Gender, Interests, and Occupational Perceptions Cariann Marie Bergner Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2014 We can do it, but I wouldn't like it: Gender, interests, and occupational perceptions CariAnn Marie Bergner Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bergner, CariAnn Marie, "We can do it, but I wouldn't like it: Gender, interests, and occupational perceptions" (2014). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 13972. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13972 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. We can do it, but I wouldn’t like it: Gender, interests, and occupational perceptions by CariAnn Marie Bergner A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Psychology (Counseling Psychology) Program of Study Committee: Patrick Armstrong, Major Professor Lisa Larson David Vogel Max Guyll Frederick Lorenz Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2014 Copyright © CariAnn Marie Bergner, 2014. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF FIGURES iv ABSTRACT v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7 CHAPTER 3: METHOD 47 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 63 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 80 REFERENCES 100 APPENDIX A: Card Sort Occupational Descriptions 148 APPENDIX B: Bem Sex Role Inventory Items 151 APPENDIX C: Items from the ASI and the MSS 153 APPENDIX D: Items from the AFPD RIASEC Markers 155 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 157 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Examples of Employment by Sex in Traditionally Sex-Typed Occupations 118 Table 2. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Masculine BSRI Adjectives 119 by Condition. Table 3. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Feminine BSRI Adjectives 122 by Condition. Table 4. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Gender Neutral BSRI 125 Adjectives by Condition Table 5. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Masculine BSRI 128 Adjectives by Gender Table 6. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Feminine BSRI Adjectives 130 by Gender Table 7. Proportions and Pearson’s Chi-Square Results for Gender Neutral BSRI 132 Adjectives by Gender Table 8. Overall Proportions for Masculine BSRI Adjectives by RIASEC Type and 134 Property Vector Fitting Results Table 9. Overall Proportions for Feminine BSRI Adjectives by RIASEC Type and 135 Property Vector Fitting Results Table 10. Overall Proportions for Gender Neutral BSRI Adjectives by RIASEC Type 136 and Property Vector Fitting Results Table 11. BSRI Adjectives Assigned to RIASEC Types 137 Table 12. Means by Condition and Gender of Participants 138 Table 13. Standard Deviations by Condition and Gender of Participants 139 Table 14. Correlation Matrix 140 Table 15. MANCOVA Results for Masculinity and Femininity of RIASEC Types 143 Table 16. MANCOVA Results for Positive and Negative Ratings of RIASEC Types 144 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Holland Model 145 Figure 2. Property Vector Fitting Results 146 Figure 3. Number of Adjectives assigned to each RIASEC type by BSRI Scale 147 v ABSTRACT The present study sought to investigate whether individuals continue to view occupations as sex-typed and to examine the relationship between gender traits and perceptions of occupations. Participants assigned Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) adjectives to job descriptions representative of Holland’s six RIASEC types and also completed measures of vocational interests, gender identity, and attitudes toward women. Chi-square analyses were utilized to determine the extent to which participants assigned the BSRI adjectives to RIASEC types, while property vector fitting was used to examine whether the order predictions of the RIASEC model were met by the assignment of BSRI adjectives. Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance were utilized to evaluate gender differences and differences by condition in perceptions of the masculinity and femininity of RIASEC types and to examine the contributions of vocational interests, gender identity, and attitudes toward women in accounting for gender differences and differences by condition in perceptions of masculinity and femininity of RIASEC types. The results provided evidence that sex-typing of occupations continues to be prevalent. The findings also demonstrated that differences in perceptions of the RIASEC types were not consistent with the past literature on sex differences in interests of the RIASEC types. Implications for career counseling models and practice, limitations of the current study, and future directions are discussed. 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Career choices are viewed by many as some of the most important choices individuals make in their lives. Careers often represent a significant aspect of one’s identity. From an early age, children begin to hear the question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” and as adults, one of the first questions people ask one another is some variant of “What do you do for a living?” Despite political and social changes over time, women and men are still likely to answer these questions quite differently. Disparities in the types of careers chosen by women and men continue to persist. Although the reasons for this continued discrepancy are currently unclear, potential answers might emerge from an investigation of factors related to gender and the perceptions of occupations. The present study will explore the relationship between gender traits and vocational constructs in an attempt to investigate potential reasons for the discrepancy between men and women in the world of work. The history of women’s career development is certainly different than that of men in the world of work. Fitzgerald, Fassinger, and Betz (1995) emphasized that the role of family was the most significant factor in the differential expectations of men and women regarding careers. Traditionally, men were expected to work outside the home to provide financially for the family while women were expected to care for the family and home. Even when women began to enter the world of work outside the home, they were perceived and treated differently than men. Women who entered the world of work outside the home were overrepresented in service and clerical fields (Fitzgerald, Fassinger, & Betz, 1995). The jobs in which women were most likely to work were lower in pay, lower in prestige, and lacked the benefits available in male- dominated career fields (Lorber, 1994). The 1943 Guide to Hiring Women (Sanders) provides a striking example of attitudes toward women and work that were embraced in the past. This guide 2 provided tips for male supervisors of women regarding how to get efficient work out of female employees. For instance, “general experience indicates that ‘husky’ girls—those who are just a little on the heavy side—are likely to be more even-tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters” was a vital piece of advice for choosing the best female employee. In addition, the guide suggested, “…you have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and consequently is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day” (p. 244, 257). It is extremely unlikely that such statements about women and work would be acceptable today. Women in today’s society are likely to receive messages that encourage them to pursue employment outside of the home as well as messages that they have the same range of career opportunities as men. However, the continued discrepancy between men and women in the types of jobs chosen leads one to wonder whether these more progressive messages are effective. If the messages have been effective, then it would be assumed that women view the entire range of occupations in the world of work as viable options for them to pursue. In addition, this might suggest that a true change has occurred over time in society’s view on women and work. In the book Careers For Our Daughters, Hughes (1936) wrote in the introduction that women’s activities in the world of work were currently unevenly distributed. Hughes also wrote, “…or whether she inclines to architecture, accountancy, science, engineering, surveying, the law or other occupations, in which women at present number only a few hundreds and in some occupations…less than one hundred, she will find that, given the right abilities and temperamental aptitudes for the work she chooses, she has, despite all difficulties and disadvantages, a greater chance to exercise her abilities to her own satisfaction and in the service of the community than at any time in history” (p. viii). Hughes’ awareness of the disparity in 3 career opportunities for men and women seemed advanced for the time, but even more surprising is the concern that Hughes demonstrated about this disparity. Unfortunately, although the range of career opportunities are now assumed to be equally accessible to men and women, there is still disparity in the types of works chosen by men and women. It is certain there has been a great increase in the number of women in the workforce. In the 2013 report on “Women in the Labor Force,” the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics noted that women’s activity in the work force has changed considerably in the past few decades, particularly since the 1970s. Some changes listed included the increased number of women in the work force, the higher levels of education attained by women, and a decrease in the gap in earnings between men and women. In comparison to 1970, in 2011 there were three times as many women in the workforce who held college degrees (37% in 2011 as compared to 11% in 1970).