the role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students

P1: VENDOR/GVG/GCY P2: GDP/GCX/GCY QC: GDX

Sex Roles [sers] PP201-342137 June 25, 2001 17:31 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sex Roles, Vol. 44, Nos. 5/6, 2001

The Role of Interest in Understanding the CareerChoices of Female and Male College Students

Carolyn Morgan1

University of Wisconsin at Whitewater

James D. IsaacResearch Triangle Institute

Carol SansoneUniversity of Utah

Mismatch between college students’ work goals and perceived goal affor-dances of physical/mathematical science careers may help explain gender dif-ferences in interest and career choice. In Study 1, the desire for interesting workwas cited by most students in the sample (89% White, 6% Asian, 5% other).Compared to men, women reported interpersonal work goals more and highpay and status work goals less frequently. In Study 2, students (79% White,12% Latino, 5% Asian, 4% other, predominantly middle class) perceivedphysical/mathematical science careers as less likely to afford interpersonalgoals and more likely to afford high pay and status goals compared to othercareers. Interpersonal goal affordances predicted greater interestingness for allcareers, whereas high pay and status goal affordances predicted greater inter-estingness only for physical/mathematical sciences. Interestingness positivelypredicted likelihood of career choice.

INTRODUCTION

Although women are equally or more likely to graduate from collegethan are men, they remain underrepresented in math and science careers

1To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Universityof Wisconsin at Whitewater, 800 W. Main Street, Whitewater, Wisconsin 53190; e-mail:[email protected].

295

0360-0025/01/0300-0295$19.50/0 c© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation



296 Morgan, Isaac, and Sansone

(Bae & Smith, 1996; Stumpf & Stanley, 1996). Many explanations for thisgender difference in career choice focus on competence-related factors, suchas gender differences in actual or perceived ability, background, and valueof achievement in math and science (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1981, 1986). Morerecent research suggests, however, that gender differences in math- andscience-related career choice persist even as the gap in math and sciencebackground decreases and are of greater magnitude than warranted by pos-sible sex differences in certain aspects of mathematical ability (Catsambis,1995; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). Furthermore, gender differences inmath- and science-related career choice occur even among men and womenwho do not differ in actual or perceived competence for math- and science-related activities (American Association of University Women, 1992; Dick &Rallis, 1991).

The culminating body of research indicates that other factors, in additionto competence-related ones, make important contributions to gender differ-ences in career choice. In the two studies presented here, we examined therole that perceived interestingness plays in the career choice process. Guidedby the self-regulation of motivation model (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996;Sansone & Smith, 2000), we examined whether individuals’ work goals andthe perceived goal affordances of given careers are related to the perceivedinterestingness of career alternatives and subsequent likelihood of careerpursuit.

The Importance of Perceived Interestingness in Career Choice

We suggest that the real or anticipated experience of interest whenengaged in career-related activities is a critical influence on career choice.Consistent with this assertion, Jacobs, Finken, Griffin, and Wright (1998)reported that current interest in science was more strongly related to youngwomen’s preferences for science careers than to a number of other rele-vant factors, including their science GPA, participation in math and scienceactivities, perceptions of friends’ support for career choice, and parents’ per-ceptions of students’ science ability.

Our emphasis on the importance of interest in career choice is consistentwith both vocational and intrinsic motivation research. For example, voca-tional “interests” are conceptualized as crystallized “patterns of likes, dis-likes, and indifferences regarding career-relevant activities and occupations”(Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). As such, vocational interests are identifiedas individual differences that are vital to the career choice process (e.g.,Dick & Rallis, 1991; Holland, 1985; Poole, Langan-Fox, & Omodei, 1990).Models of intrinsic motivation that focus on the phenomenal experience ofinterest conceptualize “interest” as a dynamic process characterized by high



Career Choice and Interest 297

levels of task engagement, concentration, creativity, and enjoyment (e.g.,Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). In everyday life, the majority of these phenomenalexperiences are reported during work-related activities (Csikszentmihalyi &LeFevre, 1989). In laboratory research, the phenomenal experience of inter-est has been found to influence current activity engagement and subsequentmotivation (Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989).

Interest, according to traditional vocational and intrinsic motivationperspectives, develops from feelings of competence and control that arisefrom mastery of the environment. For example, Lent et al. (1994) arguethat the two primary determinants of interest(s) are self-efficacy and out-come expectations. Similarly, many models of intrinsic motivation suggestthat interest results from feelings of efficacy and control while working on anactivity (Bandura, 1986; Deci & Ryan, 1985; White, 1959). Such perspectivesoften lead to the assumption that interest will always result when individ-uals feel competent and self-determining, and to the recommendation forinterventions that focus on increasing individuals’ feelings of competenceand control (e.g., Kelly, 1993; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991).

In contrast, the Self-Regulation of Motivation model (Sansone &Harackiewicz, 1996) suggests that other factors, in addition to competenceand control, may influence the experience of interest (Sansone, 1986; Sansone& Morgan, 1992; Sansone et al., 1989). One factor that influences perceivedinterestingness is the degree of congruence or match between an individual’sgoals and the environment (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Isaac, Sansone,& Smith, 1999; Smith, Morgan, & Sansone, in press). According to the model,when an individual’s goal(s) are incongruent with the actual or perceivedenvironment, the experience of interest is likely to be reduced. We sug-gest that potential mismatch between students’ interpersonal and extrinsicreward goals and their perceptions of different careers (i.e., perceived goalaffordances) may lead to gender differences in interest for math- and science-related activities.

Interpersonal Goals, Extrinsic Rewards, and Career Perceptions

Our previous life span research indicated that men and women differ inthe relative salience of interpersonal goals within achievement domains (i.e.,work and school). When describing everyday experiences and problems inachievement domains, adults spontaneously reported both competence andinterpersonal goals (Sansone & Berg, 1993). However, although men andwomen were equally likely to report competence goals within achievementdomains, women were significantly more likely than men to also report inter-personal goals (Morgan & Sansone, 1995; Strough, Berg, & Sansone, 1996).These results are consistent with research examining gender differences in




work values. When gender differences are found, women tend to place morevalue on interpersonal factors such as helping people or enjoying positive re-lations with coworkers, whereas men place more value on extrinsic rewardssuch as earning a good income and attaining high status (Eccles, 1994; Lips,1992; Rowe & Snizek, 1995).

We suggest that individuals with strong interpersonal work values (whoare more likely female) are more likely to hold interpersonal goals for theirwork experiences. These individuals may anticipate experiencing less inter-est while working on math- and science-related activities because percep-tions of these activities as involving individual achievement and impersonalwork environments (Bar-Haim & Wilkes, 1988; Matheson & Strickland,1986) are incongruent with their interpersonal goals. In contrast, individ-uals with strong extrinsic reward values (who are more likely male) mayanticipate experiencing greater interest when working on math and scienceactivities because perceptions of these activities as affording opportunitiesfor high pay and status (Eccles, 1994; Glick, Wilk, & Perreault, 1995) arecongruent with their extrinsic reward goals.

