A COMPARISON OF MALE AND FEMALE COLLEGE STUDENT PRESIDENTS 
ON SELF-ESTEEM, SEX-ROLE IDENTITY, ACHIEVING STYLES 
AND CAREER ASPIRATIONS BY GENDER COMPOSITION OF 
STUDENT ORGANIZATION 
by 
Jana Ellen Varwig 
Ill 
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate 
School of The University of Maryland in partial 
fulfillment of the requirements for the 
degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
1 sasc, 1 
Advisory Committee: 
Assistant Professor Marylu K. McEwen, 
Chairperson/Advisor 
Professor George Marx 
Associate Professor William Sedlacek 
Assistant Professor William Thomas, Jr. /Vla y J l A 
Associate Professor Bonnie Tyler l I_., 
3) 3 I 
M 7 ) ){ 
JI '\, ~ 
-l 
ABSTRACT 
Title of Dissertation: A COMPARISON OF MALE AND FEMALE 
COLLEGE STUDENT PRESIDENTS ON SELF-ESTEEM, SEX-ROLE 
IDENTITY, ACHIEVING STYLES AND CAREER ASPIRATIONS BY 
GENDER COMPOSITION OF STUDENT ORGANIZATION 
Jana Ellen Varwig, Doctor of Philosophy, 1989 
Dissertation directed by: Marylu K. McEwen, Assistant 
Professor, Counseling and Personnel Services 
The purpose of this study was to explore gender 
differences in the self- esteem, sex - role identity, 
achieving styles and career aspirations of 164 male and 
female college student leaders. Also explored were 
potential differences between student leaders of 
single-sex and mixed-sex groups across the same 
dimensions. All presidents of registered student 
organizations were asked to participate in the study. 
Seventy-one percent of the presidents responded and were 
included in the study. Respondents were administered the 
Rosenberg Self- esteem Scale, the Bern Sex- role Inventory, 
th e L- BLA Achieving Styles Inventory and a questionnaire 
containing i terns on career asp.i rati.o ns. No  si? gni?  f i? can t 
differences were found between male and female student 
leaders on the self- esteem or sex- role identity variables. 
Si gnificant gender differences were found on f i ve of the 
nine achieving styles and on two of the i ndicators of 
career aspiration -- college major and preference for a 
full - time or interrupted career. No s i gnificant 
differences were found between student leaders of 
single- sex and mixed - sex groups. 
-ii-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
r would like to thank Dr. Marylu K. McEwen for the 
weekly meetings she held with me to help me get started, 
and for her patience, kindness and attention to detail 
which made it possible for me to complete this 
dissertation in a timely way. 
I would also like to thank my husband, Mark Laughlin, 
whose encouragement and support throughout this project 
made it likely that I would complete it. 
Finally, I would like to thank the staff in the 
Office of Campus Activities for their understanding, 
interest and support during this project. 
The computer time for this dissertation was supported 
in full through the facilities of the University of 
Maryland at College Park Computer Science Center. 
? 
-iii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section ~~ 
Chapter I Introduction 1 
Chapter II A Review of the Literature 12 
College Student Leadership 12 
Self-esteem of College Student Leaders 22 
Sex-role Identities of College 
Student Leaders 31 
Achieving Styles of College 
Students 46 
The Career Aspirations of Men and 
Women College Students 58 
Chapter III Methodology 72 
Purpose of Study 72 
Sample 72 
Procedure 76 
Instrumentation 77 
Hypotheses 87 
Design/Analysis 88 
Chapter IV Results 90 
Self- esteem 90 
Sex-role Identity 93 
Achieving Styles 96 
Career Aspirations 1 01 
- iv-
Chapter V Discussion, Conclusions and 
Recommendations 119 
Discussion 119 
Limitations 136 
Conclusions 141 
Implications for Practice 147 
Recommendations for Future Research 149 
Appendix A Survey Package: Cover Letter, 
Questionnaire, and Instruments 156 
Appendix B Reminder Postcard 164 
Appendix C Telephone Protocol 165 
Appendix D Scale of Occupational Prestige 167 
Appendix E Careers by Gender Classification 176 
Appendix F Proportions of Men and Women 
in College Majors at the University of 
Maryland at College Park, Fall 1988 181 
Appendix G Presidents' Student Organizations 184 
References 188 
-v-
LIST OF TABLES 
Number 
1. Racial/ethic Groups of Presidents of 74 
Student Organizations Compared with 
Undergraduate Students at Same Institution 
2. Age of Presidents 74 
3. Grade Point Averages of Presidents 75 
4. Gender of Presidents by Gender 75 
Composition of Student Organization 
5. ANOVA for Gender and Gender Composition 91 
of Presidents' Self-esteem Scores 
6. Pres idents' Self-esteem Scores by 92 
Gender and Gender Composition of Group 
7. Sex-role Identity of Male and Female 94 
Presidents 
8. Sex-role Identity of Presidents of 95 
Single-sex and Mixed -sex Groups 
9. MANOVA of Gender and Gender Composition 98 
of Presidents' Achieving Styles 
10. Significance of Univariate F-tests for 99 
Gender Differences Among Individual 
Achieving Styles 
11. Achieving Styles of Male and Female 100 
Presidents 
12. Career Choice by Dominant Gender for 104 
Male and Female Presidents 
13. Career Choice by Dominant Gender for 105 
Presidents of Single-sex and 
Mixed-sex Groups 
14. Major by Dominant Gender for Male and 106 
Female Presidents 
15 . Major by Dominant Gender for Presidents 107 
of Single-sex and Mixed - sex Groups 
16. Plans for Graduate Study for Male and 109 
Female Presidents 
- vi-
17. Plans for Graduate Study for Presidents 110 
of Single-sex and Mixed-sex Groups 
18. AN0VA for Gender and Gender Composition 112 
of Time between Baccalaureate Degree 
and Graduate Study for Presidents 
19. Means and Standard Deviations for Time 113 
between Baccalaureate and Graduate Study 
by Presidents' Gender and Gender 
Composition of Group 
20. Plans for Full-time or Interrupted 115 
Career for Male and Female Presidents 
21. Plans for Full - time or Interrupted 116 
Career for Presidents of Single-sex 
and Mixed-sex Groups 
22. Sex-role Identity of Male and Female 124 
Presidents Compared with Stanford 
University Normative Sample 
-1-
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 
Experts on higher education believe that students' 
involvement in activities outside the classroom is 
critical to their satisfaction with their college 
experience and is beneficial to their development as 
responsible and contributing adults (Abrahamowicz, 1988; 
Astin, 1984; Miller & Jones, 1981; Study Group on 
Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984). Many 
colleges and universities provide programs, staff and 
money to assist students as they pursue co-curricular 
activities during college (Miller & Jones, 1981). Most 
colleges and universities also subscribe to the notion 
that training leaders for the future is part of their 
mission, and so provide leadership training programs under 
the auspices of student affairs offices on campus (Miller 
& Jones, 1981). 
Despite higher education ' s clear interest in 
providing developmental co-curricular and leadership 
activities for students, there is little research 
performed on the students who participate in such 
programs. Much of the current literature describes 
leadership training programs which have been developed 
through the trial and error efforts of student affairs 
staff rather than through any i nformed research (Golde, 
1 987) . Other l i terature focuses on the long-t erm benefits 
- 2-
for students who become involved in campus activities 
(Downey, Bosco & Silver, 1984; Schuh & Laverty, 1983) or 
on the leadership styles of student leaders (Capelle, 
1967; DeJulio, Larson, Dever & Paulman, 1981; 
Florestano, 1971). Only a few studies attempt to describe 
the students who choose to participate in leadership 
opportunities. However, the literature does suggest that 
this population may differ from the general student 
population . Astin and Kent (1983) found that student 
leaders "started college with a more favorable self-image 
than did students in general" (p. 314). Other studies 
indicate that a variety of methods could distinguish 
between students who ultimately chose leadership roles in 
college and those who did not (Boardman, Calhoun & Schiel, 
1972; Karnes, Chauvin & Trant, 1984). Still, very little 
is known about this population. 
Even less is known about gender differences between 
students who choose leadership roles. The larger 
literature on college students in general indicates that 
there are major differences in the ways that men and women 
experience college. Several studies suggested, for 
example, that men's self-esteem is higher than that of 
women's by the end of college (Astin & Kent, 1983); that 
women become less confident of themselves academically in 
college, while men become more confident (Arnold & Denny, 
1985; El-Khawas, 1980); that women revise their career 
-3-
aspirations and graduate school plans in a downward 
direction during their college years, while men's plans 
remain consistent (Arnold & Denny, 1985; Leland, 1980). 
One study which looked at gender differences 
suggested that student leadership roles may be positive 
for women, particularly with relation to their 
self-esteem. Astin and Kent (1983) found that "relative 
to all women, female leaders made substantial gains in 
perceived academic ability, leadership ability, and 
public-speaking ability. Relative both to all women and 
to male leaders, they made substantial gains in 
popularity, popularity with the opposite sex, intellectual 
self- confidence, and social self- confidence" (p. 315). 
They concluded that "leadership experiences have more 
positive effects on women than they do on men" (Astin & 
Kent, 1983, p. 315). 
Despite the value to women of assuming student 
leadership roles, suggested by Astin and Kent (1983), 
several studies indicate that the proportion of women 
college students choosing positions of leadership is less 
than that of men (Dion & Hartnett, 1980; Oltman, 1970). 
Nowhere has this been more dramatically demonstrated than 
at Brown University where, five years after the merger of 
a women's college, Pembroke, and a men's college, Brown 
University, the number of student leadership positions 
held by women had dropped to 22% from nearly 50% prior to 
- 4-
the merger (Dion & Hartnett, 1980). 
Several researchers suggest that society ' s gender 
stereotypes contribute to the small proportion of women 
participating in student leadership roles. Hall and 
Sandler (1984) have argued that the environment in 
institutions of higher education discourages women from 
considering leadership positions. They have suggested 
that women students are not encouraged to consider these 
roles to the same degree as men students; women students 
do not have many female role models in positions of 
leadership; women students receive less advice and 
support when in positions of leadership; and women 
students are assumed to be inadequate in leadership 
roles . 
Hall and Sandler (1984) also suggested that women's 
view of themselves holds them back from assuming 
leadership positions. They reported that women often do 
not engage in co-curricular activities until they are sure 
they can make "a substantial contribution" (p. 6) while 
men approach these same activities with more confidence 
and less concern about what they have to offer. 
Self- esteem, therefore, especially as it relates to 
women's view of their ability to contribute to leadership 
roles, seems to be an important element in understanding 
why women choose or do not choose leadership roles. 
Leonard and Sigall (1989) have suggested that once 
- 5-
women assume student leadership positions they must deal 
with a variety of concerns which do not face men. First, 
women encounter biased treatment "including not being 
taken seriously, having to work harder, or be better than 
men to be respected or get ahead" (p. 220). Often the 
leadership role will require that a woman use skills which 
are not stereotypically feminine in nature. In reaction 
to a woman's appropriately assertive behavior, both men 
and women student peers may become threatened and 
rejecting. The woman leader then fears that her 
leadership role will cost her approval and relationships. 
Leonard and Sigall (1989) also suggested that those women 
who choose student leadership roles adopt a masculine 
model of leadership, and end up paying a heavy price by 
rejecting what is positive about being female. A woman's 
decision to assume a leadership role thus becomes a 
decision about one's relationships with others and about 
one's sex-role identity. 
The picture for women students assuming leadership 
positions is complex. On the one hand, those women who do 
assume these roles seem to benefit from them tremendously, 
even more so than do men (Astin & Kent, 1983). On the 
other hand, once in these roles, women face environmental 
obstacles to their success and pay a price in terms of 
their relationships and identity (Hall & Sandler, 1984; 
Leonard & Sigall, 1989). 
,-
-6-
Although the research described above has helped to 
inform researchers about possible gender differences among 
the student leader population, it is a long way from 
providing comprehensive data on this population. In fact, 
much of the literature on gender differences and 
leadership was found in the management, psychology or 
women's studies literature, not in the student personnel 
literature (Bartol & Butterfield; 1976; Bartol & Martin, 
1986) . In many of these studies, the participants were 
college students in general, and not student leaders. 
Other research came from the large, statistical studies 
performed annually on national samples of students (Astin, 
1978, 1987; Astin & Kent, 1983). These studies covered a 
wide range of topics and attempted to divide students into 
different categories, such as by major, year in school, 
and occasionally by co-curricular involvement, including 
student leadership as one variable. The difficulty with 
these studies is that they focused on many variables and 
did not go into depth on any one variable such as 
leadership. Clearly, more research is needed which 
focuses on the students who are choosing to participate in 
leadership roles before much can really be said about 
them. 
The literature does suggest some general factors 
which may help to clarify the picture regarding male and 
female student leaders and how they experience their 
-7-
leadership roles. Given the differences in self-esteem 
between men and women college students in general, with 
women's self-esteem decreasing during the college years, 
it would be informative to investigate this dimension for 
student leaders. Already some studies have indicated that 
student leaders' self-esteem is fairly high, compared with 
that of students in general, and that the self-esteem of 
women student leaders seems to benefit most of all from 
leadership experience (Astin & Kent, 1983). 
Sex-role identity is another dimension indicated by 
the literature as relating to potential gender differences 
among student leaders. In their roles as leaders, women 
are postulated to confront a variety of role and identity 
conflicts including risking rejection by others if they 
step out of what is stereotypically expected behavior for 
women. Men are hypothesized as not experiencing these 
same conflicts. While role and identity conflicts are 
difficult to measure, an assessment of student leaders' 
sex-role identities and whether gender differences exist 
should provide important baseline data. 
Achieving styles, that is, the characteristic way in 
which one approaches achieving, may provide some 
additional information on the student leader population. 
Since one must achieve in order to lead, the way one 
typically chooses to achieve may be of interest in 
understanding student leaders. The Achieving Styles 
-8-
Inventory (Lipman-Blumen, 1987) was orginally developed 
using both men and women participants, and includes styles 
that describe ways that women may achieve rather than 
describing behaviors which are normative only for men. 
Thus, it may be useful in exploring gender differences in 
the way student leaders approach achieving. 
The career aspirations of student leaders is another 
factor which may help to understand the student leader 
population. The literature on college students in general 
has indicated that women tend to lower their career 
aspirations in college, have less ambitious plans for 
graduate school, and plan for more career interruptions 
than do men (Arnold & Denny, 1985; Leland, 1980). It is 
not clear whether women student leaders follow suit and 
also lower their career aspirations, or if they and their 
male counterparts pursue more ambitious career plans. 
Some leadership studies suggest that the gender 
composition of groups may have an impact on men's and 
women's behavior in groups. Bartol and Martin (1986) 
concluded that particularly in leaderless coed groups, 
women tended to assume more passive roles, talked less and 
engaged in more expressive behaviors at the expense of 
task behaviors. Men also were found to behave differently 
in coed than in single-sex groups. For this reason, the 
gender make-up of students' groups was studied as well. 
-9-
Statement of the Problem 
The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether 
men and women presidents of student organizations differ 
from each other on several dimensions -- self- esteem, 
sex-role identity, achieving styles, and career 
aspirations. A second purpose was to ascertain whether 
presidents differ from each other if they are leaders of a 
mixed - sex or single-sex organization. 
It was expected that this study would add to the 
knowledge on the population of presidents of student 
organizations on campuses, particularly with relation to 
the dimensions referred to above. There were several 
reasons to undertake such a study. First, very few 
studies have focused specifically on students who are 
elected leaders of their organizations. Given that 
student affairs professionals spend a great deal of their 
time working with these students, it makes sense to study 
this population specifically, rather than assuming that 
these students share characteristics and behavior in 
common with the college student population in general. 
Secondly, women have been postulated to experience 
student leadership roles differently from men students. 
Again, little research has been done to address this. 
Since much attention is beginning to be focused on the 
separate experience of women students on campus, it makes 
sense to ascertain whether or not women are, in fact, 
- 10-
experiencing leadership roles differently from men. 
This knowledge would be particularly helpful to those 
student affairs professionals designing leadership 
training programs for both men and women. Understanding 
if and how men and women presidents of student 
organizations differ on the above dimensions should help 
to determine the focus and approach of such training. If 
women presidents have lower self- esteem than their male 
counterparts, student affairs professionals could address 
this area in their training. If women presidents were 
found to have different sex-role identities from those of 
men, student affairs professionals could direct training 
to focus on potential conflicts or problems between a 
particular sex-role identity and the expectations of 
leadership roles. Knowing that women presidents were 
found to prefer different achieving styles than do men 
presidents, student affairs professionals could direct 
their training and advising sessions in such a way that 
they capitalize on each gender's strengths and pay 
attention to weaknesses. Understanding that women 
presidents may have different career aspirations than men 
do would enable student affairs staff to advise women 
presidents more sensitively on their career plans. 
Research questions examined in this study include the 
following: 
1. Do men and women presidents of student organizations 
~,. ._ _ _:..-----
-11-
differ in their self-esteem, their sex-role identities, 
their achieving styles and their career aspirations? 
2. Do presidents of student organizations involved in 
mixed-sex or single-sex groups differ in their 
self-esteem, their sex-role identities, their achieving 
styles and their career aspirations? 
3. Is there a relationship between gender of president of 
student organization and gender composition of student 
organization with achieving styles? 
It was expected that an accurate knowledge of the 
presidents of student organizations population on the 
dimensions described above would be helpful to student 
affairs professionals in order to train presidents more 
effectively; to promote student leadership in the general 
college student population; to identify potential student 
leaders; and to attain a better understanding of women 
presidents' experience in a university setting which may 
be less oriented to their needs than to those of men. 
-12-
CHAPTER II: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
This chapter reviews the relevant literature and 
includes sections on college student leaders, the 
self-esteem of college student leaders, sex - role 
identities of college students, achieving styles of 
college students and the career aspirations of college 
students. 
College Student Leadership 
Depite the staff time and money spent by colleges and 
universities on leadership training and advising programs 
for their students, very little research has been done on 
the student leader population (McEwen & Higgins, 1980). 
The literature that does exist falls into some general 
categories: descriptions of leadership training programs 
(Frigualt, Maloney & Trevino, 1986; Furr & Lutz, 1987); 
the benefits of involvement in extra- or co-curricular 
activities (Abrahamowicz, 1988; Keller & Chambers, 1975); 
personality traits of student leaders (Boardman, Calhoun & 
Schiel, 1972; Karnes, Chauvin & Trant, 1984); leadership 
styles used by student leaders (Capella, 1967; DeJulio, 
Larson, Dever & Paulman, 1981; Florestano, 1971); and 
gender differences among student leaders (Butters & Glade , 
1982; Earwood-Smith, 1985; Heft & Deni, 1984; McEwen & 
Higgins, 1980; Rice, Yoder, Adams, Priest & Prince, 1984; 
Vale & Riker, 1979; Welsh , 1979). Since not all of these 
-13-
areas have relevance to the current study, this review 
will focus only on three topics: personality traits, 
leadership styles and gender differences. 
Personality Traits and Leadership Styles 
of Student Leaders 
Research indicates that student leaders may have 
characteristics or traits which separate them from the 
general college population. Astin and Kent (1983) found 
that student leaders, defined as students who had been 
editor of a campus publication, president of one or more 
student organizations, or a member of a university or 
departmental committee, had more favorable self-images 
than did students in general, and their self- images, 
positive to begin with, increased during their college 
experience. 
In a study of honor students, Karnes et al. ( 1984) 
found that the Sixteen PF (Cattell, 1972) could 
distinguish between individuals who held at least one 
elected leadership position and those who held no such 
position. Elected leaders scored as more mature and 
stable than individuals holding no elected positions of 
leadership. 
Boardman et al. (1972) divided freshman students into 
groups according to factor score profiles, then compared 
the groups in the students' junior year on the number of 
leadership positions held. While there were 
- 14-
no significant differences among the women's subgroups, 
59% of the male leaders were found in 5 of the 23 male 
groups. They concluded that a relationship may exist 
between students' experiences prior to college and college 
leadership behavior, and that potential student leaders 
may eventually be identifiable by these experiences. No 
explanations were given with regard to the gender 
differences reported. 
Other studies have compared student leaders with 
non - leaders on the dimensions of initiating structure and 
consideration, two independent measures of leadership 
style (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). The "initiating 
structure" leadership style provides direction and 
structure for a group in the accomplishment of the group's 
tasks, while the "consideration" style provides support 
for group members in the accomplishment of group tasks. 
Capelle (1967) found significant differences between male 
college leaders and nonleaders on both dimensions . In 
contrast, Florestano's (1971) results indicated 
differences only on the initiating structure dimens i on. 
Interestingly, both of these studies used only male 
participants. 
In a more recent study using both male and female 
students, DeJulio et al. (1981) found significant 
differences between leaders and nonleaders on both 
in i tiating structure and consideration. No differences 
-15-
were found between men and women with relation to the two 
leadership styles for either leaders or nonleaders. 
Gender Differences Within the Student 
Leader Population 
Very little is written on possible gender differences 
within the student leader population. Even so, the 
literature spans a variety of topics including leadership 
training programs for women (Britton & Elmore, 1979; 
Pomrenke, Dambrot & Hazard, 1983); research investigating 
gender differences in leadership style (Heft & Deni, 1984; 
Rice et al., 1984; Stake, 1981; Vale & Riker, 1979); 
small group research focusing on students' reactions to 
male and female leaders (Welsh, 1979); research on the 
differences in the proportion of male versus female 
leaders (Dion & Hartnett, 1980; Oltman, 1970); and 
theories about differential treatment of women in higher 
education, sex-role stereotyping, and implications for 
women students' leadership (Hall & Sandler, 1984; Leonard 
& Sigall, 1989). 
The areas of literature most pertinent to this study 
include those focusing on the differential proportions by 
gender of student leaders and the theories exploring 
women's experience of leadership as it might differ from 
that of men's. 
Differential Proportions of Men and Women 
College Student Leaders 
Several studies indicate that the proportion of women 
- 16-
student leaders is less than that of men. 0ltman's 1970 
study of 454 colleges found women held only 5% of the 
student body presidencies and among coed institutions, 
women held only 6.1% of the class president positions. 
0ltman's study also pointed out that women tended to be in 
appointive positions rather than elective ones. 
Following the merger of a women's college, Pembroke, 
and a men's college, Brown University, the proportion of 
women in leadership positions decreased dramatically (Dion 
& Hartnett, 1980). Prior to the merger, almost half of 
the total number of student leadership positions were held 
by women. In 1972, the year following the merger, only 
15% of the leadership positions were occupied by women. 
By 1974, the percentage had risen to 25% but dropped again 
to approximately 22% in 1976, five years after the merger. 
While it might have taken women students time to gain 
access to the leadership positions in Brown's pre-existing 
organizations, five years after the merger ?women were 
still not in leadership positions anywhere near the degree 
they had been at Pembroke. 
Using longitudinal data on college students from over 
300 institutions collected by CIRP (Cooperative 
Institutional Research Program), Astin (1978) reported 
that while a woman's chances of being elected to student 
leadership positions were better at a women's college, a 
man's chances were better at a coeducational institution 
-17-
than a men's college. This seems clearly to be the case 
at Brown. Astin asked whether women may be "less likely 
to be aggressive when they are competing with men" (p. 
117), and found support for his hypothesis in data which 
suggested that women are less verbally aggressive in the 
classroom at coeducational institutions. 
The small proportion of women leaders in relation to 
that of men may be changing. Astin and Kent (1983) 
reported in a 1980 CIRP follow-up study of people who had 
been freshmen in 1971, that 13% of the women had been 
presidents of one or more student organizations, compared 
with 16% of the men, and that 5% of the women had been 
editors of a campus publication, compared with 4% of the 
men. Finally, 26% of the women had been members of a 
university or department committee, compared with 25% of 
the men. While many of these latter positions may have 
been appointive rather than elective positions, the 
percentages of men and women in all of these leadership 
positions were comparable. 
In a study of leadership in honor societies which had 
recently changed from single-sex organizations to 
coeducational organizations, Earwood-Smith (1985) reported 
that women held 59.1% of the memberships, and the total 
number of women officers exceeded that of the men. 
Interestingly, only in one of the formerly male 
organizations, Omicron Delta Kappa, did men hold the 
-18-
office of president in a significantly larger proportion 
than women. In the other three societies, there was no 
significant relationship between the sex of the officer 
and the office being held, except for the office of 
secretary which was held by women almost entirely. 
Leadership in honor societies may not be representative of 
leadership in student organizations generally, however. 
pollege Women's Experience with Leadership Roles 
Hall and Sandler (1984) suggested that the smaller 
numbers of women in leadership positions may be a result 
of the "chilly climate" with which women are treated in 
institutions of higher education. They believed that 
women face barriers in their environment which keep them 
from seeking out leadership experiences. Some of these 
barriers are as follows: 
Women students may be less likely to be encouraged to 
seek leadership positions than men, and may need to have 
' extra' qualifications to be nominated, elected or 
appointed. 
Women who do hold such positions may find that their 
credentials are systematically doubted while men's tend to 
be presumed adequate. 
Women may receive less mentoring, help and 
information so that they function less effectively. 
Women may hold top positions, but men of lower 
organi zational status may dominate meetings and make 
- 19-
policy decisions. 
Student leaders may be chosen on the basis of gender 
stereotypes. (Hall & Sandler, 1984, p.11) 
Leonard and Sigall (1989) agreed that women student 
leaders face problems presented by the environment which 
men do not face. They addressed the psychological 
pressure these women face as leaders: In being assertive 
leaders, women must take stands, sometimes using behavior 
usually and stereotypically reserved for men. In reaction 
to a woman's appropriately assertive behavior, both men 
a nd women peers may feel threatened and become angry or 
rejecting. Many women student leaders believe that they 
must decide between maintaining their roles as leaders and 
their desire for social affiliation, popularity and 
friendship. Many women siudents may resolve this conflict 
of roles by simply choosing not to participate as leaders. 
If they do choose to lead, despite the consequences, 
Leonard and Sigall (1989) believed women may choose to 
follow a masculine leadership model. Women do so, they 
argued, at the heavy price of rejecting what is positive 
about being female, and ultimately threatening their 
feminine identity and self-esteem. 
Leonard and Sigall (1989) proposed a model to study 
women student leaders which included two independent 
dimensions: awareness of women's issues and leadership 
skills. Women students may fall into one of four 
-20-
quadrants based on these two dimensions. The first 
quadrant is composed of students who are low in leadership 
skills and awareness of women's issues, the second 
quadrant is composed of students who are high in 
leadership skills but low in awareness of women's issues. 
The third quadrant is populated by students who are aware 
of women's issues but low in leadership skills, and the 
final quadrant focuses on those remaining few students who 
are both aware of women's issues and high in leadership 
skills. 
Gender Composition of Students' Organizations 
Bartol & Martin (1986), in their extensive review of 
research on women and men in task groups, concluded that 
in leaderless coed groups, women tended to assume a more 
passive role and engaged in more expressive behaviors at 
the expense of task behaviors. When women were in same 
sex groups, however, they were more likely to engage in 
leadership behaviors. Moreover, they reported, behavior 
by men in task groups was also influenced by the gender 
ratio in the group. Men were found to exhibit more 
competitive instrumental behavior when in all-male groups, 
yet in mixed-sex groups used more expressive behaviors. 
While much of this research was done on college students, 
none of it was performed on the college student leader 
population. It makes sense, therefore, to include gender 
composition of group as an important variable in exploring 
- 21 -
gender differences between student leaders. 
Summary 
While some research exists on student leaders in 
gene r al , very little exists on potential gender 
differences between men and women student leaders. What 
is known , however, is that fewer female than male college 
students choose to participate in leadership roles while 
in college. Researchers have speculated that women's 
lower participation rates may be due to barriers they face 
in the college environment including receiving less 
encouragement to assume leadership roles than men; 
receiving less advice, information and support than men in 
leadership positions; dealing with others ' negative and 
stereotypical views of women leaders; and fearing the 
loss of approval from friends and others in the campus 
community. Research also indicates that gender 
composition of the student leaders' organization may play 
a part in student leaders' behavior . 
Clearly, the environmental barri ers women face, t he 
experience they have in their organization, and the gender 
composition of their group may have an impact on college 
women ' s self- concept as leaders and their sel f- esteem. 
The next section of the review of literature discusses 
sel f -esteem as one variable in college women's experience 
with leadership roles. 
- 22-
Self-esteem of College Student Leaders 
There are many definitions of self-esteem in the 
literature, and some researchers argue that self-esteem 
cannot even be defined by a single measure (Stake & 
Orlofsky, 1981). Because the literature is so vast, this 
review covers those studies which focused on the 
self-esteem of college students, with emphasis on those 
which discussed the self-esteem of student leaders. 
For the purposes of this study, self-esteem is 
defined by the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 
1965), a measure of global self-esteem. Robinson and 
Shaver (1973) contended that the scale measures the self 
acceptance aspect of self-esteem. High self-esteem as 
indicated by the Scale means that an individual believes 
that he or she is "good enough", and that "the individual 
respects himself [or herself], considers himself [or 
herself] worthy; he [or she] does not necessarily consider 
himself [or herself] better than others, but he [or she] 
definitely does not consider himself [or herself] worse; 
he [or she} does not feel that he [or she} is the ultimate 
in perfection but, on the contrary, recognizes his [or 
her] limitations and expects to grow and improve" 
(Rosenberg, 1965, p. 31). 
-23-
Gender Differences in Self- esteem 
of College Students 
One of the classic studies pointing to gender 
differences in self-esteem of college students was 
conducted by researchers at Brown University. (Several 
different researchers contributed chapters to this study; 
therefore it will be referenced using different 
researchers depending on the topic addressed). The study 
surveyed approximately 3000 male and female students 
attending one of six institutions: Barnard College, Brown 
University, Dartmouth College, Princeton University, the 
State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Wellesley 
College (Leland, 1980). Because these institutions are 
highly selective in their admissions' standards, the 
survey results may not be entirely generalizable to all 
college students; however, they are likely to reflect the 
direction of the measured dimensions. The study was not 
longitudinal so that causation cannot be inferred. 
However, students at all four grade levels were surveyed 
and their responses compared, with the implied assumption 
that the study measured differences in development across 
the four year time span. Researchers asked students to 
rate themselves on 21 traits "as compared with other 
students your own age" (Leland, 1980). 
The Brown study found that both men and women 
increased in their self-concept over the four year period 
-24-
they were in college (Astin & Kent, 1980). Equal 
proportions of men and women rated themselves in the top 
10% of college students on several dimensions of 
self-concept: drive to achieve; social self-confidence; 
artistic ability; and assertiveness. On other 
dimensions, however, students' responses reflected 
sex- role stereotypes. Men were more likely than women to 
rate themselves highly on such stereotypically masculine 
dimensions as athletic ability, mathematical ability, 
mechanical ability, and competitiveness. Women, on the 
other hand, rated themselves more highly on dimensions 
focusing on relationships with others: popularity with the 
same and opposite sex; understanding of others; 
sensitivity to criticism; and being physically attractive 
(Astin & Kent, 1980). 
Men had more positive views of themselves overall 
than did women. In particular, although women increased 
over the four years in intellectual self-confidence and 
academic ability, they still rated themselves several 
points lower than men rated themselves (12 and 15 points 
difference, respectively, on the two dimensions) . And, 
while women's high school grades were higher than those of 
men, women's grade point averages had decreased in college 
and were lower than those of men. In fact, the percentage 
of women rating themselves as highly motivated to achieve 
actually declined from the freshman to the senior year. 
- 25-
Moreover, while similar proportions of men and women 
aspired to graduate degrees, women were more likely than 
men to put off graduate study and to plan on a master's 
degree rather than a doctoral degree (Astin & Kent, 
1980). 
Arnold and Denny (1985), in their study of male and 
female high school valedictorians, found results similar 
to those of the Brown study. Specifically, the women high 
school valedictorians in their study showed a sharp 
decline in their self-estimated report of their 
intelligence between high school and their sophomore year 
in college. This same decline did not occur for the men 
valedictorians. Even more puzzling, the women's decline 
in confidence occurred in spite of continuing high grades 
in college and high achievement generally. Arnold and 
Denny (1985) noted especially that women's loss of 
academic self-esteem was accompanied by a lowering in 
their plans for participation in the work force. 
Self-esteem was a focus of Astin and Kent's (1983) 
follow-up study of men and women who entered college in 
1971 as well. Using data on over 50,000 students from the 
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), they 
asked if the college experience raised self-esteem, and if 
men and women were similar with regard to self-esteem and 
other goals and values. Their results were similar to 
those found in the Brown study (Astin & Kent, 1980). 
- 26-
While both men's and women's self-esteem increased over 
time, "especially with respect to perceived leadership 
ability, writing ability, intellectual self-confidence, 
and social self-confidence" (Astin & Kent , 1983, p . 313), 
women still gave themselves lower ratings than men on ten 
out of eleven traits. Also mirroring the Brown study's 
results was the finding that while more female than male 
freshmen students rated themselves high on drive to 
achieve, men overcame their initially lower ratings and 
gave themselves higher ratings than did women (El- Khawas, 
1980). 
Hall and Sandler (1984) have attempted to explain the 
process by which they believed women's self- esteem is 
lowered in college. They argued that women's tendency to 
de-value themselves because of their gender is reinforced 
by their college experience. According to "A Chilly 
Climate", a report published by the Project on the Status 
and Education of Women and written by Hall and Sandler 
(1984), most colleges reflect the larger society in the 
way that women are treated and subsequently made to feel. 
Hall and Sandler reported that faculty and staff treat 
women differently and expect less than they do from men. 
They suggested that higher education is, and has been, an 
institution intended for and populated by men, and the 
dominant culture, therefore, is male. In such a culture, 
women ' s opinions, which may be different because of a 
- 27-
difference in perspective, are not valued as highly. 
Hall and Sandler (1984) also argued that human nature 
is such that people feel more comfortable working with 
those who are like themselves. Since the vast majority of 
faculty and staff in powerful positions are men, women do 
not receive the same time and attention men receive. 
Women perceive this differential treatment and interpret 
it to mean that they do not have as much to offer, thereby 
lowering their self-esteem and confidence. When little is 
expected of them they turn this inward as well, believing 
that they should not expect much of themselves either. 
Hall and Sandler's (1984) thesis is supported by the 
studies reported earlier which indicated that while women 
enter college better prepared academically than men, by 
the end of college their grades, their drive to achieve, 
their career aspirations and some aspects of their self 
esteem are lower than those of men and may have, in fact, 
decreased from the time that they entered college (Arnold 
& Denny, 1985; Astin & Kent, 1983; El-Khawas, 1980; 
Leland, 1980) . 
Self-esteem of Women Student Leaders 
Astin and Kent (1983) reported that data on the 
self- esteem of women student leaders did not correspond to 
that of women college students in general. They stated 
that student leaders of both sexes (whom they defined as 
students who had been editor of a campus publication , 
- 28-
president of one or more student organizations, or member 
of a university or departmental committee) started college 
with higher self-concepts than did students in general. 
Moreover, their self-esteem, and especially women's 
self-esteem, improved over the nine-year time span. 
Comparing women student leaders to women students in 
general, Astin and Kent (1983) found that women student 
leaders "made substantial gains in perceived academic 
ability, leadership ability, and public speaking ability" 
(p. 315). When they compared them with male student 
leaders, women student leaders "made substantial gains in 
popularity, popularity with the opposite sex, intellectual 
self-confidence, and social self-confidence" (p. 315). 
They concluded that leadership experiences in college have 
"more positive effects on women than they do on men" (p. 
315), and that women's self-esteem and confidence in their 
interpersonal skills is "enhanced" (p. 315). 
Astin and Kent's (1983) findings correspond with 
those of the Brown study in which El-Khawas (1980) 
concluded that women's academic development and 
self-confidence seemed to be related to the opportunity to 
demonstrate leadership. Men's intellectual and academic 
self-confidence were not related to leadership experiences 
to the same degree. 
- 29-
Summary 
Studies on college students in general have indicated 
that while women students enter college better prepared 
academically than men, their self-esteem in general does 
not keep pace with that of men. In several studies women 
rated themselves significantly lower than did men on 
measures of self-esteem. Women appear to lose ground 
particularly in the area of academic self-confidence, 
ranking themselves even lower than they did when they 
entered college. This decrease in self-esteem is 
accompanied by a decrease in the proportion of women 
describing themselves as highly motivated to achieve, as 
well as amended graduate school and career plans (Arnold & 
Denny, 1985; Astin & Kent, 1980). 
Hall and Sandler (1984) have attempted to describe 
the process which they believe encourages women's lowered 
self- esteem in college, suggesting that the college 
environment holds stereotypical expectations of women and 
is therefore less supportive of women ' s achievement. This 
lack of support is communicated to women students subtly 
but with impact, causing women to de-value their 
abilit i es. 
Leadership experiences seem to break the lowered 
self- esteem cycle for women. Astin and Kent (1983) found 
that women who were student leaders in college increased 
in self- esteem over the college years, and in fact, that 
-30?-
leadership experiences appeared to benefit their 
self- esteem even more than that of male student leaders. 
If leadership experience has such a dramatic effect 
on women's self-esteem, such knowledge would be valuable 
to the student affairs professionals who work with these 
students, particularly in designing leadership training 
programs. Therefore, the present study uses a measure of 
global self- esteem to compare the self-esteem of women 
presidents of student organizations with that of men 
involved in similar activities. 
-31-
Sex- role Identities of College Student Leaders 
Sex - role identity refers to the degree to which an 
individual ta i lors one ' s identity and behavior to fit the 
culture ' s definitions of appropriate behavior for his or 
her gender (Bern, 1974). A traditionally sex- typed 
ind i vidual would be one who attempts to behave in line 
with an " i deal iz ed image of femininity or masculinity" 
(Bern, 1981, p.4), and selects behaviors which are 
consistent with that image, and avoids behaviors which are 
inconsistent with it. A feminine-typed woman, therefore, 
would be a woman whose behavior fell in line with what 
society bel i eve s to be feminine. 
An ind i v i dual may have a sex- role which is 
i ncons i stent with his or her gender. An androgynous 
sex- role is one which allows an individual to select 
attr i butes and behaviors from both masculine and feminine 
sex - typed behaviors, depending on the situation. 
Indiv i duals who are cross sex - typed are those who choose 
behaviors which are culturally and stereotypically more 
appropriate for the opposite sex than their own gender 
(Bern , 1 974 ) . 
Leonard an d Sigall (1989) postulated that women may 
exper i ence conflict between their i dentity as women and 
their leadersh i p roles. Men, on the other hand, would not 
be postulated to exper i ence the same degree of conflict 
s ince leader s h i p is consistent with stereotypically 
- 32-
appropriate roles for men. Given that sex- role identity 
is essentially an individual's self-concept in relation to 
society's views of appropriate behaviors for men and 
women, it may be helpful to explore the sex - role 
identities of students involved in leadership activities 
and to look for gender differences. Because the gender 
composition of the student organization may have an impact 
on a student leader's experience, it would also be 
important to investigate if there are differences in the 
sex- role identities of student leaders of single-sex 
groups as opposed to leaders of mixed - sex groups. 
The present study used the Bern Sex- Role Inventory 
(1974) to measure sex-role identity. The review of the 
literature will focus primarily on studies involving this 
instrument. 
The Bern Sex - Role Inventory 
In 1974 Sandra Lipsitz Bern published the Bern Sex- Role 
Inventory (BSRI) as an instrument designed to conduct 
empirical research on sex- roles and the concept of 
psychological androgyny. Until her instrument was 
developed, the concepts of masculinity and femininity were 
generally thought to be two opposite ends of the same 
continuum, indicating that an individual could be defined 
as either masculine or feminine but not both (Bem, 1974; 
Sieger, 1985). Bern (1974) suggested that the concepts 
masculinity and femininity might be dimensions which were 
- 33-
independent of each other, thereby allowing for 
individuals to be defined as having combinations of both 
masculinity and femininity. An individual who integrated 
both masculine and feminine traits into his/her 
self-concept was defined as being psychologically 
androgynous. Individuals who had predominantly masculine 
traits were defined as masculine, and likewise, 
individuals who possessed predominantly feminine traits 
were defined as feminine. These definitions were assigned 
without regard to the individual's biological gender and 
were referred to as an individual's sex- role identity. 
Originally, Bem (1974) proposed that androgynous 
individuals were more flexible and potentially better 
adjusted than masculine and feminine individuals. 
Individuals with traditional sex- roles, that is, those 
whose genders corresponded with their sex- role, were 
thought to be concerned with keeping their behavior in 
accord with internalized definitions of society's 
prescriptions for appropriate behavior for their sex. In 
order to maintain appropriate behavior, it was theorized, 
one would have to suppress any behavior which might be 
considered undesirable for one's sex by society. This 
reasoning led to the assumption that by keeping their 
actions appropriate to their sex, masculine and feminine 
individuals would have a limited repertoire of behaviors 
from which to choose in all situations. Androgynous 
~  ;;:-,-,, 1li - -
- 34-
individuals, by virtue of having a wider repertoire of 
behaviors from which to choose, i.e., both masculine and 
feminine behaviors, would be more flexible and adaptable. 
Inherent in Bern's logic were the definitions of 
masculine and feminine traits. Masculine traits, or those 
which society views as stereotypically masculine, were 
predominantly instrumental in nature -- ambitious, 
self-reliant, independent, assertive. Feminine traits, on 
the other hand, were primarily expressive in nature --
affectionate, gentle, understanding, sensitive to the 
needs of others. While both masculine and feminine traits 
(or instrumental and expressive traits) were regarded as 
positive attributes by society, Bern (1974) believed that 
truly healthy human functioning demanded an integration of 
both instrumental and expressive traits in one personality 
- - the androgynous personality. The androgynous person 
could draw on both kinds of behaviors and respond 
appropriately, depending on the demands of the situation. 
Bern and her associates designed several experiments 
using her instrument to see whether or not sex-typed 
individuals were, indeed, more restricted in their 
behavior than androgynous individuals (Bern & Lenny, 1976; 
Bern, Martyna, & Watson, 1976). In an experiment which 
asked participants of both sexes to choose between tasks 
which were masculine, feminine or neutral in nature, she 
found that sex- typed participants chose the task which 
- 35-
corresponded to their gender significantly more often than 
the opposite-sex task, despite the fact that the opposite 
sex-typed tasks had higher rewards attached to them. 
Androgynous and sex-reversed participants (those 
individuals with a sex-role identity opposite to their 
gender) were significantly less stereotyped in their 
choices. Participants were then photographed performing 
tasks which were masculine, feminine and neutral in nature 
and asked to rate their comfort level with the task. 
Sex-typed individuals were significantly more 
uncomfortable and reported more negative feelings about 
themselves when performing cross-sex activities than were 
androgynous or cross-sexed individuals (Bem & Lenny, 
1976). 
In a series of studies involving the two dimensions 
of instrumentality and expressiveness, Bem (1975) and her 
associates attempted to explore further the hypothesis 
that androgynous individuals would perform well on both 
"masculine" and "feminine" tasks, while sex-typed 
individuals would perform well only on those tasks which 
they considered congruent with their gender. In an 
experiment on independence and conformity, participants 
were asked to rate how humorous they found a particular 
set of cartoons while listening to the opinions of other 
"participants" (actually a tape being played which gave 
false answers to the humor judgments). Bern (1975) found 
- 36-
that both the masculine and androgynous participants were 
significantly more independent in their ratings than the 
feminine participants, regardless of biological gender. 
To test the expressive dimension Bern et al. (1976) 
designed a series of experiments intended to elicit 
emotional responsiveness to three different conditions: a 
kitten, a human baby and a fellow student expressing 
lonely, however, not dependent feelings. Both the 
feminine and androgynous men were significantly more 
responsive in all three conditions than were masculine 
men. Bern and her associates were surprised, however, by 
the results for the women. Rather than responding to all 
three conditions, feminine women were lower i n their 
response rate to the kitten and showed no more 
responsiveness to the baby than the androgynous and 
masculine women. However , when responding to the lonely 
student they were significantly more responsive than any 
of the other groups. Masculine males were the least 
responsive, while androgynous and cross - sex participants 
fell in the middle. Bern et al. ( 1976) suggested that the 
conditions of the lonely student situation were such that 
participants played a passive role, while with the kitten 
and the baby, participants were forced to play a more 
active role. They hypothesized that feminine women are so 
restricted in their behavior that they are inhibited in 
expressing even gender congruent behavior in situations 
-37-
"where the 'appropriate' behavior is left ambiguous or 
unspecified" (Bern, 1987, p. 221). 
Bern (1981) used these studies to confirm her 
hypothesis that "non-androgynous individuals restrict 
their behavior in accordance with cultural definitions of 
desirable behavior for women and men significantly more 
often than do androgynous individuals" (p.16). She also 
used these results to support her contention that the BSRI 
identifies the sex-role groups it purports to identify. 
Methodological and Psychometric 
Critiques of the BSRI 
Bern's (1974) work opened the door for much work and 
related research on the concept of androgyny and 
sex-roles. By the late 1970's and early 1980's, her 
instrument and constructs had incurred much theoretical 
and methodological criticism. Of particular interest is 
the work relating androgyny to psychological adjustment 
and flexibility. While some researchers supported Bern's 
initial belief that androgyny is related to better 
adjustment than masculinity or femininity, (Wiggins & 
Holzmuller, 1981), others disagreed. Many researchers 
found, in fact, that both androgynous and masculine 
sex-role identities predicted better adjustment than did 
feminine or undifferentiated sex-role identities, and that 
androgyny was associated with self-esteem or better 
adjustment only for women. This led them to conclude that 
- 38-
the masculine qualities associated with both masculine and 
androgynous sex- roles were responsible for the better 
adjustment of these individuals (Adams & Sherer, 1982; 
Deutsch & Gilbert, 1976; Jones, Chernovetz & Hansson, 
1978; Kelly & Worell, 1977; Silvern & Ryan, 1979). 
If, in fact, masculine traits are those responsible 
for better adjustment, what does this say about those 
individuals who are high in feminine characteristics but 
low in masculine traits? Deutsch and Gilbert (1976) 
suggested that this is the case with the average college 
undergraduate woman who finds herself in a double bind. 
On the one hand, she believes she should be more 
androgynous, i. e., have more of the instrumental, 
assertive characteristics valued by society. On the other 
hand, she is concerned that if she chooses to become more 
androgynous, she will be less desirable to men. Deutsch 
and Gilbert believed that women's conflict on this 
variable clearly predicted poorer adjustment for women 
than for men, especially since the majority of men (who 
would score either masculine or androgynous) do not 
experience a similar conflict between their self-concept 
and role. 
A few researchers have not found that the feminine 
sex- role is associated with poorer adjustment in women. 
Orlofsky and Windle (1978) found that feminine-typed 
women appeared as well adjusted as androgynous women. 
-39-
iheY did not find this surprising given the strong 
1 messages women and men receive about appropriate cultura 
sex-role behavior. They suggested that conformity to 
?ety's standards produces a subjective sense of 
soci 
well-being in these women; however, it also contributes to 
1ower self-esteem. Kleinke and Hinrichs (1983) agreed, 
suggesting that feminine sex-typing may be helpful to 
college women in adapting to peer pressures and the 
demands of college social life. They suggested further 
that the value to the individual of the various sex- role 
identities may vary depending upon the demands of the 
situation and environment. 
Serious questions have also been raised regarding the 
psychometric properties of the BSRI. Several studies in 
the late 1970's questioned the way in which the instrument 
was developed, and suggested that the constructs which Bern 
(1974) intended to measure might not be measured by her 
instrument. One study argued, for example, that the two 
constructs measured by the BSRI are dominance and 
nurturance (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981). Pedhazur and 
Tetenbaum (1979), in a scathing critique of the empirical 
construction of the instrument, suggested that the BSRI is 
atheoretical and asked "how can one assess the validity of 
a measure when the construct it is supposed to be 
measuring is undefined?" (p. 1012). Others criticized the 
notion of the orthogonality of the two dimensions, 
-40-
masculinity and femininity, suggesting that they are not 
independent. Factor analytic studies suggested that the 
BSRI has four factors rather than Bem's three (masculine, 
feminine and neutral) (Gaudreau, 1977; Moreland, Gulanick 
& Montague, 1978; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979). Bem's 
strategy for selecting items has also been criticized by 
Pedhazur and Tetenbaum (1979), who stated that while the 
masculine traits used were relatively high in 
desirability, some of the feminine traits used were lower 
in desirability. (This criticism is mitigated by using 
the short form of the BSRI because the low desirability 
feminine traits were left out). Pedhazur and Tetenbaum 
(1979) also argued that Bern treated nonindependent t tests 
as if they were independent, and thus ran "the risk of 
overlooking the distinction between statistically 
significant and substantively meaningful findings" 
(p.998). 
Sex-role Identity of College Student Leaders 
Despite the criticism of Bem's theory and instrument, 
studies stemming from Bern's research on sex roles are many 
and various. Many studies using Bern's instrument and 
focusing on college students have looked at relationships 
between sex- roles and other constructs such as 
self- esteem, fear of success, achievement, attitudes 
toward women, and choice of major and occupation. Very 
few, however, have looked at leadership as a dimension. 
-41 -
0ne study by Astley and Downey (1980) looked at 
sex-role identity and ratings of leadership potential in 
college students. They found that while past leadership 
experience correlated with all three sex- role identities 
-- masculine, femininine and androgynous, it correlated 
most highly with androgyny (.53) followed closely by 
masculinity (.48) and less highly with femininity (.27) . 
When comparing sex-role identity with several different 
forms of leadership potential ratings, they discovered 
that the masculinity score was positively correlated with 
a self-rating of leadership potential for both men and 
women, i.e., if individuals had masculine sex- roles, 
they were likely to rate themselves as having leadership 
potential. Interestingly enough, there were no 
significant relationships between the masculine score and 
others ' ratings of leadership potential, including ratings 
done by group leader or peers. 
Astley and Downey (1980) also found differences in 
the relationships between sex- role identity and leadership 
potential ratings for men and women. For women, all three 
sex- role identity categories were significantly related to 
evaluations by male (but not female) peers. The feminine 
sex - role identity was also related to evaluations of 
leadership potential by female peers and the group's 
leader. Androgyny in women was related only to 
evaluations of leadership potential by the group ' s leader . 
-42-
For men, none of the sex- role identity categories was 
related to evaluations of leadership potential by others, 
either peer or leader. 
Astley and Downey (1980) interpreted their results to 
give some support to the argument that androgynous 
individuals would be the most effective leaders, although 
the masculine characteristics were the "principal 
predictive characteristics" (p. 425). They further 
suggested that masculine individuals rate themselves 
higher in leadership because they have a higher 
self-concept than others. Finally, they suggested that 
androgynous individuals who have previous leadership 
experience are rated higher in leadership potential by 
themselves, by leaders and in a limited way, by their 
peers. 
Two other studies (Inderlied & Powell, 1979; Korabik, 
1982) examined relationships between sex- role identity and 
style of leadership in college students. Both studies 
defined leadership style as consisting of one or both of 
two orientations: an initiating structure (instrumental) 
approach, a consideration (expressive) approach, or a 
combination of the two. Because these definitions are so 
similar to the constructs underlying Bern's sex- roles the 
studies asked if there would be some correspondence 
between leadership style and sex- role identity. The 
researchers were also interested to see if sex- role 
-43-
identity predicted leadership style better than biological 
sex. Inderlied and Powell (1979) found that study 
participants preferred an ideal leader who is masculine 
yet uses a "team" leadership style, that is, a combination 
of structuring and consideration leadership behaviors. 
They found a relationship only between participants' 
masculinity and initiating structure scores. There was 
little support for the existence of a relationship between 
femininity and consideration. Korabik's (1982) results 
were different. She found that an initiating structure 
style of leadership was positively related to masculinity, 
and that a consideration leadership style was positively 
correlated with femininity. Androgyny was positively 
correlated with both structure and consideration styles of 
leadership. Korabik's study also suggested that sex- role 
orientation was a better predictor of leadership style 
than was biological sex. 
Other studies which may illuminate how sex roles 
affect students' choice of activity are those which relate 
sex- role identity to their choice of major and career. 
Stockton, Berry, Shepson and Utz (1980) indicated that for 
men, having a masculine or feminine sex- role did little to 
differentiate the number of men in male and female 
dominated majors; however, for women, having a masculine 
sex- role correlated with a higher proportion of females in 
male dominated majors. Also, having an androgynous or 
-44-
feminine sex-role for men did not mean that men chose 
female dominated majors; however, having an androgynous 
sex - role as a woman did mean that one was almost as likely 
to select a male dominated as a female dominated major. 
In other words, androgynous women chose from the full 
range of options, rather than limiting their choices 
because of gender prohibitions. 
Perhaps having a masculine or androgynous sex- role 
would increase the probability of women being involved in 
leadership roles (a stereotypically masculine activity) as 
well. Yanico, Hardin and McLaughlin (1987) reported that 
feminine-typed women who elected an engineering major 
were significantly less satisfied with and tended to be 
less certain of their choice of major than either 
masculine or androgynous women. They suggested that the 
feminine women felt a conflict between their sex - role 
identity and the nature of the major they chose. 
This conflict may be similar to the conflict Leonard 
and Sigall (1989) postulated women student leaders 
experience with their leadership roles. They suggested 
that many women student leaders struggle with their roles, 
needing to meet the demands of the leadership role on the 
one hand, and achieve acceptance as a woman on the other. 
If men and women are found to differ in their 
sex-role identity, it may mean that women experience 
leadership differently than do men. Since sex- role 
-45-
identity as measured by the BSRI is an individual's 
self- image regarding his or her degree of conformity to 
society ' s stereotypical sex- role standards, sex- role 
identity may be helpful in exploring the conflict women 
may feel. 
Summar'L: 
This researcher found no studies on the sex- role 
identities of college students engaged in leadership 
activities. Given Korabik's (1982) finding that sex- role 
identity is a better predictor of leadership style than is 
biological sex, it would seem interesting to explore the 
sex- role identities of this population in relation to 
gender and gender composition of student leaders' primary 
organization. Since leadership is generally thought of as 
a activity considered appropriate for the masculine 
sex- role, it seems reasonable to assume that more college 
men than women would participate i n leadership roles, 
particularly in male or coeducational organi z ations. It 
also follows that those women who have sought out 
leadership roles will be more likely to have masculine or 
androgynous sex- role identities. Feminine women who have 
chosen leadership roles may be more likely to be leaders 
in same-sex groups. The purpose of this study was to 
provide data about these hypotheses. 
