Masculinity—Femininity

Six areas of research in developmental and personality psychology concerning sex-typed traits, attitudes, and interests are identified as elements of a common “masculinity-femininity” paradigm needing reexamination. The masculinity-femininity paradigm is defined in relationship to Money and Ehrhardt's model for gender identity differentiation and dimorphism. The six lines of research in the masculinity-femininity paradigm are then briefly critically examined: (1) the measurability of masculinity-femininity as a trait, (2) the identification model of masculinity-femininity development, (3) the effects of father absence on boys, (4) correlates of masculinity-femininity in life adjustment, (5) cross-sex identity in males, and (6) sex role identity problems in black males. The empirical and conceptual problems in each line of research are explored, and are substantial enough to suggest the need for alternate paradigms. Two alternate models for masculinity-femininity development are briefly sketched. First, masculinity-femininity development is analogized to moral development, as a phasic process ideally leading to sex role transcendence and androgyny. Second, the acquisition of masculinity-femininity is analogized to language acquisition, as a highly symbol-dependent learning process contingent upon the interaction between an innate acquisition apparatus and a corpus of observed sex role behavior.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45567/1/11199_2004_Article_BF00288009.pd

Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story—Why it is time for a paradigm shift

This article develops a comprehensive philosophy-of-science for personality psychology that goes far beyond the scope of the lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts that currently prevail. One of the field’s most important guiding scientific assumptions, the lexical hypothesis, is analysed from meta-theoretical viewpoints to reveal that it explicitly describes two sets of phenomena that must be clearly differentiated: 1) lexical repertoires and the representations that they encode and 2) the kinds of phenomena that are represented. Thus far, personality psychologists largely explored only the former, but have seriously neglected studying the latter. Meta-theoretical analyses of these different kinds of phenomena and their distinct natures, commonalities, differences, and interrelations reveal that personality psychology’s focus on lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts entails a) erroneous meta-theoretical assumptions about what the phenomena being studied actually are, and thus how they can be analysed and interpreted, b) that contemporary personality psychology is largely based on everyday psychological knowledge, and c) a fundamental circularity in the scientific explanations used in trait psychology. These findings seriously challenge the widespread assumptions about the causal and universal status of the phenomena described by prominent personality models. The current state of knowledge about the lexical hypothesis is reviewed, and implications for personality psychology are discussed. Ten desiderata for future research are outlined to overcome the current paradigmatic fixations that are substantially hampering intellectual innovation and progress in the field

Panel I: Miranda and the War on Terror

Moderator: Marisa S. Cianciarulo, Assistant Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law Stephen F. Rohde, Partner at Rohde & Victoroff and former President of ACLU of Southern California Ronald J. Rychlak, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi Joan L. Larsen, Visiting Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General M. Katherine B. Darmer, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and former Assistant U.S. Attorne