Previous research and theorizing have suggested a 'fundamental paradox" in that individuals appear to be predisposed, both culturally and genetically, to be attracted to traditionally gender typed members of the other sex even though pairings between gender-typed persons are less than optimal for long-term relation-ship satisfaction. Two studies were undertaken to clarify the relationship between gender-typed traits and heterosexual attraction. Male and female subjects indicated how desirable opposite-sex targets would be for a date, a one-night sexual encounter, and/or marriage. The gender-typing of the target was manipulated such that each target was perceived as androgynous, masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated. Results indicated that both sexes perceived opposite-sex androgynous targets to be more desirable for each type of relationship. Further, for both sexes, possession of feminine/expressive characteristics was more important than possession of masculine/instrumental characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antill, J. K. (1983). Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 145-155.
2.
Bassoff, E. S. , & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles and mental health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 106-111.
3.
Bem, S. (1974). Measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
4.
Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
6.
Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
7.
Cook, E. P. (1985). Psychological androgyny: A review of the research. Counseling Psychologist, 15, 471-513.
8.
Darwin, C. (1958). The origin of species (6th ed.). New York: New American Library. (Original work published 1859)
9.
Deutsch, C. J. , & Gilbert, L. A. (1976). Sex role stereotypes: Effect on perceptions of self and others and on personal adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 373-379.
10.
Edwards, A. G. , & Ashworth, C. D. (1977). A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 501-508.
11.
Ickes, W. (1985). Sex role influences on compatibility in relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 187-208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Ickes, W. (in press). Traditional gender roles: Do they make, and then break, our relationships?Journal of Social Issues.
13.
Ickes, W. , & Barnes, R. D. (1978). Boys and girls together and alienated: On enacting stereotyped sex roles in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 669-683.
14.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Keefe, R. (1992).Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
15.
Kenrick, D. T. , Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.
16.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Trost, M. (1989). A reproductive exchange model of heterosexual relationships: Putting proximate economics in ultimate perspective. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
Orlofsky, J. L. (1982). Psychological androgyny, sex-typing, and sex-role ideology as predictors of male-female inter personal attraction. Sex Roles, 8, 1057-1073.
19.
Pursell, S. A. , & Banikotes, P. G. (1978). Androgyny and initial interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 235-239.
20.
Russo, N. F. , & Green, B. L. (1993). Women and marital roles: Selected issues. In F. L. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
21.
Sadalla, E. K. , Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
22.
Shaver, P. , Pullis, C., & Olds, D. (1980). Report on the Ladies' Home Journal "Intimacy Today"'survey (Private research report to the Ladies' Home Journal.
23.
Spence, J. T. , Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4.
24.
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.
25.
Taylor, M. C. , & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347-366.
26.
Tooke, W. , & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 345-364.
27.
Townsend, J. M. , & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partner's physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149-164.
28.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
