Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

What will I be when I grow up? The impact of gender identity

threat on adolescents’ occupational preferences
Samantha Sinclair*, Rickard Carlsson
Dept. of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, SE-22100, Sweden

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The present study examined the impact of gender identity threat on adolescents’ occu-
Gender identity threat pational preferences. Two hundred and ninety-seven adolescents (45% girls, M age ¼ 14.4,
Gender identity concerns SD ¼ .54) participated in the experiment. There were substantial differences between boys’
Occupational preferences
and girls’ occupational preferences. Importantly, adolescents who received a threat to their
Adolescents
gender identity became more stereotypical in job preferences, suggesting a causal link
between threatened gender identity and stereotypical preferences. A comparison threat to
one’s capability did not have this effect, indicating a unique effect of gender identity threat.
Further, individual differences in gender identity concerns predicted gender stereotypical
preferences, and this finding was replicated with an independent sample (N ¼ 242). In
conclusion, the results suggest that threats to adolescents’ gender identity may contribute
to the large gender segregation on the labor market.
Ó 2013 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

The labor market continues to be gender segregated with men and women working in different occupations. For example,
construction work and engineering are typical male jobs whereas “nurturing” fields such as health care are female dominated
(Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2004; Statistics Sweden, 2007a; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). One possible explanation for gender segregation in the labor market is that of gender discrimination. As
intuitively appealing as this explanation may sound, it is unlikely to explain the large bulk of gender segregation. For example,
in Sweden gender discrimination in formal recruitment appears to be a thing of the past, as clearly demonstrated by extensive
field experiments (Carlsson, 2011). Still, the Swedish labor market continues to be one of the most highly gender segregated in
the world.1 Of course, discrimination is still likely to occur to some extent in other phases of employment (e.g., sexual
harassment in the workplace) but even so it is unlikely that this would explain the entire gender gap. Indeed, gender
segregation is also evident in higher education.2 Research indicates that the general level of segregation in education has
stabilized in recent decades, and that it has a similar qualitative pattern in several countries (Barone, 2011).
The focus then has to turn to why men and women choose different career paths. In order to answer this question we need
to consider the occupational preferences among adolescents, because early career perceptions have a considerable impact on
later career outcomes. If we continue our example of highly gender segregated Sweden, adolescents make important choices
at the age of 15. They then have to decide whether their subsequent three years of education will prepare them for university

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 462228716; fax: þ46 462224209.

E-mail address: Samantha.Sinclair@psy.lu.se (S. Sinclair).
1
In part, the reason for Sweden having such high sex segregation is due to the large share of women established in the labor market (i.e., few
homemakers; Löfström, 2005).
2
Although segregation in education tends to predict segregation in employment, the strength of this relationship varies somewhat between countries
(Smyth & Steinmetz, 2008).

0140-1971/$ – see front matter Ó 2013 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.001
466 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

studies, and if so, whether those studies will be in arts or science, or if they will move directly to learning a specific profession
(e.g., hairdresser, electrician). Considering that the initial education choices of boys and girls put restrictions on their future
career attainment, and that adolescents’ occupational preferences tend to be gender stereotypical (Miller & Budd, 1999;
Sikora & Pokropek, 2012), the choices being made at this age have significant consequences for the future gender segregation
on the labor market. Indeed, adolescents tend to have quite detailed knowledge about different occupations even before
entering high school (Nurmi, 1991; Vondracek, Silbereisen, Reitzle, & Weiser, 1999), and occupational aspirations in
adolescence predict later career achievement (Cochran, Wang, Stevenson, Johnson, & Crews, 2011; Schoon, 2001; Trice &
McClellan, 1993). Qualitative research also indicates that when thinking about their identity, the aspect most frequently
mentioned by adolescents is the importance of school and their (future) occupation (Bosma, 1992).
Why, then, do boys and girls differ in their occupational preferences? Clearly, several factors come into play. For example,
parents’ gender role attitudes can be of importance (Peterson, Rollins, Thomas, & Heaps, 1982). Boys and girls also tend to
differ in their participation in math and English courses and related career aspirations, which can be explained by motivation
over and above their achievement levels (Watt, 2008). Additionally, several social psychological explanations have been
suggested. One of them is stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), meaning that concerns of confirming a negative ste-
reotype can result in impaired performance and avoidance of the stereotyped domain (Bergeron, Block, & Echtenkamp, 2006).
Other proposed explanations have been a general lack of fit between the perceived occupational role and gender stereotypes
(Heilman, 1983) and self-efficacy, such as women’s poor self-efficacy for leadership tasks (Dickerson & Taylor, 2000) and for
entrepreneurial careers (BarNir, Watchon, & Hutchins, 2011).
A social threat that has yet to be suggested within this line of research as a contributor to the gender segregation is gender
identity threat (Rudman, Dohn, & Fairchild, 2007). The theory of gender identity threat holds that when a person’s status as a
“real” man (woman) is questioned, he (she) will experience a threat and try to restore the threatened gender status. Such
questioning of gender status may occur when the target violates prescriptive gender norms (Heilman & Wallen, 2010). For
example, it is easy to imagine gender identity being threatened when a boy (girl) is ridiculed by his peers for expressing
interest in being a hairdresser (truck driver). Increasing one’s preference for gender stereotypical occupations may then serve
to compensate for threats to gender identity.
In the present study, we propose that adolescents may come to avoid occupations that do not fit gender stereotypes
because considering such occupations would threaten their gender identity. We investigate this by experimentally manip-
ulating threats to gender identity, predicting that such contextually induced threats lead to increased stereotypical occu-
pational preferences. Furthermore, some adolescents may place a higher importance on their gender identity than others. As
emphasized by several authors (e.g., Egan & Perry, 2001; Perry & Pauletti, 2011) there are several aspects of gender identity.
The most common way to measure and label gender identity has been to focus on the degree of expressive vs. instrumental
traits perceived in the self (e.g., Bem, 1981). This approach has been criticized for a number of reasons; one of them being that
the construct of attribute self-perceptions is distinct from gender identity (see Perry & Pauletti, 2011; Tobin et al., 2010). We
agree with the view of Tobin et al. (2010) that the term gender identity rather refers to assessments that capture people’s
thoughts and feelings about their membership in a gender category. In the present research we are interested in gender
identity concerns, which we define as the overall importance placed on feeling masculine (boys) or feminine (girls), and on
being viewed by others as such. We predict that adolescents with strong gender identity concerns will be especially likely to
have developed stereotype consistent occupational preferences. In the remainder of this introduction we first briefly review
previous research on gender identity threat. We then further explain the importance of studying gender identity threat and
concerns in an adolescent population. A detailed description of this study’s aims and predictions concludes the introduction.

