Gender identity, research self-efficacy and research intention in trainee clinical psychologists in the UK

Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 46-56

  Wright, Anne B ^a   Holttum, Sue ^b  

^a OXLEAS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Gender identity; Intention; Masculinity; Research self efficacy; Trainee clinical psychologist

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMAN; MALE; MASCULINITY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT; SEX DIFFERENCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MASCULINITY; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELF EFFICACY; SEX FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84855692376     PISSN: 10633995     EISSN: 10990879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cpp.732     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
4. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
5. Barres, B.A. (2006). Does gender matter? Nature, 442, 133-136.
6. Barrom, C.P., Shadish, W.R., & Montgomery, L.M. (1988). PhDs, PsyDs, and real-world constraints on scholarly activity: Another look at the Boulder model. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 19, 93-101.
7. Becker, B.J. (1989). Gender and science achievement: A reanalysis of studies from two meta-analyses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 141-169.
8. Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
9. Bem, S.L. (1981a). Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
10. Bem, S.L. (1981b). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
11. Benbow, C.P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented: Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis. In G.R. Bock, & K. Ackrill (Eds), The origins and development of high ability. Ciba Foundation Symposium, 178 (pp. 44-66). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
12. Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artefact? Science, 210, 1262-1264.
13. Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029-1031.
14. Block, J.H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development. London: Jossey-Bass.
15. Breakwell, G.M., & Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental and peer influences upon science attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 183-197.
16. British Psychological Society. (2002). Criteria for the accreditation for postgraduate training programmes in clinical psychology. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
17. British Psychological Society. (2010). Standards for doctoral programmes in clinical psychology. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from.
18. Clearing House for Postgraduate Courses in Clinical Psychology. (2009). Equal opportunities numbers. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from.
19. Cooper, M., & Turpin, G. (2007). Clinical psychology trainees' research productivity and publications: An initial survey and contributing factors. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 54-62.
20. Eisenberg, N., Martin, C.L., & Fabes, R.A. (1996). Gender development and gender effects. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 358-396). New York: Simon & Schuster, Macmillan.
21. Eke, G., Holttum, S., & Hayward, M. (in submission). Testing a Model of Research Intention among U.K. Clinical Psychologists: A Logistic Regression Analysis.
22. Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
23. Gelso, C.J. (1993). On the making of the scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 24, 468-476.
24. Gelso, C.J. (2006). On the making of the scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1, 3-16.
25. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
26. Good, J.J., Woodzicka, J.A., & Wingfield, L.C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stererotypic textbook images on science performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 132-147.
27. Gordon, F. (1997). Sex, gender and research supervision in nursing. Nursing Research, 4(4), 63-77.
28. Götzfried, A., Fauvelle, M., & Stimpson, A. (2004). Women, science and technology: Measuring recent progress towards gender equality. Statistics in Focus, Science and Technology Theme 9. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from.
29. Grant, L., Ward, K.B., & Rong, X.L. (1987). Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research? American Sociological Review, 52, 856-862.
30. Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.
31. Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273.
32. Halford, S. (2003). Gender and organisational restructuring in the National Health Service: Performance, identity and politics. Antipode, 35, 286-308.
33. Hicks, C. (1995). Good researcher, poor midwife: An investigation into the impact of central trait descriptions on assumptions of professional competencies. Midwifery, 11, 81-87.
34. Hicks, C. (1996a). Nurse researcher: A study of contradiction in terms? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 357-363.
35. Hicks, C. (1996b). A study of nurses' attitudes towards research: A factor analytic approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23, 373-379.
36. Hicks, C. (1999). Incompatible skills and ideologies: The impediment of gender attributions on nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 129-139.
37. Holttum, S., & Goble, L. (2006). Factors influencing levels of research activity in clinical psychologists: A new model. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 339-351.
38. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke, K.J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424-430.
39. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke, K.J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223-236.
40. Lane, D.A., & Corrie, S. (2006). The modern scientist-practitioner: A guide to practice in psychology. London: Routledge.
41. Larsen, R.J., & Seidman, E. (1986). Gender schema theory and sex role inventories: Some conceptual and psychometric considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 205-211.
42. Leong, F.T.L., & Zachar, P. (1991). Development and validation of the scientist-practitioner inventory for psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 331-341.
43. Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996-1009.
44. Mackie, M. (1985). Female sociologists' productivity, collegial relations, and research style examined through journal publications. Sociology & Social Research, 69, 189-209.
45. Marzillier, J., & Hall, J. (1999). What is clinical psychology? (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Murphy, M.C., Steele, C., & Gross, J.J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885.
47. Norcross, J.C., Karpiak, C.P., & Santoro, S.O. (2005). Clinical psychology across the years: The division of clinical psychology from 1960 to 2003. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 1467-1483.
48. Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44-59.
49. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
50. Pajares, F. (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from.
51. Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
52. Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics outcomes: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 190-198.
53. Pajares, F., Miller, M.D., & Johnson, M.J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50-61.
54. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390-405.
55. Park, S. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46-84.
56. Schibeci, R.A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 26-52.
57. Schunk, D.H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield, & J. Eccles (Eds), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16-31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
58. Shibley Hyde, J., Fenneman, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L.A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299-324.
59. Smail, B., & Kelly, A. (1984). Sex differences in science and technology among 11-year-old school children: II. Attitudes. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 87-106.
60. Thomas, G.V., Turpin, G., & Mayer, C. (2002). Clinical research under threat. The Psychologist, 15, 286-289.
61. Weiner, G. (1998). Scholarship, disciplinary hegemony and power in academic publishing. Paper presented at the European Conference for Education Research, Ljubljana, Solvenia.
62. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387, 341-343.
63. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.148-185). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
64. Wright, A. (2002). S.E.T. For Life! Topics: The Newspaper of the University of Bath, 127, 13.