Sex and sex role effects on achievement strivings: Dimensions of similarity and difference

Authors

  • William P Gaeddert

    Corresponding author
    1. SUNY-College at Pittsburgh
      and requests for reprints should be directed to William P Gaeddert, SUNY-College at Plattsburgh, Pittsburgh, NY 12901
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This report is based on a dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Iowa State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree Portions of the current study were presented at the 1983 Meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association Dr Arnold Kahn deserves thanks for his encouragement and consultation on this research, Kim Sorenson, Nicole Zenian, and David Costello deserve recognition for their execution of their duties as content raters, and the suggestions of an anonymous reviewer are gratefully acknowledged

and requests for reprints should be directed to William P Gaeddert, SUNY-College at Plattsburgh, Pittsburgh, NY 12901

Abstract

Models of gender differences in achievement were examined to explore their accuracy and redundancy Self-reports of successes and failures of females and males were content analyzed The eight dimensions postulated by Bakan (1966, agentic-communal), Stem and Bailey (1973, task-social), Kipins (1974, other-directed, inner-directed), and Veroff (1977, impact-process) were collapsed into only two dimensions using factor analysis A domain dimension was used to consider the task (agentic) vs social (communal) nature of the achievement activities that were undertaken A performance evaluation dimension referred to whether people used intrinsic (inner-directed, process) or extrinsic (other-directed, impact) factors in evaluating their performance Analyses using measures of sex role identification, and the stereotypic masculinity or femininity of subjects’ achievements suggested (1) Sex role stereotypes are intimately related to the domains of achievement goals, however, women and men did not differ in the kinds of activities (domains) that they reported, and (2) women (intrinsic) and men (extrinsic) differed in how they defined success and failure, but these performance evaluation styles were not strongly related to sex role identification

Ancillary