Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504 DOI 10.1007/s10508-013-0234-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Sex-Typed Personality Traits and Gender Identity as Predictors of Young Adults’ Career Interests Lisa M. Dinella • Megan Fulcher • Erica S. Weisgram
Received: 14 September 2011 / Revised: 30 August 2013 / Accepted: 13 October 2013 / Published online: 23 January 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Gender segregation of careers is still prominent in the U.S. workforce. The current study was designed to investigate the role of sex-typed personality traits and gender identity in predicting emerging adults’ interests in sex-typed careers. Participants included 586 university students (185 males, 401 females). Participants reported their sex-typed personality traits (masculine and feminine traits), gender identities (gender typicality, contentment, felt pressure to conform, and intergroup bias), and interests in sex-typed careers. Results indicated both sex-typed personality traits and gender identity were important predictors of young adults’ career interests, but in varying degrees and differentially for men and women. Men’s sextyped personality traits and gender typicality were predictive of their masculine career interests even more so when the interaction of their masculine traits and gender typicality were considered. When gender typicality and sex-typed personality traits were considered simultaneously, gender typicality was negatively related to men’s feminine careerinterests and gender typicality was the only significant predictor of men’s feminine career interests. For women, sex-typed personality traits and gender typicality were predictive of their sex-typed career interests. The level of pressure they felt to conform to their gender also positively predicted interest in feminine careers.
L. M. Dinella (&) Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Ave. West, Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA e-mail:
[email protected] M. Fulcher Department of Psychology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA, USA E. S. Weisgram Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA
The interaction of sex-typed personality traits and gender typicality did not predict women’s career interests more than when these variables were considered as main effects. Results of the multidimensional assessment of gender identity confirmed that various dimensions of gender identity played different roles in predicting career interests and gender typicality was the strongest predictor of career interests. Keywords Gender roles Career interests Sex-typed personality traits Gender identity
Introduction Despite increases in the number of women in the workforce and in nontraditional jobs, striking rates of gender segregation in careers still exist (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a, 2011b). In 2009, women held 6 % of construction manager positions, represented 32 % of lawyers, and were also underrepresented in agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and transportation fields (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011b). Additionally, although a significant increase has occurred in the number of women achieving degrees in science and engineering (National Academy of Sciences, 2006), few women hold occupations in these fields (Bureau of LaborStatistics, 2011a). In contrast to the maledominated science and engineering fields, education positions are largely filled by women (82 % of elementary and middle school teachers and 95 % of child care providers are women). Gender segregation in the workforce has a host of negative implications. Gender segregated fields do not capitalize on underrepresented individuals’ strengths. Furthermore, gender segregation is particularly detrimental to women, in that‘‘pinkcollar’’ occupations are characteristically low-paying and with fewer advancement possibilities, thus reducing women’s opportunities for financial independence (American Association of
123
494
University Women Education Foundation, 2003; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Lips, 2003). Clearly, it is important to understand the gender-related factors that influence the decisions of men and women entering the workforce (see Weisgram, Bigler, & Liben, 2010). Factors Influencing Career Interests Early theories of career interests focused on career development and engagement across the lifespan (Super, 1953, 1990) and on finding a match between one’s personality and the characteristics of one’s work environment (Holland, 1959, 1997). Empirical exploration of these theories identified gender as an important predictor of peoples’ attractions to activities and thus their interest in related occupations. Further, gender roles and gender-related cognitions may be powerful in the shaping of men’s and women’s career interests. For example, Lippa (1998) found that gender was a strong predictor of career interest with women more attracted than men to occupations involving people. Gottfredson’s (1981) theory of circumscription and compromise also suggested that individuals limit themselves at an early age to only occupations deemed by society as‘‘appropriate’’for their gender (see also Martin & Halverson’s [1981] gender schema theory). Moreover, Eccles’ (1994) expectancyvalue theory of achievement-related choices posited that gender roles, stereotypes, and cognitions differentially affect men’s and women’s self-efficacy and values—two salient variables linked to career choices. Most recently, Diekman, Brown, Johnston, and Clark (2010) proposed that congruence between one’s communal and agentic goals—goals that are strongly sextyped—and the perceptions that an occupation affords those goals is a key factor in occupational interests, particularly in girls’ interest in science careers (see also Diekman, Clark, Johnston, Brown, & Steinberg, 2011; Weisgram & Bigler, 2006; Weisgram et al., 2010). These classic and contemporary theories, and the empirical studies that support them, highlight the need to include gender and gender-related constructs (e.g., traits, values, and cognitions) in models predicting career interest. Gender Schema Theory While most of the theories discussed above focus specifically on vocational choice, gender schema theory focuses on the cognitive processes that underlie sex-typing across a variety of genres. Individuals’ gender schemas, which are mental representations used to organize information about the sexes (Lenton, Blair, & Hastie, 2001; Martin & Dinella, 2012), are used as filters in deciding whether something is for their gender, and thus for them, versus not for their gender, and thus not for them (Martin, Eisenbud, & Rose, 1995). These schemas are unique to each individual and are revised as individuals are exposed to their environments (Martin & Dinella, 2002, 2012; Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002). For example, when an individual
123
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
considers the job ‘‘scientist,’’ he or she may first consult his or her gender schema and ask ‘‘Is this a job for a person of my gender?’’ Congruence between personal gender schemas and the gender associated with scientists may promote information gathering about science and the development of an interest for the job; however, if congruity is not present, the job will be avoided (see Martin & Dinella, 2012). Gender-related cognitions and traits are important constructs that may predict sex-typed career interests. Cognitions about how well careers can fulfill individuals’ sex-typed goals (i.e., communal vs. agentic goals) predict their career-related interests (Diekman et al., 2010), as does their gender typicality (Leaper & Van, 2008), their masculine/feminine traits, and their sex-typed values (Weisgram, Dinella, & Fulcher, 2011). We further investigated the relation between gender, individuals’ sex-typed personality traits, their gender identity, and sex-typed career interests. Sex-Typed Personality Traits Sex-typed personality traits may be significant factors in young adults’ career interests. Masculine traits reflect instrumental personality traits, such as being independent and assertive, and feminine traits reflect expressive personality traits, such as being nurturing and sympathetic (Spence, 1993). Masculine and feminine traits can be viewed on two independent continuums with individual differences existing within gender groups (see Perry & Pauletti, 2011). Thus, both men and women could possess varying levels of both masculine traits and feminine traits. Several terms have been used to describe individuals’ levels of sex typing, including the broad terms of‘‘masculinity’’ and ‘‘femininity,’’ masculine and feminine ideology, and selfperceived masculinity and femininity. Because of the overlap found between assessments of masculinity and femininity and existing measures of personality traits (see Lippa, 2005), here we will use the terms masculine and feminine traits when discussing these concepts. A variety of studies established that a relation existed between sex-typed personality traits and career preferences. For instance, in an early study, career-oriented women reported more masculine traits and less feminine traits than homemakeroriented women (Rand, 1968; see also Metzler-Brennan, Lewis, & Gerrard, 1985). More recently, Abele (2003) found that masculine traits (but not feminine traits) were significant predictors of career success among men and women, and young men’s masculine traits predicted gender-traditional career choices (Lemkau, 1984; Tokar & Jome, 1998) and academic major choice (Leaper & Van, 2008). In a broader study, masculine and feminine traits were related to the traditionality of the careers young women (but not young men) expected to hold (Weisgram et al., 2011). In many of these studies, more complex patterns of relations were found when other factors were added to the models. For
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
men, the relation between masculine traits and career choices was mediated by vocational interests (Tokar & Jome, 1998). Also, self-efficacy and traditional interests mediated the relation between men’s masculine traits and academic major choice (Leaper & Van, 2008). For women, the relation between feminine traits and the traditionality of their expected career was mediated by their endorsement of career values, such as altruism, power, money, and family (Weisgram et al., 2011). Thus, it is not clear whether masculine and feminine traits are truly the best indicators of young adults’ academic and career choices or if the interaction of factors would be more informative. It is also unclear as to whether masculine and feminine traits predict career-related variables for both men and women, with some research indicating sex-typed personality traits only predicting young women’s career expectations (e.g., Weisgram et al., 2011) and some studies investigating these variables only among men (Leaper & Van, 2008). Gender Identity: A Multi-Dimensional Approach Whereas the constructs of masculine and feminine traits are related largely to instrumental versus expressive personality traits, gender identity is conceptualized as‘‘the sense of oneself as a male or female’’(for review, see Martin & Dinella, 2002). Research on gender identity often focuses on the development of children’s gender identities (see Ruble et al., 2007). A call has been made, however, for a multi-dimensional assessment of older children’s and adults’ established gender identities (Betz, 1995; Egan & Perry, 2001; Mahalik, Perry, Coonerty-Femiano, Catraio, & Land, 2006; Perry & Pauletti, 2011). Four dimensions of gender identity have been proposed: gender typicality, gender contentment, felt pressure to conform, and intergroup bias (Egan & Perry, 2001). Gender typicality is defined as how typical one feels compared to others in his or her gender group and gender contentment is defined as how content one feels as a member of this group. Felt pressure refers to the amount of pressure an individual feels to follow gender-related rules whereas intergroup bias is the extent that one considers his or her own gender group as superior over the other gender group. Individuals can rate themselves differently across these four dimensions and these dimensions are differentially related to psychosocial outcomes and to self-efficacy for masculine and feminine activities (Egan & Perry, 2001). These findings reinforce the need to investigate these dimensions separately. Further, gender differences in the dimensions emerge, with boys scoring higher on gender typicality, contentedness, and felt pressure, but girls outscoring boys on intergroup bias. Elementary children’s sex-typed occupational interests were found to be related to their gender typicality (Patterson, 2012). Little research, however, has investigated these four dimensions of gender identity for young adults or in terms of their relation to career interests. An exception to this is recent work by Leaper and Van (2008) that focused on gender
495
typicality and its relation to young men’s selection of academic majors (an outcome similar to career interests). Results indicated that men’s gender typicality was positively related to their selection of traditional (i.e., sex-typed) academic majors. Further investigation is needed into the role of gender contentedness, felt pressure to conform, and intergroup bias in predicting career interests among men and whether the four gender identity dimensions are predictive of women’s career interests is yet to be explored. Interaction of Masculine and Feminine Traits with Gender Typicality Leaper and Van’s (2008) investigation suggested that the interaction of sex-typed personality traits and gender identity provided more information about young adults’ career choices than the main effects of these constructs. The interaction of masculine traits and gender typicality significantly predicted young men’s academic interests. Being gender schematic in both traits and typicality may lead to being more sex-typed and thus having more sex-typed academic and career interests. These findings illustrate the importance of considering the interaction of sex-typed personality traits and gender identity. Thus, the current study examined interaction of masculine and feminine traits with gender typicality as predictors of young adults’ actual career interests. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 We proposed that the more masculine traits young adults have the more interested they would be in masculine careers, and the more feminine traits they have the less interested they would be in masculine careers. We predicted the reverse pattern would exist for interest in feminine careers. Hypothesis 2 We proposed that gender identity would play a significant role in young adults’ career interests. We had a specific hypothesis for each dimension of gender identity. (1) We proposed that increased gender typicality would predict increased interest in careers stereotyped for participants’ gender and decreased interest in careers stereotyped for the other gender. (2) We hypothesized that increased gender contentedness would predict increased interest in careers stereotyped for their gender and decreased interest in careers stereotyped fortheother gender. (3) We expected that increased felt pressure, particularly in women, would predict increased interest in careers stereotyped for their gender. (4) We expected that increased intergroup bias would predict increased interest in careers stereotyped for their gender. Hypothesis 3 We predicted that the interactive effects of sextyped personality traits and gender identity would be predictive of the sex-typing of young adults’ career interest, above and beyond that of these variables’ main effects. Specifically, we
123
496
focused on gender typicality because it has been shown to predict career-related variables (Leaper & Van, 2008; Patterson, 2012).
Method Participants The participants included 586 college students (185 males, 401 females). All of the participants were within the age range of 18–25 years, with an average age of 19.64 years. Students were recruited in the spring of 2007 from psychology courses at three universities in the United States: a medium-sized public university in the Midwest, a medium-sized private university on the East Coast, and a small private university in the South. The sample was primarily European American (90.3 %), but also included African American students (2.7 %), Asian American students (1.4 %), and Latino/a students (2.4 %); 2.4 % of the sample reported an ethnicity other than these listed. The race and gender of the participants was reflective of the classes and subject pools from which they were recruited. Procedure As part of a larger study of career trajectories and interests (Weisgram et al., 2011), participants completed demographic information (including information about their parents’ occupations), a measure of masculine and feminine traits, a measure of gender identity, and a measure of interest in sex-typed careers. Measures Masculine and Feminine Traits The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) was used to assess participants’ masculine and feminine traits. A total of 34 BSRI items were analyzed, including 17 masculine items (e.g., self-reliant, athletic, assertive) and 17 feminine items (e.g., cheerful, tender, sympathetic). Both the term ‘‘masculine’’and the term‘‘feminine,’’which are typically included in the BSRI, were excluded to protect against potential confounds. Participants indicated how well each item described them on a scale of 1 (Never or almost never true) to 7 (Always or almost always true). Cronbach’s alphas indicated high reliability for both the masculine and feminine subscales (amasculine = .82, afeminine = .77). Gender Identity The multidimensional survey of gender identity (Egan & Perry, 2001) was used to assess four dimensions of gender identity.
123
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
This standardized scale consists of 40 items, including 6 gender typicality items (e.g.,‘‘I don’t feel like I fit in with other girls’’), 6 gender contentedness items (e.g.,‘‘I like being a girl’’), 10 felt pressure items (e.g., ‘‘The girls I know would be upset if I wanted to learn an activity that only guys do’’), and 8 intergroup bias items (e.g., ‘‘Girls are more lazy than guys’’). Participants were asked to respond on a 7-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7), and Cronbach’s alphas indicated acceptable reliability forthe subscales(atypicality = .82 acontentedness = .66, afelt pressure = .70, aintergroup = .86). The survey was slightly modified for developmental appropriateness; the original scale was designed for younger children rather than the college sample surveyed in the current study. For example, the word ‘‘boys’’ was changed to ‘‘guys’’ throughout the scale. Interest in Sex-Typed Careers Participants were also asked how interested they were in masculine and feminine-stereotyped careers using the Occupations, Activities, and Traits-Personal Measure Short Form (OAT-PM) (Liben & Bigler, 2002). The OAT-PM lists 25 occupations: 10 masculine (e.g., airplane pilot), 10 feminine (e.g., elementary school teacher), and 5 neutral (e.g., artist) and asked participants how much they would like to perform each job on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Separate summary scores for interest in masculine jobs and feminine jobs were created by averaging responses to these subscales. Cronbach’s alphas indicated a high level of reliability for both subscales (amasculine = .84, afeminine = .81). Career interest scores were ipsatized (i.e., subtracting individuals’ mean rating of all items from each item) to correct for an elevation response set, i.e., the tendency of people to report interest in many activities or in few activities (see Lippa, 1998; Zheng, Lippa, & Zheng, 2011).
Results Gender Differences A one-way MANOVA was conducted with gender as an independent variable and masculine and feminine traits and gender identity subscales as the dependent variables. Descriptive statistics for each dimension are shown in Table 1. As expected, young men scored higher on self-report scales of masculine traits than did women, F(1, 586) = 10.53, p = .001, although effect sizes indicated the difference was relatively small (d = .29). Women scored higher on self-report scales of feminine traits than did men, F(1, 586) = 46.37, p\.001, and effect sizes indicated a moderate difference (d = -.61).
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
497
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of primary study variables for female and male participants
Primary Analyses
Variable
Hypothesis 1
Women (n = 396) M
Men (n = 183) Effect size SD
M
SD
d
Sex-typed personality traitsa Masculine traits
4.91
.68
5.11
.70
.29
Feminine traits
5.05
.58
4.70
.58
-.61
4.84
1.10
4.92
1.09
-.07
.83
5.12*
.86
-1.05
Gender typicalitya
Gender contentednessa 4.23* Felt pressurea
2.63*
.81
3.00*
.68
-.50
Intergroup biasa
3.52
.79
4.17*
.75
-.84
Interest in careersb Masculine careers Feminine careers
-.15*
.28
.32*
.37
-.52
.02*
.32
-.48*
.28
1.67
* p\.001 a
Response options ranged from 1 to 7
b
Response options ranged from 1 to 4 and were then ipsitized (ipsatized range from -1.67 to 1.92)
For the gender identity subscales, there was no significant difference between men and women in their reports of gender typicality, F(1, 577)\1. As expected, men reported significantly higher mean scores for feeling content with their gender group than did women, F(1, 577) = 138.37, p\.001. Men also reported significantly more pressure to conform to their gender than women F(1, 577) = 28.72, p\.001. Contrary to previous research, young men had a significantly higher level of intergroup bias than young women, F(1, 577) = 85.37, p\.001. As expected, young men were more interested in masculine careers than were young women, F(1, 564) = 289.49, p\.001, and young women were significantly more interested in feminine careers than were young men, F(1, 564) = 345.34, p\.001.
We proposed that the more masculine traits young adults have the more interested they would be in masculine careers and the more feminine traits they have the less interested they would be in masculine careers. We predicted the reverse pattern would exist for their interest in feminine careers. We used hierarchical regression analyses to test Hypothesis 1. Interest in Masculine Careers In the first hierarchical regression, we tested young adults’ interest in masculine careers as the dependent variable. In the first step, we included the following predictor variables: gender, masculine traits, and feminine traits. In the second step, we included the interaction of gender by masculine traits and the interaction of gender by feminine traits. Including gender in the first step allowed us to see whether masculine traits and feminine traits related to young adults’ interest in masculine careers above and beyond the main effect of gender. Including the gender interaction terms in the second step allowed us to see whether the relations between sex-typed personality traits and interest in masculine careers differed for young men versus young women. All predictor variables were centered to reduce multicollinearity. As expected, young adults’ gender predicted their interest in masculine careers such that men reported more interest in masculine careers than women. Regression analyses confirmed a positive relation between young adults’ masculine traits and their interest in masculine careers, and a negative relation between young adults’ feminine traits and their interest in masculine careers (see Table 3). The gender interaction terms were not significant predictors of young adults’ interest in masculine careers. Interest in Feminine Careers
Intercorrelations of Key Variables Of the 28 intercorrelations of key variables, 7 were significant for men (range of r’s from .10 to -.70) and 10 were significant for women (range of r’s from -.15 to -.72) (see Table 2). Young adults’ masculine traits and feminine traits were not correlated, affirming the need for assessment of these traits as separate constructs (see Bem, 1974). As expected (see Egan & Perry, 2001), the gender identity dimensions were either unrelated or weakly related to one another (see Table 2). Masculine and feminine career interests are strongly and negatively correlated (see Table 2), which is not surprising given the rates of gender segregation present in occupations within the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a, 2011b).
The hierarchical regression analysis described above was repeated, this time with young adults’ interest in feminine careers as the dependent variable. As expected, young adults’ gender predicted their interest in feminine careers such that women reported more interest in feminine careers than men. Regression analyses confirmed a negative relation between young adults’ masculine traits and their interest in feminine careers (see Table 3). Contrary to expectations, feminine traits did not predict participants’ interest in feminine careers. However, the interaction of gender and feminine traits did positively predict interest in feminine careers. Follow-up regressions conducted separately for men and for women revealed that feminine traits positively predicted interest in feminine careers for women, but not for men.
123
498
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
Table 2 Summary of intercorrelations on the study variables as a function of gender Measure
1
1. Gender typicality
–
2. Gender contentedness
2 .31**
.35**
3. Felt pressure to conform
–
-.05
4. Intergroup bias
.10*
.20**
5. Masculinity
-.11*
6. Femininity
.23**
7. Interest in masculine careers
5
6
7
.01
.22**
.09
-.18*
.26**
-.14
.13
.04
- .15*
.10
- .06
.06
-.18*
-.09
-.04
-.01
.13
-.10
.09
-.07
.09
.10
.07
.10
.03 -.09
-.09
-.10
.07
.01
–
-.05
-.06
.07
-.09
.10
.03
-.06
.18**
8
.03
-.09 -.10
.30**
4
–
.12*
-.18
8. Interest in feminine careers
3
–
–
.11*
.02
.05
–
-.72**
-.70**
–
Note Intercorrelations for males (n = 185) are represented above the diagonal and the intercorrelations for females (n = 401) are represented below the diagonal * p\.05, ** p\.01
Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting interest in masculine and feminine occupations by gender and sex-typed personality traits Predictor
Masculine careers B
Gender
SE B
B
SE B
b
.25** .02
.61 -.07
-.07** .02
-.17
.03** .02
.05
Women
.10** .03
.18
Gender 9 feminine traits
.07*
.10
.05*
.02
-.07*
.02
-.54
Feminine careers
.09 -.04** .02
Masculine traits
-.22** .01
b
Women Feminine traits
-.11
.02
* p\.05, ** p\.001
Hypothesis 2 We hypothesized that the gender identity dimensions would be predictive of young adults’ interest in masculine and feminine careers. We tested the relative strength of all four gender identity dimensions (typicality, contentedness, felt pressure, and intergroup bias) as predictors of young adults’ interest in sex-typed careers, and whether the gender identity dimensions were equally predictive for young men versus young women. We conducted two hierarchical regression analyses: one with interest in feminine careers as a dependent variable and the second with interest in masculine careers as a dependent variable. In each hierarchical regression analysis, gender and the four gender identity dimensions were entered in the first step. The interaction of gender by each of the gender identity dimensions was entered in the second step. Including gender in the first step allowed us to see whether the gender identity dimensions related to young adults’ interest in sex-typed careers above and beyond the main effect of gender. Including the gender interaction terms in the second step allowed us to see whether the relations between the gender identity dimensions and interest in
123
sex-typed careers differed for young men versus young women. All predictor variables were centered to reduce multicollinearity. Interest in Masculine Careers The gender by gender typicality interaction significantly predicted interest in masculine careers (see Table 4). Follow-up regressions were conducted separately for men and women to investigate the interaction further. For both young men and young women, gender typicality was the only significant predictor of interest in masculine careers. As expected, gender typicality positively predicted interest in masculine careers for young men and negatively for young women. Interest in Feminine Careers The interaction of gender and gender typicality significantly predicted interest in feminine careers (see Table 4). Follow-up regressions conducted separately for men and women indicated the predictors of interest in feminine careers were different for men versus women. For young men, gender identity dimensions were not significant predictors of interest in feminine careers. For young women, the more gender typical they were and (to a lesser extent) the more they felt pressure to conform to their gender group, the higher their interests were in feminine careers. Hypothesis 3 We hypothesizedthat theinteraction ofyoungadults’sex-typed personality traits and their gender typicality would predict their interest in sex-typed careers above and beyond the main effects of these variables, and that gender differences may exist for these relations. Thus, a hierarchical regression was conducted testing the three-way interaction of gender by masculine traits by gender typicality as a predictor of interest in masculine careers, and then the hierarchical regression was repeated with
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
499
Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting participants’ interest in masculine and feminine occupations by gender identity dimensions— overall and separate by gender Predictor
Masculine careers B
Feminine careers SE B
b
B
SE B
b
Step 1 Gender
-.23**
.02
-.59**
Typicality Men
-.01 .08**
.01 .03
-.02 .23**
Women
-.04*
.01
-.17*
-.01
.02
.01
.03
-.01 -.02
Men Women
Contentedness Men Women Felt pressure
Intergroup bias Men Women
.27** .04 -.03
.02 .01 .02
.66** .12 -.13
.08**
.02
-.01
.02
.02
.04
.02
-.01
.03
-.02
.02
-.03
.03
.02
.07
.02
-.04
.03
.02
.05
-.03
.04
-.05
-.01
.03
-.01
-.02
.02
-.05
.04*
.02
.27**
.10*
.01
.02
.01
.02
.02
.04
.04
.04
.08
-.02
.03
.06
-.01
.02
-.03
.04
.02
.09
-.23**
.02
-.56**
.26**
.02
.62**
.02
.01
.05
.02
.01
.06
.01 -.02
.02 -.02
-.01 -.01
.01 .02
.02 .02
.03 .04
Step 2 Gender Typicality Contentedness Felt pressure Intergroup bias
.01
.02
.03
.01
.02
.02
Gender 9 typicality
-.06**
.01
-.18**
.06**
.01
.03**
Gender 9 contentedness
-.01
-.02
-.02
.02
.02
.03
.01
.02
.01
.02
.02
.04
-.03
.02
-.05
.03
.02
.06
Gender 9 felt pressure Gender 9 intergroup bias Note All predictors were centered.
R2change overall masculine jobs
¼ :04, (p = .001);
R2change overall feminine jobs
= .03, (p = .001)
* p\.05, ** p\.01
interest in feminine careers as the dependent variable (Table 5). Next, a hierarchical regression testing the three-way interaction of gender by feminine traits by gender typicality as a predictor of interest in masculine careers was conducted, and then it was repeated with interest in masculine careers as the dependent variable (Table 6). Tables 5 and 6 show results for each hierarchical regression and more information is provided below about the hierarchical regression that indicated a significant masculine trait by gender typicality interaction. Interaction of Gender by Masculine Traits by Gender Typicality Predicting Interest in Masculine Careers A hierarchical regression was conducted with the centered predictor variables of gender, gender typicality, and masculine traits in the first step. In the second step, the two way interactions of each of the predictor variables were entered (gender 9 gender typicality, gender 9 masculine traits, and gender typicality 9 masculine traits). In the third step, the three way interaction
(gender 9 masculine traits 9 gender typicality) was included (see Table 5). The main effects of gender, masculine traits, and gender typicality were significant. The two-way interactions between gender and gender typicality as well as between masculine traits and gender typicality were found to be significant (not gender 9 masculine traits). Thus, follow-up regression analyses were then conducted separately for young men and young women to identify any gender differences in the relations between the variables. The three-way interaction was not significant (gender 9 masculine traits 9 gender typicality). For young men, the main effect of gender typicality was significant, but the main effect of masculine traits was not. The interaction of gender typicality and masculine traits significantly predicted interest in masculine careers, whereby the less masculine and the less gender typical the young men were, the lower their interest was in masculine careers and vice versa. Similar to the findings for young men, young women’s gender typicality was found to predict interest in masculine careers (albeit negatively) and masculine traits did not predict interest in masculine careers. However, the interaction of
