An Exploration of the Psycho-sexual Aspects of the Motivation to Avoid Success and its Association with Gender Roles and Work-Family Conflict Using a Mixed Method

Abstract

Aims:

The current study attempted to explore how gender roles and work-family conflict contribute to fear of success in urban, married, middle-aged, and working women.

Materials and Methods:

A mixed method was used in which “gender role,” “work family conflict,” and “fear of success” were measured using the Indian Gender Role Identity Scale,¹ the Work Family Conflict Scale (Carlson et al.),² and the Fear of Success Scale (Canavan-Gumpert et.al.),³ respectively, followed by an interview of 10 voluntary participants for a period of 30 min each.

Analysis:

A stepwise multiple regression analysis of work-family conflict and gender roles on fear of success was computed as part of the quantitative analysis of the data. Open codes and focus codes were computed as part of the qualitative analysis of the data.

Results and Conclusion:

The results of quantitative data analysis revealed that both dimensions of “work-family conflict,” i.e., “time-based work to family” and “time based family to work,” are significant predictors of “fear of success” and that there is a significant negative correlation between “masculinity” and “fear of success.” The analysis of qualitative data revealed that the majority of the participants have talked about unpleasant consequences related to success in or being engaged in a formal job. The findings have been discussed in the context of the internalization of societal expectations and implicit coercions in urban, middle-aged, and married working women.

Keywords

Fear of success (FoS)gender role motivation to avoid success psychosexual work family conflict (WFC)

Introduction

“Fear of Success” (FoS) is a paradoxical psychological concept that proposes that some individuals tend to be afraid of and consequently avoid success. The concept of FoS was initially identified as a neurotic problem by Freud,⁴ who described the individuals afflicted by FoS as “those wrecked by success.” Other clinicians and psychotherapists followed suit and provided descriptions of people whose neurotic problems seemed to deteriorate when success was imminent.⁵ The basic difference between the theorists lies in the manner in which they have described the origin and manifestation of FoS as well as the construction of success. However, the commonality between all the otherwise discernible conceptualizations of FoS is that each of the theories views FoS as unconscious and irrational but having predictable socially and psychologically significant consequences.

In comparison to Freud’s version, where success is defined as the attainment of anything that symbolically represents the destruction of the same-sex parent, Sullivan conceptualizes success as any event that is a symbol of the child’s autonomy and competence in areas where the mother has been inadequate. In contrast, Horney tries to conceptualize FoS from a social standpoint and comments on the importance of the goal and the presence of competitors as critical indicators for success. According to her, women are fearful of taking an active part in competitive situations as they perceive that success will engender negative consequences such as loss of femininity, social esteem, and social rejection.

Thanks to the increase in economic burden affecting every strata of the society in every corner of the world along with the availability of more facilitatory government regulations in favor of women’s empowerment and birth control facilities and a general sanction by the society regarding presence of women in the workforce, the number of women in the labor force has increased dramatically in the last few years, even in developing countries like India. However, literature suggests that women consistently experience higher frequency and intensity of FoS which also interferes with their career choices and development.^6,7

In most parts of the world, women are still expected to abide by the stereotypical gender roles⁸ where they are supposed to share the major burden of household responsibilities such as domestic chores and child rearing. The implicit social pressure to prioritize family and female gender roles are often at odds with the expectations from the woman employee in the job sector. This gives rise to work-family conflict (WFC), which has been defined by Flippo⁹ as a form of inter-role conflict in which role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. Though WFC is prevalent in both working men and women, it is more likely to occur in women¹⁰ because social processes are more likely to interfere with women’s performance in the organized work sector.

This brings forth the pertinent issue of gender roles, which probably latently mediates the experience of WFC and FoS. Gender roles are sociocultural expectations regarding appropriate behaviors that society imposes on individuals on the basis of their sex assigned at birth. Since the 1970s, feminist theorists have challenged the determination of gender roles on the basis of the sex binary. At present, gender is understood as a socially determined process or principle of social organization through which men and women achieve identities and power in relation to one another. Gender role differences are reflected in the division of labor and their differential evaluation. Hence, gender identities that emerge through social interaction may also serve to privilege men in comparison to women.

The present study thus tries to find out the relationship between WFC, FoS, and gender roles in middle-aged married adult females working in the organized sector.

It is pertinent to comment that the psycho-sexual aspects of motivation to avoid success in this study have been explained and/or explored in terms of gender role identity. Gender is a multifaceted construct, with its manifestations apparent in traits, roles, and attitudes. Though theorists have differentiated between gender roles and gender trait stereotypes, the two concepts, i.e., gendered traits and gendered role enactment, are overlapping and mutually inclusive (Deaux & Lewis; Biernat).^11,12 Yuan et al.¹³ tried to explore the moderating effect of age on the relationship between work family conflict and life satisfaction in females and found that age becomes a stronger moderator in the relationship between work family conflict and life satisfaction as the age of the female participants increases, i.e., the negative relationship between work family conflict and life satisfaction is stronger for middle-aged females. Recent studies also suggest that for younger people (young adulthood), it is far easier to accept egalitarian gender roles, which might play a role in easing down the incompatible relationship between demands made in home space and work space.¹⁴ Such observations make it imperative that the interrelationship between WFC and FoS be studied in middle-aged females.

Methods

Participants

The participants of the study comprised 80 female adults (age range from 40.4 years to 50.36 years), married (minimum duration of marriage being 13.17 years) (refer to Table 1a), working in the organized sector (refer to Table 1b) with a minimum per capita income of ₹35000 per month. The minimum duration for which they have been in employment was 9.98 years, and the minimum duration for which they have been engaged in their present occupation was 5.97 years.

Table 1a.

Showing the Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of the Socio-Demographic Attributes.

Socio-Demographic Attributes	Mean	Standard Deviation
Age	45.38	4.98
Duration of present occupation	13.41	7.44
Total duration of employment	17.25	7.27
Duration of marriage	19.40	6.23

Table 1b.

Showing the Job Profile of the Participants.

Nature of Occupation	Frequency	Percentage %
Doctor	17	21.25
Engineer	12	15
Lawyer	10	12.5
Professor	10	12.5
Designer	10	12.5
Fine Arts	10	12.5
Service	11	13.75

A total of 10 participants were also part of an interview that explored their subjective experience of dual careers (having to manage work and family responsibilities simultaneously).

Tools Used

A socio-demographic data sheet was used to elicit relevant socio-demographic information such as name, age, sex, education, occupation, duration of the present occupation, etc.

The Indian Gender Identity Role Scale (IGRIS) was prepared by Basu¹ to measure culture-appropriate gender identity and role, consisting of 30 items with a test-retest reliability of 0.89 (masculinity) and 0.79 (femininity).

The Work Family Conflict Scale, prepared by Carlson et al.² and consisting of 18 items, measures work-family conflict in two directions: (i) work interfering with family (WIF) and (ii) family interfering with work (FIW), and with a reliability of 0.70.

The Fear of Success Scale is a self-administering scale prepared by Canavan-Gumpert et al.³ with a reliability of 0.8.

A personal interview was conducted with 10 voluntary participants for a period of 30–45 min to understand their subjective experience of leading a dual-career life.

Ethical Considerations

The participants were informed about the nature of the study and that the information gathered would be kept confidential and used for academic purposes only. The participants were further informed that there will be no direct benefit (financial or otherwise) for participating in the study and that there will also be no negative consequences for refusing to participate in the study. Only participants who gave voluntary informed consent were recruited for the study.

Analysis

Quantitative data: appropriate statistical analysis was done, viz., descriptive statistics and regression of WFC and gender role on FoS.

Qualitative data: The data was transcribed and then converted into open codes and focus codes to arrive at a thematic interpretation.

An open code can be considered to be the simplest psychologically meaningful unit of the textual data written by each participant.

A focus code can be construed as the clustering of open codes into higher categories based on a common theme.

Results

Discussion

Discussion of Findings from Quantitative Data Analysis

The findings of the present study reflect that in urban, middle-aged, working women, the two dimensions of WFC, i.e., “time-based family-to-work conflict” and “time-based work-to-family conflict,” contribute to variations in FoS. Work-family conflict has also been explained in terms of role theory or inter-role conflict,¹⁵ wherein the nature and complexity of the roles expected of a person in work and family situations may be mutually incompatible and lead to conflict (refer to Table 1c). Such a model also emphasizes that role pressures are intensified when any one or both of them are salient or central to a person’s self-concept and/or when noncompliance with role demands is associated with intense social ostracization. It is needless to say that a similar situation may be present in “dual-career” women, and it is fairly well established in research literature that “dual-career” women experience work-family conflict because the implicit social demand to follow the injunctions of conventional female gender roles and the demands of the organization in which they are employed are often at odds with each other.¹⁶

Table 1c.

Showing the Mean and Standard Deviation of the Study Variables.

Study Variables	Domains	Mean	Standard Deviation
Fear of Success (FoS)	Fear of Success	43.66	7.65
Gender Role	Masculinity	49.03	10.88
Gender Role	Femininity	51.36	10.24
Work-Family Conflict (WFC)	Time-Based Work-to-Family Conflict	7.91	3.27
	Time-Based Family-to-Work Conflict	7.91	3.13
	Strain-Based Work-to-Family Conflict	8.23	2.87
	Strain-Based Family-to-Work Conflict	6.78	3.25
	Behavior-Based Work-to-Family Conflict	8.11	2.55
	Behavior-Based Family-to-Work	8.60	2.81

The findings of the current study also display that “masculinity” (a component of IGRIS; Basu)¹ contributes to the variation in FoS in urban, middle-aged working women, wherein “masculinity” and “FoS” are negatively correlated (refer to Table 2a). It is important to note that, as per the IGRIS, a description of oneself in terms of gender-specific traits forms a part of one’s identity and has been conceptualized as gender role identity. Also, it needs to be mentioned in this context that Constantinople, in her classic paper,¹⁷ refuted the concept of unidimensionality of gender role identity and proposed that masculinity and femininity are not mutually exclusive but are concurrent and overlapping. This implies that the more a woman appraises herself beyond traditional femininity, less her experience of fear is related to success. Such a finding is congruent with the original propositions of Horner,^18–20 that the incidence of fear of success is substantially higher in female college students than in male college students, based on the notion that FoS is strongly associated with the traditional role of women in society. According to Zuckerman & Wheeler,²¹ FoS is a latent disposition that is internalized as a part of sex-role socialization quite early in life. The role of femininity in FoS was indirectly established by Mandal,²² who found that machiavellianism is a predictor of FoS in college students and that machiavellianism is negatively correlated with femininity (refer to Table 2b).

Table 2a.

Showing the Table for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Work-Family Conflict and Gender Roles on Fear of Success.

Predictors	B	Beta	p-values
Time-Based Family-to-Work Conflict	0.919	0.377	<0.01
Time-Based Family-to-Work Conflict & Masculinity	0.744 –0.207	0.305–0.295	<0.01 <0.01
Time-based Family-to-Work Conflict & Masculinity Time-Based Work-to-Family Conflict	0.475 –0.214 0.554	0.195–0.304 0.237	>0.05 <0.01 <0.05

Table 2b.

Summary of Models.

Models	R	R²	Adjusted R²
Time-Based Family-to-Work Conflict	0.377^a	0.142	0.131
Masculinity	0.473^b	0.224	0.204
Time-Based Work-to-Family Conflict	0.518^c	0.268	0.239

Note: ^aTime-based family to work.^bTime-based family to work, masculinity.^cTime-based family to work, masculinity, time-based work to family.

