Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: , softness, and love – Rather than either/or, these two types of gender can be viewed as 2 independent or “orthogonal” dimensions Various “Gender” Measures • Terman’s Attitude Interest Analysis Survey – Masculine/feminine on ONE DIMENSION • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) – Mf Scale (unidimensional) • Femininity validated on 13 HOMOSEXUAL MEN?? • Bem and Spence development “personality” versions – These are really just Agency and Communion (or variations) • • • • Agentic vs. Communal (Bakan, 1966) Competency vs. Warmth-expressiveness (1970’s) Power/Potency vs. Niceness/Nurturance (1980’s) Also, tests are culturally limited (though flexible) • Lippa suggests Gender Diagnosticity measures are best (use ACTUAL differences between men and women across personality, occupational preferences, cognition) Measuring Gender as Self-Schema • • • The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence) The Sex Role Inventory (Bem) 4 Gender Styles – – – – Sex-Typed (50%) Androgynous (25%) Cross-Typed (15%) Undifferentiated (10%) 5 • 4 types; types differ between sexes (Bem, 1990) – Sex-Typed: Feminine women, masculine men – Cross-Typed: Feminine men, masculine women – Undifferentiated: Low on masculinity and femininity – Androgynous: High on both masculinity and femininity • Do the best relationships have matched patterns? • Answer: – Androgyny is usually the healthiest, but some evidence suggests sex-typed “matching” (masculine man and feminine woman) is good, too – Sex-typed men (high masc, low fem) and sex-typed women (high fem, low masc) tend to get along well together in relationships, partly because they both endorse traditional marital roles Helms et al. (2006) • Three Hypotheses: – Complimentarity: Masc men, Fem women do well – Androgyny: Partners with both Masc and Fem do well – Instrumental/Expressive: Masc and Fem independently contribute • Found 4 common types of gender role combinations – – – – Undifferentiated couples (37%) Androgynous couples (25%) Gender-typed wife/extreme gender-typed husband (27%) Gender-typed husband/extreme gender-typed wife (11%) • Gender-typed wife/extreme gender-typed husband (fem wife, very masc man) were more likely than all other couple types to: – (i) be less in love – (ii) spend less time with one another – (iii) have more difficulty understanding one another • Androgynous and gender-typed husband/extreme gender-typed wife were the best outcome couples [WHY?] Is Androgyny Best? • Androgynous individuals, Bem hypothesizes, are more flexible--they can be masc or fem--in accord with situational demands • Bem has established positive corrs of androgyny: – Sex = androgynous have more orgasms, more sexual satisfaction • Though some failed to replicate Bem’s findings (Allgeier, 1978) – Personality = androgynous have higher SE, are mentally healthier (i.e., fewer psychiatric symptoms) • A problem with Bem’s view of androgyny causing positive life outcomes is that Masculinity ALONE basically drives all of her correlates (esp. in women) • Why is Masculinity more linked to positive outcomes? Masculinity and Femininity Cognition Masculinity and Femininity Over Time Masculinity and Femininity &a...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/03/2013 for the course PSYCHOLOGY 309 taught by Professor Davidp.schmitt during the Spring '13 term at Bradley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online