Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–18 | Cite as

The Hidden Role of Dominance in Career Interests: A Bifactor Analysis of Agentic and Communal Goal Orientations

  • Abigail M. FolbergEmail author
  • Kyle Kercher
  • Carey S. Ryan
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Agentic and communal goal orientations are widely used to predict career interests. However, the number of dimensions that underlie measures of goal orientations remains unclear. Across two studies, using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor confirmatory factor analysis, we found that communal goal orientation was unidimensional. However, agentic goal orientations comprised a single global agentic factor that represents a competence dimension plus two domain-specific factors: dominance and self-direction. Structural equation modeling indicated that gender differences in goal orientations, as well as the indirect effects of gender on career interest via goal orientations, were small. However, goal orientations exhibited sizeable direct effects on career interests, with agentic dominance goals the strongest predictor of organizational fit (Study 1 with 318 U.S. college students) and career interests (Study 2 with 789 U.S. MTurk workers). Future studies should consider the multidimensional structure of agentic goals and examine how dominance goals may help us better understand gender differences, social roles, and career preferences.

Keywords

Communal goal orientations Agentic goal orientations Dominance Gender roles Bifactor modeling Structural equation modeling 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Should this paper be accepted, all stimulus materials, data, and Mplus commands will be made publicly available on Open Science Framework. Further, the authors have no conflict of interest to declare. We conducted this research in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the research was approved by the IRB at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1104_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 38 kb)

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abele, A. E., Hauke, N., Peters, K., Louvet, E., Szymkow, A., & Duan, Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article ID 1810.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810.
  3. Belanger, A. L., Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2017). Leveraging communal experiences in curriculum: Increasing interest in pursuing engineering by changing stereotypic expectation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 305–319.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 422–448.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397–408.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Methodology in the social sciences. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, E. R., Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., & Diekman, A. B. (2015). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 662–673.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2017/cpsaat09.htm.
  9. Carrier, A., Louvet, E., Chauvin, B., & Rohmer, O. (2014). The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. Social Psychology, 45, 347–356.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10 Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7.
  13. Desilver, D. (2018). A record number of women will be serving in the new congress. In Pew Research Center Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/18/record-number-women-in-congress/.
  14. Diekman, A. B., & Steinberg, M. (2013). Navigating social roles in pursuit of important goals: A communal goal congruity account of STEM pursuits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 487–501.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science technology engineering and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 8, 1051–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 142–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models.  https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01. Retrieved from http://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/resources/.
  19. Eagly, A. H., & Deikman, A. B. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 434–447). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: An appraisal. In T. Ecks & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Marwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Wood, W., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2019). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis from 1946-2018. American Psychologist. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494.
  22. Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 235–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01493.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fowler, S. (2017, February 19). Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber. Retrieved from https://susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber.
  24. Fuesting, M. A., & Diekman, A. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 163–176.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Glick, P., Berdahl, J. L., & Alonso, N. M. (2018). Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 449–476.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011.
  27. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 61, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolhatkar, S. (2017, November). Letters from silicon valley: The tech industry’s gender discrimination problem. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/the-tech-industrys-gender-discrimination-problem.
  32. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J., Lieb, E., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018). Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 529–550.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc..Google Scholar
  36. Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 116–139.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  38. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69, 322–340.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaumberg, R. L., & Flynn, F. J. (2017). Self-reliance: A gender perspective on its relationship to communality and leadership evaluations. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1859–1881.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneider, M. C., Holman, M. R., Diekman, A. B., & McAndrew, T. (2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology, 37, 515–531.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2018). The role of ability beliefs and agentic vs. communal career goals in adolescents’ first educational choice. What explains the degree of gender balance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 39–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627968.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska OmahaOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Gender and Womens Studies and PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of GerontologyUniversity of Nebraska OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations