- Email: [email protected]
Women's decision making
Women's Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 391-402, 1994 Copyright © 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All fights reserved 0277-5395/94 $6.00 + .00
Pergamon
0277-539S(94)E0022-P
WOMEN'S DECISION MAKING
An Exploration of 100 Northern Irish Women's Perceptions NANCY W . VEEDER Boston College Graduate School of Social Work, McGuinn Hall 215, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167, USA
Synopsis-This exploratory study of 100 Northern Irish women in three age groups per family (grandmother, mother, daughter) making family decisions about marriage, children, education, and work found that there was unanimity among the three generations in both perceptions of the preeminence of women's decision making in society and the major differences between the processes of women and men's decision making. Respondents felt that, when making decisions, women (in contrast to men) take more factors into consideration; think and plan further ahead; are more logical and consider consequences of decision making; are more practical, realistic, and sensible; have a greater value for relationships; and are more flexible and willing to admit decision-making mistakes. These differences are precisely those which are currently being conceptualized to constitute excellence in leadership and management in the family, community groups, and broader sociopolitical roles.
Women make at least as good and important decisions as men. In fact, the evidence in this study begins to show that women may even make better decisions than men for the simple reason that they take more factors into consideration in the contexts within which they make decisions. This assertion certainly runs counter to both the bulk of theory about women's development and decision making, and studies which compare women and men making decisions (including both processes and outcomes of decision making). New frameworks for viewing women's development provide both the opportunity to reexamine the concept of female decision making and to apply new approaches to the study of women making decisions. For example, if one views "affiliation" and "relationship" factors as positive rather than negative (as they are traditionally viewed), then decisions made by women may be as good, or better, than those made by men. Certainly there
is growing evidence that these "female" decision-making factors produce the most desired skills for managerial leadership (Kanter, 1989). This study of 100 Irish women (90 from the North, 10 from Dublin) was designed to take into account the need for both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. The data were collected in an in-person taped interview (conducted by local Irish female interviewers) of approximately a n hour in duration, carried out in each interviewee's home. The sample consisted of three age cohorts within the same family (grandmother, mother, and granddaughter(s)), which were selected by the trained Irish interviewers. The stance for the study was clearly exploratory, with no preconceived initial hypotheses or study issues to be put to "rigorous" empirical/scientific test. TRADITIONAL, TRANSITIONAL, AND MORE CONTEMPORARY VIEWS OF WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT AND DECISION MAKING
This article is based upon the author's recently published book, Women's Decision-Making: Common T h e m e s . . . Irish Voices (Praeger, 1992). The data analysis in the book is largely qualitative; this article represents a combination of quantitative data analysis with qualitative elaborations of findings.
Traditional and transitional views of women's development and decision making Anthropologists, developmental psychologists, and sociologists traditionally have 391
392
NANCY W. VEEDER
evolved a static, deterministic model of female personality development which is said to be affiliative rather than active, expressive/affective rather than instrumental, and dependent on others rather than seeking autonomy, individuation, and competence in role and task performance. So described, females appeared forever doomed to lower, lesser psychosocial status than males, with attendant power and economic diminution accorded by society. It must be noted that these "frozen" descriptions of female psychological and social development, which largely neglect adult development, were almost exclusively male-generated. The rigidity of "stages," "ages," and "phases" has not been particularly theoretically or practically helpful in understanding and enhancing female psychosocial development. Misperceptions abound, from Freud's thesis about "genitally traumatized" female development to Erikson's now-quaint assertions that "young women often ask whether they can 'have an identity' before they know whom they will marry and for whom they will make a home . . . . I think that much of a young woman's identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness and in the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she wishes to be sought . . . . " (Erikson, 1965, pp. 19-20). To rail against these traditional explanations in the 1990s as untrue, anachronistic, sexist, paternalistic, misguided, lacking in insight into the feminine psyche, and, at wors t , malevolent (all of which they may b e - a n d have been-accused) is counterproductive. They have not been scientifically confirmed, and this may well be a function of their nonexistence and/or inability to be measured or predictive of subsequent behavior. Nonetheless, these outmoded explanations still determine much of our clinical work with clients (the vast majority of whom are women) and have tremendous impact at programmatic and policy levels. Three theorists of women's psychosocial development represent, for want of a better term, a "transitional traditionalist" position: Nancy Chodorow (1974, 1978), Jean Baker Miller (1982, 1984, 1986), and Matina Horner (1972). Each has been criticized for being too mired in old, traditional ways of viewing female development.
Chodorow has been taken to task by Alice Rossi (1987) who, despite her "awe and admiration" for Chodorow's original essay on mothering, was "not prepared for so extended an exegesis of psychoanalytic theory, past and present, or for the nearly total embeddedness of her theory in psychodynamic terms" (Rossi, 1987, p. 265). Rossi criticizes Chodorow on three points: What constitutes "evidence?" Why so much reliance on psychoanalytic theory and "so harsh a rejection of theories in biology and developmental psychology?" and Could, or should, significant institutional change effect a change in mother-daughter dynamics? Jean Baker Miller and her colleagues have elaborated a "new" psychology of women, one that emphasizes the uniqueness of the totality of women's development, particularly in relation to positive uses of power, emphasis on "agency-in-community," and identity through an idea of "being-in-relation of dependence primarily on interpersonal relationships" (Miller, 1984). Miller and colleagues are included in the "transitional traditional" group because they are still embedded in psychoanalytic thought (the same criticism leveled by Rossi against Chodorow) which persists in viewing every developmental glass (particularly when viewing women) as half empty rather than half full. For example, although Miller (1986) makes a major and important point that females do not develop totally according to the male developmental mold but rely on a central feature, a "context of connections with others," an ability "to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships" (p. 83), she concludes that these capacities are, or may lead to, psychological problems: "Such psychic structuring can lay the groundwork for many problems. Depression, for example, which is related to one's sense of the loss of connection with another(s), is much more common in women, although it certainly occurs in men" (p. 83). Further, "I would suggest instead that while these women do face a problem, one that troubles them greatly, the problem arises from the dominant role that affiliations have been made to play in women's lives. Women are, in fact, being 'punished' for making affiliations central in their lives" (p. 86). Thus, for a capacity which through another lens would be seen as positive, women are rele-
Women Decide
gated to a kind of lifelong psychic determinism, an eternal "victimization." Society does not value this affiliative capacity, negatively reinforces it at best, and punishes it at worst. This fact is not adequately addressed within Miller's theoretical framework. Matina Horner (1972) forged new areas of inquiry into female development in relation to achievement. Results indicated that women in her samples possessed what came to be popularly known as "fear of success" or "achievement-avoidance." Again, Homer's "new" area in the study of women (achievement, or success motivation) is firmly rooted in "old" traditional psychological explanations. "Fear of success" among women, based ostensibly on the social rejection attendant to competition with men, became rarified to popular "lore" and precipitated a great deal of research, despite the fact that Horner's work both consistently failed the test of replication and/or produced strikingly opposite subsequent findings. These two inconclusive and contradictory results were predicated on faulty theory, research methodologies, and resultant interpretations (Alper, 1974; Fleming, 1982; Henley, 1985; Levine & Crumrine, 1975; Monahan, Kuhn, & Shaver, 1974; Paludi, 1979, 1987; Stein & Bailey, 1973; Tresemer, 1974, 1977; Veeder, 1992; Zuckerman & Allison, 1976; Zuckerman & Wheeler 1975). Again we see a blamethe-victim approach to women's problems, "diverting attention from larger social issues that blocked female achievement" (Walsh, 1987, p. 166). In fact, Paludi (1987) suggests that it would "appear to be desirable to abandon the label 'fear of success,' since its continued use serves only to reinforce the popular and widespread, but scientifically unfounded, idea that sex differences in occupational or academic participation are attributable to an intrapsychic difference between men and women, an approach that blames the victim. To date, fear of success has failed" (19. 200).
393
mental, historical factors, for example), and account for development (for both genders) at all ages and epochs throughout life. Certainly such newer developmental frameworks, or "mind-sets," account for differences in views of women's decision making between traditional and contemporary thinkers. Traditional observers of women's development did not elaborate the concepts of female power, leadership, and decision making because women were conceived to have little if any "power" (male-defined) and certainly were not seen to occupy "leadership" roles or positions. Traditional views of power held that "women have less access, in reality and in expectations, to concrete resources and competence, leaving them with indirect, personal, and helpless modes of influence" (Johnson, 1976, p. 99). In this view, women use indirect power (vs. direct), personal power (vs. concrete), and helplessness (vs. competence) as power ploys. Obviously, those power modes in parentheses are those used by men and are, therefore, socially condoned and desired. Further, males are far more likely than females to use all six power bases: reward and coercion, referrant power, expert power, legitimate power, and informational power (Johnson, 1976, pp. 103-105). Johnson points out that males are permitted to show "feminine characteristics" in their exercise of power but females are not allowed to have "masculine traits." Johnson warns that "if women's power use conforms to expectations and is limited in range to personal, helpless, and indirect power, women will be guaranteed of maintaining a powerless status in relationships with others and in society. Indirect and helpless modes of power, while useful in the short term, leave a woman as the unknown influence or known to be weak. Likewise, reliance on personal forms of power can leave women dependent on the relationships that are part of the power use"
(p. 108). Contemporary views of women's development and decision making Contemporary theoretical psychosocial developmental frameworks, such as Life Span or Life Course Theory, offer views which are dynamic, fluid, complex, flexible, multivariate (to include cultural, environ-
In the more contemporary view, a small but growing literature has emerged which indicates that women in adulthood are as instrumental, active, and interested in autonomy, individuation, and competent performance as adult males. What women add to this equation is a value for attach-
394
NANCY W. VEEDER
merit, relationship, or affiliation. One way of looking at female development, then, is to see it as a process of constantly evolving individuated attachment or connected autonomy. Research findings also suggest that some characteristics or traits which were traditionally ascribed primarily to women are becoming generally valued in modern management. Skills and behavior such as "understanding, listening, empathy, communication and democratic interpersonal relations are all seen as necessary and vital for effective management, which in turn stresses democratic styles of leadership and the development of a participative consultative alternate at work" (McCarthy, 1979, pp. 115-116). Kanter's latest book (1989) stresses the importance of the female "people" characteristics in successful management, as do several recent articles in the popular press (Stewart, T. A., "New Ways to Exercise Power," Fortune, November 6, 1989b; "CEOs See Clout Shifting," Fortune, November 6, 1989a). Lack of criticism of and hostility toward others (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975), sensitivity to the needs of others and reluctance to judge (Gilligan, 1979), acceptance of the responsibility for choices (Archer & Waterman, 1988), and combining rational and intuitive styles (Sinnott, 1986) have been positive descriptions of female style in the exercise of power and persuasion. Gilligan has been interpreted as being right on two counts "when she finds women's inner lives more complex than men's and learns that women have greater ability to identify with others, to sustain a variety of personal relationships, and to add in a genuine reciprocity in those relationships, and when she locates these qualities and capacities in women's involvement with families and the protection of human life . . . . "(Elshtain, 1982, p. 621). Women who are engaged in decision making combine instrumental and expressive concerns in their efforts, and there is growing evidence that they also possess the additional traditionally "male" instrumental individualism capacities of "personal identity, selfactualization, internal locus of control and principled moral reasoning" (Archer & Waterman, 1988, p. 65). This review of 88 studies concluded that "attachment with individuation is possible" (p. 77).
When new theoretical frameworks are applied to the study of women and decisionmaking power, the evidence suggests that women have considerable power which is, by definition, exercised in spheres largely different from those wherein men exercise power and authority. Although women's power is elaborated in different spheres (family, groups, communities), this does not diminish its potency; rather, there is growing evidence that the kind of power and decision making favored by females in largely private spheres is considered optimal for functioning in the public spheres traditionally and predominantly occupied by men in society. The ideas which lie behind this study of women making decisions, therefore, are those which paint a new picture of women's qualities, capacities, and styles, a picture so positive that these qualities would be seen clearly as desirable inputs to decisions within whatever setting (individual, family, or organization) they may be made and carried out. If, in fact, women do bring these "differences" to bear when making decisions, then this complex combination of factors which I have called "individuated attachment" or "connected autonomy" should be able to be teased out, whatever the content or context. This exploration of factors in decision making in the most important context within which women make decisions-the family-was the focus of this study.
Study methods Beeson (1975) observed that "in studying women, it is important to study 'worlds,' not ' r o l e s ' . . . researchers should use an inductive exploration of the symbolic world of the w o m e n . . , a phenomenological approach to probe the private sphere in which much of the female experience is defined" (p. 58). In the past 20 years numerous authors have addressed the issues particular to research about women. Pioneering methodological texts on qualitative methodology have been published by Filstead in 1970, Glaser and Strauss in 1967, and Strauss and Corbin in 1990. Countless researchers interested in the study of women have also published research methodological texts and articles (Ascher, DeSalvo, & Ruddick, 1984; Beeson, 1975; Bernard, 1981; Blau, 1981; Bleier, 1978, 1984, 1988; Bowles & Klein, 1983; Carlson,
Women Decide
1971, 1972; Cohler & Grunebaum, 1981; Cook & Fonow, 1990; Dahlberg, 1981; Deseran & Falk, 1982; Dubois, B., 1983; Dubois, Kelly, Kennedy, Korsmeyer, & Robinson, 1985; Epstein, 1988; Giele, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c; Gottlieb, 1987; Hancock, 1985; Jacklin, 1981; Jayaratne, 1983; Keller, 1982, 1990; Klein, 1983; Langland & Gove, 1981; Lipman-Blumen, 1984; Martin & Briscoe, 1974; McGee & Wells, 1982; McGuigan, 1980; Mies, 1983; MiUman & Kanter, 1976; Neugarten, 1969; Nielsen, 1990; Reinharz, 1979, 1983; Roberts, 1990; Rose, 1988; Rosenberg, 1982; Rossi, 1985; Schaef, 1985; Stature & Ryff, 1984; Stanley & Wise, 1983; Wallston & Grady, 1985; Westcott, 1990). Prototypicai studies utilizing the new women's scholarship research approach have been generated by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986), Gilligan (1980, 1982a, 1982b), Gilligan, Lyons, and Hanmer (1989), Kanter (1977a, 1977b), and Rubin (1979, 1983). A variety of theorists (particularly Life Course/Span adherents) and researchers agree that women's development throughout the life span is characterized by flexibility, affective interaction, and progressive growth in capacities and competencies. It follows, then, that a research methodology for the study of women must be employed which is not encrusted in deterministic causal and predictive straitjackets but is sufficiently flexible, yet empirically rigorous, to capture the complexities of the subject. This exploratory study was designed with the new research emphases about women in mind. The major questions which were explored were: What are the factors or considerations that go into the decisions women have made, predominantly in the context of the family, in relation to their own education, their own professional and/or career development, marriage, having children and how many, and the educational levels of children? Further, who manages household finances, and has the major decision-making responsibility in the family changed over the woman's lifetime? Finally, what were the influences of the woman's own mother on her decision making, do women influence the decisions men make in the family, and what are the major differences between women and men's decision making?
395
The interview. Each respondent was interviewed in her home, and the approximately 1-h interview was cassette-taped. The interview process was facilitated by having the interviewer ask the respondent to think about the major decisions she had made in her life prior to the actual interview. All the interviewers were women, for obvious methodological reasons of response validity, in that same-gender interviewers would elicit more truthful responses in relation to the major study questions. The study questions were open-ended. At the end of the interview each woman was asked personal information such as age, education, marital status, religion, and occupation/profession (including housewife). The interviewers, all from Northern Ireland except one Dublin resident, were trained by the chief investigator or one of the two onsite study administrators. Training sessions lasted for approximately 2 h and were taped so that interviewers who had questions as their interviews proceeded could clarify issues by listening to the training tapes. The sample. After instruction to interviewers in the training sessions as to what was desired in the sample, the 100 respondents were selected as a snowball sample of friends and acquaintances by the interviewers. For purposes of comparisons among three agegroup cohorts, the sample was to include, per family, a grandmother (65 years of age or older), her daughter (between 31 and 64 years of age), and her daughter's daughter (age 13 to 30 years). The use of cohort groups to approximate longitudinal studies, which are frequently infeasible in terms of time, cost, and sample loss, has been widely suggested, particularly by Life Course framework researchers (Baltes, 1968; Bakes, Featherman, & Lerner, 1988; Fallo-Mitchell & Ryff, 1982; Harevan, 1986; Lerner & Ryff, 1978; Mayer, 1986; Nesselroade, Schaie, & Baltes, 1972; Reinke, 1985; Reinke, Ellicott, Harris, & Hancock, 1985; Riley, 1986; Ryder, 1965; Ryff & Baltes, 1976; Schaie, 1965; Schaie & Strother, 1968; Urberg & Labouvie-Vief, 1976). Findings Description of the sample. A brief description is given in Table 1 for each of the
396
NANCY W. VEEDER
Table I. Sample demographics Cohort
Age Mean Range Education
Marital status
Number of children Mean Range Religion
Occupation
Older (22)
Middle (40)
Young (38)
73 65-91 Less than 4th grade (4)
45 34-62 Less than high school (17)
Less than high school (11)
High school graduate (7)
High school graduate (6) University/Professional (1)
High school plus technical (7) College graduate (4) Master's degree (3) Ph.D. (2) Married (3 l) Separated (4) Divorced (4) Widowed (I)
20 13-30 Currently enrolled in high school or university (12) High school (5) High school graduate (5) High school plus technical (17) Some university (2) College graduate (6) Law degree (1) Married (8)
Married (10) Widowed (8-39 years) (12)
5.9 1-18 Catholic (18) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1) Housewife (12) Housewife plus employment part-time (7)
3.3 0-7 Catholic (26) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1 l) Housewife (19) Housewife plus employment part-time (5) Full-time employment (10) Professional (5) Full-time student (1)
three cohorts: Older (age 65-91; 22°7o of the sample of I00); Middle (age 31-64; 40O7o of the sample); Young (age 13-30; 3807o of the sample). TYPES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS MADE AND CHANGES IN DECISION MAKING
Table 2 depicts the types of major personal decisions made in relation to own education, occupation, marriage, to have or not to have children, and number of children (among the sample as a whole). The typical woman in this sample, therefore, made a decision to leave school (with an equal, lesser, proportion deciding to stay in school and go on for higher education), the type of career they wished to pursue, and to get married. They were equally divided between deciding to
Catholic (23) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1) Housewife (1) Housewife plus employment part-time (2) Full-time employment (13) Full-time students (20) Unemployed (2)
have children or not feeling that they made such a decision, and deciding how many children to have. In relation to general family decisions, just under half stated that they made family financial decisions (49.2070), and just under a third stated that family financial decisions were j ointly arrived at with a spouse (30.8070). Only 2007o stated that their husbands made financial decisions in the family. In relation to changes in family decision making overall, 49.2070 said that there were no changes over time because such decision making had always been joint. Twenty-five percent noted that there had been changes in family decision making over time and that those changes were always in the direction of the woman now being primarily responsible for decisions, whereas previously it had been the man. Two quotes from respondents illustrate
Women Decide
Table 2. Major decisions in education, occupation, marriage, and children Decision area and type 1. Educational decision Leave school Stay in school Return to school Higher education/Profession 2. Occupational decision Type of career Leave career Return to career 3. Marriage To get married Whom to marry To separate/Divorce 4. To have or not to have children Made decision Didn't make decision 5. Number of children Made decision Didn't make decision
Percentage 37.8 22.2 6.7 21.1 71.0 17.4 1.4 60.6 9.9 8.5 50.8 49.2 47.5 52.5
perceptions of women and family decision making: I admire the way things have changed so much f r o m when I was young. People, especially women, have got such an important part to have in the world, or to take their own part in the world, whereas in my day that wasn't their right, especially not a m o n g the women in the working class. (Bridget, Age 71, 1990) In general Irish women, I suppose, have to take the m a j o r decisions because sometimes the men don't bother too much; they don't want responsibilities. It's left to the women. It's actually the w o m a n who is left to think things out and with the responsibility for m a j o r decisions. In my family that has been the case and I often find it to be the case in other families as well. (Sarah, Age 48, 1990) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN'S
AND MEN'S DECISIONS The women in the sample overwhelmingly thought that women influenced the decisions that men make (81.8°70). There was also ex-
397
traordinary unanimity in these women's perceptions about the m a j o r differences between the way women and men go about making decisions. The five m a j o r areas of difference were that women, in making decisions, (1) take more factors into consideration (89.6o70); (2) think and plan further ahead and are more logical (89.5O7o); (3) have greater value for relationships (89.5°10); (4) are more practical, realistic, and sensible (77.9o70); and (5) are more flexible and can more readily admit mistakes (77.9°7o). All five factors were correlated between .45 and .72 (p < .000). Two quotes f r o m respondents illustrate the ways in which women are pereived to influence men in general: W o m e n always influence men, always. W o m e n always have made the decisions for men-90°7o anyhow! The women were stronger than the men, stronger-minded, stronger willed and I think more intelligent than most of the men. I do believe this even if men had more education. Rural Irish women in my day were mainstays in the family; always; always the women that made the decisions (the women round me, even in town and outlying districts); always and always! (Maureen, Age 71, 1990) Yes, you do influence the decisions of male family members. You do it unconsciously. I would suggest to my husband that we do certain things for my daughter. W o m e n influence men a lot and men are not even aware it's the women's d e c i s i o n they think it's their own! It's hard to put your finger on it. I f you give your reasons you can quietly win. I f you're too obvious you don't get a n y w h e r e - t h e y ' l l just decide they are having it their way and that's that! (Patsy, Age 50, 1990) Five observations from all three cohorts illustrate the clarity o f perceptions of femalemale differences in decision making: I think the women should make the decis i o n s . . . I would always like to be very f a i r . . . (Kitty, Age 91, 1990) Well, to me, a woman's decision would be far better. (Mary, Age 84, 1990)
398
NANCY W. VEEDER
Men are not as considerate of all the factors c o n c e r n e d - t h e y look at things as black or white, right or wrong; women make decisions more from the heart, they look at all the different colors, the shade o f issues. (Patsy, Age 54, 1990) I think women make more sensible decisions about everything; men make more of a demand, women give advice; whatever any man says he thinks is definitely right and you're wrong; I don't think men are afraid of hurting anybody in getting what they achieve, whereas women are ever sensitive to other people's feelings and they can sort of step back a bit whereas men just batter on ahead. (Sharon, Age 18, 1990) I think that females, because before they never had any leading roles, perhaps tend to tackle decisions or problems on a more personal view and not to take into account what would look best, taking more into account what would be b e s t . . . (Irene, Age 13, 1990)
Differences among the three cohorts Table 3 illustrates the major differences in responses among the three age cohorts. In short, major cohort differences demographically were that members o f the older group tended to have less than a high school education, be widowed, and have more children, whereas members o f the middle group were more likely to have a college education and be divorced or separated, and members of the younger group tended to be current college students and single. In terms o f differences among cohorts in types o f decisions made, members o f the older group tended not to have made decisions about how many children to have, members o f the middle group did make decisions about leaving school and to separate or divorce, and members of the younger group made decisions about seeking higher education. The statistical significance o f differences among cohorts in relation to perceptions o f female/male differences in decision making was low due to high agreement among cohorts in this area. These slight differences were in the direction of the middle
Table 3. Response differences among three age cohorts Cohort
Demographics 1. Educational level
Older (65 + )
Middle (31-64)
Young (13-30)
Less than high school
College 09 < .000)
College student
Divorced/Separated
Single 09 < .000)
09 < .000) 2. Marital status
Widowed 09 < .000)
09 < .ooo) 09 < .ooo)
3. Number of children 4. Occupation Types of decisions I. Education decision
More children 09 < .000) Employed 09 < .000)
Student 09 < .000)
Leave school 09 < .000)
Higher education
09 < .0oo) 2. Marriage decision
To separate/divorce
09 < .ooo) 3. Number of children decision Differences between women and men making decisions I. Women think and plan further ahead; more logical 2. Women more flexible and willing to admit mistakes
Didn't make decision
09 < .Ol)
Less emphasis (p < .03) More emphasis 09 < .05)
WomenDecide
group emphasizing female flexibility and willingness to make mistakes to a greater extent than the other two cohorts, and the younger group placing slightly less emphasis on women thinking and planning further ahead and being more logical in decision making. CONCLUSION This exploratory study examined themes in women's decision making, largely within the context of the family, and took the newer more positive view of women's development which emphasizes women's flexibility, contextualism, inclusiveness, breadth in thinking about issues, complexity, and relatedness to others as the conceptual framework. This framework is in line both with the new approaches of women's scholarship and research and with the growing body of solid evidence which indicates that the characteristics, style, and considerations of decisions made in "private" spheres, largely by women, are those now most desired for application in "public" contexts currently predominantly occupied by men. Women in this study are clear about the viability of their decisions, particularly when they compare the way women and men differ in both decision-making processes and outcomes. All three age groups agree, almost to a woman, that women making decisions take more factors into consideration; think and plan further ahead; are more logical and consider consequences of decision making; are more practical, realistic, and sensible; have a greater value for relationships; and are more flexible and willing to admit decision-making mistakes. In the future, women making decisions will doubtless have the same range of outcomes from poor to excellent as men do currently. There exist, however, three major inhibitors to assessing the viability and variability of decisions made by women. One inhibitor is that theoretically, according to traditional thinkers, women are less capable of decision making due to developmental lags and inadequacies. A second inhibitor is that women are still seen as dependent in society, for the most part. A respondent in this study put it incisively: "To me influencing decisions is something you do because you are depen-
399
dent; making decisions is something you do because you are independent; therefore, women must influence because they are not in a position to 'make' decisions." Following this point, a final inhibitor (and by far the most overridingly constraining) is that women are not in public decision-making power positions in sufficient numbers to enable adequate assessment of their decisions in terms of style, scope, and viability. If women were in positions of decision-making power in roughly equal proportions to men, a prediction could be made that they would have the same decision-making outcomes, proportionally, as men. These outcomes would fall as follows: a relatively small proportion each of extremely good, sound decisions and very poor, inadequate decisions, with by far the largest proportion being in a category of adequate or average. The key factor is that not enough women occupy public positions to test the accuracy of this prediction. When women make decisions, at least as the 100 women in this study describe the process (with almost complete unanimity), they take both instrumental factors (rules, roles, responsibility, justice) and expressive factors (relationships, feelings, affiliations, the human environment) into consideration. Regardless of the context within which decisions are made, they balance feeling with cognition, heart with head. "I would never make a decision which is totally one way or the other. It will always have an emotional component as well as fact; how you get on with people as well as career factors, for example. People who make decisions without taking people into consideration are making extreme decisions, really, and for that reason it is as extreme and dangerous as decisions which keep people absolutely in the forefront and not taking into account outside factors (this approach will adversely affect the very people you are trying to protect!)." A colorful description of the process was provided by another respondent: "gut feeling plus rational factors." All three generations in this study have given a good picture of women's decisionmaking processes. They describe a quite different decision-making style from what they perceive to be a male decision-making mode. The female decision-making style, with all its strengths, is extremely effective. Women per-
400
NANCY W. VEEDER
ceive that they have unique ways of "winning," ways that are not based upon organizational power, status, and role descriptions and constrictions. By engaging in decision making on their own terms, women possess considerable actual power, particularly in their domain over life itself, its development, and the maximization of its potential. Primarily within the context of the family, but elsewhere as well, when given the opportunity, women demonstrate considerable ability to marshall resources-human and mater i a l - to get things done. They are so effective in this exercise of power due to the incisiveness and comprehensiveness of their decisions. REFERENCES Alper, Thelma G. (1974). Achievement motivation in college women: A now-you-see-it-now-you-don't phenomenon. American Psychologist, 29, 194-203. Archer, Sally L. & Waterman, Alan S. (1988). Psychological individualism: Gender differences or gender neutrality? Human Development, 31, 65-81. Ascher, Carol, DeSalvo, Louise, & Ruddick, Sara (Eds.). (1984). Between women. Boston: Beacon Press. Baltes, Paul B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11, 145-171. Baltes, Paul B., Featherman, David L., & Lerner, Richard M. (Eds.). (1988). Life-span development and behavior. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beeson, Diane. (1975). Women in studies of aging: A critique and suggestion. Social Problems, 23, 52-59. Belenky, Mary F., Clinchy, Blythe McV., Goldberger, Nancy R., & Tarule, Jill M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Bernard, Jessie. (1981). The female world. New York: The Free Press. Blau, Francine D. (1981). On the role of values in feminist scholarship. Signs, 6, 538-540. Bleier, Ruth. (1978). Bias in biological and human sciences: Some comments. Signs, 4, 159-162. Bleier, Ruth. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press. Bleier, Ruth (Ed.). (1988). Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon Press. Bowles, Gloria & Klein, Renate D. (1983). Theories of women's studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Carlson, Rae. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 267-277. Carlson, Rae. (1972). Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 17-32.
Chodorow, Nancy. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In Michelle Z. Rosaldo & Louise Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture and society (pp. 43-66). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chodorow, Nancy. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohler, Bertram J., & Grunebaum, Henry U. (1981). Mothers, grandmothers, and daughters. New York: Wiley. Cook, Judith A., & Fonow, Mary M. (1990). Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In Joyce McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 69-93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dahlberg, Frances (Ed.). (1981). Woman the gatherer. New Haven: Yale University Press. Deseran, Forrest A., & Falk, William W. (1982). Women as generalized other and self-theory: A strategy for empirical research. Sex Roles, 8, 283-297. DuBois, Barbara. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in femininst social science. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 105-116). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. DuBois, Ellen C., Kelly, Gall P., Kennedy, Elizabeth L., Korsmeyer, Carolyn W., & Robinson, Lillian S. (Eds.). (1985). Feminist scholarship. Kindling in the groves of academe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elshtaln, Jean B. (1982). Feminist discourse and its discontents: Language, power, and meaning; Signs, 7, 603-621. Epstein, Cynthia F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven: Yale University Press and Russell Sage Foundation. Erikson, Erik H. (1965). Inner and outer space: Reflections on womanhood. In Robert J. Lifton (Ed.), The woman in America (pp. 1-26). Boston: Beacon Press. Fallo-Mitchell, Linda, & Ryff, Carol D. (1982). Preferred timing of female life events: Cohort differences. Research on Aging, 4, 249-267. Filstead, William J. (1970). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company. Fleming, Jacqueline. (1982). Projective and psychometric approaches to measurement: The case of fear of success. In Abigail J. Stewart (Ed.), Motivation and society: A volume in honor of David McClelland (pp. 63-96). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Giele, Janet Z. (1982a). Future research and policy questions. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years: Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy (pp. 199-240). New York: Wiley. Giele, Janet Z. (1982b). Women in adulthood: Unanswered questions. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years. Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy (pp. 1-35). New York: Wiley. Giele, Janet Z. (1982c). (Ed.) Women in the middle years: Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy. New York: Wiley. Gilligan Carol. (1979). Woman's place in man's life cycle. Harvard Educational Review, 49, 431-446. Gilligan, Carol. (1980). Restoring the missing text of women's development to life cycle theories. In Dorothy G. McGuigan (Ed.), Women's lives: New theory,
Women Decide
research and policy (pp. 17-33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for Continuing Education of Women. Gilligan, Carol. (1982a). Adult development and women's development: Arrangements for a marriage. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years. Current knowledge and directions for research and policy (pp. 89-114). New York: Wiley. Gilligan, Carol. (1982b). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, Carol, Lyons, Nona, & Hanmer, Trudy J. (Eds.) (1989). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Troy, Emma Willard School. Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gottlieb, Naomi. (1987). Dilemmas and strategies in research on women. In Diane S. Burden & Naomi Gottlieb (Eds.), The woman client (pp. 53-66). New York: Tavistock Publications. Hancock, Emily. (1985). Age or experience? Human Development, 28, 274-280. Harevan, Tamara. (1986). Historical changes in the social construction of the life course. Human Development, 29, 171-177. Henley, Nancy. (1985). Psychology and gender. Signs 11,101-119. Horner, Matina S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157-175. Jacklin, Carol N. (1981). Methodological issues in the study of sex-related differences. Developmental Review, 1,266-273. Jayaratne, Toby E. (1983). The value of quantitative methodology for feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 140-161). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Johnson, Paula. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99-110. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon and Schuster. Keller, Evelyn F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7, 589-602. Keller, Evelyn F. (1990). Gender and science. In Joyce McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 41-57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Klein, Renate D. (1983). How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about feminist methodology. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein reds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 88-104). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Langland, Elizabeth, & Gove, Walter reds.). (1981). A feminist perspective in the academy: The difference it makes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lerner, Richard M., & Ryff, Carol D. (1978). Implementation of the life-span view of human develop-
401
ment: The sample case of attachment. In Paul B. Baltes (Ed.) Life-span development and behavior (pp. 1-44). New York: Academic Press. Levine, Adeline & Crumrine, Janice. (1975). Women and fear of success: A problem in replication. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 964--974. Lipman-Blumen, Jean (1984). Gender roles and power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Martin, Wendy & Briscoe, Mary L. (1974). Women's Studies: Problems in research. Women's Studies 2, 249-259. Mayer, Karl U. (1986). Cultural constraints on the life course. Human Development, 29, 163-170. McCarthy, Eunice. (1979). Women and work in Ireland: The present and preparing for the future. In Margaret MacCurtaln & Donncha O'Corrain (Eds.), Women in Irish society: The historical dimension (lap. 103-117). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. McGee, Jeanne & Wells, Kathryn. (1982). Gender typing and androgyny in later life: New directions for theory and research. Human Development, 25, 116-139. McGuigan, Dorothy C. (Ed.). (1980). Women's lives: New theory, research and policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Continuing Education of Women. Mies, Maria. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein reds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 177-139). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Miller, Jean B. (1982). Women and power. Work in progress (No. 82-01). Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Miller, Jean B. (1984). The development of women's sense of self. Work in progress (No. 12). Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Miller, Jean B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Millman, Marcia & Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1976). Another voice: Feminist perspectives on social life and social science. New York: Octagon Books. Monahan, Lynn, Kuhn, Deanna & Shaver, Philip (1974). Intrapsychic vs. cultural explanations of the fear of success motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 60-64. Nesselroade, John R., Schaie, K. Warner & Baltes, Paul W. (1972). Ontogenetic and generational components of structural and quantitative change in adult behavior. Journal of Gerontology, 27, 222-228. Neugarten, Bernice L. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities of psychological issues into adult life. Human Development, 12, 121-130. Nielsen, Joyce McC. (Ed.) (1990). Feminist research methods. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Paludi, Michelle A. (1979). Horner revisited: How successful must Anne and John be before FOS sets in? Psychological Reports, 44, 1319-1322. Paludi, Michele A. (1987). Psychometric properties and underlying assumptions of four objective measures of fear of success. In Mary R. Walsh (Ed.), Thepsychology of women: Ongoing debates (pp. 185-202). New Haven: Yale University Press. Reinharz, Shulamit. (1979). On becoming a social scientist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reinharz, Shulamit. (1983). Experimental analysis:
402
NANCYW. VEEDER
A contribution to feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 162-191). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reinke, Barbara J. (1985). Psychosocial changes as a function of chronological age. Human Development, 28, 266-269. Reinke, Barbara J., Ellicott, Abbie M., Harris, Rochelle L., & Hancock, Emily. (1985). Timing of psychosocial changes in women's fives. Human Development, 28, 259-261. Riley, Matilda W. (1986). The dynamism of life stages: Roles, people and age. Human Development, 29, 150-156. Roberts, Helen (Ed.). (1990). Doing feminist research. New York: Routledge. Rosaldo, Michelle Z., & Lamphere, Louise. (Eds.). (1974). Woman, culture and society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rose, Hilary. (1988). Beyond mascilinist realities: A feminist epistemology for the sciences. In Ruth Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 57-76). New York: Pergamon Press. Rosenberg, Rosalind. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rossi, Alice S. (Ed.) (1985). Gender and the life course. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Rossi, Alice S. (1987). On 'the reproduction of mothering': A methodological debate. In Mary R. Walsh (Ed.), The psychology of women: Ongoing debates (pp. 265-273). New Haven: Yale University Press. Rubin, Lillian B. (1979). Women of a certain age. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Rubin, Lillian B. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York: Harper and Row. Ryder, Norman B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843-861. Ryff, Carol D., & Baltes, P. B. (1976). Value transition and adult development in women: The instrumentality-terminality sequence hypothesis. Developmental Psychology 12, 567-568. Schaef, Anne W. (1985). Women's reality: An emerging female system in a white male society. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Schaie, K. Warner. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92-107. Schaie, K. Warner & Strother, Charles R. (1968). A cross-sequential study of age changes in cognitive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 671-680. Sinnott, James D. (1986). Sex roles and aging: Theory
and research from a systems perspective. Contributions to human development. Basel: Karger. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. (1975). The female world of love and ritual: Relations between women in nineteenth-century America. Signs 1, 1-2. Stature, Liesa, & Ryff, Carol D. (Eds.) (1984). Social power and influence of women. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Stanley, Liz, & Wise, Sue. (1983). 'Back into the personal' or: Our attempt to construct 'feminist research.' In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 192-209). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stein, Aletha H., & Bailey, Margaret M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345-366. Stewart, Thomas A. (1989a, November 6). CEOs see clout shifting. Fortune, p. 66. Stewart, Thomas A. (1989b, November 6). New ways to exercise power. Fortune, pp. 52-64. Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers. Tresemer, David W. (1974). Fear of success: Popular but unproven. Psychology Today, 7, 82-85. Tresemer, David W. (1977). Fear of success. New York: Plenum Press. Urberg, Kathryn A., & Labouvie-Vief, Gisela. (1976). Conceptualizations of sex roles: A life span developmental study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 12, 15-23. Veeder, Nancy W. (1992). Women's decision-making: Common t h e m e s . . . Irish voices. Westport, CT, and London: Praeger Publishers. WaUston, Barbara S., & Grady, Kathieen E. (1985). Integrating the feminist critique and the crisis in social psychology: Another look at research methods. In Virginia E. O'Leary, Rhoda K. Unger, & Barbara S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 7-33). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Walsh, Mary R. (Ed.). (1987). The psychology of women: Ongoing debates. New Haven: Yale University Press. Westcott, Marcia (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J. McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 58-68). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Zuckerman, Miron, & Allison, Stephen L. (1976). An objective measure of fear of success: Construction and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment 40, 424-427. Zuckerman, Miron, & Wheeler, Ladd. (1975). To dispel fantasies'about the fantasy-based measure of fear of success. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 932-946.
Pergamon
0277-539S(94)E0022-P
WOMEN'S DECISION MAKING
An Exploration of 100 Northern Irish Women's Perceptions NANCY W . VEEDER Boston College Graduate School of Social Work, McGuinn Hall 215, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167, USA
Synopsis-This exploratory study of 100 Northern Irish women in three age groups per family (grandmother, mother, daughter) making family decisions about marriage, children, education, and work found that there was unanimity among the three generations in both perceptions of the preeminence of women's decision making in society and the major differences between the processes of women and men's decision making. Respondents felt that, when making decisions, women (in contrast to men) take more factors into consideration; think and plan further ahead; are more logical and consider consequences of decision making; are more practical, realistic, and sensible; have a greater value for relationships; and are more flexible and willing to admit decision-making mistakes. These differences are precisely those which are currently being conceptualized to constitute excellence in leadership and management in the family, community groups, and broader sociopolitical roles.
Women make at least as good and important decisions as men. In fact, the evidence in this study begins to show that women may even make better decisions than men for the simple reason that they take more factors into consideration in the contexts within which they make decisions. This assertion certainly runs counter to both the bulk of theory about women's development and decision making, and studies which compare women and men making decisions (including both processes and outcomes of decision making). New frameworks for viewing women's development provide both the opportunity to reexamine the concept of female decision making and to apply new approaches to the study of women making decisions. For example, if one views "affiliation" and "relationship" factors as positive rather than negative (as they are traditionally viewed), then decisions made by women may be as good, or better, than those made by men. Certainly there
is growing evidence that these "female" decision-making factors produce the most desired skills for managerial leadership (Kanter, 1989). This study of 100 Irish women (90 from the North, 10 from Dublin) was designed to take into account the need for both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. The data were collected in an in-person taped interview (conducted by local Irish female interviewers) of approximately a n hour in duration, carried out in each interviewee's home. The sample consisted of three age cohorts within the same family (grandmother, mother, and granddaughter(s)), which were selected by the trained Irish interviewers. The stance for the study was clearly exploratory, with no preconceived initial hypotheses or study issues to be put to "rigorous" empirical/scientific test. TRADITIONAL, TRANSITIONAL, AND MORE CONTEMPORARY VIEWS OF WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT AND DECISION MAKING
This article is based upon the author's recently published book, Women's Decision-Making: Common T h e m e s . . . Irish Voices (Praeger, 1992). The data analysis in the book is largely qualitative; this article represents a combination of quantitative data analysis with qualitative elaborations of findings.
Traditional and transitional views of women's development and decision making Anthropologists, developmental psychologists, and sociologists traditionally have 391
392
NANCY W. VEEDER
evolved a static, deterministic model of female personality development which is said to be affiliative rather than active, expressive/affective rather than instrumental, and dependent on others rather than seeking autonomy, individuation, and competence in role and task performance. So described, females appeared forever doomed to lower, lesser psychosocial status than males, with attendant power and economic diminution accorded by society. It must be noted that these "frozen" descriptions of female psychological and social development, which largely neglect adult development, were almost exclusively male-generated. The rigidity of "stages," "ages," and "phases" has not been particularly theoretically or practically helpful in understanding and enhancing female psychosocial development. Misperceptions abound, from Freud's thesis about "genitally traumatized" female development to Erikson's now-quaint assertions that "young women often ask whether they can 'have an identity' before they know whom they will marry and for whom they will make a home . . . . I think that much of a young woman's identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness and in the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she wishes to be sought . . . . " (Erikson, 1965, pp. 19-20). To rail against these traditional explanations in the 1990s as untrue, anachronistic, sexist, paternalistic, misguided, lacking in insight into the feminine psyche, and, at wors t , malevolent (all of which they may b e - a n d have been-accused) is counterproductive. They have not been scientifically confirmed, and this may well be a function of their nonexistence and/or inability to be measured or predictive of subsequent behavior. Nonetheless, these outmoded explanations still determine much of our clinical work with clients (the vast majority of whom are women) and have tremendous impact at programmatic and policy levels. Three theorists of women's psychosocial development represent, for want of a better term, a "transitional traditionalist" position: Nancy Chodorow (1974, 1978), Jean Baker Miller (1982, 1984, 1986), and Matina Horner (1972). Each has been criticized for being too mired in old, traditional ways of viewing female development.
Chodorow has been taken to task by Alice Rossi (1987) who, despite her "awe and admiration" for Chodorow's original essay on mothering, was "not prepared for so extended an exegesis of psychoanalytic theory, past and present, or for the nearly total embeddedness of her theory in psychodynamic terms" (Rossi, 1987, p. 265). Rossi criticizes Chodorow on three points: What constitutes "evidence?" Why so much reliance on psychoanalytic theory and "so harsh a rejection of theories in biology and developmental psychology?" and Could, or should, significant institutional change effect a change in mother-daughter dynamics? Jean Baker Miller and her colleagues have elaborated a "new" psychology of women, one that emphasizes the uniqueness of the totality of women's development, particularly in relation to positive uses of power, emphasis on "agency-in-community," and identity through an idea of "being-in-relation of dependence primarily on interpersonal relationships" (Miller, 1984). Miller and colleagues are included in the "transitional traditional" group because they are still embedded in psychoanalytic thought (the same criticism leveled by Rossi against Chodorow) which persists in viewing every developmental glass (particularly when viewing women) as half empty rather than half full. For example, although Miller (1986) makes a major and important point that females do not develop totally according to the male developmental mold but rely on a central feature, a "context of connections with others," an ability "to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships" (p. 83), she concludes that these capacities are, or may lead to, psychological problems: "Such psychic structuring can lay the groundwork for many problems. Depression, for example, which is related to one's sense of the loss of connection with another(s), is much more common in women, although it certainly occurs in men" (p. 83). Further, "I would suggest instead that while these women do face a problem, one that troubles them greatly, the problem arises from the dominant role that affiliations have been made to play in women's lives. Women are, in fact, being 'punished' for making affiliations central in their lives" (p. 86). Thus, for a capacity which through another lens would be seen as positive, women are rele-
Women Decide
gated to a kind of lifelong psychic determinism, an eternal "victimization." Society does not value this affiliative capacity, negatively reinforces it at best, and punishes it at worst. This fact is not adequately addressed within Miller's theoretical framework. Matina Horner (1972) forged new areas of inquiry into female development in relation to achievement. Results indicated that women in her samples possessed what came to be popularly known as "fear of success" or "achievement-avoidance." Again, Homer's "new" area in the study of women (achievement, or success motivation) is firmly rooted in "old" traditional psychological explanations. "Fear of success" among women, based ostensibly on the social rejection attendant to competition with men, became rarified to popular "lore" and precipitated a great deal of research, despite the fact that Horner's work both consistently failed the test of replication and/or produced strikingly opposite subsequent findings. These two inconclusive and contradictory results were predicated on faulty theory, research methodologies, and resultant interpretations (Alper, 1974; Fleming, 1982; Henley, 1985; Levine & Crumrine, 1975; Monahan, Kuhn, & Shaver, 1974; Paludi, 1979, 1987; Stein & Bailey, 1973; Tresemer, 1974, 1977; Veeder, 1992; Zuckerman & Allison, 1976; Zuckerman & Wheeler 1975). Again we see a blamethe-victim approach to women's problems, "diverting attention from larger social issues that blocked female achievement" (Walsh, 1987, p. 166). In fact, Paludi (1987) suggests that it would "appear to be desirable to abandon the label 'fear of success,' since its continued use serves only to reinforce the popular and widespread, but scientifically unfounded, idea that sex differences in occupational or academic participation are attributable to an intrapsychic difference between men and women, an approach that blames the victim. To date, fear of success has failed" (19. 200).
393
mental, historical factors, for example), and account for development (for both genders) at all ages and epochs throughout life. Certainly such newer developmental frameworks, or "mind-sets," account for differences in views of women's decision making between traditional and contemporary thinkers. Traditional observers of women's development did not elaborate the concepts of female power, leadership, and decision making because women were conceived to have little if any "power" (male-defined) and certainly were not seen to occupy "leadership" roles or positions. Traditional views of power held that "women have less access, in reality and in expectations, to concrete resources and competence, leaving them with indirect, personal, and helpless modes of influence" (Johnson, 1976, p. 99). In this view, women use indirect power (vs. direct), personal power (vs. concrete), and helplessness (vs. competence) as power ploys. Obviously, those power modes in parentheses are those used by men and are, therefore, socially condoned and desired. Further, males are far more likely than females to use all six power bases: reward and coercion, referrant power, expert power, legitimate power, and informational power (Johnson, 1976, pp. 103-105). Johnson points out that males are permitted to show "feminine characteristics" in their exercise of power but females are not allowed to have "masculine traits." Johnson warns that "if women's power use conforms to expectations and is limited in range to personal, helpless, and indirect power, women will be guaranteed of maintaining a powerless status in relationships with others and in society. Indirect and helpless modes of power, while useful in the short term, leave a woman as the unknown influence or known to be weak. Likewise, reliance on personal forms of power can leave women dependent on the relationships that are part of the power use"
(p. 108). Contemporary views of women's development and decision making Contemporary theoretical psychosocial developmental frameworks, such as Life Span or Life Course Theory, offer views which are dynamic, fluid, complex, flexible, multivariate (to include cultural, environ-
In the more contemporary view, a small but growing literature has emerged which indicates that women in adulthood are as instrumental, active, and interested in autonomy, individuation, and competent performance as adult males. What women add to this equation is a value for attach-
394
NANCY W. VEEDER
merit, relationship, or affiliation. One way of looking at female development, then, is to see it as a process of constantly evolving individuated attachment or connected autonomy. Research findings also suggest that some characteristics or traits which were traditionally ascribed primarily to women are becoming generally valued in modern management. Skills and behavior such as "understanding, listening, empathy, communication and democratic interpersonal relations are all seen as necessary and vital for effective management, which in turn stresses democratic styles of leadership and the development of a participative consultative alternate at work" (McCarthy, 1979, pp. 115-116). Kanter's latest book (1989) stresses the importance of the female "people" characteristics in successful management, as do several recent articles in the popular press (Stewart, T. A., "New Ways to Exercise Power," Fortune, November 6, 1989b; "CEOs See Clout Shifting," Fortune, November 6, 1989a). Lack of criticism of and hostility toward others (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975), sensitivity to the needs of others and reluctance to judge (Gilligan, 1979), acceptance of the responsibility for choices (Archer & Waterman, 1988), and combining rational and intuitive styles (Sinnott, 1986) have been positive descriptions of female style in the exercise of power and persuasion. Gilligan has been interpreted as being right on two counts "when she finds women's inner lives more complex than men's and learns that women have greater ability to identify with others, to sustain a variety of personal relationships, and to add in a genuine reciprocity in those relationships, and when she locates these qualities and capacities in women's involvement with families and the protection of human life . . . . "(Elshtain, 1982, p. 621). Women who are engaged in decision making combine instrumental and expressive concerns in their efforts, and there is growing evidence that they also possess the additional traditionally "male" instrumental individualism capacities of "personal identity, selfactualization, internal locus of control and principled moral reasoning" (Archer & Waterman, 1988, p. 65). This review of 88 studies concluded that "attachment with individuation is possible" (p. 77).
When new theoretical frameworks are applied to the study of women and decisionmaking power, the evidence suggests that women have considerable power which is, by definition, exercised in spheres largely different from those wherein men exercise power and authority. Although women's power is elaborated in different spheres (family, groups, communities), this does not diminish its potency; rather, there is growing evidence that the kind of power and decision making favored by females in largely private spheres is considered optimal for functioning in the public spheres traditionally and predominantly occupied by men in society. The ideas which lie behind this study of women making decisions, therefore, are those which paint a new picture of women's qualities, capacities, and styles, a picture so positive that these qualities would be seen clearly as desirable inputs to decisions within whatever setting (individual, family, or organization) they may be made and carried out. If, in fact, women do bring these "differences" to bear when making decisions, then this complex combination of factors which I have called "individuated attachment" or "connected autonomy" should be able to be teased out, whatever the content or context. This exploration of factors in decision making in the most important context within which women make decisions-the family-was the focus of this study.
Study methods Beeson (1975) observed that "in studying women, it is important to study 'worlds,' not ' r o l e s ' . . . researchers should use an inductive exploration of the symbolic world of the w o m e n . . , a phenomenological approach to probe the private sphere in which much of the female experience is defined" (p. 58). In the past 20 years numerous authors have addressed the issues particular to research about women. Pioneering methodological texts on qualitative methodology have been published by Filstead in 1970, Glaser and Strauss in 1967, and Strauss and Corbin in 1990. Countless researchers interested in the study of women have also published research methodological texts and articles (Ascher, DeSalvo, & Ruddick, 1984; Beeson, 1975; Bernard, 1981; Blau, 1981; Bleier, 1978, 1984, 1988; Bowles & Klein, 1983; Carlson,
Women Decide
1971, 1972; Cohler & Grunebaum, 1981; Cook & Fonow, 1990; Dahlberg, 1981; Deseran & Falk, 1982; Dubois, B., 1983; Dubois, Kelly, Kennedy, Korsmeyer, & Robinson, 1985; Epstein, 1988; Giele, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c; Gottlieb, 1987; Hancock, 1985; Jacklin, 1981; Jayaratne, 1983; Keller, 1982, 1990; Klein, 1983; Langland & Gove, 1981; Lipman-Blumen, 1984; Martin & Briscoe, 1974; McGee & Wells, 1982; McGuigan, 1980; Mies, 1983; MiUman & Kanter, 1976; Neugarten, 1969; Nielsen, 1990; Reinharz, 1979, 1983; Roberts, 1990; Rose, 1988; Rosenberg, 1982; Rossi, 1985; Schaef, 1985; Stature & Ryff, 1984; Stanley & Wise, 1983; Wallston & Grady, 1985; Westcott, 1990). Prototypicai studies utilizing the new women's scholarship research approach have been generated by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986), Gilligan (1980, 1982a, 1982b), Gilligan, Lyons, and Hanmer (1989), Kanter (1977a, 1977b), and Rubin (1979, 1983). A variety of theorists (particularly Life Course/Span adherents) and researchers agree that women's development throughout the life span is characterized by flexibility, affective interaction, and progressive growth in capacities and competencies. It follows, then, that a research methodology for the study of women must be employed which is not encrusted in deterministic causal and predictive straitjackets but is sufficiently flexible, yet empirically rigorous, to capture the complexities of the subject. This exploratory study was designed with the new research emphases about women in mind. The major questions which were explored were: What are the factors or considerations that go into the decisions women have made, predominantly in the context of the family, in relation to their own education, their own professional and/or career development, marriage, having children and how many, and the educational levels of children? Further, who manages household finances, and has the major decision-making responsibility in the family changed over the woman's lifetime? Finally, what were the influences of the woman's own mother on her decision making, do women influence the decisions men make in the family, and what are the major differences between women and men's decision making?
395
The interview. Each respondent was interviewed in her home, and the approximately 1-h interview was cassette-taped. The interview process was facilitated by having the interviewer ask the respondent to think about the major decisions she had made in her life prior to the actual interview. All the interviewers were women, for obvious methodological reasons of response validity, in that same-gender interviewers would elicit more truthful responses in relation to the major study questions. The study questions were open-ended. At the end of the interview each woman was asked personal information such as age, education, marital status, religion, and occupation/profession (including housewife). The interviewers, all from Northern Ireland except one Dublin resident, were trained by the chief investigator or one of the two onsite study administrators. Training sessions lasted for approximately 2 h and were taped so that interviewers who had questions as their interviews proceeded could clarify issues by listening to the training tapes. The sample. After instruction to interviewers in the training sessions as to what was desired in the sample, the 100 respondents were selected as a snowball sample of friends and acquaintances by the interviewers. For purposes of comparisons among three agegroup cohorts, the sample was to include, per family, a grandmother (65 years of age or older), her daughter (between 31 and 64 years of age), and her daughter's daughter (age 13 to 30 years). The use of cohort groups to approximate longitudinal studies, which are frequently infeasible in terms of time, cost, and sample loss, has been widely suggested, particularly by Life Course framework researchers (Baltes, 1968; Bakes, Featherman, & Lerner, 1988; Fallo-Mitchell & Ryff, 1982; Harevan, 1986; Lerner & Ryff, 1978; Mayer, 1986; Nesselroade, Schaie, & Baltes, 1972; Reinke, 1985; Reinke, Ellicott, Harris, & Hancock, 1985; Riley, 1986; Ryder, 1965; Ryff & Baltes, 1976; Schaie, 1965; Schaie & Strother, 1968; Urberg & Labouvie-Vief, 1976). Findings Description of the sample. A brief description is given in Table 1 for each of the
396
NANCY W. VEEDER
Table I. Sample demographics Cohort
Age Mean Range Education
Marital status
Number of children Mean Range Religion
Occupation
Older (22)
Middle (40)
Young (38)
73 65-91 Less than 4th grade (4)
45 34-62 Less than high school (17)
Less than high school (11)
High school graduate (7)
High school graduate (6) University/Professional (1)
High school plus technical (7) College graduate (4) Master's degree (3) Ph.D. (2) Married (3 l) Separated (4) Divorced (4) Widowed (I)
20 13-30 Currently enrolled in high school or university (12) High school (5) High school graduate (5) High school plus technical (17) Some university (2) College graduate (6) Law degree (1) Married (8)
Married (10) Widowed (8-39 years) (12)
5.9 1-18 Catholic (18) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1) Housewife (12) Housewife plus employment part-time (7)
3.3 0-7 Catholic (26) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1 l) Housewife (19) Housewife plus employment part-time (5) Full-time employment (10) Professional (5) Full-time student (1)
three cohorts: Older (age 65-91; 22°7o of the sample of I00); Middle (age 31-64; 40O7o of the sample); Young (age 13-30; 3807o of the sample). TYPES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS MADE AND CHANGES IN DECISION MAKING
Table 2 depicts the types of major personal decisions made in relation to own education, occupation, marriage, to have or not to have children, and number of children (among the sample as a whole). The typical woman in this sample, therefore, made a decision to leave school (with an equal, lesser, proportion deciding to stay in school and go on for higher education), the type of career they wished to pursue, and to get married. They were equally divided between deciding to
Catholic (23) Protestant (3) Lapsed Catholic/ Atheist (1) Housewife (1) Housewife plus employment part-time (2) Full-time employment (13) Full-time students (20) Unemployed (2)
have children or not feeling that they made such a decision, and deciding how many children to have. In relation to general family decisions, just under half stated that they made family financial decisions (49.2070), and just under a third stated that family financial decisions were j ointly arrived at with a spouse (30.8070). Only 2007o stated that their husbands made financial decisions in the family. In relation to changes in family decision making overall, 49.2070 said that there were no changes over time because such decision making had always been joint. Twenty-five percent noted that there had been changes in family decision making over time and that those changes were always in the direction of the woman now being primarily responsible for decisions, whereas previously it had been the man. Two quotes from respondents illustrate
Women Decide
Table 2. Major decisions in education, occupation, marriage, and children Decision area and type 1. Educational decision Leave school Stay in school Return to school Higher education/Profession 2. Occupational decision Type of career Leave career Return to career 3. Marriage To get married Whom to marry To separate/Divorce 4. To have or not to have children Made decision Didn't make decision 5. Number of children Made decision Didn't make decision
Percentage 37.8 22.2 6.7 21.1 71.0 17.4 1.4 60.6 9.9 8.5 50.8 49.2 47.5 52.5
perceptions of women and family decision making: I admire the way things have changed so much f r o m when I was young. People, especially women, have got such an important part to have in the world, or to take their own part in the world, whereas in my day that wasn't their right, especially not a m o n g the women in the working class. (Bridget, Age 71, 1990) In general Irish women, I suppose, have to take the m a j o r decisions because sometimes the men don't bother too much; they don't want responsibilities. It's left to the women. It's actually the w o m a n who is left to think things out and with the responsibility for m a j o r decisions. In my family that has been the case and I often find it to be the case in other families as well. (Sarah, Age 48, 1990) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN'S
AND MEN'S DECISIONS The women in the sample overwhelmingly thought that women influenced the decisions that men make (81.8°70). There was also ex-
397