Discussion of Findings from Qualitative Data Analysis

It is evident from the data analysis (refer to Table 3a) that around 55% of the focus codes (refer to Table 3b) generated from the interviews center on the unpleasant consequences related to a woman attaining success, notably negative apprehensions related to family life, rearing up of children, perceived lack of support from family regarding job role, and negative self-appraisal for considering success as gender inappropriate. The findings of this study have an interesting similarity with the original findings of Horner.^18–20 In her original research, Horner used a very simple method where men and women were required to complete a story about a hypothetical character (John or Anne) who is supposedly a medical student. Horney found that 65% of female students completed the story relating to the character Anne in a pessimistic way, indicating that successful women eventually become lonely, ill, or neurotic. Horner explained that such a fear related to success represented a motivation to avoid success for the underlying fear of losing femininity, as success is traditionally perceived as antagonistic to femininity. In relatively recent research, Mandal²² used mixed-methods research to explore FoS, gender, and machiavellianism in Polish college students. She also found that the most frequently appearing content elements of the FoS among college students were social and family difficulties, e.g., loneliness, failed marriage, absence of children, and negative self-evaluation. It is quite intriguing to find similar expressions related to FoS among people from disparate geographical locations and periods of time, decades apart. This brings forth the possibility that FoS is a dispositional attribute developed through socialization in a “gendered” society, and it indicates a situational motivational conflict between the need for achievement and the need for affiliation, where a high need for affiliation is more characteristic of women.⁹

Table 3a.

Open Codes and Focus Codes of Transcript from Interview.

Sl. Nos.	Open Codes	Focus Codes
P1	O1 – Success in job may create problems in spending quality time with family (F1) O2 – Financial support via job improves self-esteem in women (F4) O3 – Success in job leads to stress and problems in priorities of life (F1) O4 – Struggle between home and job makes a woman impatient and arrogant (F5)	F1 – Negative apprehensions about job detrimentally affecting family & personal life F2 – Negative apprehensions about job detrimentally affecting children F3 – Perceived lack of support from family (husband and in-laws) related to job F4 – Perceived increased sense of self-efficacy due to job F5 – Perceived negativity in self-due to gender inappropriate experience of success
P2	O5 – Success in work gives more satisfaction than economic stability (F4) O6 – Husband and children feels proud of her success in work (F4) O7 – Success in work brings negative vibes from other family members (F3) O8 – Feelings of satisfaction and happiness in being busy with work (F4) O9 – Children suffer if mother is working (F2)
P3	O10 – Being in work keeps certain problems at bay (F4) O11 – Being in work helps to solve certain problems in home (F4) O12 – Success is not easily accepted in home and creates conflict (F3) O13 – Job provides economic support (F4) O14 – Job helps to share the economic load of the family (F4)
P4	O15 – In laws often do not adjust with working women (F3) O16 – Working successfully in jobs may help women handle conflicting situation in home (F4) O17 – In nuclear families, working women faces difficulty in rearing up of children (F2) O18 – Success in work may hinder with giving moral education to children (F2) O19 – Family demands sacrifice from women in the job with respect to success (F3)
P5	O20 – Support from the life partner is necessary to be successful (F3) O21 – Inflated sense of self due to success should be discouraged (F5) O22 – Women should sacrifice their own work for the necessity of other family members (F5) O23 – Impossible to balance work and family life without the support of the in-laws (F3) O24 – Adjustment in the main concern for working women (F5)
P6	O25 – Work provides economic support and independence to women (F4) O26 – Home responsibilities get affected due to late arrival from work (F1) O27 – Family do not get quality time for working women (F1) O28 – Working creates a sense of awareness in women (F4)
P7	O29 – Working leads to growth of self-confidence in women (F4) O30 – Working women can support the family economically (F4) O31 – Being successful in work fosters disciplined environment at home (F4) O32 – Children of working women are left alone in home (F2) O33 – Working women cannot take care if guests at home (F1)
P8	O34 – Success in job fosters identity and self-confidence (F4) O35 – Job and success may facilitate decision-making (F4) O36 – Economic independence due to job provides female a unique position in male-dominated society (F4) O37 – Economic stability often makes women arrogant (F5)
P9	O38 – Working women are self-sufficient in decision-making (F4) O39 – Children of successful mothers are left alone in home (F2) O40 – Children of working mothers become more self-sufficient and matured (F4) O41 – Whatever effort a working woman gives, something is always lacking in the home (F1)
P10	O42 – The life of children of successful and working mothers get affected (F2) O43 – Success leads to problems with life partner (F3) O44 – Children of successful and working mothers are left alone at home (F2) O45 – Success and job facilitates choice and decision-making (F4)

Table 3b.

Summary of Focus Codes from Interview.

Focus Codes	Frequencies (%)
F1 – Negative apprehensions about job detrimentally affecting family & personal life	6 (13.33%)
F2 – Negative apprehensions about job detrimentally affecting children	7 (15.55%)
F3 – Perceived lack of support from family (husband and in-laws) related to job	7 (15.55%)
F4 – Perceived increased sense of self efficacy due to job	20 (44.44%)
F5 – Perceived negativity in self-due to gender inappropriate experience of success	5 (11.11%)

However, paradoxically, around 45% of women participants in this study have also reported feelings of increased sense of self-efficacy for being engaged in a formal job. The positive effects of being engaged in a formal job on the self-perception of women have been reported in studies.²³ At the same time, studies have also reported that the association between employment and self-perception and wellbeing in women is moderated by employed women’s attitudes toward having an independent career and husbands’ appraisals of their wives’ work roles.

These findings suggest that even when employment status imparts an affirmative effect on the self-appraisal of women, such self-perceptions are mediated by social or familial acceptance of the modified social or sex role of the employed woman and their internalized standards regarding the appropriateness of an independent job role for a woman. This brings us back to the original research idea: the prevalence of fear of success in urban, educated, and employed women.

General Discussion and Conclusion

According to Engle,²⁴ FoS often acts as a barrier in the smooth progression of a working woman’s career and may manifest as a disruptive force in her ability to complete a task. Environmental and social coercion to act as per gender roles and apprehended social rejection for the failure to do so create a sense of anxiety for women with respect to achieving success, and this, in turn, causes women to feel afraid to pursue a successful career or inhibit their aspirations and even capabilities. According to Barnett,²⁵ FoS is one of the basic factors that influence career success in women, and similar social coercive forces often worsen the motivation of women to climb the organizational ladder.²⁶ This brings forth the need to begin a dialogue on feminine gender and female work-related stressors. In the modern world, work-related stress has been recognized as one of the most significant occupational hazards.^27,28 Such stressors have been found to be associated with poor job satisfaction, a decline in job performance, absenteeism, the intention to leave the job, particularly for women, as well as family problems, diminished physical and psychological well-being, and reduced marital satisfaction.^29–33 This necessitates the development of family- and gender-friendly policies to improve gender balance in the labor force, well-being, and organizational effectiveness.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Ethical Approval

Institutional ethical committee approval was sought from the Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata West Bengal, India.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent

The participants recruited in the study were consented to the submission of the article to the journal.

References

Basu

. Development of the Indian Gender Role Identity Scale (IGRIS): psychometric properties and application. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol. 2010;36(1):25–34.

Carlson

, Kacmar

, Williams

. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. J Voc Behav. 2000;56:249–276. doi 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713.

Canavan-Gumpert

, Garner

, Gumpert

. The success fearing personality. Lexington: D. C. Heath & Company; 1978.

