judging the professional woman: changing research, changing values

Judging the Professional Woman: Changing Research, Changing Values

Sara Yogev

Northwestern University

This article offers a framework for understanding contradictory findings in the field of the personality of working and professional women. Modern theory and research display two patterns: the early pattern of the 1960s, which viewed professional women as violating sex stereotypes, lacking femininity, and having personality disturbances; and the contemporary view, which emerged during the 1970s and suggests the possibility of combining career with family without psychological conflicts and personality disturbances. A critical appraisal of the literature in four areas (psychological role conflict, fear of success, comparison between housewives and career women, and comparisons between women in traditional and pioneer occupations) concludes that little evidence supports the view that professional women have personality disturbances because of their career. Possible explanations for shifting viewpoints and contradictory findings are presented. The article also analyzes the issues and problems professional women currently face and assesses the accessibility of those issues to empirical study.

Research o n the personality of the working woman yields conflict- ing results. In some studies, career women appear to be less well adjusted a n d more dissatisfied with themselves than housewives (Surette, 1967; Vetter & Lewis, 1964; White, 1969). Other investigators have found n o association between maladjustment and career (Angrist, 1970).

The author wishes to thank Arlene Kaplan Daniels and Andrea Vierra for their assistance in preparing this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Sara Yogev, Counseling Psychology Program, Northwestern University, 2003 Sheridan Road, Evan- ston, II., 60201.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 7(3) Spring I983 0361-(i843/83/1300-02 19/$02.75 0 1983 Human Sciences Press

219

220

PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN QUARTERLY

Still others have suggested that career women are more mature and happy (Gump, 1972; Putnam & Hansen, 1972).

Two patterns are reflected in these data, and they offer a framework for understanding the different findings and avoiding much of the confusion existing in this field. These patterns reflect changing values. The prevalent view of professional and working women in the 1960s was negative, while the contemporary view of the 1970s tends to be more positive. The early 1970s were a transition period, when findings sup- porting both patterns existed. This is a natural phase in any scientific change (Kuhn, 1971).

The purpose of this article is to review critically the theory and research on the personality of working women, to document the exis- tence of these two patterns, and to offer explanations for the shift in viewpoints.

THE EARLY VIEW (THE 1960s)

For many years, working and professional women were seen as violating sex stereotypes. The values and norms revolving about the female role and the participation of women in the professions were seen as contradictory and as a source of personal strain. The primary source of this stress was thought to be ambivalence. The core of attributes found in most professional occupational roles was considered masculine; persistence and drive, aggressiveness, and emotional detachment were equated with intellectual performance. Career women were thus viewed as the antithesis of feminine women and were thought of as failures as women or as having personality disturbances.

According to this early view, women had only two options: either to have a family and be feminine or to have a career and be sexless.

Comparison Between Career-Oriented and Home-Oriented Women

Several studies conducted during the 1960s compared the personality traits of career-oriented and home-oriented women and found much contrast. Hoyt and Kennedy (1958) found that career-oriented girls were more achievement-oriented, intraceptive, dominant, and per- severing. The homemaking-oriented girls were motivated by a need for

22 1

YOGEV/JUDGING T H E PROFESSIONAL WOMAN

affection satisfied through marriage and a family. If women worked, it was in feminine professions which involved helping others and par- ticipating in men’s work; usually these professions filled the time between the end of school and marriage. The women who planned to continue working after marriage were more competitive and considered intellectual understanding, knowledge, and fulfilling concrete tasks as important. They stressed achievement (Gysbers, Johnson & Gust, 1968), had more accomplishments, and usually scored higher on aptitude tests (Astin, Suniewick & Dweck, 197 1) and on intrinsic satisfaction. The future homemakers were more tolerant, better adjusted, and felt more comfortable in social situations (Surette, 1967, Vetter & Lewis, 1964). The career-oriented women scored higher than homemaking-oriented women on the Allport, Vernon and Lindzey (1960) “masculine” scales i.e., the political, theoretical, and economic scales. Homemaking-oriented women scored higher on the “feminine” scales, i.e., the esthetic, religious, and social scales. The homemakers were perceived as needing protection, as more feminine, and as oriented toward helping men rather than doing their own work (Wagman 1966). The career-oriented women were perceived as less feminine and more dominant. They were intrinsically motivated while non-career-oriented women were extrin- sically motivated (Almquist 8c Angrist, 1970; Meir, Camon, & Sardi, 1967). Career-oriented subjects described themselves as more competitive and aggressive and as possessing more masculine traits (Zissis, 1964). They expressed more dissatisfaction with themselves as persons, more frustration, and poorer adjustment than those content to become housewives (White, 1969). Thus, women’s career orientations were seen as growing out of personal dissatisfaction so that the career became a frustration outlet (Lewis, 1968), and were viewed as being associated with a need for personal adjustment and counseling (Osipow & Gold, 1968).

Comparison Between Women in Traditional Occupations and Women in Pioneer Occupations

Rezler ( 1967) compared high-school girls choosing traditional careers (teaching and subordinate health fields) with girls choosing “pioneer” careers (natural sciences and the male-dominated professions). She concluded that by the junior year of high school, pioneers are sepa- rated from traditionals by their superior achievement and greater com- putational and scientific interests. Astin and Myint (197 1) and Elton and Rose (1967) reported similar conclusions. Mintz and Patterson (1969)

222


found that college women majoring in occupational therapy and education had more traditionally feminine attitudes than did women with majors in sciences. McKenzie (1972) concluded that women oriented toward traditional occupations differed significantly from women oriented toward pioneer occupations in terms of selected personality characteristics. Women aspiring to pioneer occupations have greater conflict between marriage and career (Tangri, 1972). They also saw themselves as less feminine and wanted to be less feminine than women oriented toward traditionally feminine fields (Cowan & Moore, Note 1).

Psychological Role Conflict

Prather (1971) noted that women are placed in a double-bind situation. American society conceived of women as sexual objects (emphasizing physical attractiveness) and as servants (emphasizing nurturing, caretaking, and sacrificial roles as mothers, wives, volunteers, and nurses). On the other hand, the concept of work was defined in masculine terms. The belief that a career was a masculine pursuit had a devastating effect upon a woman: she encountered the dilemma of feeling that pursuing her career would make her less desirable to men while foregoing her career would cost her her self-respect and goals.

Coser and Rokoff (1971) said that women who have or wish to have careers have a conflict. This conflict was seen as a source of disruption in the social order:

It stems not simply from participation in two different activity sys- tems whose claims on time allocations are incompatible, [but] derives from the fact that the values underlying these demands are contradictory: professional women are expected to be committed to their work “just like men” at the same time as they are normatively re- quired to give priority to their family. (p. 535)

It was a conflict of normative priorities. Several authors discussed this conflict in terms of the working woman as “deviant”: “Women who seek an independent identity outside the home are deviant by the stan- dard of‘ what is normal in the society” (Epstein, 1971, p. 131). Profes- sional women tend to “adopt compensating strategies to minimize the effects of their deviancy” (Patterson, 1973, p. 314). For example, Hochschild (1974) defined the working woman’s feelings: “being suc-

223

YOGEV/JUDGING THE PROFESSIONAL WOMAN

cessful makes her feel less like other women” (p. 144), while Anderson (1974) discussed the professional women’s needed capacity to cope emotionally with being reacted to as a deviant. These earlier studies suggested that most American women felt an internal ambivalence about combining career and family (Graham, 1972): they felt they had to make a choice between marriage and femininity or career and masculinity (Zinberg, 1974).

Fear of Success

Since many more young women (65%) than men (8%) showed fear of success, Horner (1972) suggested that “femininity and individual achievement continue to be viewed as two desirable but mutually exclusive ends . . . Women face negative consequences not only in failing but also in succeeding” (p. 65). Horner viewed the motive to avoid success as a latent stable personality disposition acquired early in life as part of sex- role socialization. The most able and most highly motivated women who are competing against men are particularly affected by the fear of success, particularly if they are in male-dominated fields.

In summary, research in the area of women’s career orientations in the sixties revealed that women who were home-oriented were the most feminine and well adjusted, career women in a traditional occupation were a little less feminine, and career women in pioneer occupations were the least feminine, had the most masculine attitudes and interests, as well as personality and adjustment problems.

THE CONTEMPORARY VIEW (THE 1970s)

The contemporary view, emerging with the current evolution of women’s social and cultural roles, shows a rapid change in attitudes toward women and work. Parelieus’s survey (1975) showed that 50% of a sample of college women expect to work part or full time when their children are between the ages of six and 12 and that 85% expect to do so after their children are past the age of 12. The majority of the sample believe that their careers are as important as their husbands’.

In contrast to the “either/or” approach of the earlier period, the option of “both” emerges. People feel that it is possible to work outside

224


the home and to be a good mother and wife, to be a successful career woman and also feminine. Comparisons of housewives and career women and their families no longer produce the same results as they did previously.

Criticism of the Fear of Success

Tresemer (1974) argued that the fear of success is popular but unproven. Concordantly, Yeplau’s findings (1976) failed to support Horner’s prediction: fear of success was not correlated with women’s sex-role attitudes, career aspirations, college grades, or self-ratings of intelligence. Condry and Dyer (1976), in a review of the field, concluded that there is little support for either the reliability or validity of the original measure of fear of success and that it does not reflect a stable personality trait in women. Thus part of what has been called fear of success seems to be intimately related to deviation from sex-role stan- dards. Fear of success may be fear of displaying an inappropriate sex role. More recently, studies challenged the earlier findings based upon the original measure (Fleming, 19781, and showed a correlation between fear of success and need for power (Sutherland, 1978).

Psychological Role Conflict

Data on career aspirations imply that the career-marriage conflict is rapidly diminishing in importance. Its persistence as an issue for discus- sion is more a function of the assumptions of educators and counselors than the perceptions of women themselves, especially of young women. Women no longer regard personal achievement and marital satisfaction as mutually exclusive goals and most of them no longer see themselves as forced to choose between marriage and career; thus the necessity for such a choice is no longer a source ofconflict (Westervelt, 1973). Gump’s study (1972) confirms this new perspective. The majority of senior college women believe it possible to assume the roles of wife and mother while pursuing extrafamilial interests. Steinmann (1969, 1974) found, in a study conducted in several countries using a sample of approximately 14,000 women, that the vast majority of women perceive themselves as more or less balanced between self and family orientations. They want to live their lives according to a set of values that includes self-realization as well as marriage and motherhood. Married professional women had

22.5


positive attitudes toward the professional woman’s dual role (Kaley, 1971). They do not experience a conflict between the traditional role of women and the values of the academic environment (Thagaard, 1975).

A possible explanation of why career women today do not suffer from role conflict or any other disturbance was offered by Stiehm (1976): young career women who do not fear success may have an inti- mate relationship with a man they believe to be smarter and thus potentially more successful than they; these women can afford to achieve and be happy because their men will achieve more. In support of this theory, Birnbaum (197 1) found that the typical married professional woman had an egalitarian marriage, but still needed to perceive her husband as a remarkably intelligent man to psychologically sanction her own achievement.

Compnrison Between Housewives and Professional Women

The more recent studies just discussed did not find the role conflict predicted by earlier studies. Another group of recent studies shows not only that conflict is absent, but also that women who choose to work or study and to have a career are happier and more mature. These findings are completely contradictory to those of the earlier period of the 1960s.

Angrist (1970), responding to the stereotype that career-oriented women are emotionally maladjusted, pointed out the.need to be cautious in equating personality differences with personality maladjustment. Her findings, based on college women, partially support the hypothesis that no association exists between college maladjustment and career orientation and refute the idea that career aspirations are associated with de- viance. Neither happiness nor the establishment of relationships with men differentiated future career women from future homemakers. However, diffeiences in ego strength did. Women who obtained the highest ego-strength scores were actively pursuing plans for both career and marriage objectives. Thus ego strength may be negatively related to the adoption of the traditional female sex role (Gump, 1972). Similarly, Putnam and Hansen (1972) found a negative correlation between female role concept of self and vocational maturity, indicating that girls with more liberal feminine role concepts will have greater vocational maturity. Professional women have more positive self-concepts, a greater degree of personal autonomy and self-esteem, more liberated and achievement-oriented attitudes toward women’s roles, and a higher level of self-actualization than nonprofessional women. They presented

226


themselves as comfortably independent, self-reliant, and satisfied with their accomplishments and were found to have accepted and integrated the traditional view of women’s role with a view of individual fulfillment. On the other hand, the nonprofessional women tended to affirm the more traditional stereotype of women’s role while at the same time reporting a high degree of personal frustration and self-dissatisfaction; they had the feeling that they were not growing or developing their talents or abilities (Ohlbaum, 1971). Wives who held jobs, even though not glamorous or exciting careers, were happier and more satisfied with their lives than women who were full-time housewives (Hall 8c Cordon, 1973). The least happy women were displeased with their abilities as homemakers and did not have jobs to support their egos (Ferree, 1976).

Comparison Between Women in Traditional Occupations us. Pioneer Occupations

In contrast to the negative view of the 1960s about women in pioneer occupations, Nagely (197 1) found that women in pioneer occupations had more successfully integrated the roles of homemaker and worker. They were more likely to express satisfaction and success and were less likely to show a pattern of displaced achievement motivation (husband’s achievement) than women aspiring to traditional occupations (Tangri, 1974).

EXPLANATIONS FOR THE SHIFT IN VIEWPOINTS

It would be a mistake to try to understand the two contradictory themes and explain them without considering the changes that occurred in society in the last two decades. The traditional mother role does not occupy a sufficient portion of a woman’s lifespan to be a full-time occupation for adult women, with their increased life expectancy and smaller families. Advanced technology has accentuated the repetitive- ness of household tasks while minimizing both the time they consume and the opportunities for excellence and creativity in the homemaker role. The human potential movement, which stresses self-fulfillment and self-realization as primary values, has grown in influence. For many women, fulfilling the roles of mother, wife, and homemaker is not

227


enough; women need something else in order to be satisfied with their achievements and their worth as human beings. On top of all that, marriage is increasingly unstable; divorced women may have to support themselves and their children and may need other skills to become em- ployed. All of these factors contribute to the growing influence of the women’s liberation movement, which has helped to change common beliefs about sex-role stereotypes and women’s roles in society. Both men and women have become locked into their respective sex roles which restrict free expression of behavior in important ways. This movement “took off’ in 1970 and appealed to new and larger segments of the population through media and government policy by 1972 (Freeman, 1975). This wider acceptance of the women’s liberation movement coin- cides with the emergence of the contemporary view about professional women in the 1970s.

Concomitant with these social changes has been a revision in the conclusions about the influence of maternal employment on children’s development. Bowlby’s (1951) findings and other studies of infant development have been reassessed. In more recent and systematic studies, it was found that very little harm, if any, occurs to a child when the mother leaves for part of the day. The quality of child care by a mother or a maternal substitute and other resources in a child’s environment are of equal importance to mother’s constant presence (Palombo, Note 2).

Another explanation for the discrepancy between the two kinds of results might be the researchers themselves and the scientific Zeitgeist. Evidence suggests that visibility and interpretation of research relevant to social issues is influenced by the values of researchers. The acceptance of research findings and interpretations relevant to social issues depends very much on the current larger political, historical and cultural context (Kuhn, 1971). Therefore it is possible that studies which were in conflict with the dominant thinking of their time received very little attention. Helson (1972) pointed to a few studies in the 1960s that showed career women in a favorable light, but were virtually ignored, e.g., Spohn (1960). Helson adds, “I have never seen a reference to this finding. It would be interesting to know how many studies reporting favorable characteristics of career oriented women were never published at all because they seemed unconvincing or against the hunches of the re- viewers about the true state of affairs” (p. 20). ‘Therefore she concludes that the case against the career woman was never as strong as it was made out to be.

Reexamination of the major studies of the early view finds methodological faults which can account for the findings. A methodological problem in the field of comparisons between housewives and career

228


women is that of comparing different kinds of subjects. Many of the comparisons during the early pattern had as subjects young college women facing the stresses and demands of embarking on adulthood (Lewis, 1968; Rezler, 1967; Vetter & Lewis, 1964; Zissis, 1964). This period is one when people try to define themselves and suffer acute status anxiety because of stressful situations; usually this age group is more confused than any other (Podell, 1966). Since traditional women have a clearer stereotype about their future way of life, their confusion at this age is lessened. Also, we cannot generalize from women at this age to mature, adult women. Other studies using mature women as subjects failed to agree with college-population results, but most of these studies were done during the contemporary period (Ferree, 1976; Steinmann, 1974; Thagaard, 1975).

Another methodological inconsistency arises from the diversity of instruments and methods used by various investigators: vocational tests; personality tests; interest, attitude, or value scales; the Masculine-Femi- nine Scale; or adjective lists. Each such instrument measures a different aspect of the personality. It is hardly surprising that studies using one of these instruments differ in results from studies using another. Studies of women’s attitudes might well yield different results, for example, from studies of their vocational aptitudes.

In the last decade many men and women, especially among the young, have come to accept the new values that the women’s liberation movement represents; and so the instruments used in research in this field are outmoded. Herzog and Sudia (1973) say that many Masculine- Feminine Scales currently used embody outmoded concepts of male and female roles and that some of the items that discriminated most effec- tively between males and females in earlier years no longer do so.

Another basic criticism of many earlier studies is that the method for discriminating between feminine and masculine traits in these instruments was based on a mistaken assumption. The majority of the feminine-masculine scales and tests assume a single continuum-i.e., that masculinity and femininity are opposite ends of a bipolar variable. By scoring high on masculine the subject automatically scores low on feminine and vice versa. Bem (1976), Jenkin and Vrogh (1969) and Tipton (1976) argue that masculinity and femininity are not opposite ends of a bipolar variable, but rather represent complementary domains of traits and behaviors. It is thus possible for an individual to be both masculine and feminine, both instrumental and expressive, depending upon the situational appropriateness of these various modalities. Bem (Note 3), who devised the Androgyny Scale (BSRI), treats masculinity and femininity as two orthogonal dimensions rather than as two ends of a single dimension.

229

YOGEV/JUDGING THE PROFESSIONAL WOMAN

In the earlier measures, femininity was conceptualized in a psycho- pathology-oriented way. In the feminine scales of the MMPI, CPI, and adjective list (Berdie, 1959), being feminine was associated with being passive, submissive, weak, emotional dependent, subjective, etc. These feminine attributes, meant to represent adult women, were judged by psychotherapists as not representing a healthy adult, while the masculine attributes, meant to represent adult men, did not differ from the attributes of a healthy adult and in most cases are the opposite of the feminine ones, e.g., independent, active (Broverman et al., 1972). Therefore, more recent measures of femininity such as the BSRI try to correct this fault by defining both masculinity and femininity as representing positive domains of behavior, e.g., feminine and nurturant, gen- tle and understanding.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Studies of the personality of professional women seem less confused and make more sense when the findings are viewed as representing earlier and contemporary views. Today’s evidence does not support the earlier view that professional women face personality problems when entering careers. On the contrary, women seem to be able to have their careers and gain a sense of self-worth from the effort. Changes that occurred in the general society as well as changes in society, social science thinking, methodological procedures and instruments offer possible explanations for the shifting viewpoints and contradictory findings. How- ever, the reader should not conclude that professional women no longer have problems and that their situation is all rosy. This would be too simplistic a conclusion. The problems women now face are still subtle and complex, as current research shows us.

A major theme in the emerging literature is the feeling of being overloaded and overworked that professional women experience when combining their two roles. The division of housework and child care is one of the issues which is very carefully studied. Since working women tend to assume a disproportionate share of the household respon- sibilities (John-Parsons 1978; Meissner, 1975) and the burden for child care (Bryson et al., 1978), they experience severe overload problems. The general trend in social science today is to study individuals as part of a social and psychological milieu. Therefore professional women are no longer studied as individuals who have or do not have personality prob-

230


lems, but rather as part of their social system, i.e., in the dual-career family. Thus it makes more sense to study the working women’s share of housework and child care while taking into consideration the husbands’ share in these functions. An important issue that needs further consideration when studying dual-career families is the “identity tension line” (Rapoport, Rapoport & Thiessen, 1974), i.e., the point of discomfort when new definitions of sex roles threaten individual notions of self- esteem based on traditional sex-role socialization. Another issue is whether or not dual-career couples provide women with the “supportive system” necessary to make them competitive in the career market, in the manner of the supportive system provided for men by their wives in the individual career family (Hunt & Hunt, 1978).

Another line of research today focuses on marital satisfaction. While most studies show that women in dual-career families experience much marital satisfaction (Poloma & Garland, 1971; Rapoport et al., 1974), their husbands are less happy with the marriages than are husbands of housewives (Burke & Weir, 1976). Further, a review of six large national surveys fails to support the view that career women are more satisfied with their lives than housewives. Both lifestyles have benefits and costs attached to them (Wright, 1978). Researchers are trying to understand the dynamics involved in the marital satisfaction of dual-career couples. Today in order to stay within the “identity tension line” it may be important for wives to perceive their husbands as potentially more successful (Stiehm, 1976) and more intelligent (Birnbaum, 1971) than they are and for the husbands to realize that their wives’ employment does not come close to, or worse, surpass their own in prestige, earnings, or psychological commitment (Pleck, 1977). Couples that cross traditional sex-role stereotypes, e.g., the wife having the higher-status career, are becoming less rare today, and certainly will deserve special consideration in future research on dual-career couples’ marital dynamics.

While it is fairly easy to measure time devoted to housework and child care, the line of research which tries to study marital dynamics, the “identity tension line” and/or “support system” is very complicated. These notions, which are so important for our understanding of dual- career marriages, are internal and abstract and therefore not readily accessible to researchers. Future research should try to devise methods to study these issues. In-depth interviews and other clinical psychology methods might increase our understanding of a few dual-career couples. After getting more precise and accurate information based on a small number of subjects, it will be possible to devise new instruments and to try to make conclusions based on bigger samples.

While old conflicts and personality problems may no longer be rele-

23 1

YOGEVIJUDGING T H E PROFESSIONAL WOMAN

vant for professional women, new and more complex but equally insid- ious forms of difficulties have taken their place. Some of these problems are not readily and easily accessible to researchers and cannot be investi- gated until the artificial restraints of gender are eliminated. The dual- career families and the professional women of today are a transitional generation who live without a clear precedent. It is a challenge for them to manage their lives, and it is a challenge for researchers to study them.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Cowan, G., & Moore, L. Female identity and occupational commitment. Paper presented at

2. Palombo, J. Dirturbances of childhood. Paper presented at the School of Social Service

3. Bem, S. L. Androgyny and mental h,ealth. Paper presented at the meeting of the American

the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Denver, April 197 1.

Administration seminar, University of Chicago, June 1977.

Psychological Association, Chicago, October, 1975.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. , Vernon, P., & Lindzey, G. Studies of values (Test booklet and manual) (3rd. ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960.

Almquist, E. M., & Angrist, S. S. Career salience and atypicality of occupational choice among college women. Journal of Mnrriagr und thP Family, 1970,32, 242-249.

Anderson, J.V. Psychological determinants. In R. B. Kundsin (Ed.), Women and SUCCPSS.

New York: William Morrow, 1974. Angrist, S. Counseling college women about careers. Journal uf College Student Personnel,

1970, 43, 190-198. Astin, H. S., & Myint, T. Career development of young women during the post-high

school years. Journal of Counseling Psychology Monograph, 1971, 18, 369-393. Astin, H. S., Suniewick, J., & Dweck, S. Women: A bibliography on their education and

careers. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Press, 1971. Bem, S. L. Beyond androgyny. In A. G. Kaplan & J. P. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex role

stereotypes. Boston: Little Brown, 1976. Berdie, R. F. A femininity adjective check list. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1959, 43,

327-333. Birnbaum, L. A. J. Life patterns, personality style and self esteem in gifted family oriented

and career oriented women. Dissertation Abstrac& fnternational, 197 1,32, 1834B. (Univer- sity Microfilms No. 71-23698) (Abstract)

Bolt, V. Measuring the mystique. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 49-58. Bowlby, J. The nature of the child’s tie to the mother. Int~rnationalJournal ofPsychoanalysis,

1951,39, 50-73. Broverman, I . K., Vogel, S. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S.

Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28(2), 59-78.

232


Bryson, R., Bryson, J. B., &Johnson, M. F. Family size, satisfaction, and productivity in

Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. Relationship of wife’s employment status to husband and wife and

Condry, J., & Dyer, S. Fear of success: Attribution of cause to the victim. Journal of Social

Coser, L. R., & Kokoff, G . Women in the occupational world: Social disruption and

Elton, C. F., & Rose, H. A. Significance of personality in the vocational choice of college

Epstein, C. F. Woman’s place. Los Angeles: Univeristy of California Press, 1971. Ferree, M. M. The confused American housewives. Psychology Today, September 1976, pp.

Fleming, J , Fear of success, achievement-related motives and behavior in black college

Freeman, J. The politics of women’s liberation. New York: McKay, 1975. Graham, P. A. Women in academe. In C. Safilios-Rothschild (Ed.), 7oward a wciolugy cf

Gump, J . P. Sex role attitudes and psychological well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 1972,

Cysbers, J., Johnson, J. A., & Gust, J. Characteristics of homemaker and career-oriented

Hall, T. D., & Gordon, E. F. Career choices of married women. Journal ofApplied Psychol-

Helson, R. T h e changing image of the career woman../ournal of Social I.tsurc 1972, 28(2),

Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. D. Children in fatherless families. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Hochschild, A. Making it: Marginality and obstacles to minority consciousness. In R. B. Kundsin (Ed.), Women and success. New York: William Morrow, 1974.

Horner, M. S. The motive to avoid success and changing aspiration of college women. I n ] . M. Bardwick (Ed.), Readings on the psychology of women. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

Hoyt, D. P., & Kennedy, C. E. Interests and personality correlates of career motivated and homemaking college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1958, 5, 44-48.

Hunt, J. D., & Hunt, L. L. Dilemmas and contradictions in status: The case of the dual- career family. Social Problems, 1978, 24, 407-416.

Jenkin, N., & Vrogh, K. Contemporary concepts of masculinity and femininity. Psychologi- cal Reports, 1969, 25, 679-697.

John-Parsons, S. D. Continuous dual-career families: A case study. Psychology of Women

Kaley, M. M. Attitudes toward the dual role of married professional women. American

Kuhn, S. T. The structure ofscientific revo1ution.s. Chicago: University of‘ Chicago Press, 1971. Lewis, E. C. Developing women’s potential. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1968. McKenzie, S. P. A comparative study of feminine role perceptions, selected personality

characteristics, and traditional attitudes of professional women and housewives. Dzsserta- lion Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 5615A. (University Microfilms No. 72-41 17) (Abstract)

Meir, E. I., Camon, A,, & Sardi, Z . Prediction of persistence at work of women dentists. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 247-25 1.

Meissner, M. E., Humphreys, S. M., & Scheir, M. No exit for wives: Sexual division of labor and the cumulation of household demands. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,

Mintz, R., & Patterson, C. H. Marriage and career attitudes of women in selected college

dual-career couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1978, 3, 67-77.

pair satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 38, 279-287.

Issues, 1976, ?2(3), 63-83.

conflict. Social Problems, 197 1, 28, 535-553.

women. Journal of Coumelzng Psychology, 1967, 14, 293-298.

76-80.

women. Journal of Personality, 1978, 46, 537-545.

women. Lexington, Kentucky: Xerox, 1972.

28(2), 79-9 1.

women. ,Journal of Counselang Psychology, 1968, 15, 54 1-546.

om, 1973, 58, 42-48.

33-46.

Q~artt.rEy, 1978, 3, 30-43.

Psychologist, 1971, 26, 301-306.

1975, 12, 424-439.

curriculums. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1969, 17, 2 13-2 17.

233


Nagely, D. L. Traditional vs. pioneer working mothers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1971, I , 331-341.

Ohlbaum, J. S. Self-concept, value characteristics, and self-actualization of professional and non-professional women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 122 1B. (Uni- versity Microfilms No. 71-141,181) (Abstract)

Osipow, S. H. & Gold, J. A. Personal adjustment and career development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 439-443.

Parelius, P. A. Emerging sex roles, attitudes, expectations, and strains among college women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975,37, 146-153.

Patterson, M. Sex specialization in academe and the professions. In A. J. Rossi & A. Calderwood (Eds.), Academic women on the move. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Peplau, L. A. Impact of fear of success and sex-role attitudes on women’s competitive achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,32, 561-568.

Pleck, J. H. T h e work and family role system. Social Problems, 1977, 24, 417-427. Podell, L. Sex and role conflict. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 163-165. Poloma, M. M., & Garland, T . N. The married professional woman: A study in the

tolerance of domestication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 531-540. Prather, J. Why can’t women be more like men? American Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 15,

172-182. Putnam, B. A,, & Hansen, J. C. Relationship of self-concept and feminine role concept to

vocational maturity in young women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972,19,436-440. Rand, L, M. Masculinity or femininity? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 444-450. Rapoport, R., Rapaport, R., & Thiessen, N. Couple symmetry and enjoyment. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36, 588-591. Rezler, A. G. Characteristics of high school girls choosing traditional or pioneer vocations.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 659-665. Spohn, H. Vocational orientation and growth. In L. B. Murphy & L. E. Rauchenbugh

(Eds.), Achievement in college years. New York: Harpers, 1960. Steinmann, A., & Fox, D. J. Self and ideal sex-role perceptions of men and women and

their ideal perceptions of each other. In B. F. Peiss, (Ed.) New directions in mental health. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1969.

Steinmann, A. Cultural values, female role expectations and therapeutic goals. In V. Franks & V. Burtle (Eds.), Women in therapy. New York: BrunnedMazel, 1974.

Stiehm, J. Invidious intimacy. Social Policy, 1976, 6(5), 12-16. Surette, R. F. Career vs. homemaking: Perspective and proposals. Vocational Guidance Quar-

Sutherland, E. Fear of success and need of power. Psychologzcal Reports, 1978,43, 763-766. Tangri, S. S. Determinants of occupational role innovation among college women. Journal

of Social Issues, 1972, 28(2), 177-199. Tangri, S. S. Implied demand character of the wife’s future and role innovation: Patterns

of achievement orientation among women. ISAS Cata1o.c of Selected Documents in Psychol-

terly, 1967, 16, 82-86.

- - _ OD, 1974,4, 12.

Thamard. F. Academic values and intellectual attitudes: Sex differences or similaritv. Acta SGiolog& 1975, 6, 15-26.

Tipton, R. M. Attitudes towards women’s role in society and vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1976, 8, 155- 165.

Tresemer, D. Fear of success; popular, but unproven. Psychology Today, March 1974, pp. 82-85.

Vetter, L., & Lewis, E. D. Some correlates of homemaking vs. career preference among college home economics students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 593-598.

Wagman, M. Interests and values of career and homemaking-oriented women. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 794-801.

Weingarten, K. T h e employment pattern of professional couples and their distribution of involvement in the family. PsycholoLgv of Women Quarterly, 1978, 3, 43-53.

Westervelt, M. E. A tide in the affairs of women. The Coumding Psychologist, 1973, 15, 3-26.

234


White, B. The relationship of self-concept and parents’ identification to women’s voca-

Wright, ,I. D. Are working women really more satisfied? Evidence from several rational

Zitiberg, D. College when the future becomes the present. In R. B. Kundsin (Ed.), Womrlz

Zissis, C. A study of the life planning of 550 freshman women at Purdue University.

tional interest. ,lournu1 of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 6 , 54-72.

surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 40, 30 1-3 13.

and success. New York: William Morrow, 1974.

journal of the National Assoczation (f Women Deans, 1964, 27, 153- 159.