INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Comparative Analysis of Jung’s Anima–Animus and the

Estrophrodite–Androphrodite Archetypes (with

FIRO-B Example)

Chacko P. George

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100366

Received: 13 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 11 December 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces the Estrophrodite–Androphrodite archetypal model as an expansion of Jung’s anima–

animus theory. Unlike Jung’s gender-specific constructs, these archetypes represent universal feminine

(Estrophrodite) and masculine (Androphrodite) principles present in all individuals. Drawing from cross-

cultural mythology, psychology, and ethics, the model situates these polarities historically and conceptually,

and illustrates patterns of integration and imbalance using FIRO-B assessments of 58 participants. This

framework extends Jungian theory by operationalizing archetypal energies in observable behaviors, offering a

culturally inclusive and psychologically flexible approach for contemporary practice. The study articulates the

Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model, compares it with classical theories, and demonstrates its applied

relevance through FIRO-B behavioral patterns.

Keywords: Estrophrodite, Androphrodite, Jungian psychology, Anima–Animus, Archetypal integration,

Shadow work, Polarity, Religious psychology

INTRODUCTION

Foundational psychological theories—Freud, Adler, and Jung—emphasize unconscious drives, social striving,

and archetypal patterns. Freud (1917/1963) focused on instinctual conflicts, Adler (1933/1964) emphasized

purposeful social striving, and Jung (1959/1969) introduced the collective unconscious and archetypes,

including the anima and animus. While influential, these models have limitations, particularly regarding

gender assumptions and cultural specificity. The Estrophrodite–Androphrodite archetypes offer an inclusive

framework.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model represents a novel expansion of classical archetypal theory, extending

Jung’s anima–animus framework by emphasizing the universality of inner feminine and masculine energies

across all individuals. Estrophrodite embodies universal feminine qualities such as nurturance, empathy,

intuition, and creative attunement, providing emotional depth and relational sensitivity, essential for holistic

psychological functioning. In parallel, Androphrodite reflects universal masculine traits such as guidance,

assertiveness, rational problem-solving, and transformative energy, offering structure, decisiveness, and

strategic clarity. Unlike traditional gender-specific models, these archetypal energies exist in every person,

allowing integration of complementary polarities. Harmonization supports personal growth, relational

competence, ethical discernment, and spiritual development, while imbalances—through overexpression or

repression—may manifest as conflict, indecision, or psychosomatic challenges. By operationalizing these

dynamics through measurable behavioral indicators such as FIRO-B, the model bridges unconscious

archetypal patterns with observable interpersonal behaviors, offering a practical roadmap for psychological

and social empowerment.

Page 4670

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research Design

A retrospective, interpretive qualitative design was employed to re-examine FIRO-B assessment data collected

between 2010–2015 from leadership development and counseling programs. Analysis involved reinterpreting

behavioral patterns through the Estrophrodite–Androphrodite framework to illustrate polarity integration and

imbalance.

2.2 Participants

Participants included 58 adults (men = 40, women = 18), aged 24–32, with educational backgrounds ranging

from bachelor’s to postgraduate degrees. All were applicants for community-based leadership programs and

volunteered with informed consent. The heterogeneous sample enhances transferability to broad

developmental contexts.

2.3 Ethical Considerations

Confidentiality, voluntary participation, and standardized professional administration were maintained.

Interpretations were framed as developmental indicators, not diagnostic judgments. Ethical principles adhered

to guidelines for psychological assessment and secondary data reinterpretation.

2.4 Data Collection Procedure

1. FIRO-B Inventory: Measured Inclusion, Control, and Affection across Expressed and Wanted

dimensions.

2. Interpretive Feedback Sessions: Facilitated participant understanding of interpersonal tendencies,

polarity dynamics, and areas for adaptive behavioral growth.

2.5 Analytical Framework

FIRO-B patterns were mapped onto Estrophrodite–Androphrodite polarity expressions. For example:

1. High Expressed Control / Low Wanted Control → Dominant Androphrodite orientation

2. High Wanted Affection / Low Expressed Affection → Underdeveloped Estrophrodite orientation

This allowed behavioral indicators to be examined as surface-level manifestations of deeper polarity

tendencies.

2.6 Validity and Trustworthiness

Temporal and ecological validity were supported through naturally occurring leadership program samples.

While FIRO-B does not directly assess unconscious archetypes, its behavioral dimensions provide a reliable

framework for polarity tendencies. Analytic rigor was strengthened through consistent coding and cross-

checking interpretive categories within the archetypal model.

3. Historical Background of Archetypal Dualities

Complementary inner energies—expressed as paired psychological or symbolic principles—appear across

cultural, religious, and mythological traditions. Marie-Louise von Franz (1999) notes that archetypal structures

persist cross-culturally because the human psyche naturally organizes experience through polar forms such as

receptive–active, intuitive–logical, and nurturing–structuring principles. Mircea Eliade (1963) shows that

mythological systems describe creation, moral order, and transformation through dual symbolic forces. Joseph

Page 4671

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Campbell (1968) demonstrates that myths encode universal patterns of human development, including

balancing inner opposites for psychological integration.

Table 1

Tradition

Archetypal Duality

Key Concept

Greek (Plato, Symposium)

Humans initially unified, later

divided

Duality in human origin

Early Indian (Sky/Earth)

Feminine creative energy &

masculine consciousness

Complementary cosmic

principles

Vedanta (Shankaracharya)

Taoism (Yin/Yang)

Dualities arise from one reality

Unity underlying dualities

Complementary polarities

Receptive/assertive energy balance

Jung’s Anima and Animus

1. Anima: Inner femininity in men; emotional depth, intuition, relational sensitivity.

2. Animus: Inner masculinity in women; rationality, assertiveness, decisiveness.

Critiques (Woodman, 1985) highlight that contrasexual framing risks stereotyping. The Estrophrodite–

Androphrodite model universalizes these energies across genders and cultures, extending Jungian theory into

practical and spiritual application.

5. Estrophrodite–Androphrodite Archetypes

Table 2

Archetype

Key Qualities

Description

Estrophrodite

Empathy, Nurturing, Intuition,

Creativity

Strong emotional awareness, relational attunement;

fosters harmony and creative adaptation

Androphrodite Assertiveness, Analytical,

Protective, Logical

Rational problem-solving; decisiveness; balances

analytical and strategic thinking

1. Gender Universality: Both archetypes exist across genders.

2. Expression Variability: Expression varies by social and cultural context.

3. Complementarity: Necessary for holistic psychological and spiritual integration.

Table 3 – Comparison with Classical Theories

Feature /

Freud

Adler

Jung

Estrophrodite–

Androphrodite

Dimension

Primary Focus

Instincts, drives,

conflict

resolution

Social striving

Collective

unconscious,

archetypes

Universal archetypal

polarities; psychological,

relational, spiritual integration

View of

Human Nature

Deterministic

Teleological

Balanced

Integrative; emphasizes inner

masculine/feminine balance

Page 4672

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Key

Constructs

Id, Ego,

Superego

Inferiority

complex, social

interest

Anima/Animus,

shadow

Estrophrodite &

Androphrodite

Gender

Gendered,

malecentered

Gendered,

socially

influenced

Contrasexual

Universal; flexible expression

Perspective

Cultural

Limited,

Limited

Symbolic

crosscultural

resonance

Cross-cultural; global

mythology, philosophy,

spirituality

Applicability

Eurocentric

Integration

Goal

Balance instincts

with reality

Social

effectiveness

Individuation

Harmonize Estrophrodite and

Androphrodite energies

Expression /

Measurement

Inferred from

behavior, dreams

Social behavior

Dreams, fantasies

Observable behaviors, FIRO-

B, guided catharsis,

meditation/prayer

Strengths

Emphasizes

unconscious

motivation

Practical

application,

social interest

Symbolic

richness, personal

growth

Integrates psychological,

social, spiritual dimensions;

operationalizable

Limitations

Overemphasis on Less focus on

sexual drives unconscious

Gender

assumptions

Requires further empirical

validation; context-specific

6. Integration and Imbalance

1. Integration promotes psychological, relational, and physiological health.

2. Imbalances may produce projection, anxiety, depression, indecision, or psychosomatic symptoms.

3. Strategies: Shadow work, sublimation, therapeutic engagement, meditation/prayer.

7. FIRO-B and Archetypal Polarity

Estrophrodite: Empathy, receptivity, cooperation, relational sensitivity.

1. Healthy: Warmth, emotional intelligence, collaboration

2. Overextension: Dependency, emotional overwhelm

3. Suppression: Emotional withdrawal, difficulty expressing needs

Androphrodite: Structure, initiative, direction, decisiveness.

1. Healthy: Clarity, goal orientation, leadership

2. Overextension: Rigidity, authoritarianism

3. Suppression: Indecision, avoidance of responsibility

Three domains: Inclusion, Control, Affection show archetypal expression in interpersonal life.

FIRO-B aligns naturally with archetypal tendencies, shaping leadership potential. Observations indicated that

most participants showed imbalances in Estrophrodite–Androphrodite expression, highlighting unconscious

influences on relational and leadership behaviors.

Page 4673

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Observed Patterns

1. Integration: Balanced Expressed/Wanted scores indicate healthy Estrophrodite and Androphrodite

traits, e.g., empathy and assertiveness in harmony.

2. Imbalance: High Expressed Control with low Wanted Control → dominant Androphrodite traits; High

Wanted Affection with low Expressed Affection → underdeveloped Estrophrodite traits.

3. Gender trends: Females slightly higher in Wanted Affection and Inclusion; males slightly higher in

Expressed Control, consistent with archetypal tendencies.

FIRO-B Behavioral Scores

Control (Expressed):

o

Men: 8.2 o

Women: 4.0

Inclusion (Wanted):

o

Women: 7.8 o

Men: 5.5

Affection (Wanted):

Women: Slightly higher than men (e.g., Women: 6.5, Men: 5.8)

o

Expressed Control

Men ██████████ 8.2

Women █████ 4.0

Wanted Inclusion

Men ██████ 5.5

Women █████████ 7.8

Wanted Affection

Men ██████ 5.8 Women

███████ 6.5

Interpretation:

The revised scores show that men express greater control (8.2) compared to women (4.0), reflecting more

assertive and directive tendencies. Women, on the other hand, have higher needs for inclusion (7.8 vs. 5.5 in

men) and slightly higher desire for affection, indicating stronger relational engagement and emotional

connectivity. This pattern aligns with the Estrophrodite–Androphrodite archetypal mapping, where the

Androphrodite expresses structure and guidance, while the Estrophrodite emphasizes empathy, nurturance, and

relational harmony.

DISCUSSION

The Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model expands Jung’s framework, addressing conceptual and practical gaps.

Page 4674

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Unlike Jung’s gender-specific symbolic archetypes, Estrophrodite and Androphrodite are universal,

crosscultural, and operationalizable (George, 2025a; Jung, 1969). Integration with FIRO-B links unconscious

archetypal patterns to observable interpersonal behaviors.

Strengths

1. Universality across genders and cultures (Woodman, 1985)

2. Behavioral linkage through FIRO-B

3. Facilitates identification of imbalances and interventions

Clinical and Educational Implications

1. Supports therapeutic strategies: shadow work, guided catharsis, mindfulness

2. Encourages development of underexpressed polarities

3. Enhances leadership, teamwork, and ethical decision-making (Adler, 1964; Schutz, 1984)

Cultural and Spiritual Relevance

References

1. Hinduism, Taoism, Vedanta, Christianity

2. Promotes harmonization of masculine/feminine energies

The Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model describes deep psychological tendencies or archetypal dispositions,

not behaviors.

It is a motivational–archetypal layer, not a behavioral measurement tool.

FIRO-B Control (Expressed)

1. Men: 8.2

2. Women: 4.0

This matches:

1. Androphrodite → Leadership, direction, initiative

2. Estrophrodite → Cooperation, receptivity

FIRO-B Inclusion (Wanted)

1. Women: 7.8

2. Men: 5.5

This matches:

1. Estrophrodite → relational sensitivity, emotional connection

2. Androphrodite → autonomy, task focus

3. FIRO-B Affection (Wanted)

Women slightly higher (6.5 vs 5.8)

This matches the Estrophrodite emphasis on warmth and connection.

Page 4675

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

So: Table-4

Level

What is measured?

Tool

Nature

Inner dispositions, unconscious

relational styles

Conceptual /

Deep

Estrophrodite–

Androphrodite Model

FIRO-B

Psychological

Personality/Archetype

Behavioral Expression

What people actually do with

others (Expressed/Wanted)

Quantitative

Measurable

/

Future Research

1. Larger, cross-cultural studies

2. Longitudinal studies in leadership and organizational settings

3. Experimental validation of archetype-focused interventions

CONCLUSION

The Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model:

1. Extends Jung’s anima–animus to universal, cross-cultural, spiritually integrated polarities

2. Supports psychological wholeness, ethical clarity, relational competence, creativity

3. Demonstrates applied relevance in counseling, education, leadership, and intercultural development

4. Bridges humanistic, psychodynamic, and transpersonal perspectives

Future applications may include structured training programs, leadership workshops, and therapeutic

interventions to enhance archetypal integration.

Figure .1

Page 4676

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

Figure -2

The FIRO-B behavioral scores align with the Estrophrodite–Androphrodite model, showing how unconscious

archetypal tendencies manifest in interpersonal behavior. The bar charts illustrate this alignment clearly

Figure -3

Page 4677

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025

REFERENCES

1. Adler, A. (1964). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher,

Eds.). Harper Torchbooks. (Original work published 1933)

2. Campbell, J. (1968). The hero with a thousand faces (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

3. Devi Mahatmya (M. Dutt, Trans., 1992). Motilal Banarsidass.

4. Eliade, M. (1963). Myth and reality (W. R. Trask, Trans.). Harper & Row.

5. Freud, S. (1963). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.). W. W.

Norton. (Original work published 1917)

6. George, C. P. (2025). Healing the unconscious: Ethics, shadow, and catharsis in practice.

Psychology, 16(10).

7. Jung, C. G. (1969). Collected works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 9, Part II: Aion (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.).

Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959)

8. Laozi. (1963). Tao Te Ching (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work c. 6th century BCE)

9. Schutz, W. C. (1984). FIRO-B manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

10. Shankaracharya, A. (1990). Vivekachudamani (S. Radhakrishnan, Trans.). Motilal Banarsidass.

(Original work c. 788–820 CE) von Franz, M.-L. (1999). Archetypal dimensions of the psyche.

Shambhala Publications.

11. Woodman, M. (1985). The pregnant virgin: A process of psychological transformation. Inner City

Books.

Page 4678

www.rsisinternational.org