traordinary unanimity in these women's perceptions about the m a j o r differences between the way women and men go about making decisions. The five m a j o r areas of difference were that women, in making decisions, (1) take more factors into consideration (89.6o70); (2) think and plan further ahead and are more logical (89.5O7o); (3) have greater value for relationships (89.5°10); (4) are more practical, realistic, and sensible (77.9o70); and (5) are more flexible and can more readily admit mistakes (77.9°7o). All five factors were correlated between .45 and .72 (p < .000). Two quotes f r o m respondents illustrate the ways in which women are pereived to influence men in general: W o m e n always influence men, always. W o m e n always have made the decisions for men-90°7o anyhow! The women were stronger than the men, stronger-minded, stronger willed and I think more intelligent than most of the men. I do believe this even if men had more education. Rural Irish women in my day were mainstays in the family; always; always the women that made the decisions (the women round me, even in town and outlying districts); always and always! (Maureen, Age 71, 1990) Yes, you do influence the decisions of male family members. You do it unconsciously. I would suggest to my husband that we do certain things for my daughter. W o m e n influence men a lot and men are not even aware it's the women's d e c i s i o n they think it's their own! It's hard to put your finger on it. I f you give your reasons you can quietly win. I f you're too obvious you don't get a n y w h e r e - t h e y ' l l just decide they are having it their way and that's that! (Patsy, Age 50, 1990) Five observations from all three cohorts illustrate the clarity o f perceptions of femalemale differences in decision making: I think the women should make the decis i o n s . . . I would always like to be very f a i r . . . (Kitty, Age 91, 1990) Well, to me, a woman's decision would be far better. (Mary, Age 84, 1990)
398
NANCY W. VEEDER
Men are not as considerate of all the factors c o n c e r n e d - t h e y look at things as black or white, right or wrong; women make decisions more from the heart, they look at all the different colors, the shade o f issues. (Patsy, Age 54, 1990) I think women make more sensible decisions about everything; men make more of a demand, women give advice; whatever any man says he thinks is definitely right and you're wrong; I don't think men are afraid of hurting anybody in getting what they achieve, whereas women are ever sensitive to other people's feelings and they can sort of step back a bit whereas men just batter on ahead. (Sharon, Age 18, 1990) I think that females, because before they never had any leading roles, perhaps tend to tackle decisions or problems on a more personal view and not to take into account what would look best, taking more into account what would be b e s t . . . (Irene, Age 13, 1990)
Differences among the three cohorts Table 3 illustrates the major differences in responses among the three age cohorts. In short, major cohort differences demographically were that members o f the older group tended to have less than a high school education, be widowed, and have more children, whereas members o f the middle group were more likely to have a college education and be divorced or separated, and members of the younger group tended to be current college students and single. In terms o f differences among cohorts in types o f decisions made, members o f the older group tended not to have made decisions about how many children to have, members o f the middle group did make decisions about leaving school and to separate or divorce, and members of the younger group made decisions about seeking higher education. The statistical significance o f differences among cohorts in relation to perceptions o f female/male differences in decision making was low due to high agreement among cohorts in this area. These slight differences were in the direction of the middle
Table 3. Response differences among three age cohorts Cohort
Demographics 1. Educational level
Older (65 + )
Middle (31-64)
Young (13-30)
Less than high school
College 09 < .000)
College student
Divorced/Separated
Single 09 < .000)
09 < .000) 2. Marital status
Widowed 09 < .000)
09 < .ooo) 09 < .ooo)
3. Number of children 4. Occupation Types of decisions I. Education decision
More children 09 < .000) Employed 09 < .000)
Student 09 < .000)
Leave school 09 < .000)
Higher education
09 < .0oo) 2. Marriage decision
To separate/divorce
09 < .ooo) 3. Number of children decision Differences between women and men making decisions I. Women think and plan further ahead; more logical 2. Women more flexible and willing to admit mistakes
Didn't make decision
09 < .Ol)
Less emphasis (p < .03) More emphasis 09 < .05)
WomenDecide
group emphasizing female flexibility and willingness to make mistakes to a greater extent than the other two cohorts, and the younger group placing slightly less emphasis on women thinking and planning further ahead and being more logical in decision making. CONCLUSION This exploratory study examined themes in women's decision making, largely within the context of the family, and took the newer more positive view of women's development which emphasizes women's flexibility, contextualism, inclusiveness, breadth in thinking about issues, complexity, and relatedness to others as the conceptual framework. This framework is in line both with the new approaches of women's scholarship and research and with the growing body of solid evidence which indicates that the characteristics, style, and considerations of decisions made in "private" spheres, largely by women, are those now most desired for application in "public" contexts currently predominantly occupied by men. Women in this study are clear about the viability of their decisions, particularly when they compare the way women and men differ in both decision-making processes and outcomes. All three age groups agree, almost to a woman, that women making decisions take more factors into consideration; think and plan further ahead; are more logical and consider consequences of decision making; are more practical, realistic, and sensible; have a greater value for relationships; and are more flexible and willing to admit decision-making mistakes. In the future, women making decisions will doubtless have the same range of outcomes from poor to excellent as men do currently. There exist, however, three major inhibitors to assessing the viability and variability of decisions made by women. One inhibitor is that theoretically, according to traditional thinkers, women are less capable of decision making due to developmental lags and inadequacies. A second inhibitor is that women are still seen as dependent in society, for the most part. A respondent in this study put it incisively: "To me influencing decisions is something you do because you are depen-
399
dent; making decisions is something you do because you are independent; therefore, women must influence because they are not in a position to 'make' decisions." Following this point, a final inhibitor (and by far the most overridingly constraining) is that women are not in public decision-making power positions in sufficient numbers to enable adequate assessment of their decisions in terms of style, scope, and viability. If women were in positions of decision-making power in roughly equal proportions to men, a prediction could be made that they would have the same decision-making outcomes, proportionally, as men. These outcomes would fall as follows: a relatively small proportion each of extremely good, sound decisions and very poor, inadequate decisions, with by far the largest proportion being in a category of adequate or average. The key factor is that not enough women occupy public positions to test the accuracy of this prediction. When women make decisions, at least as the 100 women in this study describe the process (with almost complete unanimity), they take both instrumental factors (rules, roles, responsibility, justice) and expressive factors (relationships, feelings, affiliations, the human environment) into consideration. Regardless of the context within which decisions are made, they balance feeling with cognition, heart with head. "I would never make a decision which is totally one way or the other. It will always have an emotional component as well as fact; how you get on with people as well as career factors, for example. People who make decisions without taking people into consideration are making extreme decisions, really, and for that reason it is as extreme and dangerous as decisions which keep people absolutely in the forefront and not taking into account outside factors (this approach will adversely affect the very people you are trying to protect!)." A colorful description of the process was provided by another respondent: "gut feeling plus rational factors." All three generations in this study have given a good picture of women's decisionmaking processes. They describe a quite different decision-making style from what they perceive to be a male decision-making mode. The female decision-making style, with all its strengths, is extremely effective. Women per-
400
NANCY W. VEEDER
ceive that they have unique ways of "winning," ways that are not based upon organizational power, status, and role descriptions and constrictions. By engaging in decision making on their own terms, women possess considerable actual power, particularly in their domain over life itself, its development, and the maximization of its potential. Primarily within the context of the family, but elsewhere as well, when given the opportunity, women demonstrate considerable ability to marshall resources-human and mater i a l - to get things done. They are so effective in this exercise of power due to the incisiveness and comprehensiveness of their decisions. REFERENCES Alper, Thelma G. (1974). Achievement motivation in college women: A now-you-see-it-now-you-don't phenomenon. American Psychologist, 29, 194-203. Archer, Sally L. & Waterman, Alan S. (1988). Psychological individualism: Gender differences or gender neutrality? Human Development, 31, 65-81. Ascher, Carol, DeSalvo, Louise, & Ruddick, Sara (Eds.). (1984). Between women. Boston: Beacon Press. Baltes, Paul B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and generation effects. Human Development, 11, 145-171. Baltes, Paul B., Featherman, David L., & Lerner, Richard M. (Eds.). (1988). Life-span development and behavior. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beeson, Diane. (1975). Women in studies of aging: A critique and suggestion. Social Problems, 23, 52-59. Belenky, Mary F., Clinchy, Blythe McV., Goldberger, Nancy R., & Tarule, Jill M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Bernard, Jessie. (1981). The female world. New York: The Free Press. Blau, Francine D. (1981). On the role of values in feminist scholarship. Signs, 6, 538-540. Bleier, Ruth. (1978). Bias in biological and human sciences: Some comments. Signs, 4, 159-162. Bleier, Ruth. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press. Bleier, Ruth (Ed.). (1988). Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon Press. Bowles, Gloria & Klein, Renate D. (1983). Theories of women's studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Carlson, Rae. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 267-277. Carlson, Rae. (1972). Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 17-32.
Chodorow, Nancy. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In Michelle Z. Rosaldo & Louise Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, culture and society (pp. 43-66). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chodorow, Nancy. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohler, Bertram J., & Grunebaum, Henry U. (1981). Mothers, grandmothers, and daughters. New York: Wiley. Cook, Judith A., & Fonow, Mary M. (1990). Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In Joyce McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 69-93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dahlberg, Frances (Ed.). (1981). Woman the gatherer. New Haven: Yale University Press. Deseran, Forrest A., & Falk, William W. (1982). Women as generalized other and self-theory: A strategy for empirical research. Sex Roles, 8, 283-297. DuBois, Barbara. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in femininst social science. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 105-116). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. DuBois, Ellen C., Kelly, Gall P., Kennedy, Elizabeth L., Korsmeyer, Carolyn W., & Robinson, Lillian S. (Eds.). (1985). Feminist scholarship. Kindling in the groves of academe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elshtaln, Jean B. (1982). Feminist discourse and its discontents: Language, power, and meaning; Signs, 7, 603-621. Epstein, Cynthia F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven: Yale University Press and Russell Sage Foundation. Erikson, Erik H. (1965). Inner and outer space: Reflections on womanhood. In Robert J. Lifton (Ed.), The woman in America (pp. 1-26). Boston: Beacon Press. Fallo-Mitchell, Linda, & Ryff, Carol D. (1982). Preferred timing of female life events: Cohort differences. Research on Aging, 4, 249-267. Filstead, William J. (1970). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company. Fleming, Jacqueline. (1982). Projective and psychometric approaches to measurement: The case of fear of success. In Abigail J. Stewart (Ed.), Motivation and society: A volume in honor of David McClelland (pp. 63-96). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Giele, Janet Z. (1982a). Future research and policy questions. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years: Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy (pp. 199-240). New York: Wiley. Giele, Janet Z. (1982b). Women in adulthood: Unanswered questions. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years. Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy (pp. 1-35). New York: Wiley. Giele, Janet Z. (1982c). (Ed.) Women in the middle years: Current knowledge and directions for research andpolicy. New York: Wiley. Gilligan Carol. (1979). Woman's place in man's life cycle. Harvard Educational Review, 49, 431-446. Gilligan, Carol. (1980). Restoring the missing text of women's development to life cycle theories. In Dorothy G. McGuigan (Ed.), Women's lives: New theory,
Women Decide
research and policy (pp. 17-33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for Continuing Education of Women. Gilligan, Carol. (1982a). Adult development and women's development: Arrangements for a marriage. In Janet Z. Giele (Ed.), Women in the middle years. Current knowledge and directions for research and policy (pp. 89-114). New York: Wiley. Gilligan, Carol. (1982b). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, Carol, Lyons, Nona, & Hanmer, Trudy J. (Eds.) (1989). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Troy, Emma Willard School. Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gottlieb, Naomi. (1987). Dilemmas and strategies in research on women. In Diane S. Burden & Naomi Gottlieb (Eds.), The woman client (pp. 53-66). New York: Tavistock Publications. Hancock, Emily. (1985). Age or experience? Human Development, 28, 274-280. Harevan, Tamara. (1986). Historical changes in the social construction of the life course. Human Development, 29, 171-177. Henley, Nancy. (1985). Psychology and gender. Signs 11,101-119. Horner, Matina S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157-175. Jacklin, Carol N. (1981). Methodological issues in the study of sex-related differences. Developmental Review, 1,266-273. Jayaratne, Toby E. (1983). The value of quantitative methodology for feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 140-161). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Johnson, Paula. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99-110. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon and Schuster. Keller, Evelyn F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7, 589-602. Keller, Evelyn F. (1990). Gender and science. In Joyce McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 41-57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Klein, Renate D. (1983). How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about feminist methodology. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein reds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 88-104). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Langland, Elizabeth, & Gove, Walter reds.). (1981). A feminist perspective in the academy: The difference it makes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lerner, Richard M., & Ryff, Carol D. (1978). Implementation of the life-span view of human develop-
401
ment: The sample case of attachment. In Paul B. Baltes (Ed.) Life-span development and behavior (pp. 1-44). New York: Academic Press. Levine, Adeline & Crumrine, Janice. (1975). Women and fear of success: A problem in replication. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 964--974. Lipman-Blumen, Jean (1984). Gender roles and power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Martin, Wendy & Briscoe, Mary L. (1974). Women's Studies: Problems in research. Women's Studies 2, 249-259. Mayer, Karl U. (1986). Cultural constraints on the life course. Human Development, 29, 163-170. McCarthy, Eunice. (1979). Women and work in Ireland: The present and preparing for the future. In Margaret MacCurtaln & Donncha O'Corrain (Eds.), Women in Irish society: The historical dimension (lap. 103-117). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. McGee, Jeanne & Wells, Kathryn. (1982). Gender typing and androgyny in later life: New directions for theory and research. Human Development, 25, 116-139. McGuigan, Dorothy C. (Ed.). (1980). Women's lives: New theory, research and policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Continuing Education of Women. Mies, Maria. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein reds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 177-139). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Miller, Jean B. (1982). Women and power. Work in progress (No. 82-01). Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Miller, Jean B. (1984). The development of women's sense of self. Work in progress (No. 12). Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Miller, Jean B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Millman, Marcia & Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1976). Another voice: Feminist perspectives on social life and social science. New York: Octagon Books. Monahan, Lynn, Kuhn, Deanna & Shaver, Philip (1974). Intrapsychic vs. cultural explanations of the fear of success motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 60-64. Nesselroade, John R., Schaie, K. Warner & Baltes, Paul W. (1972). Ontogenetic and generational components of structural and quantitative change in adult behavior. Journal of Gerontology, 27, 222-228. Neugarten, Bernice L. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities of psychological issues into adult life. Human Development, 12, 121-130. Nielsen, Joyce McC. (Ed.) (1990). Feminist research methods. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Paludi, Michelle A. (1979). Horner revisited: How successful must Anne and John be before FOS sets in? Psychological Reports, 44, 1319-1322. Paludi, Michele A. (1987). Psychometric properties and underlying assumptions of four objective measures of fear of success. In Mary R. Walsh (Ed.), Thepsychology of women: Ongoing debates (pp. 185-202). New Haven: Yale University Press. Reinharz, Shulamit. (1979). On becoming a social scientist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reinharz, Shulamit. (1983). Experimental analysis:
402
NANCYW. VEEDER
A contribution to feminist research. In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 162-191). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reinke, Barbara J. (1985). Psychosocial changes as a function of chronological age. Human Development, 28, 266-269. Reinke, Barbara J., Ellicott, Abbie M., Harris, Rochelle L., & Hancock, Emily. (1985). Timing of psychosocial changes in women's fives. Human Development, 28, 259-261. Riley, Matilda W. (1986). The dynamism of life stages: Roles, people and age. Human Development, 29, 150-156. Roberts, Helen (Ed.). (1990). Doing feminist research. New York: Routledge. Rosaldo, Michelle Z., & Lamphere, Louise. (Eds.). (1974). Woman, culture and society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rose, Hilary. (1988). Beyond mascilinist realities: A feminist epistemology for the sciences. In Ruth Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 57-76). New York: Pergamon Press. Rosenberg, Rosalind. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rossi, Alice S. (Ed.) (1985). Gender and the life course. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Rossi, Alice S. (1987). On 'the reproduction of mothering': A methodological debate. In Mary R. Walsh (Ed.), The psychology of women: Ongoing debates (pp. 265-273). New Haven: Yale University Press. Rubin, Lillian B. (1979). Women of a certain age. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Rubin, Lillian B. (1983). Intimate strangers: Men and women together. New York: Harper and Row. Ryder, Norman B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843-861. Ryff, Carol D., & Baltes, P. B. (1976). Value transition and adult development in women: The instrumentality-terminality sequence hypothesis. Developmental Psychology 12, 567-568. Schaef, Anne W. (1985). Women's reality: An emerging female system in a white male society. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Schaie, K. Warner. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92-107. Schaie, K. Warner & Strother, Charles R. (1968). A cross-sequential study of age changes in cognitive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 671-680. Sinnott, James D. (1986). Sex roles and aging: Theory
and research from a systems perspective. Contributions to human development. Basel: Karger. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. (1975). The female world of love and ritual: Relations between women in nineteenth-century America. Signs 1, 1-2. Stature, Liesa, & Ryff, Carol D. (Eds.) (1984). Social power and influence of women. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Stanley, Liz, & Wise, Sue. (1983). 'Back into the personal' or: Our attempt to construct 'feminist research.' In Gloria Bowles & Renate D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies (pp. 192-209). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stein, Aletha H., & Bailey, Margaret M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345-366. Stewart, Thomas A. (1989a, November 6). CEOs see clout shifting. Fortune, p. 66. Stewart, Thomas A. (1989b, November 6). New ways to exercise power. Fortune, pp. 52-64. Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers. Tresemer, David W. (1974). Fear of success: Popular but unproven. Psychology Today, 7, 82-85. Tresemer, David W. (1977). Fear of success. New York: Plenum Press. Urberg, Kathryn A., & Labouvie-Vief, Gisela. (1976). Conceptualizations of sex roles: A life span developmental study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 12, 15-23. Veeder, Nancy W. (1992). Women's decision-making: Common t h e m e s . . . Irish voices. Westport, CT, and London: Praeger Publishers. WaUston, Barbara S., & Grady, Kathieen E. (1985). Integrating the feminist critique and the crisis in social psychology: Another look at research methods. In Virginia E. O'Leary, Rhoda K. Unger, & Barbara S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 7-33). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Walsh, Mary R. (Ed.). (1987). The psychology of women: Ongoing debates. New Haven: Yale University Press. Westcott, Marcia (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J. McC. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 58-68). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Zuckerman, Miron, & Allison, Stephen L. (1976). An objective measure of fear of success: Construction and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment 40, 424-427. Zuckerman, Miron, & Wheeler, Ladd. (1975). To dispel fantasies'about the fantasy-based measure of fear of success. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 932-946.