Psychological Science 21(8) 1051 –1057 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797610377342 http://pss.sagepub.com

Psychological Science 21(8) 1051 –1057 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797610377342 http://pss.sagepub.com

Women remain a minority in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), both in the United States (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009) and internationally (National Science Board, 2002). Women’s absence from STEM is particularly puzzling, given their increased presence in other traditionally male-dominated fields, such as medicine or law. We present a new perspective on this issue by propos- ing that interest in some careers and disinterest in others results from the intersection of people’s goals and their preconcep- tions of the goals afforded by different careers. We hypothe- size that people perceive STEM careers as being especially incompatible with communion, or an orientation to care about other people (Bakan, 1966). Because women in particular tend to endorse communal goals, they may be more likely than men to opt out of STEM careers in favor of careers that seem to afford communion.

Several critical factors contribute to women’s underrepre- sentation in STEM, including gender differences in self-efficacy, differential encouragement to pursue careers in science and mathematics, and cultural stereotypes (e.g., for reviews, see Ceci & Williams, 2007; Halpern et al., 2007; Spelke, 2005). However, an examination of career trends in the United States

between 1959 and 2007 (see Table 1) reveals that the nearly exclusive focus on agentic explanations, such as those based on competence or achievement, is incomplete. Women have increased their presence at the highest levels of a range of fields, but their gains in male-stereotypic, non-STEM fields surpass their gains in STEM fields (Snyder et al., 2009). For example, women earn approximately 20% to 30% of the highest degrees in STEM, whereas they approach equality with men in non-STEM fields such as medicine, business, and law. Women’s substantial gains in these latter fields have occurred even though medicine requires a scientific background, and these careers were all at one time almost exclusively male dominated.

These trends suggest that to explain women’s absence in STEM fields, research should focus on factors that differenti- ate careers in STEM from other careers. We hypothesize that a critical but relatively unexplored factor may be that many non- STEM careers are perceived as fulfilling communal goals,

Corresponding Author: Amanda B. Diekman, Department of Psychology, Miami University, 90 N. Patterson, Oxford, OH 45056 E-mail: diekmaa@muohio.edu

Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers

Amanda B. Diekman, Elizabeth R. Brown, Amanda M. Johnston, and Emily K. Clark Miami University

Abstract Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women’s career decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics. Understanding how communal goals influence people’s interest in STEM fields thus provides a new perspective on the issue of women’s representation in STEM careers.

Keywords

gender, goals, occupational choice, science education, sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics

Received 10/2/09; Revision accepted 1/8/10

Research Report

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
1052 Diekman et al.

such as working with or helping other people. In contrast, STEM careers may elicit thoughts of the “lone scientist” or technology and machinery. This “communion gap” may par- ticularly influence women’s STEM decisions, because women tend to endorse communal goals more than men.

A Role Congruity Perspective We posit that social roles are critical to understanding people’s reasons for pursuing STEM careers. First, broader gender roles in a society influence the goals of individuals in that society (Diekman & Eagly, 2008). For example, men have tra- ditionally occupied leadership or breadwinner roles associated with a focus on agency, or self-orientation, whereas women have traditionally fulfilled caretaking roles associated with communion, or other-orientation (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Women are increasingly adopting agentic attributes as they take on male-stereotypic roles (e.g., Twenge, 2001). Moreover, research suggests that, consistent with their contin- ued presence in female-stereotypic roles, women are main- taining high levels of communion: Meta-analyses find that women more often than men report tender-mindedness and warmth (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001), as well as benevolent and universalist values (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005).

Second, according to role congruity theory (Diekman & Eagly, 2008), specific social roles form an opportunity struc- ture that individuals navigate as they pursue their goals. Indi- viduals therefore select specific roles, such as occupational or family roles, that fulfill important goals. For example, a meta- analysis of job attribute preferences showed that the largest gender differences are women’s greater preference for helping

other people (d = −0.35) and working with people (d = −0.36; Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000). Women and more feminine individuals favor working with people over things, and this preference predicts differing vocational interests (Lippa, 1998). The greater the value that women place on people-oriented or society-oriented occupations, the greater their preference for health-related careers is, even controlling for their expectations of success in science (Eccles, 2007). Similarly, girls who per- ceive science to be consistent with altruism tend to show interest in scientific careers (Weisgram & Bigler, 2006).

Applying these role congruity principles (Diekman & Eagly, 2008), we argue that careers vary in the goals they are believed to afford. We propose that women’s communal goal orientation intersects with beliefs that STEM careers do not involve helping or working with other people, with the result that even scientifically talented women frequently choose other careers―ones they believe will allow them to fulfill their communal goals.

Overview In the research presented in this article, we adopted a novel perspective to explain women’s avoidance of STEM careers, because research and policy generally focus on how to align women and girls more closely with men and boys, primarily by increasing the self-efficacy or the experience of women in mathematics and science. However, a critical piece of the career-choice puzzle is that STEM careers may be perceived to be incompatible with communion. If women value communal goals, they may therefore avoid STEM careers. We thus exam- ined (a) whether communal-goal affordances are perceived to differ between STEM and other careers, and (b) whether communal-goal endorsement inhibits STEM interest, given consensual beliefs about the goals these careers afford.

Method Participants

Participants were 333 introductory psychology students (193 women, 140 men) who participated for partial course credit, and 27 paid participants (14 women, 13 men) from STEM classes. The majority (86.94%) were of European American descent. The median age was 19 years, and ages ranged from 18 years to 43 years.

Measures As part of a larger study, participants completed randomly ordered measures of goal endorsement, career interest, and self-efficacy. Participants then provided goal-affordance ratings and information about their mathematics and science experience.

Table 1. Temporal Trends in the Percentage of Female Terminal- Degree Holders in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Fields

Field 1959–1960 2006–2007

Non-STEM, male-stereotypic Dentistry 0.80% 44.56% Medicine 5.50% 49.22% Law 2.49% 47.62% Business 1.48% 41.45% STEM Engineering 0.38% 20.94% Mathematics, statistics 5.94% 29.76% Physical sciences and science

technologies 3.37% 31.55%

Computer science and informa- tion technologiesa

2.34% 20.56%

Note: Data were compiled from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009). aFor computer science and information technologies, the earlier time period is 1970–1971, the first year for which degree data are available.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
Congruity Between Goals and Roles 1053

Career items. Our goal was to determine predictors of dif- ferential interest in STEM, male-stereotypic/non-STEM (MST), and female-stereotypic (FST) careers. To create scales reflecting these different stereotypic categories, we used archi- val and primary data. We generated a pool of careers likely to be attractive to college participants, and we included male- dominated (> 65% men) and female-dominated (> 65% women) careers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). STEM careers were identified from the male-dominated group fol- lowing accepted definitions of STEM as natural-physical sci- ences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (e.g., Chen & Weko, 2009). Table 2 presents these core careers.

To ensure the stereotypicality of these groupings, we car- ried out a factor analysis (promax rotation) of participants’ estimated percentages of women in these core careers. The resulting scree plot revealed a three-factor solution, reflecting the a priori groups: STEM careers, FST careers, and MST careers. As shown in Table 2, each item loaded at least .30 on its respective factor. In the rare cases of double loadings, the higher loading was matched to the a priori grouping based on archival data (i.e., architect and physician as male-stereotypic, human resources manager as female-stereotypic). Addition- ally, two coders blind to hypotheses categorized careers with good interrater reliability (κ = .77).

Perceived goal affordance. For each core career, partici- pants rated how much they considered the career to fulfill agentic goals (power, achievement, and seeking new experi- ences or excitement; Pohlmann, 2001) and communal goals (intimacy, affiliation, and altruism; Pohlmann, 2001). Ratings were completed on 7-point scales, from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). We averaged ratings within each career type to produce agentic-goal-affordance scales (αSTEM = .79, αFST = .76, αMST = .72) and communal-goal-affordance scales (αSTEM = .80, αFST = .78, αMST = .53).

Career interest. Because career interest was our critical dependent measure, participants rated their interest in the core careers, as well as additional careers (selected from archival data as described in the Career Items section). Participants rated their interest in these careers on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). To construct interest scales using the core careers and the additional careers, we added a career if its interest rating correlated highly with interest in one of the three career types (STEM, FST, MST), based on the interest averaged over the core careers. The resulting interest scales thus included the items presented in Table 2 as well as the fol- lowing careers: for STEM, industrial engineer, chemical engi- neer, electrical engineer, and network and computer systems administrator; for MST, chief executive, surgeon, chiroprac- tor, and pediatrician; and for FST, elementary-school teacher, administrative assistant, therapist, and health-services advo- cate. Each scale showed high internal consistency (αSTEM = .92, αMST = .84, αFST = .80).

1

Goal endorsement. Participants rated several goals accord- ing to “how important each of the following kinds of goals is to you personally,” on scales ranging from 1 (not at all impor- tant) to 7 (extremely important). Indices of agentic-goal and communal-goal endorsements were created by averaging the results within each scale (see Table 3): After examining the scree plot, we chose a two-factor solution, with agentic goals loading on the first factor and communal goals on the second factor. All retained items loaded at least .30 on their respective factors (resulting in the dropping of one item, other-oriented). Agentic and communal goals were not significantly correlated across the sample, r(359) = .08, p = .15. For women, no rela- tionship appeared, r(206) = .04, p = .60, and for men, the rela- tionship approached conventional levels of significance, r(152) = .14, p = .08.

Self-efficacy and experience. Measures of self-efficacy included the scientific, mechanical, and computational sub- scales of the Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale (Lucas, Wanberg, & Zytowski, 1997), αs > .83, as well as participants’ estimated grades in STEM classes (α = .86). These scales were standardized and averaged to produce a single self-efficacy index (α = .86). Total enrollment in mathematics and science courses was

Table 2. Factor Analysis of Estimated Gender Representation in Selected Careers

Factor

Career grouping (a priori) STEM MST FST

STEM Mechanical engineer .73 –.02 –.05 Computer scientist .73 –.01 –.09 Aerospace engineer .77 .09 –.05 Environmental scientist .63 –.08 .24 MST Lawyer .22 .58 .06 Architect .36 .44 –.01 Dentist .26 .49 –.04 Physician –.37 .79 –.01 FST Preschool or kindergarten

teacher –.18 –.06 .73

Human resources manager .09 .28 .31 Social worker .05 .14 .68 Education administrator .14 .31 .47 Registered nurse –.00 –.16 .68

Note: A factor analysis of estimates of women in the core careers sup- ported their a priori grouping as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers; male-stereotypic/non-STEM (MST) careers; and female-stereotypic (FST) careers, as shown by the higher factor load- ing when each career’s a priori grouping matched the emergent factor (loadings in boldface type).

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
1054 Diekman et al.

obtained by summing the number of these courses participants had taken or were taking.

Results First, we examined whether people perceive STEM careers, ver- sus other careers, as uniquely inhibiting the attainment of com- munal goals, relative to agentic goals. Second, we examined whether communal-goal endorsement was differentially related to interest in STEM relative to other careers, based on these dis- parate perceptions. Third, we tested whether endorsement of communal goals mediated gender differences in STEM interest.

STEM careers are believed to impede communal goals Data were analyzed in a 2 (goal) × 3 (career type) × 2 (partici- pant gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with participant gender as a between-subjects factor. Main and lower-order effects were omitted from this summary for brevity, and the effect sizes for critical interactions were calculated in the gen- eralized eta-squared statistic (Bakeman, 2005).

The hypothesized Goal × Career Type interaction, F(2, 716) = 730.69, p < .0001, η2G = .31, is depicted in Figure 1. For communal goals, the simple effect of career type, F(2, 716) = 741.55, p < .0001, η2G = .53, reflected par- ticipants’ perceptions that STEM careers afford communion significantly less than MST careers, which in turn afford communion less than FST careers, all ps < .0001. For agen- tic goals, the simple effect of career type, F(2, 716) = 142.58, p < .0001, η2G = .14, reflected participants’ perceptions that FST careers afforded agency less than STEM careers, which in turn afforded less agency than MST careers, all ps < .0001.

To compare STEM and MST careers, we conducted a 2 (goal) × 2 (career type: STEM or MST) × 2 (gender) ANOVA with gender as a between-subjects factor. As reflected in the Goal × Career Type interaction, F(1, 358) = 131.77, p < .0001, η2G = .04, MST and STEM careers differed more on communal goals, F(1, 358) = 351.70, p < .0001, η2G = .25, than on agentic goals, F(1, 358) = 31.84, p < .0001, η2G = .02. In short, MST careers differ from STEM careers more in communion than in agency.

Communal-goal endorsement negatively predicts STEM interest Given these robust differences in perceived goal affordances, we examined whether communal-goal endorsement differen- tially predicted interest in specific careers. Communal-goal endorsement was expected to negatively predict interest in STEM careers (believed to impede communal-goal pursuit) but to positively predict interest in FST careers (believed to afford communal-goal pursuit). For agentic goals, we expected a different pattern, but one consistent with role congruity logic. In this case, we expected agentic-goal endorsement to positively predict interest in male-dominated careers (STEM and non-STEM) but to negatively predict interest in FST careers.

