{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04010554089709763, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031134564643799472, 'mean_word_length': 4.745454545454545, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender Role Typing and Attachment to Parents and Peers

HAIGLER, DAY, AND MARSHALL (1995) studied the effects of sex and gender role typing on attachment to parents and peers, as measured by the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Revised (Annsden & Greenberg, 1987), among a sample of students attending a community college in the United States. As predicted, they found that overall attachment to mothers was higher than attachment to fathers, but they found no difference between male and female participants in overall level of attachment to parents. The highest level of attachment was among persons classified as androgynous or as feminine on a double median split of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1981a). The lowest levels of attachment were among persons classified as masculine or as androgynous. The results for the androgynous and undifferentiated groups were predicted, but the results for the feminineand masculine-typed groups were not. Haigler et al. found that the female participants had higher peer attachment than did the male participants, but they found no evidence of differences in peer attachment as a function of gender type. We attempted a replication and extension of the Haigler et al. (1995) study among 395 students (220 female, 175 male; mean ages = 17.89 years [SD = .49] and 17.93 years [SD = .48], respectively) attending a required seminar for freshman students at Millikin University. We determined sex typing by using a double median split (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975) of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). We measured degree of attachment by asking the participants to indicate, on a 7-point scale, how close they had been to their parents in childhood. They indicated on a similar scale how many close childhood friends they had had. As in the findings of Haigler et al. (1995), the men, r(174) = 4.63, p < .001,