ChapterPDF Available

Gender and Personality

December 2010

In book: Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology (pp.19-40)

Authors:

University of Missouri–St. Louis

Personality is the study of individual differences and thus holds promise for a better understanding of how our gendered society shapes and reinforces differences in women’s and men’s attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Two strengths of present-day personality research are particularly relevant for the study of gender. First, personality researchers gather data from large samples of normally functioning individuals and emphasize the importance of accurate generalizations of their findings to other normal samples. This methodology allows for the veridical assessment of similarity and difference trends in women’s and men’s personality characteristics. Second, is the attention personality researchers typically give to the careful measurement of constructs through adequate sampling of concept domains, empirical validation, and reliability checks.

Content uploaded by Jayne E. Stake

Content may be subject to copyright.

Chapter 2

Gender and Personality

Jayne E. Stake and Heather Eisele

Personality is the study of individual differences and thus holds promise for a better understand-

ing of how our gendered society shapes and reinforces differences in women’s and men’s attitudes,

emotions, and behaviors. Two strengths of present-day personality research are particularly relevant

for the study of gender. First, personality researchers gather data from large samples of normally

functioning individuals and emphasize the importance of accurate generalizations of their ﬁndings

to other normal samples. This methodology allows for the veridical assessment of similarity and dif-

ference trends in women’s and men’s personality characteristics. Second, is the attention personality

researchers typically give to the careful measurement of constructs through adequate sampling of

concept domains, empirical validation, and reliability checks.

Despite these potential advantages for the study of gender, the personality ﬁeld has been slow

to contribute to gender theory or to provide meaningful, fully validated, gender-related knowl-

edge. Historical and present-day limitations of personality research are responsible for this lack of

progress. For the ﬁrst several decades of personality research, little attention was paid to women or to

issues that tend to be particularly important in women’s lives. Ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other

individual difference variables were similarly ignored. Samples were often exclusively comprised of

white men, and hypotheses were generated from a white, androcentric perspective. Nevertheless,

researchers typically interpreted their data as having validity for the human personality more gener-

ally. When women were included as study participants, gender differences were usually not a focus

of study and often were not reported.

A second limitation of personality research, which remains a problem today, is that most per-

sonality researchers rely on self-report as their primary source of data, a practice that is particularly

problematic when variables are value laden. Although one can argue that only individuals themselves

can accurately report on their internal experiences, self-reports are affected by response sets that are

shaped by societal expectations relevant to gender. For example, the societal prohibition against the

expression of weakness may affect boys’ and men’s willingness to disclose, or even to recognize

within themselves, pangs of anxiety or bouts of depression. In contrast, women and girls experience

fewer sanctions for expressing such negative emotions and, therefore, may feel less inhibited from

doing so.

Progress in this ﬁeld is further limited by the essentialist orientation of many personality

researchers who have focused largely on what they assume to be inherent traits and have pro-

posed models that include primarily distal causes such as evolutionary forces (e.g., Nettle, 2006)

and the heritability of personality (e.g., Bouchard, 2004). Related to this essentialist emphasis, some

personality researchers have been interested in linking observed gender differences in behavior to

J.E. Stake (B)

University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

J.C. Chrisler, D.R. McCreary (eds.), Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology,

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5_2, C

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

20 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

physiological differences (e.g., Sellers, Mehl, & Josephs, 2006). In this type of explanatory model,

physiological variables are presumed to be based on heredity, and a one-way causal effect is assumed

between physiological factors and behavior. These models do not recognize that although physiolog-

ical variables affect personality and behavior, so too can environmental and social factors affect the

physiological development and ongoing physiological state of the individual (e.g., Gabbard, 2005).

In this chapter, we review and critique gender-related personality theory and research with an

emphasis on current issues. We begin by discussing the central importance of social factors and

contexts for the understanding of personality and gender. We then describe how the personality traits

traditionally linked in our society with masculinity and femininity have come to be conceptualized

and researched over time and report recent research advances in this area. The ways in which these

traditional gendered dimensions correspond to the ﬁve domains of the currently popular ﬁve-factor

model of personality and to identiﬁed dimensions of self-concept are then reviewed. Methodological

problems in ﬁve-factor research are discussed, as are methods for measuring self-esteem and self-

concept. We conclude with suggestions for expanding the scope of personality theory and research

to include a greater emphasis on social and contextual variables and on newly emerging personality

constructs that transcend traditional indices of mental health, well-being, and adjustment.

Social Inﬂuences on Gender Differences in Personality

Despite the relatively minor role typically attributed in personality theory and research to social and

contextual factors, any full comprehension of personality necessitates recognition of these variables.

By disregarding them, one is in danger of committing the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977)

by overattributing behavior to inherent personality traits rather than to variables within the social

context. For example, women as a group are assumed to be naturally more nurturing than men

and men to be naturally more aggressive than women. Personality researchers seldom recognize or

discuss how these gender differences may be inﬂuenced by the different social contexts men and

women inhabit, which provide gendered reinforcement patterns, role models, and messages about

appropriate behavior.

Feminist theorists have explained that all individuals have their own combination of situated

social identities and live within complex social contexts that correspond to that set of identities. Eagly

(1987) posited in her social role theory that it is these different social roles, rather than biological

sex, that provide the primary explanation for gender differences in behavior. According to social role

theory, gender roles directly and indirectly create gender differences in behavior. When individuals

conform to and act in accordance with their gender roles, they directly conﬁrm stereotypes about

what is natural for men and women. In addition, the experiences that men and women gain by

enacting their social roles indirectly shape their behaviors by inﬂuencing the conﬁdence and values

they place on particular occupations, avocations, relationships, and skill development. Thus, the

observed traditional gender differences in behaviors, skills, preferences, and aptitudes are directly

and indirectly created by men’s and women’s gender roles. It is not necessary for individuals to

internalize these gender norms fully for gender differences in behavior to develop. Social pressure

from others and the broader society to conform to these roles, as well as the potential punishment for

nonconformity and the rewards for conformity, can induce gender-stereotyped behavior regardless

of individuals’ personal beliefs and preferences (Eagly, 1987).

Contextual cues inﬂuence which social identity will be most salient for an individual at a particu-

lar point in time and which behaviors are most appropriate for the setting. Although some contextual

cues are obvious, such as whether one is in an organizational setting (making a work identity salient)

2 Gender and Personality 21

or a familial setting (making a relational identity salient), other contextual cues are more subtle. For

example, when women have been in work groups comprised mostly of men, their task performance

has been negatively affected; men’s performance, however, has not been affected by the gender com-

position of their work group (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Miller, 2001). Eagly (1987) proposed that

gender roles are often activated in ambiguous situations in which other role identities are not salient.

She suggested that participants in laboratory experiments are in ambiguous situations and may resort

to traditional gendered behavior in the absence of other cues for appropriate behavior.

According to social role theory, therefore, gender differences in behavior are tied to traditional

social roles for women and men and do not reﬂect inherent gender differences in personality traits.

If this theory is correct, then women’s and men’s behaviors should change as their social context

changes; further, if they are placed in a social context that is more common to individuals of the

other gender, their behavior should change accordingly to ﬁt that context. The importance of social

context in determining observed gender differences has been strongly supported by recent research

on contextual factors and gendered behaviors. For example, women are often assumed to be more

empathic than men (Manstead, 1992), yet Ickes, Gesn, and Graham (2000) reported, based on a

meta-analysis of 15 studies, that women have been shown to be more empathic than men only when

gender-role stereotypes were made salient. When participants were not asked to rate the accuracy of

their empathic skills (thereby priming gender-role stereotypes), the gender difference effect size (d)

was 0.04, or essentially zero (Ickes et al., 2000). Contextual factors have also inﬂuenced the accuracy

of men’s and women’s inferences about others’ thoughts and feelings. Men have displayed levels of

accuracy similar to those of women in some types of relationships (Thomas & Fletcher, 2003) and

when they were paid to be accurate (Klein & Hodges, 2001). Furthermore, meta-analyses on self-

disclosure (Dinda & Allen, 1992) and smiling (LaFrance, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003) have indicated that

although overall gender differences in these behaviors exist (d=0.18 for self-disclosure, 0.41 for

smiling), these differences are moderated by the type of social context. In the case of self-disclosure,

men were not less disclosing than were women when participants were engaged in conversations

with men or strangers (Dinda & Allen, 1992).

As further evidence for role theory, research has demonstrated that individuals act in accord

with their speciﬁc power-related roles rather than with their ascribed gender role. For example,

Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers (1994) provided evidence that men’s and women’s agentic behav-

ior in their work settings was not related to their biological sex. Instead, they found that the workers’

role in speciﬁc situations determined their behavior; individuals behaved least agentically when

engaged with a supervisor and most agentically with a supervisee. In addition, both men and women

acted equally submissively with an individual of greater authority regardless of the authority ﬁg-

ure’s gender (Helwig-Larson, Cunningham, Carrico, & Pergram, 2004). Thus, research on empathy,

sociability, and power supports the theory that gender differences in behavior are better explained by

social roles and status than by inherent personality differences between women and men.

Masculinity and Femininity in Personality Theory

History of the Masculinity and Femininity Constructs

In 1936, Terman and Miles developed the ﬁrst psychological test to focus on gender differences in

personality. This test was designed to document fundamental differences in masculine and feminine

traits (Bem, 1993; Lippa, 2001). Masculinity and femininity were conceptualized as personality

traits that were inherent, natural, and healthy for men and women, respectively. In this early test,

22 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

femininity items included liking babies, liking nursing, being careful about one’s manner of dress,

preferring others to take the lead, and being afraid of the dark. Masculinity items included liking

soldiering, liking hunting, being extremely disobedient as a child, and being able to withstand pain

(Bem, 1993). Although Terman and Miles were not explicit in stating the source of these differences,

they maintained the essentialist position that these differences were fundamental to men and women

and represented a core aspect of their personality (Lippa, 2001).

