Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AAUW, American Association of University Women. (2000). Tech Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.
Bayer Facts of Science Education Surveys. (1998). The Bayer facts of science education IV—By gender.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
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.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Current population surveys.
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 http://www.simmons.edu/gsm/teengirlsonbusiness.html.
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.
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.
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.
Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.
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.
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.
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.
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 http://www.itaa.org/workforce/docs/03divreport.pdf.
Israeli, D. N., Banai, M., & Zeira, Y. (1980). Women executives in MNC subsidiaries. California Management Review, 23, 53–63.
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.
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.
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.
McGee, M., & Fillon, M. (1996). Women gaining in IS ranks. Information Week, 597, 158.
Messmer, E. (2003). Female IT professionals cope in a male-dominated industry. Network World. Retrieved May 30, 2003 from http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0929women.html.
Morrison, A., & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 42, 200–208.
Nadelson, C. C. (1987). Women in leadership roles: Development and challenges. Adolescent-Psychiatry, 14, 28–41.
Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65–78.
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.
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.
Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park: Sage.
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.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709–725.
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.
Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. NWSA Journal, 16, 207–220.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lemons, M.A., Parzinger, M. Gender Schemas: A Cognitive Explanation of Discrimination of Women in Technology. J Bus Psychol 22, 91–98 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9050-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9050-0