ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Race and Gender Differences in Self-efficacy: Assessingthe Role of Gender Role Attitudes and Family Background

Tom Buchanan & Nikesha Selmon

Published online: 5 March 2008# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Research suggests race is associated with uniquefamily structures and gender attitudes. Yet, extant researchfails to examine how different gender role attitudes andfamily structures related to race impact other aspects of life.Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in his or her abilities toachieve certain outcomes (Bandura, Self-efficacy: Theexercise of control, Freeman, New York, p. 3, 1997). Usinga sample of 486 traditional undergraduate college studentsfrom an American university in the middle south, weexamine gender and race differences in self-efficacy and theimpact of sex role attitudes and family structure on self-efficacy. We argue that gender differences in gender roleattitudes and their impact on self-efficacy is moderated byrace. For all but white males, sex role liberalism ispositively related to self-efficacy. Mother’s full timeemployment is positively related to self-efficacy for whites.Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Keywords Race . Gender . Self-efficacy .

Gender role attitudes . Family structure

Introduction

While much social science research is devoted to under-standing disadvantages associated with gender (Williams1995; Kanter 1977) and race (Hayward et al. 2000; Mizell1999; Hughes and Thomas 1998), less is known about therole of race and gender in persevering amidst thesedisadvantages. Self-efficacy reflects a person’s perceptions

of his or her individual capabilities to achieve goals (Bandura1997). Self-efficacy is central to the analysis of gender andrace due to its focus on the individual’s will to achieve.Furthermore, research suggests gender role attitudes aredifferent for African Americans (Kane 2000). AfricanAmerican women are less likely to be married and lesslikely to be economically dependent upon men (O’Hare et al.1991; Sorenson and McLanahan 1987). African Americans,in general, are also more tolerant of working mothers, moreliberal in their gender attitudes and less economicallydependent on their partners compared to white women (Bleeand Tickamyer 1986; 1995; Clarkberg et al. 1995).

Social cognitive theory suggests that parents, peers, andinstitutions play major roles in the development of bothgender roles (Bussey and Bandura 1999) and self-efficacy(Bandura 2001). In this paper, we focus on the differentialimpact gender role attitudes and family background have onthe development of male and female self-efficacy forAfrican Americans and whites. We base our findings onthe results of a sample of African American and whitecollege students (N=486) at a university in the middlesouth. Our research focuses on several main questions: DoAfrican Americans and whites differ in terms of the impactof gender on self-efficacy? Are African American males andfemales more alike than white males and females in theirgender role attitudes? Finally, how do differences in genderrole attitudes and family background impact self-efficacy?

This study is important for several reasons. First, morestudies are needed to better understand how race andgender intersect to impact social-psychological phenomena(Hunt et al. 2000). Secondly, this study contributes to ourunderstanding of the negative implications associated witha traditional gender role attitude, especially for whitewomen. Finally, examining the race differences in thegender role attitudes and their consequences is importantfor advancing our understanding of race-specific gender

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836DOI 10.1007/s11199-008-9389-3

T. Buchanan (*) :N. SelmonDepartment of Sociology, Anthropology, and Geography,University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,615 McCallie Avenue,Chattanooga, TN 37403, USAe-mail: tom-buchanan@utc.edu

differences in other areas of social life such as theeducational system and the workplace.

The Production of Self-efficacy

The prospect of examining how individuals are able toovercome the obstacles of social structure has long been ofinterest to social scientists. The general idea of efficacy hasbeen measured differently across disciplines and rangesfrom mastery, or personal control (Bruce and Thornton2004), to self-efficacy (Gecas 1989), to self-directedness(Kohn and Schooler 1983). Despite this ongoing interest inhuman agency, self-efficacy seems under utilized as atheoretical concept. Bandura’s perceived self-efficacy“refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize andexecute the courses of action required to produce givenattainments (Bandura 1997, p. 3).” Self-efficacy has beenshown to impact a wide range of outcomes ranging fromacademic achievement to exercising birth control to careerchoice (Grabowski et al. 2001; Lane and Lane 2001;Jemmott et al. 1992; Betz and Hackett 1986).

Self-efficacy can be examined as a predictor and as aproduct of an environment (Bandura 1997). For academicachievement, for instance, self-efficacy has been examinedas both a cause and a consequence. Academic achievementis a result of self efficacy, but also has a positive influenceon one’s self efficacy (Grabowski et al. 2001; Lane andLane 2000; Mizell 1999). This relationship is typicallystronger when using domain specific measures of self-efficacy (Grabowski et al. 2001). The relationship betweenself-efficacy and achievement also has implications forcareer choice and achievement and other issues related toadult mastery (Mizell 1999; Betz and Hackett 1986).

Social cognitive theory suggests that parents and peersplay a major role in the development of one’s self-efficacyfrom infancy up through adolescence (Bussey and Bandura1999). Not only do parents’ emotional support and verbalencouragement impact self-efficacy, but parents play a majorrole in choosing activities for their children that foster theimmediate self-realization of efficacy in young children.Later, the guidance role of parents gives way to a strongerinfluence of children’s peers on the development of self-efficacy. These perceptions are thought to be very importantin late adolescence as children begin to seriously think abouttheir plans for the future (1997). As planning for the future isan integral feature of the college experience, one’s self-efficacy at this stage in life is especially important.

Gender Socialization and Self-efficacy

Research suggests that sex role socialization is stronglyrelated to higher self-efficacy levels found for malescompared to females (Bandura 1997; Gecas 1989). Social

cognitive theory further suggests that one’s gender is theproduct of various environmental and social contexts andinfluences one to behave in gender oriented ways through-out one’s life (Bussey and Bandura 1999). For instance,Eccles (1989) suggests that girls are less likely to develop apositive sense of their mathematical abilities as a result oftheir parents overestimating the difficulties they willexperience in such endeavors. In turn, parents’ beliefsabout their children’s abilities not only impacts the waythey interact with their sons and daughters, but is related totheir children’s interest and self-efficacy in science. Thesedifferences in parents’ beliefs are present even when thereare no gender differences in objective academic achieve-ment among their children (Tannenbaum and Leaper 2003).Additional research has found associations between thestereotypical male characteristic of instrumentality andgreater social self-efficacy and, indirectly, to fewer depres-sive symptoms (Herman and Betz 2004). Despite similarachievements, differential socialization for males andfemales is apparent in the home and in the educationalsystem and continues to be an important factor affectingcareer choice and career mobility (Bandura 1997).

Work–Family Structures, Gender Role Attitudes,and Self-efficacy

An important source for the initial development of self-efficacy is the family context. There is great debateconcerning the state of the family as an institution insociety (Popenoe 1996; Coontz 1993). Despite the impor-tance placed on the traditional family structure, the impactof marital status and family structure on self-efficacy ismixed. Gecas (1989) suggests that encouragement from theparents plays an essential role in a child’s perceptions ofefficacy. Related research suggests that having a supportiverelationship with a child might be as much, or moreimportant than any particular family structure (Hines 1997).In a study of high school students, Jones and Jolly (2003)found no relationship between intact families and self-efficacy. Parenting style, however, has been found to berelated to the parent’s position in the social structure (Kohnand Schooler 1983). Working conditions and economicstress are also related to parenting styles which, in turn,affect self-efficacy among adolescent children (Whitbecket al. 1997).

Bandura (1997) suggests that personal accomplishmentsare the most important source of self-efficacy. However,another important source he calls vicarious experience inwhich an individual witnesses others perform challengingactivities (Bandura 1997). In this context, parents’ achieve-ments at home and in the workplace may contribute toself-efficacy in their children. Riggio and Desrochers(2006) find that women (and men) with working mothers

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 823823

reported greater parental self-efficacy. Women with work-ing mothers expect to spend less time with their families,but males with employed mothers expect to spend moretime with families.

Overall implications suggest that family situation mayimpact career choices and decisions concerning work andfamily arrangements. In turn, these decisions have implica-tions for achievement (Gianakos 1995). Tuck et al. (1994)found that both sons and daughters of working mothers hadmore egalitarian attitudes than children of primary caregiving mothers. This difference was especially true forchildren of mothers in career managerial positions (1994).Research also suggests that mother’s employment has animpact on the attitudes of daughters in terms of choosing anontraditional career and having a nontraditional attitude(Riggio and Desrochers 2006; Jackson and Tein 1998;Tsuzuki and Matsui 1997). Others find that women aspiringto higher educations and careers are more likely to be inrelationships that are more egalitarian and be more tolerantof cohabitation (Clarkberg et al. 1995).

Race and Self-efficacy

Despite great advances in socioeconomic status, African-Americans continue to report lower quality of life comparedto whites (Hughes and Thomas 1998). On top of socioeco-nomic disadvantage, African Americans are likely to faceand perceive more structural barriers than whites (Buchananand Gossett 2002; Kluegel and Smith 1981). AfricanAmericans are more likely to experience less opportunity inareas ranging from housing (Massey and Denton 1993),health (Hayward et al. 2000), to employment and pay(Neckerman and Kirscheman 1991; Cancio, Evans, andMaume 1996). Possibly as a result of these disadvantages,African Americans consistently report lower or similar levelsof perceived personal control (Bruce and Thornton 2004;Shaw and Krause 2001). Yet, on more psychologicalmeasures such as self-esteem, African Americans oftenreport higher levels than whites (Hoelter 1982).

The association between self-efficacy and race has largelyfocused on specific facets of self-efficacy such as leavingwelfare, condom use, parenting or academic achievement(Saunders et al. 2004; Jackson 2000; Witherspoon et al.1997; Jemmott et al. 1992; Benjamin and Stewart 1989). Forinstance, academic achievement has a positive impact onself-efficacy for African American (Witherspoon et al. 1997).However, there is evidence that African Americans don’tperform as well in school in terms of retention, grades, andattainment (Mickelson 1990). Wilds (2000) suggests blackfemales are more likely to get better grades than black males.They are also more likely to go to college. In addition,Saunders et al. (2004) found that black female high schoolstudents had higher grades, higher intentions to graduate

from high school, and higher academic self-efficacy. If notoutcome oriented, the focus is on particular predictors ofself-efficacy including family structures, social support andreligiosity, and gender role attitudes (Riggio and Desrochers2006; Jones and Jolly 2003; Saltzman and Holahan 2002;Mizell 1999).

Extant research has emphasized the role of factors suchas family and work structure (Jones and Jolly 2003) andgender socialization (Eccles 1989) in the production of self-efficacy—factors which might help explain gender and racedifferences in self-efficacy. At the same time, despiteincreasing evidence that different socio-demographicgroups experience social structure in different ways(Jackson and Stewart 2003; Ryff et al. 2003), the literaturegenerally has not considered whether the impact of thesefactors on self-efficacy is conditional upon race.

Race, Work–Family Structures, and Gender Role Attitudes

There is a great deal of support for the notion that theAfrican American family structure differs from the whitefamily. There is debate as to whether African Americanfamilies are disorganized or simply different. Moynihan(1965) argued in his now classic report that slaveryproduced what is now a pathological African-Americanfamily, whereas Wilson (1978) points to the postwar periodas a time of increasing social disorganization. Otherssuggest that the black family has been different, but strongand resilient. They find consistent patterns of femaleheaded households and extended family structures amongAfrican Americans (Morgan et al. 1993; Gordan andMcLanahan 1991; Gutman 1976).

Whether family structures vary by race due to differentcultural histories or present structural circumstances, result-ing gender attitudes may not be the same for black andwhite females (Kane 2000). Not only are black women lesslikely to be married, they are less likely to be economicallydependent upon men compared to white women (O’Hareet al. 1991; Sorenson and McLanahan 1987). In relation tothe work and family roles, African Americans are morelikely to be tolerant of the idea of working mothers and lessapt to perceive working women as causing harm to children(Blee and Tickamyer 1986; 1995). African Americans arealso more likely to be liberal in terms of their genderattitudes and those attitudes are also related to lesseconomic dependence of females (Clarkberg et al. 1995).

These racial differences in attitude may be stronglyassociated with labor force participation differences. Whilelabor force participation rates for women have increasedgenerally, African American households are relatively morelikely to be characterized by a working mother (Orbuch andCuster 1995). Given an American history which hasoppressed African American men, black females’ work

824 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

has always been more of a financial necessity. These uniqueethnic experiences have implications for race differences ingender role attitudes. While research suggests that femalesgenerally have more liberal gender role attitudes than men,less is known about the role of race (Konrad and Harris2002). Research suggests African American men participatemore in household labor and this is associated with blackwomen’s greater relative resources from work (Orbuch andEyster 1997). Furthermore, Orbuch and Eyster (1997)found that black husbands report greater marital well-beingwhen they participate in household labor. Orbuch and Custer(1995) further suggest it is only African American husbandsof career wives who experience less marital well-being.

The different work and family arrangements experiencedby African Americans is also most certainly related to theway African American parents socialize their children.While research suggests African Americans are moretolerant of maternal employment (Blee and Tickamyer1995; Orbuch and Custer 1995), less is known about howgender roles influence the way they raise their children. Hill(2002) argued that studies of gender ideologies in AfricanAmerican families need to account for class. Less educatedAfrican American families tended to be more accepting oftraditional gender roles, but less able to realize these rolesdue to economic constraints while the most egalitarian inbelief and practice were in dual-income, married, middle-class families (Hill 2002).

Even less is known about the impact a father’s absencehas on gender socialization and self-efficacy. This is anespecially salient issue for African Americans. Compared towhites, a larger proportion of African American childrenare raised by single mothers (Fields 2003). Researchindicates that the African American father’s absence isrelated to less traditional gender role development in boys.For girls, on the other hand, lower income girls in fatherabsent homes perceive themselves to be more masculine(Mandara et al. 2005). Family structure is an importantfactor in development of gender and self-efficacy forAfrican Americans.

The Current Study

Given the aforementioned research, we have a number ofhypotheses in the present study. First, because we areanalyzing respondents in similar stages in life and all incollege, we expect to find comparable levels of self-efficacyamong African-Americans and whites. Even though Afri-can American college students are more likely to be fromdisadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds than whites,college admission itself is an individual accomplishment.Individual accomplishments are strongly related to aperson’s self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Furthermore, basedon our overall argument suggesting more egalitarian roles

among African Americans compared to whites, we predictthat the association of gender to self-efficacy will bemoderated by race. We hypothesize that African Americanwomen will report higher self-efficacy than AfricanAmerican males, while white females will be lower thanwhite males. In order to address these hypotheses, we willexamine how race and gender interact in their relationshipto self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 1: African Americans will report self-efficacy levels similar to whites.

Hypothesis 2: African American females will reporthigher self-efficacy than African American males;White males will report higher self-efficacy than whitefemales.

Next, we hypothesize that females will have more liberalgender roles than males and that African Americans will bemore liberal than whites. Males’, especially white males,position in society has not changed much in terms of laborforce participation and household labor. While white menwith working wives do more household labor than before,women continue to do more than an equitable amount(Orbuch and Eyster 1997). Even though this situation islikely to be dramatically different for African Americanmen, we still predict a main effect of gender on sex roleliberalism. However, we predict that African Americans,overall, will have more liberal gender attitudes compared towhites.

Hypothesis 3: Females will have more liberal genderrole attitudes than males.

Hypothesis 4: African Americans will report moreliberal gender role attitudes than whites.

Next, we hypothesize that more liberal gender roleattitudes will be strongly related to self-efficacy for allgroups except white males. While research on thisparticular relationship is limited, gender role attitudesshould play central role in predicting self-efficacy. Ourability to perform roles successfully as we perceive themhas consequences for role strain and our psychologicalhealth in terms of our sense of avoiding depression, roleconflicts, and role strain (Erdwins et al. 2001; Long 1989).In other words, perceptions of gender roles and theassessment of one’s ability to meet those role expectationsshould be related to self-efficacy.

For African American males, the relationship betweenpower in the household and labor force participation ismore complex than for white males. One the one hand, theymay have more liberal gender role expectations as a resultof the more equitable contributions of income AfricanAmerican females contribute to households. On the otherhand, the African American males’ negative experience in

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 825825

the labor market may result in attempts to bolster a moretraditional gender ideology in the home (Arrighi andMaume 2000). This argument could help explain moretraditional gender attitudes among African Americans withless education (Hill 2002). For African American males,possessing a traditional model of gender may result inlowered feelings of control, or self-efficacy. AfricanAmerican men face more difficulties in the labor market(Konrad and Harris 2002). Therefore, holding on to thetraditional male role expectation of the breadwinner maylead to frustration and lower self-efficacy. Relaxing thetraditional model of gender roles may result in an elevatedsense of self-efficacy because they perceive their participa-tion in the family as more integral to their role as males. Asmentioned, African Americans are generally more accept-ing of their and their wives’ participation in the labor force(Blee and Tickamyer 1995).

For African Americans and white women, we extend thisargument by further hypothesizing that liberal gender roleattitudes will be related to higher self-efficacy. In bothcases, the traditional model of gender roles is less likely tofit the realities of their day-to-day lives. This is especiallytrue for African American females in which labor forceparticipation has always been more prevalent (Blee andTickamyer 1995). Black women with traditional gender roleexpectations may feel less control, or efficacy, due to therealities of family life necessitating work as well asmothering. In other words, restricting one’s gender attitudeto roles of homemaker when working full time potentiallyresults in lowered feelings of efficacy in performing thathomemaker role. We hypothesize, not only that they willhave liberal gender role attitudes, but that those attitudeswill have a positive impact on their self-efficacy.

White women have increased their labor force participa-tion rates dramatically in the last 50 years (US Bureau ofthe Labor Statistics 2006). We hypothesize that a moreliberal gender role attitude will also be related to higherself-efficacy for similar reasons. The traditional model ofgender roles allots more power to the man of the household.Adhering to such traditions should be related to lowerlevels of self-efficacy. The present historical context isreflective of more white women working rather than beingfull time mothers. The pressures to work, coupled with atraditional model of the household in terms of gender roleshypothetically results in a lowered perception of efficacy.Therefore, we hypothesize that women will have moreliberal gender role attitudes which will be positivelyassociated with self-efficacy. We extend this logic to whitemen. Given the research which suggests that even men withworking wives do not do an equitable amount of thehousehold labor at home (see above), we hypothesize thatthe gender role attitudes of white men will not have asignificant impact on their self efficacy. We examine the

interaction of gender and sex role liberalism within eachracial group in order to test these relationships. We predictthat for African Americans, the main effect of sex roleliberalism will be the strongest predictor of self-efficacy.For whites, we predict that the impact of sex role liberalismon self-efficacy will be moderated by gender.

Hypothesis 5: Sex role liberalism will be positivelyassociated with self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 6: The impact of sex role liberalism on self-efficacy will be more consistent across gender forAfrican American. For whites, the relationship will bestronger for women.

Our analysis of work and family structure influences onself-efficacy are somewhat exploratory. Research suggeststhat growing up with full time working mother willpositively influence self-efficacy (Riggio and Desrochers2006). Research is limited on the direct impact upon self-efficacy, but we expect that growing up in a single motherfamily will be negatively related to self-efficacy for men,but not women (Konrad and Harris 2002). A relationship ofabsent-father to gender role attitudes was recently found ina sample African Americans (Mandara et al. 2005). Toexamine our final hypothesis, we examine this relationshipby comparing males who grew up with a single mother andfemales who grew up with a single mother to all others.

Hypothesis 7: Mother’s full time employment statuswill be positively related to self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 8: Growing up in a single mother familywill be negatively related to self-efficacy for men, butnot women.

Method

Participants

The data come from a convenience sample of generaleducation classes of a university in the Middle South.While this sample is not a random probability sample, it islargely representative of the student population. Ourrationale for surveying general education classes was toavoid samples that were saturated with students from anyparticular discipline. We sampled both small introductorysections and larger lecture courses. Approximately 20classes were surveyed. With exception of one night class,all courses surveyed were at various class times during theday and also varied by scheduled weekdays during theweek. By definition, general education classes are coursesrequired for all the degrees offered by the university. Oursampling frame is comprised of the total enrollment for the

826 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

targeted classes minus the number of students (twenty-one)who were in more than one sampled class (n=792). Fromthis frame, 606 students completed the survey resulting in a77% response rate. Non response was almost entirely aresult of absence from class on the day the survey wasadministered. As age increases beyond 25, it becomesincreasingly more difficult to argue the sample representstraditional college students. Research suggests that studiesof gender differences can be complicated by life coursestages (Frieze et al. 1991). In order to assure we areanalyzing race and gender differences among students insimilar stages of the life course, we remove 35 studentswho were older than 25. Another 34 cases were deletedfrom the analysis for reporting a variety of races and/orethnicities other than white or African American. Finally,we remove an additional 51 cases which had missinginformation on variables used in the analyses. For mostanalysis situations, Allison (2002) suggests deletion as anappropriate method of handling missing values.

The final sample consists of 486 college students. Thesample is 20.8% African American female (N=101), 9.7%African American male (N=47), 44.0% white female (N=214), and 25.5% white male (N=124). In addition, therespondents are, on average, approximately 20 years old(M=19.54, SD=1.5 years), and consist of predominantlyfreshman (45.6%). Most of the respondents’ mothersworked full-time (73.0%) and a smaller percentage of therespondents grew up in single parent families (14.0%).

Measure

Global Self-efficacy

Global Self-efficacy was assessed using six items from the17-item global self-efficacy scale constructed and tested bySherer et al. (1982). This is a Likert-style scale assessing anindividual’s perceptions of his or her ability to attempt andaccomplish difficult tasks. Examples of items include “I ama self-reliant person” and “If I can’t do a job the first time, Ikeep trying until I can.” Each item is rated on a five-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). For the computation of the scale score,each respondent’s item scores are summed and divided bythe number of items constituting the scale. This computa-tion returns scale scores to the same metric as each item.Higher scores represent higher self-efficacy. For example,a scale score of “4” means the respondent, on average,“agreed” with all six self-efficacy items. A final scalescore of “2” means the respondent, on average, “dis-agreed” with all six items. The scale has a possible rangeof 1 to 5.

In the Sherer et al. (1982) study, a large number of itemswere factor analyzed which yielded a distinct global self-

efficacy factor of 17 items. Construct validity was evalu-ated for the scale by correlating it with six personalitymeasures such as the Internal-External Control Scale(Rotter 1966) and the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (1965).Sherer et al. (1982) found that the correlations of globalself-efficacy with the personality measures were all in thecorrect direction and of moderate size. They furtherestablished criterion validity by obtaining moderate corre-lations of the global self-efficacy measure with pastvocational and educational successes and failures among150 subjects. Sherer et al. (1982) reported a Cronbach’s[alpha] of.86 in their study. The Cronbach’s [alpha] for themeasure in the present sample is .73. A complete list of theitems used to construct the scale is located in “Appendix A.”

Race and Gender

We measure race as a dummy variable which indicateswhether the respondent is African American {1=yes, 0=no}.Gender, or sex of respondent, is also measured as a dummyvariable which indicates whether the respondent is female ormale {1=female, 0=male}.

Sex-role Liberalism

Sex-role Liberalism is measured with an 8-item scaleadapted from the sex-role liberalism measure used byClarkberg et al. (1995) in the National Longitudinal Studyof High School Class of 1972 (NLS-72). This scale assessesindividuals’ perceptions of agreement with liberal sex roles.Examples of items include “Young men should beencouraged to take jobs that are usually filled by women(social work, nursing, etc.)” and “It is usually better foreveryone if the man is the achiever outside of the home andthe woman takes care of the home and family”(Reversecoded). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Aswith the self-efficacy measure, for the computation of thescale score, each respondent’s item scores are summed anddivided by the number of items constituting the scale. Thiscomputation returns scale scores to the same metric as eachitem (ranging from 1 to 5). Higher scores represent moreliberal attitudes about sex roles.

In the Clarkberg et al. (1995) analysis, they factoranalyzed ten items from the 1976 and 1979 waves of theNLS-72. They found that the factor they call liberalism ofsex roles correlated approximately −.8 with the statement,“It is better for everyone if the woman stays home and theman goes out to earn a living.” In the 1976 survey wave,the scale had a Tucker–Lewis reliability coefficient of .92and the 1979 wave had a reliability coefficient of .93. In thepresent study, we use four items from the former study andfour additional items which are slight variants of the items

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 827827

used by Clarkberg et al. (1995). One of the problems withcertain measures of gender role attitudes is their focus onlyon women’s roles and also on limited life domains(McHugh and Frieze 1997). We created additional itemsin order to address work and family issues for both men andwomen. The Cronbach’s [alpha] for the present sample was.74. (see “Appendix A” for a complete list of items). Anadditional interaction term is created representing theproduct of gender and sex role liberalism. We center thesex role liberalism measure in two situations only. We firstuse the centered version of the measure in the constructionof the interaction term to avoid issues of multicollinearityassociated with the inclusion of the gender main effectvariable and gender by sex role liberalism variable (Jaccardand Turrisi 2003; Aiken and West 1991). Secondly, we usethe centered version of sex role liberalism measure tocalculate the predicted values for Figs. 1–2.

Work and Family Structure

We consider family structure to be strongly related to both theformation of gender role attitudes and the formation of self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Research suggests that mother’semployment status is positively related to gender egalitari-anism in both boys and girls (Tuck et al. 1994). Mother’semployment status is a dichotomous variable comparingrespondents with full time mothers to all others. Wecategorized the measure as a result of the very highpercentages of mothers employed full time. Mother’srelationship status is a dichotomous variable comparingthose respondents growing up in homes in which theirmothers were the only caretakers to all others.

In addition, we examine the relationship of mother’srelationship status on male and female self-efficacy bycreating two dummy variables. The first variable comparesmales growing up with a single mother to all others {1=

males growing up with a single mother, 0=all others}. Thesecond variable compares females growing up with a singlemother to all others {1=females growing up with a singlemother, 0=all others}. The dummy variables allow us toexamine the self-efficacy of males and females fromspecific background types. A correlation matrix is locatedin “Appendix B” displaying the inter-correlations of themeasures.

Results

Descriptive Results

In order to test hypotheses 1–4, we conduct a number oftests of group differences. The means, standard deviations,and frequencies for all variables of the study are presentedin Table 1. The table displays statistics for AfricanAmericans and whites and each gender by race categoryseparately. In order to examine gender and race differencesamong the continuous variables in the study, a 2×2 (gender×race) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) wasconducted with self-efficacy and sex role liberalism servingas the dependent variables. The results indicate significantmultivariate effects of gender, Wilk’s Λ=.93, F(2, 481)=18.7, p<.001, η2=.07, and of race, Wilk’s Λ=.97, F(2, 481)=6.4, p<.01, η2=.03. The multivariate interaction betweengender and race was also significant, Wilk’s Λ=.97, F(2,481)=7.0, p<.01, η2=.03. An examination of the univariateeffects indicate that gender predicted sex role liberalism, F(1,482)=35.6, p<.001, η2=.07. Race was also a significantpredictor of sex role liberalism, F(1, 482)=11.3, p<.01,η2=.02. The univariate effect of the gender×race interactionwas also significant for self efficacy, F(1, 482)=12.6,p<.001, η2=.03. These results support hypothesis #1 in thatno significant race difference in self-efficacy is discovered.The significant multivariate and univariate gender×race

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

-2 -1 0 1 2

Centered Sex Role Liberalism

Se

lf-E

ffic

ac

y

black females

black males

Fig. 1 Regression lines for self-efficacy as a function of sex roleliberalism for African American males and females.

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

-2 -1 0 1 2

Centered Sex Role Liberalism

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

white females

white males

Fig. 2 Regression lines for self-efficacy as a function of sex roleliberalism for white males and females.

828 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

interaction also suggests hypothesis #2 is supported—therelationship between gender and self-efficacy depends onrace (we discuss more in subsequent section). Theseresults also support hypotheses #3 and #4. The maineffect of gender is significant and females report higheraverage sex role liberalism. African Americans are alsosignificantly higher on sex role liberalism compared towhites.

Chi-square (χ2) tests were performed to examine race andgender differences among the categorical variables, mother’sfull time working status and growing up in a single motherhousehold. Chi-square (χ2) tests indicate some statisticallysignificant differences for race, but not for gender. A higherpercentage of African Americans’ mothers worked full time(82% compared to 64%), [χ2 (1, N=486)=15.8, p<.001] anda substantially higher percentage of African Americans grewup in households with a single mother (30% compared to8%), [χ2 (1, N=486)=40.6, p<.001].

In order to assess the nature of the significant effects of thegender by race interaction on self-efficacy and sex-roleliberalismmore specifically, we conducted separateMANOVAsfor each racial group on the effect of gender on self-efficacy andsex role liberalism. The overall gender effect was significant forboth whites, Wilk’s Λ=.857, F(2, 335)=27.9, p<.001, η2=.14,and for African Americans, Wilk’s Λ=.924, F(2, 145)=6.0,p<.01, η2=.08. An examination of the within-race univariateeffects indicate that, for whites, gender was significantlyrelated to self-efficacy, F(1, 336)=12.0, p<.01, η2=.04, and

sex role liberalism, F(1, 336)=36.2, p<.001, η2=.10. ForAfrican Americans, gender was also significantly related toself-efficacy, F(1, 146)=4.3, p<.05, η2=.03, and sex roleliberalism, F(1, 336)=10.4, p<.01, η2=.07. The within-raceresults further provide support for hypothesis #2. We predictedthat the relationship between gender and self-efficacy wouldbe dependent on one’s race. The within-race analysis suggeststhis is true. White males report higher self-efficacy than whitefemales, but African American females report higher self-efficacy than African American males. Therefore, the impactof gender on self-efficacy is conditional upon one’s race. Anexamination of the within-race gender differences on thecategorical variables yielded no significant chi-square (χ2)tests.

Regression Analyses

In order to test the remaining hypotheses, we perform aseries of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. Forzero-order correlations, please refer to Tables 6 and 7 in“Appendix B.” We examined the correlations in addition toinvestigating tolerance levels in all of our regression modelsin order to eliminate the possibility of multicollinearity. Inhypothesis #5, we are first interested in establishing that sexrole liberalism predicts self-efficacy. We are interested inalso establishing that this relationship will be consistent forAfrican Americans, irrespective of gender. For whites, wepredict this relationship will be strong for women, but not

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages for African Americans and Whites.

Variable African Americans Whites

Females Males Combined Females Males Combined

Means and Standard Deviations on Continuous VariablesSelf-efficacyM 3.98 3.79* 3.92 3.67 3.90** 3.75SD .51 .57 .53 .56 .59 .58

Sex role liberalismM 4.00 3.70** 3.90 3.84 3.49*** 3.72**SD .50 .55 .53 .51 .52 .54

Frequencies and Percentages on Categorical VariablesMother worked fulltime 85 36 121 128 87 215***% (84) (77) (82) (60) (70) (64)

Single mother household 32 12 44 20 6 26***% (32) (26) (30) (9) (5) (8)N 101 47 148 214 124 338

Asterisks indicate significant χ2 tests for categorical variables and significant univariate effects for continuous variables. Asterisks in the Malescolumn indicate a significant within-race gender difference. Asterisks in the Combined column indicate a significant racial difference. Scale scoresfor self-efficacy and sex role liberalism represent the average response for all scale items (the original metric of each item). The range is from (1=strongly disagree with scale items, on average) to (5=strongly agree with scale items, on average).*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 829829

for men. Therefore, we conduct separate regressions forAfrican Americans and whites. We expect that gender andsex role liberalism will significantly interact in predictingself-efficacy for whites, but not for African Americans.

We enter variables into the regression models in threehierarchical steps. In the first step, we regress self-efficacyon the gender variable {female=1, male=0}. In the secondstep, we enter the sex role liberalism variable. By enteringthe variables in steps, we can evaluate the significance ofthe contribution of the measures. The results for the AfricanAmerican sample are located in Table 2.

As discussed earlier, the results suggest that AfricanAmerican females have higher self-efficacy than AfricanAmerican males (model 1). In addition, the relationshipbetween sex role liberalism and self-efficacy is significantand positive. Furthermore, the gender difference is nolonger significant after accounting for sex role liberalism.The explained variation in self-efficacy has also signifi-cantly increased with the addition of sex role liberalism,ΔR2=.066 for model 2 (p<.01). Hypothesis #5 is supportedfor African Americans. Sex role liberalism is positivelyassociated with self-efficacy. In the last step, we examinethe first part of hypothesis #6: Does sex role liberalismimpact self-efficacy the same way for African Americanmales and females. The gender×sex role liberalism inter-action term is entered into the equation for model 3. Theinteraction term is not statistically significant and does notcontribute to the explanation of self-efficacy. For AfricanAmericans, the non-significant interaction term representssupport for hypothesis #6. In other words, the relationshipof sex role liberalism to self-efficacy is similar for AfricanAmericans, irrespective of gender.

In order to further illustrate the relationship between sexrole liberalism and self-efficacy for African Americans, weplot the predicted values for the main effects andinteractions between sex and sex role liberalism followingthe procedure suggested by Jaccard and Turrisi (2003). Forthis analysis, sex role liberalism is centered for both themain effect and in the construction of the interaction termsto create a regression equation. The equation estimates are,in turn, used to predict values of self-efficacy at severalcentered values of sex role liberalism for African Americanmales and females.

Figure 1 illustrates the predicted relationships for theAfrican Americans. The relationship does not differsubstantively by gender and is somewhat congruent.Generally, the relationship of sex role liberalism to self-efficacy is similar for African American males and females.

Now we turn to the white sample to further examinehypotheses #5–6. As with the African American analysis, wefirst regress self-efficacy on the gender variable {female=1,male=0}. As discussed earlier, the significant negativecoefficient reconfirms the lower self-efficacy of whitefemales. In the second model, sex role liberalism issignificant as a predictor of self-efficacy and in terms of itscontribution, ΔR2=.023 for model 2 (p<.01). Entering thesex role liberalism measure into the equation also increasesthe gender gap in self-efficacy. Upon first estimation, theseresults indicate that sex role liberalism is related to self-efficacy for both white males and females. In the final model(model 3, Table 3), we investigate the second half ofhypothesis #6. With the entry of the gender×sex roleliberalism measure, the main effect of sex role liberalism isno longer significant. Also, the interaction term is statisti-

Table 2 Regression of self-efficacy on gender, sex role liberalism,and gender by sex role liberalism interaction for the African Americansub-sample (N=148).

Variables Models

1 2 3

Femalea .168* .099 .104(.192) (.114) (.119)

Sex role liberalism .266** .365**Female*Sex role liberalism −.124R2 .028 .094 .099

ΔR2 =.066 for model 2 (p<.01); ΔR2 =.005 for model 3 (p>.05)*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001a Unstandardized coefficient presented in parentheses and representsthe gender gap in self-efficacy. Standardized coefficients presented forall other variables.

Table 3 Regression of self-efficacy on gender, sex role liberalism,and gender by sex role liberalism interaction for the White sub-sample(N=338).

Variables Models

1 2 3

Femalea −.186** −.235*** −.196**(−.224) (−.284) (−.236)

Sex role liberalism .158** −.030Female*Sex role liberalism .227**R2 .035 .057 .076

ΔR2 =.023 for model 2 (p<.01); ΔR2 =.019 for model 3 (p<.01)*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001a Unstandardized coefficient presented in parentheses and representsthe gender gap in self-efficacy. Standardized coefficients presented forall other variables.

830 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

cally significant and is the largest relative predictor in themodel. The variable’s entry contributes significantly to theexplanation of self-efficacy, ΔR2=.019 for model 3 (p<.01).The interaction implies that the positive impact of sex roleliberalism exists only for white females, but not for whitemales. These findings support the second part of hypothesis#6 which suggests that the relationship of sex role liberalismto self-efficacy will not be consistent for white males andfemales.

As with the African American sample, we plot thepredicted values for the main effects and interactionsbetween sex and sex role liberalism for whites. As statedpreviously, sex role liberalism is centered for both the maineffect and in the construction of the interaction terms tocreate a regression equation. The equation estimates are, inturn, used to predict values of self-efficacy at severalcentered values of sex role liberalism for African Americanmales and females.

Figure 2 illustrates the predicted relationships for whites.Clearly, the relationship of sex role liberalism to self-efficacy is divergent for white males and females. For whitemales, consistent with our hypothesis, self-efficacy is not afunction of sex role liberalism. For females, however, therelationship is similar to African Americans. This concludesand further supports hypothesis #6. At high levels of sex-role liberalism, the initial main effect of gender on self-efficacy is no longer consequential.

For the work–family characteristics, we perform anotherseries of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions onAfrican Americans and whites separately. In order toinvestigate hypotheses #7 and #8, we estimate two models.In the first model, we regress self-efficacy on the gendervariable. While this appears a bit redundant, we want toexamine whether or not the addition of the family variablesin the subsequent model contributes to the variation in self-efficacy. In the second model, we enter a block of work–family dummy variables. These include the measure ofmother’s employment status {mother worked full time=1,all others=0}, females growing up with single mothers {1}compared to all others {0}, and males growing up withsingle mothers {1} compared to all others {0}.

The results for the African American sample, displayedin Table 4, suggest some minor findings worth mentioning.Mother’s employment status is not related to self-efficacyfor African Americans. This finding is not supportive ofhypothesis #7. There is, however, weak support forhypothesis #8. Growing up with a single mother is notrelated to self-efficacy for African American females. Yet,African American males growing up in single motherhouseholds have slightly lower self-efficacy compared toall other African Americans. The entry of the variables isnot associated with a significant contribution, ΔR2=.034

for model 2 (p>.05). Therefore, we hesitate to offerinterpretations for hypothesis #8.

For the white sample, we perform the same regressionmodels as were conducted on the African American sample.The results are displayed in Table 5. For whites, the resultsare somewhat different. First, the entry of the work–familyvariables represents a statistically significant contribution tothe explained variation in self-efficacy, ΔR2=.031 formodel 2 (p<.05). The contribution is a result of themother’s full time employment status. For whites, growingup with a mother working fulltime has a positive impact onself-efficacy. These findings represent support for hypoth-esis #6, but not for hypothesis #7.

Table 4 Regression of self-efficacy on gender and work- familycharacteristics for the African American sub-sample (N=148).

Variables Models 1 2

Femalea .168 .086*(.192) (.098)

Work–Family CharacteristicsMother worked full-time −.037Females from single motherhouseholds

.001

Males from single mother households −.197*R2 .028 .063

ΔR2 =.034 for model 2 (p>.05)*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001a Unstandardized coefficient presented in parentheses and representsthe gender gap in self-efficacy. Standardized coefficients presented forall other variables.

Table 5 Regression of self-efficacy on sex, sex role liberalism, andwork-family characteristics for the white sub-sample (N=338).

Variables Models

1 2

Femalea −.186** −.180**(−.224) (−.218)

Work–Family CharacteristicsMother worked full-time .162*Females from single mother households .058Males from single mother households −.001R2 .035 .066

ΔR2 =.031 for model 2 (p<.05)*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001a Unstandardized coefficient presented in parentheses and representsthe gender gap in self-efficacy. Standardized coefficients presented forall other variables.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 831831

Discussion

In this study, we attempted to explore racial differences inself-efficacy and hypothesized more liberal gender roleattitudes would be related to higher self-efficacy. We alsohypothesized that this relationship would be consistent forAfrican-American males and females. For whites, we foundsex role liberalism to be non-related to self-efficacy formales, but highly relevant for women. The results suggestthat gender role attitudes are strongly related to self-efficacyfor everyone except white males.

Why then do African Americans, especially females,consistently report higher self-efficacy? We suggest thatfamily structure and experience in the family plays animportant role in ways that are captured more by our sexrole liberalism than our work–family measures. The workstatus of the respondents’ mothers was found to be animportant factor for the self-efficacy of whites. For AfricanAmerican females, the modal experience is to grow up in ahousehold in which your mother works full time and isnot likely to be married. Contrary to being disorganizedand unstable, research suggests the African Americanfamily has always been defined in its extended form andhas always relied on strong, self-reliant African Ameri-can women (Morgan et al. 1993; Collins 1990; Gutman1976).

While labor force participation for all women is high,our data suggest white females are relatively more likely tohave a mother that either doesn’t work or works part-time.In fact, most black females have working mothers as theirprimary role models. In addition, this structural differencecould potentially result in different socialization influences.Research does suggest that fathers are more responsible forencouraging sex-typed behavior in their children (Busseyand Bandura 1999; Russell and Saebel 1997; Collins andRussell 1991). Either having an absent-father, or having afather with less relative status in the household potentiallyreduces the influence of the sex-typing parent in thesocialization process (Mandara, Murray, and Joyner). ForAfrican American daughters, this may produce moreassertive, or efficacious, attitudes traditionally associatedwith masculinity (Hill 2002). These instrumental attributeshave been shown to be related to career decision makingself-efficacy (Abdalla 1995). We suggest black and whitedaughters may differ in these regards and these differencespotentially impact self-efficacy.

Our findings are especially interesting in respect toAfrican American males. Some researchers suggest blackmen are more traditional in their perceptions of gender rolesand the psychological impact of being a successfulbreadwinner is significant (Bruce and Thornton 2004;Bowman and Sanders 1998). Others suggest African-

American families are more egalitarian in terms of roleequality and decision-making (Kane 2000; Blee andTickamyer 1995). Compared to white men, we did not findmore traditionalism among African American collegestudents. As our analysis supports, African American menthat accept or perceive more egalitarian gender roleattitudes have a stronger sense of self-efficacy. Preparing toenter a job in which they will potentially experience thesignificance of race, African-Americans with more liberalgender attitudes may be better prepared to adjust to moreegalitarian families. Those with a more traditional outlook onfamily may be more likely to experience the psychologicalimpact of failure, and subsequently, lower self-efficacy.

Limitations

Several limitations need to be considered when consideringthe findings of the present study. The first limitationpertains to the use of a convenience sample of undergraduatestudents. Because the sample is not a random probabilitysample, we have to interpret our findings with caution. Wedid attempt to achieve the goal of probability sampling bysampling classes of undergraduates which were classified asgeneral education courses. Students from the entire univer-sity are required to take a certain number of generaleducation classes. Therefore, the classes sampled potentiallycontain students from all majors.

An additional limitation of the sample is that it comesfrom an institution in the Southern U.S. This Southern datamay not generalize to other regions in the USA in terms ofgender role attitudes. Konrad and Harris (2002), forinstance, found African American men in the Southexpressed more traditional views of desirable attributes forwomen and men compared to European American andAfrican American men in the Northeast. Twenge (1997)also performed a meta-analysis of 71 studies using collegestudent samples and found students in southern sampleswere more conservative than college students in otherregions. Therefore, the race and gender differences may bedifferent when examined in more nationally representativesamples.

Finally, the use of self-report measures for both genderrole attitudes and self-efficacy represents a limitation of ourfindings. For self-efficacy, it would be ideal to examineobjective criteria which would be indicative of self-efficacy.For instance, success in college might be a great measure toconsider when analyzing self-efficacy among a collegestudent sample. Also, the sex role liberalism scale used tomeasure gender role attitude is not an established scale. Thereliability for this scale in the present sample is narrowlyacceptable (just under .8) and only half of the items comedirectly from items previously used. Therefore, the tentative

832 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

nature of this scale should be considered when examiningour results.

