5a Roles, Vol. 31, Nos. 9/10. 1994

The Relationship Between Gender RoleOrientation and Perceived Self-Competencyin Male and Female Adolescents^

Amanda J. Rose and Raymond Montemayor^The Ohio State University

Relationships among gender, gender role orientation, grade, and perceivedself-competency were examined in this study. Subjects were almost entirelyCaucasian and included one hundred and ninety-four adolescents in the sixththrough twelfth grades. The adolescents responded to the Children's Sex RoleInventory and the Self Perception Profile for Adolescents. Boys had higherperceived social and athletic competency; girb had higher perceived romanticappeal. Androgynous adolescents had the highest perceived scholasticcompetency, close friendship competency, and global self worth. Masculinitypredicted perceived scholastic competency and close friendship competency ingirls and boys and perceived ^obal self worth in girls. Femininity predictedperceived scholastic competency in boys. There were no grade differences inperceived self-competency or in the relationship between gender, gender roleorientation, and perceived self-competency.

Self-esteem encompasses one's self-evaluations of adequacy and worth.Self-esteem may be an especially central issue during adolescence whenestablishing an independent identity becomes an important task. Therefore,it is important to identify predictors of high self-esteem in young people.

'Contributions to this research by Maiy Eberly, Cheiyl Hosley, Ginny Jelinek, Jolene Rose,Amy Weber, and Alice Weng are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like tothank the students, parents, administration, and Board of Education of West CarrolltonPublic School District for their cooperation with this study.

^ o whom corresponaence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, OH 43210.

S79

036O-0O2S/V4/ll0O-O579S07.0(V0 C 1994 l>lenuin Publishing Corporation

Rose and Montemayor

Gender role orientation has been shown to predict self-esteem (Cate &Sugawara, 1986; Lamke, 1982a; Lamke, 1982b); however, the relationshipbetween gender role orientation and self-esteem is not entirely clear. Theprimary purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between genderrole orientation and self-esteem in adolescents in order to help clarify this

issue.Three models of the relationship between gender role orientation and

self-esteem have been the theoretical basis for research (Whitley, 1983).According to the congruence model, congruence between one's gender andone's gender role orientation results in psychological well-being (Kagan,1964; Mussen, 1969). According to this model, exhibiting behavioral andpsychological characteristics of one's own gender is considered natural andhealthy but exhibiting characteristics of the opposite gender is not. Thesecond model, the androgyny model, defines androgynous individuals aspossessing both positive masculine traits such as assertiveness and autonomyand positive feminine traits such as nurturance and communication skills(Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). According to this model,androgyny fosters self-esteem because androgynous individuals possess bothinstrumental and expressive qualities (Bem, 1974; Gilbert, 1981). Third, themasculinity model is based on empirical evidence which suggests thatpositive masculine traits are associated with high self-esteem in both malesand females while the effect of feminine traits on self-esteem is negligible(Antil & Cunningham, 1979; Kelly & Worrell, 1977; Silvern & Ryan,1979).

These three models were evaluated by Whitley (1983) m a meta-analysis of 35 studies of the relationship between gender role orientationand self-esteem. According to Whitley, empirical research does not supportthe congruence model. In general, high masculinity is positively related tohigh self-esteem. Although high femininity also predicted high self-esteem,masculinity accounted for more of the self-esteem variance than did femi-ninity. These results provide some support for the androgyny model be-cause both masculinity and femininity were predictive of self-esteem;however, when the effects of masculinity and femininity were consideredseparately the masculinity model was more strongly supported.

The main purpose of the present study is to examine the relationshipbetween gender role orientation and self-esteem in male and female ado-lescents. Although the relationships among gender, gender role orientationand self-esteem have been investigated in early, middle, and late adoles-cence, no one study has included all three age groups. In the present study,howeCer, these relationships are examined in boys and girls in the sixththrough twelfth grades.

Perceived Self-Competency SH

In the majority of studies on the relationship between gender roleorientation and self-esteem, self-esteem has been assessed one-dimensionally asglobal self-esteem. One-dimensional scales of global self-esteem such as the(3oopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1%7) and the Piers-HarrisSelf-Concept Scale (Piers & Harris, 1964) sum many areas such as cognitivecompetence, popularity, and physical appearance into a single score. Harter (1982)ai^es that the use of one-dimensional scales makes the false assumption thatindividuals evaluate themselves similarly across different areas of their lives.

More recent studies of the relationship between gender role orientationand self-esteem in adolescence have assessed self-esteem multidimensionally(Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Lau, 1989). None of these studies, however, used ameasure of self-esteem designed specifically for adolescents. Recently Harterdeveloped a perceived self-competency scale for adolescents, the Self Percep-tion Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 1988). This scale was used in the presentstudy both because it was developed specifically for adolescents and becauseit assesses seven specific areas of perceived self-competency: global self worth,romantic appeal, scholastic competency, social competency, athletic compe-tency, physical appearance competency, and close friendship competency. Per-ceived romantic appeal has not been assessed in previous studies nor hasgeneral social self-esteem been divided into perceived social competency andperceived close friendship competency. These two scales measure different as-pects of social self-esteem: perceived social competency focuses on how likableand popular one feels; while perceived close friendship competency examineshow competent one feels in interpersonal relationships.

Measuring self-esteem multidimensionally is important when examin-ing gender differences. Few differences between adolescent girls and boysin global self-esteem have been reported (Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Lamke,1982a; Lamke, 1982b; Wells, 1980). However, gender differences in specificdomains of self-esteem have often been found. Girls have higher levels ofsocial self-esteem (Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Wells, 1980), while boys havehigher self-esteem in physical abilities (Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Lau, 1989).These gender differences may be due to traditional gender role socializa-tion in which girls are socialized to value and therefore develop interper-sonal relationship skills while boys are socialized to engage in physicalactivities and sports (Douvan & Adelson, 1966).

Gender differences in the stability of self-esteem during adolescencehave also been examined. Traditionally adolescence was thought to be a pe-riod of "storm and stress" (Hall, 1904) during which adolescents were vul-nerable to self-esteem problems. In line with this idea, Simmons, Rosenberg,and their colleagues have found girls' but not boys' self-esteem to decreaseduring adolescence (BIyth, Simmons, & Carlton-Ford, 1983; Simmons, Blyth,Van Cleave & Bush, 1979; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1975). Other studies.

a_2 Rose and Montemayor

however, have found increases or stability in both boys' and girls' self-esteemin adolescence (Butcher, 1989; McCarthy & Hoge, 1982; Nottelmann, 1987;O'Malley & Bachman, 1983) leading to an emerging consensus that self-esteem does not necessarily decline during adolescence.

Evidence for possible developmental differences in the relationshipsamong gender, gender role orientation and self-esteem is also mixed. Themasculinity model is supported in female adolescents and in male adolescentsbetween the ages of 12-15 years (Butcher, 1989; Cate & Sugawara, 1986;Umke, 1982a; Umke, 1982b; Wells, 1980). In older adolescent boys betweenthe ages of 14-18 years, however, findings are inconsistent. Cate andSugawara (1986) assessed self-esteem multidimensionally and found that mas-culinity was related to social and athletic self-esteem in older adolescent boys.However, they also found that neither masculinity nor femininity was relatedto global self worth in these boys. When self-esteem was measured one-dimensionally, however, Umke (1982a) found that both masculinity andfemininity predicted self-esteem in older adolescent boys while Wells (1980)found that neither masculinity nor femininity predicted self-esteem in olderadolescent boys. These conflicting results again make apparent the impor-tance of assessing self-esteem multidimensionally when examining the rela-tionship between gender role orientation and self-esteem.

In the present study we examined the relationship between genderrole orientation and perceived self-competency in adolescents. Perceivedself-competency is assessed multidimensionally. Gender differences in per-ceived self-competency are studied, and perceived self-competency and therelationships among gender, gender role orientation and perceived self-competency are assessed developmentally.

