fixing Annotated Bibliography essay
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2010, 171(4), 389–401 Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
BRIEF REPORT
That’s a Boy’s Toy: Gender-Typed Knowledge in Toddlers as a Function
of Mother’s Marital Status
JULIE M. HUPP The Ohio State University at Newark
JESSI L. SMITH Montana State University
JILL M. COLEMAN Roosevelt University
AMY B. BRUNELL The Ohio State University at Newark
ABSTRACT. A child who is highly gender schematic readily uses gender when processing new information. In the current study, we examined whether and how family structure predicts a child’s level of gender-typed knowledge (as assessed by a gender-stereotype sorting task) once the category of gender is in place (as assessed by a gender-labeling task). It was predicted that children from more “traditional” family structures (married mothers) would have more gender-typed knowledge compared to children from less traditional families (unmarried mothers). Moreover, we explored if this relationship would be related to, at least in part, the greater frequency of androgynous behaviors (i.e., both masculine and feminine household activities) an unmarried mother performs. Twenty-eight children (age 2 to 3) were tested at local childcare centers. The mother of each child reported her marital status as well as how often she engaged in stereotypically masculine and feminine behaviors. As expected, mothers’ marital status was associated with children’s level of gender-typed knowledge, such that children with unmarried mothers had less gender- typed knowledge, in part due to the unmarried mother’s greater frequency of androgynous
Address correspondence to Julie M. Hupp, The Ohio State University at Newark, De- partment of Psychology, 1179 University Drive, Newark, OH 43055, USA; hupp.34@ osu.edu (e-mail).
389
390 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
behaviors. Implications for children’s acquisition of gender-related stereotypes and the possible benefit of having mothers model both masculine and feminine behaviors are discussed.
Keywords: androgyny, children, gender, gender-typed knowledge, schema, stereotypes
Gender is an important variable for navigating the social environment. Infants as young as 10 months form gender-related categories (Levy & Haaf, 1994), and 75% of 2-year-olds are able to identify gender using photographs (Thompson, 1975). Initial conceptual knowledge of gender categories and stereotyped activities is evident by 24 months (Hill & Flom, 2007; Zosuls et al., 2009). Around age 2, most children have an established gender identity, and environmental influences (e.g., familial role models) may have a substantial impact on children’s developing understanding of gender (Fagot & Leinbach, 1995; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006).
Once gender becomes a meaningful category, children acquire knowledge and information that guide their cognitions related to gender (Brannon, 2002; Carter & Levy, 1991; Martin & Halverson, 1981). According to Bem’s (1981) gender schema theory, the process of gender-related thinking and behaving de- pends in large part on a child’s sociocultural experience in which information about gender is acquired (Brannon, 2002; Signorella, 1987). This process depends on personal and situational variables that combine to create a level of gender- typed knowledge (Levy, 1999; Martin & Halverson, 1981; Martin & Little, 1990). Our goal in the present study was to examine family situations that give rise to toddlers’ high level of gender-typed knowledge and tendency to make use of that knowledge.
A child with a high level of gender role knowledge has an understanding of gender roles and socially appropriate gender-related behaviors. Gender typing allows an individual to sort information, attributes, and behaviors into relatively rigid male and female categories. For children, gender typing may be exhibited through an ability to identify the sexes (Martin & Little, 1990), display prefer- ences toward gender appropriate activities (Arthur, Bigler, & Ruble, 2009), and sort objects, such as toys, as male and female appropriate (Blakemore, Larue, & Olejnik, 1979; Perry, White, & Perry, 1984). Gender typing can be useful because it provides meaning and structure to novel information. However, it is also of- ten associated with memory distortions that reflect gender stereotypes (Martin & Halverson, 1983), and at later stages of development may lead to gender stereo- typing and prejudice (Martin & Halverson, 1981) and preferences for careers that are consistent with gender role expectations (Ji, Lapan, & Tate, 2004).
Children’s gender-typed knowledge, influenced by their experiences in the home (e.g., by watching activities and roles of parents), serves as the foundation for children’s gender role construction (Harris & Satter, 1981; McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). Parents’ behavior, rather than the specific gender of the
Hupp et al. 391
adults in the household, appears to be influential. However, there are very small effects of paternal absence on gender development (Ruble et al., 2006). Therefore, the characteristics of mothers (not fathers) seem to be particularly important in predicting childhood gender role development (McHale, Shanahan, Updegraff, Crouter, & Booth, 2004).
Various situational factors in the home may influence a child’s development of gender role knowledge and tendency to gender type. Some research suggests that children’s gender typing and gender role knowledge is associated with grow- ing up in a family with a stay-at-home mother (Fagot & Leinbach, 1995; Fagot, Leinbach, & O’Boyle, 1992; Levy, 1989; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002; Weisner & Wilson-Mitchell, 1990). Yet, other researchers have failed to find an association between maternal employment outside the home and children’s gender typing (Signorella, Bigler, & Liben, 1993; see also Ruble et al., 2006). Thus, the re- lationship between mothers’ roles and responsibilities within the household and children’s gender typing is not clear cut, suggesting the possibility of additional contributing variables. We examine one such possibility: the role of androgyny.
Androgyny is the appearance of both masculine and feminine traits and be- haviors (Bem, 1974). Although psychological androgyny may not provide an ideal against which individuals should be judged or compared (Bem, 1993), an envi- ronment of androgyny (e.g., in the form of caregiver traits or displays of behavior that are both masculine and feminine) supports lower levels of children’s gender typing (Bem, 1984). Fagot and Leinbach (1995) showed that parents who estab- lished egalitarian child care routines had children with lower levels of gender typing (see also McHale et al., 2003; Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). In ad- dition to childcare routines, other household activities performed by the parents (e.g., chores) affect a child’s gender role development. Household activities are important because not only are parents demonstrating actual gendered behavior, but they are also indicating a notion of differential responsibility based on gender (McHale et al.). Turner and Gervai (1995) and Serbin et al. found similar effects in that parental household activities were related to children’s gender typing at the age of 4 or 5; however, it is likely that such activities play a role in gender-typed knowledge formation even earlier. In addition, Serbin et al. found that gender- typed knowledge increased during middle childhood, with social environmental factors playing a role in this. Their research is informative, but only tests children once there is already a large amount of gender-typed knowledge in place. In the present study, we investigated how social environmental influences play a role in toddlerhood during the initial formation of gender-typed knowledge when children may be especially susceptible to parental models of gender.
Given the constant evolution of men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities in American society, more research is needed to better understand children’s gender development. In the present study, we aimed to examine whether and how parents’ household duties, particularly the responsibilities of mothers, predict a child’s level of gender typing as an initial component of gender development.
392 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
Mother’s marital status is a common indicator of family structure in investigations of childhood outcomes (Carlson & Corcoran, 2001), and is the primary focus in the present study; however, some other possible indicators are evaluated as well (e.g., maternal employment). Given that in married households much of the family activities and chores are divided according to gender-stereotyped roles (Blair & Lichter, 1991; Thompson & Walker, 1989), and given that single parents (or even mothers with a live-in partner) tend to have fewer gendered roles (Ruble et al., 2006), we predicted that children of unmarried mothers would be less likely to engage in gender typing than would married mothers’ children. We expected that this difference in children’s level of gender typing would also be related to the degree to which the mother’s completion of household activities is considered androgynous.
