summary

double space。2pg

MLA

Psychological Science
21(8) 1051 –105

7

© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/095679761037734

2

http://pss.sagepub.com

Women remain a minority in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), both in the United
States (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009) and internationally
(National Science Board, 2002). Women’s absence from
STEM is particularly puzzling, given their increased presence
in other traditionally male-dominated fields, such as medicine
or law. We present a new perspective on this issue by propos-
ing that interest in some careers and disinterest in others results
from the intersection of people’s goals and their preconcep-
tions of the goals afforded by different careers. We hypothe-
size that people perceive STEM careers as being especially
incompatible with communion, or an orientation to care about
other people (Bakan, 1966). Because women in particular tend
to endorse communal goals, they may be more likely than men
to opt out of STEM careers in favor of careers that seem to
afford communion.

Several critical factors contribute to women’s underrepre-
sentation in STEM, including gender differences in self-efficacy,
differential encouragement to pursue careers in science and
mathematics, and cultural stereotypes (e.g., for reviews, see
Ceci & Williams, 2007; Halpern et al., 2007; Spelke, 2005).
However, an examination of career trends in the United States

between 1959 and 2007 (see Table 1) reveals that the nearly
exclusive focus on agentic explanations, such as those based
on competence or achievement, is incomplete. Women have
increased their presence at the highest levels of a range of
fields, but their gains in male-stereotypic, non-STEM fields
surpass their gains in STEM fields (Snyder et al., 2009). For
example, women earn approximately 20% to 30% of the highest
degrees in STEM, whereas they approach equality with men in
non-STEM fields such as medicine, business, and law. Women’s
substantial gains in these latter fields have occurred even though
medicine requires a scientific background, and these careers
were all at one time almost exclusively male dominated.

These trends suggest that to explain women’s absence in
STEM fields, research should focus on factors that differenti-
ate careers in STEM from other careers. We hypothesize that a
critical but relatively unexplored factor may be that many non-
STEM careers are perceived as fulfilling communal goals,

Corresponding Author:
Amanda B. Diekman, Department of Psychology, Miami University, 90 N.
Patterson, Oxford, OH 45056
E-mail: diekmaa@muohio.edu

Seeking Congruity Between Goals and
Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt
Out of Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics Careers

Amanda B. Diekman, Elizabeth R. Brown, Amanda M. Johnston,
and Emily K. Clark
Miami University

Abstract
Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented
in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We argue that one important reason for this discrepancy
is that STEM careers are perceived as less likely than careers in other fields to fulfill communal goals (e.g., working with or helping
other people). Such perceptions might disproportionately affect women’s career decisions, because women tend to endorse
communal goals more than men. As predicted, we found that STEM careers, relative to other careers, were perceived to impede
communal goals. Moreover, communal-goal endorsement negatively predicted interest in STEM careers, even when controlling
for past experience and self-efficacy in science and mathematics. Understanding how communal goals influence people’s interest
in STEM fields thus provides a new perspective on the issue of women’s representation in STEM careers.

Keywords

gender, goals, occupational choice, science education, sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics

Received 10/2/09; Revision accepted 1/8/10

Research Report

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

1052 Diekman et al.

such as working with or helping other people. In contrast,
STEM careers may elicit thoughts of the “lone scientist” or
technology and machinery. This “communion gap” may par-
ticularly influence women’s STEM decisions, because women
tend to endorse communal goals more than men.

A Role Congruity Perspective
We posit that social roles are critical to understanding people’s
reasons for pursuing STEM careers. First, broader gender
roles in a society influence the goals of individuals in that
society (Diekman & Eagly, 2008). For example, men have tra-
ditionally occupied leadership or breadwinner roles associated
with a focus on agency, or self-orientation, whereas women
have traditionally fulfilled caretaking roles associated with
communion, or other-orientation (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman,
2000). Women are increasingly adopting agentic attributes as
they take on male-stereotypic roles (e.g., Twenge, 2001).
Moreover, research suggests that, consistent with their contin-
ued presence in female-stereotypic roles, women are main-
taining high levels of communion: Meta-analyses find that
women more often than men report tender-mindedness and
warmth (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001), as well as
benevolent and universalist values (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005).

Second, according to role congruity theory (Diekman &
Eagly, 2008), specific social roles form an opportunity struc-
ture that individuals navigate as they pursue their goals. Indi-
viduals therefore select specific roles, such as occupational or
family roles, that fulfill important goals. For example, a meta-
analysis of job attribute preferences showed that the largest
gender differences are women’s greater preference for helping

other people (d = −0.35) and working with people (d = −0.36;
Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000). Women and more
feminine individuals favor working with people over things, and
this preference predicts differing vocational interests (Lippa,
1998). The greater the value that women place on people-oriented
or society-oriented occupations, the greater their preference for
health-related careers is, even controlling for their expectations
of success in science (Eccles, 2007). Similarly, girls who per-
ceive science to be consistent with altruism tend to show interest
in scientific careers (Weisgram & Bigler, 2006).

Applying these role congruity principles (Diekman &
Eagly, 2008), we argue that careers vary in the goals they are
believed to afford. We propose that women’s communal goal
orientation intersects with beliefs that STEM careers do not
involve helping or working with other people, with the result
that even scientifically talented women frequently choose
other careers―ones they believe will allow them to fulfill
their communal goals.

Overview
In the research presented in this article, we adopted a novel
perspective to explain women’s avoidance of STEM careers,
because research and policy generally focus on how to align
women and girls more closely with men and boys, primarily by
increasing the self-efficacy or the experience of women in
mathematics and science. However, a critical piece of the
career-choice puzzle is that STEM careers may be perceived to
be incompatible with communion. If women value communal
goals, they may therefore avoid STEM careers. We thus exam-
ined (a) whether communal-goal affordances are perceived to
differ between STEM and other careers, and (b) whether
communal-goal endorsement inhibits STEM interest, given
consensual beliefs about the goals these careers afford.

Method
Participants

Participants were 333 introductory psychology students (193
women, 140 men) who participated for partial course credit,
and 27 paid participants (14 women, 13 men) from STEM
classes. The majority (86.94%) were of European American
descent. The median age was 19 years, and ages ranged from
18 years to 43 years.

Measures
As part of a larger study, participants completed randomly
ordered measures of goal endorsement, career interest, and
self-efficacy. Participants then provided goal-affordance
ratings and information about their mathematics and science
experience.

Table 1. Temporal Trends in the Percentage of Female Terminal-
Degree Holders in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Fields

Field 1959–1960 2006–2007

Non-STEM, male-stereotypic
Dentistry 0.80% 44.56%
Medicine 5.50% 49.22%
Law 2.49% 47.62%
Business 1.48% 41.45%

STEM

Engineering 0.38% 20.94%
Mathematics, statistics 5.94% 29.76%
Physical sciences and science

technologies
3.37% 31.55%

Computer science and informa-
tion technologiesa

2.34% 20.56%

Note: Data were compiled from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2008
(Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2009).
aFor computer science and information technologies, the earlier time period
is 1970–1971, the first year for which degree data are available.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

Congruity Between Goals and Roles 105

3

Career items. Our goal was to determine predictors of dif-
ferential interest in STEM, male-stereotypic/non-STEM
(MST), and female-stereotypic (FST) careers. To create scales
reflecting these different stereotypic categories, we used archi-
val and primary data. We generated a pool of careers likely to
be attractive to college participants, and we included male-
dominated (> 65% men) and female-dominated (> 65%
women) careers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). STEM
careers were identified from the male-dominated group fol-
lowing accepted definitions of STEM as natural-physical sci-
ences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (e.g., Chen
& Weko, 2009). Table 2 presents these core careers.

To ensure the stereotypicality of these groupings, we car-
ried out a factor analysis (promax rotation) of participants’
estimated percentages of women in these core careers. The
resulting scree plot revealed a three-factor solution, reflecting
the a priori groups: STEM careers, FST careers, and MST
careers. As shown in Table 2, each item loaded at least .30 on
its respective factor. In the rare cases of double loadings, the
higher loading was matched to the a priori grouping based on
archival data (i.e., architect and physician as male-stereotypic,
human resources manager as female-stereotypic). Addition-
ally, two coders blind to hypotheses categorized careers with
good interrater reliability (κ = .77).

Perceived goal affordance. For each core career, partici-
pants rated how much they considered the career to fulfill
agentic goals (power, achievement, and seeking new experi-
ences or excitement; Pohlmann, 2001) and communal goals
(intimacy, affiliation, and altruism; Pohlmann, 2001). Ratings
were completed on 7-point scales, from 1 (not at all) to 7
(extremely). We averaged ratings within each career type to
produce agentic-goal-affordance scales (α

STEM
= .79, α

FST
=

.76,

α
MST

= .72) and communal-goal-affordance scales
(α

STEM
= .80, α

FST
= .78, α

MST
= .53).

Career interest. Because career interest was our critical
dependent measure, participants rated their interest in the core
careers, as well as additional careers (selected from archival
data as described in the Career Items section). Participants
rated their interest in these careers on a 7-point scale from 1
(not at all) to 7 (extremely). To construct interest scales using
the core careers and the additional careers, we added a career
if its interest rating correlated highly with interest in one of the
three career types (STEM, FST, MST), based on the interest
averaged over the core careers. The resulting interest scales
thus included the items presented in Table 2 as well as the fol-
lowing careers: for STEM, industrial engineer, chemical engi-
neer, electrical engineer, and network and computer systems
administrator; for MST, chief executive, surgeon, chiroprac-
tor, and pediatrician; and for FST, elementary-school teacher,
administrative assistant, therapist, and health-services advo-
cate. Each scale showed high internal consistency (α

STEM
= .92,

α
MST

= .84, α
FST

= .80).

1

Goal endorsement. Participants rated several goals accord-
ing to “how important each of the following kinds of goals is
to you personally,” on scales ranging from 1 (not at all impor-
tant) to 7 (extremely important). Indices of agentic-goal and
communal-goal endorsements were created by averaging the
results within each scale (see Table 3): After examining the
scree plot, we chose a two-factor solution, with agentic goals
loading on the first factor and communal goals on the second
factor. All retained items loaded at least .30 on their respective
factors (resulting in the dropping of one item, other-oriented).
Agentic and communal goals were not significantly correlated
across the sample, r(359) = .08, p = .15. For women, no rela-
tionship appeared, r(206) = .04, p = .60, and for men, the rela-
tionship approached conventional levels of significance,
r(152) = .14, p = .08.

Self-efficacy and experience. Measures of self-efficacy
included the scientific, mechanical, and computational sub-
scales of the Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale (Lucas, Wanberg,
& Zytowski, 1997), αs > .83, as well as participants’ estimated
grades in STEM classes (α = .86). These scales were standardized
and averaged to produce a single self-efficacy index (α = .86).
Total enrollment in mathematics and science courses was

Table 2. Factor Analysis of Estimated Gender Representation in
Selected Careers

Factor

Career grouping (a priori) STEM MST FST

STEM
Mechanical engineer .73 –.02 –.0

5

Computer scientist .73 –.01 –.09
Aerospace engineer .77 .09 –.05
Environmental scientist .63 –.08 .2

4

MST
Lawyer .22 .58 .0

6

Architect .36 .44 –.01
Dentist .26 .49 –.04
Physician –.37 .79 –.01
FST
Preschool or kindergarten

teacher
–.18 –.06 .73

Human resources manager .09 .28 .31
Social worker .05 .14 .68
Education administrator .14 .31 .47
Registered nurse –.00 –.16 .68

Note: A factor analysis of estimates of women in the core careers sup-
ported their a priori grouping as science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) careers; male-stereotypic/non-STEM (MST) careers;
and female-stereotypic (FST) careers, as shown by the higher factor load-
ing when each career’s a priori grouping matched the emergent factor
(loadings in boldface type).

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

1054 Diekman et al.

obtained by summing the number of these courses participants
had taken or were taking.

Results
First, we examined whether people perceive STEM careers, ver-
sus other careers, as uniquely inhibiting the attainment of com-
munal goals, relative to agentic goals. Second, we examined
whether communal-goal endorsement was differentially related
to interest in STEM relative to other careers, based on these dis-
parate perceptions. Third, we tested whether endorsement of
communal goals mediated gender differences in STEM interest.

STEM careers are believed to
impede communal goals
Data were analyzed in a 2 (goal) × 3 (career type) × 2 (partici-
pant gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with participant
gender as a between-subjects factor. Main and lower-order
effects were omitted from this summary for brevity, and the
effect sizes for critical interactions were calculated in the gen-
eralized eta-squared statistic (Bakeman, 2005).

The hypothesized Goal × Career Type interaction,
F(2, 716) = 730.69, p < .0001, η2

G
= .31, is depicted in

Figure 1. For communal goals, the simple effect of career
type, F(2, 716) = 741.55, p < .0001, η2

G
= .53, reflected par-

ticipants’ perceptions that STEM careers afford communion
significantly less than MST careers, which in turn afford
communion less than FST careers, all ps < .0001. For agen- tic goals, the simple effect of career type, F(2, 716) = 142.58, p < .0001, η2

G
= .14, reflected participants’ perceptions that

FST careers afforded agency less than STEM careers, which
in turn afforded less agency than MST careers, all ps < .0001.

To compare STEM and MST careers, we conducted a 2
(goal) × 2 (career type: STEM or MST) × 2 (gender) ANOVA
with gender as a between-subjects factor. As reflected in the
Goal × Career Type interaction, F(1, 358) = 131.77, p < .0001, η2

G
= .04, MST and STEM careers differed more on

communal goals, F(1, 358) = 351.70, p < .0001, η2 G = .25,

than on agentic goals, F(1, 358) = 31.84, p < .0001, η2 G =

.02. In short, MST careers differ from STEM careers more
in communion than in agency.

Communal-goal endorsement negatively
predicts STEM interest
Given these robust differences in perceived goal affordances,
we examined whether communal-goal endorsement differen-
tially predicted interest in specific careers. Communal-goal
endorsement was expected to negatively predict interest in
STEM careers (believed to impede communal-goal pursuit)
but to positively predict interest in FST careers (believed to
afford communal-goal pursuit). For agentic goals, we expected
a different pattern, but one consistent with role congruity
logic. In this case, we expected agentic-goal endorsement to
positively predict interest in male-dominated careers (STEM
and non-STEM) but to negatively predict interest in FST careers.

To explore these hypotheses, we regressed career interest
on participant gender, communal- and agentic-goal endorse-
ments, and all interactions (see Table 4). As predicted, for
STEM careers, communal-goal endorsement significantly
inhibited interest and agentic-goal endorsement facilitated
interest. For MST careers, agentic-goal endorsement facili-
tated interest but communal-goal endorsement had no effect.
For FST careers, communal goals facilitated interest and agen-
tic goals inhibited interest.2

Table 3. Resulting Goal-Endorsement Factors: Agentic and
Communal Goals

Agentic goals (α = .87) Communal goals (α = .84)

Power Helping others
Recognition Serving humanity
Achievement Serving community
Mastery Working with people
Self-promotion Connection with others
Independence Attending to others
Individualism Caring for others
Status Intimacy
Focus on the self Spiritual rewards
Success
Financial rewards
Self-direction
Demonstrating skill or competence
Competition

Note: A factor analysis of goal-endorsement items supported two distinct
factors: agentic goals and communal goals. Cronbach’s alphas indicate high
internal consistency within each scale.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
STEM

Li
ke

lih
oo

d
of

G
oa

l F
ul

fil
lm

en
t

Career Type

Communal Goals Agentic Goals

Female-
Stereotypic

Male-
Stereotypic

Fig. 1. Participants’ mean ratings of the likelihood that communal and agentic
goals would be fulfilled by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) careers; male-stereotypic careers; and female-stereotypic careers.
Error bars reflect standard deviations.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

Congruity Between Goals and Roles 1055

We found that communal-goal endorsement differentially
predicted interest across the three career types (see Fig. 2),
which was consistent with our primary hypothesis. We statisti-
cally compared these slopes by regressing discrepancies
between interest in STEM and interest in other careers on gen-
der, goals, and all interactions. In other words, we examined
whether the divergent interest in STEM careers versus other
careers was differentially related to communal-goal endorse-
ment. Communal-goal endorsement predicted the discrep-
ancy between STEM and FST careers, b = 0.85, p < .0001, β = 0.43, as well as the discrepancy between STEM and MST careers, b = 0.34, p < .001, β = 0.23.

