gender and self-concept: a reexamination of stereotypic differences and the role of gender attitudes

Sex Roles, Vol. 30, Nos. 9/10, 1994 %

D'AMOUR LIBRARY ,-- WESTERN NEW El'GLAND COLLE~

1215 WILBRAHAM ROAD ,SPRINGFIELD, MA 01119

Gender and Self-Concept: A Reexamination of Stereotypic Differences and the Role of Gender Attitudes I

Linda A. Jackson, 2 Carole N. Hodge, and Julie M. Ingram Michigan State University

Gender differences in overall self-evaluation and in specific dimensions of self-concept were examined in primarily White Caucasian college and high school students. The role of gender attitudes in the relationship between gender and self-concept was also examined. Findings indicated gender differences in overall self-evaluation that favored males, and gender differences in specific self-concept dimensions that were consistent with gender stereotypes. However, differences in overall self-evaluation were small, and the stereotyp&ality of differences was not consistent. Gender attitudes were unrelated to self-concept. Implications for changing self-concept are discussed.

A considerable amount of research has focused on whether women and men differ in self-concept. Findings to date have been mixed. On the one hand is evidence of gender similarities in self-concept when self-concept is measured in terms of overall self-evaluation (e.g., self-esteem; Chiu, 1990; Cranston & Leonard, 1990; Jones, Chernovetz, & Hansson, 1978; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Mackie, 1983; Wylie, 1979; Zuckerman, 1985). On the other hand is evidence of gender differences in self-concept (Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990; Skaalvik, 1986; Wylie, 1974), particularly when multidimensional measures of self-concept are used (Josephs et al., 1992; Stake, 1992). When differences do emerge they are generally consistent with gender stereotypes; both genders score higher on self-concept dimensions that are stereotypically associated with their gender. The purpose of our re-

1The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

615

0360-0025/94/0500-0615507.00/0 © 1994 Plenum Publishing Corporation

616 Jackson, Hodge, and Ingram

search was to reexamine the relationship between gender and self-concept and examine the role of gender attitudes in this relationship.

A number of researchers have suggested that women and men draw from different domains of self-perceived strength to arrive at overall self- evaluation (e.g., Stake, 1992; Wylie, 1974). This may explain, in part, findings of gender similarities in overall self-evaluation but differences in specific self-concept dimensions. Recent theorizing has likewise suggested that the basis for self-evaluation is different for women and men, partly as a consequence of the different socialization emphases for the genders (Belenky et al., 1986; Block, 1984; Gilligan, 1982; Markus & Oyserman, 1988; Miller, 1985; Stewart & Lykes, 1985). Specifically, women are encouraged to develop a self-concept in which relationships with others and connectedness are most important. Men are encouraged to develop a self- concept in which separation from others and independence are most important.

In reviewing the research on gender and self-concept, Stake (1992) noted that gender differences in self-concept are generally consistent with gender stereotypes and with the different socialization emphases just discussed. Thus, girls and women tend to rate themselves higher on self-concept measures that tap the ability to establish and maintain harmonious relationships with others, and on measures that reflect moral goodness and virtue (Gadzella & Wiliamson, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Marsh et al., 1985; Monge, 1973; Skaalvik, 1986; Stake, 1992). Boys and men tend to rate themselves higher on measures that tap the ability to be persuasive, dominant, and leaderlike, and on measures that reflect the capacity to cope and maintain inner stability under pressure (Andrews, 1987; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Marsh et al., 1985; McDonald & Gynther, 1965; Monge, 1973; Prescott, 1978; Stake, 1992; Zuckerman, 1989). Also consistent with gender stereotypes, girls and women express more confidence about verbal tasks, whereas boys and men express more confidence about mathematical tasks (Byrne & Shavelson, 1986; Hackett et al., 1990; Marsh, 1989; Marsh et al., 1985; Miller, 1985, Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990; Zuckerman, 1989), and tasks presented in an achievement context (Beyer, 1990; Hackett et al., 1990; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Stake, 1979). Less conclusive, according to Stake, is evidence concerning gender differences in academic self-concept; some studies find no differences (Marsh et al., 1985; Skaalvik, 1990; Zuckerman, 1989), and others find higher academic self-concept for males (Cranston & Leonard, 1990; Skaalvik, 1990; Vollmer, 1986).

Josephs et al. (1992) also found that gender differences in self-concept are consistent with gender stereotypes and with theoretical perspectives on the construction of gender. According to theoretical perspectives, women are more likely to have a collectivist, ensembled, and connected

Gender and Self-Concept 617

self-schema, whereas men are more likely to have an individualist, inde- pendent, and autonomous self-schema (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Samp- son, 1989; Triandis, 1989). Results of Joseph et al.'s research revealed that for both genders, overall self-evaluation (i.e., global self-esteem) was related to how successfully one measured up to culturally mandated, gender- appropriate norms; separation and independence for men and connection and interdependence for women.

Joseph et al.'s (1992) findings suggest that there should be a relationship between gender attitudes and overall self-evaluation. However, the direction of this relationship is unclear. On the one hand, if prevailing cultural norms support traditional gender roles, then more traditional gender attitudes should be associated with more favorable self-evaluation. Alter- natively, if prevailing cultural norms support nontraditional gender roles, then more traditional gender attitudes should be associated with less favorable self-evaluation. Thus, we expected a relationship between tradition- ality of gender attitudes and overall self-evaluation, but the direction of this relationship is unclear.

Overall, research suggests gender similarities in overall self-evaluation and gender differences in specific self-concept dimensions, differences that are consistent with gender stereotypes and socialization emphases. The purpose of our research was to reexamine gender similarities and differences at two grade levels (college and high school), and to examine the role of gender attitudes in the relationship between gender and self-concept.

METHODS

Respondents and Procedures

A total of 996 respondents participated in this research, 284 female college students, 186 male college students, 253 female high school students, and 248 male high school students (25 students failed to indicate their gender). The average age was 18.73 for college students and 15.30 for high school students. The majority of college (86.6%) and high school students (85.4%) were White Caucasian. Most were from middle to upper- middle class backgrounds (84.3% of college students, 83.4% of high school students). Grade point averages were comparable for the two groups (3.15 for college students and 3.16 for high school students).

College respondents completed the Student Attitudes Survey imme- diately following their first class period for extra credit in introductory psychology. High school students competed the Survey during their home

618 Jackson, IIodge, and Ingrain

room periods, provided parental permission to participate had been granted.

Materials

The Student Attitudes Survey consisted of three parts, the first two of which contained the measures used in this research. Part I contained 56 items selected from the Gender Attitudes Survey (Ashmore, Del Boca, & Bilder, 1992), which was designed to measure students' attitudes about the roles of women and men in contemporary American society. Items were worded so that agreement sometimes reflected more traditional gender attitudes and sometimes reflected less traditional attitudes. Five-point ratings scales were used in which 1 = agree strongly and 5 = disagree strongly, alternating which anchor represented the more traditional attitude. Re- sponses were coded for the analyses so that higher scores indicated more traditional attitudes. Dimensions of gender attitudes derived from the 56 items are discussed later.

Part II of the Student Attitudes Survey consisted of 78 items from the Self-Description Questionnaire III (SQD-III; Marsh & O'Neill, 1984), which was designed to measure 12 dimensions of self-concept and overall self-evaluation. Six items were used to assess each dimension, three worded positively and three worded negatively. Five-point rating scales were used in which 1 = definitely true of me and 5 = definitely not true of me. Responses were coded for the analyses so that higher scores indicated a more favorable self-concept. Dimensions of self-concept derived from the 78 items are discussed later.

RESULTS

Dimensions of Self-Concept and Gender Attitudes

Factor analyses (principal components, varimax rotation) and reliability analyses were used to identify dimensions of self-concept and gender attitudes. Analyses of the 78 items used to measure self-concept revealed that 11 of the 12 specific self-concept dimensions and the overall self-evaluation dimension were highly reliable. Only the dimension Problem solv- ing/Creativity failed to achieve an acceptable level of reliability (alpha = .54), and was therefore excluded from subsequent analyses.

