SEX ROLE ORIENTATION AS A PREDICTOR OF WOMEN?S IDENTITY STATUSES, IDENTITY STYLES, PRIORITIES, AND TIME USE Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ________________________________________ Amber L. Paulk Certificate of Approval: _________________________ _________________________ Jennifer Kerpelman Joe F. Pittman, Jr., Chair Professor Professor Human Development and Human Development and Family Studies Family Studies _________________________ _________________________ Gregory Pettit Stephen L. McFarland Professor Acting Dean Human Development and Graduate School Family Studies SEX ROLE ORIENTATION AS A PREDICTOR OF WOMEN?S IDENTITY STATUSES, IDENTITY STYLES, PRIORITIES, AND TIME USE Amber L. Paulk A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama August 7, 2006 iii SEX ROLE ORIENTATION AS A PREDICTOR OF WOMEN?S IDENTITY STATUSES, IDENTITY STYLES, PRIORITIES, AND TIME USE Amber L. Paulk Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ______________________________ Signature of Author ______________________________ Date of Graduation iv THESIS ABSTRACT SEX ROLE ORIENTATION AS A PREDICTOR OF WOMEN?S IDENTITY STATUSES, IDENTITY STYLES, PRIORITIES, AND TIME USE Amber L. Paulk Master of Science, August, 7, 2006 (Bachelor of Arts, Auburn University, 2003) 117 Typed Pages Directed by Joe F. Pittman, Jr. In the current study, we were interested in how the balance between expressive and instrumental qualities may be associated with women?s identity statuses, identity styles, priorities, and time use. Our sample consisted of 189 female college undergraduates at a university in the South East. In terms of identity statuses, we found that androgynous women had significantly higher achievement scores in the ideological domain than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women. Androgynous women also had significantly higher achievement scores in the interpersonal domain than undifferentiated women. Consistent with our predictions about identity styles, feminine- oriented women had significantly higher normative-oriented scores than androgynous v women. Androgynous and masculine-oriented women had significantly higher information-oriented scores than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women, and undifferentiated women had significantly higher diffusion-oriented scores than masculine-oriented and androgynous women. In terms of priorities, our prediction that masculine-oriented and androgynous women would score higher than feminine-oriented women on measures of occupational priorities was not supported. However, our predictions about women?s marital and parental priorities were partially supported. Feminine-oriented and androgynous women had higher marital priorities than undifferentiated women; and androgynous women had higher marital priorities than masculine-oriented women. Feminine-oriented women had significantly higher parental priorities than masculine-oriented and undifferentiated women; and androgynous women had significantly higher parental priorities than undifferentiated women. The priority that women place on romantic relationships was also investigated, and we found that feminine-oriented women scored significantly higher on measures of romantic relationship priorities than undifferentiated women. However, there were no significant differences in women?s future-orientation priorities based on sex role orientation. In terms of time use, we found that women with higher levels of expressivity spent more time in leisure activities with their partners that reflected interpersonal-oriented priorities, and women with higher levels of instrumentality spent more time in leisure activities with their partners that reflected ideological-oriented priorities. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Joe F. Pittman, Jr. for his assistance, guidance, and patience throughout the course of this investigation and for always challenging and motivating me to do my best work. I would also like to acknowledge my other committee members, Dr. Jennifer Kerpelman and Dr. Greg Pettit, for giving freely of their time, support, and insightful feedback throughout the process. Special thanks are also due to my friends Danny Burgess and Jared Keeley for helping with the merging of data files, fielding analyses questions (even on weekends), and for always being supportive. Thanks are also extended to my parents and brother, Kris, for their love and endless encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank my fianc? Ryan for assisting in data collection, proofreading countless drafts, cheering me on, and for providing infinite love and emotional support. vii Style manual or journal used Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth Addition Computer software used Corel WordPerfect 12.0, SPSS viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLE..................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................. x I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................. 9 III. METHOD.................................................................................................... 28 Subjects....................................................................................................... 28 Procedures................................................................................................... 29 Measures...................................................................................................... 30 IV. RESULTS.................................................................................................... 40 V. DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 58 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX A......................................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX B.......................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX C.......................................................................................................... 79 APPENDIX D......................................................................................................... 96 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Means, standard deviations, minium values, maximum values, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach?s alpha for all aggregate scales.........................................33 Table 2: Means and standard deviations of the identity status scores in the ideological domain for the four sex role orientations....................................................................42 Table 3: Means and standard deviations of the identity status scores in the interpersonal domain for the four sex role orientations.............................................................44 Table 4: Means and standard deviations of the identity style scores by the four sex role orientations..........................................................................................................46 Table 5: Means and standard deviations of the Life Role Salience Scale Subscales by the four sex role orientations..................................................................................49 Table 6: Means and standard deviations of the Life Goals Scale and the Future Orientation Scale by the four sex role orientations................................................51 Table 7: Summary of regression analyses for variables predicting leisure time use with partner alone........................................................................................................56 Table 8: Summary of regression analyses for variables predicting leisure time use with partner total.........................................................................................................57 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Identity status scores in the ideological domain by the four sex role orientations.............................................................................................................43 Figure 2: Identity status scores in the interpersonal domain by the four sex role orientations.............................................................................................................45 Figure 3: Identity style scores by the four sex role orientations........................................47 Figure 4: Occupational, marital and parental priorities by the four sex role orientations.............................................................................................................50 Figure 5: Romantic relationship priorities by the four sex role orientations....................52 Figure 6: Future orientation priorities by the four sex role orientations............................53 1 I. INTRODUCTION Young women coming to the end of their college careers are at a pivotal point in their lives. Life choices about family and career are imminent, and decisions made at this stage may ultimately affect later opportunities. Also during this time, romantic relationships are replacing parental figures as references for decision making and therefore can greatly influence women=s choices (Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). Why do some women choose a career path while others choose to stay at home? There is a body of literature that looks at the association between women?s sex role orientation and their identity, priorities, and time use, and how these constructs may ultimately influence women?s choices about the future. Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) characterized sex role orientation as the degree to which people hold instrumental (e.g., self-confident, active, independent) versus expressive (e.g., caring, tactful, kind) qualities, and they created the Personal Attributes Questionnaire to measure four proposed sex role orientations: feminine-oriented, masculine-oriented, androgynous, and undifferentiated. Participants who score high in instrumental qualities and low in expressive qualities are categorized as masculine- oriented, while those who score high in expressive qualities and low in instrumental qualities are categorized as feminine-oriented. Those who score high in both 2 instrumental and expressive qualities are categorized as androgynous, whereas those who score low in both of these qualities are categorized as undifferentiated (Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Sex Role Orientation and Identity Statuses and Styles Erikson (1950) conceptualized identity as an inner sameness that is stable over time for oneself and others across a variety of interpersonal interactions. In the current study identity was operationalized using the frameworks of Marcia (1994) and Berzonsky (1990). Marcia (1994) operationalized identity into four statuses. The first is achievement, which is characterized by active self-exploration and commitment to a particular identity. The status of moratorium is also characterized by active self- exploration but lacks commitment to an identity. These two statuses are characterized as having an information-oriented identity style (Berzonsky, 1990). Information-oriented individuals attempt to obtain and evaluate self-relevant information in regards to a specific identity domain in order to problem solve and commit to decisions (Berzonsky, 1990). The statuses of foreclosure and diffusion are distinguished by their lack of active self-exploration (Marcia, 1994). Those who are currently in foreclosure are committed to a role not based on their own exploration but rather on the adoption of the beliefs and goals prescribed by others, and they are characterized as having a normative-oriented identity style (Berzonsky, 1990). Those experiencing a diffused status are characterized as neither exploring for a self-definition, nor are they adopting the ideals of others. This status is linked with a diffuse-oriented identity style that is characterized by procrastinating and avoiding decision making (Berzonsky, 1990). These statuses and 3 styles occur in several identity domains, or facets of one?s identity (e.g., ideological and interpersonal). At any particular point in time an individual may be experiencing differing identity statuses in various domains (e.g., achieved in ideological domain, moratorium in interpersonal domain). Several studies have linked identity to women?s levels of expressivity and instrumentality through exploring differences in women?s identity and intimacy development (Dyk & Adams, 1990; Lewis, 2003; Prager, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985). Prager (1983) found that masculinity in women was positively associated with achievement across all domains. Prager (1983) suggests that this may be because masculine-oriented women have a higher level of instrumental qualities. Schiedel and Marcia (1985) also found that levels of expressivity and instrumentality influenced identity development. They conducted a study that investigated the association between ego identity, intimacy, and sex role orientation and found that feminine-oriented women scored significantly higher on measures of intimacy than women who were masculine- oriented, which may be related to feminine-oriented women?s higher levels of expressivity. These findings are important, because varying levels of intimacy are linked to identity development (Dyk & Adams, 1990). Dyk and Adams (1990) conducted a study that investigated the association between intimacy and identity development during adolescence. They found that identity and intimacy were more likely to co-develop in girls who scored higher on measures of intimacy (i.e., these girls were asking identity questions ?Who am I?? and intimacy questions, ?Who am I in relation to others?? simultaneously). 4 Another aspect of identity where gender differences have been identified is identity statuses in specific identity domains (Lewis, 2003). Lewis (2003) investigated the pattern of identity and intimacy in college students across the two grand domains of identity: ideological (i.e., occupational, political, philosophical, and religious) and interpersonal (i.e., dating, friendship, sex roles, and recreational). She found that women, in general, were much more likely than men to be achieved in the interpersonal domain. However, she also found some notable differences among the women in her study. Specifically, she found that women with higher scores on measures of intimacy reported higher levels of exploration in the interpersonal domain than women with lower scores on intimacy measures. The studies we have reviewed (Lewis, 2003; Prager, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985) provide insight into women?s sex role orientation and their identity choices. From these studies we know that there is a strong connection between expressivity and intimacy (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985) and high levels of intimacy are associated with exploration in the interpersonal domain (Lewis, 2003), and we also know that masculinity has been associated with identity achievement across all domains (Prager, 1983). Therefore, we expect that women with different sex role orientations will differ in their identity statuses and styles. Sex Role Orientation and Priorities Hoffnung (2004) conducted a study investigating what college educated women report they want in their futures, and the majority of women in her study reported that 5 they ?want it all? (i.e., successful career, marriage, and parenthood) (p. 711). Many of these women believed that it was entirely possible to achieve their professional and personal goals simultaneously. However, when Hoffnung (2004) re-contacted these participants seven years later, women who postponed marriage and children were the ones most likely to have obtained the graduate degrees and career goals they had previously planned. Although these women reported similar priorities, ultimately they made different choices and had very different outcomes. Perhaps these differences in women?s outcomes stem from how they prioritize work-family from a young age. Archer (1985) investigated identity statuses in the ideological and interpersonal domains in adolescent boys and girls, as well as how they conceptualized their future work-family roles. She found that in terms of family-career priorities, adolescent boys were twice as likely as girls to be diffused in terms of family roles. On the contrary, adolescent girls reported higher levels of exploration of and commitment to family-career priorities than boys, and in fact, they were four times more likely than boys to be in achievement or moratorium statuses in terms of family roles. We are interested in extending these studies (Archer, 1985; Hoffnung, 2004) to determine if the future priorities of women differ based on their sex role orientation. Specifically, we would like to investigate if sex role orientation is associated with women?s adult role priorities (i.e., occupational, marital, parental) romantic relationship priorities, and future oriented priorities. 6 Sex Role Orientation, Priorities, and Time Use Although it seems intuitive that time use would mirror one?s priorities, we found surprisingly little research on time use and priorities (Herridge, Shaw, & Mannell, 2003; Matula, Huston, Grotevant, & Zamutt, 1992). However, we were able to locate two studies that found associations between time use and how women prioritize their lives. Herridge, Shaw, and Mannell (2003) asked college women involved in dating relationships to create a hierarchy of their life priorities and also asked them to report how much time they spent with their romantic partners. They found that women who placed a very high priority on their romantic relationships spent more leisure time with their romantic partners than women who reported relationships as lower on their hierarchy of priorities. This suggests that women?s priorities are associated with how much time they spend with partner. In fact, Matula, Huston, Grotevant, and Zamutt (1992) found that women?s priorities may also be associated with whether or not they choose to have a romantic partner at all. They conducted a study assessing the association between dating commitment (i.e., including the time put forth toward a dating relationship) and college students? career priorities. They found that women who have high career priorities are less likely to have a romantic partner altogether (i.e., they choose to spend their time in other ways). Based on what we know about sex role orientation and priorities (Archer, 1985; Hoffnung, 2004), we might expect to find differences in how women spend their time in leisure activities with their romantic partners. 