Overview of the Present Studies

College freshmen and sophomores were targeted for both conceptualand empirical reasons. Conceptually, individuals in this age group have moreeducational alternatives than they have experienced previously (when thecurriculum for “college-bound” high school students is more programmatic).This is also the point at which individuals see career decisions as importantand central to their lives (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987). Empirically, this isthe age at which there is the greatest loss of women from the math/sciencepipeline (Alper, 1993; Seymour, 1995).

According to our perspective, a critical influence on career choice forboth men and women is the anticipation that work will be interesting. Thus,we first need to demonstrate that the anticipated experience of interest is animportant reason for career choice. In Study 1, we examined the extent towhich the anticipated experience of interest was spontaneously reported asa reason for career choice among men and women.

If anticipated interestingness is the most salient reason men and womengive for choosing their careers, then it is important to understand why ca-reers are differentially interesting. The degree to which individuals feel com-petent in a particular area has been examined extensively and has beenshown to be an important influence on interest (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Lentet al., 1994). However, we expect an additional important and underex-amined factor is that women and men consider certain work goals moreimportant than others, and these goals are likely to be more congruent with




the perceived goal affordances of certain careers than of others. As a con-sequence, they may expect careers congruent with their goals to be moreinteresting.

To determine whether congruence is related to the anticipated experi-ence of interest, we must examine both individuals’ work goals and their per-ceived goal affordances. However, asking the same individuals about theirwork goals and perceived goal affordances of particular careers may inflatethe congruency among these sets of variables. Research has shown, for exam-ple, that asking individuals their reasons for behavior can create an artificialcongruence that may or may not reflect the true relationships (Wilson &Brekke, 1994). We thus chose to separate the assessment of students’ workgoals from the assessment of their perceptions of different careers’ goalaffordances.

In addition to examining the similarity between men and women in theimportance of experiencing interest, therefore, in Study 1 we also examinedwhether men and women have different work goals, with a particular fo-cus on the incidence of interpersonal (i.e., people-oriented) and extrinsicreward goals. We expected that women would more frequently report inter-personal goals than would men, whereas men would more frequently reportextrinsic reward goals than would women. In Study 2, we examined whetherstudents perceive careers in physical and mathematical sciences to be lesslikely, and education and social service careers to be more likely, to affordwork goals more commonly held by women. We also examined whetherperceived goal affordances predicted the anticipated interestingness of thecareer.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

Participants were 55 male and 61 female undergraduates (Median age=19.00 years, Range = 18–36 years) who received extra credit in their in-troductory psychology classes. Pilot work established that introductory psy-chology courses were a good population from which to sample because thesecourses typically contain students at the beginning of their college careers(80% freshmen or sophomores) with a variety of career interests. Ethniccomposition of the sample was 89% Caucasian, 6% Asian, and 1% African.Ethnic background was not specified by 4% of the sample. Information onparticipants’ socioeconomic status was not obtained.




Procedure and Materials

As part of a study designed ostensibly to “develop new learning activ-ities for a self-guided learning program,” students were asked to providebackground information concerning their major, work plans, and work val-ues. Students’ open-ended responses to a question concerning their currentor anticipated major were coded independently by two undergraduate re-search assistants (one man and one woman) into 1 of 15 categories thatincluded the various colleges represented at the university as well as an“undecided” and an “other” category (κ = .95). Students’ responses weresubsequently collapsed into one of seven categories: (1) Engineering, math,and physical sciences, (2) Social and behavioral sciences, (3) Health edu-cation, nursing, premedicine, and pharmacy, (4) Business, (5) Education,(6) Arts and humanities, and (7) Other. This coding scheme is similar toothers utilizing major as an index of career choice in gender differenceresearch (e.g., McLean & Kalin, 1994).

Next, students were asked to describe their work plans (i.e., “If youplan to work outside the home, what type of work would you like to do?”).Students’ responses to this question were coded independently by two fe-male undergraduate research assistants into one of the following three cat-egories: (1) Work plans were not predominantly math- or science-related(e.g., teaching (not including math or science teaching), counseling, adver-tising, law, public relations), (2) Work plans involved a traditional math orphysical science field (e.g., engineering, computer science, chemistry, scienceresearch, robotics, math teaching), or (3) Work plans involved an applica-tion of math or science in a medical or health services field (e.g., medicine,nursing, physical therapy, clinical psychologist, veterinary medicine, sportsmedicine; κ = .91). The distinction between traditional math/science careersand health-related applications of math/science was made based on data in-dicating that gender differences are more pronounced in careers related tophysical science and math than in careers related to biological science (e.g.,Jacobs et al., 1998).

After reporting their work plans, students were asked to write downtheir reasons for choosing their career (i.e., “Why would you like to dothis type of work?”). To ensure that students’ expressed reasons would notbe influenced by previous assumptions regarding the relative importanceof different work-related factors (i.e., interest, perceived competence, andwork values), students were free to mention whatever reasons were mostsalient to them.

Students’ expressed reasons for their career choices were coded in-dependently by two undergraduate research assistants (one man and onewoman) for the presence of four different types of reasons (κ ranging from




.79 to .99): interesting (e.g., enjoy it, think it would be fun, like it), people-oriented (e.g., working with people, serving others, helping others), extrinsicrewards (e.g., pay, status), and perceived competence (e.g., being good at it).Responses of the majority of participants (90.5%) were captured by thiscoding scheme. The responses of 5.2% of the participants were not capturedin any of the four categories, and 4.3% of the participants did not respond tothe question. The majority of participants (63.2%) reported reason(s) thatwere coded into only one of the four categories. Almost a quarter of thesample (23.9%) reported reasons that were coded into two of the four cat-egories, and 3.4% of the participants reported reasons that were coded intothree of the four categories.

We followed this open-ended assessment of students’ reasons with quan-titative measures of the importance of a number of work goals to their careerdecisions. Students rated the personal importance of eight work goals, usinga 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important) scale. The work goals havebeen linked theoretically or empirically to career choice (Lips, 1992; Rowe& Snizek, 1995) and include achievement and interpersonal concerns. Foreach work goal, participants first read the stem: “It’s important to me to(EXPRESSION OF WORK GOAL).” This stem was followed by one ofthe following eight expressions: have a career not just a job, be recognizedin my work, be the best in my work, have an occupation that allows meto help others, have an occupation that pays well, have an occupation thatallows flexibility, have an occupation that allows time with my family, andhave an occupation that allows time for travel and leisure. We expected thattwo of these eight goals would map onto expected gender differences in the“reasons for work” categories: “It’s important to me to have an occupationthat allows me to help others” (corresponding to the people-related reasoncategory) and “It’s important to me to have an occupation that pays well”(corresponding to the extrinsic reward reason category).

Results

Gender Differences in Major and Work Plans

To examine whether the pattern of gender differences in career choiceapparent in past research was observable within our sample, we rana 2 (Gender) × 7 (College Major) chi-square analysis. This analysis wassignificant, χ2(6, N = 105) = 20.19, p < .01. As expected, more men thanwomen reported pursuing math- and physical science-related majors, 31.3and 10.5%, respectively, for men and women, z(1) = 2.65, p < .05. Incontrast, fewer men than women reported pursuing majors in education,




2.1 and 10.5%, respectively, for men and women, z(1)=−2.24, p< .05, andarts/humanities, 2.1 and 12.3%, respectively, for men and women, z(1) =−2.38, p< .05. Men and women did not differ significantly in their reportingof majors in health education, nursing, medicine (10.4 and 17.5%, respec-tively, for men and women), behavioral and social sciences (25 and 15.8%,respectively, for men and women), or business (27.1 and 17.5%, respectively,for men and women).

A 2 (Gender)× 3 (Work Plans) chi-square analysis was used to examinewhether students’ work plans involved traditional math and science fields,health-related applications of math and science, or non–math- or science-related work. This analysis was significant, χ2(2, N = 116) = 6.68, p <

.05. Although both men and women were most likely to report work plansthat were not math- or science-related relative to math- or science-relatedplans, this difference was greater for women (65.6 and 3.3%, respectively,for non–math- or science- and math- or science-related) than for men (49.1and 16.4%, respectively, for non–math- or science- and math- or science-related). A z-test of the difference between two proportions indicated thatmen were significantly more likely than women to report traditional math-and science-related work plans, z(1) = 2.46, p < .05. Men and women wereequally likely to report work plans that involved health-related applicationsof math and science (34.5 and 31.1%, respectively, for men and women). To-gether, the findings for major and work plans indicate that, consistent withpast research, women were less likely than men to plan to pursue mathe-matical and physical science careers.

Expressed Reasons for Career Choice

We next examined the percentage of students who spontaneously citedeach of four different kinds of reasons for selecting their intended careers:perceived interestingness, perceived competence, people-oriented reasons,and extrinsic rewards. As indicated in Table I, students were most likely tocite the perceived interestingness of the careers, with people-oriented rea-sons cited next most frequently. Perceived competence and extrinsic rewardreasons were cited by very few students. To specifically examine potentialgender differences within this overall pattern, we ran four chi-square anal-yses with gender as the cross-categorization variable. The chi-squares forperceived interestingness, χ2(1, N = 111) = .001, ns, and perceived compe-tence, χ2(1, N = 111) = 1.79, ns, were not significant. In contrast, womenwere significantly more likely than men to report people-oriented reasonsfor their career choices, χ2(1, N = 111) = 3.92, p < .05, whereas men weresignificantly more likely than women to report extrinsic reward reasons,χ2(1, N = 111) = 9.43, p < .01.




Table I. Study 1: Percent of Men and Women Reporting Each Typeof Reason for Work Plans

Gender (%)

Reason type Men Women

Interesting 64.2 63.8People-oriented 28.3a 46.6b

Perceived competence 3.8 10.3Extrinsic rewards 15.1a 0.0b

Note. For men, n = 53; for women, n = 58. Numbers represent thepercentage of each gender reporting the four types of reasons fortheir current work plans. Different superscripts within reason indi-cate significant gender difference in percentage, spontaneously citingthat reason. The columns do not total to 100% because individualscould have reported more than one reason for their work plans.

Gender Differences in Work Goals

According to our perspective, men and women should differ primar-ily in a few key work goals. To test this, we ran a 2 (Men vs. Women) × 8(Pay vs. Helping vs. Being the Best vs. Recognition vs. Flexibility vs. LeisureTime vs. Family Time vs. Career Work Goal) repeated-measures analysisof variance (ANOVA), with the within-subjects factor being students’ rat-ings of the importance of the eight work goals. There was a main effect ofwork goals, F(7, 108) = 13.56, p < .001, indicating that the eight work goalswere rated differently in terms of importance. As can be seen in Table II,family time and having a career not just a job were rated as relatively moreimportant, and receiving recognition and high pay and status were ratedas relatively less important, work goals by both men and women. As ex-pected, however, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction

Table II. Study 1: Mean Importance Ratings for Students’ Work Goals

Work goal Overall Men Women

Helping others 4.40 (0.82) 4.26 (0.93)a 4.54 (0.70)b

High pay 3.90 (0.92) 4.14 (0.99)c 3.69 (0.81)d

Be the best 4.31 (0.93) 4.33 (0.90) 4.30 (0.96)Recognition 4.18 (0.91) 4.29 (0.79) 4.08 (1.01)Flexibility 4.25 (0.79) 4.18 (0.80) 4.31 (0.79)Leisure time 4.24 (0.80) 4.22 (0.74) 4.26 (0.85)Family time 4.68 (0.67) 4.60 (0.76) 4.75 (0.57)Career (vs. job) 4.64 (0.62) 4.69 (0.51) 4.59 (0.72)

Note. For men, n = 55; for women, n = 61. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higherscores indicating greater importance. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. Differ-ent superscripts indicate significant gender difference in means: a and b at p = .06; b and c atp< .01. Superscripts a, b indicate gender difference in means significant at p= .06. Superscriptsc, d indicate gender difference in means significant at p < .01.




between gender and work goal, F(7, 108) = 3.04, p < .01, η2 = .026. Themeans for this interaction are presented in Table II. Post hoc protectedt tests indicated that men and women differed significantly in their ratingsof only two work goals. Relative to men, women rated helping others asmore important, t(115) = 1.89, p = .06, and being paid well as less impor-tant, t(115) = 2.62, p < .01, work goals.

Discussion

The majority of men and women spontaneously cited “interesting” asthe reason for their work plans, even though gender differences in collegemajors and work plans were evident. This suggests that the anticipatedexperience of interest is a critical factor in the phenomenology of careerchoice for both genders. In contrast, neither men nor women were verylikely to spontaneously cite competence-related reasons for their choices.

Men and women were similar in a number of work goals (e.g., the desireto do interesting work, to have a career not just a job, to have time for family).Within the context of this overall similarity, students’ open-ended reasonsand rated work goals indicated two goals on which men and women differ:to have a career that involves others and to have a career that provides highpay and status. For example, women were relatively more likely than mento spontaneously cite people-oriented reasons for career choices, althougha sizeable number of men also cited this type of reason. In contrast, menwere relatively more likely than women to cite high pay and status reasonsalthough only a minority of men (but no women) cited this type of reason.This pattern suggests that gender differences may emerge in subtle waysin the overall context of gender similarities. It also suggests that variabilitywithin gender is important to consider. Thus, it is necessary to examine themore complex ways in which gender may influence the hypothesized processin addition to focusing on gender differences in outcomes.

STUDY 2

The prominence of interestingness as a reason for career choice suggeststhat men and women are similar in their desire for interesting work, but thatthey can differ in which careers they find interesting and why. According toour model, men and women are likely to differ in their perceptions that acareer is interesting when perceived goal affordances are differentially con-gruent with other work goals (e.g., interpersonal and extrinsic reward goals).Women may thus find physical and mathematical sciences relatively less in-teresting than do men because they perceive these careers as offering fewer




opportunities for interpersonal involvement than do other options. In con-trast, men may find physical and mathematical sciences relatively more inter-esting than do women because these careers are perceived as offering greateropportunities for extrinsic rewards. Overall, however, both men and womenmay find careers that satisfy interpersonal goals more interesting than ca-reers that only satisfy extrinsic reward goals, because both men and womenare more likely to hold interpersonal goals than extrinsic reward goals.

We do not know from Study 1 whether in fact careers in physical andmathematical sciences are perceived as differentially affording interpersonalor extrinsic reward goals relative to other career options. As noted earlier, wedid not examine both individuals’ work goals and their perceived goal affor-dances within the same sample because this procedure could have spuriouslyenhanced their relationship. The primary focus of Study 2, therefore, was toassess the perceived affordances of physical and mathematical science ca-reers in terms of satisfying interpersonal and extrinsic reward work goals. Inaddition, we examined whether the perception of these goal affordances pre-dicted the perceived interestingness of these careers, and whether perceivedinterestingness was related to the perceived likelihood of career pursuit.

We cannot directly address whether match between individuals’ workgoals and goal affordances mediates the effects of gender on the perceivedinterestingness of physical and mathematical science careers because wedid not assess individuals’ work goals. Based on the results from Study 1,however, we can use gender as a gross marker variable for the work goalsindividuals are likely to hold. We would predict that the perceived affordanceof interpersonal or extrinsic reward goals would have positive effects onanticipated interestingness when individuals hold these goals but have no ornegative effects when they do not. If our prediction is correct, then genderdifferences in interestingness should be at least partially attenuated whencontrolling for interpersonal and extrinsic reward goal affordances becauseof the inferred relative difference in work goals women and men are likelyto have. Furthermore, we expect perceived interestingness to predict theperceived likelihood of pursuing the careers for both men and women.

We compared students’ perceived affordances of physical and mathe-matical science careers with education and social services careers. These twocareer categories are maximally different in gender participation and pre-sumably evoke different expectations of satisfying interpersonal and extrin-sic reward goals (Lubinski & Benbow, 1992). Medical careers were selectedas the third career category for comparison. Medical careers involve scienceand math and offer opportunities for high pay and status, similar to careersin physical and mathematical sciences. However, medical careers also offeropportunities to help others, similar to careers in education and social ser-vices. Thus, although both education and social service careers and medical




careers may be interesting to students with interpersonal work goals, theymay be differentially interesting to students desiring a career that offers highextrinsic rewards.

Method

Participants

Participants were 151 college students (88 women and 63 men), 115 ofwhom completed the study for extra credit in introductory psychology, and 36of whom volunteered for the study as a participant in a research experiencecourse. The median age of the sample was 20 years (Range = 17–44 years).The sample was primarily White (78.8%), but included students from a num-ber of other ethnic backgrounds (11.9% Hispanic/Latino, 5.3% Asian, 2.0%American Indian, and 2.0% African). Participants’ family incomes varied(35.5% earned over $70,000/year, 29.8% earned $41,000–70,000/year, 13.9%earned $31,000–40,000/year, and 20.5% earned under $30,000/year) and themajority of participants reported that their fathers (83.5%) and mothers(81.4%) had at least some college education.

Procedure and Materials

Participants completed demographic measures and a self-report ques-tionnaire in groups of 2–10. The questionnaire assessed participants’ percep-tions of a number of different careers that were chosen to represent vari-ability in terms of gender composition, status, interpersonal orientation, andperceived difficulty. The order in which participants were presented each ca-reer was counterbalanced. For each career, participants first read the stem:“I believe a career in the field of (NAME OF PARTICULAR FIELD).”Following this stem, participants rated how much they agreed with 16 state-ments describing a number of randomly ordered work-related dimensions,using a 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) scale.

Embedded within the 16 statements were six statements of particularconcern to this paper. The perception of the extent to which each career al-lows for the pursuit of interpersonal goals was assessed through participants’response to two statements: “would allow me to work with other people”and “would allow me to help others.” Participants’ responses were averagedto create the goal affordance measure of Involvement with Others (corre-lations between the two statements within career category ranged from .42to .63, p < .01). The perception of the extent to which each career allowsfor the pursuit of High Pay and Status was assessed through participants’response to the statement “would provide the opportunity for high pay and




Table III. Study 2: Intercorrelations Among Perceived Interestingness, Perceived Competence,Involvement With Others, and High Pay and Status Within the Three Career Categories

Variable

Variable 2 3 4

I. Career category: Physical and mathematical sciences1. Perceived interestingness .72∗ .45∗ .37∗2. Perceived competence — .37∗ .27∗3. Involvement with others — .43∗4. High pay and status

II. Career category: Education and social services1. Perceived interestingness .74∗ .51∗ .112. Perceived competence — .45∗ .153. Involvement with others — .054. High pay and status

III. Career category: Medicine1. Perceived interestingness .59∗ .24∗ .132. Perceived competence — .10 −.013. Involvement with others — .31∗4. High pay and status

Note. Correlations designated with an asterisk (∗) are significant at p< .01. All other correlationsare not significant. N = 151.

status.” The perceived interestingness of each career (Interestingness) wasassessed through participants’ response to the statement “is something Iwould find interesting.” Competence-related factors were assessed throughtwo statements: “is something I have the background for” and “is some-thing I would be good at.” Participants’ responses to these two statementswere averaged to create Perceived Competence (correlations between thetwo statements within career category ranged from .59 to .81, p < .01). In-tercorrelations among these four variables within each career category aredisplayed in Table III. Consistent with career development research (e.g.,Lent et al., 1991; Lopez & Lent, 1992), perceived interestingness and per-ceived competence were positively correlated for all three career categories.Correlations between perceived interestingness and goal affordances weresmaller and varied by career category. The relationships between perceivedcompetence and perceived interestingness suggested that it would be impor-tant in our main analyses to assess the relationships between goal affordancesand interestingness while partialing out variance associated with perceivedcompetence.

After rating each career separately along these dimensions, on the fi-nal page of the questionnaire, participants rated how likely they were to gointo each career, using a 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely) scale. Toexamine our hypotheses and increase reliability of the ratings, we combinedseveral of the individual career fields to correspond to our proposed careercategories. When individual fields were combined, a participant’s score for




each variable for that category was averaged across the individual fields. Thethree categories were (1) physical and mathematical sciences (consisting ofmath, chemistry, computer science, and engineering; alpha for High Pay andStatus = .70, alpha for Interestingness = .73, alpha for Involvement WithOthers = .80, and alpha for Perceived Competence = .81), (2) educationand social services; alpha for High Pay and Status = .43, alpha for Inter-estingness = .68, alpha for Involvement With Others = .65, and alpha forPerceived Competence = .69), and (3) medicine (a single career).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

To examine whether previously observed gender differences in the like-lihood of career pursuit were replicated within this sample, we conducted a2 (Women vs. Men)× 3 (Physical and Mathematical Sciences vs. Educationand Social Services vs. Medicine) repeated-measures ANOVA on students’ratings of their perceived likelihood of going into these fields, with the within-subjects factor being career category. There was a main effect of career cat-egory, F(2, 149) = 13.55, p < .001, η2 = .08. Post hoc protected t tests indi-cated that across gender, students rated themselves significantly less likelyto pursue physical and mathematical science careers than either educationand social service careers or medical careers (which did not differ from eachother; see Table IV). However, this main effect was qualified by an interac-tion between gender and career category, F(2, 149) = 11.23, p < .001, η2 =.07. Table IV shows the means for this interaction. As expected, women rated

Table IV. Study 2: Mean Ratings of Career Likelihood and Perceived Competence by CareerCategory and Gender

Dependent variable

Likelihood of pursuing Perceived competence

Career category Men Women Overall Men Women Overall

Physical/mathematical 2.18∗ 1.65∗ 1.92 3.06∗ 2.38∗ 2.66sciences (0.93) (0.89) (0.94) (0.87) (1.01) (1.01)

Education and 2.21∗ 3.06∗ 2.64 3.26 3.59 3.45social services (1.10) (1.20) (1.23) (0.90) (0.90) (0.91)

Medicine 2.62 2.45 2.54 3.19 3.31 3.26(1.56) (1.55) (1.55) (1.30) (1.21) (1.25)

Note. Women n= 88, men n= 63. Using post hoc protected t tests within each dependent vari-able, mean differences greater than .33 are significant at p< .05. Significant gender differenceswithin career category for each dependent variable are indicated with an asterisk (∗). Standarddeviations are indicated in parentheses. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scoresindicating greater perceived likelihood and perceived competence.




themselves significantly less likely to go into physical/mathematical sciencesthan did men, whereas men rated themselves significantly less likely to gointo education and social service careers than did women. Within-genderpatterns indicated that women rated themselves as least likely to go intophysical/mathematical science careers and most likely to go into careers ineducation and social services, with medical careers falling between thesetwo. Men, in contrast, rated themselves as more likely to go into medicalcareers than either physical and mathematical careers or education and so-cial services careers (which did not differ from each other). These findingsindicate that gender differences in career choice found more generally wereevident within this sample, with women showing the greatest discriminationamong the career categories.

Next, we examined the extent to which gender differences in perceivedcompetence for the three career categories were evident, as predicted by pre-vious research (e.g., Betz & Hackett, 1986). We ran a 2 (Women vs. Men)×3 (Physical and Mathematical Sciences vs. Education and Social Servicesvs. Medicine) repeated-measures ANOVA on students’ ratings of their per-ceived competence in these fields, with the within-subject factor being ca-reer category. There was a main effect of career category, F(2, 148) = 18.50,p < .001, η2 = .15. Post hoc protected t tests indicated that students reportedsignificantly lower perceived competence for physical/mathematical sciencecareers than for medical careers and for education/social service careers(which did not differ from each other; see Table IV). However, this maineffect was qualified by an interaction between career category and gender,F(2, 148) = 9.51, p < .001, η2 = .06.

As shown in Table IV, relative to women, men reported higher per-ceived competence for physical/mathematical science careers. In contrast,women reported higher perceived competence for education/social servicecareers than did men. Men and women did not differ in perceived com-petence for medical careers. Women reported significantly lower perceivedcompetence for physical/mathematical science careers than for careers ineducation/social services and in medicine. For men, perceived competencedid not vary significantly by career category.

Perceived Affordances of Interpersonal and High Pay and Status Goals

To examine the extent to which the career categories were perceivedas affording involvement with others and high pay and status, we ran a2 (Women vs. Men)× 3 (Physical and Mathematical Sciences vs. Educationand Social Services vs. Medicine)× 2 (Involvement with Others vs. High Payand Status) repeated measures ANOVA with the within-subjects measures




being career category and goal affordance. Post hoc protected t tests testedspecific comparisons.

There was a main effect of goal affordance, F(1, 149) = 579.49, p <.001, η2 = .80), such that across gender and the three career categories, op-portunities for involvement with others were perceived as more availablethan opportunities for high pay and status (Involvement with Others M =4.38, SD = .39 and High Pay and Status M = 3.55, SD = .58). There wasalso a main effect of career category, F(2, 147) = 633.20, p < .001, η2 = .77,such that across gender and type of goal affordance, medical careers wererated as more likely to afford goals than either of the other two careercategories (Medicine, M = 4.82, SD = .35; Physical/Mathematical Sciences,M = 3.62, SD = .54; and Education/Social Services, M = 3.46, SD = .47).However, these main effects were qualified by significant gender by goalaffordance, F(1, 149) = 4.62, p < .05, η2 = .03, and career category by goalaffordance, F(2, 148) = 472.44, p < .001, η2 = .81, interactions. The genderby goal affordance interaction indicated that the greater perceived oppor-tunity for involvement with others than for high pay and status was moretrue for women (Involvement with Others M = 4.44, SD = .38; High Payand Status M = 3.54, SD = .55) than for men (Involvement with OthersM = 4.32, SD = .45; High Pay and Status M = 3.57, SD = .65).

The career category by goal affordance interaction was directly relevantto our hypotheses. As can be seen in Table V, physical and mathematicalscience careers were perceived as providing less opportunity for involvementwith others than did education and social service careers or medical careers.In addition, education and social service careers were perceived as providingless opportunity for high pay and status relative to physical and mathematicalsciences or medicine. These interactions confirm that careers in physical andmathematical sciences are perceived as significantly less likely than the othertwo career categories to afford opportunities for involvement with others andsignificantly more likely than education and social service careers to afford

Table V. Study 2: Mean Ratings of Perceived Goal Affordances by Career Category

Goal affordance

Career category High pay and status Involves others

Physical/mathematical sciences 3.65 (0.66)a 3.59 (0.58)a

Education/social services 2.23 (0.77)b 4.71 (0.42)b

Medicine 4.77 (0.54)c 4.87 (0.28)b

Note. N = 151 for all cells. Using post hoc protected t tests, means with differ-ent superscripts within goal affordance variable (i.e., within columns) differ signifi-cantly at p < .05. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. Possible scoresrange from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater perceived affordance of thatgoal.




opportunities for high pay and status. These perceptions did not differ bygender.

Relationship Between Perceived Affordances and PerceivedInterestingness of Career

Next we examined whether perceptions that a career afforded oppor-tunities for involvement with others or high pay and status were related toperceived interestingness of the career. We ran hierarchical regression anal-yses within each career category, using perceived interestingness as the out-come. Because neither men nor women were considered a control group, weused effects coding for participants’ gender (−1 for men and+1 for women;Cohen & Cohen, 1983). To reduce possible effects of multicollinearity, wesubtracted the means from the continuous variables as well as from theirinteractions.

In the first regression analysis for each career category, gender wasentered to examine whether gender differences in perceived interestingnessemerged for each career. In the second regression analysis for each careercategory, the main effects of involvement with others, high pay and status,perceived competence, and the interactions of these variables with genderwere entered in addition to the main effect of gender. This second analysisallowed us to examine whether the perceived affordance of interpersonalor high pay and status goals predicted interestingness while controlling forperceived competence, and whether any gender differences found in the firstregression remained once these additional variables were entered into theequation.

Table VI shows the results of these equations for each analysis withineach career category. Results from the first regressions indicated that gen-der differences in perceived interestingness emerged for physical and math-ematical science careers and education and social service careers, but notfor medical careers. For the second regressions in each career category, theoverall regression equations were significant for physical and mathemati-cal science careers, F(7, 143) = 33.01, p < .001; education and social servicecareers, F(7, 143) = 16.81, p < .001; and medical careers, F(7, 143) = 18.04,p < .001. As expected, perceived competence accounted for a significantamount of variance in perceived interestingness for each of the three careercategories. More important for our present hypotheses, however, were theeffects for perceived goal affordances. The perceived affordance of involve-ment with others was a significant predictor of perceived interestingness foreach of the three career categories. In contrast, the perceived affordanceof high pay and status predicted perceived interestingness only for physical




Tabl

eV

I.St

udy

2:Su

mm

ary

ofH

iera

rchi

calR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

ses

Pre

dict

ing

Inte

rest

ingn

ess

ofD

iffe

rent

Car

eer

Cat

egor

ies

Car

eer

cate

gory

Phy

sica

land

Edu

cati

onan

dm

athe

mat

ical

scie

nces

soci

alse

rvic

esM

edic

ine

Ana

lysi

sV

aria

bles

ente

red

R2

bR

2b

R2

b

1O

vera

llm

odel

.027

.099

.014

Gen

der

−.16

5∗.3

58∗∗

.136

2O

vera

llm

odel

.570∗

.612∗

.404∗

Gen

der

.004

.177∗∗

.007

Hig

hpa

y&

stat

us.2

09∗

.003

.009

Invo

lves

othe

rs.2

87∗

.520∗∗

.701∗

Hig

hpa

y&

stat

usby

gend

er−.

003

−.00

7.1

58In

volv

esot

hers

byge

nder

−.00

2.1

11.0

10P

erce

ived

com

pete

nce

.631∗∗∗

.768∗∗∗

.540∗∗∗

Per

ceiv

edco

mpe

tenc

eby

gend

er.0

01−.

002

−.00

7

Not

e.G

ende

ris

code

d−1

for

men

and+1

for

wom

en.H

ighe

rsc

ores

onco

ntin

uous

vari

able

sin

dica

tegr

eate

rpe

rcei

ved

goal

affo

rdan

ceor

perc

eive

dco

mpe

tenc

e.N=

150.

∗ p<

.05.∗∗

p<

.01.∗∗∗ p<

.001

.




and mathematical sciences. In addition, the main effect of gender for physicaland mathematical science careers was attenuated in the second regression.For education and social service careers, the main effect of gender was alsoattenuated in the second regression, but remained significant. There wereno significant interactions between gender and goal affordances or betweengender and perceived competence for any career category.

The Relationship Between Perceived Interestingness and Likelihoodof Career Pursuit

These analyses indicated that men and women perceived the three ca-reer categories as differentially affording opportunities for involvement withothers and high pay and status, and that these differential perceptions wererelated to how interesting they expected the career to be. Our model sug-gests that perceived interestingness should influence the likelihood of futureactivity engagement. Although we could not examine whether perceived in-terestingness was a causal factor in the perceived likelihood of pursuing thethree careers, we examined whether a significant correlation existed betweenperceived interestingness and subsequent likelihood of career pursuit.

The correlation between perceived interestingness and likelihood ofpursuit was significant for physical/mathematical science careers, r(149) =.66, p < .001; education and social service careers, r(149) = .72, p < .001;and medicine, r(149) = .52, p < .001. Examination of the correlations withingender indicated that, for both men and women, the correlations betweenperceived interestingness and likelihood were significant for all three careercategories, for men, rs(61)= .70, .67, .60, ps< .001 for physical/mathematicalsciences, education and social service, and medicine, respectively; for women,rs(86)= .62, .71, .50, ps< .001 for physical/ mathematical sciences, educationand social services, and medicine, respectively.

In addition, we used partial correlations to examine whether the correla-tion between perceived interestingness and likelihood of pursuit remainedwhen the influence of perceived competence was controlled. Across gen-der, these correlations remained significant for physical and mathemati-cal sciences, r(149) = .23, p < .05; education and social services, r(149) =.51, p < .05; and medicine, r(149) = .18, p < .05. Examination of the partialcorrelations within gender indicated that, for men, the correlation betweenperceived interestingness and likelihood of pursuit was significant for phys-ical/mathematical sciences, r(61) = .43, p < .001, and education and socialservices, r(61) = .49, p < .001, but did not reach significance for medicine,r(61) = .20, p = .11. For women, the partial correlation between perceivedinterestingness and likelihood of pursuit was significant for education




and social services, r(86) = .46, p < .001, but did not reach significancefor physical/mathematical science, r(86) = .08, p = .47, or medicine, r(86) =.19, p = .08. This pattern suggests that the anticipated interestingness of acareer and perceived competence at a career may be distinct predictors ofcareer choice more for certain careers than for others, and may differ as afunction of the person.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine whether perceived goal affor-dances of physical and mathematical science careers contribute to genderdifferences in interest and career choice, over and above any of the effectsdue to perceived competence suggested by other researchers. To this end,we first sought to establish through preliminary analyses that our sample re-flected the phenomenon in question (i.e., gender differences in preferencesfor physical/mathematical science careers observed in the larger collegepopulation).

As expected, women reported being significantly less likely to enterphysical/mathematical science careers than did men. In addition, women in-dicated that they were significantly less likely to enter physical/mathematicalscience careers than education and social services careers or medical careers.Relative to men, women also perceived themselves as significantly less com-petent with respect to physical/mathematical science careers. Likewise, theyreported lower perceived competence for physical/mathematical science ca-reers than for the other two career categories.

Within the context of this confirmatory pattern, we went on to examineperceptions of the three career categories in terms of providing opportuni-ties to satisfy interpersonal and extrinsic reward goals—goals that our resultsfrom Study 1 indicated were cited at somewhat different rates by female andmale college students. Our hypotheses concerning students’ perceptions ofthe goal affordances of the career categories were supported. Students per-ceived careers in physical/mathematical sciences to provide less opportunityto meet interpersonal goals than education and social service careers andmedicine. In addition, students perceived careers in education and socialservices to provide less opportunity to meet high pay and status goals rela-tive to physical/mathematical science and medicine.

As expected, men rated careers in physical and mathematical sciences asmore interesting than did women. Conversely, women rated careers in educa-tion and social services as more interesting than did men. When we includedpredictors in addition to gender, we found, as expected, that perceived com-petence predicted interestingness for all career categories. More critical for




the present paper, students’ perceptions of affording interpersonal goals sig-nificantly predicted the interestingness of careers in physical/mathematicalsciences, education and social services, and medicine. In contrast, students’perceptions of affording high pay and status goals significantly predicted per-ceived interestingness only for physical and mathematical science careers.Importantly for our hypotheses, the initial gender differences in perceivedinterestingness were attenuated when students’ perceptions of goal affor-dances and perceived competence were controlled.

Within this overall pattern of support for our hypotheses, two patternsof results were not predicted. First, the relationships between interpersonaland high pay and status goal affordances and interestingness were true forboth men and women. The lack of gender differences may be attributed toboth men and women holding interpersonal goals, albeit to different degrees.Because we did not measure students’ goals in this study, however, we can-not address that possibility directly. Second, although reduced in magnitude,the gender difference in perceived interestingness of education and socialservice careers remained significant when goal affordances and perceivedcompetence were controlled. This suggests that variables not examined inthe present study contribute to the anticipated interestingness of these typesof careers. Some examples of potentially important variables are the rela-tive distributions of men and women in different careers (Beggs & Doolittle,1993), perceptions of different careers as masculine or feminine (McLean& Kalin, 1994), and the avoidance of careers perceived as incongruent withone’s gender role (Yoder & Schleicher, 1996). Future studies should exam-ine the extent to which such factors affect the perceived interestingness ofdifferent types of careers.

Similar to the results for Study 1, correlational analyses indicated thatperceived interestingness was positively related to likelihood of pursuit forthe three career categories. These relationships remained when the varianceaccounted for by differences in perceived competence was partialed out.Thus, although feelings of competence are obviously important to careerchoice for women and men (Lent et al., 1994), as our model suggests, theperceived interestingness of a career is a significant and distinct predictorof career choice that should be considered in understanding individuals’choices.

The partial correlations within gender indicated that perceived inter-estingness predicted pursuit likelihood for both men and women, but thatthe strength of these relationships might differ as a function of the careercategory. These patterns were not predicted, but suggest interesting areas forfuture research. For example, gender differences in perceived interesting-ness may be a stronger predictor of career choice for careers in which genderdifferences in perceived competence are low. If true, as gender differences




in perceived competence for physical and mathematical science careers de-cline, relative differences in the perceived interestingness of various careeropportunities may become an even stronger predictor of gender differencesin physical and mathematical career choice. Such a possibility further em-phasizes not only the need to understand gender differences in the perceivedinterestingness of physical/mathematical science careers, but also the need tounderstand gender differences in the perceived interestingness of educationand social service careers.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Consistent with the Self-Regulation of Motivation model (Sansone &Harackiewicz, 1996; Sansone & Smith, 2000), the real or anticipated experi-ence of interest was a critical influence on career choice for both male andfemale college students. In Study 1, the majority of men and women spon-taneously reported that the perceived interestingness of a career was thereason for their career choice. In contrast, competence-related factors werespontaneously reported as a reason for career choice only by a minority ofstudents. In Study 2, when students were asked to consider the likelihoodof pursuing physical/mathematical science careers, education and social ser-vice careers, and medicine, the perceived interestingness of the career was asignificant predictor even when perceived competence was controlled. Thus,consistent with Jacobs et al. (1998), in addition to competence-related fac-tors, interestingness was a distinct predictor of students’ consideration ofmath and science careers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF GOAL CONGRUENCE

Although unable to directly test whether congruence between workgoals and goal affordances helps explain women and men’s differential in-terest in physical/mathematical science careers, we were able to garner strongindirect support. For example, men rated the perceived interestingness ofphysical/mathematical science careers higher than did women. Men alsowere less likely to cite interpersonal work goals and more likely to cite ex-trinsic reward goals than were women. Furthermore, both men and womenperceived that mathematical and physical science careers were less likely toafford interpersonal goals and more likely to afford extrinsic reward goals,and perceptions of these affordances predicted the perceived interestingnessof these careers. In contrast, the pattern for education and social service ca-reers emphasized the affordance of interpersonal goals relative to extrinsic




reward goals, and the perception of affording interpersonal goals predictedinterestingness of these careers.

Although the results offer substantial support for our model, they alsosuggest greater complexity in the relationship between students’ perceivedgoal affordances and perceived interestingness than we had originally as-sumed. One unexpected finding was that the perceived affordance of inter-personal goals was a significant predictor of perceived interestingness for allthree career categories. In addition, we expected that perceived opportuni-ties for high pay and status would be related to perceived interestingnessfor both physical/mathematical sciences and medicine. However, this rela-tionship was evident only for physical/mathematical sciences, even thoughmedicine was perceived as more likely to afford opportunities for high payand status than were physical/mathematical sciences.

