Computer science majors: sex role orientation, academic achievement, and social cognitive factors.

This study examined the sex role orientations endorsed by 188 male and female students majoring in computer science, a male-dominated college degree program. The relations among sex role orientation and academic achievement and social cognitive factors influential in career decision-making self-efficacy were explored. Findings revealed that androgynous- and feminine-oriented students scored significantly higher on career decision-making self-efficacy as compared with undifferentiated students. No significant sex role orientation differences were found for academic achievement and general and career locus of control.

**********

Sex role typing is perpetuated by the male/female socialization process and is believed to occur in all human societies. Accordingly, men and women may be expected to conduct different tasks, assigned different rights and privileges, assumed to possess different temperamental characteristics and abilities, and may also be subjected to different rules of conduct in their interactions with each other (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The existence of these so-called distinctive sets of attributes (which may or may not have factual validity) have been used to justify the perpetuation of society's role structure and, furthermore, are regarded as critical to members of each sex fulfilling their assigned roles (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Similarly, Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) stated that gendered performances are available to everyone; however, there are constraints on who gets to perform which gender-related behaviors. They further noted that the intersection between sex and gender occurs as society attempts to match up ways of behaving with biological sex. Consequently, sex role typing and its accompanying stereotypes/beliefs constitute different expectations about appropriate behaviors for the two sexes, and thus we believe is an important factor to consider when investigating traditional and nontraditional career choices.

In their early work, Spence and Helmreich (1978) pointed out that the meaning of the term sex role has not been clearly understood due to various disciplines (e.g., psychology, anthropology, sociology) emphasizing different components. However, among psychologists, she contended that sex role is used to refer to "the distinguishing characteristics of women and men themselves--to differences in behavior, personality, abilities, preferences, and the like" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p. 13). For the purposes of this study, we use the definition of sex role recognized by the psychology discipline. In addition, the use of the terms sex role typing (i.e., classification of types) and sex role orientation (i.e., one's expressed type) are used throughout the article to refer to either the classification or expression of one's sex role.

Prior to the 1970s, a single bipolar conception of sex role existed in which the psychological traits stereotypically associated with men and women preclude each other and thereby yield a unidimensional construct, representing either a masculine or a feminine orientation (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Spence and Helmreich (1978) noted that scholars began to question this notion of a single dimension with masculinity (including most men) at one extreme and femininity (including most women) at the other extreme. Instead of a single dimension model, writers have suggested a dualistic formulation in which masculinity and femininity are essentially independent and separate dimensions.

Spence (1984) proffered that sex role is a multifactorial construct and that sex role traits constitute but one factor (i.e., masculinity or femininity). Therefore, she further asserted that sex role orientation is predictive only in situations where the sex role traits are salient and or influential. Conversely, Bem's (1981) theory of gender schema posited that persons display attitudes and behaviors that are consistent with their sex role orientation. Despite the fact that some studies have failed to find significant relationships when conceptualizing sex role as multifactorial, the sex role construct is thought to provide helpful insights into human behavior (Palan, 2001).

Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991) noted that appropriate sex typing was thought to be important to good mental health and overall adjustment. Specifically, the masculine male and the feminine female were regarded as more psychologically advantaged as compared with their less sex-typed counterparts. Whereas the feminine sex role has been described as including interpersonally oriented and nurturing traits such as caretaking and being kind to others (i.e., expressive or interpersonal traits), the masculine sex role is descriptive of self-assertive or instrumental traits such as self-confidence and independence (Spence & Helmreich, 1978).

In 1974, Sandra Bem argued that traditional sex roles, as conceptualized by the polar opposites of masculinity and femininity, were restrictive. Her research revealed that while some persons could be described as exclusively masculine or feminine, others could more accurately be described as possessing both masculine and feminine traits. An androgynous orientation was used to describe those who possessed a large and fairly even amount of masculine and feminine traits, while those with a low amount of both traits were considered undifferentiated. Bem (1974) further suggested that sex-typed individuals (i.e., the masculine man and the feminine woman) might be less likely than androgynous individuals to achieve in situations thought to be sex role inappropriate or incongruent.

In an effort to understand the relevance of sex role orientation on nontraditional career choice, Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) posited that psychological masculinity is a critical factor in women's self-efficacy percepts and choices for nontraditional career goals and achievements. Similarly, Lemaku (1979) asserted that sex role orientation assumes a major role in differentiating women in nontraditional and traditional careers. More specifically, Gianakos and Subich (1988) considered the sex and sex role orientation of 765 undergraduates as related to choice of college major. Findings of their investigation indicated that a sex-typed orientation was associated with the selection of career fields in which the respective gender is dominant. In sum, sex role orientation has been associated with women's consideration of nontraditional careers.

Sex and the Computer Science College Major

The underrepresentation of women in science fields has been documented, and Collins, Reardon, and Waters (1980) proposed that sex-typed individuals--in this case feminine women--lack information about nontraditional career choices. With regard to the present study, computer science is one of the science and engineering majors with low enrollment by women in the major. Cohoon (2002) stated, "Given our society's image of computing as a male activity, few women are likely to consider a computer science (CS) major unless they are explicitly encouraged to do so" (p. 48). Over the past 20 years, shifting interest in the computer science major has spurred sponsorship of a number of studies by major universities (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University, University of Virginia, The Ohio State University) and professional associations (e.g., Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and ACM's Women's subassociation). A 1997 report by the ACM's Committee on Women in Computing (n.d.) reported the following:

    The trend of decreasing numbers of women enrolled in higher
    education across the United States was studied, analyzed, and
    reported in the Communications of the ACM, October 1997. In brief,
    data from the National Centre for Education Statistics [NCES] at the
    U.S. Department of Education shows that the percentage of bachelor's
    degrees awarded in CS to women have decreased tremendously since
    1983. In 1983-84, 37.1% of the B.A./B.S. degrees awarded in CS went
    to women; in 1994-95, only 28.4% of the B.A./B.S. degrees awarded in
    CS went to women. Furthermore, while the percentage of bachelor's
    degrees awarded in CS to women decreased, corresponding percentages
    of other science and engineering disciplines increased. (para. 4)

The percentage of women earning computer science degrees is likely to continue to decline because enrollment in the major is declining. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported findings from the Higher Education Research Institute indicating that "women's interest in computer science [as a major] fell 80 percent between 1998 and 2004, and only 0.3 percent of incoming freshmen women in 2004 expressed an interest in majoring in computer science" (Foster, 2005, p. A32). Of note is that men's interest also fell in computer science; however, the decline was much more dramatic for women. Because computer science appears to experience the greatest difficulty among science and engineering fields in attracting women to the major, it provides a unique opportunity to study characteristics of students who do choose this traditionally male major.

Social Cognitive Factors and Career Choice

Hackett and Betz (1981) suggested that the concept of self-efficacy may facilitate understanding of career behaviors, particularly for women. The application of self-efficacy to the career domain was based on the notion that low self-efficacy percepts for career decision making would result in avoidance of career-related tasks and behaviors. Moreover, the pioneering work of Hackett and Betz has suggested that differences in the occupational status of men and women can be partly attributed to differences in career self-efficacy. Furthermore, Betz and Hackett (1981) found that college women held higher self-efficacy expectations for traditionally female rather than traditionally male careers. Mathieu, Sowa, and Niles (1993) investigated self-efficacy expectations for career decision-making tasks among groups of women who differed in traditionality of career preference. Their findings indicated that women who preferred nontraditional careers did not report higher career decision-making self-efficacy than did women who preferred traditional careers, but rather women who were undecided in their occupational choices demonstrated significantly lower career decision-making self-efficacy than did the traditional and nontraditional female groups. Therefore, self-efficacy, particularly as it is related to the career domain, is an important factor to consider in women's occupational choices.

Locus of Control, Career Choice, and Sex Role Orientation

Similarly, locus of control, defined as the degree to which an individual believes he or she is in control of personal outcomes (Rotter, 1954), is yet another construct essential to understanding the attitudes and perceived abilities possessed by individuals. An internal locus of control is characterized by belief in one's ability to control one's own destiny, persistence in the face of obstacles or difficulties, and the exhibition of other adaptive traits that enhance chances for success.