Considerations for Future Research

Overall, the strong connection of gender role attitudes toself-efficacy for all but white males is interesting in ourpresent historical context. At least for female and minoritycollege students, it seems clear that possessing lesstraditional gender role attitudes is more fitting for theirexperience. Yet, these perceptions may not be a “fit” forother socioeconomic segments of society. Future researchshould address these relationships using samples represent-ing all education levels. It is also unknown how theseparticular relationships will change for the college educatedas they enter work and family atmospheres and face newchallenges.

Della Fave (1980, 1986) has suggested that people arelikely to accept their position in the social structure aslegitimate and deserved. Using the concept of self-evaluationinstead of self-efficacy, he proposes that people inadvantaged positions would have high self-evaluations andpeople in disadvantaged positions low self-evaluations.However, there is less known about how this evaluation ofposition differs by race. Research has shown that AfricanAmericans are less likely to attribute inequality to individualflaws (Zingraff and Schulman 1984; Kluegel and Smith1981). In relation to the present findings, we suggest whitewomen, as compared to African American women, may bemore likely to interpret their own disadvantage in the systemof gender stratification as an individual flaw. This interpre-tation may produce lower self-evaluations.

Also related to race is the concept of racial identity.Along with gender role attitudes, the concept of racialidentity may be an important factor when examining racedifferences in mental health outcomes. Research is mixed interms of the impact identifying with one’s race has on self-efficacy. Okech and Harrington (2002) found a positiverelationship between racial identity and academic self-efficacy. Other researchers suggest that African Americanswho distance themselves from their racial identity are morelikely to succeed (Fordham and Ogbu 1986). This conceptmay be an important factor in the prediction of self-efficacyas well as gender role identities.

Acknowledgement The authors would like to particularly thankBenjamin Cornwell, the anonymous reviewers and the editor of SexRoles for their assistance during different stages of this project. Theauthors would also like to thank Ann Hunt, Laura Bush, and WesPhillips.

Appendix A. Items Used to Calculate Scale Items.

Global Self-efficacy Scale

Global self-efficacy constructed and tested by Sherer et al.(1982). Respondents were asked to indicate whether theystrongly disagreed (1), disagreed (2), neither agreed nordisagreed (3), agreed (4), or strongly agreed (5) with itemslisted below. Higher values represent greater self-efficacy.

1. If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.2. I give up on things before completing them. (reverse-

coded)3. If something looks complicated, I won't bother trying it.

(reverse-coded)4. Failure just makes me try harder.5. I feel insecure about my ability to do things. (reverse-

coded)6. I am a self-reliant person.

Sex Role Liberalism Scale

Sex role liberalism measured used by Clarkberg et al.(1995) in the National Longitudinal Study of High SchoolClass of 1972. The last four items are slight variants of theitems used by Clarkberg et al. (1995). Respondents wereasked to indicate whether they strongly disagreed (1),disagreed (2), neither agreed nor disagreed (3), agreed (4),or strongly agreed (5) with items listed below:

1. Men should be given the first chance at most jobsbecause they have the primary responsibility forproviding for a family. (Reverse coded)

2. It is usually better for everyone if the man is theachiever outside of the home and the woman takes careof the home and family. (Reverse coded)

3. Most women are just not interested in having big andimportant jobs. (Reverse coded)

4. Young men should be encouraged to take jobs that areusually filled by women (social work, nursing, etc.)

5. Young women should be encouraged to take jobs that areusually filled by men (engineering, management, etc.)

6. It is more important for a husband to commit his timeto his work rather than helping his wife at home.(Reverse coded)

7. Women should not be discouraged from choosingmale-typed careers such as engineering because theirmathematical skills are just as good as men’s.

8. Men should not be discouraged from choosing female-typed careers (such as nursing) because they are just asnurturing as women.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 833833

Appendix B: Intercorrelations for All Variables by Raceand Sex.

References

Abdalla, I. A. (1995). Sex, sex-role self-concepts and career decision-making self-efficacy among Arab students. Social Behavior andPersonality, 23, 389–402.

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Arrighi, B. A., &Maume, D. J. (2000).Workplace subordination andmen’savoidance of housework. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 464–487.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:Freeman.

Benjamin, L., & Stewart, J. B. (1989). The self-concept of black andwhite women: The influences upon its formation of welfaredependency, work effort, family networks, and illnesses. AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, 48, 165–175.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications of self-efficacy theoryto understanding career choice behavior. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 4, 279–289.

Blee, K. M., & Tickamyer, A. R. (1995). Racial differences in men’sattitudes about gender roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family,57, 21–30.

Blee, K. M., & Tickamyer, A. R. (1986). Black–white differences inmother-to-daughter transmission of sex-role attitudes. SociologicalQuarterly, 28, 205–22.

Bowman, P. J., & Sanders, R. (1998). Unmarried African-Americanfathers: A comparative lifespan analysis. Journal of ComparativeFamily Studies, 29, 39–56.

Bruce, M. A., & Thornton, M. C. (2004). It’s my world? Exploringblack and white perceptions of personal control. SociologicalQuarterly, 45, 597–612.

Buchanan, T., & Gossett, J. (2002). The healthy homeless minority.Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 12, 173–204.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of genderdevelopment and differentiation.Psychology Review, 106, 676–713.

Cancio, A. S., Evans, T. D., & Maume Jr., D. J. (1996). Reconsideringthe declining significance of race: Racial differences in earlycareer wages. American Sociological Review, 61, 541–556.

Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes,values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions.Social Forces, 74, 609–632.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness,and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother–child and father–childrelationships in middle childhood and adolescence. DevelopmentalReview, 11, 99–136.

Coontz, S. (1993). The way we never were: American families and thenostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

Della Fave, L. R. (1986). Towards an explication of the legitimationprocess. Social Forces, 65, 476–500.

Della Fave, L. R. (1980). The meek shall not inherit the earth: Self-evaluation and the legitimacy of stratification. Annual Review ofSociology, 45, 955–71.

Intercorrelations of self-efficacy, sex role liberalism, and work-family characteristics for females and males.

Variables 1 2 3 4

Self-efficacy – .27** .15** .13*Sex role liberalism .06 – .13* −.00Mother worked full-time .14 .21** – .11Single mother household −.14* .01 .13* –

Above the diagonal values represent females (N=315) and below the diagonal values represent males (N=171).*p<.05**p<.01

Intercorrelations of self-efficacy, sex role liberalism, and work-family characteristics for African Americans and Whites.

Variables 1 2 3 4

Self-efficacy – .26** .17* .01Sex role liberalism −.03 – .17* −.07Mother worked full-time .07 .25** – .13Single mother household .01 .04 .07 –

Above the diagonal values represent Whites (N=338) and below the diagonal values represent African Americans (N=148).*p<.05**p<.01

834 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836

Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing women to math and science. In M.Crawford, & M. Gentry (Eds.) Gender and Thought pp. 36–58.New York: Springer.

Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O’Brien, A. S. (2001).The relationship of women’s role strain to social support, rolesatisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations, 50, 230–238.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. AnnualReview of Sociology, 15, 291–316.

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

Gordan, L., & McLanahan, S. (1991). Single parenthood in 1900.Journal of Family History, 16, 97–116.

Grabowski, L. J. S., Call, K. T., & Mortimer, J. T. (2001). Global andeconomic self-efficacy in the educational attainment process.Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 164–179.

Gutman, H. G. (1976). The Negro family in slavery and freedom,1750–1925. New York: Pantheon.

Fields, J. (2003). Children’s living arrangements and characteristics:March 2002. Current Population Reports pp. 20–547. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Fordham, S., &Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Copingwith the burden of ‘acting white’. The Urban Review, 18, 176–206.

Frieze, I. H., Sales, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Considering the socialcontext in gender research: The impact of college students’ lifestage. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 371–392.

Hayward, M. D., Miles, T. P., Crimmins, E. M., & Wang, Y. (2000).The significance of socioeconomic status in explaining the racialgap in chronic health conditions. American Sociological Review,65, 910–930.

Herman, K. S., & Betz, N. E. (2004). Path models of the relationshipsof instrumentality and expressiveness to social self-efficacy,shyness, and depressive symptoms. Sex Roles, 51, 55–66.

Hill, S. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African Americanfamilies. Sex Roles, 47, 493–506.

Hines, A. M. (1997). Divorce-related transitions, adolescent develop-ment and the role of the parent–child relationship: A review ofthe literature. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 375–388.

Hoelter, J. W. (1982). Race differences in selective credulity and self-esteem. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 527–537.

Hughes, M. E., & Thomas, M. (1998). The continuing significance ofrace revisited: A study of race, class, and quality of life in America,1972–1996. American Sociological Review, 63, 785–795.

Hunt, M. O., Jackson, P. B., Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (2000).Color-blind: The treatment of race and ethnicity in socialpsychology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 352–364.

Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multipleregression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jackson, A. P. (2000). Maternal self-efficacy and children’s influenceon stress and parenting among single black mothers in poverty.Journal of Family Issues, 21, 3–16.

Jackson, P. B., & Stewart, Q. T. (2003). A research agenda for theblack middle class: Work stress, survival strategies, and mentalhealth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 442–455.

Jackson, D. W., & Tein, J. (1998). Adolescents conceptualization ofadult roles: Relationships with age, gender, work goal, andmaternal employment. Sex Roles, 38, 987–1008.

Jemmott, J. H., Jemmott, L.W., Spears, H., Hewitt, N., &Cruz-Collins,M.(1992). Self-efficacy, hedonistic expectancies, and condom useintentions among inner-city black adolescent women: A socialcognitive approach to AIDS risk behavior. Journal of AdolescentMedicine, 13, 512–519.

Jones, A. L., & Jolly, S. N. (2003). Power in North Carolina parents:Is there a relationship between family structure and adolescentself-efficacy. Sociation Today, 1, 1–13.

Kane, E. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-relatedattitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419–39.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:Basic Books.

Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. (1981). Beliefs about stratification. AnnualReview of Sociology, 7, 29–56.

Konrad, A. M., & Harris, C. (2002). Desirability of the bem sex-roleinventory items for women and men: A comparison betweenAfrican-Americans and European Americans. Sex Roles, 47,259–271.

Kohn,M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983).Work and personality: An inquiry intothe impact of social stratification. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance.Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687–694.

Long, B. C. (1989). Sex-role orientation, coping strategies, and self-efficacy of women in traditional and nontraditional occupations.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 307–324.

Mandara, J., Murray, C. B., & Joyner, T. N. (2005). The impact offather’s absence on African American adolescents’ gender roledevelopment. Sex Roles, 53, 207–220.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid:Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA,USA: Harvard University Press.

McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 21, 1–16.

Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox amongblack adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63, 44–61.

Mizell, C. A. (1999). African American men’s personal sense of mastery:The consequences of the adolescent environment, self-concept andadult achievement. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 210–230.

Morgan, S. P., McDaniel, A., Miller, A. T., & Preston, S. H. (1993).Racial differences in household and family structure at the turn ofthe century. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 798–828.

Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for nationalaction. Office of Planning and Research, United States Depart-ment of Labor.

Neckerman, K. M., & Kirscheman, J. (1991). We’d love to hire thembut…: The meaning of race to employers. Social Problems, 38,433–447.

O’Hare, W. P., Pollard, K. M., Mann, T. L., & Kent, M. M. (1991).African-Americans in the 1990s. Population Bulletin, 46, 2.

Okech, A. P., & Harrington, R. (2002). The relationship among Blackconsciousness, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy in AfricanAmerican men. The Journal of Psychology, 136, 214–225.

Orbuch, T. L., & Eyster, S. L. (1997). Division of household laboramong black and white couples. Social Forces, 76, 301–332.

Orbuch, T. L., & Custer, L. (1995). The social context of marriedwomen’s work and its impact on black husbands and whitehusbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 333–345.

Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Free Press.Riggio, H. R., & Desrochers, S. J. (2006). Maternal employment:

Relationship with young adults’ work and family expectationsand self-efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1328–1353.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versusexternal control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80,No. 609.

Ryff, C. D., Keyes, C. L. M., & Hughes, D. L. (2003). Statusinequalities, perceived discrimination, and eudaimonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose andgrowth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 275–291.

Russell, G., & Saebel, J. (1997). Mother–son, mother–daughter,father–son, father–daughter. Developmental Review, 17, 11–147.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836 835835

Saltzman, K. M., & Holahan, C. J. (2002). Social support, self-efficacy, and depressive symptoms: Integrative model. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 21, 309–322.

Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2004). Genderdifferences in self-perceptions and academic outcomes: A studyof African-American high school students. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 33, 81–90.

Shaw, B., & Krause, N. (2001). Exploring race variations in aging andpersonal control. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B(2), S119–S124.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S.,Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale:Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.

Sorenson, A., & McLanahan, S. (1987). Married women’s economicdependency, 1940–1980. American Journal of Sociology, 93,659–687.

Tannenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent–child conversationsabout science: The socialization of gender inequities.DevelopmentalPsychology, 39, 34–47.

Tsuzuki, Y., & Matsui, T. (1997). Factors influencing intention tocontinue work throughout the lifespan among Japanese collegewomen: A path analysis. College Student Journal, 38, 637–642.

Tuck, B., Rolfe, J., & Adair, V. (1994). Adolescents’ attitude towardgender roles within work and its relationship to gender,

personality type, and parental occupation. Sex Roles, 31, 547–558.

Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: a meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Employment and Earnings,monthly. Monthly Labor Review, November 2005.

Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Wickrama, K. A. S.,Ackley, K. A., & Elder, G. H. (1997). The effects of parents’working conditions and family hardship on parenting behaviors andchildren’s self-efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 291–303.

Wilds, D. J. (2000). Minorities in higher education, 1999–2000.Washington, DC, USA: American Council on Education.

Williams, C. L. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’swork. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1978). The declining significance of race: Blacks andchanging American institutions. Chicago, IL, USA: University ofChicago Press.

Witherspoon, K. M., Speight, S. L., & Thomas, A. J. (1997). Racialidentity attitudes, school achievement, and academic self-efficacyamong African American high school students. Journal of BlackPsychology, 23, 344–357.

Zingraff, R., & Schulman, M. D. (1984). Social bases of classconsciousness: A study of southern textile workers with acomparison by race. Social Forces, 63, 98–116.

836 Sex Roles (2008) 58:822–836