Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 25, Issue 3–4, pp 141–161 | Cite as

Aggression, sex role measures, and Kohut's psychology of the self

  • Steve M. Sawrie
  • P. J. Watson
  • Michael D. Biderman
Article

Abstract

Recent controversies concerning the relationship between aggression and sex role development were evaluated in light of Heinz Kohut's psychoanalytic psychology of the self. Masculinity roughly corresponded to grandiose elements of Kohut's bipolar self while femininity was linked to its idealizing sector. As predicted, self-reported aggressiveness reflected an immature grandiosity; and associations of assertiveness with both masculine and grandiose personality styles supported Kohut's claim that adjustment can evolve out of more aggressive forms of self-functioning. Socially desirable forms of femininity had the advantage of being incompatible with aggressiveness, but they also failed to promote assertiveness. Androgynous, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated sex roles displayed largely predictable parallels with synthetic, internal, external, and archaic narcissistic styles. As in previous research, therefore, Kohut's theory proved useful in examining the mental health implications of traditional sex roles.

Keywords

Mental Health Social Psychology Health Implication Aggressive Form Personality Style 
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. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 155–162.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 4, 343–349.Google Scholar
  5. Chessick, R. D. (1985). Psychology of the self and the treatment of narcissism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  6. Flaherty, J. F., & Dusek, J. B. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between psychological androgyny and components of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 984–992.Google Scholar
  7. Galassi, J. P., DeLo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., & Bastien, S. (1974). The college self-expression scale. Behavior Therapy, 5, 165–171.Google Scholar
  8. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Glazer, C. A., & Dusek, J. B. (1985). The relationship between sex-role orientation and resolution of Eriksonian developmental crises. Sex Roles, 13, 653–661.Google Scholar
  10. Handal, P. J., & Salit, E. D. (1985). Gender-role classification and demographic relationships: A function of type of scoring procedures. Sex Roles, 12, 411–419.Google Scholar
  11. Handal, P. J., & Salit, E. D. (1988). The relationship of gender role to positive and negative aspects of adjustment: A function of type of scoring method. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 49–62.Google Scholar
  12. Kernberg, O. F. (1986). Further contributions to the treatment of narcissistic personalities. In A. P. Morrison (Ed.), Essential papers on narcissism. New York: New York University Press. (Original work published 1974.)Google Scholar
  13. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kohut, H. (1978). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. In P. H. Ornstein (Ed.), The search for the self. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1972.)Google Scholar
  16. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? (A. Goldberg & P. E. Stepansky, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. Kohut, H., & Wolf, E. S. (1986). The disorders of the self and their treatment: An outline. In A. P. Morrison (Ed.), Essential papers on narcissism. New York: New York University Press. (Original work published 1978.)Google Scholar
  18. Lapan, R., & Patton, M. J. (1986). Self-psychology and the adolescent process: Measures of pseudoautonomy and peer-group dependence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 136–142.Google Scholar
  19. Lasch, C. (1981 September–October). The freudian left and cultural revolution. New Left Review, 129, 23–24.Google Scholar
  20. Nadelson, C. C., Notman, M. T., Miller, J. B., & Zilbach, J. (1982). Aggression in women; Conceptual issues and clinical implications. In M. T. Notman & C. C. Nadelson (Eds.), The woman patient, Vol. 3: Aggression, adaptations, and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ray, J. J., & Lovejoy, F. H. (1984). The great androgyny myth: Sex roles and mental health in the community at large. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 237–246.Google Scholar
  22. Sampson, E. E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 767–782.Google Scholar
  23. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1981). Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem's gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 88, 365–368.Google Scholar
  24. 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 behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.Google Scholar
  25. Stolorow, R. D., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood, G. E. (1987). Psychoanalytic treatment: An intersubjective approach. Hillside, NJ: The Analytic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Swimmer, G. I., & Ramanaiah, N. V. (1985). Convergent and discriminant validity of selected assertiveness measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 243–249.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, P. J., Biderman, M. D., & Boyd, C. (1989). Androgyny as synthetic narcissism: Sex role measures and Kohut's psychology of the self. Sex Roles, 21, 175–207.Google Scholar
  29. Watson, P. J., McKinney, J., Hawkins, C., & Morris, R. J. (1988). Assertiveness and narcissism. Psychotherapy, 25, 125–131.Google Scholar
  30. Westen, D. (1985). Self and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wittig, M. A. (1985). Metatheoretical dilemmas in the psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 40, 800–811.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve M. Sawrie
    • 1
  • P. J. Watson
    • 1
  • Michael D. Biderman
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Tennessee at ChattanoogaChattanooga

Personalised recommendations