A Content Analysis of Gender Representation

Home , Content analysis

IS FREUD’S OPINION THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS?: A CONTENT

ANALYSIS OF GENDER REPRESENTATION IN INTRODUCTORY

PSYCHOLOGY TEXTBOOKS

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Graduate and Professional Studies in Education

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Education

(Gender Equity Studies)

Kathryn L. Clifford

FALL 2013

Kathryn L. Clifford

IS FREUD’S OPINION THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS?: A CONTENT

ANALYSIS OF GENDER REPRESENTATION IN INTRODUCTORY

PSYCHOLOGY TEXTBOOKS

A Thesis

Kathryn L. Clifford

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.

______, Second Reader Lisa Bohon, Ph.D.

______Date

iii

Student: Kathryn L. Clifford

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

, Department Chair Susan Heredia, Ph.D. Date

Graduate and Professional Studies in Education

Abstract

IS FREUD’S OPINION THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS?: A CONTENT

ANALYSIS OF GENDER REPRESENTATION IN INTRODUCTORY

PSYCHOLOGY TEXTBOOKS

Kathryn L. Clifford

My intention for this study was to bring awareness to the academic community regarding the gender bias in introductory psychology textbooks. Through a content analysis, three popular and commonly used introductory psychology textbooks were examined for the lack of equal gender representation within the textbooks. A quantitative approach was taken in conducting this research. The results indicated that out of the total number of non-parenthetical references within the textbooks, 82% of the contributing authors were men, while 18% were women. Even though the male references heavily outweighed the female references there was a small increase in

female references from the 2011 publication date to the 2013 publication date (2011 =

13% female; 2013 = 17% female).

, Committee Chair Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.

Date

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Matt C. From our first date to today you have shown me unyielding support and love. My Bachelor’s degree and this

Master’s degree would not have been possible without your countless selfless acts and commitment to our family’s future - I will forever be grateful to you my love.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This process would not have been possible without the support of many people. I would like to first acknowledge my thesis advisor Dr. Sherrie Carinci. Dr.

Carinci’s genuine and caring manner has been inspiring throughout this process. Her insightful comments and unending guidance made this thesis possible. I truly thank you, Dr. Carinci from the bottom of my heart for your mentoring and encouragement along my path to becoming a well-rounded educator.

When first arriving at CSUS I was unaware of my true abilities until Dr. Lisa

Bohon challenged not only the way I saw the world, but also how I saw myself. Thank you Dr. B for seeing my true potential and opening my eyes to the many possibilities in front of me.

I would especially like to thank my mom who gave up so much so that my siblings and I could have what we needed. Mom, your devotion and loving acts throughout my life have meant more to me then you will ever know. To my sister and brothers, thank you for taking this journey with me and always supporting my choices.

I would also like to say a special thank you to Linda, my mother-in-law, for all of her kindnesses and support throughout the years.

To my wonderful family and friends, thank you for your unwavering belief in me during this long academic journey. Your unconditional love gave me strength during the darkest hours, and for this I am forever grateful.

viii

Without the help of all of these individuals I would not be where I am today and most importantly I would not be the person I am today.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Dedication ...... vii

Acknowledgments ...... viii

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Figures ...... xiv

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Statement of Problem ...... 2

Significance of the Study ...... 3

Methodology ...... 5

Limitations of the Study ...... 7

Theoretical Framework ...... 8

Definition of Terms ...... 14

Organization of the Thesis ...... 16

Background of the Researcher ...... 16

2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...... 18

The History and Patriarchy of University Teaching ...... 18

Women’s Entrance into Higher Education ...... 20

The Historical Scholars of Psychology ...... 23

Gender Equality and Student Connections in Higher Education ...... 26 x

Current Inequities in the Discipline of Psychology ...... 28

Textbook Criteria ...... 29

Gender Inequality Within Psychology Textbooks ...... 30

Commonalities in Top Selling Introductory Psychology Textbooks ...... 33

The Importance of Textbooks as Part of the Classroom Curriculum ...... 34

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 35

Introduction ...... 35

Research Design and Data ...... 36

Research Questions ...... 39

Textbooks ...... 40

Setting ...... 42

Procedures ...... 42

Conclusion ...... 44

4. FINDINGS ...... 45

Introduction to Quantitative Data ...... 45

Publisher Response ...... 45

Most Frequently Credited Sources ...... 46

Gender Representation Results ...... 48

Conclusion ...... 53

5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55 xi

Introduction to Quantitative Data ...... 55

Publishers’ Responses ...... 55

Most Frequently Credited Sources ...... 57

The Falsification of Freud ...... 58

Gender Representation Results ...... 60

Notable Women in Psychology ...... 63

Conclusions ...... 69

Limitations ...... 70

Recommendations ...... 71

Appendix A. Publisher Request Letter ...... 73

Appendix B. Textbook Coding Sheet ...... 75

References ...... 77

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Textbook A: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources ...... 47

2. Textbook B: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources ...... 47

3. Textbook C: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources ...... 48

4. Percentage of Gender Representation in Textbooks A, B, and C ...... 50

5. Percentage of Gender Representation in Textbooks A-C ...... 51

6. Gender Representation of Textbook Samples ...... 52

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1. Textbook A: Percentage of Gender Representation ...... 49

2. Textbook B: Percentage of Gender Representation ...... 49

3. Textbook C: Percentage of Gender Representation ...... 50

4. Textbooks A-C: Total Percentage Gender Representation ...... 51

5. Gender Representation by Textbook Samples ...... 52

6. Percent of Gender Representation by Publication Year ...... 53

xiv

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Just imagine a classroom packed with impressionable minds seeing quotes, photos, and pages dedicated to the great men of Psychology’s history. Sigmund Freud,

B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Jean Piaget, Carl Rogers, William James, Erik Erikson,

Stanley Milgram, Ivan Pavlov, Kurt Lewin, Abraham Maslow, Lawrence Kohlberg,

Herman Ebbinghaus, Charles Darwin, Edward Thorndike, Lev Vygotsky, Carl Jung,

Albert Ellis, Wilhelm Wundt, Alfred Adler - the list does not seem to cease when discussing male contributors to the field of Psychology; however, the female perspective is massively lighter in content.

The contributions of women in the field of Psychology were “largely unrecognized, undervalued, and invisible in historical accounts. New generations of psychologists have been denied the opportunity to acquire a full picture of their intellectual roots” (Russo & Denmark, 1987, p. 279). Russo and Denmark (1987) found that a sampling of textbooks lacked equal gender representation and blatantly placed female contributors into a designated and specific location (e.g., the dedication of a specified paragraph, noting “Women in Psychology”). To the untrained eye these particular textbooks might appear equitable; however, the lack of equal representation and lumping women into a category according to gender rather then dispersing the female contributors throughout the textbook is harmful to all students.

The method “of doing something only to prevent criticism,” as well as, “give the appearance that people are being treated fairly” is known as tokenism (Merriam-

Webster, 2013). Examining issues of gender inequality will create a stronger awareness of tokenism (Yoder, 2002). Young people with impressionable minds who are open to knowledge are susceptible to implicit associations between marginalized groups and lower status (Yoder, 2002). Implied messages from hierarchical authority have permeated academia for decades and students are unaware of the damage, which may be occurring (Benokraitis, 1998).

Statement of Problem

Goss Lucas and Bernstein’s (2005) research found that only 60% of

Psychology departments offer teacher preparation training courses for graduate students, of that percentage over half are limited to a one time only seminar style format. As for the limited few Psychology departments that do offer semester long courses in teacher training, these are not considered required, which results in low enrollment rates (Gross Lucas & Bernstein, 2005). The importance of teacher education lies in the ability to challenge future educators to effectively teach a diverse classroom of students (Ball, 2000). In the sparse teacher training that many university graduate level Psychology departments offer, very little time is spent discussing gender inclusion and sexism in curriculum, specifically equitable representation of gender and choosing bias free textbooks.

When the quality of a textbook is discussed it usually involves following criteria such as: “… reliability, interest to students, accuracy of content, coverage of content, scholarship, appropriateness of presentation level, and quality of the ancillary package” (Goss Lucas & Bernstein, 2005, p. 18). In addition, a general statement

about being fair and ethical with respect to student’s abilities and learning styles is often included (Goss Lucas & Bernstein, 2005). Gender equitable approaches are rarely discussed when determining textbooks for courses within the Psychology discipline (Goss Lucas & Bernstein, 2005).

The analysis of textbooks is truly important because textbooks play an extremely crucial role in creating a well-rounded education. The feeling of being voiceless, stereotyped, and/or invisible in textbooks can be seriously detrimental to the future of students (Gollnick, Sadker, & Sadker, 1982). The blatant gender biases in textbooks threaten students’ abilities to connect to a curriculum in a positive influential manner (Gollnick et al., 1982). In the current study, my aim was to examine and compare the gender distribution of contributing parties from the discipline of

Psychology, specifically in first year introductory psychology course textbooks.

Through content analysis, a sample of Introductory Psychology textbooks from three major publishers were investigated.

Significance of the Study

Gender fairness in the classroom can impact a student’s self-esteem and career path. It can break down walls of bias and stereotype, and create a positive learning environment (Carinci, 2010). Recent research highlights and depicts the gender inequities within textbooks and the growing importance of using textbooks in creating a well-rounded education (Brugeilles & Cromer, 2009). Scheiner-Fisher and Busey

(2013) note that “schools have come a long way since the days of teaching explicit gender roles and leaving women completely out of the content area, however, in less

apparent ways women are still relegated to the margins, or spoken of as secondary actors in many crucial fields” (p. 18). In order to investigate these points on a manageable level, I have tentatively generalized the relation between variables to create working research questions. Unlike a hypothesis, research questions do not predict an outcome (Dominick & Wimmer, 2003). In the current research, I explored the following questions:

• How often are female contributing authors mentioned in comparison to male

contributing authors?

• What is the difference between the amount of past and current contributors

within the textbooks?

• What is the difference between the amount of past and current contributors

within the textbooks in regards to gender representation?

The purpose of this work was to investigate current gender biases in recently published Introductory Psychology textbooks. The textbooks were examined through a form of content analysis, which is considered an unobtrusive or non-reactive method of observation. The observations made “employ the quantification (expression in numerical form)” of “an approach to science known as quantitative research”

(VandenBos, 2007, p. 763). VandenBos (2007) defines content analysis as “a systematic, quantitative procedure for coding the themes in qualitative material, such as projective-test responses, propaganda, or fiction … a study of verbally communicated material (e.g., articles, speeches, films) by determining the frequency

of specific ideas, concepts, or terms” (p. 223). In other words, content analysis can be used to study the communication between authors and audience (Prasad, 2008). The content in specific communication can be either clearly revealed and apparent or more obscure and uncertain to the reader.

The sample of textbooks used in the current study was acquired through specific criteria given to publishers. Three main publishers responded with the two or three best selling Introductory Psychology textbooks produced by their company. The researcher’s sample included the number one selling Introductory Psychology textbook per each publishing group, which came to a total of three textbooks examined. Publishers supplied me with the appropriate textbooks for the studies sample. The documented gender distribution of female and male contributions to the discipline of Psychology were examined and compared in each of the three textbooks.

The images and written texts within the entirety of the textbooks were categorized according to contributors and their gender. The gender of contributors mentioned throughout the textbook had to have been clearly stated in order to be included as data.

Methodology

In the current study, I used quantitative research design to examine gender representation in three Introductory Psychology textbooks through content analysis. At present, the most commonly used approaches in this type of research are quantitatively based designs (Martin, 2008). Quantitative research focuses on specific factors that can be easily measured and assigns numerical values to them (VandenBos, 2007).

However, Krippendorff (2013) notes, “that quantification is not a defining criterion for

content analysis” and that text content “is always qualitative to begin with” (p. 88). I chose this method because using a quantitative method of content analysis is convenient and extremely straightforward when analyzing data

Through coding, I was able to objectively examine raw text. According to

Krippendorff (2008) coding is “the process of Categorizing, describing, evaluating, judging, or measuring descriptively undifferentiated Units of analysis, thereby rendering them analyzable in well-defined terms” (p. 381). The analysis of units is,

“decontextualized but information-bearing textual wholes”, which are “considered separate from their context and independent of each other” (Krippendorff, 2008, p.

389). The units analyzed in this research used a categorical or nominal scale, due to the nature of my research questions.

The researcher categorized the credible sources and authorships contained within Introductory Psychology textbooks into groups according to gender. Credible sources and authorships are the means in which information is collated to create textbooks; these sources and their views are considered the authority on a particular topic of discussion. I used a small number of textbooks because it facilitates the purpose of content analysis to manage mutually exclusive categories and reduce bias during analysis (Krippendorff, 2008).

I designed a coding scheme and implemented it to ensure consistency throughout the analysis (see Appendix B). First, I designated the term “credited source” as the unit of measurement. The term credible source was given to describe the: authority, authorships, and historical mentions of individuals included within

textbooks. The credited sources were categorized by coding sheets, which I created by the following previous sources: Falkenstein (2012), Krippendorff (2008), and Weber

(1990).

Once the data were collected from each of the three individual textbook samples, it was analyzed for trends in the coverage each particular gender group received. The analysis of gender representation in Introductory Psychology textbooks identified whether both genders were equally present, with regards to credited sources, within the textbooks images and text content. Through content analysis, I was able to objectively examine the sample of textbooks, collect data, and come to a scientific analysis of the results.

Limitations of the Study

The communication with well-known publishers was more difficult then expected. While researching the appropriate textbooks for use in this study, I found that publishers were not always forthcoming with the selling status of their textbooks.

I often received blanket statements about the high quality of textbooks published by the company in question. Once I was clearly able to communicate with publishers, it was at this point that a list of commonly used and/or bestselling Introductory

Psychology textbooks were forwarded to me. In addition to gaining the names of top selling textbooks, the acquisition of hard copies were difficult to obtain due to limited funds. The textbooks were acquired through both the means of borrowing and buying.

I purchased a textbook when it could not be borrowed.

Another limitation was the lack of inter-rater reliability. The research was conducted by one individual, which created the problem of a one-coder analysis.

Multiple coders ensure the ability to replicate the analysis. With only one coder the reliability of the data is unknown. In addition, I am extremely well-versed in issues of gender equity in classrooms, curriculum, and classroom materials (i.e., textbooks). To limit my bias, the research design was created specifically to ensure that the units were manageable, mutually exclusive categories. These safeguards were put in place before data collection began. All possible safe guards were used to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Theoretical Framework

In order to completely explore the importance of this study various layers of theories and models were used to build a theoretical framework. The framework required a broad enough scope to encompass social influences surrounding students to positive teaching tools for a well-rounded education. Specifically discussed are the theories of social construction, social stratification, feminist psychology and feminist theory, and connected knowing. The holistic education model is looked upon through a caring, connected, and critical lens.

Theory of Social Construction

The foundation of a society is built by the rules and regulations passed down by the power structures in place (Gergen, 1985). Subordinate individuals follow these ideas without question, assuming it is for their own good (Gergen, 1985). This idea is known as the theory of social construction. Social construction by definition is “any

phenomenon “invented” by participants in a particular culture, existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follows certain conventional rules” (Baron,

Branscombe, & Byron, 2009). The theory of social construction examines:

gender … as a status variable, not something internal to the individual. Gender

serves as a status marker such that women’s subordinated status intersects with

other indicators of status … and token differences to produce negative and

variable outcomes for women not experienced by similarly underrepresented

men. (Yoder, 2002, p.1)

Information involving gender is processed quickly and efficiently through schemas that are considered culturally acceptable (Bem, 1993). Rudy, Popova, and Linz (2010) reported that “people have knowledge structures (“schemas”) for everything they experience” (p.713). Schemas allow for decisions, positive and negative, to be repeated over time with little thought; it is in this repetition that schemas, allow for biases processing to occur (Rudy et al., 2010).

Blumberg (2008) argues that formed gender biases are well disguised within textbooks. Blumberg’s (2008) research also mentions that gender inequities within textbooks are some of the most difficult to alter and are “more widespread geographically than the remaining gender gap” concerns (p. 4). Concern for the underrepresentation of females in textbooks has been expressed by Blumberg (2008), as well as, the possible negative of this bias on the way students perceive their future abilities The extensive inclusion of males in textbooks, is a socially formed construct, which further solidifies the patriarchal hierarchy (Yoder, 2002).

Theory of Social Stratification

The patriarchal structure continues to be the dominant feature in higher education and is illustrated through social stratification, specifically gender stratification (Blumberg, 2008). The theory of social stratification is referred to as:

… differential access to resources, power, autonomy, and status across social

groups. Social stratification implies social inequality; if some groups have

access to more resources then others, the distribution of those resources is

unequal. Societies can be stratified on any number of dimensions. In the

United States, the most widely recognized stratification systems are based on

race, social class, and gender. (McLeod & Nonnemaker, 1999, p. 321)

Education in itself is a crucial piece of society, designed to bring about change

(Lyman, Strachan, & Lazaridou, 2012). Lerner (1986) discussed the stagnation in our way of life, unless men and women act as equals. “As long as both men and women regard the subordination of half of the human race to the other as “natural,” it is impossible to envision a society in which differences do not connote either dominance or subordination” (p. 229). The strong connection between the lack of women in higher education and the credit being given to women in higher education is apparent through the lack of female representation in school curriculum (Sadker, 2003).

The stratification of gender in textbooks is apparent and substantial in the fight for gender equality in education (Blumberg, 2008). Even though gender inequality in textbooks have been acknowledged and discussed since the early 1970s, little has been

done to level the playing field (Blumberg, 2008). Prior research has explored the scarcity of women in higher education, and noted specifically the drastic need for women to become visible in the discipline of psychology (Benokraitis, 1998).

Feminist Psychology and Feminist Theory

Behaviorists, pursue the understanding of human behavior through what can be physically seen and manipulated in quantitative research; while Feminist psychologists and theorists investigate human behavior through a more philosophical approach

(Baron et al., 2009). Feminist psychology is known as:

… an approach to psychological issues that emphasizes the role of the female

perspective in thought, action, and emotion in the life of the individual and in

society. It is seen by its proponents as an attempt to counterbalance traditional

male-oriented and male-dominated psychology, as well as, a model for similar

approaches for less represented groups. (VandenBos, 2007, p. 373)

The conception of feminist psychology is denoted as the 1970s (Stewart & Dottolo,

2006). Vaughter (1976) describes the overall focus of feminist psychologists:

There is nothing new about women being psychologists. What is revolutionary

is the force of women in psychology and in the psychology of women to

change the structure of the belief system of science to construct a psychology

of human behavior (p. 146)

The traits of human kind are learned behaviors from generations past (Lyman et al.,

2012).

Current Feminist Psychologists critique the historical perspective of research in

psychology as being male-centered (Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, & McHugh, 2012). In the past, the second wave of feminism of the 1970s confirmed that the field of psychology was strongly lacking equal representation of women (Eagly et al., 2012).

There are strong opinions about the feminist’s fight “to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression,” and to help create an alternate way of thinking about those whom are oppressed (hooks, 2000, p. 1). Scheiner-Fisher & Busey (2013) acknowledge that the world of academia has come a long way since blatant sexist behaviors abounded; however, sexism still exists in what is considered the “hidden curriculum”. Unaware students are submerged into a curriculum that indoctrinates ideals, beliefs, and socially acceptable constructs into class materials, including textbooks (Scheiner-Fisher & Busey, 2013). The structure of power is built upon the idea that whomever distributes knowledge is considered the authority; by deconstructing the patriarchal power structure there is an uncertainty about the future social structure (Eagly et al., 2012). Feminists contend that the disregard for equality within the field of psychology suggests, “that women’s deficits of societal power and status are inevitable” (Eagly et al., 2012, p. 212).

Connected Knowing

“As part of university education, students need to recognize that the discussion of gender, both female and male, needs to be paramount when educating our future leaders, teachers, and business community” (Carinci, 2010, p. 68). When students do not discuss social and equality issues, such as the invisibility of women in education, there is a disconnect with their education. Connected knowing is a term used to

describe understanding, which “involves intimacy and equality between self and object, while knowledge … implies separation from the object and mastery over it”

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997, p. 101). Connected knowing in education is the acceptance to go beyond a surface level of thinking and to relate to the material being introduced.

Holistic Education Model

A holistic way of teaching can be seen as violating the patriarchal foundation in which the higher education system has been built upon. A quote by hooks (1999) embodies an understanding of what educators, with a desire to make a difference, are truly up against in the world of academia:

Excitement in higher education was viewed as potentially disruptive of the

atmosphere of seriousness assumed to be essential to the learning process. To

enter classroom settings in colleges and universities with the will to share the

desire to encourage excitement, was to transgress. Not only did it require

movement beyond accepted boundaries, but excitement could not be generated

without a full recognition of the fact that there could never be an absolute set

of agenda governing teaching practices. Agendas had to be flexible, had to

allow for spontaneous shifts in direction. Students had to be seen in their

particularity as individuals … and interacted with according to their needs …

(hooks, 1999, p. 183)

To build an educational community gleaming with the passion of the educators and the individualism of the students would indeed encompass the vision of a holistic

education. The holistic model is meant to provide an equal distribution of “student’s need to advance knowledge acquisition and critical judgment, thinking and acting, reflection and engagement, career development and informed citizenship, growth as an individual, and greater connectivity with the larger community” (Penny, Frankel, &

Mothersill, 2012, p. 1742). Research suggests that true learning goes beyond the textbook and yet, the majority of classrooms today are guided by textbooks (Penny et al., 2012; Sadker & Zittleman, 2007).

Holistic educators are those who understand that education is an art of developing a morally, emotionally, physically, and psychologically well-rounded individual by using all of the available resources, including textbooks. Holistic educators are in pursuit of a pedagogy/andragogy that will allow for multi-dimensional learning strategies that can apply to every type of student. Educators, who go above and beyond the call of duty, and are not simply teachers in a classroom, but teachers in every aspect of students’ lives, embody the meaning of the Holistic Education Model, devotion to educational freedom.

Definition of Terms

Content analysis: “Content denotes what is contained and content analysis is the analysis of what is contained in a message. Broadly content analysis may be seen as a method where the content of the message forms a basis for drawing inferences and conclusions about the content” (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1976, p. 2)

Connected knowing: is a term used to describe understanding, which

“involves intimacy and equality between self and object, while knowledge … implies separation from the object and mastery over it” (Belenky et al., 1997, p. 101).

Gender: “is related to culture and the social division into “masculine” and

“feminine”. Gender therefore pertains to the qualities, tastes, aptitudes, roles, and responsibilities associated with men and women in society” (Brugeilles & Cromer,

2009, p. 27).

Gender equity: A balance “between males and females in the quality of life, academic, and work, outcomes designed to promote these outcomes” (Funk, 2002, p.

4).

Gender roles: Socially constructed rules of social behavior males and females

(Evans & Diekman, 2009).

Gender schema: “the organized set of beliefs and expectations that guides one’s understanding of gender or sex” (VandenBos, 2007, p. 402)

Gender system: “… the set of norms, beliefs, practices and knowledge that organizes relations between men and women …” (Brugeilles & Cromer, 2009, p. 27).

Self-concept: “the way one thinks of oneself, the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about what characteristics you have” (Bernstein, 2011, p. 549).

Social cognition: “mental processes associated with how people perceive and react to other individuals and groups” (Bernstein, 2011, p. 548).

Social Learning Theory: “… individuals learn to be masculine and feminine

(among other things) through communication and observation” (VandenBos, 2007, p. 866)

Social Norms: “Learned, socially based rules that prescribe what people should or should not do in various situations” (Bernstein, 2011, p. 568).

Sociocultural factors: “social identity and other background factors, such as gender, ethnicity, social class, and culture” (Bernstein, 2011, p.18).

Organization of the Thesis

The following thesis is divided into five separate yet equal chapters. Chapter 1 consists of the problem, purpose, significance, methodology, limitations, theoretical framework, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 contains a literature review of the patriarchy representation of the history of psychology, the missing female predecessors, current agents of change, and the theories behind the research. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology behind the content analysis used to explore the sample of textbooks. Chapter 4 is the analysis of the data collected. Chapter 5 involves the discussion, limitations, further research, and the conclusion of the current study.

Background of the Researcher

Years ago, when I was an impressionable youth, the newly appointed principal of my high school pulled me into her office to give me a lesson on what she believed to be my future. This so called educator thought that it was in my interest to tell me that I was worthless, would not amount to anything, and that the idea of going to

college was a joke for someone like me. She strongly expressed her discontent for even attempting to educate students like me, because we were a waste of time and resources. This awful moment changed my life – forever. I did not realize then, but those horrible words were a driving force in my failures as well as my successes in academia.

Ten years, nine community colleges, and one university later I found myself at

CSUS in the Fall of 2008. Little did I know then that the grounds of this campus would house my true academic future – of becoming an educator. My first undergraduate Psychology class at CSUS will forever be my most challenging and overall favorite course. I will forever be grateful for the actions of a single educator during my first semester. Dr. B pulled me under her wing and taught me that challenges in life make us who we are and who we will become.

My time as an undergraduate was spent earning a Bachelor’s degree in

Psychology, a minor in Education, and assisting Professors in their classrooms and on their research projects. It was during this time, that I found a true love and passion for knowledge. All aspects of education, particularly in the areas directly involving students, began to intrigue me. The desire to teach in higher education and to make a difference in students’ lives ultimately drove my decision to apply to Graduate school.

If someone told me 13 years ago that I would earn a Bachelor’s degree, a

Master’s degree, and be teaching college level courses, I would have laughed and said,

“you must have the wrong person”. I am proudly a product of California State

University, Sacramento and I will forever be thankful for this university.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

This chapter reviews the history and patriarchy of university teaching, the separation of education according to gender, the entrance of women into higher education, the history of the discipline of Psychology, current gender equality in the university setting, current inequities in the discipline of Psychology, textbook criteria, commonalities in top selling Introductory/General Psychology textbooks, and the importance of gender inclusion in textbooks.

The History and Patriarchy of University Teaching

Education is a valuable piece of society, in which “… customs, and culture are passed from one generation to the next and the most potent means for bringing about change” (Lyman et al., 2012, p. xiii). According to historical sources before the

1800’s, a rigorous curriculum of classic subject matter was the standard in academia regardless of future endeavors (Rudolph, 1977). For decades, research has examined the “…relationship between higher education and social stratification” (Goyette &

Mullen, 2006, p. 497). Access to higher education and the hierarchical powers dispersed amongst the university system were analyzed for associations (Goyette &

Mullen, 2006). Historically, males studied the classic approaches to education, while being groomed as future leaders at the top of the hierarchical pyramid (Goyette &

Mullen, 2006). “As the system of higher education has become the central mechanism for sorting people into the occupational structure, patterns of educational inequality are directly linked to social stratification” (Goyette & Mullen, 2006, p. 525).

The theory of social stratification is defined as “…the ways and rules by which individuals may become incumbents of the different social positions, or by which they attain membership in groups of similarly ranked positions, that is in social strata”

(Matras, 1984, p. 1). According to the theory of social stratification, the ranking system within a society comes with certain levels of prestige and rewards (Davis,

1942; Matras, 1984).

In order to reach these high levels of social status individuals must receive the appropriate training and education associated within a particular stratum; however even with the appropriate qualifications women still only make up a minority of faculty at the university level (Basow, 1998; Davis & Moore, 1945; Matras, 1984;

Sax, 2012). Often the inequalities still facing modern women in higher education are difficult to perceive due to the seemingly high presence of women in various positions on the university campus (i.e., faculty, staff, administration). Bystanders are often

“unaware of the persistent gender inequalities that exist within each of those populations, whether in terms of salary, resources, power, or prestige” (Sax, 2012, p. xiii). Research has consistently demonstrated that such inequalities across time have constructed the gender biases that face women in higher education today (Basow,

1998; Davis & Moore, 1945; Sax, 2012).

After the 1800s, it became more commonplace to undergo training in a skill or trade in order to pursue a career (Rudolph, 1977). Universities began to change with the times and included additional coursework to educate the ever growing student

population and their needs (Foster, 1911; Rudolph, 1977). Many attempts were made to “modernize” curriculum to help individuals acquire traits to better suit the changing social climate and the approaching Industrial Revolution (Thomas, 1962). Universities soon learned that restricting a student’s education merely hindered the production of scholarly work (Thomas, 1962). In the early 20th century, new methods of teaching were displayed and newly devised courses, known as electives, were assembled in order to fulfill the increasing desire for general education classes (Thomas, 1962).

Elective courses allowed for a more fluid education, which influenced the specialization of the distinct fields of study (Thomas, 1962).

Toward the mid 20th century, the university structure changed and so did the departments within the structure; a change in position of power occurred. Specialized fields of study resulted in a drastic exchange of importance in the scholarly work produced. Departments became highly interested in the quality of the scholarship versus quantity of the scholarship (Thomas, 1962). The new strength within the disciplines did not affect the fundamental methods of creating a well-rounded student

(Thomas, 1962). On the other-hand, one group did gain access and voice during the transition of powers, the faculty (Thomas, 1962). Unfortunately, women had only recently gained access to higher education as students, female faculty members were few and far between at this point in history (Jacobs, 1996).

Women’s Entrance into Higher Education

The foundational and fundamental principles of higher education are lacking in social progress with regard to gender inequalities.

Although women as a group have made significant advances into the

professoriate, they remain a minority on campuses across the United States.

Furthermore, women faculty are overrepresented in community colleges and in

the lower, untenured ranks, where they remain for longer periods than do

equally qualified men. (Basow, 1998, p. 135)

The notion that inequalities continue to persist into the 21st century is hard to fathom considering that women have been officially engaged in higher education since 1833, when Oberlin College started accepting female students into their classrooms (Sadker

& Sadker, 1994). The strength of past female heroines and supporting feminists have helped to continue the fight for women’s rights in education.

Girls and women exhibited the urge to learn even before they were allowed the traditional classroom (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Through secret daily activities and religion, girls and women, once considered to be the least clever of the sexes (Thomas,

1962), learned to read and write (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Many men attempted to extinguish the thirst for equality in academia; however, the desire for knowledge and individuality was too strong in academic women (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987).

Women began to make an impact on the world of academia, which in turn made many men nervous. Societal changes brought about fear of the unknown and “at first even women who themselves passionately desired higher education were unsure about women’s potential for intellectual achievement” (Scarborough & Furumoto,

1987, p. 3). The fear of women’s social elevation was seen through the protests of high-powered men in the academic setting. Clarke (as cited in Scarborough &

Furumoto, 1987) described in “ … gruesome detail the dire effects of higher education on women’s physical well-being” (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 4). Walsh and

Hall (as cited in Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987) also suggested that educated women would end up with “monstrous brains and puny bodies; abnormally active cerebration and abnormally weak digestion; flowing thought and constipated bowels” in addition to being “functionally castrated” (as cited in Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). The blatant opposition to women’s education did not stop merely with the physical effects, but continued to alarm the public with the feared social effects, such as aggressive outbursts and non-specific marital problems (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987).

In the 1900s a new threat was believed to be entering society. Educated women were challenged about their devotion to their families (Scarborough & Furumoto,

1987). There were believed to be fewer marriages and births, during the influx of women entering academia (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). In 1904, a well known male psychologists by the name of G. Stanley Hall was convinced that educated women lost the ability to reproduce (Hall, 1904). Claims such as these drove more women to seek intellectual freedom and political advocacy (Scarborough & Furumoto,

1987). Unfortunately, female students continued to jump through patriarchal hoops, while trying to obtain their male designated degree, known as a Bachelor of Arts or

Science. Recently, the positives of women in academia have been more often highlighted than criticized. There has been little acknowledgement of the remaining gender equality issues in a majority of curricula, and the lack support for women experts in their fields (Sax, 2012).

The Historical Scholars of Psychology

Those who have come before us, from the Greek philosophers to Ernst

Weber’s work on just noticeable differences, were considered the forefathers of

Psychology (Hunt, 2007). Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the new and growing interest in the individual spurred rapid advancement in the fields of psychology and educational theory (Hunt, 2007; Thomas, 1962).

The “general education” model became a way for academia to keep up with the increasing number of state run colleges and universities, and, the changing power structures within the university itself. Boning (2007) described general education as a

“swinging pendulum alternating between periods of integration and periods of fragmentation” (p. 2). This new age of education brought about interest in the discipline of psychology (Thomas, 1962).

In the mid-1800s, a German Physiologist by the name of Wilhelm Wundt witnessed the birth of Psychology within the four walls of his laboratory at the

University of Leipzig (Hunt, 2007). William James, a professor at Harvard University and G. Stanley Hall, a professor at John Hopkins soon followed in the creation of a

“new psychology, also called physiological psychology” (Scarborough & Furumoto,

1987, p. 5). Hall (as cited in Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987) described the “new psychology” as science based rather than theory based. At this time, the discipline of psychology was made up of a few university men who studied behavior, learning, cognition, perception, and sensation (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987).

The 19th century brought about a small bit of diversity, with women becoming more visible in higher education. “By the end of the 1800s, the primary purpose of

American higher education shifted from preparing future leaders to the advancement of knowledge”, which was embraced by the slowly forming discipline of psychology

(Boning, 2007, p. 4). The American Psychological Association (APA) was founded in

1892 in order to help with “… establishing their field as a legitimate scientific profession” (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 6).

Individuals, such as: Dorthea Dix and Mary Whiton Calkins braved the all- male world of psychology alone during the 19th century as two of the first generation of women in the field. Dix is most widely known for her “ … efforts to secure humane and therapeutic accommodations for the insane poor, for the early work as an educator, for her advocacy of prison reform, and for her work as superintendent of

United States army nurses in the Civil War” (Zusne, 1984, p. 15). Calkins was known for her triumph in education through circumstances well known to women of the 19th century. Calkins earned her doctoral degree from Harvard University, but due to her gender was never awarded her graduate degree (Furumoto, 1980). Even facing gender inequity, Calkins showed unyielding strength and accomplished greatness that inspires the women who followed her footsteps (Furumoto, 1980). Dix, Calkins, and a few other founding mothers aided in the sculpting of the field of psychology; however, they are not often recognized for their contributions to what is now know as the discipline of psychology. Today the discipline of psychology is defined as:

A diverse discipline, grounded in science, but with nearly boundless

applications in everyday life … developing theories and testing them through

carefully honed research methods involving observation, experimentation and

analysis. Other psychologists apply the discipline’s scientific knowledge to

help people, organizations and communities function better. As psychological

research yields new information, whether it’s developing improved

interventions to treat depression or studying how humans interact with

machines, these findings become part of the discipline’s body of knowledge

and are applied … they also study and encourage behaviors that build wellness

and emotional resilience… (VandenBos, 2007, p. 753)

The confusion between psychology as a basic science and an applied science has been a continuous battle, when discussing psychology as a profession. Basic science is associated with academics who have “… met required training standards and [are] qualified to “practice” the science by conducting research and adding to its information base”, while being an applied scientist “… refers to a person who had met training standards, demonstrated competence, and is therefore qualified to practice by offering services to the public … or charging fees for the display of training and talent

…” (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 6). Psychology may be considered by most a young discipline; however, it is an intriguing field of study that observes behavior and then scientifically tests hypotheses. Psychology’s objective is to assess the truth or falsehood in some of our most commonly held beliefs about others and ourselves.

Psychology textbook about psychology’s past, present, and future are morally

obligated to include the contributions of the women who have devoted their time and efforts to the vast field of research.

Gender Equality and Student Connections in Higher Education

The educational system, which our society has created, was built around the educational needs of the male student. The main principles and goals supporting the male inspired education and the invisibility of female students are still present in today’s college/university classrooms (Boning, 2007; Jacobs, 1996). According to research, the amount of positive teaching strategies and specialty trainings for graduate students intending to pursue a career in the educational arena is not consistent with the ever-growing diversity of the student body populations (Austin, 2002).

Some consider the art of teaching to be learned through trial and error, a rite of passage to success as an educator (Goss Lucas & Bernstein, 2005). It is possible that if prospective educators do not personally experience positive and equitable teaching techniques, they will most likely fall back on the unjust and unprepared examples they experienced in their own educational journey. Current research demonstrates that training future educators to . . . . maximizes student learning. In addition, creating a connection between students, scholars, and scholarly material (e.g., textbooks), inspires classroom engagement and motivation, while creating a deeper understanding of content (Benassi & Buskist, 2012). The deep connection between a student, curriculum, and scholarship is known as connected knowing (Jacobs, 1996; Noddings,

1992). By not connecting curriculum to the real world, students are taught that

advancements in scientific research and scholarship are not in alliance with the needs of the student (Jacobs, 1996).

The connection and development of the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual self leads to the education of an individual who will be a productive member of society (hooks, 1999; Martin, 1999). Through a holistic form of education, information is taught with regard to the student as a whole (hooks, 1999). This form of pedagogy is multidimensional taking into account all aspects of the learner (hooks,

1999).

An inclusionary curriculum embodies the spirit of a holistic education (Martin,

1999). Many feminist scholars contributed to the progression of equal rights for women in higher education. Even with the critical accomplishments made by these feminists, students in higher education still hold misconceptions and biased beliefs about “… gender differences in emotions, attitudes, cognition, and behavior…”, which are attributed to socially created constructs (Caplan, 2010, pp. 553-554).

Educational inequalities can have an extensive impact on students’ future goals and achievements (Carinci, 2010). Women are prone to experience more inequalities within the academic arena then men, due to the lack of female representation within the university curriculum (Carinci, 2010; Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). Inequality toward women in higher education may result in students’ lack of connection to course material, loss of interest in academia, and low career achievement status of women

(Carinci, 2010; Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). Not until the end of the 20th century

were gender inequalities among the student body and the faculty in academic settings seriously discussed (Lyman et al., 2012).

