Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extending the Legacy of Sandra Bem: Psychological Androgyny as a Touchstone Conceptual Advance for the Study of Gender in Psychological Science

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We retrace Bem’s original formulations for defining and assessing the concept of psychological androgyny in the United States. By focusing on the early conceptual aspects of Bem’s research, we describe three related but distinct impacts of that work. One impact was a social justice message of equality between women and men in the United States. A second impact was focusing research attention on gender roles as a malleable, socially constructed phenomena that, when polarized across gender groups, had negative consequences for psychological well-being. A third less obvious impact was helping scholars divest themselves of the previous, narrow understanding that gender was ultimately collapsible into a single dimension of masculinity–femininity. As with any new concept for its time, the legacy of psychological androgyny featured both backslides into and advances against the previous understanding of gender that it was designed to challenge. Our discussion of what we believe to be key functions and impacts of the concept of psychological androgyny serves to underscore just how important its introduction was and still is for ongoing gender scholarship and research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahams, B., Feldman, S. S., & Nash, S. C. (1978). Sex role self-concept and sex role attitudes: Enduring personality characteristics or adaptations to changing life situations? Developmental Psychology, 14(4), 393–400. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.4.393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary American society: A reevaluation using the Bem sex role inventory. Sex Roles, 43(7), 499–528. doi:10.1023/A:1007119516728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 122–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634–643. doi:10.1037/h0077098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternate procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 1047–1054. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1981a). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1981b). The BSRI and gender schema theory: A reply to Spence and Helmreich. Psychology Review, 88, 369–371. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1995). Working on gender as a gender non-conformist. Women and Therapy, 17, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 48–54. doi:10.1037/h0078640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further exploration of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 1016–1023. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.1016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, L. C. (1981). The multidimensional aspects of masculinity–femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 797–802. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. R., & Diekman, A. B. (2010). What will I be? Exploring gender differences in near and distant possible selves. Sex Roles, 63, 568–579. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9827-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Continuing theoretical problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 881–900. doi:10.1177/0013164408315267.

  • Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity –femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 389–407. doi:10.1037/h0035334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An MMPI Handbook: Volume I: Clinical Interpretation (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, M. (1993). Homosexuality and bisexuality in different populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 291–310. doi:10.1007/BF01542119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and belief influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. doi:10.1037/a0025199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, H. (1905). Studies in the Psychology of Sex (Vol. 1). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2013). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, M. E., Hogben, M., McGowan, S., & Dawson, L. J. (1996). Assessing hypergender ideologies: Development and initial validation of a gender-neutral measure of adherence to extreme gender-role beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 157–178. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinate of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem sex role inventory. Sex Roles, 31, 241–273. doi:10.1007/BF01547717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254. doi:10.1080/00223980.1940.9917000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herz, M., & Johansson, T. (2015). The normativity of the concept of heteronormativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 1009–1020. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1021631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld, M. (1919/2000). The homosexuality of men and women (M. A. Lombardi- Nash, Trans.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem sex role inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39–55. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01995.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C., & Ellis, J. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem sex role inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929–941. doi:10.1023/A:1018836923919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 137–167). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keener, E. (2015). The complexity of gender: It is all that and more….In sum, it is complicated. Sex Roles, 73, 481–489. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0542-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, P. S., & Holden, R. R. (1996). Development of the gender role beliefs scale (GRBS). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, S. M., & Hodges, S. D. (2009). Gender and empathic accuracy: The role of communion in reading minds. Sex Roles, 60, 387–398. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9544-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaster, P., Delaney, R., & Strough, J. (2015). Crossover, degendering, or …? A multidimensional approach to lifespan development. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0563-0.

  • Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1000–1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). The hyperfemininity scale: Measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 479–489. doi:10.1080/00224499109551620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2011). Psychology (10th ed.). New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauletti, R. E., Menon, M., Cooper, P.J., Aults, C.D., & Perry, D. G. (2016). Psychological androgyny and children’s mental health: A new look with new measures. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0627-9.

  • Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem sex role inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 996–1016. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363. doi:10.1023/A:1025112204526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity and gender related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 1–97). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1981). Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bem’s gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 88, 365–368. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong Jr., E. R. (1935). Manual for the vocational interest blank. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, E. R. (1936). Interests of men and women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuanes, D. (2003). Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification. Nora, 11(2), 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. C. (2012). Considering lesbian identity from a social-cognitive vantage: Two models of “being a lesbian”. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16, 17–29. doi:10.1080/10894160.2011.557639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. (2014). Gender identity as a personality process. In B. L. Miller (Ed.), Gender identity: Disorders, developmental perspectives and social implications (pp. 1–22). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. C., Youssef, C. P., & Bettergarcia, J. N. (2014). Integrating the study of transgender spectrum and cisgender experiences of self-categorization from a personality perspective. Review of General Psychology, 18, 302–312. doi:10.1037/gpr0000019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. C., Bettergarcia, J. N., & Brent, L. M. (2015). Re-assessing the role of gender-related cognitions for self-esteem: The role of gender typicality for cisgender adults. Sex Roles, 72, 221–236. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0458-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2010). Intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. doi:10.1037/a0018936.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 101–113. doi:10.1037/a0029826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, F. Y., McCreary, D. R., & Duffy, K. G. (1990). A further validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A multitrait-multimethod study. Sex Roles, 22, 249–259. doi:10.1007/BF00288195.

  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 629–667). Hoboken: Wiley.

  • Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–210. doi:10.1177/1350506806065752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors contributed equally to this work so they are listed alphabetically by last name. No funding source aided in the completion of this article. Both authors would like to thank the Social Perception, Attitudes, Mental Simulation (SPAMS) Lab for helpful comments on the ideas presented.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA

    M. Lee Dean & Charlotte Chucky Tate

Authors
  1. M. Lee Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Chucky Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Chucky Tate.

Ethics declarations

The manuscript conforms to the stated guidelines for this journal’s submissions. Since we only discuss theory and theoretical synthesis, no data were collected from human participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dean, M.L., Tate, C.C. Extending the Legacy of Sandra Bem: Psychological Androgyny as a Touchstone Conceptual Advance for the Study of Gender in Psychological Science. Sex Roles 76, 643–654 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0713-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0713-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation