Personal Attributes Questionnaire

Abstract

The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), developed by Janet Taylor Spence, Robert L. Helmreich, and Joy Stapp (1974, 1975), is one of the most widely utilized and foundational psychometric instruments in social, personality, and gender psychology. Originally designed to assess self-characterizations of gender-role identity, the PAQ measures instrumentality (agency) and expressiveness (communion)—personality dimensions historically stereotyped as masculine and feminine, respectively. The standard short form comprises 24 bipolar items partitioned into three balanced 8-item subscales: the Masculinity (M) scale, assessing socially desirable agentic and instrumental traits considered more typical of men; the Femininity (F) scale, assessing socially desirable interpersonal and expressive traits considered more typical of women; and the Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) scale, assessing traits for which the social desirability of the trait differs according to the respondent’s sex or represents traditional gender-differentiated traits whose poles are stereotypically gender-opposed. Items are scored along a 5-point bipolar semantic differential continuum (ranging from 0 to 4 or 1 to 5). Decades of psychometric research across adolescent, university, adult, and cross-cultural cohorts consistently confirm robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .73 to .85 across subscales), robust test-retest reliability (.70 to .88), and a reliable multidimensional factor structure demonstrating that instrumentality and expressiveness represent orthogonal, non-mutually exclusive dimensions of human self-concept rather than opposing ends of a single continuum. The instrument has profoundly shaped empirical understandings of psychological androgyny, mental health resilience, interpersonal dynamics, leadership behavior, and occupational achievement.

Keywords

Personal Attributes Questionnaire, PAQ, Instrumentality, Expressiveness, Agency, Communion, Psychological Androgyny, Gender Identity, Janet Taylor Spence, Psychometrics

Authors

The Personal Attributes Questionnaire was created and refined through the collaborative scholarship of leading personality and social psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin:

• Janet Taylor Spence, Ph.D. (1923–2015) — Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. A pioneering figure in American psychology, Dr. Spence served as President of the American Psychological Association (APA, 1984) and the Association for Psychological Science (APS, 1988–1989). Her theoretical innovations disentangled biological sex, cultural gender-role adoption, and self-assertive personality traits.
• Robert L. Helmreich, Ph.D. (1937–2012) — Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin and Director of the NASA/University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project. Renowned for his work in human factors, group dynamics, and personality measurement in high-stress operational environments.
• Joy Stapp, Ph.D. — Research Associate and psychometrician at the University of Texas at Austin, key co-investigator in the early normative sampling, item validation, and empirical classification of the initial 55-item and subsequent 24-item PAQ inventories.
• Carole K. Holahan, Ph.D. — Professor of Kinesiology and Health Education and affiliated faculty in Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, co-developer of the Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire (EPAQ) incorporating negative instrumentality and negative expressiveness.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically valid assessment of self-attributed personal characteristics traditionally ascribed along gender lines, specifically distinguishing between instrumental (agentic, self-assertive, goal-directed) and expressive (communal, relational, nurturing) personality dispositions. During the early 1970s, gender-related measurement was dominated by unipolar, bipolar models (e.g., the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory’s Mf scale or the California Psychological Inventory’s Fe scale) that conceptualized masculinity and femininity as inverse extremes of a single continuum: an individual who scored high in masculinity was theoretically compelled to score low in femininity, and vice versa.

The PAQ was specifically designed to challenge and replace this simplistic continuum by establishing that instrumental and communal traits operate as distinct, largely orthogonal personality domains that coexist within every individual regardless of biological sex. In research settings, the PAQ enables investigators to operationalize self-concepts beyond binary biological categories, allowing precise modeling of how instrumentality and expressiveness predict subjective well-being, depression, anxiety, achievement motivation, marital adjustment, stress coping, and health-related behaviors. In clinical, organizational, and educational spheres, the PAQ assists clinicians and consultants in understanding self-evaluative cognitive schema, interpersonal styles, executive management profiles, and coping resources in high-demand environments. Through four-fold classification schemes (Androgynous, Masculine sex-typed, Feminine sex-typed, and Undifferentiated), the scale allows researchers to examine how balance versus polarization between agency and communion influences psychological functioning.

Psychological Construct

The core constructs assessed by the PAQ are rooted in David Bakan’s (1966) philosophical and psychological formulation of the two fundamental modalities of human existence: Agency and Communion. In Spence and Helmreich’s empirical taxonomy, these modalities are manifested as Instrumentality and Expressiveness.

1. Masculinity (M) — Instrumental / Agentic Trait Dimension

The Masculinity scale captures socially desirable, self-assertive, goal-directed traits that focus on individual competence, autonomy, mastery, and environmental control. These characteristics are normative ideals in modern industrialized societies and, while culturally attributed more frequently to men, are recognized as positive and socially advantageous for all individuals regardless of gender. Subscale components include:

• Autonomy and Independence: Self-reliance and the capacity to function without constant external validation or reliance upon others (Item 2: Not at all independent vs. Very independent).
• Decisiveness and Agency: Cognitive confidence and comfort in executing personal judgments under ambiguous conditions (Item 16: Can make decisions easily vs. Has difficulty making decisions).
• Resilience under Stress: Emotional fortitude, ego-resilience, and stability in demanding situations (Item 24: Goes to pieces under pressure vs. Stands up well under pressure).
• Tenacity and Persistence: Goal-directed persistence in the face of setbacks (Item 17: Gives up very easily vs. Never gives up easily).
• Assertive Self-Regard: High self-efficacy, self-confidence, and absence of an inferiority complex (Item 19: Not at all self-confident vs. Very self-confident; Item 20: Feels very inferior vs. Feels superior).
• Competitiveness and Activity: Drive to master external challenges and an active stance toward life goals (Item 6: Very passive vs. Very active; Item 10: Not at all competitive vs. Very competitive).

2. Femininity (F) — Expressive / Communal Trait Dimension

The Femininity scale captures socially desirable, interpersonal, relational, and emotional orientations that facilitate social harmony, connection, mutual support, and empathy. Like instrumental traits, these communal qualities are deemed socially desirable for both sexes, although culturally stereotyped as more descriptive of women. Subscale components include:

• Empathy and Emotional Sensitivity: Attunement to internal affective states and the feelings of others (Item 3: Not at all emotional vs. Very emotional; Item 15: Not at all aware of feelings of others vs. Very aware of feelings of others).
• Interpersonal Warmth and Kindness: Prosocial orientation, gentleness, and genuine benevolence toward others (Item 8: Very rough vs. Very gentle; Item 12: Not at all kind vs. Very kind; Item 22: Very cold in relations with others vs. Very warm in relations with others).
• Altruism and Altruistic Dedication: Willingness to offer aid and dedicate time and energy to supporting others (Item 7: Not at all able to devote self completely to others vs. Able to devote self completely to others; Item 9: Not at all helpful to others vs. Very helpful to others).
• Relational Understanding: Patience, interpersonal perspective-taking, and deep social understanding (Item 21: Not at all understanding of others vs. Very understanding of others).

3. Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) — Sex-Differentiated Trait Dimension

The M-F scale is composed of attributes where social desirability evaluations diverge based on gender, or where the opposing poles reflect characteristics that have historically been viewed as mutually exclusive sex-stereotypic extremes. High scores on this subscale reflect traits stereotypically associated with masculine dominance, emotional detachment, and risk tolerance, whereas low scores reflect vulnerability, high affiliative needs, submissiveness, and overt emotional reactivity.

• Dominance vs. Submissiveness: Social power assertion versus compliance (Item 4: Very submissive vs. Very dominant; Item 1: Not at all aggressive vs. Very aggressive).
• Crisis Affect Regulation: Stoicism versus acute emotional disruption during emergencies (Item 5: Not at all excitable in a major crisis vs. Very excitable in a major crisis).
• Worldly vs. Domestic Orientation: External career orientation versus domestic rootedness (Item 11: Very home oriented vs. Very worldly).
• Social Independence vs. Approval Seeking: Self-containment versus dependency on external social reassurance (Item 13: Indifferent to others’ approval vs. Highly needful of others’ approval; Item 23: Very little need for security vs. Very strong need for security).
• Emotional Vulnerability and Tearfulness: Susceptibility to interpersonal hurt and overt tearfulness (Item 14: Feelings not easily hurt vs. Feelings easily hurt; Item 18: Never cries vs. Cries very easily).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the PAQ rests on the convergence of two major intellectual traditions: David Bakan’s sociological-philosophical model of human existence (1966) and Janet Taylor Spence’s cognitive-trait formulation of gender identity (Spence, 1984, 1993). In The Duality of Human Existence (1966), Bakan argued that living organisms are governed by two universal, complementary principles:

• Agency: Manifested in the organism striving for individuation, self-protection, self-assertion, mastery, and control over the environment. Agency without communion devolves into unmitigated hostility, selfishness, and isolation.
• Communion: Manifested in the organism striving for union, cooperation, connection, harmony, and integration with the larger collective. Communion without agency devolves into unmitigated self-abnegation and over-dependence.

Prior to the 1970s, psychological testing treated these modalities as a zero-sum, bipolar spectrum (e.g., Terman & Miles, 1936). Under the classic unipolar-bipolar paradigm, psychological health was equated with rigorous conformity to traditional biological sex roles: men were expected to be purely agentic, while women were expected to be purely communal. Developing agency in women or communion in men was pathologized as gender identity confusion.

In parallel with Sandra Bem’s introduction of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974), Spence and Helmreich (1974, 1978) conceptualized masculinity and femininity as two independent, continuous trait dimensions. However, while Bem initially proposed that sex-typed individuals possess generalized cognitive gender schemas that filter all life experiences (Gender Schema Theory; Bem, 1981), Spence maintained a rigorous psychometric critique. Spence argued that the PAQ and BSRI do not measure a global, monolithic construct of “masculinity” or “gender-role adoption,” but rather specific constellations of socially desirable instrumental and expressive personality traits.

Spence formulated the Multifactorial Gender Identity Theory (Spence, 1984, 1993), positing that gender identity is multidimensional and loosely coupled. Biological sex, gender-role attitudes, recreational interests, sexual orientation, occupational choices, and instrumental/expressive personality traits show only modest intercorrelations. Hence, someone may score high on instrumentality without adopting traditional conservative gender roles or masculine recreational preferences. This theoretical refinement separated personal competence and emotional warmth from rigid societal stereotypes, cementing the PAQ as an essential measure of fundamental self-concept traits.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the PAQ has been evaluated across five decades of empirical research spanning clinical, social, organizational, and cross-cultural domains.

1. Construct and Factorial Validity

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the items assigned to the M and F subscales reliably load onto two independent, orthogonal factors. Intercorrelations between the M and F scales in both male and female samples typically hover near zero or show very slight positive associations ($r = -.05$ to $+.18$), confirming that instrumentality and expressiveness represent separate dimensions rather than antagonistic poles. When joint factor analyses are conducted combining the PAQ and the BSRI, the PAQ M items consistently co-load with the BSRI Instrumental items, and the PAQ F items co-load with the BSRI Expressive items, establishing convergent construct validity across instruments.

2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The PAQ demonstrates strong convergent validity with established personality inventories measuring the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae). Specifically:

• The Masculinity (M) subscale exhibits moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Extraversion ($r = .40$ to $.55$) and Conscientiousness ($r = .30$ to $.45$), and strong negative correlations with Neuroticism ($r = -.35$ to $-.52$).
• The Femininity (F) subscale correlates strongly with Agreeableness ($r = .50$ to $.68$) and moderately with the warmth facet of Extraversion ($r = .35$ to $.45$).
• Discriminant validity is confirmed by near-zero correlations between the PAQ scales and measures of cognitive ability or general intelligence (e.g., Wonderlic Personnel Test, SAT scores), demonstrating that instrumentality reflects self-perceived competence and agency rather than raw cognitive capacity.

3. Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Decades of health psychology and clinical research confirm that both M and F scales predict key psychosocial outcomes:

• Self-Esteem and Psychological Well-Being: Both instrumentality and expressiveness predict high self-esteem (e.g., on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), though the M scale typically accounts for the largest share of variance ($r = .45$ to $.65$). Individuals classified as Androgynous (scoring above the median on both M and F) consistently report lower depression, lower trait anxiety, and higher life satisfaction than those classified as Undifferentiated (scoring below the median on both).
• Interpersonal Functioning and Dyadic Adjustment: In marital and relationship studies, expressiveness (F) reliably predicts relationship satisfaction, conflict resolution efficacy, and empathetic communication. Couples where at least one partner scores high in expressiveness exhibit higher dyadic stability.
• Occupational Leadership and Achievement: The M scale consistently predicts career aspiration, willingness to assume leadership positions, and objective performance metrics in high-stress occupations (e.g., commercial airline pilots, military officers, academic scientists; Helmreich et al., 1980).

Reliability

The Personal Attributes Questionnaire has demonstrated exemplary internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse age groups, socio-economic strata, and cultural contexts.

1. Internal Consistency

In the original normative validation investigations conducted by Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974, 1975) involving college students and adult community samples, the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for the three subscales were documented as follows:

• Masculinity (M) Scale: $\alpha = .85$ (college males), $.81$ (college females), $.82$ (adult males), $.80$ (adult females).
• Femininity (F) Scale: $\alpha = .82$ (college males), $.82$ (college females), $.81$ (adult males), $.83$ (adult females).
• Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) Scale: $\alpha = .74$ (college males), $.73$ (college females), $.75$ (adult males), $.72$ (adult females).

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across five decades have consistently replicated these values, with meta-analytic estimates confirming median reliability coefficients of $\alpha \approx .83$ for M, $\alpha \approx .82$ for F, and $\alpha \approx .74$ for M-F.

2. Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability estimates demonstrate that the underlying self-concepts assessed by the PAQ are stable over both short and extended intervals:

• Short-term Stability (2 to 4 weeks): Test-retest correlation coefficients range from $r = .80$ to $.88$ for the M scale, $r = .79$ to $.86$ for the F scale, and $r = .72$ to $.81$ for the M-F scale.
• Long-term Stability (1 to 3 years): Longitudinal assessments conducted across the college transition and early career stages show stability coefficients ranging from $r = .58$ to $.69$, reflecting both persistent trait disposition and gradual developmental maturity.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the PAQ has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early principal axis factoring and principal components analyses with varimax and oblimin rotations confirmed two major, robust latent dimensions corresponding precisely to the theoretical constructs of Instrumentality (M) and Expressiveness (F). In EFA solutions:

• Items on the M scale (e.g., never gives up easily, very self-confident, stands up well under pressure, can make decisions easily) consistently yield salient primary factor loadings ranging from $.48$ to $.74$ on the first latent factor, with cross-loadings on the second factor typically under $.15$.
• Items on the F scale (e.g., very understanding of others, very warm in relations with others, very helpful to others, able to devote self completely to others) yield primary loadings ranging from $.45$ to $.78$ on the second latent factor, with minimal cross-loadings.
• The items of the M-F subscale display a more bifurcated factor structure: items emphasizing dominance, assertiveness, and invulnerability load moderately onto the instrumental factor, while items involving emotional expression and vulnerability inversely correlate with instrumentality or form a modest third factor representing social vulnerability versus invulnerability.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Modern structural equation modeling and CFA studies evaluating the 16 items of the core M and F scales confirm that a two-factor orthogonal model demonstrates superior fit compared to a single-factor unidimensional model:

• Two-Factor Model Fit: Comparative Fit Index ($\text{CFI}$) values typically range between $.91$ and $.95$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($\text{TLI}$) between $.90$ and $.94$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($\text{RMSEA}$) between $.042$ and $.061$, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($\text{SRMR}$) $le .055$.
• Single-Factor Model Fit: Unidimensional models specifying a bipolar continuum yield unacceptably poor fit ($\text{CFI} < .60$, $\text{RMSEA} > .13$), providing definitive structural refutation of the historical bipolar assumption.
• Measurement Invariance: Multigroup CFA has demonstrated full metric and scalar invariance across biological sex groups, indicating that the PAQ items measure identical constructs with equivalent psychometric precision in men and women.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Name of Instrument: Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)
• Alternative Names: Spence-Helmreich PAQ, 24-Item PAQ, Extended PAQ (EPAQ; 40-item variant)
• Developers: Janet Taylor Spence, Ph.D., Robert L. Helmreich, Ph.D., and Joy Stapp, Ph.D. (University of Texas at Austin)
• Publication Dates: Initial 55-item version (1974); 24-item short form (1975); definitive monograph (1978); Extended PAQ (1979)
• Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil or computer-administered questionnaire; group or individual administration
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 14+) and adults across educational, community, and clinical settings
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Item Count: 24 bipolar items partitioned into three 8-item subscales:
• Masculinity (M) Subscale (8 items): Measures socially desirable instrumental/agentic traits (Items 2, 6, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24).
• Femininity (F) Subscale (8 items): Measures socially desirable expressive/communal traits (Items 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 21, 22).
• Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) Subscale (8 items): Measures socially differentiated attributes whose desirability historically varied by sex (Items 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 23).
• Response Scale: 5-point bipolar semantic differential scale (A = 0/1 to E = 4/5, anchored by opposing characteristics at each pole).
• Scoring Procedures:
• Each item is assigned a numerical value from 0 to 4 (or 1 to 5).
• The high-scoring pole (scored as 4 points on a 0–4 scale, or 5 points on a 1–5 scale) reflects high instrumentality on the M scale, high expressiveness on the F scale, and stereotypically masculine/agentic self-assertion on the M-F scale.
• Direct-Scored Items (Right pole = High / 4 points): Items where the right anchor has an asterisk (*) are scored directly: $A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3, E = 4$. These include items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24.
• Reverse-Scored Items (Left pole = High / 4 points): Items where the left anchor has an asterisk (*) represent trait endorsement at the left pole and must be reverse-scored: $A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, E = 0$. These include items 5, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23.
• Subscale Score Calculation: Sum the item scores for each subscale. On a 0–4 scale, subscale scores range from 0 to 32. On a 1–5 scale, subscale scores range from 8 to 40.
• Four-Fold Typology Classification: By performing a median-split on the M and F subscale scores (using published normative medians or sample medians), respondents can be classified into one of four gender-role identity categories:
• Androgynous: High Masculinity ($M ge \text{Median}$) and High Femininity ($F ge \text{Median}$)
• Masculine Sex-Typed: High Masculinity ($M ge \text{Median}$) and Low Femininity ($F < \text{Median}$)
• Feminine Sex-Typed: Low Masculinity ($M < \text{Median}$) and High Femininity ($F ge \text{Median}$)
• Undifferentiated: Low Masculinity ($M < \text{Median}$) and Low Femininity ($F < \text{Median}$)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The 24-item Personal Attributes Questionnaire was first published in 1974/1975 and detailed comprehensively in the 1978 monograph Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents by Janet T. Spence and Robert L. Helmreich, published by the University of Texas Press. The Extended PAQ (EPAQ) was published in 1979.

The authors placed the instrument in the public domain for non-commercial academic, scientific, clinical, and educational research purposes. Researchers may administer, reproduce, score, and adapt the PAQ without payment of royalties, licensing fees, or formal written permission, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and standard APA citation are given to the original developers. Commercial applications, integration into for-profit software platforms, or distribution in commercial assessment batteries require explicit licensing agreements through the copyright holders or their estates.

References

The following foundational peer-reviewed articles and monographs document the psychometric development, validation, and empirical applications of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire:

• Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Rand McNally.
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
• Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Psychological androgyny and sex role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1631–1644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1631
• Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.896
• Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-541413-5.50005-9
• Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624
• Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. University of Texas Press.
• Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00951.x
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1673–1682. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1673
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44 (Ms. No. 617).
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857
• Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. McGraw-Hill.

Items of the Scale