In modern western civilisation women have won the right to higher education, to vote, and very recently to a degree of sexual freedom more nearly comparable to that of men. But they are clearly underrepresented in high-level positions of power, status and accomplishment. One important study which followed children with high intellectual ability into adulthood revealed that gifted males were much more likely than gifted females to attain a high level of occupational achievement and creative productivity.
Does society, as the feminist movement says, unfairly discriminate against women, or are women in some sense less qualified than men in areas of achievement? In a technological age, when physical prowess is less important, shouldn't women be expected gradually to assume equal status with men in all areas of achievement? Recent psychological research - primarily on white Americans - suggests that, besides external social barriers to achievement, there is in fact a constellation of internal personality characteristics which makes achievement difficult for women.
Clearly, in most aspects of western society, it is a man's world. Man, in the generic sense (as in "mankind"), is used to refer both to men and women. Male children are preferred to females in many societies, and although boys are generally satisfied with their sex, girls frequently say they would prefer to be boys. Because it is a man's world, one must view women in relation to men, since it is against men as well as women that women compete and are compared. One of the most obvious determinants of success is ability. Do men and women differ in ability, then? Tests of general intelligence do not usually reveal differences in IQ between men and women. This is primarily because such tests have been constructed to minimise such differences. That is, they normally do not include items which markedly favour one sex or the other. Some sex differences are revealed by tests of specific abilities. Girls show accelerated language development in the early years of life. Although boys tend to catch up in most respects by adolescence, girls do better in grammar, spelling and word fluency throughout the school years. On the other hand, boys show superiority in "spatial" ability, some aspects of analytic ability (finding a "hidden" figure in a picture, changing set or restructuring a problem), and mathematical reasoning, particularly from puberty on. Some of these differences (spatial ability, for example) may be genetically determined. However, it is clear that cultural influences interact with biological predispositions.
It is important to point out that these sex differences in intellectual ability are not substantial. In all these areas the scores of males and females largely overlap. The implications of these findings are not that girls should not become mathematicians or engineers, but rather that more boys than girls may be suited for such careers. Conversely, more girls than boys may be suited for careers requiring verbal skills. Differences in ability are probably not nearly as important an obstacle to women's achievement as the conflicts which many women experience. The best-known, of course, is the conflict between having a career and a family. But there are other conflicts, stemming from personality dispositions which, though more subtle, are no less important.
Certain behaviour, attributes, attitudes and feelings are expected of men - and others of women. These include such things as ways of dressing, division of household chores; skill and interest in gross motor and mechanical tasks, and different expectations regarding nurturance, independence and aggression. Male-females differences appear in the first years of life, and certain consistent patterns detrimental to success appear in females from an early age.
One study of child-rearing practices in a large number of mostly non-literate societies revealed that, in over 80 per cent of the societies, greater training in self-reliance and achievement was given to boys than to girls. As one author who reviewed research on this subject puts it: "Females are supposed to inhibit aggression and open display of sexual urges, to be passive with men, to be nurturant to others, to cultivate attractiveness, and to maintain an effective, socially poised and friendly posture with others. Males are urged to be aggressive in the face of attack, independent in problem situations, sexually aggressive, in control of regressive urges, and, suppressive of strong emotion, especially anxiety."
How far are these differences biologically determined? The author suggests that social pattern they discovered tend to fit women for child-rearing and activities centred in the home, while the stress on self-reliance and achievement prepares men for warfare, hunting and other economic activities. But, noting the greater physical strength of men and the childbearing of women, they concluded that the differences in socialisation were not arbitrary customs but the adaptation of culture to the biological differences between men and women; They found that the greatest sex differences tended to occur in societies with economies that required the superior strength and motor skills of the males and in societies where the family group was large. Where the small "nuclear" family is isolated, the husband must sometimes be able to take the role of the wife when she is absent or incapacitated, and vice-versa.
Sex role standards tend to produce conflicts about achievement when young people begin to think about careers and marriage. During adolescence it tends to be more acceptable for the brightest boys to excel in scholarship because it is seen as preparation for a career. Girls often find themselves in a "double bind", because on the one hand they want to make good grades to please their parents and teachers, and on the other they fear that scholarly success will make them less attractive to boys.
In one study college undergraduates were asked to tell a story about a member of their own sex who was at the top of his or her medical school class. Over 65 per cent of the girls' stories revealed fears that success would result in social rejection or loss of feminity or the stories simply denied that a woman could attain such success. Less than 10 per cent of the boys revealed misgivings about attaining success. Girls who feared success typically planned to become housewives, nurses or school-teachers, while those with little fear of success often intended to go to graduate school and to enter such careers as mathematics or chemistry.
Another study of adolescents reveals that the dreams and plans of boys are realistically oriented towards their adult occupational identity. Girls have a less clear future orientation, primarily because they feel they are not free to plan a career since it may not be consistent with marriage. They tend to subordinate their own achievement aspirations. Instead, they have vocational aspirations for their future husbands. Their plans tend to focus on educational and work opportunities before marriage: their fantasy themes concern personal attractiveness and popularity.
It is clear that both non-literate and "advanced" societies tend to develop different personality characteristics in men and women. A closer look at those aspects of personality which directly influence achievement and success shows important internal causes of women's lack of achievement. In a world in which success often requires aggressiveness in competition and personal and emotional independence, women characteristically demonstrate a lack of self-confidence, dependence and a strong need for social approval.
1. Fear of failure and lack of self-confidence. There is abundant evidence that women are more apprehensive about the adequacy of their performance than men. Some research by one of us and his students, as well as by other investigators, reveals a picture of feminine anxiety about achievement. Both girls and women report that they experience more symptoms of anxiety during academic and intelligence tests than men. Fear of a failing grade is a more important impetus to cheat in examinations on the part of girls than boys.
When faced with a choice among tasks which vary in difficulty, girls are more likely than boys to choose easier tasks at which they are less likely to fail. Girls tend to be more easily discouraged by failure. Boys are more likely to return to tasks which they have not yet mastered while girls tend to repeat those at which they have already been successful. Numerous studies show that girls, from elementary school to college, have lower expectations of accomplishment in intellectual and academic activities than boys, even though girls typically have somewhat better grades. In general, girls tend to downgrade their abilities. After self-perceived success in a task, as well as self-perceived failure, girls rate their ability at the task substantially lower than boys. There is also a tendency among girls to attribute the outcorr1e of their actions to external influences beyond their control, such as good luck or bad fortune. Boys are more likely to perceive themselves as responsible for their actions.
2. Dependence and need for social approval. Another element in women's make-up, which acts as a deterrent to success, is dependence.
There is some evidence that parents are more attentive and affectionate towards girls than boys especially in the early years. This may contribute to the development of greater dependence in females and a greater responsiveness to social pressures. Moreover, dependence is more acceptable in females than in males. One longitudinal study showed that dependence in childhood was more closely related to adult dependence for women than for men, probably because dependent behaviour in males is discouraged as they grow up. As adults, women show greater concern with financial security than men, and a greater preference for safe jobs with modest incomes, as opposed to riskier positions with higher pay.
There are many indications that women are more concerned about social approval than men. College women, who were put in a competitive situation, were willing to sacrifice their own chances of success in order to help their partners, whereas men were not. The women slow down in their performance, in response to a plea for help from a partner who was also a friend, but men did not. A wish to win approval may also help to account for the fact that women display greater conformity, in the face of social pressure, than men.
3. Aggression and competition. In contrast to women's typical pattern of dependence and conformity, men tend to be more active and aggressive. That these differences in aggressiveness in animals, and by research indicating that male hormones are related to the level of aggressiveness. Again, however, aggression is usually viewed as less acceptable in girls than in boys. Upbringing tends to reduce aggression in girls, and longitudinal findings shows that aggression is a more stable aspect of personality for males than for females.
Clinical studies provide one possible explanation of how these male-female differences interfere with women's performance. Women who fear the consequence of their own hostility, and who view getting a good grade or a desirable job as tantamount to the hostile defeat of some other person, will unquestionably experience conflict in competitive situations. Empirical evidence suggests that men are more likely to work better in competition than when alone, whereas the reverse is true of women. Moreover, men may compete even more strongly against women than against men. Hence, women suffer in competition with men, both because their own performance deteriorates and because that of the men improves.
4. Achievement motivation - two kinds of women? One personality attribute particularly relevant to success is motivation to achieve i.e. a desire to do a good job, to excel, to attain high standards of excellence, not for the sake of some extrinsic benefit such as monetary reward or social status, but for the sake of pride in accomplishment. This kind of motivation makes a person seek success, work hard in response to challenge and enjoy achievement activities.
As with other personality variables there are sex differences, but they are complex and hard to interpret. In elementary school, boys make higher scores on a measure of achievement motivation than girls. At later stages it is difficult to assess comparative levels of achievement motivation because, though adolescent and adult women express a high level of concern about achievement, they tend to express it vicariously in their expectations and aspirations for the achievement of men. For example, when asked to tell stories, they are likely to depict men as achieving but not women.
Once again, women seem at a disadvantage with respect to an important ingredient of success. However, research suggests that some women are different from the norm in their orientation towards achievement and success. There are probably the ones who can compete most effectively in a man's world. One study in which high school girls told stories showed that girls with good academic records attributed the strongest achievement motivation to female characters; under-achieving goals, with poor academic records, attributed the strongest achievement motivation to male characters. High achievers saw intellectual achievement as an acceptable and desirable part of their female role. Under-achievers saw achievement as more relevant for men.
Thus, the fact that few women rise to the highest level of accomplishment is probably due not only to male attitudes, or the structure of the feminine personality. Any of the elements in the four-part profile, taken separately, might not pose a major problem. But they add up to an anti-success syndrome which disposes a woman to avoid evaluative and competitive situations, to under-aspire, to underrate her abilities, to seek job security , to lack initiative and an entrepreneurial spirit, and to feel at the mercy of factors beyond her control. For women with these tendencies, the magic removal of social barriers and male discrimination would not lead to instant accomplishment.
That this pattern does not, however, characterise all women is demonstrated in a recent study of professional women. They were described as being more dominant, adventuresome, sensitive, imaginative, unconventional, secure and self-sufficient than adult women in general.
The prescription for improving women's lot does not involve making women into men. The solution of some feminists - to strive for separatism and to compete with (or emasculate?) males - amounts to identification with the aggressor. The proper solution should not deny biological differences, nor do away with women's distinctive capabilities. Rather it is necessary to change society to make its values less monolithic, and to change women to make them more free to pursue their interests and abilities in whatever direction they may lead. We should change the way we bring girls up, beginning in infancy, in order to encourage and make enjoyable achievements, independence and exploration; foster a realistic estimation of one's abilities and a sense of responsibility for one's action; develop a wide range of interests which include "masculine" as well as "feminine" activities; provide opportunities for identification with fathers and brothers as well as with mothers and sisters; avoid defining a woman's value exclusively in terms of physical attractiveness or social skills.
That society is best which enables the largest proportion of its members to contribute to it, and at the same time to attain self-fulfillment. It should be possible for a woman to have both a family and a career, to be a success as a wife and mother, as well as to achieve in a man's and woman's world.