Career locus of control more specifically considers the extent to which individuals perceive a sense of control for career planning and career development tasks. In short, individuals perceiving an internal locus of career control will more likely display personal responsibility for their career planning as compared with those perceiving external locus of career control who may believe their career planning is due to chance factors (Taylor, 1982). Prior research has further indicated an association between students who are at high risk for failure and who exhibit an external locus of control (Dille & Mezack, 1991) and also a relationship between students who earn higher grades and who are characterized by an internal locus of control (Wang & Newlin, 2000). Research has also documented the relationship between locus of control and career behaviors. Specifically, Luzzo, McWhirter, and Hutcheson (1997) found that 1st-year college students employed in occupations congruent with their career interests were more likely to perceive they had personal control over their career decision making as compared with other students.

Kuther (1998) noted that research findings related to sex differences and locus of control have been contradictory and thus suggested that observed sex differences in locus of control may instead be attributed to differences in sex role orientation. Previous research findings have associated an external locus of control with a feminine sex role orientation and an internal locus of control as part of the masculine sex role orientation (e.g., Hochreich, 1975). Kuther examined the relationship between the sexes for scores on sex role orientation and locus of control. Findings of her investigation revealed that among women, an internal locus of control was associated with an androgynous orientation, whereas an external locus of control was related to a feminine sex role orientation. Among men, scores on sex role orientation and locus of control were not significantly related.

Most male-dominated occupations such as computer science have typically been regarded as having both high status and a high pay range. These professions may be attractive to individuals who are relatively high in instrumental traits and who reflect a sense of agency and mastery. Previous research has indicated that women in traditional female occupations would be sex typed in role orientation and would have external locus of control (Minnigerode, 1976). The present study, therefore, considered whether the locus of control orientation of men and women pursuing a degree in a male-dominated field is related to their sex role orientation.

Academic Achievement and Sex Role Orientations

Previous research findings related to sex role orientation and academic achievement have been inconsistent. For example, Burke (1989) found that among middle school students, those with a feminine sex role orientation displayed greater academic achievement in math, science, social studies, language arts, and foreign language courses as compared with masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated types. Conversely, Pathare and Kanekar (1990) surveyed 300 undergraduate students regarding their academic achievement and sex role orientation and found that masculine women scored highest on academic achievement. These inconsistent findings suggest that myriad factors may be implicated in understanding the relationship between sex role orientation and academic achievement variables.

Present Study

Given the noted influence of sex role orientation on occupational choice and persistence and the underrepresentation of women completing degrees and entering the computer science and engineering workforce (Betz, 1997), we believe that the sex role orientations, career decision-making self-efficacy, locus of control, and academic achievement of computer science majors are important variables to study. Women in pursuit of male-dominated fields are thought to encounter obstacles and difficulties, thus their confidence in their career planning and decision-making tasks (self-efficacy) as well as their belief in their ability to control their own destiny (locus of control) are regarded as important factors of their success (achievement). Moreover, we consider the importance of gender-related behaviors and whether there is an activation of gender-related behaviors in the computer science field.

Hence, the primary focus of our study was to determine whether computer science students of varied sex role orientations differ with regard to career decision-making self-efficacy percepts, general and career specific locus of control, and academic achievement. Specifically, two research questions were considered: (a) Do male and female computer science students possess different sex role orientations? and (b) Do computer science students representing masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated orientations differ on self-efficacy for career decision tasks, career and general locus of control, and academic achievement?

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants in this study were 188 (124 men, 62 women, and 2 did not report sex) undergraduate students currently majoring in computer science at a midwestern university. The race/ethnicity of the participants was as follows: 100 Caucasian; 41 Asian; 16 Hispanic; 9 Turkish; Indian, or Pakistani; 12 African American; 4 Black; non-Hispanic; non-American; 5 reported other; and 1 unreported. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50, with a mean age of 24.4 years (SD = 6.24). In accordance with institutional review board policy, computer science students were solicited for participation through entry-level courses. Specifically, computer science students who were currently enrolled in either Computer Science (CS) 101 or 201 were invited to complete online surveys. Both CS101 and the subsequent 201 course teach students basic principles in computer programming using C++ programming language. The data collection points comprised four consecutive semesters, and the surveys were made available on a secure Web site for 1 week at midsemester. Students who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study completed an informed consent document, which allowed us permission to access university records for the purposes of obtaining final course grades and demographic information. Ninety-eight of the 188 participants were enrolled in CS 101.

Instrumentation

Career decision-making self-efficacy. The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDSE-SF; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996) is a 25-item scale designed to assess self-efficacy expectations for career decision-making tasks. Participants indicated their ability to complete career decision-making tasks using a 10-point scale ranging from (0) no confidence to (9) complete confidence. A summation of scores is generated such that higher scores reflect greater confidence in career decision-making tasks. Coefficient alpha reliabilities range from .73 to .83 for the subscale scores and .94 for the total score (Betz et al., 1996). Adequate support for the construct validity of this scale has been established through correlations between CDSE and vocational identity (Betz et al., 1996) and between CDSE and fear of commitment (Betz & Serling, 1995).

Locus of control. We assessed locus of control across two domains: internal-external control and career locus of control. Rotter (1975) indicated that increased precision in predicting outcomes would be forthcoming with the inclusion of domain specific scales. We thus included two measures of locus of control: general and career specific.

1. The Rotter Internal-External Control Scale (I-E; Rotter, 1966) consists of 29 forced-choice items and measures the degree to which participants perceive reinforcement as contingent upon their actions. Six of the items are filler items to disguise the purpose of the test. Thus, the scale consists of 23 I-E items and 6 filler items. Higher scores indicate an external locus of control. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) reported test-retest reliability of .75 for psychiatric patients over a 6-week interval. Evidence of construct validity is supported by the close relationships between item content and patterns of environment control (Seeman & Evans, 1962).

2. The Career Locus of Control Scale (CLCS; Trice, Haire, & Elliott, 1989) measures locus of control for career planning and consists of 18 statements scored on a true/false format. Scores range from 0 to 18 and are calculated by totaling the number of external responses. Higher scores indicate more external locus of control for career development. Trice et al. reported a test-retest reliability coefficient of .93 over a 3-week interval and Kuder Richardson (K-R 20) reliability estimates of .81 to .89 for college student samples. As evidence of construct validity, Trice et al. reported a positive correlation between CLCS scores and a variety of career development behaviors, such as job search and career exploration tasks.

Sex role orientation. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) is a 24-item self-report instrument composed of three scales (M, F, and M-F) that are computed by adding the 8 items comprising each scale, yielding scores that range from 0-32 on each of the three scales. The Masculinity (M) scale comprises self-assertive-instrumental traits (e.g., independent, competitive, aggressive) while the Femininity (F) scale consists of traits described as interpersonal-expressive (e.g., emotional, dependent, helpful). The Masculinity-Femininity (M-F) scale reflects self-assertive-instrumental or expressive-interpersonal characteristics, or a combination of both. Respondents are asked to rate themselves on 24 traits scored on a 5-point bipolar continuum, for example, from A (0) not at all aggressive to E (4) very aggressive. Spence and Helmreich (1978) provided cutoff scores on the M and F scales that reflect Masculine, Feminine, Androgynous, and Undifferentiated sex role classifications. Consistent with Spence and Helmreich's classification guidelines, cutoff scores on the Masculinity and Femininity scales were used to classify participants into the four sex role groups. The cutoff scores provided by Spence and Helmreich on the Masculinity and Femininity scales are the median scores for each scale and were based on their norm sample of 715 college students. As noted by Spence and Helmreich (1978), the burden lies with the researchers to scrutinize their data and determine whether the median-split method is appropriate. Evidence of the PAQ's psychometric soundness has been established, with validation evidence indicating that the PAQ differentiates between the sexes on each of the three scales. Spence and Helmreich (1978) reported Cronbach's alphas for the M and F scales of .85 and .82, respectively.

Academic achievement. Students' final course grades were obtained from university records at the completion of the semester course. Academic achievement was measured by students' earned course grade. Grades were reported on a 4-point grading scale ranging from A (4.00) to F (0.00), including pluses and minuses (e.g., B- = 2.70).

Results

An examination of sex role orientation as related to career and academic achievement behaviors was the focus of the present study. However, in order to establish that any differences that emerged were not simply due to sex differences, we first conducted analyses to determine if male and female participants differed on the variables under investigation, namely self-efficacy, locus of control, and academic achievement. Findings failed to reveal significant sex differences for career decision-making self-efficacy, general and career locus of control, and academic achievement, as measured by final course grade. Therefore, we eliminated sex differences as a competing explanation for our findings. Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and range of all variables under investigation.

Participants represented the following sex role orientations: undifferentiated (n = 82; 44%), feminine (n = 67; 36%), and androgynous (n = 36; 19%). Only one participant (male) reported a masculine orientation, thus the masculine orientation category and accompanying data for the one participant were excluded from all data analyses, resulting in 124 male and 62 female participants (recall that 2 participants failed to report their sex).

An examination of sex role orientations endorsed by our male and female sample participants revealed that 51% (n = 63) of our male participants identified as undifferentiated, whereas only 31% (n = 19) of female respondents reflected an undifferentiated sex role orientation. Half (50%, n = 31) of the female participants identified as feminine, and 29% (n = 36) of male participants endorsed a feminine orientation. Male and female participants were equally reflected by the androgynous orientation, with 20% being male and 19% female (see Table 2).

To determine whether differences in self-efficacy for decision-making tasks existed across sex role orientations, we used an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results of this analysis indicated a significant group difference, F(2, 179) = 9.65, p < .001. Follow-up post hoc analyses revealed that both androgynous (M = 180.1, SD = 24.9) and feminine (M = 175, SD = 25.1) oriented students scored significantly higher on career decision-making self-efficacy as compared with undifferentiated oriented students (M = 158.6, SD = 31.8). In other words, students who possessed greater combined masculine and feminine traits and students who possessed greater feminine traits were more confident in their ability to make career decisions than their counterparts who possessed lower masculine and feminine traits.

In order to determine whether students of different sex role orientations reported differences in general and career locus of control, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Findings of this analysis failed to reveal significant sex role orientation differences on the general and career locus of control variables. An examination of academic achievement differences across sex role orientations, using an ANOVA, also failed to reveal significant group differences.

Discussion

The purposes of the present study were twofold: (a) to determine the sex role orientation of college students majoring in computer science and (b) to investigate differences in career decision-making self-efficacy, general and career locus of control, and academic achievement among computer science students who vary in sex role orientation. Because only one participant indicated having a masculine orientation, this orientation was not included in the analyses, and comparisons were made among feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated orientations. The almost complete absence of a masculine sex role orientation in our sample participants is interesting and also quite surprising. A plausible explanation for why so few of our computer science participants were high in instrumentality (i.e., masculine traits) is discussed later in this section. An ANOVA was conducted to test whether sex differences might offer a competing explanation for any differences among the study variables. No significant sex differences were found across career decision-making self-efficacy, general and career locus of control, and academic achievement.

Our primary research question addressed differences in sex role orientation among college students majoring in computer science. We were particularly interested in the sex role orientation of female students, because computer science fields are regarded as traditionally male dominated. Earlier researchers suggested that possession of masculine traits is an important factor in differentiating between women in traditional and nontraditional careers (Gianakos & Subich, 1988). Contrary to this assertion, we found that 50% of the female participants in our sample of computer science majors possessed a feminine orientation and, therefore, were low in masculine traits.

In addition, none of the female participants reported a dominant male orientation, and only 19% reported an androgynous orientation (both high masculine and feminine traits). Moreover, Bem's (1974) assertion that sex-typed individual's achieve less success than their more androgynous counterparts in situations thought to be sex role inappropriate or incongruent was not supported. If this were the case, then the androgynous female participants in our sample would have achieved at higher levels than the feminine female participants. In our sample, no academic achievement differences were found among students with different sex role orientations. As previously noted, research findings related to academic achievement and sex role orientations, which have included both secondary and undergraduate students, have been mixed in terms of which sex role orientation displayed greater academic achievement. Our findings do not support this previous yet inconsistent research, which has found sex role differences.

Although women remain underrepresented in the computer science field, they composed 33% of our sample participants, which is higher than what has been reported in the literature. It is possible that our sample is different in some systematic way, and we contemplate whether our findings represent a one-site phenomenon. What we do know is that the university at which our sample participants were students had not engaged in any organized efforts or specific strategies targeted at the recruitment of women in past years or at the time we collected our data. Thus factors that might account for the uniqueness of this midwestern university remain perplexing.

Alternatively, we consider whether the face of computer science degree programs is changing such that the computer science field is no longer just attractive to White men, which is why we find more women enrolled in and graduating from such programs than previous data would support. Specifically, the university at which our sample was taken reported the average enrollment percentage for female computer science majors, over the four consecutive semesters that we collected data, to be 26%, which is not considerably less than the 33% composing our sample. Also noteworthy, in terms of graduation rates, is that the average percentage of male (65%) and female (35%) students who graduated from this university in the past four semesters somewhat parallels the university's male (74%) and female (26%) enrollment percentages for earlier semesters and suggests that slightly more than a third of the university's computer science graduates over a four-semester span are women.

Perhaps most interesting is that our male and female computer science undergraduates were uncharacterized by a masculine orientation (noted exception being 1 participant who endorsed a masculine orientation), which we did not expect given that computer science is regarded as a male-dominated field. Perhaps the lack of instrumental traits endorsed by our computer science participants suggests that feminine traits are more important when considering the rigor of a computer science degree. Said differently, we suppose that it is likely that the nature of computer science programs requires students to cooperate with one another in order to meet deadlines and to successfully complete homework and other course-related assignments, which may result in an environment that activates expressive traits while attenuating the masculinity variable. The first and second authors of this study have recently completed computer science course work and recall that students, to a great extent, collaborated and worked in small and large groups to facilitate successful learning. These collaborative and team approach efforts, which were encouraged by the department's instructors and teaching assistants, may call for expressive traits such as helping others, understanding others, and warm relations with others.

To further support this notion, we draw upon Spence's (1984) assertion that the extent to which individuals engage in gender/sex role related behaviors may be contingent upon how important the gender/sex role related traits are in a particular context. Persons possess different schemata, which may be activated in a given situation. That is, attitudes and behaviors are likely to be gender based due to the influence or salience of gender in that situation. On the basis of these assertions, we venture to say that the nature of computer science programs, although a traditionally male-dominated field, may be a field in which feminine or expressive sex role traits are much more salient and influential than instrumental (masculine) traits. Future research that includes multiple computer science settings is needed to corroborate these findings.

The implications of this finding are particularly important for high school guidance counselors and college advisers who are encouraged to support female students in their choice of nontraditional careers, even though they may fail to display masculine traits. Only 1 male participant possessed a masculine sex role orientation, and only 20% possessed an androgynous orientation; however, 29% reported a feminine sex role orientation, and 51% were undifferentiated. We were surprised to find that almost half (44%) of our male and female participants identified as undifferentiated (i.e., low levels of both masculinity and femininity traits). Perhaps, as suggested by Spence and Helmreich (1979), the concepts of instrumentality and expressiveness may vary across time for individuals and according to different contexts. In other words, the meaning of masculinity and femininity and the gender roles that men and women occupy may vary in different situations in response to changes in roles and responsibilities.

A caveat is that the undifferentiated students in our study scored significantly lower on career decision-making self-efficacy as compared with their feminine- and androgynous-oriented peers. These findings are consistent with prior research by Gianakos (1995) and Abdalla (1995) who also found that undergraduates with an undifferentiated orientation scored lowest on career decision-making self-efficacy. Gianakos hypothesized that undifferentiated persons would have weaker mastery percepts and more restricted career exploration activities as compared with other orientations largely due to limitations in their work-related experiences and cognitive appraisals of careers.

In addition, individuals with an undifferentiated orientation have also been found to exhibit lower self-esteem (Napholz, 1994), less leadership behavior (Gurman & Long, 1992), and lower self-concept (Bryan & Petrangelo, 1989) than individuals displaying feminine, masculine, or androgynous orientations. Persons endorsing an undifferentiated sex role orientation have expressed few instrumental and expressive attributes and have therefore been described in previous literature as having a limited repertoire of behavioral responses to situational demands and poorer socialization as compared with the other sex role groups (Bem, 1974). Cook (1985), in her critique of the sex role typology, pointed out that the typology may be problematic if the tendency is to "describe sex-role categories in terms of what they are not, as in the 'undifferentiated folks are not like the others' hypotheses" (p. 5). She further clarified that the definition of a category by negation is problematic, in particular, with measures that rely largely on socially desirable characteristics. According to Cook, emphasis has been on describing undifferentiated persons as worse off than others rather than on efforts to theoretically describe how and why undifferentiated persons might be expected to behave.

In the present study, the relatively lower career decision-making self-efficacy endorsed by undifferentiated computer science students suggests that sex role orientation, in addition to other variables, is associated with career decision-making tasks. Given the lower career decision-making self-efficacy for undifferentiated students, one might expect to find locus-of-control differences, but this was not the case. With regard to both general and career locus of control, students with an undifferentiated orientation did not display any significant differences from other sex role orientations. One likely explanation is that personal control accounts for only a portion of the variance in individuals' beliefs about their ability to make career decisions. Therefore, differences may emerge with regard to students' confidence in their ability to make career decisions, even though similar beliefs about personal control are held. These findings are consistent with Napholz (1992) who explored the relationship between locus of control and sex role orientation among nurses and found no differences between the sex types on locus of control.

Last, no achievement differences were found among feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated students. An examination of academic achievement differences between the masculine and other sex role orientations in the present study was not possible due to the masculine category not being endorsed by our sample participants. Nonetheless, as previously noted, prior research findings related to sex role orientation and academic achievement have been inconsistent.

Overall these findings have important implications for career counseling. Of note is that undifferentiated individuals displayed lower levels of career decision-making self-efficacy, as compared with their feminine and androgynous peers, which therefore implies that these individuals feel less able to make successful career decisions. Career counseling professionals may want to consider sex role orientation as an important factor when attempting to understand career-related behaviors and competencies. Also notable for counselors is the fact that there were no significant sex role orientation differences in academic achievement, thus individuals displaying expressive traits should not be discouraged from exploring careers stereotypically labeled as masculine.

Perhaps the most interesting and important finding of the present study is that the masculine sex role orientation was not reflected by our sample participants. Future research should examine whether the absence of a masculine orientation persists in other samples of undergraduate students pursuing computer science degrees. Given that American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU; 2000) data indicated that only 7% of women earn degrees in computer science, it is surprising that approximately one third of our sample participants were female. It is, however, important to note that the 33% of women reflected in our sample is consistent with the university's percentage of women enrolled in the computer science degree program from the semesters in which we collected our data (i.e., 29.3% or 67 of 228 computer science students are women). One plausible explanation for the larger percentage of women reflected in our sample as compared to AACU data is that more women are entering or considering this field than in previous years, which could suggest that computer science is moving away from being a male-dominated field. Of course, future research is needed to replicate our findings by including computer science majors across multiple university settings. We also suggest that future research use longitudinal designs, which can consider students' career intentions beyond their degree expectations as confirmed by enrollment in introductory computer science courses in order to provide evidence of solidified career pursuits in computer science fields of study. Finally, as noted by Spence and Helmreich (1980), we acknowledge that other variables such as attitudes, values, interests, abilities, and external pressures may be a stronger determinant of one's sex role preferences and behaviors. As such, we encourage future research to explore these other important variables when considering sex role preferences.

References

Abdalla, I. A. (1995). Sex, sex-role self-concepts and career decision-making self-efficacy among Arab students. Social Behavior & Personality, 23, 389-401.

Association for Computing Machinery, Committee on Women in Computing. (n.d.). Completed projects. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://women.acm.org/completed.html

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2000). On campus with women. Washington, DC: Author.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.

Betz, N. E. (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school: Effects of achievement and performance (pp. 105-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press.

Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.

Betz, N. E., Klein, K. E., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47-57.

Betz, N. E., & Serling, D. (1995). Fear of commitment and career decision-making self-efficacy. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Bryan, A. J., & Petrangelo, G. J. (1989). Self-concept and sex role orientation in adolescence. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 15, 17-29.

Burke, P. J. (1989). Gender identity, sex, and school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 159-169.

Cohoon, J. M. (2002). Recruiting and retaining women in undergraduate computing majors. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 48-52.

Collins, J., Reardon, M., & Waters, L. K. (1980). Occupational interest and perceived personal success: Effects of gender, sex-role orientation, and the sexual composition of the occupation. Psychological Reports, 47, 1155-1159.

Cook, E. P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community college telecourse students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 24-35.

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Foster, A. L. (2005, May 27). Student interest in computer science plummets: Technology companies struggle to fill vacant positions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A31-A32.

Gianakos, I. (1995). The relation of sex role identity to career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 131-143.

Gianakos, I., & Subich, L. M. (1988). Student sex and sex role in relation to college major choice. The Career Development Quarterly, 36, 259-268.

Gurman, E. B., & Long, K. (1992). Emergent leadership and female sex role identity. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 126, 309-316.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Harrow, M., & Ferrante, A. (1969). Locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 582-589.

Hochreich, D. J. (1975). Sex-role stereotypes for internal-external control and interpersonal trust. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 273.

Kuther, T. L. (1998). Sex and sex-role differences in locus of control. Psychological Reports, 82, 188-190.

Lemaku, J. P. (1979). Personality and background characteristics of women in male-dominated occupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 221-240.

Luzzo, D. A., McWhirter, E. H., & Hutcheson, K. G. (1997). Evaluating career decision-making factors associated with employment among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 166-172

Mathieu, P. S., Sowa, C. J., & Niles, S. G. (1993). Differences in career self-efficacy among women. Journal of Career Development, 19, 187-196.

Minnigerode, F. (1976). Attitudes toward women, sex-role stereotyping and locus of control. Psychological Reports, 38, 1301-1302.

Napholz, L. (1992). The relationship between locus of control, instrumental and expressive traits among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 975-982.

Napholz, L. (1994). Sex role orientation and psychological well-being among working Black women. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 469-482.

Palan, K. M. (2001). Gender identity in consumer behavior research: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2001(10). Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-2001.pdf

Pathare, S. S., & Kanekar, S. (1990). Self-esteem, intelligence and academic achievement of Indian college students in relation to their sex roles. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 11, 31-40.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R, & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).

Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct on internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67.

Seeman, M., & Evans, J. W. (1962). Alienation and learning in a hospital setting. American Sociological Review, 27, 772-783.

Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 1-97.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). Comparison of masculine and feminine personality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychology, 15, 583-584.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.

Taylor, K. M. (1982). An investigation of vocational indecision in college students: Correlates and moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 471-476.

Trice, A. D., Haire, J. R., & Elliott, K. A. (1989). A career locus of control scale for undergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 555-561.

Wang, A., & Newlin, M. (2000). Characteristics of students who enroll and succeed in psychology Web-based classes. Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137-143.

Chris Brown and Elizabeth A. Olson, Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology; Linda S. Garavalia, Department of Psychology; and Mary Lou Hines Fritts, Office of the Provost, Academic Affairs; all at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris Brown, Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 215 School of Education, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110 (e-mail: [e-mail]).

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Range for Career, Locus of
Control, and Academic Achievement Variables

Variable                              M       SD     Range

Career decision-making self-efficacy  168.71  29.53  59-225
Locus of control                        9.96   4.16   1-20
Career locus of control                 8.03   3.12   1-18
Academic achievement                    3.01   1.12   0-4.0

TABLE 2 Sex Role Orientation by Sex of College Students Majoring in
Computer Science

                                   Sex
                      Women (n = 62)  Men (n = 124)
Sex Role Orientation  n   %           n   %

Feminine              31  50          36  29
Masculine              0   0           1   0
Androgynous           12  19          24  20
Undifferentiated      19  31          63  51