منافع حرفه ای، شخصیت، و تمایلات جنسی اجتماعی به عنوان شاخص از عامل عمومی مردسالاری/ زنانگی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38059||2015||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 86, November 2015, Pages 291–296
Abstract Several individual difference domains include variables that show substantial sex differences and may be considered indicators of masculinity/femininity (M/F). We examined the structure of gender-related characteristics from three domains (vocational interests, personality characteristics, and sociosexually relevant sexual fantasies) to determine whether a general factor of M/F can be derived even when participant sex is controlled, and if so, which domains and which variables within those domains are the best indicators of that factor. In a sample of 198 undergraduate students, we found strong intercorrelations between indicators of M/F across domains in the combined-sex sample but only weak intercorrelations within sex. The results also indicated that a general masculinity/femininity factor could be obtained, even when participant sex was controlled, and was defined more strongly by personality characteristics and sociosexuality of sexual fantasies than by vocational interests.
Introduction For several decades, psychologists have attempted to understand and to measure the constructs of masculinity and femininity (see Lippa, 2001, for a review). Several bipolar masculinity-versus-femininity scales were developed in the mid-20th century, using vocational interest items (Strong, 1936), personality items (e.g., Guilford & Zimmerman, 1956), and items representing a wide range of psychological characteristics (Terman & Miles, 1936). In the 1970s, researchers conceptualized masculinity and femininity as two independent dimensions, and constructed scales to reflect this conceptualization (Bem, 1974 and Spence et al., 1974). More recently, Lippa (2001) has rehabilitated the concept of a single bipolar M/F dimension, and has measured it using vocational interest items that are highly “gender diagnostic”, showing large sex differences. The resulting scales have been largely independent of personality characteristics, even though those latter characteristics also show some sex differences. In the present research, we examine potential indicators of M/F from three different domains: vocational interests, personality characteristics, and sexual fantasies. We investigate whether these variables define a general factor of M/F and whether that higher-order factor can be recovered even when participant sex is controlled. Previous work by Lippa (1998) has suggested that M/F as assessed by vocational interests is only moderately associated with personality characteristics, even with those that do show sex differences. Here, we investigate M/F in terms of both of the above domains as well as a third domain in which important sex differences are both expected and observed, namely, that of sociosexuality, which we assess through participants' sexual fantasies. In particular, we examine the question of whether indicators of M/F from each of these three domains will define a general M/F factor, and we compare the three domains in the extent to which they define this factor. Any given measure of M/F would be expected to show substantial sex differences. But because M/F is also conceptualized as showing wide variation within sexes, it is important to analyze the relations among potential indicators of M/F both with and without controls for participant sex. Valid measures of M/F should be substantially intercorrelated not only because of the effects of participant sex, but also because of an underlying M/F tendency that operates within sexes. In the present research, we examine the extent to which the indicators of M/F from the various domains can define a general M/F factor even when participant sex is controlled. 1.1. Masculinity/femininity of vocational interests Research has shown consistent sex differences in vocational interests (Johansson & Harmon, 1972), with especially large differences along Prediger's (1982) People–Things dimension (Lippa, 1998 and Su et al., 2009), with women showing more interest in people-oriented careers and men showing more interest in things-oriented careers. Because of the large sex differences in these areas of vocational interest, the People–Things dimension can itself be used as an index of masculinity and femininity. Lippa (1998) developed a measure of M/F—the Gender Diagnosticity scale—using a variety of vocational interest items that differentiate men and women, including many items that represent the People–Things dimension. Lippa found that this Gender Diagnosticity scale predicted sexual orientation (Lippa, 2002) and self-ratings of M/F (Lippa, 1991) better than did personality-based M/F scales and was independent of the Big Five personality factors. Lippa (2005a) analyzed various subdomains of “masculine” and “feminine” vocational interests (e.g., blue-collar realistic, educated realistic, flashy risk-taking, fashion-related, artistic, helping, and children-related) and concluded that these variables defined a single bipolar dimension of masculine versus feminine occupational interests even when data were analyzed separately by sex. Ashton and Lee (2008) re-examined the structure of gender-related occupational interests in a new sample, and found that occupational interest scales did not define a larger factor of masculinity–femininity within sexes and that the gender-related subscales were uncorrelated within sex. In the current study, we further examine the within-sex structure of gender-related occupational interests, and also examine whether these variables are related to other indicators of masculinity/femininity, specifically, personality characteristics and sociosexuality. 1.2. Masculinity/femininity of personality (agency and communion) Agency and communion have been proposed as fundamental personality traits that differentiate men and women (Bakan, 1966). Agency is exhibited through characteristics such as self-assertion, personal competency, and goal orientation which are viewed as stereotypically male. Communion is exhibited through characteristics such as selflessness, a desire to be at one with others, social–emotional sensitivity, and interpersonal orientation, which are viewed as stereotypically female. Similarly, unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion are considered the extreme, socially undesirable ends of these personality characteristics (e.g., Buss, 1990). Early research was based on the assumption that agentic and communal traits were opposite and bipolar, but subsequent research has suggested that individuals can have both agentic and communal traits (e.g., Block, 1973) and that within sex, correlations between scales measuring agentic and communal traits (or masculine and feminine characteristics more generally) are close to zero (e.g., Bem, 1974). However, the lack of negative correlations between agentic (or masculine) and communal (or feminine) traits in single-sex samples may result from socially desirable item content in both scales which may counteract what would otherwise be a negative correlation between masculine and feminine characteristics (Jackson & Paunonen, 1980). In the present research, we include both socially desirable and socially undesirable variants of agentic and communal traits, so that masculinity/femininity of personality can be examined independent of social desirability. 1.3. Masculinity/femininity of sociosexuality Sociosexuality (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) refers to the willingness to have sexual relations outside the context of an emotionally committed relationship. In the present study, we assess sociosexuality through sexual fantasy preferences. Unlike sexual behaviors, which may be constrained by the preferences of potential partners and by moral considerations, sexual fantasies can provide a relatively pure indication of basic sexual motivations (Ellis and Symons, 1990 and Wilson, 1997). Although preferences for sociosexually relevant sexual fantasies have not been used specifically as indicators of masculinity/femininity, research has shown that there are large sex differences in sexual fantasy preferences (e.g., Ellis and Symons, 1990, Hicks and Leitenberg, 2001 and Wilson, 1987). These differences are consistent with evolutionary interpretations of human behavior in which men are expected to be more sociosexually unrestricted than women (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Given that these theoretically expected sex differences in sociosexuality have been consistently observed in empirical research (e.g., Schmitt, 2005), sociosexually relevant sexual fantasy themes are reasonable indicators of masculinity/femininity. 1.4. The current study The purpose of this study is to examine masculinity/femininity as measured by vocational interests, personality characteristics (agency and communion), and sociosexuality. We investigate whether these domains define a general factor of M/F even when participant sex is controlled. Further, given the use of vocational interests as a proxy measure of M/F in previous research, we will focus especially on the extent to which this construct defines any such general M/F factor. This research builds on previous work by further exploring the measurement of M/F within sex and by evaluating the importance of different aspects of M/F in the definition of a general M/F factor. We examined two questions: Does there exist a higher order masculinity/femininity factor within each sex, or is this factor merely a function of sex differences? And if this factor does exist within sexes, is it defined strongly by all three domains?
