UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-06T01:07:17Z

KevinRose:

'''Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Correlation of Behaviors and Preferences with Gender in Undergraduate Respondents'''

The UBC Psychology 305 (2013) Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-SGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions, concluding in 390 items on the questionnaire, and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality trait that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with female respondents scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/Title/reply (6)

2013-08-06T01:05:56Z

KevinRose: Reply to Title

Sold! Good work Amy and Narmin, and everybody!

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.4 Discussion - Limitations

2013-08-04T19:18:28Z

KevinRose:

=Sample Issues and Generalizability=
This project may not be generalizable to the general population.

This project included respondents with different ethnicities, religious beliefs, education levels, age, gender and personality traits, the number of respondents was too low and unrepresentative of the general population. There were 63 students overall who responded to the survey, and of these 63, 60 reported their genders. Of these 60, 10 were male and 50 were female. The reported age range was between the ages of 18-49. This small sample size was not sufficient to represent the whole population. Perhaps the greatest limitation was that 5 times as many females than males filled out the survey; the relatively low number of males increased the possibility for statistical errors, rendering it low in “statistical power” ("Statistical Power", n.d.). Although there is no ‘magic number’ for statistical integrity, common sense dictates that such a low number of and uneven distributed respondents drastically reduces the likelihood that the results are representative.

Similarly, the sample was not randomly selected. According to the online definition, randomization characterizes a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. This is a key factor in research because it determines whether the results of the research can be generalized to a designated population. The fact that this study was done in a Personality Psychology Summer class in UBC and its participants consisted of only those in this particular class, reduces the randomness and threatens the external validity of this research. Rather than having a sample that was representative of the target population, which was the general public, this correlational study only consisted of a part of the target population (i.e. students studying Psychology at a university). Therefore, it may be difficult to generalize the results of this research project since there was no random sampling, a small sample size, and because of the non-response bias.

The questionnaire had few questions related to the demographic of people who are parents at present. This oversight could skew results, negatively affecting generalizability.

Moreover, the fact that no control group was used as well as manipulation of a variable means that we cannot propose that any of the relationships found between the variables were caused by one another. Therefore, we can only propose that the relationships show a correlation between the two variables. However, we do not know which one influences the other. As well, the questions, which were structured by the students, may have included errors or misinterpreted by the respondents. This hurts the credibility of the findings, and puts them to question.

Additionally, it was easy to pinpoint which questions in the questionnaire were targeted towards the feminine side or the masculine side. For example, a question such as "How many hours do you look at yourself in the mirror?" is clearly targeted towards the feminine side, which could lead some participants to answer either more femininely or masculinely according to how they view themselves or how they wish to be viewed by others, rather than what is actually true. This may indicate a conflict among self-identity, self-presentation and the actual self.

Also, As Lippa & Connelly (1990) argued:" gender related individual differences can be defined only in terms of the behaviors that differentiate men and women in a particular population in a particular culture during a particular historical era". However, in our research data, it showed a wide range of age group of participants from 18 to 49 years old. This seems violated the perfect condition of a gender diagnosticity measurement. Also culture background among respondents is quite different. According to statistics, 63% of our participants are Asian, 10% rated themselves as in categories of others and only 27% are Caucasian. In a study attempted to discover the relationship between gender and personality traits in a western cultural environment, the finding of our study is weak to generalize to a larger population, since over half of the total participants are Asian. Especially when Asian culture is more of collectivism and western culture is more of individualism. Each culture have unique emphasis, and this may allow to inhibit or express certain personality traits, and challenged the certainty of the relationship between gender and personality traits.

Lastly, religious belief, as a question been ask on the questionnaires, showed a range of differences. The influence between religious beliefs and personality is bidirectional. Individual with certain kind of characters may self-selected themselves in believing in certain type of religion; or certain type of religious beliefs may shape their personality. For example, a male who believes in Daoism and a male who believes in Christian will probably respond to a question on aggression quite differently. Similar to culture background issue, the bidirectional effect may increase the uncertainty to our finding.

=Participant Bias=
Since the questionnaire was created and given to university students in an upper-level psychology course, some participants may have already had some prior knowledge of gender-diagnoses that could have influenced their responses.
When creating those questions, creators might artificially distinguish some thoughts and behaviors based on their existing knowledge or bias of gender difference. When creators change their roles to be participants, they might response those “structured” questions explicitly. Thus, the self-report questionnaire might include implicit effect of gender stereotype, which may weaken the reliability and validity in the measure.

Also, when they were responding to questions, people may be biased and untruthful regarding sensitive behaviors and private details. Generally, people tend to have the bias of social desirability, which is a tendency to answer items in a way that is socially likeable (Larsen & Buss). By responding with this bias, people may produce a falsely positive impression of themselves by responding with what they believe to be socially accepted in the Western culture.
Considering that the survey was to be completed at the respondent's leisure, ie. in the comfort and privacy of their own homes, it is less likely that they felt the need to be biased or untruthful. However, it is always important to be aware that biases may play a role in self-report surveys.

Furthermore, there may exist a self-serving attributions among respondents. A self-serving attributions means participants of this study may unconsciously attribute positive outcome to self and negative outcome to other factors (Myers,Spencer and Jordan,2012). Similar to social desirability, on questions related to more positive aspect, participants may rate higher, while on questions more associated with negative aspect, participants may rate lower, based on their 'biased' understandings of self.

Due to the long length of the questionnaire, the participants might demonstrate carelessness when answering the questions; thus, they might not be motivated to answer the questions correctly and carefully.
As a common limitation of self-reports, participants might lack accurate self-knowledge. Despite the fact that participants might know themselves best, they might have inaccurate representations of their own personal traits, qualities and desires. These inaccurate responses may not have been due to an intention to seem socially desirable but instead due to a hazy self-conception. For example, someone might not realize their own aggressiveness to the extent that an observer or unbiased physiological test would.

There is a possibility that those who completed the questionnaire have answered with a self-bias or have used response sets: acquiescence, extreme responding and/or social desirability. Use of an infrequency scale to catch invalid responses was applied through the question "I can walk on water" but overall, the researchers of this study did not thoroughly screen the data for careless, partially random, or otherwise inattentive responses. As a result, it is highly plausible that the data acquired is low in reliability as well as validity.
Any explicit self-report measure includes only those beliefs with which the subject has conscious cognizant awareness and as such detects attitudes that are controllable and intended. Internalized beliefs can also be accurately measured implicitly such that potentially controversial responses are not altered due to heightened awareness.

=Experimenter Bias=

A particular limitation to the study during the creation of the questionnaire is experimenter bias. Those involved in creating the questionnaire (experimenters) may have influenced the results in that firstly, they knew they were also going to be participants so experimenters may have subconsciously created questions that could easily be applied to themselves culturally (i.e Westernized, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic). Secondly, experimenters are humans as well and are equally subject to societal norms, views, and beliefs about gender. Therefore, while creating items on the questionnaire, experimenters make their own decisions as to what item should or should not belong and such decisions may be affected by the very topics being studied such as gender, personality, gender roles, societal norms, etc. This is an inevitable limitation to administrating questionnaires.

=Method=

One of the main limitations of this study was that the only procedure applied was a self-report. Self-reports are easy to distribute to large groups of people and they allow access to a wealth of information about an individual that others may not have access to, but as with all methods of research, the self-report method has its limitations.

As per the abstract, questions on the questionnaire were created by the class participants over a three week period in July 2013; the creators were also the participants. It is worth noting that the results may be affected to some degree by this dual role; perhaps there may be bias for answering one way or another given one’s participation or lack thereof in the creation of the questionnaire. While any effects of bias may be minimal, the possibility does exist. Certainly future administrations to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire are in order to assess the possible influence of bias. Moreover, no repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability.
Because the questionnaire was only administered to the students of the PSYC305 class, the creators of the questionnaire were essentially the responders as well. This means that the participants were well aware of the main purpose of the study and may have unintentionally provided responses in a certain way to validate the effect of the questions.

=Content=

Questions may have been unclear and therefore misinterpreted by respondents. The questionnaire was created by students of the Psych 305A class, a group of psychology students who had no prior training in creating survey questions and who did so in the manner of creativity, interest, and volunteer. This means that the questionnaire may not have addressed all the purposes of the research project, possibly leading to undesired or unexpected results. Also, respondents may have misinterpreted the questions and responded incorrectly to the content of the questions, hence their answers may not have reflected the aspect of gender differences that was intended to be measured.

The structured format of this questionnaire may have forced respondents to answer in a way which did not represent personal views. Also, the respondents may not have found that the available responses were representative of their desired responses. For example, some questions did not provide a good range of answer choices such as "none of the above" or "not applicable".

Since the questionnaire did not provide an array of options in regards to gender identity, genderqueer, pangender, agender and genderfluid individuals would have to be forced into the gender binary, regardless of whether or not this actually represents their self-identity. In addition, this could potentially impact larger validity and generalizability of the research findings due to the fact that gender identity is directly linked with the sex of the respondent (while it might not be directly linked in reality).

=Language=

There were specific questions that were directed to participants with sufficient knowledge of North American culture and a high level of English proficiency. These questions might have be ineffectual at eliciting a proper response in participants unfamiliar with North American culture and norms. Similarly, participants with a lower level of English comprehension may not have understood the connotations of certain terms included in the questions.

Some of the questions in the survey contained words and phrases that carry negative connotations. For instance, expressions such as “one night stand,” “mood swings,” and “talking about people behind their backs” hold negative emotional associations for most people. Moreover, the words “cheating” and “aggressive” can also imply negative undertones. The inadvertent use of these words and expressions may have influenced the way participants responded and thus led to biased conclusions.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description

2013-08-04T19:16:29Z

KevinRose:

== Gender Diagnosticity ==
Gender Diagnosticity is the Bayesian probability that an individual is classified as male or female on the basis of an assortment of gender-related diagnostic indicators (Lippa & Connelly, 1990).
The concept of gender diagnosticity is theoretically linked to the diagnostic ratio approach to measuring stereotypes (McCauley & Stitt, 1978; McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980).

Gender diagnosticity (GD) asks the question of, "Given a certain trait that is self-descriptive, what is the probability that the individual is female or male?" (Lippa & Connelly, 1990, p. 1053) If members of a population report having a given trait, we can figure out the probability of whether an individual is male or female by applying Bayes’ theorem. The calculations must be made with information across a group of respondents, and proposes only to ascertain those probabilities of being “male-like” or “female-like” within a particular group during a particular time, as “a given behavioral indicator may vary over time and across different populations of men and women” (Ibid.).

Helgeson states succinctly that “GD is a weighted combination of the indicators that discriminate men from women,” and the “indicators may include occupational preferences, personality characteristics, attitudes, cognitive abilities, and leisure interests” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 61). GD does not render maleness or femaleness as static or concrete concepts ("Reification," n.d.); as it is “not a statictical category” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 62) it is flexible and can be used as a measure of particular groups at particular times to highlight relative gender discriminations.

The word ‘stereotype’ has evolved to have a pejorative meaning, insofar as stereotypes may represent false generalizations and “may or may not accurately reflect reality” (“Stereotype,” n.d.). The authors of this report not only acknowledge that gender stereotypes are prevalent but that they may lead us to ask questions about gender-related traits and highlight empirical correlations using data harvested from this questionnaire and others.

Lippa (2005) has pointed out that generalizations of behaviour, preferences and attitudes often fail to highlight particular expressions of a trait; males may be more apt to express aggression through direct insult, while females express aggression more commonly through indirect or “relational aggression” (ex. ostracization, spreading rumors). Lippa also points out differences in helping behaviours, moral behaviours, conformity behaviours and, of special interest to us, occupational preferences. Lippa cites Holland’s six types of occupations: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional” (Lippa, 2005, p. 30-32). Holland created an intersecting polarized bi-axial scale for occupations graphically depicted with “things” and “people” on one axis and “data” and “ideas” on the perpendicular. Holland finds that men show a distinct preference for “realistic occupations” (d=1.06) over women for occupations such as that involve tangible “things” such as machinery, engineering and computer science; the “ideas-data scale” shows little sex difference (Lippa, 2005. p. 30-32).

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/Title/reply (3)

2013-08-04T19:08:58Z

KevinRose: Reply to Title

I think I get your drift Amy. How about losing 'single study' bit...

'''Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Questionnaire Demonstrates Correlation of Behaviors and Preferences with Gender in Undergraduate Respondents'''

It's about 15 words; in line with Field, 2008
It reads more like a news headline, that is, it says something about the results, not limited to the subject matter.

This is fun! Feel free to trash and start again if you're inspired!

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/Title/reply

2013-08-04T15:21:52Z

KevinRose: Reply to Title

HI Amy and all,
I threw the title on there to see how it looks; any comments about hyphens, the title itself or the formatting?
I'm wondering if we should format it larger ie same as other Wiki headings in the paper.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-04T15:18:08Z

KevinRose:

'''Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

The UBC Psyc 305 (2013) Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-SGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality trait that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with women scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-04T15:17:29Z

KevinRose:

'''Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

The UBC Psyc 305 (2013) Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-SGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality trait that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with women scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-04T15:16:32Z

KevinRose:

'''Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

The UBC Psyc 305 (2013) Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-SGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality trait that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with women scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-04T15:16:03Z

KevinRose:

Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''Bold text'''

The UBC Psyc 305 (2013) Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-SGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality trait that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with women scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References

2013-08-04T15:09:33Z

KevinRose:

== References ==

<references/>

Alanko, K., Santtila, P., Witting, K., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., Johansson, A., . . . Sandnabba, K. N. (2009). Psychiatric symptoms and same-sex sexual attraction and behavior in light of childhood gender atypical behavior and parental relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 494-504.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. ''Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology'', 42(2), 155-162.

Comer, R. J. (2010). ''Abnormal Psychology'', Seventh Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Craig, T., & LaCroix, J. (2011). Tomboy as Protective Identity. Journal Of Lesbian Studies, 15(4), 450-465. doi:10.1080/10894160.2011.532030

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302. Via: Larsen, R. J., and Buss, D. M. (2010). ''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 4th ed.,'' 42-43. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Egan, S.K., Perry, D.G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. ''Developmental Psychology, 37 (4)'', 451-463. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org

Gough, H. G. ''Manual for the California Psychological Inventory''. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

Gow, A., Whiteman, M., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. (2005). Golderberg's 'IPIP' big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validity in scotland. ''Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (2)'', 317-329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011

Gratton, Chris and Jones, Ian. (2003). Research Methods for Sports Studies. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 3 August 2013,

Helgeson, V. S. (1995). Masculinity, men’s roles, and coronary heart disease. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Helgeson, V. S. (2005) ''The Psychology of Gender'', Second Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education

Herek, G. (2012) Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Krejci, M. J. (1998). Gender Comparison of God Schemas : A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. ''International Journal For The Psychology Of Religion'', 8(1), 57-66.

Langer, S. L. (2010). Gender differences in experimental disclosure: Evidence, theoretical explanations, and avenues for future research. ''Sex Roles'', 63(3-4), 178-183.

Larsen, Randy J. and Buss, David M. (2010) '''''''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature: Fourth Ed''.'''''''Italic text'' New York: McGraw-Hill

Lippa, Richard Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(6), Dec 1991, 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000

Lippa, R. (2005) ''Gender, Nature, and Nurture''. Second Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lippa, R. (2001). Gender-related traits in transsexuals and nontranssexuals. ''Archive of Sexual Behaviour'', 30(6), 603-614.

Lippa, R., & Connelly S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 59(5), 1051-1065.

Lippa, R. A., Martin, L. R., & Freidman, H. S. (2000). Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1560-1570.

Lu Yu, Dong Xie, and Daniel T. L. Shek (2012). Factor structure of a multidimensional gender identity scale in a sample of chinese elementary school children. ''The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Article ID 595813,'' 1-10. doi: 10.1100/2012/595813

McConaghy, N., & Silove, D. (1992). Do sex-linked behaviors in children influence relationships with their parents? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 469-479.

Orlofsky, J. L., Ramsden, M. W., & Cohen, R. S. (1982). Development of the revised sex-role behavior scale. ''Journal of Personality Assessment'', 46, 632–638.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). ''Family, socialization, and interaction process''. New York: Free Press.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 81(3), 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come.
''Internal Journal for Equity in Health'', 4, 11. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.
equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11.

Reification. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved Aug. 2, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification

Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing Effect Sizes in Follow-up Studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. ''Law and Human Behavior 29'' (5): 615-620.

Statistical Power. (n.d.). In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved Aug. 2, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

Smiler, A.P., & Epstein, M. (2010). ''Handbook of gender research in psychology''. State University of New York, Oswego, NY,
:USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex
role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. ''Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology'', 4, 42. ( No. 617).

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499443American Psychiatric Association (2000). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association

Stereotype. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., Sue, D. M., & Sue, S. (2013). Understanding abnormal behavior (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted child grows up (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). General Issues in Scaling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scalgen.php

Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 525-537.

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., Jui, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China: Consistencies in Factor Structure between Internet-Obtained Heterosexual and Homosexual Samples. ''Pers Individ Dif'', 45(7), 649-654.

Zuckerman, M. and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and Curiosity about Morbid and Sexual Events. "Personality Individual Defferences (?)" Vol. 7, no.1, p 49-56.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description/Update/reply (4)

2013-08-04T14:52:37Z

KevinRose: Reply to Update

I think it looks great Selena: it's direct and economical. Well done! cheers Kevin

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description

2013-08-04T14:50:21Z

KevinRose:

== Gender Diagnosticity ==
Gender Diagnosticity is the Bayesian probability that an individual is classified as male or female on the basis of an assortment of gender-related diagnostic indicators (Lippa & Connelly, 1990).
The concept of gender diagnosticity is theoretically linked to the diagnostic ratio approach to measuring stereotypes (McCauley & Stitt, 1978; McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980).

Gender diagnosticity (GD) asks the question of, "Given a certain trait that is self-descriptive, what is the probability that the individual is female or male?" (Lippa & Connelly, 1990, p. 1053) If members of a population report having a given trait, we can figure out the probability of whether an individual is male or female by applying Bayes’ theorem. The calculations must be made with information across a group of respondents, and proposes only to ascertain those probabilities of being “male-like” or “female-like” within a particular group during a particular time, as “a given behavioral indicator may vary over time and across different populations of men and women” (Ibid.).

Helgeson states succinctly that “GD is a weighted combination of the indicators that discriminate men from women,” and the “indicators may include occupational preferences, personality characteristics, attitudes, cognitive abilities, and leisure interests” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 61). GD does not render maleness or femaleness as static or concrete concepts ("Reification," 2013); as it is “not a statictical category” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 62) it is flexible and can be used as a measure of particular groups at particular times to highlight relative gender discriminations.

The word ‘stereotype’ has evolved to have a pejorative meaning, insofar as stereotypes may represent false generalizations and “may or may not accurately reflect reality” (“Stereotype,” 2013). The authors of this report not only acknowledge that gender stereotypes are prevalent but that they may lead us to ask questions about gender-related traits and highlight empirical correlations using data harvested from this questionnaire and others.

Lippa (2005) has pointed out that generalizations of behaviour, preferences and attitudes often fail to highlight particular expressions of a trait; males may be more apt to express aggression through direct insult, while females express aggression more commonly through indirect or “relational aggression” (ex. ostracization, spreading rumors). Lippa also points out differences in helping behaviours, moral behaviours, conformity behaviours and, of special interest to us, occupational preferences. Lippa cites Holland’s six types of occupations: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional” (Lippa, 2005, p. 30-32). Holland created an intersecting polarized bi-axial scale for occupations graphically depicted with “things” and “people” on one axis and “data” and “ideas” on the perpendicular. Holland finds that men show a distinct preference for “realistic occupations” (d=1.06) over women for occupations such as that involve tangible “things” such as machinery, engineering and computer science; the “ideas-data scale” shows little sex difference (Lippa, 2005. p. 30-32).

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description

2013-08-04T14:47:42Z

KevinRose:

== Gender Diagnosticity ==
Gender Diagnosticity is the Bayesian probability that an individual is classified as male or female on the basis of an assortment of gender-related diagnostic indicators (Lippa & Connelly, 1990).
The concept of gender diagnosticity is theoretically linked to the diagnostic ratio approach to measuring stereotypes (McCauley & Stitt, 1978; McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980).

Gender diagnosticity (GD) asks the question of, "Given a certain trait that is self-descriptive, what is the probability that the individual is female or male?" (Lippa & Connelly, 1990, p. 1053) If members of a population report having a given trait, we can figure out the probability of whether an individual is male or female by applying Bayes’ theorem. The calculations must be made with information across a group of respondents, and proposes only to ascertain those probabilities of being “male-like” or “female-like” within a particular group during a particular time, as “a given behavioral indicator may vary over time and across different populations of men and women” (Ibid.).

Helgeson states succinctly that “GD is a weighted combination of the indicators that discriminate men from women,” and the “indicators may include occupational preferences, personality characteristics, attitudes, cognitive abilities, and leisure interests” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 61). GD does not render maleness or femaleness as static or concrete concepts (Reification, para. 1); as it is “not a statictical category” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 62) it is flexible and can be used as a measure of particular groups at particular times to highlight relative gender discriminations.

The word ‘stereotype’ has evolved to have a pejorative meaning, insofar as stereotypes may represent false generalizations and “may or may not accurately reflect reality” (“Stereotype,” 2013). The authors of this report not only acknowledge that gender stereotypes are prevalent but that they may lead us to ask questions about gender-related traits and highlight empirical correlations using data harvested from this questionnaire and others.

Lippa (2005) has pointed out that generalizations of behaviour, preferences and attitudes often fail to highlight particular expressions of a trait; males may be more apt to express aggression through direct insult, while females express aggression more commonly through indirect or “relational aggression” (ex. ostracization, spreading rumors). Lippa also points out differences in helping behaviours, moral behaviours, conformity behaviours and, of special interest to us, occupational preferences. Lippa cites Holland’s six types of occupations: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional” (Lippa, 2005, p. 30-32). Holland created an intersecting polarized bi-axial scale for occupations graphically depicted with “things” and “people” on one axis and “data” and “ideas” on the perpendicular. Holland finds that men show a distinct preference for “realistic occupations” (d=1.06) over women for occupations such as that involve tangible “things” such as machinery, engineering and computer science; the “ideas-data scale” shows little sex difference (Lippa, 2005. p. 30-32).

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References

2013-08-04T14:42:51Z

KevinRose:

== References ==

<references/>

Alanko, K., Santtila, P., Witting, K., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., Johansson, A., . . . Sandnabba, K. N. (2009). Psychiatric symptoms and same-sex sexual attraction and behavior in light of childhood gender atypical behavior and parental relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 494-504.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. ''Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology'', 42(2), 155-162.

Comer, R. J. (2010). ''Abnormal Psychology'', Seventh Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Craig, T., & LaCroix, J. (2011). Tomboy as Protective Identity. Journal Of Lesbian Studies, 15(4), 450-465. doi:10.1080/10894160.2011.532030

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302. Via: Larsen, R. J., and Buss, D. M. (2010). ''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 4th ed.,'' 42-43. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Egan, S.K., Perry, D.G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. ''Developmental Psychology, 37 (4)'', 451-463. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org

Gough, H. G. ''Manual for the California Psychological Inventory''. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

Gow, A., Whiteman, M., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. (2005). Golderberg's 'IPIP' big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validity in scotland. ''Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (2)'', 317-329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011

Gratton, Chris and Jones, Ian. (2003). Research Methods for Sports Studies. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 3 August 2013,

Helgeson, V. S. (1995). Masculinity, men’s roles, and coronary heart disease. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Helgeson, V. S. (2005) ''The Psychology of Gender'', Second Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education

Herek, G. (2012) Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Krejci, M. J. (1998). Gender Comparison of God Schemas : A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. ''International Journal For The Psychology Of Religion'', 8(1), 57-66.

Langer, S. L. (2010). Gender differences in experimental disclosure: Evidence, theoretical explanations, and avenues for future research. ''Sex Roles'', 63(3-4), 178-183.

Larsen, Randy J. and Buss, David M. (2010) '''''''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature: Fourth Ed''.'''''''Italic text'' New York: McGraw-Hill

Lippa, Richard Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(6), Dec 1991, 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000

Lippa, R. (2005) ''Gender, Nature, and Nurture''. Second Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lippa, R. (2001). Gender-related traits in transsexuals and nontranssexuals. ''Archive of Sexual Behaviour'', 30(6), 603-614.

Lippa, R., & Connelly S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 59(5), 1051-1065.

Lippa, R. A., Martin, L. R., & Freidman, H. S. (2000). Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1560-1570.

Lu Yu, Dong Xie, and Daniel T. L. Shek (2012). Factor structure of a multidimensional gender identity scale in a sample of chinese elementary school children. ''The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Article ID 595813,'' 1-10. doi: 10.1100/2012/595813

McConaghy, N., & Silove, D. (1992). Do sex-linked behaviors in children influence relationships with their parents? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 469-479.

Orlofsky, J. L., Ramsden, M. W., & Cohen, R. S. (1982). Development of the revised sex-role behavior scale. ''Journal of Personality Assessment'', 46, 632–638.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). ''Family, socialization, and interaction process''. New York: Free Press.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 81(3), 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come.
''Internal Journal for Equity in Health'', 4, 11. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.
equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11.

Reification (2013) retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification

Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing Effect Sizes in Follow-up Studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. ''Law and Human Behavior 29'' (5): 615-620.

Statistical Power (2013). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

Smiler, A.P., & Epstein, M. (2010). ''Handbook of gender research in psychology''. State University of New York, Oswego, NY,
:USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex
role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. ''Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology'', 4, 42. ( No. 617).

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499443American Psychiatric Association (2000). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association

Stereotype. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., Sue, D. M., & Sue, S. (2013). Understanding abnormal behavior (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted child grows up (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). General Issues in Scaling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scalgen.php

Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 525-537.

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., Jui, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China: Consistencies in Factor Structure between Internet-Obtained Heterosexual and Homosexual Samples. ''Pers Individ Dif'', 45(7), 649-654.

Zuckerman, M. and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and Curiosity about Morbid and Sexual Events. "Personality Individual Defferences (?)" Vol. 7, no.1, p 49-56.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (9)

2013-08-04T14:41:04Z

KevinRose: Reply to "Multi-dimensional" scale

So to reiterate, our scale is uni-dimensional because after all it represents a single line of measurement; that is, correlations of preferences, hobbies and occupations only exist on a single line between polarities of maleness and femaleness. We have, in effect, a “single rule” (Trochim, 2008).

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.1 Method - Procedure - Question Development/Sub-categories of questions?/reply (3)

2013-08-03T21:12:17Z

KevinRose: Reply to Sub-categories of questions?

Would someone like to add a note about this in the discussion section? It would be great to have another hand put this in!

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.5 Discussion - Future Research/How stress levels can affect different genders on their personality/reply (4)

2013-08-03T15:42:47Z

KevinRose: Reply to How stress levels can affect different genders on their personality

Great discussions here!

I just wanted to throw in a bit about causal relationships. Lippa’s ''Gender, Nature and Nurture'' has an excellent page on this and I think it can be viewed online. It is a table entitled “Parallel tracks of gender development and their complex interactions” (Lippa, 2005, p. 220) It is an excellent graphic depiction illustrating why causality is so difficult to infer, especially from single studies, GD or otherwise. I mention this because it may also inspire new ideas for GD studies.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.4 Discussion - Limitations/Merging Posts/reply (8)

2013-08-03T15:16:46Z

KevinRose: Reply to Merging Posts

The paragraph with bold heading format is much clearer and appears more organized and less daunting to read.
Excellent consolidation of points as well--great improvement!

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.1 Discussion - Overview/Inclusion of statistics/reply (4)

2013-08-03T15:07:33Z

KevinRose: Reply to Inclusion of statistics

Hi, I read this over and it seems very clear to me, nicely done!

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References

2013-08-02T18:43:16Z

KevinRose:

== References ==

<references/>

Alanko, K., Santtila, P., Witting, K., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., Johansson, A., . . . Sandnabba, K. N. (2009). Psychiatric symptoms and same-sex sexual attraction and behavior in light of childhood gender atypical behavior and parental relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 494-504.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. ''Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology'', 42(2), 155-162.

Berger, J. L., Addis, M. E., Reilly, E. D., Syzdek, M. R., & Green, J. D. (2012). Effects of gender, diagnostic labels, and causal theories on willingness to report symptoms of depression. Journal Of Social And Clinical Psychology, 31(5), 439-457. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.439

Comer, R. J. (2010). ''Abnormal Psychology'', Seventh Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302. Via: Larsen, R. J., and Buss, D. M. (2010). ''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 4th ed.,'' 42-43. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Egan, S.K., Perry, D.G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. ''Developmental Psychology, 37 (4)'', 451-463. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org

Gough, H. G. ''Manual for the California Psychological Inventory''. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

Helgeson, V. S. (1995). Masculinity, men’s roles, and coronary heart disease. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Helgeson, V. S. (2005) ''The Psychology of Gender'', Second Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education

Herek, G. (2012) Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Krejci, M. J. (1998). Gender Comparison of God Schemas : A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. ''International Journal For The Psychology Of Religion'', 8(1), 57-66.

Larsen, Randy J. and Buss, David M. (2010) '''''''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature: Fourth Ed''.'''''''Italic text'' New York: McGraw-Hill

Lippa, Richard Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(6), Dec 1991, 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000

Lippa, R. (2005) ''Gender, Nature, and Nurture''. Second Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lippa, R., & Connelly S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 59(5), 1051-1065.

Lippa, R. A., Martin, L. R., & Freidman, H. S. (2000). Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1560-1570.

Lu Yu, Dong Xie, and Daniel T. L. Shek (2012). Factor structure of a multidimensional gender identity scale in a sample of chinese elementary school children. ''The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Article ID 595813,'' 1-10. doi: 10.1100/2012/595813

McConaghy, N., & Silove, D. (1992). Do sex-linked behaviors in children influence relationships with their parents? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 469-479.

Orlofsky, J. L., Ramsden, M. W., & Cohen, R. S. (1982). Development of the revised sex-role behavior scale. ''Journal of Personality Assessment'', 46, 632–638.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). ''Family, socialization, and interaction process''. New York: Free Press.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 81(3), 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come.
''Internal Journal for Equity in Health'', 4, 11. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.
equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11.

Reification (2013) retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification

Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing Effect Sizes in Follow-up Studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. ''Law and Human Behavior 29'' (5): 615-620.

Statistical Power (2013). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

Smiler, A.P., & Epstein, M. (2010). ''Handbook of gender research in psychology''. State University of New York, Oswego, NY,
:USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex
role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. ''Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology'', 4, 42. ( No. 617).

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499443American Psychiatric Association (2000). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association

Stereotype. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., Sue, D. M., & Sue, S. (2013). Understanding abnormal behavior (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted child grows up (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 525-537.

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., Jui, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China: Consistencies in Factor Structure between Internet-Obtained Heterosexual and Homosexual Samples. ''Pers Individ Dif'', 45(7), 649-654.

Zuckerman, M. and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and Curiosity about Morbid and Sexual Events. "Personality Individual Defferences (?)" Vol. 7, no.1, p 49-56.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey/Some suggested changes/reply

2013-08-02T18:31:51Z

KevinRose: Reply to Some suggested changes

I cut and placed those paragraphs as per your suggestion; you're right I think they are more appropriate there.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.1 Method - Procedure - Question Development/Question development/reply (4)

2013-08-02T18:29:47Z

KevinRose: Reply to Question development

On Dr. Veale's suggestion I cut and pasted two short paragraphs from the Survey section and put them here.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.1 Method - Procedure - Question Development

2013-08-02T18:27:34Z

KevinRose:

=== Development of Questions ===
Questions for the structured Self-Report questionnaire were created by undergraduate students from the Psych 305a/2013ST2 (Summer Semester) class. They were later compiled and organized by Dr. Jaimie Veale.

Dr. Jaimie Veale presented the class with the following assignment. Instructions were given via class handout to design a pilot questionnaire based on Lippa’s approach to Gender Diagnosticity (Lippa, 1990) in order to measure single gender-related personality traits. Though not required for marks, the instructor suggested that each student look over the questionnaire and add/edit as necessary, giving free reign for respectful editing and creative interaction.

In effect, the survey is a compilation of individual contributions for the purpose of participating in a collaborative class research project. The survey was created with negligible interaction between creators; ‘negligible’ refers to less than ten questions and discussion interactions on an online discussion forum created by the class instructor Jaimie Veale. It is possible that undocumented student interactions related to the creation of the questions may have occurred outside of this forum.

The questions were developed by the individuals in the class on the premise that the questions would reflect some gender differences as perceived subjectively by the authors. Students received two articles in class to help them formulate questions for the questionnaire (Lippa & Connelly, 1990; Smiler & Epstein, 2010). Both articles discussed how occupational preferences and participation in hobbies have been to shown to be meaningful indicators of gender-related individual differences, thus students were asked to create questions that discriminate “male-like” and “female-like” occupations, hobbies and activities.

The questions were formulated in relative isolation; though each student had access to edit and discuss the inclusion and/or wording of particular questions, little editing of consequence took place. The process was more of addition than editing or interpersonal communication. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes, but are an attempt to “differentiate men and women in a particular population in a particular culture during a particular historical era” (Lippa et al, 1990, p. 1053)

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey

2013-08-02T18:25:30Z

KevinRose:

=== Survey ===

Subjects completed their self-constructed questionnaire through an online Google document in their own time. The online questionnaire was finalized and administrated by Dr. Jaimie Veale and sent to subjects via email. It contained a cover page and 7 pages of 89 questions in total. On the cover page, subjects were asked about their demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, and religion. Subjects were also asked to report their scores on the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness) following the demographic section. The scores for the Big Five personality traits were taken from a questionnaire from pages 13 and 14 of the Course Reader provided for the class. For the first 3 collective questions, subjects were asked to rate their preference for 98 occupations, 66 activities and 32 hobbies by 7 possible responses scaling from "strongly dislike" to "strongly like." The remaining pages were composed of some general multiple choice questions relating to habits, behaviors, feelings, preferences, etc.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey

2013-08-02T18:22:09Z

KevinRose:

=== Survey ===

Dr. Jaimie Veale presented the summer 2013 UBC Psych 305 class with the following assignment. Instructions were given via class handout to design a pilot questionnaire based on Lippa’s approach to Gender Diagnosticity (Lippa, 1990) in order to measure single gender-related personality traits. Though not required for marks, the instructor suggested that each student look over the questionnaire and add/edit as necessary, giving free reign for respectful editing and creative interaction.

In effect, the survey is a compilation of individual contributions for the purpose of participating in a collaborative class research project. The survey was created with negligible interaction between creators; ‘negligible’ refers to less than ten questions and discussion interactions on an online discussion forum created by the class instructor Jaimie Veale. It is possible that undocumented student interactions related to the creation of the questions may have occurred outside of this forum.

Subjects completed their self-constructed questionnaire through an online Google document in their own time. The online questionnaire was finalized and administrated by Dr. Jaimie Veale and sent to subjects via email. It contained a cover page and 7 pages of 89 questions in total. On the cover page, subjects were asked about their demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, and religion. Subjects were also asked to report their scores on the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness) following the demographic section. The scores for the Big Five personality traits were taken from a questionnaire from pages 13 and 14 of the Course Reader provided for the class. For the first 3 collective questions, subjects were asked to rate their preference for 98 occupations, 66 activities and 32 hobbies by 7 possible responses scaling from "strongly dislike" to "strongly like." The remaining pages were composed of some general multiple choice questions relating to habits, behaviors, feelings, preferences, etc.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.4 Discussion - Limitations/Merging Posts/reply (3)

2013-08-02T18:20:11Z

KevinRose: Reply to Merging Posts

I cut and pasted a bit from Survey to item #13 here regarding dual roles. I hope this is not a repetition; itf it is, please edt as necessary.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.4 Discussion - Limitations

2013-08-02T18:17:22Z

KevinRose:

== Limitations of the Study ==

One of the main limitations of this study was that the only procedure applied was a Self Report. Self reports are easy to distribute to large groups of people and they allow access to a wealth of information about an individual that others may not have access to, but as with all methods of research, the self-report method has its limitations.

1. People may be biased and untruthful when responding to questions regarding sensitive behaviors and private details. Generally, people tend to have the bias of social desirability, which is a tendency to answer items in a way that is socially likeable (Larsen & Buss). By responding with this bias, people may produce a falsely positive impression of themselves by responding with what they believe to be socially accepted in the Western culture.

Considering that the survey was to be completed at the respondent's leisure, ie. in the comfort and privacy of their own homes, it is less likely that they felt the need to be biased or untruthful. However, it is always important to be aware that biases may play a role in self-report surveys.

2. This project may not be generalizable to the general population.

Although this project included respondents with different ethnicity, religious belief, education level, and personality traits, the number of respondents was too low and unrepresentative. 63 students overall responded to the survey, and of these 63, 60 reported their genders. Of these 60, 10 were male and 50 were female. The reported age range was from 18-49. This small sample size was not sufficient to represent the whole population. Perhaps the greatest limitation was that 5 times as many females than males filled out the survey; the relatively low number of males increased the possibility for statistical errors, rendering it low in “statistical power” (Statistical Power, para. 1). Although there is no ‘magic number’ for statistical integrity, common sense dictates that such a low number of respondents drastically reduces the likelihood that the numbers are representative.

Similarly, the sample was not random enough. According to the online definition, randomization characterizes a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. This is a key factor in research because it determines whether the results of the research can be generalized to a designated population. The fact that this study was done in a psychology class reduces the randomness and threatens the validity of this research. It may be difficult to generalize the results of this research project since randomness, sample size, and non-response etc. are critically biased.

The questionnaire had few questions related to the demographic of people who are parents at present. This oversight could skew results, negatively affecting generalizability.

3. Questions may have been unclear and therefore misinterpreted by respondents. The questionnaire was created by students of the Psych 305A class, a group of psychology students who had no prior training in creating survey questions and who did so in the manner of creativity, interest, and volunteer. This means that the questionnaire may not have addressed all the purposes of the research project, possibly leading to undesired or unexpected results. Also, respondents may have misinterpreted the questions and responded incorrectly to the content of the questions, hence their answers may not have reflected the aspect of gender differences that was intended to be measured.

4. The structured format of this questionnaire may have forced respondents to answer in a way which did not represent personal views. Also, the respondents may not have found that the available responses were representative of their desired responses. For example, some questions did not provide a good range of answer choices such as "none of the above" or "not applicable".

5. Due to the long length of the questionnaire, the participants might demonstrate carelessness when answering the questions, thus they might not be motivated to answer the questions correctly and carefully.

6. As a common limitation of self-reports, participants might lack accurate self knowledge. Despite the fact that participants might know themselves best, they might have inaccurate representations of their own personal traits, qualities and desires. These inaccurate responses may not have been due to an intention to seem socially desirable but instead due to a hazy self-conception. For example, someone might not realize their own aggressiveness to the extent that an observer or unbiased physiological test would.

7. There were specific questions that were directed to participants with sufficient knowledge of North American culture and a high level of English proficiency. These questions might have be ineffectual at eliciting a proper response in participants unfamiliar with North American culture and norms. Similarly, participants with a lower level of English comprehension may not have understood the connotations of certain terms included in the questions.

8. Because the questionnaire was only administered to the students of the PSYC305 class, the creators of the questionnaire were essentially the responders as well. This means that the participants were well aware of the main purpose of the study and may have unintentionally provided responses in a certain way to validate the effect of the questions.

9. Since the questionnaire was given to university students in an upper-level psychology course, some participants may have already had some prior knowledge of gender-diagnoses that could have influenced their responses. This may be one of those factors that affect the generalizability of the results of this research. Additionally, it was easy to pinpoint which questions in the questionnaire were targeted towards the feminine side and the masculine side. For example, a question such as "how many hours do you look at yourself in the mirror" is clearly targeted towards the feminine side, which could lead some participants to answer either more femininely or masculinely according to how they view themselves or how they wish to be viewed by others, rather than what is actually true. (This also ties in to the limitation #1)

10. Since the questionnaire did not provide an array of options in regards to gender identity, genderqueer, pangender, agender and genderfluid individuals would have to be forced into the gender binary, regardless of whether or not this actually represents their self-identity. In addition, this could potentially impact larger validity and generalizability of the research findings due to the fact that gender identity is directly linked with the sex of the respondent (while it might not be directly linked in reality).

11. Some of the questions in the survey contained words and phrases that carry negative connotations. For instance, expressions such as “one night stand,” “mood swings,” and “talking about people behind their backs” hold negative emotional associations for most people. Moreover, the words “cheating” and “aggressive” can also imply negative undertones. The inadvertent use of these words and expressions may have influenced the way participants responded and thus led to biased conclusions.

12. There is a possibility that those who completed the questionnaire have answered with a self-bias or have used response sets: acquiescence, extreme responding and/or social desirability.

13. As per the abstract, questions on the questionnaire were created by the class participants over a three week period in July 2013; the creators were also the participants. It is worth noting that the results may be affected to some degree by this dual role; perhaps there may be bias for answering one way or another given one’s participation or lack thereof in the creation of the questionnaire. While any effects of bias may be minimal, the possibility does exist. Certainly future administrations to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire are in order to assess the possible influence of bias. Moreover, no repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey/Survey bits/reply (5)

2013-08-02T18:11:35Z

KevinRose:

I removed citation references to Dr. Veale's handout as per suggestions and added a simple first sentence.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey/Survey bits/reply (5)

2013-08-02T18:06:29Z

KevinRose: Reply to Survey bits

I removed citation references to Dr. Veale's handout as per suggestions and radded a simple first sentence.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey

2013-08-02T18:04:10Z

KevinRose:

=== Survey ===

Dr. Jaimie Veale presented the summer 2013 UBC Psych 305 class with the following assignment. Instructions were given via class handout to design a pilot questionnaire based on Lippa’s approach to Gender Diagnosticity (Lippa, 1990) in order to measure single gender-related personality traits. Though not required for marks, the instructor suggested that each student look over the questionnaire and add/edit as necessary, giving free reign for respectful editing and creative interaction.

In effect, the survey is a compilation of individual contributions for the purpose of participating in a collaborative class research project. The survey was created with negligible interaction between creators; ‘negligible’ refers to less than ten questions and discussion interactions on an online discussion forum created by the class instructor Jaimie Veale. It is possible that undocumented student interactions related to the creation of the questions may have occurred outside of this forum.

As per the abstract, questions on the questionnaire were created by the class participants over a three week period in July 2013; the creators were also the participants. It is worth noting that the results may be affected to some degree by this dual role; perhaps there may be bias for answering one way or another given one’s participation or lack thereof in the creation of the questionnaire. While any effects of bias may be minimal, the possibility does exist. Certainly future administrations to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire are in order to assess the possible influence of bias. Moreover, no repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability.

Subjects completed their self-constructed questionnaire through an online Google document in their own time. The online questionnaire was finalized and administrated by Dr. Jaimie Veale and sent to subjects via email. It contained a cover page and 7 pages of 89 questions in total. On the cover page, subjects were asked about their demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, and religion. Subjects were also asked to report their scores on the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness) following the demographic section. The scores for the Big Five personality traits were taken from a questionnaire from pages 13 and 14 of the Course Reader provided for the class. For the first 3 collective questions, subjects were asked to rate their preference for 98 occupations, 66 activities and 32 hobbies by 7 possible responses scaling from "strongly dislike" to "strongly like." The remaining pages were composed of some general multiple choice questions relating to habits, behaviors, feelings, preferences, etc.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/3.3.2 Method - Procedure - Survey

2013-08-02T17:57:41Z

KevinRose:

=== Survey ===

Instructions were given via class handout to “design a pilot questionnaire” (Veale, 2013) based on Lippa’s “Gender Diagnosticity” approach, in order to measure “single gender-related personality trait[s]” (ibid). Though not required for marks, the instructor suggested that each student look over the questionnaire and add/edit as necessary, giving free reign for respectful editing and creative interaction.

In effect, the survey is a compilation of individual contributions for the purpose of participating in a collaborative class research project. The survey was created with negligible interaction between creators; ‘negligible’ refers to less than ten questions and discussion interactions on an online discussion forum created by the class instructor Jaimie Veale. It is possible that undocumented student interactions related to the creation of the questions may have occurred outside of this forum.

As per the abstract, questions on the questionnaire were created by the class participants over a three week period in July 2013; the creators were also the participants. It is worth noting that the results may be affected to some degree by this dual role; perhaps there may be bias for answering one way or another given one’s participation or lack thereof in the creation of the questionnaire. While any effects of bias may be minimal, the possibility does exist. Certainly future administrations to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire are in order to assess the possible influence of bias. Moreover, no repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability.

Subjects completed their self-constructed questionnaire through an online Google document in their own time. The online questionnaire was finalized and administrated by Dr. Jaimie Veale and sent to subjects via email. It contained a cover page and 7 pages of 89 questions in total. On the cover page, subjects were asked about their demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, and religion. Subjects were also asked to report their scores on the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness) following the demographic section. The scores for the Big Five personality traits were taken from a questionnaire from pages 13 and 14 of the Course Reader provided for the class. For the first 3 collective questions, subjects were asked to rate their preference for 98 occupations, 66 activities and 32 hobbies by 7 possible responses scaling from "strongly dislike" to "strongly like." The remaining pages were composed of some general multiple choice questions relating to habits, behaviors, feelings, preferences, etc.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description/Update/reply

2013-08-02T17:54:16Z

KevinRose: Reply to Update

Yes thanks Jaimie; would someone like to take a crack at reducing that second paragraph?

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (3)

2013-08-02T16:15:55Z

KevinRose:

Title idea:

'''Multi-dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

note we have to solve this uni-multidimensionality issue!

Any other ideas? I'm just throwing this out there

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (3)

2013-08-02T16:15:15Z

KevinRose:

Title idea:

'''Multidimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

note we have to solve this uni-multidimensionality issue!

Any other ideas? I'm just throwing this out there

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (3)

2013-08-02T16:10:54Z

KevinRose: Reply to "Multi-dimensional" scale

Title idea:

'''Multidimensional Gender Diagnosis: Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents'''

note we have to solve this uni-multidimensionality issue!

Any other ideas? I'm just throwing this out there

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References/Citation issues/reply (4)

2013-08-02T15:50:11Z

KevinRose: Reply to Citation issues

As per APA style I've cited my direct quotes including author, date and page number (as per link below). Let's check we are all consistent on this before the pape is finished. cheers Kevin

http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/library/citations/apa.html

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (2)

2013-08-02T15:43:54Z

KevinRose:

I'm not absolutely clear on the uni-multi-dimensionality issue. As Amy says, the individual results allow for being high in masciuline or feminine traits. Yet GD is by definition a measure of a group of people and their overall rating towards masc or fem items; would this ultimately be a uni-dimensional scale between masculinity and femininity?
As Jaimie says, we need to decide this for our title and, I think, to add our stance to the Dimensionality page.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/"Multi-dimensional" scale/reply (2)

2013-08-02T15:42:04Z

KevinRose: Reply to "Multi-dimensional" scale

I'm not absolutely clear on the uni-multi-dimensionality issue. As Amy says, the individual results allow for being high in masciuline or feminine traits. Yet GD is by definition a measure of a group of people and their overall rating towards masc or fem items; would this ultimately be a uni-dimensional scale between masculinity and feminity?
As Jaimie says, we need to decide this for our title and, I think, to add our stance to the Dimensionality page.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.4 Introduction - Dimensionality

2013-08-02T15:23:56Z

KevinRose:

== Should Gender be Measured as a Uni-dimensional or Multidimensional Construct? ==

When we come to describe gender differences and sex roles conceptions, we often relate them in the respect of dimensions. At the earliest stage of gender studies, men and women were classified as containing either one of the two major dimensions, masculinity and femininity. Masculinity contained traits that reflect assertiveness, boldness, dominance, self-sufficiency, and instrumentality; whereas femininity contained traits that reflect nurturance, expression of emotions, and empathy. It was thought that when one scores high on either dimension, the other dimension must be low, and thus the so called Uni-Dimensional study.

The 1970s feminist movement sought to emphasize the idea that gender is not a single dimension, but instead, that masculinity and femininity are independent dimensions (Larsen & Buss, 2010). Expanding the narrow dimension to include androgynous and undifferentiated in addition to masculine and feminine allows for a more thorough assessment. Working with a more multidimensional approach to measuring gender may also assist researches in applying their gender identity model to other cultures. The less dimensional a measure is, the more subject it may be to measuring stereotypes, specifically western ones.

Our class worked within the Bayesian approach and used a Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire where it provides us with a better approach to gender differences than merely either masculine and feminine. Throughout the questionnaire we have questions that address masculine or feminine actions in which participants are freely to choose from in between, giving them the opportunity to best reflect their preferences regardless of their gender stereotypes. So individuals can score either high or low on one of the dimensions, and also on both dimensions, representing the multidimensional construct.

'''One-dimensional Construct'''
In 1930s, personality researchers began to notice that men and women differed in their responses to a number of personality items on large inventories. they assumed that the differences could be described by a single personality continuum, with masculinity at one end and femininity at the other end. A person who scored high on masculinity was assumed to score low on femininity, and vice visa (Lippa & Connelly 1990).

Example of one dimensional View

high Femininity <----------------> high Masculinity

'''Multidimensional Construct'''
With the rise of the feminist movement in early 1970s, many researchers began to challenge the original assumption and started unfolding the premise that mascunlinity-femininity were two independent dimensions. Thus, one could be high on both masculinity and femininity dimensions or be low in both dimensions. An individual could be stereotypically masculine, which was high on masculinity and low on femininity. An individual could also be stereotypically feminine, which was high on femininity and low on masculinity (Larsen & Buss, 2010). In a comprehensive review of masculinity-femininity research, Constantinople (1973) argued that the existing masculinity-femininity measures were actually multidimensional measures that tied to several demographic factors, such as social class and age, and were overly defined in terms of gender stereotypes (Lippa & Connelly, 1990).

Example of Multidimensional View

masculine-feminine
<---------------->
<---------------->
Low <----------------> High
<---------------->
<---------------->
<---------------->

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/Getting started!/reply (9)

2013-08-02T15:14:31Z

KevinRose:

Yes this looks great Amy and I am happy to lose the “male-like, female-like” descriptors; though Lippa promotes these terms for their neutrality they nonetheless sound a bit clunky. And thanks for adding results; this section is looking sharper. Please go ahead and edit as needed!

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract/Getting started!/reply (9)

2013-08-02T15:12:03Z

KevinRose: Reply to Getting started!

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

2013-08-02T15:10:09Z

KevinRose:

Title: ?

The UBC Psyc 305 (2013) Multi-dimensional Gender Diagnosticity Questionnaire '''(UBC-MGDQ)''' is a self-administered inquiry into the relationship of gender and personality traits. It is designed to assess personality traits among the demographic in which it is administered, and to calculate correlative relationships of those traits with gender. The questionnaire was both created by and administered to a single group: 60 students enrolled in a third year level university course in July 2013. Each student was given instructions to contribute a couple of questions that they believe would differentiate between males and females and the resulting questions were compiled to reduce repetitions and subsequently distributed to the class to complete. No repeats of the questionnaire were attempted with the same group to confirm reliability; moreover the questionnaire has not been administered to control groups who had no input on the creation of the questionnaire. Gender will be defined along a discriminate scale of “male-like or female-like” (Lippa, 1990, p. 1064) so as to avoid confusion around subjective terminology like “masculine,” “feminine,” or “androgynous.” The hypothesis is then that there will be significant correlations between self-reported gender and behaviors/preferences. Results from this study correlate with other gender diagnosticity studies demonstrating that occupation, hobbies, relationship styles, and emotional tendencies show the highest correlation between gender and personality traits. The only Big Five personality traits that demonstrated a strong correlation was the measure of agreeableness with women scoring significantly higher than male respondents. There will be no attempt to examine the causality of the results. The authors agree that these differences are not necessarily universal or predictive of individual life-outcomes; while not necessarily representative of other demographics, the results may be added to a series of future administrations of the questionnaire to test reliability.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.2.1 Discussion - Scale Validity/Scale Validity/reply (8)

2013-08-01T02:34:37Z

KevinRose: Reply to Scale Validity

Hi, thanks for getting this page going!

I just wanted to confirm that specific gender diagnosticity studies by definition do not attempt to imply causation; GD studies furthermore only apply to a particular group at a particular time, and are not meant to make broad inferences about whole populations (Lippa, 1990, p. 1053). Perhaps we could make this clear in one or the other of these discussions of validity.

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.1 Discussion - Overview/Inclusion of statistics/reply

2013-08-01T02:20:37Z

KevinRose: Reply to Inclusion of statistics

Also for clarity I added the word "negative" to female r values in that section.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.1 Discussion - Overview

2013-08-01T02:17:32Z

KevinRose:

== Overview of the Findings ==

Overall, the results of the questionnaire showed some gender differences between males and females. The following items from the questionnaire are significantly correlated to being male: Masculine spousal role (d = 2.20), noticing physical characteristics of opposite sex first (d = 1.95), likelihood of having sex with someone just met (d = 1.74), hobbies - modifying cars (d = 1.54), ideal number of sexual partners (d = 1.49), most attracted to: personality/looks/intelligence/status (d = 1.37), jobs - automobile mechanic (d = 1.34), hobbies - cars (d = 1.32), beautiful vs. intelligent romantic partner preference (d = 1.27), length of time since cried (d = 1.26), activities - basketball (d = 1.20), aggressive/sensitive to negative comment (d = 1.18), been involved in one night stand (d = 1.15), relationship importance of physical attractiveness (d = 1.12), sexual/physical vs. emotional cheating hurtfulness (d = 1.06), activities - football (d = 1.05), and activities - watching scifi movies (d = 1.05). The higher the d value for each of the items, the more males associate it with being them.

The following are associated with being female: Wearing make-up frequency (d = -2.60), Activities - wearing makeup (d = -2.58), Likelihood of carrying a purse (d = -2.30), Preference for older significant other (d = -2.03), Activities - talking to friend on phone (d = -2.03), Ever cried during movie (d = -1.99), Activities - baking (d = -1.81), Hobbies - baking (d = -1.64), Hiding in a scary movie (d = -1.62), Hobbies - knitting (d = -1.55), Length of phone conversation with close friend (d = -1.54), Preference for smaller silhouette size in mirror (d = -1.52), Relationship importance earning capacity (d = -1.39), Activities - watching talk shows (d = -1.24), Liking skin care products (d = -1.22), Hobbies - board games (d = -1.15), Male gender choice for only child (d = -1.14), Jobs - kindergarten teacher (d = -1.12), Jobs - elementary school teacher (d = -1.11), Jobs - baker (d = -1.09), Activities - volunteering (d = -1.05), and Jobs - homemaker (d = -1.01). The larger the d value for each quality, the more females associate it with them.

A factor analysis is also used to determine which traits covary or go together. The following are associated with being male: Most attracted to: personality/looks/intelligence/status (r = .42), Beautiful vs. intelligent romantic partner preference (r = .43), Activities - watching scifi movies (r = .44), Aggressive/sensitive to negative comment (r = .50), Been involved in one night stands (r = .50), Length of time since cried (r = .51), Jobs - automobile mechanic (r = .52), Activities - football (r = .54), Ideal number of sexual partners (r = .55), Masculine spousal role (r = .61), Hobbies - modifying cars (r = .66), and Likelihood of having sex with someone just met (r = .75). The higher the r value, the more it relates to being male.

The following are covary with females: Hiding in a scary movie (r = -.67), Activities - baking (r = -.65), Activities - chatting to friend on phone (r = -.65), Activities - wearing makeup (r = -.61), Length of phone conversation with close friend (r = -.59), Liking skin care products (r = -.58), Preference for older significant other (r = -.56), Cried during movie (d = -.53), Jobs - homemaker (d = -.53), Activities - volunteering (r = -.52), Jobs - elementary school teacher (r = -.52), Hobbies - knitting (r = -.44), and Jobs - baker (r = -.43). The larger the (negative) r value, the more it associates with being female.

A correlation is done to see if the Big 5 personality traits and age correlate with the findings of the questionnaire. There is no significant correlation between the following traits: Age (n = 52, r = .24, p = .08), Extraversion (n = 50, r = -.12, p = .39), Neuroticism (n = 50, r = -.11, p = .47), Conscientiousness (n = 50, r = -.23, p = .12), and Openness (n = 50, r = .06, p = .71). However, a significant correlation has been found for Agreeableness (n = 50, r = -.42, p = <.01).

Thread:Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.4 Discussion - Limitations/Tense/reply (3)

2013-08-01T02:04:46Z

KevinRose: Reply to Tense

Yes thank you Emma this is good information, thanks for making it accessible here.

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References

2013-07-31T18:01:18Z

KevinRose:

== References ==

<references/>

American Psychiatric Association (2000). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. ''Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology'', 42(2), 155-162.

Berger, J. L., Addis, M. E., Reilly, E. D., Syzdek, M. R., & Green, J. D. (2012). Effects of gender, diagnostic labels, and causal theories on willingness to report symptoms of depression. Journal Of Social And Clinical Psychology, 31(5), 439-457. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.439

Comer, R. J. (2010). ''Abnormal Psychology'', Seventh Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302. Via: Larsen, R. J., and Buss, D. M. (2010). ''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 4th ed.,'' 42-43. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Egan, S.K., Perry, D.G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. ''Developmental Psychology, 37 (4)'', 451-463. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org

GOUGH, H. G. ''Manual for the California Psychological Inventory''. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

Helgeson, V. S. (2005) ''The Psychology of Gender'', Second Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education

Herek, G. (2012) Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Lippa, R., & Connelly S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 59(5), 1051-1065.

Lippa, R. (2005) ''Gender, Nature, and Nurture''. Second Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lu Yu, Dong Xie, and Daniel T. L. Shek (2012). Factor structure of a multidimensional gender identity scale in a sample of chinese elementary school children. ''The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Article ID 595813,'' 1-10. doi: 10.1100/2012/595813

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come.
''Internal Journal for Equity in Health'', 4, 11. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.
equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11.

Reification (2013) retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification

Statistical Power (2013). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

Smiler, A.P., & Epstein, M. (2010). ''Handbook of gender research in psychology''. State University of New York, Oswego, NY,
:USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex
role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. ''Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology'', 4, 42. ( No. 617).

Stereotype. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Larsen, Randy J. and Buss, David M. (2010) '''''''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature: Fourth Ed''.'''''''Italic text'' New York: McGraw-Hill

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., Sue, D. M., & Sue, S. (2013). Understanding abnormal behavior (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., Jui, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China: Consistencies in Factor Structure between Internet-Obtained Heterosexual and Homosexual Samples. ''Pers Individ Dif'', 45(7), 649-654.

Zuckerman, M. and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and Curiosity about Morbid and Sexual Events. "Personality Individual Defferences (?)" Vol. 7, no.1, p 49-56.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five.

Lippa, Richard Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(6), Dec 1991, 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/2.2.1 Introduction - GD Description

2013-07-31T17:56:21Z

KevinRose:

== Gender Diagnosticity ==
Gender Diagnosticity is the Bayesian probability that an individual is classified as male or female on the basis of an assortment of gender-related diagnostic indicators (Lippa & Connelly, 1990).
The concept of gender diagnosticity is theoretically linked to the diagnostic ratio approach to measuring stereotypes (McCauley & Stitt, 1978; McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980).

The following is a paraphrase of Lippa, 1990, p. 1053. Gender diagnosticity refers to the particular theorem that proposes the following. If a person describes him or herself as having a notable degree of a particular trait, that number would be incorporated into a group percentage of the same gender who self–report having this trait. The assumption is that 50% of the population (approximate ratio of males to females) might report having this trait. The 50% (.50) may be multiplied by the actual percentage of the gender who reported having the trait may be divided by the total number of people who reported having the trait (males and females) to render a probability that the respondent is male or female. This probability may be subtracted from (1.0) ie 100% to render the probability of being the opposite sex as above. Note that the above calculations must be made with information across a group of respondents, and proposes only to ascertain those probabilities of being “male-like” or “female-like” within a particular group during a particular time.

Helgeson states succinctly that “GD is a weighted combination of the indicators that discriminate men from women,” and the “indicators may include occupational preferences, personality characteristics, attitudes, cognitive abilities, and leisure interests” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 61). GD does not render maleness or femaleness as static or concrete concepts (Reification, para. 1); as it is “not a statictical category” (Helgeson, 2005, p. 62) it is flexible and can be used as a measure of particular groups at particular times to highlight relative gender discriminations.

The word ‘stereotype’ has evolved to have a pejorative meaning, insofar as stereotypes may represent false generalizations and “may or may not accurately reflect reality” (“Stereotype,” 2013, paragraph 1). The authors of this report not only acknowledge that gender stereotypes are prevalent but that they may lead us to ask questions about gender-related traits and highlight empirical correlations using data harvested from this questionnaire and others.

Lippa (2005) has pointed out that generalizations of behavior, preferences and attitudes often fail to highlight particular expressions of a trait; males may be more apt to express aggression through direct insult, while females express aggression more commonly through indirect or “relational aggression” (ostracization, spreading rumors). Lippa also points out differences in helping behaviors, moral behaviors, conformity behaviors and, of special interest to us, occupational preferences. Lippa cites Holland’s six types of occupations: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional” (Lippa, 2005, p. 30-32). Holland created an intersecting polarized bi-axial scale for occupations graphically depicted with “things” and “people” on one axis and “data” and “ideas” on the perpendicular. Holland finds that men show a distinct preference for “realistic occupations” (d=1.06) over women for occupations such as that involve tangible “things” such as machinery, engineering and computer science; the “ideas-data scale” shows little sex difference (Lippa, 2005. p. 30-32).

Course:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/6 References

2013-07-31T03:14:27Z

KevinRose:

== References ==

<references/>

American Psychiatric Association (2000). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. ''Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology'', 42(2), 155-162.

Berger, J. L., Addis, M. E., Reilly, E. D., Syzdek, M. R., & Green, J. D. (2012). Effects of gender, diagnostic labels, and causal theories on willingness to report symptoms of depression. Journal Of Social And Clinical Psychology, 31(5), 439-457. doi:10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.439

Comer, R. J. (2010). ''Abnormal Psychology'', Seventh Edition. New York: Worth Publishers

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302. Via: Larsen, R. J., and Buss, D. M. (2010). ''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 4th ed.,'' 42-43. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Egan, S.K., Perry, D.G. (2001). Gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. ''Developmental Psychology, 37 (4)'', 451-463. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org

GOUGH, H. G. ''Manual for the California Psychological Inventory''. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

Herek, G. (2012) Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Lippa, R., & Connelly S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related individual differences. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 59(5), 1051-1065.

Lippa, R. (2005) ''Gender, Nature, and Nurture''. Second Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Lu Yu, Dong Xie, and Daniel T. L. Shek (2012). Factor structure of a multidimensional gender identity scale in a sample of chinese elementary school children. ''The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Article ID 595813,'' 1-10. doi: 10.1100/2012/595813

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come.
''Internal Journal for Equity in Health'', 4, 11. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from http://www.
equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11.

Statistical Power (2013). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

Smiler, A.P., & Epstein, M. (2010). ''Handbook of gender research in psychology''. State University of New York, Oswego, NY,
:USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex
role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. ''Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology'', 4, 42. ( No. 617).

Stereotype. (n.d.) In ''Wikipedia''. Retrieved July 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

Larsen, Randy J. and Buss, David M. (2010) '''''''Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature: Fourth Ed''.'''''''Italic text'' New York: Mcgraw-Hill

Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., Jui, L. (2008). Reliability and Concurrent Validation of the IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers in China: Consistencies in Factor Structure between Internet-Obtained Heterosexual and Homosexual Samples. ''Pers Individ Dif'', 45(7), 649-654.

Zuckerman, M. and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and Curiosity about Morbid and Sexual Events. "Personality Individual Defferences (?)" Vol. 7, no.1, p 49-56.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five.

Lippa, Richard Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(6), Dec 1991, 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1000