Computer Science Majors: Sex Role Orientation, Academic Achievement, and Social Cognitive Factors

The Career Development Quarterly June 2006 • Volume 54 331

© 2006 by the National Career Development Association. All rights reserved.

Computer Science Majors:Sex Role Orientation, AcademicAchievement, and SocialCognitive Factors

Chris BrownLinda S. GaravaliaMary Lou Hines FrittsElizabeth A. Olson

This study examined the sex role orientations endorsed by 188 male and femalestudents majoring in computer science, a male-dominated college degree pro-gram. The relations among sex role orientation and academic achievement andsocial cognitive factors influential in career decision-making self-efficacy wereexplored. Findings revealed that androgynous- and feminine-oriented studentsscored significantly higher on career decision-making self-efficacy as comparedwith undifferentiated students. No significant sex role orientation differences werefound for academic achievement and general and career locus of control.

Sex role typing is perpetuated by the male/female socialization processand is believed to occur in all human societies. Accordingly, men andwomen may be expected to conduct different tasks, assigned differentrights and privileges, assumed to possess different temperamental char-acteristics and abilities, and may also be subjected to different rules ofconduct in their interactions with each other (Spence & Helmreich, 1978).The existence of these so-called distinctive sets of attributes (which mayor may not have factual validity) have been used to justify the perpetua-tion of society’s role structure and, furthermore, are regarded as criticalto members of each sex fulfilling their assigned roles (Spence & Helmreich,1978). Similarly, Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) stated that genderedperformances are available to everyone; however, there are constraintson who gets to perform which gender-related behaviors. They furthernoted that the intersection between sex and gender occurs as societyattempts to match up ways of behaving with biological sex. Consequently,sex role typing and its accompanying stereotypes/beliefs constitute dif-ferent expectations about appropriate behaviors for the two sexes, andthus we believe is an important factor to consider when investigatingtraditional and nontraditional career choices.

In their early work, Spence and Helmreich (1978) pointed out that themeaning of the term sex role has not been clearly understood due to vari-

Chris Brown and Elizabeth A. Olson, Division of Counseling and Educational Psy-chology; Linda S. Garavalia, Department of Psychology; and Mary Lou Hines Fritts,Office of the Provost, Academic Affairs; all at the University of Missouri–KansasCity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris Brown,Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Missouri–KansasCity, 215 School of Education, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110 (e-mail:[email protected]).

332 The Career Development Quarterly June 2006 • Volume 54

ous disciplines (e.g., psychology, anthropology, sociology) emphasizingdifferent components. However, among psychologists, she contendedthat sex role is used to refer to “the distinguishing characteristics of womenand men themselves—to differences in behavior, personality, abilities,preferences, and the like” (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p. 13). For thepurposes of this study, we use the definition of sex role recognized by thepsychology discipline. In addition, the use of the terms sex role typing(i.e., classification of types) and sex role orientation (i.e., one’s expressedtype) are used throughout the article to refer to either the classification orexpression of one’s sex role.

Prior to the 1970s, a single bipolar conception of sex role existed inwhich the psychological traits stereotypically associated with men andwomen preclude each other and thereby yield a unidimensional construct,representing either a masculine or a feminine orientation (Spence &Helmreich, 1978). Spence and Helmreich (1978) noted that scholarsbegan to question this notion of a single dimension with masculinity(including most men) at one extreme and femininity (including mostwomen) at the other extreme. Instead of a single dimension model, writershave suggested a dualistic formulation in which masculinity and femininity areessentially independent and separate dimensions.

Spence (1984) proffered that sex role is a multifactorial construct andthat sex role traits constitute but one factor (i.e., masculinity or femininity).Therefore, she further asserted that sex role orientation is predictive only insituations where the sex role traits are salient and or influential. Conversely,Bem’s (1981) theory of gender schema posited that persons display atti-tudes and behaviors that are consistent with their sex role orientation. De-spite the fact that some studies have failed to find significant relationshipswhen conceptualizing sex role as multifactorial, the sex role construct isthought to provide helpful insights into human behavior (Palan, 2001).

Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991) noted that appropriate sextyping was thought to be important to good mental health and overalladjustment. Specifically, the masculine male and the feminine female wereregarded as more psychologically advantaged as compared with their lesssex-typed counterparts. Whereas the feminine sex role has been describedas including interpersonally oriented and nurturing traits such as caretak-ing and being kind to others (i.e., expressive or interpersonal traits), themasculine sex role is descriptive of self-assertive or instrumental traitssuch as self-confidence and independence (Spence & Helmreich, 1978).

In 1974, Sandra Bem argued that traditional sex roles, as conceptualizedby the polar opposites of masculinity and femininity, were restrictive. Herresearch revealed that while some persons could be described as exclusivelymasculine or feminine, others could more accurately be described as pos-sessing both masculine and feminine traits. An androgynous orientationwas used to describe those who possessed a large and fairly even amount ofmasculine and feminine traits, while those with a low amount of both traitswere considered undifferentiated. Bem (1974) further suggested that sex-typed individuals (i.e., the masculine man and the feminine woman) mightbe less likely than androgynous individuals to achieve in situations thoughtto be sex role inappropriate or incongruent.

In an effort to understand the relevance of sex role orientation on non-traditional career choice, Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) posited that psy-


chological masculinity is a critical factor in women’s self-efficacy perceptsand choices for nontraditional career goals and achievements. Similarly,Lemaku (1979) asserted that sex role orientation assumes a major role indifferentiating women in nontraditional and traditional careers. More spe-cifically, Gianakos and Subich (1988) considered the sex and sex roleorientation of 765 undergraduates as related to choice of college major.Findings of their investigation indicated that a sex-typed orientation wasassociated with the selection of career fields in which the respective gen-der is dominant. In sum, sex role orientation has been associated withwomen’s consideration of nontraditional careers.

Sex and the Computer Science College MajorThe underrepresentation of women in science fields has been documented,and Collins, Reardon, and Waters (1980) proposed that sex-typedindividuals—in this case feminine women—lack information about non-traditional career choices. With regard to the present study, computerscience is one of the science and engineering majors with low enrollmentby women in the major. Cohoon (2002) stated, “Given our society’simage of computing as a male activity, few women are likely to considera computer science (CS) major unless they are explicitly encouraged todo so” (p. 48). Over the past 20 years, shifting interest in the computerscience major has spurred sponsorship of a number of studies by majoruniversities (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University, University of Virginia, TheOhio State University) and professional associations (e.g., Associationfor Computing Machinery (ACM) and ACM’s Women’s subassociation).A 1997 report by the ACM’s Committee on Women in Computing (n.d.)reported the following:

The trend of decreasing numbers of women enrolled in higher educationacross the United States was studied, analyzed, and reported in the Commu-nications of the ACM, October 1997. In brief, data from the National Centrefor Education Statistics [NCES] at the U.S. Department of Education showsthat the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in CS to women have de-creased tremendously since 1983. In 1983-84, 37.1% of the B.A./B.S. de-grees awarded in CS went to women; in 1994-95, only 28.4% of the B.A./B.S. degrees awarded in CS went to women. Furthermore, while the percent-age of bachelor’s degrees awarded in CS to women decreased, correspondingpercentages of other science and engineering disciplines increased. (para. 4)

The percentage of women earning computer science degrees is likely tocontinue to decline because enrollment in the major is declining. The Chronicleof Higher Education recently reported findings from the Higher EducationResearch Institute indicating that “women’s interest in computer science[as a major] fell 80 percent between 1998 and 2004, and only 0.3 percentof incoming freshmen women in 2004 expressed an interest in majoring incomputer science” (Foster, 2005, p. A32). Of note is that men’s interestalso fell in computer science; however, the decline was much more dra-matic for women. Because computer science appears to experience thegreatest difficulty among science and engineering fields in attracting womento the major, it provides a unique opportunity to study characteristics ofstudents who do choose this traditionally male major.


Social Cognitive Factors and Career Choice

Hackett and Betz (1981) suggested that the concept of self-efficacy mayfacilitate understanding of career behaviors, particularly for women. Theapplication of self-efficacy to the career domain was based on the notionthat low self-efficacy percepts for career decision making would result inavoidance of career-related tasks and behaviors. Moreover, the pioneer-ing work of Hackett and Betz has suggested that differences in the occu-pational status of men and women can be partly attributed to differencesin career self-efficacy. Furthermore, Betz and Hackett (1981) found thatcollege women held higher self-efficacy expectations for traditionally fe-male rather than traditionally male careers. Mathieu, Sowa, and Niles(1993) investigated self-efficacy expectations for career decision-makingtasks among groups of women who differed in traditionality of careerpreference. Their findings indicated that women who preferred nontradi-tional careers did not report higher career decision-making self-efficacythan did women who preferred traditional careers, but rather womenwho were undecided in their occupational choices demonstrated signifi-cantly lower career decision-making self-efficacy than did the traditionaland nontraditional female groups. Therefore, self-efficacy, particularly asit is related to the career domain, is an important factor to consider inwomen’s occupational choices.

Locus of Control, Career Choice, and Sex RoleOrientation

Similarly, locus of control, defined as the degree to which an individualbelieves he or she is in control of personal outcomes (Rotter, 1954), isyet another construct essential to understanding the attitudes and per-ceived abilities possessed by individuals. An internal locus of control ischaracterized by belief in one’s ability to control one’s own destiny, per-sistence in the face of obstacles or difficulties, and the exhibition of otheradaptive traits that enhance chances for success.

Career locus of control more specifically considers the extent to whichindividuals perceive a sense of control for career planning and careerdevelopment tasks. In short, individuals perceiving an internal locusof career control will more likely display personal responsibility fortheir career planning as compared with those perceiving external lo-cus of career control who may believe their career planning is due tochance factors (Taylor, 1982). Prior research has further indicated anassociation between students who are at high risk for failure and whoexhibit an external locus of control (Dille & Mezack, 1991) and also arelationship between students who earn higher grades and who arecharacterized by an internal locus of control (Wang & Newlin, 2000).Research has also documented the relationship between locus of con-trol and career behaviors. Specifically, Luzzo, McWhirter, and Hutcheson(1997) found that 1st-year college students employed in occupationscongruent with their career interests were more likely to perceive theyhad personal control over their career decision making as comparedwith other students.


Kuther (1998) noted that research findings related to sex differencesand locus of control have been contradictory and thus suggested thatobserved sex differences in locus of control may instead be attributed todifferences in sex role orientation. Previous research findings have asso-ciated an external locus of control with a feminine sex role orientationand an internal locus of control as part of the masculine sex role orienta-tion (e.g., Hochreich, 1975). Kuther examined the relationship betweenthe sexes for scores on sex role orientation and locus of control. Findingsof her investigation revealed that among women, an internal locus ofcontrol was associated with an androgynous orientation, whereas an ex-ternal locus of control was related to a feminine sex role orientation.Among men, scores on sex role orientation and locus of control were notsignificantly related.

Most male-dominated occupations such as computer science have typi-cally been regarded as having both high status and a high pay range. Theseprofessions may be attractive to individuals who are relatively high in in-strumental traits and who reflect a sense of agency and mastery. Previousresearch has indicated that women in traditional female occupations wouldbe sex typed in role orientation and would have external locus of control(Minnigerode, 1976). The present study, therefore, considered whetherthe locus of control orientation of men and women pursuing a degree in amale-dominated field is related to their sex role orientation.

Academic Achievement and Sex Role OrientationsPrevious research findings related to sex role orientation and academicachievement have been inconsistent. For example, Burke (1989) foundthat among middle school students, those with a feminine sex role orienta-tion displayed greater academic achievement in math, science, social studies,language arts, and foreign language courses as compared with masculine,androgynous, and undifferentiated types. Conversely, Pathare and Kanekar(1990) surveyed 300 undergraduate students regarding their academic achieve-ment and sex role orientation and found that masculine women scored high-est on academic achievement. These inconsistent findings suggest that myriadfactors may be implicated in understanding the relationship between sex roleorientation and academic achievement variables.

Present StudyGiven the noted influence of sex role orientation on occupational choice andpersistence and the underrepresentation of women completing degrees andentering the computer science and engineering workforce (Betz, 1997), webelieve that the sex role orientations, career decision-making self-efficacy,locus of control, and academic achievement of computer science majors areimportant variables to study. Women in pursuit of male-dominated fields arethought to encounter obstacles and difficulties, thus their confidence in theircareer planning and decision-making tasks (self-efficacy) as well as their be-lief in their ability to control their own destiny (locus of control) are regardedas important factors of their success (achievement). Moreover, we considerthe importance of gender-related behaviors and whether there is an ac-tivation of gender-related behaviors in the computer science field.


Hence, the primary focus of our study was to determine whether com-puter science students of varied sex role orientations differ with regard tocareer decision-making self-efficacy percepts, general and career specificlocus of control, and academic achievement. Specifically, two research questionswere considered: (a) Do male and female computer science students pos-sess different sex role orientations? and (b) Do computer science studentsrepresenting masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated ori-entations differ on self-efficacy for career decision tasks, career and gen-eral locus of control, and academic achievement?

Method

Participants and ProcedureThe participants in this study were 188 (124 men, 62 women, and 2 didnot report sex) undergraduate students currently majoring in computerscience at a midwestern university. The race/ethnicity of the participantswas as follows: 100 Caucasian; 41 Asian; 16 Hispanic; 9 Turkish; Indian,or Pakistani; 12 African American; 4 Black; non-Hispanic; non-American;5 reported other; and 1 unreported. Participants ranged in age from 18 to50, with a mean age of 24.4 years (SD = 6.24). In accordance with institu-tional review board policy, computer science students were solicited forparticipation through entry-level courses. Specifically, computer sciencestudents who were currently enrolled in either Computer Science (CS) 101or 201 were invited to complete online surveys. Both CS101 and the sub-sequent 201 course teach students basic principles in computer program-ming using C++ programming language. The data collection points com-prised four consecutive semesters, and the surveys were made available ona secure Web site for 1 week at midsemester. Students who voluntarilyagreed to participate in the study completed an informed consent docu-ment, which allowed us permission to access university records for thepurposes of obtaining final course grades and demographic information.Ninety-eight of the 188 participants were enrolled in CS 101.

InstrumentationCareer decision-making self-efficacy. The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDSE-SF; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996) is a 25-item scale de-signed to assess self-efficacy expectations for career decision-making tasks. Par-ticipants indicated their ability to complete career decision-making tasks using a10-point scale ranging from (0) no confidence to (9) complete confidence. A sum-mation of scores is generated such that higher scores reflect greater confidencein career decision-making tasks. Coefficient alpha reliabilities range from .73 to.83 for the subscale scores and .94 for the total score (Betz et al., 1996). Ad-equate support for the construct validity of this scale has been established throughcorrelations between CDSE and vocational identity (Betz et al., 1996) and be-tween CDSE and fear of commitment (Betz & Serling, 1995).

Locus of control. We assessed locus of control across two domains:internal-external control and career locus of control. Rotter (1975) indi-cated that increased precision in predicting outcomes would be forthcomingwith the inclusion of domain specific scales. We thus included two measuresof locus of control: general and career specific.


1. The Rotter Internal-External Control Scale (I-E; Rotter, 1966) con-sists of 29 forced-choice items and measures the degree to which partici-pants perceive reinforcement as contingent upon their actions. Six of theitems are filler items to disguise the purpose of the test. Thus, the scaleconsists of 23 I-E items and 6 filler items. Higher scores indicate an externallocus of control. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) reported test–retest reliabilityof .75 for psychiatric patients over a 6-week interval. Evidence of con-struct validity is supported by the close relationships between item contentand patterns of environment control (Seeman & Evans, 1962).

2. The Career Locus of Control Scale (CLCS; Trice, Haire, & Elliott,1989) measures locus of control for career planning and consists of 18statements scored on a true/false format. Scores range from 0 to 18 andare calculated by totaling the number of external responses. Higher scoresindicate more external locus of control for career development. Trice et al.reported a test–retest reliability coefficient of .93 over a 3-week intervaland Kuder Richardson (K-R 20) reliability estimates of .81 to .89 for col-lege student samples. As evidence of construct validity, Trice et al. re-ported a positive correlation between CLCS scores and a variety of careerdevelopment behaviors, such as job search and career exploration tasks.

Sex role orientation. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence& Helmreich, 1978) is a 24-item self-report instrument composed ofthree scales (M, F, and M-F) that are computed by adding the 8 itemscomprising each scale, yielding scores that range from 0-32 on each ofthe three scales. The Masculinity (M) scale comprises self-assertive-instrumental traits (e.g., independent, competitive, aggressive) while theFemininity (F) scale consists of traits described as interpersonal-expressive(e.g., emotional, dependent, helpful). The Masculinity-Femininity (M-F)scale reflects self-assertive-instrumental or expressive-interpersonal char-acteristics, or a combination of both. Respondents are asked to ratethemselves on 24 traits scored on a 5-point bipolar continuum, for ex-ample, from A (0) not at all aggressive to E (4) very aggressive. Spenceand Helmreich (1978) provided cutoff scores on the M and F scalesthat reflect Masculine, Feminine, Androgynous, and Undifferentiatedsex role classifications. Consistent with Spence and Helmreich’s classi-fication guidelines, cutoff scores on the Masculinity and Femininity scaleswere used to classify participants into the four sex role groups. Thecutoff scores provided by Spence and Helmreich on the Masculinity andFemininity scales are the median scores for each scale and were basedon their norm sample of 715 college students. As noted by Spence andHelmreich (1978), the burden lies with the researchers to scrutinizetheir data and determine whether the median-split method is appropri-ate. Evidence of the PAQ’s psychometric soundness has been estab-lished, with validation evidence indicating that the PAQ differentiatesbetween the sexes on each of the three scales. Spence and Helmreich(1978) reported Cronbach’s alphas for the M and F scales of .85 and.82, respectively.

