DENTAL STUDENTS' ATTITUDE TO GENDER ROLES

HOWARD M. ROSENBERG,1* ANDREW J. CUCCHIARA2 andMARK L. HELPIN1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania,4001 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6003, U.S.A. and 2The General Clinical Research Centers,

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.

AbstractÐThis investigation assessed attitudes held by United States women and men dental studentstoward professional and sex role concepts. The concepts included: female dental student, male dentalstudent, dentist, adult woman, adult man, wife and husband. These attitudes were evaluated and com-pared in the context of the students' current and future professional roles and their sex roles. Althoughthere were several di�erences in attitudes between the two subject groups, the results suggest that thewomen and men dental students viewed their various roles as consistent with one another. It is particu-larly important to note that the women dental student is viewed by both gender groups as having pro-fessional and sex roles which do not con¯ict. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Key wordsÐdental students, gender roles

INTRODUCTION

About twenty-®ve years ago, studies of attitudesheld toward women dental students emerged in the

literature. Linn (1971) reported that women dentalstudents were excluded from informal study sessions

and had only minimal opportunities for social ac-tivities with their male dental colleagues. These

women felt they were not totally accepted and theydeveloped a sense of isolation. Austin et al. (1973)found that women dental students perceived ``nega-

tive attitudes'' and ``subtle discriminations'' amongmale dental students and faculty. Frank and

Katcher (1975) reported that male dental studentsdid not give support to the professional aspirations

and accomplishments of women dental students.In 1976, Rosenberg and Thompson evaluated the

attitudes held by male students and male dental fac-ulty toward female dental students, particularly in

the context of the more traditional roles of womenin American society. This study concluded that: (1)

male dental faculty and male dental students hadsimilar perceptions of women dental students; (2)male dental faculty and male dental students rated

women dental students high on evaluative scales(e.g., good±bad) and activity scales (e.g., fast±slow)

but low in potency scales (e.g., strong±weak); (3)male dental faculty and male dental students viewed

the concept of female dental student as di�erentfrom both the sex role of adult woman and the pro-

fessional role of dentist. At the same time, maledental faculty and male dental students viewed the

concept of male dental student as consistent with

both the sex role of adult man and the professional

role of dentist.

Twenty years after the Rosenberg and Thompson

study (1976), Rosenberg et al. (1996) sought to

compare the attitudes held by male dental faculty

and male dental students toward female dental stu-

dents with the attitudes found in the middle of the

1970s. They found that the attitudes toward women

dental students among male dental faculty and stu-

dents had changed. Both the male faculty and male

students perceived the concept of female dental stu-

dent as consistent with the concepts of dentist,

adult woman, and wife.

At the time that the Rosenberg and Thompson

study was undertaken (1976), there were too few

women dental students to provide statistically sig-

ni®cant information from investigating their atti-

tudes. Only 3.2% of the dental class of 1975 in the

United States were women (American Association

of Dental Schools, 1975). Now that women consti-

tute a substantial portion of a United States dental

school class (36.5% of the class of 1997), it is both

possible and important to evaluate their attitudes

(American Dental Association, 1995).

The current study evaluated the attitudes women

dental students hold toward themselves and toward

male dental students. The primary goal was to

assess these attitudes in the context of their sex

roles and their chosen professional role. The atti-

tudes male dental students hold toward themselves

and toward women dental students are also

reported.

Soc. Sci. Med. Vol. 47, No. 11, pp. 1877±1880, 1998# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0277-9536/98/$ - see front matter

PII: S0277-9536(98)00244-5

*Author for correspondence.

1877

METHOD

The subjects were ®rst, second, third and fourthyear male and female dental students attending the

University of Pennsylvania School of DentalMedicine, a private dental school with an enroll-

ment of about 40% women dental students, whichis close to the national average (American Dental

Association, 1995). Note that the ®rst, second and

third year male subjects were the same subjectsused in a previously published report on male atti-

tudes toward women dental students (Rosenberg etal., 1996). Questionnaires were distributed to and

completed by the students during regularly sched-

uled laboratory or seminar periods in order toachieve a high rate of participation (Table 1). The

di�erences in participation amongst the studentsand the classes are explained by the attendance in

the laboratory or seminars during which the surveyswere conducted. The authors are not aware of any

extraordinary in¯uences on student attendance

during the times selected. It should be noted thatattendance is not required nor is it typically

checked. No attempt was made to contact the stu-dents who were not present when the questionnaires

were completed. The subjects were informed that

they were helping in an attitude survey, but nofurther details were provided. The questionnaires

were completed during 1996.

The subjects were given a semantic di�erentialquestionnaire in order to measure selected attitudes.

It has been demonstrated that the semantic di�eren-tial is both a valid and a reliable method for

measuring attitudes. This technique measures the

a�ective meaning (attitude) that a concept (e.g.,adult man or adult woman) holds for individuals or

groups. Through factor analyses, it allows for com-parisons of these meanings between individuals or

groups. The rationale, techniques and implicationsof the analyses and the validation of the semantic

di�erential technique are well documented in the lit-

erature and are comprehensively presented byOsgood and Tzeng (1990).

The questionnaire measured the subjects' atti-

tudes toward seven general concepts: adult man,adult woman, dentist, husband, wife, male dental

student and female dental student. The subjectsrated four bipolar adjectives (e.g., big±small), on a

seven-point scale, for an evaluative factor (e.g.,good±bad), a potency factor (e.g., strong±weak)and an activity factor (e.g., fast±slow). Therefore,

each subject rated twelve adjective pairs for eachconcept. A mean score was determined for each ofthe three factors as they related to each of the seven

general concepts. The possible mean scores rangefrom 4 to 28, with 16 considered to be neutral.Male and female student ratings were compared

and p-values were determined with two-tail t-tests(Winer, 1971; Bulman and Osborn, 1989; Brunette,1996). The degree of perceived similarity betweenconcepts is de®ned in terms of a di�erence (D)

score (Osgood and Tzeng, 1990). The larger the Dscore, the further apart the concepts are in semanticspace and, therefore, the greater the di�erence in

meaning to the subjects. Representative conceptspairs were selected for comparison (e.g., dentist/adult man) and the D scores determined by the men

and the women students were compared. Statisticalsigni®cance for these D scores was tested using two-tail t-tests. Bonferroni's multiple range test was

applied to the ten means of the D scores of theselected concept pairs determined by the female andthe male subjects (Osgood and Tzeng, 1990). Thisprocedure provides comparisons of the attitude (or

meaning) held by a group toward a concept in thecontext of that group's attitudes toward other con-cepts.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the comparisons of the meansand standard deviations for the seven general con-

cepts and their three semantic di�erential factorsfor the subject groups. The male and female stu-dents rated at least one factor signi®cantly di�erent

for all of the concepts. They judged all three factorssigni®cantly di�erent for the concepts wife andmale dental student. The women scored wife as sig-

ni®cantly higher in the evaluative, potency and ac-tivity factors than the men scored this concept. Thewomen rated male dental student as signi®cantlylower in the three factors than the male ratings.

Table 3 demonstrates the di�erence (D) scoresbetween the paired concepts selected for compari-son. Of the ten concept comparisons, six demon-

strated statistically signi®cant di�erences betweenthe ratings by the women and male subjects. Thewomen subjects viewed the following concept pairs

as signi®cantly further apart than did the men sub-jects: dentist/male dental student, husband/adultman, husband/male dental student and adult man/

male dental student. The concept pairs dentist/adultwoman and wife/female dental student were viewedas signi®cantly closer together by the women thanby the men.

Table 1. Number and percentage of subjects by dental class andgender

Total numberNumber ofparticipants

Percentage ofparticipants

Female studentsFirst 37 37 100.00Second 38 33 86.84Third 39 35 89.74Fourth 36 27 75.00Total 150 132 88.00

Male studentsFirst 60 39 65.00Second 59 49 83.05Third 60 36 60.00Fourth 49 28 57.14Total 228 152 66.67

H. M. Rosenberg et al.1878

Bonferroni's multiple range test was applied tothe ten means of the D scores for the two subject

groups. This demonstrated that there are only a fewsigni®cantly di�erent D score means for the conceptpairs. For example, the women students view the

concepts of wife and female dental student as sig-ni®cantly closer than husband and male dental stu-dent.

DISCUSSION

This study evaluated and compared the attitudeswomen and men dental students hold toward them-selves and toward their opposite gender dental stu-

dent colleagues in the context of their professionalroles and sex roles. It is important to recognize thatthis work was done in only one United States den-tal school and care must be utilized in applying the

results either nationwide or worldwide.The evaluations of the concept meanings held by

the subject groups demonstrate that there are di�er-

ences between the female student and male studentattitudes and that none of the concepts is viewed ina neutral fashion (Table 2). The di�erence (D)

scores also reveal di�erences for the relationshipsbetween the selected pairs of concepts as viewed bythe subject groups. These di�erences do not necess-

arily represent problems nor con¯icts, but furtherresearch would help to explain these di�erences.The multiple range tests of the D score means

(Figs 1 and 2) provide the analyses which are most

applicable to the principal goal of this study. These

analyses yield information on how a group per-

ceives various concepts in relationship to one

another. They demonstrate (Fig. 1) that the womenview their current professional role (female dental

student) as consistent with their sex roles (adult

woman and wife) and with their chosen professional

role (dentist). Furthermore, the women students

perceive these relationships to be no di�erent from

the male dental students' relationships with theirmale sex roles (adult man and husband) and the

professional role of dentist. The evidence (Fig. 2)

indicates that the male dental students agree with

these assessments.

It has been stated that the low expectations

women have had for themselves can be a severely

limiting factor to their success (Grace, 1995). The

manner in which the women subjects in this studyview themselves, as women, wives and dentists, indi-

cates that they do not see themselves in a limited

fashion. The results suggest that they feel that they

can ``do it all'' (i.e., ful®ll all of their roles). In ad-

dition, the attitudes of the male dental studentstoward the women students are important because,

as previously reported (Rosenberg and Thompson,

1976; Rosenberg et al., 1996), twenty years ago

there was concern that the dental school environ-

ment in the United States (at least the males who

largely determined that environment) was present-ing women dental students with con¯icts between

their sex roles and their developing professional

roles.

Since this study was conducted in only one dental

school, similar investigations within other dental

schools would, therefore, be valuable. It would also

be useful to study dental students in all parts of the

world. In addition, studies of attitudes held by den-tists, in the United States and worldwide, and in

various stages of their careers, would help to deter-

mine the gender related attitudes women dentists

have to encounter after graduation.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for concepts and semanticdi�erential factors

Female studentsN = 132

Male studentsN = 152

mean s.d. mean s.d.

Evaluative factorAdult man 18.2 4.3 18.7 4.4Adult woman 21.4 3.8 20.3 4.2a

Husband 22.7 4.5 21.8 3.9Wife 24.2 3.5 22.2 4.3a

Dentist 21.3 4.1 21.4 3.9Male dental student 18.4 5.2 20.1 5.4a

Female dental student 22.4 4.1 20.6 4.8a

Potency factorAdult man 19.4 2.7 20.7 2.9a

Adult woman 15.6 2.9 13.9 3.7a

Husband 19.3 2.7 20.6 3.0a

Wife 16.3 3.5 15.2 4.1a

Dentist 17.6 2.3 18.2 2.9Male dental student 18.2 2.9 19.5 3.2a

Female dental student 16.2 2.9 15.2 3.6a

Activity factorAdult man 18.6 2.8 19.3 3.4Adult woman 17.4 2.9 16.7 3.9Husband 18.2 3.3 18.8 3.4Wife 18.6 3.3 17.4 3.6a

Dentist 17.0 3.2 17.9 3.5a

Male dental student 18.5 3.5 19.6 3.3a

Female dental student 18.1 3.2 17.3 3.6

aSigni®cant di�erence (p < 0.05) between female students andmale students.

A higher score represents a greater perceived strength within thefactor while a lower score represents a smaller perceivedstrength within the factor. A score of 16 is considered to beneutral.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for di�erences (D) scoresbetween selected concepts as rated on the semantic di�erential

Female studentsN = 132

Male studentsN = 152

Concepts mean s.d. mean s.d.

Dentist/adult man 6.8 4.2 6.4 3.4Dentist/adult woman 5.7 3.5 7.6 5.3a

Dentist/male student 6.6 4.6 5.3 3.4a

Dentist/female student 5.7 3.3 6.7 5.2Wife/adult woman 5.7 3.7 6.0 4.0Husband/adult man 6.6 4.4 5.6 3.4a

Wife/female student 4.8 3.5 5.8 4.2a

Husband/male student 7.4 5.4 5.3 3.6a

Adult woman/femalestudent 5.4 3.2 5.9 3.7Adult man/male student 6.5 4.3 5.4 3.1a

aSigni®cant di�erence (p < 0.05) between female students andmale students.

A low D score is indicative of perceived similarity between theconcepts. A high D score is indicative of perceived dissimilaritybetween concepts.

Dental students' attitudes 1879

AcknowledgementsÐThis study was supported in part bygrant NIH DRR-GCRC RR00040.

REFERENCES

American Association of Dental Schools. (1975) Numberof women in dental schools increases signi®cantly.Bulletin of Dental Education 8(4), 2.

American Dental Association. Survey Center Department.(1995) Annual report on dental education 1994/1995, p.2. Chicago: American Dental Association.

Austin, G. B., Maher, M. M. and LoMonaco, C. J. (1973)Women in dentistry and medicine: attitudinal survey ofeducational experience. Journal of Dental Education 37,11±17.

Brunette, D. M. (1996) Critical thinking: understanding andevaluating dental research. Carol Stream, III:Quintessence.

Bulman, J. S. and Osborn, J. F. (1989) Statistics in dentis-try. London: British Dental Association.

Frank, H. H. and Katcher, A. H. (1975) Con¯ict betweensex and professional roles among male and female den-tistry students. Abstract 386. Journal of Dental Research54, 141.

Grace, M. (1995) Mike Grace talks to Elizabeth Kay.British Dental Journal 178(11), 402±404.

Linn, E. L. (1971) Women Dental Students. MilbankMemorial Fund Quarterly 49, 63±76.

Osgood, C. E. and Tzeng, O. C. S., Eds. (1990).Language, Meaning and Culture. New York: Praeger.

Rosenberg, H. M., Cucchiara, A. J. and Helpin, M.L. (1996) Attitudes toward women dental studentsamong male dental students and faculty in 1976 and1996. Journal of Dental Education 60, 847±852.

Rosenberg, H. M. and Thompson, N. L. (1976) Attitudestoward women dental students among male dental stu-dents and male dental faculty members. Journal ofDental Education 40, 676±680.

Winer, B. J. (1971) Statistical Principles in ExperimentalDesign. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fig. 1. Bonferroni's multiple range test applied to the di�erences between means of semantic di�erentialD scores by female dental students. Any two means not underscored by the same line are signi®cantlydi�erent (p < 0.05). Any two means underscored by the same line are not signi®cantly di�erent. D rep-resents dentist; AW, adult woman; AM, adult man; FS, female dental student; MS, male dental stu-

dent; W, wife; and H, husband.

Fig. 2. Bonferroni's multiple range test applied to the di�erences between means of semantic di�erentialD scores by male dental students. Any two means not underscored by the same line are signi®cantlydi�erent (p < 0.05). Any two means underscored by the same line are not signi®cantly di�erent. D rep-resents dentist; AW, adult woman: AM, adult man; FS, female dental student; MS, male dental stu-

dent; W, wife; and H, husband.

H. M. Rosenberg et al.1880