Skip to main content
Log in

Examining the relationships between the socially desirable and undesirable aspects of agency and communion

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two theories addressing the relationship between the socially desirable and undesirable elements of agency and communion have been proposed. In their 1979 study, Spence, Helmreich, and Holahan suggest that agency is negatively related to an unmitigated, or undesirable, sense of communion, while communion is negatively correlated with a sense of unmitigated agency. On the other hand, Wiggins and Holzmuller, in their study of 1978, believe the desirable and undesirable aspects of agency are related to one another in a bipolar manner and that a similar relationship exists for the two domains of communion. While most appear to treat the differences between these two theories as a psychometric issue, the implications each has for understanding issues such as the socialization of gender-typed personality characteristics remain unaddressed. This paper provides a direct and comprehensive comparison of the two approaches. A sample of mostly Caucasian participants completed a variety of gender role measures and support emerged for aspects of both theories. Discussion centers on the meaning of the undesirable gender role concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakan, D. (1966).The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 152–162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1047–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?Psychological Bulletin, 80 389–407.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Day, R. W. C., & Korabik, K. (1992).Gender schema theory and self-schema theory compared: The androgynous are not aschematic. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 989–1002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, A. B. (1976). Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent dimensions.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire.Sex Roles, 7 1097–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. A., Caudill, M. S., Hathorn, S., & O'Brien, C. G. (1977). Socially undesirable sex-correlated characteristics: Implications for androgyny and adjustment.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 1185–1186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 428–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCreary, D. R. (1990). Multidimensionality and the measurement of gender role attributes: A comment on Archer.British Journal of Social Psychology, 29 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, T. E., Frey, D., Gollwitzer, P. M., Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1981). Masculine (instrumental) and feminine (expressive) traits: A comparison between students in the United States and West Germany.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12 142–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T. (1991). Do the BSRI and the PAQ measure the same or different concepts?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15 141–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978).Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1673–1682.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 29–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vervoort, D. J., Korabik, K., & Bellerby, J. (1993, May).The relationship of co-dependency to gender and self-monitoring. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal.

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 395–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 40–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility.Journal for Research in Personality, 15 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We are indebted to Russell Day for his collection of the data used here, and we would also like to thank Susan Markle for her input into the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCreary, D.R., Korabik, K. Examining the relationships between the socially desirable and undesirable aspects of agency and communion. Sex Roles 31, 637–651 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544285

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544285

Keywords

Navigation