Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 305-3 15 (197 1)

Occupational Interests:
Male-Female or High Level-Low Level Dichotomy?
ESTHER E. DIAMOND1 32
Science Research Associates, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

The relation between occupational level and masculine and feminine

interests was investigated to determine whether sex differences in interests
would be minimized at the high end of the occupational continuum and
dichotomized at the low end. Subjects were scored on four experimental
scales derived from Kuder OIS scales-Male, Female, High Occupational
Level, and Low Occupational Level. Scores were subjected to several analyses, including comparisons of mean differences within and across groups,
and an errors of classification study. In general, results were consistent with
the proposed hypothesis. A strong, unpredicted relation, for the two male
groups, between high occupational level and female interests was hypothesized to be the result of a verbal factor common to both sets of interests.

Long before womens liberation activities began receiving wide, almost

daily coveragein the press, increasing numbers of women were entering occupational fields that traditionally, in our society, had been dominated by men.
Until recently, however, instruments to measureoccupational interest had few
or no scalesfor women other than those for traditional womens work-housewife, elementary school teacher, nurse, librarian, office worker, secretary,and
so on. Even today, with a number of professional scaleson the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) for women, and still more on the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (OIS), mens and womens occupational interests are
frequently considered to be quite different, even in the samefield, and use of
separatescalesor samescaleswith separatenorms prevails. Most investigators
of the assumeddifferences between mens and womens occupational interests
lReprints may be obtained from the author, Science Research Associates, 259 East
Erie St., Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Parts of this study were briefly summarized in the following: Diamond, E. E.
Occupational level versus sex group as a system of classification. Proceedingsof fhe 76th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 199-200 (Summary); Relationship between occupational level and masculine and feminine interests.
Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
1970, 5, 177-178 (Summary).
305
Copyright @ 1971 by Academic Press, Inc.

306

ESTHER

E. DIAMOND

have explained these differences, to varying degrees,within the context of

overall psychosocial role, including sex role.
Roe (1956) held that, with reference to occupations, the psychological
and sociological differences between the sexesare much more important than
primary and secondary physical differences. Psychological and social differences, she maintained, form a continuum, and the actual physical fact of
maleness or femalenessis not necessarily an indication of location at the
masculine or feminine end of the scale. There are some women, according to
Roe, who are more masculine than some men, and vice versa. Differences in
relative masculinity-femininity are related in many ways to occupational interests [p. 581.
Super (1957) viewed occupations as organizations of social roles, with
vocational development being understood partly in terms of the way in which
the individual meets role expectations. As a child, a boy is called on to be
brave and strong, a girl to be kind and gentle. The roletaking is both conscious and unconscious; children and adults emulate role models sometimes
by design, sometimeswithout awarenessof the identification [pp. 46471.
Tyler (19.51) saw a girls role model as primarily a sex model, while she
perceived a boys role model as beginning as a sex model and developing into
a differentiated occupational model. Even in the first grade, Tyler observed,
most boys have begun to see themselves and their roles according to the
different kinds of positions they might occupy in adult life; most girls, on the
other hand, see themselvesas homemakers like their mothers, regardlessof
special abilities.
Strong (1943) found that the interests of men and women were, on the
whole, more similar than dissimilar, but that they could be made to appear
quite dissimilar when their interest blanks were scored on the MF (Masculinity-Femininity) scaleof the SVIB.
Darley and Hagenah(1955) found that noncareer-orientedwomen who
work for a short time before marriage at the traditional womens jobs described above tend to score higher on the feminine end of the SVIB Masculinity-Femininity (MF) scalethan do career-oriented women, and that womens
interests are generally less channelized or professionally intense than those of
men.
More than 30 years ago, Crissy and Daniel (1939), in a factor analysis of
the SVIB, found four factors in the womens scales. Three of these corresponded to three factors in the mens scales-interest in people, interest in
language, and interest in science. A fourth factor, which the investigators
identified as interest in male association, had no counterpart in the mens
scalesand appearedto represent nonprofessionalinterests mainly-including an
interest in detail and order. Seder (1940) studied the scoresof 100 women
physicians and 100 life insurance saleswomenon 35 scalesof the mens and
womens forms of the SVIB. A factor analysis failed to substantiate the com-

307

OCCUPATIONAL INTERESTS

mon claim that womens interests show different factors from those of men
and Sederconcluded that the factor loadingstended to support the hypothesis
that there is no femininity factor among the womens keys or masculinity factor among the mens keys. Strong (1943, pp. 574-576) disputed
Seders findings. He conceded that some mens and womens scalesmight be
used interchangeably, but argued that generally it is much better to score a
sex on its own scales. Much later, Laime and Zytowski (1964) investigated
the question of whether scores on the mens form could be predicted from
scores on the womens form. Among the highest correlations were those for
lawyers, which Strong (1943) and Seder (1940) had found among the lowest.
For seven scales,letter ratings were raised one letter in the change from the
womens form to the mens, an increase of five standard score units. On only
one scalewas the letter rating lowered.
Rand (1968) found that career-oriented college freshmenwomen scored
significantly higher than homemaking-oriented college freshmen women on
nine out of ten masculine characteristicsrelated to interest, potential, achievement, and competencies; but they also scored higher on a number of the
feminine variables! Rand concluded that the career-orientedwoman has redefined her role to include those behaviors appropriate to both sexes,while the
homemaking-oriented woman adheresclosely to her traditional feminine role.
TABLE 1

Occupational
CriterionGroups Used to Construct
the Four Experimental Scales
Sex
Occupational
level
High

Male
Minister
Personnel
manager
Physician
Psychiatrist
Statistnzian

LOW

Baker
Carpenter
Plumbing
contractor
Television
repairman
Truck driver

Female
Administrative
dietitian
High school science teacher
Lawyer
Medical social
worker
Psychiatric social worker
Beautician
Dental assistant
Department store
saleswoman
Florist
Office clerk

308

ESTHER E. DIAMOND

Stanfiel (1970) found that women college students who completed both the
mens and the womens forms of the SVIB obtained a significantly greater
number of A scores on the mens form. Farmer and Bohn (1970) administered
the womens form of the SVIB twice to professional women subjects. first
using a standard administration and then using an experimental set almed at
reducing home-career conflict. On the second administration, subjects scored
higher on the Career scales and lower on the Home scales.
The purpose of the study reported here was to explore the relation
between occupational level and interests identified as masculine or feminine.
The study was specifically designed to determine whether it is possible for an
interest measure to discriminate between subjects more accurately with respect
to occupational level than with respect to sex group, and whether the occupational level scales based on the combined responses of men and women to an
interest inventory could successfully differentiate between high- and low-level
occupational interests for both sexes. It was hypothesized that sex differences
in occupationally relevant interests would be minimized at the upper end of
the occupational continuum, although they might be clearly differentiated at
the low end, where women are not likely to be employed as truck drivers or
construction workers and male stenographers and typists are the exception
rather than the rule.

METHOD
The interest measure employed in this study was the Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (OIS), Form DD. The OIS rationale eliminates use of a
general reference group; the values of each possible response for a given scale
are derived directly from the proportion of the criterion group marking that
response. Scores are reported as lambda coefficients, expressing the relation
between subjects responses and the characteristic responses of the criterion
group (Kuder, 1966).
Criterion groups for which 01s scales had been developed were selected,
a priori, on the basis of four gross classifications: Male, Female, High Occupational Level, Low Occupational Level. Occupational level was defined in accordance with a combination of criteria-level of responsibility, degree of independence and decision-making, and amount and kind of education required, as
described by the Occupational Outlook Handbook and the Dictionay of Occupational Titles and to some extent by the two-way classification of occupations (field by level) developed by Roe (1956). From the groups in each of
these classifications, five were chosen at random, making a total of 20 groups.
These are shown in Table 1. Four experimental scales-Male, Female, High
Occupational Level, and Low Occupational Level-were developed from the
combined response proportions for the groups in each of the four experimen-

309

OCCUPATIONAL INTERESTS
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Experimental Groups
on the Four Scales
Scale

High OL
male
Low OL
male
High OL
female
Low OL
female

Female

Male

Group

High occupational level

Low occupatlonal level

SD

SD

SD

SD

s22

.079

,457

,080

.535

.075

.440

.090

.443

.116

,339

,121

,314

,112

,476

,132

.45 1

.085

S42

,105

.545

.lOO

,446

.098

,395

.080

.554

.080

.435

.090

522

,077

tal classifications, using the systememployed in developing the 01s scales

(Ruder, 1966). Three-hundred cross-validationsubjects,75 for each of the four
experimental classifications, were randomly selected from an available pool of
OIS cross-validation subjects. Each subject was scored on each of the four
experimental scales.
Mean differences between scoreson the four scaleswere compared both
within groups and across groups. Next, an errors of classification study was
conducted to determine the frequency with which subjects were classified
correctly on the basis of sex and of level. Correct classification was defined as
scoring higher on the scale representing subjects actual sex or occupational
level than on the scale for the opposite sex or occupational level. Ties were.
counted as correct classifications.

RESULTS
Mean Differences

Means and standard deviations of subjects on the four experimental

scales are given in Table 2. As expected, means for both High Occupational
Level Males and High Occupational Level Femaleswere highest on the High
Occupational Level scale. For Low Occupational Level Males, mean score on
the Low Occupational Level scale was highest, while for Low Occupational
Level Females,mean score on the Female scalewas highest. For the two High
Occupational Level groups, mean score on the Low Occupational Level scale

310

ESTHER E. DIAMOND

was lowest; for Low Occupational Level Males, mean score on the High Occupational Level scale was lowest; and for Low Occupational Level Females,
mean score on the Male scalewas lowest.
For all groups, differencesbetween mean scoreson the Male and Female
scales and between mean scores on the High and Low Occupational Level
scales were significant (p < .Ol). For both High Occupational Level groups,
differences between mean scores on the scale for their own sex and on the
High Occupational Level scale were not significant. For both groups of Low
Occupational Level subjects, differences between mean scoreson the scale for
their own sex and on both the High and Low Occupational Level scaleswere
significant (JJ< .Ol). High Occupational Level groups of both sexesalso scored
TABLE 3
Relevant Mean Differences between Scores
High occupational level males (N = 75)

SE
t ratio

M-Fa

M-high OL

M-low OL

,065
,088
6.37*

-.014
.071
-1.67

.082
.057
12.49*

High-low
OL
.096
.09.5
8.72*

Low occupational level males (N = 75)

M
SE
t ratio

M-F

M-High OL

.104
.083
10.874*

.I29
.07?
14.482*

M-Low OL
-.033
.052
-5.430*

Low-high
OL
.I62
.102
13.654*

High occupational level females (N = 75)

F-M
M
SE
t ratio

SE
t ratio

F-High OL

F-Low OL

,091
-.003
.096
.089
.07 1
.062
-.374
13.392*
8.847*
Low occupational level females (N = 75)
F-M

F-High OL

F-Low OL

.I59

,119
.058
17.814*

.032
.06 1
4.514*

.077
17.937*

M represents male; F represents female.

*p < .Ol.

High-low
OL
.099
.102
8.451*
Low-hgh
OL
.087
.091
8.263*

311

OCCUPATIONAL INTERESTS
TABLE 4
Relevant Mean Differences Between Scores
Compared Across Groups

Group I
(N = 75)
High OL male
High OL female
High OL male
High OL female
High OL male
High OL male
Low OL male
Low OL male
High OL male
High OL female
High OL male
High OL female
High OL male
Low OL male

Group II
(N = 75)
Low OL male
Low OL female
Low OL male
Low OL female
High OL female
High OL female
Low OL female
Low OL female
Low OL male
Low OL female
Low OL male
Low OL female
High OL female
Low OL female

Scale on
which
compared

Mean
difference

Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
High OL
High OL
Low OL
Low OL
High OL
Low OL

.079
.012
,118
.096
.07 1
.085
.048
.215
.221
.llO
.036
.076
.OlO
.046

4.65**
.86
6.94**
6.86**
5.07**
6.07**
2.82**
12.65**
13.00**
7.86**
2.12s
5.43**
.71
2.71**

