1998
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.996
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people–things dimension.

Abstract: In 3 studies (respective Ns = 289, 394, and 1,678), males and females were assessed on Big Five traits, masculine instrumentality (M), feminine expressiveness (F), gender diagnosticity (GD), and RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) vocational interest scales. Factor analyses of RIASEC scores consistently showed evidence for D.J. Prediger's (1982) People-Things and Ideas-Data dimensions, and participants' factor scores on these dimensions were computed. In all studies … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
251
1
9

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 309 publications
(282 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
21
251
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…This may be because differences in orientations toward people and things (Dunteman, Wisenbaker, & Taylor, 1978;Lippa, 1998) play a role even among students who have chosen engineering majors. If male engineering students frequently express their love of technology, as they often noted in their open-ended comments, it may raise questions of belongingness for women who do not share this enthusiasm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be because differences in orientations toward people and things (Dunteman, Wisenbaker, & Taylor, 1978;Lippa, 1998) play a role even among students who have chosen engineering majors. If male engineering students frequently express their love of technology, as they often noted in their open-ended comments, it may raise questions of belongingness for women who do not share this enthusiasm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Women more often work in fields where interactions with other persons are necessary (Lippa, 1998), girls' play behavior is more oriented towards dolls than towards mechanical toys (Collaer & Hines, 1995), and girls and women have deeper and more sustained face-to-face friendships, especially with other females (Sherman et al, 2000). Further, girls and women more accurately discriminate between facial emotions than men do (McClure, 2000) and women more accurately remember people's names (Kaess & Witroll, 1955).…”
Section: Explanations For Sex Differences In Face Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former reflect stable and deep-rooted differences between men and women in their preferences for particular types of tasks, but especially for caring, nurturing, and interactin g with people as opposed to objects. Ceci et al (2009) provide no new evidence in support of this essentiali st claim, but their interpretive review identifies ''pronounced sex differences in occupationa l preferenc es that occur along a 'people-to-obje ct' dimension (Lippa, 1998 ): Women are more likely to pursue people-oriented or organic fields, whereas men with similar mathematics and science ability tend to pursue object-orien ted fields (Webb et al, 2007 ;see Lippa, 2005 , for a review).'' The research reported in these citations 4 Not all STEM majors wind up in STEM occupations (see, e.g., Sassler et al, n.d.); and, conversely, some pathways into the science pipeline emerge late in educational careers (Xie and Shauman, 2003 ).…”
Section: Pipeline and Life Course Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%