How do we come to define or recognize our own gender? To aid our search for order in the world and within ourselves, we rely on categories. Gender appears as one of the earliest and most rudimentary classification categories we encounter in our development as humans. The implications of categorizing include adjusting our behavior to fit the confinements of socially-imposed and accepted gender differences and stereotypes. What are these differences, and is there any scientific basis for them, or are they just stereotypes manifested in society and continuously enforced by the environment around us? Are there certain personality traits or behaviors that are male- or female-specific? If so, what factors foster and affect such differences? To answer these pressing questions, I examined J.S. Hyde's Gender Differences in Personality and Behavior.

Hyde integrates various personality studies using meta-analysis to discover whether real gender differences exist. Meta-analysis, as she explains, is a statistical technique that combines the results of many separate research studies to obtain an average difference value, denoted by the parameter d.[1] Applying this approach, Hyde concludes that there is evidence for real differences in some traits, but not for others. The amount of difference, though, is highly influenced by the method used to obtain the results.

Aggressive behavior and activity level both claim a d-value of .50[2], which is a moderate gender difference. The typical controversy between nature and nurture applies in examining the cause of this difference. From a biological point of view, the aggression difference is a result of differences (physical size, larger muscles) caused by the male sex hormone, testosterone. Environmental influences include different reactions by men and women to the same stimuli, children's imitation habits, increased girls' maturity level, societal differences in reinforcement/punishment of male behavior, and/or the stereotypical male association of this trait. In a separate experiment, Hyde found that in situations where gender remained anonymous, no apparent difference in aggression level of children existed.[3] This substantiates the claim that gender role expectancies affect associated behavior, in this case, female inhibition of aggression. Anxiety received a meta-analysis result of -.30,[4] signifying that females are more anxious than males. However, we have to bear in mind that most of the research conducted depends on self-report, and as Hyde explains, women are more likely to admit/report their emotions than men.

From these results, as well as meta-analysis applied to other personality traits (i.e. helping behavior, self confidence, empathy, and leadership), Hyde concluded that differences do exist on some traits but not as much on others. These slight differences seem to depend heavily on the context of the situation and the testing method. No resolution exists on how much of these differences are biologically implanted (as a result of genetic material or sexual hormones) and how much environmentally induced (e.g. through societal beliefs). Nonetheless, society exploits these minimal differences and establishes imposing gender norms. Regardless of the cause of these supposed gender differences, they are still just average differences. Individual differences, which may vary greatly, are more important than the average, and are accounted for in overlapping distribution curves of personality traits.[5]

How do we learn the concept of gender and form our individual differences? Pleck described a three-stage developmental process of morality that can be similarly applied to gender. Children in the first phase do not understand morality and likewise do not understand gender. In the second phase, children learn societal moral rules and adhere to them in hopes of pleasing others. This stage is critical in gender development since the child learns gender and strongly abides by social gender restrictions, also demanding this conformity from others, namely their peers. According to Pleck, this phase manifests itself most strongly in adolescents when gender stereotypes are firmly accepted and abided by. However, research conducted by Hyde and O'Keefe repudiate this claim, stating that by the 6^th-grade level, most gender stereotyping declines.[6] Whether this is an effect of changing beliefs or more education remains to be tested. The final stage of moral development involves relying on inner beliefs to make judgments and regulate behavior. Paralleling this, the final stage of gender development is marked by androgyny, where we remove or learn to exceed societal norms of gender confinement. Unfortunately, just as not everyone advances to the final stage of moral development, not everyone reaches the final androgynous state.

To measure androgyny in individuals, Sandra Bem categorized personalities as masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated.[7] Further studying led her to conclude that androgynous individuals had an advantage over gender-typed individuals since they could apply either male-typical or female-typical behavior, depending on the situation.[8] Research adds that androgynous individuals scored highest on self-esteem tests.[9] From these studies, it seems that androgyny is beneficial in liberating people from gender stereotypes. However, Hyde reminds us that androgyny carries with it its own expectations of expanded abilities. In addition, some feminists argue that androgyny is based on the ultimate stereotypical views of masculinity and femininity, and thus adds to, instead of effacing, the basic foundation of stereotypes.[10]

In conclusion, Hyde's article provides a fairly complete look at stereotypic gender differences in personality traits. Her manner in approaching and presenting the various traits (in order of highest difference value, d) is effective. The qualifications she makes to the quantitative data help us realize that although gender differences are scientifically suggested, the process and context of the study needs to be kept in mind. The only absolute differences in gender are primary and secondary sex characteristics.[11] Any further gender differences are minimal but may be exaggerated by society to impose distinctions between male and female personality traits and/or behavior patterns.

Society will always play a role in how a man defines himself and how a woman defines herself. However, societal beliefs and cultural ideology can and will change with time, education, and technology. Evidence for this is apparent around us; most recently, the election of Madeleine Albright as the Secretary of State, the highest female position in the US. This definitely marks a triumph in the battle against stereotypic limits. Slowly but surely, we move in the right direction. However, we have to realize that removing centuries of gender typing is a long and grueling process. The little achievements we make are set against a background of continual, everyday stereotyping. People will always stereotype, if not on gender, then on race, age, occupation, or whatever other category works. Even a child growing up in a feminist family encounters (and subsequently learns) gender typing through teachers, peers, media, music, and more. We are constantly barraged by images that distinguish and differentiate males and females, and define various roles that produce expectations for each. Some people that go too far beyond these accepted norms are ostracized by society and negatively labeled.

However, as society matures both intellectually and psychologically, we begin to realize that there are not profoundly elemental differences but rather societal expectations that create categories of gender typing - categories that need to dissolve. I agree with Hyde that slight biological differences may exist between the sexes, but society creates idiosyncrasies beyond the natural, "chromosomal" distinctions. Both the foundation and establishment of gender stereotypes is nurtured by the environment around us as we develop our beliefs about gender differences. This explains why it is practically impossible to test gender differences in personality. So much of it is dependent on environment that it is impossible to examine if biologically distinct personality characteristics exist. Our environment affects us from birth with one of the most powerfully defining exclamations that subsequently influences our life and personality: "It's a boy [girl]!"[12]

A serious question to consider is how much of a child's stereotyping knowledge and preference is a direct consequence of the behavior patterns, attitudes, and beliefs of the parents. According to research performed by Fagot and Leinbach, parental behavior considerably affects future gender typing and the child's overall process of gender development. Children generally learn most of their gender stereotypes between the ages of two and three. Early labelers are defined as those children who are able to distinguish and label, before 28 months, the gender differences between males and females. They come from traditionally gender-stereotyped homes where beliefs or misconceptions about gender distinction are commonly accepted. ¹³ In this type of environment, it is no wonder that early labelers adhere more strongly to gender-specific behavior, and some never make it to the final stage of gender-role development.

For a developing child, gender proves to be a convenient mechanism for categorizing. However, as we develop, knowledge will hopefully bring us to a more "androgynous" state as Pleck's theory implies. This state should not necessarily reflect a sudden change to an androgynous personality, but rather, permit us to transcend stereotypical gender limitations. Since the thorns of stereotypes grow on the stem of ignorance, by the final stage of gender development, let us hope that we can avoid pricking ourselves by those painful thorns.