Click for next page ( 92


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 91
4 The EEects of Sex'Role'Related Factors on Occupational Choice and Salary LINDA MEZYDLO SUBICH, GERALD V. BARRETT, DENNIS DOVERSPIKE, and RALPH A. ALEXANDER Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ant] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pay discrimination is still an issue for the courts and the subject of many scholarly inquiries (Cooper ant] Barrett, 1984; Milkovich and Newman, 1984; Rynes and Milkovich, 1986~. Many of these inquiries focus, as Rynes ant] Milkovich (1986) point out, on. the definition and measurement of market wages. Although this focus is an important one, an additional area of research that may prove fruitful is the examination of how and why women continue to enter lower paying jobs, fad! to advance in their salary and position, or both. Osmond (1984) highlights a wide variety of social and per- sonal factors that may have to be considered to unravel the pay gap between men an women. Similarly, Schwab et al. (1987) sug- gest the need to look at employment as a "two-way decision process." This paper ex- amines how factors related to sex-role may affect occupational choices of women ant] men and their obtained wages. 91 THE OCCUPATIONAL CHOICES OF MEN AND WOMEN It has been observed that women's jobs tend to occupy the periphery rather than the core of the industrial sector (Ward and Mueller, 1985~. Men are found, for example, in steel while women are fount] in support services related to the steel industry. These peripheral jobs, in contrast to core jobs, tend to be lower paying; numerous studies have documented the relationship between female-dominated occupations and lower wages (Lewis, 1985; O'Bryant et al., 1978~. Women, however, appear to continue to select such jobs despite their lower wages. Evidence suggests that while (discriminatory policy accounts in part for men s anc] wom- en's sex-stereotypic job choices and salary differentials, other factors are important as well (Lewis, 1985~. Socialization, sex-role stereotyping, an role differentiation of women have all been proposed as constraints on women's choices that lead to lower paying positions (Carcl et al., 1980; MalIan, 1982; O'Leary, 19744. These processes have been called on to explain why women in laboratory settings

OCR for page 91
92 pay themselves less than men pay them- seIves for identical work and less than what observers judge their work to be worth (Callahan-Levy and Messe, 1979; Major and Forcey, 1985~. Women seem to value their efforts less than do men, a situation that leads to gender differences in salary expectations- that is, women expect less than what men expect (Major and Konar, 1984; Posner et al., 1985~. This gender difference in expectations is especially salient in light of a study by Major et al. (1984), who produced laboratory ev- idence that the more money an applicant requested for salary, the more he or she was awarcled if hired. If women expect less, it seems likely that they will also request less money from prospective employers. Zappert and Weinstein (1985) suggest that women may be more easily satisfied than men with regarc] to salary, and Sauser and York (1978) have presented some evidence for this explanation. Empirical examinations of whether this means that men and women differ in the value they place on monetary rewards, however, have yielded mixed, weak results. Men and women are found by some to value pay similarly (Brief et al., 1977; Lacy et al., 1983; Walker et al., 1982) and by others to value it differently (Bartol, 1976; Subich et al., 1986~. Only in theo- retical papers (e.g., Parsons ant] Goff, 1978) and descriptive studies of higher and lower paid women (.lacobowitz and VidIer, 1982; Nor~holm and Westbrook, 1982) however, has the concept of differences in values received any consistent support. Such ten- tative evidence floes not argue strongly for gender differences in values regarding sal- ary. Women's lower earnings, then, are prob- ably not a result of their being unconcerned about finances; instead, they may be partly a function of their initial choices of lower paying occupations and their willingness to accept lower salaries. Such behaviors may be tied to socialization processes that influ- PAY EQUITY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES ence women's views of their abilities and their standards for compensation. The re- lationship between women's socialization and the process of occupational choice has been examined extensively for a variety of important reasons, including the fact that early occupational choices lay the foundation for future pay and advancement (London and Stumpf, 1983~. Expectancy theory mod- els of women's occupational choice, for ex- ample, have been used to show the pre- dictive utility of such socially transmitted factors as the values of various job outcomes, the influence of significant others' expec- tations, and personal motivations (Bartol, 1976~. Wheeler and Mahoney's (1981) theo- ry of occupational choice also addresses the impact of socialization on women's occu- pational choices; they suggest that choice is a function of attraction to the occupation, expectation of attainment, and expected costs of the attainment all factors on which women's socialization is likely to be a pow- erful influence. It therefore makes good theoretical sense to suggest that variation in career choice is clue, at least in part, to socialization processes (Eccles, 19864. Empirical support for the existence of socialization differences between women who choose nontraditional, higher paying oc- cupations and those who choose traditional positions has been reported. Moore and Rickel (1980), Wa(ldell (1983), and Williams and McCullers (1983) all found women in nontraditional careers to be more masculine in their sex-role identification. StandIey and Soule (1974) described women in a variety of nontraditional occupations as having had similar socialization patterns with regard to engaging in "boyish" play, being considered special by parents because of firstborn sta- tus, and having had achievement empha- sized by their parents. Other important factors in choosing a nontraditional occu- pation are exposure to innovative female role models (Doll et al., 1982; Gilbert, 1981) an(l to information about the availability of

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS such occupations for women (Bridges and Bower, 19851. On the basis of these studies, it would seem that women who choose more pres- tigious, maTe-dominated occupations are fundamentally different in experience and socialization from those who make tradi- tional choices. They adhere to attitudes, beliefs, and standards that are more similar to those of men and the masculine role, and they may have been exposed to more nontraditional information than their peers who make traditional choices. That differ- ence seems to enable them to go beyond the barriers that restrain other women. This interpretation is further bolstered by evidence of gender differences in career behavior. Since most women adhere to stan- dards of behavior associated with the fem- inine sex-role stereotype and most men adhere to standards of behavior associated with the masculine sex-role stereotype, comparisons by gender often provide ad- ditional information regarding sex-role-re- lated differences. Van der Burg and Schoe- maker (1985) pointed to the effects of passive discrimination, negative expectations, and differential skill acquisition on women s poorer labor chances. Raelin (1982) de- scribed women as career deprived as a result of societal and individual factors. Research has shown that men perceive more job options for themselves than do women (Poole and Cooney, 1985), apply for more jobs and receive more offers (Leviton and Whitely, 1981), and explore options more systematically and with greater self- esteem (Stumpf and Colarelli, 19801. Wom- en have been found to be more likely to gravitate to predominantly female occupa- tions than men and less likely to assume that they will get preferential treatment because of their sex (Heilman and Herlihy, 1984), to expect to have more trouble in getting a job and less ability to do well at it (Gurin, 1981), and to be more influenced by a job s intrinsic factors (Mfller, 1980~. 93 Despite gender differences in organizational commitment and extent of role conflict (Graddick and Farr, 1983; Polachek, 1981), women and men in business have been found to be similar in their potential for management and advancement (Ritchie and Moses, 1983~. This latter study, however, is limited in that it studied a group of women who may already have been self-selected on the basis of masculine sex-role orienta- tion. Overall, socialization does appear to be an important influence on women s work attitudes and outcomes. THE INFLUENCE OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS This paper focuses on three factors related to sex-role that may influence the occupa- tional choices made and salaries attained by women: occupational information, self-con- fidence, and risk taking. Occupational in- formation is examined as a factor that may mediate sex-role stereotypic occupational choices. Women s awareness of occupations and their salary structures appears less ac- curate and complete than men s. This may lead to women s consideration of erroneous information in the occupational decision- making process as well as omission of in- formation from the process. Gender differ- ences in self-confidence may likewise con- tribute to sex-role stereotypic occupational choices. Women s lower expectations for their performance in challenging or male- dominated occupations may result in lower salary expectations and attainment. Finally, women s lesser tendencies toward risk tak- ing may limit the range of their occupational behavior to the extent that opportunities for advancement or salary increase may be lost. These factors, then, are examined so they may be considered for inclusion in models that attempt to explain the gender differences noted in occupational behavior and its outcomes.

OCR for page 91
94 Occupational Information One way of broadening career exploration and choice considerations may be to increase exposure to information regarding occupa- tional choices. Greene et al. (1982) and Zasada (1978) have produced evidence that career behavior, especially sex-typec! career behavior, may be altered through provision of information. Vomen, more so than men, have been noted to report a lack of infor- mation about nontraditional occupations (Yanico, 1983; Yanico and Hardin, 1986; Yanico and Mihibauer, 1983), and Pedro (1982) found men seek more occupational information than women. With regard to salary information pos- sesse(1 by men and women, O'Bryant et al. (1978) found male and female high school students to rate "male-dominated" jobs as having higher salaries than "female-domi- natec! jobs and men as more likely to be better paid than women in whatever type of job they chose. BeyarcI-Tyler an(l Haring (1984) also reported perceptions of the pres- tige and monetary worth of a job to be a function of the job and its incumbent, and men were most often given the earnings advantage. In addition, their subjects re- ported being discouraged from nontradi- tional choices, a finding with far more se- rious consequences for women than for men since traditionally male-dominated occu- pations have always been accorcled higher value. Women's salary information, then, may be both more limited than that of men and permeated with the belief that women's work is worth less than that of men. Even when women choose nontraditional occupations, there is some evidence that they receive lower salaries. Sigelman et al. (1982) compared salaries of male and female administrators an(1 found that the women earned $5,000 per year less overall, and $2,000 per year less when responsibilities were matched. Similar results were ob- tained by Tucker (1985) when she examined salaries of men an(l women holding a mas- PAY EQUITY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES ter's degree in business administration. One hypothesis may be that the salaries re- queste(1 and accepted by women pursuing nontraditional occupations are influenced by the salary structure with which the women are familiar: A level of earnings that is low by male standards may be relatively at- tractive for a woman acquainted only with typical female earnings. This may partially explain women s acceptance of lower earn- ings in jobs that are typically well paying, but other factors, such as self-confidence and risk-taking behavior, may also play a role. Self-Confidence One factor that influences women's Tower earnings may be their lower expectations for job performance an(1 advancement. It has been suggested that one key to ad- vancement and higher salaried positions is the expectation that one will succeed (Keown and Keown, 1982), and Stake (1979) has propose(l that self-esteem may play a par- ticularly important role in women's career development. In fact, Hackett and Betz (1981) have adapted Bandura's theory of self-efficacy to explain gender (differences in career behavior; they argue that women's socialization has not prepared them to ex- pect success in career areas and that this accounts for many of the difficulties they experience. Supportive of this mode} is the finding that higher self-esteem correlates with more effective job search behaviors and more satisfying outcomes (Ellis and Taylor, 1983~. Studies of children in(licate that, even at early ages, girls and boys perceive men, particularly those engaged in traditionally masculine activities, as more competent than women (Bridges and del Campo, 1981; Ro- senthal and Chapman, 19801. These atti- tudes seem to be internalized and to persist in later life, as evidenced first by WalIach and Kogan's (1961) and then by Erkut's (1983) finding that female students expected

