Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 91–98 | Cite as

Gender Schemas: A Cognitive Explanation of Discrimination of Women in Technology

  • Mary A. LemonsEmail author
  • Monica Parzinger


Despite the need for qualified personnel in the field of information technology (IT), women are under represented. Recruiting has been difficult and those women entering the profession often leave. Gender schema theory adds to the explanation of behaviors and attitudes in the workplace that may adversely impact women in technology. We surveyed members of Systers, an online forum for women in technology, to examine gender schemas of IT women to see if there is a significant difference between them and the general public. Our findings suggest that there is a significant difference in the gender-schemas of women in technology and the gender-schemas of the general population. A subsequent sample of male IT students and men in the general public also indicated a significant difference in gender schemas of these two groups. Implications of these differences and future research in this area are discussed.


Gender schemas Information technology 


  1. AAUW, American Association of University Women. (2000). Tech Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer Facts of Science Education Surveys. (1998). The Bayer facts of science education IV—By gender.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In R. A. Dienstbier & T. B. Sonderegger (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and gender, 32. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Current population surveys.Google Scholar
  7. Committee of 200, Key Findings from Teen Girls on Business: Are They Being Empowered? (2003). A national study from The Committee of 200 and Simmons School of Management. Retrieved April 5, 2003 from
  8. Crockett, W. H. (1988). Schemas, affect, and communication. In L. Donohew, H. Sypher, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
  9. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman-Summers, S., & Keisler, S. B. (1974). Those who are number two try harder: The effect of sex on attributions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 846–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Girvin, B. (1978). The nature of being schematic: Sex-role self-schemas and differential processing of masculine and feminine information. Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gutek, B. A., & Cohen, A. G. (1992). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men’s and women’s experiences. In A. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Igbaria, M., & Baroudi, J. J. (1995). The impact of job performance evaluations on career advancement prospects: An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS Quarterly, 19, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ITAA (2003). Report of the ITAA Blue Ribbon Panel on IT Diversity. Presented at the National IT Workforce Convocation, May 5, 2003, Arlington, VA. Retrieved May 30, 2003 from
  16. Israeli, D. N., Banai, M., & Zeira, Y. (1980). Women executives in MNC subsidiaries. California Management Review, 23, 53–63.Google Scholar
  17. Krantz, J. H., Ballard, J., & Scher, J. (1997). Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 264–269.Google Scholar
  18. Lemons, M. A. (2003). Contextual and cognitive determinants of procedural justice perceptions in promotion barriers for women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 4, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemons, M., & Parzinger, M. (2001). Designing women: A qualitative study of the glass ceiling for women in technology. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66, 4–11.Google Scholar
  20. McGee, M., & Fillon, M. (1996). Women gaining in IS ranks. Information Week, 597, 158.Google Scholar
  21. Messmer, E. (2003). Female IT professionals cope in a male-dominated industry. Network World. Retrieved May 30, 2003 from
  22. Morrison, A., & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 42, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nadelson, C. C. (1987). Women in leadership roles: Development and challenges. Adolescent-Psychiatry, 14, 28–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panteli, A., Stack, J., Atkinson, M., & Ramsay, H. (1999). The status of women in the UK IT industry: An empirical study. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry, E. L., Davis-Blake, A., & Kulik, C. T. (1994). Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 19, 786–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, M. A., & Leigh, B. (1997). Virtual subjects: Using the Internet as an alternative source of subjects and research environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 496–505.Google Scholar
  29. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. (1973). When women are more deserving than men: Equity, attribution, and perceived sex differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. NWSA Journal, 16, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business, LCC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and Public AffairsThe University of Tennessee-MartinMartinUSA
  2. 2.School of Business and AdministrationSt. Mary’s UniversitySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations