On the reciprocal relationship between gender and occupation: Rethinking the assumptions concerning masculine career development

Journal of Vocational

Behavior 27, 109-122 (1985)

On the Reciprocal Relationship between Gender and Occupation: Rethinking the Assumptions Concerning Masculine Career Development LOUISE F. FITZGERALD Kent

AND CATHERINE State

C. CHERPAS

University

Social scientists who study the career development of women have tended to ignore variables which function to inhibit or facilitate change in the traditional pattern of men’s vocational behavior. Although such neglect is understandable, given the pervasive promasculine bias of society and the parallel disparagement of what has traditionally been considered “women’s work,” economists and sociologists have long pointed out that the vocational behavior of both sexes must change for there to be any significant alteration in the sexual division of labor. The present paper suggested the utility of viewing masculine career behavior as an extension of male sex role, and investigated counselors’ reactions to an experimental analog of the vocational counseling process. As predicted, the counselors demonstrated negative reactions to a male aspiring to a nontraditional (i.e., feminine) occupation. The discussion outlined suggestions for research into factors which may relate to change in the traditional patterns of men’s vocational behavior. 0 I985 Academic Press, Inc.

One interesting outgrowth of the research in women’s career development has been that small but growing body of literature which focuses on the vocational behavior of men. Although there is a sense, of course, in which the entire discipline of career psychology has been the study of the vocational behavior of men, it is also true that it is only recently that scholars have begun to reinterpret much of this literature in light of the masculine sex role, with its prescriptions and proscriptions, much as feminist scholars began to do with the vocational behavior of women nearly 20 years ago. Writers such as O’Neil(l980) and Morgan, Skovholt, and Orr (1979) point out that men are socialized to equate vocational success with self-worth, to “measure their masculinity by the size of their pay check” (Gould, 1974), and to eschew occupational pursuits which do not lend support to the image of the rational, competitive, power-oriented male. This focus on male career behavior as an expression Send requests for reprints to Louise F. Fitzgerald, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Graduate School of Education,

109 0001-8791185 $3.00 Copyright 0 1985 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

110

FITZGERALD

AND CHERPAS

and extension of the prescribed male sex role has lent new meaning to Super’s (1951) dictum that when one chooses an occuption, one is, in effect, choosing a means to implement a self-concept. In his theoretical analysis of the division of labor, Krause (1982) points out the dynamic interrelationships among the forces which operate to support this division. The pattern of the division of labor at any one point can be visualized as a set of interlocking role relationships, with occupations, or social categories such as sex groups, creating a pattern within a setting or across settings, such as male/female relations in all settings, work plus home. Change in the role andfunction of one group . . affects the role and function of the other groups linked to it in a given pattern. (p. 102, emphasis added)

In other words, this analysis suggests that as women’s career behavior changes, so, too, will that of men. A logically parallel proposition suggests that the forces which support stasis in the existing occupational distribution of women will similarly support such lack of change in the occupational distribution of men. Put more simply, it seems reasonable to suggest that the same values and processes which keep women “in their place” will also operate to keep men in theirs. A few examples will illustrate this point. It is widely argued, and generally agreed, that the socialization process functions to channel women into the nurturing, service-oriented occupations which are functional extensions of their biological sex role (Fitzgerald & Betz, 1983; Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980). However, there is evidence to suggest that sex-inappropriate behavior evokes even greater parental concern when expressed by boys than by girls (Fling & Manosevitz, 1972; Goodenough, 1957; Lansky, 1967). It thus seems logical to suggest that the socialization process operates to discourage males from developing the interests and behaviors which would support their choice of what are currently considered the feminine occupations (social worker, nurse, etc.), and thus can be conceptualized as a barrier to men’s career development, in the sense that individual differences are subordinated to the primacy of sex role congruence. In parallel fashion, peer evaluation and normative expectations of male adolescents and adults strongly reinforce sex role congruent behavior for this group. Mayer (1978) suggested that men who fail to conform to the “masculine mystique” are sometimes punished and labeled immature, unmasculine, and effeminate, while Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marcek, and Pascale (1975) reported that men who were portrayed as sex role incongruent were seen by college student subjects as less popular and more in need of therapy than men who were portrayed as traditionally masculine. Fitzgerald (1980) found that the college students in her sample regarded nontraditional occupational choices as less appropriate than traditional choices for both men and

MASCULINE

CAREER

DEVELOPMENT

111

women, and Seyfried and Hendrick (1973) reported that men who expressed interest in traditionally feminine activities, such as cooking, were seen as less socially attractive than women who expressed traditionally masculine attitudes. Yanico (1978) found that men may have even less support than women for choosing nontraditional occupations. Thus, peer expectations concerning gender normative behaviors can also be seen to function as a constraint, or barrier, to men’s career development. Finally, the perception of nontraditional behavior as deviant and the result of heterosexual failure, long a problem for innovative women despite data to the contrary (Almquist & Angrist, 1971; Sedney & Turner, 197.5), is exacerbated for nontraditional males, often to the point where their entire sexual identity is called into question. In discussing the male nurse, Etzkowitz (1971) wrote, “There is a set of mental equations which go: Female + Nursing Role = Nurse; Male + Nursing Role = Homosexual” (p. 432). One of his subjects, a male nurse, noted “You are bearing the burden of this kind of stigma. When everyone meets a male nurse, there is a period of evaluation to determine does he or doesn’t he. I had to continually prove my masculinity” (p. 432). Many authors (Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; O’Neil, 1980) note the restrictive effect of male homophobia (fear of homosexuals, or fear of being thought homosexual) on men, including the notion that violation of the male sex role is more harshly judged than violation of the female sex role because of the greater value of the male sex role (Morin & Garhnkle, 1978; Steffenmeister & Steffenmeister, 1974). O’Neil (1980) summarized 15 assumptions concerning male career development which operate to channel men into the traditional patterns of behavior, noting that their degree of validity will vary from man to man, depending on social class, race, and sex role socialization. Among these assumptions are that men should be competitive, achievement oriented, and competent (Bucher, 1976; Crites & Fitzgerald, 1978); that sex-related differences in abilities and interests dictate that men and women have different jobs (Wesley & Wesley, 1977); and that men learn that work is the primary way to define personal and self-worth (Bucher, 1978; Morgan et al., 1979; Pleck & Sawyer, 1974; Skovholt, 1978). The notion that sex role expectations are at least equally as strong for men as they are for women and that men experience equal pressures to conform their career behavior to these expectations may appear, on the one hand, novel, and on the other, so obvious as to be trivial. Yet, this is only so if it is assumed that the traditional pattern of male career development is somehow the “natural order” of things; thus, it would be novel to think of men’s behavior as constrained and trivially obvious that men would be devalued for choosing to deviate from a pattern so favored and rewarded by their culture. It is suggested here that both of these reactions are based on the pervasive and sexist overevaluation of

112

FITZGERALD

AND CHERPAS

whatever is masculine in this society, and the corresponding devaluation of whatever is feminine. Margaret Mead (1974) pointed this out some time ago when she noted, in all cultures, without any known exception, male activity is seen as achievement; whatever women dwathering seeds, planting, weeding, basket-making, potmaking-is valued less than when the same activity, in some other culture, is performed by men. When men cook, cooking is viewed as an important activity; when women cook it is just a household chore. (1974, pp. 56-57)

Contemporary empirical support is provided by the work of Touhey (1974a, 1974b) who investigated the effect on occupational prestige of a projected influx of the opposite sex into occupations seen as traditionally masculine or feminine. Predictably, he found that an increase in the number of men had a positive effect on prestige while an increase in the number of women had the opposite effect. Beyard-Tyler and Haring (1984) report conceptually similar findings. To summarize, we have suggested that the sexual division of labor is maintained by a combination of structural and psychological variables which operate to support the status quo for both men and women in the workplace; that male career behavior can be viewed as an extension of the male sex role and, thus, subject to all of the prescriptions and proscriptions which operate to constrain women’s career behavior; and that these constraints have been obscured by a pervasive promasculine bias, which views traditional male behavior patterns as normal and naturally occurring, thecriterion against which otherbehaviorpatterns are measured. It is suggested here that the reconceptualization of men’s career development as, at least partly, overdetermined by sex role expectations may be an instructive paradigm for both theory and practice. Rationale and Hypotheses

In recent years, numerous studies have appeared which have documented the existence of gender bias in the counseling process. Based on the possibility that counselors and psychotherapists have suggested and reinforced that narrow segment of occupational and psychological options reflected by the traditional female role, such research has documented the existence of negative counselor attitudes toward women, as well as toward nontraditional roles for women (American Psychological Association Task Force on Sex Bias and Sex Role Stereotyping, 1975; Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970; Kaplan, 1983; and others). Nowhere has such gender bias been more thoroughly documented than in the process of vocational counseling (Bingham & House, 1973; Donahue & Costar, 1977; Medvene & Collins, 1976; Thomas & Stewart, 1971). Thus, it has become commonplace to consider the process of vocational counseling as a barrier to, rather than as a facilitator of,

MASCULINE

CAREER

DEVELOPMENT

113

women’s career development. If it is so, as suggested above, that the same factors operate to channel men’s behavior as operate to channel women’s behavior, then it is logical to suggest that vocational counselors will also reinforce traditional occupational choices for men, much as they have been shown to do for women. And it is reasonable to expect that they will display negative attitudes toward men who make innovative (i.e., “nonmasculine”) choices. Similarly, vocational counselors who support and encourage such sex role deviation may also be negatively evaluated. The present study was designed to investigate these possibilities. Five hypotheses were formulated: 1. Counselors evaluate nontraditional occupational choices as less appropriate than traditional choices for both male and female clients. 2. Counselors evaluate both male and female clients who select a nontraditional occupation as less well adjusted than clients who select a traditional occupation. 3. Counselors are less willing to counsel a client of either sex when that client is portrayed as accepting of a nontraditional occupation. 4. Counselors are evaluated as less effective when they suggest a nontraditional choice to either a male or a female client than when they suggest a traditional occupation to that client. 5. Subjects are less willing to work with a counselor when he is portrayed as suggesting a nontraditional choice to a client of either sex than when he is portrayed as suggesting a traditional choice. METHOD Subjects

The experimental subjects were 122 graduate students enrolled in counseling courses at a large state university in the midwest. There were 65 females and 57 males. The subjects ranged in age from 22 to 56, with 31.5 years being the median. The sample was composed of doctoral (45%), master’s (36%), educational specialist (1 I%), and nondegree (9%) students. Eighty percent of the sample had experience as a counselor, and nearly 50% had more than 3 years of such experience. Stimulus

Materials

The occupations of physician and nurse were selected as examples of strongly sex-stereotyped occupations. Previous research has determined that these occupations are reliably perceived as being, respectively, masculine and feminine in nature (Fitzgerald, 1980; Shinar, 1975). In addition, both occupations require similar interest patterns [a combination of Investigative and Social Interests (Campbell & Hanson, 1981; Holland, 1984)] and are both in the health/medical field. Although obviously not matched on status or educational level (strongly feminine occupations

114

FITZGERALD

AND

CHERPAS

are, almost by definition, relatively lacking in status), this is not a concern in the present situation where it is the interaction of sex and occupation that is being predicted, and the qualifications of the stimulus person are held constant. Two scripts were developed that depicted a IO-min segment of a vocational counseling interview. The scripts were based on actual interview statements made by clients in career counseling, and many of the responses were taken verbatim from such interviews. In each script, the client was depicted as having scientific interests (math, chemistry, biology, etc.), as well as a strong desire to work with people. In addition, the client was portrayed as displaying a high degree of scholastic aptitude. In the first condition, the counselor suggests-and the client subsequently agreesthat medicine (physician) is an appropriate vocational choice. In the second version of the tape, medicine is rejected in favor of nursing. The great majority of the script material was identical (the client’s interests, background, hospital work experience, etc.), with only the portions dealing with the selection of physician or nursing being varied. The scripts were recorded on audiotape, with the counselor role portrayed by a male counseling psychologist and the client role by either a male or female college student. Each script was recorded twice, once with a male student in the client role and once with a female student filling that role. The counselor was the same in all versions of the tape. Both the “clients” and the counselor were blind to the experimental hypothesis. These procedures resulted in four IO-min audiotape recordings, each of which contained a different combination of the independent variables of client sex and occupational choice. These materials have been used in previous research and a complete description of their development can be found in Fitzgerald (1980). Procedure

The subjects were assigned randomly by sex to one of the four experimental conditions, and the data were collected by four female experimenters. Each of the four experimental conditions contained a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 18 subjects of each sex, with female and male subjects being distributed proportionately across groups. Although the experimenters were aware of the hypotheses under investigation, the possibility of experimenter bias was reduced through the use of taped instructions. The introductory statement was read, the subjects in each group listened to the audiotape, and then they completed the experimental ratings. Each subject was exposed to only one version of the tape. Measurement

and Scoring

of Dependent

Variables

When the audiotape simulation was completed, the subjects responded to a packet of materials designed to investigate the experimental hypotheses.

MASCULINE

CAREER

DEVELOPMENT

115

The first three hypotheses were investigated by requiring the subjects to respond to a series of 7-point bipolar scales that were especially constructed to measure reactions to the stimuli. These scales measured the subject’s opinion as to the appropriateness of the occupation under discussion, their perceptions of the psychological adjustment status of the client, and their own willingness to work with this particular client. The primary measure of counselor effectiveness was the Counselor Rating Form (CRF). This measure consists of 36 bipolar adjective pairs, each separated by a 7-point bipolar scale. The items were selected from a larger pool and classified by four expert judges as measures of the three dimensions of counselor behavior extrapolated from social psychological research by Strong (1968); expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness. A more detailed description of the development of the instrument is available in Barak and Lacrosse (1975). Each of the three dimensions measured by the CRF contains 12 bipolar items, with a possible response range of 1 to 7. A mean score, obtained by dividing a subject’s scale total by the number of items in the scale, was used. This is a linear transformation of the original scoring method described by the CRF’s authors, and produces scores which range from 1.00 to 7.00, thus preserving both the numerical identity of the scale and its intuitive meaning. Finally, the subjects completed a 7-point bipolar scale measuring their willingness to work with this particular counselor and a biographical data sheet requesting information on sex, major, degree being pursued, occupation, and experience, if any, as a counselor. RESULTS

The first hypothesis was that the subjects rate nontraditional vocational choices as less appropriate than traditional choices for both men and women. This hypothesis was investigated by requiring subjects to rate their degree of agreement with the choice on a 7-point, bipolar scale that was labeled strongly agree at the positive pole and strongly disagree at the negative pole. Higher ratings thus indicate a stronger degree of agreement. The means and standard deviations for the eight groups appear in Table 1. These data were submitted to a 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA (Occupation x Sex of Client x Sex of Subject), which yielded a significant main effect for Occupation [F(l, 121) = 6.67, p < .Ol]. Inspection of the marginal means revealed that, overall, the subjects rated the occupation “nurse” as a less appropriate choice than the occupation “physician.” A post hoc analysis, using the Steel-Torrie extension of Tukey’s HSD, appropriate for unequal n, indicated that nursing was seen as less appropriate than medicine only for the male client. No other comparisons reached significance. These results are displayed graphically in Fig. 1. Thus, the first hypothesis was supported for the male client, but not for the female client.

116

FITZGERALD

AND CHERPAS

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Experimental

Ratings

Males Group

M

4.47 5.33 5.15 5.47

Females SD

M

SD

Subjects’ degree of agreement with selected occupation 1.408 4.93 1.668 1.543 5.89 0.832 0.899 5.00 1.359 1.685 5.41 1.502

4.80 5.33 5.23 5.40

Client adjustment ratings 1.464 4.93 0.899 5.22 0.832 5.21 1.056 5.30

1.033 1.003 1.122 0.686

6.40 6.67 6.62 6.47

Degree of subjects’ willingness to work with client 0.828 6.00 0.617 6.94 0.506 6.43 0.743 6.64

1.512 0.236 0.756 0.493

5.07 5.20 4.92 5.20

Degree of subjects’ willingness to work with counselor 1.907 4.33 2.289 1.781 5.44 1.688 1.706 4.71 1.939 1.521 4.65 2.178

NOW. Group 1 = male client-nurse; Group 2 = male client-doctor; client-nurse; Group 4 = female client-doctor.

Group 3 = female

The second hypothesis, which stated that clients making nontraditional vocational choices are rated as less well adjusted than clients making more traditional choices, was investigated by having the counselor subjects rank the client on a continuum of adjustment from 1 (extremely poorly adjusted) to 7 (extremely well adjusted). The resulting means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. When these scores were subjected to a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial ANOVA, there were no significant findings. Thus, the second hypothesis was not supported. The third hypothesis predicted that subjects are more willing to work (as a counselor) with the client when he or she is portrayed in the traditional condition than when she/he appears in the nontraditional condition. This hypothesis was investigated by asking the subjects to rate, on a 7-point scale, their willingness to work with a client. A rating of 1 signified that the subject was unwilling, whereas a rating of 7 signified the opposite. The resulting means and standard deviations are given in Table 1. When these scores were arranged in a 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA,

MASCULINE

CAREER DEVELOPMENT

117

/’ /’ w’ P = 4.70

DOCTOR NURSE.---+ I MALE CLIENT

I FEMALE

CLIENT

FIG. 1. Subjects’ degree of agreement with selected occupation by occupation and sex of client.

they yielded a significant main effect for Occupation [F(l, 121) = 5.77, p < .02] and a significant Sex of Client x Occupation interaction [F(l, 121) = 4.12, p < .05], where the subjects were less willing to work with the nursing aspirant, particularly when he was male. A post hoc analysis revealed that the subjects were significantly less willing to work with the male client when he aspired to nursing. No other comparisons were significant. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported for the male client. These results are displayed graphically in Fig. 2. The fourth hypothesis predicted that the counselor is seen as less effective when she/he suggests a nontraditional occupation to a client of

N .60 1 , 8 x

70 .w 5.50

MALE

CLIENT

DOCTOR

W

NURSE O----O

1 FEMALE

CLIENT

2. Subjects’ willingness to work with client in counseling by occupation and sex of client. FIG.

118

FITZGERALD

AND CHERPAS

TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Counselor Dimensions by Experimental and Sex of Subject Attractiveness

Expertness M

SD

M

1 2 3 4

6.12 5.56 5.38 5.67

0.642 0.887 1.219 1.080

5.63 5.10 5.40 5.65

1 2 3 4

5.97 5.52 5.79 5.45

0.547 0.721 0.630 0.893

5.63 5.32 5.69 5.35

Group

Condition

Trustworthiness

SD

M

SD

0.597 0.948 0.799 0.722

5.90 5.43 5.38 5.85

0.797 0.933 1.023 0.985

0.457 0.595 0.553 0.782

5.87 5.57 5.80 5.21

0.458 0.723 0.679 0.849

Females

Males

Note. Group 1 = male client-nurse; Group 2 = male client-doctor; client-nurse; Group 4 = female client-doctor.

Group 3 = female

either sex than when she/he suggests a more traditional option. This hypothesis was investigated by having subjects evaluate the counselor on the three dimensions of the CRF. The resulting means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 2 for each of the four experimental conditions. These data were analyzed using a two-between (experimental condition, sex of subject) one-within (dimensions) repeated-measures analysis of variance. No main effect emerged for experimental condition or sex of subject; however, the analysis did show significant effect for dimension [F(2, 226) = 5.93, p < .004]. A post hoc analysis, using the Scheffe method for multiple comparisons, revealed that the counselor was seen as significantly more expert than attractive. These results, however, were not related to client sex or occupational choice. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was not supported. The final hypothesis suggested that subjects are more willing to work (as a client) with the counselor when he appeared in the traditional condition than when he was portrayed in the nontraditional condition. This hypothesis was investigated by asking the subjects to assume that they were in need of career counseling and to rate on a 7-point scale their willingness to work with this particular counselor. The resulting means and standard deviations appear in Table 1. When these data were submitted to a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial ANOVA, none of the analyses reached significance. Thus, the fifth hypothesis was not supported. DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to test the notion that the complex of variables which operates to maintain the traditional division of labor

MASCULINE

CAREER

DEVELOPMENT

119

between the sexes functions as a barrier to the career development of men as well as women. The variable selected for investigation, the vocational counseling process, was found to function, at least partially, in the manner predicted. The subjects in the present study, all practicing counselors or counselors in training, clearly believed the feminine occupation of nursing to be a less appropriate choice for the male client than for the female client. And, although these negative perceptions did not extend to the evaluation of the nontraditional counselor nor to the adjustment status of the client, the subjects were clearly less willing to work with the nursing aspirant when he was a man. It is possible to argue, of course, that the findings result not from role expectations of gender-normative behavior but, rather, reflect professional judgments based on the interest and aptitude data discussed in the stimulus tape, that medicine was a more realistic choice than nursing. However, if this were the case, it would also be true for the female client, for whom such data were identical. Unless one is willing to argue that it is “okay” for a woman to choose an occupation that is unrealistically low level, in terms of her ability (what Crites, 1981, labels an “unfulfilled” choice), but not appropriate for a male to do so, one is left with the conclusion that it is the sex role inappropriateness of the occupation which accounted for the variance in the ratings. Careful review of the results leads to the conclusion that these subjects believed it was less appropriate for the man to go into nursing, and they were less willing to “take him on” as a client. The choice of nursing by a woman with identical interests and level of ability was judged appropriate. Interestingly, the familiar negative reaction to a nontraditional woman (i.e., a woman who aspired to the traditionally masculine occupation of physician) did not appear in the present study, suggesting that, at least on the somewhat impersonal level tapped by analog research, such reactions may be beginning to change for some occupations. Obviously the results need to be generalized to other occupations before more than very tentative conclusions can be drawn. The present findings have some obvious implications for the practice of vocational counseling. However, the focus here is not on vocational counseling per se, but rather as an example of how variables long known to function as barriers to women’s career development can function reciprocally as barriers to the career development of men. Other variables which might fruitfully be investigated include the attitudes of family and peers (Auster & Auster, 1981), the behavior of employers and managers (Rosen & Jerdee, 1973), expectations of gender-appropriate leadership style (Rosen & Jerdee, 1973; Terborg, 1977), and others which would conceivably influence what Gottfredson (1981) has labeled the zone of acceptable alternatives. In line with Krause’s (1982) notion of the functional reciprocity of the sexual division of labor, it is suggested here that it

FITZGERALD

120

AND CHERPAS

may be instructive to begin to think about men’s vocational behavior in a different way. In the final analysis, for the occupational distribution of women to approach that of men, the career-related behaviors of both sexes must change in a reciprocal manner (Stevenson, 1975). Those of us who study those behaviors must begin to think about the variables that facilitate and inhibit change in the masculine half of the gender equation. REFERENCES Almquist, E. M., & Angrist, S. S. (1971). Role model influences on college women’s career aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 263-279. American Psychological Association Task Force (1975). Report of the task force on sex bias and sex-role stereotyping in psychotherapeutic practice. American Psychologist, 30, 1169-1175. Auster, C. J., & Auster, D. (1981). Factors influencing women’s choice of nontraditional careers: The role of family, peers, and counselors. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 29, 253-263. Barak, A., & Lacrosse, M. B. (1975). Multidimensional perception of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 471-476. Beyard-Tyler, K., & Haring, M. J. (1984). Gender-related aspects of occupational prestige. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 194-203. Bingham, W. C., & House, E. W. (1973). Counselor’s attitudes towards women and work. Vocational

Guidance

Quarterly,

22, 16-32.

Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P., & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgements of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, l-7. Bucher, G. R. (1976). Srraighr, while, male. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Campbell, D. P., & Hansen, J. C. (1981). Manual for the SVIB-XII (3rd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marcek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimenfal Social Psychology,

11, 520-530.

Crites, J. 0. (1981). Career Counseling. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crites, J. O., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1978). The competent male. The Counseling Psychologist, 7, 10-14. Donahue, T. J., & Costar, J. W. (1977). Counselor discrimination against young women in career selection. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 481-486. Etzkowitz, H. (1971). The male sister: Sexual separation of labor in society. Journal of Marriage

Fitzgerald,

and the Family,

33, 431-434.

L. F. (1980). Nontraditional

Counseling

Psychology,

occupations:

Not for women only. Journal

of

27, 252-259.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Issues in the vocational psychology of women. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocafional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Crites, J. 0. (1980). Toward a career psychology of women: What do we know? What do we need to know? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 4462. Fling, S., & Manosevitz, M. (1972). Sex typing in nursery school children’s play interests. Developmental

Psychology,

7, 146-152.

Goodenough, E. W. (1957). Interest in persons as an aspect of sex differences in early years. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 55, 287-323.

MASCULINE

CAREER DEVELOPMENT

121

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counse/ing Psycho/ogy, 28, 545-579. Gould, R. (1974). Measuring masculinity by the size of the paycheck. In J. Pleck & J. Sawyer (Eds.), Men and masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gross, E. (1968). Plus ca change ? The sexual structure of occupations over time. Social Problems, 16, 198-208. Hartmann, H. (1976). Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs, 3, 150. Holland, J. L. (1984). Making Vocatiomd Choices (2nd Ed). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Howe, L. K. (1977). Pink collar workers. New York: Avon. Kaplan, M. (1983). A woman’seye view of DSM III. American Psychologist, 38, 786-792. Krause, E. A. (1982). Division oflabor: A political perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Lansky, L. M. (1967). The family structure also affects the model: Sex-role attitudes in parents of preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 139-150. Lloyd, C. B. (Ed.). (1975). Sex, discrimination, and the division of labor. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology ofsex differences. Standford: Stanford Univ. Press. Mayer, N. (1978). The male mid-l$e crisis: Fresh start after 40. New York: New American Library. Mead, M. (1974). On Freud’s view of female psychology. In Jean Strouse (Ed.), Women and analysis. New York: Grossman. Reprinted in J. H. Williams (Ed.) (1979). Psychology of women: Selected readings. New York: Norton. Medvene, A. M., & Collins, A. M. (1976). Occupational prestige and appropriateness: The view of mental health specialists. Journul of Vocational Behavior. 9, 63-71. Morgan, J. I., Skovholt, T. M., & Orr, J. M., Jr. (1979). Career counseling with men: The shifting focus. In Stephen G. Weinrach (Ed.), Career counseling: Theorericu/ and practical perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill. Morin, S. F., & Garhnkle, E. M. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal offocial Issues, 34, 29. O’Neil, J. M. (1980). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity. Psychological implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychology, 9, 61-80. Pleck, J. H., & Sawyer, J. (1974). Men and masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1973). The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 44-48. Sedney, M. A., & Turner, B. F. (1975). A test of causal sequences in two models for the development of career orientation in women. Journul of Vocational Behavior, 6, 281291. Seyfried, B. A., & Hendrick, C. (1973). When do opposites attract’? When they are opposite in sex and sex-role attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 15-20. Shinar, E. H. (1975). Sexual stereotypes of occupations. Journal qf Vocationa/ Behavior, 7, 99-111. Skovholt, T. M. (1978). Feminism and men’s lives. The Counseling Psychologist, 7, 3-10. Steffenmeister, D., & Steffenmeister, R. (1974). Sex differences in reactions to homosexuals: Research continuities and further developments. The Journal of Sex Research, 10, 52-67. Stevenson, M. H. (1975). Relative wages and sex segregation by occupation. In C. B.

122

FITZGERALD

AND CHERPAS

Lloyd (Ed.), Sex, discrimination, and the division of labor. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal ofcounseling Psychology,

15, 215-224.

Super, D. L, (1951). Vocational adjustment: Implementing a self concept. Occupations, 30, 88-92. Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology,

62, 647-664.

Thomas, A. H., & Stewart, N. R. (1971). Counselor response to females with deviate and conforming career goals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 352-357. Touhey, J. C. (1974a). Effects of additioual women professionals on ratings of occupational prestige and desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 86-89. Touhey, J. C. (1974b). Effects of additional men on prestige and desirability of occupations typically performed by women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 330-335. Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male: Psychological perspectives. New York: Harper & Row. Wesley, F., & Wesley, C. (1977). Sex role psychology. New York: Human Sciences Press. Yanico, B. J. (1978). Sex bias in career information: Effects of language on attitudes. Journal

of Vocational

Behavior,

Received: January 10, 1985.

13, 26-37.