Behavioral Descriptions, But Not Personality Descriptions, of Counterstereotypical People Cause Greater Prejudice

This is interesting article comes from Mark Rubin's Social Psychology Research Blog, hosted by Mark Rubin, a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Rubin is a social psychologist whose research focuses on "evaluations of deviant people, interdependent problem-solving, migration processes, perceived group variability, prejudice,stereotyping, social class, social identity, and social integration."

In this post, Rubin looks at a new study that suggests offering people behavioral vs. personality descriptions of counter-stereotypical people (those who who don't match the standard stereotype people hold, about gender roles for examples) changes how the counter-stereotypical person is perceived.

This new evidence shows that, although counterstereotypical individuals are disliked when they are described using behaviours, they are actually liked when they are described using personality traits. So, for example, although people may dislike “a man who is crying”, they like “a sensitive man”. In both cases, the man is counterstereotypical because he contradicts a gender stereotype. However, in the former case he is described using a behavior (“crying”) and in the latter case he is described using a personality trait (“sensitive”). 

The upshot is that it is better to describe personality traits than to describe behaviors because it seems (my opinion) we have evolved to notice and judge behaviors, which are concrete and tangible, while personality traits are more abstract.

Boys Don’t Cry, But They Can Be Sensitive! Behavioral Descriptions of Counter-Stereotypical People Cause Greater Prejudice than Personality Descriptions

By Mark Rubin 

Saturday, 3 August 2013

Stereotypes are pretty useful things! We use them to help us to understand and respond to people from a large and diverse array of social groups. But how do people feel about individuals who buck the trend and contradict stereotypes? For example, how do people feel about a man who is crying or a woman who is smoking a cigar!

Most evidence shows that people react quite negatively towards counterstereotypical individuals. The typical explanation for this negative bias refers to people’s need to protect and maintain their stereotypes: People are biased against counterstereotypical individuals because they disconfirm stereotypes and threaten people’s need to maintain stable and coherent stereotype systems.

However, recent social psychological research has provided some hope for counterstereotypical people. This new evidence shows that, although counterstereotypical individuals are disliked when they are described using behaviours, they are actually liked when they are described using personality traits. So, for example, although people may dislike “a man who is crying”, they like “a sensitive man”. In both cases, the man is counterstereotypical because he contradicts a gender stereotype. However, in the former case he is described using a behavior (“crying”) and in the latter case he is described using a personality trait (“sensitive”). Notably, this linguistic description effect occurs even when the particular valence of the words that are used (positive/negative) is taken into account.

So, why does this linguistic description effect occur? Well, it’s possible that counterstereotypical individuals are evaluated relatively negatively when they are described using behaviours because this linguistic description promotes a deeper, more systematic processing of the person that highlights their stereotype disconfirmation and, as we know, people don’t like individuals who step out of line with their stereotypes! In contrast, counterstereotypical individuals may be evaluated relatively positively when they are described using personality traits because this linguistic description promotes a more superficial type of processing that highlights individuals’ uniqueness, and people tend to value uniqueness.

How is all this relevant to you? Well, if you stop for a minute and consider your own social categories (i.e., your gender, religion, occupation, age group, political orientation, etc), then I’m sure you’ll find at least one in which your own characteristics contradict your group’s stereotype. Now don’t worry – it's often good to be the black sheep! Throughout the ages, counterstereotypical people have been the agents of beneficial social change. For example, independent women (who were counterstereotypical for their time) spearheaded the Feminist movement. In addition, the diversity embodied by counterstereotypical people brings with it a wealth of positive outcomes in work and organisational contexts. So, you should feel proud if you’re different from the rest of your group. The trick is to get other people to appreciate you for your uniqueness, rather than to denigrate you for your deviance. And describing yourself in terms of personality traits rather than behaviours may provide one way to do this.

For further information, please see the following journal article:

Rubin, M., Paolini, S., and Crisp, R. J. (2013). Linguistic description moderates the evaluations of counterstereotypical people. Social Psychology, 44 (4), 289-298 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000114

For a self-archived version of the original article, please see here.

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP0556908). However, the views expressed above are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.

Men and Women: Still Both From Earth - Joan C. Williams & Rachel Dempsey

This was posted on Joan C. Williams' Family Friendly blog at Psychology Today (and co-written with Rachel Dempsey). It's a response to The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality by Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing - a bit of nonsense that I responded to myself a while back.

Men and Women: Still Both From Earth

Gender differences aren't born - they're made. 

 

Published on January 13, 2012 by Joan C. Williams in Family Friendly

co-written with Rachel Dempsey

A few weeks ago a group of European scientists published a study claiming that sex differences between men and women are much larger than we previously thought. The study found a very small overlap between men and women for personality traits such as sensitivity and warmth (much stronger for women) and emotional stability and dominance (much stronger for men).

These results are being used as proof that men and women's brains are fundamentally different, but what's important what the study doesn't measure.

It doesn't measure differences in brain structure. It doesn't measure any sort of inherent difference at all. The differences are based on a survey in which men and women self-reported answers to a series of personality questions based on the 16PF model. In other words, the study measures responses that fully-developed adults give when measuring themselves on traits that are socialized along a distinct gender binary.

Related Articles

• Gender Differences in Tipping
• How Good Girls Turn Into Hot Women
• Gender: The Last Word
• Men's friendships are different from women's
• Power, Gossip, and WikiLeaks

The results can't possibly come as a surprise to anyone who has ever walked into a toy store, or turned on the television, or, you know, left their house. Humans are taught literally from birth what is appropriate behavior for a woman and what is appropriate behavior for a man, and the fact that fully grown men and women have learned to exhibit different behaviors isn't exactly groundbreaking news. Little girls are given dolls and called pretty, little boys are given trucks and called strong. In fact, in her book Delusions of Gender, psychologist Cordelia Fine points to a study of how pregnant women described the movement of their fetuses in the last three months of pregnancy - male activity was described as vigorous, while female activity was "not violent, not excessively energetic, not terribly active." Gendering, it seems, actually starts in the womb. (For more, the website Sociological Images keeps an exhaustive - and exhausting - list of pointlessly gendered products; see also Riley on Marketing).

The study has generated sensationalizing headlines like "Men and women really are living on different personality planets" and "Gender wars: Men, women more different than thought". And the researchers that conducted the study haven't exactly been helping - one of them was quoted on the Huffington Post saying the results show men and women might as well be "different species." (Not only is that statement irresponsible, it also does nothing to increase the scientists' credibility. Neither Rachel nor Joan is a scientist by any means, but we both took ninth-grade biology, and that's enough to know that the definition of a species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. Which usually involves both a male and a female.)

We propose a different interpretation of the study's results. Regardless of gender, humans are extraordinarily good at internalizing social cues, and their behavior as adults reflects decades of learning about "how men are" and "how women are." If we take that fully plausible interpretation of the study as fact, it's great news for equality advocates. Overcoming stereotyped gender binaries is as simple as socializing people from birth to see personality traits from warmth to liveliness to emotional stability as human rather than as male or female.

Okay, so maybe that won't actually be that simple. Our stereotypes run pretty deep. But studies like this one don't justify these stereotypes; they reinforce them. That's not science. Let's not make it more complicated than that.

New Study: Male and female personalities 'strikingly different'

I'm not sure what to make of this study - it refutes an enormous body of research that makes the case for only minimal differences in male and female personalities. On the other hand, it looks good on paper.

I am skeptical about a couple of things - (1) they did not control for gender identity development (pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional), which would have an impact on the self-reported gender-related traits - (2) none of the scales (see below) assess for gender identity in any way - all of the traits can be stereotypically applied to one gender or the other.

My sense is that they have identified conventional-stage gender differences, not sex-based personality differences.

The Study

Part of their argument in this study is that using any of the Big 5 models of personality testing is essentially useless. They argue (and I agree):

Personality traits can be organized in a hierarchical structure, from the broad and inclusive (e.g., extraversion) to the narrow and specific (e.g., gregariousness or excitement seeking).

They feel that the Big 5 models are too broad and inclusive, so they went for a more a narrow and specific analysis.They also make some arguments for a specific type of statistical analysis (multivariate vs. univariate) that would bore you to tears.

Here is the crucial part - they advocate a much more sensitive personality profile - I'm not familiar with this measure, so I am only able to present what they have written about it:

The 16PF 5^th Edition (16PF5) contains 185 items organized into 16 primary factor scales [67]. The 16PF5 contains 15 primary personality scales, a 15-item Reasoning scale, and a 12-item Impression Management Scale. The current analysis utilizes the 15 personality scales: Warmth (reserved vs. warm), Emotional Stability (reactive vs. emotionally stable), Dominance (deferential vs. dominant), Liveliness (serious vs. lively), Rule-Consciousness (expedient vs. rule-conscious), Social Boldness (shy vs. socially bold), Sensitivity (utilitarian vs. sensitive), Vigilance (trusting vs. vigilant), Abstractness (grounded vs. abstracted), Privateness (forthright vs. private), Apprehension (self-assured vs. apprehensive), Openness to Change (traditional vs. open to change), Self-Reliance (group-oriented vs. self-reliant), Perfectionism (tolerates disorder vs. perfectionistic), and Tension (relaxed vs. tense). The internal consistency of the 15 scales (α) ranged from .68 to .87 (see Table 1).

Table 1. Correlations and univariate effect sizes for observed scores.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029265.t001

 

The 15 primary scales can be further organized into 5 global scales: Extraversion (Warmth, Liveliness, Social Boldness, Privateness, and Self-Reliance), Anxiety (Emotional Stability, Vigilance, Apprehension, and Tension), Tough-Mindedness (Warmth, Sensitivity, Abstractedness, and Openness to Change), Independence (Dominance, Social Boldness, Vigilance, and Openness to Change) and Self-Control (Liveliness, Rule-Consciousness, and Perfectionism. The global scales of the 16PF are similar to the 5 FFM domains; in particular, Extraversion overlaps considerably with FFM extraversion, Anxiety with Neuroticism, Self-Control with Conscientiousness, and Tough-Mindedness with (negative) Openness. The Independence scale, however, has no clear-cut analogue in the FFM [68].

It sounds like a useful scale if it is both reliable and verifiable.

The major differences identified between the sexes are "in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance (see [11])."

For those who want to "Cliff Notes" version of this study, here is a brief article that sensationalizes the outcomes. The link to the actual study is found below.

Male and female personalities 'strikingly different,' study finds

• Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - seriously
• Men and women share just 10pc of personality traits
• Study has been branded "uninterpretable" by critic

GENDER plays a major part in determining people's personalities, with men and women sharing just 10 per cent of the same personality traits, European psychologists claimed. 

In a study of 10,000 Americans, researchers from Italy and the UK said Wednesday that they found women were much more sensitive, warm and apprehensive, while men were more emotionally stable, dominant, vigilant and rule-conscious.

The study, published in the journal Public Library of Science One, claimed just 10 percent of the sexes' characteristics overlapped and that the finding may help explain why some professions are gender-dominated.

The researchers, led by Dr Marco Del Giudice from the University of Turin, wrote, "The results were striking: the effect size for global sex differences in personality was ... an extremely large effect by any psychological standard."

They added, "These effect sizes firmly place personality in the same category of other psychological constructs showing large, robust sex differences, such as aggression and vocational interests."

However, the study, which used 15 tests on participants aged between 15 and 92, was criticized for allowing the subjects to assess their own personality quirks.

Professor Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin, whose 2005 paper on the subject claimed that men and women largely shared characteristics, branded the new study "uninterpretable."

For those readers who would like the science to go with the popular press interpretation of the study, here is the abstract. Because it was published in PLoS ONE, it's open access and freely available to anyone who wants to read the whole thing.

The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality

Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, Paul Irwing

Abstract

Background

Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.

Significance

The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.

Citation: Del Giudice M, Booth T, Irwing P (2012) The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29265. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

Helen Fisher, PhD, is a Biological Anthropologist who has conducted extensive research and written five books on the evolution and future of human sex, love, marriage, gender differences in the brain and how your personality type shapes who you are and who you love. She has identified four basic personality types that correspond to chemical system dominance (dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, estrogen).

These are the ways she defines the four types:

EXPLORERS (dopamine)

Traits: Seek novelty, risk taking, spontaneity, energy, curiosity, creativity, optimism, enthusiasm, flexibility, spontaneous generosity, autonomy, liberal, untraditional, irreverent, get bored easily, adaptable, many interests. 

Words: 'Adventure' is the word most often used by Explorers as they describe themselves and what they are looking for in a mate.  The other nine of their top ten most-used words (in descending order) are: venture, spontaneity/ spontaneous, energy, new, fun, travelling, outgoing, passion and active.  

Friends: Adventurers 

Doodles: Modern, off centre, open, active.   

Foods:  Spicy Foods: Mexican, Indian, Barbecue. Exotic foods:  Indonesian, Ethiopian. Sugary foods: candy, chocolate. The body changes protein into tyrosine and then dopamine.  The sources for building blocks for dopamine include:  Apples, beets, blue-green algae, celery, chicken, cucumber, fish, leafy green vegetables, honey, cheese, sweet peppers, tofu, watermelon, almonds, avocados, bananas, dairy products, lima beans, pumpkin seeds, and sesame seeds. Alcohol, sugar and caffeine all reduce dopamine. If I were cooking a meal for a group of Explorers I would try to make it somewhat exotic, highly flavoured, untraditional, colourful and varied. I might cook Moroccan beef stew, with couscous, Indian relishes, yogurt, and dark chocolate, figs and candied fruits for desert, with plenty of  exotic liquors.  

Exercise:  Dangerous, novel, exciting things, like mountain climbing, sky diving, car racing, scuba diving;  and action oriented things like sailing, swimming, kayaking and running. 

Dieting:  Explorers may adopt crazy diets, such as 'just carrots,' or 'just meat,' or the 'drinking man’s diet'. 

Income: Highest of the four groups 

Education: Most of the four groups 

**********

BUILDERS (serotonin)

Traits:  Cautious but not fearful, calm, social, popular, networking, conventional, traditional, guardians, managerial, loyal, persistent, literal, fact oriented, fond of rules and schedules, orderly, conscientious, community oriented.  

Words: 'Family' is the most-used word by Builders.  Following this: honesty, caring, moral/morals, respect, loyal, trust, values, loving and trustworthy.  Friends: Social crowd.  

Doodles: Repetitive, grids.  

Food: Rice, potatoes, pasta, breads, crackers, cereal and fruit, all of which produce serotonin. Builders probably also like to eat turkey and other poultry, milk, cottage cheese, eggs and nuts, especially almonds.  All loaded with tryptophan, the building block of serotonin.  Other serotonin promoting foods include: avocados, bananas, eggplant, pineapples, plums, tomatoes and walnuts. For dessert, cakes and pies and lots of milk fats.  If I were cooking a meal for Builders I would make it very conventional, such as roast chicken, mashed potatoes, peas, and cake. 

Exercise: Social sports, such as golf which is relaxing, meticulous and social; also weekend baseball, basketball, volleyball. 

Dieting: They may go for the whole grains diet, giving up meat and fats.  They may meticulously research different diets too.  And they may count calories. 

**********

DIRECTORS (testosterone)

Traits: Direct, decisive, focused, analytical, logical, tough-minded, exacting, emotionally-contained and good at strategic thinking.  They get to the point.  Many are bold and competitive. They excel at figuring out machines, mathematical formulae or other rule-based systems. Many are good at understanding the structure of music. 

Words: Intelligent and intelligence together top the list of words used by Directors.  Also intellectual, debate, geek, nerd/nerdy, ambition/ ambitious, driven, politics, challenge/challenging and real. 

Friends: Intellectuals 

Doodles: Geometric: squares, triangles, arrows. 

Foods: Usually raise testosterone:  beef, pork, beef liver, lamb, turkey, chicken, garlic and olive oil.  Nuts also raise testosterone levels, particularly peanuts and peanut butter. They probably also gravitate to Oysters because these are a source of zinc (which is used to make testosterone), as well as beans which also give a powerful shot of zinc, including green beans, lima beans and baked beans.  Directors probably also particularly like eggs, as the proteins in eggs allow the adrenal glands to keep levels of bodily testosterone steady too. Broccoli, cabbage and sprouts also seem to enhance levels of testosterone. Orange juice can trigger testosterone. Directors should probably eat less meat, or supplement their diet with non-animal proteins, such as beans, brown rice, seeds, nuts, whole grains, fruits and vegetables.  If I were cooking a meal for Directors, I might do a mixed grill of three kinds of meats, baked beans, oysters Rockefeller and garlic bread.  For desert I might serve ice cream sundaes.  

Exercise: Competitive and aggressive sports, such as tennis; body building (which drives up testosterone) 

Dieting: Directors may go 'cold turkey', and simply stop eating certain foods.  They are highly disciplined. 

**********

NEGOTIATORS (estrogen)

Traits: See the big picture, they connect disparate facts to think contextually and holistically, 'web thinking', imaginative, superior verbal skills and people skills, excel at reading postures, gestures, facial expressions and tones of voice, 'executive social skills', intuitive, sympathetic, nurturing, mentally flexible, agreeable, idealistic, altruistic and emotionally expressive. 

Words: 'Passion' and 'passionate', also real, heart, kind/kindness, sensitive, read/reader, sweet, learning. 

Friends: Activists 

Doodles: Hearts, flowers, faces, animals. 

Foods: Salads, fruits, vegetables, tofu. Less meat. I suspect negotiators are the most likely to be vegetarians and vegans. Estrogenic foods include:  Soy beans, apples, alfalfa, cherries, potatoes, rice, wheat and yams, flax, fish oil, tofu, bean sprouts, meat, apples, barley, beets, carrots, cherries, chickpeas,  black-eyed peas, cucumbers, dairy foods, dates, eggs, eggplant, liquorice, oats, olive oil, olives, papaya, peas, peppers, plums, pomegranates, pumpkins, red beans, rhubarb, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, and tomatoes. Negotiators should probably eat more meat. If I were cooking a meal for Negotiators, I might make a big salad with lettuce, tomatoes, chickpeas, cucumbers, apples, onions and peppers, along with some chicken salad and some eggplant. Dessert might be fresh fruit and an array of very sweet cookies.   

Exercise: Yoga, stretching, palates, walking,  jogging

Dieting: Salads, fruits, vegetables, grains,  heavy on 'health foods'.

Back in 2010, Man of the House posted a video of her talking about the four types in relation to men. If you go the site, you can also read the transcript of her talk.

NOTE: Try to to ignore her hetero-normative perspectives, if you can. She says a man's natural place is beside a woman, but that's nonsense - men can love men, women can love women, and in general we all can love whoever it is that makes our hearts and groins vibrate in attraction.

Dr. Helen Fisher: 4 Personality Types in Men

November 05, 2010, By Dr. Helen Fisher 

Helen Fisher, PhD Biological Anthropologist, has conducted extensive research and written five books on the evolution and future of human sex, love, marriage, gender differences in the brain and how your personality type shapes who you are and who you love.

Transcript: Helen: Hi, I’m Helen Fisher, and just to answer one question today, what is the natural place for a man? In three words, beside a women. People have long asked me, “Is monogamy natural?” In fact, I’ve studied it for 30 years, and monogamy? Yes, it is natural. We are a monogamous species. We are creatures that pair up to rear our young. Monogamy. And as a matter of fact, this makes us rather unusual in the animal kingdom. Ninety-seven percent of mammals do no pair up to rear their young, only a few do. Beavers do, wolves do, the tiny little African antelope called the dik-dik does and indeed, human beings do, men and women do.

Read more. 


She has other videos from this site, all of them less than 5 minutes it seems:

• Dr. Helen Fisher: Understanding Men 
• Dr. Helen Fisher: The Secret to Making a  Marriage Work
• Dr. Helen Fisher: Your Personality Style at Work

Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight

Cool concept - the Dark Knight is the perfect example of the vigilante personality type, but his version is motivated by good perhaps even more than revenge.

This documentary was originally aired on the History Channel, but I found it at Top Documentary Films.

Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both excellent sources of entertainment, but they also offer a complex and interesting dissection of a man who learned to use his own fear against criminals.

Delve into the world of Batman and the vigilante justice that he brought to the city of Gotham. Batman is a man who, after experiencing great tragedy, devotes his life to an ideal – but what happens when one man takes on the evil underworld alone?

Examine why Batman is who he is – and explore how a boy scarred by tragedy becomes a symbol of hope to everyone else.

Not only does this documentary investigate the mental attitude of the mysterious caped crusader along with selective interviews from various expert, but also put some brilliant resemblances between the Batman and Theodore Roosevelt.

Additionally, the filmmakers shows how spiritual iconography greatly influenced the development of the Batman character.

Aside from that, it includes a short insight inside the motivating force that drives other infamous figures such as the Catwoman and the Joker. Explore why the history of the Cape Crusader and discover how a kid scarred by traumatic event turns into a symbol of hope for City of Gotham.

Watch the full documentary now

Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five

The Big Five is a popular personality profile that is easy to use and offers acceptable validity and reliability. In Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, Yanna J. Weisberg, Colin G. DeYoung, and Jacob B. Hirsh looked at how men and women scored differently on the Big Five test across the five major traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscientiousness). This is an interesting study, although the Big Five test is only a thumbnail sketch compared to the Milan or the MMPI.

Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five

Yanna J. Weisberg¹, Colin G. DeYoung²* and Jacob B. Hirsh³

• ¹ Department of Psychology, Linfield College, McMinnville, OR, USA
• ² Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
• ³ University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

This paper investigates gender differences in personality traits, both at the level of the Big Five and at the sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain. Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. However, more extensive gender differences were found at the level of the aspects, with significant gender differences appearing in both aspects of every Big Five trait. For Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness, the gender differences were found to diverge at the aspect level, rendering them either small or undetectable at the Big Five level. These findings clarify the nature of gender differences in personality and highlight the utility of measuring personality at the aspect level.

Citation: 

Weisberg YJ, DeYoung CG and Hirsh JB. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Front. Psychology 2:178. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

This paper is fully open access and can be read online or downloaded as a PDF (click the PDF tab at the site). ere is the introduction from the paper to get your interest.

Introduction

Men and women belong to different species and communications between them is still in its infancy. – Bill Cosby

Many people, including Bill Cosby, perceive the differences between men and women to be large – so large, in fact, that communication between genders may be difficult. Countless examples from popular culture reinforce this view of extreme differences between the sexes – but is it accurate? Men and women have obviously different biological roles when it comes to propagation of the species, but how much they differ psychologically is a more controversial question, one that requires empirical research to answer adequately. Whether the underlying causes of psychological gender differences are evolutionary or socio-cultural, understanding how men and women differ in the ways in which they think, feel, and behave can shed light on the human condition.

The study of personality is particularly useful in attempting to examine psychological differences between genders. Personality is often conceptualized as the extent to which someone displays high or low levels of specific traits. Traits are the consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviors that a person exhibits across situations (Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009). That is, someone who scores high on a trait will exhibit psychological states related to that trait more often and to a greater extent than individuals who score low on that trait.

Gender differences in personality traits are often characterized in terms of which gender has higher scores on that trait, on average. For example, women are often found to be more agreeable than men (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001). This means that women, on average, are more nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic more often and to a greater extent than men. However, such a finding does not preclude the fact that men may also experience nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic states, and that some men may even score higher in these traits than some women. The goal of investigating gender differences in personality, therefore, is to elucidate the differences among general patterns of behavior in men and women on average, with the understanding that both men and women can experience states across the full range of most traits. Gender differences in terms of mean differences do not imply that men and women only experience states on opposing ends of the trait spectrum; on the contrary, significant differences can exist along with a high degree of overlap between the distributions of men and women (Hyde, 2005).

A core mission of personality psychology has been the development of an adequate taxonomy of personality traits. Drawing on trait descriptors used in natural language (selected from dictionaries) and in personality questionnaires, a five factor structure has emerged to explain covariation among traits. The five factor model or Big Five categorizes traits into the broad domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness/Intellect (Digman, 1990; John et al., 2008).

Gender differences in personality are often examined in terms of the Big Five. However, the Big Five do not exhaust all of the important distinctions among personality traits. Traits are hierarchically organized such that more specific traits that vary together are grouped within higher-order factors, like the Big Five. In the study of gender differences, therefore, one can investigate gender differences in personality traits at multiple levels of resolution. Most trait research has focused on two levels of traits: (1) the broad Big Five domains and (2) many more specific traits, called facets, which are grouped together within the Big Five. Currently, there is no consensus as to the identity and number of facets within the Big Five. Different approaches have identified different sets of facets, based on rational review of psychological constructs (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1992) or by systematic sampling from the space defined by pairs of Big Five factors (e.g., Soto and John, 2009). In the present study, we utilized an empirically identified level of personality traits that falls between narrow facets and broad domains. This level of personality organization has the potential to characterize gender differences with a finer grain of detail than the Big Five, revealing differences that are obscured in the Big Five. Additionally, it provides an empirically based taxonomy of lower-level traits, that is more likely to represent an adequate taxonomy of traits than existing facet models.

If the Big Five constituted the level of the personality hierarchy immediately above the facets, only one factor should be necessary to explain the shared variance of the facets within a given Big Five domain. However, a large behavioral genetic study revealed that two distinct factors were necessary to account for the shared genetic variance among the facets within each domain (Jang et al., 2002). In a separate study using factor analysis of 15 different facets within each domain, two phenotypic factors similar to the genetic factors were found for each of the Big Five dimensions (DeYoung et al., 2007). This research indicates that each of the Big Five contains two separable, though correlated, aspects, reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales. DeYoung et al. (2007) characterized these aspects by examining their factor-score correlations with over 2000 items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). The aspects were labeled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness/Intellect; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness. The aspect level of traits may be especially useful for the investigation of gender differences because these differences are sometimes unclear at the Big Five level and can be large and in opposite directions at the facet level. The aspects provide a non-arbitrary and parsimonious system for examining gender differences at a level of traits more specific than the Big Five.

Gender differences have been documented for a number of personality traits. Most meta-analyses and reviews examine gender differences in self-reports of personality on questionnaires that measure the Big Five, as well as facets within each (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001; Lippa, 2010). To our knowledge, however, no analyses have specifically examined the two aspects of each Big Five trait.

Read the whole paper.

The Secret Lives of Men - The Ego-Less SELF: Achieving Peace & Tranquility Beyond All Understanding

Chris Blazina speaks with Cardwell C. Nuckols, Ph.D., author of The Ego-Less SELF: Achieving Peace & Tranquility Beyond All Understanding. I'm glad to see a topic like this on a men's site - spirituality is a crucial part of a fully mature and integrated life. I would caution, however, that Nuckols makes it sound easier than it is - many people spend a lifetime making successive approximations to a more Self-led life. It's not a destination - it's a process.

The Ego-Less SELF is a journey of discovery and a return to the deepest truth. It looks closely at the notion of 'spiritual transformation' by first showing you how the ego develops over time to cause suffering in our lives. Once the ego is stripped away, the pathways to the self—heart, mind, and action—can begin to work. With a broad range of spiritual influences, from the Bible to Zen Buddhism, The Ego-Less SELF sets out to deflate the ego to let the true self shine through. You will begin to learn how to get rid of resentments, surrender the ego's unconscious programs for happiness, and employ simple techniques to increase contact with consciousness. The road to self is not about trying to acquire anything but rather the willingness to surrender all of our egoistic ways, thus taking us back to that which we are—the purest self.

Cardwell C. Nuckols, Ph.D., is a partner and board member of American Enterprises Solutions, Inc. An expert in behavioral medicine for over 20 years, he has authored more that 30 journal articles, 14 books and pamphlets, and the bestseller Cocaine: Dependency to Recovery and Roadblocks to Recovery. He has received the Gooderham Award for outstanding contributions to the alcohol and drug addiction field and lives in Apopka, Florida.

Listen to internet radio with Secret Lives of Men on Blog Talk Radio

Tags: The Secret Lives of Men, The Ego-Less SELF:, Achieving Peace & Tranquility Beyond All Understanding, Chris Blazina, men, Buddhism, spirituality, personality, Zen, self-led life, unconscious mind, ego, Self

Agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations

Integral folks talk an awful lot about agency and communion, and I am not always sure the terms are being used "correctly" - there is a tendency to suggest that men are primarily agentic and women are primarily communal. But these are socialized traits, to a large degree, and as such are available to either gender.

One of the findings in this article is that older adults are more communally oriented than young adults, so these are not simply sex-based traits: "the reduction in agency-related attributes with age was mostly due to a smaller number of negative agency words (e.g., angry, arrogant, aggressive, cynical, vindictive). In contrast, positive agency words (e.g., confident, creative, determined, forceful, self-reliant) were included with the same frequency across age groups." People seems to get nicer/more focused on "others" as they get older, and it's both sexes.

These definitions are from Appendix A:

Appendix A: Definition of agency and communion for rater training

According to the psychologist David Bakan (1966), agency and communion are two fundamental modalities that human beings display in their orientation toward the world around them. In the following, we are providing prototypical definitions of both terms. You need to use these definitions when you rate the attributes in study participants’ self-portrait displays. Please note that agency and communion can be expressed in a positive and a negative form.

Agency

Agency refers to a person’s striving to be separate from others, to master the environment, and to assert, protect, and expand the self. Individuals who score high on agency are usually powerful and autonomous “agents,” they are highly individualistic, they like to dominate and lead, they want to be a force to be reckoned with. In its positive form, high agency orientation is found in skillful leaders who enjoy challenging tasks, are ambitious, self-confident and creative, and can lead a project to success—even in the face of obstacles. In its negative form, high agency orientation is expressed by “hunger for power and dominance” and is often expressed by reckless, abrasive, and selfish/self-centred behaviour toward others.

Communion

Communion refers to a person’s striving to lose his or her own individuality by merging with others. Individuals who score high on communion enjoy participating in something that is larger than the self. They enjoy relating to other persons in warm, close, intimate, and loving ways. In its positive form, high communion orientation is found in persons who can easily give up or delay their individual needs and wishes for the common good. They are usually great team players and can collaborate with others smoothly and in constructive ways. Also, they are usually good in understanding others’ feelings and are able to respond with empathy and thoughtful understanding. In its negative form, high communion orientation is found in persons who always want to please others and are extremely dependent on the approval and opinion of others. These individuals are devastated if their needs for “union and merging with others” are not reciprocated by these others and they feel rejected and worthless. These individuals, in general, have given up any kind of sense of individuality and self-worth.

In Appendices B and C are lists of words that you can consult in rating the descriptors in study participants’ self-portrait diagrams. Although this list is not exhaustive, it contains the most frequent agency and communion words that we were able to identify in the relevant literature.

These are good orienting principles.

I would argue that men are socialized to be more agentic and women are socialized to be more communal (and I also acknowledge that hormonal and brain-wiring also create a tendency toward one or the other).

Agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations

Manfred Diehl, Stephanie K. Owen, and Lise M. Youngblade

Int J Behav Dev. 2004; 28: 1–15. doi: 10.1080/01650250344000226.

Abstract

This study investigated agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations. The study sample consisted of 158 adults (80 men, 78 women) ranging in age from 20 to 88 years. Consistent with theorising, significant age and sex differences were found in terms of the number of agency and communion attributes. Young and middle-aged adults included significantly more agency attributes in their self-representations than older adults; men listed significantly more agency attributes than women. In contrast, older adults included significantly more communion attributes in their self-representations than young adults, and women listed significantly more communion attributes than men. Significant Age Group × Self-Portrait Display and Sex × Self-Portrait Display interactions were found for communion attributes, indicating that the importance of communion attributes differed across age groups and by sex. Correlational analyses showed significant associations of agency and communion attributes with personality traits and defence mechanisms. Communion attributes also showed significant correlations with four dimensions of psychological well-being.

Agency and communion as basic behavioural orientations

The concepts of agency and communion are frequently used to describe two basic styles of how individuals relate to their social world (Bakan, 1966; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; McAdams, 1993). This study examined the implicit expression of agency and communion orientations in adults’ spontaneous self-representations. Specifically, this study had four objectives. First, we examined to what extent adults’ spontaneous self-representations could be categorised in terms of agency- and communion-related attributes. The second objective focused on the examination of age and sex differences in adults’ agency and communion orientations. Third, we examined the associations between adults’ agency- and communion-related attributes and other measures of personality and several dimensions of psychological well-being. Finally, the fourth objective examined the hypothesis that the expression of agency and communion attributes differs across age groups and by sex. Specifically, we examined whether age differences in the ratio between agency and communion attributes are different for women than for men.

Agency and communion as basic behavioural orientations

Bakan (1966) proposed agency and communion as two fundamental modalities of human existence. Agency refers to an individual’s striving to master the environment, to assert the self, to experience competence, achievement, and power. In contrast, communion refers to a person’s desire to closely relate to and cooperate and merge with others (Bakan, 1966). Agency-oriented individuals experience fulfilment through their individual accomplishments and their sense of independence and separateness, whereas communion-oriented individuals experience fulfilment through their relationships with others and their sense of belonging (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; McAdams, 1993).

Individuals’ agency and communion orientations have been related to a number of different psychological processes, including styles of reasoning, social status evaluations, personality traits, sex-role socialisation, and self-concept. For example, Woike (1994) showed in two studies that agency was associated with a differentiating style of thinking, whereas communion was associated with an integrating style of thinking. Subsequently, Woike, Gershkovich, Piorkowski, and Polo (1999) showed that agentic individuals structured their autobiographical memories using differentiation, whereas communal individuals structured their autobiographical memories in an integrating way.

Other researchers have pointed out that agentic and communal orientations are also expressed in individuals’ cognitive and moral reasoning (e.g., Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982) and in social perception and group behaviour (e.g., Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996). Belenky et al., for example, described two distinct forms of knowing that depend on the person’s relationship to social objects. Specifically, separate knowing is a form of knowing in which the person distances him or herself from the social object through critical thinking and application of the rules of logic. In contrast, connected knowing refers to a style of understanding and knowing in which the person creates a connection to the social object by acknowledging perceiver-object similarities and taking into account the perspectives of the social object (see also Labouvie-Vief, 1994). Finally, Conway et al. showed in a series of experiments that agency and communion orientations are pervasive in persons’ social perceptions (e.g., perceptions of social status) and in the attribution of personality characteristics to high- and low-status individuals.

Agency and communion are also viewed as basic dimensions of personality (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wiggins, 1991). Specifically, the development of a strong and independent self and the ability to relate in meaningful ways to others are central concerns of all major personality theories (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; McAdams, 2000). For example, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed a model of self and a model of others as the two basic dimensions of Bowlby’s (1988) internal working model of attachment relations. Several studies have shown that these two dimensions parsimoniously describe adults’ attachment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, & Labouvie-Vief, 1998) and that they relate in meaningful ways to personality traits (Diehl et al., 1998; Shaver & Brennan, 1992). Moreover, trait theorists have acknowledged agency and communion as fundamental coordinates of personality (Wiggins, 1991), and most trait theories incorporate personality factors that are indicative of agency (e.g., dominance, independence, masculinity) or communion (e.g., extraversion, sociability, femininity; see Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996).

Agency and communion have also been strongly associated with sex-role socialisation (Bakan, 1966; Cross & Madson, 1997; Helgeson, 1994) and with self-concept formation (Cross & Madson, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Helgeson (1994) reviewed the literature on sex-role socialisation and found consistent evidence that men are primarily socialised to be independent, self-sufficient, achievement oriented, adventurous, and risk taking, whereas women are primarily socialised to be nurturing, sensitive, relationship oriented, and help-seeking (see also Cross & Madson, 1997). These characteristics and associated behaviours define the masculine and feminine sex role in many cultures and are traditionally assessed with measures of masculinity and femininity, such as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1981) or the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974).

Helgeson (1994) also reviewed a large body of research showing that agency/masculinity and communion/femininity tend to be associated with different physical and mental health problems. For example, men show higher rates of externalising disorders (e.g., antisocial behaviour, substance abuse problems) and higher rates of mortality, whereas women show higher rates of internalising disorders (e.g., depression, neuroses) and higher rates of morbidity (see also Feingold, 1994; Gjerde, 1995; Helgeson, 1994; Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999; Verbrugge, 1985). This evidence is consistent with findings showing significant sex differences in adults’ coping strategies and defence mechanisms (Diehl, Coyle, & Labouvie-Vief, 1996). Moreover, research has shown that men and women react differently to agency and communion stressors (Smith, Gallo, Goble, Ngu, & Stark, 1998) and that extreme forms of agency and communion, defined as unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion, are related to different physical and mental health problems in men and women (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000).

In summary, agency and communion are fundamental modalities of human behaviour that influence individuals’ styles of reasoning, their social relationships, personality, and self-concept. Thus, the first objective of the study examined whether adults’ spontaneous self-representations could be categorised in terms of agency and communion. Furthermore, because agency and communion are closely associated with sex-role socialisation, we examined whether agency and communion attributes were differently represented in men’s and women’s self-representations.

Agency and communion across the life span

Traditional views of personality development have put a primary emphasis on agency, individuation, and independence as the hallmark of healthy personality development (Franz & White, 1985). For example, Freud’s (1905/1953) and Erikson’s (1950) stage theories include separation and autonomy as an important step in personality development (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Labouvie-Vief, 1994). Moreover, being independent-minded and autonomous in one’s social-emotional reasoning has been defined as a high level of ego development (Loevinger, 1976).

Although agency and independence are valuable goals of individual development, some theorists have argued that being both independent and able to relate in fulfilling ways to others constitutes a more advanced level of development (Blatt & Blass, 1996; Gilligan, 1982; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994). Blatt and Blass, for example, advocate that healthy and mature personality development includes both the development of stable, enduring, and mutually satisfying relationships with others and the development of a differentiated, stable, realistic, and integrated self-concept. Indeed, recent theories of human motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), personality development (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Blatt & Blass, 1996), and psychological well-being suggest that autonomy and self-acceptance as well as positive relations with others are essential components of a comprehensive conceptualisation of positive psychological health (Ryff & Singer, 1998).

Some theorists (e.g., Gutmann, 1994; Jung, 1933/1962; Labouvie-Vief, 1994) have also suggested that with increasing age and maturation the dialectic tension between agency/individuation and communion/relatedness may change, resulting in a more balanced relationship between the two orientations and perhaps a more androgynous and overall more communal orientation. In particular, Gutmann (1994) suggested that with increasing age men incorporate more feminine characteristics into their behaviour, whereas women show an increasing shift toward masculine behaviours. Although empirical evidence for this suggestion is limited, several studies have reported findings that are consistent with this proposition. Helson and Moane (1987) and Haan (1977), for example, reported longitudinal findings showing that women who changed in a positive way during early and middle adulthood showed increases in agency-related behaviours (e.g., independence, social assertiveness) and simultaneous decreases in communion-related behaviours (e.g., femininity). In a complementary fashion, Haan (1977), Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978), and Livson (1981) reported findings for male samples showing that positive changes during the middle years often involved the re-evaluation of agentic/masculine behaviours and goals and the adoption of more communal/feminine behaviours such as nurturance and self-exploration. Other studies, however, have failed to provide similar support and suggest that overall adults may become more communal as they age (Diehl et al., 1996). Although the exact reasons are mostly unexplored, theorists like Labouvie-Vief (1994) seem to suggest that an age-related decline in agentic cognitive abilities may be responsible for the increased communal orientation in older men and women.

Agency and communion and the balance between the two orientations have also been studied in the context of generativity (Ackerman, Zuroff, & Moskowitz, 2000; MacDermid, Franz, & DeReus, 1998), because theories of generativity (Erikson, 1950, 1982; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992) suggest that agentic and communal motives are essential for generative behaviour. Thus, from a life-span developmental perspective it is of interest to examine whether older adults show a greater balance between agency and communion than young adults. The present study investigated this question and tested whether there were sex-specific age differences in the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes. In a cross-sectional study such as the present one, sex-specific age differences in the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes should result in a significant Age Group × Sex interaction.

Agency and communion and self-representations

Agency and communion also have been linked to theories of self-concept formation. Indeed, theorising about the cultural embeddedness of individuals’ self-concept suggests that Western cultures promote the development of an independent or agentic view of self, whereas Asian and African cultures foster the development of an interdependent or communal view of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Although there are many reasons for this distinction (see Baumeister, 1987; Gergen, 1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), these different conceptualisations have profound consequences for the cognitive, emotional, and motivational functioning of the individual (Cross & Madson, 1997). For example, according to the independent view of self, a person is socialised to express his or her unique needs, desires, and abilities and is encouraged to develop his or her distinct potential. In contrast, the interdependent view of self emphasises the fundamental connectedness of the individual with and responsibility for the physical and social environment and promotes the self in relations with others (Cross & Madson, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Thus, individuals’ understanding of their own person is influenced from early on by the surrounding culture, and these influences manifest themselves in a person’s self-construal and self-representation. However, studies that examine the content of adults’ self-representations with regard to agency and communion orientations have been relatively recent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Because this study assessed participants’ self-representations in five social roles, the obtained data was particularly suitable for examining agency and communion orientations in adults’ spontaneous self-representations.

Study objectives

The basic assumption of this study was that agency and communion are basic organising dimensions of adults’ self-concept and can therefore be assessed using adults’ spontaneous self-representations. Specifically, agency-oriented individuals were expected to describe themselves primarily in terms of their achievements, sense of autonomy, and desire for power and independence, whereas communion-oriented persons were expected to describe themselves primarily in terms of their relations with and concerns for others. Using a sample of young, middle-aged, and older adults, the first objective examined the distribution of agency- and communion-related attributes in study participants’ spontaneous self-representations.

The second objective focused on the examination of age and sex differences in adults’ agency and communion orientations. In accordance with several theories of adult development (Erikson, 1982; Gutmann, 1994; Labouvie-Vief, 1994), we hypothesised that young and middle-aged adults would report more agency-related attributes as part of their spontaneous self-representations compared to older adults. In contrast, older adults were expected to include more communion-related attributes in their self-descriptions compared to young and middle-aged adults. Consistent with the literature on sex-role socialisation (Cross & Madson, 1997; Eagly, 1987; Maccoby, 1990; Ruble & Martin, 1998), we also hypothesised that women would include more communion-related attributes in their self-representations than men, whereas men were expected to include more agency-related self-descriptors in their self-representations than women. Because our measurement approach permitted the distinction between central and peripheral self-attributes, we also hypothesised that women would have more communion-related representations in the centre of their self-portrait display, whereas men would have more agency-related representations.

The third objective examined the relations of adults’ agency and communion orientations with measures of personality and dimensions of psychological well-being. Although there has been a good deal of research on the role of agency and communion, information on the associations of these constructs with personality and psychological well-being have been ambiguous (Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). The most systematic information comes from the work of Helgeson and Fritz (1999), who have shown that agency tends to be positively associated with self-esteem and well-being, whereas communion tends to be positively associated with perceived support and support provision. Given these previous findings, we expected that agency would show significant positive correlations with extraversion, openness to experience, and two dimensions of psychological well-being (i.e., environmental mastery, autonomy). Communion attributes were expected to show positive associations with agreeableness and conscientiousness and with several dimensions of psychological well-being (i.e., positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in life).

The fourth objective investigated the question whether the relative importance of agency attributes compared to communion attributes increases across age groups in women, and whether the opposite pattern holds for men. Based on previous empirical findings, two scenarios seemed to be plausible. First, an Age Group × Sex interaction seemed to be reasonable, suggesting that across age groups the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes differed in different directions for men and women. Alternatively, a main effect of age group also seemed to be plausible, suggesting that the relative importance of agency attributes compared to communion attributes would decrease for both sexes in similar ways.

Method

Participants

The study sample consisted of 158 adults (80 men, 78 women) ranging in age from 20–88 years. Participants were recruited in a mid-sized urban area in southern Colorado through newspaper announcements and announcements at local civic organisations. The majority of the young adults (61.5%) were recruited through announcements at the University of Colorado.

The study sample was divided into three age groups: young adults (n = 52; age range = 20–39 years), middle-aged adults (n = 51, age range = 40–59 years), and older adults (n = 55, age range = 60–88 years). In each age group, men and women were represented in about equal numbers. Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for key demographic and health variables separate by age group.

Table 1 Sample description: Means and standard deviations of sociodemographic and health variables

The majority of the participants (89.2%) were Caucasian, reported to be in good health (M = 5.18, SD = 0.89; 1 = very poor, 6 = very good), and to be satisfied with their lives (M = 4.73, SD = 0.76; 1 = extremely unhappy, 6 = extremely happy). Sixty-seven percent of the young adults were full-time or part-time employed, and 27% were full-time students. Of the middle-aged adults, 92% were either full- or part-time employed; the majority of older adults (87%) were retired, yet all of them reported that they were actively involved in volunteer activities. Of the young adults, 58% were single and 35% were married. Of the middle-aged adults, 77% were married, 21% were separated or divorced, and the remainder were single. Of the older adults, 56% were married and 31% were widowed.

Significant differences between age groups were found for the following demographic and health variables: annual family income, F(2, 157) = 4.33, p < .05, life satisfaction, F(2, 157) = 11.18, p < .001, physical health, F(2, 157) = 5.44, p < .01, and self-reported hearing, F(2, 157) = 3.67, p < .05. Middle-aged adults’ annual income was significantly higher than young and older adults’ income. Older adults were, on average, more satisfied with their lives than young and middle-aged adults. On average, older adults rated their overall physical health better than young adults; however, older adults reported having poorer hearing than young adults.

Procedure

Participants attended two 2-hour testing sessions that were scheduled 1 week apart. In compliance with university policy, young and middle-aged adults who were recruited through the university participant pool received course credit for their participation.¹ Middle-aged and older adults who were recruited from the community volunteered their time and did not receive any monetary compensation.

The first session was conducted individually, whereas the second session was held in small groups with an average of four participants per session. Group sessions were conducted with members of the same age group only. Between testing sessions, participants filled out two self-report questionnaires, which they returned to the tester in Session 2. Testing was conducted by specially trained graduate research assistants either at the research laboratory or at a location in the community (e.g., the senior citizen centre or participants’ homes).

Measures

The study protocol included a personal data form, a self-representation task, two measures of personality, and a measure of psychological well-being. To control for order of administration effects, the self-concept representation task was administered in a counterbalanced fashion.² The remaining measures were administered in the same order.

Assessment of Agency and Communion Orientations

Using the procedure developed by Harter and Monsour (1992), indices of agency and communion were derived from adults’ spontaneous self-representations. Participants were asked to provide, separately for each of five role-specific self-representations (e.g., self with family, self with close friend, self with colleagues, self with significant other, self with a disliked person), up to six attributes that described their own person in the respective role. Participants were instructed to describe themselves as honestly and accurately as possible and were encouraged to include negative and positive attributes. Participants were also told that the words they chose to describe themselves could be different or the same across roles. Participants also rated each attribute as positive or negative.

After self-attributes for each role were completed, the examiner transferred the attributes onto a summary sheet. Participants were then asked to indicate for each self-descriptor how important it was in terms of their self-definition for the given role. To facilitate participants’ ratings, they were shown a self-portrait display consisting of three concentric circles. The centre circle was labelled “most important”, the middle circle less “important”, and the outer circle “least important”. After participants rated each attribute in terms of its importance, they transcribed each descriptor into the corresponding circle of the self-portrait display.

Trained coders rated the attributes in participants’ self-portrait display in terms of agency and communion using the definitions in Appendix A. To rate the self-attributes as either agentic or communal, coders were given a list of agency and communion words (see Appendices B and C) that were derived from the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981), the Masculinity and Femininity Scale of the Adjective Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965), and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence et al., 1974). If a particular self-attribute was not on the list of agency and communion words, coders were instructed to read the definitions for agency and communion and to rate the word like a word on the list with a similar meaning. Self-descriptors that were not codable as agency or communion attributes were rated as neutral.

Using this coding procedure, the following variables were derived from participants’ self-portrait display: total number of agency and communion words; number of agency and communion words in each circle of the self-portrait display; and number of positive and negative agency and communion words in each circle of the self-portrait display. Coders were trained to a criterion agreement of .80 (i.e., Pearson Product–Moment correlation) or higher. Agreement for the three pairs of coders was .96, .96, and .97, resulting in an average agreement of .96. Disagreements between raters were resolved by consensus ratings. Rater drift was examined after 50% of the self-portrait displays had been coded. All inter-rater correlations were greater than .80; therefore, raters did not receive any additional training.

Measures of Personality

Two measures of personality were included in this study. The first one, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), assessed five broad personality dimensions, whereas the second, the Defense Mechanisms Inventory (DMI; Ihilevich & Gleser, 1993), assessed five defence mechanisms as expressed in participants’ reactions to situation-specific vignettes.

NEO Five-Factor Inventory

The short version of the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), the NEO-FFI, was used to assess five broad dimensions of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The five factor scales are neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Each factor is assessed with 12 items to which participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The coefficients of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in this study were .87, .76, .70, .84, and .75 for neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, respectively.

Defense Mechanisms Inventory

The DMI (Ihilevich & Gleser, 1993) was used to assess participants’ defence mechanisms. The inventory produces scores for five types of defence, which are determined from participants’ responses to 10 age- and sex-appropriate vignettes. For each vignette, there are four clusters of responses referring to a person’s actual reaction, impulsive reaction, thoughts, and feelings. Within each cluster, participants select their most and least favoured response from five choices, each representing a different defence mechanism: turning against object, projection, principalisation, reversal, and turning against self.

Turning against object represents a defence in which a person uses aggression to achieve mastery over a psychologically demanding situation. In contrast, projection involves the attribution of undesired qualities of the self to others in the absence of validating evidence. Principalisation assesses a person’s tendency to transform conflict into a truism or lesson that may be learned from an otherwise frustrating experience. Reversal measures an individual’s inclination to downplay the negative aspects of a situation and to give it a neutral or positive meaning. Finally, turning against self describes a person’s tendency to resolve psychological conflict by directing aggressive behaviours, feelings, or fantasies toward the self. This defence mechanism also includes the attribution of fault and responsibility to oneself without sufficient reason.

The DMI has good psychometric properties (Ihilevich & Gleser, 1993), including internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent and divergent validity. Estimates of internal consistency in this study were .82, .65, .73, .85, and .78 for turning against object, projection, principalisation, turning against self, and reversal, respectively.

Psychological Well-Being

Participants’ psychological well-being was assessed using the Short Psychological Weil-Being Scales by Ryff (1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This self-report inventory measures six dimensions of psychological well-being derived from the literature on life-span development, mental health, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989, 1995). The six dimensions are self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal growth, purpose in life, and autonomy. Estimates of internal consistency for these scales were .91, .89, .88, .84, .87, and .87, respectively.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Adults’ spontaneously generated self-representations could be categorised in terms of agency and communion. Participants’ self-portrait displays contained a total of 4553 self-attributes; 39.16% (1783 words) were agency-related attributes, 59.67% (2717 words) were communion-related attributes, and 1.16% (53 words) were coded as neutral. Participants rated 53.11 % of the agency-related attributes as positive and 46.89% as negative. The overwhelming majority (92.49%) of the communion-related attributes were rated as positive.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of agency- and communion-related attributes across the circles of the self-portrait display. As can be seen in Figure 1, the majority of positive agency and communion words were placed in the centre circle of the self-portrait display. In contrast, the majority of negative agency- and communion-related attributes were placed in the outer circle of the self-portrait display. This main effect of self-portrait assignment was significant for positive agency words, F(2, 152) = 22.23, P < .001, η² = .23, negative agency words, F(2, 152) = 60.65, p < .001, η² = .45, and negative communion words, F(2, 152) = 14.93, p < .001, η² = .17. For positive communion words, the main effect of self-portrait assignment was qualified by a significant Age Group × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction, F(4, 304) = 2.73, p < .05, η² = .04, and a significant Sex × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction, .F(2, 152) = 5.46, p < .01, η² = .07. Follow-up analyses showed, for the Age Group × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction, that middle-aged and older adults assigned significantly more positive communion words to the centre circle of the self-portrait display than young adults. Follow-up analyses for the Sex × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction showed that women assigned significantly more positive communion words to the centre circle and significantly fewer to the outer circle than men.³

Figure 1 Distribution of agency- and communion-related attributes across circles of the self-portrait display.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the mean total number of agency- and communion-related attributes across age groups. Consistent with the focus on role-specific self-representations, the majority of spontaneously generated self-descriptors were classified as communion-related attributes (M = 17.20, SD = 4.06). To a lesser extent, adults’ self-representations reflected agency-related attributes (M = 11.28, SD = 4.15) and only a small number of attributes were classified as neutral (M = 0.34, SD = 0.70). The correlation between the total number of agency-related self-representations and participants’ age was −.49, p < .001; the correlation between the total number of communion-related self-representations and participants’ age was .23, p < .01. Figure 3 shows the association between age and the total number of agency-related (top panel) and communion-related (bottom panel) self-representations.

Figure 2 Mean number of agency- and communion-related attributes across age groups.

Figure 3 Relationship between age and agency attributes (top panel) and age and communion attributes (bottom panel).

Age and sex differences in agency-related attributes

A 3 (age group: young vs. middle-aged vs. old) × 2 (sex: men vs. women) × 3 (self-portrait assignment: centre vs. middle vs. outer circle) mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine age and sex differences in the total number of agency-related attributes.⁴ Age group and sex were between-subjects factors, whereas self-portrait assignment was a within-subjects factor. Self-portrait assignment was included to examine whether the importance of agency words in participants’ self-portrait differed by age group or sex.

This analysis showed significant main effects of age group, F(2, 152) = 28.25, p < .001, η² = .27, sex, F(1, 152) = 9.58, p < .01, η² = .06, and self-portrait assignment, F(2, 152) = 12.11, p < .001, η² = .14. None of the interactions with self-portrait assignment reached the .05 level of significance. The means and standard deviations resulting from this analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Age and sex differences in number of agency-related attributes

Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) method showed for the main effect of age group that young (M = 13.23, SD = 3.64) and middle-aged (M = 12.10, SD = 3.14) subjects included significantly more agency attributes in their self-representations than older adults (M = 8.49, SD = 3.98). Post hoc analyses with regard to the main effect of sex showed that men (M = 11.96, SD = 3.82) listed significantly more agency words in their self-representations compared to women (M = 10.45, SD = 4.32). Post hoc analyses with regard to self-portrait assignment showed that the outer circle (M = 4.65, SD = 2.88) contained significantly more agency words than the middle circle (M = 3.13, SD = 2.27) and the centre circle (M = 3.44, SD = 2.53).

Age and sex differences in communion-related attributes

A 3 (age group) × 2 (sex) × 3 (self-portrait assignment) mixed model ANOVA was performed to examine age and sex differences in the total number of communion attributes. Again, self-portrait assignment was included to examine whether the assignment of communion-related attributes to different circles of the self-portrait differed by age group or sex.

This analysis showed significant main effects of age group, F(2, 152) = 4.37, p < .05, η² = .05, sex, F(1, 152) = 11.03, p < .01, η² = .07, and self-portrait assignment, F(2, 152) = 325.70, p < .001, η² = .60. In addition, there was a significant Age Group × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction, F(4, 304) = 2.90, p < .05, η² = .04, and a significant Sex × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction, F(2, 152) = 3.64, p < .05, η² = .05. The Age Group × Sex interaction and the three-way interaction failed to reach the .05 level of significance. The means and standard deviations resulting from this analysis are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Age and sex differences in number of communion-related attributes

Post hoc analyses showed for the main effect of age group that older adults (M = 18.25, SD = 4.70) included significantly more communion-related attributes in their self-representations than young adults (M = 16.19, SD = 3.78). This main effect, however, was qualified by a significant Age Group × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction. Specifically, middle-aged (M = 10.53, SD = 3.89) and older adults (M = 11.13, SD = 4.60) listed significantly more communion words in the centre circle of their self-portrait display compared to young adults (M = 8.54, SD = 3.90). Thus, middle-aged and older adults considered, on average, more communion words as most important for their self-representations than younger adults.

Post hoc analyses with regard to the main effect of sex showed that women’s self-representations (M = 18.26, SD = 4.09) included significantly more communion-related attributes compared to men’s (M = 16.30, SD = 3.74); t(157) = −3.14, p < .01. However, this main effect was qualified by a significant Sex × Self-Portrait Assignment interaction. In particular, women (M = 11.00, SD = 4.48) included significantly more communion-related attributes in the centre circle of their self-portrait display than men (M = 9.19, SD = 3. 89). There were no significant sex differences with regard to the other circles of the self-portrait display.

Post hoc analyses with regard to the main effect of self-portrait assignment showed that the centre circle (M = 10.08, SD = 4.27) contained significantly more communion words than the middle circle (M = 5.47, SD = 3.02) and the outer circle (M = 1.72, SD = 1.78). The difference between the mean number of communion words in the middle circle and the outer circle was also significant.

Associations between agency and communion orientations and measures of personality

Associations between agency and communion orientations and measures of personality were examined in two ways. First, the correlations between the total number of agency and communion words and measures of personality were calculated. Second, because agency- and communion-related words assigned to the centre circle of the self-portrait display may be of particular importance to adults’ self-definitions, we also examined the associations between the number of agency and communion words in the centre circle and measures of personality. Table 4 shows the resulting correlations with the five factors of the NEO-FFI and the five defence mechanisms assessed by the DMI.

Table 4 Correlations between agency and communion attributes and measures of personality (N = 158)

As can be seen in Table 4, the total number of agency words showed a significant positive correlation with openness to experience and significant negative correlations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. The number of agency words in the centre circle of the self-portrait display correlated positively with openness to experience and negatively with agreeableness. Thus, adults who included a greater number of agency-related attributes in their self-representations tended to be more open to new experiences, less agreeable with others, and less conscientious in their actions. In contrast, the total number of communion words and the number of communion words in the centre circle correlated positively with agreeableness. In addition, the number of communion words in the centre circle of the self-portrait display also correlated significantly with conscientiousness. Thus, adults who included a greater number of communion-related attributes in their self-representations tended to be more agreeable with others and more conscientious in their actions.

The total number of agency words and the number of agency words in the centre circle showed significant positive correlations with the defence mechanisms turning against object and projection and significant negative correlations with turning against self and reversal. In contrast, the total number of communion words showed a significant negative correlation with the defence mechanisms turning against object and significant positive correlations with the defence mechanisms turning against self and reversal. With the exception of the correlation with turning against self, this pattern also held for the number of communion words included in the centre circle of the self-portrait display.

Associations between communion and agency and psychological well-being

Table 5 shows the bivariate correlations between the number of agency and communion words and adults’ scores on six dimensions of psychological well-being. As can be seen in Table 5, none of the correlations for agency words reached the .05 level of significance. For the number of communion words assigned to the centre circle of the self-portrait display four of the six correlations were statistically significant. Specifically, the number of communion words in the centre circle showed positive correlations with self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, and purpose in life. Thus, adults who assigned a larger number of communion words to the centre circle of their self-portrait display tended to have higher scores on these dimensions of psychological well-being.

Table 5 Correlations between agency and communion attributes and scales of psychological well-being (N = 158)

Age and sex differences in the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes

A 3 (age group) × 2 (sex) ANOVA with the ratio between the total number of agency- and communion-related attributes as dependent variable was performed to examine age and sex differences. This analysis yielded a significant main effect for age group, F(2, 152) = 9.12, p < .001, η² = .11, and a significant main effect for sex, F(2, 152) = 5.75, p <.05, η² = .04. The Age Group × Sex interaction did not reach the .05 level of statistical significance. The means and standard deviations resulting from this analysis are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Age and sex differences in the ratio between agency and communion attributes

Post hoc analyses for the main effect of age group showed that the mean ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes was significantly smaller for older adults (M = .57, SD = .45) than for younger adults (M = .93, SD = .54). The mean differences between young and middle-aged adults and middle-aged and older adults were not statistically significant. Figure 4 shows the association between age and the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes. Follow-up analyses for the main effect of sex revealed that the mean ratio was significantly smaller for women (M = .67, SD = .44) than the mean ratio for men (M = .82, SD = .47), t(157) = 2.08, p < .05.

Figure 4 Relationship between age and the ratio between agency- and communion-related attributes.

Discussion

This study used an adult life-span sample to examine agency and communion orientations in individuals’ spontaneous self-representations. Findings showed that the content of adults’ spontaneous self-representations could be reliably coded in terms of agency and communion. This suggests that these “two fundamental modalities” (Bakan, 1966, p. 14) structure adults’ self-construals and are (more or less) consciously available in their self-representations. This general finding is of interest because this study did not use the usual self-report measures to assess agency and communion (see Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Rather, the approach taken in this study was indirect and showed that agency and communion are implicit dimensions along which adults structured their role-specific self-representations (Blatt & Blass, 1996).

Unlike most research on agency and communion, the results reported here were obtained with a sample covering the whole adult life span (see also Helgeson & Fritz, 1999; McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day, 1996, Study 2 and 3; Smith et al., 1998). As expected, the total number of agency-related attributes in adults’ self-representations was negatively correlated with age, whereas the total number of communion-related attributes showed a positive association with age. This suggests that with increasing age, adults seem to incorporate more other-related attributes into their self-representations and seem to downplay the attributes that are indicative of achievement, independence, and power. This interpretation was further supported by findings from content analyses showing that the reduction in agency-related attributes with age was mostly due to a smaller number of negative agency words (e.g., angry, arrogant, aggressive, cynical, vindictive). In contrast, positive agency words (e.g., confident, creative, determined, forceful, self-reliant) were included with the same frequency across age groups.

Overall, the distribution of attributes in adults’ self-representations showed that about 40% were agency-related, whereas about 60% were communion-related. The majority of positive agency and communion attributes were placed in the centre of adults’ self-portraits. This latter finding is consistent with a large body of literature documenting the positivity bias in self-representations in the service of self-affirmation and self-enhancement (Steele, 1988; Swann, 1990). This finding also lends further support to the validity of the procedure used in the present research.

Age and sex differences in agency and communion attributes

Analyses of variance provided support for our hypotheses regarding age and sex differences. With regard to age differences, young and middle-aged adults included a significantly larger number of agency attributes in their self-representations than older adults. Conversely, older adults listed more communion-related attributes as part of their self-representations than young adults. These findings are consistent with general theorising on adult development (Blatt & Blass, 1996; Erikson, 1950, 1982; Franz & White, 1985; Labouvie-Vief, 1994) and with research on generativity in adulthood (Ackerman et al., 2000; MacDermid et al., 1998; McAdams et al., 1996). Moreover, these findings are consistent with research on the developmental tasks defined by different life periods, which indicates that the focus in early adulthood is on gaining independence from the family of origin and on committing to a professional career and stable interpersonal relationships (Arnett, 2000). In contrast, developmental tasks in middle and late adulthood are related to using one’s professional status to mentor others, to raise and guide the next generation, to draw on significant others in coping with the challenges of the ageing process, and to provide support to others as they negotiate the diverse challenges in their lives (see Aldwin & Levenson, 2001; Antonucci, Akiyama, & Merline, 2001; Lachman & James, 1997; MacDermid et al., 1998).

With regard to sex differences, findings from this study showed that men included more agency-related attributes in their self-representations than women. Conversely, women included more communion-related attributes in their self-representations than men. These findings are consistent with a large body of research on sex-role socialisation (Eagly, 1987; Helgeson, 1994; Maccoby, 1990; Ruble & Martin, 1998). In describing the different self-construals of men and women, Cross and Madson (1997) stated that “The social, institutional, and cultural environment of the United States promotes development of independence and autonomy in men and interdependence and relatedness in women” (p. 5).

For communion-related attributes, the main effects of age and sex were qualified by significant interactions with self-portrait assignment. In particular, middle-aged and older adults listed significantly more communion attributes in the centre of their self-portrait display than young adults; similarly, women included significantly more communion attributes in the centre of their self-portrait display than men. These findings underscore the importance of relatedness for adults’ self-definitions and suggest that this importance increases as individuals grow older (Carstensen, 1993).

Associations of agency and communion with personality and psychological well-being

Examination of the associations of agency- and communion-related attributes with personality traits and defence mechanisms yielded a number of interesting findings. Specifically, the number of agency attributes showed a positive association with openness to experience and negative associations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. This means that individuals who listed more agency-related attributes in their self-representations tended to score higher on a personality dimension indicative of a person’s willingness to entertain novel ideas and to endorse unconventional values. Conversely, these individuals tended to score lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness, suggesting that they were less sympathetic toward others and more inclined to follow their own impulses (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

In contrast, communion attributes showed positive correlations with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. This means that individuals who include more communion-related attributes in their self-representations tended to be socially more outgoing, more sympathetic toward others, and more purposeful and self-controlled in their behaviour (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Overall, the magnitude of the intercorrelations was modest, but provided evidence for the convergent validity of the agency and communion assessment used in this study (see also McAdams et al., 1996).

In terms of the associations of agency and communion with defence mechanisms, our analyses revealed significant positive associations of the total number of agency attributes with turning against object and projection, and significant negative correlations with turning against self and reversal. This means that individuals who included more agency-related attributes in their self-representations tended to endorse strategies of conflict management that direct aggressive impulses toward others and assign undesirable qualities to others. Conversely, these individuals tended to be less inclined to direct feelings of conflict toward their own person or to reinterpret the negative aspects of a given situation. These correlations are consistent with the general definition of agency orientation and indicate that high agency scores often tend to be associated with antagonistic behaviour and with more externalising defences.

In comparison, the total number of communion attributes showed significant negative correlations with turning against object and projection, and significant positive correlations with turning against self and reversal. This means that individuals who included more communion-related attributes in their self-representations tended to direct their aggressive impulses toward their own person and were more likely to downplay the negative aspects of a given situation. Overall, these correlations are consistent with the description of communion-oriented individuals as being concerned about interpersonal harmony, being accommodating to others, and being able to focus on the bright side of difficult situations. These findings also suggest that communion-oriented individuals may use developmentally more mature defence mechanisms when confronted with challenging situations. This finding is consistent with results from several studies showing positive associations between age and mature coping strategies (see Diehl et al., 1996; Helson & Wink, 1987; Vaillant, 1993).

Examination of the associations of agency and communion attributes with dimensions of psychological well-being showed only significant correlations for communion-related attributes. Specifically, individuals who included more communion-related attributes in the centre circle of their self-portrait display tended to have (a) a more positive attitude toward their own person (i.e., self-acceptance); (b) a greater sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment (i.e., environmental mastery); (c) warm, satisfying, and trusting relationships with others (i.e., positive relations with others); and (d) a deeper sense of meaning for their present or past life (i.e., purpose in life). Although the significant correlations were small in magnitude, they are consistent with a large body of research showing that being socially embedded and having meaningful relationships with others has a number of beneficial effects in terms of physical and mental health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 1998).

Finally, findings from an analysis of variance failed to support the hypothesis that with increasing age the relative importance of agency attributes compared to communion attributes increases for women, whereas the opposite pattern can be expected for men. Instead, we found that across age groups both men and women tended to include more communion-related attributes in their self-representations. This finding is consistent with Erikson’s (1950, 1982) notion of an increasing focus on others and increasing concerns with generativity over the course of adulthood. Although we did not measure our participants’ concern about generativity, this finding is consistent with findings from studies on the role of agency and communion in the context of generative behaviour (Ackerman et al., 2000; MacDermid et al., 1998; McAdams et al., 1996).

Limitations

This study has several strengths, including the use of a heterogeneous adult life-span sample and the use of role-specific self-representations to obtain a measure of individuals’ agency and communion orientations. Despite these strengths, several limitations need to be acknowledged. First, because the assessment of agency and communion was done in the context of a secondary analysis, this study did not include another measure of these constructs. Thus, we were not able to examine the convergent validity of our measure directly with an established measure of agency and communion. However, the obtained correlations with personality factors, defence mechanisms, and dimensions of psychological well-being were consistent with the theoretical meaning of these constructs and comparable to correlations obtained with established measures of agency and communion (Ackerman et al., 2000; McAdams et al., 1996).

Second, although the self-concept assessment in terms of role-specific self-representations can be considered one of the strengths of this study, it also needs to be acknowledged that this approach, by definition, may have biased adults’ spontaneous self-representations in favour of communal attributes. Although this method artifact cannot be ruled out, our data show that study participants nevertheless included a considerable number of agentic attributes in their self-representations. Additional studies are needed to address this issue and to determine the effect of specific instructional sets on the content of adults’ spontaneous self-representations (see Labouvie-Vief, Chiodo, Goguen, Diehl, & Orwoll, 1995).

Third, the cross-sectional nature of the reported data confounds the effects of age and cohort and thus limits the developmental conclusions that can be drawn from this study (Schaie, 1994). Only under the assumption that the effect of cohort on adults’ self-representations is negligible can the age differences found in this study be interpreted as being indicative of age-related change. A more detailed knowledge about the change trajectories of agency and communion orientations in adulthood and their associations with markers of physical and psychological health requires longitudinal data.

Concluding remarks

In summary, this study showed that agency and communion were implicit dimensions of adults’ spontaneous self-representations. Findings with regard to age differences showed that middle-aged and older adults included significantly more communion attributes in their self-representations, suggesting that relatedness may become more important with age. Findings with regard to sex differences were consistent with the literature on sex-role socialisation, showing that men tend to emphasise agency-related/independent self-representations, whereas women tend to emphasise communion-related/ interdependent self-representations. Findings from correlational analyses showed significant associations with broad factors of personality, defence mechanisms, and dimensions of psychological well-being, lending support to the convergent validity of the assessment used in this study.

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this study was in part supported by grant AG19328 from the National Institute on Aging to Manfred Diehl.

Appendix A: Definition of agency and communion for rater training

According to the psychologist David Bakan (1966), agency and communion are two fundamental modalities that human beings display in their orientation toward the world around them. In the following, we are providing prototypical definitions of both terms. You need to use these definitions when you rate the attributes in study participants’ self-portrait displays. Please note that agency and communion can be expressed in a positive and a negative form.

Agency

Agency refers to a person’s striving to be separate from others, to master the environment, and to assert, protect, and expand the self. Individuals who score high on agency are usually powerful and autonomous “agents,” they are highly individualistic, they like to dominate and lead, they want to be a force to be reckoned with. In its positive form, high agency orientation is found in skillful leaders who enjoy challenging tasks, are ambitious, self-confident and creative, and can lead a project to success—even in the face of obstacles. In its negative form, high agency orientation is expressed by “hunger for power and dominance” and is often expressed by reckless, abrasive, and selfish/self-centred behaviour toward others.

Communion

Communion refers to a person’s striving to lose his or her own individuality by merging with others. Individuals who score high on communion enjoy participating in something that is larger than the self. They enjoy relating to other persons in warm, close, intimate, and loving ways. In its positive form, high communion orientation is found in persons who can easily give up or delay their individual needs and wishes for the common good. They are usually great team players and can collaborate with others smoothly and in constructive ways. Also, they are usually good in understanding others’ feelings and are able to respond with empathy and thoughtful understanding. In its negative form, high communion orientation is found in persons who always want to please others and are extremely dependent on the approval and opinion of others. These individuals are devastated if their needs for “union and merging with others” are not reciprocated by these others and they feel rejected and worthless. These individuals, in general, have given up any kind of sense of individuality and self-worth. In Appendices B and C are lists of words that you can consult in rating the descriptors in study participants’ self-portrait diagrams. Although this list is not exhaustive, it contains the most frequent agency and communion words that we were able to identify in the relevant literature.

Appendix B: Agency words
Conquer, Dominant, Inventive, Master, Enterprising, Opportunistic, Controlling, Forceful, Outspoken, Overcome, Independent, Sharp-witted, Creative, Resourceful, Shrewd, Productive, Restless, Stern, Explorer, Sophisticated, Strong, Persuasive, Stubborn, Tough, Advocate, Wise, Vindictive, Analytical, Arrogant, Competitive, Understand (seeks to), Autocratic, Decisive, Winning/Winner, Conceited, Leader, Aggressive, Confident, Determined, Ambitious, Cynical, Secure, Adventurous, Deliberate, Individualistic, Assertive, Intelligent/Smart, Self-reliant, Autonomous, Foresighted, Self-sufficient, Clever, Hard-headed, Risk taker, Courageous, Industrious, Energetic, Daring, Ingenious, Angry

Appendix C: Communion words
Loving, Grateful, Praising, Intimate (seeks intimacy), Tactful, Sentimental, Unite with others, Conscientious, Sincere, Caring, Neat, Submissive, Nurturing, Creative, Talkative/sharing experiences, Cooperative, Religious, Timid, Encouraging, Home-oriented, Worrying, Communicate, Appreciative, Cheerful, Sharing, Considerate, Compassionate, Affectionate, Contended, Flatterable, Charming, Dependent, Gullible, Altruistic, Emotional, Loyal, Enticing, Fearful, Shy, Gentle, Fickle, Tender, Kind, Forgiving, Yielding, Loyal, Friendly, Role model, Sensitive, Frivolous, Interested, Sociable, Helpful, Understanding, Sympathetic, Jolly, Warm, Modest

Footnotes

¹In an earlier study (Diehl, Hastings, & Stanton, 2001), we addressed concerns about the fact that some participants received a compensation (i.e., extra credit) for their participation, whereas others (mostly middle-aged and older adults) did not. Specifically, we performed a series of analyses in which we compared the scores of those participants who had received extra credit to the scores of those participants who had not received compensation. Nineteen out of 24 comparisons (79.2%) did not reveal any significant differences (p < .05) between the two groups; 3 comparisons showed higher scores for the compensated participants, whereas 2 comparisons showed higher scores for the noncompensated group. On the basis of these results, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the compensation to some of the participants did not bias the findings in any major way (see also Gribbin & Schaie, 1976).

²Analyses reported elsewhere showed that the order of administration did not prime participants to create their self-representations in specific ways (Diehl et al., 2001).

³Tables containing the means and standard deviations from these analyses can be obtained from the first author.

⁴Following the suggestion of one reviewer, we also performed the analyses with age as a continuous variable. These analyses yielded virtually identical results. Because this study focused on age and sex differences, we opted to present the findings as mean-level data.

Contributor Information

Manfred Diehl, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA;

Stephanie K. Owen, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA;

Lise M. Youngblade, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA;

References

• Ackerman S, Zuroff DC, Moskowitz DS. Generativity in midlife and young adults: Links to agency, communion, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2000;50:17–41. [PubMed]
• Aldwin CM, Levenson MR. Stress, coping, and health at midlife: A developmental perspective. In: Lachman ME, editor. Handbook of midlife development. New York: Wiley; 2001. pp. 188–214.
• Antonucci TC, Akiyama H, Merline A. Dynamics of social relationships in midlife. In: Lachman ME, editor. Handbook of midlife development. New York: Wiley; 2001. pp. 571–598.
• Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. 2000;55:469–480. [PubMed]
• Bakan D. The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.
• Bartholomew K, Horowitz L. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:226–244. [PubMed]
• Baumeister RF. How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52:163–176.
• Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117:497–529. [PubMed]
• Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM. Women’s mays of knowing. New York: Basic Books; 1986.
• Bem SL. Bem Sex Role Inventory professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.
• Blatt SJ, Blass RB. Relatedness and self-definition: A dialectic model of personality development. In: Noam GG, Fischer KW, editors. Development and vulnerability in relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1996. pp. 309–338.
• Bowlby J. A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
• Carstensen LL. Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In: Jacobs JE, editor. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992: vol. 40. Developmental perspectives on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 1993. pp. 209–254.
• Conway M, Pizzamiglio MT, Mount L. Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:25–38. [PubMed]
• Costa PT, Jr, McCrae RR. RevisedNEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.
• Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin. 1997;122:5–37. [PubMed]
• Diehl M, Coyle N, Labouvie-Vief G. Age and sex differences in strategies of coping and defense across the life span. Psychology and Aging. 1996;11:127–139. [PubMed]
• Diehl M, Elnick AB, Bourbeau LS, Labouvie-Vief G. Adult attachment styles: Their relations to family context and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74:1656–1669. [PubMed]
• Diehl M, Hastings CT, Stanton JM. Self-concept differentiation across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16:543–654.
• Eagly AH. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1987.
• Erikson EH. Childhood and society. New York: Norton; 1950.
• Erikson EH. The life cycle completed. New York: Norton; 1982.
• Feingold A. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;116:429–456. [PubMed]
• Franz CE, White KM. Individuation and attachment in personality development: Extending Erikson’s theory. Journal of Personality. 1985;53:224–256.
• Freud S. Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In: Strachey J, editor. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 7. London: Hogarth Press; 1953. Original work published 1905.
• Gergen KJ. The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books; 1991.
• Gilligan C. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982.
• Gjerde PF. Alternative pathways to chronic depressive symptoms in young adults: Gender differences in developmental trajectories. Child Development. 1995;66:1277–1300. [PubMed]
• Gough HG, Heilbrun AL. The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1965.
• Gribbin K, Schaie KW. Monetary incentive, age, and cognition. Experimental Aging Research. 1976;2:461–468. [PubMed]
• Guisinger S, Blatt S. Individuality and relatedness. American Psychologist. 1994;49:104–111.
• Gutmann D. Reclaimed powers: Men and women in later life. 2. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1994.
• Haan N. Coping and defending: Processes of self-environment organization. New York: Academic Press; 1977.
• Harter S, Monsour A. Developmental analysis of conflict caused by opposing attributes in the adolescent self-portrait. Developmental Psychology. 1992;28:251–260.
• Helgeson VS. Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;116:412–428.
• Helgeson VS, Fritz HL. Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality. 1999;33:131–158.
• Helgeson VS, Fritz HL. The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality. 2000;68:1031–1057. [PubMed]
• Helson R, Moane G. Personality change in women from college to midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;53:176–186. [PubMed]
• Helson R, Wink P. Two concepts of maturity examined in the findings of a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;53:531–541. [PubMed]
• Ihilevich D, Gleser GC. Defense mechanisms: Their classification, correlates, and measurement with the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1993.
• Jung CG. In: Modem man in search of a soul. Dell WS, Baynes CF, editors. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World; 1962. Original work published 1933.
• Labouvie-Vief G. Psyche and Eros: Mind and gender in the life course. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
• Labouvie-Vief G, Chiodo LM, Goguen LA, Diehl M, Orwoll L. Representations of self across the life span. Psychology and Aging. 1995;10:404–415. [PubMed]
• Lachman ME, James JB, editors. Multiple paths of midlife development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1997.
• Levinson DJ, Darrow CN, Klein EB, Levinson MH, McKee B. The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine; 1978.
• Livson FB. Paths to psychological health in the middle years: Sex differences. In: Eichorn DH, Clausen JA, Haan N, Honzik MP, Mussen PH, editors. Present and past in middle life. New York: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 195–221.
• Loevinger J. Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1976.
• Maccoby EE. Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist. 1990;45:513–520. [PubMed]
• MacDermid S, Franz CE, DeReus L. Adult character: Agency, communion, insight, and the expression of generativity in mid-life adults. In: Colby A, James J, Hart D, editors. Competence and character through life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. pp. 205–229.
• Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review. 1991;98:224–253.
• McAdams DP. The stories we live by. New York: Harper Collins; 1993.
• McAdams DP. The person: An integrated introduction to personality psychology. 3. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace; 2000.
• McAdams DP, de St Aubin E. A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62:1003–1015.
• McAdams DP, Hoffman BJ, Mansfield ED, Day R. Themes of agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality. 1996;64:339–375.
• Nolen-Hoeksema S, Larson J, Grayson C. Explaining the gender differences in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;77:1061–1072. [PubMed]
• Reis HT, Sheldon KM, Gable SL, Roscoe J, Ryan RM. Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000;26:419–435.
• Ruble DN, Martin CL. Gender development. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 5. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 933–1016.
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55:68–78. [PubMed]
• Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57:1069–1081.
• Ryff CD. Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1995;4:99–104.
• Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69:719–727. [PubMed]
• Ryff CD, Singer B. The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry. 1998;9:1–28.
• Schaie KW. Developmental designs revisited. In: Cohen SH, Reese HW, editors. Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological contributions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1994. pp. 45–64.
• Shaver PR, Brennan KA. Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992;18:536–545.
• Smith TW, Gallo LC, Goble L, Ngu LQ, Stark KA. Agency, communion, and cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Health Psychology. 1998;17:537–545. [PubMed]
• Spence JT, Helmreich RL, Stapp J. The Personality Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 1974;4:43–44.
• Steele C. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 21. New York: Academic Press; 1988. pp. 261–302.
• Swann WB., Jr . To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In: Higgins ET, Sorrentino RM, editors. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. Vol. 2. New York: Guilford; 1990. pp. 408–448.
• Vaillant GE. The wisdom of the ego. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993.
• Verbrugge LM. Gender and health: An update on hypotheses and evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1985;26:156–182. [PubMed]
• Wiggins JS. Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In: Grove & WM, Cicchetti D, editors. Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol 1. Personality and psychopathology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1991. pp. 89–113.
• Wiggins JS, Trapnell PD. A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In: Wiggins JS, editor. The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford; 1996. pp. 88–162.
• Woike BA. The use of differentiation and integration processes: Empirical studies of “separate” and “connected” ways of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:142–150.
• Woike BA, Gershkovich I, Piorkowski R, Polo M. The role of motives in the content and structure of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;76:600–612. [PubMed]

Tags: Agency, communion, attributes, adults, spontaneous self-representations, psychology, personality, gender differences, life-span, Manfred Diehl, Stephanie K. Owen, Lise M. Youngblade, International Journal of Behavioral Development, defense mechanisms, psychological well-being, behavioral orientation, sex differences, age differences, separate knowing, connected knowing, traits, self-concept formation, sex-role, socialization