“Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life” is a cliché often heard at commencement speeches and family gatherings. This advice resonates strongly in individualistic cultures like the U.S., where “following your passion” guides many young people in their educational and career choices. However, new research from Yale suggests this advice may have different consequences for women and men.
Occupational segregation is widespread in the U.S. Many “HEAL” professions—health, education, administration, and literacy—are female-dominated, while lucrative STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and math—are mainly staffed by men. Yale SOM’s Adriana Germano and her co-authors suggest that the “follow-your-passion” ethos may help explain this gap.
A less lucrative path
The researchers found that when participants were encouraged to follow their passions, women were significantly less likely to choose STEM majors or jobs than men. Conversely, when participants were advised to consider future income or job security, the gender gap narrowed.
The study identified three distinct ideologies in the U.S.: “follow-your-passions,” “resources,” and “communal.” To see how these ideologies varied among demographic groups, 531 undergraduate students from diverse racial backgrounds were asked how they weighed different advice when choosing their majors. Those choosing based on interest, happiness, or passion aligned with the “follow-your-passions” ideology. Those prioritizing income potential, practicality, and job security aligned with the “resources” ideology. There was no significant difference between men and women in adhering to the “follow-your-passions” or “resources” ideologies, though women were slightly more inclined to follow a “communal” ideology, favoring jobs that nurture and support others.
In a second experiment, 41 female and 40 male White students were asked about their intention to pursue engineering, a male-dominated STEM field. Participants were told to imagine following advice either to “do what you love” or to “do what is practical.” When primed to follow their passions, women were less likely than men to pursue engineering. However, when advised to be practical, women’s interest in engineering increased, narrowing the gender gap.
Further experiments with computer science, engineering, and physics majors showed similar results. Priming students with the “follow-your-passions” advice widened gender disparities, while the “resources” ideology narrowed the gap. Interestingly, the gender gaps among those following their passion mirrored the baseline gaps before any priming, suggesting the “passions” ideology acts as a default in the U.S.
Follow-up studies with adults confirmed that the “follow-your-passions” ideology led to larger occupational gender disparities than the “resources” ideology. One experiment asked participants to list careers fitting each ideology while considering feminine or masculine aspects of themselves. Women’s responses showed that the “passions” ideology led them to draw on socialized gender roles.
These findings suggest that exposing young people to the “resources” ideology can narrow gender gaps in college majors and occupations. However, given the cultural dominance of the “follow-your-passions” ideology, other interventions starting early in life might also be necessary.