Previous research on gender identity threat

Previous research on gender identity threat has focused on adults in general, and on men in particular (e.g., Schmitt &
Branscombe, 2001). The threat is thought to stem from a concern about being deviant from one’s gender group. The idea
of experiencing threat when one’s position within the group is questioned is consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979), which posits that people are motivated to view their social group(s) as positively distinct from other groups. It
also corresponds to self categorization theory (Turner, 1985), which holds that “the attractiveness of specific individual
persons (including one’s personal self) depends on their perceived prototypicality in comparison with other ingroup
members” (Turner, Hogg, Oaks, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987, p. 60).
In previous research on gender identity threat, men have often been thought to be more susceptible compared to women,
and the terms “masculinity threat” (Glick, Gangl, Gibb, Klumpner, & Weinberg, 2007) and “precarious manhood” (Vandello,
Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver, 2008) have thus been used. Men who received a threat to their masculinity have been
found to, for example, behave more aggressively toward a gay work partner (Talley & Bettencourt, 2008), display more
negative affect toward effeminate, but not masculine, gay men (Glick et al., 2007), and to take more financial risks (Weaver,
Bosson, & Vandello, 2012).
A suggested explanation for manhood as precarious has been evolved dispositions that have their origin in men’s
competitive acquisition of social status and resources. Another explanation offered lies in stereotypes that are based on the
social roles that men and women have occupied throughout history (Vandello et al., 2008). In either case, it seems that an
underlying assumption behind expecting only men to be affected by these threats is that the gender status as woman/girl is
not considered quite as desirable or worthy of defending as that of that of man/boy, and consequently females should
 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474 467

experience less threat when it is questioned (Rudman et al., 2007). However, we would like to argue that even if this dif-
ference in status explanation is true, it does not necessarily follow that girls or women should defend their gender status to a
lesser extent when threatened. Indeed, a common finding in the literature is that groups that are in minority or are considered
to have lower status are actually more likely to self-stereotype with group associated traits (Latrofa, Vaes, Cadinu, & Carnaghi,
2010; Simon & Hamilton, 1994), presumably as this can serve to affirm the individual’s social identity in the general sense
rather than, as previously thought, only to preserve a positive self-image (Latrofa et al., 2010; Latrofa, Vaes, Pastore, & Cadinu,
2009). Furthermore, even if men are generally more susceptible to gender identity threat (e.g., because of evolutionary
reasons), we believe that such threats may have an impact on adolescent girls as well as boys considering that identity
formation is a key developmental task in adolescence (Nurmi, 1993).
Regrettably, in the few studies on gender identity threat that included female participants, the experimental manipulation
given to males differed from the one given to females (for example, men receiving gender atypicality feedback on a sports/
auto mechanic/home repair knowledge test, while women received feedback on a childcare/fashion/cooking knowledge test;
e.g., Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Vandello et al., 2008). This makes interpretations of the results somewhat difficult as the two
knowledge tests may differ in, among other things, status.
In sum, it is possible that previous studies’ focus on threatened manhood, along with methodological challenges, have
exaggerated the gender difference in threat susceptibility. In the present study we therefore find it essential to include female
participants and to expose them to an equivalent experimental manipulation of gender identity threat.

Putting gender identity threat into perspective

Previous studies of gender identity threat have not included a comparison (or control) threat in their experimental design
(e.g., Vandello et al., 2008; Weaver et al., 2012). This means that it is hard to tell whether there are any unique consequences of
gender identity threat, or if the effect is simply a product of negative feedback in general (i.e., any threat will do). In the
present study, we compare gender identity threat to a capability threat (i.e., a suggestion that you haven’t been very
competent lately), considering that such a threat is likely to be relevant to adolescents’ every day life, especially in a context
where they consider future careers.
According to gender identity threat theory, threatened individuals will try to restore their gender status (i.e., prove their
manhood; Vandello et al., 2008). In other words, gender identity threat should have unique effects on increased preferences
for same (relative to other) gender stereotyped occupations that go over and beyond the effects of a comparison threat.
Specifically, we thus predict an interaction between type of threat (capability vs. gender identity) and affirmation vs. threat
conditions, where the gender identity threat should result in more compensation efforts compared to the capability threat.
We do not make any specific predictions about the capability threat per se, as this is beyond the scope of the present paper.
One could speculate that the capability threat may be in the same direction as the gender identity threat but weaker, which
could happen if threatened self-esteem primarily makes the participants weary of seeking out occupations associated with
the other gender (e.g., a boy thinking that he is not cut out to be a hairdresser after being threatened with low capability). On
the other hand, the capability threat effect could be in the opposite direction, which would happen if interest was lowered
primarily in same gender stereotyped occupations that are hard to achieve (e.g., a boy who is very interested in becoming a
firefighter comes to realize that this occupation is difficult and consequently lowers his expectations, but because he had
weak interest in female-typed occupations to begin with, there is little change here). Finally, the capability threat could leave
stereotyped preferences mainly unchanged, which would happen either if the participants experienced an increase (to
appear better) or decrease (because they felt they had no chance) in preferences for high status occupations, regardless of
whether they are female- or male-typed.
In either case, we predict the gender identity threat to result in clearer over-compensatory effects (i.e., higher preferences
for same compared to other gender-typed occupations) compared to the capability threat. Essentially, this would rule out the
possibility that the effect of restoring one’s gender status could be attributed to receiving negative feedback in general.

Gender identity threat and concerns in adolescence

Why study gender identity threat and gender identity concerns in adolescence? First, the crucial starting point for career
related choices is in the teenage years, when adolescents are occupied with identity development (Kroger, 2000; Tanti,
Stukas, Halloran, & Foddy, 2011). Second, in childhood and not the least adolescence, the penalties for engaging in contra-
stereotypical activities may be particularly harsh and frequent, considering that adolescence is marked by an increase in
peer sexual harassment, e.g., calling someone gay or spreading sexual rumors (Perry & Pauletti, 2011). Importantly, even
though boys are more often perpetrators, peer sexual harassment is often directed toward boys and girls to similar degrees
(McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002). Bullying in general also has a clear connection to emergent sexuality and social
identity during adolescence (Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011). Less directly, some adolescents may feel a high pressure to
conform, and when this is paired with perceived gender atypicality it can lead to internalized anxiety and shame (Yunger,
Carver, & Perry, 2004; also see Egan & Perry, 2001, for other aspects important to gender identity in adolescence). Further-
more, the tendency for adolescents to socialize in gender segregated peer-groups may emphasize gender norms (Mehta &
Strough, 2010). Indeed, several authors have proposed a gender intensification hypothesis, referring to adolescence as a
time of increased adherence to gender roles (e.g., Crouter, Manke, & McHale, 1995; Galambos, Almeida, & Petersen, 1990). In
468 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

sum, there are reasons to suspect that gender identity threats and concerns may be especially prevalent during this period in
life. One way to avoid being judged by peers as gender deviant may then be adjusting one’s preferences for occupations in a
more gender stereotypical direction.

The present study

The present study is the first to examine gender identity threat in an adolescent population. We investigate whether a
threat to gender identity leads to more stereotypical job preferences, and whether individual differences in gender identity
concerns predict such preferences.
First, we expect to find substantial gender differences in occupational preferences. We also expect individual differences in
gender identity concerns to predict gender stereotyped occupational preferences, because adolescents who are more
chronically concerned about their gender identity should be more motivated to present themselves in a gender stereotype-
congruent manner. Finally, we predict that a threat (compared to affirmation) to gender identity will result in stronger
preferences for stereotypical occupations. Importantly, we predict this pattern to be clearer for a gender identity threat than
for a control threat to capability; ruling out that the gender identity threat effect is simply a matter of reacting to negative
feedback in general.

Method

We experimentally manipulated threatened vs. affirmed gender identity and capability, using a procedure that is based
on the individual’s own inferences about their qualities. This inference is based on ease of retrieval. Schwarz et al. (1991)
demonstrated that people attributed themselves as being more assertive after being asked to recall 6 rather than 12
examples of assertive behavior, because people simply conclude that they cannot be very assertive if it is that difficult to
recall the requested number of behaviors. Weaver et al. (2012) utilized this procedure when investigating masculinity
threat, by asking men to recall 10 (threat condition) vs. 2 (affirmation condition) manly behaviors that they had per-
formed recently. To increase the experience of threat, participants in the threat condition were told that “most men can
think of 12 things”, whereas participants in the affirmation condition were told that “most men can think of only one
thing”. The important advantage of including an affirmation rather than a “cleaner” control condition is that it rules out
the potential confound of mere activation of the gender category as explanation for a threat effect. In order to establish
whether this manipulation procedure would be suitable for an adolescent population, we conducted a pilot study.
Another aim of the pilot study was to select occupations to use in the main study. Because adolescents’ views of what is
gender-typed sometimes differ from the general consensus view and from actual gender distributions (Perry & Pauletti,
2011) we made sure that occupations to be included in the main study would be those that are gender-typed by the
relevant age group.

Pilot study

Thirty-two adolescents (50% girls) with a mean age of 14.5 (SD ¼ .62) participated in exchange for the chance of winning
movie tickets.
We wanted to explore how many “masculine”/“feminine” and “capable” behaviors adolescents could think of, in order to
request an appropriate number for recall in the experimental conditions of the main study. Half of the participants were asked
to list “as many behaviors you can think of that you have performed in the previous month, that are considered typical for girls
(boys)”. The remaining participants were asked to list behaviors where they had felt competent/capable. All participants had
3 min to complete the task. Next, the participants rated 36 occupations (e.g. lawyer) on a seven point scale according to a) how
interested they would be in working as a lawyer (1 ¼ not at all interested, 7 ¼ very interested), b) how difficult they thought it
would be to work as a lawyer (1 ¼ not at all difficult, 7 ¼ very difficult), and c) whether they thought that lawyer is a more male
or female type of job (1 ¼ female, 7 ¼ male). Three items were excluded because of floor effects on rated interest. The
remaining items were divided into a female category (items with M < 3, e.g., nurse), and a male category (M > 5, e.g.,
firefighter). The items from these two categories were then matched on interest and difficulty ratings. This inevitably led to a
more matched status between male-typed and female-typed occupations than is the case in reality (as low status jobs are
more often female-typed).
The matching left six occupations from each category to be used in the main study (female-typed; nurse, hairdresser,
dancer, working with fashion, kindergarten teacher, and air stewardess; male-typed; firefighter, computer technician, car retailer,
pilot, police officer, and construction worker). The remaining occupations served as filler items.

Participants

Boys and girls in the eighth grade (N ¼ 297; 45% girls; M age ¼ 14.4, SD ¼ .54) from Swedish schools participated in the
main study in exchange for the chance of winning movie tickets. The head masters of the schools gave their consent and the
study was conducted in the participants’ classrooms with their teachers present.
 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474 469

Materials and procedure

The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (affirmed gender identity, threatened
gender identity, affirmed capability, threatened capability). Only a few participants in the pilot study listed less than two, or as
many as ten, behaviors in the manipulation task. Therefore, participants in the threat conditions were asked to list ten be-
haviors, whereas affirmed participants were asked to list two (same procedure as in Weaver et al., 2012). All participants had
3 min to complete the task. Instructions for the gender identity threat condition were:
“List ten things that you have done during the previous month, that are typical for girls (boys). Most girls (boys) your age can
think of twelve things.”
Instructions in the affirmed gender identity condition were:
“List two things that you have done during the previous month, that are typical for girls (boys). Most girls (boys) your age can
think of only one thing.”
Instructions for the capability threat/affirmation were:
“List ten (two) things that you have done during the previous month, where you felt capable. Most people your age can think
of twelve (only one) things.”
Participants then rated how interested they would be in working with each occupation (1 ¼ not at all interested, 7 ¼ very
interested). Next, gender identity concerns were captured with the items: “It is important for me to feel manly (feminine)” and
“It is important to me that others see me as manly (feminine”; 1 ¼ not at all important, 7 ¼ very important, Cronbach’s a ¼ .82;
for a similar scale used with adult samples, see e.g., Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001). Lastly, as a manipulation check, the
participants rated how difficult it was to think of the requested number of behaviors in the manipulation task (1 ¼ not at all
difficult, 7 ¼ very difficult). They were then fully debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Ethical considerations

In all studies that use any form of deception, and especially when the participants are adolescents, it is important to
consider whether the study adheres to ethical principles. First, we would like to point out that we are confident that our
gender identity threat is a very subtle one that is likely to dissipate quickly, as suggested by previous research (Weaver et al.,
2012). Second, we made an effort to make participation in this experiment a learning opportunity for the participants. Their
debriefing were thus extensive and gave them ample opportunity to discuss the gender identity topic. Considering the
positive response from the participants and their teachers, we would like to believe that taking part in this study was a
valuable way for the participants to increase their knowledge about gender issues.

