Gender Issues

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 21–33 | Cite as

College Students’ Life Priorities: The Influence of Gender and Gender-linked Personality Traits

  • Catherine MosherEmail author
  • Sharon Danoff-Burg


This study examined relations between gender-linked personality traits (i.e., agency and communion) and life goals in a sample of 237 undergraduates. In addition, gender similarities and differences in the relative importance of life goals were explored. As predicted, agency was positively associated with the importance of most achievement goals such as having a career, whereas communion and unmitigated communion were positively associated with the importance of relational goals such as romantic partnership. Contrary to predictions, results suggested that men were more willing than women to sacrifice some achievement goals for a romantic relationship. Findings point to the potential influence of gender and gender-linked personality traits on the establishment of life priorities.


Agency Communion Gender Goals Personality 


  1. 1.
    Abele, A. E. (2000). A dual impact model of gender and career related processes. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aukett, R., Ritchie, J., & Mill, K. (1988). Gender differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 19, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baber, K. M., & Monaghan, P. (1988). College women’s career and motherhood expectations: New options, old dilemmas. Sex Roles, 19, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berkman, L. F., & Breslow, L. (1983). Health and ways of living: The Alameda County study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruch, M. A. (2002). The relevance of mitigated and unmitigated agency and communion for depression vulnerabilities and dysphoria. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burda, P. C., Vaux, A., & Schill, T. (1984). Social support resources: Variation across sex and sex role. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Danoff-Burg, S., Mosher, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2006). Relations of agentic and communal personality traits to health behavior and substance use among college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz, H. L. (2000). Gender-linked personality traits predict mental health and functional status following a first coronary event. Health Psychology, 19, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green, R. J., & Hill, J. H. (2003). Sex and higher education: Do men and women attend college for different reasons? College Student Journal, 37, 557–563.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greene, A. L., & Wheatley, S. M. (1992). ‘I’ve got a lot to do and I don’t think I’ll have the time’: Gender differences in late adolescents’ narratives of the future. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammersla, J. F., & Frease-McMahan, L. (1990). University students’ priorities: Life goals vs. relationships. Sex Roles, 23, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helgeson, V. S. (1993). Implications of agency and communion for patient and spouse adjustment to a first coronary event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Helgeson, V. S. (1995). Masculinity, men’s roles, and coronary heart disease. In D. F. Sabo & D. F. Gordon (Eds.), Men’s health and illness: Gender, power, and the body. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1996). Implications of unmitigated communion and communion for adolescent adjustment to type I diabetes. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, 2, 163–188.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 1031–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffnung, M. (2004). Wanting it all: Career, marriage, and motherhood during college-educated women’s 20s. Sex Roles, 50, 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaufman, G. (2005). Gender role attitudes and college students’ work and family expectations. Gender Issues, 22, 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerpelman, J. L., & Schvaneveldt, P. L. (1999). Young adults’ anticipated identity importance of career, marital, and parental roles: Comparisons of men and women with different role balance orientations. Sex Roles, 41, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Litwak, E., & Messeri, P. (1989). Organizational theory, social supports, and mortality rates: A theoretical convergence. American Sociological Review, 54, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Livingston, M. M., Burley, K., & Springer, T. P. (1996). The importance of being feminine: Gender, sex role, occupational and marital role commitment, and their relationship to anticipated work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 179–192.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McAdams, D. P., Jackson, R. J., & Kirshnit, C. (1984). Looking, laughing, and smiling in dyads as a function of intimacy motivation and reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 52, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mongrain, M., & Zuroff, D. C. (1995). Motivational and affective correlates of dependency and self-criticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mosher, C. E., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2005). Agentic and communal personality traits: Relations to attitudes toward sex and sexual experiences. Sex Roles, 52, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Novack, L. L., & Novack, D. R. (1996). Being female in the eighties and nineties: Conflicts between new opportunities and traditional expectations among white, middle class, heterosexual college women. Sex Roles, 35, 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orlofsky, J. L., & O’Heron, C. A. (1987). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations: Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1034–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1985). Women and men in love: Sex differences in close heterosexual relationships. In V. E. O’Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles, 7, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saragovi, C., Aubé, J., Koestner, R., & Zuroff, D. (2002). Traits, motives, and depressive styles as reflections of agency and communion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., Di Dio, L., & Aubé, J. (1997). Agency, communion, and well-being: Extending Helgeson’s (1994) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schroeder, K. A., Blood, L. L., & Maluso, D. (1993). Gender differences and similarities between male and female undergraduate students regarding expectations for career and family roles. College Student Journal, 27, 237–249.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shulman, S., & Scharf, M. (2000). Adolescent romantic behaviors and perceptions: Age- and gender-related differences, and links with family and peer relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the ‘Romantic Beliefs Scale’ and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thorn, B. L., & Gilbert, L. A. (1998). Antecedents of work and family role expectations of college men. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Willinger, B. (1993). Resistance and change: College men’s attitudes toward family and work in the 1980s. In J. C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family: Research on men and masculinity series (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations