Perceived Masculinity, Femininity and Androgyny Among Primary School Boys: Relationships

with the Adaptation Level of These Students and the Attitudes of the Teachers Towards Them
Author(s): Christiane Pich and Chantal Plante
Source: European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 6, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1991), pp. 423435
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422264
Accessed: 07-05-2015 11:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422264?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Journal of Psychology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

European Journal of Psychology of Education

1991, Vol. VI, n? 4, 423-435
1991, I.S.P.A.

Masculinity, Femininity and

Androgyny Among Primary School Boys: Relationships
with the Adaptation Level of These Students and
the Attitudes of the Teachers Towards Them
Perceived

Christiane Pich
Chantai Plante
Universit

Canada

Laval,

The

that in school
in the
suggests
setting, particularly
the boy well-adapted
and being the object
of a positive
or feminine
from the teacher, is the one displaying
expressive
behaviors.
To verify
the existence
three
of this relationship,

primary
attitude

literature

grades,

type
instruments

were

between

aged

administered

six

and

seven

to 38

teachers
The

years-old.
are evaluated

who

results

evaluated

181

boys

indicate

that

boys
than

as being masculine
as being more
as feminine,
whereas
as
boys perceived
boys perceived
obtain
scales.
higher scores on the anxiety and prosocial
as androgynous
and feminine
and evaluated
as prosocial

perceived

attitudes from the teachers'

of more positive
part
is true for masculine
and externalizing
boys. These
a certain extent, the existence
between
of a conflict
role

and

the

student

role,

at

least

such

as

aggressive

being feminine
Boys classified
are the object
whereas
the opposite
results

to
support,
the masculine
sex
school
by certain

defined

settings.

An

related

Achenbach

1978;

number

important

of problems

26.6%

studies

have

1979;

of boys

demonstrated

that

is two to three times

adjustment

& Edelbrock,

In school,

1984).

of

to school

& Whitmore,

Rutter, Tizard,
to 15%

compared

the

prevalence,
than

higher

1970;

Tremblay

of girls are referred

among

boys,

for girls (Achenbach,

& Baillargeon,

for behavior

problems

(Kelly, Bullock, & Dykes, 1977). Rubin and Ballow's longitudinal study (1978) indicates that
the

of boys

proportion

primary

year

whereas

sixth

grades.

This

fifth and
seems

to be closely

established

between

interactions

with

frequently

rejected

and

identified

school

are perceived

linked
them
the

higher

(Gilly,

the

percentage

teachers

1980).
(Brophy

&

Good,

negatively

behavioral

having

to the teacher's

(Brophy
more

as

for girls,

decreases
of school

Evertson,

1974;

Good
(Clift

in first grade

to

observed

among

maladjustment

reported

&

by them

is around

6.4%

of the student

perception
It is often

difficulties
from

1981;
&

&

that

1972;
1979;

more
1983),

Willis

Gilly,

or every
13%

in

boys

to the type of contact

experience

Kedar-Voivodas,

Brophy,

Sexton,

and

boys

35%

negative
are

more

&

Brophy,

1974)

1980;

Hartley,

1978;

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

424

C. PICHE

Stevenson,

Parker,

evaluation

of teachers,

less

less

obedient,

classroom

Wilkinson,

account
less

hard-working,
and

situation

& Fish,

Hegion,
into

taking
less

& C.

1976).

when

Effectively,

the sex of the students,

cooperative

&

(Clift

we consider

success

as being

adapted

to the

(Stevenson

et al.,

less

1979),

academic

the overall

are perceived

boys

Sexton,

girls to experience

than

likely

PLANTE

1976).
to certain

According
these

1977)
role

and

facts

the pupil's

to a certain
displayed

researchers
the

suggest
role

as

and
Within

this

1983).

the school

itself as perceived

&

Smithells,

& Hughes,

(Etaugh
Kent

&

Tonick,

Broverman,
&

Best,

To these

associating

structure

been

on,

society

settled

(Gilbert,

1981;

feminine
with

considered

environment,

domains,
certain

brings

the ease

by which

academic
that

the

Voivodas

&

work

Attachment

rejection.

by academic
from
teacher

or emotional

the teacher's
to consider

Theses

attitudes

things,

the

lead

behaviors
conformist

dependant,
of attachment
independent,

the

and

pupil

to four
displayed
and

concern

assertive

and

to the

a worthy

different

types

by the

obedient

conformist

role.

are

that

Within

thus

favoring

influenced

strongly

by his personal

attributes

observable

behaviors

Faucher,

Some

1978).

between

the
the

academic

and

strategies,

through

&

Brophy

studies

a teacher

by
(sex,
and

report
a pupil

and
routine

to the school

(Kedar

tie generated
of liking

students.
of

of interactions
(Brophy

behaviors

1969;

her

and
&

(feminine-type

(Feshbach,

by the pleasure

felt working

fondness

or

reflects
or

a lack

(masculine

brought

depend

refusal

conveys

behaviors)

bring

& Oackland*

type behaviors)

by the

involvement.

upon,
1981).

about

of committment

professional

Evertson,

Helton

Evertson

indifference,

Rejection

his

and

Brophy
concern,

attachment,

Indifference

recipient

and

(1972)

teachers:

feelings

students

behaviors

in the teacher
non

and

among

shy or unobtrusive
as

and

of the last one

in the child.

problems
towards

part

found

refers

Concern

to

element

it remains

in the social

teaching

attitudes

role

as an affectionate

is defined

child.

a particular

been

adjusted

1979).

up by Good

taken

(1969)

four types of attitudes

identifies

with

Medway,

respective
have

to be an

appear

a significant

learning
and

interactions

capacity

behaviors)

the

or androgynous
be more
would

adjustment,

plays

themselves

negative

(instrumental
on

concept

by which

(1978),

studies

of boys

and

(Pederson

and/or

This

1981).

These

1974).

the adjustment
1979;

masculine

attitudes

repertoire,

androgynous.

several

Deutsch,

to the school

masculine

either

Helmreich

of individuals

of being

maladjustment.

the masculine

though

to his pupil's

and

and

Katz

and

in his behavioral

are called

Spence

Silvern

well-adapted

display

of school

they express

of attitudes

can

of interaction

of a student

Tannembaum,

Silberman's
and

behaviors);

to diminish

who

&

particular

boy

Vogel,
Bennett

Williams,

and

(1978)

as having,

characteristics

Good,

conforms

progression

development

may contribute

(1981)

the child

school

boys

(Broverman,

1978;

school

if the young

type

all a way
&

with

feminine,

androgynous

to adopt

Helmreich,

of Silvern

on both

classified

feminine

being

&

and

Waldroop,

(Brophy

performance,
the

affect

O'Leary,

as

Even

to which

above

prizing

of students

types

high

scales.

to the dynamic

the teacher

Serbin,

to the phenomenon

respect

of the teacher

contribution
school

and

1978;

of the situation

scoring

Gilbert,

& Canaday,

or perceived

1975)

yet as

passivity

Robinson

the work

(1974,

of being

reinforce

and

individuals

behaviors)

it is not

If masculine,
to be

are those

(expressive

or disadvantages

advantages
our

by Bern

and

among

identified

of

Stein

1969;

Kellog,

approve

ourselves

to the needs

according

individuals

feminine

ask

In psychology,

operationalized

androgynous

carried

facts, we can

behaviors.

behaviors

add

and

for others

Spence

of masculinity

not be the one

would

feminine

we can

studies,

high

1972;

Kedar

1980;

activities

concern

identified

that teachers

sex

supports,

the behaviors

Gilly,

1964;

(Kagan,

Lee,

submission,

1969;

often

Rosenkrantz,

level

those

feminine-type

and

&

Clarkson,

Considering

has

behaviors

out

it is pointed

as dependency,

& Patterson,

Fagot

1973),

1975).

(1986)

1975;

and

such

between

of the school

aspect

&

masculine

literature

1973;

(Lee,

students

grades

the

scientific

incompatibility

the feminine

framework,

between

The

in the classroom

by the primary

of behaviors

then

Kedar-Voivodas

1980;

situation

setting.

highlights

valued

are emphasized;

1969)

the expression

which

the behaviors

Voivodas,

Good,

of a conflictual
by the school

defined

this postulate

extent,

by boys

&

Biddle,

(Bank,

existence

among
Among
about
1977)

lead

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

other
those,

attitudes
whereas

to attitudes

MASCULINITY,

of indifference
in a review
and

passive

and

rejection

of the

are

the object

are

boys

considered

teacher's

and

school

less

behaviors

to boys

compared

we examined

of more

part

we verified

Then,

when

the object

repertoire

the teacher's

behaviors.

Finally,

if

examined

in their

from

concern)

of the teacher

first, we

so,

environment

are

(1983)
towards

positive

the attitude

do

behaviors.

environment

to boys

compared

To

masculine-type

feminine-type

being

behaviors.

feminine-type

(attachment

as

extent

students.

having

to the

more

to the school

part

feminine

Kedar-Voivodas

1977).

these

to verify to what

as having

well-adjusted

as having

well-adjusted

the

as

or identified

less

or identified

perceived

so-called

particular

attitude

positive

perceived

presents

adopt

among

& Oackland,

attitudes,

attempted

or identified

of a more

to boys

if masculine

adjustment

perceived

boys

compared

from

study, we have

to school

effectively

teachers'

who

children

receptive

In the present
is related

on

Helton

1969;

(Feshbach,

literature

425

ANDROGYNY

FEMININITY,

if boys
attitudes

positive

well-adjusted.

Method
Subjects
The

of this research

subjects

students.

These

different

french-speaking

McRoberts

first grade

(1976)

are 38 teachers

children

the

sample

(1 male

between

aged

schools

public

scale,

are

in and

around
all

represents

and

37 females)

6 and

7 years

old

and

their

and

come

city. Assessed

Qubec

socio-economic

181 male
from

16

by the Blishen

levels.

Procedure
Once

the approval

collect

the data.

period

involved

takes charge
in a different room.

the

the MFA

a questionnaire

QECP

that

upon

to the last

assessing

school

to classify

and

convenient

will

classrooms

of the school
while

have

principals

most

assistant

of students

been

time

spend

a whole

are thus

visited

year

(april-may).

the teacher

obtained,

for them

to

day

in each

over

an eight

The

research

fills out the questionnaires

are:
level

adjustment

the students
those

identifying

the

Thirty-eight
months

group

of the school

a research

questionnaires
the

and

to determine

in the study.

These

allowing

and

boards

teachers

of the whole

indifference
Overall
the

the

corresponding

assistant

out

with

It is agreed

of the classrooms
week

of the school

made

are

agreements

of each

as masculine,

individuals

student;

feminine

the object

being

and

and,

androgynous

of attachment,

concern,

rejection.

for average

of 20

groups

students,

the teachers

an

spend

entire

day

filling

questionnaires.

Instruments
d'valuation

Questionnaire
discriminate
such

the children
the

difficulties,

is used.

This

des

results

adjustment

d'valuation

Questionnaire

questionnaire

au

comportements
school

presenting

des

from a twinning

prscolaire

those

au

comportements

between

In

(QECP).
from

problems

the Preschool

not

order

prscolaire

Behavior

to

presenting
(QECP)

questionnaire

(Behar & Stringfield, 1974; Fowler & Park, 1977) and the Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire
(Weir

&

Behavior

Duveen,

1981).

Questionnaire

(aggressiveness,

Initially
allows

and/or

hyperactivity)

Prosocial

Behavior

analysis

of the data

the integration

conceived

Questionnaire
gathered

to measure

the identification

from

internalizing

assesses

positive

1161 boys

of the two questionnaires,

maladjusted

of the children

(anxiety,

behaviors

in the school

on one

hand

the

Preschool
behaviors

externalizing

behaviors

at the kindergarten

identifies

behaviors,

showing

social

level
the two

withdrawal).
setting.

in Montreal,
factors

The

factorial
following

aggressiveness

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

426

C. PICHE

and

social

withdrawal

component
of which

12.2%

score

The

of

evaluated

.89

reports

reports

score,

he

correlation

of .84.

