Gender: early socialization

Updated: August 2014

Topic Editor :
Carol L. Martin, PhD, Arizona State University, USA
The statements in this publication are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or the
views of UNICEF.
Table of contents
Synthesis 4

Parents’ Socialization of Gender in Children 6

CAMPBELL LEAPER, PHD, AUGUST 2014

Peer socialization of gender in young boys and girls 10

LAURA D. HANISH, PHD, RICHARD A. FABES, PHD, AUGUST 2014

The Role of Schools in the Early Socialization of Gender Differences 14

REBECCA BIGLER, PHD, AMY ROBERSON HAYES, MA, VERONICA HAMILTON, BA, DECEMBER 2013

Gender Self-Socialization in Early Childhood 18

MAY LING HALIM, PHD, NATASHA C. LINDNER, BA, DECEMBER 2013

The Complex Causes and Modification of Gender Development: Commentary on Hanish 23

& Fabes; Leaper; Bigler, Hayes & Hamilton, and Halim & Lindner
SHERI A. BERENBAUM, PHD, ADRIENE M. BELTZ, MS, AUGUST 2014

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 2

Topic funded by

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 3

Synthesis
How important is it?
1
Gender socialization is the process through which children learn about the social expectations, attitudes and
behaviours associated with one’s gender. As children attain a sense of their own gender identity (i. e., knowing
whether they are a girl or a boy), they pay heightened attention to information related to gender, and especially
to same-gender models. This gender awareness, in combination with an early exposure to gender from multiple
sources of socialization such as parents, siblings and peers, has immediate consequences on children’s
attitudes and behaviours toward members of their own and other-gender group. For example, children may
favour their own gender in their attitudes (having more positive feelings towards own-group members) and
show gender discriminatory behaviours (preferring to interact with members of their own gender only). This
gender segregation, may be supported by adults but more often is the choice of children themselves and may
become problematic because children need to be able to function in gender-integrated settings (e.g., day care
or school). While children develop skills to interact with members of their own gender, their abilities to relate
effectively with girls and boys are more limited. Accordingly, it is important to provide young children
opportunities to play in mixed-gender groups in order to help them develop positive interpersonal relationships
with both boys and girls across a range of settings.

What do we know?

Gender is one of the first social categories children become aware of. By the time they are three years old, they
have formed their gender identity. They also begin to learn cultural gender stereotypes: that certain behaviours,
activities, toys and interests are typical for boys and girls. Although children play an active role in shaping their
gender identity development, their knowledge about gender comes from many sources of socialization,
including parents, peers and teachers.

Parents

Parents provide children with their first lessons about gender. Although gender-egalitarian attitudes have
increased in many cultures over the past decades, parents and especially fathers typically have different
expectations for their sons and daughters with regard to personality traits, abilities and activities. Parents’ roles
inside and outside the family also influence children’s conception of gender roles. Nowadays, most women
pursue jobs outside of the home, and men are increasingly involved in child care and housework. Interestingly,
children who are raised by same-gender parents or who are exposed to father’s child care involvement may be
less likely to endorse gender stereotypes. In addition, father’s participation in domestic duties and/or child care
2
is associated with a lower likelihood of violence toward children. Finally, parents reinforce gender stereotypes
when they provide their sons and daughters with different toys, or when they describe general patterns about
each gender (e.g., “girls like dolls while boys like football”).

Peers

Another important way in which children learn about gender is through their interactions with peers. During early
childhood, children prefer to play with peers who share similar interests or who they believe share those
interests, and thus are more likely to be socialized by their same gender peers. While spending time with their
friends, boys and girls learn what is appropriate for one gender or the other. This gender socialization can be

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 4

direct or indirect. For example, children learn about gender stereotypes through their peers’ direct comments
(e.g., “long hair is for girls while short hair is for boys”) and/or negative reactions when failing to conform to their
gender expectations. Likewise, children learn and adopt gender-stereotypical behaviours (boy-typical versus
girl-typical behaviours) as they spend more time interacting with members of their own gender.

Teachers/School

In addition to parents and peers, teachers are another source of gender socialization. Similar to parents,
teachers have gender expectations, model gender roles, and reinforce gender-stereotypical behaviours in their
classrooms. For example, educators may reinforce gender stereotypes by labelling and organizing students in
group activities or by creating different activity centres for boys and girls. This gender segregation, in turn
highlights gender as a social category and reinforces children’s gender stereotypes and avoidance of cross-
gender playmates.

Although it is clear that parents, peers and teachers socialize children to think and act in gendered ways, boys’
and girls’ development is also influenced by biological factors, such as sex hormones, which influences
children’s preferences for activities. As such, gender’s development might be best described as resulting from
the interaction between gender socialization and biological factors.

What can be done?

Parents and service providers are encouraged to provide children with a wide range of toys and activities during
early childhood. Likewise, it is recommended that parents and teachers create playful environments where
children interact positively with both boys and girls. These interactions would help children to develop skills to
interact effectively in mixed-gender groups and to gain a better understanding of gender differences and
similarities. In fact, parents, educators and practitioners are highly encouraged to pay attention to the
stereotypic beliefs children express regarding each gender,as some may foster negative behaviours and
attitudes against the other gender. This concern can be addressed by exposing children to counter-stereotypic
models (e.g., a female hockey player or a male nurse) and by teaching them that being a girl or boy is more
than just looking pretty or acting tough. Indeed, it is recommended that parents and educators discuss and
challenge gender stereotypes with children (e.g., ‘girls can also be great soccer players’). Yet, while it is
recommended to challenge children’s gender stereotypes, interventions might be most effective when they
make gender less salient as opposed to more salient. Finally, educational policy makers are encouraged to
emphasize the importance of co-educational school environments as they promote more gender-egalitarian
attitudes and behaviours than all-boys/girls schools.

References

1. Barker G. 2006. Presented at United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), in Collaboration with UNICEF, Expert Group
Meeting: Elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child, September 25-28. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre (EGM/DVGC/2006/EP.3). URL: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/elim-disc-viol-
girlchild/ExpertPapers/EP.3%20%20%20Barker.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2013
2. Contreras M, Heilman B, Barker G, Singh A, Verma R, Bloomfield J. Bridges to adulthood: Understanding the lifelong influence of men’s
childhood experiences of violence. Analyzing data from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES). Washington, DC:
International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Promundo. April 2012. URL:
http://www.promundo.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bridges-to-Adulthood.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2013

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 5

Parents’ Socialization of Gender in Children
Campbell Leaper, PhD
Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
August 2014

Introduction

When parents have a new baby, the first question they typically ask is whether they have a girl or a boy.
Children’s gender assignment becomes a powerful social identity that shapes children’s lives. During early
childhood, girls and boys spend much of their time in the home with their families and look to parents and older
siblings for guidance. Parents provide children with their first lessons about gender. Possible ways that parents
might influence children’s gender development include role modeling and encouraging different behaviours and
1
activities in sons and daughters.

Problems

One of the challenges for researchers studying parental socialization is to separate the influences of parents on
2
children and the influences of children on parents. Fifty years ago, when researchers observed correlations
between parenting practices and children’s behaviour the typical inference was that the parents were
influencing the children. However, developmental psychologists now recognize that children also influence their
parents’ behaviour. Thus, drawing conclusions about causal influences of parental socialization on children’s
gender development must be made carefully.

Key Research Questions

When evaluating the influence of parents on children’s gender development, four questions are pertinent:

Do parents tend to have gender-stereotypical expectations for their children?

Do parents tend to model traditional gender-role behaviours to their children?
Do parents tend to encourage gender-stereotyped behaviours and to discourage cross-gender-
stereotyped behaviours in their children?
Do gender-related variations in parents’ expectations and behaviour have causal influences on children’s
gender development?

Research Results

Parents’ gender-stereotypical expectations.

Gender-typed expectations may occur regarding personality traits (e.g., “boys are aggressive”), abilities (e.g.,
3
“girls are good at reading”), activities, and roles (e.g., “men are scientists”). As gender equality has increased

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 6

in many many cultures during the last several decades, there has been a corresponding increase in adults’
endorsement of gender-egalitarian attitudes. There is now more variation among parents with some holding
4,5
traditional expectations and some expressing egalitarian expectations for their daughters and sons. Also,
some parents may support egalitarian views about some domains (e.g., occupations) but remain more
traditional about other domains (e.g., family roles). Finally, parents (especially fathers) tend to be more rigid in
6
their expectations for sons than daughters.

Parents’ gender-role modeling.

One of the dramatic social changes in much of the industrialized world in the last 50 years has been in the
entrance of women into the labor force. In contemporary industrialized societies, most women with children
work outside of the home. Men’s average involvement in childcare and housework has also increased, although
6
domestic responsibilities continue to be handled mostly by women in most dual-career families. Research finds
that fathers’ childcare involvement is negatively related to children’s gender stereotyping. Through active
involvement in childcare, fathers demonstrate that the adult male role may include nurturing as well as
7
instrumental activities.

The potential influence of parental gender-role modeling has also been implicated in studies of children raised
8
by lesbian or gay parents. Compared to children raised in two-parent heterosexual families, children raised by
same-gender parents tend be less likely than to endorse certain gender stereotypes. However, when same-
gender parents divided labor with one parent as primary caregiver and the other parent as the primary
8
breadwinner, their children were more likely to express stereotyped views about adult roles and occupations.

Parents’ differential treatment of daughters and sons.

In many parts of the world, parents with limited financial resources have a strong preference for sons. As a
result, priority for resource opportunities ranging from health care to education may be given to sons over
9
daughters. This stark contrast in the differential treatment of sons and daughters is generally not seen in
wealthier countries. Nonetheless, there are common ways that parents in these societies may socialize girls
and boys differently.

According to one comprehensive review of studies conducted in western countries, the most consistent manner
10
by which parents treat girls and boys differently is through the encouragement of gender-stereotyped activities.
This includes the types of toys that parents might purchase or the kinds of activities that they promote. For
example, parents are more likely to provide toy vehicles, action figures, and sports equipment for their sons;
and they are more likely to give dolls, kitchen sets, and dress-up toys to their daughters. Once children begin to
request particular toys (usually by around 3 years of age), it is unclear how much parents are shaping their
11
children’s play activity preferences as opposed to acceding to their children’s stated preferences.

There are also subtle ways that parents may reinforce gender stereotypes even when they are not overtly
encouraging them. This is commonly seen in parents’ use of essentialist statements about gender. Examples
would be “Girls like dolls” or “Boys like football.” In these instances, the parent is expressing what is known as a
descriptive stereotype (i.e., describing general patterns or “essences” about each gender) rather than
prescriptive stereotype (i.e., stating what should occur). Research suggests that even middle-class mothers
who held gender-egalitarian attitudes often used essentialist statements with their preschool-age children. Also,

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 7

 12,13
they rarely challenged gender stereotypes (e.g., “It’s ok if a girl wants to play basketball”).

On average, parents in many industrialized cultures are more flexible about the play activities they consider
6,10
acceptable for daughters than sons. (Relatively little research has examined parental attitudes toward girls’
and boys’ play in non-western or non-industrialized countries.) Also, fathers tend to be more rigid than mothers
6,10
in encouraging gender-typed play (especially in sons). For example, many American parents encourage
athletic participation (a masculine-stereotyped activity) in their daughters. In contrast, few parents encourage
doll play (a feminine-stereotyped activity) in their sons. Indeed, many parents are alarmed in such cases.
However, evidence suggests that some parents are more tolerant of cross-gender-typed behaviours in sons
4,14
than seen in earlier decades.

Research Gaps

More research is needed that addresses the extent and the manner by which parents influence their children’s
gender development. Previous research has been largely based on correlational designs that do not prove
causation. Some associations in behaviour between parents and their biological children may be due to shared
2
genetic influences (e.g., activity level is partly inherited). Well-conducted longitudinal research is best able to
address possible casual influences. The relative importance of parents compared to other socializing agents
(peer groups, media, teachers, etc.) needs to be examined in more depth. In addition, more research needs to
consider indirect forms of parental influence. For example, by encouraging children’s involvement in organized
activities (e.g., sports teams, science camps), parents can affect their children’s experience outside of the
15
family. Finally, we need a better understanding of how cultural contexts shape gender roles in the family and
16
the socialization of girls and boys.

Conclusions

Dramatic transformations in women’s and men’s roles inside and outside of the family have occurred during the
last half century in most of the industrialized world. The traditional image of the two-parent heterosexual family
with the father serving as the provider and the mother as the homemaker is no longer the norm in many
industrialized countries. Instead, most mothers pursue jobs outside of the home and many fathers are involved
in childcare. In addition, many children are raised by single parents and by lesbian/gay parents. Despite these
role changes, there remain relatively few truly egalitarian parenting arrangements. Also, studies suggest that
12
parents with gender-egalitarian attitudes may nonetheless act differently with daughters and sons.
Longitudinal studies suggest that parents’ treatment of sons and daughters may have an influence on some
3,6
aspects of their gender development.

Implications for Parents, Service Providers, and Policy Makers

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 8

Parents, service providers, and policy makers may wish to foster more flexible gender roles in children to help
them develop a broader repertoire of socioemotional and cognitive skills. Although parents can have an
influence on children’s gender development, their impact can sometimes be overestimated. Because gender is
a social category that organizes virtually every segment of society, there are multiple sources of socialization in
children’s gender development. Besides parents, these potentially include other family members, peer groups,
11
friends, the media, and teachers. As children get older and become more autonomous, the influences of peers
and the media often become especially powerful.

Parents can try to encourage their children to play with a combination of feminine- and masculine-stereotyped
toys and play activities during early childhood; however, they may find their efforts run counter to children’s
attitudes once they are exposed to peers and the media. In addition, parents can be mindful of the kinds of
peers with whom their children affiliate. They may be able to foster greater gender-role flexibility through
encouragement of organized mixed-gender activities in which girls and boys learn to work together as equals.
Finally, parents can make a concerted effort to discuss and challenge gender stereotypes with their children.

References

1. Bussey K., Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review. 1999;106:676-713.

2. Collins WA, Maccoby EE, Steinberg L, Hetherington EM, Bornstein MH. Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and
nurture. American Psychologist. 2000;55:218-232.
3. Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum S. Gender development. In Damon W, Lerner RM. (series eds), Eisenberg N (vol. ed.). Handbook of child
psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development, 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2006:858-932.

4. Blakemore JEO, Hill CA. The Child Gender Socialization Scale: A measure to compare traditional and feminist parents. Sex Roles.
2008;58:192-2007.
5. Marks JL, Lam CB, McHale SM. Family patterns of gender role attitudes. Sex Roles. 2009;61:221-234.

6. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Whiteman S. The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development.
2003;12:125-148.
7. Deutsch FM, Servis LJ, Payne JD. Paternal participation in child care and its effects on children’s self-esteem and attitudes toward gendered
roles. Journal of Family Issues. 2001;22:1000-1024.
8. Fulcher M, Sutfin EL, Patterson CJ. Individual differences in gender development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes,
and division of labor. Sex Roles. 2008;58:330-341.
9. Rafferty Y. International dimensions of discrimination and violence against girls: A human rights perspective. Journal of International
Women's Studies. 2013;14:1-23.

10. Lytton H, Romney DM. Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;109:267-296.

11. Leaper C, Bigler RS. Gender. In Underwood M, Rosen LH, eds. Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
New York: Guilford Press; 2011:289-315.
12. Gelman SA, Taylor MG, Nguyen SP. The developmental course of gender differentiation. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Children Development. 2004;69(1):vii-127.

13. Friedman CK, Leaper C, Bigler RS. Do mothers’ gender-related attitudes or comments predict young children’s gender beliefs? Parenting:
Science and Practice. 2007;7:357-366.

14. Wood E, Desmarais S, Gugula S. The impact of parenting experience on gender stereotyped toy play of children. Sex Roles. 2002;47:39-49.

15. Eccles JS, Barber BL, Stone M, Hunt J. Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues. 2003;59:865-889.

16. Best DL. Gender roles in childhood and adolescence. In Gielen UP, Roopnarine JL, eds. Childhood and adolescence in cross-cultural
perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood; 2004:199-228.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 9

Peer socialization of gender in young boys
and girls
Laura D. Hanish, PhD, Richard A. Fabes, PhD
T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, USA
August 2014

Introduction
1
By the time children are about 3 years old, they have already begun to form their gender identity. In other
words, they are aware of the fact that they are boys or girls and that there are certain behaviours, activities, toys
and interests that are played with more often by boys and girls. Gender differences in children’s behaviours and
interactional patterns also begin to become apparent by this age. For instance, boys are more active, physical
and play in larger spaces than girls. In contrast, girls are more compliant, prosocial and play closer to adults
2
than boys. One important way in which children learn about gender roles and develop gender-typed behaviour
3
and attitudes is through their interactions with peers.

Problems

As children spend time with other children, they become more alike. Over time, children who are friends tend to
become much more similar to each other than chance alone would predict. This is true in regard to gender
4
development – children’s gendered behaviour becomes more similar to those they spend time with. Two
processes have been used to explain this similarity. First, children prefer to play with peers who are similar to
them. Thus, girls may select other girls because they share similar interests and activities. Second, children
may become similar to their friends due to influence, or the tendency of behaviours and interests to spread
through social ties over time. Distinguishing between selection and influence effects requires identifying exactly
whom children play with and how their peer interactions affect their behaviour and development. This is not
easy because one needs detailed longitudinal data on social relationships and individual characteristics –
something that is quite demanding, expensive and difficult to obtain.

Key Research Questions

There are several important research questions in this area. These include:

How do children socialize behaviours in girls and boys? What do children do that encourages or
discourages gendered behaviour?
What makes children susceptible to peer socialization of gender?
What are the benefits and costs of peer socialization of gender?

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 10

Research Results

From an early age, children are interested in and responsive to their peers, and they form meaningful
5
relationships with them. As children spend more time interacting with their peers, they have opportunities to
socialize one another by encouraging or discouraging particular behaviours, by modeling or by creating norms
that guide children’s behaviours. Gender is salient to young children’s own identities and perceptions of others
and they socialize each other’s gendered behaviours. This might happen directly. For example, one child might
tell another child that a particular activity is appropriate for one gender or the other (e.g., “Dolls are for girls” or
“No boys allowed in our fort”). Or, it can happen indirectly. For example, the more time children spend time with
4
peers the more similar they become to one another in interests, behaviours, and interactional styles.

To illustrate this, researchers studying U.S. children have found that the more time boys spend playing with
other boys, the more boy-like they become. In other words, boys who play frequently with other boys become
more active, more dominant, and more aggressive. Similarly, girls who frequently play with other girls
6
engage in behaviours that are more typical of girls. And, this happens in a fairly short period of time – over the
course of just a few months. For example, in the fall of the school year, researchers observed few and small
differences in the play behaviours of boys and girls (mean age = 53 months). But by the end of the school year
a few months later, boys and girls were noticeably more different and more gender-typed in their play activity
and behaviour. This was related to the amount of time they spent playing with same-sex peers; the more they
6
did so in the fall, the more gender-typed they were in the spring.

Boys and girls spend large amounts of time playing with same-sex peers and relatively small amount of time
6,7 8
playing with peers of the other sex. This pattern is known as gender segregation. Gender segregation begins
9
by age 2.5 to 3 years and increases in strength and intensity through the elementary school years. As a result,
children are most likely to be socialized by peers of the same gender. This also means that boys and girls have
different experiences and learn skills, competencies, and interests in their interactions with same-sex peers.
Boys learn how to get along and play effectively with other boys. In contrast, girls learn how to influence and
10
play more cooperatively with other girls. Over time, these same-gender peer preferences become stronger,
strengthening gender segregation and the promotion of gender-typed behaviours and interests. This gender
segregation cycle makes it less likely that boys and girls interact and learn from each other, and promotes
11
gender stereotypic beliefs, attitudes, and biases about and towards the other sex.

Research Gaps

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 11

We still know little about exactly how peers socialize young girls’ and boys’ behaviours. However, much more is
known about socialization among same-gender peers than about how other-gender peers socialize children. To
understand how peers socialize young girls’ and boys’ behaviours, independent observers can be trained to
determine when children are interacting with one another, who they are interacting with, and what they are
12
doing together. For instance, observers might note the settings or circumstances that facilitate interactions
with peers, whether children play with girls or boys or both, and which girls and boys are involved. They might
also note whether the children are engaged in gender-typical activities (e.g., activities that are more frequent for
their gender, e.g., for girls, playing with dolls; for boys, playing with trucks) or behaviours (e.g., physically active
or calm behaviours), whether peers encourage or discourage children’s behaviours, and how children respond
to their peers’ reactions (e.g., increase or decrease the behaviour, argue, etc.). Longitudinal studies, in which
children are observed and followed up over time, are needed to better understand same- and other-gender peer
socialization.

Conclusions

Whenever children gather together, there are opportunities for them to socialize one another along gender
lines. The research and findings related to peer socialization of young children’s gender development suggest
that boys and girls grow up in separate social worlds, rarely getting the chance to learn about and learn from
2,4,8
each other. In addition, there is some speculation that this separation and lack of understanding carries
2
forward into later male-female relationships in adolescence and adulthood. Basically, children develop skills for
interacting with members of their own gender, but the opportunities to develop skills for interacting comfortably
and effectively with the other gender are more limited. Gender segregation, whether child- or adult-motivated,
may become problematic because children grow up in a gender-integrated society. Families, schools,
neighborhood settings, and worksites include members of both genders. To be successful across the range of
settings that they will find themselves in, children must be able to interact and relate effectively with both males
and females.

Implications for Parents, Service Providers, and Policy Makers

Parents, service providers, and policy makers are advised to help young children structure and organize their
peer interactions to maximize the benefits of peer socialization. This is particularly important for interactions
with other-gender peers because children need support in understanding gender differences and in gaining
comfort with other-gender peers. One way that this can be done is to provide opportunities for children to play
positively with both boys and girls in mixed-gender groups. Mixed-gender groups can provide a safe place for
learning about similarities and differences across genders and for the development of skills that allow children
to interact effectively with both boys and girls.

It also is important to recognize that peer influences associated with gender segregation contribute to gender
differences in children’s behaviours and attitudes. Separating boys and girls exaggerates these differences, but
some people misunderstand this fact. For example, some authors propose that boys and girls are so different
13,14
from each other that they must be taught in separate classrooms – one for boys and another for girls.
Unfortunately, these individuals do not understand that it is peer socialization within gender-segregated groups
that contribute to differences between boys and girls in the first place and that separating them in classrooms
11,15,16
will only strengthen and reinforce gender-typed behaviours and differences. Moreover, gender-segregated

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 12

 17
classrooms per se do not result in improvements in learning and achievement. Efforts should be directed
towards finding ways to bring boys and girls together so that they have positive experiences with each other
18
and develop an enhanced understanding, appreciation and respect of one another.

References

1. Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum S. Gender development. In: Damon W, ed. Handbook of child psychology. Vol 3. New York: Wiley;
2006:858-932.
2. Maccoby EE. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 1998.

3. Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Martin CM. The next 50 years: Considering gender as a context for understanding young children's peer relationships.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2004;50:260-273.

4. Martin CL, Kornienko O, Schaefer D, Hanish LD, Fabes RA, Goble P. The role of peers and gender-typed activities in young children’ peer
affiliative networks: A longitudinal analyses of selection and influence. Child Development. 2013;84:921-937.
5. Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, Parker JG. Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In: Damon W, ed. Handbook of child psychology. Vol 3.
New York: Wiley; 2006:619-700.
6. Martin CL, Fabes RA. The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology.
2001;37:431-446.
7. Fabes RA, Martin CL, Hanish LD. Young children's play qualities in same-, other-, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development.
2003;74(3):921-932.
8. Mehta CM, Strough J. Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review. 2009;29(3):201-
220.
9. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. Gender segregation in childhood. In: Reese HW, ed. Advances in child development and behavior. Vol 20.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1987:239-287.
10. Leaper C. Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In: Leaper C, ed. Childhood gender segregation:
Causes and consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1994:67-86.

11. Fabes RA, Martin CL, Hanish LD, Galligan K, Pahlke E. Gender segregated schooling: A problem disguised as a solution. Educational Policy.
In press.
12. Hanish LD, Martin CL, Fabes RA, Leonard S, Herzog M. Exposure to externalizing peers in early childhood: Homophily and peer contagion
processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2005;33(3):267-281.
13. Gurian M, Henley P, Trueman T. Boys and girls learn differently!: A guide for teachers and parents. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass; 2001.

14. Sax L. Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York, NY:
Doubleday; 2005.
15. Halpern DF, Eliot L, Bigler RS, et al. The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science. 2011;333:1706-1707.

16. Galligan KM, Fabes RA, Martin CL, Hanish LD. Gender differences in young children’s play qualities in gender-segregated and gender-
integrated peer interactions. Paper presented at: biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development; April, 2011; Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
17. Bigler RS, Signorella ML. Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles. 2011;65(9-10):659-
669.
18. Martin CL, Fabes RA, Hanish L, et al. The sanford harmony program: Program description and preliminary findings. Gender Development
Research Conference,. San Francisco, CA2012, April.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 13

The Role of Schools in the Early
Socialization of Gender Differences
1 2 3
Rebecca Bigler, PhD, Amy Roberson Hayes, MA, Veronica Hamilton, BA
1,2 3
University of Texas at Austin, USA, University of California Santa Cruz, USA
December 2013

Introduction

The question of how gender differences arise is a central topic in psychology. Experts agree that nature (i.e.,
biology) and nurture (i.e., environment) act together in reciprocally causal, interactive ways to produce gender
1
differences. The experiences afforded to girls and boys within schools are known to affect gender
2
differentiation both directly, by providing differential skill practice and reinforcement, and indirectly, by providing
3
input that leads children to actively socialize themselves along gender-differentiated pathways.

Subject

Schools are major contexts for gender socialization, in part because children spend large amounts of time
4
engaged with peers in such settings. For nearly all psychological traits on which young boys and girls differ
(e.g., reading ability, play preferences), the distribution of the two groups is overlapping. Schools can magnify or
diminish gender differences by providing environments that promote within-gender similarity and between-
gender differences, or the inverse (within-gender variability and between group similarity).

Problems

Schools’ affect gender differentiation via two primary sources: teachers and peers. Teachers and peers directly
influence gender differentiation by providing boys and girls with different learning opportunities and feedback.
Teachers and peers are also sources of learning about gender. Teachers present curricular materials that
contain gender stereotypic behaviour, and peers exhibit gender stereotypic attitudes and behaviour. Children
1
internalize gender stereotypes and prejudices, which in turn guide their own preferences and behaviours.

Research Context

Psychologists have documented the ways in which schooling contributes to gender differences via (a)
interviews with school staff and students, (b) naturalistic observations of teachers and students, and (c)
experimental studies of classroom conditions. Observational studies allow researchers to examine gender
differences, attitudes, and behaviours across a range of school types. Experimental studies allow for the
identification of school-related causes of gender differences.

Key Research Questions and Recent Research Results

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 14

How do teachers contribute to gender differences?

Many educators endorse cultural gender stereotypes (e.g., math is easier for boys than girls) and prejudices
5
(show preferences for same-gender individuals). These biases can be explicit (e.g., consciously endorsed) or
implicit (unconsciously held), and they influence teachers’ classroom behaviours.

Teachers’ gender stereotypes and prejudices shape their classroom behaviour in at least three ways. First,
teachers often model gender stereotypic behaviour. Female teachers, for example, often exhibit “math phobic”
6
behaviours. Second, teachers often exhibit differential expectations for males and females (e.g., creating
7
“dress-up” and “construction” centers and accepting—even facilitating—gender-differentiated use). Third,
teachers facilitate children’s gender biases by marking gender as important by using it to label and organize
8
students. In one study, teachers were asked to use gender to label children and to organize classroom
activities by, for example, greeting children with “Good morning, boys and girls” and asking children to line up
by gender. Other teachers ignored students’ gender. Young children whose teachers labeled and used gender
9
showed higher levels of gender stereotyping than their peers. Preschool teachers’ labeling and use of gender
10
increases their pupils’ gender stereotyping and avoidance of cross-gender playmates.

How do peers contribute to gender differences?

Like teachers, peers contribute to the socialization of gender difference via multiple pathways. Upon entering
school, children encounter large numbers of peers, many of whom model traditional gender behaviour,
producing and reinforcing the content of gender stereotypes.

In addition, schools are characterized by gender segregation. When many peers are available, children tend to
11
select same-sex playmates. Children’s gender segregation, in turn, affects their play experiences, leading
12
them to spend more time in stereotypic play. Furthermore, gender segregation predicts children’s future
conformity to gender stereotypes. After observing preschoolers for six months, researchers found that, as the
amount of time that children played with same-sex peers increased, children’s own behaviour became more
11
gender stereotypic.

Peers also contribute to gender differentiation by teaching their classmates stereotypes (e.g., “Short hair is for
boys not girls”) and punishing them for failing to conform to stereotypes via verbal harassment and physical
7
aggression. Importantly, intervention programs can teach young children to recognize and challenge their
13
peers’ sexist remarks (e.g., “You can’t say girls can’t play!”).

Research Gaps

Many of the socialization processes that lead to gender differentiated outcomes, including gender segregation,
are not well understood. In addition, more work is needed to identify effective means to prevent and minimize
gender biased attitudes and behaviour. Future research is also needed to document the experiences of children
who do not conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., children with same-sex parents or who are transgendered).

Conclusions

Schools are important contexts for the socialization of young children’s gender attitudes and behaviour.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 15

Teachers and classmates shape children’s gender attitudes and, in turn, gender differences in cognition and
behaviour. Unfortunately, teachers receive relatively little training in recognizing and combating gender
stereotypes and prejudices—their own and others—and, as a consequence, teachers often model, expect,
reinforce, and lay the foundation for gender differentiation among their pupils. Thus, most schools create and
14
maintain—rather than counteract—traditional gender stereotypes, biases, and differences. However,
educators who adopt a commitment to gender egalitarianism and thus promote cross-gender interaction,
expose pupils to counter-stereotypic models, and discuss and teach challenges to gender stereotyping and
harassment optimize their pupils’ developmental outcomes.

Implications for Parent, Services, and Policy

Educational policy makers should resist the creation of gender segregated educational contexts (e.g., single-
sex schools) and instead seek to enhance co-educational schools’ promotion of gender egalitarian attitudes and
15
behaviour. Teachers need training to recognize their own explicit and implicit biases and how these biases
affect their classroom behaviours. Additionally, teachers should receive explicit training in confronting children’s
16
biases, so that they reduce peer policing of gender normativity. Parents should seek educational settings for
their students that are gender integrated and that make use of curricula that directly teach about, and challenge,
17
gender bias and inequality.

References

1. Blakemore JEO, Berenbaum, SA, Liben LS. Gender development. New York: Taylor & Francis ; 2009

2. Leaper C, Bigler RS. Gender. In Underwood MK, Rosen LH, eds. Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
New York: Guildford Press; 2011
3. Liben LS, Bigler RS. The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and
pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2002;67(2):vii-147.
4. Klein S. Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1985.

5. Iegle-Crumb C, Humphries M. Exploring bias in math teachers’ perceptions of students’ ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gender &
Society. 2012;26(2):290-322. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243211434614.

6. Beilock SL, Gunderson EA, Ramirez G, Levine SC. Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107(5):1860-1863. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910967107.

7. Thorne B. Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 1993.

8. Bigler RS, Liben LS. A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press;
2006:39-89.
9. Bigler RS. The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children's gender stereotyping: A study of the functional
use of gender in the classroom. Child Development. 1995;66:1072-1087.
10. Hilliard LJ, Liben LS. Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children's gender attitudes and intergroup bias.
Child Development. 2010;81(6):1787-1798.

11. Martin CL, Fabes RA. The stability and consequences of same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology. 2001;37(3):431-446.

12. Goble P, Martin CL, Hanish LD, Fabes RA. Children’s gender-typed activity choices across preschool social contexts. Sex Roles. 2012;67(7-
8):435-451. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0176-9.
13. Lamb LM, Bigler RS, Liben LS, Green VA. Teaching children to confront peers’ sexist remarks: Implications for theories of gender
development and educational practice. Sex Roles. 2009;61:361-382.
14. Stromquist NP. The gender socialization process in schools: A cross-national comparison. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2008, Education for All by 2015: Will We Make It? New York: UNESCO; 2007.
15. Halpern D, Eliot L, Bigler RS, Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Hyde J, Liben LS, Martin CL. The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science.
2011;333(6050):1706-1707.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 16

 16. Bryan J. From the dress-up corner to the senior prom: Navigating gender and sexuality diversity in preK-12 schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Education; 2012.
17. Moss P. Not true! Gender doesn’t limit you! Teaching Tolerance Magazine. 2007;32. Available at:
http://www.tolerance.org/print/magazine/number-32-fall-2007/feature/not-....

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 17

Gender Self-Socialization in Early
Childhood
May Ling Halim, PhD, Natasha C. Lindner, BA
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, USA
December 2013

Introduction

The role of gender in the lives of young children has garnered attention, as early gender-related concepts, self-
perceptions, preferences, and behaviour have the potential to affect choices, aspirations, social networks and
many other future life domains. Gender is one of the first social categories children become aware of and, in
early childhood, is highly important to most children. There are three main perspectives on factors influencing
1
gender development: biology, socialization and cognition. We focus on one facet of the cognitive perspective,
which emphasizes children’s own active role in shaping their gender development.

Subject

Self-socialization theories propose that children are “gender detectives,” intrinsically motivated agents actively
2
seeking out information about gender. Further, children’s understanding and awareness of gender affects how
1
they organize and interpret the information they collect. Gender schemas, or organized knowledge structures,
provide standards for them to guide their behaviour. Finally, these theories emphasize developmental change in
3
children’s knowledge about gender and in their gender-related behaviours.

Problems

Parents and practitioners may strive toward the ideal of individuality, often believing that children should be free
of societal constraints based on gender. Unrestricted by gender stereotypes and prescribed roles, they hope
4
that children will be exposed to a wider variety of situations and people to develop a broader array of skills.
However, some parents can be dismayed, when, despite efforts to be “gender-neutral,” their young children
may act or dress in highly gender-stereotypical ways. Acting in gender-stereotypical ways in early childhood is
normative and gender self-socialization theories explain why.

Research Context

Research on gender development has received broader attention since the late 1960s, accompanying the
5
feminist movement. An emphasis on cognition in gender development became prevalent in the late 1970s to
6
early 1980s when psychology in general became influenced by cognitive theories. Gender development
research and self-socialization theories have largely focused on normative trends in White, middle-class
American children. Recently, however, there have been pushes to learn from more diverse populations.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 18

Key Research Questions

Inquiry into the active role of children in shaping their own gender development focuses on two broad
questions: (1) When do children learn about gender and how does this knowledge about gender change over
time? (2) How does children’s knowledge about gender affect their gender development?

Recent Research Results

When do children learn about gender and how does this knowledge about gender change over time?
Psychologists have studied many types of cognitions in children related to gender, including: awareness of
gender categories, understanding of gender constancy and knowledge of gender stereotypes. Children can
7,8
perceptually discriminate males and females even in infancy. However, children are not thought to
9
conceptually understand gender categories until 18 to 24 months. By about 27 to 30 months of age, sometimes
earlier, children seem to have a rudimentary sense of gender identity, shown by the ability to verbally label their
10,11
own gender (“boy”/“girl”).

Children further learn about gender and develop a sense of gender identity through early childhood. Kohlberg
proposed that toddlers often consider gender to be fluid and over time learn about its relative permanence
12
(gender constancy). This involves understanding that gender remains permanent over time (a boy becomes a
man) and superficial transformations (a girl remains a girl even if she wears pants or plays with trucks).
Research has shown across different cultures that understanding of gender constancy is usually attained by
13
age 6 to 7.

A third type of knowledge that children gain are gender stereotypes. As early as 18 months of age, children
14
have knowledge of gender stereotypes that grows in amount and in complexity across development. Young
children often rigidly believe and endorse these gender stereotypes, but start to show flexibility (both girls and
15
boys can be strong) around age 6 to 8. The combination of attaining a sense of gender identity with
knowledge of gender stereotypes provides the basis for gender schemas (organized knowledge structures).

How does children’s knowledge about gender affect their gender development? Self-socialization theories posit
that children’s knowledge about gender motivates them to be similar to those of the same gender while distinct
3
from those of the other gender. They then learn what each gender entails and attempt to follow these gender
norms and stereotypes. Research has found that after children achieve basic gender identities, they have
heightened attention to information related to gender and especially attend to same-gender models.
Simultaneously, they exhibit improved memory for that which they deem relevant for their own gender, while
16,17,18
also distorting information to fit their schemas. With this constructed and consolidated information, children
19
learn how to act in gender-stereotypical ways.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 19

Early childhood is a time of “gender rigidity” in behaviour and beliefs. Children at this age show high
engagement with gender-stereotypical toys, increasingly avoid cross-gender-stereotypical toys, and
20,21,22
increasingly dress in gender-stereotypical ways. In support of these theories, research has sometimes
8,9,23
found that children’s knowledge about gender predicts gender-stereotypical behaviour in early childhood.
For example, children who understand gender labels sooner tend to hold stronger gender-typed preferences
24
and use gender stereotypes to guide their behaviours.

Children’s knowledge about gender is theorized to also have immediate consequences for their feelings and
25,26
attitudes toward own-gender and other-gender peers. Indeed, early childhood is also a time of “rigidity” in
gender attitudes. Children evaluate their own gender group more positively than they do the other gender group.
25 27
They also tend to favor their own gender in their behaviour, such as in allocating rewards. Gender
28
segregation begins in early childhood as well. Girls and boys increasingly prefer associating with their own
gender, a phenomenon that continues through elementary school. Some research supports the idea that
16,29,30
children’s knowledge about gender relates to gender attitudes and sex segregation. However, there is still
much to be known in this area.

Research Gaps

There is much evidence supporting the idea that children shape their own gender development. Though
researchers have shown that children’s knowledge and understanding about gender is related to their gender-
8,9
stereotypical behaviour and attitudes, some studies, however, find no connections. It is likely that several
factors (e.g., prenatal biological influences, media portrayals, peer and parental attitudes) interact together with
self-socialization to affect children’s gender-related behaviour, yet few studies have attempted to test this
interaction. Additionally, few studies have examined gender self-socialization beyond normative, White, middle-
class, or American children. Finally, more research is needed to understand the longer-term consequences of
self-socialization and early gender-typing, such as for later goals, preferences, gender attitudes and well-being.

Conclusions

While multiple factors affect children’s gender development, children also play their own active role. Starting
very early on in development, children seek to classify themselves by gender once they have recognized
distinct gender groups. Young children then strive to make meaning of gender, paying attention to information
about gender and forming gender schemas. Because children’s cognitions about gender change over time, it is
expected that their gender-related behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes should as well. Indeed, it has been found
that early childhood is a time of increasing “rigidity” in gender-stereotypical preferences for peers and toy
activities, as well as in their gender-stereotypical play and dress. There is also evidence that children relax in
following these strict gender norms around the time of middle elementary school. Much research has found
support for connections between children’s growing knowledge of gender and their gender-stereotypical
9
behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes; however these connections are not always found.

Implications for Parents, Services and Policy

Children’s quick grasp of the concept that our world can be divided into gender groups reflects how heavily our
society emphasizes gender. Nearly every aspect of life is infused with connotations of maleness or femaleness.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 20

A downside of highlighting gender to such a degree is that it can increase gender stereotyping and negative
31,32
gender discriminatory behaviour. This stereotyping and prejudice can lead to reduction in the diversity of
choices, skills and relationships available to children.

Even with a de-emphasis on gender in their immediate environments, children will still likely actively construct
what gender means. Parents, educators, and practitioners should be aware of what associations are tied to
each gender. For example, it seems that young girls pick up on the message that being a girl means looking
21
like a girl and being preoccupied with appearance. Boys attune to messages that they need to be tough like
33
superheroes. These associations may have negative consequences later in development. Providing a
diversity of meanings to associate with each gender teaches children that being a girl or boy is more than just
looking pretty or acting tough.

References

1. Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum SA. Gender development. In: Damon W (Series ed.), Eisenberg N (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology. Vol. 3. 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2006:858-932.

2. Martin CL, Ruble D. Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 2004;13(2):67-70.

3. Martin C, Halverson C. Schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development. 1981;52:1119-1134.

4. Bem S. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review. 1981;88:354-371.

5. Zosuls K, Miller C, Ruble D, Martin C, Fabes R. Gender development research in Sex roles: Historical trends and future directions. Sex
Roles. 2011;64(11-12):826-842.

6. Miller GA. The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7(3):141-144.

7. Quinn PC, Yahr J, Kuhn A, Slater AM, Pascalis O. Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: A preference for female.
Perception. 2002;31(9):1109–1121.

8. Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128(6):903-933.

9. Halim ML, Ruble DN. Gender identity and stereotyping in early and middle childhood. In: Chrisler JC, McCreary DR, eds. Handbook of
Gender Research in Psychology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2010.Campbell A, Shirley L,

10. Caygill L. Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do two-year-olds need cognitive variables? British Journal of Psychology.
2002;93(2):203-217.
11. Zosuls KM, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shout PE, Bornstein MH, Greulich FK. The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications
for sex-typed play. Developmental Psychology. 2009;45(3):688-701.
12. Kohlberg L. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex- role concepts and attitudes. In: Maccoby EE, ed. The Development of Sex
Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1966.

13. Szkrybalo J, Ruble DN. "God made me a girl": Sex-category constancy judgments and explanations revisited. Developmental Psychology.
1999;35(2):392-402.
14. Powlishta KK, Sen MG, Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Eichstedt JA. From infancy to middle childhood: The role of cognitive and social factors
in becoming gendered. In: Unger RK, ed. Handbook of the Psychology of Women and Gender. New York, NY: Wiley; 2001:116-132.
15. Trautner HM, Ruble DN, Cyphers L, Kirsten B, Behrendt R, Hartmann P. Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in children:
Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development. 2005;14:365–380.
16. Halim ML, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Amodio DA, Shrout PE. Gender attitudes of ethnic minority children. In preparation.

17. Bradbard MR, Martin CL, Endsley RC, Halverson CF. Influence of sex stereotypes on children's exploration and memory: A competence
versus performance distinction. Developmental Psychology. 1986;22(4):481-486.
18. Martin C, Halverson C. The effects of sex-typing schemas on young children's memory. Child Development. 1983;54:563-575.

19. Ruble DN. A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational consequences. In: Zanna M, ed. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994;26:163-214.

20. Martin CL, Eisenbud L, Rose H. Children's gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development. 1995;66:1453-1471.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 21

 21. Halim ML, Ruble DN, Lurye L, Greulich F, Zosuls K, Tamis-LeMonda CS. The case of the pink frilly dress and the avoidance of all things
‘‘girly’’: Girls’ and boys’ appearance rigidity and cognitive theories of gender development. Developmental Psychology. In press.
22. Halim ML, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shrout P. Rigidity in gender-typed behaviors in early childhood: A longitudinal study of ethnic
minority children. Child Development. 2013;84(4):1269-1284.
23. Halim ML, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shrout PE. Children’s cognitions about gender and consequences for gender-typed behavior.
(Manuscript under review).
24. Fagot BI, Leinbach MD, Hagan R. Gender labeling and the adoption of sex-typed behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1986;22(4):440-
443.
25. Cameron J, Alvarez J, Ruble D, Fuligni A. Children's lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice.
Personality & Social Psychology Review. 2001;5(2):118-128.

26. Martin CL, Ruble DN. Patterns of gender development. The Annual Review of Psychology. 2009;61:353-81.

27. Yee M, Brown R. The development of gender differentiation in young children. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1994;33(2):183-196.

28. Maccoby EE. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1998.

29. Powlishta KK, Serbin LA, Doyle AB, White DR. Gender, ethnic, and body type biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood.
Developmental Psychology. 1994:30(4):526-536.

30. Martin CL, Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Leonard S, Dinella L. Experienced and expected similarity to same-gender peers: Moving toward a
comprehensive model of gender segregation. Sex Roles. 2011;65:826-842.
31. Bigler R. The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children's gender stereotyping: A study of the functional
use of gender in the classroom. Child Development. 1995;66(4):1072-1087.
32. Halpern D, Eliot L, Bigler RS, et al. The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science. 2011;333(6050):1706-1707.

33. Paley VG. Boys and girls: Superheroes in the doll corner. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1986.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 22

The Complex Causes and Modification of
Gender Development: Commentary on
Hanish & Fabes; Leaper; Bigler, Hayes &
Hamilton, and Halim & Lindner
Sheri A. Berenbaum, PhD, Adriene M. Beltz, MS
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
August 2014

Introduction
1-4
The authors of the papers in this section consider ways in which boys and girls differ, and how those
differences stem from social factors and can be reduced by social changes. But, the causes of and
modifications to behaviour are complex, as are the links between science and social policy.

Research and Conclusions

a. Where we agree
1-4
As documented in the four papers in this section, it is clear that a variety of social agents (peers, parents and
schools) contribute directly to some of the differences between the sexes, and that these agents also
encourage children to socialize themselves in gendered ways. It is also clear that social practices often limit the
development of both girls and boys, and that children need to be prepared to interact with people who are
different than they are – so it is important to find ways to optimize the development of all children. As such, we
agree with many of the interpretations provided by the authors.

b. Where we disagree

The authors focus on socialization effects on gender-related attitudes and cognitions (thinking about gender),
but links between attitudes and behaviour are complex, and there is a large social psychological literature on
5
the moderators of such links. Gendered attitudes are sometimes, but not always, related to gendered
6
behaviour, and most associations are surprisingly modest in size. Even then, the causal path between attitudes
and behaviour is not clear. Classic social psychological research shows that attitudes may change as a result of
5
behaviour, rather than the reverse. It is, therefore, important to identify conditions under which gender-related
attitudes influence and are influenced by gender-related behaviours.

c. What is missing?

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 23

 1-4
The papers in this section cover a number of important influences on gender development, with an emphasis
on the average child. But, gender development is nuanced, depending on biology, developmental status and
context.

The role of biology. Children do not enter the world as blank slates, and there is substantial evidence that
biological factors influence gender development. Sex hormones play a particularly prominent role, with prenatal
exposure to high levels of male-typical hormones associated with behaviour that is shifted in a male-typical
7,8
direction. For example, compared to girls with typical hormones, girls who have been exposed during
gestation to high levels of male hormones (e.g., androgens) tend to be more interested in and engage more
with male-typed activities across the life span: As children, they play more with toys such as legos and vehicles;
9,10
as teenagers and young adults, they are more engaged in sports and electronics, and are more interested in
8
occupations that involve things rather than people; as adults, they are more likely to have jobs typically
11
occupied by men. This suggests that at least some differences between typical boys and girls stem from the
difference in the levels of their sex hormones during early development (and the corresponding effects of these
hormones on the developing brain). There are other aspects of biology that play a role in gender development
12
(e.g., hormones at puberty, circulating hormones in adulthood).

These biological influences on gender development mean that socialization does not operate in a vacuum.
Socialization may magnify biological predispositions, so small biologically-influenced differences become large
behavioural differences. Alternatively, socialization may counteract biological predispositions; for example, girls
who have male-typed interests because of prenatal exposure to high levels of androgens may receive pressure
13,14
to be female-typical, although little is known about the effectiveness of such socialization. This topic
represents an exciting research opportunity; elsewhere, we have provided examples of how work on gender
15
development pursued from a socialization perspective could be enhanced by attention to biological processes.

The role of development. It is important to remember that psychological aspects of gender are not static.
Gendered characteristics develop across time, and socialization effects may vary with children’s developmental
status. For example, psychological changes at adolescence might modify the effect of socialization
experiences, given the increased autonomy, peer contact and parent-child conflict at that time compared to
16
childhood.

The role of context. Much gender socialization occurs within families. Important differentiations may be between
sons and daughters, rather than boys and girls in general, and may further depend on children’s birth order, and
17
parents’ marital relationship. Consider two examples. Change in gendered attitudes from age 7 to 19 varies
18
across context and personal characteristics: on average, traditionality declines with age, but traditional
attitudes increased in firstborn boys with brothers and traditional parents. When husbands have more job-
19
related resources than wives (income, job prestige), women tend to have less power in the marital relationship
and this is likely to affect children’s socialization, e.g., modeling. Furthermore, parents themselves are changed
by the sex of their children. For example, parents’ family activities, including household tasks, depend on
whether they have daughters or sons; parents with offspring of the other sex report less traditional leisure
20
activity interests by the time their children reach middle childhood.

Context extends beyond the immediate social world of the child. Other aspects of context, such as culture,
neighbourhood and social organizations, likely also matter for gender development, and may moderate the

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 24

effectiveness of parents, peers and schools.

Implications for Development and Policy

It is difficult to judge the implications described by the authors because of the limited evidence available to
guide policy. Interventions do not always work as planned, so it is essential to have empirical tests of
interventions before they are widely implemented.

Questions about the nature and direction of attitude-behaviour links mean that it is difficult to know how the
interventions proposed in the papers will work. If attitudes do not cause behaviour, then changing attitudes or
stereotypes about gender will not have the effect of changing behaviour. For example, classroom interventions
21
that make gender salient increase children’s gender stereotypes, but not their own sex-typed interests. It may
be enough to change attitudes, but then that should be the stated goal.

It is not always clear what is needed to change behaviour. Several interventions designed to increase the
participation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields focus on
breaking stereotypes. One of them, Science Cheerleaders (www.sciencecheerleader.com) has “professional
cheerleaders pursuing science careers who playfully challenge stereotypes […] and inspire young women to
consider (STEM) careers […] by recasting the image of scientists and engineers.” But, there is little evidence
that this approach is effective.

In fact, interventions that challenge stereotypes might actually have unintended effects because they call
attention to gender. As noted by the authors of papers in this section, interventions may work best if they make
gender less – not more – salient. But, this would not be clear without careful empirical testing. Thus, we should
be cautious about introducing interventions that make sense without carefully testing them.

It is also important to consider that intervention effectiveness may differ across people, as a function of personal
characteristics and social experiences, such as interests, developmental status, family structure and other
contexts. An intervention that has an average beneficial effect may not harm anyone, but that should be tested.
When there are scarce resources and limited time, it is also valuable to identify children most likely to benefit
from interventions.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 25

A key question concerns the motivations behind interventions. We agree that all children should have the
opportunity to do whatever they want to do, and that policy should focus on combatting stereotypes and
prejudice that reduce the options available to children (and adults) and providing equal opportunities and
access to resources. But, some children may still make gendered choices. Is the goal to eliminate opportunity
disparities or gender differences? Whereas some programs strive to provide equal opportunities for both
genders, other effort to increase gender equity focus on making girls and women more like boys and men (e.g.,
improving girls’ math and spatial skills), rather than making boys and men more like girls and women (e.g.,
improving boys’ emotion recognition skills). This reflects the tendency in many countries to value male-typed
characteristics over female-typed characteristics; consider the status and salary of careers dominated by men
versus women. It is important to consider how policy decisions regarding gender may reflect the differential
prestige accorded to the sexes, and whether policy changes should focus on encouraging gender similarity or
according boys (men) and girls (women) equal respect, status and opportunity. Promoting respect, status and
opportunity is consistent with human rights approaches.

References

1. Hanish LD, Fabes RA. Peer socialization of gender in young boys and girls. Martin CL, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV,
eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and
Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2013:1-5. Disponible sur le site: http://www.child-
encyclopedia.com/documents/Hanish-FabesANGxp1.pdf. Page consultée le 23 décembre 2013.
2. Leaper C. Parents’ socialization of gender in children. Martin CL, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on
Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge
Cluster on Early Child Development; 2013:1-5. Disponible sur le site: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/LeaperANGxp1.pdf
. Page consultée le 23 décembre 2013.
3. Bigler R, Hayes AR, Hamilton V. The role of schools in the early socialization of gender differences. Martin CL, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE,
Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early
Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2013:1-5. Disponible sur le site:
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Bigler-Hayes-HamiltonANGxp1.pdf. Page consultée le 23 décembre 2013.
4. Halim ML, Lindner NC. Gender self-socialization in early childhood. Martin CL, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds.
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and
Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2013:1-6. Disponible sur le site: http://www.child-
encyclopedia.com/documents/Halim-LindnerANGxp1.pdf. Page consultée le 23 décembre 2013.
5. Tavris C, Aronson E. Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Orlando, FL:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2007.
6. Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum SA. Gender development. In: Eisenberg N, ed. Handbook of child psychology. Volume 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006:858-932.

7. Berenbaum SA, Beltz AM. Sexual differentiation of human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal organizational hormones.
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. 2011;32(2):183-200.

8. Hines M. Gender development and the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2011;34:69-88.

9. Berenbaum SA, Hines M. Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences. Psychological Science. 1992;3:203-206.

10. Auyeung B, Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, et al. Fetal testosterone predicts sexually differentiated childhood behavior in girls and in boys.
Psychological Science. 2009;20:144-148.

11. Frisén L, Nordenström A, Falhammar H, et al. Gender role behavior, sexuality, and psychosocial adaptation in women with congenital
adrenal hyperplasia due to CYP21A2 deficiency. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2009;94:3432-3439.
12. Blakemore JEO, Berenbaum SA, Liben LS. Gender development. New York: Psychology Press / Taylor & Francis; 2009.

13. Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M. Prenatal hormones and postnatal socialization by parents as
determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Child Development. 2005;76:264-278.
14. Udry JR. Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review. 2000;65:443-457.

15. Berenbaum SA, Blakemore JEO, Beltz AM. A role for biology in gender-related behavior. Sex Roles. 2011;64:804-825.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 26

 16. Galambos NL, Berenbaum SA, McHale SM. Gender development in adolescence. In: Lerner RM, Steinberg L, eds. Handbook of adolescent
psychology. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009.

17. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Whiteman SD. The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development.
2003;12:125-148.
18. Crouter AC, Whiteman SD, McHale SM, Osgood DW. Development of gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood and
adolescence. Child Development. 2007;78:911-926.
19. McHale SM, Crouter AC. You can't always get what you want: Incongruence between sex-role attitudes and family work roles and its
implications for marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1992;54:537-547.
20. McHale SM, Crouter AC. How do children exert an impact on family life? In: Crouter AC, Booth A, eds. Children's influence of family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003.

21. Hilliard LJ, Liben LS. Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children's gender attitudes and intergroup bias.
Child Development. 2010;81:1787-1798.

©2013-2017 CEECD / SKC-ECD | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 27