METHOD

Subjects

Adolescents and their parents were recruited as part of a larger study ofparent-adolescent relationships; however, only the adolescents' data were usedin the present study. Families who were contacted were randomly selected fromthe school roster of the participating school. The families were contacted withan introductory letter and a follow-up telephone call. Of the 614 familiescontacted on the telephone, 215 (35%) participated. Most of the families whodid not participate indicated that they did not have the time to complete thequestionnaires. The larger study required both parents and the adolescent toparticipate, and the time commitment was approximately three hours for eachfamily. A raffle for two $100 prizes was used as an incentive for participation.

Perceived Self-Competency gO

The families in this study resided in a mid-western school district witha population of approximately 35,000. In the school district were five ele-mentary schools (grades kindergarten though sixth), a junior high school(grades seventh through ninth), and a senior high school (grades tenththrough twelfth). Families in the study were over 98% Caucasian with theother two percent consisting of African-Americans and Asians. The numberof children in the home ranged from one to six children with an averageof two children. Annual family income ranged from under $20,0(X)/year toover $100,000/year {X = $45,000-$49,999/year). Most parents had com-pleted some college; although some had not finished high school while oth-ers had post-graduate educations.

Of these 215 families who agreed to participate, data from 194 ado-lescents could be used. Data from the remaining 21 adolescents could notbe used because the questionnaires were either not completed or completedincorrectly. Participants included 21 sixth graders (10 girls, 11 boys), 30seventh graders (16 girls, 14 boys), 30 eighth graders (15 girls, 15 boys),26 ninth graders (11 girls, 15 boys), 29 tenth graders (14 girls, 15 boys),28 eleventh graders (12 girls, 16 boys), and 29 twelfth graders (17 girls, 12boys). Their ages ranged from 12 to 18 years. The mean age for girls was14.9 years and the mean age for boys was 14.5 years.

Instruments

Children's Gender Role Orientation. The Children's Sex Role Inventory(CSRI) (Bodizar, 1991) is a simplified version of the Bem Sex Role Inven-tory which replaces each adjective of the Bem scale with a more easilyunderstood adjective phrase. There are 20 masculine, 20 feminine, and 20neutral adjective phrases. The CSRI gives a masculinity and femininityscore. For each adjective phrase, adolescents respond from one (if thephrase is not at all true of them) to four (if the phrase is very true ofthem). Bodizar found that the correlation between the CSRI and the Bemscale was r = .86 for the masculine scale and r = .89 for the femininescale. The inter-item reliability for the masculine and feminine scales was.75 and .84 respectively. The average stability of the scale over one yearwas .64 (Bodizar, 1991).

Perceived Self-Competency. The Self Perception Profile for Adolescents(Harter, 1988) taps different aspects of perceived self-competency as wellas global self worth. Subscales include perceived scholastic competency (aca-demic performance), social competency (number of friends; how likable oneis), athletic competency (athletic/sports ability), physical appearance compe-tency (satisfaction with the way one looks), romantic appeal (ability to attract

gg^ Rose and Montemayor

members of the opposite sex and to be interesting on a date), close friend-ship competency (ability to make and maintain close friendships), job com-petency (having job skills), behavioral conduct (satisfaction with ones'behaviors), and global self worth (general happiness with one's life). Eachsubscale consists of five items. Seven of the nine subscales were used in thepresent study. The job competency subscale was omitted because many ofthe adolescents were too young to hold jobs. Also, the behavioral conductsubscale was omitted because the behaviors addressed appeared to be vague.Harter found that each subscale was internally consistent with Cronbachalphas ranging from .78 to .88 (Harter, 1988).

The format of the items in the Self Perception Profile for Adolescentswas designed to lessen the influence of social desirability. One item statesthat "some people my age do well at their homework but other people myage do not." First the adolescents must choose which individual they aremost like. If adolescents decide they are most like the person who does wellon homework, they then must answer if the statement about that person is"very true of me" or "sort of true of me." A score of four reflects the highestperceived self-competency while a score of one reflects the lowest perceivedself-competency. A mean is calculated for each subscale.