*p < .05.
**p < .Ol.

significantly higher on the scale for the other sex than did the Low Occupational Level groups. The f-test results are shown in Table 3.
Results of a second series of t tests, conducted to determine the significance of the differences between mean scoresacrossgroups, are given in Table
4.
For the differences between the means of High and Low Occupational
Level Males and between the means of High and Low Occupational Level
Females on the High Occupational Level scale, p < .Ol. For differences between means on the Low Occupational Level scale,p < .05 for High and Low
Occupational Level Males and p < .Ol for High and Low Occupational Level
Females. For the differences between means of High and Low Occupational
Level Males on the Male scale, p < .Ol, but the comparable difference for
females,between means of High and Low Occupational Level Femaleson the
Female scale,was not significant.
High Occupational Level groups of both sexesscored higher on the scale
for the other sex than did the Low Occupational Level groups; for differences
between these means, between the meansof the two High Occupational Level
groups, and between the meansof the two Low Occupational Level groups on
both the Male and Female scales,p < .Ol. The difference between the means
of the two High Occupational Level groups on the High Occupational Level
scale was not significant, but p < .Ol for the difference between the meansof
the two Low Occupational Level groups on the Low Occupational Level scale.

312

ESTHER E.DIAMOND

Since it was noted that the differences between means on the Male and
Female scales were considerably smaller for the two High Occupational Level
groups than for the two Low Occupational Level groups, a third series of t
tests was conducted to determine the significance of the difference between
scores on the Male and Female scales across occupational levels and sex
groups. Only the difference between the mean scores on the Male and Female
scales for the two High Occupational Level groups was not significant; for all
other differences, p < .O1.
Errors of Classification
High Occupational Level subjects were more frequently classified correctTABLES
Intercorrelations of the Scoreson the Four Experimental Scales
Scale
Group
(N=75)
in each)
Male
Total group
High OL male
Low OL male
High OL female
Low OL female
Female
Total group
High OL male
Low OL male
High OL female
Low OL female
High OL
Total group
High OL male
Low OL male
High OL female
Low OL female
Low OL
Total group
High OL male
Low OL male
High OL female
Low OL female

Male

Female

High OL

Low OL

.32
.40
.76
.58
.55

.62
.58
.77
.80
.77

.56
.78
.92
.66
.70

.76
.76
.92
.I6
.78

.58
.62
.80
.82
.70

.24
.35
.66
.48
.42

OCCUPATIONAL

INTERESTS

313

ly on the basis of scores on the High Occupational Level scale than on the
basis of scores on the Male and Female scales(p > .05), and Low Occupational Level Subjects were more frequently classified correctly on the basis of
scores on the Male and Female scalesthan on the basis of scoreson the Low
Occupational Level scale(p < .Ol).
Intercorrelations

Intercorrelations of the scales, shown in Table 5, ranged from .24 for

High Occupational Level with Low Occupational Level, to .76 for Female
with High Occupational Level, for the total group. Correlations are also given
for each of the four groups.
DISCUSSION
In general, the differences between mean scores were in the direction
suggestedby the hypothesis, with High Occupational Level subjects scoring
highest on the High Occupational Level scale and Low Occupational Level
subjects on either the scale for the appropriate sex group (Low Occupational
Level Females) or the Low Occupational Level scale(Low Occupational Level
Males). For all four groups, differences between mean scoreson the High and
Low Occupational Level scalesand on the Male and Female scaleswere significant, indicating the power of the scales to differentiate accurately between
both occupational levels and both sexes. Also consistent with the proposed
hypothesis, sex differences with regard to interests appeared to be minimized
at the high end of the occupational continuum but sharply differentiated at
the lower end.
The findings also indicate a high degreeof relationship between the High
Occupational Level scale and the Female scale. A possible explanation is that
the interests of High Occupational Level subjects are highly verbal, and the
verbal factor is generally associatedwith the feminine end of the MF continuum. Strong (1966, p. 19) found that educated men in particular score toward
the feminine end of the MF scale, which was interpreted to mean that they
like books and art, clean inside work, and activities that are typically feminine in society as a whole.
It seemsapparent, however, that while for male subjectsthere is a high
degree of relationship between high occupational level and interests, possibly
verbal, identified with the feminine end of the MF continuum, the sameis not
true for female subjects. For High Occupational Level Females, the strong
association between the Male and High Occupational Level scalesmight reflect
the fact that, for women, interest in attaining a high occupational level is
consonant with living in a mans world, competing with males, and consequently having interests highly similar to theirs.

314

ESTHER E. DIAMOND

For LOW Occupational Level Females, on the other hand, the correlations of the sex group scales with the occupational level scaleshad a much
smaller range, and for each of the two occupational levels the degree of
relationship with male and female scaleswas equivalent. These findings may
reflect an ambivalence in the lives of women holding low occupational level
occupations. It is possible, as has been pointed out by Strong (1943, 1959)
and Harmon (1967) that the circumstancesof womens lives may force them
into occupations which they would not choose if they were free to select on
the basis of vocational interests alone-that many women select their jobs on
the basis of convenience rather than genuine interest in the work. Low occupational level jobs are often more convenient for the married woman, particularly if she has children, from the point of view of regular hours, low pressure,
and nearnessto home. Yet many of these women may be more highly educated than their jobs would indicate. Males, on the other hand, are much
more likely to go into occupations consistent with their education and ability.
This explanation may in part also account for the fact that more Low Occupational Level Females than Low Occupational Level Males were classified as
High Occupational Level subjects.
The picture, perhaps, is changing-though far more slowly than one
might expect. In 1950, 10% of all women workers were in technical and
professional jobs, compared with 15% today. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (Waldman, 1970), approximately 70% of all women with 5 or
more years of college, and more than half of all women with 4 years of
college, are in the labor force. The more education a woman has, the more
likely she is to work. This high labor force participation rate indicates a very
strong commitment to both marriage and a career, a far stronger one than
prevailed among high school graduates the same ages (57%) [p. 161. But
even with this increase in percentage in professional jobs, the same report
points out: The broad category of professional jobs is a notorious example
of a field divided along sexual lines. Here, about two-thirds of all women are
employed as either nurses or teachers, and even as teachers, most women
teach in the primary gradeswhile most men teach in high school [p. 121.
REFERENCES
Crissy, W. J. E., & Daniel, W. J. Vocational interest factors in women. Journal of Applied
Psychology,

1939, 23, 448-494.

Darley, J. G., & Hagenah, T. Vocational interest measurement. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1955.
Farmer, H. S., & Bohn, M. J., Jr. Home-career conflict reduction and the level of career
interest in women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 228-232.
Harmon, L. W. Womens interests-fact or fiction? Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967,
45. 895-900.

OCCUPATIONAL INTERESTS

315

Kuder, G. F. General manual, Occupational Interest Survey, Form DD. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, 1966.
Laime, B. F., & Zytowski, D. G. Womens scores on the M and F forms of the SVIB.
Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1964, 12, 116-118.
Rand, L. Masculinity orc:feminity ? Differentiating career-oriented and homemakingoriented college freshmen women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15,
444-450.

Roe, A. The psychology of occupations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956.
Seder, M. A. The vocational interests of professional women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1940, 24, 130-143, 265-212.
Stantiel, J. D. Administration of the SVIB Mens form to women counselees. Vocational
Guidance Quarterly, 1970, 19, 22-21.
Strong, E. K., Jr. Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press, 1943.
Strong, E. K., Jr. Manual for Strong Vocational Interest Blank. (Rev. by D. Campbell)
Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1966.
Super, D. E. Vocational development: A framework for research. Horace Mann-Lincoln
Institute of School Experimentation, Career Pattern Study No. 1. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957.
Tyler, L. The relationship of interests to abilities and reputation among first-grade
children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1951, 11, 255-264.
Waldman, E. Women at work: Changes in the labor force activity of women. Reprint
2677, MonthZy Labor Review, June 1970, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United
States Department of Labor.
Received: November 30, 1970