HHI% 4‘ 4.1.3 ?'a-\ : .: A ‘ 3 _‘—~. 2. ; _ .. - u .I- > g‘ _ .__. -—. ~. ~— fittc-LL t». .. 1 f; I? 2“ (5-! 222:221 8‘22““ “122:1 f5: “a- ,. <~ ., . - - I"A‘~ . . . ' .334. . _- _ --_. _ ; ‘—' wfi“; 99‘. ‘9 ~v.‘ w: Mé‘ 2‘. 7.1."; 1‘ fl“ 1 .I:."!.‘. 1 , .. 2 ff x. '» wrflrfl: . hi2 Ivan-:11. :.~2.-I.. I321... .11.” a ‘12‘5‘945551322 figmfig .._ a. 3...; 2' x .112... m fggigfir‘ia. -. . ‘V‘F' :4‘ 2 ' 5.31"- .1 ’~ ~_ .‘ - - f“ 1,. J ; .r-2' 1“ .- 2 ° :1‘ . ' E J | ‘ ' _ . 1:11:20. ‘9 ‘ a?" 242.24... 2.2.»: .. {.5311 T3 .fl‘E. 7:51 1.1%, !§.:£5.‘,.‘;E§:2£ 222322221133? ‘2'“ 392‘ '2171,‘ If 5‘2‘L123""5k‘,‘w“‘1’“ E“ 1‘. ”2 E2?“ E2: (a; 12!}? #522,232.“ EE 1923.3 2% 1-3- . 2:“. -_.. ‘35 ~— 0—. i - h -- . o « - a '~——-..’I..’“‘_‘ _ I f- _ A, ‘ C 4 - .i - - fl “ 21-. .::.">_~ ." A ..__.r:~ *0". r _~z-...‘“‘ - .lz‘ai'*- I .4 -1 - 4 “-0‘ ~' 44‘ fl r~ ~‘ . . H ”2.3.“ .. ' :3' . I,“ “2:: IFHEEXEJMIEE ‘2?" ‘2! .‘ i ‘2'2" "421' ‘E‘."".‘ “AL-3‘ 342:? ”2‘? l flaw 123211g'fzf’..::!1312. .51... .2... 1mm...fc. l 5:2: I ,, 2, “‘»_.' '1'" 2"" 2% ' '.“‘u§3ilfjfijzi1i‘g‘2“‘ E "ME: 111‘ 3‘2”" ”.13... ' “”22"“; ‘uijf ‘22: ’ '3}. § --.J_., - ‘ no. . ' ‘ 7 1-3:“ :H} H w ' . 0—— o v “3..., Q \- — v. o — ‘_. ‘va 7' v 2 ' a: 2 :3..:_‘--= "‘3'. '1‘.“ ’ “31% 111.3921: ‘1‘.“ "5‘ "‘2‘" ‘1‘ "'W ‘W “in? 12.2.2418" 1 1'; 22“ :32“ a 22":5 32,2” '1' :2‘212‘2‘ ”I4 r515}: NEW *2 22112213 F762 'R’Wwfl ~ - 23“.““'E“I‘fi?‘2‘ “w 2. ‘13‘2122212‘2‘2‘3222‘222'“"“"“3‘“§"""“‘3~" 2. "‘ ,7" 1-: 32‘“ a. “2"“. ‘22 ‘2.”"22H‘21‘23‘2‘HE," 22“ ”123‘“? 152'} ,~,, "WW1“ ‘ig‘ [‘2 W “‘.“ ‘12”‘T'Eio2‘ L323 1 4:31.“: f‘ 3 1g; ..;'11.«21“1"..2 we...“ 2m ‘ 3‘24“..." 222"“: 21‘? "I' 222?? 2222?? ““2““ 1!. ‘RW‘ : | . ‘ fl ‘ ‘2. ...‘.. ‘2 11212112.“ 2222112 I“',‘E“Il “"2“" '2‘ "Ef Y” 2- E} I ‘ “5.311;!” 22‘2‘2‘1“, m: a. NE.‘EE1“‘ M2!“ (17’ “fl 2', IrjI ' 2" ‘3 ‘ .. .. “Elm; 15111222? .‘r‘ufi'fih {.23} {{E .22E1E Eyji‘f‘ll . . 222222222122“{'E‘ftlfid“ '13"; EjEJIEEE‘EEEEEEnEEvEEEL1“,...12‘ E“ 2““,2‘21 {1.2“ “‘fi ' 2 .2 2. 1.1"“. .2. ....,. 1...... 111‘ 2 . 22232122223222 2"‘22' 22M“ ' ..1.1 2 .m .. 2‘ “I . . m 1 1 fr . ‘2' .I2 .51; " ’ g h .Ia' n “412%,! SF: :32“ 2 o; “52‘ ,I':;E ' 9’" . ‘2‘3‘ Wigs-1‘22.“ ”.2: . ‘23 ‘ Y. 1." v5.1.1}; . 2 . .1 r“: .52 2: 3'5. «‘22? . “g 1““. ‘ 91“: 1- 2132‘}. ”NE?“ ." 's "‘” ‘ W1. -". t . 3‘3 in...“ - mu . . ‘ ¢ . -. My?" . -~ . - n. “'7‘; ‘- ‘— ‘.‘¥R- W. . F... "m —-_.._ - 2412,; ,M- '2 . . _ ”"4. ‘.. H. < “h“ 23:. ““:__:—-~; 3' - :rr._ _ - ‘ .._. ._ 'L WWW \lllllllllll \\\\\l\\ 1329 "" ‘ LlGBRiiRY Michigan State University Lhasas This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PERCEIVED ACADEMIC COMPETENCE IN WOMEN IN PH.D. PROGRAMS: EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK, SELF-ESTEEM, AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE presented by Paulette Margaret Valliere has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Psychology %4@ Major professor Date {0‘31 ' / ?& “fill.-- 1L- ‘ ‘ ‘ '- ll‘: 1.. 1A.: 0-‘1771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. e ~-+: .2 V ’. ’ l fit? 2 .‘F’ “‘4 cl ma MA§ “1999 MAR 2 7 2002 ‘\ PERCEIVED ACADEMIC COMPETENCE IN WOMEN IN PH.D. PROGRAMS: EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK, SELF-ESTEEM, AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE By Paulette Margaret Valliere A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1986 ABSTRACT PERCEIVED ACADEMIC COMPETENCE IN WOMEN IN PHJL PROGRAMS: EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK, SELF-ESTEEM, AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE By Paulette Margaret Valliere The relationship between the perceptions of academic competence and the type and amount of feedback received, self-esteem, and social support available was examined. Women enrolled in PhJL programs in a variety of disciplines were asked to complete a mailed questionnaire. In this study, it was hypothesized that differences in perceived academic competence would occur as a function of academic discipline, with lower perceptions in the sciences and higher estimates in the more traditional women’s fields. It was also preposed that women’s perceptions of their academic competence would be affected by the amount and type of feedback received from their major professors and other graduate students. Availability of social support was also expected to affect perceived competence. Self-esteem was hypothesized to be related to feedback availability and the women’s perceived competence. The results confirm that the perceived academic competence of women differs across academic discipline. Women in the natural and social sciences were shown to perceive themselves as less competent than women in more traditional fields, such as Human Ecology and Education. Feedback availability was also significantly different across disciplines, with women in the natural sciences and the social sciences receiving less than their counterparts in more traditional women’s fields. Women who receive support from their major professor and other professionals also tend to perceive themselves as more competent. Self- esteem was also shown to be positively related to perceived competence in this study. Implications of this study point to the importance of feedback availability and supportiveness of faculty and graduate students in the maintenance of women’s perceived competence in their academic fields. To all the women in my life, past, present and future 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee and friends for all the support and advice given to me over the years. Ellen A. Strommen, chair of my committee, Mary Ann Reinhart, Elaine Donelson, and John Paul McKinney all made important contributions to my research project and my long academic career. Ellen has been both a mentor and a very good friend over the course of my graduate school days. Her encouragement and support for my ideas were always welcome, as was her understanding and caring when things were not progressing well for me both in and out of school. Her tolerance and accommodation of my procrastination were often above and beyond the call of duty. For this and other reasons, I will always owe part of this degree to her. Many thanks to Mary Ann Reinhart who stepped into the committee member role when a vacancy unexpectedly appeared. Mary Ann organized my life last August when everyone else, including me, thought that it was near to impossible to accomplish. Her organization, thoughtfullness, and clear thinking was a godsend in muddled times. Eer sense of humor made late meetings enjoyable and relatively stressfree. iii John Paul McKinney and Elaine Donelson have also contributed a great deal to this project and to my academic career in general. Both made critical comments and suggestions which made this a sounder piece of research. John’s questions about feminist aspects of my work have helped me sharpen my ability to respond to critiques of feminism in general. I would also like to thank Jeanne Gullahorn for her early suggestions during the earlier formulation of the research. Thanks are also due to Pat Manson and Paula Larson for their assistance in bringing this to a finished project. Paula painstakingly read each questionnaire and entered each into the computer files. She was incredibly tolerant of my obsessive-compulsive side. Pat typed this manuscript and was responsible for the beautifully organized tables. She too worked well with my self-imposed deadlines, not to mention university ones. At this point, I would like to mention a few close friends who stood by me during this stressful time. Dr. Deb Bybee, the fellow traveller who took a faster train, was most supportive and always willing to clarify my ideas through lengthy discussions at lunches or breaks. Without her help, the questionnaire might never have been as clear and coherent as it was. She also was the patient coder of the Openended questions. Many thanks to her. We may have different training but at least they are complementary. iv The ice cream breaks and long East Lansing walks with Sully helped break up the marathon writing sessions. I will be available to her for similar breaks during her travels through Ph.D. land. Andrea’s caretaking during the weeks of nothing but dissertation writing will always be remembered and appreciated. Her many calls of encouragement were looked forward to and at times expected, as were her reminders that it was almost over. It is! Cindy Sabin has been my best friend for many years. We have survived some of the best and worst times together. Her love for me is always evident in her caring, concern and advice. Finally, to all the women in my life, thank you for existing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES O C O O O O O O O O I x INTRODUCTION 0 O O. C O O O O O O O O 1 Facts, Figures and Some Considerations About Why Many Women Never Complete the PhJL . . . 4 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . 14 Self-Confidence and Competence . . . . . l4 Self-Esteem and Competence . . . . . . 27 Feedback: Its Effects On Human Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Theories of Self-Perception and Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Feedback and Competence: A Summary . . . 44 nypothesea O O O O O O O O O O O I 50 METHOD 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O 51 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Development of the Instrument . . . . . . 53 Procedure I O I O O O O O O O O O O 55 Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . 56 Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Coding of Open-Ended Questions . . . . . 58 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 59 Demographic Information . . . . . . . . 60 Competence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Scale Construction I O O O O O O I O O O 65 Competence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Scale Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . . . 72 Scale Intercorrelations with Other Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Predictions of Feedback Availability . . . . 77 Prediction of Positive Graduate Student FeedbECk O O O O O O O O O O O O O 78 vi Prediction of Competence . . . . . . . . 80 Prediction of Self-Esteem . . . . . . . 82 Differences in Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Self- -Esteem . . . . . . . . . . 86 Feedback, Competence, and Self- Esteem in Full- Time/Part- -Time Students . . . . 86 Feedback, Competence, and Self- Esteem. All Students Except Education Part- Time . . . 89 Effects of Major Professor’ a Sex on Feedback, Competence, and Self- -Esteem . . . . . . . 91 Effects of College on Amount of Social Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Effects of College on Others’ Understanding of Academic Endeavors . . . . . . . . . 98 Effects of Parental Educational Level on Supportiveness and Understanding . . . . . 98 Responses to Open-ended Questions . . . . . 100 Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Reasons for Delay of Progress . . . . . 104 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Perceived Competence-Internally Based . . . 107 Feedback Availability: Its Effect on Perceived Competence . . . . . . . . . 108 Competence: Internal Versus External Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Perceived Competence and Social Support . . . 111 Feedback Availability . . . . . . . . . 114 Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Effects of Age . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Implications of the Present Study . . . . . 120 Limitations of the Present Study . . . . . 121 Directions for Future Research . . . . . . 123 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX A INFORMED'CONSENT INFORMATION . . . 125 APPENDIX B COMPETENCE AND FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 APPENDIX C POSTCARD REMINDER . . . . . . . 138 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 vii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Ph.D. Degrees Conferred by Universities by Major Fields of Study, and Sex of Student: United States, 1970-1971 . . . 6 Ph.D. Degrees Conferred by Universities by Major Fields of Study, and Sex of Student: United States, 1984 . . . . 7 Enrollment at Michigan State University of 0.8. Women in Ph.D. Programs During Spring, 1985: Number Enrolled, Response Rate, Percent Responding . . . . . . 52 Demographic Information by College . . . 61 ANOVAs of Age by College . . . . . . 64 Competence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Scales and Psychometric Properties . . . 67 Competence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . 73 Intercorrelations of Scales with Other Selected Variables . . . . . . . . 75 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Feedback Availability . . . . . . . 79 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Positive Graduate Student Feedback . . . 79 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Internally-Based Perception of Competence . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Externally-Based Perception of Competence . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting SEIf-Esteem o o o o o s s s s - o 83 viii 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ANOVAs of Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by College . . . . . . ANOVAs of Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by College, Full-Time Students Only . . . . . . . . . ANOVAs of Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by College, All Students Except Part-Time Education Majors . . ANOVAs of Age, Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by Sex of Major Professor . ANOVAs of Age, Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by Sex of Major Professor, FUIl-Time Studentfl Only 0 o o o o ANOVAs of Age, Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by Sex of Major Professor, Part-Time Students Only . . . . . ANOVAs of Age, Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem by Sex of Major Professor, All Students Except Part-Time Education ANOVAs of Amount of Social Support of Women by Different Support Groups by College . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVAs of Understanding of Academic Endeavors of Women of Different Support Groups by College . . . . . . . ANOVAs of Family’s Understanding of Academic Endeavors and Family Supportiveness by Father’s Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVAs of Family’s Understanding of Academic Endeavors and Family Supportiveness by Mother’s Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . ix 84 87 90 92 93 94 95 97 99 101 102 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The Feedback Process . . . . . . 45 INTRODUCTION One of the results of the recent feminist movement in this country has been a closer investigation into the status of women in the work place and, more specifically, their place in academia in the United States. Women have been making slow but steady inroads into traditionally male dominated disciplines. Despite these gains, women still face special problems in graduate school as evidenced by higher dropout rates. What happens to these women as they attempt to establish themselves as creditable researchers and scholars in their chosen disciplines? What types of roadblocks do they encounter in their pursuit of their Ph.D. degrees that cause them constantly to reassess their goals or battle with the system? Many women who choose to enter academia struggle with internal and external conflicts that make progress toward the PhND. degree slow and not always steady. They must often deal with resentment and exclusion by faculty and fellow graduate students. Outside of the academic setting, many women must also function as wives and mothers, ready to deal with any problems that are present in a family setting. Because of the conflicts that arise in their environment, these women are also faced with internal, emotional conflicts, such as having their self-esteem threatened or their academic competence questioned, if not by themselves, then by others. Little research into factors affecting the self- perceived competence of women has been reported and none has been completed dealing specifically with women who are currently graduate students. Many factors, such as self- confidence, feedback received from people in the academic environment, social support networks, age, previous work experience and academic discipline, can quite possibly affect how a woman perceives herself in terms of her own academic adequacy. The aim of this study is to investigate women currently enrolled in PhJL programs and their academic competence perceptions, both as seen by themselves and as they perceive themselves to be seen by others. As noted, several factors may affect these self- perceptions. Of these, the present study mainly prOposes to examine factors affecting the self-perception of competence in these women. Primarily, the types and amount of feedback on the academic progress and work of the women by their major professor and fellow graduate students will be studied. In addition, it is expected that the women’s self-esteem will have an effect on their perceptions of their academic competence. The social support systems available to them both in and out of the university setting will be investigated. It is also anticipated that these variables will be affected by the academic disciplines of these women. Women from the physical and biological sciences, engineering, and agriculture, all traditionally male-identified fields, will be compared to women in the social sciences, humanities, and human ecology, fields traditionally having a higher proportion of women in them, or as in the case of human ecology, almost exclusively a women’s field. The major questions to be asked in this study are: 1. How academically competent do women in PhJL programs perceive themselves to be? 2. How do they perceive others’ perceptions of their competence? On what are these perceptions based? 3. What types of feedback on their academic progress do these women receive? 4. On what is this feedback based, who gives it and is the feedback type perceived as being justified? 5. What effect does this feedback have on perceptions of academic competence? 6. What types of social support networks do these women have? 7. What effect on perceived academic competence does having social networks or lacking them have? 8. Are there differences across disciplines in perceived academic competence, feedback availability, and type? 9. Are there differences across disciplines in social support networks? It is hoped that the results of this study can point to specific areas that cause women to be helped or hindered in the pursuit of a PhJL as well as to show more clearly what specific things can be done to favorably improve outcomes of these pursuits. I will begin with a brief overview of the status of women in academia, discussing problems experienced by many women. I will then review the available literature on competence in women, how women are perceived by themselves and others, and where relevant, the effects of perceived competence on their self-esteem and academic performance. The literature on feedback and its effects on performance will also be reviewed. Hypotheses based on the previously described literature will be formulated and the methodology and statistical analyses to be used will be discussed. Finally, results will be reported and a discussion of their meanings will be presented. Facts, Figures and Some Considerations About Why Many Women Never Complete the Ph.D. By looking at the statistics published by the United States Office of Education (1970-1971;l980-1981),it can be seen that the number of women going on and receiving PhJL degrees has changed dramatically in the past ten years. In 1970-71, 32,113 Ph-D. degrees were granted. Of these, 4,579 or 14.3% were awarded to women. By 1980-81, 31,253 PhJD. degrees were granted in all fields, an approximate 2.71 increase. But 10,660, or 34.12, of this total was awarded to women, an increase of 1331. While this is a tremendous increase, there is still a sizeable gender gap: women make up over 50 percent of the total pOpulation but only account for 341 of all PhJLs awarded. More telling are the figures for the number of degrees awarded broken down by disciplines. Tables 1 and 2 give totals and percentages for PhJLs awarded in 1970-71 and 1984 for the disciplines to be included in my sample. Except for the increases in totals in letters, psychology, computer sciences, and physical sciences, the total number of degrees awarded remained relatively stable from 1970-71 to 1984. The differences appear in the percentages of the degrees awarded to women. In all cases,the percent awarded almost doubled or in some cases tripled or quadrupled. So in terms of percent increases, women have appeared to make some gains. However, in almost half of the disciplines listed here, women account for 172 or less of all the PhJL degrees awarded. These fields are Agriculture and Natural Resources (14u01), Computer Sciences (12.21), Engineering (5.22), Mathematics (16.5%), and the Physical Sciences (142). All are traditionally noted as being "masculine" or male-dominated fields. Only Home Economics, a traditional Table 1 Ph,D. Degrees Conferred by Uniyersitigs by Major Fields of Study, and Sex 9f Student: United States. 1970-71 U S.D f Educ i n Women Men Total Agriculture 6 31 1,055 1,086 Natural Resources (2.92) (97.12) Biological 595 3,050 3,645 Sciences (16.32) (83.72) Computer 3 125 128 Sciences (2.32) (97.72) Education 1,355 5,043 6,398 (21.22) (88.82) Engineering 23 3,615 3,638 (0.62) (99.42) Home 75 48 123 Economics (61.02) (39.02) Letters 567 1,849 2,416 (23.52) (76.52) Mathematics 93 1,106 1,199 (7.82) (92.22) Physical 216 3,426 3,642 Sciences (5.92) (94.12) Psychology 427 1,355 1,782 (23.92) (76.12) Social 377 2,604 2,981 Sciences (12.62) (87.42) Total 3,762 23,276 27,038 (13.92) (86.12) Ph,D. Dggrees Confgrred by Uniygrsities by Maior Figld of Table 2 Stbdy, and Sex of Student: United States, 1984 SU.S.Dgpt.of Educatibnz Women Men Total Agriculture & 162 993 1,155 Natural Resources (14.02) (86.02) Biological 1,213 2,659 3,872 Sciences (31.32) (68.72) Computer 36 259 295 Sciences (12.22) (87.82) ' Education 3,323 3,457 6,780 (49.02) (51.02) Engineering 152‘ 2,763 2,915 (5.22) (94.82) Home 86 21 107 Economics (80.32) (19.72) Letters 1,586 1,942 3,528 Mathematics 115 584 699 (16.52) (83.52) Physical 399 2,446 2,845 Sciences (14.02) (86.02) Psychology 1,614 1,609 3,223 (50.12) (49.92) Social 793 1,879 2,672 Sciences (29.72) (69.32) Total 9,479 16,612 26,091 (36.32) (63.72) women’s discipline, confers more degrees to women than to men (80.32 compared to 29.72). It should be noted here that Psychology experienced a dramatic increase in the percentage of PhJL’s awarded to women, from 23.92 to 50.12, as did Education, from 21.22 to 49.02. Fully half of degrees awarded in these two fields now go to women. 80 while the percentage of PhJLs being awarded to women is steadily increasing, there is still a long way to go before parity is achieved. What types of problems and roadblocks do women in thD. programs encounter when they begin their studies? That they do encounter problems, and are affected by them, is evident in research which has shown that women are much more likely than men to drop out of graduate school before completing the degree program (Mooney, 1968; Patterson & Sells, 1973). Holstrom and Holstrom (1974) report that 472 of all women in PhJL programs, compared to 392 of the men, have considered withdrawing from graduate school at some point in their tenure there. They also reported that 352 of all women admit to some type of emotional stress leading to a consideration of quitting school. There is no doubt that most women experience some type of emotional strain during the PhJD. program. Results of a survey by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (Feldman, 1973; Holstrom & Holstrom, 1974) showed that many women perceived the faculty in their departments as not taking women graduate students seriously. These women also tended to be more dissatisfied with their graduate education and were more likely to drop out. When women enter traditionally male fields such as physics, they are often told that they are not capable of analytical thinking or are accused of being in the field simply to find a husband (Anderson, 1973). They are also thought of as cultural deviants (Epstein, 1970a,1970b) for wanting something that is so traditionally male. Adams (1983) has likened a woman entering academia to a woman trying to enter a men only club. For many women, beginning a graduate program ushers in feelings of self-doubt and inferiority (Vartulli, 1982). In a series of interviews with women who had experienced the PhJL "grind" or who were currently enrolled in a program, Vartulli (1982) found that many felt that they were not capable enough or intelligent enough to pursue the degree. Several lived in fear that they would be "found out". Many were plagued by lowered self-concepts because of comparisons to other graduate students whom they perceived as better researchers or intellectuals. Feldman (1973) found women much less likely to consider themselves intellectuals and to consider themselves top students. Anxiety and self-doubt are also bred in situations where much of one’s professional identity is formed from feedback from self, peers, and professors (Vartulli, 1982). Students who receive positive feedback on their work tend to be more confident and secure in what they are doing. Women who receive little or no feedback, then, would be less confident and have more self doubts. Women who are married while they are in graduate school have extra problems with which to deal. Feldman (1973) observed that women in graduate education are less likely to be married than their male counterparts. He also found that these married women were more likely to be attending graduate school for intellectual growth rather than for employment opportunities. Hence, one problem faced by these women is a suspicion by those men who work to support a family that these women will not be as serious about their work. They will also be less likely to receive financial support from their department because they are supported by a husband (not always true). Because they do not get these assistantships, the women miss the valuable learning experiences these jobs can give and also might not be around their fellow graduate students in settings outside the classroom insofar as assistantships sometimes help to foster camaraderie. A married woman graduate student must not only manage her duties as a student and teaching assistant but she must still carry out her duties as a wife, and, if she has children, as a mother (Acker, 1981; Levstik, 1982). The woman is expected to prioritize her duties with each set of responsibilities expected to be placed first. Often a term paper must take precedence over a child’s birthday. At the 10 same time, there are benefits to having family. They can be there for social support when it is necessary, something the single graduate student does not always have available (Feldman, 1973; Williams, 1982). The unavailability of female role models as dissertation advisors adds to the problems of female graduate students. Douvan (1976) states that the presence of effective role models helps the graduate student to form a more solid role concept and offers her some valuable cues on how to make it in the academic world. Women who have had female role models during their academic careers have been found to have more productive post-Ph.D. academic careers than those with male advisors (Ames, 1981; Goldstein, 1979). Almquist and Almquist (1971) note that while a female student will use the female role model to pattern her future endeavors after, the lack of an adequate number of female role models could possibly have a detrimental effect. Women, seeing so few other women achieving career goals like their own, may interpret this lack as indicative of a difficult time ahead and so will not attempt to follow up on this career choice and hence, avoid what could be a difficult time. This furthers the absence of women in certain fields. The problem of a lack of female role models is especially keen in the traditional "hard" sciences. While more women are choosing to go into the sciences as a career 11 goal, they find even fewer female faculty than those graduate students in the humanities or social sciences, more traditional disciplines for women. It is only in the past five years that these women have received up to 152 of the PhJLs awarded in these fields. Hein (1981) writes that science has been historically associated with the "masculine" mind. It is presumed that science is inherently masculine and that in order to understand it, women must overcome their "femininity" or their own nature. In other words, they must become like men. Science’s inaccessibility to women has been assumed to have nothing to do with subject difficulty but with the assumption of the incongruity between female cognitive styles and "science". Fee (1981) argues, that, while women’s thinking has always been thought to be subjective, emotional, and personal and the male way of thinking as rational, objective and impersonal, the scientific method should only produce objective results, regardless of sex of researcher. Any biases due to researcher, male or female, would be considered as a potential error source but would be eliminated with rigorous scientific design. So the "different thinking styles" argument should not hold any water. Efforts to "democratize" science and have proportional sexual representation have fallen flat (Shapley, 1976). What all of this seems to point to is the woman graduate student’s inability to penetrate the system, set 12 up by men for men. Newman (1974) has shown that female first year psychology graduate students experience greater role ambiguity and role demands than males do. This means that the women feel they need to get more involved in departmental activities but are not quite sure what their status is within the organization. The experiences for the men and women in this psychology department were seemingly the same, but they were processed and assimilated differently. As can be seen then from the preceding discussion, women in all disciplines face many potential problems which may or may not deter them in their pursuit of the PhJL The research reviewed does not make any claims that men do not experience some of the same problems. In fact, they do encounter feelings of inadequacy and problems with self- esteem. Nonetheless, the review of the literature makes clear that women encounter problems over and above those encountered by men. The present study is designed to look exclusively at women in PhJL programs and specifically to see how self-perceptions, including self-esteem, and social support may vary over disciplines. The disciplines women have chosen to enter might influence their perceptions of themselves. The results are not intended to be generalized to men although some commonality might be expected. 13 Literature Review Self-Confidencg gnd Competence The socialization of women to be competent human beings has become an important area for study, especially since the reemergence of feminism (Sherman, 1976). However, the apparent dichotomy of femininity and competence, especially intellectual competence, is often interpreted as mutually exclusive. It is often assumed that a woman is either intellectually competent or feminine, never both. Sherman (1976) commented on the fact that females are not reared to be competent because it is not viewed as an important goal for them. Women are expected to be competent in the traditional “feminine" areas such as cooking, nurturance, etc., but when they are competent in "male" identified areas, women are thought to be maladjusted. Competence has been defined in a variety of ways. White (1959), in his overview of the motivational literature, defined competence as an organism’s capacity to interact effectively with its environment. He considers competence to have a motivational component, one separate from that of instinctual drives. Humans have an urge to achieve competence. This is manifested in behavior which focuses on the attainment of the competence. These behaviors are directed, persistent and selected with the ultimate goal of competence and are assumed to be 14 self-motivated and produce what is known as feelings of efficacy. Most researchers, when speaking of competence, do not use the term in its general sense as White does but use the term specifically to denote academic competence or achievement (Baruch, 1976; Battle, 1965, 1966; Gold, Brush, 8 Sprotzer, 1979; Stake, 1979). Academic competence is often equated with academic success or performance. Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosencrantz (1972) defined competence as a cluster of items, such as aggression, independence, emotionality, dominance, and self-confidence. ‘The extreme ends of each trait are sex- stereotypic; low is female, high is male. The masculine pole was deemed a more desirable trait. They found women to be perceived as less competent than men using this scale. For Gilbert, Gallessich, and Evans (1983) work commitment and career aspirations, self-esteem and masculinity/femininity served as a measure of competence. The literature on academic competence and women is quite limited in scope and availability. The available reports are split into two main theoretical approaches: how women see themselves as competent and how women are viewed as competent by others. An area of investigation that is highly related to the women’s competence studies is that of women’s self-confidence and self-esteem in competence-demanding situations. 15 Literature Review Self-Confidgncg and Competence The socialization of women to be competent human beings has become an important area for study, especially since the reemergence of feminism (Sherman, 1976). However, the apparent dichotomy of femininity and competence, especially intellectual competence, is often interpreted as mutually exclusive. It is often assumed that a woman is either intellectually competent or feminine, never both. Sherman (1976) commented on the fact that females are not reared to be competent because it is not viewed as an important goal for them. Women are expected to be competent in the traditional "feminine" areas such as cooking, nurturance, etc., but when they are competent in "male" identified areas, women are thought to be maladjusted. Competence has been defined in a variety of ways. White (1959), in his overview of the motivational literature, defined competence as an organism’s capacity to interact effectively with its environment. He considers competence to have a motivational component, one separate from that of instinctual drives. Humans have an urge to achieve competence. This is manifested in behavior which focuses on the attainment of the competence. These behaviors are directed, persistent and selected with the ultimate goal of competence and are assumed to be 14 self-motivated and produce what is known as feelings of efficacy. Most researchers, when speaking of competence, do not use the term in its general sense as White does but use the term specifically to denote academic competence or achievement (Baruch, 1976; Battle,1965, 1966; Gold, Brush, & Sprotzer, 1979; Stake, 1979). Academic competence is often equated with academic success or performance. Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosencrantz (1972) defined competence as a cluster of items, such as aggression, independence, emotionality, dominance, and self-confidence. ‘The extreme ends of each trait are sex- stereotypic; low is female, high is male. The masculine pole was deemed a more desirable trait. They found women to be perceived as less competent than men using this scale. For Gilbert, Gallessich, and Evans (1983) work commitment and career aspirations, self-esteem and masculinity/femininity served as a measure of competence. The literature on academic competence and women is quite limited in scape and availability. The available reports are split into two main theoretical approaches: how women see themselves as competent and how women are viewed as competent by others. An area of investigation that is highly related to the women’s competence studies is that of women’s self-confidence and self-esteem in competence-demanding situations. 15 Lenney (1977), in a review of the available literature on women’s self-confidence in achievement settings, found that low self-confidence is a frequent problem among women. She noted that in much of the earlier work in this area, researchers generalized their findings of low self- confidence in women well beyond their data. In other words, women were assumed to be lower in performance expectancies and self-evaluation of abilities than men in most all achievement situations. Early researchers such as Battle (1966) and Feather (1966) found that females expected to do less well than males in selected tasks. In reviewing the literature, Lenney in contrast found that women’s self-confidence was indeed situational. She determined there to be at least three situational variables that influence women’s self-confidence. That is, women do not show low self-confidence in all achievement situations. First, this self-confidence difference appears to be task- specific. A task that is deemed to be male-oriented is more likely to lower women’s performance expectancy. One can speculate here about the possible lower feelings of self-confidence or competence in women who are in the traditionally male dominated disciplines when compared to women in more traditional "female" disciplines. Secondly, the type of feedback that a woman receives appears to alter self-confidence. When the feedback on the performance is absent or ambiguous, women have been found to have lower perceptions of their abilities to perform. 16 However, if feedback is available and timely, these lower ability estimates are not made. This appears to be true both before the task, when women will give lower estimates of anticipated performance on an unknown task, and after task performance when no feedback is made available. In these situations, women will have lower Opinions of their performances than men will. While Lenney cites very little research evidence, she found results which point to lower self-evaluations in ambiguous feedback situations as well. Overall, it appears that in very clear feedback situations, women do not give lower self-evaluations or lower expectancies than men. Feather and Simon (1971) found that without knowledge of task difficulty, women tended to give higher expectancy outcomes to others. After having performed the task and having been told whether they passed or failed, women were no different than men in confidence at being able to successfully complete the task again. Lenney (1977) notes here that while there are two major conclusions to be drawn from the feedback situation studies, there appears to be a sex by feedback interaction. With feedback, there is no sex difference in self- confidence but with no feedback or ambiguous feedback, women will rate themselves as lower in self-confidence. If these results hold true over a variety of situations, we can hypothesize that a woman’s perception of her academic competency will be lowered given ambiguous or no feedback 17 from her environment, namely in this case from her major professor and fellow graduate students. The third situational variable which Lenney (1977) found to affect women’s self-confidence is the presence or absence of, and the type of, social comparison cues available. In general, in situations where women do not expect their performances to be compared to others, their estimates of their ability to perform are no lower than men’s. But when social cues or the environment are made salient, such as when there is knowledge of supervision or knowledge that an evaluation is to be made, sex differences in self-confidence are found. Situations in which women tend to have lower self-confidence include working under close supervision, having to perform under norms based on others’ performances, situations where competition is encouraged and also when women must work with a partner. Here again we can speculate that, in a graduate program setting where competition is encouraged between graduate students, a woman would tend to have lowered self- confidence about her abilities. This would also occur if it were made known that comparisons to specific others were being made. Lenney (1977) interprets her findings in two possible ways. First, it could be concluded that women have been socialized to consider any achievement situation with low self-confidence. This reasoning stems from the findings of a large number of situations where women’s self-confidence 18 is lower than men’s and very few situations where the opposite occurs or no difference occurs. These situations, because they are few, could be regarded as trivial exceptions. An alternate way of interpretation would be to consider these exceptional occurrences as having great theoretical importance. This viewpoint would hold that women have learned to be discriminative in their self- evaluations with their responses varying in response to particular situations. While the reviewed results do not confirm either interpretation, the latter seems to be more reasonable as it does not assume across-the-board low self- confidence with a few exceptions as the first does. In the more recent studies of self-confidence in males and females, some of the earlier reported findings were replicated. Gold et al., (1980) examined school children for their self-perceptions of intelligence and self- confidence. Third through eighth graders were asked to rate themselves on a series of traits, including "smart" and "self-confident". They were also asked to rate these traits as more descriptive of boys or girls. Gold et a1. (1980) found that third grade girls were more likely than boys to describe themselves as smart but by the later grades, boys were using the trait more often to describe themselves. With regards to "self-confident", no sex differences were found in the third grade but by the 19 fifth grade, boys outnumbered the girls in describing themselves as self-confident. The majority of both sexes believed boys and girls to be equally smart and self-confident. The data further suggested that the differences found in self-perception were not due to internalization of sex stereotypes. Gold et al. (1980) felt that self-perceptions and stereotypes are independent of one another. Lenney (1981) and Lenney, Gold, and Browning (1983) both examined sex differences in self-confidence as a function of ability and comparison with others. In the first of these studies, Lenney (1981) predicted that no sex differences would occur on tasks where performance norms indicated a greater female ability but that self-confidence would be lower in women on tasks with norms suggesting greater male ability or no sex differences. She also directly tested the hypothesis that women’s self-confidence is less stable than men’s and more susceptible to social cues and comparisons. Subjects were asked to estimate their own work relative to that of another. In this way, self-confidence was operationally defined in terms of how favorably each subject’s work compared to someone else’s. Lenney did find lower self-confidence in women who were doing traditionally masculine tasks, but actually found no performance differences on this task. Women also were more dependent, in terms of their self-confidence, upon comparison cues, 20 iue., how they rated themselves compared to various peers. These two results combine to show that women’s ratings of self-confidence are situation specific depending on task and social factors. Lenney (1981) notes here that in most achievement situations there is usually little or no indication of peers’ competence. In situations such as this, it is best to judge one’s own work independent of others. Because women seem to alter their self-confidence rating based on social comparison, their self-report might be based on insufficient data. Therefore, Lenney feels women are excessively vulnerable to extraneous cues. In the second study, Lenney et al. (1983) found that women’s relative self-evaluations are susceptible to changes in partner’s ability. When anticipating a highly competent partner, women selected easier tasks to work on and had lower self-evaluations than men. This comparison to a high ability other created differences on achievement behaviors such as self-confidence, regardless of sex of other. Again, these results imply situational differences in self-confidence ratings. Baruch (1976) explored the antecedents of feelings of competence in young girls. Using a modified version of the Sex-Role Questionnaire used by Broverman et al. (1972). Baruch found that the traits clustered into two major types: competence (male-valued) and warmth (female 21 valued). She found that girls with high self-perceptions of competence also had high confidence in their ability to achieve academically. Using a concept of competence based on work commitment and career aspirations, self-esteem and masculinity] femininity traits, Gilbert et al. (1983) found that women who had female faculty role models had higher competence scores (greater feelings of competence) than women with male faculty role models. They reported higher self- esteem, work commitment and career aspirations. This' appears to be a combined effect of student selection and role model influence. Individuals are more likely to imitate a same sex role model, especially if the model is herself competent. Instead of looking at perception of competence in males and females, Brenner and TonkiewiCz (1982) measured 'fear of success and fear of appearing incompetent. They predicted that men would have a higher fear of appearing incompetent but found the opposite to be true. They also predicted an inverse relationship between the two traits but found a significant positive one. Their results replicated Good and Good (1973). Brenner and Tomkiewicz (1982) predicted opposite results because they used business students, a traditional male discipline, while Good and Good used psychology students. The rationale was that business, because it is a male dominated field, brings different stresses than a nonsexist field like psychology 22 which authors define as "femininefl' However, these results are marginal due to serious methodological flaws. Not only do women often devalue their own worth, their work is often devalued by others. Peck (1978) measured male and female students’ evaluations of male and female professional ability based upon varying degrees of professional status and success. Subjects were asked to read and evaluate the same paper. Different groups of subjects were told it was written by a high or low status male or female researcher. Results indicated that all subjects rated both the high status woman and the low status man more favorably than the low status woman. Female subjects rated the high status woman more favorably than did males. In general, the female subjects reacted in a more strongly favorable manner to the high status woman. They regarded her as more capable and informed or competent than her male equivalent. The low status female was generally described as less competent than the low status male. The question is, why did these women overvalue the high status model and devalue the low status woman? Peck (1978) attributes this to women’s field dependence where personal attributes are used to categorize and react to people. She also proposes the view that the low status woman gets no support until she can prove herself. The conditions under which a male would respond negatively to a competent woman have also been studied 23 (Deutsch & Leong, 1983). Previous research (Hagen & Kahn, 1975) found that males preferred to limit their interactions with competent women to situations with no direct contacts. While the women were not denigrated, the men’s responses were basically that of indifference. Deutsch and Leong (1983) required men to work with a male or female of high or low competence on a joint task. Results showed that the subjects responded to male and female competence differentially. High competence females were rated more favorably than males in a cooperative situation. The men also preferred to work with highly competent females than alone. The resulting differences were explained by the fact that the situation was not a competitive one where jobs were at stake. The results were also affected by significant experimenter effects. When a male experimenter was present, a high status female partner was rated more highly than when a female experimenter was present. In Lott’s (1985) review of the available literature on the evaluation of women’s competence, she found three basic trends. First, there appears to be a general tendency to devalue a competent woman. The devaluation may be based on her performance or success explained as luck or ease of task. She might be judged as less "feminine" or more "masculine." This devaluation is also more likely to occur in nontraditional situations. 24 Secondly, the available data suggests women will be devalued in serious, realistic contexts, especially if the evaluator is unfamiliar with her and the evaluation has consequences for the rater. This implies that employers and anyone in a overseeing position will rate women as less competent regardless of equality of performances between the sexes. Lott (1985) also found the converse trend in the literature. Women are less likely to receive negative evaluations when being judged by someone they know well or at least someone with whom they have worked or interacted. This implies that some of the tendency for a major professor to devalue a woman graduate student’s performance can be decreased by more interactionsor a closer working relationship. What type of effect does evaluation criterion variation have on raters’ judgments of performance? Lenney, Mitchell, and Browning (1983) studied the effect of clear versus ambiguous criteria by which raters judged test performances. They found that women evaluated the women’s performances more harshly than men’s when the criteria provided were ambiguous. Men showed no sex bias in either condition. They also found some replication of Peck (1978) where women showed a profemale bias in judging highly successful people. These findings suggest that when the judgment criteria are very detailed or specified, there is 25 less room for judgments based on irrelevancies such as sex. Ratings of women’s work also tend to be higher when that work is appropriately sex—typed as "female-work" (Etaugh 8 Riley, 1983). Women applying for a feminine job were also rated as more competent than women applying for "masculine" jobs or men applying for "feminine" work. It has been shown that, for a masculine occupation, peOple with masculine and androgynous sex-role orientations are preferred over those with feminine sex roles (Jackson, 1983b). Jackson (1983b) also found that feminine and androgynous people were preferred for feminine jobs. In a similar study, sex role stereotypes were found to influence sex discrimination on the job (Jackson, 1983a). Sex role, rather than sex, of employees affected their promotions in their jobs. Masculine and androgynous people were more likely to be promoted in a masculine occupation than feminine people. Regardless of occupation, masculine people were always given challenging tasks, with the routine tasks being delegated to the feminine peOple. Women also make assumptions about their colleagues’ perceptions of their competence. Heilman and Kram (1983) predicted that women would generally be expected to be evaluated more unfavorably than men regardless of performance. The women studied anticipated less credit for success and more blame for failure and more responsibility for joint failure. They expected negativity from both male and female coworkers. These women perceived fairly 26 negative attitudes in their workplace toward them, real or misperceived. Wiley, Crittenden, and Birg (1979) found that when women were unfavorably evaluated (journal article rejection), they gave more importance to uncontrollable events. An externality bias among women was also found by Sweeney, Moreland, and Gruber (1982) which was outcome dependent. Women who failed an exam were more likely to blame luck than effort, more external causes than internal causes. Women who passed the exam however, did not show this externality. Self-Esteem and Competence Women’s varying evaluations of self-confidence and competence in a variety of situations undoubtedly has some relation to or effect on women’s self-esteem. Coopersmith (1967) defines self-esteem as " the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself "(12.4). This evaluation usually is expressed as approval/disapproval and indicates a personal belief in individual capability, success, and self-worth. It is ultimately a personal judgment of self-worth. Several researchers have examined competence and self- esteem. Stake (1979) reported on the construction of a performance-self esteem scale (PSES). She noted that performance and ability aspects of self-esteem influenced self-evaluations especially for men. In testing her scale 27 on college men and women, she found upperclass men had higher self-esteem than underclass men. Women however did not show this difference. In fact, upperclass women had lower PSES scores than the younger women, suggesting that women’s sense of competence did not increase with academic experience. Women also were lower than men on the PSES scale scores in general. Baruch (1976) found a positive relationship between self-esteem and self-perceptions of competence in tenth grade girls. Using a short form of Coopersmith’s (1967) self-esteem inventory and a version of Broverman et al/s (1972) Sex-role Questionnaire, she found a significant correlation (r-.32, p<.05) between self-esteem and competence. These girls also had mothers who valued (independence, ambition, and academic competence. This seems to have contributed to the finding of the significant positive relationship between the two concepts. This points to the importance of social support for feelings of competence and self-esteem. Gilbert et al. (1983) found a positive relationship between women’s feelings of competence and choice of female faculty role models. They speculated that the differences found between women who choose men and women faculty role models as possibly due to self-esteem differences. Women with higher career goals and self-esteem may select a female role model, perhaps, because they see similarities 28 between theirs and the role model’s career aspirations. Women with lower self-esteem may seek male approval and support because they represent traditional men’s and women’s roles. Self-esteem and achievement motivation have been shown to be positively related (Stericker & Johnson, 1977). The association is significantly greater in women than in men. Also found was that more "masculine" females (higher score on a stereotype questionnaire) had higher self-esteem than "feminine" females (lower scores). For a women, higher self-esteem might free her up to delve into more "masculine" orientations. This higher self-esteem might allow her to deviate from the "feminine" norm. Also, the strong achievement motives lead to higher self-esteem, which in turn would lead to more confidence to be achievement oriented (read "masculine"). From this review.of the literature on self-confidence and competence in women, several trends can be seen. Women do perceive themselves as having lower competence, but this is usually situation specific. Self-confidence is also affected by type of feedback received, with either ambiguous feedback or lack of feedback contributing to low self-confidence in performance. Performance attributed to women is often not rated as highly as performance attributed to men, especially if the woman being rated has low status. Finally, self-esteem and self-confidence 29 appear to be related in a positive way but no causality has been indicated. For women in PhJL programs, we can predict that their self-confidence or sense of academic competence is affected by situational factors. Women in the sciences, a masculine field, are possibly more likely to have lower self- confidence than women in more traditionally feminine fields. Women who receive only ambiguous feedback or none at all from their major professor or fellow graduate students, would also be expected to have lower self- confidence. It is also expected that women with a low sense of self-confidence and academic competence would also have a lower sense of self-esteem. Feedback: Its Effects On Hpman Performance The literature on feedback and its effects on performance comes mainly from researchers concerned with organizational behavior and feedback’s effects on job performance. Annett (1969) defines feedback as information received by an individual about her past behavior, providing information about its appropriateness, correctness, accuracy or adequacy. Feedback has also been viewed as a feature essential in interpersonal interactions (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). This feedback is necessary for role learning and to influence others around you. Also, it is a necessary component of the task 30 environment, performing a motivational function to accomplish tasks, necessary for enhancement of self-esteem. Ilgen et al. (1979) classified feedback as coming from three possible sources. Feedback can come from individuals who have observed the recipient’s behavior. It can also come from the task environment in one of two ways: as inherent in working on the task itself (e.g., the results of a scientific experiment) or as augmented feedback, feedback added when the task feedback is insufficient. Finally, feedback can come from the individuals, judging their own performances. In order to maximize the effects of the feedback, the source must have credibility (Ilgen et al., 1979). The feedback recipient must believe that the feedback source has the expertise to judge behavior accurately. The source must also be judged as trustworthy. Greller and Herold (1975) found that meaningful performance feedback can come from a variety of sources. Sources that they defined as intrinsic, or coming from the self, were found to provide more information. This information is also more trustworthy because it comes from "inside" and can be dealt with when the individual chooses. Information coming from others is given when they want to and the recipient must receive it without any say in the matter. They also found that dependence on internal feedback decreases with the availability of information from external sources. 31 Ilgen et a1. (1979) speculate that the more credible a source has been perceived, the more likely future feedback will be perceived accurately. Frey (1981a) showed that when feedback came from a low credibility source, individuals tended to reject it as not useful. These individuals also preferred feedback from high credibility sources. Trust in the source has also been reported as a salient factor in feedback acceptance (Hogan, Fisher, & Morrison, 1974). When the feedback is inconsistent with the role of the source, feedback from the source is rejected. A possible example of this would be rejection of feedback on academic performance from a fellow graduate student which would be more appropriately given by a faculty advisor. Consistency of source feedback with actual performance has also been investigated (Stake, 1983). Stake (1983) found that there were sex differences in setting performance goals depending on the consistency of feedback. When the feedback was consistent with actual performance, women continued to predict lower performance on a task. When the feedback was inconsistent with performance, no sex differences in performance expectations occurred. Ilgen et al. (1979) defined three dimensions of the feedback stimulus: its timing, its sign (positive or negative), and its frequency. Two dimensions, sign and frequency, will be discussed here. Positive feedback, 32 feedback telling of good performance, has been generally found to be recalled and perceived more accurately than negative feedback (Ilgen & Hamstra, 1972; Shrauger & Rosenberg, 1970). Positive feedback, being more pleasant, is easier to accept and can enhance one’s self-esteem. Stake (1982) found that both men and women are more satisfied with themselves when positive feedback rather than negative feedback is received. She however found that positive feedback did not necessarily change their self- evaluations, indicating a lack of trust of the source. She also noted that lower self-esteem subjects responded more cautiously to positive feedback than did those with high self-esteem, and were more likely to accept negative feedback. Frey (1981b) found that negative feedback, or information which is discrepant from self-perception, threatened individuals’ self-esteem. Individuals tend to discredit the source rather than have their self-concepts violated. However, if the source had high validity, subjects were found to change their self-concepts somewhat and were less likely to discredit the source. Positive feedback has also been shown to raise self-evaluations with negative feedback lowering them (Eagly & Whitehead, 1972). When feedback is ambiguous or nonexistent, women’s self-confidence in their performance is decreased (Lenney, 1981). With no clear feedback, women rate their 33 performances as lower than others’ performances. Harris and Greene (1984) found that students are able to identify trivial feedback and judge its lack of usefulness. Inaccurate feedback was, however, deemed to be of some use when students were asked to judge its usefulness. This finding was interpreted as indicating that possibly the " and to students perceived the inaccurate feedback as "new be considered. The information concerned personality assessment, so any discrepant information could possibly have been thought of by the naive subject as true because it was a test result. Shrauger and Rosenberg (1970) reported a relationship between types of feedback, responses to it, and self- esteem. High self-esteem subjects had higher self- competence ratings after a positive performance evaluation and somewhat lowered ratings after a negative performance evaluation. These results lend some validity to the belief that negative feedback is not interpreted in the same manner as positive feedback, even in high self-esteem subjects. Generally, more frequent feedback leads to increased performance (Ilgen et al., 1979). This does not mean that feedback as often as possible is best. Chhokar and Wallin (1984) found that feedback every two weeks in an industrial setting was as effective in maintaining target performance (safety) as was feedback given every week. 34 Feedback, then, is a valuable source of information that allows an individual to reduce uncertainty about performance capabilities that may keep an individual from pursuing a goal or attaining a desired performance level (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). To develop general feelings of competence, it is necessary to understand the environment in order to make self-evaluations. Once individuals receive feedback, they must decide what to do with the information. Wyer and Frye (1983) reported that their subjects’ reactions to performance feedback affected their judgments of information on the validity of the feedback. Subjects who took an intelligence test and who were told they did well judged a report on IQ tests more favorably than did those who received negative feedback. Subjects never tried to refute the positive report. Those who received negative feedback tended to recall more information from the report as if to prove they were not as inferior as their scores indicated. A general tendency for lower self-evaluations has been found when feedback about performance is discrepant with an individual’s perceptions (Harvey, Kelley, & Shapiro, 1957). Shrauger (1975), in his review on evaluations and self- perceptions, found that feedback is more accurately retained when it is consistent with one’s initial view of one’s competence or when the feedback is consistent with one’s own experience. Stake (1982) showed that subjects’ performances were facilitated more by consistent feedback 35 (ime., agreeing with their self-esteem) than by inconsistent feedback. It was interpreted to mean that the inconsistent feedback was confusing and disruptive to their task performance ability. This occurred even if the inconsistent feedback was positive. Feedback can also be ignored (Jacoby, Mazursky, Troutman, & Russ, 1984). Jacoby et a1. (1984) tested the hypothesis that feedback providing accurate outcome information but no informational or explanatory value is less likely to be used by good decision makers. This was found to be true. Also, given an environment where individuals are allowed to access and be selective about information to consider, not everyone chooses feedback information. Eagly and Whitehead (1972) showed that giving subjects a choice about receiving feedback decreased upward change in social sensitivity self-ratings when the feedback was positive and increased the downward response change when it was negative. They argue that, if a person chooses to receive feedback, that individual becomes responsible for its reception. If it is negative, self-ratings will be lowered to be closer to the evaluation as if accepting responsibility for the negative evaluation. Those with high self-esteem and males changed their self-ratings upward with positive feedback. 36 In choosing to respond to feedback, individuals choose to enhance their feelings of competence (Chhokar & Wallin, 1984). According to Deci (1972), individuals seek a sense of competence in their work, it being a powerful reward. This desire for competence leads individuals to seek feedback. He also found that intrinsic motivation to perform an activity is increased with positive reinforcement. Intrinsic motivation also increases as personal control and competence increases. As Fisher (1978) found, competence is not highly' related to intrinsic motivation. However, combined with personal control, competence does affect intrinsic motiva- tion. That is, high intrinsic motivation is a result of high competence and high personal control. Her results, however, did not rule out the possibility that high person- al control leads to high intrinsic motivation which in turn leads to higher performance and feelings of competence. The available literature on feedback lends itself to several speculations on its effects on women in graduate programs. Their sense of competence and self-esteem could in fact partially depend on the quantity and quality of the feedback they receive. Someone who receives no or ambiguous feedback will not develop as full a sense of competence as someone who receives clear feedback, whether negative or positive. Women who seek out feedback will have the opportunity to dispel uncertainties they have about their competence, 37 given the feedback is clear. The source of this feedback is also crucial. While feedback from fellow graduate students may be as worthwhile, steady unambiguous feedback from an authority, idh, major professor, will maximize the usefulness of the feedback. It is clear from this review that feedback on performance is vital to the progress of women in Ph.D. programs. Their self-esteem and sense of competence also appear to be directly affected by its presence or absence. Thebries p; Sglf-Perceppipn pp; Self-Cpnpept This study is concerned with how women in PhJL programs perceive themselves and also with these women’s perceptions of how others view them. A review of several theories of self-perception and self-concept is appropriate here. Bem (1967, 1972) developed a theory of self-knowledge strongly influenced by a Skinnerian approach to behavior. His self-perception theory assumes that people have very few internal states that are entirely independent of environmental effects and that these states are not always directly accessible. People come to know their attitudes, belief systems and other internal states in several ways. They can infer them from observing their own overt behavior and/or they can observe the circumstances which led to this behavior. 38 Bem (1972) postulated that individuals have the same advantages or disadvantages as an outside observer of their behaviors. Internal cues may be weak or ambiguous, so external cues are the more reliable by which to judge personal experiences. This means that outside observers and individuals evaluate the individuals’ experiences in the same manner. Prior attitudes about an experience or behavior may or may not exist. Bem (1972) holds that usually they are not present and so people must evaluate their behaviors on the basis of current experiences. People in turn use this information to decide if the experience is responsible for the behavior. If the stimulus alone appears to be responsible for the behavior, then a direct relationship between stimulus and attitude will be held. If, however, the behavior seems to be a result of other extrinsic stimuli, then the behavior will not be used to infer attitude. According to this theory, self-perception is a product of beliefs about the causes of behavior (Ban, 1972). Therefore, because objective evidence about behavioral causes is seldom available, observations and memory must be relied upon. These tend to be distorted, selective or erroneous, so Bem concludes that most self-perceptions are inaccurate or incomplete. By this theory, then, women in an academic setting would base their perceptions of their academic competence 39 on much the same external information as is available to others around them. Any differences between their self- evaluations and evaluations from their major professor or fellow graduate students would be due to differences in perceptions of external cues. Both Bem (1972) and Deci (1975; Enzle, 1980) theorized that self-perceived competence enhances motivation to engage in activities while self-perceived incompetence decreases motivation. Deci (1975) came to this conclusion from a different theoretical base than Bem’s (1975). His model is cognitive evaluation theory. Deci’s (1975) basic premise is that when rewards are given contingent on performance of an activity, people will perceive their behavior as caused by extrinsic reward rather than by the activities’ qualities. People will then become less intrinsically interested in that activity. To Deci (1975), feelings of competence are directly related to this intrinsic interest. Anything that makes pe0ple feel more competent at some activity will increase this intrinsic interest. Being given a reward for this behavior can have two effects. A reward can control behavior, and if its controlling aspect is highly salient to the individual, then intrinsic interest in the activity could decrease. A reward can also contain valuable information concerning the activity. If this is the case, then it can contribute to feelings of competence in the 40 individual, thereby increasing intrinsic interest in the activity. From this theory, then, constructive informative feedback (if we can equate it with reward) from a major professor or graduate student about a woman’s academic performance could affect her in several ways. The feedback can contain valuable information leading to increased feelings of competence. This in turn would facilitate the woman’s continuance or progress in her degree program. If the woman, however, perceives the feedback as non- informative or too controlling in its direction, her sense of competence would either decrease or remain the same. Her intrinsic motivation to continue with her work would decrease, with the possible outcome of a delay in degree completion or even of dropping out of academia. How well do self-perceptions agree with the perceptions of others? Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979), in a review of the symbolic interactionist theory of self- concept, examined a large number of studies focusing on individuals’ self-perceptions and how they are perceived by others. They found that, in general, these studies showed modest to strong degrees of relationship between individuals’ self-perception and how they think others view them, but a weak relationship with self-evaluations of how others ggppplly perceive them. Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) posit that this might mean that individuals do not know what others’ opinions really are. Therefore women may 41 see themselves as academically incompetent and assume that others feel the same way. In fact, others’ perceptions of the women’s competence might be radically different. This also implies that, if a woman does not know how someone perceives her, more feedback is necessary to bring self- perceptions in line with others’ perceptions. Self-perception is not necessarily a consiptgnt concept (Gergen, 1968,1971). Gergen (1971) proposed that individuals come to develop their self-concepts by a variety of processes: sensation, cognition, and reinforcement. One process is that of sensation, or the physiological capabilities individuals have to experience stimuli. The cognitive component of the process is used to group these stimuli into certain categories within the framework of self-concept. Whether or not individuals retain these stimuli as important to self-concept formation is dependent on reinforcement. This reinforcement, while eliminating some categories, also causes the broadening and development of new concepts within the self. Gergen (1971) also included additional dimensions of self-concept. He notes that differentiation is an important factor in self-concept. This dimension allows the individual to have multiple conceptions of self from a variety of categories. Differentiation allows for distinctions within a category and so if criticism is given concerning a distinct part of a category, the self-concept 42 of the remaining parts of all categories remains intact. Without differentiation, criticism of one behavior would result in devastation of the total self-concept. Another dimension is that of salience (Gergen, 1971). Particular concepts are more salient during certain periods of one’s life than at other times. This salience is determined by how well the concept has been learned (egg, concept of sex role), the situation at that moment (i.eu certain concepts are only valid in certain situations), and motivation or how valuable the construct is to self- concept. Consisgency and self-evplpation also play large parts in self-concept formation. When confronted with a new or discrepant aspect of concept of self, individuals tend to want to rid themselves of the inconsistencies or, being aware that it is inconsistent, attempt to let the discrepant self-concepts coexist. In this way, a woman who thinks herself as competent, but gets no feedback or only negative feedback, must deal with conflicting self- concepts. She can either still think of herself as competent, making it the stronger of the two beliefs, or begin thinking of herself as incompetent, accepting the new concept totally. Lastly, self-evaluation contributes immensely to the deve10pment and maintenance of self-concept (Gergen, 1971). There are always emotional components related to concepts. The concepts evoke pain or pleasure or some combination and 43 can be given evaluative weights, positive or negative. These evaluative weights are learned through the environment. A person’s self-esteem is tied to this self- evaluative process. Many of the conceptual weightings are imposed by society. They become reinforced evaluations of an individual’s more salient self-conceptions. When the individual’s self-evaluation of a concept does not coincide with the standard set by society, self-esteem can be adversely affected. A female graduate student’s self-concept can be affected by a variety of things.' Feedback which is negative or discrepant from her perceptions of her performance can lead to changes in self-concept. Some parts of a woman’s self-concept can be stronger than others, however, and may not be affected when negative information is received. So, feelings of incompetence may only occur in specific situations. An example of this might be when a woman does not perform academically up to the standards set by her fellow graduate students. While she may see herself as competent, when she is compared to the others, she appears less competent. F ed ck and C m etence: A Sumgpyy This next section describes in a logical sequence how women’s perceptions of self-competence in relation to graduate studies are likely to be formed based on the type of feedback received. Figure l is a schematic 44 Figure l The Feedback Process uponndm Hmwoom \L «How mucmmSDm oumnmmuc Hommomoun acne: wouflom xeeeeeee muafimuumnoo Housmaconw>nm msoswfinEm I\+ soon wfidfiMfiumsn m>wumwoc somnmoom o>Hufimon .Ou uncommon xomnwoom mo mo xomnwmom mmaonmom wcammoooum mocmunooo< mo>amoumm monouoaaoo .munomamaoolwaom .amoumolmaom "moanamxm moaumwumuomumno monouomwflm amsmw>fivcH cmaos ago no T Amaaaawumv sueeeeee 45 representation of the feedback process. It is based on a figure in Ilgen et al.(1979). Each woman brings with her into a feedback situation (in this case, the PbJD. program) individual difference characteristics such as levels of self-esteem, self- confidence and perceived competence. These characteristics will contribute to the way any type of feedback is interpreted. Several processes must be experienced following the reception of feedback. The woman must make a decision about the sign of the feedback. Is it positive, negative, or both, or is it ambiguous? Then, a decision to accept the feedback must be made. Critical to this decision is the credibility of the source. The source in this situation is usually (but not restricted to) one of four: major professor, other professors, fellow graduate student, or the self. Once the credibility of the source (or lack thereof) is established, the woman must determine if the feedback is justified. The next step is to process the feedback. This response is affected both by the individual difference characteristics and by constraints placed upon the woman by the environment. These include the effects of having or not having a social support system available. The response in turn affects the source and, most importantly, affects the individual difference characteristics. 46 Based on research findings, we can predict that a woman will react to the feedback in a manner dependent upon type of feedback received and individual difference characteristics. Given positive feedback, the woman would first make a decision about the source. If the source is a reputable one, she would then assume that the feedback is worth considering as useful (Frey, 1981a). Next, the woman must decide if the feedback is justified, iae., the performance being evaluated was worthy of positive feedback. If it was, then she must process the feedback and make a response. This response is affected by a variety of factors. If the woman has high self-confidence or self-esteem, she is very likely to accept the feedback with her self-esteem intact or increased somewhat (Shrauger & Rosenberg, 1970; Stake, 1982). In turn, her sense of competence will also be increased. A low self-esteem woman is more cautious and the positive feedback is less likely to increase self- esteem (Stake, 1982). If the feedback is negative or ambiguous, women with high self-esteem would be likely to discredit the source rather than accept the feedback . However, if the source has high credibility and is trustworthy, the feedback is thought to be useful (Frey, 1981a; Hogan et al., 1974). A low self-esteem woman would be more likely to accept the feedback as it agrees with her perceptions of her competence. In response, then, a high self-esteem woman 47 would lower her self-esteem rating but not as much as a woman with low self-esteem. Both would also have lowered perceptions of their academic competence. According to self-perception theory (Bem, 1967,1972). if feedback from the self is discrepant from feedback from others, this difference is due to different interpretations of external cues from a given performance. If a woman gave herself positive feedback but was given negative feedback by her major professor or other credible source, and if she had high self-esteem, she would probably reject the feedback, but a low self-esteem woman would change her perceptions of performance. In the reverse situation, negative feedback from self but positive feedback from others, the high self-esteem woman would accept the feedback, increasing feelings of competence. However, low self-esteem women would question the validity of the feedback, with self-esteem and perceptions of competence increasing only a little. Deci (1975) would predict that any feedback (positive or negative) containing valuable information would contribute to increased feelings of competence. If the woman perceived the feedback as useful, she would then have increased feelings of competence, leading to motivation to continue graduate school. If the feedback is perceived as not useful, the woman’s sense of competence changes a little or not at all, but her motivation to continue 48 graduate school will decrease, causing delays or a decision to leave school. Gergen (1971) would predict that, if the woman’s self- concept of performance was discrepant from the feedback about her major professor’s perceptions of her performance, she could be forced to deal with discrepant self-concepts. If she thought of herself as competent, she can keep that concept or can begin thinking of herself less competent. Or, she can get situation specific and consider herself as less competent in that particular performance, but consider herself competent in other situations. Each theory appears to predict outcomes in different ways. All do agree that positive feedback affects perception of competence in a positive way. Negative or ambiguous feedback tends to lower perceptions of academic competence. If Deci’s (1975) theory is correct, we might find in our results that women, in spite of receiving only negative feedback, still perceive themselves as competent. He theorizes that any feedback has valuable information which the women would use to bolster their self-concept. Negative or useless feedback would diminish her motivation to complete graduate school. Bem’s (1972) theory would also account for this type of finding. If the woman had high self-esteem, any feedback which was discrepant from her self-concept would be ignored. Therefore it might be 49 possible to find women perceive themselves as competent, yet only receiving negative feedback. Hyppthgses Based on the previous review of the literature on competence in women, the effects of feedback and theories of self-perception, the following hypotheses are proposed. 1. There will be differences across disciplines in levels of perceived academic competence. Women who receive no feedback or only ambiguous feedback will have lower estimates of perceived academic competence. The women’s perceptions of their academic competence will be similar to their perceptions of how others view them. Women with social support networks available will have higher levels of perceived academic competence. There will be differences across disciplines in the amount of feedback women receive about their academic performance. Perceived academic competence will be a function of type and quantity of feedback received, availability of social support, and self-esteem. Self-esteem is positively related to the amount and type of feedback received and to the woman’s perceived competence. 50 METHOD Pprticippnts The subjects were women who were enrolled in PhJL programs at Michigan State University during Spring term, 1985. Table 3 lists the total number of women enrolled in each college, the number of respondents from each, and the resulting percentages. These subjects were chosen on the basis of enrollment in specific colleges. Because one of the major hypotheses was based on discipline differences, specifically as it affects perceived competence, a wide variety of colleges were used. Colleges containing fields known as "hard sciences" which women have traditionally been unlikely to enter (Natural Sciences, Agriculture 8 Natural Resources, Engineering), other areas where women were traditionally more likely to enroll (Psychology, Sociology, Arts & Letters) were selected as were the more traditional fields in which women are most likely to enroll (Human Ecology, Teacher Education). Due to financial restrictions, only Psychology and Sociology were selected from the College of Social Science and Teacher Education from the College of Education. These departments were judged to be representative of their respective colleges. For similar 51 Table 3 Enrollment at Michigan State Univgrsity of U, S.‘Women in PhJL Programs During Spring, 1985: Number Enrolled, Rpsponse Rate, Percgnt Responding Number Number Percent enrolled responded responding Agriculture 8 41 23 56.12 Natural Resources Arts 8 Letters 73 38 52.12 Education 63 36 57.12' (Teacher Education) Engineering 1 0 0.02 Human Ecology 48 29 63.02 Natural Sciences 58 32 55.22 Social Sciences 62 31 50.02 (Psychology 8 Sociology) College unknown 3 Total N-346 N-192 55.52 52 reasons, no College of Business or Communications students were sampled. To eliminate any possible differences due to sex role socialization in different cultures, only women who are United States citizens were surveyed. The names and local addresses of the women were obtained from the Office of Planning and Budgets. Permission for release of this information was received from the Committee on the Release of information from Student Records. Dgyglopmgnt of thg Instrumgnt Given the questions I wanted to ask in this study, a set of questions were developed specifically addressing each of the different areas of interest. An attempt was made to address as many of the questions as possible with Likert-type items. Some questions, however, were best dealt with by open-ended or multiple response items. Each question was edited by myself or a fellow researcher; some items were deleted. The remaining items were then placed in topical groupings. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) was also included. Pertinent constructs to be used in answering the questionnaire were also defined. Section A of the questionnaire consists of 27 Likert- type items about competence as perceived by self, by others, and also the perceptions of other’s competence. Feelings of competence were also measured in Section C and 53 D. Open ended questions comprise Section 0. They were designed to obtain situation types where women feel competent or incompetent, and the bases for these perceptions. Section D is composed of a list of typical tasks and situations which most graduate students encounter during their graduate careers. These were to be rated according to one’s perceptions of competence in each (Likert-type scale). Section B was comprised of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). This is a short lO-item scale containing Likert-type responses. It is a widely used general measure of self-esteem. Demographic information was requested of the respondents in Section D of the questionnaire. Items include age, race, marital status, and whether or not the subject has children. Each respondent was also requested to provide her college and department name. Confidentiality issues prohibited the coding of questionnaires before the mailing, so instructions stressed the necessity that these questions be answered. Three subjects did not respond to these. Other questions asked general questions about departmental status: funding, program advancement, previous job experiences. Finally, a series of questions pertaining to the major professor was asked. Specifically, the sex of the major professor and choices in making this selection was of interest. 54 Feedback sources and types are assessed in Section E of the questionnaire. A series of Likert-type items were constructed to measure perceptions about the availability and types of feedback given to the woman by her major professor and other graduate students in the department. Open-ended questions were devised to assess the acceptance of feedback (both negative and positive) and emotional response to it from both the major professor and other graduate students. Social support was measured in the final section of the questionnaire. Three sections on social support networks were included. First, a section on the amount of support from other graduate students were included. Questions included several about the makeup of the group, amount of time spent with them and topics of conversation. Secondly, the understanding, as perceived by the respondent, of academic endeavors expressed by a variety of family members and others was rated by a Likert scale. Thirdly, the woman was asked to rate the amount of social support received from each of these family members and others. Appendix B contains the entire questionnaire as received by the sample. Procedure During the third week of May, 1985, each woman was mailed a packet containing a letter explaining the purpose 55 of the study and detailing the informed consent information (see Appendix A), a copy of the questionnaire (see Appendix B) and a postpaid envelope for the return of the completed questionnaire. Subjects were asked to complete and return the completed questionnaire in two weeks’ time. Exactly two weeks after the mailing date of the questionnaires (the first week of June), all participants were sent a postcard reminding them of the earlier mailing (see Appendix C). This notice thanked those who had returned completed questionnaires and asked those women who had not done so to please consider completing it. Dillman (1978) suggests that response rates are increased considerably by the sending of such a notice. Approximately 30 to 40 more questionnaires were received after this mailing. Due to confidentiality restrictions, names and addresses of the potential respondents were never seen. The mailing labels were affixed to the enve10pes in the Assistant Provost’s office. Ephicpl Cbnsiderptipns Following university guidelines, the current study was submitted to the Michigan State University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Approval was obtained before the questionnaire was mailed to the subjects. Subjects’ rights were explained in detail on the cover letter (see Appendix A). Confidentiality was assured and no attempt to identify respondents was made. 56 Participation in the study was assumed to imply subjects’ consent 0 Data Analyses The analyses used to investigate the data collected were chosen with respect to the previously mentioned hypotheses and general purpose of the present study. In view of the hypotheses generated, the major outcome variable to be considered is the women’s perceived competence. This variable was analyzed and related to a variety of other measured variables, most notably feedback, social support and self-esteem. In order to perform the major analyses indicated by the questions asked, it was first necessary to perform exploratory oblique factor analyses (Gorsuch, 1974) on all Likert- type items in the competence, feedback and self- esteem sections. Too much missing data in the social support sections prohibited its inclusion. In this manner, the factor loadings could be used to determine one or more scales for each construct. Once each scale was developed, the internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha), inter-item correlations, and item-scale correlations could be calculated for each of the new scales. In this way, variables with low internal consistency were eliminated. Once these scales were computed, the major analyses were performed. Because of the data available, the main type of analysis performed was simple analysis of variance. 57 Thi :13 on we te fe 8t re to IE 8C This was used to test for differences across disciplines on all scales computed and other variables of interest. Chi- squares were computed to determine discipline differences on specific ordinal items. Means and standard deviations were computed on all demographic variables. Multiple regression analysis was also used. This technique will be employed to predict competence, feedback, and self-esteem from other variables in the study. deing pf Opgn-Ended Questipns Each open-ended question was coded into several response categories for each. Responses were then scored for presence or absence of each category. Interrater reliabilities for a randomly selected sample (N-20) showed good interrater agreement (pf.68 to pf.97). 58 RESULTS To test the proposed hypotheses, the data were analyzed in several different ways. First, demographic variables were summarized using simple descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations). Secondly, scales were constructed to serve as outcome variables. Reliability, item-total correlations, and interscale correlations were computed. Thirdly, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were computed on each of the scales by several independent variables: college, sex of major professor, and parents’ educational level. Regression analyses were also performed in an attempt to isolate possible predictors of each of the computed scales. Note that where scales were scored in contrary directions, so that positive relationships preceded negative correlations, the direction of scoring has been reversed to make the interpretation easier. In the original scoring system, for competence variables, feedback availability, and social support variables, increased values imply decreasing amounts of the trait. For self-esteem, positive graduate student feedback, and negative feedback from graduate students, larger scores imply increasing amounts. This scoring system has been maintained in the means, however. 59 Demographic Infquption As can be seen in Table 4, the average age of the responding women was 33.64, with a range of mean age from 27.78 (Natural Sciences) to 39.08 (Education). This age difference was significant across the colleges (see Table 5). The women in Natural Sciences were, on the average, 12 years younger than those enrolled in Education, a traditional woman’s field. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were white with the remaining 112 evenly distributed among Black, Asian, and Hispanic. Most women in the PhJL programs were married or with a partner (562) while 442 are single. There were differences in marital status of women in different colleges. Significantly more women tended to be married in the Colleges of Human Ecology, Arts and Letters, and especially Education whereas women tended to be single in the other colleges, x?(5,N-188)-16.52, prOOS. While only 342 of the women had children, 742 of those who did came from Human Ecology, Arts and Letters, and Education. An interesting finding was that 342 of the women thought of themselves as part-time students. This was by their own designation and not by their University status. One can speculate that several might technically be full- time students, but are only enrolled sporadically. Hence, they consider themselves part-time. There was also a significant relationship between age and part-time/full- time status (;-.59, p-.001). Older women are more likely 60 no a 0 an n— on n mus-oh man an mu 0 an ON on mus: Ace—lav Ioaauhonm IOH<2 no “an no a n c— on N— c oluuluusm QN— cu mm c— em on o— slant—ash Ann—Izv nhluaaha nxuhlhu ueuoh neaooo unusual eels: . a sand ~su=uez a ou3u~39muu< AvsueOuv c o_ash 62 to be part-time. In light of this finding, several of the major analyses to be discussed at a later point were computed several ways: with full sample, full-time only, part-time only, and the full sample minus the Education part-time students. This final set of analyses were proposed because 402 of the part-time students were enrolled in Education. To determine whether ages differed significantly by college, ANOVAs were computed on part-time/full-time samples as defined above. The results are reported in Table 5. As can be seen, these age differences by college enrollment remain, even when either part-time, full-time or just Education’s part-time students are eliminated from the sample. One can conclude then that age differences do exist in the college enrollments as well as by part- time/full-time status. Returning to Table 4, only 61 of the women had a woman for a major professor. Eighteen of the women stated that they had specifically decided to work with this person bgcausg she was a woman. To the others, it made little difference, with the choice made for other reasons, such as field of expertise. The fact that the major professor was a woman was irrelevant. There was a significant difference in choice of a female major professor by college (£(182)--2.1, p-.037). Only 132 of women in Agriculture and Natural Resources worked with a female, whereas 652 of women in Human Ecology did so, with other disciplines 63 No.n un.n ac.n no.n oo.o eu.o Id sac. .oco. «5.0 nn—.n an.nn «n.0n as.~u no.~n on.nn «n.5n fl Aoo.I-. susomsum olmthuom coma-use: use. o—mlsm oumuem 64 n~.n «a.c c oo.n o~.o n~.n dd oc.oc au.on oo.cu nn.«n on.~n -.—c m “coll. aunc olahiuusm No.n ou.n oo.n «9.0 on.o «n.o mm «co. .ooc. «N.c o—~.m on.nn no.0u 00.5" sn.—n sh.—n co.nn fl .c«.uz. ..eo on.ai..e. no.n «n.n oo.n no.n so.o c~.a mm ~_°. .cco. ~N.c— ~o—.n oo.on on.cn on.n~ nc.—n an.nn on.~n I AuauInv oumlsw sumac» am a u .e «.92.... nouuaosuu accuse-om consume» ooaomoa enouuoa muo.oon ~ouausz a usuausz deacon a uuu< eels: sung—sowuu< N I o m<>oz n w—AOH ['11 falling in between. Not surprisingly, the "hard" sciences cluster together toward the low end of the distribution; the traditional fields for women, Human Ecology and Education, are at the high end, while Social Science and Arts and Letters fall in between. Older women tended to work with females for their major professor significantly more often than younger women £11,181)-6.21, p,-01. This difference also occurred in full-time students, F(l,1l6)-3.88, p-.05, and for all but Education part-time students 1(1,155)-9.64, p_-.002. Lastly, over half of the respondents felt that they were not as advanced in their program as they should be. It was suspected that sex of major professor might play a part in this perceived delay, but no finding of statistical significance was found, £(183)'.47, p-.637. Competence, Feedback, end Self-Esteem Seele Cpnstrucgion Competence, feedback, and self-esteem scales were constructed in the following manner. Items were initially grouped into similar content dimensions as was described in the Methods section. Using the data from the entire data set, each of the three groupings was submitted to factor analysis. These analyses suggested the presence of several factors within each dimension. The competence dimension appeared to contain two factors: internally-based and externally-based perceptions of competence. Three factors were contained in the feedback dimension: feedback 65 availability from all sources and positive and negative feedback from other graduate students. The self-esteem dimension was found to be unifactorial. The item groupings indicated by the factor analyses were then tested for internal consistency and unidimensionality. Correlations between groupings, as well as those between items and preliminary groups, were inspected. An iterative process was used to maximize the internal consistency and the unidimensionality of each scale. Through this process, five conceptually meaningful scales were constructed. Table 6 contains the resulting scales and the items which comprise them. Included are the item-total correlations, estimates of internal consistency, scale means and standard deviations. As can be seen in Table 6, the estimates of internal consistency (standardized alphas) of the five scales ranged from .70 to .91. The internal consistency of the externally-based perceptions of competence scale is somewhat lower than the other five scales. This can possibly be explained by examining the item-total correlations, which range from .29 to .53. These values indicate that, while each measures the dimension, the strength of relationship to the scale varies for each item. This then contributes to the lowered reliability of the scale. 66 Table 6 Competence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Scales and Psychometric Properties Items comprising scale Corrected Item-total Correlations Perceptions of competence-internally based (a -.88) 8. b. I am competent in my field of study. I am as competent in my field of study as other students at my level. I feel competent in most academic situations. I have no doubts about my competence. I have a pretty good idea when I will finish my academic program. Sometimes I feel academically incompetent. (R) I am performing up to expected departmental standards in my field of study. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other professionals in my field. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other departmental graduate students in my field. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other graduate students in other universities in my field. Other people in my field see me as competent in my chosen area of study. There are times when I do not know how well I am doing in my graduate program. 67 .60 .55 .67 .53 .39 .49 .56 .65 .63 .39 .57 .51 (R) Table 6 (cont’d) Items comprising scale Corrected Item-total Correlations m. I consider myself to be as good a student as other graduate students. n. Other graduate students consider me as good a student as them. 5 - 29.90 e2 - 7.66 Perceptions of competence - externally based ( a -.70) a. Other graduate students in my department see me as competent in my field. b. Respect for my academic abilities from other students is important to me. c. My major professor perceives me as competent in my field of study. d. Recognition as a good student by my major professor is important to me. e. Recognition as a good researcher or practitioner of my field by my major professor is important to me. f. I consider myself an intellectual g. Other graduate students consider me an intellectual. h. I consider other graduate students to be intellectuals. g - 17.11 gb - 3.86 Feedback Availability ( c: . .88) a. I feel that I get enough useful feedback about the quality of my work. b. The type of feedback I generally receive is noninformative. (R) 68 .61 .45 .31 .30 .29 .47 .48 .53 .31 .72 .58 Table 6 (cont’d) Corrected Item-total Items comprising scale Correlations c. In general, professors in my department .42 do not really take female graduate students seriously. (R) d. In general, professors in my department .55 do not pay much attention to graduate students. (R) e. My major professor does not pay much .71 attention to his/her graduate students. (R) f. My major professor is usually available .56 to me for academic advice. g. Most of the feedback on my research work .64 I receive from my major professor is informative. h. The only time I receive feedback on my .58 work from my major professor is when I have done something wrong. (R) i. My major professor and I meet regularly .61 to discuss my work. j. I receive positive non-informative .64 feedback on the quality of my work from my major professor. (R) M - 23.23 §§_- 7.86 Positive graduate student feedback ( a = .88) a. Generally, graduate students in my .64 department provide feedback on each others work. b. I give feedback to other graduate .72 students about their work. c. I receive feedback from other graduate .78 students that my work is good. 69 Table 6 (cont’d) Corrected Item-total Items comprising scale Correlations d. I receive positive informative feedback .81 on the quality of my work from other graduate students. e. I receive positive non-informative feedback .66 on the quality of my work from other graduate students. 5 - 16.11 sp - 4.85 5. Negative graduate student feedback ( a -.83) a. I receive feedback from other graduate .63 students that my work is poor. b. I receive negative informative feedback .69 on the quality of my work from other graduate students. c. I receive negative non-informative .77 feedback on the quality of my work from other graduate students. 5 -- 4.63 ep - 2.28 6. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ( <1 - .91) a. On the whole, I am satisfied with .64 myself. (R) b. At times I think I am no good at all. .65 c. I feel that I have a number of good .53 qualities. (R) d. I am able to do things as well as most .60 other people. (R) e. I feel I do not have as much to be .69 proud of. f. I certainly feel useless at times. .67 70 Table 6 (cont’d) Items comprising scale Corrected Item-total Correlations g. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at .67 least on an equal plane with others. (R) h. I wish I could have more respect for .71 myself. i. All in all, I am inclined to feel that .68 I am a failure. j. I take a positive attitude toward .77 myself. (R) E - 32.27 gb - 5.24 Note: R denotes a reversal of scoring for computational purposes 71 Cbmpetence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Scale Intercorrelations Intercorrelations between the constructed scales can be found in Table 7. All inter-scale correlations are low to moderate, indicating that each scale is measuring a unique dimension. The one exception is the intercorrelation between self-esteem and internally-based perceptions of competence (£3548). These scales are more strongly related than the others, but the correlation is low enough to indicate that they do measure different dimensions. Several of these intercorrelations provide support for the hypotheses. Hypothesis 2, the prediction of a relationship between feedback availability and perceived competence was supported by a significant intercorrelation between the feedback availability scale and internally- based perception of competence scale (pf.31, pkaOl). Hypothesis 3 stated that there was a relationship between the woman’s perception of her competence and her perception of how others viewed her. There was a significant intercorrelation between the internally and externally-based competence scales (£f.36, pthOl). Self-esteem was significantly correlated to the internally-based perceptions of competence scale (33.48, 25.001). This supports the hypothesis that perceived academic competence is a function of self-esteem. Self- esteem is also related to the amount of feedback available (£f.35, pfi5001). Hypothesis 7, the prediction of a 72 Table 7 Cpmpetence, Feedback, and Self-Esteem Intercorrelations Scale 1 2 3 4 5 1. Feedback -- availability 2. POSitive 009 -- feedback 3. Negative .23 .13 -- feedback 4. Internally-based .31 .12 -.29 -- competence perceptions 5. Externally-based .22 .32 -.07 .36 -- competence perceptions If £>.13, p<.05 If ;>.22, p<.001 73 relationship between self-esteem and feedback, was supported. Scale Intercorrelations with Other Selected Variables Other items, such as age, part-time/full-time student status, supportiveness of other graduate students, family and friends, and understanding of academic endeavors by family and friends were examined for possible relationships to constructed scales. These can be found in Table 8. These variables were chosen because, although not hypothesized to be related to the scales, they appeared to be likely related to them in some way. These variables were correlated with the scale constructs in the very low to moderate range of relationship strength (pkal to ;-.44). Feedback availability is highly correlated to supportiveness of other professionals, including major professor. Feedback might become more available as the level of support from others in professional capacities increases. In addition, older women appear to have more feedback available to them. Feedback availability is also moderately related to the woman’s perceived progress in her degree program and the support she receives from other graduate students in her department. The more feedback the woman receives, she is perhaps more likely to think she is on schedule in her program. 74 Anoullv anewusuaouso new use: one: want o—as—«o>w nud "one: .oo.vd .nu.Au .. no.vd .n..nm .. e.. 4.. ... no. co. n.. ..eeee.seeeeen ..nee... .n. eo. ne. n.. no. no. no. ne.ee....eee= ..eee... .n. o-oeopuuuoamsm nn. an. nn. an. no. on. ....ee...e.e.. ... ee. no. .e. e.. no. . no. ..eeee...eeeen ......o .e. n.. .o. ne. .e. e.. n.. ..eeee.seeeeen ...-e. .n ne. .e. on. o.. ne. no. ne.ee....eee= ......o .n n.. ne. e.. no. n.. so. ne.eee...eee= ...... .n . canovsun oussvsuo n.. n.. .e. no. on. n.. neeso e. ..eeeen .e cussesua suesvouo n.. nn. no. no. «4. nn. ensue n. ..eeeen .n 4.. no. nn. e..- ne. nn. ..eeneee ee».ee.en .n n.. ne. 4.. e..- n.. ... one-so e6...ee. .n use-um n.. ne. n.. ne.- ... ... e:..-..ee.eu.s-..en .n nn. no. an. e..- .n. n.. one .. e n c n n . .6..-..-> luau-u oaonumsousm aneuumsouom downtown aosavosh hum—mas.mss< uuou ooeeusmlou eonsuomlou same-us: sedan-om dosamsoh nseuoawm unnuounn a canon 75 The receiving of positive feedback from graduate students was very significantly correlated with both the support the woman receives from other graduate students and the support she gives to other graduate students. The more the woman is supported by other students and the more she in turn supports them, the more likely she is to receive positive feedback from them. Negative feedback from other graduate students is moderately related to two variables: age and the woman’s perceived progress in her degree program. Older women are less likely to receive negative feedback from their peers. The reception of negative feedback from graduate students is positively related to the women’s perceptions of delayed progress in their graduate programs. Perceived progress is also related to feedback availability. There appeared to be a relationship between the lack of feedback and women’s perceptions that their progress in their degree program had been delayed. Perceived competence, internally-based, was moderately related to several variables: age, professionals’ supportiveness, perceived progress, and full-time/part-time status. Perceptions of one’s competence appear to increase positively with both age and the amount of support received from professionals. This finding of a positive relationship between perceptions of one’s competence and supportiveness of professionals gives support to Hypothesis 4. It was predicted that women with social support 76 available will have an increased sense of competence. In addition, women who perceive themselves as competent tend to be full-time students who are moving along in their programs at an appropriate pace, at least as they perceive it. Externally-based perceptions of competence was very significantly correlated with two variables: support from other graduate students and support from professionals. This supports the hypothesis that the more support a woman gets from her surroundings, the more competent she will perceive herself to be. Self-esteem was related to both age and supportiveness of professionals. The women who are supported by their major professors and other professionals have a higher sense of self-esteem than those who do not receive as much support. Older women also tend to have higher self-esteem. In summary, most correlations of the constructed scales to other items were in the low to moderate range. Most important findings, as pertaining to the hypotheses, concerned the relationship of professionals’ supportiveness with feedback availability, perceptions of competence and self-esteem. Predietions of Feedback Availability The availability of feedback to the women in graduate programs was hypothesized to be predicted by the supportiveness of professionals, the supportiveness of 77 graduate students, age, supportiveness of friends, family supportiveness and perceived program progress. As can be seen from Table 9, all were entered except for family supportiveness and perceived program progress. Seventy-two percent of the variance remains unexplained. It appears that when a woman has the support of her major professor and fellow graduate students, she is more likely to perceive her feedback system as adequate. Feedback availability is also affected significantly but slightly by the age of the women and friends’ supportive- ness. The large amount of unaccounted for variance suggests that other important variables contributing to a sense of adequacy of feedback have yet to be identified. Predictipn of Ppsitive Graduete Spudent Feedbeck The availability of positive graduate student feedback was hypothesized to be predicted by supportiveness of graduate students, age, the woman’s supportiveness of other graduate students, part-time/full-time status, and family understanding. Table 10 shows the results of the forward stepwise regression analysis of positive graduate student feedback. Only two variables entered were found to be significant predictors: supportiveness of graduate students and age. Twenty-five percent of the total variance was accounted for by these two variables. The supportiveness of other graduate students contributed 182 of the variance 78 Table 9 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Feedback Availability Variable entered R R2 F Beta to enter Supportiveness of .45 .20 42.72** .36 other professionals Supportiveness of .48 .23 25.47** .18 other graduate students Age .50 .26 19.48** .16 Supportiveness of .53 .28 l6.02** .14 friends **p<.01 Table 10 Multiple Regressipn Analysis Predicting Positive Gradpate Student Feedback Variable entered R R F Beta to enter Supportiveness of .42 .18 37.59** .41 other graduate students Age .50 .25 29.49** .28 **p<.01 79 with age contributing the remainder. Positive graduate student feedback then is to be predicted when a woman is supported by her fellow graduate students. Predicpipn pf Competenee Tables 11 and 12 show the results of the multiple regression analyses for both perceived competence scales: internally and externally-based. As can be seen in Table 11, only 192 of the variance was accounted for by the three significant predictor variables: supportiveness of professionals, friends’ understanding of academic endeavors, and the woman’s perception of her academic progress. Most of this explained variance was due to supportiveness of professionals, with an additional 2-32 contributed by each of the other variables. Of the variables identified in this study, supportiveness of other professionals is clearly the strongest predictor, although understanding by one’s friends also contributes to these feelings of competence. These relationships support Hypothesis 4. Only 102 of the variance in one’s externally-based perceptions of competence was accounted for by two of the entered variables, supportiveness of professionals, and other graduate students (see Table 12). Other variables considered to be of influence on these perceptions were the support given to other graduate students, and the amount of 80 Table 11 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Internally-Based Perception of Competence Variable entered R R2 Beta to enter Supportiveness of .37 .14 28.49** .32 other professionals Understanding of .41 .17 l7.83** .17 friends Perceptions of .44 .19 13.98** .16 Program Progress **p<.01 Table 12 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Externally-Based Perception of Competence Variable entered R R2 F Beta to enter Supportiveness of .26 .07 12.84** .22 other professionals Supportiveness of .32 .10 9.97** .19 other graduate students **p<.01 81 social support from friends, but these contributed little variance to the predictive equation. Prediction of Self-Esteem The self-esteem of the women in the graduate programs was hypothesized to be predicted by the supportiveness of professionals, age, the understanding of one’s family, the support one gives to and receives from graduate students and one’s perceived program progress. As can be seen in Table 13, only the first two of these suspected contributors to self-esteem contributed to the total accounted for variance (102). Ninety percent of the variance remains unexplained. It appears that the supportiveness of professionals contributes in a positive way to one’s self-esteem as does age. In this sample, older women tended to have higher self-esteem. Differences in Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem To test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 5, analyses of variance of the effect of college or discipline on the computed feedback, competence and self-esteem scales across the entire sample were computed. These results are summarized in Table 14. This table presents means and standard deviations for each college as well as univariate ANOVA results and 2?, a measure of magnitude of treatment effect (Keppel, 1973). 82 Table 13 Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Self-Esteem Variable entered R R2 F Beta to enter Supportiveness of .28 .08 l4.05** .26 other professionals Age .31 .10 9.13** .15 **p<.01 83 90.5 n—.e oa.n na.o ~n.n on.n dd ncc. no. no.“ no—.n o—.nn an.cn sc.on cc.on an.on oo.cn fl Iona-ulunom o—.¢ om.n on.n N~.n oc.n an.¢ . dd .oo.v n. N«.~ no~.n o—.n— «n.0— no.5— ~o.- oo.n~ no.5. fl ooeouomlou no ssouunoouom manuals—nonuouuu no.n «5.0 ¢N.n o~.u on.o uc.n mm noc. doe. o—.c no~.n on.~« oo.ou N~.¢n o—.—n nn.ou o~.s~ x sensuoaloo we esomuaoouom mos-nihuusnuoueu n... ...n .n.« a... n... an. mm «co. «co. so.n oo~.n 00.0 oc.n no.m ou.¢ oo.c om.n x avenues. unsvsum eases-no samusus: on.n cu.n mn.o ch.c nN.n ca.c mm .cc. on. cu._ oo—.n no.¢~ no.n— on.o— ~—.o~ —~.o~ no.0. z unsavooh aeomsum oases-no o>uumoom ~c.~ an.» sc.o c~.¢ aa.o «0.9 mm moo. nccc. oo.¢ nn~.n oo.a~ an.cu oo.nn nu.o« hm.a— c«._u x n.....e..e>< Ausavoom «m d M an ousum coma-onvn accuse-on soonomum mucous» encased hue—eon . dunno-z a nausea: ..muom a ouu< eels: ousunsomun< c— 0.5.9 84 Feedbeck Analyses revealed highly significant differences in _feedback availability across the colleges, with Education majors receiving the most and Social Science majors receiving the least. This finding supports the hypothesis that there would be differences across disciplines in the amount of feedback women receive. The statistic,e? , shows that the magnitude of treatment effect was minimal, however. Only .32 of the variance due to college was accounted for. Post-hoe Duncan tests (25505) revealed that Education majors received significantly more feedback than those enrolled in Social Science, Natural Sciences, and Agriculture; students in Arts and Letters received significantly more feedback than those in Social Science and Natural Sciences. Significant differences were also discovered in the amount of negative feedback each woman received from other graduate students. Post-hoc tests revealed that women in Natural Sciences were much more likely to receive negative feedback than students from any other college except Agriculture and Natural Resources. Human Ecology students reported receiving the least negative feedback from fellow graduate students, with Education, Arts and Letters, and Social Science, in ascending order, reporting the next lowest amounts. 85 Competence Although no significant differences emerged between colleges on the externally-based perceptions of competence scale, significant differences were observed on the internally-based competence scale. Support for Hypothesis 1 was provided by this finding. The source of this difference can be shown, through post-hoe analyses, to be between Natural Sciences and all other colleges, except Social Science. Students enrolled in both Natural Sciences and Social Science have lower estimates of their own competence than those women in other colleges. Self-Esteem Analysis of variance showed no main effects for self- esteem across disciplines. To summarize, there are feedback availability and internally-based perceptions of competence differences across colleges. It must be noted, however, that the strength of treatment effects for all significant ANOVAs is miniscule, accounting for less than 12 of the variance in each test. F d k Com etence and Self-Esteem WW Because so many women considered themselves as part- time students, all ANOVAs on scale variables also were computed on full-time students only. These analyses are shown in Table 15. Note that lower scores for both 86 an 6.:I... 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 1M 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 x soon-010000 .n.n nn.n nn.n .e.n nn.n en.n mm 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 : oocousnloo no anemuaouuom won-01000sauouw0 n... a..n n... n... n... nn.e. mm 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 x oueouomloo mo neo0umeouom uses01000seueue0 nn.. ...n nn.n nn.. .n.. ne.. mm 000. 000. 00.0 000.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 x ./ soon—0.0.; use—:50 oo suwnvsuo ss0us0oz ne.. nn.. ee.n nn.e nn.n ne.n mm 000.v 00. 0.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 : xosavosh usovsum cacao-nu 09000-00 ne.n n... nn.n ne.n nn.n nn.e mm 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 . 00.00 00.00 : n.........e< 00000000 0@ N N «0. 530.00 so0ususvn accuse-00 oaoao0o0 00:0000 unsuusa 00o0eo0 0sususz 0 0suauaz 0.0000 0 ouu< eels: ousu0ao0u0< mo 0 >oz< 00 000sh competence scales and for the feedback availability scale imply higher levels of competence and feedback. For full-time students, feedback availability differs across the colleges. Specifically, post-hoe tests show that Social Science receives significantly less feedback than do students in Human Ecology, Arts and Letters, and Education, who reported receiving the most. Arts and Letters differed significantly from Natural Sciences, who reported receiving less feedback than Arts and Letters. Both Social Science and Natural Sciences appear to have lower levels of feedback available to them than other colleges. Students from these two colleges were also more likely to report receiving negative feedback from other graduate students than in any other college. College differences also appeared in the full-time women’s internally-based perceptions of competence. Post- hoc analyses revealed here that Natural Sciences had the lowest sense of competence of any college. Social Science had the next lowest perceived competence. These two colleges had the most feedback available but also perceived themselves as being less competent than the others did. It was not possible to compute analyses of variance on part-time students only. Inadequate cell sizes made these analyses meaningless. In summary, feedback availability and internally-based perceptions of competence were different in the full-time students across colleges. The magnitude of the effect of 88 students across colleges. The magnitude of the effect of college is minimal for each of these significant effects, with less than 12 of the variance accounted for. Feedback, Competence, and Self-Esteem: All Students Except Education Part-time The larger proportion of part-time students were enrolled in the College of Education. To assess their effects, all analyses were computed without their inclusion. Table 16 shows the results of these analyses. Results were similar to those found for full-time students only. Implications of these results are that women who are part-time students in Education are quantitatively different from those women who are part-time in other disciplines or from the full-time students. Summarizing Tables 14 through 16, feedback availability and internally-based perceptions of competence were significantly different across disciplines, supporting previously stated hypotheses. These differences were noted for the entire sample, all full-time students, and all students except Education part-time students. The exception was for part-time students where no college differences were found for any scale. It is likely that these differences would be reflected in the Education part- time only students. 89 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm 000.v 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 m .0000010000 .n.n en.n en.n .n.n ee.n nn.e mm 000.v 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 x 00.0000lou «0 00000000000 000.01000.nuo0uu nc.n n... .n.n n..n en.o nn.n mm 000. 000. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 : 00.0000Ioo no 00000000000 000.01000.000000 nn.. n..n .n.. «0.. n... nn. mm 000. 000. 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 a 00.00000 0.00000 00.00.00 0>00.00z nn.e e~.n nn.e e... n~.n on.e mm 000.v 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 : 00.00000 0:00:00 00.00.00 0>000ooa 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 IN 000. 000. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 m n....e...ee< 00.00000 «m d N «0 0:000 9000.0900 000090.00 000.0000 00.0000 0000000 0000000 0.000.: 0 0.000.: 0.0000 0 .000 e.l=0 00300500000 - In . . . 0 0N0 0 I 0 00>0=< 00 000.0 90 Effegts of Mejor Profeesor’g:§e; WWW Analyses were performed to test the hypothesis that the sex of the woman’s major professor would affect scores on the previously constructed scales. Differences in part-time/full-time status were also examined. The results of these ANOVAs are presented in Tables 17 through 20. As can be seen, only one significant result, other than those obtained for age, was obtained (see Table 18). This occurred for full-time students. Women who have a male major professor were more likely to receive positive feedback from graduate students than those women with a female major professor. There were significant main effects for age for the full sample (see Table 17), full-time students only, (see Table 18), and for all students except Education part-time students (see Table 20). For all groups, older women tended to have a female major professor. Note that there was no main effect for age for the part-time students. The presence of the Education part-time students might have had a masking effect on the results. It can be concluded, then, that the sex of a woman’s major professor is significantly related to her feedback system, but not to her perceptions of her own competence, or her self-esteem. Age also is significantly related to the choice of major professor. - 91 00.0 00.0 dd .oo.v no. .0. en... on..n n..nn m I0000010000 00.0 00.0 mm 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 x 00.0000I00 00 00000000000 000.0100000000u0 00.0 00.0 dd .00.0 on. no. en... 00.0n nn.n. m 00.0000I00 00 .0000000000 000.01000.eu0000 00.0 00.0 mm 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 m 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 0>00.002 on.n a... 0M 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 I 00.00000 0.00000 00.00.00 00000.00 00.0 00.0 MM 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 I ......e...e< 00.00000 .... n..n . mm 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 2 00¢ .m a 0 ... ...... .00.: 0000.00 00 000.0 92 00.0 «0.0 mm 000.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.0n 00.0n m 0000.0uu00a . an.n 00.0 dd 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.00 00.00 a 0000000'00 00 .0000000000 000.010000000000 90.0 00.0 dd 0oc.v 00. 00. 000.0 00.00 0n.on d 0000000I00 00 .0000000000 00..0:000.000000 . 00.0 00.0 mm 000.v 0n. «0. 000.0 00.0 on.c : 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 0000.00: 00.0 00.0 mm 000. no. 00.n 000.0 00.00 00.00 N 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 00000.00 00.0 00.0 aw 0oo.v no. 00. 000.0 Ne.nu n0.nu fl 000000.00..< 00.00000 Nu.n 09.0 dd «00. no. 00.n 000.0 00.00 00.0n m .00 um .0 m 0.. 330 .00.: .00.I00 00 000.9 93 00.0 00.0 Id 000. 00. 00. No.0 n0.nn 00.00 m I0000nu000m «0.0 o~.n dd 0°0.v co. 0.. 00.0 00.00 00.0. 0 0000000000 «0 00000000000 000.01000.0000.0 «0.0 «0.0 dd 00°.v 0c. 00. «0.0 00.00 00.00 m 000.000.00 00 00000000000 000.0:000.000000 00.0 «0.0 dd 000.v on. 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 m 00.00000 000000» 00.00.00 0000.00: on.“ 00.0 mm 000. 00. 00.0 00.0 00.n0 00.00 : 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 00000.00 00.0 0n.” um 000. mu. nn.— «0.0 «0.00 «n.00 fl 000000.00.>< 00.00000 00.0 no.0 dM 000.v 00. 00. 00.0 00.0n No.0n : 000 «d a 0 00 «0.00 .00.: 000.l00 o— 000.0. 94 95 . no.0 00.0 dM 000.v on. 00.0 000.0 00.0n 00.0n 2 00000030000 n0.n 00.. mm 000.v um. 00. 000.0 00.00 00.00 0 0000000000 00 00000000000 000.0:000.0000.0 00.0 on.0 dM 00°.v 00. no—. 000.0 an.on 00.00 : 0000000l00 00 00000000000 000.0I000.000000 00.0 00.0 mm 000. 00. oo.n 000.0 «0.0 00.0 x 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 0000.00: 00.0 00.0 dM «00. 00. on." 000.0 0n.o0 «0.00 : 00.00000 0000000 00.00.00 00000000 . 00.0 00.0 IN 000.. 00. .0. 000.0 00.n0 00.00 : 000.00.00.00 00.00000 00.0 00.0 dd 000. «00. 00.0 000.0 «0.0n 00.nn d 000 «m d N 00 00.0w 000.: 000.l00 .0d< uQ\m<>oz< on 000.9 Effects of College on Amount of Social Support Table 21 reports univariate ANOVAs showing differences across college on the amount of social support the respondents received from family and others (see Appendix B to refer to the instrument, specifically Section F). Note here that lower scores imply higher levels of support and understanding. Results show that the women in their differing colleges all report receiving approximately equal amounts of support from their families, including children, husbands or partners, other important people in their lives and also from university friends. Differences do occur in the amount of support received from professional acquaintances, including major professor and other professionals. Women in Social Science, Natural Sciences, and Agriculture received significantly less support from this group of pe0p 1e than did the women in other disciplines. The amount of support received from non-university friends also differed significantly across colleges. Women in Education and Natural Sciences received significantly more support from friends who were not university affiliated than did others enrolled in other disciplines. ~ 96 cu.— nn.~ 00.0 nn.~ nu.~ nn.— mm no~.n co.— sn.n on.~ no.“ 00.“ 00.0 m doc. 00. ~0.N 000006 .0000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm o «0. 00.0 nc—.n on.— 00.0 00.0 «n.0 «n.— «n.~ fl 000000000: .0000000 I; an. 2. 2.0 2.... 2.0 mm 0oo. «a. 00.0 on.« n0.u nu.n 00.0 00.0 na.— -.~ I 000000 2. on; 3.0 2.. S. .2. mm 00¢. 00. oo.n 0~—.n on.— o~.~ nn.~ 00." 00.0 00.0 x 0000.00u.0700 000000000000 nn.— 00.0 00. «0. n—.— «u. dd 00°. 00. on.0 0«~.n 00.0 no.0 00.0 0N.— 00.0 m°.~ m 00000.0x0000000 ou.~ no.0 on. 00.0 . 00. n0. mm ~oc.v 00. an.— oo~.n mo.“ na.« no.0 «0.0 00.0 00.” : 0uml.0 «m d H 00 00009 0000.000n 0.0000000 00000000 0000000 0000004 000000» 0.000.: a 0.000.: 0.0000 0 0000 0.00: 00000000004 : alddulllnl< 2:022 an 0000h 97 Effects of College on Othgrs’ Understanding of Academic Endeavors Women were asked to assess the amount of understanding for their academic endeavors received from a variety of family, friends, and others with whom they are involved. Table 22 is a summary of these group ratings by college. No significant differences across colleges were obtained for any support group. As can be seen by examining the means and standard deviations, women rated their families as, on the average, understanding somewhat as did non-university friends. The most understanding appears to be husbands or partners, understandable in that, for the most of the sample, this person is the closest to the woman, and observes firsthand what the woman is forced to undergo during graduate school. In summary, very few differences occur across disciplines in the amounts of social support and in the understanding of their academic endeavors from various groups they routinely encountered. The only differences occurred in the amounts of social support from non- university friends and professionals. Effects of Parental Education Level 9n Supportiveness and Understanding It was hypothesized that the educational level of either parent would affect the amounts of supportiveness and understanding given to the women during their graduate 98 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 mm 00°. 00. «0.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 I 000000 .0000000 3.. 2. 3. 3.. .3. 2.. 4m 0 «0. 0.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 : 000000>00= .0000000 00.— 00. as. «n. «0.0 00. mm 000. 00. «0.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 I 000000 00. 00. an. 00. 00. on. mm 000. 00. 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 : 00000.0\00.A00= 3. 3. .0. 0... .0. 3.. 0w .8; 2... 2.. 8.... ...n a... 008 0.... a... .... .. 000I.0 ~m d H 00 00000 0000.0000 000000000 00000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000.: 0 0.000.: 0.0000 0 0000 0.000 00000000004 «.0I, - . . . m .. . _ ..3 . . .00 . . .0..0 .. 0 >oz< an 000.9 99 school careers. The results of the univariate ANOVAs of understanding and supportiveness by educational level of fathers appear in Table 23. The results for mothers appear in Table 24. Significant differences appeared in amount of understanding in all subsamples for both mother’s and father’s educational level. Women whose parents had at least a college degree tended to receive more understanding than those women whose parents were not college graduates. A trend for slightly more understanding from parents with graduate degrees was also seen. This is understandable because, with a graduate degree, some commonality of experience is expected. In general, though, family tended to be supportive of the woman in her endeavors, regardless of parents’ educational backgrounds. This appears to be related to family dynamics rather than to educational backgrounds} Responses to Open-Ended Questions Due to the very large amount of missing data, these questions were not formally analyzed or compared to any other variables in the study. For each question, approximately 501 of the women chose not to respond to that item. The following is a summary of the women’s responses to the open-ended questions from each section of the questionnaire. 100 0000000 000 0009000000000 000i 0000- 00000 00:00 "000: - ho. .oo.v 0o. 00.. 000.0 00.. an. «ca. 00000. co.n 0.0.0 no.u no. 0oo.v 0n. 90.0 090.0 on.— ns. «06. neco. 00.0 000.0 No.n no. 00¢.v o0. an.0 000.0 0n.0 0s. moo. coco. 00.0 000.. no." on. «0.0 so. on.“ no. 00.0 n0. n0.“ on. «0.0 so. an." no. co. 00.0 «n.— no. no. no.0 no." 00. on. an.0 00.0 no. no. no.“ no.“ no. 00. no.0 «n.0 so. 00. no.0 no." 05. «0.0 no. n0.n co. 00.0 on. no.n «s. 00.0 no. o0.n 00. on.- «n. on.n 00. an.— on. No.n 0n. «n.— on. «c.n 00. aw 00.0 a 0I00|0000 000000000 0000 00000000 00¢ 00000000000000 0.000I00 00. dd 0o.n u 0l00|0000 000000000 0000 00009000 00¢ 0000000000000 0.000l00 00. am so.“ u 00000000 0I00n0000 0000000000000» 0.000l00 00. dd nn.n u 00000000 0l00n0000 000000000000: 0.000000 as. an «0.0 fl 00000000000000 ...—00.0 00. um «n.n d 0000000000000 ..._.-.0 000000 000000000 -000 00000 .0.00 000000 00000009 0.00000: 0.00000 nu 00009 0000000 0lou 00000000 .ooguu 0000 .oogoa 000: olon >0: 101 0000000 000 0000000000000 000! 00000 00000 00000 "0000 II 00. o as. 00. 00. 00. 00. mm 0oo.v 00. as. _n—.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0n.~ «0.0 00._ 00.0 : 0000:0000 000000000 000— 00000000 000 00000000000000 0.000000 0.. 0 00. «0. ca. 00. 00. mm «00. 0000. on.c nn_.0 00.n 00.0 00.0 00.0 _u.n 0n.n m0.n 0 0lu0l0000 000000000 000— 00000000 000 0000000000000 0.000000 00. 0 00. 00. no. 00. an. dd ~00.v on. 0n.— 000.0 00.. 00.0 00.0 «n.— 00.0 00.0 00.0 m 00000000 0000:0000 00000000000000 0.0—ml00 00. 0 na. n0. 00. 00. 00. dd woo. ~O. so.“ 0——.0 on.n ~0.N as.“ us." On.n 00.n nn.n m 00000000 0000|-00 000000000000: 0.0—«I00 as. . 0 00. 00. 00. nu. 00. dd _oc.v 00. 00. n~_.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 nn.~ 00.0 .00._ 00.0 m 00000000000000 0.0—«I00 no. 0 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. dd moo. «000. 00.0 ~0_.0 —-.n ~0.u 00.0 as.“ n~.n nn.n 00.n m 000000000000: ...—00.0 06 d H 00 000000 .0.00 000000 00000000 0000000 00000000 000000 «00000000 0.00000: 0000000 0000 000000 0000 I000 0000c 0000 0000 fldIdddddHM4HqHflflMIHflflldfllflfldldfldflddddflldflfl .fluu «a m<>oz< 00 0—00h 102 Competence When asked to describe a situation in which they felt competent, the response most often given was teaching (N-97). Other responses commonly mentioned were research (8-43), writing and speaking (R-37) and other professional duties (N-33). These perceptions of their competence were» most often based on their academic accomplishments (8'43). feedback from faculty and other colleagues (fl-93), and personal feelings and awareness (N-SB). Other ways they based their perceptions were through their own work (NI56). teaching (fl-44) and by comparing their work to others’ (u-34). When asked if they ever felt incompetent in their field of study, many women experienced this feeling in their classes and course work (N-68). Others felt incompetent in their interactions with their major professor and other faculty (N-22) and in other professional situations (N-26). Teaching and research situations caused others to feel incompetent (N-l6). The womenfs perceptions of incompetence stemmed in part from personal perceptions and feelings of inadequacy for some (N-49), or in comparisons with others they felt as more competent (N-47). Others based these feelings on the feedback received from their major professor or other faculty (N-37) or what they perceived as inadequacies in their knowledge of their research area. 103 Reasons for Delay of Progress Personal responsibilities to family and other family problems were the most often listed reasons for delay in completion of the degree program (N-38). Women were also held back by difficulties with research or classwork (8'32) and also when problems with a major professor arose (8'30). Some women also explained the delays through self-blame, a personal fault or flaw (fl-ZZ). Feedback Most women felt that the feedback given by their major professor was generally useful (fl-43). Some felt that it was helpful in directing thinking about their research (u-29) while others felt the feedback was informative (n-19). Some thought the feedback was useless, with little informative value (NI13). For negative feedback from their major professor, women, for the most part, thought that it was justified (N-62), and that if given properly, aided in giving direction and clarification of thinking (N-37) and was constructive (N-ZO). Others thought that the negative feedback was unjustified (NI26) and that they were not being listened to (NIB). Rejection and sadness are often how women describe their feelings when they have received negative feedback from a major professor (N-40). Other reactions included anger and irritation (N-3l) and defensiveness or 104 humiliation (N=l9). Still others felt incompetent (N-ZZ). For those who experienced the negative feedback as useful, they often felt that they had learned something and appreciated it (N-22). On the occasion that they were given positive feedback by their major professor, pride and pleasure were experienced by the majority of the women (N-ll7). -Severa1 also reacted with relief or motivation and confidence (N'29). A minority reacted to the positive feedback with embarrassment and skepticism, judging that they did not deserve it (N-17). The major findings of the analyses described above will be reviewed in the following chapter. Limitations of the research will be discussed and implications for further research will be explored. 105 DISCUSSION To summarize the results of the study in relation to the hypotheses, it can be noted that support was found for all stated hypotheses. Predicted differences in perceived academic competence were found to occur across disciplines. It was also shown that women who receive no feedback or only negative feedback have tended to lower estimates of their academic competence. Support for the hypothesis that women’s perceptions of their academic competence was similar to their perceptions of how others view them, was shown. Women with social support networks did have higher levels of perceived academic competence. Differences were found to exist across disciplines in the amount of feedback women received about their academic performance. The hypothesis that perceived competence is a function of feedback availability, social support, and self-esteem was also supported. Finally, self-esteem was shown to be related to the amount and type of feedback received by the women. The data also indicated the presence of age differences across colleges. The following sections will discuss these findings by hypothesis and their implications. 106 Perceived Competence-Internally Based Hypothesis I predicted that women in different disciplines or colleges would have different perceptions of their own competence in their chosen field. This was assumed to be true because of discipline differences in the way women are treated in their respective fields. It was assumed that fields more traditionally entered by women, such as Human Ecology and Education, would be more open to women in their ranks. Therefore, they would provide a more open atmosphere in which a woman could receive information about her progress and work and then begin to feel competent in her field. Conversely, women in the "hard" sciences, such as Natural Sciences or Agriculture and Natural Resources, would be less accepted into these mostly male-dominated fields. They would be less likely to receive any information on their worth as researchers. Social Sciences and Arts and Letters were expected to fall between these extremes. Analysis of variance did in fact show a significant effect for perceived competence across the different colleges, supporting Hypothesis 1. It is interesting to note that the women who perceived themselves as least competent were those in Natural Sciences, which was a predicted finding, and those women in the Social Sciences, which was not. This result was unusual in that the social sciences have traditionally been a field where many women 107 received advanced degrees, although the field was not role- termed as "feminine". As noted earlier, over 501 of all Ph.DKs in Psychology are now awarded to women. The difference may stem from the fact that social scientists have sought to be considered a science like chemistry or physics. The model by which many graduate programs in psychology are run more closely resembles the natural sciences than, say, the humanities. Therefore, the training and treatment of graduate students in natural and social sciences may be similar. The results of the multiple regression for the prediction of internally-based perceptions of competence (see Table 11) support the importance of faculty support in the woman’s quest for the advanced degree. This variable accounted for 142 of the variance in women’s perceptions of competence. This finding supports Hypothesis 4. In summary, it was hypothesized that women in different disciplines would have different internal perceptions of their own competence in their field. The data support this hypothesis. Feedback Availability: Its Effect on Perceived Competence The second hypothesis proposed in the first chapter stated that women who received relatively little feedback would have lower estimates of their own academic competence. By the same reasoning, those who report more feedback should have higher estimates. Lenney (1977) notes 108 that when women are placed in situations where feedback is available and useful, women will have higher estimates of their own competence. In experimental situations, women will rate their own competence just as highly as men do when proper feedback is provided. This hypothesis was supported by three pieces of relevant data. Correlational evidence is available in the present study that women who report more feedback availability do tend to have a higher level of internally- based perceptions of competence. The two scales, internally-based perceptions of competence and feedback availability, were found to be moderately correlated (_r_-.31, 25.001). Two other scales were also relevant. Externally-based perceptions of competence were related to the reception of positiye feedback from other graduate students in one’s program (1.9.32, p<.001). Finally, negative feedback from other graduate students was negatively correlated to one’s internally- based perceptions of competence (gr-.29, 25.001). A woman’s perceptions of her competence decreased as the amount of negative or ambiguous feedback increased. These results imply that women who are in departments where little or no feedback is given are more likely to see themselves as less competent than in fact they are. I make the assumption here that all women in graduate programs are competent. They were admitted to PhJD. programs, therefore, 109 they do have some amount of skill in their fields. It is their own perceptions that are in doubt. In summary, it was hypothesized that women who had little or no feedback available to them would have lowered senses of their own academic competence. Correlational evidence supports the conclusion that there is a positive relationship between these two factors.' This also is basis for support of the hypothesis that perceived competence is a function of the type and quantity of feedback received (Hypothesis 6). The types, positive or negative, and amount of feedback from graduate students do have an effect on women’s perceptions of competence. Competence: Internal Versus External Perceptions Hypothesis 3 predicted that women’s own perceptions of their academic competence would be similar to their perceptions of how others perceive their competence. This hypothesis was also supported. Here again the relationship is correlational in nature. The scale, externally-based perceptions of competence, consists of items that relate to how the woman rates others’ perceptions of her competence. Internally-based perceptions of competence is moderately correlated with this other scale (pg-.36, p<.OOl). One can predict from this relationship that if a woman perceives herself as incompetent in her field of study, she will tend to think that others perceive her in the same way. 110 In addition to the predicted relationship, a woman’s externally-based perceptions of her competence is related to the amount of support she receives from other graduate students (£P.23, pthOl). One can extrapolate from this that, if a woman gets little support from the other graduate students in her department, she will in turn perceive that they do not think her worthy of their attention. This will then affect her perceptions of her competence. Similarly, feedback availability, mostly from one’s major professor, is positively related to externally-based perceptions of competence (£3.22, p<.OOl). Again, if one’s major professor does not provide feedback, one is likely to perceive this as a comment on one’s ability. This in turn affects one’s internally-based perception of competence. In summary, it was hypothesized that a woman’s perception of her academic competence would be similar to her perceptions of how others saw her. Correlational evidence lends credence to this statement. Therefore, if a woman is given some feedback from her major professor, she is much more likely to have a higher sense of competence. Perceived Competence and Social Support Hypothesis 4 predicted that women’s perceptions of their academic competence would be influenced by the availability of social support received from family, friends, and other professionals. This hypothesis was also 111 supported by the data, at least for support from other professionals and from friends. Multiple regression analysis of the prediction of internally-based perceptions of competence showed that both supportiveness of professionals, including major professors, (g?