Authors’ Reply: Commentaries on Wood & Eagly’s (2015) “Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity”

Wendy Wood*, Alice H. Eagly

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


We are pleased that the thoughtful commentaries on Wood and Eagly’s (2015) review accepted our distinction between gender identity research involving personality traits and research involving self-categorization into female or male groups. Although Schmader and Block (2015) argued that self-categorization is the clearer, more fundamental approach, we maintain instead that gender identities encompass both explicit categorization of self and the less explicit endorsement of gender-typical traits. In essence, the trait and categorization analyses are two sides of the same gender identity coin. We also largely agree with Keener’s (2015) and Mehta’s (2015) illustrations of the highly multidimensional and contextualized nature of gender identity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-501
Number of pages5
JournalSex Roles
Issue number11-12
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015


  • Compatibility principle
  • Femininity
  • Gender categorization
  • Gender identity
  • Masculinity
  • Self-construal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gender Studies
  • Social Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology


Dive into the research topics of 'Authors’ Reply: Commentaries on Wood & Eagly’s (2015) “Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this