypothesis 1 as it was
expected that the aggressively communicating male would be


152
perceived by more of the male descriptive phrases than the
aggressively communicating female. While female subjects
perceived the aggressively communicating male's and female's
behaviors as similar, male subjects perceived aggressively
communicating males and Person A (no sex indicated) as similar in
terms of these male descriptive phrases. Table XV presents the
analysis of variance for variable C.
Table XV
Analysis of Variance for Variable C Summed Hale Phrases
sv* SS df MS F PR > F
Group 3.75 2 1.87 0.89 0.4166
Sex 0.78 1 0.78 0.37 0.5457
Group x Sex 4.35 2 . 2.17 1.03 0.3633
Error 161.02 76 2.12
*SV = Source of Variance, SS = Sum of Squares,
df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square,
F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance
There were no significant (p < .05) relationships involving
variable C.
Hypothesis 2:
Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with
other males will be rated more positively by female
supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential
than will their female counterparts.
The second hypothesis was tested by analyzing means and
standard deviations for each individual male and female adjective,
the summed total of all the male adjectives (variable A), the
summed total of all the female adjectives (variable B), the summed
total of all the significant (p < .10) male adjectives (variable
H), and by two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version x Subject


Full Text

PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF AGGRESSIVE CQMMUNICATORS IN TERMS OF REQUI"SITE MANAGERIAL CHARACTERISTICS by Claire Darnken Brown B.A., University of Colorado, 1973 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University Of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communication 1985

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Brown for the

PAGE 3

Brown, Claire Damken (M.A., Communication) Male/Female Perceptions of Aggressive communicators in Terms of Requisite Managerial Characteristics Thesis directed by Associate Professor Jon A. Winterton iii This investigation examines the relationship between male/female perceptions of managerial potential and communication acts perceived as aggressive in an organizational setting. Female and male managers read a short account of a dialog between two subordiinates in which one subordinate used aggressive communication behavior. Dialogs were identical while sex of the subordinates varied: male-male, female-female, and Person A-Person B -a case with no gender indicated. Each subject read one of the dialog and completed a series of 5-point rating scales using requisite managerial descriptors. It is hypothesized that both male and female managers will perceive requisite managerial characteristics more favorably in the aggressive communicating male than in the aggressive communicating female. By "mor e favorably" it is meant that the subjects will more strongly agree with the requisite managerial characteristics as suitable descriptors of the managerial potential of the aggressive communicating person in the dialog. The aggressive communicating female will be perceived less favorably by male and female subjects in terms of requisite managerial characteristics. The results are discussed in terms of male/female interpretations of managerial potential and perceptions of male/female aggressive behavior.

PAGE 4

To my husband, Larry, ana my parents, .Margaret ana John Damken

PAGE 5

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Definitions and Hypothesis.......................... 15 II. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............... 22 Sex Role Differences and Perceptions................ 23 General Sex Role Attributes and Stereotypes....... 23 Perceptions of Communicator Style................. 29 Sex Differences in Perceptions of Behavior........ 34 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . 38 Sex Differences and 39 Attributions of Leadership........................ 39 Perceptions of Authority and Power................ 48 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . 53 Sex Differences and Aggression...................... 56 General Sex Differences and Aggression............ 56 Perceptions of Aggression......................... 64 Sex Differences and Verbal Aggression............. 69 Conclusions. ..................... .. . . . 7 5 sex Differences and Managerial Characteristics...... 81 Sex Stereotypes in the workplace.................. 81 Sex Differences and Management Communication...... 92 Managerial Characteristics........................ 96

PAGE 6

Vi Conclusions . . . 110 General Conclusions 116 III. METHODOLOGY ........................ 119 Deve1opment of Dialog 120 Experts in the Field Consulted 124 Pilot study . . . . . . . . 124 Study ............ . . . . .................. 130 Subjects 130 Instrument . . . . 131 Procedures ....................................... 137 Independent and Dependent Variables 138 Further Definitions and Proposed Statistical Analyses .................... . . . . . 139 Data Analyses . . . . . 140 IV. RESULTS ....................... 144 Subject Population . . . . . . 144 Establishment ot the Main Character as Aggressive 145 Analyses of Hypotheses 147 Hypothesis 1 ..................................... 147 Hypothesis 2 162 Hypothesis 3 .................................. 165 Hypothesis 4 ... . . . . .................. 166 Other Hypotheses . . . . 167 Other Variables . . . . . . . . 168 v. CONCLUSIONS ....................... 172 Implications . . . . . . 187

PAGE 7

Vii Areas for Future Research ..... 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 192 APPENDIX A. B. c. D. Pilot Pilot Cover Study Study Study Letter Dialog Dialog A and Questionnaire 199 Dialog B and Questionnaire ... 203 Example .................................. 207 and Questionnaire ... 208 E. successful Manager Questionnaire .... 217

PAGE 8

TABLES Table I. Pilot Study Subject Population ..... 126 II. Pilot Study Means and Standard Deviations 128 III. Subject Population ... 144 IV. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable D -Perceived Aggression of Person A and Variable E -Perceived Aggression of Person B 146 v. Analysis of Variance for variable D -Perceived Aggression of Person A and Variable E -Perceived Aggression of Person B .. 147 VI. Means and Standard Deviations for Male Adjectives 149 VII. Means and Standard Deviations for Female Adjectives. 150 VIII. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable A -summed Male Adjectives and Variable B -summed Female Adjectives .... 152 IX. Analysis of Variance for Variable A -summed Male Adjectives. . . . . . . . . . . 153 X. Analysis of variance for Variable B Summed Female Adjectives. . . . . . . . . . . 155 XI. Analysis of variance for Individual Male Adjectives: Probability of Significant Relationships PR >F 157 XII. Analysis of Variance for Individual Female Adjectives: Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F. 158 XIII. Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance for Variable H Summed Responses to Significant Male Adjectives. 160

PAGE 9

ix XIV. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable c Summed Male Phrases ...... 161 XV. Analysis of Variance for variable c Summed Male Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . 162 XVI. Means and Standard Deviations for Variable G -summed sex Stereotype Responses ... 168 XVII. Analysis of Variance for Variable G -summed sex Stereotype Responses ...... 169 XVIII. Analysis of Variance for variable A with Age as an Independent Variable ..... 170 XIX. Analysis of Variance for Variable B with Age as an Independent Variable ..... 170

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I I.NTRODUCTIO:N Over the past decade research focusing on sex differences in many areas increased. Studies examining male/female perceptions of conflict, aggression, and managerial behavior have been conducted. Baird, Jr., (1976) presented a review of research in sex differences in group communication.l Baird noted that while sex differences were examined in many studies, this factor was not always mentioned in the title of an article, so some pertinent information may not have been found. Baird cites stereotypes of typical male and female roles from Bardwick and Douvan.2 They state that "males are commonly thought to be independent, aggressive, competitive, task-oriented, outwardly oriented, assertive, self-disciplined, stoic, objective, innovative, analytic-minded, and females are thought to be dependent, fragile, nonaggressive, noncompetitive, inner-oriented, interpersonally oriented, empathetic,sensitive, subjective, 1. John E. Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences in Group Communication: A Review of Relevant Research," Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (1976): 179-92. 2. Cited in Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences," J. Bardwick and E. Douvan, "Ambivalence: The socialization of Women," Women in Sexist society, v. Gornick and B. Moran, eds., (New York: Basic Books, 1971) 225-41.

PAGE 11

2 intuitive, and supportive." Baird suggests that boys and girls learn the correct roles by being positively reinforced by their parents for appropriate male/female behavior and "discouraged from engaging in behaviors judged inappropriate."3 He posits that while females are permitted feminine behavior and masculine tomboy behavior, males are permitted only masculine behaviors and therefore receive more negative responses from others regarding their behavior. Baird suggests that these negative responses push maies to use task oriented behavior and accomplishments for approval.4 Differences between boys and girls in their learned appropriate male/female behaviors "in turn should produce sex differences in communicational behaviors." Baird's analyzation of research supports his hypothesis for a sex role theory of behavior: females are "more interpersonally oriented because they often receive positive responses from others, while males are more object-oriented because others often give them negative responses."' Karre examines relationships among self-concept, social interaction, and sex role stereotypes. Karre points out that "stereotyped sex roles inhibit full development of positive self-3. Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences" 180. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid.

PAGE 12

3 concepts by prescribing from birth appropriate behavior for boys and girls. These prescriptions define sexual roles and extend to many areas of functioning."' Wenar confirmed that "boys of pre-school and school age are more aggressive than girls in their overt behavior and in their fantasies; girls are dependent, passive, and conforming in their overt behavior and fantasies."9 Karre states that we impose our own restrictions by the assumptions we make about ourselves and others. Ideas for freeing children from sex role stereotypes are also discussed. A descriptive study had male and female undergraduates rate a typical and desirable man or woman. Items were rated "in terms of (1) how typical it would be for a man (woman) to possess each characteristic and (2) how desirable it would be for a man (woman) to possess each characteristic."9 Items found to be typical and desirable in a man were: aggressive, not excitable in minor crisis, mechanical aptitude, acts as leader, dominant, good at sports, and competitive. Items found to be typical and desirable in a woman were: k .ind, cries easily, gentle, expresses. 7. Idahlynn Karre, "Stereotyped sex Roles and Self-Concept: Strategies for Liberating the Sexes," Communication Education 25 (1976): 43-52. 8. Cited in Karre, "Stereotyped Sex Roles," C. Wenar, Personality Development From Infancy to Adulthood (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1971) 224. 9. Thomas L. Ruble, "Sex Stereotypes: Issues of Changes in the 1970's," sex Roles 9 (1983): 397-402. Data were collected in 1978.

PAGE 13

4 tender feelings, and neat. Other typical male items were: independent, skilled in business, outspoken, self-confident, takes a stand, ambitious, not easily influenced, active, knows ways of world, loud, interested in sex, makes decisions easily, doesn't give up easily, stands up under pressure, not timid, likes math and science, adventurous, sees self running show, outgoing, feels superior, and forward. Other typical female items were: emotional, grateful, home-oriented, strong conscience, creative, understanding, considerate, needs approval, devotes self to others, aware of others' feelings, excitable in a major crisis, enjoys art and music, doesn't hide emotions, tactful, feelings hurt, helpful to others, religious, likes children, warm to others, and need for security.o Ruble found "a difference between stereotypes (of the typical person) and attitudes (about desirable characteristics). While attitudes may have changed in the 1970's, stereotypes remained remarkably stable."11 In comparing these results with a similar 1974 study, Ruble concluded that the stereotypes remained strong while more variance was seen in the attitudes. Stereotypes or "overgeneralizations" about men and women12 help us reduce uncertainty. Stereotypes help maintain a 10. Ibid., p. 400. 11. Ibid., p. 397. 12. Barbara Eakins and R. Gene Eakins, Sex Differences in Human Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978) 6.

PAGE 14

5 comfortable state (less stress) since we are experiencing certainty about situations around us. They add a predictability to our world. "People tend to construct their impressions of others by interpreting the other person's appearance [sex) and behavior."13 Impressions also are influenced by the sex of the source and our use (whether subconscious or not) of sex stereotypes. When we are presented with a situation new to us, we may initially rely on our stereotypes to evaluate the speaker or situation. If we must determine the best applicant for a nursing job, we may lean toward selecting a female. our female stereotypes such as pleasant, well mannered, kind, gentle, and aware of feelings of others, may confirm the "certainty" we need in selecting a female over a male applicant. In selecting a male for this job, some "uncertainty" may exist regarding his ultimate success in this position. Male stereotypes such as dominant, aggressive, unemotional, and ambitious, lend uncertainty to selecting a male for this position. Yet in a different situation, these stereotypes might lead us to prefer a male to a female (selecting a new bank manager). While reducing uncertainty, stereotypes may increase our chances of incorrectly perceiving a new situation by infringing on a full use of available information. 13. Victoria O'Donnell and June Kable, Persuasion An Interactive-Dependency Approach (New York: Random House, 1982) 114.

PAGE 15

6 "Assuming for the moment that leaders (both male and female) behave similarly, we may perceive behavioral differences where none in fact exists."14 Due to our sex role socialization, if we generally think of males in certain roles (speaker, high status, more authority) and females in certain roles (submissive, passive, helper), then when we see a male or female acting in contrast to our expectations we might consider that person as being "out of place." Hastorf et al. examine how we develop perceptions of people. They state that "our past experiences and purposes play an absolutely necessary role in providing us with knowledge of the world that has structure, stability, and meaning. Without them, events would not make sense. With them, our perceptions define a predictable world, an orderly stage for us to act on."15 Hastorf et al. continue by discussing implicit personality theories which produce "assumptions about relationships between personality traits in other people, so that knowing some things about a person permits us to infer other things."1 These implicit personality theories are "assumed correlations between traits which we carry around in our heads" and "are generalizations from behavior we may have observed in 14. B. A. Fischer, small Group Decision Making (New York: McGrawHill, 1980) 222. 15. Albert Hastorf, David Schneider, and Judith Poleka, Person Perception (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970) 10. 16. Ibid., p. 15.

PAGE 16

7 ourselves and one or two other persons."17 They suggest that once we have learned these theories, we use them as a "general rule" which is similar to the production of a "group stereotype." Hastorf et al. define stereotype as "a set of characteristics which is assumed to fit a category of people" and an "overgeneralization".18 In the case of a stereotype and the implicit personality theory, "the perceiver infers something about the stimulus person which is not given directly by the information known about him."19 By attributing "certain characteristics to all members of each group," we may "create stability and meaning" in our world but we "do it at the risk of inaccuracy."20 If we are surprised to see a male or female in a particular managerial position or job occupation, it is recommended that we attempt to understand this perception of "surprise" by examining our own implicit personality theories and stereotypes which we have learned to use to make sense of our world. A female assuming aggressive behavior in the work place may be acting differently than our stereotypes have led us to believe is correct female behavior. When a male or female behaves in a manner that we perceive as incongruent with how they "should" 17. Ibid., p. 16. 18. Ibid., pp. 46-7. 19. Ibid., p. 46. 20. Ibid., pp. 16-7.

PAGE 17

behave, we may feel some stress and dissonance. "Dissonance is assumed to be uncomfortable, and the individual is therefore motivated to reduce it, usually bY altering his cognitions about either the world or himself."21 Perhaps we will ignore or deny that the behavior has occurred; we also may reduce the importance of this incongruent behavior; or, use the incongruent behavior to reinforce and justify our stereotypes. The outcome will be the same: reduced stress and reduced dissonance. 8 Social judgement theory points out that "attitude change will be less in relation to a person's ego-involvement in the issue -that is, the greater the ego-involvement, the larger the latitude of rejection, and smaller the latitude of noncornrnitment, the less the attitude change."22 Social judgement theory developed by Sherif and Sherif, is based on the concept that "people respond to ideas and objects through their perceptions of the world or a social situation. such perceptions or reference points serve as yardsticks to measure new information."23 "Social perception has as its basis a reference point that is internal and derived from our past experiences. The response to communication is influenced by such reference points.1124 Ego-involvement is seen as "the degree of involvement 21. Ibid., p. 84, Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. 22. O'Donnell et al. 63. 23. Ibid., p. 41. 24. Ibid.

PAGE 18

9 of a person and how the person/s life is affected by the issue.1125 The "direction of an attitude (like-dislike)" is examined as the "intensity of that attitude is revealed through the level of ego-involvement.1126 It is suggested that males and females are to some extent ego-involved in maintaining sex stereotypes. The degree to which they are ego-involved is reflected their acceptance of males/ and females/ display of sex-incongruent behavior. The more ego-involved we are, the less we will favorably respond to sex-incongruent behavior in the work place and to attempts which promote equality between the sexes. Males may fear additional job competition as the number of females increases in predominantly male occupations. Both males and females are faced with their changing roles which in turn decrease their predictability of the world while increasing ambiguity and their stress level. As females advance in predominately male organizations, stress levels may increase for males and females as they both reevaluate correct organizational behavior a nd rules. The extent of ego-involvement may be seen in how fiercely we fight to maintain our stereotypes and/or ignore those people who want to change our attitudes. Fitzpatrick and Winke examined conflict strategies in interpersonal relationships between same sex and opposite sex friends. The authors "found no significant differences in the 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid.

PAGE 19

conflict strategies adopted by males and females with their opposite sex others. A number of significant differences did emerge however, in male and female sex friendships."2 In a same sex relationship males used nonnegotiation strategies more often while females used personal rejection, empathetic understanding or emotional appeals. In discussing the development of hostile and aggressive habits in males and females, Zillman quotes from a study by Hokanson, Willers, and Koropsak:28 Females undergo a set of learning experiences in which making nonaggressive responses to someone else's aggression is rewarded: in the specific sense of thereby effectively reducing the other person's aversive behavior, and in the general sense that this behavior conforms to cultural norms and expectations. Males, on the other hand, evidently have learned that meeting another's aggression with counter-aggression is both an effective and a socially sanctioned means of controlling a peer's aversive behavior. Zillman continues stating that "since the prevailing cultural norms of social conduct favor males to be aggressive and females to be friendly toward an annoyer, sex differences in coping with annoyance must be expected.1129 He further explains: 10 27. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Jeff Winke, "You Always Hurt the one You Love: Strategies and Tactics in Interpersonal Conflict," Communication Quarterly 27 (1979): 3-11. 28. Dolf Zillman, Hostility and Aggression (Hillsdale: Lawrence Er1baum, 1979) 355. The quotation is cited from J. E. Hokanson, K. R. Willers, and E. Koropsak, "The Modification of Autonomic Responses during Aggressive Interchange," Journal of Personality 36 (1968): 386-404. Seep. 388. 29. D. Zillman, Hostility 355.

PAGE 20

If males are socially rewarded for aggression (esteemed for being tough) and socially punished for failing to fight (devalued for being "sissies"), males should readily develop aggressive habits and, when provoked, should experience relief only after retaliation. if females are punished for aggression (devalued as "bitchy") and rewarded for failing to fight (admired for behaving in a subdued manner), females should indeed become nonaggressive. They should, when provoked, take a submissive route out of annoyance and experience relief. Phelps and Austin in their discussion of anger ask, "why have women lived with their inability to express anger fully and 11 directly?"30 They refer to overt expression of anger as a taboo. They propose that one of the reasons for this taboo "is that women have been taught that it is not."lady-like" or feminine to show that they are angry. They have been intimidated by the threat of being called "bitchy," "castrating," "nagging," "aggressive," or "masculine"." In their research review of sex differences in aggression, Maccoby and Jacklin conclude that "evidence is strong that males are the more aggressive sex."31 They refer to aggression as "the intent of one individual to hurt another.1132 They discuss the "view that the two sexes are actually equivalent in aggressive motivation but that girls are conditioned to be afraid of displaying their aggressive tendencies openly."33 However, they 30. Stanlee Phelps and Nancy Austin, The Assertive Woman (San Luis Obispo: Impact, 1975) 120. 31. Eleanor E. Maccoby and carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of sex Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974) 274. 32. Ibid., p. 227.

PAGE 21

12 feel that this view is weak and Maccoby and Jacklin support the position that males are definitely more aggressive than females due to biological reasons such as level of sex hormones. curtis explored hostility and anger in terms of over-all psychological adjustment. curtis discussed how hostility, which included rage, resentment, and anger could be "recognized, managed, and ultimately re-channeled into adaptive behavior," and be considered "an influential determinant of an individual's adjustment."34 The current study examines aggressive communication behavior and its influential relationship to perceptions of managerial potential. Rohner examined cross-cultural research supporting the hypothesis that "sex differences in aggression are universal, but that within limits the differences are also highly susceptible to experiential modification."35 Male children were found to be more aggressive than female children. Rohner distinguished aggression from assertion as seen in the following definitions.36 33. Ibid., p. 274. 34. John M. curtis, "Styles of Dealing with Hostility," Psychological Reports 51 (1982): 79-83. This idea is cited from A. Bandura, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973) and L. Berkowitz, Aggression: A social Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962). 35. Ronald Rohner, "Sex Differences in Aggression: Phylogenetic and Enculturation Perspectives," Ethos 4 (1976): 57-72. 36. Ibid., p. 59.

PAGE 22

Aggression is defined as any behavior that is intended to hurt another person, oneself, or some thing. Aggression is revealed physically by such behaviors as fighting, hitting, biting, kicking, pushing, pinching, and scratching. It is revealed verbally in such forms as bickering, quarrelling, telling someone off, sarcasm, making fun of someone, criticizing him, humiliating him, cursing him, or saying thoughtless, unkind, or cruel things. Assertiveness refers to an individual's attempts to place himself in physical; verbal, or social priority over others, for example, to dominate a conversation or a group's activities, or to insist upon or stress one's will over that of others. An individual may be assertive verbally, physically, or both. Forms of verbal assertiveness include making confident, declarative statements, often without regard for evidence or proof, or pushing forward one's own point of view. Physical assertiveness includes various forms of offensive physical action. But when this offensive action (either physical or verbal) has the intention of hurting someone or something, then it becomes aggression, not assertiveness. Thus aggression and assertiveness are often closely related forms of behavior, a major distinction being the intentionality of hurting. Aggression implies such an intention. Assertiveness does not. 13 Frodi, Macaulay, and Thorne examined aggressive behavior of adult males and females in a review of experimental literature.3 Aggression was described as "behavior whose goal is the injury of some person or object" and anger was viewed as "the emotional state resulting from a frustration presumably cr.eating a readiness for aggressive acts."38 They found "that women apparently consider aggression to be inappropriate behavior in many" instances; and 37. Ann Frodi, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Pauline Thorne, "Are Women Always Less Aggressive than Men? A Review of the Experimental Literature," Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 634-60. 38. Ibid., p. 635. Frodi states that their definitions of aggression and anger are the same as those used by L. Berkowitz.

PAGE 23

14 that "there may be some categorical differences in what makes women and men angry, and differences in the outcome of arousal that depend on what the provoked person is attending t0,39 (such as attending to one's angry feelings versus an evaluation of someone who insulted you). They also found consistent evidence for these conclusions: aggressiveness and various assertive or dominance traits are less approved among women than among men, behavior that is given the neutral or .Positive label of assertiveness when seen in men may be seen as sick or excessive aggression in women,40 men were sometimes found to be more aggressive than women, and women were very seldom found to be more aggressive than men. 4 1 Thus it appears that "aggression", a potentially valuable male behavior, has been filtered out of the acceptable female behaviors. Is aggressive communication behavior critical to both a male's and female's managerial success? These areas will be further explored in the "Review of the Literature" section. In the next section, definitions and hypotheses will be clarified. 39. Ibid., p. 654. 40. Ibid., p. 652. 41. Ibid., p. 639.

PAGE 24

15 Definitions and Hypothesis The dialog used in this study takes place in a conflict situation. Filley describes a situation ripe for conflict as relationships "which involve real or perceived differences between two parties"; "the interests of the parties are mutually exclusive -that is, where the gain of one party;s goal is at the cost of the other;s or where the parties have different values."42 Filley makes a distinction between two types of conflict: competitive and disruptive. In competitive conflicts "there can be a victory for one party only at the cost of the opponent's total loss"; "the way in which parties interact is governed by a set of rules." Competitive conflicts involve mutually incompatible goals and have an emphasis on winning.43 In disruptive conflicts there is no set of rules and the emphasis is not on winning. Instead the emphasis is on defeating, harming, or in some way reducing the opponent by expedience in an environment of anger, stress, or fear. "In extreme cases, the parties in disruptive conflict will abandon rational behavior and behave in any manner necessary to bring about the desired outcome, the goal of the defeat." 4 4 A disruptive type conflict is used in this study, as one subordinate abandons 42. Alan c. Filley. Interpersonal Conflict Resolution (Glenview: scott, Foresman Co, 1975) 1. 43. Ibid., p. 2. 44. Ibid., p. 3.

PAGE 25

16 rational behavior and uses anger to reduce the opponent. Aggression has been described as the expression of anger which "takes the form of approach behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm.1145 Berkowitz states "aggression is defined as behavior whose goal is the injury of some person or object," and anger is viewed as "the emotional state resulting from a frustration presumably creating a readiness for aggressive acts."46 "Frustration is said to be any interference with some on-going goal-directed activity."4 Berkowitz views aggression and hostility as synonymous and anger as the "drive state" which can produce aggressive actions.48 Phelps and Austin describe an aggressive person as one who humiliates and depreciates the person with whom they are speaking. An aggressive person also displays egocentric, vicious, and obnoxious behavior, and has a destructive effect on others.49 Zillman describes aggressive behavior as "any and every activity by Which a person seeks to inflict bodily damage or physical pain upon a person who is motivated to avoid such infliction."50 45. Harry F. Harlow, James L. McGaugh, and Richard F. Thompson, Psychology (San Francisco: Albion, 1971) 106. 46. Quotation from L. Berkowitz cited in the article by A. Frodi etal., "Are Women Always Less Aggressive." 47. Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression: A social Psychological Analysis, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962) xi. 48. Ibid., p. Xii. 49. Phelps and Austin 12.

PAGE 26

17 Hostile behavior is viewed as the infliction of harm, "where harm denotes any experience associated with suffering not resulting from physical injury."sl This study draws from the mentioned definitions of anger and aggression. In this study, aggressive describes behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodilY harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. Anger is defined as a hostile emotion which may stem from frustration or from feeling used and/or put down.52 Anger and aggression are operationally defined in the methodology section. Anger can stem from frustrations during a conflict. Aggression might then occur in the escalation of the conflict. As stated by Filley, "a competitor changes his behavior from a rational pursuit of a strategy of winning to an irrational act of aggression."53 "Persuasion, power and force are all acceptable tools for achieving conflict resolution."54 These tools are used by J. Hall's "tough battler" in the Model of.conflict Management Style.55 The tough battler may be seen as disruptive in that he'll so. D. Zillman 33. 51. Ibid., p. 32. 52. Phelps and Austin, p. 121, define angeras an emotional reaction to being used or put down. This definition comes from G. Bach and P. Wyden, The Intimate Enemy (New York: William Morrow, 1969). 53. Filley, p. 6. 54. Ibid., p. 50-1.

PAGE 27

18 use anger and frustration against the opponent and even members of his own group until he has insured his win position. Anger and aggression may occur in the conflict when anger takes control and the goal of mutual satisfaction for both parties is no longer in sight. The mechanism for controlling the anger and aggression is as curtis has suggested, the use of non-belligerent confrontation methods during the conflict resolution.56 Requisite managerial characteristics are those characteristics that are ascribed to successful middle managers as found in the studies by Schein.57 A listing of these characteristics can be found in the section concerning methodology. Managerial potential refers to predicted successful managerial ability as perceived from current abilities. A definition of sex stereotype comes from Rosen and Jerdee's study: "perceptions and expectations of what is appropriate behavior for males and females".sa These studies are further examined in the "Review of the Literature" section and operational definitions are 55. Ibid., p. 50. 56. curtis 79. 57. Virginia E. Schein, "The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Managerial Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100. v. E. Schein, "Relationships Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Among Female Managers," Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 340-44. 58. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "The Influence of sex-Role Stereotypes on Evaluations of Male and Female supervisory Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 44-8.

PAGE 28

19 in the methodology section. conflict, by definition, brings parties of incompatible views together. Anger and aggression are difficult emotions to avoid especially if a competitive or disruptive conflict develops. By understanding how anger and aggression are affecting the conflicting parties and how these behaviors are perceived, we can try to avoid a conflict resolution that is not satisfactory to both parties. The nature of many organizational settings can be viewed as competitive. The interactions in the organization are governed by a certain set of rules, written and/or unwritten. Even if the employees are working as a "team," it would seem that at some point, their supervisor would have to make decisions concerning the employees' salary increases, promotions, and job assignments. Employees may have incompatible goals when they realize only one of them will be promoted, or receive a bonus, or be selected for the management training program. Supervision's employee selection may depend on how well that employee interacts in the organizational setting. The work place can be good for developing team spirit. The work place can also be good for developing employee frustrations which can lead to anger and aggressive communication behavior. By becoming aware of how aggressive communication behavior is perceived in the work place, we may learn where and when this type of behavior is viewed as a valuable asset to an employee. The dialog in the current study, involves aggressive

PAGE 29

20 communication behavior in a subordinate dyad that varies by sex (male-male, female-female, Person A-Person B). Due to males" sex role orientation allowing for expression of aggressive behavior (more so than females are allowed to express aggressive behavior), it is felt that the aggressive communicating male will be perceived more favorably in terms of agreement with managerial descriptors than the aggressive communicating female. Using requisite managerial descriptors to determine managerial potential will add information as to how aggressive communication behavior is viewed in the corporate setting. The general question under study asks, "Is perception of managerial potential related to the sexual identification of the aggressive communicators?" Gathered data will either support or not support the following experimental hypotheses: Aggressive communicating males when communicating with other males, will be rated more positively by male supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating females. Aggressive communicating males when communicating with other males, will be rated more positively by female supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating females. Aggressive communicating females when communicating with other females, will be rated more negatively by male supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating males.

PAGE 30

Aggressive communicating females when communicating with other females, will be rated more negatively by female supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating males. 21

PAGE 31

CHAPTER II BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The background and review of the literature four main areas of sex differences research: perceptual; authority; aggressive; and managerial. Each section begins with a general review of pertinent literature. The section then progresses to more complex studies which directly provide more focused information germane to the study at hand. The review begins with an exploration of relevant research regarding sex role differences and perceptions. Studies examined concern general sex role attributes and stereotypes; perceptions of communicator style and communicator behavior; and sex differences in perceptions of behavior. Research in the area of sex differences and authority is examined next. Studies reviewed concern leadership, and authority and power. The third section surveys studies regarding sex differences and aggression. General sex differences associated with aggression are explored. Research areas concerning perceptions of aggression and verbal aggression also are examined. The concluding section of surveyed literature involves sex differences and managerial behavior. Studies reviewed concern sex stereotypes, sex differences and management communication, and managerial characteristics.

PAGE 32

23 Sex Role Differences and Perceptions Areas of research in this section are: general sex role attributes and stereotypes; perceptions of communicator style and behavior; and sex differences in perceptions of behavior. These studies review sex stereotypes and discuss stereotypes such as aggressive and passive which are viewed as positive characteristics for one sex and as negative characteristics for the other sex. Male/female differences. in self perceptions of communicator style and misperceptions of communicator behavior such as friendliness, competence, and aggression are also illustrated. General sex Role Attributes and Stereotypes Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp examined various self-report questionnaires and the influence of masculinity and femininity. Spence et al. speculated that "subjects' tendency [sic] to report differences between the sexes should be at least moderately correlated with the degree to which their self-image corresponds with the stereotype."1 The authors developed the "Personal Attributes Questionnaire" based on a version of the "Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire" by Rosenkrantz et al.2 The research by 1. Janet T. Spence, Robert Helmreich, and Joy Stapp, "Ratings of Self and Peers on Sex Attributes and Their Relation to Self esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Femininity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975): 29-39. 2. Cited in Spence, the "Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire" is from P. S. Rosenkrantz, S. R. Vogel, H. Bee, I. K. Braverman,

PAGE 33

24 Spence et al. is included in this review of literature because items used on the "Personal Attributes Questionnaire" were of interest. Items were divided into three categories basis of several samples of male and female college students rating characteristics of the "ideal" male and female. The descriptor categories included: female-valued such as'gentle, neat, emotional; male-valued such as not timid, competitive, outspoken: and sex specific items that were considered either male or female, such as aggressive-male, dominant-male, feelings hurt-female, and needs approval-female. It was thought these sex role would influence and corroborate the choice of descriptors used in the rating scale of the current study. Spence et al. had subjects complete the "Personal Attributes Questionnaire" to rate themselves on a series of items, then make a comparison "between the typical male and female college student" on a similar series of items.3 Data indicated that "students perceived more differences between the typical male and female college students than are revealed by their self-perceptions."' sex role stereotyping was more prevalent in determining the characteristics of the typical male and female and D. M. Braverman, "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Self-concepts in College Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 32 (1968): 287-295. 3. Ibid., p. 32. 4. Ibid., p. 33.

PAGE 34

25 than in the self report of characteristics. However, "mean self-ratings were compared [and] for 35 of the 55 items, there were significant differences in the self-ratings of the two sexes in the direction of the stereotype."5 Three studies were conducted by Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, and Pascale confirming penalties for male and female sex role reversals.6 In each study, subjects used rating scales to evaluate males and females who either conformed or did not conform to sex role stereotypes. The three studies attempted "to assess others' reactions to men's dependency and passivity and to women's aggression and self-assertion. It was expected that while aggressive-assertive men and passive-dependent women would fare well in social ratings, passive-dependent men and aggressive-assertive women would receive poorer ratings."' Of importance to the current study were Costrich's methodologies and research findings. Using three different methods Costrich et al. examined different situations where a woman's "aggressive, masculine, dominant manner" might be perceived differently than a man's identical behavior. 5. Ibid. 6. Norma Costrich, Joan Feinstein, Louise Kidder, Jeanne Marecek, and Linda Pascale, "When Stereotypes Hurt: Three Studies of Penal ties for Sex-Role Reversals," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (1975): 520-530. 7. Ibid. I p.52l.

PAGE 35

26 Their first study employed male and female confederates trained to play either aggressive or passive parts in small mixed-sex group discussions. "Aggressive confederates were told to attempt to control the group by taking a dissenting position from the majority on 2 of the 3 problems so that it would be possible to change the opinion; give 3 arguments for the dissenting position; [and] ask for a compromise. n e To check that aggressive or pas.sive males or females had not overacted their parts and therefore influenced the results, costrich et al. used tape recorded discussions in their second study. There were two scripts (aggressive and passive) where a student acting either passively or aggressively, discussed a class grade problem with a counselor.9 Subjects heard one version of the tape and used scales to describe the behavior. In the third study by Costrich et al., subjects read accounts of ten psychotherapy discussions between patients and their therapists. In two of the passages, the patient was overtly aggressive toward the therapist10 while in two other passages, the e. Ibid., p. 521-22. "Passive confederates were instructed to act as agreeing spectators; refrain from assuming leadership; and, assent to the group decision by saying, "Yes, I think that would be the best choice." 9. Ibid., p. 525. "The same male and female voices recorded both the passive and aggressive scripts, so the voice quality did not differ for the two roles". 10. Examples of overt aggression by the patient were: "Are you stupid or something? Look had it with you You can go screw yourself not human, you"re a machine ( 527).

PAGE 36

27 patient expressed dependency11 on the therapist. "Identical written dialogs that were merely attributed to a man or woman" were used to eliminate the possibility that actors might have overplayed their parts and influenced the subjects' judgments. The sex of the dependent and aggressive patient varied; the sex of the therapist was not indicated; and sex of subject was not recorded. In Costrich's studies, subjects used semantic differential scales which included descriptors such as dominant-submissive, popular-unpopular, aggressive-passive, crude-polite, and masculine-feminine. In the second study, subjects also were asked "whether the student on the tape needed psychotherapy."12 Subjects in the third study were asked to indicate the likableness of the patient and the seriousness of the patient's problem. The "popularity ratings and perceived psychological adjustment of both passive-dependent men and aggressive-assertive women were adversely affected."13 Findings for the first study include: "the more submissive the man's rating, the less popular he was"; "a significant triple interaction between the sex of the subject, sex of the confederate, and behavior of the confederate Examples of patient Help me be my see you more often. that I really needed 12. Ibid., p. 525. 13. Ibid., p. 520. dependency were: "Please, please help me! old self It would be good for me to I I could just call you whenever I felt to talk to you" (527).

PAGE 37

28 suggests that men may react more strongly than women to sex role violations"; and "popularity of dominant women sufters as much as that of dominant men."1 Subjects in the second study perceived the "aggressive" tape recording "as more Dominant, Aggressive, crude, and Masculine"15 than the "passive" recording. Results indicated that an "aggressive woman and passive man were both seen as more in need of therapy than their stereotyped counterparts."1 The more dominant the man was perceived to be, the less he was viewed as in need of therapy; the more dominant the woman was seen, the more she was viewed as needing therapy: "inappropriate behavior produced distorted perceptions, even with identical scripts."1 Results from the third study illustrated that "aggressive women and dependent men were liked less than their dependent and aggressive counterparts"; "aggressive women and dependent men were given equally high ratings of the seriousness of their problems, while dependent women and aggressive men_were viewed as less seriously disturbed."19 Costrich notes that these three studies "also demonstrate the two-sided nature of sex-role stereotyping. The results of each study show that men were 14. Ibid, p. 523. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. I p. 526. 17. Ibid. I p. 526. 18. Ibid. I p. 528.

PAGE 38

29 given no more leeway to deviate from their stereotypic roles than were women."19 Costrich's research and methodologies directly relate to the methodology of the current study. As Costrich suggested, use of identical written dialogs eliminates the possibility of the overacting their roles, or using varying voice inflections and tone to influence the subjects' perceptions. In Costrich's studies, no references were made to viewing the aggressor in terms of leader or desired managerial characteristics. In these studies both parties were not aggressive or overtly aggressive during the dialogs. In the current study one of the two subordinates acts the aggressor is then evaluated in terms of requisite managerial characteristics. The subordinates' behaviors are further described in the chapter discussing methodology. Perceptions of Communicator Style Montgomery and Norton researched sex differences in communicator style by examining self perceptions of communication behavior.20 Norton "defines communicator style as the way one verballY and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood."21 19. Ibid., p.529. 20. Barbara M. Montgomery and Robert w. Norton, "Sex Differences and Similarities in communicator Style," communication Monographs 48 (1981):

PAGE 39

30 Paraverbally refers to the "sounds a person makes that accompany his or her verbal messages" including voice pitch, diction, and emotional nuances.22 communicator image and ten communicator styles which previously had been determined by Norton's research23 are used in the study. Communicator image is "defined as a general assessment of the effectiveness of a person's style of communicating."24 Brief definitions of each style are given below.25 dominance: "any communication device or strategy which lessens the communication role of another" contentiousness: "refers to the somewhat negative connotations associated with argumentative and aggressive behaviors" preciseness: "those behaviors which communicate a concern for accuracy, documentation, and proof in informative and argumentative discourse" attentiveness: able to identify a portrayed emotion, more sensitive to tone of voice, able to perceive 21. Ibid., p. 122. 22. John F. cragan and David w. Wright, communication in small Group Discussions 11 Case study Approach (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1980) 176. This definition was given for paralanguage. 23. Montgomery and Norton cite definitions of communicator style from: Robert w. Norton, "Foundation of a Communicator Style construct," Human Communication Research 4 (1978): 99-112. 24. Ibid., p. 126. 25. Ibid., p. 123-26.

PAGE 40

implications from dialogs friendly: showing an interest in people and "a capacity for the establishment of interpersonal relationships" open: "signals that the content of a message is representational of a actual feelings, beliefs, and opinions" relaxed: "calm, collected, relatively free from nervousness and anxiety in his/her communication" animated and dramatic: "active high-energy-expending 31 behaviors [which] serve to exaggerate or color communication content" animated includes "the frequency, amount and intensity of such behaviors as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions, and body movement"; dramatic refers to story telling and relating anecdotes impression leaving: "the impact a communicator has upon those with whom he/she interacts" over 1,100 students completed the "Communicator Style Measure Short Form" which had been developed and tested earlier by Norton and others. Results indicated that "males see themselves as significantly more precise than females see themselves"; "females reported higher levels of animated styles than males"; and, "there were no consistent differences in behaviors associated with impression leaving, contentious, open, dramatic, dominant, relaxed, friendly, and attentive styles."2

PAGE 41

32 These results point to more similarities than differences Oetween male and female self-perceptions of communicator style. Montgomery and Norton conclude that studies such as theirs of communication sex differences will "help researchers and educators Oetter understand the communication process."2 The relationships Oetween "male-female differences in perceptions of suOjects/ own and their Oest-liked others/ communication behavior" were examined in a descriptive study by Fitzpatrick and Bochner.28 SuOjects (co+lege students) rated themselves and others by using the "Interpersonal Behavior Inventory"2 9 consisting of statements about observable interpersonal behaviors that are grouped into categories such as nurturance, dependence, control, and sociability. Examples of statements from some of the categories30 follow: nurturance: "Give help or counsel to people who are having difficulty." "Manifests a genuine interest in the problems of others." 26. Ibid., p. 121. 27. Ibid., p. 132. 28. Mary A. Fitzpatrick and Arthur Bochner, "Perspectives on Self and Others: Male-Female Differences in Perceptions of Communication Behavior," sex Roles 7 (1981): 523-35. 29. Cited by Fitzpatrick and Bochner from M. Lorr and D. M. McNair, "Expansion of the Interpersonal Behavior Circle," Journal of Personality ana social Psychology 2 (1965): 823-30. 30. Fitzpatrick and Bochner 528.

PAGE 42

33 dependence: "Tries to get others to make decisions for him." "Seeks to have others choose or select for him, jobs, clothes, food, and even recreation." control: "Uses, exploits, or manipulates others for his own ends." "Strives for symbols of status and superiority to others." detachment: "Keeps shyly in the background in a social gathering." "Stays away from social affairs where he will have to meet new people." Males viewed "themselves as more controlling and detached"; "females saw themselves as more nurturant and more dependent." Thus, males and females held stereotyped views of their own communication behavior. In opposite sex interaction the communication behaviors were nurturant and dependent; in same-sex interaction the communication patterns were attention-seeking and self-dramatizing. "These self-perceptions are significant for they may serve as a basis for judging the interpersonal behavior of others as well as for evaluating one's own interpersonal behavior and identity.1131 This research is relevant to the current study because it illustrates that male-female perceptions of communication behavior vary. 31. Cited by Fitzpatrick and Bochner from J. Kagan, "The Acquisition and Significance of Sex Typing and sex Role Identity," Review of Child Development Research M. L. Hoffman and L. w. Hoffman, eds., (New York: Russell Sage, 1964) 136-37.

PAGE 43

34 Sex Differences in Perceptions of Behavior Abbey illustrated that men misperceive women's intentions: friendliness from the opposite sex could be misperceived as a sign of sexual interest. A male and female conversed for 5 minutes while a hidden male and female observed. "Male actors and observers rated the female actor as being more promiscuous and seductive than female actors and observers rated "males rated the male actor in a more sexualized fashion than the females more males were "sexually attracted to the opposite-sex actor than females were."32 Abbey suggests that "men are more likely to perceive the world in sexual terms and to make sexual judgments than women are." The method included an evaluation of the "quality of conversation" and subjects' "reactions to the male and female actors." Half the observers using scales of descriptors such as flirtatious, intelligent, considerate, and seductive, rated the female actor first while half rated the male first. Either a male or female experimenter was present while subjects observed the male and female actors sex of the experimenter did not influence the subjects' responses. It is mentioned in Abbey'.s discussion that although "males and females in our experiment were equally likely to make sexual judgments [perhaps] males were simply more willing to admit them."33 This research demonstrates 32. Antonia Abbey, "Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly Behavior: Do Males Misperceive Females' Friendliness?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982): 83038. See p. 830.

PAGE 44

35 that males do misperceive females' friendliness. Is it plausible to argue that males also misperceive females' anger and hostility? Male-female perceptions of male-female aggression and anger will be examined in the current study. Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill, viewing sex as a status characteristic, proposed that "since men have higher status than women, men are expected to be more competent than women and it is expected that competitive or dominating behavior is legitimate for men but not for women."34 Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill reviewed several "empirical studies as related to task appropriateness, group problem solving, conflict, dominating behavior and role expectations in support of this theory."35 In support of the proposition that "dominating or aggressive behavior is more acceptable from men than from women, regardless of competence,"3e Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill reported research by Wahrman and Pugh.3 In Wahrman and Pugh's study, male subjects established procedural rules for a group problem solving task. A male or 33. Ibid., p. 838. 34. B. F. Meeker and P. A. Weitzel-O'Neill, "Sex Roles and Interpersonal Behavior in Task-Oriented Groups," American sociological Review 42 (1977): 91-105. See p. 91. 35. Ibid., p. 91. 36. Ibid., p.101. 37. Cited in Meeker and Weitzel-O'Neill: R. Wahrman and M. D. Pugh, "Sex, Nonconformity and Influence," Sociometry 38 (1974): 137-47.

PAGE 45

36 female confederate appearing competent or incompetent was introduced to the group and proceeded to break the established procedural rules. "The subjects accepted influence attempts by nonconforming men whether competent or incompetent, although incompetence somewhat reduced the influence. The competent nonconforming female had somewhat less influence than the competent nonconforming male, but the incompetent nonconforming female had virtually no influence."3e The following study also examines differences in male/female behavior. The methodology used by Olejnik, Tompkins, and Heinbuck influences the current study. Olejnik et al. examined differences in males' and females' allocation of rewards to male and female children in team and competitive situations.39 subjects (college students) read a vignette describing children's task participation and then determined the rewards (M & M candies) they would give to each child. The authors found a significant effect of sex of subject: males gave more rewards to the more productive child. Sex of child also was effected: "the more productive boys received more rewards than the more productive girls.no The more productive worker in a competitive situation 38. Ibid., p. 101. 39. Anthony B. Olejnik, Brigette Tompkins, and Claudia Heinbuck, "Sex Differences, Sex-Role Orientation, and Reward Allocations," SexRoles 8 (1982): 711-19. 40. Ibid., p. 714.

PAGE 46

37 was allocated more rewards than the more productive worker in a team condition. In second study, the sex role orientation of the subjects was ascertained using the "Bern sex Role Inventory,"41 before the subjects read the vignettes. However, this time the names and sex were not included in the passages. Subjects with "a masculine orientation allocated more rewards to the more productive worker than individuals with either an androgynous or feminine sex role orientation." By eliminating the variable sex of child, one might better examine the reward allocation behavior of the subjects. The sex role orientation of the subjects affected the results. Those of a masculine orientation (whether male or female) allocated rewards equitably. Those of a feminine sex role orientation (male or female) allocated rewards equally. It would be interesting to attempt similar methods in the current study: eliminate references to the sex of the characters in the scenarios and have the subjects rate the aggressor's behavior. It is also plausible that the same type of results would be obtained, having measured the sex role orientation of the subjects. Those subjects having a masculine nature might perceive in an employee more masculine managerial qualities such as logical, competent, or objective, than those subjects having a feminine or androgynous nature. 41. Cited in Olejnik et al. Note 4. s. L. Bern and c. Watson, "Scoring Packet: Bern Sex Role Inventory," unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Department of Psychology, 1976.

PAGE 47

38 Conclusions To the extent that males and females view themselves and others stereotypically, these same stereotypes are carried over and used in the workplace. Spence et al. illustrated that males and females view themselves and the typical male and female in terms of stereotypes. Fitzpatrick and Bochner found that males and females had basicallY stereotyped views of their communication behavior: males were more controlling and detached while females were nurturant and dependent. However, Montgomery and. Norton found more similarities than differences in -male/female selfperceptions of communicator style (including dominance). Males thought themselves more precise, while females thought themselves more animated. Meeker and Weitzel-0/Neill, and Costrich et al. dealt with sex stereotypes and aggression. Meeker and Weitzel-0/Neill reviewed research where dominant and aggressive behaviors were more acceptable from males than females, without regard to their level of competence. costrich et al. found that males and females were penalized for sex role reversals: aggressive-assertive women and passive-dependent men were rated less popular and in more need of psychological help than their counterparts (aggressiveassertive men and passive-dependent women) who conformed to their sex role behaviors. Abbey/s data indicated that males misperceived females' friendliness in a conversation. Olejnik et al. found that males and females perceived the same behavior differently and therefore, made rewards differently to boys and

PAGE 48

girls. Males gave more rewards to productive boys than to productive girls. 39 These studies indicate that as situations vary, the amount of and need for stereotyping also varies. At times when males and females behave in unexpected, sex-incongruent ways (females more productive or aggressive, males more passive), we use our stereotypes to sort out these differences, reducing our feeling of stress, but also reducing our intake of potentially pertinent information. Sex Differences and Authority The following studies examine the relationship of sex differences and the use of authority, power, and leadership. The research reviewed explores the difficulties of women being or not being sought as leaders. These studies examine subjects' perceptions of a female as a leader; division of task and maintenance behavior in a dyad; and, stereotypes from perceptions of nonverbal cues affecting the attribution of leadership. Differing perceptions of males and females formally designated as leader and having authority are reviewed. A study involving sex role expectations and power is also examined. Attributions of Leadership As an effort to understand stereotyped perceptions of women as ineffective leaders and differing perceptions of women in management roles, Brown examined 32 female leader studies "Which employed leader sex as a dependent or intervening variable.1142

PAGE 49

40 Studies were examined with reference to three leadership theories: trait theories which seek out traits or characteristics of a good leader; style theories which look for the best style of leadership such as democratic or autocratic; and, contingency theories which examine leadership effectiveness with regard to the particular situation or environment. After reviewing these studies, Brown could not state whether or not males or females made better leaders. He found, however, that "even though the traditional sex-stereotyping is pervasive, the widely held belief that women make inferior leaders seems to give way in actual work situations."43 Trait studies were found to "consistently support the traditional attitude that women lack adequate leadership characteristics." There was "a great deal of sexual bias among both students and practicing managers"45 (as subjects). The trait studies compared "the perceived attitudes, values, and behavior attributed to women with the same perceived characteristics of men and/or managers."46 studies by Bass et al. and Schein indicated that the stereotype of males more 42. Stephen M. Brown, "Male Versus Female Leaders: A Comparison of Empirical Studies," Sex Roles 5 ( 1979): 595-611. See p. 597. 43. Ibid., p. 607. 44. Ibid., p. 595. 45. Ibid., p. 607. 46. Ibid., p.597.

PAGE 50

41 closely resembles the characteristics of a successful manager than the stereotype of a woman.4 Style studies and contingency studies revealed a definite division in attitudes of students and managers toward female leaders. Style theory research involved "either similarities and/or differences between male and female leadership styles."48 In style research using managers as subjects, studies by Helmich, Chapman, Bedian et al., and Miner, indicated "no sex-style differentiation."49 The style studies having students as subjects resulted in perceived male and female style differences. The contingency research examined studies where sex was a possible influencing factor on leadership roles. The majority of studies having students as subjects, supported the traditional female stereotypes (submissive, supportive, weak) concerning female 47. Cited in Brown, p. 597. B. Bass, J. Krusell, and R. Alexander, "Male Managers' Attitudes toward Working Women," American Behavioral Scientists 15 (1971): 221-36. The two studies Brown cites by v. Schein (1973, 1975) are reviewed in the current study in the following section discussing sex differences and managerial characteristics. 48. Ibid., p. 605. 49. Cited in Brown, p. 605. D. Helmich, "Male and Female Presidents: Someimplications of Leadership Style," Human Resource Management 13 (1974): 25-26. J. Chapman, "Comparison of Male and Female Leadership Styles," Academy of Management Journal 18 (1975): 645-50. A. Bedian, A Armenakis, and B. Kemp, "Relation of sex to Perceived Legitimacy of Organizational Influence," The Journal of Psychology 94 ( 1976) : 93-99. J. Miner, "Motivation to Ma.riage Among Women:. Studies of Business Managers and Educational Administrators," Journal of Vocational Behavior 5 (1974): 197-208.

PAGE 51

leadership style and effectiveness. The majority of style and contingency studies using managers as subjects .did not support traditional female stereotypes, finding no differences between male and female leadership style. 42 Brown suggests that the differing attitudes between students and_managers "raises the issue of whether a socialization process occurs which modifies the attitudes of practicing managers toward female leaders.60 However, where there were fewer sex differences found among style and contingency manager studies, in trait manager studies there remains much sex stereotyping confirming that managerial characteristics were "more congruent with males than females."5 l These differing results illustrate how conclusions vary depending on the population used. Both subject populations agreed with the traditional female stereotype in the trait studies. Perhaps the style and contingency studies were seeking information in a manner different than the trait studies, so that the results varied according to the subject population. Or perhaps both students and managers view an effective leader as possessing male stereotyped characteristics (aggressive, dominant, task-oriented)r however, the style and situation influences how the effective leader, whether male or female, displays these traits. It seems then to avoid stereotyping when selecting and/or 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., p. 608.

PAGE 52

43 examining a leader, one might benefit from attending to the leadership style or influence of the environment rather than attending to the sex of the leader. Stitt, Schmidt, Price, and Kipnis discuss social roles, stereotyping, and the integration of women into positions of leadership. This serves as a preface to their research "designed to assess leaders' behaviors, group productivity, and subordinate satisfaction in a situation in which sex of leader, sex of subordinate, task, basic leadership instructions, and education level were controlled."52 Task and supervisor satisfaction were examined after groups of subjects (college students) with either an autocratic or democratic leader, worked on a task. The study found that "male and female leaders displayed comparable leadership behaviors" when compared "with either leader's instructions or follower sex." Moderate differences were perceived by male followers "between autocratic and democratic leaders, but female followers perceived much larger differences between autocratic and democratic leaders.1163 "Male leaders reported setting more deadlines, demanding more, ordering more, and allowing their followers to work on their own less than did female leaders."54 "Followers reported that male leaders 52. Christopher Stitt, Stuart Schmidt, Karl Price, and David Kipnis, "Sex of Leader, Leader Behavior, and Subordinate Satisfaction," sex Roles 9 53. Ibid., p. 38. 54. Ibid.

PAGE 53

44 kidded more and allowed them to work on their own less than did female leaders."56 Followers "were more satisfied with democratic leaders than with autocratic leaders,nss but female followers showed a greater difference in satisfaction between the two styles than male followers. Of relevance to the current study was the fact that although both male and female autocratic leaders received the same instructions which included "be dominant and aggressive", these male and female leaders were perceived by male and female followers as using comparable behaviors. Yamada,. Tjosvold, and Draguns, using college students as subjects, found that "sex composition and sex appropriateness of the situations affected the style of interaction more than cooperation" during face-to-face interactions between same-sex and mixed-sex dyads.5 The authors state, "in mixed-sex dyads males were task oriented and females maintenance oriented; presumably, sexual identity was used to make this division." They also found that in "same-sexdyads the distribution of task and maintenance behaviors was worked out in the interaction."58 Sex appropriate behavior for role play involved female-linked behavior (a 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid., p. 39. 57. Elaine Yamada, Dean Tjosvold, and Juris Draguns, "Effects of Sex-linked Situations and sex composition on cooperation and Style of Interaction," Sex Roles 9 (1983): 541-53. 58. Ibid., p. 541.

PAGE 54

45 registered nurse or kindergarten teacher) or male-linked behavior (an airplane pilot or mathematician).55 "Participants cooperated more in the male linked than in the female linked situation."60 Males and females rated their knowledge of the male linked occupations much lower than their knowledge of the female linked occupations. Male and female subjects who indicated less knowledge about an occupation cooperated more than those subjects who professed a greater knowledge. This study was considered relevant to the current research due to the findings and discussion regarding sex appropriateness of the situation and sex composition of dyads. Of interest to the current study was the discussion by Porter, Geis, and Jennings, involving stereotypes and good intentions from their study of women as leaders.'l They relate a theory by campbell'2 which describes a psychological mechanism of how stereotypes influence perception. 59. sex appropriate careers were selected from the Occupational Handbook (1974) and careers for Women in the (1973). College students were asked to rate the selected careers according to male-female social roles and whether the career "conformed to their idea of the role of a person of their own sex." 60. Ibid., p. 547. 61. Natalie Porter, Florence Geis, Joyce Jennings (Walstedt), "Are Women Invisible as Leaders?" sex Roles 9 (1983): 1035-1049. 62. Cited by Porter et al., p. 1036. D. T. campbell, "Stereotypes and the Perception of Group Differences," American Psychologist 22 (1967): 817-29.

PAGE 55

The mechanism is the role of stereotypes in the process by which incoming sensory data are transformed into conscious perceptions. According to Campbell, human perceptions of the world are in fact interpretations of incoming sensory stimuli. These interpretations are based partly on the actual stimulus objects and partly on existing cognitive organization (knowledge, beliefs, expectancies, hopes, fears, etc.). Early-learned stereotypes operate as implicit beliefs and expectancies. The interpreting occurs in neural processing before the stimulus registers as a conscious perception. Since we are not conscious of our neural processing, we believe our perceptions are veridical [sic], when in fact they have already been interpreted before we become conscious of them. Once the perceptions themselves are biased, any judgment based on them, and especially unprejudiced judgments, must inevitably produce discrimination. 46 Porter et al. suggest that although one may be attempting to view a situation fairly and with good intentions (without discrimination),."perceptual bias based on prevailing stereotypes produces discrimination."63 The "head of the table" cue was used by Porter et al. to examine attributions of leadership. They predicted that a woman sitting at the head of the table would not be viewed as a leader, but a man in the same position.would. They also predicted that discrimination would not be affiliated with subjects' sex role and conscious intentions.64 Photographic slides were taken of a group of five people seated at a table. Either a male or a female sat at the head of the table in mixed sex or same sex groups which were described as "graduate students working as a team on a 63. Ibid., p. 1036. 64. Ibid., p. 1037.

PAGE 56

47 research project"65 Subjects (college students) were assigned to groups as masculine, feminine, or androgynous, as determined by their scores on the "Bern sex Role Inventory." Each group of subjects viewed one slide and, while viewing that slide, was asked to rate the members on several dimensions. These dimensions were "five 7-point scales: Quiet-Talkative, Intelligent-Not Intelligent, Submissive-Dominant, Cold-Warm, and LeaderFollower."66 After rating the group members, subjects were administered a feminist scale to assess "individuals' agreement with feminist attitudes."6 Porter et al.'s results indicated that the head of the table cue identified women and men as leaders in same sex groups. In the mixed sex groups, a male sitting at the head of the table was viewed as the leader, but a woman in that position was not viewed as the leader. Regardless of subjects' sex role and feminist ideology scores, results for attributing leadership were the same. "The lack of significant individual differences effects was consistent with the hypothesis that stereotyping in this situation occurred below awareness and in spite of subjects' conscious belief systems."68 There were no differences between 65. Ibid., p. 1039. 66. Ibid., p. 1040. 67. Ibid., p. 1038. 68. Ibid., p. 1044.

PAGE 57

48 feminist and nonfeminists, and masculine, feminine, and androgynous pers'ons in their decisions regarding leadership attribution in this situation. Even with an organization/s good intentions illustrated by affirmative action programs and managerial training programs to better qualify women for promotions, there is still sex stereotyping occurring perhaps more at an unconscious level than we would like to have ourselves believe. Perceptions of Authority and Power In a study of male/female co-leaders of small groups, Greene, Morrison, and Tischler concluded that "female co-leaders could be liked but not highly respected for or perceived as possessing task-relevant attributes, even when they were invested with comparatively more formal authority for achieving the task than their male counterparts."69 Group "members/ associations to gender were more powerful determinants of their of coleader competence and influence than were their associations to formal authority."'0 Subjects consisted of mental health (psychiatric, psychology, social work, counseling) students participating in a two day conference to learn about group processes. Each conference had co-leaders: either a male or 69. Les R. Greene, Thomas L. Morrison., and Nancy G. Tischler, "Gender and Authority -Effects on Perceptions of small Group co-Leaders," Small Group Behavior 12 (1981): 401-13. 70. Ibid., p. 409.

PAGE 58

49 female designated as having "ultimate authority" and a male or female assigned the role of associate consultant. Each conference was divided into two small groups of approximately 10 members with the consultant and associate consultant moving between groups. Group members completed questionnaires reflecting their perceptions (task leadership, sensitivity, knowledgeable, friendliness) of the co-leaders. From tape recordings of particular sessions co-leader comments were analyzed "according to gender and authority status" to insure that co-leaders verbal behavior was similar. Female co-leaders designated as having more authority, were perceived as more "emotionally responsive" than the male co-leaders designated as having authority. Male co-leaders regardless of their assigned authority were viewed as more instrumental, active, potent, and insightful than the female co-leaders.'l Male and female co-leader abilities were perceived using traditional sex stereotypes rather than using the formal authority or status assigned to them as co-leaders of mixed sex groups. An experimental study conducted by Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, and Opeil, looked at "two experiments designed to investigate the effect of sex role stereotypes on evaluations of authority figures."'2 Subjects (male and female students) read 71. Ibid., p. 408. 72. Marsha B. Jacobson, Judith Antonelli,. Patricia Winning, and Dennis Opeil, "Women as Authority Figures: The Use and Nonuse of Authority," SexRoles 3 (1977): 365-75.

PAGE 59

50 vignettes "in which an authority figure confronted a subordinate who had transgressed in some way and then [the subject] evaluated the authority figure on a variety of dimensions." Jacobson et al. define the exertion of authority as the use of one's power to engage in active, assertive, and aggressive behavior. The authors propose that these adjectives are in parallel with the traditional male sex role and therefore "the exertion of authority is a masculine act, one that is appropriate for a man but generally inappropriate for a woman."73 The authors state that male authority figures who "come down hard" on their employees may not be well liked but will be viewed as simply doing their jobs. Female authority figures who "come down hard" on their employees will be viewed more negatively than the male authority figures. Jacobson et al. also state that "a special kind of hostility is reserved for the woman who has power and uses it." A woman is permitted to use authority over a child in a teaching or parenting situation (traditional sex role behavior). A woman using authority in a nontraditional position (police officer, professor, or employer) may be viewed more negatively than a male in such a position. Jacobson's methodology is relevant to the current study. Vignettes described four situations that varied according to sex of authority figure and sex of the subordinate. Each experiment 73. Ibid., p. 366.

PAGE 60

51 used either a hard line authority behavior or lenient authority behavior.'4 The authority figures used authority in the hard line situation, not in a harassing manner, but in a situation where the subordinate had displayed inappropriate behavior. The four vignettes involved either a parenting, police officer, professor, or employer situation. The subjects completed a series of 10 rating scales that referred to the authority figure. Descriptors used could easily be applied to requisite managerial behavior, although this specific reference was not made. Descriptors included considerate-inconsiderate, flexible-rigid, fair-unfair, and competent-incompetent.'5 In the current study, one vignette i s used which describes a dialog between two subordinates. One of the subordinates uses aggressive communicative behavior. sex of the subordinates in the dialog varies: 2 male, 2 females, or 2 persons (sex is not indicated). Similar descriptors used in the current study include: helpful and aware of feelings of others 74. An example of a hard line situation (367): In the Employer situation Audrey (Arthur) Melrose tells Joan (John) caldwell that she (he) is very dissatisfied with a business report that Joan (John) wrote. The employer reminds the employee that past work also has been of poor quality. The employee apologizes and says she (he) will do better from now on, but the employer fires her (him). An example of the lenient situation (371): The Employer situation is the same, however, instead of firing the employee on the spot for current and past poor work, the employer gives her (him) one more chance and expects to see an improvement in her (his) work. 75. The remaining descriptors were easy to please-hard to please, calm-excitable, warm-cold, forgiving-vindictive, and understanding-argumentative.

PAGE 61

52 (similar to considerate-inconsiderate); objective (fair-unfair); steady, consistent (flexible-rigid); and, well informed, logical, analytical ability (competent-incompetent). The authority figure in the first experiment took a hard line against the subordinate. In this situation "a female authority figure being firm with a male subordinate was evaluated most negatively." The authority figure in the second experiment was lenient with the subordinate. In this case, "the female figure being lenient with a female subordinate was evaluated most negatively."'6 No significant relationship was established regarding the sex of the subject. The current study examines a more aggressive type_of behavior, does not look at lenient authority behavior, uses desired managerial characteristics as descriptors, and has only one organizational setting where two subordinates interact. In a descriptive study, Horwitz investigated the relationship between sex role expectations and power, and rates of psychological distress.'' Power "refers to the control of resources and a dominant role in the family",'9 and refers only to interpersonal relationships. Results indicated "that people [men and women] who occupy powerful roles have low rates of distress, 76. Ibid., p. 365. ??.,Allan Horwitz, "Sex-Role Expectations, Power, and Psychological Distress," Sex Roles 8 (1982): 607-23. 78. Ibid., p. 609.

PAGE 62

53 regardless of whether they conform to or deviate from role expectations. The occupation of the powerless role is, however, particularly productive of distress when the occupant of this role deviates from sex-appropriate behavior."79 Horwitz discusses his findings in terms of interpersonal power, male-female social roles, and perceptions of role expectations. Horwitz concludes with an interesting prediction: "if sex role expectations change and women come to occupy more powerful roles, sex differences in distress will decline."80 In terms of the current study many women in organizational settings are in a more powerless role than males; an attempt to deviate from sex appropriate behavior appears to create more distress. If a female subordinate acts aggressively (not sex appropriate behavior) in an interaction with a male superior (uses power with low personal distress), then surely the female would be at a disadvantage. The female would be experiencing her own distress while being viewed ne .gatively due to her atypical behavior. Conclusions Perceptions or lack of perceptions of an aggressive communicating woman as having managerial potential are examined in the current study. Identical dialogs attributing identical work habits to either a male or a female are used. Work habits include 79. Ibid., p. 607. 80. Ibid., p. 621.

PAGE 63

progresses steadily, challenges and masters each job level, possesses technical expertise, and uses their skills to successfully identify and analyze potential problem areas. This study may reveal male and female managers" (as subjects) sex stereotypes regarding the leadership potential of an aggressive communicating woman. 54 As demonstrated in the studies reviewed, women indeed are faced with many difficulties when entering the managerial ranks. Even when a female is fully confident of her leadership abilities (technical expertise, problem solver), she may not even be viewed as the leader. As illustrated by Greene et al., even when a woman was invested with more formal authority than her male assistant, the male was perceived as more competent and having more influence than the female leader. Porter et al. indicated that in a mixed sex group, the nonverbal cue of "head of the table" did not signal a woman in that position as leader, but a man in that position was perceived as the leader (regardless of subjects" androgynous or feminist views). More difficulties faced by a woman manager include others" sex stereotypes of her behavior. Brown"s review of leadership research found that using different subject populations gave different results. Trait studies with students and managers as subjects supported a stereotyped attitude of women lacking leadership characteristics. Style and contingency studies supported traditional stereotyped views of women as leaders, when the subjects were students; but generally did not support stereotyped views when the subjects were managers.

PAGE 64

55 The managerial woman herself, may or may not use stereotyped behavior depending on the situation. Yamada et al. found that sex composition of a dyad and sex congruency of the situation influenced task and maintenance behaviors. In same sex dyads, subjects interacted to determine task and maintenance behaviors. While in mixed sex dyads, males and females assumed stereotyped roles: males were task oriented and females were maintenance oriented. In either case, a woman manager's behavior when contrasted with a man manager's behavior, may be viewed negatively. Results from Jacobson et al. indicated that a female authority being firm with a male subordinate was perceived negatively and when lenient with a female, was viewed even more negatively. In other situations, males and females may view her behavior as comparable to a male manager's behavior. Data from studies by Stitt et al. illustrated that when males and females were told to lead autocratically by being dominant and aggressive, male and female subjects perceived the leaders as using comparable behaviors. For a woman to be in a managerial position at all, especially in a male dominated organization, may produce more stress than she initially bargained for. Horwitz' results showed that women and men in powerful roles experience less stress whether or not they conform to sex role expectations. But those people in powerless roles experience stress and even more so when they deviate from sex-appropriate behavior. The above mentioned difficulties contribute to viewing women as more suited to being

PAGE 65

56 followers than leaders. sex Differences and Aggression Research concerning general sex differences and aggression is examined. An attempt i's made to understand "aggression" as defined and studied by several different methods as seen in the research that follows. Research involving aggression and perceptions of effectiveness, and situations that effect different forms of aggressive behavior are reviewed. Studies concerning male/female aggressive reactions as determined by level of electric shock or intensity of blows from a foam club are examined. Also noted are studies identifying types of and words that are perceived as aggressive (namecalling). Surveyed studies also reflect more specific behavior such as aggression against a female; aggressive expression and guilt from aggressive acts; and, attributions of aggressive behavior. General Sex Differences and Aggression Taylor and Epstein conducted experimental research examining the ''relative aggressiveness of male and female subjects to male and female opponents in competitive, aggressive confrontation in which the winner could inflict pain upon the loser."81 "Aggression was measured by the magnitude of shock the 81. stuart P. Taylor and Seymour Epstein, "Aggression as a Function of the sex Interaction of the Sex of the Aggressor

PAGE 66

57 subject set for his opponent to receive."82 The subjects (undergraduate students) were unaware that the experimenter controlled the level of shocks and that there actually was no "Opponent". The researchers confirmed their predictions. Male subjects "reacted aggressively to provocation by male opponents and unaggressively to female opponents. Females, while unaggressive to female opponents, reacted to provocation by male opponents in a highly aggressive manner."83 The authors suggest this female reaction to provocations from males is due to the males departing from gentlemanly and socially accepted behavior. Richardson, Vinsel, and Taylor investigated the "aggressive behavior of female subjects who held liberal or traditional beliefs concerning the role of women in modern society as a function of provocation by traditional or liberal male opponents:"84 Subjects were female undergraduates selected as liberal or traditional according to their scores on the "Attitudes Toward Women Scales."85 The male subject was a confederate who and the Sex of the Victim," Journal of Personality 39 (1967): 474-86. 82. Ibid., p. 477. 83. Ibid. p. 485. 84. Deborah Richardson, Anne Vinsel, and Stuart Taylor, "Female Aggression as a Function of Attitudes Toward Women," sex Roles 6 (1980): 265-71. 85. Cited by Richardson et al. J. T. Spence and R. Helmreich, "The Attitudes toward Women Scale: An Objective Instrument to

PAGE 67

58 "advocated either the acceptance or rejection of the equal rights amendment."86 This study was based on ideas that behavior of a more liberated woman would appear more masculine and would therefore be more aggressive than a traditionally-minded woman's behavior. Previous research cited in the study indicated a positive relationship between aggression and traditional views.87 Aggression was measured by "the magnitude of shock set by the subject for her [male) opponent."88 Results showed that in this structured "competitive reaction-time paradigm" which allowed for physical aggression (shock) but no verbal interaction, the "liberal females behaved less aggressively than the traditional females": "they behaved in a nonaggressive manner toward both traditional and liberal male opponents."89 Males' aggressive responses to unexpected aggressive behavior from a female were examined in the next study cited. It Measure Attitudes toward the Rights and Roles of Women in Contemporary Society, II JSAS catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 2 No. 66 (1972). 86. Ibid., p. 269. 87. Richardson et al. referenced R. w. Guenther and s. Taylor, "Physical Aggression as a Function of Racial Prejudice and the Race of the Target, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27 (1973):207-10 and s. Taylor and I. Smith, "Aggressionas a Function of Sex of Victim and Male Subject's Attitude Toward Women," Psychological Reports. 35 (1974): 1095-1098. 88. p. 268. 89. Ibid., p. 269.

PAGE 68

59 has been suggested that through the socialization process "males are permitted and often encouraged to behave in an aggressive manner with other males, but are discouraged from displaying aggression to females, even in the event of provocation."80 The relationship between chivalry and nonverbal communication of aggression was examined by Young, Beier, Beier, and Barton. They investigated "whether chivalrous styles are deeply ingrained responses or are only 'skin deep', and whether men who view women in a more egalitarian light will treat them more 'roughly' than men who do not."9 l Game aggression "was measured by the average intensity of the subjects' blows" given by a "cloth-covered [Bataca club] foam bat." 92 In a game aggression situation the "Pro-Lib" males (preferring a liberal role for women) did respond more aggressively (more intense blows) than the "Anti-Lib" males (preferring a traditional role for women) toward their female opponent (a trained confederate). The Pro-Lib males responded in the same manner toward the nonaggressive female (using defense only) and the aggressive female (using a fixed rate of attack). The Anti-Lib group behaved more aggressively (were not as chivalrous) toward an aggressive woman than a "less aggressive 90. David M. Young, Ernst Beier, Paul Beier, and Cole Barton, "Is Chivalry Dead?" Journal of Communication 25 (1975): 57-64. See p. 57. 91. Ibid., p. 58. 92. Ibid.

PAGE 69

60 woman." When the female confederate aggressively attacked, the "Anti-Lib subjects displayed less reserve and increased the rate and intensity of their blows. Thus, when faced with an unexpected situation breaking the convention of the"less aggressive woman," the Anti-Lib subjects responded in a less chivalrous fashion by stepping up their attacks."93 Young et al. suggest that "perhaps some of the social antagonisms encountered in political, business, and social interactions between "traditional" men and "liberated" women can be explained in terms of reactions to unexpected role communication."94 In a descriptive study, Brown, Jr. and Tedeschi hypothesized that similar coercive actions (threat or force) "performed by the same actor would result in differential attributions of aggression by observers depending on the instigatory" (offensive) or responsive (defensive) type of action. 9 s 93. Ibid., p. 63. 94. Ibid. 95. Robert c. Brown, Jr. and James T. Tedeschi, "Determinants of Perceived Aggression," Journal of Social Psychology 100 (1976): 77-87. see p. 80.

PAGE 70

In the offensive conditions, one actor initiated an altercation by issuing a threat or by issuing a threat followed by an attempted delivery Of noXiOUS [SiC] stimulation (i.e., a punch to the head). In the defensive threat condition, the defensive actor responded to the threat by issuing a counterthreat, and in the defensive force condition, the defensive actor responded to force with counterforce (i.e., he punched the offensive actor in the midsection). Perceptions of live action scenarios and videotaped scenarios produced the same results: "offensive use of coercion [sic] was 61 rated significantly more aggressive than defensive use of coercion [sic]"; actors (male) using "harm:...doing [physical attack] coercion [sic] defensively were perceived as less aggressive than all other actors" except for those who used no coercion. The subjects completed rating scales of polar adjectives, giving their impressions of actor A and actor B, who were male actors with specific parts to play (offensive or defensive). Sex of subject was not examined as a variable. Adjectives such as good-bad, strong-weak, severe-lenient, hard-soft, aggressive-nonaggressive, used in this study also could be used to determine the positive and negative aspects of managerial behavior. Research by Driscoll illustrated how persons "high or low in naturally occurring aggression differ in attributions made to others engaged in an aggressive interaction."96 Subjects (college students) viewed a videotaped aggressive scene, then completed a 96. James M. Driscoll, "Perception of an Aggressive Interaction as a Function of the Perceiver's Aggression," Perceptual and Notor Skills 54 (1982): 1123-34.

PAGE 71

62 person-perception questionnaire and a self-report yielding information concer.ning their own high and low aggression behavior rates. Persons rated high in aggression perceive "greater injury, negative reactions, and domineering and make greater causal distinction among stimulus persons."97 Wyer, Jr., Weatherly, and Terrell98 dealt with the following hypotheses: 1. Males will exceed females in direct expression of aggression while females will exceed males in the need to inhibit aggression -(that is .guilt over expression of aggression). 2. Among males, those who are both high in direct aggressive expression and low in guilt over aggressive expression will have the highest academic effectiveness. 3. Among females, those who are both low in direct aggressive expression and high in guilt .over aggressive expression will have the highest academic effectiveness. In this descriptive study, Wyer et al. defined academic achievement "as the degree to which performance exceeds or falls short of what would be predicted on the basis of aptitude alone." Academic effectiveness was determined using the students' grade point average and their Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Subjects (undergraduate students) completed the Siegel (1956) "Manifest Hostility Scale. "-9 9 Judges categorized results, reflecting "the 97. Ibid., p. 1123. 98. Roberts. Wyer, Jr., Donald Weatherly, and Glenn Terrell, "Social Role, Aggression, and Academic Achievement," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (1965): 645-49. 99. Cited by Wyer et al.: s. M. Siegel, "The Relationship of Hostility to Authoritarianism," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52 (1956): 368-72.

PAGE 72

63 tendency to commit acts of aggression, the tendency to experience aggression, and the extent to which guilt associated with aggression is absent." On the basis of this information, subjects were placed in categories according to aggressive tendencies and achievement; various comparisons were made. Results supported the first two hypotheses; the third hypothesis was not supported although results approached significance. "Males acknowledged significantly more aggressive acts and showed significantly less guilt over aggression."loo "Males high in tendency to commit acts of aggression and low in aggression guilt were significantly higher in academic effectiveness than other mal e subjects." l o l Females "both low in direct aggressive expression and high in guilt over aggressive expression had the highest academic effectiveness"l02 although this result was not significant. The authors broaden these results in a discussion relevant to the current study. They state that. when direct expression of hostility and aggression are acceptable aspects of one's social role, this expression is manifested in areas which are relevant to this role. Dominance and aggression needs acquire a positive value in an academic setting; when these values are directly manifested, academic effectiveness increases.los Wyer et al. also 100. Ibid., p. 647. 101. Ibid., p. 648. 102. Ibid., p. 648. 1 .03. Ibid., p. 649.

PAGE 73

64 state that when overt acts of aggression are inconsistent with one's social role, the acts are displaced into areas which do not contradict primary role expectations. It is easy to make the transition from an academic setting to an organizational setting where males and females desire job effectiveness: they will use and view aggression and dominance differently. Perceptions of Aggression The hypothesis that "frustration in situations congruent With traditional sex roles Will elicit higher levels Of aggression from both women and men than will frustration in sex role incongruent situations" was examined by Towson and zanna.l04 Male and female subjects (undergraduate students} read either a masculine oriented passage (body building exam} or a feminine oriented passage (dance exercise exam} describing a frustrating event. Subjects compared themselves to the frustrated person in the passage while completing rating scales. Items in the rating scale related.to the appropriateness of aggressive responses to the frustrating event (actions by another student}. The types of aggression included: "physical (e.g., pushing, shaking, striking}: verbal (e.g., name calling): indirect, nonobvious (e.g., downgrading the student to other students, preventing the student from performing well in the future ): and appeal to 104. Shelagh M. Towson and Mark P. zanna, "Toward a Situational Analysis of Gender Differences in Aggression," Sex Roles 8 (1982): 903-14.

PAGE 74

65 legitimate authority (e.g., reporting the student to the relevant authority)."los Both male and female subjects in "gender-congruent conditions" perceived that situation as "more important and advocated more aggressive responses than did subjects in gender-incongruent conditions." In the respective sex-congruent situations, women were as aggressive as men; but they were never more aggressive than men. Towson and Zanna suggest that perceived differences of the importance of the sex role congruent tasks also may have influenced the judgments and aggressive responses. Frodi surveyed 70 female and 60 male students to determine what constitutes provocation. los Frodi noted that many studies on aggression used the same means of provocation for males and females but that males and females might perceive the provocation differently. As an illustration Frodi discusses experiments that use the delivery of electric shocks. Sex related differences in the aggressive behavior measured may be differences in other emotions such as fear or anxiety of the provocation. Electric shock may be an aggressive behavior measure for males, but it may be a fear or anxiety measure for females. Frodi's survey asked "what is the most anger....;provoking behavior a girl (guy) your age could display toward you?"l0 Responses were categorized 105. Ibid., p. 907. 106. Ann Frodi, "Sex Differences in Perception of a Provocation, A Survey," Perceptual and Hot or Skills 44 ( 1977): 113-14.

PAGE 75

66 accordingly: "(1) Physical/Verbal Aggression, e.g., "when a guy punches me in the nose, when a friend yells at me;" (2) Lack of Sensitivity, e.g., "when he (she) ignores me, disturbs me when I'm studying, is late for an appointment, a date;" (3) Condescending Attitude, e.g., "when he (she) treats me like I"'rn no good, acts superior, tries to step on me, criticizes my personality, intellect, career;" (4) Lack of Efficiency, e.g., "when you want something repaired. and it is not done on time, or properly. ":.oe Results from Frodi"'s research indicated "that most typically men are angered by the display of physical or verbal aggression by another male but, given a female provoker, a condescending attitude triggers hostile feelings. For women, on the other hand, the most anger-provoking behavior is condescending treatment, regardless of the sex of the provoker." 1 0 9 Frodi concludes that experiments trying to examine aggressive behavior must pay attention to the types of provocation used on male and female subjects. Condescending attitudes are used to provoke anger in the current study and are reviewed in the methodology section. Kanekar, Nanji, Kolsawalla, and Mukerji hypothesized "that 107. Ibid., p. 113. 108. Ibid. 109. Ibid., p. 114.

PAGE 76

67 aggression or retaliation against a female and especially by a male should be negatively evaluated."llo Subjects (college students) read a scenario describing an act of aggression. This study is significant because it compared the (male and female) perceptions of an aggressor (male and female), the sex, and whether or not the victim was retaliating. Seven-point scales were used to rate the victim and aggressor. The scales included descriptors such as intelligence, morality, adjustment, and likability. Results indicated that "the nonretaliating victim was evaluated more positively than the retaliating victim,"lll across all conditions. Results relevant to this study. "suggest that whenever there was aggression or retaliation against a female by a male, the female was likely to be evaluated negatively."ll% A male as a target of female aggression "was rated lower on morality and adjustment than the male victim of male aggression."l!3 An unexplained result showed that male subjects "gave a higher rating on intelligence to the victim of female rather than male aggression (p<.05), and a higher intelligence rating was given to the male aggressor when the 110. suresh Kanekar, Villy Nanji, Maharukh Kolsawalla, and Gitanjali Mukerji, "Perception of an Aggressor and a Victim of Aggression as a Function of sex and Retaliation," Journal of Social Psychology 114 (1981): 139-40. 111 Ibid., p. 139. 112. Ibid. 113. Ibid.

PAGE 77

68 nonretaliating victim was female rather than male (p< 01)."114 Although the findings were not consistent, "they do show that the same action gave rise to different judgments depending on the sex of the actor, the sex of the target of the action, and the sex of the judge." 11 5 Kanekar et al. compare the results to "attribution theory according to which atypical is more informative about a person than is typical behavior."116 They continue stating that "in most cultures a man;s aggression against a woman represents atypical behavior which may affect negatively the perceptions of both aggressor_ and victim."117 Research by Borden explored the idea that "when an individual has an opportunity to aggress and he is in the presence of others, he Will use whatever information is available concerning the observer;s values and expectations in order to maximize the probability of favorable outcome."118 Aggression was measured by the intensity of electric shocks given to an opponent. Male subjects (college students) observed by a male 'aggressed more than those observed by a female. When explicit values (aggressive 114. Ibid., p. 140. 115. Ibid. 116. Ibid. 117. Ibid. 118. Richard J. Borden, "Witnessed Aggression: Influence of an Observer;s Sex and Values on Aggressive Responding," Journal of_Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1975): 567-73.

PAGE 78

69 -karate club instructor or pacifistic -organizer of Society Against Nuclear Expansion) were assigned to the observer, the subjects/ aggressive activity varied accordingly. There was no relationship in this instance between the sex of the observer and the aggressive behavior. Although there were "no overt indications of approval or disapproval from the observer," the subjects modified their behavior in "anticipation of approval from the observer."119 Borden suggests that "relatively subtle characteristics of the social situation surrounding an altercation do influence the expression of physical aggression by the partii:ipants."120 Sex Differences and Verbal Aggression Driscoll examined verbal aggression (name-calling) and developed "a procedure for its quantitative manipulation."121 College students rated 316 pejorative epithets "for aggressiveness, frequency of use in aggressive interchanges, and frequency of not knowing their meaning."122 Words were presented in the statement, "You !" and were followed by a 7-point scale from least aggressive to most aggressive. Subjects were to 119. Ibid., 572. 120. Ibid., 570. 121. James M. Driscoll, "Aggressiveness and Frequency-ofAggressive-use Ratings for Pejorative Epithets by Americans" The Journal of Social Psychology 114 (1981): 111-26. 122. Ibid., p.

PAGE 79

70 imagine that the word had been used in anger against them and determine "how much aggression would the use of the word signal."123 A table of the words, their aggression ratings, and the frequency-of-aggressive-use is included in Driscoll's report to facilitate "the manipulating or measuring of verbal aggression" in future studies. This table was referenced when establishing the scenarios used in the current study. Using attribution theory as a base, Rosen and Jerdee proposed that pleading behavior (meek, mild) conforms more with female sex role behavior, "little information for making nonstereotypic attributions about her motivations or future behavior."124 A female using an aggressive, threatening approach "might be seen as highly at variance with sex role expectations and might therefore lead to attributions of extreme agitation and even to develop a litigable case."125 A threatening appeal would be more productive for a female, but it also may produce a negative resistance.such as "greater oppression for the complainant"126 from.the manager. 123. Ibid., p. 114. 124. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "Effects of Employee's Sex and Threatening Versus Pleading Appeals on Managerial .Evaluations of Grievances" Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 442-45. Seep. 443. 125. Ibid., p. 443. 126. Ibid.

PAGE 80

71 Subjects (bank managers) read a description of a grievance situation which involved either a male or female as the source and varied the type of complaint (threatening vs. pleading) "on managerial judgments of requests for rectification of injustice."12' Two different grievance situations were used. In one situation, the manager had failed to take positive action in support of the career by not nominating the employee for a training conference_while sending others with less seniority. In the threatening version, the employee stated, "I insist I get the opportunity this year. This request deserves immediate attention. I expect to hear from you right away on this or I am going to take immediate action." For the pleading version, the employee stated, "I would be very grateful for the opportunity to participate this year. Thank you very much for your consideration."129 The other situation involved status inequity where the employee was not given the same physical work environment as others at the same job level. The employee in the threatening version stated, "If no action is forthcoming I will not hesitate to make an issue of this at the next meeting. I want action on this immediately." In the pleading version, the employee stated, "I wonder if you could look into this and find out if anything can be worked out. Would there be 127. Ibici.. 128. Ibid., p. 444.

PAGE 81

72 i any possibility of getting another desk location?" l z 9 From their study of the relationship between methods of making appeals and managerial evaluations of grievances, Rosen and Jerdee concluded that "when the appellant was male, a polite, pleading appeal was very favorably received, and an aggressive, threatening appeal was fairly well received. When the appellant was female, an aggressive, threatening appeal was quite favorably received, but a polite, pleading appeal was much less well received."l30 There were no interactions found involving subjects' sex as a variable. Rosen and Jerdee suggest that "women who follow what they consider to be appropriate sex role behavior and demonstrate deference to managerial judgments may end up victims of their own sex role stereotypes."l3l Following the premises of expectancy theory which "suggests that people develop normative expectations about appropriateness of communication behavior that differ for males and females,"l32 Burgoon, Dillard, and Doran suggested "that females using verballY aggressive strategies which are more expected of male sources, should be less effective than if they 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid., p. 442. 131. Ibid., p. 445. 132. Michael Burgoon, James P. Dillard, and Noel E. Doran, "Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion The Effects of Violations of EXpectations by Males and Females," Human Communication Research 10 (1983): 283-94. Seep. 283.

PAGE 82

73 conformed to normative expectations and used less aggressive strategies."133 Persuasive strategies were predetermined as more commonly male or female. "Statements using threat and aversive stimulation" were male strategies while "altruism and positive moral appeals" were female strategies.134 Verbal aggressiveness is not fully defined; reference is made to highly intense language but examples of the different strategies are not supplied. College students completed questionnaires which indicated their psychological sex roles. Those who were found to be highly masculine or highly feminine were categorized as "Traditional Receivers." Those who were "Nontraditional Receivers" were androgynous or undifferentiated with regards to sex roles. Sex of source, persuasive strategy, and subject sex varied. There were significant effects as predicted between subject sex and source sex, and source sex and strategy used. Burgoon et al. found that "males and females are constrained by message strategies as well as language choices"135 in persuasive attempts. Data collected indicated that "males are expected to use more aggressive persuasive strategies, and to the extent that they do not conform to such expectations, attitude change is inhibited. However, females are not expected to use such aggressive strategies and are 133. Ibid., p. 285-86. 134. Ibid., p. 288. 135. Ibid., p. 292.

PAGE 83

74 penalized when they are the source of unexpectedly aggressive and/or antisocial message strategies."136 Lowery, Snyder, and Denney, viewed aggressive behavior as dependent on the situation in which the behavior occurred.137 "Three conditions must be present before observers will label a behavior. as aggressive: (1) the actor must be perceived as having malevolent intent, (2) the actor must be perceived as acting offensively rather than defensively, and (3) the actor/s behavior must be perceived as antinormative."138 In an experimental study by Lowery et al. results did not support the hypothesis that "a female is perceived as more aggressive than a male when both make identical aggressive statements."132 subjects (college students) read a passage describing a situation where the experimenter acts aggressively (degrades subject/s experimental efforts, calling them stupid and stating that a third grader could do better) toward a student subject. The subjects then completed a rating scale which used adjectives from the "Differential Emotion 136. Ibid., p. 293. 137. carol R. Lowery, c. R. Snyder, and Nancy w. Denney, "Perceived Aggression and Predicted Counteraggression as a Function of sex of Dyad Participants: When Males and Females Exchange Verbal Blows," sex Roles 2 (1976): 339-46. 138. Cited by Lowery et al. p. 340: T. R. Kane, P. Doerge, J. T. Te _deschi, "When is intentional harm-doing perceived as aggression?" Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, August, 1973. 139. Ibid., p. 344.

PAGE 84

75 Scale"140 and also indicated how they would have responded toward such behavior from the experimenter. No perceived aggressiveness occurred "between a male insulting another male and a male insulting a female." "A female who insulted another female was perceived as more aggressive than a female who insulted a male." Conclusions From the reviewed studies one notes that aggression is a difficult feeling/word/behavior/perception to define and capture. Various studies indicate that aggression is a behavior measured as a response to provocation. Aggressive behavior is a measure of magnitude of electric' shock delivered to one's opponent (Taylor and Epstein, Richardson et al., Borden), or the measure of "intensity of blows" from a foam bat (Young et al.). Richardson et al. and Young et al. relate their subjects' traditional views (advocating traditional roles for women) and liberal views (advocating liberal roles for women) to measures of aggression from provocation. Richardson et al. find that liberal females responded less aggressively (less intensive shock settings) toward both traditional and liberal males, than the traditional females responded. Young et al. find that liberal males acted more aggressively (more intense blows from a foam bat) than the traditional males acted. Liberal males reacted more aggressively 140. Lowery 342. Scale referenced from c. E. Izard, Patterns of Emotions (New York: Academic Press, 1972).

PAGE 85

147 presents a two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version x Subject Sex) for variables D and E. Table v Analysis of Variance for Variable D -Perceived Aggression of .Person A and Variable E Perceived Aggression of Person B Variable D -Responses Describing "Aggressive Character" No variance. All 82 replies described Person A/Bill/Betsy as aggressive. Variable E -Responses Describing Other Character SV* ss df MS F PR > F Group o. 72 2 I 0.36 0.84 0.4360 sex o.oo 1 o.oo o.oo 1.0000 Group x sex 0.63 2 0.32 0.74 Error 32.65 76 0.43 *SV = Source of Variance, ss = sum of squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance There was no variance for variable D as all subjects selected the same response (1.0) to describe Person A/Bill/Betsy. There were no significant relationships (p < .OS) for variable E. Analyses of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1.: Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by male supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than Will their female counterparts. The first hypothesis was tested by analyzing means and standard deviations. for each individual male and female descriptor, the summed total of all the male adjectives (variable A), the summed total of all the female adjectives (variable B),

PAGE 86

148 the. summed total of all the significant (p < .10) male adjectives (variable H), and by two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version x Subject sex) for the individual adjectives and variables A, B, and H. The results of these analyses yielded only partial support (from variable H) for this hypothesis. Heans and standard deviations for the individual male and female adjectives did not support Hypothesis 1. Although a few individual adjective,.s means were in the direction predicted, the majority of the adjective's means were not supportive of this hypothesis. Subjects were asked to rate the managerial potential of the aggressively communicating character (Person A, Bill or Betsy) in the dialog they'd just read. Subjects' responses to each of the ?2 rating scales representing 14 male and 8 female adjectives in Section I of the questionnaire were scored from 1 to 5 ( 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 =strongly disagree). Tables VI and VII present means and standard deviations of male and female supervisors' scores in each version of the dialog for each male and female adjective.

PAGE 87

149 Table VI Means and Standard Deviations for Male Adjectives Means/Standard Deviations* Character: Person A Bill Betsy Subjects: Male Female Male Female Male Female Adjective: Ambitious 1.6/1.1 1.4/.63 1.1/3. 5 1.6/1.4 1.1/. 28 1.0/0.0 Analytical Ability 2.7/1.2 2.7/.73 2.6/.99 3.3/.78 3.0/.82 2.9/1.1 Competitive 1.5/1.1 1.1/.36 1.6/1. 2 1. 2/.39 1.1/.28 1.1/. 35 Consistent 3.2/1.4 3.2/1.1 2.9/1.0 3.2/.94 3.0/.82 2.9/1.1 Desires Responsi-bility 1.8/1.0 1. 7/.91 1. 7/.62 1.9/1.4 1. 2/.83 1. 7/1.1 Emotionally Stable 4.0/.71 4.1/.86 4.0/.76 4.3/.65 4.0/1.0 4.6/.63 Forceful 1.5/.66 1.1/.36 1.1/. 26 1.4/1. 2 1.1/. 28 1.1/.26 Leadership Ability 4.5/.66 4.4/.76 4.7/.59 4.7/.89 4.7/.47 4.8/.41 Logical 3.6/.77 3.1/.95 3.1/.70 4.2/.83 3.7/.85 3. 7/1.1 No Desire For Friendship 2.1/.86 2.0/.88 2.5/1.3 2.3/1.4 1. 9/.95 1.8/1.0 Objective 4.0/.91 4.4/.76 3 .9/1. 3 4.3/.97 4.2/.98 4.5/.52 Self Confi-dent 2.1/1.4 1.7/.99 1.7/1.4 1. 3/.89 1.5/.88 2. 2/1.5 Steady 3.3/1.1 3.7/.91 3.5/.99 4.1/.90 3.9/1.1 3.5/.92 Well Informed 2.9/.69 3.6/1.0 3.3/.98 3.6/.90 3.4/1.3 3.7/1.1 *scale used: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree

PAGE 88

150 Table VII Keans and Standard Deviations for Female Adjectives Means/Standard Deviations* Character: Person A Bill Betsy Subjects: Male Female Male Female Male Female Adjective: Aware of Feelings of Others 4.7/.63 4.7/.61 Cheerful 4.3/.85 4.4/.76 creative 3.2/.83 3.4/.76 Helpful 4.8/.60 4.8/.43 Humanitarian Values 4.6/.77 4.8/.58 Intuitive 3.4/.87 3.6/.94 Modest 4.9/;37 4.8/.43 sophisti-cated 4.2/.99 3.9/.92 4.8/.41 5.0/0.0 4.5/.83 4.8/.39 3.0/.65 3.8/.94 5.0/0.0 5.0/0.0 4.8/.41 5.0/0.0 3.2/.77 4.3/.97 4.9/.26 4.8/.39 4.3/.80 4.4/.79 4.7/.75 5.0/0.0 4.5/.66 4.9/.26 3.2/.83 3.9/.99 4.9/.38 5.0/0.0 4.7/.63 5.0/0.0 3.2/1.2 4.1/.96 4.8/.38 4.9/.35 4.0/1.2 4.6/.63 *scale used: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = mildly agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree The first hypothesis predicted the aggressively communicating male, Bill, rather than the aggressively communicating female, Betsy, would be perceived as having more managerial potential in terms of more frequent scores of agreement on the male adjectives. From Table VI it can be seen that male supervisors perceived Betsy rather than Bill, as having more managerial potential as defined by the following male adjectives: competitive, desires responsibility, no desire for friendship, and

PAGE 89

151 self confident. Hale supervisors equally perceived Betsy and Bill on the male adjectives ambitious, emotionallY stable, forceful, and leadership ability. on 8 of the 14 male adjectives, male supervisors rated Betsy better than or equal to Bill/s managerial potential. Bill was perceived by the male supervisors as having more managerial potential than Betsy on 6 male adjectives: analytical ability, consistent, logical, objective, steady, and well informed. Means and standard deviations on the female adjectives in Table VI indicated that male supervisors rated Betsy equally or more positively than Bill on 7 of the 8 adjectives. These adjectives were: aware of feelings of others, cheerful, helpful, humanitarian values, intuitive, modest, and sophisticated. Creative was the only female adjective that male supervisors rated Bill more positively than Betsy. Female supervisors rated Betsy equally or more positively on 4 of the 8 female adjectives. These adjectives were: aware of feelings of others, helpful, humanitarian values, and intuitive. Note that both male and female supervisors perceived the aggressive communicating male, Bill, more positively in terms of the adjective creative. scores on all 14 male adjectives were summed to form a new variable, A. The lowest score possible was 14 indicating strong agreement with each male adjective as descriptive of the perceived aggressive character/s managerial potential. The highest possible score was 70 indicating strong disagreement with each male adjective as being descriptive of the perceived aggressive

PAGE 90

152 character's managerial potential. Each subject's scores on the eight female adjectives were summed to form a new variable, B. The lowest possible score was 8 indicating strong agreement with each female adjective as being descriptive of the perceived aggressive character's managerial potential. The highest possible score was 40 indicating strong disagreement with each female adjective as being descriptive of the perceived aggressive character's managerial potential. Table VIII presents means and standard deviations for variables A and B for male and female subjects in each dialog. Table VIII lleans and Standard Deviations for Variable A -Summed llal.e Adjectives and Variable B Summed Female Adjectives Means/Standard Deviations* Total of Character: PerSOll: A Bill Betsy All Groups A -Summed Male Adjectives** .. M*** 38.7 I 6.7 37.9 I 5.4 37.6 l 4.4 38.1 I 5.5 F 38.4 I 3.8 41..3 I 4.5 39.4 I 4.8 39.6 I 4.4 Tot 38.6 I 5.3 39.4 I 5.2 38.5 I 4.6 38.8 I 5.0 B -Summed Female Adjectives**** M 34.0 l 3.4 34.5 I 1..6 33.9 I 3.2 34.2 I 2.7 F 34.4 I 2.4 37.2 I 2.2 37.3 I 2.1 36.3 I 2.6 Tot 34.2 I 2.9 35.7 I 2.3 35.7 I 3.1 35.2 I 2.Q *scale used: 1 -strongly agree, 2 -mildly agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 = strongly disagree **14 responses summedr 14 = lowest score possible, 70 = highest score possible ***M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total ****8 responses summed1 8 = lowest score possible, 40 = highest score possible Hypothesis 1 was tested by using a two-way analysis of

PAGE 91

variance (Dialog Version x Subject sex). Table IX displays the analysis of variance for variable A, the summed total of male adjective scores. Table IX Analysis of Variance for Variable A Summed Kale Adjectives SV* ss df MS F PR > Group 12.89 2 6.45 0.26 0.7743 Sex 51.52 1 41.52 2.05 0.1563 Group x sex 52.36 2 26.18 1.04 0.3578 Error 1909.66 76 25.13 *SV = source of Variance, ss = sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, F F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance There were no significant (p < .05) relationships concerning 153 variable A. The sex of Subject effect though not statistically significant, F(2, 76) = 2.05, p < .16, was fur.ther examined. Heans indicated that male supervisors across all three groups tended to perceive the aggressive communicating character whether male or female, more positively than the female supervisors perceived this character in terms of the male adjectives. These results did not support Hypothesis 1 With reference to variable A, male supervisors evaluated the aggressively communicating male character positively (group means = 37.9). However, contrary to what Hypothesis 1 predicted, male subjects also the perceived-aggressively communicating female equally as positively (group means = Male and female subject scores for the dialog between Person A and Person B where no sex of the communicators was indicated,

PAGE 92

154 showed relatively similar group means with smaller standard deviations for the female scores (male sores: means = 38.7, std dev = female scores: means = 38.4, std dev = 3.8). Refer to Table VIII for complete means and standard deviations for variable B. When no sex was indicated, male and female supervisors similarly rated the managerial potential of the perceived a.ggressi vely communi ca. ting Person A. However, when sex of the communicators was indica..ted, male supervisors rated the perceived aggressive communicator whether male or female as having more managerial potential than Person A, where no sex was indicated. Male supervisors rated the perceived aggressively communicating female as having slightly more managerial potential than her male counterpart. Female supervisors rated the aggressive communicator whether male or female as having less managerial potential than Person A, where no sex was indicated. Female supervisors rated the perceived aggressively communicating male a.s having less managerial potential than Person A and Betsy. These results did not lend support to Hypothesis 1. Regardingresponses to the female adjectives, male and female subject ratings of Person A where no sex of the communicator was indicated, were quite similar. Refer to Table VIII for these means and standard deviations. In terms of the female adjectives, male subjects evaluated the aggressively communicating male slightly more negatively than they evaluated Person A. Male subjects evaluated the aggressively communicating female slightly more positively than they evaluated Person A. In

PAGE 93

155 terms of female adjectives, female subjects rated the aggressively communicating male much more negatively than they evaluated Person A. The female subjects rated the aggressively communicating female slightly more negatively than they rated her male counterpart. Table X presents the analysis of variance for variable B, the summed total of female adjectives. Table X Analysis of Variance for Variable B -summed Female Adjectives SV"' ss df MS F PR > F Group 40.67 2 20.34 3.14 0.0487 Sex 93.37 1 93.37 14.44 0.0003 Group x sex 35.65 2 17.83 2. 76. 0.0699 Error 491.39 76 6.46 "'SV = source of Variance, ss = sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance There were significant relationships involving Group, Sex, and Group x sex. However, these results were not supportive of Hypothesis 1. The significant Group interaction, F( 2, 76) = 3.14, p < .05, is derived from supervisors perceiving Person A, the case where no sex was indicated, as having more managerial potential in terms of these female adjectives than that of Bill or Betsy. The main effect for Sex, F(1, 76) = 14.44, p < .0004, showed that male supervisors across all three studies percei.ved the aggressive character more positively in terms of these female adjectives than the female supervJ. sors perce.i. ved the same character.

PAGE 94

156 To further analyze Hypothesis 1 and the male and female adjectives, a separate analysis of variance for each male and female adjective was calculated. Tables XI and XII present the probability of significant relationships for the male adjectives and the female adjectives.

PAGE 95

Table XI Analysis of Variance for Individual Kale Adjectives: Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F Adjective Group Ambitious 0.09* Analytical Ability 0.66 Competitive 0.33 Consistent 0.58 Desires Responsibility 0.53 Emotionally Stable 0.48 Forceful 0.33 Leadership Ability 0.29 Logical o. 42 No Desire For Friendship 0.12 Objective 0.53 Self confident 0.55 Steady 0.64 Well Informed 0.51 sex Group x sex 0.88 0.21 0.39 0.20 0.15 0.52 0.92 0.81 0.32 0.54 0.036** 0.59 1.00 0.93 0.73 0.31 0.0045*** 0.47 1.00 0.06* 1.00 0.93 0.16 0.44 0.18 0.07* 0.62 *significant interactions, p < .10 ** p < .04 *** p < .005 157

PAGE 96

Table XII Analysis of Variance for Individual Female Adjectives: Probability of Significant Relationships PR > F Adjective Aware of Feelings of Others Cheerful Creative Helpful Humanitarian Values Intuitive Modest Sophisticated Group sex 0.35 0.12 0.15 0.03* 0.53 0 0 003 "'* 0.047* 0.51 0.34 0.048* 0.69 0.0017** 0.75 0.65 0.39 0.39 *significant interactions, p < .05 u p < .004 Group x sex 0.51 0.58 0.41 0.59 0.76 0.21 o. 72 0.24 .. Table XI displays a significant effect for Group on the 158 adjective ambitious, F(2, 76) = 2.46, p < .10. Means from Table VI indicate that Betsy was perceived as more ambitious than Bill or Person A. There were main effects for Sex on the adjectives emotionally stable, F(1, 76) = 4.54, p < .os, objective, F(l, 76) = 3.59, p < .07, and well informed, F(l, 76), p < .08. Hale supervisors perceived the aggressive communicator as more emotionally stable, objective, and well informed, than the female supervisors perceived this character. There was a main effect for Group x Sex for the adjective logical, F(2, 76) = 5.81, p < .005. While males perceived the aggressive character as more logical in

PAGE 97

159 terms of managerial potential than the females perceived this character, females perceived Person A as more logical than Bill or Betsy (Bill was perceived as least logical). Hales perceived Bill as most logical and Betsy as least logical. Data in Table XII present a significant interaction for Group on the female adjective helpful, F(2, 76) = 3.16, p < .05. Male and female supervisors perceived Person A as more helpful than Bill or Betsy. There were main effects for sex on four adjectives: cheerful, F(1, 76) = 4.64, p < .04; creative, F(1, 76) = 9.17, p < .004; humanitarian values, F(1, 76) = 4.04, p < .05; and intuitive, F(1, 76) = 10.62, p < .002. Across all three groups, males perceived the aggressive character more positively than the females did on those adjectives. From the significant relationships, p < .10, found for individual male adjectives in Table XI, a new variable, H, was formed. This variable was derived from summing the values of the significant male adjectives from Table XI: ambitious, emotionally stable, logical, objective, and well informed. Means, standard deviations, and an analysis of variance for variable H appear in Table XIII.

PAGE 98

Table XIII Means 1 Standard Deviations 1 and Analysis of Variance for Variable H Summed Responses To Significant Male Adjectives Means/Standard Deviations* Total of Character: Person A Bill Betsy All Groups M** 16.1 I 2.8 15.5 I 2.4 16.3 I 2.7 15.9 F 16.6 I 1.8 17.9 I 3.2 17.5 I 2.3 17.3 Tot 16.4 I 2.3 16.6 I 3.0 16.9 I 2.5 16.6 Analysis of Variance SV* ss df MS F PR > F Group 4.46 2 2.23 0.35 0.7083 Sex 39.62 1 39.62 6.15 0.0153 Group x Sex 11.91 2 5.95 0.92 0.40l0 Error 489.29 76 6.44 *SV Source of Variance, ss Sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance **M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total I 2.6 I 2.4 I 2.6 160 There was a main effect for Subject sex, F(1, 76) = 6.15, p < .02, as seen in Table XIII. Heans for var:i.able H :i.nd:i.cate that male superv:i.sors rated the aggress:i.ve commun:i.cating person more positively (means = 15.9) than females rated this person (means = 17.3) this finding supports Hypothesis 1. Although not statistically significant, the overall group means show that male and female supervisors rated the aggressive male character Bill more pos:i.tively than they rated the aggressive female character Betsy (Bill -means= 16.6, Betsy-means= 16.9). This result is in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1 It was anticipated that variable c would support Hypothesis 1. This was not the case. Recorded scores on the male

PAGE 99

161 characteristic phrases were summed to form variable c. If the aggressive character's name was indicated next to a phrase descriptive of males, then a score of 1 was assigned to this response. If the aggressive character's name was not indicated than a score of 0 was assigned to the response. A low score of o would indicate that none of the six male phrases were perceived as being descriptive of the aggressive communicator. The highest possible score of 6 would indicate that all 5 male phrases were perceived to be. descriptive of the aggressive communicator. Table XIV presents the means and standard deviations of variable c for male and female subjects in each dialog. Table XIV Means and Standard Deviations for Variable c Summed .Male Phrases Means/Standard Deviations* Total of Character: Person A Bill Betsy All Groups c Summed Male Phrases* M*"' 1.9 I 1.9 1.9 I 1.0 2.8 I 1.5 2.2 I 1.5 F 1.4 I 1.4 2.3 I 1.4 2.3 I 1.3 2.0 I 1.4 Tot 1.6 I 1.6 2.1 I 1.2 2.5 I 1.4 2.1 I 1.5 "'6 male phrases, 1 point per male phrase selected, total possible = 6 "'*M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total Heans for variable c indicate that male subjects perceived the male phrases as more descriptive of the aggressively communicating female's behavior than the aggressively communicating male's behavior. This finding does not support Hypothesis 1 as it was expected that aggressively communicating male would be

PAGE 100

162 perceived by more of the male descriptive phrases than the aggressively communicating female. While female subjects perceived the aggressively communicating male's and female's behaviors as similar, male subjects perceived aggressively communicating males and Person A (no sex indicated) as similar in terms of these male descriptive phrases. Table XV presents the analysis of variance for variable C. Table XV Analysis of Variance for Variable c Summed Kale Phrases ss df MS F PR > F Group 3.75 2 1.87 0.89 0.4166 sex 0.78 1 0.78 0.37 0.5457 Group x Sex 4.35 2. 2.17 1.03 0.3633 Error 161.02 76 2.12 *sv = source of Variance, ss = sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance There were no significant (p < .05) relationships involving variable c. Hypothesis 2: Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their female counterparts. The second hypothesis was tested by analyzing means and standard deviations for each individual male and female adjective, the summed total of all the male adjectives (variable A), the summed total of all the female adjectives (variable B), the summed total of all the significant (p < .10) male adjectives (variable H), and by two-way analysis of variance (Dialog Version x Subject

PAGE 101

163 Sex) for the individual adjectives and variables A, B, and H. This hypothesis was not supported in terms of male adjectives and only slightly supported (from variable B) in terms of female aajecti ves. Means and standard deviations for the individual male and female adjectives as presented in Table VI did not support Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 predicted that female supervisors would perceive Bill more positively than Betsy in terms of managerial potential as defined by the male adjectives. Table VI displays data indicating that the female supervisors perceived Betsy's managerial potential more positively than Bill's potential on 9 out of the 14 male adjectives. These adjectives were: ambitious, analytical ability, competitive, consistent, desires responsibility, forceful, logical, no desire for friendship, and steady. Female supervisors perceived more managerial potential for Bill rather than Betsy on only 5 of the male adjectives: emotionally stable, leadership ability, objective, ana well informed. The findings for these 5 adjectives support Hypothesis 2, however, the remaining majority of 9 male adjectives do not support this hypothesis. Note that both male ana female supervisors perceived Betsy more positively on the adjectives ambitious, competitive, desires responsibility, and no desire for friendship. Both male and female supervisors perceived Bill more positively than Betsy on the adjectives objective and well informed. Regarding variable A, the summed total of male adjectives,

PAGE 102

164 Hypothesis 2 was not supported as female supervisors did not rate the perceived aggressively communicating male more positively than the perceived aggressively communicating female. In fact, female subjects rated the aggressively communicating male more negatively (less managerial potential -group means= 41.3) than the perceived aggressively communicating female (group means= 39.4). (Refer to Table VII for additional means and standard deviations for variable A. ) Heans from variable B, the summed total for female adjectives, supported Hypothesis 2 in the direction predicted, although the results were not statistically significant. Female supervisors rated Betsy equal to Bill on only 3 of the 8 female adjectives. Female supervisors evaluated Bill slightly more positively (group means = 37.2) than they evaluated Betsy (group means = 37.3) in terms of the female adjectives. (Refer to Table VII for additional group means and standard deviations for variable B. See Table VIII for an analysis of variance for variable B.) As noted earlier in the discussion of Hypothesis 1, significant Group differences, F(2, 76) = 3.14, p < .05, were due to male and female supervisors perceiving more managerial potential in terms of female adjectives in Person A than in Bill or Betsy. The significant Subject sex effect, F(1, 76) = 14.44, p < .0004, was due to male supervisors across al:l three groups evaluating the aggressive character more positively than the female supervisors evaluated the same character. Variable H, the summed total of significant (p < .15) male

PAGE 103

1.65 adjectives did not support ffypothesis 2. (Refer to Table XI for means, standard deviations, and an analysis of variance for variable H.) Female supervisors did not evaluate the aggressively communicating male (group means = 17.9) more positively than they evaluated the aggressively communicating female (group means = 17.5). Female supervisors evaluated Person A, where no sex was indicated (group means= 16.6), as having the better managerial potential in terms of variable H. Hypothesis 3 : Females when perceived as communicating aggressively with other females Will be rated more negatiVely by male supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. Hypothesis 3 was tested in the same manner as Hypotheses 1 and 2. Means and standard deviations for individual adjectives, and variable s A, B, c, and H were examined. A two-way analysis of variance was also examined for each of these adjectives and variables. Hypothesis 3 predicting that male supervisors will evaluate aggressively communicating females more negatively than their male counterparts, is directly related to Hypothesis 1 which predicted that male supervisors would evaluate aggressively communicating males more positively than their female counterparts. Hypothesis 3, like Hypothesis 1, was only partially supported by variable H. Regarding means and standard deviations presented in Table VII for variables A (summed total of male adjectives) and B (summed total of female adjectives), males

PAGE 104

166 perceived the aggressively communicating female more positively than they perceived the aggressively communicating male. This .result does not support Hypothesis 3. Regarding variable H, the summed total of significant (p < .10) male adjectives, male subjects did evaluate Betsy more negatively than they evaluated Bill: Betsy means = 16.3, Bill means = 15.5; the lower score indicating more agreement with the male adjectives as descriptors of managerial potential. This finding supports Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4: Females when perceived as communicating aggressively With other females will be rated more negatively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. Hypothesis 4 was tested in the same manner as Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Means and standard deviations for individual adjectives, and variables A, B, C, and H were examined. A two-way analysis of variance was examined for each of these adjectives and variables. Hypothesis 4 predicting that female supervisors will evaluate aggressively communicating females more negatively than their male counterparts, is related to Hypothesis 2 Which predicted that female supervisors would evaluate aggressively communicating males more positively than their female counterparts. Hypothesis 4, like Hypothesis 2, was only slightly supported by variable B. Regarding means and standard deviations presented in Table VII for variables A (summed total of male adjectives) and B (summed total of female adjectives), females

PAGE 105

167 perceived the aggressively communicating female slightly more negatively than they perceived the aggressively communicating male (Bill-means= 37.2, Betsy-means= 37.3). This slight difference in the means is in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 4. Regarding variable H, the summed total of significant (p < .10) male adjectives, female subjects did not evaluate Betsy more negatively than they evaluated Bill: Betsy means = 16.3, Bill means = 15.5; the lower score indicating more agreement with the male adjectives as descriptors of managerial potential. This finding did not support Hypothesis 4. other Hypotheses Although no t one of the four main hypotheses, this researcher predicted the aggressive communicating f emale would be perceived more negatively than the aggressive communicating male on the female adjectives. It was suggested that the reason for this would be pecause aggressive was no t an adjective common to women and successful managers. This prediction was not well supported from the data presented in Table VII. Even though there were many more ratings of disagreement than agreement on these female adjectives, male supervisors perceived Betsy equally or more positively than Bill on 7 of the 8 female adjectives. Female supervisors perceived Betsy equallY or more positively on 4 of the 8 female adjectives. Regarding variable B, the summed total of female adjectives, female subjects did rate the aggressively communicating female slightly more negatively than they rated the male on the female adjectives (means for female = 37.3, means for

PAGE 106

168 male= 37.2). However male subjects did not rate the perceived aggressively communicating female more negatively; they rated her more positively than they rated the perceived aggressively communicating male (means for male = 34.5, means for female = 33.9). other Variables variable G was formed from five of the seven responses recorded in Section V of the questionnaire. One of these responses had to be receded to be similar to the other responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A low score of 5 would indicate strong disagreement with statements indicating sex bias toward managerial women. A high score of 25 would indicate strong agreement with statements supporting sex bias toward managerial women. Table XVI displays means and standard deviations for variable G. Table XVI !leans and Standard Deviations for Variable G Summed Sex Stereotype Responses Means/Standard Deviations** Total of Character: Person A Bill Betsy All Groups G Summed* Sex Stereotype Responses M*** F Tot 8.8 I 3.7 7.5 I 2.4 8.1 I 3.o 8.9 I 2.6 8.7 I 1.1 8.8 I 2.2 8.3 I 2.9 7 .. 8 I 1.9 8.o 1 2.3 *summed 5 questions for variable G 8.6 I 3.o 7.9 I 2.1 8.3 I 2.5 **scale used: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = mildly disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = mildly agree, 5 = strongly agree ***M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total

PAGE 107

169 Regarding variable G, female subjects responded with stronger disagreement to phrases indicating sex bias against managerial women in the Person A/Person B dialog and in the Betsy/Nancy dialog than in the Bill/Mike dialog. Male subjects responded with stronger disagreement to phrases indicating sex bias against managerial women in the Betsy/Nancy dialog than in the Person A/Person B dialog and in the Bill/Mike dialog. The overall means from male and female subjects who had read the Bill/Mike dialog indicated more agreement with phrases indicating sex bias against managerial women than those subjects who had read the Person A/Person B dialog and the Betsy/Nancy dialog. The analysis of variance for variable G is presented in Table XVII. Tab1e XVII Ana1ysis of Variance for Variable G Summed Sex Stereotype Responses sv ss df MS F PR > F Group 9.95 2 4.97 0.75 0.4751 Sex 9.05 1 9.05 1.37 0.2459 Group x sex 2.49 2 1.25 0.19 0.8284 Error 476.29 72* 6.15 *missing values sv = source of variance, ss = sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom; MS = Mean Square, F = F statistic, PR>F = Probability of Significance There were no significant relationships found concerning variable G. Tables XVIII and XIX present results from two-way analyses of variance (Dialog Version X Subject Age) for variable A, the summed male adjectives, and variable p, the summed female adjectives.

PAGE 108

Table XVIII AnaJ.ysis of Variance for Variable A with Age as an Independent Variable Variable A -summed Male Adjectives SV* ss df MS F Group 12.89 2 6.45 0.25 Age 183.83 6 30.64 1.20 Group X Age 192.76 9 21.42 0.89 Error 1636.94 64 25.58 *SV = Source of Variance, ss = Sum of squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, P:R > F 0.7779 0.3190 0.5856 F = F statistic, P:R>F = Probability of Significance Table XIX AnaJ.ysis of Variance for Variable B with Age as an Independent Variable Variable B -summed Female Adjectives SV"' ss df MS F Group 40.67 2 20.34 3.04 Age 29.09 6 4.85 0.72 Group X Age 162.87 9 18.09 2.70 Error 428.44 64 6.69 sv = source of Variance, ss = sum of Squares, df = degrees of freedom, MS = Mean Square, P:R > F 0.0549 0.6315 0.0099 F = F statistic, P:R>F = Probability of Significance There were no significant (p < .05) relationships found 170 for the male adjectives. There were main effects for Group, F(2, 64) = 20.34, p < .06, and Group x Age, F(9, 64) = 18.09, p < .01, for the female adjectives. Hale and female supervisors rated Person A more positively than they rated Bi,ll or Betsy. The majority of supervisors rating Person A were younger (21 supervisors ranging from 26 to 40) than the supervisors that rated Bill (17 supervisors ranging from 26 to 40) and Betsy (16

PAGE 109

171 supervisors ranging from 26 to 40). The younger group of supervisors also rated Person A more positively in terms of the female adjectives than the other two groups of supervisors in the same age category rating Bill and Betsy.

PAGE 110

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The results from the present study provide-minimal support for the hypotheses predicting that male and female supervisors would rate aggressively communicating males more positively in terms of perceived managerial potential than their female counterparts. The primary question under study asks, "Is perception of managerial potential related to the sexual identification of the aggressive communicators?" Results from this study would indicate the answer to this question is no. Means from some findings are in the direction predicted; however, they are not statistically significant. These findings include the female supervisors' perceptions of managerial potential in terms of female adjectives -variable B: female supervisors perceive the aggressively communicating male slightly more positively than they perceive the female counterpart. These findings also include the male supervisors' perceptions of managerial potential in terms of male adjectives -variable H: individual group means indicated that the males perceive more managerial potential for the aggressively communicating male than for the female counterpart. Other findings in the direction predicted are the perceptions of two individual male adjectives (males and females perceive the aggressively communicating male more positively on objective and

PAGE 111

173 well informed), and perceptions of one female adjective (males and females perceive the aggressively communicating male more positively on creative). Unexpected significant interactions occur for the following: for variable B, the summed scores on the female adjectives, is a significant group effect resulting from male and female supervisors rating Person A (no sex indicated) more positively than the aggressively communicating male and female; and for variables B and H there is a significant sex of subject effect due to males perceiving the aggressive communicator whether male or female, more positively than females perceive this communicator one finding for variable A, the summed scores on male adjectives, approaches significance. This is for the sex of subject interaction. Means indicate that males perceive the aggressive communicator (whether male or female) more positively than females perceive this character. The aggressively communicating female is evaluated more positively by both male and female supervisors than the aggressively communicating male; male supervisors rate the aggressive communicators (male and female) .more positively than the female supervisors rate them. It would seem from these results that a more appropriate question to study would ask, "Is perception of managerial potential related to the sexual identification of those persons perceiving the aggressive communicators?" Costrich et al. found that men and women who behaved contrary to expected sex role stereotypes were perceived more negatively than males and females

PAGE 112

174 whose behavior conformed to sex role stereotypes.1 Aggressive women and passive men were perceived more negatively and more in need of psychological help than their stereotyped counterparts (aggressive men and passive women). Findings from the current research illustrate that male supervisors perceive aggressively communicating females as positively as aggressively communicating males in terms of managerial potential. Male supervisors do not penalize the female subordinate for communicating aggressively. Costrich et al. also found that "inappropriate behavior produced distorted perceptions, even with identical scripts."2 The current study illustrates that inappropriate behavior such as aggressive communication from a female, does not produce distorted perceptions from male supervisors in terms of managerial potential (male adjectives). Female supervisors, however, do perceive a difference in managerial potential between male and female aggressive communicators. But they do not penalize the female for this "inappropriate" behavior. Instead they rate her more favorably than they rate the aggressively communicating male. Contrary to et al."s findings that "members" associations to gender were more powerful determinants of their 1. Norma Costrich, Joan Feinstein, and Louis Kidder, "When Stereotypes Hurt: Three studies of Penalties for Sex-Role Reversals," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (1975): 520-30. 2. Ibid., p. 526.

PAGE 113

175 appraisals of co-leader competence and influence than were their associations to formal authority,"3 the current study indicates more association with communication behavior and managerial potential than associations to gender. In the vignette used in the current study, the aggressive communicator being considered for promotion is described as a hard worker, progresses steadily mastering each job level, uses skills to successfully identify and analyze problems, and possesses technical expertise. These descriptors, though not an assignation of formal authority, do assign a certain level of intelligence and commitment to the aggressive communicator. Perhaps male supervisors glean more successful managerial potential from these cues than from the gender cues and therefore rate the male and female aggressive communicators similarly on male adjectives and more positively than female supervisors rate the male and female aggressive communicators. Although the male and female aggressively communicating subordinates are identically described, different responses were obtained from male and female supervisors when asked to rate these characters' managerial potential. The current study's findings are also contrary to those of Burgoon et al., Lowery et al., Frodi et al., and Rosen and Jerdee (1973 & 1974). Burgoon et al. found that females using aggressive 3. Les Greene, Thomas Morrison, and Nancy Tischler, "Gender and Authority Effects on Perceptions of small Group co-Leaders, Small Group Behavior 12 (1981): 401-13. See p. 409.

PAGE 114

176 persuasive strategies were penalized for thiS behavior While males using aggressive strategies were successful influencers.4 Lowery et al. found that a female insulting (verbally aggressive) another female was perceived as more aggressive than a female insulting another male.5 In the current study, both male and female supervisors perceive the aggressively communicating female more positively than they perceive her male counterpart. Frodi et al. found that "women apparently consider aggression to be inappropriate behavior in many" instances and evidence that "aggressiveness and various assertive or dominance traits are less approved among women than among men."6 Rosen and Jerdee (1973) found that an aggressive threatening style for a male supervisor was perceived slightly more favorably than for a female supervisor.' They also found no sex of subject differences in rating the aggressive male and female characters. 4. Michael Burgoon, James P. Dillard, and Noel E. Doran, "Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion The Effects of Violations of Expectations by Males and Females," Human Communication Research 10 (1983): 283-94. 5. carol Lowery, c. R. Snyder, and Nancy Denney, "Perceived Aggression and Predicted.Counteraggression as a Function of Sex of Dyad Participants: When Males and Females Exchange Verbal Blows," Sex Roles 2 (1976): 339-46. 6. Ann Frodi, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Pauline Thome, "Are Women Always Less Aggressive Than Men? A Review of the Experimental Literature," Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 634-60. 7. Benson Rosen and Thomas Jerdee, "The Influence of Sex-Role Stereotypes on Evaluations of Male and Female Supervisory Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 44-48.

PAGE 115

177 Rosen and Jerdee (1974) found that female job applicants with identical credentials as male applicants were rated lower than males on technical potential and potential for fitting in well in the organization.e Females were perceived as less acceptable for managerial positions and especially less acceptable for jobs described as having demanding requirements such as decisive managerial action and aggressive interpersonal skills. Female job applicants were perceived as not having the necessary aggressive interpersonal skills required for the demanding managerial job even though subjects read identical male and female job applications. This indicates that if females are perceived as possessing aggressive interpersonal skills, they will be hired more often for such In the current study, female subordinates demonstrate their aggressive interpersonal skills; male and female supervisors perceive the female communicator more positively than the male communicator. Whether the male and female supervisors who evaluate the aggressively communicating female more positively than her male counterpart would have actually promoted is not known. Frodi illustrated differences in perceptions of anger provoking behavior for males and females.9 In the current study, e. B. Rosen and T. Jerdee, "Effects of Applicants' Sex and Difficulty of Job on Evaluations of candidates for Managerial Positions," Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 511-12. 9. A. Frodi, "Sex Differences in Perception of a Provocation, A survey," Perceptual and Notor Skills 44 ( 1977): 113-14.

PAGE 116

178 differences are found in male and female perceptions of managerial potential in the male or female aggressive communicator. Even though all male and female supervisors describe the main character/s behavior as aggressive, males rate this character more positively in terms of managerial potential than the female supervisors do. Kanekar et al. found that the "same action gave rise to different judgments depending on the sex of the actor, the sex of the target of the action, and the sex of the judge;" attributions of aggressive behavior varied.10 The general question under study asks if the perception of managerial potential is related to the sexual identification of the aggressive communicator. The answer would be no, but note that it is apparently related to the sexual identification of the perceiver. Male supervisors perceive managerial potential in terms of the male adjectives as similar in male and female aggressively communicating subordinates. Male supervisors also perceive managerial potential more positively than female supervisors perceive managerial potential in the aggressive communicator (male or female). Female supervisors do make some distinction between aggressively communicating males and females in terms of managerial potential (for the male adjectives), however they rate male and female subordinates more negatively 10. suresh Kanekar, Villy Nanji, Maharukh Kolsawalla, and Gitanjali MU:kerji, "Perception of an Aggressor and a Victim of Aggression as a Function of sex and Retaliation," Journal of Social Psychology 114 139-140.

PAGE 117

179 than male supervisors do. This study suggests that male and female supervisors either have different stereotypes of a successful manager which cause different perceptions of the aggressive communicator, or have the same stereotype but perceive managerial potential differently in an aggressive communicator. To the extent that males and females view themselves and others stereotypically, these same stereotypes are carried over and used in the workplace. However in this study male and female stereotypes are not as important as the stereotype of a successful manager. Learned stereotypes, resulting from our socialization, form the basis we use to judge others. We also use stereotypes to imply more than what is provided regarding appropriate or inappropriate male and female behaviors. Baird found that males were more pbject oriented while females were more interpersonally oriented.1 l This in turn effects how males and females communicate and how they perceive communication. As children, males learn to be task oriented while females learn to be people oriented. Perhaps from learning to be task oriented males can better understand or value an aggressive communicator, whether male or female, than a nonaggressive or interpersonally oriented communicator. The dialog in the current study takes place in a 11. John Baird, Jr., "Sex Differences in Group Communication: A Review of Relevant Research," Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (1976): 179-92.

PAGE 118

180 technical task oriented work environment. The current results indicate that male supervisors do rate the aggressive communicators (male or female) more positively than the female supervisors rate the same communicators. Female supervisors perhaps because of their interpersonal orientation rate the aggressive communicators (male and female) more negatively than the male supervisors rate them. Females learn to be quiet, nice, and not yell by having these behaviors reinforced over and over as they grow up. Not only do they learn these behaviors, but they also learn to value these behaviors in themselves and in others. As Karre discussed, little boys are more aggressive in their overt behavior, while little girls are passive, dependent, and conforming in their behavior.12 These values are reflected in this study as male supervisors rate aggressive communicators more positively than female supervisors rate the aggressive communicators. Hastorf et al. stated "our past experiences and purposes play an absolutely necessary role in providing us with knowledge of the world that has structure, stability, and meaning."13 As Hastorf suggests implicit personality theories produce "assumptions about relationships between personality traits in 12. Idahlynn Karre, "Stereotyped Sex Roles and Self-Concept: Strategies for Liberating the sexes," communication Education 25 (1976): 43-52. 13. Albert Hastorf, David Schneider, and Judith Poleka, Person Perception (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970) 10.

PAGE 119

181 other people, so that knowing some things about a person permits us to infer other things." This study asked supervisors to infer, based on the information in the dialog, managerial potential of an aggressive communicator in terms of managerial adjectives. Hastorf described these implicit theories as "assumed correlations between traits which we carry around in our heads" and "generalizations from behaviors we may have observed in ourselves and one or two other persons." Hastorf suggests that once we have learned these theories we use them as a "general rule." such general rules often form the basi s of stereotypes which are "a set of characteristics assumed to fit a category of people." In this study, male supervisors infer more managerial potential in the aggressive communicator than female supervisors infer. Adjectives such as ambitious, forceful, analytical ability, logical, competitive, objective, and well informed are inferred more strongly by male supervisors than by female supervisors to describe the managerial potential of the aggressive communicator. If male and female supervisors do have different stereotypes and "general rules" about successful managers, this would assist in explaining this study's results. Male supervisors, perceiving aggressive as a valuable trait for a successful manager, would then infer the existence of other successful manager traits in the aggressive communicator. Female supervisors may not value aggressive as a trait of a successful manager. This would explain why the female overall means are more

PAGE 120

182 negative than the male overall means for the managerial potential of the aggressive communicators. However, this would not explain the greater distinction female supervisors make between male and female aggressive communicators as they rate the aggressively communicating male worse than the female counterpart. It seems that female supervisors are using a different set of rules concerning managerial potential in terms of male adjectives when rating the male and female subordinates. Female supervisors rate the aggressively communicating female more positively than the aggressively communicating male. Perhaps the female supervisors are valuing aggressive communication behavior as an indication of managerial potential more positively in a female than in a male. Porter et al. suggest that even with an organization's good intentions, illustrated by various affirmative action programs and managerial training programs for women, sex stereotyping still occurs -perhaps more at a subconscious level than we'd prefer to believe.l4 In the current study, it appears to be a question of a sex stereotype versus a managerial stereotype. Male and female supervisors may have good intentions concerning the formation of their judgments of male and female subordinates. However, differences do occur between male and female supervisors' evaluations of the aggressive communicators. Male supervisors 14. Natalie Porter, Florence Geis, and Joyce Jennings (Walstedt), "Are Women Invisible as Leaders?" sex Roles 9 (1983): 1035-49.

PAGE 121

183 evaluate the male and female similarly and more positively than female supervisors do. Female supervisors evaluate the aggressively communicating male more negatively than the female. The difficulties faced by a woman manager not only include others/ sex stereotypes of her behavior, but also her own sex stereotypes regarding appropriate behavior. Fitzpatrick and Bochner commented that self perceptions are important as they form the basis for judging our own and others' behaviors.16 Managerial women may or may not choose to use stereotyped behavior depending on the situation. Yamada et al. found that in same sex dyads, the people interacted to decide their roles.1 In opposite sex dyads, males assumed the stereotyped task behaviors, while the female assumed stereotyped maintenance behaviors. As Karre suggested, we impose our own restrictions by the assumptions we make about ourselves and others.17 Taylor and Epstein, Wyer et al., and Rosen and Jerdee (1975) had findings similar to the current study. Taylor and Epstein18 found that females while reacting unaggressively to 15. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Arthur Bochner, "Perspectives on Self and Other: Male-Female Differences in Perceptions of Communication Behavior," sex Roles 7 (1981): 523-35. 16. Elaine Yamada, Dean Tjosvold, and Juris Draguns, "Effects of sex-linked Situations and sex Composition on cooperation and Style of Interaction," sex Roles 9 (1983): 541-53. 17. Karre, 1976. 18. Stuart Taylor and Seymour Epstein, "Aggression as a Function of the Interaction of the sex of the Aggressor and the sex of the Victim," Journal of Personality 39 (1967): 474-86.

PAGE 122

184 provocation from female opponents reacted more aggressively to provocation from male opponents. In the current study, female supervisors rate the aggressively communicating male more negatively than the female counterpart. Taylor and Epstein suggested that this may be from males departing from expected gentlemanly and socially accepted behaviors. But this does not explain why the aggressively communicating female is not rated more negatively as she certainly is not "nice" or demonstrating "ladylike" behavior. Wyer et al. found that "males acknowledged significantly more aggressive acts and showed significantly less guilt over the aggression."19 These males were also significantly higher in academic achievement than other male subjects. If we may assume that male supervisors are higher in work oriented achievement, then they also would express more aggressive acts and feel less guilty over the expression of these acts. This thought could help explain the current results as male supervisors rate aggressive male and female subordinates similarly. Wyer et al. suggest that dominance and aggression acquire a positive value for males; for females, these traits are less valued. Female supervisors in the current study rate the aggressive communicators more negatively than the male supervisors rate these 19. Robert Jr., Donald Weatherly, and Glenn Terrell, "Social Role, Aggression, and Academic Achievement -," Journal of Personality and social Psychology 1 (1965}: 645-49.

PAGE 123

185 communicators. The current study/s findings are similar to Rosen and Jerdee/s (1975) findings regarding aggressive female communication behavior.20 Rosen and Jerdee hypothesized that an aggressive threatening appeal from a female would provide more information about that female than a pleading passive appeal congruent to a female sex stereotype. They predicted that a threatening appeal for a female would be more productive but could also produce a negative reaction or resistance from her supervisor. They found that male and female subjects perceived the aggressive threatening appeal from the female as more effective than the female using a polite pleading appeal. Rosen and Jerdee also suggested that women conforming to a female stereotype by using a polite pleading appeal, may be doing themselves more harm than good. In the current study both male and female supervisors perceive the aggressively communicating female subordinate more positively than the aggressively communicating male. Perhaps this is because the aggressive communication provides more information about the female and enables the subjects to better evaluate her managerial potential. wexley and Pulakos found that females used more variability when rating males than when rating females.21 There 20. B. Rosen and T. Jerdee, "Effect of Employee/s sex and Threatening vs. Pleading Appeals on Managerial Evaluations of Grievances," Jouranl of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 442-45. 21. Kenneth Wexley and Elaine Pulakos, "Sex Effects on Performance

PAGE 124

186 were no differences in variability when males rated other males or females. They suggested that "male subordinates simply used the same set of male role expectations regardless of whether they were evaluating male or female managers." Female subordinates used less variability perhaps due to unclear role expectations of managerial females. Females used more yariability when describing males due to a clearer understanding of a male managerial role. Wexley and Pulakos conclude "that it is not necessarily similarity/dissimilarity causing differential variances. Rather it may be that clear versus ambiguous role expectations influence rater confidence, which in turn affects the variances." Wexley and Pulakos originally had that "people rate those similar to themselves with more confidence" Which is reflected as more variability. In the current study, male and female supervisors rate the male with more variability on 8 of the 14 male adjectives. Perhaps this is due to a clear understanding of a male managerial role. on the female adjectives, males rate the females with more variability on 7 of the 8 adjectives; females rate the male with more variability on 4 of the 8 adjectives and the same variability on 3 adjectives (males have a clearer definition of a manager so there is more variability). Schein found that successful middle managers were perceived as possessing characteristics more commonly ascribed to Ratings in Manager-Subordinate Dyads," Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 433-39.

PAGE 125

187 men in general than women in general.22 Schein suggested that since males and females perceived similarities between characteristics of successful managers and men, that "sex of manager may have less of an influence on decisions relating to the status of women in management than" previously considered. "Simply oy increasing the number of women in management may not significantly enhance the ease of entry of other women into these positions." In the current study males rate aggressive males and females similarly in terms of managerial potential. Females rate males more negatively than females. It seems that aggressive communicating females do not fare as poorly as the current study anticipated and predicted on the oasis of results from work and Massengill and DiMarco'S23 replication of Schein's work. Implications Results indicate that an aggressive communicating female subordinate will do better, or be perceived as having more managerial potential in a group supervised by a male. An aggressive communicating male also will fare better in a group 22. Virginia Schein, "The Relationship Between sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100, and v. Schein, "Relationships Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Among Female Managers," Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 340-44. 23. Douglas Massengill and Nicholas DiMarco, "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics: A Current Replication," Sex Roles 5 (1979): 561-70.

PAGE 126

188 headed by a male. However, an aggressive communicating male will definitely not do as well in a group supervised by a female, as demonstrated by the current study/s results. An aggressively communicating female subordinate will fare better than a male-in a group supervised by a woman but will do even better in terms of perceptions of her managerial in a group supervised by a man. If one is an aggressively communicating male, making demands, threats, and humiliating others, the current study/s results indicate one will be better off in a group supervised by a male. Be better off meaning tnat one/s supervisor's perceptions of one/s managerial potential as defined by such characteristics as logical, competitive, ambitious, and well informed, would be greater than those perceptions from a female supervisor. By these adjectives an aggressive communicator is perceived more similarly to males and successful managers; aggressive communication appears to be related to perceptions of successful managerial potential. Results indicated that aggressive communicative behavior did not hinder a female in the work setting, but we cannot conclude that aggressive communicative behavior is critical to her success in that environment. To a certain degree, a woman's use of aggressive communicative behavior is considered unacceptable (violates norms) while a man/s identical behavior is considered normal and appropriate. Results indicate that in a technical, task oriented work setting female aggressive communicative behavior is neither viewed differently nor more negatively than a male/s identical aggressive communicative behavior. These results

PAGE 127

189 do not indicate supervisions' equitable treatment of males and females in other work situations such as salary compensation or job assignments. Areas for Future Research Possible areas for future research might include the following: The current study should be replicated using mixed sex dialogs where either the male or the female is assigned the role of the aggressive communicator. A study, by Jacobson et al., of hard line versus lenient use of authority found differences in perceptions of females in mixed sex groups.z4 Add questions to the questionnaire used in the.current study concerning the likability of the aggressive communicator and directly ask about the aggressive communicator's promotability (ex: promote now or in 1 month, etc.). This promotability variable could than be compared with male and female scores on managerial potential and aid our understanding of the management selection process. Use a study similar to the current research however change 24. Marsha Jacobson, Judith Antonelli, Patricia Winning, and Dennis Opeil, "Women as Authority Figures: The Use and Nonuse of Authority," Sex Roles 3 (1977): 365-75.

PAGE 128

190 the environment where the dialog takes place. Instead of using a technical task oriented environment, use a female oriented work environment such as a child health care program or a secretarial pool. Use a study similar to the current research and again change the environment in which one is studying perceptions of aggressive behavior and its relationship to managerial behavior. Different results might come from using a male or female oriented volunteer organization as the work environment. One could use an elementary school Parent Teachers' Meeting (female oriented) or an electrical engineer's software committee (male oriented). Determine the sex role identity (masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated) in male and female supervisor subjects. Then compare their sex role identity with their perceptions of male and female subordinates' requisite managerial characteristics to determine: 1) if masculine oriented persons perceive more male than female managerial characteristics in their peers and/or 2) if feminine oriented persons perceive more female than male managerial characteristics in their male and female peers and/or subordinates; and, 3) if androgynous persons perceive an equal amount of male and female managerial characteristics intheir peers/and or subordinates. Results might indicate the importance of the source's sex role identity in determining source's

PAGE 129

perceptions of managerial potential in others. Reward allocations and its relationship to managerial sex role identity could also be studied (similar to a study by Olejnik et al.).zs 191 25. Anthony Olejnik, Brigette Tompkins, and Claudia Heinbuck, "Sex Differences, sex-Role Orientation, and Reward Allocations," sex Roles 8 (1982): 711-19.

PAGE 130

192 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbey, Antonia. "Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly Behavior: Do Males Misperceive Females" Friendliness?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982): 83038. Bach, George R. and Peter Wyden. The Intimate Enemy. New York: William Morrow, 1969. Baird, Jr., John E. "Sex Differences in Group Communication: A Review of Relevant Research." Quarterly Journal of Speech 62 (1976): 179-92. Baird, Jr John E., and Patricia Hayes Bradley. "Styles of Management and Communication: A Comparative Study of Men and Women." Communication Monographs 46 (1979): 102-111. Bandura, A. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Bardwick. J., and E. Douvan, "Ambivalence: The Socialization of Women." Women in Sexist Society. Ed. v. Gornick and B. Moran. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Bass, B. M., J. Krussell, and R. Alexander. "Male Managers" Attitudes Toward Working Women." American Behavioral Scientists 15 (1971): 221-36. Bedian, A., A. Armenakis, and B. Kemp. "Relation of sex to Perceived Legitimacy of Organizational Influence." Journal of Psychology 94 (1976): 93-99. Beere, Carole A. Women"s Issues A Handbook of Tests and Measures. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass, 1979. Berkowitz, Leonard. Aggression: A social Psychological Analys.:i.s. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. ed. Roots of Aggression. A Re-examination of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Borden, Richard J. "Witnessed Aggression: Influence of an Observer's sex and Values on Aggressive Responding." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (1975): 567-73.

PAGE 131

Brenner, Otto c. "Relationship of Education to sex, Managerial Status, and the Managerial Stereotype." Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 380-83. 193 Brenner, Ottoc., and John A. Bremer. "Sex Stereotypes and Leaders' Behaviors as Measured by the Agreement Scale for Leadership Behavior." Psychological Reports 48 (1981): 960-62. Brown, Jr., Robert c., and James T. Tedeschi. "Determinants of Perceived Aggression." Journal of Social Psychology 100 (1976): 77-87. Brown, Stephen M. "Male Versus Female Leaders: A comparison of Empirical Studies." Sex Roles 5 ( 1979): 595-611. Burgoon, Michael, James P. Dillard, and Noel E. Doran. "Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion The Effects of Violations of Expectations by Males and Females." Human Communication Research 10 (1983): 283-94. campbell, D. T. "Stereotypes and the Perception of Group Differences." American Psychologist 22 (1967): 817-29. Cecil, Earl A., Robert J. Paul, and Robert A. Olins. "Perceived Importance of Selected Variables used to Evaluate Male and Female Job Applicants." Personnel Psychology 26 ( 1973): 397-404. Chapman, J. "Comparison of Male and Female Leadership Styles." Academy of Management Journal 18 (1975): 645-50. Costrich, Norma, et al. "When Stereotypes Hurt: Three studies of Penalties for Sex-Role Reversals." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (1975): 520-30. Cragan, John F., and David w. Wright. Communication in small Group Discussions -A case Study Approach. St. Paul: West Publishing, 1980. Curtis, John M. "Styles of Dealing with Hostility. 11 Psychological Reports 51 (1982): 79-83. Driscoll, James M. "Aggressiveness and Frequency-of-Aggressive Use Ratings for Pejorative Epithets by Americans." Journal of Social Psychology 114 (1981): 111-26. "Perception of an Aggressive Interaction as a Function of the Perceiver's Aggression. 11 Perceptual and Hotor Skills 54 (1982): 1123-134.

PAGE 132

194 Dubno, Peter, et al. "An Empirically Keyed Scale for Measuring Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives." Psychology of Women Quarterly 3 (1979): 357-64 Eakins, Barbara Westbrook, and R. Gene Eakins. sex Differences in Human Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978. Filley, Alan c. Interpersonal conflict Resolution. Glenview: scott, Foresman and Company, 1975. Fischer, B. A. Small Group Decision Raking. New York: McGrawHill, 1980. Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne, and Arthur Bochner. "Perspectives on Self and Others: Male-Female Differences in Perceptions of communication Behavior." Sex Roles 7 (1981): 523-35. Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne, and Jeff Winke. "You Always Hurt the One You Love: Strategies and Tactics in Interpersonal Conflict." communicatioa Quarterly 27 (1979): 3-11. Frodi, Ann. "Sex Differences in Perception of a Provocation, A survey." Perceptual and Hotor Skills 44 (1977): 113-14. Frodi, Ann, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Pauline Ropert Thome. "Are Women Always Less Aggressive Than Men? A Review of the Experimental Literature." Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 634-60. Greene, Les R., Thomas L. Morrison, and Nancy G. Tischler. "Gender and Authority-Effects on Perceptions of Small Group co-Leaders." Small Group Behavior 12 (1981): 401-13. Guenther, R. w., and s. Taylor. "Physical Aggression as a Function of Racial Prejudice and the Race of the Target." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27 (1973): 207-10. Harlow,Harry F., James L. McGaugh, and Richard F. Thompson. Psychology san Francisco: Albion, 1971. Hastorf, Albert, David Schneider, and Judith Poleka. Person Perception. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Helmich, D. "Male and Female Presidents: Some Implications of Leadership Style." Human Resource Nanagement 13 (1974): 25-26. Helwig, Jane, ed. SAS Introductory Guide Revised Edition Cary: SAS Institute, 1983.

PAGE 133

Hokanson, J. E., K. R. Willers, and E. Koropsak. "The Modification of Autonomic Responses During Aggressive Interchange." Journal of Personality 36 (1968): 386-404. Horwitz, Allan v. "Sex-Role Expectations, Power, and Psychological Distress." Sex Roles 8 (1982): 607-23. Izard, c. E. Patterns of Emotions. New York: Academic Press, 1972. 195 Jacobson, Marsha B., et al. "Women as Authority Figures: The Use and Nonuse of Authority." Sex Roles 3 (1977): 365-75. Kagan, Jerome. "The Acquisition and Significance of sex Typing and sex Role Identity." Review of Child Development Research. Ed. M. L. Hoffman and L. w Hoffman. New York: Russell sage, 1964. Kanekar, suresh, et al. "Perception of an Aggressor and a Victim of Aggression as a Function of Sex and Retaliation." Journal of Social Psychology 114 (1981): 139-40. Karre, Idahlynn. "Stereotyped Sex Roles and Self-Concept: Strategies for Liberating the Sexes." Communication Education 25 (1976): 43-52. Larwood, Laurie, and Marlaine Lockheed. "Women as Managers: Toward Second Generation Research." sex Roles 5 (1979): 659-66. Loring, R., and T. Wells. Breakthrough in Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972. Lorr, M., and D. M. McNair. "Expansion of the Interpersonal Behavior Circle." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2 (1965): 823-30. Lowery, carol R., c. R. Snyder, and Nancy w. Denney. "Perceived Aggression and Predicted counteraggression as a Function of Sex of Dyad Participants: When Males and Females Exchange Verbal Blows." sex Roles 2 (1976): 339-46. Maccoby, Eleanor E., and carol Nagy Jacklin. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. Massengill, Douglas, and Nicholas Di Marco. "Sex-Role stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics: A current Replication." Sex Roles 5 (1979): 561-570. McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Manager. New York: McGrawHill, 1967.

PAGE 134

Meeker, B. F. and P. A. Wei tzel-0" Neill. "sex Roles and Interpersonal Behavior in Task-Oriented Groups." American Sociological Review 42 (1977): 91-105. 196 Miner, J. "Motivation to Manage Among Women: Studies of Business Managers and Educational Administrators." Journal of Vocational Behavior 5 (1974): 197-208. Montgomery, Barbara M., and Robert w. Norton. "Sex Differences and Similarities in Communicator Style." Communication Honographs 48, (1981): 121-32. Norton, Robert w. "Foundation of a Communicator Style Construct." Human Communication Research 4 (1978): 99-112. O"Donnell, Victoria, and June Kable. Persuasion An InteractiveDependency Approach. New York: Random House, 1982. O"Leary, Virginia E. "Some Attitudinal Barriers to occupational Aspirations in Women. Psychological Bulletin 81 (1974): 809-26. Olejnik, Anthony B., Brigette Tompkins, and Claudia.Heinbuck. "Sex Differences, Sex-Role Orientation, and Reward Allocations." Sex Roles 8 (1982): 711-19. Peters, H., R. Terborg, and J. Taynor. "Women as Managers Scale (WAMS): A Measure of Attitudes Toward Women in Management Positions." JSAS catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 4.27 (1974), Ms. No. 585. Phelps, Stanlee, and Nancy Austin. The Assertive Woman. San Luis Obispo: Impact, 1975. Porter, Natalie, Florence Geis, and Joyce Jennings (Walstedt). "Are Women Invisible as Leaders?" Sex Roles 9 (1983): 103549. Richardson, Deborah, Anne Vinsel, and Stuart P. Taylor. "Female Aggression as a Function of Attitudes Toward Women." Sex Roles 6 (1980): 265-71. Rohner, Ronald. "Sex Differences in Aggression: Phylogenetic and Enculturation Perspectives." Ethos 4 (1976): 57-72. Rosen, Benson, and Thomas H. Jerdee. "The Influence of Sex-Role Stereotypes on Evaluations of Male and Female Supervisory Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 44-48. "Effects of Applicant"s sex and Difficulty of Job on Evaluations of candidates for Managerial Positions." Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 511-12.

PAGE 135

197 "Influence of Sex Role Stereotypes on Personnel Decisions." Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 9-14. "Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite." Harvard Business Review March-April (1974): 45-58. "Effects of Employee"s Sex and Threatening Versus Pleading Appeals on Managerial Evaluations of Grievances." Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 442-45. "Perceived sex Differences in Managerially Relevant Characteristics." sex Roles 4 (1978): 837-42. Rosenkrantz, P. s., et al. "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Self concepts in College Students." Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology 32 (1968): 287-95. Ruble, Thomas L. "Sex Stereotypes: Issues of Changes in the 1970s." sex Roles 9 (1983): 397-402. Schein, Virginia Ellen. "The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics." Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100. "Relationships Between sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Among Female Managers." Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975): 340-44. Schmitt, N. and M. Lappin. "Race and Sex as Determinants of the Mean and Variance of Performance Ratings." Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (1980): 428-35. Siegel, s. M. "The Relationship of Hostility to Authoritarianism." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52 (1956): 368-72. Siegherdt, Gail A. "Communication Profiles for Organizational communication Behavior: Are Men and Women Different?" Women"s Studies in Communication 6 ( 1983): 46-57. Spence, Janet T., and Robert Helrnreich. "The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An Objective Instrument to Measure Attitudes Toward the Rights and Roles of Women in Contemporary Society." JSAS catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 2. 66 (1972). Spence, Janet T., Robert Helrnreich, and Joy Stapp. "Ratings of Self and Peers on Sex Attributes and their Relation to Self Esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Femininity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975): 29-39.

PAGE 136

198 Stitt, Christopher, et al. "Sex of Leader, Leader Behavior, and Subordinate Satisfaction." Sex Roles 9 (1983): 31-42. Taylor, stuart P., and Seymour Epstein. "Aggression as a Function of the Interaction of the Sex of the Aggressor and the Sex of the Victim." Journal of Personality 39 (1967): 474-86. Taylor, Stuart P., and Ian Smith. "Aggression as a Function of Sex of Victim and Male Subject's Attitude Toward Women." Psychological Reports 35 (1974): 1095-98. Tedeschi, James T., R. Bob Smith, III, and Robert c. Brown, Jr. "A Reinterpretation of Research on Aggression." Psychological Bulletin 81 (1974): 540-62. Terborg, James R. "Women in Management: A Research Review." Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977): 647-64. Towson, Shelagh M., and Mark P. Zanna. "Toward a Situational Analysis of Gender Differences in Aggression." Sex Roles 8 (1982): 903-14. Wahrman, Ralph, and M. b. Pugh. "Sex, Nonconformi.ty, and Influence." Sociometry 38 (1974): 137-47. Wenar, Charles. Adulthood. Personality Development: From Infancy to Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971. wexley, Kenneth N., and Elaine Pulakos. "Sex Effects on Performance Ratings in Manager-Subordinate Dyads." Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 433-39. Woods, Marion M. "What does.it Take for a woman to Make it in Management?" Personnel Journal 54 (1975): 38-41. Wyer, Jr., Roberts., Donald A. Weatherly, and Glenn Terrell. "Social Role, Aggression, and Academic Achievement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (1965): 645-49. Yamada, Elaine M., Dean Tjosvold, and Juris D. Draguns. "Effects of Sex-Linked Situations and sex composition on Cooperation and Style of Interaction." sex Roles 9 (1983): 541-53. Young, David M., et al. "Is Chivalry Dead?" Journal of communication 25 (1975): 57-64. Zillman, Dolf. Hostility and Aggression. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979.

