Sex Typing and the Avoidance of Cross-Sex Behavior.

Abstract

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.

Non-binary or genderqueer genders

“…It is worth considering that there are no psychological fields in which male and female are discrete (Fine, 2010) and that the overlap is always greater than any difference (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). This is clearly adaptive as it enables both men and women to carry out the variety of tasks required of them, and consequently those people who are more 'sex typed' -that is further towards the ends of a notional gender spectrum -are disabled by their rigid adherence to their gender role (Bem & Lenney, 1976). Indeed, exposure to gender role stereotypes diminishes confidence and interest in 'the other gender's fields' such as mathematics for women (Correll, 2004), as well as actual performance in them (McGlone & Aronson, 2006).…”

When failing feels good—Relative prototypicality for a high-status group can counteract ego-threat after individual failure

“…No Failure-as-an-Asset effect should occur. Though failure in a male domain should maintain social (gender) identity (i.e, perceiving oneself as typically feminine; see e.g., Bem & Lenney, 1976), the lower social status of the social group is unlikely to buffer ego-threat because it is nothing to be especially proud of. Furthermore, women who fail in a feminine domain might suffer social identity threat because they are led to perceive themselves as distinct from their ingroup.…”

Dynamics of perceiving oneself on femininity and masculinity dimensions in diverse contexts

“…Many theoretical concepts, as well as research projects, indicate that gender identity is an integral part of the structure of self, being one of its more important elements (Melosik, 1999). It thus may be judged that an individual, if facing situations requiring behaviors inconsistent with its own gender identity, would feel internal inconsistency (discomfort, even anxiety or fear), making it strive to get rid of it (Bem, Lenney, 1976;Schiedel, Marcia, 1985).…”

“…Individuals learn these schemes in the type socialization process -for instance through taking up various gender roles, different communication behaviors, different physical appearance-related practice, as well as institutionalized social behaviors. After learning, the individual becomes a carrier of the scheme, representing specific opinions about femininity and masculinity, using type stereotypes, formulating different expectations towards women and men and creating its own type identity (Bem, Lenney, 1976;Markus, Crane, Bernstein, Siladi, 1982;Maccoby, 1990;Bem, 2000;Beall, 2002;Cross, Markus, 2002).…”