Freud

. Some character-types met within psychoanalytic work, 1915. In: Jones

, Editor Sigmund Freud selected Papers (Vol. 4). New York, NY: New York Basic Books; 1959.

Horney

. The neurotic personality of our time. New York, NY: W. W. Norton; 1937.

Mattis

. Organizational initiatives in the USA for advancing managerial women. In: Davidson

, Burke

, Editors. Women in management: Current research issues (pp. 261–277). London: Paul Chapman; 1994.

Kaur

, Kaur

. Relationship between fear of success and self-esteem: a study on middle management. Indian J Health Wellbeing. 2018;9:252–256.

Papalia

, Tennent

. Vocational aspirations in preschoolers: a manifestation of early sex role stereotyping. Sex Roles. 1975;1:197–199. doi: 10.1007/BF00289788.

Flippo

. Approaches to work-family role conflict in organizations. J Sociol Stud. 2005;10(2):48–59.

10.

Sari

. Work family conflict, fear of success, and organizational commitment in working women. HIKARI Ltd. 2018;4(2):71–82.

11.

Deaux

, Lewis

. Structure of gender stereotypes: interrelationships among components and gender labels. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;46(5):1991. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991.

12.

Biernat

. Gender stereotypes and the relationship between masculinity and femininity: A developmental analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(3):351–365. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.3.351.

13.

Yuan

, Liang

, Ren

, . Age moderates the effect of work-family conflict on life satisfaction among Chinese female employees: A propensity score matching method. Pers Individ Diff. 2022;185(2):111279. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111279.

14.

Wang

, Ma

, Guo

. Gender concept, work pressure, and work–family conflict. Am J Mens Health. 2020;14(5):1557988320957522.

15.

Kahn

, Wolfe

, Quinn

, . Organizational stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.

16.

Higgins

, Duxbury

, Lee

. Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Family Relat. 1994;43(2):144–150.

17.

Pratto

II . Constantinople (1973) and the Legacy of Empirical Feminism. Femin Psychol. 2005;15(4):415–423.

18.

Horner

. Sex differences in achievement motivation and performance in competitive and non-competitive situations, Ph.D. thesis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 1968.

19.

Horner

. Femininity and successful achievement: Basic inconsistency In: Bardwick

, Editor. Feminine Personality and Conflict, San Francisco, CA: Bros/Cole; 1970.

20.

Horner

. Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts in women. J Soc Issues. 1972;28(2):157–175.

21.

Zuckerman

, Wheeler

. To dispel fantasies about the fantasy-based measure of fear of success. Psychol Bull. 1975;82(6):932–946.

22.

Mandal

. Gender, Machiavellianism, study major, and fear of success. Polish Psychol Bull. 2007;38(1):40–49.

23.

Khot

, Dwivedi

. Self-esteem and self-efficacy: a comparative study of employed and unemployed women. Int J Indian Psychȯl. 2022;10(3):14.

24.

Eagle

. ‘Fear of Success Revisited’: A replication of Martina Horner’s Study 30 Years Later. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research, Chicago, IL; 2003.

25.

Barnett

. “Fear of Success”, Ph.D. thesis. Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University; 1991.

26.

Crawford

, Unger

. (2004). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (4th ed.), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

27.

Cummins

. Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support. Group Organ Stud. 1990;15:92–104. doi: 10.53819/81018102t6028.

28.

Spielberger

, Reheiser

. Measuring occupational stress: the job stress survey. In Perrewé

, Crandall

, Editors. Occupational stress: a handbook on job stress. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis; 1995.

29.

Jackson

, Schuler

. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1985;36(1):16–78.

30.

Ernst Kossek

, Ozeki

. Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(2):139–149.

31.

Frone

. Work-family balance. In Quick

, Tetrick

, Editors. Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003.

32.

Greenhaus

, Parasuraman

. Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In Powell

, Editor. Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1999.

33.

Greenhaus

, Beutell

. Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Acad Manage Rev. 1985;10(1):76–88.