This article describes the development of a new sex-role inventory that treats masculinity and femininity as two independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or "androgynous" as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Normative data are presented, as well as the results of various psychometric analyses. The major findings of conceptual interest are: (a) the dimensions of masculinity and femininity are empirically as well as logically independent; (6) the concept of psychological androgyny is a reliable one; and (c) highly sex-typed scores do not reflect a general tendency to respond in a socially desirable direction, but rather a specific tendency to describe oneself in accordance with sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women.

No abstract

This article advances the hypothesis that psychologically "androgynous" individuals might be more likely than either masculine or feminine individuals to display sex role adaptability across situations, engaging in situationally effective behavior without regard for its stereotype as more appropriate for one sex or the other. Two experiments with college students provide support for this hypothesis. Together, they demonstrate that androgynous subjects of both sexes display "masculine" independence when under pressure to conform, and "feminine" playfulness when given the opportunity to interact with a tiny kitten. In contrast, all of the nonandrogynous subjects were found to display behavioral deficits of one sort or another, with the feminine females showing perhaps the greatest deficit of all.

This article presents evidence for the hypothesis that cross-sex behavior is motivationally problematic for sex-typed individuals and that they actively avoid it as a result. In particular, when asked to indicate which of a series of paired activities they would prefer to perform for pay while being photographed, sex-typed subjects were more likely than either androgynous or sexreversed subjects to prefer sex-appropriate activity and to resist sex-inappropriate activity, even though such choices cost them money. Moreover, actually engaging in cross-sex behavior caused sex-typed subjects to report greater psychological discomfort and more negative feelings about themselves.

Two studies are reported which indicate that both sex‐biased wording in job advertisements and the placement of help‐wanted ads in sex‐segregated newspaper columns discourage men and women from applying for “opposite‐sex” jobs for which they might well be qualified. Both studies were originally conducted and presented as part of legal testimony in actual sex discrimination cases.