Amer. 1. Orihopsychiat. 48(4), October 1978
THEORY AND REVIEW
REEXAMINING BARRlERS TO WOMEN‘S CAREER DEVELOPMENT Alice Ross Gold, Ph.D. Wetleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
This paper reviews recent literature concerned with beliefs and values relevant to women’s careers. Changes in sex-role stereotyping, potential problems relating to afirmative action programs, and the conflict between “counterculture” values and values of the women’s liberation movement are discussed.
he recent resurgence of feminism in the United States and elsewhere has engendered interest in women’s issues among social scientists from diverse disciplines. One area that has received a large amount of attention, in part because of the emphasis by feminists on economic equality, is that of women’s achievement and careers. Much research has been devoted to describing the obstacles, both in the social structure and within the individual, that have been responsible for women’s lack of achievement in the job market.3- 17. 32* 43* 6z These studies have been primarily concerned with problems associated with the traditional female sex-role, a role that the women’s movement has vigor-
T
479
Submitted to the Journal i n October 1977
690
ously attempted to change. While many of the major goals of the movement, such as the Equal Rights Amendment and sufficient child care services for working mothers, have not yet been realized, sex-role attitudes in the United States have become less traditional in the past ten years.23.39 It, therefore, seems appropriate at this time to reassess the position of women vis-a-vis their achievement strivings-to determine the barriers that have been eliminated, the barriers that remain, and new problems that may have appeared as a consequence of the women’s rno~ement.‘~ This paper attempts such a reassessment, albeit on a small scale. It examines changes in old obstacles and the
ALICE ROSS GOLD
emergence of new ones. The major focus will be on changes in stereotypes, beliefs, and values, and on their consequences for behavior. Two areas dealing with beliefs will be covered-beliefs about the level of women’s intellectual ability and competence (“sex-role stereotypes”) and beliefs about the reasons why women succeed and fail (“causal attributions”). Following these sections is a discussion of values of the women’s movement and of the counterculture. STEREOTYPING: WOMEN’S INFERIOR INTELLECT
Although until very recently there have been surprisingly few studies dealing explicitly with the nature of sex-role stereotypes (as compared, for example, with the amount of research on racial/ ethnic stereotypes), the results prior to the revival of feminism in the late sixties were impressively consistent. Men were typically perceived as more competent and more intelligent than women by both male and female respond53 .and this perception did not e n t ~ ,51.~ ~ become more egalitarian over the approximately 25 years since the first research on this The possible ramifications of such stereotypes for women attempting to establish careers are disheartening. If a woman is not considered as intelligent or competent as her male colleagues, her work may be less highly valued, her suggestions ignored, and her promotions less frequent. One of the early experimentaI attempts to verify this relationship between sex-role stereotypes and evaluation of women’s abilities was a study bv Tuddenham, MacBride and Zahm50 They reasoned that women’s assumed intellectual inferiority to men should make them less prestigious com-
69 I
municators and hence less effective in inducing conformity among their peers. Their prediction was supported. Both men and women were more likely to conform when males attempted to induce conformity than when females did. However, the effect, while statistically significant, was not large. A similar, yet more recent and more widely cited, experiment was carried out by Goldberg.26 In 1963, he asked a group of female undergraduates to evaluate six articles they had just read. Two articles were from masculine fields, two from feminine fields, and two from fields that were neutral with regard to sex-typing. In order to test the effects of sexrole stereotypes on the evaluation process, the first name of the authors was varied. For each article, half of the subjects thought the author was a male, half thought the author was a female. The results indicated a small but significant difference for the “masculine” articles, favoring the male author, but no difference in evaluation for the “feminine” articles. Thus, this brief review of the literature leads one to conclude that prior to the late 1960s 1) the belief that women were less competent and intelligent than men was commonly held by both males and females, and 2) this belief may have had detrimental effects on women’s careers. It should be noted, however, that the second conclusion is reached with much less certainty than the first, both because of the small number of studies during this period that have dealt with the relationship between sex-role stereotypes and evaluation of performance and because of the rather small differences obtained in the research. Has this situation changed? Has the women’s movement succeeded in chang-
WOMEN’S CAREERS
692
ing the stereotype of intellectual inferi- rate high and low competent women and ority and in eliminating the bias associ- men as to their intelligence and comated with its use? Data from recent in- petence. The researchers found that vestigations are encouraging. First, let male subjects thought the “high comus examine evidence from the stereotype petent” man more intelligent and comliterature. Several years ago, the present petent than the “high competent” author 25 asked college students at two woman. Female subjects’ ratings showed large urban universities to rate the per- few differences.14 The literature dealing with bias in the sonality characteristics of male and female authors on eleven bipolar adjective evaluation of work of men compared to scales; no differences were found on the women has grown tremendously during scale measuring degree of intelligence. the seventies. Whereas, prior to 1970, In a number of other studies, subjects there were only a handful of studies have been asked to judge the ability, in- (two of which were discussed earlier), telligence, or competence of men and there have been dozens reported subwomen who have just performed a par- sequently. Thus, it is now possible to ticular task or who have applied for assess the extent of bias against women employment. Almost all these studies more accurately. Baruch used Goldberg’s 26 articles have found no overall differences in the degree of these traits attributed to men in her attempt to replicate his results and women, even when the individuals on another sample of college students. being judged were functioning in She found no difference between the “masculine” fields. 6, 9. 11, 14. 15. 19, 57 The students’ evaluations of articles by male major exceptions to this are the studies and by female authors. Other studies concerned with managerial skills; here, employing similar paradigms have also the evidence suggests a strong bias failed to find an overall devaluation of women’s achievements, whether it be against 64, 65 Another important trend in the re- their writings, 8* 18, z6. 41 their opinions,22 cent sex-stereotyping studies is the tend- the creativity or emotional impact of ency to find sex of respondent differ- their painting^,'^ their supervisory beences in degree of stereotyping, male h a v i ~ r , ‘ ~or their success and comperespondents being more likely than fe- tence as psychological experimenter^.'^ male respondents to perceive women as Again, the major exception to this trend less competent and able than men. For is studies of management performance, example, Zimmer and Krupat 63 used a in which females receive lower hiring modified form of the sex-role stereo- and promotion recommendations than type scale used by Broverman and his do males.13. 18, 49. 60 In sum, it appears that most studies colleagues. Whereas Broverman had found the sexes to be equally stereo- published since 1970 (with the exceptyped,51 they found that only males and tion of those involving managerial not females rated men as more intelli- skills) are finding neither differences in gent and more competent than women. sex stereotypes of intelligence and comSimilar findings have been reported by petence nor differential evaluation of 0 t h e ~ s . l**, ~ . 57 For example, in one identical accomplishments of men and study college students were asked to women. However, it must be noted that 509
56e
ALICE ROSS GOLD
these failures to replicate previous work do not necessarily imply that the degree of stereotyping of competence or the evaluative bias against women has lessened since the growth of the women’s movement in the seventies. Variations in methodology and sampling characteristics over the years can account for the failure to replicate the previous findings. Only a few of the studies cited were replications of previous research,’. 63 and although these studies used the same materials as pre-1970 investigations, the samples were different. In addition, given present editorial policies, many studies that did replicate may never have been published. There are, however, two pieces of evidence that suggest that such artifacts may not account for the entire shift in the pattern of the data, and that a real change may be occurring. Several studies have reported small but significant correlations between attitudes toward the women’s liberation movement and measures of stereotyping and evaluation 6 8 Furthermore, it was noted above that, in recent studies but not in those prior to 1970, female subjects held more egalitarian beliefs regarding women’s competence than did males. If sttitude change over time is at least partially responsible for the replication failures, this difference between the sexes would be expected; women are the primary target of the feminist movement and have less interest in maintaining the sex-role status quo. While this review of the recent literature may be cause for optimism on the part of feminists, other related data are not. In the first place, masculine tasks and the occupations in which males predominate are still rated as more desirable and more difficult than are feminine
693
tasks and occupations.12 Second, there remains a slight bias toward sex-appropriate activities. Women are sometimes seen as performing better than men on traditionally feminine tasks, such as child care and dietetics, and men are sometimes seen as performing better than women on traditionally masculine tasks, such as car racing and law.13- 4 1 ~4 2 Third, and most important, a bias against hiring and promoting women in managerial positions is clearly evident. There are data that suggest that this discrimination does not occur because of beliefs in women’s intellectual inferiority, but rather because of beliefs that women lack the assertiveness needed to perform well as managers and that they lack the commitment to a career that employers desire.60*6 4 * 56 However, the bias does represent a barrier to women’s achievement. Many of these differences, however, may be eliminated as a more egalitarian ideology is accepted. Data from studies by Mischel support this possibility. In an American sample of college and high school students, she found a significant bias against work by individuals in sex-inappropriate fields. Yet a sample of students from Israeli kibbutzim, where a sex-egalitarian ideology has a strong tradition, exhibited no such bias. Once society recognizes that, for the most part, men and women have similar potential, but that one or the other sex may lack requisite skills for a position, hiring and evaluative biases may disappear. Training programs could then be routinely used to correct the deficiencies in skills. Assertiveness training for women is one example of programs already implemented to achieve this end. Success in these programs would also help to eliminate the stereotype of
694
women’s inability to deal with the aggressiveness required in managerial positions, a belief that seems to be a major obstacle to egalitarian hiring in this area. The preceding discussion has focused on the beliefs about competence that people hold, and on indicators that these beliefs may be changing. However, what would seem more difficult to change than beliefs are the underlying emotional reactions to success by females, i.e., the degree to which women who successfully compete are disliked. Recent studies suggest that such an emotional bias persists. For example, Haavio-Mannila reported that, while the proportion of Finns who endorsed egalitarian sex-role beliefs increased from 50% in 1966 to 80%-90% in 1970, the proportion preferring to work at a job where a woman was a boss did not change. Only 23% of the women in both the 1966 and 1970 surveys preferred a female boss; 41% preferred the male boss. The proportion of men who were biased against female bosses was even higher. Similar findings with regard to American attitudes toward women in managerial positions have been rep~rted.‘~ Other studies have examined the relationship of sex-appropriate behavior and attraction. In a series of studies, Costrich et a1 lo found that aggressive-acting women were liked less than aggressive-acting men, and that passive-acting women were liked more than passive-acting men. Another dimension to this question has recently been addressed. Hagen and Kahn 29 examined the effect that actual interaction with a competent women had on that person’s popularity. They found that males liked competent women less when they interacted with
WOMEN’S CAREERS them than when merely observing them interact with others. In addition, when interacting in a competitive mixed-sex group situation, males liked the women in the group less than they did the men in the group. This difference did not appear in cooperative mixed-sex groups. These data suggest that interaction with competent women, especially in competitive situations, may well stimulate some sort of fear in men, leading to hostility. More data in this area are clearly needed in order to understand the dynamics of these underlying emotional reactions. Is the hostility caused by a threat to male self-esteem? ‘O, Under what circumstances is it most likely to be manifest? Does the hostility coexist with egalitarian beliefs about women’s abilities? These are all important research questions that have not yet begun to be investigated. As increasing numbers of women enter high-level jobs, this potential bnrrier to women’s achievement must be bztter understood. REASONS FOR WOMEN’S ACHIEVEMENT
Beliefs about differences in male and female abilities have been the major target of concern among feminists and others interested in women’s careers. This section proposes that there are other beliefs relating to achievement that may be equally problematic for women, in particular bzliefs about the degree of luck involved in performance and the degree of effort exerted. An explication of the significance of these two beliefs involves a clear understanding of the theory of “causal attribution” in achievement situations. What follows is a short outline of this theory, and a description of how it forms the basis
ALICE ROSS GOLD
for two potentially problematic situations relevant to beliefs about effort and luck in relation to women’s achievement. Weiner and his colleagues have proposed a cognitive theory of achievement motivation that uses perceived explanations (“causal attributions”) for one’s level of performance as the main intervening variable. They suggested four frequently used explanations (attributions)-ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. The use of each is hypothesized to affect the individual’s subsequent level of motivation in specific ways. The use of ability and effort, the two attributions internal to oneself, is believed to increase one’s pride more than the use of task difficulty and luck, which are attributions external to oneself; the use of effort and task difficulty, stable attributions, is believed to increase expectations for future success more than effort and luck, which are unstable attributions. This theory can be used to analyze the attributions people make for other people’s behavior and the consequences following from such attributions, as well as to analyze attributions for one’s own performance and their consequences for subsequent behavior. If one applies the Weiner attribution model to affirmative action programs, it seems possible to argue that women hired or promoted under such a program might attribute their success more to external reasons than to their own ability. Even though affirmative action is designed to recruit minority group members, including women, who are as equally qualified as majority group members, women may more often feel that their hiring was due to being “in the right place at the right time” ( k , luck or task difficulty) than is typical of most employment circumstances. Such
695
an attribution would, in theory, lead to a decrease in self-esteem. Although research on this problem is not known to the author, a number of personal observations suggest that women are aware of the problem and are attempting to resolve it. For example, I was recently at a meeting of women faculty at which the top female administrator at the college spoke about affirmative action programs, reappointment, and tenure. She was very quick to preface the topic of affirmative action with the reassurance that none of the female faculty present had been hired because we were women. I have also heard an analogous argument occasionally used to oppose liberal tenure regulations for wives of already tenured faculty. This hypothesis is presented solely as a possible danger; in fact, no such negative effects may result from affirmative action programs. It is not offered as a criticism of the program, which serves an essential function in the struggle for women’s rights. However, the hypothesis, stemming as it does from Weiner’s widely researched motivational model, does point to an important avenue for research-to understand the attribution process and its effects on performance as they apply to affirmative action programs. Such an understanding could provide highly valuable suggestions for improving programs. (A similar argument could, of course, be made with reference to affirmative action programs for other minority groups.) There are several directions this research might take. First, an examination of individual differences in the attribution processes used by women who are hired under affirmative action programs would be useful. Past research has
696
shown consistent individual Merences in the patterns of attributions used. Men who are highly achievement-motivated, for example, tend to use ability to explain success and lack of effort to explain failure more than do men of low achievement-m~tivation.~~ It is, therefore, important to determine characteristics of the women who are most adversely affected by the program. It might also be useful to examine individual differences in the degree to which ‘the use of an external attribution leads to lowered self-confidence and a decline in performance. A second important issue is the effect on attributions of various circumstances surrounding an affirmative action hiring. One such circumstance may be the number of women competing for a particular position. When several women as well as men are being considered for a job, the woman who is finally selected may be less likely to think of the situational demands of affirmative action as responsible for her being hired than would a woman who was the only female being considered. Finally, an analysis of temporal changes in alttributions is vital. Initially, a woman may attribute her hiring to a cause external to herself. Yet, later, when evaluating her own performance on the job, she may realize that she is doing as well as her male colleagues. She may then feel, in retrospect, that tier hiring was justified in view of her performance, and her perception of the reasons for her hiring may shift to a more internal causal attribution pattern. On the other hand, the opposite sequence might occur. A woman may use internal attributions at first, but later realize that she was hired primarily because she was a woman. Her perform-
WOMEN’S CAREERS ance may then suffer because of a loss of self-esteem. The latter sequence is by far the more detrimental, since it can lead to a kind of revolving-door phenomenon, where women are hired but later fired or not promoted because of poor performance. There is a second way in which attributional processes may now be working against women’s achievement. The difficulties that women have to overcome in order to have successful careers have been well documented.2*17*48 Women, it is often contended, must work harder than men to get ahead.” It has been suggested that beliefs that one has worked hard and succeeded should affect motivational level posit i ~ e l y .However, ~~ in certain circumstances, a belief in “effort” as a primary explanation for one’s success may be detrimental because it implies a lack of ability. An experiment by Goodman27 illustrates this point. She asked female undergraduates to work on a series of puzzles constructed so that all subjects were successful in completing them. She then gave them one of the four Weiner causal attributions as the primary reason for their success. One quarter of the subjects were told they succeeded on the puzzles because of their ability, one quarter were told it was because of their effort, one quarter because they had worked on easy puzzles, and one quarter because they were lucky. She then measured how much time they spent working on similar but insoluble puzzles while they were supposedly waiting for the experimenter to return from a “very important” telephone call. Goodman predicted that subjects in the “ability attribution” conditions would work longest on the puzzles during the waiting
ALICE ROSS GOLD period, because this explanation provided a stable and internal cause for their prior success and should, therefore, lead the women to expect that they would be able to do well on similar puzzles. Subjects in the “lucky attribution” condition were expected to work the least on new puzzles because this explanation was assumed to lead to low expectation for future success. She found, however, that subjects in the “ability,” “easy task,” and “lucky” conditions worked on the puzzles for approximately the same amount of time, while subjects in the “effort” condition worked on the puzzles for a significantly shorter time. Further analyses of the data showed that the subjects given the “effort attribution” felt that their own ability had been a significantly less important factor in their initial success on the puzzles than did the subjects in any of the other three conditions, even though the “effort” subjects had been given no indication by the experimenter that they had less ability. These findings raise the possibility that ability and effort may operate in a compensatory way; 34 the more effort one perceives as being exerted to reach a goal, the less ability is implied. A simple example of the phenomenon is the case of the two “straight A” students. The one who works harder is assumed to be less intelligent. This situation applied to a career woman has the paradoxical flavor of a “Catch-22.’’ Given the many barriers to women’s achievement, she must work very hard in order to succeed, harder than her male counterpart. But if she does work hard, two things may happen. First she may label herself an “overachiever” and lose confidence in her own abilities, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy that leads ulti-
697
mately to a lower level of success than might have occurred with a different attributional pattern. Second, she may not succeed because others may label her as an “overachiever,” a person who exerts a great deal of effort but really does not have the underlying ability for more difficult positions. Obviously there are variables that limit the extent to which effort and ability act in this compensatory manner. One of these variables may be the extent to which effort is seen as necessary for success, as, for example, if the task is a difficult As discussed above, this is often applicable to career women. If such a variable is operating in the case of women, why then should the compensatory relationship between effort and ability be problematic? It is because one must perceive the task to be difficult in order to justify the expenditure of effort. And because data 21 indicate that, even in recent years, men are less likely to perceive this than women. Since men continue to hold the major positions of authority in most fields, the problem could be a serious one as more and more women attempt to enter these traditionally masculine fields. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that two of the three studies that investigated attributions made to hypothetical men and women working on “masculine” tasks found that both male and female subiects attributed more effort to the hypothetical women than to the men, but that only male subjects compensated by attributing less ability to the hypothetical women than to the men.2’. 6T VALUE CONFLICTS
Yankelovich 62 has recently argued that American youth are in a period of
698
WOMEN’S CAREERS
value synthesis in which they are at- seem to suppont this phenomenon. They tempting to reconcile traditional Ameri- point, on the one hand, to a fairly concan values with those of the countercul- sistent change in values among men over ture of the sixties and seventies. I would the last several years and, on the other, argue that there is a third set of values to a possible conflict of values among that must be synthesized with these other women. The first line of evidence contwo sets-the values of the women’s cerns changes in the nature of males’ liberation movement-and that this syn- and females’ fear of success. Hoffman 31 thesis may be particularly difficult for observed changes in fear of success over women, especially vis vis their achieve- a six-year period. Using a cross-sectional ment orientation. design, she found that the percentage In attempting to eliminate traditional of women who were afraid of success sex-role divisions, feminists urge women remained the same, but that the percentto become more independent, aggres- age of males, originally eight percent, sive, assertive, and ambitious, and to rose to 77%, a level not significantly recognize that fulfillment as a woman different from thalt of the women. What does not necessarily involve “kirche, is most interesting is her analysis of the kinder and kuche.” They also urge men themes of fear-of-success stories. The to become more sensitive, empathetic, predominant theme for men was one in and accepting of an expressive role in which they questioned the value of interpersonal (including family) rela- achievement, a theme evolving from the tionships. The counterculture, on the counterculture. But, surprisingly, Hoff other hand, stresses personal integra- man did not find a large number of these tion, authenticity, and empathy in one’s themes among women; only 15% of the interpersonal relationships, and opposes women’s stories, as opposed to 30% of traditional career life-styles and achieve- the men’s, had them. Most women with ment orientation. Thus, for males the high fear of success expressed their convalues being stressed by the women’s cern in terms of social rejection, fear movemen,t and the counterculture are that they would be rejected by friends similar, both urging a change toward the and lovers because “success” was anti“feminine.” For females, they are differ- thetical to femininity. Hoffman, using ent. T h e women’s movement would like another test, found that the importance women to become more “masculine” of achievement declined over the six than they are now; the counterculture years among both males and females. wants them to retain feminine qualities One could again postulate that such a and avoid masculine ones.66 This con- change reflects the counterculture’s negtradiction puts women in a particularly ative evaluation of traditional achieveambiguous situation. If they are not in- ment goals. But unlike the data from clined to accept traditional societal the fear-of-success stories, these results values, there is no one well-defined path indicate acceptance of counterculture for them to take. The two antiestablish- values by both sexes. In sum, Hoffman’s ment value systems would appear, at findings provide consistent evidence on least on the surface, to offer somewhat the part of males for a change in the value of achievement and success (both different directions. Data from two avenues of research fear-of-success themes and achievement
ALICE ROSS GOLD
scores), but inconsistent evidence on the part of females (achievement scores, but not fear-of-success themes). Analogous results have been obtained in research on the relationship between sex-role stereotypes and psychiatric referral of children. In 1972, Feinblatt 2o asked undergraduates to read hypothetical case descriptions of children and rate the severity of the child’s behavior problem. Each student received one case to read. In half the cases, the child was described as strong-willed, aggressive, and argumentative, characteristics assumed to be stereotypic of male behavior. In the other half, the child was quiet, emotional, and rionassertive, characteristics assumed to be stereotypic of female behavior. The sex of the child was also varied and crosscut with the behavior pattern variable. Thus, there were four different cases used in the experiment. As expected, the results showed a statistically significant interaction between sex of child and behavior pattern. Boys who were quiet and emotional were rated as having more severe problems than were identical girls; the reverse was true for the chiIdren described as strong-willed and aggressive. Both male and female subjects showed this pattern in their responses, and both sexes rated the “feminine” boy as being the most seriously disturbed of the four children. A year and a half later, the study was replicated on three samples at the same university. At this time, no interaction of sex of chiId and behavior pattern was found in any of the three samples. In fact, male subjects in each sample rated the “feminine” boy as least problematic. This is a complete reversal from the first study and is further evidence that, for males, the ideal masculine image is
699
changing, becoming less aggressive and less assertive. On the other hand, there were no consistent trends among the women in the three samples. None of the cases was seen as least or most problematic by all samples; each sample had its own idiosyncratic pattern of ratings. At first glance, this lack of consistency among women, coupled with the nonsignificant interaction between sex of child and behavior, might be taken as evidence for a true egalitarian position regarding appropriate behavior for the sexes. However, a comparison of the amount of variance in the scores of the male and female subjects revealed significantly more variance among the females than among the males. This finding again suggests that there is more confusion, conflict, and multiplicity of standards among women than among men. Women, especially those at the college level, where the impact of the counterculture is probably the greatest, seem to be facing a situation of crosspressure^.^" They are being pulled in one direction by the women’s movement because of their sex, in another direction by the counterculture because of their age, and in a third direction by traditional sex-role socialization patterns. Women college graduates are becoming more interested in fulfilling themselves in work beyond the housewifemother role than they were ten years ago.37 How they will fulfill themselves -what they will see as their options and what their aspirations will be-are questions whose answers are not now clear. Many feminists propose that one way of reconciling this apparent conflict is by creating an androgynous lifestyle, one that combines the best qualities of masculinity and fern in in it^.^^ However,
WOMEN’S CAREERS
700
such reconciliation may be more complicated than it at first appears. As Block li noted, analyses of longitudinal data from the Berkeley Guidance Study suggest that the socialization process for men in contemporary American society “tends to enhance experiential options and to encourage more androgynous sex-role definitions,” while for women it acts as a barrier to achievement. It tends
. , . to reinforce the nurturant, docile, submissive, and conservative aspects of the traditionally defined female role and discourage personal qualities conventionally defined as masculine: self-assertiveness, achievement orientation, and independence. (p. 525) The women in Block’s sample who were assertive and autonomous were not androgynous; they rejected needs for close interpersonal relation^.^ My own discussion with female college students suggests a similar conflict. Some students feel almost morally obligated to enter traditionally masculine fields, yet they also have fantasies of becoming artists and artisans. There seems to be little consideration of a middle ground. I would hypothesize that, for many students, the problem is more often masculinity vs. femininity than masculinity and femininity. On the other hand, the results of an evaluation of the impact of a woman’s studies course that my colleagues and I recently completed suggest that some integration may be beginning to occur. We found that one of the changes most frequently reported by women who had taken the course was a greater acceptance of themselves, both of their “masculine” and “feminine” qualities.‘ Of course, we cannot generalize these findings to other courses in other universities, but the data are encouraging.
CONCLUSION
Throughout this paper, I have attempted to identify and describe problems relating to women’s achievement, some of which have resulted, at least in part, from the recent revival of feminism. Much of what is discussed is theoretical, and appropriate avenues for further research toward understanding these barriers were suggested. But as Jahoda and Havelss cautioned twenty years ago, it is not enough to simply identify these problems. This is merely the beginning of a process of understanding achievement and success among women. As important, and more often forgotten, is the fact that many women have overcome the problems. We must also seek to understand how these barriers can be hurdled. REFERENCES 1. BARUCH, G. 1972. Maternal influences upon
college women’s attitudes toward women and work. Develpm. Psychol. 6:32-37. 2. BERNARD, J. 1956. Academic Women. World Publishing Co., Cleveland. 3. BIRD, c. 1971. Born Female (rev. ed.). Simon and Schuster, New York. 4. BLOCK, J., VON DER LIPPE, A. AND BLOCK, J. 1973. Sex-role and socialization patterns:
some personality concomitants and environmental antecedents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41 132 1-341. 5. BLOCK, J. 1973. Conceptions of sex role: some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. Amer. Psychol. 28:5 12-526. 6. BRIEF, A. AND WALLACE, M. 1976. The impact of employee sex and performance on the allocation of organizational rewards. J. Psychol. 92~25-34. 7 . B R U S H , L., GOLD, A. AND WHITE, M.
1978.
The impact of a women’s studies course on students enrolled: 1973-1975. SIGNS. (in press) 8. CHOBOT, D. E T AL. 1974. Prejudice against women: a replication and extension. Psychol. Rep. 35~478. 9. COHEN, S. AND BUNKER, K. 1975. Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters’ hiring decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:566572.
ALICE ROSS GOLD 10. COSTRICH, N. ET AL. 1975. When stereotypes hurt: three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. J. Exper. SOC. Psychol. 1 1 :520-530. 1 1 . DEAUX, K. 1972. To err is humanizing: but sex makes a difference. Representative Res. SOC.Psychol. 3:20-28. 12. DEAUX, K . 1976. Sex: a perspective on the attribution process. I n New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 1, J. Harvey, W. Ickes and R. Kidd, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J. I ~ . D E A U X , K. AND EMSWILLER, T. 1974. Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: what is skill for the male is luck for the female. J. Pers. SOC. Psychol. 29:80-85. 14. DEAUX, K. AND TAYNOR, J. 1973. Evaluation of male and female abilities: bias works two ways. Psychol. Rep. 32:261262. 15. DIPBOYE, R., ARVEY, R. AND TERPSTRA, D.
1977. k x and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resum6 evaluations. J. Appl. Psychol. 62: 288-294. 16. DIPBOYE, R., FROMKIN, H. A N D WIBACK, K. 1975. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumCs. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:39-43. 17. EPSTEIN, c. 197 1 . Woman’s Place: Options and Limits in Professional Careers. University of California Press, Berkeley. 18. EYAUGH, c. AND ROSE, s. 1975. Adolescents’ s x bias in the evaluation of performance. Develpm. Psychol. 1 1 :663-664. 19. FEATHER, N. AND SIMON, J. Stereotypes about male and female success and failure at sex-linked occupations. J. Pers. 44:1637. 20. FEINBLATT, J . 1973. Responses to sex-role alienated children. Unpublished honors thesis, Wesleyan University. 21. FELDMAN-SUMMERS, S . AND KIESLER, S. 1974. Those who are number two try harder: the effect of sex on attributions of causality. J. Pers. SOC. Psychol. 30:846855. 22. FERBER, M . AND HUBER, J . 1975. Sex Of student and instructor: a study of student bias. Amer. J. Sociol. 80:949-963. 23. FERREE, M. 1972. A woman for president? changing responses: 1958-1972. Pub. Opin. Quart. 38:390-399. 24. FRIEZE, 1. E T AL. 1978. Attributions Of the causes of success and failure as internal and external barriers to achievement in women. In Psychology of Women: Future Directions for Research, J. Sherman and
70 I F. Denmark, eds. Psychological Dimensions, New York. 25. GOLD, A. 1972. Reactions to authors differing in sex and achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. 26. GOLDBERG, P. 1968. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5 :28-30. 27. GOODMAN, N. 1974. Pursuit of achievement activity as it relates to causal attributions. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wesleyan University. 28. HAAVIO-MANNILA, E. 1972. Sex-role attitudes in Finland, 1966-1970. J. SOC. Issues 28(2):93-110. 29. HAGEN, R. AND KAHN, A. 1975. Discrimination against competent women. J. App. SOC.Psychol. 5 : 362-376. ~ O . H E I D E R , F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. John Wiley, New York. ~ I . H O F F M A N , L. 1974. Fear of success in males and females: 1965 and 1971. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42: 353-358. 32. HORNER, M. 1972. Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. J. SOC.Issues 28(2) :157-175. 33. JAHODA, M. AND HAVEL, J . 1955. Psychological problem of women in social roles: a case history of problem formulation in research. Ed. Rec. 36:325-335. 34. KELLEY, H. 1972. Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process. General Learning Press, Morristown, N. J. 35. KUKLA, A. 1972. Attributional determinants of achievement-related behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 21: 166-174. 36. LAWRSFELD, P., BERELSON, B. AND GAUDET, H. 1968. The People’s Choice (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press, New York. ~ ~ . L U R I Az. , 1974. Recent women college graduates: a study of rising expectations. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 44:3 12-326. 38. MCKEE, J. AND SHERRIFFS, A. 1957. The differential evaluation of males and females. J. Pers. 25:356-371. 39. MASON, K., CZAJKA, J . AND ARBER, S. 1976. Change in U. S. women’s sex-role attitudes, 1964-1974. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 41: 573-596. 40. MILLER, T. 1974. Male attitudes toward women’s rights as a function af their level of self-esteem. Inter. J. Group Tensions 4:3544. 41. MISCHEL, H. 1974. Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievements. J. Ed. Psychol. 6: 157-166. 42,MUCHINSKY, R. AND HARRIS, S. 1977. The effects of applicant sex and scholastic standing on the evaluation of job appli-
WOMEN'S CAREERS
702 cant resumis in sex-typed occupations. J. Vocational Behav. 11:95-108. 43. O'LWRY, v. 1974. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychol. Bull. 8 1:809-826. 44. PARELIUS, A. 1975. Emerging sex-role attitudes, expectations, and strains among college women. J. Marr. Fam. 37:146-153. 45.
PHETERSON, G., KIESLER, S. AND GOLDBERG,
1971. Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 19: 114-1 18. 46. PIACENTE, 8. ET AL. 1974. Evaluation Of the performance of experimenters as a function of their sex and competence. J. Appl. SOC. Psychol. 4:321-329. 47. POLOMA, M . AND GARLAND, T. 1971. The married professional woman: a study in the tolerance of domestication. J. Marr. Fam. 33 :53 1-540. 48. ROSEN, B. AND JERDEE, T. 1973. The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 57:44-48. 4 9 . R O S E N , B. AND JERDEE, T. 1974. Effects Of applicant's sex and difficulty of job on evaluation of candidates for managerial positions. J. Appl. Psychol. 59:511-512. P.
5 0 . R O S E N , B., JERDEE, T. AND PRESTWICH, T.
1975. Dual-career marital adjustment: potential effects of discriminatory managerial attitudes. J. Marr. Fam. 37:565-572. 51. ROSENKRANTZ, P . ET AL. 1968. SeX-rOk stereotypes and self-concepts of college students. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 32: 287-295. A. 1972. Barriers to the career choice of engineering, medicine, or science among American women. I n Readings on the Psychology of Women, J. Bardwick, ed. Harper and Row, New York. 53. SHERRIFFS, A . AND JARRETT, R. 1953. Sex
52.
ROSS],
differences in attitudes about sex differences. J. Psychol. 35: 161-168. 54. SCHEIN,v. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. 1. Appl. Psychol. 57: 95- 100. 55. SCHEIN, v. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:340-344. 56. STARR, J. 1974. The peace and love generation: changing attitudes toward sex and violence among college youth. J. SOC.Issues 30(2):73-106. 57.TAYNOR, J. AND DEAUX, K. 1975. Equity and perceived sex differences: role behavior as defined by the task, the mode, and the actor. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32:381390. 1975. A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behav. Performance. 13 :
58.TERBORG, J . AND ILGEN, D.
3 52-3 76.
59.
TUDDENHAM, R., MACBRIDE, P. AND ZAHN,
The influence of the sex composition of the group upon yielding to a distorted norm. J. Psychol. 46:243-251. 60. WEINER, B. ET AL. 1972. Causal attributions and achievement behavior: a conceptual analysis of effort and remalysis of locus of control. J. Pers. SOC.Psychol. 21: V. 1958.
239-248. WOLMAN, B. 1974. On men who discriminate against women. Inter. J. Group Tensions. 4:45-51. 62. YANKELOVICH,D. 1974. The New Morality: A Profile of Youth in the 70's. McGrawHill, New York. 63. ZIMMER, M . AND KRUPAT, E. 1975. SX-rOk stereotypes and the effect of labeling upon person perception. Presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, New York.
61.
For reprints: Dr. Alice Ross Gold, Assistant Professor, Psychological Laboratory, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 06457
THEORY AND REVIEW
REEXAMINING BARRlERS TO WOMEN‘S CAREER DEVELOPMENT Alice Ross Gold, Ph.D. Wetleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
This paper reviews recent literature concerned with beliefs and values relevant to women’s careers. Changes in sex-role stereotyping, potential problems relating to afirmative action programs, and the conflict between “counterculture” values and values of the women’s liberation movement are discussed.
he recent resurgence of feminism in the United States and elsewhere has engendered interest in women’s issues among social scientists from diverse disciplines. One area that has received a large amount of attention, in part because of the emphasis by feminists on economic equality, is that of women’s achievement and careers. Much research has been devoted to describing the obstacles, both in the social structure and within the individual, that have been responsible for women’s lack of achievement in the job market.3- 17. 32* 43* 6z These studies have been primarily concerned with problems associated with the traditional female sex-role, a role that the women’s movement has vigor-
T
479
Submitted to the Journal i n October 1977
690
ously attempted to change. While many of the major goals of the movement, such as the Equal Rights Amendment and sufficient child care services for working mothers, have not yet been realized, sex-role attitudes in the United States have become less traditional in the past ten years.23.39 It, therefore, seems appropriate at this time to reassess the position of women vis-a-vis their achievement strivings-to determine the barriers that have been eliminated, the barriers that remain, and new problems that may have appeared as a consequence of the women’s rno~ement.‘~ This paper attempts such a reassessment, albeit on a small scale. It examines changes in old obstacles and the
ALICE ROSS GOLD
emergence of new ones. The major focus will be on changes in stereotypes, beliefs, and values, and on their consequences for behavior. Two areas dealing with beliefs will be covered-beliefs about the level of women’s intellectual ability and competence (“sex-role stereotypes”) and beliefs about the reasons why women succeed and fail (“causal attributions”). Following these sections is a discussion of values of the women’s movement and of the counterculture. STEREOTYPING: WOMEN’S INFERIOR INTELLECT
Although until very recently there have been surprisingly few studies dealing explicitly with the nature of sex-role stereotypes (as compared, for example, with the amount of research on racial/ ethnic stereotypes), the results prior to the revival of feminism in the late sixties were impressively consistent. Men were typically perceived as more competent and more intelligent than women by both male and female respond53 .and this perception did not e n t ~ ,51.~ ~ become more egalitarian over the approximately 25 years since the first research on this The possible ramifications of such stereotypes for women attempting to establish careers are disheartening. If a woman is not considered as intelligent or competent as her male colleagues, her work may be less highly valued, her suggestions ignored, and her promotions less frequent. One of the early experimentaI attempts to verify this relationship between sex-role stereotypes and evaluation of women’s abilities was a study bv Tuddenham, MacBride and Zahm50 They reasoned that women’s assumed intellectual inferiority to men should make them less prestigious com-
69 I
municators and hence less effective in inducing conformity among their peers. Their prediction was supported. Both men and women were more likely to conform when males attempted to induce conformity than when females did. However, the effect, while statistically significant, was not large. A similar, yet more recent and more widely cited, experiment was carried out by Goldberg.26 In 1963, he asked a group of female undergraduates to evaluate six articles they had just read. Two articles were from masculine fields, two from feminine fields, and two from fields that were neutral with regard to sex-typing. In order to test the effects of sexrole stereotypes on the evaluation process, the first name of the authors was varied. For each article, half of the subjects thought the author was a male, half thought the author was a female. The results indicated a small but significant difference for the “masculine” articles, favoring the male author, but no difference in evaluation for the “feminine” articles. Thus, this brief review of the literature leads one to conclude that prior to the late 1960s 1) the belief that women were less competent and intelligent than men was commonly held by both males and females, and 2) this belief may have had detrimental effects on women’s careers. It should be noted, however, that the second conclusion is reached with much less certainty than the first, both because of the small number of studies during this period that have dealt with the relationship between sex-role stereotypes and evaluation of performance and because of the rather small differences obtained in the research. Has this situation changed? Has the women’s movement succeeded in chang-
WOMEN’S CAREERS
692
ing the stereotype of intellectual inferi- rate high and low competent women and ority and in eliminating the bias associ- men as to their intelligence and comated with its use? Data from recent in- petence. The researchers found that vestigations are encouraging. First, let male subjects thought the “high comus examine evidence from the stereotype petent” man more intelligent and comliterature. Several years ago, the present petent than the “high competent” author 25 asked college students at two woman. Female subjects’ ratings showed large urban universities to rate the per- few differences.14 The literature dealing with bias in the sonality characteristics of male and female authors on eleven bipolar adjective evaluation of work of men compared to scales; no differences were found on the women has grown tremendously during scale measuring degree of intelligence. the seventies. Whereas, prior to 1970, In a number of other studies, subjects there were only a handful of studies have been asked to judge the ability, in- (two of which were discussed earlier), telligence, or competence of men and there have been dozens reported subwomen who have just performed a par- sequently. Thus, it is now possible to ticular task or who have applied for assess the extent of bias against women employment. Almost all these studies more accurately. Baruch used Goldberg’s 26 articles have found no overall differences in the degree of these traits attributed to men in her attempt to replicate his results and women, even when the individuals on another sample of college students. being judged were functioning in She found no difference between the “masculine” fields. 6, 9. 11, 14. 15. 19, 57 The students’ evaluations of articles by male major exceptions to this are the studies and by female authors. Other studies concerned with managerial skills; here, employing similar paradigms have also the evidence suggests a strong bias failed to find an overall devaluation of women’s achievements, whether it be against 64, 65 Another important trend in the re- their writings, 8* 18, z6. 41 their opinions,22 cent sex-stereotyping studies is the tend- the creativity or emotional impact of ency to find sex of respondent differ- their painting^,'^ their supervisory beences in degree of stereotyping, male h a v i ~ r , ‘ ~or their success and comperespondents being more likely than fe- tence as psychological experimenter^.'^ male respondents to perceive women as Again, the major exception to this trend less competent and able than men. For is studies of management performance, example, Zimmer and Krupat 63 used a in which females receive lower hiring modified form of the sex-role stereo- and promotion recommendations than type scale used by Broverman and his do males.13. 18, 49. 60 In sum, it appears that most studies colleagues. Whereas Broverman had found the sexes to be equally stereo- published since 1970 (with the exceptyped,51 they found that only males and tion of those involving managerial not females rated men as more intelli- skills) are finding neither differences in gent and more competent than women. sex stereotypes of intelligence and comSimilar findings have been reported by petence nor differential evaluation of 0 t h e ~ s . l**, ~ . 57 For example, in one identical accomplishments of men and study college students were asked to women. However, it must be noted that 509
56e
ALICE ROSS GOLD
these failures to replicate previous work do not necessarily imply that the degree of stereotyping of competence or the evaluative bias against women has lessened since the growth of the women’s movement in the seventies. Variations in methodology and sampling characteristics over the years can account for the failure to replicate the previous findings. Only a few of the studies cited were replications of previous research,’. 63 and although these studies used the same materials as pre-1970 investigations, the samples were different. In addition, given present editorial policies, many studies that did replicate may never have been published. There are, however, two pieces of evidence that suggest that such artifacts may not account for the entire shift in the pattern of the data, and that a real change may be occurring. Several studies have reported small but significant correlations between attitudes toward the women’s liberation movement and measures of stereotyping and evaluation 6 8 Furthermore, it was noted above that, in recent studies but not in those prior to 1970, female subjects held more egalitarian beliefs regarding women’s competence than did males. If sttitude change over time is at least partially responsible for the replication failures, this difference between the sexes would be expected; women are the primary target of the feminist movement and have less interest in maintaining the sex-role status quo. While this review of the recent literature may be cause for optimism on the part of feminists, other related data are not. In the first place, masculine tasks and the occupations in which males predominate are still rated as more desirable and more difficult than are feminine
693
tasks and occupations.12 Second, there remains a slight bias toward sex-appropriate activities. Women are sometimes seen as performing better than men on traditionally feminine tasks, such as child care and dietetics, and men are sometimes seen as performing better than women on traditionally masculine tasks, such as car racing and law.13- 4 1 ~4 2 Third, and most important, a bias against hiring and promoting women in managerial positions is clearly evident. There are data that suggest that this discrimination does not occur because of beliefs in women’s intellectual inferiority, but rather because of beliefs that women lack the assertiveness needed to perform well as managers and that they lack the commitment to a career that employers desire.60*6 4 * 56 However, the bias does represent a barrier to women’s achievement. Many of these differences, however, may be eliminated as a more egalitarian ideology is accepted. Data from studies by Mischel support this possibility. In an American sample of college and high school students, she found a significant bias against work by individuals in sex-inappropriate fields. Yet a sample of students from Israeli kibbutzim, where a sex-egalitarian ideology has a strong tradition, exhibited no such bias. Once society recognizes that, for the most part, men and women have similar potential, but that one or the other sex may lack requisite skills for a position, hiring and evaluative biases may disappear. Training programs could then be routinely used to correct the deficiencies in skills. Assertiveness training for women is one example of programs already implemented to achieve this end. Success in these programs would also help to eliminate the stereotype of
694
women’s inability to deal with the aggressiveness required in managerial positions, a belief that seems to be a major obstacle to egalitarian hiring in this area. The preceding discussion has focused on the beliefs about competence that people hold, and on indicators that these beliefs may be changing. However, what would seem more difficult to change than beliefs are the underlying emotional reactions to success by females, i.e., the degree to which women who successfully compete are disliked. Recent studies suggest that such an emotional bias persists. For example, Haavio-Mannila reported that, while the proportion of Finns who endorsed egalitarian sex-role beliefs increased from 50% in 1966 to 80%-90% in 1970, the proportion preferring to work at a job where a woman was a boss did not change. Only 23% of the women in both the 1966 and 1970 surveys preferred a female boss; 41% preferred the male boss. The proportion of men who were biased against female bosses was even higher. Similar findings with regard to American attitudes toward women in managerial positions have been rep~rted.‘~ Other studies have examined the relationship of sex-appropriate behavior and attraction. In a series of studies, Costrich et a1 lo found that aggressive-acting women were liked less than aggressive-acting men, and that passive-acting women were liked more than passive-acting men. Another dimension to this question has recently been addressed. Hagen and Kahn 29 examined the effect that actual interaction with a competent women had on that person’s popularity. They found that males liked competent women less when they interacted with
WOMEN’S CAREERS them than when merely observing them interact with others. In addition, when interacting in a competitive mixed-sex group situation, males liked the women in the group less than they did the men in the group. This difference did not appear in cooperative mixed-sex groups. These data suggest that interaction with competent women, especially in competitive situations, may well stimulate some sort of fear in men, leading to hostility. More data in this area are clearly needed in order to understand the dynamics of these underlying emotional reactions. Is the hostility caused by a threat to male self-esteem? ‘O, Under what circumstances is it most likely to be manifest? Does the hostility coexist with egalitarian beliefs about women’s abilities? These are all important research questions that have not yet begun to be investigated. As increasing numbers of women enter high-level jobs, this potential bnrrier to women’s achievement must be bztter understood. REASONS FOR WOMEN’S ACHIEVEMENT
Beliefs about differences in male and female abilities have been the major target of concern among feminists and others interested in women’s careers. This section proposes that there are other beliefs relating to achievement that may be equally problematic for women, in particular bzliefs about the degree of luck involved in performance and the degree of effort exerted. An explication of the significance of these two beliefs involves a clear understanding of the theory of “causal attribution” in achievement situations. What follows is a short outline of this theory, and a description of how it forms the basis
ALICE ROSS GOLD
for two potentially problematic situations relevant to beliefs about effort and luck in relation to women’s achievement. Weiner and his colleagues have proposed a cognitive theory of achievement motivation that uses perceived explanations (“causal attributions”) for one’s level of performance as the main intervening variable. They suggested four frequently used explanations (attributions)-ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. The use of each is hypothesized to affect the individual’s subsequent level of motivation in specific ways. The use of ability and effort, the two attributions internal to oneself, is believed to increase one’s pride more than the use of task difficulty and luck, which are attributions external to oneself; the use of effort and task difficulty, stable attributions, is believed to increase expectations for future success more than effort and luck, which are unstable attributions. This theory can be used to analyze the attributions people make for other people’s behavior and the consequences following from such attributions, as well as to analyze attributions for one’s own performance and their consequences for subsequent behavior. If one applies the Weiner attribution model to affirmative action programs, it seems possible to argue that women hired or promoted under such a program might attribute their success more to external reasons than to their own ability. Even though affirmative action is designed to recruit minority group members, including women, who are as equally qualified as majority group members, women may more often feel that their hiring was due to being “in the right place at the right time” ( k , luck or task difficulty) than is typical of most employment circumstances. Such
695
an attribution would, in theory, lead to a decrease in self-esteem. Although research on this problem is not known to the author, a number of personal observations suggest that women are aware of the problem and are attempting to resolve it. For example, I was recently at a meeting of women faculty at which the top female administrator at the college spoke about affirmative action programs, reappointment, and tenure. She was very quick to preface the topic of affirmative action with the reassurance that none of the female faculty present had been hired because we were women. I have also heard an analogous argument occasionally used to oppose liberal tenure regulations for wives of already tenured faculty. This hypothesis is presented solely as a possible danger; in fact, no such negative effects may result from affirmative action programs. It is not offered as a criticism of the program, which serves an essential function in the struggle for women’s rights. However, the hypothesis, stemming as it does from Weiner’s widely researched motivational model, does point to an important avenue for research-to understand the attribution process and its effects on performance as they apply to affirmative action programs. Such an understanding could provide highly valuable suggestions for improving programs. (A similar argument could, of course, be made with reference to affirmative action programs for other minority groups.) There are several directions this research might take. First, an examination of individual differences in the attribution processes used by women who are hired under affirmative action programs would be useful. Past research has
696
shown consistent individual Merences in the patterns of attributions used. Men who are highly achievement-motivated, for example, tend to use ability to explain success and lack of effort to explain failure more than do men of low achievement-m~tivation.~~ It is, therefore, important to determine characteristics of the women who are most adversely affected by the program. It might also be useful to examine individual differences in the degree to which ‘the use of an external attribution leads to lowered self-confidence and a decline in performance. A second important issue is the effect on attributions of various circumstances surrounding an affirmative action hiring. One such circumstance may be the number of women competing for a particular position. When several women as well as men are being considered for a job, the woman who is finally selected may be less likely to think of the situational demands of affirmative action as responsible for her being hired than would a woman who was the only female being considered. Finally, an analysis of temporal changes in alttributions is vital. Initially, a woman may attribute her hiring to a cause external to herself. Yet, later, when evaluating her own performance on the job, she may realize that she is doing as well as her male colleagues. She may then feel, in retrospect, that tier hiring was justified in view of her performance, and her perception of the reasons for her hiring may shift to a more internal causal attribution pattern. On the other hand, the opposite sequence might occur. A woman may use internal attributions at first, but later realize that she was hired primarily because she was a woman. Her perform-
WOMEN’S CAREERS ance may then suffer because of a loss of self-esteem. The latter sequence is by far the more detrimental, since it can lead to a kind of revolving-door phenomenon, where women are hired but later fired or not promoted because of poor performance. There is a second way in which attributional processes may now be working against women’s achievement. The difficulties that women have to overcome in order to have successful careers have been well documented.2*17*48 Women, it is often contended, must work harder than men to get ahead.” It has been suggested that beliefs that one has worked hard and succeeded should affect motivational level posit i ~ e l y .However, ~~ in certain circumstances, a belief in “effort” as a primary explanation for one’s success may be detrimental because it implies a lack of ability. An experiment by Goodman27 illustrates this point. She asked female undergraduates to work on a series of puzzles constructed so that all subjects were successful in completing them. She then gave them one of the four Weiner causal attributions as the primary reason for their success. One quarter of the subjects were told they succeeded on the puzzles because of their ability, one quarter were told it was because of their effort, one quarter because they had worked on easy puzzles, and one quarter because they were lucky. She then measured how much time they spent working on similar but insoluble puzzles while they were supposedly waiting for the experimenter to return from a “very important” telephone call. Goodman predicted that subjects in the “ability attribution” conditions would work longest on the puzzles during the waiting
ALICE ROSS GOLD period, because this explanation provided a stable and internal cause for their prior success and should, therefore, lead the women to expect that they would be able to do well on similar puzzles. Subjects in the “lucky attribution” condition were expected to work the least on new puzzles because this explanation was assumed to lead to low expectation for future success. She found, however, that subjects in the “ability,” “easy task,” and “lucky” conditions worked on the puzzles for approximately the same amount of time, while subjects in the “effort” condition worked on the puzzles for a significantly shorter time. Further analyses of the data showed that the subjects given the “effort attribution” felt that their own ability had been a significantly less important factor in their initial success on the puzzles than did the subjects in any of the other three conditions, even though the “effort” subjects had been given no indication by the experimenter that they had less ability. These findings raise the possibility that ability and effort may operate in a compensatory way; 34 the more effort one perceives as being exerted to reach a goal, the less ability is implied. A simple example of the phenomenon is the case of the two “straight A” students. The one who works harder is assumed to be less intelligent. This situation applied to a career woman has the paradoxical flavor of a “Catch-22.’’ Given the many barriers to women’s achievement, she must work very hard in order to succeed, harder than her male counterpart. But if she does work hard, two things may happen. First she may label herself an “overachiever” and lose confidence in her own abilities, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy that leads ulti-
697
mately to a lower level of success than might have occurred with a different attributional pattern. Second, she may not succeed because others may label her as an “overachiever,” a person who exerts a great deal of effort but really does not have the underlying ability for more difficult positions. Obviously there are variables that limit the extent to which effort and ability act in this compensatory manner. One of these variables may be the extent to which effort is seen as necessary for success, as, for example, if the task is a difficult As discussed above, this is often applicable to career women. If such a variable is operating in the case of women, why then should the compensatory relationship between effort and ability be problematic? It is because one must perceive the task to be difficult in order to justify the expenditure of effort. And because data 21 indicate that, even in recent years, men are less likely to perceive this than women. Since men continue to hold the major positions of authority in most fields, the problem could be a serious one as more and more women attempt to enter these traditionally masculine fields. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that two of the three studies that investigated attributions made to hypothetical men and women working on “masculine” tasks found that both male and female subiects attributed more effort to the hypothetical women than to the men, but that only male subjects compensated by attributing less ability to the hypothetical women than to the men.2’. 6T VALUE CONFLICTS
Yankelovich 62 has recently argued that American youth are in a period of
698
WOMEN’S CAREERS
value synthesis in which they are at- seem to suppont this phenomenon. They tempting to reconcile traditional Ameri- point, on the one hand, to a fairly concan values with those of the countercul- sistent change in values among men over ture of the sixties and seventies. I would the last several years and, on the other, argue that there is a third set of values to a possible conflict of values among that must be synthesized with these other women. The first line of evidence contwo sets-the values of the women’s cerns changes in the nature of males’ liberation movement-and that this syn- and females’ fear of success. Hoffman 31 thesis may be particularly difficult for observed changes in fear of success over women, especially vis vis their achieve- a six-year period. Using a cross-sectional ment orientation. design, she found that the percentage In attempting to eliminate traditional of women who were afraid of success sex-role divisions, feminists urge women remained the same, but that the percentto become more independent, aggres- age of males, originally eight percent, sive, assertive, and ambitious, and to rose to 77%, a level not significantly recognize that fulfillment as a woman different from thalt of the women. What does not necessarily involve “kirche, is most interesting is her analysis of the kinder and kuche.” They also urge men themes of fear-of-success stories. The to become more sensitive, empathetic, predominant theme for men was one in and accepting of an expressive role in which they questioned the value of interpersonal (including family) rela- achievement, a theme evolving from the tionships. The counterculture, on the counterculture. But, surprisingly, Hoff other hand, stresses personal integra- man did not find a large number of these tion, authenticity, and empathy in one’s themes among women; only 15% of the interpersonal relationships, and opposes women’s stories, as opposed to 30% of traditional career life-styles and achieve- the men’s, had them. Most women with ment orientation. Thus, for males the high fear of success expressed their convalues being stressed by the women’s cern in terms of social rejection, fear movemen,t and the counterculture are that they would be rejected by friends similar, both urging a change toward the and lovers because “success” was anti“feminine.” For females, they are differ- thetical to femininity. Hoffman, using ent. T h e women’s movement would like another test, found that the importance women to become more “masculine” of achievement declined over the six than they are now; the counterculture years among both males and females. wants them to retain feminine qualities One could again postulate that such a and avoid masculine ones.66 This con- change reflects the counterculture’s negtradiction puts women in a particularly ative evaluation of traditional achieveambiguous situation. If they are not in- ment goals. But unlike the data from clined to accept traditional societal the fear-of-success stories, these results values, there is no one well-defined path indicate acceptance of counterculture for them to take. The two antiestablish- values by both sexes. In sum, Hoffman’s ment value systems would appear, at findings provide consistent evidence on least on the surface, to offer somewhat the part of males for a change in the value of achievement and success (both different directions. Data from two avenues of research fear-of-success themes and achievement
ALICE ROSS GOLD
scores), but inconsistent evidence on the part of females (achievement scores, but not fear-of-success themes). Analogous results have been obtained in research on the relationship between sex-role stereotypes and psychiatric referral of children. In 1972, Feinblatt 2o asked undergraduates to read hypothetical case descriptions of children and rate the severity of the child’s behavior problem. Each student received one case to read. In half the cases, the child was described as strong-willed, aggressive, and argumentative, characteristics assumed to be stereotypic of male behavior. In the other half, the child was quiet, emotional, and rionassertive, characteristics assumed to be stereotypic of female behavior. The sex of the child was also varied and crosscut with the behavior pattern variable. Thus, there were four different cases used in the experiment. As expected, the results showed a statistically significant interaction between sex of child and behavior pattern. Boys who were quiet and emotional were rated as having more severe problems than were identical girls; the reverse was true for the chiIdren described as strong-willed and aggressive. Both male and female subjects showed this pattern in their responses, and both sexes rated the “feminine” boy as being the most seriously disturbed of the four children. A year and a half later, the study was replicated on three samples at the same university. At this time, no interaction of sex of chiId and behavior pattern was found in any of the three samples. In fact, male subjects in each sample rated the “feminine” boy as least problematic. This is a complete reversal from the first study and is further evidence that, for males, the ideal masculine image is
699
changing, becoming less aggressive and less assertive. On the other hand, there were no consistent trends among the women in the three samples. None of the cases was seen as least or most problematic by all samples; each sample had its own idiosyncratic pattern of ratings. At first glance, this lack of consistency among women, coupled with the nonsignificant interaction between sex of child and behavior, might be taken as evidence for a true egalitarian position regarding appropriate behavior for the sexes. However, a comparison of the amount of variance in the scores of the male and female subjects revealed significantly more variance among the females than among the males. This finding again suggests that there is more confusion, conflict, and multiplicity of standards among women than among men. Women, especially those at the college level, where the impact of the counterculture is probably the greatest, seem to be facing a situation of crosspressure^.^" They are being pulled in one direction by the women’s movement because of their sex, in another direction by the counterculture because of their age, and in a third direction by traditional sex-role socialization patterns. Women college graduates are becoming more interested in fulfilling themselves in work beyond the housewifemother role than they were ten years ago.37 How they will fulfill themselves -what they will see as their options and what their aspirations will be-are questions whose answers are not now clear. Many feminists propose that one way of reconciling this apparent conflict is by creating an androgynous lifestyle, one that combines the best qualities of masculinity and fern in in it^.^^ However,
WOMEN’S CAREERS
700
such reconciliation may be more complicated than it at first appears. As Block li noted, analyses of longitudinal data from the Berkeley Guidance Study suggest that the socialization process for men in contemporary American society “tends to enhance experiential options and to encourage more androgynous sex-role definitions,” while for women it acts as a barrier to achievement. It tends
. , . to reinforce the nurturant, docile, submissive, and conservative aspects of the traditionally defined female role and discourage personal qualities conventionally defined as masculine: self-assertiveness, achievement orientation, and independence. (p. 525) The women in Block’s sample who were assertive and autonomous were not androgynous; they rejected needs for close interpersonal relation^.^ My own discussion with female college students suggests a similar conflict. Some students feel almost morally obligated to enter traditionally masculine fields, yet they also have fantasies of becoming artists and artisans. There seems to be little consideration of a middle ground. I would hypothesize that, for many students, the problem is more often masculinity vs. femininity than masculinity and femininity. On the other hand, the results of an evaluation of the impact of a woman’s studies course that my colleagues and I recently completed suggest that some integration may be beginning to occur. We found that one of the changes most frequently reported by women who had taken the course was a greater acceptance of themselves, both of their “masculine” and “feminine” qualities.‘ Of course, we cannot generalize these findings to other courses in other universities, but the data are encouraging.
CONCLUSION
Throughout this paper, I have attempted to identify and describe problems relating to women’s achievement, some of which have resulted, at least in part, from the recent revival of feminism. Much of what is discussed is theoretical, and appropriate avenues for further research toward understanding these barriers were suggested. But as Jahoda and Havelss cautioned twenty years ago, it is not enough to simply identify these problems. This is merely the beginning of a process of understanding achievement and success among women. As important, and more often forgotten, is the fact that many women have overcome the problems. We must also seek to understand how these barriers can be hurdled. REFERENCES 1. BARUCH, G. 1972. Maternal influences upon
college women’s attitudes toward women and work. Develpm. Psychol. 6:32-37. 2. BERNARD, J. 1956. Academic Women. World Publishing Co., Cleveland. 3. BIRD, c. 1971. Born Female (rev. ed.). Simon and Schuster, New York. 4. BLOCK, J., VON DER LIPPE, A. AND BLOCK, J. 1973. Sex-role and socialization patterns:
some personality concomitants and environmental antecedents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41 132 1-341. 5. BLOCK, J. 1973. Conceptions of sex role: some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. Amer. Psychol. 28:5 12-526. 6. BRIEF, A. AND WALLACE, M. 1976. The impact of employee sex and performance on the allocation of organizational rewards. J. Psychol. 92~25-34. 7 . B R U S H , L., GOLD, A. AND WHITE, M.
1978.
The impact of a women’s studies course on students enrolled: 1973-1975. SIGNS. (in press) 8. CHOBOT, D. E T AL. 1974. Prejudice against women: a replication and extension. Psychol. Rep. 35~478. 9. COHEN, S. AND BUNKER, K. 1975. Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters’ hiring decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:566572.
ALICE ROSS GOLD 10. COSTRICH, N. ET AL. 1975. When stereotypes hurt: three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. J. Exper. SOC. Psychol. 1 1 :520-530. 1 1 . DEAUX, K. 1972. To err is humanizing: but sex makes a difference. Representative Res. SOC.Psychol. 3:20-28. 12. DEAUX, K . 1976. Sex: a perspective on the attribution process. I n New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 1, J. Harvey, W. Ickes and R. Kidd, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J. I ~ . D E A U X , K. AND EMSWILLER, T. 1974. Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: what is skill for the male is luck for the female. J. Pers. SOC. Psychol. 29:80-85. 14. DEAUX, K. AND TAYNOR, J. 1973. Evaluation of male and female abilities: bias works two ways. Psychol. Rep. 32:261262. 15. DIPBOYE, R., ARVEY, R. AND TERPSTRA, D.
1977. k x and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resum6 evaluations. J. Appl. Psychol. 62: 288-294. 16. DIPBOYE, R., FROMKIN, H. A N D WIBACK, K. 1975. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumCs. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:39-43. 17. EPSTEIN, c. 197 1 . Woman’s Place: Options and Limits in Professional Careers. University of California Press, Berkeley. 18. EYAUGH, c. AND ROSE, s. 1975. Adolescents’ s x bias in the evaluation of performance. Develpm. Psychol. 1 1 :663-664. 19. FEATHER, N. AND SIMON, J. Stereotypes about male and female success and failure at sex-linked occupations. J. Pers. 44:1637. 20. FEINBLATT, J . 1973. Responses to sex-role alienated children. Unpublished honors thesis, Wesleyan University. 21. FELDMAN-SUMMERS, S . AND KIESLER, S. 1974. Those who are number two try harder: the effect of sex on attributions of causality. J. Pers. SOC. Psychol. 30:846855. 22. FERBER, M . AND HUBER, J . 1975. Sex Of student and instructor: a study of student bias. Amer. J. Sociol. 80:949-963. 23. FERREE, M. 1972. A woman for president? changing responses: 1958-1972. Pub. Opin. Quart. 38:390-399. 24. FRIEZE, 1. E T AL. 1978. Attributions Of the causes of success and failure as internal and external barriers to achievement in women. In Psychology of Women: Future Directions for Research, J. Sherman and
70 I F. Denmark, eds. Psychological Dimensions, New York. 25. GOLD, A. 1972. Reactions to authors differing in sex and achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. 26. GOLDBERG, P. 1968. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5 :28-30. 27. GOODMAN, N. 1974. Pursuit of achievement activity as it relates to causal attributions. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wesleyan University. 28. HAAVIO-MANNILA, E. 1972. Sex-role attitudes in Finland, 1966-1970. J. SOC. Issues 28(2):93-110. 29. HAGEN, R. AND KAHN, A. 1975. Discrimination against competent women. J. App. SOC.Psychol. 5 : 362-376. ~ O . H E I D E R , F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. John Wiley, New York. ~ I . H O F F M A N , L. 1974. Fear of success in males and females: 1965 and 1971. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42: 353-358. 32. HORNER, M. 1972. Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. J. SOC.Issues 28(2) :157-175. 33. JAHODA, M. AND HAVEL, J . 1955. Psychological problem of women in social roles: a case history of problem formulation in research. Ed. Rec. 36:325-335. 34. KELLEY, H. 1972. Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process. General Learning Press, Morristown, N. J. 35. KUKLA, A. 1972. Attributional determinants of achievement-related behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 21: 166-174. 36. LAWRSFELD, P., BERELSON, B. AND GAUDET, H. 1968. The People’s Choice (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press, New York. ~ ~ . L U R I Az. , 1974. Recent women college graduates: a study of rising expectations. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 44:3 12-326. 38. MCKEE, J. AND SHERRIFFS, A. 1957. The differential evaluation of males and females. J. Pers. 25:356-371. 39. MASON, K., CZAJKA, J . AND ARBER, S. 1976. Change in U. S. women’s sex-role attitudes, 1964-1974. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 41: 573-596. 40. MILLER, T. 1974. Male attitudes toward women’s rights as a function af their level of self-esteem. Inter. J. Group Tensions 4:3544. 41. MISCHEL, H. 1974. Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievements. J. Ed. Psychol. 6: 157-166. 42,MUCHINSKY, R. AND HARRIS, S. 1977. The effects of applicant sex and scholastic standing on the evaluation of job appli-
WOMEN'S CAREERS
702 cant resumis in sex-typed occupations. J. Vocational Behav. 11:95-108. 43. O'LWRY, v. 1974. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychol. Bull. 8 1:809-826. 44. PARELIUS, A. 1975. Emerging sex-role attitudes, expectations, and strains among college women. J. Marr. Fam. 37:146-153. 45.
PHETERSON, G., KIESLER, S. AND GOLDBERG,
1971. Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 19: 114-1 18. 46. PIACENTE, 8. ET AL. 1974. Evaluation Of the performance of experimenters as a function of their sex and competence. J. Appl. SOC. Psychol. 4:321-329. 47. POLOMA, M . AND GARLAND, T. 1971. The married professional woman: a study in the tolerance of domestication. J. Marr. Fam. 33 :53 1-540. 48. ROSEN, B. AND JERDEE, T. 1973. The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 57:44-48. 4 9 . R O S E N , B. AND JERDEE, T. 1974. Effects Of applicant's sex and difficulty of job on evaluation of candidates for managerial positions. J. Appl. Psychol. 59:511-512. P.
5 0 . R O S E N , B., JERDEE, T. AND PRESTWICH, T.
1975. Dual-career marital adjustment: potential effects of discriminatory managerial attitudes. J. Marr. Fam. 37:565-572. 51. ROSENKRANTZ, P . ET AL. 1968. SeX-rOk stereotypes and self-concepts of college students. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 32: 287-295. A. 1972. Barriers to the career choice of engineering, medicine, or science among American women. I n Readings on the Psychology of Women, J. Bardwick, ed. Harper and Row, New York. 53. SHERRIFFS, A . AND JARRETT, R. 1953. Sex
52.
ROSS],
differences in attitudes about sex differences. J. Psychol. 35: 161-168. 54. SCHEIN,v. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. 1. Appl. Psychol. 57: 95- 100. 55. SCHEIN, v. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:340-344. 56. STARR, J. 1974. The peace and love generation: changing attitudes toward sex and violence among college youth. J. SOC.Issues 30(2):73-106. 57.TAYNOR, J. AND DEAUX, K. 1975. Equity and perceived sex differences: role behavior as defined by the task, the mode, and the actor. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32:381390. 1975. A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behav. Performance. 13 :
58.TERBORG, J . AND ILGEN, D.
3 52-3 76.
59.
TUDDENHAM, R., MACBRIDE, P. AND ZAHN,
The influence of the sex composition of the group upon yielding to a distorted norm. J. Psychol. 46:243-251. 60. WEINER, B. ET AL. 1972. Causal attributions and achievement behavior: a conceptual analysis of effort and remalysis of locus of control. J. Pers. SOC.Psychol. 21: V. 1958.
239-248. WOLMAN, B. 1974. On men who discriminate against women. Inter. J. Group Tensions. 4:45-51. 62. YANKELOVICH,D. 1974. The New Morality: A Profile of Youth in the 70's. McGrawHill, New York. 63. ZIMMER, M . AND KRUPAT, E. 1975. SX-rOk stereotypes and the effect of labeling upon person perception. Presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, New York.
61.
For reprints: Dr. Alice Ross Gold, Assistant Professor, Psychological Laboratory, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 06457
