Gender differences in students' social goals.

Abstract

Social goals have been linked to academic motivation and performance in college students. The present article examines gender differences in college students' social goals, as some evidence exists that males and females will differ in their social goals. A recent model of social goals is addressed in this article. The authors found that males tended to pursue power goals more than females, while females tended to pursue social responsibility goals more than males.

Introduction

Some reasons for students' behaviors are socially oriented. Social-academic goals are "cognitive representations of desired social outcomes that have an impact in academics" (McCollum, 2006, p. 17). The social aspects of academics (e.g., interacting with other students) are part of students' motivations. Putting motivation in terms of goals, social goals account for some variation in academic achievement (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, 1999; McCollum, 2005, 2006). Social goal pursuit is an essential part of academic achievement.

Social Goals

Through research it is clear that students frequently have goals for such things as intimacy, responsibility, relationships, or fun (Sanderson, Rahm, Beigbeder & Metts, 2005; Wentzel, 2001). These goals are social goals. Evidence suggests that mutual pursuit of social and achievement goals is necessary to perform well academically (e.g., Covington, 2000). The importance of social goal pursuit for academic success is especially prevalent in cooperative learning situations (Hijzen, Boekaerts, & Vedder, 2006). The evidence, addressed below, suggests that developing an understanding of students' social goals can help in understanding students' academic outcomes (e.g., GPA).

To understand better the usefulness of social goals in predicting academic achievement there is a need to develop knowledge of social goals. In Wentzel's (1994) research, prosocial goals (e.g., helping peers with social or academic issues) and social responsibility goals (e.g., following classroom rules, keeping promises and commitments) were moderately to highly correlated with several other variables, such as effort (r = .28), mastery goals (r = .40), and self-efficacy (r = .41). In addition, GPA had a moderate relationship with prosocial (r = .16) and social responsibility (r = . 18) goals in middle schoolers. These correlations describe the predictive worth of prosocial and social responsibility goals as measured by Wentzel in a young adolescent population. There are limitations to Wentzel's social goals. Urdan and Maehr (1995) pointed out that her work measured only two dimensions of social goals and suggested the further development of potential dimensions of social goals. Since Wentzel's seminal work, additional researchers have expanded the dimensions of social goals.

Miller et al. (1996) measured different social goal constructs than Wentzel and examined academic outcome correlates of social goals. Included in their research were goals of: trying to please others and trying to be socially responsible. Based on factor analytic findings, the researchers labeled two variables: pleasing the teacher and pleasing the family. There were two studies conducted based on these variables. In Study 1, pleasing the teacher was positively correlated with pleasing the family (r = .40), self-regulated learning (i.e., controlling one's learning through effort, persistence, and strategies) (r = .25), deep processing (e.g., using strategies that enhance learning, such as following multiple examples) (r = .23), and shallow processing (e.g., using strategies that focus on memorization) (r = .34). In addition, pleasing the family was positively related to shallow processing (r = .20). In Study 2, pleasing the teacher was positively related to pleasing the family (r = .53) and with self-regulation (r = .26), and pleasing the teacher was predictive of academic engagement through self-regulated learning (Miller et al.). Again, this work only partially addressed the myriad of possibilities that can be measured as social goals, and again in only one age group--high school students. Additional researchers made contributions regarding the relationship between social goals and academic success. Anderman and Anderman (1999) assessed new social goals constructs. They measured social responsibility, relationship, belonging and status goals. The researchers found social responsibility, relationship, and belonging goals were positive predictors of fifth graders' GPA (r = . 10, . 19, . 10, respectively), whereas social status goals were negatively related to GPA (r = -.10). Anderman and Anderman (1999) addressed more dimensions of social goals than do other researchers, but they again addressed young students.

In work to identify further social goals with older students, McCollum (2006) identified seven dimensions of social goals of college students based on a comprehensive integration of social goals research. In his research, the goal categories were social responsibility, social attractiveness, power, intimacy and interpersonal play, belongingness, receiving assistance, and giving advice. The dimensions were moderately intercorrelated. McCollum (2005) reported that social responsibility and receiving assistance goals were positive predictors of college GPA (r = .14, .15, respectively). Additionally, the pursuit of power goals was negatively correlated with GPA (r = -.15). All of the constructs, except for power, were also linked with the learning engagement constructs of peer-learning, help-seeking, and effort regulation (McCollum, 2006). This model of social goals and the social goals' correlations with GPA and learning engagement showed that social goals play a role in college students' achievement.

Gender Differences

There has been evidence of gender differences in the social goals of young students. Females pursued responsibility goals and intimacy/relationship goals more often than did males (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Ford, 1996; Patrick, Anderman, & Ryan, 1997). Females were also found to choose belongingness goals, goals to care, give approval, support, assistance, advice, and validation to others more frequently than males (Ford, 1996). Additionally, Hijzen, Boekaerts, and Vedder (2006) found females pursued social support goals, as opposed to males who preferred superiority goals. Males more frequently pursued social status goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997). This pattern is reflective of traditional gender role characteristics whereby women are seen as more nurturing and males as more competitive.

There is ample evidence to suggest that traditional gender role characteristics are a result of widely practiced socialization patterns (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). A significant amount of socialization takes place in schools where individuals may be rewarded or punished for adhering to certain gender specific behaviors (e.g. girls playing with dolls, boys playing with trucks). Boys are more likely than girls to have discipline referrals, be in special education courses, excel in math and science, and commit suicide. Girls are more likely to excel in reading and writing, be under-identified for special education services, and have lower test scores (American Association of University Women (AAUW), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; Ginorio & Huston, 2001; National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 2000; Sadker, 1999; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Spencer, Porch & Tolman, 2003). These gender specific patterns allude to prevailing beliefs about how males and females are expected to behave. Bussey and Bandura (1999) state, "Gender development is a fundamental issue because some of the most important aspects of people's lives, such as the talents they cultivate, the conceptions they hold of themselves and others, the sociostructural opportunities and constraints they encounter, and the social life and occupational paths they pursue are heavily prescribed by societal gender-typing" (p. 676). Societal gender typing is particularly apparent in occupational segregation where women are more likely than men to occupy the helping professions such as nursing, teaching, and social work (Osgood, Francis, & Archer, 2006).

From birth, individuals are confronted with numerous gender specific beliefs and behaviors that they internalize to create their views about the world and about themselves. Most people take on tasks they believe they are capable of handling and avoid tasks that exceed their capabilities (Bandura, 2002; Bandura et al., 2003). Consequently when self-efficacy (i.e., the belief one has needed capabilities to attain a goal) is high, individuals will engage in activities that further develop their skills and abilities, but when it is low they avoid any new challenges. This is a possible explanation as to why women and men may have different priorities in the classroom; as they may focus on developing that with which they have learned to be most comfortable. The focus of the present article is gender differences in McCollum's (2006) model of college students' social goal pursuit.

Research Question

What gender differences exist in the social goals identified by McCollum (2006)?

Method

Participants Undergraduates (n = 322) participated in this study. There were 260 females and 62 males. Therefore, a random sample of 62 females was selected for comparison to the 62 males. The sample was 91.0% Caucasian, 5.3% Asian, 1.9% African American, and 1.2% Hispanic. The sample consisted of 99.0% single individuals, 0.6% married people, and 0.4% separated people. The mean age of the participants was 19.63 (SD = 1.89).

Apparatus The Social Goal Questionnaire (SGQ) was used. There is evidence of the construct and predictive validity of the SGQ and the dimensions of the instrument are internally consistent (McCollum, 2006). Items were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 = not at all true of me and 7 = completely true of me. A sample of the items from the SGQ is as follows:

Social Responsibility--I consider it important to be fair.

Social Attractiveness--It is important to me to look good.

Power--I would like to control others.

Intimacy and Interpersonal Play--I want to be playful.

Receiving Assistance--I want someone to help me through difficulties.

Belonging--I want to get involved with others.

Giving--I feel it is important to give advice.

Procedure Participants received informed consent forms, instructions, a demographic survey, and the SGQ. Participants completed and returned the informed consent form, then completed the questionnaires. Upon completion of the questionnaires, the materials were returned to the researcher.

Results

Females endorsed social responsibility goals (M=6.17, SD = .54) more greatly than did males (M = 5.91, SD = .59). This finding was statistically significant, t(119) = 2.52, p = .01. Males endorsed power goals (M = 3.63, SD = .83) more greatly than did females (M = 3.23, SD = .88). This finding was statistically significant, t(121) = 2.63, p = .01. The other social goals were not statistically significantly different between genders.

Conclusions

In previous ideas of responsibility goals, females more frequently endorsed these goals than males. In this research, college females valued social responsibility goals more than college males, which supports past findings with younger populations. Males in the present research endorsed power goals more greatly than females. This is also indicative of past findings in which males tended to pursue status more than females (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, 1999). There are clearly gender differences in the pursuit of certain social goals at multiple age levels.