PAGE 137

APPENDIX A Pilot Study Dialog A and QUestionnaire A Corporate Setting After an unexpectedly lucrative third quarter, the department is invited by the vice-president, for cocktails Wednesday evening at an exclusive restaurant overlooking the city. To everyone's surprise, the president, executive vice-president, and several board members have flown in from company headquarters to thank the company's top salespeople. At work the next day, this conversation between Jack Manfred and Bob Ferguson, the department's top two salespeople, is overheard by their supervisor who happens to be in the adjoining office. After nine years of hard work, Jack has earned an excellent reputation at this location for planning and executing successful marketing strategies. Jack and Bob are both aware that only one of them will move ahead to a managerial position opening up next month. Jack: Bob: Jack: Bob: Jack: Well, I finally got your number. I should have known all along the kind of games you'd play to get that promotion. I don't understand. Look stupid, don't give me that innocent act. I saw you last night rubbing elbows with all the big shots. Then this morning I heard that you took all the credit for landing that Fitzsimmons' account when you know darned well that we both worked to get them to sign that $250,000.00 contract with us. It's not like that Jack. So maybe I said that I was the key to landing the Fitzsimmons account. I didn't deny you had anything to do with it. In all the excitement, I guess I just forgot to mention your name. Besides, I was the one who was actually there when old Fitzsimmons signed the papers. You were out of town, right? I can't believe you're doing this to me. I was the one who agreed to let you work with me on that account. You'd have to be pretty low to try and do what you're doing to me. You just want to make sure they all know your name so when promotions come up they know who to pick, right?

PAGE 138

Bob: No need to get all upset Jack. I/m sure they/11 pick the right person. Jack: Bob: Jack: Bob: Damn you Bob. I should have listened to what the others said about you. But no. I thought I/d give you a chance to prove otherwise. Jack, I think you/re overreacting a bit to all this. Now why don/t you just go back to your office and try to relax. I/m sure there are plenty of promotions available for everyone. Don/t patronize me, you jerk. I worked my butt off for weeks before you even heard the name Fitzsimmons. I need this promotion and I/m going to get it. There/s no way in hell I/11 let some conniving slime like you get that promotion over me. I don/t want to see your face around me, in or out of work, you got that? I don/t need scum like you around. Well, I/m sorry you feel that way. I thought we made a pretty good team. (Bob starts laughing as he walks away.)

PAGE 139

With reference to t he passage you just read, complete the questions below. 201 1) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not angry at all" and 5 being "very angry" indicate how angry with each other the two main people are in this situation. 1 2 3 4 5 not angry at all very angry 2) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "no anger" and 5 being "much anger", indicate the extent to which this situation generated anger in you. l ........... 2 3 4 ........... s no anger at all much anger Aggressive describes behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. Assertive describes behavior that allows a person to express honest feelings comfortably and directly while respecting the feelings and rights of others. Passive describes behavior that allows a person to act submissively, letting others make decisions for them; acting helpless, powerless, inhiDited, and showing little selfconfidence. Refer to the aDove statements when completing the next questions. 3) Jack's Dehavior can De considered 1 ....... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 aggressive assertive passive 4) Bob's behavior can be considered l ........... 2 3 4 5 aggressive assertive passive

PAGE 140

Personal information: 5) Indicate age: [ ] 16-20 ] 31-35 [ ] 21-25 J 36-40 [ J 26-30 J 41-45 6) Indicate sex: [ ] M 7) Indicate job level: [ J F ] J ] 46-50 51-55 56-60 ] 61-65 ] 66-70 ] 71-75 [ ]supervisor [ ]supervised employee [ ]other -please indicate 202

PAGE 141

APPENDIX B Pilot study Dialog B and Questionnaire A corporate Setting supervisor s. Martin has been in the process of considering and recommending for promotion, the top employee of the group, Betsy Brown. Betsy has been with the company nine years and progressed steadily, challenging and mastering each job level. Betsy's use of her technical expertise to successfully identify and analyze potential problem areas, has contributed to her fast growth toward a managerial position. Betsy and a colleague, Nancy Jeffreys -also a hardworker, have been assigned a priority project that must be completed by the end of next week. Unknown to Betsy or Nancy, their supervisor happens to be in the adjoining office and overhears their conversation. Nancy: Betsy, I think if we collect all the data we can this weekend or by Monday afternoon'at the latest, we should have enough time to do the tabulations and get the report written by Friday Betsy: Look, are you a jerk or what? I'm not working this weekend and neither.are you. I've already got all the data we need. I don't know why you were even assigned to this project unless someone wants you to learn how an expert operates around here. Nancy: Well we're both assigned to this project and we're going to have to work together to meet the deadline next week. I'm not that familiar with some of these project outlines. Since you already know all this stuff I was hoping you could get me started. I need to see the data you have, too. Betsy: You think I'm going to let a scatterbrain like you near this data? Especially after you destroyed the Winston account? People around here are still talking about that one and it's been what? Two years now? You just can't seem to get into the swing of things around here, can you? This project is just what I need to clinch that promotion and I don't need some nut like you screwing it up for me. So, I'll do the tabulations and get the report ready. You

PAGE 142

204 can spend the weekend playing tennis and next week you'll have a lot of free time to screw around like you usually do. Nancy: Hey, wait a minute Betsy, we were both given this assignment and we have to work together to do a really good job. I was looking forward to this assignment. That Winston account wasn't even my fault. Betsy: Take a hike, stupid. You're not getting near this project. Nancy: I think Betsy: (interrupting Nancy) Get lost Nancy. can't you get it through your thick skull? I have all the data I need and I'm putting the report together. Nancy: Well, what should I say when the boss asks how the report is coming? Betsy: Tell the truth Nancy that you just couldn't handle the work.

PAGE 143

With reference to the passage you just read, complete the questions below. 205 1) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not angt:y at all" and 5 being "very angry" indicate how angry with each other the two main people are in this situation. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 ........... 5 not angry at all very angry 2) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "no anger" and 5 being "much anger", indicate the extent to which this situation generated anger in you. 1 .......... 2 3 ........... 4 ........... 5 no anger at all much anger Aggressive describes behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. Assertive describes behavior that allows a person to express honest feelings comfortably and directly while respecting the feelings and rights of others. Passive describes behavior that allows a person to act submissively, letting others make decisions for them; acting helpless, powerless, inhibited, and showing little selfconfidence. Refer to the above statements when completing the next questions. 3) Betsy/s behavior can be considered 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ........... 4 .......... 5 aggressive assertive passive 4) Nancy/s behavior can be considered 1 ........ 2 ..... .. 3 ......... 4 ........... 5 aggressive assertive passive

PAGE 144

206 Personal information: 5) Indicate age: [ ) 16-20 ) 31-35 ) 46-50 ) 61-65 [ ) 21-25 ) 36-40 ) 51-55 J 66-70 [ ) 26-30 ] 41-45 ] 56-60 ] 71-75 6) Indicate sex: [ ] M [ ] F 7) Indicate job level: ]supervisor [ ]supervised employee [ ]other -please indicate

PAGE 145

APPENDIX C cover Letter Example has agreed to participate in a study of organizational behavior is being conducted by Dr. J. A. Winterton at the University of Colorado at Denver. When the study is completed, he/she will receive a copy of the results which will then be made available to any interested employee. Attached you will find a brief account of a dialog between two employees; this is followed by a series of questions. We do not request your name on this form; we only request that you respond honestly and thoughtfully. The completed questionnaires will be reviewed only by the graduate students working on the study. Please read over the dialog, then answer the questions that follow. You may refer back to the dialog as often as necessary. It should take minutes to complete this exercise. When finished, use the envelope provided to return the questionnaire to me. Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire and returning it by October 22 would be greatly appreciated.** The name of the person who had agreed to assist me with the study appeared in blank. ** The secretary of the person assisting with the study, signed the letter.

PAGE 146

APPENDIX D. Study Dialog and Questionnaire A COrporate Setting At a large computer manufacturing and software company, supervisor s. Martin has been in the process of considering and recommending for promotion, the top employee of the group, Bill Brown. Bill has been with the company nine years and progressed steadily, challenging and mastering each job level. Bill's use of his technical expertise to successfully identify and analyze potential problem areas, has contributed to his fast growth toward a managerial position. Bill and a colleague, Mike Jeffreys --also a hardworker, have been assigned a priority project that must be completed by the end of next week. Unknown to Bill or Mike, their supervisor happens to be in the adjoining office and overhears their conversation. Mike: Bill: Mike: Bill: Bill, I think if we collect all the data we can this weekend or by Monday afternoon at the latest, we should have enough time to do the tabulations and get the report written by Friday. Look, are you a jerk or what? I'm not working this weekend and neither are you. I've already got all the data we need. I don't know why you were even.assigned to this project unless someone wants you to learn how an expert operates around here. Well we're both assigned to this project and we're going to have to work together to meet the deadline next week. I'm not that familiar with some of these project outlines. Since you already know all this stuff I was hoping you could get me started. I need to see the data you have, too. You think I'm going to let a scatterbrain like you near this data? Especially after you destroyed the Winston account? People around here are still talking about that one and it's been what? Two years now? You just can't seem to get into the swing of things around here, can you? This project is just what I need to clinch that promotion and I don't need some nut like you screwing it up for me. Besides, I'm the one who has a family to support not you. So, I'll do the tabulations and get the report ready. You can spend the weekend playing tennis and next

PAGE 147

Mike: Bill: Mike: Bill: Mike: Bill: 209 week you'll have a lot of free time to screw around like you usually do. Hey, wait a minute Bill, we were both given this assignment and we have to work together to do a really good job. I was looking forward to this assignment. That Winston account wasn't even my fault. Take a hike, stupid. You're not getting near this project. I think (interrupting Mike) Get lost Mike. can't you get it through your thick skull? I have all the data I need and I'm putting the report together. Well, what should I say when the boss asks how the report is corning? Tell the truth Mike that you just couldn't handle the work.

PAGE 148

210 With reference to the passage you just read, try and put yourself in their supervisor/s position while completing the following questions. I. Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree With the adjectives listed below as being descriptive of Bill/s managerial potential. 1) Ambitious l .......... 2 3 ........... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree mildly agree 2) Analytical ability undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree l 2 3 4 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided 3) Aware of feelings of others mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree 4) Cheerful mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 ........... 3 ......... 4 .......... 5 strongly agree 5) competitive mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........... 2 3 ........... 4 ......... 5 strongly agree 6) Consistent mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree 7) Creative mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 2 3 .......... 4 ........... s strongly agree mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree

PAGE 149

211 B) Desires responsibility strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ......... 3 ............ 4 ......... 5 mildly agree undecided 9) Emotionally stable mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 3 4 ........... s mildly agree undecided 10) Forceful mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ......... 4 .......... s mildly agree undecided 11) Helpful mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 2 3 4 .. s mildly agree undecided 12) Humanitarian values mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ..... -..... 4 ........... s mildly agree undecided 13) Intuitive mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 .......... 5 mildly agree undecided 14) Leadership ability mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ... ....... 3 ....... .... 4 ........... 5 mildly agree undecided 15) Logical mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 .......... 2 3 ......... 4 ........... 5 mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree

PAGE 150

212 16) Modest strongly agree l ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ......... s mildly agree undecided 17) No desire for friendship mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 3 ........... 4 .......... s mildly agree undecided 18) Objective mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ... 3 .......... 4 .......... s mildly agree undecided 19) Self-confident mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree l ........... 2 . 3 4 5 mildly agree undecided 20) Sophisticated mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ....... .... 2 3 .......... 4 ........ 5 mildly agree undecided 21) Steady mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree l. .. 2 3 4 5 mildly agree 22) Well-informed undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ......... 2 3 ........... 4 ....... 5 mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree II. Indicate in the blank to the right of each phrase the person, either Bill or Mike, that is best described by that phrase. 1) is good at detail work 2) understands "big picture" of organization

PAGE 151

3) sizes up situations accurately 4) enjoys doing routine tasks 5) sets long range goals and works toward them 6) stands up under fire 7) is too emotional about their job B) wants to get ahead 9) is sensitive to criticism 10) understands financial matters ll) is home-oriented rather than job-oriented 213 III. Read the statements below then complete the next questions. Aggressive describes behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. Assertive describes behavior that allows a person to express honest feelings comfortably and directly while respecting the feelings and rights of others. Passive describes behavior that allows a person to act submissively, letting others make decisions for them; acting helpless, powerless, inhibited, and showing little selfconfidence. 1) Bill's behavior can be considered l ........... 2 3 ......... 4 ........ 5 aggressive assertive passive 2) Mike's behavior can be considered l ........... 2 3 ........... 4 .......... 5 aggressive assertive passive

PAGE 152

214 IV. As a supervisor, write out how you would feel if these were actually your own employees you'd overheard. Indicate how you would react or what action, if any, you would take. v. Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. 1) Women have more difficulties than men in being objective about a job situation. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 .......... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree 2) With reference to the passage you have read, this supervisor should not consider the information overheard when evaluating the employee's work abilities. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ........ 4 ........ s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree 3) A man is better suited for handling executive responsibility than a woman is. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree 4) Men are better technical problem solvers, while women are better at solving personnel or staff related issues. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 .......... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree

PAGE 153

215 5) Females have the capabilities for responsible managerial positions. 1 2 3 4 s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree 6) A supervisor is morally obligated to consider the information overheard when evaluating an employee/s work ability. 7) 1 2 3 4 5 strongly mildly undecided mildly strongly disagree disagree agree agree Aggressiveness and drive are valuable managerial traits. l 2 3 4 s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree

PAGE 154

VI. Personal information: 1) Indicate age: [ ] 16-20 [ ] 21-25 [ ] 26-30 ] 31-35 ] 36-40 ] 41-45 2) Indicate sex: [ ] M 3) Indicate job level: [ ] F 46-50 51-55 56-60 ] 61-65 ] 66-70 ] 71-75 [ ] top management (ex: executive director and above) ] middle management (ex: director, department head) ] line management (ex: group supervisor, supervisor) ] supervised employee ] other indicate ------------------------------------4) Years at current job level ----------5) Years with the current company 216

PAGE 155

APPENDIX E successful Manager Questionnaire I. Rate the extent to Which you agree or disagree with the adjectives listed below as being descriptive of a successful manager. 1.) Aggressive 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 2) Ambitious mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........... 2 .......... !.3 ........... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree mildly agree 3) Analytical ability undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........... 2 ......... 3 .......... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided 4) Aware of feelings of others mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree 5) Cheerful mi.ldly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ...... 2 3 ....... 4 ..... s strongly agree 6) Competitive mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree l ........... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4 .......... 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree

PAGE 156

218 7) Consistent 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 ........... 5 strongly agree 8) Creative mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1. ..... 2 ....... 3 ........... 4 ....... s strongly agree mildly agree 9) Desires responsibility undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 .......... s strongly agree mildly agree 10) Emotionally stable undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 strongly agree 11). Forceful mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 .......... s strongly agree 12) Helpful mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 .......... s strongly agree mildly agree 13) Humanitarian values undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ........ .. 2 .......... ......... 4 .......... 5 strongly agree 14) Intuitive mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ....... 2 ... 3 ....... 4 ...... 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree

PAGE 157

219 15) Leadership ability 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 ........... 4 ........... s strongly agree 16) Logical mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 ......... 4 ......... 5 strongly agree 17) Modest mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ......... 2 ...... ...... 3. ....... 4 .......... 5 strongly agree mildly agree 18) No desire for friendship undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 ..... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ..... 5 strongly agree 19) Objective mildly agree undecided mildlY disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 ....... 3 ........... 4 .......... s strongly agree 20) Self-confident mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree l ......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 .......... 5 strongly agree 21) Sophisticated mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree l ........ 2." ....... 3 ......... 4 .......... s strongly agree 22) Steady mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 .. ...... 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree

PAGE 158

220 23) Well-informed 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ............ 5 strongly agree mildly agree undecided mildly disagree strongly disagree II. Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the phrases listed below as being descriptive of a successful manager. 1) is good at detail work l. 2 3 4 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree 2) understands "big picture" of.organization strongly agree 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 .......... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided 3) sizes up situations accurately mildly agree strongly agree 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 ............ 4 .......... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree 4) enjoys doing routine tasks undecided mildly agree strongly agree 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 ......... 4 ........... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree 5) sets long range goals and works toward them strongly agree 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 .......... .5 strongly disagree mildly disagree 6) stands up under fire undecided mildly agree strongly agree 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 .......... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree

PAGE 159

221 7) is too emotional about their job 1 2 3 4 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree B) wants to get ahead undecided mildly agree strongly agree 1 2 ... 3 4 .. 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree 9) is sensitive to criticism undecided mildly .agree strongly agree 1 2 3 4 ........... 5 strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided 10) understands financial matters mildly agree strongly agree 1 ..... ... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 .......... s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree 11) is home-oriented rather than job-oriented strongly agree 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 ......... 4 .......... s strongly disagree mildly disagree undecided mildly agree strongly agree

PAGE 160

III. Personal Information 1) Indicate age [ J 16-20. [ J 21-25 [ J 26-30 J 31-35 J 36-40 J 41-45 2) Indicate sex: [ ] M 3) Indicate job level: ( J F J 46-50 ] 51-55 ] 56-60 ] 61-65 ] 1:!6-70 ] 71-75 [ ] top management (ex: executive director and above) ] middle management (ex: director, department head) ] line management (ex: supervisor, group supervisor) [ ] supervised employee [ ] other *please indicate -------------------------4) Years at current job level --------5) Years with the current company --------222

PAGE 162

76 toward a more aggressive woman than a woman showing less aggression. Taylor and Epstein do not analyze subjects' traditional or liberal views toward women. However, Taylor raises the issue of whether or not "ungentlemanly" behavior might be the reason why females react more aggressively (more intensive shock settings) when provoked by males than when provoked by females. Male subjects react aggressively to other male opponents and unaggressively to their female opponents. Frodi points out that many studies measuring "aggressive" behavior as a response to provocation, might not in actuality have measured aggressive behavior. Subjects could vary as to what behavior each individual labeled as a provocation. This would then in turn be reflected in the "aggressive" measure. As an attempt to resolve this dilemma, Frodi surveyed male and female subjects to determine the behaviors the subjects' felt were the most anger provoking behaviors. Frodi finds that for males, the most anger provoking behavior is physical aggression from males and condescending treatment from females. For females, the most anger provoking behavior is condescending behavior from males or females. As noted in the current study's methodology section, the current study uses condescending behavior as a method of provoking anger and determining perceptions of aggressive behavior. Kanekar et al. examine aggressive behavior as a measure of retaliatory behavior. When a male is aggressive toward a female, the female is evaluated negatively. When a female is aggressive toward a male, the male is perceived as lower on morality and

PAGE 163

adjustment than a male recipient of male aggression. This study illustrates that the same behavior is perceived differently: attributions of aggressive behavior vary according to whether or not the subject, source of the behavior, and recipient of the behavior, is male or female. 77 Other studies measure aggression as a score from various self-report scales. In this manner, Driscoll (1982) determines that persons rated high in aggression perceived more negative reactions, greater injury, and make a greater distinction between instigator and victim, than those scoring low in aggression. Wyer et al. measure tendencies to be aggressive, by scores on a selfreport scale. These scores also indicate guilt over aggressive acts. Scores are related to academic achievement. Males show a tendency to commit more aggressive acts and have less guilt over committing these acts. These males also have high academic effectiveness scores. Females, however, having high academic effectiveness scoresi are low in direct aggressive expression and high in guilt over acting aggressively. Wyer et al. suggest that for males dominance and aggression have taken on a positive value in the academic setting. In the business world, males continue to use and view dominance and aggression as a of displaying job effectiveness, showing little or no guilt over accepted behaviors. Due to guilt feelings over acting dominant and aggressive, and a low tendency to act aggressive, females may lose out at promotion time. Aithough bright and a hard worker, a female displaying the same behaviors that had previously won her high academic praise,

PAGE 164

78 may now find herself being passed by. Borden views aggression as dependent on the situation in which the aggression occurs. While measuring aggression as intensity of electric shock, results indicate that subtle characteristics of a situation influence the amount of displayed male aggression. Male subjects display less aggression when observed by a female than when observed by a male. Towson and Zanna also found that aggressive behavior and amount of aggressive behavior is sanctioned differently: depending on the situation. Males and females perceive gender congruent situations as more important and recommend more aggressive responses than in gender incongruent situations. Aggressive responses are grouped as: physical (pushing, verbal (yelling, name indirect (downgrading a person in front of and, appealing to authority (turn person in for punishment to proper authority). Lowery et al. also view aggression as dependent on the situation. Aggression is seenas verbal behavior such as degrading and insulting remarks. There are no differences in subjects' perceptions of aggression in a situation between a male insulting a male and a male insulting a female. But a female insulting another female is perceived as more aggressive than a female who insults a male. Driscoll (1981) measures verbal aggression as name-callin. g and had subjects rate "names" in terms of the amount of anger and aggression the subject would feel if the subject had been called this "name". Differences are noted as some names make females more angry than males and vice versa.

PAGE 165

79 Burgoon et al. view aggression as the use of highly intense "statements using threat and aversive stimulation." Their results indicate that males are expected to use aggressive persuasive strategies. Females using the same aggressive persuasive strategies are perceived as less effective than if they use more sex appropriate strategies such as altruism and moral appeals. Rosen and Jerdee refer to aggressive behavior as threatening statements such as, "I insist", "I demand", or "I expect." Males using a polite pleading appeal and an aggressive threatening appeal are well received by managers. Females using an aggressive threatening approach are also well received; however, the. females using a polite pleading appeal are not viewed well at all. Burgoon et al. suggest that women conforming to a female sex stereotype by using a polite pleading appeal, may be doing themselves greater harm than good. Tedeschi, Brown, and Smith argue "that there is no functional unity to the set of responses labeled by experimenters as aggressive and that definitions of aggression often depend on the implicit value judgments of the experimenter rather than the character of the response {or its outcomes or effects)."141 They continue, "much of the confusion regarding the concept of aggression stems from th'e failure to discriminate the behaviors of 141. James T. Tedeschi, R. Bob Smith, III, and Robert c. Brown, Jr, "A Reinterpretation of Research on Aggression," Psychological Bulletin 81 (1974): 540-62. See p. 540.

PAGE 166

80 the subject studied from the interferences and evaluations of observers."142 "It is important to recognize the difference between the behavior of an actor and the labeling of that behavior by observers."143 As noted in the studies reviewed in this survey, there have been different definitions of aggression and many different methods of measuring aggression. In the current study, aggressive behavior describes behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. Anger is defined as a hostile emotion which may stem from frustration or from feeling used and/or put down.144 The current study uses a pilot study to insure subjects' perceptions of others' behavior are those of anger and are described as aggressive (versus assertive or passive). These results are then used to confirm the labeling of "aggressive" behavior in the study at hand. Not only are there many definitions of aggression, but there are many results and conclusions. A female using aggressive persuasive strategies, is less effective in one study while positively viewed in another study. Females are more aggressive when provoked by males than by females. Liberal males react more 142. Ibid. 143. Ibid., p. 559. 144. Stanlee Phelps and Nancy Austin, The Assertive Woman (San Luis Obispo: Impact, 1975) 121.

PAGE 167

81 aggressively toward aggressive females than toward nonaggressive fema+es; liberal males are more aggressive than traditional males. Liberal females are less aggressive toward liberal and traditional males than the traditional females are. Females high in academic effectiveness, are also found to be high in guilt over committing aggressive acts and low in tendencies to commit those acts. These results indicate that sex differences do exist in determinants of aggressive behavior, in perceptions of aggressive behavior, and in reactions to aggressive behavior. The current research attempts to study sex differences in perceptions of aggressive behavior, viewing aggressive behavior as a necessary managerial characteristic. Sex Differences in Managerial Characteristics This section reviews studies involving stereotypes, sex differences and management communication, and managerial characteristics. The intent of these reviews is to illustrate: differing perceptions of male/female communication behavior in the workplace; male/female stereotyping Which hinders females while promoting males in the organization; managerial characteristics which coincide more with male characteristics than female_ characteristics; and, the importance of aggression as a managerial characteristic. Sex Stereotypes in the Workplace O'Leary provides a review of the literature regarding attitudinal barriers which affect women from being viewed as

PAGE 168

82 promotable. Barriers are external such as others/ stereotyped concepts of women, and internal such as fear of failure or role conflict. 0/Leary has divided the review into the following categories: male promoters/ attitudes toward women in management; the male managerial model; myths regarding competence and commitment; societal sex role stereotypes; self-concept; role conflict; lack of nontraditional role models; achievement motivation; fear of failure; and motive to avoid success.145 Male promoters/ attitudes which can adversely affect women include: "women are given preferential treatment and premature advancement due to the influence of "pressure groups"; the employment of women jeopardizes the institution of the family; and, women are less able to cope with crises than men."146 Examples of myths concerning women and competence are: "women would not work if economic reasons did not force them into the labor market; women are more content than men with intellectually undemanding jobs; and, women are less concerned with getting ahead."14' 0/Leary quotes McGregor/s (1957) managerial model,146 145. Virginia E. 0/Leary, "Some Attitudinal Barriers to Occupational Aspirations," Psychological Bulletin" 81 ( 1974): 809-25. 145. Ibid., p. 810. 147. Ibid., p. 812. 148. O'Leary cites from D. McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957) 23.

PAGE 169

The model of a successful manager in our culture is a masculine one. The good manager is aggressive, competitive, firm and just. He is not feminine, he is not soft and yielding or dependent or intuitive in the womanly sense. The very expression of emotion is widely viewed as a feminine weakness that would interfere with effective business processes. Loring and Wells described the managerial model stating that men 83 have to be tough, strong, and even use violence when necessary to get the job done; feminine behavior must be repressed.149 Studies O'Leary reviewed also illustrate "that female respondents share men's bias against the recognition of competence in women, generate the same sex role stereotypic profiles as their male counterparts, and endorse the ascription of more positively valued traits to men."150 This article is relevant to the current study because it provides research concerning attitudes and perceptions (internal and external) which to some degree affect female managerial behavior. O'Leary notes that "women are caught in a double bind, unable to optimally fulfill the role requirements for the more socially desirable achieving individual [male] and those .for the ideal woman simultaneously."151 O'Leary concludes with a recommendation that development programs designed for women include training procedures for minimizing attitudinal barriers. 149. O'Leary cites from R. Loring and T. Wells, Breakthrough: Women in Management (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972). 150. Ibid., p. 814. 151. Ibid., p. 815.

PAGE 170

84 Terborg reviewed management research concerning "the entry of women into business and factors influencing the socialization of women once they have gained entry."152 "Discrimination at each entry level refers to non-job-related limitations placed on an identifiable subgroup at the time a position is filled."153 Examples of this type of discrimination are: "failure to recruit subgroup applicants and offering "lower starting salaries."154 Socialization refers to the new employee learning about and fitting into the organization. Various-studies indicate "that if a newcomer is different from the group on sex or race, the newcomer will be viewed as a "solo" or "token" by the group."155 This differentness excludes the "newcomer from formal and informal work contacts, and elicits extreme evaluations, in either direction, from group members."156 Subtle forms of exclusion can deny a woman employee the necessary information needed to demonstrate her skills and managerial abilities. When promotion time comes, she will be justifiably passed by because she indeed has not demonstrated the necessary abilities and has not acquired 152. James R. Terborg, "Women in Management: A Research Review," Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977): 647-64. 153. Ibid., p. 649. 154. Ibid. 155. Ibid., p. 652. 156. Ibid.

PAGE 171

85 the necessary knowledge. Terborg suggests that some studies' differing results may not be solely explained by sex stereotypes. In the organization, males honestly may view women as not managerial material because these women have not been socialized into the organization and have not acquired the needed knowledge. Therefore, these women are not perceived to be the same as others (the majority) in the organization and deserving of the same promotions. Rosen and Jerdee investigate how sex role stereotypes influence evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior.157 They view sex role stereotypes as "perceptions of what is appropriate behavior for males and females."156 It is hypothesized that evaluations of supervisor's potential effectiveness would be "higher for male supervisors because culturally expected "female" behavior would be viewed as conflicting with role demands for supervisors."159 The second hypothesis is that there would be an interaction effect between sex of supervisor and supervisory style (reward, friendly-dependent, threat, and helping styles). It is predicted that sex of subject and status of subject (student or bank supervisor) would not influence the evaluations. 157. Benson Rosen and Thomas Jerdee, "The Influence of Sex-Role Stereotypes on Evaluations of Male and Female Supervisory Behavior," Journal of Appl.ied Psychology 57 ( 1973): 44-48. 158. Ibid., p. 44. 159. Ibid., p. 45.

PAGE 172

86 Subjects read one scenario describing an office situation involving a supervisor (male or female) and subordinates (males, females, or mixed sex group). Four examples (one for each supervisory style) of possible behavior describing how the supervisor could "maintain work standards among the clerical staff" are given. In the threat style, the supervisor tells the employee that if the person's work does not improve the person would be discharged. Subjects then evaluate these behaviors using semantic differential scales: good-bad, improper-proper, and ineffective-effective. Results indicate that male supervisors are evaluated generally higher than female supervisors, although this is not significant. There are some relationships established between sex of supervisor and supervisory style.160 A reward style was rated as more effective for male supervisors than for female supervisors, while a friendly-dependent style was rated as more effective for supervisors of either sex when used with subordinates of the opposite sex. The helping style is evaluated high for both sexes; threat is evaluated low for both sexes. While perceived differences between male and female supervisors using the threat style are not significant, they are in the predicted direction. The aggressive threatening style for a male supervisor is perceived slightly more favorably than for a female supervisor. There are no relationships established between sex of subject or status of 160. Ibid., p. 53.

