Physique, Personality and Scholarship: "A Cooperative Study of School Children"

Motivational Differences between Male and Female as Measured by the Thematic Apperception Test1

“…Females have more need for abasement than males This proposition was confirmed by the data summarized m Table III Our finding agrees with the results reported by Milner (26), but is at variance with Sanford's study (33), m which no difference was found between male and female adolescent groups Again this proposition agrees with stereotyped or commonsense views of the female in our society as well as with psychoanalytic formulations…”

“…Need aggression Sanford (33) reports that the adolescent boys he studied showed stronger covert aggressive needs than the girls A number of observational studies (4, 12, 13, 19, 30) have revealed preschool boys to be more overtly aggressive than preschool girls Consistently, psychoanalytic theory implies (10) that, as a result of differences m the path of psychosexual develoi^nent, the male is much more apt to retain or develop a large component of overt aggressive urges than is the female Further, this is one of the areas of response where society places relatively severe restrictions upon free expression of the motive It seemed hkely, therefore, that not only would males be more aggressive overtly, but that they would also show more lmagmal or covert aggressive tendencies Need sex Sanford (33) reports that, for the older children he studied, boys exceed girls on a covert measure of this variable Freud (10) and many other psychoanalytically oriented writers (6, 9) have indicated that m their view adult sexuality is more apt to be strong and undiluted in the male than m the female There is some evidence (36) indicating that sexual desire on the part of the male in our society IS greater, or more frequent, than that displayed by the female Despite the existence of more masculine overtness in this area, there are great general sanctions against free expression of this motive With these considerations m mind, we predicted males would exceed females on this variable Need achievement Sumner and Johnson (35) used two indices related to this need and found no difference between the two sexes with one measure, and males significantly higher than females on the second measure A number of studies (5, 7) have shown that, whatever the reason, there are tremendous differences favoring the male m overt signs of achievement Again we have an area where complete expression or gratification of the motive is unlikely for most persons Consequently, we reasoned that this difference would also appear at a covert level We predicted that males would exceed females on this variable Need abasement Milner (26), m her investigation, found female subjects to be higher on this variable than male subjects Guilford and Martin (16) report significant differences for both urban and rural samples showing females exceeding males on the "D" factor of the Inventory of Factors STDCR (15) This factor is labeled "depression" and refers to feelings of unworthiness and guilt as opposed to cheerfulness and optimism Also related to the variable of abasement is the consistent finding that females are less assertive or dominant than males (1, 37) Finally, one of the derivatives of Freudian theory (6, 9, 11) is the expectation that there is characteristically a much stronger need for abasement on the part of females We therefore expected females to exceed males on this variable Need nurturance Sanford (33), Terman and miles (38), and Hartshome, May, and Shuttleworth (18), employing quite different measures, found females to be higher than males on this \ariable Some of the large amount of evidence (37) demonstrating the greater "sociability" and "co-operativeness" of females is related to this dimension Consistently, we predicted females would be higher than males on nurturance Narcism Blum (3), using a covert measure of one aspect of narcism, reports that females exceed males on this variable Milner (26) reports several findings that suggest a feminine superiority in narcism Further, psychoanalytic writers agree (6, 9. 10, 11) m postulating narcism as more characteristic of the female than of the male Thus, we predicted that women would exceed men on this variable…”

“…Females are more nurturant than men This proposition was accepted following examination of the data summarized m Table 111 Sanford (33), working with the TAT, and Terman and Miles (38), using more overt criteria, both reported the same finding The likelihood of an association between overt and covert manifestations of nurturance is affirmed by Murray's (28) report that overt and covert measures of this variable showed a positive correlation of over 40 Our finding agrees with the work of other investigators, as well as with the conventional stereotype of women, m representing the female, more than the male, as onented toward helping, assisting, or otherwise meeting the needs of dependent objects…”

“…

IN THIS STUDY we compared men and women by means of the Thematic Apperception Test m aggression, sex, achievement, abasement, nurturance, narcism, and verbal responsiveness Our findings are relevant for the individual employing TAT-hke projective techniques as well as for the person interested in characteristics of the two sexesAlthough differential psychology has from the outset played an important role m American psychology, there is relatively little empirical evidence concerning motivational differences between men and women A number of theorists have speculated concemmg these differences, but not many have translated their speculative notions successfully mto empirical terms This paucity of investigation can perhaps best be explained by the recentness with which psychologists have begun to bring motivational variables under empirical control A similar scarcity of systematic investigation is evident in the study of differences between sexes m their response to projective techniques Again, this may be accounted for most easily by pointing to the recent advent of these measures Although it is commonly accepted by users of the TAT that there are characteristic response differences between sexes (21), there have thus far been only fragmentary attempts (8,31,33) to state their nature explicitly The present paper represents a step m the direction of such a specification ' This study is part of a program of research conducted at the Harvard Psychological Clinic under the direction of Henry A Murray The research is supported by grants from Rockefeller Foundation and the Laboratory of Sociai Relations, Harvard University We are greatly indebted to Philhp Nogee for his co-operatiwi in securing subjects, to Malcolm Bloch for performing some of the statistical computations involved in the study, and to Eleanor Hollenberg, Patricia L Kook, and Neil Smelser for assisting m the reliability analysis

GARDNER LINDZEY AND MORTON GOLDBERG

DERIVATION OF PROPOSITIONSWe selected the propositions to be tested in this study following an inspection of the general literature on sex differences They refer to variables which we felt the TAT could meaningfully assess and concerning which there appeared to be some weight of evidence, or opinion, leading to the prediction of a particular sex difference In our derivations we were influenced heavily by psychoanalytic theory Motivational differences between male and female are complicated by the existence of motives that are covert and appear only in the imagination, or overtly in heavily disguised form These latent motives sometimes ally themselves with overt manifestations and show positive correlations, on other occasions, or for other motives, they are reciprocal and accompany a diminution m manifest signs of the motive Our decision to employ the TAT as our measuring instrument made clear that most of our interest was m latent or covert motnes, as it is in this area that the TAT is most appropriate and sensitive (28) Consequently, we determined to work with those variables that had been suggested as distinguishing men and women at a covert level In addition, we would employ variables that had been suggested as distinguishing men and women overtly but that were of such a nature it would be unlikely many individuals would be able to secure complete overt expression in this area The reasoning m the latter case was that if there was a high incidence of overt expression of the variable, but little likelihood of complete gratification, this motive should also have a strong covert or lmagmal component Thus, a major premise of our derivations was that overt expression of a given motive will be accompanied by covert expression only under conditions where the individual is not permitted full o\ert gratification of the motive in questionWe will consider the evidence leading to each proposit...

…”

“…Although differential psychology has from the outset played an important role m American psychology, there is relatively little empirical evidence concerning motivational differences between men and women A number of theorists have speculated concemmg these differences, but not many have translated their speculative notions successfully mto empirical terms This paucity of investigation can perhaps best be explained by the recentness with which psychologists have begun to bring motivational variables under empirical control A similar scarcity of systematic investigation is evident in the study of differences between sexes m their response to projective techniques Again, this may be accounted for most easily by pointing to the recent advent of these measures Although it is commonly accepted by users of the TAT that there are characteristic response differences between sexes (21), there have thus far been only fragmentary attempts (8,31,33) to state their nature explicitly The present paper represents a step m the direction of such a specification ' This study is part of a program of research conducted at the Harvard Psychological Clinic under the direction of Henry A Murray The research is supported by grants from Rockefeller Foundation and the Laboratory of Sociai Relations, Harvard University We are greatly indebted to Philhp Nogee for his co-operatiwi in securing subjects, to Malcolm Bloch for performing some of the statistical computations involved in the study, and to Eleanor Hollenberg, Patricia L Kook, and Neil Smelser for assisting m the reliability analysis…”