Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
DOI 10.1007/s11199-016-0602-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Reviving Androgyny: A Modern Day Perspective on Flexibility
of Gender Identity and Behavior
Carol Lynn Martin 1 & Rachel E. Cook 1 & Naomi C. Z. Andrews 1
Published online: 10 March 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Bem’s conceptualization of psychological androg-
yny introduced a new way of thinking in which crossing gen-
der boundaries was seen as an adaptive form of flexibility that
promoted better psychological adjustment. However, the re-
search linking androgyny and adjustment was mixed, and un-
fortunately, flexibility was not adequately measured and was
seldom investigated. Because of the failure to assess flexibil-
ity, the underlying issue remains unresolved—is flexibility
healthy or not? In the first section, we review Bem’s original
idea of psychological androgyny and then describe how
assessing capabilities and functional flexibility more closely
match the original idea of flexibility than do earlier measures.
The second section describes research from the United States
that illustrates new ways to measure gender identity and ex-
plains how these studies might help resolve the link between
identity and adjustment. Specifically, we discuss research on
Bidentity androgyny^ in which judgments of gender identity
involve considering how the self relates to both genders. This
dual-identity approach provides a nuanced view of the identi-
ty–adjustment link by suggesting that identifying with one’s
own gender is important for mental health but identifying with
the other gender provides additional social benefits and may
relate to flexibility. Next, we describe research that used a
dynamical system approach and methods to assess children’s
behavioral flexibility and how it relates to adjustment. By
carefully revisiting the issue of flexibility associated with an-
drogyny, our intention is to provide a convincing case that the
* Carol Lynn Martin
cmartin@asu.edu
1
Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona
State University, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USA
idea of androgyny has potential to motivate new research on
gender development.
Keywords Androgyny . Masculinity . Femininity .
Flexibility . Gender identity . Dynamical systems
Psychological androgyny, the idea that a person can possess
both masculine and feminine qualities (Bem 1974), is one of
Bem’s many significant contributions to the field of gender
studies. Associated with this idea was the notion that psycho-
logical androgyny was linked to increased flexibility, which
allows for healthy psychological adjustment (Bem and
Lenney 1976). Androgyny became a topic of great interest
for researchers and clinicians. Hundreds of studies were con-
ducted exploring ways to measure and analyze androgyny (for
review, see Ashmore 1990), as well as examining the links
between androgyny and mental health (Kelly and Worell
1977), with most of these studies conducted on adults in the
United States and a few conducted elsewhere or with younger
samples (these will be noted). Evidence of a link between
androgyny and adjustment was mixed (Rose and
Montemayor 1994, with adolescents; Spence and Hall 1996,
with children; Whitley 1983), and controversies surrounded
the measures used to assess androgyny (Taylor and Hall
1982), all of which led to fewer studies conducted to test the
ideas associated with androgyny (although some interest in
the topic has continued; e.g., Helgeson 1994; Ward 2000,
conducted in Singapore).
In the present article, we propose that the concept of an-
drogyny should be revisited. We contend that the construct of
androgyny has never been fully and adequately tested; in par-
ticular, little attention has been paid to investigating whether
flexibility in gender behavior leads to improved mental health
(Vonk and Ashmore 1993). If this is the case, then the question
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
remains unresolved about whether crossing gender boundaries
is healthy, whether it is detrimental for individual develop-
ment, or whether there might be no association between gen-
der flexibility and adjustment outcomes. If we can delve more
deeply into the meaning and measurement of flexibility, we
may find a resolution to this question. To do this, we begin by
briefly reviewing the development of the construct of androg-
yny, how androgyny was measured, and the research that test-
ed the links between androgyny and adjustment. Next, we
suggest that the measurement of the flexibility assumed to
underlie androgyny was not adequate and was only minimally
related to the original construct of androgyny. Then we con-
sider alternative ways to measure flexibility that overcome
some of the earlier measurement problems; these methods
better capture the kind of flexibility that androgynous individ-
uals were purported to exhibit.
In the second section of the paper, we review two re-
cent lines of research on children motivated by the ideas
underlying androgyny: specifically, how androgyny sug-
gests that individuals may have both masculine and fem-
inine qualities, and how having both types of qualities
may promote adaptive flexibility. First, we consider iden-
tity androgyny, in which individuals judge how the self
relates to both genders, and suggest that when individuals
identify with both genders, this type of dual identity may
provide additional flexibility as well as added social ben-
efits over feeling typical of only one’s own gender
(Martin et al. 2016). Second, we describe research which
employs a method of assessing adaptive flexibility that
derives from the study of dynamical systems in meteorol-
ogy, biology, psychology, and physics (for review of
methods see DiDonato et al. 2013). Using this method,
researchers found that preschool children’s behavioral
flexibility in gender-typed toy and peer play related to
their adjustment (DiDonato et al. 2012). Both lines of
research provide insights into how adjustment and an-
drogyny are linked and help to answer the question of
whether crossing gender boundaries is healthy for chil-
dren and adults in the United States, and perhaps in other
countries as well.
Androgyny and Flexibility
Contributions to the idea of psychological androgyny de-
veloped out of controversies concerning how to best mea-
sure masculinity and femininity. The strongest critiques of
earlier research were provided by Constantinople (1973)
and Bem (1974). Constantinople’s (1973) lengthy review
of measures and issues surrounding the measurement of
masculinity (M) and femininity (F) brought into question
an earlier assumption that M-F was a single dimension
(Gough 1952; Guilford and Guilford 1936). She raised
593
important questions about how to measure M and F, ask-
ing whether M-F might be better represented as two sep-
arate dimensions which vary independently of one anoth-
er, with each dimension being relevant to both genders.
Conceptualizing and Measuring Androgyny
In 1974, Bem suggested that the danger of the single
dimension (bipolar) view was that people were being
categorized and described as either masculine or femi-
nine, while failing to allow for both. If M and F are
relevant to both genders, then some individuals may
have both sets of qualities; that is, they are psychologi-
cally androgynous. Androgyny was described as individ-
uals possessing a wide repertoire of characteristics that
were masculine and feminine – assertive and yielding,
and instrumental and expressive—Bdepending on the sit-
uational appropriateness of these various behaviors^
(Bem 1974, p. 155). In this way, androgyny was seen
to be related to flexibility, whereas traditional gender
roles were constricting and rigid. The logic was this: A
man who adhered strongly to gender roles would be
constrained from engaging in feminine behaviors because
of a desire to maintain the masculine role; similarly, a
woman would be constrained from engaging in mascu-
line behaviors in her desire to maintain her feminine
role. In both cases, these individuals would exhibit be-
haviors that adhere to traditional societal expectations for
their roles. Because of these role restrictions, from Bem’s
(1975) perspective, being gender traditional was equated
with rigidity; being androgynous (nontraditional) was
equated with flexibility, and flexibility was related to
adaptive and positive mental health.
