-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy pathfoundations-ses.php
executable file
·440 lines (280 loc) · 48.8 KB
/
foundations-ses.php
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
<?php $PAGE_ID='personas'; ?>
<?php include('header-ses.php'); ?>
<div class="col-md-12">
<h1><center>SocioEconomic Mag Personas Foundations </center></h1>
<div id = "intro">
<p>SocioEconomic Mag currently has three personas: <a href="#Abby">Dav</a>, <a href="#Pat">Ash</a>, and <a href="#Tim">Fee</a>. This document shows the foundations behind them.</p>
<p>Dav and Fee are identical in several ways: They are the same age and live in the same state, and all are equally comfortable with the technology they regularly use. Their differences are strictly derived from the socioeconomic status research on five facets: their <i>Access to Reliable Technology</i>, <i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i>, <i>Communication Literacy/Education/Culture</i>, <i>Attitudes toward Technology Risks/Privacy/Security</i>, and <i>Perceived Control and Attitude Toward Authority</i> towards new technologies. Fee's facet values are those most frequently seen in people with high SES, Dav's facet values are those frequently seen in people with low SES and are the most different from Fee's.</p>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="before_info">
<h1 id="Dav">Dav(David/Davu/Davida) Persona Foundations</h1>
<p>Dav represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Dav, see <a href="#footnotes">the Footnotes</a>.</p>
<p>Note: All <span style="background-color:#ccc;">gray-background portions</span> are fundamental to Dav. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.</p>
</div>
<div class = "background">
<img class = "ses-persona_pic" src = "/images/DavMulti.png" alt = "Dav"/>
<div class = "bullets">
<ul>
<li>Age: 30 years old</li>
<li>Student at Community College A</li>
</ul>
</div>
<!--
<div class = "access to relaible">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">Technology Self Efficacy/span></h2>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"> <i></i><a href="#footnoteD"><sup> d </sup></a>: Dav has low access to reliable devices with reliable internet access than their peers. Dav often must rely on shared devices or public devices to get work done. This affects how and when Dav uses technology.
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "access to relaible">
[Sources: <a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref6">6</a>, <a href="#ref10">10</a>, <a href="#ref20">20</a>, <a href="#ref21">21</a>, <a href="#ref24">24</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>, <a href="#ref37">37</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i><a href="#footnoteG"><sup> g </sup></a>: Dav has lower technology self-efficacy than their peers about using unfamiliar technology features. If problems arise with technology, Dav often blames themselves for these problems. This affects whether and how they will persevere with a task. [Sources: <a href="#ref1">1</a>, <a href="#ref2">2</a>, <a href="#ref3">3</a>, <a href="#ref4">4</a>, <a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref6">6</a>, <a href="#ref15">15</a>, <a href="#ref17">17</a>, <a href="#ref19">19</a>, <a href="#ref22">22</a>, <a href="#ref27">27</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>, <a href="#ref32">32</a>, <a href="#ref34">34</a>, <a href="#ref38">38</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Communication Literacy/Education/Culture: </i> Dav’s primary literacy engagement is through menus, receipts, and signs. They have low experience with complex text (eg, newspapers, novels), and struggle with software that assumes shared background, uses cultural references, jargon, or complex sentence structures. [Sources: <a href="#ref1">1</a>, <a href="#ref2">2</a>, <a href="#ref3">3</a>, <a href="#ref4">4</a>, <a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref6">6</a>, <a href="#ref15">15</a>, <a href="#ref17">17</a>, <a href="#ref19">19</a>, <a href="#ref22">22</a>, <a href="#ref27">27</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>, <a href="#ref32">32</a>, <a href="#ref34">34</a>, <a href="#ref38">38</a>]</span></li>
-->
<!--
<div class = "about_persona">
<p>Abi has always liked music. On their way to work in the mornings, Abi listens to music that spans a wide variety of styles. But when Abi arrives at work, they turn it off, and begin their day by <span style="background-color:#ccc;">scanning all their emails first to get an overall picture <a href="#footnoteA"><sup> a </sup></a> before answering any</span> of them. (This extra pass takes time but seems worth it.) Some nights Abi exercises or stretches, and sometimes Abi likes to play computer puzzle games like Sudoku. [Sources: <a href="#ref7">7</a>, <a href="#ref9">9</a>, <a href="#ref18">18</a>, <a href="#ref23">23</a>, <a href="#ref25">25</a>, <a href="#ref26">26</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref30">30</a>, <a href="#ref31">31</a>, <a href="#ref35">35</a>, <a href="#ref37">37</a>]</p>
</div>
</div>
-->
<div class = "knowledge_block">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">Background Knowledge and Skills</span></h2>
<ul>
<li>Dav works full-time job working at a grocery store. They are <span style="background-color:#ccc;">comfortable with the technologies they use regularly</span>. They just moved to this employer 1 week ago,
and <span style="background-color:#ccc;">their software systems are new to Dav </span>.</li>
<!--<span style="background-color:#ccc;">"numbers person"</span> --> Dav is good at match and is taking a cloud computing class (an elective), & other courses. This course is online, but some of their other courses are in person.
<!-- <li>In their free time, Abi also <span style="background-color:#ccc;">enjoys working with numbers and logic<a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a></span>. Abi especially likes working out puzzles and puzzle games, either on paper or on the computer. [Sources: <a href="#ref16">16</a>, <a href="#ref33">33</a>]</li>
--> </ul>
</div>
<div class = "motivation_block">
<!--<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">To be named</span></h2>-->
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"> <i>Access to Reliable Technology</i><a href="#footnoteA"><sup> a </sup></a>: Dav has low access to reliable devices and reliable internet. Dav often must rely on shared devices or public devices to get work done. This affects how and when Dav uses technology. [Sources: <a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i><a href="#footnoteB"><sup> b </sup></a>: Dav has lower technology self-efficacy than their peers about using unfamiliar technology features. If problems arise with technology, Dav often blames themselves for these problems. This affects whether and how they will persevere with a task. [Sources: <a href="ref3">3</a>, <a href="ref16">16</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Communication Literacy/Education/Culture: </i><a href="#footnoteE"><sup> e </sup></a>: Dav has received lower-quality education than their peers. This has resulted in lower reading comprehension and they struggle with complex sentence structures, cultural references (eg, specific movies/literature/music, ...), or tech-jargon. They rarely read complex text (eg, novels). They also have less education involving up-to-date technology. [Sources: <a href="ref2">2</a>, <a href="ref4">4</a>, <a href="ref6">6</a>, <a href="ref8">8</a>, <a href="ref9">9</a>, <a href="ref10">10</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "attitude_block">
<!--<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">to be named</span></h2>-->
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Risks:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Dav’s life is very busy and they rarely have spare time. So Dav is risk averse about using unfamiliar technologies that they might need to spend extra time on, even if the new features might be relevant. Dav instead performs tasks using familiar features, because they're more predictable about what Dav will get from them and how much time they will take. [Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="ref15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Privacy/Security:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Dav fears losing personal information, like their location and identity, to new features or apps. Because of shared devices, their perception of technological features as risky and also due to cultural values, eg. high surveillance, authority, etc.[Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="re f15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Perceived Control and Attitude toward Authority </i><a href="#footnoteD"><sup> d </sup></a>:Dav views technology’s output as an authority that they cannot challenge or change. In addition, Dav often feels little control over the outcomes they get from technology. [Sources: <a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<br/>
<hr/>
<br/>
<div class="before_info">
<h1 id = "Ash">Ash (Ashely, Asha, Ashwin) Persona Foundations</h1>
<p>Ash represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Ash, see <a href="#footnotes">the Footnotes</a>.</p>
<p>Note: All <span style="background-color:#ccc;">gray-background portions</span> are fundamental to Ash. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.</p>
</div>
<div class = "background">
<!-- <img class = "persona_pic" src = "/images/Ash1.png" alt = "Ash"/>
-->
<div class = "bullets">
<ul>
<li>43 years old</li>
<li>Employed as an Accountant</li>
<li>Lives in Cardiff, Wales</li>
</ul>
</div>
<!--
<div class = "about_persona">
<p>Pat loves public transportation and knows at least three routes to get there from home. When they arrive at work, Pat <span style="background-color:#ccc;">scans all their emails first to get an overall picture <a href="#footnoteA"><sup> a </sup></a> before answering any</span> of them. (This extra pass takes time but seems worth it.) Some evenings Pat plays computer puzzle games like Sudoku before bed. [Sources: <a href="#ref7">7</a>, <a href="#ref9">9</a>, <a href="#ref18">18</a>, <a href="#ref23">23</a>, <a href="#ref25">25</a>, <a href="#ref26">26</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref30">30</a>, <a href="#ref31">31</a>, <a href="#ref35">35</a>, <a href="#ref37">37</a>]</p>
</div> -->
</div>
<div class = "knowledge_block">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">Background Knowledge and Skills</span></h2>
<ul>
<!-- <li>Pat works as an accountant in a consulting firm. They <span style="background-color:#ccc;">prefer to stay with the technologies for which they have already mastered the peculiarities.</span>
Pat just moved to this employer 1 week ago,
and <span style="background-color:#ccc;">their software systems are new to Pat <a href="#footnoteB"><sup> b </sup></a> </span>.</li>
-->
<li> Ash works as an accountant in a consulting firm and their software systems are new to Ash. They are not a professional programmer and have never taken any computer programming or IT systems classes. Ash has a degree in accounting so they <span style="background-color:#ccc;">know plenty of Math and know how to think in terms of numbers</span>.</li>
<!--
<li>Even though Pat's an accountant and deals with numbers all day at work, they <span style="background-color:#ccc;">like working with numbers<a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a></span> in their free time, too. Pat especially likes Sudoku and other computer games that involve puzzling. [Sources: <a href="#ref16">16</a>, <a href="#ref33">33</a>]</li>
-->
