MASCULINITY, FEMININITY AND ANDROGYNY: INFLUENCE ON THE DECISION PROCESS
Abstract
Recently, in the study of masculinity and femininity the concept of androgyny has been introduced. Androgyny refers to the combination of masculinity and femininity within a single individual. Although many researchers have emphasized comparisons between androgynous and sex typed persons, the current research uses the theoretical orientations of Bakan and Spence and Helmreich to compare masculinity and femininity. Bakan has postulated two basic modalities, agency and communion, which have served as a foundation for considering masculinity and femininity as personality characteristics distinct from biological sex. The present research investigates the influence of masculinity, femininity and androgyny on the decision process. This process is conceptualized in three stages: generation of alternatives, consideration of alternatives on the basis of specific criteria and the actual choice of alternatives. In this study the decision employed was that of what to do during the two or three years after college graduation. Alternatives, criteria and choices were evaluated on the dimensions of agency and communion. Based on the theoretical link proposed by Spence and Helmreich, it was expected that masculinity would be expressed as agency while femininity would be expressed as communion. Surprisingly, the effect of biological sex was much stronger than that of personality orientation. These effects for sex were also more in accord with the constructs of agency and communion with males responding in an agentic fashion and females responding in a communal fashion. It should be pointed out that although no strong overall support was found there was some indication that among females masculinity and femininity did correspond to agency and communion. These strong sex differences, taken in conjunction with the relatively weak effects of masculinity and femininity, support the contention that agency and communion are more likely to be manifested by males and females, respectively, than by masculine and feminine individuals. From a theoretical perspective, these findings pose a dilemma for researchers in the area of masculinity and femininity. Either the scales for assessing masculinity and femininity are not based firmly enough in the concepts of agency and communion or the concepts of masculinity and femininity are not so closely related to agency and communion as has been suggested. One potentially fruitful direction for research that is indicated by the findings here, would be the development of scales to measure masculinity and femininity that are based directly on agency and communion rather than on differences between males and females. This information could be helpful in clarifying the as yet uncertain relationship between masculinity and agency and between femininity and communion.
Degree
Ph.D.
Subject Area
Social psychology
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.