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS to do more poorly than mate students even though their performance was actually equivalent to that of the males. Alagna (1982) and Erkut (1983) suggest that it is not gender but sex-role that determines expectations of success. They present information that the feminine sex-role is associated with low- er perceptions of competence, self-esteem, and performance. According to these au- thors, the fact that more women than men endorse such a sex-role explains the ap- parent gentler differences in self-concept that have been noted by other researchers. In studies that have examined ratings of male and female performance it has been found that both sexes clowngracle women and upgrade men (Deaux and Taynor, 1973; Feather and Simon, 19751. Surprisingly, Ezell et al. (1980) reporter] that when male and female managers rated the competence of female managers, it was the female man- agers who were most critical of other fe- males' performance. These consistent fincI- ings of an association between feminine gender or sex-role and lower perceives! com- petence have rarely been disputed (e.g., Greenhaus and Simon, 1976) and imply that women may have to work harder to achieve the same performance ratings as men. In studies of individuals' personal per- formance ratings, similar findings have been reported. Working women's self-esteem has been found to be positively related to self- perceptions of job performance (Goh and Mealiea, 1984~. Both women's and (espe- cially) men's perceptions of efficacy have also been found to be positively linked to performance (Weinberg et al., 1980~. Such evidence suggests that women's lower self- ratings of job performance, as well as their related lower self-esteem and lower efficacy, may prevent them from asking for a salary increase whether or not their actual per- formance merits it. In addition, lower per- ceptions of efficacy may actually interfere with performance such that advancement is hinclere(l. Lemkau (1979) reviewed the literature 95 from 1930 to 1976 on characteristics of wom- en in nontraditional occupations and found that the women who succee(le(l at those occupations were more masculine, self-con- fident, and dominant than those in tradi- tional careers. Zuckerman (1980) also re- ported that self-confidence, long considerecI a masculine attribute, was a good predictor of choosing high-prestige careers for both men and women. AcIditional research on gender differences in occupational prefer- ences has shown that expectation of success is related to a preference for higher paying and more prestigious careers (Collins et al., 1980; Wheeler, 1983a). Complementarily, Stake (1981) found that women are less likely to express preferences for tra(litionally mas- culine careers and more likely to set lower goals for themselves. Special attention has been paid to women in management positions because of their nontraditional status. Work in this area sug- gests that "the most well validated trait distinguishing male and female managers is self-confidence" (White et al., 1981:5521. Despite female managers' lower self-con- fi(lence, however, they are typically more confident than women who have not ad- vanced to management positions (Morrison and Sebold, 1974; Place, 19794. In acIdition to these fin(lings that female managers have more doubts than male managers about their potential for success, there is also evidence that those who make promotion decisions also doubt women's capacities to succeed and advance (Garland et al., 1982; Wiley and Eskilson, 1983). These researchers found that in the long run most women were not expected to live up to their potential. Given these circumstances, many promising wom- en may have to cope not only with their own attitudinal barriers to advancement, but with those of others also. The Tower self-confidence of women in general is greater in nontraditional occu- pations. Women have been found to report less confidence in their performance when working beside a man (Heilman and Kram,

OCR for page 91
96 1978) or anyone they believe to have good ability (Corbin, 1981~. Since most high- prestige occupations are occupie`d predom- inantly by men and both sexes perceive men as more competent, it seems inescap- able that women in such positions must continually struggle against feelings of in- feriority, which can hamper their perfor- mance. These self-doubts have been found to be especially salient for women in the early stages of their career development (Popp and Muhs, 1982), when it is most important to be recognized as having ad- vancement potential. Risk-Taking Behavior Lack of self-confidence is clearly one per- sonal factor capable of hampering women's career development, but another important influence may be lack of risk-taking behav- ior. Risk taking as a value (Kelling et al., 1976; WalIach and Wing, 1968) seems to be held in high regard by the business community as long as the risk is successful (Finney, 1978~. Indeed, some research sug- gests that willingness to engage in risk- taking behavior depends on one's percep- tions of the probable outcome (CIark and Willems, 1969~. People generally prefer to avoid risk when the consequences are se- rious and are more willing to take risks when success appears likely. It has been suggested that women's lower salaries and advancement are a result of an unwillingness to take risks (Bair :1 an(l Thom- as, 1985) and that this pattern will continue until women have more risk-taking role models (Schwartz, 19764. Support for this contention may be drawn indirectly from work that describes women in management and other high-prestige areas as more likely to take risks (Gackenbach et al., 1979; Grey and Gordon, 1978~. Risk-taking tendencies may also play a role in career selection processes, according to Ziller (1957~. He found that students with higher risk-taking scores were more likely PAY EQ UITY: EMPIRICAL INQ UIRIES to express an interest in sales occupations than in such areas as engineering, educa- tion, and business administration. These results were disputed by Davicishofer (1976), but a recent study by Moriarty (1983) sup- ports Ziller's contentions. She found evi- dence that professional women were greater risk takers than women who hac] chosen clerical careers. In addition, Fischer's (1976) work has supported the role of risk taking as a factor in evaluations of job offers. Examinations of gender (differences in risk taking have been mixed. One study of Latin American students reported that women took more risks in a simulation game (Tuch- man, 1981), but most research has pointed to either a lack of gender differences or an advantage for men. Evidence for finclings of no differences was found in examinations of children's classroom risk taking (Kourilsky and Campbell, 1984), students' risk taking on exams (Slakter, 1967), and adults' risk taking in simulated investment situations (Blum, 1976~. In the area of occupational behavior, Blum (1975) and Lettman (1981) both reported no gender (differences in the role of risk taking as it related to students' occupational preferences. In a(lclition, Rynes and Rosen (1983) noted that men and women in their stu(ly were similar in their percep- tions of what salary inducements were nec- essary to justify taking various promotion risks in a job setting. The bulk of the literature by far, however, has supporte(l the idea that risk taking is a masculine attribute (Agarwal and Kumari, 1982; Douce, 1977~. Boys have been re- ported to be bolder and more venturesome (Ginsberg and Miller, 1982; Saklofske and Eysenck, 1983), and male students in groups have been noted for their greater risk taking and encouragement of others' risk taking (DiBerardinis et al., 1984; Seeborg et al., 1980~. Men have also been reported to take more risks in more situations than women (Hudgens an(l Fatkin, 1985), and women are more likely to be dissuaded from risk taking than are men (Finney, 1984~.

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS Monetary risk taking has consistently shown gender differences as well. Cvet- kovich (1972) reported that men place riskier bets than women. Baker (1970) and WalIach and Kogan (1959) reported women to be more conservative than men with regard to financial decisions, and other work has sug- gested that men may be more likely than women to gamble on asking for a raise rather than waiting for one to be awarded (Brenner and Bertsch, 19831. Finally, in studies of risk taking in oc- cupational behavior, Muldrow and Bayton (1979) found male and female executives to make decisions similarly but for men to be more prone to risk taking. Fleming (1973) presented evidence that social position de- termines risk taking those from higher and more secure social backgrounds are more likely to take risks. Given women's tradi- tional levels of social and economic power, an unwfllingness to risk may thus be jus- tified. These findings of gender differences in risk taking are further bolstered by a report (Kogan and Dorros, 1978) stating that highly achieving women are viewed as ex- ceptional by men and women alike and therefore are judged more able to tolerate greater risk taking than the average woman. The implication here is that achievement and risk taking are related and that only very unusual women are likely to be ca- tegorized in such terms. INTEGRATING SEX-ROLE- RELATED FACTORS The literature reviewed indicates that men and women differ in occupational choice processes, occupational information, self- confidence, and risk-taking behavior and that these factors may all have an effect on gender differences in obtained occupation and salary. Although much of the literature deals with these variables separately, some integrative work has been done. Daniel and Droppova (1979), for example, report that workers' risk taking and determination to 97 succeed correlated positively with one an- other. Moriarty (1983) found a positive cor- relation between risk taking and self-esteem for working women. Baird and Thomas (1985) present a mode} of strategic risk taking that has been sup- ported with research indicating relation- ships between risk taking and greater con- fidence, possession of more information about the situation, and greater importance of the derived benefits. Similar connections among variables were drawn by Chusmir (1983), who found that women in nontraditional occupations shared characteristics of risk taking, self-confidence, and career com- mitment. They also possessed higher levels of these characteristics than their counter- parts in traditionally feminine occupations. The significance of these two papers is that they suggest that, in both theory and prac- tice, variables of risk taking, self-confidence, and knowledge may interact to influence behavior. In the interest of examining whether male and female college students' salary infor- mation, self-confidence regarding future ca- reer success, and occupational risk-taking tendencies indeed differ and covary ac- cording to the patterns noted in the pre- viously reviewed literature, the authors con- ducted two preliminary studies (unpublished data). First, a heterogeneous group of 80 juniors and seniors in college completed measures of their knowledge of the entry- leve} and peak salaries for their intended career and other selected occupations, wfl~- ingness to compromise their entry-level sal- ary, self-confidence in their ability to suc- ceed in their intended field, and risk-taking propensity in general and in occupational situations. Second, 61 graduating college seniors in business administration com- pleted the same measures. It was hypothesized in both cases that men would be more confident of their future success, less willing to compromise as much of their expected entry-level salary, more likely to expect a greater increase from

OCR for page 91
98 entry-level to peak salary, and more likely to take risks than women. It was also ex- pected that men wouIc] be more accurate in their salary estimates than women anti, if they diet err, would be more likely to overestimate what jobs were worth. In ac3- dition, relationships were expected to be found between risk taking, self-confidence, and expected salary levels. The results obtained were not conclusive, but they die! indicate that men ant] women may differ in their perceptions of salaries. Both groups of subjects consistently over- estimated salaries for their intencled occu- pation as well as for the other selected occupations. Men, however, overestimated salaries to a greater extent than did women, particularly their own expected salaries. In the first study, for example, men overes- timated their entry-level salary by an av- erage of $5,265, while women overesti- mated by an average of $2,322. Data on men's and women's confidence regarding likely career success were more equivocal, perhaps due to the inadequacies of a single general rating, the natural op- timism of prospective graduates, or both. Among students in the heterogeneous group there was no evidence of a gender difference in conficlence, but in the homogeneous group men appeared to be more confident of their future success. In addition, for women in the homogeneous group, confidence ratings were correlated with estimates of entry- leve} salary (r = .35) and with willingness to compromise the expecte(1 entry-level sal- ary (r = -.531. No such correlations were found for the male students in the sample. On the basis of this preliminary evidence, it would seem that women's confidence lev- els, more so than men's, may be important factors in (letermining initial salary expec- tations and to what extent employer pres- sures may be effective in eliciting compro- mises of those expectations. General risk-taking tendencies showed clear sex (differences in the expected direc- tion. Men in both samples reported a greater PAY EQUITY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES likelihoocl of risk taking, and in the het- erogeneous sample greater risk taking was found to be related to greater salary ex- pectations. This latter relationship was strongest for expecte(l peak increases an held true for men and women (r = .35 and r = . 34, respectively). Men's tendency to risk was also significantly correlated with expected entry-level salary (r = .26) and a greater willingness to compromise on the entry-level salary (r = .29). Risk taking may thus be one factor in determining an in- dividuaT's probability of attaining an above- average salary ancI may even predict job behavior directed toward that end. For men, especially, risk taking may be related to a willingness to gamble in the short-term with the goal of a larger future payoff. The inconclusive nature of these prelim- inary results may have been a function of a number of factors. The enormous error variance in salary estimates found through- out the data may have weakened or elim- inated some effects. The lack of discrimi- nation of the single confidence measure may also have been a problem, as students' pre- gracluation positivism predominated. Fi- nally, some of the results from this inves- tigation may be explained only when placed in the context of a more complex moclel of gencler-related behavior, such as that pre- sented by Deaux and Major (1987~. None- theless, these preliminary findings remain suggestive of the value of the present line ~ . . Ot Inquiry. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Our preliminary studies do support in a general way most of the previously reviewed work and theorizing about sex cli~erences in occupational information, self-confi- dence, and risk taking, but the most valuable findings may pertain to how these variables relate to one another and to salary expec- tations. Evidence that risk taking correlates with salary expectations and attitudes re- garding salary compromise, and that con-

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS fidence seems to relate to salary expectations for women but not men, provides support for the previously cites! models of Baird and Thomas (1985) and Chusmir (1983~. Wom- en's socialization to take fewer risks and to be less confident of their abilities may in- deecI play a critical role in their perceptions of the salary they deserve and the impor- tance they place on this factor in career decision making (Subich et al., 19861. In acIdition, in view of the findings of Major et al. (1984), the fact that men in our preliminary studies greatly overestimated salaries compared with women may indicate their greater likelihood of asking for and receiving higher wages. Women's lower confidence ant] tendency to risk would cer- tainly not contraindicate such a conclusion. And while both sexes grossly overestimated salaries, it is not the accuracy but the at- titude that bodes well for men rather than women. The economic reality that employ- ers and prospective employees view salary setting with conflicting goals suggests that a successful strategy may be for the em- ployee to be very aggressive in wage ne- gotiations. Regrettably, women's sociaTiza- tion may be a major obstacle to such behavior. Beyond aching to the current hotly of knowledge concerning pay equity, this re- view and our preliminary studies have im- plications for those who wouIc] attempt to eliminate wage differentials. Maximizing self- efficacy, providing salary information, an(l encouraging risk taking are examples of strategies that could have an impact on how women negotiate salaries. Also affected by such efforts might be women's expectations and behaviors on the job with regard to bargaining for salary increases; sex cliffer- ence in initiating discussion of raises (Bren- ner and Bertsch, 1983) might thereby be eliminated. Strategies such as those outliner] above could be implemented in a variety of settings to reach women of different back- grounds and ages. Our review and fin(3ings also illustrate some fruitful areas for future research. Of 99 primary importance would be carefully con- ceived and carried out investigations of the variables examined in our preliminary stud- ies. In any such endeavors, the use of paper- an(l-penciI procedures shouIcl closely ap- proximate actual applicant situations and behaviors. And, research with homoge- neous rather than heterogeneous samples may be preferable in that the information elicited from such samples may be more meaningfully interpreted and could be com- pared across career areas (nursing, engi- neering, and so on). There may be differ- ences in salary attitudes and personal characteristics across careers (Wheeler, 1983b) and by gentler within a specific ca- reer area. Fielc] studies of salary-negotiation behav- ior are also clesirable, especially because there is some evidence that sex (differences found in the laboratory may not be repli- cated in the workplace (Dalton et al., 19871. In general, discrimination may be more evident in the laboratory than in an actual field setting. Thus, an examination of stu- dents' or workers' obtained salaries and their relation to the variables of self-confidence, risk taking, and salary expectation would be valuable in (letermining how these pre- liminary results relate to real-worI(1 issues. In the same vein, followup of subjects to the point of peak earning capacity would also be of interest. Observations of interview an(l salary-negotiation behaviors of men and women couIc] prove to be another important line of inquiry. In summary, this literature review en cl the preliminary study results presented point to the need to study both wage systems and the individuals involved in them in order to understand more fully pay equity and inequity. The results and review are by no means definitive, but they do lead to some intriguing and potentially important ques- tions that should be addressed in future research and theorizing. They also point to some concrete and practical strategies for combating the attitudes and socialization

OCR for page 91
100 processes that may contribute to women's lower earnings. REFERENCES Agarwal, S., and S. Kumari 1982 A correlational study of risk taking and crea- tivity with special reference to sex differences. Indian Educational Review 17:104-110. Alagna, S. W. 1982 Sex-role identity: Peer evaluation of com- petition and the responses of women and men in a competitive situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:546- 554. Baird, I. S., and H. Thomas 1985 Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Review 10:230-243. Baker, W. G. III 1970 Personality correlates of stock market spec- ulation. Dissertation Abstracts International 31:4376B. Bartol, K. M. 1976 Expectancy theory as a predictor of female occupational choices and attitude toward busi- ness. Academy of ManagementJournal 19:669- 675. Beyard-Tyler, K., and M. J. Haring 1984 Gender related aspects of occupational pres- tige. Journal of Vocational Behavior 24:194- 203. Blum, S. H. 1975 The desire for security in vocational choice: A comparison of men and women. TheJournal of Psychology 91:277-281. 1976 Investment preferences and the desire for security: A comparison of men and women. The Journal of Psychology 94:87-91. Brenner, O. C., and T. M. Bertsch 1983 Do assertive people prefer merit pay? Psy- chological Reports 52:595-598. Bridges, J. S., and M. S. Bower 1985 The effects of perceived job availability for Bridges 1981 Brief, A. 1977 PAY EQUllrY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES Callahan-Levy, C. M., and L. A. Messe 1979 Sex differences in the allocation of pay. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37:433-446. Card, J. J., L. Steel, and R. P. Abeles 1980 Sex differences in realization of individual potential for achievement. Journal of Voca- tional Behavior 17:1-21. Chusmir, L. H. 1983 Characteristics and predictive dimensions of women who make nontraditional vocational choices. The Personnel and GuidanceJournal (September):43-47. Clark, R. D., and E. P. Willems 1969 Risk performances as related to judged con- sequences of failure. Psychological Reports 25:827-830. Collins, J., M. E. Reardon, and L. K. Waters 1980 Occupational interest and perceived person- nel success: Effects of gender, sex-role ori- entation and the sexual composition of the occupation. Psychological Reports 47: 1155- 1159. Cooper, E. A., and G. V. Barrett 1984 Equal pay and gender: Implications of court cases for personnel practices. Academy of Management Review 9:84-94. Corbin, C. B. 1981 Sex of subject, sex of opponent, and opponent ability as factors affecting self-confidence in a competitive situation. Journal of Sport Psy- chology 4:265-270. Cvetkovich, G. 1972 Effects of sex on decision policies used for self and decision policies used for other per- sons. Psychonomic Science 26:319-320. Dalton, D. R., W. D. Tudor, and C. L. Owen 1987 Sex effects in workplace justice outcomes: A field assessment. Journal of Applied Psy- chology 7241~:156-159. Daniel, J., and Z. Droppova 1979 Operator's decision making and tendency to risk taking studied from scales and responses. Studia Psychologia 21:209-214. Davidshofer, C. O. 1976 Risk taking and vocational choice: A reeval- uation. Journal of Counseling Psychology 23:151-154. women on college women's attitudes toward prestigious male-dominated occupations. Psy- chology of Women Quarterly 9:265-277. J. S., and J. del Campo Deaux, K., and B. Major Children's conception of the competence of boys and girls. Perceptual and Motor Skills 52:503-506. P., G. L. Rose, and R. J. Aldag Sex differences in preferences for job attri- butes revisited. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy 62:645-646. 1987 Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psycho- logical Review 94~3~:369-389. Deaux, K., and J. Taynor 1973 Evaluation of male and female ability: Bias works two ways. Psychological Reports 32:261- 262.

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS DiBerardinis, J., K. Ramage, and S. Levitt 1984 Risky shift and gender of the advocate: Infor- mation theory versus normative theory. Group and Organizational Studies 9:189-200. Doll, W., D. Sullivan, J. L. Simonetti, and J. A. Erwin 1982 Fast tracks to success for women in personnel. Personnel (May-June):12-22. Douce, L. A. 1977 Career aspirations and career development of women in relation to adventure scale scores of the SCII. Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national 38:5091B. Eccles, J. S. 1986 Gender roles and women's achievement. Ed- ucation Researcher Qune-July):15-19. Ellis, R. A., and M. S. Taylor 1983 Role of self-esteem within the job search pro- cess. Journal of Applied Psychology 68:632- 640. Erkut, S. 1983 Exploring sex differences in expectancy at- tribution and academic achievement. Sex Roles 9:217-231. Ezell, H. F., C. A. Odewahn, and J. D. Sherman 1980 Perceived competence of women managers in public human service organizations: A com- parative view. Journal of Management 6:135 144. Feather, N. T., and J. G. Simon 1975 Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions and per- ceived likelihood of different consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:20-31. Finney, P. D. 1978 Personality traits attributed to risky and con- servative decision makers: Culture values more than risk. The Journal of Psychology 99:187- 197. 1984 Co-participant effects on subjects' decisions to consent for risk involving research. The Journal of Social Psychology 124:35-41. Fischer, G. W. 1976 Multidimensional utility models for risky and riskless choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Development 17:127-146. Fleming, J. J. 1973 Social position and decision making involving risk. Human Relations 26:67-76. Gackenbach, J. I., D. M. L. Heretick, and D. Alexander 1979 The effects of unipolar sex-role identities and situational determinants on components of fear of success. Journal of Vocational Be- havior 15:347-366. 101 Garland, H., K. F. Hale, and M. Burnson 1982 Attributions for the success and failure of female managers: A replication and extension. Psychology of Women Quarterly 7:155-162. Gilbert, L. A. 1981 Women in counseling psychology: Factors impinging on their career pathways. The Counseling Psychologist 9:83-84. Ginsberg, H. J., and S. M. Miller 1982 Sex differences in children's risk taking be- havior. Child Development 53:426-428. Goh, S. C., and L. W. Mealiea 1984 Fear of success and its relationship to the job performance, tenure, and desired job outcomes of women. Canadian Journal of Behavioral SciencelReview of Canadian Sci- ence Compositions 16:65-75. Graddick, M. M., and J. L. Farr 1983 Professionals in scientific disciplines: Sex re- lated differences in working life commit- ments. Journal of A p plied Psychology 68:641- 645. Greene, A. H., H. J. Sullivan, and K. Beyard-Tyler 1982 Attitudinal effects of the use of role models in information about sex typed careers. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology 74:393-398. Greenhaus, J. H., and W. E. Simon 1976 Self-esteem, career salience and the choice of an ideal occupation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 8:51-58. Grey, R. J., and G. G. Gordon 1978 Risk-taking managers: Who gets the top jobs? Management Review (November):8-13. Gurin, P. 1981 Labor market experiences and expectancies. Sex Roles 7:1079-1092. Hackett, G., and N. E. Betz 1981 A self-efficacy approach to the career devel- opment of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior 18:326-339. Heilman, M. E., and J. M. Herlihy 1984 Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions. Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance 33:204- 213. Heilman, M. E., and K. E. Kram 1978 Self-derogating behavior in women-fixed or flexible: The effects of co-worker's sex. Or- gani~ational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance 22:487-507. Hudgens, G. A., and L. T. Fatkin 1985 Sex differences in risk taking: Repeated ses- sions on a computer-simulated task. The Jour- nal of Psychology 119: 197-206. Jacobowitz, A., and D. C. Vidler 1982 Characteristics of entrepreneurs: Implica-

OCR for page 91
102 tions for vocational guidance. Vocational Guidance Quarterly 30:252-257. Kelling, G. W., R. Zirkes, and D. Myerowitz 1976 Risk as value: A switch of set hypothesis. Psychological Reports 38:655-658. Keown, C. F., and A. L. Keown 1982 Success factors for corporate women execu- tives. Group and Organizational Studies 7:445- 456. Kogan, N., and K. Dorros 1978 Sex differences in risk taking and its attri- bution. Sex Roles 4:755-765. Kourilsky, M., and M. Campbell 1984 Sex differences in a simulated classroom econ- omy: Children's beliefs about entrepreneur- ship. Sex Roles 10:53-66. Lacy, W. B., J. L. Bokemeier, and J. M. Shepard 1983 Job attribute preferences and work commit- ment of men and women in the United States. Personnel Psychology 36:315-329. Lemkau, J. P. 1979 Personality and background characteristics of women in male-dominated occupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly 4:221- 240. Lettman, D. S. 1981 Relationships between self-esteem, risk-tak- ing, involvement certainty, sex and college major in vocational choice. Dissertation Ab- stracts International 42:1962. Leviton, L. C., and S. E. Whitely 1981 Job seeking patterns offemale and male Ph. D. recipients. Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:690-701. Lewis, G. B. 1985 Sexual segregation of occupations and earn- ings differences in federal employment. Pub- lic Administration (quarterly 9:274-290. London, M., and S. A. Stumpf 1983 Effects of candidate characteristics on man- O'Leary, V. E. agerial promotion decisions: An experimental study. Personnel Psychology 36:241-259. Major, B., and B. Forcey 1985 Social comparisons and pay evaluation pref- erences for same sex and same job wage comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 21:393-405. Major, B., and E. Konar 1984 An investigation of sex differences in pay expectations and their possible causes. Acad- emy of Management Journal 27:777-792. Major, B., V. Vanderslice, and D. B. McFarlin 1984 Effects of pay expected on pay received: The confirmatory nature of initial expectations. Journal of A pplied Social Psychology 14:399- 412. PAY EQUITY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES Mallan, L. B. 1982 Labor force participation, work experience and the pay gap between men and women. The Journal of Human Resources 17:437- 448. Milkovich, G. T., and J. M. Newman 1984 Compensation. Plano, Tex.: Business Publi- cations. Miller, J. 1980 Individual occupational determinants of job satisfaction. Sociology of Work and Occu- pations 1:337-366. Moore, L. M., and A. V. Rickel 1980 Characteristics of women in traditional and nontraditional managerial roles. Personnel Psychology 33:317-333. Moriarty, D. M. 1983 The relationship of risk-taking and self-esteem in working women. Dissertation Abstracts International 44:594B. Morrison, R. F., and M. L. Sebold 1974 Personal characteristics differentiate female executive from female nonexecutive person- nel. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:656- 659. Muldrow, T. W., and J. A. Bayton 1979 Men and women executives and processes related to decision accuracy. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology 64:99-106. Nordholm, L. A., and M. T. Westbrook 1982 Job attributes preferred by female health professionals, before and after entering the work force. Personnel Psychology 35:853- 883. O'Bryant, S. L., M. E. Durrett, and J. W. Pennebaker 1978 Student ratings of occupational dimensions of traditionally male and traditionally female occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 12:297-304. 1974 Some attitudinal barriers to occupational as- pirations in women. Psychological Bulletin 81:809-826. Osmond, M. W. 1984 If attitudes were income, women would thrive: Comment on Acock and Edwards. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:243-246. Parsons, J. E., and S. B. Goff 1978 Achievement motivation: A dual modality. Educational Psychologist 13:93-96. Pedro, J. D. 1982 Career maturity in high school age females. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly (March): 243-251. Place, H. 1979 A biographical profile of women in manage-

OCR for page 91
