It is shown that Kalin's (1979), Bryan, Coleman, and Ganong's (1981), and Strahan's (1981) one-dimensional scoring systems of androgyny as a continuous variable do not reflect Bern's (1974) and Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp's (1975) two-dimensional masculinity-femininity theories. Further, Kalin's approach can be simplified to the smaller of either the masculinity or the femininity score.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BemS. L.The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.
2.
BemS. L.On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 196–205.
3.
BryanL.ColemanM.GanongL.Geometric mean as a continuous measure of androgyny. Psychological Reports, 1981, 48, 691–694.
4.
HeilbrunA. B.Gender differences in the functional linkage between androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 41, 1106–1118.
5.
KalinR.Method for scoring androgyny as a continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1979, 44, 1205–1206.
6.
KellyJ. A.FurmanW.YoungV.Problems associated with the typological measurement of sex roles and androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 1574–1576.
7.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR.StappJ.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, 1975, 32, 29–39.
8.
StrahanR. F.Remarks on scoring androgyny as a single continuous variable. Psychological Reports, 1981, 49, 887–890.
