Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity?

Abstract

This article critically discusses theoretical and methodological issues raised by psychological androgyny research and theory. A number of problematic assumptions shared by this approach and the previous masculinity/femininity approach are detailed. The first part of the article considers whether inventories devised to tap general sex stereotypes should be used as individual personality measures. Alternative forms of cognitive structures, linking sex, other person features, and behavioral rules, are described and hypothesized to have sex-differentiating effects on behavior. The second part of the article discusses problems created by the persistent use of indicators of adaptation and mental health as criterion variables in research on sex identity and sex roles. It is suggested that a psychological theory of sex identity and sex roles should recognize the fact that sex is a structural feature of situations and of ongoing organizations of life experience. In a society in which sex plays a role in the very structuration of experience, the notion of psychological androgyny, with its implication of freedom from sex-related social and biological effects on personality and behavior, is arbitrary.

Remarques sur les origines de l’identité sexuelle

“…Dans la mesure où ces rôles sont prédéterminés par la société et où il existe une cloison étanche entre masculinité et féminité, le rôle du genre sera étroitement relié à l'identité du genre. De fait, les perturbations psychologiques sont souvent associées au manque d'harmonie entre ces deux composantes (Lynn, 1959;Locksley et Colten, 1979). Money (1973) postule l'isomorphisme de ces deux dimensions, puisqu'il écrit que «le rôle du genre représente l'expression publique de l'identité du genre, et (que) l'identité du genre est l'expérience intime du rôle du genre.» La différence entre ces deux élé-ments serait que «le rôle du genre relève du comportement et de l'observation empirique, alors que l'identité du genre relève de l'esprit ou de la pensée, et d'opérations inférentielles».…”

Androgyny and sex role measurement: A personal construct approach.

“…Unlike others before them who have also noted the masculine advantage but who have attributed it to artifact (Locksley & Colten, 1979;Silvern & Ryan, 1979), Taylor and Hall viewed the M and F scales of the BSRI and the PAQ as valid indices of masculinity and femininity. They suggested that masculinity is in fact healthier in our society than femininity, and that this is a societal problem which should be addressed.…”

“…Theoretical Critiques of the BSRI and the PAQ A cogent theoretical critique of both the BSRI and the PAQ has been presented by Locksley and Colten (1979). They noted the rapid acceptance of the above measures and suggested that androgyny theory has not been subjected to the usual rigorous scientific scrutiny because of its political implications.…”

“…Locksley and Colten (1979) suggested that the BSRI tended to blur the differences between the sexes by failing to include the most salient traits for sex differ- Hypothesis five, that masculinity would be considered more desirable than femininity, regardless of whether they were defined by stereotypes or by personal constructs was not supported. This weakens Taylor and Hall's (1982) contention that masculinity is in reality more desirable than femininity in our society.…”

“…If BSRI traits are not traits which would have relevance for sex discrimination at the individual level, then it might be easy for subjects to cross gender lines when rating themselves on those traits. contribute to a surface impression of equivalence not necessarily supported by the underlying evidence (Locksley & Colten, 1979, pp. 1023-1024.…”