EFFECTS OF SEX-ROLE-RELATED FACTORS Polachek, S. W. 1981 Occupational self-selection: A human capital 1982 approach to sex differences in occupational structure. Review of Economics and Statistics 63:60-69. Poole, M. E., and G. H. Cooney 1985 Careers: Adolescent awareness and explora- tion of possibilities for self. Journal of Vo- cational Behavior 26:251-263. Popp, G. E., and W. F. Muhs 1982 Fear of success and women employees. Hu- man Relations 35:511-519. Posner, B. Z., J. Schmidt-Posner, and W. A. Randolph 1985 Can applicants' characteristics explain the sex- structuring of organizations? Psychological Reports 58:343-350. Raelin, J. A. 1982 A comparative analysis of female-male early youth careers. Industrial Relations 21:231- 247. Ritchie, R. J., and J. L. Moses 1983 Assessment center correlates of women s ad- vancement into middle management: A seven year longitudinal analysis. Journal of A pplied Psychology 68:227-231. Rosenthal, D. A., and D. C. Chapman Subich, 1980 Sex-role stereotypes: Children's perceptions Arthur of occupational competence. Psychological 1986 Reports 46:135-139. Rynes, S. L., and G. T. Milkovich 1986 Wage surveys: Dispelling some myths about the "market wage." Personnel Psychology 39:71-90. Rynes, S. L., and B. Rosen 1983 A comparison of male and female reactions to career advancement opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior 22:105-116. Saklofske, D. H., and S. B. Eysenck 1983 Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in Ca- nadian children. Psychological Reports 52:147- 152. meet. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52:267-276. 103 shift in choices. Psychological Reports 46:499- 504. Sigelman, L., H. B. Milward, and J. M. Shepard The salary differential between male and fe- male administrators: Equal pay for equal work? Academy of Management Journal 25:664- 671. Slakter, M. J. 1967 Risk taking on objective examinations. Amer- ican Educational Research Journal 4:31-43. Stake, J. E. 1979 Women's self-estimates of competence and the resolution of the career-home conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14:33-42. 1981 The educator's role in fostering female career aspirations. National Association of Women s Deans, Administrators and Counselors Jour- nal (Fall):3-10. Standley, K., and B. Soule 1974 Women in male dominated professions: Con- trasts in their personal and vocational his- tories. Journal of Vocational Behavior 4:245- 258. Stumpf, S. A., and S. M. Colarelli 1980 Career exploration: Development of dimen- sions and some preliminary findings. Psy- chological Reports 47:979-988. L. M., E. A. Cooper, G. V. Barrett, and W. Occupational perceptions of males and fe- males as a function of sex ratios, salary, and availability. Journal of Vocational Behavior 28:123-134. Tuchman, P. S. 1981 The effect of some personal characteristics on risk-taking. Revista de la Association La- tinoamerica de Psicologia 1:109-133. Tucker, S. 1985 Careers of men and women MBA's. Work and Occupations 12:166-185. van der Burg, R., and N. Schoemaker 1985 Scoring women on their labor chances. Wom- en's Studies International Forum 8:273-278. Sauser, W. I., and C. M. York Waddell, F. T. 1983 Factor's affecting choice, satisfaction and suc- cess in the female self-employed. Journal of Vocational Behavior 23:294-304. Walker, J. E., C. Tausky, and D. Oliver 1982 Men and women at work: Similarities and differences in work values within occupational groupings. Journal of Vocational Behavior 21:17-36. Wallach, M. A., and N. Kogan 1959 Sex differences and judgment processes. Journal of Personality 27:555-564. 1961 Aspects of judgment and decision making: 1978 Sex differences in job satisfaction: A re-ex- amination. Personnel Psychology 31:537-547. Schwab, D. P., S. L. Rynes, and R. J. Aldag 1987 Theories and research on job search and choice. Personnel and Human Resource Man- agement 5:129-166. Schwartz, E. B. 1976 Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Business (Win- ter):47-76. Seeborg, I., W. LaFollette, and J. Belohlev 1980 An exploratory analysis of effect of sex on

OCR for page 91
104 Interrelationships and changes with age. Be- havioral Science 6:23-26. Wallach, M., and C. W. Wing, Jr. 1968 Is risk a value? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9:101-106. Ward, K. B., and C. W. Mueller 1985 Sex differences in earnings: The influence of industrial sector, authority hierarchy, and human capital variables. Work and Occu- pations 12:437-463. Weinberg, R. S., D. Yukelson, and A. Jackson 1980 Effect of public and private efficacy expec- tations on competitive performance. Journal of Sport Psychology 2:340-349. Wheeler, K. G. 1983a Comparisons of self-efficacy and expectancy models of occupational preferences for col- lege males and females. Journal of Occu- pational Psychology 56:73-78. 1983b Perceptions of labor market variables by college students in business, education, and psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior 22:1-11. Wheeler, K. G., and T. A. Mahoney 1981 The expectancy model in the analysis of oc- cupational preference and occupational choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior 19:113-122. White, M. C., G. DeSanctis, and M. D. Crino 1981 Achievement, self-confidence, personality traits, and leadership ability: A review of literature on sex differences. Psychological Reports 48:547-569. Wiley, M. G., and A. Eskilson 1983 Gender expectations: Slippery rungs on the corporate ladder. Sociological Focus 16:99- 106. PAY EQUITY: EMPIRICAL INQUIRIES Williams, S. W., and J. C. McCullers 1983 Personal factors related to typicalness of ca- reer and success in active professional wom- en. Psychology of Women Quarterly 7:343- 357. Yanico, B. J. 1983 Students' self-report amount of information about "masculine and feminine" occupations. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly 22:344- 350. Yanico, B. J., and S. I. Hardin 1986 College students' self-estimated and actual knowledge of gender traditional and nontra- ditional occupations: A replication and ex- tension. Journal of Vocational Behavior 28:229-240. Yanico, B. J., and T. C. Mihlbauer 1983 Students self-estimated and actual knowledge of gender traditional and nontraditional oc- cupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 22:278-287. Zappert, L. T., and H. M. Weinstein 1985 Sex differences in the impact of work on physical and psychological health. American Journal of Psychiatry 142:1174-1178. Zasada, T. 1978 The effect of information in pre-decisional and decisional process related to vocational choice. Psychologia Wychowawcza 21:526- 533. Ziller, R. C. 1957 Vocational choice and utility for risk. Journal of Counseling Psychology 4:61-64. Zuckerman, D. M. 1980 Self-esteem, self-concept, and the life goals and sex-role attitudes of college students. Journal of Personality 48:149-162.