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "motivation_block">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;"></span></h2>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"> <i>Access to Reliable Technology</i><a href="#footnoteA"><sup> a </sup></a>: Ash has reliable access to devices and has their own smartphone and laptop. Ash usually has reliable access to broadband and WiFi. However, they sometimes experience spotty internet when they are streaming, gaming, or talking to family over video chat. [Sources:<a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a> ]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i><a href="#footnoteB"><sup> b </sup></a>: Ash has medium computer self-efficacy about doing unfamiliar computing tasks. If problems arise with their technology, Ash will keep on trying to figure out how to achieve what they have set out to do for quite awhile; Ash doesn't give up right away when computers or technology present a challenge to them. They are also more likely to blame the technology rather then themselves when errors arise. [Sources: <a href="ref3">3</a>, <a href="ref16">16</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "attitude_block">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;"></span></h2>
<!-- <p><span style="background-color:#ccc;">Pat is generally comfortable using familiar technology, but they do not get a big kick out of obtaining the latest gadgets or learning how to use them<a href="#footnoteF"><sup> f </sup></a>. Pat prefers to stay with the technologies for which they have already mastered the peculiarities [<a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>], because of the following facets:</span></p>
--> <ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Communication Literacy/Education/Culture</i><a href="#footnoteE"><sup> e </sup></a>: Ash has received an average quality education when compared to their peers. This has resulted in an average reading comprehension. They usually do not struggle with complex sentence structures and cultural references (eg, specific movies/literature/music, ...). However, they sometimes struggle with tech-jargon because they have less education involving up-to-date technology. [Sources:<a href="ref2">2</a>, <a href="ref4">2</a>, <a href="ref6">6</a>, <a href="ref8">8</a>, <a href="ref9">9</a>, <a href="ref10">10</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Risks:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Ash’s life is very busy and they rarely have spare time. So Ash is risk averse about using unfamiliar technologies that they might need to spend extra time on, even if the new features might be relevant. Ash instead performs tasks using familiar features, because they're more predictable about what Ash will get from them and how much time they will take. [Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="ref15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Privacy/Security:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Ash fears losing personal information, like their identity, to new features or apps and is generally not too worried about people knowing their location. Because they tend to rely on their own device, their perception of technological features as being risky is low due to their cultural values and familiarity with technology. [Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="re f15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="r ef27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Perceived Control and Attitude towards Authority</i><a href="#footnoteD"><sup> d </sup></a>: Ash views technologies output as an authority they can challenge. As a result, they usually feels that they have control over the output they receive when they use technology. However, they are less likely challenge technology they are new to. [Sources: <a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<br/>
<hr/>
<br/>
<div class="before_info">
<h1 id="Fee">Fee(Feechi/Felienne/Felix) Persona Foundations</h1>
<p>Fee represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Fee, see <a href="#footnotes">the Footnotes</a>.</p>
<p>Note: All <span style="background-color:#ccc;">gray-background portions</span> are fundamental to Fee. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.</p>
</div>
<div class = "background">
<img class = "persona_pic" src = "/images/FeeMulti.png" alt = "Fee"/>
<div class = "bullets">
<ul>
<li>30 years old</li>
<li>Employed as an Accountant</li>
<li>Richmond, Virginia </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "about_persona">
<p>
<!--Fee takes their hybrid car to work and they know several routes to get there from home and they're always exploring ways to optimize their trips into the office. Work starts with email, which Fee <span style="background-color:#ccc;">answers one at a time, as soon as they read them<a href="#footnoteA"><sup> a </sup></a>.</span> (Sometimes this backfires, if there is a second related message Fee hasn't read yet, but Fee doesn't mind sending a follow-up email.) [Sources: <a href="#ref7">7</a>, <a href="#ref9">9</a>, <a href="#ref18">18</a>, <a href="#ref23">23</a>, <a href="#ref25">25</a>, <a href="#ref26">26</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref30">30</a>, <a href="#ref31">31</a>, <a href="#ref35">35</a>, <a href="#ref37">37</a>]</p>
--> </div>
</div>
<div class = "knowledge_block">
<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">Background Knowledge and Skills</span></h2>
<ul>
<li>Fee works as an accountant. They just moved to this employer 1 week ago, and <span style="background-color:#ccc;">their software systems are new to Fee </span>. For Fee, technology is a useful tool that they have control over. Fee likes to make sure they have the latest version of all software with all the new features.</li>
<li>Fee has not taken any computer programming or IT classes. Fee <span style="background-color:#ccc;">likes Math and knows how to think in terms of numbers</span>. Fee writes and edits spreadsheet formulas for their work.</li>
