- Email: [email protected]
The relationship of role model influences to the career salience and educational and career plans of college women
Journal of Vocational
Behavior 35, 164-180 (1989)
The Relationship of Role Model tnfluences to the Career Salience and Educational and Career Plans of College Women GAIL HACKETT Arizona
State
University
AND DONNA
EWXITO University
AND M. SEAN O’HALLORAN of California,
Santa
Barbara
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of the perceived influence of female and male role models, gender role, and performance selfesteem to college women’s career salience and career-related aspirations and choices. One hundred and seven senior women responded to a survey assessing the variables of interest. Results of stepwise regression analyses revealed that perceived role model influences, in isolation, were significantly related to career salience, level of educational aspirations, and nontraditionality of occupational choices. Role model influences were also significantly, but not very strongly, predictive of college major choices. Finally, performance self-esteem in addition to role model influences significantly predicted career salience, educational aspirations, and the nontraditionality of career choices, while the gender-role variables were largely nonpredictive. Implications of the findings for research and counseling are discussed. 0 1989 Academic PXSS. IIIC.
In recent years literature has emerged focusing on the importance of various types of role models to the career development of women, especially in the area of nontraditional career aspirations and choices. The kinds of models hypothesized to influence women’s career development include professors and teachers, parents and family, spouses, and other significant adults (Almquist & Almquist, 1971; Basow & Howe, 1980; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). However, to date the exact nature, extent, and relative impact of these various models on different aspects of the career development process remains unclear. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gail Hackett, Counseling Psychology Program, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 852874611. 164 OOOl-8791/89 $3.00 Copyright All rights
0 1989 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
16.5
The purpose of this study was first to examine the utility of a variety of female and male role model influences in predicting important aspects of the career development process for women. Second, we were interested in the interaction of role model influences with other significant variables in predicting the career salience, educational aspirations, and nontraditional educational and career choices of college women. The majority of the investigations on the effects of role models on women’s career development have focused on the influence of female and male professorial models (Basow & Howe, 1980; Erkut & Mokros, 1984; Gilbert, 1985; Gilbert, Gallessich & Evans, 1983; Goldstein, 1979; O’Donnell & Anderson, 1978). The lack of female professorial and occupational role models has been identified as a significant barrier to women’s career development while conversely, the availability of female role models has received support as an important positive influence. For example, Tidball (1973), in her research on “career achieving women”. found achieving females to be in direct numerical proportion to the number of female faculty at their various undergraduate institutions. Research conducted by Erkut and Mokros (1984) and Stake and Noonan (1985) also emphasized the importance of same-sex faculty models for female students. Other research extends beyond mere numbers of available female models to explore the quality and dynamics of role model influences. Gilbert (1985) found that female students who identified with female role models rated the role-model relationship as more important to their professional development than male students who identified with male role models. Both male and female students selected role models at least partly for personal similarities. This study, along with those of Douvan (1976) and Hoffman (1977), suggests that the successful female student has sought affirmation of the integration of career and psychological femininity combined into an alternative lifestyle. Although most of the research suggests the positive impact of male faculty role models on women’s career development (Kutner & Brogan, 1980; Lunneborg, 1982), some investigators have obtained results indicating that inhibitory factors are sometimes associated with cross-sex model relationships, at least for female students. Goldstein (1979) identified such factors as the fear of sexual tension developing within the male sponsor/female protege relationship and stereotypical attitudes on the part of the male faculty member regarding women’s competence in carrying on the sponsor’s work as possible disincentives for such relationships. Gilbert et al.‘s (1983) results also support the claim that the male model/female protege relationship may be less comfortable, challenging, and supportive for students, and may possibly negatively affect the female student’s perceptions of her own competence. Although the literature is replete with correlational studies of the re-
166
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
lationship of parental background with daughters’ nontraditional career choices, investigations examining perceived role model influences other than professorial have not been well-researched (Auster & Auster, 1981). The conclusions that can be drawn from the few studies that have been conducted on parental influences support the importance of the perceived influence of fathers and working mothers on the nontraditional choices of daughters (Ehrhart & Sandler, 1987; Lunneborg, 1982; Weber & Miller, 1984). Female and male peers can also exert a positive influence on role innovation at the college level (Tangri, 1972). Lunneborg (1982) found that nontraditional professional women reported more support and encouragement from male and female peers than women with more traditional aspirations. Other studies also suggest that for some women in nontraditional fields the support of significant males is an important factor in the career decision-making process (Hawley, 1971; Houser & Garvey, 1983; Kutner & Brogan, 1980; Wilson, Weikel & Rose, 1982). Conversely, there is evidence that many role-innovating women receive negative feedback and discouragement from male peers (Ehrhart & Sandler, 1987). In summary, research supports the contention that female and male role models play an important part in the career development of women. Yet we do not, as yet, have much data concerning the effects of different types of role models, alone or in interaction, on varying aspects of the career development process. For example, we do not know which role model influences may be most predictive of the degree of career commitment or career salience or the nontraditionality of educational or career choices of college women. Nor do we have much research examining the interaction of role model influences with other important influencers of women’s career development. Betz and Fitzgerald (1987), in their integrative summary of the extant research on the career psychology of women, suggest two categories of facilitative factors, namely, individual and background. Background factors facilitative of women’s career development include a working mother, supportive father, highly educated parents, and female role models, along with work experience as an adolescent and an androgynous upbringing. The individual factors Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) identify as facilitative include instrumentality, an androgynous personality, high selfesteem, and strong academic self-concept in addition to high ability and liberated sex-role values. In the present study we sought to capture some of the more important of Betz and Fitzgerald’s (1987) individual and background factors in our examination of the influence of various female and male role model influences on women’s career development. We investigated the relationship of college women’s perceptions of the role model influence of
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
167
parents, siblings, and female and male teachers, peers, and other adults to career salience, educational aspirations, the nontraditionality and science-relatedness of college majors, and the nontraditionality of occupational choices. After significant predictors among the various sources of role model influences were identified for each career-related variable, we then explored the joint predictive power of role model influences in combination with two important facilitative influencers: gender role and performance self-esteem. The role model influences capture many of the facilitative background factors outlined by Betz and Fitzgerald (1987). Performance self-esteem, a construct developed and researched by Stake (1979), reflects the agency dimension of self-esteem and taps several of Betz and Fitzgerald’s (1987) “individual” facilitative factors, namely, self-esteem and strong academic self-concept. The gender role measures reflect the individual variables of instrumentality and androgynous personality, and also reflect to some extent the background variable of androgynous upbringing. Although we anticipate that this research will ultimately assist in the development and/or refinement of complex causal models of women’s career choices, we did not attempt to explore the causal ordering of the variables in this investigation. We hypothesized that positive female role model influences, particularly that of teachers and mothers, would be the strongest predictors of career salience, educational aspirations, and choice of nontraditional college majors and occupations. We anticipated that father’s positive influence might also be predictive, to a lesser extent, of women’s nontraditional choices. We further hypothesized that positive female role model influences would interact with high performance self-esteem and instrumentality (i.e., high scores on a masculinity scale) in the prediction of the career-related variables. We expected some negative role model effects for male peers and teachers. METHOD Subjects
All 180 graduating senior women from a small western women’s liberal arts college received a mail survey containing a letter eliciting their cooperation with the study and a packet of instruments including a background questionnaire, the Career Salience, Performance Self-Esteem, and Role Model Influences Scales, along with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. One hundred and seven responses were received after two followups; the final response was 59.4% The mean age of the respondents was 25 (range = 20 to 44; median age = 22). The majority of the participants were Anglo (87%) while 5% were Mexican-American and 5% were Native American. Other racial/ethnic groups were represented by only one respondent each (3%).
168
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
Instruments Role model influences. A slightly revised version of the Role Model Influence Scale (RMIS), developed by Basow and Howe (1980), was employed in this study. The Role Model Influence Scale required Ss to rate the degree to which parents, siblings, and male and female teachers, peers, and other significant adults were perceived as affecting Ss’ career choices while in high school and, separately, in college. Ratings were obtained for each of the 10 possible role models (father, mother, sister(s), brother(s), and male and female teachers, friends, and other adults) on a seven-point scale ranging from “strong negative influence” (-3) through “neutral” (0) to “strong positive influence” (+ 3). Ss were instructed to cross out any sources of role model influence that were irrelevant to them. Scores from this scale were transformed to a one to seven scale for the subsequent data analyses. Ratings were also collapsed across high school and college role model influences because of the high correlations between like items on the two scales. Higher scores for each of the role models indicate more positive influences on career choices. Career salience. The Career Salience Scale (CSS) Greenhaus, 1973) was administered to assess the importance of work and career in one’s life. Previous research by Greenhaus and his colleagues has demonstrated that the instrument has adequate reliability and validity (internal consistency reliability = .81, Greenhaus, 1971, 1973; Greenhaus & Simon, 1977). The CSS is a 27-item scale composed of statements such as “Work is one of the few areas in life where you can gain real satisfaction”, to which Ss responded, on a scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Negatively worded items were reverse scored and then all items were summed to obtain a total scale score. Higher scores are reflective of a stronger commitment to work and a career. Performance self-esteem. Stake (1979) developed the Performance Self-Esteem Scale (PSES) to assess the agency dimension of self-esteem. Subjects rated themselves on a scale from “Never or almost never” (1) to “Always or almost always” (7) against a list of 47 adjectives representing aspects of performance in achievement situations. Ratings for positive adjectives (e.g., productive) and negative adjectives (e.g., selfconscious) were summed separately. The total for the negative adjectives was subtracted from the total for the positive adjectives to obtain the overall PSES score. Higher scores indicate more self-esteem in performance and achievement domains. Orlofsky and Stake (1981) reported that the PSES was internally consistent (Cronbach’s a = .90) and adequate discriminant validity for the scale has been found (Stake, 1979). Gender-role variables. The 24-item short form of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) was employed to assess the instrumental (i.e., “masculine” or male-valued) and the expressive (i.e., “feminine” or
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
169
female-valued) dimensions of gender-role orientation (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1975). These two scales contain lists of characteristics socially desirable for both men and women, but more typical of men (“instrumental” or male-valued scale) and more typical of women (“expressive” or female-valued scale). Scores were also obtained on the masculinity-femininity (MF) scale, a measure of the degree to which Ss’ self-identified with gender stereotypical adjectives not socially desirable for the other gender. All responses were obtained on a five-point scale ranging from “very” to “not at all” with regard to each adjective (e.g., very aggressive to not at all aggressive). Total scores for each of the three eight-item subscales were obtained separately by reverse scoring negatively worded items and then summing across ratings for each item of each subscale. Higher scores were indicative of more instrumental, more expressive, or more stereotypical self-descriptions for, respectively, the masculinity. femininity, and M-F subscales. Spence et al. (1975) report strong psychometric support for the scale including adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s (Y for men and women, respectively, of .85 and .94 for the male-valued scale; .79 and .84 for the female-valued scale; and 53 and .84 for the M-F scale). Educational and career plans and choices. In addition to the above instruments, several other measures were derived from responses on the background questionnaire. The variable labeled “educational aspirations” assessed the educational level to which Ss aspired on a five-point scale ranging from pre-BA (1) BA (2), some graduate work (3), MA (4) through the doctorate (5). The nontraditionality (for women) of Ss’ chosen college major was assessed on a three-point scale (nontraditional, moderately traditional, and traditional, scored 3, 2, and 1, respectively) and was determined by the percentage of women in that college major. Likewise, the nontraditionality of Ss’ primary occupational choice was coded on the same three-point scale. Procedures for rating nontraditionality of major and career choices followed those employed by Betz and Hackett (1981). Higher scores were indicative of more nontraditional majors and careers. Finally, Ss’ college major choice was rated according to Goldman and Hewitt’s (1976) five-point science-nonscience continuum (another index of the nontraditionality of the field of study) from the Fine Arts (1) and Humanities (2) through the Social Sciences (3) to the Biological (4) and Physical Sciences and Mathematics (5).
Data Analysis
First, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed among all maior variables to assess the simole relationshius between degree and
170
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
type of female or male role model influence and gender-role attributes, performance self-esteem, career salience, and educational and occupational plans. Second, a series of stepwise multiple regression analyses were run predicting career salience and educational and occupational plans from the ten sources of role model influences. There were two reasons for this procedure: (a) we were interested first in the simple effects of role model influences on educational/career aspirations and choices; and (b) the sample size was not sufficient to run full regression equations on all variables at once. The significant predictors among the role model influences identified in the first regression runs were then employed in a final series of stepwise multiple regression analyses. Hierarchical regression analyses or causal modeling procedures were contraindicated because all predictor variables were retrospective in nature and thus difficult to place into a sensible hierarchical and/or causal ordering. For example, the gender-role variables could have influenced and in turn be influenced by role models. Thus, the final set of regression analyses employed significant role model influences, performance self-esteem, and the gender-role variables in the prediction of career salience, educational aspirations, and nontraditionality of major and occupational choices. RESULTS Correlational Analyses
Results of the Pearson product-moment correlations conducted on the variables under study are displayed in Table 1.’ Examination of the correlations between the sources of role model influence reveals that the highest correlations were found among like role models across gender: parental influences were most highly related (r = .73 between mother, father), followed by other adult’s influence (r = .59 for female and male adult), teacher influences and friend’s influence (r = .53 for both female and male teacher and friend). The strong relationship between perceived parental influences may reflect Ss’ perceptions of their home environment. The moderate relationships between female and male adults’, teachers’, and friends’ influences suggest that both gender of the model and the role each individual plays in Ss’ lives may contribute to perceived influence. For example, female and male teachers’s influences share some common variance, but some unique contribution of gender is also apparent else the correlation coefficient would be higher. While mother’s and father’s perceived influence are strongly related, only father’s role model influence is significantly correlated with any of the career-related variables (r’s = - .20 and .21, father with nontradi‘Means and standard deviations for the dependent and independent variables are available from the first author.
.73 .27 .31 .20 .18 - -.02 .22 .12 .30
I
.23 .29 .30 .I4 .02 .I0 .20 .25
2
.16 .25 .25 .13 .17 .28 .23
3
.07 .I7 .I8
.31 .45
8
-.Ol
-.20
-.04
.25 .03
10
-.13
.32
11
.I1 -.08 -.I0 .25 .17 .31 .07 .03 - .08
.12 .03 .03 -.08
.02
.12
12
.08
13
-.23 -.I3
14
.31 -.09 -.17 .002 .18 -.17 .20 -.I8 -.I9
.25 -.03 -.72 .49 .35 -.07 .07 -.Ol .46 .12 .21 -.03 .OS .02 .26
.24 -.02 .I0 .02
- .08 - .I0 - .21 - .13 - .09
-.I5
.26 .12
.59
9
Note. N = 107: All females. Values of I’ of .I9 and .25 correspond to the .OS and .Ol levels of statistical significance.
-.08 -.lO -.lO
-.04 -.05 .I8 .25
- .02 -.06
.lI
.22 -.Ol
-.09
-.OOl
.53 .33 .I8
7
.33 - .07 .02 .32 -.Ol -.lO
.22 .30 .23 .36
6
-.I1
.28 .24
.53 .27 .16 .28 .40
5
.13 .12
.15 .I7 .I2 .08 .17 .I4
4
TABLE I Coefficients for Perceived Role Model Influences, College Major and Career Variables, Performance Self Esteem, and Gender-Role Variables
Educational, career, and gender-role variables: 11. Career salience .08 .15 .20 12. Educational aspirations - .Ol .13 .I5 13. Non-traditionality of chosen major -.03 -.20 -.02 14. Science-relatedness of chop.09 -.I7 -.05 sen major 15. Nontraditionality of occupation .Ol .21 .03 16. Performance self-esteem - .os .09 .14 17. Masculinity (instrumentality) .03 .13 .ll 18. Feminity (expressiveness) .os .04 .07 19. M-F scores -.13 .05 .09
Role model influences: 1. Mother 2. Father 3. Brother(s) 4. Sister(s) 5. Male teacher(s) 6. Female teacher(s) 7. Male friend(s) 8. Female friend(s) 9. Other male adult(s) 10. Other female adult(s)
Variables
Correlation
.21 -.20 .21
.27
15
.70 .06 .41
16
18
.Ol so - .03
17
172
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
tionality of major and occupation, respectively). Teacher’s role model influence is consistently and significantly correlated with a number of career-related variables. Female teacher’s influence is significantly related to career salience and educational aspirations (r’s of .33 and .32) while male teachers’ influences is related positively to career salience (Y = .28) and educational aspirations (r = .24), but negatively correlated with science-relatedness of college major choice (r = - .22). Evidently both female and male teachers have a positive influence on the career salience and educational aspirations of college women while male teachers exert a negative influence on the selection of a science-related major in college. Taken singly, siblings and friends appear to exert little influence on women’s career-related aspirations and choices. However other adults, especially male adults, do appear to influence women’s choices in different ways. Female and male adults’ influence on women’s career salience is positive (r’s of .25 and .26, respectively), as is male adults’ influence on nontraditionality of occupational choice (r = .24). Male adults’ influence on nontraditionality and science-relatedness of women’s college major choices is negative or discouraging (T’S of - .20 and - .21, respectively). The career-related variables display an interesting pattern of intercorrelations. Career salience is significantly correlated with educational aspirations (r = .32) and nontraditionality of occupational choice (r = .25) but is unrelated to nontraditionality or science-relatedness of college major choice. Educational aspirations are significantly related only to career salience while nontraditionality of occupational choice is inversely related to nontraditionality of major (r = - .72) and science-relatedness of major (r = - .23). Evidently nontraditional choices with regard to college majors do not necessarily translate into nontraditional occupational choices. English majors may enter business and industry; the converse may be true as well, for example, mathematics or science majors who end up teaching. Prediction
Equations
Role model influences. Table 2 presents the results of the first series of stepwise multiple regression analyses. The independent variables for these analyses were the 10 sources of perceived role model influences while the dependent variables were the five major career/educational variables, i.e., career salience, educational aspirations, nontraditionality of college major and occupation, and science-relatedness of college major. Results from these preliminary analyses suggest that the perceived influence of some role models is an important predictor of career-related attitudes and choices among college women. The influence of female teachers was the most important predictor for
ROLE MODEL
173
INFLUENCES
TABLE 2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses on Role Model Influences for the Predrction of Career Salience, Educational Aspirations, Nontraditionality of Major and Occupation, and Science-Relatedness of College Major ~Significant predictors
____--
df
Career salience ___..--~ F
P .32 .27 - .22
10.76** 1.23** s.12*
Educational
df
aspirations
F
P
Significant predictors
15.90*** 4.98*
-.21
df
Nontraditionality of college major _ _~~ _____. ~~-- ..-. . F R P
2,104 Father Mother
.27* - .40 .21
P
_.
of occupational F
~~ ~
3,102 Other male adults(s) Other female adult(s) Father
__
df
_~--
~--
1,105
R
R’ cldj ~~~~~ ~~~~~
P -.22
.II
of college major
F
R .22*
Male teacher(s)
choice
10.07** 4.96* 4.81*
Science-relatedness ~_-..-..
.Oh
.37** .36 -.28 .21
R’ ulj
8.33** 3.72*
Nontraditionality 4
.I3
.38** - .38
-
R’ crdj
R
2,103
Female teachers Female friends
.16
.44***
3,94
Female teachers Other adult male(s) Male friend(s)
R’ udj
R
R’ trcli .04
5.53*
Nofe. N = 107; n’s of 97 for the analysis on career salience; 10.5 for the analyses on educational aspirations, nontraditionality of occupational choice, and science-relatedness of major; and 106 for nontraditionality of major choice. Reduction in n’s due to missing data. * p < .05.
** p < .Ol. *** p < .ool.
174
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
both the career salience and the level of educational aspirations of this sample of senior college women. For career salience, other adult males also exerted a positive influence while male friends evidently exerted a negative influence. Female friends also appeared to exert a significant negative influence on the educational aspirations of this group of women. Thus, women who have higher educational aspirations and stronger career salience tend to report strong female teacher role models and supportive adult males in their lives but also must deal with the negative reactions of male and female peers. Both parents apparently influence the nontraditionality of their daughter’s college major choice: mother’s positive influence interacted with father’s negative influence. Interestingly, the simple correlation between mother’s influence and nontraditionality of major choice was essentially zero (r = - .03, NS), while father’s influence was correlated negatively (Y = - .20) with nontraditionality of major. These findings suggest that parental influences are complex and interactive; after father’s negative influence is accounted for, mother’s influence becomes significant and positive. On the other hand fathers, along with other male adults, were perceived as having positively influenced nontraditional occupational choices, while female adults’ influence was not perceived as supportive of these choices. The high negative correlation between nontraditionality of major and nontraditionality of occupational choice explains these seemingly contradictory findings. The only significant predictor among role model influences for the science-relatedness of Ss’ college major choice was the negative influence of male teachers. The amount of variance accounted for by this prediction equation was the lowest of the five (R = .22; 4% of the variance explained). Role Model,
PSES, and Gender-Role
Influences
Finally, a second series of stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted predicting the five educational/career variables. For these analyses, performance self-esteem and the gender-role variables (masculinity, femininity, and the M-F score) were included as predictors along with the significant sources of role model influence identified in the first set of prediction equations. The results of these final ayalyses are displayed in Table 3. Performance self-esteem and the influence of female teachers were significantly predictive of both career salience and educational aspirations, accounting for a moderate amount of the variance in both analyses (28% and 17010, respectively). The other role model influences did not add significantly to either of these prediction equations. The multiple Rs for the final equations were higher overall than the multiple Rs for the
ROLE MODEL
175
INFLUENCES
TABLE 3 Final Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Career Salience, Educational Aspirations, and Major and Career Choice Variables Career salience Significant predictors
df
F
P
R
.55***
2,87 Performance self-esteem Female teacher(s)
.42 .26
df
F
- .25
6.64**
P
of occupational F
6.77* 5.72*
-.24 .19
6.70* 4.04*
P
F
.05 choice
R
- .20
R’ udi
.I8
of college major R
.20”
1,97 Male teacher(s)
R’ adj
.47*** .24 .23
Science-relatedness
df
R
.25**
4,93 Performance self-esteem Other male adult(s) Expressiveness (Femininity) Father
.17
of college major
P
Nontraditionality
df
R2 adj
9.09** 7.07**
1,97 Father
R
.43*** .29 .25
Nontraditionality Significant predictors
aspirations _--~-
F
P
2,95 Performance self-esteem Female teacher(s)
.28
20.33*** 7.50** Educational
df
RZ adj
R’ ctdj
.03
4.10*
Note. N = 107; n’s of 97 for analysis on educational aspirations, nontraditionality of major and occupation and science-relatedness of college major; n = 89 for analyses on career salience. Reduction in n’s due to missing data. * p < .05. ** p < .Ol. *** p < ,001.
176
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
analyses containing only the role model variables (R = .55 vs. .44 for career salience; R = .43 vs. .38 for educational aspirations). Neither performance self-esteem nor the gender-role variables added significantly to the prediction of nontraditionality and science-relatedness of college major, over and above the effects of role models. The prediction equations for both of these variables were virtually unchanged. Conversely, the final prediction equation for the nontraditionality of occupational choice included performance self-esteem, femininity scores, and the role model influences of male adult and father. The final analysis on nontraditionality of occupational choice also accounted for a higher percentage of the variance than the first analysis containing only role model influences (18 vs. 11%). Higher levels of performance self-esteem and lower levels of femininity add significantly to the perceived support of father and other male adults in predicting nontraditional occupational choices on the part of these female college students. DISCUSSION The results of this investigation are supportive of our hypothesis that role model influences are predictive of career-related aspirations and choices, and that different role model influences are most strongly predictive of different aspects of the career choice process. The results also confirm that perceived role model influences interact with other important predictors, especially performance self-esteem. Our findings are only partly supportive of the hypothesis that female role model influences are strong predictors of women’s career-related choices, and the data do not support the importance of gender role in the prediction of career salience, educational aspirations, nontraditionality of college major and occupation, and science-relatedness of college major. Specifically, performance self-esteem and the positive influence of female teachers were most predictive of two important aspects of women’s career development, namely, career salience and educational aspirations. No female role model influence entered significantly into the final prediction equations for the college major and occupational choice variables. Male role model influences were significantly but negatively related to women’s choice of a nontraditional or science-related college major. While fathers were evidently discouraging of women’s selection of nontraditional college majors, and male teachers exerted a negative influence on women’s selection of science-related college majors, neither source of negative influence was very strong; the amount of variance accounted for in these two equations was quite low. This finding may simply reflect the negative reactions women commonly receive for acting “out of role”. On the other hand the positive influence of fathers and male adults, along with high performance self-esteem and low levels of psychological
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
177
“femininity”, were strongly and significantly predictive of college women’s consideration of nontraditional occupations. A major conclusion that can be drawn from this investigation is that it is important to explore various aspects of the career development process in order to understand how role models influence women’s choices. For example it is clear from this investigation that perceived role model influences, at least as measured herein, are not promising explanatory variables for nontraditional and science-related college major choices. It may be that the women in this sample did not have strong female occupational role models or that the mothers of these women were not engaged in work outside the home, these two factors having been importantly related to women’s nontraditional choices in past research (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). It may also be the case that factors other than role model influences are more strongly related to college major choices, especially the choice of a science-related major. For example, mathematics self-efficacy has been found to be a very strong predictor of math and science-related college major choices (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Hackett, 1985). Math self-efficacy in women is, in turn, hypothesized to be affected by modeling experiences as well as socialization messages and past performance and so may “contain” more relevant information than role model influences alone. In any event, the explanation for these findings must await future research. This study strongly supports the importance of female teachers and professors in predicting both career salience and educational aspirations of college women, but also provides evidence that other sources of role model influence are important to significant dimensions of career-related choices, especially the choice of nontraditional occupations. Further, some evidence was found for the negative effects of important male role models on women’s career and educational choices. Primary among the unexpected findings in this study was the failure to find strong effects for gender-role orientation, contrary to the results reported by Gilbert et al. (1983). However, the present investigation examined a different aspect of role model influence than Gilbert et al., who studied the perceived salience of same-sex professorial role models in graduate students, as opposed to the relative influences of various types of role models on undergraduates. The present findings suggest that future research attend carefully to both the perceived significance as well as multiple sources of role model effects. Further, the very high correlations obtained between performance self-esteem and masculinity scores suggest that performance self-esteem may be tapping some of the same information contained in the PAQ masculinity (instrumentality) scale. A major limitation in terms of the generalizability of this research is that the sample was drawn from an all-women’s college. As mentioned
178
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
previously, such institutions tend to provide more same-sex professional models, so the range of female model influences may have been relatively restricted at the high end. An interesting followup to this study would be a replication with senior women from a coeducational institution. The study was, of course, retrospective in nature, as is most of the research on role model influences, a potential source of bias, particularly in the measures of perceived role model influences. Further, the Role Model Influence Scale has uncertain reliability and validity; Basow and Howe’s (1980) results provide partial confirmation of some aspects of criterion-related validation, but more work needs to be performed to ensure both reliable and valid responses. Generally, the lack of measures with strong psychometric characteristics has plagued research in this area. Role model influences may also change over time. The measure employed herein was apparently not sensitive to developmentally-related changes in the effects of role models on different aspects of the career development process. Finally, alternate methods of measuring some of the educational and career-related dependent measures would enhance future research. Career salience was the only dependent variable to be assessed via an instrument with proven adequate psychometric properties. The other measures have been imployed in previous research (e.g., Betz 8z Hackett, 1981; Hackett, 1985), and certainly have adequate face validity, but level of educational aspirations, the traditionality measures for major and occupational choices, and the rating of the science-relatedness of college major were all measured on single-item rating scales, possibly affecting the stability of these measures. Although the study should be interpreted with these limitations in mind, these results underscore the importance of self-estimates of competence in predicting nontraditional career choices. In this study performance self-esteem was consistently and significantly related to important careerrelated variables. Past research on career self-efficacy, a construct similar in some ways to the more global concept of performance self-esteem, has also consistently confirmed the centrality of self-percepts of confidence, however defined, in the prediction of achievement behavior (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Hackett, 198.5; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Osipow, 1986). Although a more complex causal model of the precise interrelationships between role model influences and the development of a strong sense of competence in one’s abilities awaits future research, the extant research is at least strongly suggestive of just such a connection (Farmer, 1987; Gilbert et al., 1983; Stake & Noonan, 1985). REFERENCES Almquist, E. M., & Almquist, S. S. (1971). Role model influences on college women’s career aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 263-279. .
-
-.
^ .
^ ^ I-^^_.
-
.I
.
.
.
^
.. .
.
ROLE MODEL
INFLUENCES
careers: The role of family, peers, and counselors.
179
Vocationa/ Guidance Qunrfer/y.
29, 253-263.
Basow, S. A., & Howe, K. G. (1980). Role-model influence: Effects of sex and sex role in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 558-572. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based colege majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
Douvan, E. (1976). The role of models in women’s professional development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 5-20. Ehrhart, J. K., & Sandier, B. R. (1987). Looking for more than a few good women in traditionally male Jields. Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women of the Association of American Colleges. Erkut, S., & Mokros, J. R. (1984). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 399-417. Farmer, H. S. (1987). A multivariate model for explaining gender differences in career and achievement motivation. Educational Researcher, 16, 5-9. Fassinger, R. (1985). A causal model of college women’s career choice. Journa/ of Vocational Behavior, 27, 123-153. Gilbert, L. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles, 12 (l/2), 111-123. Gilbert, L. A., Gallessich, J. M., & Evans, S. L. (1983). Sex of faculty role model and students’ self-perceptions of competency. Sex Roles.9 (5), 597-607. Goldman, R. D., & Hewitt, B. N. (1976). The scholastic aptitude test “explains” why college men major in science more often than college women. Journul of Counseling Psychology, 23, 50-54. Goldstein, E. (1979). Effect of same-sex and cross-sex role models on the subsequent academic productivity of scholars. American Psychologist, 34, 407-410. Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 209-216. Greenhaus, J. H. (1973). A factorial investigation of career salience. Journul qfVocationa/ Behavior, 3, 95-98. Greenhaus, J. H., & Simon, W. E. (1977). Career salience, work values, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 104-110. Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counse/ing Psychology. 32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339. Hawley. P. (1971). What women think men think: Does it affect their career choices? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 193-199. Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Change in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psychologisr, 32, 644-657. Houser, B., & Garvey, C. (1983). The impact of family, peers, and educational personnel upon career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 35-44. Kutner, N. G., & Brogan, D. R. (1980). The decision to enter medicine: Motivations, social support, and discouragements for women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 341-357. Lunneborg, P. (1982). Role model influencers of nontraditional professional women. Journul of Vocational Behavior, 20, 276-281.
180
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
O’Donnell, J., 8z Anderson, D. J. (1978). Factors influencing choice of major and career of capable women. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 26, 214-221. Orlofsky, J. L., & Stake, J. E. (1981). Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to striving and self-concept in the achievement and interpersonal domains. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 218-233. Osipow, S. H. (1986). Career issues through the life-span. In M. S. Pallack & R. 0. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work. (APA Master Lectures). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. Stake, J. E. (1979). Women’s self-estimates of competence and the resolution of the home/ career conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 33-42. Stake, J. E., & Noonan, M. (1985). The influence of teacher models on the career confidence and motivation of college students. Sex Roles, 12 (9/10), 1023-1031. Tangri, S. S. (1972). Determinants of occupational role innovation among college women. Journal of Social Issues. 28, 177-199. Tidball, M. E. (1973). Perspective on academic women and affirmative action. Educational Record, 54, 130-135. Weber, J. A., & Miller, M. G. (1984). Factors related to college women’s perceptions of employment. Home Economics Research Journal, 13, 159-166. Wilson, J., Weikel, W. J., &Rose, H. (1982). A comparison of nontraditional and traditional career women. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 31, 109-l 17. Received: December 12, 1988.
Behavior 35, 164-180 (1989)
The Relationship of Role Model tnfluences to the Career Salience and Educational and Career Plans of College Women GAIL HACKETT Arizona
State
University
AND DONNA
EWXITO University
AND M. SEAN O’HALLORAN of California,
Santa
Barbara
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of the perceived influence of female and male role models, gender role, and performance selfesteem to college women’s career salience and career-related aspirations and choices. One hundred and seven senior women responded to a survey assessing the variables of interest. Results of stepwise regression analyses revealed that perceived role model influences, in isolation, were significantly related to career salience, level of educational aspirations, and nontraditionality of occupational choices. Role model influences were also significantly, but not very strongly, predictive of college major choices. Finally, performance self-esteem in addition to role model influences significantly predicted career salience, educational aspirations, and the nontraditionality of career choices, while the gender-role variables were largely nonpredictive. Implications of the findings for research and counseling are discussed. 0 1989 Academic PXSS. IIIC.
In recent years literature has emerged focusing on the importance of various types of role models to the career development of women, especially in the area of nontraditional career aspirations and choices. The kinds of models hypothesized to influence women’s career development include professors and teachers, parents and family, spouses, and other significant adults (Almquist & Almquist, 1971; Basow & Howe, 1980; Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). However, to date the exact nature, extent, and relative impact of these various models on different aspects of the career development process remains unclear. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gail Hackett, Counseling Psychology Program, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 852874611. 164 OOOl-8791/89 $3.00 Copyright All rights
0 1989 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
16.5
The purpose of this study was first to examine the utility of a variety of female and male role model influences in predicting important aspects of the career development process for women. Second, we were interested in the interaction of role model influences with other significant variables in predicting the career salience, educational aspirations, and nontraditional educational and career choices of college women. The majority of the investigations on the effects of role models on women’s career development have focused on the influence of female and male professorial models (Basow & Howe, 1980; Erkut & Mokros, 1984; Gilbert, 1985; Gilbert, Gallessich & Evans, 1983; Goldstein, 1979; O’Donnell & Anderson, 1978). The lack of female professorial and occupational role models has been identified as a significant barrier to women’s career development while conversely, the availability of female role models has received support as an important positive influence. For example, Tidball (1973), in her research on “career achieving women”. found achieving females to be in direct numerical proportion to the number of female faculty at their various undergraduate institutions. Research conducted by Erkut and Mokros (1984) and Stake and Noonan (1985) also emphasized the importance of same-sex faculty models for female students. Other research extends beyond mere numbers of available female models to explore the quality and dynamics of role model influences. Gilbert (1985) found that female students who identified with female role models rated the role-model relationship as more important to their professional development than male students who identified with male role models. Both male and female students selected role models at least partly for personal similarities. This study, along with those of Douvan (1976) and Hoffman (1977), suggests that the successful female student has sought affirmation of the integration of career and psychological femininity combined into an alternative lifestyle. Although most of the research suggests the positive impact of male faculty role models on women’s career development (Kutner & Brogan, 1980; Lunneborg, 1982), some investigators have obtained results indicating that inhibitory factors are sometimes associated with cross-sex model relationships, at least for female students. Goldstein (1979) identified such factors as the fear of sexual tension developing within the male sponsor/female protege relationship and stereotypical attitudes on the part of the male faculty member regarding women’s competence in carrying on the sponsor’s work as possible disincentives for such relationships. Gilbert et al.‘s (1983) results also support the claim that the male model/female protege relationship may be less comfortable, challenging, and supportive for students, and may possibly negatively affect the female student’s perceptions of her own competence. Although the literature is replete with correlational studies of the re-
166
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
lationship of parental background with daughters’ nontraditional career choices, investigations examining perceived role model influences other than professorial have not been well-researched (Auster & Auster, 1981). The conclusions that can be drawn from the few studies that have been conducted on parental influences support the importance of the perceived influence of fathers and working mothers on the nontraditional choices of daughters (Ehrhart & Sandler, 1987; Lunneborg, 1982; Weber & Miller, 1984). Female and male peers can also exert a positive influence on role innovation at the college level (Tangri, 1972). Lunneborg (1982) found that nontraditional professional women reported more support and encouragement from male and female peers than women with more traditional aspirations. Other studies also suggest that for some women in nontraditional fields the support of significant males is an important factor in the career decision-making process (Hawley, 1971; Houser & Garvey, 1983; Kutner & Brogan, 1980; Wilson, Weikel & Rose, 1982). Conversely, there is evidence that many role-innovating women receive negative feedback and discouragement from male peers (Ehrhart & Sandler, 1987). In summary, research supports the contention that female and male role models play an important part in the career development of women. Yet we do not, as yet, have much data concerning the effects of different types of role models, alone or in interaction, on varying aspects of the career development process. For example, we do not know which role model influences may be most predictive of the degree of career commitment or career salience or the nontraditionality of educational or career choices of college women. Nor do we have much research examining the interaction of role model influences with other important influencers of women’s career development. Betz and Fitzgerald (1987), in their integrative summary of the extant research on the career psychology of women, suggest two categories of facilitative factors, namely, individual and background. Background factors facilitative of women’s career development include a working mother, supportive father, highly educated parents, and female role models, along with work experience as an adolescent and an androgynous upbringing. The individual factors Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) identify as facilitative include instrumentality, an androgynous personality, high selfesteem, and strong academic self-concept in addition to high ability and liberated sex-role values. In the present study we sought to capture some of the more important of Betz and Fitzgerald’s (1987) individual and background factors in our examination of the influence of various female and male role model influences on women’s career development. We investigated the relationship of college women’s perceptions of the role model influence of
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
167
parents, siblings, and female and male teachers, peers, and other adults to career salience, educational aspirations, the nontraditionality and science-relatedness of college majors, and the nontraditionality of occupational choices. After significant predictors among the various sources of role model influences were identified for each career-related variable, we then explored the joint predictive power of role model influences in combination with two important facilitative influencers: gender role and performance self-esteem. The role model influences capture many of the facilitative background factors outlined by Betz and Fitzgerald (1987). Performance self-esteem, a construct developed and researched by Stake (1979), reflects the agency dimension of self-esteem and taps several of Betz and Fitzgerald’s (1987) “individual” facilitative factors, namely, self-esteem and strong academic self-concept. The gender role measures reflect the individual variables of instrumentality and androgynous personality, and also reflect to some extent the background variable of androgynous upbringing. Although we anticipate that this research will ultimately assist in the development and/or refinement of complex causal models of women’s career choices, we did not attempt to explore the causal ordering of the variables in this investigation. We hypothesized that positive female role model influences, particularly that of teachers and mothers, would be the strongest predictors of career salience, educational aspirations, and choice of nontraditional college majors and occupations. We anticipated that father’s positive influence might also be predictive, to a lesser extent, of women’s nontraditional choices. We further hypothesized that positive female role model influences would interact with high performance self-esteem and instrumentality (i.e., high scores on a masculinity scale) in the prediction of the career-related variables. We expected some negative role model effects for male peers and teachers. METHOD Subjects
All 180 graduating senior women from a small western women’s liberal arts college received a mail survey containing a letter eliciting their cooperation with the study and a packet of instruments including a background questionnaire, the Career Salience, Performance Self-Esteem, and Role Model Influences Scales, along with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. One hundred and seven responses were received after two followups; the final response was 59.4% The mean age of the respondents was 25 (range = 20 to 44; median age = 22). The majority of the participants were Anglo (87%) while 5% were Mexican-American and 5% were Native American. Other racial/ethnic groups were represented by only one respondent each (3%).
168
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
Instruments Role model influences. A slightly revised version of the Role Model Influence Scale (RMIS), developed by Basow and Howe (1980), was employed in this study. The Role Model Influence Scale required Ss to rate the degree to which parents, siblings, and male and female teachers, peers, and other significant adults were perceived as affecting Ss’ career choices while in high school and, separately, in college. Ratings were obtained for each of the 10 possible role models (father, mother, sister(s), brother(s), and male and female teachers, friends, and other adults) on a seven-point scale ranging from “strong negative influence” (-3) through “neutral” (0) to “strong positive influence” (+ 3). Ss were instructed to cross out any sources of role model influence that were irrelevant to them. Scores from this scale were transformed to a one to seven scale for the subsequent data analyses. Ratings were also collapsed across high school and college role model influences because of the high correlations between like items on the two scales. Higher scores for each of the role models indicate more positive influences on career choices. Career salience. The Career Salience Scale (CSS) Greenhaus, 1973) was administered to assess the importance of work and career in one’s life. Previous research by Greenhaus and his colleagues has demonstrated that the instrument has adequate reliability and validity (internal consistency reliability = .81, Greenhaus, 1971, 1973; Greenhaus & Simon, 1977). The CSS is a 27-item scale composed of statements such as “Work is one of the few areas in life where you can gain real satisfaction”, to which Ss responded, on a scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Negatively worded items were reverse scored and then all items were summed to obtain a total scale score. Higher scores are reflective of a stronger commitment to work and a career. Performance self-esteem. Stake (1979) developed the Performance Self-Esteem Scale (PSES) to assess the agency dimension of self-esteem. Subjects rated themselves on a scale from “Never or almost never” (1) to “Always or almost always” (7) against a list of 47 adjectives representing aspects of performance in achievement situations. Ratings for positive adjectives (e.g., productive) and negative adjectives (e.g., selfconscious) were summed separately. The total for the negative adjectives was subtracted from the total for the positive adjectives to obtain the overall PSES score. Higher scores indicate more self-esteem in performance and achievement domains. Orlofsky and Stake (1981) reported that the PSES was internally consistent (Cronbach’s a = .90) and adequate discriminant validity for the scale has been found (Stake, 1979). Gender-role variables. The 24-item short form of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) was employed to assess the instrumental (i.e., “masculine” or male-valued) and the expressive (i.e., “feminine” or
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
169
female-valued) dimensions of gender-role orientation (Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp, 1975). These two scales contain lists of characteristics socially desirable for both men and women, but more typical of men (“instrumental” or male-valued scale) and more typical of women (“expressive” or female-valued scale). Scores were also obtained on the masculinity-femininity (MF) scale, a measure of the degree to which Ss’ self-identified with gender stereotypical adjectives not socially desirable for the other gender. All responses were obtained on a five-point scale ranging from “very” to “not at all” with regard to each adjective (e.g., very aggressive to not at all aggressive). Total scores for each of the three eight-item subscales were obtained separately by reverse scoring negatively worded items and then summing across ratings for each item of each subscale. Higher scores were indicative of more instrumental, more expressive, or more stereotypical self-descriptions for, respectively, the masculinity. femininity, and M-F subscales. Spence et al. (1975) report strong psychometric support for the scale including adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s (Y for men and women, respectively, of .85 and .94 for the male-valued scale; .79 and .84 for the female-valued scale; and 53 and .84 for the M-F scale). Educational and career plans and choices. In addition to the above instruments, several other measures were derived from responses on the background questionnaire. The variable labeled “educational aspirations” assessed the educational level to which Ss aspired on a five-point scale ranging from pre-BA (1) BA (2), some graduate work (3), MA (4) through the doctorate (5). The nontraditionality (for women) of Ss’ chosen college major was assessed on a three-point scale (nontraditional, moderately traditional, and traditional, scored 3, 2, and 1, respectively) and was determined by the percentage of women in that college major. Likewise, the nontraditionality of Ss’ primary occupational choice was coded on the same three-point scale. Procedures for rating nontraditionality of major and career choices followed those employed by Betz and Hackett (1981). Higher scores were indicative of more nontraditional majors and careers. Finally, Ss’ college major choice was rated according to Goldman and Hewitt’s (1976) five-point science-nonscience continuum (another index of the nontraditionality of the field of study) from the Fine Arts (1) and Humanities (2) through the Social Sciences (3) to the Biological (4) and Physical Sciences and Mathematics (5).
Data Analysis
First, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed among all maior variables to assess the simole relationshius between degree and
170
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
type of female or male role model influence and gender-role attributes, performance self-esteem, career salience, and educational and occupational plans. Second, a series of stepwise multiple regression analyses were run predicting career salience and educational and occupational plans from the ten sources of role model influences. There were two reasons for this procedure: (a) we were interested first in the simple effects of role model influences on educational/career aspirations and choices; and (b) the sample size was not sufficient to run full regression equations on all variables at once. The significant predictors among the role model influences identified in the first regression runs were then employed in a final series of stepwise multiple regression analyses. Hierarchical regression analyses or causal modeling procedures were contraindicated because all predictor variables were retrospective in nature and thus difficult to place into a sensible hierarchical and/or causal ordering. For example, the gender-role variables could have influenced and in turn be influenced by role models. Thus, the final set of regression analyses employed significant role model influences, performance self-esteem, and the gender-role variables in the prediction of career salience, educational aspirations, and nontraditionality of major and occupational choices. RESULTS Correlational Analyses
Results of the Pearson product-moment correlations conducted on the variables under study are displayed in Table 1.’ Examination of the correlations between the sources of role model influence reveals that the highest correlations were found among like role models across gender: parental influences were most highly related (r = .73 between mother, father), followed by other adult’s influence (r = .59 for female and male adult), teacher influences and friend’s influence (r = .53 for both female and male teacher and friend). The strong relationship between perceived parental influences may reflect Ss’ perceptions of their home environment. The moderate relationships between female and male adults’, teachers’, and friends’ influences suggest that both gender of the model and the role each individual plays in Ss’ lives may contribute to perceived influence. For example, female and male teachers’s influences share some common variance, but some unique contribution of gender is also apparent else the correlation coefficient would be higher. While mother’s and father’s perceived influence are strongly related, only father’s role model influence is significantly correlated with any of the career-related variables (r’s = - .20 and .21, father with nontradi‘Means and standard deviations for the dependent and independent variables are available from the first author.
.73 .27 .31 .20 .18 - -.02 .22 .12 .30
I
.23 .29 .30 .I4 .02 .I0 .20 .25
2
.16 .25 .25 .13 .17 .28 .23
3
.07 .I7 .I8
.31 .45
8
-.Ol
-.20
-.04
.25 .03
10
-.13
.32
11
.I1 -.08 -.I0 .25 .17 .31 .07 .03 - .08
.12 .03 .03 -.08
.02
.12
12
.08
13
-.23 -.I3
14
.31 -.09 -.17 .002 .18 -.17 .20 -.I8 -.I9
.25 -.03 -.72 .49 .35 -.07 .07 -.Ol .46 .12 .21 -.03 .OS .02 .26
.24 -.02 .I0 .02
- .08 - .I0 - .21 - .13 - .09
-.I5
.26 .12
.59
9
Note. N = 107: All females. Values of I’ of .I9 and .25 correspond to the .OS and .Ol levels of statistical significance.
