This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library] On: 03 February 2015, At: 05:15 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Relationship between SelfConfidence and Sex Role Identity among Managerial Women and Men a
Leonard H. Chusmir & Christine S. Koberg
b
a
Department of Management , College of Business Administration Florida International University , USA b
College of Business Administration University of Colorado , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Leonard H. Chusmir & Christine S. Koberg (1991) Relationship between Self-Confidence and Sex Role Identity among Managerial Women and Men, The Journal of Social Psychology, 131:6, 781-790, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1991.9924665 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924665
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychologv. 131(6), 181-790
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Relationship Between Self-confidence and Sex Role Identity Among Managerial Women and Men LEONARD H. CHUSMIR Department of Management College of Business Administration Florida International University
CHRISTINE S. KOBERG College of Business Administration University of Colorado
ABSTRACT.The self-confidence and sex role identities of 437 American female and male managers were examined by using three subscales of the Adjective Check List.
Results showed that, contrary to stereotypes and older research, female and male managers were strikingly similar. Women and men with cross-sex role identities showed lower levels of self-confidence than those did with androgynous orientations; high selfconfidence was linked with masculine and androgynous orientations. The managers were not significantly different in self-confidence when demographic variables and sex role identity were held constant. Sex role identity (but not gender) was a major factor in the level of self-confidence.
THE CONSENSUS OF SEX-ISSUE RESEARCH prior to 1980 had a sexcentered perspective, proposing that individuals’ attitudes and traits vary according to sex. Results of self-confidence studies reported that women in general possessed lower self-confidence than men (this was found in extensive literature reviews by Lenney, 1977; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; and White, De Sanctis, & Crino, 1981). These differences related to sex, and if lower self-confidence was carried over to the workplace, these factors may help explain why working women sometimes have had so much difficulty Requests for reprints should be sent to Leonard H. Chusmir, Department of Management, College of Business Adminktration, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, FL 33199. 781
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
782
The Journal of Social Psychologv
obtaining and succeeding in high-paying, high-prestige jobs (McCarty, 1986; Robie, 1973). The negative outcomes may occur because low selfconfidence frequently leads to self-discouragement and low achievement (Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Nieva & Gutek, 1981) as well as negative psychological consequences (Holahan & Moos, 1986). Most sex-issue research in the past decade, however, has been undertaken from a situation- or role-centered perspective that argues that attitudes or traits vary according to one’s situation or role rather than one’s sex (Gomez-Meija, 1983; Mischel, 1%8; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1988). More specifically, several recent self-confidence studies in which self-confidence was examined in different situations and roles tend to confirm the position taken by role-centered perspective theorists. Situational influences include such variables as positive feedback (McCarty, 1986), performance of stereotypical male tasks (Collins, 1985), communication factors (Andrews, 1987), emotional maturity (Sudah & Nirmala, 1984), educational level (Aycock & Noaker, 1985), prior experience of the task (Carr et al., 1985), supervisory power (Koberg, 1985), and performance in two-person teams (Sleeper & Nigro, 1987). One variable not examined in previous self-confidence research, however, is sex role identity. The present study examined the relationship between these two variables. The self-confidence of American women appears to be more responsive to situational variations than that of men (Carr et al., 1985; Lenney, 1977; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983), which suggests that women may not have lower self-confidence than that of men-as suggested by earlier research-but rather may vary more than that of men, both lower and higher, depending on the role or situation. For example, self-confidence scores did not vary significantly for men who performed masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral tasks, but women scored considerably higher on feminine and neutral tasks than on the masculine (Carr et al., 1985). Sex role theory proposes that individuals possess one of four different gender identities that allows them a range of behaviors dependent on that identity (Bem, 1974). People with a feminine or masculine identity would likely behave in stereotypically feminine or masculine ways because they are locked into narrowly defined self-concepts. Androgynous individuals could adapt to feminine or masculine behaviors depending on the situation, and undifferentiated people would behave in a non-gender-related manner. The same theory suggests that, when an individual behaves in a manner consistent with the sex role assigned by society, the socialization process gives positive feedback to help build the individual’s self-confidence. Because society often gives negative feedback to individuals of one sex who behave in a manner consistent with the opposite sex role identity, it is proposed here that the negative feedback is likely to create a lowered level of self-confidence.
Chusmir 19Koberg
783
The following hypothesis thus emerges: Men and women with cross-sex role orientations will score lower in self-confidence than those with samesex, androgynous, or undifferentiated sex role orientations when the effects of age, tenure, education, and hierarchical level are controlled.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Method
Subjects and Measures This study was based on information obtained from 437 volunteer survey respondents (208 men, 229 women) in 1989. Ten full-time working students received permission from their organizations to test fellow workers by using a research questionnaire. When approached by a co-worker, each subject voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of managerial positions, surveys were distributed at several different organizations located in greater Miami, Florida. The average respondent was 35.2 years of age and had spent 7.2 years in the present organization: 31.6% had never married, 15.4% were divorced, 1.8% were widowed, and 51.2% were married; 48.8% designated themselves as supervisors or first-line, low-level managers, 39.4% were middlelevel managers, and 11.8% were top-level managers; 62.3% held an undergraduate or advanced degree, 30.7% had some college education, and 6.7% had no education beyond high school. An unsigned survey questionnaire, which was administered at the subjects’ respective organizations, contained demographic information and 3 of the 37 subscales of the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5). The ACL is a standardized 300-adjectivelist widely used in personality assessment and psychometric research; the three subscales used in this study consisted of 78 adjectives, with some adjectives scored on more than one subscale. We made efforts to ensure the respondents’ anonymity by having them return unsigned questionnaires at the time of administration. Each respondent was instructed to consider the list of adjectives and to check off those that describe the respondent as he or she really is. According to Gough and Heilbrun, the ACL is useful in many situations without being scored for the entire set of subscales. The Self-confidence scale consists of 34 items, of which 20 are scored + 1 and 14 are scored - 1. According to Gough and Heilbrun (1%5), high scorers on this subscale “are initiators, confident of their ability to achieve goals. They are not above cutting a few comers to create a good impression, and observers do see them as assertive, enterprising, and self-confident. The low scorers have difficulty in mobilizing their resources and taking action; others view them as shy, inhibited, and withdrawn” (p. 17). Gough and Heilbrun reported alpha coefficients of .79 for men and .77 for women and
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
784
The Journal of Social Psychology
test-retest coefficients of .68 and .78, respectively. The reliability coefficient obtained in the present study for the Self-confidence scale was .83. The Masculine Attributes scale is intended “(a) to distinguish between men and women respondents, (b) to place individuals along a continuum on which higher scorers will be described as masculine, initiative, forceful, etc., by acquaintances and observers, and lower scorers as less masculine and more dependent and unassuming, and (c) to differentiate between individuals having modal vs. nonmodal sexual preferences” (Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5, p. 19). All of the 22 items (e.g., assertive, enterprising, and masculine), were scored + 1 for endorsement. According to Gough and Heilbrun, the total normative sample of 5,238 men had an average raw score of 8.62 on the scale (SD = 4.41), and the 4,164 women had an average raw score of 6.71 (SD = 3.90). The difference was significant. Gough and Heilbrun reported an alpha coefficient of .82 for men and .75 for women and test-retest coefficients of .53 and 3 1 , respectively. The reliability coefficient obtained in the present study for the Masculine Attributes scale was .82. The Feminine Attributes scale is used “(a) to distinguish between women and men respondents, (b) to locate individuals on a continuum such that higher scorers will be viewed as feminine, sentimental, warm, etc., and (c) to differentiate between persons having modal and nonmodal sexual preferences” (Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5, p. 20). All of the 22 items were scored + 1 for endorsement. In the normative sample, women had an average raw score of 12.51 (SD = 4.04) and men, 9.78 (SO = 3.99). The difference also was significant. Gough and Heilbrun reported alpha coefficients of .77 for men and .76 for women and test-retest coefficients of .41 and .45, respectively. The Masculine and Feminine Attributes subscales are not defined as polar opposites and do not have negative correlations. Coefficient scores between the two subscales ranged from - .12 to - .20. According to Gough and Heilbrun, some subjects score above or below average on both scales. Those who score above the 50 percentile are considered psychologically androgynous. A reliability coefficient of .80 for the Feminine Attributes scale was obtained in this study.
Control Variables Five control variables were used: age; education, coded 1 for nondegree holders and 2 for college degree holders; organizational tenure, designated as number of years employed by present organization; hierarchical level, represented by a series of three dummy-coded variables, coded 1 for supervisor, 2 for middle-level manager, and 3 for top-level manager; and sex, coded 1 for women and 2 for men. Sex differences were observed over the various control variables; we calculated t values to test for significant differences and chi-square values to
Chusmir & Koberg
785
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
test whether the variable was categorical. Statistically significant differences (.05 or better) were found for industry, ~'(9, N = 437) = 29.9, tenure, t(435) = 4.0,age, t(435) = 2.5, level, ~'(2,N = 437) = 15.71, and degree, 2(1, N = 437) = 7.2. Women had fewer years with the organization than men had (a mean of 6.4 versus 8.1), were younger (mean age, 34.06 years versus 36.5 years), were less likely to possess a college or advanced degree (579'0 versus 69Vo), and were less likely to hold a middle level (38% versus 41%) or top level (7% versus 17%) managerial position. Results We used a procedure outlined by Bem (1974)to test the hypothesis. Individuals were placed into one of four sex role orientation categories-undifferentiated (low femininity, low masculinity); masculine (low femininity, high masculinity); feminine (high femininity, low masculinity); and androgynous (high femininity, high masculinity)-based on a comparison of the individual's raw scores on the ACL. In accord with Bem's research, individuals with raw scores above a median cutoff score were classified as high on the dimension; those with raw scores below the cutoff score were classified as low on the dimension. The mean self-confidencescores, grouped by sex, and sex role orientation are presented in Table l. The two sexes were found to differ significantly in sex role orientation, $(3, N = 437) = 11.83,p < .01.As expected, the percentage of individuals with a feminine sex role orientation and the percentage of individuals with an androgynous orientation were higher among women than among men (17.5% versus 10.8% for the former; 41.7% versus 35.8% for the latter), and the percentage of individuals who reported a
TABLE 1 Mean Self-confidence Scores and Frequencies for Female and Male Managers and Sex Role Orientation Mand n for sex of manager Female M n
Male M n
Undifferentiated
Role orientation Masculine Feminine
3.67 66
9.48 27
3.98 63
46
9.30
6.73
Androgynous
40
12.63 95
4.73 22
12.56 73
The Journal of Social PsychologV
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
186
masculine orientation were higher among men than among women (22.5% versus 11.8%). The percentage of individuals who reported an undifferentiated orientation was approximately the same for both sexes (28.9% of the women and 30.9% of the men). Approximately the same percentage of both sexes had an opposite sex role orientation (11.8% of the women and 10.8% of the men). More men than women scored high in same or matched sex role orientation (22.5%); about 17.5% of the women identified themselves as high in femininity. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the influence of sex and sex role orientation together with education, hierarchical level, age, and tenure on the dependent variable, self-confidence (see Table 2). Consistent with the hypothesis, a significant main effect on self-confidence for sex role orientation of the individual but not for sex was found, with sex role orientation explaining 53.4% of the variance in self-confidence (Hudson, Thyer, & Stocks, 1985). No interaction effect was statistically significant, and the effects of age and tenure did not confound any of the results shown earlier. Comparison of the treatment means shown in Table 1 was based on Scheffk’s multiple comparison technique, with a .05 alpha level. Men and TABLE 2 ANCOVA Results on the Influence on Self-confidence of Sex, Sex Role Orientation, Hierarchical Level, Degree, Age, and Tenure Source Main effects Sex Sex role orientation Hierarchical level Education Interaction effects Sex x Sex Role Orientation Sex x Position Sex x Degree Sex Role Orientation x Position Sex Role Orientation x Degree Position x Degree Covariates Age Tenure Error *p = .m1. **p = .05.
df
M 9.44 1,902.16* 36.19 .63 9.43** 13.13 6.68 22.% 24.08 19.33
1 1
4.85 8.02
389
12.79
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Chusmir & Koberg
I81
women with cross-sex role orientations reported lower self-confidencethan did individuals with androgynous sex role orientation, which supported our hypothesis. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, women with cross-sex role orientation unexpectedly reported greater self-confidence than did those with an undifferentiated orientation. Other data from Table 1 show that, for both sexes, individuals with androgynous sex role orientation scored higher on self-confidence than did those with a masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated sex role orientation. Also for both sexes, those having a masculine orientation reported higher self-confidence than did individuals with a feminine orientation. Those with an undifferentiated sex role orientation scored lowest on self-confidence, regardless of sex, with one exception. Men with an undifferentiated sex role orientation did not score significantly lower on self-confidence than did men with a feminine orientation. With sex role orientation constant, the two sexes did not differ significantly in self-confidence. Self-reported, cross-sectional data are particularly susceptible to errors resulting from problems associated with common method variance. It is important to know, before interpreting the data, how much of the variance is attributable to functional relationships and how much to the use of common methods. Among the statistical procedures used to check common method variance is Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), in which the first unrotated factor is assumed to provide a good approximation of method bias: the higher the variance accounted for, the higher the common method variance. Factor analysis of the variances in this study revealed a first unrotated factor that accounted for only 12.1% of the variance, suggesting that common method variance did not pose significant interpretational problems. Other analyses that were neither hypothesized nor shown in the tables reveal masculinity as related to hierarchical level, F(2, 428) = 8.7, p > .05. Top-level managers scored higher on the Masculine Attributes scale than did either middle-level managers or supervisors.
Discussion Female and male managers in this study were strikingly similar in several ways. With cross-sex role identity, both showed lower levels of self-confidence than did those with androgynous orientations. Contrary to stereotypes about women and men in general and contrary to early research that reported women to be lower in self-confidence than men, the managers in this study were not significantly different after sex role identity was held constant. Sex role identity has a significant relationship to self-confidence, but one’s sex does not.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
I88
The Journal of Social Psychology
Another similarity involves the shared positive relationship among high masculine and androgynous attributes and high self-confidence, which indicates that the more frequently managers of either sex were able to call on a variety of behaviors, the more self-confident the managers were. This relation is consistent with Bem (1974) and others who contend that managers high in masculine and feminine characteristics are more flexible in their managerial behavior and do not hesitate to call on either mode of behavior as needed. For both sexes, high feminine sex role orientation, without a correspondingly high masculine orientation, was related to low levels of self-confidence. The findings of gender similarity among female and male managers support the growing body of evidence that the role-centered perspective may be correct in its argument that the situation or role is a better predictor of behavior than personality. In this study, the behavior (expression of selfconfidence) seemed to vary by role orientation rather than by personality (gender). An alternative explanation is that female managers may constitute a self-selected group that had to overcome many obstacles such as discrimination and sex role conflict to become managers in a business world still dominated by men. That they overcame the problems may indicate that they had more self-confidence at the outset than women in general, or perhaps they had higher-than-"normal" levels of self-confidence because of their success in achieving managerial jobs despite the barriers. Although managers who were most self-confident were able to call on masculine or both masculine and feminine behaviors, the overall sample of managers-regardless of their sex or level of self-confidence-tended to score higher in masculine than in feminine attributes. Possibly, both sexes may have believed that masculine traits were more consistent with effective managerial behavior than feminine traits, as proposed by Basil and Traver (1972). Also, Schwartz and Waetjen (1976) reported that both tend to equate masculinity with superiority. If either assertion is correct, it may explain why both female and male managers in this study reported higher acceptance of masculine attributes. Although adopting masculine attributes may be consistent with sex role expectations for male managers, it is not consistent with expectations for female managers. If female managers adopt masculine behaviors because they believe it might make them better managers, they risk losing their sense of identity and may lose their sense of self (Marshall, 1984); this could cause negative psychological discomfort. Masculine behaviors in female managers may also diminish the potential value they offer to organizations that are looking for diversity. In a well-intentioned attempt to fit into the majority culture, women must take care not to assimilate so well that they lose their ability to influence the dominant system (Marshall, 1984). It is also possible that none of the theories discussed earlier account for the strong gender similarities in self-confidence. Social values in the United
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
States have been changing so rapidly that many of the old generalizations about differences between women and men may no longer apply. Attitudes toward women’s roles and occupational choices may not have such strong influence on women or their level of self-confidence because what might have been relevant two or three decades ago may no longer be true today. All subjects in this study were Americans and from a narrow geographical area. Cross-cultural studies might show sharply different results and might add to our knowledge of characteristics and traits held by women and men in each of the situations. In addition, a sample of convenience that was used limits the generalizability of the results. REFERENCES
Andrews, P. H. (1987). Gender differences in persuasive communication and attribution of success and failure. Human Communication Research, 13, 372-385. Aycock, D. W., & Noaker, S. (1985). A comparison of the self-esteem levels in evangelical Christian and general populations. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 199-208.
Basil, D. C., & Traver, E. (1972). Women in management. New York: Dunnellen. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Carr, P. G., Thomas, V. G., & Mednick, M. T. (1985). Evaluation of sex-typed tasks by black men and women. Sex Roles, 13, 311-316. Collins, B. (1985). Psychosocial implications of sex differences in attitudes toward computers: Results -of a survey. -Znternational Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 207-213.
Gomez-Meija, L. (1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 26,49249. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1%5). The Adiective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H.(1986). Personality, coping, and family resources in stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 389-395. Hudson, W. W., Thyer, B. A., &Stocks, J. T. (1985). Assessing the importance of experimental outcomes. Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 87-98. Koberg, C. S. (1985). Sex and situational influences on the use of power: A follow-up study. Sex Roles, 13, 625439. Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1-13. Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influence of comparison to others’ ability level. Sex Roles, 9, 925-942. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). Thepsychologyof IWX d&Tetences. Stanford, C A Stanford University Press. Marshall, J. (1984). Women managem: Travellers in a male world. Chichester, U K Wiley. McCarty, P. A. (1986). Effects of feedback on the self-confidence of men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 840-847. W h e l , W. (1968). Personality and m m e n t . New York: Wiley.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
790
The Journal of Social Psychology
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychologicalperspective. New York: Praeger. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69-82. Robie, E. A. (1973). Challenge to management. In E. Ginzberg & A. M. Yohalem (Eds.), Corporate lib: Women’s challenge to management (pp. 9-29). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schwartz, E. B., & Waetjen, W. B. (1976). Improving the self-concepts of women managers. Business Quarterly, 41, 20-27. Sleeper, L. A., & Nigro, G. N. (1987). It’s not who you are but who you’re with: Selfconfidence in achievement settings. Sex Roles, 16, 57-69. Sudah, B. G., & Nirmala, B. (1984). Effect of emotional maturity on self-confidence of high-school students. Journal of Psychological Researches, 28, 34-39. White, M. C., De Sanctis, G., & Crino, M. D. (1981). Achievement, self-confidence, personality traits, and leadership ability: A review of literature on sex differences. Psychological Reports, 48, 541-569. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1988). Employee responses: Gender or jobrelated differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 3 6 3 8 3 .