PAGE 173

87. subject and the evaluations. This relationship is predicted "since the sex-role stereotypes are assumed to be quite pervasive in our culture."lsl Rosen and Jerdee1s2 state: The similarity of ratings made by subjects of both sexes provides evidence that men and women share common perceptions and expectations regarding what constitutes appropriate behavior for males and females in supervisory positions. In addition, the similarity between ratings of bankers.and college students suggests that these stereotypes may be quite widely held, at least in the white collar culture. Regarding future research, Rosen and Jerdee recommend, "more specific types of supervisory behavior where general expectancies are clearly defined for males and females, such as highly I emotional or personal behaviors, [which] probably would heighten the observed of sex role stereotypes".1s3 The current study using more specific types of behavior (aggression) on the part of the subordinates, predicts more pervasiveness of sex role stereotypes perceived in interactions between sex of subject and desired managerial behavior. In another study by Rosen and Jerdee, the influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions such as promotion, career development, supervision, and family demands are 161. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 163. Ibid. 164. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "Influence of Sex Role Stereotypes on Personnel Decisions," Journal of Applied

PAGE 174

88 Subjects were male bank managers attending a management seminar. They were asked to put themselves in "the role of the personnel director of a multibranch bank and to react to a series of items in memorandum or letter form."1ss Memoranda varied the sex of the subject and supervisor in the following four situations:1ss Promotion to branch manager: Sex of candidate and complexity of job were manipulated. Development: Choice of a male or female candidate to attend a conference -choose between an older, unpromotable female (male) and a younger, highly qualified male (female). Solution of a supervisory problem: Sex of supervisor, sex of subordinate, and nature of problem (poor performance vs. offensive personality) varied. The supervisor was deciding between terminating or transferring the employee. -Approval of for leave of absence: sex of employee was varied: a male or female accountant was requesting leave to take care of his/her children and it was impossible for his/her wife/husband to take on these responsibilities because of his/her own career obligations. Psychology 59 (1974): 9-14. 165. Ibid., p. 10. 166. Ibid.

PAGE 175

89 Results indicate that males were selected over females for promotion into complex and simple jobs. Subjects preferred to send the younger promotable employee rather than the older employee to the conference. However, 76% of the subjects recommended the younger male, while only 56% recommended the younger female. When there was a subordinate performance problem and the supervisor was male, subjects preferred termination rather than a transfer of the employee. When the supervisor was female, subjects preferred a transfer rather than termination of the employee. Results also indicate that it is significantly more appropriate for a female employee to request a leave of absence for child care rather than for the male employee to make this request. These results illustrate that "many women do not receive the organizational support that their male counterparts automatically experience"l 6 concerning promotion, career development, and supervision. However, the male stereotype of total job dedication seems to negatively affect the male employee requiring a leave of absence due to family demands. Most managers may feel they are unbiased when making decisions regarding their male and female employees. These results indicate that differential treatment does occur. 167. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite,"Harvard Business Review March-April (1974): 45-58. see p. 45.

PAGE 176

90 Dubno, Costas, cannon, Wankel, and Emin present the purpose of their research as demonstrating "an approach to scale development through the use of a projective test for item generation" by employing "a panel of women managers as "experts" to serve as Q-sorters for selecting the items"; and developing "a scale of practical research value in identifying organizational climates that are potentially hostile to the introduction of women into positions of executive responsibility."lse Likert type scales (from completely disagree to completely agree) were developed for the "Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives scale (MATWES)." By having a panel of experts review and categorize statements obtained from subjects in a thematic apperception test, researcher bias was eliminated. The validity of this scale was examined using another test, the WAMS ("Women as Managers scalei), which measures attitudes toward women as The MATWES was able to illustrate prejudice toward women executives. As subjects, Dubno et al. used 254 male and female students attending night school at a New York graduate school of business. The scale uses statements such as "women executives are ignorant when it 168. Peter Dubno, Hugh cannon, Charles Wankel, and Hussein Emin, "An Empirically Keyed Scale for Measuring Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives" Psychology of Women Quarterly 3 (1979): 357-64 Seep. 358. 169 Cited in Dubno et al. from H. Peters, R. Terborg, and J. Taynor, "Women as Managers scale (WAMS): A Measure of Attitudes toward Women in Management Positions," JSAS catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 4 (no. 27) (1974), MS. No. 585.

PAGE 177

91 comes to highly technical subjects" and "men like to impress women executives". Two statements from the MATWES appear in the current study/s questionnaire section that briefly looks at stereotypes. These statements are: "Females have the capabilities for responsible managerial positions," and "A man is better suited for handling executive responsibility than a woman is."1 0 Areas of future research concerning women as managers are suggested by Larwood and Lockheed.1 1 Research concerning discrimination, the importance of role models, sex role socialization, and managerial stereotypes should continue.172 Studies also should examine: the working conditions which enable women to succeed in nontraditional areas; conditions where both male and female managers organize their subordinates to work equally productively; how women can successfUlly utilize existing personnel and training programs available to all employees; longitudinal studies concerning the "effects on a woman/s career of employing a particular strategy for an extended period"173 of time; and, the characteristics and structure of organizations which demonstrate support of women employees. The main thrust of 170. Ibid., p. 360-61. 171. Laurie Larwood and Ma:tlaine Lockheed, "Women as Managers: Toward Second Generation Research," sex Roles 5 (1979): 659-66. 172. Ibid., p. 660. 173. Ibid., p. 662.

PAGE 178

92 these recommended areas of study is to help women achieve greater success and maintain their level of success throughout their organizational career. sex Differences and Management communication Baird, Jr., and Bradley conducted a descriptive study examining male and female style of management and communication.l'4 The study looks at subordinates' perceptions of male and female supervisor communicative behavior; relationships between male and female communicative behavior and employee morale; and relationships between male and female communicative behavior and employee ratings of their own job satisfaction. Baird, Jr. and Bradley wanted to "discover whether female managers enact a "male" role when they assume supervisory positions or provide a style of leadership which is somehow distinguishable from that typically enacted by males."l'5 Subjects were subordinates from three different organizations; they completed questionnaires created to determine "managerial communicative behavior and employee morale." Results indicate that females do not copy male supervisory behavior. Concerning communication content, females generally were perceived to give more information about other departments, to place greater emphasis upon happy 174. John Baird, Jr., and Patricia H. Bradley, "Styles of Management and Communication: A Comparative study of Men and Women," Communication Monographs 46 (1979): 101-11. 175. Ibid., p. 101.

PAGE 179

93 interpersonal relationships, to be more receptive to subordinates' ideas, and to be more encouraging of subordinates' efforts than were males."176 Concerning communication styles, subjects perceived male supervisors "to be more dominant, more directive, and quicker to challenge others than were female" supervisors.177 Baird, Jr. and Bradley's results indicated that males and females differ in communicative behaviors.17" Findings parallel differences obtained in earlier investigations, which found women to exceed men in monitoring employees, being concerned for employee morale, providing positive reactions, and exhibiting warmth, rewardingness, concern, affiliation, helpfulness, and sensitivity. nifferences between male and femaie managers' communicative behavior exist as perceived by their subordinates. However, as Baird, Jr. and Bradley point out, the differences in behavior do not indicate whether one style of management is more effective than the other style. "The nature and significance of communication sex differences acrosseleven different organizations," including hospitals, universities, a manufacturing plant, and a school district, were exarni:ned by s:iegherdt.179 The International 176. Ibid., p. 106. 177. Ibid. 178. Ibid., p.109. 179. Gail A. Siegherdt, "Communication Profiles for Organizational Communication Behavior: Are Men and Women Different?" Women's Studies in communication 6 (1983): 46-57.

PAGE 180

94 communication Association (ICA) "Communication Audit Survey Questionnaire" was administered to participating members in the organizations. The questionnaire is "designed to measure communication .behavior, perceptions, and practices of organization members."180 It groups items into eight categories: receiving information from others; sending information to others; sources of information; quality of information from sources; channels of communication; organizational communication relationships; and, organizational outcomes.181 statistical differences were found associating organizational communication responses and sex of the organizational member. In comparison to male subjects, female subjects "indicated they: (1) receive and send more information currently; (2) desire more job-specific information; (3) desire to send more information; (4) have less follow-up action taken [by others] on information sent; (5) receive mo.re information from boss and top management; (6) receive and want less information from subordinates and grapevine; (7) receive less excessive information; (8) rate quality of information from boss, subordinates, co-workers, and grapevine lower; (9) perceive less communication influence in the organization; and (10) find communication relationships with boss, co-workers, and subordinates less satisfactory."l82 Females 180. Ibid., p. 49. 181. Ibid. 182. Ibid., p. 52.

PAGE 181

95 generally are dissatisfied with quality and flow of communication in the organization. Using actual managers and subordinates as subjects, wexley and Pulakos examined managers/ ratings of their subordinates and subordinates/ ratings of their immediate managers as a function of sex (male-male, female-female, female-male, male-female). 183 Wexley and Pulakos attempted to evaluate Schmitt and Lappin/s (1980) hypothesis "that people rate those similar to themselves with more confidence, which is reflected in larger variances in performance ratings."184 The results of this descriptive study indicate that females, whether managers or subordinates, used more variability when rating males, managers or subordinates, than when rating other females, managers or subordinates. There was no difference in variability when male managers rated their male or female subordinates and when male subordinates rated their male or female managers.ss Thes.e results do not support Schmitt and Lappin/ s 183. Kenneth N. Wexley and Elaine D. Pulakos, "Sex Effects on Performance Ratings itl Manager-Subordinate Dyads," Journa.l of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 433-39. J 184. Cited by Wexley and Pulakos, p. 433: N. Schmitt and M. Lappin, "Race and sex as Determinants of the Mean and Variance of Performance Ratings," Journa.l of Applied Psychology 65 (1980): 428-35. 185. On the rating for Goal Emphasis, there was a significant difference produced when male subordinates rated their male and female managers. on the other three scales there were no differemces.

PAGE 182

96 hypothesis. Wexley and Pulakos suggest that "male subordinates simply used the same set of male role expectations regardless of whether they were evaluating male or female managers." Female subordinates rating female managers seemed to use the central portion of the scales. perhaps due to unclear role expectations of managerial females. Female subordinates used more variability when describing male managers due to a clearer understanding of a male managerial role. Wexley and Pulakos conclude "that it is not necessarily similarity/dissimilarity causing differential variances. Rather it may be that clear versus ambiguous role expectations influence rater confidence, which in turn affects the variances."186 This study illustrates male-female differences when rating other males and females in an actual managerial-subordinate setting. Managerial Characteristics Cecil, Paul, and Olins ana;J..yzed "qualities perceived to be important for male and female job applicants for the same job. "187 By reviewing existing instruments used to evaluate applicants, Cecil et al. developed a list of fifty variables. They presented subjects (graduate and undergraduate management students) with a 186. Wexley and Pulakos 437. 187. Earl A. cecil, Robert J. Paul, and Robert A. Olins, "Perceived Importance of Selected Variables used to Evaluate Male and Female Job Applicants," Personnel Psychology 26 (1973): 397-404. Seep. 397.

PAGE 183

97 paragraph about a job applicant. One version of the. paragraph used a name and the other version used a name. Subjects were asked to imagine how an interviewer would look at this applicant for a job as a white collar worker. They were to determine what the "interviewer would consider most important" and rate each variable on a scale from "most important" to "least important" qualifications of the applicant for this job.199 Analysis of variables showed "that five variables were more important for males than for females and six other variables were more important for females than for males.199 Significant variables for job applicants were: 1. Ability to change mind on an issue 2. Persuasive individual 3. capable of withstanding a great deal of pressure 4. Exceptional motivation 5. Is aggressive Significant variables for female job applicants were: 1. Pleasant Voice 2. Excellent clerical skills 3. Finished high school 4. Excellent computational skills. 5. Immaculate in dress and person 6. Ability to express self-well Unfortunately, sex.of subject was not analyzed. This .might have added valuable information to.the study. "Standard values which are frequently used to evaluate job applicants are perceived to be 188. Ibid., p. 399. 189. Ibid., p. 400.

PAGE 184

98 of. different importance depending on whether the applicant is a male or a female."190 The male and female were applying for a "white collar job", however, subjects perceived this job as more clerical for the female applicant, and more administrative or managerial for the male applicant. Subjects seemingly discriminated against females applying for a managerial position. Males applying for a clerical position may also be discriminated against. "The influence of sex role stereotypes on evaluations of candidates for managerial positions" are explored by Rosen and Jerdee.191 Male undergraduate business students were the subjects in this study. For four different managerial positions, each subject read one version of the job description and "reviewed information about one" job applicant. Job applications were identical except the name of the applicant varied (male/female)r the amount of job demands also varied per job. Job positions were test lab manager, purchasing manager, financial manager, and personnel manager. The job description varied the amount of demanding versus routine requirements for that position. Demanding requirements were "aggressive interpersonal behavior and decisive managerial action."192 Routine behaviors were "clerical 190. Ibid., p. 403. 191. Benson Rosen and Thomas H. Jerdee, "Effects of Applicant's sex and Difficulty of Job on Evaluations of candidates for Managerial Positions," Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 511-12. Seep. 511.

PAGE 185

99 accuracy and dependable performance."193 Results indicate that: "females were selected for managerial positions significantly less often than females were irated lower than were males on technical potential and potential for fitting in well" in the "the rate of acceptance for females was only 46% in the demanding condition versus 72% in the routine and, the rate of acceptance for males was 65% in the demanding condition and 76% in the routine condition."194 In these situations, female applicants with identical qualifications as the male applicants were perceived as less acceptable for managerial positions. Female applicants especially were perceived as less qualified. when the job description required demanding and aggressive interpersonal skills. woods interviewed women and men at various job levels as an effort to better understand the challenges women faceon the job and to learn what these women believe to be "common characteristics essential for success in a male-dominated world."195 Men who worked with these women answered the same 192. Ibid., p. 511. 193 Ibid. 194. Ibid., p. 512. 195. Marion M. Woods, "What Does it Take for a Woman to Make it in Management?" Personnel Journal 54 (1975): 38-41, 66. Seep. 38.

PAGE 186

questions with responses similar to those of the women. Woods identified ten common characteristics and reviews responses concerning these characteristics in her report. The characteristics are: competence, education, realism, aggressiveness, self-confidence, career-mindedness, femininity, strategy, support of an influential male, and uniqueness. 100 "Crucial to a woman/s success is her aggressiveness and, in particular, her ability to disguise it as self-initiative."196 Many women stated that male managers are afraid of women with drive, yet don't respect those who lack it. Males noted that only an aggressive woman would progress while "a passive woman doesn/t have a chance."197 When aske_ d to define aggression, males replied, "not being afraid of responsibility," "extraordinarily high drive; first-rate professionalism," "willingness to compete with men," and, aggressive only to goal extent." Some females perceived aggression as a competitive role; others noted that "aggression is important but you don't have to act like a man."198 While some women feared being perceived as others suggested that to be successful one must be feminine .and aggressive. some male respondents noted "admiration for a woman who is firm yet 196. Ibid., p. 39. 197. Ibid. 198. Ibid.

PAGE 187

101 feminine."199 To insure success, must a woman take into consideration all these comments? Woods suggests a woman "must temper her aspirations with an understanding of the situation as it is, in order to achieve a successful career in management."200 Brenner predicts "that regardless of sex or managerial status, individuals with a greater amount of education would be more achievement oriented, aggressive, dominant, and less nurturant [sic) than those with less education."201 These individuals would more closely approximate the managerial stereotype. The "Personality Research" form was used to access achievement orientation, aggression, dominance, and nurturing of managers and nonrnanagers from various organizations. Subjects also indicated their level of education. Managers were found to be more dominant and achievement oriented, and less nurturing than nonrnanagers. Males and females "who had more education were achievement oriented,. more aggressive, more dominant, and less nurturant [sic) than those who were less educated.11202 Sex and education interacted.for dominance and nurturance, but not for achievement orientation and aggression. "Females with less 199. Ibid., p. 66. 200. Ibid. 201. Otto C. Brenner. "Relationship of Education to Sex, Managerial status, and the Managerial Stereotype," Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (1982): 380-83. Seep. 380. 202. Ibid., p. 382.

PAGE 188

102 education were found to be less dominant and more nurturant [sic] than less educated males, whereas these differences were greatly reduced for dominance and practically disappeared for nurturance when comparing more educated males and females."203 Although ANOVA statistics showed no relationship for aggression between managerial status and education, other statistical methods did show a significant correlation between managers and nonmanagers 2 o 4 Brenner recommends that additional research "using different sample groups might that the aggressive managerial stereotype should not be dismissed entirely."205 Rosen and Jerdeezos in a descriptive study surveyed 884 male managers from several different organizations across the United. States. Subjects were asked to rate men and women on vocationally relevant characteristics using the following scale: 1 = men much more than women, 2 = men slightly more than women, 3 = no difference, 4 = women slightly more than men, and 5 = women much more than men. This study is relevant to the current study because it examines male managers" perceptions of "characteristics important for success and promotion in managerial positions." 203. Ibid. 204. Ibid., p. 383, Fisher z statistics used. 205. Ibid. 206. Benson Rosen and Thomas Jerdee, "Perceived sex Differences in Managerially Relevant Characteristics," Sex Roles 4 (1978): 837-42.

PAGE 189

103 Sixty-four characteristics were examined in four categories: aptitudes; knowledge and skills; interest and motivation; temperament; and work nabits and attitudes. Women were rated more negatively than men in each of these four categories. Results also indicated that "men were perceived as possessing a greater degree of leadership and decision-making skills necessary to managerial objectives"; "men were viewed as better able to cope with the stress and pressure of tough managerial roles"; "women were viewed as more emotional, timid, jealous, and sensitive to criticism q.s compared to men."207 "Virtually every perceived difference between male and female employees was unfavorable to women aspiring to higher level occupations."208 Women also were perceived as less reliable and dependable than males. Aggressive behavior was perceived as more characteristic of successful men than women. vocationallY relevant characteristics that were found to be either more descriptive of men or women influence those characteristics that have been selected for use in the current study. In two descriptive studies by Schein, male209 and female 2 1 o managers rated "Women in general," "Men in general,'' and 207. Ibid., p. 841. 208. Ibid., p. 843. 209. Virginia E. Schein, "The Relationship Between sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100. 210. Virginia E. Schein, "Relationships Between Sex Role

PAGE 190

104 "successful middle Managers" on 92 descriptive terms. In the first study, 300 male middle line managers from nine insurance companies throughout the United. States, completed the questionnaire. A few years later, the second study surveyed 167 female managers from twelve insurance companies across the country. Managers in both studies completed one form of the questionnaire (Men in general, women in general, or successful middle Managers), using a "5-point scale ranging from 1 (not characteristic) to 5 (characteristic) with a neutral rating of 3 (neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic)."211 Results inboth studies confirm the hypotheses that successful "middle managers are perceived to possess characteristics more commonly ascribed to men in general than women in general."212 Using male subjects only, a significant relationship was established between men and managers1 there was no such relationship between women and managers or the categories women and men.213 Male managers perceived fewer descriptors as characteristic of managers and women. These descriptors included humanitarian values, helpful, understanding, and aware of the Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Among Female Managers," Journal of Applied Psychology 60 ( 1975): 340-344. 211. Schein, 1973, p. 96. 212. p. 95. 213. Schein, p. 95.

PAGE 191

105 feelings of others. There_ were also common characteristics which described males and females but were not related to managerial characteristics. These common descriptors included intelligent, creative, persistent, and tactful. For male managers between the ages of 24 and 48 (n=208), there was a significant relationship between similar characteristics of men and managers but not a significant relationship between women and managers. In male managers over 49 (n=92), there was a significant relationship between men and managers and "a small but significant resemblance between ratings of women and those of Using female subjects only, there was again a -"significant resemblance between ratings of men and However, there was also a resemblance between women and managers, but this was significantly less than the resemblance between men and managers. Female subjects also perceived more resemblance between men and women than the male subjects had In this study, age did not influence any of the results. However the amount of time on the job did influence results. Female managers with one to four years tenure, perceived a significant relationship between men and managers but not between women and managers. Those female. managers with more than five years tenure, perceived significant relationships between men and managers and 214. Ibid., p. 97. 215. Schein, 1975, p. 341.

PAGE 192

106 women and managers. Schein suggests that these results indicate "that acceptance of the masculine stereotype as a model for success is especially strong during the early years of a woman's career in management."21s Schein's study using female managers as subjects implies "that female managers are as likely as male managers to make selection, promotion, and placement decisions in favor of men."217 "The perceived similarity between the characteristics of successful middle managers and men in general increase the likelihood of a male rather than a female being selected for or promoted to a managerial position."218 Schein219 continues: Thus, the sex of the manager may have less of an influence on decisions relating to the status of women in management than heretofore considered. Simply increasing the number of women in management may not significantly enhance the ease of entry of other women into these positions. In comparing the two studies Schein states that female managers perceive men and to be more similar than the male managers did. nescriptors such as emotionally stable, logical, and analytical ability were rated by women as equally characteristic of men and women; these same descriptors were rated by men as characteristic of men and successful managers. 216. Ibid., p. 344. 217. Ibid., p. 343. 218. Schein, 1973, p. 99. 219. Schein, 1975, p. 343.

PAGE 193

107 Descriptors that were perceived by females only, males only, and both samples, as characteristic of men and managers and women and managers, are used in the current study's rating scale to determine managerial potential as perceived in aggressive communication behavior between two subordinates. Characteristics .that were found by males and females to be characteristic of men and managers are: no desire for friendship, leadership ability, competitive, self confident, objective, aggressive, forceful, ambitious, desires responsibility, emotionally stable, steady, analytical ability, logical, consistent, and well informed. Characteristics that were found by males and females to be characteristic of women and managers are: modest, creative, cheerful, intuitive, helpful, humanitarian values, aware of feelings of others, and sophisticated. Massengill and Di Marco replicated Schein's work; however, where Schein had first surveyed male managers in 1971 and then female managers in 1974, Massengill and Di Marco surveyed male and female managers at the same time. They were seeking information "to determine differential stereotypes of men, women, and successful managers."220 They used the same questionnaire and scale Schein had used, asking how characteristic or uncharacteristic each phrase was of women in general, men in 220. Douglas Massengill and Nicholas Di Marco, "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics: A current Replication," Sex Roles 5 (1979): 561-570.

PAGE 194

108 general, or successful managers. Using a university continuing education's mailing list, males and females were randomly selected and mailed one version of the questionnaire. Only responses from supervisors were used (as determined by subject self report). Male subjects perceived men and managers as similar, but there were no significant similarities between women and managers or men and women (similar to Schein's findings). Female subjects perceived men and managers as most similar, women and managers as somewhat similar, and men and women as slightly similar. These results also are like Schein's work however Massengill's female subjects perceived more similarity between men and managers than in Schein's work. "Women were significantly different from both managers and men on 46 characteristics with the male sample and on 19 characteristics with the female sample."221 Most of the male subjects perceived differences between men, women, and managers, were "in the area of "dominant-aggressive characteristics" (representative items: competitive, high need for power, aggressive, assertive)."222 "Male subjects perceived women to be significantly lower than both men and managers on 17 items in this group."223 Female subjects perceived significant differences between women and both men and managers on only 8 characteristics 221. Ibid., p. 567. 222. Ibid., p. 568. 223. Ibid.

PAGE 195

109 labeled "social humanitarian." These items include sympathetic and helpful.224 Males and females "showed some degree of agreement that women are lacking in the characteristics of successful managers in one area -that of dominant-aggressive characteristics."zzs Brenner Bramer examined sex stereotypes and self reports of leaders/ behaviors.226 The authors developed a leadership scale of 20 items which reflected leadership behaviors as more commonly male or female behaviors. Characteristics found in studies by Schein to be "normally ascribed to males and females" were used as a guide. Examples of male leadership behaviors are: "make decisions for your unit, see that everyone follows standard procedures, and follow company policy in dealing with subordinates." Examples of female leadership behaviors are: "praise good work, consult with other unit heads before making a decision, assign work only when you are sure the person can do it."227 Male and female managers rated each leadership behavior "on a 5-point scale according to how well they described their on-the-job behavior."228 Male and female managers rated themselves 224. Ibid. 225. Ibid. 226. Otto c. Brenner and John A. Bramer, "Sex Stereotypes and Leaders/ Behaviors as Measured by the Agreement Scale for Leadership Behavior," Psychologi.cal Reports 48 ( 1981): 960-62. 227. Ibid., p. 961. 228. Ibid., p. 962.

PAGE 196

110 higher on the male leadership behaviors than on the female leadership behaviors. Using this particular self report leadership measure, both males and females saw themselves as using "male stereotypic leaders" behaviors over female behav;i,ors.nzzs Conclusions The studies reviewed concerning managerial characteristics demonstrate not only differences in self perceptions of male and female managerial behavior, but also followers" differences in perceptions of male and female managers behavior. Baird and Bradley studied subordinates" perceptions of male and female managers' styles of management and communication behaviors. They found that male and female managers' styles did differ. Females established their own style which included giving more information, and encouraging subordinates (using a consideration style) more than male managers. Females did not copy the male managers' styles. But Baird and Bradley could not conclude if either the male or female style was more effective than the other. Siegherdt indicates many differences between male and female self perceptions of manager communication behavior. These differences indicated that women used more frequently the formal communication channels than men, perceived their communication as less influential, and were generally more dissatisfied with the flow and direction of communication in the organization than were men. 229. Ibid.

PAGE 197

111 Wexley and Pulakos found that females used more variability than males when rating male managers and subordinates than when rating females. Males rated males and females in the same manner, showing no differences in variability. Clear versus ambiguous role expectations may have influenced the confidence in rating males and females, resulting in differences in variability. A clear role of a male manager resulted in more variability in the ratings. Male subjects seemingly used the same male role model when evaluating both males and females. However, females when evaluating female managers (an ambiguous role) used less variability than when rating male managers (a clear role). This illustrates differences in male and female perceptions of male and female supervisory and subordinate behavior in an actual organizational setting. Rosen and (1973) study demonstrates that subjects generally share the same perceptions of appropriate supervisory behavior for both males and females. Sex of subject did not interact with the evaluations of male and female supervisory style. Female supervisors using a "friendly-dependent style" were rated more favorably than males using this style, while male supervisors using a "reward style" were rated more favorably than females using this style. An "aggressive threatening style" was evaluated slightly more favorably for males than for females. From a review of management literature Terborg suggested that a woman entering an all male group is sometimes viewed as a token. Therefore, she is not allowed to use the same informal and

PAGE 198

112 formal channels as her male co-workers and doesn't have access to the required knowledge needed to develop and progress on the job. The token women is not perceived as promotable when compared to her male co-workers, because she lacks the necessary knowledge that her male co-workers have acquired through these channels. Rosen and Jerdee's (1974) study demonstrates that males received more organizational support than females in the areas of career development, supervision, and promotion. When identically described, males were selected more often than females for both complex and simple jobs in situations involving career development, promotion, and supervision. Females received more organizational support when the situation involved obtaining a leave of absence due to family demands. However, such support in the female situation, is often cited as a reason why women are not accepted as management material (i.e., women are unreliable, miss too much work, and are home-oriented rather than job oriented). Brenner examined other intervening factors in perceptions of male and female managers. Brenner studied the managerial stereotype and its relationship to amount of education. The more education a person had, the more he/she resembled the managerial stereotype. The more educated persons also were found to be more achievement oriented, aggressive, dominant, and less nurturing than those persons with less education. The more educated females also were less nurturing and more dominant than females with less education. Aggressive behavior correlated with managers but not with nonmanagers.

PAGE 199

113 The importance of aggression as a managerial characteristic also was cited in the reviewed studies. In a study by Rosen and Jerdee (1974), subjects were presented with identicallY described. male and female job for "demanding" versus "routine" jobs. A "demanding" job required aggressive interpersonal skills and decisive managerial action; a "routine" job required clerical accuracy and dependable performance. Males were selected more often then females for both "demanding" and "routine" jobs. Females were selected more often for the "routine" job than the "demanding" job requiring aggressive interpersonal skills. Females were also perceived as less technically qualified and not fitting in as well into the organization. Females were perceived as especially less qualified than the males for the "demanding" job. It is important to remember that subjects were making these perceptions from identical job applications. Although the subjects were students, this study has important implications for hiring women for demanding jobs. Female job applicants were perceived as not having the necessary aggressive interpersonal skills required for the demanding job even though subjects read the identical job application as the male applicants. This indicates that if females were perceived as possessing aggressive interpersonal skills they would then be hired more often for such jobs. such "demanding" jobs are often required as a basis for further promotions in the organization. Cecil et al. also found that aggressive behavior is

PAGE 200

114 perceived as important for a male applicant for a white collar job but unimportant for a female applicant. Other important characteristics for the male applicant were: persuasive, motivated, and able to withstand pressure. For the female applicant for a white collar job, characteristics that were perceived as were: clerical skills, dresses neatly, high school education, and a pleasant voice. There is a definite contrast between characteristics perceived by subjects as important for the male and female. The male characteristics could be used to describe an administrator or manager while the relevant female characteristics seem to describe a clerical job. A similar study examined characteristics perceived as important for success and promotion into a managerial position. 2 3 o Males were perceived as having more leadership skills, decision making skills, better at handling stress, and more aggressive (managerially positive values) than females. Females were viewed as emotional, timid, jealous, and unreliable (managerially negative values). Similarities between the male stereotype and a successful manager stereotype, also may prevent a woman as being readily perceived as having "the stuff that makes a good manager." two studies illustrated that male and female managers perceived "Men in general" and "successful Managers" as having more similar characteristics than "Women in general" and 230. Rosen and Jerdee, "Perceived sex Differences."

PAGE 201

115 "successful Managers." Older male managers (over 49 years old) perceived some resemblances between women and managers. New female managers with less than four years tenure, saw no relationship between women and managers but saw a relationship between men and managers: women who had been managers for over four years, saw significant resemblances between women and managers (they also saw resemblances between men and managers, and more resemblances between men and women than male managers saw). This suggests that new women managers, finding themselves in a new role, at first pattern themselves after male managers. The more years these women are managers, the more they establish their own managerial style which encompasses more female characteristics into the managerial role. Massengill and Di Marco replicated Schein's work. Male subjects perceived women as significantly different than men and successful managers on half (46 out of 92) of the characteristics listed. The female subjects perceived women as different from men and successful managers on only eight characteristics. Male subjects perceived women as significantly lower than men and managers on the dominant-aggressive grouping of characteristics. These studies illustrate that aggressive behavior is perceived as an important managerial characteristic if one is hoping for success, career development, and promotions in the organization. The current study explores perceptions of aggressive communication behavior from a male or female subordinate and its relationship to managerial potential.