To explore these hypotheses, we regressed career interest on participant gender, communal- and agentic-goal endorse- ments, and all interactions (see Table 4). As predicted, for STEM careers, communal-goal endorsement significantly inhibited interest and agentic-goal endorsement facilitated interest. For MST careers, agentic-goal endorsement facili- tated interest but communal-goal endorsement had no effect. For FST careers, communal goals facilitated interest and agen- tic goals inhibited interest.2

Table 3. Resulting Goal-Endorsement Factors: Agentic and Communal Goals

Agentic goals (α = .87) Communal goals (α = .84)

Power Helping others Recognition Serving humanity Achievement Serving community Mastery Working with people Self-promotion Connection with others Independence Attending to others Individualism Caring for others Status Intimacy Focus on the self Spiritual rewards Success Financial rewards Self-direction Demonstrating skill or competence Competition

Note: A factor analysis of goal-endorsement items supported two distinct factors: agentic goals and communal goals. Cronbach’s alphas indicate high internal consistency within each scale.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

STEM

Li ke

lih oo

d of

G oa

l F ul

fil lm

en t

Career Type

Communal Goals Agentic Goals

Female- Stereotypic

Male- Stereotypic

Fig. 1. Participants’ mean ratings of the likelihood that communal and agentic goals would be fulfilled by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers; male-stereotypic careers; and female-stereotypic careers. Error bars reflect standard deviations.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
Congruity Between Goals and Roles 1055

We found that communal-goal endorsement differentially predicted interest across the three career types (see Fig. 2), which was consistent with our primary hypothesis. We statisti- cally compared these slopes by regressing discrepancies between interest in STEM and interest in other careers on gen- der, goals, and all interactions. In other words, we examined whether the divergent interest in STEM careers versus other careers was differentially related to communal-goal endorse- ment. Communal-goal endorsement predicted the discrep- ancy between STEM and FST careers, b = 0.85, p < .0001, β = 0.43, as well as the discrepancy between STEM and MST careers, b = 0.34, p < .001, β = 0.23.

Self-efficacy and experience We also tested whether communal-goal endorsement inhibited STEM interest even when controlling for mathematics-science experience and self-efficacy. We regressed STEM interest on gender, goal endorsements, and new variables reflecting past

and current enrollment in STEM courses and STEM self- efficacy. We found that self-efficacy significantly predicted interest, b = 0.83, p < .0001, β = 0.56, whereas course enroll- ment did not, b = 0.00, p = .57, β = 0.02.

We find it particularly important that communal-goal endorsement was significant, even when controlling for par- ticipants’ self-efficacy or experience: Communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted STEM interest, b = −0.19, p = .001, β = −0.13. In contrast, agentic-goal endorsement was reduced to nonsignificance, p = .16. Even though self- efficacy is a robust predictor of STEM interest, communal- goal endorsement predicts STEM interest above and beyond self-efficacy.

Communal goals mediate gender differences in STEM interest To investigate whether communal goals underlie gender dif- ferences in STEM interest, we conducted a series of path anal- yses (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). As shown in Figure 3, gender predicted communal-goal endorsement (women more than men endorsed communal goals), communal goals predicted STEM interest, and the relationship between gender and STEM interest decreased when controlling for communal- goal endorsement, Sobel Ζ = 2.08, p = .04.

In addition to this mediational model, we tested alternative models, and the pattern of results suggested that communal-goal endorsement uniquely underlies STEM interests. One alterna- tive tested whether agentic goals mediate the gender difference in STEM interest. This mediation failed because gender did not predict agentic goals, p = .34. Another model tested whether communal goals mediate the gender difference in interest in MST careers. This model failed because communal goals did not predict interest in MST careers, p = .24. The success of the communal-goals/STEM model, compared with these alterna- tives, suggests that communal-goal endorsement might uniquely explain women’s disinterest in pursuing STEM careers.

Table 4. Predicting Career Interest From Goal Endorsement

STEM careers (R2 = .17***)

Male-stereotypic careers

(R2 = .10***)

Female-stereotypic careers

(R2 = .21***)

Predictor b β b β b β

Gender 0.80*** 0.32 0.23† 0.10 –0.51*** –0.21 Communal goals –0.35*** –0.25 –0.01 –0.01 0.50*** 0.37 Agentic goals 0.18† 0.12 0.25* 0.17 –0.30** –0.22 Communal Goals × Gender 0.24† 0.11 0.13 0.06 –0.06 –0.03 Agentic Goals × Gender –0.01 –0.00 0.31* 0.14 0.15 0.07 Communal Goals × Agentic Goals –0.05 –0.03 –0.08 –0.06 0.13 0.09 Gender × Communal Goals × Agentic Goals –0.02 –0.01 0.28† 0.14 –0.18 –0.09

Note: STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

–1 SD +1 SD

C ar

ee r I

nt er

es t

Communal-Goal Endorsement

Female-Stereotypic Careers Male-Stereotypic Careers STEM Careers

Fig. 2. Interest in female-stereotypic, male-stereotypic, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers as a function of endorsement of communal goals.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
1056 Diekman et al.

General Discussion

Understanding communal motivations can provide unique information about why women opt out of STEM career paths. STEM careers are perceived as inhibiting communal goals: When individuals highly endorse communal goals, they are less interested in STEM. If women perceive STEM as antitheti- cal to highly valued goals, it is not surprising that even women talented in these areas might choose alternative career paths. Certainly, traditionally studied predictors of STEM interest, such as agentic motivations or self-efficacy, continue to be critical factors, as illustrated in our data. Our argument is not that the study of communal motivations should replace agentic motivations or self-efficacy, but that this traditional approach overlooks critically important information. Indeed, studying communal motives along with other variables is promising, because the current data illustrate that communal motives pro- vide a distinct explanation of STEM interest. Given the impor- tance of increasing participation in STEM, a range of approaches should be used to address the challenge. Even small effects of communal motivation could lead to women opting out of STEM careers, especially if such small effects accumu- late over time (e.g., Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996).

It is ironic that STEM fields hold the key to helping many people, but are commonly regarded as antithetical (or, at best, irrelevant) to such communal goals. However, the first step toward change is increasing knowledge about this belief and its consequences. Interventions could not only provide oppor- tunities for girls and young women to succeed in mathematics and science but also demonstrate how STEM fields involve helping and collaborating with other people. For example, our current research investigates how portraying science or engi- neering careers as more other-oriented fosters positivity. Indeed, science-related fields with the greatest influx of women are those that are most obviously involved in helping people, such as psychological science and the biomedical sci- ences (Snyder et al., 2009). Psychological science could play a desperately needed role in helping people understand why

STEM paths are chosen or, more often, not chosen (New- combe et al., 2009). If one barrier to the participation of women in particular is a perceived misalignment between STEM and communal goals, psychological science can help change this perception.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by Grant NSF-GSE/RES 0827606 to Amanda Diekman.

Notes

1. Analyses of interest in the core careers showed patterns similar to those reported in the Results section. MST interest moderately cor- related with STEM interest, r(359) = .43, and FST interest, r(359) = .33. STEM interest did not correlate with FST interest, r(359) = −.06. 2. Tentative evidence for gender-differentiated goal-interest relation- ships emerged. For STEM, the marginal Communal Goals × Gender interaction, p = .10, reflected a stronger inhibitory effect of communal- goal endorsement on STEM interest for women than for men. For MST careers, the Agentic Goals × Gender interaction, p = .05, reflected a stronger effect of agentic goals for men than for women; the Agentic Goals × Communal Goals × Gender interaction, p = .08, reflected a stronger interaction between agentic and communal goals for men than for women.

References

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psy- chology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.

Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chen, X., & Weko, T. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary educa- tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Costa, P.T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). Gender dif- ferences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surpris- ing findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

Diekman, A.B., & Eagly, A.H. (2008). Of men, women, and moti- vation: 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., Wood, W., & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H.M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J.S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S.J. Ceci &

Communal-Goal Endorsement

Gender STEM Interest Unmediated: 0.82 (0.34)*** Mediated: 0.76 (0.32)***

–0.25 (–0.14)** –0.24 (–0.18)***

Fig. 3. Results of a path analysis of endorsement of communal goals as a mediator of the relationship between gender and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. Unstandardized regression coefficients are given outside of parentheses, and standardized regression coefficients are given in parentheses. Asterisks indicate significance of relationships (**p < .01, ***p < .001). Participant gender was dummy- coded (1 = men, 0 = women).

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/
Congruity Between Goals and Roles 1057

W.M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C.P., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007). The science of sex differences in sci- ence and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51.

Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–265). New York: Oxford University Press.

Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E.J., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641.

Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the struc- ture of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009.

Lucas, J.L., Wanberg, C.R., & Zytowski, D.G. (1997). Development of a career task self-efficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 432–459.

Martell, R.F., Lane, D.M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.

National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indica- tors—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Newcombe, N.S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J.S., Gomez, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology’s role in mathematics and science education. American Psychologist, 64, 538–550.

Pohlmann, K. (2001). Agency- and communion-orientation in life goals: Impacts on goal pursuit strategies and psychological well- being. In P. Schmuck & K.M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 68–84). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Schwartz, S.H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priori- ties: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.

Snyder, T.D., Dillow, S.A., & Hoffman, C.M. (2009). Digest of edu- cation statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis- tics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Spelke, E.S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958.

Twenge, J.M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Women in the labor force: A data- book (2009 ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Weisgram, E.S., & Bigler, R.S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Jour- nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326–348.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The post Psychological Science 21(8) 1051 –1057 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797610377342 http://pss.sagepub.com appeared first on Versed Writers.

Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request

Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.