Received February 21, 1991
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Relationship between SelfConfidence and Sex Role Identity among Managerial Women and Men a
Leonard H. Chusmir & Christine S. Koberg
b
a
Department of Management , College of Business Administration Florida International University , USA b
College of Business Administration University of Colorado , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Leonard H. Chusmir & Christine S. Koberg (1991) Relationship between Self-Confidence and Sex Role Identity among Managerial Women and Men, The Journal of Social Psychology, 131:6, 781-790, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1991.9924665 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924665
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychologv. 131(6), 181-790
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Relationship Between Self-confidence and Sex Role Identity Among Managerial Women and Men LEONARD H. CHUSMIR Department of Management College of Business Administration Florida International University
CHRISTINE S. KOBERG College of Business Administration University of Colorado
ABSTRACT.The self-confidence and sex role identities of 437 American female and male managers were examined by using three subscales of the Adjective Check List.
Results showed that, contrary to stereotypes and older research, female and male managers were strikingly similar. Women and men with cross-sex role identities showed lower levels of self-confidence than those did with androgynous orientations; high selfconfidence was linked with masculine and androgynous orientations. The managers were not significantly different in self-confidence when demographic variables and sex role identity were held constant. Sex role identity (but not gender) was a major factor in the level of self-confidence.
THE CONSENSUS OF SEX-ISSUE RESEARCH prior to 1980 had a sexcentered perspective, proposing that individuals’ attitudes and traits vary according to sex. Results of self-confidence studies reported that women in general possessed lower self-confidence than men (this was found in extensive literature reviews by Lenney, 1977; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; and White, De Sanctis, & Crino, 1981). These differences related to sex, and if lower self-confidence was carried over to the workplace, these factors may help explain why working women sometimes have had so much difficulty Requests for reprints should be sent to Leonard H. Chusmir, Department of Management, College of Business Adminktration, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, FL 33199. 781
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
782
The Journal of Social Psychologv
obtaining and succeeding in high-paying, high-prestige jobs (McCarty, 1986; Robie, 1973). The negative outcomes may occur because low selfconfidence frequently leads to self-discouragement and low achievement (Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Nieva & Gutek, 1981) as well as negative psychological consequences (Holahan & Moos, 1986). Most sex-issue research in the past decade, however, has been undertaken from a situation- or role-centered perspective that argues that attitudes or traits vary according to one’s situation or role rather than one’s sex (Gomez-Meija, 1983; Mischel, 1%8; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1988). More specifically, several recent self-confidence studies in which self-confidence was examined in different situations and roles tend to confirm the position taken by role-centered perspective theorists. Situational influences include such variables as positive feedback (McCarty, 1986), performance of stereotypical male tasks (Collins, 1985), communication factors (Andrews, 1987), emotional maturity (Sudah & Nirmala, 1984), educational level (Aycock & Noaker, 1985), prior experience of the task (Carr et al., 1985), supervisory power (Koberg, 1985), and performance in two-person teams (Sleeper & Nigro, 1987). One variable not examined in previous self-confidence research, however, is sex role identity. The present study examined the relationship between these two variables. The self-confidence of American women appears to be more responsive to situational variations than that of men (Carr et al., 1985; Lenney, 1977; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983), which suggests that women may not have lower self-confidence than that of men-as suggested by earlier research-but rather may vary more than that of men, both lower and higher, depending on the role or situation. For example, self-confidence scores did not vary significantly for men who performed masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral tasks, but women scored considerably higher on feminine and neutral tasks than on the masculine (Carr et al., 1985). Sex role theory proposes that individuals possess one of four different gender identities that allows them a range of behaviors dependent on that identity (Bem, 1974). People with a feminine or masculine identity would likely behave in stereotypically feminine or masculine ways because they are locked into narrowly defined self-concepts. Androgynous individuals could adapt to feminine or masculine behaviors depending on the situation, and undifferentiated people would behave in a non-gender-related manner. The same theory suggests that, when an individual behaves in a manner consistent with the sex role assigned by society, the socialization process gives positive feedback to help build the individual’s self-confidence. Because society often gives negative feedback to individuals of one sex who behave in a manner consistent with the opposite sex role identity, it is proposed here that the negative feedback is likely to create a lowered level of self-confidence.
Chusmir 19Koberg
783
The following hypothesis thus emerges: Men and women with cross-sex role orientations will score lower in self-confidence than those with samesex, androgynous, or undifferentiated sex role orientations when the effects of age, tenure, education, and hierarchical level are controlled.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Method
Subjects and Measures This study was based on information obtained from 437 volunteer survey respondents (208 men, 229 women) in 1989. Ten full-time working students received permission from their organizations to test fellow workers by using a research questionnaire. When approached by a co-worker, each subject voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of managerial positions, surveys were distributed at several different organizations located in greater Miami, Florida. The average respondent was 35.2 years of age and had spent 7.2 years in the present organization: 31.6% had never married, 15.4% were divorced, 1.8% were widowed, and 51.2% were married; 48.8% designated themselves as supervisors or first-line, low-level managers, 39.4% were middlelevel managers, and 11.8% were top-level managers; 62.3% held an undergraduate or advanced degree, 30.7% had some college education, and 6.7% had no education beyond high school. An unsigned survey questionnaire, which was administered at the subjects’ respective organizations, contained demographic information and 3 of the 37 subscales of the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5). The ACL is a standardized 300-adjectivelist widely used in personality assessment and psychometric research; the three subscales used in this study consisted of 78 adjectives, with some adjectives scored on more than one subscale. We made efforts to ensure the respondents’ anonymity by having them return unsigned questionnaires at the time of administration. Each respondent was instructed to consider the list of adjectives and to check off those that describe the respondent as he or she really is. According to Gough and Heilbrun, the ACL is useful in many situations without being scored for the entire set of subscales. The Self-confidence scale consists of 34 items, of which 20 are scored + 1 and 14 are scored - 1. According to Gough and Heilbrun (1%5), high scorers on this subscale “are initiators, confident of their ability to achieve goals. They are not above cutting a few comers to create a good impression, and observers do see them as assertive, enterprising, and self-confident. The low scorers have difficulty in mobilizing their resources and taking action; others view them as shy, inhibited, and withdrawn” (p. 17). Gough and Heilbrun reported alpha coefficients of .79 for men and .77 for women and
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
784
The Journal of Social Psychology
test-retest coefficients of .68 and .78, respectively. The reliability coefficient obtained in the present study for the Self-confidence scale was .83. The Masculine Attributes scale is intended “(a) to distinguish between men and women respondents, (b) to place individuals along a continuum on which higher scorers will be described as masculine, initiative, forceful, etc., by acquaintances and observers, and lower scorers as less masculine and more dependent and unassuming, and (c) to differentiate between individuals having modal vs. nonmodal sexual preferences” (Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5, p. 19). All of the 22 items (e.g., assertive, enterprising, and masculine), were scored + 1 for endorsement. According to Gough and Heilbrun, the total normative sample of 5,238 men had an average raw score of 8.62 on the scale (SD = 4.41), and the 4,164 women had an average raw score of 6.71 (SD = 3.90). The difference was significant. Gough and Heilbrun reported an alpha coefficient of .82 for men and .75 for women and test-retest coefficients of .53 and 3 1 , respectively. The reliability coefficient obtained in the present study for the Masculine Attributes scale was .82. The Feminine Attributes scale is used “(a) to distinguish between women and men respondents, (b) to locate individuals on a continuum such that higher scorers will be viewed as feminine, sentimental, warm, etc., and (c) to differentiate between persons having modal and nonmodal sexual preferences” (Gough & Heilbrun, 1%5, p. 20). All of the 22 items were scored + 1 for endorsement. In the normative sample, women had an average raw score of 12.51 (SD = 4.04) and men, 9.78 (SO = 3.99). The difference also was significant. Gough and Heilbrun reported alpha coefficients of .77 for men and .76 for women and test-retest coefficients of .41 and .45, respectively. The Masculine and Feminine Attributes subscales are not defined as polar opposites and do not have negative correlations. Coefficient scores between the two subscales ranged from - .12 to - .20. According to Gough and Heilbrun, some subjects score above or below average on both scales. Those who score above the 50 percentile are considered psychologically androgynous. A reliability coefficient of .80 for the Feminine Attributes scale was obtained in this study.
