Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
3/4, 1985
and feminine personality traits) are flexible, exhibiting both masculine and
feminine sex-role behavior as called for by the situation, whereas sex-typed
individuals are restricted in their self-concepts and behaviors. These latter
individuals process information in terms of strict gender schemas and,
therefore, tend to restrict their behavioral repertoire to stereotypically
gender-specific behaviors while avoiding behaviors typically associated with
the other sex. Implicit in this theorizing is the assumption that "there are
global self-concepts of masculinity and femininity that are unidimensional
and therefore can be satisfactorily measured by an instrument whose con-
tent is largely restricted to abstract instrumental and expressive personality
traits" (Spence & Helmreich, 1980, p. 152). Also implied by this concept is
an expectation that sex-role phenomena--instrumental and expressive per-
sonality traits, sex-role attitudes, and stereotypically masculine and
feminine role behaviors and i n t e r e s t s - a r e closely interrelated, at least for
those individuals who identify with stereotypic sex roles. Thus, considerable
overlap is anticipated by this approach among sex-role traits, attitudes, and
behaviors.
The social learning perspective of Spence and Helmreich, on the other
hand, asserts a general independence of sex-role personality traits, atti-
tudes, and behaviors. These authors argue that many factors, in addition to
personality traits, influence individuals' sex-role enactments, including, "a
general tendency to conform to societal norms, personal commitment to the
values implicit in role expectations, a desire to escape negative sanctions, or
a conviction that one can best manipulate situations to one's own advan-
tage . . ." (Spence, 1979, p. 170). Spence and Helmreich (1980) even go so
far as to recommend that the stereotypically masculine and feminine per-
sonality traits assessed by contemporary sex-role measures (like the Bern
Sex-Role Inventory or Spence and Helmreich's Personal Attributes Ques-
tionnaire) should cease to be considered sex-role phenomena and instead
should be seen simply as instrumental and expressive social skills, respec-
tively . 2
Both positions have received empirical support. Bem's arguments have
been supported by research demonstrating that individuals with traditional
sex-role personality traits (masculine-typed males, feminine-typed females)
are more likely to engage in gender-based schematic processing and to avoid
cross-sex behaviors than individuals with nontraditional (androgynous) per-
2Spence and Helmreich (1980) make some allowance for overlap between sex-role personality
traits and behaviors insofar as some stereotypicallymasculine-role behaviors may require in-
strumental personality traits for their performance and certain feminine-role behaviors may
demand expressive traits and social skills. However, because many role behaviors do not
directly demand instrumental or expressive skills, these authors anticipate much less overlap
between these traits and sex-role behaviors than Bern does.
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 379
sonality traits (Bern, 1975; 1981; Bern & Lenney, 1976; Orlofsky & Windle,
1978).
On the other hand, Spence's arguments that individuals' sex-role atti-
tudes and behaviors are largely independent of their masculine and feminine
traits have also received support. Low, often nonsignificant correlations
have been found between masculine and feminine personality traits and
other sex-role phenomena such as attitudes toward the rights and roles of
men and women (Orlofsky, Aslin, & Ginsburg, 1977; Spence, Helmreich, &
Stapp, 1975; Spence & Helmreich, 1980), vocational and recreational inter-
ests (Spence, 1979; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and marital household
responsibilities (Orlofsky & Stake, 1981).
These discrepant findings have not resolved the differences between
the two perspectives, and questions remain regarding the dimensionality of
sex-role phenomena and the extent to which (and conditions under which)
sex-role behaviors covary with sex-role traits and attitudes. These questions
are significant, given the potential richness of Bem's theorizing, on the one
hand, and, on the other, the importance of Spence and Helmreich's con-
cerns that we not overgeneralize from the trait to the behavioral domain or
equate androgyny with sex-role transcendence. Such oversimplication could
obfuscate the many variables that influence sex-role behavior, and would
hamper understanding of the ways sex roles are changing in contemporary
society and implications of these changes for individuals and the larger
society.
The objective of the present research was to examine the interrelated-
ness of sex-role phenomena more broadly than it has been studied in the
past using the recently developed and revised Sex-Role Behavior Scale
(SRBS) (Orlofsky, 1981; Orlofsky, Ramsden, & Cohen, 1982). This lengthy
scale attempts to sample the behavioral domain of sex roles comprehensive-
ly by including items in four broad content areas: recreational activities,
vocational interests, social interaction, and marital or primary relationship
behaviors. These items are organized into three overall scales on the basis of
their sex-role stereotypes. Behaviors that are stereotypically masculine or
feminine (considered more typical of men or women, respectively) but seen
as acceptable for both sexes are designated male-valued (M) and female-
valued (F), respectively. Beahviors that are considered more typical of one
sex than the other and appropriate for only that sex as well are designated as
sex-specific (MF). 3
JYbe reader ~,ill note that these three scales parallel the scales of Spence and Helmreich's(1978)
personality trait measure of sex roles, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). This
resemblance derives from the fact that the construction of the SRBS was modeled after that of
the PAQ. Spence and Helmreich's two-step procedure (combiningtypical and ideal ratings to
determine the sex-role stereotype of potential items) was used as a model because of its ability
to identify aspects of masculinity and femininity that follow a bipolar format (MF scale) as
well as those that are independent or orthogonal to each other (M and F scales).
380 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden
4These interarea subscale correlations ranged f r o m . 18 to .43 for the M subscales, .37 to .50 for
the F subscales, and .66 to .82 for the MF subscales for the combined sexes. Although several
of the interarea subscale correlations were smaller for the sexes considered separately, all were
positive and the majority (70%) were significant (r - .20, p < .05).
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 381
among the three levels of sex-role phenomena would lend support to Bem's
gender schema theory, while minimal relationships wound support Spence
and Helmreich's arguments regarding the general independence of sex-role
phenomena.
METItOD
Subjects
Subjects were 100 male and 100 female college undergraduate students
enrolled in Introductory Psychology classes at the University of
M i s s o u r i - S t . Louis, an urban commuter university. Subjects fulfilled a
course experiment participation requirement and received nominal credit
for their participation.
Measures
the overall and area subscales are presented in Orlofsky et al. (1982), includ-
ing mean scores, internal consistency coefficients, and intercorrelations.
Sex-role personality traits were measured by the 24-item (short form)
P A Q (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Like the SRBS-2, this measure contains
male-valued, female-valued, and sex-specific scales. Subjects rate the
bipolar trait items for which pole is more characteristic of themselves using
a five-point ( 0 - 4 ) rating scale.
Sex-role attitudes were measured by the 25-item Attitudes Toward
Women Scale (AWS) (Spence et al., 1973). Subjects rate their agreement-
disagreement with the attitude statements on a 4-point (0-3) scale. Higher
scores indicate less traditional, more egalitarian attitudes.
Procedure
RESULTS
SThis sex masculine-trait group (above vs. below the scale median) x feminine-trait group
(2 2 x 2) analysis of variance is preferable to the more commonly used sex x PAQ
category (2 4) analysis because the former permits direct tests of both the simple and inter-
active effects of masculinity and femininity while also yielding the same information regard-
ing the four PAQ categories as the latter.
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 383
Table I. Correlations of SRBS-2 Overall Scales with PAQ and Attitude Toward Women Scale
(AWS) Scores"
PAQ scales
SRBS-2 scales Male-valued Female-valued Sex-specific AWS
Male-valued (M)
Men ,37" .11 .28' - .24"
Women .57" _19 .37" .14
Female-valued IF)
Men .02 .37L' - .20' .08
Women .33L .25h - . 11 - .21 ~'
Sex-specific (MF)
Men .36" .03 .33' - .35'
Women .24b ,00 .34" .44"
"The correlations of greatest interest with respect to the PAQ/SRBS relationships appear in the
downward diagonal through the first three columns, since these point to the relationships be-
tween the corresponding sex-role scales.
';o < .05.
~p < .01.
I'--
>-
-,'-
.> .~
~.,-4
,.-4,
~D ""4
,.-,~
o~:z:
X +~
-! o
~"~
~ 2 . =- o~x x xW V
x
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 395
<
O'2
<
t-
o o, -.-.
O~
O
-q
,.o
rq
<
.o
Sex-Ro|e Behavior Scale 387
e,le4 ~
i '~ I I ' '~g "aa
~'~
-- o . "~
m~
...'~
~a
I
:.E
DISCUSSION
sex were far from perfect, particularly for the separate behavior areas. Fur-
thermore, even within the behavioral domain, the behavior area subscales
have been shown to be only partially interrelated (Orlofsky et al., 1982).
These findings support the distinctions drawn by Spence and Helmreich. As
these authors point out, sex-role behaviors are not merely a function of an
individual's instrumental and expressive personality traits. "Many other
variables, such as abilities, interests, attitudes, values, and external
pressures must be taken into account" (Spence & Helmreich, 1980, p. 161).
Thus, though there is some overlap among sex-role phenomena, masculinity
and femininity are not unidimensional, and sex-role behaviors and interests
may not be inferred automatically from sex-role traits or attitudes. This
conclusion does not invalidate gender schema theory, which does not re-
quire perfect correspondence between sex-role traits and behaviors, and cer-
tainly more direct tests of it than the methods employed here have sup-
ported it (e.g., Bern, 1981; Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982).
Rather, the present findings lend some perspective on the limits of the sex-
role trait/behavior relationship, conceived broadly, and they underline the
need for independent assessment of the trai~t, attitude, and behavioral levels
of sex roles if were to fully examine the ways sex roles are changing in socie-
ty and the implications of these changes for individuals and society.
REFERENCES
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimen-
sions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.
Spence, J. T,, & Helmreich, R. L. Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness:
Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 1980, 5, 147-163.
Spencc, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women
Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 219-220.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers on sex-role attributes and
their relations to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29-39.