Click for next page ( 193


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 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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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 192
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.