Sex Roles

, Volume 37, Issue 3–4, pp 187–208 | Cite as

The Structure of Sexual Orientation and its Relation to Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Diagnosticity: Different for Men and Women

  • Richard Lippa
  • Sara Arad


Three hundred ninety-four college students (148 men and 246 women; 42% White, 25% Hispanic, and 23% Asian) were assessed on masculine instrumentality (M), feminine expressiveness (F), gender diagnosticity (GD), and the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness). Participants completed a 16-item sexual behavior and attitude questionnaire that asked about their attraction to men, their attraction to women, their degree of emotional commitment in sexual relationships, their level of sex drive, and their interest in visual sexual stimuli and fantasy. Factor analysis of sexual behavior and attitude items for men showed four factors: Bipolar Sexual Orientation, Emotional Commitment, Sex Drive, and Sexual Fantasy. Factor analysis of items for women showed four somewhat different factors: Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Emotional Commitment, and Sex Drive. Thus, sexual orientation proved to be bipolar for men, but two-dimensional for women. For men, Sexual Orientation correlated most strongly with GD, less with M, and not at all with F. Among women, there were few significant correlations between personality measures and Homosexuality or Heterosexuality.


College Student Sexual Behavior Social Psychology Sexual Orientation Personality Trait 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alford, G. S., Plaud, J. J., & McNair, T. L. (1995). Sexual behavior and orientation: Learning and conditioning principles. In L. Diamant & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, J. (1992). Ethology and human development. Savage, MD: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, gender, and the individual. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, J. M. (1995). Biological perspectives on sexual orientation. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43-55.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, J. M., Finkel, E., Blackwelder, K., & Bailey, T. (1996). Masculinity, femininity, and sexual orientation. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference, its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic become erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320-335.Google Scholar
  9. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 165-172.Google Scholar
  10. Bem, S. L. (1981a). Bem Sex-Role Inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bem, S. L. (1981b). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.Google Scholar
  12. Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1984. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bem, S. L. (1995). Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we turn the volume up or down? Journal of Sex Research, 32, 329-334.Google Scholar
  14. Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex roles: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 28, 512-526.Google Scholar
  15. Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, E. P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.Google Scholar
  19. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO P-R Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  20. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 149-170.Google Scholar
  21. Ellis, L. (1996). Theories of homosexuality. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  22. Ellis, L. (1996). The role of perinatal factors in determining sexual orientation. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  23. Eysenck, H. J. & Wilson, G. (1979). The psychology of sex. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lenney, E. (1991). Sex roles: The measurement of masculinity, feminity, and androgyny. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, (Vol 1 of Measures of Psychological Attitudes). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains and relationship to the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1000-1011.Google Scholar
  28. Lippa, R. (1995a). Do sex differences define gender-related individual differences within the sexes? Evidence from three studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 349-355.Google Scholar
  29. Lippa, R. (1995b). Gender-related individual differences and psychological adjustment in terms of the Big Five and circumplex models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1184-1202.Google Scholar
  30. Lippa, R. (1997). The display of masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity in self-descriptive photo essays. Journal of Personality, 65, 139-169.Google Scholar
  31. Lippa, R. (in press—a) The nonverbal judgment and display of extraversion, masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: A lens model analysis. Journal of Research in Personality.Google Scholar
  32. Lippa, R. (in press—b). Gender-related individual differences and National Merit Test performance: Girls who are “masculine” and boys who are “feminine” tend to do better. In L. Ellis (Ed.), Sexual orientation and sex differences in behavior: Toward biological understanding.Google Scholar
  33. Lippa, R. A. (in press—c). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the “People-Things” dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  34. Lippa, R., & Connelly, S. C. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1051-1065.Google Scholar
  35. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.Google Scholar
  36. Pillard, R. C. (1991). Masculinity and femininity in homosexuality: “Inversion” revisited. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.Google Scholar
  38. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defining the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody, (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Spence, J. T. & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correletes, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  40. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.Google Scholar
  41. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44 (MS. No. 617).Google Scholar
  42. Storms, M. D. (1978). Sexual orientation and self-perception. In P. Pliner, K. R. Blanstein, I. M. Spigel, T. Alloway, & L. Krames (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect: Vol. 5. Perception of emotion in self and others. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  43. Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 783-792.Google Scholar
  44. Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, J. E. & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Lippa
    • 1
  • Sara Arad
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityFullerton

Personalised recommendations