-46-
Achieving Styles of College Students 
In 1953, McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell put 
forth a theory of achievement motivation which focused on 
O tive or need for achievement. This ground-breaking them 
k set the stage for much of the achievement related wor 
resea rc h performed over the next two decades ? Their work 
relied in part on Murray's (1938) theory of a taxonomy of 
human needs which motivated people to act, and which used 
a projective test to tap these needs since they were 
theorized to be unconscious. McClelland et al. (1953) 
suggested that the motive to achieve was characterized by 
a concern with achieving standards of excellence and 
competing with them in achieving a goal. This concern was 
learned very early in life, provided that an individual's 
achievement directed behavior met with positive 
consequences, that is, if the individual was successful in 
meeting the goal. If so, the individual then learned a 
goal orientation characterized by striving for success 
against a standard of excellence. This goal orientation 
became a stable personality characteristic which could be 
aroused by appropriate environmental cues (Sutherland & 
Veroff, 1985). Thus, achievement motivation was a learned 
drive toward standards of excellence which could be 
aroused by cues from the environment. 
Many studies were performed on this model in which 
researchers attempted to engage an individual's need for 
-47-
achievement by creating a state of arousal using 
competitive tasks. Most of the research at this time was 
performed on male study participants. While their 
attempts to engage male participants 1 achievement need 
were successful, they were unable to engage women's need 
for achievement using the same methods (Lipman - Blumen, 
Handley - Isakson & Leavitt, 1983; Sutherland & Veroff, 
1985). Little light was shed on women 1 s achievement 
needs, therefore, until Horner 's (1968) popular work on 
women and the fear of success. Recognizing that 
McClelland 1 s et al. (1953) theory seemed to explain men 1 s 
behavior but not women 1 s, Horner suggested that some 
people, particularly women, were characterized by a motive 
to avoid success. This motive would be aroused when an 
individual believed that to achieve would mean to risk 
affiliative success (Horner, 1968). 
There has been much controversy surrounding Horner 1 s 
motive to avoid success (Lipman - Blumen et al., 1983; 
Sutherland & Veroff, 1985). Subsequent researchers have 
been unable to replicate her results to the same degree, 
and her theory has been called into serious question. 
Nonetheless, her work brought the attention of researchers 
back to the question of achievement in women, and 
suggested that the achievement motive could be a more 
complex problem for women than for men. 
Many researchers then and since have postulated other 
-48-
dimensions of the achievement problem for women including 
the possibility that women might have differential 
expectations for success when confronted by an achievement 
situation; that women may be motivated by social approval 
and affiliative needs rather than the need for excellence 
or mastery (Hoffman, 1972); or that men and women do not 
differ in the factors which motivate them, but they do 
differ in the degree to which t hose factors are motivating 
to them (Spence & Helmreich, 1983). 
The Lipman - Blumen - Leavitt Achieving Styles Model 
The Lipman-Blumen-Leavitt model of achieving styles 
(Lipman-Blumen & Leavitt, 1976) differs from that of 
tradit i onal achievement research in that it does not focus 
on the motive for achievement but rather on how an 
individual achieves. The model began with Lipman - Blumen's 
doctoral dissertation relating "mode of achievement 
satisfaction to sex-role ideology and educational 
aspirations among highly - educated married women" 
(Lipman - Blumen, 1972). In it she postulated a continuum 
of active to passive modes of achievement. The active end 
of the continuum involved achieving actively and directly 
through one ' s own efforts. The passive end def i ned a mode 
of achieving which satisfied the achievement outcome by 
identifying with and achieving vicariously through 
another ' s achievements. Lipman - Blumen bel i eved that her 
conceptualization of vicarious ach i evement could provide 
- 49 -
an explanation for what Horner described as behavior which 
indicated a motive to avoid success. 
With the help of several years of empirical research, 
Lipman - Blumen et al. (1983) reconceptualized the early 
model and replaced it with its currect design -- nine 
styles of achieving falling within three major domains 
conceptualized as a circular pattern rather than a linear 
continuum. The circular pattern is intended to show the 
closeness of the relationship of one style to another. 
The three major domains of achieving, according to 
the model, are direct styles, instrumental styles and 
relational styles. Direct styles of achieving are 
characterized by taking action directly or through 
controlling the actions of others in order to get a 
particular task accomplished. Instrumental styles of 
achieving involve a two step process whereby the achiever 
uses either a characteristic of his or her person or 
previous achievement, or other people and their 
achievements, in the accomplishment of a particular goal. 
Relational styles of achieving focus on achieving through 
contributing to relationships. 
Several assumptions are made by the model: 
1. There are three major needs - - physical, social and 
egoistic needs. Physical needs are assumed to be innate, 
beginning with birth; social and egoistic needs are 
learned early on as the individual attempts to get his or 
- 50-
her Physical needs met by others. If the individual has 
difficulty in getting these needs met, he or she then 
learns to prefer either a direct style of achieving or an 
instrumental style of achieving. If the individual finds 
little difficulty in getting his or her needs met through 
others, he or she will generally prefer a relational style 
of achieving. 
2. Individuals prefer some styles over others and may use 
one or more characteristic style(s) to achieve goals in a 
variety of situations, sometimes without considering 
whether the style characteristic of them is an appropriate 
approach for the situation. 
3 _ The concepts of flexibility, range and intensity are 
several different dimensions of achieving styles and will 
affect how an individual acts. 
4. Some individuals may have access to a wide range of 
achieving styles and therefore choose the most appropriate 
style for the situation. Others do not have such a range, 
and use one or two styles for all situations, even those 
for which the preferred style is not appropriate. 
5. None of the achieving style domains or the substyles 
are mutually exclusive or independent. However, some 
combinations of the styles are more similar to each other 
than others, with those located closely together on a 
circular pattern as more similar than those located 
further apart. 
- 51 -
6. While preferred styles are learned early in life, 
individuals may learn additional styles later in life. 
7. No one style is any better or has more intrinsic value 
than any other style. However, some styles may be more 
appropriate when matched to specific situations 
(Lipman-Blumen, Leavitt, Patterson, Bies & 
Handley - Isaksen, 1980, pp. 147-148). 
The Nine Achieving Styles 
Briefly, the nine styles are described below: 
The Direct Domain 
Intrinsic Direct: Individuals demonstrating this 
style enjoy acting directly upon a task for the sheer 
satisfaction the task offers. They use internal standards 
of excellence to measure their success. 
Competitive Direct: Individuals with this style act 
directly upon a task but differ from those using an 
intrinsic direct style by deriving a sense of satisfaction 
from competing with others. It is not enough to do the 
task well, instead one must do better than others to feel 
a "thrill" of satisfaction. 
Power Direct: Individuals with this style accomplish 
tasks through the direction and delegation of tasks to 
others. They continue to maintain firm control over both 
the goals needing to be accomplished and the means by 
which they will be achieved. They seek out situations 
which they believe need organizing and leadership and feel 
- 52-
satisfaction by controlling the wok 
r necessary to get the 
task done. 
The Instrumental Domain 
Personal Instrumental: 
Individuals with this style 
use attributes of their personal self (background, 
position, status, talents, skills, etc.) or prior 
achievements to accomplish additional achievements. 
Personal attributes or prior accomplishments are valued 
primarily for their usefulness in achieving further 
accomplishments. 
Social Instrumental: Individuals using this style 
regard the relationships they are able to make as the way 
to accomplish further goals. They generally are confident 
of their ability to make acquaintanceships easily and may 
have vast social networks. They appreciate their 
relationships primarily for their use in achieving. These 
individuals are generally cognizant of using this style; 
however, their use of relationships to accomplish their 
goal may be hidden from other individuals rather than 
being overt. At other times, especially when dealing with 
another social instrumentalist, the use of the 
relationship may be an overt agreement. 
Reliant Instrumental: Individuals using this style 
are, at least in American culture, generally less 
confident of their own efficacy to achieve, and therefore, 
achieve through the help of others. They rely on others 
- 53-
to accomplish the task, however, they generally set their 
own goals. 
The Relational Domain 
Collaborative Relational: Individuals using this 
style value teamwork above all else. They participate 
with others equally to achieve a task, and expect to share 
equally in the credit from accomplishing the task as well. 
They derive their satisfaction from being actively 
involved as part of the team, and accept the group's goal 
as their own. 
Contributory Relational: Individuals using this 
style achieve by working actively toward the 
accomplishments of others with whom they identify. While 
they help others achieve the goals the others have set, 
they are able to distinguish between their accomplishments 
and those of the achiever. They do not usurp the 
achiever's victory; however, they do share in the pleasure 
of the success. 
Vicarious Relational: Individuals using this style 
derive satisfaction from the achievements of others with 
whom they identify closely. Because of their close 
identification, they are able to feel satisfaction through 
the achiever's accomplishments as though the 
accomplishments were their own. 
- 54-
Gender Differences with the Achieving 
Styles Inventory 
Possible gender differences in the styles chosen have 
interested Lipman - Blumen from the beginning of her 
research. Her work is unusual in that from its original 
conceptualization it focused on both women's and men's 
approaches to achieving. The research performed on the 
concept and instrument reflects this, using both women and 
men as study participants. 
In reporting her research, Lipman - Blumen et al . 
(1983) used data collected from several separate studies 
in which she explored the question of gender differences 
in achieving styles. They combined data from studies of 
senior male executives and their wives, upper male 
managers, middle male managers, technical male managers, 
male staff managers, career women (generally women in 
traditional female careers), women managers and 
homemakers. They also used data from high school students 
and college students. In the sense that their subject pool 
was not randomly selected across the general population, 
it cannot be considered generalizable. Nonetheless, i t 
does point to some general differences along gender and 
age lines. 
They hypothesized that because of early sex - role 
socialization, women are more likely to use relational and 
instrumental styles of achieving (while men would be more 
-55-
likely to use the direct styles of achieving, particularly 
competitive direct and power direct). They also 
hypothesized that because American culture has such a 
st rong work ethic, both genders would score highly on the 
intrinsic direct style. 
Looking at their population overall, Lipman-Blumen et 
al. (1983) found differences which reflect sex-role 
stereotyping. Gender differences were more pronounced in 
the older group (thirty years old and older) yet were 
sustained in the younger group (less than thirty) as well. 
For those thirty and over, women showed significantly 
higher contributory and vicarious relational scores than 
did men, while men scored higher than women on all the 
direct scales. Like their seniors, younger men were 
separated from younger women by their higher competitive 
direct scores. They were also separated by higher social 
instrumental and lower vicarious relational scores. 
While the differences in gender may generally follow 
sex-role stereotypes, they seem to be confounded by 
differences in age as shown above, and occupation. As 
Lipman-Blumen et al. (1983) have pointed out, a study by 
Awad (1980) found no significant differences across gender 
for MBA students. Moreover, in studies of women managers, 
Lipman-Blumen et al. (1983) found that women managers 
scored similarly to male managers with the exception of 
the competitive and power direct scales -- the men had 
-56-
significantly higher means on these scales. 
In a study of student affairs professionals and 
students participating in student activities, Beardsley, 
Stewart and Wilmes (1987) found significant gender 
differences in the Competitive Direct and Power Direct 
styles, the Social Instrumental style and the Contributory 
Relational style. They also found significant differences 
in the Direct and Instrumental Domains. Using the AS! to 
describe the student sample, they found students who were 
"primarily task oriented ... feel comfortable in aspects of 
power to achieve, yet possess a secondary filter of 
supportiveness for the goals and achievements of others" 
(p. 417) . 
Summary 
The limited literature available on students' 
achieving styles indicates that there may be some 
differences in the achieving styles of men and women 
students participating in activities, particularly in the 
Competitive Direct and Power Direct styles, the Social 
Instrumental style and the Contributory Relational style. 
Additional research on the population of students involved 
in leadership activities using achieving styles will add 
to student affairs professionals' knowledge of potential 
gender differences in this population. Given changing 
sex-role socialization, it may be that there will be fewer 
differences between male and female student leaders in 
.. 
-57-
their choices of achieving styles. It may also be that 
students who choose leadership positions in college will 
have similar achieving styles. The present study explored 
these gender differences for student leaders. 
-58-
The Career Aspirations of Men and 
Women College Students 
Much has been written on the career development of 
college students. As with achievement, more seems to be 
known about men's career development than women's. With 
the dramatic increase of women in the work force over the 
last twenty years, however, researchers have shown more 
interest in women's career development and 
decision-making. Some researchers have hypothesized that 
college women's career development is different from that 
of college men because of women's sex-role socialization 
(Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980). In their extensive review of 
the literature on women's career psychology, Betz and 
Fitzgerald (1987) reported that researchers have looked at 
relationships between women's career development and their 
sex-role identity, attitudes toward work roles for women, 
self-esteem, performance expectations, and women's 
possible fear of success or failure . Several of these 
variables seem to play a part in women's career 
decision-making. With the reality of women currently 
constituting over half of the work force, and with both 
men's and women's attitudes toward working women changing 
(Phillips & Johnston, 1985), it seems important to look at 
the career aspirations of women and men student leaders at 
this point in time. 
Career aspirations for college students, or what 
- 59-
college students intend to do in their futures, can be 
measured in several different ways. A review of the 
literature shows that researchers have investigated career 
aspirations by looking at the level and nature (in 
relation to one's gender) of self- reported occupational 
choices, the nature (in relation to one's gender) of 
choice of college major, the level and timing of plans for 
post-graduate study, and plans for a full - time, continuous 
or interrupted career after graduation. 
Several studies over the last two decades give 
attention to the level of career aspirations for college 
students. Not surprisingly, women's aspirations have 
lagged behind those of men's on several indicators. With 
the rise of the women's movement in the late 196O's and 
early 197O's, women's career aspirations and plans began 
to increase dramatically, while men's stayed stable 
(Wilson & Lunneborg, 1982; Zuckerman, 1981). As Zuckerman 
( 1981 ) stated, 11 The men continued to aspire to higher 
education goals, (and) to be more likely to aspire to 
male-dominated careers" (p. 1122). 
Level and Nature of Occupational Choice 
One measure of career aspiration is students' self 
report of careers they are planning. Astin, Green and 
Korn's (1987) study of trends of American freshmen college 
students from 1966 through 1985 suggested that women 
students have shifted away from aspiring to the 
-60-
traditional career fields of elementary and secondary 
school teaching, nursing, social work and homemaking, and 
toward such nontraditional fields for women as business, 
law, medicine, science and engineering . Zuckerman (1980) 
reported that 51 % of the women in her study showed 
interest in male-dominated career fields; Kingdon and 
Sedlacek (1982) reported that 42% of their freshman women 
sample aspired to careers nontraditional for women, while 
an additional 22% indicated interest in gender neutral 
careers. 
Another indicator which is used to shed light on 
career aspirations i s the proportion of students planning 
to work in full - time careers. While almost all male 
college students indicate that they plan on work i ng 
full - time, an increasing proportion of women college 
s t udents are ind i cating that they also plan full - time work 
after college. Zuckerman (1981) reported that 72% of t he 
college women in her sample preferred full - time careers. 
Data from the Brown study (Leland, 1980) i ndicated that 
68% of i ts women students preferred a full - time career i n 
ten to fifteen years, and Harmon (1981) reported that 4 7% 
of the women participants in her study planned t o work 
most of their lives despite marriage and family 
responsibilities. 
Unfortunately, these find i ngs on the i ncreas i ng 
proportions of women aspi ring to non - trad i tional careers 
-61-
and of women considering full-time careers mask the 
current reality of the disparity between men's and women's 
career aspirations. While Leland (1980), in the Brown 
study, found that students of both genders were interested 
in fields nontraditional for women, she also found that 
more men preferred traditionally male-dominated fields, 
and more women preferred traditionally female-dominated 
fields. Thus, in the Brown study, occupational 
aspirations still tended to follow traditional gender 
lines. 
Kingdon and Sedlacek's (1982) research on the career 
aspirations of women students presents some puzzling 
findings. In a study of freshman students, 42% of the 
women indicated that they were considering careers in 
nontraditional fields, while only 14% indicated that they 
would prefer careers traditional to women. However, the 
researchers point to another study of graduates from the 
same university which found that upon graduation women 
actually entered careers which were more traditional for 
women (Knight, Sedlacek & Bachhuber, 1983). In a 
replication of the Knight et al. (1983) study four years 
later, Martinez, Sedlacek & Bachhuber (1985) found again 
that despite their stated wishes as freshman to enter 
nontraditional careers, women were found entering 
traditional careers in education, the social sciences, and 
clerical fields. 
- 62 -
Harmon's (1981) findings concur. Her longitudinal 
study of women entering college in 1968 shows that while 
many women considered a wide range of careers in their 
late teens, they actually chose careers in areas 
traditional for women. She also found that the career 
choices women gave as college freshmen in 1968 were not 
accurate indicators of what the women were doing seven 
years later. 
Choice of Undergraduate Major 
Another indicator of career aspiration is the choice 
of students' undergraduate major, which assumes that 
undergraduate major and career aspiration are related. 
There are conflicting data on this dimension. Data from 
the Brown study (Leland, 1980) indicates that, like their 
career aspirations, choices of major for men and women 
students followed traditional gender lines. Women were 
more likely to major in the social and behavioral 
sciences, history/civics and English language , and men 
were more often found in engineering or physical sciences, 
mathematics or biology/medicine. This is true of the 
findings of three additional studies (Randour, Strasburg, 
& Lipman - Blumen, 1982; Subcommittee on Undergraduate 
Women ' s Education, 1987; Zuckerman, 1981). 
Other studies, however, emphasize the increasing 
numbers of women who are broadening their options and 
choosing nontraditional majors. Wilson and Lunneborg 
- 63-
(1982) reported that 40% of their women participants 
elected a nontraditional major, and although Arnold and 
Denny (1985) discussed lowered career aspirations for 
their sample as a whole, 73% of their women study 
participants chose to study in male-dominated or 
equal-gender representation majors. 
Plans for Graduate Study 
Educational aspirations, or plans for graduate study, 
is another indicator of career aspiration used in the 
literature. Of the 50% of the students in the Brown study 
interested in earning a doctoral degree, more were men 
than women (Leland, 1980) . More women than men planned on 
completing a master ' s degree, and a very small percentage 
of both genders planned to end their education with the 
bachelor's degree. Zuckerman (1981) reported that among 
the women attending a four-year coed university, 55% 
intended to get a master's degree compared with 33% of the 
men, while 18% of the women planned on a doctoral or 
professional degree, compared with 39% of the men. 
Interestingly, among women respondents at a seven sisters' 
college which was formerly a women ' s college but is now 
coeducational, a much larger percentage of women planned 
to pursue doctoral work. Forty - seven percent planned 
doctoral or professional degrees, while 45% planned 
master ' s degrees. No data were presented on men at that 
institution (Zuckerman, 1980). 
- 64-
The Brown study (Leland, 1980) also indicated that a 
larger proportion of men (43%) than women (35%) planned on 
. . g their graduate studies immediately after 
beginn1n 
their bachelor's degree. Data from the 
completing 
t f Maryland showed similar differences in the Universi Y O
. of men (26.4%) compared to women (20.5%) who 
proportion 
their graduate studies within a year after 
began 
tion from college (Subcommittee on Undergraduate 
gra d ua 
Women's Education, 1987) . Of the women attending a seven 
sisters' college, however, 70% of the large proportion of 
women students planning on graduate study expected to 
begin their post - graduate study within one year of 
graduating from college (Zuckerman, 1980). 
Changes in Career Aspirations during College 
Several studies were either longitudinal in nature or 
surveyed several class levels to see whether or not change 
occurred over the four years men and women were in 
college. The Brown Report collected data from all four 
class levels and so made inferences about differences 
which seemed to have occurred over time. Leland (1980) 
reported that "from a relatively even distribution of the 
ten career clusters between men and women, each successive 
class shows trends toward more traditional sex- typed 
preferences" (p.113). Leland suggested that while women 
may start out with nontraditional career interests, they 
become more traditional in their aspirations as they 
-65-
progress through college. By their senior year they have 
weaker commitments to male-dominated career fields and 
commit instead to fields more traditional for women. 
Kingdon and Sedlacek {1982) suggested that women may 
have nontraditional career goals as freshman students, yet 
when they enter the workforce they choose traditional 
jobs. Blaska {1978) postulated that women's "early 
choices are not reliably related to post college 
vocational behavior" {p. 304) . She suggested that women 
may experience a conflict between career and marriage 
which does not surface until the women actually must make 
a career decision - - more often in the later years of 
college or at graduation. This would have implications 
for the reliability of much data that uses only the career 
aspirations of freshman women to ascertain women ' s career 
commitment. 
Data from the Brown study {Leland, 1980) also 
suggested that women are more likely than men to change 
their career plans during college. Forty - four percent of 
the women compared with 38% of the men indicated that they 
had changed their career plans. This suggests that 
women ' s initial career plans are not as firm as those of 
men or that other variables come into play during the 
college years which affect women's career decisions and 
not men's. 
--
-66-
Plans for Interrupted or Continuous Careers 
Arnold and Denny (1985) conducted a longitudinal 
of high school valedictorians. Even though the 
stU d Y 
majori t Y of women in this study chose to study in 
male-dominated or gender-neutral majors, Arnold and Denny 
still found that the women tended to lower their career 
aspi? rations during college. Their most dramatic 
indication of this phenomenon occurred during the 
sop ho more year when, despite equally outstanding academic 
achievement on the part of the women valedictorians, six 
of the eight women interested in medical school changed 
their majors to other fields which they perceived as less 
demanding on their potential future roles as wives and 
mothers. 
In exploring this phenomenon further, Arnold and 
Denny (1985) found that despite the traditional or 
non - traditional nature of the women's individual career 
goals, 30 out of 45 women in the study planned to 
interrupt their careers or to work part - time while 
raising children. Arnold and Denny (1985) concluded from 
this finding that the women in their study lowered their 
occupational aspirations not by choosing female-dominated 
professions but by lowering their plans for full-t ime 
continuous participation in the workforce. 
Two other studies found similar proport i ons of women 
planning to interrupt their careers for ch i ld - rear i ng and 
-67-
family responsibilities. Zuckerman (1981) reported that 
while 72% of the women in her sample preferred full - time 
careers, usually in addition to marriage and family, only 
29% would prefer to both have children and work 
continuously, without taking time off for child-rearing. 
Phillips and Johnston (1985) indicated that over 
two-thirds of the women in their sample preferred an equal 
emphasis on both career and family. Yet, when asked about 
their level of preferred career involvement, nearly 
two-thirds of the women expected to interrupt their career 
to have children. Phillips and Johnston (1985) expressed 
surprise at this finding, and suggested that the women 
seem to be "selecting a career option inconsistent with 
their stated intention" (p. 337), and recommended that 
further research be devoted to the costs and benefits of 
interrupting a career. 
Several studies emphasized that women now plan on 
having both a career and a marriage and family (Blaska, 
1978; Phillips & Johnston, 1985; Zuckerman, 1980, 1981). 
Knight et al. (1983) suggested that women's career 
decisions are related to a focus on marriage, and 
speculated that "it may be that the primary focus of 
college women is on whether to have a career and a 
marriage, rather than on the choice of a career and 
appropriate planning for it" (p. 155). 
In contrast to Arnold and Denny's (1985) study on 
-68-
high school valedictorians, Zuckerman (1980} found that 
women students attending a seven sisters' college had what 
she termed "extremely unrealistic expectations" (p. 318}, 
that is combining graduate study at the doctoral or 
' 
professional level immediately after graduation, early 
marriage and family, and challenging careers in 
nontraditional fields. She suggested that "as women 
continue their education, they maintain their preferences 
for nontraditional careers, but lower their expectations 
in terms of careers, degrees, and immediacy of graduate 
school plans, marriage, and motherhood" (p. 318}. She 
speculated further that these changes are caused by 
women's increased maturity and pragmatism, or possibly by 
poor career counseling. Given that these women were 
attending college at an institution which formerly had 
been a women's college, it may also be that attending 
college at an institution focusing on women encouraged 
women to maintain their high expectations. Data collected 
by Tidball (1980} would suggest that this might be true of 
women attending women's colleges. Since the Brown study 
(Leland, 1980) included several women's colleges and did 
not note differences in career choices between those women 
and others attending coed colleges, the women ' s original 
high expectations in Zuckerman ' s (1980} study remain 
unexplained. 
- 69-
Career Aspirations of College Student Leaders 
There are few data on the career aspirations of 
student leaders. A study of former student leaders 
indicates that the majority of them (64%) believed that 
their leadership experience had influenced their choice of 
occupation, but did not say how this occurred. No gender 
differences were indicated (Schuh & Laverty, 1983). A 
second study which looked at long-term outcomes of 
participation in student government suggested only that 
"students who were satisfied with their jobs had 
experienced a high level of student activity in college" 
(Downey et al. 1984, p. 244). Because the limited 
literature on student leaders does not indicate whether 
there will be differences by gender or group make-up in 
career aspirations for student leaders, one must rely on 
the data generated on college students in general. 
Summary 
While data from studies of freshman aspirations show 
increasing interest on the part of women toward 
nontraditional careers, other studies which use data from 
several class levels including college seniors still show 
decreasing career aspirations for women over the four 
years. The most significant indicator of women's lowered 
career aspirations is the large number of women planning 
on interrupting their careers for marriage and family 
obligations. Other indicators include the smaller 
- 70-
proportion of women versus men planning on 
doctoral/professional level postgraduate study, the large 
proportion of women and men still in majors considered 
traditional for their gender, and the larger proportion of 
men than women who intend to pursue graduate studies 
within one year after graduation from college. 
Career aspiration is measured using several d i fferent 
indicators including the level and nature (in relation to 
one's gender) of self-report career aspirations , whether 
one chooses a traditional or non - traditional major i n 
relation to one ' s gender, plans for post-graduate study, 
and plans for a full-time, continuous or interrupted 
career after graduation . 
-71-
Chapter Summary 
As discussed in Chapter II, the literature shows only 
limited research on college student leaders. Given that 
this literature suggests that student leaders may differ 
in characteristics and traits from college students in 
general, a study of this popuation seems appropriate. 
Given also that the literature on leadership in general 
indicates that women and men experience leadership roles 
differently, it stands to reason that college students in 
leadership roles might also experience these roles 
differently along gender lines. Research in the field of 
small group research indicates that the gender makeup of 
the group also has an impact on the leadership experience 
for men and women (Bartol & Martin, 1986). Therefore, 
both gender of the student leader and gender composition 
of the leaders' group would seem to be important 
dimensions which may relate to student leaders ' 
self-esteem, sex-role identities, achieving styles and 
career aspirations. 
- 72-
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 
Purpose of Study 
It was the purpose of this study to investigate 
gender differences in the self-esteem, sex- role identity, 
achieving styles and career aspirations of presidents of 
student organizations. A second purpose was to 
investigate whether, on these same dimensions, presidents 
differ if they are involved primarily with a mixed-sex or 
single-sex student organization. Accordingly, male and 
female presidents of student organizations were 
administered a battery of instruments and a demographic 
questionnaire. The instruments included the LB-L 
Individual Achieving Styles Inventory (Lipman-Blumen, 
1987), the Rosenberg Self- esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), 
and the Bern Sex- role Inventory (Bern, 1981). The 
demographic questionnaire included items relating to 
students' career aspirations, information on students' 
leadership role(s) and the gender makeup on their student 
organization(s), as well as general demographic 
information. Students received the instruments in the 
mail and were asked to complete them. 
Sample 
Student leaders were defined as undergraduate 
students who were presidents of student organizations 
registered with the Office of Campus Activities at the 
-73-
University of Maryland at College Park. All 313 
presidents of student organizations we~e mailed a survey 
package. Of this number, 64 had moved or graduated with 
no forwarding address, 11 were graduate students, five 
returned unusable results, and two retu~ned the 
questionnaire well after the data were analyzed. Of the 
total 231 remaining presidents, 164 (71%) returned usable 
questionnaires and instruments. 
