Los autores investigan la hipótesis de que los sujetos andróginos son más flexibles en su implicación y bienestar ante tareas que se tipifican culturalmente como pertenecientes al “otro” sexo. Comienzan repasando la literatura psicológica acerca de androginia psicológica y flexibilidad comportamental y seguidamente concretan sus hipótesis: comprobar que los individuos andróginos a) mostrarán una mayor implicación en tareas tanto masculinas como femeninas, b) preferirán en menor medida actividades apropiadas a su sexo y c) experimentarán un mayor bienestar psicológico al desarrollar este tipo de actividades que cualquier otro grupo de rol sexual. Tras describir el método y los resultados del trabajo, los autores ofrecen una discusión final de éstos, en la que destacan que su investigación parece confirmar los resultados de Bem: parece que es el rol sexual andrógino el que siente un mayor grado de bienestar al realizar conductas que son sancionadas socialmente como inapropiadas a su sexo y el que escoge un mayor número de este tipo de comportamientos. Los autores finalizan afirmando que también parece haber quedado respaldada la validez predictiva del Bem Sex Role Inventory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlagnaS. W.«Sex role identity, peer evaluation of competition, and the responses of women and men in a competitive situation».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 546–554.
2.
AndersonK. L.«Androgyny, flexibility and individualism».Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985, 50, 265–278.
3.
BakanD.The duality of human existence.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
4.
BaucomD. H.«Independent masculinity and femininity scales on the California Psychological Inventory».Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 876.
5.
BemS. L.«The measurement of psychological androgyny».Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.
6.
BemS. L.«Androgyny and mental health».Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, septiembre de 1975.
7.
BemS. L.«Sex-role adaptability: one consequence of psychological androgyny».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975b, 31, 634–643.
8.
BemS. 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.
9.
BemS. L.LenneyE.«Sex-typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 48–54.
10.
BemS. L.MartynaW.WatsonC.«Sex-typing and androgyny: further explorations of the expressive domain».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1016–1023.
11.
BerzinsJ. I.WellingM. A.WetterR. E.The PRF-Andro Scale user's manual. University of Kentucky, 1978.
12.
ConstantinopleA.«Masculinity-feminity: an exception to a famous dictum?»Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 389–407.
13.
ErikssonE. H.«Inner and outer space: reflections on womanhood», enLiftonR. J. (ed.): The woman in America.Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964.
14.
Fernández BallesterosR.«Técnicas de observación», en R. Fernández Ballesteros (dir.):Psicodiagnóstico (Vol. I), Madrid: UNED, 1983.
15.
Fernández SánchezJ.Nuevas perspectivas en la medida de la masculinidad y feminidad. Tesis doctoral. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1983.
16.
HeilbrunA. B.PitmanD.«Testing some basic assumptions about psychological androgyny.Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1979, 135, 175–188.
17.
HelmreichR. J.SpenceJ. T.HolahanC. K.«Psychological androgyny an sex role flexibility: a test of two hypothesis».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1631–1644.
18.
HoR.«Sex, sex-role typing, and children's problem solving behavior».Journal of Social Psychology, 1981, 115, 219–226.
19.
IckesW.BarnesR. D.«Boys and girls together and alienated: on enacting stereotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 669–683.
20.
KaganJ.«Acquisition and significance of sex tiping and sex-role identity», enHoffmanM. L.HoffmanL. W. (eds.): Review of child development research (Vol. I). Nueva York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.
21.
KellyJ. A.O'brienG. G.HosfordR.«Sex-roles and social skills considerations for interpersonal adjustment».Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1981, 5 Suple., 748–766.
22.
KleinH.WillermanL.«Psychological masculinity and femeninity and typical and maximal dominance expression in women».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 31, 2059–2070.
23.
KoestlerA.The ghost in the machine.Londres: Hutchinson and Company, Ltd., 1967.
24.
KohlbergL. A.«A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes», enMaccobyE. E. (ed.): The development of sex differences.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.
25.
LafranceM.CarmenB.«The nonverbal display of psychological androgyny».Journal of Perśonality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 36–49.
26.
OrlofskyJ. L.«Psychological androgyny, sex-typing and sex-role ideology as predictors of male-female interpersonal attraction».Sex Roles, 1982, 8, 1057–1073.
27.
OrlofskyJ. L.WindleM. T.«Sex-role orientation, behavioral adaptability and personal adjustment».Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 801–811.
28.
ParsonsT.BalesR. F.Family, socialization and interaction process.Nueva York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1955.
29.
Sebastián HerranzJ.La androginia como índice de flexibilidad comportamental. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 1986.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR.StappJ.«The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: a measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity».JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4 (Ms. núm. 617).
32.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR.StappJ.«Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femeninity».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29–39.
33.
WiggingsJ. S.HolzmullerA.«Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 40–52.
34.
WigginsJ. S.HolzmullerA.«Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility».Journal of Research in Personality, 1978, 15, 67–80.
