Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity

Sex Roles (2015) 73:461473 DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2

FEMINIST FORUM REVIEW ARTICLE

Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity

Wendy Wood1 & Alice H. Eagly2

Published online: 19 June 2015# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Gender identity reflects peoples understanding of themselves in terms of cultural definitions of female and male. In this article, we identify two traditions of research on gender identity that capture different aspects of masculine and feminine gender roles. The classic personality approach to gender identity differentiates communal from agentic traits and interests. The gender self-categorization approach comprises identification with the social category of women or men. Based on the compatibility principle, each approach should predict behaviors within the relevant content domain. Thus, personality measures likely predict communal and agentic behaviors, whereas gender self-categorization measures likely predict group-level reactions such as ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. Researchers have the option of using one or the other conception of gender identity, depending on their particular question of interest. Relying primarily on research conducted in the U.S., we show that both traditions provide insight into the ways that gendered self concepts link the social roles of women and men with their individual cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.

Keywords Gender identity . Masculinity . Femininity . Compatibility principle . Self-construal . Gender categorization

Introduction

Gender consists of the meanings ascribed to male and female social categories within a culture. When people incorporate these cultural meanings into their own psyches, then gender becomes part of their identities. Through these gender identities, individuals understand themselves in relation to the culturally feminine and masculine meanings attached to men and women, and they may think and act according to these gendered aspects of their selves (Wood and Eagly 2010, 2012). In presenting our analysis, we depart from Sex Roless editorial policy by distinguishing the cultural concepts of gender and gender identity from the social category of sex, which we define by its common-language meaning as Beither of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions^ (Bsex,^ n.d.).

Psychologists have studied gender identity by following two major traditions. In this article, we review the concepts and measures in each tradition and their contribution to...