Views and values which underpin individual choices

I have read a number of reports on this study in the past. Reasonable sample size (nearly two thousand.) From Life Paths and Accomplishments of Mathematically Precocious Males and Females Four Decades Later by David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow, and Harrison J. Kell. Abstract:

Two cohorts of intellectually talented 13-year-olds were identified in the 1970s (1972–1974 and 1976–1978) as being in the top 1% of mathematical reasoning ability (1,037 males, 613 females). About four decades later, data on their careers, accomplishments, psychological well-being, families, and life preferences and priorities were collected. Their accomplishments far exceeded base-rate expectations: Across the two cohorts, 4.1% had earned tenure at a major research university, 2.3% were top executives at “name brand” or Fortune 500 companies, and 2.4% were attorneys at major firms or organizations; participants had published 85 books and 7,572 refereed articles, secured 681 patents, and amassed $358 million in grants. For both males and females, mathematical precocity early in life predicts later creative contributions and leadership in critical occupational roles. On average, males had incomes much greater than their spouses’, whereas females had incomes slightly lower than their spouses’. Salient sex differences that paralleled the differential career outcomes of the male and female participants were found in lifestyle preferences and priorities and in time allocation.

To elaborate, the target participants were 1,650 participants in the top 1% of mathematical reasoning capability.

Julian C. Stanley launched the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) in September 1971 (Keating & Stanley, 1972; Stanley, 1996). SMPY was designed in part to stand on the shoulders of Terman’s contributions. Terman used time-intensive (individually administered) general-ability assessments to identify 1,528 high-IQ (top 1%) young adolescents and then tracked them for decades. He was interested in their accomplishments, educational needs, and personal well-being. SMPY had a similar agenda, but also a strong interventionist focus (Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Stanley, 2000). SMPY identified participants using more efficient (group-administered) and focused specific-ability assessments, administering college entrance exams to intellectually talented 13-year-olds to identify those in the top 1% in mathematical reasoning ability. The rationale was that for purposes of identifying scientific talent in particular and developing procedures to foster its growth (Bleske-Rechek, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2004; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2013; Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010), it might be more profitable to use tests of outstanding mathematical reasoning ability rather than assessments of more general ability (IQ).

This report details the occupational and creative accomplishments of 1,650 SMPY participants identified in the 1970s. Participants’ psychological well-being, time allocation, orientation toward life, and partners also are examined. Our objective was to better understand their talent-development process. Looking beyond the abilities, interests, and opportunities that lead to outstanding accomplishments (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000, 2006), we wanted to investigate the lifestyle and psychological orientation required for developing a truly outstanding career and creative production. At this time, a reliable portrait of how participants’ lives evolved has become discernible. Further, when SMPY was launched, many educational and occupational opportunities were just becoming open to women, so we paid particular attention to how mathematically precocious females, relative to males, have constructed their lives over the past 40 years. G

Notably, the researchers asked the participants about their Work Preferences, Life Values, and Personal Views

Participants also rated items assessing work preferences (5-point scale from not important to extremely important), life values (5-point scale from not important to extremely important), and personal views (5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Figures 4, 5, and 6 summarize results for these items. In each graph, the items are rank-ordered according to the effect size of the sex difference (male minus female) in Cohort 1’s ratings of the items. Results for both cohorts are displayed in each figure, and the cross-cohort consistency of the effect-size magnitude is striking. Over all these items, the Pearson r and the Spearman ρ correlations between effect sizes in Cohorts 1 and 2 were between .86 and .95 (ps < .001). Thus, reliable sex differences were observed among these mathematically talented adults at midlife. Together, these sex differences tell a cohesive story of differing orientations toward life.

The results from questions about Work Preferences:

Click to enlarge.

The results from questions about Life Values:

Click to enlarge.


The results from questions about Personal Views:

Click to enlarge.

In Work Preferences, men have a strong preference, compared to women, in terms of:

A well above average salary.
Being able to take risks on my job.
A merit-based pay system.
Working with things (e.g. computers, tools) as part of my job.

In Work Preferences, women have a strong preference, compared to men, in terms of:

Working Monday through Friday and having my weekends free.
Flexibility to work at home.
Respecting my coworkers.
Flexibility in my work schedule.
A short commute.
Clean working conditions.
Working no more than 60 hours a week.
Working no more than 50 hours a week.
Working no more than 40 hours a week.

In Life Values, men have a strong preference, compared to women, in terms of:

Full-time career.
Inventing/creating something with impact.
Having lots of money.
Being successful in my work.

In Life Values, women have a strong preference, compared to men, in terms of:

Giving back to the community.
Meaningful spiritual life.
Time with my children.
Healthy diet
Community service.
Time to socialize.
Being there for family and friends.
Not working outside the home.
Strong friendships
Part-time career for a limited time.
Part-time career.

In Personal Values, men have a strong preference, compared to women, in terms of:

Society should invest in my ideas because they are more important than those of other people.
Discomforting others does not deter me from stating the facts.
Receiving criticism from others does not inhibit me from expressing my thoughts.
I have the capacity for sustained physical activity, without tiring and having to rest.
I am able to control my emotions when it is appropriate to do so.
I put myself before others.

In Personal Values, women have a strong preference, compared to men, in terms of:

It is important to me that no one goes without.

It should go without stating that 1) the average is not the individual, 2) what is true for the group may not be true for the individual, 3) this is a cohort over time, not a representative sample, and 4) these are not random individuals but high capability individuals (in maths).

What is striking is that the individual responses are so consistent with general gender stereotypes.

If these are truly reflective of expressed personal values and views, then it undermines ideologically-driven critique based on differential impact analysis. As an example, feminist theory ascribes sex wage differentials (the wage gap) to institutional discrimination. We already know that this is not so based on large, replicated studies across multiple countries in the OECD which show that when you control for known variables (work volume, work duration, degree choice, industry choice, role, education attainment, etc.) that there are no material wage gaps.

Those studies disprove that there is a wage-gap, but they do not necessarily disprove institutional discrimination.

What the Lubinksi et al study suggests is that institutional discrimination is unlikely the source of any issues. Women appear to be making differential choices, preferring predictable work, clean work, equal outcomes work, time with children, time with family and friends, limited schedules with flexibility, etc. compared to men who are more focused on money, achievement, focused commitment, sublimation of oneself to goals, etc.

If these expressed values and views are translated into personal activities and decisions, then it is no surprise that there are gender differentials in terms of incomes. Lubinksi et al are illuminating what the likely sources are to the empirically observed differences in choices.

To be more explicit, what this suggests is that IF these are accurate representations of real preferences and IF these preferences materially shape their real life choices, then one would necessarily expect that the aggregate life income for those choosing competition, intensity, outcomes, challenge would be materially higher than those of people choosing scheduled part-time work with collegial easy-going co-workers who are fun to talk to.

Now take a look at Claudia Goldin's research on wage differentials,
We really prefer for ideological academics with a bad case of class-blindness to usurp personal decision-making.

What these two bodies of research suggest is that gendered wage differences arise from personal trade-off choices and that there is no evidence of systemic discrimination based on gender. Men and women are already paid the same for the same work. If we want male and female lifetime earning aggregates to be the same, we have to change the choices men and women currently make of their own free will. In other words, we have to change from a freedom based system to a totalitarian, centrally planned system in which people are told what they should want and coerced into accepting that. Not a great alternative when looked at from fact-based research.

Interesting research by Lubinski et al.