These unexpected results suggest that the relationship between per-ceived goal affordances and perceived interestingness may depend on thenature of a specific affordance and on the career in question. Certain goalaffordances (e.g., involvement with others) may be related to perceived in-terestingness for most career categories because the goal satisfies a funda-mental social need, and, as such, is considered endogenous to the career(Kruglanski, 1975). For example, researchers have posited a need for affilia-tion (e.g., Murray, 1938), for intimacy (e.g., McAdams, 1989), for relatedness(Ryan & Connell, 1989), for belongingness (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995),and so on. In contrast, other goal affordances (e.g., extrinsic rewards) maybe more central to the perceived interestingness of some careers (e.g., com-puter science) than others (e.g., pediatrician), even when the careers areviewed similarly in terms of the affordance. That is, affordances related toextrinsic rewards may be perceived as endogenous to certain careers butexogenous to others (Kruglanski, 1975), perhaps due to cultural and societalnorms (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). If perceived interpersonal goalaffordances are critical to interest for most careers (and not just “helping”careers), then interventions that enhance these perceived goal affordancesmay increase interest in fields not typically viewed as affording these goals(e.g., physical and mathematical science careers), and may do so for bothwomen and men. In contrast, interventions geared toward enhancing per-ceptions of goal affordances less uniformly related to interest (e.g., extrinsicrewards) may have more limited success.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Now that we have obtained indirect support for the congruence hypoth-esis using methods that do not artificially inflate the relationship between




perceived goal affordances and work goals (Wilson & Brekke, 1994), futureresearch can examine this relationship more directly. The present studies caninform more direct investigations of this relationship in a number of ways.

First, gender differences in interpersonal work goals must be consideredwithin the overall context of gender similarity. For example, in the presentstudies, there was no indication that women are less concerned with achieve-ment in the work domain relative to men, or that men are less concernedabout family time than are women. Second, the likelihood that men andwomen pursue multiple work goals simultaneously (e.g., to be recognizedand to get along well with coworkers) must be taken into account. Differ-ences in the extent to which these multiple goals are perceived as congruentwith each other and with specific careers are likely to influence the experi-ence of interest while working on career-related activities. Finally, differenttypes of interpersonal work goals (e.g., to be helpful, competitive, cooper-ative, dominant) and their varying effects on motivation for career-relatedactivities should be examined (e.g., Sansone, Morgan, & Smith, 1999; Smith,Morgan, & Sansone, in press; Smith, Ruiz, & Isaac, 1999).

The Self-Regulation of Motivation model (Sansone & Harackiewicz,1996; Sansone & Smith, 2000) offers a viable means of integrating researchon gender differences in work goals with research on career perceptionsto further our understanding of gender differences in math/science careerchoice. The model posits that congruence between individuals’ goals andthe actual or perceived environment is a primary influence on motivation.One clear implication of research using this framework is that more than a“deficit model” stressing perceived competence is necessary for understand-ing gender differences in career choice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Patricia Gonzales, Jennifer Guerts, Kurt Ward, and KathyHolladay for their help with data collection and coding. We also thank JessiSmith, Cindy Berg, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments onearlier versions of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Alper, J. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, 409–411.American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of

major findings of girls and education. Washington, DC: Author.Bae, Y., & Smith, T. M. (1996). Issues in focus: Women in mathematics and science. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-

Hall.




Bar-Haim, G., & Wilkes, J. M. (1989). A cognitive interpretation of the marginality and under-representation of women in science. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 371–387.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attach-ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Beggs, J. M., & Doolittle, D. C. (1993). Perceptions now and then of occupational gendertyping: A replication of Shinar’s 1975 study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1435–1453.

Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations toperceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology,28, 399–410.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theory to understanding careerchoice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 279–289.

Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243–257.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harperand Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York: Plenum.

Dick, T. P., & Rallis, S. F. (1991). Factors and influences on high school students’ career choices.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 281–292.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.

Glick, P., Wilk, K., & Perreault, M. (1995). Images of occupations: Components of gender andstatus in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 32, 565–582.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get therefrom here. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 21–49.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.Isaac, J., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. (1999). Other people as sources of interest in an activity.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 239–265.Jacobs, J. E., Finken, L. L., Griffin, N. L., & Wright, J. D. (1998). The career plans of science-

talented rural adolescent girls. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 681–704.Kelly, K. R. (1993). The relation of gender and academic achievement to career self-efficacy

and interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 59–64.Kruglanski, A.W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory. Psycho-

logical Review, 82, 387–406.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of

career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,45, 79–122.

Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources andrelation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424–430.

Lips, H. M. (1992). Gender- and science-related attitudes as predictors of college students’academic choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 62–81.

Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high school students.Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3–12.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences amongthe gifted: Implications for the Math-Science pipeline. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 1, 61–66.




Matheson, K., & Strickland, L. (1986). The stereotype of the computer scientist. CanadianJournal of Behavioural Science, 18, 15–24.

McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close. New York: Doubleday.McLean, H. M., & Kalin, R. (1994). Congruence between self-image and occupational stereo-

types in students entering gender-dominated occupations. Canadian Journal of BehaviouralScience, 26, 142–162.

Morgan, C., & Sansone, C. (1995). Achievement and interpersonal concerns in everyday prob-lems: Gender differences and similarities. Unpublished manuscript.

Murray, H. A., (1938). Explorations of personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Poole, M., Langan-Fox, J., & Omodei, M. (1990). Determining career orientations in women

from different social class backgrounds. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 23, 471–490.Rowe, R., & Snizek, W. E. (1995). Gender differences in work values: Perpetuating the myth.

Work and Occupations, 22, 215–229.Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining

reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

Sansone, C. (1986). A question of competence: The effects of competence and task feedbackon intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 918–931.

Sansone, C., & Berg, C. (1993). Adapting to the environment across the lifespan: Differentprocess or different inputs? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 215–241.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it”: The function of interest inself-regulation. In L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions betweengoals and affect (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sansone, C., & Morgan, C. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and education: Competence in context.Motivation and Emotion, 16, 249–270.

Sansone, C., Morgan, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). [The effects of match between interpersonalwork goals and interpersonal purpose goals on interest]. Unpublished data.

Sansone, C., Sachau, D., & Weir, C. (1989). The effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: Theimportance of context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 818–829.

Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). Interest and self-regulation: The relation between havingto and wanting to. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 341–372). San Diego:Academic Press.

Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergrad-uate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437–473.

Smith, J. L., Morgan, C., & Sansone, C. (in press). Getting (inter)personal: The role of otherpeople in the self-regulation of interest. Advances in Psychology, Vol. 5. New York: NOVAScience Publishers, Inc.

Smith, J. L., Ruiz, J. M., & Isaac, J. D. (1999). Interpersonal orientation: A descriptive profile.Manuscript in preparation.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizationalbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.

Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Sansone, C. (1996). Goals for solving everyday problems across thelifespan: Age and gender differences in the salience of interpersonal concerns. Develop-mental Psychology, 32, 1106–1115.

Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. (1996). Gender related differences on the College Board’s AdvancedPlacement and Achievement tests, 1982–1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353–364.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. PsychologicalReview, 66, 297–333.

Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwantedinfluences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.

Yoder, J. D., & Scheicher, T. L. (1996). Undergraduates regard deviation from occupationalgender stereotypes as costly for women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 171–188.

the role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students

Documents