From Big Bang to Big Gap? Potential Links Between Agency-Communion Orientation and Perception of Creativity in Computer Science

Open access


This study provides preliminary data on the dynamic role of participants’ agency-communion orientation in their perception of fictional students’ agency, communion and creativity, depending on descriptions of stereotypical and unstereotypical traits and behaviours. I propose that a stereotypically masculine description (i.e. more agentic) will boost the male’s - but not the female’s - perceived creativity. Polish students majoring in computer science (N = 108) read short stories about male and female interns at an IT company. Participants assessed the interns’ agency, communion and creativity. The results demonstrated that the image of the agentic man as well as the participants’ agentic-orientation are significant predictors of a male’s perceived creativity. The findings are discussed in terms of the gender-based nature of the agency-communion concept.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abele A. E. (2003). The Dynamics of Masculine-Agentic and Feminine-Communal Traits: Findings from a Prospective Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 768-776.

  • Abele A. E. & Wojciszke B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 751-763.

  • Abele A. E. & Wojciszke B. (2014). Communal and agentic contents in social cognition: A Dual Perspective Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 50 195-255.

  • Baer J. & Kaufman J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 42 75-105.

  • Bakan D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Reading PA: Addison-Wesley.

  • Bi C. Ybarra O. & Zhao Y. (2013). Accentuating your masculine side. Agentic traits generally dominate self-evaluation even in China. Social Psychology44 104-109.

  • Bianco M. Harris B. Garrison-Wade D. & Leech N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review 33 170-181.

  • Bush T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12 147-158.

  • Carli L. L. Alawa L. Lee Y. Zhao B. & Kim E. (2016). Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly 401-17.

  • Cassidy S. & Eachus P. (2002). Developing the Computer User Self-Efficacy (Cuse) Scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 26 133-153.

  • Cheryan S. Plaut V. C. Davies P. G. & Steele C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97 1045-1060.

  • Cheryan S. Plaut V. C. Handron C. & Hudson L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles 69 58-71.

  • Cheryan S. Master A. & Meltzof A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology 61-8.

  • Chua S. L. Chen D. & Wong A. F. L. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A metaanalysis. Computers in Human Behavior 15 609-623.

  • Diekman A. B & Goodfriend W. (2006). Rolling with the Changes: A Role Congruity Perspective on Gender Norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30 369-383.

  • Diekman A. B. Brown E. R. Johnston A. M. & Clark E. K. (2010). Seeking Congruity Between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics Careers. Psychological Science 21051-1057.

  • Diekman A. B. & Eagly A. H. (2008). Of men women and motivation: A role congruity account. In J.Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner (Eds.) Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434-447). New York: Guilford.

  • Eagly A. & Steffen V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from distributions of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 735-754.

  • Eagly A. H. & Diekman A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio P. Glick & L. A. Rudman (Eds.) On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19-35). Malden MA: Blackwell.

  • Fiske S.T. Cuddy A. J. C. & Glick P. (2007). First judge warmth then competence: Fundamental social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 77-83.

  • Florida R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class New York: Basic Books.

  • Gilson L. L. & Madjar N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 5 21-28.

  • Gralewski J. & Karwowski M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior 47 290-304.

  • Gralewski J. & Karwowski M. (2016). Are Teachers’ Implicit Theories of Creativity Related to the Recognition of Their Students’ Creativity? Journal of Creative Behavior 0 1-17.

  • Heilman M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5 pp. 269-298). Greenwich CT: JAI.

  • Helgeson V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin116 412-428.

  • Kaufman J. C. Pumaccahua T. T. & Holt R. E. (2013). Personality and creativity in realistic investigative artistic social and enterprising g college majors. Personality and Individual Differences 54 913-917.

  • Karwowski M. (2014). Creative mindset: Measurement correlates consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 8 62-70.

  • Karwowski M. Jankowska D.M. Gralewski J. Wiśniewska E. & Lebuda I. (2016). Greater male variability in creativity: A latent variables approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity 22 159-166.

  • Karwowski M. Gralewski J. & Szumski G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-beliefs is moderated by students’ gender. Learning and Individual Differences 44 1-8.

  • Kwaśnik M. & Karwowski M. (2015). Please Mind the Gap. Gender and Computer Science Education. Journal of Gender and Power 67-90.

  • Margolis J. & Fisher A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  • Markus H. R. & Kitayama S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition emotion and motivation. Psychological Review 98 224-253.

  • Moskowitz D. S. Suh E. J. & Desaulniers J. (1994). Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 753-761

  • Proudfoot D. Kay A. C. & Koval C. Z. (2015). A Gender Bias in the Attribution of Creativity: Archival and Experimental Evidence for the Perceived Association Between Masculinity and Creative Thinking. Psychological Science 1-11.

  • Rosenberg S. & Sedlak A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6 235-297.

  • Saleem H. Beaudry A. & Croteau A. M. (2011). Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: A study of the role of personality traits and gender. Computers in Human Behavior 27 1922-1936.

  • Saunders D. & Thagard P. (2005). Creativity in Computer Science. In J.C. Kaufman & J.Baer (Eds.) Creativity across domain: Faces of the muse (pp.153-167). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Elbraum.

  • Tang CH. Baer J. & Kaufman J. C. (2015). Implicit theories of creativity in computer science in the United States and China. The Journal of Creative Behavior 49137-156.

  • Tang M. Werner C. & Karwowski M. (2016). Differences in creative mindset between Germany and Poland: The mediating effect of individualism and collectivism. Thinking Skills and Creativity 21 31-40.

  • Twenge J. M. (1997). Changes in Masculine and Feminine Traits over Time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles 36 305-325.

  • Twenge J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 133-145.

  • Whitley B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 13 1-22.

  • Wojciszke B. (2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology 16 155-188.

  • Wojciszke B. & Szlendak M. (2010). Skale do pomiaru orientacji sprawczej i wspólnotowej [Scales for measuring the agentic and communal orientation]. Psychologia Spoleczna 5 57-69.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 215 125 5
PDF Downloads 91 64 2