To address the need for a multidimensional measure of
M and F, Bem (1974) developed the Bem Sex Role
Inventory (BSRI), a tool designed to measure M and F
using personality characteristics, thereby allowing re-
search on androgyny. Characteristics for each scale were
selected on the basis of being more desirable for one gen-
der than the other. That is, the M scale consisted of pos-
itive characteristics considered more desirable for males
than females; the F scale consisted of positive character-
istics considered more desirable for females than males.
Individuals indicated on a 7-point scale how well each
trait described themselves, with 1 being Bnever or almost
never true^ to 7 being Balways or almost always true^
(Bem 1974, p. 158). The test was used to characterize
people as masculine, feminine, or androgynous based on
their endorsement of traits and the difference between the
M and F trait endorsement (low difference based on t
scores = androgyny [A]). The scales (M, F) were reliable,
and M and F were independent dimensions (i.e., they
were either negatively correlated at a low level or not
594
correlated at all), supporting the view that M and F are not
ends of one bipolar dimension.
Controversies Surrounding the Construct of Androgyny
Later, controversies ensued about the use and scoring of the
BSRI (Spence et al. 1974, 1975), as well as how to best de-
termine the effects of M, F, and A (Lubinski et al. 1983;
Spence 1983; Taylor and Hall 1982; Tellegen and Lubinski
1983). Along with measurement issues, there was the impor-
tant question of how gender roles related to healthy psycho-
logical adjustment. As Bem stated in 1975, Bfor years,
American society has considered masculinity to be the mark
of the psychologically adjusted male and femininity to be the
mark of the psychologically healthy female^ (p. 634). Bem
(1975) and others (e.g., Rebecca et al. 1976) questioned the
assumption that traditional roles were linked to better adjust-
ment. As described previously, Bem focused on the conse-
quences of holding to traditional gender roles and on the lim-
iting and constricting consequences of being gender-typed.
She contrasted this restriction of traditional roles with the
flexibility that she believed was the hallmark of androgyny.
That is, someone who can be both assertive and yielding, for
instance, has far more adaptability across situations versus the
gender-typed person who must always maintain gender tradi-
tional behavior.
Bem’s ideas about the links between androgyny and mental
health were applied in therapy, such that some argued for
androgyny as the ideal psychological state (Gilbert 1981;
Kaplan 1976; Osofsky and Osofsky 1972; Rebecca et al.
1976). These views mirrored ideas about mental health prev-
alent in the clinical literature, in which psychological health
was assumed dependent on the ability to adjust to various
situations through the employment of a wide behavioral rep-
ertoire (Leary 1957).
Bem (1974, 1975) empirically tested these ideas.
Specifically, these two studies were designed to explore the
range of behaviors available to masculine, feminine, and an-
drogynous individuals, with the hypothesis being that androg-
ynous individuals would show greater behavioral adaptability.
In these studies, adults were placed into situations designed to
evoke a masculine response (independence: resisting social
pressure) or feminine response (nurturance: cuddling a kitten,
playing with a baby, consoling a peer). Generally, the results
were consistent with the hypothesis: androgynous individuals
were able to perform both masculine and feminine responses,
whereas gender-typed individuals were limited in their abili-
ties to perform the cross-gender behaviors (e.g., masculine
adults were less nurturing of a lonely peer than were feminine
or androgynous adults; Bem 1974, 1975). Although these
studies provided support for the idea of androgynous adults
being adaptable, they were limited by testing behaviors asso-
ciated with only nurturance and independence and by
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
assessing only a limited number of situations rather than a
range of situations. Employing a broader range of situations
and traits would have allowed for a stronger test of the idea
that androgynous individuals have a wide and flexible
behavioral repertoire.
In later work, Bem and Lenney (1976) designed a study to
investigate more fully the wide and flexible behavioral reper-
toire of androgynous individuals. In their study, gender-typed,
androgynous, and cross-gender-typed individuals were asked
to choose a variety of gender-typed and cross-gender-typed
tasks that they would be photographed doing, along with an
assigned reward they would receive for completing the activ-
ity. They were then asked to perform a subset of these activ-
ities. Gender-typed individuals were less likely to select cross-
gender activities than were androgynous or cross-gender-
typed individuals, even with higher rewards offered for the
cross-gender-typed activities. Also, gender-typed individuals
reported feeling more negative after performing cross-gender
activities than did androgynous and cross-gender individuals.
Their study provides additional support for the idea that an-
drogyny is linked to behavioral flexibility and to the willing-
ness to cross gender boundaries.
The idea of androgyny captured the interest of researchers
and promoted research in gender roles. The powerful combi-
nation of an easy-to-administer and easy-to-score measure,
bolstered by the compelling concept of androgyny being con-
troversially linked to mental health, led to an increase in gen-
der roles research in the 1970s and early 1980s, with many
studies using the BSRI and being designed to explore links
between androgyny and mental health (Ashmore 1990).
Huston (1983, p. 395) describes this major historical shift in
the conceptualization of gender identity and its consequences
in this way: BThe concept of androgyny swept the field like a
fire on a dry prairie…because the Women’s Movement had
led many investigators to reject the values that…males and
females should develop as polar opposites.^
Bem’s research on the BSRI and on androgyny was cri-
tiqued on many levels (e.g., Spence et al. 1974). One of the
earliest critiques of androgyny related to scoring. Bem’s initial
operationalization of androgyny involved the degree of differ-
ence between M and F, with a small difference suggesting
androgyny (see previous for scoring). This implies that a bal-
ance of M and F are ideal, but this notion was criticized so that
most researchers moved to consideration of levels of both M
and F, with high levels of both M and F indicating androgyny.
Other central measurement issues involved the kinds of items
included in the BSRI: The items strongly related to
instrumentality/dominance and expressivity/warmth and may
not represent M and F more broadly (Spence 1993; Spence
et al. 1974, 1975). How to best analyze data relevant to an-
drogyny was also questioned. Questions were raised about
whether the androgyny–adjustment link involved additive ef-
fects in which both masculine and feminine characteristics
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
contribute to adjustment, or if androgyny was appropriately
analyzed by examining interactive effects in which having
both sets of characteristics conferred advantages over the other
patterns (Lubinski et al. 1983). No agreement existed about
these questions of how to best identify androgyny effects
(Spence 1983; Taylor and Hall 1982; Tellegen and Lubinski
1983). Interestingly, in the early years, little attention was paid
to whether the flexibility assumed to be inherent in androgyny
was adequately assessed using the BSRI; we will discuss this
issue in the next section.
Issues were also raised about whether androgyny was
linked to positive adjustment. Some studies on older children
(9–12 years-old) and adolescents were supportive (Alpert-
Gillis and Connell 1989; Rose and Montemayor 1994), but a
number of studies with adults (and a few with children) failed
to support links between adjustment and androgyny (Bassoff
and Glass 1982; Lubinski et al. 1983; Spence and Hall 1996,
9–11 year old children; Spence et al. 1974; Taylor and Hall
1982; Whitley 1983, 1985). More often than androgyny being
linked to better mental health was the finding that masculinity/
instrumentality was linked to positive health outcomes (Antill
and Cunningham 1979, conducted in Australia; Bassoff and
Glass 1982; Taylor and Hall 1982; Whitley 1985), although
questions were also raised about this model (Aube et al. 1995,
conducted in Canada). The significant critiques of how an-
drogyny was assessed and analyzed and the failures to find
consistent links to mental health likely contributed to the dis-
use of the BSRI and, by extension, to the decline of research
on androgyny.
