Gender identity: The benefits of a self-schema approach.

Questions S. L. Bem's (see record 1983-21087-001) definition of a gender schema and argues that male and female sex-typed individuals do not have equivalent gender schemata. The high-androgynous individuals are the only ones for whom both masculinity and femininity are equally available and who might be properly termed "gender schematic." (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike.

96 male and 96 female undergraduates classified on the basis of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory were asked to recall "who said what" after listening to a taped conversation either among 3 men and 3 women (the gender study) or among 3 Blacks and 3 Whites (the race study). Analysis of Ss' errors revealed that both sex-typed and cross-sex-typed Ss confused the members of the opposite sex with one another significantly more than androgynous or undifferentiated Ss did. In contrast, no individual differences related to sex typing emerged in the race study, which suggests that the greater gender schematicity of sex-typed individuals is specific to gender, as S. L. Bem's (see record 1981-25685-001) gender schema theory implies. The finding that cross-sex-typed Ss were significantly more gender schematic than anyone else and the apparent inconsistency of the data with the self-schema theory of H. Markus et al (see record 1982-23588-001) are discussed. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender schema theory and sex role inventories: Some conceptual and psychometric considerations.

Assessed whether the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personality Research Form (PRF) ANDRO scale developed by J. I. Berzins et al (see record 1978-30742-001) are appropriate for investigations of gender schema theory, as outlined by S. L. Bem (see record 1981-25685-001). On the basis of the propositions of gender schema theory, several predictions were made about the psychometric properties that should be exhibited by a valid measure of this construct. Responses of 223 male and 338 female undergraduates to the PRF ANDRO and the BSRI were factor analyzed separately for sex-typed and non-sex-typed groups. Results show consistent and theoretically predictable differences in the factor solutions of these 2 groups. The sex-typed or gender-schematic group obtained bipolar factors, with masculine items loading with one sign, whereas feminine items loaded with the other sign on each factor. Also, sex of S loaded highly on almost every factor for this group. The non-sex-typed group, however, obtained few such distinctly dichotomous factors, and sex of S loaded only on the weaker factors. Results support the construct validity of the BSRI and the PRF ANDRO for use in researching the implications of the gender schema approach. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques.

Discusses issues raised in the critiques of E. J. Pedhazur and T. J. Tetenbaum (see record 1980-29271-001) and of A. Locksley and M. Colten (see record 1980-30293-001). It is noted that (a) the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is based on a theory about both the cognitive processing and the motivational dynamics of sex-typed and androgynous individuals; (b) the strategy of item selection for the BSRI followed directly from the theory and utilized established techniques for test construction; (c) a short BSRI has been developed in accordance with the results of various factor analyses; (d) current research is testing the hypothesis that sex-typed and androgynous individuals differ in the extent to which gender serves as a cognitive schema; and (e) the concept of androgyny contains an inner contradiction and hence a built-in obsolescence. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions.

Methodological and conceptual problems in existing psychological androgyny research are illuminated by application of the 2-way ANOVA model, which views masculinity and femininity as a pair of crossed independent variables, with androgynous, male-typed, female-typed, and undifferentiated sex-role categories represented in the cells of the resultant 2-by-2 table. Foremost among previously overlooked theoretical points is that the J. T. Spence et al (see record 1975-27536-001) "high/high" and the S. L. Bem (see record 1974-27631-001) "balance" androgyny formulations represent 2 independent hypotheses, a main effects hypothesis and an interaction hypothesis. Androgyny research findings are summarized in terms of the effects and interaction predicted by these theories. There is no evidence of consistent interaction effects favoring the balanced over the sex typed. Furthermore, the consistency and strength of the masculinity effect relative to the femininity effect suggest that masculinity rather than main effects androgyny predicts psychological well-being. The data provide no support for the traditional model that masculinity is best for men and femininity best for women. (107 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some methodological comments on labels, traits, interaction, and types in the study of "femininity" and "masculinity": Reply to Spence.

Concurs with the comments of J. T. Spence (see record 1983-24779-001) about the present authors' (see record 1983-24773-001) work in that the labels "femininity" and "masculinity" refer to a multidimensional domain and have been used inappropriately for scales that measure more circumscribed gender-related traits such as dominance and nurturance. It is nevertheless possible to investigate more encompassing constructs, such as androgyny and gender identity, through appropriate multivariate methods that incorporate, for example, interactions between dominance, nurturance, and other gender-related variables. The study of interactions among measures of individual differences should also be distinguished from a search for "real types." (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Androgyny as an interactive concept: A reply to Lubinski.

Responds to D. Lubinski's (see record 1983-09416-001) comments on the study by the present author and colleagues (see record 1982-03565-001) on the relationship between the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and indices of self-disclosure. Reanalysis of the present author's data to answer Lubinski's argument that androgeny should be operationalized as an interaction between masculinity and femininity provides no support for the predictive power of androgeny as a concept distinct from masculinity and femininity. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Measures of psychological masculinity and femininity: A comment on Gaddy, Glass, and Arnkoff.

C. D. Gaddy et al (see record 1983-30152-001) studied the relationship between women's sex-role identity and career decisions. The ANDRO scales of the Personality Research Form were used to assess sex-role identity. This use of measures of psychological masculinity and femininity, which is not uncommon, is questioned by the present author in view of recent advances in the field. Basically, the assumption that scales labeled "masculine" and "feminine" are reliable and valid measures of sex roles, sex-role identity, sex-role orientation, or sex-role beliefs and behavior is viewed as untenable. Researchers are urged to consider extant measures of masculinity and femininity as assessing the socially desirable personality traits of instrumentality (self-assertion) and expressiveness (nurturance/interpersonal concern), respectively. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem's gender schema theory.

S. L. Bem (see PA, Vol 66:00000) proposes that the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) measures individual differences in a unidimensional construct in addition to 2 independent dimensions, global self-concepts of masculinity and femininity. Evidence suggests that the BSRI measures primarily self-images of instrumental and expressive personality traits and that these trait clusters show little or no relationship to global self-images of masculinity and femininity or to unidimensional constructs such as the tendency to utilize gender schemata. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relationship of gender discrepancy to psychological correlates of disordered eating in female undergraduates.

Few studies have investigated the possible influence of discrepancy between actual and ideal perceptions of masculinity and femininity (i.e., gender discrepancy) on eating disorder behaviors and attitudes. This study replicated and extended earlier research (C. Johnson & T. A. Petrie, 1995) by examining the relationship of gender discrepancy (C. Steiner-Adair, see record 1986-17675-001) to a broad range of physical and psychological correlates of eating disorders in 144 female undergraduates. Controlling for the influences of physical size (i.e., body mass), analyses revealed that women with no gender discrepancy were psychologically healthier in many aspects than women who wanted to be more masculine and more feminine. Results are discussed in reference to gender discrepancy theory, and implications for counseling and directions for future research are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sex typing and androgyny in dyadic interaction: Individual differences in responsiveness to physical attractiveness.

In an expansion of the "behavioral confirmation" paradigm developed by M. Snyder et al (see record 1979-26014-001), 12 sex-typed and 12 androgynous (Bem Sex-Role Inventory) undergraduates of each sex engaged in getting-acquainted telephone conversations with allegedly attractive and unattractive members of their own and the opposite sex. Although females were more socially responsive than males, the sexes neither differed in their responsiveness to physical attractiveness nor in their responsiveness to cross-sex and same-sex interaction. As hypothesized, sex-typed individuals were rated by blind judges as being significantly more responsive toward allegedly attractive than unattractive partners. In contrast, androgynous men did not differentiate on the basis of physical attractiveness, and androgynous women actually led allegedly unattractive targets to be rated as more socially attractive than allegedly attractive targets, thereby disconfirming the physical attractiveness stereotype. Because cultural definitions of physical attractiveness are different for men and women, results are discussed in the context of recent evidence that sex-typed individuals have a particular readiness to encode and organize information in terms of gender. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Influence of sex stereotypes on children's exploration and memory: A competence versus performance distinction.

25 girls and 31 boys (aged 4–9 yrs) were presented with novel objects in 3 sex-labeled boxes and were given 6 min to explore the objects. Memory for information about the objects was tested 1 wk later. Results show that Ss tactually explored novel objects labeled for their own sex more than similar objects labeled for the other sex and remembered more detailed information about own-sex than other-sex objects. Furthermore, regardless of labeling condition, Ss recalled the sex-typed label applied by the experimenter to each object. As expected from the C. L. Martin and C. F. Halverson, Jr. (see record 1982-05576-001) schematic processing model, an incentive to remember did not improve recall in any labeling condition. The sex-typed labeling effects on exploration occurred primarily among the older children, whereas the effects on recall appeared among the younger and older boys and the younger girls. The results suggest that sex stereotypes restrict children's behavior by limiting their competence rather than their performance. Findings are discussed in relation to an earlier study by the 1st author and R. C. Endsley (see record 1983-32397-001). (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond face validity: A comment on Nicholls, Licht, and Pearl.

Comments on the J. G. Nicholls et al (see record 1983-04770-001) discussion of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Nicholls et al blur 2 issues: The 1st concerns the legitimacy of equating the clusters of gender-related personality traits tapped by these instruments with the global constructs of masculinity and femininity. The 2nd concerns item similarity between scales of PAQ and BSRI and measures of self-esteem. Decisions about these issues involve complex considerations that do not directly involve face validity. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture, development, and theory of mind: Comment on Lillard (1998).

In response to A. Lillard's (see record 1997-42548-001) suggestion that research on theory of mind does not adequately examine the cultural context of this thinking, the author proposes an extension of this view that emphasizes the development of theory of mind in sociocultural context. Questions about the study of theory of mind both across and within cultural communities are also raised. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's "Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts."

Comments on the D. Lubinski et al (see record 1983-24773-001) study showing the relations between the short Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), and the Differential Personality Questionnaire. An alternate interpretation of their results is that the PAQ and the BSRI measure only 2 clusters of traits that can be labeled dominance and nurturance/warmth, so the data cannot be legitimately generalized to "masculinity" and "femininity." It is also countered that androgyny can be defined in ways other than as an intrinsically interactive concept. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-schemas, gender, and social comparison: A clarification of the related attributes hypothesis.

G. Goethals and J. Darley (1977) proposed that people evaluate their abilities by comparing with someone who is similar to themselves on nonability attributes that influence performance. However, research on this related-attributes hypothesis shows that people compare with same-sex others regardless of the relationship between sex and performance. The present experiment was conducted to determine if self-schemas with respect to gender (defined as organizations of self-related information about masculinity and/or femininity) could explain this finding. 184 female and 66 male undergraduates who previously had completed a self-schema measure took an ability test on which males, females, or neither sex supposedly excelled. Ss then chose which of several group norms they wanted to see to evaluate their performance. As predicted, results show that schematic Ss made same-sex comparisons regardless of the relationship of sex to performance. In contrast, the comparison choices of aschematic Ss were consistent with the related-attributes hypothesis. Thus, self-schema theory can explain why self-evaluators sometimes ignore an attribute's relevance to performance in choosing comparison others. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender-based schematic processing: An empirical investigation and reevaluation.

This study was designed to provide a test of two models of gender-based schematic processing: gender schema theory (Bem, 1981b) and self-schema theory (Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Saldi, 1982). The former position stipulates that only sex-typed individuals should provide strong evidence for schematic processing of gender-related information, whereas the latter contends that individuals may exhibit such processing with respect to masculine, feminine, neither, or both classes of stimuli. A total of 167 male and female introductory psychology students were classified into the four sex role categories and then participated in a standard "me/not me" attribute rating task, followed by either a free-recall or "yes/no" recognition procedure, which used an independent set of stimuli. Results indicated that although predictions from self-schema theory were best able to account for the findings emerging from the attribute rating task, neither model satisfactorily addressed the data from the memory tasks. The discussion focuses on implications for current conceptualizations of gender schematic processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten.

In their critique of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), A. Locksley and M. Colten (see record 1980-30293-001) assume that a singular androgyny theory exists to which the rationale and the psychometric properties of these instruments are tied and that each is intended to be a broad-gauged measure of masculinity and femininity or of global self-images of these concepts. The present authors, however, conceive of the PAQ as a specialized measure of socially desirable instrumental and expressive characteristics, objectively defined trait dimensions that distinguish between the sexes to some degree and thus may be labeled "masculine" and "feminine." (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The empirical claims of maximization theory: A reply to Rachlin and to Kagel, Battalio, and Green.

H. Rachlin (see record 1984-02970-001) and J. H. Kagel et al (see record 1984-02959-001) reported errors in the present author's (see record 1982-22589-001) critique of maximization theory. They presented new evidence that demonstrated that maximization accounts better for equilibrium behavior on schedules of reinforcement than did matching. In this article, Prelec argues that the allegations of mathematical and conceptual errors are without substance and the new data do not differentially favor maximization or matching. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The issue of sex bias in DSM-III: Comments on the articles by Spitzer, Williams, and Kass.

Responds to comments by J. B. Williams and R. L. Spitzer (see record 1984-06864-001) and by F. Kass et al (see record 1984-06848-001) on the present author's (see record 1984-06847-001) article, in which she argued that masculine-biased assumptions about what behaviors are healthy are codified in diagnostic criteria and may account for higher treatment rates in women. The present author responds to criticisms and reiterates her point that histrionic and dependent personality disorders as defined by the DSM-III correspond to stereotypes of femininity. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)