Important critiques of this early conceptualization of masculinity and femininity were provided

by feminist theorists. A primary concern with this model was that masculinity and femininity were

deﬁned as a unidimensional, bipolar construct, with masculinity at one end and femininity at the

other (Bem, 1993; Lippa, 2001). This model did not allow for high levels of masculinity and fem-

ininity in the same individual, a perspective that conformed to the prevailing cultural belief at the

time that men and women are and should be fundamentally and fully distinct from one another.

Furthermore, deviance from accepted gender-role scripts was conﬂated with sexual orientation

(Bem, 1993; Lippa, 2001). Bem and other critics pointed out that Terman and Miles were not mea-

suring inherent personality differences between men and women but, instead, adherence to gendered

cultural norms of the time period (Bem, 1993).

The conceptualization of masculinity and femininity as a bipolar construct was generally accepted

until the 1970s when feminist theorists began to uncouple the concept of masculinity and feminin-

ity from biological sex. Constantinople (1973) published a review article in which she critiqued

masculinity/femininity research conducted before 1970. She presented evidence that femininity and

masculinity are separate dimensions rather than opposite ends of a single dimension and reported

ﬁndings that masculinity and femininity scores correlated with such demographic variables as

socioeconomic status and level of education (Constantinople, 1973). During this time, Bem (1974)

proposed and began conducting research on the concept of psychological androgyny based on the

notion that masculinity and femininity are two separate, orthogonal constructs and that people can

develop any combination of levels of masculine and feminine traits. Bem designed the Bem Sex Role

Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) to assess how closely individuals’ self-descriptions adhered to gender-

role stereotypes. “Masculinity” items on the BSRI included traits that have typically been associated

with the instrumental or agentic aspects of the masculine role, such as athletic, self-reliant, analyt-

ical, competitive, and aggressive. “Femininity” items included traits associated with the expressive

or communal aspects of the feminine role, such as affectionate, sensitive to other’s needs, compas-

sionate, soft spoken, and warm. Bem theorized that exclusive functioning in either the masculine or

the feminine domain was related to poor adjustment and mental health problems, whereas a blend of

both sets of traits (androgyny) was optimal for mental health in both men and women.

Research conducted with the BSRI (Bem, 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ;

Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975) has provided evidence for the premise that stereotypically

masculine and feminine traits are not tied to biological sex. In fact, studies have revealed large

within-sex variability on these traits, with considerable overlap between men’s and women’s scores

and relatively small mean gender differences (Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1980; Spence et al.,

1975). In addition, the ﬁnding that gender differences in masculine stereotyped traits have shrunk in

recent years (Twenge, 1997) supports the view that these characteristics, once thought to be tied to

biological sex, are malleable and can be affected by social context.

Sexual orientation may be one of the factors that explains the intra-sex variation on these scores.

Lippa (2005) provided a summary of data from eight studies in which the expressive and instrumental

scores of gay men, lesbians, and heterosexual men and women were analyzed. Women who identiﬁed

as lesbian tended to describe themselves higher on instrumentality than did women who identiﬁed as

heterosexual (d=0.27), and men who identiﬁed as gay reported greater expressivity (d=0.37) than

did men who identiﬁed as heterosexual. Lippa (2005) suggested the interesting possibility that it

2 Gender and Personality 23

may be biological factors other than genetic sex, such as prenatal hormones, that underlie individual

differences in instrumentality and expressiveness. It should be noted, however, that these differences

between sexual orientation groups are small, and no differences were found between lesbian and

heterosexual women for expressiveness or between gay and heterosexual men for instrumentality.

Given that strong relationships were not found between biological sex and the traits originally

conceptualized as masculine and feminine, Spence and Helmreich (1980) proposed that these types

of scales not be considered global measures of masculinity and femininity. They argued that the BSRI

and the PAQ were not assessing femininity and masculinity but, instead, expressiveness (an inter-

personal orientation) and instrumentality (a self-assertive orientation), terms originally proposed by

Parsons and Bales (1955). This reconceptualization of masculinity and femininity as instrumentality

and expressiveness has contributed to the decoupling of biological sex from qualities traditionally

associated with masculinity and femininity.

The realm of gender-role traits has also been re-deﬁned and expanded to include the notions

of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion (Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan, 1979). These

terms refer to the negative, socially undesirable aspects of gender roles. Unmitigated agency refers

to an extreme focus on the self that is untempered by expressiveness or communality, such as domi-

nance, solely for self-gain and self-enhancement. Unmitigated communion refers to an extreme focus

on others that is untempered by instrumentality or agency, such as avoidance of overt group conﬂict

at the expense of oneself (Helgeson, 1994). Given these deﬁnitions, the unmitigated form of one set

of traits should be negatively related to the unmitigated form of the other, and negative and positive

aspects of the same set of traits should relate to one another (Helgeson, 1994). Some support has

been demonstrated for these expectations: Negative correlations have been reported between unmit-

igated agency and unmitigated communion (Bozionelos & Bozionelos, 2003; Saragovi, Koestner,

Di Dio, & Aube, 1997), and positive correlations have been reported between instrumentality and

unmitigated agency and between expressiveness and unmitigated communion (Saragovi et al., 1997).

Instrumentality and Expressiveness as Mediators of Gender Differences

The conceptualization of instrumentality and expressiveness as personality traits distinct from

biological sex has led to studies in which these dimensions are tested as potential explanatory

mechanisms for the relation between biological sex and psychological variables. In general, these

studies provide evidence that instrumentality and expressiveness account for much of what had

been attributed to biological sex. Instrumentality and expressiveness mediated gender differences

in internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression, perfectionism) and externalizing symptoms (e.g., lying,

stealing) in adolescent boys and girls (Hoffman, Powlishta, & White, 2004; Huselid & Cooper,

1994). Individuals with high instrumentality and low expressiveness were more likely to report exter-

nalizing symptoms regardless of gender, whereas individuals with low instrumentality, combined

with low social attractiveness and self-worth, were more likely to report internalizing symptoms

(Hoffman et al., 2004). Thus, levels of instrumentality and expressiveness explained gender differ-

ences in symptoms of psychological distress. In another study in which gender-role traits were tested

as mediators, expressiveness was demonstrated to mediate gender differences in emotion-focused

communication goals (Burleson & Gilstrap, 2002). Those who were high in expressiveness were

more likely to utilize communication styles that emphasized addressing, and not avoiding, others’

emotions. Thus, it seems that gender-role variables can explain much of what have been reported as

biologically based sex differences in personality.

24 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

Expressiveness, Instrumentality, and Mental Health

The constructs of expressiveness and instrumentality have been linked to mental health indices in

both women and men. Numerous correlational, self-report studies have demonstrated that mea-

sures of instrumentality are positively correlated with self-esteem (Allgood-Merton & Stockard,

1991; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1992). In addition, instrumentality has related positively to well-

being (Saragovi et al., 1997; Sharpe, Heppner, & Dixon, 1995) and social conﬁdence (Woodhill

& Samuels, 2003; Saragovi et al., 1997) and negatively to depression and anxiety (Bruch, 2002;

Hermann & Betz, 2006; Lengua & Stormshak, 2000; Whitley, 1984). Similarly, expressiveness mea-

sures have related positively to general self-esteem (Stein et al., 1992; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003),

life satisfaction (Hunt, 1993), well-being (Sharpe et al., 1995), social adjustment (Saragovi et al.,

1997), and social self-esteem (Allgood-Merton & Stockard, 1991; Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson,

1978) and negatively to depression and distress (Hermann & Betz, 2006; Saragovi et al., 1997).

However, instrumentality has generally been more strongly related to these mental health variables

than expressiveness. Only for variables that are very closely tied to expressiveness, such as conge-

niality and relationship satisfaction, does expressiveness appear to be more advantageous than does

instrumentality (Stake, Zand, & Smalley, 1996).

The positive ﬁndings for instrumentality have been questioned, however, on methodological

grounds. Because researchers have generally relied on self-report measures to test all variables,

correlations between mental health variables and instrumentality may have been artiﬁcially inﬂated.

It is certainly likely that people who purport to have a very high level of instrumental traits (e.g.,

assertiveness, self-conﬁdence) would give high self-ratings as well on variables associated with men-

tal health (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). In addition, the content of the items on

self-esteem and instrumentality measures overlaps substantially so that there is little conceptual dis-

tance between the two types of measures (Whitley, 1984). A third criticism is that self-ratings have

been made in the abstract, outside of naturally occurring life settings, despite evidence that situation-

speciﬁc expectations and pressures can have strong inﬂuences on gender-linked variables and can

create intra-individual variations in behavior across situations.

As a response to these limitations in past research, the ﬁrst author developed alternative methods

for testing relationships between mental health variables and expressiveness/instrumentality. In one

set of studies, participants described how they responded behaviorally to work-related situations that

called for a blend of expressiveness and instrumentality. Individuals who chose to respond to such

situations in either an androgynous or an expressive mode experienced more positive well-being

within the situation than did those who chose an instrumental or indeterminate (i.e., neither instru-

mental nor expressive) approach (Stake, 1997). In addition, there was no signiﬁcant difference in

global self-esteem between those who chose to respond androgynously, instrumentally, or expres-

sively and those with little social support in the setting experienced less stress if they responded more

androgynously (Stake, 2000). These ﬁndings suggest that, when responding in real-life settings in

which both expressiveness and instrumentality are expected, an instrumental approach is not neces-

sarily the mode of choice for high self-esteem individuals and may not lead to the most satisfactory

mental health outcomes.

As another means of circumventing the limitations of previous research, the ﬁrst author devel-

oped a scale to measure perceptions of situation-speciﬁc social expectations for instrumentality and

expressiveness (Stake et al., 1996). This measure made possible the evaluation of links between the

level of expectations within meaningful life settings and measures of mental health. As might be

expected from earlier research, the more people perceived that their life setting (home, school or

work) required instrumentality, the higher their setting-speciﬁc self-ratings of self-esteem, well-

being, and giftedness. The more situations required expressiveness, the higher the self-ratings

2 Gender and Personality 25

of likeability and satisfaction within the setting. However, these main effects were qualiﬁed by

interaction effects between expressiveness and instrumentality for each mental health variable:

When instrumentality expectations were high, expressiveness expectations did relate to self-esteem,

well-being, and self-perceptions of giftedness; when expressiveness expectations were high, instru-

mentality expectations were related to self-perceptions of likeability and satisfaction (Stake et al.,

1996). In a related study, Saragovi et al. (1997) found that self-reported expressive traits were related

to better adjustment when participants rated themselves higher in instrumentality but not when they

rated themselves low in instrumentality. Although not entirely consistent with Bem’s (1974) orig-

inal expectations about the value of androgyny, these ﬁndings suggest that high amounts of both

instrumental and expressive functioning yield the best situation-speciﬁc adjustment.

Less is known about the mental health outcomes associated with unmitigated agency and

unmitigated communion. Research that is available has linked unmitigated agency to increased

pathology, delays in help-seeking behavior, poorer adjustment after hospitalization for heart dis-

ease, and difﬁculty in expressing emotions (Helgeson, 1994). Unmitigated communion has also

been associated with decreased help-seeking behavior and poorer adjustment after hospitalization

for heart disease (Helgeson, 1994). Negative relationships between unmitigated forms of tradi-

tional gender roles and mental health are understandable, given the deﬁnitions of these variables.

Extreme and negative forms of traditional gender traits deserve greater attention because they can

broaden our understanding of how gender roles may negatively affect personal development and

adjustment.

Understanding Gender Differences Through the Five-Factor Model

The history of the ﬁeld of personality is replete with models of the structure of personality. The

prevailing model at this time is the ﬁve-factor model (FFM), a simple ﬁve-dimensional schema

developed from an atheoretical, factor analytic approach. As the FFM was developed, writers applied

various labels for the dimensions (often referred to as the Big Five) or suggested additional factors,

and the qualities identiﬁed for each domain have varied. However, there appears to be a general

agreement at this time about the labels and descriptions applied to the FFM domains, as described

later (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001).

Agreeableness refers to the nature or tone of one’s relationships with others. Agreeableness

comprises facets of one’s interpersonal functioning—degree of altruism, compliance, modesty,

straightforwardness, tender-mindedness, and trust of others.

Openness is the willingness and even eagerness to seek out new experiences and is unrelated to

level of aptitude. The following aspects of openness to experience are measured: actions, aesthetics,

fantasy, emotions, ideas, and values.

Conscientiousness includes elements of self-control and persistence in behavior toward long-

range goals. Elements of conscientiousness are achievement striving, competence, deliberation,

dutifulness, order, and self-discipline.

Extroversion pertains to the tendency of the individual to seek out relationships with others

and with the environment and to prefer social activity to individual pursuits. Speciﬁc qualities of

extroversion are high degrees of activity, assertiveness, excitement seeking, gregariousness, positive

emotions, and warmth.

Neuroticism is the tendency to perceive one’s world as threatening and difﬁcult to manage and,

therefore, to experience high levels of negative emotions. Included in the neuroticism domain are

angry hostility, anxiety, depression, impulsiveness, self-consciousness, and vulnerability.

26 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

As can been seen from these descriptions, the Big Five categories are very broad, with seem-

ingly disparate qualities included within a single domain. Some of the traits within domains have a

logical relation (order and self-discipline as components of conscientiousness); however, others do

not appear to have a close link (straightforwardness and modesty as components of agreeableness).

There is evidence that each of the domains includes at least some aspects of instrumentality and

some aspects of expressiveness (Ansell & Pincus, 2004). The Big Five are typically measured with

the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) or the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI;

Costa & McCrae, 1992).

The ﬁve-factor model has received widespread, international acceptance and is considered by

some to provide a valid map of universal, endogenous tendencies inherent in the human personality.

The NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI have been translated into many languages and administered to cultural

groups around the world to test the robustness of the model (e.g., Chinese: McCrae, Costa, & Yik,

1996; Hebrew: Rubinstein & Strul, 2006; Marathi [India]: Lodhi, Deo, & Belhekar, 2002; Russian:

Martin, Oryol, Rukavishnikov, & Senin, 2000). Because some cultures are considered to be more col-

lectivistic and others more individualistic in character (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991), one might

expect that people from some cultures would be more likely to endorse traits associated with a more

collectivistic orientation (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness) and others might endorse traits

associated with a more individualistic orientation (e.g., openness, extroversion). McCrae (2001)

has reported some limited support for such differences. In particular, measures of extroversion and

cultural individualism were related. For example, Americans and Norwegians self-reported higher

levels of extroversion than did Chinese and South Koreans. Despite some cultural differences, how-

ever, variation in mean levels of traits across cultures has been small, and the structure of the Big

Five has shown consistency across cultures (McCrae, 2001). After factor analyzing data from 26

cultures, McCrae concluded that the model replicated well, particularly when the NEO-PI-R was

translated into Western languages and for the dimensions of neuroticism and conscientiousness. The

openness dimension has not replicated as well, and the model has been less robust in non-Western

cultures (Becker, 2006; McCrae, 2001).

Gender Differences in FFM Traits

Gender differences within each of the ﬁve domains have been assessed for the NEO measures as

well as for other personality scales that measure similar aspects of personality. Because sample sizes

have generally been large and data have been gathered across many cultures, this work has some

potential for improving our understanding of gender differences in personality. Overall, reported

differences for the various components of the measures have been modest; they range in size from

zero to close to one-half standard deviation across aspects of the dimensions, and the majority of

effect sizes have been less than one-quarter standard deviation (McCrae, 2001). The size and the

nature of gender differences have varied somewhat among samples within the United States and

across cultures. Reported gender differences have also varied by the speciﬁc item content of scales

intended to measure the same trait and by the mode of measurement. Added to this complexity,

most of the domains include both traits for which men tend to score higher and traits for which

women tend to score higher. Despite these problems, a coherent pattern of gender differences has

been emerging within each of the ﬁve domains. These ﬁndings are discussed within the context of

the instrumental/expressive dimensions.

The set of traits designated for the agreeableness domain tend to be associated with a prosocial,

expressive orientation; they suggest a willingness and perhaps aptitude for developing meaningful,

2 Gender and Personality 27

fulﬁlling, and authentic relationships with others. Although signiﬁcant gender differences have sel-

dom been found for all agreeableness traits within the same sample or culture, women have tended

to endorse them to a greater extent than have men. These gender differences have been reported by

Feingold (1994), who performed four meta-analyses across 50 years of US personality research, as

well as by researchers in countries outside the United States, such as Finland (Feldt, Metsapelto,

Kinnunen, & Pulkkinen, 2007) and India (Lodhi et al., 2002), and by Costa et al. (2001), who eval-

uated data from 26 cultures, including the United States. These ﬁndings are in line with widespread

societal expectations that women invest themselves in the development and maintenance of positive,

enduring personal relationships.

The domain of openness has also yielded fairly consistent gender differences. One might expect

a stance of openness to be relevant to both an expressive and an instrumental orientation and that,

given societal pressures, some aspects of openness may be more common among men and others

more common among women. In line with these expectations, there is evidence that women tend to

report greater openness to feelings, aesthetics, and values (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Feldt

et al., 2007; Lodhi et al., 2002). In contrast, men have shown an openness to experience equal to that

of women (Feingold, 1994) and greater openness to ideas (Costa et al., 2001).

Conscientiousness may best be considered both an instrumental and expressive dimension

because both successful action and cooperative interpersonal functioning are implied in the com-

ponents of this domain. Thus, gender differences would be expected to be small for this domain.

Indeed, reported gender differences in conscientiousness have been small and scattered, with little

consistency across studies (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994). Thus, in at least these aspects of

instrumentality, women and men have shown virtually no differences.

The remaining domains, extroversion and neuroticism, also include a balance of instrumental and

expressive traits, and they provide a complex pattern of gender differences. Women tend to score

higher on extroversion traits that can be described as expressive, such as gregariousness, warmth,

and positive emotions (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Lodhi et al., 2002; Rubinstein & Strul,

2006), whereas men tend to score higher on the extroversion traits linked to instrumentality, such as

activity, excitement seeking and assertiveness (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Lodhi et al., 2002;

Lynn & Martin, 1997). Thus, it appears that people tend to express their extroversion in line with

traditional gender expectations. The neuroticism domain comprises a wide variety of mental health

variables that may be associated with unmitigated communion (e.g., anxiety, depression, vulnera-

bility) or unmitigated agency (e.g., hostility, impulsiveness). Although gender differences were not

found in some samples (e.g., Feldt et al., 2007), most researchers have reported gender differences.

Women have tended to report more neurotic symptoms generally (Lynn & Martin, 1997; Rubinstein

& Strul, 2006) and particularly more anxiety and depression, at least in Western cultures (Costa

et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994), and men have tended to score higher on measures associated with hos-

tility and impulsiveness (Feingold, 1994; Lengua & Stormshak, 2000). Thus, gender differences in

self-reported neuroticism are dependent on the nature of the mental health symptoms included under

the neuroticism label.

Little FFM research has focused on differences associated with sexual orientation. However, we

might expect that, because gay men have reported greater expressiveness than have heterosexual

men and lesbians have reported greater instrumentality than have heterosexual women (Pillard, 1991;

Haslam, 1997), sexual orientation groups may tend to show FFM differences that parallel those found

between men and women. Lippa (2005) has provided partial support for this possibility. He found

large correlations between sex differences on the FFM (and on masculinity/femininity measures) and

sexual orientation differences on the same measures. However, only some of the gender difference

ﬁndings described earlier, which were drawn from very large and diverse data sets, were replicated in

Lippa’s work, which has been conﬁned primarily to college samples. More research is clearly needed

28 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

to determine the value of the FFM model as a tool for better understanding personality differences

between sexual orientation groups.

Evaluation of FFM Research and Directions for Future Study of Gender Issues

One would expect that gender differences in the FFM personality traits would be attenuated in cul-

tures that hold more gender egalitarian values and in which women have more opportunities for

education. However, Costa et al. (2001) found that gender differences were signiﬁcantly greater in

the more egalitarian countries studied. In explaining their surprising ﬁndings, Costa et al. (2001)

suggested that people in more traditional cultures may use a different frame of reference in making

their self-ratings than do people in more egalitarian cultures. Those in traditional cultures may be

more likely to compare themselves to same-sex others or to attribute their actions more to societal

demands than to their own inherent personality traits.

These explanations highlight one of the signiﬁcant limitations of FFM research: Virtually all data

have been derived from self-report, with very little validation from other sources of measurement.

It is possible, then, that response sets may account for many of the gender and cultural differences

reported. The issue of response sets appears to be particularly relevant to the interpretation of gender

differences. If women are more open to their feelings and more straightforward than are men, as it

appears from self-reports, it follows that women would report more negative feelings than would men

because women would be both more aware of their feelings and more willing to admit to them. Men

may, therefore, tend to underreport their anxiety, depression, and perhaps other neuroticism vari-

ables. Consistent with this possibility, when Costa et al. (2001) controlled for reports of openness

to feelings and straightforwardness, women were no longer higher on some of the neuroticism vari-

ables, and gender differences on the other related scales were reduced. Furthermore, the measures

of openness to feelings and straightforwardness are themselves derived from self-reports, and men

may be less willing to admit that they are not open to their feelings or that they are not straightfor-

ward. If so, then more veridical indices of openness to feelings and straightforwardness are needed

to determine whether even more of the observed gender differences on the FFM measures may be

explained by these variables.

Another limitation of the FFM in understanding possible gender differences is that many variables

associated with social roles were not included in model development, and gender-role variables do

not ﬁt well into the FFM. Saucier and Goldberg (1998) identiﬁed a set of adjectives to represent

masculinity/femininity and other characteristics that might be “outside the Big Five.” They derived

two clusters from the set that they identiﬁed as relevant to gender roles. Although they concluded

that the two masculinity/femininity clusters were not outliers from the FFM, only one FFM domain,

agreeableness, was correlated with either gender cluster. As would be expected, the agreeableness

domain was correlated with femininity and not with masculinity. These ﬁndings help to explain

why agreeableness is the only FFM domain to show a consistent gender difference both across all

domain-designated traits and across studies. Connections between FFM variables and gender and

other social roles clearly deserve more attention from FFM researchers.

The coherence of the FFM factor structure poses another challenge for FFM researchers. The

meaning of the constructs purported to underlie each factor is brought into question by the wide

variety of traits subsumed within each domain. Factor analysis of a large sample of FFM participants

did not reveal the predicted factor structure for all scales from the NEO-PI-R (Costa et al., 2001). For

example, in a Procrustes rotation, impulsiveness did not load signiﬁcantly on its target factor, neuroti-

cism, but did load signiﬁcantly on extroversion (positive loading) and conscientiousness (negative

2 Gender and Personality 29

loading). Moreover, an analysis of gender differences in factor structure on the NEO-FFI revealed

several problems at the item and sum-score levels (Becker, 2006). Speciﬁcally, Becker reported that

analyses of men’s and women’s openness data supported neither unidimensionality nor equivalency.

He suggested that separate scales be developed for men and women to measure openness and perhaps

other FFM dimensions as well.

A ﬁnal criticism of FFM researchers is that they have paid little attention to social and cultural

factors that may inﬂuence the development and enactment of FFM traits. For example, Brummett

et al. (2006) reported a positive relation between body mass index (BMI) and the FFM domain of

neuroticism for women but not for men and a stronger negative relation between BMI and con-

scientiousness for women but not for men. Although the authors noted that obesity is a greater

social stigma for women, they failed to consider that experiences associated with that stigma

could contribute to women’s anxiety and depression, core aspects of the neuroticism domain, or

that, given the greater pressure on women to be slim, women would be more likely than men

to channel their conscientiousness into controlling their weight. Instead, the authors suggested

that women who suffer from negative (neurotic) feelings may eat more as a way to cope with

those feelings and may be less likely to exercise. Thus, neuroticism was viewed as an endoge-

nous, causal factor rather than as a reaction to the social context within which the neuroticism was

expressed.

A second example of the emphasis FFM researchers have given to endogenous explanations

is Nettle’s (2006) effort to tie the FFM domains to evolutionary mechanisms. Nettle attempted to

explain how high and low levels of each set of traits carry beneﬁts as well as costs in biologi-

cal selection and, hence, why a wide range of levels of the traits continue to be observed in the

population. Although he was able to link both ends of the extroversion dimension to physiological

correlates and to some survival costs and beneﬁts, he was unable to make a credible case for the

other domains. Further, although Nettle did brieﬂy mention that other explanatory mechanisms are

possible, he failed to consider the powerful social forces, such as modeling and reinforcement, that

may contribute to the development and expression of FFM traits.

Recent efforts to link behaviors associated with FFM traits to social context provide evidence of

the importance of situational variables in understanding how the traits may be expressed (Fleeson,

2007; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). For example, variations in the characteristics of

situations as perceived by the individual, such as friendliness and anonymity, have been linked to

intra-individual variations in the expression of the Big Five traits, and the relation between situa-

tional characteristics and trait expression has differed reliably between individuals (Fleeson, 2007).

For example, those with below-average levels of trait extroversion tended to show less behavioral

extroversion (e.g., talkativeness) in more anonymous situations, whereas those with above-average

levels of trait extroversion tended to show more behavioral extroversion in more anonymous sit-

uations. Single measures of traits taken in laboratory settings are inadequate for capturing such

individual differences in variations across settings.

In conclusion, the FFM research tells us something about how men and women describe them-

selves in structured personality questionnaires in the United States and around the world. In many

instances, the observed gender differences in self-reported personality follow from what would be

expected from traditional gender roles and are fairly consistent across cultures. Women report traits

needed for building and maintaining strong personal relationships, and they report more openness

to emotions and aesthetics, whereas men tend to describe themselves as more emotionally stable,

assertive, open to ideas, and impulsive. Some recent research indicates that better understanding of

the expression of the Big Five traits can come only when research methodology incorporates sit-

uational variables. Future researchers should also address how response sets, such as expectancies

for appropriate responding and internal comparison norms, affect how people describe themselves

30 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

on the FFM dimensions, and multi-method approaches to trait measurement should be employed to

verify the validity of self-reports.

Gender Differences in Self-evaluations

Global Self-esteem

Self-esteem has long been considered important for the understanding of personality and behavior.

Although a number of types of self-esteem have been identiﬁed, the most commonly researched is

global self-esteem, deﬁned as “the level of global regard that one has for oneself as a person” (Harter,

1993, p. 88). Many studies have suggested that measures of self-esteem are related to mental health

beneﬁts, including increased positive and decreased negative affect, more positive adjustment, and

greater resilience in stressful situations (see Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999, for a review).

Based on these ﬁndings, self-esteem has sometimes been theorized to be essential for positive mental

health (Taylor & Brown, 1988).

Given the apparent importance of global self-esteem, any ﬁndings of group differences in self-

esteem have been met with concern because they suggest that a particular group may have poorer

outcomes on a host of psychological factors. This concern has been particularly publicized in the

case of girls and women, who have sometimes been found to have lower global self-esteem than

have boys and men (Allgood-Merton & Stockard, 1991; Fertman & Chubb, 1992). Any ﬁndings

of gender differences in global self-esteem have been assumed by the lay public to be large and

to reﬂect a problem for girls and women, whereas boys’ and men’s higher self-esteem has been

considered normative and healthy. These assumptions regarding gender differences in global self-

esteem are particularly prevalent in discussions of adolescent girls’ self-esteem. Popular books, such

as Reviving Ophelia (Pipher, 1994), reinforce the idea that girls’ self-esteem plunges as they enter

adolescence, resulting in a crisis of low self-esteem.

A careful analysis of the research on this topic provides a different and more nuanced picture of

gender differences in global self-esteem. Three meta-analyses of gender differences in global self-

esteem have aggregated data across hundreds of studies and included responses from thousands of

participants. These meta-analyses have demonstrated very small to small effect sizes (d=0.10–0.21)

for overall gender differences where men and boys have higher scores (Feingold, 1994; Kling et al.,

1999; Major, Barr, Zubek, & Babey, 1999). When African-Americans were analyzed separately,

gender difference effect sizes were negligible (d=–0.04–0.03; Kling et al., 1999; Major et al.,

1999). These meta-analyses have also revealed that gender differences in self-esteem change over

time. Effect sizes in gender differences have ranged from 0.01 to 0.16 for preadolescents, 0.12–

0.23 for middle school students, and 0.16–0.33 for high school students. After high school, gender

differences in global self-esteem appear to decrease throughout the life span. Effects sizes have

decreased from 0.13 to 0.18 during college, to 0.10 in mid-adulthood, to –0.03 for samples over

60 years of age (Kling et al., 1999; Major et al., 1999). It should be noted that, although gender

differences in global self-esteem vary across the life span, the size of the difference at its largest

point is still small. (An effect size of 0.20 represents an 85% overlap in the distribution between two

groups and is generally considered undetectable in daily life, though potentially important.) Thus,

gender differences in global self-esteem range from negligible to small and clearly do not support

the notion popularized in the media that girls experience a precipitous drop in self-esteem during

adolescence.

2 Gender and Personality 31

The assumption that gender differences in self-esteem indicate a problem for girls is, in any

case, not clearly supported by empirical data and reﬂects the androcentric bias of always judging

what man and boys do to be normative and preferable. Recent research provides evidence that,

rather than serving as a universal advantage, high self-esteem may sometimes be related to poor

adjustment. Some researchers have reported that people who carry high, but unstable, global self-

esteem may, when they perceive their self-esteem is threatened, engage in negative behaviors to

bolster their self-image. These behaviors, such as physical aggression, bullying, risky sexual activ-

ity, and experimentation with drugs and alcohol, may cause harm to self and others (see Baumeister

et al., 2003, for a review). Thus, rather than indicating more positive mental health, higher self-

esteem may sometimes reﬂect a mental health concern. Because high self-esteem has been assumed

to be unconditionally positive, and the high self-esteem of men and boys assumed to be norma-

tive, few studies have assessed this potential mental health problem. Future researchers should

investigate possible negative implications of self-reported high self-esteem, particularly in men and

boys.

Multi-dimensional Self-concept

Although the construct of global self-esteem continues to be included in personality studies as a

potential explanatory variable, the value of global self-esteem as a predictor of human behavior has

been brought into question because measures of the construct have generally failed to relate sub-

stantially to intended outcomes (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007; Wylie, 1974, 1979).

Given that, as discussed earlier, high self-ratings may have differential connotations among respon-

dents, these ﬁndings are not surprising. The construct of global self-esteem is so vague and diffuse

that it has limited potential to explain individual differences in behavior.

Wylie undertook extensive critical reviews of the extant self-esteem research in 1974 and 1979.

Given the limited utility of global self-esteem measures, she called upon researchers to focus

on speciﬁc measures of self-perceptions that would more reliably predict behavior. Shavelson,

Hubner, and Stanton (1976) responded to this need by proposing a model of self-evaluation that

was multi-dimensional and hierarchical. With global self-esteem at the top of the hierarchy, multi-

ple subcategories were speciﬁed. Shavelson et al. (1976) predicted that these components become

increasingly distinct from early childhood to adulthood. Marsh (1988, 1992a, 1992b) developed a

set of three measures, the Self-Description Questionnaires I, II, and III (SDQ I, SDQ II, and SDQ

III), based on the Shavelson et al.’s model, to measure self-concept in grade school, high school,

and college age students, respectively. In an extensive research program that has spanned more than

two decades and many cultures, Marsh has found that the SDQ subscales have strong psychometric

properties with a well-deﬁned factor structure that is invariant across gender at all three age groups

and is generally invariant across cultures (Kaminski, Shafer, Neumann, & Ramos, 2005; Marsh,

2003; Marsh, Parada, & Ayotte, 2004). In regard to differentiation, Marsh (2003) found that, con-

trary to Shavelson et al. (1976), full differentiation of self-concept components has occurred by late

childhood/early adolescence, with a steep drop in correlations among components between Grades

2 and 5.

The SDQ subscales were designed for children and adolescents and, therefore, are speciﬁc to

self-evaluations in those areas, such as parental relations and school performance, which are appro-

priate to the child and adolescent stages of development. To measure self-concept in adults, it is

important to identify self-concept components at a mid-level of speciﬁcity that will be germane

to a wide range of adult life contexts and experiences. Measures at this level of speciﬁcity have

32 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

the advantage of providing maximum generalizability across situations with maximum distinctive-

ness between categories (Rosch, 1978). For this purpose, the ﬁrst author developed the Six Factor

Self-Concept Scale for adults (SFSCS; Stake, 1994). Beginning with components of self-evaluation

that had emerged from previous research, six subscales were identiﬁed for the SFSCS through

a series of exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analytic techniques. Two components pertain to

harmonious interpersonal functioning (i.e., likeability, morality) and four to aspects of agentic func-

tioning [i.e., task accomplishment, giftedness, power, vulnerability (reverse scored)]. These factors

are distinct from personality traits in that they are self-evaluative dimensions, with positive and

negative poles, rather than merely self-descriptions. The six SFSCS subscales show strong psycho-

metric properties, are invariant across gender, and have replicated with ethnic/racial minority women

(African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latinas, and Native Americans; Stake, 1994; Yanico & Lu,

2000).

Wylie (1979) suggested that global self-esteem measures might mask important gender differ-

ences in particular components of self-evaluations. Higher self-evaluations among boys and men in

some areas might be balanced by higher self-evaluations among girls and women in other areas.

Research with the SDQ and other self-concept measures has conﬁrmed this expectation for students

in grade school through college. Across a great many samples in the United States and elsewhere,

despite similar levels of general self-esteem, girls have consistently rated themselves higher than

boys in academic areas associated with verbal ability, in qualities associated with maintaining friend-

ships, and in moral qualities such as honesty, trustworthiness, and spirituality (Kaminski et al., 2005;

Marsh, 2003, 2004; Shapka & Keating; 2005; Wilgenbusch & Merrell, 1999). Boys have consistently

rated themselves higher in academic areas associated with mathematical ability, in physical/athletic

abilities, in emotional stability, and in appearance (Kaminski et al., 2005; Marsh, 2003, 2004; Shapka

& Keating, 2005; Wilgenbusch & Merrell, 1999). Girls and boys show little difference in their self-

views pertaining to school in general, parent/family relationships, happiness, and relationships with

the other sex (Marsh, 2003; Wilgenbusch & Merrell, 1999). These differences follow, for the most

part, the instrumental/expressive distinction discussed earlier and seen in the FFM research.

Findings from the SRSCS have been consistent with the patterns described above for child

and adolescent samples. Composite scores on the SFSCS, which represent a type of global self-

evaluation index, have been highly similar for women and men. At the same time, gender differences

in sources of self-esteem are evident and parallel the instrumental/expressive distinction (Stake,

1992, 1994). Women have evaluated themselves more highly than have men on likeability and

moral qualities, whereas men have rated themselves more highly than have women on power,

(in)vulnerability, and giftedness. (Men and women described themselves similarly on the task

accomplishment subscale.) These ﬁndings are consistent with earlier adult self-concept research

that shows women to have more positive self-concepts in the areas of interpersonal relationships

and moral goodness and men to have more favorable self-concepts in the areas of leadership,

persuasiveness, and emotional stability (Stake, 1992).

The multi-dimensional approach to the study of self-evaluation opens many avenues for research

on gender and self-concept that are not possible with global scales. A key issue is the development

of gender differences in childhood and adolescence. Although self-concept components continue

to become more differentiated during the grade school years, Marsh (2003) has found that gender

differences on the SDQ subscales appear as early as Grade 1 and persist through the childhood and

adolescent years in a similar pattern. A meta-analysis of data from more than 19,000 elementary and

high school students revealed consistent gender differences for the majority of self-concept compo-

nents beginning in the elementary school years (Wilgenbusch & Merrell, 1999). Some interesting

exceptions were uncovered in this meta-analysis, however, that suggest developmental changes that

should be further researched. For example, boys were found to have a slightly higher academic

2 Gender and Personality 33

self-esteem than girls in elementary school, whereas this difference was not seen in high school.

Further, boys gave only slightly higher self-ratings of appearance than did girls in elementary school,

but this difference was stronger in high school—in the moderate range. These changes over time sug-

gest some ﬂuidity in gender-related self-evaluations from grade school to high school and, therefore,

the possibility for effective interventions when low or high self-evaluations may signal potential

mental health concerns (Marsh, 2004).

Another self-concept topic that can be better investigated with multi-dimensional scales is the

inﬂuence of social context on self-evaluations. Eagly (1987) proposed that gender differences are

exaggerated when observations and self-ratings are made under abstract laboratory conditions rather

than in meaningful life contexts because study participants rely more on gender stereotypes when

they have few cues about appropriate responding. To address this possibility, the ﬁrst author (Stake,

1992) compared the pattern of gender differences in SFSCS self-ratings when made in the abstract

to those made within speciﬁc, meaningful life contexts from the perspective of target persons and

knowledgeable observers. Contrary to Eagly’s hypothesis, the gendered patterns for self-evaluations

derived from target persons for work, school, and family settings were very similar to those found

with abstract ratings. Moreover, the same gendered pattern emerged when observers familiar with

the target persons within those life contexts gave their estimates of how the target persons would

rate themselves. Thus, the tendency for women and men to draw their positive self-views from

different sources appears to be quite stable across life settings and has been corroborated by informed

observers. It is important to note, however, that these gender differences accounted for only 3–7% of

the variance in self-ratings. This modest amount of explained variance is equivalent to that reported

for most variables that have an established relationship to gender.

Directions for Future Research

Social and Situational Contexts

Given the need to understand personality within social contexts, it is important that future personality

researchers place greater emphasis on the intersection of personality and situational variables. To

do so, a number of methodological issues must be addressed. First, the scope of social contexts

should be deﬁned and described. Although there have been attempts to develop a taxonomy of social

situations, these efforts have had little success because of the vast numbers of potential situations

to be categorized (Yang, Read, & Miller, 2006). Perhaps a more useful way to conceptualize social

context is through social roles because this approach provides for a broader view of social context

(Roberts, 2007; Stryker, 2007). Social roles have been deﬁned as a “set of behavioral expectations

attached to a position in an organized set of social relationships” (Stryker, 2007, p. 1083). Based on

this deﬁnition, social roles can be conceptualized as “conglomerations of situations that all share a

common thread of expectations and behavioral signatures” (Roberts, 2007, p. 1073). For example,

leadership can be assessed across a variety of situations and interactions (e.g., work, community

activities) in which the individual is expected to take on a leadership role. This conceptualization of

social roles and related contexts is particularly useful because it parallels the notion of personality

traits as predispositions to engage in similar types of behaviors across situations.

A second issue in conducting this type of research is the method through which situational factors

are introduced to study participants. When social context has been included in personality research

designs, participants have often been asked directly to imagine themselves in a situation or role and

then to respond to questions as though they were in the situation (Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, &

34 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

Perunovic, 2007). This method is susceptible to the inﬂuence of social desirability bias and stereo-

types because participants may answer based on how they think they should feel or behave in these

situations, rather than on how they might actually feel or behave (Heller et al., 2007). Researchers

should therefore consider alternative methods for studying situational inﬂuences, such as the use

of diaries or the manipulation of the salience of social context during administration of personality

measures (Heller et al., 2007).

Another important point in designing research in this area is to avoid a dualistic approach that cre-

ates a false dichotomy between personality traits and social context. A more complex, interactional

perspective is needed, one that recognizes that personality traits and social context have a nonre-

cursive relationship, as each affects the other. Through such an approach, we can come to a better

understanding of personality as both stable and variable. One example of a more integrative method-

ology for personality/context research is the measurement of intra-individual variability or how much

individuals vary around their central tendency for a certain trait across situations (Fleeson, 2007).

Another example can be found in the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM; Wood

& Roberts, 2006), which provides a hierarchical framework for nesting individuals’ various role

identities (how they perceive themselves within certain contexts) within their general identity (how

they perceive their general personality). By determining stability in broad personality constructs,

we can gain knowledge regarding individual differences, and by addressing intra-person variability,

we can increase our knowledge of factors that inﬂuence the expression of behavior within settings

(Fleeson, 2007).

Personality researchers have devoted their efforts almost entirely to quantitative studies; yet, such

studies are limited in their potential to elucidate complex interactions among nets of personality

and situational variables. A quite different methodological approach for assessing meaningful situ-

ational categories and exploring the inﬂuence of social contexts is qualitative research. In contrast

to quantitative studies, grounded, ecological approaches do not impose preconceived structures on

study participants but rather allow them to explain what is meaningful within their own experience.

Qualitative researchers emphasize the importance of gaining the trust of participants so that they are

willing to provide veridical, nondefensive accounts of their lived experiences. Such approaches can

potentially lead to greater insight into meaningful categorizations of situational variables and their

relation to the expression of personality characteristics.

The link between social context and personality constructs is particularly important for the study

of gender and personality. Feminist theorists have criticized psychology researchers for accepting

ﬁndings of gender differences as an endpoint of research, thereby promoting an essentialist view of

gender. They argue that gender differences should be seen as a starting point for research to investi-

gate the underlying causes of these differences (Crawford & Unger, 2004; Yoder, 2003). As discussed

in this chapter, research on social context suggests that what differences do exist may be better

explained by social roles and situational contexts rather than by biological sex. Future researchers

should critically examine ﬁndings of gender differences in personality research and assess the role

of social factors in bringing about those observed differences.

Promising Directions for Studying Wellness and Transcendence

Psychology as a discipline has, in general, tended to focus on problematic and pathological char-

acteristics and behavior. Even in the ﬁeld of personality, which is by deﬁnition focused on normal

functioning and normal populations, little research has been directed toward the study of healthy

living, resilience, or transcendence from adversity. Three personality constructs have emerged that

2 Gender and Personality 35

appear to be promising steps in that direction and are refreshingly free of traditional gender con-

notations. Experience of pleasure is a construct deﬁned as the individual’s ability or willingness

to experience enjoyment in everyday life events (Gard, Gard, Kring, & John, 2006). Deﬁned as a

trait disposition, the experience of pleasure may be consummatory—the resolution of desire—or

may be the anticipation of the future fulﬁllment of a goal. The Temporal Experience of Pleasure

Scale (TEPS; Gard et al., 2006) was designed to measure both consummatory pleasure (e.g., “I

appreciate the beauty of a fresh snowfall”) and anticipatory pleasure (e.g., “Looking forward to

a pleasurable experience is in itself pleasurable”). The TEPS appears to have good psychometric

qualities: There is evidence for the distinction between consummatory and anticipatory pleasure

and for low correlations with social desirability, positive affect, and negative affect. Further atten-

tion to this construct is warranted because the ability to experience pleasure, particularly in the

types of everyday experiences described in the TEPS, may well lead to higher life satisfaction

for both women and men. It is interesting to ﬁnd preliminary evidence that women have scored

higher on both the Consummatory and Anticipatory subscales of the TEPS, with effect sizes in the

moderate range (d=0.42 and 0.49, respectively) and on the total TEPS (d=0.55; Gard et al.,

2006). If women do tend to draw more pleasure from everyday events, such a ﬁnding might help

to explain the lower incidence of dangerous risk taking, substance abuse, and anti-social behavior

in women.

Sense of Coherence

Sense of coherence (SOC) refers to a world perspective that provides meaning to the individ-

ual’s experience and that leads to successful coping and resilience under stress (Antonovsky,

1987). This model comprises three themes: (a) comprehensibility—the perspective that one’s sit-

uation and experiences are understandable and can be explained within a credible belief system;

(b) manageability—the assessment that one has the necessary resources to meet life circum-

stances; and (c) meaningfulness—the belief that life demands are worth one’s investment and

engagement. Feldt et al. (2007) reported that a measure designed to assess SOC appears to

be stable across time, particularly for people over age 30 (stability coefﬁcients =0.67–0.82).

Nevertheless, Feldt et al. (2007) have claimed that SOC develops over time from life experi-

ences and does not, as do personality traits, represent innate tendencies. They have difﬁculty in

making this distinction, however, partly because SOC has been highly related (r> –0.70) to neu-

roticism, which is viewed as a central aspect of personality. The value of the SOC construct

is that the focus of study is directed toward understanding characteristics of the individual that

promote health and wellness. Little empirical research is available on this topic thus far, but

women and men do not appear to be distinctly different in their SOC (Feldt et al., 2007). Future

researchers should consider ways in which all individuals may beneﬁt from a strong sense of

coherence.

A third new development in personality research is self-compassion, which refers to (a) showing

kindness and understanding toward oneself in difﬁcult times rather than becoming self-critical and

judgmental, (b) understanding that one’s hardships and inadequacies are shared by others as part of

the human experience rather than being particular to the self, and (c) allowing painful thoughts to be

experienced mindfully rather than either suppressing them or becoming overly identiﬁed with them

(Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007). The Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003) has been shown

to have strong psychometric properties; relates positively to measures of life satisfaction, capacity

for intimacy, and regulation of affect; and is negatively related to depression and anxiety (Neff,

2003; Neff et al., 2007). Gilbert (2005) has explained that self-compassionate people enjoy feelings

36 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

of well-being because they can soothe themselves when faced with adversity and failure, and they

experience a continued feeling of being cared for by the self and feeling emotionally connected to

others.

Self-compassion has been compared to self-esteem. Both qualities provide the beneﬁts of pos-

itive self-affect and self-acceptance; however, unlike self-compassion, the maintenance of high

self-esteem may depend on distorted, overly positive evaluations of the self and may be unsta-

ble across performance outcomes. Because self-compassion does not require positive evaluations

of one’s ability and judgments that the self is better than others, it may relate more consistently

to mental health. Self-esteem may be viewed as more relevant to the instrumental realm, whereas

self-compassion appears to be a more expressive characteristic. Thus, women may be somewhat

more capable of and prone to self-compassion than are men. However, because women are typi-

cally expected to care for others, giving priority to others over themselves, they may tend to be less

self-compassionate in some respects than are men. Given that self-compassion leads to the beneﬁts

of self-esteem without the potential costs, further investigation of this construct and of methods for

enhancing self-compassion in women and men appears to be a fruitful avenue of research. Indeed,

as Neff et al. (2007) have recommended, programs designed to develop self-compassion may be far

more effective than self-esteem enhancement programs for the promotion of mental health.

Conclusions

The ﬁeld of personality continues to hold promise as a means of elucidating how gendered pro-

cesses and structures in our society inﬂuence human behavior. However, to date, much personality

research has been designed and interpreted through an essentialist lens, and the ﬁeld has been slow

to consider the interface of personality and contextual factors. More emphasis is needed on captur-

ing the subtle and ongoing interplay of relationships between peoples’ personality tendencies and

situational cues, opportunities, and pressures, as well as the long-term effects of environments on

the individual. Alternate methodological approaches are needed to accomplish this task, and more

recent research paradigms are emerging that place more emphasis on person/context connections

and that measure intrapersonal as well as interpersonal variation in cognition, affect, and behavior.

Although quantitative research methods can harvest a wealth of data to inform our understanding

of gender, qualitative methodologies can provide an important means of moving beyond essentialist

paradigms to enlighten our understanding of the salient contextual and cultural inﬂuences that shape

people’s gendered behavior.

References

Allgood-Merton, B., & Stockard, J. (1991). Sex role identity and self-esteem: A comparison of children and

adolescents. Sex Roles, 25, 129–139.

Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the ﬁve factor model of personality: An examination

using the structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 167–201.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better perfor-

mance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4,

1–44.

Becker, G. (2006). NEO-FFI scores in college men and women: A view from McDonald’s uniﬁed treatment of test

theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 911–941.

2 Gender and Personality 37

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,

155–162.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic inﬂuence on human psychological traits. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

13, 148–151.

Bozionelos, N., & Bozionelos, G. (2003). Instrumental and expressive traits: Their relationship and their association

with biological sex. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 423–430.

Bruch, M. A. (2002). The relevance of mitigated and unmitigated agency and communion for depression vulnerabili-

ties and dysphoria. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 449–459.

Brummett, B. H., Babyak, M. A., Williams, R. B., Barefoot, J. C., Costa, P. T., & Siegler, I. C. (2006). NEO personality

domains and gender predict levels and trends in body mass index over 14 years during midlife. Journal of Research

in Personality, 40, 222–236.

Burleson, B. R., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2002). Explaining sex differences in interaction goals in support situations: Some

mediating effects of expressivity and instrumentality. Communication Reports, 15, 43–55.

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity–femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80,

389–407.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory

(NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust

and surprising ﬁndings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (2004). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Dinda, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112,

106–124.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Feingold, J. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.

Feldt, T., Metsapelto, R., Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2007). Sense of coherence and ﬁve-factor approach to

personality: Conceptual relationships. European Psychologist, 12, 165–172.

Fertman, C. I., & Chubb, N. H. (1992). The effects of a psychoeducational program on adolescents’ activity

involvement, self-esteem, and locus of control. Adolescence, 27, 517–526.

Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of

Personality, 75, 825–861.

Gabbard, G. O. (2005). Mind, brain, and personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 648–655.

Gard, D. E., Gard, M. G., Kring, A. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Anticipatory and consummatory components of the

experience of pleasure: A scale development study. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1086–1102.

Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocial approach. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion:

Conceptualisations, research, and use in psychotherapy (pp. 9–74). London: Routledge.

Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.),

Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87–116). New York: Plenum Press.

Haslam, N. (1997). Evidence that male sexual orientation is a matter of degree. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73, 862–870.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations.

Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428.

Heller, D., Watson, D., Komar, J., Min, J., & Perunovic, W. Q. E. (2007). Contextualized personality: Traditional and

new assessment procedures. Journal of Personality, 75, 1229–1253.

Helwig-Larson, M., Cunningham, S. J., Carrico, A., & Pergram, A. M. (2004). To nod or not to nod: An observational

study of nonverbal communication and status in female and male college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

28, 358–361.

Hermann, K. S., & Betz, N. E. (2006). Path models of the relationship of instrumentality and expressiveness,

social self-efﬁcacy, and self-esteem to depressive symptoms in college students. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 25, 1086–1106.

Hoffman, M. L., Powlishta, K. K., & White, K. J. (2004). An examination of gender differences in adolescent adjust-

ment: The effect of competence on gender role differences in symptoms of psychopathology. Sex Roles, 50,

795–810.

Hunt, M. G. (1993). Expressiveness does predict well-being. Sex Roles, 29, 147–169.

Huselid, R. F., & Cooper, M. L. (1994). Gender roles as mediators of sex differences in expression of pathology.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 595–603.

38 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham T. (2000). Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or

differential motivation? Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109.

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to

experiencing problem-solving deﬁcits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.

Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E., & Hansson, R. O. (1978). The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for

males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 298–313.

Kaminski, P. L., Shafer, M. E., Neumann, C. S., & Ramos, V. (2005). Self-concept in Mexican American girls and

boys: Validating the Self-Description Questionnaire I. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11,

321–338.

Klein, K. J., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to

understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470–500.

LaFrance, M., Hecht, M., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). Contingent smile: Meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling.

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.

Lengua, L. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, gender roles, and personality: Gender differences in the prediction

of coping and psychological symptoms. Sex Roles, 43, 787–820.

Lippa, R. (2001). On deconstructing and reconstructing masculinity–femininity. Journal of Research in Personality,

35, 168–207.

Lippa, R. A. (2005). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16, 119–153.

Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Belhekar, V. M. (2002). The ﬁve-factor model of personality: Measurement and correlates in

the Indian context. In R. R. McCrae, & J. Allik (Eds.), The ﬁve-factor model of personality across cultures (pp.

227–248). New York: Kluwer.

Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 countries.

Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 369–373.

Major, B., Barr, L., Zubek, J., & Babey, S. H. (1999). Gender and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. In W. B. Swann, J.

Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor

Spence (pp. 223–253). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Manstead, A. (1992). Gender differences in emotion. In A. Gale, & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of individual

differences: Biological perspectives (pp. 355–387). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Marsh, H. W. (1988). Self-Description Questionnaire II: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of

multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Marsh, H. W. (1992a). Self-Description Questionnaire II: Manual. Macarthur, Australia: Publication Unit, Faculty of

Education, University of Western Sydney.

Marsh, H. W. (1992b). Self-Description Questionnaire III: Manual. Macarthur, Australia: Publication Unit, Faculty

of Education, University of Western Sydney.

Marsh, H. W. (2003). Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more differentiated with age? The differential

distinctiveness hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 687–706.

Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., & Ayotte, V. (2004). A multidimensional perspective of relations between self-concept

(Self-Description Questionnaire II) and adolescent mental health (Youth Self-Report). Psychological Assessment,

16, 27–41.

Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., & Senin, I. G. (2000, July). Applications of the Russian NEO-PI-R.

Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.

McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69,

819–846.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Yik, M. S. M. (1996). Universal aspects of Chinese personality structure. In M. H.

Bond (Ed.)? The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 189–207). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Miller, R. J. (2001). Gender differences in illusion response: The inﬂuence of spatial strategy and sex ratio. Sex Roles,

44, 209–225.

Moskowitz, D. S, Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational inﬂuences on gender differences in agency and

communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 753–761.

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2,

233–250.

Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal

of Research in Personality, 41, 139–154.

2 Gender and Personality 39

Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61,

622–631.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Pillard, R. C. (1991). Masculinity and femininity in homosexuality: “Inversion” revisited. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D.

Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 32–43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Ballentine Books.

Roberts, B. W. (2007). Contextualizing personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 75, 1071–1082.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp.

27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press.

Rubinstein, G., & Strul, S. (2006). The ﬁve factor model (FFM) among four groups of male and female professionals.

Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 931–937.

Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., Di Dio, L., & Aube, J. (1997). Agency, communion, and well-being: Extending Helgeson’s

(1994) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 593–609.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the big ﬁve? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.

Sellers, J. G., Mehl, M. R., & Josephs, R. A. (2006). Hormones and personality: Testosterone as a marker of individual

differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 126–138.

Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2005). Structure and change in self-concept during adolescence. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 37, 83–96.

Sharpe, M. J., Heppner, P. P., & Dixon, W. A. (1995). Gender role conﬂict, instrumentality, expressiveness, and well-

being in adult men. Sex Roles, 33, 1–18.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review

of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in

the big-ﬁve personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships

with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147–163.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological mas-

culinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers in sex-role attributes and their relation

to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,

29–39.

Stake, J. E. (1992). Gender differences and similarities in self-concept within everyday life contexts. Psychological of

Women Quarterly, 16, 349–363.

Stake, J. E. (1994). Development and validation of the Six-Factor Self-Concept Scale for Adults. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 54, 56–72.

Stake, J. E. (1997). Integrating expressiveness and instrumentality in real-life settings: A new perspective on the

beneﬁts of androgyny. Sex Roles, 37, 541–564.

Stake, J. E. (2000). When situations call for instrumentality and expressiveness: Resource appraisal, coping strategy

choice, and adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 865–885.

Stake, J. E., Zand, D., & Smalley, R. (1996). The relation of instrumentality and expressiveness to self-concept and

adjustment: A social context perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 167–190.

Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1992). The effect of agency and communality on self-esteem: Gender

differences in longitudinal data. Sex Roles, 26, 465–483.

Stryker, S. (2007). Identity theory and personality theory: Mutual relevance. Journal of Personality, 75, 1083–1102.

Swann, W. B., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and

self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 84–94.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.

Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O., (2003). Mind reading accuracy in intimate relationships: Assessing the roles of the

relationship, the target, and the judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1079–1094.

Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1984). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12,

207–225.

40 J.E. Stake and H. Eisele

Wilgenbusch, T., & Merrell, K. W. (1999). Gender differences in self-concept among children and adolescents: A

meta-analysis of multidimensional studies. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 101–120.

Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the personality and role identity structural

model (PRISM). Journal of Personality, 74, 779–809.

Woodhill, B. M., & Samuels, C. A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their relationship with psychological

health and well-being. Sex Roles, 48, 555–565.

Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept (Vol. 1). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept (Vol. 2). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms. Journal of Research in

Personality, 40, 750–778.

Yanico, B. J., & Lu, T. G. C. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the Six-Factor Self-Concept Scale in a sample of

racial/ethnic minority women. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 84–97.

Yoder, J. D. (2003). Women and gender: Transforming psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Validation of an abbreviated Big Five personality inventory at large population scale: Psychometric structure and associations with common psychiatric and neurological disorders

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024
COMPR PSYCHIAT

Finding an Effective Classification Technique to Develop a Software Team Composition Model

Preprint

Nov 2017

Ineffective software team composition has become recognized as a prominent aspect of software project failures. Reports from results extracted from different theoretical personality models have produced contradicting fits, validity challenges, and missing guidance during software development personnel selection. It is also believed that the technique/s used while developing a model can impact the overall results. Thus, this study aims to: 1) discover an effective classification technique to solve the problem, and 2) develop a model for composition of the software development team. The model developed was composed of three predictors: team role, personality types, and gender variables; it also contained one outcome: team performance variable. The techniques used for model development were logistic regression, decision tree, and Rough Sets Theory (RST). Higher prediction accuracy and reduced pattern complexity were the two parameters for selecting the effective technique. Based on the results, the Johnson Algorithm (JA) of RST appeared to be an effective technique for a team composition model. The study has proposed a set of 24 decision rules for finding effective team members. These rules involve gender classification to highlight the appropriate personality profile for software developers. In the end, this study concludes that selecting an appropriate classification technique is one of the most important factors in developing effective models.

Barn og unge i fattige familier: Selvoppfattet skolekompetanse, etnisitet og akademisk resiliens [Children and Young People in Low-income Families: Self-Perceived School Competence, Ethnicity and Academic Resilience].

Thesis

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Anja Johnsen

https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/handle/11250/2770778

Penalized for Challenging Traditional Gender Roles: Why Heterosexual Relationships in Which Women Wear the Pants May Be More Precarious

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022
SEX ROLES

There is growing evidence that heterosexual relationships in which traditional gender roles are reversed because women have attained higher societal status than their male partner are more precarious. We argue that this is the case because both partners in role-reversed relationships are evaluated more negatively than partners in more egalitarian or traditional gender role relationships. In two experimental studies conducted in the United States ( N = 223) and the Netherlands ( N = 269), we found that when encountering role-reversed relationships, participants perceive the woman as the more dominant and agentic one and the man as the weaker one in the relationship. They also perceive women in role-reversed relationships as less likeable, have less respect for men in role-reversed relationships, and expect that such relationships are less satisfying. In addition, in a third partner study ( N = 94 heterosexual couples), we found that both male and female partners in role-reversed relationships considered the man to be the weaker one and the woman to be the more dominant one. Moreover, perceiving the man as the weaker one predicted lower relationship satisfaction in role-reversed couples. Overall, this research indicates that gender stereotypes about heterosexual relationships should be considered in efforts to achieve gender equity.

The associations between the Big Five personality factors and religiosity among university students from Egypt

Article

Mar 2025

Ahmed M Abdel-Khalek

Purpose Most studies on the association between the Big Five (BF) personality traits and religiosity have been conducted on western samples. This study aims to explore this association using Egyptian university students. Design/methodology/approach A sample of Alexandria University undergraduates ( n = 1,579) responded to the Arabic Big Five Personality Inventory and a self-rating scale of religiosity. Findings Men obtained significantly higher mean total scores than did women for extraversion, openness and conscientiousness, whereas women had a significantly higher mean total score than did men for neuroticism. All the correlations between BF and religiosity in men were statistically significant and positive, except for neuroticism and religiosity (non-significant). Among women, all these correlations were statistically significant and positive, except with neuroticism (negative). Principal components analysis extracted two components, which were labeled “Positive personality traits and religiosity” and “Neuroticism versus extraversion” in both sexes. Regression analysis indicated that the predictors of religiosity were conscientiousness and agreeableness among men. For women, the predictors of religiosity were conscientiousness, agreeableness and low neuroticism. Research limitations/implications The results in the present Egyptian sample reflect the general pattern observed in the international studies. A potential clinical implication may be to integrate Islamic beliefs and practices in psychotherapeutic procedures among university students. Practical implications The next step would be to conduct a longitudinal study using a general population sample with a large age range. Furthermore, the reasons for the importance of religiosity in the life of Muslim participants is a suggested topic for a deep study. On the basis of the importance of religion among Arab participants, a potential clinical implication may be to integrate Islamic beliefs and practices in psychotherapeutic procedures among university students. Social implications The selection of this sample makes the cross-cultural comparison viable. Notwithstanding these sharp differences, the result’s similarities overshadow differences. Originality/value The studies on the present subject using Egyptian participants are few, notwithstanding the high mean score of religiosity among them.

Many Roads Lead to Rome—College, Career, Commitment (Marriage or Profession), Oh My: Is Conceiving All These Still Extrinsically Linked in the Age of Fake News And COVID-19?

Chapter

Dec 2022

"الصمود النفسي وعلاقتة بمفهوم الذات لدى المرأة المعيلة فى ضوء العوامل الخمسة الكبرى للشخصية "

Article

Apr 2024

أحمد فخري هاني

Network analysis to examine sex differences linked to emotional well-being in cardiovascular disease

Article

Mar 2024

Psychosocial dimensions are essential to guarantee an optimal approach to improve emotional well-being in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is evidence of sex differences regarding these dimensions. Thus, the connections between them are crucial to implement personalized therapies. Network model analyses were conducted on data from 593 CVD patients. The models included scores from the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), positive (PA) and negative affect (NA), positivity (PS), satisfaction of life (SLS), social support (SS), self-efficacy on emotion regulation (RESE), cardiac self-efficacy (CSE) and the Short Form-12 Health Survey. The main sex differences were found in: PA-PS ( p = 0.03), SS-RESE ( p = 0.04), for which the positive associations are stronger for men than for women and PA-RESE ( p < 0.01) for which the positive association is stronger for women than for men. These nuances should be considered to implement tailored and integrative therapies for each CVD patient.

Agreeableness modulates mental state decoding: Electrophysiological evidence

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Agreeableness is one of the five personality traits which is associated with theory of mind (ToM) abilities. One of the critical processes involved in ToM is the decoding of emotional cues. In the present study, we investigated whether this process is modulated by agreeableness using electroencephalography (EEG) while taking into account task complexity and sex differences that are expected to moderate the relationship between emotional decoding and agreeableness. This approach allowed us to identify at which stage of the neural processing agreeableness kicks in, in order to distinguish the impact on early, perceptual processes from slower, inferential processing. Two tasks were employed and submitted to 62 participants during EEG recording: the reading the mind in the eyes (RME) task, requiring the decoding of complex mental states from eye expressions, and the biological (e)motion task, involving the perception of basic emotional actions through point‐light body stimuli. Event‐related potential (ERP) results showed a significant correlation between agreeableness and the contrast for emotional and non‐emotional trials in a late time window only during the RME task. Specifically, higher levels of agreeableness were associated with a deeper neural processing of emotional versus non‐emotional trials within the whole and male samples. In contrast, the modulation in females was negligible. The source analysis highlighted that this ERP‐agreeableness association engages the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Our findings expand previous research on personality and social processing and confirm that sex modulates this relationship.

Gender and Personality Research in Psychology: The Need for Intersectionality

Chapter

Jul 2020

Gender Roles as Mediators of Sex Differences in Expressions of Pathology

Article

Full-text available

Nov 1994

This study tested the extent to which gender role attributes and gender role ideology account for sex differences in internally directed psychological distress and in externally directed deviant behavior in a random sample of 2,013 adolescents. Results indicate that gender roles substantially mediate sex differences in both types of pathology: Masculine instrumental attributes reduce internalized distress, whereas feminine expressive attributes reduce externalized behavior problems. In addition, conventional gender role attitudes were positively related to externalizing problems among male adolescents, but were unrelated to pathology among female adolescents. These associations were largely equivalent across Black and White racial groups and across age groups (13 to 19 years). Two alternative theoretical models linking gender roles and pathology are discussed.

Situational Influences on Gender Differences in Agency and Communion

Article

Full-text available

Apr 1994

Gender differences were examined in the context of situational effects. Participants monitored interpersonal behavior for 20 days, using an event-sampling strategy. The monitored behaviors reflected dominance and submissiveness (components of agency) and agreeableness and quarrelsomeness (components of communion). The situations reflected differences in the status of work roles: interactions with boss, co-worker, and supervisee. Status influenced agency. Individuals were most agentic when with a supervisee and least agentic when with a boss. Gender did not influence agency but did influence communal behaviors. Women were more communal regardless of social role status; women were especially communal with other women, compared with men with men. Findings about agency supported a social role theory interpretation of gender differences. Results for communion were consistent with accounts of the influence of sex segregation on interpersonal relationships.

Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors

Article

Full-text available

Oct 1979

Negatively valued masculinity (M^A–)) and femininity (F^A–)) personality scales were developed to supplement the positively valued Masculinity (M^A+)) and Femininity (F^A+)) scales of J. T. Spence and R. L. Helmreich"s (1978) Personal Attributes Questionnaire. (M^A–)) consisted of traits that had been judged to be (a) more typical of males than females, (b) undesirable in both sexes, and (c) agentic or instrumental in content. Two (F^A–)) scales were developed, both containing stereotypically feminine, undesirable traits, one set of traits referring to communionlike characteristics and the other to verbal passive–aggressive qualities. In 220 male and 363 female undergraduates significant sex differences in the predicted direction were found on all scales. In both sexes, low and nonsignificant correlations were found between parallel positive and negative scales, but highly significant negative correlations were found between positive and negative cross-sex scales. Findings provide additional evidence for the multidimensionality of masculinity and femininity. Scores on a self-esteem measure were positively correlated with M^A+) and F^A+), uncorrelated with M^A–), and negatively correlated with the F^A–) scales. Different patterns were associated with 2 types of problem behaviors. Neuroticism was most highly correlated (negatively) with M^A+), and acting out behavior was most strongly correlated (positively) with M^A–). (14 ref)

Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2001

Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality Inventory data from 26 cultures (N = 23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.

Masculinity and Femininity in Homosexuality: “Inversion” Revisited

Chapter

Jan 1991

Richard C Pillard

The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality

Article

Nov 1993

The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for males and females?

Article

Jan 1978

• A program of studies, comprising a total population of 1,404 college students, tested the hypothesis that psychological androgyny (i.e., a balance of masculine and feminine characteristics) permits greater behavioral flexibility and consequently leads to better adjustment. A variety of methods were used to compare androgynous with sex-typed and opposite sex-typed Ss (determined by the Bem Sex-Role Inventory) along several attitudinal, personality, and behavioral dimensions. Contrary to expectation a pattern of findings replicated across measures of attitudes toward women's issues, gender identification, neurosis, introversion–extraversion, locus of control, self-esteem, problems with alcohol, creativity, political awareness, confidence in one's own ability, helplessness, and sexual maturity indicated that flexibility and adjustment were generally associated with masculinity rather than androgyny for both males and females. Feminine Ss, independent of gender, would prefer to become more masculine were that possible. These results are interpreted as suggesting an alternative to S. L. Bem's theory of androgyny. Additional analyses indicated few differences between the additive and the original definitions of androgyny. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) • A program of studies, comprising a total population of 1,404 college students, tested the hypothesis that psychological androgyny (i.e., a balance of masculine and feminine characteristics) permits greater behavioral flexibility and consequently leads to better adjustment. A variety of methods were used to compare androgynous with sex-typed and opposite sex-typed Ss (determined by the Bem Sex-Role Inventory) along several attitudinal, personality, and behavioral dimensions. Contrary to expectation a pattern of findings replicated across measures of attitudes toward women's issues, gender identification, neurosis, introversion–extraversion, locus of control, self-esteem, problems with alcohol, creativity, political awareness, confidence in one's own ability, helplessness, and sexual maturity indicated that flexibility and adjustment were generally associated with masculinity rather than androgyny for both males and females. Feminine Ss, independent of gender, would prefer to become more masculine were that possible. These results are interpreted as suggesting an alternative to S. L. Bem's theory of androgyny. Additional analyses indicated few differences between the additive and the original definitions of androgyny. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion

Article

Jan 2003
SELF IDENTITY

K.D. Neff

Gender and self-esteem: A meta-analysis

Article

Jan 1999

Genes and Human Psychological Traits

Chapter

Apr 2008

Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.

This chapter shows that genetic variation is an important feature of virtually every human psychological trait and must be taken into account in any comprehensive explanation (theory) of human behaviour. It begins by discussing the mistaken but widely held belief that 'genetic variance' is an indicator of the biological or evolutionary unimportance of a trait. It then turns to the role of quantitative genetic methods in modern biology. Application of these methods across a very large number of quantitative characteristics of an equally large number of species leads to the conclusion that almost all quantitative characters are heritable. This truism is illustrated for the major domains of normal human individual differences: mental ability, personality, psychological interests, and social attitudes. It is shown that compared with effects in social psychology, ecology, and evolution, as well as psychological assessment and treatment, known quantitative genetic influence on human psychological traits should be considered large in magnitude. The argument that ' there are no genes for behaviour' is refuted using 'clockwork'genes as an example. Using the example of corn oil, it is also shown the fact that finding genes for a quantitative character can be very difficult. The chapter concludes by pointing out that molecular genetics will not replace quantitative genetics; rather, the two levels of analysis will fit together seamlessly.

Gender and Personality

Abstract

Recommended publications

Gender Features of Trust Crisis Experience

Linking Personality States, Current Social Roles and Major Life Goals

“… And How About Now?”: Effects of Item Redundancy on Contextualized Self‐Reports of Personality

Variability in Personality Expression Across Contexts: A Social Network Approach

The future of person–situation integration in the interface between traits and goals: A bottom-up fr...