Results

Gender differences in occupational preferences

To test the prediction that girls and boys differ in their occupational preferences, we conducted a mixed ANOVA with
occupation category (2: female-typed vs. male-typed) as the within participants factor and gender (2: girls vs. boys) as the
between participants factor. There was a very large interaction effect, F(1, 295) ¼ 430.92, p < .0005, partial h2 ¼ .59, revealing
that girls and boys differed vastly in their occupational preferences. Paired-samples t-tests showed that this interaction is
explained by boys preferring male-typed (M ¼ 3.67, SD ¼ 1.06) over female-typed (M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ .86) occupations,
t(162) ¼ 18.39, p < .0005, d ¼ 1.45, and girls preferring female-typed (M ¼ 3.72, SD ¼ 1.10) over male-typed (M ¼ 2.60,
SD ¼ 1.03) occupations, t(133) ¼ 11.40, p < .0005, d ¼ .98.
There was also a significant main effect of occupation category, F(1, 295) ¼ 12.40, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .04, because male-
typed occupations received higher ratings in general compared to female-typed occupations. Finally, there was a main effect
of gender, F(1, 295) ¼ 8.58, p < .005, partial h2 ¼ .028, because girls had somewhat higher general interest than boys.

Gender identity concerns and occupational preferences

In order to test the hypothesis that individual differences in gender identity concerns predict stereotypical job preferences,
we created a difference variable with higher values meaning more gender stereotyped preferences (i.e., more male-typed vs.
female-typed preferences for boys; reversed for girls). Boys had more stereotypical preferences (M ¼ 1.59, SD ¼ 1.10) than girls
(M ¼ 1.13, SD ¼ 1.15), t(295) ¼ 3.52, p < .001, d ¼ .41. The hypothesis that gender identity concerns predict stereotypical job
preferences was supported for both girls (r ¼ .28, p ¼ .001) and boys (r ¼ .19, p ¼ .016). Girls and boys did not differ in gender
identity concerns (girls: M ¼ 4.92, SD ¼ 1.46; boys: M ¼ 4.96, SD ¼ 1.70), t(288) ¼ .18, p ¼ n.s., d ¼ .03. Having established
that adolescent girls and boys differ in their occupational preferences, and that gender identity concerns predict stereotypical
preferences, we turned to investigate the experimental hypothesis.
470 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

Manipulation check

To verify that participants in the two threat conditions perceived the manipulation task as more difficult compared to
those in the affirmation conditions, we conducted a three-way ANOVA (participant gender  threat  task). As expected,
participants who received either of the two threat conditions rated the manipulation task as harder (M ¼ 4.73, SD ¼ 1.60)
compared to those in the two affirmation conditions (M ¼ 3.34, SD ¼ 1.20), F(1, 263) ¼ 36.48, p < .0001, partial h2 ¼ .12. There
were no other significant interactions or main effects, confirming that perceived difficulty differed only as a function of threat
vs. affirmation conditions.

Threat and occupational preferences

We had two main predictions regarding the experimental effects. First, we predicted that a gender identity threat
(compared to affirmation) would result in more stereotypical occupational preferences. We further predicted that this effect
should not be a main effect of negative feedback per se. To test these predictions, we conducted a three-way between-groups
ANOVA with the factors gender (2: girls vs. boys)  threat (2: threat vs. affirmation)  task (2: gender identity vs. capability).
In support of our hypothesis, the interaction between threat and task was significant, F(1, 289) ¼ 5.40, p ¼ .021, partial
h2 ¼ .018, whereas the main effect of threat (i.e., negative feedback) was not, p ¼ .93, partial h2 ¼ .00. There were no other
significant interactions (ps > .1), and the only significant main effect was for gender, confirming the earlier mentioned gender
difference.
Looking at the means in Fig. 1, we found that a gender identity threat as compared to affirmation led to, as predicted,
increased preferences for stereotypical occupations. This effect was marginally statistically significant with a two-tailed t-test,
t(154) ¼ 1.74, p ¼ .085, d ¼ .28. In contrast, the capability threat vs. affirmation effect appeared to be in the opposite di-
rection, but this effect was weaker and not close to statistically significant, t(139) ¼ 1.58, p > .10, d ¼ .21. Furthermore, looking
at the figure it is apparent that the two tasks did not have the same baseline because the two affirmation groups differed from
each other, t(146) ¼ 2.16, p ¼ .03; whereas the two threat conditions did not differ significantly from each other,
t(147) ¼ 1.09, p ¼ n.s. However, such specific differences between the two tasks were not the focus of the present study and
considering that we had no predictions about the control (capability) threat, a discussion of these differences would be purely
post hoc speculation. In sum, the conclusion that can be drawn from the experimental results is that the (marginally sig-
nificant) gender identity threat effect appears to be unique in that it cannot be explained by a general reaction to negative
feedback.

Replication study

The reason for measuring gender identity concerns after rather than before the experimental manipulation was to avoid
having the participants correctly guess the hypothesis. However, we were concerned that our gender identity concerns
measure might have been affected by the experimental manipulation. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the participants in
the gender identity threat (compared to affirmation) condition scored somewhat higher on gender identity concerns,
t(288) ¼ 1.45, p ¼ .12, Cohen’s d ¼ .25, and that its relation to stereotypical preferences were slightly stronger for the threat
condition, although this difference was not significant according to a Fischer’s z-test of correlations coefficients (p ¼ .11).
Even though these differences were not significant, we wanted to confirm that the predictive validity of gender identity
concerns was not simply a result of our experimental paradigm. We therefore chose to replicate its relation to stereotypical
preferences with a sample of 242 adolescents (48.3% females; M age ¼ 14.54, SD ¼ .70). The measures and procedures were

Fig. 1. Effects of gender identity threat and capability threat.

 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474 471

identical to those of the main study with the exception that there was no experimental manipulation in the replication
study.
First, we confirmed the large gender difference in occupational preferences by conducting a mixed ANOVA as in the main
study. The interaction effect was almost identical in size, F(1, 240) ¼ 326.21, p < .0005, partial h2 ¼ .58. Paired-samples t-tests
confirmed that this interaction was explained by boys preferring male-typed (M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ 1.18) over female-typed
(M ¼ 1.99, SD ¼ .98) occupations, t(124) ¼ 14.51, p < .0005, d ¼ 1.29, and girls preferring female-typed (M ¼ 3.69,
SD ¼ 1.05) over male-typed (M ¼ 2.46, SD ¼ 1.02) occupations, t(116) ¼ 11.08, p < .0005, d ¼ 1.02. As in the main study,
there were also significant main effects of occupation category, F(1, 240) ¼ 1.18, p < .05, and gender, F(1, 240) ¼ 6.49, p < .05.
Next, consistent with the findings from the main study, gender identity concerns (a ¼ .78, girls: M ¼ 4.72, SD ¼ 1.63; boys:
M ¼ 5.13, SD ¼ 1.67) predicted stereotypical job preferences for girls (r ¼ .26, p < .01) and boys (r ¼ .21, p < .05). Furthermore,
the correlation coefficients were highly similar in strength in both samples. In sum, the findings of the replication study
confirmed that gender identity concerns predict stereotyped occupational preferences among girls and boys, and we can
therefore be confident that these results were not a product of our experimental manipulations.

Discussion

The findings of the present research suggest an ample gender difference in occupational preferences, with boys preferring
male-typed, and girls preferring female-typed, occupations. As expected, higher gender identity concerns corresponded to
more stereotypical preferences, suggesting that some adolescents have a chronic concern about their gender identity, which
makes them develop more gender stereotypical interests. This finding highlights the importance of considering individual
differences in relation to gender identity processes and adolescents’ stereotypical job preferences. The results further indi-
cated support for the main hypothesis that adolescents increase their stereotypical preferences as a result of a threat to
gender identity, compared to a threat to capability. The implications are quite straightforward: If adolescents make more
stereotypical choices when their gender identity is threatened, these threat effects are likely to have a real impact on the
gender segregation of the labor market.
An additional finding in the present study was that boys had more stereotypical preferences than girls. This corresponds
with previous findings of the male compared to the female gender role as stricter, e.g. with activities such as boxing being
more acceptable for girls than ballet dancing is for boys (Kane, 2006). Alternatively, the observed gender difference in ste-
reotypical preferences might be explained by the general higher interest in male-typed occupations that we observed for both
genders.

Theoretical implications

Previous studies, with the exception of Weaver et al. (2012), have used quite explicit threat manipulations, such as false
feedback about gender prototypicality (e.g., Vandello et al., 2008) and performing a gender atypical task (e.g., braiding hair;
Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Wasti, 2009). In contrast, our manipulation task was more subtle in that it relied on
inferences to be drawn from the participants themselves. Importantly, this also means that the threat was equivalent for boys
and girls, allowing for a gender fair test of the theory and hypothesis. Other important benefits of the threat manipulation are
that it is likely to minimize the potential problem of demand effects, but also to be subtle and quickly dissipate, which is
important considering the participants’ young age.
Considering that we did not find any indications that the threat affected male and female participants differently, our
results do not support the theory of masculinity threat (i.e., a threat that affects men only). On the other hand, the results do
not disprove the theory either, considering that previous studies have looked at adult populations. It is thus possible that men
are in fact more susceptible to gender identity threats in general, but that adolescent girls are equally susceptible as boys.
Nonetheless, our results are more supportive of a gender identity threat, rather than a masculinity threat, perspective. The
fact that there were no indications of gender differences in threat effects or in gender identity concerns highlights the
importance of including female participants in the experimental design, in order to avoid drawing conclusions about pre-
carious manhood too quickly.
Although our study was conducted in Sweden, we are confident that the results should generalize to western societies in
general. If anything, considering that Sweden is highly ranked on gender equality compared to many countries, the effect of
gender identity threat on stereotypical occupational preferences may be even stronger among adolescents in other cultures.
In sum, the present study managed to make two important contributions to the theory of gender identity threat: by
ruling out the possibility of gender identity threat being merely a result of negative feedback, and by giving both male and
female participants equal opportunities to be affected by the threat. Nevertheless, our methodological choice did not come
without limitations. Specifically, our subtle manipulation resulted in a somewhat weak effect size that was only marginally
significant. For ethical reasons, we do not regard it as a viable option to replicate the finding with a stronger threat (e.g.,
performing a gender atypical activity in front of others; Bosson et al., 2009) in a sample of young adolescents. Further,
because the effect is already well established in other samples (e.g., Weaver et al., 2012), we are confident that it is real.
Hence, our point of view is that different studies of gender identity threat have their unique strengths and weaknesses, with
the overall picture being that threats to gender identity can push people’s behaviors, decisions and preferences in a more
gender stereotypical direction.
472 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

Practical implications

The main effect of participant gender explained nearly 60% of the variance in stereotypical preferences in this study. This
finding is somewhat surprising in Sweden which is known for its (relative) gender equality. One would expect the large
gender segregation on the Swedish labor market to be a lingering thing of the past, ready to be turned upside down as today’s
adolescents establish themselves on the labor market. The results of the present study suggest otherwise. Indeed, if these
adolescents make career choices in line with their current preferences, we cannot expect changes on the labor market any
time soon.
Of course, only part of the observed gender differences in occupational preferences can be attributed to threat effects.
However, we would like to emphasize that we introduced a very subtle threat on one single occasion. In reality we expect this
threat to be more intense and to occur on a day to day basis, creating snowball effects in the long run. As suggested by Eagly
(1995) and further demonstrated by Martell, Lane, and Emrich (1996), the effects of gender differences are determined by
their consequences in natural settings rather than the magnitude of the effect.
Besides the subtle nature of the experimental manipulation, another aspect is the extent to which the participants actually
had the opportunity to restore their threatened gender status. In our experiment, they merely indicated their preferences by
circling a number on a piece of paper. In a real life situation however, they would probably have to answer to their peers,
risking to be ridiculed. Considering these circumstances, the effects of gender identity threat in adolescence are probably
underestimated in the present study. Thus, whereas the strength of this study is to investigate a causal link of gender identity
threat on adolescents’ occupational preferences, other studies will have to establish exactly how important this threat is in
practice, preferably with a longitudinal approach.
Our findings inevitably raise concerns about how to reduce gender stereotypical career choice among adolescents.
Although occupational interests are to a rather high extent genetically inheritable (in the general sense, i.e., unrelated to
gender differences; Lykken, Bouchard, McGue, & Tellegen, 1993) research indicates that they can also be shaped through
cognitive restructuring, at least in childhood (Barak, Shiloh, & Haushner, 1992). An important step for diminishing the impact
of gender identity concerns and threat on career decisions might be helping students gain more knowledge of their options.
Indeed, intervention efforts suggest that raising awareness among eight graders about their career options, focusing spe-
cifically on math and science related courses and careers, results in concrete decisions about high school choice (Fouad, 1995).
Nonetheless, one should not hope for a quick fix. For example, watching a short video promoting non-traditional career choice
seems to have very limited impact on adolescents (Van Buren, Kelly, & Hall, 1993). Perhaps more active involvement on the
students’ part is called for, as adolescents who are active in exploring career alternatives come to obtain occupations that are
more consistent with their sense of self (Blustein, Phillips, Jobin-Davis, Finkelberg, & Roarke, 1997; Vondracek, Schulenberg,
Skorikov, Gillespie, & Wahlheim, 1995), and to experience greater satisfaction during the early adult years (Blustein et al.,
1997). In sum, we believe that encouraging adolescents to explore various career alternatives could be an indirect way to
reduce the impact that gender identity threat has on stereotypical job preferences. Furthermore, a more direct approach is to
create a safe school environment where boys and girls do not have to be highly concerned about their gender identity.
Even though we believe that threats to gender identity matter more in real life than in our experiment, we recognize that it
alone cannot explain the large gender difference in occupational preferences. It is therefore important to persist in the search
for other social psychological factors that may contribute to the gender segregation on the labor market, for example the role
of peer pressure.

Conclusions

The present research reveals that adolescent boys and girls differ substantially in their occupational preferences, and that
this difference can in part be explained by individual differences in gender identity concerns. Importantly, an experimentally
introduced threat to gender identity tended to increase stereotypical preferences, providing the first tentative evidence of a
causal relationship between gender identity threat and occupational preferences in adolescence. The present study hence
suggests that if our goal is a more gender equal labor market, we have to consider the gender identity making of boys and
girls, because the adolescents of today are the labor market of tomorrow.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Petra Swärdh and Eva-Pia Wenger for their assistance with data collection, and Jens
Agerström and Fredrik Björklund for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Barak, A., Shiloh, S., & Haushner, O. (1992). Modification of interests though cognitive restructuring: test of a theoretical model in preschool children. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 39, 490–497.
BarNir, A., Watchon, W. E., & Hutchins, H. M. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepre-
neurial career intention, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 270–297.
Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change: gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education, 84, 157–
176.
 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474 473

