Theoretical and Experimental Psychology
ISSN 2073-0861
eISSN 2782-5396
En Ru
ISSN 2073-0861
eISSN 2782-5396
Articles

Research into differences in personality positioning of men and women

Abstract

Background. The relevance of the study comes from the need for deeper research into psychological differentiation of men and women, which allows for clarifying the issue of sex ratio in their psychological characteristics. 

Objective. The study had its purpose to identify the differences in personality positioning of men and women. Research hypotheses: 1) men and women are significantly different in personality positioning in terms of belonging to agentic activity types, expressiveness of individual profile positions and their variability, 2) the personality positioning of men and women has a complementary character. 

Methods. The study was conducted on the basis of the author’s inventory “Agentic Activity Profile of Personality” created as a measuring tool within the agentic-dynamic approach to the personality studies. This approach is currently being elaborated by the authors to emphasize the role of personality positioning systems in agency development. The inventory allows to reveal the individual personality positioning profile (18 scales), which is formed in ontogenesis and mediates the nature and direction of agency (the subject’s activity). The inventory was developed to solve the following tasks: 1) on the basis of measurable criteria to identify individual profiles of agentic activity reflecting an individual system of personality positioning; 2) on the basis of the inventory data factorization to identify the most common sets of personality positions as pervasive organizing principles, or types. 

Results. The data on comparison between the generalized male (n = 414) and female (n = 808) agency profiles have been presented in terms of their correlation, belonging to agentic activity type, expressiveness of personality positions and their variability. 

Conclusion. The obtained results have confirmed the proposed hypotheses and have made it possible to draw a conclusion about different vectors of male and female agentic activity and a complementary nature of their personality positioning.


References

Archer, J., Mehdikhani, M. (2003). Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Review of General Psychology, 7, 219–236. 

Borozdina, E.A., Kondakov, A.A., Shtorn, E.M. (2017). Modern studies of gender and sexuality: theoretical developments and empirical research. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi antropologii (Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology), 20 (5), 7–14. (In Russ.). 

Burn, S.M. (1996). The Social Psychology of Gender. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. 

Byrnes, J., Miller, D., Schafer, W. (1999). Gender Differences in Risk Taking. A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale; N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. 

Cohen, Y., Cohen, J.Y. (2008). Statistics and Data with R: An Applied Approach Through Examples. Wiley. 

Dashkova, T.Yu. (2003). Gender issues: approaches to description. In G.A. Bordyugova (Eds.), Historical research in Russia-II. Seven years later (pp. 203–245). Moscow: AIRO-XX. (In Russ.). 

DeYoung, C.G., Weisberg, Y.J., Quilty, L.C., Peterson, J.B. (2013). Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81, 465–475. 

Del Giudice, M. (2015). Gender differences in personality and social behavior. In J.D. Wright (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) New York: Elsevier. 

Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 340–357. 

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 429–456. 

Geodakyan, V.A. (1986). Sexual dimorphism. Biologicheskii zhurnal Armenii (Biological Journal of Armenia), 39 (10), 823–834. (In Russ.). 

Geodakyan, V.A. (1991). Evolutionary theory of sex. Priroda (Nature), 8, 60–69. (In Russ.). 

Geodakyan, V.A. (1994). Man and woman. Evolutionary-biological purpose. Int. Conf.: Woman and Freedom. Ways of choice in a world of tradition and change (pp. 8–17). Moscow. (In Russ.). 

Hyde, J.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 (6), 581–592. 

Hyde, J.S. (2013). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. 

Kon, I.S. (2008). Hegemonic masculinity as a factor in male (ill) health. Andrologiya i genital’naya khirurgiya (Andrology and Genital Surgery), 4, 5–12. (In Russ.). 

Kon, I.S. (2009). The boy is the father of a man. Moscow: Vremya. (In Russ.). 

Muravyeva, M. (2016). Gender and Crime in Russian History. Russian History, 43 (3–4), 215–220. 

Muravieva, M.G., Pushkareva, N.L. (2012). Domestic violence in the history of Russian everyday life (XI–XXI centuries). St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo EUSPb. (In Russ.). 

Omelchenko, E.L., Nartova, N.A. (2013). PRO body. Youth context. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya. (In Russ.). 

Petrosyan, S.N., Ryabikina, Z.I., Gubanova, N.Yu., Simavoryan, S.Zh. (2021a). Standardization of the methodology “Personal profile of subjective activity”. Scientific research and development. Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye issledovaniya i tekhnologii (Socio-humanitarian research and technology), 10 (3), 45–56. (In Russ.). 

Petrosyan, S.N., Ryabikina, Z.I., Gubanova, N.Yu. (2021b). Structural validity of the methodology “Personal profile of subjective activity”. Gumanizatsiya obrazovaniya (Humanization of education), 1, 41–58. (In Russ.). 

Resnyansky, S.I., Amiantova, I.S. (2019). Gender in Russian history: a review of the latest research. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Istoriya Rossii (Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: History of Russia), 18 (2), 278–301. (In Russ.). 

Schmitt, D.P., Long, A.E., McPhearson, A., O’Brien, K., Remmert, B., Shah, S.H. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. Int. Psychol., 52 (1), 45–56. 

Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24, 137–168. 

Stoller, R. (1968). Sex and Gender On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. London: Hogarth Press. 

Tartakovskaya, I. (2010). Gender Relations in the Private Sphere: Post-Soviet Transformations of Family and Intimacy. Laboratorium: zhurnal sotsial’nykh issledovanii (Laboratorium: Journal of Social Research), 3, 5–11. (In Russ.). 

Tartakovskaya, I.N., Lunin, I.I. (2018). Social transformations of gender and sexuality in the light of I.S. Kona. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny (Monitoring of public opinion: Economic and social changes), 6, 4–19. (In Russ.). 

Temkina, A., Zdravomyslova, E. (2015). The Sexual Scripts and Identity of Middle-Class Russian Women. Sexuality & Culture, 19 (2), 297–320. 

Voronina, O. (1997). Introduction to Gender Studies. Proceedings of the First Russian Summer School on Women’s and Gender Studies “Valdai-96” (pp. 29–34). Moscow: MTsGI. (In Russ.). 

Weisberg, Y.J., Deyoung, C.G., Hirsh, B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Front. Psychology, 2, 178. 

Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S.R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10–20.


PDF, ru

Received: 08/31/2022

Accepted: 09/25/2022

Accepted date: 12/18/2022

Keywords: personality positioning; sex; gender; agency; agentic-dynamic approach; agentic activity profile

Available in the on-line version with: 18.12.2022

  • To cite this article:
Issue 4, 2022