Gendered Choices : Fields of study of adolescents in the Netherlands

Choosing a field of study is an important decision in determining future educational trajectories and occupations, and we know that boys and girls make different field of study choices. Girls are underrepresented in gender-stereotypical masculine fields like science and technology, whereas boys are underrepresented in gender-stereotypical feminine fields like education or health-related fields. This dissertation provides insight in the different ways in which adolescents’ social environment affects field of study choices, with a specific focus on how it leads boys and girls to different fields. It examines the role of internalized gender ideologies as well as the influence of parents, siblings, and friends. It does so by contrasting two theories.Gender-role socialization theory states that boys and girls choose different fields of study because they learn from their social environment what is “appropriate” male or female gender-role behavior. Resource theory states that adolescents’ social environment transfers field-specific resources (e.g., information, skills, aspirations) that adolescents can draw upon to make a field of study choice. This dissertation concludes that both theories have their merit depending on which aspect of the social environment we focus on. On the one hand - in line with gender-role socialization theory - internalized gender ideologies, mothers’ and friends’ increase gender differences in fields of study. First, internalized ideas of what is “appropriate” male or female gender-role behavior (gender ideology) contributes to gender inequality in educational fields because it leads boys to more masculine fields of study in secondary education. Second, mother’s occupation functions as an example of “appropriate” female gender-role behavior, which guides girls to more feminine and boys to more masculine fields of study. This highlights the need to include mothers – next to fathers – in studying adolescents’ field of study choices. Lastly, friends who have more traditional gender ideologies push girls out of masculine fields of study, whereas having more same-sex friends detains boys in these masculine fields. Resource theory, on the other hand, better explains how siblings and fathers influence field of study choices.Fathers influence sons and siblings influence younger brothers and sisters to choose similar fields, but these actors do not contribute to gender differences in fields of study. This dissertation shows that normative ideas of what is “appropriate” male or female behavior are influential for both boys’ and girls’ educational choices, but concludes that the consequences of these expectations are different for boys and girls. Gender norms influences boys to choose a masculine track in secondary education, which allow them to enter all (masculine and feminine) fields after secondary education. For girls, gender normsprevent them from entering masculine fields of study after secondary education. As this choice is much more “final”, traditional gender normsmay restrict girls’ future educational and occupational career more. In order to reduce gender differences in fields of study we should tackle the persuasiveness of these gender norms, for example by using influential role models in gender atypical fields or providing parents with information that reduces their ideas that some fields are for boys or girls