Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: a Synthesis and Critique of the Literature. EPOISAMC! National Inst
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCOMINT RISUBX ED 175 97 SO 012 106 AUTROR Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina TITLE Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: A Synthesis and Critique of the Literature. EPOISAMC! National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Oct 79 CONTRACT DIE-C-74-0139 NOTE 160p. EDRS PRICE otC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Access to Education; Achievesent: Changing Attitudes: Develope4 Nations; Developing Nations: Elesentary Secondary Education: Equal Education; *Females: Higher Education; Bales; occupational Aspiration: Occupdtional Nobility; Parent Influence: Role Perception: *Sex Discrimination: Sex Role: *Sex Stereotypes; *Socialization ABSTRACT This report presents a synthesis and critique of approximately 850 books, research studies, and journal articles appearing between 1960 and 1978 on sex role socializationand sex discrimination. It also offers a number of hypotheses regarding the mergence, maintenance, and elimination of sexdiscrimination. This docusent is presented in six parts. Part I focuses on sexrole socialization, with particular esphasis on sex typing ofbehaviors, vosen's achievesent and motivation, and wosenfseducational and vocational choices. Part II discusses cross-cultural patterns of sex role socialization.in selected developed and developingnations 4ncluding Greece, Sweden, England, The United States and Tunisia. Part II/ xamines occupational and educational sexdiscrimination, with particular emphasis an race and sex discriminationagainst black woman. Parts IV and V survey theory and researchrelated to sex discrimination and sex stratification systems. The final part assesses changes in ilex role stereotypea andidentifies incongruities in menes and moments perceptions about values held by theopposite sex. Information is presentedin essay form, with authors and dates of relevant research identified in parentheses after eachsolar topic. A section of references concludes the document. (Author/DB) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by BEMS are the best that can be made fros the original docusent. *********************************************************************** No I I N. Lrt N-Sex Role Socialization and Sex Discrimination: C3 A Synthesis and Critique of the Literature Constantin Sedios-Rothschild U S. DEPARTMENT°, HEALTH. EDUCATION A NIELP ARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT MAS SEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM ime PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS SfATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRE- SENTOFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EOUCAT1ON POSITION OK root., US. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Pcarkia Roberu Harris, Secretary Mary F. lieny, Assistant Secrete*? fir Education National Institute of Education Michael Timm, Acting Director rsc October 1979 ThIscroject wu conducted for the National Innitute of Education,HEW, under contract number NIE-C-74- 0132. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarilyreflect N1E position or policy, and no official eadoesetnent by the National Institute of Education orthe U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be inferred. ii '5 NOTE TO READER This publication is the final report from a study that the Women% Research Program of the National Institute of Education funded in 1974. The study had two phases, the first of which was the synthesis and oritique of literature on sex role socialization and sex discrimination in education.The synthesis and critique was conducted in 1974-75 end selectively updated in 1978; it covers literature appearing between 1950 and 1978. The seoand phue of the study consisted of the development oftheoretical model that could explain the emergence, maintenance, and elimination of sex discrimination for both developed and developing countries. The theceetical model will appear as a monograph sometime in 1990.Aeaders interested in receiving that monograph should contact ( mnstantina Safillos-Rothsehild, 8-113 Henderson Human Develop- ment Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 18802. Other NIS publications on sex roles and sex role socialization include an extensive bibliography which was prepared by Dr. Safilios-Rothschild as part of her study, and a volume containing reports of six smaller scale research studies sponsored by the Women% Researel Program. For ordering information on these two documents, please write to the Social Processes/Women% Research Team, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC 20208. Susan Chipman Assistant Direotor for Learning and Development National Institute of Education CONTENTS eme Note to Reader lii PART L SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION 1 1.Sex Role Sociallution sad the Sex Typing of Behaviors 3 2.Samo-Sax and Crose-Ses Influences on Sex Role Socialization 21 3. Woment Achievement and Achievement Motivation 27 4.Women's Educational and Vocational Choleu 43 PART IL CROSS-CULTURAL PATTERNS OF SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATION 55 5. Sax Role Socialization Patterns in Selected Societies 57 PART III. SEX DISCRIMINATION 63 6.Sex Discrimination in Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education 85 7.Occupational Su Discrimination 85 S. The Cam of Black Women. Race and Sex Discrimination 91 PART IV. SEX DISCRIMINATION: THEORY AND RESEARCH 95 9.Sex Discriminatiom Thory and Research 97 PART V. SEX STUATIFICATION 113 10. Sex and Other Stratification Systems 115 PART VI. SEX ROLE STEREOTYPES DIE HARD 123 11. Sex Role Stereotypes. Are They Changing and How Much? 125 REFERENCES 131 Part 1. Sex Role Socialization I. SEX ROLE SOCIALIZATIONAND THE SEX TYPING OF BEHAVIORS Mnjor Theoretical Approaches to Sea account for variations in growth and development Role Development within sex groups. The three major theoretical approaches to Cognitive development theory as it applies sex role development throughout the life cycle to the development of sex identity has been traditionally have been psychoanalysis, cognitive fostered primarily by Kohlberg (1966). Kohlberg's development, and social leamieg. The psychoana- orientatIon, which is based heavily on the work of lytic approach is moat commonly associated with Piggott inccrporates two of Piaget's basic prin- Freuers biological deterministic interpretation of ciple& (1) that children tmdergo gracitic, sequen- sex roledevelopment. H. believed that the tial stages of cognitive development in which they intimation of drive impulses and kientification master principles shout phenomena that remain promises resulted in the development of sax- constant throughout their lives (e.g., the conser- appropriate behavkwe as malef end females pro- vation of matter) and (2) that children cannot be gramed through childhood.According to Fire- taught a given principle with any degree of stone (1970), Freud's perspectivereflects permanence before they reach * particular stage Noenturies of increasing privatisation of family of maturational development. Once children life, its extreme subjugation of women, and the reach a certain stage of development, the ;tin- sex repressions and subsequent neurosesthis ciple becomes imprinted in their minds.This causer(p.61). Althoughpsychoanalytic procem Is oonsidened to be irreversible. approaches have not fostered a great deal of roman*, distinctions bend on Mo- In applying Pinot% prinolpiss to the devel- 4 -or gander ooncepte continue to exert a opment of sex identity, Kohlberg argues that influence on ideas aboutsex difference& children reach a stage of cognitive development Strict biological determinism should no longer be around age 7 that enables them to aocurately an issue because of concrete evidence as to the label themselves as one sex or the other based on existence, both across cultures and within any bodily images; this labeling is irreversible. Having given culture, of "crossing-over* behavioral dis- made their decision, children then actively struc- positions of sex-typed traits by biologically "pure" ture their experiences and seek out behaviors that males and female& Unfortunately, the idea that they parody, as au appropriate, based on the *anatomy is destinr.stiii influenoes the scientific culturalimages prosented. Although some community in regard to sex roledevelopment empirical support exists for this approach, the issues, especially sex differences in early infancy "realmpereeptioosofesperimente1subject' regarding sex-eppropriate behevior cannot be (Kagan, 1972). manipulated without influeneing the choice of these behaviors in overt actions.Assumptions Doing sway with biological determinism about the sex appropriateness of behavior are does not eliminate bioloa as a potential inflames easier to make in societies that are highlydiffer- on the development of tim individual, including entiated with regard to sex role norms and stereo- thedevelopmentof somegender-related tymm. Butbecauseofvariations between cherecteristice.Kildilareil in bioloa and in the different groups within a society in how they Ada aloinellti has yielded mon valid data when maintainstrictsex-differentiatedrolesand the iimphasis is on the intricate nature at inter- corms, the leap from perception tobehavior has Rationsbetweelthebiological-physiological serious empirical restrictions.When sex role factors and sociuoyenoiogleal factors that lead to :gems begin to loosen up and merge,the intim- sex typing and sex roie developmentsAlthough there is a tendsocy to view the bass as deb,- tomous, a greet deal of variation in biological teeters exists within sex groups.PartioubuV in 1An earlier draft of this chapter was written