This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 04 October 2014, At: 08:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Genetic Psychology:Research and Theory on HumanDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Testing Some Basic Assumptions aboutPsychological AndrogynyAlfred B. Heilbrun Jr. a & Deborah Pitman aa Department of Psychology , Emory University , Atlanta , 30322 ,GeorgiaPublished online: 04 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Alfred B. Heilbrun Jr. & Deborah Pitman (1979) Testing Some Basic Assumptionsabout Psychological Androgyny, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on HumanDevelopment, 135:2, 175-188, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1979.10534069

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1979.10534069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1979, 135, 175-188.

TESTING SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY*'

Emory University

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN

SUMMARY

Three assumptions underlie the construct of psychological androgyny. It. is assumed that (a) androgyny allows greater flexibility in sex-role behavior, ( b ) greater flexibility is conducive to more adaptive behavior, and (c) these prior two assumptions hold for both sexes. These assumptions were tested under two conditions within a college sample of 22 males and 22 females. A labora- tory procedure allowed the opportunity for Ss to behave under relatively private conditions in either a masculine or feminine way across three related situations. Degree of androgyny was positively correlated with sex-role flexi- bility for females but not for males. Self-ratings of sex-role consistency, under conditions of face-to-face transaction, produced opposite results; an- drogyny in males was associated with greater flexibility but not so in the case of females. Flexibility was generally nonadaptive.

A. INTRODUCTION

The women's liberation movement has openly challenged the assumption that men and women should be encouraged to assume traditional sex roles. Rather they should be androgynous, both masculine and feminine, so that they may perform in whatever way appears most effective at the moment without concern for the stereotypic appropriateness of the behavior for either sex (2).

Three assumptions may be readily identified in this statement of social philosophy: (a) androgyny allows the individual more flexible sex-role be- havior, (b) this flexibility allows more effective transaction with the social environment, and (c) males and females alike may attain situational flexibil-

~~

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 18, 1978.

' Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of Copyright, 1979, by The Journal Press.

this article.

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

176 JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

it!. given both sex-role dispositions. While these basic assumptions of an- drog!m!. are shared by other scholars ( 7 , 20). they are to different degrees still in need of rigorous empirical documentation.

Ben1 ( 2 , j) has investigated the assumption that androgyny allows the individual to behave flexi bl!. when sex-role options are made available. Sex-role flexibility was studied in laboratory situations developed to evoke either masculine or feminine behaviors. Her findings (2) were generally con- sistent with expectation; androgynous college Ss of both sexes behaved with masculine independence on a conformity task in one experiment and with feminine playfulness toward a kitten in another. Nonandrogynous Ss pre- sented a complementary though somewhat less consistent pattern. Further laboratory experiments identified feminine nurturance, as evidenced by con- tact with a baby or extending sympathy to someone in distress, in both male and female androgynous Ss ( 5 ) .

The basic flexibility assumption of androgyny was not directly tested in the Bem studies. Doing so would require analysis of sex-role behaviors for the same individual across several situations. Each study in Bem’s labora- tory was conducted on a ne\f’ sample of Ss so that inferences about flexibility were based only upon between-group comparisons. Support for the assump- tion by means of within-,\’ anal!+ of androgynous behavior has not as yet been demonstrated.

A second tacit assumption about androgyny is that its functional prop- erties are the same for males and females. The growing research literature relating to the correlates of androgyny includes too many examples of sex differences to accept this assumption with confidence.

Many of the studies that have appeared thus far concerning androgynous behavior have dealt with self-esteem or the level of adjustment associated with this sex-role outcome. Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp ( 2 7 ) found that androgJmous males anti females demonstrated the highest levels of self- esteem relative to other sex-role outcomes. However, Bem (3) considered the same relations and noted a possible sex-difference. Androgyny was asso- ciated with the highest level of self-esteem for women, but masculinity as- sumed this position for males. Heilbrun ( 15) reported significant differences in the prevalence of the four sex-role outcomes (androgynous, masculine, feminine, undifferentiated) within adjusted and maladjusted (clinic) female samples. Androgyny emerged as most clearly associated with female ad- justment. No significant difference was found for males, although masculin- ity emerged as the sex-role outcome most closely aligned with adjustment. Deutsch and Gilbert (9) rel)orted remarkably similar results, using

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 177

questionnaire-defined criteria of adjustment. Androgynous females were found to be better adjusted than feminine females, but masculine males achieved more positive adjustment scores than androgynous males. A trend can be noted in these self-esteedlevel of adjustment findings. Better self- esteem and adjustment are consistent correlates of androgyny in females; masculinity assumes this positive functional significance for males.

Other types of studies also point toward sex differences among individuals defined as androgynous. Gaudreau (1 1) reported that the androgyny scores for her male Ss reflected more masculinity than did androgyny scores for females. More liberal political attitudes were identified in androgynous male5 which was not the case for females (2 1). Using self-ratings of variabil- ity in sex-role behavior from one type of interpersonal situation to the next, Heilbrun (16) found that males were generally more flexible than females. This finding could be used to argue that sex-role flexibility should be a less distinct correlate of androgyny in males than in females, since this attribute tends to characterize all males independent of sex role. Comparison of an- drogynous and sex-role stereotyped Ss on 16 interpersonal behaviors led Wiggins and Holzmuller (3 1) to conclude that androgynous males were more flexible in their sex-role behavior than stereotyped males, a difference not found for females. This represents the opposite conclusion from that reached by Heilbrun (16).

Finally, the expectation of sex differences in androgyny can be generated from evidence of different antecedents for males and females. Block (7) concluded that normal sex-role development for men, emphasizing mas- culine competence and instrumentality, becomes combined with feminine expressiveness when tempered by parental teaching of ethical values. Thus, highly socialized men would more likely demonstrate androgynous potential. For women, however, the socialization process was thought to reinforce the traditional sex-role choice and narrow the opportunity for the achievement of androgyny. Wakefield, Sasek, Friedman, and Bowden (29) proposed that androgyny may have different origins and different implications for the two sexes following factor analysis of a number of sex-role and heterosexual scales. Heilbrun’s (17) investigation of potential family antecedents of an- drogyny turned up a primary parent-identification pattern for the androgy- nous male-nonstereotypic parent sex-role models with a tendency to identify with the female parent. However, no modal pattern emerged for the an- drogynous female. Kelley and Worrell (24) concluded that androgynous sex- role behavior was related to different patterns of parental practices for the two sexes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

178 J O U R N A L O F G E N E T I C PSYCHOLOGY

The third assumption made concerning androgyn?. is that greater ses-role flexibilit). has positi\.e adapti\,e value. The self-esteem/atljustment studies previously cited support this assumption in the case of females for whom androgjm?, has been repeatecll?, associated with better psychological well- being. However. the case for this assumption is more tenuous for males.

Another issue underlJing the flexibility-adaptability assumption concerns what is meant bj. social adaptation and how sex-role flexibility is expected to contribute to higher self-esteem or better social adjustment. There are many who support the view that androgjmy may result in more adaptive behavior because of the greater latitude in choosing the more socially desirable ses- role option from one interpersonal situation to the next ( 2 , 24, 2 7 ) . This view would assume that social reinforcement for behaving in desirable ways is the major contributor to adaptation. On the other hand, self-esteem might be enhanced by more flexible ses-role behaviors because flexibilit). extends the range of responses consonant with one's own value system. The androgy- nous person would be expected to have a greater opportunity to satisfy per- sonal values by more flexible responses. Although there should be considera- ble overlap between the behaviors that receive social reinforcement and those that are self-reinforcing because the). satisfy personal values, tile), need not be the same.

Four questions relating to the assumptions underlying the construct of androgJmy were considered in this investigation: ( a ) Will androgynous indi- viduals be more flexible in their sex-role behaviors from one situation to the next when this variability is examined b!, within-S analysis? ( b ) Will the greater opportunity for social reinforcement of sex-role options to influence behavior alter the relation between androgJmy and flexibility? (c) Will greater flexibility in sex-role behavior be associated with more adaptive social behavior? ( d ) Will any of the above relations interact with sex of the S ?

B. METHOD

1. Subjects

Forty-four undergraduate volunteers from Emor)! College participated in the primary study. Half of the S s were males (mean age = 19.04 years) and half were females (mean age = 18.27 years). All participants were white and came from middle-class homes.

Data required for the adaptability analyses were collected from 558 acldi- tional Emory undergraduates. Adaptability ratings were obtained from 7 7 males and 114 females and adjustment data from 2 10 males (50 nonclients and 160 clients) and 157 females (SO nonclients and 107 clients).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 179

2 . Measures a . Psychological androgyny. The androgyny score was based upon the

Masculinity (M) Scale and the Femininity (F) Scale from the 300-item Adjec- tive Check List [ACL (12)]. These scales are reasonably independent of each other ( l S ) , demonstrating only low negative correlations for males (r = - .42) and for females (r = -.24). An even lower interscale correlation (r = - . 2 2 ) was found for a mixed-sex group by Wiggins and HolzmulleJ(31). These investigators also reported that the ACL sex-role scales correlated highly with the corresponding masculinity (r = .87) and femininity (r = .73) scales of the popular Bem Sex-Role Inventory (1). They concluded that both sets of sex-role scales provided useful measures of androgyny. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for Heilbrun’s M (r = .83) and F (r = . 7 7 ) Scales were found to be satisfactory (3 1).

Prior studies employing the sex-role scales scored within a single bipolar masculinity-femininity dimension report additional evidence of their validity including predicted correspondence between masculinity-femininity scores and (a) aggression anxiety in males and females (8), (b ) homosexual versus heterosexual orientation in males and females (28)’ and (c) peer-rated dif- ferences in female instrumental orientation (13).

The M and F Scale scores are based upon the number of critical adjectives checked by the S as self-characteristic. These raw scores are transformed into T-scores with the use of college norms derived separately for males and females. Each T-score distribution has a mean of 50 and a standard devia- tion of 10.

Since the preferred mode of statistical analysis was to be correlational and the interest in this study was focused exclusively upon androgyny as a sex- role outcome, an androgyny score was derived so that androgyny could be analyzed as a continuous variable. Degree of androgyny was defined as the algebraic sum of the scores on the M and F Scales minus the absolute difference between the M and F Scale scores. This formula capitalizes on two attributes of androgyny: (a ) Scores reflecting masculinity and femininity both should be elevated, and ( b ) scores reflecting masculinity and femininity should tend to approximate each other. If both of these requisites are met, the first term of the formula (the sum of the scores) will be high and the second term (the absolute difference between scores) will be low, resulting in a high androgyny score. The range of scores obtained for males extended from zero to 118 (median = 92); the range for females was from 38 to 114 (median = 92).

b . Sex-role consistency. The consistency of sex-role behaviors across

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

180 JOURNAI. O F G E N E l I C PSYCHOLOGY

interpersonal situations w a h measured b ~ . it rating technique devised by Block ( 6 ) and found to h , ~ v e considerable heuristic value in the stud!, of adjustment and sex-role identit!, [see Heilbrun ~f ul . (19) for review]. The technique involves rank ortlering of a stantiartl set of self-tlescriptive adjec- tives from most to least characteristic for each of eight distinct interpersonal situations [e .g . , with mother, father, employer. bo!. (girl) friend] in which S s imagino themselves in\mlvecl. Scoring in \dves a multiple rank-order correlation (W coefficient) which ma>- range from . O o (no consistent!.) to 1 .o0 (perfect consistent!.).

The original Block technique has been revised (16) so that the self- descriptive adjectives refer exclusively to sex-role behaviors. ‘I’m adjectives were taken from each of the ;\CIA sex-role scales chosen so that redundant!. was minimized and the average frequencies of endorsement for the mas- c u I i tie and fen1 i ti i tie term s u tide r s t and ar ( I co t i ti i t io t i s of A C L administration were equated. The latter 1)rocedui-e Lvas followed independently b!. sex. Instructions to the S did not specif!. the sex-role-related quality of the be- haviors.

This measure of within-.S flesibilit!. was iptended to reflect variation in sex-role behavior under conditions i n which social reinforcement of the 0 1 ) - tions could pla!. an important role. Each rating involved ranking the likeli- hood of behaviors in a face-to-face situation. The behaviors in question were predominantly of a manifest nature (e .g . , aggressive, dominant, outspoken, de pende t i t , modest , s!.m pat he tic 1.

.< , l’,.ol-r~tllrrc’

( 1 . Lnbovatory c-ottdifiori. S s were initially seen in small groups and administered the ACI, \vith standard self-description instructions. The!- were then gi\.en the sex-role consistency measure. Upon completion of the tests. the E (D.P.) arranged with each S to come to a laborator!. session within the following 1-2 weeks. Two S s of the same ses were assigned to each session.

Upon arrival at the laborator!-, the two S s were placed at each end o f a table with a visual barrier placed between them so that neither could view the other’s work. They were then administered a task modified from the Digit-S!mibol subtest of the \Vechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (So). This task presents the S with 10 different geometric symbols, each paired with a number from zero to 9. Below are 100 pairs of boxes with a number from zero to 9 (randornl?, ordered) in the top box and the box beneath empty. The S was told to f i l l as man). of the empt). boxes with the appropriate s).mbols as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 181

he could in the time allotted (90 seconds), but no special motivating instriic- tions were given. When the time was up, the E scored the two digit-symbol performances for future reference.

The E then instructed the Ss that the experiment was to include a contest involving skill and strategy. They were told that a second form of the digit- symbol task was to be given to them and that the S in the experiment who performed the best on it would win a prize of $25.00. T o further enhance motivation to perform, Ss were informed that the task was actually an intelligence measure and special urging by the E to be the best performer was extended to both Ss. The heuristic value of these digit-symbol proce- dures in elucidating the motivational aspects of performance has been dem- onstrated in several prior studies (14, 18, 19).

The strategy aspect of the contest was implemented next. Ss were given their scores from the first digit-symbol task on a slip of paper so that they knew the number they got correct but not the other Ss’ scores. Ss then made their choices as to whether they wanted to enter their own scores on the second task in the contest or percent combinations of their own and the other Ss’ (e.g., 100% of their own, zero percent of their competitors’, 90% of their own, 10% of their competitors’ . . . zero percent of their own, 100% of their competitors’).

After choosing the preferred blend of scores, each S was asked to complete a similar form indicating how the prize money should be distributed if he or she won. Again a full range of choices was extended from 100% to me and zero percent to my competitor, 90% to me and 10% to my competitor, etc., down to zero percent to me and 100% to my competitor.

Finally, the S was askea to check a four-point scale of familiarity with the other S extending from 1 = stranger to 4 = close friend.

The second digit-symbol task was then administered under the same timed conditions as before. The order of the two forms was counterbalanced by pairs of Ss.

These procedures provided three sequential situations relevant to the role of the competitor in which the S could respond in a stereotypically masculine or feminine fashion.

(a) The score-use decision allowed S to respond in an independent and confident manner (masculine) a t one extreme by deciding to risk winning the contest totally or primarily on their own performance or in a dependent and unconfident manner (feminine) a t the other extreme where they choose to depend increasingly upon the unknown skill of the partner. Since no S had had prior experience with the task and thus held no personal or general

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

182 JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

norms for performance. these choices were likely to depend in considerable measure upon these personal attributes.

The money-sharing decision offered the S the opportunit), to act i n a totally or largely ungenerous and self-enhancing way (masculine) at one extreme or in an equally generous and other-enhancing way (feminine) at the other.

Cornpetitional behavior, measured by the change score from the first to the second digit-symbol task, represented the third basis for inferring masculine or feminine tendencies. Competitiveness (masculine) would be indicated by a large gain >core, whereas noncompetitiveness (feminine) would be indicated b>. a lesser gain or a decrement in performance.

The use of same-sex laborator). partners was intended to avoid response to sex-role expectations deemed desirable because the other person was of the opposite sex. The purpose of pairing strangers was to avoid the influence of social desirabilit>, or other constraints relating to pre-existing friendships. Finally, the private nature of each S ’ s responses was assumed to reduce further the effects of social riesirabilit>. upon the choice of sex-role options. No social reinforcement from the partner should be expected if he or she was unaware of the S’s behavior

The adaptive value of the S’S sex-role consistency ratings was determined by the following procedure. The arl- justment value for each adjective (considered separately by sex) was estab- lished by subtracting the percentage of ACL endorsement within a sample of maladjusted undergraduates ( 100 male and 1 O i female counseling service clients seeking assistance for 1)ersonal problems) from the percentage en- dorsement figure within a ranctom sample of 50 male and SO female untler- graduates. Plus difference scores indicate more adapti\.e behaviors among college students, whereas negatiL~e difference scores indicate more maladal)- tive behaviors. Extreme scores for males includetl aggressive (+. 1 i ) antl confident ( + . 1 7 ) and dependent ( - . 1 7 ) antl worr>ing ( - . 3 8 ) . At the female extremes were self-confident ( + . 19), deliberate (+ . 1 2 ) , and strong ( + . 1 2 ) as opposed to submissive ( - . 1x1, fearful ( - . 20 ) , and worrying ( - . 2 6 ) .

These adjustment values were then weighted by the inverse of the rank assigned to the adjective for any given interpersonal situation. For example, if a male S ranked “confident” as most characteristic of his behavior in a given situation (i .e. , rank = I ) , the value of +. 17 was multiplied by 20 to yield a value of +3.30 for that particular rating. The final adaptation score on the sex-role consistency measure represented the algebraic sum of the 160

( h )

((-)

h . Social attaptahili ty scows.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 183

rankings included in the eight interpersonal situations. The range of scores for the males was from +40.28 to -33.40, and the female range extended from +39.44 to -26.42.

The adaptive values of the patterns of response within the laboratory condition were obtained from ratings provided by an additional 7 7 male and 1 14 female undergraduates. Raters were initially provided with a relatively detailed description of the laboratory condition and any questions regarding the experimental context were answered. The three laboratory situations offering masculine or feminine alternatives were simplified for the raters so that they were presented with all eight combinations of the following dichotomized options: (a) “To depend heavily on your own score” versus “depend heavily on your partner’s score.” (b) “Keep all or nearly all of the prize money” versus “give away most of the prize money.” (c) “Make every effort to improve your score” versus “take it easy as far as improving your score.” The raters were asked to consider the eight possible wombinations of these options for Ss of their own sex and to select the two most adaptive combinations (ranks 1 and 2 ) and the two least adaptive (ranks 7 and 8). Adaptive value was defined as the contribution of the pattern of responses to satisfying their personal values regarding attaining the monetary reward and their sense of fair play toward the laboratory partner.

Unranked patterns for each rater were given a value of 4.5. Mean adapt- ability rankings for males ranged from 1.67 (depend heavily on your own score, keep all or nearly all of the prize money, make every effort to improve your score) and 3.25 (depend heavily on your own score, give away most of the prize money, make every effort to improve your score) a t the high adap- tive end to 5.73 (depend heavily on your partner’s score, give away most of the prize money, take it easy as far as improving your score) and 6.53 (depend heavily on your partner’s score, keep all or nearly all of the prize money, take it easy as far as improving your score) a t the low adaptive end. Female ratings agreed perfectly with these extremes, although the mean adaptive values varied slightly (1.56, 3.21, 5.03, and 7.04, respectively).

C . RESULTS

1. Familiarity Between Laboratory Partners Thirty-eight of the 44 Ss stated that they had had no prior contact with

their partners, four indicated superficial prior contact, and only one S claimed his partner as an acquaintance (although his partner failed to recip-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

184 JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

rocate this rating). One S did not complete the rating. The experiment could be aptly described as investigating interpersonal behavior between relative strangers.

2 . Covnpnrisons of Sex-Role Behavior

a . Sex-role consistency questionnaire measure. The psychometric sex-role consistency score ranged from ,255 to ,687 for males ( M = .438) and from , 1 2 2 to ,760 for females ( M = ,534). Consistent with earlier findings (16), females reported an overall higher level of sex-role consistency than did males lt(42) = 1.96, p < ,051.

The correlation between the androgyny index and sex-role consistency was r (20) = - . 7 2 for male S s ( p < .01). Higher androgyny in males was related to greater flexibility in self-reported sex-role behaviors when the behaviors represent direct interpersonal transactions. However, this correla- tion for female6 [r(20) = - . 3 1 ] was nonsignificant.

The raw scores for each of the three sex-role situations within the laboratory condition were transformed to T-score dis- tributions, independently by sex. Each distribution had a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. This common-scaling procedure allowed the S’s score on each behavior to be compared with his score on each of the others. The laboratory sex-role flexibility score was derived by summing the abso- lute differences between the three individual T-scores. These flexibility scores ranged from 10 to 54 for males and 2 to 54 for females.

The correlation between androgyny and sex-role flexibility within the lab- oratory condition [r (20) = - . 161 was nonsignificant for males. In contrast, the androgyny-flexibility correlation for females was significant [r (20) = .43 Cp < .OS)] . The flexibility assumption was supported for females within a condition reasonably free of the constraints of socially desirable behavior.

b. Laboratory measure.

3. Adaptivt. Vnl~ie of Sex-Role Flexibility

The question of whether flexible sex-role behavior h a s adaptive value was considered first by examining the correlations between the sex-role consis- tency and the adaptability scores taken from the self-report measure. The correlations for males [r(20) = .45, p < .05] and females [r(20) = . 75 , p < ,011 point toward an inverse relation between flexibility and adaptive qual- ity, contrary to assumption. ‘The greater the flexibility for either sex, the less the adaptive value of the sex-role behaviors displayed in interpersonal situa- tions involving the potential for social reinforcement.

The pattern demonstrated by the S in the laboratory condition was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 185

defined by whether the score on each of the three options fell above the mean for his or her sex (masculine) or below (feminine). The rated adaptive value for the resultant pattern was assigned, and these scores were correlated with the sex-role flexibility score. Neither the correlation for males [r(20) = .28] nor females [r(20) = ,381 achieved statistical significance.

D. DISCUSSION

The assumption that persons who have developed both masculine and feminine sex-role behaviors would behave. more flexibly across situations allowing for sex-role alternatives was confirmed for both sexes by means of within3 analyses. However, confirmation of the flexibility assumption by sex depended upon the conditions under which the Ss were required to choose sex-role-related options. A positive relation between androgyny and sex-role flexibility for males was obtained when their self-reported direct interpersonal behaviors were compared, but there was no significant androgyny-flexibility relation found for the female Ss under this condition. This sex difference corresponds closely to that recently reported by Wiggins and Holzmuller (31) who concluded that androgynous males were more flexible in their self-reported interpersonal behaviors than their female coun- terparts. It seems a reasonable assumption that the actual face-to-face social interactions represented in the self-reports of both studies were influenced by conventional social desirability standards.

When the constraints of between-sex conventions, prior relationship, and face-to-face transaction were reduced or eliminated within the laboratory condition, the opposite sex-difference was found in the relation between androgyny and flexibility. Sex-role-related interpersonal behaviors, collected in private from the S and directed toward a stranger of the same sex, were increasingly flexible as the level of androgyny increased for females, but no relation was found for males.

The question remains why sex differences were obtained in the androgyny-flexibility relation under the two conditions of this study. Superficially, these findings suggest that the androgynous female does not capitalize on an extended repertory of sex-role responses within face-to-face personal transactions, and the male does. This together with the Wiggins et al. finding that androgynous females report inflexible patterns of personal interaction quite distinct from feminine females suggests that androgyny in the female results in a blend of masculine and feminine behaviors into unique but stable patterns and that the androgynous female tends not to respond situationally in a masculine or feminine fashion. Without the con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

186 JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

straints of open social transaction, androgynous females demonstrated some degree of the expected sex-role flexibility from situation to situation. This leads us to conclude that it is the constraint of anticipated social response that provides the bonding for the unique and stable blend of sex-role behav- iors of androgynous females.

The findings for males were diametrically opposite to those for females. More androgynous male Ss reported greater flexibility in their sex-role be- haviors displayed while directly relating to a variety of other persons. No association between androgyny and sex-role flexibility was obtained when the condition involved few social constraints. Again the agreement with the Wiggins et al. findings should be pointed out; that study also concluded that androgynous males were more flexible in their direct interpersonal behav- iors.

The finding of differences in flexibility between androgynous males and females as a function of the immediacy and directness of response to the sex-role behavior is compatible with the well-documented fact that females are more empathic than males (22). Hoffman proposes that males are socialized for instrumentality not for empathy like the female, and are pre- disposed to act rather than to feel. The goal orientation of instrumental behavior (23, 26) should lead the androgynous male to employ his broader array of sex-role behaviors to increase his potential for social reinforcement. Kelley, Caudill, Hathorn, and O’Brien (25) reached this same conclusion when they proposed that androgynous males (but not females) use masculine and feminine behaviors as strategies for obtaining social reinforcement. Such instrumental and flexible use of sex-role behaviors for males would be effective Qnly in direct social interaction, corresponding to what was found in the present study. Remove the possibility of social reinforcement of his sex-role behavior, as in the laboratory condition, and androgyny no longer mediates more variable sex-role behavior in males.

If empathy with the other person’s feelings is central to the choice of sex-role behaviors for the female, the tendency to blend masculine and femi- nine options could be understood as the androgynous female’s way of safeguarding others from being upset and hrrself from vicarious distress by placing her instrumental acts within the softening context of feminine con- cern. Bem (4) has suggested that such blending may take place between masculine and feminine characteristics of androgynous people but did not make the case for sex differences.

The overall results would suggest that greater flexibility in sex-role be- havior lacks adaptive value and may be actually maladaptive for either sex, contrary to the common assumption that more flexible choice should en- D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

emor

ial U

nive

rsity

of

New

foun

dlan

d] a

t 08:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR. AND DEBORAH PITMAN 187

hance social effectiveness. I t is recognized, however, that conclusions re- garding the adaptive value of sex-role flexibility should be drawn cautiously from the present study, since the approaches to measuring adaptability were far from perfect. However, before dismissing the generally negative relation found between sex-role flexibility and social adaptation, it might be recalled that at least one major theorist (10) has proposed that it is role consistency and not role flexibility that contributes to a healthier adjustment (ego iden- tity) in individuals the age of our S s .

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

1 7 .

18.

19.

REFERENCES BEM, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consulf. 6 Clin. Psychol.,

-. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. J . Personal

-. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny J. Consulf. 6 Clin. Psychol., 1977, 45, 196-208.

-. Beyond androgyny: Some presumptuous prescriptions for a liberated sexual iden- tity. In J. Sherman & F. Denmark (Eds.), Psychology of Women: Fufure Direcfions and Research. Psychological Dimensions, in press.

BEM, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. Sex-typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. J. Personal. 6 Soc. Psychol., 1976, 34, 1016-1023.

BLOCK, J. Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment. J. Consult. Psychol., 1961, 25,

BLOCK, J . H. Conceptions of sex-role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives.

CONSENTINO, F., & HEILBRUN, A. B. Anxiety correlates of sex-role identity in college

DEUTSCH, C. J . , & GILBERT, L. A. Sex role stereotypes: Effect on perceptions of self and

ERIKSON, E. H. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1950. GAUDREAU, P. Factor analysis of the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. J. Consulf. 6 Clin.

COUCH, H. G . , & HEILBRUN, A. B. Manual for the Adjective Check List and the Need

HEILBRUN. A. B. Sex role, instrumental-expressive behavior, and psychopathology in

-. Perceived maternal child-rearing experience and the effects of vicarious and direct

, Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities a s independent dimen-

-. The added dimension of adaptability in male sex-role behavior. Currently un-

. An exploration of antecedents and attributes of androgynous and undifferentiated

HEILBRUN, A. B., KLEEMEIER C . , & PICCOLA, G. Developmental and situational corre-

HEILBRUN, A. B. , PICCOLA, G., & KLEEMEIER, C. Male sex-gender identification: A

1974, 42, 155-162.

G SOC. Psychol., 1975, 31, 634-643.

392-397.

Amer. Psychol., 1973, 28, 512-526.

students. Psychol. Rep . , 1964, 14, 729-730.

others and on personal adjustment. J. Counsel. Psychol., 1976, 23, 373-379.

Psychol., 1977, 45, 299-302.

Scales for the ACL. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.

females. J. Abn. Psychol., 1968, 78, 131-136.

reinforcement on males. Child Devel., 1970, 41, 253-262.

sions. J. Consult. 6 Clin. Psychol., 1976, 44, 183-190.

published study, 1977.

sex roles. J . Genet. Psychol., 1978, 132, 97-107.

lates of achievement behavior in college females. J . Personal., 1974, 42, 420-436.

source of achievement deficit in college females. J. Personal., 1975, 43, 677-692. Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4

188 JOUKNAI, O F G E N E T I C PSYCHOLOGY

2 0 2 1 .

2 2

2.3.

H E i 1 ~ B R i . N . c'. 'l'oward a Recognition of Antlrogyn\, N e w York. Knopf. 1973 I I m s t i E Y . .11 K , & SI.I.I.IVAS. J . I,. Sex-role attitutleh, identities. and political itleolog).

5'r.x R O ~ F S : J Rr.5 , 1 Y i i . 3, .3i-5i t ~ O F F X l A N . M I,. Sex tlifferencch i n empathy antl related behaviors. Psyrhol . Btrll , 1977 .

84, 7 1 2 - 7 2 2 J o k i s s o s . R.1 J Sex role learning i n the nuclear famil!.. Chi ld D e w / , 190.3. 34, 319-3.3.3

, J . A , . & WORRELI.. I. I'arent behaviors related to masculine, feminine, and ;intlrogynous .sex role orienli i t ton~ J C'orr .s i t l l .

K E L L E Y . J . A , CAI.I)ILI. . X I S , ~ ~ A ' l ' t i O R N , S.. K. O'BRII.:S. C. G . Sociall!. undesirable sex-correlated characteristics Implications for antlrogyny and atl justment. J Corrrttll t i Cl i i i . I 'syrhol , i n p r c c

2 f t . I 'ARSONS. -1' , K. HAI.ES. K F E'aniil!, Socialization. and Interaction Process Glenroc.. 111 Free l ' res . l O 5 S

? i SI'ES('E. J 'I . H E I . X I R E I C I I . K , & S T A ~ ~ . J . Rating? 0 1 heli a n d peers on >ex role attrtl)utes antl their relation [ ( I zell-ezteeni ;itid conceptions ol mascullnit>, antl temtnin- it! .I Persor id t i .SO(. ~ . \ n / i o i . 1075, 32, L Y - ~ O .

28 ' I ' t r o a i r w N . S . J . . J r . . S C I I H . . ~ R T L . I ) $1.. h l c C ~ x i ) ~ B. R.. & E I W A R I ) ~ . I ) A Parent-child relationship< and w s u + l identity in ni: ntl female homosexual5 ;ind hrterowxualz J C ' o i r . s u k <i ( ' l i ~ r P.~yr-lrol . l Y i , 3 , 41, 1 2 0 - 1 2 i

~ V A K E F I E I , ~ ) , J . A , J r , S A S E h . J , P R I ~ : I ) ~ I A N , .A F,, & B ~ H ' I ) E N . J . 1) .Antlrog>n! ;iml other nieasures oi mnsculinit! -irmitiinit! J C'orr . s!r l l ti Clirt. P.syr/iol . , 1 Y i O . 44, i6O- I , ( I

Clirr. f'syrlzol. , 1976, 44, XJ3-8.5 1

25

? Y

- _ R . I ) \Vc,ctider Atlult Intclltgencc Scale S e w Yorli. l's\chological Carl).. 1055. J . S , K. H o I . L > I i . i . i . b ; R . A I'.;!chological antlrog? ny and interpersonal behav-

o r i r r r l l h Clirr P.~yr-lrol , in lire.>

Uepa vt n i p I I t of Psyc-liology t.: ni O Y ~

: l f ln i i tn , Gt,ovgici .3().?22 iouvsi t y

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

8:03

04

Oct

ober

201

4