Gender schemas: A cognitive explanation of discrimination of women in technology

Journal of Business and Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 91-98

  Lemons, Mary A ^a   Parzinger, Monica ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b ST MARY'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gender schemas; Information technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548183807     PISSN: 08893268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10869-007-9050-0     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. AAUW, American Association of University Women. (2000). Tech Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.
2. Bayer Facts of Science Education Surveys. (1998). The Bayer facts of science education IV-By gender.
3. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
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.
5. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Current population surveys.
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 http://www.simmons.edu/gsm/ teengirlsonbusiness.html.
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.
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.
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.
11. Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543-557.
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 Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford Press.
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.
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.
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 http://www.itaa.org/workforce/docs/03divreport.pdf.
16. Israeli, D. N., Banai, M., & Zeira, Y. (1980). Women executives in MNC subsidiaries. California Management Review, 23, 53-63.
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.
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.
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.
20. McGee, M., & Fillon, M. (1996). Women gaining in IS ranks. Information Week, 597, 158.
21. 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.
22. Morrison, A., & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 42, 200-208.
23. Nadelson, C. C. (1987). Women in leadership roles: Development and challenges. Adolescent-Psychiatry, 14, 28-41.
24. Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65-78.
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.
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.
27. Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park: Sage.
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.
29. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
30. Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709-725.
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.
32. Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. NWSA Journal, 16, 207-220.
33. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corp.