-.14) and the understanding of one’s friends (52-u03) contributed significantly to the regression equation. This finding shows that both play an important part in the contribution to a woman’s increased perception of competence. There is also a moderate zero-order correlational relationship between internally-based perceptions of competence and support from professionals (;-.35, p<.001). Externally-based perceptions of competence were predicted by supportiveness of professionals (§?-507), and supportiveness of other graduate students (RR-503). When a woman in a graduate program receives support from those around her in the department, she is much more likely to think of herself as a competent researcher or scholar. Based on the findings in the literature, she will also change her perceptions of how others see her if she perceives them as supportive of her. The absence of support from family from these relationships may reflect the fact that family support usually depends on factors other than chosen field of study. Because family are not part of one’s professional world, their support has less impact on one’s perceived 112 professional competence than it might have on other areas of self-perception. In a related area, not directly linked to hypotheses, there were no differences across colleges in how much social support was received from family, friends, husband/partner or other important people in one’s life. There was a difference across colleges in the amount of support given by professionals to the women. This category included major professor and other faculty. The women in the Colleges of Natural Sciences, Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Social Science were all given significantly less support by these people than the other colleges were. Again, we see the traditional "hard" sciences lining up with the social sciences in their treatment of the female graduate students. The resultant effect of this is decreased perceptions of competence on the part of the women in these departments. In summary, it was hypothesized that women with social support networks would have higher levels of perceived competence. The results of the multiple regression analyses and some correlational relationships support this hypothesis. This is also support for the hypothesis that perceived academic competence is a function of the availability of social support (Hypothesis 6). 113 Feedback Availability Hypothesis 5 predicted that there would be differences across disciplines in the amount of feedback women receive about their academic performance. Analysis of variance was used to detect if these differences were present among the colleges on the three feedback scales: feedback availability, positive graduate student feedback, and negative graduate student feedback. Significant differences were found among the colleges in feedback availability (see Table 14). Here again the students in the Colleges of Natural Sciences, Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Social Science all reported receiving significantly less feedback than their counterparts in the other three colleges. This result remains stable across several samples: the entire sample, full-time students only, and all students except for Education part-time students. Negative graduate student feedback was available in differing amounts across colleges for all samples. The women in Natural Sciences tended to receive higher amounts of negative feedback, as can be seen in the tables. From the open-ended responses, it could be seen that most women did not receive negative feedback from other graduate students. When they did, it made them angry and hurt for the most part and they tended to ignore it. There was no effect for college on positive graduate student feedback. This was true for all sample results. 114 In examining the mean positive feedback, it can be seen that the women report relatively low amounts of positive feedback from graduate students (see Tables 14-16). It appears that while graduate student support may be a predictor of externally-based perceptions of competence, graduate students actually give very little back in the way of positive feedback. This could also be seen in the response patterns in the open-ended questions on graduate student supportiveness and feedback. In summary, differences in feedback across disciplines was predicted. Results from the analyses of variance support finding of cross-college differences in feedback systems. Implications of these findings are important. If the feedback received by the women in the "hard" sciences, including Social Sciences, is in fact insufficient or inappropriately negative, changes are indicated. Faculty need to be.aware that these differences do indeed exist. Self-Esteem In the initial set of hypotheses, Hypothesis 7 predicted that self-esteem would be positively related to feedback availability; Hypothesis 6, that self-esteem would be positively related to perceptions of academic competence. These hypotheses were supported by the data. Self-esteem was found to be highly correlated with internally-based perceptions of competence (£f.48, pf.OOl). 115 It was also found to be related to feedback availability (£8.35, pK.OOl). These findings imply that self-esteem, internally- based perceptions of competence, and feedback availability go hand-in-hand. One’s self-esteem may be increased when one’s perceptions of academic competence is relatively high. From previously discussed results, it was seen that perceptions of competence are affected by feedback availability. Therefore, together, the three variables form a circular path that appear to be dependent upon each other. Analysis of variance showed no significant differences across disciplines in self-esteem. Students from all colleges reported relatively high self-esteem. It is interesting to note here the very high internal reliability of .91 found for this sample with the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. High internal reliabilities have generally been reported for this scale; this study is no exception. This can be attributed to a consistency of response by the women. It could also be due to the type of women one finds in graduate programs. To choose to pursue an advanced degree, the women must already possess a good sense of self-esteem or confidence in ability. Finally, it could be due to the fact that in graduate school, there is little time to think of anything but being successful, a 116 unidimensional trait much like self-esteem. You must be self-confident to succeed. Among non-hypothesized results, age is also related to self-esteem. There is a moderate positive relationship between self-esteem and age (53.23, pquOl). The older a woman is, the more likely she is to have a higher sense of self-esteem. Along with age, another significant predictor of self-esteem was supportiveness of other professionals, particularly faculty. In summary, self-esteem was predicted to be related to feedback availability and internally-based perceptions of competence. Strong positive correlations between self- esteem and the other two variables lends confirmation to this hypothesis. It also supports the hypothesis that perceived academic competence is a function of self-esteem (Hypothesis 6). Effects of Age No age differences were expected to occur among the women in the sample, but when the individual college means were examined, a difference appeared. An analysis of variance was computed on the women’s ages by college. A highly significant difference between the mean ages of students in different colleges was observed (£(5,181)'14.27, p-.0001). This age difference remained strong and significant across all subsamples also (see Table 5). 117 The College of Education had the oldest women enrolled (£339.08, £295.93), along with the women in Human Ecology (EF37.34, §2f9.24), and the College of Natural Sciences had the youngest (flé27.78, §Q33.69). There may be several reasons for this age difference. First, Education is a field where it is the norm for teachers to return to school after having taught for several years. Therefore, the average age would be elevated because of this fact. Secondly, both Education and Human Ecology, being a traditional women’s field, are also more likely to attract older returning students. These women have very likely been raising families and are now reentering college after an absence. Thirdly, women who graduated from high school within the last 10-15 years have been given more opportunities to enter the sciences, so there would understandably be more younger women. There also might be more of a push to complete graduate school immediately after the baccalaureate degree in the sciences. The differences found in perceptions of competence and feedback availability might have been related to age. There are two possible explanations. One, it could be a cohort difference. The younger women, as a group, just do not see themselves as competent as the older women do. This could be a function of the "demise" of the women’s movement as perceived by the current standards. The older women came into their own during the height of the women’s movement and this might have explained the different level 118 of perceived competence. This, however, does not explain their tendency to be in a more traditional field. One can only think that the older women are in these fields because they went to college before feminism came into vogue. Secondly, these differences might be due to developmental changes that occur due to age. Their perceived competence scores reflect changes that occur over time; if so, the women who are in the colleges with the lower mean age and corresponding lower competence scores should have higher scores as they get older. It would be interesting to survey these women again in 10 to 15 years to see if this developmental difference is reflected in their scores. The differences in feedback availability might reflect a maturity factor. The older women might be more able to demand and expect feedback from their environment, thus eliciting the resulting higher scores. Younger women have not had the experience of asking for feedback, especially if they have never worked in a professional job, such as a teacher may have had. Another possibility might be that older women know themselves better so that they can use and apply feedback more efficiently. The same objective feedback will be more successful or positive for them. In summary, there was a significant age difference across the colleges. It was speculated that the differences found in feedback availability and internally- 119 based perceptions of competence were likely due to age differences due to cohort effects or developmental changes over time. Further research is needed to get a clearer picture of the cohort versus developmental differences. Implications of the Present Study The findings of the present study present several implications for graduate programs and the treatment of women within these programs. It was shown that there is positive relationship between feedback availability and perceived competence. These findings imply that changes in faculty relations with their female graduate students could facilitate improvement in the women/s perceptions of academic competence. Increased awareness on the part of faculty of their influence on the women’s perceptions of competence would be beneficial. . The implementation of professional development programs would provide faculty with the skills necessary to provide feedback. Instruction in the methods of providing feedback in useful and constructive ways would not only benefit women in graduate programs, but also would benefit men in the programs. In relation to the findings of the importance of graduate student feedback in women’s perceptions of their competence, it appears that graduate students would benefit from an increased sense of collegiality. If faculty help to foster feelings of collegiality among the graduate 120 students and faculty, all graduate students, including women, would benefit from the increase contact among the students. For example, the part-time women enrolled in Education often had other commitments outside of school. They complained that they did not know other graduate students. These women got no or only negative feedback. With an emphasis on getting to know people in the department, these feelings might have been skirted. Finally, other implications for faculty include the general knowledge that they can make things smoother for women in their programs and could assist women in their assimilation into academia. Sexism and sexual harassment impede the progress of the women, especially in the more male-dominated fields. Less hostility and more support could aid everyone involved. In summary, the results suggest several ways in which the academic setting could be changed and adapted for more complete support of women in academic settings. Acknowl- edgement on the part of faculty that changes need to be made is needed, however. Only through faculty education is this possible. Limitations of the Present Stedy Several limitations of this study are important to note here. First, it is not possible to generalize beyond the sample obtained. The present study did not survey men currently enrolled in graduate programs. It is very likely 121 that they too experience problems similar to the women in graduate school. However, it is very likely that their experiences would be very different. Their processing of little or no feeback might be less likely to affect their perceptions of their academic competence. Secondly, the questionnaire was very long and time consuming. A restructuring of the questionnaire would be appropriate. The responses from the open-ended questions were of little use because of the large number of unanswered questions. The information to be gathered on these tOpics could possibly be obtained from a set of Likert-type items or through a simpler checklist format. Thirdly, the questionnaire was sent to the sample in close proximity to final exams. It would be expected that more women would have responded to the questionnaire if it had been sent during a less stressful time during the term.‘ Also, less missing data might have been expected. Finally, while there was a distinct pattern of results obtained from the statistical analyses, little of the variance was accounted for by the variables. It is very likely that other variables not surveyed would contribute to this unaccounted for variance. Because this questionnaire did not tap these variables, it is difficult to generalize about the results further than what has been proposed in the preceding sections. 122 Directiens for Future Research The results of the present study lend to several ideas for future research. The most obvious idea is to replicate this study but with the inclusion of a comparable sample of male graduate students. From the results, we would be able to see if the experiences of men and women in graduate school are indeed the same. More in-depth interviews with some of the original subjects would also be of interest. Several were very angry about their treatment by the faculty in their respective programs. It would be interesting to interview women from the same department who do not perceive themselves as being treated badly or differently than men. A comparison between them could then be made. Lastly, one of the subjects in the present study suggested that I follow-up on women who had previously attempted a PbJD. at another school or in another department, but had not finished. They were trying again in a new location or field. The reasons for the switch might give us more information about what caused the failure to complete the original degree and its implications for the completion of the current degree program. Summary In conclusion, support for all seven hypotheses was found by the statistical analyses. Differences in the 123 amount of perceived competence and feedback availability differed by college. Relationships were found between perceived competence, self-esteem and feedback availability. Finally, women who were given support by their major professor tended to have better perceptions of their competence. Research is needed to assess the feedback systems, perceptions of academic competence, and self-esteem in a comparable sample of male graduate students. A further review with some of the respondents of the original questionnaire would also shed more light on the constructs operating in the various degree programs. 124 APPENDICES APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT INFORMATION APPENDIX A Informed Consent Information MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ”m0! MOMY FAST MNSING - IICHIGAN - «.14-Ill? PSYCHOLOGY sauna: m May 21. 1985 Dear Participant: As graduate students, each of us has experienced concerns about our abilities to complete the degree program in which we are enrolled. Our perceptions about our relative progress and competence in our fields are colored by the types of feedback we receive and by the availability of social support networks. Hy dissertation questionnaire is designed to gather information about your perceptions about your experiences and progress in your graduate program. Your responses to the ques- tionnaire will be very helpful to me in providing information specific to women in Ph.D. programs and their experiences within their respective departments. The questionnaire will probably take you about 30 minutes to complete. Notice that your answers are confidential-—do peg.put.your name or other identifying information on the questionnaire itself. While I hope you will complete the entire question- naire, you are free to stop at any point if you choose to do so. A.brief summary of the research findings will be available beginning Winter term, 1986 in 135 Snyder Hall, the main office of the Psychology Department. To be sure that you understand your rights as a research participant, read through the following statements: I freely consent to take part in the study of cowetence and feedback in Ph.D. can- didates being conducted by Paulette‘H.-Valliere. Ph.D. candidate, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. I understand that the study deals with women's competence and feedback. in Ph.D. programs; I have been given a clear explanation of my part in this work. which is to complete a questionnaire. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidentiality and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restricitons, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. - I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. I understand that my compliance in completing the questionnaire constitutes my informed consent for participation in the study. If you have eey questions, please feel free to call me at 339-3716. Please return the completed questionnaire in the return enyelope provided by June 15, 1985. Thank you for your assistance in completing this study. Sincerely, . Owl/«MM Paulette H. Valliere MSU is a We. Action/Equal mam-'8)! Imsmuiom 125 APPENDIX B COMPETENCE AND FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B COMPETENCE AND FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE -l- The first section of this questionnaire concerns your perceptions of academic competence, both your own and others' in your field. For these purposes, academic competence is defined as your sense of academic achievement and adequacy and success in attaining goal aspirations within your field of study. Also, define major professor as the chair of your dissertation committee or the person with whom you work most closely. Please circle the best answer. (1) STRONGLY AGREE t-Ib—v-os—r-o t—n .— NNN NNNNN UWU UUUJUU p—s He‘s-shied NNNNN UUUUU bJ-‘L‘nL‘b UiUILnUIUI (2) AGREE NNN NN N (3) NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 5 S can: be» bbbbb ea & b».— umu muuuu mu m we) #b UIUI (4) DISAGREE (z) STRONGLY DISAGREE I am competent in my field of study. I am as competent in my field of study as other students at my level in this field. Other graduate students in my department are in general competent in their field. I am more competent in my field of study than others perceive me to be. Other graduate students in my department see me as competent in my field. Respect for my academic abilities from other students is important to me. I feel competent in most academic situations. I have no doubts about my competence. I have a pretty good idea when I will. finish my academic program. My major professor perceives me as competent in my field of study. Sometimes I feel academically incompetent. Recognition as a good student by my major professor is important to me. Recognition as a good researcher or practitioner of my field by my major professor is important to me. The female graduate students in my department are not as dedicated to their field as the males. The graduate program in my department favors the bright, imaginative student. I am performing up to expected departmental standards in my field of study. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other professionals in my field. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other departmental graduate students in my field. My knowledge of my field is adequate when compared to other graduate students in other universities in my field. Other people in my field see me as competent in my chosen area of study. There are times when I do not know how well I am doing in my graduate program. I do not know how well my progess in my graduate program compares to that of other graduate students. I consider myself an intelectual. Other graduate students consider me an intellectual. I consider other graduate students to he intellectuals. I consider myself to be as good a student as other graduate students. Other graduate students consider me as good a student as them. 126 -2- B. This next section concerns general feelings you might have about yourself. Please circle the answer which best describes howyyou feel. ( ) STRONGLY AGREE ( ) AGREE (3) DISAGREE I 1(1) STRONGLY DISAGREE l 2 3 4 On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4 At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4 I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 I am able to do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4 I feel I do not have as much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4 I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4 I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 1 2 3 4 I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4 I take a positive attitude toward myself. C. We all have specific situations in which we have felt competent or incompetent in our areas of study. This next section asks that you describe different situations in which you might feel competent or incompetent. Please answer each question as completely asppossible in the space_provided. When you think of a hypetheticsl competent person in your field, what type of person do you think of? Describe the traits that make them competent. In what type of situation (academic or professional) do you most see yourself as competent? (Give a specific example) On what do you base your perceptions of your own professional/academic competencies? Have you ever felt incompetent in your field of study? YES 2 NO If yes, in what type of situations? (Give a specific example) 127 -3- 5. On what do you base your perceptions of your own professional/academic incompetencies? 6. Please rate your feelings of competence in each of these situations (Check one response) Classwork DOES NOT VERY MEL. mm rmmm VERY W Meetings with major professor Professional meetings Interactions with other graduate student: Research work Teaching Interactions with other professionals Reading others' publications Writing professional papers Administrative acti- vities Other (specify) ** ******************** *t ********“H****************** ************ ******************** 128 8' -4- D. The next section contains questions about your background and about your degree program status. Please answer them as completely as possible. It is especially important to say which department and collegeyyou are enrolled in. AGE What is your racial background? BLACK/AFRO'AMERICAN WHITE/CAUCASIAN HISPANIC ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER NATIVE AMERICAN OTHER O‘U'waH What is your marital status? (Pick one most currently describing you) SINGLE MARRIED, LIVING WITH SPOUSE MARRIED, SPOUSE LIVING ELSEWHERE DIVORCED OR SEPARATED LIVING WITH PARTNER PARTNER, NOT LIVING WITH O‘UIL‘wNH you have any children living with you? (Include joint custody) 1 YES Q If YES, how many? 2 NO . DEPARTMENT ENROLLED IN COLLEGE OF . When did you begin your Ph.D. program in this department? (month/year) . Are you a full or part time student? 1 FULL-TIME 2 PART-TIME . Did you move here from another location to attend graduate school? 1 YES 2 NO ’ . Did you return to school after having been employed full time? 1 YES 4 If YES, what type of job did you have? 2 N0 129 -5- 10. How do you currently support yourself financially? (Circle all that apply) RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIP TEACHING ASSISTANTSHIP SCHOLARSHIP/GRANT/FELLOWSHIP EDUCATIONAL LOANS ON CAMPUS JOB (OTHER THAT ASSISTANTSHIP) OFF CAMPUS JOB FAMILY ASSISTANCE/LOAN PERSONAL SAVINGS OTHER \DCDNIOSUIJ-‘LJNr-i 11. When do you expect to get your degree? (MONTH/YEAR) 12. Check the degree requirements which you have currently completed. Put NA next to those which do not apply. ____ COURSE WORK ___ COMPREHENSIVE EXAMS INTERNSHIP DISSERTATION PROPOSAL DISSERTATION DATA COLLECTION DISSERTATION ORALS onmR 13. What type of professional job experience have you had? 14. If you quit a job to return to graduate school, did you experience a change in your professional status? Explain. 15. What is the sex of your major professor? """' 1 FEMALE (Go to question 17) F2 MALE (Go to question 16) 16. If your major professor is a man, would you have preferred to work with a woman? 1 YES (Go to question 18) 2 NO 3 MAKES NO DIFFERENCE lb 17. Did you specifically choose to work with a woman? 1 YES 2 NO 3 MADE NO DIFFERENCE 130 -6- 18. Why did you choose this person with whom to work and are you satisfied with your choice? 19. Do you feel that you are not as far along in your program as you should be? 1 YES r-—-2 NO (Go to section B) 20. If yes, why have you been delayed in your acadnic progress? Include whatever factors you feel have affected your progress. Be specific. 21. “much have you been delayed? ILISSTEAIIYEAR 2 l-ZYEAIS 3 HYEAIS Amaranbruas mamummwmmwusseseeeseeaseeeeseeaseeseaess ‘Ol. The following section contains questions concerning the types of feedback you get in your acad-ic environment. (1) sunset Ann (2) AGREE (3) NEITHER m use DISAGIIE (4) DISAGREE _ 1(3) STRONG“ Duncan 1 2 3 4 5 I feel that I get cough useful feedback about the quality of my work. 1 2 3 4 5 The type of feedback I generally receive is noninformative. l 2 3 4 5 In general, professors in my department do not really take female graduate students seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 In general, professors in my department do not pay much attention to graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 My major professor does not pay much attention to his/her graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 My major professor is usually available to me for academic advice. 1 2 3 4 S that of the feedback on my research work I receive from my major professor is informative. 1 2 3 4 5 The only ti. I receive feedback on my work from my major professor is when I have done something wrong. I 2 3 4 5 My major professor and I meet regularly to discuss my work. 131 (I) NEVER (2) RARELY ( ) INFREQUENTLY (4) OCCASIONALLY (5) FREQUENTLY 2 3 4 Generally, graduate students in my department provide feedback on each others' work. p—s 1 2 3 4 5 I give feedback to other graduate students about their work. 1 2 3 4 S I receive feedback from other graduate students that my work is good. 1 2 3 4 S I receive feedback from other graduate students that my work is poor. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive negative informative feedback on the quality of my work from other graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive negative non-informative feedback on the quality.of.myework from other graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive positive informative feedback on the quality of my work from other graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive positive non-informative feedback on the quality of my work from other graduate students. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive negative informative feedback on the quality of my work from my major professor. l 2 3 4 S I receive negative non-informative feedback on the quality of my work from my major professor. 1 2 3 4 S I receive positive informative feedback on the quality of my work from my major professor. 1 2 3 4 5 I receive positive nonrinformative feedback on the quality of my work from my major professor. as. Do other graduate students generally give you feedback about your work? 1 YES (Go to question bh) *FZ NO (Go to question ee) bb. What form does this feedback generally take? Circle all that apply. POSITIVE INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK POSITIVE NON-INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK NEGATIVE INFROMAT IVE FEEDBACK NEGATIVE NON-INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK AMBIGUOUS U‘war-I cc. On what is this feedback based (research, coursework, presentations,etc.)? dd. Is it useful? Why or why not? lee. Do you routinely meet with your major professor to discuss the progress of your work? 1 YES 2 NO 132 ff. 88- ii. 11- 91¢. 11. nn. -3- How often do you meet? Does your major professor routinely give you feed back on your work? 1 YES (Go to question hh) 2 N0 (Go to question kk) What type of feedback does he/she give? Circle all that apply. POSITIVE INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK POSITIVE NON-INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK NEGATIVE INFORMAT IVE FEEDBACK NEGATIVE NON-INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK AMBIGUOUS Ul§wNH On what is this feedback based (research, coursework, presentations, etc.)? Is it useful? Why or why not? If you are given negative feedback by your major professor, do you usually feel it is justified? Explain and give a specific example. If you are given negative feedback by other graduate students, do you usually feel it is justified? Explain and give a specific example. , What kind of an emotional response do you have when you get negative feedback from other graduate students? What kind of an emotional response do you have when you get positive feedback from other graduate students? 133 00. PP- QQ- BB. CC. -9- What kind of an emotional response do you have when you get negative feedback from your major professor? What kind of an emotional response do you have when you get positive feedback from your major professor? Aside from your major professor and other graduate students, are there others who have given you feedback on your professional or/and academic competence? Explain. **************“****** ****“fitifi*fl********fl****fl Hi“*flflflfl*fl*fl**fl fl**“**** F. In this section, we are interested in the type of social support you are receiving for your graduate degree aspirations. Pbr these purposes, we are defining social support as any type of emotional or interpersonal encouragement that you may receive from various sources in your life. (1) VERY SUPPORTIVE ( ) SUPPORTIVE (3)80MEWHAT SUPPORTIVE (4) NONSUPPORTIVE (i) VERY NONSUPPORTIVE l 2 3 4 S In general, how supportive of each other are the graduate students in your department? I 2 3 4 5 How supportive of you are the graduate students in your department? Do you have any graduate students in your department who regularly give you support? 1 YES 2 NO (Go to question EE) If yes, how many? If more than one, do you socialize in a group? 1 YES 2 NO Is this person or group 1 FEMALE 2 MALE 3 MIXED GROUP -10— DD. How often do you: (1) VERY OI-‘l‘EN (2) OFTEN ((1? talk about personal concerns about academics with this person or group? 4 5 socialize with this person or group? 4 5 talk about academic topics with this person or group? 4 5 talk about non-academic personal concerns with this person or group? EE. Do you regularly meet with a particular group of people from outside of your depart- ment to discuss ongoing concerns? 1 YES F--'2 NO (Go to question 11) FF. Are they primarily? 1 GRADUATE STUDENTS 2 NON-STUDENTS 3 BOTH STUDENTS AND NON-STUDENTS 66. Is this group comprised of l WOMEN 2 MEN 3 BOTH WOMEN'AND MEN HR. How often do you: (1) VERY OFTEN (2) OFTEN 3() ON OCCASION (4) SELDOM )NEVER socialize with this group? talk about personal concerns about academics with this group? talk about academic topics with this group? 1 2 l 2 l 2 1 2 talk about non-academic personal concerns with this group? UWUU k L.II.What is the educational background of your parents? MOTHER FATHER 1 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 1 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 2 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 2 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 3 SOME CDLLEGE 3 SOME COLLEGE 4 MASTER'S DEGREE 4 MASTER'S DEGREE 5 Ph.D. 5 Ph.D. 6 OTHER PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 6 OTHER PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 135 JJ. How much do the following understand your academic endeavors? which best applies. 5? s 3., $5 .5 5'3 5;.» U 5: a . Q 5E -11- Check the category $2.... Father Stspmother Stepfather Brothers Sisters Husband Partner Children Other relatives Friends (non-university) Friends (other departments] Employer Therapist Clergy ”CERF 136 -12- KR. How much social support do you receive from the following (on the average)? Check the most appropriate categogy. E S E s s s s a E E 3 :5 E "5 g “2 2 E §: :2 E is s is S SS §_ 5 S 8% s Si § SE r—uun—n — —- Mother Father Stepmothar Stepfather Brothers Sisters Husband Partner Children Other relatives Friends (non-university) Employer Friends (other depts.) Therapist Clergy Other male professor Ot er female professor Major professor *tfiiiflflflflflflfiflflflfi“””“fi*m*** **fl”****fifl**flflfl**flflfiflflflttflttfli Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. As a graduate student, I know how busy your schedules can be and appreciate the time you have given me. PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE RETURN POSTPAID ENVELOPE BY JUNE 13, 1985. 137 APPENDIX C POSTCARD REMINDER APPENDIX C POSTCARD REMINDER June 5, 1985 Hello! Not long ago, you received my dissertation questionnaire in the mail asking you about your perceived academic competence and feed- back sources in your PhJL program. If you have already completed and returned it, thank you very much for your help. If you have pp; completed the questionnaire, please take the time to fill it out now that your finals are over. Please return the questionnaire by Jene 15,_12§2. If you need another copy or have any questions, please call me at 339- 3714. Thank you very much. Paulette M. Valliere, Ph.D. candidate Department of Psychology 138 REFERENCES REFERENCES Acker, S. (1983). Women, the other academics. Women’s Seedies Ingernetienal Fprug, p, 191-201. Adams, H. F. (1983). Work in the interstices: Women in academe. Wemen’s Studies International Forum, 9, 135-141. Almquist, E.M., & Angrist, 8.8. (1971). Role model influences on college women’s career aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Querterly,;1 263-279. Ames, E.W. (1981). no title Internetienel Journal 9; Wemen’s Studies, 3, 431-440. Anderson, JyV. (1973). Psychological determinants. In RAB. Rundsin (Ed.), Women and success: The anetomy e; achievement. (pp. 200-207). New York: Morrow. Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and humap behavior. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizapienal Beheyior and Human Perfermance, 32, 370-398. Battle, E.S. (1965). Motivational determinants of academic task Persistence- Ml 2f W arid. £29.13}. Psychelogy, 1, 209-218. Battle, E.S. (1966). Motivational determinants of academic competence. Journal 2; Personality and Social Psychelegy, &, 634-642. Baruch, G.R. (1976). Girls who perceive themselves as competent: Some antecedents and correlates. Psychology e; Wemen Qearterly, l, 38-49. Bem, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Reyiew, 15, 183-200. 139 Bem, D.J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances Lg experimental social psycholegy (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press. Brenner, CLC., & Tomkiewicz, J. (1982). Sex differences among business graduates on fear of success and fear of appearing incompetent as measured by objective instruments. Psychelogical Reperts, 2;, 179-182. Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, PuE., & Rosencrantz, P.S. (1972). Sex—role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Jeurnal 2; Social Issues, gs, 59- 78. Chhokar, J.S., & Wallin, J.A. (1984). A field study of the effect of feedback frequency on performance. Jeurnel 9; Applied Psychology, 92, 524-530. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The entecedents _; self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Deci, EAL. (I972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic behavior. Organizatienal Behayier and Heman Performance, 8, 217-229. Deci, EJu (1975). Intrinsic metivation. New York: Plenum. ' Deutsch, F.M., & Leong, F.T.L. (1983). Male responses to female competence. Sex R les, 2,79-91. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The tetal design method. New York: Wiley. Douvan, E. (1976). The role of models in women’s professional development. Psychelogy e; Women Quarterly, 1, 5-20. Eagly, A.H., 8 Whitehead, 6.1. (1972). Effect of choice on receptivity to favorable and unfavorable evaluations of oneself. Jeurnal e; Personalipy and Social Ps cholo , 2.2! 223’230e Enzle, M.E. (1980). Self-perception of motivation. In D.M. Wegner & R.R. Vallacher (Eds.), The geliig aegis; psychology (pp.SS-79). New York: Oxford University Press. Epstein, C.F. (1970). Encountering the male establishment: Sex status limits on women’s careers in the professions. American Joprnal e; Sociolo , 12, 965-982. a 140 Epstein, C.F. (1970). Woman’s place: Options and limits ‘ ip professional eepeepe. Berkeley: University of California Press. Etaugh, C., & Riley, 8. (1983). Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of marital and parental status and occupational sex-typing. Sex Roles, 2, 943-953. Feather, NJT. (1966). Effects of prior succes and failure on expectations of succes and subsequent performance. Journal e; Persenality ane Social P holo , 1, 287- 298. Feather, N.T., & Simon, J.G. (1971). Attribution of responsibility and valence of outcome in relation to initial confidence and success and failure of self and other. Jeurnal e; Persenality end Social Ps chol , lg, 173-188. Fee, E. (1981). Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity? Intepnetienel Jeernel e; Wemen’s Stpeies, 5,378-392. Feldman, S.D. (1973). Escepe from the eoll’s house. New York: McGraw Hill. Fisher, C.D. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence, and extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizatienel Behavior and Human Performence, 2;, 273-288. Frey, D. (1981). Postdecisional preference for decision relevant information as a function of the competence of its source and the degree of familiarity with this information. Jeepnel pf Experimental Secial Psychology, 11, Sl-67.a Frey, D. (1981). The effect of negative feedback about oneself and cost of information on preferences for information about the source of this feedback. Journal pf Expepimental Social Ps h l , L1, 42-50. b Gergen, R.J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K.J. Gergen (Eds.), The eel; ip_seciel inpepection (pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley. Gergen, K.J. (1971). The concept 5;; self. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gilbert, L.A., Gallessich, J.M., & Evans, S.L. (1983). Sex of faculty role model and students’ self-perceptions of competency. Sex Roles, 2, 597-607. 141 Gold, A.R., Brush» luR., & Sprotzer, E.R. (1980). Developmental changes in self-perceptions of intelligence and self-confidence. Psychology pf flemen W. 2. 231-23 9. Goldstein, E. (1979). Effect of same-sex and cross-sex role models on the subsequent academic productivity of scholars. American Psychelogist, 15, 407-410. Good, L.R., & Good, R.C. (1973). An objective measure of the motive to avoid appearing incompetent. Psychologicel Reperts, 3;, 1075-1078. Gorsuch, RAL. (1974). Faceer analysis. Philadelphia: Saunders. Greller, M.M., 8 Herold, D.M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation. Organizatienal Behavier and Renee Performance, 1;, 244-256. Hagen, RAL., 6 Rahn, As (1975). Discrimination against competent women. Journal 2; Applied Seciel Psycholegy, ‘2,362-376. A Harris,lLE.,& Greene,R.L.(l984). Students’perception of actual, trivial, and inaccurate personality feedback. Jeurnel e; Persenality Assessment, pg, 179-184. Harvey, O.J., Kelley, R.H., 8 Shapiro, M.M. (1957). Reactions to unfavorable evaluations of the self made by other persons. Journal e; Personalit , 22, 393-411. Heilman, M.E., & Kram, K.E. (1983). Male and female assumptions about colleagues’ views of their competence. Psycholegy pf flemen Querterly, 1, 329-337. Hein, H. (1981). Women and science: Fitting men to think about nature. Internetional Journal pf Women’s Studies, 5,369-377. Hogan, J.L., Fisher, R.H., & Morrison, B.J. (1974). Social feedback and cooperative game behavior. Psychological Renata. 3.2. 1075-1082. Holmstrom, E.I., & Holmstrom, R.W. (1974). The plight of the woman doctoral student. American Educational Research qurnal, 11, 1-17. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.N., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Jeppnel 9; Applied Psychology, 95, 349- 371. 142 Ilgen,lLR.,& Hamstra,B.W.(1972L Performance satisfaction as a function of the difference between expected and reported performance at five levels of reported performance. Organizational Behayior and Human Performance, 7 359-370. _9 Jackson, IHA. (1983). Gender, physical attractiveness, and sex role in occupational treatment discrimination: The influence of trait and role assumptions. Journal 2; Applied geeie; Ps cholo , 22, 443-458. a Jackson, IHA. (1983). The influence of sex, physical attractiveness, sex role, and occupational sex-linkage on perceptions of occupational suitability. Journal 9; Applied Seciel Ps chol , 22, 31-44. b Jacoby, J., Mazursky, D., Troutman, T., 8 Russ, A. (1984). When feedback is ignored: Disutility of outcome feedback. Journal 2; Applied Ps cholo , 22, 531-545. Reppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psycholegical Bulleein, e3, 1-13. Lenney, E. (1981). What’s fine for the gander isn’t always good for the goose: Sex differences in self-confidence as a function of ability area and comparison with others. 2e; Roles, 1, 905-924. Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influence ofcomparison to others’ ability level. Sex R les, 2, 925-942. Lenney, E”.Nitchell, LJ,& Browning, C.(1983). The effect of clear evaluation criteria on sex bias in judgments of performance. Psychology 3; Women muesli. l. 313-328. Levstik, L.S. (1982). The impossible dream: The Ph.D., marriage, and family. In S.A. Vartulli (Ed.), The Ph.D. expepienee: A woman’s pping p; viengp.93-IO4). New York: Praeger. Lott, B. (1985). The devaluation of women’s competence. Journal p; Social Issues, 5;, 43-60. Mooney, JJL (1968). Attrition among PhTD. candidates: An analysis of a cohort of recent Woodrow Wilson fellows. Journal of Human Resources, 3, 47-62. 143 Patterson, M., 8 Sells, L. (1973). Women dropouts from higher education. In A.S. Rossi & A. Calderwood (Eds.), Academie wemen pp the moye (pp. 79-92). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Peck, T. (1978). ‘When women evaluate women, nothing succeeds like success: The differential effects of status upon evaluations of male and female professional ability. 2e; R les, 5, 205-213. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving ppe self. New York: Basic Books. Shapley, D. (1976). Obstacles to women in science. Impect e; Seience pp Soci t , 22, 115-124. Sherman, :LA. (1976). Social values, femininity, and the development of female competence. gepgpe2_p£_§eeiel, Iaspes, 22, 181-195. Shrauger, J.S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions. geyepelegieel Bulletin, 22, 581-596. . Shrauger,, J.S., & Rosenberg, S.E. (1970). Self-esteem and the effects of success and failure feedback on performance. Jeurnal e; Pers nalit , 22,404-417. Shrauger, J.S., & Schoeneman, T.J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychelogical Bulletin, 22, 549- 573. Stake, J.E. (1979). The ability/performance dimension of self-esteem: Implications for women’s achievemant behavior. Psychelogy e; Women Quarterly, 2, 365-377. Stake, J.E. (1982). Reactions to positive and negative feedback: Enhancement and consistency effects. Social Behavie; end Pers nalit , 22, 151-156. Stake, J}E. (I983). Ability level, evaluative feedback, and sex differences in performance expectancy. Peycholegy 9; Women Quapperly, 2, 48-58. Stericker, A.B., & Johnson, J.E. (1977). Sex-role identification and self-esteem in college students: Do men and women differ? Sex Roles, 3 19-26. Sweeney, P.D., Moreland, R.L., & Gruber, ILL. (1982). Gender differences in performance attributions: Students’ explanations for personal success or failure. 2e; Roles, 8 359-373. 144 Vartulli, S.A. (1982). A professional socialization process. In S.A. Vartulli (Ed.), The Ph.D. experience: :A woman’s point 9; view (pp.1-14). New York: Praeger. White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 22, 297-333. Wiley, M.G., Crittenden, R.S., & Birg, L.D. (1979). Why a rejection? Causal attribution of a career achievement event. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 214-222. Williams, R. (1982). In and out of relationships: A serious game for the woman doctoral student. In S.A. Vartulli (Ed.), The Ph.D, experience: _A_ woman’s point 2; view (pp.79-92). New York: Praeger. Wyer, R.S., Jr., & Frey, D. (1983). The effects of feedback about self and others on the recall and judgments of feedback-relevant information. Journal 2; Experimental Social Ps cholo , 22, 540-559. 145