<li>Fee <span style="background-color:#ccc;">plays the latest video games, has the newest smart phone and a hybrid car. They download and install the latest software.<a href="#footnoteD"><sup> d </sup></a></span> Fee is comfortable and confident with technology and they enjoy learning about it and using new technologies. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "motivation_block">
<!--<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">To be named</span></h2>-->
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"> <i>Access to Reliable Technology</i><a href="#footnoteD"><sup> a </sup></a>: Fee has high access to reliable devices and to reliable internet. Fee relies on their own devices and rarely uses a shared device or a public device to get work done. This affects how and when Fee uses technology. [Sources: <a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i><a href="#footnoteE"><sup> b </sup></a>: Fee has higher technology self-efficacy than their peers about doing unfamiliar computing tasks. If problems arise with technology, Fee often blames the technology for the problems. This affects whether and how they will persevere with a task. [Sources: <a href="ref3">3</a>, <a href="ref16">16</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class = "attitude_block">
<!--<h2><span style="background-color:#ccc;">To be named</span></h2>-->
<!--<p><span style="background-color:#ccc;">For Tim, technology is a source of fun, and they are always on the lookout for new computer software<a href="#footnoteF"><sup> f </sup></a>. Tim likes to make sure to have the latest version of all software with all the new features [<a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>], because of the following facets:</span></p>
--!> <ul>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Risks:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Fee doesn't mind taking risks using features of technology that haven't been proven to work. When Fee is presented with challenges because they have tried a new way that doesn't work, it doesn't change their attitudes toward technology. [Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="ref15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Technology Privacy/Security:</i><a href="#footnoteC"><sup> c </sup></a>: Fee fears losing personal information, like their identity, to new features or apps and is generally not too worried about people knowing their location. Because they tend to rely on their own device, their perception of technological features as being risky is low due to their cultural values and familiarity with technology. [Sources: <a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="ref15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Perceived Control and Attitude toward Authority:<a href="#footnoteH"><sup> d </sup></a>: </i>Fee views technology's output as a suggestion that they can challenge or change. As a result, Fee often feels that they have control in the experiences they have when they use technology. [Sources: <a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>]</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color:#ccc;"><i>Communcation Literacy/Education/Culture:<a href="#footnoteE"><sup> e </sup></a>: </i>Fee had access to high quality education growing up and was exposed to a variety of technologies. They also have more experience and struggle less with software that uses implicit assumptions, cultural references, jargon, or complex sentence structures. [Sources:<a href="ref2">2</a>, <a href="ref4">2</a>, <a href="ref6">6</a>, <a href="ref8">8</a>, <a href="ref9">9</a>, <a href="ref10">10</a>]</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<br/>
<hr/>
<br/>
<h1 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h1>
<!--<p><sup id="footnoteA">a</sup> This is tied to information processing style<a href="#footnoteE"><sup> e </sup></a>.</p>
-->
<!--<p> <sup id="footnoteB">b</sup> The emerging SESMag will incorporate cognitive walkthroughs, and cognitive walkthroughs evaluate learnability by a new user <a href="#ref40">[40]</a>.</p>
-->
<!--<p> <sup id="footnoteC">c</sup> In order to try and avoid evaluators inappropriately invoking stereotypes, we have made explicit that Dav is good at math math. </p>
-->
<!-- <div style="float: right;">
<img src="/images/motivation-dogfood-2020-0929.jpg" width="375">
<div id = "caption">Figure 1</div>
</div> -->
<p><sup id="footnoteA">a</sup>
<i>Access to Reliable Technology</i>: Research spanning over a decade has found that people with a low-SES tend to have less access to reliable devices with reliable internet. This includes low-SES people being more likely than high-SES people to rely on shared and public devices. High-SES people tend to have better access to their own devices and reliable internet. This difference can affect a person's technology self-efficacy, perceived control, and attitudes towards technology.
<i>Sources</i>: [<a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>].
<!--Figure 1 shows data from a study (two genders represented) in <a href="#ref5">[5]</a>, which is one portion of the foundations of the Motivations facet values. In that study, about 2/3 of men and 1/3 of women were motivated by exploring next-generation technology, and this value for the Motivations facet is covered by Tim; about 1/5 of both men and women felt neutral about it (covered by the two Pats). The largest percentage of women and smallest percentage of men did not enjoy exploring next-generation technology (covered by Abi).
-->
<p> <sup id="footnoteB">b</sup>
<i>Technology Self-Efficacy</i>: Self-efficacy is the belief an individual has about their ability to perform an upcoming task in order to achieve a goal. Self efficacy can be applied to many contexts. Here we use technology self efficacy, an individual’s belief in their own abilities to interact with unfamiliar technology. Self-efficacy can have numerous effects on the individual’s ultimate success with the task, including whether they blame themselves for difficulties they encounter, their willingness to persevere in the face of difficulty, and try different approaches to the problem if their first attempt fails.
<!--To solve problems, people often need to process new information, and there is extensive research reporting gender differences here too. In essence, when problem-solving, women are more statistically likely to use comprehensive information processing styles-gathering fairly complete information before proceeding-whereas men are more statistically likely to use selective styles-following the first promising information, then potentially backtracking, in "depth first" order. Each of these styles has particular advantages, but either is at a disadvantage when not supported by the problem-solving software environment. Particularly relevant here are studies tying gender differences in information processing style to software-based tasks, such as with e-commerce web sites, software-based auditing, and sensemaking in spreadsheets.-->
<i>Sources</i>: [<a href="ref3">3</a>, <a href="ref16">16</a>].</p>
<!--<p><sup id="footnoteF">f</sup> <i>Sources</i>: [<a href="#ref5">5</a>, <a href="#ref28">28</a>]. This also ties back to Motivations <a href="#footnoteD"><sup> d </sup></a>.</p>
-->
<p><sup id="footnoteE">e</sup>
<i>Communication Literacy/Education/Culture</i>: Research from both the US and Europe shows that the lower an individual's SES the lower their language literacy is likely to be. Even in their native language. Mastery of a language goes beyond grammar and standard vocabulary. It also can include the idioms, specialized vocabulary, cultural references, and sentence structring that some particular technology requires for communicating with it. Research has also pointed to more educated individuals having higher literacy than less educationed individuals across all age groups and across over 40 countries. Also, low-SES individuals tend to receive lower technology-related education than higher-SES individuals.
<!--One specific form of confidence is self-efficacy: a person's confidence about succeeding given a specific task. Self-efficacy matters to problem solving because a person's self-efficacy influences their use of cognitive strategies, amount of effort put forth, level of persistence, and strategies for coping with obstacles. Empirical data have shown that women tend statistically to have lower computer self-efficacy than men, as one would expect given phenomena like stereotype threat, and non-inclusive work environments and education practices. To date, we have been able to find self-efficacy data on only those two genders. Self-efficacy levels, in turn, affect people's behavior with technology, such as which features they choose to use and how willing they are to persist with hard-to-use features. Fortunately, features designed explicitly for diverse self-efficacy levels have been shown to be preferred by everyone.
-->
<i>Sources</i>: [<a href="ref2">2</a>, <a href="ref4">4</a>, <a href="ref6">6</a>, <a href="ref8">8</a>, <a href="ref9">9</a>, <a href="ref10">10</a>].</p>
<p><sup id="footnoteC">c</sup>
<i>Technology Risk/Privacy/Security</i>: Studies have shown that there are some privacy and security risks that are common across the SES strata. For example, the risk of identity theft, online financial fraud, and of hackers who might steal or take over information such as passwords. However, research also reveals that some demographic groups that are disproportionately in the low-SES strata worry even more about such risks. Some examples include, Black adults are three times as likely as white adults to have someone take over their social media or email account. Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely than White Americans to be concered about what law enforcement officals, employers, and family and friends know about them. Low-SES individuals experience other technology-related risks at a disproportionately high rate. For example, a risk particularly prevalent for low-SES individuals is that of unreliability since low-SES individuals tend to use older, less reliable devices, and less stable internet connectivity, the risk here is that technology will fail them before they can succeed at what they are trying to do with it
Sources: [<a href="ref1">1</a>, <a href="ref15">15</a>, <a href="ref26">26</a>, <a href="ref27">27</a>, <a href="ref29">29</a>] </p>
<p><sup id="footnoteD">d</sup>
<i>Perceived Control and Attitude towards Authority</i>: Perceived Control refers to an individual’s belief that they can exert influence over future events. Research has shown that low-SES populations often feel a lack of agency or control over their lives. An individual’s perception of control over their lives interacts with their attitudes toward and behaviors with authority figures. These too vary by SES. For example, many low-SES individuals are not in positions of power. This not only decreases their perceptions of control, but also comes with a requirement to comply with the dictates of authority figures. Consistent with this reality, decades of research have strongly correlated low-SES individuals' perceived lack of control with a tendency to be accommodating to authority figures. Further, low-SES individuals lack experiences, practice, and the cultural capital to interact with authority figures as their equals and are also less likely than higher-SES individuals to be overtly critical of authority figures.
<i>Sources</i>: [<a href="ref12">12</a>, <a href="ref17">17</a>, <a href="ref18">18</a>, <a href="ref19">19</ a>, <a href="ref24">24</a>, <a href="ref28">28</a>].</p>
<br/>
<hr/>
<br/>
<h1>References</h1>
<p><sup id"ref1">[1]</sup> Brooke Auxier, Lee Rainie, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Madhu Kumar, and Erica Turner. 2019. Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 2, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal- information/ </p>
<p><sup id="ref2">[2]</sup> Kham Sila Ahmad, Jocelyn Armarego, and Fay Sudweeks. 2013. Literature Review on the Feasibility of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) in Developing Vocabulary Skills Among Non-English Speaking Migrant and Refugee Women. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS ‘13). IEEE, Washington, D.C., 335- 341. </p>
<p><sup id="ref3">[3]</sup> Albert Bandura. 1993. Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1993), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 </p>
<p><sup id="ref4">[4]</sup> Dacian Doleana, Monica Melby-Lervåg, Ioana Tincasd, Crina Dams, Arne Lervåg. 2019. Achievement gap: Socioeconomic status affects reading development beyond language and cognition in children facing poverty, Learning and Instruction 63(101218), Elsevier. </p>
<p><sup id="ref5">[5]</sup> Mark Kutner, Elizabeth Greenberg, Ying Jin, Bridget Boyle, Yung-chen Hsu, Eric Dunleavy. 2007. Literacy in Everyday Life: Results from 26 the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-490. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., USA. </p>
<p><sup id="ref6">[6]</sup> Mehret S. Birru and Richard A. Steinman. 2004. Online Health Information and Low-Literacy African Americans. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 6, No. 3. </p>
<p><sup id="ref7">[7]</sup> Beenish M. Chaudhry, Christopher Schaefbauer, Ben Jelen, Katie Siek, and Kay Connelly. 2016. Evaluation of a Food Portion Size Esti- mation Interface for a Varying Literacy Population. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5645-5657. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858554 </p>
<p><sup id="ref8">[8]</sup> Ming Ming Chiu, Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow, and Sung Wook Joh. 2017. How to assign students into sections to raise learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95-104. </p>
<p><sup id="ref9">[9]</sup> Amy Pace, Rufan Luo, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff. 2017. Identifying Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Language Development, Annu. Rev. Linguist. (3), 285–308. </p>
<p><sup id="ref10">[10]</sup> Grant Cooper, Amanda Berry. 2020. Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology, physics, chemistry and earth/space sciences: students’ access to cultural, social and science capital. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (1): 151.</p>
<p><sup id="ref11">[11]</sup> GenderMag Design Catalog. Retrieved September 26, 2020 from http://gendermag.org/dc/ </p>
<p><sup id="ref12">[12]</sup> Victoria Rideout and Vikki Katz. 2016. Opportunity For All? Technology and Learning in Lower-Income Families. A Report of the Families and Media Project. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop (Winter 2016). Retrieved September 12, 2020 from https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/jgcc_opportunityforall.pdf </p>
<p><sup id="ref13">[13]</sup> Francesco Pagnini, Katherine Bercovitz, and Ellen Langer. 2016. Perceived Control and Mindfulness: Implications for Clinical Practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, Vol. 26, No. 2, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000035 </p>
<p><sup id="ref14">[14]</sup> Gwen Petro, Amy Gonzales, and Jessica Calarco. 2020. “Out of Luck”: Socio-Economic Differences in Student Coping Responses to Technology Problems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376156 </p>
<p><sup id="ref15">[15]</sup> Nithya Sambasian, Garen Checkley, Amna Batool, Nova Ahmed, David Nemer, Laura Sanely Gaytán-Lugo, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, and Elizabeth Churchill. “Privacy is not for me, it’s for those rich women”: Performative Privacy Practices on Mobile Phones by Women in South Asia. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS ‘18). USENIX, Berkeley, CA, USA. </p>
<p><sup id="ref16">[16]</sup> Simone Stumpf, Anicia Peters, Shaowen Bardzell, Margaret Burnett, Daniela Busse, Jessica Cauchard, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2020. Gender-Inclusive HCI Research and Design: A Conceptual Review. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 2020), 1–69. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000056 </p>
<p><sup id="ref17">[17]</sup> Eleni Sianou-Kyrgiou and Iakovos Tsiplakides. 2012. Digital Divide: Students’ Use of the Internet and Emerging Forms of Social Inequal- ities. In A. Jimoyiannis A. (Eds.) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- 1083-6_5 </p>
<p><sup id="ref18">[18]</sup> Thom File and Camille Ryan. 2014. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013. American Community Survey Reports, ACS- 28. </p>
<p><sup id="ref19">[19]</sup> Jane Margolis, Rachel Estrella, Joanna Goode, Jennifer J. Holme, and Kimberly Nao. 2017. Stuck in the Shallow End, updated edition: Education, Race, and Computing. The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. </p>
<p><sup id="ref20">[20]</sup> Megan Thiele. 2016. Resource or Obstacle?: Classed Reports of Student–Faculty Relations, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2, 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12117 </p>
<p><sup id="ref21">[21]</sup> E. Tuma, and N. Livson. 1960. Family Socioeconomic Status and Adolescent Attitudes to Authority. Child Development, Vol. 31, No. 2 (June 1960), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1125912 </p>
<p><sup id="ref22">[22]</sup> Jojanneke van der Toorn, Matthew Feinberg, John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay, Tom R. Tyler, Robb Willer, and Caroline Wilmuth. 2014. A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority, Hierarchy, and Government. Political Psy- chology, Vol. 36, No. 1 (May 2014), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12183 </p>
<p><sup id="ref23">[23]</sup> Justin P. Friesen, Aaron C. Kay, Richard P. Eibach, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2014. Seeking Structure in Social Organization: Compensatory Control and the Psychological Advantages of Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 106, Issue 4 (April 2014), 590-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035620 </p>
<p><sup id="ref24">[24]</sup>Nicole Gardner-Neblett, Elizabeth P. Pungello, and Iheoma U. Iruka. 2011. Oral Narrative Skills: Implications for the Reading Development of African American Children. Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 218-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00225.</p>
<p><sup id="ref25">[25]</sup> Elizabeth L. Haines, and John T. Jost. 2000. Placating the Powerless: Effects of Legitimate and Illegitimate Explanation on Affect, Memory, and Stereotyping. Social Justice Research, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (September 2000). 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026481205719 </p>
<p><sup id= "ref26">[26]</sup> Tamy Guberek, Allison McDonald, Sylvia Simioni, Abraham H. Mhaidli, Kentaro Toyama, and Florian Schaub. 2018. Keeping a Low Profile?: Technology, Risk and Privacy Among Undocumented Immigrants. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 114, 1-15. </p>
<p><sup id="ref27">[27]</sup> John Vines, Paul Dunphy, and Andrew Monk. 2014. Pay or Delay: The Role of Technology When Managing a Low Income. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 501–510.</p>
<p><sup id="ref28">[28]</sup> Aditya Vashistha, Neha Kumar, Anil Mishra, and Richard Anderson. 2017. Examining Localization Approaches for Community Health. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064754 </p>
<p><sup id="ref29">[29]</sup> Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2012. Income, Race, and Class: Exploring Socioeconomic Differences in Family Technology Use. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3041-3050.</p>
<!-- <p><sup id="ref1">[1]</sup> Markus Appel, Nicole Kronberger and Joshua Aronson. 2011. Stereotype threat impairs ability building: Effects on test preparation among women in science and technology, European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(7), 904-913.</p>
<p><sup id="ref2">[2]</sup> Albert Bandura. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. </p>
<p><sup id="ref3">[3]</sup> Laura Beckwith, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Curtis Cook, Shraddha Sorte, and Michelle Hasting. 2005. Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: Are there gender issues? In Proceedings CHI, ACM, 869-878.</p>
<p><sup id="ref4">[4]</sup> Laura Beckwith, Cory Kissinger, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Joey Lawrance, Alan Blackwell, and Curtis Cook. 2006. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging. In Proceedings CHI, ACM, 231-240.</p>
<p><sup id="ref5">[5]</sup> Margaret Burnett, Scott Fleming, Shamsi Iqbal, Gina Venolia, Vidya Rajaram, Umer Farooq, Valentina Grigoreanu, and Mary Czerwinski. 2010. Gender differences and programming environments: across programming populations. In Proceedings ACM Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), ACM.</p>
<p><sup id="ref6">[6]</sup> Margaret Burnett, Laura Beckwith, Susan Wiedenbeck, Scott Fleming, Jill Cao, Thomas Park, Valentina Grigoreanu, and Kyle Rector. 2011. Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interacting with Computers 23, 450-460.</p>
<p><sup id="ref7">[7]</sup> Patricia Cafferata and Alice Tybout. 1989. Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation, Cognitive andAffective Responses to Advertising. Lexington Books.</p>
<p><sup id="ref8">[8]</sup> Jill Cao, Kyle Rector, Thomas Park, Scott Fleming, Margaret Burnett, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2010a. A debugging perspective on end-user mashup programming. In Proceedings IEEE Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE, 149-156.</p>
<p><sup id="ref9">[9]</sup> Jill Cao, Irwin Kwan, Faezeh Bahmani, Margaret Burnett, Scott Fleming, Josh Jordahl, Amber Horvath, and Sherry Yang. 2013. End-user programmers in trouble: Can the Idea Garden help them to help themselves? In Proceedings Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE.</p>
<p><sup id="ref10">[10]</sup> Justine Cassell. 2002. Genderizing HCI, In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds), The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum, 402-411.</p>
<p><sup id="ref11">[11]</sup> Shuo Chang, Vikas Kumar, Eric Gilbert, and Loren Terveen. 2009. Specialization, homophily, and gender in a social curation site: Findings from Pinterest. In Proceedings ACM Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 674-686.</p>
<p><sup id="ref12">[12]</sup> Gary Charness and Uri Gneezy. 2012. Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83, 1, (June 2012), 50-58.</p>
<p><sup id="ref13">[13]</sup> Constantinos Coursaris, Sarah Swierenga, and Ethan Watrall. 2008. An empirical investigation of color temperature and gender effects on web aesthetics. Journal of Usability Studies 3, 3, 103-117.</p>
<p><sup id="ref14">[14]</sup> Thomas Dohmen, Armin Falk, David Huffman, Uwe Sunde, Juergen Schupp and Gert G. Wagner. 2011. Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association 9, 3, 522-550.</p>
<p><sup id="ref15">[15]</sup> Alan Durndell and Zsolt Haag. 2002. Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 521-535.</p>
<p><sup id="ref16">[16]</sup> Nicole M. Else-Quest, Janet Shibley Hyde, Marcia C. Linn, 2010. Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin 136(1), 103-127.<p>
<p><sup id="ref17">[17]</sup> Valentina Grigoreanu, Jill Cao, Todd Kulesza, Chris Bogart, Kyle Rector, Margaret Burnett, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2008. Can feature design reduce the gender gap in end-user software development environments? In Proceedings Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE, 149-156.</p>
<p><sup id="ref18">[18]</sup> Valentina Grigoreanu, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Jill Cao, Kyle Rector, and Irwin Kwan. 2012. End-user debugging strategies: A sensemaking perspective. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 1, ACM.
