IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0095960.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women's Representation in 60 Occupations from 1972 to 2010: More Women in High-Status Jobs, Few Women in Things-Oriented Jobs

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A Lippa
  • Kathleen Preston
  • John Penner

Abstract

To explore factors associated with occupational sex segregation in the United States over the past four decades, we analyzed U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the percent of women employed in 60 varied occupations from 1972 to 2010. Occupations were assessed on status, people-things orientation, and data-ideas orientation. Multilevel linear modeling (MLM) analyses showed that women increasingly entered high-status occupations from 1972 to 2010, but women's participation in things-oriented occupations (e.g., STEM fields and mechanical and construction trades) remained low and relatively stable. Occupations' data-ideas orientation was not consistently related to sex segregation. Because of women's increased participation in high-status occupations, occupational status became an increasingly weak predictor of women's participation rates in occupations, whereas occupations' people-things orientation became an increasingly strong predictor over time. These findings are discussed in relation to theories of occupational sex segregation and social policies to reduce occupational sex segregation.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A Lippa & Kathleen Preston & John Penner, 2014. "Women's Representation in 60 Occupations from 1972 to 2010: More Women in High-Status Jobs, Few Women in Things-Oriented Jobs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0095960
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095960
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095960&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0095960?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea C Vial & Janine Bosak & Patrick C Flood & John F Dovidio, 2021. "Individual variation in role construal predicts responses to third-party biases in hiring contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    2. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    3. Stephan HUMPERT, 2015. "Gender-based Segregation before and after the Great Recession," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(4(605), W), pages 53-62, Winter.
    4. Otterbring, Tobias & Bhatnagar, Roopali & Samuelsson, Peter & Borau, Sylvie, 2021. "Positive gender congruency effects on shopper responses: Field evidence from a gender egalitarian culture," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Rammohan, Anu & Goli, Srinivas & Reddy, Bheemeshwar, 2017. "Occupational Segregation by Caste and Gender in India," MPRA Paper 101969, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Gijsbert Stoet & Drew H Bailey & Alex M Moore & David C Geary, 2016. "Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Tobin, Catherine & Bradshaw, Noel-Ann, 2019. "Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 149-169.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0095960. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.