123
500
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
Table 5 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting participants’ interest in masculine and feminine occupations by centered masculinity, centered gender typicality, masculinity 9 gender typicality, and gender 9 masculinity 9 typicality—overall and separate by gender Predictors
Masculine careers B
Feminine careers b
SE B
B
SE B
b
Step 1 Gender Masculinity Men Women Typicality Men Women
-.23
.01
-.57**
.25
.01
.04 .05
.02 .04
.08* .10
-.05 -.01
.02 .03
-.08* -.02
.03
.02
.07
-.06
.02
-.12*
-.01
.00
.01
.08
.02
.25*
-.04
.01
-.18**
-.23
.01
-.57**
.04
.02
.08*
.61**
.05
.01
.13*
-.04
.02
-.15*
.08
.01
.29**
Step 2 Gender Masculinity
.25
.01
-.03
.02
.61** -.06
Men
.06
.04
.12
-.01
.03
-.03
Women
.03
.02
.07
-.06
.02
-.12*
Typicality
.02
.01
.07
.02
.01
.06
.09
.02
.27**
-.04
.02
-.16*
-.04
.01
-.17**
.08
.01
.29**
Gender 9 typicality
-.06
.01
-.19**
.06
.01
.17**
Masculinity 9 typicality Men
-.04 -.09
.02 .04
-.07* -.16*
.01 .04
.02 .03
.02 .09
Men Women
Women Gender 9 masculinity
-.02
.02
-.04
-.00
.02
.00
-.02
.02
-.03
-.02
.02
-.04
-.23
.01
-.57**
.04
.02
.08*
Step 3 Gender Masculinity Typicality
.25
.01
-.03
.02
.61** -.06
.03
.01
.07*
.02
.01
.06
Gender 9 typicality
-.07
.01
-.20**
.06
.01
.18**
Masculinity 9 typicality
-.05
.02
-.10*
.02
.02
.03
Gender 9 masculinity
-.02
.02
-.03
-.02
.02
-.04
.04
.02
.07
-.02
.02
-.03
Gender 9 masculinity 9 typicality Note All predictors were centered. Step 2: * p\.05, ** p\.01
R2change masculine jobs = .03
(p = .001). Step 2:
gender typicality 9 masculine traits did not significantly predict young women’s interest in masculine careers.
Discussion The current study investigated sex-typed personality traits and gender identity dimensions as salient predictors of young adults’ sex-typed career interests above and beyond the effects of gender. The results indicated that both constructs were important predictors of young adults’ career interests, but in varying degrees and differentially for men and women. Young men’s sex-typed personality traits and gender typicality were predictive of their masculine career interests, even more so when the interaction
123
R2change feminine jobs
= .03 (p = .001)
of their masculine traits with their gender typicality was considered. When gender typicality and sex-typed personality traits were considered simultaneously, gender typicality was the only significant predictor of young men’s feminine career interests. For young women, sex-typed personality traits and gender typicality were predictive of their sex-typed career interests. The level of pressure that they felt to conform to their gender also positively predicted their interest in feminine careers. The combination of sex-typed personality traits and gender typicality did not predict young women’s career interests more than when these variables were considered as main effects. The following discusses the preliminary and primary findings in greater depth. Preliminary analyses confirmed that the gender trends found in previous research (e.g., Bem, 1974; Egan & Perry,
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
501
Table 6 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting participants’ interest in masculine and feminine occupations by centered femininity, centered gender typicality, femininity 9 gender typicality, and gender 9 femininity 9 typicality—overall and separate by gender Predictors
Masculine careers
Feminine careers b
B
SE B
b
B
SE B
Gender
-.22
.01
-.55**
.25
.01
Femininity Men
-.07 -.01
.02 .05
-.12* -.02
.05 -.05
.02 .04
.08* -.11
Women
-.07
.03
-.15*
.07
.03
.12*
Step 1
Typicality
.00
.01
.00
.09
.03
.25**
-.04
.01
-.15*
Gender
-.23
.02
-.57**
.25
.01
.62**
Femininity
-.04
.02
-.06
.00
.02
.01 -.11
Men Women
.05
.01
-.04
.02
.08
.01
.60**
.13** -.17* .27**
Step 2
Men
-.01
.05
-.02
-.05
.04
Women
-.07
.03
-.14*
.07
.03
.03
.01
.07*
.02
.01
.05
.09
.03
.27**
-.04
.02
-.16*
-.04
.01
-.16*
.08
.01
-.07
.01
-.19**
.06
.01
.17**
.02 .03
.02 .04
.04 .05
.01 .01
.02 .03
.02 .02
Typicality Men Women Gender 9 typicality Femininity 9 typicality Men Women
.13*
.27**
.02
.02
.05
.01
.02
.02
-.03
.02
-.04
.06
.02
.09*
Gender
-.23
.01
-.57**
.25
.01
.62**
Femininity
-.04
.02
-.06
.01
.01
.01 .05
Gender 9 femininity Step 3
Typicality Gender 9 typicality Femininity 9 typicality Gender 9 femininity Gender 9 femininity 9 typicality Note All predictors were centered. Step 2: * p\.05, ** p\.01
.03
.01
.07
.02
.01
-.07
.01
-.19**
.06
.01
.17**
.02
.02
.04
.01
.02
.02
-.03
.02
-.04
.06
.02
.10*
.00
.02
.00
.00
.02
.00
R2change masculine jobs = .03
(p = .001). Step 2:
2001) exist in young adults’ sex-typed personality traits and gender identities, with two exceptions. Gender differences were not found in rates of gender typicality and young men had higher intergroup bias than young women. Gender identity dimensions have predominantly been investigated with preadolescents; thus, developmental research is needed to determine whether inconsistencies between previous research and current findings were age-related. Further, these results confirmed the importance of investigating the multiple dimensions of genderidentityindividuallyand consideringthepossibility ofgender differences. We found support for our first hypothesis that masculine and feminine traits would be predictive of sex-typed career interests. Specifically, the more masculine traits young adults had,
R2change feminine jobs = .03
(p = .001)
the more interested they were in masculine careers and the less interested they were in feminine careers. Additionally, the more feminine traits young adults had, the less interested they were in masculine careers. Feminine traits were only found to predict interest in feminine careers for young women. Previous research on the predictive nature of sex-typed personality traits and career-related variables has been mixed. Some studies indicated masculine traits predicted masculine career-related variables for men (Leaper & Van, 2008; Tokar & Jome, 1998) and another study (Abele, 2003) found masculine but not feminine traits predicted career success for men and women. Our findings indicated young adults’ masculine and feminine traits were predictive of their career interests and more consistently for young women than young men.
123
502
We also found support for our second hypothesis, that gender identity would be predictive of young adults’ interest in sex-typed careers. The current study extended the investigation of gender identity by confirming its importance in predicting young women’s career interests, in addition to young men’s. Overall, regardless of their gender, the more individuals felt they were typical of their gender group the more interested they were in traditional careers and the less interested they were in non-traditional careers. Although gender typicality was found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of students’ career interests, for young women felt pressure to conform was also predictive of their interest in traditional careers. Specifically, the more women felt pressure to conform to traditional gender roles, the more likely they were to express interests in traditional careers. Although boys report higher rates of pressure to conform and higher levels of sex typing (Huston, 1983; Ruble & Martin, 1998), research on children indicates girls internalize the pressure that they feel at higher rates than boys, displaying poorer psychosocial adjustment as a result of felt pressure (Egan & Perry, 2001). It may be that the higher rate of internalization makes felt pressure to conform a more salient part of young women’s gender schemas than young men’s. It is interesting that the inverse relation was not found between felt pressure and interest in masculine careers. That is, results do not indicate that girls who felt low levels of pressure to conform to their gender group expressed higher interest in nontraditional careers. When considered separately, sex-typed personality traits and gender identity dimensions were predictive of young adults’ sex-typed career interests. Albeit a relatively small addition to the variance explained, the gender interactions investigated in this study significantly contribute to the understanding of predictors of sex-typed career interests. Similar to previous research (Leaper & Van, 2008), our results indicated that when considered together, the more masculine traits men had and the more gender typical men were, the more they reported interest in traditional careers (above and beyond the main effects of these variables). Gender schema theorists have empirically shown that the more gender schematic individuals are, the more sex-typed they are (see Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Thus,it maybethatthe combination of young men being gender typical and having masculine traits indicates a higher rate of gender schematicity, thus leading to more sex-typed career interests. Future research is necessary to better understand the processes underlying these interactions. It is interesting that when gender typicality and masculine traits were analyzed simultaneously as predictors of masculine career interests, the main effect of masculine traits was not significant. Further, gender typicality was the only factor found to predict young men’s interest in feminine careers (not masculine traits, feminine traits, nor the interaction of gender typicality by either sextyped trait). Perhaps less gender schematic men may be willing to express less interest in masculine careers, but the strength of
123
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
career stereotypes bars even these men from expressing crossstereotyped interests. For women, the interaction of gender typicality and sex typed traits was not predictive of masculine or feminine career interests above the main effects of these variables. It may be more acceptable for women to be less gender schematic, so the interaction of highly feminine and highly typical is less likely and less predictive for women’s sex-typed career interests. The main effects of masculinity, femininity, gender typicality and felt pressure were more consistently predictive of young women’s sex-typed career interests than of young men’s interests. Cognitive theories such as gender schema theory and the goal congruity perspective (see Diekman et al., 2011; Martin & Dinella, 2012) highlight the importance of congruence between individuals’ gender schemas and values and their interests and behaviors. Just as children use gender labels to guide them in finding congruence between their gender schemas and their interests in novel toys and careers (Martin et al., 1995; Weisgram & Bigler, 2006), it is possible that gender stereotypes of careers guide young adults’ efforts to find congruity between what is deemed typical for their gender group and their careers interests. Further, for young women, the more pressure that they feel to conform to their gender, the more they respond to congruency. Thus, when investigating young women’s gender schemas as predictors of their interests, researchers should consider the salient constructs of gender typicality and felt pressure to act in congruence with their gender. Whereas sex-typed personality traits predicted young women’s sex-typed career interests, they played a less prominent role for young men. However, they may contribute to individuals’ gender schematicity, which may in turn lead to sex-typed career interests. Implications and Future Directions Masculine careers are often high in salary and prestige (American Association of University Women Education Foundation, 2003), so it is notable that young women who are typical of their gender group are reporting less interest in masculine careers and more interest in feminine careers. Are these young women experiencinga truncationofoccupational opportunitiesandtheadvantages associated with masculine careers? In children, gender typicality is a positive predictor of psychosocial adjustment (Egan & Perry, 2001) and research on role congruity theory indicates that individuals who are aligned with their group’s typical social roles are positively reinforced by others (Diekman & Eagly, 2008; Eagly & Karau, 2002). An unfortunate side effect of women being gender typical may be that the career interests deemedas‘‘forthem’’maybelowerinsalaryandprestige.Concern aboutthisimplicationisdeepenedwhenweconsiderthatthemore pressure young women felt to conform to female gender roles, the more likely they were to report interest in feminine careers. The current study benefited from the large sample size of young adults from three diverse regions of the United States,
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504
increasing the generalizability of findings to American college students. Unfortunately, with little ethnic diversity in the sample generalizability to individuals of color and diverse ethnicities was precluded. Also, the modest variance explained by the included factors indicates other predictors of young adults’ career interests should be investigated. Finally, because of the correlational nature of the study, the order and direction of the relations found could not be teased apart (e.g., it could be that young women’s interest in masculine careers may be a contributing factor to their gender atypicality); thus, experimental and longitudinal research is needed. Much vocational research has highlighted the importance of gender constructs (Gottfredson, 1981; Holland, 1959; Super, 1953) in predicting the vocational interests of youths, while others have focused on the influences of biology (Bletz, Swanson, & Berenbaum, 2011) or the family (Fulcher, 2011). The current research is among the first to have indicated that gender identity and sex-typed personality traits were also important influences. These same gender constructs may lead young men and young women down different career paths, oftentimes resulting in different opportunities for financial independence and advancement (American Association of University Women Education Foundation, 2003; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Lips, 2003). These results can inform gender and vocational scholars interested in understanding the factors related to gender segregation of careers. Acknowledgments This study was funded, in part, by Monmouth University’s Grant in Aid of Creativity and by the Lenfest Grant. The authors would like to thank Ryan Laswell, Sara Rae, Lauren Kaniewski, and Amanda Grunwald of UWSP, and Deanna Stango, Brittney Austin, Erin Barrett, Jenna DeLozier, Lina Jaramillo, and Maria Mereos of MU for their assistance with data collection and entry and bibliographic assistance.
References Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and femininecommunal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (2003). Women at work. Washington, DC: Author. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Betz, N. E. (1995). Gender-related individual differences variables: New concepts, methods, and findings. In D. J. Lubinski & R. V. Dawis (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 119–143). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bletz, A. M., Swanson, J. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2011). Gendered occupational interests: Prenatal androgen effects on psychological orientation to Things versus People. Hormones and Behavior, 60, 313–317. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011a). Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf.
503 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011b). Women in the labor force: A databook (2010 edition). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/ wlf-intro-2010.htm. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. Diekman, A., Clark, E., Johnston, A., Brown, E., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). On men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463. Fulcher, M. (2011). Individual differences in children’s occupational aspirations as a function of parental traditionality. Sex Roles, 64, 117–131. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35–45. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational possibilities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 387–467). New York: Wiley. Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, and perceived gender typicality in relation to young men’s academic motivation and choices in college. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 139–153. Lemkau, J. P. (1984). Men in female-dominated professions: Distinguishing personality and background features. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 110–122. Lenton, A. P., Blair, I. V., & Hastie, R. (2001). Illusions of gender: Stereotypes evoke false memories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 3–14. Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluation constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, vii–147. Lippa, R. A. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the peoplethings dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lips, H. M. (2003). The gender pay gap: Concrete indicator of women’s progress toward equality. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 87–109. Mahalik, J. R., Perry, J. C., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Catraio, C., & Land, L. N. (2006). Examining conformity to masculinity norms as a function of RIASEC vocational interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 203–213. Martin, C. L., & Dinella, L. M. (2002). Children’s gender cognitions, the social environment, and sex differences in cognitive domains. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Advances in applied
123
504 developmental psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 207–239). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Martin, C. L., & Dinella, L. M. (2012). Congruence between gender stereotypes and activity preference in self-identified tomboys and non-tomboys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 599–610. Martin, C. L., Eisenbud, L., & Rose, H. (1995). Children’s gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development, 66, 1453–1471. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 54, 1119–1134. Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933. Metzler-Brennan, E., Lewis, R. J., & Gerrard, M. (1985). Childhood antecedents of adult women’s masculinity, femininity, and career role choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 371–382. National Academy of Sciences. (2006). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741. html. Patterson, M. (2012). Self-perceived gender typicality, gender-typed attributes, and gender stereotype endorsement in school-aged children. Sex Roles, 67, 422–434. Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 61–74. Rand, L. (1968). Masculinity or femininity? Differentiating careeroriented and homemaking-oriented college freshmen women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 444–450. Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenburg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 933–1016). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
123
Arch Sex Behav (2014) 43:493–504 Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child development (pp. 858–932). New York: Wiley. Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L. J., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F. K., Lurye, L. E., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child Development, 78, 1121–1136. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635. Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8, 185–190. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space, approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (pp. 167–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tokar, D. M., & Jome, L. M. (1998). Masculinity, career choices, and vocational traditionality: Evidence for a fully mediated model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 424–435 Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326–348. Weisgram, E. S., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81, 778–796. Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles., 65, 243–258. Zheng, L., Lippa, R. A., & Zheng, Y. (2011). Sex and sexual orientation differences in personality in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 533–541.
