1. 1 23
Sex Roles
A Journal of Research
ISSN 0360-0025
Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4
Gender in Context: Considering Variability
in Wood and Eagly’s Traditions of Gender
Identity
Clare M. Mehta

2. 1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

3. FEMINIST FORUM COMMENTARY
Gender in Context: Considering Variability in Wood and Eagly’s
Traditions of Gender Identity
Clare M. Mehta1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract This paper was written in response to Wood and
Eagly’s (2015) feminist forum paper that proposes two tradi-
tions for gender identity research, a tradition based on gender-
typed attributes and a tradition based on gender self-concep-
tualization. The present paper expands on Wood and Eagly’s
(2015) framework by proposing, in line with social construc-
tivist models, that both traditions of gender identity may be
variable and context dependent. Specifically, the present paper
reviews research conducted in the U.S.A. that suggests that
gender-typed attributes and components of gender self-
conceptualization may change based on contextual factors
such as the gender of people in a person’s immediate context
and the salience of gender in a given situation. The paper also
reviews ways in which variation in gender-typed attributes
and components of gender self-conceptualization has been
measured previously, and suggests the use of experience sam-
pling methodology for future research. Finally, the paper en-
courages researchers to consider Wood and Eagly’s (2015)
suggestion of using the principle of compatibility when
selecting trait or state measures of gender identity, and pro-
poses that beliefs in gender essentialism (that gender differ-
ences are due to innate traits) may be reduced by understand-
ing how contextual factors influence gender identity.
Keywords Gender identity . Social constructionism .
Context . Gender-typed traits . Femininity . Masculinity
Introduction
At the time of this writing, a search for the term gender iden-
tity using PsycINFO produced 11,017 results. In spite of its
popularity as a topic of study, I believe that gender identity as a
construct remains elusive, complicated, and definitionally
complex. It is my view that one of the reasons for this is that
there are no widely accepted definitions as to what the term
gender identity means. To illustrate this point, I looked at the
way gender identity was defined in a sample of the 11,017
papers returned by PsycINFO. I found gender identity defined
as how a person feels inside about their gender (the authors
note that this feeling may or may not coincide with their
biological gender; Reisner et al. 2015), Bhow masculine or
feminine^ a person is, (Vantieghem et al. 2014, p 358), a
person’s gender atypicality defined as BBbutch^ and
Bfemme^, erotic roles, masculinity and femininity of behavior^
(Brewer and Hamilton 2014, p 13), and in a study using Egan
and Perry’s 2001 measure of gender identity, a person’s sense
of Bgender typicality, gender contentment, felt pressure to con-
form, and intergroup bias^ (Dinella et al. 2014, p 495). In
addition to the variety of definitions exhibited here, there
were also a number of papers in which the authors did not
explicitly define gender identity (e.g. Drury et al. 2013;
White and Gardner 2009; Yoon and Kim 2014) presum-
ably because they assumed that the meaning of the term
was universally understood.
Because of the inconsistency in definitions of gender identity
in the extant literature, Wood and Eagly’s (2015) paper provides
a much-needed framework in which to consider gender identity,
at least in samples from the U.S.A. This is illustrated by the fact
that the examples listed above could all be placed into either of
the two traditions (identity based on feminine and masculine
attributes or gender self-categorization) identified by Wood and
Eagly (2015). In my opinion, however, the strength of Wood
* Clare M. Mehta
mehtac@emmanuel.edu
1
Emmanuel College, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical
School, 400 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA
Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4
Author's personal copy

4. and Eagly’s (2015) paper is that it goes beyond providing clear
definitions of gender identity. Wood and Eagly (2015) outline
different conceptualizations, measurements, and applications of
gender identity, and encourage researchers to select measures of
gender identity that are compatible with the concepts which
they are investigating. As such, Wood and Eagly’s (2015) paper
makes a substantial contribution to the literature and is invalu-
able to those interested in the study of gender identity and when,
how, and why different types of gender identity are measured.
Wood and Eagly’s (2015) conceptualization of the two tra-
ditions of gender identity research is relatively comprehen-
sive. As they themselves note, however, there are some im-
portant considerations that were beyond the scope of their
paper. For example, while Wood and Eagly (2015) present
some research that has addressed situational variation in gen-
der identity in their section on gender self-conceptualization, a
discussion of the context and how contextual factors (such as
who a person is with and where they are) affect gender and
gender identity is largely missing from their paper.
Deaux and Major (1987) first proposed a contextual model
of gender in the late 1980s. Their contextual model promoted
a social constructivist approach to gender and posited that
rather than reflecting an individual’s personality traits, femi-
ninity and masculinity reflect an individual’s interaction with
their immediate context (Deaux and Major 1987; Leaper
2000; Maccoby 1990). According to this social constructivist
model, all gendered attributes including gendered attitudes,
behaviors, femininity, and masculinity are dynamic and con-
text dependent (Deaux and Major 1998; Deaux and Major
1987). As such, I contend that gender identity is likely to vary
within an individual based on where they are, who they are
with, and what they are doing.
While Deaux and Major’s model is widely cited, I would
argue that the social constructivist approach has not substan-
tially changed how researchers study gender. This is reflected
in Wood and Eagly’s (2015) paper in that the authors only
cursorily consider the role of the context in gender identity.
Rather than becoming an issue of wide discussion, I believe
that the idea that gender may be affected by the context has
been quietly accepted and incorporated into theory in the gen-
der literature without inspiring a debate about when the con-
text matters and when context matters, or when gender is trait
like and when gender is state like. I also believe that theoret-
ical work that emphasizes the important role context plays in
determining gender identity and gendered attitudes, thoughts,
and behaviors has had minimal impact on how studies inves-
tigating gender differences are designed.
Wood and Eagly’s (2015) paper on the two traditions of
gender provides a useful starting point for those interested in
considering variability in gender identity. As such, in this
paper I build upon Wood and Eagly’s (2015) framework
by considering the ways in which the context may con-
tribute to variability in both traditions of gender identity
and how this variability can be assessed. Specifically, I
review both traditions of gender identity identified by
Wood and Eagly (2015) along with existing contextual
research for both traditions. I also provide suggestions
for how to measure the two traditions of gender identity
as contextual variables, and encourage researchers, in line
with Wood and Eagly (2015), to consider when measuring the
context matters, and when it does not. Unless otherwise noted,
all the research I cite in this paper was conducted in the U.S.A,
and any conclusions I draw or suggestions I make should be
interpreted with this in mind.
Gender Identity Based on Feminine and Masculine
Attributes
The first tradition of research on gender identity considered by
Wood and Eagly (2015) is gender identity based on feminine
and masculine attributes. This tradition of research comes out
of a research tradition that focuses on individual differences in
interests and personality (Wood and Eagly 2015). Wood and
Eagly (2015) describe measures that use masculine and
feminine interests to discriminate between male and female
research participants (gender diagnosticity; see Lippa and
Connolly 1990). These measures are specific to a sample,
and therefore may be more specific to the context in which the
sample was surveyed (see Lippa and Connolly 1990). Thus, in
this paper, I will focus on gender identity based on gender-
typed personality traits.
Gender research that has focused on individual differences
in personality examines gender-typed personality traits using
measures that ask people to endorse traits that they identify
with from a list of stereotypically masculine (e.g. aggressive,
competitive) or stereotypically feminine traits (e.g. caring,
passive; Wood and Eagly 2015). These traits are usually mea-
sured at one point in time, and participants are asked how
typical each trait is for them in general (Wood and Eagly
2015). This approach is based on the assumption that femi-
ninity and masculinity are stable over time and that they are
irresponsive to the context (Smith et al. 1999).
Personality psychologists have questioned the assumption
of stability in traits, acknowledging that whether personality
traits are stable or whether they vary based on contextual
factors has significant implications for their field (Fleeson
2004). If personality traits are stable, people should behave
consistently across contexts and situations (Fleeson 2004;
Funder 2006). This stability would enable researchers to
meaningfully describe people in terms of general traits that
could in turn be used to predict social and psychological out-
comes, such as happiness and longevity (Fleeson 2004). If,
however, the context or situation impacts a person’s behavior,
their behavior will be inconsistent across time and place
(Fleeson 2004: Funder 2006). If this is the case, describing
people according to general traits loses its meaning and
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

5. usefulness (Fleeson 2004). With a few exceptions (see Deaux
and Major 1987; Leaper 2000; Maccoby 1990; Shields 2013),
how aspects of personality such as femininity and masculinity
vary according to context has received little attention from
gender researchers (Smith et al. 1999).
I believe that whether gender-typed personality traits are
stable or vary across contexts has important implications for
the study of gender identity as well as the broader field of
feminist psychology. Shields (2013) describes a reciprocal
cycle in which essentialized beliefs about gender differences
are popularized by the media, which in turn influences scien-
tific enquiry, which then informs the media. It is my view that
if we can illustrate that gender-stereotyped personality traits
are not in fact traits but rather states that vary according to
context, we may be able to break this cycle of gender essen-
tialism that serves to underscore gender differences rather than
acknowledging gender similarities (e.g. Hyde 2005).
Contextual Research on Feminine and Masculine
Attributes
The research on feminine and masculine attributes reviewed
by Wood and Eagly (2015) conceptualizes gender identity as
stable, being comprised of static traits that remain stable
across time and contexts (Berenbaum and Beltz 2011;
Shields 1993; Shields and Dicicco 2011; Smith et al. 1999).
If however, as argued by social constructivists, gender is not
stable, but changes across time, relationships, and contexts
(Anselmi and Law 1998; Berenbaum and Beltz 2011;
Shields 1993; Deaux and Major 1987; Deaux and Major
1998; Leszczynski and Strough 2008; Shields 1993; Shields
1998; West and Zimmerman 1987), measuring and describing
gender according to general traits loses its meaning and
usefulness.
While theoretical work in both personality and feminist
psychology has suggested that gender is contextually depen-
dent, only a few studies have investigated masculinity and
femininity as state variables (Smith et al. 1999). These studies
have investigated how gender traits vary according to the gen-
der of peers in the social context (see Pickard and Strough
2003 for an example).
Research investigating gender-typed traits and the peer
context during childhood has found that girls played less pas-
sively than boys when they were in same-gender pairs
(Maccoby 1990). In mixed-gender pairs, however, girls
played passively and allowed boys to dominate the toys
(Maccoby 1990). Similarly, male adolescents and college stu-
dents report greater identification with feminine traits when
they interact with girls and women in comparison to when
they are interact with boys and men (Leszczynski and
Strough 2008; Leszczynski 2009; Pickard and Strough
2003; Smith et al. 1999). While femininity varies according
to context for men, masculinity is less variable. Research with
college students has found that men endorse masculinity to the
same extent when they interact with men and when they in-
teract with women (Pickard and Strough 2003).
Research investigating how the social context affects en-
dorsement of femininity in adolescent girls and women has
produced mixed results. While some research suggests that
women’s femininity scores remain constant in same- and
cross-gender contexts (Smith et al. 1999), other research sug-
gests that women, similar to men, endorse femininity to a
greater extent when completing a task with same-gender
peers, especially when they have been instructed to work co-
operatively (Leszczynski and Strough 2008).
While there seem to be no consistent findings with regards
to when men and women report feeling more feminine or
masculine, this research supports theoretical suppositions that
femininity and masculinity vary according to the context
(Maccoby 1990; Smith et al. 1999). Consequently, I believe
that researchers and theorists interested in the tradition of gen-
der identity that incorporates gender-typed personality traits
should take context into consideration.
Measuring Feminine and Masculine Attributes in Context
As noted by Wood and Eagly (2015), the Bem Sex Role
Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire
(PAQ) largely conform to the two dimensional structure of
gender that is widely accepted in the literature. These mea-
sures are considered to be direct measures as they require the
participant to explicitly rate themselves by indicating how
likely a particular word or words describe them in general
(Wood and Eagly 2015; Smith et al. 1999). While both of
the BSRI and PAQ are commonly used to measure gender
identity, a major shortcoming of this measure is that it assesses
general traits and behaviors, and as such, does not acknowl-
edge that people may rate themselves differently in different
contexts (Smith et al. 1999).
Because methods commonly used to measure gender-
related phenomenon remove information about the context
from analyses, exploring contextual variability in gender mea-
sures proves exceptionally difficult (Jones and Heesacker
2012). As such, researchers have called for feminist psychol-
ogists to reassess how they measure gender, and to incorporate
different types of research methods into feminist research on
gender (Shields and Dicicco 2011). In their paper, Wood and
Eagly (2015) encourage researchers to use gender measures
that are compatible with the domain of interest of the outcome
variable. It is my belief that measuring contextual variability
in gender identity requires either using existing measures in a
creative way so as to incorporate the context, or requires the
development of new contextual methods for measuring gen-
der as a state, rather than trait, variable.
Research that has investigated contextual influences on
gender has largely used existing trait measures, such as the
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

6. BSRI (e.g. Pickard and Strough 2003). To use trait measures
of gender stereotyped personality as state measures re-
searchers have modified the measures and administered them
to the same people either in different contexts or after an
activity believed to elicit gendered cognitions or behaviors.
For example, Pickard and Strough administered the BSRI
and the Child Sex Role Inventory (CSRI) to participants.
Several weeks later these participants completed a task
(playing a game of Jenga) with a female confederate, and
responded to state versions of the BSRI and CSRI that spe-
cifically asked participants to Breport how true the adjective
or statement is about yourself while you were working on
Jenga^ (Pickard and Strough 2003, p 425). One week later,
participants returned and completed the same task with a
male confederate, and once again completed state versions
of the BSRI and the CSRI (Pickard and Strough 2003).
Other studies have used similar protocols to investigate contex-
tual differences in femininity and masculinity (e.g. Leszczynski
2009; Leszczynski and Strough 2008).
I believe that experimental studies that have included re-
peated measurements of gendered states have made important
contributions to our understanding of the state component of
femininity and masculinity. It is important however, to con-
sider the contextual specificity of gender outside of a research
lab. Specifically, if we wish to develop a more complete
understanding of how context influences gender identity, I
believe that it is important to examine how masculinity
and femininity vary in real time and in people’s real-life
daily contexts.
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is a research
methodology in which highly variable phenomena are repeat-
edly measured across time and contexts (Larson and Richards
1994; Shrier et al. 2007). As such, EMA is ideally suited to
examine people’s femininity and masculinity in their daily
lives. Participants in EMA studies carry a device (e.g., a smart
phone) that randomly signals them across the course of a day,
prompting them to respond to a survey (Mehta et al. 2014).
EMA measures allow researchers investigate to masculinity
and femininity in context, increasing ecological validity and
reducing recall bias (Larson and Richards 1994).
In a relatively new program of research, my colleagues and
I piloted the use of EMA methodology to measure gender
identity in context (Mehta and Dementieva 2015a). We creat-
ed a shortened version of the BSRI, and used this to assess
gender identity in context over a 2-week period. Using this
measure, we found that gender identity varied over the course
of the study (see Fig. 1 for variations in masculinity over a 2-
week period, and Fig. 2 for variations in femininity over a 2-
week period). We also found that these variations were asso-
ciated with social context. Specifically, men reported greater
femininity when they were in the company of women, and
lesser femininity when they were in the company of men.
Both men and women reported greater masculinity when they
were in the company of men (Mehta and Dementieva 2015a).
Men and women also reported greater femininity when they
were at home in comparison to when they were at work or
school (Mehta and Dementieva 2015b). Based on the prelimi-
nary results of this research, EMA seems to be a promising
method for investigating gender identity in context.
Gender Identity Based on Self-Categorization
The second tradition of gender that Wood and Eagly (2015)
consider is gender identity based on self-categorization, or
gender-self concept. Before embarking on an exploration of
how contextual factors may interact with gender-self catego-
rization it is first important to understand the way in which
Wood and Eagly (2015) define and conceptualize gender self-
categorization. Wood and Eagly (2015) define gender self-
categorization as Bthe descriptive or prescriptive categoriza-
tion of oneself as female or male, along with the importance of
this categorization for ones self-definition^ (Wood and Eagly
2015, this issue). According to Wood and Eagly (2015), this
tradition of gender identity differs from the tradition of gender
identity that focuses on gender-typed traits in that the person
self-labels their gender identity, rather than responding to traits
selected based on researcher’s beliefs about gender identity
(Wood and Eagly 2015). I would also argue that these traditions
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
BSRIMaculinity
Observation
Fig. 1 Variations in masculinity over a 2-week period for one male
participant
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 1719212325272931333537394143454749
Femininity
Observation
Fig. 2 Variations in femininity over a 2-week period for one female
participant
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

7. differ in that the tradition of gender-typed personality traits
refers to a more visible or external gender identity, whereas
the second tradition of gender self-concept refers to a more
invisible or internal gender identity.