Control Variables Five control variables were used: age; education, coded 1 for nondegree holders and 2 for college degree holders; organizational tenure, designated as number of years employed by present organization; hierarchical level, represented by a series of three dummy-coded variables, coded 1 for supervisor, 2 for middle-level manager, and 3 for top-level manager; and sex, coded 1 for women and 2 for men. Sex differences were observed over the various control variables; we calculated t values to test for significant differences and chi-square values to
Chusmir & Koberg
785
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
test whether the variable was categorical. Statistically significant differences (.05 or better) were found for industry, ~'(9, N = 437) = 29.9, tenure, t(435) = 4.0,age, t(435) = 2.5, level, ~'(2,N = 437) = 15.71, and degree, 2(1, N = 437) = 7.2. Women had fewer years with the organization than men had (a mean of 6.4 versus 8.1), were younger (mean age, 34.06 years versus 36.5 years), were less likely to possess a college or advanced degree (579'0 versus 69Vo), and were less likely to hold a middle level (38% versus 41%) or top level (7% versus 17%) managerial position. Results We used a procedure outlined by Bem (1974)to test the hypothesis. Individuals were placed into one of four sex role orientation categories-undifferentiated (low femininity, low masculinity); masculine (low femininity, high masculinity); feminine (high femininity, low masculinity); and androgynous (high femininity, high masculinity)-based on a comparison of the individual's raw scores on the ACL. In accord with Bem's research, individuals with raw scores above a median cutoff score were classified as high on the dimension; those with raw scores below the cutoff score were classified as low on the dimension. The mean self-confidencescores, grouped by sex, and sex role orientation are presented in Table l. The two sexes were found to differ significantly in sex role orientation, $(3, N = 437) = 11.83,p < .01.As expected, the percentage of individuals with a feminine sex role orientation and the percentage of individuals with an androgynous orientation were higher among women than among men (17.5% versus 10.8% for the former; 41.7% versus 35.8% for the latter), and the percentage of individuals who reported a
TABLE 1 Mean Self-confidence Scores and Frequencies for Female and Male Managers and Sex Role Orientation Mand n for sex of manager Female M n
Male M n
Undifferentiated
Role orientation Masculine Feminine
3.67 66
9.48 27
3.98 63
46
9.30
6.73
Androgynous
40
12.63 95
4.73 22
12.56 73
The Journal of Social PsychologV
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
186
masculine orientation were higher among men than among women (22.5% versus 11.8%). The percentage of individuals who reported an undifferentiated orientation was approximately the same for both sexes (28.9% of the women and 30.9% of the men). Approximately the same percentage of both sexes had an opposite sex role orientation (11.8% of the women and 10.8% of the men). More men than women scored high in same or matched sex role orientation (22.5%); about 17.5% of the women identified themselves as high in femininity. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the influence of sex and sex role orientation together with education, hierarchical level, age, and tenure on the dependent variable, self-confidence (see Table 2). Consistent with the hypothesis, a significant main effect on self-confidence for sex role orientation of the individual but not for sex was found, with sex role orientation explaining 53.4% of the variance in self-confidence (Hudson, Thyer, & Stocks, 1985). No interaction effect was statistically significant, and the effects of age and tenure did not confound any of the results shown earlier. Comparison of the treatment means shown in Table 1 was based on Scheffk’s multiple comparison technique, with a .05 alpha level. Men and TABLE 2 ANCOVA Results on the Influence on Self-confidence of Sex, Sex Role Orientation, Hierarchical Level, Degree, Age, and Tenure Source Main effects Sex Sex role orientation Hierarchical level Education Interaction effects Sex x Sex Role Orientation Sex x Position Sex x Degree Sex Role Orientation x Position Sex Role Orientation x Degree Position x Degree Covariates Age Tenure Error *p = .m1. **p = .05.
df
M 9.44 1,902.16* 36.19 .63 9.43** 13.13 6.68 22.% 24.08 19.33
1 1
4.85 8.02
389
12.79
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
Chusmir & Koberg
I81
women with cross-sex role orientations reported lower self-confidencethan did individuals with androgynous sex role orientation, which supported our hypothesis. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, women with cross-sex role orientation unexpectedly reported greater self-confidence than did those with an undifferentiated orientation. Other data from Table 1 show that, for both sexes, individuals with androgynous sex role orientation scored higher on self-confidence than did those with a masculine, feminine, or undifferentiated sex role orientation. Also for both sexes, those having a masculine orientation reported higher self-confidence than did individuals with a feminine orientation. Those with an undifferentiated sex role orientation scored lowest on self-confidence, regardless of sex, with one exception. Men with an undifferentiated sex role orientation did not score significantly lower on self-confidence than did men with a feminine orientation. With sex role orientation constant, the two sexes did not differ significantly in self-confidence. Self-reported, cross-sectional data are particularly susceptible to errors resulting from problems associated with common method variance. It is important to know, before interpreting the data, how much of the variance is attributable to functional relationships and how much to the use of common methods. Among the statistical procedures used to check common method variance is Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), in which the first unrotated factor is assumed to provide a good approximation of method bias: the higher the variance accounted for, the higher the common method variance. Factor analysis of the variances in this study revealed a first unrotated factor that accounted for only 12.1% of the variance, suggesting that common method variance did not pose significant interpretational problems. Other analyses that were neither hypothesized nor shown in the tables reveal masculinity as related to hierarchical level, F(2, 428) = 8.7, p > .05. Top-level managers scored higher on the Masculine Attributes scale than did either middle-level managers or supervisors.