Demographic data on the study's pa~ticipants showed 
that 95 (58%) were male and 69 (42%) we~e female. These 
proportions were similar to the proportions of men (53%) 
and women (47%) undergraduate students at the same 
institution. Table 1 shows the racial breakdown of the 
sample population with comparable propo~tions for the 
undergraduate student population at the same institution. 
Proportions were similar for each race or ethnic 
background with the exception of international students 
who were well represented in the sample population (8%) 
compared with their proportion (3%) in the undergraduate 
student population. Since international student 
organizations were registered with the Office of Campus 
Activities and would generally have presidents of a 
corresponding heritage, this slightly larger proportion is 
not surprising. The vast majority of study participants 
indicated that they were Caucasian/White Americans. All 
but 18 participants were American citizens. 
- 74-
Table 1 
Racial/ethnic Groups of Presidents of Student 
Or;-aniz ations Compared with Undergraduate Students 
-=- at Same Institution 
Racial/ethnic Presidents All Undergraduates 
n 
Group % % 
Afro - Ameri~an/ 
Black American 17 10 10 
American Indian 
or Alaskan 
Native 2 0 it 
I 
Caucasian/White 
American 112 68 76 \! 
Mexican-American 2 1 3 \t 
j 
Asian - American 16 10 9 1! 
other/Inter-
national student 13 8 3 11 
No response 2 1 
j 
l 
'j  
Table 2 
Age of Presidents 
Age n % 
18 2 1 
19 14 9 
20 20 12 
21 46 28 
22 39 24 
23 22 13 
24 8 5 
25 - 36 13 8 
-75-
Table 3 
Grade Point Averages of Presidents of Student 
Organizations 
GPA .!l ~ 
4.0 3 2 
3.5 - 3.9 23 14 
3.0 - 3.4 57 35 
2.5 - 2.9 54 33 
2.0 - 2.4 22 13 
1. 5 - 1. 9 2 1 
No Response 3 2 
. 
I 
l 
1 
I' 
''I Table 4 'I.  
' 
Gender of Presidents by Gender Composition 
of Student Organization 
Male Female 
Gender .!l = 90 .!l = 72 
Composition 
of Group .!l % .!l % 
Same sex 35 39 32 44 
Mixed-sex 51 57 33 46 
Opposite 
sex 4 4 7 10 
-76-
This sample appears slightly older than traditional 
college students. Table 2 shows an age range of 18 to 36 
years, with 74% of the participants being 22 years of age 
or younger. The mean age for undergraduate students at 
the same institution was 22.3 years, very similar to the 
age of the sample population. The majority of students 
(68%) were seniors, 19% were juniors, 10% were sophomores, 
1% were first year students, and 2% indicated they were 
"other". As Table 3 shows, students' grade point averages 
ranged widely also, from 1 .6 to 4.0 on a 4.0 scale with a 
mean of 2.96. 
Table 4 gives the gender of the student leaders by 
the gender composition of their student organization. 
Women student leaders were divided evenly between 
mixed-sex (46%) and single-sex (44%) groups, while more 
men were presidents of mixed-sex (57%) than single-sex 
(39%) groups. While results for presidents of 
opposite-sex groups were not used in the statistical 
analysis, it is interesting to note that 10% of the women 
were presidents of opposite-sex groups as compared to 4% 
of the men. 
Procedure 
Presidents of student organizations registered with 
the Office of Campus Activities were mailed a survey 
packet containing a letter of introduction, a 
questionnaire and two instruments to complete -- the Bern 
-77-
Sex-role Inventory and the L- BL Achieving Styles Inventory 
The questionnaire also included the Rosenberg Self-esteem 
Scale. Enclosed in the packet was a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope in which participants were to return the 
results. Appendix A contains the survey packet. The 
survey packet took participants approximately 20- 35 
minutes to complete. 
The survey packets were mailed the first week in 
November, 1988. Three days after the initial mailing 
presidents were mailed a reminder postcard (Appendix B). 
A week after the initial mailing students were called on 
the telephone at home and encouraged to return the 
questionnaire. A telephone protocol was used for the 
calls (Appendix C ). Another survey packet was also 
mailed to students who had lost their first packet . 
Presidents of student organizations who had not returned 
their questionnaires by the second week were called at 
home a week later, using the same telephone protocol. A 
final telephone call was made to students not returning 
their survey the week after Thanksgiving. If students 
were met by Campus Activities staff informally during the 
workday, they were also encouraged to return their 
surveys. 
Instrumentation 
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale 
The Rosenberg Self- esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is 
-78-
a ten - item Likert scale measuring self-esteem. Each item 
reflects a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward 
oneself. Individuals answer each item using a six point 
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree 
(6) to indicate how they view themselves. The scale was 
intended to be unidimensional, was designed for ease and 
speed of administration, and was originally used on a 
sample of high school juniors and seniors. 
Rosenberg (1965) stated that high self-esteem as 
indicated by the Self-esteem Scale means that an 
individual believes that he or she is "good enough", and 
that "the individual respects himself [or herself], 
considers himself [or herself] worthy; he [or she] does 
not necessarily consider himself [or herself] better than 
others, but he [or she] definitely does not consider 
himself [or herself] worse; he [or she] does not feel 
that he [or she] is the ultimate in perfection but, on the 
contrary, recognizes his [or her] limitations and expects 
to grow and improve" (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 31). Robinson 
and Shaver (1973) suggested that the scale measures the 
self acceptance aspect of self-esteem. 
The Rosenberg Self- esteem Scale has high reliability . 
Silber and Tippett (1965) found a test-retest correlation 
over a two-week period of .85. Rosenberg (1965) reported 
a reproducibility coefficient of .92. 
With regard to validity, Silber and Tippett (1965) 
-
- 79-
found convergent validity with several other measures to 
range from .56 to .83. Robinson and Shaver (1973) 
reported that the scale correlated .59 with Coopersmith's 
Self- esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967). 
Rosenberg (1965) reported that predictive validity 
was found with the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale and other 
constructs which are typically related to self-esteem such 
as depression, physiological indicators of neurosis, and 
peer- group reputation. 
Bern Sex-Role Inventory 
The Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bern, 1981) is 
intended to categorize individuals into one of three 
sex- role classifications: masculine, feminine or 
androgynous. The long form of the BSRI consists of 60 
personality characteristics, mostly in adjective form. 
Twenty of the items have been defined by Bern (1974) as 
stereotypically masculine in nature, 20 as stereotypically 
feminine in nature, and 20 are neutral, filler items. 
Respondents indicate on a seven-point Likert scale how 
well each of the characteristics describes them. The 
scale ranges from "Never or almost never true" to "Always 
or almost always true". The short form of the BSRI (Bern, 
1981), which is the form used in this study, consists of 
30 items from the original BSRI, selected through factor 
analyses to maximize the internal consistency of the 
Masculine and Feminine scales and to improve the 
- 80-
orthogonality between them. The feminine items which had 
low social desirability were dropped, several masculine 
items which had low item-total correlations were 
discarded, the terms "masculine" and "feminine" were left 
off (both terms were sources of much criticism from other 
researchers), and 10 filler or neutral items were not 
included on the short form. According to several 
reviewers, the short form, therefore, is a psychometric 
improvement on the BSRI long form, since it has greater 
internal consistency, increased purity of factors and 
greater orthogonality (Lippa, 1985; Payne, 1985). Bern 
(1981) reported that the long form and the short form are 
highly correlated, the correlation ranging from .87 to 
.94. 
Originally, Bern (1974) classified individuals by 
sex-role groups by using at - ratio for the difference 
between the total points assigned to the feminine and 
masculine attributes. An androgynous sex role, therefore, 
was assigned when an individual indicated an equal number 
of feminine and masculine personality characteristics. As 
Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975) indicated, however, 
this approach did not differentiate between those 
individuals scoring high on both femininity and 
masculinity and those individuals scoring low on 
femininity and masculinity. Taking the suggestion of 
Spence, Helmreich and Stapp (1975), Bern (1981) has 
-81-
recommended that individuals be classified into sex-role 
groups on the basis of a median split on both the 
femininity and masculinity scales, thus generating four 
categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous and 
undifferentiated. 
Bern (1974) reported test-retest reliability 
correlation scores after a four-week period of .90 for 
masculinity, . 90 for femininity, and . 93 for androgyny. 
Internal consistency coefficients were computed separately ,,,,  
for females and males on the masculinity, femininity and I 
I:,i  
difference scores and ranged from .75 to .87 (Bern, 1981). ' I ,ll,  
' I 
With regard to validity, Bieger (1985) contended that :1 I 
,,,,I   
the BSRI has construct validity based on the convergent ,' , 
,,I  
findings of several studies which used the BSRI to ' 1 : i 
:' 1I  
identify sex roles. In his review of the inventory, Lippa :j 
I , 
:? 
(1985) agreed, stating that several studies have suggested 
that the BSRI scales are correlated with gender-related 
behaviors, including "conformity, nurturance and 
interpersonal sensitivity, the avoidance of cross- sex 
behaviors, nonverbal femininity and masculinity, styles of 
social interaction, and the cognitive processing of 
gender - related information" (p. 137) . 
Critics of the BSRI have disagreed. As stated in 
Chapter II, several researchers argued that it is not 
clear what the BSRI actually measures (Payne, 1985; 
Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981) . 
- 82-
Moreover, factorial studies of the BSRI items have 
generated four factors rather than the three Bern has 
acknowledged (Gaudreau, 1977; Moreland, Gulanick & 
Montague, 1978; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979). Payne (1985) 
suggested that since the short form of the BSRI "does not 
suffer from these faults" (p. 178) it should be used 
instead. 
The L-BLA Achieving Styles Inventory 
The L-BLA Individual Achieving Styles Inventory 
(ASI - Form 13) (Lipman-Blumen, 1987) was designed to 
measure the extent to which an individual uses nine 
different styles or modes in achieving his or her goals. 
The nine styles are organized into three major domains --
Direct styles, Instrumental styles, and Relational styles 
-- which are composed of three styles each. The inventory 
consists of 45 items, five items for each style. 
Individuals are asked to respond to each item using a 
seven point Likert scale ranging from (1) "never" to (7) 
"always". The ASI was scored by summing an individual ' s 
responses over the five items for each style and dividing 
by the number of items answered. Individuals receive a 
score from 1-7 for each of the nine achieving styles. 
Lipman-Blumen et al. (1983) reported 15 week 
test/retest reliability on the L- BLA Individual Achieving 
Styles Inventory (ASI - Form 10) ranging from .58 to .73 for 
the individual scales, while test/retest reliability for 
-83-
the three domains ranged from .73 to .75. 
Validity was established using factor analysis, with 
oblique rotation, of both items and scales. The 
validities of the individual style scales were estimated 
using the reliability of difference scores. Predictive 
validity was established using discriminant function 
analyses on gender, age and occupation (Lipman-Blumen, 
1987). Lipman-Blumen et al. (1983) found "good to 
excellent" internal scale consistency and adequate 
stability over a fifteen-week interval (p. 179). While 
these tests were done using ASI-Form 10, Lipman-Blumen 
(1987) indicated that only minor changes were made in 
ASI-Form 13, and the same reliability and validity data 
should apply. 
Career Aspirations 
As indicated in the literature review, career 
aspirations can be measured by several different 
indicators. This study attempted to combine four 
different measures to assess gender differences in 
presidents of student organizations. These measures were 
assessed on the demographic questionnaire each student 
completed. 
To measure level of students' future occupational 
choice students were asked to indicate the career they 
would choose for themselves right now from a list of 
- 84-
occupations on the Scale of Occupational Prestige ( 1947 ) 
generated by the National Opinion Research Cent er. Each 
occupation was coded using a five digit code which 
represented the actual occupation and its prestige level. 
The prestige levels ranged from most (01) prestigious to 
least (11), and were coded as follows: 
Government officials - 01 
Professional and semi-professional workers - 02 
Proprietors, managers, and officials (except farm) 
03 
Clerical, sales, and kindred workers - 04 
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers - 05 
Farmers and farm managers - 06 
Protective service workers - 07 
Operatives and kindred workers - 08 
Farm laborers - 09 
Service workers (except domestic & protective) - 10 
Laborers (except farm) - 11 
Other/miscellaneous - 12 
Students' choice of major was also an indicator of 
career aspiration. Choice of major was assessed by asking 
students to list their current University of Maryland 
major on the demographic questionnaire. Using the 
proportions of male and female students in each major at 
the University of Maryland at College Park, each major was 
then categorized as predominantly male, predominantly 
-85-
female or gender neutral. Sixty-one percent or more of 
one gender or the other constituted the definition of 
predominantly male or female (Kingdon & Sedlacek, 1982). 
Students ' choice of major was analyzed, therefore, 
according to the nature of the choice it represents for 
the gender of the student -- either a traditional choice, 
that is, a major typically chosen by students of the same 
sex; a non-traditional choice, a major chosen 
predominanty by students of the opposite sex; or a gender 
neutral choice, a major chosen by both men and women with 
equal frequency. This item was also analyzed for possible 
differences for gender makeup of students' group. 
Students were also asked to indicate their plans for 
graduate study by checking the highest academic degree 
that they intend to obtain from a list of the following 
options: 
1. None 
2. Bachelor's degree (BA, BS, etc.) 
3. Master's degree (MA, MS, etc.) 
4. Ph.D. or Ed.D. 
5. M.D., D.O., D. D. S., or D.V.M. 
6. LL.B. or J.D. (Law) 
7. B.D. or M.Div. (Divinity) 
8. Other 
These options were analyzed for gender differences. 
Respondents were also asked when they plan to begin 
-86-
graduate study (in terms of years), and this measure was 
analyzed for gender differences and differences in gender 
makeup of students' groups. 
The fourth indicator of career aspiration used in 
this study focused on respondents' plans for a full-time 
or interrupted career. Respondents were asked to check 
their choice of the following: 
1. I plan to work full - time most of my life 
without interruption for family 
responsibilities. 
2. I plan to work full-time, then part-time 
while raising children. 
3. I plan to work full - time, taking time off for 
child-raising responsibilities. 
4. I plan to work part-time for reasons other than 
raising children. 
5. I do not plan to work at all. 
The responses were analyzed for gender differences, and 
differences in gender makeup of students' groups . 
Demographic Questionnaire 
A demographic questionnaire was administered to 
respondents along with the other instruments. In addition 
to the items used to reflect student leaders' career 
aspirations, respondents were also asked a variety of 
general demographic questions including age, race, gender, 
citizenship, grade point average and year in college. 
-87-
The demographic questionnaire also included a series 
of questions on students' leadership roles and 
organizations. They were as follows: a list of the 
University of Maryland student organizations in which 
respondents are or have been members; the student 
organization a respondent considers to be that with which 
he/she is or has been most actively involved; and the 
positions or offices they hold or have held in the past in 
their most active organization. Gender composition of the 
student ' s organization was assessed by asking respondents 
to indicate whether that group was one of the following: 
1. More than 75% of my sex 
2. 25% - 75% of my sex 
3. Less than 25% of my sex 
In order to use the Office of Campus Activities 
mailing list of student presidents, a final question was 
included on degree of use of the Office of Campus 
Activities. This information was used only by Campus 
Activities staff and not by this study. 
Hypotheses 
To investigate gender differences and gender make-up 
of group among presidents of student organizations on the 
dimensions of achieving styles, self-esteem, career 
aspirations and sex - role identity, the following null 
hypotheses were tested: 
1. No differences will be found between male and female 
- 88-
presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed-sex groups and presidents of 
single- sex groups on the dimension of achieving styles. 
2. No differences will be found between male and female 
presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed - sex groups and presidents of 
single- sex groups on the presidents' self-esteem. 
3 . No differences will be found between male and female 
presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed-sex groups and presidents of 
single - sex groups on the dimension of sex - role identity. 
4. No differences will be found between male and female 
presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed - sex groups and presidents of 
single- sex groups in their career aspirations. 
Design/Analysis 
Using a quasi-experimental design, this study 
investigated two independent variables, gender of 
president of student organization and gender composition 
of the presidents ' organizations, and four dependent 
variables (presidents' self- esteem, sex- role i dentities, 
achieving styles and career aspirations). ANOVA was used 
to analyze self- esteem; chi- square was used to analy z e 
sex-role identity because the data is categor i cal; MANOVA 
was used to analyze achieving styles; and chi- square was 
used to analyze all categorical career asp i ration data 
-89-
except for "time between baccalaureate and graduate study" 
which was analyzed using ANOVA. Standard SSPS-X programs 
were used in these analyses. 
Of the 164 presidents who completed the survey 
package, only 11 indicated that they were presidents of 
student organizations which had less than 25% of their own 
sex, and three other presidents had not answered this 
item. This small proportion created cell sizes so small 
that analyzing the data with this group included would 
present difficulties. Specifically, the chi square 
statistic requires that each cell contain a minimum of 
five participants (Siegel, 1956), and analyzing such small 
cell sizes with MANOVA increases the chances of finding 
between group differences which may not truly be there 
(Type I error). Including the 11 individuals who were 
essentially leaders of opposite sex groups in either of 
the other two categories -- "more than 75% of my sex" 
(essentially single-sex groups) or "25-75% my sex" 
(mixed-sex groups) would confound the results. Therefore, 
these 11 participants were not included in the analyses, 
and the independent variable, gender composition, was 
analyzed as containing the two dimensions: single-sex 
groups with the president being the same sex as the other 
members, and mixed-sex groups. 
- 90-
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 
Introduction 
This chapter presents the results of the analyses for 
the two independent variables, gender and gender 
composition of president's group, on the four dependent 
variables, self- esteem, sex-role identity, achieving 
styles and career aspirations. 
Null Hypotheses 
Self-esteem 
H01 : No differences will be found between male and 
female presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed-sex groups and presidents of 
single- sex groups on the presidents' self- esteem. 
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted 
using gender and gender composition as independent 
variables with self-esteem, using the Rosenberg 
Self - esteem Scale scores, as the dependent variable. The 
results are seen in Table 5. Neither the two main 
effects, gender and gender composition, nor their 
interaction was significant at the .05 level of 
significance. Thus, the null hypothesis stated above 
could not be rejected. There appears to be no difference 
between the level of self-esteem for male and female 
presidents of student organizations. There also appears 
to be no difference in self-esteem between those who are 
-91 -
Table 5 
Analysis of Variance for Gender and Gender Composition of 
Presidents ' Self-esteem Scores 
N = 154 
Sources of 
Variation ss DF MS F p 
Gender .92 .92 2.39 .12 
Gender 
Composition .30 1 .30 .79 .37 
Interaction .04 1 .04 .09 .75 
Error 56.39 146 .39 
Total 57.79 149 .39 
? 
-92-
Table 6 
presidents' Se]f-esteem Scores 
?)'.-Gender and Gender Composition of Group 
Gender Mean score 
for Gender 
Male Female Composition 
Gender 
Composition n = 88 .!!. = 62 
of Group 
M SD M SD M SD 
Single-sex 4.96 .53 5.16 .61 5.06 .57 
Mixed-sex 4.90 .72 5.03 .54 4.95 .66 
Mean score 4.92 .65 5.09 .57 
for Gender 
.E > .05 
-93-
presidents of single-sex groups and those of mixed - sex 
groups. Table 6 gives the means and standard deviations 
for these analyses. Both sexes scored very close to five 
0 n a six point scale, (mean score for women was 5.09; mean 
score for men was 4.92) indicating that the self-esteem of 
this group of students is relatively high. 
Sex - role Identity 
H02: No differences will be found between male and 
female presidents of student organizations nor between the 
Presidents of mixed-sex groups and presidents of 
single-sex groups on the dimension of sex- role identity. 
The sex- role identity of participants was determined 
using the short form of the Bem Sex-role Inventory (1981) 
Which assigned participants into one of four separate 
categories -- masculine, feminine, androgynous or 
undifferentiated. Chi-square was the statistic used to 
Perform the analyses. Table 7 gives the results of this 
analysis. No differences were found among the sex-role 
identity categories for male and female presidents of 
St u d ent organizations, -"v-~ (3, N = 164) -- 7 ? 00 , .nc . > ? 05 , 
although this analysis approached significance with a 
Probability level of .07. (Scores were weighted in the 
analyses in order to account for unequal proportions of 
men and women) . Interestingly, the sample was evenly 
divided among the four sex- role identity categories with 
an almost equal number of participants falling into each 
~--- - - - - - --
-94-
Table 7 
Sex- role Identity of 
Male and Female Presidents 
Male Female Total Sa mple 
.!:! = 95 .!:! = 69 .!:! = 164 
Sex- role 
Identity .!:! % .!:! % .!:! % 
Feminine 18 19 22 32 40 25 
Mascul i ne 30 32 11 16 41 25 
Androgynous 22 23 19 28 41 25 '.? f .  
I) 
Und i fferent - 25 26 17 25 42 26 "
J"l 
 
iated  ' ? 
'! . ':  ,, '  ? ~ 
X"' ( 3 , N = 164) = 7 . 00, .e > . 05 : ,'  
' 
'.'  
:I  ,'  
:' 'j  
'I .?  
I'?'  
: I 
- 95-
Table 8 
sex - role Identity of Presidents of 
~ngle- sex and Mixed-sex Groups 
Single-sex Mixed - sex Total Sample 
D. = 65 D. = 85 D. = 150 
Sex - role 
Identity D. % D. % D. % 
Feminine 19 29 18 21 37 25 
Masculine 15 23 24 28 39 26 
' .''   
Androgynous 17 26 21 25 38 25 ''  i 
',  'I  
Undifferent- 14 22 22 26 36 24 ! i' .  
iated ''  '$  
:!  !,  
x.g_ ( ' 3' N :::= 150) - 1 . 67, .P. > .05 ' I ''  
- 96-
category, although distribution by gender differed. While 
not significant, men were slightly more likely to be 
categorized as masculine (32%) than as any of the other 
three categories, and least likely to be classified as 
Similarly, women were slightly more 
feminine ( 19%). 
likely to be classified as feminine (32%) and were least 
likely to be classified as masculine (16%). The remaining 
participants fell into the androgynous and 
I 
undifferentiated categories. Again, none of these ? I 
: I 
differences was statistically significant. :?I   !,I i  
1 
Chi- square was also used to test for differences in i ' fa 
sex- role identity between presidents of single-sex and : ~ 
No differences were found among . ~ 
mixed-sex groups. 
sex- role categories for presidents of groups of different il  :~~? . I :' ~ 
gender composition, ?(' (3, N = 150) = 1 . 67, E > .05. 'j  . I 
Very similar proportions of 
Table 8 gives the results. 
presidents of single-sex and mixed - sex groups were 
categorized in each of the four sex - role identities. 
Achieving Styles 
No differences will be found between male and 
H03: 
female presidents of student organizations nor between the 
presidents of mixed - sex groups and presidents of 
single- sex groups on the dimension of achieving styles. 
A two - way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 
was performed using gender and gender composition as the 
two independent variables and achieving styles as the 
-97-
dependent variables (Table 9). The interaction of gender 
and gender composition on achieving styles was not 
significant using Wilks' Lambda criterion (F_  = . 95 , df 
= 9, E > .05). The independent variable, gender 
composition, was not significant using Wilks' Lambda 
criterion (f = .92, df = 9, E > .05). The 
independent variable, gender, was found to be significant 
using Wilks' Lambda criterion (f = .81, df = 9, E < 
.05). Given this significant f statistic, univariate 
F- tests were conducted to find potential gender 
differences. Of the nine scales of the ASI (1983), 
significant gender differences were found on the 
competitive direct scale, the power direct scale, the 
social instrumental scale, the collaborative relational 
scale and the contributory relational scale at the .05 
level significance. Table 10 gives the f-statistics for 
these scales. If the Bonferroni procedure were used to 
adjust the alpha rate for Type I error, thus producing a 
much more conservative alpha rate of .005, only the 
competitive direct scale would be significant. 
Table 11 gives the means and F-ratios of the 
individual scales for men and women. Men had higher 
scores on all significant scales. Men's highest score was 
power direct, followed by intrinsic direct and 
collaborative relational. Women's highest score, by 
contrast, was intrinsic direct (this was a non - significant 
-98-
Table 9 
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Gender and Gender 
composition of Presidents ' Achieving Styles 
Wilks Hypo. Error Approx. 
Lambda OF OF F p 
Value 
Interaction .95 9 138 .82 .59 
Gender . 81 9 138 3.57 .00* 
Gender 
Composition .93 9 138 1. 24 .27 
* = E. < .05 
- 99-
Table 10 
Significance of Univariate F-tests for Gende r 
Dif f erences Among Individual Achieving Styles 
Achieving Significance 
Style of F 
Intr i nsic Direct .48 
Competitive Direct .00* 
Power Direct .01* 
Personal Instrumental .82 
Social Instrumental .01* 
Reliant Instrumental . 98 
Collaborative Relational .05* 
Contributory Relational .02* 
Vicarious Relational .21 
* = ? < .05 
Wilks' Lambda= .81, df = 9, ? = .001 
-100-
Table 11 
Achieving Styles of Male and F 1 
- - ema e Presidents 
Male Female 
~ = 88 n = 62 
Achieving 
Style 
F 
Intrinsic 5.21 .79 5.11 .68 
Direct .48 
Competitive 4.60 1 .24 3 . 70 1 .18 
Direct .00* 
Power 5.35 1 .02 4.87 1 .00 .01* 
Direct 
Personal 4.51 1.19 4.39 1.06 .82 
Instrumental 
Social 4. 29 1 . 17 3.70 1 .22 .01* 
Instrumental 
Reliant 4.70 .99 4.70 .90 .98 
Instrumental 
Collaborative 5 .11 1 . 03 4.77 1 .01 .05* 
Re lational 
Contributory 4.89 .85 4.57 .96 .02* 
Relational 
Vicarious 4.84 .87 4.65 .95 .21 
Relational 
* = ? < .05 
Wilks Lambda= .81, df = 9, ? = .001 
- 1O1-
difference, however) followed by power direct, then, like 
men, collaborative relational. Competitive direct ranked 
at the low end of all the styles for both men and women 
J 
meaning that participants preferred it less than their 
higher scored styles. Social instrumental was the least 
preferred style by both sexes, yet there was still a 
statistically significant difference between men and women 
on this scale. 
Career Aspirations 
H04: No differences will be found between male and 
female presidents of student organizations nor between the 
Presidents of mixed-sex groups and presidents of 
single-sex groups in their career aspirations. 
Career aspirations were measured using several 
indicators including prestige level of future career 
choice, the traditional or non-traditional nature of 
future career choice, the traditional or non - traditional 
nature of college major, their plans for graduate study, 
When participants planned to begin graduate studies, and 
plans for full-time, continuous or interrupted careers. 
Career Prestige Level 
The prestige level of presidents' career choice was 
determined using the Scale of Occupational Prestige {1947) 
generated by the National Opinion Center. Of the 164 
Presidents in the study, 17 did not list a career. Of the 
147 remaining participants, only seven {5%) listed career 
-102-
choices which were not categorized by the first three 
levels of the twelve-level scale, and only 13 (9%) were 
categorized in the third level. The first three prestige 
levels are defined as follows: 
Government officials - 01 
Professional and semi-professional workers - 02 
Proprietors, managers, and officials (except farm) 
03 
Clearly, for the purposes of this study, no reasonable 
distinctions can be made between the prestige levels 
described above, and given the very small proportion of 
participants falling into other categories (5%), no 
further analyzes were performed. The null hypothesis 
could not be rejected for prestige level of potential 
career choice. 
Gender Nature of Career 
Each career choice was classified as a predominantly 
male career, predominantly female career or a 
gender-neutral career using statistics from the U. S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1987) and classifying a career 
as predominantly male or female if the proportion of one 
sex was 61% or greater. Career choices were categorized 
as gender neutral if neither sex met this criterion. 
Chi-square was used to determine if gender differences 
existed for those choosing predominantly male, female or 
gender-neutral careers. No significant differences were 
----- -- -
-103-
found between the choices of men and women presidents of 
student organizations X (2, N = 150) = 3.45, ? > .05. 
Table 12 shows the results of the analysis. 
Interestingly, the majority of both genders (63%) chose 
careers which were predominantly male (68% of men and 58% 
of women). Only 13% chose predominantly female careers 
' 
with more women (18%) than men (8%) choosing these 
careers. Twenty-four percent of both sexes chose gender 
neutral careers. 
A chi-square analysis of presidents of single-sex and 
mixed-sex groups showed no differences between them in the 
nature of their career choices X: (2, ~ = 136) = 4.97, 
? > .05 (Table 13). 
Gender Nature of College Major 
Presidents' college majors were classified as 
Predominantly male, predominantly female or gender-neutral 
Using statistics for University of Maryland at College 
Park undergraduate students, fall semester, 1988 
(University of Maryland, 1988). Majors were classified 
Predominantly male or female if the proportion of one sex 
in the major was 61% or greater. Majors were classified 
as gender neutral if neither sex predominated. Chi-square 
was used to test for gender differences in the majors 
presidents indicated. A significant difference was found 
:.. 
at the .05 level of significance ?C (2, ~ = 164) = 15.oo, 
? < .05 (Table 14). Fifty- one percent of the men were 
- 104-
Table 12 
Career Choice by Dominant Gender 
for Male and Female Presidents 
Male Female Total Sample 
n :=: 84 n :=: 66 n :=: 150 
Dominant 
Gender of 
Career n % n % n % 
Male 57 68 38 58 95 63 
Female 7 8 12 18 19 13 
Gender neutral 20 24 16 24 36 24 
?(,2 (2' N = 150) = 3 . 45, .Q > .05 
---...-----.- - -
-105-
Table 13 
Ca reer Choice by Dominant Gender for Pres i den ts 
of Single- sex and Mixed- sex groups 
Single-sex Mixed - sex Total Sample 
n = 59 n = 77 n = 136 
Dominant 
Gender of 
Career n % n % n % 
Male 31 53 53 69 84 62 
Female 11 19 6 8 17 13 
Gender neutral 17 29 18 23 35 26 
x! (2 ' N = 136) = 4.97, ? > . 05 
- 106-
Table 14 
Major by Dominant Gender tor Male and 
Female Presidents 
Male Female Total Sample 
n = 95 fl. = 69 n = 164 
Dominant 
Gender of 
Major n % n % n % 
Male 48 51 17 25 65 40 
Female 18 19 30 44 48 29 
Gender neutral 29 31 22 32 51 31 
-x.,2. ( 2 ' N = 164) = 15.00, .E < .05 
... -... I I .. ..........-- _....,.. -
-107-
Table 15 
Major by Dominant Gender for Presidents 
of Single- sex and Mixed-sex Groups 
Single-sex Mixed-sex Total Sample 
Dominant D. = 65 .!2 = 85 D. = 150 
Gender 
in Major n % .!2 % D. % 
Male 22 34 36 42 58 39 
Female 22 34 20 24 42 28 
Gender neutral 21 32 29 34 50 33 
:). 
X (2, N = 150) = 2 .13, ? > .05 
- .:. ........1 17 ... -~ .. 
- 108-
in male - dominated majors, compared with 25% of the women. 
Forty-four percent of the women were found in 
female-dominated majors while only 19% of the men chose 
these majors. Almost equal proportions of men and women 
Were in the gender-neutral majors -- 31% of the men and 
32% of the women. 
Chi-square was used to test for differences between 
presidents of single-sex and mixed- sex groups with regard 
to the nature of their choice of major. No differences 
were found ?C:i . (2, ~ = 150) = 2.13, ? > .05 
(Table 15). 
Plans for Graduate Study 
Presidents' plans for advanced degrees did not differ 
significantly by gender, 'X,~ {4, ~ = 161) = 7.99, ? > 
.05 (Table 16). Twenty-five percent of the total sample 
planned on receiving only their baccalaureate degree; 42% 
wished to complete a master's degree; 17% planned on 
doctoral degrees; 3% were interested in medical or dental 
degrees, and 11 % indicated law. With regard to gender 
differences, somewhat similar proportions of men (22%) and 
women (29%) planned on receiving their baccalaureate 
degree and no further education. Men and women were also 
similar in their interest in pursuing a master's degree 
(43% and 41 % respectively). Very few of the participants 
planned on education beyond the master's degree, and the 
proportions doing so were very similar , with only 1 7% of 
:.~--- _.....__. --- --- -
-109-
Table 16 
Plans for Graduate Study for 
Male and Female Presidents 
Male Female Total Sample 
Graduate 
Degree n = 93 .!:!. = 68 n = 161 
n % n % .!:!. % 
BA, BS 20 22 20 29 40 25 
MA, MS 40 43 28 41 68 42 
Ph.D, Ed.D 16 17 12 18 28 17 
MD _, DO, DDS 1 1 4 6 5 3 
Law or Other 16 17 4 6 20 12 
IJ. 
')(, (4, N = 161) = 7.99, .e > .05 
- 110-
Table 17 
Plans for Graduate Study for Presidents 
of Single-sex and Mixed - sex Groups 
Single-sex Mixed- sex Total Sample 
n = 63 n = 85 D. = 148 
Graduate 
Degree D. % n % n % 
BA, BS 19 30 17 20 36 24 
MA, MS 26 41 36 42 62 42 
Ph.D, Ed.D 10 16 15 18 25 17 
MD, DO, DDS 1 2 4 5 5 3 
law or Other 7 11 13 15 20 14 
,C.~ (4, N = 148) = 3. 12, .e. > .05 
- 111-
women planning on pursuing a 
the men and 18% of the 
doctoral degree. I n t eres t.i ng 1 y, more women were 
in a medical or dental degree (6%), compared 
interested 
the men, while 6% of the women were interested 
With 1 % of 
(The " Law" 
in 1 aw or other compared with 17% of the men. 
' 
and th e "Ot her" categories were combined in the 
stati? s t?i cal analysis. In reality, "Other" included only 
two pa r t.i ci.p ants). from these results, one can conclude 
that men and women presidents of student organizations do 
not seem to have different plans for further education. 
Presidents' plans for advanced degrees did not seem 
gender composition of their group as well, ?f 
to differ by 
Presidents 
4 = 3.12, Q > .05 (Table 17), < , _N = 148) 
of s?i ngle-sex groups were slightly more likely to plan 
only on a baccalaureate degree than were presidents of 
mi?x ed-sex groups (30% single-sex versus 20% mixed- sex 
groups) , wh?i le the proporti?o ns were essen t i' a1  Y si?m i?1  ar f or 
every other category. 
and Graduate stud 
Time b etween Baccalaureate 
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on 
those participants who planned on graduate study to test 
for differences in the time between their undergraduate 
degree and the date theY proposed to start their graduate 
No interaction effect was significant using the two 
Work. 
ind d . t . f 
ependent variables, gender and gen er composi ion o 
e groups, and no main effect was found for gender or for 
th
- 112-
Table 18 
Analysis of Variance for Gender and Gender 
Composition of Time berween Baccalaureate 
Degree and Graduate Study for Presidents 
N = 102 
Sources of 
Variation ss OF MS F p 
Gender .56 1 .56 .28 .59 
Gender 
Composition . 11 1 . 11 .05 .81 
Interaction .23 1 .23 . 11 .73 
Error 196.82 98 2.00 
Total 197. 81 101 1. 96 
.. 
-113-
Table 19 
Means and Standard Deviations for Time between 
Baccalaureate and Graduate Studv by Presidents' 
Gender and Gender Composition of Group 
Mean score 
for Gender 
Male Female Composition 
Gender n == 62 n == 40 
Composition 
of Group M SD M SD 
Single-sex 1. 85 .99 1. 58 1 . 35 1 . 72 1 . 17 
Mixed- sex 1.83 1.59 1. 76 1 . 45 1.81 1.53 
Mean score 1 . 84 1 . 42 1. 67 1 . 38 
f or Gender 
.e > .05 
... 
- 114-
gender composition (Table 18). 
The mean number of years 
planned between men's baccalaureate degree and graduate 
study was 1 .84, while the mean number of years for women 
was 1 .67. (Table 19). Thus, men and women presidents of 
student organizations do not seem to differ significantly 
in the number of years they plan on taking to begin their 
graduate work, nor do presidents of single-sex and 
mixed - sex groups differ on this aspect as well. 
Plans for Full-time, Continuous or Interrupted Career 
There was a significant difference in plans for 
interrupted or continuous careers between men and women 
presidents of student organizations, 'X.~, (3, ~ = 163) = 
46.18, ? < .05 (Table 20). No participants indicated 
that they did not plan to work at all. Forty - four percent 
of the entire sample planned on working full-time 
throughout their lives without interruption for family 
responsibilities, while the remaining 56% planned on 
various combinations of full-time work and either 
part-time or no work. With regard to gender differences, 
64% of the men and 15% of the women planned on working 
full-time continuously. Twelve percent of the men and 43% 
of the women planned on working full-time, then part - time 
while raising children. Interestingly, a larger 
proportion of men (21%) planned on taking time off for 
child-raising responsibilities than planned on working 
part-time for the same reasons (12%). Forty - three percent 
- 115-
Table 20 
p1ans for Full-time or Interrupted Career 
for Male and Female Presidents 
Male Female Total Sample 
!!. = 95 n = 68 n = 163 
Career 
Plans n % !!. ~ n % 
Full-t ime 61 64 10 15 71 44 
Part-time 
for family 11 12 29 43 40 25 
Full- time, 
then time off t~ 
for family 20 21 29 43 49 30 i; 
Part - time for ' '~:o,.  
reasons other 
than family 3 3 0 0 3 2 ;t 
1>-
,X: (3, N = 163) = 46. 18, .e. < .05 I~ \j 
- 116-
Table 21 
Plans for Full - time or Interrupted Career 
for Presidents of Single- sex and Mixed - sex Grou p s 
Single-sex Mixed - sex Total Sample 
!! = 64 n = 85 n = 149 
Career 
Plans n % !! % !! % 
Full- time 27 42 37 44 64 43 
Part -- time 
for family 18 28 20 24 38 26 
Full-time, 
then time off 
for family 19 30 25 29 44 30 
Part - time for 
reasons other 
than family 0 0 3 4 3 2 
,x;- (3 , N = 149) = 2.58, p > . 05 
-117-
of women planned on taking time off for child-raising 
responsibilities, the same proportion of women planning to 
work part-time. No women indicated that they would limit 
their full - time work for any reason other than family 
responsibilities; however, 3% of the men indicated that 
they would do so for reasons other than raising children. 
No significant differences were found between the 
presidents of single-sex and mixed-sex groups for 
full-time, continuous careers, 'X!' (3, N =149) = 2.58, Q 
> .05 (Table 21). The results are quite similar for both 
groups for all working arrangements. It is worth noting, 
? 
i 
however, that the final option, "working part - time for '' .'  
l t 
reasons other than raising children", was selected by a : . I I 
: 
few presidents of mixed - sex groups while no presidents of 
single-sex groups did so. 
Summary 
Men and women presidents of student organizations 
were found to have similarities and differences on the 
four dependent variables studied. No differences were 
found for men and women presidents on the dimension of 
self-esteem, with both groups having relatively high 
self- esteem. No differences were found, as well, in the 
sex- role identities of men and women presidents. 
Significant gender differences were found, however, on 
several of the achieving styles scales including the 
competitive direct, power direct, social instrumental, 
- 118-
collaborative relational, and contributory relat i onal 
styles. 
Similarities and differences were also found among 
the ind i cators of career aspirations. Men and women 
presidents were found to have similar interest in 
Professional level careers which were predominantly 
populated by men. However, significant gender differences 
were found in the presidents ' interest in majors, with men 
favoring predominantly male or gender neutral majors wh i le 
women favored predominantly female or gender neutral 
majors. Men and women presidents were also found to have 
similar interests and plans for graduate study, and 
planned to attend graduate school relatively soon after 
graduating with their baccalaureate degree. They 
Ii:?~ ta. 
differed, however, in their plans for balanc i ng full - time ?' 
,I,,;?~   
careers with marriage and family responsibi lities. The 
major i ty of women planned on tak i ng time off from 
full - time careers for family responsibilities, while the 
majority of men did not plan to take time off. 
No differences were found on any of the dependent 
variables for presidents of single-sex or mixed-sex 
groups. 
- 119-
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
In this chapter each dependent variable is discussed 
and conclusions are drawn, recommendations are given for 
practice, and limitations and directions for future 
research are discussed. 
Discussion 
~-esteem 
This study's results suggest that the self- esteem of 
women presidents of student organizations may be as 
Both men and women 
positive as that of men presidents. 
presidents' self- esteem scores indicated high self-esteem 
-- very close to five on a six- point scale. In fact, while 
not significant, women's self-esteem was actually slightly 
higher than that of men ' s. 
Several studies (Astin & Kent, 1980, 1983; Arnold & 
Denny, 1985) have found that although the self-esteem of 
both men and women college students increased over their 
four years in college, women ' s self-esteem has lagged 
However, when women have had the 
behind that of men. 
opportunity for leadership, their self-esteem has 
increased substantially compared both to college women in 
general and to male student 1eaders (Astin & Kent, 1983). 
While this study gives no indication of the self-esteem of 
Women college students in general, this study's results 
lend support to t he premise, made by Astin and Kent (1983) 
- 120-
and El-Khawas (1980), that leadership experience appears 
1
to have a very positive effect on college women s 
self-esteem. 
It may be that it also has a positive effect on the 
However, the 
self- esteem of men student leaders. 
literature suggests (Astin & Kent, 1980, 1983; Arnold & 
Denny, 1985) that both male student leaders and male 
college students in general are very likely to have higher 
self- esteem than women at the beginning of their college 
thus it seems likely that leadership experience 
career 
' 
powerful an effect on male student 
may not have as 
leaders 1 self-esteem as it does on women's. 
While not statistically significant, it is 
interesting to note that presidents of single-sex 
organizations had slightly higher self-esteem than those 
Perhaps leading an 
of mixed - sex organizations. 
organization of their own sex allows presidents to feel 
Nonetheless, these differences 
better about themselves. 
were not significant and the hypothesis which predicted no 
ifference between these two groups can not be rejected. 
d' 
sex role Identiti 
Because leadership has typically been thought of as a 
masculine activity (Bem, 1981), it was hypothesized that 
Women cho . ' d ti?al roles would choose to identify 
os1ng pres1 en 
themselv . d' ti? ves consistent with traditional 
es using a JeC 
leadersh? h . t?cs That is women in presidents' 
1p c aracter1s 1 ? ' 
- 121 -
roles would be more likely to have masculine or 
androgynous sex- role identities. Feminine-typed women 
' 
who, by definition, are very much aware of cultural 
definitions of sex-appropriate behavior and attempt to 
keep their behavior consistent with it, would no t be as 
likely to choose leadership roles (Bern, 1981). Similarly , 
it was hypothesized that male presidents would choose 
adjectives consistent with traditional leadership 
behaviors and therefore have predominantly masculine or 
androgynous sex- role identities. 
Interestingly, the results do not confirm these 
hypotheses, although significance of differences by gender 
was approached. Essentially equal proportions of t he 
total sample scored in each of the four sex- role 
categories , indicating that no one sex- role identi t y can 
be construed as the leadership profile for th i s sample of 
student leaders . Overall, the pres i dents i n t h i s sampl e 
seem as likely to identify with "feminine" sex- role 
adjectives as they do "masculine" adjectives. Sli ghtly 
more women were l i kely to have feminine sex- rol e 
i dentities (32%), indi cating comfort with describi ng 
themselves using stereotypically feminine adjectives yet , 
th i s view of t hemselves did not prevent them from assuming 
pos i tions o f leadership . Perhaps t hese women are fi nd i ng 
leadership roles in same-sex groups where they are 
comfortable us i ng assert i ve leadersh i p sk i lls withou t 
- 122-
risking men's disapproval for breaking with traditional 
sex-roles. 
Combining androgynous sex - typed women (28%) with 
masculine sex-typed women (16%) brings the proportion of 
women indicating comfort with masculine adjectives to 44% 
of the women's sample. These women were hypothesized to 
be the most comfortable with leadership roles and 
therefore more likely to pursue them. Since they do not 
constitute the majority of the women presidents this was 
not the case. 
Perhaps some presidents, especially androgynous and 
feminine-typed women and men, do not define leadership 
behavior as a masculine activity alone and believe that 
effective leadership behavior has elements of 
feminine-typed behavior as well. Equally possible, 
perhaps some students who are presidents of student 
organizations choose leadership roles less because they 
represent leadership opportunities to them and more 
because these roles offer organizing and coordinating 
roles or opportunities for developing relationships with 
others. 
Men were similarly distributed over sex- role identity 
categories, although they were more likely to have 
masculine sex- role identities (32%) than feminine, and 
they were slightly less likely to be androgynous (23% 
versus 28% for women). The distribution for this study ' s 
- 123-
male scores is very similar to the distribution of Bern's 
(1981) scores for her normed group of male Stanford 
students (Table 22). Perhaps the male presidents scored 
similarly to the way college men in general score. In 
contrast, this study's female presidents scored 
differently than the female normed sample (Table 22). The 
current study's female sample contained a much larger 
Proportion of feminine-typed women and a smaller 
proportion of androgynous-typed women. These differences 
' 
of course, may not be due to leadership experience, but 
instead may be due to different geographic area, a 
different college, or possibly cohort differences. 
No differences were found for presidents of 
single-sex and mixed-sex groups with relation to their 
sex-role identities. Clearly, the gender composition of 
the group does not seem to be related to the sex- role 
identity of the president. 
Achieving Styles 
This study's results suggest that gender differences 
may exist between male and female presidents of student 
organizations in the styles they use to achieve. 
Similarities in the achieving styles they use were found 
as well, however. First, both men and women presidents 
had relatively high scores on almost every achieving style 
scale, indicating that these presidents have the 
flexibility to draw on any of the nine achieving styles, 
-- 124-
Table 22 
Sex-role Identity of Male and Females Presidents 
Compared with Stanford University Normative Samplea 
Student Leaders Stanford Sample 
Male Female Male Female 
Sex-role 
Identity % % % % 
Feminine 19 32 16 24 
Masculine 32 16 33 16 
Androgynous 23 28 24 37 
Undiffer-
entiated 26 25 28 24 
Note. aBem {1981). 
- 125-
depending on which is appropriate to the situation. Both 
men and women student leaders used the intrinsic direct, 
power direct and collaborative relational styles as their 
top three approaches to achieving. As a group, therefore, 
they could be described as people who are task-oriented, 
use power to get tasks completed, yet also have the 
ability to work collaboratively with others. Their three 
least preferred styles were also similar, using the 
personal instrumental, competitive direct and social 
instrumental styles much less than they use their top 
three. They could be described, therefore, as not being 
comfortable using past achievements or personal attributes 
to achieve, nor do they develop social networks purely to 
become more successful. They additionally do not strive 
to achieve for competition's sake, although it is also 
quite clear from the data that there is a significant 
difference in the degree to which men, as opposed to 
women, prefer the competitive direct style. 
Despite these similarities, however, men and women 
presidents of student organizations differed both in the 
order of their preferred achieving styles and on five 
styles - - power direct, contributory relational, 
competitive direct, collaborative relational and social 
instrumental. Men also scored higher on all these styles. 
Men seemed to be more comfortable with power than were 
women, were more likely to work collaboratively with 
- 126-
others and to encour!ge and support others in their own 
achievements. While not preferring a competitive style as 
often as some other ftyles, men were clearly more 
comfortable with a c<mpetitive style than were women. 
Finally, even though social instrumental was their least 
preferred style, men as a group were significantly more 
comfortable developi~g relationships primarily to help 
themselves achieve tllan were women. 
It seems that, ~!though women presidents used the 
same styles as men i~ achieving, they may have used them 
less comfortably. Treir most preferred style is intrinsic 
direct, a style that allows them to approach a task 
individually and to ,vork against an internal standard of 
excellence. Surpris~ngly, since women are hypothesized to 
be better at "relati~nship skills" (Lipman-Blumen et al., 
1983), they do not u~e the relational styles to achieve 
any more than the me~, and in fact, scored lower on all 
three of these style~ than did the male presidents. 
Perhaps women student leaders have found that to be 
successful in positions of leadership they must use both 
power and collaborat t ve styles, but they do not see 
themselves as in a position to encourage and support 
others in their achievements to the same degree that men 
student leaders do. 
A second interpretation of these results may be that 
it is men's high relational scores which were the 
- 127-
surprising finding, rather than women's lower scores. 
Perhaps this group of men presidents has learned to draw 
on relational achieving styles to a high degree. 
It may also be, as Lipman- Blumen et al. (1983) have 
suggested, that women as a group have a response bias on 
the ASI which is more cautious than that of men, so that 
they appear to have lower scores, when in fact that is not 
the case . Lipman-Blumen et al. (1983) have also suggested 
that high endorsement of most styles may "represent a 
special attribute, perhaps self-confidence of occupants of 
such [executive] roles" (p. 183). In this case, 
Lipman - Blumen et al. (1983) were describing the high 
scores of senior business executives and M.B.A. students. 
It may be that men presidents of student organizations 
share their self-confidence. 
Interestingly, women's responses were more similar in 
order of styles used and in magnitude of response to two 
previous studies of students involved in student 
activities (Beardsley et al., 1987; Stewart, 1983) than 
were the men's. Both Beardsley et al. (1987) and Stewart 
(1983) found that the two highest styles for their 
students were intrinsic direct and power direct, while the 
two lowest styles were competitive direct and social 
instrumental, mirroring this study's scores for women. In 
contrast, men in the present study scored highest on the 
power direct style, and second highest on the intrinsic 
- 128-
direct style, and lowest styles on personal instrumental 
and social instrumental. 
The present study was also similar to the studies of 
Beardsley et al., (1987), Stewart (1983) and Awad (1980) 
in that the women participants did not score higher than 
the men on the relational scales. The present study's 
results differ also for both sexes from the studies of 
Beardsley et al. (1987) and Stewart (1983) with regard to 
the strong placement of the collaborative relational style 
as the third most preferred style, while in the other two 
studies the vicarious relational style ranked third. This 
may be reflecting a team orientation on the part of the 
presidents which can be effective in working with groups. 
Beardsley et al. (1987) and Stewart (1983) did not find a 
significant difference for gender on the collaborative 
relational style as was found in the present study. 
Neither the interaction of gender and gender 
composition nor the main effect of gender composition with 
achieving styles was significant. Clearly, whether one is 
leading a single-sex or mixed-sex group does not appear to 
have any effect on the achieving styles one may use. 
Career Aspirations 
Career Prestige level 
The research hypothesis which predicted there would 
be differences between men and women with regard to the 
prestige level of their career choice was rejected 
- 129-
because, although no formal statistical analysis was 
performed, all but seven participants (5%) listed career 
choices which were not categorized by the first three 
levels of the Scale of Occupational Prestige (National 
Opinion Research Center, 1947). Both men and women 
Presidents indicated interest in careers which were found 
in these three prestige levels, that is, government 
officials, professional and semi-professional workers, and 
proprietors, managers, and officials (except farm). 
Unfortunately, these categories are so broad that 
potential gender differences would be difficult to find. 
However, these results do suggest that women presidents of 
student organizations expect to find themselves in 
professional level careers. 
Career Choice by Dominant Gender 
More interesting is the degree to which men and women 
are interested in predominantly male or predominantly 
female career fields. Using statistics from the U. s. 
Department of Labor (1987), career fields were defined as 
predominantly male or female if the proportion of one sex 
was 61% or greater. fields were defined as gender neutral 
if neither sex was represented by 61% or more. This study 
found no significant differences in the degree to which 
men or women were interested in predominantly male or 
predominantly female career fields. In fact, a majority 
of both men and women aspired to male-dominated career 
-130-
fields, with gender neutral career fields attracting an 
additional quarter of both sexes. Predominantly female 
careers were interesting only to about a fifth of the 
women and even less of the men. These results are similar 
to those found by several researchers who believe that 
college women's career aspirations have shifted from 
Predominantly female careers toward careers less 
traditional for women, i.e., gender neutral and 
Predominantly male careers (Astin et al., 1987; Kingdon & 
Sedlacek, 1982; Zuckerman, 1980). 
It is interesting to compare Kingdon and Sedlacek's 
(1982) data with the present study, since students in both 
studies were from the same university. Kingdon and 
Sedlacek (1982) reported that 42% of their freshman women 
sample aspired to careers nontraditional for women, while 
an additional 22% indicated interest in gender neutral 
careers. Six years later, 58% of the female presidents of 
student organizations in this study aspired to 
predominantly male careers and 24% were interested in 
gender neutral careers. While the differences between the 
two samples could be due to different methods of 
categorization of careers as predominantly male or female, 
different cohorts, the current study's more mature and 
experienced students, or possibly to the contribution of 
the current sample's leadership experience, the difference 
seems to be noteworthy. 
-
-131-
Major Choice by Dominant Gender 
Despite the finding that women presidents of student 
organizations seem to be aspiring to careers in 
predominantly male fields, the literature suggests that 
when women actually begin in the job market, they are more 
likely to enter fields more predominantly female (Harmon 
' 
1981; Knight et al., 1983}. The results from this study 
on presidents' choice of major suggest that despite their 
aspirations of careers in predominantly male fields, many 
of these same women have elected college majors which are 
predominantly female. Specifically, a significant 
difference was found between the degree to which men and 
women presidents were interested in majors which were 
predominantly male, female or gender neutral. Half of the 
male presidents were in male-dominated majors, while only 
25% of the female presidents chose these same majors. 
Forty-four percent of the presidents were in predominantly 
female majors, while the remaining 32% were in gender 
neutral majors. 
Given the professional level of their career goals 
and their clear desire to go into male dominated career 
fields, it is puzzling that so many women presidents of 
student organizations have chosen predominantly female 
majors. Perhaps they expect to be the leaders in 
predominantly female career fields, thus the high prestige 
level of their career choices, or perhaps they do not 
-132-
expect their college majors to determine their final 
career choice. 
The literature is equally unclear on this dimension 
With some studies suggesting that women are still choosing 
traditional female majors (Leland, 1980, Randour et al., 
1982; Subcommittee on Undergraduate Women's Education 
' 
1987; Zuckerman, 1981), with others indicating that women 
are selecting nontraditional majors (Arnold & Denny, 1985; 
Wilson & Lunneborg, 1982). It may be that different 
methods of categorizing majors as traditional or 
nontraditional, or predominantly male or female, may be 
adding to the confusing data on this dimension. 
Plans for Graduate Study 
Presidents' plans for graduate study add to the 
puzzle. No significant differences were found for men and 
women presidents' plans for graduate study, indicating 
that their plans for specific graduate degrees were very 
similar. Slightly more women than men planned on 
completing only a baccalaureato degree, and the 
Proportions of men and women interested in pursuing 
further degrees were highly similar. The only apparent 
differences appeared to be in the fields of medicine (in 
Which several more women were interested than men), and 
law, where interested men outnumbered interested women 
(17% men versus 6% women). Again, however, the actual 
numbers of presidents pursuing these degrees was very 
-133-
small and the difference was not statistically 
significant. 
These results are similar to those of Arnold and 
Denny (1985) who, in their study of high school 
valedictorians, found no differences in the proportions of 
men and women aspiring to graduate study. However, the 
results do differ from those reported for college students 
in the Brown study (Leland, 1980) and Zuckerman's (1980) 
study of students attending a four-year coed college. In 
these studies, more women than men planned on completing a 
master's degree, while more men than women planned on 
getting doctoral degrees. Comparing the total sample with 
Astin's et al. (1987) national study of college freshmen 
' 
many more students in this sample (74%) planned on some 
form of advanced study beyond the baccalaureate than did 
the students in the national sample (50%). Perhaps 
presidents of student organizations have ambitions which 
require more graduate study than do students in general. 
Whether these differences are due to the nature of the 
educational institution, different cohorts, slightly older 
students or to involvement in leadership roles is 
' 
unclear, however. 
Time Between Baccalaureate and Graduate Study 
No differences were found a mong men and women 
presidents of student organizations with regard to the 
starting date of their graduate program. Interestingly, 
- 134-
the majority of the sample (61%) planned on attending 
graduate or professional school within one year of 
graduating with a baccalaureate degree. Nineteen percent 
planned on attending graduate or professional school 
within two years of graduation, and 18% planned on 
attending within five years of graduation. These data do 
not match those of the Brown study (Leland, 1980) which 
indicated that a larger proportion of men (43%) than women 
(35%) planned on beginning their graduate studies 
immediately after completing their baccalaureate. 
Perhaps cohort differences can provide a possible 
explanation for this difference. The students in this 
study are attending college ten years after those in the 
Brown study. Surprisingly, these results also do not 
agree with data from another University of Maryland study 
(Subcommittee on Undergraduate Women's Education, 1987) 
which found differences in the proportion of men (26%) 
compared to women (21%) who began their studies within a 
year of graduation. It may be that presidents of student 
organizations, particularly women presidents, are more 
ambitious about their graduate degrees and plan to begin 
graduate study immediately. Since the Subcommittee's 
(1987) results measured the actual time between the 
baccalaureate degree and graduate study, rather than 
students' projected plans, it may also be that the 
Subcommittee's results present a truer picture of reality . 
- 135-
flans for Full time, Continuous or Interrupted Career 
The final indicator of career aspirations, the degree 
to which presidents of student organizations planned to 
Work in full-time, continuous careers, demonstrated vast 
differences between the male and female presidents. All 
but 15% of the women presidents planned to spend some 
portion of their lives either not working or working 
Part - time in order to allow time for family 
responsibilities. In contrast, 64% of the men presidents 
Planned on working full-time continuously, without taking 
time off for family. 
These results are consistent with trends reported in 
the literature (Arnold & Denny, 1985; Phillips & Johnston, 
1985; Zuckerman, 1981); however, the large proportion of 
women in this study choosing to interrupt their careers is 
even more dramatic than proportions found in previous 
research (Arnold & Denny, 1985; Phillips & Johnston, 1985; 
Zuckerman, 1981). These women are clearly concerned about 
finding ways to balance career and family. Given their 
stated intent to participate in professional- level 
careers, however, it is surprising that so many also 
expect to take time off from these same careers. In this 
sense, they do not seem to be realistically assessing the 
demands of working in high level careers. As Phillips and 
Johnston (1985) commented about similar findings, women 
seem to be "selecting a career option inconsistent with 
- 136-
their stated intention" (p. 337). 
Zuckerman (1980) suggested that women may initially 
have unrealistic expectations for combining career, 
marriage and family but that as women progressed in their 
education and embarked on careers they may lower their 
expectations of what they can reasonably do . Perhaps the 
women presidents in this study are still in the process of 
idealizing their ability to combine career, marriage and 
family and have not yet been confronted with the reality 
of that decision for their lives. 
Interestingly, 21% of the men indicated that they 
Planned to take time off for family responsibilities as 
Well. Perhaps these presidents of student organizations 
are foreshadowing a renewed emphasis on the importance of 
family, and an increased sharing of family 
responsibilities between men and women. 
Gender Composition of Presidents' Groups 
The second independent variable, the gender 
composition of the presidents' student organizations, was 
not significant in any of the statistical analyses 
Performed on the career aspiration variables. Apparently, 
Whether a student is the president of a single-sex or 
mixed- sex group does not seem to have any relationship to 
the president's future career plans. 
Limitations 
Several limitations should be noted when considering 
- 137-
possible Conc lusions drawn from this study. 
Limitations 
fall in the areas of the sample, the conceptualization of 
leadership, the design of the study, the instrumentation 
and the statistical methodology. 
Sample 
Generalization from these results should be made with 
caution because participating students were not drawn 
randomly. The sample reflects only undergraduate students 
who were presidents of student organizations. This study 
does not include students who hold leadership roles other I.  
than that of president, nor does it include informal I 
! 
I 
leaders in student organizations. It also does not include J 
? 
leaders of formal organizations which were not registered '.i.    
with the Office of Campus Activities, nor does it include 
leaders of informal organizations on campus. Most of the 
respondents were U.S. citizens who were slightly older 
than traditional college age, with most students falling 
between 20 and 23 years of age. The sample contained more 
upperclass students than lower class students and 
therefore is more reflective of this population. 
Leaders were defined in this study as students who 
were presidents of a registered student organization. It 
does not necessarily f ollow that a particular student was 
an effective leader, or that the student had any 
leadership skills whatsoever. For example, some students 
may be in organizations which prize social popularity over 
-138-
leadership ability and so elect students who have social 
It also does not follow 
skills but no leadership ability. 
that all students had the same motivation in achieving 
For one student it might be the 
positions of leadership. 
gratification of social popularity, for another it might 
be the opportunity to achieve a valued goal, for still 
another it might be the chance to wield power over others. 
Twenty-nine percent of the presidents of student 
organizations did not return their questionnaires and 
instruments and so therefore, were not included in the 
It is not known whether these 
results of this study. 
It is 
presidents differed from those who did respond. :?. 
 
I  
possible that they did not respond because of differences ? 
in attitude toward the Office of Campus Activities or 
campus authority in general. 
The proportion of male participants who were in 
This 
single-sex and mixed- sex groups was quite uneven. 
may have had an effect on the accuracy of the results for 
hypotheses regarding differences among student leaders of 
groups with different gender composition. 
Given the scope of this study, and the small numbers 
of racial or ethnic minority students participating, th i s 
study was unable to focus on potential differences 
relating to the race of the president of a student 
Therefore, potential differences due t o 
organization. 
race were obscured in the data. 
- 139-
The Conceptualization of Leadership 
Leaders were defined in this study as presidents of 
student organizations. This is a very narrow 
conceptualization of student leaders and leadership roles. 
Some leadership roles which are not included in this study 
are leadership roles in off campus organizations such as 
Work, church or other civic or voluntary organizations. 
Not included also are students who are in leadership 
roles other than president, who are paraprofessional peer 
advisors or who are involved in campus leadership training , 
activities. Finally, this study excludes leadership roles I 
! 
in formal or informal organizations which may not be I I 
acknowledged by campus administrators as organizations of 
import. An example of this latter leadership role would 
j r 
be student leaders active in minority or women's causes or J' I  
J : 
other political or anti-authoritary concerns (Sedlacek, 
1987). The results of this study, therefore, can not be 
generalized to these populations. 
Design of the Study 
This study investigated two independent variables 
across four dependent variables. Although some of the 
dependent variables may be related to each other, it was 
not in the scope of this study to look at these 
relationships. 
A second limitation related to the design of the 
study is the variability associated with the conditions 
-140-
under which students completed their questionnaire and 
instruments. Since the survey packet was mailed to 
student participants, there was no way to control for the 
multiple conditions and environments in which students 
responded to the questionnaire and instruments. 
Instrumentation 
Validity of study results for the Rosenberg 
Self-esteem Scale, the Bem Sex-role Inventory and the 
Achieving Styles Inventory relies upon the assumption that 
Participants ' self-report of behavior accurately describes 
their true behavior and that participants have accurate I ; 
! 
self-knowledge. Validity also relies upon the assumption I I 
that the three inventories measure the appropriate 
concepts used in this study. For the Achieving Styles 
Inventory in particular, validity is also dependent on the 1' I'I'  J  
l ? 
assumption that responses were not affected by . ' 
Participants' concern to appear socially desirable. 
The Rosenberg Self- esteem Scale measures only a global 
sense of self- esteem and is unable to di stingui sh between 
different kinds of self-esteem such as academic or socia l 
Self- esteem. Because of this, the data on sel f-esteem i n 
this study are limited to a very general defi nition of 
Self- esteem. It is possi ble that d i fferences i n 
self- esteem would appear if other aspects of self-esteem 
Were i ncluded i n the study . 
Prest i ge level of presidents ' career choi ce was 
- 141 -
res 1.ge (1947) 
determined using the Scale of Occupat?ional P t ? 
prepared by the National Opinion Center. This scale does 
not distinguish prestige levels among professional career 
choices, and was therefore, not helpful in finding 
distinctions among a wide variety of professional level 
career choices in this study. 
Each career choice was classified as a predominantly 
male career, a predominantly female career or a 
gender-neutral career using statistics from the United 
States Bureau of Labor Statistics (1987). Unfortunately, 
the categories are quite broad, with many career f i elds 
The accuracy of the gender label for 
lumped together. i 
each career may be obscured by the other careers with '?  
which it was combined. 
statistical Methodolog,Y. 
This study was further limited by the decision to 
exclude the results of the eleven respondents who 
indicated that they were presidents of student 
organizations which had less than 25% of their own sex. 
This decision was made because this small proport i on 
created cell sizes so small that assumptions of sta t i s tics 
selected to perform the analysis would be v i o l ated. 
conclusions 
The main intent of this study was to explo r e whether 
women presidents of student organizations d i ffer f rom 
thei r male count erpa rts on some dimensions wh i ch may 
- 142-
affect their leadership experience. Two different 
The first 
interpretations can be made from these data. 
interpretation argues that there were, in fact, no 
meaningful differences between men and women presidents of 
student organizations suggested by this study. 
Specifically, only three statistically significant 
differences were found between men and women presidents. 
Men and women presidents did not differ on their level of 
self- esteem, or sex- role identity, and using the 
conservative Bonferroni test, men and women were found to 
differ significantly only on the competitive direct 
achieving style. The remaining two significant 
differences were found on the indicators of career 
aspirations, in which men and women differed in the degree I j I 
~ I 
to which they preferred female dominated college majors ! ??  
and their preference for a full-time or interrupted 
career. 
This interpretation would suggest, therefore, that 
these few differences seem relatively meaningless when 
compared to the many similarities shared by men and women 
student presidents. Men and women presidents of student 
organizations are similar in their self-esteem, their 
sex-role identities, their approach to achieving, and 
their career aspirations. While the literature suggests 
that men and women college students may differ on these 
dimensions, it may be that men and women presidents of 
-143-
student organizations do not differ on these dimensions ' 
represent, in 
and that presidents of student organizations 
fact, a much more homogenous population than college 
st udents in general. 
Given the small number of significant differences 
(three) in relation to the number of statistical tests of 
significance performed (13), it may be that these apparent 
differences are a product of the number of statistical 
tests performed rather than true differences. This does 
not appear to be the case, however, since the probability 
of obtaining three significant differences out of 13 tests 
due to chance alone is between .05 and .01 (Sakoda, Cohen 
and Beall, 1954). i 
A second interpretation may be that, based on the f ' I 
~ Ir  
results of this study, men and women presidents of student I I ' u 
organizations are similar in some areas, while differing 
in others. 
Results of this study suggest that men and women 
presidents do not differ in their self-esteem, despite any 
dissonance which may occur for women by assuming a role 
not traditionally associated with them. This lack of 
difference may be important when this study ' s results are 
compared with those of other studies which suggest that 
college women in general have lower self- esteem than do 
college men in general. Although the results of th i s 
study demonstrated high self-esteem for women pres i dents 
-144-
of student organizations, this study was not able to 
women presidents 
determine whether the high self esteem of 
was actually affected by their leadership experience. 
Th is would b e an 1? mpor t an t ques t i. on f or f uture research. 
Given that any dissonance which women presidents may 
feel about their leadership role does not appear to affect 
eir self- esteem, it is less surprising to find that a 
th
higher proportion of the women in this study have feminine 
rather than masculine or androgynous sex-role identities. 
Sex- role identity was used in this study to 
investigate potential dissonance women presidents might 
It had been hypothesized 
feel in their roles as leaders. 
that more masculine and androgynous women would choose ,,,,  
president roles because their sex-role identity would be 'II  I"'  
Instead, the results 1 I 1 II 
more consonant with these roles. I II 
suggest that women with feminine sex-role identities may 
be slightly more the norm in president of student 
It may be that these women experience 
organization roles. 
less social dissonance about their sex- role identity and 
therefore, feel more confident about participating in a 
president's role than do masculine or androgynous women 
particularly if that role requires that they be socially 
It is also possible that these women have not 
popular. 
established a firm identitY as women or leaders , are 
t h e refore unable to see differences between their 
self- concept and their role, and thus, have not yet 
-145-
confronted role conflict in their lives as presidents. 
This is consistent with Orlosfsky and Windle's (1978) 
suggestion that conformity to society's standards produces 
a subjective sense of well-being in feminine-typed women ' 
yet, in the long run contributes to lower self-esteem. 
Nonetheless, healthy proportions of women with 
sex-role identities other than feminine chose president 
roles, so it is likely that, as Leonard & Sigall (1989) 
suggested, different women experience leadership 
differently and are at various levels of awareness with 
themselves, women's issues, and potential conflict with 
leadership roles. 
Women presidents appear to have slightly different 
approaches to leading in groups than do men as 
demonstrated by their different achieving styles scores. 
First, women scored relatively high on almost every 
achieving style, indicating that they can move with ease 
among the styles and can draw on most styles when they 
Nonetheless, they scored lower than 
believe it necessary. 
men on almost every scale, thus appearing less comfortable 
with any style or approach to leadership than were men. 
Women presidents also preferred to achieve tasks directly 
themselves over any other approach, with the use of power 
as a second option and finallY, collaboration as a third. 
They w ? ?f' tlY less comfortable than were men in 
ere s1gn1 1can 
using power, collaboration, competition, encouraging 
-146-
others, or networking when attempting to achieve. The 
order of their preferred styles seems to be similar to 
that of men, however the strength of those styles is 
less. While women's scores were not low on the relational 
styles, the scores of the men student leaders were 
surprising in their high endorsement of relational 
styles. 
In essence, women seem to exhibit similar behaviors 
to men, but with less comfort. Perhaps, as Leonard and 
Sigall (1989) suggested, women student leaders are 
attempting to lead in ways similar to men's traditional 
style. They did not predict, however, the possibility 
that men might begin to value styles which have typically 
,>een women's strengths. 
The career aspirations of women presidents of student 
organizations were similar in several ways to those of men 
presidents. They aspired to predominantly male careers, 
planned on attending graduate school to the same degree, 
and planned on starting graduate school at the same time. 
Clearly, these women are ambitious, and in comparison to 
data in other studies, more ambitious than college women 
in general. However, a large proportion of these same 
women presidents (44%) were in female-dominated majors in 
college, and all but 15% of the women presidents planned 
to spend some portion of their lives either not working or 
working part-time in order to allow time for family 
-147-
These results suggest that women 
responsibilities. 
presidents are struggling with their career choices, and 
attempting to find a balance between their ambitious 
aspirations and their clear desire to maintain the more 
traditional roles of women -- marriage and family. 
summart 
In sum, these results paint a picture of highly 
ambitious women students who have chosen presidential 
roles, have high self- esteem, perhaps higher than other 
college women, who may or may not consider themselves 
typically feminine, who are approaching the task leading 
groups using styles more comfortable to the men than the 
women, and additionally are hoping to balance their career 
ambition with future family. r 
t 
Implications for Practice u 
" 
This study did not find definitive differences 
between men and women student presidents. More research 
needs to be performed before practitioners develop 
programs based on potential gender differences among 
Therefore, the following suggestions 
student leaders. 
should be interpreted only as tentative implications for 
pract i ce, which may or may not be borne out by future 
research. 
Practitioners should encourage college women to 
participate in leadership roles. This study suggests that 
the self- esteem of women presidents of student 
-148-
and, while it is not yet known 
organizations is high, ' 
may 
possibly be increased by their leadership experience. 
Given these results, student affairs practitioners may 
consider developing programs which give women students 
opportunities for practicing leadership skills, then 
encourage and actively support women's efforts to become 
Opportunities need not be restricted to 
student leaders. 
Sagaria (1988) 
traditional leadership training programs. 
reported that women students learned leadership through 
academic programs and curricula such as women's studies 
programs, and formal or informal mentoring relationships 
between women students and women faculty or 
administrators. 
Secondly, leadership training for women may question 
the equation of leadership with masculinity and the 
Instead, 
traditional male approach to leadership. 
leadership training may attempt to reinforce behaviors 
compassion, 
women generally already possess 
understanding the other, maintaining a relationship. 
Training might also explore the dynamics of power and 
competition, helping women understand why they may not be 
as comfortable with these elements in group situations, 
and how to use them appropriately when necessary. 
Women presidents of student organizations in this 
study were clearly concerned about combining ambitious 
careers with marriage and family, and they may not have 
- 149-
realistic expectations about the ease with which this can 
Programs should be developed which address 
be done. 
women's concern about combining career with marriage and 
A second focus should be on women ' s aspirations 
family. Another 
for careers in fields which are dominated by men. 
area of importance to discuss programmatically would be 
women ' s choice of female-dominated majors yet their 
ambition to work in high prestige fields . 
Recommendations for Future Research 
This study was intended as an exploratory 
investigation of presidents of student organizations and 
and of the possible 
potential gender differences, 
relationship of the gender composition of the presidents ' 
Much more research needs to be performed on 
group. Future research 
student leaders and gender differences. 
falls into several areas: potential racial differences?'  
differences between college student leaders and college 
students in general; measuring the same concepts using 
determining relationships among 
d i' fferent instruments; 
the dependent variables; and exploring further gender 
These will be 
d i' fferences suggested by this stu d Y? 
discussed below. 
Future researchers maY 100k for possible racial or 
ethnic differences as well as gender differences in 
By combining results for all ethn ic and 
st udent leaders. 
racial groups, th? assumption is mad? that all cultures 
-150-
define important concepts such as leadership and gender 
roles in the same ways. Since this is unlikely to be 
true, combining results for different racial and ethnic 
groups in the study may impact the accuracy of the results 
as well as obscure potential differences which may offer 
additional insight into the ways gender roles may affect 
student leaders. 
Future studies should also focus attention on how 
college student leaders differ from college students in 
general. The literature suggests that college student 
leaders do differ from their student colleagues, 
especially in relation to self-esteem. Of particular 
interest would be differences between women student 
leaders and women students in general on the dependent 
variables involved in the present study. 
Gender differences among student leaders' self-esteem 
should be measured using more precise measures of 
self-esteem and additionally, should include measures of 
several different aspects of the self-concept including 
social self-esteem, academic self-esteem and intellectual 
self-esteem. This would help researchers to understand 
what aspects of women's self-concept is affected by and 
related to leadership experience. 
An instrument which focuses more directly on the 
conflict Leonard and Sigall (1989) posited women 
experience between their sex- roles and their leadership 
- 151-
roles should be used to shed more light on this issue. A 
questionnaire targeted at women student leaders' perceived 
problems and conflicts as women leaders may help 
researchers understand women's leadership experience more 
clearly. A second instrument which may contribute 
information on student leaders' views on appropriate roles 
for women might be the Attitudes Toward Women Scale 
(Spence & Helmreich, 1972) or a similar instrument. 
Perhaps this instrument, combined with the questionnaire 
focused on women student leaders' concerns, may be helpful 
in clarifying their potential conflict. 
This study did not measure leadership style or 
leadership effectiveness of student leaders, two concepts 
which could be of value in ascertaining gender differences 
between student leaders. While the ASI was not designed 
as a leadership instrument, it does attempt to measure 
several different approaches to achieving which have been 
posited to relate to potential gender differences between 
men and women (Lipman-Blumen & Leavitt, 1976). It is, 
therefore, a useful instrument in conducting research on 
gender differences among student leaders. Pairing it with 
instruments measuring leadership style and effectiveness 
might offer additional information on gender differences 
among student leaders. 
The relationships among the dependent variables 
should be explored both for gender differences among 
- 152-
student leaders and differences within each gender. For 
example, while no gender differences were found among 
student leaders on sex-role identity, it may be that 
gender differences would be found if the relationship 
between self- esteem and sex-role identity were explored. 
Another possibility would be that for women student 
leaders, a specific sex-role identity might be associated 
with higher self-esteem. This analysis may tease out 
potential differences among student leaders in sex- role 
identity which remained hidden in the present study. 
Likewise, other relationships between the dependent 
variables should be explored including the relationship 
between self- esteem and achieving styles, the relationship 
between sex-role identity and achieving styles, and any 
possible relationships between career aspirations and the 
other dependent variables. 
One of the major differences among presidents of 
student organizations suggested by this study regards 
women presidents' plans for the future, especially with 
relation to their plans for combining career and family. 
Moreover, women's plans seem to be in conflict with their 
stated career ambitions, and may reflect unrealistic 
visions of the future and areas for potential conflict. 
In order to understand better what women student leaders 
envision for their future and to ascertain potential areas 
for conflict, this issue should be studied further. 
- 153-
A related issue suggested by this study concerns the 
potential conflict between the female dominated majors 
many women student leaders chose and the male dominated 
career fields to which they aspire. More research should 
focus on this puzzle, striving to understand women 
presidents' choices of major and subsequent career. 
Additional studies could focus also on the achieving 
style differences indicated by the ASI. Of particular 
interest would be additional research on women student 
leaders' attitudes toward competition, power, or any of 
the other achieving scales which suggested that women 
differ significantly from men. 
Possible replications of this study might include the 
following suggested changes involving the sample, design 
of the study and the instrumentation. 
College student leaders could be defined more broadly 
to include students who participate in the many diverse 
student leadership positions on campus including officers 
of organizations other than president; students who 
supervise others at worksites on campus; resident 
assistants and other positions for which students are 
selected and which include a leadeship role; students who 
are enrolled in leadership training activities; student 
leaders of informal groups which are not registered or 
recognized by the institution; leadership roles which are 
not viewed by campus administrators as significant or not 
-154-
and students who are in 
in the mainstream of campus life; 
leadership roles off campus at work, in community 
organizations or at church. 
Racial/ethnic minority student leaders could be 
analyzed separately from majority students and compared 
for potential differences, or a study could focus only on 
racial/ethnic minority student leaders. Any study which 
focuses on racial/ethnic minority students should expand 
the definition of leader to incorporate broad roles of 
participation including leadership roles in unrecognized 
student groups focusing on racial/ethnic concerns, and off 
campus leadership roles with work, community or church 
organizations (Sedlacek, 1987). 
The design of the study could be changed to include 
control groups of male and female college students not 
involved in leadership roles or programs so that gender 
differences among college students in general would be 
distinguished from differences found among college student 
leaders. Also, how college student leaders differ from 
college students in general could be analyzed on all 
dependent variables. 
Another twist on the study design might be a study 
which focused only on women student leaders, comparing 
lower self-esteem women student leaders with higher 
self- esteem women student leaders to see what differences 
emerge. 
- 155-
Relationships among dependent variables could be 
analyzed in order to tease out possible gender differences 
obscured by the lack of this kind of analysis in the 
present study. 
The instrumentation could be changed so that several 
different aspects of self-esteem would be measured 
including overall self-esteem, social self-esteem and 
academic self- esteem. A questionnaire focusing on 
potential conflicts women student leaders are posited to 
face could be administered in place of the Bern Sex- role 
Inventory, thereby making it more likely that conflicts 
between one 's sex-role and leadership role might be 
clarified. More precise measures of both career prestige 
and the proportions of men and women in career fields 
could be used to shed more light on gender differences in 
career aspirations. 
- 156-
Appendix A 
Survey Package: Cover Letter, Questionnaire and 
Instruments 
October 28, 1988 
Dear Student Leader, 
The Office of Campus Activities is trying to learn 
more about the students who choose leadership roles, 
particularly those students who hold the top leadersh i p 
roles in a student organization . Since you are the 
president of your student organization we are especially 
interested in hearing from you. 
The study we are conductjng will help us learn how 
student leaders view themselves ~ how they experience their 
leadership roles, and the personal characteristics and 
goals which they may have in common. It will also help us 
in designing leadership training programs. 
We would appreciate it if you would complete the 
attached questionnaire and the two standardized 
inventories and return them to the Office of Campus 
Activities. It should take you no more than 35 minutes to 
complete everything, and some people take less time. 
Please respond to the items as honestly and candidly as 
possible. The results will be reported collectively and 
no individual results will be used. All information 
collected is confidential and your name will not be 
identified at any time. 
If you have any questjons about this project or are 
interested in learning about the collective results of 
this study, please contact Jana Varwig in the Office of 
Campus Activities (454-5605). 
Since you and the other study participants represent 
a ~e~atively small and select group, your response is 
critical to ensure accurate results from this study. 
Please complete and return your questionnaire and 
inventories in the enclosed envelope within three days. 
We thank you for your time and look forward to 
learning more about the student leaders at the University 
of Maryland. 
Sincerely, 
Jana Varwig 
- 157-
QUESTIONNAIRE 
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: 
1. What is your age? 
2. What is your citizenship? 
3. To which racial/ethnic group do you belong? 
(Circle one) 
1. Afro-American/Black American 
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native 
3. Caucasian/White American 
4. Mexican-American : Puerto Rican, or Other 
Hispanic American 
5. Asian-American 
6. Other/International Student 
4. What is your sex? (Circle one) 
1. Male 
2. Female 
5. What is your current overall college GPA? _______  
CURRENT STUDENT STATUS: 
6. How does the University currently classify your class 
level? (Circle one) 
1 . Freshman (0-27 credits earned) 
2. Sophomore (28-55 credits earned) 
3. Junior (56-83 credits earned) 
4. Senior (84 or more credits earned) 
5. Graduate or Professional Student 
6. Special Student, Unclassified, Other 
7. What is your current major? Use whatever the 
University currently has you registered in even if you are 
planning to change. 
PLANS FOR GRADUATE STUDY: 
8. What is the highest academic degree that you intend to 
obtain? (Circle one) 
1. None 
2. Bachelor's degree (BA, BS, etc.) 
3. Master's degree (MA, MS, etc.) 
4. Ph.d. or Ed.D. 
5. M.D., D.O., D.D.S., or D.V.M. 
6. LL.B., or J.D. (Law) 
7. B.D. or M.Div. (Di vinity) 
8. Other 
- 158-
9. If you plan to attend graduate school, in how many 
years (if any) from the date you graduate with your 
Bachelor's degree will you begin your graduate stud i es? 
STUDENT INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION: 
10. List the student organization(s) at the Univer s ity of 
Maryland, if any, of which you are or have been a member : 
11 . List the one student organization from the list above 
which you consider to be the organization in which you are 
or have been most active: _ ___________ _______  
12. List the position(s) or office(s) you hold or have 
held in the past (if any) in the student organization you 
listed in #11 above: (i . e., pres i dent, v i ce president, 
treasurer, secretary, social chairperson, member, etc . ) 
13 . What is the sex composition of the student 
organization you listed in #11? (Circle one) 
1. More than 75% of my sex 
2. 25% - 75% of my sex 
3 . Less than 25% of my sex 
14. How many times since the beg i nning of the semester 
have you sought advisement, program consultation or other 
services from the Office of Campus Activities? (Circle 
one) 
1 . None 
2. 1 - 5 times since the beginn i ng of the s emes t er 
3. once weekly 
4. 2 - 4 times weekly 
5. da i ly 
FUTURE CAREER PLANS: 
15 . If you had to pick a career right now, what would you 
be? 
-159-
16. What are your plans for a full-time career in the 
future? (Circle one) 
1. I plan to work full-time most of my life 
without interruption for family responsibilities 
2. I plan to work full-time, then part-t ime while 
raising children 
3. I plan to work full-t~m~~ ~aking time off for 
child-raising respons1b11t1es 
4. I plan to work part - time for reasons other than 
raising children 
5. I do not plan to work at all. 
FOR THE NEXT TEN QUESTIONS, USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO 
RATE YOURSELF. 
---------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 
strongly slightly slightly strongly 
disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree 
------------------------------- --------------
17. ___0 n the whole, I am satsfied with myself. 
18. ___A t times, I think I am no good at all. 
19. ___ I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 
20. ___ I am able to do things as well as most other 
people. 
21 . ___ I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 
22. ___ I certainly feel useless at times. 
23. ___ I feel that I am a person of worth, at least 
on an equal plane with others. 
24. ___ I wish I could have more respect for myself. 
25. ___A ll in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a 
failure. 
26. ___ I take a positive attitude toward myself. 
PLEASE NOTE: 
Copyrighted materials in this document have 
not been filmed at the request of the author. 
They are available for consultation, however, 
in the author's university library. 
These consist of pages: 
L-BLA Achieving Styles Inventory 160-161 
Bern Inventory 162-163 
U?M?I 
-160-
Foma IS R 
L-BLA ACHIEVING ~ES INVENTORY 
Ci.re.le the aum ber that b,:st deocriba Y"W' bdi.ava. P1eax nspond?t'lal' ltatr:n>fflL CARD 2 
N,r,n Alu,-,, 
I. For mr, the moot ~tifyini thing is to have ,olved a lough problem. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (II ) 
2. I g,:t to kno,,, important people in order ID sucu?l 2 3 4 s 6 (12) 
3. I ?chi~ my pls through con1n1>uting 10 tho, IUCCCII ol O<hal. 2 4 5 6 7 ( 13) 
4. For me, winning- ii the moot i.i:npo,u.nt th~. 2 4 5 6 ( 14) 
5. When I want ID :aclu~ somtthing, I look !or aJIUUJ>a!. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (U) 
6. I '"?" hard to achieve so people will think well ol me. 2 3 4 5 6 7 (16) 
7. I want ID be the ludu. 2 3 4 5 6 ( 17) 
8. More th.ui &n)'UU.01 we, I 1iAe to take on a chalk,,gi,,c wk. 2 4 s 6 7 (18) 
9. Faced with a ta.ok, I prefer a team apprcach to an indiwfual one. 2 3 4 5 6 7 (19) 
10. I seek out lt.adenhip pooitiOOI. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (20) 
11. Winning in coaipetltioa is the mo,t thrilling thing I an imagine. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (21) 
12. I fed the succ...es or failures ol thooe clooe to me u if they wtte my OWIL 2 4 s 6 7 (22) 
13. I nri"" to achiew., lha1 I will be w~ll liked. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (23) 
14. 'The more axnpetiti,.. the situation, die better I like iL 2 J 4 s 6 7 (24) 
U. Real team dron is the best way for me to gd a job doae. 4 s 6 7 (2.5) 
16. l acl,in,e by guiding othen io,,.-ards d,eir pla. 2 4 5 6 ( 26) 
17 . . For me, the mmt ~"I thi:ic ii WO<t.ing oo a touch prob&eaa. 2 4 s 6 7 (27) 
18. I 1ttk gwd&J>Ce when I 1,2,,, a wk to acaia,pliJb. 2 3 4 s 6 7 (28) 
I g_ I have a ,cme of failure when thooe I C&ff about do poorly. 2 4 s 6 129) 
20. I ~lop some relationshipo with olhen to~ wluit I ~ to NOCeed.. I 2 3 4 s 6 (30) 
2L I seek pooitiorm ol 3uthority. 2 4 s 6 (31 ) 
22. I am noc happy ii I don't oome out oa top in a a,mperitiw ,ituation. 2 4 s 6 ( 321 
23. My way ol achieving ii by coaching othen to their own suca-.. 2 4 s 6 7 (33) 
( coatinue oa 1-i ol P"F) 
-161-
N,- .A'-,, 
24. For EM, croup dfort ii the moot d'l'ectiv. ......,,. lo l<lOOlnpliolu,,L I 2 3 4 5 ? 7 (34) 
:U. I loo& lot' ,upport ll'OIIII ochen when ~ a new tuk. 2 4 5 ? (") 
26. I atabw.b ,om, rrlatiombipo for the beneli11 lhqo ~- 2 4 5 ? ('6) 
27. I try to be ,uccealul >I what I do IO that I ,--ii] be -peeled. 2 4 5 ? ('7) 
28. I """"'' o, w.e c:buJe wben won.inc with o<bcn. ?l 4 5 ? (511) 
29. Whm a loved """ sucettds, I aho have a onu, ol aacmpwhmml 
although I mau DO dinc1 coc,lribution. 2 3 4 s ? ('9) 
2 4 s ? (40) 
31. I loolr. !or russunna: froc:a Olhen whtn m.uing d<cisi0n1. 2 4 s ? (41) 
32. For mt, the gn:,.test a.ocomplishment is ,-i,n, the people I Jo.,. achiew 
theirp!L 4 s ? (42) 
33. I go out ol my -r to worlr. oo challmgini tub. 2 4 s ? 7 (4S) 
'H. 1 succ-! by taking an actiw put in helpin! <>then achieve sucaa. 2 4 s ? (44) 
35. I uoe my rcl.atiomhipo with otben to~ thing,~ 2 4 s ? 7 (45) 
36. Woninc with o<Mn briDgl out my best effora. 2 4 s ? 7 (46) 
37. I ,elc,ct cc,mpetitiw situations hta111t I do better when I cc,mpete. 4 s ? 7 (47) 
2 4 5 ? 7 (48) 
39. I won o, aa:ompliah my pis to pin the J.dmintioa ol othen. 2 4 s ? 7 (49) 
40. I aublioh a rrlationwp with ooe penon in order to a<t to know ocben. 2 4 5 ? 7 (50) 
41. My -r ol adu<ving is by helping othen ll> leun how to ~ what 
they ~L 2 4 s ? 7 (51) 
42. The aa:a:npwlunmt ol clooo othen ,;. ... .,,. a fotlinc ol 
acrompfuhmcnt u -11. 2 4 s ? 7 (52) 
43. For me. the srutat oatislaction aimes fmm bra.kmc tM>urt, 1o the 
IOlutioa ol a new problem. 2 4 s ? (5') 
44. Wbm I oncounta a difficult problem, I go for btlp. 2 4 s ? 7 (~) 
45. My best ~ .. come Imm wodin( with o<ben. 4 ? (55) 
Cl 1179 J-~ Har..id J. IAavifl a ...-... 
AIIJcb11l.--i 
lfo pan _, l,o np,,c1....i ,.;t1,,,u1 wri- ,.,.,,...,._ 
-162-
BEM INVENTORY 
Developed by Sandra L. Bem, Ph .D. 
Name _____ ___ _ _ ______ _ _ __________ Age _____ Sex 
Phone No . or Address ------------------------------------
______ 19_. 
Date 
If a student : School _ ____ _____________________ Yr. in Schoo( ____  
If not a student : Occupatio n _________________ ___ ______________  
DIRECTIONS 
On the opposite side of this sheet . you will find listed a number of personal ity characteristics. We would like you to 
use those characteristics to describe yourself, that is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how 
true of you each of these characteristics is . Please do not leave any characte ris t ic unmarked. 
Example : sly 
Write a 1 if it is never or almost never true that you are sly . 
Write a 2 if it is usually not true that you are sly . 
Write a 3 if it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are sly. 
Write a 4 if it is occasionally true that you are sly. 
Write a 5 if it is often true that you are sly . 
Write a 6 if it is usually true that you are sly. 
Write a 7 if it is always or almost always true that you are sly . 
Thus, if you feel it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are "sly ," never or almost never true that you are 
"malicious," always or almost always true that you are "irresponsible ," and often true that you are "carefree ," 
then you would rate these chJracteristics as follows : 
Sly Irrespons ible 7 
Malicious Carefree s 
CONSUL TING PSYCHOLOGISTS PRESS, INC. 
577 College Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 
?Copyright. 1978, by Consult ing Psy chologim Pre>1, Inc. All rights reserved . Ouplicat1on of th is for m b) any proce,s i, J v,ola uon of 
the copyright law, of the Un ited State, except when authorized in writing by the Publ isher , 
- 163-
2 3 4 5 6 7 
Ntvtr or U,u?lly Somttimrs but Occasional!~ Oft?n Usually Always or 
* almoSI not infrtquently true trur trur almost nevrr trur trur trur ;ilways true 
Defend m\ ov. n behefs Adaptahlt Flallerahle 
Affectio na te Dominant Theatrical 
Consc ientious Ttnder Sel f-su fft c ient 
lndtptndent Conceited lo\ al 
Sympathet,c Willing to take a stand Happy 
Moody Levo children lndi"idualist ic 
Assert ive Tactful Soft-spo~en 
Stnsitiv? 10 needs of others Aggressive Un predictab le i 
Rtliable Gentle Masculine 
Strong personality Conventional Gullible 
Understanding Self-reliant Solemn I 
)ulous Yielding Com pet it ive 
Forceful Helpful Childlike 
Compassionate Athletic Li~able 
Truthful Cheerful Ambitious 
Have ltad,rship abilities Unsystt matic Do not use harsh language 
Eager 10 soothe hurt feelings Analytical Sinctre 
Secretive Shy Act as a leader 
Willing to take risks Inefficient Feminine 
Warm Make decisions easily Friendly 
Clan 
R.S. 
S.S. 
... I * SS dill. 
~~~~-=-=------------
-164-
Appendix B 
Reminder Postcard 
Reminder postcard mailed three days following initial 
mailing: 
A few days ago you should have received a letter and 
~uestionnaire requesting that you participate in an 
:mportant study on student leaders. If you have completed 
t~e questionnaire and inventories and returned them, we 
foank you. If you have not, plea~e _r~turn_th~ completed 
th rms to the Office of Campus Activities within the next ree days. If you have not received the letter and 
6Uestionnajre, please contact Jana Varwig at the Office of 
ampus Activities, 454-5605. 
ihank you for your participation. 
-165-
Appendix C 
Telephone Protocol 
Hello, my name is and I'm calling from the 
Office of Campus Activities. Last week you should have 
received a letter and survey about student leaders from 
Jana Varwig at the office of Campus Activities. I 
wondered whether you had received it? 
Have you had a chance to mail it back? 
If not, ... 
This survey is actually two projects: The office is 
really interested in the results, and it is also Jana's 
dissertation. So it is really important that we get your 
response. We are only surveying presidents of student 
organizations -- a small and pretty select group -- and 
really need to get a response from everyone. 
Specifically, we are interested in the 
characteristics and personal values of presidents of 
student organizations. This will help us to plan our 
leadership conferences and training programs to serve you 
better. 
Your responses will not be identified with you 
individually. We are interested in the general response 
of presidents of student organizations. 
The survey should take no longer than 35 minutes and 
many people finish it in less time. 
-166-
Would you be able to complete the survey and return 
it by the end of the week? 
Do you need another survey sent to you? What is a 
good address? 
Let them talk or complain about Campus Activities or 
if they have any concerns please write them down and tell 
them I will get back to them. Get their phone number 
where they'd be available also. 
If the phone number is disconnected or they've moved, 
please record this, as it will make a difference in 
response rate. Make a note regarding results of each 
call. 
- 167-
Appendix D 
Scale of Occupational Prestige 
00302 account executive 
00102 accountant 
02204 accounting clerk 
00412 actor/actress 
00502 actuary 
00604 administratjve assistant 
00702 advertising copywriter 
00903 advertising manager 
01002 aerospace engineer 
01102 aerospace engineering technician 
01202 agricultural scientist 
01308 air conditioning/refrigeration mechanic 
01402 air traffic controller 
01508 aircraft mechanic 
01602 airplane pilot 
04903 airport manager 
00802 animal scientist 
01802 anthropologist 
17310 appliance servicer 
02002 architect 
01708 assembler (general) 
02502 astronomer 
02612 athlete (professional) 
02712 athletic coach 
01904 auctioneer 
02102 audiologist 
14910 auto service station attendant 
17503 auto service station manager 
02908 automotive body repairer 
03202 automotive engineer 
03308 automotive mechanic 
05105 automotive painter 
03610 baker 
03703 bank officer 
39404 bank teller 
03810 barber 
03910 bartender 
08710 beautician/cosmetologist 
10603 benefits manager 
04004 bill collector 
Note. This scale was produced by the National Opinion 
Research Center (1947). 
-168-
04104 biller (billing clerk) 
04202 biochemist 
03402 biologist 
03002 biomedical engineer 
06002 biomedical equipment technician 
04405 blacksmith (farrier) 
04512 blaster 
11808 blue-collar worker supervisor 
04605 boilermaker 
04712 bookbinder 
04804 bookkeeper 
05002 botanist 
05205 bricklayer, stonemason 
33012 broadcast technician 
05302 building inspector (construction) 
05403 building manager 
03112 bus driver 
05502 business manager (agent) 
04302 business representative (labor union) 
05810 butcher/meatcutter 
05902 buyer 
06105 carpenter 
06402 cartoonist 
06204 cashier 
06302 caterer 
06505 cement mason 
06810 chauffeur 
06704 check-out clerk (grocery store) 
07002 chemical engineer 
06902 chemical laboratory technician 
07102 chemist 
07202 chiropractor 
07302 civil engineer 
07404 claims adjuster 
07504 clerk (general) 
07708 coal equipment operator 
16108 coin machine mechanic 
07802 college professor 
08102 columnist 
17012 commercial artist (illustrator) 
38608 communications equipment mechanic 
06612 compositor 
08208 compressor house operator 
08304 computer operator 
19204 computer printer operator 
08402 computer programmer 
08902 computer service technician 
38702 computer systems analyst 
42302 computer systems specialist 
22811 construction worker 
08503 contractor 
05603 controller (comptroller) 
08610 cook or chef 
,-
-169-
10207 correction officer 
08802 counselor 
34002 counselor, vocational rehabilitation 
37210 counter attendant 
18304 court reporter 
09012 crater 
09103 credit manager 
19402 criminalist 
09202 critic (book or theater) 
09402 customs inspector 
13802 dancer 
09504 datat typist 
10102 dental assistant 
09802 dental hygienist 
09908 dental laboratory technician 
10002 dentist 
10307 detective, police 
19502 dialysis technician 
21008 diesel mechanic 
10502 dietetic technician 
10402 dietitian 
11010 dining room attendant 
10702 director: industrial relations 
10810 director, social 
10902 director, social service 
42504 dispatcher 
09604 displayer, merchandise 
11212 dock worker (stevedore) 
30502 doctor, medical (physician) 
24311 domestic worker 
11502 drafter 
11402 dramatist 
34904 driver, sales route 
11710 dry cleaner 
07905 drywall installer 
11902 economist 
12002 editor 
12102 educational administrator 
11602 EEG technologist 
41802 EKG technician 
12202 electrical engineer 
12805 electrician, construction 
12905 electrician, maintenance 
12310 electrologist 
12405 electronic technician 
12508 electroplater 
12708 elevator mechanic 
13202 emergency medical technician 
13002 employment interviewer 
13102 employment representative 
13602 engineering technician, mechanic 
14203 executive housekeeper 
14302 extension agent 
-170-
11308 farm equipment mechanic 
14406 farm manager 
14506 farmer (rancher) 
14602 fashion artist 
08002 fashion designer 
14704 fashion model 
13301 FBI agent 
14804 file clerk 
15002 financial analyst 
15107 firefighter 
15307 fish and game warden 
15412 fisher 
15510 flight attendant / stewardess/steward 
13404 flight dispatcher 
13508 floor covering installer 
15702 floral arranger/designer 
15802 food & drug inspector 
15910 food service supervisor 
22502 food technologist 
16002 foreign language interpreter 
16201 foreign service officer 
16304 foreign trade clerk 
13702 forester 
16508 forging press operator 
16703 funeral director 
17102 fur designer 
16808 furnace operator 
14008 furniture upholsterer 
17203 garbage collector 
17602 geologist 
42102 geophysicist 
23602 gerontologist 
17905 glazier 
18403 grocery store manager 
18511 groundskeeper (gardener) 
18602 group social worker 
18707 guard (security) 
19008 heat treater 
19108 heavy equipment operator 
19302 historian 
19602 home economist 
27311 horticultural (nursery) worker 
19802 horticulturist 
19910 host/hostess 
16404 hotel clerk 
16903 hotel/motel manager 
20010 housekeeper (hotel) 
20110 houseparent 
20302 importer-exporter (wholesaler) 
20502 industrial engineer 
17402 industrial engineer technician 
17802 industrial hygienist 
20908 instrument mechanic 
-171-
20608 insulation worker 
23302 insurance agent 
21203 insurance manager 
21302 insurance underwriter 
21402 interior decorator (designer) 
21502 internist 
21710 janitor (building custodian) 
21802 job analyst 
22002 job analyst 
18008 job and die setter 
22304 keypunch operator 
22410 kitchen helper 
22702 labora~ory tester 
18102 landscape architect 
24002 laser technician 
02802 lawyer/attorney 
24802 legal assistant 
18204 legal secretary 
23002 librarian 
23102 library assisant 
09302 library technician 
23408 line installer/cable splicer 
23503 liquor store manager 
30212 lithographer 
41903 loan officer 
25302 lobbyist 
23808 locksmith 
15202 locomotive engineer 
23911 logger 
18808 machine repairer 
18908 machine tool operator 
24208 machinist 
24404 mail carrier 
25503 manager, small business 
25010 manicurist 
19704 manufacturer's representative 
20202 market research analyst 
37908 material handler 
25202 mathematician (statistician) 
25402 mechanical engineer 
26802 medical assistant 
20802 medical laboratory technician 
21102 medical records administrator 
21602 medical records technician 
25604 medical secretary 
25702 medical technologist 
25902 metallurgical technician 
25802 metallurgist 
26102 meteorologist 
26004 meter reader 
21908 millwright 
26205 miner 
26302 mining engineer 
-172-
26402 minister 
26608 molder (foundry) 
26712 motion picture projectionist 
30708 musical instrument repairer 
26902 musician 
42402 nuclear engineer 
22202 nuclear medicine technologist 
27102 nuclear reactor operator 
27002 nurse anethetist 
22902 nurse practitioner 
23202 nurse, licensed practical (LPN) 
32302 nurse, registered 
23710 nursery school attendant 
22610 nurse's aide 
27402 occupational therapist 
27502 oceanographer 
29308 office machine operator 
24108 office machine servicer 
27703 office manager (supervisor) 
24602 operating room technician 
28102 optician 
42202 optometric assistant 
28202 optometrist 
28302 orchestra leader 
28502 osteopath 
02402 painter (artist) 
28605 painter (construction) 
24705 paper hanger 
28710 parking lot attendant 
28807 parole officer 
28902 pathologist 
28005 patternmaker 
29004 payroll clerk 
25102 pediatrician 
29204 personnel assistant (worker) 
29503 personnel manager 
42002 petroleum engineer 
29802 pharmacist 
26502 pharmacologist 
27212 photoengraver 
30012 photograph retoucher 
30102 photographer 
35208 photographic process worker 
30402 physical therapist 
29402 physical therapist assistant 
27602 physician's assistant 
27802 physicist 
30602 physiologist 
30905 pipefitter 
31005 plasterer 
31105 plumber 
31202 podiatrist 
31307 police officer 
-173-
31402 political scientist 
03510 porter (baggageman/woman) 
24504 postal clerk 
31603 postmaster/mistress 
31808 powerhouse mechanic 
31712 power plant operator 
27902 priest 
32208 printing press operator 
09704 product demonstrator 
32102 production planner 
32402 proofreader 
29702 prosthetist/orthotist 
32502 psychiatrist 
32602 psychologist 
32802 
28402 public relations representative ppurchasing agent 
29112 quality control technician 
29602 rabbi 
31502 
33202 radiation therapy technologist radio/tv announcer 
33302 radio/tv engineer 
33102 radio/tv program writer 
29908 radio/tv repairer 
30802 
33412 radiologic technologist railroad braker 
33512 
33703 railroad conductor real estate agent 
33602 
33804 real estate appraiser receptionist 
33902 recreation leader 
22101 
34504 reporter (newspaper) 
11102 reservations agent 
32002 residence hall director 
24903 respiratory therapist 
36802 restaurant/bar manager 
32708 robot technician roller 
32905 roofer 
35012 
35102 sailor (seaman/woman) 
35403 salary & wage administrator salesmanager 
35504 
34104 sales person (general) 
13902 sample distributor sanitarian 
36004 secretary 
36104 
36208 securities salesperson 
36305 sewing machine operator 
36402 sheetmetal worker 
36504 ship captain 
36608 shipping/receiving clerk 
34202 shoe repairer singer 
37002 
social worker 
- 174-
37102 sociologist 
34302 soil conservationist 
37602 solar energy engineer 
38802 sonographer 
34402 speech-language pathologist 
35812 stationary engineer 
00204 statistical clerk 
07604 stenographer 
37804 stock clerk 
38005 stonecutter 
24607 store detective 
38205 structural steel worker 
34702 stunt performer 
38402 surgeon 
38505 surveyor, helper 
34802 surveyor, land 
38908 tailor, dressmaker 
39010 taxicab driver 
02302 teacher (art, music, speech, etc.) 
35302 teacher aide 
40302 teacher, adult education 
05702 teacher, business 
12602 teacher, elementary 
20402 teacher, industrial arts 
30302 teacher, physical education 
31902 teacher, preschool/kindergarten 
36702 teacher, secondary 
37302 teacher, special education 
38102 teacher, vocational agriculture 
35602 technical writer 
39204 telegraph-typewriter operator 
20705 telephone installer/repairer 
39304 telephone operator 
39502 test engineer 
39904 ticket agent 
40005 tile setter 
40202 time study analyst 
40405 tool and die maker 
40504 tool crib attendant 
40602 tool designer 
37502 tool programmer 
40812 track worker (railroad) 
41103 traffic manager (industrial) 
41203 training and education manager 
35704 travel agent 
41304 travel clerk 
41410 travel guide 
41512 tree surgeon 
41612 truck driver, tractor-trailer 
35902 tv program director 
37404 typist 
36902 urban planner 
37702 veterinarian 
-175-
38310 waiter/waitress 
39112 warehouse supervisor 
39612 warehouse worker 
39808 watch repairer 
38712 water plant operator 
40102 weather observer 
40705 welder 
41008 wire drawer 
40908 word processing machine operator 
41702 zoologist 
- 176-
Appendix E 
Careers by Gender Classification 
Males Females Domin -
ant 
Gender 
% % 
MANAGERIAL & PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY 
Executive, administrative & 
managerial 63 37 M 
Officials & administrators , 
public 58 42 N 
Financial managers 62 38 M 
Personnel & labor relations mgr. 51 49 N 
Purchasing managers 71 29 M 
Managers, marketing, advertising 
& public relations 75 25 M 
Administrators, education & 
related fields 52 48 N 
Managers, medicine & health 38 62 F 
Managers, properties & real 
estate 56 44 N 
Management-related occupations 54 46 N 
Accountants & auditors 55 45 N 
Professional specialty 51 49 N 
Architects 90 10 M 
Engineers 94 6 M 
Electrical 93 7 M 
Mechanical 96 4 M 
Mathematical & computer Scient. 64 36 M 
Computer systems analysts 66 34 M 
Natural scientists 78 22 M 
Health diagnosing occups. 85 15 M 
Physicians 82 18 M 
Dentists 96 4 M 
Health assessmt. & treating 15 85 F 
Registered nurses 6 94 F 
Therapists 26 74 F 
Note. Labor information from "Employment and earn i ngs" 
by the U. S. _Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34(1) . 1987 . 
