↓ Skip to main content

Worth Less?: Why Men (and Women) Devalue Care-Oriented Careers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
30 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Worth Less?: Why Men (and Women) Devalue Care-Oriented Careers
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina Block, Alyssa Croft, Toni Schmader

Abstract

In the present research, we applied a goal-congruity perspective - the proposition that men and women seek out roles that afford their internalized values (Diekman et al., 2017) - to better understand the degree to which careers in healthcare, early education, and domestic roles (HEED; Croft et al., 2015) are devalued in society. Our first goal was to test the hypothesis that men, relative to women, are less interested in pursuing HEED careers in part because they are less likely than women to endorse communal values. A second, more novel goal was to extend goal congruity theory to examine whether gender differences in communal values also predict the belief that HEED careers add worth to society and are deserving of higher salaries. In three studies of undergraduate students (total N = 979), we tested the predictive role of communal values (i.e., a focus on caring for others), as distinct from agentic values (i.e., a focus on status, competition, and wealth; Bakan, 1966). Consistent with goal congruity theory, Studies 1 and 2 revealed that men's lower interest in adopting HEED careers, such as nursing and elementary education, was partially mediated by men's (compared to women's) lower communal values. Extending the theory, all three studies also documented a general tendency to see HEED as having relatively lower worth to society compared to STEM careers. As expected, communal values predicted perceiving higher societal worth in HEED careers, as well as supporting increases in HEED salaries. Thus, gender differences in communal values accounted for men's (compared to women's) tendency to perceive HEED careers as having less societal worth and less deserving of salary increases. In turn, gender differences in perceived societal worth of HEED itself predicted men's relatively lower interest in pursuing HEED careers. In no instance, did agentic values better explain the gender difference in HEED interest or perceived worth. These findings have important implications for how we understand the value that society places on occupations typically occupied by women versus men.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 4 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 45 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 23%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 48 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 270. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2022.
All research outputs
#131,108
of 25,121,692 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#268
of 33,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,708
of 336,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#8
of 728 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,121,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 728 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.