A Multivariate Model for Explaining

Gender Differences in Career and

Achievement Motivation

HELEN S FARMER
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article reviews findings from several studies investigating a model for ex­
plaining gender differences in career and achievement motivation. Findings sug­
gest that the strength of this motivation for women is not unlike that for men.
However, the pattern and type of factor influencing motivation for men and women
differs significantly. The effect of parent and teacher support on motivation is
stronger for women than for men.

A his article reviews findings from
several studies investigating a multi­
variate model for explaining career
and achievement motivation. The
studies represent investigations
conducted over the past dozen or
more years by the author and her
associates and students. Both the
theory base and the research design
represent examples of the comple­
mentary relationship between the
fields of counseling and human
development. The model was devel­
oped in order to better understand
gender differences in these types of
motivation. Some attention is also
given to differences found for per­
sons from different socioeconomic
and ethnic backgrounds, although
Helen S. Farmer is Associate Pro­
fessor and Chair of the Counseling
Psychology Program, Department of
Educational Psychology, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310
S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820. Her
specializations are career develop­
ment, achievement motivation, and
gender differences.
This paper was adapted from the
author's Vice-Presidential Address
(Division E) at the 1986 AERA Annual
Meeting
March 1987
this was not the focus of the inves­ of behavior. In social learning
tigations reported. theory, causal processes are concep­
The model introduced by Farrqe.r tualized in terms of reciprocal deter-
(1976) presents sets of personal mimsm. Viewed from this“~þ¯êrspec-
tive, psychological functioning
(self-concepts) and environment in- involves a continuous reciprocal
ffűënćĕ¯s (school, family, communi- interaction between behavioral,
tý7ĩHe^ēconomy, etc.J that have an cognitive and environmental influ­
impact on both career and achieve­ ences (p. 344)
ment motivation. This model, ex­
Achievement motivation theory is
tended to include a set of back­
also based on social learning theory
ground factors (Farmer. 1985), is
(Atkinson, 1958, 1978) and on a
reproduced in Figure_Ļ_
sociocultural perspective (Maehr,
Figure 1 presents!Γmodel that is 1974, 1984). In a similar vein,
multidimensional and assumes that
Krumboltz (1976) adapted Ban-
a broad range of interacting factors dura's social learning theory to ex­
in the background, environment,
plain the career development and
and personal sets, over time, influ­ career choice process.
ence the strength of the various
achievement and career motivation The model in Figure 1 includes a
dimensions. The model is based on wide range of factors in each of the
sociaĻ learning__ţhgory (Bandura, three sets of variables influencing
1978), which, since it was mtro- motivation. The particular factors
duced (Kantor, 1924; Koffka, 1935; identified within each set may vary
as social conditions change or as
Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938; Rotter,
1954) has evolved into a reciprocal various subcultures within the
society are studied. For example,
influence theory of the effects of
self and environment on learning some cross-cultural studies (Amiri,
and behavior. According to 1978; Tohidi, 1984) include mea­
Bandura, sures of religious beliefs found to be
related in some cultures (e.g.,
Explanations of human behavior Moslem) to the strength of achieve­
have generally favored unidirectional ment motivation.
causal models emphasizing either en­ Motivation is represented by
vironmental or internal determinants three different but related dimen-
5

Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

 PERSONAL The assumptions on which the
ACADEMIC SEIF<CSTEEM
EIFFXSSIK
model in Figure 1 is based can be
MOCPEHDENT
COOPERATIVE summarized from what has been
COMPIIIIIMI
EFFORT ATTRBunom said above. Gender differences in
UÊitn ATTRRRITIOHS
MTMNSC VALUES achievement motivation and related
PERSONAL UNCONCERN
achievement behavior are viewed
from a social learning perspective
(Bandura, 1978), incorporating a
dynamic view of learning and devel­
opment. This view does not ignore
inborn differences, but it minimizes
BACKGROUND
six MOTIVATION
their potency, focusing instead on
SOCIAL STATUS
SCHOOL LOCATION
ASP*ATION socialization experiences in the past
•ASTERV
HACC
ΛOE CAREER and present as strong determinants
VERBAL ABRJTV
H A T H ABRJTV of achievement motivation and
behavior. Some research studies are
described next, and findings and im­
plications are related to the theo­
retical framework laid down in this
introductory section.

PARENT SUPPORT Findings Related to the

TEACHER SUPPORT
SUPPORT FOR WOMEN Theoretical Model
The Farmer (1976, 1985) model
FIGURE 1. Conceptual model for testing the contribution of background, per­ has been tested with ¾dglescents by
sonal, and environment factors to three dimensions of motivation: Aspira­ Farmer(1980, 1983, Í985Tāñdwith
tion, Mastery, and Career adults by Rooney (1982, 1983). In
Note. Taken from Farmer (1985). Copyright 1985, American Psychological
tKi~Farmer (1985) study, the model
Association; reprinted with permission.
was tested using structural equa­
tions. Subjects were l,863jiinth-and
l2th¯graders from ś^higļ_scb¿ols
in the state of Illinois. Students were
sions: Aspiration, Mastery, and cumulative achievement motivation. proportionately representative of
Career. Aspiration, motivation is An example would be the difference black, Hispanic, and white groups
represented by the le\^el_of^educa­ between a grade on a particular test within the United States. Rooney
tion and occupation a person aspires or exam (achievement motivation) tested an adapted Farmer model
t¢Cas de¿n d^y_s¾dologists Blau and GPA for high school (cumulative with 212 adults (112 female, 100
and Duncan (l9»37)~ãñ3 Sewell and achievement motivation). male) obtained from the high school
Hauser (1975). AcMęvernent motiva­ The factors viewed as influencing alum records from two of the schools
tion is represented iĩΓtfie motivation the three motivation dimensions de­ used to obtain data in an earlier
set in Figure 1 by Mastery as de­ picted in Figure 1 begin with back­ Farmer (1983) study of the model.
fined by Spençe and Helmreich ground factors such as sex, social Some generalizations about the
(1978). Mastery motivation, in their status, race^7ãñcl ability. Since back­ model from adolescents to young
definition, is very similar in mean­ ground factors are given, and there­ adults are thus possible. Findings for
ing to achieve ient_^oţiïatìon as fore relatively unchangeable, one the relative strength of the influence
defined by Atkinson (1978) and would like tofindthat their influence of the three sets of variables (i.e.,
McClelland (1985). Mastery repre­ on motivation is relatively weak, or background, environment, and per­
sents the moţiyjtìoji_to-aQĥigye on alternatively that it is mostly in­ sonal) on motivation varies, depend­
challenging tasks, including the direct and mediated through the per­ ing on the motivation dimension
motivation to persist until mastery sonal and interactive environment studied. Recall (Figure 1) that three
is achievedΓSpĕñćé and Helmreich influences. motivation dimensions are included
and Atkinson and McClelland view in the model: aspiration, mastery,
The relationship depicted between and career. Findings are reported
mastery motivation as subject to personal and environment influences
cļwgeJhrθUghŭuUife. Çareexjnoti- here for each of the motivation
(Figure 1) is reciprocal and dynamic, dimensions separately.
vation represents longsrj¾igęcom- consistent with Bandura (1978), the
mitment to a career, as defirīe¾Ίby one having an impact on the other,
Ί§uþer and CuRlā (1976). Career and vice versa. Should one find that Aspiration
motivation, in their definition, is these factors influence motivation Aspiration motivation was found
commitment tojhejong:range.pros- significantly and substantially, im­ to De^ñflūenced most by .back;
pects^ (i.e., advancement, status, plications for enhancing motivation
money, contribution, etc.) of a ground-factors in studies of both
are that both personal and environ­ adolescents and adults (Farmer,
career. Career motivation has been ment factors should be targeted for
described by Raynor (1978) as 1983,1985; Rooney, 1983), with en­
change.
vironment and personal factors con-
6 Educational Researcher
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
tributing significantly. The finding
that background factors contribute
most is consistent with longitudinal
studies conducted by sociologists
such as Sewell and Hauser (1975).
However, the finding that environ­
ment and personal factors also con­
tribute significantly is an important
one for educational policymakers
and teachers. Gottfredson (1981)
placed the timing for the crystalliza­
tion of background, personal, and
environment influences on Aspira­
tion around the sixth grade, during
the middle school years. The extent
to which Aspiration motivation is
subject to change over time requires
further study.
The strength of backgroundjnflu-
ences for gende£pn Aspiration were
indirect in the Farmer (1985) study,
that is, mediated by other variables
in the model. These young women's
high Aspiration was enhanced by
perceived Support for Women
Working and by Teacher Support.
For young men, a Competitive self-
concept, Ability Attributions, and
Parent Support enhanced Aspira­
tion. These gender differences point
to the important role of school and
other environment influences on
gender differences in Aspiration
motivation.
Aspiration was significantly influ­
enced by both Mainland _Ï£rbal-
Ability scores in the Farmer (1985)
study, with the relationship some­
what stronger for Verbal Ability.
Minority black and Hispanic stu­
dents had significantly higher
Aspiration scores compared to the
rest of the students. The Farmer
findings for gender and for these
minority students are similar to
findings of a large national longitu­
dinal study reported by Card, Steel,
and Abeles (1980, Project TALENT)
and to findings reported by Tittle
(1981) for adolescents in New York
City. Card et al. report an increas­
ing gap in earnings for their sub­
jects as adults, with white males
significantly outearning both white
females and black and Hispanics of
both genders. The fact that high
school Aspiration motivation is not
a good predictor of adult achieve­
ment does not make it less impor­
tant to study for high school stu­
dents. What it tells us is that not all
highly motivated students achieve
equally as adults, and that this is
March 1987
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
significantly more true for females tive programs in the school and the
and minorities. Something happens home, as well as within the society
between high school and adult em­ at large, could make a difference.
ployment to reduce the status at­
tainment of these groups. Career Commitment
Overall, Career motivation was
Mastery Motivation most imļuen'ćed~Byperiõ¾ājaç prs,
Overall, Mastery motivation was similar to Mastery_motivation. En­
influenced most by personal vari- vironment and background factors
ables, in contrast with the findings also contributed significantly, but
for Aspiration (Farmer, 1985; less so, to Career motivation. The
Rooney, 1983). Mastery was also in­ questions raised earlier in relation
fluenced significantly, but less so, to change over time for Aspiration
by environment and background and Mastery apply as well to Career
variables. The fact that changeable motivation. The fact that change­
personal factors influence this type able personal factors play a strong
of motivation more than unchange­ influencing role for Career motiva­
able background factors suggests tion implies that change may indeed
that Mastery motivation may well occur, as Super (1980) suggests.
change for individuals over time, as Career motivation was examined
Spence and Helmreich (1978) sug­ in separate^ structural equation-
gest. The extent to which Mastery rnodeļsjn. the Farmer (1985) study
motivation is subject to change over because there was a significant in­
time, however, requires further teraction effect for Gender and
study. Homemaking in the regression
In the Farmer (1985) study, analyses that preceded model
young men scored _high_er than testing. Female students obtained
young women on Mastery. Race higher Career motivation scores
was not a significant influence in compared to male students. This
the fitted structural equation model was the only motivation dimension
for Mastery, and Gender differ­ for which female students had sig­
ences observed for Mastery were nificantly higher scores compared
mostly indirect, that is, mediated by to males. Career motivation was in­
other variables in the model (Figure fluenced for females by Math
1). For young men, Mastery was Ability and several personal vari­
mediated positively by an Indepen­ ables (i.e., Expressive, Indepen­
dent and Competitive self-concept. dent, Cooperative, Competitive, Ef­
For young women, Mastery was fort Attributions, Intrinsic Values,
mediated positively by Math Abili­ and Homemaking). The personal in­
ty, Intrinsic Values, Teacher Sup­ fluences were all in the positive
port, and Support for Women direction, with the exception of
Working. Math Ability, had a direct Homemaking, which had a negative
as well as indirect effect on Mastery influence on Career motivation for
motivation. Indirect effects in­ these young women. This finding
dicated that Math Ability enhanced supports Farmer (1984) and Farmer
Mastery motivation more if the stu­ and Bohn (1970) and Raynor's
dents also attributed their successes (1978) suggestion that conflicting
to their own efforts and perceived role priorities may reduce Career
both their parents and teachers as commitment, especially for women.
supportive of their career plans. In All three environment variables
the Rooney (1983) study, students (Figure 1) also contributed signifi­
(i.e., those in postsecondary educa­ cantly to Career motivation for
tion) had higher Mastery motivation these young women.
than homemaker and employed The Farmer (1983) study com­
subjects. pared the Homemaking commit­
Although environment variables ment of high school men and women
overall had a less powerful influence and found that although Homemak­
on Mastery motivation, the effect of ing commitment was significantly
environment variables was stronger lower for young men than for
for young women than for young women, it was still relatively high
men. This finding suggests that if (means were 3.36, male; 3.59,
Mastery motivation is to be en­ female on a five-point scale). Ex­
hanced for young women, suppor­ amination of individual test items
7

It appears that when society
in general supports achieve-
ment social role expectations,
parent support for achieve-
ment is less important.
on the Homemaking measure
showed that males positively en­
dorsed items indicating that they
would not let their career take
priority over their family, and indi­
cating that they would find full-time
homemaking satisfying. This posi­
tive valuing of homemaking roles by
adolescent males in the 1980's has
implications for educational in­
terventions. The potential for shar­
ing home and work roles by men
and women in the 1980's and future
decades appears to be emerging in
these young persons' attitudes.
For young men the significant
personal variables for Career moti­
vation were Independent, Competi­
tive, Intrinsic Values, and Personal
Unconcern. The significant environ­
ment variables for young men were
Teacher Support and Support for
Women Working. Interestingly,
Parent Support did not play a sig­
nificant role in the fitted structural
equation for young men. It appears
that when society in general sup­
ports achievement social role expec­
tations, parent support for achieve­
ment is less important.
Rooney (1983) found, for her
adult subjects, that men had signi­
ficantly higher Career motivation
than women, the opposite of the
finding for the adolescents in
Farmer's (1985) study. It appears
that the transition into adulthood
may have diminished women's long-
range career commitment. Future
research should provide further in­
formation on the stability of this
motivation dimension over time and
8 Educational Researcher
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
on influences affecting gender dif­ positive effect on women and mi­
ferences. norities' achievement opportunities.
Career motivation was signifi­ Legislative changes related to train­
cantly higher for black and Hispanic ing, employment, and advancement
students than for other students are just one example. Improved
(Farmer, 1985). An interesting dif­ reproductive technology is another.
ference was found for female black The proportion of women earning
and Hispanic students compared to doctorates in science and engineer­
white females. The former did not ing has risen from 7% in 1965 to
obtain a negative effect for Home- 25% in 1980 (National Research
making with Career motivation, Council, 1980); however, most of
whereas the latter did. For black this increase is due to increases in
and Hispanic students, Career moti­ the social and life sciences. Women
vation in the fitted structural equa­ are still at or below 12% in the
tion model was enhanced by parent physical sciences, math, and engi­
support for their career plans, simi­ neering. Studies of women and
lar to the finding for young women. minorities in high school indicate
For minority high school students that enrollment in advanced math
and young women, parent support and science classes has increased
for their career interests and plans more for young women than for
appears to be a critical factor in the young men, but that the likelihood
long-range commitment of these of black and Hispanic students tak­
students to their career role. The ing these courses is about half as
same was not found to be true for great as that for majority white
young men, as noted previously. students and for Asian American
students (Chipman & Wilson, 1985;
National Center for Educational
Discussion and Conclusions Statistics, 1984). Also, achievement
In the 1970s research findings in math and science courses for
had negative implications for minority black female students is
female achievement in the attribu­ significantly below that for white
tion literature, indicating that females (Scott-Jones & Clark,
females were less intrinsically 1986).
motivated and that their approach
to achievement situations was char­ Gender role expectations today
acterized by learned helplessness remain unclear, and the socializa­
(Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, tion of girls and boys, men and
1978; Nicholls, 1980). Based on women, leads to social role expec­
more recent findings, such as those tations and related behaviors that
presented here and in the work of result in gender differences in
Eccles, Adler, and Meece (1984), we achievement and in related motiva­
cannot assume that the motivation tion. Some occupations are seen as
of minorities and of girls and young more suitable for men, others for
women in our schools is less than women, and still others are gender
that of white young men. neutral. From the body of research
The multidimensionaLmodel pro­ investigating the career choice pro­
posed to explain-career_and achieve­ cess there is evidence that gender
ment motivation appears promising differences in achievement can be
in light of the evidence presented. traced in part to the narrower
All three sets of influences—back­ range of occupational fields con­
ground, personal, and environ­ sidered by women compared to men
ment—were found to significantly (Farmer & Backer, 1977; Gottfred-
influence the motivation types. The son, 1981). Efforts to reduce the sex
good news was that unchangeable role stereotyping of occupations can
background factors were frequent­ begin in the early school years.
ly mediated through environment Some of these efforts are described
and personal influences, and, in in Farmer and Seliger (1985).
general, background factors were The dual pull of home and work
less powerful than the other two. roles for women presents greater
sets of influences, consistent with challenges for decisionmaking re­
social learning theory (Bandura, lated to career choice for girls and
1978). women. This need for help with
The decade of the 1970s has wit­ choices, once recognized by school
nessed several changes that have a systems, can be an opportunity for
educators to enhance the decision-
making skills and the choices young
women make today. Through role
models, skill training, decision-
making exercises, discussion, and
information, some of the dampen­
ing effects of the dual pulls of home
and work roles on achievement may
be lessened for women.
Research on gender differences is
unfinished. We need much more in­
formation for groups such as educa­
tional policymakers, school admin­
istrators, and teachers who design
programs and curricula for high
schools, so that these programs
might lead to greater gender equali­
ty in the achievement arena.
References
Amiri, S. (1978). Career motivation of
Iranian high school females with an
emphasis on social class, parents, and
peers. Unpublished doctoral disserta­
tion, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Atkinson, J. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in
fantasy, action, and society. Prince­
ton, ŃJ: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. (1978). The mainsprings of
achievement-oriented activity. In J.
Atkinson & J Raynor (Eds ), Per-
sonality, motivation and achievement.
New York: Halsted.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in
reciprocal determinism. American
Psychologist, 38, 344-358.
ßlau, P., & Duncan, D. (1967). The
American occupational structure.
New York: Wiley.
Card, J., Steel, L., & Abeles, R. (1980).
Sex differences in realization of indi­
vidual potential for achievement.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,
1-21.
Chipman, S , & Wilson, D. (1985). In S.
Chφman, L. Brush, & D. Wilson
(Eds.), Women and mathematics:
Balancing the equation (pp. 275-328).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dweck, D., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., &
Enna, B.. (1978). Sex differences in
learned helplessness, II. The contin­
gencies of evaluative feedback in the
classroom, and III. An experimental
analysis. Developmental Psychology,
1Ļ, 268-276.
Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. (1984).
Sex differences in achievement: A
test of alternate theories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
46. 26-43.'
Farmer, H. (1976). What inhibits career
and achievement motivation in
women? The Counseling Psychologist,
6(2), 12-14.
Farmer, H. (1980). Environmental,
March 1987
Downloaded from http://er.aera.net at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016
background, and psychological vari­ Results from the high school and
ables related to optimizing achieve­ beyond study. Washington, DC: U.S.
ment and career motivation for high Department of Education.
school girls. Journal of Vocational National Research Council. (1980).
Behavior. 17, 58-70. Science a,nd engineering doctorates in
Farmer, H. (1983). Career and home- the United Stales, 197S profile and
science and engineering doctorates in
making plans for high school youth.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, SO, the United States, 1975 profile. Em­
40-45. ployment status of doctoral scientists
Farmer, H (1984) Development of a and engineers 1978 and 1975; Science,
measure of home-career conflict re­ engineering, and humanities doc­
lated to career motivation in college torates in the United States, 1979 pro­
women. Sex Roles: A Journal of file. Washington, DC: National
Research. 0(9/10), 663-676. Academy of Sciences.
Farmer, H.'(I985). Model of career and Nicholls, J. (1980). A re-examination of
achievement motivation for women boys' and girls' causal attributions for
and men. Journal of Counseling success and failure based on New
Psychology, 82(3), 363-390. Zealand data. In L. Fyans (Ed.),
Farmer, H., & Backer, T. (jl977). New Achievement motivation: Recent
career options for women. A counse­ trends in theory and research
lor's sourcebook New York: Human (pp. 266-288). New York: Plenum
Sciences Press. Press.
Farmer, Ħ., & Bohn, M. (1970) Home- Raynor, J. (1978). Motivation and
career conflict reduction and the level career striving. In J. Atkinson & J.
of career interest in women. Journal Raynor (Eds.), Personality, motiva­
of Counseling Psychology, 17, tion and achievement (pp. 199-219).
228-232. New York: Halsted
Farmer, H , & Seliger, J. (1985). Sex Rooney, G. (1982). A study of career and
equity in career and vocational educa­ achievement motivation, three life
tion. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for roles of worker, homemaker, and stu­
achieving sex equity through educa­ dent, and sex differences. Unpublished
tion (pp'. 319-359). Baltimore, MD. doctoral dissertation, University of Il­
Johns Hopkins University Press. linois at Urbana-Champaign.
Gottfredson, L (1981). Circumscription Rooney, G. (1983). Distinguishing char­
and compromise: A developmental acteristics of the life roles of worker,
theory of occupational aspirations student, and homemaker for young
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, adults. Journal of Vocational Be­
545-579.' havior, 22, 324-342.
Kantor, J. (1924). Principles of psychol­ Rotter, J (1954). Social learning and
ogy. Vol. 1. Bloomington, IN: Pπn- clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
cipia Press. NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles ofgestalt Scott-Jones, D., & Clark, M. (1986,
psychology. New York: Harcourt March). The school experiences of
Brace. black girls. The interaction of gender,
Krumboltz, J (1976). A social learning race, and socioeconomic status. Phi
theory of career selection. The Coun­ Delta Kappan, 520-526
seling Psychologist, 6'(l), 71-81. Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. (1975). Educa­
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of tion, occupation, and earnings:
• personality Selected papers. New Achievement in the early career. New
-
York: McGraw-Hill. York Academic Press.
Maehr, M. (1974). Culture and achieve­ Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978).
ment motivation. American Psychol­ Masculinity and femininity: Their
ogist, 29, 887-896. psychological dimensions, correlates
Maehr, M. (1984). On doing well in and antecedents Austin, TX: Univer­
science: Why Johnny no longer ex­ sity of Texas Press.
cels: Why Sarah never did. In S. Super, D. (1980). A life-span, life-space
Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stephenson approach to career development.
(Eds.), Learning and motivation in Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16,
the classroom (pp. 179-210) Hills- 282-298
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Super, D., & Cuhla, M. (1976). Work
McClelland, D. (1985). Human motiva­ salience inventory. Unpublished
tion. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman manuscript.
&Co. Tittle, C. (1981). Careers and family:
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in per­ Sex roles and adolescent life spans.
sonality New York: Oxford Univer­ Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
sity Press. Tohidi, N. (1984). Sex differences in
National Center for Education Statis­ achievement/career motivation of
tics. (1984). Science and mathematics Iranian boys and girls. Sex Roles,
education in American high schools' 11(5/6), 467-484.
9