skip to main content
article
Free Access

Gender differences in personality components of computer science students: a test of Holland's congruence hypothesis

Published:01 March 1998Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The problem of disproportional representation of females in computer science curricula was examined in the context of Holland's theory of vocational personality. It was hypothesized that some combination of standardized mathematical aptitude and congruence would significantly predict achievement and persistence in computer science.

References

  1. 1 Allport, G., Vernon, P., Lindzey, G. (1970). The Study of Values: A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests in Personality (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: H0ughton-Miflin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 Brown, S., & Gore, P., Jr. (1994). An evaluation of interest congruence indices: Distribution characteristics and measurement properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 310-327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 3 Bmeh, M. A., & Krieshok, T. S. (1981). In~testigative versus realistic Holland types and adjustment in'theoretical engineering majors. Journal of VocationM Behavior, 18, 162-173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 4 Campbell, P. F., & MeCabe, G. P. (1984). Factors relating to persistence in a computer science major. Communications of the ACM, 27(11), 1108-1113~ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5 Frenkel, K. A. (1990). Women and computing. Communications of the ACM, 33(11), 35- 46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6 Hansen, J. C., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7 Holland, J. L. (1966). The Psychology of vocational Choice: A Theory of Personality Types and Model Environments. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 Holland, J. L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 Holland, J. L. (1985). Professional Manual: Self- Directed Search. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. ' 'Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10 Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance: A Metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. 11 Jagacinski, C. M., LeBold, W. K., & Salvendy, G. (1988). Gender Differences in Persistence in Computer- Related Fields. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 185-208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 12 Kay, R. H. (1992, April). An Examination of Gender- Differences in Computer Attitudes, Aptitude, and Use. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 848)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13 Linn, M., & Hyde, j. (1989). Gender, mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-27. ' iGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 14 Lips, H. M. (1992). Gender- and science-related attitudes as predictors of college student's academic choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 62-81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. 15 Meece, J. Wigfield, A.; & Eccles, J. (1990). Predictions of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70., ... ,Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 16 Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The Foundations of Factor Ana'lysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 Saekrowitz, M. (1995). An Untevet Playing Fietd: Women in the Introductory Computer Science Courses. (Repo~ No. JC-950-349). Princeton University, NJ: Midcareer Fellowship Program. (ERIC D0c. Reproduction Service No. ED 384 389)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18 SAS Institute, Inc. (1988). SAS/STAT User's guide: Statistics release 6.03 ed. Cary, NC: Author.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19 Sells, L. (1980). The mathematics filter and the education of women and'minorities. In L.H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Women and the Mathematical Mystique (pp.66-75). Baltimore, MD ~ Johns Hopkins University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 Tittle, C. K. (1986). Gender research and education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1161-1168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 21 Wirier, J. L., & Bellando, J. (1989). Computer anxiety, mathematics anxiety, and Holland vocational personality types, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Spring, 22-24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Gender differences in personality components of computer science students: a test of Holland's congruence hypothesis

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
        ACM SIGCSE Bulletin  Volume 30, Issue 1
        Mar. 1998
        376 pages
        ISSN:0097-8418
        DOI:10.1145/274790
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        • cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCSE '98: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
          March 1998
          396 pages
          ISBN:0897919947
          DOI:10.1145/273133

        Copyright © 1998 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 March 1998

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!