| Literature DB >> 28458587 |
Tiziana Ramaci1, Monica Pellerone1, Caterina Ledda2, Giovambattista Presti1, Valeria Squatrito1, Venerando Rapisarda2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender beliefs represent cultural schemas for interpreting or making sense of the social and employment world, as they can influence attitudes, career aspirations, and the vocational decision process of young people, especially the adolescence.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; gender stereotypes; occupational choice
Year: 2017 PMID: 28458587 PMCID: PMC5403118 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S134132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Distribution of participants by type of institute
| Area | Males (%) | Females (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Literature | 11.1 | 13.3 |
| English and Foreign languages | 2.2 | 6.7 |
| Mathematics and scientific subjects | 84.4 | 61.3 |
| Social and human sciences | 2.2 | 18.7 |
Frequency distribution of the scores related to the choice after graduation
| Measures | Males (%) | Females (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Student has not currently made a choice | 26.7 | 14.7 |
| Humanistic courses | 13.3 | 21.3 |
| Scientific courses | 37.8 | 56.0 |
| Professional paths (non-university) | 22.2 | 8.0 |
Note: The non-academic career paths indicated by the students are the following: photography classes, computer, restorer, and military career.
Breakdown of the univariate effects related to the reasons behind the choice, with respect to the gender variable
| Measures | ||
|---|---|---|
| Family expectations | 0.04 | 0.84 |
| Influential friendships | 2.11 | 0.15 |
| Other people’s advice | 0.95 | 0.33 |
| Employment prospects | 3.31 | 0.07 |
| Personal interests | 0.46 | 0.50 |
| Possible future earnings | 2.58 | 0.11 |
| Costs of university | 1.79 | 0.18 |
| Access criteria to university | 3.98 | 0.05 |
| Number of students | 4.98 | 0.03 |
| Proximity of the location | 1.43 | 0.23 |
| Prestige of the university | 0.03 | 0.85 |
| Working in groups | 0.90 | 0.35 |
| University study plan | 2.38 | 0.13 |
| Practical workshops | 5.72 | 0.02 |
| Duration of the courses | 0.09 | 0.76 |
| Mobility period abroad | 0.48 | 0.49 |
Notes:
p<0.05, two-tailed; Gdl (1.118).
Breakdown of the univariate effects related to the perceived occupational self-efficacy, with respect to the gender variable
| Measures | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical/educational | 2.63 | 0.11 | |
| Scientific/technological | 16.22 | 0.00 | |
| Services | 0.84 | 0.36 | |
| Artistic/literary | 0.18 | 0.67 | |
| Agricultural/artisian | 7.65 | 0.01 | |
| Military | 5.62 | 0.02 |
Note:
p<0.001, two-tailed;
p<0.01, two-tailed,
p<0.05, two-tailed; Gdl (1.118).
Figure 1Euclidean distances between self (real, ideal, and social) and professional identity.
Note: Comparisons (“t” for repeated tests): [DSRPROF.//DSSIPROF. p =0.026];; [DSRPROF.//DSSSPROF. p <0.001]; [DSIPROF//DSSPROF p=0.109].
Abbreviations: DSRPROF, distance between real self and professional self; DSIPROF, distance between ideal self and professional self; DSSPROF, distance between social self and professional self.
Model summary of regression analyses that predicts self-efficacy in the scientific/technological area
| Variables | Adjusted | No adjusted | SE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.88 |
| Age | 0.84 | 0.26 | 0.31 | 3.24 | 0.00 | ||
| Type of institute | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Mother’s job | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.08 | −0.81 | 0.42 | ||
| Father’s job | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.20 | 2.13 | 0.04 | ||
| Family expectations | −0.09 | 0.06 | −0.18 | −1.60 | 0.11 | ||
| Influential friendships | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 2.58 | 0.01 | ||
| Other people’s advice | −0.05 | 0.05 | −0.10 | −0.95 | 0.35 | ||
| Real identity | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.82 | 0.41 | ||
| Ideal identity | −0.13 | 0.16 | −0.09 | −0.80 | 0.42 | ||
| Social identity | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.54 | 0.59 | ||
| Professional identity | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.67 | 0.51 |
Abbreviation: SE, standard error.
Model summary of regression analyses that predicts self-efficacy in the services area
| Variables | Adjusted | No adjusted | SE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.43 | 0.18 | −0.05 | 0.15 | −0.03 | −0.34 | 0.73 |
| Age | −0.10 | 0.23 | −0.04 | −0.43 | 0.67 | ||
| Type of institute | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.22 | 2.24 | 0.03 | ||
| Mother’s job | −0.07 | 0.06 | −0.12 | −1.20 | 0.23 | ||
| Father’s job | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.31 | 3.26 | 0.00 | ||
| Family expectations | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.52 | 0.61 | ||
| Influential friendships | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.78 | 0.44 | ||
| Other people’s advice | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.86 | ||
| Real identity | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.98 | ||
| Ideal identity | −0.17 | 0.14 | −0.14 | −1.24 | 0.22 | ||
| Social identity | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.72 | ||
| Professional identity | −0.01 | 0.17 | −0.01 | −0.07 | 0.94 |
Abbreviation: SE, standard error.
Model summary of regression analyses that predicts self-efficacy in the agricultural/artisan area
| Variables | Adjusted | No adjusted | SE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.48 | 0.24 | −0.03 | 0.15 | −0.02 | −0.16 | 0.87 |
| Age | 0.88 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 3.90 | 0.00 | ||
| Type of institute | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.22 | 2.38 | 0.02 | ||
| Mother’s job | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.11 | −1.13 | 0.26 | ||
| Father’s job | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.28 | 3.02 | 0.00 | ||
| Family expectations | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 1.36 | 0.18 | ||
| Influential friendships | −0.07 | 0.05 | −0.16 | −1.51 | 0.13 | ||
| Other people’s advice | −0.07 | 0.04 | −0.16 | −1.61 | 0.11 | ||
| Real identity | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.96 | 0.34 | ||
| Ideal identity | −0.11 | 0.14 | −0.08 | −0.77 | 0.44 | ||
| Social identity | −0.11 | 0.18 | −0.07 | −0.61 | 0.54 | ||
| Professional identity | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.85 |
Abbreviation: SE, standard error.