Research in Higher Education

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 389–425 | Cite as

The dynamics of “tokenism”: How college students are affected by the proportion of women in their major

  • Linda J. Sax
Article

Abstract

This study provides an empirical test of Kanter's theory of “tokenism” (1977a,b)—that individuals will be affected adversely by declining representation of their own gender within an environment. Using students' college major as the environmental backdrop, this study examines how the proportion of women in a major affects students' college grades, academic self-concept, mathematical self-concept, social selfconcept, satisfaction with the major, and persistence in the major. Data are drawn from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program's 1985 Freshman Survey and 1989 Follow-Up Survey. The sample includes 7,641 women and 5,074 men in 344 fouryear colleges and universities. Regression results indicate that the proportion of women in the major has essentially no impact on the cognitive and affective development of college students. Instead, this study illustrates how the relationship between the gender composition of the major and student outcomes can be accounted for by characteristics of students, aspects of the college environment, and the effects of major field.

Keywords

College Student Research Program Regression Result Empirical Test Student Outcome 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, V. D., and Thoits, P. A. (1985). Token achievement: An examination of proportional representation and performance outcomes.Social Forces 64(2): 332–340.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, A. W. (1991).Assessment for Excellence. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1993a).What Matters in College? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Astin, A. W. (1993b). An empirical typology of college students.Journal of College Student Development 34: 36–46.Google Scholar
  5. Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Riggs, E. R. (1993).The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1993. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  6. Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., Sax, L. J., and Mahoney, K M. (1994).The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1994. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  7. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1967).Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, M. K. (1988).Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Crocker, J., and McGraw, K. M. (1984). What's good for the goose is not good for the gander: Solo status as an obstacle to occupational achievement for males and females.American Behavioral Scientist 27(3): 357–369.Google Scholar
  10. Dey, E. L., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Riggs, E. R. (1992).The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1992. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  11. Heikes, E. J. (1991). When men are the minority: The case of men in nursing.The Sociological Quarterly, 23(3): 389–401.Google Scholar
  12. Higher Education Research Institute (1992).Undergraduate Science Education: The Impact of Different College Environments on the Educational Pipeline in the Sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Izraeli, D. N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of proportions.Social Forces 62(1): 153–165.Google Scholar
  14. Kanter, R. M. (1977a).Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.American Journal of Sociology 82(5): 965–990.Google Scholar
  16. Kennan, E. T. (1994). Girls' schools are best for girls.Los Angeles Times, January 17, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. Mahony, P. (1988). Oppressive pedagogy: The importance of process in women's studies.Women's Studies International Forum 11(2): 103–108.Google Scholar
  18. McGuire, W. J., and Padawer-Singer, A. (1976). Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(6): 743–754.Google Scholar
  19. National Center for Education Statistics (1970).Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  20. National Center for Education Statistics (1991).Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  21. National Center for Education Statistics (1994).Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Panos, R. J., Astin, A. W., and Creager, J. A. (1967).National Norms for Entering College Freshmen—Fall 1967. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  23. Pascarella, E. T. (1985a). Students' affective development within the college environment.Journal of Higher Education 56(6): 640–663.Google Scholar
  24. Pascarella, E. T. (1985b). The influence of on-campus living versus commuting to college on intellectual and interpersonal self-confidence.Journal of College Student Personnel 26: 292–299.Google Scholar
  25. Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., and Nettles, M. T. (1987). The influence of college on self-concept: A consideration of race and gender differences.American Educational Research Journal 24(1): 49–77.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenblatt, A., and Kirk, S. A. (1982). Social roles of women in medicine, psychiatry, and social work.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52(3): 430–439.Google Scholar
  27. Ruble, D. N., and Higgins, E. T. (1976). Effects of group sex composition on self-presentation and sex-typing.Journal of Social Issues 32(3): 125–132.Google Scholar
  28. Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., and Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology 76(2): 263–267.Google Scholar
  29. Schniedewind, N. (1985). Cooperatively structured learning: Implications for feminist pedagogy.Journal of Thought 20(3): 74–87.Google Scholar
  30. Schuster, M., and Van Dyne, S. (1984). Placing women in the liberal arts: Stages of curriculum transformation.Harvard Educational Review 54(4): 413–428.Google Scholar
  31. Smart, J. C., and Pascarella, E. T. (1986). Self-concept development and educational degree attainment.Higher Education 15: 3–15.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, A., and Stewart, A. J. (1983). Approaches to studying racism and sexism in black women's lives.Journal of Social Issues 39(3): 1–15.Google Scholar
  33. Snavely, B. K., and Fairhurst, G. T. (1984). The male nursing student as a token.Research in Nursing and Health 7: 287–294.Google Scholar
  34. Spangler, E., Gordon, M., and Pipkin, R. M. (1978). Token women: An empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis.American Journal of Sociology 84(1): 160–169.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L. Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(7): 778–793.Google Scholar
  36. Tidball, M. E. (1980). Women's colleges and women achievers revisited.Signs 5(3): 504–517.Google Scholar
  37. Tidball, M. E. (1989). Women's colleges: Exceptional conditions, not exceptional talent, produce high achievers. InEducating the Majority, C. S. Pearson, D. L. Shavlik, and J. G. Touchton (eds.), pp. 157–172. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. Wharton, A. S., and Baron, J. N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work.American Sociological Review 52, October: 574–587.Google Scholar
  39. Wharton, A. S., and Baron, J. N. (1991). Satisfaction? The psychological impact of gender segregation on women at work.The Sociological Quarterly 32(3): 365–387.Google Scholar
  40. Yoder, J., Adams, J., and Prince, H. T. (1983). The price of a token.Journal of Political and Military Sociology 11(Fall): 325–337.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda J. Sax
    • 1
  1. 1.Higher Education Research Institute at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations