Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T07:00:46.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there any Relationship between Sexual Attraction and Gender Typology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Juan Fernández ,
María Ángeles Quiroga  and
Isabel Del Olmo
Juan Fernández*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
María Ángeles Quiroga
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Isabel Del Olmo
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Fernández, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Somosaguas. 28223 – Madrid (Spain). Phone: +34 91 3943162. Fax: +34 91 394 3189. E-mail: [email protected]. The SAQ is available to any interested researcher upon request (also by e-mail) to the first author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

People can be classified as attracted to both sexes, to men, to women, or to neither sex, and also as instrumental-expressive, instrumental, expressive, or non-instrumental-expressive. The two hypotheses tested herein are, on the one hand, the relative independence between these two typologies and, on the other, the close relation between sexual dimorphism and sexual attraction, in contrast to the relative independence between sexual dimorphism and the instrumental and expressive domains. A total of 503 university students (284 women and 219 men) completed two assessment instruments: The Sexual Attraction Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI, 12 items). Analysis of contingency tables was performed. The results provide empirical support for the hypothesis of independence of the two typologies, solid support for the relation between sexual dimorphism and sexual attraction, and clear support for the independence between the gender domains and sexual dimorphism. The implications of these data for the different outlooks concerning the relations between sex and gender are established.

Las personas pueden ser clasificadas como atraídas por ambos sexos, por varones, por mujeres o por ninguno, a la par que ser consideradas como instrumental-expresivas, instrumentales, expresivas y ainstrumental-expresivas. Las dos hipótesis que se van a poner a prueba son, por un lado, la relativa a la independencia entre las dos tipologías y, por otro, la estrecha relación entre el dimorfismo sexual y la atracción sexual frente a la relativa independencia o cuasi-independencia entre aquél y los dominios instrumental y expresivo. Un total de 503 estudiantes universitarios, de los cuales 284 eran mujeres y 219 varones, cumplimentaron dos instrumentos de evaluación: el Cuestionario de Atracción Sexual (CAS) y el Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI, 12 ítems). Se realizaron análisis de tablas de contingencia. Los resultados ofrecen apoyo empírico a la hipótesis de la independencia de las dos tipologías, un sólido respaldo a la relación entre dimorfismo sexual y atracción sexual y un claro apoyo a la independencia de los dominios de género y el dimorfismo sexual. Se establecen las implicaciones de estos datos para las distintas posturas en torno a las relaciones entre la realidad del sexo y la del género.

Keywords

sexual attractionsexual orientationinstrumentalityexpressivenessmasculinityfemininityandrogynyatracción sexualorientación sexualinstrumentalidadexpresividadmasculinidadfeminidadandroginia
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 2006 , pp. 3 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, R. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication annual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Antill, J. K., & Russell, G. (1980). A preliminary comparison between two forms of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Australian Psychologist, 15, 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, A.E. (1993). A social constructionist view of gender. In Beall, A.E. & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 127–147). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, S. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
Beere, C.A. (1990). Gender roles. A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betzig, L. (Ed.). (1999). Human nature: A critical reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (2004). The evolution of desire. Strategies of human mating (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Choi, N., & Fuqua, D.R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 872–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, A.M. (2001). Dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to the famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, E.P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Desrochers, S. (1995). What types of men are most attractive and most repulsive to women? Sex Roles, 32, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J. (1983). Nuevas perspectivas en la medida de la masculinidad y feminidad [New perspectives in the measurement of masculinity and femininity]. Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (Coord.). (1988). Nuevas perspectivas en el desarrollo del sexo y el género [New perspectives in the development of sex and gender]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (Coord.). (1996). Varones y mujeres. Desarrollo de la doble realidad del sexo y del género [Men and women. Development of the twofold reality of sex and gender]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (Coord.). (1998). Género y sociedad [Gender and society]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (Coord.). (2000). La intervención en los ámbitos de la sexología y la generología [Intervention in the areas of sexology and genderology]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Fernández, J., Quiroga, M.A., & Rodríguez, A. (in press). Dimensionalidad de la atracción sexual [Sexual attraction: Its dimensionality]. Psicothema.Google Scholar
Finlay, B., & Scheltema, K.E. (1991). The relation of gender and sexual orientation to measures of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: A further analysis. Journal of Homosexuality, 21, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J. (2003). Pavlov's methodological behaviorism as a pre-Socratic contribution of the melding of the differential and experimental psychology. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 6, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garson, G.D. (2004). Nominal association: Phi, contingency coefficient, Tschuprow's T, Cramer's V, Lambda, uncertainty coefficient. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/assocnominal.htmGoogle Scholar
Gergen, M.M. (2001). Social constructionist theory. In Worell, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender (pp. 1043–1058). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, M.M., & Davis, S.N. (Eds.). (1997). Toward a new psychology of gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Green, B., & Kendrick, D. (1994). The attractiveness of gender type traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may be desirable after all. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, B., & Croom, G.L. (Eds.). (2000). Education, research, and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology: A resource manual (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbrum, C. (1973). Toward a recognition of androgyny. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Izquierdo, M. J. (1998). El malestar de la desigualdad [The discomfort of inequality]. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Kravetz, D., & Marecek, J. (2001). The feminist movement. In Worell, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender (pp. 447–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mateo, M.A., & Fernández, J. (1991). La dimensionalidad de los conceptos de masculinidad y feminidad [The dimensionality of the concepts of masculinity and femininity]. Investigaciones Psicológicas, 9, 95–116.Google Scholar
Nicholson, L. (Ed.). (1997). The second wave. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (Eds.). (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Salvat (2003). La enciclopedia (Vol. 2). Barcelona: Salvat.Google Scholar
Singer, J. (2000). Androgyny: The opposites within. York Beach, ME: Nicolas-Hays.Google Scholar
Spence, J.T. (1991). Do the BSRI and PAQ measure the same or different concepts? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on Sex Role Attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stake, J.E. (1997). Integrating expressiveness and instrumentality in real-life settings: A new perspective on the benefits of androgyny. Sex Roles, 37, 541–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woodhill, B.M., & Samuels, C.A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their relationship with psychological health and well-being. Sex Roles, 48, 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar