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

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effi cacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

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.

Barres, B.A. (2006). Does gender matter? Nature, 442, 133–136.

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.

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.

Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bem, S.L. (1981a). Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bem, S.L. (1981b). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.

Benbow, C.P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profi les 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.

Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artefact? Science, 210, 1262–1264.

Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.

Block, J.H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development. London: Jossey-Bass.

Breakwell, G.M., & Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental and
peer infl uences upon science attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 183–197.

British Psychological Society. (2002). Criteria for the accreditation for postgraduate training programmes in clinical psychology. Leicester: British Psychological Society.

British Psychological Society. (2010). Standards for doctoral programmes in clinical psychology. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?...

Clearing House for Postgraduate Courses in Clinical Psychology. (2009). Equal opportunities numbers. Retrieved
June 30, 2010, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chpccp/
BasicEqualopps2009.html

Cooper, M., & Turpin, G. (2007). Clinical psychology trainees’
research productivity and publications: An initial survey and
contributing factors. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 54–62.

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.

Eke, G., Holttum, S., & Hayward, M. (in submission). Testing a Model of Research Intention among U.K. Clinical Psychologists: A Logistic Regression Analysis.

Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

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.

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.

Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Good, J.J., Woodzicka, J.A., & Wingfi eld, L.C. (2010). The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stererotypic textbook images on science performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 132–147.

Gordon, F. (1997). Sex, gender and research supervision in
nursing. Nursing Research, 4(4), 63–77.

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 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/
KS-NS-04-006/EN/KS-NS-04-006-EN.PDF

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.

Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-effi cacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47–56.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-effi cacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261–273.

Halford, S. (2003). Gender and organisational restructuring
in the National Health Service: Performance, identity and
politics. Antipode, 35, 286–308.

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.

Hicks, C. (1996a). Nurse researcher: A study of contradiction in terms? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 357–363.

Hicks, C. (1996b). A study of nurses’ attitudes towards research: A factor analytic approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23, 373–379.

Hicks, C. (1999). Incompatible skills and ideologies: The impediment of gender attributions on nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 129–139.

Holttum, S., & Goble, L. (2006). Factors infl uencing levels of
research activity in clinical psychologists: A new model.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 339–351.

Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke, K.J. (1991). Mathematics self-effi cacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424–430.

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.

Lane, D.A., & Corrie, S. (2006). The modern scientist–practitioner: A guide to practice in psychology. London: Routledge.

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.

Leong, F.T.L., & Zachar, P. (1991). Development and validation of the scientist–practitioner inventory for psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 331–341.
Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the
structure of vocational interests: The importance of the peoplethings dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009.

Mackie, M. (1985). Female sociologists’ productivity, collegial
relations, and research style examined through journal publications. Sociology & Social Research, 69, 189–209.

Marzillier, J., & Hall, J. (1999). What is clinical psychology? (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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.

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.

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.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-effi cacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.

Pajares, F. (2002). Self-effi cacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html

Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1994). The role of self-effi cacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1995). Mathematics self-effi cacy and mathematics outcomes: The need for specifi city of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 190–198.

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.

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.

Park, S. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46–84.

Schibeci, R.A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 26–52.

Schunk, D.H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-effi cacy. In A. Wigfi eld, & J. Eccles (Eds),
Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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.

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.

Thomas, G.V., Turpin, G., & Mayer, C. (2002). Clinical research under threat. The Psychologist, 15, 286–289.

Weiner, G. (1998). Scholarship, disciplinary hegemony and power in academic publishing. Paper presented at the European Conference for Education Research, Ljubljana, Solvenia.

Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387, 341–343.

Wigfi eld, 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.

Wright, A. (2002). S.E.T. For Life! Topics: The Newspaper of the University of Bath, 127, 13.

Clinical psychologists’ research activity is important for the advancement of the clinical psychology profession but relatively few clinical psychologists appear to engage in research activity. In a national sample of male and female UK trainee clinical psychologists, trainees’ research self-efficacy was strongly positively correlated with intention to do research in the future. Identification with traditionally masculine traits also predicted research intention. Clinical psychology training courses might help trainees to develop their research self-efficacy by enhancing the research training environment, but because research activity tends to be seen as stereotypically a more male activity, and the majority of trainees are female, it may also be worth challenging or encouraging trainees to reflect on stereotypical views of gender and research.