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics and reliabilities Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for each of the vocational interest, personality, and sexual fantasy scales are reported in Table 1 for both sexes combined and for each sex separately, along with sex differences on each scale expressed in d units. As seen in the table, sex differences were large for most vocational interest scales and sexual fantasy scales (with the exception of romantic/devoted sexual fantasies, which showed only moderate sex differences). The personality scales showed low to moderate sex differences with the largest differences being observed for agency and communion. 3.2. Scale intercorrelations Correlations among the vocational interest scales, personality scales, and sexual fantasy scales are shown in Table 2. In the full combined-sex sample, Lippa's occupational interests were correlated with each other and with personality and sexual fantasies in the expected directions: “masculine” scales correlated positively with other masculine scales (both within and across domains); likewise, “feminine” scales generally correlated positively with other feminine scales (both within and across domains). The overall vocational interests M/F scale showed strong correlations with the subscales representing M/F sociosexuality (i.e., sexual fantasies) as well as the overall scale M/F sociosexuality scale, and moderate correlations with the subscales and overall scale representing M/F personality traits. The relations between personality and sociosexuality indicated that the masculine and feminine personality characteristics of agency and communion were moderately correlated with sociosexuality subscales in the expected direction. Table 2. Intercorrelations of vocational interests, personality, and sociosexually relevant sexual fantasy scales in combined sex sample and with sex partialed out. Note. N = 198. Above the diagonal are zero-order correlations in the combined-sex sample; below the diagonal are partial correlations with sex removed. p < .01 for |r| > .18. Correlations of composite masculinity/femininity scales are highlighted. The scale intercorrelations described above become substantially weaker when participant sex was statistically controlled, with most of the cross-domain partial correlations approaching zero. When each sex was examined independently, correlations again were small (see Table 3) between the different scales representing masculinity and femininity. Table 3. Intercorrelations of vocational interests, personality, and sociosexually relevant sexual fantasy scales within sex. Note. N = 198, 98 men, 100 women. Above the diagonal are correlations for men; below the diagonal are correlations for women. p < .01 for |r| > .18. Correlations of composite masculinity/femininity scales are highlighted. 3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis of masculinity/femininity subscales We constructed a higher-order CFA model in which the various subscales defined masculinity/femininity factors for their corresponding domains and in which the three masculinity/femininity factors in turn defined a general M/F factor (see Fig. 1). To control for elevation in item responses associated with the lack of reverse-keyed items (i.e., response style), we included elevation factors for the general vocational interests and sexual fantasy factor (note that there was no evidence of elevation in the personality responses). We examined this model both before and after controlling for participant sex by standardizing variables within each sex. As expected, most of the factor loadings decreased substantially when sex was statistically removed (see Table 4). Of particular interest, the loadings for the general M/F factor were all quite high prior to controlling for participant sex, with M/F sexual fantasies and M/F vocational interests having the highest loadings on that higher-order M/F factor. When sex was removed from the analyses, the loadings for M/F sociosexuality and M/F vocational interests dropped considerably, whereas the loading for M/F personality increased slightly. Higher order model of masculinity/femininity scales. Fig. 1. Higher order model of masculinity/femininity scales. Figure options Table 4. Standardized estimates from confirmatory factor analysis of higher order factor model of masculinity/femininity scales. Variable Vocational interests Personality Sociosexuality (sexual fantasies) General M/F factor Blue collar realistic .56 (.47) .45 (.15) Educated realistic .53 (.51) .42 (.16) Flashy .48 (.31) .38 (.10) Helping/child oriented − .53 (− .23) − .42 (− .07) Fashion/arts − .74 (− .37) − .59 (− .12) Unmitigated communion − .57 (− .49) − .40 (− .38) Agency .26 (.14) .18 (.11) Communion − .61 (− .69) − .43 (− .54) Unmitigated agency .29 (.57) .21 (.44) Multiple partners .79 (.53) .68 (.31) Casual sex .75 (.51) .65 (.30) Romantic sex − .77 (− .84) − .66 (− .49) Vocational interests .80 (.32) Personality .71 (.78) Sexual fantasies .86 (.58) Note. N = 198. Elevation was controlled for vocational interests and sexual fantasies (there was no significant elevation factor for personality); not shown in the table are loadings on elevation factors defined positively by all vocational interest subscales and by all sexual fantasy subscales, respectively (see footnote 1). Values in parentheses show estimates with sex removed. Values in italics show loadings of individual subscales on general M/F factor (i.e., product of subscale loadings on lower-order factors with loadings of lower-order factors on higher order factors). χ2 (50) = 111.18 (70.18), CFI = .91 (.94), RMSEA = .08 (.05), SRMR = .07 (.07). Table options The loadings for each subscale on the general masculinity/femininity factor are shown on the far right side of Table 4.1 Before controlling for participant sex, all loadings exceeded .35 except those of both agency variables. When sex was controlled, most loadings decreased substantially, with vocational interests showing the largest decrease. The personality subscales did not follow this same pattern: the loadings of communion and unmitigated agency increased, and those of agency and unmitigated communion only decreased marginally.