<p><sup id="ref19">[19]</sup> Kathleen Hartzel. 2003. How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Communications ACM 46, ACM, 167-171.</p>
<p><sup id="ref20">[20]</sup> Jonas Hallstrom, Helene Elvstrand, and Kristina Hellberg. Gender and technology in free play in Swedish early childhood education. Int J. Technology and Design Education (2015), 25:137-149. DOI 10.1007/s10798-014-9274-z.</p>
<p><sup id="ref21">[21]</sup> Weimin Hou, Manpreet Kaur, Anita Komlodi, Wayne G. Lutters, Lee Boot, Shelia R. Cotten, Claudia Morrell, A. Ant Ozok, and Zeynep Tufekci. 2006. "Girls don't waste time": Pre-adolescent attitudes toward ICT. In Proceedings CHI Extended Abstracts, ACM, 875-880. </p>
<p><sup id="ref22">[22]</sup> Ann Hergatt Huffman, Jason Whetten, and William H. Huffman. 2013. Using technology in higher education: The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 4, 1779-1786.</p>
<p><sup id="ref23">[23]</sup> William Jernigan, Amber Horvath, Michael Lee, Margaret Burnett, Taylor Cuilty, Sandeep Kuttal, Anicia Peters, Irwin Kwan, Faezeh Bahmani, and Andrew Ko. 2015. A principled evaluation for a principled Idea Garden. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, October 2015. 8 pages.</p>
<p><sup id="ref24">[24]</sup> Caitlin Kelleher. 2009. Barriers to programming engagement. Advances in Gender and Education 1, 5-10.</p>
<p><sup id="ref25">[25]</sup> Michael Lee and Andrew Ko. 2011. Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers' learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER'11), 109-116. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2016911.2016934 </p>
<p><sup id="ref26">[26]</sup> Michael Lee, Faezeh Bahmani, Irwin Kwan, Jilian Laferte, Polina Charters, Amber Horvath, Fanny Luor, Jill Cao, Catherine Law, Mihcael Bethwetherick, Sheridan Long, Margaret Burnett, and Andrew Ko. 2014. Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC'14), 57-64. </p>
<p><sup id="ref27">[27]</sup> Ewa Luger. 2014. A design for life: Recognizing the gendered politics affecting product design, In CHI Workshop: Perspectives on Gender and Product Design. https://www.sites.google.com/site/technologydesignperspectives/papers</p>
<p><sup id="ref28">[28]</sup> Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press.
<p><sup id="ref29">[29]</sup> Joan Meyers-Levy and Durairaj Maheswaran. 1991. Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies. Journal Consumer Research 18, 63-70.</p>
<p><sup id="ref30">[30]</sup> Joan Meyers-Levy and Barbara Loken. 2015. Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1, 129-149.</p>
<p><sup id="ref31">[31]</sup> Ed O'Donnell and Eric N. Johnson. 2001. Gender effects on processing effort during analytical procedures. International Journal of Auditing 5, 91-105.</p>
<p><sup id="ref32">[32]</sup> Anne O'Leary-Kelly, Bill Hardgrave, Vicki McKinney, and Darryl Wilson. 2004. The influence of professional identification on the retention of women and racial minorities in the IT workforce. NSF ITWF & ITR/EWF Principal Investigator Conference, 65-69.</p>
<p><sup id="ref33">[33]</sup> Quote (verbatim): "I'm a numbers person." In interview with female accountant, age about 50, about working with spreadsheets. Interview conducted by Margaret Burnett, June 27, 2007.</p>
<p><sup id="ref34">[34]</sup> Piazza Blog. 2015. STEM Confidence Gap. http://blog.piazza.com/stem-confidence-gap/ </p>
<p><sup id="ref35">[35]</sup> Rene Riedl, Marco Hubert, and Peter Kenning. 2010. Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of ebay offers. MIS Quarterly 34, 2, 397-428.</p>
<p><sup id="ref36">[36]</sup> Daniela Rosner and Jonathan Bean. 2009. Learning from IKEA hacking: I'm not one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day. In Proceedings CHI, ACM, 419-422.</p>
<p><sup id="ref37">[37]</sup> Steven John Simon. 2001. The impact of culture and gender on web sites: An empirical study. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 32, 1, 18-37.</p>
<p><sup id="ref38">[38]</sup> Anil Singh, Vikram Bhadauria, Anurag Jain, and Anil Gurung. 2013. Role of gender, self-efficacy, anxiety and testing formats in learning spreadsheets. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3, 739-746.</p>
<p><sup id="ref39">[39]</sup> Elke Weber, Ann-Renee Blais, and Nancy Betz. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal Behavior and Decision Making 15, 263-290.</p>
<p><sup id="ref40">[40]</sup> Cathleen Wharton, John Rieman, Clayton Lewis, and Peter Polson. 1994. The Cognitive Walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (Eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley, New York. (Also available as Technical Report #CU-ICS-93-07, University of Colorado, Institute of Cognitive Science, at http://ics.colorado.edu/techpubs/pdf/93-07.pdf).</p>
-->
<hr>
<br>Date of last update: May 3, 2021
</p>
</div>
<?php include('footer.php'); ?>