Revisiting Androgyny and Flexibility
Bem’s idea of flexibility and its importance in relating to
healthy adjustment resonated strongly with researchers,
theorists, and clinicians, and yet little evidence was found
linking androgyny to mental health. However, as described
earlier, Bem (1974, 1975; Bem and Lenney 1976) provided
evidence in support of the idea that individuals who were
androgynous were more willing to cross gender boundaries.
Additional attention to the issue of flexibility may provide
insights into why androgyny was not consistently found to
be related to adjustment.
Concept versus Measurement
When Bem (1975) proposed androgyny, she considered that
the major advantage for androgynous individuals was their
flexibility—their ability to cross gender boundaries. As she
said, androgynous individuals have the ability to be Bsensitive
to the changing constraints of the situation and engage in
whatever behavior seems more effective at the moment…^
(pp. 634–635) versus the gender-typed person who must
595
always maintain gender-traditional behavior. If we return to
this initial idea that androgyny allows for behavioral flexibility
in the face of changing circumstances and try to match this
idea with the measurement of M, F, and A using the BSRI, it is
striking how measurement fails to capture these features. First,
as described earlier, many items that make up the F and M
scales are personality characteristics pertaining to
instrumentality/dominance and expressivity/warmth rather
than more broadly representing M and F across multiple do-
mains (Spence et al. 1975).
Second, and even more importantly, does the BSRI assess
flexibility or adaptability at all? Individuals are asked to rate
how well each characteristic describes himself/herself using a
scale that ranges from Bnever or almost never true^ to Balways
or almost always true^ (Bem 1974, p. 158). Rating scales with
these kinds of anchors are commonly used to determine indi-
viduals’ traits—that is, their enduring and relatively consistent
characteristics (Sedney 1989). However, trait measures do not
inform us at all about whether someone has the capability of
behaving in a certain way given pressure from the environ-
ment or situation to do so. Consider a woman who sees herself
as typically being gentle and understanding while not seeing
herself as forceful or dominant—that is, someone who may
rate highly on the F items and low on the M items on the BSRI
(i.e., someone feminine gender typical). Based on this assess-
ment, we may expect that she would not usually be assertive,
dominant, and forceful but, in fact, we cannot predict her
capabilities to enlist these masculine behaviors if she were in
a situation where these masculine qualities were needed. The
only way to predict behavior this precisely is to ask individ-
uals to rate their capabilities—that is, the ease of behaving in a
certain way when required by the situation. In assessing capa-
bilities, we gain insights into someone’s ability to behave in a
way that matches situational demands (Kaplan 1979; Paulhus
and Martin 1987, Canada; Wallace 1966; Willerman et al.
1976). If this woman said she had the capability of being
assertive when it was required in a situation, we have a differ-
ent and fuller personality profile of her: She is often not asser-
tive but can be if the situation requires assertive behavior. This
pattern suggests that she is adaptable or flexible; she can be
both non-assertive and assertive, and her behavior varies
depending on what the situation requires.
Assessing Capabilities and Flexibility
To better assess this kind of adaptability, Paulhus and
Martin (1987) developed a Battery of Interpersonal
Capabilities using a sample of Canadian adults, in which
young adults were asked their capability of enacting 16
interpersonal behaviors in appropriate situations. Consider
that this kind of measure is different from asking individ-
uals directly about their adaptability (e.g., can you adapt
to situation x), and it is also different from assuming that
596
a high or moderate level of a behavior indicates appropri-
ate enactment of the behavior. The measure tapped into
capabilities that are appropriately executed in a situation,
rather than assuming that any fluctuations of behavior
represent appropriate execution or that often showing a
behavior means it is deployed when it fits a situation.
That is, a person could have the capability of being flex-
ible but not necessarily use that flexibility to better adjust
to a situation; by asking the questions in this way, the
focus was on assessing individual’s flexibility when it
was appropriate or best fit the situation.
Capabilities were assessed by asking participants to answer
a global question (e.g., BHow likely is it that you could be
dominant if the situation requires it?^) and questions about
their anxiety, difficulty of performing, and tendencies to avoid
situations requiring those behaviors, each rated on a 7-point
Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much; Paulhus and
Martin 1987, p. 356). The capabilities tapped into a wide
range of 16 positive and negative personality characteristics
(e.g., dominant, ambitious, warm, trusting, submissive, arro-
gant, and gregarious). The global capability questions mea-
sured a common construct, despite that some behaviors relate
to dimensions that are often related to F, such as warmth or
agreeableness, and others to M, such as dominance.
Furthermore, in support of Bem’s concept of androgyny,
many of the individual capability items were related to self-
esteem, lack of anxiety, and interpersonal control, suggesting
links with adjustment. For instance, the global capabilities that
represented individuals being able to be dominant, ambitious,
extraverted, gregarious, agreeable, warm, trusting, calculat-
ing, and arrogant—when it is appropriate to use these charac-
teristics—each related positively to self-esteem.
In a second related series of studies, Paulhus and Martin
(1988, Canada) proposed using the range of individual capa-
bilities to measure a construct similar to androgyny, called
Bfunctional flexibility^ (p. 91). This measure was designed to
tap into the kind of flexibility that Bem (1974, 1975) and Leary
(1957) thought was related to mental health. As Leary de-
scribed it, BIn the adjusted, well-functioning individual the
entire repertoire of interpersonal reflexes is operating sponta-
neously, flexibly and appropriately…^ (p. 118). Therefore,
using data from Canadian young adults, four composites were
created (i.e., a capability composite, a difficulty composite, an
anxiety composite, and an avoidance composite) based on rat-
ings given to the 16 positive and negative characteristics.
These young adults answered four types of flexibility ques-
tions: about their capabilities, difficulty, avoidance, and anxiety
in enlisting behaviors in various situations. They also complet-
ed other measures, including measures of androgyny (two
measures based on the BSRI: one scored using the difference
score, the other as the interaction of M and F). Interestingly, the
four flexibility measures loaded on one factor whereas the
androgyny measures loaded on a separate factor. Importantly,
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
in another sample of Canadian young adults, each of the four
functional flexibility indexes (capability, difficulty, anxiety,
and avoidance composites) was found to be significantly relat-
ed to self-esteem in the expected directions (Paulhus and
Martin 1988). Androgyny, defined as the interaction of M
and F, was also found to be positively related to self-esteem
(however, the original difference score method of determining
androgyny was not). Situationality, that is, the tendency to be
changeable but not situationally appropriate on the same char-
acteristics, was negatively correlated with self-esteem, suggest-
ing that it is not simply being non-rigid that matters; instead, it
is being flexible under specific situations that matters. Overall,
these results suggest that flexibility in behavior is important
and may promote adjustment, as long as the flexibility is ap-
propriate to the situation (Paulhus and Martin 1988).
