Occupational Schemas: Perceived Differences in

Relative Importance of Task vs. Relations Skills in Stereotyped Jobs

Annie Nolan & Daniel Arkkelin

Valparaiso University

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association

Chicago, 2000

Abstract

Participants judged the importance of task and relations skills in eight jobs. Comparisons between jobs indicated that relations skills were perceived as most important for nurses and managers, and least important for janitors and computer specialists. Task skills were rated as most important for engineers and nurses, and least important for janitors and cashiers.

Comparisons within jobs indicated that task skills were rated as more important than relations skills for janitors, computer specialists, and engineers. Relations skills were rated as more important than task skills for cashiers and managers. Task and relations skills were seen as equally important for nurses, lawyers, and college professors.

Occupational Schemas: Perceived Differences in

Relative Importance of Task vs. Relations Skills in Stereotyped Jobs

This study explicated a “schema-matching” model (See Figure 1.) of occupational gender-bias (Arkkelin, 1998; Arkkelin & O’Connor, 1992). This model posits that:

(1) favorable evaluations result from an observed “match” between a target person’s exhibited femininity/masculinity and the rater’s perceptions of the relative importance of relations/task behavioral demands of sex-typed occupations, and

(2) such bias is mediated by expectations that masculinity and femininity facilitate performance of “requisite” job task and relations behaviors, respectively.

Thus, one assumption of this model is that job schemas vary with respect to the relative emphasis on task vs. relations skills in expectations about effective performance. This component of the model was explicated by assessing the perceived importance of relations and task skills in several stereotyped jobs.

Method

Undergraduate participants (N = 126) were informed that the purpose of the study was to assess people’s perceptions of how important task and relations skills are for effective performance in various occupations. To help define the skill categories, participants were given examples of two task skills (meeting deadlines, maintaining performance standards) and two relations skills (looking out for others’ welfare, interacting with courtesy and tact).

Participants were then given a list of eight jobs: nurses, college professors, engineers, cashiers, janitors, computer specialists, lawyers, and managers. They were asked to think about how important they conidered relations and task skills to be for each job, and each participant then rated the importance of both task and relations skills in each of the eight jobs, using Likert scales (1: Not at all important; 7: Extremely important). This resulted in a 2 (Skill Type) X 8 (Job Type) within-participant experimental design, with importance ratings as the dependent variable.

Results

A 2 (Skill Type) X 8 (Job Type) repeated-measures MANOVA yielded a significant skill by job interaction, F(7,868) = 152.57, p<.001. Comparisons of importance ratings between jobs (See Table 1.) revealed that relations skills were perceived as most important for nurses and managers, and were seen as least important for janitors and computer specialists. Task skills were rated as most important for engineers and nurses, and were seen as least important for janitors and cashiers.

Comparisons of task vs. relations importance ratings within jobs revealed that task skills were perceived as more important than relations skills for janitors, computer specialists, and engineers. Relations skills were rated as more important than task skills for cashiers and managers. Task and relations skills were seen as equally important for nurses, lawyers, and college professors.

Discussion

These results support the schema-matching model’s assumption that job schemas vary with respect to the perceived importance of task and relations skills between jobs, as well as in the relative emphasis on task vs. relations skills within jobs. Task skills were seen as more important in some jobs (e.g., engineer) than in others (e.g., janitor), and relations skills were seen as more important in some jobs (e.g., manager) than in others (e.g., computer specialist). Schemas for some jobs (e.g., computer specialist) appear to emphasize task skills over relations skills, while schemas for other jobs (e.g., cashier) appear to emphasize relations skills over task skills.

Interestingly, schemas for some stereotyped jobs (e.g., nurse and lawyer) appear to integrate strong emphases on both task and relations skills, suggesting that although sex-typed, they may nonetheless be perceived as a “behaviorally-androgynous.” These results are relevant to social role theory (Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and the effects of individuating information on overcoming evaluational biases (Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980).

References

Arkkelin, D. (1998). A "Schema-Matching" Model of Occupational Gender Bias: Trait and Behavior Components. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Arkkelin, D., & O'Connor, R. (1992). The "good" professional: Effects of trait-profile gender type, androgyny, and likableness on impressions of incumbents of sex-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 27(9/10), 517-532.

Eagly, A., &Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 821-831.

Table 1

Mean Perceived Importance of Task and Relations Skills for each Job

Behavior Dimension

Job Type	Task Skills	Relations Skills
Computer Specialist	5.45f >	2.57b
Engineer	5.57f >	3.15c
Janitor	4.52d >	2.14a
Cashier	4.26c <	4.47d
Manager	5.24e <	5.57f
Professor	5.15e =	5.05e
Lawyer	5.48f =	5.52f
Nurse	5.60f =	5.60f

Note. Higher scores indicate greater importance. Means that do not

have common subscripts are significantly different by LSD comparisons (p < .01).