Behavior

.72

studies

observation

& Daniels-Beirness,
Rutter

1985).

The
an

the

advantage:

minimum
score

score

For each

20).

femininity

on

and

feminine

has

This

perception,

instrument

aggressive,
& Helmreich,

and

indicates

characteristics

are

found

masculine

boy,

the boys
considered

rather

& Clark,

Meginbir,

Khan,

of

these

assessment
Rubin

1983;

& Weatherall,

evaluations

psychiatric

subscale

and

manifests

evaluated.

(MFA).

The

score

score

0, maximum

itself frequently

on

questionnaire
about

themselves

question

prosocial
(13 items,

minimum

items,

(6

comprises

and

subscale

minimum

child

could

QECP,

internalizing

items,

(10

femininity

the

instrument,

if the behavior

list

characteristics

of

feminine

(score),

masculinity

the masculine

and
and

and

boy

in an
so

a boy

every one

masculine,

boys

This

as

perceived
questions

being

both

way

belongs
being

classification

which

and

characterize

more

Secondly,

characteristics

identified

in the list)

that

way

and

masculine

of a

is typical

(androgynous).

to his or her perception,

according
category

from

rather

considered
allows

being

(Spence

the teacher

feminine

to one

(ex:
hurt)

or masculinity.

in a behavioral

defines

exclusive

boys

feminine

easily

being

off the items

checks
more

masculine

so-called

emotional,

being

(ex:

characterize

stages,

boys

three

total

average

validity

an externalization

it includes

for each

0)

or her class

rather androgynous.
these

the

Rubin

externalizing,

subscale

masculine

classifies

androgynous
To

which

in his or her class

considered

being
and

a feminine

the teacher

Thirdly,

those

in his

distinctly

an

of .91 with the Prosocial

teachers'

clinical

a new

the

this list, the teacher

girls or femininity
if these

Hoge,

obtain

(1974)

Rutter

to the

reliability

between

1982;

internalization

indicates

and

and

Using

Questionnaire

Concerning

1986;

into

an

26),

first a

comprises

1978).

behavior

For the test-retest,

reliability

between

of

so the teachers

independent)

being

maladjustment

and so they would try to classify,

of their primary grade students
feminine
or androgynous.
boys as being masculine,

characteristics

to their

according

used

total

withdrawal.

(score

masculinity

been

to the

Stringfield

& Cluss,

agreement

to the aggressiveness

the inter-judge

relationships

& Emptage,

a prosociability

never

1) or

Questionnaire
and

score

and

Preschool

reliability.

by the teachers,

item, the teacher

(score

occasionally

and

questionnaires

out

and

12)

Behar

the

evaluation

0, maximum

score

0, maximum

two

Filled

For

(Campbell

social

simultaneous

of behavior.

aspects

and

of these

twining

score.

& Gagnon,

Charlebois,

reliability.

get a test-retest

(1981)

Moller,

the

(principal

by the three factors,

negatively

-.26)

inter-judge

inter-judge

an

using

and

demonstrated

reports

aggressiveness

(r

whereas

.66

Rubin,

also

score

assessment

of the behaviors

(1967)

subscales

have

1983;

is correlated

behaviors

prosocial
is explained

Desmarais-Gervais,

score

to the total

and

factor

of the variance

(Tremblay,

method

Duveen

Weir and

and

direct

teachers'

correlation

Questionnaire
several

the

the

correlation

measures,

44%

withdrawal

by the test-retest

(1967)

factor)

PLANTE

the third

hand,

rotation,

to the social

reliability

been

has

the other

that the prosocial

indicated

(r = -.38),
r = -.43).

score

on

by the prosocial

It is also

1985).

and

with varimax

analysis

& C.

and

feminine

boys

of masculine,

the identification

all

three:

a possible

boys
being

feminine

by the teachers.
suggested

by Silberman

(1969)

and

taken

up

again

by

Silberman (1971), Good and Brophy (1972), Jenkins(1972), Evertson, Brophy and Good (1973),
Willis and Brophy (1974), Brophy and Good (1974), Brophy and Evertson (1981), are added.
These

questions

attachment
4)

and
1.
2.
3.

are

to the identification

of the individuals

1), concern

2), indifference

lead

(question
written

as

If you

could

would

you

If you

could
you

problems

being

respectively
3) and

(question

the object

rejection

(question

of it, which

ones

which

ones

followed:
a few boys

keep

another

year

for the sheer

joy

pick?

would
Which

(question

devote

all

your

you

be

attention

to boys

having

difficulties,

pick?

boys

would

or their

least

prepared

to

talk

about

their

progress,

behaviors?

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

their

of

4.

If your

class

to have
The
of the

to be reduced

by a few boys,

which

would

ones

be relieved

you

removed?

summing

four

was

427

ANDROGYNY

FEMININITY,

MASCULINITY,

of these

up

answers

attachment,

groups:

the classification

provides

concern,

and

indifference

into

of the individuals

one

rejection.

Results

Masculinity,
The

femininity,

by the teachers,

the

MFA.

Table

distribution

feminine.

Table

done

or a total
male

attitudes
feminine

by adding

of

in the different

first grade

their

perceive

1 presents

of the boys

been

has

teachers'

in the masculine,

of the subjects

grouping

perceived

and

androgyny

171 designations

students

as

being

as
on

data

that

for 10 children),

the majority
then

androgynous,

the

of the teachers
and

masculine,

finally

Distribution

of the boys among

by the teachers
(MFA)

such

masculine,

and

feminine

Groups

of a more

as being

53

30.99
26.32

73

42.69

of more

concern

7V=

ni)

(indifference,
rejection

deviations

and

boys

.05).

rejection)

the Chi

are

effectively

second

of each

to feminine

androgyny

objective
as

28%
masculine

masculine,

was

being

group

and

to

perceived

feminine

boys

for the three

masculine
subscales

and
boys:
and

24%

are the object

androgynous

and

be the

or identified
of

feminine
48%

would
masculine

feminine,
attitudes

the distribution

boys:

are

the object

of the attachment
masculine

being

of more

negative

(x2p,
attitudes

of the indifference
20%

and

attachment,

and

feminine.

adjustment

to verify if there were

feminine,

that

androgynous

being

school

perceived

teachers'

masculine

32.5%

feminine

to boys

reveal

the

than

concern)

as being

compared

analysis

related

Conversely,

47.5%

femininity,

perceived

Boys

square

androgynous,

compared

being

the teachers

from

rejection.

or identified

perceived

from

(attachment,

being

p <

7.464,
boys

Masculinity,
Our

Results

attitudes

positive
=

attitude

characteristics

and

boys

to verify if boys

indifference

concern,

45

positive

as

identified

Feminine

masculine.

androgynous

groups,

Masculine

we wanted

First,
object

androgynous

Frequency

Androgynous

of

categories,

of the teachers

androgynous

(missing

It indicates

groups.

and

the classification

up

or

differences

in the school

adjustment

The

and

androgynous.

of the

QECP

are

means

distributed

as

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

level

standard
following:

428

C. PICHE

& C.

PLANTE

Table 2
Means
and standard
deviations
three subscales
of the QECP
Groups

Masculine

53

Feminine

This

boys.
and

On

indicates
subscales

that

Internalization

6.43

2.24

4.24

3.49

4.54

8.71

SD

4.32

2.85

4.27

4.22

3.19

7.78

SD

4.59

2.34

5.12

mean

than

for

the

the mean

the mean

boys

on

the

internalization

by the masculine

of the masculine
of variance

analysis

the three

feminine

obtained

and

on

each

and

androgynous

boys is higher than

repeated

the

Prosociability

2.64

the

on

(MFA)

5.83

one-way

between

boys

7.85

subscale,
The

boys.

differences

significant

androgynous

is higher

the externalization

androgynous

and

SD

73

table

feminine

Externalization

45

Androgynous

prosociability

of masculine,

the feminine

subscale

shows

groups.

Table 3
a) Analysis
of variance
on the three subscales

of the results
externalization,
Source

Subscales

(QECP)

of

of masculine,
internalization

df

variation

Externalization

Internalization

Prosociability

and androgynous
feminine
and prosociability
(QECP)
Sum

of

Mean

squares

square
286.75

Inter-group
Error

168

573.51
4178.53

Total

170

4752.04

Inter-group
Error

96.04

168

1016.48

Total

170

1112.53

Inter-group
Error

129.44

168

3568.86

Total

170

3698.30

boys

(MFA)

11.53***

24.87
48.02
6.05

7.94**

64.72
21.24

3.05**

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .005; *** p < .001.

b)

Duncan's

test on

Variable

the

variables

externalization,

Groups

internalization

and

prosociability
MFA

Externalization

7.849

53

Masculine

Externalization

4.219

73

Externalization

3.488

45

Androgynous
Feminine

Internalization
Internalization

4.577

45

Feminine

3.191

73

Internalization

2.641

53

Androgynous
Masculine

Prosociability

8.706

45

Feminine

Prosociability

AB

7.779

73

Prosociability

6.434

53

Androgynous
Masculine

Note. * The mean scores from the same group do not differ significantly between them.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(QECP)

MASCULINITY,

between

Differences

subscale,

target

F(2,168)
for the prosociability

and
how

the

means

differ

subscale,

only

2)

the mean

them

F(2,68)
reveals

obtain

boys

for the externalization

3) are significant

(Table

for the internalization

.001,

among

masculine

1)

of boys

groups

11-53, p <

429

ANDROGYNY

FEMININITY,

subscale,

3-05, p <

.05.

Duncan's

~ 7.94, p < .005,

F(2,168)
test used to determine

that:

a mean

significantly

on the externalization

higher

subscale;
of the so-called
from

significantly
the

3)

of

androgynous

boys

is thus
and

Androgynous

boys
and

are

higher

feminine

characterized

by a

more

similar

means

high

than

the

boys

with

on

boys

the

differs
boys;

from

on

higher
the mean

boys,

either

of externalizing

whereas

to feminine
masculine

level

subscale

androgynous

significantly

different

significantly

behaviors

internalizing

is

boys

the

of the masculine

the mean

being

and

masculine

feminine

than

not

in the internalization

boys

of the

means

so-called

subscale

prosocial

behaviors

the

prosociability

Masculinity
level

of

mean

the

one

of them.
and

behaviors

opposite

is

their

mean

low

true

for
on

and

prosociability

the

of the

a low

femininity.

externalizing

internalization

dimensions.

Teachers'
We

wanted

of more

object

Table
a)

attitudes

and

school

to verify
positive

adjustment

if boys
attitudes

evaluated

as

from

teachers

the

being

better

adjusted

to school

to boys

compared

less

would

be

the

well-adjusted.

Means

groups

scores
on

of boys from
the three subscales

the attachment,
of the QECP

Subscale

Externalization
Internalization
Prosociability

concern,

indifference

(QECP)
Internalization

Prosociability

rejection

Attachment

Concern

Indifference

Rejection

5.25
4.67

7.50
4.98

12.00
6.57

2.98

SD

3.37

M
SD

2.91

4.40
2.80

2.77

4.52

2.10

2.76

2.84

8.68

6.69

4.42

SD

4.85

4.45

7.13
3.66

3.32

b) Analysis
of variance
of the results of boys from the attachment,
concern,
and rejection
on the subscales
and prosociability
internalization
groups
Subscales

and

Source

of

df

variation

Sum

of

indifference

Mean

squares

square

Inter-group
Error

94.19

31.39

167

1013.48

6.06

Total

170

1107.68

Inter-group
Error

3
167

335.53
3364.30

Total

170

3699.83

111.84
20.14

Note. * p < .001.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5.17*

5.55*

430

C.

