Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.3 Introduction - Usefulness

Usefulness of Measuring Gender as a Personality Trait

Gender Diagnosticity

Gender Diagnosticity refers to the estimated probability that a person is male or female, based on some set of gender-related diagnostic indicators about the person. Gender Diagnosticity usually achieves optimal results when the questionnaire is focused on observable behaviours and job preferences. Examples of gender-related pieces of information are “this person wants to be a kindergarten teacher” or “ this person has short hair” (Lippa, 2008). Gender Diagnosticity is usually only applied and restricted to observable behaviours and does not make any inference to the cause of such differences. It allows psychologists to study the gender differences varying over time, groups, and cultures. They are true ratio scales of individual differences whose measures are tailored to the population in question and compared therein as opposed to normative values. The scale serves as a measure of individual differences in gender related behaviour within, as well as across, the sexes. The scale is easily applicable and gives researchers access to a wide population sample. Being a method rather than a test, any new individual difference inconsistent with the research can be assessed and computed using existing data do determine how the new measure calibrates with the old one (Ibid.)

Diagnostic Ratio

The diagnostic ratio is a "measure of the degree to which the knowledge that another person is a member of a social group... revises an individual's probability estimate that the person possesses a given characteristic" (Lippa, 2005, pg 431). In other words, the diagnostic ratio is an "individual's probability estimate that a member of a group possesses a given trait divided by the individual's probability estimate that people in general possess the trait." For example, by knowing a person's occupational preference, can we accurately predict whether they are male or female and vice versa? This allows a clear comparison between an individual and the group, the group being a measure of control. However, this may become a disadvantage if the chosen population is comprised of individuals on the more extreme or radical ends of the characteristic spectrum.

Gender and Disclosure

Emotional expression is an important aspect that cannot be ignored when examining gender diagnosticity and gender difference. Emotional expression has long been a scientific topic since Darwin, and in the past quarter century, researchers have developed over two hundred studies on this field (Langer, 2010). Langer completely agreed with the view that gender should be given greater attention in the context of experimental disclosure studies (2010). Do males or females use more words when indicating insight? Which gender uses more negative/positive words when expressing themselves? Or, between subjective and expressive indicators of emotion, do different genders exhibit differential levels of synchrony or de-synchrony? According to Langer (2010), there are three aspects related to gender differences that allow us to study emotional disclosure—gender schema theory (cognitive), social role theory (social), and gender socialization theory (developmental explanations).

Gender Schema Theory

According to Langer, a schema “is an organized body of knowledge about a given domain, and [it affects] the encoding, processing and interpretation of domain-relevant information” (2010). The organized bodies of knowledge about gender are based on cultural constructs of masculinity and femininity. Gender is formed as a child becomes aware of his or her own gender role within society, and organize their behaviour and self-concepts on that basis (Bem, 1981). According to this theory, males and masculine individuals are more likely to avoid trauma-relevant information and they are more likely to benefit from written disclosure than females because they have a long history of disregarding the emotions of sadness and fear (stereotypically feminine emotions). Due to this disregard, the writing process enables them to make better sense of the issue and the emotions they are not as familiar with. On the other hand, women and more feminine individuals do not benefit as greatly when writing or talking about anger, a stereotypically masculine emotion. From this, we can see that masculine individuals and feminine individuals must use different coping mechanisms when dealing with emotions. Therefore, gender diagnosticity can help different people to establish effectiveness coping skills when facing emotional problems

Social Role Theory

According to social role theory, “gender-based differences in disposition and behaviour arise from societal norms regarding gender-specific roles” (Langer, 2010). Social role theory describes that the environment affects the biology (Larsen and Buss, 2010); in turn, the biology affects the psychology and enhances the environment, where in this case, the environment is the social norm. The roles which are stereotypically exhibited by women are characterized by dependence and caring, whereas the roles stereotypically occupied by men are related to independence and ambition. When men are trying to express feelings other than anger, their behaviour is considered outside the usual social norms. Due to this, they are less likely than women to have large emotional support or to seek professional care. Moreover, studies have discovered that men are more willing to disclose their emotions (other than anger) if they are in a private space, have specific instructions on what to write or if they know their writing samples will be kept private (Langer, 2010). Learning the differences between males and females, or people with more masculine versus feminine social roles, helps different individuals find their own way to express their emotions when needed.

Gender Socialization Theory

According to gender socialization theory, during the long historical development, gender differences are formed from the differential reinforcement (Langer, 2010). Individuals learn how to act in gender-appropriate ways as these socially accepted ways are reinforced and modelled. From a young age, females are taught to nurture others and to express their emotions while males are taught to be autonomous from others, authoritative, and on some level, not to express their emotions directly. Females and males are treated differently when they express emotion. For example, girls are more likely to be comforted when they cry, but boys are often ignored or asked to inhibit their feelings when they exhibit the same behaviour. In regard to the experimental disclosure, masculine-oriented socialized persons are more likely to benefit from structured opportunities to disclose than femininity-oriented socialized people who are generally taught to express and process emotions(Langer, 2010). Men and women are trained to behave and express emotions differently. Therefore, in a large social environment, men and women are expected to socialize differently, as well as recognize how others socialize differently within their appropriated gender roles. Understanding how gender socialization forms people helps us recognize the socially appropriate ways to interact with others.

Mental Disorder Related Issues

Mental disorders can be related to gender difference. In the book Understanding Abnormal Behaviour, the author points out that gender differences have influences on diagnosing mental disorders—this may result from a genetic vulnerability or from exposure to stressors (Sue, Sue, Sue & Sue, 2010). For example, the prevalence of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) in women are twice higher than men, and the reasons can be concluded that women was more likely to exposure to violent interpersonal situation (e.g. domestic violence, sexual assaulted, or sexual harassment) (Sue & et al., 2010). However, an interesting founding indicates that female police officers have lower chance to develop symptoms of PTSD when they face greater assaultive violence than civilian women (Sue & et al., 2010). What factors make the differences of developing PTSD happen between civil women and for women who join the police force or military? According to Sue & et al. (2010), the biological form differences which engage in emotional suppression to cope with trauma events, stressful events, and male norms may contribute. Generally speaking, diagnosing the differences between male (and masculine-orientation person) and female (and feminine-orientation person) can help people to determine the riskiness of developing mental disorders. Moreover, as Sue & et al. points out, it is possible to reduce the threat perception of developing such mental disorders if women or femininity-orientation people can involve the role of a tradition male or masculine jobs ( e.g. police officer or soldier) (2010).

If So, is Gender Diagnosticity a Valid Measure?

In order to illustrate the validity of Gender Diagnosticity, researchers must manifest that Gender Diagnosticity scores are associated with traits, behaviours, and ratings. An effective way to show validity of Gender Diagnosticity approach is to demonstrate that it is correlated with psychological adjustment, sexual orientation and intelligence. In the first validity study, researchers gave a demonstration of connection between Gender Diagnosticity and various kinds of psychological adjustment. For example, Lippa concentrated on a large group of college students’ personality traits such as aggressiveness, overbearingness, assertiveness, aggressiveness and neuroticism as indicators of psychological adjustment to examine whether these personality traits were related to Gender diagnosticity. He found that people who scored high masculinity on GD approach have a tendency to be aggressive and overbearing (negative adjustment), meanwhile, they were also likely to be assertive and low on neuroticism (positive adjustment). On the other hand, people who score high femininity in GD approach tended to get excessively involved with others and too easily be exploited (negative adjustment), at the same time, they also tended to be agreeable (positive adjustments) (Lippa, 2001). As a result, this result has shown that gender diagnosticity prove to linked to both positive and negative psychological adjustment, which shows validity of gender diagnosticity approach. Second, researchers showed the validity of gender diagnosticity by showing its relationship with sexual orientation in both men and women. A research study assessed sexual orientation in an unselected sample of over 700 college students on gender diagnosticity measure. In addition, gay and lesbian volunteers were requested to participate in order to compare the gender diagnosticity scores with heterosexual men and women. The result indicated that gay men have substantially more feminine on GD scores than heterosexual men do, along with lesbian women who were found to have significantly more masculine on GD scores than heterosexual women do (Lippa, 2001). As a consequence, the validity of gender diagnosticity has been proved by strong connection with sexual orientation. Thirdly, the gender diagnosticity probabilities relating to scholastic aptitude and intelligence displays the validity of gender diagnosticity. By measuring the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test score in a group of high school students, researchers discovered that boys who are more feminine and girls who are more masculine on the GD approach are likely to score higher scholastic aptitude and intelligence than more sex-typed peers (Lippa, 2001). Therefore, the validity of GD method is presented by the strong association between scholastic aptitude, intelligence and gender diagnosticity scale.

Is Gender Diagnosticity a Useful Construct for Psychologists to Measure? Why and Why Not?

Gender Diagnosticity approach differs from the traditional unidimensional approach in that it allows the “information” that defines masculinity and femininity to change over historical time, different culture and across different groups. In other word, the GD approach computes the probability that a person is male or female, based on pieces of information that distinguish men and women in a particular group, in a particular culture, and during a particular historical period. In more detail, Gender Diagnosticity used in 1930 may not be valid in the 21st century. A concrete example will help to illustrate this point. When Terman and Miles conducted their research in 1936, college men and women demonstrated a large difference in their desire to be lawyers, with men expressing greater interest in law than women; however, this same piece of information is not valid in gender diagnosticity today. Contemporary college men and women do not differ much in their expressed interest in law as a profession (Lippa, 2001). Thus, items were gender diagnostic in the 1930s might not be valid in the 21st century. To further validate this point, the behaviour of "wearing pants" was more gender diagnostic a century ago then it is today (Lippa, 1990). This demonstrates the variability of gender diagnosticity over time.

Although masculinity and femininity sometimes present themselves differently in different time periods, groups and cultures, the Gender Diagnosticity approach maintains that some indicators of masculinity and femininity are stable over time. Given that gender is inherently culturally specific, by comparing within group, gender diagnosicity circumvents the need for external normative values and reduces error. For instance, in the United States, the interest of being an electrical engineer was highly gender specific in the 1930s, and it still remains so today (Lippa, 2001). Hence, Gender diagnosticity suggests that though some pieces of information which diagnose gender “masculinity” and “femininity” may change over time as suggested by social constructionists, it may also have some consistency as proposed by essentialists. Once acknowledged as a stable internal characteristic, showing consistency across time and situations, gender can then be treated as any other personality trait and allows individual differences to be measured.

Secondly, the utility of a Gender Diagnosticity measure has demonstrated its consistency in the developmental research on gender related behaviours (ibid). It is particularly useful in directly comparingthe same group of people repeatedly measured over an extended period of time. The traditional Masculinity-Femininity Tests developed by Terman and Miles, for example, is unable to examine the preschool-aged population. On the contrary, the method of Gender Diagnosticity can be applied to all age categories, and it also provides a metric system by measuring gender-related individual differences that demonstrates comparability over the lifespan (Lippa & Connelly, 1990). Therefore, Gender Diagnosticity is an useful approach displaying great consistency in gender-related individual differences over the lifetime.