- Email: [email protected]
The impact of gender schematic processing on the Self Directed Search responses of gifted and talented female adolescents
Journal of Vocational Behavior 24, 15-27 (1984)
The Impact of Gender Schematic Processing on the Self Directed Search Responses of Gifted and Talented Female Adolescents’ CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
Cleveland State University According to gender schema theory (S. L. Bern, Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981,88,354-364), gender schematic processing not only restricts assimilation of information into the selfconcept to that which is congruent with the gender schema but also restricts the individual’s response patterns in that responses are based on gender schema congruence or incongruence rather than upon a complete memory search. As a result of such gender schematic processing, the response patterns of gifted and talented female adolescents on Holland’s (1977) Self Directed Search (SDS) should vary as a function of their gender schema. Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance were conducted on the SDS responses of 284 gifted and talented female adolescents to test whether sex-typed female adolescents would score significantly higher on the gender congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions while scoring signitkantly lower on the gender incongruent Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions than did their cross sex-typed counterparts. The results indicated that while SDS total scores did vary significantly as a function of gender group, the direction of noted group differences failed to provide consistent support for predictions derived from gender schema theory. An alternative interpretation based on a generalization of Gottfredson’s theory is discussed.
According to Super’s Developmental Self Concept Theory of Vocational Choice, vocational choice represents an individual’s attempt to find expression for his/her self-concept and all that that self-belief system entails (Super, 1953, 1963). Bern (1981) has set forth the gender schema theory as a partial explanation for the sex-typing process. Within this theoretical framework, Bern proposes that the self-concept itself is assimilated into the individual’s gender schema such that the beliefs within the self-concept as well as beliefs which potentially could be incorporated into the self-belief system are determined and limited by the degree to which such self-beliefs are consistent with the individual’s general gender ’ This research was supported in part by a grant from the Women’s Educational Equity Act, U.S. Office of Education Grant OE GOO760497. 15 OOOl-8791/84$3.00 Copyright Q 1984 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
16
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
schema. To the extent that the development of the self-belief system is influenced or determined by gender schematic processing, career aspirations, and ultimately career choices would, according to Super, be substantially influenced and determined by the nature of the individual’s gender schema. To the extent that women’s career choices do indeed reflect their efforts to implement their self-concepts through careers which offer the greatest opportunity for expression of the self, the gender schema theory provides substantial explanatory power for the observed disproportionate representation by women in various career areas. As recently as 1981, the U.S. Department of Labor statistics still indicate substantial underrepresentation by women in math and science careers and overrepresentation in clerical and service career areas. According to gender schema theory, an individual’s gender schema functions so as to increase an individual’s readiness to search for and assimilate that information which is consistent with the gender schema. For women, sex-typed gender schematic processing would result in the selective assimilation of sextyped information into the self-concept, information which was consistent with the feminine stereotype. For example, positive feedback regarding artistic talent or social skills and abilities would be more readily assimilated into the self-concept than would positive feedback regarding ability in mathematics and the sciences since self perceptions of artistic and social abilities would be congruent with the sex-typed female’s gender schema. To the extent that a woman’s self-concept exclusively assimilated only those beliefs which were consistent with a sex-typed gender schema, her system of self-beliefs would be such that, in turn, she would indeed find the greatest opportunity for expression of that system of self-beliefs through traditionally feminine careers rather than through nontraditional or stereotypically masculine careers. Such an interpretation might partially account for the findings that not only do females report less interest in mathematics and the sciences than do their male peers (Fox & Denham, 1974; Fox, Pasternak, & Peiser, 1976), but that they also report less confidence and lower self-perceptions of ability in these stereotypically male domains (Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Erlick & LeBold, Note 1; Kaminski, Erikson, Ross, & Bradfield, Note 2). Furthermore, even among the mathematically talented, proportionately few female adolescents aspire to nontraditional math careers (Hollinger, 1983; Fleming & Hollinger, Note 3). Interest in mathematics and science as well as confidence and self-perceptions of ability in mathematics and the sciences would not readily be assimilated into the sextyped female’s self-belief system since such self-perceptions would be incongruent with her gender schema. Consequently, the sex-typed female would also be less likely to aspire to nontraditional math and science careers than would her sex-typed male or cross sex-typed female peers
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
17
since such careers would not be perceived as offering an opportunity for the expression of her sex-typed self-belief system or self-concept. While the interaction between external sex-role stereotypic feedback and the female’s own sex-typed, selective assimilation of information into the self-concept might alone account for the disproportionate career representation by women in various career areas, gender schematic processing might contribute to the sex-typing process in yet another way that would have major ramifications for the female’s career decisionmaking process. Given the salience of establishing sexual identity as a developmental issue of adolescence, the cognitive availability of gender schematic processing should be such that the female adolescent’s readiness to invoke gender schema over other available schema might be reflected in her response patterns on career interest inventories and on other career assessment instruments. In responding to career assessment items, the sex-typed female adolescent, according to gender schema theory, would not only rely on gender schema in responding to items on the basis of sex-role congruence or incongruence but would do so to the exclusion of a complete memory search. For example, on the Self Directed Search (Holland, 1977), the sex-typed female adolescent would invoke gender schematic processing and would respond to items assessing activity likes and dislikes, occupational interests, competencies, and self-estimates of ability in terms of their sex-role congruence or incongruence. Had she instead conducted a complete memory search in the process of responding to the SDS items, she might well have retrieved recollections of having had interest in “realistic” activities, “investigative” occupations, and so forth. The purpose of the present study is to test whether differences in the responses of gifted and talented female adolescents on Holland’s Self Directed Search (SDS) (Holland, 1977) occur as a function of gender schema of the individual. While sex differences in the SDS have been documented (Prediger & Cole, 1975; Prediger & Hanson, 1974), it remains to be seen whether such differences are associated with gender schematic processing. When raw scores are used, males have been found to achieve the highest summary score codes of I (Investigative), E (Enterprising), and R (Realistic) while females achieve the highest SDS summary codes of S (Social), A (Artistic), and C (Conventional) (Keeling & Tuck, 1978). According to gender schema theory, sex-typed female adolescents should report significantly lower scores on the schema incongruent Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions and significantly higher scores on the schema congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions than their non-sex-typed counterparts. While gender schema theory suggests a dichotomization of individuals (sex typed vs non-sex typed) rather than a four-way classification of individuals proposed by Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975), Bern (1981) cites research in support of gender schema
18
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
theory in which the four-way classification approach (feminine, masculine, androgynous, undifferentiated) was employed. Results from research cited (Girvin, Note 4) suggest that combining the androgynous, masculine, and undifferentiated groups may be unwarranted. The present study retains the four-way classification approach and sets forth predictions for each of the four classification groups. While inconsistent with Bern’s theoretical dichotomy, this approach does not contradict gender schematic processing per se but rather recognizes that the response tendencies of androgynous individuals should differ from undifferentiated individuals in that either feminine or masculine items would be congruent with the androgynous individual’s schema which contain both masculine and feminine selfperceptions. While modified, such predictions are indeed derived from gender schema theory. Therefore, according to gender schema theory, cross sex-typed female adolescents should score significantly higher on the Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions of the SDS then their sex-typed or feminine female counterparts. For cross sex-typed female adolescents, self-estimates of these traditionally masculine abilities, competencies, occupational preferences, and activity interests would be congruent with their masculine or cross sex-typed schema while being incongruent for their sex-typed, feminine counterparts. Similarly, those gifted and talented female adolescents classified as androgynous should also score significantly higher than sex-typed subjects since they, by definition, perceive themselves as possessing masculine attributes as well as feminine attributes (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Conversely, those female adolescents classified as undifferentiated should score low on these traditionally masculine dimensions since they, again by definition, score low on masculine attributes as well as on feminine attributes. For the traditionally feminine Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions, sex-typed female adolescents and androgynous female adolescents should both score significantly higher than either the cross sextyped subjects or the undifferentiated subjects on these three gendercongruent dimensions. For the cross sex-typed and undifferentiated subjects, individuals who by definition scored low on feminine attributes or on self-perceptions, the items of these traditionally feminine dimensions would be incongruent with their gender schema. METHODS Sample. The 284 participants in the study were selectedfrom a population of all female sophomores attending six metropolitan high schools (two public, two private, and two parochial) and represented the total population of gifted and talented female adolescents identified from these six high schools. Each participant was identified as possessing talent or giftedness in 1 of 15 talent areas assessed by the Project Choice talent identification
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
19
process (Fleming & Hollinger, 1981). The 15 areas assessedinclude such traditional dimensions as aptitude, math achievement, and English achievement, as well as nontraditional talent dimensions such as performing arts, athletics, and community involvement. Instrumentation and procedures. As part of a comprehensive career development assessment battery, each subject completed both the Personal Attributes Questionnaire short form (PAQ) (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974) and the Self Directed Search (SDS) (Holland, 1977). For the PAQ, total scores were calculated for both the masculinity and the femininity subscales. From the SDS, total Artistic, Conventional, Enterprising, Investigative, Realistic and Social summary scores were calculated. Each summary score was obtained by simply summing across the four sections of the SDS (Activities, Competencies, Occupations, and Self-Estimates) for each of the six areas. All protoculs were double scored, coded, and reconciled to ensure accuracy. On the basis of her scores on the two subscales of the PAQ, each subject was assigned to one of four categories in accordance with the median split procedure described by Spence and Helmreich (1978). The four resulting categories are defined as Undifferentiated: low masculine (M scale) and low feminine (F scale). Feminine (sextyped): low masculine (M scale) and high feminine (F scale). Masculine (cross sex-typed): high masculine (M scale) and low feminine (F scale). Androgynous: high masculine (M scale) and high feminine (F scale). In this classification approach, low and high scores are defined as falling below and above the median score for each scale, respectively. It should also be noted that in the absence of normative data for gifted and talented populations of adolescents, the sample’s median scores were employed in the classification process. However, it should be noted that the sample’s median M-scale and F-scale scores closely approximated those reported by Spence and Helmreich (1978) for a combined male and female college sample. After the scores were adjusted based on l-5 weightings to the O-4 weighting employed by Spence et al. (1974), the median M-scale score obtained for the present sample was 21.04 compared to an M-scale median score of 2.1.0 for the college sample. The median F-scale score of 24.0 for the gifted and talented female adolescent sample was slightly higher than the median F-scale score obtained for the combined college sample (Md = 23.0). Data analyses. A single-factor multivariate analysis of variance
20
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER
(MANOVA) to test for overall effects of gender classification group membership on SDS total scores was conducted. Following this analysis, a single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each of the six SDS summary scores to test whether significant differences existed among the four gender schema classification groups in terms of their responses to the SDS items. Pairwise comparisons between classification groups were conducted using Scheffe’s method in those instances where the obtained F value was significant at or beyond the .05 level. All analyses were conducted using the SAS statistical package. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the median split procedure are set forth in Table 1, which provides the N’s as well as the means and standard deviations for both the masculine and the feminine scales by classification group. The MANOVA resulted in an obtained F value (Wilk’s lambda criterion) of 3.36 (df = 18,778) which was significant at the .OOl level. The results indicated significant overall effects for gender classification group membership. When all six dimensions were considered simultaneously, SDS total scores were found to vary significantly as a function of gender classification group membership. The analysis of variance conducted on the Investigative summary scores yielded an obtained F value of 3.56 which was significant at the .02 level (Table 2). Of the four classification groups, the sex-typed feminine group scored the lowest (2 = 21.8) while the cross sex-typed masculine group scored the highest (J? = 26.5) on this stereotypically masculine dimension.
TABLE 1 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations by Gender Schema Group on PAQ Masculine Scale and Feminine Scale Masculine scale :
SD
x
SD
51
24.38
2.92
28.51
2.22
76
32.03
2.55
28.83
1.97
67
25.56
2.29
33.88
1.50
90
32.42
2.87
34.76
2.20
284
29.25
4.45
31.85
3.48
Schema classification
N
1. Undifferentiated (low masculine and low feminine) 2. Masculine (high masculine and low feminine) 3. Feminine (low masculine and high feminine) 4. Androgynous (high masculine and high feminine) Total
Feminine scale
Note. Item responses were weighted 1 to 5 rather than 0 to 4 weighting employed by Spence & Helmreich (1978).
21
THE IMPACT OF GENDER SCHEMATIC PROCESSING TABLE 2 Summary of ANOVAs Conducted on ?DS Summary Scores Source of variation
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
Investigative
Main effects Error Total
885.11 23179.86 24064.97
3 280 283
295.04 82.79
3.56*
Enterprising
Main effects Error Total
1787.39 17305.78 19093.17
3 280 283
595.80 61.81
9.64***
Realistic
Main effects Error Total
747.78 15988.66 16736.44
3 280 283
249.26 57.10
4.37**
Social
Main effects Error Total
1082.82 14401.16 15483.98
3 280 283
360.94 51.43
7.02***
Artistic
Main effects Error Total
627.92 25949.70 26577.62
3 280 283
209.30 92.68
2.26
Conventional
Main effects Error Total
516.50 21169.25 21685.75
3 280 283
172.17 75.60
2.28
Dimension
F
*p < .05. **p c .Ol. ***p < .ool.
The results of the Scheffe’s pairwise comparisons indicated that the scores obtained by the sex-typed feminine group were significantly lower than the scores obtained by the cross sex-typed masculine group (Table 3). While the scores obtained by the sex-typed group were lower than those obtained by the androgynous and the undifferentiated groups, these differences were not statistically significant. The results for the Investigative total scores are consistent with gender schema theory in that cross sex-typed female adolescents scored significantly higher on this traditionally masculine dimension than did their sex-typed counterparts. However, androgynous subjects, those possessing high masculine as well as feminine self-perceptions, failed to score significantly higher than their sex-typed counterparts, those possessing high feminine but low masculine self-perceptions, a finding which contradicted prediction. Although undifferentiated subjects, those female adolescents reporting low masculine as well as low feminine self-perceptions, scored lower than androgynous and cross sex-typed subjects, the paired comparisons failed to reach a level of statistical significance, findings which further contradicted predictions derived from gender schema theory.
22
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER TABLE 3 SDS Total Scores as a Function of PAQ Classification Group Membership Classification group
__--.-
SDS dimension
UF x (SW
MF 5 (SD)
FF x (SD)
AF x (SW
F ratio
Investigative
23.61,,* (8.82)
26.41, (8.15)
21.82* (9.57)
25.31,,b (9.64)
3.56*
Enterprising
18.28, (8.41)
23.14, (7.97)
18.546 (6.95)
23.78, (8.08)
9&t***
Realistic
11.41b (5.96)
14.50,,& (8.25)
12.02”,b (7.24)
15.34” (7.96)
4.37**
Social
28.57, (7.82)
3 1.96,,* (8.29)
31.81,,, (6.65)
34.31, (6.07)
7.02***
Artistic
24.08 (8.94)
26.53 (9.01)
21.49 (8.78)
28.34 (11.00)
2.26
Conventional
15.24 (6.52)
16.92 (9.06)
16.78 (9.38)
19.03 (8.92)
2.28
Note. UF = undifferentiated; MF = masculine; FF = feminine or sex typed; AF = androgynous, Means with different subscripts are significantly different at the .05 level. *p c .05. **p c .Ol. ***p < .oOl.
As with the analysis of Investigative scores, the ANOVA conducted on the Enterprising summary scores yielded a significant obtained F value of 9.64 (r, < .Ol> (Table 2). Of the four groups, the androgynous and the masculine groups scored the highest with means of 23.78 and 23.14, respectively (Table 3). Both the androgynous group and the masculine group scored significantly higher than did either the feminine group (x = 18.54) or the undifferentiated group (J? = 18.28). Consistent with gender schema theory, the results indicated that the cross sex-typed female adolescents scored significantly higher in this traditionally masculine area than did their sex-typed feminine counterparts. Similarly, the findings that the androgynous subjects and masculine subjects scored significantly higher than both the low-masculine sex-typed group and the low-masculine undifferentiated groups supported the prediction that both high-masculine groups would be more readily predisposed to respond to the stereotypically masculine Enterprising items than would either of the low-masculine groups. The analysis conducted on total Realistic scores, the third traditionally masculine dimension, resulted in an obtained F value of 4.37 which was significant at the .Ol level (Table 2). Examination of the rank ordering
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
23
of group means (Table 3) reveals the same rank ordering of group means as had emerged from the analysis of the Enterprising scores. However, for the Realistic total scores, the difference between the cross sex-typed subjects’ scores and the sex-typed subjects’ scores was not statistically significant nor did the high-masculine androgynous group score significantly higher than the sex-typed group although a trend (p < . 10) in the predicted direction was noted. Consistent with prediction was the finding that the high-masculine, androgynous group scored significantly higher on the Realistic dimension than did the low-masculine, undifferentiated group. While the results of the analysis conducted on the Realistic total scores are less consistent with gender schema prediction than had been the case with the results of the Enterprising analyses, the results do provide partial support for gender schema theory. The high-masculine, androgynous group did obtain significantly higher raw scores on this traditionally masculine dimension than did the low-masculine, undifferentiated group. For the three stereotypically masculine SDS dimensions, limited empirical support was found for those predictions which, while derived from gender schema theory, deviated from Bern’s original formulation in their rejection of a theoretical sex-typed/non-sex-typed dichotomy. For the Enterprising dimension, both high-masculine groups, the cross sex-typed or masculine group and the androgynous group, obtained significantly higher Enterprising scores than did either low-masculine group. Although the predictions for the Enterprising dimension were consistently supported, mixed support was found for the other two stereotypically masculine dimensions, the Investigative dimension and the Realistic dimension. The masculine group did not obtain significantly higher Investigative and Realistic scores than did the undifferentiated group and did not report significantly higher total scores than even the sex-typed adolescents on the Realistic dimension. The high-masculine androgynous group did not score significantly higher than the sex-typed adolescents on either the Investigative dimension or the Realistic dimension nor did they score significantly higher than the undifferentiated group on the Investigative dimension. Of the three SDS areas in which women typically score high, only the analysis conducted on the Social summary scores resulted in an obtained F value (7.02) that was statistically significant (JJ< .OOl) (Table 2). Of the six possible paired comparisons, the only paired comparison that was statistically significant was the comparison of the androgynous group with the undifferentiated group. Examination of Table 3 reveals that the androgynous group obtained higher mean Social scores than did the undifferentiated group. The analysis conducted on the Artistic summary scores yielded an obtained F value of 2.26 which approached statistical significance (p = .OS)as did the analysis conducted on the Conventional summary scores (F = 2.28, p = .079) (Table 2). For each of the three traditionally feminine dimensions, the results of
24
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
the analyses provided minimal support for the predictions derived from gender schema theory. If sex-typed adolescents had employed gender schematic processing in responding to gender-congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional items, their total scores should have been significantly higher than those obtained by their cross sex-typed counterparts for whom such items would have been incongruent with existing gender schema. The results consistently failed to support these predictions. CONCLUSIONS
While SDS summary scores were found to vary significantly as a function of gender classification group membership, examination of gender group differences consistently failed to provide support for a dichotomous classification as Bern (1981) originally proposed and provided minimal empirical support for the predictions derived from a modification of gender schema theory in the present study. Furthermore, while significant differences were found for each of the three stereotypically masculine dimensions, significant gender classification group differences were found for only one of the three stereotypically feminine dimensions, a finding which further contradicts gender schema theory. Although SDS total scores varied significantly as a function of gender classification group membership, gender schema theory failed to provide a consistent explanation for either the nature or the direction of the group differences which emerged. According to gender schema theory, gender is a primary and all-pervasive construct which consistently influences perception and assimilation of information regarding the self. While either Bern’s dichotomous sextyped versus non-sex-typed classification or the four-way classification employed in the present study provides an enticingly simple basis for prediction of response tendencies on the SDS, the results indicate that while gender classification group membership may be a central variable, the impact of gender schematic processing appears to interact with or be modified by other salient constructs. In accordance with gender schema theory, Gottfredson (1981) also assigns a central role to gender in her developmental theory of vocational aspirations. However, while gender self-concept is the central self-perception in the process of elimination of vocational options among children 6 to 8 years of age, additional self-perceptions become increasingly salient in the vocation elimination process as the child matures. By adolescence, the elimination of vocational options has occurred on the basis of self perceptions of social class and general ability as well as gender. For those adolescents who have reached Gottfredson’s fourth stage of development, self-perceptions of interests, values, and competencies serve to further reduce the number of acceptable vocational options. Given their intellectual ability, many of the gifted and talented female
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
25
adolescents in the present study may have reached this fourth stage characterized by a more unique and internal definition of self and an enhanced awareness of personal abilities, interests, and values. Furthermore, since complexity and subtlety of self-perception have been found to be closely associated with intelligence (Livesley & Bromley, 1973), the gifted and talented female adolescent’s responses on the SDS may reflect a rather sophisticated, complex, and finely distinguished selfbelief system and the cognitive ability to make finer discriminations regarding her interests, competencies, and self-estimates of career-relevant abilities. Such unique individual self-perceptions as reflected by SDS responses would serve to increase variation within gender classification groups. Examination of a rank ordering of mean total scores for the six SDS dimensions raises further questions regarding the impact of gender schematic processing on the female adolescent’s SDS response tendencies. For each of the four gender classification groups, the rank order of mean SDS total scores was identical. All four gender classification groups reported the highest mean total score on the Social dimension followed in order by Artistic, Investigative, Enterprising, Conventional, and Realistic total scores. Even for those female adolescents classified as cross sextyped or masculine, the two highest SDS total scores were obtained for the stereotypically feminine Social and Artistic dimensions. While Gottfredson’s theory addresses the process of elimination of vocational options in the formulation of vocational aspirations, the rank ordering of the SDS mean total scores may be interpreted from a generalization of her theory as reflecting the combined influence of constructs identified as salient in her theory: self-perceptions of gender, social class, and general ability. The two lowest mean total SDS scores may reflect the adolescent’s perception of such interests, competencies, and occupations as falling below Gottfredson’s “tolerable level boundary” with Realistic scores consistently falling below Conventional scores as a function of the stereotypically masculine nature of the Realistic dimension. Conversely, the two highest mean total SDS scores, Social and Artistic, may reflect the adolescent’s perception of abilities, interests, and occupations associated with these two dimensions not only as being within her “tolerable sex-typed boundary” but also possessing moderately high prestige value. The mean total scores for the Investigative and Enterprising dimensions, ranked third and fourth in the hierarchy, may reflect the adolescent’s perception of such interests, competencies, and occupations as being near or beyond her sex-type boundary and, for the Investigative dimension, requiring a high degree of effort although affording higher levels of prestige. Given the consistency of the rank ordering of the SDS mean total scores for the six SDS dimensions and the inconsistency of gender classification group differences on individual SDS dimensions, it would appear as
26
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER
though constructs identified by Gottfredson as central to career aspirations may also influence the adolescent’s self report of career relevant interests, competencies, and self-perceptions of ability. The consistent rank order of SDS mean total scores across gender classification groups raises questions regarding not only gender schema theory but also the instrumentation used for assessmentof gender schema. Although the PAQ has been widely used and recognized in the research literature as an instrument for assessing global constructs of masculinity and femininity, the consistency of the rank ordering suggests a global influence that transcends gender classification group membership as defined by PAQ scores. Despite their cross sex-typed gender schema, as defined by the PAQ, female adolescents classified as masculine obtained the highest SDS total scores on the Social and Artistic dimensions just as their sex-typed counterparts did. It may well be that, as the authors of the PAQ have argued @pence & Helmreich, 1978, 1981) the PAQ assesses only one circumscribed component of gender rather than global constructs of masculinity and femininity. Indeed interpretation of the PAQ as a measure of socioaffective instrumental and expressive traits would account for the finding that predictions regarding the Enterprising dimension were the only predictions to find consistent empirical support. Finally, it should be noted that the classification of these gifted and talented young women was based upon their current self report of gender self-perceptions, self-perceptions which reflect their present cognitive ability to make fine discriminations and subtle distinctions regarding sexrole appropriateness relative to self. In contrast, responses on the SDS may reflect much earlier decisions regarding which interests to pursue, which competencies to develop, and which occupations to eliminate, decisions made at a developmental time when gender self-concept was more simplistically and stereotypically defined. Given the relative infancy of their current gender self-perceptions, it may well be that influence of such self-perceptions may increase over time. The present study suggests that such influence is already present, although weak and inconsistent. How their present gender self-perceptions will influence the future career decisions of these gifted and talented young women remains an unanswered question. REFERENCES Bern, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354-364. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. Sex related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 1977, 14, 51-71. Fleming, E., & Hollinger, C. The multidimensionality of talent in adolescent young women. Journal for the Education of the Gifed, 1981, 4, 188-198. Fox, L., & Denham, S. Values and career interests of mathematically and scientifically
THE IMPACT OF GENDER SCHEMATIC PROCESSING
27
precocious youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, and L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent. Discovery, description & development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1974, pp. 140-175. Fox, L., Pastemak, S., & Peiser, N. Career related interests of adolescent boys and girls. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research & development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1976, pp. 242-261. Gottfredson, L. Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1981, 28, 545-579. Holland, J. The self directed search. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1977. Hollinger, C. Self perception and the career aspirations of mathematically talented female adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 49-62. Keeling, B., & Tuck, B. F. Raw scores versus same-sex normed scores: An experimental study of the validity of Holland’s SDS with adolescents of both sexes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 13, 263-271. Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, D. B. Person perception in childhood and adolescence. London: Wiley, 1973. Prediger, D. J., & Cole, N. S. Sex-role socialization and employment realities: Implications for vocational interest measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7, 239-251. Prediger, D. J., & Hanson, G. R. The distinction between sex restrictiveness and sex bias in interest inventories. Measurement and evaluation in guidance, 1974, 7, 96-104. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4, 43 (No. 617). Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. 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,
1975, 32, 29-39.
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1978. Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bern’s gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 365-368. Super, D. E. A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 1953,8(4), 185190. Super, D. E. Self concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super, et al., (Eds.), Career development: No. 4, 1963.
Self concept
theory.
New York: CEEB Research
Monograph
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Erlick, A., & LeBold, W. Factors influencing the science career plans of high school students. West Lafayette, Ind.: Measurement and Research Center, Purdue University, 1975. 2. Kaminski, D., Erikson, E., Ross, M., & Bradfield, L. Why females don’t like mathematics: The effect of parental expectations. Paper presented at the 1976 American Sociological Association Meeting, New York, August 1976. 3. Fleming, E. S., & Hollinger, C. L. Realizing the promise of female adolescents: A diagnostic-prescriptive model (Final Report No. GOO7604971).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, February 1979. 4. Girvin, B. The nature of being schematic: Sex-role self-schemas and differential processing of masculine and feminine information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1978. Received: December 17, 1982
The Impact of Gender Schematic Processing on the Self Directed Search Responses of Gifted and Talented Female Adolescents’ CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
Cleveland State University According to gender schema theory (S. L. Bern, Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981,88,354-364), gender schematic processing not only restricts assimilation of information into the selfconcept to that which is congruent with the gender schema but also restricts the individual’s response patterns in that responses are based on gender schema congruence or incongruence rather than upon a complete memory search. As a result of such gender schematic processing, the response patterns of gifted and talented female adolescents on Holland’s (1977) Self Directed Search (SDS) should vary as a function of their gender schema. Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance were conducted on the SDS responses of 284 gifted and talented female adolescents to test whether sex-typed female adolescents would score significantly higher on the gender congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions while scoring signitkantly lower on the gender incongruent Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions than did their cross sex-typed counterparts. The results indicated that while SDS total scores did vary significantly as a function of gender group, the direction of noted group differences failed to provide consistent support for predictions derived from gender schema theory. An alternative interpretation based on a generalization of Gottfredson’s theory is discussed.
According to Super’s Developmental Self Concept Theory of Vocational Choice, vocational choice represents an individual’s attempt to find expression for his/her self-concept and all that that self-belief system entails (Super, 1953, 1963). Bern (1981) has set forth the gender schema theory as a partial explanation for the sex-typing process. Within this theoretical framework, Bern proposes that the self-concept itself is assimilated into the individual’s gender schema such that the beliefs within the self-concept as well as beliefs which potentially could be incorporated into the self-belief system are determined and limited by the degree to which such self-beliefs are consistent with the individual’s general gender ’ This research was supported in part by a grant from the Women’s Educational Equity Act, U.S. Office of Education Grant OE GOO760497. 15 OOOl-8791/84$3.00 Copyright Q 1984 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
16
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
schema. To the extent that the development of the self-belief system is influenced or determined by gender schematic processing, career aspirations, and ultimately career choices would, according to Super, be substantially influenced and determined by the nature of the individual’s gender schema. To the extent that women’s career choices do indeed reflect their efforts to implement their self-concepts through careers which offer the greatest opportunity for expression of the self, the gender schema theory provides substantial explanatory power for the observed disproportionate representation by women in various career areas. As recently as 1981, the U.S. Department of Labor statistics still indicate substantial underrepresentation by women in math and science careers and overrepresentation in clerical and service career areas. According to gender schema theory, an individual’s gender schema functions so as to increase an individual’s readiness to search for and assimilate that information which is consistent with the gender schema. For women, sex-typed gender schematic processing would result in the selective assimilation of sextyped information into the self-concept, information which was consistent with the feminine stereotype. For example, positive feedback regarding artistic talent or social skills and abilities would be more readily assimilated into the self-concept than would positive feedback regarding ability in mathematics and the sciences since self perceptions of artistic and social abilities would be congruent with the sex-typed female’s gender schema. To the extent that a woman’s self-concept exclusively assimilated only those beliefs which were consistent with a sex-typed gender schema, her system of self-beliefs would be such that, in turn, she would indeed find the greatest opportunity for expression of that system of self-beliefs through traditionally feminine careers rather than through nontraditional or stereotypically masculine careers. Such an interpretation might partially account for the findings that not only do females report less interest in mathematics and the sciences than do their male peers (Fox & Denham, 1974; Fox, Pasternak, & Peiser, 1976), but that they also report less confidence and lower self-perceptions of ability in these stereotypically male domains (Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Erlick & LeBold, Note 1; Kaminski, Erikson, Ross, & Bradfield, Note 2). Furthermore, even among the mathematically talented, proportionately few female adolescents aspire to nontraditional math careers (Hollinger, 1983; Fleming & Hollinger, Note 3). Interest in mathematics and science as well as confidence and self-perceptions of ability in mathematics and the sciences would not readily be assimilated into the sextyped female’s self-belief system since such self-perceptions would be incongruent with her gender schema. Consequently, the sex-typed female would also be less likely to aspire to nontraditional math and science careers than would her sex-typed male or cross sex-typed female peers
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
17
since such careers would not be perceived as offering an opportunity for the expression of her sex-typed self-belief system or self-concept. While the interaction between external sex-role stereotypic feedback and the female’s own sex-typed, selective assimilation of information into the self-concept might alone account for the disproportionate career representation by women in various career areas, gender schematic processing might contribute to the sex-typing process in yet another way that would have major ramifications for the female’s career decisionmaking process. Given the salience of establishing sexual identity as a developmental issue of adolescence, the cognitive availability of gender schematic processing should be such that the female adolescent’s readiness to invoke gender schema over other available schema might be reflected in her response patterns on career interest inventories and on other career assessment instruments. In responding to career assessment items, the sex-typed female adolescent, according to gender schema theory, would not only rely on gender schema in responding to items on the basis of sex-role congruence or incongruence but would do so to the exclusion of a complete memory search. For example, on the Self Directed Search (Holland, 1977), the sex-typed female adolescent would invoke gender schematic processing and would respond to items assessing activity likes and dislikes, occupational interests, competencies, and self-estimates of ability in terms of their sex-role congruence or incongruence. Had she instead conducted a complete memory search in the process of responding to the SDS items, she might well have retrieved recollections of having had interest in “realistic” activities, “investigative” occupations, and so forth. The purpose of the present study is to test whether differences in the responses of gifted and talented female adolescents on Holland’s Self Directed Search (SDS) (Holland, 1977) occur as a function of gender schema of the individual. While sex differences in the SDS have been documented (Prediger & Cole, 1975; Prediger & Hanson, 1974), it remains to be seen whether such differences are associated with gender schematic processing. When raw scores are used, males have been found to achieve the highest summary score codes of I (Investigative), E (Enterprising), and R (Realistic) while females achieve the highest SDS summary codes of S (Social), A (Artistic), and C (Conventional) (Keeling & Tuck, 1978). According to gender schema theory, sex-typed female adolescents should report significantly lower scores on the schema incongruent Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions and significantly higher scores on the schema congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions than their non-sex-typed counterparts. While gender schema theory suggests a dichotomization of individuals (sex typed vs non-sex typed) rather than a four-way classification of individuals proposed by Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975), Bern (1981) cites research in support of gender schema
18
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
theory in which the four-way classification approach (feminine, masculine, androgynous, undifferentiated) was employed. Results from research cited (Girvin, Note 4) suggest that combining the androgynous, masculine, and undifferentiated groups may be unwarranted. The present study retains the four-way classification approach and sets forth predictions for each of the four classification groups. While inconsistent with Bern’s theoretical dichotomy, this approach does not contradict gender schematic processing per se but rather recognizes that the response tendencies of androgynous individuals should differ from undifferentiated individuals in that either feminine or masculine items would be congruent with the androgynous individual’s schema which contain both masculine and feminine selfperceptions. While modified, such predictions are indeed derived from gender schema theory. Therefore, according to gender schema theory, cross sex-typed female adolescents should score significantly higher on the Investigative, Enterprising, and Realistic dimensions of the SDS then their sex-typed or feminine female counterparts. For cross sex-typed female adolescents, self-estimates of these traditionally masculine abilities, competencies, occupational preferences, and activity interests would be congruent with their masculine or cross sex-typed schema while being incongruent for their sex-typed, feminine counterparts. Similarly, those gifted and talented female adolescents classified as androgynous should also score significantly higher than sex-typed subjects since they, by definition, perceive themselves as possessing masculine attributes as well as feminine attributes (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Conversely, those female adolescents classified as undifferentiated should score low on these traditionally masculine dimensions since they, again by definition, score low on masculine attributes as well as on feminine attributes. For the traditionally feminine Social, Artistic, and Conventional dimensions, sex-typed female adolescents and androgynous female adolescents should both score significantly higher than either the cross sextyped subjects or the undifferentiated subjects on these three gendercongruent dimensions. For the cross sex-typed and undifferentiated subjects, individuals who by definition scored low on feminine attributes or on self-perceptions, the items of these traditionally feminine dimensions would be incongruent with their gender schema. METHODS Sample. The 284 participants in the study were selectedfrom a population of all female sophomores attending six metropolitan high schools (two public, two private, and two parochial) and represented the total population of gifted and talented female adolescents identified from these six high schools. Each participant was identified as possessing talent or giftedness in 1 of 15 talent areas assessed by the Project Choice talent identification
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
19
process (Fleming & Hollinger, 1981). The 15 areas assessedinclude such traditional dimensions as aptitude, math achievement, and English achievement, as well as nontraditional talent dimensions such as performing arts, athletics, and community involvement. Instrumentation and procedures. As part of a comprehensive career development assessment battery, each subject completed both the Personal Attributes Questionnaire short form (PAQ) (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974) and the Self Directed Search (SDS) (Holland, 1977). For the PAQ, total scores were calculated for both the masculinity and the femininity subscales. From the SDS, total Artistic, Conventional, Enterprising, Investigative, Realistic and Social summary scores were calculated. Each summary score was obtained by simply summing across the four sections of the SDS (Activities, Competencies, Occupations, and Self-Estimates) for each of the six areas. All protoculs were double scored, coded, and reconciled to ensure accuracy. On the basis of her scores on the two subscales of the PAQ, each subject was assigned to one of four categories in accordance with the median split procedure described by Spence and Helmreich (1978). The four resulting categories are defined as Undifferentiated: low masculine (M scale) and low feminine (F scale). Feminine (sextyped): low masculine (M scale) and high feminine (F scale). Masculine (cross sex-typed): high masculine (M scale) and low feminine (F scale). Androgynous: high masculine (M scale) and high feminine (F scale). In this classification approach, low and high scores are defined as falling below and above the median score for each scale, respectively. It should also be noted that in the absence of normative data for gifted and talented populations of adolescents, the sample’s median scores were employed in the classification process. However, it should be noted that the sample’s median M-scale and F-scale scores closely approximated those reported by Spence and Helmreich (1978) for a combined male and female college sample. After the scores were adjusted based on l-5 weightings to the O-4 weighting employed by Spence et al. (1974), the median M-scale score obtained for the present sample was 21.04 compared to an M-scale median score of 2.1.0 for the college sample. The median F-scale score of 24.0 for the gifted and talented female adolescent sample was slightly higher than the median F-scale score obtained for the combined college sample (Md = 23.0). Data analyses. A single-factor multivariate analysis of variance
20
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER
(MANOVA) to test for overall effects of gender classification group membership on SDS total scores was conducted. Following this analysis, a single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each of the six SDS summary scores to test whether significant differences existed among the four gender schema classification groups in terms of their responses to the SDS items. Pairwise comparisons between classification groups were conducted using Scheffe’s method in those instances where the obtained F value was significant at or beyond the .05 level. All analyses were conducted using the SAS statistical package. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the median split procedure are set forth in Table 1, which provides the N’s as well as the means and standard deviations for both the masculine and the feminine scales by classification group. The MANOVA resulted in an obtained F value (Wilk’s lambda criterion) of 3.36 (df = 18,778) which was significant at the .OOl level. The results indicated significant overall effects for gender classification group membership. When all six dimensions were considered simultaneously, SDS total scores were found to vary significantly as a function of gender classification group membership. The analysis of variance conducted on the Investigative summary scores yielded an obtained F value of 3.56 which was significant at the .02 level (Table 2). Of the four classification groups, the sex-typed feminine group scored the lowest (2 = 21.8) while the cross sex-typed masculine group scored the highest (J? = 26.5) on this stereotypically masculine dimension.
TABLE 1 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations by Gender Schema Group on PAQ Masculine Scale and Feminine Scale Masculine scale :
SD
x
SD
51
24.38
2.92
28.51
2.22
76
32.03
2.55
28.83
1.97
67
25.56
2.29
33.88
1.50
90
32.42
2.87
34.76
2.20
284
29.25
4.45
31.85
3.48
Schema classification
N
1. Undifferentiated (low masculine and low feminine) 2. Masculine (high masculine and low feminine) 3. Feminine (low masculine and high feminine) 4. Androgynous (high masculine and high feminine) Total
Feminine scale
Note. Item responses were weighted 1 to 5 rather than 0 to 4 weighting employed by Spence & Helmreich (1978).
21
THE IMPACT OF GENDER SCHEMATIC PROCESSING TABLE 2 Summary of ANOVAs Conducted on ?DS Summary Scores Source of variation
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
Investigative
Main effects Error Total
885.11 23179.86 24064.97
3 280 283
295.04 82.79
3.56*
Enterprising
Main effects Error Total
1787.39 17305.78 19093.17
3 280 283
595.80 61.81
9.64***
Realistic
Main effects Error Total
747.78 15988.66 16736.44
3 280 283
249.26 57.10
4.37**
Social
Main effects Error Total
1082.82 14401.16 15483.98
3 280 283
360.94 51.43
7.02***
Artistic
Main effects Error Total
627.92 25949.70 26577.62
3 280 283
209.30 92.68
2.26
Conventional
Main effects Error Total
516.50 21169.25 21685.75
3 280 283
172.17 75.60
2.28
Dimension
F
*p < .05. **p c .Ol. ***p < .ool.
The results of the Scheffe’s pairwise comparisons indicated that the scores obtained by the sex-typed feminine group were significantly lower than the scores obtained by the cross sex-typed masculine group (Table 3). While the scores obtained by the sex-typed group were lower than those obtained by the androgynous and the undifferentiated groups, these differences were not statistically significant. The results for the Investigative total scores are consistent with gender schema theory in that cross sex-typed female adolescents scored significantly higher on this traditionally masculine dimension than did their sex-typed counterparts. However, androgynous subjects, those possessing high masculine as well as feminine self-perceptions, failed to score significantly higher than their sex-typed counterparts, those possessing high feminine but low masculine self-perceptions, a finding which contradicted prediction. Although undifferentiated subjects, those female adolescents reporting low masculine as well as low feminine self-perceptions, scored lower than androgynous and cross sex-typed subjects, the paired comparisons failed to reach a level of statistical significance, findings which further contradicted predictions derived from gender schema theory.
22
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER TABLE 3 SDS Total Scores as a Function of PAQ Classification Group Membership Classification group
__--.-
SDS dimension
UF x (SW
MF 5 (SD)
FF x (SD)
AF x (SW
F ratio
Investigative
23.61,,* (8.82)
26.41, (8.15)
21.82* (9.57)
25.31,,b (9.64)
3.56*
Enterprising
18.28, (8.41)
23.14, (7.97)
18.546 (6.95)
23.78, (8.08)
9&t***
Realistic
11.41b (5.96)
14.50,,& (8.25)
12.02”,b (7.24)
15.34” (7.96)
4.37**
Social
28.57, (7.82)
3 1.96,,* (8.29)
31.81,,, (6.65)
34.31, (6.07)
7.02***
Artistic
24.08 (8.94)
26.53 (9.01)
21.49 (8.78)
28.34 (11.00)
2.26
Conventional
15.24 (6.52)
16.92 (9.06)
16.78 (9.38)
19.03 (8.92)
2.28
Note. UF = undifferentiated; MF = masculine; FF = feminine or sex typed; AF = androgynous, Means with different subscripts are significantly different at the .05 level. *p c .05. **p c .Ol. ***p < .oOl.
As with the analysis of Investigative scores, the ANOVA conducted on the Enterprising summary scores yielded a significant obtained F value of 9.64 (r, < .Ol> (Table 2). Of the four groups, the androgynous and the masculine groups scored the highest with means of 23.78 and 23.14, respectively (Table 3). Both the androgynous group and the masculine group scored significantly higher than did either the feminine group (x = 18.54) or the undifferentiated group (J? = 18.28). Consistent with gender schema theory, the results indicated that the cross sex-typed female adolescents scored significantly higher in this traditionally masculine area than did their sex-typed feminine counterparts. Similarly, the findings that the androgynous subjects and masculine subjects scored significantly higher than both the low-masculine sex-typed group and the low-masculine undifferentiated groups supported the prediction that both high-masculine groups would be more readily predisposed to respond to the stereotypically masculine Enterprising items than would either of the low-masculine groups. The analysis conducted on total Realistic scores, the third traditionally masculine dimension, resulted in an obtained F value of 4.37 which was significant at the .Ol level (Table 2). Examination of the rank ordering
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
23
of group means (Table 3) reveals the same rank ordering of group means as had emerged from the analysis of the Enterprising scores. However, for the Realistic total scores, the difference between the cross sex-typed subjects’ scores and the sex-typed subjects’ scores was not statistically significant nor did the high-masculine androgynous group score significantly higher than the sex-typed group although a trend (p < . 10) in the predicted direction was noted. Consistent with prediction was the finding that the high-masculine, androgynous group scored significantly higher on the Realistic dimension than did the low-masculine, undifferentiated group. While the results of the analysis conducted on the Realistic total scores are less consistent with gender schema prediction than had been the case with the results of the Enterprising analyses, the results do provide partial support for gender schema theory. The high-masculine, androgynous group did obtain significantly higher raw scores on this traditionally masculine dimension than did the low-masculine, undifferentiated group. For the three stereotypically masculine SDS dimensions, limited empirical support was found for those predictions which, while derived from gender schema theory, deviated from Bern’s original formulation in their rejection of a theoretical sex-typed/non-sex-typed dichotomy. For the Enterprising dimension, both high-masculine groups, the cross sex-typed or masculine group and the androgynous group, obtained significantly higher Enterprising scores than did either low-masculine group. Although the predictions for the Enterprising dimension were consistently supported, mixed support was found for the other two stereotypically masculine dimensions, the Investigative dimension and the Realistic dimension. The masculine group did not obtain significantly higher Investigative and Realistic scores than did the undifferentiated group and did not report significantly higher total scores than even the sex-typed adolescents on the Realistic dimension. The high-masculine androgynous group did not score significantly higher than the sex-typed adolescents on either the Investigative dimension or the Realistic dimension nor did they score significantly higher than the undifferentiated group on the Investigative dimension. Of the three SDS areas in which women typically score high, only the analysis conducted on the Social summary scores resulted in an obtained F value (7.02) that was statistically significant (JJ< .OOl) (Table 2). Of the six possible paired comparisons, the only paired comparison that was statistically significant was the comparison of the androgynous group with the undifferentiated group. Examination of Table 3 reveals that the androgynous group obtained higher mean Social scores than did the undifferentiated group. The analysis conducted on the Artistic summary scores yielded an obtained F value of 2.26 which approached statistical significance (p = .OS)as did the analysis conducted on the Conventional summary scores (F = 2.28, p = .079) (Table 2). For each of the three traditionally feminine dimensions, the results of
24
CONSTANCE
L. HOLLINGER
the analyses provided minimal support for the predictions derived from gender schema theory. If sex-typed adolescents had employed gender schematic processing in responding to gender-congruent Social, Artistic, and Conventional items, their total scores should have been significantly higher than those obtained by their cross sex-typed counterparts for whom such items would have been incongruent with existing gender schema. The results consistently failed to support these predictions. CONCLUSIONS
While SDS summary scores were found to vary significantly as a function of gender classification group membership, examination of gender group differences consistently failed to provide support for a dichotomous classification as Bern (1981) originally proposed and provided minimal empirical support for the predictions derived from a modification of gender schema theory in the present study. Furthermore, while significant differences were found for each of the three stereotypically masculine dimensions, significant gender classification group differences were found for only one of the three stereotypically feminine dimensions, a finding which further contradicts gender schema theory. Although SDS total scores varied significantly as a function of gender classification group membership, gender schema theory failed to provide a consistent explanation for either the nature or the direction of the group differences which emerged. According to gender schema theory, gender is a primary and all-pervasive construct which consistently influences perception and assimilation of information regarding the self. While either Bern’s dichotomous sextyped versus non-sex-typed classification or the four-way classification employed in the present study provides an enticingly simple basis for prediction of response tendencies on the SDS, the results indicate that while gender classification group membership may be a central variable, the impact of gender schematic processing appears to interact with or be modified by other salient constructs. In accordance with gender schema theory, Gottfredson (1981) also assigns a central role to gender in her developmental theory of vocational aspirations. However, while gender self-concept is the central self-perception in the process of elimination of vocational options among children 6 to 8 years of age, additional self-perceptions become increasingly salient in the vocation elimination process as the child matures. By adolescence, the elimination of vocational options has occurred on the basis of self perceptions of social class and general ability as well as gender. For those adolescents who have reached Gottfredson’s fourth stage of development, self-perceptions of interests, values, and competencies serve to further reduce the number of acceptable vocational options. Given their intellectual ability, many of the gifted and talented female
THE IMPACT
OF GENDER
SCHEMATIC
PROCESSING
25
adolescents in the present study may have reached this fourth stage characterized by a more unique and internal definition of self and an enhanced awareness of personal abilities, interests, and values. Furthermore, since complexity and subtlety of self-perception have been found to be closely associated with intelligence (Livesley & Bromley, 1973), the gifted and talented female adolescent’s responses on the SDS may reflect a rather sophisticated, complex, and finely distinguished selfbelief system and the cognitive ability to make finer discriminations regarding her interests, competencies, and self-estimates of career-relevant abilities. Such unique individual self-perceptions as reflected by SDS responses would serve to increase variation within gender classification groups. Examination of a rank ordering of mean total scores for the six SDS dimensions raises further questions regarding the impact of gender schematic processing on the female adolescent’s SDS response tendencies. For each of the four gender classification groups, the rank order of mean SDS total scores was identical. All four gender classification groups reported the highest mean total score on the Social dimension followed in order by Artistic, Investigative, Enterprising, Conventional, and Realistic total scores. Even for those female adolescents classified as cross sextyped or masculine, the two highest SDS total scores were obtained for the stereotypically feminine Social and Artistic dimensions. While Gottfredson’s theory addresses the process of elimination of vocational options in the formulation of vocational aspirations, the rank ordering of the SDS mean total scores may be interpreted from a generalization of her theory as reflecting the combined influence of constructs identified as salient in her theory: self-perceptions of gender, social class, and general ability. The two lowest mean total SDS scores may reflect the adolescent’s perception of such interests, competencies, and occupations as falling below Gottfredson’s “tolerable level boundary” with Realistic scores consistently falling below Conventional scores as a function of the stereotypically masculine nature of the Realistic dimension. Conversely, the two highest mean total SDS scores, Social and Artistic, may reflect the adolescent’s perception of abilities, interests, and occupations associated with these two dimensions not only as being within her “tolerable sex-typed boundary” but also possessing moderately high prestige value. The mean total scores for the Investigative and Enterprising dimensions, ranked third and fourth in the hierarchy, may reflect the adolescent’s perception of such interests, competencies, and occupations as being near or beyond her sex-type boundary and, for the Investigative dimension, requiring a high degree of effort although affording higher levels of prestige. Given the consistency of the rank ordering of the SDS mean total scores for the six SDS dimensions and the inconsistency of gender classification group differences on individual SDS dimensions, it would appear as
26
CONSTANCE L. HOLLINGER
though constructs identified by Gottfredson as central to career aspirations may also influence the adolescent’s self report of career relevant interests, competencies, and self-perceptions of ability. The consistent rank order of SDS mean total scores across gender classification groups raises questions regarding not only gender schema theory but also the instrumentation used for assessmentof gender schema. Although the PAQ has been widely used and recognized in the research literature as an instrument for assessing global constructs of masculinity and femininity, the consistency of the rank ordering suggests a global influence that transcends gender classification group membership as defined by PAQ scores. Despite their cross sex-typed gender schema, as defined by the PAQ, female adolescents classified as masculine obtained the highest SDS total scores on the Social and Artistic dimensions just as their sex-typed counterparts did. It may well be that, as the authors of the PAQ have argued @pence & Helmreich, 1978, 1981) the PAQ assesses only one circumscribed component of gender rather than global constructs of masculinity and femininity. Indeed interpretation of the PAQ as a measure of socioaffective instrumental and expressive traits would account for the finding that predictions regarding the Enterprising dimension were the only predictions to find consistent empirical support. Finally, it should be noted that the classification of these gifted and talented young women was based upon their current self report of gender self-perceptions, self-perceptions which reflect their present cognitive ability to make fine discriminations and subtle distinctions regarding sexrole appropriateness relative to self. In contrast, responses on the SDS may reflect much earlier decisions regarding which interests to pursue, which competencies to develop, and which occupations to eliminate, decisions made at a developmental time when gender self-concept was more simplistically and stereotypically defined. Given the relative infancy of their current gender self-perceptions, it may well be that influence of such self-perceptions may increase over time. The present study suggests that such influence is already present, although weak and inconsistent. How their present gender self-perceptions will influence the future career decisions of these gifted and talented young women remains an unanswered question. REFERENCES Bern, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354-364. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. Sex related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 1977, 14, 51-71. Fleming, E., & Hollinger, C. The multidimensionality of talent in adolescent young women. Journal for the Education of the Gifed, 1981, 4, 188-198. Fox, L., & Denham, S. Values and career interests of mathematically and scientifically
THE IMPACT OF GENDER SCHEMATIC PROCESSING
27
precocious youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, and L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent. Discovery, description & development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1974, pp. 140-175. Fox, L., Pastemak, S., & Peiser, N. Career related interests of adolescent boys and girls. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research & development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1976, pp. 242-261. Gottfredson, L. Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1981, 28, 545-579. Holland, J. The self directed search. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1977. Hollinger, C. Self perception and the career aspirations of mathematically talented female adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 49-62. Keeling, B., & Tuck, B. F. Raw scores versus same-sex normed scores: An experimental study of the validity of Holland’s SDS with adolescents of both sexes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 13, 263-271. Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, D. B. Person perception in childhood and adolescence. London: Wiley, 1973. Prediger, D. J., & Cole, N. S. Sex-role socialization and employment realities: Implications for vocational interest measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7, 239-251. Prediger, D. J., & Hanson, G. R. The distinction between sex restrictiveness and sex bias in interest inventories. Measurement and evaluation in guidance, 1974, 7, 96-104. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4, 43 (No. 617). Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. 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,
1975, 32, 29-39.
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1978. Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. Androgyny versus gender schema: A comment on Bern’s gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 365-368. Super, D. E. A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 1953,8(4), 185190. Super, D. E. Self concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super, et al., (Eds.), Career development: No. 4, 1963.
Self concept
theory.
New York: CEEB Research
Monograph
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Erlick, A., & LeBold, W. Factors influencing the science career plans of high school students. West Lafayette, Ind.: Measurement and Research Center, Purdue University, 1975. 2. Kaminski, D., Erikson, E., Ross, M., & Bradfield, L. Why females don’t like mathematics: The effect of parental expectations. Paper presented at the 1976 American Sociological Association Meeting, New York, August 1976. 3. Fleming, E. S., & Hollinger, C. L. Realizing the promise of female adolescents: A diagnostic-prescriptive model (Final Report No. GOO7604971).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, February 1979. 4. Girvin, B. The nature of being schematic: Sex-role self-schemas and differential processing of masculine and feminine information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1978. Received: December 17, 1982