Self-efficacy and experience
We also tested whether communal-goal endorsement inhibited
STEM interest even when controlling for mathematics-science
experience and self-efficacy. We regressed STEM interest on
gender, goal endorsements, and new variables reflecting past

and current enrollment in STEM courses and STEM self-
efficacy. We found that self-efficacy significantly predicted
interest, b = 0.83, p < .0001, β = 0.56, whereas course enroll- ment did not, b = 0.00, p = .57, β = 0.02.

We find it particularly important that communal-goal
endorsement was significant, even when controlling for par-
ticipants’ self-efficacy or experience: Communal-goal
endorsement negatively predicted STEM interest, b = −0.19,
p = .001, β = −0.13. In contrast, agentic-goal endorsement
was reduced to nonsignificance, p = .16. Even though self-
efficacy is a robust predictor of STEM interest, communal-
goal endorsement predicts STEM interest above and beyond
self-efficacy.

Communal goals mediate gender
differences in STEM interest
To investigate whether communal goals underlie gender dif-
ferences in STEM interest, we conducted a series of path anal-
yses (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). As shown in Figure 3,
gender predicted communal-goal endorsement (women more
than men endorsed communal goals), communal goals predicted
STEM interest, and the relationship between gender and
STEM interest decreased when controlling for communal-
goal endorsement, Sobel Ζ = 2.08, p = .04.

In addition to this mediational model, we tested alternative
models, and the pattern of results suggested that communal-goal
endorsement uniquely underlies STEM interests. One alterna-
tive tested whether agentic goals mediate the gender difference
in STEM interest. This mediation failed because gender did not
predict agentic goals, p = .34. Another model tested whether
communal goals mediate the gender difference in interest in
MST careers. This model failed because communal goals did
not predict interest in MST careers, p = .24. The success of the
communal-goals/STEM model, compared with these alterna-
tives, suggests that communal-goal endorsement might uniquely
explain women’s disinterest in pursuing STEM careers.

Table 4. Predicting Career Interest From Goal Endorsement

STEM careers
(R2 = .17***)

Male-stereotypic
careers

(R2 = .10***)

Female-stereotypic
careers

(R2 = .21***)

Predictor b β b β b β

Gender 0.80*** 0.32 0.23† 0.10 –0.51*** –0.21
Communal goals –0.35*** –0.25 –0.01 –0.01 0.50*** 0.37
Agentic goals 0.18† 0.12 0.25* 0.17 –0.30** –0.22
Communal Goals × Gender 0.24† 0.11 0.13 0.06 –0.06 –0.03
Agentic Goals × Gender –0.01 –0.00 0.31* 0.14 0.15 0.07
Communal Goals × Agentic Goals –0.05 –0.03 –0.08 –0.06 0.13 0.09
Gender × Communal Goals × Agentic Goals –0.02 –0.01 0.28† 0.14 –0.18 –0.09

Note: STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

–1 SD +1 SD

C
ar

ee
r

In
te

re
st

Communal-Goal Endorsement

Female-Stereotypic Careers
Male-Stereotypic Careers
STEM Careers

Fig. 2. Interest in female-stereotypic, male-stereotypic, and science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers as a function of
endorsement of communal goals.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

1056 Diekman et al.

General Discussion

Understanding communal motivations can provide unique
information about why women opt out of STEM career paths.
STEM careers are perceived as inhibiting communal goals:
When individuals highly endorse communal goals, they are
less interested in STEM. If women perceive STEM as antitheti-
cal to highly valued goals, it is not surprising that even women
talented in these areas might choose alternative career paths.
Certainly, traditionally studied predictors of STEM interest,
such as agentic motivations or self-efficacy, continue to be
critical factors, as illustrated in our data. Our argument is not
that the study of communal motivations should replace agentic
motivations or self-efficacy, but that this traditional approach
overlooks critically important information. Indeed, studying
communal motives along with other variables is promising,
because the current data illustrate that communal motives pro-
vide a distinct explanation of STEM interest. Given the impor-
tance of increasing participation in STEM, a range of
approaches should be used to address the challenge. Even small
effects of communal motivation could lead to women opting
out of STEM careers, especially if such small effects accumu-
late over time (e.g., Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996).

It is ironic that STEM fields hold the key to helping many
people, but are commonly regarded as antithetical (or, at best,
irrelevant) to such communal goals. However, the first step
toward change is increasing knowledge about this belief and
its consequences. Interventions could not only provide oppor-
tunities for girls and young women to succeed in mathematics
and science but also demonstrate how STEM fields involve
helping and collaborating with other people. For example, our
current research investigates how portraying science or engi-
neering careers as more other-oriented fosters positivity.
Indeed, science-related fields with the greatest influx of
women are those that are most obviously involved in helping
people, such as psychological science and the biomedical sci-
ences (Snyder et al., 2009). Psychological science could play
a desperately needed role in helping people understand why

STEM paths are chosen or, more often, not chosen (New-
combe et al., 2009). If one barrier to the participation of
women in particular is a perceived misalignment between
STEM and communal goals, psychological science can help
change this perception.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by Grant NSF-GSE/RES 0827606 to
Amanda Diekman.

Notes

1. Analyses of interest in the core careers showed patterns similar to
those reported in the Results section. MST interest moderately cor-
related with STEM interest, r(359) = .43, and FST interest, r(359) = .33.
STEM interest did not correlate with FST interest, r(359) = −.06.
2. Tentative evidence for gender-differentiated goal-interest relation-
ships emerged. For STEM, the marginal Communal Goals × Gender
interaction, p = .10, reflected a stronger inhibitory effect of communal-
goal endorsement on STEM interest for women than for men. For
MST careers, the Agentic Goals × Gender interaction, p = .05,
reflected a stronger effect of agentic goals for men than for women;
the Agentic Goals × Communal Goals × Gender interaction, p = .08,
reflected a stronger interaction between agentic and communal goals
for men than for women.

References

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psy-
chology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated
measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.

Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women
in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Chen, X., & Weko, T. (2009). Students who study science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary educa-
tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.

Costa, P.T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). Gender dif-
ferences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surpris-
ing findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
322–331.

Diekman, A.B., & Eagly, A.H. (2008). Of men, women, and moti-
vation: A role congruity account. In J.Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New
York: Guilford.

Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory
of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes
& H.M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of
gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J.S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in
participation in physical science and engineering. In S.J. Ceci &

Communal-Goal
Endorsement

Gender STEM Interest
Unmediated: 0.82 (0.34)***
Mediated: 0.76 (0.32)***

–0.25 (–0.14)** –0.24 (–0.18)***

Fig. 3. Results of a path analysis of endorsement of communal goals as
a mediator of the relationship between gender and interest in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. Unstandardized
regression coefficients are given outside of parentheses, and standardized
regression coefficients are given in parentheses. Asterisks indicate significance
of relationships (**p < .01, ***p < .001). Participant gender was dummy- coded (1 = men, 0 = women).

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/

Congruity Between Goals and Roles 1057

W.M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top
researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C.P., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S., &
Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007). The science of sex differences in sci-
ence and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
8, 1–51.

Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in
social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 233–265). New York: Oxford University Press.

Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E.J., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex
differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641.

Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the struc-
ture of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things
dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
996–1009.

Lucas, J.L., Wanberg, C.R., & Zytowski, D.G. (1997). Development
of a career task self-efficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy
Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 432–459.

Martell, R.F., Lane, D.M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female
differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51,
157–158.

National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indica-
tors—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Newcombe, N.S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J.S., Gomez, D., Linn, M.,
Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology’s role in mathematics
and science education. American Psychologist, 64, 538–550.

Pohlmann, K. (2001). Agency- and communion-orientation in life
goals: Impacts on goal pursuit strategies and psychological well-
being. In P. Schmuck & K.M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and
well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving
(pp. 68–84). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Schwartz, S.H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priori-
ties: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.

Snyder, T.D., Dillow, S.A., & Hoffman, C.M. (2009). Digest of edu-
cation statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
tics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Spelke, E.S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics
and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958.

Twenge, J.M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response
to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Women in the labor force: A data-
book (2009 ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Weisgram, E.S., & Bigler, R.S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The
role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Jour-
nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326–348.

at Miami University Libraries on August 9, 2016pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pss.sagepub.com/