Gender identity and adjustment: understanding the impact of individual and normative differences in sex typing.

Whether it is based on sex, skin color, or even determined arbitrarily, membership in a social group exerts a profound influence on human behavior, with both positive and negative implications. Specifically membership in a social group has been shown to promote a positive social identity from which individuals can derive self-esteem and a sense of belongingness or connectedness to others and serve as a buffer during times of stress. However, membership in a social group can also promote negative biases toward out-group members, derogation of in-group members who violate group norms, and disengagement from certain areas in which one’s group has been negatively stereotyped (for example, women and math). Given its obvious implications for psychological well-being, it is not surprising that the study of social group membership has attracted the attention of psychologists. Both social and developmental psychologists have studied the effects of intergroup bias on individuals’ behaviors and self-evaluations, the extent to which identification with a stigmatized group affects well-being, and the influence of group membership on personal choices and behaviors (see Ruble et al., 2004, for a review). Although psychologists have studied a wide range of social group memberships, the documented consequences of belonging to a gender group are among the most studied and most controversial. Within the domain of gender, psychologists have devoted considerable attention to the relationship between gender and well-being, and one issue in particular—the relationship between adherence to gender norms and adjustment—has elicited different assumptions and different approaches among social and developmental psychologists. Broadly, the divergence in perspectives can be characterized in terms of whether sex typing is considered adaptive or maladaptive, described as an individual or normative difference, and whether gender identity is regarded as a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. In this chapter, we address the three themes of this volume: interdisciplinarity in the study of identity development, developmental processes, and the intersection between personal and social identities. To address each theme, we review perspectives on the relationship between sex typing and adjustment. Specifically, we consider past conclusions that sex typing may be adaptive or maladaptive. In terms of the development and interdisciplinary themes, we consider how differences in both the measurement of sex typing and the conceptualization of gender identity across different disciplinary fields may lead researchers to different conclusions regarding their implications for well-being. To this end, we examine how researchers have historically thought about the connection between gender identity, adherence to gender norms, and adjustment outcomes. We will also examine the ways in which researchers have measured adherence to gender norms and why it is important to conceive of sex typing as the product of both individual differences and normative developmental processes. Typically sex typing has been studied from either an individual or normative difference point of view; these perspectives have rarely been considered together. Social psychologists have generally focused on documenting individual differences in sex typing in adulthood (Bem, 1974). In contrast, developmental psychologists have mostly concentrated on understanding normative changes in sex typing, particularly those occurring during early childhood (Kagan, 1964; Kohlberg, 1966). However, individual and normative differences in sex typing are relevant throughout the life span. A primary theme in the analysis here is that the impact of individual and normative differences on adjustment differs in accordance with developmental phases. In particular, we explore how individual and normative differences in sex typing affect adjustment differently during early and middle childhood. To address the intersection-of-identities theme, we consider the implications of recognizing gender identity as multidimensional for the relationship between social identity and personal adjustment. Multidimensionality may be conceptualized in a variety of ways, but broadly it refers to the idea that social identity reflects knowledge of group membership along with a variety of beliefs about group membership (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). Thus, gender identity may be conceptualized as both categorical knowledge (“I’m a boy/girl”) and feelings regarding the importance (“Being a boy/girl is really important to me”) and evaluation (“I like being a boy/girl”) of that group membership. This perspective has been shown to be important for understanding the impact of both racial and gender identity on adjustment (Egan & Perry, 2001; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Brown & Tappan, Chapter Four). In the discussion, we aim to advance the idea that the meaning individuals ascribe to their gender identity is critically important for understanding the relationship between adherence to gender norms and well-being.