Discussion Female and male managers in this study were strikingly similar in several ways. With cross-sex role identity, both showed lower levels of self-confidence than did those with androgynous orientations. Contrary to stereotypes about women and men in general and contrary to early research that reported women to be lower in self-confidence than men, the managers in this study were not significantly different after sex role identity was held constant. Sex role identity has a significant relationship to self-confidence, but one’s sex does not.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
I88
The Journal of Social Psychology
Another similarity involves the shared positive relationship among high masculine and androgynous attributes and high self-confidence, which indicates that the more frequently managers of either sex were able to call on a variety of behaviors, the more self-confident the managers were. This relation is consistent with Bem (1974) and others who contend that managers high in masculine and feminine characteristics are more flexible in their managerial behavior and do not hesitate to call on either mode of behavior as needed. For both sexes, high feminine sex role orientation, without a correspondingly high masculine orientation, was related to low levels of self-confidence. The findings of gender similarity among female and male managers support the growing body of evidence that the role-centered perspective may be correct in its argument that the situation or role is a better predictor of behavior than personality. In this study, the behavior (expression of selfconfidence) seemed to vary by role orientation rather than by personality (gender). An alternative explanation is that female managers may constitute a self-selected group that had to overcome many obstacles such as discrimination and sex role conflict to become managers in a business world still dominated by men. That they overcame the problems may indicate that they had more self-confidence at the outset than women in general, or perhaps they had higher-than-"normal" levels of self-confidence because of their success in achieving managerial jobs despite the barriers. Although managers who were most self-confident were able to call on masculine or both masculine and feminine behaviors, the overall sample of managers-regardless of their sex or level of self-confidence-tended to score higher in masculine than in feminine attributes. Possibly, both sexes may have believed that masculine traits were more consistent with effective managerial behavior than feminine traits, as proposed by Basil and Traver (1972). Also, Schwartz and Waetjen (1976) reported that both tend to equate masculinity with superiority. If either assertion is correct, it may explain why both female and male managers in this study reported higher acceptance of masculine attributes. Although adopting masculine attributes may be consistent with sex role expectations for male managers, it is not consistent with expectations for female managers. If female managers adopt masculine behaviors because they believe it might make them better managers, they risk losing their sense of identity and may lose their sense of self (Marshall, 1984); this could cause negative psychological discomfort. Masculine behaviors in female managers may also diminish the potential value they offer to organizations that are looking for diversity. In a well-intentioned attempt to fit into the majority culture, women must take care not to assimilate so well that they lose their ability to influence the dominant system (Marshall, 1984). It is also possible that none of the theories discussed earlier account for the strong gender similarities in self-confidence. Social values in the United
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
States have been changing so rapidly that many of the old generalizations about differences between women and men may no longer apply. Attitudes toward women’s roles and occupational choices may not have such strong influence on women or their level of self-confidence because what might have been relevant two or three decades ago may no longer be true today. All subjects in this study were Americans and from a narrow geographical area. Cross-cultural studies might show sharply different results and might add to our knowledge of characteristics and traits held by women and men in each of the situations. In addition, a sample of convenience that was used limits the generalizability of the results. REFERENCES
Andrews, P. H. (1987). Gender differences in persuasive communication and attribution of success and failure. Human Communication Research, 13, 372-385. Aycock, D. W., & Noaker, S. (1985). A comparison of the self-esteem levels in evangelical Christian and general populations. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 199-208.
Basil, D. C., & Traver, E. (1972). Women in management. New York: Dunnellen. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Carr, P. G., Thomas, V. G., & Mednick, M. T. (1985). Evaluation of sex-typed tasks by black men and women. Sex Roles, 13, 311-316. Collins, B. (1985). Psychosocial implications of sex differences in attitudes toward computers: Results -of a survey. -Znternational Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 207-213.
Gomez-Meija, L. (1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 26,49249. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1%5). The Adiective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H.(1986). Personality, coping, and family resources in stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 389-395. Hudson, W. W., Thyer, B. A., &Stocks, J. T. (1985). Assessing the importance of experimental outcomes. Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 87-98. Koberg, C. S. (1985). Sex and situational influences on the use of power: A follow-up study. Sex Roles, 13, 625439. Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1-13. Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influence of comparison to others’ ability level. Sex Roles, 9, 925-942. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). Thepsychologyof IWX d&Tetences. Stanford, C A Stanford University Press. Marshall, J. (1984). Women managem: Travellers in a male world. Chichester, U K Wiley. McCarty, P. A. (1986). Effects of feedback on the self-confidence of men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 840-847. W h e l , W. (1968). Personality and m m e n t . New York: Wiley.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 05:15 03 February 2015
790
The Journal of Social Psychology
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychologicalperspective. New York: Praeger. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69-82. Robie, E. A. (1973). Challenge to management. In E. Ginzberg & A. M. Yohalem (Eds.), Corporate lib: Women’s challenge to management (pp. 9-29). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schwartz, E. B., & Waetjen, W. B. (1976). Improving the self-concepts of women managers. Business Quarterly, 41, 20-27. Sleeper, L. A., & Nigro, G. N. (1987). It’s not who you are but who you’re with: Selfconfidence in achievement settings. Sex Roles, 16, 57-69. Sudah, B. G., & Nirmala, B. (1984). Effect of emotional maturity on self-confidence of high-school students. Journal of Psychological Researches, 28, 34-39. White, M. C., De Sanctis, G., & Crino, M. D. (1981). Achievement, self-confidence, personality traits, and leadership ability: A review of literature on sex differences. Psychological Reports, 48, 541-569. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1988). Employee responses: Gender or jobrelated differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 3 6 3 8 3 .
Received February 21, 1991
