Jacob L. Orlofsky

Sex-role orientation, identity formation, and self-esteem in college men and women

Contrasting hypotheses that psychological androgyny (Bem, 1974, 1975) would be associated with (1) identity confusion and a lack of personal integration or (2) identity achievement and high levels of integration were tested. Sex-role orientation, ego-identity status, and self-esteem were determined for 111 college men and women. The results support the second hypothesis, that high levels of masculinity and femininity (androgynous orientation) are conducive to identity achievement and high self-esteem. In contrast, low levels of masculine and feminine characteristics (undifferentiated sex-role orientation) were associated with uniformly low self-esteem and a lack of personal integration (identity diffusion). Sex-typing was most often associated with premature identity commitments and a lack of personality differentiation (identity foreclosure) and with high self-esteem in males but low self-esteem in females. Cross-sex-typing was associated with high levels of self-esteem and identity achievement in females, but with somewhat lower self-esteem in males and either unsuccessful (diffusion) or transitional (moratorium) levels of identity resolution.

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

This study examines the relations among sex role trait 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.

Identity formation, nAchievement, and fear of success in college men and women

This study examined the performance of male and female identity statuses on achievement-related variables to clarify whether the four identity positions have different consequences for men and women. Previous research had suggested that an identity crisis period (achievement and moratorium) was more adaptive for males, while identity commitment, with or without a crisis period (achievement and foreclosure), was more adaptive for females. Identity status was determined for 111 college men and women who were tested for nAchievement, fear of success, fear of failure, and self-esteem. As predicted, identity achievement and moratorium men and women scored higher in achievement motivation and self-esteem than foreclosure and diffusion subjects. However, while diffusions and foreclosures were highest in fear of success of the male statuses, moratoriums and achievements were highest in fear of success of the female statuses. Contrary to previous research, the results indicate that moratorium women resemble identity achievements more than foreclosure women do, at least on achievement-related and self-concept variables, and suggest reasons why moratorium has appeared in past research to be a less adaptive status and foreclosure a more adaptive status for women.

Sex-Role Orientation, Behavioral Adaptability and Personal Adjustment

Bems Sex-Role Inventory was used to classify 111 college men and women into masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated sex-role categories. Subjects were tested for emotional expressivity (feminine task), assertiveness (masculine task), and personal integration. Sex typed and cross-sex typed subjects performed well only on those tasks which were congruent with their measured sex role. Androgynous subjects exhibited the greatest behavioral adaptability, performing well on both masculine and feminine tasks; undifferentiated subjects performed poorly on both tasks, but particularly so on sex-reversed tasks. Thus, behavioral flexibility was shown to derive from strong identifications with both masculine and feminine roles (androgyny) rather than from a simple lack of identification with either role. In addition, contrary to previous findings that masculine-typed women are better adjusted than feminine-typed women, androgynous and sex typed subjects both scored high in personal integration, with cross-sex typed subjects of both sexes scoring as low as undifferentiated subjects.

Relationship between sex-role attitudes and personality traits and the revised sex-role behavior scale

Two hundred college men and women completed self-report measures of sex-role traits (Personal Attributes Questionnaire), attitudes (Attitudes Toward Women Scale), and behavior (Sex-Role Behavior Scale). Intercorrelations among the three measures were examined to test two competing theoretical perspectives which dominate sex-role research today. The social learning point-of-view of Janet Spence and her colleagues asserts a general independence of sex-role personality traits, attitudes, and behaviors. The cognitive-developmental theory of Sandra Bem asserts that sex-role phenomena are fairly closely interrelated, at least for sex-typed individuals whose gender schemas cause them to adhere closely to traditional sex-role norms in their self-concepts and behavior. Findings of moderate relationships between masculine, feminine, and sex-specific personality traits, and the corresponding interest/behavior scales of the Sex-Role Behavior Scale, and between sex-role attitudes and behaviors lend partial support to both perspectives.

Parental antecedents of sex-role orientation in college men and women

Parental modeling and reinforcement antecedents of masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated sex-role orientation were tested for 228 college men and women using self and parent versions of the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the Parent Behavior Form. Parent scale differences indicated that psychological androgyny is associated with high levels of masculinity and femininity in both parents, with high levels of warmth and involvement, particularly with the same-sex parent, and, in females, with maternal cognitive/achievement encouragement. Sex typing occurred where both parents modeled traditional sex-role attributes and, for females, with extreme closeness with father in the absence of maternal cognitive/intellectual encouragement. An undifferentiated sex-role orientation was associated with low emotional and cognitive involvement with father in males and with an undifferentiated but emotionally involved mother in females. Finally, cross-sex typing in both sexes was associated with parental rejection, low feminity in both parents, and an absence of warmth or cognitive encouragement from either parent. These findings confirm and expand those of an earlier study for androgynous subjects, but differ markedly for cross-sex-typed subjects.

Intimacy status: Relationship to interpersonal perception

Five modes of reacting to the intimacy-isolation crisis of young adulthood were described, measured, and validated. Criteria for inclusion in one of the five intimacy statuses were (1) presence or absence of peer friendships, (2) presence or absence of an enduring-committed-heterosexual relationship, and (3) “depth” vs. “superficiality” of peer relationships. Statuses were compared on a “partner-perception” task assessing subjects intimate knowledge of his partner (a close male or female friend who accompanied the subject to the experiment). In all, 66 male college students participated in the study, 50 with male partners and 16 with female partners. The results support the hypothesis that subjects high in intimacy status share a greater degree of mutual knowledge and understanding with their partners then medium-or low-level intimacy status subjects.

On the Use of Global and Specific Measures in Assessing the Self-Esteem of Males and Females.

General measures of self-esteem have often been unsuccessful in predicting specific behaviors or self-reports, particularly those of female subjects. To explore this problem, this study examined the relationship between a general measure of self-esteem and specific measures of agentic and communal self-esteem in a sample of 79 female and 97 male undergraduates. Three agentic measures were found to account for a greater proportion of the variance in general self-esteem scores of males (51%) than of females (33%). This difference was accentuated when traditionally sex-typed subjects were compared separately; the percentages for these groups were 45% for masculine males and 14% for feminine females. Differences between male and female subjects regarding the communal measure were small and nonsignificant. Implications for sex typing and the measurement of self-esteem are considered.

Ego identity status, ego development, and locus of control in college women

This study examined the relationship of identity status to ego development and locus of control in 75 college women. The identity statuses did not differ significantly in self-reported locus of control, but did differ on the “depth” measure of ego development. Consistent with identity theory and with previous research with males, identity achievers and moratorium (incrisis) women were more advanced in their ego development than fore-closure and diffusion women.