If gender self- categorization is an internal self-labeling of
social identity, I find it hard to argue that this type of gender
identity would vary according to contextual factors. In a
commentary on a paper about context and self concept,
Oosterwegel 2001 suggests that the context becomes in-
corporated into a person’s self-concept only if the person
reflects on their interaction with context and finds it to be
descriptive of who they believe they are (Oosterwegel
2001). Wood and Eagly (2015) describe how the gender
self- categorization process may occur during childhood. I
find it difficult, however, to conceptualize this process
taking place beyond childhood, (or possibly adolescence
and early adulthood for those who are not cisgendered).
Therefore, I would argue that whether one identifies as a
male or a female in terms of larger group membership is
likely to remain stable across contexts.
Wood and Eagly (2015) also make an argument for the
stability of gender self- categorization for people who are
Bchronically more likely that others to identify with their gen-
der group^ (Wood and Eagly 2015, this issue). However they
then go on to provide literature to support the argument that
gender self- categorization may be responsive to the context. I
believe that this contradiction is possible because of the broad-
ness of Wood and Eagly’s (2015) definition of gender self-
categorization.
While Wood and Eagly’s (2015) initial definition of gender
self- categorization appears to be narrowly focused on self-
definition, the inclusion of the importance of self-
categorization goes beyond the extent to which a person iden-
tifies with and feels psychologically connected to their gender
(which I would argue is concise definition of gender self-
categorization) to incorporate how salient their gender is. In
their consideration of measurements of gender self-concept,
Wood and Eagly (2015) stray even further from their original
definition and include measures that assess how important it is
for respondents to be similar to those of the same gender,
reaction time to gender-related words, and collective self es-
teem. I would argue that the first two types of measure assess
gender typicality, whereas the second type of measure
(collective self-esteem) measures gender positivity. Based on
the inclusion of these measures of gender self-concept I would
then argue that Wood and Eagly’s (2015) definition of gender
self- categorization is comprised of the extent to which a per-
son identifies with their gender, how salient their gender is to
them, how typical of their gender they feel, and how positively
they feel about their gender. As this definition is conceptually
complex, in order to properly address how the context may
impact gender self- categorization, each part of this definition
should be considered separately.
Contextual Research on Gender Identity Based
on Self-Categorization
As I argued above, the first part of this definition, the extent to
which a person identifies and feels a psychologically connect-
ed to their gender is unlikely to be affected by the context. The
importance of self-categorization, or gender salience, howev-
er, is likely to be affected by the context, and in fact this has
been demonstrated in a number of research studies. For
example, Wood and Eagly (2015) cite work by White and
Gardner (2009) that found an increase in gender salience when
people were the only person of their gender in an other-gender
group. Other research on contextual influences on gender sa-
lience found that in a sample of young swimmers gender was
salient during unstructured times out of the water, but less
salient when they were racing and comparing times in the
water (Musto 2014). This suggests that elements of self-
categorization may be more relevant in some situations than
others (Van der Meulen 2001).
Measuring Gender Self-Concept in Context
As noted above, Wood and Eagly’s (2015) broad definition of
gender self-concept is comprised of multiple components.
While these components are all interrelated, they are discrete
enough that I believe the context may affect each component
to a different extent. In my opinion, the first part of the defi-
nition, the extent to which a person identifies and feels psy-
chologically connected to their gender, is unlikely to be affect-
ed by the context. I believe that gender salience, gender typ-
icality, and gender positivity, however, may vary according to
contextual factors. As such, I recommend that efforts to mea-
sure changes in gender self-concept according to context
should focus on these components of gender self-concept.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no research investigat-
ing contextual variation in gender typicality and gender posi-
tivity. There has, however, been limited research investigating
contextual variation in gender salience. One study, using be-
tween groups samples rather than within groups samples
placed participants in same-gender, mixed-gender or other-
gender (e.g. one female with two males) groups and measured
gender salience in these different contexts by observing
whether or not gender was mentioned in response to the probe
Btell me about yourself^ and Btell me what you are not^
(Cota and Dion 1986, p 771). Other, within subjects research
with swimmers (see above) used participant observation
methodology to observe participants' gender salience in two
different contexts (Musto 2014). I believe that it is clear from
the paucity of research in this area that there is a need to
develop better measures to examine how gender self- catego-
rization may vary according to the context. Similar to the
measurement of gender-typed personality traits, I believe that
EMA could be a useful approach to examine variations in
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

8. components of gender self- categorization across con-
texts. To establish whether components of gender self-
categorization change according to context, I recommend
that researchers develop abbreviated measures of gender
typicality, gender positivity, and gender salience that can be
administered over time (e.g. 2 weeks) in people’s real-life
daily contexts.
While I have argued that the extent to which a person
identifies and feels psychologically connected to their gender
is unlikely to be affected by the context, EMA methodology
should be used to test this assertion. Psychology as a discipline
is heterocentric (Rawlins 2009), and my suggestion that a
person’s identification with and connection to their gender
does not change may reflect this heterocentric bias.
Wood and Eagly (2015) also call for the creation of more
specific measures of gender identity. This is a call that I re-
soundingly second. I think there is especially a need for more
measures of gender self- categorization, as this tradition of
gender identity is understudied and as noted in this paper,
predicts different attitudes and behaviors than trait measures
(see Mehta and Strough 2010 for an example).
Choosing the Right Measure of Gender Identity:
When Does Context Matter?
Wood and Eagly (2015) discuss how the principle of compat-
ibility should inform the measures that researchers select for
measuring gender identity. Specifically, they propose that re-
searchers investigating behaviors should use trait measures of
gender identity, whereas researchers investigating group-
related judgments (such as in-group favoritism) should use
measures of gender self- categorization. I propose that the
principle of compatibility should also inform how we measure
gender in context. Specifically, I contend that while the con-
text is an important consideration and should certainly not be
ignored by gender researchers, it may not always be central to
our research questions and as such may not always need to be
included in our research. For example, if a person is interested
in investigating individual differences in behavior regardless
of the context, it makes sense to ignore (or hold constant) the
context (Funder 2006). If, however, a person wishes to
explain differences within people, I believe that it is crucial
to investigate the role of the context in these differences.
Overall, I would recommend that researchers seeking to
elucidate information about stable traits should use trait
measures of gender identity, while researchers seeking to
elucidate information on variable states should use state
measures of gender identity.
As noted above, Wood and Eagly (2015) call for the crea-
tion of more specific measures of gender identity. In develop-
ing these measures, researchers should consider the role of the
context and whether there are elements of gender identity that
are stable and elements that are variable. Better understanding
of when gender is trait-like and when gender is state-like will
enable gender researchers to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of gender identity.
Conclusion
Wood and Eagly’s (2015) paper meaningfully contributes to
the literature on gender identity by organizing research and
theory about gender identity into two traditions. This is an
important contribution to the field as research on gender iden-
tity currently does not have a guiding framework in which to
organize and consider the many facets of gender identity.
In my opinion, this framework can and should be built
upon to include a consideration of the context. By considering
whether the context affects the two traditions of gender iden-
tity identified by Wood and Eagly (2015), I believe that we
can develop a richer understanding of gender as both a stable
trait and a contextual state. It is my view that understanding
which facets of gender identity are state like and which facets
of gender identity are trait like will enrich the study of gender
identity and may reduce gender essentialist beliefs that sug-
gest gender differences are a result of innate traits, rather than
situational factors that vary.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Yulia Dementieva
for creating the figures presented in this manuscript.
Ethics Statement IRB approval was granted for unpublished data pre-
sented in this paper. This unpublished data was collected in accordance
with APA ethical guidelines.
References
Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (1998). Questions of gender, perspectives
and paradoxes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berenbaum, S. A., & Beltz, A. M. (2011). Sexual differentiation of
human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal organizational
hormones. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 183–200. doi:
10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.03.001.
Brewer, G., & Hamilton, V. (2014). Female mate retention, sexual orien-
tation, and gender identity. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8,
12–19. doi:10.1037/h0097245.
Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composi-
tion of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 770–776. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.50.4.770.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive
model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–
389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1998). Gender behavior in a social context a
social-psychological model of gender. In D. L. Anselmi & A. L.
Law (Eds.), Questions of gender, perspectives and paradoxes
(pp. 367–376). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dinella, L. M., Fulcher, M., & Weisgram, E. S. (2014). Sex-typed per-
sonality traits and gender identity as predictors of young adults'
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

9. career interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 493–504. doi:10.
1007/s10508-013-0234-6.
Drury, K., Bukowski, W. M., Velásquez, A. M., & Stella-Lopez, L.
(2013). Victimization and gender identity in single-sex and mixed-
sex schools: Examining contextual variations in pressure to conform
to gender norms. Sex Roles, 69, 442–454. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-
0118-6.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation de-
bate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87. doi:10.
1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x.
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad:
Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003.
Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Jones, K. D., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Addressing the situation: Some
evidence for the significance of microcontexts with the gender role
conflict construct. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 294–307.
doi:10.1037/a0025797.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional
lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books.
Leaper, C. (2000). Gender, affiliation, assertion, and the interactive con-
text of parent–child play. Developmental Psychology, 36, 381–393.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.381.
Leszczynski, J. P. (2009). A state conceptualization: Are individuals'
masculine and feminine personality traits situationally influenced?
Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 157–162. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2009.02.014.
Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of mas-
culinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social Development, 17,
719–736. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00443.x.
Lippa, R., & Connolly, S. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian
approach to gender-related individual differences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1051–1065. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.59.5.1051.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental ac-
count. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.45.4.513.
Mehta, C.M., & Dementieva, Y (2015a). The contextual specificity of
gender: Femininity and masculinity in same- and other-sex contexts.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Mehta, C.M., & Dementieva, Y. (2015b). Associations between loca-
tion and reported femininity and masculinity. Unpublished man-
uscript, Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2010). Gender segregation and gender-
typing in adolescence. Sex Roles, 63, 251–263. doi:10.1007/
s11199-010-9780-8.
Mehta, C. M., Walls, C., Blood, E. A., & Shrier, L. A. (2014).
Associations between affect, context, and sexual desire in depressed
young women. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 577–585. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2012.753026.
Musto, M. (2014). Athletes in the pool, girls and boys on deck: The
contextual construction of gender in coed youth swimming.
Gender and Society, 28, 359–380. doi:10.1177/0891243213515945.
Oosterwegel, A. (2001) Commentary: The self-concept is dead, long
live... which construct or process? Differentiation and organization
of self-related theories. In H. A. Bosma, E. S. Kunnen, H. A. Bosma,
& E. S. Kunnen (Eds.), Identity and emotion: Development through
self-organization. (pp. 33–38). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pickard, J., & Strough, J. (2003). The effects of same-sex and other-sex
contexts on masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 48, 421–432. doi:
10.1037/t00748-000.
Rawlins, W. (2009). The compass of friendship: Narratives, identities,
and dialogues. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Reisner, S. L., Greytak, E. A., Parsons, J. T., & Ybarra, M. L. (2015).
Gender minority social stress in adolescence: Disparities in adoles-
cent bullying and substance use by gender identity. Journal of Sex
Research, 52, 243–256. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.886321.
Shields, S. A. (1993). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social
meaning of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shields, S. A. (1998). Gender in the psychology of emotion: A selective
research review. In D. L. Anselmi & A. L. Law (Eds.), Questions of
gender, perspectives and paradoxes (pp. 376–390). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Shields, S. A. (2013). Gender and emotion: What we think we know,
what we need to know, and why it matters. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 37, 423–435. doi:10.1177/0361684313502312.
Shields, S. A., & Dicicco, E. C. (2011). The social psychology of sex and
gender: From gender differences to doing gender. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 35, 491–499. doi:10.1177/0361684311414823.
Shrier, L. A., Shih, M. C., Hacker, L., & de Moor, C. (2007). A momen-
tary sampling study of the affective experience following coital
events in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, e1–e8.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.014.
Smith, C. J., Noll, J. A., & Bryant, J. B. (1999). The effect of social
context on gender self-concept. Sex Roles, 40, 499–512. doi:10.
1037/t00748-000.
Van der Meulen, M. (2001). Developments in self-concept theory and
research: Affect, context, and variability. In H. A. Bosma, E. S.
Kunnen, H. A. Bosma, & E. S. Kunnen (Eds.), Identity and emotion:
Development through self-organization (pp. 10–32). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Vantieghem, W., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Why 'gender'
disappeared from the gender gap: (Re-)introducing gender identity
theory to educational gender gap research. Social Psychology of
Education, 17, 357–381. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9248-8.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and
Society, 1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.
White, J. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Think women, think warm:
Stereotype content activation in women with a salient gender identity,
using a modified stroop task. Sex Roles, 60, 247–260. doi:10.1007/
s11199-008-9526-z.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender
identity. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0480-2.
Yoon, H. J., & Kim, Y. (2014). The moderating role of gender identity in
responses to comedic violence advertising. Journal of Advertising,
43, 382–396. doi:10.1080/00913367.2014.880390.
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy