Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 43, Issue 9–10, pp 665–685 | Cite as

Testing a Model of Socially Desirable and Undesirable Gender-Role Attributes

  • Karen Korabik
  • Donald R. McCreary
Article

Abstract

A recently outlined model of gender-role attributes (K. Korabik, 1999; D. R. McCreary & K. Korabik, 1994) incorporates two complimentary notions: (1) that possessing too little agency or communion (i.e., undersocialization) is undesirable and (2) that too much agency or communion unmitigated by the other (i.e., oversocialization) is undesirable. The present study sought to confirm the relationships proposed in this model between desirable agentic and communal characteristics and these undesirable gender-role constructs. A group of mostly Caucasian undergraduates completed measures of socially desirable and undesirable gender-role attributes. Structural equation modelling was used to confirm the proposed gender-role model. Results showed that the socially desirable gender-role trait components were related to the undesirable components in the manner predicted by the differentiated multidimensional gender-role model.

Keywords

Social Psychology Equation Modelling Structural Equation Structural Equation Modelling Communal Characteristic 
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. Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 521–536.Google Scholar
  2. Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1992). Gender characteristics and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 485–493.Google Scholar
  3. Auten, P., Hull, D., & Hull, J. (1985). Sex-role orientation and Type A behavior pattern. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 288–290.Google Scholar
  4. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Batlis, N., & Small, A. (1982). Sex roles and Type A behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 315–316.Google Scholar
  6. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 152–162.Google Scholar
  7. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.Google Scholar
  10. Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
  11. Blascovich, J. C., Major, B., & Katkin, E. S. (1981). Sex-role orientation and Type A behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 600–604.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. Bohrnstedt & E. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.Google Scholar
  15. Cook, E. P. (1985) Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. DeGregario, E., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Type A behavior pattern, sex role orientation, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 286–293.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Hawkins, R. C., Turell, S., & Jackson, L. (1983). Desirable and undesirable masculine and feminine traits in relation to students’ dieting tendencies and body image dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 9, 705–718.Google Scholar
  19. Heilbrun, A. B. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 183–190.Google Scholar
  20. Helgeson, V. S. (1990). The role of masculinity in a prognostic predictor of heart attack severity. Sex Roles, 22, 755–774.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency andcommunionto well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.Google Scholar
  23. Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 173–183.Google Scholar
  24. Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). Apsychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097–1108.Google Scholar
  25. Holahan, C. K., & Spence, J. T. (1980). Desirable and undesirable masculine and feminine traits in counseling clients and unselected students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 300–302.Google Scholar
  26. Korabik, K. (1999). Sex and gender in the new millennium. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work. (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W., (1987). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: Their relations to multiple dimensions of self-concept. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 427–449.Google Scholar
  28. Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. M. (1991). Differetiated additive androgyny model: Relations between asculinity, femininity, and multiple dimensions of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 811–828.Google Scholar
  29. McCreary, D. R., & Korabik, K. (1994). Examining the relationships between the socially desirable and undesirable aspects of agency and communion. Sex Roles, 31, 637–651.Google Scholar
  30. Nix, J., & Lohr, J. M. (1981). Relationship between sex, sex-role characteristics, and coronaryprone behavior in college students. Psychological Reports, 48, 739–744.Google Scholar
  31. Olmstead, R. E., & Bentler, P. M. (1992). Structural equations modeling: A new friend? In F. B. Bryant, J. Edwards, R. S. Tindale, E. J. Posavac, L. Heath, E. Henderson, & Y. Suarez-Balcazar (Eds.), Methodological issues in applied social psychology (pp. 135–158). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  32. Runge, T. E., Frey, D., Gollwitzer, P. M., Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1981). Masculine (instrumental) and feminine (expressive) traits: A comparison between students in the United States andWest Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12, 142–162.Google Scholar
  33. Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., Aube, J., & DiDio, L. (1997). Agency, communion, and well being: xtending Helgeson's (1994) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 593–609.Google Scholar
  34. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher and W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research. (Vol. 13, pp. 1–97) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  36. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and ositive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviours. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.Google Scholar
  37. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, M.C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny:Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366.Google Scholar
  39. Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 40–52.Google Scholar
  40. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.Google Scholar
  41. Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology. Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 40–52.Google Scholar
  43. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility. Journal for Research in Personality, 15, 67–80.Google Scholar
  44. Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjectives Scale (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517–530Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Korabik
    • 1
  • Donald R. McCreary
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GuelphCanada
  2. 2.Regina Health DistrictCanada

Personalised recommendations