V. S. Helgeson (1994) offered a promising model to explain sex differences in well-being. Three meta-analyses of gender research relevant to this model are provided along with an empirical investigation of the relations between agency and communion, unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion, and self-and peer reports of well-being and distress in a sample of 201 college students. The results extended Helgeson's model by showing that agency and communion can be assessed at the level of interests and role behaviors and that the association of agentic traits with well-being may be inflated by self-reports. Results also point to problems in distinguishing trait measures of agency from unmitigated communion and communion from unmitigated agency.

Helgeson proposed a comprehensive model of agency, communion, and well-being that was based on a review of the literature on agentic and communal personality traits, power and intimacy motivation, and self-critical and dependent depressive styles. The present study empirically examined the overlap among these personality dimensions as well as their relations to positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and social adjustment. A factor analysis of the various personality measures yielded two factors, labeled communion and agency. Power motivation loaded negatively with four communal qualities: communal traits, communal role behaviors, intimacy motivation, and dependency. Self-criticism loaded negatively with two other agentic qualities: agentic traits and agentic role behaviors. Both agency and communion were significantly positively associated with positive affect and social adjustment. Agency also was significantly associated with higher life satisfaction and lower negative affect. The positive adjustment outcomes related to agency were confirmed by peer reports.

No abstract

If the logic of natural language negation were classical – a simple matter of true and false – then it would be a disaster to answer a question like Is this essay good? with Yes and no. The overwhelming majority of adults (N = 40) asked to resolve this apparent contradiction were found to do so by appealing to the structure of the essay (e.g. Its thesis was good but its argument was not). Three-year-olds (N = 24), when suitably prepared, also appealed to object structure to resolve a similar apparent contradiction. These results are discussed in relation to a non-classical logical model that can handle object structure.

No abstract