The self-concept dimensions were labeled as follows: Mathematics ability (alpha = .88; e.g., I have generally done better in math courses than


other courses. I never do well on tests that require mathematical reason- ing), Verbal ability (alpha = .76; e.g., I have poor vocabulary. Compared to most people my age, my verbal skills are quite good), Academic ability (alpha = .79; e.g., I have trouble with most academic subjects. I am good at most academic subjects), Sports/Physical activity (alpha = .89; e.g., I en- joy sports and physical activity. I am not very good at activities that require physical ability and coordination), Physical appearance (alpha = .84; e.g., I like the way I look. I am ugly), Same-sex relationships (alpha = .73; e.g., I share lots of activities with members of the same sex. Not many people of the same sex like me), Parent relationships (alpha = .81; e.g., My parents have never had much respect for me. My parents understand me), Other- sex relationships (alpha = .76; I am comfortable talking to members of the opposite sex. Most of my friends are more comfortable with members of the opposite sex than I am), Religion (alpha = .91; e.g., I am a spiritual/religious person. I rarely if ever spend time in spiritual meditation or religious prayer), Honesty/Reliability (alpha = .73; I am a very honest person. I sometimes take things that do not belong to me), Emotional stability (alpha = .74; e.g., I am happy most of the time. I am often depressed), Overall self-evaluation (alpha = .88; e.g., Overall, I like myself. Overall, I have a very poor self-concept).

Six dimensions of gender attitudes were derived from the 56 items of the Gender Attitudes Survey. Their labels and examples of item content were as follows: Personal characteristics (10 items, alpha = .72; e.g., Com- pared to men, women are better able to devote themselves completely to others. In general, men are more competitive than women), Dating relationships (8 items, alpha = .75; e.g., The man should be in charge in a dating relationship. Women should have the same sexual freedom as men), Family roles (9 items, alpha = .79; e.g., It is O.K. for a woman to work, but a man should be the breadwinner in the family. The wife should have the major responsibility for raising the children), Male aggression (6 items, alpha = .72; e.g., In most cases of wife beating, the woman is just as much at fault as the man. A woman can provoke rape by her appearance and behavior), Women in politics (5 items, alpha = .84; e.g., I would vote for a qualified woman to be President of the United States. Political, economic, and moral leadership should remain in the hands of men), Workplace attitudes (8 items, alpha = .72; e.g., Some jobs should be closed to women because of their physical requirements. It is unwise and unnecessary to pass laws to assure equality between the sexes).

Ten of the 56 gender attitude items did not load appreciably (.40 or greater) on any of the six dimensions, nor did they form a coherent dimension of their own. These items were excluded from subsequent analyses.


Table I. Mean Ratings on the Self-Concept and Gender Att i tudes Dimensions a

Female Male

College High school College High school students students students students

(n = 284) (n = 252) (n = 186) (n = 248)

Self-concept dimensions Mathemat ics ability 2.90 a 3.11 b 3.01 e 3.33 d

(1.01) (0.99) (0.95) (0.85) Verbal ability 3.56 a 3.55 a 3.52 a 3.411o

(0.70) (0.76) (0.66) (0.66) Academic ability 3.59 a 3.33b 3.43 e 3.15 d

(0.55) (0.82) (0.56) (0.75) Sports/physical activity 3.82 a 3.784 4.13b 4.10 b

(0.84) (0.87) (0.73) (0.75) Physical appearance 3.43 a 3.12 b 3.57 e 3.56¢

(0.68) (0.86) (0.70) (0.73) Same-sex relationships 3.86 a 3.894 3.59 b 3.78 e

(0.53) (0.68) (0.56) (0.66) Parent relationships 3.99a 3.52b 3.85 c 3.49 b

(0.67) (0.83) (0.64) (0.78) Other-sex relationships 3.77 a 3.63 b 3.59 c 3.48 d

(0.64) (0.72) (0.62) (0.72) Honesty/reliability 3.98 a 3.80 b 3.66 c 3.45 b

(0.57) (0.64) (0.60) (0.66) Emotional stability 3.25 a 3.14b 3.34 c 3.42d

(0.70) (0.83) (0.69) (0.71) Religion 3.09 a 3.04 a 3.01 b 2.79 e

(1.04) (1.14) (0.98) (1.01) Overall self-evaluation 3.78 a 3.54 b 3.87 e 3.77 a

(0.75) (0.90) (0.68) (0.75)

Gende r atti tudes dimensions Personal characteristics 2.84 a 2.91 a 3.09 b 3.14 b

(0.55) (0.52) (0.57) (0.52) Dating relationships 1.68 a 1.80 b 2.03 e 2.27 d

(0.47) (0.45) (0.53) (0.58) Family roles 1.93 a 2.04 b 2.43 c 2.59d

(0.55) (0.51) (0.58) (0.66) Male aggression 1.70 a 2.02 b 2.34 c 2.64d

(0.53) (0.64) (0.60) (0.64) W o m e n in politics 1.58 a 1.62 a 2.36b 2.40b

(0.59) (0.58) (0.83) (0.80) Workplace atti tudes 2.20 a 2.13 a 2.79 b 2.79b

(0.53) (0.47) (0.56) (0.55)

aFor the self-concept dimensions, 5-point rating scales were used in which 1 = definitely true of me and 5 = definitely unt rue of me. Ratings were coded so that higher values indicated a more favorable self-concept. For the gender attitudes dimensions, 5-point rating scales were used in which 1 = agree strongly and 5 = disagree strongly. Ratings were coded so that higher values indicated more traditional gender attitudes. Within rows, means with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05. Num ber s in pa ren theses are s t andard deviations.

Gender and Self-Concept

Table II. F-ratios for the Gender by Grade Analyses of Variance a

621

Gender by Gender Grade grade

Self-concept dimensions Mathematics ability 7.18 17.58 0.89 Verbal ability 4.17 1.32 1.09 Academic ability 13.90 35.97 0.03 Sports/physical activity 36.08 0.48 0.00 Physical appearance 37.86 13.06 9.51 Same-sex relationships 0.26 2.22 6.59 Parent relationships 3.35 78.30 1.31 Other-sex relationships 13.47 7.57 0.16 Honesty/reliability 69.53 22.39 0.15 Emotional stability 15.40 0.34 3.91 Religion 6.08 3.51 1.51

Overall self-evaluation 10.17 12.85 2.12

Gender attitudes dimensions Personal characteristics 46.32 3.13 0.01 Dating relationships 156.75 27.93 2.87 Family roles 200.64 13.02 0.37 Male aggression 263.00 63.57 0.01 Women in politics 293.62 0.66 0.00 Workplace attitudes 337.90 1.21 1.02

adf = (1,966); F-ratios > 4.17, p < .05.

Gender Differences in Overall Self-Evaluation, Self-Concept, and Gender Attitudes Dimensions

Mean ratings of female and male respondents, presented separately for college and high school samples are presented in Table I. F-ratios for the Gender × Grade analyses of variance (ANOVAs) are presented in Ta- ble II.

Statistically significant gender differences were obtained on every self- concept dimension but two (Same-sex relationships and Parent relationships), and on every dimension of gender attitudes. Specifically, males had more favorable self-concepts than females on the dimensions Mathematics ability, Sports/physical activity, Physical appearance, and Emotional stability. Males also had more favorable Overall self-evaluation than females. Females had more favorable self-concepts than males on the dimensions Verbal ability, Academic ability, Other-sex relationships, Religion, and Honesty/reliability.

Male respondents held more traditional gender attitudes than females about (1) gender differences in Personal characteristics, (2) gender-appro-

622 Jackson, Itodge, and Ingram

priate behavior in Dating relationships, including appropriate sexual behavior, (3) the division of Family roles and responsibilities (i.e., breadwinner and childrearing roles), (4) the role of Women in politics and high levels of decision-making, and (5) Workplace attitudes (i.e., appropriate jobs for women and men and ways to reduce sex discrimination in the workplace). In addition, males were more traditional (i.e., accepting) than females in their attitudes about Male aggression against females, including sexual aggression.

Gender differences were also observed in self-reported grade point averages (GPAs). Females reported higher GPAs (3.21) than males (3.10; F(1, 966) = 6.49,p < .01), in both college and high school samples (Gender by grade interaction, F(1, 966) = 0.10, ns).

Grade-Level Differences in Overall Self-Evaluation, Self-Concept, and Gender Attitudes Dimensions

College and high school students differed on six of the 11 self-concept dimensions and in overall self-evaluation. As revealed in Table I, college students had more favorable self-concepts on the dimensions Academic ability, Physical appearance, Parent relationships, Other-sex relationships, and Honesty/reliability. They also had more favorable Overall self-evaluation than high school students. The only self-concept dimension on which high school students rated themselves more favorably than did college students was Mathematics ability.

College and high school students differed on three of the six gender attitudes dimensions. College students were less traditional about Dating relationships, Family roles, and Male aggression against women than were high school students, regardless of gender.

Correlations Among Overall Self-Evaluation, Self-Concept, and Gender Attitudes Dimensions

Correlations among overall self-evaluation, self-concept dimensions, and gender attitudes dimensions are presented in Table III.

Inspection of these correlations suggests the following: First, most of the self-concept dimensions were significantly related to overall self-evaluation, with strongest relationships for Physical appearance and Emotional stability, and weakest relationships for Religion and Mathematics ability. Second, dimensions of self-concept were only moderately related to each other. Third, gender attitudes were unrelated to overall self-evaluation, and only sporadically related to dimensions of self-concept. Fourth, dimensions


~ m ' - . . - . ~ . " ~ . ~

• ' f i" " I" I . . . . . .

," 1 -77 , . , . . . . " • . . ~.~.~

I" I ' I" I" l " I' I" I' " I" I . . . . . .

, ~ = ~ - - . . . . . ;. o . , , ~

I' " l" " ' ~ ~ " ~'~" ~ " "~" "~" "

I" t"

. . . . . . . . . . ,.. ~

. . . . . . . . . . . ~-i-i,i.i ,

- - ~ ' ~ ~ , ~

[


of gender attitudes were only moderately related to each other. Fifth, the pattern of correlations among measures was quite similar for females and males.

Predicting Overall Self-Evaluation

Results of stepwise regression analyses to predict overall self-evaluation for females and males from self-concept and gender attitudes dimensions are presented in Table IV.

For females, Physical appearance was the most important predictor of overall self-evaluation, followed by Emotional stability. The reverse was true for males (i.e., Emotional stability was the most important predictor, followed by Physical appearance). Together these two dimensions accounted for 60% of the variance in overall self-evaluation for females, and 51% of the variance for males. Self-conceptions of Academic ability, Same- sex relationships, and Honesty/reliability accounted for an additional 3% of the variance for females. For males, Parent relationships, Same-sex relationships, and Academic ability accounted for an additional 6% of the variance. Thus, predictors of overall self-evaluation were quite similar for females and males, and did not include gender attitudes.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of our research was to reexamine the relationship between gender and self-concept and examine the role of gender attitudes

Table IV. Regression Analyses to Predict Overall Self-Evaluation for Females and Males a

Step Variable entered Beta SE beta t-ratio R 2

Females 1 Physical appearance .65 .03 19.92 .43 2 Emotional stability .46 .03 15.14 .60 3 Academic ability .15 .03 5.11 .62 4 Same-sex relationships .11 .03 3.58 .63 5 Honesty/reliability .08 .03 2.82 .63

Males 1 Emotional stability .59 .04 15.10 .35 2 Physical appearance .42 .04 11.81 .51 3 Parent relationships .21 .03 6.13 .55 4 Same-sex relationships .15 .04 4.26 .56 5 Academic ability .10 .03 3.09 .57

aSE = standard error. All t-ratios are significant at p < .05.


in this relationship. Our findings indicate gender differences in self-concept that extend the findings of previous research. Also extending previous findings, there was no evidence of a relationship between gender attitudes and self-concept, suggesting that gender attitudes do not mediate the relationship between gender and self-concept.

Contrary to some previous research (Chiu, 1990; Cranston & Leonard, 1990; Jones et al., 1978; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Mackie, 1983; Wylie, 1979; Zuckerman, 1985), but consistent with other research (Joseph et al., 1992), males had higher overall self-evaluation than females, a difference that was observed in both college and high school students. How- ever, despite statistical significance, the magnitude of this gender difference was quite small. In fact, the actual difference was only .09, on a 5-point scale, much smaller than the difference observed in previous research (Joseph et al., 1992).

One explanation for discrepant findings regarding gender differences in overall self-evaluation lies in how overall self-evaluation is measured. Much of the previous research that has found no differences used Rosen- berg's 10-item measure of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), rather than measures of overall self-evaluation, as we used. However, Joseph et al. (1992) found gender differences using Rosenberg's measure. Thus, differences in how overall self-evaluation is measured cannot explain discrepancies in findings (see Marsh, 1986, for a discussion of the relationship between global self-esteem and specific facets of self-concept).

Alternatively, the fact that our measure of overall self-evaluation was embedded in other measures of specific self-concept dimensions may explain the discrepant findings. Perhaps rating specific self-concept dimensions had different consequences for females and males, increasing the salience of personal strengths for males (e.g., physical ability), but increasing the salience of personal weaknesses for females (e.g., physical appearance). Thus, gende r di f ferences in overall self-evaluat ion may be attributable to differences in the salience of personal strengths and weaknesses at the time overall self-evaluation was made. However, this explanation cannot account for the consistency between our findings and those of Joseph et al. (1992), who used Rosenberg's (1965) measure of self-esteem. Thus, the only justifiable conclusion at this time is that gender differences in overall self-evaluation, if they exist at all, are quite small, and may be of little importance in the everyday lives of women and men.

Less ambiguous from our findings were gender differences on specific dimensions of self-concept. Male respondents scored higher than females on dimensions of self-concept that tap traditional male domains (mathematics ability, emotional stability; Andrews, 1987; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Marsh et al., 1985; McDonald & Gynther, 1965; Monge, 1973; Prescott,

626 Jackson, IIadge, and Ingrain

1978; Stake, 1992; Zuckerman, 1989). Females scored higher than males on dimensions that tap traditional female domains (e.g., interpersonal relationships, moral goodness and virtue; Gadzella & Wiliamson, 1984; Mac- coby & Jacklin, 1974; Marsh et al., 1985; Monge, 1973; Skaalvik, 1986; Stake, 1992). However, females also had higher academic self-concepts than males, contrary to research indicating higher academic self-concepts for males (Cranston & Leonard, 1990; Skaalvik, 1990; Vollmer, 1986), or no gender difference in academic self-concept (Marsh et al., 1985; Skaavilk, 1990; Zuckerman, 1989). Moreover, academic self-concept was a slightly better predictor of overall self-evaluation for females than males.

We can only speculate about why academic self-concept was higher and more important for females than males. Females in our research had higher self-reported grade point averages than males, albeit not much higher (3.21 vs. 3.10). Their higher academic self-concept may simply reflect the reality of their superior academic performance. Indeed, it would be surprising if other gender differences in self-concept did not also reflect actual differences (e.g., sports/physical activity). Research is needed to examine the relationship between self-perceptions and objective measures in the domains considered in our research. For example, do females actually have better relationships with same-gender others than males? Are they actually more honest and reliable?

Unambiguous are findings of gender differences in gender attitudes. Males were more traditional in their gender attitudes on every gender attitude dimension than were females. However, gender attitudes were unrelated to self-concept dimensions or to overall self-evaluation for either gender. Recall that Joseph et al. (1992) argued that overall self-evaluation is related to how successfully one measures up to culturally mandated, gender-appropriate norms. We therefore expected a relationship between gender attitudes and overall self-evaluation, although the direction of the relationship was unclear, because it is unclear whether prevailing cultural norms support traditional or nontraditional gender roles. We found no relationship between gender attitudes and self-concept. Although null findings must be interpreted with cau- tion, they suggest that global attitudes about appropriate behavior for women and men have little impact on self-attitudes. Consistent with this suggestion are theory and research indicating that general attitudes about others are poor predictors of specific attitudes about self (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Relationships among self-concept dimensions indicated that although all dimensions were strongly related to overall self-evaluation, they were only moderately related to each other. These findings support the view that self-concept is a multidimensional construct that requires multiple measures to assess (Marsh et al., 1985; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985). Likewise, low to


moderate correlations among gender attitudes dimensions supports the multidimensional nature of these attitudes (Ashmore et al., 1992).

The two dimensions that best predicted overall self-evaluation for both genders were physical appearance and emotional stability. Females scored lower than males on both of these dimensions, accounting in part for their somewhat lower overall self-evaluation. The importance of physical appearance is consistent with previous research indicating that physical attractive- ness is an important determinant of self-esteem for both sexes from as early as middle childhood to well into midlife (Harter, 1987, 1989; Jackson, 1992).

It is interesting to note that the best predictors of overall self-evaluation in our sample of high school and college students were personal characteristics over which the individual has relatively little control (i.e., physical appearance and emotional stability). For example, it is more difficult to change one's physical appearance or emotional stability than it is to change one's honesty or relationships with others. The importance of relatively uncontrollable characteristics in predicting overall-self-evaluation is trouble- some, as is our evidence that academic self-concept was relatively unimportant for the student sample. The relative importance of controllable and uncontrollable self-concept dimensions to overall self-evaluation has implications for efforts to enhance self-evaluation. Interventions aimed at increasing overall self-evaluation (i.e., self-esteem) must take into account both controllable and uncontrollable factors, perhaps deemphasizing the importance of uncontrollable factors and enhancing the importance of controllable factors in the individual's estimation of self-worth.

Grade-level differences were also apparent in our research. College students scored consistently higher than high school students with one exception; high school students had higher mathematics self-concepts than college students (Marsh, 1989; Monge, 1973). However, this exception to the "older is better" rule may be an artifact of our sample. Our college student sample consisted of introductory psychology students, many of whom were social science or humanities majors. Students majoring in these areas may have lower mathematics self-concepts than college students in general. Research using a more heterogeneous sample of college students might eliminate grade-level differences in mathematics self-concept.

In summary, our findings suggest gender differences in overall self- evaluation that favor males, but this difference is quite small, and may be of little practical significance in the everyday lives of women and men. Gen- der differences on specific self-concept dimensions were generally consistent with gender stereotypes, with one notable exception; academic self-concept was higher among females, suggesting changes in this once traditionally male domain. Moreover, there were no gender differences on two of the 11 self-concept dimensions, both of which concern interpersonal


relationships, a traditionally female domain. Lastly, gender attitudes were unrelated to self-concept for either gender, suggesting that beliefs about gender role behavior have little impact on self-evaluation.

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. A. (1987). Gender differences in persuasive communication and attribution of success and failure. Human Communication Research, 13, 372-385.

Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Bilder, S. M. (1992). The construction and validation of the Gender Attitudes Inventory: A structured inventory to assess the multiple dimensions of gender attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In preparation.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960-970.

Block, J. H. (1984). How gender differences affect children's orientations to the world. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Sex role identity and ego development (pp. 182-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of adolescent self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 474-481.

Chiu, L. (1990). The relationship of career goal and self-esteem among adolescents. Adolescence, 25, 593-597.

Cranston, P., & Leonard, M. M. (1990). The relationship between undergraduates' experiences of campus micro-inequities and their self-esteem and aspirations. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 395-401.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.

Gadzella, B. M., & WiUiamson, J. D. (1984). Differences between men and women on selected Tennessee self-concept scales. Psychological Reports, 55, 939-942.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., O'Halloran, M. S., & Romac, D. S. (1990). Effects of verbal and mathematics task performance on task and career self-efficacy and interest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 169-177.

Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Maracek, J. (1990). On making a difference. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Maracek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 1-21). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Harter, S. (1987). The determinants and mediational role of global self-worth in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Contemporary issues in developmental psychology (pp. 219-242). New York: Wiley.

Harter, S. (1989). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of self-worth: A life-span perspective. In J. Kolligan & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life-span (pp. 67-87). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E., & Hannson, R. O. (1978). The enigma of androgyny: Differential implications for males and females? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 298-313.

Joseph, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391-402.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.


Maekie, M. (1983). The domestication of self: Gender comparisons of self-imagery and self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 343-350.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological RevBw, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1988). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender and thought (pp. 100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1224-1236.

Marsh, H. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8L 417-430.

Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174.

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-123.

Marsh, H. W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional adolescent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 422-444.

McDonald, R. L., & Gynther, M. D. (1965). Relationship of self and ideal-self descriptions with sex, race, and class in southern adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, L 85-88.

Miller, J. B. (1985). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon. Monge, R. H. (1973). Developmental trends in factors of adolescent self-concept.

Developmental Psychology, 8, 382-393. Prescott, P. A. (1978). Sex differences on a measure of self-esteem: Theoretical implications.

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 67-85. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: Globalization and

psychology's theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44, 914-921. Skaalvik, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in global self-esteem: A research review. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 30, 167-179. Skaalvik, E. M. (1990). Gender differences in general academic self-esteem and in success

expectations on defined academic problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 593-598.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The internal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 546-554.

Stake, J. E. (1979). The ability/performance dimension of self-esteem: Implications for women's achievement behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 365-377.

Stake, J. E. (1992). Gender differences and similarities in self-concept within everyday contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 349-363.

Stewart, A. J., & Lykes, M. B. (1985). Conceptualizing gender in personality theory and research. In Gender and personality: Current perspectives on theory and research (pp. 2-13). Durham, NC: Duke University.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. H. Flowers (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 37). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska.

Vollmer, F. (1986). Why do men have higher expectancy than women? Sex Roles, 14, 351-362. Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept (Vol. 1, revised). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska. Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Vol. 2, Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln,

NB: University of Nebraska. Zuckerman, D. M. (1985). Confidence and aspirations: Self-esteem and self-concepts as

predictors of students' life goals. Journal of Personality, 53, 543-560.


Zuckerman, D. M. (1989). Stress, self-esteem, and mental health: How does gender make a difference? Sex Roles, 20, 429-444.

gender and self-concept: a reexamination of stereotypic differences and the role of gender attitudes

Documents