The
on

the

mean

of attachment,
Boys

QECP.
whereas

internalization
means.

.001)

The

non

and

of the scores

boys

than

and

and

boys

by the boys
subscale

indifference
and

and

have

groups
and

concern

indifference

being

to another
a higher

have

groups

to the attachment

the rejection

form the attachment

boys

indifference

belonging

from

achieved
from one

varies

rejection

rejection

than

the attachment

subscale

subscale,

concern

a higher
groups.
have

groups

mean
On

the

the lowest

= 5.55,
with repeated
on the prosociability
measures
(^(3,167)
=
and internalization
indicates significant differences.
5.17, p < .001) subscales
(F(3,167)
on the externalization
subscale
the use of the
of the variance
required
homogeneity

The

p <

subscale

from

boys

PLANTE

that the mean

to the

belonging

the prosociability

& C.

indifference

concern,

on the externalization

groups,
on

4 indicates

of Table

reading

the object

PICHE

of variance

analysis

Kruskal-Wallis

Test.

For

this

.001 level.

at the p <

significant

the

variable,

A posteriori

chi

of 26.2586

value

square

comparisons

(Duncan

with

as

3 d.f.

indicate

p < 05)

procedures;

that:
the

a)

means

lower

from

and

are

c)

the

rejection

from

boys

from the attachment

boys

from
the

that

the

results

Results

rejection
less

group.
conclusive.

<

on

and

the indifference

subscale

groups

the mean

than

of the

let us

consider
whereas

and

the

(p <

group

externalization

.01),

better

to this

adjustment

the concern

for boys
to the

belonging

indifference

and

environment,

setting

for boys

is true

and

subscales

to the school

adjustment

the opposite

from

boys

concerning

than

externalizing

.01).

reflect a better

group,

less

the indifference

.05),

the internalization

subscale

described

previously

{p <

(p

score

to the attachment

belonging

groups

of the boys

groups;

are significantly

group
group

group

a low

concern

indifference
the means

group;

the concern

on the prosociability

and
from

the prosociability

the rejection

rejection

attachment

differ significantly
the attachment

on

higher

the

the

from

boys

Considering
score

of the boys

significantly

and

high

from

boys

subscale

the means

b)

of

on the internalization

group

are

Discussion
Masculinity,
The

with

internalizing

internalization
whereas

prosociability
in

androgyny,

internalization

students

androgynous

Internalization

teachers.

and

Good

the objects
the class,

according

not

low

scores

to the

literature,
as

by

high

score

the

externalization

on

the

and

attittudes

associated

the

feminine

masculine,

particular

a variable

on

subscale,

externalization

of

characteristics

prosocial

in the studies,

appear,
behaviors

to Silberman

Willis

of rejection
do

generate,

to

on

score

is more

masculinity

to a low level of prosocial

characterized

a low

related
and

does

according
(1974),

is

sample,

Externalizing

or aggressive

Externalization,
distinguishes

and

that

and

among

with

either

attitudes.

or negative

positive

our

subscales.

is

Femininity

subscales

notice

(aggressiveness)

positive

at the characteristics

If we look

we

of more

are the object

boys

boys.

androgyny,

behaviors

behaviors.

(anxiety)
and

and

femininity

masculinity,

feminine

to masculine

compared

to a high level of externalizing

associated

and

part

attitudes

and

that androgynous

from the teachers'

associated
and

demonstrate

results

attitudes

teachers'

and

androgyny

femininity,

and
and

not conform

(1969),

Brophy

indifference.

(1974)
More

to the established

certain

characterizing
Jenkins
and

and

Brophy

precisely,
rules

Good

(1972),

children

(Silberman,

in the present

boys
and

Evertson
rejected
1969),

Brophy
(1981)

(1972),
students

by the teacher

disobey

(Garner

study,
Brophy
being
disturb
& Bing,

1973), show serious discipline problems (Jenkins, 1972; Good & Brophy, 1972; Willis & Brophy,

1974;

Brophy

&

Good,

1974)

and

are

generally

restless,

inattentive,

and

aggressive

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(Brophy

MASCULINITY,

&

Evertson,

Children

1981).

milder

way

(Willis

&

Brophy,

d'valuation

rejection

boys

on the prosociability

than

masculine

behaviors

and

In

the

children

studies

indifference
and

conformist

or

to dependent

attitudes
not
and

(Feschbach,

and

toward

verified

(Feschbach,

as

perceived

about

from
school

industrious

(Brophy

behaviors

attitudes

In

are

the

and

dependent

rise

give

1977).

to the

way

boys.

among

of rejection
whereas

1977)

to independent

by the teachers

Children

1973).

femininity)

in this

masculine

appropriate

and

of
and

on this subscale

concern.

Oackland,

react

androgynous

masculine

by

shown

feminine
and

scores

nonconformist

with
&

have

leading

and

has

to attitudes

for

display

& Oackland,

more

could

behaviors

feminine

and

related

mean
and

Bing,

bring

Helton

1969;

that the teachers

conformist

&

Helton

associated

evaluated

which

from feminine

higher

they are calm

1972);

masculinity)
1969;

(behaviors

masculine,

if boys

to attitudes
we

Consequently,
and

nonconformist
of distinct

expression
present

more

effectively

we

study,

have

independent

nonconformist.