Procedures

Families received the questionnaire packets in the mail. Adolescentscompleted the CSRI and the Self Perception Profile for Adolescents, andthe families returned the questionnaires in an envelope provided. A cardwas included for the raffle. However, returning the card was not required,and the card and questionnaires were separated upon arrival.

RESULTS

Gender Role Orientation Distribution

Based on the CSRI, a femininity score and a masculinity score werecalculated for each subject. The inter-item reliability for the femininity andmasculinity subscales was .82 and .81, respectively. The correlation betweenthe femininity and masculinity subscales was r = .20 (p < .05) for girls andr = .18 (p = n.s.) for boys. Although femininity and masculinity were sig-nificantly correlated for girls, the small magnitude of the correlation indicatesthat the scores are orthogonal and scores can be treated as independentscores.

Perceived Self-Competency

Table I. Distribution of Adolescents into Gender Role Orientation Groups

Gender

GirlsFemininity

High

Low

Masculinity

High

(Androgynous)N = 27

(Masculine)N = 7

Low

(Feminine)N = 36

(UndifTerentiated)N = 26

Boys

Femininity

High

Low

(Androgynous) (Feminine)N = 23 N = 10

(Masculine) (Undifferentialed)N = 35 N = 30

Adolescents were divided into four gender role orientation groups,masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated, in order to ex-amine differences in perceived self-competency among these groups. Me-dian scores (masculinity = 2.88; femininity = 2.95) were used to dividesubjects into the four groups using the median split technique (Bem,1977; Spence et al., 1975). The masculine group consisted of adolescentswith masculine scores above the median and feminine scores below themedian, and the feminine group consisted of adolescents with femininescores above the median and masculine scores below the median. An-drogynous adolescents had both masculine and feminine scores above themedians, and undifferentiated adolescents had both masculine and femi-nine scores below the medians. The distribution of adolescents into thesefour groups is presented in Table I. Because there were so few masculinegirls (N = 7) and feminine boys (N = 10), adolescents with these genderrole orientations were eliminated from further study. Three gender roleorientation categories were then examined: androgynous; undifferenti-ated; and traditional. Traditional adolescents were either feminine girlsor masculine boys.

Rose and Montemayor

Grade, Gender, Gender Role Orientation, and PerceivedSelf-Competency

Because the subscales of the Self Perception Profile for Adolescentsare correlated, a 3 x 2 x 3 multivariate analysis of variance was used to de- ;termine the relationship between overall perceived self-competency and gen-der role orientation (androgynous, traditional, undifferentiated), gender (girl,boy), and grade. Children were divided into three grade groups of approxi-mately equal numbers: early (grades 6-7; N = 51); middle (grades 8-9;N = 56); and late (grades 10-12; N = 86). A main effect was found for gen-der role orientation, F(2, 175) = 1.86, p < .05, and gender, F(\, 175) = 5.00,p < .0001. No main effect was found for grade. Also, all two way interactionsand the three way interaction (gender x gender role orientation x grade)were non-significant.

Univariate analysis of variance was used first to examine differences inthe seven subscales of perceived self-competency by gender role orientationgroup (boys and girls together). Then univariate analysis of variance was usedto examine differences in the seven subscales of perceived self-competencyby gender. Main effects for gender role orientation were found for perceivedscholastic competency, perceived close friendship competency, and perceivedglobal self worth. Scheffe's tests were performed to determine the significantmean differences among the gender role orientation groups for these threesubscales. For perceived scholastic competency, Scheffe's test indicated thatandrogynous adolescents had higher perceived scholastic competency thantraditional and undifferentiated adolescents. For perceived close friendshipcompetency, androgynous adolescents had higher perceived self-competencythan traditional adolescents, but the undifferentiated group differed neitherfrom the androgynous group nor the traditional group. Finally, when exam-ining perceived global self worth, androgynous adolescents were found tohave higher perceived global self worth than undifferentiated adolescents, butthe traditional group differed neither from the androgynous group nor theundifferentiated group. There were no gender role orientation effects for per-ceived social competency, athletic competency, physical appearance compe-tency, or romantic appeal. The mean perceived self-competency scores bygender role orientation groups are presented in Table II.

Gender differences were examined using univariate analyses of variancewhich revealed main effects for gender for perceived social competency, ath-letic competency, and romantic appeal. Boys had higher perceived social andathletic competency, and girls had higher perceived romantic appeal. Therewere no gender effects for perceived scholastic competency, physical appear-ance competency, close friendship competency, or global self worth. Themean perceived self-competency scores by gender are presented in Table III.

V IIc cII II

s s

4 4

o

ri ri s

p

V

a

<Ji

Rose and Montemayor

Table III. Perceived Self-Competency Subscale Scores Compared by Gender

Gender

Subscale

Scholastic competency

Social competency

Athletic competency

Physical appearance competency

Romantic appeal

Close friend competency

Global self worth

GirU

3.08

2.54

2.28

2.48

3.34

2.86

3.00

Boys

3.08

2.93

2.57

2.50

3.01

2.95

2.86

F

.14

11.18*

7.06"

.01

13.16*

.86

.57

'p < .01.*p < .001.

Contributions of Masculinity and Femininity to Self-Competency

For each of the seven subscales of perceived self-competency, theandrogynous group consistently had the highest scores of the three genderrole orientation groups. Furthermore, when gender role orientation groupdifferences were found in perceived self-competency they favored theandrogynous group. The subjects in the androgynous group, by definition,have both high femininity and high masculinity scores. The following seriesof analyses are intended to determine the relative contributions ofmasculinity and femininity to perceived self-competency.

Pearson correlations between masculinity and femininity and eachperceived self-competency subscale were calculated for girls and boys inorder to examine the association between masculinity and femininity andperceived self-competency. These correlations are presented in Table IV.For girls, masculinity is significantly correlated with perceived scholastic,social, and close friendship competency, perceived romantic appeal, andperceived global self worth; however, femininity is not significantly corre-lated with any of the subscales. For boys, masculinity is significantly cor-related with perceived scholastic, social, athletic, physical appearance, andclose friendship competency. Further, femininity is significantly correlatedwith perceived social competency.

Perceived Self-Competency

u.•g

.i

q CS

5 Is

iiO

V V

3 .O

Rose and Montemayor

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to ex-amine whether femininity explained any perceived self-competency vari-ance after masculinity was entered into the regression equation.Masculinity was entered first because it has been found to be morestrongly related to self-esteem than femininity (Lamke, 1982b; Cate «fcSugawara, 1986). The only aspects of perceived self-competency exam-ined were those for which gender role orientation group differenceswere found: scholastic competency, close friendship competency, andglobal self-worth.

Masculinity in girls is a significant predictor of girls' perceived scho-lastic competency {R^ = .14), perceived close friendship competency(i?2 = .09), and perceived global self worth (R^ = .10). Adding femininityto the regression equation accounted for no additional variance.

Masculinity in boys is a significant predictor of boys' perceivedscholastic competency (R^ = .09) and perceived close friendship com-petency (/?2 = .09). Femininity is a significant predictor of boys' per-ceived scholastic competency even after masculinity was entered into theregression analysis (R^ change = .04). Femininity did not account forany additional variance in perceived close friendship competency or per-ceived global self worth.

Grade (low, middle, high) was then entered into the regressionequation in order to test for possible grade differences in perceivedself-competency. None were found. Finally, the interaction terms,masculinity x grade and femininity x grade were entered. No interactionswere found. Results of these analyses can be seen in Table V.

DISCUSSION

Based on previous research (Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Lamke,1982b; Whitley, 1983), the relationship between gender role orientationand perceived self-competency was expected to support the masculinitymodel rather than the congruence or androgyny model. In each of thesubscales for which gender role orientation differences were found, per-ceived scholastic competency, close friendship competency, and globalself worth, androgynous adolescents had the highest perceived self-com-petency. These results appear to support the androgyny model. Whenthe unique contributions of masculinity and femininity to perceived self-competency were examined, however, masculinity accounted for morevariance in perceived self-competency than did femininity which supportsthe masculinity model.

Perceived Self-Competency

Table V. Perceived Self-Competency Variance Accounted for by Masculinity,Femininity, and Grade Using Multiple Regression Analysis

Subscales R^ f R^ change F

Girls

Scholastic competency

Masculinity .14 13.43*̂Femininity .15 7.58^ .01 1.64Grade .16 5.08* .01 .22Masculinity x Grade .16 3.80* .00 .10Femininity x Grade .16 3.10° .00 .40

Close friendship competencyMasculinity .09 8.51*Femininity .10 4.75" .01 .99Grade .11 3.46° .01 .90Masculinity x Grade .12 2.84° .01 .97Femininity x Grade .13 2.48 .01 1.02

Global self worth

Masculinity .10 9.56*Femininity .11 4.99* .01 .47Grade .11 3.40° .00 .31Masculinity x Grade .12 2.72" .01 .71Femininity x Grade .13 2.39° .01 1.08

Boys

Scholastic competencyMasculinityFemininityGradeMasculinity x GradeFemininity x Grade

Close friendship competencyMasculinityFemininityGradeMasculinity x GradeFemininity x Grade

Global self worth

MasculinityFemininityGradeMasculinity x GradeFemininity x Grade

.09

.13

.16

.17

.18

.09

.11

.12

.12

.13

.01

.04

.04

.04

.06

7.81*6.47*5.18*4.01*3.56

8.67*5.33*3.68"2.80°2.34°

.871.701.14.87

1.06

.04

.03

.01

.01

.02

.01

.00

.01

.03

.00

.00

.02

4.78*2.38.57

1.65

1.90.45JS.55

2.51.05.11

1.79

°p < .05.*p < .01.'p < .001.

g^ Rose and Montemayor

Masculinity predicting perceived scholastic and close friendship com-petency in girls and boys and perceived global self worth in girls may beexplained by the instrumental nature of many of the masculine adjectives.In regards to perceived scholastic competency, instrumental qualities suchas ambition and independence are necessary for success in school. The find-ings that masculinity was positively related to perceived close friendshipcompetency was unexpected because femininity has been associated withclose interpersonal relationships. One explanation for this finding is thatadolescent friendships are at least partially based on shared activities(Berndt, 1982), so masculine, instrumental adolescents who plan, organize,and lead activities would be sought after.

High femininity was found to predict high perceived scholasticcompetency in boys but not girls. The need for expressive qualities suchas verbal ability and communication skills to do well in school may ex-plain this finding. Furthermore, traditional feminine qualities may tem-per the behavior of highly masculine boys who might otherwise focuson sports.

In the present study, gender role orientation differences were foundfor only three of the seven perceived self-competency subscales, and theamount of variance explained ranged from only four to fifteen percent.This indicates that gender role orientation is a small to moderate contribu-tor to perceived self-competency. Some studies have found self-esteem, orspecific dimensions of self-esteem, to be unrelated to gender role orienta-tion (Cate & Sugawara, 1986; Streiker & Kurdek, 1982; Wells, 1980). Incombination these findings indicate that variation in self-esteem and per-ceived self-competency during adolescence is primarily accounted for byfactors other than gender role orientation.

Of the gender differences found for perceived self-competency, boys'superiority in perceived social competency was the most surprising sinceprevious research found girls to be higher in this area (Wells, 1980; Cate &Sugawara, 1986). Differences in the assessment of perceived socialcompetency may partly explain this inconsistency. The Self PerceptionProfile for Adolescents includes both a perceived social competencysubscale, which measures popularity, and a perceived close friendshipcompetency subscale, which measures competence in interpersonalrelationships. A sample question from the perceived social competencysubscale is "some people my age are popular with others their age butother people my age are not very popular." A sample question on theperceived close friendship competency subscale is "some people my agehave a close friend they can share secrets with but other people my agedo not have a really close friend they can share secrets with." Socialself-esteem scales used in previous studies have not differentiated between

Perceived Self-Competency . - ,

popularity and competence in interpersonal relationships. In the presentstudy, boys may have perceived themselves as having higher socialcompetence (popularity) than girls because boys tend to associate with largegroups of other boys whereas girls' peer relationships more often involvedyads and small groups (Thorne, 1986).

Gender differences in perceived athletic competency and perceivedromantic appeal may be due to traditional gender role socialization.Competition and physical activity are strongly encouraged in boys whilegirls traditionally have been taught to value social relationships andromantic appeal (Douvan & Adelson, 1966). Furthermore, Eriksontheorizes that while a boy's task during adolescence is to establish anautonomous identity, a girl's task is to develop the capacity forinterpersonal intimacy (Erikson, 1968).

No grade differences for perceived self-competency were found for girlsor boys. These results are aligned with the emerging consensus that adoles-cents are not particularly vulnerable to self-esteem difficulties (Butcher, 1989;McCarthy & Hoge, 1982; Nottelmann, 1987; O'Malley & Bachman, 1983)!The previous theory that adolescence was an especially problematic time forgirls' self-esteem was largely based on the research of Simmons, Rosenberg,and their colleagues (Biyth et al., 1983; Simmons et al., 1979; Simmons &Rosenberg, 1975). However, their data were collected in 1968 before the so-cial and educational changes of women's movement. There may now be lessrisk of low self-esteem for females during the transition from childhood toadolescence. Studies showing self-esteem stability in adolescence suggest thatself-esteem may be established by the time children reach adolescence. Alongitudinal or cross-sequential design rather than a cross-sectional designshould be used in future research, however, for a more powerful test of de-velopmental differences in perceived self-competency.

There were also no grade differences in the relationship between gen-der role orientation and perceived self-competency. The masculinity modelwas supported for boys and girls throughout adolescence as has been foundpi-eviously for girls and younger adolescent boys. Although previous studiesfound contradicting results regarding the relationship between gender roleorientation and self-esteem in older adolescent boys when self-esteem wasmeasured one-dimensionally (Lamke, 1982a; Wells, 1980), the presentstudy is aligned with the study by Cate and Sugawara (1986) in which self-esteem was measured multidimensionally. In both studies, the masculinitymodel was supported in various dimensions of perceived self-competencybut gender role orientation was unrelated to global self worth. Measuringself-esteem multidimensionally appears to provide a clearer picture of therelationship between gender role orientation and perceived self-competencythroughout adolescence.

894 Rose and Montemayor

Overall, femininity was unrelated to perceived self-competency, aconclusion confirmed by previous research (Cate & Sugawara, 1986;Lamke, 1982b; Wells, 1980). Future research might search for areas ofperceived self-competency which are related to femininity but which arenot assessed by traditional measures of self-esteem or perceivedself-competency. Such areas might be caretaking or empathy, for example.On a more basic level, the concept of femininity may need to bereconceptualized and assessed more appropriately. In the present study aswell as many other studies examining gender role orientation, some versionof the Bem Sex Role Inventory is used to assess femininity. The BSRI wascreated in the mid 197O's and may not be an accurate measure of femininityin the 199O's.

The present study contributes to the literature on gender role orien-tation and perceived self-competency in adolescence first by using the SelfPerception Profile for Adolescents. Perceived self-competency is measuredmore appropriately than in previous studies because the scale was designedfor adolescents. Also, perceived self-competency is assessed more thor-oughly because the scale assesses perceived romantic appeal. In addition,perceived social competency and perceived close friendship competencywere assessed separately. Assessing perceived social competency and per-ceived close friendship competency separately was important because it ledto the unexpected finding that boys are higher than girls in perceived socialcompetency. Lastly, this study was the first to examine the relationshipsamong gender, gender role orientation, and perceived self-competencythroughout the entire range of adolescence.

REFERENCES

Antil, J, K., & Cunningham, J, D. (1979). Self-esteem as a function of masculinity in bothsexes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 783-785,

Bem, S, L. (1974), The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 42, 155-162,

Bem, S. L, (1977), On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychologicalandrogyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196-205,

Berndt, T, J, (1982), The features and effects of friendships in early adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 53, 1447-1460,

BIyth, D, A,, Simmons, R, G,, & Carlton-Ford. S, (1983), The adjustment of early adolescentsto school transitions, you/Tifl/o/fiar/y/4(io/Mce/ice, .?, 105-120,

Bodizar, J, (1991), Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: The children's sex roleinventory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 505-515,

Butcher, J, E, (1989), Adolescent girls' sex role development: Relationship with sportsparticipation, self esteem, and age of menarche. Sex Roles, 20, 575-593,

Cate, R,, & Sugawara, A, I, (1986), Sex role orientation and dimensions of self-esteem amongniiddle adolescents. Sex Rotes, 15, 145-158,

Coopersmith, S, (1967), The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman,

Perceived Self-Competency 595

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley.Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth in crisis. New York: Norton.Gilbert, L. A. (1981). Toward mental health: the benefits of psychological androgyny.

Professional Psychology, 12, 29-38.Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence (Vols. I and II). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Harter, S. (1982). The jjerceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profde for adolescents. Unpublished manuscript.

University of Denver.Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L.

Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.). Review of child development research. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Kelly. J. A., & Worrell, J. (1977). New formulations of sex-roles and androgyny: A criticalreview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45. 1101-1115.

Lamke, L. K. (1982a). Adjustment and sex role orientation in adolescence. Set Roles, 11,247-259.

Lamke, L. K. (1982b). The impact of sex role orientation on self-esteem in early adolescence.Child Development, 53. 1530-1535.

Lau, S. (1989). Sex role orientation and domains of self-esteem. Sex Roles, 21. 415-422.McCarthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1982). Analysis of age effects in longitudinal studies of

adolescent self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, IS, 372-379.Mussen, P. H. (1969). Early sex-role development. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of

socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Nottelmann, E. D. (1987). Competence and self-esteem during transition from childhood to

adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 441-450.O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1983). Self-esteem changes and stability between ages

of 13 and 23. Developmental Psychology, 19, 257-268.Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self-concept in children.

Journal of Educational Psychology. 55. 91-95.Silvern, L. E., & Ryan, V. L. (1979). Self-rated adjustment and sex-typing in the Bem Sex

Role Inventory: Is masculinity the primary predictor of adjustment? Sex Rotes, 5, 739-763.Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, F. R. (1975). Sex, sex roles, and self image. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence. 4. 229-258.Simmons, R. G., Blyth, D. A., Van Cleave, E. F., & Bush, D. M. (1979). Entry mto early

adolescence: The impact of school structure, puberty, and early dating on self-esteem.American Sociological Review. 44. 948-967.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity. Austm: University ofTexas Press. , ,

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex roleattributes and their relation to self-esteem, and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.Journal of PersonaUty and Social Psychology. 32. 29-39. , , . j . u • u.u

Streicker, A. B., & Kurdek, L. A. (1982). Dimensions and correlates of third through eighthgraders sex-role self-concepts. Sex Roles, 8. 915-929.

Thome B (1986). Girls and boys together . . . but mostly apart: Gender arrangement melementary schools. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (Eds.), Feminist Frontiers IIL NewYork: McGraw-Hill. , , ,

Wells, K. (1980). Gender-role identity and psychological adjustment in adolescence. Journalof Youth and Adolescence. 9, 59-73.

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1983). Sex role orientation and self esteem: A critical meta-analytic review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 765-778.