Search

Advances in knowledge about personality will be fostered by improved research methods, but corresponding improvements in our theories will be needed also, better methods will not be enough. Theory itself can have methodological functions, and some methods provide strong impetus toward greater theoretical clarity and rigor. Distinctions between methodological developments in research design, measurement, and analysis need to be maintained, and we badly need more research directed specifically toward improving methodologies. Some papers in this volume point quite clearly to the need for all aspects of our research to be better rationalized and deliberate, casual and opportunistic decisions about how to carry out research simply will not do. These papers indicate, for example, that the trait vs situation controversy would likely never have occurred had the issues been addressed with greater methodological, and logical, rigor. This volume is not complete in its coverage of the potentially useful methods for personality research, and attention should ultimately be devoted to such methods as life histories and case studies and cross-cultural comparisons. In general, however, the papers in this volume offer an opportunity to raise the level of research in personality to a new plane of sophistication and revealingness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spence and Helmreich's (1978) claim that individual differences in four components of achievement motivation (mastery, work, competitiveness, and personal unconcern) are attributable to masculinity and femininity rather than to gender was generally supported, with one exception: Masculinity was associated with competitiveness for males but not for females. Furthermore, competitive women were more likely than noncompetitive women to have mental and physical health problems, but there was no such difference for males. In general, masculinity emerged as a beneficial constellation of traits for both males and females, correlating negatively with achievement conflicts and stress symptoms, and positively with mastery and work. Femininity, on the other hand, appeared to be a detrimental cluster of traits for both sexes, at least in terms of academic performance and health. Implications for the controversial concept of androgyny were discussed, and it was suggested that, in the future, research inspired by an ideal conception of adult behavior confront the ideal directly rather than describe it in terms of the traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity. Any such research effort will have to deal with the pivotal role of competitiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]