Explaining Gender Differences in Interests

The Current Study

The current study extends previous research by examining gender’s direct (Path a) and indirect effects (Paths b and c) on interests through gender-related personality variables, learning experience, and self-efficacy across all RIASEC themes in a modified SCCT model (without outcome expectations). We predict that—in line with SCCT hypotheses—gender will be associated with gender-related personality traits (Paths d and e), which in turn will predict learning experiences (Paths f and g), predicting self-efficacy (Path h), and ultimately predicting career interests (Path i) across RIASEC themes (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Participants

Four hundred and fifty two students from a large, Midwestern university participated in the study. The mean age of the sample was 19.46 (SD = 2.00) with ages ranging from 18 to 37. The majority of the sample (59%) identified as women, with 88.9% identifying as White/European American, 5.3% identifying as biracial/multiracial, 2.2% identifying as Asian/Asian American, 1.8% identifying as Black/African American, and 1.8% identifying as Latino(a)/Latino(a) American. Approximately 44.2% were freshmen, 31.6% were sophomores, 16.6% were juniors, and 7.5% were seniors.

Measures

Procedure

After the institutional review board approved the study, students participated for introductory psychology course credit. Students completed informed consent documents and demographic sheets, after which they completed a survey packet over the next week. After participants returned their survey packet, they were debriefed and were given course credit.

Realistic Model Results

The gender to expressiveness path was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.39, 95% CI [0.30, 0.53], and the gender to instrumentality path was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.21, 95% CI [−0.31, −0.10]. The paths from instrumentality and expressiveness to learning experiences were significant, β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.43, 0.95] and β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.46, −0.08], respectively; furthermore, the learning experiences to self-efficacy path and the self-efficacy to interest paths were significant, β = 0.72, 95% CI [0.70, 0.94] and β = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16, 0.43], respectively. Gender directly affected realistic interests, β = −0.32, 95% CI [−0.67, −0.36]. In the alternative model (Figure 3), the direct effect from learning experiences to interests was significant, β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.07, 0.37]. The total indirect effect of gender on realistic interest was significant, β = −0.07, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.05]. The specific indirect paths were significant through instrumentality including learning experiences and self-efficacy, β = −0.02, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01], and including only learning experiences, β = −0.02, 95% CI [−0.08, −0.01]. The specific indirect paths were significant through expressiveness including learning experiences and self-efficacy, β = −0.02, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.01], and including only learning experiences, β = −0.02, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01]. The total indirect effect of learning experiences on realistic interests was also significant, β = 0.25, 95% CI [0.13, 0.35].

Investigative Model Results

The path from gender to expressiveness was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.29, 0.53], and the path from gender to instrumentality was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.08]. The paths from instrumentality to learning experiences was significant, β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.13, 0.43], though the path from expressiveness to learning experiences was not significant, β = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.04]. The learning experiences to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy to interests paths were significant, β = 0.62, 95% CI [0.79, 1.16] and β = 0.71, 95% CI [0.62, 0.81], respectively. Gender directly affected investigative interests, β = 0.12, 95% CI [0.06, 0.36]). The paths through instrumentality explained gender’s total indirect effect on investigative interest, β = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.12, −0.01], but the paths through expressiveness did not, β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.01] (see Figure 2).

Artistic Model Results

The path from gender to expressiveness was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.30, 0.53], and the path from gender to instrumentality was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.08]. The path from instrumentality to learning experiences was not significant, β = .01, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.16], though the path from expressiveness to learning experiences was significant, β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.18, 0.48]. The learning experiences to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy to interests paths were significant, β = 0.78, 95% CI [0.74, 1.02] and β = 0.46, 95% CI [0.34, 0.72], respectively. Gender directly affected artistic interests, β = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.20]. In the alternative model, the direct effect from learning experiences to artistic interests was significant, β = 0.40, 95% CI [0.28, 0.78], and gender’s total indirect effect on artistic interest was also significant, β = 0.03, 95% CI [0.06, 0.22], with significant specific indirect paths through expressiveness including learning experiences and self-efficacy, β = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.12], and including only learning experiences, β = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.13]. Neither the indirect path through instrumentality including learning experiences and self-efficacy, β = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.01], nor the path through instrumentality including only learning experiences, β = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.02], was significant. The total indirect effect of learning experiences on artistic interests was significant, β = 0.36, 95% CI [0.32, 0.65].

Social Model Results

The path from gender to expressiveness was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.41, 95% CI [0.30, 0.52], and the path from gender to instrumentality was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.07]. The paths from instrumentality and expressiveness to learning experiences were significant, β = −0.33, 95% CI [−0.44, −0.22] and β = 0.66, 95% CI [0.50, 0.72], respectively. The learning experiences to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy to interests paths were significant, β = 0.66, 95% CI [0.88, 1.35] and β = 0.32, 95% CI [0.15, 0.45], respectively. Gender directly affected social interests, β = 0.14, 95% CI [0.07, 0.35]. In the alternative model, the direct effect from learning experiences to interests was significant, β = 0.48, 95% CI [0.45, 1.04]. Gender’s total indirect effect on social interest was significant, β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.35], with significant specific indirect pathways through expressiveness including learning experiences and self-efficacy, β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.04, 0.14], and including only learning experiences, β = 0.13, 95% CI [0.11, 0.29]. The specific indirect pathway through instrumentality including both learning experiences and self-efficacy was not significant, β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.00], but the pathway including only learning experiences was significant, β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.01]. The total indirect effect from learning experiences to social interests was also significant, β = 0.21, 95% CI [0.16, 0.50].

Enterprising Model Results

The path from gender to expressiveness was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.37, 95% CI [0.30, 0.53]. The path from gender to instrumentality was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.19, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.09]. The path from instrumentality to learning experiences was significant, β = 0.64, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89], though the path from expressiveness to learning experiences was not significant, β = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.11]. The learning experiences to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy to interests paths were significant, β = 0.61, 95% CI [0.73, 1.20] and β = 0.57, 95% CI [0.41, 0.61], respectively. Gender directly affected enterprising interests, β = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29]. The total indirect effect of gender on enterprising interest, β = −0.04, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01], can be explained through the specific indirect path through instrumentality, β = −0.04, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.02], but not expressiveness, β = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.01].

Conventional Model Results

The path from gender to expressiveness was significant with women expressing higher expressiveness than men, β = 0.37, 95% CI [0.30, 0.53], and the path from gender to instrumentality was significant with men expressing higher instrumentality than women, β = −0.18, 95% CI [−0.28, −0.08]. The path from instrumentality to learning experiences was significant, β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.15, 0.43], but the path from expressiveness to learning experiences was not significant, β = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.10, 0.18]. The learning experiences to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy to interests paths were significant, β = 0.57, 95% CI [0.77, 1.48] and β = 0.45, 95% CI [0.33, 0.54], respectively. Gender did not directly affect conventional interests, β = −0.04, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.05]. The total indirect effect of gender on interests was not significant, β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.01], though a gender indirectly affected conventional interests through instrumentality, β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.05, −0.01], but not expressiveness, β = 0.00, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.03]: The SCCT paths through instrumentality fully explain gender’s effect on conventional interests.

Implications for Career Counseling

The current study provided further evidence that Holland’s model can be linked to SCCT. These findings should help career counselors provide RIASEC thematic feedback to their clients while attending to SCCT developmental processes that underlie career decision-making. Additionally, understanding the factors that influence gender differences in career interests helps address the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Given the strong links between learning experiences, self-efficacy, and interests, career counselors should be advised to continue helping their clients explore their acquired learning experiences in each RIASEC theme to help them understand the impact of these experiences on self-efficacy and interest development. However, career counselors need to direct clients to consider the role that their gender-related personality characteristics may relate to their career decisions.

Even though men continue to express higher levels of realistic interest and women continue to express higher levels of artistic and social interests, career counselors might be able to intervene earlier in these individuals’ lives in order to provide additional learning experiences across Holland’s themes given the links through which learning experiences directly and indirectly influences interest development. The present study suggests that instrumentality may offer individuals more freedom in their career interests, as instrumentality linked with more learning experiences in every model except artistic. Although the mechanisms for this are not addressed by the present study, it is possible that instrumentality is linked to values, such as independence and autonomy—values that may lead individuals to seek out learning experiences that are more numerous and more varied. If this is the case, it may be useful to encourage young women to “lean into” activities that engage the instrumental aspects of their personality. Similarly, encouraging instrumentality in girls and expressiveness in boys at early ages may deter early circumscription of learning experiences and careers. Although perhaps, the tide is already turning: Women expressed higher levels of investigative and enterprising interests than in previous research (e.g., Su et al., 2009), suggesting that perhaps the effect of broad-based gender categorization on interests is shifting with a need to further examine within gender variability more extensively to understand these results.

Career counselors may be advised to consider that learning experiences may influence career interests in ways other than through self-efficacy. Learning experiences enacted their effects on interests via self-efficacy but directly influenced the development of realistic, artistic, and social interests. For example, people may find certain learning experiences enjoyable because those experiences align with their values and provide them with intrinsic or extrinsic rewards. Therefore, clinicians should help clients seek out learning experiences, not only to increase self-efficacy, but also as a way of increasing interest in these activities.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study had many strengths, there were also limitations, the first of which is the lack of ethnic diversity in the sample: The results of the current study best apply to predominantly European American/White college students who may express gender-related personality characteristics differently than other racial/ethnic groups. The models should be tested across the spectrum of ethnic diversity while accounting for other multicultural and individual differences. Second, the data in the present study are cross-sectional, and SCCT posits cause and effect relations. Future researchers may utilize longitudinal data analyses, which could allow for better evidence of the causal relations in RIASEC-based SCCT models. Third, although the present study expanded upon previous work by integrating Holland themes within a modified SCCT model to predict career interests, future researchers should include outcome expectations and goals in their RIASEC-based SCCT models. Outcome expectations might further account for the relation between gender and realistic, investigative, social, and enterprising interests, though it is interesting to note that gender’s effect on interests was fully mediated in the artistic and conventional models without the inclusion of outcome expectations. Fourth, localized areas of ill fit on the instrumentality and Physiological/Emotional Arousal scales contributed to fit problems were found in the measurement model, which aligns with past research (Thompson & Dahling, 2012; Tokar et al., 2012). Future researchers should further examine the psychometric properties of these scales in order to determine how the items load on subscales and how the subscales relate to the broader construct. Also, the chosen parceling methods could contribute to model ill fit. We used a domain representative (unidimensional) approach for parceling the self-efficacy and interests scales, while using an internal consistency approach for the learning experiences, instrumentality, and expressiveness scales (Kishton & Widaman, 1994), though researchers have illustrated that each approach has pros and cons (e.g., Marsh, Lüdtke, Nagangast, Morin, & Von Davier, 2013). The current study’s results highlight how the internal consistency approach may contribute to ill fit, though the domain representative approach may obscure model ill fit. More research is needed to investigate the influence of parceling methods in RIASEC-based SCCT models. We also encourage researchers to investigate possible changes in gender differences in interests, considering women expressed higher levels of investigative interest in the current study. Researchers should test alternative SCCT models to understand the possible bidirectional relation between interests and self-efficacy and how learning experiences may directly influence interests in some RIASEC themes.