7 The Present Study The purpose of this study is to replicate and extend what is known about women?s sex role orientation (Spence & Helmreich, 1980) and how it is associated with women?s identity status (Schiedel & Marcia, 1985), identity style (Berzonsky, 1990), priorities (Archer, 1985; Hoffnung, 2004), and time use (Herridge et al., 2003; Matula et al., 1992) in the context of romantic relationships. Based on the findings of previous research (Prager, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985), in the ideological domain we expect feminine- oriented women will have higher foreclosure scores than masculine-oriented and androgynous women, while masculine-oriented and androgynous women will have higher achievement scores than feminine-oriented women, and undifferentiated women will have higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented and androgynous women. We expect masculine-oriented and androgynous women will have similar identity outcomes for the ideological domain because, although androgynous women possess both high expressive and instrumental qualities, we expect the instrumental qualities to take precedence in the ideological domain. However, in the interpersonal domain expressiveness will likely take precedence. Therefore, we predict that feminine-oriented and androgynous women will have higher achievement scores in the interpersonal domain than masculine-oriented women (Lewis, 2003). Given the status/style linkages reported by Berzonsky (1990), we expect feminine-oriented women to tend toward a more normative-oriented identity style, masculine-oriented and androgynous women to tend toward an information-oriented style, and undifferentiated women to tend toward a diffuse-oriented identity style (Berzonsky, 1990; Marcia, 1985). 8 Based on studies conducted on sex role orientation (Spence & Helmreich, 1980) and priorities (Archer, 1985; Hoffnung, 2004), we expect that in comparison to masculine-oriented women, feminine-oriented and androgynous women (i.e., due to their higher levels of expressivity) will report marital and parental roles as more salient. However, we expect that feminine-oriented women alone will prioritize romantic relationships over other life goals (e.g., education, career), and they will be less future- oriented than masculine-oriented and androgynous women. The reason that we do not expect androgynous women to also prioritize relationships over other life goals and to be less future-oriented is that we believe their high level of instrumentality will pair them with masculine-oriented women in regards to these priorities. Therefore, in comparison to feminine-oriented women, we expect masculine-oriented or androgynous women to report occupational roles as more salient, prioritize other life goals over romantic relationships, and be more future-oriented. Controlling for these priorities, we expect that dependent upon women?s levels of expressivity and instrumentality, women will spend leisure time with their partners differently (Herridge et al., 2003; Matula et al., 1992). 9 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review literature on women=s identity development, priorities, and time use to gain a better understanding of how women organize their self-views and make decisions about their futures (Erikson, 1950; Matula, Huston, Grovetvant, & Zamutt, 1992). The ultimate goal is to examine how women?s sex role orientation (i.e., feminine-oriented, masculine-oriented, androgynous, or undifferentiated) is associated with women?s identity statuses, identity styles, priorities, and time use in the context of romantic relationships (Berzonsky, 1990; Herridge, Shaw, & Mannell, 2003; Marcia, 1993; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). First, I will examine the underlying processes of identity, the styles of information processing that help us make decisions and problem solve, and the development of identity and intimacy in men and women (Berzonsky, 1990; Erikson, 1950; Marcia, 1993). Then, I will discuss how theory and research on sex role orientation and its association with the development and function of women?s priorities (Herridge, Shaw, & Mannell, 2003; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). I will also review studies that have explored the different functions of romantic partners and how romantic relationships may be connected to women?s priorities (Kerpelman & Lamke, 1997). Finally, I will review priority and time use literatures with the goal of revealing how these constructs may be useful in demonstrating how people prioritize their lives (Herridge et al., 2003). 10 Identity Development in Women In his ground breaking theorizing about identity development, Erikson (1950) proposed a series of stages that all individuals go through that shape their personality. These stages begin during the first year of life, beginning with a sense of trust versus mistrust and continue throughout life as individuals are faced with difficult challenges and gain new understandings of their world. The stages of particular interest to the current topic are identity versus identity diffusion, and intimacy versus isolation. Erikson defined the successful development of identity as Aone=s ability to maintain inner sameness and continuity of one=s meaning for others@ (p.89). Building upon the work of Erikson, Marcia (1993) operationalized the construct of identity by defining two underlying processes (crises and commitment) that take place during identity development. The process of identity development begins with crises, that leads one to examine the self, experiment with different roles, and question one=s basic objectives, beliefs, and values (Berzonsky, 1990). The other identity process is commitment. It leads to a stable definition of self and a firm sense of one=s beliefs and goals. Using these two processes, Marcia (1993) proposed four identity statuses. Active self-exploration is involved in the statuses of achievement and moratorium, but they differ in commitment level (Marcia, 1993). Those who are currently experiencing achievement in a particular area of identity have actively explored other roles and have committed to specific self-determined beliefs and goals, and therefore they have resolved the crisis of ideological identity for the time being. Individuals in moratorium are still 11 attempting to resolve their identity crises by actively exploring various roles but have not yet committed. The other two statuses, foreclosure and diffusion, are distinguished by their lack of active self-exploration. Those who are currently in foreclosure are committed to specific beliefs and goals, however, unlike those currently in the achieved status this commitment was not based on their own exploration but rather on the adoption of the beliefs and goals prescribed by others, usually their parents. Diffused individuals are also not exploring for a self definition, nor are they adopting the ideals of others (Marcia, 1993). To further elaborate on these statuses, Berzonsky (1990) developed a process model to explain differences in how individuals, characterized by particular status outcomes, vary in their approaches to identity issues in terms of processing. He described information-oriented individuals as those who are actively exploring, (i.e., in the status paradigm those who are experiencing achievement or moratorium statuses). These individuals attempt to obtain and evaluate self-relevant information in regards to a specific issue in order to problem solve and commit to decisions. Berzonsky (1990) described normative-oriented individuals as those who concentrate on the expectations of significant others when they are problem solving and making decisions, which is congruent with Marcia?s (1993) conceptualization of the foreclosed status. Finally, Berzonsky (1990) described diffuse-oriented individuals as those who procrastinate and avoid problem-solving and decision-making until circumstances dictate their actions. The diffuse-oriented style is associated with the diffusion status in Marcia?s (1993) framework. 12 The statuses, as well as styles of problem solving and decision making, change as individuals change (Berzonsky, 1990), and they change across identity domains. Identity domains are facets of one=s identity (Lewis, 2003). Most theorists (Archer, 1985; Lewis, 2003; Marcia, 1993; Prager, 1983) divide identity domains into two grand domains known as the ideological and interpersonal domains. Both these grand domains contain four subdomains. The ideological domain contains the occupational, philosophical, political, and religious subdomains. The interpersonal domain contains the friendship, dating, recreational, and sex role subdomains. At any particular point in time an individual may be experiencing numerous identity statuses in various domains of identity (Lewis, 2003). For example, an individual may currently be achieved in the ideological domain, but may be in moratorium in the interpersonal domain. However, as the individual gathers information, which will be influenced by his or her particular information processing style, these statuses may change. For example, if while this person is in a state of moratorium in the interpersonal domain he or she uses an information-oriented style and seeks out knowledge in this domain, he or she may begin to commit to a particular belief set and move into a state of achievement in this domain (Marcia, 1993). Sex Role Orientation and Identity Statuses and Styles All healthy men and women are expected to develop identity and intimacy (Erikson, 1950; Marcia, 1994). However, there have been debates in the field of identity about whether or not men and women develop identity and intimacy in the same way (Archer, 1985; Dyk & Adams, 1990; Erikson, 1950; Marcia, 1994). Erikson believed it is 13 Aonly after a reasonable sense of identity has been established that real intimacy with the other sex is possible@ (p.95). He proposed that once identity is formed, then true intimacy can be established in romantic relationships. However, Erikson believed that identity development may be dissimilar for men and women, with women=s identity and intimacy less differentiated and more fused together than men=s. Subsequent research conducted may offer a clearer picture of what is actually occurring during the development of identity and intimacy for men and women. Based on his previous research, Marcia (1994) summarized some of his most important findings on women=s identity development. When Marcia began his work in the 1960s, he found differences in identity statuses in men and women in his research. Specifically, he found that some identity statuses (e.g., foreclosure) were negative for men but positive for women, which meant that men and women did not necessarily experience identity development in the same way. However, these differences were not as clear cut in subsequent studies conducted in the 1980s, and he found that there may be some within group differences in women?s identity development. For example, Schiedel and Marcia (1985) conducted a study that assessed identity and intimacy in college men and women (40 males, 40 females). Participants were given a semi-structured identity status interview (Marcia, 1976) that assessed subjects? identity status in various domains, and then they were administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) to assess their sex role orientation. They found that women scored higher than men in intimacy, but more importantly they found within group differences for women in levels of 14 intimacy. Specifically, they found that feminine-oriented women scored significantly higher on intimacy measures than masculine-oriented women. By the 1990s, Marcia?s studies were not finding any gender differences in terms of identity statuses (1994). There does however appear to be gender differences in terms of the pattern in which identity and intimacy emerge. Upon review of his accumulated studies, Marcia (1994) suggests that his overall findings reveal that men seem to follow a homogeneous pattern where identity is necessary for intimacy to occur. However, for women, Marcia (1994) suggests there are three distinct patterns. The first two patterns (i.e., intimacy preceding identity, and identity preceding intimacy) occur in some women, but the most frequent pattern is that of intimacy and identity co-developing. In order to investigate the differences in the underlying processes of identity development for men and women, as well as within-group differences in women, Dyk and Adams (1990) conducted a study assessing identity and intimacy in 142 college students (71 male, 71 female) over a five year period. They administered the Erikson Psychosocial Stage Inventory Scale (EPSI) (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981), which is designed to measure feelings, cognitions, and behaviors related to identity and intimacy. Participants then completed two sex role orientation scales, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) and the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE) (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). The BSRI asks participants to indicate the extent to which various masculine and feminine characteristics are self-descriptive, while the QMEE measures participants emotional empathy. Participants who scored higher on the measures of femininity and empathy were characterized as higher in expressiveness. 15 The researchers found that men with more expressive qualities (i.e., they reported higher feminine characteristics and more emotional empathy) were better at deeply exploring intimacy than men with more instrumental qualities. Also, a fusion between identity and intimacy was found for women who were high in feminine orientation. Fusion was operationalized from participants? EPSI scores. The EPSI includes six subscales that are based on Erickson?s first six stages of psychosocial development, and each subscale is designed to measure whether participants have successfully resolved that stage or whether they are still in crisis. Dyk & Adams (1990) focused on responses to the identity and intimacy subscale, and participants were classified as ?fused? if their intimacy scores were higher or the same as their identity scores. This fusion was only found in feminine-oriented women. Both Marcia (1985) and Dyk and Adams (1990) found that feminine-oriented women had significantly higher levels of intimacy and that this was connected to within-group differences in women?s identity development. In order to explore the meaning of these differences, Lewis (2003) investigated the pattern of identity and intimacy development across statuses in various identity domains. Lewis (2003) decided to focus on the two grand domains of identity (i.e., ideological and interpersonal domains). Four hundred and thirty-four college students (313 females, 121 males) were sampled. Participants completed the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2), this scale is used to determine identity status (i.e., achieved, moratorium, foreclosure, diffusion) (Bennion & Adams, 1986), and it measures participants exploration and commitment across domains. She found that 16 women who reported higher levels of intimacy also reported higher exploration in the interpersonal domain. Women who reported higher levels of intimacy were also more likely to report that while they explore a particular career they are more likely to consider how it might influence their significant others. Therefore, we might expect that women with higher levels of expressivity (i.e., feminine-oriented women) will make more choices based on the influence of significant others. In the current study, we are investigating the association between sex role orientation and identity statuses, identity styles, priorities, and time use. Sex role orientation will be operationalized using the framework of Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974). Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) created the widely used measure, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), which is designed to assess expressive and instrumental traits. The PAQ asks respondents to rate the degree to which they believe they possess traits that are considered expressive or instrumental. Spence and Helmreich (1980) define instrumental traits as those that are stereotypically characteristic of males rather than females (e.g., self-confident, active, independent). Expressive traits are those that are typically considered more socially desirable in women (e.g., caring, tactful, kind) (Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Utilizing the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1974), Prager (1983) conducted a study that investigated the relationship between women=s sex role orientation and their identity status. Eighty-eight college women completed the PAQ (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1974) to measure their sex role orientation and the identity status interview (Marcia, 1966) to assess their identity status 17 in the domains of occupation, religion, politics, and sexual values. Prager (1983) found that masculinity in women was positively associated with identity development, that is, women who were masculine-oriented more likely to be classified as identity achievers across all domains. Prager (1983) suggests that this may be because masculine-oriented women may be more successful at resolving identity crises. Based on the findings of this research (Lewis, 2003; Marcia, 1993; Prager, 1983) we expect three distinct patterns of status scores to emerge in the ideological domain. First, we expect masculine-oriented and androgynous women will have higher achievement scores in the ideological domain compared to feminine-oriented women. We predict that feminine-oriented women will have higher foreclosure scores in the ideological domain compared to masculine-oriented and androgynous women. Our final prediction for the ideological domain is that undifferentiated women will have higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. We have one prediction for the interpersonal domain. We expect feminine-oriented and androgynous women will have higher achievement scores in the interpersonal domain compared to masculine-oriented women. By extension, given the status/style linkages reported by Berzonsky (1990), we expect feminine-oriented women to tend toward a normative- oriented identity style, masculine-oriented and androgynous women to tend toward a information-oriented identity style, and undifferentiated women to tend toward a diffuse- oriented style (Berzonsky, 1990; Marcia, 1993). 18 Sex Role Orientation and Priorities Several studies have assessed women?s work-family priorities (Archer, 1985; Josselson, 1973). Archer (1985) conducted a study that assessed the salience of career and family for adolescents. Ninety-six adolescents (48 males, 48 females) ranging from grades 6-12 completed the Ego Identity Interview (Marcia, 1966) to determine their identity status in regards to ideological, religious, political, sex-role and family-career priority domains. Participants also completed an additional measure created by Archer (1985) to assess their beliefs about societal expectations for them in each of these domains. Archer (1985) found no major difference in boys and girls in terms of identity status in the ideological domain itself. However, in the domain of family-career priorities adolescent boys were twice as likely to be diffused in terms of family roles. Adolescent girls, on the other hand, were four times more likely to be in moratorium or achieved statuses in terms of family roles. These girls reported higher levels of exploration of and commitment to family-career priorities than boys. This may be because girls perceive a higher likelihood of conflict between family and career roles. When asked about their societal expectations in this domain, many of the girls reported they feared a lack of support systems would be a barrier to maintaining active career and family lives simultaneously (Archer, 1985). Girls in her study reported a fear of work-family conflict due to poor social support, which they believed would be necessary in order for them to maintain their work and family goals. Thus, young girls thinking about their futures may 19 be interpreting cultural messages about work-family and perceiving barriers that are shaping the futures they envision. Josselson (1973) conducted a study that assessed the work-family priorities of college women. She was interested in women?s developmental paths as they went through an identity stage change (i.e., from college life to post graduation). She sampled 48 women who were college seniors. Each of the women completed an identity status interview (Marcia, 1966) to assess their level of crisis and commitment in regards to sexual, political, religious, and ideological domains. All of these women were about to graduate, and the majority reported looking for employment. This study was conducted in 1973, during the Women=s Movement in the U.S., and although many of these women were in long-term relationships with men, they did not report feeling pressure to marry. The majority of these women reported they planned to spend a few years being single and building their careers, a few years married without children, several years in child-rearing and little work, and then, at some point, a return to work either full or part-time. The plan that many of these women reported reveals that they believed work was going to be an important future, and their work-family priorities are reflected in their prospective trajectories. Like the women in Josselson?s (1973) study, women today often report that they prioritize both occupation and family goals (Hoffnung, 2004). A study conducted by Hoffnung (2004) investigated how women converted their priorities for the future into current activities to achieve those goals in order to better understand why some women, with seemingly similar priorities for the future, end up on different paths (i.e., how 20 women?s priorities precede their decisions about how to spend their time). She interviewed 200 college women in their senior year about their future expectations for career, marriage, and parenthood, and then seven years later assessed their actual outcomes. During the initial interview, the majority of these women indicated that they wanted both a successful career and a thriving family life. Many of them planned on obtaining graduate degrees. However, when assessed seven years later, the women who had not delayed motherhood obtained fewer degrees and spent less time working. Women who had postponed having children had obtained more graduate degrees and spent significantly more time developing their careers. From these studies (Archer, 1985; Hoffnung, 2004; Josselson, 1973) we expect that due to their higher levels of expressiveness, feminine-oriented and androgynous women will report more interpersonal-oriented priorities than masculine-oriented women. We expect masculine-oriented women, however, will report more ideological-oriented priorities than feminine-oriented women. Specifically, due to their higher levels of expressivity, we expect that in comparison to masculine-oriented women, feminine- oriented and androgynous women will report marital and parental roles as more salient. We expect that feminine-oriented women, but not androgynous women, will choose romantic relationships over other life goals (e.g., education, career), and they will be less future-oriented than masculine-oriented and androgynous women. We do not expect that androgynous women will be paired with feminine-oriented women in terms of their ideological, romantic relationship, or future-oriented priorities because in these areas we believe that the instrumental qualities of androgynous women will take precedence. 21 Therefore, we expect that masculine-oriented or androgynous women will report ideological roles as more salient, they will choose other life goals over romantic relationships, and they will be more future-oriented than feminine-oriented women. Role of Romantic Partners Women, in general, may value intimacy and interpersonal relationships more than men do (Collins, 2003; Knox, Funk, Elliot, & Greenbush, 1998; Lewis, 2003). In fact, while boys report gaining self-esteem from developing skills and abilities, girls are more likely to report gaining self-esteem from success in interpersonal relationships (Knox, Funk, Elliot, & Greenbush, 1998). More than offering women self-esteem, Collins (2003) proposes that romantic relationships are significant settings for acquiring skills. Couples participate in a variety of shared activities, and the diversity of activities they choose to do together, as well as the activities they avoid together, provides them with skill, and some partners will learn more together than others do. For example, more interdependent couples typically share a wider variety of activities (Collins, 2003). They are more likely to complete tasks together and are better at working toward a common goal than couples who are not as close. Identity research (Erikson, 1950; Marcia, 1993) has also suggested that interpersonal relationships are crucial to women?s development of identity. In fact, Marcia?s research suggests that for some women intimacy and identity may co-develop (1994). For women whose identity and intimacy co-develop, social involvement with a romantic partner may be important in the identity exploration process. 22 Kerpelman and Lamke (1997) conducted a study that investigated how dating partners may facilitate identity processes. They asked forty-two college women to report the salience of their future life plans, and then asked their romantic partners to also assess the salience of participants? goals (i.e., the researchers wanted to assess the congruence between participant and partner perceptions). The women who reported that their future careers were highly salient received feedback from the researchers that they had low potential for their future plans. Then, in the next part of the experiment, participants and partners were brought back together to discuss the researchers? feedback. Participants who reported their future goals as highly salient and who were most successful at verifying their identities were more likely to have partners who knew them well and who actively affirmed their salient future goals. To further assess the importance of romantic partner versus other people in women?s lives, Kerpelman and Pittman (2001) asked seventy-six college women to bring either a romantic partner or a same-sex friend to the laboratory. The women were asked how they envisioned their future in terms of career, marriage, and parenthood plans, and they were asked about the salience of these plans. They were also given a questionnaire to assess the quality of their relationships with their partners or friends. The researchers then gave the women fictional feedback. Some of the women were given feedback that was inconsistent with their self-view that indicated they had low potential for their future plans, which the participants then reviewed with their partners and friends. Consistent with the findings of the Kerpelman and Lamke (1997) study, the researchers found that the women who were most effective in resisting the feedback and maintaining stability of 23 their future plans were women with more salient plans and whose partners and friends had a more accurate perception of this salience. In both studies (Kerpelman & Lamke, 1997; Kerpelman & Pittman, 2001) partner or friend congruence served as a buffer against the disruptive feedback, because partners/friends who knew the participants? goals were better equipped to provide a supportive social context in which the women could resist contrary information about themselves. The availability of this social context is likely to depend, in part, on the priority placed upon obtaining and maintaining it. The review thus far suggests that variation in sex role orientation is relevant to this priority, and that romantic relationships may be important contexts for acquiring skills (Collins, 2003). The next section will presents literature that assesses time use with romantic partner as a possible reflection of women?s priorities. Sex Role Orientation, Priorities, and Time Use How people spend their time may provide useful information about what they are doing to obtain their goals and achieve their priorities, and this may also be a reflection of their identity. For example, why did the women in Hoffnung?s (2004) study, who reported similar priorities (i.e., the majority of women reported wanting a successful career and a thriving family life), end up with significantly different outcomes? One possibility is that differing patterns of time use may produce different trajectories. The priority that women place on romantic relationships has been linked to how women spend their time. Herridge, Shaw, and Mannell (2003) conducted a qualitative study of 13 women in romantic relationships to assess how the hierarchy of their priorities influenced 24 how they spent their leisure time. The researchers used open-ended questions to assess women=s priorities and time use. They found that women who placed a very high priority on their romantic relationships spent more leisure time with their partners than women whose relationships were not at the top of their hierarchy of priorities. In fact, Matula, Huston, Grotevant, and Zamutt (1992) found that women who have high career priorities are less likely to have a romantic partner altogether (i.e., they choose to spend their time in other ways). These researchers investigated the relationship between dating commitment and the identity of college men and women. Two-hundred and twenty three college students (167 women, 56 men) completed the Attitudes Toward Women Scale to assess their gender role attitudes (e.g., whether they believed women should be allowed to work as men=s equals). They also completed the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1983) to assess the importance subjects= placed on marriage versus ideological goals, and they were also given an additional questionnaire to assess their educational aspirations, vocational identity, commitment to work, and dating status. Matula et al. (1992) found that women who rated themselves as more career- oriented placed less value on dating, and they dated less in college. These women also were more likely to attend college longer and postpone marriage. Women who placed high importance on their future career and had a firm vocational identity perceived less role conflict (i.e., between the roles of career and marriage) and were less likely to be involved in a relationship. From this study, it appears that women who are career- oriented are developing expectations and beliefs about their future careers, they are 25 exploring their options, making investments with their time and energy, considering competing forces, and evaluating their process and progress. At the present, we were unable to find research studies focusing on the association between time use in relation to sex role orientation, and we found surprisingly few studies on time use and priorities. However based on the findings Herridge et al. (2003) and Matula et al. (1992), we expect time use will be a reflection of women?s priorities. As we have already proposed, we expect women with higher levels of expressivity will report more interpersonal-oriented priorities, and women with higher levels of instrumentality will report more ideological-oriented priorities (Herridge et al., 2003; Matula et al., 1992). Therefore, considering time use as an expression of priorities, we expect that, dependent upon their level of expressivity and instrumentality, women in romantic relationships will spend time in activities with their partners differently. We have chosen to explore leisure time, because we expect that women?s choices amongst the many options available will represent what they prioritize in their lives. Since this type of investigation has not been previously performed, our time use analyses will be exploratory. Conclusion With the number of female undergraduates now exceeding the number of men enrolled in colleges and universities around the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), it would appear that women are just as career-oriented as men. The women of Hoffnung=s (2004) study reported both career and family as high priorities. However, the choice of whether or not to postpone family propelled these women down very different paths. The 26 women who postponed family were allowed to make education and career a continued priority. Women who did not postpone family experienced a restriction in their ability to obtain more education and as a result their careers were not as successful as they originally planned. Based on the review of identity literature (Archer, 1985; Josselson, 1973; Lewis, 2003; Marcia, 1993) we expect to find differences in women?s identity status scores in the ideological and interpersonal domains. In the ideological domain, we expect feminine- oriented women will have higher foreclosure scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. It is also proposed for the ideological domain that masculine- oriented and androgynous women will have higher achievement scores than feminine- oriented women, while undifferentiated women will have higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women (Berzonsky, 1990; Marcia, 1993). In the interpersonal domain, we expect feminine-oriented and androgynous women to have higher achievement scores than masculine-oriented women. Considering the linkages between identity statuses and styles (Berzonsky, 1990), we expect feminine-oriented women to tend toward a more normative-oriented identity style, masculine-oriented and androgynous women to tend toward an information-oriented style, and undifferentiated women to tend toward a diffuse-oriented identity style. From the findings of studies conducted on sex role orientation (Spence & Helmreich, 1980) and priorities (Archer, 1985; Prager, 1983), we hypothesize that feminine-oriented and androgynous women will report marital and parental roles as more salient than masculine-oriented women. We expect feminine-oriented women, but not 27 androgynous women, to prioritize romantic relationships more than other life goals and to be less future-oriented than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. On the contrary, we expect masculine-oriented and androgynous women will report ideological roles as more salient than feminine-oriented women; and we also expect masculine-oriented and androgynous women to prioritize life goals more than romantic relationships and to be more future-oriented than feminine-oriented women. Controlling for these priorities, we expect that women with different levels of expressivity and instrumentality will spend leisure time with partner differently (Herridge et al., 2003; Matula et al., 1992). 28 III. METHOD Subjects The participants in the current investigation were found through convenience sampling methods, including advertisements on departmental message boards and announcements in large undergraduate classes. The criteria for participation was that students must be female, at least 19 years of age, and a student taking an undergraduate course in the Human Development and Family Studies Department or the Psychology Department where the instructor was offering extra credit for participation in the study. Participants came to the laboratory and completed the following measures in one continuous session: the Personal Attributes Questionnaire, the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status, the Life Goals Scale, the Life Role Saliency Scale, and the Future Orientation Questionnaire, the Current Identity Q-sort, and the Typical Week Time Sort. Of our original 223 participants, 34 participants were dropped. One participant was dropped because she listed her relationship status as married, and this was outside the scope of the current investigation. Fifteen participants were dropped because they failed to complete all of the scales. The remaining 18 participants were dropped because it appeared these participants did not read the questions or marked answers randomly (e.g., some participants responded that they did not have a romantic partner, but when 29 completing the time sort they reported spending several hours a week with a romantic partner). The mean age of our remaining 189 participants was 20 years, and on average they were juniors in class ranking. Participants? majors varied significantly, and in all, there were 26 different majors reported by participants. However, over 40% of the participants? majors were in Human Development and Family Studies (i.e., 19%) or Psychology (i.e., 23%). Thirty-one percent (i.e., 59) of our sample reported they were not currently in a relationship. With the exception of three women, all of these participants reported having at least one significant romantic relationship in their past that lasted at least three months. The remaining 56 women reported that, on average, their last relationship ended 14 months prior to completing the study, and that this relationship had lasted an average of 15 months. Sixty-nine percent (i.e., 130) of the participants reported being in a current relationship with an average length of 13 months. Forty percent of these relationships (i.e., 52) were long-distance relationships. Participants in long- distance relationships reported seeing their partner face-to-face an average of 3.5 days out of the month. Procedure Upon entering the laboratory, participants were asked to read the informed consent letter to ensure that they wanted to participate. If they chose to continue with the study, participants were then informed about the various pieces to the study (i.e., the questionnaire, CIQ Q-sort, and time sort) and given initial instructions. Participants were asked to complete the following measures: CIQ sort, Typical Week Time Sort, and the 30 questionnaires. On average, it took participants approximately 90 minutes to complete the study. After completing all measures of the study, participants received an extra credit voucher worth two credit hours (i.e., to give to their instructor who determined the amount of extra credit they would receive per credit hour) for their participation. In order to protect anonymity, participants? completed packets were assigned a research identification number, and using this number their information was entered into a statistical software database. Measures Assessment of Sex Role Orientation. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) was used to assess participants sex role orientation (Spence et al., 1974). The PAQ is a 24 item measure that is designed to assess participants? expressive and instrumental traits in order to categorize them into one of four sex role orientations: masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated. Participants rate the degree to which an expressive or instrumental attribute describes them on a scale of 1 to 5, ?1' being ?least like me? and ?5' being ?most like me.? There are eight items that assess participants? expressivity (e.g., they rated themselves from 1 to 5 on the antithetical statements ?Not at all emotional? to ?Very emotional?). Instrumentality is also assessed with eight items (e.g., they rated themselves from 1 to 5 on the antithetical statements ?Not at all independent? to ?Very independent?). The remaining eight items not used in the construction of the individual?s sex role orientation scores. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics for these and other constructs utilized in the current analyses. 31 Median splits were performed on each dimension in order to identify cases that were higher or lower on each dimension. The median score was 3.37 on the instrumentality subscale and 4.25 on the expressivity subscale. Participants who scored above median were categorized as ?high? in instrumentality/expressivity, and those who scored below median were categorized as ?low in instrumentality/expressivity. Participants who scored high on expressivity and low on instrumentality were categorized as feminine-oriented women (N = 47). Women who scored high on instrumentality and low on expressivity were categorized as masculine-oriented (N=52). Participants who scored high on both instrumentality and expressivity were categorized as androgynous (N = 52), and those who scored low on both instrumentality and expressivity were categorized as undifferentiated (N = 38). Spence and Helmreich (1980) reported the instrumentality scale of the PAQ to have an alpha that ranges from .51 to .85, and a range of .65 to .82 for the expressivity scale. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha was .81 for the instrumentality scale was .81 and .63 for the expressivity scale. Assessment of Identity Status. In order to assess women?s identity statuses (i.e., achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, diffusion), participants completed the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOMEIS-2) (Bennion & Adams, 1986). It contains 64 items designed to tap a person?s identity status across two grand domains: ideological (i.e., occupation, religion, politics, and philosophical life style sub-domains) and interpersonal (i.e., friendship, dating, sex roles and recreation). Identity achievement is characterized by active self-exploration and commitment in a particular domain. An example of an EOMEIS-2 item that assesses ideological 32 achievement is ?It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really know what I want for a career.? An example of an interpersonal achievement item is, ?I?ve spent some time thinking about men?s and women?s roles in marriage, and I?ve decided what will work best for me.? Identity moratorium is also characterized by active self-exploration but lacks commitment to a role. An example of an item assesses ideological moratorium is, ?There are so many different political parties and ideas. I can?t decide which to follow until I figure it all out..? An example of interpersonal moratorium is, ?I?ve been thinking about the roles that husbands and wives play a lot these days, and I?m trying to make a final decision. Individuals who are currently in identity foreclosure are committed to a role not based on their own exploration but rather on the adoption of the beliefs and goals prescribed by parents, authority figures, close friends, and romantic partners. An example of an ideological foreclosure item is, ?My own views on a desirable life style were taught to me by my parents and I don?t see a need to question what they taught me.? An example of interpersonal foreclosure item is, ?My parents know what?s best for me in terms of how to choose my friends? Individuals experiencing identity diffusion are neither exploring for a self definition, nor are they adopting the ideals of others. An example of an ideolgocial diffusion item is, ?I guess I just kind of enjoy life in general, and I don?t see myself living by any particular viewpoint to life.? An example of an interpersonal diffusion item is, ?I don?t have any close friends, I just hang out with the crowd.? Participants responded to each of the 64 items and responded on a six point 33 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (alphas, means, standard deviations, minium values, maximum values, skewness, and kurtosis) for All Aggregate Scales. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Measure Cronbach Alpha Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Value Maximum Value Skewness Kurtosis ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ PAQ Expressive Items .81 4.19 .51 2.50 5.00 -.85 .92 PAQ Instrumental Items .63 3.35 .52 2.13 4.50 -.34 -.35 EOMEIS-2 Ideological Achievement .69 28.23 5.33 13 40 -.55 .09 EOMEIS-2 Ideological Moratorium .70 19.85 5.63 8 35 .26 -.60 EOMEIS-2 Ideological Foreclosure .76 19.58 5.81 8 37 .47 -.18 EOMEIS-2 Ideological Diffusion .71 18.70 5.81 8 38 .66 .25 EOMEIS-2 Interpersonal Achievement .79 28.84 5.72 12 40 -.66 .19 EOMEIS-2 Interpersonal Moratorium .63 21.32 4.84 11 37 .24 -.21 EOMEIS-2 Interpersonal Foreclosure .82 19.22 6.17 8 40 .40 -.03 EOMEIS-2 Interpersonal Diffusion .75 18.53 5.81 8 36 .94 .54 CIQ Information Orientation .32 .21 -.51 .71 -1.04 1.59 34 CIQ Normative Orientation .14 .19 -.37 .50 -.33 -.37 CIQ Diffusion Orientation -.29 .23 -.66 .51 1.32 1.62 LRSS Occupation Subscale .79 34.43 6.53 16 48 -.31 -.12 LRSS Marital Subscale .84 40.53 7.28 12 50 -1.05 1.05 LRSS Parental Subscale .88 39.51 6.19 15 50 -1.35 1.86 Life Goals Scale .60 6.21 1.90 1 9 -.47 -.35 Future Orientation Scale .73 3.85 .46 2.36 4.82 -.43 .03 35 scale (1 = strongly disagree through 6 = strongly agree). EOMEIS-2 scores for the identity statuses were derived by summing responses to each of the items. Bennion and Adams (1986) reported the internal consistencies of the ideological domain as follows: achievement .62, moratorium .75, foreclosed .75, and diffusion .62. They reported the interpersonal domain alphas were as follows: achievement .60, moratorium .58, foreclosure .80, and diffusion .64. In the current study, the Cronbach alphas reliabilities within the ideological domain were as follows: achievement .69, moratorium .70, foreclosed .76, and diffusion .71. The interpersonal domain alphas were as follows: achievement .79, moratorium .63, foreclosure .82, and diffusion .75. Assessment of Identity Style. The Current Identity Q-Sort (CIQ) (Kerpelman, Pittman, Lamke, & Sollie, 2004) is a novel method designed to assess identity styles, constructs inspired by the theorizing of Berzonsky (1990). Information-oriented individuals actively seek self-relevant information in order to make decisions. Normative-oriented individuals seek the opinions and expectations of others before making decisions. Diffuse-oriented individuals lack direction altogether, and they commonly wait until the situation dictates their actions before making decisions. The CIQ was developed over a two year period with the help twelve experts, including Berzonsky, in the field of identity. These identity experts were asked to sort 60 self-definitions three times into a fixed distribution (4,5,6,8,14,8,6,5,4) that ranges from ?most like me? on the far left to ?least like me? on the far right (Kerpelman, Pittman, & Li, 2004). Each of the three sorts that experts completed was intended to represent the exemplar sort for each of three identity styles (i.e., they were asked to sort the items to 36 represent how the ideal information style would sort the items, then repeat this for the normative style, and finally the diffuse style). The experts? sorts were then aggregated to create the criterion sorts, one for each identity style. Participants? responses are compared to these criterion sorts (i.e., participants? sorts are transposed and correlated against each of these criterion sorts), and participants receive three coefficients, one for each style (i.e., criterion sort). In a test-re-test reliability study (Kerpelman, Pittman, & Li, 2004), the mean correlation between time 1 and 2 for each of 78 participants was .71 (SD=.11). Validity for each of the criterion sorts has been supported (Kerpelman, Pittman, Lamke, & Sollie, 2005). In the current study the information-oriented style received a strong negative correlation with the normative-oriented style [r = -.41, n = 189, p <.001], as well as with the diffuse-oriented style [r = -.88, n = 189, p <.001]. Assessment of Priority. This study used three measures to assess women?s priorities. The first measure was the Life Role Saliency Scale (Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986), which has three subscales, the occupational, marital and parental subscales. The occupational salience subscale asks participants 10 questions pertaining to their career salience (e.g., ?I value being involved in a career and expect to devote the time and energy needed to develop it?) The marital role salience subscale asks participants 10 questions assessing the salience of the marital role (e.g., ?I expect to work hard to build a good marriage relationship even if it means limiting my opportunities to pursue other personal goal?). The parental role salience subscale asks participants 10 questions assessing the salience of the parental role (e.g., ?Although parenthood requires many sacrifices, the love and enjoyment of children of one?s own are worth it all?). 37 Participants? responses were summed to obtain scores for occupational, marital, and parental importance. Amatea et al. (1986) found the occupational, marital, and parental subscales to have acceptable internal consistencies of .84, .88, and .82, respectively. In the current study the Cronbach alpha coefficients for each of the subscales were as follows: occupational .79, marital .84, and parental .88. Our second measure of women?s priorities was The Life Goals Scale (LGS) (Hammersla & Frease-McMahan, 1990). The LGS presents participants with nine hypothetical situations that require them to choose between one of the given life goals or a romantic relationship. For example it asks participants, ?Suppose that a relationship with a man developed. If you had to choose between a successful professional career or the relationship, which would you choose?? If participants chose the relationship they received ?1,? and if they choose the life goal they received a ?0.? The other choices included the priority of a romantic relationship or being physically fit, traveling, being well-off financially, owning a home, making a contribution to society, getting an education, mission/ministry work, and other personal life goal. After summing across items, participants will receive a score between 0 and 9. Women with higher scores were considered as having relationships as their higher priority than other life goals. Hammersla and Frease-McMahan reported the LGS had an acceptable internal consistency with an alpha of .73 (Hammersla & Frease-McMahan, 1990). In the current study our Cronbach alpha coefficient for the LGS was .60. Our final measure of priorities was the Future Orientation Questionnaire (FOQ) (Nurmi, Seginer, & Poole, 1990). The FOQ assesses individuals? future education and 38 future career orientation. An example of an item that assesses future education orientation is, ?How often do you think about or plan your studies and future education?? An example of a question assessing future career is, ?How often do you think about or plan your future career?? Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 to 5 (i.e., 1 = not much thought or planning for the future, 5 = having serious thoughts and plans for the future). Participants? responses were scored across all items to give them a total score on their future orientation. Reliability was assessed for the FOQ in a previous study conducted by Nurmi et al. (1990), and they found an acceptable internal consistency of .66 (i.e., the average of the alphas for the education and career subscales). In the current investigation, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .73. Assessment of Time Use. In order to assess how women spend their time, participants were asked to complete a modified version of The Typical Week Time Sort (adapted from Bradbard, 1988) that consisted of 18 categories (i.e., class, homework, paid work, religious activities, entertainment, home maintenance, physical activity, hobbies, volunteering, travel, grooming, meals, partying, sorority activities, non face-to-face communication, sleeping, unstructured time, or other). Participants were given cards with time allotments on them (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours) that added up to the total number of hours in one week. They were asked to sort these cards into the various categories of activities based on the estimated time they spend in these activities in an average week. Then, the women were asked to specify, as a percentage of time in the category, with whom they spent time (i.e., alone, with others excluding their partner, with 39 their partner alone, or with their partner and others). For each category, percentages were to total 100%. In order to determine what time categories would be categorized as ?leisure time,? we utilized Orthner?s (1975) leisure theory and categorized the following activities as leisure: religious activities, entertainment, maintenance, physical activity, hobbies, volunteering, travel, grooming, meals, partying, sorority activities, non face-to-face communication, unstructured time, and time spent in ?other? activities. For each category of leisure activity we created two separate scores using: (1) time spent with partner alone in the activity, and (2) total time with partner the activity. To create these scores, we divided the relevant amount of time by the total time in leisure. Next, we divided this figure by overall leisure time. This formula measures raw amounts of time as a proportion of how time can be spent. In other words, it represents women?s choices of how they spend their unconstrained time, which we believe will represent their priorities. 40 IV. RESULTS Preliminary Analyses A descriptive analysis was conducted to make sure that all values were in range and to describe central tendencies and variance of the measures. Items were recoded for contributing in the correct direction of composite score. Then, aggregated scales were constructed. Reliability of each scale was tested to ensure the quality of the data. See Table 1 for the alphas, means, standard deviation, minimum values, maximum values, skewness, and kurtosis of each aggregated scale and subscale. SRO and Identity Statuses Our first set of predictions was that sex role orientation would be associated with identity status, specifically identity status across two grand domains: ideological and interpersonal. In the ideological domain, we expected distinct patterns of scores for each of the four sex role orientations (i.e., feminine-oriented, masculine-oriented, androgynous, and undifferentiated) across the four identity statuses (i.e., achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, and diffused). Specifically in the ideological domain we expected that (1) feminine-oriented women would have higher foreclosure scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women, (2) masculine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher achievement scores than feminine-oriented women, and (3) 41 undifferentiated women would have higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. In order to test these predictions for the ideological domain a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted. A repeated measures was chosen because it gives us three important F-tests. One is the within-subjects effect, which for the current analysis, is the test of whether the four observations of identity status are different, ignoring the fact that there are measured in four distinct groups defined by sex roles. Another is the between- subjects effect. This test establishes whether there are significant differences among the four sex role groups when the four observations of identity status are averaged. Neither of these tests is important to our hypotheses. The validity of the four status measures would be in doubt if the within-subject F were non-significant. The significance/non- significance of the between-subject effect is not relevant because this test ignores the four separate dependent variables (i.e., status scores). The important test for our analyses is whether the within-subjects effect interacts with the between-subjects factor. Our hypotheses suggest that some identity statuses differ between various sex roles types while others may not. It is this interaction effect, therefore, that will be the key multivariate F-test that will precede follow-up testing. We conducted our repeated measures and preliminary assumption testing was performed, and a violation of sphericity was found. In order to correct for violating this assumption we used the Greenhouse-Geiser test because it alters the degrees of freedom, thereby altering the significance of the F-ratio. The results for this first repeated measures MANOVA indicated a statistically significant interaction effect for sex role 42 orientation and identity statuses, F (6, 399) = 2.94, p = .007, the multivariate fi? = .05. This finding supports the first hypothesis that sex role orientation is associated with identity status in the ideological domain (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of the Identity Status Scores in the Ideological Domain for the Four Sex Role Orientations. ________________________________________________________________________ Feminine Masculine Androgynous Undifferentiated Statuses M SD M SD M SD M SD ________________________________________________________________________ Achieved 27.02" 6.01 28.50"\ 5.16 30.35\ 4.38 26.47" 4.97 Moratorium 20.06 5.59 18.88 5.47 19.62 5.80 21.24 5.58 Foreclosure 20.34 5.38 20.08 5.47 18.31 5.97 19.71 6.47 Diffused 19.60 5.91 17.94 5.82 17.73 5.82 19.95 5.46 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. Means in the same row that do not share sub-scripts differ at the p < .05 in the Duncan post-hoc comparison. Follow up tests were conducted using ANOVAs to evaluate the effects of sex role orientation (i.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated) on each of the ideological statuses (i.e., achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, and diffused) individually. Our first prediction that there would be significant differences in ideological foreclosure scores by sex role orientation was not supported [F (3, 185) = 1.24, p = .30 partial fi? = .02]. Feminine-oriented women did not have higher foreclosure scores in the ideological domain than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. Our prediction that there would be significant differences in ideological achievement scores by sex role orientation, 43 however, was partially supported [F (3, 185) = 5.31, p = .002 partial fi? = .08]. Duncan post-hoc analyses revealed that androgynous women, but not masculine-oriented women, had significantly higher ideological achievement scores than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women. Finally, our third prediction was not supported [F (3, 185) = 1.75, p = .16 partial fi? = .03]. Undifferentiated women did not have significantly higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women, however, the means did line up in the expected pattern. Figure 1. Identity status scores in the ideological domain by the four sex role orientations. 44 Our other prediction about sex role orientation and identity status was focused on the interpersonal domain. Specifically, we expected feminine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher achievement scores in the interpersonal domain than masculine-oriented women. A repeated measures was again utilized to test our predictions. We conducted a repeated measures MANOVA with the between-subject?s factor being sex role orientation and the within subject?s variable being the four interpersonal status scores. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted, and a violation of sphericity was found. Again, the Greenhouse-Geiser test was used to correct for the violation of this assumption. The results indicated a statistically significant interaction effect for the within and between subject?s factors, F (9, 8) = 2.27, p = .03, the multivariate fi? = .04. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of the Identity Status Scores in the Interpersonal Domain for the Four Sex Role Orientations. ________________________________________________________________________ Feminine Masculine Androgynous Undifferentiated Statuses M SD M SD M SD M SD ________________________________________________________________________ Achieved 28.63"\ 6.73 28.71"\ 4.78 30.44" 5.71 27.05\ 5.12 Moratorium 21.81 5.39 21.12 4.69 20.46 4.87 22.18 4.20 Foreclosure 20.31 5.42 20.17 6.40 17.52 5.62 18.87 7.06 Diffused 19.32 6.39 18.29 5.45 17.10 5.86 19.87 5.17 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. Means in the same row that do not share sub-scripts differ at the p < .05 in the Duncan post-hoc comparison. 45 Follow-up ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate the effects of sex role orientation on each of the interpersonal statuses individually (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations). There were significant differences found for the effects of sex role orientation on women?s interpersonal achievement [F (3, 185) = 2.70, p < .05, partial fi? = .04]. Duncan post-hoc analyses revealed that, partially consistent with our prediction, androgynous women were significantly more likely than undifferentiated women to be achieved in the interpersonal domain (see Figure 2 for a graphical representation of the means). Feminine-oriented and masculine-oriented women fell between these extremes and were not different from either. Figure 2. Identity status scores in the interpersonal domain by the four sex role orientations. 46 SRO and Identity Styles Our next set of predictions was that sex role orientation would be associated with identity styles. Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) feminine-oriented women would have higher normative scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women, (2) masculine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher information scores than feminine-oriented women, and (3) undifferentiated women would have higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. A MANOVA was performed to investigate these predictions (means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4). Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of the Identity Style Scores by the Four Sex Role Orientations. ________________________________________________________________________ Feminine Masculine Androgynous Undifferentiated Styles M SD M SD M SD M SD ________________________________________________________________________ Information .25" .21 .37\ .18 .42\ .16 .22" .24 Normative .19" .19 .15"\ .19 .09\ .20 .15"\ .16 Diffused -.26"\ .21 -.36" .20 -.34" .24 -.18\ .26 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. Means in the same row that do not share sub-scripts differ at the p < .05 in the Duncan post-hoc comparison. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, and homogeneity of variance. No serious violations were found. Significant differences were found among the four sex role orientations on the dependent variables, Wilks?s 7 = .79, F (9, 423) = 4.90, p #.001, the partial fi? = .08. This result supported our general hypothesis that sex role orientation would be related to 47 identity style. In order to examine more specific differences in identity styles, one-way ANOVAs with Duncan post-hoc analyses were performed. Our first prediction was partially supported. Feminine-oriented women did have higher normative scores than androgynous women, although not higher than masculine-oriented women. Fully consistent with our second prediction, masculine-oriented and androgynous women had higher information scores than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women. Finally, and consistent with our original hypothesis, undifferentiated women had higher diffusion scores than masculine-oriented and androgynous women. See Figure 3 for a graphical representations of these patterns. Figure 3. Identity style scores by the four sex role orientations. 48 SRO and Priorities Priorities were measured using three separate instruments: the Life Role Salience Scale (LRSS), the Life Goals Scale (LGS), and the Future Orientation Questionnaire (FOQ). Our first general hypothesis was that sex role orientation would be associated with women?s occupational, marital, and parental priorities, which would be evidenced in their scores on the three subscales of the LRSS. Specifically, we proposed that (1) masculine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher scores on the occupational subscale of the LRSS than feminine-oriented women (2) feminine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher scores on the marital subscale of LRSS than masculine-oriented and undifferentiated women, and (3) feminine-oriented and androgynous women would also have higher scores on the parental subscale than masculine-oriented and undifferentiated women. In order to test these hypotheses a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted. Preliminary assumption testing was performed, and a violation of sphericity was found. In order to correct for violating this assumption we again used the Greenhouse-Geiser test. The results indicated no significant difference in priorities by sex role orientation, F (6, 368) = 1.27, p = .27, the multivariate fi? = .02 (see Table 5 for means and standard deviations). However, based on other factors, we were propelled us to probe further with our analyses. 49 Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of the Life Role Salience Subscales: Occupational, Marital, and Parental Scores by the Four Sex Role Orientations. ________________________________________________________________________ Feminine Masculine Androgynous Undifferentiated LRSS M SD M SD M SD M SD ________________________________________________________________________ Occupation 34.36 6.41 34.10 5.94 34.60 7.34 34.74 6.48 Marital 41.36a 7.35 39.52b 7.25 42.33a 6.85 38.42b 7.31 Parental 41.40a 5.00 38.60b 6.15 40.15a 6.89 37.53b 5.94 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. Means in the same row that do not share sub-scripts differ at the p < .05 in the Duncan post-hoc comparison. Figure 4, which graphically displays scores on the LRSS subscales by the four sex role orientations, is consistent with our expected pattern of scores for marital and parental subscales. We decided to conduct three separate ANOVAS to evaluate the effects of sex role orientation on each of the LRSS subscales individually. Again, our first prediction that there would be significant differences in the occupational priorities by sex role orientation was not supported [F (3, 185) = .09, p =.35, partial fi? = .001]. However, our general prediction that sex role orientation would associated with women?s marital priorities was supported [F (3, 185) = 2.73, p = .045, partial fi? = .04]. Duncan post hoc analyses found that feminine-oriented and androgynous women had higher marital priorities than undifferentiated women, and androgynous women, but not feminine- oriented women, had significantly higher marital priorities than masculine-oriented women. Our final prediction that sex role orientation would be associated with women?s parental priorities was partially supported [F (3, 185) = 3.46, p = .017, partial fi? = .05]. Duncan post hoc analyses revealed that feminine-oriented women had significantly higher 50 parental priorities than masculine-oriented and undifferentiated women, and androgynous women had significantly higher parental priorities than undifferentiated women, but not masculine-oriented women. Figure 4. The LRSS subscales (occupation, marital, and parental) by the four sex role orientations. 51 The next measurement of priorities that was analyzed was the Life Goals Scale (LGS). We predicted that feminine-oriented women would have higher overall scores on the LGS than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of sex role orientation on the women?s choices between relationships and various life goals (e.g., career, travel, education). The means and standard deviations for women?s overall score on the LGS by sex role orientation are presented in Table 6. Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations on the Life Goals Scale (LGS) Scores and Future Orientation Questionnaire (FOQ) Scores by Sex Role Orientation. ________________________________________________________________________ Feminine Masculine Androgynous Undifferentiated M SD MSD MSDMSD ________________________________________________________________________ LGS 6.62" 1.90 5.96\ 1.83 6.42\ 1.79 5.74"\ 2.06 FOQ 3.79 .47 3.90 .47 3.92 .40 3.74 .49 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. Means in the same row that do not share sub-scripts differ at the p < .05 in the Duncan post-hoc comparison. The ANOVA indicated a near significant association between sex role orientation and women?s reported life goals, F (3, 185) = 2.05, p = .10 (2-tailed). Since our hypothesis was directional and the results were consistent with our hypothesized direction, we can evaluate this F-test as marginally significant. Duncan post-hoc comparisons revealed that consistent with our hypothesis, feminine-oriented women did have significantly higher scores on the LGS than undifferentiated women. Masculine- oriented and androgynous women fell between groups and were not different from either. See Figure 5 for a graphical representation of the means. 52 Our final measurement of priorities was the Future Orientation Scale (FOQ). We predicted that feminine-oriented women would have lower scores on the FOQ than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of sex role orientation on the degree to which women think about and plan for Figure 5. Women?s relationship priority scores by the four sex role orientations. 53 their future careers. The means and standard deviations for women?s scores on the FOQ as a function of sex role orientation are presented in Table 6. The ANOVA indicated no significant differences in FOQ scores by sex role orientation, F (3, 185) = 1.64, p = .11, partial fi? = .03. However, the means line up as predicted and the p-level approaches significance. See Figure 6 for a graphical representation of the means. Figure 6. Women?s future orientation scores by the four sex role orientations. 54 SRO, Priorities, and Time Use We previously hypothesized that sex role orientation would be associated with women?s priorities. Our final set of predictions was that time use would be a reflection of women?s priorities, and based on our earlier prediction we expected that women with different levels of expressivity and instrumentality would spend time in leisure activities with their partners differently. Since this type of analyses has not previously been conducted, we decided to perform some exploratory analyses, using multiple regression. Standard multiple regression analyses were conducted to predict time use in leisure activity categories from three sets of nonheirachical predictors: (1) women?s levels of expressivity and instrumentality (i.e., scores on the two subscale of the PAQ), (2) their reported occupational, marital, and parental role priorities (i.e., scores on the three subscales of the LRSS), and (3) their reported priority for romantic relationships versus other life goals (i.e., scores on the LGS). In these analyses, women?s reported priorities were used as control variables, because we believed that time use would be a reflection of women?s priorities. Therefore, we believed that in order to understand the association between time use and expressivity and instrumentality, it would be necessary to control for women?s attitudinal priorities. There were fourteen leisure activity categories (i.e., religious activity, entertainment, maintenance, physical activity, hobbies, volunteering, travel, grooming, meals, partying, sorority activities, non face-to-face communication, unstructured time, and other), and for each of these categories we examined: (1) time spent with partner alone and (2) total time with partner as separate dependent variables. Only significant 55 findings will be discussed. Refer to Tables 7 and 8 for a summary of results. Controlling for women?s reported priorities, both expressivity and instrumentality were significant predictors of time spent with partner alone and total time with partner. Expressivity was a significant weak positive predictor of time spent with partner alone in entertainment, meals, and non face-to-face communication. Instrumentality was a significant but weak positive predictor of time spent with partner alone in home maintenance. In terms of total time spent with partner, expressivity predicted less time with partner total in home maintenance and physical activities, and greater instrumentality predicted more time with partner in home maintenance and meals. 56 Table 7. Summary of Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Leisure Time Use with Partner Alone (N = 130). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Entertainment Maintenance Hobbies Meals Non Face-to-Face Communication ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Occupation Score .02 .02 .04 .06 -.09 Marital Score -.11 .02 -.16 -.34** .03 Parental Score .01 -.03 -.25* .06 -.14 LGS -.05 -.15 .08 .03 .02 Expressive Score .19* -.08 .16 .16 ? .22* Instrumental Score -.11 .18* .05 .10 .14 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: ? p < 1.00; *p < .05, **p < .01. Note: H p < 1.00; *p < .05, **p < .01. 57 Table 8. Summary of Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Leisure Time Use with Total Partner Time (N = 130). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Maintenance Physical Activities Hobbies Volunteer Activities Meals ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Occupational Score -.14 -.06 -.01 .06 .02 Marital Score -.001 .05 -.21 H -.08 -.24 Parental Score -.04 -.18 -.16 .02 .02 LGS -.17 H -.001 .04 -.21* .04 Expressive Score -.20* -.19* .10 .12 .06 Instrumental Score .16 H .11 .14 .05 .16 H ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: H p < 1.00; *p < .05, **p < .01. 58 V. DISCUSSION Sex Role Orientation and Identity Statuses Previous studies have found associations between expressivity and instrumentality and women?s identity and intimacy development (Prager, 1983; Schiedel & Marcia, 1985). In the current investigation, we sought to investigate the association between sex role orientation (i.e., expressive versus instrumental qualities) and the four identity statuses (i.e., achieved, moratorium, foreclosed, and diffused) in the two grand domains of identity: the ideological and interpersonal domains. First, we will discuss the findings from the ideological domain. Our first prediction was that androgynous and masculine- oriented women would have significantly higher achievement scores in the ideological domain. Partially consistent with this prediction, we found that androgynous women, but not masculine-oriented women, had significantly higher ideological achievement scores than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women. This finding is consistent with the results of Prager?s (1983) study, which found that women with higher levels of instrumentality are more likely to be achieved across all domains. Furthermore, it is also consistent with our proposition that women with more instrumental qualities (e.g., self- confident, active, and independent) would be more likely to explore actively and commit 59 to roles in the ideological domain (i.e., occupational, religious, philosophical, and political roles) than women with fewer instrumental qualities. Our other predictions about sex role orientation and identity statuses in the ideological domain were not supported. Although the pattern in the means was consistent with our predictions, the results did not reach significance. Feminine-oriented women did not have higher foreclosure scores in the ideological domain than masculine-oriented or androgynous women, and undifferentiated women did not have higher diffusion scores in the ideological domain than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. Perhaps the sample was too small for the required statistical power, or perhaps the response of women with feminine or undifferentiated orientations may be explained by the sample?s environment. The women in our study have spent of an average of three years in college. College is designed to prepare students for future careers, and therefore encourages students to envision themselves in a variety of possible professions. Therefore, it may be more difficult to be truly foreclosed or diffused about these matters. In the interpersonal domain, we expected feminine-oriented and androgynous women would have significantly higher achievement scores than masculine-oriented women. Partially consistent with our predictions, androgynous women, but not feminine- oriented women, had higher achievement scores in the interpersonal domain than masculine-oriented. It is interesting that our prediction conflicts with the findings of Prager (1983). She found that masculinity (i.e., instrumentality) was associated with identity achievement across all domains. Since androgynous women had higher achievement scores in both the ideological and interpersonal domains, it may be that for 60 women, achievement is greatest with the combination of expressive and instrumental traits. This would be consistent with the findings of Bem (1981) that suggest that women with high levels of both expressivity and instrumentality have more skills than other women (e.g., they are independent and caring, confident and warm). Therefore, since androgynous women bring the most skills, this may be why they were more likely than women of any other sex role orientation to have the highest achieved scores in the ideological and interpersonal domain. Sex Role Orientation and Identity Styles Identity styles are ways that individuals process information and cope with problems, especially those revolving around identity crises (Berzonsky, 1990). In the current study, we proposed that sex role orientation would be associated with how women process self-relevant information to problem-solve and make decisions. All three of our hypotheses were partially or fully supported. Our first prediction was that feminine- oriented women would have higher normative scores than masculine-oriented and androgynous. Although the pattern in the means was consistent with our prediction, feminine-oriented women did not actually have higher normative scores than masculine- oriented women as we predicted, but they did have higher normative scores than androgynous women. From this finding, we might surmise that expressive qualities, in the absence of instrumental qualities, are associated with a problem-solving style that emphasizes adopting the beliefs and goals prescribed by others. Fully consistent with our predictions for the association between sex role orientation and identity styles, masculine-oriented and androgynous women had higher 61 information scores than feminine-oriented and undifferentiated women. Therefore, stronger instrumental qualities were associated with actively seeking out and evaluating self-relevant information in order to problem solve. Undifferentiated women had higher diffuse scores than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. This finding is consistent with our prediction that the relative lack of instrumental and expressive qualities of undifferentiated women was associated a diffuse style (i.e., they are neither actively seeking self-relevant information nor are they taking on the opinions of others). Sex Role Orientation and Priorities If priorities are attitudes, goals, and plans about one?s future, then one might expect priorities to be associated with sex role orientation. We had three sets of predictions about the association between sex role orientation and women?s priorities. Our first set of predictions was that sex role orientation would be associated with women?s occupational, marital, and parental priorities or ?salience.? We proposed that masculine-oriented and androgynous women would have higher scores on a measure of occupational priorities than feminine-oriented women, but this prediction was not supported. Although initially surprising, this finding was consistent with the findings of Hoffnung?s (2004) study. In her study, the majority of her female undergraduate sample indicated that they wanted both a successful career and a thriving family life. However, seven years later when she followed up with these participants, it was the women who postponed marriage and children who were most likely to have obtained the graduate degrees and career goals they had previously planned (i.e., prioritized). Furthermore, as previously suggested, women in a collegiate environment may receive more 62 encouragement to explore nontraditional possible selves. Therefore, on average, for college women the priority placed on occupational goals would not be associated with sex role orientation. However, in our investigation of sex role orientation and family role priorities (i.e., salience) we found that, in general, high expressivity was associated with higher marital and parental salience. Consistent with our predictions, we found that feminine- oriented and androgynous women were more likely than other women to report future marital and parental roles as salient. From these findings, we can surmise that women with high levels of expressivity (i.e., feminine-oriented and androgynous women) are more likely to report future marital and parental roles as more salient than women with lower levels of expressiveness. Perhaps this is because due to the qualities that women with higher levels of expressiveness possess (e.g., warmth, caring, understanding), they are more capable of envisioning themselves in these roles than women who do not possess these qualities. There is one final interesting note about family priorities. Androgynous women had the highest mean for marital priorities (i.e., they scored higher on marital priorities than women of any other sex role orientation), while feminine-oriented women had the highest mean for parental priorities. One potential explanation for feminine-oriented women?s high scores in the parental role may be that since feminine-oriented women are high in only expressiveness, they may be more attracted to the parental role because it could be viewed as the ultimate nurturing activity. Perhaps the more balanced skill set attributed to androgynous women may apply more to the marital role because the 63 relationship is between two adults, thus benefitting both the expressive and instrumental qualities that androgynous women possess. Another measure of priorities was the emphasis women place on romantic relationships versus other life goals (e.g., education, career). Consistent with our predictions feminine-oriented women were more likely than undifferentiated women to prioritize relationships over other life goals. Therefore, we found that high levels of expressiveness and low levels of instrumentality were associated with placing romantic relationships as higher priorities than other life goals. In Hoffnung?s (2004) study, the majority of women reported wanting it all, but in a follow-up study conducted seven years later, the women who had postponed marriage and child-bearing were more likely to have obtained their reported goals of advanced degrees and successful careers. Why did some women in Hoffnung?s study (2004) achieve their reported educational and career goals, while others moved down a different path toward marriage and child-bearing? Perhaps the answer lies in the importance these women placed on romantic relationship priorities. As already reported, the majority of the women in our study reported that they all highly prioritized their future careers. It may be that when faced with a decision of choosing career versus family, women who report prioritizing romantic relationships over all other life goals, will be the more likely to choose family over their reported education and career goals. Of coarse, this is speculatory, and another study would be necessary to investigate this connection. Our final measurement of women?s priorities was future orientation toward career goals. Feminine women did not have lower scores on the measure of future orientation 64 than masculine-oriented or androgynous women. Again, this finding may be a reflection of Hoffnung?s (2004) finding that the majority of college women report wanting it all. If this is also the case with our sample, then we would not necessarily expect to find significant differences in how they think about and plan for their futures (i.e., they plan on having it all). As suggested earlier, women in college are encouraged to envision themselves in possible careers, and perhaps the women in our study are not ready to discard a career as possible in their futures. If this is the case, then only after college would significant differences begin to emerge, as some women would take the steps necessary to attain their planned career goals, while others would attain family or relationship goals. Overall, we found no association between instrumentality and nontraditional priorities (i.e., career and future-oriented priorities). However, we did find a link between expressivity and traditional priorities (i.e., marital, parental, and romantic relationship priorities). So, while the majority of our sample, regardless of sex role orientation, reported occupational roles as salient, only women with high levels of expressivity reported marital and parental roles as salient. Highly expressive women also reported prioritizing romantic relationships over other life goals (e.g., education, career). From this we might surmise if these women were faced with a choice between education/career goals versus family goals, we might expect highly expressive women to make more traditional choices. 65 Sex Role Orientation, Priorities, and Time Use Although our time use analyses were exploratory, we had some interesting findings. We investigated time use as a reflection of women?s priorities, and we predicted that, dependent upon their level of expressivity and instrumentality, women would spend time in leisure activities with their partners differently. We controlled for women?s reported priorities because we believed that women?s priorities would be associated with how they chose to spend their time (i.e., occupational, marital, parental, and romantic relationship priority versus other life goals). We conducted two sets of analyses: (1) women?s time use with partner alone, and (2) women?s total time with partner. The results for time use with partner alone revealed that women with higher levels of expressivity appear to spend more time with their partners participating in leisure activities that are more relaxing and less productive (e.g., entertainment and non face-to- face communication), while women with higher levels of instrumentality spent more time with their partners alone in home maintenance, which could be viewed as more productive leisure. In terms of time spent with partner total, expressiveness predicted less time with partner in home maintenance and physical activities; however, instrumentality predicted more time spent with partner total in home maintenance and meals. It appears that women with instrumental qualities are more likely to spend time with their partners in productive leisure activities, while expressive women are more likely to spend time with their partners in non-productive leisure activities. 66 Even though these findings were statistically significant, it is important to note that our effect sizes were small (i.e., the strength of the association between variables). In our time use analyses, controlling for priorities, we were able to find standardized $ values that ranged from -.001 to -.34. It is surprising that these effect sizes were so small. Perhaps they were so small because we focused on leisure time alone and did not analyze time spent in constrained activities (e.g., sleep, paid work, class time). In order to correct for this problem, future studies might want to ask participants how much choice they have in the activities in which they participate (i.e., do they choose to spend time in that particular category) or ask them to what degree does how they spend their time overall reflect their priorities (i.e., do they believe that how they spend their time reflects what they prioritize). Limitations There were several limitations in the current study. Sample size was one important constraint. With only a sample of 189, we did not have the statistical power necessary to find significant effect sizes. Another important limitation was the sample itself. As mentioned earlier, the fact that our sample consisted of college women who are being encouraged to envision themselves in future careers may have confounded women?s responses to measures of ideological status, occupational priorities, and future orientation priorities. A final limitation of our sample is that findings linking sex role orientation to traditional priorities may be explained in part by the traditional character of the university hosting the study and or/ the traditional majors representing the majority of the subjects. 67 Another important limitation in the current study was the time use measure, the Typical Week Time Sort (adapted from Bradbard, 1988). Time use has been measured in a variety of methods (e.g., time diary, structured interview), and each of these options have strengths and weaknesses. In our study participants completed a time sort, whereby participants were asked to think about how much time they spend across preconstructed categories of time in an average week. After the fact, we realized that this was not the best measure of time use, because not everyone may be conscious of how much time they actually spend in any given category each week. Also, some people may not have fully understood the task (e.g., some participants put that they only spend 20 hours a week sleeping, which is highly unlikely). If we were to measure time in the future, we would perhaps ask students to complete a time sampling diary for one week, and then ask them to come back into the lab so that we could then have a structured interview about their responses. Conclusion In terms of identity status, women with high expressive (e.g., caring, nurturing) and high instrumental (e.g., independent, confident) qualities were the most likely to have explored all of their options and committed in a particular area of identity in both the interpersonal and ideological domains. Perhaps women who possess both high expressive and instrumental qualities, therefore more skills, are more capable of making ideological and interpersonal priorities personally meaningful than women who possess either of these skills separately. If this is the case, it may provide a deeper understanding of the achievement status (i.e., what skills might be necessary in order to become 68 achieved in any particular domain), and if this is the case, it could be helpful in defining what characteristics are necessary to cultivate achievement. In terms of identity styles, women who were high in instrumentality were more likely to actively explore for self-relevant information in order to problem solve and commit to decisions. Women who were high in expressivity were more likely to concentrate on the expectations of others in order to make decisions, while women who were low in both expressivity and instrumentality were more likely to avoid decision making altogether. If we view expressivity and instrumentality as skill sets, with expressivity providing one particular skill set (e.g., warmth, understanding) and instrumentality providing another skill set (e.g., assertiveness, confidence) then we can surmise why there may be differences in the way that women process information. Perhaps the reason that women who possess instrumental qualities are able to actively explore and commit to decisions because this type of information processing is conducive to their agenic skill set. By the same token, perhaps the reason that women who possess expressive qualities focus on the expectations of others is that their skill set is so centered around interpersonal interactions. Women who are low in both expressive and instrumental qualities have difficulty with problem-solving, decision-making, and procrastination, and perhaps this is because they possess fewer skills. If this is the case, our findings have implications for future studies about sex role orientation and identity styles, especially in terms of how expressive and instrumental skills may influence how women process information. 69 In terms of priorities, we were unable to uncover any significant findings in terms of nontraditional priorities. The majority of women, regardless of sex role orientation, reported that they planned on having professional careers. As previously noted, this may be because of the college socialization processes, which encourages women to envision themselves in nontraditional roles. However, despite the college socialization process, women with high expressive qualities were more likely to report that they highly prioritized marital and parental priorities; and women high in expressivity alone (i.e., they were not also high in instrumentality) were more likely to report that they prioritized romantic relationships more than other life goals. Therefore, it appears that women who are high in expressivity, and possess a skill set that is centered around interpersonal relationships, are more likely to value traditional priorities that focus on relationships with others. Finally, while we were enthusiastic about the prospect of providing empirical associations between sex role orientation, priorities, and time use, we were unable to find these associations. This may be, in part, because college women?s time may not be as unconstrained as we originally thought. In a future investigation, it would be important to study time in such a way that is conducive to answering the questions that we proposed. Another suggestion would be to have participants complete a structured interview, in order to assess whether or not the time women spend across various activities is actually a reflection of their priorities. 70 REFERENCES Amatea, E. S., Cross, E. G., Clark, J. E., & Bobby, C. L. (1986). Assessing the work and family expectations of career men and women: The Life Role Saliency Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831-838. Archer, S. L. (1985). Career and/or family: The identity process for adolescent girls. Youth & Society, 16, 289-314. Balistreri, E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995). Development and preliminary validation of the ego identity process questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 172-192. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. Bennion, L. D., & Adams, G. R. (1986). A revision of the extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: An identity measure for use with late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 183-198. 71 Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life span: A process perspective on identity formation. Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 155-186. Bradbard, M. R. (1988, November). How do you spend your time?: The relationship of time allocated to interpersonal, domestic, and work tasks to marital adjustment in rural families. In M. R. Bradbard (Chair), Roles and Responsibilities of rural working women. Symposium conducted at the National Council on Family Relations, Philadelphia, PA. Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The Developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1-24. Dyk, A. H., & Adams, G. R. (1990). Identity and intimacy: An initial investigation of three theoretical models using cross-lag panel correlations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 91-110. Erikson, E. (1950). Growth and crises of the healthy personality. In M. J. E. Senn (Ed.), Symposium on the Healthy Personality. Problems of infancy and childhood, transactions of fourth conference. (pp.50-100). New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation Press. Hammersla, J. F., & Frease-McMahan, L. (1990). University students= priorities: life goals vs. relationships. Sex Roles, 23, 1-14. Herridge, K. L., Shaw, S. M., & Mannell, R. C. (2003). An exploration of women=s leisure within heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Leisure Research, 3, 274-291. Hoffnung, M. (2004). Wanting it all: Career, marriage, and motherhood during college- 72 educated women=s 20s. Sex Roles, 50, 711-723. Josselson, R. L. (1973). Psychodynamic aspects of identity formation in college women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2, 3-51. Kerpelman, J. L., & Lamke, L. (1997). Anticipation of future identities: A control theory approach to identity development within the context of serious dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 47-62. Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., Lamke, L., & Sollie, D. (2004). [Project description]. Unpublished project description. Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Li, C. (2004). Using Q methodology to examine adolescent identity: The value of a person-centered analysis strategy. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, March 2004, Baltimore. Lewis, H. L. (2003). Differences in ego identity among college students across age, ethnicity, and gender. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 3, 159-189. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J. E. (1976). Studies in ego identity. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Frasier University. Marcia, J. E. (1993). The relational roots of identity. In J. Kroger (Ed.), Discussions on ego identity (pp.101-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Marcia, J. E. (1994). The empirical study of ego identity. In H. A. Bosma, T. L. G. 73 Graafsma, H. D. Grotevant, & D. J. de Levita (Eds.), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 67-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Matula, K. E., Huston, T. L., Grotevant, H. D., & Zamutt, A. (1992). Identity and dating commitment among women and men in college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 339-356. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543. Nurmi, J. E., Seginer, R., & Poole, M. (1990). The future orientation questionnaire. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of Psychology. Prager, K. J. (1983). Identity status, sex-role orientation, and self-esteem in late adolescent females. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 159-167. Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust to intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson?s stages of psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 525-537. Schiedel, D. G., & Marcia, J. E. (1985). Ego identity, intimacy, sex role orientation, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 21, 149-160. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519-531. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163. 74 Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement related goals and behaviors. In Spence, J. T., & Helmreich R. L. (Eds.) Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches. San Francisco: Freeman. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002, October). School enrollment social and economic characteristics of students: October 2002 detailed Tables. Retrieved October 30, 2004, from U.S. Census Bureau via the web : http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2002.html. 75 APPENDIX A Informed Consent You are invited to participate in a research study about priorities and time use to be conducted by Amber L. Paulk (Doctoral student, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Auburn University) under the supervision of Dr. Joe Pittman. We are interested in the way you think about yourself in the present and in your expected future and how these views and your participation in a current (or recent) dating relationship are connected to your time use. You were selected as a possible participant because of your age (19 years or older), because most college students have experienced at least one dating relationship in the course of their life, and because your professor or instructor has provided this opportunity for us to ask for your voluntary participation in exchange for extra credit determined by your professor/instructor and in accordance with the policies that apply in your department. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to fill out questionnaires that ask about your background, your views about current and future priorities and goals, and the quality of your current (or most recent) romantic relationship. You will also be asked to sort a set of statements that represent important characteristics about yourself as you see yourself in the present and as you envision yourself in the future. These statements will be sorted ranging from ?most like you? to ?least like you.? Finally you will indicate how you spend your time in a typical week. Completing these measures will take approximately 60 to 90 minutes. For your participation, I will provide you with documentation that can be used to receive extra credit in your class. The amount of extra credit that will be provided will vary based on criteria set by your professor and the rules and regulations of your department. You should verify with your professor the amount of extra credit prior to participation. If you participate in the survey, confidentiality of your responses is assured, because you will not put your name on any of the questionnaires or sorts. Only Amber Paulk and Dr. Joe Pittman will see these surveys. In the unlikely event that you feel uncomforTable when answering questions, you may stop at any time while completing the survey. 76 Furthermore, you can choose not to answer any questions. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your relationship with Auburn University/Department of Human Development and Family Studies. If you have any questions about this study we invite you to ask them now. If you have questions later, Amber Paulk or her supervisor Dr. Joe Pittman will be happy to answer them. You can contact Amber Paulk at (334) 844-3299 (paulkal@auburn.edu) or Joe Pittman at (334) 844-4151 (joe.pittman@auburn.edu). For more information regarding your rights as a research participant you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334)-844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. IF YOU DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE, THE DATA YOU PROVIDE WILL SERVE AS YOUR AGREEMENT TO DO SO. THIS LETTER IS YOURS TO KEEP. _________________________________________ Principle Investigator Date 77 APPENDIX B Flyer used in the study Priorities and Time Use Study Time: Approximately 90 minutes Extra Credit: The amount of extra credit provided will vary based on your professor and the rules and regulations of your department. You should verify with your professor the amount of extra credit you will receive prior to participation. Description: You will be asked to fill out surveys that ask about your background, your views about current and future priorities and goals, and the quality of your current (or most recent) romantic relationship. You will also be asked to sort a set of statements that represent important characteristics about yourself as you envision yourself now and in the future. These statements will be sorted ranging from ?most like you? to ?least like you.? Finally, you will indicate how you spend your time in a typical week using predetermined categories. Eligibility: This study is open to all undergraduates at least 19 years of age. Contact Information: For more info, please contact Amber Paulk at paulkal@auburn.edu 78 APPENDIX C MEASURES USED IN STUDY Demographics Major: _________________________________ Age: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Specify if Other____ Estimated GPA: (A) 0.00 - 1.00 (B) 1.01 - 2.00 (C)2.01 - 3.00 (D) 3.01 - 4.00 Year in college: (A) Fresh (B) Soph (C)Junior (D) Senior How old were you the first time you went on a ?real? date (i.e., the first time you met with someone at a predetermined time and place for the purposes of getting to know one another better)? _____ If you are currently in a relationship, how long have you been dating this person in years and/or months (e.g., dating someone for a year and a half = 1 year and 6 months)? _____ year (s) _____ month (s). If you are not currently in a relationship, how long ago did your last relationship end in years and/or months, (e.g., if it ended a year and half ago = 1 year and 6 months )? _____ year (s) _____month (s). How long did you date this person in years and/or months? ____ year (s) ____ month (s). If you have never been in a relationship please write Not Applicable or NA in the following space provided _____ Are you currently: (A)single (B)married (C)divorced (D)separated (E) widowed Have you ever been involved a relationship that lasted at least 6 months? 79 (A)Yes (B) No How many relationships have you been involved in that have lasted less than 1 month? (A) 0 (B) 1-3 (C)4-6 (D)7-9 (E) 10 or more How many relationships have you been involved in that have lasted between 1-6 months? (A) 0 (B) 1-3 (C)4-6 (D)7-9 (E) 10 or more How many relationships have you been involved in that have lasted 6 months and longer? (A) 0 (B) 1-3 (C)4-6 (D)7-9 (E) 10 or more Are you currently dating someone? (A)Yes (B)No (If no, skip to question # 13) Are you engaged? (A)Yes (B)No Engaged or not, what is the likelihood you will marry this person? (A) definitely not (B)not likely (C)somewhat likely (D)highly likely (E) definitely Is this relationship long distance (i.e., do you and your partner live an hour or more apart)? (A)Yes (B)No If it is long distance, how many days in a typical month do you spend time with your partner, face-to-face? (A) 1 day or less (B) 2-3 (C)4-5 (D)6-7 (E)8 or more 13. Regardless of your current dating status, indicate when you expect to marry? (A)Already married (B)W/in next 1 yr (C)W/in next 5 yrs (D)W/in next 10 yrs (E) 10 yrs or more (perhaps never) What is the likelihood you will attend graduate school to obtain a masters degree? (A) definitely not (B)not likely (C)somewhat likely (D)highly likely (E) definitely What is the likelihood you will attend graduate school to obtain a doctoral or professional degree (e.g., Ph. D, MD, DVM, JD, DDS, ect)? (A) definitely not (B)not likely (C)somewhat likely (D)highly likely (E) definitely 80 What is the likelihood you will pursue a full-time professional career? (A) definitely not (B)not likely (C)somewhat likely (D)highly likely (E)definitely What is the highest level of your mother?s education? (A) less than high school diploma (B)high school diploma (C)Bachelor?s degree (D) Master?s degree (E) Doctoral or professional degree (e.g., Ph. D, MD, DVM, JD, DDS, ect) What is the highest level of your father?s education? (A) less than high school diploma (B)high school diploma (C)Bachelor?s degree (D) Master?s degree (E) Doctoral or professional degree (e.g., Ph. D, MD) Family background: Please WRITE IN or CIRCLE the statements that most accurately describe your family. Please remember that your answers are anonymous and in no way can be linked to you. What is your mother?s occupation?_____________________________ How long (in years) has she held this position? ________ Are you interested in seeking a similar career? Yes No What is your father?s occupation? ______________________________ How long (in years) has he held this position? ________ Are you interested in seeking a similar career? Yes No Please CHECK or WRITE IN the statements that most accurately describe your family. Please remember that your answers are anonymous and in no way can be linked to you. _____Both of my biological/adoptive parents are alive and still together. _____Both of my biological/adoptive parents are alive, but have no interaction. _____Both of my biological/adoptive parents are alive but are divorced/separated and have not reunited/remarried. (_____)Your age at the time of divorce/separation) _____My biological/adoptive mother has remarried (_____ Your age at time of remarriage) Is this marriage still intact? Circle one: Yes No If NO, has she remarried again? Circle one: Yes No (_____Your age at time of remarriage) _____My biological/adoptive father has remarried (_____ Your age at time of remarriage) 81 Is this marriage still intact? Circle one: Yes No If NO, has he remarried again? Circle one: Yes No (_____Your age at time of remarriage) _____My biological/adoptive mother is deceased (_____ Your age at time of death) _____My biological/adoptive father is deceased (_____ Your age at time of death) Life Goals Scale (LGS) Instructions: Please respond to the following questions by indicating which one of the two responses best fits your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. You are asked to express your feeling about each statement by indicating whether you (A) the response of the left and (B) for the response on the right. Suppose that a relationship with a man/woman developed... 1. If you had to choose between the relationship or being physically fit, which would you choose? (A) Relationship or (B) Physically Fit 2. If you had to choose between traveling or the relationship, which would you choose? (A) Travel or (B) Relationship 3. If you had to choose between the relationship or being financially well-off, which would you choose? (A) Relationship or (B) Well-off 4. If you had to choose between owning your own home or the relationship, which would you choose? (A) Home or (B) Relationship 5. If you had to choose between the relationship or making a contribution to society, which would you choose? (A) Relationship or (B) Contribution 6. If you had to choose between a successful professional career or the relationship, which would you choose? (A) Career or (B) Relationship 7. If you had to choose between getting an education or the relationship, which would you choose? 82 (A) Education or (B) Relationship 8. If you had to choose between the relationship or missions/ministry work,, which would you choose? (A) Relationships or (B) Missions 9. If you had to choose between one of your own personal life goals or the relationship, which would you choose? (A) Life Goal or (B) Relationship Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity (EOMEIS-2) Instructions: Please indicate to what degree each item reflects your own thoughts and feelings. If a statement has more than one part, please indicate your reaction to the statement as a whole. A E Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 1. I haven?t chosen the occupation I really want to get into, and I?m just working at what is available until something better comes along. A B C D E 2. When it comes to religion, I just haven?t found anything that appeals, and I really don?t feel the need to look. A B C D E 3. My ideas about men?s and women?s roles are identical to my parents?.What has worked for them will obviously work for me. A B C D E 4. There?s no single ?lifestyle? which appeals to me more than another. A B C D E 5. There are a lot of different kinds of people. I?m still exploring the many possibilities to find the right kind of friends for me. A B C D E 6. I sometimes join in recreational activities when asked, but I rarely try anything on my own. A B C D E 83 7. I haven?t really thought about a ?dating style.? I am not too concerned whether I date or not. A B C D E 8. Politics is something that I can never be too sure about because things change so fast. But I do think it?s important to know what I can politically stand for and believe in. A B C D E 9. I?m still trying to decide how capable I am as person and what jobs will be right for me. A B C D E 10. I don?t give religion much thought and it doesn?t bother me one-way or the other. A B C D E 11. There are so many ways to divide responsibilities in marriage, I?m trying to decide what will work for me. A B C D E 12. I?m looking for an acceptable perspective for my one ?life style? view, but I haven?t really found it yet. A B C D E 13. There are many reasons for friendship, but I choose my close friends on the basis of certain values and similarities that I?ve personally decided on. A B C D E 14. While I don?t have one recreational activity I?m really committed to, I?m experiencing numerous leisure outlets to identify one I can truly enjoy. A B C D E 15. Based on past experiences, I?ve chosen the type of dating relationship I want now. A B C D E 16. I haven?t really considered politics. It just doesn?t excite me much. A B C D E 17. I might have thought about a lot of different jobs, but there?s never really been any question since my parents said what they wanted. A B C D E 18. A person?s faith is unique to each individual. I?ve considered and reconsidered it myself and know what I can believe. A B C D E 84 19. I?ve never really seriously considered men?s and women?s roles in marriage. It just doesn?t seem to concern me. A B C D E 20. After considerable thought I?ve developed my own individual viewpoint of what is for me an ideal ?life style? and don?t believe anyone will be likely to change my perspective. A B C D E 21. My parents know what?s best for me in terms of how to choose my friends. A B C D E 22. I?ve chosen one or more recreational activities to engage in regularly from lots of things and I?m satisfied with those choices. A B C D E 23. I don?t think about dating much. I just kind of take it as it comes. A B C D E 24. I guess I?m pretty much like my folks when it comes to politics. I follow what they do in terms of voting and such A B C D E 25. I?m not really interested in finding the right job, any job will do. I just seem to flow with what is available. A B C D E 26. I?m not sure what religion means to me. I?d like to make up my mind but I?m not done looking yet. A B C D E 27. My ideas about men?s and women?s roles have come right from my parents? and family. I haven?t seen any need to look further. A B C D E 28. My own views on a desirable life style were taught to me by my parents and I don?t see a need to question what they taught me. A B C D E 29. I don?t have any real close friends and I don?t think I?m looking for one right now. A B C D E 30. Sometimes I join in leisure activities, but I really don?t see a need to look for a particular activity to do regularly. A B C D E 85 31. I?m trying out different types of dating relationships. I just haven?t decided what is best for me. A B C D E 32. There are so many different political parties and ideas. I can?t decide which to follow until I figure it all out. A B C D E 33. It took me a while to figure it out, but now I really know what I want for a career. A B C D E 34. Religion is confusing to me right now. I keep changing my views on what is right and wrong for me. A B C D E 35. I?ve spent some time thinking about men?s and women?s roles in marriage and I?ve decided what will work best for me. A B C D E 36. In finding an acceptable viewpoint to life itself, I find myself engaging in a lot of discussions with others and some self exploration. A B C D E 37. I only pick friends my parents would approve of. A B C D E 38. I?ve always liked doing the same recreational activities my parents do and haven?t ever seriously considered anything else. A B C D E 39. I only go out with the type of people my parents expect me to date. A B C D E 40. I?ve thought my political beliefs through and realize I can agree with some and not other aspects of what my parents believe. A B C D E 41. My parents decided a long time ago what I should go into for employment and I?m following through their plans. A B C D E 42. I?ve gone through a period of serious questions about faith and can now say I understand what I believe in as an individual. A B C D E 86 43. I?ve been thinking about the roles that husbands and wives play a lot these days, and I?m trying to make a final decision. A B C D E 44. My parents? views on life are good enough for me, I don?t need anything else. A B C D E 45. I?ve had many different friendships and now I have a clear idea of what I look for in a friend. A B C D E 46. After trying a lot of different recreational activities, I?ve found one or more I really enjoy doing by myself or with friends. A B C D E 47. My preferences about dating are still in the process of developing. I haven?t fully decided yet. A B C D E 48. I?m not sure about my political beliefs, but I?m trying to figure out what I can truly believe in. A B C D E 49. It took me a long time to decide, but now I know for sure what direction to move in for a career. A B C D E 50. I attend the same church as my family has always attended. I?ve never really questioned why. A B C D E 51. There are many ways that married couples can divide up family responsibilities. I?ve thought about lots of ways, and now I know exactly how I want it to happen for me. A B C D E 52. I guess I just kind of enjoy life in general, and I don?t see myself living by any particular viewpoint to life. A B C D E 53. I don?t have any close friends, I just like to hang around with the crowd. A B C D E 54. I?ve been experiencing a variety of recreational activities in hopes of finding one or more I can really enjoy for some time to come. A B C D E 55. I?ve dated different types of people and know exactly what my own ?unwritten rules? for dating are and who I will date. A B C D E 87 56. I really have never been involved in politics enough to make a firm stand one way or the other. A B C D E 57. I just can?t decide what to do for an occupation. There are so many that have possibilities. A B C D E 58. I?ve never really questioned my religion. If it is right for my parents, it must be right for me. A B C D E 59. Opinions on men?s and women?s roles seem so varied that I don?t think much about it. A B C D E 60. After a lot of self-examination I have established a very definite view on what my own life style will be. A B C D E 61. I really don?t know what kind of friend is best for me. I?m trying to figure out exactly what friendship means to me. A B C D E 62. All of my recreational preferences I got from my parents and I haven?t really tried anything else. A B C D E 63. I date only people my parents would approve of. A B C D E 64. My folks have always had their own political and moral beliefs about issues like abortion and mercy killing and I?ve always gone along accepting what they have. A B C D E Future Orientation Questionnaire (FOQ) Instructions: The statements listed below assess how you are planning for your future in terms of career. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. 1. When you think about matters concerning your future career which of the following statements best describes your situation? (A) I have not yet though about matters relating to my future career. (B) Sometimes I look at one possibility or another concerning my future career. ? I am seriously looking into several possibilities. (D) I am looking into one serious possibility concerning my future career. (E) After looking into several possibilities concerning my future career, I am focusing on one serious possibility 88 2. How often do you think about or plan your future career? (A) never (B) rarely ? sometimes (D) often (E) daily 3. How important is it for you to achieve your career goals? (A) not important at all (B) not very important ? somewhat important (D) rather important (E) very important 4. In thinking of matters relating to your future career, which of the following alternatives best describes you? (A) There are so many different alternatives on my mind, that I have a bad time choosing one. (B) There are so many alternatives on my mind and they all seem possible. ? There are some alternatives on my mind that seem possible. (D) There are two alternatives on my mind and I plan on choosing one. (E) I have already reached a decision concerning my future career. 5. Have you actually been seeking information about different careers? How often do you try to get this information? (A) never (B) rarely ? sometimes (D) often (E) daily 6. In your opinion, how much information non various career do you have? (A) none (B) not a lot ? some (D) quite a bit (E) a lot 7. When you think about your plans for a future career, which of these statements describes you best? (A) It is definitely clear that I will not develop one specific career. (B) It is quite clear that I will not develop one specific career. ? I am not yet sure whether I will develop one specific career or not. (D) It is quite clear that I will develop one specific career. (E) It is clear that I will develop one specific career. 8. How determined are you to fulfill your plans about future work and career? (A) definitely not (B) probably not (C)may yes/maybe not (D) probably yes (E) definitely yes 9. How likely do you think it is that your career plans will happen? (A)definitely will not happen (B) quite sure will not happen (C)maybe yes/maybe not 89 (D) quite sure will happen (E) completely sure will happen 10. How important of a role do you think your work and career will play in your future life? (A) not important at all (B) not very important ? somewhat important (D) rather important (E) very important 11. When thinking about your future career, can you say that you actually have done something to bring you closer to your goals? (A) never (B) rarely (C)sometimes (D) often (E) daily Life Role Salience Scale Instructions: The statements listed below describe expectations about roles you may occupy in the future. There are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. Express your feeling about each statement by indicating whether you: (A) disagree, (B) somewhat disagree, (C)neither agree nor disagree, (D) somewhat agree, or (E) agree. 1. Having work/a career that is interesting and exciting to me is my most important life goal. 2. I expect my job/career to give me more real satisfaction then anything else I do. 3. Building a name and reputation for myself through work/a career is not one of my life goals. 4. It is important to me that I have a job/career in which I can achieve something of importance. 5. It is important to me to feel successful in my work/career. 6. I want to work, but I do not want to have a demanding career. 7. I expect to make as many sacrifices as are necessary in order to advance in my work/career. 8. I value being involved in a career and expect to devote the time an effort needed to develop it. 9. I expect to devote a significant amount of my time to building my career and developing the skills necessary to advance in my career. 10. I expect to devote whatever time and energy it takes to move up in my job/career field. 11. My life would seem empty if I never married. 12. Having a successful marriage is the most important thing in life to me. 90 13. I expect marriage to give me more real personal satisfaction than anything else in which I am involved. 14. Being married to a person I love is more important to me than anything else. 15. I expect the major satisfactions in my life to come from my marriage relationship. 16. I expect to commit whatever time is necessary to making my marriage partner feel loved, supported, and cared for. 17. Devoting a significant amount of my time to being with or doing things with a marriage partner is not something, I expect to do. 18. I expect to put a lot of time and effort into building and maintaining a marital relationship. 19. Really involving myself in a marriage relationship involves costs in other areas of my life which I am unwilling to accept. 20. I expect to work hard to build a good marriage relationship even if it means limiting my opportunities to pursue other personal goals. 21. Although parenthood requires many sacrifices, the love and enjoyment of children of one?s own are worth it all. 22. If I chose not to have children, I would not regret it. 23. It is important to me to feel I am (will be) an effective parent. 24. The whole idea of having children and raising them is not attractive to me. 25. My life would be empty if I never had children. 26. It is important to me to have some time for myself and my own development rather than have children and be responsible for their care. 27. I expect to devote a significant amount of my time and energy to the rearing of children of my own. 28. I expect to be very involved in the dat-to-day matters of rearing children of my own. 29. Becoming involved in the day-to-day details of rearing children involves costs in other areas of my life which I am unwilling to make. 30. I do not expect to be very involved in childrearing. Personal Attributes Questionnaire Instructions: Following are a list of characteristics you are to rate yourself on. You are asked to express your feeling about each word or statement by indicating the degree to which it describes you. For example, if you think you are very artistic you would choose in an A or a B. 1. Not at all aggressive A B C D E Very aggressive 2. Not at all independent A B C D E Very independent 3. Not at all emotional A B C D E Very emotional 91 4. Very submissive A B C D E Very dominant 5. Not at all excitable in a major crisis A B C D E Very excitable in a major crisis 6. Very passive A B C D E Very active 7. Not at all able to devote self to others A B C D E Able to devote self to others totally 8. Very rough A B C D E Very gentle 9. Not at all helpful to others A B C D E Very helpful to others 10. Not at all competitive A B C D E Very competitive 11. Very home oriented A B C D E Very worldly 12. Not at all kind A B C D E Very kind 13. Indifferent to others? approval A B C D E Highly needful of others? approval 14. Feelings not easily hurt A B C D E Feelings easily hurt 15. Not at all aware of others? feelings A B C D E Very aware of feelings of others 16. Can make decisions easily A B C D E Has difficulty making decisions 17. Gives up easily A B C D E Never gives up easily 18. Never cries A B C D E Cries very easily 19. Not at all self- confident A B C D E Very self-confident 20. Feels very inferior A B C D E Feels very superior 21. Not at all understanding of others A B C D E Very understanding of others 22. Very cold in relation to others A B C D E Very warm in relation to others 92 23. Very little need for security A B C D E Very strong need for security 24. Goes to pieces under pressure A B C D E Stands up well under pressure Current Identity Q-Sort Instructions: Sort the 60 cards into 3 piles, one that is like you, one that is not like you, and one for items about which you feel neutral. 1. Take the pile with the ?most like you? items. Find the 4 that are the very most like you and put them in Column 9. Then find the 5 cards that are the next most like you and put them in column 8. Continue to work with the ?most like you? cards until that are all used up. Refer to the figure below to see how many cards belong in each column. Do not place more cards in a column than are called for. 2. When finished with the most like you cards, pick up the ?least like you? cards and find the 4 very least like you to place in Column 1. The 5 next least like you cards go in column 2. Check below for the number cards belonging in a column and, again, do not place more items in a column than belong there. 3. Finally, fill out the remaining middle columns with the other cards deciding which are slightly more and less like you to go in the appropriate column. CIQ Items 1. When faced with a problem, I put a lot of energy into thinking of possible solutions. 2. I prefer doing things that make me feel better, rather than working a long time to fix a difficult problem. 3. I am someone who likes to gather a lot of information about myself. 4. I often try out different ways of thinking and behaving to learn about myself. 5. I think it?s important to do volunteer work that helps other people. 6. How I see myself feels like a roller coaster-changing from day-to-day. 7. Most of the time I feel good about myself. 8. If another person?s point of view differs greatly from my own, I work hard to understand how that person sees things. 9. Once I make a decision about myself, I?m not open to new information. 10. What my parents (parent-figures) think I should do is one of the MOST important influences on my life choices. 11. A lot of what influences me in life comes from what my friends think I should do. 12. I consider myself to be someone who is open-minded. 13. Often I feel like my life has little direction or purpose. 14. Having self-control is important to me. 93 15. I take responsibility for my choices and behavior. 16. I really enjoy talking with people who have different values and beliefs than my own. 17. I tend to put decisions off. 18. It is difficult for me to come up with different possibilities for my own life choices. 19. When problems arise, I try to avoid dealing with them if at all possible. 20. My family and friends can pretty much predict how I will behave in different situations. 21. Rather than thinking about who I will be in the future, I prefer to deal with life day to day. 22. My future is something I think about a lot. 23. I don?t like it when people question my beliefs. 24. It is more important for me to be connected to members in my family than to anyone else. 25. For me it?s important to work hard in school. 26. Earning money is important to me. 27. It is important to me to spend time developing my talents/skills. 28. Having close relationships with my family is important to me. 29. I like to participate in organized groups (e.g., teams, clubs, fellowships). 30. It is important for me to be independent. 31. Having a sense of belonging with other people is a necessary part of my life. 32. Although I consider what other people think, I make the final decision when it comes to important choices about my life. 33. When making decisions, I am inclined to think about what important people in my life believe is right for me. 34. I am pretty good at looking at the possible consequences of my life choices. 35. I tend to seek out novel experiences where I can try out new things and learn about myself. 36. In new situations, I am uncomfortable until I figure out the rules for behavior. 37. I think it is important to respect other people?s beliefs and lifestyles. 38. I think boys should behave like boys, and girls should behave like girls. 39. I find that, if I wait long enough to make a decision, the decision will get made for me. 40. I think it?s important to be aware of my ethnic background. 41. I am open to the range of possibilities of who I could become. 42. It is important to me to work toward becoming the kind of person that important people in my life can be proud of 43. I work very hard at really knowing who I am. 44. It?s hard for me to explain to other people what?s important to me. 45. I am confident about who I am because I know what is most important to my family and friends. 94 46. I really don?t care about making things happen; whatever happens, happens. 47. I watch how others are acting before I decide how to act. 48. Sometimes I brush off information that is not consistent with my beliefs. 49. I am open to questioning my beliefs when I receive information that is different from them. 50. Often my friends and family are surprised at the choices I make. 51. I have ended friendships in the past because I discovered we differed in our core beliefs. 52. The problems I encounter in my life tend to be caused by someone or something else. 53. I?m different people in different situations. 54. When I think about the future, I have specific goals in mind that I am striving for. 55. I am not concerned with finding out who I am right now. 56. Being part of a group of friends is important to me. 57. It is important to me to save money. 58. Having a job is important to me. 59. It is important to me to have at least one close friend. 60. Having a romantic partner is important to me. Typical Week Time Sort Instructions: You will be given cards with various time denominations on them (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, and 10 hours), and these cards will add up to 168 (i.e., the total amount of hours in one week). You will be asked to sort these hours across 18 activities that you could potentially spend time in during a typical. All week?s are different, but please think about how much time you spend in these activities in a ?typical? week. There are two parts to the sort: First, sort the amount of time you spend each week into these 18 categories. Once you have used all of your time allotments, PLEASE RECORD how much time you spend in each activity on the tally sheet provided. PLEASE NOTE: If you are multi-tasking (i.e., doing two of the activities at once), such as talking on your cell phone while doing another activity, please only count that amount of time once and sort the time spent into what you consider to be the primary activity (e.g., if talking on the phone while watching TV?you may consider the phone call the primary activity; however, if talking on the phone while driving ?you may consider driving as your primary activity). Second, please go back through each category and estimate the amount of time you spend in each of these activities: (1) Alone, (2) With others (excluding your romantic partner/significant other), (3) Alone with your romantic partner (excluding others), and 95 (4) With your Partner AND Others. Again, PLEASE RECORD your estimates on the provided tally sheet. Time Sort Categories and Tally Sheet Hours in class Hmwork/ Studying Paid work Wk Study Religious Activities tv, movies, video games & internet Home/ yard/ car maintena nce Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others Sport/ Physical Activitie s Hobbies Voluntee r/ Extracur. Activitie s Travel Groomin g/ Self Care Meal Time Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others W/ Partner & Others Partying Sorority/ Fraternit y Activities Non face- to-face comm. Sleeping/ Napping Unstructu red Time Other (total amt of time in other act.?s) Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Alone Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Others (w/out partner) Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner Alone w partner 97 APPENDIX D CORRELATION MATRIX OF ALL MAJOR CONSTRUCTS Exp Ins Ideo Ach Ideo FC Ideo Mor Ideo Dif Inter Ach Inter FC Inter Mor Inter Dif CIQ Info CIQ Norm CIQ Dif LRSS Occ LRSS Mar LRSS Par LGS FOQ Exp 1 .05 .21** -.05 -.09 -.13 .25** -.08 -.13 -.17* .14 .03 -.10 -.01 .28** .31** .20** .08 Ins .05 1 .25** -.14 -.17* -.21** .18* -.15* -.13 -.26** .44** -.15* -.28** .13 .02 -.06 -.06 .24** Ideo Ach .21** .25** 1 -.27** -.51** -.59** .65** -.29** -.31** -.53** .14 .02 -.10 .01 .11 .14* .02 .26** Ideo FC -.05 -.14 -.26** 1 .24** .34** -.16* .71** .24** .30** -.23** .24** .16* -.20** .14 .17* .08 -.21** Ideo Mor -.09 -.17* -.51** .24** 1 .67** -.44** .24** .60** .52** -.05 -.19** .09 .06 -.10 -.16* -.09 -.25** Ideo Dif -.13 -.21** -.59** .34** .67** 1 -.51** .29** .41** .69** -.08 -.12 .07 .03 -.03 -.10 .04 -.20** Inter Ach .25** .18* .65** -.16* -.44** -.51** 1 -.14 -.38** -.65** -.06 .17* .06 .02 .16* .19* .06 .14 Inter FC -.08 -.15* -.29** .71** .24** .30** -.14 1 .16* .27** -.15* .25** .03 -.28** .04 .10 .09 -.22** Inter Mor -.13 -.13 -.31** .24** .60** .41** -.38** .16* 1 .47** -.06 -.18* .07 .07 -.15* -.11 -.11 -.15* Inter Dif -.17* -.26** -.53** .30** .52** .69** -.65** .27** .47** 1 -.10 -17* .02 -.09 -.13 -.12 .02 -.20** CIQ Info .14 .44** .14 -.23** -.05 -.08 -.06 -.15* .06 .10 1 -.36** -.64** .14 -.03 -.06 -.13 .26** CIQ Norm .03 -.15* .02 .24** -.19** -.12 .17* .25** -.18* -.17* -.36** 1 .10 -.19* .23** .31** .19* -.06 98 CIQ Diff -.10 -.28** -.10 .16* .09 .07 .06 .03 .07 .02 -.64** .10 1 -.08 -.04 -.01 .02 -.18* Exp Ins Ideo Ach Ideo FC Ideo Mor Ideo Dif Inter Ach Inter FC Inter Mor Inter Dif CIQ Info CIQ Norm CIQ Dif LRSS Occ LRSS Mar LRSS Par LGS FOQ LRSS Occ -.01 .13 .01 -.16** .06 .03 .02 -.28** .07 -.09 .14 -.19* -.08 1 .03 -.16* -.31** .44** LRSS Mar .28** .02 .11 .14 -.10 -.03 .16* .04 -.15* -.13 .03 .23** -.04 .03 1 .56** .26* .13 LRSS Par 31** .06 .14* .17* -.16* -.10 .19* .10 -.11 -.12 -.06 .31** -.01 -.16 .56** 1 .11 .07 LGS .20** -.06 .02 .08 -.09 -.04 .06 .09 -.11 .02 -.13 .19* .02 -.31** .26** .11 1 -.09 FOQ .08 .24** .26** -.21** -.25** -.20** .14 -.22** -.15* -.20** .26** -.06 -.18* .44** .13 .07 -.09 1 **Correlation is significant at the .01level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).