The present findings combined with McCollum's (2005, 2006) findings, lead to a new question. Since males are seeking power more than females, and power is not associated with academic engagement or achievement, are males tending to academically alienate themselves? While power seeking may result in academic alienation in males, it does not appear to negatively influence economic rewards after schooling--males receive higher salaries than do females. Part of this discrepancy is that female dominated fields tend to receive less pay, indicating the value placed on "women's work" versus "men's work". In Keller (2000) Director of the AFL-CIO's Working Women department, Karen Nussbaum, points out as an example that a parking lot attendant earns more than a child-care worker. Furthermore, gender role stereotyping lead males and females into professions that seem more acceptable in terms of their gender thus accentuating the importance and perhaps even the 'naturalness' given to ascribed gender characteristics.

Gender differences in social goals suggest that males and females define success differently. In terms of self-efficacy, individuals pursue goals that they see as obtainable. The results of the present study as well as past research indicate a pattern in which success for females is related to relationship building and for males, power building. This suggests that males and females are remaining in a comfort zone reflective of traditional gender role characteristics. While there is nothing inherently wrong with adhering to these behaviors, students who perceive (consciously or subconsciously) traditional gender role characteristics as static are limiting their occupational choices as well as the importance given to relationships. Expanding gender roles could produce positive outcomes in schools such as better grades and a reduction in discipline referrals for males and higher tests scores and a greater interest in math and science for females.

It is clear that teachers of multiple age levels should be concerned with the type of social goals their students are pursuing. Certain goals tend to be associated with success, while others are not. In particular, male students seeking power within the classroom may be at-risk for poor academic performance. Ideally, teachers should incorporate instructional strategies and provide an atmosphere where traditional gender differences in social goals are reduced or eliminated. Students can practice leading groups or facilitating communication among classmates in order to expand traditional gender role characteristics and behaviors with specific instructions. Additionally, educators should discuss gender issues with their students so that they develop a social and historical framework within which gender is constructed. Teachers can also use social persuasion to influence beliefs about gender. Verbal praise for 'atypical' gendered behavior can promote confidence in students as well as add value to expanding social goals. Overall, teachers need to work with students to redefine socialization into gender roles and choice of social goals in such a way that maximizes the academic benefits of positive gendered behavior and social goal pursuit (e.g., social responsibility) for both genders.

References

American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women. (1994). School girls: Young women, selfesteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Double Day.

American Association of University Women. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women. (2001a). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women. (2001b). A license for bias: Sex discrimination, schools, and Title IX. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 21-37.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101-119.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M. & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychological functioning. Child Development, 74(3), 769-782.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713.

Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 (1), 171-200.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W. & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes and H. M. Trautner (Eds.) The developmental psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ford, M. E. (1996). Motivational opportunities and obstacles associated with social responsibility and caring behavior in school contexts. In J. Juovenen and K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 126-153). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ginorio, A., & Huston, M. (2001). Si se puede! Yes, we can. Latinas in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality of cooperative learning, students' goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 9-21.

Keller, L. (2000). Women and men: Payday. CNN.com. Available at: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/12/12/womenpay/index.html. Retrieved June 16, 2006.

McCollum, D. L. (2005). Relating students' social and achievement goals. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(1), 297-301.

McCollum, D. L., (2006). Students' social goals and outcomes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(2), 17-21.

Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Trends in the educational equity of girls and women. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Osgood, J., Francis, B., Archer, L. (2006). Gendered identities and work placement: why don't boys care? Journal of Education Policy, 21(3), 305-321.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 85-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgely, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 152-171.

Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership 56(7), 22-26.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Sanderson, C. A., Rahm, K. B., Beigbeder, S. A., & Metts, S. (2005). The link between the pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close same-sex friendships: An examination of the underlying processes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 75-98.

Spencer, R., Porche, M.V., & Tolman, D.L. (2003). We've come a long way--maybe: New challenges for gender equity in education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1774-1808.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 173-182.

Wentzel, K. R. (2001). The contribution of social goal setting to children's school adjustment. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 221-246). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Daniel L. McCollum, University of Houston--Clear Lake, TX

Michele M. Kahn, University of Houston--Clear Lake, TX

Daniel L. McCollum, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations--Research, in the School of Education. Michele M. Kahn, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Multicultural Education in the School of Education.