PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 1974Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology8,579 citations

The measurement of psychological androgyny.

View Full Paper
LSLidia Sandra

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

This article describes the development of a new sex-role inventory that treats masculinity and femininity as two independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or androgynous as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Normative data are presented, as well as the results of various psychometric analyses. The major findings of conceptual interest are: (a) the dimensions of masculinity and femininity are empirically as well as logically independent; (6) the concept of psychological androgyny is a reliable one; and (c) highly sex-typed scores do not reflect a general tendency to respond in a socially desirable direction, but rather a specific tendency to describe oneself in accordance with sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women. Both in psychology and in society at large, masculinity and femininity have long been conceptualized as bipolar ends of a single continuum; accordingly, a person has had to be either masculine or feminine, but not both. This sex-role dichotomy has served to obscure two very plausible hypotheses: first, that many individuals might be androgynous; that is, they might be both masculine and feminine, both assertive and yielding, both instrumental and expressive—depending on the situational appropriateness of these vari-ous behaviors; and conversely, that strongly sex-typed individuals might be seriously lim-ited in the range of behaviors available to them as they move from situation to situa-tion. According to both Kagan (1964) and Kohlberg (1966), the highly sex-typed indi-vidual is motivated to keep his behavior con-sistent with an internalized sex-role standard, a goal that he presumably accomplishes by suppressing any behavior that might be con-sidered undesirable or inappropriate for his sex. Thus, whereas a narrowly masculine self-concept might inhibit behaviors that are stereotyped as feminine, and a narrowly femi-nine self-concept might inhibit behaviors that are stereotyped as masculine, a mixed, or!This research was supported by IROIMH 21735

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lidia Sandra (1974) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69db84083d9adb00e76849e8https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The development of sex differences1966 · 1,013 citations
  2. 2A cognitive-development analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes1966 · 990 citations
  3. 3Review of Child Development Research1965 · 3,702 citations
  4. 4Family: Socialization and Interaction Process2014 · 2,291 citations
  5. 5Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny.1975 · 1,295 citations