|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 192
I I Sex Typing in Occupational Socialization
MARGARET MOONEY MARE and
MARY C. BRINTON
The existence of sex segregation in the
labor market is well documented (Gross,
1968; U. S. President's Council of Economic
Advisors, 1973; Blau, 1977; Williams, 1976,
1979; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1978;
Blau and Hendricks, 19791. Women tend to
be concentrated in a relatively small num-
ber of"female" occupations, whereas men
are employed in a wider variety of"male"
occupations. More than 40 percent offemale
workers are employed in the 10 occupations
employing the largest number of women,
whereas less than 20 percent of male work-
ers are employed in the 10 occupations em-
ploying the largest number of men (U.S.
Department of Labor, 19751. Women are
overrepresented in clerical, sales, and serv-
ice jobs; in a few professional and technical
jobs (e.g., elementary and secondary school
teacher, registered nurse, librarian, social
worker, medical and dental technician); and
in such jobs as machine operative, where
they assemble or inspect goods, operate
sewing and other machines, and work as
packers and wrappers. Men are overrepre-
sented in managerial, crafts, labor, and farm
jobs and in most professional and technical
jobs. Despite a substantial increase in the
192
labor force participation of women over the
last several decades (Oppenheimer, 1970;
U.S. Department of Labor, 1977), the amount
of sex segregation in the labor market has
decreased little (England, 1981a). As re-
cently as 1976, more than two-thirds of one
sex would have had to change occupations
to make the occupational distributions of the
two sexes equal (U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 1978).
Three major types of explanations for sex
segregation in the labor market have been
advanced: (1) explanations focusing on em-
ployer demands, (2) explanations focusing
on legal and institutional barriers within the
workplace, and (3) explanations focusing on
worker characteristics. The first two locate
the source of sex segregation within the
workplace. It has been hypothesized, for ex-
ample, that exclusionary behavior by em-
ployers results in the overcrowding of women
in a limited set of occupations and that this
overcrowding reduces the wages of women
in those occupations relative to the wages
of the nonrestricted group of men (Berg-
mann, 1971, 19741. It has also been hy-
pothesized that the structure of the labor
market, which includes occupations filled
OCR for page 193
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
-
193
from external sources through the recruit-
ment of new workers ant! occupations filled
from internal sources through the promo-
tion of in-house workers, creates institu-
tional barriers in the process of job assign-
ment and promotion that disadvantage
women (Doeringer and Piore, 1971; Blau
and Jusenius, 19761. Sex segregation in the
labor market has been argued to occur at
least in part as a result of"statistical dis-
crimination," whereby indivicluals are judged
on the basis of the perceived average char-
acteristics of the group to which they belong
(Thurow, 1975:170-81~. Since, on the av-
erage, women are viewed as differing from
men in their ability to perform certain types
of jobs and in their attachment to the labor
market, sex is user] as a basis for "statistical
discrimination" in the allocation of individ-
uals to jobs.
In contrast to explanations of sex segre-
gation that focus on the actions of employers
and the structure of the labor market, a thircl
set of explanations focuses on the charac-
teristics of workers. These explanations at-
tribute sex segregation to sex differences in
individuals, including occupational prefer-
ences, skills, and other personal attributes.
Women anal men are hypothesizer} to be
employed in different occupations because
they choose different occupations and be-
cause they are differentially qualified for
various types of jobs.
This paper examines the explanations for
sex segregation that focus on the character-
istics of workers entering the labor market.
The first section outlines general theories of
occupational choice and points to the need
to consider sex-role socialization as an input
to these theories. The second section pre-
sents evidence on the existence of sex dif-
ferences prior to labor market entry in sev-
eral areas relevant to occupational attainment,
including occupational preferences, knowl-
edge, values, skills, and dispositional traits.
In the third] section, we examine the so-
cialization practices that appear to produce
these sex differences prior to labor market
entry, focusing primarily on socialization
practices in the family ant] school but also
considering messages conveyed by the mass
merlin and employment experiences prior to
leaving school. In the final section, we dis-
cuss the role that socialization can be inter-
preted to play in producing sex segregation
in the labor market.
THEORIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE
AND SEX-ROLE SOCIALIZATION
This section provides an overview of the
theoretical bases on which sex differences
in occupational orientation and job-relevant
traits have been assumed to arise. We begin
by outlining general theories of occupational
choice that have emerged in various disci-
plines. Since the prediction of sex differ-
ences in outcomes using these theories re-
quires prior knowledge that the two sexes
differ on various inputs, we discuss theories
of sex-role socialization. These latter theo-
ries, advanced primarily by psychologists,
constitute the basis on which sex differences
can be predicted by general theories of oc-
cupational choice.
Theories of Occupational Choice
General theories of occupational choice
abound. Developmental theories such as
those of Ginsberg et al. (1951) and Super
(1953, 1957) describe the process of occu-
pational selection in terms of general con-
cepts of human development. Based on the
principles of clevelopmental psychology, oc-
cupational choices are viewed as developing
gradually over time in a series of stages.
Personality-basecI theories, such as Hol-
land's (1959, 1966, 1973) typology theory,
describe career orientations and prefer-
ences in terms of personality types. Still other
psychological theories involve specific ap-
plications of general behavior theory. In
Krumboltz's Social Learning Theory of Ca-
reer Selection (Krumboltz et al., 1976;
Mitchell et al., 1975), occupational decisions
OCR for page 194
194
MARGARET MOONEY MAR1NI AND MARY C. BRINTON
are viewed as an outcome of a lifelong series
of learned responses. Other applications of
general behavior theory focus more on in-
formation processing. The decision theories
of Vroom (1964) and Kalclor and Zytowski
(1969), for example, are concerned with the
process of decision making based on the ex-
pected consequences of alternative deci-
sions. We logic-flow theories of Hilton (1962)
and Herchenson and Roth (1966) deal with
the steps individuals go through in arriving
at decisions. Sociological work on occupa-
tional choice, which has arisen out of the
study of social stratification, focuses pri-
marily on the status dimensions of occupa-
tions (e.g., Blau and Duncan, 1967; Sewell
et al., 1969, 19701. Work by economists gen-
erally involves specific applications of gen-
eral theories of utility maximization, partic-
ularly the theory of human capital, according
to which occupational selection implies
varying amounts of investment in human
capital and affects returns on the investment
(Becker, 19641.
In and of themselves, these general the-
ories do not explain why males and females
select different occupations. Unless the two
sexes differ on the independent variables
used as inputs to these theories, sex differ-
ences in occupational choice are not pre-
dicted. For example, unless the develop-
mental experiences of the sexes diner,
developmental and social learning theories
of occupational choice do not predict sex
differences in occupational selection. Simi-
larly, unless the aclult role expectations of
the sexes differ, psychological and economic
theories of decision making do not predict
sex differences in occupational selection. In
short, regardless of which general theory is
used, the prediction of sex differences in
outcomes requires the input of additional
information that the sexes differ on variables
predicting occupational choice.
Attempts to use general theories to under-
stand why males and females select different
occupations have actually been quite lim-
ited. The most extensive applications have
been those of human capital theory. Under
the assumption that individuals seek to max-
imize expected lifetime earnings, econo-
mists have used human capital theory to ar-
gue that sex differences in expected lifetime
labor force participation produce sex differ-
ences in occupational choice. Specifically,
Polachek (1976, 1979, 1981) has argued that
sex segregation in the labor market arises
because women's expectations of intermit-
tency in employment cause them to choose
occupations in which the amount of depre-
ciation in earnings during periods of absence
from the labor force is low. Zellner (1975),
on the other hand, has argued that sex seg-
regation arises because women's expecta-
tions of intermittence in employment cause
them to choose occupations with high start-
ing wages but low wage appreciation. In
either case, it is implied that women tend
to enter occupations that require few skills
and provide little opportunity for increases
in productivity through experience.
Critics of these neoclassical economic ex-
planations of sex segregation have pointed
to a number of theoretical problems. One
is that both male ant] female occupations
require Mitering amounts and types of skill.
Women and men are employed in occupa-
tions of each skill type, and within each type
some occupations are more often entered
by women than by men. Women's lower
expected lifetime labor force participation
explains only the greater tendency of women
to be in jobs requiring low skill, not the
concentration of women in a small number
of female occupations within each skill type
(Blau and Jusenius, 1976~. Within the hu-
man capital framework, the pattern of sex
segregation existing in the labor market can
be accounted for only by an extreme distri-
bution of women's "tastes." Another prob-
lem is that the causal direction of the rela-
tionship between occupational outcomes and
labor force attachment is ambiguous. Al-
though it may be that those who anticipate
being out of the labor force for a substantial
amount of time initially select low-wage oc-
cupations, it may also be that those who
spend a lot of time out of the labor force
OCR for page 195
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
195
wind up in low-wage occupations as a result
(Welch, 1979~.
Recently, direct tests of the assumptions
underlying human capital explanations have
presented some disconfirming evidence.
England (1982) shows that predominantly
female occupations do not penalize inter-
mittency less than male occupations and that
women expecting fairly constant employ-
ment are no more likely to choose male oc-
cupations than women planning intermit-
tent employment. England (1981b) further
shows that women have higher lifetime
earnings if they are employed in predomi-
nantly male occupations, a finding that does
not support the contention that women max-
imize lifetime earnings by choosing female
occupations. Given the lack of empirical
support for human capital explanations of
occupational segregation by sex, other ex-
planations must be sought. It is possible that
other general theories of occupational choice
may be more successful than the human cap-
ital approach in accounting for sex differ-
ences in occupational outcomes, but these
theories have not yet been applied to the
study of sex differences.
Since all general theories of occupational
choice require the existence of sex differ-
ences on predictor variables in order to gen-
erate predictions of sex differences in oc-
cupational choice, we now turn to a discussion
of theories of sex-role socialization. These
theories provide a basis for understanding
the developmental process by which most
sex differences in behavior emerge.
Theories of Sex-Role Socialization
Theories of sex-role socialization explain
the process by which individuals learn the
behavior that a culture defines as appropri-
ate for their sex. The theories differ pri-
marily in Me mechanism by which sex-typed
behavior is hypothesized to be learned. Be-
low we describe the major theories of sex-
role socialization, including (1) social learn-
ing theories, (2) cognitive developmental
theories, (3) information processing theo-
ries, and (4) identification theories. After ex-
amining the sex-role socialization process,
we consider the content of what is trans-
mitted via that process. That is, we examine
the gender-linked behavior patterns that are
learned ant] discuss the division of labor be-
tween the sexes that constitutes the basis
for many sex differences in behavior, atti-
tudes, and personality.
Social Learning Theories Two basic
learning processes, operant conditioning and
observational learning, are at the heart of
social learning theories. These theories are
based primarily on a mechanistic mode}
(Reese and Overton, 1970~. Sex-typed be-
havior is seen as resulting from the fact that
reinforcement contingencies depend on the
sex of the responder. That is, girls and boys
are reinforced or punished for different kinds
of behavior, and male and female models
display different kincis of behavior. One ma-
jor tenet of social learning theory is that sex-
typed behavior need not be consistent across
situations but depends on the social context
in which it occurs. The bases of sex typing
are viewed as arising in the social environ-
ment, not the organism, so that relatively
rapid changes can occur if learning condi-
tions are altered. Sex-role learning is as-
sumed to take place continuously, although
the majority occurs during early childhood.
Cognitive social learning theories use ad-
ditional constructs to describe the internal
mental processes that mediate learning, but
cognitions play a secondary role, and sex
typing is conceptualized primarily as a set
of behavioral responses. An extensive dis-
cussion of social learning theory is contained
in Mische} (19701.
Cognitive Developmental Theories
. . ~ ~ ~
Cog-
nitive aeve~opmentai theories derive from
Piagets theoretical framework for under-
standing child development. Unlike social
learning theories, they are based primarily
on an organismic mode} (Reese and Over-
ton, 19701. Cognitive processes are viewed
as ongoing processes of change. It is as-
OCR for page 196
196
-
MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
sumed that children play an active role in
their own development, motivated by a de-
sire for competence and mastery over their
world. The child's concepts about masculin-
ity, femininity, ant] sex appropriateness,
rather than the child's sex-typed behavior,
are at the core of sex typing. Such concepts
or schema constitute organizing rubrics for
the selection of information from the envi-
ronment and for active processing of that
input.
Developmental changes in sex typing are
assumed to go hand in hand with general
developmental changes in cognitive pro-
cesses. To the extent that these changes are
inherent in the organism, changes in sex
typing are governed by maturational, inter-
nal variables in interaction with the social
environment. Thus, these theories propose
organismic as well as environmental influ-
ences on sex typing, and most therefore sug-
gest some limits to the degree and rapidity
with which sex typing can be changed (Hus-
ton, in press). Among the most prominent
cognitive developmental theories are those
proposed by Kolberg (1966), Block (1973),
Pleck (1975), and Rebecca et al. (19761.
Information Processing Theories Theo-
ries of information processing schema are a
hybrid set of theories based on information
processing constructs (Huston, in press).
They emphasize schemes as cognitive struc-
tures that guide and organize an individual's
perception. The schemes are anticipatory
mechanisms that cause an individual to search
for certain information and to be ready to
process it. Information inconsistent with the
schema may be ignored or transformed.
Models of sex typing based on information
processing have been proposed recently by
Bem (1981) and Martin and Halverson (19811.
In these models sex stereotypes serve as
schemes for organizing and structuring so-
cial information. Although schema theories
are similar to cognitive developmental the-
ories in focusing on cognitive processes that
are active and constructive, they differ in
that developmental processes are not em-
phasized as the source of schemes or the
means of changing them. The cultural em-
phasis on gender rather than physical sex
differences is what is seen as making gender
salient.
identification Theories Freudian psy-
choanalytical theory is the basis for all iden-
tification theories of sex-role learning. In
classical Freudian theory, masculinity and
femininity are acquired through a process
of identification resulting from castration fear
on the part of the male child and castration
anxiety on the part of the female child. A1-
though more recent theories of identification
do not place as much emphasis on sexual mo-
tivation, identification with the same-sex par-
ent continues to be viewed as an important
basis for the development of permanent and
global sex differences in personality. Patterns
of behavior are assumed to be integrated, so
that a child who is feminine in one situation
is feminine in another. In recent years, cIas-
sical theories of identification have fallen into
disfavor, and theorists now emphasize paren-
tal identification less, viewing parents as one
of many socializing influences (Huston, in
press). However, there is little empirical evi-
dence to support either the existence of iden-
tification or the contention that it accounts for
sex-role learning (Parsons, 19781.
Some reformulations of psychoanalytic
theory have been undertaken by feminists.
These focus on envy of women's childbear-
ing capacity and caretaking role as the rea-
son for devaluation of the mother and of
women in general (Homey, 1932; Klein,
1957; Lerner, 1974, 1978; Chodorow, 19781.
Because the mother as primary caregiver
is perceived as all powerful, men are hy-
pothesized to develop envy, fear, and anger
in a struggle to free themselves from her.
According to Choclorow (1978), they gen-
erally come to see themselves as more dis-
tinct from others as a result. It is suggested
that this basis for sex-role differentiation could
be altered if the caretaking of young chil-
dren were shared by males and females.
Again, empirical evidence is lacking to sup-
OCR for page 197
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
197
port these reformulations as the basis for sex
typing.
Next we consider the sex-typed content
of what is transmitted via sex-role sociali-
zation. Although the division of labor be-
tween the sexes forms the basis for many
sex differences in behavior, we present evi-
dence to indicate that it alone does not ac-
count for all gender-based behavior patterns
transmitted through socialization, including
the segregation of women and men within
the workplace.
Sex-Role Differentiation Children learn
the behavior that is appropriate for their sex
via the process of sex-role socialization. Al-
though this learning may occur in a variety
of ways, the content of what is learned de-
pends on the association of gender with par-
ticular types of behavior in the culture in
which a child is raised. A gender-based di-
vision of labor exists to some extent in all
societies and forms the basis for many of the
sex differences in behavior, attitudes, and
personality that are transmitted via sociali-
zation. In industrialized societies such as the
United States, the sexual division of labor
between the market and the home has im-
portant implications for the occupational ori-
entation and preparation of the sexes prior
to entry into the job market. For the most
part, men are expected to support the family
financially, and women take the major re-
sponsibility for home management, child
care, and catering to the emotional needs of
the family. This division of labor results in
essential consistency between men's familial
and occupational roles but produces conflict
between the familial role of women and their
participation in the labor market. Fulfill-
ment of familial role responsibilities com-
petes with work outside the home for the
limited supply of a woman's time, energy,
and emotional commitment.
Even the entry of increasing numbers of
women into the labor force has not changed
this fundamental division of labor. Changes
in conceptions of the female role have re-
sulted primarily in the need for choice re-
garding employment outside the home, a
choice usually based on the decision of
whether to add a new role to the traditional
homemaker role rather than whether to sub-
stitute a new role for the old one (Poloma
and Garland, 1971; Bahr, 1974; Vanek, 1974;
Walker and Woods, 1976; Robinson, 1977;
Berk and Berk, 1979~. Because of the con-
flict between fulf~Iment of familial role re-
sponsibilities and work outside the home,
women's investment in family roles nega-
tively affects their labor force participation
and employment in high-status occupations
(Ross), 1965; Sweet, 1973; Waite, 1976;
Smith-Lovin and Tickamyer, 1978; Marini,
19801.
Differences in the occupational orienta-
tions and skills of the two sexes can be ex-
pected to arise as a consequence of the sex
difference in consistency between familial
and occupational roles. Women are more
likely to view their work outside the home
as a job than as a lifetime career and to
choose jobs that permit better coordination
of their responsibilities in the home with
their employment (Ross), 1965; Perucci,
19701. Because women are less likely to ex-
pect to work throughout their adult lives and
to be the primary wage earners (Turner,
1964), their occupational interests focus less
than men's on the monetary and status di-
mensions of jobs and tend to parallel their
family functions, often involving an orien-
tation toward helping others (Witty and
Lehman, 1930; Singer and Stefflre, 1954;
O'Hara, 1962; Lueptow, 1980; Herzog,
19821. ~ The sexual division of labor between
the market and the home and its effect on
the sex difference in consistency between
~ It should be noted that the lower wages paid to
women and typically associated with women's jobs are
a cause as well as a result of women's orientation toward
employment. Women may not seek to satisfy material
ambitions through their own occupations because the
incomes they can expect to receive are so low; however,
because most women do not rely on their own occu-
pations for full material support, they are not as likely
to expect or demand higher wages.
OCR for page 198
198
MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
familial and occupational roles may also be samples of college-educatecI women, in con-
seen as promoting the development of dif- trast, has indicated that married women and
ferent personality characteristics and abili-
ties in the two sexes. Males are socialized
to be assertive, authoritative, and compe-
tent in occupational skills, whereas females
are socialized to be nurturant, deferent, and
competent in domestic skills (Oetzel, 1966;
Maccoby and lacklin, 1974; Block, 1976;
Tavris and Offir, 1977; Frieze et al., 1978~.
The extent to which women's familial role
responsibilities account for sex segregation
in the labor market remains an open ques-
tion. It can be argued that women's invest-
ment in family roles affects the probability
of their employment in female-typecI jobs
for several reasons. First, women's invest-
ment in family roles may affect the status of
the occupations they hold. Consequently,
there may be a relationship between the
status and sex type of occupations, with high-
status occupations more often being tradi-
tionally male. Second, female jobs may have
characteristics, such as greater flexibility of
working hours, that make them easier to
combine with family responsibilities. Third,
women who invest relatively more in family
roles may have traditional attitudes that cause
them to select female occupations more often
than male occupations.
Research bearing on the relationship be-
tween women's investment in family roles
ant! the sex type of the jobs they hold sug-
gests that the relationship differs depending
on whether a woman has a college ecluca-
tion. As inclicated earlier, England (1982)
found that women expecting constant em-
ployment (as measured by familial role sta-
tus) were no more likely to choose male oc-
cupations than women planning intermittent
employment. Englancl's analysis was based
on a sample covering the full range of var-
iation in education. Analyzing a sample re-
strictec] to women who did not go to college,
Hofferth (1980a) also found that marital sta-
tus and children had no effect on the sex
type of jobs held by women three, five, and
ten years after high school. Research on
, , _
women with a relatively large number of
children are less likely to be employed in
male occupations (Almquist and Angrist,
1970; Klemmack and Edwards, 1973; Bielby,
1978a; Brito and Jusenius, 1978; Daymont
and Tsai, 19811. These findings suggest that
a relationship between women's investment
in family roles and the sex type of their oc-
cupations exists only at the upper end of the
education distribution. Such a relationship
is likely to arise because a relationship be-
tween the status and sex type of occupations
exists at the upper end of the education dis-
tribution, where male occupations tend to
be of higher status than female occupations.
Women's fulfillment of traditional family re-
sponsibilities interferes with employment in
high-status mate occupations, which place
heavier demands on their incumbents and
are, therefore, less easy to combine with
traditional family responsibilities.
The sexual division of labor between the
home and the job market may, therefore,
be seen as forming the basis for many sex
differences in behavior that are transmitted
via socialization, including sex differences in
job-relevant skills and dispositional traits.
However, this fundamental division of labor
cannot account for all sex differences trans-
mitted via socialization. Some sex differ-
ences, including the tendency for males and
females to be employed in different occu-
pations, have other origins. Regardless of its
origins, gender-linked behavior is transmit-
ted via sex-role socialization. Thus, because
the occupational world is sex segregated,
children learn to view some occupations as
appropriate for their sex and others as in-
appropriate (Looft, 1971a,b; SchIossberg and
Goodman, 1972; Siegel, 1973; Shepard and
Hess, 1975; Heilman, 1979).
Biological Components of Sex Typing
Many theorists have proposed that sex
differences in behavior are at least partially
OCR for page 199
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
199
due to genetic, biochemical, and anatomical
differences between the sexes. It is gener-
ally agreed that an either/or position con-
cerning the effects of biology and sociaTi-
zation is too simplistic and that the important
question focuses on the relative role of these
two types of influences in determining sex-
typed behavior. Although the role played
by biology is unknown, evidence from three
types of studies suggests that socialization
rather than biology is the source of most sex
differences in behavior, particularly those
that are likely to have a bearing on occu-
pational orientation and performance. First,
studies of hermaphrodites, whose gender is
biologically ambiguous, indicate that the
gender according to which a child is reared
is more important for the development of
gender identity than genes or gonads (Money
and Ehrhardt, 19721. Second, cross-cultural
studies of sex-typed behavior indicate that
many personality traits, activities, and oc-
cupations that are labeled feminine in one
society are labeled masculine in another
(Mead, 1935; McClelland, 1976; Tavris and
Odor, 19771. Third, studies of sex differences
in infancy, when the effects of culture are
minimal, rarely find sex differences in be-
havior (Maccoby and lacklin, 1974~. Al-
though it is difficult to document sex differ-
ences in infants for methodological reasons
(Block, 1976) and some biologically based
sex differences do not emerge until later
ages- the fact that sex differences are rarely
found in infants does not support the view
that sex differences are biologically deter-
mined (Maccoby and lacklin, 1974; Frieze
et al., 1978~.
Not only is the role of biology in the de-
termination of sex differences in various types
of abilities and dispositional traits an open
question, but the extent to which jobs that
are thought to require sex-related traits ac-
tually do require those traits is unknown.
Consequently, the extent to which biology
may affect sex segregation in the labor mar-
ket via its effects on the characteristics of
workers is unknown. Since there is evidence
to suggest that biology may play a small role
in the determination of most sex differences,
and since it seems likely that the extent to
which one sex is better suited to perform
sex-typed jobs has been greatly exagger-
ated, the role of biology in the determina-
tion of occupational segregation by sex is
indeed likely to be small.
Summary
Theories used to predict occupational
choice in various disciplines do not predict
sex differences in occupational choice unless
information that the sexes differ on variables
used to make the prediction is available.
Theories of sex-role socialization advanced
within psychology constitute the primary
basis on which sex differences in occupa-
tional orientation and job-relevant skills are
viewed as arising over the early stages of the
life course. These theories describe the
process by which gender-linked behavior is
learned. Biology also plays a role in the de-
termination of some sex differences in be-
havior, but the fact that biologically based
sex differences may have little bearing on
occupational performance suggests that the
effect of biology on occupational choice is
small.
SEX DIFFERENCES IN OCCUPATIONAL
ORIENTATION PRIOR TO LABOR FORCE
ENTRY
As a result of sex-role socialization, sex
differences in occupational orientation and
preparation arise prior to entry into the la-
bor market. This section examines the de-
gree to which occupational aspirations and
expectations prior to labor market entry are
sex typed and considers the probable rela-
tionship between this sex typing and sub-
sequent sex segregation in the labor market.
We will also examine sex differences in
knowledge of the occupational world and in
occupational values held prior to labor mar-
ket entry. Finally, we consider evidence
OCR for page 200
200
MARGARET MOONEY MARlNI AND MARY C. BRINTON
bearing on the existence of sex differences
in abilities, such as physical strength and
verbal and quantitative skills, and in dis-
positional traits, such as aggressiveness, so-
ciability, and self-confidence. It has been
argued that all of these sex differences are
determinants of sex segregation in the labor
market. More specifically, it has been ar-
gued that women and men occupy different
positions in the workplace because they
choose different occupations and are differ-
entially qualified for various types of jobs.
Occupational Aspirations and
Expectations
Research on occupational aspirations and
expectations held prior to labor market en-
try provides strong evidence that sex dif-
ferences in occupational choice exist. Young
women are more likely to choose typically
"female" occupations, whereas young men
are more likely to choose typically "male"
occupations (Stephenson, 1957; Sewell and
Ornstein, 1964; Douvan and Adelson, 1966;
Werts, 1966; Astin and Panos, 1969; Marini
and Greenberger, 1978; Harren et al., 1979;
Herzog, 19821. To examine the degree of
sex segregation in aspirations for the fuD range
of the Census Bureau's detailed occupa-
tional categories, an index of segregation was
calculated using data from the National Lon-
gitudinal Survey of Young Americans (NLS).
These data were collected in 1979 from a
nationally representative sample of youth ages
14 to 22 and are described in detail else-
where. For a measure of occupational as-
pirations for age 35, the index of segregation
was 61.0, indicating that 61 percent of one
sex would have to change occupational as-
pirations to make the aspirations ciistribu-
tions of the two sexes equal. The degree of
segregation in aspirations also was examined
by age, but only a small change was ob-
served over the age range studied.
Not only are the occupational choices of
youth highly differentiated by sex, but the
range of choices made by females is nar-
rower than the range of choices made by
males (Rodman et al., 1974; Marini and
Greenberger, 19781. Further analysis of the
1979 NLS data indicated that 47.5 percent
of young women aspired to the 10 occupa-
tions most often aspired to by women but
that only 39.5 percent of young men aspired
to the 10 occupations most often aspired to
by men.
Previous research has shown that the oc-
cupational aspirations of males are also more
highly sex typed than those offemales (Mar-
ini and Greenberger, 1978~. This finding is
confirmed by analysis of the 1979 NLS data.
We divided occupations into three sex-type
categories on the basis of the percentage of
female incumbents in the occupation. Oc-
cupations with less than 30 percent women
were defined as male occupations; occupa-
tions with 30 to 59 percent women were
defined as sex-neutral occupations, and oc-
cupations with 60 percent or more women
were defined as female occupations. Based
on this categorization, 86.3 percent of males
aspired to male occupations, but only 4.1
percent aspired to female occupations. In
contrast, 52.8 percent of females aspired to
female occupations, and 34.5 percent as-
pired to male occupations. Similar percent-
ages of each sex (9.6 percent of males and
12.7 percent of females) aspired to sex-neu-
tral occupations. These sex differences in
the distribution of aspirations by sex type
indicate that females are considerably more
likely than males to make cross-sex occu-
pational choices.
Discrepancy Between Aspirations and Ex-
pectations By examining both occupa-
tional aspirations and expectations, some
studies have attempted to sort out wishful
aspirations from more realistic expectations,
or plans (Burlin, 1976; Marini and Green-
berger, 1978; Lueptow, 19811. Expectations
are more likely to reflect perceptions of con-
straints such as limited opportunities, the
sex type of the job, and personal qualifica-
tions. The discrepancy between aspirations
OCR for page 201
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
201
and expectations therefore provides some
indication of the degree to which individuals
perceive that constraints may prevent re-
alization of their aspirations. Studies of both
aspirations and expectations uniformly in-
dicate that there is greater sex typing of oc-
cupational expectations than of occupational
aspirations.
The most detailed study comparing the
sex typing of occupational aspirations and
expectations was carried out by Marini and
Greenberger (1978), based on data collected
from a representative sample of eleventh-
grade students in Pennsylvania in 1968. In
this study there was virtually no difference
between the mean percentage of women
employed in occupations aspired to (17 per-
cent) and expected (18 percent) by boys.
However, the mean percentage of women
employed in occupations expected by girls
(75 percent) was significantly greater than
the mean percentage of women employed
in the occupations girls aspired to (66 per-
cent). These findings indicate that the girls
expected to enter occupations that, on the
average, employed a higher proportion of
women than those they aspired to.
Of respondents who aspired to occupa-
tions in which fewer than 50 percent of the
incumbents were women (i.e., maTe-domi-
nated occupations), a smaller percentage of
the girls (52 percent) than the boys (94 per-
cent) actually expected to enter an occu-
pation of this type. Of respondents aspiring
to occupations in which 50 percent or more
of the incumbents were women (i.e., fe-
male-dominated occupations), the percent-
age of the boys (78 percent) expecting to
enter a female-clominated occupation was
almost as high as the percentage of the girls
(85 percent). In addition, only about 3 per-
cent of the girls who aspired to female-dom-
inated occupations, in comparison with 22
percent of the boys, expected that they would
instead enter male-dominated occupations.
These findings indicate that the girls were
more likely to shift their aspirations from
male-dominatecI occupations to expecta-
tions in the femaTe-dominated category than
the boys were to shift their aspirations from
the female-dominated category to expecta-
tions for male-dominated jobs. The girls,
therefore, seemed to perceive the male-
dominated jobs they aspired to as less ac-
cessible than the boys perceived the female-
dominated jobs they aspired to. These find-
ings suggest that the sex composition of an
occupation influences the degree to which
girls, but not boys, expect to realize their
occupational aspirations.
Further support for the hypothesis that
the sex type of an occupational aspiration
influences the degree to which girls fee! it
can be realized is available in a survey by
Burlin (1976) of adolescent girls in a Syra-
cuse high school. She found that more than
one-half of those with discrepant occupa-
tional aspirations and expectations attrib-
uted the discrepancy to the fact that the
occupation aspired to was an "inappropriate
occupation for a female." Data from a na-
tional sample of high school students col-
lected in 1980 as part of the Monitoring the
Future project also indicate that the girls
surveyed more often perceived their sex as
a barrier to fulfilling their occupational as-
pirations (Bachman et al., 1980~. When asked
to what extent they thought their sex would
prevent them from getting the kind of work
they would like to have, 87.9 percent of the
males but only 66.4 percent of the females
responded "not at all." Experimental re-
search by Heflman (1979) provides further
evidence that the sexual composition of an
occupation influences the degree to which
it is considered a viable career choice.
R e I ~ t i 0 n s h i p 0 f O c c u p a t i 0 n a ~ A s p i r a t i 0 n s t 0
Subsequent Occupational Behavior The
degree of correspondence between occu-
pational aspirations held prior to labor mar-
ket entry and subsequent occupational at-
tainments is indicative of the degree to which
individuals realize their occupational aspi-
rations. The occupational aspirations of high
school students definitely play a role in the
OCR for page 202
202
MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
dete~-~ination of adult occupational attain-
ment, but the relationship between the sex
type of occupational aspirations and the sex
type of occupational attainments has not been
estimated. This relationship is of interest
because it would indicate the extent to which
the sex segregation of occupational choices
prior to labor market entry can account for
the sex segregation in employment that is
subsequently experienced by a cohort. To
the extent that sex segregation in occupa-
tional choices exists prior to labor market
entry, sex segregation in occupational out-
comes cannot be attributed to the direct ex-
perience of sex discrimination in the labor
market. However, as we will discuss, dis-
criminatory practices and structural barriers
within the labor market may generate a pat-
tern of sex segregation that is maintained
over time via socialization.
Most research on the relationship be-
tween occupational goals and attainments
has focused on the overall degree of con-
gruence between occupational aspirations
ant] attainments, where congruence is de-
fined as aspiring to and attaining an occu-
pation in the same occupational category.
The findings of such studies depend in part
on the inclusiveness of the occupational cat-
egories used; the more inclusive the occu-
pational categories, the greater the degree
of congruence will appear to be. Variability
among studies in the type of sample and the
age at which respondents were initially
studied also clouds the picture. Estimates
of the degree of congruence between high
school aspirations and subsequent occupa-
tional attainments range from about 50 per-
cent (Schmidt and Rothney, 1955) to 80 per-
cent (Porter, 1954) in studies done 6 months
after graduation from high school, to about
50 percent in a study of women done 5 years
after high school (Astin and Myint, 1971),
to between 15 percent (Kohout and Roth-
ney, 1964) and 25 percent (KuvIesky and
Beater, 1967) in studies of men done 10 years
after high school. Conclusions about changes
in congruence with time after high school
are difficult to draw, since studies done at
different intervals are not comparable in the
inclusiveness of the occupational categories
used or in the type of sample studied.
The most readily interpretable estimates
of the relationship between occupational as-
pirations and subsequent occupational at-
tainments are available for the status of oc-
cupations, as measured by the Duncan
Socioeconomic Index (SEI). Analyzing data
from an 18-year follow-up study of Wiscon-
sin high school seniors, Sewell et al. (1980)
found correlations of .461 for females and
.543 for males between the status level of
the occupation aspired to in high school and
the status of the first job held. Somewhat
lower correlations of .342 for females and
.491 for males were found between the sta-
tus level of the occupation aspired to in high
school and the status of the occupation held
18 years later.
In the absence of information on the re-
lationship between the sex typing of occu-
pational aspirations and the sex typing of
occupational attainments for a sample of in-
dividuals studied while in high school ant!
again some years later, it is of interest to
compare measures of sex segregation in oc-
cupational aspirations for a national sample
of youth with measures of sex segregation
in occupational attainments for the adult
population. Such a comparison permits a
crude assessment of the extent to which sex
segregation in occupational goals approxi-
mates sex segregation in employment.
Measures of sex segregation in respondents'
occupational aspirations for age 35 were cal-
culated using the 1979 NLS and were then
compared to measures of sex segregation in
actual employment based on data from the
U.S. census.
As indicated above, the index of sex seg-
regation in occupational aspirations deter-
mined Tom the 1979 NLS over the full range
of the Census Bureau's detailed occupa-
tional categories was 61.0. This figure can
be compared to a figure of 66.1, measuring
the degree of sex segregation in the labor
OCR for page 222
222
MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
ticeable, therefore, was the predominance
of white-collar employment for women and
the implication that it was not common to
combine work outside the home with mar-
riage and family responsibilities.
Most studies of sex-role stereotyping on
television have involved content analysis and
have not attempted to examine actual effects
on children. Frueh and McGhee (1975),
however, examined the relationship be-
tween the amount of time children spent
watching television and their identification
with traditional sex roles. They found that
high amounts of television viewing were as-
sociated with stronger traditional sex-role
development and that the relationship be-
tween television viewing and sex-role atti-
tudes existed across sexes and age groups
(kindergarten, grades 2, 4, and 61. The de-
gree to which actual occupational choices
are conditioned by exposure to television
remains unknown. But given the predomi-
nance of television as a media form for chil-
dren and its role as a source of information
about the world, especially prior to the de-
velopment of reading skills and prior to en-
trance into the adult working world, it is
likely to have a significant impact.
Early Work Experiences
A variety of groups, such as the Presi-
dent's Science Advisory Committee, the
National Pane} on High Schools ant] Ado-
lescent Education, and the Carnegie Coun-
ci! on Policy Studies in Higher Education,
have advocated the participation of teen-
agers in the work force as a means of helping
them develop skills and attitudes that will
facilitate a smoother transition into full-time
adult work roles (Lewin-Epstein, 19811. Re-
search on the employment experiences of
youth prior to high school graduation is
sparse, but two recent studies provide data
portraying a sex-segregated occupational
world for adolescents that closely mirrors
the adult work world (Lewin-Epstein, 1981;
Greenberger and Steinberg, 19831. These
studies indicate that females are somewhat
less likely to be employed than males and
that when they are employed they tend to
work fewer hours per week. The distribu-
tion of students across jobs is also signifi-
cantly different for the two sexes. Thus, even
when work is a secondary activity and both
sexes are employed in low-skill nonspecial-
ized jobs, as is the case in the adolescent
years, job segregation by sex emerges.
In addition, as in the adult work world,
adolescent females earn lower hourly wages
than males, a pattern that holds across job
categories, ethnic groups (whites, blacks,
Hispanics), and high school grade levels.
Hourly wages for adolescents are positively
related to the degree to which a job is dom-
inated by males, again mirroring the adult
occupational environment. Based on data
from the High School and Beyond survey of
sophomores and seniors in a national sample
of U. S. high schools in 1980, Lewin-Epstein
(1981) found that sex was the most important
determinant of wages earned by teenagers.
He also found that the sex difference in ac-
tual wages was somewhat greater than the
sex difference in reservation wages, as meas-
ure(1 by the lowest hourly wage students
said they would accept in high school. He
argued that this pattern might help account
for the lower labor force participation of fe-
males, since females may have greater dif-
ficulty than males in meeting their wage ex-
pectations in the job market. Together, sex
differences in labor force participation, type
of work experience, and earnings during ad-
olescence are indicative of yet another way
in which adolescent males and females de-
velop different orientations toward the adult
world of work.
Summary
Of the socializing influences in the lives
of children and adolescents that are likely
to produce sex differences in occupational
orientation and preparation prior to entry
into the adult work force, the earliest and
OCR for page 223
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
223
most pervasive ones arise within the family,
where mothers and fathers not only provide
information as role models and teachers but
also treat male and female children differ-
ently. School influences reinforce the effects
of family socialization. Among these are the
greater availability of same-sex role models
for males across a variety of fields at higher
levels of education, sex typing in the pres-
entation of occupational roles in textbooks
and other educational materials, sex bias in
the attitudes and knowledge of guidance
counselors regarding the appropriateness of
various occupations for males and females,
sex segregation in different vocational ed-
ucation programs, and sex differences in
training in mathematics and science. Sex
typing in the portrayal of occupational roles
in the mass media provides another source
of information about the adult occupational
world, as do sex differences in the actual
employment experiences of adolescents prior
to leaving school. It is difficult, if not im-
possible, to estimate the effect of any single
socializing influence on the development of
sex differences in occupational orientation
and job-relevant skills. However, it is clear
that, collectively, they teach children to as-
pire to and prepare for different occupa-
tional roles in adulthoood.
SOCIALIZATION AS AN EXPLANATION
OF SEX SEGREGATION IN THE LABOR
MARKET
Since the purpose of this paper is to ex-
amine sex differences in occupational ori-
entation and preparation prior to entry into
the labor market as an outgrowth of the
process of socialization and to consider the
effects of these differences on subsequent
sex segregation in the labor market, we wfl}
conclude by discussing the role of sociali-
zation as a cause of occupational segregation
by sex. In attempting to understand the im-
portance of socialization as a determinant of
sex segregation in the labor market, it is
reasonable to ask how important sex differ-
ences are in the characteristics of workers
prior to entry into the labor market, com-
pared to the actions of employers and other
legal and institutional barriers in the work-
place, in accounting for sex segregation in
the labor market. This question cannot be
answered, however, because it does not dis-
tinguish between the operation of two dis-
tinct, but related, processes: one at the mi-
cro level and one at the macro level.
At the micro, or indiviclual, level, it is
possible to examine the relative effects of
different types of influences on the occu-
pational outcomes of individuals in one or
more cohorts. Socialization is a process that
operates at the micro level, since it is the
process by which individuals come to learn
about the world in which they live and to
understand what is considered appropriate
and acceptable behavior for them. In a so-
ciety in which adult roles are differentiated
by sex and where the labor market is highly
sex segregated, females and males develop
different expectations of their adult work lives
and the jobs appropriate for them via sex-
role socialization. The effect of socializaton
prior to entry into the labor market on the
occupational outcomes of individuals can be
examined by addressing the question: How
important are sex differences in occupa-
tional orientation and preparation prior to
entry into the labor market (which arise pri-
marily as a result of socialization) compared
to subsequent labor market experiences
(which are attributable at least in part to the
actions of employers and other legal and in-
stitutional barriers) in accounting for the sex-
segregated pattern of employment for in-
dividuals in particular cohorts? On the basis
of the evidence we have presented on the
(legree to which sex segregation in occu-
pational aspirations approximates sex seg-
regation in employment, socialization prior
to entry into the labor market appears to be
an important determinant of occupational
outcomes for individuals, although the ex-
tent to which preemployment differences in
worker characteristics account for subse-
OCR for page 224
224
MARGARET MOONEY MARlNI AND MARY C. BRINTON
quent sex segregation in the labor market
remains to be estimated precisely using lon-
gitudinal data.
Because socialization prior to entry into
the labor market appears to play a large role
in the determination of occupational out-
comes for individuals, is it reasonable to
conclude that it is an important determinant
of sex segregation in the labor market? Only
if one is referring to its predictive power in
accounting for the occupational outcomes of
individuals. Socialization cannot explain why
a sex-segregated labor market emerged, why
each sex is allocated to particular types of
occupations, and why the sex typing of oc-
cupations changes in particular ways over
time. These characteristics of the labor mar-
ket are outcomes of macro-level processes
in which such factors as the supply and de-
mand for particular types of workers, the
structure of work organizations, cultural be-
liefs and practices, legal arrangements, and
the actions of employers play a dominant
role. To explain the existence of sex segre-
gation in the labor market, it is necessary
to address the question: Why did sex seg-
regation in the labor market emerge and
take the particular form it did? The answer
to this question is to be found by analyzing
variation at the macro level, including dif-
ferences among organizations and societies
and changes in these structures over time.
Thus, although the maintenance of a sex-
segregated labor market and changes in the
pattern of segregation over time occur via
the actions of individuals at the micro level,
the origins, or causes, of sex segregation
cannot be understood through analysis of
micro-level processes such as socialization.
Socialization is a process whereby prevailing
cultural practices are transmitted to new
generations, and as such it plays an impor-
tant role in the determination of outcomes
for individuals. However, the content of what
is transmitted via socialization is determined
by factors operating at the macro level.
Understanding that socialization is essen-
tially a transmission process has implications
for the conclusions to be drawn from our
findings regarding interventions for change
in sex segregation in the labor market. Al-
though our findings indicate that socializa-
tion plays an important role in the deter-
mination of occupational outcomes for
individuals, it should not be inferred that
interventions for change should focus pri-
marfly on socialization practices. Because
socialization is a process whereby existing
cultural practices, including employment
patterns, are transmitted, a reduction of sex
segregation in employment affects what is
transmitted via socialization and thereby ul-
timately reduces sex differences in occu-
pational orientation and preparation. Inter-
ventions directed at changes in employment
practices and in laws that affect sex segre-
gation therefore can bring about both im-
mediate change in employment patterns and
eventual change in the messages about the
occupational world that are conveyed to new
generations.
Throughout our discussion of socializing
influences, we have commented on inter-
ventions that might be undertaken to change
socialization practices. Such changes are
needed, and would undoubtedly effect some
change in the occupational orientations and
preparation of the two sexes. However,
changes in socialization practices must go
hand in hand with changes in employment
practices. Because the actions of employers
and the structure of work organizations are
known to affect sex segregation, a reduction
of sex differences in occupational orientation
would not necessarily produce a concom-
mitant reduction of sex differences in em-
ployment patterns. Moreover, for a major
reduction of sex differences in occupational
orientation to occur, a major reduction of
sex segregation in the labor market is nec-
essary, since existing employment patterns
affect what is learned via socialization. That
is, children and young adults must observe
less sex-segregated employment patterns
OCR for page 225
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPaTIONAL SOCIALIZaTION
prior to labor force entry if sex differences
in occupational aspirations and expectations
are to be significantly reduced.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.R., Jr.
1970 "Attitudes toward mathematics." Review of
Educational Research 40:551-96.
1976 "Update on attitudes and other affective vari-
ables in learning mathematics." Review of Ed-
ucational Research 46:293-311.
Aiken, L.R., Jr., and R. M. Dreger
1961 "The effect of attitudes on performance in
mathematics." Journal of Educational Psy-
chology 52:19-24.
Alexander, K. L., and B. K. Eckland
1974 "Sex differences in the educational attainment
process." American Sociological Review 39:668-
82.
Almquist, E.M.
1974 "Sex stereotypes in occupational choice: The
case of college women." Journal of Vocational
Behavior 5:13-21.
Almquist, E.M., and S.S. Angrist
1970 "Career salience and Typicality of occupa-
tional choice among college women." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 32:242-49.
1971 "Role model influences on college women's ca-
reer aspirations." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 17:-
263-79.
Altman, S.L., and F.K. Grossman
1977 "Women's career plans and maternal employ- Becker, G.S.
meet. " Psychology of Women Quarterly 1:365-
76.
American Institutes for Research
1980 "Enrollment and staffing patterns in vocational
education." Pp. 27-78 in Education, Sex Equity
and Occupational Stereotyping. Washington,
D.C.: National Commission for Employment
Policy.
Anderson, K.E.
1963 "A comparative study of student self ratings on
the influence of inspirational teachers in sci-
ence and mathematics in the development of
intellectual curiosity, persistence and a ques-
tioning attitude." Science Education 47:429-
37.
Astin, A.W., and R.J. Panos
1969 The Educational and Vocational Development
of College Students. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education.
Astin, H. S., and T. Myint
1971 "Career development and stability of young
women during the post high school years."
Journal of Counseling Psychology 18:369-93.
Bachman, J. G., L. D. Johnston, and P. M. O'Malley
1980 Monitoring the Future: Questionnaire Re-
225
spouses From the Nation's High School Sen-
iors. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Re-
search, University of Michigan.
Bahr, S.J.
1974 "Effects on power and division of labor in the
family." Pp. 167-85 in L.W. Hoffman and F.I.
Nye (eds.), Working Mothers. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A., and A.C. Huston
1961 "Identification as a process of incidental learn-
ing." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy 63:311-18.
Bandura, A., D. Ross, and S.A. Ross
1963 "A comparative test of the status envy, social
power, and secondary reinforcement theories
of identificatory learning." Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology 67:527-34.
Barclay, L.K.
1974 "The emergence of vocational expectations in
preschool children." Journal of Vocational Be-
havior 4:1-14.
Baruch, G.K.
1972 "Maternal influences upon college women's at-
titudes towards women and work." Develop-
mental Psychology 6:32-7.
Basow, S.A., and K.G. Howe
1979 "Model influence on career choices of college
students." Vocational Guidance Quarterly
27:239-43.
Beardslee, D.C., and D.D. O'Dowd
1962 "Students and the occupational world." In N.
Sanford (ed.), The American College. New York:
Wiley.
1964 Human Capital. New York: National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Beller, A.H.
1981 "The impact of education on entry into non-
traditional occupations. " Revised version of pa-
per presented at the Econometric Society
meetings, Denver, Colorado, September 1980.
Bem, S.L.
1981 "Gender schema theory: A cognitive account
of sex typing."Psychological Review 88:354-64.
Bergmann, B.R.
1971 "The effect on white incomes of discrimination
in employment." Journal of Political Economy
79:294-313.
1974 "Occupational segregation, wages and profits
when employers' discriminate by race or sex."
Eastern Economic Journal 1:103-10.
Berk, R.A., and S. F. Berk
1979 Labor and Leisure at Home. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage.
Bielby, D.D.V.
1978a "Career sex-atypicality and career involvement
of college educated women: Baseline evidence
from the 1960's." Sociology of Education 51:7-
28.
OCR for page 226
226
1978b "Maternal unemployment and socioeconomic
status as factors in daughters' career salience:
Some substantive refinements." Sex Roles 4:249-
65.
gingham, W., and E. House
1973 "Counselors view women and work: Accuracy
of information." Vocational Guidance Quar-
terly 21:262-68.
Blau, F.
1977 Equal Pay in the Office. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington.
Blau, F., and W. Hendricks
1979 "Occupational segregation by sex: Trends and
prospects." Journal of Human Resources 12:197-
210.
Blau, F., and C.L. Jusenius
1976 "Economists' approaches to sex segregation in
the labor market: An appraisal." Pp. 181-99 in
M. Blaxall and B. Reagan (eds.), Women in
the Workplace: The Implications of Occupa-
tional Segregation. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Blau, P. M., and O. D. Duncan
1967 The American Occupational Structure. New DeFleur, M.L.
York: Wiley.
Block, J.H.
1973 "Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural
and longitudinal perspectives." American Psy-
chologist 28:512-26.
1976 "Issues, problems, and pitfalls in assessing sex
differences: A critical review of 'The Psychol-
ogy of Sex Differences.'" Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly 22:283-308.
Brenner, O.C., and J. Tomkiewicz
1979 "Job orientation of males and females: Are sex
differences declining?" Personnel Psychology
32:741-50.
Brief, A.P., and L.J. Aldag
1975 "Male-female differences in occupational atti-
tudes within minority groups." Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior 6:305-14.
MARGARET MOONEY MARINl AND MARY C. BR1NTON
Clark, E.T.
1967 "Influence of sex and social class on occupa-
tional preference and perception." Personnel
and Guidance Journal 45:440-44.
Clarke, P., and V. Esposito
1966 "A study of occupational advice for women in
magazines." Journalism Quarterly 43:477-85.
Courtney, A.E., and T.W. Whipple
1974 "Women in TV commercials." Journal of Com-
munication 24:110-18.
Cummings, S., and D. Taebel
1980 "Sexual inequality and the reproduction of con-
sciousness: An analysis of sex-role stereotyping
among children." Sex Roles 6:631-44.
Davis, J.A.
1965 Undergraduate Career Decisions. Chicago: A1-
dine.
Daymont, T.N., and P.L. Tsai
1981 "Sex inequality in the labor market: A multi-
disciplinary approach." Paper presented at the
American Sociological Association's Annual
Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, (:anada, August.
1963 "Children's knowledge of occupational roles and
prestige: Preliminary report." Psychological
Reports 13:760.
1964 "Occupational roles as portrayed on televi-
sion." Public Opinion Quarterly 28:57-74.
Doeringer, P.B., and M.J. Piore
1971 Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Anal-
ysis. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.
Donahue, T.J., and J.W. Costar
1977 "Counselor discrimination against young women
in career selection. " Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology 24:481-86.
Downes, A.C., and D.C. Gowan
1980 "Sex differences in reinforcement and punish-
ment on prime-time television." Sex Roles
6:683-94.
Douvan, E.
Brito, P.K., and C.L. Jusenius 1976 "The role of models in women's professional
development." Psychology of Women Quar-
terly 1:5-20.
Douvan, E., and J. Adelson
1966 The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley.
Dreger, R.M., and L.R. Aiken, Jr.
1957 "The identification of number anxiety in a col-
lege population." Journal of Educational Psy-
chology 48:344-51.
Dwyer, C.A.
1973 ''^ '-~
1978 "Sex segregation in the labor market: An anal-
ysis of young college women's occupational
preferences." Pp. 57-75 in F.L. Mott (ed.),
Women, Work, and Family: Dimensions of
Change in American Society. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington.
Burlin, F.
1976 "Sex-role stereotyping: Occupational aspira-
tions offemale high school students." The School
Counselor 24:102-8.
Callahan, W.J.
1971 "Adolescent attitudes toward mathematics."
Mathematics Teacher 64:751-55.
Chodorow, N.
1978 The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanal-
ysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Cicourel, A.V., and J. Kitsuse
1963 The Educational Decision-Makers. Indianap-
olis: Bobbs-Merrill.
~~5ex diderences in reading: An evaluation and
a critique of current methods." Review of Ed-
ucational Research 43:455-61.
Engelhard, P.A., K.O. Jones, and R.R. Stiggens
1976 "Trends in counselor attitudes about women's
roles." Journal of Counseling Psychology 23:365
72.
England, P.
1981a "Assessing trends in occupational sex segre-
gation, 1900-1976." Pp. 273-95 in I. Berg (ed.),
OCR for page 227
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Sociological Perspectives on Labor Markets.
New York: Academic Press.
1981b "Wage appreciation and depreciation: A test of
neoclassical explanations of occupational sex
segregation." Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Associ-
ation, August 1981.
1982 "The failure of human capital theory to explain
occupational sex segregation." Journal of Hu-
man Resources 17:358-70.
Ernest, J.
1976 Mathematics and Sex. Santa Barbara: Mathe-
matics Department, University of California.
Evenson, J.S., and M.I. O'Neill
1978 Current Perspectives on the Role of Career
Education in Combatting Occupational Sex-Role
Stereotyping. Washington, D.C.: National In-
stitute of Education.
Farmer, H. S., and T.E. Backer
1977 New Career Options for Women: A Counse-
lor's Sourcebook. New York: Human Sciences
Press.
Fennema, E.
1974a "Mathematics learning and the sexes: A re-
view." Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 5:126-39.
1974b "Sex differences in mathematics learning:
Why???" The Elementary School Journal 75:-
183-90.
Fennema, E., and J. Sherman
1977 "Sex related differences in mathematics
achievements, spatial visualization and a~ec-
tive factors." American Educational Research
Journal 14:51-71.
Foreit, K.G., T. Agar, J. Byers, J. Larue, H. Lokey,
M. Pallazini, M. Patterson, and L. Smith
1980 "Sex bias in the newspaper treatment of male-
centered and female-centered news stories."
Sex Roles 6:475-80.
Fox, G.L.
1974 "Some observations and data on the availability
of same-sex role models as a factor in under-
graduate career choice." Sociological Focus 7:15-
30.
Fox, L.H., D. Tobin, and L. Brody
1979 "Sex role socialization and achievement in
mathematics." Pp. 303-32 in M.A. Wittig and
A.C. Peterson (eds.), Sex-Related Differences
in Cognitive Functioning: Developmental Is-
sues. New York: Academic Press.
Franzwa, H.H.
1975 "Female roles in women's magazine fiction,
1940-1970. " Pp. 42-53 in R. K. Unger and F. L.
Denmark (eds.), Women: Dependent or In-
dependent Variable? New York: Psychological
Dimensions, Inc.
Frieze, I.H., J.E. Parsons, P.B. Johnson, D.N. Ruble,
G.L. Zellman
1978 Women and Sex Roles: A Social Psychological
Perspective. New York: W.W. Norton.
Frueh, T., and P.C. McGhee
1975 "Traditional sex-role developments and amount
227
of time spent watching television.'? Develop-
mental Psychology 1:109.
Garrison, H.H.
1979 "Gender differences in the career aspirations
of recent cohorts of high school seniors. " Social
Problems 27:170-85.
Ginsberg, E., S.W. Ginsberg, S. Axelrod, and J.L.
Herma
1951 Occupational Choice: An Approach to a Gen-
eral Theory. New York: Columbia University
-
~ress.
Goldstein, E.
1979 "Effect of same-sex and cross-sex role models
on the subsequent academic productivity of
scholars." American Psychologist 34:407-10.
Good, T.L., J.N. Sikes, and J.E. Brophy
1973 "Effects of teacher sex and student sex on class-
room interaction." Journal of Educational Psy-
chology 65:74-87.
Gottfredson, L.S.
1978 "Race and sex differences in occupational as-
pirations: Their development and conse-
quences for occupational segregation." Report
No. 254, Center for Social Organization of
Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Grasso, J.
1980 "The effects of school curriculum on young
women." Pp. 79-114 in Education, Sex Equity
and Occupational Stereotyping. Washington,
D.C.: National Commission for Employment
Policy.
Greenberger, E., and L.D. Steinberg
1983 "Sex differences in early labor force experi-
ence: Harbinger of things to come." Social
Forces 62:467-86.
Gross, E.
1968 "Plus ca change . . .? The sexual structure of
occupations over time." Social Problems 16:198-
208.
Harmon, L.W.
1971 "The chil&ood and adolescent career plans of
college women." Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior 1:45-56.
Harnischteger, A., and D.E. Wiley
1980 "High school tracking and vocational stereo-
typing: Means of socioeconomic placement."
In Education, Sex Equity and Occupational
Stereotyping. Washington, D. C.: National
Commission for Employment Policy.
Harren, V.A., R.A. Kass, H.E.A. Tinsley, and J.R.
Moreland
1979 "Influences of gender, sex-role attitudes, and
cognitive complexity on gender-dominant ca-
reer choices." Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy 26:227-34.
Harris, S.R.
1974 "Sex typing in girls' career choices: A challenge
to counselors." Vocational Guidance Quarterly
23:128-33.
Hartley, R.E.
1966 "A developmental view of female sex-role iden-
tification." In B.J. Biddle and J. Thomas (eds.),
OCR for page 228
228
Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York:
Wiley.
Hartley, R., and A. Klein
1959 "Sex-role concepts among elementary school
age girls." Journal of Marriage and the Family
20:59-64.
Hatch, M.G., and D.L. Hatch
1958 "Problems of married working women as pre-
sented by three popular working women's
magazines." Social Forces 37:148-53.
Hauser, R.M., W.H. Sewell, and D.F. Alwin
1976 "High school effects on achievement." Pp. 309-
41 in W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, and D. L.
Featherman feds.), Schooling and Achieve-
ment in American Society. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Heilman, M.E.
1979 "High school students' occupational interest as
a function of projected sex ratios in male-dom-
inated occupations." Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 64:275-79.
Hershenson, D.B. , and R. M. Roth
1966 "A decisional process model." Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology 13:368-70.
Herzog, A.R.
1982 "High school seniors' occupational plans and
values: Trends in sex differences 1976 through
1980." Sociology of Education 55:1-13.
Heshusius-Gilsdorf, L.F., and D.L. Gilsdorf
1975 "Girls are females, boys are males: A content
analysis of career materials." Personnel and
Guidance Journal 54:207-11.
Hewitt, L.S.
1975 "Age and sex differences in the vocational as-
pirations of elementary school children." Jour-
nal of Social Psychology 96:173-77.
Heyns, B.
1974 "Social selection and stratification within
schools. " American Journal of Sociology 78: 1434-
51.
Hilton, T.L.
1962 "Career decision-making." Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology 9:291-98.
Hilton, T. L., and G.W. Berglund
1974 "Sex differences in mathematics achievement:
A longitudinal study." Journal of Educational
Research 67:231-371.
Hind, R.R., and T.E. Wirth
1969 "The effect of university experience on occu-
pational choice among undergraduates." So-
ciology of Education 42:50-70.
Hofferth, S.L.
1980a "High school experience in the attainment
process of non-college boys and girls: When
and why do their paths diverge?" Working Pa-
per 1303-01, The Urban Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C.
1980b "Long-term labor market effects of vocational
education on young women." In Education,
Sex Equity and Occupational Stereotyping.
Washington, D.C.: National Commission for
Employment Policy.
A1ARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BR1NTON
Hoffman, L.W.
1974 "Effects on child." Pp. 126-68 in L.W. Hoff-
man and F.I. Nye (eds.), Working Mothers.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1977 "Changes in family roles, socialization, and sex
differences." American Psychologist 32:644-57.
Hoffman, L.W., and F.I. Nye
1975 Working Mothers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holland, J.L.
1959 "A theory of vocational choice." Journal of
Counseling Psychology 6:35-45.
1966 The Psychology of Vocational Choice: A The-
ory of Personality Types and Model Environ-
ments. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdel.
1973 Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Ca-
reers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenffce-Hall.
Homey, K.
1932 "The dread of women." International Journal
of Psychoanalysis 13:348-60.
Huston, A.C.
In
press "Sex-typing." In P.H. Mussen (ed.), Carmi-
chael's Manual of Child Psychology, 4th ed.
New York: Wiley.
Kaldor, D.R., and D.G. Zytowski
1969 "A maximizing model of occupational decision-
making." Personnel and Guidance Journal
47:781-88.
Kaniuga, N., T. Scott, and E. Gade
1974 "Working women portrayed on evening tele-
vision programs." Vocational Guidance Quar-
terly 23:134-37.
Karpicke, S.
1980 "Perceived and real sex differences in college
students' career planning." Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology 27:240-45.
Kautman, D.R., and B.L. Richardson
1982 Achievement and Women: Challenging the
Assumptions. New York: Free Press.
Kepner, H. S., and L. R. Koehn
1977 "Sex roles in mathematics: A study of sex ster-
eot,vpes in elementary mathematics texts." The
Arithmetic Teacher 24:379-85.
Kimmel, E.A.
1970 "Can children's books change children's val-
ues?" Educational Leadership 28:209-14.
Klein, M.
1957 Envy and Gratitude. New York: Basic Books.
Klemmack, D. L., and J. N. Edwards
1973 "Women's acquisition of stereotyped occupa-
tional aspirations." Sociology and Social Re-
search 57:510-25.
Kohout, V.A., and J.W. M. Rothney
1964 "A longitudinal study of vocational prefer-
ences." American Educational Research Jour-
nal 1:10-21.
Kolberg, L.
1966 "A cognitive-developmental analysis of chil-
dren's sex-role concepts and attitudes." Pp. 82-
172 in E.E. Maccoby (ed.), The Development
of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
OCR for page 229
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Krumboltz, J.D.7 A.M. Mitchell, and G.B. Jones
1976 "A social learning theory of career selection.
Counseling Psychologist 6:71-80.
Kuvlesky, W.P., and R.C. Beater
1967 "The relevance of adolescents' occupational as-
pirations for subsequent job attainments." Ru-
ral Sociology 32:290-301.
Lauver, P.J., R.M. Gastellum, and M. Sheehey
1975 "Bias in 00H illustrations?" Vocational Guid-
ance Quarterly 23:335-40.
Lerner, H.E.
1974 "Early origins of envy and devaluation of women:
Implications for sex role stereotypes." Bulletin
of the Menninger Clinic 38:538-53.
1978 "Adoptive and pathogenic aspects of sex-role
stereotypes: Implications for parenting and
psychotherapy." American Journal of Psychia- Miller S. M.
try 135:48-52.
Levy, B.
1972 "Sex role socialization in schools." Today's Ed-
ucation 61:9,27-29.
Lewin-Epstein, N.
1981 Youth Employment During High School. Re-
port prepared for the National Center for Ed-
ucation Statistics under contract OE-300-78-
0208 with the U. S. Department of Education.
Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Looft, W.R.
1971a "Sex differences in the expression of vocational
aspirations by elementary school children."
Developmental Psychology 5:366.
1971b "Vocational aspirations of second-grade girls."
Psychological Reports 28:241-42.
Lueptow, L.B.
1980 "Social change and sex-role change in adoles-
cent orientations toward life, work, and
achievement: 1964-1975." Social Psychology
Quarterly 43:48-59.
1981 "Sex-typing and change in the occupational
choices of high school seniors: 1964-1975." So-
ciology of Education 54:16-24.
Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin
1974 The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Marini, M.M.
1978a "Sex differences in the determination of ado-
lescent aspirations: A review of research." Sex
Roles 4:723-53.
1978b "The transition to adulthood: Sex differences
in educational attainment and age at mar-
riage." American Sociological Review 43:483-
507.
1980 "Sex differences in the process of occupational
attainment: A closer look." Social Science Re-
search 9:307-61.
Marini, M.M., and E. Greenberger Nelson, R.C.
1978 "Sex differences in occupational aspirations and
expectations." Sociology of Work and Occu-
pations 5:147-78.
Martin, C.L., and C.F. Halverson, Jr.
1981 "A schematic processing model of sex typing
229
and stereotyping in children." Child Devel-
opment 52:1119-34.
Mason, K.O., J.L. Czajka, and S. Arber
1976 "Change in U.S. women's sex role attitudes,
1964-1974." American Sociological Review
41:573-96.
McClelland, D.C.
1976 Power: The Inner Experience. New York:
Halsted.
Mead, M.
1935 Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive So-
cieties. New York: Dell.
Medvene, A.M., and A.M. Collins
1976 "Occupational prestige and appropriateness:
The views of mental health specialists. " Journal
of Vocational Behavior 9:63-71.
1975 "Effects of maternal employment on sex role
perception, interests, and self-esteem in kin-
dergarten girls." Developmental Psychology 11:
405-6.
Miluar, J.
1973 "Sex Stereotyping in Mathematics and Science
Textbooks for Elementary and Junior High
Schools." Pp. 56-59 in Report on Sex Bias in
the Public Schools. New York: Education
Committee, New York chapter of the National
Organization for Women.
Mischel, W.
1970 "Sex typing and socialization. " Pp. 3-72 in P. H.
Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child
Psychology, ad ea., Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W., and J. Grusec
1966 "Determinants of the rehearsal and transmis-
sion of neutral and aversive behaviors. " Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 3:197-205.
Mitchell, A.M., G.B. Jones, andJ.D. Krumboltz~eds.)
1975 A Social Learning Theory of Career Decision
Making. Palo Alto, Calif.: American Institute
for Research.
Money, J., and A.A. Ehrhardt
1972 Man and Woman, Boy and Girl. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
National Advisory Council on Vocational Education and
National Advisory Council on Women's Educational
Programs
1980 Increasing Sex Equity: The Impact of the 1976
Vocational Education Amendments on Sex
Equity in Vocational Education. Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Department of Education.
National Advisory Council on Women's Educational
Programs
1981 Title IX: The Half Full, Half Empty Glass.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
1963 "Knowledge and interests concerning sixteen
occupations among elementary and secondary
school students." Educational and Psycholog-
ical Measurement 23:741-54.
OCR for page 230
230 MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
1981 Women and Work: A Psychological Perspec-
tive. New York: Praeger.
Nilsen, A.P.
1977 "Sexism in children's books and elementary
teaching materials. " Pp. 161-80 in A. P. Nilsen,
H. Bosmajian, H. L. Gershuny, and J. P. Stan-
ley (eds.), Sexism and Language. Urbana, Ill.: Polachek, S.W.
National Council of Teachers of English.
Nolan, J.D., J.P. Galst, and M.A. White
1977 "Sex bias on children's television programs."
Journal of Psychology 96:197-204.
O'Bryant, S. L., M. E. Durrett, and J.W. Pennebaker
1980 "Sex differences in knowledge of occupational
dimensions across four age levels." Sex Roles
6:331-37.
Oetzel, R.M.
1966 "Annotated bibliography." Pp. 223-51 in E.E.
Maccoby (ed.), The Development of Sex Dif-
ferences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press.
O'Hara, R.P.
1962 "The roots of careers." Elementary School
Journal 62:277-80.
Nieva, V.F., and B.A. Gutek Plomin, R., and T.T. Foch
1981 "Sex differences and individual differences."
Child Development 52:386-88.
Poffenberger, T. M., and D.A. Norton
1959 "Factors in the formation of attitudes toward
mathematics." Journal of Educational Re-
search 52:171-76.
1976 "Occupational segregation: An alternative hy-
pothesis." Journal of Contemporary Business
5:1-12.
1979 "Occupational segregation among women:
Theory, evidence and a prognosis." Pp. 137-
57 in C.B. Lloyd, E.S. Andrews, and C.L.
Gilroy (eds.), Women in the Labor Market.
New York: Columbia University Press.
1981 "Occupational self-selection: A human capital
approach to sex differences in occupational
structure." Review of Economics and Statistics
63:60-69.
Poloma, M.M., and T.N. Garland
1971 "The myth of the egalitarian family: Familial
roles and the professionally employed wife."
Pp. 741-61 in A. Theodore (ed.), The Profes-
sional Woman. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenk-
Oppenheimer, V. man.
1970 The Female Labor Force in the United States.
Population Monograph Series, No. 5. Berke- Porter, R.J.
fey: University of California.
Papalia, D.T., and S.S. Tennent
1975 "Vocational aspirations in preschoolers: A man-
ifestation of early sex role stereotyping." Sex
Roles 1:197-99.
Parelius, A.P.
1981 "Gender differences in past achievement, self-
concept, and orientation toward mathematics,
science, and engineering among college fresh-
men." Paper presented at the American So-
ciological Association's Annual Meeting, To-
ronto, Ontario, Canada, August.
1982 "Recruitment to mathematics, science, and en-
gineering: Gender differences and similarities
in the experiences of college freshmen. " Paper
presented at the American Sociological Asso-
ciation'sAnnualMeeeting San Francisco Cal-
.,~ . , ~ ~ Rehberg, R.A. and L. Hotchkiss
norn~a, Septemner.
Parsons, J.E.
1978 "Classic theories of sex-role socialization." Pp.
95-113 in I. FAeze, J. Parsons, P. Johnson, D.
Ruble, and G. Zellman (eds.), Women and Sex
Roles. New York: Norton.
Peng, S.S., W.B. Fetters, and A.J. Kolstad
1981 High School and Beyond: A Capsule Descrip-
tion of High School Students. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
1954 "Predicting vocational plans of high school sen-
ior boys." Personnel and Guidance Journal
33:215-18.
Project on Equal Education Rights
1978 Stalled at the Start: Government Action on Sex
Bias in the Schools. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Organization for Women Legal Defense
and Education Fund.
Rebecca, M., R. Hefner, and B. Oleshansky
1976 "A model of sex-role transcendence." Journal
of Social Issues 32:197-206.
Reese, H.W., and W.F. Overton
1970 "Models of development and theories of de-
velopment." Pp. 115-45 in L.R. Goulet and
P. B. Baltes (eds.), Life-Span Developmental
Psychology: Research and Theory. New York:
Academic Press.
Perrucci, C.C.
1970 "Minority status and the pursuit of professional
careers." Social Forces 49:245-59. Rogers, M.A.
Pleck, J.H.
1975 "Masculinity-femininity: Current and alterna-
tive paradigms." Sex Roles 1:161-78.
1972 "Educational decision-makers: The school
guidance counselor and social mobility." So-
ciology of Education 45:339-61.
Rieder, C.H.
1977 "Work, women and vocational education
American Education 13:27-32.
Robinson, J.
1977 How Americans Use Time: A Social-Psycho-
logical Analysis. New York: Praeger.
Rodman, H., P. Voydanoff, and A.E. Lovejoy
1974 "The range of aspirations: A new approach."
Social Problems 22:184-98.
1975 "A different look at word problems even
mathematics texts are sexist." Mathematics
Teacher 68:305-7.
OCR for page 231
SEX TYPING IN OCCUPATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Rosenbaum, J.C.
1978 "The structure of opportunity in school. " Social
Forces 57:234~-56.
198() "Track misperception and frustrated college
plans: An analysis of the effects of tracks and
track perceptions in the National Longitudinal
Survey." Sociology of Education 53:74-88.
Rossi, A.S.
1965 "Barriers to the career choice of engineering,
medicine, or science among American women."
Pp. 51-127 in J.A. MattEeld and C.G. Van Aken
feds.), Women and the Scientific Professions.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Schafer, W.E., and C. Olexa
1971 Tracking and Opportunity. Scranton, Pa.:
Chandler.
Schmidt, J.L., and J.W. Rothney
1955 "Variability of vocational choices of high school
students." Personnel and Guidance Journal
34: 142-46.
Schlossberg, N.K., and J. Goodman
1972 "A woman's place: Children's sex stereotyping
of occupations." Vocational Guidance Quar-
terly 20:266-70.
Schramm, W., J. Lyle, and E.B. Parker Stright, V.N.
1961 Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stan- 1960
ford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Sewell, W.H., and A.M. Ornstein
1964 "Community of residence and occupational
choice." American Journal of Sociology 70:551-
63.
Sewell, W.H., A.O. Haller, and A. Fortes
1969 "The educational and early occupational at-
tainment process." American Sociological Re-
view 34:82-92.
Sewell, W.H., A.O. Haller, and G. Ohlendorf
1970 "The educational and early occupational at-
tainment process: Replications and revisions."
American Sociological Review 35:1014-27.
Sewell, W.H., R.M. Hauser, and W.C. Wolf
1980 "Sex, schooling, and occupational status.
American Journal of Sociology 86:551-83.
Shepard, W.O., and D.T. Hess
1975 "Attitudes in four age groups toward sex role
division in adult occupations and activities."
Journal of Vocational Behavior 6:27-39.
23'
Smith-Lovin, L., and A.R. Tickamyer
1978 "Nonrecursive models of labor force partici-
pation, fertility behavior, and sex role atti-
tudes." American Sociological Review 43:541-
~q
Spitze, G., and J. Huber
1980 "Changing attitudes towards women's nonfam-
ily roles: 1938 to 1978." Sociology of Work and
Occupations 7:317-35.
Steele, B.
1977 "Sexism in math texts." Edcentric (Spring/
Summer):17-19, 60.
Stephenson, R.M.
1957 "Mobility orientation and stratification of 1,000
ninth graders." American Sociological Review
22:204-12.
Stern, R.H.
1976 "Review article: Sexism in foreign language
textbooks." Foreign Language Annals 9:294-
99.
Sternglanz, S.H., and L.A. Serbin
1974 "Sex role stereotyping in children's television
programs." Developmental Psychology 10:710-
15.
"A study of the attitudes toward arithmetic of
students and teachers in the third, fourth and
sixth grades." The Arithmetic Teacher 7:280-
86.
Super, D.E.
1953 "A theory of vocational development." The
American Psychologist 8:185-90.
1957 The Psychology of Careers: An Introduction to
Vocational Development. New York: Harper.
Sweet, J.A.
1973 Women in the Labor Force. New York: Sem-
inar Press.
Tangri, S.S.
1972 "Determinants of occupational role innovation
among college women." Journal of Social Is-
sues 28:177-99.
Tavris, C., and C. Offir
1977 The Longest War: Sex Differences in Per-
spective. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanov-
ich.
Tedesco, N.S.
Sherman, J., and Fennema, E. 1974 "Patterns in prime time." Journal of Com-
munication 24:119-24.
Terman, L.M., and L.E. Tyler
1954 "Psychological sex differences." Pp. 1064-1114
in L. Carmichael (ed.), Manual of Child Psy-
chology, 2d ed. New York: Wiley.
Thomas, A.H., and N.R. Stewart
1971 "Counselor response to female clients with de-
viate and conforming career goals." Journal of
Counseling Psychology 18:352-57.
Thompson, C.L., and J.L. Parker
1971 "Fifth graders view the work world scene."
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling
54:281-88.
1977 "The study of mathematics by high school girls
and boys: Related variables." American Edu-
cational Research Journal 14: 159-68.
Siegel, C.L.F.
1973 "Sex differences in the occupational choices of
second graders." Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior 3:15-19.
Siegel, E., and E.A. Curtis
1963 "Familial correlates of orientation toward fu-
ture employment among college women."
Journal of Educational Psychology 54:33-37.
Singer, S.L., and B. Stefflre
1954 "Sex differences in job values and desires."
Personnel and Guidance Journal 32:483-84.
OCR for page 232
232
MARGARET MOONEY MARINI AND MARY C. BRINTON
Thornton, A., and D. Freedman Waite, L.J., and P.M. Hudis
1979 "Changes in the sex role attitudes of women,
1962-1977: Evidence from a panel study."
American Sociological Review 44:831-42.
Thurow, L.
1975 Generating Inequality. New York: Basic.
Tibbetts, S.L.
1975 "Sex-role stereotyping in the lower grades: Part
of the solution." Journal of Vocational Behavior
6:255-61.
Tidball, M.E.
1973 "Perspective on academic women and affirm-
ative action." Educational Record 54:130-35.
Tittle, C.K.
1981 Careers and Family: Sex Roles and Adolescent
Life Plans. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Turner, R.H.
1964 "Some aspects of women's ambition." Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 70:271-85.
Tyler, L.E. Welch
1965 The Psychology of Human Differences. New 1979
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Umstot, M.E.
1980 "Occupational sex-role liberality of third-,
fourth-, fifth-, and seventh-grade females." Sex
Roles 6:611-18.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
1978 Social Indicators of Equality for Minorities and
Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
1977 United States Working Women: A Databook.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U. S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau
1975 1975 Handbook on Women Workers, Bulletin
297. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U. S. President's Council of Economic Advisors
1973 Economic Report of the President. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vanek, J.E.
1974 "Time spent in housework." Scientific Amer-
ican 231:116-20.
Verheyden-Hilliard, M.E.
1977 "Counseling: Potential superbomb against sex-
ism." American Education (April):12-15.
1973 "Career counseling for women." Counseling Wood, P.S.
Psychologist 4:54-67.
Vogel, S.R., I.K. Broverman, D.M. Broverman, F.E.
Clarkson, and P.S. Rosenkrantz
1970 "Maternal employment and perception of sex
roles among college students." Developmental
Psychology 3:384-91.
Vroom, V.H.
1964 Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Waite, L.J.
1976 "Working wives: 1940-1960." American Soci-
ological Review 41:65-80.
1980 The Development and Maintenance of a Seg-
regated Labor Force: Review, Synthesis, Cri-
tique of Recent Research. Report prepared for
the National Commission for Employment Pol-
icy.
Walker, K.E., and M.E. Woods
1976 Time Use: A Measure of Household Produc-
tion of Family Goods and Services. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Center for the Family, American
Home Economics Association.
Weitzman, L.J., and D. Rizzo
1974 Biased Textbooks: A Research Perspective.
Washington, D.C.: The Resource Center on
Sex Roles in Education, National Foundation
for the Improvement of Education.
Weitzman, L.J., D. Eifler, E. Hokada, and C. Ross
1972 "Sex role socialization in picture books for pre-
school children." American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 77:1125-50.
, F.
"Comment." Pp. 168-70 in C.B. Lloyd, E.S.
Andrews, and C.L. Gilroy (eds.), Women in
the Labor Market. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Werts, C.E.
1966 "Social class and initial career choice of college
freshmen." Sociology of Education 39:74-85.
White, K.
1967 "Social background variables related to career
commitment of women teachers." Personnel
and Guidance Journal 45:649-52.
Williams, G.
1976 "Trends in occupational differentiation by sex."
Sociology of Work and Occupations 3:38-62.
1979 "The changing U.S. labor force and occupa-
tional differentiation by sex." Demography
16:73-88.
Witty, P.A., and H.C. Lehman
1930 "Some factors which influence the child's choice
of occupations." Elementary School Journal
31:285-91.
Women on Words and Images
1975a Channeling Children: Sex Stereotyping in
Prime-Time TV. Princeton, N.J.: Women on
Words and Images.
1975b Dick and Jane as Victims: Sex Stereotyping in
Children's Readers. Princeton, N.J.: Women
on Words and Images.
1980 "Sex differences in sports." New York Times
Magazine, May 18:30-33, 38, 98-104.
Zellner, H.
1975 "The determinants of occupational segrega-
tion." Pp. 125-45 in C.B. Lloyd (ed.), Sex,
Discrimination, and the Division of Labor. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Zinberg, D.
1974 "When the future becomes the present." In
R.B. Kundsin (ed.), Women and Success: The
Anatomy of Achievement. New York: William
Morrow.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
sex segregation