Academic achievement. Students’ final course grades were obtained fromuniversity records at the completion of the semester course. Academicachievement was measured by students’ earned course grade. Gradeswere reported on a 4-point grading scale ranging from A (4.00) to F(0.00), including pluses and minuses (e.g., B– = 2.70).


ResultsAn examination of sex role orientation as related to career and academicachievement behaviors was the focus of the present study. However, inorder to establish that any differences that emerged were not simply dueto sex differences, we first conducted analyses to determine if male andfemale participants differed on the variables under investigation, namelyself-efficacy, locus of control, and academic achievement. Findings failedto reveal significant sex differences for career decision-making self-efficacy, general and career locus of control, and academic achievement,as measured by final course grade. Therefore, we eliminated sex differ-ences as a competing explanation for our findings. Table 1 provides themeans, standard deviations, and range of all variables under investigation.

Participants represented the following sex role orientations: undifferenti-ated (n = 82; 44%), feminine (n = 67; 36 %), and androgynous (n = 36;19%). Only one participant (male) reported a masculine orientation, thusthe masculine orientation category and accompanying data for the oneparticipant were excluded from all data analyses, resulting in 124 male and62 female participants (recall that 2 participants failed to report their sex).

An examination of sex role orientations endorsed by our male and femalesample participants revealed that 51% (n = 63) of our male participantsidentified as undifferentiated, whereas only 31% (n = 19) of female respon-dents reflected an undifferentiated sex role orientation. Half (50%, n = 31)of the female participants identified as feminine, and 29% (n = 36) of maleparticipants endorsed a feminine orientation. Male and female partici-pants were equally reflected by the androgynous orientation, with 20%being male and 19% female (see Table 2).

To determine whether differences in self-efficacy for decision-makingtasks existed across sex role orientations, we used an analysis of variance(ANOVA). The results of this analysis indicated a significant group dif-ference, F(2, 179) = 9.65, p < .001. Follow-up post hoc analyses revealedthat both androgynous (M = 180.1, SD = 24.9) and feminine (M = 175, SD= 25.1) oriented students scored significantly higher on career decision-making self-efficacy as compared with undifferentiated oriented students(M = 158.6, SD = 31.8). In other words, students who possessed greatercombined masculine and feminine traits and students who possessed greaterfeminine traits were more confident in their ability to make career deci-sions than their counterparts who possessed lower masculine and femi-nine traits.

In order to determine whether students of different sex role orientationsreported differences in general and career locus of control, a multivariate

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Range for Career, Locus ofControl, and Academic Achievement Variables

Career decision-making self-efficacyLocus of controlCareer locus of controlAcademic achievement

Variable

168.719.968.033.01

M RangeSD

29.534.163.121.12

59–2251–201–180–4.0


analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Findings of this analysisfailed to reveal significant sex role orientation differences on the generaland career locus of control variables. An examination of academic achieve-ment differences across sex role orientations, using an ANOVA, alsofailed to reveal significant group differences.

DiscussionThe purposes of the present study were twofold: (a) to determine thesex role orientation of college students majoring in computer science and(b) to investigate differences in career decision-making self-efficacy, gen-eral and career locus of control, and academic achievement among com-puter science students who vary in sex role orientation. Because onlyone participant indicated having a masculine orientation, this orienta-tion was not included in the analyses, and comparisons were madeamong feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated orientations. Thealmost complete absence of a masculine sex role orientation in oursample participants is interesting and also quite surprising. A plausibleexplanation for why so few of our computer science participants werehigh in instrumentality (i.e., masculine traits) is discussed later in thissection. An ANOVA was conducted to test whether sex differencesmight offer a competing explanation for any differences among thestudy variables. No significant sex differences were found across ca-reer decision-making self-efficacy, general and career locus of con-trol, and academic achievement.

Our primary research question addressed differences in sex role orien-tation among college students majoring in computer science. We wereparticularly interested in the sex role orientation of female students, be-cause computer science fields are regarded as traditionally male domi-nated. Earlier researchers suggested that possession of masculine traits isan important factor in differentiating between women in traditional andnontraditional careers (Gianakos & Subich, 1988). Contrary to this as-sertion, we found that 50% of the female participants in our sample ofcomputer science majors possessed a feminine orientation and, there-fore, were low in masculine traits.

In addition, none of the female participants reported a dominant maleorientation, and only 19% reported an androgynous orientation (both high

TABLE 2

Sex Role Orientation by Sex of College Students Majoring inComputer Science

FeminineMasculineAndrogynousUndifferentiated

Sex Role Orientation

310

1219

n %

Sex

n %

Women (n = 62) Men (n = 124)

500

1931

361

2463

290

2051


masculine and feminine traits). Moreover, Bem’s (1974) assertion thatsex-typed individual’s achieve less success than their more androgynouscounterparts in situations thought to be sex role inappropriate or incongru-ent was not supported. If this were the case, then the androgynous femaleparticipants in our sample would have achieved at higher levels than thefeminine female participants. In our sample, no academic achievementdifferences were found among students with different sex role orientations.As previously noted, research findings related to academic achievementand sex role orientations, which have included both secondary and under-graduate students, have been mixed in terms of which sex role orientationdisplayed greater academic achievement. Our findings do not support thisprevious yet inconsistent research, which has found sex role differences.

Although women remain underrepresented in the computer science field,they composed 33% of our sample participants, which is higher than whathas been reported in the literature. It is possible that our sample is differentin some systematic way, and we contemplate whether our findings representa one-site phenomenon. What we do know is that the university at which oursample participants were students had not engaged in any organized effortsor specific strategies targeted at the recruitment of women in past years or atthe time we collected our data. Thus factors that might account for theuniqueness of this midwestern university remain perplexing.

Alternatively, we consider whether the face of computer science degreeprograms is changing such that the computer science field is no longerjust attractive to White men, which is why we find more women enrolledin and graduating from such programs than previous data would support.Specifically, the university at which our sample was taken reported theaverage enrollment percentage for female computer science majors, overthe four consecutive semesters that we collected data, to be 26%, which isnot considerably less than the 33% composing our sample. Also notewor-thy, in terms of graduation rates, is that the average percentage of male(65%) and female (35%) students who graduated from this university inthe past four semesters somewhat parallels the university’s male (74%)and female (26%) enrollment percentages for earlier semesters and sug-gests that slightly more than a third of the university’s computer sciencegraduates over a four-semester span are women.

Perhaps most interesting is that our male and female computer scienceundergraduates were uncharacterized by a masculine orientation (notedexception being 1 participant who endorsed a masculine orientation),which we did not expect given that computer science is regarded as amale-dominated field. Perhaps the lack of instrumental traits endorsed byour computer science participants suggests that feminine traits are moreimportant when considering the rigor of a computer science degree. Saiddifferently, we suppose that it is likely that the nature of computer scienceprograms requires students to cooperate with one another in order tomeet deadlines and to successfully complete homework and other course-related assignments, which may result in an environment that activatesexpressive traits while attenuating the masculinity variable. The first andsecond authors of this study have recently completed computer sciencecourse work and recall that students, to a great extent, collaborated andworked in small and large groups to facilitate successful learning. Thesecollaborative and team approach efforts, which were encouraged by the


department’s instructors and teaching assistants, may call for expressivetraits such as helping others, understanding others, and warm relationswith others.

To further support this notion, we draw upon Spence’s (1984) assertionthat the extent to which individuals engage in gender/sex role relatedbehaviors may be contingent upon how important the gender/sex rolerelated traits are in a particular context. Persons possess different sche-mata, which may be activated in a given situation. That is, attitudes andbehaviors are likely to be gender based due to the influence or salience ofgender in that situation. On the basis of these assertions, we venture tosay that the nature of computer science programs, although a tradition-ally male-dominated field, may be a field in which feminine or expressivesex role traits are much more salient and influential than instrumental(masculine) traits. Future research that includes multiple computer sci-ence settings is needed to corroborate these findings.

The implications of this finding are particularly important for highschool guidance counselors and college advisers who are encouraged tosupport female students in their choice of nontraditional careers, eventhough they may fail to display masculine traits. Only 1 male participantpossessed a masculine sex role orientation, and only 20% possessed anandrogynous orientation; however, 29% reported a feminine sex roleorientation, and 51% were undifferentiated. We were surprised to findthat almost half (44%) of our male and female participants identified asundifferentiated (i.e., low levels of both masculinity and femininity traits).Perhaps, as suggested by Spence and Helmreich (1979), the conceptsof instrumentality and expressiveness may vary across time for individu-als and according to different contexts. In other words, the meaning ofmasculinity and femininity and the gender roles that men and womenoccupy may vary in different situations in response to changes in rolesand responsibilities.