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Bergeron, D. M., Block, C. J., & Echtenkamp, B. A. (2006). Disabling the able: stereotype threat and women’s work performance. Human Performance, 19, 133–158.
Blustein, D. L., Phillips, S. D., Jobin-Davis, K., Finkelberg, S. L., & Roarke, A. E. (1997). A theory-building investigation of the school-to-work transition. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25, 364–402.
Bosma, H. A. (1992). Identity in adolescence: managing commitments. In G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation. Advances in
adolescent development, Vol. 4 (pp. 91–121). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S. A. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623–634.
Carlsson, M. (2011). Does hiring discrimination cause gender segregation in the Swedish labor market? Feminist Economics, 17, 71–102.
Cochran, D. B., Wang, E. W., Stevenson, S. J., Johnson, L. E., & Crews, C. (2011). Adolescent occupational aspirations: test of Gottfredson’s theory of
circumscription and compromise. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 412–427.
Crouter, A. C., Manke, B. A., & McHale, S. M. (1995). The family context of gender intensification in early adolescence. Child Development, 66, 317–329.
Dickerson, A., & Taylor, M. A. (2000). Self-limiting behavior in women: self-esteem and self-efficacy as predictors. Group and Organization Management, 25,
191–210.
Eagly, A. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: a multi-dimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37,
451–463.
Fouad, N. A. (1995). Career linking: an intervention to promote math and science career awareness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 527–534.
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: exploring gender intensifi-
cation. Child Development, 61, 1905–1914.
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: more negative affect toward effeminate (but not
masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55–59.
Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: a mixed methods study. Child
Development, 82, 295–310.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 664–667.
Kane, E. W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!”: parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender and Society, 20, 149–176.
Kroger, J. (2000). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Latrofa, M., Vaes, J., Cadinu, M., & Carnaghi, A. (2010). The cognitive representation of self-stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 911–922.
Latrofa, M., Vaes, J., Pastore, M., & Cadinu, M. (2009). “United we stand, divided we fall”! The protective function of self-stereotyping for stigmatised
members’ psychological well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 84–104.
Löfström, Å. (2005). En könssegregerad arbetsmarknad – hinder för fria val och effektiv matchning? Ekonomisk Debatt, 8, 46–62.
Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Heritability of interests: a twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 649–661.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male–female differences: a computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
McMaster, L. E., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: a developmental perspective. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 14, 91–105.
Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2010). Gender segregation and gender-typing in adolescence. Sex Roles, 63, 251–263.
Miller, L., & Budd, J. (1999). The development of occupational sex-role stereotypes, occupational preferences and academic subject preferences in children at
ages 8, 12 and 16. Educational Psychology, 19, 17–35.
Nurmi, J. E. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1–59.
Nurmi, J. E. (1993). Adolescent development in an age-graded context: the role of personal beliefs, goals, and strategies in the tackling of developmental
tasks and standards. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 169–189.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. (2004). Employment in Europe.
Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 61–74.
Peterson, G. W., Rollins, B. C., Thomas, D. L., & Heaps, L. K. (1982). Social placement of adolescents: sex-role influences on family decisions regarding the
careers of youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 647–658.
Rudman, L. A., Dohn, M. C., & Fairchild, K. (2007). Implicit self-esteem compensation: automatic threat defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 798–813.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: threats to one’s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510–517.
Schoon, I. (2001). Teenage job aspirations and career attainment in adulthood: a 17-year follow-up study of teenagers who aspired to become scientists,
health professionals, or engineers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 124–132.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability
heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96, 234–264.
Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: the effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 699–711.
Smyth, E., & Steinmetz, S. (2008). Field of study and gender segregation in European labor markets. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48,
257–281.
Statistics Sweden. (2007a). Statistics Sweden’s Occupational Register. Retrieved 19.10.12, from. http://www.scb.se/.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 797–811.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Talley, A. E., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2008). Evaluations and aggression directed at a gay male target: the role of threat and antigay prejudice. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 38, 647–683.
Tanti, C., Stukas, A. A., Halloran, M. J., & Foddy, M. (2011). Social identity change: shifts in social identity during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34,
555–567.
Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: a model of self-socialization. Psy-
chological Review, 117, 601–622.
Trice, A. D., & McClellan, N. (1993). Do children’s career aspirations predict adult occupations? An answer from a secondary analysis of a longitudinal study.
Psychological Reports, 72, 368–370.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.). Advances in group processes:
Theory and research, Vol. 2 (pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self categorization theory. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
474 S. Sinclair, R. Carlsson / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 465–474

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). The 2012 statistical abstract: the labor force, employment, & earnings. Retrieved 19.10.12, from. http://www.census.gov/
compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_employment_earnings.html.
Van Buren, J. B., Kelly, K. R., & Hall, A. S. (1993). Modeling nontraditional career choices: effects of gender and school location on response to a brief
videotape. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 101–104.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,
1325–1339.
Vondracek, F. W., Schulenberg, J., Skorikov, V., Gillespie, L. K., & Wahlheim, C. (1995). The relationship of identity status to career indecision during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 17–29.
Vondracek, F. W., Silbereisen, R. K., Reitzle, M., & Weiser, M. (1999). Vocational preferences of early adolescents: their development in social context. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 14, 267–288.
Watt, H. M. G. (2008). What motivates females and males to pursue sex-stereotyped careers? In H. M. G. Watts, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational
outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 87–113) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Weaver, J. R., Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2012, February 6). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous?: the effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions.
Journal of Men and Masculinity. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027087, Advance online publication.
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psychology, 40, 572–582.