Agentic and Communal Personality Traits: Relations to Attitudes Toward Sex and Sexual Experiences

Abstract

This study was designed to examine relations among agentic and communal personality traits, attitudes toward sex, and sexual experiences in a sample of 202 undergraduates. As predicted, acceptance of interpersonal violence, with particular reference to intimate and sexual relationships, was positively associated with unmitigated agency. Among male participants, willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations was positively associated with unmitigated agency and negatively associated with communion and unmitigated communion. Among female participants, agency was positively related to satisfaction with current sexual and romantic relationships. These results partially support Helgeson's (1994) theoretical model that links unmitigated agency to relational conflict and instability and links communion to emotional bonding and commitment.KEY WORDS: unmitigated agency; unmitigated communion; sexual relationships; personality.Helgeson (1994) developed a theoretical model of the relations among biological sex, gender-linked personality traits, and physical and psychological health. A basic assumption of this model is that men and women are socialized to adopt somewhat different personality characteristics and social roles and that these differences act to enhance or undermine well-being. According to this model, men are more likely to develop personality traits related to agency, which is defined as a focus on the self and autonomy. Conversely, women are more likely to develop personality traits related to communion, which is defined as a focus on other people and relationships. The concepts of agency and communion were borrowed from Bakan (1966) who characterized them as fundamental modalities of human existence. Furthermore, Helgeson theorized that agency is related to men's superior mental health in comparison with women, whereas communion is related to women's superior relational outcomes in comparison with men.

Predicting safe sex practices from gender-related interpersonal variables

“…In addition, UA was associated with less frequent condom use and with poorer partner communication about safe sex practices. These findings are consistent with past research showing that UA is associated with unhealthy lifestyle choices and greater risk taking (Danoff-Burg et al, 2006;Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005;Nagurney & Bagwell, 2009;Snell et al, 1987). The only unexpected finding here was that UC was not related to safe sex practices.…”

“…Regarding the overarching goal of predicting safe sex practices from personality, after controlling for gender and relationship status, we hypothesize that UA will be associated with lower safe sex practices including less frequent condom use and poorer partner communication, consistent with past research assessing personality differences in safe sexual behaviors (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005;Nagurney & Bagwell, 2009), as well as other research revealing that UA is associated with greater risk taking and such unhealthy behaviors as drug use (Danoff-Burg et al, 2006;Snell et al, 1987). Furthermore, we hypothesize that UC, because of its focus on more one-sided relationships, should be associated with poorer communication such as simply going along with whatever one's partner prefers in a sexual encounter.…”

“…In the first study, Mosher and Danoff-Burg (2005) found that high UA, low communion, and low UC were predictive of greater willingness to engage in casual sex. Unfortunately, this study did not assess condom use or other safe sex practices.…”

From Love to Family Happiness: a Theoretical Model for Javanese Family*

“…Functioning family process depends on family members' contribution. Family process itself consists of family structure as systemic organization, and relationships between family members (Andayani, Psychological studies on satisfactory close relationships suggest a relational-oriented value called communal value (Argyle, 1991; Hegelson in Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005). Communal value is the one oriented to relationships and to the wellness of others or spouse (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005).…”

“…Family process itself consists of family structure as systemic organization, and relationships between family members (Andayani, Psychological studies on satisfactory close relationships suggest a relational-oriented value called communal value (Argyle, 1991; Hegelson in Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005). Communal value is the one oriented to relationships and to the wellness of others or spouse (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005). Miller, Caughlin, and Huston (2003) suggest that communal value is a personality disposition known as trait expressiveness, a disposition focuses more on the happiness of others.…”