Masculinity,

femininity,

If masculine
also

teachers

been

reported

of attachment

independent

with

are

boys,

by the teachers,

(Garner

attitudes,

attitudes

negative

have
(QECP),

behaviors

but obtain

& Brophy,

more

put forward

perhaps

prscolaire

prosocial

cooperative

teachers'

generating

in a

problems

boys.

as perceived

Good

behavior

aggressiveness

masculine

with attitudes

and

431

display
and

do not differ significantly

groups,

concern

masculine

characterize

of the QECP

1974;

behaviors
and

au

associated

among

of attachment
may

concern

on

(behaviors

comportements

boys

subscale

sociable

1981),

and

teachers,

among

& Good,

(Brophy

Evertson,

restlesness

are associated

boys)

the attachment

situation

among

(androgynous

boys

of indifference

the school

which

behaviors,

and

androgynous

&

des

of externalization

level

If externalizing
indifference

with

Disobedience,

1974).

the Questionnaire
a higher

the object

being

still incompatible

but

ANDROGYNY

FEMININITY,

to those

part,

boys
as

perceived

less

are

on

the object

school

by Silvern

adjustment

of more
to the

well-adjusted

reported

scores

and

androgyny

and

Katz

attitudes

negative

school

from

environment.
since

(1986)

the teachers,

These

masculine

results

are

obtain

boys

they

are

similar,

in

significantly

the

subscale
whereas
feminine
aggressiveness
(externalization)
boys obtain
subscale
On
significantly
higher scores on the anxiety and social withdrawal
(internalization).
the other hand,
in studies
and Sexton
the teachers
by Silvern
(1978)
the
(1969),
perceived
masculine
to the school
situation
boys as less well-adjusted
to feminine
compared
boys.
higher

These

those from the present study, support

results, including
the view that the masculine
be in conflict with the student role (Gilly, 1980; Kedar-Voivodas
& Lee, 1977; Kedar
with the school situation
1983) since the masculine
boy displays behaviors
incompatible

role could
Voivodas,
(ex:

whereas

aggressiveness)

behaviors.

It seems

rest on the teacher's

The
the

observation

Teachers
Boys
and

low

and

school

scores
obtain

group

anxiety

and

indifference

characteristics

and

on

of children

children

the rejection

group.

the two

for example,
behavior

between

obtain

group

and

anxiety
mean

scores

subscales;
are

less

classified

are better

to negative

does

boy

that a systematic

concerning,

relationship

prosociability
groups

androgynous
this statement:

not

bias

has been

masculinity,

in the

school

the elements

such

present

of evaluation

types

introduced.

may

setting,

have

from

lead
which

evaluated.

adjustment

the

high

the

it is not unlikely

concept

important

or

to qualify

biases

from the attachment

mean

onhe

from

or

this

of an

attitudes

rejection

that these

and

perception

to associate

feminine

important

of stereotypes

presence

the teacher

the

however

adjusted
The

high mean

scores

on the aggressiveness
the results

conclusive.
in the

attachment

to the school

attachment

we

know

and

the boys
in

look,

group,

situation

children

whereas

subscale

concerning

When

on the prosociability

subscales

aggressiveness

when
how

mean

the

scores

from the concern

the

it is not

boys
low

subscale
from

literature,
surprising

compared

at

the

to note

to the children

to reinforce

the work

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

432

C. PICHE

the teacher,
1973),

child's
the

same
to

understand

their

the

inattention,
On

the

children

Brophy,

1974).

students

the results

that

get lower

the

subscale

closely

could

facilitate

1983)
conformism

children
to

According

1981),
and

are

highly

and

them

success

academic

not

adjustment

as restlessness,
(Kedar

rules

(Silberman,

systematically
Willis

1974;

Good,

&

to the behaviors

correspond

of the rejection

ability

us
the

requirements

such

by attributing
&

their

help

nonconformism

(Brophy
do

could

researchers,

the established

against

attributes

the limited

and

activity

to explain

certain

by behaviors

underestimate

negative

seem
children

rejection

mostly

of school

explain

a higher

when

children

differences

Good
and

the

not those

other

defined

hand,

a new

the

toward

peers,

and

whereas

the QECP

was

and

results,

precisely,

the

the positive
had noticed

reported

may

(1981)

mostly

identified

and,

(1974)

of the child

Brophy

toward

the

the last type of behaviors.

and

Evertson

(1981)

the teacher

whereas

in our

fear when

faced

by Brophy
with

to communicate

be explained

perhaps

Brophy

behaviors

assesses

by behaviors

operationalized

and

to

pertaining

different

More

Evertson

ours

and

Willis

cooperative

behaviors

studies

foresee
had

(1974)

indifference

the anxiety-social

children.

their results

sociable

let us

and

Brophy

aggressive),
In fact, our

the

on

internalization.

Good

assessed.

by a refusal

part

some

had

indifference

between

internalization-type

situation

whereas

to the variables

considered

for the most

internalization

study,

observed

related

have

(1974)

Brophy

among

higher

However,
and

and

being

than

scores

of students

children

of internalization

ones.

less well adjusted

are less conclusive.

aggressive

and

prosociability

and

(1974)

Brophy

last

groups

of the variables

less

though

and
boys

adjusted

rejection

boys

subscale

to the

different

prosocial,

concern

even

boys,

respectively

being

and

compared

this inconsistency

But,
by some

seem

boys
boys

the prosociability

of the concern

level

teacher

concern
on

and

behaviors

with

teachers

rejection

of these

by Willis

social

were

themselves

(attachment

in the case

particularly

On

the

in any way the behavioral

the indifference

scores

characteristics

studies

and

concerning

indicate

and

setting.

Evertson,

rather

could

environment

withdrawal
the

same

probabilities

these

attachment
from

for the class

the

level,

If the attachment

boys,

&

(Brophy

and

characteristics,

(Kedar-Voivodas,
and

& Bing,

(Garner

environment.

to the school
data

to meet

disturbing

Obviously,

These

1977).

behaviors

appropriate

cooperative

achievement

those

distinguish

the lowest

Oackland,

of the

to the

do not seem

in school

appreciated

where

display

sociable,

1982).

maladjustment

academic

to these

environment

environment,

behaviors

1983):

environment

an

aggressiveness

Voivodas,

in the school

the characteristics

These

1969),

&

Valois,

school

children

rejection

of the school.

to this

&

way

adjustment

1969).

to

adjustment

(Silberman,

tidy (Helton

approved

(Bertrand

PLANTE

are achievers,

1972),

Brophy,

and

dependent

with those

supported
In

and

(Good

passive,

compatible
the

very little attention

they require

in the classroom

& C.

of withdrawal,

worry,

sadness.

Conclusions
The

adjustment

results

show

level

that

environment

and

concur

those

with

perceive
the view
femininity
sex

role

are

by Silvern

reported
boys

of still existing

more

is characterised
is less

& Jacklin,
well

adjusted

of the masculine

Finally

and
our

to the reality
boys

(as

are

perceived

Sexton

internalizing
results

support

of the

school

adjusted

the teachers.

related

to

the

These
that
results

support
whereas

turning

Lueptow,

that the masculine

the hypothesis
environment:

1976;

school
teachers

to aggressiveneness
(Block,

the
The

findings

these

behaviors

by their teacher)

them.

demonstrating

Moreover,

boys.

remains

better

(1969)

towards

teachers

from

attitude

feminine

masculinity

by prosocial
1974).

individuals

masculine,

by the teachers,

as perceived

of the

and

than

between

the relationship
boys

attitudes

positive

(1978)

negatively

stereotypes:

the

feminine

of a more

the object

to study

of first grade
and

boys
and

androgynous

masculine

Maccoby

behaviors

of these

was

research

characteristics

androgynous

school

1985;

of the present

objective
and

feminine

the
out

more

aggressive

incongruous

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

with

MASCULINITY,

the behaviors
We

may

1 male)

valued

certainly

is typically

teachers,
The

elements

within the context

negative

behaviors

culturally
and

classroom
their

it would

boys,
own

we may
emphasis

the

environment
biases.

also

educational

sections
process.

towards

with

masculinity

such

appear
wish

the development

lead

to

diminish
important
questionning
for a lesser

way,

to sensitize
the

whole

the

and

teachers

educational
decision

of

their importance

physical
the

school

for

existence

of

to

possible
as

within

boys

we

know

it today,

conformism

and

a greater

system

making

towards

especially
autonomy,

adjustment

to the

and

province.

that a stereotyped

masculine

towards
chances

the

and

and

results

of female

exclusively
in our

level

assertiveness,

on passivity

emphasis

of autonomy

almost

masculinity

as

attitudes

negative
in this

different

of obtaining

at this

1983).

female

(37

bring us on to emphasize

associated
may

Kedar-Voivodas,

In fact, if we acknowledge

the teachers

and

1981;

of the teachers

composed

from

like

sex

situation

perception

Without

certainly

on

sample,

of the school

in the preceding

discussed

Evertson,

of the

on the possibility

and
our

However,

representative

&

(Brophy

influence

students,

teachers.

of the whole

general

restlessness
those

of male

setting

the possible
of male

on the perception

with a majority

and

in the school

question

433

ANDROGYNY

FEMININITY,

in the

classrooms.

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
46, 478-488.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior profile II: Boys aged 12-16. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 47, 223-233.
Bank, B. J., Biddle, B. J., & Good, T. L. (1980). Sex roles, classroom instruction and reading achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 199-132.
Behar, 1, & Stringfield,S. (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 10, 601-610.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex-role adaptability: one consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 634-643.
Bertrand, Y., & Valois, P. (1982). Les options en ducation. 2me. d., Gouvernement du Qubec. M.E.Q. Qubec.
Blishen, R., & McRoberts, H. A. (1975). Socio Economie Index for Occupations in Canada. Revue canadienne de Sociologie
et d'Anthropologie, 13, 74-79.
Block, J. H. (1976). Issues, problems, and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of the Psychology of
Sex Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22(4), 283-308.
Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosentkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex role stereotypes:
A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
Campbell, J. B., & Cluss, P. (1982). Peer relationships of young children with behavior problems. In K. H. Rubin &
H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood, (pp. 323-351) New York: Springer-Verlag.
Clift, P., & Sexton, B. (1979). ...all things nice. Educational

Research, 21, 601-615.

Etaugh, C., & Hughes, V. (1975). Teacher's evaluations of sex-typed behaviors in children: The role of teacher sex and
school setting. Developmental Psychology, 11, 394-395.
Evertson, C., Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1973). Communication of teacher expectations: First grade. Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 3(374), 60.
Fagot, B. I., & Patterson, G. R. (1969). An in vivo analysis of reinforcingcontingencies for sex-role behaviors in the
preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 1, 563-568
Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Student teacher preferences for elementary school pupils varying in personality characteristics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 126-132.
Fowler, P. C., & Park, R. M. (1979). Factor structure of the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire in a normal population.
Psychological Reports, 45, 599-606.
Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Body, L. (1979). Sex role socialization and achievement in mathematics. In M. A.Witting &
A. C. Peterson (Eds.). Sex related Differences in Cognitive Functioning, (pp. 303-332). New York: Academic Press.
Garner, J., & Bing, M. (1973). The elusiveness of Pygmalion and differencesin teacher-pupil contacts. Interchange, 4, 34-42.
Gilbert, L. A. (1981). Toward mental health: The benefits of psychological androgyny. Professional Psychology, 12, 29-38.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

434

C.

PICHE

& C.