The idea of functional flexibility appears to have taken
some hold in both psychology and business, and it has been
used to address a number of questions about personality
( M i l l e r et al . 1 991 ), c oun selin g (Kiv ligha n a nd
Shaunghnessy 2000), management (Van den Berg and Van
der Velde 2005, The Netherlands), workplace adaptability
(Pulakos et al. 2000), and leadership (Zaccaro et al. 1991).
Overall, these studies suggest that functional flexibility is a
positive feature in a wide variety of settings. Surprisingly,
other than in the Paulhus and Martin (1988) study, this con-
struct has not been employed in psychology to explore how
flexibility relates to adjustment, although it seems that this is a
natural extension of Bem’s work on androgyny.
So far, we carefully examined Bem’s original ideas about
androgyny and the flexibility associated with it, and we found
that flexibility as a construct and the idea of functional flexi-
bility have not received much research attention. With better
measures and methods to measure capabilities and flexibility,
the links between androgyny and adjustment are found, sug-
gesting that further research is worth pursuing using these
measures to examine links to adjustment for both children
and adults.
Flexibility in Gender Identity and Gendered
Behavior
The idea of revisiting androgyny was to propose that the un-
derlying idea of the flexibility associated with having both
masculine and feminine characteristics may never have re-
ceived the attention it deserved. By illustrating that assessing
capabilities rather than traits allows researchers to capture a
fuller range of behaviors, and by considering whether these
capabilities can be adaptably deployed, our goal was to con-
vince readers that the original conceptualization of androgyny
continues to hold promise. The two features on which we
focused (having the capabilities to engage in a wide range of
behaviors and the idea of being flexible and adaptable) move
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
the field of gender studies even further away from an emphasis
on the alignment of traits and gender and allow for further
consideration of how individuals cross and extend gender
boundaries. The ideas that gender roles may be broader than
traditional roles suggest and that individuals can cross gender
boundaries using adaptive and flexible behaviors have been
central themes in a number of recent studies on children
(DiDonato and Berenbaum 2011; DiDonato et al. 2012;
Martin et al. 2016; Martin and Dinella 2012). The following
sections describe two such lines of research motivated by the
idea of androgyny: one concerning children's gender identity
(Martin et al. 2016) and the other concerning children's
gender-typed behavior (DiDonato et al. 2012).
Androgyny and Perspectives on Gender Identity
Bem’s (1974) method of assessing androgyny involved the use
of the BSRI, and the novelty of the approach was ensuring that
individuals were able to claim both types of traits (M and F). In
the study conducted by Martin and colleagues (2016), the mo-
tivation was to try a similar approach to assess gender identity
in children (6–11 years-old). In the following, we discuss the
findings from this research, which builds on Bem’s approach by
expanding how gender identity is assessed, and then we de-
scribe the findings from the study that illustrate how individual
differences in identity relate to psychological adjustment.
For very young children (3–5 years-olds), gender identity
is most often captured in their knowledge of simple gender
category classifications (e.g., BI am a girl^; Thompson 1975;
Zosuls et al. 2009). For older children (8–10 years-old), more
sophisticated understanding is involved. For example, the re-
search conducted by Egan and Perry (2001) provides rich and
detailed information about the significance of how individuals
make determinations of how typical they are of their own
gender group (i.e., I am a good example of my gender) and
the many positive consequences associated with feeling
gender-typical (Carver et al. 2003; Yunger et al. 2004). For
adults, gender identity is measured in two general ways:
through assessment of personality traits and by how closely
adults identify with gender groups (see Wood and Eagly
2015). Social psychological and social identity theory on both
adults and children (Tajfel and Turner 1986, Great Britain)
suggest that identifying with a group is empowering in that
it promotes a sense of closeness and belongingness.
Furthermore, it enhances motivation to learn group-relevant
information (Martin and Halverson 1981; Master and Walton
2013; Walton et al. 2012), but it also increases prejudice and
stereotyping (Bigler et al. 1997; Liviatan et al. 2008).
Although feeling typical of one’s own gender appears
to be important for a variety of outcomes, it seems rea-
sonable to wonder if gender identity also involves consid-
ering how one compares with the other gender. That is,
what points of similarity does one share with the other
597
gender? Additionally, might embracing a broader social
identity (i.e., feeling similar to multiple groups) offset or
minimize issues related to having a single group identifi-
cation? In this sense, this research was motivated by the
general notion of androgyny in that, just as it may be
advantageous to have characteristics gender-typed for
both genders, it may also be advantageous to feel connect-
ed and similar to both genders. From this thinking arose
the idea of a dual-identity model of gender identity in
which individuals are asked to think about their similari-
ties to both own- and other-gender peers (Martin et al.
2016). Belonging to one group has many advantages
and some disadvantages, but it is less clear if there are
benefits or drawbacks to feeling a sense of belonging to
multiple groups. Martin et al. (2016) conducted the study
to assess the development and patterning of gendered
social identities in children.
The identity view presented by Martin and colleagues
(2016) is different from a developmental perspective that
focuses on children’s behavioral androgyny. For instance,
children may be considered flexible if they engage in both
male- and female-typical behaviors, and the reasons for
these behaviors might be seen as resulting from socializa-
tion, cognitive, and cultural influences (Liben and Bigler
2002). The identity and behavioral views of flexibility
likely overlap in a number of ways but they are distinctive
in how flexibility is assessed (e.g., self-reported or ob-
served behaviors vs. global self-perceptions). To explore
the development and patterning of gender social identities
in children, Martin et al. developed a simple, graphical
assessment of dual identity in which children determine
how close to place circles representing themselves and
each gender group as indication of their similarities.
They are asked about global similarity (BOverall, how
similar are you to boys/girls?^) and additional questions
that ask about specific dimensions of similarity including
appearance, behaviors, activities, and playmates (Martin
et al. 2016).
This measure was used with children from 6 to 11 years of
age to explore developmental changes in perceived similarity to
own- and other-gender peers (Martin et al. 2016). Another goal
of the study was to explore the links between patterns of sim-
ilarity as they relate to various social and psychological adjust-
ment outcomes. Over each age group tested, the pattern of
own- versus other-gender similarity was consistent and strong:
Children rated their own-gender similarity as higher than other-
gender similarity, which is not surprising. However, when rat-
ings were analyzed using a person-oriented analytical approach
(i.e., clustering), four types of children were identified: those
high in own-gender similarity (Own-Gender Similar), those
high in own- and moderately high in other-gender similarity
(Both-Gender Similar), those moderately high in other-gender
similarity and low in own-gender similarity (Cross-Gender
598
Similar), and those who were relatively low in similarity to both
genders (Low-Gender Similar).
About 30 % of the children were high in both types of
similarity, and these children appear to show a clear pat-
tern of dual gender identity. The researchers hypothesized
that feeling similar to both genders may provide these
children with advantages for mental health and social out-
comes over feeling similarity only to one’s own gender.
Some support for these ideas was found: Children who
expressed some similarity to both gender groups felt more
likely to be included in interactions with peers of both
genders, had friends of both genders, and exhibited re-
duced intergroup bias. However, self-esteem was not en-
hanced for these children over those who were only high
in own-gender identification (Martin et al. 2016).
Furthermore, in this study, two types of children who feel
gender atypical were distinguished: Low-Gender Similar and
Cross-Gender Similar children (Martin et al. 2016). Low-
Gender Similar and Cross-Gender Similar children exhibited
differing patterns of social and adjustment outcomes, with
Cross-Gender Similar children showing high levels of social
anxiety and Low-Gender Similar children not feeling included
by peers and attributing a high number of negative character-
istics to other-gender peers.
By expanding assessment of gender identity to include the
consideration of similarity to both the own- and other-gender
groups, this dual-identity approach suggests that both the ear-
lier androgyny view and the later views of gender typicality
being positive for mental health could be valid. Specifically,
feeling own-gender typical appears to provide a strong foun-
dation that supports and relates to good adjustment, and feel-
ing similarity to the other gender provides additional
adjustment-related benefits through connection and belonging
to both gender groups (Martin et al. 2016).
The dual-identity approach suggests a new way in which
androgyny could be incarnated—specifically through the idea
of identity androgyny, where focus is on how the self relates to
gender groups rather than individuals’ specific constellations
of traits. That is, whereas Bem’s (1974) view of psychological
androgyny involved individuals being able to adaptively ap-
ply their personality traits, identity androgyny can be de-
scribed as individuals holding positive assessments of the re-
lations between themselves and both gender groups. Martin
and colleagues (2016) hypothesized that this dual identifica-
tion provides certain advantages. Children who claim some
connection with both genders may have added flexibility in
their social lives than children who feel more own-gender
typical, although additional research is needed to more fully
explore this idea. In addition, this type of identification may
enhance sensitivity to context, allowing for more variability of
behavior across situations, for both children and adults (also
see Lesczczynski and Strough 2008; Mehta 2015; Pickard and
Strough 2003; Smith et al. 1999). Research is needed to
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
improve our understanding of how dual identities function
with regard to enhancing flexibility and how identity flexibil-
ity relates to positive adjustment.
Adaptive Flexibility as a Dynamical System Concept
With focus on the adaptive flexibility that underlies androgy-
ny, questions arise about how to best measure that kind of
flexibility. Assessing functional flexibility is one approach
that is reasonable (Paulhus and Martin 1988), but other
methods also show promise. In particular, it is interesting to
explore methods that have evolved in other disciplines that
have potential to assess flexibility as Bem (1975) described:
that is, adaptive flexibility in which behavior changes to match
the situation.
It is fascinating that adaptive flexibility has become a
central topic in theories of human health (as well as
physical events, such as weather; Goldberger 1996). This
attention to flexibility is due to the introduction of dynami-
cal systems theories and methods (Thelen and Smith 2006)
in many fields, although this approach is relatively new to
developmental science (for review, see DiDonato et al.
2013). Dynamical systems methods are employed widely
across the sciences, allowing for the exploration of the many
benefits of flexibility across a wide variety of systems. In
dynamical systems, flexibility of a system allows for it to
adapt, and adaptation allows systems to thrive and develop.
Although dynamical systems approaches are not widely
used in developmental research, researchers have been using
this approach to better understand the development of motor
skills and language development (Adolph et al. 2003;
Thelen and Smith 2006).
Because of its focus on adaptive flexibility, DiDonato and
colleagues (2012) explored whether these same dynamical
systems techniques that have been useful in understanding
flexibility in other fields could inform research on gender.
This approach was found to have potential to illustrate new
ways to think about and analyze flexible behavior. The goal of
this research was to apply these new techniques to measure
flexibility and then examine whether flexibility promotes
mental health and adjustment in children.
Before describing the research DiDonato et al. (2012) con-
ducted on flexibility in children’s gender behavior, it is impor-
tant to review how the dynamical system approach views var-
iability and flexibility. In the dynamical systems approach, the
assumption is that variability is meaningful, not random; it
represents the history of the system under investigation
(Thelen and Smith 2006). Some influences on the system
are brief and momentary, others are moderate in influence,
and, for others, the influence occurs over a longer time span.
Each of these influences interact to produce variability in the
system, and the influence on each time frame can be detected
by carefully analyzing the system under study.
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
Dynamical approaches have methods that allow for assess-
ment of different kinds of variability. Of particular interest is a
specific pattern of variability called Bpink noise,^ which is an
indicator of adaptive flexibility. Specifically, when pink noise
is present in a system, it indicates that short-term changes are
nested (repeated) within longer-term changes (Van Orden
et al. 2003). This type of correlated variability is represented
throughout nature. For instance, it can be observed in the
patterns seen in shorelines where close inspection shows small
ins and outs of the shoreline; at a wide distance, larger ins and
outs of the shoreline are apparent; and at even farther distance,
the shoreline also shows even more expansive ins and outs.
This repeated patterning (the ins and outs) and multiple levels
(up close and far away) is consistent with correlated
variability.
Pink noise has been found to be a marker of adaptive flex-
ibility in many kinds of systems in adults (Kello et al. 2007;
Van Orden et al. 2003). For instance, within healthy individ-
uals, correlated variability can be identified in healthy heart
rate patterns that show variability as they fluctuate in response
to activity. Healthy individuals show increased heart rate
when their activity increases and decreased heart rate when
their activity decreases; that is, the healthy heart adapts to its
demands. In contrast, when individuals lose this type of vari-
ability, the costs are serious. In a diseased heart, the same
exercise conditions may lead to complete arrest of the heart
(Goldberger 1996). When systems fail to show pink noise, this
indicates that their sensitivity to environmental constraints has
been lessened or lost, and this loss is associated with physio-
logical and psychological risks such as heart disease, attention
deficit disorder, and epilepsy (Linkenkaer-Hansen et al. 2005,
The Netherlands). Thus, it seems reasonable to wonder wheth-
er pink noise might be an indicator of flexibility, and especial-
ly of adaptive flexibility, in human behavior.
How might the notion of pink noise apply to behavior? In
the DiDonato et al.’s (2012) study, interest was focused on
assessing the variability in children’s choices of play partners
and in the gender typicality of their activities over time. To do
this, a large dataset of observations of young children was
used, and from this, DiDonato and colleagues analyzed data
from 88 preschool children from Head Start programs (in
Phoenix) who had sufficient observational data (from a larger
sample of 308; 41 boys, 47 girls; 51 months of age; 75 %
Hispanic; 86 % low-income families). Initial analyses illus-
trated the variability in children’s gender-typed play:
Children’s choices of with whom to interact and the kinds of
activities in which they wanted to engage varied from
moment-to-moment and over longer periods of time (see
Fig. 1 showing patterns of variability in children’s gender-
typed behavior). For instance, these variations in a child’s
behavior may have been due to the child’s best friend being
sick and not at school for several days, so selecting another
play partner would be adaptable. Similarly, perhaps a toy that
599
1.0
0.5
0
50 100 150 200
Gender Typicality Score
1.0
0.5
0
50 100 150 200
1.0
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200
Trial Number
Fig. 1 Fluctuation functions of three representative children illustrating
the variability of gendered behavior over time. For each graph, the x-axis
shows the trial number on which the child was assessed, and the y-axis
shows the child’s gender typicality score. Note. Originally published by
DiDonato et al. 2013, in Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life
Sciences, 16
a child prefers was being played with by someone else, so the
child had to select another toy. In contrast, another child might
be more rigid in adhering to specific patterns of play that may
not be adaptable within his/her peer group (insisting on
playing with specific toys or peers). In this case, the child
who changes behavior when situations change (i.e., when
friend is sick; when toy is unavailable) is likely to exhibit a
pattern of variability in behavior characterized by pink noise,
whereas the child who adheres to one toy or to one friend for
play is unlikely to exhibit a pattern of variability in behavior
characterized by pink noise.
To assess variability in children’s gender-typed behavior,
analyses were conducted that provided information about
whether each child’s pattern of responses exhibited pink noise,
meaning that a correlated pattern of behavior was shown over
time. In contrast, behavior may be unsystematic, in which the
variability in behavior over time is uncorrelated. In this case,
behavior is variable but it is not a function of past behavior or
current environmental constraints —that is, it is not adaptive.
To determine whether variability was correlated or not re-
quires an analysis that detects pink noise. DiDonato and
colleagues (2012) applied this type of analysis and expected
to find individual differences in children’s ability to adapt their
behavior to fit the environment, such that some children
would be more likely to show pink noise (i.e., be adaptable)
in their pattern of behavior and others would be less likely.
Children who show flexibility in response to changing cir-
cumstances and behavior that occur at different time scales
600
(short-term and longer-term) were hypothesized to exhibit
pink noise, which suggests a higher level of organization of
their behavior around environmental constraints and past his-
tory than for children who are less flexible. That is, the focus
was on understanding and identifying the patterns of gendered
behavior that emerge from everyday interactions with peers—
constrained by environmental features (such as available play
partners and toys)—and identifying how these differ for dif-
ferent children.
The second question of interest in DiDonato et al.’s (2012)
study was exploring whether pink noise related to adjustment.
Are children who show more adaptive behavior better adjust-
ed? If evidence was found of pink noise in children’s gendered
behavior, it would suggest that some children are more flexi-
bly adapting their behavior in response to changing situational
demands. To directly address this issue, DiDonato et al.
(2012) then examined whether individual differences in this
type of variability related to a variety of measures of psycho-
logical adjustment.
The data needed to assess pink noise involve extended time
series of behaviors. Children were observed several days a
week over the course of a year in a longitudinal design
(DiDonato et al. 2012). Teachers reported on children’s ad-
justment, and teacher aides reported on children’s adaptability.
During each coding session, children’s activities and play
partners were recorded. From these behavioral codes, gender
typicality scores were created that conveyed the degree of
gender-typing of play partner choices and activities for each
observation (see Fig. 1).
Several interesting findings emerged from the analyses of
children’s gender-typed behavior (DiDonato et al. 2012).
First, on average, the children in the sample exhibited pink
noise in their patterns of behavior. Estimates from .5 to 1.0
signify pink noise and values closer to .5 indicate less pink
noise and greater randomness. For the children in the study,
the mean values was .73, suggesting pink noise was being
exhibited. It is unlikely that other explanations, such as social
or cognitive factors, can explain this particular type of corre-
lated, patterned variability.
Second, the researchers examined whether variability in
behavior correlated with measures of adaptability and adjust-
ment. Pink noise values were found to be correlated with
adaptability and adjustment more strongly for girls than for
boys. Specifically, girls but not boys with higher levels of pink
noise in their gender behavior were rated by teacher aides as
being more adaptable and were rated higher by teachers on
social competence, positive emotion, and lower in externaliz-
ing problems. The reason that boys did not show these signif-
icant relations may relate to their being more constrained in
gender roles than girls (Feinman 1981); thus, flexibility is less
apparent and is less likely to relate to adjustment. In future
research it would be interesting to assess whether boys who
feel less constrained by gender roles (e.g., have lower feelings
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
of felt pressure to conform to gender roles) show greater flex-
ibility in their behavior than boys with higher felt pressure.
Third, analyses were conducted to assess how gender typ-
icality and adaptability in behavior across the school year
related to adjustment later in the school year. For both genders,
children with higher adaptive variability in their behavior (as
indicated by higher levels of pink noise) showed no relation
between gender-typical behavior and two indicators of adjust-
ment assessed in spring of the school year (prosocial behavior,
positive emotion); however, for children with less flexibility
in behavior, gender-typical behavior predicted adjustment.
That is, for children who were not adaptively flexible in their
behavior, there were links between exhibiting gender-typical
behavior (stereotypically appropriate behavior) and well-be-
ing, such that being gender-atypical was related to poorer
adjustment and being typical related to better adjustment.
However, for children who showed medium and high adaptive
flexibility in their behavior, no such links were apparent.
Based on these findings, the conclusion was drawn that adap-
tive flexibility was protective of children’s adjustment
(DiDonato et al. 2012). That is, children who exhibit gender-
atypical behavior and do so inflexibly (without attending to
their social environment) are at risk; their behavior may be
viewed unfavorably by their peers, which may lead to nega-
tive adjustment consequences. But children who exhibit a mix
of gender-typical and atypical behavior appropriate to/
dependent on the situation appear to have protection against
any potential negative consequences of crossing gender
boundaries.
It is interesting to speculate on how the findings of
DiDonato et al.’s (2012) study (i.e., the meaning of pink noise
and its relation to adjustment) can be viewed from the per-
spective of socially constructed views of gender (West and
Zimmerman 1991). We see no incompatibility between the
findings and this perspective concerning how gender may be
socially constructed. If gender is being constructed and per-
formed by children as the evidence suggest that it is in studies
of gender rigidity in clothing choices for young girls (Halim
et al. 2011), for instance, they are also exposed and likely are
learning the constraints and affordances within their preschool
classrooms that encourage or discourage certain types of play
and playmates. For instance, exhibiting gender-typical play is
often encouraged by teachers (Fagot and Patterson 1969) and
other children (Langlois and Downs 1980), whereas counter-
stereotypic activities are policed and constrained by peers
(Miller et al. 2013). These affordances and constraints vary
over time and vary by gender, and thus could contribute to the
patterns identified in DiDonato et al.’s study. However, future
research is needed to consider whether the dynamic and sys-
tematic nature of these patterns can be explained with social
forces.
