Schema theory articulates the process of creating a perception built on the preexisting schema (i. e.
cognitive structure) coupled with new incoming information (Bem, 1981). According to Bem, a schema helps to shape an individual’s perception allowing individuals to attach meaning onto vast amounts of incoming information. A schema develops after an individual repeatedly observes similar events (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Eventually the observed characteristics and behaviors will be incorporated into a preexisting schema or a new schema will be developed (Perry, Davis-Blake, & Kulik, 1994). Park and Hastie (1987) found that schemas can be learned through explicit instruction as well as vicarious observation. Perry et al. noted that if an individual repeatedly observes exceptions to existing schemas, a new subschema may be developed. Subschemas allow an individual to retain their original schema, while allowing for a newer schema incorporating the observed variations (Perry et al.). Once schemas are formed, they are stored in long term memory and may be used in conjunction with other schemas, or alone, as the basis for judgments and decisions based on judgment (Perry et al.).
Bem (1993) defined gender schemas as schemas developed within individual role expectations based on the biological sex of the individual under observation. Creation of a gender schema usually occurs when an individual observes or is taught that certain behaviors are attributed to one specific gender (Perry et al., 1994). Although the formation of gender schemas begins at a young age, as individuals mature cultural differences may challenge the attributes of those schemas (Lemons & Parzinger, 2007). In addition to cultural differences, an individual may challenge or reject traditional gender schemas and thus become gender non-conformists who form and use non-traditional gender schemas when processing information based on observed behaviors, thus rejecting traditional gender roles (Bem).
Bem (1993) noted that there are two antecedents to gender schema theory; social learning theory and cognitive-development theory. Social learning theory informs gender schema theory by noting that discourse and the social structures of a culture help determine the gender schemas that are formed by a developing child. Bem added that cognitive-development theory helps to explain an individual’s self-identity constructed using the gender schemas formed as a child.
The following quote from Latour illustrates the construct of a schema based on the observation of a person with a gun:
You are a different person with a gun in your hand. Essence is existence and existence is action. If I define you by what you have (the gun), and by the series of associations that you enter when you use what you have (when you fire the gun), then you are modified by the gun — more or less so, depending on the weight of the other associations that you carry. This translation is wholly symmetrical. You are different with a gun in hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another subject because it has entered into a relationship with you (Latour, 1994, p. 33).
If in place ofthe gun, we substitute the example of a wheelchair, a person becomes associated with the wheelchair therefore informing the construction of a schema based on a perceived condition or disability, extending the general schema theory to construct a disability schema theory. If gender schema theory lends itself to the internalization of gender expectations based on the biological sex, then disability schema theory could lead to the development of internalized notions derived from the observation of individuals with one or more (visible) disabilities. This becomes more complicated when dealing with non-visible disabilities, or when the observer is aware that conditions of disability exist, but they are not readily apparent. For example consider the dissonance that can occur when observing an individual who parks a car in a “handicapped parking” slot, has plates or a tag identifying them as having a disability, yet apparently walks “normally” into a store.