PAGE 202

General Eakins and Eakins state:z31 sex cannot be so easily dismissed when we consider that it is one of the primary indexing factors we use when we interact with people or think about them. In our society a person/s gender matters very much, for to a great extent it determines how others act and react. As more women aspire to management positions a better 116 understanding of desired managerial behavior is necessary. Women as authority figures, using power, leadership, aggressive behavior, and authoritative behavior, need to be more closely examined in terms of male-female perceptions of this behavior and how it conforms to requisite managerial characteristics. Aggressive behavior has been selected for study because males and females are socialized differently as to the appropriateness or acceptability of displaying this behavior. To a certain degree, a woman/s use of aggressive communicative behavior is considered unacceptable (violates norms) while a man/s identical behavior is considered normal and appropriate. costrich et al. state:232 If success in certain realms requires that a woman behave in an aggressive, masculine, dominant manner, she certainly faces an approach-avoidance conflict. She must decide whether the success is worth the negative social consequences. When one communicates aggressively in an organizational setting, 231. Barbara Eakins and R. Gene Eakins, Sex Differences in Human Communication (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1978) 4. 232. Costrich et al. 521.

PAGE 203

117 how is that behavior perceived by others? This study's primary objective is not perception of the communication behavior as aggressive, but perception of.the aggressive communication behavior as desirable managerial behavior. By better understanding this type of communication behavior in the organizational setting, our understanding of the selection process of men and women for managerdal positions also will be enhanced. With reference to the surveyed literature, this study is being pursued for the following reasons: to explore aggressive communication behavior as a stereotyped male characteristic, to clarify the perception of aggression as a beneficial managerial characteristic, to examine differences in male/female managers' perceptions of aggressive communication behavior in an organizational setting, to explore aggression as a managerial characteristic which coincides more with the stereotype of a male than the stereotype of a female, to make recommendations to potential and existing managers regarding their communication behavior and their perceptions of others' communication behaviors, to make recommendations to potential female managers concerning successful communication behavior. The hypotheses under study are: Aggressive communicating males when communicating with

PAGE 204

other males, will be rated more positively by male supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating females. Aggressive communicating males when communicating with other males, will be rated more positively by female supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating females. 118 Aggressive communicating females when communicating with other females, will be rated more negatively by male supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating males. Aggressive communicating females when communicating with other females, will be rated more negatively by female supervisor subjects in terms of perceived managerial potential than aggressive communicating males.

PAGE 205

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The general question under study asks, "Is perception of managerial potential related to the sexual identification of the aggressive communicators?" To examine this question a dialog involving aggressive communication behavior in a subordinate dyad is employed. The dialog occurs either between two male subordinates, two female subordinates, or two subordinates whose sex is not indicated. This study is designed to examine subjects' perceptions of the aggressive communicating subordinate's managerial potential as measured on a scale of managerial descriptors. The following hypotheses are proposed: Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by male supervisors in terms 'of perceived managerial potential than will their female counterparts. Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their female counterparts. Females when perceived as communicating aggressively with other females will be rated more negatively by male

PAGE 206

supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. 120 Females when perceived as communicating aggressively with other females will be rated more negatively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. This study is designed with subjects reading a dialog between two subordinates in a comparable work group and organizational setting. In the dialog, one subordinate uses aggressive communicative behavior. The "aggressive" subordinate is an excellent worker and is being considered for promotion. Unknown to the subordinates, their supervisor is in the adjoining office and overhears their conversation. Subjects are asked to imagine themselves as the supervisor and indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with male/female managerial characteristics as being descriptive of the aggressive communicating subordinate's managerial potential. For this purpose, a scale ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree is employed. Development or the Dialog Two dialogs were developed which attempt to capture "aggressive communicative behavior." The following ideas and definitions aided this process. -Anger was viewed as an "emotional state resulting from a frustration presumably creating a readiness for aggressive

PAGE 207

121 acts" (Berkowitz). Anger is a hostile emotion, stemming from frustration or from feeling used and/or put down. Frustration was viewed as "any interference with some on going goal-directed activity" (Berkowitz). -Aggressive behavior: behavior directed toward the infliction of psychological or bodily harm; hostile, injurious behavior having a destructive effect on others. A disruptive conflict situation: a situation where the competitor abandons the "rational pursuit of a strategy of winning" in favor of "an irrational act of aggression," where the emphasis is on defeating, harming, or in some way reducing the opponent by expedience in an environment of anger, stress, or fear (Filley). Condescending treaement for females, from both genders was determined to be the most anger provoking behavior. For males, the most anger provoking behaviors were found to be condescending behavior from females and physical aggression from males (Frodi). Examples of condescending treatmentare: "treats me like I"m no good, acts superior, tries to step on me, criticizes my personality, intellect, career" (Frodi). -Assertive behavior: behavior that allows a person to express honest feelings comfortably and directly while respecting the feelings and rights of others (Phelps and Austin, p. 2). -Passive behavior: behavior that allows persons to act

PAGE 208

122 submissively, letting others make decisions for them; acting helpless, powerless, inhibited, and showing little self confidence (Phelps and Austin, p. 10). A person in power (male) interrupts others of less power (female) more often (Eakins andEakins). Driscoll;s ratings of name-calling adjectives as aggressive also were referenced. Each dialog is entitled "A Corporate Setting and involved two subordinates, either two males, two females, or two individuals whose sex is not indicated (Person A and Person B). In each case their supervisor "happens to be in the adjoining office and.overhears their conversation." Sex of supervisor is not indicated. In Dialog A, Joan/Jack Manfred learns the next morning after an important work-oriented social gathering, that her/his co-worker, Betty/Bob Ferguson, took all the credit for signing one of the largest accounts the company has had. In reality, Joan/Jack had done all the footwork for this account, establishing the right connections, and had agreed to let Betty/Bob work on that account. Others in the work group had warned Joan/Jack about Betty;s/Bob;s questionable behavior, but Joan/Jack had agreed to give this person a chance. Both salespeople are aware that only one of them will move ahead to a managerial position opening up next month. The supervisor overhears their conversation as Joan/Jack confronts Betty/Bob and Joan/Jack wants to know why Betty/Bob "is acting so low." Betty/Bob responds nonchalantly that

PAGE 209

123 she has no idea of what Joan/Jack is referring to. Joan/Jack aggressively pursues the issue, "Damn you Betty/Bob." See Appendix A for the entire conversation. In Dialog B, supervisor s. Martin is in "the process of considering and recommending for promotion the top employee of the group, Betsy/Bill Brown. Betsy/Bill is a hard worker, has technical expertise, and is a successful problem solver. Betsy/Bill and a co-worker Nancy/Mike Jeffreys, also a hard worker, have been assigned to work together on a priority project due next week. Their supervisor happens to be in the adjoining office and overhears their conversation. Although Nancy/Mike makes several offers promoting the project and wants to work cooperatively, Betsy/Bill does not want Nancy/Mike on this assignment with her/him, fearing that Nancy/Mike will "screw up" this job just like she/he did on another important project two years ago. Betsy/Bill calls Nancy/Mike a scatterbrain, refuses to let her/him near the data and calculations necessary for the report, and finally tells her/him, "Take a hike, stupid." When Nancy/Mike again offers she/he is interrupted and told, "get lost, you get it through your thick skull? I have all the data I need and putting the report together." When Nancy/Mike asks what she/he should tell the supervisor about the progress of the report, Betsy/Bill responds, "Tell the truth that you just handle the work." See Appendix B for the entire conversation.

PAGE 210

124 Experts in the Field Consulted Expert opinions ratifying emotional states and behaviors of the fictional characters in each dialog were sought from two communication professors at an urban university and a professional counselor at a large corporation. The Person A/Person B version of both dialogs was given to each of these people. The following adjectives and phrases come from their responses describing the emotions and behaviors of the characters. In Dialog A, Person A (the subordinate using aggressive communicative behavior) was perceived as angry, aggressive, insulting, threatening, lashing out at Person B, and competitive. Person E was perceived as attacked, manipulative, deliberately egging Person A into being upset, and placating. In Dialog E, Person A (the subordinate using aggressive communicative behavior) was described as angry, critical, confrontational, insulting, demeaning, blames Person B for past errors, deliberately antagonizes Person E, depreciates Person B, and has an underlying emotion of fear or insecurity. Person B was described as cooperative, calm, confused, vulnerable, assertive, and defeated. Pilot Study A pilot study was then employed to insure that the subordinate"s "aggressive communicative" behavior would be perceived and labeled by subjects as aggressive. The extent of anger generated in the subject from reading this dialog also was indicated.

PAGE 211

125 Potential subjects for the pilot study were approached by one of their co-workers at a technically oriented, male dominated corporation, and asked if they could help out with a school project concerning work behavior. If they agreed to help, they were asked to read the dialog, complete the questions that followed, and return the form to the co-worker. Subjects were assured that their responses would remain confidential and that this project was not related in any way to the company. In this manner, 42 subjects completed and returned the dialogs and limited questionnaires. See Table I for further information regarding the subject population.

PAGE 212

Table I Pilot Study Subject Population Dialog A Total Males Females Version: Total Males Females Dialog B Total Males Females Version: Total Males Females Subjects Highest Freq"' No Age Job Level*"' Empl. Sup. Age Group Reply 22 10 12 PersonA/PersonB 5 2 3 31-35 26-40 31-35 Joan/Betty 8 4 4 0 0 2 20 2 9 1 11 1 Jack/Bob 9 4 5 Total 22 10 12 Subjects Highest Freq"' No Age Job Level"'"' Age Group Reply Empl. 20 31-35 10 31-35,36-40,41-45 10 PersonA/PersonB 4 2 2 31-35 Betsy/Nancy 8 5 3 0 1 0 17 8 9 Bill/Mike 8 3 5 Sup. 3 2 1 Total 20 10 10 "'Subjects indicated their age in the ranges provided on the questionnaire. "'"'Job level: Empl = Employee, Sup = Supervisor At the end of each dialog subjects were directed: With reference to the passage you just read, complete the questions below. 1) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not angry at all" 126 and 5 being "very angry" indicate how angry with each other the two main people are in this situation. 2) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "no anger" and 5 being "much anger", indicate the extent towhich this situation generated anger in you. Note that "not angry at all" and "no anger" have the same operational definition of feeling no anger at all at 1 on the scale. Likewise, "very angry" and "much anger" are both

PAGE 213

127 operationally defined as feeling a large amount of anger at 5 on the scale. Definitions of aggressive, assertive, and passive were then listed on the questionnaire. These definitions are same as those given earlier in the methodology section. subjects were then asked to refer to these definitions when completing the last two questions as stated below. 3) Person A's (Bill's, Betty's, Joan's, Jack's) behavior can be considered 1 2 3 4 s aggressive assertive passive 4) Person B's (Mike's, Nancy's, Betsy's, Bob's) behavior can be considered 1 2 3 4 5 aggressive assertive passive See Table II for results of the pilot study.

PAGE 214

128 Table Il Pilot Study Means and Standard Deviations Dialog A -Means and Standard Deviations*,.,. Characters Generated Behavior of Behavior of Angry With Anger In Person A, Jack, Person B, Bob, Each Other You Joan Betty Means-Std Dev Means-Std Dev Means-Std Dev Means-Std Dev Tot"' 4.23 0.73 2.98 1.03 1.36 0.64 2.75 1.10 M 3.94 0.73 2.35 1.06 1.60 0.66 2.90 1.39 F 4.45 0.69 3.50 0.67 1.17 0.58 0.83 Person A/Person B Tot 4.29 0.67 3.37 0. 71 1.12 0.22 2.96 1.34 M 4.25 1.06 2.70 0.35 1.25 0.35 3.25 2.47 F 4.33 0.58 4.00 o.oo 1.00 o.oo 2.67 0.58 Joan/Betty Tot 4.25 0.71 2.50 1.19 1.37 0.74 2.82 1.31 M 4.00 0.82 1. 75 0.96 1.75 0.96 2.75 1.71 F 4.33 0.58 3.25 0.96 1.00 o.oo 2.88 1.03 Jack/Bob Tot 4.08 0.90 3.07 0.93 1.52 0.71 2.64 0.86 M 3.67 0.58 2.75 1.26 1.63 0.48 2.88 0.85 F 4.50 1.00 3.40 0.55 1.40 0.89 2.40 0.89

PAGE 215

Table II (continued) Dialog B Means and standard Deviations,. Characters Angry With Each Other Means-Std Dev Tot"' 3.72 M 3.70 F 3.75 1.31 1.25 1.46 Person A/Person B Tot 3.63 M 2.50 F 4.75 Betsy/Nancy Tot M F 3.71 3.60 3.83 Bill/Mike Tot 3.83 M 4.67 F 3.00 1.80 2.12 0.35 1.10 0.89 1.61 1.47 0.58 1. 73 Generated Anger In You Means-Std Dev 3.80 3.40 4.20 3.87 3.00 4.75 3.68 3.20 4 17 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.50 1.65 1.30 1.03 o.oo 0.35 1.72 2.05 1.04 1.60 1. 73 1. 73 Behavior of Behavior of Person A, Person B, Mike, Bill, Betsy Nancy Means-Std Dev Means-Std Dev 1 OS 1.00 1.10 1.12 1.00 1.25 1.08 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 o.oo 0.21 0.25 o.oo 0.35 0.18 o.oo 0.29 o.oo o.oo o.oo 4.05 4.30 3.80 3.62 3.50 3.75 4.12 4.40 3.83 4.23 4.67 3.80 0.74 0.67 0.75 0.75 o. 71 1.06 0.65 0.55 0.76 0.83 0.58 "Tot -Total, M = Males, F = Females ""'scale used: 1 = aggressive, 3 = assertive, 5 = passive Although subjects perceived that the subordinates were angrier with each other in Dialog A than in Dialog B, Dialog B 129 generated more anger.in the subjects than in Dialog A. Subjects also labeled the character (Betsy/Bill) in Dialog B as more aggressive than the character (Joan/Jack) in Dialog A. There was also a greater distinction between the two behavior in Dialog B than between the characters in Dialog A. For these reasons, it was decided to use Dialog B for the remainder of this research.

PAGE 216

. 130 Study Subjects Data collected from eighty-two supervisors describing their jobs as "line management" or "middle management" are used in this study. All supervisors were from two branch offices of a large (over 1,000 employees), technically oriented, male dominated corporation. At each location persons of authority were contacted, and they agreed to assist in distributing and collecting the questionnaires (two individuals at one location and one individual at the other location). These persons were told that they would receive complete data analyses and a summary of the results at the completion of the study. At both locations similar cover letters on company stationery were attached to the questionnaires. See Appendix c for an example of the cover letter. At one branch office, two individuals sent out the cover letter and one version of the questionnaire to all line and middle management in their designated areas (62 managers). To insure a comparable number of female manager respondents, more female than male line and middle managers were sent the cover letter and one version of the questionnaire at the second location (60 managers). Of the eighty-four questionnaires returned from both male and female managers, eighty-two were usable (41 males and 41 females). One questionnaire was discarded because subject sex was not indicated. The other questionnaire was not used because the subject had indicated sex as female and job level as middle management when it was known to the experimenter that there were

PAGE 217

131 no female middle managers in the area receiving questionnaires. Instrument As mentioned previously due to the pilot results, it was decided that Dialog B would be used as the independent variable for this study. Dialogs would be identical except for the names of the two .subordinates conversing: Person A/Person B no sex indicated; Bill Brown/Mike Jeffreys two males; and, Betsy Brown/Nancy Jeffreys two females. The questionnaire which followed the dialog was designed to explore perceived sex differences in aggressive behavior in terms of requisite managerial descriptors. See Appendix D for the entire dialog and questionnaire. As mentioned in the survey of the literature, the 22 managerial descriptors used in Section I of the questionnaire came from findings concerning male and female perceptions of requisite managerial characteristics. Fourteen characteristics came from male and female responses of characteristics of Managers found to be more similar to Men than Women. These descriptors are: no des1re for leadership ab1lity, competitive, consistent, self confident, forceful, desires responsibility, 1. Virginia E. Schein, "The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (1973): 95-100, and v. E. Schein, "Relationships between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics Among Female Managers," Journal of Psychology 60 (1975}: 340-44.

PAGE 218

132 emotionally stable, steady, analytical ability, logical, and well informed. These characteristics will be referred to as the male adjectives. Aggressive was also an adjective in this category; however, it was not used in this first section of the questionnaire because a specific question deals with this characteristic in a later section. Eight characteristics came from Schein's male and female responses finding characteristics of Managers more similar to Women than Men. These are: modest, creative, cheerful, intuitive, help:E_ul, humanitarian values, aware of feelings of others, and sophisticated. These characteristics are referred to as the female adjectives. The male and female adjectives were alphabetized on the questionnaire. After the dialog at the start of Section I of the questionnaire, the following statement was printed. With reference to the passage you just read, try and put yourself in their supervisor's position while completing the following questions. Subjects were asked to "rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the adjectives listed below as being descriptive Of Betsy's (Person A's/Bill's -the aggressive character) managerial potential." Subjects responded to these adjectives using a scale ranging from 1 -strongly agree, 2 -mildly agree, 3 -undecided, 4 -mildly disagree, to 5 -strongly disagree. Note: Schein's work was reported in 1973 and 1975. Massengill and DiMarco's2 replication of her work was reported in

PAGE 219

133 1979. To confirm that these adjectives were still considered descriptors of a successful manager, 10 questionnaires were distributed to five male and five female employees of the same corporation. No dialog was attached. The questionnaire asked subjects to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these adjectives as being descriptive of a successful manager. The same scale as mentioned above was used: 1 -strongly agree to 5 -strongly disagree. Refer to Appendix E for the successful manager questionnaire. In comparing the means from the female subjects' scores, six adjectives out of the twenty-two had means greater than 2 mildly agree (in the direction of disagree). These adjectives and their means were: aggressive, 4.0; cheerful, 2.4; forceful, 2.8; modest, 3.75; no desire for friendship, 4.6; and _sophisticated, 3.6. The means from the male subjects' scores also indicated six adjectives with a means greater than 2 -mildly agree. These were: ambitious, 2.2; competitive, 2.2; forceful, 2.6; modest, 2.8; no desire for friendship, 3.8; and sophisticated, 3.0. The male subjects strongly agreed that was a descriptor of a successful manager; the females mildly disagreed. In Section II of the questionnaire, subjects were asked to "indicate in the blank to the right of each phrase the person, 2. Douglas Massengill and Nicholas DiMarco, "Sex-Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics: A current Replication," Sex Roles 5 (1979): 561-70.

PAGE 220

134 either Person A (Betsy/Bill) or Person B (Nancy/Mike) that is best described by that phrase." Eleven phrases from Rosen and .Jerdee's3 study were used. Six phrases perceived as more vocationally relevant and descriptive of men than women are: 1. Understands big picture of organization 2. Understands financial matters 3. Sizes up situation accurately 4. Sets long range goals and work toward them 5. Wants to get ahead 6. Stands up under fire Five phrases perceived as more vocationally relevant and descriptive of women than men are: 1. Are good at detail work 2. Are home-oriented rather than job-oriented 3. Enjoy doing routine tasks I 4. Are sensiti.ve to cri.tici.sm 5. Are too emotional about thei.r jobs The male and female phrases were interspersed so that all the male phrases were not grouped together and all the female phrases were not grouped together. The directions to section III stated, "Read the statements below then complete the next questions." The definitions of 3. Benson Rosen and Thomas Jerdee, "Perceived Sex Differences in Managerially Relevant Characteristics," sex Roles 4 (1978): 837-42.

PAGE 221

135 aggressive, assertive, and passive as defined earlier in this section, followed. As in the pilot study, subjects were asked to indicate the behavior of each character in the dialog on a scale of 1 -aggressive, 3 :... assertive, and 5 -passive. Section IV asked, "As a supervisor, write out how you would feel if these were actually your own employees you'd overheard. Indicate how you would react or what action, if any, you would take." Section v asked. subjects to "rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements." Seven statements followed. The response scale for each statement was the reverse of what had been used in Section I: 1 -strongly disagree, 3 -undecided, 5 -strongly agree. Two of the statements pertained to the supervisor's use of the information overheard. The following statements were listed second and sixth, respectively, in the questionnaire. 1. With reference to the passage you have read, this supervisor should not consider the information overheard when evaluating the employee's work. 2. A supervisor is morallY obligated to consider the information overheard when evaluating an employee's work ability. As noted in the survey of the literature, two statements carne from the Dubno et al. MATWES questionnaire.' The statements

PAGE 222

136 below were listed third and fifth, respectively, in this section of the questionnaire. 1. A man is better suited for handling executive responsibility than a woman is. 2. Females have the capabilities for responsible managerial pos i tions. Two statements from "Scale of Attitudes Toward Female supervisory Potential"5 were modified and used in the questionnaire. These appeared first and fourth, respectively, in this section. The modified statements follow. 1. Women have more difficulties than men in being objective about a job situation. 2. Men are better technical problem solvers, while women are better at solving personnel or staff related issues. The last statement (appearing seventh) in this section of the questionnaire, was from the "Wellesley Role Orientation Scale (WORS)"6 and was modified for the questionnaire as follows. 4. Peter Dubno, John Costas, Hugh cannon, Charles Wankel, and Emin Hussein, "An Empirically Keyed Scal. e for Measuring Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives," Psychology of Women Quarterly 3 (1979): MATWES stands for Managerial Attitudes Toward Women Executives Scale. 5. Cited in c. A. Beere, Women and Women's Issues A Handbook of Tests and Measures (San Francisco: Jessey-Bass; 1979) 347. J. Yerby's scale was developed in 1972. The original statements from the scale read: "Women have more difficulties than men in being objective about a situation," and, "Men are better problem solvers than women.11 6. Cited in c. A. Beere 145. This scale was by T. Alper and was originally used in 1964 and reported in 1973.

PAGE 223

137 1. Aggressiveness and drive are valuable managerial traits. The final section of the questionnaire, Section VI, asked five questions to obtain personal data from the subjects. Subjects were asked to indicate their age by marking the corresponding age interval (26-30,31-35, etc.) and their sex. Subjects were also asked to indicate their job level by marking one of the following categories: top management (ex: executive director and above); middle management (ex: director, department head); line management (group supervisor, supervisor); supervised employee;and, other -please indicate. Although only management subjects were used, the last two job level categories of "supervised emp12yee" and "other" were listed to give the indication that all levels of employees were being asked to complete t he questionnaire. The last two questions subjects to write in their years at the current job level and their years with the current company. See the entire questionnaire which follows the dialog in Appendix D. Procedures Subjects received the cover letter and one version of the questionnaire (two males, two females, or two persons whose sex was not indicated), through the interoffice mail. The cover letter signed by the contacted person of authority stated that the The original statement is, "Aggressiveness and drive are valuable personality attributes."

PAGE 224

138 subject was being asked to participate in a study of organizational behavior being conducted by Dr. J. A. Winterton at the University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.7 Dr. Winterton's name was used on the cover letter to increase the subjects' perceptions of the study's credibility. The cover letter asked subjects to read the attached dialog and complete the questions that followed. The letter also stated, "We do not request your name on this form: we only request that you respond honestly and thoughtfully. The completed questionnaires will be reviewed only by the graduate students working on the study." Subjects had one to two weeks to complete the questionnaire and return it in the same manner through the interoffice mail to the contacted person. Independent and Dependent Variables The independent variables in this study are sex of the two people conversing (either two males, two females, or two persons whose sex is not indicated) and sex of subject. There are seven dependent variables. From Section I of the questionnaire the recorded scores on Schein's fourteen male adjectives are summed together to form a new variable, variable A. The scores on Schein's eight female adjectives are summed together to form the second dependent variable, variable B. 7. My thanks to Dr. Jon Winterton of the University of Colorado Communication Department for allowing me the use of his name on the cover letters.

PAGE 225

139 The third dependent variable is derived from Section II of the questionnaire. The recorded scores on the male characteristic phrases are summed together to form a new variable, variable c. Subjects were asked to indicate next to each phrase the person from the dialog who was better described by the phrase. If the aggressive character was selected for the male phrase, then a score of one was assigned; if the aggressive character was not selected, then it was assigned a score of zero. The score on the six male phrases was then summed to form variable c. From Section III there were two dependent variables. Var iable D was the score recorded on the scale describing the aggressive character's (Person A, Betsy, Bill) behavior. variable E was the score recorded on the scale describing the other character's (Person B, Nancy, Mike) behavior. The last two dependent variables were formed from the scores recorded in Section V of the questionnaire. one new variable, variable F, combined the responses from the two questions regarding the supervisor using the overheard information to evaluate the employee. Variable G combined the responses to the remaining five questions into a total score indicative of the subjects' use of sex stereotypes. Further Definitions and Proposed Statistical Analyses Hypotheses: Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by male

PAGE 226

supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their female counterparts. Males when perceived as communicating aggressively with other males will be rated more positively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their female counterparts. 140 Females when perceived as communicating aggressively with other females will be rated more negatively by male supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. Females when perceived as communicating aggressively with other females will be rated more negatively by female supervisors in terms of perceived managerial potential than will their male counterparts. Data Analyses Operationally it is predicted that both male and female subjects will agree more frequently with the male adjectives as being descriptive of the aggressive communicating male than descriptive of the aggressive communicating female. This will be determined by variable A. From work and Massengill and Di replication of work, the male adjectives already have been established as adjectives more descriptive of males and successful managers than women and successful managers. It is predicted that aggressive communicating females will receive from both male and female subjects, less frequent scores of agreement on the male adjectives than the males will receive.

PAGE 227

141 The female adjectives from the above studies nave been established as adjectives more descriptive of females and successful managers than males and successful managers. Although not a primary hypothesis, it is predicted that aggressive communicating females will receive from both male and female subjects, more scores of disagreement than agreement on the female adjectives than the males will receive. This is due to "aggressive" not being a characteristic common to both women and successful managers. With reference to the stated hypotheses, rated more positively refers to more frequent scores of agreement than disagreement on the male adjectives, variable A. Rated more negatively refers to less frequent scores of agreement than disagreement on the male adjectives, variable A. Operationally, perceived managerial potential refers to the scores of agreement and disagreement with the male adjectives, variable A. Constitutively, perceived managerial potential refers to the subjects/ perceptions of successful managerial abilities of the perceived aggressive communicator in the dialog. For each of the three versions of the dialog, means and standard deviations are calculated using all the scores for each dependent variable.8 Means and standard deviations are also calculated separating the male from the female scores for each B. All statistics were performed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Pertinent information was obtained from Jane Helwig, ed., SAS Introductory Guide Revised Edition (Cary: SAS Institute, 1983).

PAGE 228

142 dependent variable in each version of the dialog. correlation coefficients (Pearson Product-Moment) are obtained for all the individual adjectives in section I of the questionnaire. An analysis of variance is used to determine the variability of experimental data. A 3 x 2 factorial design is used to examine several effects simultaneously. The first factor is the dialog which has three levels: two males, two females, and two persons whose sex is not indicated. The second factor is the subject population and has two levels: males and females. An analysis of variance is used for each dependent variable. values are used to test whether there are any significant differences between factors. In support of the hypotheses, it is predicted that values obtained from the analysis of variance will show significant differences between versions of the dialog and responses from male and female subjects for each dependent variable. Male and female subjects will perceive the aggressive communicating male as having more managerial potential than the aggressive communicating female. This will be reflected as significantly different subjects' scores on variable A. The remaining dependent variables are used to provide additional information concerning varying perceptions of aggressive communicative behavior. section IV of the questionnaire where subjects are asked to briefly write out what they would do and how they would feel if these were their employees, is used to gauge subjects' reactions to the questionnaire, i.e., now seriously they are taking the dialog and

PAGE 229

143 questions. It is felt that if subjects write thoughtful responses in this section, that they are somewhat involved with the questionnaire and are indeed using a degree of careful reasoning when replying to the questionnaire.

PAGE 230

CHAPTER IV RESULTS The investigation focuses on aggressive communication behavior in a subordinate composed of two males, two females, or two persons whose sex is not indicated and subjects' perceptions of the aggressive communicator's managerial potential. This chapter repor.ts data regarding the subject population and the dependent variables' statistical results. SUbject Population Table III presents subject data for each version of the dialog and for the whole study. As shown in the table male supervisors generally were older, had been supervisors longer, and were with the company longer than their female counterparts.

PAGE 231

145 Table III Subject Population Job Highest Mean Mean Subjects Level Freq. Age Years at Years N L or M"' Group Job Level W/Company Version: Person A/Person B Tot"'* 27 22 4"'"'"' 36-40 2.67 9.90 M 13 9 3"'""' 36-40 3. 71 14.42 F 14 13 1 36-40 1.78 6.04 Version: Nancy/Betsy Tot 28 25 3 41-45' 5.85 14.46 M 13 11 2 41-45 9.10 18.81 F 15 14 1 26-30,31-35 3.03 10.70 Version: Mike/Bill Tot 27 24 3 31-35,41-45 4.77 13.61 M 15 15 36-40,41-45 6.93 16.93 F 12 9 3 31-35 2.06 9.46 Total Subjects For All Versions Tot 82 71 10"'"'"' 36-40 4.47 12.72 M 41 35 5"'"'"' 41-45 6.67 16.79 F 41 36 5 31-35 2.32 8.74 "'L = Line management, M = Middle Management "'*Tot = Total, M = Males, F = Females **"'one person did not reply to job level Establishment of the Kain Character as Aggressive Variable D represents the score describing the perceived aggressive (Person A, Bill or behavior as aggressive, assertive, or passive, as requested in Section III of the questionnaire. The possible scores ranged from 1 = aggressive, 3 = assertive, to 5 =passive. Variable E is similar to variable D except that it measures the perceived

PAGE 232

146 behavior of the other character (Person B, Mike or Nancy) in the conversation. Table IV displays means and standard deviations for variables D and E. Table IV Means and Standard Deviations for Variable D -Perceived Aggression of Person A and Variable E -Perceived Aggression of Person B Means/Standard Deviations* Character: Person A Bill Betsy Total of All Groups D -Responses Describing "Aggressive" Character* M** 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o F 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o Tot 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o 1.0 I o.o Total of Character: Person B Mike Nancy All Groups E -Responses Describing Other Character* M 3.6 I .65 3.5 I .64 3.4 I .64 3.5 I .63 F 3.6 I .65 3.3 I .45 3.6 I .81 3.5 I .67 Tot 3.6 I .64 3.4 I .56 3.5 I .73 3.5 I .65 "'scale used: 1 = aggressive, 3 = assertive, 5 = passive **M = Male, F = Female, Tot = Total All subjects selected 1 = aggressive as descriptive of the behavior of Person A, Bill or Betsy. The behavior of Person B, Mike or Nancy was perceived as assertive to passive. Female subjects perceived Nancy's behavior as more passive than they perceived Mike's behavior. Male subjects perceived Nancy's behavior as slightly more assertive than they viewed Mike's l:lehavior. However, the individual group means indicated that male and female supervisors perceived the aggressive character Bill as more assertive and less passive than Betsy or Person A. Table V