“Other Fields Are More Lucrative and Sexy”: A Qualitative Examination of the Low Number of Men in Psychology

Abstract

While the underrepresentation of women in traditionally masculine fields has received much scholarly attention, less work has examined men’s lower numbers in women majority fields. Additionally, much of the available research on men in these fields is limited to a few vocations (e.g., nursing and teaching). Expanding career-related research on men in other women majority fields allows for more targeted career interventions with young boys and men as they are making career decisions in a service-oriented economy. The current study focuses on men in psychology (N = 210) to examine factors that contribute to the low number of men in this women majority field. Using consensual qualitative research–modified, four domains were identified that may help explain the paucity of men in psychology: professional psychology issues, socialization, financial factors, and broader changes in higher education. Implications of these findings for career practice and research with boys and men are discussed.

Keywords

men in psychology psychology pipeline women majority fields male graduate students

Occupational segregation by gender continues to be a significant area of concern for career researchers and practitioners within the United States (Herlihy & Watson, 2006). However, much of the current literature on reducing gender-specific occupational segregation has focused on increasing the number of women in historically male-dominated fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In contrast, the low number of men who enter women majority fields (i.e., fields where women represent 60% or more of the workforce) has received much less attention (Shen-Miller & Smiler, 2015). Some scholars have argued that one strategy for reducing occupational segregation is to increase the number of men who consider and subsequently enter women majority fields (Riegle-Crumb, King, & Moore, 2016).

Over 30 years ago, vocational researchers called for more scholarly attention on men in nontraditional occupations (e.g., Hayes, 1986). Chusmir (1990) later introduced a theoretical model highlighting several factors that contribute to men’s entry into women majority vocations. These studies, among others, reveal career researchers’ early interest in examining the factors that may encourage or inhibit men’s interest in and entry into women majority fields. While some scholars have continued to research men in these fields, the bulk of the work targets men in teaching and nursing (e.g., Lupton, 2006). In recent years, there has been less work within career and vocational research that expands this inquiry to other women majority fields.

The current study focuses on psychology, a women majority field that has only recently experienced a significant decline in the number of men in its ranks. Although psychology was a majority White male discipline for most of its first 100 years, the demographics of the field have dramatically shifted over the past 40 years. For example, in 1971, men earned 75% of the 838 doctoral degrees awarded in psychology (Pion et al., 1996); however, by 2011, they earned only 25% of the 5,851 doctoral degrees awarded in this field (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). Thus, as the number of doctoral degrees awarded in psychology has significantly increased, the proportion of degrees awarded to men in the field has rapidly decreased over the last four decades.

At present, men are proportionally overrepresented among health service psychology¹ faculty (54%); however, they are severely underrepresented among degree recipients at the bachelor’s (23%), master’s (20%), and doctoral (25%) levels as well as within the psychology workforce (32%; APA, Center for Workforce Studies, 2015, APA, Committee on Women in Psychology, 2017). This gender disparity in the field can contribute to myopic perspectives on gender in the classroom, limit options for clients seeking male therapists, and restrict the availability of male role models and mentors for future psychologists (Alcée, 2017; Sbaratta, Tirpak, & Schlosser, 2015). Understanding the factors that contribute to the lower number of men in psychology is the first step in diminishing this gender gap in the field. The current study explores the dearth of men in psychology and situates it within existing vocational research on factors that contribute to the sparsity of men in women majority fields.

Men in Women Majority Fields

Prior research has not identified one factor that, in isolation, fully accounts for men’s lower representation in women majority fields (Chusmir, 1990; Lease, 2003). Some research highlights the role of individual factors (e.g., personality traits, individual agency, self-esteem) that contribute to men’s willingness to enter nontraditional occupations (Polavieja & Platt, 2014), while other research focuses on the intersection between individual and external influences to account for the dearth of men in women majority fields (Chusmir, 1990), with many studies implicating masculine socialization as a key factor in their occupational choices.

Throughout their formative years, boys engage in a process of vocational circumscription that often restricts them to occupations perceived as congruent with traditional masculine socialization (Gottfredson, 2005). This socialization encourages them to seek jobs that offer high pay, opportunities for personal advancement, power over others, and prestige (Weisgram, Dinella, & Fulcher, 2011). This traditional socialization is reinforced through both explicit and implicit messages from parents, peers, media, and other socializers, which can steer men away from women majority fields (Gottfredson, 2005), since they are perceived as being inconsistent with social expectations for men.

Similarly, social role theorists argue that socializers encourage boys and men to enter social roles that demonstrate agentic qualities (e.g., being assertive, self-reliant, ambitious, and task oriented) rather those social roles that require them to develop communal qualities (e.g., being nurturing, emotionally expressive and interpersonally attuned to the needs of others; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Men are socialized to maintain gender-stereotypical behaviors that bolster existing social roles and sustain occupational segregation (Diekman, Steinberg, Brown, Belanger & Clark, 2017). This social training to seek out agentic roles can hamper men’s willingness to engage in the tasks associated with “women’s work.” Existing studies of male elementary school teachers and nurses have found that they report feeling ill-equipped to deal with the communal aspects of their jobs such as being emotionally attuned, sensitive, and nurturing with those they serve (Cushman, 2005; Simpson, 2004). These studies suggest that some men may avoid women majority fields like psychology since they are perceived as potentially challenging internalized masculine socialization and men’s occupational preferences.

Men and masculinities scholars argue that men’s socialization also shapes their perceptions of the culture and professional environment associated with women majority fields (D. S. Shen-Miller, Olson, & Boling, 2011). For example, men have reported worries about being socially stigmatized as effeminate or gay for entering fields perceived as “feminized” (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002). Other research has found that men in women majority fields are particularly concerned about their numeric scarcity in the classroom and workforce (Crockett, Elghoroury, Popiolek, & Wummel, 2018). Boys’ and men’s beliefs about the demographic composition within women majority fields can affect their perceptions of the field’s financial and fringe benefits such as prestige, status, and advancement opportunities (Simpson, 2004). Taken together, these studies reveal several other factors that may contribute to men’s lower numbers in these fields.

Although research on men in psychology is very limited, the one empirical study on this population aligns with prior research on men in other women majority fields. Isacco, Hammer, and Shen-Miller (2016) found that men in psychology identified being outnumbered by their female counterparts, being stigmatized by others, and having a limited amount of support from peers and faculty as primary concerns for them. These experiences can affect men’s perceptions of their fit and their overall satisfaction within women majority fields (Cushman, 2005). Isacco et al.’s (2016) work provides a useful starting point for examining men in psychology, but additional work can expand available research about this understudied population and offer career practitioners more information to include in their work with men and boys.

Purpose of Current Study

While prior research has focused on men in women majority fields like nursing and teaching (e.g., Lupton, 2006), less work investigates the scarcity of men in fields like psychology that have recently transitioned to become women majority fields. There are some differences between psychology and the fields of nursing and teaching, thus it would be prudent to not assume that the factors accounting for the low number of men in one field are the same for another one. Nursing and teaching have been characterized as women majority fields since the early 20th century, while this shift in psychology has occurred much more recently. Prior research on men in these women majority fields does not take this historical difference into account although it may affect their attitudes about psychology.

Another concern with relying on available research on men in women majority fields is that the bulk of the work has focused on men who are already working in the field rather than those who are still in training (e.g., graduate students). Male graduate students may possess a different perspective about women majority fields than men who are already employed in the field. Finally, due to the decade-long shortage of men in nursing and teaching, researchers have invested significant attention to examining these areas, whereas psychology has not received similar empirical attention. For example, our literature review found only one theoretical article (Beasley, Miller, & Cokley, 2015) and one empirical study (Isacco, Hammer, & Shen-Miller, 2016) on men in psychology. Unfortunately, prior research has not directly examined factors that contribute to the lower numbers in this female majority field or discussed the role career counselors can play in addressing this gender disparity in their work with boys and men.

In a dynamic and evolving career landscape, it is critical that career practitioners and researchers stay abreast of how demographic changes within different fields may influence boys’ and men’s career choices and development. Given the loss of “blue-collar” jobs in the United States and the concomitant increase in service-oriented employment opportunities (Shen-Miller & Smiler, 2015), more boys and men may be interested in exploring women majority and service-oriented fields like psychology while receiving career counseling. Exploration of the variables that inhibit or support men’s entry into fields where they are significantly underrepresented can provide targeted guidance for career professionals as they engage in this work.

To aid in this effort, Croft, Schmader, and Block (2015) argued that just as researchers have assessed women’s perceptions of gender-specific barriers to entry into fields traditionally occupied by men (e.g., STEM fields), similar work should explore the factors that men view as contributing to their lower numbers in women majority fields. Surveying men currently in these fields provides experiential knowledge that can be incorporated by career practitioners when they are working with male clients who may be considering these nontraditional occupations. While including the perspective of adolescent boys and young men prior to their entry into psychology would offer valuable information for career professionals, these individuals will have less exposure to psychology and may rely solely on misguided notions of the field to explain the dearth of men in this helping profession (Hardie, 2015). In contrast, due to their own masculine socialization, graduate men will not only be able to identify common barriers for other boys and men who may be considering entry into a woman majority field, but they will also be able to offer more comprehensive insights of potential barriers based on their firsthand experiences within the field. With this in mind, the current study explored the following research question with a sample of male-identified psychology doctoral students: “What factors/influences might contribute to the low number of men in psychology?” The insider knowledge offered by these men can provide career professionals with target areas in their efforts to identify and address barriers that restrict the career options considered by boys and men.

Method

Participants

The study’s overall sample consisted of 254 men, including 2 transgender men, enrolled in APA-accredited health service psychology doctoral programs. The breakdown by psychology specialty was as follows: clinical psychology (n = 127; 50%), counseling psychology (n = 97; 38%), and school psychology (n = 21; 8%) with nine participants missing data. White males accounted for 183 (70%) participants in the sample. Of the 71 men of color, 24 (9%) identified as Black/African American, 20 (8%) Latino, 15 (6%) Asian/Asian American, 6 (2%) multiracial, 4 (1.5%) Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian, and 2 (0.7%) Arab American. The average participant was in their third year of training and reported a median age of 28.77 years old (SD = 4.40). For the current study, 210 participants provided codable responses.

Measures

As part of a larger investigation of men in psychology, the research team created a questionnaire that assessed precollege, undergraduate, and graduate school experiences in psychology, barriers, and supports in the psychology pipeline as well as strategies for improving the psychology pipeline. Participants also provided demographic information (e.g., race, year in program, psychology specialty). For the current study, we focus exclusively on the written responses participants provided to the following qualitative research question: “What factors/influences might contribute to the low number of men in psychology?”

Procedures

Data collection

Prior to data collection, the first author received human subjects institutional review board approval for the study. Training directors for all APA-accredited psychology programs listed on the APA’s website on October 1, 2015, were identified. Training directors were asked to forward a recruitment e-mail to all male-identified students enrolled in their programs. The e-mail contained a description of the study and an electronic link to the survey hosted by Qualtrics. A follow-up recruitment e-mail was sent to all program directors who did not respond to the initial solicitation. A recruitment e-mail and follow-up e-mail were also sent to multiple psychology listservs. Participants were able to enter their names in a raffle for one of twenty-five $20 Amazon.com gift cards. All data were gathered in spring 2016.

Data analysis

Consensual qualitative research–modified (CQR-M) is a qualitative data analysis approach used to analyze large data sets with brief responses to qualitative questions (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997; Spangler, Liu, & Hill, 2012). CQR-M is a popular analytical tool since it incorporates multiple safeguards to reduce potential researcher bias, such as using a team approach during the data analysis process and requiring the use of external auditors (Spangler et al., 2012). Consistent with the constructivist tenets of CQR-M (Hill et al., 1997), the positionality of the researchers must be acknowledged. For the current study, the primary research team consisted of a Black male counseling psychology assistant professor, one African American woman and one Latina. Both of the women on the research team were second-year doctoral students with prior experience conducting qualitative research. The external auditor for the study identifies as an African American woman who is an assistant professor in psychology with over 6 years of experience conducting and publishing qualitative research.

During data analysis, all three team members individually coded the data into domains and then identified categories within each broad domain (Spangler et al., 2012). Following CQR-M’s guidelines, we utilized this independent coding approach to reduce groupthink that may arise within a mixed graduate student–professor research team (Hill et al., 1997). The research team then shared their initial domains and categories and used a group consensus process to reduce the number of domains and categories. During this initial process, three domains and seven categories were discarded or combined to avoid conceptual overlap and redundancies. Two new domains and four categories were generated during this process. To calculate interrater agreement, we applied the simple proportion agreement method (Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013). This method divides the total number of agreements for all codes by the total number of agreements and disagreements for all codes. Interrater agreement for the initial coding was 74%, which is acceptable for exploratory studies (Campbell et al., 2013). Similar to other studies using CQR-M, the length of responses offered by participants was varied: Some participants provided very brief responses (e.g., one sentence), whereas others offered an entire paragraph to express their thoughts. On average, participants provided responses that fit 1.55 domains. Participants provided responses that ranged between one domain and all four domains.

At the conclusion of the initial consensus-driven coding process, the entire data set was reanalyzed using the new codebook created from this process. Interrater agreement improved to 94% using the revised codebook. Next, we created a document using the recoded data that included the domains, categories, key statements consistent with the categories, and a tally of the participants who endorsed each domain and category. This information was sent to the external auditor. Feedback from the auditor was used to revise and finalize the domains and categories included in the final master codebook.

In the final write-up, all categories identified by less than 5% of participants as well as the miscellaneous domain were excluded (Spangler et al., 2012). Additionally, although the men could provide a response that matched the same domain or category multiple times, all data presented in the paper count each participant only once if their response fits within the domain or category. Pseudonyms were created for all participants to provide anonymity.

Results

Using CQR-M, this study explored men’s rationales for the low number of men in psychology. Analysis of their responses revealed four domains: professional psychology issues, socialization, financial factors, and broader changes in higher education.

Professional Psychology Issues

More than half of the participants (n = 152/210; 72%) believed that men’s perceptions of psychology as well as the gender composition of the field may be linked to the lower number of men in psychology. Three categories, perceptions of “feminized” field, general perceptions of psychology, and representation, emerged for this domain.

Perceptions of “feminized” field

Almost one third of the participants (n = 60/210; 29%) focused on issues related to “feminization” within the culture of psychology as contributing to the numeric scarcity of men in psychology. Jeffrey argued, “Historical patriarchal American culture is threatened by the perceived feminization of compassion and interdependence inherent in the helping professions.” Walter added, “Psychology is typically perceived as being more appropriate for women, especially due to being associated with a nurturing, caring, and empathic interpersonal style.” Arthur believed that psychology had changed over time and may be perceived differently by men, particularly those who subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity:

The direction psychology and counseling have taken in the past few decades have given it a reputation very much at odds with traditional masculinity. For example, there is an appearance of preferring emotion to logic, and of always telling someone they are right rather than using “tough love” to discourage poor decisions. Traditional masculine traits are very much shunned in counseling professions.

General perceptions of psychology

Almost one quarter of participants (n = 49/210; 23%) contended that the general public’s and men’s misperceptions of psychology contributed to the low number of men in psychology. Participants discussed how psychology is perceived as less prestigious and a “soft science,” particularly when compared to medicine or STEM fields. Derick stated, “I think as a society, psychology is still viewed as a lesser alternative to a medical degree. I believe that most men will think of going into medicine, specifically psychiatry, before psychology because of the perceived prestige and money.” Gerald’s perspective on how men perceive psychology was much more succinct: “Other fields are more lucrative and sexy.”

Participants noted that these misperceptions of psychology were driven by men’s limited prior exposure to the field. This lack of exposure engenders constricted views about the field when boys and men are considering their vocational options. Marcus’s response highlighted how misinformation about psychology keeps some men and boys away from the field:

[Psychology is] generally presented and discussed as a “helping field” or “understanding how people are crazy.” Therefore, the narrative is simplistic, limited, and inaccurate about what psychologists do. This leads many children and adolescents away from considering psychology as a viable option.

Representation

One fifth of the participants (n = 43/210; 20%) pointed to the demographic composition of psychology as a factor in the limited number of men in the field. They contended that the low number of male students, faculty, and practitioners may reduce men’s interest in pursuing a degree in psychology. Participants believed that men were concerned about being a numerical “minority in [the] classroom in comparison to women.” They noted that this underrepresentation is most pronounced at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A small subset of men in the sample challenged the idea of a gender representation gap in psychology. These participants noted that men were well represented among full-time and tenured faculty, with White men accounting for the majority of these faculty members despite the higher proportion of women in the field. Trevor stated:

[The] glass ceiling is a real thing in psychology, which can be easily seen by the amount of male tenured professors, and how many male APA presidents we have had? Men are overrepresented in a profession that is dominated by women.

Socialization

The socialization domain (n = 88/210; 42%) detailed responses focused on the role that traditional gender socialization plays in shaping men’s views on entering a women majority field like psychology. Two categories were identified in this domain: emotional aptitude and vocational steering.

Emotional aptitude

Almost a quarter of participants (n = 50/210; 24%) reported that men may avoid psychology since it is perceived as requiring higher emotional aptitude. Emotional aptitude can be defined as men’s perceived competence in recognizing, managing, and expressing their emotions and being able to recognize, interpret, and respond to the emotions of others (Adams, McCabe, Zundel, Price, & Dahl, 2011). Some participants believed that emotional aptitude was perceived as inconsistent with traditional masculine socialization. Ramesh suggested that men’s socialization about dealing with emotions may intersect with societal messages about psychology and skew men’s perceptions of this helping profession:

A culture of masculinity that rewards emotionally restricted behavior may contribute to the low number of men in psychology. If this culture is paired with perceptions of therapy as being an overly emotionalized endeavor, men may be discouraged from entering the field. This culture of masculinity is rooted in traditional gender roles that delineate the roles of women and men.

Some participants believed that men’s socialization to be emotionally restricted within interpersonal interactions places limits on men who may be considering communal fields like psychology, as evidenced in Patrick’s answer:

Men are often taught that they “can’t be all touchy and feely” like women can. For example, I feel more comfortable talking to therapists who are female. Thus, our own conceptualizations of what a male’s typical role and how they should act is also limiting to my/males’ participation in psychology.

Vocational steering

Some men in the sample (n = 35/210 = 17%) addressed how various socializing agents, including parents, peers, teachers, and the mass media, work to shape men’s beliefs about which occupations were appropriate for them. Ricky noted men’s socialization often emphasized traditionally masculine traits, which funnels boys and men away from communal and women majority fields and into agentic, traditionally masculine ones:

Anecdotally, I’ve known a number of men who were actively discouraged from pursuing undergraduate [psychology] degrees in college as it doesn’t immediately lead to profitable jobs, like a business or engineering major. I think that there are considerable pressures on men to find work and be self-sustaining immediately after college, and going to graduate school in general doesn’t fit this.

John discussed how the internalized pressure to serve as their family’s primary provider also contributes to vocational steering away from women majority fields:

[Men feel] pressure to engage in a more profitable career path that may involve hard labor men more commonly fill (e.g., construction). This could be due to the maintenance of gender norms of providing for a family. I definitely feel this pressure having essentially wasted 6 years of work and having a family.

Financial Factors

Slightly more than a third of participants (n = 71/210; 34%) identified financial concerns as a factor that inhibits men’s interest in and entry into psychology. We identified two categories for this domain: earning potential and cost–benefit analysis.

Earning potential

Almost a quarter of participants (n = 44/210; 21%) focused exclusively on the potential salary for psychologists. Participants emphasized that men may perceive that other fields (e.g., STEM, medicine, law) provide greater financial compensation compared to psychology. Felipé noted that “Salaries hit a ceiling at some point for a variety of reasons (e.g., managed care, reimbursement rates, biological reduction of disease, etc.). When salaries topped out, a lot of men went to other professions.” Jamal provided a typical response about how the expected salary for men encourages them to seek out other vocations: “There is less money and prestige in psychology than in medicine (or other professions).”

