Chapter 6
CHAPTER 6: ACHIEVEMENT
EDUCATION
Education of men and women largely the same:
More females in undergraduate programs than males.
Higher number of bachelor's degrees conferred to females compared to males.
Even larger sex differences for African American and Hispanic populations.
More master's and doctoral degrees awarded to females than males.
Male (M) = Female (F) regarding advanced degrees in law and medicine.
DIFFERENCES IN AREAS OF ACHIEVEMENT
Men and women continue to pursue different areas of achievement.
PERCENT OF BACHELOR'S DEGREES CONFERRED TO MALES AND FEMALES FROM 2015 AND 2016:
Field of Study:
Agriculture and natural resources: 47.6% Male, 52.4% Female
Biological and biomedical sciences: 40.1% Male, 59.9% Female
Business: 52.8% Male, 47.2% Female
Computer and information sciences and support services: 81.3% Male, 18.7% Female
Education: 20.0% Male, 80.0% Female
Engineering and related fields: 80.3% Male, 19.7% Female
Health professions and related programs: 15.8% Male, 84.2% Female
Mathematics and statistics: 57.5% Male, 42.5% Female
Physical sciences and science technologies: 61.2% Male, 38.8% Female
Psychology: 22.4% Male, 77.6% Female
Social sciences and history: 50.4% Male, 49.6% Female
EXPLAINING SEX DIFFERENCES IN ACHIEVEMENT
Factors Contributing to Discrepancy in Sex Differences:
Individual Factors.
Social Factors.
PART I: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE FACTORS
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION:
Defined as the tendency to strive for success.
Historically, women exhibited lower achievement motivation than men due to:
Achievement motivation conflicting with characteristics of the female gender role.
Responses of high-achieving women:
Hiding achievement from others.
Compensating with overly feminine behavior.
Mastering both agentic (goal-oriented) and communal (relationship-oriented) roles.
FEAR OF ACHIEVEMENT/SUCCESS:
Defined as an association of negative consequences with success.
Requires two conditions:
Capability for achievement.
Association of achievement with negative consequences.
Affects individuals for whom achievement is possible.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (Horner, 1972):
Projective storytelling study, where participants wrote stories about either Anne or John being at the top of a medical school class:
90% of men wrote positive stories about John.
65% of women wrote negative stories about Anne.
Both genders wrote more negative stories about Anne than John, indicating potential discomfort with incongruent roles rather than solely fear of achievement.
CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE:
Evidence of females performing worse on purpose and avoiding situations that lead to negative outcomes.
Encountering a “smart” vs. “social” dilemma in middle school.
Study on switching majors:
50% of STEM women switched majors compared to 20% of non-STEM women over 12 years.
Largest percentage of STEM women who switched had advanced degrees.
TAKE HOME POINTS:
Individuals fearing success can achieve high levels of accomplishment but anticipate negative consequences.
Primary concern: Achievement is inconsistent with traditional female gender roles, leading to social costs for achieving females.
Fear of success literature remains controversial; validity of projective tests has been challenged, leading to the development of self-report instruments to measure fear of success.
SELF-CONFIDENCE:
Inquiry into sex differences moderated by the nature of the task:
Females generally score lower than males on traditionally masculine tasks.
Women may desire to appear modest and be concerned about how their performance affects others.
Potential issues include whether women underestimate their abilities or men overestimate their abilities.
WOMEN AND SELF-PROMOTION:
Women are generally uncomfortable with self-promotion.
Perform self-promotion under conditions without noise (which arouses anxiety) and in noisy situations:
Without noise: poorer performance when promoting self compared to promoting others.
With noise: equal performance due to discomfort being attributed to noise generator.
SELF-ESTEEM:
Notable small effect size: d = +.11; d = +.25, indicating males (M) > females (F).
Larger differences noted in adolescents (d = .33 for ages 15-18).
No sex difference noted in African American populations.
Variance in developed versus less-developed countries.
Gender-related traits show a stronger relationship to self-esteem than sex itself.
ADDITIONAL TAKE HOME POINTS:
Sex differences in self-confidence linked to the task nature.
Women are less confident in abilities on traditionally masculine tasks compared to men, contributing to underrepresentation in STEM.
Women show reluctance to self-promote, whereas they excel at promoting others.
Differences in self-confidence may boil down to men being generally more overconfident than women.
RESPONSE TO EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK:
Women are more influenced by feedback than men, leading to:
Devaluing the domain (e.g., STEM) when negative feedback occurs.
Studies show both genders rated leadership skills equally important before feedback:
Negative feedback had no effect on men’s ratings but caused a decline in women’s regard for leadership skills.
DOES THIS INFLUENCE FEEDBACK GIVEN TO MEN AND WOMEN?:
Study by Biernat, Tocci, & Williams (2012) found:
Male attorneys received higher evaluation scores than females.
Females received more positive written feedback than males.
Numerical scores were correlated with positive written feedback for males but not for females.
WHY ARE WOMEN MORE RESPONSIVE TO FEEDBACK?:
Not simply due to wanting to appear agreeable; responsiveness occurs in private.
Not due to lack of self-confidence; occurs even when women have higher initial performance expectancies.
Women perceive feedback as more accurate and informative regarding their ability.
TAKE HOME POINTS:
Women integrate feedback into their self-view more than men do.
Responsiveness to negative feedback has been linked to devaluing the domain and switching majors.
STEREOTYPE THREAT:
Defined as stereotype salience increasing anxiety, thus interfering with performance.
Explicit stereotypes are not necessary to have these effects.
REDUCING STEREOTYPE THREAT:
Reconstruing the task to be non-threatening.
Emphasizing unstable attribution – promoting effort over ability.
Education about stereotype threat.
Self-affirmation – affirming values that are essential to the self.
Providing counter-stereotypical role models.
Dissociating identity from performance.
STEREOTYPE LIFT:
Defined as the concept where activating a stereotype can result in reactance against it.
Study by Hausmann (2014) with college students showed variability performance by gender based on stereotype activation:
Activation of men > women in science led to decreased performance among female art students but increased performance among female science students.
MECHANISMS: HOW DOES STEREOTYPE THREAT WORK?:
Increases anxiety, interfering with performance.
Reduces cognitive capacity or the ability to focus on tasks.
Affects working memory, as evidenced in brain studies.
TAKE HOME POINTS:
Stereotype threat implies that activating a stereotype can create a concern that disrupts performance.
In gender contexts, this concept is predominantly linked to math performance.
Such stereotypes can have long-term effects, deterring groups from pursuing fields where they perceive themselves as underperforming.
Mechanisms of impact include anxiety increase, distraction from tasks, and diminished cognitive capacity.
PART II: SOCIAL FACTORS
STEREOTYPING OF OCCUPATIONS:
STEM careers are typically stereotyped as masculine.
Greater overlap between male stereotypes and that of scientist, associating brilliance with masculinity.
Scientists are viewed more as agentic and less as communal, aligning more closely with male rather than female stereotypes.
ECCLES EXPECTANCY/VALUE MODEL:
Performance expectancies: "Will I succeed?"
Value: "Do I care?"
The two aspects are interrelated; performance influences values.
Both performance expectancies and values are shaped by gender role socialization.
Competence beliefs are linked to performance; values shape what individuals pursue.
Fewer women in STEM may be due to value concerns rather than competence beliefs, with proficient STEM women often also proficient in other domains.
TAKE HOME POINTS:
Certain occupations are gendered, correlating them to specific genders.
STEM as a masculine field contributes to fewer women pursuing careers in this area.
As occupations become less gender-stereotyped, a greater diversity in gender representation may be observed.
The expectancy/value model indicates that individuals pursue areas they believe they will succeed in and value.
INFLUENCE OF PARENTS:
Parents' beliefs about gender and stereotypes:
Stereotypes lead to encouragement of different pursuits and affect attributions for performance.
Parents provide different levels of emotional support, interest, time, and opportunities (like toys).
Parents' perceptions link more strongly to child performance than actual grades or teacher evaluations.
INFLUENCE OF TEACHERS:
Teachers may give differential attention, criticism, and feedback to boys vs girls.
They also have varying expectations and attribution styles for students based on gender.
SINGLE SEX CLASSROOMS:
Rationale for such classrooms includes religious beliefs and the notion of distraction from the opposite sex, as well as different learning styles.
A meta-analysis suggests no significant advantage to single-sex education; controlled studies reveal minimal effects.
FINDINGS ON SINGLE-SEX HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS:
Reported higher gender salience, a smaller percentage of friends of the opposite sex, and elevated dating anxiety when compared to peers from coeducational high schools.
TAKE HOME POINTS:
Parents' stereotypes impact their interactions with children, influencing their activities and perceptions.
Communication from parents shapes children's self-perceptions and performance.
Teachers often exhibit differential treatment towards boys and girls, fostering gender biases.
Single-sex classrooms are shown to provide limited benefits and may exacerbate stereotypes.