-.08 -.lO -.lO
-.04 -.05 .I8 .25
- .02 -.06
.lI
.22 -.Ol
-.09
-.OOl
.53 .33 .I8
7
.33 - .07 .02 .32 -.Ol -.lO
.22 .30 .23 .36
6
-.I1
.28 .24
.53 .27 .16 .28 .40
5
.13 .12
.15 .I7 .I2 .08 .17 .I4
4
TABLE I Coefficients for Perceived Role Model Influences, College Major and Career Variables, Performance Self Esteem, and Gender-Role Variables
Educational, career, and gender-role variables: 11. Career salience .08 .15 .20 12. Educational aspirations - .Ol .13 .I5 13. Non-traditionality of chosen major -.03 -.20 -.02 14. Science-relatedness of chop.09 -.I7 -.05 sen major 15. Nontraditionality of occupation .Ol .21 .03 16. Performance self-esteem - .os .09 .14 17. Masculinity (instrumentality) .03 .13 .ll 18. Feminity (expressiveness) .os .04 .07 19. M-F scores -.13 .05 .09
Role model influences: 1. Mother 2. Father 3. Brother(s) 4. Sister(s) 5. Male teacher(s) 6. Female teacher(s) 7. Male friend(s) 8. Female friend(s) 9. Other male adult(s) 10. Other female adult(s)
Variables
Correlation
.21 -.20 .21
.27
15
.70 .06 .41
16
18
.Ol so - .03
17
172
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
tionality of major and occupation, respectively). Teacher’s role model influence is consistently and significantly correlated with a number of career-related variables. Female teacher’s influence is significantly related to career salience and educational aspirations (r’s of .33 and .32) while male teachers’ influences is related positively to career salience (Y = .28) and educational aspirations (r = .24), but negatively correlated with science-relatedness of college major choice (r = - .22). Evidently both female and male teachers have a positive influence on the career salience and educational aspirations of college women while male teachers exert a negative influence on the selection of a science-related major in college. Taken singly, siblings and friends appear to exert little influence on women’s career-related aspirations and choices. However other adults, especially male adults, do appear to influence women’s choices in different ways. Female and male adults’ influence on women’s career salience is positive (r’s of .25 and .26, respectively), as is male adults’ influence on nontraditionality of occupational choice (r = .24). Male adults’ influence on nontraditionality and science-relatedness of women’s college major choices is negative or discouraging (T’S of - .20 and - .21, respectively). The career-related variables display an interesting pattern of intercorrelations. Career salience is significantly correlated with educational aspirations (r = .32) and nontraditionality of occupational choice (r = .25) but is unrelated to nontraditionality or science-relatedness of college major choice. Educational aspirations are significantly related only to career salience while nontraditionality of occupational choice is inversely related to nontraditionality of major (r = - .72) and science-relatedness of major (r = - .23). Evidently nontraditional choices with regard to college majors do not necessarily translate into nontraditional occupational choices. English majors may enter business and industry; the converse may be true as well, for example, mathematics or science majors who end up teaching. Prediction
Equations
Role model influences. Table 2 presents the results of the first series of stepwise multiple regression analyses. The independent variables for these analyses were the 10 sources of perceived role model influences while the dependent variables were the five major career/educational variables, i.e., career salience, educational aspirations, nontraditionality of college major and occupation, and science-relatedness of college major. Results from these preliminary analyses suggest that the perceived influence of some role models is an important predictor of career-related attitudes and choices among college women. The influence of female teachers was the most important predictor for
ROLE MODEL
173
INFLUENCES
TABLE 2 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses on Role Model Influences for the Predrction of Career Salience, Educational Aspirations, Nontraditionality of Major and Occupation, and Science-Relatedness of College Major ~Significant predictors
____--
df
Career salience ___..--~ F
P .32 .27 - .22
10.76** 1.23** s.12*
Educational
df
aspirations
F
P
Significant predictors
15.90*** 4.98*
-.21
df
Nontraditionality of college major _ _~~ _____. ~~-- ..-. . F R P
2,104 Father Mother
.27* - .40 .21
P
_.
of occupational F
~~ ~
3,102 Other male adults(s) Other female adult(s) Father
__
df
_~--
~--
1,105
R
R’ cldj ~~~~~ ~~~~~
P -.22
.II
of college major
F
R .22*
Male teacher(s)
choice
10.07** 4.96* 4.81*
Science-relatedness ~_-..-..
.Oh
.37** .36 -.28 .21
R’ ulj
8.33** 3.72*
Nontraditionality 4
.I3
.38** - .38
-
R’ crdj
R
2,103
Female teachers Female friends
.16
.44***
3,94
Female teachers Other adult male(s) Male friend(s)
R’ udj
R
R’ trcli .04
5.53*
Nofe. N = 107; n’s of 97 for the analysis on career salience; 10.5 for the analyses on educational aspirations, nontraditionality of occupational choice, and science-relatedness of major; and 106 for nontraditionality of major choice. Reduction in n’s due to missing data. * p < .05.
** p < .Ol. *** p < .ool.
174
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
both the career salience and the level of educational aspirations of this sample of senior college women. For career salience, other adult males also exerted a positive influence while male friends evidently exerted a negative influence. Female friends also appeared to exert a significant negative influence on the educational aspirations of this group of women. Thus, women who have higher educational aspirations and stronger career salience tend to report strong female teacher role models and supportive adult males in their lives but also must deal with the negative reactions of male and female peers. Both parents apparently influence the nontraditionality of their daughter’s college major choice: mother’s positive influence interacted with father’s negative influence. Interestingly, the simple correlation between mother’s influence and nontraditionality of major choice was essentially zero (r = - .03, NS), while father’s influence was correlated negatively (Y = - .20) with nontraditionality of major. These findings suggest that parental influences are complex and interactive; after father’s negative influence is accounted for, mother’s influence becomes significant and positive. On the other hand fathers, along with other male adults, were perceived as having positively influenced nontraditional occupational choices, while female adults’ influence was not perceived as supportive of these choices. The high negative correlation between nontraditionality of major and nontraditionality of occupational choice explains these seemingly contradictory findings. The only significant predictor among role model influences for the science-relatedness of Ss’ college major choice was the negative influence of male teachers. The amount of variance accounted for by this prediction equation was the lowest of the five (R = .22; 4% of the variance explained). Role Model,
PSES, and Gender-Role
Influences
Finally, a second series of stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted predicting the five educational/career variables. For these analyses, performance self-esteem and the gender-role variables (masculinity, femininity, and the M-F score) were included as predictors along with the significant sources of role model influence identified in the first set of prediction equations. The results of these final ayalyses are displayed in Table 3. Performance self-esteem and the influence of female teachers were significantly predictive of both career salience and educational aspirations, accounting for a moderate amount of the variance in both analyses (28% and 17010, respectively). The other role model influences did not add significantly to either of these prediction equations. The multiple Rs for the final equations were higher overall than the multiple Rs for the
ROLE MODEL
175
INFLUENCES
TABLE 3 Final Stepwise Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Career Salience, Educational Aspirations, and Major and Career Choice Variables Career salience Significant predictors
df
F
P
R
.55***
2,87 Performance self-esteem Female teacher(s)
.42 .26
df
F
- .25
6.64**
P
of occupational F
6.77* 5.72*
-.24 .19
6.70* 4.04*
P
F
.05 choice
R
- .20
R’ udi
.I8
of college major R
.20”
1,97 Male teacher(s)
R’ adj
.47*** .24 .23
Science-relatedness
df
R
.25**
4,93 Performance self-esteem Other male adult(s) Expressiveness (Femininity) Father
.17
of college major
P
Nontraditionality
df
R2 adj
9.09** 7.07**
1,97 Father
R
.43*** .29 .25
Nontraditionality Significant predictors
aspirations _--~-
F
P
2,95 Performance self-esteem Female teacher(s)
.28
20.33*** 7.50** Educational
df
RZ adj
R’ ctdj
.03
4.10*
Note. N = 107; n’s of 97 for analysis on educational aspirations, nontraditionality of major and occupation and science-relatedness of college major; n = 89 for analyses on career salience. Reduction in n’s due to missing data. * p < .05. ** p < .Ol. *** p < ,001.
176
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND
O’HALLORAN
analyses containing only the role model variables (R = .55 vs. .44 for career salience; R = .43 vs. .38 for educational aspirations). Neither performance self-esteem nor the gender-role variables added significantly to the prediction of nontraditionality and science-relatedness of college major, over and above the effects of role models. The prediction equations for both of these variables were virtually unchanged. Conversely, the final prediction equation for the nontraditionality of occupational choice included performance self-esteem, femininity scores, and the role model influences of male adult and father. The final analysis on nontraditionality of occupational choice also accounted for a higher percentage of the variance than the first analysis containing only role model influences (18 vs. 11%). Higher levels of performance self-esteem and lower levels of femininity add significantly to the perceived support of father and other male adults in predicting nontraditional occupational choices on the part of these female college students. DISCUSSION The results of this investigation are supportive of our hypothesis that role model influences are predictive of career-related aspirations and choices, and that different role model influences are most strongly predictive of different aspects of the career choice process. The results also confirm that perceived role model influences interact with other important predictors, especially performance self-esteem. Our findings are only partly supportive of the hypothesis that female role model influences are strong predictors of women’s career-related choices, and the data do not support the importance of gender role in the prediction of career salience, educational aspirations, nontraditionality of college major and occupation, and science-relatedness of college major. Specifically, performance self-esteem and the positive influence of female teachers were most predictive of two important aspects of women’s career development, namely, career salience and educational aspirations. No female role model influence entered significantly into the final prediction equations for the college major and occupational choice variables. Male role model influences were significantly but negatively related to women’s choice of a nontraditional or science-related college major. While fathers were evidently discouraging of women’s selection of nontraditional college majors, and male teachers exerted a negative influence on women’s selection of science-related college majors, neither source of negative influence was very strong; the amount of variance accounted for in these two equations was quite low. This finding may simply reflect the negative reactions women commonly receive for acting “out of role”. On the other hand the positive influence of fathers and male adults, along with high performance self-esteem and low levels of psychological
ROLE
MODEL
INFLUENCES
177
“femininity”, were strongly and significantly predictive of college women’s consideration of nontraditional occupations. A major conclusion that can be drawn from this investigation is that it is important to explore various aspects of the career development process in order to understand how role models influence women’s choices. For example it is clear from this investigation that perceived role model influences, at least as measured herein, are not promising explanatory variables for nontraditional and science-related college major choices. It may be that the women in this sample did not have strong female occupational role models or that the mothers of these women were not engaged in work outside the home, these two factors having been importantly related to women’s nontraditional choices in past research (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). It may also be the case that factors other than role model influences are more strongly related to college major choices, especially the choice of a science-related major. For example, mathematics self-efficacy has been found to be a very strong predictor of math and science-related college major choices (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Hackett, 1985). Math self-efficacy in women is, in turn, hypothesized to be affected by modeling experiences as well as socialization messages and past performance and so may “contain” more relevant information than role model influences alone. In any event, the explanation for these findings must await future research. This study strongly supports the importance of female teachers and professors in predicting both career salience and educational aspirations of college women, but also provides evidence that other sources of role model influence are important to significant dimensions of career-related choices, especially the choice of nontraditional occupations. Further, some evidence was found for the negative effects of important male role models on women’s career and educational choices. Primary among the unexpected findings in this study was the failure to find strong effects for gender-role orientation, contrary to the results reported by Gilbert et al. (1983). However, the present investigation examined a different aspect of role model influence than Gilbert et al., who studied the perceived salience of same-sex professorial role models in graduate students, as opposed to the relative influences of various types of role models on undergraduates. The present findings suggest that future research attend carefully to both the perceived significance as well as multiple sources of role model effects. Further, the very high correlations obtained between performance self-esteem and masculinity scores suggest that performance self-esteem may be tapping some of the same information contained in the PAQ masculinity (instrumentality) scale. A major limitation in terms of the generalizability of this research is that the sample was drawn from an all-women’s college. As mentioned
178
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
previously, such institutions tend to provide more same-sex professional models, so the range of female model influences may have been relatively restricted at the high end. An interesting followup to this study would be a replication with senior women from a coeducational institution. The study was, of course, retrospective in nature, as is most of the research on role model influences, a potential source of bias, particularly in the measures of perceived role model influences. Further, the Role Model Influence Scale has uncertain reliability and validity; Basow and Howe’s (1980) results provide partial confirmation of some aspects of criterion-related validation, but more work needs to be performed to ensure both reliable and valid responses. Generally, the lack of measures with strong psychometric characteristics has plagued research in this area. Role model influences may also change over time. The measure employed herein was apparently not sensitive to developmentally-related changes in the effects of role models on different aspects of the career development process. Finally, alternate methods of measuring some of the educational and career-related dependent measures would enhance future research. Career salience was the only dependent variable to be assessed via an instrument with proven adequate psychometric properties. The other measures have been imployed in previous research (e.g., Betz 8z Hackett, 1981; Hackett, 1985), and certainly have adequate face validity, but level of educational aspirations, the traditionality measures for major and occupational choices, and the rating of the science-relatedness of college major were all measured on single-item rating scales, possibly affecting the stability of these measures. Although the study should be interpreted with these limitations in mind, these results underscore the importance of self-estimates of competence in predicting nontraditional career choices. In this study performance self-esteem was consistently and significantly related to important careerrelated variables. Past research on career self-efficacy, a construct similar in some ways to the more global concept of performance self-esteem, has also consistently confirmed the centrality of self-percepts of confidence, however defined, in the prediction of achievement behavior (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Hackett, 198.5; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Osipow, 1986). Although a more complex causal model of the precise interrelationships between role model influences and the development of a strong sense of competence in one’s abilities awaits future research, the extant research is at least strongly suggestive of just such a connection (Farmer, 1987; Gilbert et al., 1983; Stake & Noonan, 1985). REFERENCES Almquist, E. M., & Almquist, S. S. (1971). Role model influences on college women’s career aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 263-279. .
-
-.
^ .
^ ^ I-^^_.
-
.I
.
.
.
^
.. .
.
ROLE MODEL
INFLUENCES
careers: The role of family, peers, and counselors.
179
Vocationa/ Guidance Qunrfer/y.
29, 253-263.
Basow, S. A., & Howe, K. G. (1980). Role-model influence: Effects of sex and sex role in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 558-572. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based colege majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
Douvan, E. (1976). The role of models in women’s professional development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 5-20. Ehrhart, J. K., & Sandier, B. R. (1987). Looking for more than a few good women in traditionally male Jields. Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women of the Association of American Colleges. Erkut, S., & Mokros, J. R. (1984). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 399-417. Farmer, H. S. (1987). A multivariate model for explaining gender differences in career and achievement motivation. Educational Researcher, 16, 5-9. Fassinger, R. (1985). A causal model of college women’s career choice. Journa/ of Vocational Behavior, 27, 123-153. Gilbert, L. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships. Sex Roles, 12 (l/2), 111-123. Gilbert, L. A., Gallessich, J. M., & Evans, S. L. (1983). Sex of faculty role model and students’ self-perceptions of competency. Sex Roles.9 (5), 597-607. Goldman, R. D., & Hewitt, B. N. (1976). The scholastic aptitude test “explains” why college men major in science more often than college women. Journul of Counseling Psychology, 23, 50-54. Goldstein, E. (1979). Effect of same-sex and cross-sex role models on the subsequent academic productivity of scholars. American Psychologist, 34, 407-410. Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 209-216. Greenhaus, J. H. (1973). A factorial investigation of career salience. Journul qfVocationa/ Behavior, 3, 95-98. Greenhaus, J. H., & Simon, W. E. (1977). Career salience, work values, and vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 104-110. Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counse/ing Psychology. 32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339. Hawley. P. (1971). What women think men think: Does it affect their career choices? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 193-199. Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Change in family roles, socialization, and sex differences. American Psychologisr, 32, 644-657. Houser, B., & Garvey, C. (1983). The impact of family, peers, and educational personnel upon career decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 35-44. Kutner, N. G., & Brogan, D. R. (1980). The decision to enter medicine: Motivations, social support, and discouragements for women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 341-357. Lunneborg, P. (1982). Role model influencers of nontraditional professional women. Journul of Vocational Behavior, 20, 276-281.
180
HACKETT,
ESPOSITO,
AND O’HALLORAN
O’Donnell, J., 8z Anderson, D. J. (1978). Factors influencing choice of major and career of capable women. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 26, 214-221. Orlofsky, J. L., & Stake, J. E. (1981). Psychological masculinity and femininity: Relationship to striving and self-concept in the achievement and interpersonal domains. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 218-233. Osipow, S. H. (1986). Career issues through the life-span. In M. S. Pallack & R. 0. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work. (APA Master Lectures). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. Stake, J. E. (1979). Women’s self-estimates of competence and the resolution of the home/ career conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 33-42. Stake, J. E., & Noonan, M. (1985). The influence of teacher models on the career confidence and motivation of college students. Sex Roles, 12 (9/10), 1023-1031. Tangri, S. S. (1972). Determinants of occupational role innovation among college women. Journal of Social Issues. 28, 177-199. Tidball, M. E. (1973). Perspective on academic women and affirmative action. Educational Record, 54, 130-135. Weber, J. A., & Miller, M. G. (1984). Factors related to college women’s perceptions of employment. Home Economics Research Journal, 13, 159-166. Wilson, J., Weikel, W. J., &Rose, H. (1982). A comparison of nontraditional and traditional career women. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 31, 109-l 17. Received: December 12, 1988.