Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 305-314 (1975)

Male-Female Differences in Occupational Attitudes within Minority Groups

ARTHUR P. BRIEF University of Kentucky

and

RAMON J. ALDAC University of Wisconsin, Madison

Few studies have considered sex differences in occupational attutudes in minority group samples. Evidence of interracial differences in occupa- tional attitudes, coupled with probably interracial differences in socialization processes, suggests that patterns of sex differences in occupational attitudes may not be invariant across races. Any such variations could contaminate interracial comparisons within sexes. The current study examined sex differences in occupational attitudes in two samples of poor minority group members. Differences regularly isolated in studies of whites were not evident. In both samples, rankings of preferences for work-related outcomes of males and females were remarkably similar.

Sex-related and race-related differences in occupational attitudes have been reported by numerous studies. However, relatively few investigators have examined the pattern of occupational attitudes between sexes within non- white groups.

The present study focuses on differing preferences for work-related outcomes between males and females among non-whites. Its purpose is to determine whether these differences mirror patterns isolated in previous studies. If the patterns of sex differences between races are not invariant, inter-racial comparisons among members of the same sex could be distorted.

Male-female differences. While some exceptions do exist, sex-related patterns have emerged concerning preferences for various work-related outcomes.

At least nine studies have found that women are more concerned with the social aspects of jobs than are men (Centers and Bugental, 1966; Converse and Robinson, 1972; Crowley, Levitin & Quinn, 1973; Gurin, 1970; Hardin,

Requests for reprints should be sent to A. P. Brief, College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.

305

Copyright @ 1975 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

306 BRIEF AND ALDAG

Reif & Heneman, 1951; Her&erg, Mausner, Peterson & Capwell, 1957; Jurgenson, 1947; Kilpatrick, Cummings & Jennings, 1964; Rosenberg, 1957).

In addition, men are reported to be more interested in pay than are women (Blum & Russ, 1942; Centers & Bugental, 1966; Converse & Robinson, 1972; Gilmer, 1957; Gurin, 1970; Hardin, Reif & Heneman, 1951; Lawler, 1971; Mayo, 1946). In general, studies tend to show that men place greater emphasis on career-related values (e.g., job security, advancement, freedom on the job) than do women, while women stress such things as working conditions, ease of work and performance of useful functions (e.g., Gurin, 1970; Robinson, Athanasiou & Head, 1969).

Exceptions to these generalizations are evident. In two attempts, Jurgensen (1947, 1948) did not find sex differences in the importance of pay. Crowley, Levitin and Quinn (1973), p. 25) conclude on the basis of their research that, “Women are not more satisfied with undemanding jobs or less concerned with a challenging job and the opportunity to advance than are men.” Burke (1966a, 1966b) noted similar patterns of job facet preferences among male and female students. When education and job level differences were controlled, Saleh and Lalljee (1969) found that significant sex differ- ences in job orientation disappeared. Finally, while it is often argued that work plays a more central role in the lives of men than women (Brayfield, Wells & Strate, 1957; Rosenberg, 1957; Vroom, 1964), there is also evidence that females have equal or higher occupational aspirations (Kuvlesky & Lever, 1967; Kuvlesky & Thomas, 1971; Middleton & Grigg, 1959; Sprey, 1962).

A commonly cited potential cause for differences in occupational attitudes as a function of sex is the manner in which the child is socialized (Douvan & Adelson, 1966). For example, Vroom (1964, p. 93) states:

The different values and occupational choices of men and women undoubtedly stem, at least in part, from differing patterns of socialization. Conceivably, boys, through identification with their fathers, are more likely to learn the desirability of being a “‘good provider” for one’s family, while girls may be more likely to acquire the “socioemotional” concerns of their mothers.

In an attempt to explain those studies reporting no sex differences, Crowley, Levitin and Quinn (1973, pp. 25, 26) extend the socialization argument by stating, “Learning and socialization do not stop with the end of childhood; adults learn and react to their contemporary situations, and their attitudes and motivations can change in response to new experiences, challenges, and demands.”

Merely counting the number of studies which report significant varia- tions between the sexes appears to yield a pattern of differences. However, the countervailing evidence signals some caution in blindly drawing this conclusion for all samples.

DIFFERENCES IN MINORITY GROUPS 307

Black-white differences. Ash (1972, p. 495) notes that few studies have dealt with the effects of ethnic group membership on job satisfaction and worker morale. He explains this situation by stating:

Until very recently, the doctrine of “merit employment” imposed a color-blind constraint on most industrial psychological research, com- pounded, in attitude surveys, by a strong effort to achieve credibility in the almostalways-made commitment to guard and protect respondent ano- nymity.

Even in light of Ash’s statements, enough evidence has accumulated to delineate patterns of black-white differences at least in reference to particular occupational attitudes. Periodically since 1962, the National Opinion Research Center, the Survey Research Center of the University of California, and the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan have consistently reported that a larger percentage of white respondents consider themselves satisfied workers than the corresponding percentage of black respondents within the national samples (Quinn, Staines & McCullough, 1974). While controlling for sex and occupation, Ash himself (1972) found whites to be more satisfied with their jobs than blacks.

More pertinent to this study’s immediate purposes is a 1972 work by Slocum and Strawser (1972). The researchers obtained need satisfaction data from a group of black certified public accountants (CPA’s) and a group of non-black CPA’s by means of the Porter (1961) questionnaire. In comparing the average importance scores for the 13 questionnaire items, Slocum and Strawser found differences on only three. The opportunity to help people, the opportunity for independent thought and action, and the opportunity for feelings of self-fulfillment were valued more by blacks than non-blacks.

Greenhaus and Gavin (1972) studied a group of black employees and a group of white employees drawn from the male blue-collar work force of a major airline. While controlling for age and tenure, no significant differences between the groups were evident in rated importance of 12 work rewards.

Given that patterns of black-white differences in occupational attitudes probably do exist, it still might be tenuous to firmly conclude that blacks consistently differ from whites in their preferences for work-related outcomes, especially in light of the two previously cited studies. Therefore, we concur with Arvey and Mussio (1974) Bloom and Barry (1967) and others in calling for renewed efforts to learn more about black workers and their perceptions of their work.

Race-sex interactions. To the extent that male-female differences in

occupational attitudes are attributable to a socialization process, the question of interracial differences in the processes of socialization becomes crucial. In fact, it would seem that variations in such processes between races may lead to the finding of interracial differences in occupational attitudes within sexes.

308 BRIEF AND ALDAG

Evidence does exist to suggest that race-sex interactions may be relevant. Thorpe (1969) found in a study of 1,493 students from North Carolina that while black girls aspired to professional or technical occupations more frequently than did black boys, white boys had higher aspirations than did white girls. Kirkpatrick (1973) notes of this finding that the interaction between race, class, and sex does not permit simple generalizations.

Grin (1970) in a study of 6,000 trainees enrolled in an institutional job training program examined the percentage of members of each race-sex subgroup that checked various options as “most important things in a job.” He found black females to check more frequently the opportunity for advancement, pay and security than did white females, while less frequently checking enjoyment of work and use of skills and abilities. Black males more frequently selected pay and security than did white males, while less frequently checking enjoyment of work and use of skills and abilities. Of particular interest is the fact that while seven significant male-female differ- ences were evident among whites, only social aspects and opportunity to learn new skills were significantly different among blacks. “Hard-core” programs were specifically excluded from the sample. Further, significant differences between races and between sexes were evident in terms of age, financial resources, number of children and marital status.

Sprey (1962) found in a study of ninth grade students in two cities that Negro boys showed significantly lower occupational aspirations than did white pupils or Negro girls. He argues:

. . . the Negro male faces a more unbalanced set of role expectations than his female counterpart. In a society in which the husband is still supposed to be the main economic support of his family, the Negro male faces a difficult problem in fultilling his obligations as a husband and father. . . .Negro boys can thus be expected to show a more deviant pattern of occupational choice than girls in corresponding socioeconomic cate- gories (p. 19).

Sprey adds, “Negro girls are expected to aim high occupationally, and to resist discrimination of any kind more forcefully and openly than the boys” (p. 20).

It is commonly concluded that matriarchal dominance of the family unit is more prevalent in the black than the white community (Bar&man, 1971). Such dominance might be expected to lead to a pattern of sex differences in occupational attitudes among blacks which is markedly dissimilar from that regularly evidenced among whites. The study reported here examines that possibility.

DIFFERENCES IN MINORITY GROUPS 309

METHOD

Subjects. Two subject groups were tested. Members of Group A were participants in a pre-employability program associated with a high school in a large southern city’s inner core. Subjects attended job-related classes in the morning and received on-the-job training in the afternoon. All subjects were black with an average age of 17.5 years. Most came from families receiving transfer payments. Thirty-one females and thirty-three males were included in the sample.

Members of Group B were participants in Harlem Teams for Self-Help, Inc., a preemployability program in New York City. This program was designed to provide full-time exposure to such subjects as reading, writing and arithmetic. All subjects were poor and received transfer payments. All subjects were non-whites. Thirtyeight females and fifty-five males, with an average age of 18.7 years, participated in the study.

Instruments. Preferences were operationalized in terms of the valences of second-level outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Five questions were developed to measure the valences of those outcomes associated with the job to which the trainee aspired at the completion of training. The job outcomes tapped were feelings concerning pay, social interactions, energy expenditure, production of goods and social status (Vroom, 1964). Six questions were developed to measure the valence of those outcomes derived more directly from partici- pating in the training program: feelings concerning wages from school attendance, security, social needs, self-respect, esteem of others and self- actualization (Maslow, 1954).

In addition, 11 questions were developed to gauge the perceived instrumentality of performance within the training program for the attainment of the outcomes specified (Vroom, 1964). Wanous (1972) has shown percep- tions of valence and instrumentality to relate significantly to actual occupa- tional preferences. Ail items were scaled from one (low valence/low instru- mentality) to nine (high valence/high instrumentality). Questionnaire administration took place in the classroom setting one month prior to program completion for both groups.

RESULTS

Average valence and instrumentality levels for each item for males and for females are presented for Groups A and B in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

310 BRIEF AND ALDAG

TABLE 1

Valences and Instrumentalities of Anticipated Job Outcomes and of School-Related Outcomes for Group A

Sex

Male Female

Anticipated Job Outcome Valences 1. Social Interaction 2. Energy Expenditure 3. Production of Goods 4. Social Status 5. Wages

School-Related Outcome Valences 6. Wages from School Attendance I. Security 8. Social Needs 9. Self-Respect

10. Esteem of Others 11. Self-Actualization

Anticipated Job Outcome Instrumentalities 1. Social Interaction 2. Energy Expenditure 3. Production of Goods 4. Social Status 5. Wages

School-Related Outcome Instrumentalities 6. Wages from School Attendance 7. Security 8. Social Needs 9. Self-Respect

10. Esteem of Others 11. Self-Actualization

1.69 7.66 5.41 3.69 6.78

4.06 6.31 5.38 1.91 6.38 4.06

5.84 5.13 6.03 6.12 6.91

5.31 6.22 5.69 7.59 6.41 4.63

7.43 7.91 5.67 4.63 1.41

5.03 7.30 5.70 8.67 7.50 4.61

5.90 5.70 7.17 1.13 1.41

5.17 6.11 4.13 7.51 7.31 4.13

For Group A, no significant differences are evident between mean scores of males and females on any of the 11 valence or 11 instrumentality items. For Group B, only the mean scores for valence of the social interaction item are significantly different (p < .05). Contrary to the findings of previous studies, however, it is mtlles for whom valence of social interactipn is seen to be most important. Given the large number of comparisons, the finding of at least one significant difference would have been expected to occur by chance.

Of further interest is comparison of rankings of valences and of instrumentalities for males and females in each sample. Table 3 presents Spearman rank correlation coefficients, T,, between rankings of males and of females in each sample. Rankings appear to be remarkably similar between the sexes, with coefficients ranging from .77 to 97.

DIFFERENCES IN MINORITY GROUPS 311

TABLE 2

Valences and Instrumentalities of Anticipated Job Outcomes and of School-Related Outcomes for Group B

Sex

Male Female

Anticipated Job Outcome Valences 1. Social Interaction 2. Energy Expenditure 3. Production of Goods 4. Social Status 5. Wages

School-Related Outcome Valences 6. Wages from School Attendance I. security 8. Social Needs 9. Self-Respect

10. Esteem of Others 11. Self-Actualization

Anticipated Job Outcome Instrumentalities 1. Social Interaction 2. Energy Expenditure 3. Production of Goods 4. Social Status 5. Wages

School-Related Outcome Instrumentalities 6. Wages from School Attendance 7. Security 8. Social Needs 9. Self-Respect

10. Esteem of Others 11. Self-Actualization

7.56 7.18 8.35 8.50 5.80 5.68 3.65 3.55 6.47 5.58

5.27 4.95 8.02 7.41 5.64* 4.05* 8.42 8.55 7.71 7.66 7.18 7.11

6.73 6.13 7.13 6.76 6.96 7.42 7.40 7.55 8.42 8.21

5.42 5.55 6.93 1.37 6.25 5.97 8.09 1.32 7.76 7.42 7.09 6.11

*Difference in means is signiftcant at .05 level, two tailed.

TABLE 3

Rank Correlation Coefficients Between Mean Scores of Males and Females

Group

A (Southern) B (Harlem)

Valences

Instrumentalities

*p < .OOl, two-tailed.

.77* .97*

.93* .92* -

312 BRIEF AND ALDAG

DISCUSSION

The chief aim of this research was to examine whether the pattern of male-female differences in occupational attitudes regularly evidenced in studies of whites would be duplicated among minority group members. The literature reviewed suggested that such patterns are quite likely the result of socializa- tion processes which lead the male to perceive his role as that of the “breadwinner” while the female learns to adopt a socioemotional role. Studies suggesting the importance of sex-race interactions, coupled with the commonly held beliefs concerning matriarchal dominance among blacks, led to the expectation that findings among minority group members might be different from those regularly reported for whites. Such differences could have important implications for various purposes, such as interpretation of inter- racial comparisons within sexes.

Rank correlation coefficients between average scores of males and of females were remarkably similar for valences and for instrumentalities in each of two minority group samples. The only significant difference, that between valences of social interactions of males and females in Group B, was in the opposite direction of that regularly noted.

At least two issues should be addressed in assessing these results. First, it could be argued that the similarity of rankings for males and females is the result of the common training experience to which they had been subjected. However, such similarities have not been evidenced in white samples under- going common training programs, academic experiences, or occupational pressures. Further, to assert that a short training program could mold a wide range of previously dissimilar attitudes of males and females into such remarkable congruence seems unreasonable. Nevertheless, it is not inconceiv- able that congruence was heightened by the program.

Second, it might appear that to compare these findings with those based on white samples is inconclusive unless the samples being compared are matched on relevant characteristics. However, such a line of reasoning evades the central theme of the analysis. It is not the contention of the writers that perfectly matched samples of blacks and whites would exhibit dissimilar patterns of sex differences. Rather, the point is that important differences in income levels, socialization processes and other variables generally exist between blacks and whites. The great majority of studies focusing on whites are based on samples markedly dissimilar on relevant attributes from the majority of blacks. In particular, it is the contention of this paper that the constellation of factors commonly influencing whites would be expected to lead to a fairly distinct pattern of differences between sexes, while for blacks-and especially poor blacks-those forces would be far less compelling. A matched sample would thus be useful only for examinations of innate, not acquired, differences.

DIFFERENCES IN MINORITY GROUPS 313

The results of this study suggest that important moderators of occupa- tional attitudes exist which cannot be discounted in consideration of male- female differences. While determination of the exact roles of income level, socialization processes, sex stereotypes and other factors must await further research, it is clear that automatic assumption of a particular pattern of differences in occupational attitudes between sexes is simplistic.

REFERENCES

Arvey, R. D., & Mussio, S. J. Job expectations and valences of job rewards for culturally disadvantaged and advantaged clerical employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 127-134.

Ash, P. Job satisfaction differences among women of different ethnic groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1972, 2, 495-507.

Baughman, E. E. Black Americans. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Bloom, R., & Barry, J. R. Determinants of work attitudes among negroes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 291-294. Blum, M. L., & Russ, J. I. A study of employee attitudes toward various incentives.

Personnel Psychology, 1942, 19, 438444. Brayfield, A. H., Well, R. V., & Strate, N. W. interrelationships among measures of job

satisfaction and general satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 195 7, 41, 201-205.

Burke, R. Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the opposite sex. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 102, 27-37. (a).

Burke, R. Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the same sex and the opposite sex. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 102, 3746. (b).

Centers, R.,& Bugental, D. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 193-197.

Converse, P., & Robinson, J. The structure and meaning of time use. In Converse, Szalai, and others (Eds.), The use of time. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton, 1972.

Crowley, 3. E., Levitin, T. E., & Quinn, R. P. Facts and fictions about the American working woman, 1973. Mimeo.

Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. Gilmer, B. V. H. Psychological aspects of women in industry. Personnel Psychology,

1957, 10,439-452. Greenhaus, J. H., & Gavin, J. F. The relationship between expectancies and job behavior

for white and black employees. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 449-455. Gurin, G. A National Attitude Study of Trainees in MDTA Institutional Programs. Ann

Arbor, Ml: Survey Research Center, The University of Michigan, 1970. Hardin, E., Reif, H. G., & Heneman, H. G. Stability of job preferences of department

store employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1951, 35, 256-259. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. 0.. & Capwell, D. I;. Job attitudes: Review of

research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957. Jurgensen, C. E. Selected factors which influence job preferences. Journal of Applied

Psychologv, 1947, 31, 553-563. Jurgensen, C. E. What applicants look for in a company. Personnel Psychology, 1948, 1,

433445.

314 BRIEF AND ALDAG

Kilpatrick, F., Cummings, M., & Jennings, M. The image of the federal service. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1964.

Kirkpatrick, J. J. Occupational aspirations, opportunities, and barriers. In Miller and Dreger (Fds.), Comparative studies of blacks and whites in the United States. New York: Seminar Press, 1973.

Kuvlesky, W. P., & Lever, M. Occupational status orientations of negro youth: Structured annotations and evaluations of the research literature. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Depart- mental Technical Report 67-2, 1967.

Kuvlesky, W. P., & Thomas, K. A. Social ambitions of negro boys and girls from a metropolitan ghetto. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 197 1, 1, 177-l 87.

Lawler, E. E. Pay and organizational effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 197 1. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Bras., 1954. Mayo, E. The human problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School, Division of Research, 1946. Middleton, R., & Grigg, C. M. Rural-urban differences in aspirations. Rural sociology,

1959, 24, 347-354. Porter, L. A. A study of perceived need satisfaction in bottom and middle management

jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, l-10. Quinn, R. P., Staines, G. L., & McCullough, M. R. Job satisfaction: Is there a trend?

Manpower Research Monograph No. 30, Washington, DC: Manpower Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Labor, 1974.

Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B. Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1969.

Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values, Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957. Saleh, S., & Lalljee, M. Sex and job orientation. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22,

465471. Slocum, J. W., Jr., & Strawser, R. H. Racial differences in job attitudes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 28-32. Sprey, J. Sex differences in occupational choice patterns among negro adolescents. Social

Problems, 1962, 10, 11-22. Thorpe, C. B. Status, race, and aspiration: A study of the desire of high school students

to enter a professional or a technical occupation. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 29 (10-A), 3672 (Abstract).

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Wanous, J. P. Occupational preferences: Perceptions of valence and instrumentality and

objective data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 152-155.

Received: June 28, 1974.