Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 17, Issue 7–8, pp 359–374 | Cite as

“Masculinity,” “femininity,” and the complex construct of adjustment

  • Frank D. Payne
Article

Abstract

Bem has hypothesized that “masculinity” (instrumentality) and “femininity” (expressiveness) contribute interactively to adjustment, whereas others have argued that they contribute additively or that only instrumentality is important. To investigate the issue, 92 male and 92 female undergraduates were given the Short Bem Sex-Role Inventory, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire, and a broad range of self-report adjustment measures. Correlational analyses demonstrated that both instrumentality and expressiveness had important correlates with the adjustment indices, and hierarchical multiple regression revealed that they sometimes combined additively, but never interactively. Expressiveness correlated weakly with traditional adjustment indices (global and social self-esteem, and lack of anxiety), but also weakly to moderately with more socially oriented aspects of adjustment, including lower loneliness, lower social distrust, and lower aggression. Instrumentality correlated moderately to highly with self-esteem, lower anxiety, and lower loneliness (although self-esteem mediated the relationships); it also correlated with lack of adjustment in terms of higher Type A behavior and aggression.

Keywords

Correlational Analysis Social Psychology Personal Attribute Hierarchical Multiple Regression High Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. Self-esteem as a function of masculinity in both sexes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1979, 47, 783–785.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 196–205.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. Bem Sex-Role Inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1981. (a)Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354–364. (b)Google Scholar
  6. Berzins, J. I., Welling, M. A., & Wetter, R. E. A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 126–138.Google Scholar
  7. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement; Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. DeGregorio, E., & Carver, C. S. Type A behavior pattern, sex role orientation, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 286–293.Google Scholar
  9. Erdwins, C., Small, A., & Gross, R. The relationship of sex role to self-concept. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1980, 36, 111–115.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, M. Pathogenesis of coronary artery disease. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.Google Scholar
  11. Gaudreau, P. Factor analysis of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 299–302.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, L. A. Toward mental health: The benefits of psychological androgyny. Professional Psychology, 1981, 12, 29–38.Google Scholar
  13. Glass, D. C. Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Hansson, R. O. Hogan, R., Johnson, J. A., & Schroeder, D. Disentagling Type A behavior: The roles of ambition, insensitivity, and anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 1983, 17, 186–197.Google Scholar
  15. Helmriech, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Holahan, C. K. Psychological androgyny and sex role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1631–1644.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, D. N. Jackson Personality Inventory manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E., & Hansson, R. O. The engima of androgyny: Differential implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 298–313.Google Scholar
  18. Locksley, A., & Colten, M. E. Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1017–1031.Google Scholar
  19. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J.N. The relationship between androgyny and subjective indicators of emotional well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 40, 722–730.Google Scholar
  20. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N., Masculinity, femininity and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 428–439.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, F. D. Review of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 178–179). Lincoln, Nebraska: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. Payne, F. D., & Futterman, J. R. “Masculinity,” “femininity,” and adjutment in college men. Journal of Research in Personality, 1983, 17, 110–124.Google Scholar
  23. Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression in behavior research, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 996–1016.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  26. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 472–480.Google Scholar
  27. Silvern, L. E., & Ryan, V. L. Self-rated adjustment and sex-typing on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Is masculinity the primary predictor of adjustment? Sex Roles, 1979, 5, 739–763.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, K. W., & Sasaki, M. S. Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for models with multiplicative functions: Sociological Methods & Research, 1979, 8, 35–56.Google Scholar
  29. Spence, J. T. Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's “Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 440–446.Google Scholar
  30. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  31. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1032–1046. (a)Google Scholar
  32. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. On assessing “androgyny.” Sex Roles, 1979, 5, 721–738. (b)Google Scholar
  33. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationship to neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1673–1682.Google Scholar
  34. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers in sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29–39.Google Scholar
  35. Steiger, J. H. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87, 245–251.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92, 347–366.Google Scholar
  37. Tellegen, A., & Lubinski, D. Some methodological comments on labels, traits, interaction, and types in the study of “Femininity” and “Masculinity”: Reply to Spence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 447–455.Google Scholar
  38. Watson, D., & Friend, R. Measurement of social-evaluation anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 448–457.Google Scholar
  39. Wheeler, L., Reis, H., & Nezlek, J. Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45, 943–953.Google Scholar
  40. Whitley, B. E. Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 765–778.Google Scholar
  41. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Research in Personality, 1981, 15, 67–80.Google Scholar
  42. Zeldow, P. B., Clark, D., & Daugherty, S. R. Masculinity, femininity, Type A behavior, and psychosocial adjustment in medical students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 48, 481–492.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank D. Payne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySan Jose State UniversitySan Jose

Personalised recommendations