Although Bem may not have had dynamical variations in
mind when she first introduced androgyny, the application of
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
dynamical systems methods to the study of flexibility is prom-
ising because it focuses on variability and change over time
rather than means and stability over time. It is just this focus
that was lacking in the initial assessment approaches used to
study androgyny. As more researchers become comfortable
with dynamical systems methods, we expect to find new areas
in which flexibly applied masculine and feminine behaviors
will be evident. Through the use of dynamical approaches, we
are able to view a time series of behavioral sequences in novel
ways to explore the extent to which children are able to behave
flexibly and not be constrained by gender.
Summary
Psychological androgyny introduced a new way of thinking
by encouraging the crossing of gender boundaries and
allowing both men and women to claim a wide variety of
characteristics as being self-descriptive. In the present paper,
one goal was to return to Bem’s (1975) original idea of psy-
chological androgyny and to explore whether the flexibility
that was assumed to be so critical to the link to mental health
had been measured in ways that truly captured the original
intent. We presented the case that, in the original methods of
measurement and in many early studies of androgyny (e.g.,
Bem 1974), little attention was paid to assessing flexibility; as
such, the flexibility hypothesis (i.e., flexibility relates to pos-
itive adjustment) was never fully tested. By using capabilities
measures (Paulhus and Martin 1987) and assessing how these
capabilities are deployed over a range of situations, as was
done in the measurement of functional flexibility, links were
found with mental health (Paulhus and Martin 1988). Using
these approaches, it is possible to come closer to the kind of
flexibility that Bem originally proposed as a hallmark of an-
drogyny (Bem 1975) and to provide support for her ideas
about links to mental health.
A second major goal was to review two lines of research
that were motivated by Bem’s (1975) idea of psychological
androgyny. We discussed how identity androgyny (Martin
et al. 2016) shares some similarity to psychological androgy-
ny; however, rather than focusing on individuals having the
capability of exhibiting both masculine and feminine behav-
iors or traits, identity androgyny concerns viewing the self
from the perspective of feeling connection to both gender
groups. Using this dual identity approach provides a nuanced
view of the identity–adjustment link by suggesting that iden-
tifying with one’s own gender is important for mental health
but that identifying with the other gender provides additional
social benefits and may relate to flexibility. The second line of
research (DiDonato et al. 2012) we discussed was how a dy-
namical systems approach to understanding variability pro-
vides new methods and ways of thinking about variability that
may help to clarify the meaning of adaptive flexibility. When a
601
dynamical approach perspective was explored, the same kind
of adaptive flexibility inherent in healthy biological systems
was evident in some children’s gender-typed behavior.
Interestingly, girls but not boys who exhibited higher levels
of this type of flexibility in their play were better adjusted.
However, for both girls and boys, increased flexibility seemed
to be protective for adjustment.
Returning to the issue that opened our article, research
suggests that crossing gender boundaries can be healthy and
not detrimental, at least for the samples tested in the studies
reviewed here. The key may be to do so in adaptive and
flexible ways, that is, by matching behaviors to the demands
of situations. Other factors that may contribute to the ease or
difficulty of crossing these boundaries remain interesting is-
sues to explore. Many questions remain unanswered
concerning how adaptive flexibility promotes adjustment
and how it may act in a protective role as a buffer to any
negative consequences that might accrue from crossing gen-
der boundaries. Nonetheless, based on the literature and re-
search reviewed here—on the ideas of functional flexibility,
identity androgyny, and variability measured with pink noise,
we hope that the type of adaptive flexibility that Bem (1975)
proposed as being a key to androgyny will be revived and will
receive the attention it deserves.
Acknowledgments The research was supported in part by funds from
the National Institute of Child Health and Development (1-R01-
HD45816), awarded to the first author, and by the T. Denny Sanford
School of Social and Family Dynamics as part of the Challenged Child
Project. Additional support was provided for Naomi Andrews from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Compliance with Ethical Standards The research that was reported
here received IRB approval and was conducted according to the ethical
guidelines of the American Psychological Association. All authors have
agreed to the content of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest None of the coauthors have any potential conflicts
of interest concerning this work.
Informed Consent Participants in the research gave informed consent
to be involved in the research.
References
Adolph, K. E., Vereijken, B., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). What changes in
infant walking and why. Child Development, 74, 475–497. doi:10.
1111/1467-8624.7402011.
Alpert-Gillis, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Gender and sex-role influ-
ences on children’s self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 97–114.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00762.x.
Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1979). Self-esteem as a function of
masculinity in both sexes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 47, 783–785.
602
Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, gender, and the individual. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 486–525).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Aube, J., Norcliffe, H., Craig, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender charac-
teristics and adjustment-related outcomes: Questioning the mascu-
linity model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 284–
295. doi:10.1177/0146167295213009.
Bassoff, E. S., & Glass, G. V. (1982). The relationship between sex roles
and mental health: A meta-analysis of twenty-six studies.
Counseling Ps ycholo gist, 10, 105–112. do i:1 0.1177/
0011000082104019.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:
10.1037/h0036215.
Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychology
androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–
643. doi:10.1037/h0077098.
Bem, S. L., & Lenney, E. (1976). Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-
sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48–
54. doi:10.1037/h0078640.
Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization
and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child
Development, 68, 530–543. doi:10.2307/1131676.
Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and
adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95–109. doi:10.
1023/A:1024423012063.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a
famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407. doi:10.1037/
h0035334.
DiDonato, M. D., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2011). The benefits and draw-
backs of gender typing: How different dimensions are related to
psychological adjustment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 457–
463. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9620-5.
DiDonato, M. D., Martin, C. L., Hessler, E. E., Amazeen, P. G., Hanish,
L. D., & Fabes, R. A. (2012). Gender consistency and flexibility:
Using dynamics to understand the relation between gender and ad-
justment. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16,
159–184.
DiDonato, M. D., England, D. E., Martin, C. L., & Amazeen, P. G.
(2013). Dynamic analyses for developmental science: A primer for
intrigued scientists. Human Development, 56, 59–75. doi:10.1159/
000342936.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463.
Fagot, B. I., & Patterson, G. R. (1969). An in vivo analysis of reinforcing
contingencies for sex-role behaviors in the preschool child.
Developmental Psychology, 1, 563–568. doi:10.1037/h0027965.
Feinman, S. (1981). Why is cross-sex-role behavior more approved for
girls than boys? A status characteristic approach. Sex Roles, 7, 289–
300. doi:10.1007/BF00287543.
Gilbert, L. A. (1981). Toward mental health: The benefits of psycholog-
ical androgyny. Professional Psychology, 12, 29–38. doi:10.1037/
0735-7028.12.1.29.
Goldberger, A. L. (1996). Non-linear dynamics for clinicians: Chaos
theory, fractals, and complexity at the bedside. The Lancet, 347,
1312–1314. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90948-4.
Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427–439. doi:10.1177/
001316445201200309.
Guilford, J. P., & Guilford, R. B. (1936). Personality factors S, E, and M
and their measurement. Journal of Psychology, 2, 109–127. doi:10.
1080/00223980.1936.9917446.
Halim, M. L., Ruble, D. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2011). From pink frilly
dresses to Bone of the boys^: A social-cognitive analysis of gender
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
identity development and gender bias. Social and Personality
Compass, 5, 933–949. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00399.x.
Helgeson, V. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being:
Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116,
412–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412.
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 387–467). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kaplan, A. G. (1976). Androgyny as a model of mental health for women:
From theory to therapy. In A. G. Kalan & J. P. Bean (Eds.), Beyond
sex-role stereotypes: Readings toward a psychology of andrognyny
(pp. 353–362). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Kaplan, A. G. (1979). Clarifying the concept of androgyny: Implications
for therapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 223–230. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00539.x.
Kello, C. T., Beltz, B. C., Holden, J. G., & Van Orden, G. C. (2007). The
emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 551–568. doi:10.1037/
0096-3445.136.4.551.
Kelly, J. A., & Worell, J. (1977). New formulations of sex roles and
androgyny: A critical review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 45, 1101–1115. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.45.6.1101.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Shaunghnessy, P. (2000). Patterns of working
alliance development: A typology of client’s working alliance rat-
ings. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 362–371. doi:10.1037//
0022-0167.47.3.362.
Langlois, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as
socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviors in young children.
Child Development, 51, 1237–1247. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1980.
tb02675.x.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY:
Ronald Press.
Lesczczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of
masculinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social
Development, 17, 719–736. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.014.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender
differentiation. In W. Overton (Ed.), Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development (Vol. 67 no. 2, pp. vii-147). Boston,
MA: Blackwell.
Linkenkaer-Hansen, K., Monto, S., Rytsala, H., Suominen, K., Isometsa,
E., & Kahkonen, S. (2005). Breakdown of long-range temporal
correlations in theta oscillations in patients with major depressive
disorder. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 10131–10137. doi:10.1523/
jneurosci.3244-05.2005.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as
a social distance dimensions: Implications for perception of others’
actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256–
1269. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007.
Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femi-
ninity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as separate concepts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 428–439. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.428.
Martin, C. L., & Dinella, L. (2012). Congruence between gender stereo-
types and activity preferences in self-identified tomboys and non-
tomboys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 599–610. doi:10.1007/
s10508-011-9786-5.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model
of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52,
1119–1134. doi:10.2307/1129498.
Martin, C. L., Andrews, N. C. Z., England, D., Zosuls, K., & Ruble, D. N.
(2016). A dual identity approach for conceptualizing and measuring
children’s gender identity. Child Development.
Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2013). Minimal groups increase
young children’s motivation and learning on group-relevant
tasks. Child Development, 84, 737–751. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2012.01867.x.
Sex Roles (2017) 76:592–603
Mehta, C. M. (2015). Gender in context: Considering variability in Wood
and Eagly’s traditions of gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 490–496.
doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4.
Miller, M. L., Omens, R. S., & Delvadia, R. (1991). Dimensions of social
competence: Personality and coping style correlates. Personality
and Individual Differences, 12, 955–964. doi:10.1016/0191-
8869(91)90185-e.
Miller, C. F., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Hanish, L. (2013). Bringing
the cognitive and social together: How gender detectives and gender
enforcers shape children’s gender development. In M. R. Banaji &
S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world (pp. 306–313).
Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199890712.001.0001.
Osofsky, J. D., & Osofsky, H. J. (1972). Androgyny as a life style. Family
Coordinator, 21, 411–419. doi:10.2307/582684.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1987). The structure of personality
capabilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
354–365. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.52.2.354.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new
conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 88–101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.88.
Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). The effects of same-sex and other-sex
contexts on masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 48, 421–432. doi:
10.1037/t00748-000.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000).
Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adap-
tive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. doi:
10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612.
Rebecca, M., Hefner, R., & Oleshansky, B. (1976). A model of sex-role
transcendence. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 197–206. doi:10.1111/j.
1540-4560.1976.tb02607.x.
Rose, A. J., & Montemayor, R. (1994). The relationship between gender
role orientation and perceived self-competency in male and female
adolescents. Sex Roles, 31, 579–595. doi:10.1007/BF01544281.
Sedney, M. A. (1989). Conceptual and methodological sources of con-
troversies about androgyny. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations:
Social constructions of gender (pp. 126–144). Amityville, NY:
Baywood.
Smith, C. J., Noll, J. A., & Bryant, J. B. (1999). The effects of social
context on gender self-concept. Sex Roles, 40, 499–512. doi:10.
1037/t00748-000.
Spence, J. T. (1983). Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher’s
Bmasculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as
distinct concepts^. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44, 440–446.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence
for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 624–635. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624.
Spence, J. T., & Hall, S. K. (1996). Children’s gender-related self-percep-
tions, activity preferences, and occupational stereotypes: A test of
three models of gender constructs. Sex Roles, 35, 659–691. doi:10.
1007/BF01544086.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attribute
questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity
and femininity. Journal of Supplemental Abstract Service Catalog
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43 (Ms. No. 617).
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers
on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and concep-
tions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 32, 29–39. doi:10.1037/h0076857.
603
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of in-
tergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories,
methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–365.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.347.
Tellegen, A., & Lubinski, D. (1983). Some methodological comments on
labels, traits, interactions, and types in the study of Bfemininity^ and
Bmasculinity^: Reply to Spence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 447–455.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (2006). Dynamic systems theories. In R. M.
Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of
human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 258–312). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Thompson, S. K. (1975). Gender labels and early sex role development.
Child Development, 46, 339–347. doi:10.2307/1128126.
Van den Berg, P. T., & Van der Velde, M. E. G. (2005). Relationships of
functional flexibility with individual and work factors. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 20, 111–129. doi:10.1007/s10869-005-
6994-9.
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-
organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 132, 331–350. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.
3.331.
Vonk, R., & Ashmore, R. D. (1993). The multifaceted self: Androgyny
reassessed by open-ended self-descriptions. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 56, 278–287. doi:10.2307/2786664.
Wallace, J. (1966). An abilities conception of personality: Some implica-
tions for personality measurement. American Psychologist, 21, 132–
138. doi:10.1037/h0023298.
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere
belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102, 513–532. doi:10.1037/a0025731.
Ward, C. A. (2000). Models and measurement of psychological androg-
yny: A cross-cultural extension of theory and research. Sex Roles,
43, 529–552. doi:10.1023/A:1007171500798.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S.
A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical
meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 765–778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.765.
Whitley, B. E. (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being:
Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles, 12, 207–225. doi:10.1007/
BF00288048.
Willerman, L., Turner, R. G., & Peterson, M. (1976). A comparison of the
predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 482–492. doi:10.1016/
0092-6566(76)90063-5.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender
identity. Sex Roles, 73, 461–473. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2.
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity
influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental
Psychology, 40, 572–582. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.572.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Self-
monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 449–
473. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(98)90011-x.
Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E.,
Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich, F. K. (2009). The acquisition of gen-
der labels in infancy: Implications for sex-typed play.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 688–701. doi:10.1037/a0014053.