Current Inequities in the Discipline of Psychology

Today the academic world is challenged, with too much material to cover and too little time to cover it. The academic environments most students can recall from years of education are the hours spent listening to lectures and reading the required textbooks for the course. Past research has found that education has truly suffered from the fast paced conditions of the technology era and that professors often build their curriculum around the available textbooks (Madden & Hyde, 1998). Sadker and

Zittleman (2007) note, “students spend as much as 80 to 95 percent of classroom time using textbooks and that teachers make a majority of their instructional decisions based on textbooks” (p. 144). The invisible gender biases within currently used textbooks have not been seriously acknowledged through political conversations; however, the attempt to strip away the “camouflage” and reveal the problem has been recently discussed by Blumberg (2008, p. 6).

Strict time restraints inflict pressure on educators to present excessive amounts of material to students in hopes that the students walk away with the knowledge required for the next level of their education. In the rush to force as much information as possible into this short period of time, the presence of a proper female representation in the curriculum have failed to appear. In many areas of study, the textbooks and curricula have been changed to better express the female perspective;

unfortunately, this is not the case in the field of Psychology (Caplan, 2010; Lykes &

Stewart, 1986).

Textbook Criteria

Undergraduate education and knowledge base is crucial to the overall growth of a student (Habarth, Hansell, & Grove, 2011). Throughout the various disciplines’, textbooks are a critical part of curricula (Habarth et al., 2011). In the United States,

Introductory Psychology is one of the most popular general education courses and over a million students enroll in it each year, “making this course a crucial venue for students’ first impressions of the field” (Habarth et al., 2011, p. 16; Trimble,

Stevenson, & Worell, 2003)

Many researchers have devoted their careers to the content of general education textbooks; the creation of the best possible product for the consumer, that is the students who are required to purchase and read the product, have been evaluated across many disciplines (Altman, Ericksen, & Pen-Shaff, 2006; Brugeilles & Cromer,

2009; Habarth et al., 2011). Textbooks are often chosen for superficial reasons rather then a correct evaluation of the meaningful criteria (Altman et al., 2006). The

California State Department of Education (1998) adopted a quick and easy guide to analyze books for racism and sexism. It has 10 areas of analysis: Check the illustrations, check the story line, look at life-styles, weigh the relationships among people, note the heroes, consider the effects on a child’s self-image, check out the author’s perspective, watch for loaded words, look at the copyright date, and consider literacy, historical, and cultural perspectives. The purpose and need for guides such as

the one above help to dissipate the negative connections being created by the reading materials used at the different levels of education.

For some educators, the growing expectations of their job requirements in higher education, demonstrates that choosing a book by its cover and chapter breakdowns is growing in popularity (Altman et al., 2006). Researchers Durwin and

Shermon (2008) discovered that more and more educators are choosing textbooks based on superficial reasons, such as convenience. As suggested earlier, this is often due to the increasingly busy schedules of university educators. The overall impact of inequitable textbooks on students learning has illustrated that textbooks used in introductory psychology courses need to be examined using multiple levels of criteria

(Durwin & Shermon, 2008).

When the quality of a textbook is discussed it usually involves the following criteria: reliability, interest to students, accuracy of content, coverage of content, scholarship, appropriateness of presentation level, quality of the ancillary package, and a general statement about being fair and ethical with respect to students’ abilities and learning styles (Altman et al., 2006; Brugeilles & Cromer, 2099; Habarth et al., 2011).

The above criteria may look adequate; however, the standard for gender equality is missing from the criteria list.

Gender Inequality Within Psychology Textbooks

Gender equitable approaches are rarely discussed when determining textbooks for courses within the Psychology discipline (Altman et al., 2006; Brugeilles &

Cromer, 2009; Habarth et al., 2011). This area of study is truly important because

textbooks play an extremely crucial role in creating a well-rounded education. The feeling of being voiceless, stereotyped, and/or invisible in the college/university classroom can be seriously detrimental to the future of students (Carinci, 2007).

Madden and Hyde (1998) discussed the inability of female students to engage in the topic of psychology, because they as women are not represented in the material of these introductory courses. This type of material lacks the connected knowing that allows female students to see themselves as part of the topic of discussion (Carinci,

2007). The representation female students do see in these courses are usually those of a stereotypical manner, verbally and pictorially (Madden & Hyde, 1998).

To help address this issue, the Education and Training Board of the American

Psychological Association created a task force that investigated the representation of gender in textbooks (APA, 1975). Multiple research findings indicated that the

“examples of sexism found in psychology texts are attributable more to omission than commission” and that “the infrequent presentation of women as subject matter is more noticeable than bias and misrepresentation within the material that is presented”

(APA, 1975; Deats & Lenker, 1994, p. 62). The American Psychological Association,

Task Force on Issues of Sexual Bias in Graduate Education (1975) further provided guidelines for the proper way to word information in textbooks so that both sexes are represented. This was a first step in addressing gender issues in textbooks.

Following the task force guidelines, various scholars examined psychology textbooks for changes in grammar and presentation of information that adhered to the task force suggestions (Peterson & Kroner, 1992). Scholars found some

improvements, such as the decrease in the use of sex-stereotyped language and gender-biased content; however, the issues of sexism continued to persist in the various analyses (Campbell & Schram, 1995; Peterson & Kroner, 1992). The majority of representations within the textbooks were male and significantly surpassed the representations of females. Also, females were incessantly displayed and discussed in a negative and stereotypical manner (Peterson & Kroner, 1992). Psychology textbooks are slowly moving away from the blatant sexist language, but have not bridged the gap for gender biases, incorporated females into the curriculum in a positive and encouraging manner, nor documented gender equity in the scholarship presented

(Campbell & Schram, 1995; Peterson & Kroner, 1992).

One way in which gender issues persist is with the omission of support for the feminist perspectives. The need to word textbooks in a way that not only changes the negative stereotypes of women, but casts females in a more positive light is crucial to the connection of the curriculum and its female audience. Presentation of female scholars also impacts student’s perceptions of the discipline of psychology (Blumberg,

2008). A disconnect between the student and curricula can be created when the repetition of gender specific scholars are not equally represented. The lack of a larger perspective does not allow research or textbook examples to be generalized to the female population, which in turn does not create a connection between female students and their education (Blumberg, 2008). Recent research suggests that even though the discipline of psychology reports that fixing inequalities within the discipline are of great importance; psychology textbooks still show a lack in quality control (Payne,

2009). The absence of the representation of women has left females without a way to connect to the material (Belenky et al., 1997). Without this connection, the motivation to study psychology is limited. In order for women to achieve the same “status” as men, their prior work needs to be accurately and equally reflected in the discipline of

Psychology.

Commonalities in Top Selling Introductory Psychology Textbooks

Textbooks most commonly used for introductory psychology have been deemed bloated with too much information and too high a price (Griggs & Jackson,

2013). Departments are beginning to use the same textbooks across all sections of introductory psychology in order to control the content and adequacy of the multitude of sections being taught each year; however, the departments have not gained the support of the active instructors in this decision (Altman et al., 2006). Instructors are not comfortable with textbooks that may not fit their personalities or teaching styles

(Altman et al., 2006).

David G. Myers in particular is the author of numerous Introductory

Psychology textbooks, which have remained the top selling textbooks for Introductory

Psychology courses for numerous years. A textbook by Myers is considered a

“psychology standard” amongst intellectuals within the discipline and the publishers who endorse various similar texts. Through active updates and technological additions this text is securely holding the best-sellers position in the field.

The Importance of Textbooks as Part of the Classroom Curriculum

Introductory Psychology is a course offered as part of a student’s general education requirement for all CSU students. The purpose of general education is to educate the student as a whole, to incorporate a holistic type of education “ … it is not simply a series of courses to complete or hoops for students to jump through as they complete the courses in their major. Rather, general education lies at the heart of what a university education is all about” (California State University, Sacramento

University Catalog, Campus information and policies, 2010). As a general education course, introductory psychology could influence a large sample of undergraduate students from various majors and play a part in their educational foundation (Buegilles

& Cromer, 2009).

In order to decrease the gaps in education and allow students to feel power within their education, educators and universities a like must help to create positive and equitable learning environments through the conscious effort and exploration of various role models which can be included in the curriculum (Carinci, 2010). Lyman et al. (2012) suggested that all people, women and men alike, help to create more opportunities and advancements in academia and leadership.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

I examined the inequalities of gender representation within introductory psychology textbooks, through a quantitative content analysis. Quantitative research focuses on quantifiable behavior; this type of behavior can be assigned numeric values assisting in the collection of useful data (VandenBos, 2007). In addition, there are multiple advantages to using a content analysis. One such advantage is the fluidity of the methodology, which allows for a wide applicability and variation of research, which is an enticement for many researchers and scholars (Tesch, 1990).

Three textbooks were selected from a list of commonly used and best selling introductory psychology textbooks. Three major textbook publishing companies supplied the researcher with lists of introductory psychology textbooks. The textbooks were analyzed by categorizing the gender of researchers cited. By taking a frequency count of the images and written text, I coded credited sources by gender. For example, textbook A from the sample states: “Michael McCullough and his colleagues (2007) have shown that the capacity to forgive is an unfolding process that often takes time”

(King, 2011, p. 8). The above example of a credited source of authority would be acknowledged on a coding sheet due to the pairing of the researcher “Michael

McCullough” and the personal pronoun “his”.

“In recent years, introductory psychology textbooks have made significant progress in integrating diverse perspectives…” unfortunately the significance spoken

of is less then progressive (Goldstein, Siegel, & Seaman, 2009, p. 21). Women are blatantly missing “in both the literature on diversifying the psychology curriculum and the psychology curriculum itself” (Goldstein et al., 2009, p. 21). Research in the area of underrepresented women in the discipline of psychology is crucial to create a more equitable field of study.

Research Design and Data

Quantitative

For this study, a quantitative research approach has been taken, based on the data collected from coding three introductory psychology textbooks. The use of a quantitative content analysis method, specifically in the analysis of introductory psychology textbooks, can help to determine the current biases being taught to a plethora of college and university students (Goldstein et al., 2009). I examined gender representation in three commonly used and best selling introductory psychology textbooks. The gender analysis of key authors was explored through out the sample of introductory psychology textbooks. Non-parenthetical credited sources and their corresponding documented gender were analyzed and coded for frequency. Authors mentioned parenthetically were excluded from the data, because gender is not easily identifiable. The textbook sample was selected from a list of textbook titles supplied by three major textbook publishing companies. The three major publishers chosen, made a list of commonly used and best selling introductory psychology textbooks available to the researcher of this study. The list of Introductory Psychology textbooks were reported by publishers to be commonly used in the Psychology Departments of

the California State University school system. The research criteria given to the representative of the textbook publishing company was: year of publication and a description of the introductory psychology course criteria.

Content Analysis

After the start of the 20th century, the composition of basic content had begun to be explored in various fields of study. Scholars looked for an explanation and clarification of the content currently being presented. The search for interpretation in common content brought about the development of content analysis (Kaplan, 1943).

Research designs began to expand and change during the 1930s (Krippendorff, 2013).

Sociologists specifically “started to make extensive use of survey research and polling” (Krippendorff, 2013, p. 13). In 1934, the article titled “Quantitative

Newspaper Analysis as a Technique of Opinion Research” gave way to the beginning of the research design now known as content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). The content analysis technique enables diversity in the desired areas of study. Prasad

(2008) stated that content analysis is a field of study with vast capabilities and that the diverse techniques of this form of analysis illustrates applicability in numerous fields of research.

Content Analysis is a method of categorizing communication content based on frequency of occurrence. This form of analysis is an observational technique whose unit of analysis is some written, visual, or spoken record rather than the behavior of participants (Cozby & Bates, 2013).

This technique is often used to analyze transcripts from case studies, participant observations, and ethnographies, as well as archival data. Content analyses should be performed within the context of a clearly developed research idea, including specific hypothesis and a sound research design (Cozby & Bates, 2013). Response categories must be clearly defined and relevant to the hypothesis, and a method for quantifying behavior must be developed (Cozby & Bates, 2013).

The concept of content analysis has only recently gained momentum across disciplines (Krippendorff, 2013). Content analysis has a sound empirical method, surpasses aging concepts, and is based on original methodology (Krippendorf, 2013).

Content analysis is a type of naturalistic observational research, which has been described as a pliable method of research that is designed to gain information for the purpose of helping or hindering an institution or cause (Cavenagh, 1997; Krippendorf,

2013).

Content analysis is considered a safe form of research because information initially left out of the analysis can be included at a later time without weakening the findings (Cozby & Bates, 2013). Additionally, content analysis requires researchers to be more systematic in their observations and collection of data (Cozby & Bates, 2013).

Along with the advantages of this type of research come disadvantages, such as the flexibility of such a concept. “Content analysis is an unobtrusive technique … acts of measurement interfere with the phenomena being assessed and create contaminated observations; the deeper the observer probes, the greater the severity of the contamination.” (Krippendorff, 2013, p. 45). Content Analysis is a method intended to

created manageable categories of information so that investigators can pull useful information from the research results

I used content analysis to fit the needs of the data being examined. I examined and compared documented contributions from the discipline of Psychology, specifically in reference to gender. The research consisted of a line-by-line analysis of the content, which included the text and imagery within each textbook sample. The gender analyses of three Introductory Psychology textbooks were conducted in order to determine which contributors were given more content coverage, men or women.

Contributors mentioned as a by-product of a citation, were not included in the data due to the unidentifiable specification of the contributor’s gender.

Research Questions

Determining which content analysis technique to use in a research design depends on the theoretical questions and the hypothesis of the study (Rosengren,

1983). The questions that guided this research were:

• How often are female contributing authors mentioned in comparison to male

contributing authors?

• What is the difference between the amount of past and current contributors

within the textbooks?

• What is the difference between the amount of past and current contributors

within the textbooks in accordance to gender representation?

I predicted that the sample of Introductory Psychology textbooks would include a larger majority of male contributing authors then female contributing authors.

Textbooks

I contacted three major textbook publishers known as: Wadsworth: Cengage

Learning; McGraw-Hill; and Worth. The publishers supplied the researcher with a list of commonly used and best selling Introductory Psychology textbooks. Recent research similar to this study also looked to textbook publishing companies for bestseller list of introductory psychology textbooks (Goldstein et al., 2009). A consistent trend of communication with textbook publishing companies was noted in the research of content analysis of textbooks across the disciplines (Blumberg, 2008;

Goldstein et al. 2009; Landrum & Hormel, 2002).

This study incorporated three textbooks, which were randomly sampled from the list of commonly used and best selling textbooks supplied by responding textbook publishing companies. The textbook criteria given to the representative of the textbook publishing companies were: The textbook must be considered a commonly used and/or bestseller from the particular publishing company in question.

1. The textbook must be a “full length” (i.e., cannot exclude any chapters

from the sample version).

2. The textbook must have a publication date between 2011 and 2014.

3. The textbook must compliment the Spring 2013 CSU course catalog

description of an Introductory Psychology course, which notes the

inclusion of “Basic, Individual, and Social Processes: Physiological

psychology, comparative psychology, learning, motivation, sensation and

perception, developmental psychology, personality, social psychology,

maladaptive behavior, individual differences, and selected other topics”

The year of publication parameters were set at three years, which makes the copyright date between 2011 and 2014. This restriction was implemented by the researchers because “the overall pace of the process is accelerated by the rapidity with which publishers revise and reissue textbooks – typically every 3 years for large – market courses such as introductory psychology” (Steuer & Ham, 2008, p. 161). The copyright dates were as follows: three textbooks were 2014, two textbooks were 2013, one textbook was 2012, and one textbook was 2011. Due to the timing of this study the publishers were currently in the process of introducing new additions, therefore there was a larger amount of the year 2014 copyright date then any other year.

Per the textbook publishing companies response the researcher randomly selected three textbooks from the list for the sample. The three textbooks used in the sample were:

• Textbook A: King, L. A. (2011). The science of psychology (2nd ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

• Textbook B: Myers, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychology (9th ed.). New York:

Worth Publishing.

• Textbook C: Pastorino, E., & Doyle-Portillo, S. (2013). What is psychology?

Essentials (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Setting

The research took place in the privacy of my office. The office had excellent lighting and plenty of space to conduct the analysis properly. The analysis was conducted in the same location for all of the textbooks. Each textbook was analyzed independently of the other.

Procedures

The current study used content analysis to examine the credited source contributions included in the sample of introductory psychology textbooks.

Introductory Psychology is a general education course, which allows all students access. A sample of three commonly used and best selling introductory psychology textbooks from various textbook publishing companies were used in this research.

Each textbook was individually analyzed page by page in order to detect contributors, according to gender, included throughout the pages of the text and images. Specifically, I explored the amount of female and male contributors included in each textbook. If contributing authors were mentioned parenthetically then they were excluded from the recorded data. These contributors were exclusively excluded from the data collection because the author’s gender is not directly stated and/or specific in relation to gender. The gender specific information collected was directly observable by the intended reader; simply put, the gender of the contributing author was in plain sight within the text and images through out the textbook.

Multiple citations of contributing authors were included in the data in order to calculate the total volume of representation in accordance to contributor’s importance.

The frequency of repetitive names and data were recorded in order to see possible trends within and among the sample of textbooks. Through this collection of data the gender of most frequently cited contributors was deconstructed and grouped.

Authorship/Credited Sources within the Text and Images

The textbooks from the sample were individually analyzed using a coding sheet created specifically for this study (see Appendix B). Each page of each individual textbook was analyzed for individual and/or first contributing authors to the field of Psychology. First, the contributing author(s) mentioned in a continuum within the informational text were tallied and coded according to gender, specific contribution, year of contribution, type of documentation, as well as, the page and paragraph location of the documented contributing author. The seven columns encompassed in the coding sheet were individually labeled at the top of the data sheet, which read: (Column 1) credited source’s name. (Column 2) gender of credited source

(Female = F, Male = M). (Column 3) page number of credit. (Column 4) type of credit

(Text = T, Photo = P, Image = I). (Column 5) notable findings. (see Appendix B).

Each coding sheet pertained to a specific individual contributor and the associated sample textbook. For example, Margaret Washburn received her own coding sheet, which consisted of informational columns relating to: name of contributor (i.e., Margaret Washburn), gender of contributor (i.e., Woman), type of contribution (i.e., the first woman to be awarded a doctorate in psychology), length of contribution (i.e., 1 sentence), page of contribution (i.e., p. 8), and textbook citation

(i.e., Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 2013).

In addition, to the main content analysis, I created a “notable findings page”

(see Appendix B) in order to document additional observations, which came about during the data collection process. This type of supplemental information is common when conducting a content analysis in order to extend the original analysis upon discovery of additional supporting evidence and/or use as a starting point for additional research in the future (Cozby & Bates, 2013).

Conclusion

A content analysis methodology was utilized in the examination of three introductory psychology textbooks commonly used in introductory psychology general education courses within the CSU system. A reliable quantitative approach was taken in determining the severity of gender biases in regards to representation in the sample of three introductory psychology textbooks. Quantitative data was attained from the sample of introductory psychology textbooks. The purpose of this examination of underrepresentation of women as credited sources was to investigate current inequities in commonly used and bestselling textbooks in colleges and universities across the state of California. The sample incorporated a random selection of introductory psychology textbooks; however, the lists in which the random selection was acquired came directly from participating textbook publishers with unknown biases or agendas.

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

Introduction to Quantitative Data

My intention was to bring awareness to the academic community regarding gender bias in Introductory Psychology textbooks. I analyzed the authorship/credited sources within three commonly used Introductory Psychology textbooks. The textbook sample was gathered through contact with various well-known publishers. The researcher examined the raw text within the sample of textbooks, which was then objectively coded and tallied through a content analysis of gender representation. The researcher continued to elucidate the text in order to measure and interpret the data completely. Further analysis of the data resulted in the percentages of gender representation of authorship/credited sources in each of the three analyzed textbooks.

The three textbooks were examined from cover to cover in order to capture the true account of gender representation in each textbook. The research design allowed the researcher to calculate a total amount of gender representation for each of the three textbooks.

Publisher Response

The researcher contacted publishers in search of highly ranked and commonly used Introductory Psychology textbooks. In addition to being highly ranked, the textbook was also required to follow three other guidelines: The textbook must compliment the Spring 2013 CSU course catalog description of an Introductory

Psychology course, which notes the inclusion of “Basic, Individual, and Social

Processes: Physiological psychology, comparative psychology, learning, motivation, sensation and perception, developmental psychology, personality, social psychology, maladaptive behavior, individual differences, and selected other topics”; the textbook must be “full length” (i.e., cannot exclude any chapters from the sample version); and the textbook must have a publication date of 2011 or later.

A variety of publishers responded with two or three introductory psychology textbooks that fit the researcher’s guidelines. The research then narrowed down the sample provided by selecting one textbook from each individual publisher’s list, this process resulted in three Introductory Psychology textbooks total for analysis. The three Introductory Psychology textbooks used in the sample were:

• Textbook A: King, L. A. (2011). The science of psychology (2nd ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

• Textbook B: Myers, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychology (9th ed.). New York:

Worth Publishing

• Textbook C: Pastorino, E. & Doyle-Portillo, S. (2013). What is psychology?

Essentials (2nd ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Most Frequently Credited Sources

The sample of Introductory Psychology textbooks were examined for the most frequently credited sources mentioned in each of the three textbooks. This research revealed that the 10 most frequently credited sources mentioned in the three textbook samples were all men and not one woman (Tables 1, 2, & 3).

Table 1

Textbook A: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources

Name of Credited Source Gender of Credited Source 1. Freud, Sigmund Male 2. Bandura, Albert Male 3. Piaget, Jean Male 4. Skinner, B.F. Male 5. Milgram, Stanley Male 6. Wundt, William Male 7. Erikson, Erik Male 8. Maslow, Abraham Male 9. Kohlberg, Lawrence Male 10. Darwin, Charles Male

Table 2

Textbook B: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources

Name of Credited Source Gender of Credited Source 1. Freud, Sigmund Male 2. Bandura, Albert Male 3. Skinner, B.F. Male 4. Milgram, Stanley Male 5. Piaget, Jean Male 6. Darwin, Charles Male 7. Pavlov, Ivan Male 8. Maslow, Abraham Male 9. Kohlberg, Lawrence Male 10. Wundt, William Male

Table 3

Textbook C: 10 Most Frequently Credited Sources

Name of Credited Source Gender of Credited Source 1. Freud, Sigmund Male 2. Piaget, Jean Male 3. Milgram, Stanley Male 4. Skinner, B.F. Male 5. Bandura, Albert Male 6. Wundt, William Male 7. Erikson, Erik Male 8. Pavlov, Ivan Male 9. Kohlberg, Lawrence Male 10. Maslow, Abraham Male

Gender Representation Results

Percentage of Gender Representation

Textbook A had a total of 1,572 (n) credited sources, 13% were women and

87% were men (Figure 1). Textbook B had a total of 2,261 (n) credited sources, 18% were women and 82% were men (Figure 2). Textbook C had a total of 2077 credited sources, 16% were women and 84% were men (Figure 3). Table 4 lists Textbooks A-C in concurrence with the calculated percentage of gender representation in each textbook.

Figure 1. Textbook A: Percentage of Gender Representation.

Figure 2. Textbook B: Percentage of Gender Representation.

Figure 3. Textbook C: Percentage of Gender Representation.

Table 4

Percentage of Gender Representation in Textbooks A, B, and C

Textbook Percentage of Female Percentage of Male Representation Representation A 13% 87% B 18% 82% C 16% 84%

Total Percentage of Gender Representation.

The textbook sample’s total percentage of gender representation of credited sources was an average of 17.7% women and 82.3% men (see Figure 4 and Table 5).

Figure 4. Textbooks A-C: Total Percentage Gender Representation.

Table 5

Percentage of Gender Representation in Textbooks A-C

Textbook Percentage of Female Percentage of Female Representation Representation A – C 17.7 % 82.3%

Numeric Sums of Gender Representation

The total number of references in the sample of textbooks was 6, 725 (n).

Textbook A had a total of 1,572 (n) gender specific credited sources, 196 were women

and 1,344 were men. Textbook B had a total of 2,261 (n) gender specific credited sources, 494 were women and 2,261 were men. Textbook C had a total of 2077 gender specific credited sources, 321 were women and 1,756 were men. In each sample, the numbers of credited sources by gender are displayed in Figure 5, as well as in Table 6.

Figure 5. Gender Representation by Textbook Samples.

Table 6

Gender Representation of Textbook Samples

Textbook Number of Women Number of Men Total References per Referenced Referenced textbook A 196 1344 1572 B 494 2261 2755 C 321 1756 2077 Textbook A – C 1011 5714 6725

Percent of Gender Representation by Publication Year

The total percent of female representation for the year 2013 (13%) was greater than the year 2011 (17%) by 5%. The total percent of male representation for the 2013

(83%) was less than the year 2011 (87%) by 5% (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Percent of Gender Representation by Publication Year.

Conclusion

The current study’s data were gleaned from a sample of three Introductory

Psychology textbooks. The textbooks were suggested to be the most popular and top selling Introductory Psychology textbooks for each of the respected publishing companies. Textbook B’s author in particular is known as the top selling author of

Introductory and Social Psychology textbooks across the United States. The data

analysis showed that the percentage of women credited for contributions to the field of

Psychology amounted to a total of 17.7% for the three introductory psychology textbook samples. Additionally, from the publication date of 2011 to 2013 the amount of female representation only increased slightly by 5%, bringing the total female representation from 13% in 2011 to 17% in 2013.

My conclusion is that the three current and popular introductory psychology textbooks, which were analyzed through content analysis, were severely lacking female representation with regards to authorship within the sample. Similar results have been found in previous research, where groups such as women are underrepresented in psychology textbooks. The underrepresentation of women may lead to students discontinuing their studies in psychology due to the inability to foresee themselves in a psychology career (Blumberg, 2008; Hogben & Waterman,

1997). The textbook A, B, and C samples were all lacking in regards to equal gender representation of credible sources.

The use of content analysis in this study displayed the inequities still plaguing the discipline of psychology in the world of academia. The conclusions gathered through this content analysis of gender representation in introductory psychology textbooks are a further comment in the discussion of gender equity issues.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction to Quantitative Data

The results of this study illustrate the continuation of a system overrun by patriarchy. On a related note, the American Psychological Association (2007) found that girls and women’s lives have been greatly enhanced by educational development; however, gender biases have been reported, which insinuates that there are still lingering inequities in education. Some current inequities, in today’s schools

“…include exclusion, marginalization, and the devaluation of girls and women in the classroom, curriculum, leadership opportunities, and extracurricular activities”

(American Psychological Association, 2007, p. 962). Exclusion of women as credited sources in introductory psychology textbooks was the main focus of this study. This study’s findings acknowledged the extensive amount of scholarship by male researchers in the field of psychology, who are considered authorities on the broad topics discussed in introductory psychology.

Publishers’ Responses

The intimidating nature of selecting a textbook may detour instructors from thoroughly examining textbooks for biases. Landrum and Hormel (2002) found that more often then not educators in higher education were “gender blind” (Sadker &

Sadker, 1980, p. 17). Gender blindness refers to educator’s inability to see bias due to lack of gender equity training (Sadker & Sadker, 1980; Zittleman & Sadker, 2002). In addition to the current lack of gender equity training there is a lack of textbook

selection training for instructors. Research notes that “most of the literature on textbook selection is advisory in nature or strictly word of mouth (Goss Lucas &

Bernstein, 2005; Landrum & Hormel, 2002, p. 245).

Introductory Psychology textbooks in general are intended to teach the entire scope of the discipline of psychology and include a historical perspective. The three textbooks in the sample are commonly used and/or best selling Introductory

Psychology textbooks in the state of California, implying that a large majority of students are subjected to the gender biases within the examined sample. Goldstein et al. (2009) consider the importance of an Introductory Psychology course as a

“…unique opportunity to raise awareness among students across disciplines by presenting text material that accurately addresses … diversity” (p. 26). Students tend to be highly influenced by general education courses and model the methods discussed in course textbooks (Paxton, 1999).

Paxton (1999) suggests that critical reading and processing of course textbooks should be strongly encouraged by instructors; however, students struggle to learn even the broadest of concepts in psychology. The difficult concepts leave students little room to also examine their textbooks for biases (Paxton, 1999). The findings of this study suggest that publishers, educators, and students alike are unaware of the severity of gender biases within the three sample textbooks; this assumption can be made due to the blatant amount of gender bias within the sample. I find it hard to believe that publishers and educators would subject students to possibly harmful biases.

Publishers, educators, and students are unaware of the important role textbooks play in course curricula.

Textbook selection is often generic and accompanied by inexperience. Criteria such as: readability, student interest, content accuracy and coverage, level appropriateness, additional instructor resources, and scholarship are considered common guidelines to selecting a textbook (Landrum & Hormel, 2002). This study’s sample was comprised of three commonly used and best selling Introductory

Psychology textbooks.

Most Frequently Credited Sources

The results support the idea that quick judgments about textbooks can discriminate against women because they are cited equitably (Goldstein et al., 2009;

Paxton, 1999). Goldstein et al. (2009) suggest that when psychology textbooks under represent a population, there can be underlying effects on students, such as feeling marginalized. They believe that students then feel insignificant due to biased classroom material (Goldstein et al., 2009).

The present study showed the hidden gender biases in introductory psychology textbooks by the use of content analysis. Results showed that not one woman ranked in the top 10 credited sources in any of the three sample textbooks. Men were cited more often then women when it came to the 10 most frequently credited sources. The most frequently occurring credited source in all three of the textbook samples was

Sigmund Freud. Blumberg (2008) argues that formed gender biases are very well disguised within textbooks and “ … hidden in plain sight. Their stereotypes of males

and females are camouflaged by the taken-for-granted system of gender stratification and roles” (p. 33). The social roles and regulations that are placed on women can be constricting and stunting to their self-concept (American Psychological Association,

2007, p. 962).

My results agree with those of the American Psychological Association (2007).

We both found that current discussions in introductory psychology textbooks are significantly lacking in scholarship by female researchers. By leaving women out of the conversation, the patriarchal educational system is enforcing the roles of gender stratification (American Psychological Association, 2007). It is my opinion and others that in order to see change in the system that breaks down the remaining barriers between education and gender equity, the gender biases within introductory psychology textbooks must be acknowledged and made visible for all to see

(Goldstein et al., 2009). My research showed that the 10 most frequently credited sources on topics within the disciple of Psychology in Textbooks A - C were entirely male, and most common citations were from Freud

The Falsification of Freud

Of all the prominent figures in Psychology – Sigmund Freud dominates the field as the most cited source in this study. Through the saturation of Freud’s ideas and concepts the field of Psychology was shaped in his misleading views of gender. The excess usage of Freudian theory is distorted in nature; only one side of the story has been told.

Many researchers discuss the falsification of Sigmund Freud’s theories and the negative consequence that these theories had on women and Feminism (Eagly et al.,

2012; Friedan, 1983). The field of Psychology is drenched in Freudian theory that has tainted the discipline, particularly in the case of women. Freud’s unprofessional disregard for his female patients has greatly impacted the way that women are treated in Psychology (Masson, 1985).

Freud is considered the zealous leader of psychoanalysis, his credibility is questionable (Eysenck, 1952, 1991; Friedan, 1983). Quite a few of Freud’s pupils rebelled against him, particularly Carl Jung (Eysenck, 1991). Jung spoke of “how

Freud’s [own] neuroses were an obstacle to both the development of psychoanalysis and their friendship” (Eysenck, 1991, p. 19). In addition, Freud destroyed most of his work and notes at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century; the reason for this destruction has been strongly associated with his narcissism (Astor,

2008). Freudian theories are based on male centered research, which Freud conceitedly generalized to the remainder of the population, causing women’s needs to be misunderstood (Gilligan, 1982). The field of Psychology has been immensely influenced by Freud’s conclusions and the discipline lives in the shadow of his misconceptions (Gilligan, 1982).

Popular culture has misconstrued the true nature of the field of Psychology, through self-help books, television shows, and the constant idealization of Freud.

Kincade (2013) notes that often Freudians defend Freud by comparing him to “a victim of his patriarchal and anti-Semitic culture” (p. 277). Freud’s research silenced a

generation of women’s voices by translating his theories into reality; he began a movement that has harmed women for decades (Kencade, 2013). However, textbooks portray Freud as a hero and genius of his time, even though some scholars suggest that textbooks should discuss the after affects of Freudian theory (Habarth et al., 2011;

Park & Auchincloss, 2006). For better or worse Freud is our past, I say it is time for a new future.

Gender Representation Results

Percentage of Gender Representation

The limited frequency of credited female sources displays a blatant disregard for the high achieving female scholars in the discipline of psychology. Recent research suggests the possibility of significant implications toward students subjected to biased material within textbooks (Blumberg, 2008; Goldstein et al., 2009).

Blumberg (2008) recognizes that gender biases have lessened over the last few decades; however, there is concern that in actuality gender biases have only been

“muted” (p. 17). Gender biases are formed through quickly made judgments, based on schemas. Schemas allow individuals to quickly make decisions and then act (Bem,

1993). By not including an equal amount of women as credited sources in textbooks the impression is given that women do not hold any authority or worth in their field of study (Goldstein et al., 2009). These gender schemas allow people to make biased judgments about the particular gender in question (Bem, 1993). Researchers Rudy et al. (2010) examined the structures of gender schemas in relation to the biases created over time.

This study found that the minority of scholarship within the Introductory textbooks was from women while the majority in comparison was from men In my study, Textbook A displayed the lowest percentage of equitability in regards to gender representation. The female credited sources came to an extremely low 13% while the male credited sources came to staggering 87%. Textbook A was a rather large in comparison to the other two textbooks, which brought about the assumption that within these many pages of literature the author had a greater chance of equaling the amount of credited sources represented by gender.

Textbook B displayed the highest percentage of female credited sources between the three textbook samples. Eighteen percent of Textbook B’s sources were credited to women, while men received 82% of the authorships within this textbook.

Textbook C displayed and average of 16% female representation and 84% male representation of credited sources. Textbook C was smaller in size, in comparison to the other two textbook samples. The minimal page limit brought about the assumptions that the percentages of credited sources would be less then the other two textbooks due to the information limitation.

Research acknowledges the space constraints that author’s of introductory psychology textbooks are under in order to provide students with a true introduction to the discipline of psychology; nonetheless, I and others believe that textbook author’s may push their personal agendas while constructing texts for Introductory Psychology

(Paxton, 1999). The need to equally discuss the pioneers of Psychology, both women and men, in textbooks is crucial (Russo & Denmark, 1987). Women are historically

neglected in Introductory Psychology textbooks, which is a distinct problem; limited space makes it difficult to give female contributors their due credit in journal articles because their contributions are missing from textbooks (Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Women are historically neglected in Introductory Psychology textbooks, which is a distinct problem (Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Total Percentage of Gender Representation

In the present study, less then a quarter of the credited sources within

Textbooks A, B, and C were women. The proportion of men referenced in Textbook

A, B, and C is significantly more then women by three fourths of the total credited sources. The fact that the three textbook samples are all currently in use in classrooms throughout California is frightening. The blatant gender bias of who is considered a worthy authority on psychology topics is appalling to this researcher.

In addition, Goss Lucas and Bernstein (2005) suggest a not-so-humorous connection between choosing a sufficient textbook and buying cat food – the textbook has to be just “palatable” enough to get through it (p. 18). I am offended by the suggestion of this comparison. Textbooks should not just be “palatable” but rather inspiring for the voiceless many who long for connections to be made between them and the material (Paxton, 1999). New students studying the discipline of Psychology will be limited by the inequity and bias in classroom materials, if the lack of accomplishments made by women in the field are not acknowledged (Russo &

Denmark, 1987).

Progression toward equality for students of both genders has halted in regards to equitable textbooks (Blumberg, 2008). The present research, however, will add to the already growing literature on gender bias in textbooks. Students, educators, administration, textbook authors, as well as textbook publishers need to take notice of the conclusion being reached by this study and others.

Numeric Sums of Gender Representation

Paxton (1999) boldly states, “… there is a deafening silence that reigns between those who write … textbooks and the …students that read them” (p. 333). A disconnect has occurred and biases are present. Whether in psychology, history, or statistics, the composition of a textbook is of concern across all disciplines.

Notable Women in Psychology

The discipline of psychology has begun to acknowledge some of the major contributions of women in the field; however the battle for equal representation has still not been won (Blumberg, 2008; Russo & Denmark, 1987). Russo and Denmark

(1987) recognized a generational disconnect between the past and present in the field of Psychology. Research suggest that, “by understanding how the view of psychology’s history has been distorted, we can develop a new, broader vision of what psychology has been, is, and can be (Russo & Denmark, 1987, p. 279).

The list of women who were and still are major contributors to the field of

Psychology is extensive. These women deserve more recognition then what they have received. I am honored to discuss the renowned women in Psychology and to share with readers a small glimpse at their many accomplishments. The acclaimed strength

and courage put forth by the pioneering women of Psychology is remarkable. In a time that did not grant many freedoms to women, the foremothers of Psychology progressed despite the challenges put in front of them (Eagly et al., 2012; Russo &

Denmark, 1987). The women who came before paved the way for future generations; their stories should be told continuously in current Psychology curriculum, including textbooks (Blumberg, 2008). These women are: Mary Whiton Calkin, Christine Ladd-

Franklin, Margaret Floy Washburn, Lillien Jane Martin, Helen Thompson Woolley,

Helen Cleveland, Anna Freud, Karen Horney, Mamie Phipps Clark, and Carol

Gilligan.

To begin with, the American psychologist and philosopher Mary Whiton

Calkins battled many disappointments along her educational path (Furumoto, 1980).

After studying privately under William James and Josiah Royce, Calkins was encouraged to take classes with her male peers at Harvard (Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Calkins found herself up against a great deal of resistance from those who were not open-minded to the idea of women in higher education (Russo & Denmark, 1987). In

1891 Calkins founded the first psychological laboratory at Wesley College, where she developed the paired associate technique and a theoretical system of self psychology

(Furumoto, 1980; Russo & Denmark, 1987). In 1894, Harvard denied Calkins a Ph.D. because she was a woman; she was however, offered a Ph.D. from Radcliffe, the all women’s college, which she understandably denied.

Much like Calkins, Christine Ladd-Franklin found herself up against many patriarchal roadblocks during her life. She did, however, have an unlikely advantage.

Ladd-Franklin received mentoring from the renowned female astronomer Maria

Mitchell (Vaughn, 2010). Having a female mentor during the late 19th century was unheard of due to the minority of women in academia. Ladd-Franklin’s extensive background in the sciences is due to the ongoing encouragement of Mitchell during her time at Vassar College (Vaughn, 2010). A strong background in science guided

Ladd-Franklin’s theory of color vision, in addition to critical advancements in the area of logic (Russo & Denmark, 1987). History often remembers Ladd-Franklin for her perceptive and intellectual scientific research (Vaughn, 2010).

In similar fashion to Ladd-Franklin, Margaret Floy Washburn’s academic journey was greatly influenced by her mentors. After working under James McKeen

Cattell at the University of Columbia, Washburn was encouraged to continue her graduate work under the advisement of Edward B. Titchener at Cornell University

(Rodkey, 2010). In 1884, Washburn went on to surpass a pivotal hurtle for women of the time; she received the first doctorate degree in Psychology awarded to a woman

(Furumoto & Scarborough, 2002; Rodkey, 2010; Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Washburn’s involvement in the area of animal behavior produced a turning point in behaviorism through her monumental work, The Animal Mind (Furumoto &

Scarborough, 2002; Rodkey, 2010; Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Likewise, Lillien Jane Martin’s revolutionary accomplishments were groundbreaking achievements for women in the United States during the beginning of the 20th century. Martin was appointed the first female department head at Stanford

University and her contributions to the areas of psychophysics, esthetics, and imagery

were made through her research and dedication to the field of Psychology (Russo &

Denmark, 1987). In addition to advances in various areas of study Martin also founded the first mental hygiene clinic, which specialized in the average preschool aged child

(Pelcowitz, 2012; Russo & Denmark, 1987, p. 285). Even into her late 70’s Martin continued to improve the psychological well being of those in need by founding the first counseling center for senior citizens (Pelcowitz, 2012; Russo & Denmark, 1987).

Helen Thompson Woolley (1910) recognized the field of Psychology’s shortcomings in its knowledge of sex differences; she remarked, “there is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting a prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel have run riot to such an extent as here” (p. 340). Woolley, then Thompson, tested the current theories of sex differences; she concluded, “training was responsible for sex differences in variation” (Shields, 1975, p. 747). Bluntly and bravely, Woolley took a stand against socially built gender constructs when she wrote that it was “not be necessary to spend so much time and effort in making boys and girls follow the lines of conduct proper to their sex” (Shields, 1975, p. 747; Thompson, 1903, p. 181). Helen

Cleveland joined Woolley in advancing the area of child development; they spearheaded the testing of a child’s mental ability through the development of the

Merrill-Palmer Scales (Rosenberg, 1983).

Similarly Anna Freud followed in her father’s footsteps by continuing his examination of psychoanalysis; however, she attempted to apply the theory by putting it into practice (Midgley, 2012). Anna Freud’s life has been documented as consisting

of two parts, the first half of her life she lived and worked alongside “dreamers, radical, and utopians” who were also enthralled with the theories of psychoanalysis

(Midgley, 2012, p. 4). As for the second half of her life, she and her father escaped to

London, England after the rise of fascism and Hitler (Midgley, 2012). Anna Freud devoted herself to the emotional rehabilitation of the children rescued from concentration camps, gaining the name “Advocate of the Child” from historians

(Midgley, 2012, p. 11).

A fellow psychoanalyst named Karen Horney discovered psychoanalysis when she reached out for help because of her unhappy marriage. Shortly after her initial introduction to psychoanalysis, she began working as an analyst at the Berlin

Psychoanalytic Society. Horney “helped to design and eventually directed the

Society’s training program, taught student, and conducted psychoanalytic research”

(Held, 2010, para 2). Horney’s many social roles inspired her research on the sexual development of women (Held, 2010). Horney spent her last 20 years in the United

States training, teaching, and writing about psychoanalysis. Horney’s last few years of life were a trying time in the United States.

Mamie Phipps Clark, had many social roles that affected her life greatly (Held,

2010). Clark was known to most as the heart and soul navigating the advancement of the Center for Child Development in Harlem New York during the early 1950s (Lal,

2002). During this progressive time in American history, the battle against segregation was under way (Lal, 2002). Clark’s work brought about awareness and relevance in the study of children of color, particularly during this time in history (Lal, 2002).

“Clark believed that … the frustrations, anger, and worries that plagued these youngsters, were a direct product of a racist and radically segregated society” (Karera,

2010, para 5). Clark continued her work with the children’s center by expanding the services offered; children and parents alike were able to receive psychological, emotional, and educational help because of the dedication put forth by Clark (Karera,

2010).

Carol Gilligan was an influential and prominent player in the progressive movement of education in the twentieth century (Berube, 2000). Gilligan’s research inspiration came from the progressive theories of John Dewey and Lawrence Kohlberg

(Berube, 2000). Gilligan (1995) noted that when she began her research in the field of

Psychology it was

like seeing a picture without seeing the frame, and the picture of the human

world had become so large and all-encompassing that it looked like reality or a

mirror of reality, rather than a representation. It was startling then to discover

that women for the most part were not included in research on psychological

development, or when included were marginalized or interpreted within a

theoretical bias where the child and the adult were assumed to be male and the

male was taken as the norm. Bringing women's voices into psychology posed

an interpretive challenge: how to listen to women in women's terms, rather

than assimilating women's voices to the existing theoretical framework. (p. 1)

Gilligan’s career focus has been broad, from the study of morality to conflict resolution. Through the years of research a common theme has continued to develop,

female empowerment (Ball, 2000; Berube, 2000). Gilligan’s work has emphasized the importance of the congruence between psychology and feminism (Ball, 2000).

Even though segregation of the genders has been reduced in many of the subfields in Psychology and a greater number of women have been reported as enrolled and graduating from doctoral programs, sexism is still present in current textbooks (Blumberg, 2008; Russo & Denmark, 1987). Blumberg (2008) notes “that the in the US … there has been more progress in reducing the worst of sexism in textbooks and curricula (i.e., the “intensity factor”) than in increasing the relative – and less stereotyped – representation of women” (p. 19). Women have been historically neglected and are often considered invisible in current school textbooks

(Blumberg, 2008). There is a need to include the renowned women from our past and present into Introductory Psychology textbooks. A course as broad in nature as

Introductory Psychology allows the stories of these women to reach the hearts and minds of a large number of students from many diverse disciplines (Russo &

Denmark, 1987).

Conclusions

Women and men have filled particular gender roles throughout the ages; from hunters and gatherers to the iconic 1950s housewife. Human beings have found comfort in constructing boxes in which people should fit (West & Zimmerman, 1987).

Gender schemas, make day to day living slightly easier, even if that ease comes with the price of detrimental biases toward 50% of the population (Bem, 1993). The educational system in which our society has built morals and codes of conduct is not

any different. Educators should be trained to inspire and take students beyond the lower level of thinking, yet most follow a mundane plan that is guided by the patriarchal structure of an out dated system of learning (Blumberg, 2008). Today’s classrooms rely too much on biased materials supplied by textbook publishers (Goss,

Lucas, & Bernstein, 2005). Students need to see themselves and what is important to them in the curriculum and the course materials while relating those commonalities to the intended knowledge to be learned (Brown & Gilligan, 1993; Gollnick et al., 1982).

Limitations

“Every research technique has its powers and its limitations, and content analysis is no exception” (Krippendorff, 2013, p. 45). Weber (1990) notes that, content analysis is not an exact science and there is rarely formal training for this technique; however, content analysis is a flexible method that equips researchers with the ability to fit the method to the research questions rather then the research questions to the method. “Moreover, some technical problems in content analysis have yet to be resolved or are the subject to ongoing research and debate …” (Weber, 1990, p. 13).

However, I found that the content analysis technique was the most efficient and precise way of calculating the gender frequencies of credited sources represented in the textbook samples.

Various limitations were discovered throughout the process of gathering a sample of textbooks. Numerous publishers did not reply to my inquiries about top selling introductory psychology textbooks. In addition, several publishers did not following the textbook guidelines that I provided. Therefore, gaining access to the

names and authors of the top selling introductory psychology textbook sample was difficult.

Once I obtained the list of best sellers and pared the larger sample to a more manageable sample, the analysis of raw text began. The process of coding, inputting the data, and analyzing the content of the data was extremely time consuming. Each textbook was analyzed from cover to cover, as well as required a line-by-line analysis of gender representation of credited sources. The time spent analyzing and coding each individual textbook was crucial to the accuracy of the data. Therefore, I was unable to analyze a larger sample of textbooks due to time restraints.

Recommendations

I found it puzzling that the three textbooks that I analyzed in this study had not previously been seen as underrepresenting female scholars; however, other research shows that educators and students alike are gender blind (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002).

The inability to see gender biases due to the lack of training is a critical problem

(Blumberg, 2008). The results of this study suggest that those in the discipline of psychology need training on how to examine textbooks invisibility and underrepresentation of female scholarly work.

Specifically, teacher education programs, classes, and seminars need to emphasize the importance of choosing the right textbook for appropriate student and course needs (Landrum & Hormel, 2002). The awareness of gender bias in textbooks is not currently seen by higher education as a crucial aspect in need of addressing and most educators are unaware of the important role that textbooks truly play in students

lives (Landrum & Hormel, 2002). Zittleman and Sadker (2002) noted that students spend up to three-fourths of their time strictly learning with textbooks. Therefore, I believe that teacher training courses need to incorporate textbook analysis training for gender biases, too ensure that only equitable and diverse course textbooks are being used. Blumberg (2008) “…contends that though gender bias in learning materials is less dramatic an issue then getting girls into school for the first time, it is consequential …” and continues to reinforce gender stratification (p. 33).

In addition to the necessity of textbook analysis training is the need to advance research in this area of study. Blumberg (2008) suggests that future study of gender bias in textbooks move beyond the description of the bias to evaluate “…the level and type of impact of such bias on females – and males” (p. 35). Introductory psychology is the perfect starting point for such exploratory research because the purpose of this general education course is to introduce students, across disciplines, to the broad concepts within the field of psychology. A vast majority of students enroll in introductory psychology courses each semester. Often students are subjected to biased course material and are unaware of the effects this biased information can have on their education. From a research perspective, it is crucial that educators look at the long-term effects of biased classroom material.

Appendix A

PUBLISHER REQUEST LETTER

Publisher Request Letter

To Whom It May Concern: I am currently writing a thesis at California State University, Sacramento in education. I am in the process of collecting a list of the most commonly used and/or best selling Introductory Psychology textbooks currently in use by instructors at the various California Universities. The textbooks must be full length, published between 2011 and 2014, and cover the topics of basic, individual, and social processes with discussion of the following: physiological psychology, comparative psychology, learning, motivation, sensation and perception, developmental psychology, personality, social psychology, maladaptive behavior, and individual differences. If you are able to supply me with a list of textbooks meeting the above qualifications I would greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you,

Kathryn L. Clifford [email protected]

Appendix B

TEXTBOOK CODING SHEET

Textbook Coding Sheet

Textbook Code: ___

Credited Source’s Gender of Page Type of Notable Name Credited number of Credit Findings Source credit Text = T Female = F Photo = P Male = M Image = I

REFERENCES

Altman, W. S., Ericksen, K., & Pena-Shaff, J. B. (2006). An inclusive process for

departmental textbook selection. Teaching of Psychology, 33(4), 228-231.

American Association of University Women. (1999). Gender gaps, where schools still

fail our children. New York: Marlowe & Company.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Issues of Sexual Bias in Graduate

Education. (1975). Guidelines for nonsexist use of language. American

Psychologist, 30, 682-684. doi:10.1037/h0076869

American Psychological Association. (2007). Guidelines for psychological practice

with girls and women. American Psychologist, 62(9). 949-979.

Astor, J. (2008). Our cause. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 24(3), 256-272.

Austin, A. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate schools as

socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1),

94-122.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.

Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practice: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching

and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241-247.

Ball, L. (2010). Carol Gilligan. In A. Rutherford (Ed.), Psychology's feminist voices

multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/carol-gilligan/

Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and teaching styles.

In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Career strategies for

women in academe: Arming Athena (pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s

ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic

Books.

Bem, S. L. (1993). “The” lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual

inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Benassi, V., & Buskist, W. (2012). Effective college and university teaching:

Strategies and tactics for the new professoriate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Benokraitis, N. V. (1998). Working in the ivory basement: Subtle sex discrimination

in higher education. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Career

strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena (pp. 3-35) London: Sage.

Bernstein, D. A. (2011). Essentials of psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Berube, M. R. (2000). Eminent educators: Studies in intellectual influence. Westport,

CT: Greenwood Press.

Blumberg, R. L. (2008). Gender bias in textbooks: A hidden obstacle on the road to

gender equality in education. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global

Monitoring Report.

Boning, K. (2007). Coherence in general education: A historical look. Journal of

General Education, 56(1), 1–16.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1993). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology

and girls' development. Feminism & Psychology, 3(1), 11-35.

Brugeilles, C., & Cromer, S. (2009). Promoting gender equality through textbooks: A

methodological guide. Paris, France: United Nations Educational Scientific

and Cultural Organization.

California State Department of Education. (1988). 10 quick ways to analyze books for

racism and sexism. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Campbell, R., & Schram, P. J. (1995). Feminist research methods: A content analysis

of psychology and social science textbooks. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

19(1), 85-106.

Caplan, P. J. (2010). Teaching critical thinking about psychology of sex and gender.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 553-557.

Carinci, S. (2007). A course on gender education in education: Does it affect gender

role attitudes of preservice teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25,

409-414.

Carinci, S. (2010). Becoming gender relevant: A pre/post examination of university

students’ attitudes and perceptions of gender constructs in education and

society. Proceedings f rom Adult Education Research Conference (AERC).

Cavenagh, T. (1997). Establishing leadership studies in the liberal arts curriculum

through conflict resolution education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1),

132-139.

Charles, E. (2013). Psychology: The empirical study of epistemology and

phenomenology. Review of General Psychology, Review-15521089-2.

Cozby, P., & Bates, S. (2013). Methods in behavioral research. Singapore: McGraw-

Hill.

Davis, K. (1942). A conceptual analysis of stratification. American Sociological

Review, 7(3), 309-321.

Davis, K., & Moore, W. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American

Sociological Review, 10(2), 242-249.

Deats, S. M., & Lenker, L. T. (Eds.). (1994). Gender and academe: Feminist

pedagogy and politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dominick, J., & Wimmer, R. (2003). Training the next generation of media

researchers. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 3-9.

Durwin, C. C., & Sherman, W. M. (2008). Does choice of college textbook make a

difference in students' comprehension? College Teaching, 56(1), 28-34.

Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism

and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender.

American Psychologist, 67(3), 211-230. doi:10.1037/a0027260

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.

Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivation role selection: Gender beliefs,

distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 235-

249.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: an evaluation. Journal of

Consulting Psychology, 16(5), 319.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Decline and fall of the Freudian empire. Transaction Books.

Falkenstein, A. (2012). Of mice and women: An analysis of gender inclusion in high

school literature offerings. (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State

University, Sacramento.

Fletcher, E., Mountjoy, K., & Bailey, G. (2011). Examining the level of content

knowledge of recent business education graduates. Career and Technical

Education Research, 36(1), 27-47.

Foster, W. (1911). Administration of the college curriculum. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

Friedan, B. (1983). The feminine mystique. 1963. Reprint. New York: DeV.

Furumoto, L. (1980). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863-1930). Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 5, 55-68.

Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (2002). Placing women in the history of psychology:

The first American women psychologists. American Psychologist, 41, 35-42.

Funk, C. (2002). Gender equity in educational institutions: Problems, practices, and

strategies for change. Unpublished manuscript, Sam Houston State University,

Huntsville, Texas.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40(3), 266.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's

development (Vol. 326). Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10(2),

120-127.

Goldstein, S. B., Siegel, D., & Seaman, J. (2009). Limited access: The status of

disability in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology,

37(1), 21-27.

Gollnick, D., Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1982). Beyond the Dick and Jane syndrome:

Confronting sex bias in instructional materials. In M. Sadker & D. Sadker

(Eds.) Sex equity handbook for schools (pp. 60-95). New York: Longman.

Goss Lucas, S., & Bernstein, D. A. (2005). Teaching psychology: A step by step guide.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goyette, K. A., & Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social

background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study.

Journal of Higher Education, 497-538.

Greenbaum, R., & Tilker, H. A. (Ed.). (1972). The challenge of psychology.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Griggs, R., Jackson, S., Christopher, A., & Marek, P. (1999). Introductory psychology

textbooks: An objective analysis and update. Teaching of Psychology, 26(3),

182-189.

Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (2013). Introductory psychology textbooks an

objective analysis update. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 163-168.

Gullahorn, J. E. (1979). Psychology and women: In transition. Washington, DC: V. H.

Winston & Sons.

Habarth, J., Hansell, J., & Grove, T. (2011). How accurately do introductory

psychology textbooks present psychoanalytic theory? Teaching of Psychology,

38(1), 16-21.

Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology,

anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. I & II).

New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Held, L. (2010). Profile of Karen Horney. In A. Rutherford (Ed.), Psychology's

feminist voices multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/karen-horney/

Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. San Diego, CA:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hillner, K. P. (1984). History and systems of modern psychology. New York: Gardner

Press, Inc.

Hogben, M., & Waterman, C. K. (1997). A content analysis of coverage of diversity

issues in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 24(2)

95-100. hooks, b. (1999). Remembered rapture: The writer at work. London: Women's Press. hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody. New York: South End Press.

Hunt, M. (2007). The story of psychology. New York: Anchor Books

Jacobs, J. A. (1996). Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of

Sociology, 153-185.

Kaplan, A. (1943). Content analysis and the theory of signs. Philosophy of Science,

10(4), 230-247.

Karera, A. (2010). Profile of Mamie Phipps Clark. In A. Rutherford (Ed.),

Psychology's feminist voices multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/mamie-phipps-clark/

Kincade, E. A. (2013). Resistance refined, patriarchy defined: Carol Gilligan reflects

on her journey from difference to resistance. Sex Roles, 1-4.

King, L. A. (2011). The science of psychology (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Krawiec, T. S. (Ed.). (1978). The psychologists: Autobiographies of distinguished

living psychologists. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co., Inc.

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Krippendorff, K. (2008). Testing the reliability of content analysis data. In K.

Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 350-357).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lal, S. (2002). Giving children security: Mamie Phipps Clark and the racialization of

child psychology. American Psychologist, 57(1), 20.

Landrum, R. E., & Hormel, L. (2002). Textbook selection: Balance between the

pedagogy, the publisher, and the student. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 245-

248.

Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lykes, M. B., & Stewart, A. J. (1986). Evaluating the feminist challenge to research in

personality and social psychology: 1963–1983. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 10(4), 393-412.

Lyman, L. L., Strachan, J., & Lazaridou, A. (2012). Shaping social justice leadership:

Insights of women educators worldwide. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Madden, M. E., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Integrating gender and ethnicity into psychology

courses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(1), 1-12.

Martin, D. W. (1999). Doing psychology experiments (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Martin, D. W. (2008). Doing psychology experiments (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Masson, J. M. (1985). The assault on truth: Freud's suppression of the seduction

theory. New York: Penguin Press.

Matras, J. (1984). Social inequality, stratification, and mobility (2nd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maxwell, S. (2009). Success and solitude: Feminist organizations fifty years after The

Feminist Mystique. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

McLeod, J. D., & Nonnemaker, J. M. (1999). In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 321-344). New York:

Springer Science+Business Media.

Midgley, N. (2012). Reading Anna Freud. New York: Routledge.

Morris-Babb, M., & Henderson, S. (2012). An experiment in open-access textbook

publishing: Changing the world one textbook at a time. Journal of Scholarly

Publishing, 43(2), 148-155.

Myers, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychology (9th ed.). New York: Worth Publishing.

Nachmias, D., & Nachmias, C. (1976). Research methods in the social sciences. New

York: St. Martin's Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in school. New York: Teacher College

Press.

Owens, W.T. (2011). A reader for EDTE 251: Education for a Pluralistic, Democratic

Society. Self-published. California State University, Sacramento.

Park, S. W., & Auchincloss, E. L. (2006). Psychoanalysis in textbooks of introductory

psychology: A review. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,

54, 1361-1380.

Pastorino, E., & Doyle-Portillo, S. (2013). What is psychology? Essentials (2nd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read

them. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 315-339.

Pelcowitz, M. (2012). Profile of Lillien Jane Martin. In A. Rutherford (Ed.),

Psychology's feminist voices multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/lillien-jane-martin/

Penny, K., Frankel, E., & Mothersill, G. (2012). Curriculum, climate and community:

A model for experimental learning in higher education. INTED2012

Proceedings, 1740-1747.

Peterson, S. B., & Kroner, T. (1992). Gender biases in textbooks for introductory

psychology and human development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(1),

17-36.

Postman, L. (Ed.). (1962). Psychology in the making: Histories of selected research

problems. New York: Alfred A. Knoff, Inc.

Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis: A method in social science research. In D. K.

Lal Das & V. Bhaskaran (Eds.), Research methods for social work (pp. 173-

193). New Delhi: Rawat.

Rodkey, E. (2010). Profile of Margaret Floy Washburn. In A. Rutherford (Ed.),

Psychology's feminist voices multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/margaret-floy-washburn/

Rosenberg, R. (1983). Beyond separate spheres: The intellectual roots of modern

feminism. Yale University Press.

Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., & Linz, D. G. (2010). The context of current content

analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 62(11-

12), 705-720.

Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum – A history of the American undergraduate course of

study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Russo, N. F., & Denmark, F. L. (1987). Contributions of women to psychology.

Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 279-298

Sadker, D. (2003). An educator’s primer on the gender war. Phi Delta Kappan,

84(30), 235-240, 244.

Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (1980). Sexism in teacher-education texts. Harvard

Educational Review, 50(1), 36-46.

Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat

girls. New York: Scribner Book Company.

Sadker, D. M., & Zittleman, K. (2007). Practical strategies for detecting and correcting

gender bias in your classroom. In D. Sadker & E. S. Silber, Gender in the

classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, and strategies across the curriculum

(pp. 259-275). New York: Routledge.

Sax, L. J. (2012). Foreword. In P. A. Pasque, & S. E. Nicholson (Eds.), Empowering

women in higher education and student affairs: Theory, research, narratives,

and practice from feminist perspectives. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Scarborough, E., & Furumoto, L. (1987). Untold lives: The first generation of

American women psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press.

Scheiner-Fisher, C., & Busey, C. (2013). Fostering a critical dialogue: How to teach

controversial and taboo topics. Southern Social Studies Journal, 39(1), 15-21.

Shields, S. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women.

American Psychologist, 30(7), 739.

Sicherman, B., & Green, C. H. (Eds.). (1980). Notable American women: The modern

period: A biographical dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into

psychology’s history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Steuer, F. B., & Ham, K. W. (2008). Psychology textbooks: Examining their accuracy.

Teaching of Psychology, 35(3), 160-168.

Stewart, A. J., & Dottolo, A. L. (2006). Feminist psychology. Signs, 31(2), 493-509.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York:

Routledge.

Thomas, R. (1962). The search for a common learning: General education, 1800-

1960. New York: McGraw Hill.

Thompson, H. B. (1903). The mental traits of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Tokenism. (2013). Meriam-Webster.com. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tokenism.

Trimble, J. E., Stevenson, M. R., Worell, J. P. & The APA Commission on Ethnic

Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training Task Force (CEMRRAT2 TF)

Textbook Initiative Work Group. (2003). Toward an inclusive psychology:

Infusing the introductory psychology textbook with diversity content.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological

Association.

Vardanyan, V. (2011). Panorama of psychology. Central Milton Keynes, England:

AuthorHouse.

Vaughn, K. (2010). Profile of Christine Ladd-Franklin. In A. Rutherford (Ed.),

Psychology's feminist voices multimedia internet archive. Retrieved from

http://www.feministvoices.com/christine-ladd-franklin/

Vaughter, R. M. (1976). Psychology. Signs, 2(1), 120-146.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-

151.

Winkler, J. K., & Bromberg, W. (1944). Mind explorers. Cleveland, OH: The World

Publishing Company.

Wood, J. T (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Beverly,

MA: Wadsworth.

Woolley, H. T. (1910). Psychological literature: A review of the recent literature on

the psychology of sex. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 335-342.

Yoder, J. D. (2002). 2001 division 35 presidential address: Context matters:

Understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women’s work.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 1–8.

Zittleman, K., & Sadker, D. (2002). Gender bias in teacher education texts new (and

old) lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 168-180.

Zusne, L. (1984). Biographical dictionary of psychology. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.