A caveat is that the undifferentiated students in our study scored significantlylower on career decision-making self-efficacy as compared with their femi-nine- and androgynous-oriented peers. These findings are consistent with priorresearch by Gianakos (1995) and Abdalla (1995) who also found that under-graduates with an undifferentiated orientation scored lowest on career decision-making self-efficacy. Gianakos hypothesized that undifferentiated persons wouldhave weaker mastery percepts and more restricted career exploration activitiesas compared with other orientations largely due to limitations in their work-related experiences and cognitive appraisals of careers.

In addition, individuals with an undifferentiated orientation have alsobeen found to exhibit lower self-esteem (Napholz, 1994), less leadershipbehavior (Gurman & Long, 1992), and lower self-concept (Bryan &Petrangelo, 1989) than individuals displaying feminine, masculine, orandrogynous orientations. Persons endorsing an undifferentiated sex roleorientation have expressed few instrumental and expressive attributes andhave therefore been described in previous literature as having a limitedrepertoire of behavioral responses to situational demands and poorer so-cialization as compared with the other sex role groups (Bem, 1974).Cook (1985), in her critique of the sex role typology, pointed out that thetypology may be problematic if the tendency is to “describe sex-role cat-egories in terms of what they are not, as in the ‘undifferentiated folks are


not like the others’ hypotheses” (p. 5). She further clarified that thedefinition of a category by negation is problematic, in particular, withmeasures that rely largely on socially desirable characteristics. Accordingto Cook, emphasis has been on describing undifferentiated persons asworse off than others rather than on efforts to theoretically describe howand why undifferentiated persons might be expected to behave.

In the present study, the relatively lower career decision-making self-efficacy endorsed by undifferentiated computer science students suggeststhat sex role orientation, in addition to other variables, is associated withcareer decision-making tasks. Given the lower career decision-makingself-efficacy for undifferentiated students, one might expect to find locus-of-control differences, but this was not the case. With regard to bothgeneral and career locus of control, students with an undifferentiatedorientation did not display any significant differences from other sex roleorientations. One likely explanation is that personal control accounts foronly a portion of the variance in individuals’ beliefs about their ability tomake career decisions. Therefore, differences may emerge with regardto students’ confidence in their ability to make career decisions, eventhough similar beliefs about personal control are held. These findings areconsistent with Napholz (1992) who explored the relationship betweenlocus of control and sex role orientation among nurses and found nodifferences between the sex types on locus of control.

Last, no achievement differences were found among feminine, androgy-nous, and undifferentiated students. An examination of academic achieve-ment differences between the masculine and other sex role orientations inthe present study was not possible due to the masculine category notbeing endorsed by our sample participants. Nonetheless, as previouslynoted, prior research findings related to sex role orientation and aca-demic achievement have been inconsistent.

Overall these findings have important implications for career counsel-ing. Of note is that undifferentiated individuals displayed lower levels ofcareer decision-making self-efficacy, as compared with their feminine andandrogynous peers, which therefore implies that these individuals feelless able to make successful career decisions. Career counseling profes-sionals may want to consider sex role orientation as an important factorwhen attempting to understand career-related behaviors and competen-cies. Also notable for counselors is the fact that there were no significantsex role orientation differences in academic achievement, thus individualsdisplaying expressive traits should not be discouraged from exploringcareers stereotypically labeled as masculine.

Perhaps the most interesting and important finding of the present studyis that the masculine sex role orientation was not reflected by our sampleparticipants. Future research should examine whether the absence of amasculine orientation persists in other samples of undergraduate studentspursuing computer science degrees. Given that American Association ofColleges and Universities (AACU; 2000) data indicated that only 7% ofwomen earn degrees in computer science, it is surprising that approxi-mately one third of our sample participants were female. It is, however,important to note that the 33% of women reflected in our sample is consis-tent with the university’s percentage of women enrolled in the computerscience degree program from the semesters in which we collected our data


(i.e., 29.3% or 67 of 228 computer science students are women). Oneplausible explanation for the larger percentage of women reflected in oursample as compared to AACU data is that more women are entering orconsidering this field than in previous years, which could suggest that com-puter science is moving away from being a male-dominated field. Of course,future research is needed to replicate our findings by including computerscience majors across multiple university settings. We also suggest thatfuture research use longitudinal designs, which can consider students’career intentions beyond their degree expectations as confirmed by enroll-ment in introductory computer science courses in order to provide evi-dence of solidified career pursuits in computer science fields of study.Finally, as noted by Spence and Helmreich (1980), we acknowledge thatother variables such as attitudes, values, interests, abilities, and externalpressures may be a stronger determinant of one’s sex role preferences andbehaviors. As such, we encourage future research to explore these otherimportant variables when considering sex role preferences.

ReferencesAbdalla, I. A. (1995). Sex, sex-role self-concepts and career decision-making self-efficacy

among Arab students. Social Behavior & Personality, 23, 389–401.Association for Computing Machinery, Committee on Women in Computing. (n.d.).

Completed projects. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://women.acm.org/completed.html

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2000). On campus with women.Washington, DC: Author.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychologi-cal Review, 88, 354–364.

Betz, N. E. (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completingmajors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school:Effects of achievement and performance (pp. 105–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press.Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expec-

tations to perceived career options in college men and women. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 28, 399–410.

Betz, N. E., Klein, K. E., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form ofthe Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment,4, 47–57.

Betz, N. E., & Serling, D. (1995). Fear of commitment and career decision-makingself-efficacy. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Bryan, A. J., & Petrangelo, G. J. (1989). Self-concept and sex role orientationin adolescence. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 15, 17–29.

Burke, P. J. (1989). Gender identity, sex, and school performance. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 52, 159–169.

Cohoon, J. M. (2002). Recruiting and retaining women in undergraduate computingmajors. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 48–52.

Collins, J., Reardon, M., & Waters, L. K. (1980). Occupational interest and perceivedpersonal success: Effects of gender, sex-role orientation, and the sexual compositionof the occupation. Psychological Reports, 47, 1155–1159.

Cook, E. P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.


Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among commu-nity college telecourse students. The American Journal of Distance Education,5(1), 24–35.

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Foster, A. L. (2005, May 27). Student interest in computer science plummets: Technol-ogy companies struggle to fill vacant positions. The Chronicle of Higher Education,pp. A31–A32.

Gianakos, I. (1995). The relation of sex role identity to career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 131–143.

Gianakos, I., & Subich, L. M. (1988). Student sex and sex role in relation to collegemajor choice. The Career Development Quarterly, 36, 259–268.

Gurman, E. B., & Long, K. (1992). Emergent leadership and female sex role identity.Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 126, 309–316.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career developmentof women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.

Harrow, M., & Ferrante, A. (1969). Locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 582–589.

Hochreich, D. J. (1975). Sex-role stereotypes for internal-external control and inter-personal trust. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 273.

Kuther, T. L. (1998). Sex and sex-role differences in locus of control. PsychologicalReports, 82, 188–190.

Lemaku, J. P. (1979). Personality and background characteristics of women in male-dominated occupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 221–240.

Luzzo, D. A., McWhirter, E. H., & Hutcheson, K. G. (1997). Evaluating career decision-making factors associated with employment among first-year college students. Journalof College Student Development, 38, 166–172

Mathieu, P. S., Sowa, C. J., & Niles, S. G. (1993). Differences in career self-efficacyamong women. Journal of Career Development, 19, 187–196.

Minnigerode, F. (1976). Attitudes toward women, sex-role stereotyping and locus ofcontrol. Psychological Reports, 38, 1301–1302.

Napholz, L. (1992). The relationship between locus of control, instrumental and ex-pressive traits among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 975–982.

Napholz, L. (1994). Sex role orientation and psychological well-being among work-ing Black women. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 469–482.

Palan, K. M. (2001). Gender identity in consumer behavior research: A literature re-view and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2001(10). Re-trieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-2001.pdf

Pathare, S. S., & Kanekar, S. (1990). Self-esteem, intelligence and academic achieve-ment of Indian college students in relation to their sex roles. The Irish Journal ofPsychology, 11, 31–40.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of person-ality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct on

internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 43, 56–67.

Seeman, M., & Evans, J. W. (1962). Alienation and learning in a hospital setting. AmericanSociological Review, 27, 772–783.

Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptualanalysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality Re-search, 13, 1–97.


Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psycho-logical dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). Comparison of masculine and feminine per-sonality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 15, 583–584.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminineexpressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 5, 147–163.

Taylor, K. M. (1982). An investigation of vocational indecision in college students:Correlates and moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 471–476.

Trice, A. D., Haire, J. R., & Elliott, K. A. (1989). A career locus of control scale forundergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 555–561.

Wang, A., & Newlin, M. (2000). Characteristics of students who enroll and succeed inpsychology Web-based classes. Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137–143.

Computer Science Majors: Sex Role Orientation, Academic Achievement, and Social Cognitive Factors

Documents

Transcript of Computer Science Majors: Sex Role Orientation, Academic Achievement, and Social Cognitive Factors