Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: Our papers are 100% human-written, not AI-generated.
We Write Essays for Students
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper
Get Help Now!
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
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.
