女性对(似乎)需要系统化技能的专业的厌恶导致了研究领域的性别选择

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY European Sociological Review Pub Date : 2023-04-11 DOI:10.1093/esr/jcad021
Benita Combet
{"title":"女性对(似乎)需要系统化技能的专业的厌恶导致了研究领域的性别选择","authors":"Benita Combet","doi":"10.1093/esr/jcad021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines whether gender differences in preferences for field of study characteristics can explain gendered major choice. Specifically, this study focuses on a broad range of subject characteristics that are often simultaneously present: systemizing skills required (math intensity, reasoning style, affinity for technical work tasks), future job characteristics corresponding with the male breadwinner model (materialism, work–family compatibility), and characteristics invoked by behavioural preferences (risky situations and a competitive environment). To disentangle these co-occurring characteristics and minimize the influence of other factors in the decision-making process (e.g. admission likelihood), this study uses a choice experiment incorporated in the Swiss panel study TREE. In it, a representative sample of high school students choose their preferred field of study from two artificial fields with varying characteristics. The results show the largest gender differences in preferences for characteristics related to reasoning style (abstract versus creative) and affinity for work tasks (technical versus social), and smaller differences for math intensity, competitive climate, and work–family compatibility, while there are no gender differences in preferences for materialistic characteristics (salary and prestige). Unexpectedly, the gender differences are primarily caused by female students’ preferences, while male students are neutral towards most characteristics.","PeriodicalId":48237,"journal":{"name":"European Sociological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Women’s aversion to majors that (seemingly) require systemizing skills causes gendered field of study choice\",\"authors\":\"Benita Combet\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/esr/jcad021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article examines whether gender differences in preferences for field of study characteristics can explain gendered major choice. Specifically, this study focuses on a broad range of subject characteristics that are often simultaneously present: systemizing skills required (math intensity, reasoning style, affinity for technical work tasks), future job characteristics corresponding with the male breadwinner model (materialism, work–family compatibility), and characteristics invoked by behavioural preferences (risky situations and a competitive environment). To disentangle these co-occurring characteristics and minimize the influence of other factors in the decision-making process (e.g. admission likelihood), this study uses a choice experiment incorporated in the Swiss panel study TREE. In it, a representative sample of high school students choose their preferred field of study from two artificial fields with varying characteristics. The results show the largest gender differences in preferences for characteristics related to reasoning style (abstract versus creative) and affinity for work tasks (technical versus social), and smaller differences for math intensity, competitive climate, and work–family compatibility, while there are no gender differences in preferences for materialistic characteristics (salary and prestige). Unexpectedly, the gender differences are primarily caused by female students’ preferences, while male students are neutral towards most characteristics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Sociological Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad021\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文研究了对研究领域特征偏好的性别差异是否可以解释性别专业选择。具体而言,这项研究关注的是一系列通常同时存在的学科特征:所需的系统化技能(数学强度、推理风格、对技术工作任务的亲和力)、与男性养家糊口模式相对应的未来工作特征(物质主义、工作-家庭兼容性),以及行为偏好引起的特征(风险情况和竞争环境)。为了理清这些共同发生的特征,并最大限度地减少决策过程中其他因素(如录取可能性)的影响,本研究使用了瑞士小组研究TREE中的选择实验。其中,一个具有代表性的高中生样本从两个具有不同特征的人工领域中选择了他们喜欢的学习领域。结果显示,在与推理风格(抽象与创造性)和对工作任务的亲和力(技术与社会)相关的特征偏好方面,性别差异最大,在数学强度、竞争氛围和工作与家庭兼容性方面,差异较小,而对物质特征(薪水和声望)的偏好没有性别差异。出乎意料的是,性别差异主要是由女生的偏好引起的,而男生对大多数特征都持中立态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Women’s aversion to majors that (seemingly) require systemizing skills causes gendered field of study choice
This article examines whether gender differences in preferences for field of study characteristics can explain gendered major choice. Specifically, this study focuses on a broad range of subject characteristics that are often simultaneously present: systemizing skills required (math intensity, reasoning style, affinity for technical work tasks), future job characteristics corresponding with the male breadwinner model (materialism, work–family compatibility), and characteristics invoked by behavioural preferences (risky situations and a competitive environment). To disentangle these co-occurring characteristics and minimize the influence of other factors in the decision-making process (e.g. admission likelihood), this study uses a choice experiment incorporated in the Swiss panel study TREE. In it, a representative sample of high school students choose their preferred field of study from two artificial fields with varying characteristics. The results show the largest gender differences in preferences for characteristics related to reasoning style (abstract versus creative) and affinity for work tasks (technical versus social), and smaller differences for math intensity, competitive climate, and work–family compatibility, while there are no gender differences in preferences for materialistic characteristics (salary and prestige). Unexpectedly, the gender differences are primarily caused by female students’ preferences, while male students are neutral towards most characteristics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
9.40%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: European Sociological Review contains articles in all fields of sociology ranging in length from short research notes up to major reports.
期刊最新文献
School composition and academic decisions Family structure and policy contexts: implications for tertiary education attainment in 25 European countries Stratifying cities: the effect of outdoor recreation areas on children’s well-being Steeper at the top: cognitive ability and earnings in Finland and Norway Social inequality in admission chances for prestigious higher education programs in Germany: do application patterns matter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1