Cost–benefit analysis

A small number of men (n = 27/210; 13%) explicitly focused on the trade-off between the duration of psychology training programs and the lower earning potential associated with a degree in psychology compared to other fields (e.g., medicine). Jimmy stated, “Men have a higher earning potential in careers with just a bachelor’s or a master’s, so the extra time and effort to earn a PhD is less appealing.” Yang’s statement captured the dilemma he believed men face when deciding whether or not to become a psychologist:

The eventual career of being a psychologist has many benefits and offers a lifestyle in which many men may be interested. However, it takes hard work, 6–9 years of post-BA graduate schooling, and many applications/admissions cycles to become a psychologist, not to mention a dissertation. For those seeking earnings, these hurdles are often seen as unnecessary. For those seeking the intellectual satisfaction of pursuing psychological research, teaching, and advanced clinical work, a PhD in psychology is a great fit.

Broader Changes in Higher Education

A few participants (n = 13/210; 6%) identified the demographic transformation of higher education as another factor in the paucity of men in psychology. Shifts in higher education was the only category in this domain.

Shifts in higher education

A few participants (n = 13/210; 6%) addressed the structural and demographic changes that increased gender diversity in postsecondary educational settings. Over time, these changes shifted the gender ratios and increased the number of women in higher education as both students and faculty in various fields including psychology. Bobby stated, “Between the declining enrollment and retention rates of men in higher education in general, it’s partially a trickle-down effect.” Kavi elaborated on this “trickle-down effect” and its influence on the psychology pipeline:

There are more people applying to psychology programs every year, and, proportionally, more women than men seeking advanced degrees. I do not think the field of psychology has any influence over this. In our cultural moment, the individuals who want to study and apply psychological science just happen to be women.

Discussion

Drawing on the experiential knowledge of from male graduate students, the current study sought to provide insight about the specific factors career practitioners should be aware of their efforts to address the underrepresentation of men in psychology, a women majority field. Using CQR-M, four domains were identified by participants to explain the paucity of men in psychology: professional psychology issues, socialization, financial factors, and broader changes in higher education. These four domains can provide career counselors and researchers practical, culturally relevant information that they can incorporate when working with men and boys.

Professional psychology issues was the most popular explanation for the low number of men in psychology. Men’s (mis)perceptions about psychology may be an essential part of their underrepresentation at the undergraduate and graduate levels in psychology. The study’s results highlight the need to integrate men’s beliefs about the professional climate within women majority fields and their perceived fit in them as a primary target during career counseling with men. Prior studies indicate that men are more attuned to the perceived gender composition and dynamics in a field (Cheryan & Plaut, 2010) and maintain more rigid boundaries around their preferred work setting when compared to women (DiDonato & Strough, 2013), which may perpetuate the trend of men’s lower representation in fields like psychology. Consequently, career counselors working to increase the presence of men in the field must begin by identifying and then challenging men’s (mis)perceptions of psychology.

Participants’ responses pertaining to the broader changes in higher education domain highlighted how the entry of women into higher education significantly altered various fields including psychology (Pion et al., 1996). Although expected, the magnitude and rapidity of this demographic change and men’s response to it, in particular, deserves scholarly scrutiny. While men in the current study suggested that this transformation within psychology was simply a “trickle-down” effect of broader societal changes, other men may not view this change so benignly. Rather than recognizing the necessity and benefits of having more women in the field, these broader changes may be perceived as deleterious to men, which leads them to avoid psychology and reinforces occupational segregation.

This effect may be amplified by broader social movements such as the #MeToo movement and “the future is female” campaign, which are challenging men to be introspective about issues of power, privilege, and oppression within society. In reaction to these broader cultural shifts, men may seek to resegregate themselves in male majority work enclaves. These spaces allow them to avoid critical analysis and self-reflection on masculine socialization and male privilege, including its manifestations within fields where men are underrepresented numerically but overrepresented in positions of authority. Vocational efforts to undermine occupational segregation will have to grapple with men’s potential backlash to these social movements.

Similar to extant research identifying traditional masculine socialization as a key factor in the reduction of men entering women majority fields (e.g., Eagly et al., 2000; Gottfredson, 2005), participants in the current study highlighted the role men’s socialization played in them not considering psychology as a career path. This study adds to the literature by spotlighting two potential mechanisms involved in this process (i.e., emotional aptitude and vocational steering). Participants identified emotional aptitude, defined as men’s perceived competence in recognizing, managing, and expressing their emotions and being able to recognize, interpret, and respond to the emotions of others, as one factor that contributed to the low number of men in psychology. There is limited research that has focused on men’s evaluation of their emotional aptitude (Adams et al., 2011), particularly in career-related investigations of the low number of men in psychology or other women majority fields. Due to the interpersonal nature of psychological work, men’s concerns about emotional aptitude may create a significant hurdle for improving their numbers in the field, particularly in clinical and supervisory roles occupied by psychologists. Concerns about limited emotional aptitude among men can contribute to and be exacerbated by vocational steering. If men are socialized to believe that they are unable to develop their communal skills, it can contribute to them prematurely foreclosing on this and other women majority occupations that may require this asset (Gottfredson, 2005). They thus rule out viable career options they believe do not meet traditional work expectations for men.

Our participants suggested that men compare the rewards, such as salary and advancement opportunities, they will accrue when entering psychology compared to other fields. Some men may also worry about the loss of income during degree completion and their ability to fulfill their family obligations. Considering that many men are socialized to seek agentic jobs and feel obligated to serve as the primary financial providers for their families, they may be more attuned to the costs and benefits associated with their work (Weisgram et al., 2011). Much of the prior scholarship on men’s work values highlights men’s desire to earn a high salary, but this research does not emphasize the cost–benefit analysis our participants identified in this study. This cost–benefit lens would be an important component to integrate into efforts to increase men’s presence in psychology and other women majority fields. Gaining a better understanding of the individual factors that each man includes in his cost–benefit equation could be a focus for career work with men considering psychology or other women majority fields.

Limitations

There are multiple limitations in the current study. Our data rely on brief qualitative responses from a large number of participants. Unlike more traditional qualitative studies, we were unable to ask follow-up questions to clarify or deepen participants’ responses. Also, the inability to obtain a representative sample of men in psychology as well as potential selection bias due to the recruitment approach limit the study’s generalizability. Consequently, surveying other men may produce different explanations for the low number of men in psychology that are not captured in these findings. Relying on graduate men who are currently in the field may skew the results as they may be predisposed to perceive psychology in a more positive light or they may not perceive the same barriers as other men who enter more traditional fields. Research targeting young men in high school and first-year undergraduates are in other fields outside of psychology would address this concern.

Given that the majority of the current sample was heterosexual, middle-class, and White, future studies would benefit from recruiting larger and more diverse samples. Also, considering the power and privilege attached to White maleness within the broader society, it is possible that some White male respondents in our sample may have perceived their low representation more negatively due to having limited experiences as a minority and feeling less perceived systemic power in psychology. Additional studies that disaggregate the responses of White men and men of color to examine intersectional differences are needed. Future studies should also focus on men in the different psychology specialties (e.g., clinical vs. counseling psychology) since unique differences that exist between men in these specialties may be obscured.

Another limitation of the study is that it did not explicitly investigate why men who are currently in this women majority field have chosen to enter it. More vocational research using quantitative and qualitative approaches that explicitly document men’s motivations would shed light on men’s entry into communal fields. These studies would provide a strengths-oriented approach to identify factors that attract men to these fields and enhance recruitment and retention efforts. A final limitation is the placement of the open-ended question in the research survey. Since this question was not placed at the start of the questionnaire, it is possible that some participants’ responses were stimulated by other items in the survey.

Implications

Given that the number of men in psychology is so low, it is important for career researchers and practitioners to be aware of potential issues men face when entering and while in the field. The explanations men offered for the low number of men in psychology can provide guidance to career practitioners who work with boys and men considering women majority, communal fields. In their work with clients, career counselors are well positioned to discuss both the challenges and benefits of communal fields with interested candidates (Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015).

Our findings suggest that men’s perception of women majority fields like psychology contributes to their career decision-making and thus must be a focus of career counseling interventions with young men. One key implication of this study is that efforts encouraging men to consider women majority fields must begin before they enter college. Although more high schools are offering psychology courses (APA, 2013), career counselors in these secondary school settings can encourage more high school boys to take these courses. These courses offer an early strategy for exposing young men to a more realistic portrait of a career in psychology.

In light of the limited and biased messaging that men receive about the field of psychology (and other women majority fields), career and vocational trainers can partner with psychologists to engage in outreach efforts for young men in middle and high school which challenge the myths and misperceptions about the field. Exposure to male psychologists in the field and nuanced conversations about women majority fields may help young boys and men reconsider potential careers that they have previously circumscribed. Early identification and targeted recruitment of middle and high school students can be a critical intervention to increase students’ interest as they are initiating their vocational decision-making process.

Once enrolled in college, postsecondary career counselors can continue their efforts to introduce and funnel men into women majority fields like psychology. The emerging adulthood years represent a time for young people to continue identity exploration and career development (Arnett, 2014). For this reason, it is important for career counselors to continue educating men about the wide range of career opportunities within the field of psychology. Career professionals can be intentional about directing male students to connect with psychologists in clinical, academic, and administrative settings, which can help counteract misperceptions of psychology as a “feminized” field and a “soft science” with limited job options outside of clinical settings (Cheryan & Plaut, 2010). Encouraging boys and men to seek psychological services to improve their social–emotional learning can help to reduce the stigma of psychology and therapy, which is another way to help men develop an interest in the field. Further, visual representation of a diverse range of men within career-related recruitment materials can challenge misperceptions about psychology that contribute to men avoiding communal vocations and support psychology training program’s efforts to recruit them to the field (Clow, Ricciardelli, & Bartfay, 2015).

Considering that men in our study indicated that emotional aptitude and vocational steering are socialization-related barriers to the increased number of men in psychology, practitioners must help men critically evaluate internalized notions of masculinity. While career stakeholders alone are unable to transform the broader societal context that limits men from entering communal fields, they can provide a space to problematize and process the ways in which traditional masculine socialization affects young men’s career identity and development (Chung, Baskin, & Case, 1999). For example, if the low number of men in the field contributes to the perpetuation of low number of men in the field, then one strategy is to challenge men’s discomfort about being a minority in a women majority field. Using informal and formal career assessments, career practitioners can help men assess their emotional aptitude and encourage them engage in volunteer activities that can strengthen their skills in this area. Furthermore, helping men to reflect on how they can blend a traditionally masculine agentic approach with the communal skills traditionally valued in clinical settings may be most beneficial. This integrative approach may help to decrease men’s concerns about the person–environment fit within psychology or other women majority fields, which can enhance men’s interest and motivation to enter and stay in these fields (Wilkins & Tracey, 2014).

From a broader advocacy perspective, career practitioners and researchers can be important players in fostering men’s investment in gender-equity initiatives that challenge restrictive gender norms about career choices (Croft et al., 2015). This work involves career counselors analyzing how their biases about men in women majority fields affects their work with men. Given that men are proportionally overrepresented in positions of power within psychology and society, some critics may argue that increasing the number of men in women majority fields like psychology is not a worthwhile endeavor. Other scholars have countered this argument by highlighting the significant social benefits of encouraging men to entering these fields (Croft et al., 2015), particularly since it can challenge entrenched occupational segregation. Career professionals must recognize and convey the societal benefits of having a diverse array of men in psychology as practitioners, educators, researchers, and trainers. Men’s presence in women majority fields helps to fill current needs in the labor market for more health-care workers, broadens the diversity of perspectives in these fields, and provides positive role models to boys and men who may also be interested in entering nontraditional occupations (Alcée, 2017; Croft et al., 2015).

Another area that career counselors can target is examining the financial concerns of men considering women majority fields like psychology. In the current economic climate, identifying and implementing strategies that reduce financial barriers are key for expanding the male psychology pipeline (Malcolm & Dowd, 2012), particularly for men who subscribe to traditional masculine socialization messages (e.g., being the primary breadwinner). Helping potential candidates recognize that psychologists work in a variety of settings with different levels of compensation may help to address men’s compensation concerns. Furthermore, helping men assess the benefits of a career in psychology that are consistent with men’s internalized work values could be a useful career counseling strategy.

Integration of traditional career counseling approaches, such as the use of O*NET, to highlight the salary range and educational requirements for psychologists can be used to provide concrete data on the financial benefits and job outlook for psychologists. Career counselors can help men evaluate the value of a degree in psychology and its fit for them despite the monetary, time, and familial costs incurred while obtaining it. For example, many men may be unaware that many communal occupations like health care represent the fastest-growing occupations in the current economy (Hardie, 2015). On a macro level, career counselors can assist in the creation of public service advertisements that highlight these shifts in available jobs in the modern economy, which may attract men to the field. Public advocacy provides a broader way for career counselors challenge occupational segregation.

The findings from this study provide information for career practitioners and researchers who are invested in challenging occupational segregation to make psychology a more attractive vocational option for men. While this study does provide some context for the low number of men in psychology, more career-related research on men in psychology as well as other women majority fields is sorely needed. It is important to note that many issues identified in extant research as impacting men’s decision to enter graduate school did not emerge in the current exploratory study. For example, graduate school expenses and funding were only mentioned twice in the data set. Research indicates that the high cost of doctoral studies in psychology and ballooning debt in recent years for psychologists are significant concerns (Doran, Marks, Kraha, Ameen, & El-Ghoroury, 2016). Future studies could incorporate the variables identified in this exploratory study and include other issues known to affect entry into graduate school (e.g., cost of attendance, availability of funding, job outlook; Proctor & Romano, 2016). Information from these types of studies can provide career stakeholders with a more complete picture of the issues that must be addressed in their work to help men identify how their unique values, interests, personality, and skills fit within psychology.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Berenice Sánchez and Maime Butler contributed equally to this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Adams

McCabe

Zundel

Price

Dahl

(2011). Perceived emotional aptitude of clinical laboratory sciences students compared to students in other healthcare profession majors. Clinical Laboratory Science, 24, 167–171.

Alcée

M. D.

(2017). The importance of a male presence in college counseling. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 31, 180–191. doi:10.1080/87568225.2017.1283973

American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for preparing high school psychology teachers: Course-based and standards-based approaches. The American Psychologist, 68, 41–44. doi:10.1037/a002937

American Psychological Association. (2015). Commission on accreditation 2015 annual report online: Summary data: Doctoral programs. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/research/2015-doctoral-summary.pdf

American Psychological Association, Center for Workforce Studies. (2015). Demographics of the U.S. psychology workforce: Findings from the American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology. (2017). The changing gender composition of psychology: Update and expansion of the 1995 task force report. Washington, DC: Author.

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Beasley

S. T.

Miller

I. K.

Cokley

K. O.

(2015). Exploring the impact of increasing the number of black men in professional psychology. Journal of Black Studies, 46, 704–722. doi:10.1177/0021934715599424

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475

10.

Cheryan

Plaut

V. C.

(2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x

11.

Chung

Y. B.

Baskin

M. L.

Case

A. B.

(1999). Career development of black males: Case studies. Journal of Career Development, 25, 161–171. doi:10.1023/A:1022935521347

12.

Chusmir

(1990). Men who make non-traditional career choices. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 11–16. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01446.x

13.

Clow

K. A.

Ricciardelli

Bartfay

W. J.

(2015). Are you man enough to be a nurse? The impact of ambivalent sexism and role congruity on perceptions of men and women in nursing advertisements. Sex Roles, 72, 363–376. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0418-0

14.

Crockett

Elghoroury

Popiolek

Wummel

(2018). The lived experiences of men in a master’s counseling program. Counselor Education and Supervision, 57, 98–115. doi:10.1002/ceas.12096

15.

Croft

Schmader

Block

(2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 343–370. doi:10.1177/1088868314564789

16.

Cross

Bagilhole

(2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional occupations. Gender, Work & Organization, 9, 204–226. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00156

17.

Cushman

(2005). Let’s hear it from the males: Issues facing male primary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 227–240. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.012

18.

DiDonato

Strough

(2013). Do college students’ gender-typed attitudes about occupations predict their real-world decisions? Sex Roles, 68, 536–549. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0275-2

19.

Diekman

A. B.

Steinberg

Brown

E. R.

Belanger

A. L.

Clark

E. K.

(2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 142–175. doi:10.1177/1088868316642141

20.

Doran

J. M.

Marks

L. R.

Kraha

Ameen

E. J.

El-Ghoroury

N. H.

(2016). Graduate debt in psychology: A quantitative analysis. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 10, 179–187. doi:10.1037/tep0000132

21.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Diekman

A. B.

(2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes

Trautner

H. M.

(Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2005). Using Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). New York, NY: Wiley.

23.

Hardie

J. H

. (2015). Women’s work? Predictors of young men’s aspirations for entering traditionally female-dominated occupations. Sex Roles, 72, 349–362. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0449-1

24.

Hayes

(1986). Men’s decisions to enter or avoid nontraditional occupations. The Career Development Quarterly, 35, 89–101. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1986.tb00769.x

25.

Herlihy

B. R.

Watson

Z. E.

(2006). Gender issues in career counseling. In Capuzzi

Stauffer

M. D.

(Eds.), Career counseling: Foundations, perspectives, and applications (pp. 363–385). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

26.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001

27.

Isacco

Hammer

J. H.

Shen-Miller

D. S.

(2016). Outnumbered, but meaningful: The experience of male doctoral students in professional psychology training programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 10, 45–53. doi:10.1037/tep0000107

28.

Lease

S. H.

(2003). Testing a model of men’s nontraditional occupational choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 51, 244–258. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2003.tb00605.x

29.

Lupton

(2006). Explaining men’s entry into female-concentrated occupations: Issues of masculinity and social class. Gender, Work & Organization, 13, 103–128.

30.

Malcolm

L. E.

Dowd

A. C.

(2012). The impact of undergraduate debt on the graduate school enrollment of STEM baccalaureates. The Review of Higher Education, 35, 265–305.

31.

Pion

G. M.

Mednick

M. T.

Astin

H. S.

Hall

C. C. I.

Kenkel

M. B.

Keita

G. P.

… Kelleher

J. C

. (1996). The shifting gender composition of psychology: Trends and implications for the discipline. American Psychologist, 51, 509–528. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.5.509

32.

Polavieja

J. G.

Platt

(2014). Nurse or mechanic? The role of parental socialization and children’s personality in the formation of sex-typed occupational aspirations. Social Forces, 93, 31–61. doi:10.1093/sf/sou051

33.

Proctor

S. L.

Romano

(2016). School psychology recruitment research characteristics and implications for increasing racial and ethnic diversity. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(3), 311–326. doi:10.1037/spq0000154

34.

Riegle-Crumb

King

Moore

(2016). Do they stay or do they go? The switching decisions of individuals who enter gender atypical college majors. Sex Roles, 74, 436–449. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0583-4

35.

Sbaratta

C. A.

Tirpak

D. M.

Schlosser

L. Z.

(2015). Male-male advising relationships in graduate psychology: A diminishing dyad. Sex Roles, 72, 335–348. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0466-0

36.

Shen-Miller

Smiler

A. P.

(2015). Men in female-dominated vocations: A rationale for academic study and introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles, 72, 269–276. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0471-3

37.

Shen-Miller

D. S.

Olson

Boling

(2011). Masculinity in nontraditional occupations: Ecological constructions. American Journal of Men’s Health, 5, 18–29. doi:10.1177/1557988309358443

38.

Simpson

(2004). Masculinity at work: The experiences of men in female dominated occupations. Work, Employment and Society, 18, 349–368.

39.

Spangler

P. T.

Liu

Hill

C. E.

(2012). CQR for simple qualitative data: An introduction to CQR-M. In Hill

C. E.

(Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena (pp. 269–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

40.

Weisgram

E. S.

Dinella

L. M.

Fulcher

(2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles, 65, 243–258.

41.

Wilkins

K. G.

Tracey

T. J.

(2014). Person environment fit and vocational outcomes. In Coetzee

(Ed.), Psycho-social career meta-capacities: Dynamics of contemporary career development (pp. 123–138). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.