M = male dominated field; F = female dominated field? N = 
gender neutral field. ' 
- 177-
Males Females Domin -
ant 
Gender 
% 
64 36 M 
Teachers, college & univ. 27 73 F 
Teachers except college 98 F 
Prekindergarten and kinder. 2 
15 85 F 
Elementary 45 55 N 
Secondary 54 
Counselors, educ. & vocational 46 N 83 
Librarians, archivists, curators 17 F 
14 86 F 
Librarians 
Social scientists & urban plnrs. 54 46 N 
47 53 N 
Psychologists 
Social, recreation 47 & relig. wkrs 53 N 
35 65 F 
Social workers 82 18 M 
Lawyers & judges 
Writers, artists, entertainers & 
55 45 N 
athleles 
TECHNICAL, SALES , & ADMIN. SUPPORT 35 65 F 
Technicians & related support 52 47 N 
Health technologists & techs. 16 84 F 
Licensed pract. nurses 2 98 F 
Engineering & rel. technologists 82 18 M 
Electrical & electronic techs. 87 13 M 
Sc i ence technicians 72 28 M 
Technicians, except above 62 38 M 
Computer programmers 66 34 M 
Sales occupations 52 48 N 
Supervisors & proprietors 69 31 M 
Sales reps, finance & bus. servs 58 42 N 
Insurance sales 71 29 M 
Real estate sales 49 51 N 
Securities & financial sales 75 25 M 
Sales reps, commodities 82 18 M 
Sales workers, retail & personal 31 69 F 
Cash i ers 17 83 F 
Sales related occupations 35 65 F 
Administ. support incl. clerical 20 80 F 
Supervisors 31 59 N 
Computer equip. operators 31 69 F 
Computer operators 33 67 F 
Secretaries, steno. & typists 2 98 F 
Secretaries 1 99 F 
Typists 5 95 F 
-178-
Males Females Domin-
ant 
Gender 
% % 
Duplicating, mail & other office 
machine operators 39 61 F 
Communications equip . operators 13 87 F 
Telephone operators 12 88 F 
Mail & message distrib. occups. 66 34 M 
Postal clerks exc. mail carrier 56 44 N 
Material recording, scheduling & 
distributing clerks 60 40 N 
Adjusters & investigators 28 72 F 
Misc. administrative support 15 85 F 
General office clerks 19 81 F 
Bank tellers 8 92 F 
Data entry keyers 9 91 F 
Teachers' aides 6 94 F 
SERVICE OCCUPATIONS 39 61 F 
Private household 4 96 F 
Child care workers 3 97 F 
Cleaners & servants 5 95 F 
Protective service 88 12 M 
Firefighting & fire prevention 98 2 M 
Police & detectives 89 11 M 
Guards 82 18 M 
Service except priv. househld. & 
protective 35 65 F 
Food preparation & serv. occups. 37 63 F 
Bartenders 51 49 N 
Waiters & waitresses 15 85 F 
Cooks, except short-order 49 51 N 
Short-order cooks 63 37 M 
Food counter, fountain & rel. 21 79 F 
Kitchen workers food preparat. 24 76 F 
Waiters' & waitresses assts. 61 39 M 
Health service occupations 10 90 F 
Dental assts. 1 99 F 
Health aides, except nursing 17 83 F 
Nursing aides, orderlies, & 
attendants 9 91 F 
Cleaning & building occupations 58 42 N 
Maids & housemen 15 85 F 
Janitors & cleaners 69 31 M 
Personal service occupations 20 80 F 
Barbers 83 17 M 
Hairdressers & cosmetologists 11 89 F 
Attendants, amusement & rec. 57 43 N 
-179-
Males Females Domin -
ant 
Gender 
% % 
Public transportation attend. 23 77 F 
Welfare service aides 8 92 F 
Child care workers, exc . priv. 
household 3 97 F 
PRECISION PRODUCTION , CRAFT & REPAIR 91 9 M 
Mechanics & repairers 96 4 M 
Mechanics & repairers, exc. 
supervisors 97 3 M 
Vehicle & mobile equip. mech. 99 1 M 
Automobile mechanics 99 1 M 
Electrical & electronic 
equipment repairers 91 9 M 
Telephone installers & 
repairers 87 13 M 
Construction trades 98 2 M 
Construction trades, exc. 
supervisors 98 2 M 
Carpenters 99 1 M 
Extractive occupations 98 2 M 
Precision production occups. 77 23 M 
OPERATORS, FABRICATORS & LABORERS 75 25 M 
Machine operators, assemblers & 
inspectors 60 40 N 
Textile apparel & furnishings 
machine operators 20 80 F 
Textile sewing mach. opers. 9 91 F 
Pressing machine opers. 28 72 F 
Fabricators, assemblers, & 
hand working occupations 68 32 M 
Production inspectors, testers 
samplers, & weighers 50 50 N 
Transportation & material moving 
occupations 91 9 M 
Motor vehicle operators 89 11 M 
Trucks, heavy & light 96 4 M 
Transportation occupations, exc. 
motor vehicles 98 2 M 
Material moving equipment aper. 96 4 M 
Industrial truck & tractor 
operators 95 5 M 
Handlers, equipment cleaners, 
helpers & laborers 84 16 M 
Feight, stock & material handlrs.84 16 M 
-180-
Males Females Domin-
ant 
Gender 
% 9o 
Laborers, exc. construction 83 17 M 
FARMING, FORESTRY, & FISHING 84 16 M 
Farm operators & managers 86 14 M 
Other agricultural & rel. occups. 82 18 M 
Farm workers 76 24 M 
Forestry & logging occups. 96 4 M 
Fishers, hunters, & trappers 91 9 M 
-181-
Appendix F 
Proportions of Men and Women in College Majors at the 
University of Maryland at College Park, Fall 1988 
Major Males Females Gender 
Classifi-
% % cation 
College of Agriculture: 
Agric. Engineering 80 20 M 
Agric. & Extension 
Education 00 100 F 
Animal Sciences 21 79 F 
National Resource Mgmt. 71 29 M 
College of ArTs and 
Humanities: 
American Studies 42 58 N 
Dance 11 89 F 
Design 37 63 F 
East Asian Language 64 36 M 
English 36 64 F 
French 25 75 F 
History 61 39 M 
Jewish Studies 56 44 N 
Music 49 51 N 
Radio, T.V. & Film 55 45 N 
Russian 27 73 F 
Speech Communication 31 69 F 
Undecided 39 61 F 
College of Behavioral 
and Social Sciences: 
Anthropology 35 65 F 
Criminal Justice 66 34 M 
Criminology 55 45 N 
Economics 75 25 M 
Government & Politics 60 40 N 
Psychology 29 71 F 
Sociology 24 76 F 
-182-
Major Males Females Gender 
Classifi-
% % cation 
College of Business & 
Management: 
Accounting 50 50 N 
Finance 66 33 M 
General Business & 
Management 61 39 M 
Management Science 
Statistics & Decision 
Information Services 58 42 N 
Marketing 44 56 N 
Personnel & Labor 
Relations 26 74 F 
College of Computer, 
Mathematics & Physical 
Sciences: 
Computer Science 70 30 M 
Geology 70 30 M 
Mathematics 63 37 M 
College of Education: 
Early Childhood 01 99 F 
Industrial Technology 91 09 M 
Special Education 07 93 F 
College of Engineering: 
Aerospace Engineering 83 17 M 
Chemical Engineering 63 37 M 
Civil Engineering 81 19 M 
Electrial Engin. 84 16 M 
Fire Protection 84 16 M 
Mechanical Engineering 85 15 M 
Nuclear Engineering 82 18 M 
- 183-
Males Females Gender Major Classifi-
% % cation 
College of Human Ecology: 
N 
Consumer Economics 60 40 F 
Experimental Foods 20 80 F 
Fashion Merchandising 04 96 
Management & Consumer 
Studies 43 57 
N 
F 
Textiles Marketing 14 86 
College of Journalism: 
F 
Journalism 25 75 
College of Life 
Sciences: 
Biochemistry 56 44 N 
Genetics 29 71 F 
Microbiology 41 59 N 
Zoology 50 50 N 
College of Physical 
Education, Recreation 
& Health: 
Health Education 12 88 F 
Kinesiological Sciences 45 55 N 
Recreation 34 66 F 
College of Undergraduate 
Studies : 
General Studies 43 57 N 
Pre-Architecture 70 30 M 
Pre-Business 59 41 N 
Pre-Education Social 
Studies 53 47 N 
Pre-Engineering 86 14 M 
Note. This list contains only those majors l i sted by 
participants and is not a complete list of majors at UMCP . 
Information is from "Enrollment by major, UMCP fall 1988" 
by the Office of Institutional Studies, Univers i ty of 
Maryland at College Park. M = predominantly male, F = 
predominantly female, N = gender neutral . 
-184-
Appendix G 
Presidents' Student Organizations 
American Collegiate Entrepreneurs 
Adhan 
African Student Association 
Agape Campus Ministry 
Agriculture Student Council 
Alpha Chi Omega 
Alpha Chi Sigma 
Alpha Epsilon Rho 
Alpha Gamma Delta 
Alpha Kappa Alpha 
Alpha Lambda Delta 
Alpha Omicron Pi 
Alpha Phi 
Alpha Phi Omega 
Alpha Phi Omega 
Alpha Pi Alpha 
Alpha Queen 
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics 
Amerjcan Institute of Chemical Engineers 
American Nuclear Society 
American Society for Personnel Administration 
American Society of Safety Engineers 
Anthropology Student Association 
Arnold Air Society 
Badminton Club 
Bangladesh Student Association 
Beta Alpha Psi 
Beta Theta Pi 
Black Business Society 
Bowling Club 
Cambridge Area Council 
Canterbury 
Caribbean Student Association 
Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship 
Chi Epsilon 
Chinese Culture Club 
Chinese Student Association 
Chosen Generation Ministry 
Circle K 
Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles 
College Young Democrats 
Collegiate Future Farmers of America 
Criminal Justice Student Association 
Criminal Justice Student Association 
Dancers Against Cancer 
Delta Chi 
Delta Gamma 
Delta Phi Epsilon 
Delta Sigma Pi 
- 185-
Delta Tau Delta 
Delta Upsilon 
Design Association 
Diamondback 
Egyptian Cultural Club 
Elegant 
E. C. 0. 
Eta Kappa Nu 
Eta Kappa Nu 
Etzel 
Freedom 
Gay & Lesbian Student Union 
General Honors Program 
Geology Club 
German Club 
Great Commission Students 
Gymkana Troupe 
Hellenic Club 
Hillel Student Organization 
Homecoming Committee 
Hong Kong Club 
Ice Hockey 
Indian Student Association 
Indonesian Student Association 
Interfraternity Council 
International Student Association 
Intervarsity Christian Fellowship 
Japanese Culture Club 
Jewish Student Union 
Kappa Sweetheart Kourt 
LOSSA 
Leonardtown Area Council 
Maryland Association of Midshipment 
Maryland Awareness Coalition 
Maryland Danceline 
Maryland Floor Hockey Club 
Maryland Gospel Choir 
Maryland Honor Guard 
Maryland Images 
Maryland Images 
Maryland Space Futures Association 
Maryland Tennis Club 
MaryPIRG 
The Medium 
Men's Rugby Club 
Minority Computer Science Society 
Minority Psychology Society 
Mortar Board 
Motorcycle Club 
National Association of Accountants 
Northern American Student Center 
Organization of American States 
PACE 
- 186-
Pakistani Student Association 
Pan-Hellenic Council 
Personal Computing Association 
Phi Beta Lambda 
Phi Sigma Kappa 
Phi Sigma Kappa 
Phi Sigma Pi 
Phi Sigma Sigma 
Pi Beta Phi 
Pi Kappa Alpha 
PreMed Society 
Psi Chi 
Public Relations Student Society of America 
Racquetball Club 
Recreation Society 
Redline Booster Club 
Reformed University Fellowship 
Residential Halls Association 
Resident Life 
Russian Club 
SEE Productions 
Sigma Chi 
Sigma Delta Tau 
Sigma Gamma Rho 
Sigma Phi Epsilon 
Sigma Pi 
Ski Club 
Society of Automotive Engineers 
Society of Hispanic Engineers 
Society of Iranian Honor Students 
Society of Professional Journalists 
Student Alumni Board 
Student Dance Association 
Student Government Association 
Student Government Association 
Stamp Union Program Council 
Stamp Union Program Council 
Swing & Dance Club 
Tae Kwon Do Club 
Tau Epsilon Phi 
Tau Kappa Epsilon 
Terrapin Trail Club 
Thai Student Association 
Tri Delta 
University Commuters Association 
University Pro Life Organizaiton 
University Sports Car Club 
Vedic Cultural Society 
Veteran's Club 
Veterinary Science Club 
Vietnamese Students Association 
Water Polo Team 
WMUC Radio 
-187-
Women's Center 
Women's Softball Club 
Women's Soccer Team 
Wonhwa - Do Karate Association 
Zoology Undergraduate Student Committee 
-188-
REFERENCES 
Abrahamowicz, D. (1988). College involvement, 
perceptions, and satisfaction: A study of membership 
in student organizations. Journal of College Student 
Development, 29, 233-238. 
Adams, C. H., & Sherer, M. (1982). Sex-role orientation 
and psychological adjustment: Comparison of MMPI 
profiles among college women and housewives. Journal 
of Personality Assessment, 46, 607-613. 
Arnold, K. D. & Denny, T. (1985, April). The lives of 
academic achievers: The career aspirations of male 
and female high school valedictorians and 
salutatorians. Paper presented at the American 
Educational Research Association, Chicago. 
Astin, A. W. (1978). Four critical years. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
Astin, A. W., Green, K. C., & Korn, W. S. (1987). The 
American freshman: Twenty year trends, 1966 1985. 
Los Angeles: University of California, The Higher 
Education Research Institute. 
Astin, H. S., & Kent, L. (1980). The development of 
relatedness and autonomy in the college years. Men and 
women learning together: a study of college students in 
the late 70's. Re ort of the Brown Pro ? ect 
(pp.60-106). Providence RI: Brown University. 
- 189-
Astin, H. s., & Kent, L. (1983). Gender roles in 
transition. Journal of Higher Educa1 i..on, 54, 
309- 324. 
Astin , W ? ( 1 9 84 ) . Student involvement: A developmental 
theory for higher education. Journal of College 
Student Personnel, 25, 297-309. 
Astley, S. L., & Downey, R. G. (1980). Sex role 
consequences: Depends on the point of view. Journal 
of College Student Personnel, 21, 419-426. 
Awad, R. (1981). A comparison of achieving styles 
among student of four academic majors . Unpublished 
sen ior h o no r s t hesis, Stan f ord University , Palo Alto , 
CA, 
Br 0 1 , K, M., & S u rf ? e d , D. A. (1976 ) , Sex 
effects i n eva l uat ng leade r s . Journa l a 
- .-;;.;..:..;;.::.:::.;;u.J fil , 446 - 454 . 
Bart ol, K. M. , & Mart i n , D. C. (1986 ) , Wome n a nd men 
in task groups. In The social psychology of 
f emale- male re l a t i ons. Academic Press, Inc . 
Bea rd s ley , K. P., St ewar G M 
I ? ? I & Wilmes, M. B. (1987) , 
Ac h e v ? n g s tyles of s t ud ent s and s t udent affairs 
profess i o nals. Journal of Colle 8 
28, 412- 419. 
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychologica l 
androgyny . Journal of Consulting and Clinical 
Ps yc ho logy, 4 2 , 155- 162. 
-190-
Bern, S. L. ( 1 975) . Sex-role adaptibility: One 
consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal 
of Personality and Social Psychology, .ll, 634-643. 
Bern, S. L. ( 1 981 ) . Bern sex-role inventory: 
Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting 
Psychologists Press. 
Bern, S. L. ( 1987) . Probing the promise of androgyny. 
In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), The psychology of women 
{pp. 206-225). New Haven: Yale University Press. 
Bern, S.L., & Lenny, E. (1976). Sex typing and the 
avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48-54. 
Bern, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). 
Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of 
the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 34, 1016-1023. 
Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career 
psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, 
Jovanovich, Publishers. 
Bieger, G. R. (1985). Bern Sex-role Inventory. In 
D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test 
critiques: Vol. 3 (pp.51-57). Kansas City MO: 
Test Corporation of America. 
Blaska, B. (1978). College womens' career and marriage 
aspirations: A review of the literature. Journal of 
College Student Personnel, jj!, 302-305. 
-191-
Boardman, W.K., Calhoun, L. G., & Schiel, J. H. ( 1972) . 
Life experience patterns and development of college 
leadership roles. Psychological Reports,~' 
333-334. 
Britton, V., & Elmore, P. B. (1979). Developing 
leadership skills in women students. NASPA Journal, 
..!_?_(3), 10-14. 
Butters, M. A., & Gade, E. M. ( 1982). Job 
satisfaction and leadership behavior of residence hall 
assistants. Journal of College Student Personnel, 
23, 320-323. 
Capella, M. H. (1967). Concurrent validation of the 
Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Doctoral 
dissertation, University of Maryland, 1966). 
Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 3607A. 
Cattell, R. B. (1972). Manual for the 16PF. 
Champaign, IL: IPAT. 
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of 
self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co. 
DeJulio, S. S., Larson, K., Dever, E. L., & Paulman, R. 
(1981). The measurement of leadership potential in 
college students. Journal of College Student 
Personnel, 22, 207-213. 
-192-
Deutsch, C. J., & Gilbert, L. A. (1976). Sex role 
stereotypes: Effects on perceptions of self and others 
and on personal adjustment. Journal of Counseling 
Psychology, 23, 373-379. 
Dion, K., & Hartnett, R. (1980). Trends in selected 
statistics for undergraduates at Brown University 
1960-1976. Men and women learning together: a study 
of college students in the late 70's. Report of the 
Brown Project, (pp. 168-193}. Providence RI: Brown 
University. 
Downey, R. G., Bosco, P. J., & Silver, E. M. (1984). 
Long - term outcomes of participation in student 
government. Journal of College Student Personnel, 
25, 245-250. 
Earwood-Smith, G. (1985}. Leadership in honor societies: 
the effect of title IX. Journal of NAWDAC, 48(3}, 
14-21. 
El-Khawas, E. H. (1980). Differences in academic 
development during college. Men and women learning 
together: a study of college students in the late 
70's. Report of the Brown Project, (pp. 1-42}. 
Providence RI: Brown University. 
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Crites, J. D. (1980}. Toward a 
career psychology of women: What do we know? What do 
we need to know? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 
27, 44-62. 
-193-
Florestano, E. E. ( 1971). The relationship of college 
leadership and post-college leadership as measured by 
the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and a leadership 
inventory (Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Maryland, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 32, 173A. 
Frigault, R., Maloney, G., & Trevino, C. (1986). 
Training paraprofessionals to facilitate leadership 
development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 
_27,  281-282. 
Furr, S. R., & Lutz, J. R., (1987). Emerging leaders: 
developing leadership potential. Journal of College 
student Personnel, 28, 86-87. 
Gaudreau, P. (1977). Factor analysis of the Bem 
sex-role inventory. Journal of Consulting and 
Clinical Psychology, 44, 299-302. 
Golde, C. (1987). "Repeat after me ... be assertive ... 
take risks ... speak up ... " Don't women need more than a 
game of 'Simon says'? A critical examination of 
leadership training for women. Campus Activities 
Programming, 20, 43-47. 
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1984). Out of the 
classroom: a chilly campus climate for women? 
Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education 
of Women. 
-194-
Harmon, L. W. (1981). The life and career plans of 
young adult college women: A follow-up study. 
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 416- 427. 
Heft, M., & Deni, R. (1984). Altering preferences for 
leadership style of men and women undergraduate 
residence advisors through leadership training. 
Psychological Reports, 54, 463- 466. 
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Management of 
organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Hoffman, L. (1972). Early childhood experiences and 
women's achievement motivation. Journal of Social 
Issues, 28, 129-155. 
Horner, M. (1968). Sex differences in achievement 
motivation and performance in competitive and 
noncompetitive situations. Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 30,(1) 407B. (University Microfilms 
No. 69-12, 135). 
Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward and understanding of 
achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal 
of Social Issues, 28, 157-175. 
Inderlied, S. D., & Powell, G. (1979). Sex-role 
identity and leadership style: Different labels for 
the same concept? Sex Roles,?, 613-625. 
- 195-
Jones, W. H., Chernovetz, M. E. O'C., & Hansson, R. 0. 
(1978). The enigma of androgyny: Differential 
implications for males and females. Journal of 
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 46, 298--313. 
Karnes, F. A., Chauvin, J., C., & Trant, T. J. (1984). 
Leadership profiles as determined by the 16 PF scores 
of honors college students. Psychological Reports, 
55, 615-616. 
Keller, B. B., & Chambers, J. L. (1975). Motivation 
factors in organized student group participation. 
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1.?., 313-316. 
Kelly, J. A., & Worrell, J. (1977). New formulations 
of sex roles and androgyny: a critical study . 
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, _45,  
1101 - 1115. 
Kingdon, M. A., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1982). Differences 
between women who choose traditional and nontraditional 
careers. Journal of NAWDAC, 45(2), 34-37. 
Kleinke, C. L., & Hinrichs, C. A. (1983). College 
adjustment problems and attitudes toward drinking 
reported by feminine, androgynous, and masculine 
college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly , z, 
373 - 382 . 
-196-
Knight, G. D., Sedlacek, W. E . , & Bachhuber, T. D. 
(1983). Occupational status and career development 
needs of recent female college graduates. Journal 
of College Student Personnel, ~4, 152-156. 
Korabik, K. (1982). Sex role orientation and 
leadership style. International Journal of Women's 
Studies,~' 329-337. 
Leland, C. (1980). Declarations about the future: 
Career goals and plans of a college generation. 
Men and women learning together: A study of college 
students in the late 70's. Report of the Brown 
Project, pp. 107- 144. Providence RI: Brown 
University. 
Leonard, M., & Sigall, B. A. (1989). Slaying dragons 
and breaking the silences: Empowering women student 
leaders. In Shavlick, D., Pearson, C., & Touchton, J. 
(eds.), Educating the Majority: Women challenge 
Tradition in higher education (pp. 219- 229). New York: 
Macmillan. 
Lippa, R. (1985). Review of Bern Sex-Role Inventory. In 
J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The Ninth Mental Measurements 
Yearbook, Vol. 1 (pp. 176-178). Lincoln NE: The 
University of Nebraska, The Buras Institute of Mental 
Measures. 
Lipman- Blumen, J. (1972). How ideology shapes women's 
lives. Scientific American, 226, 34-42. 
-197-
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1987). Individual and 
organizational achieving styles: A handbook for 
researchers and human resource professionals. 
Claremont CA: L-BLA Associates. 
Lipman-Blumen, J., Handley-Isaksen, A., & Leavitt, H. J. 
(1983). Achieving styles in men and women: A model, 
an instrument, and some findings. In J. Spence (Ed.), 
Assessing achievement (pp. 147- 204). San Francisco: 
W. H. Freeman. 
Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. J. (1976). Vicarious 
and direct achievement patterns in adulthood. 
Counseling Psychologist, ~{1), 26-32. 
Lipman-Blumen, J., Leavitt, H. J., Patterson, K. J., 
Bies, R. J., & Handley-Isaksen, A (1980). A model of 
direct and relational achieving styles. In L. J. Fyans 
(Ed.), Achievement motivation (pp. 135-168). 
New York: Plenum. 
Martinez, A. C., Sedlacek, W. E., & Bachhuber, T. D. 
( 1985). Male and female college graduates -- 7 months 
later. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 34, 
77-84. 
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & 
Lowell, E. L. (1953). Th e achievement motive. 
New York: Appleton - Century Crofts. 
-198-
McEwen, M. K ( 1 980) . . ' & Higgins, E. B. Mortar board 
members: A research description. Journal of NAWDAC, 
43 ( 3) , 1 5-23. 
Miller, T. K.,& Jones, J. D. (1981). Out of class 
attitudes. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern 
american college: Responding to the new realities 
of diverse students and a changing society 
(pp.657-671). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Moreland, J. R., Gulanick, N., Montague, E. K., 
& Harren, V. A. (1978). Some psychometric properties 
of the Bern sex-role inventory. Applied Psychological 
Measurement,~' 249-256. 
Murray, R. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. 
New York & London: Oxford University Press. 
National Opinion Research Center (1947). Scale of 
occupational prestige. Opinion News,~' 3-13. 
Oltman, R. M. (1970). Campus 1970 -- where do 
women stand? AAUW Journal, November. 
Orlofsky, J. L., & Windle, M. T. (1978). Sex-role 
orientation, behavioral adaptability and personal 
adjustment. Sex Roles,~' 801-811. 
Payne, F. D. (1985) Review of Bem sex-role inventory. 
In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The Ninth Mental 
Measurements Yearbook, Vol. 1 (pp. 178-179). 
Lincoln NE: The University of Nebraska, The Buras 
Institute of Mental Measures. 
-199-
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. ( ?1 979). s em sex-role 
inventory: A theoretical and methodological criti que. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
37, 996-1016. 
Phillips, S. D., & Johnston, S. L. (1985). Attitudes 
toward work roles for women. Journal of College 
Student Personnel, 26, 334- 338. 
Pomrenke, V. E., Dambrot, F. H., & Hazard, B. J. (1983). 
A low-budget leadership program for university women: 
no funds are no excuse. Journal of NAWDAC, 46(3), 
28- 33. 
Randour, M. L., Strasburg, G. L., & Lipman- Blumen, J. 
(1982). Women in higher education: Trends in 
enrollments and degrees earned. Harvard Educational 
Review, 52, 189-202 . 
Rl?.ce R . W Yoder, J. D., Adams, J, Priest, R. F., & ' . ' 
Prince, H. T. (1984). Leadership ratings for male and 
female military cadets. Sex Roles, !Q, 885-901. 
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of 
social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor MI : 
Survey Research Institute for Social Research., 
? 965) Society and the adolescent 
Ro senberg, M. ( ? ? -
Princeton University Press. 
self-image. Princeton: 
- 200-
Sagaria, M. D., (1988). The case for empowering women 
as leaders in higher education. In M. D. Sagaria (Ed.), 
Empowering women: Leadership development strategies 
on campus (pp. 5 - 11). San Francisco, CA: 
Jossey-Bass, Inc. 
Sakoda, J . M., Cohen, B. H., & Beall, G. (1954) . Test 
of significance for a series of statistical tests. 
Psychological Bulletin, 51, 172-175. 
Schuh, J. H., & Laverty, M. (1983). The perceived 
long-term influence of holding a significant student 
leadership position. Journal of College Student 
Personnel, 24, 28- 32. 
Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Black students on white 
campuses: 20 years of research. Journal of College 
Student Personnel, 26, 484- 495. 
Siegel, S. (1956) . Nonparametric statistics (p. 94) . 
New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Silber, E., & Tippett, J. (1965). Self- esteem: Clinical 
assessment and measurement validation. Psychological 
Reports, 1.?., 1017- 1071. 
Silvern, L. E., & Ryan, V. L. (1979). Sel f- rated 
adjustment and sex- typing on the Bem sex- role 
inventory: Is masculinity the primary predictor of 
adjustment? Sex Roles,~' 739-763. 
- 201-
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The attitudes 
toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure 
attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in 
contemporary society. JSAS catalog of selected 
documents in psychology g(66). (Ms. No. 153). 
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1983). Achievement and 
achievement motives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). 
Ratings of self and peers on sex- role attributes and 
their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of 
masculinity and femininity. Journal of Consulting and 
Clinical Psychology, 32, 29-39. 
Stake, J. E. (1981). Promoting leadership behaviors in 
low performance-self-esteem women in task-oriented 
mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality, 49, 
401-414. 
Stake, J . E., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1981). On the use of 
global and specific measures in assessing the 
self-esteem of males and females. Sex Roles, Z, 
653-662. 
Stewart, G. M. (1983). Achieving styles as a gauge for 
co-worker productivity in college student 
co-curricular environments. Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, The American University, Washington, 
D. C. 
-202-
Stockton, N., Berry, J., Shepson, J., & Utz, P. (1980). 
Sex - role and innovative major choice among college 
students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, .1?., 
360-367. 
Study Group on Excellence In American Higher Education 
(1984, October 24). Involvement in learning: 
Realizing the potential of American higher education. 
Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 35-49. 
Subcommittee on Undergraduate Women's Education (1987). 
The education of women students at the University of 
Maryland College Park: Issues and opportunities. 
College Park, MD: The University of Maryland, 
Chancellor's Commission on Women's Affairs. 
Sutherland E., & Vero ff, J. ( 1985). Achievement 
motivation and sex roles. In V. E. O'Leary & R. K. 
Unger (Eds.), Women, gender and social psychology 
(pp. 101-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
Tidball, M. E. (1980). Women's colleges and women 
achievers revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in 
Culture and Society, Q, 504- 517. 
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1987). Employed 
civilians by detailed occupation, sex, race, and 
Hispanic origin. Employment and earnings, 34(1), 
179-183. 
- -
t;t.,--
-203-
University of Maryland (1988). Enrollment by major: 
UMCP, fall, 1988. College Park, MD: Office of 
Institutional Studies. 
Vale, D. W., & Riker, H. C. (1979). Sex-role 
differences in student leadership training. 
Journal of College Student Personnel, 20, 58-63. 
Welsh, M. C. (1979). Attitudinal measures and 
evaluation of males and females in leadership roles. 
Psychological Reports, 45, 19-22. 
Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further 
evidence on androgyny and interpersonal flexibility. 
Journal of Research in Personality, 1..?, 67-80. 
Wilson, V. M., & Lunneborg, P. W. (1982). Implications 
of women's changing career aspirations for college 
counselors. Journal of College Student Personnel, 
23, 236- 239. 
Yanico, B. J., Hardin, S. I., & McLaughlin, K. B. (1978). 
Androgyny and traditional versus nontraditional major 
choice among college freshmen. Journal of Vocational 
Behavior, 1.g, 261-269. 
Zuckerman, D. M. (1980). Self-esteem, personal traits, 
and college women ' s life goals. Journal of 
Vocational Behavior, .!2, 310-319. 
Zuckerman, D. M. (1981). Family background, sex - role 
attitudes, and life goals of technical college and 
university students. Sex Roles, I, 1109-1126.