Biological sex and psychological masculinity and femininity are related to computer comfort (the inverse of anxiety), engagement, and over-use. The study shows both greater masculinity and femininity to be related to greater computer comfort, greater masculinity to be related to greater engagement, and greater femininity to be associated with lesser over-use. While there are no sex differences in computer comfort and engagement, males appear more prone to over-use, but this is not mediated by sex differences in femininity. It is concluded that both femininity and masculinity are now propitious for the development of positive computer orientations, and that greater female negativity toward computers is waning. The expansion of computer applications into non-male dominated areas, such as inter-personal communication, is cited as a major explanation for these observations. The findings imply that some reduction of sex asymmetries in computing course enrollments should be expected, although it is speculated that this might only be marginal. Over-usage is identified as a major area of future concern.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LeeR. S., Social Attitudes and the Computer Revolution, Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, pp. 53–59, 1970.
2.
MartinC. D., The Myth of the Awesome Thinking Machine, Communications of the ACM, 36: 4, pp. 120–133, 1993.
3.
CharltonJ. P.BirkettP. E., Should Undergraduates Studying Arts and Social Sciences be Taught Computer Programming? Some Evidence, The Vocational Aspect of Education, 44: 1, pp. 107–120, 1992.
4.
LockheedM. E., Women, Girls, and Computers: A First Look at the Evidence, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 115–122, 1985.
5.
ChenM., Gender and Computers: The Beneficial Effects of Experience on Attitudes, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2: 3, pp. 265–282, 1986.
6.
GardnerJ. R.McEwenA.CurryC. A., A Sample Survey of Attitudes to Computer Studies, Computers and Education, 10: 2, pp. 293–298, 1986.
7.
VoogtJ., Computer Literacy in Secondary Education: The Performance and Engagement of Girls, Computers and Education, 11: 4, pp. 305–312, 1987.
8.
CampbellN. J.PerryK. M., Sex and Ethnic Group Differences in High School Students' Computer Attitudes and Computer Attributions, EDRS Document Number ED307859, 1988.
9.
DurndellA.GlissovP.SiannG., Gender and Computing: Persisting Differences, Educational Research, 37: 3, pp. 219–227, 1995.
10.
MiuraI. T., The Relationship of Computer Self-Efficacy Expectations to Computer Interest and Course Enrollment in College, Sex Roles, 16: 5/6, pp. 303–311, 1987.
11.
TempleL.LipsH. M., Gender Differences and Similarities in Attitudes Toward Computers, Computers in Human Behavior, 5: 4, pp. 215–226, 1989.
12.
MohamedaliM. H.MesserD. J.FletcherB.C., Factors Affecting Microcomputer Use and Programming Ability of Secondary School Children, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 3, pp. 224–239, 1987.
13.
CulleyL., Girls, Boys and Computers, Educational Studies, 14: 1, pp. 3–8, 1988.
14.
SiannG.DurndellA.MacLeodH.GlissovP., Stereotyping in Relation to the Gender Gap in Participation in Computing, Educational Research, 30: 2, pp. 98–103, 1988.
15.
Fife-SchawC.BreakwellG. M.LeeT.SpencerJ., Patterns of Teenage Computer Usage, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2: 3, pp. 152–161, 1986.
Morahan-MartinJ., Males, Females and the Internet, in Psychology and the Internet, GackenbachJ. (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, 1998.
18.
McGuinessD., Sex Differences in the Organization of Perception and Cognition, in Exploring Sex Differences, <M%-2>LloydB.ArcherJ. (eds.), Academic Press, London, 1976.
19.
SewardJ. P.SewardG. H., Sex Differences: Mental and Temperamental, Lexington Books, Lexington, 1980.
20.
BemS. L., Bem Sex-Role Inventory Professional Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1981.
21.
SpenceJ. T., Comment on Lubinski, Tellegen and Butcher's “Masculinity, Femininity and Androgyny Viewed and Assessed as Distinct Concepts,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 2, pp. 440–446, 1983.
22.
LoydB. H.GressardC., The Effects of Sex, Age and Computer Experience on Computer Attitudes, AEDS Journal, 17, pp. 67–77, Winter 1984.
23.
ColleyA. M.GaleM. T.HarrisT. A., Effects of Gender Role Identity and Experience on Computer Attitude Components, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10: 2, pp. 129–137, 1994.
24.
RosenL. D.SearsD. C.WeilM. M., Computerphobia, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19: 2, pp. 167–179, 1987.
25.
BrosnanM. J.DavidsonM. J., Psychological Gender Issues in Computing, Gender, Work and Organization, 3: 1, pp. 13–25, 1996.
26.
HuffC. W.FlemingJ. H.CooperJ., Gender Differences in Human-Computer Interaction, in In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education, MartinC. D.Murchie-BeymaE. (eds.), International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, 1992.
27.
CharltonJ. P.BirkettP. E., The Development and Validation of the Computer Apathy and Anxiety Scale, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13: 1, pp. 41–59, 1995.
28.
CharltonJ. P.BirkettP. E., An Integrative Model of Factors Related to Computing Course Performance, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20: 3, pp. 237–257, 1999.
29.
CharltonJ. P.BirkettP. E., Psychological Characteristics of Students on Programming-Oriented and Applications-Oriented Computing Courses, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18: 2, pp. 163–182, 1998.
30.
GribbinM., Boys Muscle In on the Keyboard: Girls and Information Technology, in Educational Computing, ScanlonE.O'SheaT. (eds.), John Wiley, Chichester, 1987.
31.
ArcherJ., Gender Stereotyping of School Subjects, The Psychologist, 5, pp. 66–69, 1992.
32.
WeinbergG. M., The Psychology of Computer Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971.
33.
StarkerS., Microcomputer Mania: A New Mental Disorder?Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 34: 6, pp. 556–557, 1983.
34.
WeizenbaumJ., Computer Power and Human Reason, Penguin, London, 1984.
35.
KuiperD., Those Idiots in the Computer Room, Macadam House, Portland, 1992.
36.
CharltonJ. P., Computer Addiction or Over-Use? A Factor Analytic Investigation, in preparation.
37.
PelleS., The Meaning of Addiction, Lexington Books, Lexington, 1985.
38.
GriffithsM., Behavioural Addiction: An Issue for Everybody? pre-publication copy of an article submitted for publication in Employee Counselling Today: Journal of the Workplace, 1996.
39.
GriffithsM., Internet Addiction: Does it Really Exist? in Psychology and the Internet, GackenbachJ. (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, 1998.
40.
GroholJ. M., Future Clinical Directions: Professional Development, Pathology and Psychotherapy On-Line, in Psychology and the Internet, GackenbachJ. (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, 1998.
41.
GerverE., Computers and Gender, in Computers in the Human Context, ForresterT. (ed.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.
42.
LevyS., Hackers, Penguin, London, 1994.
43.
ShottonM. A., Computer Addiction?: A Study of Computer Dependency, Taylor and Francis, London, 1989.
44.
MartinC. D., Report on the Workshop: In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education, in In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education, MartinC. D.Murchie-BeymaE. (eds.), International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, 1992.
45.
YoungK. S., Psychology of Computer Use: XL. Addictive Use of the Internet: A Case That Breaks the Stereotype, Psychological Reports, 79, pp. 899–902, 1996.
46.
YoungK. S., Caught in the Net, Wiley, New York, 1998.
47.
CohenJ., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1988.
48.
CohenJ., Partialed Products Are Interactions; Partialed Powers Are Curve Components, Psychological Bulletin, 85: 4, pp. 858–866, 1978.
49.
HargreavesD. J., Psychological Theories of Sex-Role Stereotyping, in The Psychology of Sex Roles, HargreavesD. J.ColleyA. M. (eds.), Harper & Row, London, 1986.
50.
BemS. L., On the Utility of Alternative Procedures for Assessing Psychological Androgyny, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, pp. 196–205, 1977.
51.
KleinL. S., Female Students' Underachievement in Computer Science and Mathematics: Reasons and Recommendations, in In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education, MartinC. D.Murchie-BeymaE. (eds.), International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, 1992.
52.
BemS. L., Sex Role Adaptability: One Consequence of Psychological Androgyny, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 4, pp. 634–643, 1975.
53.
MihillC., Computerphobia “Worse in Young,”The Guardian, April 12, 1996.
54.
PresnoC., Taking the Byte Out of Internet Anxiety: Instructional Techniques that Reduce Computer/Internet Anxiety in the Classroom, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18: 2, pp. 147–161, 1998.
