Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations: Implications for personal adjustment.

We tested three competing hypotheses: traditional assumptions that sex-typed traits and behaviors are necessary for optimal adjustment (sex role congruence model); the contemporary androgyny hypothesis, which posits that transcendence of narrow sex typing permits enhanced psychological functioning; and the empirically based masculinity model, which states that psychological health in both men and women is primarily a function of masculine, instrumental traits. Measures of sex role traits, attitudes, and behaviors and scales assessing self-esteem and adjustment were administered to 411 college men and women. Sex role attitudes did not covary with individual differences in adjustment, but sex role traits and behaviors did. Masculine traits and behaviors had broadly positive implications for self-esteem and adjustment for women as well as for men. Feminine qualities did not relate to the adjustment indices as strongly or consistently as masculine ones did, but they did contribute positively to most indices and played a central role in communal self-esteem components. Overall, no support was found for the traditional congruence model, but both the androgyny and masculinity models were supported. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment.

This study examines the relations among sex role traits and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment in order to test traditional and contemporary perspectives regarding the adjustment implications of stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations. Measures of sex role personality traits and behaviors and scales assessing depression, anxiety, and social maladjustment were administered to 235 college men and women. In addition, subjects completed measures of gender identity and gender adequacy. Contrary to traditional perspectives, androgynous men and women and cross-sex-typed women were no less well adjusted than sex-typed individuals. However, consistent with traditional perspectives, men who were low in masculine characteristics (and men and women low in both masculine and feminine characteristics) did appear less well adjusted on measures of depression, anxiety, and social maladjustment. Furthermore, low masculinity men had less secure gender identities. No such gender identity disturbances were found in women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)