Method
Participants
Forty-two children were recruited for the study; however, 14 children were excluded for the following reasons: did not correctly respond to at least 70% of the gender labeling items indicating they were either not able to label genders or were unable to perform the task (n = 7; 3 of which had at least an 87% bias for one response, and 1 who failed to respond to this section at all), mother did not return survey (n = 5), and technical difficulties (n = 2). This left us with a total of 28 children (n = 11 boys) who ranged in age from 2.16 to 3.99 years (M = 3.24 years, SD = 0.55 years). The children’s mothers also participated. The children (and mothers) were recruited through 10 childcare centers in a medium-sized Midwestern town. The sample included children from both privately owned and public facilities (e.g., Head Start), large and small childcare centers, economically advantaged and disadvantaged areas of town, and centers that are both religious and secular. The average age of the mother was 31.00 years (SD = 6.28 years). Eighteen of the mothers were married whereas 10 were not (n = 1 divorced, 1 widowed, 8 never married); male and female children were approximately equal in each of these groups. Of the mothers, 64% worked full-time (67% of this group were married), 12% worked part-time (67% of this group were married), 16% were students (50% of this group were married), and 8% did not work outside of the home (50% of this group were married).
Materials
Items described in the materials for the Gender Labeling Test, Gender-Typed Knowledge Test, and the Androgynous Behavior Assessment were selected from an item pool based on pilot testing with undergraduates (N = 25) to determine
Hupp et al. 393
the gender stereotype of the item (for similar pretesting procedures, see Cherney, 2005).
Gender Labeling Test. This child measure was modeled after the gender labeling measure used by Leinbach and Fagot (1986) and was designed to examine if a child could appropriately label genders. Labeling signals the point at which children are able to make conscious use of the gender category and demonstrate organization of their understanding of gender (Fagot & Leinbach, 1995), and it is a basic component of gender knowledge. This task also gave children the chance to become familiar with the testing situation. This test consisted of 4 pictures of boys and 4 pictures of girls. Children were asked whether the person was a boy or a girl. Scores indicated the percentage correct for each child.
Gender-Typed Knowledge Test. This child measure was modeled after Fagot et al. (1992) and consisted of 16 gender-stereotyped items (8 male, 8 female; e.g., football, butterfly). First, children were presented with two pictures, one that showed a man and boy together and one that showed a woman and girl together. These pictures remained the same throughout the test. Next, the children were shown a picture of a gender-stereotyped item. Finally, they were asked to identify who the item belonged to by pointing to either the pair of males or females. Given the content and the forced-choice nature of the design, this task assesses children’s gender-typed knowledge about others (Signorella et al., 1993). Scores indicate the percentage of items that each child responded to in a stereotypical way; a high score represents a high level of gender-typed knowledge.
Androgynous Behavior Assessment. In order to assess the household behaviors of the mothers, the mothers completed a 24-item survey that consisted of a list of behaviors that were stereotypically masculine (8 items; e.g., mowing the grass), feminine (8 items; e.g., doing the laundry), or neutral (8 items; e.g., driving children to school). The mothers were asked to indicate “how often you are the member of the household who is responsible for the following activities by circling the corresponding number” on a 5-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). If no member of their household performed a particular activity, they were instructed to circle “Not Applicable.” Separate frequency scores for masculine and feminine behaviors were calculated. Androgynous behaviors were indexed by the relatively high frequency of both masculine and feminine behaviors in relation to the other mothers within this sample.
Family structure. We created a family structure measure based on demographic features. Mothers indicated marital status, employment status, and number and gender of other individuals in the home (e.g., mother’s partner, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts).
394 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
Procedure
After mothers gave consent, a female experimenter tested the children indi- vidually at their childcare centers. The children’s measures were computerized, and the children were not given feedback for either measure. Each mother was mailed the androgyny and family structure survey and was asked to mail the survey back.
During the child testing session, the children were first administered the Gender Labeling Test. Pictures were randomly presented to the participants on a computer screen, and the experimenter pressed a button according to the child’s response.
Next, the children were administered the Gender-typed Knowledge Test. Chil- dren were told that “Molly and Timmy need help picking up their room.” They were shown a picture of a messy room. The children were told that they would see a series of toys, and they were to point to whether that toy belonged to Molly or Timmy. They were shown pictures of a woman–girl pair and a man–boy pair for each object. Children were then randomly presented with a picture of a gender-stereotyped item and asked to make their selection, which the experimenter recorded. Gender consistent sorting was indicative of a high level of gender-typed knowledge. At the end of the study, children were shown a picture of a clean room and congratulated.
Results
Multiple regression analyses were used to test the predictive relationship of family structure and children’s gender-typed knowledge. All variables were first centered (i.e., subtract the mean from each raw score to create deviation scores) to avoid problems of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991), and the family structure variables were created (marital status, employment status, number of males and females in the home). As no effects with employment status or number of other genders (e.g., presence of a male figure) in the home approached significance, these two variables were trimmed from the model, resulting in one family struc- ture variable (married = 1; unmarried = −1). For ease of reader interpretation, uncentered raw descriptive statistics are presented where appropriate.
Gender labeling ability was high (M = 83.48%, SD = 15.23%) and did not differ between boys and girls, as a function of family structure, or age of the child (ps > .22). Children were just as accurate in labeling males as labeling females (p = .49). Gender labeling did not predict level of gender-typed knowledge (p = .54) likely because of the ceiling effect of the labeling scores given that this measure was used as a basis of exclusion. Thus, replicating past research (Kohlberg, 1966; Poulin-Dubois, Serbin, Eichstedt, Sen, & Beissel, 2002), gender category acquisition was evident for most children by 2–3 years of age. Also
Hupp et al. 395
replicating past research (Cherney, 2005; Lobel, Bar-David, Gruber, Lau, & Bar- Tal, 2000), gender-typed knowledge increased with age, β = .64, F(1, 26) = 18.54, p < .001, R2 = .42, which is indicative of a knowledge-based gender schema assessment (Signorella et al., 1993). Importantly, however, the age of the children did not differ as a function of family structure (p = .46), assuring that any found differences in gender-typed knowledge as a function of family structure could not be attributed to age of the child.
We first analyzed whether gender-consistent sorting was associated with fam- ily structure, and this was confirmed, β = .46, F(1, 26) = 7.15, p < .01, R2 = .22; children of married mothers had higher levels of gender-typed knowledge (M = 69.44%, SD = 6.59%) than children of unmarried mothers (M = 59.38%, SD = 10.31%). Married and unmarried mothers did not differ in how often they engaged in female or male activities (ps > .10) but the higher frequency of both types of activities (androgynous behavior) varied by family structure, β = −.52, F(1, 26) = 9.70, p < .01, R2 = .27. Unmarried mothers engaged in androgynous behaviors (M = 7.94, SD = 1.66) more often than married mothers (M = 6.39, SD = 0.98).
Next, we tested if mothers’ frequency of androgynous behaviors predicted children’s level of gender-typed knowledge, and it did, β = −.50, F(1, 26) = 8.87, p < .01, R2 = .25, such that the more often a mother engaged in androgynous be- haviors, the less her child displayed gender-typed knowledge. As such, we tested androgynous behavior as a possible mediator of the family structure gender-typed knowledge relationship. The previously significant influence of family structure that predicted gender-typed knowledge was statistically reduced from β = .46 (p < .01) to β = .27 (p = .17) once mothers’ androgynous behaviors were controlled, suggesting mediation. However, Sobel test results (z = −1.35, p = .17) indicated the influence of family structure on children’s gender-typed knowledge was only partially mediated by mothers’ androgynous behaviors. Because the Sobel test is generally recommended for sample sizes greater than 50 (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002), caution is warranted in this interpretation. Nev- ertheless, as seen in Figure 1, family structure as measured by marital status was
Family Structure Married > Unmarried
Androgynous behaviors
Gender Consistent Sorting
-.52
(.46) .27
-.50
FIGURE 1. Pictorial summary of the final mediation model with standardized beta coefficients.
396 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
associated with children’s level of gender-typed knowledge, and this relationship was at least in part due to how often mothers engaged in androgynous behaviors.
Discussion
Our findings illustrate that toddlers who are consistently able to label others as male or female differ in the extent to which they rely on gender typing when encountering new information. The degree of toddlers’ gender-typed knowledge was predicted by their mother’s marital status: unmarried mothers had children with less gender-typed knowledge than married mothers. Our findings are in line with research that suggests that when men and women get married, they often engage in stereotypical divisions of labor (South & Spitze, 1994). Our results further show that the association between family structure and toddlers’ level of gender-typed knowledge was at least partially mediated by how often the mother engaged in a combination of stereotypically male and female behaviors. This suggests that the presence of both types of behaviors by the mother may provide a model of androgyny for the child that reduces gender-typed knowledge (Bem, 1981, 1984). Alternatively, it is possible that this model of androgyny could prevent the development of a high level of gender-typed knowledge, but this has yet to be determined.
Mother’s androgynous behavior did not account for all of the variance in children’s gender-typed knowledge, which implies that there are most likely other important differences between married and unmarried mothers in addition to household tasks. However, it appears that mother’s marital status does make a difference. Maternal marital status may be indicative of differential home envi- ronments (e.g., economic status, maternal mental health) that affect gender devel- opment (Carlson & Corcoran, 2001). Although employment status and number of other men and women in the household did not play a significant role in our study, we acknowledge that other family processes may vary according to marital status that are related to gender development (McHale et al., 2003; Ruble et al., 2006) in addition to numerous potentially influential external factors.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that a limitation of our study includes measur- ing a small sample of children enrolled in childcare centers in Ohio, which could potentially affect the generalizability of our results. However, it is important to note that our findings are fairly robust, as they were obtained despite the size of our sample (which would limit our statistical power). In addition, the children who participated in our study appear to be similar to the population of children nationwide. For example, in Ohio, in 2006, 59% of children were enrolled in childcare centers, and this statistic is similar to the national statistic (58%) for the same year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). Therefore, we believe that the data obtained from our sample of children would generalize to other children of the same age.
Hupp et al. 397
Our results are important because, although gender-typed knowledge provides an efficient way to process new information, using gender as a shortcut can often result in the application of gender stereotypes (Liben & Signorella, 1993) both in judging others and in making self-judgments (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2002). The formation of gender stereotypes can be understood as a natural reflection of the use of gender-typed knowledge (Martin & Halverson, 1981). As such, gender (of both self and other) becomes key to predicting how children make decisions (who they want to be friends with) and judge others (who is mean vs. nice; Cramer & Steinwert, 1998).
Research on gender development during early childhood is important be- cause children learn gender stereotypes by kindergarten, and they continue toward a more adult-like understanding thereafter (Best et al., 1977; Etaugh & Liss, 1992; Trautner et al., 2005). For example, Liben, Bigler, and Krogh (2001) discovered that elementary school children rated male jobs as more prestigious even if it was a novel job that was just demonstrated by a male. Gender stereotyping of familiar activities can even be demonstrated in children as young as 24 months (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2002). Understanding when and how children are influenced by gender information in their environment, such as parental household activities, further illuminates the significance of contextual factors on initial gender social- ization (McHale et al., 2003).
We provide evidence that gender-typed knowledge is obtained, for some children, around the same time that gender-typed behaviors and preferences are first observed (e.g., Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, Colburne, Sen, & Eichstedt, 2001). Evidence of gender-typed knowledge in toddlers is relatively scarce, likely because of methodological challenges (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2002). The present research adds to the literature by demonstrating that even as young as 2 years of age, children are influenced by social environmental factors, such as parental models of gender, as evidenced by the fact that they differentially categorize objects according to gender based on their mother’s behavior. Parental role models are influencing gender-typed knowledge even younger than has been previously demonstrated.
Because gender is a special case prescriptive category (Fiske & Stevens, 1993) that changes in content over time (Spence & Buckner, 2000) and across situations (Walsh & Smith, 2007), continual research is needed that addresses possible individual and situational factors that influence children’s understanding of and use of gender as a category.
In sum, our findings highlight the possible benefit of mothers modeling both masculine and feminine behaviors for their children; however, these findings are only provisional given the relatively small sample size and nondiverse family structures represented. Nevertheless, as demonstrated here, the more that moth- ers model androgyny, the less likely it is that their children display gender-typed knowledge. For better or worse, research shows, parents who model androgyny often have children who become androgynous adults (Sedney, 1987). This is not to say that androgyny is ideal (see Bem, 1984), but rather our findings suggest that
398 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
observing mothers who display both masculine and feminine traits minimizes gen- der knowledge information for toddlers. Insofar as androgyny may be beneficial to children’s eventual mental health (Lefkowitz & Zeldow, 2006) and well-being (Rosmond, Baghei, Holm, & Bjorntorp, 2000; Stake, 1997; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003), our research serves to add to the literature on family situations that affect children’s gender-typed knowledge.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preliminary results from this Experiment were presented at the 2005 Confer- ence of the Cognitive Development Society.
The authors thank Jennifer Combs for her significant contributions to the project, and they would like to thank Dan Rempala and Amber McLarney-Vesotski for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors also wish to thank the parents, children, and research assistants who made this research possible.
AUTHOR NOTES
Julie M. Hupp is an assistant professor of developmental psychology at the Newark campus of The Ohio State University. Her research interests are in the cognitive development of infants and preschoolers, including how the typical young child begins to understand and use different aspects of language. Jessi L. Smith is an associate professor of social psychology at the Montana State University. Her research is grounded in experimental social psychological theory and focuses on the psychology of motivation with an emphasis on the role of gender and cultural norms. Jill M. Coleman is an assistant professor of social psychology at Roosevelt University. Her research interests center around stereotypes and discrimination, particularly as they relate to gender. Amy B. Brunell is an assistant professor of social psychology at the Newark campus of The Ohio State University. Her research primarily focuses on personality and interpersonal relationships.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac- tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arthur, A. E., Bigler, R. S., & Ruble, D. N. (2009). An experimental test of the effects of gender constancy on sex typing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 427–446.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and gender (pp. 179–226). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Hupp et al. 399
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Best, D. L., Williams, J. E., Cloud, J. M., Davis, S. W., Robertson, L. S., Edwards, J. R., et al. (1977). Development of sex-trait stereotypes among young children in the United States, England, and Ireland. Child Development, 48, 1375–1384.
Blair, S. L., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor: Gen- der segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 91–113.
Blakemore, J. E., Larue, A. A., & Olejnik, A. B. (1979). Sex-appropriate toy preference and the ability to conceptualize toys as sex-role related. Developmental Psychology, 15, 339–340.
Brannon, L. (2002). Gender: Psychological perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children’s behavior and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779–792.
Carter, D. B., & Levy, G. D. (1991). Gender schemas and the salience of gender: Individual differences in nonreversal discrimination learning. Sex Roles, 25, 555–567.
Cherney, I. D. (2005). Children’s and adults’ recall of sex-stereotyped toy pictures: Effects of presentation and memory task. Infant and Child Development, 14, 11–27.
Cramer, P., & Steinwert, T. (1998). Thin is good, fat is bad: How early does it begin? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 429–451.
Etaugh, C., & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school and playroom: Training grounds for adult gender roles. Sex Roles, 26, 129–147.
Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1995). Gender knowledge in egalitarian and traditional families. Sex Roles, 32, 513–526.
Fagot, B. I., Leinbach, M. D., & O’Boyle, C. (1992). Gender labeling, gender stereotyping, and parenting behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28, 225–230.
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, M. B., & Satter, S. J. (1981). Sex-role stereotypes of kindergarten children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 49–61.
Hill, S. E., & Flom, R. (2007). 18- and 24-month olds’ discrimination of gender-consistent and inconsistent activities. Infant Behavior & Development, 30, 168–173.
Ji, P. Y., Lapan, R. T., & Tate, K. (2004). Vocational interests and career efficacy expectations in relations to occupational sex-typing beliefs for eighth grade students. Journal of Career Development, 31, 143–154.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lefkowitz, E. S., & Zeldow, P. B. (2006). Masculinity and femininity predict optimal mental health: A belated test of the androgyny hypothesis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 95–101.
Leinbach, M. D., & Fagot, B. I. (1986). Acquisition of gender labeling: A test for toddlers. Sex Roles, 15, 656–666.
Levy, G. D. (1989). Relations among aspects of children’s social environments, gender schematization, gender role knowledge, and flexibility. Sex Roles, 21, 802–823.
Levy, G. D. (1999). Gender-typed and non-gender-typed category awareness in toddlers. Sex Roles, 41, 851–873.
Levy, G. D., & Haaf, R. A. (1994). Detection of gender-related categories by 10-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 457–459.
400 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
Liben, L. S., Bigler, R. S., & Krogh, H. R. (2001). Pink and blue collar jobs: Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of worker. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 346–363.
Liben, L. S., & Signorella, M. L. (1993). Gender-schematic processing in children: The role of initial interpretations of stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 29, 141–149.
Lobel, T. E., Bar-David, E., Gruber, R., Lau, S., & Bar-Tal, Y. (2000). Gender schema and social judgments: A developmental study of children in Hong Kong. Sex Roles, 43, 19–42.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psycho- logical Methods, 7, 83–104.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex-typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 61, 1427–1439.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). The effects of sex-typing schemas on young children’s memory. Child Development, 54, 563–574.
Martin, C. L., & Little, J. K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typed preferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61, 1427–1439.
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125–148.
McHale, S. M., Shanahan, L., Updegraff, K. A., Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2004). De- velopmental and individual differences in girls’ sex-typed activities in middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1575–1593.
Perry, D. G., White, A. J., & Perry, L. C. (1984). Does early sex typing result from children’s attempts to match their behavior to sex role stereotypes? Child Development, 55, 2114–2121.
Poulin-Dubois, D., Serbin, L. A., Eichstedt, J. A., Sen, M. G., & Beissel, C. F. (2002). Men don’t put on make-up: Toddlers’ knowledge of the gender stereotyping of household activities. Social Development, 11, 166–181.
Rosmond, R., Baghei, F., Holm, G., & Bjorntorp, P. (2000). Gender-related behavior during childhood and associations with adult abdominal obesity: A nested case-control study in women. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 9, 413–419.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisen- berg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sedney, M. A. (1987). Development of androgyny: Parental influences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 311–326.
Serbin, L. A., Poulin-Dubois, D., Colburne, K. A., Sen, M. G., & Eichstedt, J. A. (2001). Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender- stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 7–15.
Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(2), 1–74.
Signorella, M. L. (1987). Gender schemata: Individual differences and context effects. New Directions for Child Development, 38, 23–37.
Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). Developmental differences in children’s gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 13, 147–183.
South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. Amer- ican Sociological Review, 59, 327–347.
Hupp et al. 401
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44–62.
Stake, J. E. (1997). Integrating expressiveness and instrumentality in real-life settings: A new perspective on the benefits of androgyny. Sex Roles, 37, 541–564.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38, 615–630.
Thompson, S. K. (1975). Gender labels and early sex role development. Child Development, 46, 339–347.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–871.
Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14, 365–381.
Turner, P. J., & Gervai, J. (1995). A multidimensional study of gender typing in preschool children and their parents: Personality, attitudes, preferences, behavior and cultural dif- ferences. Developmental Psychology, 31, 759–772.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Administration for children and families. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
Walsh, P. E., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Opposing standards within the cultural worldview: Terror management theory and American women’s desire for uniqueness versus inclusiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 103–113.
Weisner, T. S., & Wilson-Mitchell, J. E. (1990). Nonconventional family life-styles and sex typing in six-year-olds. Child Development, 61, 1915–1933.
Woodhill, B. M., & Samuels, C. A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their relationship with psychological health and well-being. Sex Roles, 48, 555–565.
Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich, F. K. (2009). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play. Developmental Psychology, 45, 688–701.
Original manuscript received June 29, 2009 Final version accepted April 6, 2010
Copyright of Journal of Genetic Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.