PLANTE

Gilbert, L. A., Waldroop, J. A., & Deutsch, C. J. (1981). Masculine and feminine stereotypesand adjustment: A Reanalysis.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 790-794.
Gilly, M. (1980). Matre-lve: Rles institutionnels et reprsentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 617-624.
Harthley, D. (1978). Sex and social class: a case study of an infant school. British Educational Research Journal, 4, 75-81.
Helton, C. R, & Oackland, T. D. (1977). Teacher's attitudinal responses to differingcharacteristics of elementary school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 261-265.
Hoge, R. D., Meginbir, L., Khan, Y., & Weatherall, D. (1985). A multitrait-multimethodanalysis of the preschool behavior
questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 119-127.
Jenkins, B. (1972). Teachers' views of particular students and their behavior in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Chicago.
Kagan, J. (1964). The child's sex role classification of school objects. Child Development, 35, 1051-1056.
Kedar-Voivodas, G. (1983). The impact of elementarychildren's school roles and sex roles on teacher attitudes: an interactional
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 415-437.
Kedar-Voivodas, G., & Lee, P. C. (1977). Sex role and pupil role in early childhood education. In L. G. Katz (Ed.),
Current Topics in Early Childhood Education, (Vol. 1), (pp. 105-118). Norwook, N.Y.: Ablex.
Kedar-Voivodas, G., & Tannembau, A. J. (1979). Teacher's attitudes toward young deviant children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 800-808.
Kellogg, R. (1969). A direct approach to sex role identification of school-related objects. Psychological Reports, 24, 839-841.
Kelly, T. J., Bullock, L. M., & Dykes, M. K. (1977). Behavior disorders: Teachers' perceptions. Exceptional Children,
43, 316-317.
Lee, P. C. (1973). Male and female teachers in elementaryschools: An ecological analysis. Teacher College Record, 75, 75-98.
Lueptow, L. B. (1985). Conceptions of femininityand masculinity: 1974-1983. Psychological Reports, 57, 859-862.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Standford: Standford University Press.
Medway, F. J. (1979). Causal attributions for school-related problems: Teacher perception and teacher feedback. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71, 809-818.
Pederson, E., & Faucher, T. A. (1978). A new perspective on the effects of first grade teachers on children's subsequent
adult status. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 1-31.
Petro, C. S., & Putnam, B. A. (1979). Sex-roles stereotypes: Issues of attitudinal changes. Sex Roles, 5, 29-39.
Robinson, B. E., & Canaday, H. (1978). Sex-role behaviors and personality traits of male day care teachers. Sex Roles, 4,
853-865.
Rubin, K. H., & Clark, M. L. (1983). Preschool teachers' ratings of behavioral problems: Observational, sociometric
and social-cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 273-285.
Rubin, R. A., & Ballow, B. (1978). Prevalence of teacher identified behavior problems: A longitudinal study. Exceptional
Children, 45, 102-111.
Rubin, K. N., Daniels-Beirness, T., & Hayvren, M. (1982). Social and social cognitive correlates of sociometric status
in preschool and kindergarten children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 338-348.
Rubin, K. N., Moller, L., & Emptage, A. (1986). The preschool behavior questionnaire: a useful index of behavior problems
in elementary school-age children? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 86-100.
Rutter, M. (1967). A children's behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 1-11.
Rutter, M., Tizzard, J., & Whitmore, K. (1970). Education, Health and Behavior. New York: Robert E. Krieber.
Serbin, L. A., O'Leary, K. D., Kent, R. N., & Tonick, I. J. (1973). A comparison of teacher response to the preacademic
and problem behavior of boys and girls. Child Development, 44, 796-804.
Sexton, P. (1969). The Feminized Male. New York: Random House.
Silberman, M. L. (1969). Behavioral expression of teacher's attitudes toward elementary school children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 60, 402-407.
Silberman, M. L. (1971). Teachers' attitudes and actions toward their students. In M. Silberman (Ed.), The Experience
of Schooling. New York: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.
Silvern, L. E. (1978). Masculinity, femininity in children's self-concepts: The relationship to teachers'judgments of social
adjustment and academic ability, classroom behaviors, and popularity. Sex Roles, 4, 929-949.
Silvern, L. E., & Katz, P. A (1986). Gender roles and adjustment in elementary school children: A multidimensional
approach. Sex Roles, 14, 181-202.
Spence, J. T., & Helmereich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity: their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and
Antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stein, A., & Smithells, J. (1969). Age and sex differencesin children's sex-role standards about achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 1, 252-259.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MASCULINITY,

FEMININITY,

435

ANDROGYNY

Stevenson, H., Parker, P., Wilkinson, A., Hegion, A., & Fish, E. (1969). Predictive value of teachers' rating of young
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 507-717.
Tremblay, R., & Baillargeon, L. (1984). Les difficults de comportement d'enfants immigrants dans les classes d'accueil
au prscolaire,. Revue canadienne de l'Education, 9(2), 154-170.
Tremblay, R. E., Desmarais-Gervais, L., Charlebois, P., & Gagnon, C. (1985). The preschool behavior questionnaire in
a francophone population: factor structure, norms and validity. Paper presented at the International Society for
the study of Behavioral Development, Tours, France.
Tremblay, R. E., Gagnon, C., Pich, C., & Vitaro, F. (1986). Prvalence et stabilit des difficults de comportements
en milieu scolaire: de la maternelle la premire anne d'cole primaire. Rapport de Recherche. Ecole de Psycho
Education. Universit de Montral.
Vitaro, R., Tremblay, R., Gagnon, C., Pich, C, & Royer, N. (1987). Difficults de comportement et valuation par les
pairs l'cole maternelle: instrumentation, liens avec les sources adultes d'valuation et dpistage des marginaux.
Rapport de Recherche. Ecole de Psycho-Education. Montral.
Weir, K., & Duveen, G. (1981). Further development and validation of the Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire for use by
teachers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 357-374
Williams, J. E. , Bennett, S. M., & Best, D. L. (1975). Awareness and expression of sex stereotypes in young children.
Developmental Psychology, 11 635-642.
Willis, S., & Brophy, J. (1984). Origins of teachers' attitudes toward young children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
66, 520-529.
Wise, G. W. (1978). The relationship of sex-role perception and levels of self-actualization in public school teacher. Sex
Roles, 4, 605-617.

Key

words:

Sex

role,

School

adaptation,

Teacher

attitudes.
Received: March 1990
Revision received: August 1990

Christiane Pich. Ecole de psychologie, Pavillon Flix-Antoine-Savard, Universit Laval, Cit universitaire, Qubec,
Canada G1K 7P4.
Current theme of research:
Early intervention with high psychosocial risk children

Chantai
Plante. Ecole de psychologie, Pavillon Flix-Antoine-Savard, Universit Laval, Cit universitaire, Qubec
Canada G1K 7P4.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Thu, 07 May 2015 11:09:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions