Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Sex Roles, Vol. 12, Nos.

3/4, 1985

Relationship Between Sex-Role Attitudes and Per-


sonality Traits and the Revised Sex-Role Behavior
Scale
Jacob L. Orlofsky, j Ralph S. Cohen, and Mark W. Ramsden
University of YPssouri- St. Louis

Two hundred college men and women completed self-report measures o f


sex-role traits (Personal Attributes Questionnaire), attitudes (Attitudes
Toward Women Scale), and behavior (Sex-Role Behavior Scale). Inter-
correlations among the three measures were examined to test two competing
theoretical perspectives which dominate sex-role research today. The social
learning poin,f-of-view o f Janet Spence and her colleagues asserts a general
independence o f sex-role personality traits, attitudes, and behaviors. The
cognitive-developmental theory o f Sandra Bern asserts that sex-role
phenomena are fairly closely interrelated, at least f o r sex-typed individuals
whose gender schemas cause them to adhere closely to traditional sex-role
norms in their self-concepts and behavior. Findings o f moderate relation-
ships between masculine, feminine, and sex-specific personality traits, and
the corresponding interest~behavior scales o f the Sex-Role Behavior Scale,
and between sex-role attitudes and behaviors lend partial support to both
perspectives.

Two theoretical perspectives dominate sex-role research today: the


cognitive-developmental approach of Sandra Bern (1975, 1981) and the
social learning perspective of Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich (Spence,
1979; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Though these perspectives differ in other
respects, a m a j o r area of difference has to do with their assumptions regard-
ing the dimensionality, or interrelatedness, of sex-role phenomena. Accord-
ing to Bern, androgynous individuals (those scoring high in both masculine

IRequests for reprints should be sent to Jacob L. Orlofsky, Department of Psychology,


University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121.
377

()3(~0 0025.'85~0200 0177s04.~0,'0 : 198~ Plu,nmll ]'tlbJi~,llillg C o r p o r a t i o n


378 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

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

An earlier version of the Sex-Role Behavior Scale, the SRBS-1, was


used to examine the relationship of sex-role behaviors with measures of sex-
role traits (the PAQ) and attitudes (Attitudes Toward Women Scale, or
AWS; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973). That research found only
minimal relationships among the three types of sex-role measures (Orlof-
sky, 1981). Individuals with nontraditional sex-role trait organization (an-
drogynous and cross sex-typed) tended to be somewhat less traditional in
their role behaviors and interests than sex-typed individuals, and persons
with more egalitarian attitudes were less traditional in their role behaviors
than those with more traditional sex-role attitudes. However, these dif-
ferences tended to be small, suggesting (consistent with Spence and
Helmreich's position) that masculinity and femininity are not unidimen-
sional constructs and that there is only a partial correspondence among
individuals' sex-role traits, attitudes, and behaviors.
Since the 1981 article, the SRBS has been revised to expand the con-
tent area subscales and improve their psychometric properties. The revised
scale, the SRBS-2 (Orlofsky, et al., 1982), contains not only the overall M,
F, and MF behavior scales, but also subscales of these within each of the
four content areas, all of them with adequate internal consistency for in-
dependent use. (Thus, 12 subscale scores may be d e r i v e d - M , F, and MF
recreational activities, vocational interests, social interaction, and marital
or primary relationship behavior subscales in addition to the overall M, F,
and MF scales.) Correlational analyses of these area subscales (Orlofsky, et
al., 1982) revealed a fair degree of consistency from one behavior area to
another within each overall scale, sufficient consistency to merit the use of
the overall M, F, and MF scores when global sex-role behavior assessments
are desired, but not enough when more detailed and accurate assessments
are needed .4 The partial independence of behavior areas within each overall
scale suggests that tests of the sex-role trait/attitude/behavior relationship
should be conducted for the separate behavior areas rather than simply for
the overall M, F, and MF scales. Thus, the present study utilized the
separate content area subscales as w e l l as the overall M, F, and MF behavior
scales in examining the trait/attitude/behavior relationship.
In summary, the present research used the overall and separate
behavior area scales of the SRBS-2 to examine opposing predictions derived
from Bem's (1981) cognitive-developmental and Spence and Helmreich's
(1980) social learning perspectives regarding the interrelationship of sex-role
personality traits, attitudes, and behavior. Moderate to strong relationships

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

Sea" role behaviors were measured by the SRBS-2 (Orlofsky et al.,


1982), a 240-item inventory, consisting of male- and female-valued and sex-
specific interests and behaviors in four behavior areas: recreational activi-
ties, vocational interests, social interaction, and marital or primary relation-
ship behavior. Subjects rate each item on a five-point scale for how char-
acteristic the interest or activity is of themselves. The five-point scale ranges
from "Not at all characteristic of me" (1), consecutively through "Hardly"
(2), "Slightly" (3), "Moderately" (4), to "Extremely characteristic of me" (5)
for the first three behavior areas. The fourth area, marital or primary rela-
tionship behavior, utilizes a somewhat different scale, asking subjects to
rate items for how characteristic the behaviors are for themselves compared
to their spouses. (Subjects not currently married or living with a partner are
asked to rate the items for how characteristic they expect them to be of
themselves compared to their spouses after they enter such a relationship.)
The five-point rating scale here ranges from "Much more characteristic of
my spouse" (1) through "Much more characteristic of me" (5) with "equally
characteristic" (3) as the midpoint. This comparative rating procedure is
employed for the marital behavior area since most of the items refer to tasks
that can but need not be shared to varying degrees by spouses.
Subjects are assigned scores for the overall M, F, and MF scales, as well as
scores for each behavior area subscale. Scores are expressed in terms of the
average item score for each scale. Since the various behavior area subscales
contain unequal numbers of items, this procedure facilitates comparisons of
individuals' scores from one behavior area to another. Normative data for
382 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

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

The measures were administered to subjects in large mixed-sex groups.


Subjects were told the purpose of the research was to survey people's inter-
ests and preferences for a wide variety of activities. Subjects completed the
three questionnaires in the order listed above. This procedure, which
paralleled the procedure used by Orlofsky (1981) in his SRBS-1 study, was
followed to minimize contamination of subjects' SRBS and PAQ responses
by a sex-role attitudinal response set.

RESULTS

Relationship Between Sex-Role Traits and Interests~Behaviors

Two types of analyses were conducted to examine the relationship be-


tween sex-role traits (PAQ scales) and interests/behaviors (SRBS-2 scales).
These included correlational analyses between corresponding PAQ and
SRBS-2 M, F, and MF scales for each sex, and sex x PAQ category (actual-
ly, sex x high vs. low masculine trait group x high vs. low feminine trait
group) multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) on the SRBS-2
scales, s Since justification has been found for examining the four areas
separately (Orlofsky et al., 1982), additional correlational analyses were
conducted for the four areas within each sex-role scale.

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.

Overall scales. Results f r o m the c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis on the overall


SRBS-2 scales are presented in T a b l e I. M a l e - v a l u e d b e h a v i o r s were
positively related to b o t h m a l e - v a l u e d a n d sex-specific traits for b o t h m e n
and w o m e n , a n d were u n r e l a t e d to f e m a l e - v a l u e d traits for either sex.
F e m a l e - v a l u e d behaviors were u n r e l a t e d to m a l e - v a l u e d traits for men, b u t
were s o m e w h a t positively related for w o m e n . T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g female-
valued b e h a v i o r a n d trait scores were m o d e r a t e l y related for b o t h men a n d
w o m e n , a n d the c o r r e l a t i o n s between f e m a l e - v a l u e d b e h a v i o r s a n d sex-
specific traits were in the negative direction. H o w e v e r , this last r e l a t i o n s h i p
reached significance o n l y for men. Finally, positive r e l a t i o n s h i p s were
f o u n d between sex-specific b e h a v i o r s a n d b o t h m a l e - v a l u e d a n d sex-specific
traits for b o t h sexes, a l t h o u g h again these c o r r e l a t i o n s were o n l y m o d e r a t e .
Sex-specific behaviors were u n r e l a t e d to f e m a l e - v a l u e d traits for b o t h sexes.
In sum, small to m o d e r a t e associations were o b t a i n e d between the P A Q
trait a n d SRBS-2 i n t e r e s t / b e h a v i o r scales. F u r t h e r m o r e , the strongest, m o s t
consistent r e l a t i o n s h i p s were o b t a i n e d between the c o r r e s p o n d i n g trait and
role b e h a v i o r scales. These latter findings are o f p a r t i c u l a r interest since they
suggest at least a fair c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between individuals' sex-role traits
and their interests a n d b e h a v i o r s .
Results f r o m the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n d u n i v a r i a t e analyses o f variance on
the SRBS-2 overall M, F, and M F scores are p r e s e n t e d in Table II. P A Q M
and F g r o u p s were assigned on the basis o f m e d i a n splits on the c o r r e s p o n d -
ing P A Q m a l e - v a l u e d (M) a n d f e m a l e - v a l u e d (F) scales. T h e m e d i a n for the
M scale was 21.5, and the m e d i a n for the F scale was 24, which are consis-
tent with figures f o u n d in previous research with college p o p u l a t i o n s (Orlof-
sky, 1981; Spence & H e l m r e i c h , 1978). Significant m u l t i v a r i a t e Fs were
f o u n d for sex, m a s c u l i n e - t r a i t g r o u p , a n d f e m i n i n e - t r a i t g r o u p effects,
384 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

I'--
>-

-,'-

.> .~

~.,-4
,.-4,
~D ""4

,.-,~
o~:z:

X +~

-! o

~"~
~ 2 . =- o~x x xW V
x
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 395

although no interactions were found. Examination of the relevant


univariate analyses of variance revealed significant sex main effects for each
of the SRBS-2 sex-role scales, accounting for most of the variance on these
scales. As would be expected, men scored higher than women on the male-
valued (3.33 vs. 2.85) and sex-specific scales (3.63 vs. 2.43), and women
(3.41) scored higher than men (2.85) on the female-valued scale. Consistent
with results from the correlational analyses there was a significant
masculine-trait group main effect on both the male-valued and sex-specific
scales, with those scoring high on the PAQ male-valued scale (i.e.,
masculine and androgynous individuals) scoring higher on these SRBS-2
scales than those scoring low on the P A Q male-valued scale (i.e., feminine
and undifferentiated individuals) (3.26 vs. 2.91 on the male-valued and 3.23
vs. 2.84 on the sex-specific scale). Further, there was a significant feminine-
trait group main effect for the female-valued SRBS-2 scale, with those scor-
ing high on the P A Q female-valued scale (i.e., feminine and androgynous
individuals) scoring higher than those in the low feminine-trait group
category (i.e,, masculine and undifferentiated individuals) (3.29 vs. 3.01).
In summary, although the sex-role trait effects were overshadowed by
the main effects for sex, fairly substantial differences were obtained among
the sex-role trait groups on the SRBS-2 scales. Androgynous and masculine-
typed i n d i v i d u a l s - women as well as m e n - r e p o r t e d more masculine inter-
ests and behaviors (on both the M and MF behavior scales) than individuals
low in masculine traits (feminine and undifferentiated men and women).
Similarly, men and women high in feminine traits displayed greater
feminine interests and behaviors (F scale) than those low in feminine traits
(masculine and undifferentiated subjects). These sex-role group findings are
stronger than those found by Orlofsky (1981) with the earlier version of the
SRBS (SRBS-1) and imply a fairly substantial correspondence between sex-
role traits and behaviors. This correspondence was far from perfect,
however, and sex continued to be a more powerful predictor of sex-role in-
terests and behaviors than sex-role traits. This was the case for male-and
female-valued behaviors as well as sex-specific behaviors.
Area subscales. In order to test whether the corresponding trait and
behavior scales were related for specific behavior areas, separate correla-
tional analyses were conducted between the P A Q scales and each of the
SRBS-2 sex-role scales, divided by areas (Table III).
In general, the results from these analyses tended to support those
found on the overall SRBS-2 scales: Corresponding traits and behaviors
were positively related in most cases. For a few cases, however, near-zero
correlations were found. Table I l i A shows that male-valued traits were
significantly related to all of the male-valued area behavior scales for
women, and three out of four area scales for men (the fourth just barely
missed significance with a p value of .06). For corresponding sex-specific
386 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

<

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

.o_,4 ~ ~ '- "~ o "~~ p

_~-a~ e~ -a~ - ~ .~ ~s~'


~ ' ~, ~ ~ ~z~ -~
388 Orlofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

traits and behaviors, significant relationships were found on three of the


four areas for both men and women (Table IIIC). Regarding the corres-
pondences between female-valued traits and behaviors (Table IIIB), these
relationships were somewhat weaker, with significant correlations for only
two areas for men (although a third just barely missed significance), and for
only one area for women (again, with a second just missing significance at
the p < .05 level).
In summary, the analyses on both the overall and area SRBS-2 scales
suggest a greater correspondence between sex-role traits and behaviors than
initially expected from Orlofsky's (1981) findings with the SRBS-1. Sex dif-
ferences still accounted for most of the variation in sex-role interests and
behaviors, but there was some variation within each sex such that men and
women high in masculine traits reported greater male-valued and masculine
sex-specific interests and behaviors than those low in masculine traits, and
those high in feminine traits displayed more female-valued behaviors than
their low femininity counterparts. Still, these correspondences did not hold
for some of the area behavior subscales, suggesting that while sex-role traits
and behaviors generally tend to be positively related, this is not necessarily
the case for some behavior areas.

Relationship Between Sex-Role Attitudes (A WS Scores) and SRBS-2


Behaviors~Interests

Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the extent of the


relationship between sex-role behaviors and role-related attitudes. These
analyses were conducted for each of the overall SRBS-2 M, F, and MF
scales as well as for the three scales separately by areas.
The correlations between AWS scores and overall SRBS-2 scales are
presented in Table I. AWS scores were negatively related to male-valued
role behaviors for men, and did not relate significantly for women. The
opposite pattern was found for female-valued role behaviors, with AWS
scores relating negatively for women, and relating nonsignificantly for men.
However, more pronounced relationships were found between AWS scores
and sex-specific role behaviors, being negative for men and positive for
women. These findings suggest that the more traditional individuals are in
their sex-role ideology, the more strongly they adhere to sex-typing in their
interests and behaviors. This was especially the case for the more strictly
sex-typed (i.e., sex-specific) behaviors, but occurred as well for men and
women, respectively, for the more "flexible" male- and female-valued
behaviors.
Separate analyses of these relationships for each area are presented in
Table III. Generally, the results on the area M, F, and MF scales supported
those found for the overall scales. That is, correlations between AWS scores
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 389

and both male-valued and female-valued behaviors were generally weak or


absent, while somewhat stronger, more consistent relationships were found
between AWS scores and most of the sex-specific behavior areas. Still, even
these relationships were only moderate. Consequently, the findings point to
the need for exercising caution in inferring sex-role behaviors from more
abstract attitudes.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to previous findings using a preliminary version of the Sex-


Role Behavior Scale, fairly substantial relationships were found for each sex
between the overall SRBS-2 male-valued, female-valued, and sex-specific
behavior scales and the corresponding P A Q trait scales. Positive
trait/behavior relationships within each behavior area were found as well,
although these relationships tended to be smaller than those for the overall
scales and in some cases were not significant. These findings for the indi-
vidual behavior areas suggest that the relationship between sex-role traits
and behaviors may be stronger for some behavior areas than others,
although there was no clear pattern distinguishable in this regard. In sum-
mary, a moderate correspondence was found between sex-role traits and
behaviors within sexes, such that individuals with less traditional sex-role
trait organization were somewhat less traditional in their role behaviors
than those with sex-typed trait organization.
Moderate relationships also were found between the measure of sex-
role attitudes and the SRBS-2 scales, such that individuals who were more
egalitarian in their sex-role attitudes reported less adherence to sex-typed
behaviors than those who endorsed more traditional sex-role attitudes.
Also, as would be expected, this relationship was stronger for sex-specific
than for the more flexible male- and female-valued behaviors.
With respect to the theoretical controversy between Bem's cognitive-
developmental[ and Spence and Helmreich's social learning perspectives, the
present set of findings appear to provide partial support for both points of
view. The fairly substantial relationships between the corresponding P A Q
and SRBS scales and the more traditional mean behavior scores of sex-
typed relative to nonsex-typed individuals on the overall SRBS scales are
certainly consistent with Bem's proposition that the gender schemas of sex-
typed individuals predispose them to follow traditional sex-role prescrip-
tions in their self-concepts and behavior and avoid behaviors typically
associated with the other sex.
On the other hand, sex-role behavior differences attributable to
masculine and feminine personality traits were clearly outweighed by those
attributable to sex, and the trait/attitude/behavior relationships for each
390 Oriofsky, Cohen, and Ramsden

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

Bern, S. L. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological adrogyny. Journal o f


Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 634-643.
Bem, S. L. Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and
Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37,
1047-1054.
Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing: Psychological Review,
1981, 88, 354-364.
Bern, S. L., & Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 48-54.
Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., and Siladi, M. Self schemas and gender. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 38-50.
Orlofsky, J. L. Relationship between sex role attitudes and personality traits and the Sex Role
Behavior Scale-l: A new measure of masculine and feminine role behaviors and in-
terests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 40, 927-940.
Orlofsky, J. L., Aslin, A. L,, & Ginsburg, S. D. Differential effectiveness of two classifica-
tion procedures on the Bern Sex-Role Inventory. Journal o f Personality Assessment,
1977, 42, 414-416.
Orlofsky, J. L., Ramsden, M. W., & Cohen, R. S. Development of the revised sex role be-
havior scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1982, 46, 632-638_
Orlofsky, J. L., & Stake, J. E. Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to
striving and self concept in the achievement and interpersonal domains. Psychology o f
Women Quarterly, 1981, 6, 218-233.
Orlofsky, J. L., & Windle, M. T. Sex role orientation, behavioral adaptability and personal
adjustment. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 801-811.
Spence, J. T. Traits, roles and the concept of androgyny. In J. E. Gullahorn (Ed.), Psychology
and women: In transition. Washington, D.C_: V. H. Winston & Sons, 1979.
Sex-Role Behavior Scale 39 !

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.