Previous research on the correlates of power motivation in women and men had shown no gender differences, when the presence of younger siblings (reflecting responsibility training) was used as a moderator variable This study reports development of an empirically denved direct TAT measure of responsibihtv as a moderator variable for the power motive The new measure includes mention of legal or moral standards, obligation concern about others, concern about consequences, and self-judgment It is related to perceived parental expectations concerning responsibihtv Among women and men high in responsibility, power motivation predicts responsible social power actions, but among women and men low in responsibility, power motivation predicts a variety of profligate, impulsive actions Responsibility then, rather than gender, appears to determine the ways in which the power motive is expressed Themes of power and responsibility are at the heart of both the realities and the myths about gender differences and gender relationships Although there are variations over time and across societies, men generally have higher status and more power than do women, and women are often seen as more responsible than are men (see Sanday, 1981, Stewart & Winter, 1977, Whiting & Whiting, 1975 Such power as women do have, moreover, is often circumscribed and restricted on account of their special "responsibihties" (see Gorer, 1948) Perhaps because ofthese realities, the topics of power, responsibility, and gender are wrapped m a rich mvthologv One myth is that men are interested in getting power or motivated to seek power, while women are not Another myth is that men and women differ m their styles of seeking and exercising power Men,We are grateful to

No abstract

This chapter examines the history of American personality psychology, focusing on a puzzling question: In a field defined as the scientific study of individual persons and differences among persons, how can we explain the history of ambivalence toward case studies and life histories? Adopting a multidisciplinary perspective, we suggest that the marginal status of these methods in personality psychology was related to their identification between 1900 and 1930 as preferred methods in psychiatry, psychopathology (considered primarily a medical specialty at the time), and sociology. In contrast, psychologists interested in personality adopted psychometric measures that could establish their scientific expertise in meeting practical goals. These preferences persisted during the emergence of personality psychology as a separate subdiscipline in the 1930s, despite calls for more attention to case study methods. To illustrate the lasting effects of these methodological choices, we trace the efforts of Gordon Allport and Henry Murray to promote the study of individual lives in personality psychology, and we examine psychologists' responses to their work. Finally, we reconsider the historical course of personality psychologists' ambivalence toward the study of individual lives and suggest an interpretation of the revival of interest in case studies, life histories, and psychobiography in recent years.

Gordon Allport has frequently been criticized for advocating the use of idiographic studies but undertaking only one such study himself.

No abstract