Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 27, Issue 9–10, pp 487–497 | Cite as

The relationship between gender role ideals and psychological well-being

  • Derek Grimmell
  • Gary S. Stern
Article

Abstract

Previous research on the influence of gender roles upon psychological health has found that most effects may be due to participants' levels of masculine traits alone. This study investigated whether individual gender role ideals moderate the relationship between gender roles and psychological well-being. Eighty-three psychology undergraduate students of European descent were given a battery of measures of gender role and psychological well-being. Results of analysis of these tests suggest that the degree to which participants' gender-specific traits represent met or unmet ideals is a better predictor of psychological adjustment than personal gender role alone. Results also suggest that gender roles can diminish psychological well-being by creating conflict between personal beliefs about the nature of appropriate behavior and the actual demands of life situations. Theoretical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Psychological Health Good Predictor Gender Role Undergraduate Student 
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. Autor, D. H., Suyemoto, K. L., & Harder, D. W. (1988). Negative androgyny and self-esteem: Towards a confound-free scale. Psychological Reports, 63, 643–650.Google Scholar
  2. Bassoff, E. S., & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 105–112.Google Scholar
  3. Battle, J. (1981). Manual for the Culture-Free Self Esteem Inventory. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, L. B. (1980). Multivariate analysis of new sex role formulations and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 323–336.Google Scholar
  7. Bernard, L. B. (1981). The multidimensional aspects of masculinity-femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 797–802.Google Scholar
  8. Bernard, L. C., & Wood, J. (1990). Further observations on the multidimensional aspects of masculinity-femininity: The multidimensional sex role inventory-revised. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 205–224.Google Scholar
  9. Brems, C. (1990). Defense mechanisms in clients and non-clients as mediated by gender and sex role. Journal of Clinical Psychology, (1990), 46, 669–675.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, P. R., Morgan, G. S., & Scherer, R. F. (1990). Sex role orientation and type of stressful situation: Effects on coping behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 627–639.Google Scholar
  11. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.Google Scholar
  12. Landrine, H. (1988). Depression and stereotypes of women: Preliminary empirical analyses of the gender-role hypothesis. Sex Roles, 19, 527–41.Google Scholar
  13. Lobel, T. E., & Winch, G. L. (1986). Different defense mechanisms among men with different sex role orientations. Sex Roles, 15, 215–220.Google Scholar
  14. Lubin, B. (1965). Adjective checklists for measurement of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 57–62.Google Scholar
  15. Marsh, H. W., Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1989). Masculinity and femininity: A bipolar construct and independent constructs. Journal of Personality, 57, 625–663.Google Scholar
  16. Marsh, H. W., & Myers, M. (1986). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: A methodological and theoretical critique. Sex Roles, 14, 397–430.Google Scholar
  17. Orlofsky, J. L., & O'Heron, C. A. (1987). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientation: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1034–1042.Google Scholar
  18. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 609, 1–26.Google Scholar
  19. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Sawin, L. L., (1980). The Male-Female Relations Questionnaire: A self-report inventory of sex role behaviors and preferences and its relationships to masculine and feminine personality traits, sex role attitudes, and other measures (MS. No. 2123). JSAS Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 87. (Available from Social & Behavioral Sciences Documents, P.O. Box 37, Corte Madera, CA 94925; $13.50 paper copy, $6.00 microfiche.)Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366.Google Scholar
  21. Uleman, J. S., & Weston, M. (1986). Does the BSRI inventory sex roles? Sex Roles, 15, 43–62.Google Scholar
  22. Whitley, B. E. (1984). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207–222.Google Scholar
  23. Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985). Manual for the MAACL-R. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Grimmell
    • 1
  • Gary S. Stern
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado at DenverUSA

Personalised recommendations